{"query": "Should teachers get tenure?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: There should not be a teacher tenure. Content: I accept", "qid": "1", "docid": "c065954f-2019-04-18T14:32:52Z-00004-000", "rank": 1, "score": 163115.0}, {"content": "Title: Should Tenures Be Taken Away Content: Prevent Arbitrary Firings:If teachers did not receive tenure they could be fired for any reason. In other words, they would be limited in doing their job for fear of being fired. This promotes ineffective teachers for fear of being fired. That is something you do not want from teachers or students won't learn as much. (1) http://www.usatoday.com...(2) http://en.wikipedia.org...Tenures Retain the Best Teachers:The financial and career safety tenure provides, persuades better qualified candidates to be teachers. Many other careers offer higher pay, but very few offer as much security as tenures. Furthermore, to remove tenures would only drive more great teachers away from the profession. Which would then weaken our educational system even more. (1) http://lilt.ilstu.edu...Rebuttals:Tenure does not limit possibilities: My opponent states that tenures prevent new teachers from a teaching position. That is completely false with teachers being one of the most needed positions. There is even a grant the government has out to draw more teachers. (1) http://teaching.monster.com...(2) https://teach-ats.ed.gov...Tenure does not pull down our economy: Tenure boosts the economy by allowing teachers to be paid more. In addition, every single teacher, if they stay long enough, will get tenure. Tenure in no way restricts teachers from making more. (1) http://www.lasvegassun.com...Teacher tenure does not allow an abuse of position: \"It is a myth that teacher tenure provides a guarantee of lifetime employment, ensuring notice and providing a hearing for generally accepted reasons for termination, such as incompetence, insubordination, and immorality.\"(1) http://voices.washingtonpost.com...", "qid": "1", "docid": "51530f3f-2019-04-18T18:15:02Z-00004-000", "rank": 2, "score": 148336.0}, {"content": "Title: There should not be a teacher tenure. Content: Thank you sara_ann_dee for her argument. In this debate, I will argue that \u2018there should be a teacher tenure.\u2019 Whether this tenure is reformed, or reduced to only applicable to some teachers, does not matter as long as I am able to prove that \u2018teacher tenure\u2019 should, in some form, exist. Voters should vote for me if I am able to do this. Although rebuttals are reserved for the next round, I urge that voters should not blindly accept my opponent's point as I have already discovered some problems in them. First I will define the word \u2018tenure\u2019.Tenure: tenure is a form of job security for teachers, given after a probationary period. Please note that: Tenure doesn\u2019t guarantee lifetime employment. It simply protects teachers from being dismissed without just cause. Teachers with tenure are entitled to a hearing in which the school district must prove that the teacher failed a specific standard that\u2019s required of the teacher. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Teaching is a very important profession. Being a teacher, you pass knowledge on to the next generation and if you also do research, you make new discoveries and question the way things are; in other words, challenge the status quo. Teacher tenure ensures that teachers can perform these two tasks by protecting their academic freedom. Moreover, teacher tenure raises the standard of education to a higher level by attracting more capable people to enter this field and allowing teachers to focus on teaching than not being fired. In short, tenure makes sure that the functions of such an important profession can be carried out without any hindrance, that such an important job is done at a high standard, in the hands of gifted people. 1. Teacher tenure protects the academic freedom of teachers. Academic freedom is of paramount importance. Academic freedom prevents any political, intellectual, or religious orthodoxy from hampering the discovery of knowledge and the study and criticism of intellectual or cultural traditions. Without the assurance of academic freedom, many teachers may be discouraged from taking novel or unpopular positions. Important ideas might not be advanced and intellectual debate and advancement would suffer. Protecting the academic freedom of teachers may sound like something that is only beneficial to teachers. However this is not true. With teacher tenure, teachers\u2019 academic freedom of teaching controversial subjects is also protected. This is beneficial to students because they will be exposed to a wider range of views and topics and they will acquire more knowledge. But more importantly, they will also develop critical thinking skills and instead of blindly accepting what others say about it, they can question the legitimacy of them on their own. Another example that demonstrates the importance of protecting academic freedom is Galileo and his support for the Copernican Theory. [1] In this case, there was a violation against Galileo\u2019s academic freedom to support Copernican theory, a very important theory in astronomy, which has a profound impact on mankind. If this violation had been successful, it could have barred this theory reaching other people; consequently, we may never have gained the knowledge that Earth in fact orbits the Sun; and without this knowledge, NASA would never have been able to send a probe on a 7.5 billion km journey to Pluto and we would never have received pictures of such a beautiful place. 2. Teacher tenure is necessary to provide a high standard of education to students. Tenured teachers cannot be dismissed without a just cause as I have mentioned at the very beginning of my argument. Therefore it allows teachers to focus on their job and act in the best interest of students (e.g. failing a student with powerful parents when it is necessary so that he realizes he has to improve) instead of having to worry about political correctness and keeping their job. This ensures that the education that we give to students is of the highest standard. Secondly, according to [2], the admission requirements for future applicants to teacher colleges will increase in the next few years. It is shown on the National Education Association website that teachers make less than other professions receiving similar training and responsibilities. [3] The National Center for Education Statistics estimates that public schools will need more than 440,000 new elementary and secondary teachers by the end of the decade to replace retiring baby boomers. [4] These sources show that more people, and more talented ones with higher academic achievements are needed as teachers, an occupation that is not that well paid. Teacher tenure solves this problem by attracting talented people to become teachers by giving teachers security and stability to their jobs. This is extremely important because only by having good teachers and having enough of them can we provide education of a high standard to students. Brief summary of my arguments 1. Tenure protects academic freedom, allowing teachers to perform research freely and teach controversial subjects.2. Tenure attracts more gifted people to enter this profession and allows them to focus on teaching, thus raising the standard of education to a high level.Again, I have not dropped my opponent's points. I will simply address them in the next round in accordance to the rules of this debate. Links: [1] https://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [3] http://www.nea.org... [4] http://blogs.edweek.org... [5] http://www.joebaugher.com...", "qid": "1", "docid": "c065954f-2019-04-18T14:32:52Z-00002-000", "rank": 3, "score": 145208.0}, {"content": "Title: Should Tenures Be Taken Away Content: Thank you for the debate, however, all your points were refuted.The main goal of teachers is to educate students. That is why my two arguments focus on how having tenures is best for the students.CR1: In an academic environment people have differing views on touchy subjects. Tenures, thus, protect teachers from being fired for teaching contrary to what administrators want, they provide academic freedom. Prior to tenures teachers were fired for differing views and any reason administrators wanted. 1)http://www.mlive.com...CR2: My opponent never refuted my round one argument, \"The financial and career safety tenure provides, persuades better qualified candidates to be teachers.\"1)http://www.dukechronicle.com...R1: My opponent has failed to provide proof how tenures dive out innovation. On the contrary, it provides the freedom to come up with new styles of teaching. Since they don't have to worry about being fired they are free to experiment.1)http://www.joebaugher.com...R2: I also urge my opponent to reflect on tenures more, not just the surface level definition. What happens if teachers are not protected by tenures? They will be fired as soon as they start making more money. You can see that happens in every field of work. Thus, tenures do help teachers make more money. 1)http://www.huffingtonpost.com...R3: My opponent proposed in round one that tenures make teachers unfireable. I then completely refuted that point by providing a source. He then tries to cover up his defeated argument by saying they can not be fired for smoking. I ask, can any employee anywhere be fired for smoking?1)http://blog.timesunion.com...The proof is in the pudding, tenures allow teachers to provide a better education for students.", "qid": "1", "docid": "51530f3f-2019-04-18T18:15:02Z-00002-000", "rank": 4, "score": 145022.0}, {"content": "Title: There should not be a teacher tenure. Content: Reason 1 - Teacher tenure creates complacency because teachers know they are unlikely to lose their jobs: If teachers know that they reached the period where they get special defence from most accusations - it would send the message to them that they can then do whatever they want to do in the classroom and really slack with their teaching duties. Reason 2 - Tenure makes it difficult to remove under-performing teachers because the process involves months of legal wrangling by the principal, the school board, the union, and the courts: Most schools stop trying to fire a certain teacher because the proccess is just too difficult. \" A June 1, 2009 study by the New Teacher Project found that 81% of school administrators knew a poorly performing tenured teacher at their school; however, 86% of administrators said they do not always pursue dismissal of teachers because of the costly and time consuming process. It can take up to 335 days to remove a tenured teacher in Michigan before the courts get involved. \" (. http://teachertenure.procon.org...) (Patrick McGuinn, \"Ringing the Bell for K-12 Teacher Tenure Reform,\" www. americanprogress. org). This quote means that 86 OUT OF 100 SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS WANT A TEACHER TO BE FIRED - but will not do so because the proccess is to draining. But what does that leave our learning and growing generation with? Many teachers who do not care, teach well, or put effort in their work? That is certaintly what this is going to result into if we do not abolish it quickly. Also check out this statistic of who is in favor (people in general) \"An Apr. -May 2011 survey of 2,600 Americans found that 49% oppose teacher tenure while 20% support it. Among teachers, 53% support tenure while 32% oppose it. According to a Sep. 2010 report by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, 86% of education professors favor \"making it easier to terminate unmotivated or incompetent teachers - even if they are tenured. \u201d Of course you cannot expect most teachers to be against it sinse that it their profession and it effects them - but for bystanders with accurate and unbiased opinions, look how many people are against it. Also, \"56% of school board presidents disagreed with the statement that teacher tenure ensures academic freedom. \" (M. J. Stephey, \"A Brief History of Tenure,\" www. time. com). Reason 3 - Most people are against teature tenure: \"In an Oct. 1, 2006 survey, 91% of school board presidents either agreed or strongly agreed that tenure impedes the dismissal of under-performing teachers. 60% also believed that tenure does not promote fair evaluations. \" (. http://teachertenure.procon.org...) This means that most teachers OF SUCH A LARGE PERCENTAGE are not in favor of the teacher tenure. Reason 4 - Teacher tenure does nothing to promote the education of children: \"Former DC Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee said in 2008, \"Tenure is the holy grail of teacher unions, but it has no educational value for kids; it only benefits adults. \u201d(\"Rhee-Forming D. C. Schools,\" www. wsj. com). This piece of evidence means that the only people actually benefiting from this tenure are the teachers who are employed - not any students. Isint education suppost to be focused on the younger generation and their best interest? Since when did school become all about the teachers - this tenure undermines what it means to actually be a teacher. If anything, it is only a BAD THING for students - and why would we keep something in our school systems that MAKES THE GENERATIONS' LEARNING LESS VALUEABLE? It does not make any sense. Reason 5 - Tenure at the K-12 level is not earned, but given to nearly everyone: \"To receive tenure at the university level, professors must show contributions to their fields by publishing research. At the K-12 level, teachers only need to \"stick around\u201d for a short period of time to receive tenure. A June 1, 2009 study by the New Teacher Project found that less than 1% of evaluated teachers were rated unsatisfactory. \" (Marcus A. Winters, \"Challenging Tenure in D. C. ,\" www. manhattan-institute. org). This statistic is absolutely upsetting and degrating. Basically, this quote is explaning how 99% of teachers have free protection handed to them if they just stay in that profession for a certain amount of time. What if that teacher was already slacking in many areas? Now we are going to award them for poor effort and teaching abilities? It is not fair to the students involved with these teachers and it is not fair that they do not actually have to WORK to recieve a benefit of protection unlike most other professions that require some form of acomplishment to recieve that/those benefits in question. Because \"with most states granting tenure after three years, teachers have not had the opportunity to \"show their worth, or their ineptitude. \" (Rose Garrett, \"What Is Teacher Tenure? ,\" www. education. com), (. http://teachertenure.procon.org...).Reason 6 - Tenure makes it costly for schools to remove a teacher with poor performance or who is guilty of wrongdoing: \"It costs an average of $250,000 to fire a teacher in New York City. New York spent an estimated $30 million a year paying tenured teachers accused of incompetence and wrongdoing to report to reassignment centers (sometimes called \"rubber rooms\u201d) where they were paid to sit idly. Those rooms were shut down on June 28, 2010. \" (\"Rhee-Forming D. C. Schools,\" www. wsj. com), (Steven Brill, \"The Rubber Room,\" New Yorker). This is just sad, now it even costs the school boards money for teachers not doing their job? Should'nt that be the opposite? Reason 7 - Tenure is not needed to recruit teachers: \"Sacramento Charter High School, which does not offer tenure, had 900 teachers apply for 80 job openings. \" (Nanette Asimov, \"Teacher Job Security Fuels Prop. 74 Battle,\" San Francisco Chronicle). This quote further proves why tenure is pretty much useless and unfair because teachers DO NOT NEED TENURE to continue their job as a teacher at their shchool, past school, future school, or school they are applying for. Reason 8 - With job protections granted through court rulings, collective bargaining, and state and federal laws, teachers today no longer need tenure to protect them from dismissal: \"For this reason, few other professions offer tenure because employees are adequately protected with existing laws. \" (Tenure Reforms and NJSBA Policy: Report of the NJSBA Tenure Task Force,\" New Jersey School Boards Association website, www. njsba. org), (Scott McLeod, JD, PhD, \"Does Teacher Tenure Have a Future? ,\" www. dangerouslyirrelevant. org). This is the most important fact out of all these because it shows how the WHOLE REASON teacher tenure is here in the first place is NOT NEEDED not have the protections that teachers have without tenure. The teacher tenure is not benefitial for anyone except teachers - they get unfair advantages in MANY ways, some I have just listed. Why should we let this continue if unnessisary? Citations: . http://teachertenure.procon.org...http://teachertenure.procon.org...http://teachertenure.procon.org...Wanda Marie Thibodeaux, \"Pro & Cons of Teacher Tenure,\" www. ehow. comPatrick McGuinn, \"Ringing the Bell for K-12 Teacher Tenure Reform,\" www. americanprogress. org. http://teachertenure.procon.org... \"Rhee-Forming D. C. Schools,\" www. wsj. comMarcus A. Winters, \"Challenging Tenure in D. C. ,\" www. manhattan-institute. orgM. J. Stephey, \"A Brief History of Tenure,\" www. time. comRose Garrett, \"What Is Teacher Tenure? ,\" www. education. com. http://teachertenure.procon.org... \"Rhee-Forming D. C. Schools,\" www. wsj. comSteven Brill, \"The Rubber Room,\" New YorkerTenure Reforms and NJSBA Policy: Report of the NJSBA Tenure Task Force,\" New Jersey School Boards Association website, www. njsba. orgScott McLeod, JD, PhD, \"Does Teacher Tenure Have a Future? ,\" www. dangerouslyirrelevant. orgNanette Asimov, \"Teacher Job Security Fuels Prop. 74 Battle,\" San Francisco Chronicle", "qid": "1", "docid": "c065954f-2019-04-18T14:32:52Z-00003-000", "rank": 5, "score": 144766.0}, {"content": "Title: Colleges should abolish the ability for teachers to be tenured. Content: Teachers who perform below benchmarks such as retention, attendance, academic performance results, assessing required learning outcomes and student feedback, should not be allowed tenure because students suffer to be successful and colleges suffer in graduation rates.", "qid": "1", "docid": "ff0947ec-2019-04-18T12:23:12Z-00001-000", "rank": 6, "score": 144541.0}, {"content": "Title: Should Tenures Be Taken Away Content: I am for the removal of tenures for teachers. There are 3 reasons that justify my position:1. Tenure PossibilitiesTenures allow for teachers to be guaranteed a lifetime teaching position according to the definition of tenure in the structure of this debate. By having this set out, many new teachers are prevented from teaching positions. Many include: - New people with new techniques for students- Fresh graduates with an eager heart to teach- People with new knowledge of a particular subjectBy barring these people from jobs, we stunt the growth of a new generation of Americans that provide our future with updated knowledge, ideas, and techniques. 2. Economic View From an economic viewpoint, tenures pull down our economy. Through keeping old teachers in positions, tenures make money flow only towards older generations of teachers. Thus, there is an imbalance of currency distribution which will:- New generations of teachers will struggle to earn a living - Contribute to the slowdown of money flow and economic downturn- Disable young people from working and benefiting the US while givingolder people the majority of money -- an imbalance3. Abuse of Teaching PositionsThrough allowing teachers fulfilling a number of years to have permanent jobs, tenures open the gateway for abuse of teaching positions. In 1999 six professors sued the state for banning them from watching porn on state computers. Tenures allow abuse of positions for people such as: - Those with corrupted moral standards- Teachers who might harm children indirectly through their depravity- Teachers not conductive to learning environmentNote that this \"corruption\" is not limited to being illegal in the sense that an arrest is at issue but also for such things that don't infringe on the law but still might be harmful for student values such as smoking outside of the school.Sources: http://tinyurl.com...http://tinyurl.com...http://tinyurl.com...http://tinyurl.com...http://tinyurl.com...", "qid": "1", "docid": "51530f3f-2019-04-18T18:15:02Z-00005-000", "rank": 7, "score": 141717.0}, {"content": "Title: Colleges should abolish the ability for teachers to be tenured. Content: Since I assume their opening statement was made in their R1 post, I will begin mine as well. I will be arguing against the idea that tenure for college professors should be abolished. I have three main claims: [Claim 1]: Tenure is a necessity [Claim 2]: Tenured teachers can still be fired (and other misconceptions) [Claim 3]: Research supports tenure [C1]: Tenure is a necessity The concept of tenure dates back over 100 years ago to the early 20 century, when working in the field of education was much different than what it is today [1]. It was female-dominated, classrooms were larger, and working conditions were poorer [2]. Before tenure, teachers could be fired for any reason. If a teacher had the audacity to get married or, even more horrific, pregnant, the schoolboard could immediately fire her. Tenure and teachers' unions were created to guarantee some amount of job protection for teachers. They wanted the peace of mind to know their job wouldn't be terminated for seemingly no reason. At the high school level, most schools require teachers work at the same school for 3-5 years before being considered for tenure, and there are many factors taken into account, with the most important one being a teacher's ability to teach. At the university level, I believe you have to have taught for 6 years before tenure consideration. Once a teacher is granted tenure, however, it does not mean they are immune from being fired. \"Tenure protects academic freedom. In the absence of tenure, teachers may be fired for any reason. Teachers may be fired if the principal doesn't like them or if they are experienced and become too expensive. Teachers may be fired for being outspoken. [2]\" In other words, tenure gives teachers a safeguard to be able to be more involved with the decisions being made at their school, as opposed to being complacent and accepting any and all changes. At the college level, this is incredibly important as professors want to challenge their students and (sometimes) have them confront and critique their already-established beliefs. When I took a Sociology course my senior year of university, our professor warned us of an upcoming lecture the following week where she was going to discuss religion and look at many of the popular ones under a critical lens. I thought this was a strange warning, as anyone whose convictions are strong enough should be fine with having their beliefs challenged. To my surprise, however, many students' parents would contact her to complain. Tenure in this situation protects the professor from being fired simply because a student didn't like one of their lectures. [C2]: Tenured teachers can still be fired (and other misconceptions) There are a lot of myths surrounding the idea of tenure, which is primarily the reason why I accepted this debate in the first place. Some people, for example, think that tenured teachers cannot be fired and have permanent job security forever and can therefore sit back and be a less effective teacher with no criticism whatsoever. This is absolutely not true. Again, tenure grants teachers job security and the inability to be fired without due process. Ineffective (or \"bad\") teachers can still be terminated. However, I think firing someone with no intervention or professional development workshops to help them is a bit harsh. Tenure (especially at the university level) is something that needs to be earned from the hardest-working teachers after a long and arduous process. They have to have committed some amount of research outside their teaching hours, demonstrate very strong teaching abilities, among many other factors. Tenure does not \"protect\" \"burnt-out\" teachers either. \"How many students have complained about a teacher they see as too strict or \"boring\" - only to realize later in life that this teacher made a profound difference in their lives? Research shows that there is no one style that equates to effective teaching - which underscores why a fair hearing is needed before the imposition of a serious consequence such as firing a teacher who has demonstrated years of effective teaching. [3]\" [C3]: Research supports tenure Not only have we established tenure does not help bad teachers keep their job, but there is abolutely no research that suggests students perform worse on standardized tests when taught by a tenured teacher, nor is there evidence that supports perform better with non-tenured teachers [2]. Not only this, but tenured teachers and professors also feel to have a higher obligation to be involved in school-making decisions. \"Research finds that when teachers have a say in how schools are run, they are more likely to be invested in the school and to stay longer, and are more engaged with colleagues in cooperative work. [4]\" In conclusion, tenure is a necessary provision for good teachers and promotes a stronger school culture, thus increasing academic achievement, not hindering it. The myth that tenure protects ineffective teachers is simply untrue. I await Pro's response. Thank you. Sources: [1] . http://www.peoplesworld.org... [2] . http://www.nytimes.com... [3] . http://www.nysut.org... [4] . http://www.aft.org...", "qid": "1", "docid": "ff0947ec-2019-04-18T12:23:12Z-00000-000", "rank": 8, "score": 139640.0}, {"content": "Title: There should not be a teacher tenure. Content: Quotes used in my debate are all included here. (I know this is not exactly allowed and it's really messy and confusing but 10,000 characters (approx. 1500 words) really isn\u2019t enough for 10 rebuttals.) Rebuttal of \u2018Reason 1\u2019: \u2018a\u2019 (this is where Quote a. from the picture should go) Pro is presupposing that teachers will become complacent if they know they are unlikely to lose their jobs. However, 1. Pro does not give any proof that supports this. 2. A study suggests that academic performance does not slack off after tenure. [1] (Downloadable on the website). It measures the productivity (total number of papers) and impact (citations of papers) of the economics and finance faculty from top twenty-five schools and it finds that they are consistent before and after tenure. 3. There are other incentives for teachers to work. [1] points out that other incentives including pay rise, reduced teaching load and more research funds. Pressure from colleagues and academic discipline are also incentives for teachers to work. Therefore, I can conclude that \u2018reason 1\u2019 is invalid. (Although [1] is focused on professors, some incentives I have listed in 3. are also shared by K-12 teachers.) Rebuttal of \u2018Reason 2 and 6\u2019 \u2018b\u2019\u2018c\u2019 What Pro says is misleading. Tenure may make it difficult to remove under-performing teachers but it makes it EQUALLY DIFFICULT to remove good teachers. But isn\u2019t this the whole point of tenure - to protect teachers from being fired without a just cause, so to protect academic freedom and increase the quality of education? Also, how many under-performing teachers are there anyway? Teachers perform poorly either because they don\u2019t have the ability to perform well, or they are able to but they are simply complacent and therefore not willing to make an effort. The latter I have already proven to be unlikely in my \u2018Rebuttal of \u2018Reason 1\u2019. The former, as I will explain now, is unlikely too. If a teacher were inept, he wouldn\u2019t have been employed and wouldn\u2019t have been granted tenure in the first place. This isn\u2019t really a disadvantage because under-performing teachers are rare while many more teachers and students can be benefitted. \u2018d\u2019 Exactly. There are laws our there designed to remove tenured teachers. It is the administrators\u2019 fault that for some reason they do not use these laws to dismiss teachers, not tenure\u2019s fault. I do agree that tenure makes it difficult to fire under-performing teachers. However, these teachers are rare and it is equally difficult to fire good teachers. If school administrators can utilise tenure well then both under-performing teachers can be fired and good teachers can be protected. Rebuttal of \u2018Reason 3\u2019 A large number of people being against tenure cannot explain whether tenure is inherently good or bad. Rebuttal of \u2018Reason 4\u2019 \u2018e\u2019 This is a short-sighted and superficial statement to make and Pro fails to realise the indirect effect tenure has on students. Tenure gives teachers academic freedom to teach controversial subjects. Students are being taught these and it is already evident how students are affected and benefited. Students develop critical thinking skills and gain knowledge to a wide range of topics. Other benefits of students are mentioned in previous round. The statement that teacher tenure does nothing to promote the education of children is simply not true. Rebuttal of \u2018Reason 5\u2019 \u2018f\u2019 This merely shows that the system used to grant tenures to K-12 teachers is not strict enough. At best, it only shows that some sort of reform may be needed to change the way tenure is granted at K-12 level, but tenure itself is fine. Also, this argument only focuses on K-12 teachers, and I will remind voters professors are also included in this debate. Rebuttal of \u2018Reason 7\u2019 \u2018g\u2019 I have already explained in my 2nd contention that tenure can attract people to become teachers. So now the question is whether tenure is NEEDED to do so? The answer is yes, because less people can apply for teacher college and an estimated of 440,000 extra teachers are needed to replace baby boomers. This I have also explained in my 2nd contention. Further evidence that supports this is a webpage on the California Teacher Association website, titled \u2018Impending Teacher Shortage Crisis\u2019 [3]. Pro has given the example of a school in Sacramento (Capital of California) to show that there isn\u2019t a teacher shortage. However, it is only the example of a single school and it does not show the general pattern while the statewide statistics do. Also, Pro overlooks other factors that could attract an unusually high number of teachers to apply for jobs at this school \u2013 e.g. a high salary. In conclusion, Pro\u2019s point is invalid because I have pointed out the problems with the example she uses. I have also provided a more representative data that disproves her point. Furthermore, I have explained in my 2nd contention about how tenure can and needs to attract people to become teachers. Rebuttal for \u2018Reason 8\u2019 \u2018h\u2019 1. The fact that there are multiple methods to protect teacher from dismissal does not mean that teacher tenure is unnecessary. If, according to Pro\u2019s logic, only one way of protecting teacher from dismissal is needed, then shouldn\u2019t \u2018collective bargaining, state law and federal law\u2019 be unnecessary too because \u2018job protections granted through court rulings\u2019 can offer this protection already? Wouldn\u2019t she be contradicting herself by listing 4 alternatives when she is saying that only one is needed? 2. If that was not what she meant, if she is also acknowledging that different methods can co-exist, then why choose teacher tenure to be the one to be abolished? Pro says teacher tenure has many disadvantages, but I\u2019ve refuted her arguments about these disadvantages already in my above rebuttals. Also, the other methods she has listed do have some of the disadvantages that teacher tenure has too because they have similar purposes. 3. If you look at the sections related to alternative methods to protect teachers from the document Pro used as evidence in her argument, (p.4, paragraphs 2-3) [4] it says: \u2018i\u2019 The document does not see these alternatives as a long-term solution, but only as a temporary measure to protect teachers during the period of tenure law reform in NJ. \u2018It does not in any way, describe these alternatives as effective either, saying that all they merely do is \u2018not leave teachers at the mercy of cruel and capricious boards of education.\u2019 In the last few sentences, it even stresses on the benefits of tenure. The conclusion is that the evidence Pro uses doesn\u2019t actually support her claim. If anything, it is CONTRADICTORY to her entire position in this debate. Pro does not give any explanation to why tenure in particular should be abolished but not other methods of protecting teachers. The evidence given by her \u2013 not only is it unsupportive of her argument \u2013 it is even against it. Rebuttal for \u2018Rebuttal for \"high standard\"\u2019 I have explained in my Rebuttal of \u2018Reason 4\u2019 how tenure can have indirect effects on children too. Pro shouldn\u2019t just focus on direct effects and it is a shallow thing to do so. Furthermore, Pro has completely dropped my point on academic freedom and tacitly agrees that it does benefit people (\u2018j\u2019) but she tries to deny the merit of it by claiming it does not benefit students. Therefore, my point still stands. Tenure protects academic freedom, allowing teachers to perform research freely and teach controversial subjects, which benefits students. Rebuttal for \u2018Rebuttal for \"high standard\"\u2019 Pro argues that my 2nd contention is false in her rebuttal. Her reasons for this are: 1. \u2018k\u2019 This, I have already explained why it is not true in my \u2018Rebuttal of \u2018Reason 1\u2019: Pro failed to support \u2018reason 1\u2019 with proof; I have provided studies that disprove it; I have explained that there are other incentives for the teacher to work. 2. \u2018l\u2019 If you look at [2] and [4] of the previous round you will see Pro\u2019s assertion \u2018m\u2019 (incidentally, she uses the wrong \u2018then\u2019) is already proven false by sources I have cited in the previous round and she hasn\u2019t given evidence in this round that proves otherwise. \u2018n\u2019 [3] of my previous round has already proven this false. I have proven both of these reasons given by Pro as false thus her rebuttal of my point is invalid. Therefore, my point still stands, which I will repeat here once more: Teacher tenure provides a high standard of education to students. Also, I want to point out that Pro\u2019s rebuttal of my 2nd contention is not supported by evidence and merely based on assertion. Why should you vote Con? Pro has explained the disadvantages of tenure but most of which have been refuted. I have explained the advantages of tenure, which Pro has either dropped or attempted to refute but does not succeed as I have proven her rebuttals invalid. This means I have successfully shown that there should be teacher tenure because the advantages outweigh the disadvantages while Pro has not shown why there should not be teacher tenure I have met the criteria for me to win this debate but Pro hasn\u2019t. Also BoP should be on Pro because she needs to explain why the status quo should be changed but she fails to fulfil this BoP. Other than that Pro has, on many occasions, failed to provide evidence to support her claims and in her rebuttal of my 2nd contention, Pro\u2019s blatantly disregards the sources I have cited in the previous round and she continues to make unfounded assertions, which are already proven false by these sources. Pro\u2019s arguments heavily rely on \u2018appeal to emotion\u2019 and \u2018circular reasoning\u2019. [1]http://papers.ssrn.com...; [2] Deleted [3] https://www.cta.org... [4] http://www.njsba.org...", "qid": "1", "docid": "c065954f-2019-04-18T14:32:52Z-00000-000", "rank": 9, "score": 138406.0}, {"content": "Title: Should Tenures Be Taken Away Content: I have to do this round a little bit different as Pro did not respond to any of my arguments. Instead, he used multiple fallacies throughout the debate. Namely, Ad Hominem(CR1), Ad hominem Tu Quoque(CR2), Appeal to Ridicule(CR1), Begging the Question(CR3), Post Hoc(round 3), and Red Herring(round 3). None of my contentions were refuted by Pro, therefore, I should win the debate. C1: Tenures prevent teachers from being arbitrarily fired, which allows academic freedom. If there was no tenures they could be fired for teaching about issues contrary to what the administration believes. My opponent tried to make it disappear by saying, \"it has nothing to do with tenures. \"C2: Tenures help draw and retain better teachers. It does this by having great job security, which rivals all other careers. If it was not for tenures, we would have worse teachers due to no job security. Again my opponent never did respond. My opponent also danced around my rebuttals. R1: My opponent attempts to assert that new innovative teachers will not be able to get a position. I then proceed to crush that argument in the next two rounds. The two things I prove are that teachers are needed and tenures actually foster an environment of innovation. R2: He makes an assertion that tenures will do great damage to the economy. However, I disprove that by showing teachers will make more. Like any industry, when people can be fired who make more they will be. That is why tenures help prevent seasoned teachers from being fired over salary. He decides to completely drop the argument after that. R3: Then he makes the claim that if a teacher is tenured they can not be fired. Which is completely false and a huge misconception. I prove that by providing links. Again, he chooses not to respond. 1. He never responded to my contentions.2. His contentions were completely defeated by my rebuttals.3. Drops all arguments in round 44. He committed multiple fallacies, especially in round 4.", "qid": "1", "docid": "51530f3f-2019-04-18T18:15:02Z-00000-000", "rank": 10, "score": 137420.0}, {"content": "Title: Should Tenures Be Taken Away Content: Thank you Con for helping to provide an engaging debate. I want to start off by taking off the CR's:Weak points: ~ CR1- Con's CR1 has nothing to do with this topic. \"What administrators want\" have nothing to do with tenures. I suggest Con to focus on the debate. ~ CR2- I urge Con to read my counter rebuttal. I addressed the flaws in the idea that \"\"The financial and career safety tenure provides, persuades better qualified candidates to be teachers. \" In Round 3, R2. Con has no reply and concedes. Now here are some things I would like to address for Con's Rebuttals:CR1- As shown in previous points, Con has ignored my arguments. I clearly provided how tenures inhibit new ideas in my 1st Support. He concedes. Also, notice that he provides his main point that \"they don't have to worry about being fired they are free to experiment\" near the end of the debate. Abusive argumentation is abusive. CR2- Once again, Con ignored my point that people aren't arbitrarily fired in my R2, Round 3. Furthermore, as he has also shown, when those without tenures are fired, those with tenures will NOT be fired which is unfair and supports my 1st and 2nd supports. CR3- My creative opponent has ignored the core of my argument. The point is that teachers may have undesirable habits on their personal basis but still influence children on a large scale. It doesn't have anything to do with other jobs-- the point is kids are affected by those that are backed up by tenures. Also, I did not say that tenures make teachers \"unfirable\", but rather harder to fire. Please don't stick words in my mouth. Here are some flaws with Con's argument as a whole:1. He concedes to many of my rebutals and agrees with my arguments.2. Con digresses from the main debate, while I stayed on topic.3. He overlooks the definition and supports/facts around tenures, while I have brought the debate back on track. Thank you to Con again for his efforts and viewers for their time.", "qid": "1", "docid": "51530f3f-2019-04-18T18:15:02Z-00001-000", "rank": 11, "score": 136931.0}, {"content": "Title: There should not be a teacher tenure. Content: Reason 2 - Tenure makes it difficult to remove under-performing teachers because the process involves months of legal wrangling by the principal, the school board, the union, and the courts: Most schools stop trying to fire a certain teacher because the proccess is just too difficult. \" A June 1, 2009 study by the New Teacher Project found that 81% of school administrators knew a poorly performing tenured teacher at their school; however, 86% of administrators said they do not always pursue dismissal of teachers because of the costly and time consuming process. It can take up to 335 days to remove a tenured teacher in Michigan before the courts get involved. \" (. http://teachertenure.procon.org......) (Patrick McGuinn, \"Ringing the Bell for K-12 Teacher Tenure Reform,\" www. americanprogress. org). This quote means that 86 OUT OF 100 SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS WANT A TEACHER TO BE FIRED - but will not do so because the proccess is to draining. But what does that leave our learning and growing generation with? Many teachers who do not care, teach well, or put effort in their work? That is certaintly what this is going to result into if we do not abolish it quickly. Also check out this statistic of who is in favor (people in general) \"An Apr. -May 2011 survey of 2,600 Americans found that 49% oppose teacher tenure while 20% support it. Among teachers, 53% support tenure while 32% oppose it. According to a Sep. 2010 report by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, 86% of education professors favor \"making it easier to terminate unmotivated or incompetent teachers - even if they are tenured. \u201d Of course you cannot expect most teachers to be against it sinse that it their profession and it effects them - but for bystanders with accurate and unbiased opinions, look how many people are against it. Also, \"56% of school board presidents disagreed with the statement that teacher tenure ensures academic freedom. \" (M. J. Stephey, \"A Brief History of Tenure,\" www. time. com). Reason 3 - Most people are against teature tenure: \"In an Oct. 1, 2006 survey, 91% of school board presidents either agreed or strongly agreed that tenure impedes the dismissal of under-performing teachers. 60% also believed that tenure does not promote fair evaluations. \" (. http://teachertenure.procon.org......) This means that most teachers OF SUCH A LARGE PERCENTAGE are not in favor of the teacher tenure. Reason 4 - Teacher tenure does nothing to promote the education of children: \"Former DC Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee said in 2008, \"Tenure is the holy grail of teacher unions, but it has no educational value for kids; it only benefits adults. \u201d(\"Rhee-Forming D. C. Schools,\" www. wsj. com). This piece of evidence means that the only people actually benefiting from this tenure are the teachers who are employed - not any students. Isint education suppost to be focused on the younger generation and their best interest? Since when did school become all about the teachers - this tenure undermines what it means to actually be a teacher. If anything, it is only a BAD THING for students - and why would we keep something in our school systems that MAKES THE GENERATIONS' LEARNING LESS VALUEABLE? It does not make any sense. Reason 5 - Tenure at the K-12 level is not earned, but given to nearly everyone: \"To receive tenure at the university level, professors must show contributions to their fields by publishing research. At the K-12 level, teachers only need to \"stick around\u201d for a short period of time to receive tenure. A June 1, 2009 study by the New Teacher Project found that less than 1% of evaluated teachers were rated unsatisfactory. \" (Marcus A. Winters, \"Challenging Tenure in D. C. ,\" www. manhattan-institute. org). This statistic is absolutely upsetting and degrating. Basically, this quote is explaning how 99% of teachers have free protection handed to them if they just stay in that profession for a certain amount of time. What if that teacher was already slacking in many areas? Now we are going to award them for poor effort and teaching abilities? It is not fair to the students involved with these teachers and it is not fair that they do not actually have to WORK to recieve a benefit of protection unlike most other professions that require some form of acomplishment to recieve that/those benefits in question. Because \"with most states granting tenure after three years, teachers have not had the opportunity to \"show their worth, or their ineptitude. \" (Rose Garrett, \"What Is Teacher Tenure? ,\" www. education. com), (. http://teachertenure.procon.org......).Reason 6 - Tenure makes it costly for schools to remove a teacher with poor performance or who is guilty of wrongdoing: \"It costs an average of $250,000 to fire a teacher in New York City. New York spent an estimated $30 million a year paying tenured teachers accused of incompetence and wrongdoing to report to reassignment centers (sometimes called \"rubber rooms\u201d) where they were paid to sit idly. Those rooms were shut down on June 28, 2010. \" (\"Rhee-Forming D. C. Schools,\" www. wsj. com), (Steven Brill, \"The Rubber Room,\" New Yorker). This is just sad, now it even costs the school boards money for teachers not doing their job? Should'nt that be the opposite? Reason 7 - Tenure is not needed to recruit teachers: \"Sacramento Charter High School, which does not offer tenure, had 900 teachers apply for 80 job openings. \" (Nanette Asimov, \"Teacher Job Security Fuels Prop. 74 Battle,\" San Francisco Chronicle). This quote further proves why tenure is pretty much useless and unfair because teachers DO NOT NEED TENURE to continue their job as a teacher at their shchool, past school, future school, or school they are applying for. Reason 8 - With job protections granted through court rulings, collective bargaining, and state and federal laws, teachers today no longer need tenure to protect them from dismissal: \"For this reason, few other professions offer tenure because employees are adequately protected with existing laws. \" (Tenure Reforms and NJSBA Policy: Report of the NJSBA Tenure Task Force,\" New Jersey School Boards Association website, www. njsba. org), (Scott McLeod, JD, PhD, \"Does Teacher Tenure Have a Future? ,\" www. dangerouslyirrelevant. org). This is the most important fact out of all these because it shows how the WHOLE REASON teacher tenure is here in the first place is NOT NEEDED not have the protections that teachers have without tenure. The teacher tenure is not benefitial for anyone except teachers - they get unfair advantages in MANY ways, some I have just listed. Why should we let this continue if unnessisary? Citations: . http://teachertenure.procon.org......http://teachertenure.procon.org......http://teachertenure.procon.org......Wanda Marie Thibodeaux, \"Pro & Cons of Teacher Tenure,\" www. ehow. comPatrick McGuinn, \"Ringing the Bell for K-12 Teacher Tenure Reform,\" www. americanprogress. org. http://teachertenure.procon.org...... \"Rhee-Forming D. C. Schools,\" www. wsj. comMarcus A. Winters, \"Challenging Tenure in D. C. ,\" www. manhattan-institute. orgM. J. Stephey, \"A Brief History of Tenure,\" www. time. comRose Garrett, \"What Is Teacher Tenure? ,\" www. education. com. http://teachertenure.procon.org...... \"Rhee-Forming D. C. Schools,\" www. wsj. comSteven Brill, \"The Rubber Room,\" New YorkerTenure Reforms and NJSBA Policy: Report of the NJSBA Tenure Task Force,\" New Jersey School Boards Association website, www. njsba. orgScott McLeod, JD, PhD, \"Does Teacher Tenure Have a Future? ,\" www. dangerouslyirrelevant. orgNanette Asimov, \"Teacher Job Security Fuels Prop. 74 Battle,\" San Francisco Chronicle Rebuttals: (rebuttal for \"academic freedom\"): Actually, it does only benefit the teachers. Refer back to my reason 4 in the first round: \"Reason 4 - Teacher tenure does nothing to promote the education of children: \"Former DC Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee said in 2008, \"Tenure is the holy grail of teacher unions, but it has no educational value for kids; it only benefits adults. \u201d(\"Rhee-Forming D. C. Schools,\" www. wsj. com). This piece of evidence means that the only people actually benefiting from this tenure are the teachers who are employed - not any students. Isint education suppost to be focused on the younger generation and their best interest? Since when did school become all about the teachers - this tenure undermines what it means to actually be a teacher. If anything, it is only a BAD THING for students - and why would we keep something in our school systems that MAKES THE GENERATIONS' LEARNING LESS VALUEABLE? It does not make any sense. \"(Rebuttal for \"high standard\"): That is completely false. Once teachers recieve tenure - they work less hard because they feel as if they are invincible. Refer back to my argument for my reason 1: \"Reason 1 - Teacher tenure creates complacency because teachers know they are unlikely to lose their jobs: If teachers know that they reached the period where they get special defence from most accusations - it would send the message to them that they can then do whatever they want to do in the classroom and really slack with their teaching duties. \" This quote clearly explains how it does nothing except disadvantage the students in the long run. We have more teachers then we need - if we get rid of tenure we will have a job application in that field decrease - it just will not happen. Teachers are paid very well - and it is one of the jobs most people want to work for - so what you have said is false.", "qid": "1", "docid": "c065954f-2019-04-18T14:32:52Z-00001-000", "rank": 12, "score": 136872.0}, {"content": "Title: The United States Federal Government ought to ban tenure from all high schools. Content: To My Future Opponent: Thank you for accepting my challenge. I started this debate to learn the pros and cons of this subject, and I chose the side that is my personal opinion (for now). Please feel free to any styles of debating. However I find it a more constructive debate if you hit each of my points as well as making your own. Hobey ho, lets go! In public high schools, tenure is considered a right for teachers who have passed their (usually) 3 year probationary term. Roughly 2.3 million public school teachers in the U.S. have tenure. (Time) Tenure is job security aimed at impeding wanton firing of \"unpopular\" teachers. Although noble in theory, tenure is simply wrong. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Point 1) If a teacher deserves to be fired, it is a daunting task for the school district to do so, leading to bad teachers staying in the system. According to a recent article in Time Magazine, \"Though tenure doesn't guarantee lifetime employment, it does make firing teachers a difficult and costly process, one that involves the union, the school board, the principal, the judicial system and thousands of dollars in legal fees. In most states, a tenured teacher can't be dismissed until charges are filed and months of evaluations, hearings and appeals have occurred. Meanwhile, school districts must shell out thousands of dollars for paid leave and substitute instructors. The system is deliberately slow and cumbersome, in order to dissuade school boards and parents from ousting a teacher for personal or political motives.\" As I mentioned before, a noble attempt at stopping corruption, yet it fails to recognize bad teachers in general. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Point 2) There are numerous cases of teachers that deserved to be fired, proved difficult because of tenure. Yet again, from Time, \"A Connecticut teacher received a mere 30-day suspension for helping students cheat on a standardized test; one California school board spent $8,000 to fire an instructor who preferred using R-rated movies instead of books; a Florida teacher remained in the classroom for a year despite incidents in which she threw books at her students and demanded they referred to her as \u2018Ms. God.'\" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Point 3) Tenure can easily lead to teacher complacency. This point is simply logic. If a man or woman has a job they know they won't be fired from (within loose limits), are they really going to work extremely hard to better themselves at their job? In today's world, probably not. The same goes with teachers. Please note, I'm not saying all teachers are lazy scumbags who deserve to be fired, but this is simply a problem with tenure. I'm 100% sure that we've all had a teacher who just didn't care anymore. Mine was in a science class. She never taught a thing. All we did was handouts. Easiest \u2018A' I've gotten in my life, but that's not the point of school. Tenure allows for \u2018Blow off classes' and \u2018easy a's', but is that necessarily a good thing, especially with legislation requiring standardized tests. If students are doing poorly, school districts get less grants, making it even harder to educate new students. It's a slippery slope that many schools are finding themselves in. You may be saying that tenure isn't the only cause of this, but it is a factor. Bad teachers = bad students. Simple. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Possible Solution: Get rid of the tenure system and create a new teacher grading system in which good teachers are kept and bad teachers are fired. I've been thinking about the education system a lot recently, and the only possible alternative I could find in my mind, is a merit based system. It would keep crass politics out of the system by assuring teachers their job (if they are up to it). I propose a three part test. A) Course Knowledge Exam- The teacher ought to know what they are talking about. B) Teacher Improvement Standards- There are numerous workshops and the like that are available to teachers. They should be required to attend a certain amount of such meetings yearly to keep up with the times and teaching styles. C) In Class Examination- Although teachers are often subjected to scheduled \"watching\" periods in which an official of the school sits in on a lesson, this is not enough. They should have a set number of random sit ins to insure the teacher is actually teaching, instead of simply making a show on that one scheduled day.", "qid": "1", "docid": "24e47090-2019-04-18T19:22:46Z-00004-000", "rank": 13, "score": 136766.0}, {"content": "Title: Teacher Tenure Content: 1) Tenure: : the right to keep a job (especially the job of being a professor at a college or university) for as long as you want to have it. 2) Tenure (As defined by American Association of University Professors): Since its founding in 1915, the Association has seen tenure as necessary to protect academic freedom. Tenure, briefly stated, is an arrangement whereby faculty members, after successful completion of a period of probationary service, can be dismissed only for adequate cause or other possible circumstances and only after a hearing before a faculty committee. The Association, also from its inception, has assumed responsibility for developing standards and practices, sometimes in cooperation with other organizations, to give concrete meaning to tenure. Key Association policy statements are the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, the 1958 Statement on Procedural Standards in Faculty Dismissal Proceedings, and the Recommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and Tenure. I would like to allow the Pro to decide which definition will be used. So far as the debate structure goes, I would like the second round to be stating preliminary arguments. he third and fourth used for rebuttal and concluding statements accordingly, as long as this is amiable to the Pro. I look forward to this debate, best of luck. Sources 1. . http://www.merriam-webster.com... 2. . http://www.aaup.org...", "qid": "1", "docid": "b0680508-2019-04-18T13:48:51Z-00003-000", "rank": 14, "score": 135079.0}, {"content": "Title: Teacher Tenure Content: Here are some facts against Teacher Tenure: Teacher tenure creates complacency because teachers know they are unlikely to lose their jobs. Tenure removes incentives for teachers to put in more than the minimum effort and to focus on improving their teaching. [8] Tenure makes it difficult to remove under-performing teachers because the process involves months of legal wrangling by the principal, the school board, the union, and the courts. A June 1, 2009 study by the New Teacher Project found that 81% of school administrators knew a poorly performing tenured teacher at their school; however, 86% of administrators said they do not always pursue dismissal of teachers because of the costly and time consuming process. It can take up to 335 days to remove a tenured teacher in Michigan before the courts get involved. [2] [4] Tenure makes seniority the main factor in dismissal decisions instead of teacher performance and quality. [21] Tenure laws maintain the \"last-hired, first-fired\" policy. On Feb. 24, 2010, the American Civil Liberties Union filed suit against the Los Angeles Unified School District, claiming that basing layoffs on seniority harms younger teachers as well as \"low-income students and persons of color.\" [22] On Oct. 6, 2010, both sides settled to cap or end layoffs at schools. [23] Tenure is not needed to recruit teachers. Sacramento Charter High School, which does not offer tenure, had 900 teachers apply for 80 job openings. [3] With job protections granted through court rulings, collective bargaining, and state and federal laws, teachers today no longer need tenure to protect them from dismissal. [24] For this reason, few other professions offer tenure because employees are adequately protected with existing laws. [25] Tenure makes it costly for schools to remove a teacher with poor performance or who is guilty of wrongdoing. It costs an average of $250,000 to fire a teacher in New York City. [27] New York spent an estimated $30 million a year paying tenured teachers accused of incompetence and wrongdoing to report to reassignment centers (sometimes called \"rubber rooms\") where they were paid to sit idly.Those rooms were shut down on June 28, 2010. [6] With most states granting tenure after three years, teachers have not had the opportunity to \"show their worth, or their ineptitude.\" [28] A Nov. 21, 2008 study by the University of Washington's Center on Reinventing Public Education found that the first two to three years of teaching do not predict post-tenure performance. [29] Tenure does not grant academic freedom. No Child Left Behind in 2001 took away much academic freedom when it placed so much emphasis on standardized testing. [10] According to an Oct. 1, 2006 survey published in Planning and Changing, 56% of school board presidents disagreed with the statement that teacher tenure ensures academic freedom. [18] Tenure at the K-12 level is not earned, but given to nearly everyone. To receive tenure at the university level, professors must show contributions to their fields by publishing research. At the K-12 level, teachers only need to \"stick around\" for a short period of time to receive tenure. [30] A June 1, 2009 study by the New Teacher Project found that less than 1% of evaluated teachers were rated unsatisfactory. [2] Tenure is unpopular among educators and the public. An Apr.-May 2011 survey of 2,600 Americans found that 49% oppose teacher tenure while 20% support it. Among teachers, 53% support tenure while 32% oppose it. According to a Sep. 2010 report by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, 86% of education professors favor \"making it easier to terminate unmotivated or incompetent teachers - even if they are tenured.\" [31] [32] Teacher tenure does nothing to promote the education of children. Former DC Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee said in 2008, \"Tenure is the holy grail of teacher unions, but it has no educational value for kids; it only benefits adults.\" [27] Teacher tenure requires schools to make long-term spending commitments and prevents districts from being fiscally flexible. Teacher employment contracts generally lack provisions for declining enrollment and economic turmoil. [33] Tenure lets experienced teachers pick easier assignments and leaves difficult assignments to the least experienced teachers. Senior teachers choose to teach more resource-rich and less challenging populations instead of the classrooms that would benefit the most from experienced teachers. [34] Public Agenda President Deborah Wadsworth argues that teacher tenure leads to \"a distribution of talent that is flawed and inequitable.\" [34] Most school board presidents criticize teacher tenure. In an Oct. 1, 2006 survey, 91% of school board presidents either agreed or strongly agreed that tenure impedes the dismissal of under-performing teachers. 60% also believed that tenure does not promote fair evaluations. [18] ~http://teachertenure.procon.org... *You present your facts and then we will post rebuttals for facts from this round*", "qid": "1", "docid": "b0680508-2019-04-18T13:48:51Z-00002-000", "rank": 15, "score": 134818.0}, {"content": "Title: Should Tenures Be Taken Away Content: This is a debate of tenures for teachers. The definitions are to be set such that: Tenures are to be defined as allowing a teacher to be guaranteed the teaching position for the rest of their life (just for this debate to simplify definitions). All terms and words are to be based on the U. S. culture, economy, system(s), etc. Pro will be for the removal of tenures while Con will be for the status quo which is the existence of tenures.", "qid": "1", "docid": "51530f3f-2019-04-18T18:15:02Z-00007-000", "rank": 16, "score": 131125.0}, {"content": "Title: Should Tenures Be Taken Away Content: First off, I'd like to state my rebuttals to his arguments:R1: The fallicious logic connects being \"arbitrarily fired\" to having tenures. First, people don't get randomly fired unless for economic reasons. Even so, this would mean firing those without tenures which: - Supports my 1st point that new teacher possibilities are eliminated- Shows how unfair tenures are to new teachersR2: As a link to R1 the moral of the argument is flawed. Based on Con's work-for-treat idea, teachers would be encouraged to fight for their positions through pulling down others from getting a job. Also, he states that removal of tenures would drive away \"great teachers. \" He forgets that without tenures, the best teachers with new and innovative ideas continue to teach and are not \"arbitrarily fired\" without a definite reason. I would like to highlight are the flaws in my opponent's rebuttals to my points. They orginate from a lack of understanding of American economic stand and society markets. These are elaborated in the following:CR1: Con's entire argument in invalid. His sources are out-of-date and range from 2007-08 when there were many teachers needed. In 2011 to present, the situation is much different with a dearth of teaching positions. . http://tinyurl.com... [1] CR2: Tenures have nothing to do with teachers getting paid more. I stress Con to reflect upon the definition of tenure which is longer stay, but no implication of more pay. . http://tinyurl.com... [2]CR3: Con supports my 3rd point. Indeed tenures do not protect those from illegal acts. However, tenures do provide people with undesired personal values (such as smoking outside of campus--see my support 3) to continue to influence many children on a daily basis. . http://tinyurl.com... [3] Con's points and sources are invalidated and rebuttals are refuted.", "qid": "1", "docid": "51530f3f-2019-04-18T18:15:02Z-00003-000", "rank": 17, "score": 130056.0}, {"content": "Title: Tenured teachers don't always deserve protection from unions Content: Unions sometimes protect teachers that shouldn't be protected. Some teachers are stuck in a rut, \"babysitting\" until retirement, or getting complaints and being shuffled from school to school. They can't be fired and so they continue to take up space that could be used for younger/newer teachers with incredible ideas and innovative lessons.", "qid": "1", "docid": "591127c0-2019-04-18T12:54:29Z-00001-000", "rank": 18, "score": 128788.0}, {"content": "Title: There should not be a teacher tenure. Content: Hello and thank you for joining my debate I will be arguing to get rid of the teacher tenure.", "qid": "1", "docid": "c065954f-2019-04-18T14:32:52Z-00005-000", "rank": 19, "score": 125087.0}, {"content": "Title: Tenured teachers don't always deserve protection from unions Content: We are going to make two points. The first is to stipulate as factual Instigator's contention bad teachers are allowed to remain in the classroom rather than give an opportunity to more innovative and qualified teachers. The second is to state it's not the unions fault. The fault lies with the administration and with the school board. What Instigator suggests is the unions not do their job or at least one of their jobs which is to represent and protect the interests of their members. Ethical standards and legal requirements do not allow them to decline to represent 'bad' teachers. There is a way to get rid of bad teachers-- school boards can enact policies allowing for removing such teachers; and administrators can document cases against them. Unions can fight it as they should but if the school boards and administrators do their jobs the bad teachers will go-- and the good teachers who may be unfairly or mistakenly targeted. will be protected. It is the last point why unions should be allowed to protect bad teachers", "qid": "1", "docid": "591127c0-2019-04-18T12:54:29Z-00000-000", "rank": 20, "score": 124982.0}, {"content": "Title: The United States Federal Government ought to ban tenure from all high schools. Content: Though on the surface tenure is problematic, I have to object to the resolution's requirement of the USFG banning it from ALL high schools. After all, not all high schools are public high schools.The government, federal or otherwise, does not have the right to invade contracts between private schools and teachers merely because it disagrees with the prudence of those contracts. Incidentally, though this is not central to my argument, the US FEDERAL Government has a specific meaning. We have a federal system, in which constitutionally all powers not granted to the federal government are reserved to the states or \"the people\" . I find it doubtful that my conservative American opponent will really feel comfortable so blatantly violating the constitution (since Education is not among those powers granted the federal government, which is why at present the Department of Education is limited largely to \"collaborating with the states,\" helping them out, granting them, rather than bans) for the purpose of education reform, and also doubtful that an amendment on the matter is likely to happen, and that there aren't better things to do with the effort that such an amendment would take.", "qid": "1", "docid": "24e47090-2019-04-18T19:22:46Z-00003-000", "rank": 21, "score": 123274.0}, {"content": "Title: Private school is better/safer than public school Content: The public school system has numberous issuesTeacher Tenure - this protects any poor quality teacher from being fired. This also terminates a teacher's fear of being fired, so even a good teacher can get lazy.Students are assigned to the public school in their area. This forces some students to attend a more corrupt, or dangerous school, and ensures that the school will have enough students to stay open. The school can change the additude of the students, and lead them to failure.Common Core Standards - the poor teachers that tenure protects are now educating their students with common core standards. It would be bad enough if all teachers were at least average in performance. Common core is widely known as not being very efficient, and soon will be limmiting students. Government officials could soon start poisoning the minds of students with common core standardsPublic schools can be under-funded, which can lead to cancellation of activities like choir, band, dance, and theater. Over-achieving, intellingent kids are often a minority. They will be discouraged among students, and taught that smart means unpopular. There are many popular misconceptions and myths about private schoolStudents can use money to pass a class, or get good grades - this is a common, and hilarious myth. Private schools have very strict rules about giving a teacher any money, even as a gift. Especially in middle and high school, where students are more likely to try cheting. If you were to ask anyone at a private school, student or teacher, they would all tell you that no one tries to use money to pass classes.All students in private school are rich, and upper class - this is a steriotype. Students in private school are mainly upper-middle class, or somewhere in that area. Some students even get work-study oppritunities, which lets lower-class students attend private school for cheaper. They only have to help with a little work, like helping to clean after school. Low-8ncome students also can receive free lunch. Of coarse, some students in private school are richer. What other school would these students go to?Students are all very sheltered from the real world - a very common steriotype. Since most people go to public school, private school students will live in neiborhoods with public school students, and can become friends with them. All private school students are aware of the problems low class families face. They learn from the news, from public school friends, and from common knolwdge. Anyway, is being sheltered from drugs, alcohol, and other illegal activity really a bad thing? In a private school, students have a safe, pure, and healthy learning environment.", "qid": "1", "docid": "e5083ebf-2019-04-18T15:47:48Z-00001-000", "rank": 22, "score": 120141.0}, {"content": "Title: Public Schooling Systems Should Operate Year-Round Content: Im a little disappointed with the rebuttal, I was hoping for a response with some counter-arguemets. I'm not sure what you mean by your first statement \"someone can be tenured after a certain number of years leading to decrease in education\" Do you mean a decrease in the education of the teacher? Or the teacher becoming a worse teacher to the students? Either way this doesn't completely make sense. There are teachers that can improve or worsen in their teaching over time, but all schools have annual or more frequent, workshops to develop their teaching skills. Even tho the teachers contracts are based on an entire 'year' of work. Their contracts would have to be re-negotiated based on the number of hours worked. But, the less-stringent schedule to meet the strict curriculum requirements , would have to be considered as well as the shorter work day. You are correct, the taxes would increase, and this would likely cause the combining of school districts to consolidate the tax-payers (because local property owners pay school taxes regardless of whether or not they have children). My argument was more towards the inconvenience of having to care for/making sure they are cared for by someone, while the parents are at work. Most of the options for child care, do not include furthering their education. Which is money well spent vs having your child play at a day care center.", "qid": "1", "docid": "e02d66a9-2019-04-18T17:16:14Z-00002-000", "rank": 23, "score": 115047.0}, {"content": "Title: Teacher Tenure Content: I will be debating on the CON side of teacher tenure. PRO will use this first round as an acceptance round. Violation of the following rules will result in an automatic loss for PRO. Rules: Use this first round for acceptance Do not be rude or mean to each other Do not include personal beliefs, personal experiences are fine if backed up by evidence. Do not forfeit, for obvious reasons.", "qid": "1", "docid": "b0680508-2019-04-18T13:48:51Z-00004-000", "rank": 24, "score": 114209.0}, {"content": "Title: Teachers Evaluations in NYC Content: Teachers who work in Nyc should be evaluated and awarded based upon their overall class achievements. Tenure should not be given easily after two or more years but given at an adequate time or point in the teacher's career. Evaluations can give in detail the overall outcome of the curriculum the teacher is providing for the student and allow the parents to be informed about the class and the setting and the curriculum taught to their child or children. When the evaluations came out in the ny post last month it raise a couple of questions. Mayor Bloomberg wanted to give out an incentive to those teachers who have excelled or achieved the goal within each grade level. He wanted to offer the teachers a 20,000 dollar award and begin to open up 50 more schools including charter schools to have more teachers apply for these positions and scope the children of tommorrow. Teachers need to be recognized not only by their scholarly academics and their potential to have progression within a classroom setting.", "qid": "1", "docid": "4d8487a-2019-04-18T18:20:20Z-00003-000", "rank": 25, "score": 113932.0}, {"content": "Title: It is the right of individuals to organize into a Labor Union. Content: I am not against unions per se. In certain industries unions are useful, but unions with excessive power are a problem. I have a particular issue with teacher's unions that make it near impossible to fire a teacher after tenure, which in itself is an insane system. What other job do you have guaranteed security after three years no matter how bad you are? Teacher's unions hurt the education system by creating a system where there is little or no incentive to really be excellent. Instead a teacher will just do the basics because they aren't going to be fired after tenure. And many teachers are let go right before tenure just because it is so hard to fire them after it. The tenure system rewards mediocrity and ensures that departments and schools will continue to be filled with poor teachers. This is terrible for kids who are taught by them. The real crux of my problem with unions is when they get arrogant and demand excessive things. Incredible union demands in the auto industry now cripple domestic companies who are forced to pay massive health care and pension costs. All of these things hurt industry. I also hate strikes. They serve little purpose other than to irritate and disrupt the lives of thousands. If a teacher's union calls a strike then the people hurt are the kids; if it's a transport worker's union like the recent ones in New York and Philly the entire area suffers. No group should have the power to do this kind of damage to an entire economy. Finally, I hate the way unions act politically. They endorse Democrats almost always and use member funds to further their agenda, which almost always means funding Democrats regardless of member's wishes. They support laws like the destruction of the secret ballot so they can bully people into unionizing. They engage in smear campaigns against non-union companies like Walmart and use their political influence to try and hurt Walmart by the force of government. In general unions are constantly diminishing in this country and they're desperate to gain new members. In conclusion my problems with unions can be boiled down to four things then - excessive demands that cripple business, strikes that hurt entire economies, extremely biased political action using member funds, and the attempt to abuse the power of government to force people to unionize and hurt companies that don't wish to organize. Unions must be put in check and the unholy Democrat-union alliance must be curtailed.", "qid": "1", "docid": "c98346fc-2019-04-18T19:58:36Z-00004-000", "rank": 26, "score": 113272.0}, {"content": "Title: Should Tenures Be Taken Away Content: Accept", "qid": "1", "docid": "51530f3f-2019-04-18T18:15:02Z-00006-000", "rank": 27, "score": 112135.0}, {"content": "Title: Public Schooling Systems Should Operate Year-Round Content: Thank you for the more challenging rebuttal. I think the topic over teacher's unions/contracts/tenures is a separate issue. Yes, it is very hard to fire a teacher who performs poorly, even after years of parental complaints and poor performance reviews from administrators. I had a very bad teacher in 6th grade, everyone knew she was bad, and for years, people wrote formal complaints about her, eventually the school administrators moved her into a mobile-trailer classroom outside the school to teach 'basic skills' just to get her away from the rest of the students. Private schools do not have teaching unions, so this problem is non-existent there. There's no perfect system for finding perfect employees, but once again, that's another issue. As for the time scheduling, schools release their students around 2:30 PM, which is still way before the standard work day. If the student plays sports, then they attend that. If they are not old enough and require additional care after school, almost every public school has an after-hours care. I attended one for a time as well. The time there was spent doing HW and playing games with the other kids. This was an additional cost to parents, but it's within reason, (i can not give accurate costs) my parents were by no means wealthy. The money/funding is really the biggest issue and what education will come down to. We all want a better society, a better economy and job market, but how can we expect that with low education standards, and sinking education rankings relative to other countries? It all starts with a good education, it's not always a tangible thing, but it's something society has to make a decision on together for the greater good. We already put a high value on education at the advanced level (college). I have friends that just graduated with $120k-$180k in loan debt over 4-5 years. This was from an expensive university, but you see my point. Why is a 4-5 year education worth so much, but the education you receive for the previous 13 years any less important? The school budget in my hometown was often voted down because there was a large population of senior citizens that would vote the budget down because they didn't want their taxes to go up, even the smallest bit. The school system was not very good, and my parents sent me away to private school because of this. Now that many of them have died (sry to say this), and people with children have moved in, the people who care about their children's education vote the budget up knowing their taxes are being spent on their own children, thus granting the school more for the students. My younger brother is now attending a school that my parents once dreaded the thought of ever sending me to. I personally do not have all the details figured out, I can imagine smaller school districts merging with larger ones to make the system more cost effective. But the idea is to enable and push the minimum standards of education, and this is a decision that society must make. I believe that a viable approach through year-round schooling can be achieved. My inspiration for this topic came from TED Talks conference on Education, and from one of the talks in particular. I will post the link below. Thanks for debating. This is the specific talk. http://www.youtube.com... If you are interested in other education talks, just YouTube search: TED Talks Education 2013", "qid": "1", "docid": "e02d66a9-2019-04-18T17:16:14Z-00000-000", "rank": 28, "score": 110650.0}, {"content": "Title: Teachers Evaluations in NYC Content: What are you talking about obviously you are not aware of how these evaluations work they are graded according to their overall classroom successes. The children have a very small part in deciding which teacher gets a grade of achievement or under achievement. The Department of Education grades them on their own merit system and procedure that the department calls for. Why would nyc leave the grading system up to students who are in the learning process themselves that would be ridiculous. The teacher is the one who has to follow a curriculum and depending upon how well the information is portrayed and received by the students the teacher has the obligation to go forth and give the students an outlet to scoping the minds of tommorrow. The teachers will be graded based upon their attendance, their overall rates of the reading and math scores of the students, the parent teacher meetings about the student, the interaction between the students and the teacher. The teacher is no longer comfortable in having tenure they have to work hard in order to keep their position. This gives the teachers a heads up on how well or not well they are doing their job and also it gives those who want to have a career in teaching an incentive or how they can change or better the school system for the students learning and for the teachers who are constantly learning everyday. The Department of Education has the guidelines for these teachers conduct and achievements and the students can only be surveyed as to what the class has given them not much of a which teacher needs to go or stay but what each teacher can do to keep the students attentive and how they can make it more interesting and exciting to learn new material. The students are like the lab rats except there is no harm being done to them intentionally.", "qid": "1", "docid": "4d8487a-2019-04-18T18:20:20Z-00001-000", "rank": 29, "score": 104486.0}, {"content": "Title: Should teachers union be abolished Content: However, in places such as New York City, teachers are not allowed to strike as a result of the Taylor Law This is true. However teachers in other places can still go on strike as they did in Chicago (the 3rd largest district in the US) in September [1]. During this 3 year period a teacher can be terminated for being ineffective. Again this is true. One again though after tenure is earned the process of firing a teacher is long complicated process that is costly [2]. In New York firing a teacher is like breaking a diamond. What happens is the ineffective teachers typically get passed along from school to school without ever getting fired. I'd agree with my opponent\u2019s agenda point. why deal with the negative stigma of the profession which on average earns a person approximately $42,000 per year. It's important to that teachers wages tend to rise with experience and there are other factors too like cost-of living. For example a teacher North Dakota makes half of the average salary but living costs are cheaper in North Dakota then in New York [4]. The reason we should deal with the negative stigma is because as said they're teaching the future of America. There only a handful of jobs that guide the direction of America\u2019s future economic viability. [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [2] http://nj1015.com...[3] http://www.oprah.com...[4] http://www.payscale.com...", "qid": "1", "docid": "e3f07189-2019-04-18T17:54:23Z-00004-000", "rank": 30, "score": 102960.0}, {"content": "Title: Public Schooling Systems Should Operate Year-Round Content: The American Schooling System is quite unique in its own way. The education system is the one of the only systems where someone can be tenured after a certain number of years leading to decrease in education. I would have to argue that even though your idea is moral it would bring a huge burden to the tax payers in this country, you claim that it would save money to parents but at the same time they would be paying much more in taxes for these salaries going to teachers", "qid": "1", "docid": "e02d66a9-2019-04-18T17:16:14Z-00003-000", "rank": 31, "score": 102257.0}, {"content": "Title: Should teachers union be abolished Content: I would like to begin my rebuttal by addressing my opponent\"s statement that \"teachers have to strike.\" As with any unionized profession a strike is a last resort and normally occurs when there is a standstill in negotiations. However, in places such as New York City, teachers are not allowed to strike as a result of the Taylor Law [1]. The Taylor Law makes it illegal for any unionized public employee to strike. In the event that public employees do strike they are penalized by having to pay two (2) day\"s worth of wages for each (1) strike day. Stating that teachers have to strike is the same as saying that auto workers have to strike. With regard to tenure, tenure is earned after a probationary period of 3 years. [2] During this 3 year period a teacher can be terminated for being ineffective. Although the term tenure is, for the most part, synonymous with the profession of educator the term probationary period is not. Correction officers, police officers, firefighters and others in public service must also serve a probationary period in order to be afforded union protection against unfair and unjust termination. Non effective teachers are not protected by tenure. As with any unionized member in any profession, a non-effective employee can be terminated for job performance whether tenured or not. However, being tenured allows for due process should a school district or city wish to terminate a teacher for ineffectiveness. My opponent is correct in the statement that \"unions donate to politicians to push their own agenda.\" However, the teachers union is one of many unions. Basing an argument on this statement, I could easily argue that all unions should be abolished on this premise. However, unions donating to push their own agenda are no different than a person voting Republican, a person voting Democrat or for any other party line. Politics in itself revolves around agendas. Why does the National Rifle Association donate approximately $7,000,000 per year to Congress? [3] One has to ask, what is the agenda of teachers in the public education system? Personally I feel it is to educate the future of America. If not, why deal with the negative stigma of the profession which on average earns a person approximetly $42,000 per year. [4] [1] http://www.perb.ny.gov... [2] http://teaching.about.com... [3]http://ivn.us... [4]http://www.payscale.com...", "qid": "1", "docid": "e3f07189-2019-04-18T17:54:23Z-00005-000", "rank": 32, "score": 101755.0}, {"content": "Title: Universities are bastions of free expression Content: Historically, universities have been centres of free speech and expression. The idea of tenure for professors was developed to ensure academic freedom both for teachers and students.[1] Censorship of any type of expression is a direct assault on the principles of a university. As Oliver Wendell Holmes commented, \"The very aim and end of our institutions is just this: that we may think what we like and say what we think.\" Free speech on campus is responsible for producing, or at least fostering many of the progressive ideas of the 20th century even though these ideas were threatening and caused emotion distress to many people. [1] American Association of University Professors (AAUP), \u20181940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure\u2019, 1940, http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/policydocs/contents/1940statement.htm", "qid": "1", "docid": "87e36ea8-2019-04-15T20:22:52Z-00019-000", "rank": 33, "score": 98433.0}, {"content": "Title: The United States Federal Government ought to ban tenure from all high schools. Content: Extend.", "qid": "1", "docid": "24e47090-2019-04-18T19:22:46Z-00000-000", "rank": 34, "score": 98268.0}, {"content": "Title: Public Schooling Systems Should Operate Year-Round Content: I apologize i did not meet your requirements to debate. I might not have been clear with the tenure. I am a believer in a system that does not tenure their employees after a certain number of years. I would ask you if you would see a doctor that had tenure and no matter what happened after a surgery that person would still have a job. In respect to your argument with shorter work days how does that even make sense? An average work day for a parent is 9am-5pm assuming you wanted a child to be released earlier then where would that child go? I am just confused as to how this would be implemented. Do you think that a tax payer with no children would be willing to pay more in education so someone elses child could stay in school the entire year? Salaries have been a big debate throughout years and I believe that adding more hours would only spark more debate and ultimately fail. Dont get me wrong the idea itself is very noble but the funding doesnt seem to add up", "qid": "1", "docid": "e02d66a9-2019-04-18T17:16:14Z-00001-000", "rank": 35, "score": 97991.0}, {"content": "Title: The United States Federal Government ought to ban tenure from all high schools. Content: Thank you for accepting this challenge. First defense: Private vs. Public While the topic says ALL high schools, I did mean public schools (hence my first round not saying anything about private schools.) This was my fault. I should have been more specific. I didn't do that to be abusive and attempt to present a moving target. I hope this will no longer be an issue in the final round of the debate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Second defense: USFG Although my opponent makes a very good point, the USFG does have federal laws passed that have to do with public education. Examples are Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act which established confidentiality for student records as well as allowing a request of modification. Another: Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972 which dealt with discrimination based on gender. Although the government shouldn't butt in in businesses and the like, it is my strong belief that the federal government should be devoted to the well being of its citizens. And it has been conceded (silence is compliance) that tenure affects the well being of students. Therefore, the federal government (1) has this power; and (2) should use this power.", "qid": "1", "docid": "24e47090-2019-04-18T19:22:46Z-00002-000", "rank": 36, "score": 95282.0}, {"content": "Title: Should teachers union be abolished Content: As i'm looking forward to a productive debate. To begin, i'd like to state why teachers unions should be abolished. Teacher's unions are detrimental to this nation's public education system because, teacher's have the to strike which interrupts learning of the student, tenure, protection for proven noneffective teachers, and union's donate to politicians to advance their own agenda. These unions put their own agenda in front of what be a number #1 priority for them, teaching this nation's children.", "qid": "1", "docid": "e3f07189-2019-04-18T17:54:23Z-00006-000", "rank": 37, "score": 93119.0}, {"content": "Title: Should teachers be able to take things from you Content: Extend", "qid": "1", "docid": "66b90e37-2019-04-18T14:21:41Z-00001-000", "rank": 38, "score": 91304.0}, {"content": "Title: will youtube replace teachers Content: should youtube replace school teachers", "qid": "1", "docid": "42c77a4d-2019-04-18T11:38:05Z-00002-000", "rank": 39, "score": 89506.0}, {"content": "Title: Teachers should have guns in school Content: I accept", "qid": "1", "docid": "52024653-2019-04-18T13:52:27Z-00004-000", "rank": 40, "score": 88324.0}, {"content": "Title: Better teachers should be paid more Content: President Barack Obama said in March of 2009: teachers should be treated \"like the professionals they are while also [being held] more accountable. Good teachers will be rewarded with more money for improved student achievement, and asked to accept more responsibilities for lifting up their schools.\"[3]", "qid": "1", "docid": "91988e1b-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00041-000", "rank": 41, "score": 86315.0}, {"content": "Title: Should Students Be Rewarded To Go To School Content: Students should be paid to go to school because we do not have a choice as to whether or not we can go yet teachers decide to beome teachers. Teachers get paid a large sum of money and although our reward as students is our education, to prepare our selves for our future, we should be rewarded with more of a physical treatment such as money, a free day of just not having to go to school at all or being allowed to do whatever we want.", "qid": "1", "docid": "3b334439-2019-04-18T14:16:24Z-00003-000", "rank": 42, "score": 86232.0}, {"content": "Title: The United States Federal Government ought to ban tenure from all high schools. Content: First: Regardless of intent, the resolution remains what it is, and must be defended as it stands, like any other resolution. Second: FERPA is a restriction on the state's gathering of information about individual students, in a manner that calls to mind the \"Search and Seizure\" clause. Title 9 contains the same essential principle as the 14th amendment, applied to a slightly different trait. Civil rights laws, which is what these both are in essence, are a very different field than state labor policy that has nothing to do with discrimination. The precedent set by those two laws does not cover the domain of such policies, as it would extend a very narrow exception in keeping with a reasonable interpretation of the Constitution into something so broad (The undefined and undefinable \"general well being,\" as though wellness were generalizable as to render effectively no weight whatsoever to the Constitution's limits on federal power.", "qid": "1", "docid": "24e47090-2019-04-18T19:22:46Z-00001-000", "rank": 43, "score": 85824.0}, {"content": "Title: Yummy debtors for lunch. Content: Great argument! I concede. We're on the same page. How much should a professor with tenure be paid? What's a fair value in a failing country? $200k? When .gov provides the loans, yup.", "qid": "1", "docid": "42aeb76-2019-04-18T13:45:52Z-00003-000", "rank": 44, "score": 85413.0}, {"content": "Title: Teachers should have guns in school Content: Extend", "qid": "1", "docid": "52024653-2019-04-18T13:52:27Z-00001-000", "rank": 45, "score": 85262.0}, {"content": "Title: Teachers shouldnt be laid off because of senority Content: Good luck! I negate. Con's resolution: Teachers should be laid off because of seniority. Clarification: Teacher are not laid off SOLELY on seniority. Teachers are laid off based on the number of years he or she worked at the same district. Con: 1) New teachers have little to no experience in teaching by themselves. Teaching a subject takes years of experience. A teacher must learn and adapt to different styles of learning, a new teacher cannot do this off the bat during the first day. Hiring many new teachers who experiment with abnormal teaching styles will detriment the school's placement in the state. This has happened at my school last year (some retired, so the school hired new teachers) and our API score dropped by 61 points. ..860 to 799. Due to the recession, many retirees are returning to the workforce. This has happened in the nurse sector, an influx of retired and experienced nurses are returning to their jobs causing employers to hire veterans over freshly graduated students. 2) Seniority rewards teachers for his or her commitment to the school system of years. Why dismiss a loyal employee? Pro: 1) Your music teacher was probably laid off because there wasn't a satisfactory enrollment demand. Can't wait for Round 2!", "qid": "1", "docid": "4fb4627-2019-04-18T18:47:37Z-00002-000", "rank": 46, "score": 85205.0}, {"content": "Title: Teachers should have guns in school Content: No. Teachers should not have guns in school. Let me first just say that I own a rifle, and am not an anti-gun person. I am not a member of the NRA because I disagree with their stances on many issues. This issue being one of those. Pro says they can have the gun if A. They want to be armed and B. They pass a mental evaluation and C. They get training How much training is a teacher going to need? Well, how much training does a police officer or a SWAT team member get? It's going to have to be comparable to that if they are going to defend themselves (and/or their students) from an armed probably mentally deranged assailant. That's fine for people who have elected to go into public defense as a career, but that's not why a teacher becomes a teacher. Pro also states that the gun be kept in a \"safe place\" where none of the kids know where it is. In order for a gun to be used in defense, it has to be accessible. That's just logic. If you can't get to a gun in a crisis situation, and get to it quickly, the gun is useless. And if that gun is accessible to a teacher, then it will be accessible to others as well, and possibly accessible in turn to a student. There rarely are any \"secret locations\" in schools. 7 states already allow teachers to carry guns. Like this teacher in Utah who accidentally discharged her gun http://www.sltrib.com... no one was hurt in that case, but what if a child had been around? Even experienced gun owners have accidents sometimes. You're also opening the door to teachers who maybe don't have the greatest experience with handling guns. Say a teacher who has never fired a gun decides they want one. Pass the mental evaluation then goes through the \"training\" you say they can get. Now that person is packing heat. They will be making in some cases instantaneous decisions about whether or not it's time to pull their gun on someone. With a school shooter that decision is obvious. But what about an angry parent? What about an out of control student? What about a gang leader defending turf? I wouldn't pull a gun on those people, but some people will. And there will be shootings at schools. You haven't stopped the problem, you've accelerated it. Letting teachers carry guns will ultimately cost many more lives than it saves.", "qid": "1", "docid": "52024672-2019-04-18T13:52:01Z-00002-000", "rank": 47, "score": 83909.0}, {"content": "Title: It is fair to reward teachers on the actual results they achieve. Content: Just as in the private sector, workers should be judged and rewarded on the actual results they achieve. Whether it's through sheer talent or through hard work, some teachers consistently deliver better results than other teachers. Those teachers are more effective and efficient at providing societal value: with the same amount of work-hours they manage to more effectively educate children. It is therefore only just that their pay is differentiated according to the results they achieve.", "qid": "1", "docid": "da86b00e-2019-04-15T20:22:17Z-00009-000", "rank": 48, "score": 83787.0}, {"content": "Title: should school teachers have a basic skill test every 10 years to renew their certification Content: Day by day the field of education is getting better and better in terms of new teaching methods, technology and many other things. In this fast changing world ,teachers should keep themselves updated in order to grab the students attention and interest in the subject and thus, teachers find new ways for explaining the lesson and this will also help the students to understand lessons easily.", "qid": "1", "docid": "da9522e2-2019-04-18T15:17:48Z-00005-000", "rank": 49, "score": 83610.0}, {"content": "Title: technology should take place of teachers at school Content: no i dont think that a teacher should be replaced by the latest technology that has made human life easy. a teacher at school is not just preparing you for some sort of small examinations such that we give at school instead they prepare us for the world we have to face ahead. the term teacher is a very meaningful word and we should not consider a teacher only teaching bookish knowledge but they are also our spiritual teachers and no matter how advance the technology becomes the glorious personality of a teacher cannot be replaced.", "qid": "1", "docid": "dd068049-2019-04-18T17:07:24Z-00005-000", "rank": 50, "score": 83595.0}, {"content": "Title: should school teachers have a basic skill test every 10 years to renew their certification Content: Yes, a skill class makes more sense, again it is very rare to see a teacher that cannot use modern felicities. You said \"then only few teacher will get the concept\" this doesn't make sense, because if a skill class is provided what's the need for teachers not to understand the concept. You also said:\" its just like your teacher teaches you something ,she or he thinks you have understood it so makes you do that job ; e.g. well in the rules of teaching and testing anything you have been taught you shall be tested on, the teacher had already passed the test so again I see not need for another test to be conducted to test the teachers basic skills. Teachers have been interviewed by Ofsted (if you live in the UK) so if the teacher cannot teach very well something shall be done about it. Teachers are grown adults, of corse they can make simple and basic mistakes but that doesnt mean they should have the need to have another test, expecially if they have qualified in what they are good at.", "qid": "1", "docid": "da9522e2-2019-04-18T15:17:48Z-00000-000", "rank": 51, "score": 83436.0}, {"content": "Title: Being an teacher is awseome. Content: When you are a teacher, it is very likely that children will look up to you. The problem with that is that when they become fond of you, it is only to convince the teacher to give them better grades. This has happened many times in my school, and when the teacher finds out, I can tell she seems hurt. Plus, what is so great about getting along with children? It has no benefit at all. Of course, it might be for self-pleasure, but look what happens in the end; the teacher ends up getting hurt. Even if the bond is real, the teacher probably has friends of her/his own and the student too. The teacher would spend an overall of only 45-55 minutes with that student. As you teach, it is true that you review things from the past, but it gets even more boring every single school year that passes by. You would get tired of teaching the same thing over and over again. If it is boring to some students, it would just be a waste of the teacher's and the student's time. Being a teacher comes with risks. A report from the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, published earlier this month, found that threats and assaults were becoming a 'daily reality' for teachers. More than half of school staff had been attacked or intimidated by pupils or parents in the last year, according to the report. Of those, more than eight-in-10 said the aggressive behavior from pupils took the form of insults, seven-in-10 said they had been intimidated or threatened and almost half had been physically attacked. SOURCES: http://www.telegraph.co.uk...", "qid": "1", "docid": "f4d1bca9-2019-04-18T12:38:34Z-00000-000", "rank": 52, "score": 83063.0}, {"content": "Title: Teachers Should Be Paid A Lot! Content: Hello, My name is Cray-cray as you see. I think they should get paid $100 each month because they give us a lot of education, happiness and funny times. Even though athletes are the problem, they get $130,000,000 just to give us entertainment. Teachers give us education and get paid way lower than that. So do doctors, fire fighters and polices, they work there butts off saving lives and they get paid less then athletes. Do athletes save lives and give education to us. NO! So,Love It or Argue It!", "qid": "1", "docid": "51287f6c-2019-04-18T17:09:07Z-00004-000", "rank": 53, "score": 82933.0}, {"content": "Title: Teachers don't make enough money. Content: Teachers do make enough money. Firstly, let me state that I agree teachers do an invaluable job. Here are my arguments for why it is fair/useful that teachers are paid less than a number of other professionals. (1) Holidays. Teachers will generally have 13 weeks per year, compared to an allowance of perhaps 4 weeks per year for most other professionals. This discrepancy - about two months' extra time off - should rightfully impact on pay. (2) The absence of monetary incentive to join the profession. Due to the mediocre pay scales, nobody will join teaching \"for the money\". People who desire to teach, generally, will be motivated by (a) a natural desire to educate, or (b) a passion for sharing their speciality subject. Hopefully this leads to a strong teaching force who are in the profession for wholesome reasons. That's all for now.", "qid": "1", "docid": "828b95b1-2019-04-18T19:43:02Z-00004-000", "rank": 54, "score": 82897.0}, {"content": "Title: Should Monday be a school day Content: I admit that teachers would have more time to grade stuff and relax, but I don't really think that is an excuse. Teachers signed up for being teachers knowing that they would be stressed a lot, just like any other job. But, that's normal. Anyway, the teacher job application requires them to be \"friendly with students\" How can they do that if they only see them 4 times (or less!) a week?As for the students, they would be more relaxed due to the shortened school week. They would be less likely to pay attention in school, to do their homework, to do their school work, and other bad consequences. Sure, they might have more fun in the short term, but in the long term, about 10 years from there, they will do badly in college because they didn't study when they were young. Does that sound good for you?", "qid": "1", "docid": "495f145-2019-04-18T14:09:13Z-00006-000", "rank": 55, "score": 82871.0}, {"content": "Title: children should be aloud a friendly relationship with (teachers, ect, ) Content: I disagree ! Teachers are no different, it has nothing to do with being a teachers pet or teachers showing more attention to that student. Teachers are human beings who are no different than me or you. they have feeling and personally i think it would be a great idea and shoudn't be frowned upon or looked down. I'm sure many people will agree that they had a teacher they were close with or they had a teacher that they liked and wanted to keep in contacted with or what ever, but because of all these stupid, silly, pathetic rules they couldn't or didn't. i think a if a child gets on well with his/hers teachers or confides in them then i think it's perfectably exceptable I'd rather my child be happy becasue they have a teacher or someone to talk to then upset and lonely because they didn't want to talk to me about a certain problem or issue. Yes it would bother me that they didn't want to talk about it but i would be happy knowing they had somone else to talk to or a helping them with there problems", "qid": "1", "docid": "3ed5e074-2019-04-18T15:18:16Z-00002-000", "rank": 56, "score": 82783.0}, {"content": "Title: Teachers should not be allowed to strike. Content: Teachers are workers just like everybody else and if you want to change the industry, striking is a pretty good way to do it. In my opinion teachers are treated like second class citizens, they go to school and obtain their bachelor's degree, then have to deal with unappreciative children on a daily basis. Just like anyone else, if they're not being treated fairly they should be able to demand better working conditions and higher pay.", "qid": "1", "docid": "b58929b-2019-04-18T18:27:16Z-00001-000", "rank": 57, "score": 82703.0}, {"content": "Title: Students should be allowed to grade their teachers. Content: I definitely think that us students should be able to grade their teachers. I find that this should be an annual or bi-yearly practice. I believe that over years, teachers could alter their teaching styles, maybe for better, or worse. I think it is fair that, teachers who mark their students daily, through ability, understanding, and control, students should be able to do the same. Students are marked, and judged everyday based on ability, and effort. With a lot on the line, their marks. So teachers should give the option of being marked either anonymous or otherwise. So they could improve their teaching ethics. True, teachers have already been through school, but non other than students to judge how well of a job their educator has done.", "qid": "1", "docid": "68c2d8d0-2019-04-18T15:02:29Z-00003-000", "rank": 58, "score": 82663.0}, {"content": "Title: Teachers Should Have the Right to Bear Arms Content: Thanks", "qid": "1", "docid": "2313226a-2019-04-18T15:33:54Z-00006-000", "rank": 59, "score": 82567.0}, {"content": "Title: Teachers' salaries should be based on their students' academic performance. Content: There are many schools where a teacher with more years of experience is paid more because of his service as teacher. Then why not a person with less experience but dedicated in teaching and working really hard for his students and making them to improve in their performance should also paid higher?", "qid": "1", "docid": "d04ae01f-2019-04-18T17:40:13Z-00001-000", "rank": 60, "score": 82186.0}, {"content": "Title: A teacher's pay should be merit-based. Content: Thanks to my opponent for instigating this debate. I argue that a teacher's pay should indeed be merit-based, which I define (as agreed to by my opponent in the Comments section) as pay with a basic salary and bonuses based on merit (student achievement.) I point out that I believe in western society today, our teachers are under-valued, under-appreciated and under-paid. I certainly do not propose reduction in any teacher's salary but instead, I would like to see those who perform best rewarded even more. Student achievement. I think it is important to recognise that this should apply not merely to getting the highest marks or the most number of A-grades in a class but should rather be a measurement of the 'distance-travelled' by pupils. I think it is far more of an achievement to turn an F-student into a C-student than it is to turn a B into an A. I do not advocate a meritocracy that focuses solely on the elite but one that places emphasis on every child. My simple argument is that to give teachers further financial incentive to concentrate on getting the best out of every single pupil would, overall, have significant benefits to any country. A more educated general population would surely be a good thing in anyone's eyes, especially someone who, like my opponent and myself, is involved in Education. My opponent wants us to limit the parameters of this debate to the US. As a UK citizen who has not travelled a great deal I of course have more experience of the education system here than in America. However if I offer any anecdotal or other evidence regarding the UK school system, my opponent can rest assured that I will try to make them relevant to our discussion of the US system which, by the way, I hope to learn more about in this debate. Performance related pay is a powerful tool in Employment. While it is suitable for many jobs it is not suitable for all. One obvious example of a field where it works well is Sales, (although of course I do not equate commerce with education), if travelling salesmen and (in some situations) retail staff, did not receive a commission on their sales, then they would be unlikely to put in as much effort to sell their employer's product. An example of a less appropriate field would be police-work. Rewarding an officer on their number of arrests or conviction rates does not seem a good idea to me as this would encourage them to be over-zealous and perhaps even tempt them into corruption and tampering with evidence as well as criminalizing more of the general population. I think teaching is an appropriate profession to apply performance related pay to as the benefits would clearly outweigh any negative impact. I would like my opponent to explain why it is not and what negative effects she believes that it would have. Thankyou.", "qid": "1", "docid": "31e2f374-2019-04-18T19:26:29Z-00006-000", "rank": 61, "score": 81992.0}, {"content": "Title: Should Bad Teachers Be Fired Content: I BELIEVE THAT TEACHERS, who have the rights to be at a school teaching should be responsible and respectful in every way. Otherwise, their is no point of teaching at the first place. If not fired, i believe it could damage many students as well as the schools curricular activities. Teachers who are bad should be fired because students lives are at risk of earning behavioral issues and would ruin their generation. Instead of their fun school life they earn disrespected opportunities which isn't fair if their the ones paying the school for good education. Each teacher should be respectful if want to be respected otherwise their is no point for a student to learn or be able to learn.", "qid": "1", "docid": "41a0fb20-2019-04-18T12:49:42Z-00000-000", "rank": 62, "score": 81943.0}, {"content": "Title: should teachers be allowed to have cellphones at school Content: Continue to next round", "qid": "1", "docid": "dc43c974-2019-04-18T16:43:24Z-00001-000", "rank": 63, "score": 81835.0}, {"content": "Title: Teachers Should be Paid More Content: You have argued that more funding should be allocated to teachers in order for them to achieve more of their goals and yet more than enough funds have been allocated to the education department for that purpose. In such countries as Zimbabwe, some kids dont even have a clue as to what a computer looks like and yet they have the highest literacy rate in Africa. Now if you compare the funding of the United States to that of Zimbabwe you find that we actually have an excess of funds and there really arent any needs to match those. Why should government waste resources on satisfying contented wants of the teachers. There is no need to augment the wages of the teaching staff. What they do is out of passion and not the love of money. So what if Floyd is earning $83k per sec. Its his job to wow the millions of enthusiasts that watch across the world and these enthusiasts also include a sizeable number of teachers...He is bringing in a large volume of foreign revenue through boxing yet the teacher is bringing nothing more than boredom to a small uninterested class. If a teacher would get as much as an engineer, who do you think would want to go to varsity for some challenging task when you can just get a teaching degree in college and get just as much cash..clearly this motion does not stand", "qid": "1", "docid": "2345fbf4-2019-04-18T14:09:46Z-00004-000", "rank": 64, "score": 81767.0}, {"content": "Title: Teachers who aren't here for more than 90% of the year should get fired Content: if the teacher is unable to commit to her students, then she should get fired. It's hurting the students education Andy they should find a better teacher that is sable and can be here ready to teach 98% of the time.", "qid": "1", "docid": "5cfdd422-2019-04-18T12:19:47Z-00001-000", "rank": 65, "score": 81657.0}, {"content": "Title: Homosexuals shouldn't be hired as teachers Content: Rebuttal of argument 1: This isn't really an argument as to why homosexuals shouldn't be teachers. All you state is that homosexuals serve as examples through their traits. By no means do students \"become\" homosexual because they may have a homosexual teacher, in the same way that a gay or lesbian student is unlikely to become heterosexual if they have a teacher who isn't a homosexual.Rebuttal of argument 2:Anders Behring killed 77 people. He was Christian. He was also heterosexual. I certainly don't want this man teaching my children, so it's a good job that one heterosexual killer does not mean all heterosexuals are mentall unstable murderers. So there was a heterosexual terrorist. Does this mean that heterosexuals shouldn't teach our children? You may say it's preposterous to generalise all heterosexuals because of one man, but you have done the same just with homosexuals.Rebuttal of argument 3:There is no proof that homosexuals are Satanists, or that Satan exists at all. This argument is invalid as it doesn't have any evidence to back up your \"homosexuals are condemned\" argument.I hope that you take my rebuttals into account, I look forward to your future arguments.", "qid": "1", "docid": "4cb77200-2019-04-18T18:27:58Z-00001-000", "rank": 66, "score": 81605.0}, {"content": "Title: Homosexuals shouldn't be hired as teachers Content: I accept.", "qid": "1", "docid": "4cb77200-2019-04-18T18:27:58Z-00004-000", "rank": 67, "score": 81581.0}, {"content": "Title: Should Student Appreciation Day Be A National Holiday Content: Teachers have holidays for us students to show our appreciation towards them being hard-working and patient in teaching us. Students Appreciation Day shouldn't be a National Holiday because of the following reasons. 1. Students still hadn't prove much of themselves yet. They are still in the process of learning. 2. Students go to school to study and some are even forced to go to school because they do not want to or too lazy to attend. They do not work hard that much unlike teachers. According to Deno Machino \"Every day you go to school, you have the chance to learn something that will change your life forever.You are rewarded with knowledge. \" Are you so self centered that you need acknowledgement for making a better life for your self? Most of your teachers had the chance to be anything in this world, but they chose to pursue a career that helps you. While most professions help society, none are quite like a teacher. While a doctor may save your life once you become ill, a teacher saves your life by giving you the knowledge to be able to live. Without teachers, you could not afford a house, car, or the doctor. Without a teacher, this doctor would not have the knowledge to save your life. (Source: http://www.smallworlds.com...) And besides, without teachers, we wouldn't even learn a lot of things.", "qid": "1", "docid": "1b4be3e0-2019-04-18T12:49:26Z-00001-000", "rank": 68, "score": 81578.0}, {"content": "Title: Teachers should be paid on merit, not seniority and titles Content: \"Link Teacher Pay, Student Gains.\" An Atlanta Journal-Constitution. October 14, 2005.: \"As substitutes for performance-based standards, school systems now reward teachers on degrees and seniority. Yet neither of those measures may correlate with student achievement. In this competitive economy, companies would close their doors if they paid low-performing employees the highest salaries just because they\u2019d been there a long time or had a grad school diploma on their wall.\"[5]", "qid": "1", "docid": "91988e1b-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00042-000", "rank": 69, "score": 81412.0}, {"content": "Title: P. E. Teachers shouldn't be overweight Content: It is illegal to discriminate against anyone for a job due to any physical characteristic and impedes on freedom of choosing a career they want. Also by \"overweight are you referring to the BMI? Someone can be extremely muscular and be shown as Obese. A PE teacher doesn't get paid much at all and they aren't the ones being educated. It is the students themselves who are doing the physical work. Plus there are overweight students as well, Having a teacher that they look too (provided it isn't a fake overweight thing) can give them more motivation since it comes from someone who understands.", "qid": "1", "docid": "441b0246-2019-04-18T11:19:38Z-00004-000", "rank": 70, "score": 81287.0}, {"content": "Title: Merit pay for teachers Content: Better teachers should be paid more", "qid": "1", "docid": "91988e1b-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00014-000", "rank": 71, "score": 81177.0}, {"content": "Title: Homosexual Teachers ought not be hired as teachers Content: Ah well.I beleive that my argument is true, but you are clearly the better debator. I don't concede, but besides your sexist term mishap, you have presented your arguments very well in this debate. Voters, vote whoever you think was best, but I'm not going to waste my time debating when I feel I have lost.Well done to my opponent, you put up a great case!", "qid": "1", "docid": "39a42c2d-2019-04-18T18:27:44Z-00000-000", "rank": 72, "score": 81117.0}, {"content": "Title: Teachers who aren't here for more than 90% of the year should get fired Content: I would like to first draw attention to the fact that the wording of the motion is a case of scopal ambiguity*: \"Teachers who aren't here for more than 90% of the year should get fired\" ^^This could mean either that we should fire any teachers who have an attendance of less than 90%, or we should fire any teachers who have an attendance of less than 10%. I feel I can argue against either, hence I have accepted nonetheless, but I feel I should point out that the motion is ambiguously defined, and that traditionally is considered to work in con's favour. Regardless, it will allow the debate to progress more smoothly for pro to clarify what they meant at the start of their R2 speech. My argument will be as follows: 1) An absent teacher does not usually damage a student's education. 2) There are perfectly legitimate reasons why a teacher may need to be absent for over a year (i.e. would have 0% attendance) but should not be fired. Firstly, most schools have systems in place to account for the event that a teacher is absent- they have supply teachers whose entire job is to cover for teachers who are absent. Though not clearly stated, pro appears to be talking about secondary/elementary schools, and a supply teacher can teach, for instance, how to solve a quadratic equation, just as easily as the full-time teacher could. It therefore does not harm the students' education. Furthermore, there are legitimate reasons why a teacher may not be able to attend school for over a year. For instance, if they are diagnosed with cancer, and have to undergo a year of chemotherapy, and hence have to take a year out. This person should not be fired for being in that situation, and pro did not include any indication in the motion that exceptions may be made if the teacher has a perfectly good reason for being absent. Maternity leave is a much less drastic example- the school year is 36 weeks**, which would make being absent for four of them enough to push one under the boundary pro proposed. After giving birth, one is entitled to up to 52 weeks*** maternity leave. So, in short, an absent teacher is not as damaging to students' education as pro suggests, and there are perfectly valid reasons a teacher may be unable to attend for up to a year. As such, I urge voters to side against the motion. *(An explanation of scopal ambiguity: from 1min 15secs). **(According to: https://www.google.co.uk...;*) ***(According to https://www.google.co.uk...;*)", "qid": "1", "docid": "5cfdd422-2019-04-18T12:19:47Z-00000-000", "rank": 73, "score": 81051.0}, {"content": "Title: Teachers should give marks to students without showing racism. Content: Teachers should give marks to students without showing racism. Yes it's true. i have seen in some schools and some universities, teachers are showing racism in giving marks. They are giving more marks to the students those who are good for them and familiar to them. I'm strongly disagree with this kind of teachers. Some teachers are looking country wise to give marks. They are giving more marks to their own country students. What is the purpose of this?", "qid": "1", "docid": "4a17a194-2019-04-18T17:18:54Z-00003-000", "rank": 74, "score": 80844.0}, {"content": "Title: That would be the better solution Content: If teachers get merit pay for the success of their students,then they will strive harder in order to yield successful individuals. And that would greatly help for the success of its nation. Teachers are not just getting into school to teach but also to learn and to study for the betterment of their discussion so that their students would also be interested to learn and be important.", "qid": "1", "docid": "5596abaa-2019-04-19T12:47:14Z-00004-000", "rank": 75, "score": 80788.0}, {"content": "Title: Teachers don't make enough money. Content: \"However, I think my point about the length of teacher holidays being relative to pay still stands, particularly when teaching is compared to jobs that (similarly) require post-graduate training of an academic nature, such as doctors/lawyers, which tend to have smaller holidays.\" True, but teachers have an extremely difficult job, similar to doctors and lawyers. They are educator, disciplinarian, and sometimes counselor. They have to watch over children for 6 hours of the day, not to mention how much times they work before and after those 6 hours, and the amount of correcting they have to do, which takes up most of their free time. \"You wouldn't argue that a teacher should receive pay comparable to that of, say, a world-class footballer, so I feel it is redundant to make that kind of link.\" I would argue that actually, but that is not the matter at hand. \"I disagree. Teachers have many opportunities to move onto a higher pay scale based on their experience and qualifications. Nowadays, in the UK, \"excellent teacher\" status can be acquired by collecting evidence of high quality teaching, which moves the teacher onto a more generous pay scale. In addition, in secondary education, roles such as head of department, head of year, and examinations officer can be sought out which add points to pay.\" Well I live in Canada, and where I live, even with their masters, they don't get all that much of a pay raise, nor with experience.", "qid": "1", "docid": "828b95b1-2019-04-18T19:43:02Z-00001-000", "rank": 76, "score": 80712.0}, {"content": "Title: Teachers should have their students go to the restroom. Content: \"Mrs. Yates? Can I go to the restroom? It's an emergency!\" \"No. You have like 5 minutes to get to class, you could've went to the restroom\". \"5 minutes isn't enough\". \"Yes it is!\" Most students have dealt with this at least once every day in school. Drank too much water and KABLAM! They need to go down to Bathroom Lane, asap. But that isn't an option. Teachers won't allow students to go because either they had \"5 minutes before class\" or \"you can hold it\". Which isn't a good thing to do. Little do teachers know, holding in urine or waste is not good at all. An average bladder can hold about 15 ounces of liquid. Which is eight glasses of water which, is 64 ounces). Holding in your urine for a long periods of time can stretch your bladder. The automatic feedback mechanism in the bladder sends a signal to the brain when it's full, giving the signal that it's time to use the bathroom. NOW. Resisting the urge to pee, could have your body lose the ability to know when it's time to go. \"The longer you hold your urine, the bladder can become a breeding ground for bacteria to grow,\" Dr. Bali says. This bacteria can lead to infections, which can spread to kidneys and cause greater damage to the body. School teachers and crane operators are two professions who disagree with allowing students to use the restroom which is not in any way the right thing to do. Bacteria can de deadly and dangerous. If a child needs to go, then they need to go. Simple as that. Norma urination is 8 to 10 times a day. If you aren't using the restroom 8 to 10 times a day, something isn't right. It might be you're not hydrating yourself enough. But still, bacteria is the last thing that any student would want to have just for holding in urine. It's a heck of pain to go through and no one would want to go through it. But teachers will never understand.", "qid": "1", "docid": "f59cc0c1-2019-04-18T14:58:59Z-00003-000", "rank": 77, "score": 80460.0}, {"content": "Title: Being an teacher is awseome. Content: If you be a teacher you could get along each other with children. Also, as you teach you could have a tine reviewing things what you learned in the past. Also, I think being a professor is good because it's not dangerous and not do dull", "qid": "1", "docid": "f4d1bca9-2019-04-18T12:38:34Z-00001-000", "rank": 78, "score": 80336.0}, {"content": "Title: Should same sex people go to the same school Content: My opponent has no provided a response, so I will further extend my arguments. I will discuss how single sex school are more beneficial to the teacher as well a sthe student. The teacher: A teacher teaching a class of 25 boys is going to have an easier job than teaching a group of 13 girls and 12 boys. The reason being is that boys generally do certain aspects of learning different than females. Males are generally better at pracitcal work as opposed to females who are generally better are languages. Teacher's that can adapt to this teach better. The student: In a class of boys, a male will not be afraid to speak his mind, as he is himself as male. In a mixed class, he is also under the pressure of the other sex and therefore may not speak his mind. The Consequences of this are that he may not learn the topic as good as he would if he participated. This is my further reasoning and hope my opponent responds.", "qid": "1", "docid": "904fb456-2019-04-18T19:32:31Z-00001-000", "rank": 79, "score": 80305.0}, {"content": "Title: Student performance should be a factor when determining K-12 teacher salary Content: If we believe that additional pay will motivate teachers to work harder, we must also believe that teachers know what to do to improve student achievement\" and that they aren't doing it because they aren't sufficiently motivated. The assumption is that they must value financial rewards more than student success. Does anyone really think that large numbers of teachers know what their students need but are willfully withholding it? That they would help students learn more, if only someone offered them a bonus to do so? This is a highly cynical view of teachers, one that teachers understandably find demeaning, not motivational. Most teachers care about their students and want them to succeed. Why else enter the profession? But although presenting information may be simple, successful teaching is more complex. Some teachers could certainly do a better job, but they mostly need mentoring, support, supervision, and training in new techniques\"plus opportunities to learn, grow, and take on additional responsibilities just like the rest of the workforce. In the end, it is inherently ignorant and flawed that perfor", "qid": "1", "docid": "42f1857a-2019-04-18T12:55:34Z-00001-000", "rank": 80, "score": 80179.0}, {"content": "Title: Teachers promote the leaders of tomorrow which should entitle them with higher salaries Content: Hey, i assume when you say teachers, you mean public school teachers. your argument is sound in the sense that mothers should be paid the most cuz without without mothers there would be nothing and following the same logic grandmothers should be paid even more for being grandmothers. This is what you said, \"Let me put it simply, without teachers there would have been no man on the moon. No vaccines. No indispensable medicines. \"Blacks\" and \"Whites\" would still be segregated and the hole in the Ozone layer would be twice as big.\" It is true that teachers have profound role on their students but only some, not all. On the other hand there are teachers who are horrible, and further more teachers are not only bad but criminals who can be indulged in heinous crimes against the children. Given the reality of situation first you need to get all teachers to be the best group in the world's history then maybe you could argue for your cause. Till then your assumptions are juvenile. And secondly you brought the stats for teachers in Australia, if teachers are teachers then why didn't you argue for the teachers in the third world countries, should they not be paid the same as others in different countries according to your aforesaid principles. I appreciate you trying to talk about this with the minister even though i might different on your way and talking points. Simply quoting a newspaper doesn't prove the findings, what was the methodology, until you come to terms with that, your arguments fells short that learning is proportional to teacher's pay. Having received no contact from the deemed \"education\" experts, I relied on two of my lecture and homework giving teachers for their views on the issue I was raising. Visualising a teaching utopia with the aid of my question, both teachers were quick to respond. To my surprise, both Teacher A and Teacher B had contrasting views on the issue I was raising. From Coming from the United Kingdom, Teacher .................................................................. of teachers, Teacher B addresses the issue in a larger picture including the Australian workforce. Till here, nothing whatsoever was a any source of your point just a story. Yes, I agree teachers can inspire the leaders and workforce of tomorrow, but also can parents, friends, family and so many other sources. I am not against paying teachers higher or as a matter of fact anybody else for that matter. But the world we live in is primarily run by economics. Personally I would love everybody to be paid enough that they would spend their lives peacefully, but you should bring in more economic argument for this to happen and maybe a selection process where you can find the best teachers. I would love to have a healthy debate.", "qid": "1", "docid": "e43a535a-2019-04-18T11:37:17Z-00000-000", "rank": 81, "score": 80084.0}, {"content": "Title: should school teachers have a basic skill test every 10 years to renew their certification Content: As I have to repeat again, why should somebody retake a test not needed when they have qualified for that thing. Teachers have been thought to teach, if they don't know how to use a blackboard which in normal circumstances in very rare, they shouldn't have a test but should show their understanding through actually teaching a basic class not as a test. Many teachers who may not be use to the new environmental modern world are generally old due to the fact they haven't grown into the modern society, but most old teachers are retiring so new teachers with the modern understanding don't have to be tested for this.", "qid": "1", "docid": "da9522e2-2019-04-18T15:17:48Z-00002-000", "rank": 82, "score": 80065.0}, {"content": "Title: Teachers sharing political opinions Content: A teacher is there to teach. If they bring up the topic of politics I assume it would be open to discussion. I see no reason why a teacher would just stand in front of a class and just start lecturing on about their personal political preference and not letting anyone oppose them or their views. A teacher would have a certain amount of influence over their students of course. But if it's not the teacher it will be their parents, friends, neighbours, the party with a large advertising budget or the news etc. So throughout life they are always going to be hearing other people's political views and they're going to have influence on them. So surely it must be better for them to be encouraged in a school to look into politics and decide for themselves. It's the perfect place and time for them to start hearing other people views and expressing their own. A teacher should be leading by example by sharing their views too and why they have them. There isn't as much as a connection if they just show both sides especially when there could be multiple parties and people involved. They may as well not bring it up and just tell them to go look at each parties own website and see what they stand for. Would be rather boring. If a teacher can't openly discuss their political views because it may influence their students choices what's next? People have opinions on everything in life so why try shield them away from reality? They're at school to learn real life skills too not just to be able to sit tests well. If they can't handle someone else's option and be able to form one of their own then they have already been failed. As long as it's a fair debate and both sides get a fair say there can be no negatives from it. It's exactly like we and everyone else on this website are doing, having free and open debates that are fair and allow people in the end to come to their own conclusion. If we stop the teacher from speaking because he has influence then who else? Should the most intelligent, the most popular or the most knowledgeable student on the subject being discussed all be stopped from speaking out and expressing their views too? Because surely they will also have a higher than average influence over their fellow students.", "qid": "1", "docid": "6ead288e-2019-04-18T15:40:12Z-00001-000", "rank": 83, "score": 80039.0}, {"content": "Title: Teachers Should Be Paid A Lot! Content: Teachers get paid over 1500 dollars a month. The government does not have the money to pay teachers six or seven figure salaries. The government does not pay atheletes so they get paid more. Cray-cray, your argument is cray-cray...", "qid": "1", "docid": "51287f6c-2019-04-18T17:09:07Z-00003-000", "rank": 84, "score": 80028.0}, {"content": "Title: Teachers should have guns Content: i accept your'e challenge", "qid": "1", "docid": "d23aca82-2019-04-18T16:11:12Z-00006-000", "rank": 85, "score": 79678.0}, {"content": "Title: Homosexual Teachers ought not be hired as teachers Content: My response to your points:\"we are justified in refusing work to those that we choose\"This is true if you are refusing work based on lack of job suitability, not discrimination. It seems you have vastly misunderstood the concept of freedom of hiring. Yes you can refuse work to people, but it can't be based on discriminative terms. This is against the law. (1)\" schools don't have to hire those they don't want to hire\"Any evidence? Any sources? You haven't shown me anything to back up your false claim. See my answer for the last quote.\" the principal was in charge of hiring staff.\" , \"as long as he is principal, he chooses who gets hired or doesn't get hired.\"Again, it seems like you have vastly misundestood the hiring process. You can't hire discriminatively, and even though the principal is in charge of hiring, doesn't mean that he or she can do it wrong. For example, just because a dictator is in charge of a country doesn't make it legal to subject his subjects to genocide.\"man up\"Lets try to avoid sexist terms shall we!?\"why do I have to respond to this? \"No one said you had to, but as I explained; your point wasn't entirely true so I couldn't rebut it, but your point was untrue though in certain circumstances; and I just wanted to point that out to the voters. Situation One: in competition for one teaching role, a heterosexual teacher and a homosexual teacher are at equal merit and skill as a teacher. How are we to decide who is better if, in a professional sense, they are of equal talent and merit? There is no other way to decide except for personal belief. So unless you'd rather not hire anyone at all, there's not a reason to reject one off of their personality if they are of equal merit In a situation where both applicants are of equal merit, further interviews should be carried out until the best candidate is chosen. It's impossible that two candidates will have the exact same merit. Personal beleifs on the applicant's sexuality shouldn't ever come into account when hiring.Situation Two: in competition for one teaching role, a heterosexual teacher of greater merit and talent is competing against a homosexual teacher of lesser merit and talent. If what you believe is true, then I would have to hire the teacher STRICTLY because she is homosexual, or risk the cry of sexual discrimination in the job place, which wuldn't be good for me as the principal. But if I were to hire the homosexual teacher, I risk a reverse sexual discrimination charge, basically that I hired her STRICTLY because she was homosexual, which still wouldn't be good for me. Who's going to accuse you of sexual orientation discrimination? Details of the applicants for a job are kept discrete, so unless the applicant themself believes you have discriminated, you have no problem. If the applicant does have a problem the case will be reviewed by a judge, and then an unbiasd decision is made. Apart from the one applicant, no one can accuse you of sexual discrimination!\"If what you believe is true\"Please be more specific when reffering to my argument.Situation 3: Like I previously said, no one can really accuse you as details are kept discrete.In conclusion, Con should take a logical approach when creating scenarios, be more specific when reffering, and avoid sexist terms which may offend the competitiors!1. http://www.emplaw.co.uk...", "qid": "1", "docid": "39a42c2d-2019-04-18T18:27:44Z-00002-000", "rank": 86, "score": 79673.0}, {"content": "Title: should teachers be able to hold students in at recces Content: no", "qid": "1", "docid": "29692adb-2019-04-18T16:27:54Z-00007-000", "rank": 87, "score": 79639.0}, {"content": "Title: Teachers should be allowed to show affection to students Content: I disagree with my opponent because I think that teachers should not show affection to individual students because other students will naturally feel left out. A teacher has to be a model of justice and fairness. A teacher has to show affection with his or her words to all of the students in the class. In this manner, all of the students feel the affection from the teacher. It is very dangerous to show affection to some individual students and not to others. The affection may be misinterpreted by the individual students and the teacher may have to face a very uncomfortable law suit. Also, students perform better academically when they all feel included and cared for equally. This has been the topic of many books and movies on teaching and education. (www.emotionallyhealthychildren.org) (http://northtexaskids.com... )", "qid": "1", "docid": "9101cb9d-2019-04-18T16:46:13Z-00004-000", "rank": 88, "score": 79460.0}, {"content": "Title: Teachers should be allowed to discipline students, eg use a ruler for a cane. Content: Students nowadays are walking around aimlessly worrying about exam grades, whilst all our teachers do is take abuse from us, whilst saying \"do what you want, atleast im getting paid\". R1- just acceptance, then in the comments we can lay out our bullet points before starting r2 to make it longer, and fair.", "qid": "1", "docid": "5ba4d250-2019-04-18T11:42:33Z-00005-000", "rank": 89, "score": 79319.0}, {"content": "Title: Teachers Should Have the Right to Bear Arms Content: \"It does not mention once that guns will prevent school shootings\"No. It doesn't. Your right but you missed the point. I provided it for those who need a reminder on school shootings and the statistics of deaths.\"We want our students to feel safe and secure in the learning environments, so it makes no sense to put them in that situation\"I'm not proposing that we arm teachers all the time. I'm simply saying that teachers should have access to some sort of weapon for self defence and the defence of students.I said this in the beginning: \"If teachers were equipped with guns or defensive objects (eg tasers)[...]\" A weapon, anything used against an opponent, could be considered a taser (http://dictionary.reference.com...). Which as we know is harmless.You may argue that tasers will only scare the students. But considering how kids watch TV (http://www.pbs.org...) these days, it will only affect a small percentage of the students to know that their teacher has access to a taser that might not even be exposed. Looking at the shooting of Washington:http://www.nydailynews.com...http://www.kirotv.com... Where a teacher tried to stop the shooter...\"She\u2019s the one that intercepted him with the gun. He tried either reloading or tried aiming at her. She tried moving his hand away and he tried shooting and shot himself in the neck\u201d Imagine the scenario if the teacher has a taser:1)\"He tried either reloading or tried aiming at her.\"2) Teacher tasered student.3) 911 dispatch arrives in time to prevent any further deaths.\"We want our students to feel safe and secure in the learning environments, so it makes no sense to put them in that situation\"Will the students feel more insecure if the teacher just saved their lives?\"Many measures can be used to prevent kids who would want to shoot up a school from committing the action. Typically those children get the guns from their parents. If we mandate gun safes in homes, children will not get their hands on guns.\"Which will be easier?1) Arming teachers with tasers2) Getting background checks on all parents and refusing their kid tuition if they have a gun. And then debating gun control.Situation 1 seems more likely to happen.Furthermore, students die of alcohol poisoning all the time (https://www.google.com...). What makes you think controlling guns will be easier and more effective?In conslusion:It is only logical that as long as we moniter teachers with tasers, schools will be just as safe, if not more safe...", "qid": "1", "docid": "2313226a-2019-04-18T15:33:54Z-00003-000", "rank": 90, "score": 79296.0}, {"content": "Title: Should Students Be Rewarded To Go To School Content: I have learned as a student that when students are rewarded they work towards getting the reward over and over. My teacher is using a method where she would give out teacher dollars to the students at the top of the class and for doing an assignment and getting full marks and even perfect attendance. right now there is a battle for who has the most teacher dollars in the class which means that in all our marks that are being recorded no one in my entire class of 25 kids has any marks below half.", "qid": "1", "docid": "3b334439-2019-04-18T14:16:24Z-00001-000", "rank": 91, "score": 79212.0}, {"content": "Title: Teachers should be allowed to show affection to students Content: I think it would be hard to give all the kids equal affection. Especially since one kid might want more affection than the others or the teacher might like one kid a little more than the others. If any of the other kids see it then they will get jealous. Also, I think it places an undue burden on the teacher who now has to be extra cautious to give all the kids equal affection all the time. And I think teachers are already overworked as it is because they work about 1,080 hours a year and the world average for teachers is about 794. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com...", "qid": "1", "docid": "9101cb9d-2019-04-18T16:46:13Z-00002-000", "rank": 92, "score": 79170.0}, {"content": "Title: Teachers' salaries should be based on their students' academic performance. Content: To avoid problems like this a board of members should be appointed they should be maverick from government. They should be controlled directly by an Educational Head. This board of members can have frequent visit to any schools and can inspect the students any time and can review the students and compare them with the tests they have written. This Board can even blame the Educational system if there any riddle and can give astringent punishment if any malpractices happen. Teachers' salaries should be based on their students' academic performance because Teachers' whose service is interminable should be noted and should be lauded with more salary this is an appreciation given to them for sacrificing themselves for their students. This can even encourage other teachers to work hard.", "qid": "1", "docid": "d04ae01f-2019-04-18T17:40:13Z-00003-000", "rank": 93, "score": 79129.0}, {"content": "Title: should the teaching in schools be changed Content: I thank taterface for instigating this debate.CON - I believe the teaching methods in school should NOT be changed.1) PRO states that he believes \"teachers should get ride of the kids in the class that do not apply there selves, don't want to learn, don't care and don't want to be there they should just not be there.\"I fully agree with PRO on this point, however, teachers already have a method to deal with these kind of kids. Teachers are able to get rid of kids that don't apply themselves by giving them failing grades. These students get held back while other kids progress through the education system. There is nothing wrong with the teaching method.2) PRO also states that the \"teacher will waste his/her time on that kid and not the kids that want to learn so they are not getting a good education and a better chance to be successful.\"PRO fails to realize that these teachers are NOT wasting their time on these kids, but are trying to get them to learn. The teacher is doing his or her job to perfection by trying to get these kids to learn. The teacher is doing a great job here.For kids that want to learn, that want to get a good education, and show a demonstrated ability to learn, there are honors classes for these kids. Again, there is nothing wrong with the teaching method. 3) PRO also states that \"the bad kids are already going to bring down are society why waste are time with them.\" By \"bad kids\", I will assume PRO is referring to kids that \"do not apply there selves, don't want to learn, don't care and don't want to be there.\" \"Bad kids\" often face disciplinary measures. They are often taken out of class and put into detention, or some other form of punishment. If these kids cause enough trouble, they get expelled from school. There's no need to change how this work; again, I don't see anything wrong with the teaching method.CONCLUSIONThere are measures in place in schools to address all of PRO's arguments. The teaching method is fine and does not need to be changed. I agree with PRO that the fewer \"bad kids\" the better, but we have to give them a chance. If they mess up, they will face the consequences.", "qid": "1", "docid": "6edfe8a6-2019-04-18T18:00:42Z-00002-000", "rank": 94, "score": 79023.0}, {"content": "Title: Teachers Should be Paid More Content: I feel that teachers should be provided more funding to achieve their goals within the schools and I also feel like they should be paid more for the services that they are offering to the community that they are engaged in. Teachers are raising the future engineers, doctors, lawyers, etc. But they are not being paid anywhere near as much as the students they are teaching go on to make in those professions. In the mean time, Floyd Mayweather is earning $83,000 per second to beat Manny Pacquiao to a pulp in his fights. I feel like America is really placing an emphasis more on sports and entertainment achievement than rewarding those who are actually contributing to the future scholars of America.", "qid": "1", "docid": "2345fbf4-2019-04-18T14:09:46Z-00005-000", "rank": 95, "score": 78943.0}, {"content": "Title: Students should be allowed to grade their teachers. Content: I will try to keep my points short and to the point, as I'm sure you are probably bogged down with homework right now. Schools are inspected by Ofsted, at least in the U.K., and it is true the reports describe the quality of teaching as a whole rather than focus on individual teachers, but this is because there is not a particular teaching style which is favoured [1] The fairest way is to ensure you receive a good education, and this is made possible by being taught in different ways which can challenge and inspire you, it's why you will usually have a new teacher every year. When an adult inspects the quality of teaching it allows students to continue learning. If students could grade their teacher after one year - the time when you will probably have a new teacher, their suggestions may not represent what the next students want. You say you are judged, however teachers don't give you homework in order to access your understanding (why you won't find a leader board in their closet). They mark your work, give corrections, and if you still don't understand it is your responsibility to seek help. If students could grade their teacher some students might choose to criticize their teacher instead of seeking help. Teachers do from my experience give their class anonymous feedback forms to fill in, which removes any need for students to grade teachers. sources: [1] http://www.clerktogovernors.co.uk...", "qid": "1", "docid": "68c2d8d0-2019-04-18T15:02:29Z-00002-000", "rank": 96, "score": 78928.0}, {"content": "Title: Students and teachers should not \"friend\" on facebook Content: I'm happy that this topic interested you. So, Pro asserted that teachers can show the real photos or facts, which prove his or her innocence and I absolutely agree with this. Nevertheless, do you think that the victim could still work in this school with tarnished reputation? I think, no, because students will tease or always remind her or him this incident. My second argument is that nowadays, we cannot trust on anyone, because our world becomes very cruel. A teacher can be pedophile or maniac, which pretended like a teacher. I watched news about one in Moscow school, thirty years old deputy director of school presumably, pumped substance 15-year-old boy, and after to join with him in a sexual relationship. They started communicate on social network and was a close friends. A boy with a mental disorder in hospital and pedophile imprisonment of up to 6 years. Many of you might be skeptical that the director of school will choose a good teacher and with good education, however, it is not written in person's face. The third argument is that the students and teachers relationship must remain a line of a professional nature and there should not be any \"friends\" on Face book or anywhere else. Teacher is a person who is teaching you, they are not your friends. I understood that these days, we have great opportunity like Internet, which is very fast and makes it easy to communicate. But for students safety we should\"t admit to students to be friends with teachers on Face book. For instance, if you really need help of teacher\"s suggestion, you can go to her/him and share your problems. I think it\"s much better than if you will communicate on the Internet. However, if you shy person, you can write to his or her university/school e-mail.", "qid": "1", "docid": "e0e31c74-2019-04-18T17:30:27Z-00003-000", "rank": 97, "score": 78920.0}, {"content": "Title: Liking teachers is just Stockholm syndrome Content: First, Pro stated that I stated that Finnish teachers are nicer than American ones. That is false. I did say that teachers are more appreciated but not that they were nicer. Indeed, the students' perception of teachers is just better, because teachers are better trained and have worked very hard to get to their position (1). This inspires great esteem. This leads me to say that Pro should find better sources and if he does find sources that are trustworthy, he should state them more accurately. Indeed I do not think that such practices as\"beat[ing] children with other children when the children get the answer wrong\".Secondly, Pro is agreeing with me. Which is nice. So I just wanted to emphasize all that niceness.Concerning the headmasters' submission to Illuminati, that might be right and I wouldn't mind having the sources to read about it. Until then, I have to disagree with that argument, as, after years of searching, I have not found any proof of it. I think it would be nice of Pro to enlighten all of us.ISO 8601 is a standard put in place by the International Organization for Standardization (2). The purpose of this standard is to provide an unambiguous and well-defined method of representing dates and times, when data is transferred between countries with different conventions for writing numeric dates and times. It uses the seven days a week system and the twenty four hours a week system. So I'm guessing that whichever country Pro comes from, he also uses that system. If not, how does he call the extra two days? Thank you.In the state of New Jersey, students are not 'captured' by the police the instant they skip classes. There is a list of procedures (3). In the Student Attendance Policies And Procedures Compliance Checklist, there are a number of procedures that schools have to follow. One of the first is to notify the legal guardians. This goes against the idea of capture, as, in most cases, if you your legal guardians tell you to go somewhere, 1. it is for your own good and 2. the legal guardians can excuse the absence of their child, therefore the capture is not compulsory.Last but not least, here are the symptoms of Stockholm Syndrome (4).In order for Stockholm syndrome to occur in any given situation, at least three traits must be present: A severely uneven power relationship in which the captor dictates what the prisoner can and cannot do; The threat of death or physical injury to the prisoner at the hands of the captor; A self-preservation instinct on the part of the prisoner. Although you might (a very improbable might) consider number 1 to be true (although I would emphasize the importance of \"severely\"), number 2 is wrong, and number 3 is wrong, because there is no need for self-preservation from death. You could argue students need self-preservation from other factors, but that is not the subject of the debate. Therefore, Pro's statement that \"liking teachers is just Stockholm syndrome\" is wrong, because there are no symptoms of such a condition.1. Teacher's training: http://bertmaes.wordpress.com...2. ISO 8601: http://www.iso.org...3. Student Attendance Policies And Procedures Compliance Checklist: http://www.state.nj.us...4. Symptoms of Stockholm Syndrome: http://health.howstuffworks.com...", "qid": "1", "docid": "80951e3d-2019-04-18T16:07:45Z-00003-000", "rank": 98, "score": 78916.0}, {"content": "Title: Should teachers union be abolished Content: Strikes that come to mind included the auto workers of General Motors as well as the workers of Verizon in New York. Arguing that the teachers union should be abolished because some can strike is the same as saying that the auto workers union should be abolished because they can strike. Verizon and general motors aren't teaching the future. My first point is that New York State has a very high barrier to entry into the profession of teaching. Teachers must obtain a Bachelor's Degree in order to obtain their Initial Teaching Certificate which is valid for a period of five years. During the period of time the teacher is earning his or her Bachelor's Degree the teacher must also obtain the Internship Certificate. Within this five year period the teacher must also earn a Master's Degree and must continue ongoing professional development in order to earn the Professional Certificate. [2] There are also exams that must be passed in order to obtain both the Initial Certificate and Professional Certificate. Please elaborate how this is relevant to the debate. My second point is that there is a serious question as to exactly what makes a teacher ineffective. Politicians and the media alike feel that the most effective way to evaluate a teacher is to tie the teacher\"s performance to standardized test scores. However, simply tying teacher performance to standardized test scores ignores the individual learning ability of each child, economic factors and most important as far as I'm concerned is the level of involvement of each student\"s parent or parents. How can a teacher should be held accountable for a student not performing if the student continuously misses classroom days, does not complete homework assignments and project assignments? A student such as this will simply not perform up to standards. A teacher\"s job is to educate children not raise peoples children for them. If a school district or city feels that a teacher is that detrimental to students then why is cost a factor, especially if educating the future of America is of the utmost importance? Your right. There are a lot more variables to why a student might fail. But when you have a teacher who is show over and over again to be proven ineffective, that's not a coincidence. But because it's nearly impossible to fire that teacher due to the unions, there's a problem. http://www.youtube.com... For this reason alone, teachers deserve union protection That's not a sufficient enough argument to justify why teachers deserve union protection. I have an idea! How about we make teachers unions illegal, and if a teacher is show to be effective we give them a pay raise, if not we fire them. Simple.", "qid": "1", "docid": "e3f07189-2019-04-18T17:54:23Z-00002-000", "rank": 99, "score": 78836.0}, {"content": "Title: Teachers and Students Should Be Friends With Each Other on Social Media Content: First of all, what is stopping them from sharing that stuff over email, is that you wouldn't contact the teachers' personal email. You would contact their school one. There is absolutely no reason to have anything personal of the teachers. So the school would be stopping that gossip because, knowing that the principal checks in on all the emails when something doesn't seem right, would make the teacher not do that kind of stuff. You shouldn't have to go on Facebook to see a homework assignment. Again, the school's email that they set up for the teacher is for that, not Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snap Chat, and whatever else is out there. My argument holds very valid reasons. How long have you been in school? Or out of school? Because obviously you missed that the teachers have emails in which to contact the student. This creates a safe place for the teachers and the students to talk to one another because it is monitored......unlike so many Facebook messages. Therefore, your 'platform' is actually the more dangerous one. The principals are not allowed to get into another persons Facebook even if they think that something wrong is going on. It is against the law. However, they can go onto the email that is set up for the teachers. The safer environment and contacting policy, is obviously the one where it is legal to check up to make sure that the teachers and students are not over stepping their boundaries.", "qid": "1", "docid": "3f7ce477-2019-04-18T15:34:59Z-00001-000", "rank": 100, "score": 78735.0}]}
{"query": "Is vaping with e-cigarettes safe?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: Should E-cigs and vapes be regulated Content: I've never claimed that I'm okay with \"kids\" acquiring an addiction to electronic cigarettes. I simply do not care. It's not only nicotine but other harmful substances that are present. You provided examples of why they're bad, Without any sources. I'm just saying that there shouldn't be any regulations because it will be utterly pointless and time consuming. Juul for example is a good way to start vaping, A teen hobby that adds a sense of smoking cigarettes whilst it does contain harmful chemicals similar to cigarettes; \"Traditional cigarettes contain a laundry list of chemicals that are proven harmful, And e-cigarettes have some of these same chemicals. \" Thus, There is a small percentage of chemicals in e-cigs than the classic cigs. http://www. Center4research. Org/vaping-safer-smoking-cigarettes-2/", "qid": "2", "docid": "e435a482-2019-04-18T11:12:51Z-00002-000", "rank": 1, "score": 197742.0}, {"content": "Title: Should E-cigs and vapes be regulated Content: So you're ok with kids getting addicted to nicotine just because they think it makes them look cool. Companies advertise that it is safer than regular smoking but it really isn't. The chance for second-hand smoke is almost the same. There is no research at all backing that they help people get off smoking. In some cases, It actually makes your addiction worse. One student was carrying a Juul in his pocket when it just exploded. Kids are going behind their parents' backs and using them. Research shows now that e-cigs and Juul's are more popular than cigarettes now.", "qid": "2", "docid": "e435a482-2019-04-18T11:12:51Z-00003-000", "rank": 2, "score": 187025.0}, {"content": "Title: Should the e cigarette be available to everyone Content: Again, I feel that your information is incorrect. According to several databases, including canadavapes.com, Propylene Glycol is the primary ingredient in the majority of e-liquids and e-cigarette cartridges on the marketplace today. Most e-liquid contains at least 80% and as much as 92% propylene glycol. This is the ingredient that produces the smoke-like vapor when the e-cigarette is exhaled. You are correct in saying people have choices if they want to use products that are safe or unsafe, but it seems more applicable if people are educated in the product they choose to use. And being that I am a parent and a grandparent, I am more concerned about the availability of this product to the younger generation. The idea that vaping can promote cigarette smoking is not good news, especially to our youth. Whether or not you feel that people can do whatever they want, it seems to me that your favorable interest in e-cigs exist because you may either like or use e-cigs, am I correct?", "qid": "2", "docid": "6aa773f4-2019-04-18T14:45:16Z-00001-000", "rank": 3, "score": 181241.0}, {"content": "Title: Should E-cigs and vapes be regulated Content: You don't care If they are addicted or not. There are no good ways to start vaping. 85 percent of vapers grow up to smoke. If you think about it you are just vaporizing chemicals and breathing them into your lungs. Vaping harms nearly every organ in your body, Including your heart. Nearly one-third of deaths from heart disease are the result of vaping and secondhand smoke.", "qid": "2", "docid": "e435a482-2019-04-18T11:12:51Z-00001-000", "rank": 4, "score": 178282.0}, {"content": "Title: Should E-cigs and vapes be regulated Content: Vaping is a dangerous hobby, And yes I don't care if they become addicted or not. Life is short, Make it count. Likewise, You're a good debater", "qid": "2", "docid": "e435a482-2019-04-18T11:12:51Z-00000-000", "rank": 5, "score": 177133.0}, {"content": "Title: Should the e cigarette be available to everyone Content: I don't think it should be sold to everyone. I think the main purpose is to help people quit smoking. I feel that it will entice the younger generation to use this method of vaping, when there are side effects involved with inhaling any substance into the lungs.", "qid": "2", "docid": "6aa773f4-2019-04-18T14:45:16Z-00005-000", "rank": 6, "score": 173825.0}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana is a healthier alternative for tobacco than E-cigarettes. Content: To begin I will make statements based on fact with reliable sources to back the claims made. I will use the next round to refute my opponent's information. Let's start out with how E-cigarettes are dangerous and finish with how Marijuana is not. I will use the fourth round to add further points. I would also prefer if my opponent used round 5 to recap and please not use new arguments. E-cigarettes were introduced into the United States in 2007 after being created by a company is china. They are similar to regular cigarettes in terms of appearance. The e-cigarette uses a mechanism to heat up liquid nicotine which is then transformed into vapor and inhaled and exhaled by the user. Health experts agree, they may pose a serious threat to the the user of the device and the public. I will list and explain various ways that this is true. Health experts also agree they need to be tested and researched more to be deemed safe or unsafe to our health. Possibly the worst of the e-cigarette concept is that they are not subject to tobacco laws because they contain to tobacco. Meaning that they can be purchased with identification proof and can be purchased easily, particularly on the Internet. Meaning youngsters who have acquired enough knowledge to know that e-cigarettes are purchasable online might order one for themselves and keep it. These devices also come in Flavors: Chocolate, caramel, strawberry even bubblegum! Celebrities also use them which may attract children also. A couple examples are Johnny Depp and David Letterman. Katherine Heitgl even used one on a talk show and explained the to the audience! You are probably inquiring what is wrong with something like this? Well, I will get to that in a moment. The reason e-cigarettes are popular among 'former smokers' is because they contain nicotine. An addictive drug found in all tobacco cigarettes. This addictive drug is placed in products like e-cigarettes and tobacco cigarettes so people do become addicted and remain buying the specified product. This product may even contain MORE nicotine than a tobacco cigarette. Yes, more. Also manufacturers continue to deny testing from the FDA (Food and Drug Administration). Ushering us towards a more dreadful conclusion. Countries have realized the health risks and have banned them from the country entirely and/or made them lllegal. Examples are: Australia, Canada, Israel and Mexico. The FDA also claims that second vapor can cause some serious health hazards. Individuals have claimed that the vapor burns their eyes, nose and throat. Especially those with health problems and the elderly. These E-cigarettes and also cause damage to the wind-pipe. Scientists from Athens, Greece noticed the problem also. A test was done on 32 individuals that volunteered to do so, 8 of which have never smoked before. They were given E-cigarettes and asked to use them for 10 minutes. These are the Results. -Non-Smokers -raised airway resistance by 206% to 182% Which experts quoted was a significant increase. -Current and regular smokers -suffered a 220% to 176% increase in airway resistance. -Asthma patients -found no increase. Now I will explain the health benefits behind Marijuana. I will begin with a very truthful quote by The Economist. \"If Marijuana were unknown, it's discovery would no doubt be hailed as a medical breakthrough. Scientists would hail it's potential for treating everything form pain to cancer and marvel in rich pharmacopoeia; many of whose chemicals mimic vital molecules in the human body. before I begin I would like my opponent and the voters to watch this video it is very brief and contains a lot of information. www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mlfvklejuw Now with that in mind I will begin my statement on how marijuana has health benefits. Due to the fact that marijuana does not contain nicotine smokers of the product tend to smoke less because of the lack of the addictive drug. Marijuana also contains THC, a bronchial dilator, meaning it opens up the wind-pipe and lungs excreting dirt and other harmful membranes trapped inside the body. There has been absolutely no cancer resulting from the use of marijuana. Not even a death associated with the herb. There are also health benefits in the cannabis plant (basically marijuana). Like how earlier represented in the video link I posted that it can reduce the risk of cancer. The Journal of the American Medical association tested 5,000 individuals between ages 18-30 years old that used marijuana regularly.\"Had no discernible lung impairment in lung activity from non-smokers.\" There was also a test conducted at Harvard! It revealed the active ingredient in marijuana cute tumor growth in common lung cancer in half and significantly reduces the ability for cancer to spread. Sources: www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/249784.php health.howstuffworks.com/wellness/smokingcessation/10-fact-about-e-cigarettes.htm patients4medicalmarijuana.wordpress.com/marijuana-info/marijuana-vs-cigarettes/ txconnectme.wordpress.com/2012/04/26marijuana-cuts-lung-cancer-tumor-growth-in-half-harvard-study-shows/", "qid": "2", "docid": "497a4c74-2019-04-18T16:49:19Z-00004-000", "rank": 7, "score": 170377.0}, {"content": "Title: Bloomberg's Ban on E-Cigs Content: Whether smoking a cigarette or e-cig there is still nicotine In both and nicotine is highly addictive. E cigs are not a safer alternative to cigarettes because they are just as addictive. E-cigs may only be vapor but it is not undetectable. That wretched nicotine smell will linger on your clothes and in your hair. The smoke and vapor is bound to offend someone and I would not like to be sitting out at dinner and have someone blow their e-cigarette vapor in my face or be sitting on the subway next to someone puffing an e-cig having to inhale second hand smoke in an air tight location. E cigs should be banned in closed public spaces and away from those who may find them offensive.", "qid": "2", "docid": "18710bc8-2019-04-18T16:37:00Z-00001-000", "rank": 8, "score": 168326.0}, {"content": "Title: Should E-cigs and vapes be regulated Content: Yes, I think E-cigs and vapes should be regulated. They should be regulated because their target audience is kids they make flavors from almond to tropical margarita that are appealing to kids. Also, They caused the same harm as tobacco and don't help addicts.", "qid": "2", "docid": "e435a482-2019-04-18T11:12:51Z-00005-000", "rank": 9, "score": 166404.0}, {"content": "Title: Smoking E-cigarettes in public should be categorized the same as any cigarette and not allowed. Content: Are they safer than tobacco? Or are they a high-tech way to hook a new generation on a bad nicotine habit? Nobody knows yet. Research into the effects of e-cigarettes lags behind their popularity. But ready or not, the era of e-cigarettes is here. It\"s a booming, billion-dollar industry -- on track to outsell tobacco products within a decade. The number of teens and tweens using these products doubled between 2011 and 2012. The time to get informed about these products is now. So far, evidence suggests that e-cigarettes may be safer than regular cigarettes. The biggest danger from tobacco is the smoke, and e-cigarettes don't burn. Tests show the levels of dangerous chemicals they give off are a fraction of what you'd get from a real cigarette. But what's in them can vary. \"E-cigarettes may be less harmful than cigarettes,\" Drummond says. \"But we still don't know enough about their long-term risks or the effects of secondhand exposure.\" E-cigarettes have triggered a fierce debate among health experts who share the same goal -- reducing the disease and death caused by tobacco. But they disagree about whether e-cigarettes make the problem better or worse. Opponents say that because nicotine is addictive, e-cigarettes could be a \"gateway drug,\" leading nonsmokers and kids to use tobacco. They also worry that manufacturers -- with huge advertising budgets and celebrity endorsements -- could make smoking popular again. That would roll back decades of progress in getting people to quit or never start smoking. Others look at possible benefits for smokers. \"Obviously, it would be best if smokers could quit completely,\" says Michael Siegel, MD, MPH, a professor at Boston University's School of Public Health. \"But if that's not possible, I think they'd be a lot better off with e-cigarettes. They're a safer alternative.\" Siegel compares replacing tobacco with e-cigarettes to heroin users switching to the painkiller methadone. The replacement may have its own risks, but it's safer. Some supporters believe that e-cigarettes could help people quit, just like nicotine gum. Research hasn't shown that yet, though. But there is no hard evidence that they are harmful OR safe. http://www.webmd.com...", "qid": "2", "docid": "b83fa829-2019-04-18T16:06:32Z-00000-000", "rank": 10, "score": 164650.0}, {"content": "Title: Should the e cigarette be available to everyone Content: I have to disagree with you. According to studies from the CDC and NCBI, results suggest that e-cigarettes may contribute to nicotine addiction and are unlikely to discourage conventional cigarette smoking among youth. Also confirmed data from the CDC shows an increased use of e-cigarette from 4.5 percent in 2013 to 13.4 percent in 2014. You claim that the e-cigarette \"juice\" is safe, do you have data to back up that statement? If so, I would urge you to give some concrete evidence. There are reasons why e-cigarette shares the same risk for nicotine addiction, and a simulated substance such as e-liquid or propylene glycol, is not without health effects. I feel that your justification for using e-juice is without concrete evidence and purely speculative. Can you rebuke this?", "qid": "2", "docid": "6aa773f4-2019-04-18T14:45:16Z-00003-000", "rank": 11, "score": 164392.0}, {"content": "Title: Bloomberg's Ban on E-Cigs Content: Electronic cigarettes comes with different cartridges including 6-18mg of nicotine and sometimes 0mg. This is to say that electronic cigarettes are safer to smoke than traditional cigarettes. Electronic cigarettes do not cause tar because of the fact that it does not contain tobacco and leave behind no tar. As a result, the main components of carcinogen are not present to create a problem that traditional cigarettes that contain various chemicals, additives and smokes. Vapor is just vapor. It does not include any smell or lingering odor. It is far from affecting people around you while smoking electronic cigarette. Electronic cigarettes should not be banned because it does not pose any harm to its users and help people from quitting cigar.", "qid": "2", "docid": "18710bc8-2019-04-18T16:37:00Z-00000-000", "rank": 12, "score": 163387.0}, {"content": "Title: Smoking (All types, Including marijuana and Vapor) should be banned. Content: To address your claims of the dangers of vaping: There is a difference between a substance possibly having side effects in unhealthy people and a substance definitely causing cancer. The risks of smoking compared to those of vaping are like the risks of walking on the highway compared to the risks of walking on the sidewalk. Vaping is mostly safe, and the same arguments you made against its safety can be made for caffeinated beverages and fast food, so I assume that you want those banned too. What you have yet to do is form an argument explaining why smoking and vaping should be banned, and you were not clear with your last sentence. Your initial post said you wanted smoking and vaping to be illegal. Are you now saying you want them to only be illegal is another person is nearby? What if that person is also smoking or vaping? Is it still a crime? Are you suggesting that if someone is smoking or vaping in his or her own home and others are around, that should be a crime? You need to make your position clear. You should also explain why you think that whatever you are arguing to ban should be illegal. As to why I am against what you initially posted, laws that ban activities that only harm the individual partaking in the activity(assuming that the individual has been apprised of the dangers) are unjust. This has been shown in our various drug laws which have been more damaging to society than the drugs they banned. If I am smoking in my home, in my car, or by myself on a street corner, then nobody is affected except for myself. This is especially true with vaping because unlike smoking, vapor does not linger and the vaporizer stops putting out fumes when I am not puffing it. If you think that it should be illegal to smoke near others, then if I walk up to a smoker who is smoking, should he be arrested? Are you talking about smoking in public buildings? If so, that is already banned so that workers are not exposed to concentrated smoke.", "qid": "2", "docid": "65de0e0f-2019-04-18T14:18:27Z-00004-000", "rank": 13, "score": 158758.0}, {"content": "Title: Should the e cigarette be available to everyone Content: First off let me start by saying I never claimed e-juice to be safe i think they are quite harmful. another thing you said was that they had prpolynic glycol or glycerin which is anothet untrue statment. Allmost all e-juice maufacturers use vegtable glycerin. But what does this argument really come down too, freedom. If you want to tuin youre health at whatevet age you want why should you not be able to with e-juice when you can do it with soda. But if you restrict minors from buying e-juice without nicotine the health risks can decrease. And like i said befor it should all come down to people, do they want to ruin there healt. If they want to thats fine by me im pretty sure that thats natural salection.", "qid": "2", "docid": "6aa773f4-2019-04-18T14:45:16Z-00002-000", "rank": 14, "score": 157803.0}, {"content": "Title: Bloomberg's Ban on E-Cigs Content: It has not yet been concluded that E-cigs help people quit smoking. Theres no proof E-cigs have aided in quitting cigarettes, it has only been proved a remedy for those who cannot quit cigarettes. Also according to health.howstuffworks.com Because they contain no tobacco, e-cigarettes aren't subject to U.S. tobacco laws, which means they can be purchased without proof of age, especially online which is dangerous for our children. No laws make buying these e-cigs easily accessible and when smoking is started at a young age they are hooked and prone to all the diseases and cancers caused by cigs. these devices should be deemed illegal until the proper research trials have been conducted. Teacher also made it clear to limit 750characters", "qid": "2", "docid": "18710bc8-2019-04-18T16:37:00Z-00003-000", "rank": 15, "score": 157292.0}, {"content": "Title: Smoking E-cigarettes in public should be categorized the same as any cigarette and not allowed. Content: The initial reason for the electronic cigarette was for people to stop smoking. Personally, I have seen so many people that benefited from it. Although it has nicotine, it does not have tobacco, and it doesn't burn. Vaporizing is and should be allowed in smoke-free places. Also I don't think it is anyone else business whether or not someone is smoking if it is not damaging to them.", "qid": "2", "docid": "b83fa829-2019-04-18T16:06:32Z-00002-000", "rank": 16, "score": 148256.0}, {"content": "Title: Smoking E-cigarettes in public should be categorized the same as any cigarette and not allowed. Content: I work at a hospital in an Emergency department. While I was at work a few weeks ago, I walked past a visitor that was smoking his electronic cigarette, or E-cigarette, while walking down the hall. I was very appalled and realized that people think it is okay to smoke these anywhere including hospitals. It seems as though the laws don't always apply to these devices, even though they should. I informed the visitor that smoking in any form is not allowed on hospital property, and while he was annoyed he did put the device away. With the many advances in Health care we have learned much about the effects of tobacco and nicotine on the body. I think that people should have the choice to use it or not, but I do not believe they should be able to use it in any public place. My health and the health of others is important to me. Smoking in any form, be it cigarettes or E-cigarettes, exposes the people in the vicinity and should be categorized the same.", "qid": "2", "docid": "b83fa829-2019-04-18T16:06:32Z-00005-000", "rank": 17, "score": 145380.0}, {"content": "Title: Bloomberg's Ban on E-Cigs Content: Electronic cigarretes don't contain Tobacco. It was invented back in 2007 to find an alternative way for smoking regular cigarettes which contains tobacco. According to health.howstuffworks.com, some people say they feel more comforable using electronic cigarrete than regular cigarettes not only because it doesn't contain tobacco but it is also reusable. In addition, it saves them money and help them quit smoking regular cigarettes. PS. The characters aren't limit to 500.", "qid": "2", "docid": "18710bc8-2019-04-18T16:37:00Z-00004-000", "rank": 18, "score": 141874.0}, {"content": "Title: Bloomberg's Ban on E-Cigs Content: Electronic cigarette is not subjected to U.S tobacco laws because it doesn't have any tobacco in it. Therefore, electronic cigarettes are better than regular cigarettes. In terms of accessibility among minors, they are able to purchase regular cigarettes which is actually violating a law as to purchasing electronic cigarettes. Another reason why smoking electronic cigarette is better than regular cigarettes is because there is no combustion involved while smoking it. There is no smoke coming out of the cigarette, instead there's a vapor that provides similar sensation as smoking traditional cigarettes. This is one of many great innovations we have in our modern time. The mayor shouldn't ban something useful as to alternating smoking cigar.", "qid": "2", "docid": "18710bc8-2019-04-18T16:37:00Z-00002-000", "rank": 19, "score": 141762.0}, {"content": "Title: Smoking E-cigarettes in public should be categorized the same as any cigarette and not allowed. Content: Nicotine is derived from tobacco. I am not saying that people should not be allowed to use these devices, I am saying they should not be allowed to use them in public around other people potentially putting other's health at risk. They have not proven that these devices are not damaging to those around them and therefore should not be allowed in public and should fall under these protective laws. While there have been benefits from these devices, they have enable some to decrease the amount they smoke or stop smoking, there have also been people that have stared smoking because of them. There has been an increased use in the younger population as well. The effect these products can have on those using them, and those around them include; nausea, head aches, cough, dizziness, sore throat, nose bleeds, chest pain or other cardiovascular problems, and allergic reactions such as itchiness and swelling of the lips. I have also read about people getting wheezy, heart burn, and watery eyes. There have also been reports of young children developing a raspy voice after exposure in a vehicle or enclosed places. There is more and more evidence pointing that these devices can have negative effects on those around them. Since the health of others is at risk, they should not be allowed in public places, and should fall under they same laws as other cigarette products.", "qid": "2", "docid": "b83fa829-2019-04-18T16:06:32Z-00001-000", "rank": 20, "score": 141581.0}, {"content": "Title: Should the e cigarette be available to everyone Content: saying that e cigs should not be sold to everyone is like saying we shouldn't sell soda to everyone. The e-cig is just a device that makes things into vapor, what should be restricted is the E-juice itself. I say this because the actual danger is in the nicotine. but if minors could only buy e-juice without nicotine then its just like drinking soda. I bring soda up because soda is filled with dangerous chemicals that can harm you if you consume to much of it. and that is exactly what e-juice is. a liquid filled with tons of mystery chemicals that can harm you. so what is the pout of banning them if we don't ban soda? It also should come down to a persons choice, if they want to ingest chemicals they should be able to.", "qid": "2", "docid": "6aa773f4-2019-04-18T14:45:16Z-00004-000", "rank": 21, "score": 140671.0}, {"content": "Title: Bloomberg's Ban on E-Cigs Content: Tobacco kills. It doesn't matter how it is smoked, whether in a vapor pipe or in cigarette form, people will still get cancer and suffer a slow painful death. Who wants to live like that? Or who wants to watch their closest most loved family members, relatives or friends suffer like that? Inhaling tobacco whether electronically or old fashioned is still inhaling toxic chemicals that can be very harmful to your health. Bloomberg should ban E-Cigs altogether but especially in public places.", "qid": "2", "docid": "18710bc8-2019-04-18T16:37:00Z-00005-000", "rank": 22, "score": 139977.0}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana is a healthier alternative for tobacco than E-cigarettes. Content: I'll start by highlighting why nicotine is a beneficial component of e-cigarettes and then finish with reasons why e-cigarettes are a healthier 'alternative' than marijuana. But first I will point out that young people are susceptible to copying most things they see older people doing regardless of what it is. Also the fact that e-cigarettes are not subject to tobacco laws doesn't really do much in terms of preventing young people from getting them. If a child or teenager wants something they'll find a way to get it. The large amount of underage smokers and drinkers in the US and UK would be an example of this. It's natural that an e-cigarette would contain nicotine; they're tailored towards smokers. The vast majority of e-cigarette users are either former cigarette smokers or people who are trying to quit smoking; in addition there is little evidence to suggest that non-smokers take up e-cigarettes. Now, if a tobacco smoker were to attempt using marijuana as an alternative there is a relatively high chance that they would relapse back to smoking tobacco once again. A tobacco smoker may not even give up tobacco even if they were to begin smoking marijuana thus becoming a \"dual user\" i.e. they would smoke both tobacco and marijuana. The latter point in itself would defeat the object of marijuana being used as an alternative (since the negative effects of the tobacco smoke would negate any positive effects marijuana presents). On the other hand, if a tobacco smoker were to attempt using e-cigarettes as an alternative the chances of a relapse are relatively low. A study showed that among former smokers who were regular used e-cigarettes, only 6% relapsed back to tobacco after a year. More importantly, among the \"dual users\", an amazing 46% quit smoking after a year. So actually it's the fact that e-cigarettes contain nicotine that makes it a healthier alternative than marijuana. This is because switching to a non-nicotine alternative would most likely lead to nicotine withdrawal and the symptoms of nicotine withdrawal include a series of negative effects: - feeling irritable - feeling or being aggressive - dysphoria - restlessness - poor concentration - increased appetite - weight gain - urges or cravings to smoke - night-time awakenings/sleep disturbance - decreased heart rate Thus by using e-cigarettes one still receives their 'nicotine fix' without the added negative effects that comes with tobacco smoke. A final point is to address the fact that nicotine is not a carcinogen. This means that it does not cause cancer. So the chances of a person acquiring cancer, of any sort, from smoking an e-cigarette would be the same, if not less, than smoking marijuana. Sources: http://alcoholism.about.com... http://www.mhra.gov.uk... http://acsh.org... http://www.nicoventures.co.uk...", "qid": "2", "docid": "497a4c74-2019-04-18T16:49:19Z-00003-000", "rank": 23, "score": 138569.0}, {"content": "Title: Juul Is Bad. Content: I agree that Juul is bad, And smoking/vaping in general is bad for ur health, But Juul is a much better alternative to normal cigarretes", "qid": "2", "docid": "17e9941d-2019-04-18T11:19:19Z-00001-000", "rank": 24, "score": 138497.0}, {"content": "Title: Smoking should be banned in all public places Content: What my opponent says is true - for a standard cigarette. With an e-cigarette, the problem can be averted.Smoking an e-cigarette is technically smoking. It contains fewer chemicals than the normal cigarette does, and it releases a tiny amount of smoke. This greatly reduces the risk for the smoker and the people around them. With the e-cigarette, is it really necessary to ban smoking in all public places?E-cigarette smoking can also help the economy. They are taxed, and this helps generate money for the economy. With little health risks, the e-smokers don't have to make the economy lose the medicare bills, resulting in a net gain. With places like the US in debt, can we really afford to lose this, given most smokers smoke in public areas?Illegalizing e-smoking has a down-side. Addicted people would still smoke in public places, defeating the purpose of illegalizing it. Cigarette taxes would go away, removing the economic support it brings us. Is illegalizing smoking the best thing to do?", "qid": "2", "docid": "41269782-2019-04-18T18:21:05Z-00001-000", "rank": 25, "score": 137310.0}, {"content": "Title: Smoking Should be Banned Content: -Thank you once for your submission. Summary:First of all, you choose to deny the children, the family members. I have seen parents who smoke near their children, and other family members. So, walking away might not even be an option.A safer version of smoking, what are you talking about, these scientists are working for tobacco industries that produce only tobacco. Also, electrical cigarettes have its flaws too.1. E-cigarettes have a lithium battery, which is very detrimental to your health.2. They contain liquid nicotine.3. They are toxic.4. No quality control.5. FDA wants regulations for these cigarettes.6. Reusability.7. Cost less than actual cigarettes.8. Banned in public places (New York, Chicago).9. Second-hand vapor.10. Lung Damage.Sources:http://health.howstuffworks.com...Don't Smoke and vote for me!", "qid": "2", "docid": "b2b2d4a9-2019-04-18T15:55:06Z-00000-000", "rank": 26, "score": 133598.0}, {"content": "Title: Use of E-Cigarettes/Hookah Pens in underage citizens Content: They involve tobacco dependence by trying to treat it with a lesser dosage, if we're consistent with the point of therapeutic value I made. We are not debating if it is legal or not, so that's off the point. Hookah pens can contain no harmful ingredients such as nicotine. E-cigarettes and hookah pens can be used therapeutically, so I'm for it in that manner, and I'm for hookah pens that do not contain ingredients such as nicotine and tar etc. in any manner.", "qid": "2", "docid": "71cb6b31-2019-04-18T14:53:18Z-00001-000", "rank": 27, "score": 133240.0}, {"content": "Title: Smoking E-cigarettes in public should be categorized the same as any cigarette and not allowed. Content: No, because it is not an actual tobacco product", "qid": "2", "docid": "b83fa829-2019-04-18T16:06:32Z-00004-000", "rank": 28, "score": 133128.0}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana is a healthier alternative for tobacco than E-cigarettes. Content: Unfortunately it seems Pro was unable to continue the debate for whatever reason. Since I have no further points or rebuttals to make, this debate is now over.", "qid": "2", "docid": "497a4c74-2019-04-18T16:49:19Z-00000-000", "rank": 29, "score": 128709.0}, {"content": "Title: Use of E-Cigarettes/Hookah Pens in underage citizens Content: The use of e-cigarettes and hookah pens should be banned from underage citizens due to the lack of adulthood they still have not experinced yet.", "qid": "2", "docid": "71cb6b31-2019-04-18T14:53:18Z-00004-000", "rank": 30, "score": 127388.0}, {"content": "Title: Cigarette Smoking Should Be Banned Everywhere Content: Tobacco has been around for centuries and every year it become more deadly. Cigarettes have increased in deadly ingredients that harm the body and are known to kill. These toxins are unsafe and the nicotine makes them highly addictive. Many say, \"So what if someone else smokes? It doesn't hurt me.\" Actually, it does. The U.S. Government approved nearly 600 additives, but the most deadly part of the cigarette is the gas it releases into the air after being lit. There are over 4,000 chemical compounds that are created after burning a cigarette and about 69 of those chemical compounds are known to cause cancer (1). It has been said that secondhand smoke is not real and does not harm others. If you smoked a cigarette in a room full of other people, they would breathe the same thing you are just like a candle that smells like flowers will be noticed. Subjecting someone else to those kind of toxins is wrong. Is it right to slowly poison your drinking water and share with your ignorant loved ones? No. Smoking in cars with young children has been banned in many places for a reason - it is dangerous and deadly. It is a coping skill or simple boredom cure that can be compared to a slow suicide. Do you think all of this is incorrect? Please, enlighten me. \"Smoking harms nearly every organ of the body and affects a person\"s overall health.\" -Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (1) http://www.tricountycessation.org...", "qid": "2", "docid": "c81986ed-2019-04-18T15:29:36Z-00009-000", "rank": 31, "score": 126876.0}, {"content": "Title: Cigarettes should be banned Content: They are bad", "qid": "2", "docid": "2f73060-2019-04-18T15:23:25Z-00005-000", "rank": 32, "score": 126855.0}, {"content": "Title: Smoking (All types, Including marijuana and Vapor) should be banned. Content: The reason I included vapor is because I wanted to cover all types of smoking. We should also remember that Vapor can also be toxic. It's an Illusion of safe smoking. \"The nicotine inside the cartridges is addictive. When you stop using it, you can get withdrawal symptoms including feeling irritable, depressed, restless and anxious. It can be dangerous for people with heart problems. It may also harm your arteries over time.\"(www.webmd.com/smoking-cessation/.../electronic-cigarettes) I also forgot to add that I wanted it to be Illegal around other people >< I apologize!", "qid": "2", "docid": "65de0e0f-2019-04-18T14:18:27Z-00005-000", "rank": 33, "score": 126642.0}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana is a healthier alternative for tobacco than E-cigarettes. Content: This will be my first debate on DDO but I've debated on the marijuana topic many times so hopefully I'll be equipped enough. This should be fun! Happy holidays to you also!", "qid": "2", "docid": "497a4c74-2019-04-18T16:49:19Z-00005-000", "rank": 34, "score": 125247.0}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana is a healthier alternative for tobacco than E-cigarettes. Content: For now all rebuttals to Pro's points have been addressed, and woven into, the points I made in round 2.", "qid": "2", "docid": "497a4c74-2019-04-18T16:49:19Z-00001-000", "rank": 35, "score": 125152.0}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana is a healthier alternative for tobacco than E-cigarettes. Content: I will add only add one more point in this round. A study found that THC, the main psychoactive substance found within cannabis, may actually strengthen one's nicotine addiction. In essence, if a person tried to wean themselves off of tobacco using marijuana, they would be more inclined to relapse and return back to smoking tobacco, thus defeating the object of using marijuana as an alternative. Source: http://www.hightimes.com...", "qid": "2", "docid": "497a4c74-2019-04-18T16:49:19Z-00002-000", "rank": 36, "score": 124183.0}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana is a healthier alternative for tobacco than E-cigarettes. Content: Also happy holidays! Marijuana-. http://www.drugabuse.gov... Tobacco-. http://healthliteracy.worlded.org... E-cigarettes-. http://en.wikipedia.org... I would prefer a well equipped opponent for this debate where as this can be an extremely controversial topic. The first three links should get you started!", "qid": "2", "docid": "497a4c74-2019-04-18T16:49:19Z-00006-000", "rank": 37, "score": 123022.0}, {"content": "Title: Should the e cigarette be available to everyone Content: Isee now, youre a parent and you dont want to youre kids to use ecigs so you dont want any underage peoplw to have thwm, and thats completely understandable. But you have to relize that kids will get there hands on them somehow and there really is no point in punishing the kids because they will get them again! So what im saying is why not let the kids have the freedome to ruin there health, its natural selction at its finest.", "qid": "2", "docid": "6aa773f4-2019-04-18T14:45:16Z-00000-000", "rank": 38, "score": 122747.0}, {"content": "Title: Cigarette Smoking Should Be Banned Everywhere Content: Yes. I am not stating that one should simply ban everything that is bad, but smoking is known to be hazardous and it is difficult to breathe and it stinks. You can decide to ban fast food if you wish to. I believe that is a contributing factor in an unhealthy society. No. You would not have to ban all the ingredients from the market. Do you know why? Most of those ingredients are okay to use under safe circumstances, but it is the combination of them that makes them deadly. Let's compare cigarettes to a simple compound like Carbon Monoxide. It is made up of one carbon atom and one oxygen atom. If we decided to ban the unhealthy use of Carbon Monoxide, we would not be required to ban oxygen nor carbon. Why is this? Both of these atoms are included in a healthy life when the are consumed as separate atoms. One would not simply inhale Carbon Monoxide for fun; however, smoking displays this perfectly. Let's also compare smoking to using Cocaine. Cocaine is a drug that begins as coca leaves. It is dried and soaked in gasoline. Later in the process, battery acid is mixed in. The use of cocaine is illegal, but the contents alone are not. Gasoline is used to run cars, battery acid is used to create energy, and cocoa leaves were an ingredient in Coca-Cola during the early 1920's (1). If you were to create a \"healthy\" cigarette, you would need to ban over half of the ingredients that were found in them. Freely distributing electronic cigarettes will not help the economy which you argued the ban of cigarettes would not do either. Not banning cigarettes allows future generations to become addicted. Do you know what else is addictive and dangerous? Meth. It is also against the law to use. (1) http://www.naturalnews.com...", "qid": "2", "docid": "c81986ed-2019-04-18T15:29:36Z-00003-000", "rank": 39, "score": 122517.0}, {"content": "Title: Smoking should be banned from outdoor public places as well as indoor public places Content: cigarette industries pay taxes . Thus they have influence on politics. - find out how many members of your parliaments smoke. You won't get it illegal, as long as people vote for smokers. - there's taxes on cigarettes. So the if the government made smoking illegal, then people would smuggle cigarettes and still smoke. But the state would not get the money.Electronic cigarettes The electronic cigarette allows you to \u201csmoke\u201d to your heart\u2019s content: without inhaling benzene; formaldehyde; cyanide; or any of the 4,000 other constituents of tobacco smoke likely to do you harm. E-cigarettes smoke is not the same as regular smoke....its scentless and doesnt have many health risks. .........http://goeshealth.com...", "qid": "2", "docid": "9e1b2402-2019-04-18T18:23:00Z-00004-000", "rank": 40, "score": 122232.0}, {"content": "Title: Use of E-Cigarettes/Hookah Pens in underage citizens Content: The simple fact that teens who are underage and using tobacco products/products that involve tobacco dependence speaks for itself. It is against the law in some states to use these as a minor.", "qid": "2", "docid": "71cb6b31-2019-04-18T14:53:18Z-00002-000", "rank": 41, "score": 119824.0}, {"content": "Title: Should E-cigs and vapes be regulated Content: Of all context, There should be no regulations. If the audience wants to buy them; let them. If kids do it for the clout, Let them. The ones whom will suffer the consequences is the user. That's all.", "qid": "2", "docid": "e435a482-2019-04-18T11:12:51Z-00004-000", "rank": 42, "score": 119764.0}, {"content": "Title: Smoking E-cigarettes in public should be categorized the same as any cigarette and not allowed. Content: The FDA is actually proposing extending its authority to cover additional products that meet the definition of a tobacco product under the proposed rule: Tobacco Products Deemed To Be Subject to the Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act. Currently FDA regulates cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, roll-your-own tobacco and smokeless tobacco. Proposed newly \"deemed\" products would include electronic cigarettes, cigars, pipe tobacco, certain dissolvables that are not \"smokeless tobacco,\" gels, and waterpipe tobacco. The definition of a \"tobacco product\" according to the FDA is any product \"made or derived from tobacco\" that is not a \"drug,\" \"device,\" or \"combination product\" (except for accessories of deemed tobacco products). Examples of tobacco products include; hookah, e-cigarettes, cigars, pipe tobacco, novel tobacco products, and tobacco products that may be developed in the future. To read this definition for yourself go to http://www.fda.gov... (It is on page 7 of the document.) Nicotine overdose has increased in not just adults, but also children. CNN did a story on this. In February there were 215 poison center calls involving e-cigarettes which is an huge increase from one per month in September 2010. The sad thing is 51% of those calls involved children 5 and under. http://www.cnn.com... E-cigarettes fall under the definition of a tobacco product according to the FDA. Manny of the E-cigarette devices contain nicotine the drug found in tobacco along with other substances and some have been found to contain carcinogens. There is not enough evidence to support that these devices are safe for those exposed to them and therefore should be categorized the same as any cigarette. Meaning they should not be allowed in hospitals and other public places.", "qid": "2", "docid": "b83fa829-2019-04-18T16:06:32Z-00003-000", "rank": 43, "score": 117647.0}, {"content": "Title: Cigarettes are bad for my health. Content: My initial argument was a statement, not an opinion. The tobacco industry has stated that they are only harmful if you smoke them and I believe them. As an added precaution I not only avoid smoking them, but I am also careful about not to eating any of them. < > I mean no disrespect, but I trust my doctor, his equipment, credentials, experience and reputation over your high school student's medical knowledge. Thanks for coming out!", "qid": "2", "docid": "fa7e9c9a-2019-04-18T19:59:47Z-00001-000", "rank": 44, "score": 116999.0}, {"content": "Title: Smoking should not be banned. Content: It's true that our arguments should be more about morals and logic than stats and science, at least to a degree. But if the stats, facts and science contradict a person's \"common sense,\" what is more reliable? I would go with the proven stats and science. You say \"There is scientific proof that second hand smoking isn't harmful in anyway, there is also scientific proof that it is harmful. There is no conclusive evidence about any of the effects of smoking.\" Well, then we go with logic--my common sense saying \"smoking hurts you.\" You even said earlier that smokers know what the drug does to you (and you tried to use that in your favor). Because of all these controversies in the stats and so-called facts, do you honestly think it's a good thing for USA to have selling up and down the streets? A ban would make more sense because me and less than half the nation agree that smoking gives no benefits to anything/one. An example for tobacco products (on this same topic) are the people who DON'T know if e-cigarettes are safe or not. I haven't brought that up yet even though the people that use them are considered smokers and it should be part of this topic. Sorry but I have to show more statistics: there are roughly 2 million e-cig users in America, and none of them are sure what the product is doing to them. Why should the government allow companies, who don't tell the public what the health equations for the product is, sell a new type of tobacco/cigs? That was wrong in the first place and something should be done about it. \"Do you know why a pack of smokes costs so much? Because the government taxes them at extortionate rates. This brings me to another con of banning cigarettes, the amount of money the government brings in from them.\" It's a multi million dollar industry, yes, and this is one reason they haven't banned it yet. But marijuana is less harmful and it's still forbidden by law (what the h?). Let's get things straight. It generates taxes from the citizens of America, why would you support that? Besides, addiction to tobacco impacts poverty and development. In poorer countries, up to 30% of income is spent on tobacco, reducing funds available for nutrition, education and health care. [1] If you care about changing the poverty in this world than you should think about supporting a smoking ban. \"Does all smoking lead to cancer? Nope.\" Really? Well it might not lead to cancer but it raises your risk of DEATH and you'll probably die EARLIER. \"Suicide - 'The action of killing oneself intentionally' To be honest I dont only find this false but I also find it offensive to smokers, for someone that wants to help peoples health you sure aren't the nicest treating person calling them murderers etc....Homicide - \"The deliberate and unlawful killing of one person by another\" Once again this is very insulting towards smokers...You seem to not only not be a fan of people's rights to make decisions for themselves but you are also rude and insulting towards them.\" Do you still not understand what smoking does to your health? 1) I don't see how wanting a ban on smoking is taking away necessary rights, that just doesn't make sense, and 2) sometimes you have to be rude or even offensive in order to tell the flat out truth. It is deliberate when people smoke, but I do admit the people are innocent because addiction is a trap that consumes your life and thoughts quickly. \"So even though I clearly stated at the start of the debate that I undrstand that smoking is a health risk you have chosen to try and humiliate me by finding non-existant flaws in my argument, that's sad.\" You should work on your spelling a lil' bit, just a suggestion. Then you should figure out your position because yes, you did admit how smoking is a health risk, but the whole of your part in Round 3 (and maybe 2) have seemed to be focused on how the side effects on smoking isn't that bad! \"Oh yeah you may remember a time in history when the american government tried to ban something else, alcohol, back in the 20's and early 30's. How did that go? Oh yeah competing gangs started everywhere selling unsafe, untaxed alcohol to people stead of regulated, safe alcohol being sold.\" You're funny. I mean that in the weirdest way possible. First I'd like to mention that even in so-called safe places, alcohol can easily be overused and abused. In fact, because alcohol is only supposed to be sold in regulated facilities and by reliable companies, alcohol is one of the most stolen products in America. [2] This site says that it is estimated in 2020 for smoking to be banned. [http://www.everydayhealth.com...] Then we shall see what happens. It also says the majority of smokers in America want to quit, so when the ban happens they'll be forced to quit. In my opinion a ban would cause a minor revolution. Why? Because many people will either end up in jail, or be free from tobacco because they are forced to quit. What will happen then is a thing I'd like to find out because it would either prove you or me wrong. \"The smoking ban removes freedom of choice.\" In some cases, that's a good thing. I am not exactly democratic or libertarian. Thank you for reading this debate also and I hope you choose logic over lies. SOURCES [1] http://ash.org... [2] http://www.minyanville.com...", "qid": "2", "docid": "1dff01c3-2019-04-18T15:47:07Z-00000-000", "rank": 45, "score": 116852.0}, {"content": "Title: Cigarettes should be illegal. Content: You may be thinking why would I be con on this topic. Well I don't think it should be illegal. Instead we should at least CHANGE IT.The main reason people smoke cigarettes is because they shove as much nicotene as possible in there. Many people know the downsides of cigarettes, but they can't stop because of all the nicotene in them. If there was less nicotene people could quit far easier than now. Also cigarettes don't really need to have to have all those chemicals inside. The companies just do it to make more $$$$$MONEY$$$$$. The cigarettes companies make them unsafe and forcefully addicting. Do you really think that making it illegal is going to stop it? If you say yes was I could give you a list on illegal drugs that are being sold still and no taxes are being collected on them. Make them less addicting and more safe and just taxes them even more. So many jobs would be lost with no cigarette factories. Those people with no jobs are going to make unemployment shoot up as the Apollo missions to the moon.Parents are irresponsible and don't take watch to make surew their kids don't take there cigarettes.In conclusion with higher taxes on cigarettes, less nicotene,less harmful chemicals,economic benefit, and more vigilant parents far less people will die of smoking.", "qid": "2", "docid": "4be92cc8-2019-04-18T15:03:11Z-00003-000", "rank": 46, "score": 116106.0}, {"content": "Title: Smoking should be banned from outdoor public places as well as indoor public places Content: If something is banned then obviously it will cause a effect on things. If we ban smoking completely, then we will loose 19 billion dollars a year.....http://www.nytimes.com...If we ban smoking completely then our government might not be able to fund welfare, and or some other operations of state. Also if we ban this then the government might exponentially raise taxes to make up for this lost revenue.part 2....My opponent agrees with this point and doesn't refute it. e- cigarettes don't produce the smell, or smoke as regular cigarettes. So there is no second hand smoke so say to worry about. Also e- cigarettes don't pose as many health risks.Unless he can defeat all my points then con should win.", "qid": "2", "docid": "9e1b2402-2019-04-18T18:23:00Z-00002-000", "rank": 47, "score": 115560.0}, {"content": "Title: Smoking cigarettes should be made illegal. Content: Thank you for the debate. I will argue that cigarettes shouldn't be made illegal.Cigarettes are a ChoiceThe consumer has the option to not smoke. All the information regarding the horrible consequences of cigarettes is readily available to them. Even on the package it is told to them. Proof is here: http://en.wikipedia.org... Addicts become addicts completely on their own will. It is also not an addiction like cocaine. You can completely quit smoking or known as \"cold turkey.\" This isn't safe to do after a heavy addiction to cocaine. In fact, to quit smoking, all you need to do is quit smoking. Here is proof from an unbiased site (many sites will advertise their product, but his provides genuine research): http://whyquit.com... Cigarettes are profit A lot of tax dollars come from cigarettes. A lot of businesses rely on cigarettes (and also plenty that rely on people trying to quit). To completely ban them, you would severely impact the economy in a harmful way. 17.6 billion dollars were made from taxes in the year 2012 from cigarettes in the United States alone. This information can be found here: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org... Here is a list of businesses that would completely go under if cigarettes were banned, or at least suffer in the United States: http://www.revenue.nebraska.gov... This is not including anybody that profits from helping addicts quit smoking.Second Hand SmokeSecond hand smoke is indeed a real problem, however it can be solved. We don't need to ban cigarettes to keep non smokers safe from them. We need to add more regulations where it is acceptable to smoke. Here you can see a list of laws passed aimed at protecting people from second hand smoke: http://betobaccofree.hhs.gov... Many of these laws prevent smoke from ever polluting the air in the first place. This is also a side effect of taxes. Higher taxes on a good decrease the amount of the good sold. You can argue that more regulations are needed, but banning smoking would do more harm than good.Sources1. http://en.wikipedia.org...2. http://whyquit.com...3. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org...4. http://www.revenue.nebraska.gov...5. http://betobaccofree.hhs.gov...", "qid": "2", "docid": "b62db6e9-2019-04-18T15:15:06Z-00006-000", "rank": 48, "score": 114112.0}, {"content": "Title: Should cigarettes be banned Content: The fact that cigarettes are harmful and kill people is not something which is up for debate. It is a well know fact there is propaganda and advertising that is in fact harmful. However the fact that they harm you is no reason as to why they should be ban. Someone who commits suicide and is successful can't be charged. Some one who survives is given treatment. So wouldn't it seem more reasonable to provide help?\u00ef\u00bf\u00bd Cigarettes do not kill immediately in the way of suicide, the cause illness that do.\u00ef\u00bf\u00bd The fact that they are addictive is also irrelevant as to reason why they should be ban because it goes hand in and with the fact that there harmful. If they where addictive but not harmful then it wouldn't matter. To much of anything would kill you.\u00ef\u00bf\u00bd Then my opponent sated that the government did something to try and lower obesity. In their acknowledgement that it is wrong however it was not ban. Limiting food size can be looked upon the same way the government taxes cigarettes. This in no way helps the argument that cigarettes should be illegal. \u00ef\u00bf\u00bdOne in 8 Americans is obese, which cause a number of \u00ef\u00bf\u00bdillnesses related to death http://www.surgeongeneral.gov...", "qid": "2", "docid": "7176cf06-2019-04-18T18:20:27Z-00002-000", "rank": 49, "score": 113750.0}, {"content": "Title: It Should be Illegal to Smoke on Public Property in the United States Content: The evidence came from a study from the US Surgeon General's Report, which was cited in my previous argument. Obviously the less smoke you breathe in the less of an effect it willl have, but Con asserts that there is a safe amount that can be taken it. Con asserts that one will never be exposed to the amount of smoke to do enough damage. This does go against the findings of the US Surgeon General Report. Not to mention, further reserach was conducted and even the gaseous phase of cigarette smoke contains reactive oxygen species (a cancer-causing agent) inhibits normal cell function. (1) The study itself found that being exposed to only 2 cigarettes is enough to stop the function of a cell's sodium pump. (1) According to Dr.Rajasekaran regarding the study \"We now know that one need not inhale the particulate matter present in secondhand smoke to suffer the consequence of smoking. Exposure to the gaseous substance alone, which you breathe while standing near a smoker, is sufficient to cause harm.\" (1) The level to which this can be harmful is unknown at this point, but there is no reason to allow this to be done on public property where it can be dangerous to one's health. Not to mention, there's no reason to assume that there won't potentially be a lot of people smoking on public property and if a person comes to the area enough, it could be harmful in the long run. We also don't know what the future of cigarette smoke could hold. It could become much more dangerous in the future. Cigarettes have already become more deadly in the past 50 years and could easily become more of a health risk. (2) If there is no one around, there is no reason to assume the law will be enforced, much in the same way speed limits aren't enforced when no one is around. The amount of people who smoke cigarettes is irrelevent if it is a danger to public health. 1-http://www.sciencedaily.com... 2-http://www.tobaccofreekids.org...", "qid": "2", "docid": "d1d1ca99-2019-04-18T15:06:58Z-00003-000", "rank": 50, "score": 113721.0}, {"content": "Title: The ban coffe,tobacco, alcohol, and fast food Content: I believe these products are not only unsafe, but a detrimental to society. Ban- Making the possession, sale, cultivation, production, use, and paraphernalia of the said items illegal. All these products are addictive. When combined, they are much more addictive and dangerous. 1) Tobacco is extremely dangerous. It contains nicotine, methane, arsenic, carbon monoxide, methanol, ammonia and over 2000 other chemicals. Keeping tobacco legal tells children it is okay and even cool to destroy their bodies with tobacco. Nicotine is one of the most dangerous substances to humans. Tobacco companies will never tell you nicotine is deadlier than cyanide. That's right. Nicotine is 8 times as deadly as cyanide to a non-smoker and 4 times as deadly to a smoker. About 90% of lung cancer cases are related to smoking. The average smoker smokes 13 to 16 cigarettes. Some smokers spend over $9490 dollars a year on cigarettes. Some people give up their food or their children's food to afford cigarettes. Cigarettes are probably the most widely used addictive substance. 2) Coffee contains over 1000 chemicals. Coffee and all other caffeine containing products should be illegal. Caffeine is a stimulant and an addictive substance. If you advocate keeping caffeine legal, you may as well advocate the legalization of cocaine. I have met plenty of teenagers and adults addicted to caffeine. It's use can induce rage paranoia, nervousness, restlessness, inability to sleep, and even induce heart attacks. When someone tries to quit, they often experience headaches, lack of energy, and mood swings. 3) Alcohol contains acetone, ethanol, and methanol. It is a dangerous substance that causes numerous cancers, including liver cancer. We have no idea how many cases of drunk driving have occurred in the past because most get away with scot-free and others get a slap on the wrist for putting lives at risk. It is addictive and induces violence and rage. People act irrationally when drunk and commit action which they later regret. 4) Fast food encourages unhealthy eating. It makes them people obese and unhealthy. It is a huge factor in heart disease , high blood pressure, and high cholesterol. It does long term damage to individuals leading to countless diseases and it should be banned.", "qid": "2", "docid": "a8e68bc8-2019-04-18T17:52:43Z-00003-000", "rank": 51, "score": 113152.0}, {"content": "Title: Use of E-Cigarettes/Hookah Pens in underage citizens Content: I don't see how adulthood has anything to do with it. These simulations of cigarettes can be a good replacement for those who are addicted to tabacco. \"The primary therapeutic use of nicotine is in treating nicotine dependence in order to eliminate smoking with the damage it does to health. Controlled levels of nicotine are given to patients through gums, dermal patches, lozenges, electronic/substitute cigarettes or nasal sprays in an effort to wean them off their dependence. Studies have found that these therapies increase the chance of success of quitting by 50 to 70%, Though reductions in the population as a whole has not been demonstrated.\" http://en.wikipedia.org... Hookah pens contains far less to no nicotine. http://www.ireachcontent.com... http://www.zamnesia.com...", "qid": "2", "docid": "71cb6b31-2019-04-18T14:53:18Z-00003-000", "rank": 52, "score": 112928.0}, {"content": "Title: Cigarettes are bad for my health. Content: Cigarettes are clearly detrimental to your health. You speak solely of the present, where you have not experienced any of the effects of cigarettes (which typically occur in the long term). You are basing your health solely on symptoms: you cannot look inside your body, so ultimately you THINK you are healthy without any real way of knowing.", "qid": "2", "docid": "fa7e9c9a-2019-04-18T19:59:47Z-00002-000", "rank": 53, "score": 112908.0}, {"content": "Title: kids shouldent vape Content: I've seen kids younger then 14 who are vaping, and when you ask them why they say \"its not bad for me\" so i think that we should slap parents who let there kids vape", "qid": "2", "docid": "ebbaf687-2019-04-18T11:45:29Z-00001-000", "rank": 54, "score": 112816.0}, {"content": "Title: Smokeless Tobacco Content: Should the same laws regarding cigarettes be used for the use of smokeless tobacco? I say no. Personally, I'm a supporter of let smokers smoke, but I do understand why they tax cigarettes more heavily than other items. Cigarettes have been proven to harm people other than the person smoking. Second hand smoke has been linked to lung cancer and various other health problems. Third hand smoke is the stuff that lingers on the clothes of a smoker, and it also can cause health problems, especially to infants. However, smokeless tobacco only harms the person who is using the smokeless tobacco. I find it disgusting, but there is no reason to tax smokeless tobacco as heavily as cigarettes and other forms of smoking tobacco. I understand, smokeless tobacco is just as harmful to the person using it as cigarettes, but that's a personal prerogative. If the user chooses to risk his/her life using a product proven to cause gum/mouth cancer and gum disease, then why stop them? They are hurting no one but themselves.", "qid": "2", "docid": "11115bac-2019-04-18T18:32:14Z-00003-000", "rank": 55, "score": 112647.0}, {"content": "Title: This house would ban the smoking of cigarettes Content: In the motion this house would ban the smoking of cigarettes: What I mean is that the smoking of cigarettes should be completely prohibited. To smoke is to emit \"a suspension of particles in a gas.\" The objective of this house is to prove that we should indeed ban the smoking of cigarettes with the central question that is \"Should we ban the smoking of cigarettes? This house says yes; we should ban the smoking of cigarettes. The proposition gives out two reasons on why we should ban cigarettes, namely: I.) Smoking is dangerous for everyone. II.) Second-hand smoke kills innocent bystanders. Aside from that, there is also the fact that smoking is preventable. I. Smoking is dangerous for everyone. Smoke coming from smoking cigarettes is extremely dangerous, and it affects people around a smoker the smoker himself. It is said by the national cancer institute that cigarettes contain over 7000 chemicals, 250 of which are deadly and at least 69 cause cancer, some of these cancer-causing chemicals include the following : Acetaldehyde, Aromatic amines, Arsenic, Benzene, Benzo[^5;]pyrene, Beryllium (a toxic metal), 1,3\"Butadiene (a hazardous gas), Cadmium (a toxic metal), Chromium (a metallic element),Cumene, Ethylene oxide, Formaldehyde, Nickel (a metallic element), Polonium-210 (a radioactive chemical element), Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), Tobacco-specific nitrosamines, Vinyl chloride. This matters as we are guaranteed the safest possible environment by the government, and with such dangerous chemicals polluting our air, the cleanest possible environment cannot be achieved without the banning of smoking. Therefore, we must ban smoking. II. Second-hand smoke kills innocent bystanders. Second-hand smoke does not discriminate. It will not choose to slowly kill the smoker, nor will it choose to not let itself into a bystander's lungs, and this is the problem. All people in all places have the right to health, this, according to the UN, means that governments must generate conditions in which everyone can be as healthy as possible. Second hand smoke generated from cigarettes however, directly violate this right by contributing to making an unhealthy environment, an environment that from which a lot of people die from. In this case, governments have to ensure healthier environments around the world starting with the ban of smoking. Data provided by the WHO, for example, shows that more than 600,000 premature deaths occur every year just from exposure to second-hand smoke, and more than 5 million from direct smoking. In other words, the right to health of innocent bystanders are being offended by smokers, this is why the proposition strongly believes that it is an uttermost responsibility for governments to ban smoking.", "qid": "2", "docid": "a405fed6-2019-04-18T14:24:45Z-00003-000", "rank": 56, "score": 111976.0}, {"content": "Title: Smoking Tobacco Isn't Bad. Content: Cigars and pipes tied to same risks as cigarettes (Reuters)Cigar and pipe smokers are more likely to develop heart disease, stroke and lung diseases than those who do not smoke. Additionally, cigar and pipe smoking can result in gum disease and tooth loss. Because cigars contain more tobacco than cigarettes, and burn for much longer, they also give off greater amounts of second hand smoke, negatively affecting those around you. (University of Pennsylvania)Association Between Exclusive Pipe Smoking and Mortality From Cancer and Other Diseases (https://academic.oup.com...)Cigar and pipe smoking and cancer risk in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (International Journal of Cancer)Cigars are dangerous due to the process of aging and fermenting the tobacco, which creates nitrates and nitrites, which are known to be carcinogenic. When a cigar is burned, it produces more cancer-causing compounds, such as nitrosamine, tar, carbon monoxide and ammonia. These are found in higher levels in cigar smoke than in cigarette smoke. One large cigar can contain as much tobacco (up to 20 grams) as an entire pack of cigarettes (1 gram of tobacco per cigarette)! Even though many cigar smokers do not inhale, the amount of nicotine is higher in a cigar (1-2 milligrams in a cigarette versus up to 400 milligrams in a single cigar) and this nicotine is quickly absorbed in the saliva. For this reason, the addiction to cigars is just as strong as to cigarettes. A smoker's saliva contains the chemicals from the tobacco smoke, exposing the mouth, lips, tongue and throat to these carcinogens. (University of Pennsylvania)The harms of cigarette smoking are well-reported, but those of cigar smoking are discussed less often. (U.S. Food and Drug Administration) Given the public health harm caused by smoking, we conducted a systematic review of information currently available on the mortality risks of cigar smokers compared to those who had never smoked tobacco or used any form of tobacco. We reviewed 22 studies and found that regular cigar smoking increases the risk of dying from many of the same diseases caused by cigarette smoking, including cancer and heart disease. A 2014 study estimated that regular cigar smoking causes 9,000 premature deaths annually in the U.S. We also found that when cigar smokers reported not inhaling cigar smoke, they were still three to ten times more likely to die from oral, laryngeal, or esophageal cancer than someone who never used tobacco. Research has shown that whether cigar smokers realize it, they are likely to inhale some tobacco smoke. Cigar smokers also absorb nicotine and harmful substances from cigar smoke through their mouths. Our study reinforces the fact that cigar smoking poses significant health risks to users. (U.S. Food and Drug Administration)", "qid": "2", "docid": "d291cb2f-2019-04-18T11:24:40Z-00002-000", "rank": 57, "score": 111931.0}, {"content": "Title: No cigarettes should not be banned. Content: I believe cigarettes should be banned because they are an everyday cause to cancer. It is also one of the main reasons people die. I from personal experience think it is a good thing for them to be banned because many people die each day from it. I also think they should be banned because some people can be pressured into taking a cigarette when they are young.", "qid": "2", "docid": "487240e2-2019-04-18T14:37:24Z-00000-000", "rank": 58, "score": 111237.0}, {"content": "Title: Smoking Tobacco Isn't Bad. Content: I am a bit perplexed here. \"Cigarettes are not really tobacco\"Typically a cigarette weighs approximately 1 gram of which the tobacco content can vary between 65-100%\"I as an avid cigar/pipe smoker I hate cigertettes.\"Relevance? I, as an avid bungee jumper and race car driver hate skydiving.\"There is also a healthy way to smoke.\"If there is a substance that can be taken in one of two ways, and one of those ways is one of the deadliest processes known to man, perhaps this substance is bad.There is also no documented dichotomy between \"breathing\" and \"eating\" smoke like you seem to be talking about, nor any indication that one has a \"nil chance of giving you a sickness\"\"I smoked my pipe. After about 2 minutes I vomited an absolutely disgusting bloody, mushy, blob on my table\"We're talking about cigarettes, not cigars, but is this really supposed to be a contention in a health debate?\"There is also a nil chance of getting addicted if you \"eat\" the smoke instead of breathing it.\"Please provide sources. Scientific sources\"Notice how most cigar/pipe smokers live to a very average or longer age? I think this is because it makes us more relaxed and actually improves quality of life.\"What evidence are you basing this on. Cancer.gov says \"Cigar smoking causes cancer of the oral cavity, larynx, esophagus, and lung. It may also cause cancer of the pancreas. Moreover, daily cigar smokers, particularly those who inhale, are at increased risk for developing heart disease and other types of lung disease\"", "qid": "2", "docid": "d291cb2f-2019-04-18T11:24:40Z-00004-000", "rank": 59, "score": 111231.0}, {"content": "Title: Cigarettes are bad for my health. Content: I am in excellent health and cigarettes have not harmed my health in any way, shape or form. ........", "qid": "2", "docid": "fa7e9c9a-2019-04-18T19:59:47Z-00003-000", "rank": 60, "score": 111040.0}, {"content": "Title: Tobacco Smoking Should be Completely Outlawed. Content: Hello Complexity,I will be taking Con in this debate.Being a non-smoker myself, I will not argue that smoking cigarettes is good for health, but will merely explain to you why it should not be completely outlawed.I completely agree that Smoking is harmful for health and it should be banned in *public* places as it exposes other non-smokers to a variety of carcinogens.I will also say it is morally wrong to smoke cigarettes as it harms one's body, which is a God given gift.Nevertheless, i still feel *all* drugs should not be controlled by the government as what poison I put inside my body is none of the Government's business.This is why it must be tolerated as a necessary byproduct of freedom of choice, just like how pornography and prostitution are tolerated in most civilised societies.I'll give you another anology, Junk food(Fast foods) like Burger King,KFC etc are the leading cause of Obesity and heart disease in the western world.Obesity has a much bigger impact than tobacco smooking as it affects even small children. Junk food (like tobacco) has little or no nutrients other than a lot of fat and a killer dose of carbohydrates.Many people(especially obese children) woulld benefit if a ban was passed on Junk food.[1][2]But I am sure you would agree that the government must not ban Junk food as it is aginst the basic idea of individual liberty that many countries are based on.Frankly speaking, the government is not a grandmother to tell it's citizens what they can and cannot consume. Unless there is proof of a direct link between the substance and violent anti-social behaviour that can harm other citizens. it should not be banned.Also Nicotine, the main psychoactive agent in tobacco has been used to treat certain conditions like ADHD(Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder) as well as certain cases of colon infections.It also improves mental function if used infrequently, provided the user does not get addicted.As much as i hate to write these things down, they are facts that cannot be ignored.[3]Tobacco companies also generate a lot of Tax revenue each year.The government is already spending billions to control drug abuse, banning it will put a further strain on its resources, and will not really work.Many of those who smoke weed(like me) will tell you that banning it will actually deregulate distribution, and make it cheaper and more easily available for teens.Banning cigarettes would be a disasterous idea if you really want to reduce its effects in the country.Thus, cigarettes should be controlled, and the government should inform it's citizens about its harmful effects, but it should not be banned.Sincerely, CynicalDiogenesSources1.http://calorielab.com...2.http://www.worldometers.info...3, http://en.wikipedia.org...; - read the medical uses section in this one.", "qid": "2", "docid": "afd1fd81-2019-04-18T17:01:09Z-00002-000", "rank": 61, "score": 110998.0}, {"content": "Title: Is smoking bad for you Content: Smoking may be legal but that doesn't mean it's good for us! In fact, it's just the opposite: smoking is the only legal consumer product that kills you when you use it exactly how it's meant to be used! That's pretty scary, isn't it? Cigarettes are made from tobacco. The tobacco plant is the only plant ever discovered to contain the drug called nicotine. Nicotine is a very strong poison that can kill a human in less than an hour if even a small amount is injected into the blood-stream. Tobacco smoke contains very tiny amounts of nicotine that aren't deadly but are still very bad for our health. Tobacco smoke also contains many other chemicals. In fact, it contains over 4,000 chemicals, many of which are very harmful to our bodies. All of these chemicals mix together and form a sticky tar. It's the tar that gives cigarette smoke its smell and color. The tar sticks to clothing, skin, and the insides of our lungs! Tar is very dangerous inside our lungs. It sticks to the cilia in our lungs that are responsible for sweeping out germs and dirt. If the cilia are covered in tar, they can't work right, and germs and dirt can stay in the lungs and cause diseases damage tar does to your cilia is only the beginning, though. The tar and smoke are made up of many chemicals that are known to cause cancer, as well as many chemicals that are just plain bad for you.With the nicotine and tar working together, there are a lot of bad diseases linked to smoking cigarettes. Diseases like throat cancer, mouth cancer, bladder cancer, lung cancer, chronic bronchitis, emphysema, and heart disease are all caused by smoking.In fact, 40,000 people die each year from diseases caused by smoking. Each cigarette you smoke takes 5 to 8 minutes of your life. Is it worth it? The following famous people died because they smoked: Humphrey Bogart (age 57) Jesse Owens (age 67) Michael Landon (age 54) Nat \"King\" Cole (age 45) Sammy Davis Jr. (age 64).Unfortunately, even if you don't smoke, you can still get sick from tobacco smoke. If you breathe the smoke from another person's cigarette, it's as bad as if you were smoking the cigarette yourself! This smoke is called second-hand smoke and it kills hundreds of people each year. If your parents smoke, you have a greater chance of getting ear infections, asthma, bronchitis, and tonsillitis. Children who are exposed to smoke all their lives have underdeveloped lungs, and they are two to four times likely to have allergic reactions and asthma than children of nonsmokers.Second-hand smoke is starting to really bother nonsmokers, and that's why there are more places where smoking isn't allowed than there used to be. Now you aren't allowed to smoke on a plane, in a bus, or in many buildings. Non-smokers want to breathe clean air! Cigarettes aren't just bad for our health. They are bad for the environment, too! Think of the amount of paper that goes into making each cigarette. Young people smoke about 6,000,000 cigarettes per day! That's a lot of trees that are cut down, and the paper can never be recycled! Look around outside. There are cigarette butts everywhere! Do you know that it takes more than 5 years for a cigarette butt to biodegrade? That means that it takes at least 5 years for the cigarette butts to break down unless someone cleans them up. Gross! Most people realize that smoking cigarettes are dangerous for their health. But are other forms of tobacco just as dangerous? The death rate for pipe and cigar smokers is actually less than the death rate for cigarette smokers but still higher than the death rate for non-smokers. BUT, that's not because the tobacco used in cigars and pipes is safer! It's because cigar and pipe smokers don't inhale as deeply as cigarette smokers do when they smoke. If a person inhales deeply for cigars and pipes, then they are actually more dangerous than cigarettes! Don't think that cigars and pipes are safer than cigarettes! Pipe smokers have a very high rate of lip cancer, and compared to cigarette smokers, pipe and cigar smokers have a higher chance of getting mouth cancer, throat cancer, and larynx (voice box) cancer. The second-hand smoke from cigars is really bad. One cigar puts out as much smoke and tar into the air as 42 cigarettes! Stay away from cigar smoke if you want to stay healthy! Some people think that smokeless tobacco is safer than cigarettes. Smokeless tobacco comes in two forms: chewing tobacco and snuff. Both forms are put into the mouth and sucked on. It's true that smokeless tobacco is better for your lungs since there is no smoke to breathe in. BUT, it is very bad for other parts of your body. Just like regular tobacco, smokeless tobacco contains nicotine, which is a very poisonous drug that speeds up your heart and increases your blood pressure. Holding an averagely-sized wad of chewing tobacco in your mouth for 30 minutes gives you as much nicotine as smoking 4 cigarettes!Besides the nicotine, smokeless tobacco contains all the bad chemicals that regular tobacco does, including the ones that cause cancer. Here are all the things that smokeless tobacco can give you: You can have a reduction in your ability to taste and smell You get stained teeth You get bad breath It can cause tooth decay It can cause gum disease It can give you bleeding gums It can give you sores in the mouth that don't heal You can experience dizziness It can make you throw up It can decrease your physical ability You can get mouth, lip, cheek, and tongue cancer You can get palate, pharynx, larynx, and esophagus cancer You get a fast heart rate and high blood pressure You can get heart disease", "qid": "2", "docid": "4ebdedaf-2019-04-18T11:49:05Z-00001-000", "rank": 62, "score": 110459.0}, {"content": "Title: Cigarettes should be illegal Content: :)", "qid": "2", "docid": "c06260c0-2019-04-18T16:01:50Z-00000-000", "rank": 63, "score": 110348.0}, {"content": "Title: Smoking should be banned from outdoor public places as well as indoor public places Content: In order to ban cigarettes completely my opponent needs to explain why we should get rid of all types of cigarettes. Since I've proven at least one type of cigarette that wont bother others or induce a lot of health concerns, Then we should not ban all cigarettes. My opponent has never tackled the fact that the government will raise taxes exponentially to make up for the lost revenue of 19 billion a year. Silence equals concurrence. With that being said my opponent hasn't rebutted any of my points. E- cigarettes don't cause cancer,lung disease nor does it produce an offensive smell that will bother others. Since I have proven a good form of cigarette so say, since I have proven the detriment of banning this I believe that con should win.", "qid": "2", "docid": "9e1b2402-2019-04-18T18:23:00Z-00000-000", "rank": 64, "score": 110172.0}, {"content": "Title: Cigarettes should be illegal Content: I thank you charizard for debating with me. I shall now refute your points and extend my argument. On the issue of choice, the governments responsibility to protect it's citizens outweighs its responsibility to protect freedom in this case. Yes, people can inform themselves about the dangers of smoking yet the mere fact that this education is necessary... The fact that there exists a product that effects health so negatively that it requires a warning label should be a screamingly red flag to legislators/the american people. The sad fact is that cigarette companies are too powerful. So powerful that even our schools can't fight them. Most children are taught at a young age that smoking is bad for them ( you do not see anti-rockclimbing or parachuting organizations) I wonder why we must invest so much time and energy and MONEY into warning children about a problem that could simply be eliminated. To address the blackmarket issue I will begin by agreeing with you. A blackmarket will undoubtably crop up. But since it is the cigarette companies who add addictive and dangerous chemicals to their tabacco (since they are huge and have the money, power & resources to do so) blackmarket tabacco would actually be cleaner/safer than the tabacco produced by companies. As for peer pressure, we must remember that it is media and ADVERTISING that first influence the peers. I would underline advertising if I could. Cigarette companies finance the idea that smoking is \"cool\". If cigarette companies were eliminated we can assume that the media portrayal of smoking would be very different. Not just the illegal status would effect film-makers but social opinion as well. And even if it were the case that cigarettes maintained their \"cool\" status, the illegal product (as mentioned before) would undoubtably be safer. Cigarettes are also completely useless to society.", "qid": "2", "docid": "c0626044-2019-04-18T19:08:00Z-00002-000", "rank": 65, "score": 109297.0}, {"content": "Title: Cigarette Adds Should Be Banned From The Media Content: Okay yes, people do die in car crashes but they do not give you cancer, make it hard for someone to breathe, or reduce life expectancy. When automobiles are advertised, there is something positive to say about them. They transport people from one location to another, manufacturers are coming up with more fuel efficient models and the safety of many vehicles is being improved. When cigarettes are advertised, there is absolutely nothing good to say about them. They influence children in a negative way and put many lives in danger; people that don't even smoke. 53,800 people a year die from second hand smoking. Banning the advertisement of them will not \"make children automatically decide that cigarettes are bad\" but it will reduce the positive influence that they give off. Some children are not lucky enough to have guidance from a parent or guardian, so how are the supposed to know any differently if they are told by television commercials and radio ads that cigarettes are good? There is a way to prevent car crashes if someone drives, there is no way to prevent health problems if one smokes. If a product is harmful to a person's health it should not be advertised in a positive way.", "qid": "2", "docid": "eef1da7a-2019-04-18T18:52:32Z-00005-000", "rank": 66, "score": 109186.0}, {"content": "Title: smoking kills Content: Cigarettes' hazard comes from their addictive nature, which cannot take place without the innate human desire. From this, it can be concluded that it is not the action of smoking that affects the human health directly, but rather, the elements of human desire that fuel the human to keep doing what might be hazardous. If the act of smoking itself is deadly, as you say, then it should be capable of killing people regardless of the presence of human desire. Again, since the presence of human desire is the ultimate source of addiction, human desire should be considered to be carrying more risk than cigarettes are. If you had said that the substances in the cigarettes are bad for human bodies, then it would have made more sense than to having said that the act of smoking, itself, leads people to DEATH. If you want to continue with the debate, I'm more than fine. However, if you are intending to keep forfeiting the rounds, I don't see any reason to continue such a debate, a debate in which only one side is engaged, that is.", "qid": "2", "docid": "37c512c8-2019-04-18T18:56:27Z-00001-000", "rank": 67, "score": 109128.0}, {"content": "Title: Should cigarrets be illiegal. Content: Alright, I'll give you my reasons why cigarettes should be illegal. First off let us examine the FDA, Food and Drug administration. They are the people responsible for regulating products that come into the United States and deciding whether or not they are healthy. In the past they have stopped products with to much metal content, dangerous additives, dangerous supplements, health hazards in general. You argue that since some people know of the health risk therefor it is fair game however it can be seen of the American public, through the FDA, that some health risks are too great to be legal. Which brings me to my first point, \"Cigarettes are proven to be highly addictive, as well as a cause of multiple types of cancer, heart disease, respiratory disease, circulatory disease, birth defects (which include mental and physical disability) and emphysema.\" -This coming from Wiki through the CDC and Science Weekly. How do we as a society allow such an entity to exist in its current form? This is a product commonly found with over 100 additives in it that cause these harmful effects, is their no way to regulate some of those additives and decrease the effects? Profit > Life? Onto my second point, it causes birth defects. Even if I agreed with your freedom of choice idea this defeats it. While I don't mind abortion all that much because the baby will never know this world birth defects are quite a different story. To retard, or mentally disable a human being in some way for all of life is simply abhorrent. My third point, second hand smoke. This is once again one of those times when people don't have the choice. Now its dependent on whether someone happens to be smoking around you or not. The symptoms: -Cancer -Ear infections -Throat infections -Nose infections -heart disease -lung problems -asthma -premature birth -allergies -SIDS, Sudden infant death syndrome. Babies occasionally die. -Worsens Bronchitis -Increased risk of Tuberc -Risk of Crohn's disease. -Overall increased risk of death in both adults, where it is estimated to kill 53,000 nonsmokers per year, making it the 3rd leading cause of preventable death in the U.S. and in children -Wiki I rest my third point on the fact that its the 3rd leading cause of preventable death. My fourth point. We are a society that disallows suicide on a moral level because it is akin to self murder. Yet we as a society allow smoking, in essence a slow and sometimes painful suicide for monetary profit. This is wrong. My fifth point. Cigarette butts are the number one most littered item in the world. They are not biodegradable. \"In the 2006 International Coastal Cleanup, cigarettes and cigarette butts constituted 24.7% of the total collected garbage, over twice as much as any other category\" - Wiki And with that I suppose I will rest my case for now. I stand open for my opponents rebuttal.", "qid": "2", "docid": "6d80c1e2-2019-04-18T19:50:50Z-00001-000", "rank": 68, "score": 108986.0}, {"content": "Title: Smoking tobacco should be illegalised completely. Content: Thank you very much! I would like to place my own opinion on the summary of the argument so far. FOR: 1) Smoking tobacco is harmful for the smokers and those around them. Counter: Can be applied to any activity, eg. binge eating, which is preposterous. Agreed: However, it is the same for any drug which has successfully remained illegal. Compromise, NHS charge patients for self-inflicted illness. 2) It costs the NHS a lot of money and therefore costs civilians a lot of tax. Counter: Medical insurance is compulsory in America. Can be applied to any activity eg. public education, which is preposterous. Disagreed: Different health systems in UK and US. Smoking tobacco not only costs the health service but also includes all my other points and is therefore more extreme. 3) Smoking should be banned to reduce the risk of influencing a new generation. Counter: Can be applied to any activity eg. cussing, lying, pornography, drinking, unfaithfulness and rude behaviour, which is preposterous. Disagreed: Smoking tobacco not only runs the risk of influencing a new generation but also includes all my other points and is therefore more extreme. AGAINST: 1) Many families survive by growing tobacco. Counter: Whilst legal, money made from the cutting of the health service budget by the government would mean a decrease in tax and therefore families would gain money in aspects of tax. Disagreed: People will continue to smoke despite the ban. Decrease in tax revenue. Counter: Health service budget would still be decreased I assume. 2) Increased crime rate. Counter: Money does not necessarily have to be spent on prisons etc. Like other consuming of illegal drugs, a fine could be placed and therefore the government would have more money to spend on worthwhile things. No response so agreement assumed. 3) Creation of organised crime would occur. Counter: Times have changed due to the smaller fear of speaking out for moral actions. Disagreed: Times have not changed, organised crime exists to this day. Counter: Referring to the Prohibition, rebellion was a matter of mob gangs and killing. Today, rebellion is continuing to smoke marijuana and is therefore less extreme than cases long ago. 4) Freedom is valued, we should be allowed to put our lives at risk by the lifestyle we choose. Counter: I believe the human right is \"to do what a person wishes, if it does not harm others\". Smoking harms others. No response so agreement assumed. 5) It would be unfair to not provide smokers with addiction treatment which would be a huge burden on the tax payer. Counter: The money the government can cut from the health service budget can care for this. Disagree: People will continue to smoke despite the ban. Counter: I assume a budget cut would still take place. 6) A ban on smoking would not prevent smoking. Counter: There are good people in this world who abide by the law. See previous arguments. Disagree: Tobacco is highly addictive, a ban would not prevent it's use. Counter: Other illegal drugs are still used today. Fines placed would increase the governments money! OVERALL: I think my argument is still strong and a good indication of why smoking tobacco should be made illegal. I believe that many compromises can be made, however. Such as, self-inflicted illness should be paid for by the patient rather than tax payers. I believe I have made some valid arguments and I remain with my views. I hope I have been persuasive in getting my points across. Thank you for this debate, it's been a pleasure! :)", "qid": "2", "docid": "cbe5e86b-2019-04-18T18:07:29Z-00001-000", "rank": 69, "score": 108901.0}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana should not be legalized. Content: It is a common fact that Marijuana has less harmful effects than alcohol, cigarettes, and guns. Although Marijuana is illegal, people continue to sell it as well as smoke it through the black market, and regardless of it becoming legal or not, people will continue to smoke it no matter what the government says. If Marijuana becomes legal, the cops will have less petty things to worry about and may concentrate more on crimes as well as drugs that are actually harmful. Contrary to popular belief, there is an enormous amount of money associated with the taxing of Marijuana. Marijuana is NOT addictive, yet it is completely and utterly legal to smoke cigarettes that ARE in fact, addictive and cause cancer among other side-effects. Not only do cigarettes kill you, they kill the people around you as well. Marijuana is not only a natural herb, it is ten times safer than any other Illegal substance known to man. Marijuana is one of many controversial issues facing America today. It should not be a crime to smoke something natural, and less harmful than products that do indeed harm people that are legal. The number of crimes in the state of West Virginia increase more and more each day, and an estimated half of those crimes are due to selling and possession of the substance. Marijuana is NOT illegal to smoke, it is however, illegal to be in your possession. It's a complete contradiction that shouldn't even exist. There are millions of American's that smoke Marijuana and are not classified as criminals or \"bad\" people. According to Dr. Melanie Dreher, a famous Reefer researcher who has done countless studies on the effects of Marijuana on the human body and the use of consumption during pregnancy, proves with her countless studies that children being born to a Marijuana consuming mother, has found no link to any form of birth defects and that the children tend to be smarter than children born of non-using mothers. Thus proving, Marijuana has far more advantages than disadvantages. It is fact that there has never been any form of studies done in The United States proving or disproving whether or not Marijuana is harmful or not. However, there have been numerous studies in other countries PROVING that Marijuana does not harm you. In fact, there are several benefits of medical marijuana. It's also true that Marijuana can also benefit someone who's facing a mental illness. It's a proven fact that the use of Marijuana during a woman's pregnancy can decrease nausea and excessive vomiting and can actually help maintain a healthy appetite, and improves the child's birth weight. With all of this being said, America is one of the very few countries that has yet to legalize Marijuana without even considering the scientific resources.", "qid": "2", "docid": "aa2a4a53-2019-04-18T15:07:29Z-00004-000", "rank": 70, "score": 108899.0}, {"content": "Title: smoking Content: Cigarette smoking should be banned in the United States Key Terms: Second hand smoke: a mixture of the smoke exhaled by smokers and the smoke that comes from the burning end of a cigarette, cigar, or pipe. Also known as environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), passive, or involuntary smoke. http://www.medicinenet.com... Claim 1: If the government does have a stronger voice and can make choices regarding the health of our country, cigarette smoking should be banned in the US. The safety and health of each individual should be most important to a society as a whole and according to the National Cancer Institute cigarette smoking causes a lot of harm to the body. The National Cancer Institute also found that 87% of lung cancer deaths were caused by tobacco and is also a cause of lung and heart disease, stroke, and cataracts. Cigarette smoking may also cause pregnancy problems which can cause harm to the mother and the baby. Yes, people do participate in activities that may cause themselves harm, but second hand smoke causes harm to those who do not choose this activity. For instance, children do not have the option to ride in the car with their parents. If their parents smoke in the car, they take in the second hand smoke and may have complications or health issues in the future. If all of these affects of smoking can be prevented, they should be. On regards to obesity and fatty foods, yes there are not laws saying we can not eat them and we can eat whatever we choose, but restaurants are incorporating healthier choices and even nutrition labels. A tax on sodas and sugary drinks was also purposed. If there was a tax on unhealthy foods and 3,000 lives would be saved, think of number of lives that would be saved from the banning of cigarettes. The government does have the responsibility to protect its population, but also defend their freedom of choice and that is understandable. But when lung cancer and any other disease can possibly be prevented it should be. http://www.cancer.gov... Claim 2: Many people who do smoke are law-abiding citizens who want to quit and would not commit crimes because cigarettes are banned. Smokers can not be correlated with increased crime rates and if those who did smoke, quit, who can determine they are likely to commit crimes? That is an unfair assumption to make. Yes, people may obtain new habits to prevent them from smoking, but instead of something as outrageous as committing crimes they may change their eating habits, find new hobbies, or frequent the gym more often. Here are a few suggestions for quitting and committing to it. http://www.cancer.org... Yes, smokers do choose this habit, but they do not always choose to be addicted. According to the American Heart Association, Nicotine is an addictive drug. It causes changes in the brain that make people want to use it more and more. In addition, addictive drugs cause unpleasant withdrawal symptoms. The good feelings that result when an addictive drug is present \u2014 and the bad feelings when it's absent \u2014 make breaking any addiction very difficult. Nicotine addiction has historically been one of the hardest addictions to break. Once we are addicted, it is up to us to quit, but we do not always choosing to be addicted. If we are addicted it is not so much are decision to continue to smoke, so banning tobacco use would be beneficial in eliminating the addiction and obstacles of quitting that smokers face. http://www.americanheart.org... Claim 3: If governments are responsible for the tax revenue they obtain from tobacco sales, they can be responsible for finding new areas for revenue and ban smoking. They government cares about the health of a society as a whole and has the power to encourage and even force smokers to quit. I will agree the government will lose revenue from these sales, but health should be most important. Banning smoking would benefit the health of the American people and encourage healthier lifestyles which should make even more reason for this issue to be considered.", "qid": "2", "docid": "80d56aef-2019-04-18T19:15:59Z-00004-000", "rank": 71, "score": 108839.0}, {"content": "Title: Cigarettes should be banned from society Content: Cigarettes should not receive a complete, immediate ban from society. I would like to scope this argument to the entirety of Australia, and define the topic as a complete ban of cigarettes. Meaning all use and possession of cigarettes will result in a heavy fine and possible community service and jail time. As the negative speaker I strongly disagree with this and believe that cigarettes should not receive a complete ban from society. I also believe that the effects of a complete ban of cigarettes will increase the level of crime in Australia, as well as create an additional struggle on the economy from the importation of the substance. The complete ban of cigarettes also will create another band of drug crime, and the illegal manufacturing of cigarettes will become unsafe as no standard amounts of nicotine or other chemicals will be controlled by regulations, such occurrences have repeatedly been recorded across other drug crime including that of cannabis and illegally manufactured supplements. However I believe that cigarettes should become more controlled in the factory process and use of cigarettes. This means there will be increased government promotion of e-cigarettes as a temporary alternative, and the ban of the use of cigarettes in all public places, as well as an increase taxation and a differing, safer formula in smokes overtime. I also believe that the job is not to completely ban cigarettes, but instead change and regulate the manufacturing process so a decrease in harmful substances and nicotine in each cigarette to create a controlled smoking environment that will assist in the deduction of smokers. I also feel those whom have placed 'cigarette user' on their medical records should receive an increase in mandatory checkups to maintain knowledge of possible diseases and to advertise counseling for cigarette users. I agree that cigarettes are an unhealthy way of life that circulates through families as a part of society, but I also believe that banning of dangerous substances in the past has led to an increase in long term effects and a complete, immediate ban is not a safe option. Cigarettes should not receive an complete, immediate ban from society. Thank you.", "qid": "2", "docid": "c5c7b5c5-2019-04-18T13:27:00Z-00003-000", "rank": 72, "score": 108725.0}, {"content": "Title: We should make cigarettes more lethal. Content: prove it", "qid": "2", "docid": "c6dfc058-2019-04-18T16:08:35Z-00002-000", "rank": 73, "score": 108668.0}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana is safer to consume than both alcohol and tobacco Content: Government propaganda and other conditioning have led people to believe that marijuana is a dangerous substance, when in actuality, it is safer than both alcohol and tobacco. It is stupid of anyone to think that smoking any kind of plant matter is not dangerous. Any smoke being inhaled into your lungs is in some way bad for you. Sure some substances create much more toxic smoke, but smoking should not be seen as harmless. While saying this, it should be noted that marijuana smoke has been researched and seen as far less dangerous than tobacco smoke. Many studies show that there is no relation in cancer and long-term smoked marijuana(http://www.foxnews.com...). Some studies even show a decrease in cancer tumors showing that it may possibly help slow down cancer(http://www.sciencedaily.com...) It is still true though, that marijuana smoke is in no way 100 percent healthy. This does not say ANYTHING about the safety of marijuana or the compounds contained in the plants. There are many more options of consuming marijuana. These include vaporization and edible forms. Vaporization is heating up the plant to a temperature just enough to vaporize the thc/cbd in the plant, but not enough to burn the plant. This means no smoke will be created at all. Edibles involve baking the marijuana to extract the thc into food such as brownies or butter to be added to food. Now without smoke to worry about, what is dangerous at all about marijuana? Two things can be said. A) It increases your heart rate B) cognitive and physical impairment. Since we are relating the safety of marijuana to alcohol and tobacco, the first argument does not really say anything. This is because alcohol and tobacco also increase your heart rate(http://alcoholism.about.com...)(http://www.acde.org...) The second argument could say that marijuana causes cognitive and physical impairments. Short term memory loss is created with marijuana, but it is only temporary and returns after the drug leaves the body. Physical impairments from it are at a much less extreme than alcohol but slightly higher compared to tobacco. Many people just assume because someone is \"high\", it must be like they are \"drunk\", so of course they can't drive. This is untrue though. Studies have proven that there is very little, if any driving problems associated with marijuana.(http://articles.businessinsider.com...)(http://www.insideline.com...). The last negative health effect associated with drugs would be addiction. Nicotine contained in tobacco is one of the most physically addicting substances that is naturally produced on earth. Alcohol, while less than nicotine, has been studied to also show physical dependency. It is not known the physical dependency of marijuana. It is known that if any at all, it is far less serious than of tobacco or alcohol. People that get addicted to marijuana almost always do so because of a psychological addiction, not physical. You can be psychologically addicted to ANYTHING so this is just a way of saying that they have addictive personality. So basically, the only negative health affects from marijuana in vaporized or edible form are only a increased heart rate and temporary \"high\" effects that do not effect driving nearly as much(if at all) as alcohol. It should be noted that overdose from marijuana resulting in death is impossible. Lets compare this to the negative effects of alcohol. This includes DEATH from overdose, long term kidney damage, loss of brain cells, coma from overdose, large amount of physical dependence, large driving risk, etc. Now lets compare this to tobacco. Note that this is based on smokeless tobacco, where smoke tobacco would of course be more dangerous, but I have to be fair due to talking about vapozed and edible marijuana. Smokeless tobacco comes in either \"dip\" which is still VERY dangerous and causes cancer(http://www.cancer.gov...). It can also be vaporized in \"e-cigarettes\". This is much safer, but nicotine itself is also dangerous, and you would be receiving nicotine. Using these e-cigarretes, the safest form of tobacco has shown to STILL cause cancer(http://health.usnews.com...). It also can cause hives, difficulty breathing, and vomiting(http://www.livestrong.com...). Knowing this information, I find it impossible to believe that marijuana is more dangerous than alcohol or tobacco.", "qid": "2", "docid": "f77858a3-2019-04-18T18:32:57Z-00003-000", "rank": 74, "score": 108411.0}, {"content": "Title: It Should be Illegal to Smoke on Public Property in the United States Content: Con asserts that second hand smoke inhaled outside on public property is safe, even if there is a slight amount of risk. He goes to the conclusion of the US Surgeon General Report, but in the report it is also said \" The evidence for underlying mechanisms of respiratory injury from exposure to secondhand smoke suggests that a safe level of exposure may not exist\" (1) Not to mention, the Surgeon General Report also referred to there being no safe level of second hand smoke in their follow up release \"The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: Secondhand Smoke and What It Means to You\", saying, \"There is no safe amount of secondhand smoke. \" (2) However, a more convincing claim was in the actual report when they claimed \"For infants, children, and adults with asthma or with more sensitive respiratory systems, even very brief exposures to secondhand smoke can trigger intense bronchopulmonary responses that could be life threatening in the most susceptible individuals. \" (1) So, even if Con's assertion was correct that most people can't be overly harmed by brief intakes of secondhand smoke, there is a minority that could see major health problems from having more smoke in the air. Con then asserts that outdoor smoking has little risk because air currents carry the smoke away, as it dilutes and therefore is not overly harmful. However, a study by Stanford University showed that inhaling smoke in the air can be much like inhaling smoke indoors. Wayne Ott who helped run the study said \"if you're at a sidewalk caf\", and you sit within 18 inches of a person who smokes two cigarettes over the course of an hour, your exposure to secondhand smoke could be the same as if you sat one hour inside a tavern with smokers. Based on our findings, a child in close proximity to adult smokers at a backyard party also could receive substantial exposure to secondhand smoke. \" (3) Therefore, this study shows that it can be just as dangerous to be with someone smoking outside as it is inside, which following the logic quoted by Con from the Surgeon General Report (\"[e]liminating smoking in indoor spaces fully protects nonsmokers from exposure to secondhand smoke. \"), then smoking on outdoor public property should be eliminated. Also, one has to account for all the indoor buildings that are public property, that people work in. (4) The Science Daily article shows that merely being around someone smoking can cause harm, as \"Exposure to the secondhand smoke produced by as little as two cigarettes was found to almost completely stop the function of a cell's sodium pump within a few hours. \" (5) Once again, reinforcing the idea that there is no safe level of exposure. Even though the exact level of harm is unknown, it is known that it is harmful, as \"The competence of the cell's sodium pump, i. e. , its inability to regulate sodium, is predictive of cell damage, disease progression and ultimately, survival. \" (5) Not knowing the exact level of how harmful something is, but knowing it's harmful is not appealing to fear. Con himself did the opposite when he claimed he didn't know at what level second hand smoke becomes dangerous. Same with saying something could be harmful in the long run. I was using Con's logic that the more frequently you're exposed to smoke, the more harmful it is. Therefore, in the scenario I suggested of a person who has to frequently go to an area with a lot of smoke, means by Con's logic could potentially be very harmful in the long run. For example, say someone has to ride public transit everyday to get to work and everyone smokes there. Just because something's illegal doesn't mean it is enforced when there is nobody around to enforce it. However, if someone is around, it becomes a health risk as explained above. To conclude, second hand smoke poses multiple health risks in any environment, so therefore it should be illegal to smoke on public property, because being a potentially lethal health risk, it violates one's unalienable right to life. 1-. http://www.surgeongeneral.gov... 2-. http://www.surgeongeneral.gov... 3-. http://news.stanford.edu... 4-. http://www.wisegeek.org... 5-. http://www.sciencedaily.com...", "qid": "2", "docid": "d1d1ca99-2019-04-18T15:06:58Z-00001-000", "rank": 75, "score": 108207.0}, {"content": "Title: cigarettes should be illegal Content: Cigarettes are very bad for you, there not healthy at all it should be illegal i will provide evidence in my next case", "qid": "2", "docid": "5d7b68ff-2019-04-18T15:45:36Z-00004-000", "rank": 76, "score": 108091.0}, {"content": "Title: Smoking Ban Content: I would like to clear this again: we are not debating whether cigarettes are healthy, but whether total ban is the solution to smoking problems. Rebuttals Okay. Given that you believe that total ban on cigarettes is the solution to smoking problems, but I tell it is not so. It would just create more problems as history had taught us especially during the Prohibition period in the United States where there was a ban on selling and consumption of alcohol. Like Volstead law (ban on alcohol), your proposal of total ban on cigarettes would just create disrespect for the law. As Abraham Lincoln said, \u201cProhibition goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man\u2019s appetite by legislation and makes crimes out of things that are not crimes.\u201d Another, it would just create black market and organized syndicates selling unregulated cigarettes. This is very dangerous to the people. Remember: where there is demand, there will be supply. It would also overburdened police, courts, and the penal system. Total ban on cigar, like in the Volstead law, would also harm people financially, emotionally, and morally. Lastly, like ban on alcohol, total ban on cigarettes would prevent from seeking help those people are suffering from disease caused by smoking. Reasons why you failed in this debate:1. History will repeat itself with your proposition. Look what happened during the prohibition period.2. Your idea is so drastic.3. Your expected results are uncertain.4. You failed to consider moderate solutions like increasing tax on cigars and promoting healthy lifestyle.5. All the sources you cited about the hazard of smoking are irrelevant because we are not debating whether smoking is healthy or not. This debate is about the total ban which you underachieve.", "qid": "2", "docid": "69f38a0a-2019-04-18T16:52:52Z-00000-000", "rank": 77, "score": 108081.0}, {"content": "Title: Cigarettes should be illegal Content: I propose that cigarettes should be illegal. They contain poisonous chemicals and kill nearly every long-time user.", "qid": "2", "docid": "c0626044-2019-04-18T19:08:00Z-00004-000", "rank": 78, "score": 107856.0}, {"content": "Title: Cigarette Adds Should Be Banned From The Media Content: I apologize for my forfeit of the last round as I haven't been on in a few days. My opponent also forfeited a round so I suggest that neither of us receive the conduct vote. To summarize, my opponent has merely ranted about how dangerous cigarretes are without regarding how truly dangerous are other products or things advertized such as automobiles or the navy. My opponent also tried to argue that nothing good comes out of cigarretes except for short term pleasure. I don't actually see this as much of an argument in that if we just extend the time scale that would be true for pretty much anything. This argument seems a bit relative to me. My opponent brought arguments which I have refuted and has not provided any legitamite reason for cigarette adds to be banned from the media.", "qid": "2", "docid": "eef1da7a-2019-04-18T18:52:32Z-00000-000", "rank": 79, "score": 107839.0}, {"content": "Title: Cigarettes should be banned for children Content: Yes. Cigarettes should be banned for Children. Why? For they are still on the development stage and it is not good for them to smoke because they will have have higher rates of lung infections such as bronchitis and pneumonia. Children who smokes have have higher rates of admission to hospital.", "qid": "2", "docid": "228b5de8-2019-04-18T14:24:30Z-00003-000", "rank": 80, "score": 107108.0}, {"content": "Title: Smoking Should be Banned in Public Places. Content: It is well known that Smoking isn't the best of things for your body, but if you wanted to have a good V.S. Evil argument (as you clearly are trying to make this argument) than you should try to debate something such as Abortion, or Legal Marijuana. Tobacco is not nearly as hazardous as crack, weed, pot, or just about any other drug for that matter. In addition, all adults should have the right to harm themselves (to a certain extent) if they so choose, just as long as it does not harm others.Despite Pro's Mis-guided argument, smoking in OPEN public places has not been shown to have any lasting effects, as the Cigarette smoke does not linger as long as pro may think, and in addition, forcing smokers to smoke at home home will dramatically increase deaths from second-hand smoking, as an A.C. unit is far inferior to the wind and general openness of the outdoors. If your idea (Which by the way, Violates rights and contradicts both law and common sense) is to be put into action, both children and adults will die from the smoke that cannot be cleared from inside a house.In addition to the lives killed by your half-thought plan, 660,000 American workers will be left jobless, as the Tobacco industry will sharply decline. Even more workers will get laid off from convenient stores, and pubs.In Conclusion, trying to take away Smoking in ALL public places(I re-assert my point) is overstepping certain bounds, and by doing so you will cause riots, boycotts, and anger in many loyal citizens, who by the way are not harming anyone by smoking.", "qid": "2", "docid": "b58169b6-2019-04-18T13:14:15Z-00005-000", "rank": 81, "score": 106966.0}, {"content": "Title: Smoking should be banned Content: While I agree with all of the points you made, I'm also a supporter of freedom. The restrictions we already have on smoking are sufficient for keeping those who do not wish to smoke safe from those who do. Also, tobacco is the most heavily taxed product in the US and the tax continues to increase. The tax revenues generated from smokers pay for things like public schools, and emergency services, and libraries.", "qid": "2", "docid": "21109a9a-2019-04-18T13:56:13Z-00006-000", "rank": 82, "score": 106946.0}, {"content": "Title: Cigarettes should become illegal-completely Content: Drugs twist your mind, you really want that drug! Meth Addicts will do anything EVEN KILL to get more Meth. Violent protests would ravage the area, while others will get it illegally smuggled, if you just quadruple the taxes on them, then so many more people would try to protest, get it illegally, or even make it themselves. By banning cigarettes, you are legitimately putting a halt to a whole lot of people who are THINKING about smoking, but you can't do it with addicts. Instead, crack down on illegal smuggling of drugs, and tax the cigarettes like ten times the original amount. You will have an end result of \"stopping smoking\" without stripping people of their freedoms. Governments should gladly ban things that cause unnecessary safety hazards. Smoking is not a hazard, so don't ban it.", "qid": "2", "docid": "1039ff27-2019-04-18T17:23:50Z-00000-000", "rank": 83, "score": 106898.0}, {"content": "Title: The sale of cigarettes should be banned Content: I've no reason to ban the sale of cigarettes -- I believe that victimless crimes are okay to a certain extent. Some 42 million people smoke cigarettes, it's almost impossible to just ban them out of the blue -- it's extremely addicting and would provide headway for an underground or blackmarket sales system. I'd rather them ban public smoking, littering via cigarettes, excessive smoking with or around children, etc. I think it is okay to hurt yourself as long as you don't hurt others. To do this, just increase the penalties for indecent smoking. Banning cigarette sales is good in theory, but would undoubtedly be horribly executed and would provide a more chaotic and irritable society.", "qid": "2", "docid": "a51a0d2e-2019-04-18T12:10:37Z-00001-000", "rank": 84, "score": 106686.0}, {"content": "Title: Should cigarettes be banned Content: Rebuttal my opponent said smokers being inconsiderate is not a relevant reason why smoking should be illegal however second hand smoke kills thousands of people yearly this is a relevant reason because innocent lives are being taken due to this highly addicting product. Second hand smoke comes from both the smoke that smokers exhale (called mainstream smoke) and the smoke floating from the end of the cigarette, cigar, or pipe (called side stream smoke). It may seem pretty harmless, but second hand smoke actually contains thousands of chemicals \u2014 from arsenic and ammonia to hydrogen cyanide \u2014 many of which have been proven to be toxic or to cause cancer (called carcinogens). High concentrations of many of these chemicals are found in second hand smoke. In fact, secondhand smoke significantly increases a person's risk for: respiratory infections (like bronchitis and pneumonia) asthma (secondhand smoke is a risk factor for the development of asthma and can trigger attacks in those who already have it) coughing, sore throats, sniffling, and sneezing cancer heart disease So secondhand smoke doesn't just impact a person in the future. It can cause problems right now, like affecting someone's sports performance or ability to be physically active. http://kidshealth.org... my opponent says people have the right to smoke however they do not have the right to pollute the air and potentially causing illness to others. Just because it is legalized does not mean its rights. for example abortion is legal however that does not mean its right. my opponent then says if banned it will cause people to par take in illegal activity however this is why we pay axes for our police to stop this activity. Once again cigarettes should be illegal because it causes death, people throw there buds all over the place and it is a health hazard.", "qid": "2", "docid": "7176cf06-2019-04-18T18:20:27Z-00005-000", "rank": 85, "score": 106183.0}, {"content": "Title: People Shoudn't Smoke Cigarettes Content: It's true that not all people may regard the risks as smoking as vital to their understanding, or even care about the risks. But because those risks are present, it's imperative that one not take a risk that knowingly is purposely fatal to their health. When debating topics such as these it's important to universalize. Yes, everyone is different, but when debating what could be considered an ethical or moral dilemma, one must take into account everyone, not just one person or themselves. The categorical imperative is certainly not a universally accepted set of moral or legal standards. However, I feel it important to discuss a matter such as cigarette smoking through the eyes of an imperative that prides itself of attempting to create maxims that will be accepted by everyone as a maxim that should be willed. Even according to Samuel Pufendorf, humans are created with duties: two of these duties being duties toward others and duties toward oneself. Smoking cigarettes violates both of these duties. According to Pufendorf, we have a duty toward others. Smoking near someone and subjecting them to second hand smoke is almost as dangerous as smoking a cigarette itself. About thirty four hundred non smoking adults die of lung cancer as a result of breathing in second hand smoke. This in turn violates Pufendorf's notion of duty toward others. In a sense, one can be guilty of taking another's life if that person dies from second hand smoke of their cigarette. Knowing this, one should not smoke cigarettes. Also enforced by Pufendorf are the duties toward oneself. He explicitly even says \"No person could give himself live\u2026it seems that man by no means vested with such a power over his own life as that he may put an end to it when he pleases.\" Smoking cigarettes can be likened to committing suicide because A. One knows that smoking can cause lung cancer and other fatal diseases, which in return causes B. Death. By one willingly smoking cigarettes, they willingly defy duties to themselves, for they are in a sense killing themselves. It may be a slow death, but the eventual painful death will be committed by their own volition. Again, I'm not suggesting that Pufendorf's notion of duties be considered universal moral or legal law, but instead a reference as to how smoking is not an action a person should partake in. http://www.cancer.org...", "qid": "2", "docid": "95a04ba1-2019-04-18T18:22:05Z-00003-000", "rank": 86, "score": 105855.0}, {"content": "Title: Tobacco Rights Content: Defenses: 1a.\"Suicide is not criminalized but instead the state can take preventative measures if they feel you are in danger of hurting yourself and others with malicious intent ot reckless endangerment, I like I stated before. This is not like cigarettes at all.\" Oh yes cigarettes is not reckless endangerment, your just killing yourself because you addicted to something thats made with nicotine which makes you dependent upon come on really your saying smoking is not putting yourself endanger and others around you. You have to be blind. 1b.\" That is the same with junk food though. People will buy the products knowing they are detrimental to health and do not support a healthy lifestyle. This does not prevent them from having the choice to do so \u2013 same with cigarettes. If a consumer was barred from everything that has negative affects on health, there would be severe consequences to both the economy and availability of products.\" Oh junk food again, let me ask you cigarettes are food? No, Drink? No, have any good effects besides give you a nicotine high? No, well at least fast food actually fills you up. Nor are they loaded with carcinogins, and have a slim chance of making you sick unless you actually eat it for break feast, lunch, and dinner. Then again why am i defending fast food? Why not make fast food illegal or make them change their food and make them healthy. These are people profiting off of people by giving the addictions and killing them. When do we draw the line? how about we draw the line at cigarettes, a concoction designed to kill people. You can at least tell food companies to try to make healthier food , can you make cigarettes healthy? No you cannot, they are made to kill people. 1c. \"That's not important. Even though chemicals are intentionally used in chemicals to make it addictive and hurtful to your health, that is not grounds to criminalize them since it is the consumers choice. The only thing the state should do is make sure the consumer is educated in those affects so they can make an informed choice. \" Yes, informed choice to smoke a stick like no ones ever been pressured to smoke cigarettes seeing how most smokers smoked before legal age and became addicted, to kill yourself to fit in. Then with cigarettes with their promotions on movies. Its been proven that cigarettes in movies in the past year infulence 100,000 kids to smoke cigarettes. Then they have promotions like appealing to women with brand call divine and lusious with pink packaging. Lets not talk about flavored cigarettes, those have finally become illegal with only menthol left. The only reason cigarettes are legal to day is every congress men/women are all bought out by the tobacco industry. 1d.\"The high levels of MSG and fats are addictive and harmful to health \u2013 these are added however since they increase the chance of the consumer coming back for more. And even if the product isn't pumped full of carcinogens and other harmful chemicals, it still has the same negative affects over time. To criminalize tobacco on these grounds would lead to the criminalization of fast food since a precedent would be set.\" If your so concerned about fast food how about opening a debate about that however eaten in moderation is ok and im sure obesity is more curable than cancer. Also maybe fast food companies should be sued, for all these things in their food and after while maybe they will see that they need to change their product but cigarettes are not able to change or be sued they are too rich to powerful in governmental arena. These people live off killing people, fast food not as much a tobacco industry. At least a Big Mac gives some nutrition, cigarettes do nothing but give you an addiction and kill you. 2a. \"Again she's comparing fast food to smoking which as I have said earlier that tobacco is nothing like them yes both can have bad effect but fast food does not make you crave it for the rest of your life.\" \"And your point is? Craving something for your entire life is not legal grounds for criminalization.\" Wow yes they are selling cancer sticks that make you addicted and kills you , why is hard narcotic's illegal if we allow cigarettes? They are the same the difference one's legal ones not. 2b. \"This has been defended above....\" \"Still not proven.\" Proven. 2c. \"yes, he can be prosecuted but really will a prosecution stop his kids from getting cancer from his smoking? No it won't you might get revenge but the damage has already been done.\" \"The chances of cancer are not grounds for prosecution. That's like taking my neighbor to court since his car produces CO2 and I might be hurt when inhaling the fumes.\" Faulty argument seeing how CO2 don't kill people unless in large concentrations in an enclosed room. Plus I have seen people been taken to court for second hand smoke. If they have presented a clear pressence of danger to cause harm in the future or other wise is a crime. Ok moot point well how about this we are allowing people to kill themselves for money, simply put. Is that what a government is a money sucking mob boss who says pay your protection money ok here have a cig it will only cause you to have cancer and pay money out the yeng yang for them. No a government obligation is to protect its people, not use them for money.\" \"They can protect the people when they have legal grounds to do so. However, such grounds cannot be found in this case since tobacco is the choice of the consumer.\" Yes, its a person's choice to smoke themselves to death, Nicotine never had anything to do with people doing that now does it. Plus cigarettes laws are not enforce seeing how most smokers which is a common fact that most smokers were below legal age. Also that they were not pressured by friends and other circumstances like second hand smoke addiction. I object this so called link has been refuted since burgers are not specifically made with deadly chemicals that cause cancer which is in fact more deadly than having a meal at Mc D's and possibly obesity is more curable than cancer will ever be. So we are to allow our people to kill themselves for the economy? Heck legalize hard narcotics then you'll make a killing the economy will be booming geez after you think about legalizing all these harmful drugs would benefit the economy ten fold and who cares if a couple thousand or more die from it as long as the economy prospers.\" \"I've already explained the connection between junk food and tobacco. The people are allowed to make decisions for which products they choose to consume \u2013 even with disastrous affects since they do so without malicious intent. Until cigarette smoke has been used as a weapon to hurt those around you, there is no legal grounds to criminalize the product.\" Again i have brought down the connection and shown it for what it really is, also my point about hard narcotics still stands, cigarettes are addictive and kill people everyday. Most smokers at this point wish they could quit but can because they are addictive. I could understand this choice thing if they were not addictive but they are it addiction levels is up there with crack and our blissfully ignorant kids that have been coherced and pressured and have seen a cool advertisment or seen a cool move with a cool character smoking infulences them to at least try it then after that point they can never come back. Addiction cloaked by the word choice, why treat drug addicts anymore it was their choice why not lock them in jail for their \"choices\".", "qid": "2", "docid": "8e3dc60f-2019-04-18T18:53:12Z-00000-000", "rank": 87, "score": 105489.0}, {"content": "Title: Cigarettes should be illegal Content: Yes that is all very true. But if it is illegal it will reduce the number of smokers and therefore lowering the number of deaths. Cigarettes nearly killed my father and if they where illegal he wouldn't be getting into them in the first place.", "qid": "2", "docid": "c062611d-2019-04-18T12:44:42Z-00003-000", "rank": 88, "score": 105365.0}, {"content": "Title: Cigarettes should be illegal Content: I look forward for a nice debate. Yes cigarettes do cause cancer,and destroy your lungs. I must ask there are a lot of things that can give you cancer. Alcohol for example shows evidence of head and neck cancer,Esophageal cancer,Liver cancer,and much more. If we ban smoking that is not gonna stop people from smoking. If we ban smoking millions of people will still smoke cigarettes. If we ban smoking it will just be another illegal drug selling in black markets and in illegal ways. Smokers will just find ways to attain cigarettes. A ban on cigarettes will make America lose money. The federal government excises at least 8 billion dollars on cigarettes. Continent stores sells at least 438 thousand dollars just only on cigarettes. There is about 145 thousand convenient stores in the US. There are no strong evidence that second hand smoking exist. Gerry Silvestri of Medical University of South Carolina and member of the National Cancer Institute\"s Screening and Prevention Board. Says \"What this study basically showed is what people kind of knew already: At low passive exposures the risk is not that great,\" While that\"s good news, it shouldn\"t stop anyone from saying, I don\"t want to be a in a bar or any place else with someone who is smoking. Banning cigarettes meaning banning cigarettes on private places such as bars,restaurants,and houses. The restaurant owners has every right to choose to let people smoke in there private business. Same apply to bars,and yes the house people owns. This is why cigarettes should not be illegal.", "qid": "2", "docid": "c062611d-2019-04-18T12:44:42Z-00004-000", "rank": 89, "score": 105157.0}, {"content": "Title: Smoking ban is unacceptable Content: =Rebuttals=Pro claims that \"asphalt is as dangerous as smoking\", however, the resolution is exclusively about smoking and not anything else that could potentially be dangerous. The difference between asphalt and cigarette smoking is also significant. One of them is essentially what people do for pleasure [as with alcohol consumption,etc.] while the other fulfills a practical purpose and is a basic necessity if we are to have roads and pavements. Pros argument is entirely negated by the fact that asphalt is an integral part of construction. Without it, we would not have the same transportation, recreation [I.E play/sports grounds], agricultrure, and builing construction such as floorings that we currently do have. [4.] There are countless objective advantages to asphalt, the main one being that it enables everyday commuting and is cost efficient. Overall, asphalt is also safe; meaning that Pro has outlined a rather large fallacy. Asphalt is regularly come into contact with and no way has it ever negatively impacted people to the same extent that smoking has. And once more, I'll reiterate that it does fulfill a practical purpose. A total of 90% of all paved roads are are paved with asphalt. [5.] Unlike asphalt, cigerette smoking is directly inhaled and is thus one of the most widely reported on health concerns there is. Pro also states: \"You say that smoking is the main cause of births and asthma exacerbations, but it is only one of many.\"Firstly, I didn't actually say that it was the \"main cause\". Rather I included actual studies that found second-hand smoke to one of the larges components in premature birth and asthma attacks. The studies concluded that there was a 10% reduction in premature birth/asthma exacerbations, as well as a 5% one in children being born unusually small. Another study conducted by the American Heart Association and Journal of American College of Cardiology found that there was a 17% reduction in heart attacks in European and American cities that had implented a ban. [6.] \"Smokers are not only an expense for the government because all of the money we use on cigarettes is basically taxes.\"Not exactly, as highlighted in the previous round; the financial costs to smoking are extremely high. Pro further argues that a ban would lead to less financial benefits, but again fails to link a source that *really* supports this assertion. Not do smoking bans have huge financial benefits to the health sector, one could also argue that it benefits public business as people who do not smoke are more likely to come to restaurants and bars that disallow it, therefore actually adding to customer. It's unlikely that workplaces would be as impacted as Pro seems to imply, particularly in \"aiding\" hospitals as these are the places that have benefited financially with a smoking ban. On the contrary to losing money, they would gain it. The figure $92 million, in America alone, offers good proof of this. Two years after a ban had been implented, another British report concluded that: \"Results show benefits for health, changes in attitudes and behaviour and no clear adverse impact on the hospitality industry.\" [7.]I'd point out again that Pro has yet to support earlier arguments made. Namely that \"it is a human right to smoke.\" Along with \"We are allowed to be the person we want to be and we make our own happiness.\"Pro should particularly expound on how it is a \"human right\" to smoke. Both statements are clearly built on fallacies. [4.] http://www.eapa.org...[5.] http://www.eapa.org...[6.] http://edition.cnn.com...;[7.] http://www.bbc.co.uk...", "qid": "2", "docid": "28f1dc1d-2019-04-18T15:17:35Z-00002-000", "rank": 90, "score": 104885.0}, {"content": "Title: Cigarettes should become illegal-completely Content: Quick Note, Doing any of these signs: * ` ^ will signal a footnote at the bottom of the argument. Cigarettes are bad, we all agree on that. More than twenty countries were part of the British Empire. http://en.wikipedia.org... Most of them are no longer colonies and have become independent. Why? Because they want to be free. To keep the freedoms of the people. So by taking cigarettes you are stripping the people of their freedom. Freedom: The quality or state of being as the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice of action. By completely banning cigarettes you are legitimately putting constraint on the people's choice of action. Cigarettes are also don't alter your point of views as meth, heroin, or cocaine does. (Those are a harm to public safety, and should definitely be banned and enforced) But chances are, if you strip cigarettes from the public, the addicted ones will do a lot to get them back, before they are completely rehabilitated. If you enforce the laws around cigarettes, instead of actually banning them*, then you will end up with an ending result of lower cigarette purchase and usage rates, and you haven't stripped the people of their cigarettes! Thank you for this great debate, and I wish you the best of luck in the second round. (Or third round, whatever you prefer) *outlaw any advertisements of cigarettes, double the tax of cigarettes, turn the open streets into smoke-free zones without letting the media know, etc", "qid": "2", "docid": "1039ff27-2019-04-18T17:23:50Z-00002-000", "rank": 91, "score": 104883.0}, {"content": "Title: Tobacco should be banned Content: It is impossible to ban tobacco in the sense where you can't *use* it in your home, but you can ban the *sale* of it. [There is no legitimate legal basis for preventing people from smoking tobacco in their own homes, where the dangers of SHS are nonexistent] Sure, if you live alone in your own home (not an apartment), the dangers are nonexistent. If you have a girlfriend, wife, children, or if you live in an apartment, the dangers are higher. \"If you don't quit smoking for yourself, do it for your children\"-Anonymous. Your children didn't choose you as a parent. I do think a public ban is good (but a total ban would be better). Smoking releases thousands of toxins into the atmosphere, and countries with a stricter smoking ban (i.e., Ireland), have noticed a considerable change in air and living quality. It is easier to breathe, and bellows-driven devices (like filters and accordions) do not need to be cleaned as often. {1} {2} There has to be a line between protection and rights. The majority of new smokers (destined to become hooked) are uninformed, think they're invincible, and/or don't think they will ever become hooked. Banning/regulating smoking will kill the habit. Smoking truly is a disease itself; we are fooled into it by our family and friends who also smoke. If citizens have the right to put stuff in their bodies without being required to know what it does, should we just get rid of the FDA? Should we unban Red 2 and other toxic chemicals, and allow food joints to add as much trans fat as they want, simply because we are the ones (often unknowingly) choosing to harm our bodies? Should the government allow the sale of a sweetener known to be highly toxic, as long as there is a basic warning on the package? Should we allow dealers to ferment their stool and sell it as \"Jenkem\" on the street for a dollar (this exists in some parts of the world)? Put yourself in the shoes of an asthmatic or allergy sufferer who must be exposed to the secondhand smoke, or someone who regrets smoking after losing their mouth or tar lungs. Look up how much tar is in a year's worth of cigarettes. Watch a video on how cigarettes are made. Look up \"Pig lungs soaked in cigarette tar\". Find out how much land is used for tobacco production; land that could have been used for feeding the growing population. Do you still want those cancer sticks in our society? The ultimate question: Do you smoke? CITATIONS 1. http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com... 2. http://abcnews.go.com...", "qid": "2", "docid": "7eec3518-2019-04-18T17:15:01Z-00005-000", "rank": 92, "score": 104872.0}, {"content": "Title: Smoking ban. Content: My points: 1. Smoking causes a danger to both the smoker and bystanders 2. It is an unnecessary habit. No one needs to smoke, it is a very destructive habit. 1st hand smoke: Smoking causes a danger to the smoker. \"Cigarettes contain more than 4000 chemical compounds and at least 400 toxic substances.When you inhale, a cigarette burns at 700\"C at the tip and around 60\"C in the core. This heat breaks down the tobacco to produce various toxins.\"[1] With at least 400 toxic substances/chemicals, this is basically death in a cigarette. This alone would give you a greater risk of lung cancer and other serious diseases. It also affects the person's physical performance. A smoker may have trouble running at a descent pace, walking up stairs, and other basic activities. Cigarettes also contain tar, a cancer causing substance as well as nicotine which can cause high blood pressure, heart disease, and atherosclerosis. This decreases life expectancy and may have the person raking up medical expenses. 2nd hand smoke: Second hand smoke poses the same health risks as smoking directly from a cigarette. This puts your loved ones at risk, as well as other people in the general area. As with first hand smoke, second hand smoke can cause lung cancer, heart disease, and atherosclerosis. It also decreases life expectancy. Here is a link showing peoples stories on how smoking negatively affected their life: http://www.cdc.gov... Pretty serious health complications by any standard. 3rd hand smoke: Third hand smoke has the same severe health risks as second or first hand smoke. All may lead to severe health complications which may lead to hospitalization. [3] [1] http://www.netdoctor.co.uk... [2] http://www.cdc.gov... [3] http://www.no-smoke.org... Second argument: Smoking is a unnecessary habit, just like smoking weed. Both have health compilations( weed does, I am learning about them currently in my health class) that not just affect you, but other people. Are there any legitimate reasons to smoke? Back to you.", "qid": "2", "docid": "714494de-2019-04-18T16:09:58Z-00002-000", "rank": 93, "score": 104815.0}, {"content": "Title: Smoking Ban Content: To simplify the debate: Pro wants to ban all forms of smoking in no specific place. This means that the idea alone of smoking must be banned. With your first point which concerns the health of all the smokers, I would say that that is fact. No one can say that smoking is healthy, because clearly it is not. But the questions are: Is total ban the solution to this social problem? Can total ban really be effective? Is this proposed solution realistic or even possible? Questions above will be answered later. I personally believe that smoking is dangerous to health. I hate smokers because they destroy their lives, the lives of others, the environment, and many others. But the solution of total ban is a wrong move. All the arguments that you presented in this debate are useless. We are not debating whether smoking is healthy or dangerous. It\u2019s a fact that smoking is dangerous. So, do not expect me or anyone to debate that smoking is good to your health. I rather would debate the idea of a total ban that you proposed. The idea of total ban is that the manufacturing, selling, and consuming of cigarettes in all forms and whether public or private must be prohibited, otherwise face imprisonment. This sounds not a good idea. The total ban of cigarettes is not good for many reasons. First, it would have a severe negative economic impact. Those people who work in that industry would lose their jobs. Also, the government can no longer collect tax revenues from legitimate tobacco manufacturers. Instead, black markets of cigarettes will occur that the government would not be able to tax. Having said that, the economy will suffer. Second, countless people would go to jail because they cannot stop their addiction. Smoking is addiction. Many people tried to stop smoking but they failed. Banning smoking would not stop that addiction, but it would only made them find a way to acquire cigarettes in a black market. They will continue to smoke because it has been their way of life. Hiding in a place that they will not be caught by police is what they will do. A life of a drug addict or criminal afraid of police is what they will acquire. With that, many of them would be imprisoned which would also result to an overcrowded jails. What we need to do to help smokers get away with their addiction is to increase tobacco tax and encourage and promote healthy life, not your proposed total ban which is very hard to implement and would have grave personal and economic impact. Thank you.", "qid": "2", "docid": "69f38a0a-2019-04-18T16:52:52Z-00002-000", "rank": 94, "score": 104260.0}, {"content": "Title: cigarettes should be illegal Content: I accept.", "qid": "2", "docid": "5d7b68ff-2019-04-18T15:45:36Z-00005-000", "rank": 95, "score": 104228.0}, {"content": "Title: Cigarettes should be illegal Content: I accept.", "qid": "2", "docid": "c06260c0-2019-04-18T16:01:50Z-00004-000", "rank": 96, "score": 104228.0}, {"content": "Title: Tobacco Should Be Banned In The U.S Content: Tobacco should be banned in the United States. I stand affirmitive to this resolution under the moral of public safety. For the sake of my opening arguments, I shall be focusing primarily on the health risks that tobacco poses to both the user and those that are around the drug when it is in use.Now, everybody and their mother's uncle has most likely heard about the health effects of tobacco through either the education system, countless amounts of anti-smoking propaganda on television, or even through word of mouth. The fact of the matter is, all of these ring true and it is under these reasons that I stand affirmitive to the resolution. sgr_figure2_400.jpgThe above picture depicts many, if not all, of the different chronic diseases and cancers that smoking tobacco can cause in a human being. [1]Also according to the CDC (Center for Disease Control), smoking tobacco causes more deaths each year than HIV/AIDS, illegal drug use, alcohol use, motor vehicle injuries, and firearm-related incidents. So, what exactly does this say about tobacco? Well, let us delve further into just what exactly makes tobacco so dangerous.Addictive TendenciesThe chemical inside of tobacco that makes it so addictive is a toxin called nicotine. This toxin is considered the \"most addictive of all drugs.\" [2] What nicotine does is stimulate the same areas of the brain that methamphetamines and cocaine do. What makes it so addictive is how our body develops a tolerance of nicotine much faster than these other two drugs. \"Neurochemically, the body adapts to the toxins in tobacco a few hours after smoking \u2013 which quickly makes smoking necessary in order to feel \"normal.'\" In its purest form, nicotine is a poison. In fact, just three drops of pure nicotine would be enough to kill an adult. [3] Thankfully, only 1mg of nicotine is inhaled per cigarette that a person may smoke. Nicotine is the least concentrated in chewing tobacco.Wait, but hold on. There's only 1mg of nicotine per cigarette. That doesn't seem like much right? Let's take into consideration that there is approximately 20 cigarettes per pack. This would be an intake of 20mg of nicotine per pack of cigarettes. The lethal dose of nicotine is considered to be 50mg/kg.[4] Now, allow us to assume that the average cigarette smoker smokes approximately 1.5 packs a day, this would mean that they are having an intake of 30mg of nicotine each day. Over half of the lethal dose is ingested daily. While the smoker may feel stimulated by the nicotine, they are slowly beginning to kill themselves through this addictive drug. That brings us to the next part of our analysis.What makes tobacco so deadly?For this part of the argument, we shall analyze smokeless, also known as chewing, tobacco. As according to a WebMD article from 2009 [5], there are many more toxins in chewing tobacco than we thought:\"Researchers have identified new toxins and cancer-causing substances in smokeless tobacco and snuff, in addition to other known carcinogens, such as nitrosamines. Researchers say sales of moist snuff have doubled since the 1980s, and that many smokeless tobacco users mistakenly believe the products are less hazardous to their health because they do not expose the user to tobacco smoke. But their study, presented today at a meeting of the American Chemical Society, shows some of the most popular smokeless tobacco and snuff brands contain an additional 21 smoke-related polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), which are potent toxins and carcinogens.\" Now, on the other side, what is it about cigarettes that makes them so deadly? What are some of the chemicals that can be found in cigarette smoke? The following is a list of toxins/chemicals found in cigarette smoke and other places they may be found or other things they may be used in [6]: - Formaldehyde :: Used in the embalming process of dead bodies.- Benzene :: A chemical commonly found in gasoline- Vinyl chloride :: A chemical used to make pipes- Arsenic :: A deadly poison that is found in many pesticides- Cadmium :: Used in batteries- Carbon monoxide :: A poisonous gas that can be found in car exhaust- Ammonia :: Used in household cleaners and bleaching productsNow, for the above reasons, I stand affirmitive to this resolution. In my rebuttals, not only shall I refute what my opponent may offer as his opening remarks, but I shall dive even deeper into the health risks tobacco proposes towards not only the smokers/chewers, but the masses as well.I look forward to seeing my opponent's constructive remarks.Sources:[1]http://www.cdc.gov...;[2]http://www.pamf.org...;[3]http://www.quit-smoking-central.com...;[4]http://www.cdc.gov...[5]http://www.webmd.com...[6]http://www.cdc.gov...", "qid": "2", "docid": "4edcd77f-2019-04-18T16:30:17Z-00005-000", "rank": 97, "score": 104219.0}, {"content": "Title: smoking Content: Thank you for approaching this argument with reasonable claims: First on your claim of second hand smoke: The evidence for second hand smoke is very slim, because very few controlled studies having been carried out. It may be true that those who live with heavy smokers for a long period of time may have a very slightly increased risk of cancer. If a child is riding in the car with a smoker, a window is very suitable for getting rid of unwanted smoke, and unless a person is completely brain-dead they will know not to blow some in the direction of a helpless baby or infant. It is true that smoke-filled environments can be unpleasant for non-smokers, but there are ways around this - smoking rooms in offices and airports are an example. Some bars and restaurants may choose to be non-smoking establishments, giving customers the choice to select their environment. Allowing people to make their own, adult decisions is surely always the best option. Restricting smoking in public places may sometimes be appropriate. So if you are a non-smoker, you are more than welcome to not enter an environment where people are smoking cigarettes. Not everyone who smokes is willing to quit, everyone knows the danger of smoking cigarettes...yet they continue to do it. So why would they all of a sudden be okay with the government taking away this choice they had, and have to give up a habit cold turkey? As I showed earlier, there is proof that after the ban of alcohol the crime rates went up and it caused riots. If everyone went to the gym instead of indulging in an unhealthy diet, the world would be a much skinnier place. You cannot tell someone to quit smoking and instead expect them to go to the gym, it is very unlikely. As for cigarettes being addictive- yes they are but the knowledge that so many smokers give up this habit every year is testament to this. Many other substances and activities can be addictive (shopping, caffeine, cleaning) but this is no reason to make them illegal. People are able to abstain if they choose to live a healthier life, but many enjoy their use as part of their everyday existence. The government is not worrying about the health of people who choose to smoke, having cigarette companies is not only a tax revenue builder as I stated earlier, but it creates thousands of jobs for people in our country. From the farmers, to the production, to delivery to sales, cutting these jobs would be more harmful to the overall health and well being to our country than to ban smoking altogether. As far as having a healthier country, the government is better off advocating smoking than banning it \"The National Bureau of Economic Research recently released a study by RAND Corporation researchers that looked at two of the major health swings of our lives\u2014tremendous reductions in smoking and alarming increases in obesity. Common sense might argue that less smoking would reduce government spending and obesity would increase it. Wrong. Both trends cause higher government outlays, the researchers found. In fact, from a purely fiscal standpoint, they concluded, a truly cost-effective policy would be to help people to lose weight\u2014by taking up smoking! \" http://www.usnews.com...... Banning smoking would cause a tremendous upheaval, and add more problems to our countries already problematic state.", "qid": "2", "docid": "80d56aef-2019-04-18T19:15:59Z-00003-000", "rank": 98, "score": 104157.0}, {"content": "Title: smoking should be banned Content: Rebuttals (For points): You stated that smoking is a good way to relieve stress. However, as you may know, there are HUNDREDS of other alternatives to relieve stress in less harmful ways like, in our case, using DDO. There is also reading a book, or eating (but not too much) or sleeping. It is absolutely impossible for a person to take a ciggarette and light it then realize \"Oh flip. I just smoked when I could just have slept or went out with my friends.\" NO it is impossible for that to occur. Then there is the common, but effective \"right to choose\" point. My response to this is, as I have earlier mentioned in my points that it is the government's job to create a healthy and lively enviroment to live in (Even though they are really \"succeeding\" in that right now\" and ensure people live a safe life. To say that its their problem if they catch cancer is ignoring the government's duty and, to add on, is COMPLETELY immoral. For example, if you see a person about to commit suicide would you try to stop him or just continue walking and see him shoot himself or jump off a building? I would pick the first option. This links back to your their problem statement showing that you have absolutely not a care for others and would just let them die. (This is also destroying your rebuttal to my health and influence point.) For the second round, you mentioned taxes going to the government going to healthcare. Unfortunately, not all taxes go to healthcare. A small percentage of taxes in America goes to healthcare and at the current rate, I dont think we will be making significant progress anytime soon. Then you mentioned the good effects of smoking. Well your first point contradicted yourself by saying taxes can go to healthcare. This way, you only have to go the hospital to cure yourself from IBD. Also, I dont think that losing weight is going to be worth it from dying. Rebuttals (For your rebuttals): You proposed a usually effective alternative to my litter point if not for the world we live in. The reason I say this is because when you go out, for a walk in a park, or a beach or any place, there is definitely a rubbish bin. However even if a rubbish bin is in plain sight, for some unknown reason, people decide that the floor is a much better home for the garbage rather than the rubbish bin 3 feet away from them. You know its true. So I dont think that your alternative is going to work because of our current behaviour unless you plan to surround people in rubbish bins which raises another problem. Transportation. Point: Fires According to historyandheadlines.com, smokers are 7 times more likely to have a house fire than non-smokers. About 1000 Americans die each year from smoking related home fires. The NFPA says smoking causes 90,000 fires per year in the US, and that 90% of wildfires in the US are caused by smoking thus making health not the only factor for death by smoking. Taxes cannot cover better fire fighting water... This shows that smoking is worse than it seems and needs to be banned right away before it takes the lives of many people. I await your rebuttals to mine in the following round. No new points in the last round so take out whatever is in your storage room of arguments in the next round. Good luck and I hand the debate over to the negative.", "qid": "2", "docid": "3b3186b8-2019-04-18T12:09:45Z-00000-000", "rank": 99, "score": 104130.0}, {"content": "Title: Ban all tobacco products Content: At age 18 people do know right from wrong and perhaps know that smoking is \"bad\" and that they shouldn't do it. Do they still go for that cigarette? YES. They do not understand to what capacity it will harm them. Using tobacco products to relieve stress at such a young age is not the most effective way and definitely not the ONLY way to relieve stress. Just the idea that using tobacco products could kill automatically erases the possibility that it can help someone. Heavy use of government power does not have to b abusive and it doesn't not have to turn to harming people. The goal is to slowly and progressively do away with the products so that there is minimal damage and forceful action. Tobacco products should be banned for the health and people own good.", "qid": "2", "docid": "df946d4-2019-04-18T16:18:54Z-00003-000", "rank": 100, "score": 104057.0}]}
{"query": "Should insider trading be allowed?", "hits": [{"content": "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.\u2014Allen 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.", "qid": "3", "docid": "a1db94b6-2019-04-18T18:22:29Z-00002-000", "rank": 1, "score": 96780.0}, {"content": "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.", "qid": "3", "docid": "a1db94b6-2019-04-18T18:22:29Z-00000-000", "rank": 2, "score": 93623.0}, {"content": "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.", "qid": "3", "docid": "920c32e3-2019-04-18T13:42:05Z-00002-000", "rank": 3, "score": 91931.0}, {"content": "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.", "qid": "3", "docid": "73e98031-2019-04-18T18:31:37Z-00004-000", "rank": 4, "score": 90479.0}, {"content": "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.", "qid": "3", "docid": "a1db94b6-2019-04-18T18:22:29Z-00003-000", "rank": 5, "score": 89768.0}, {"content": "Title: candy Content: candy should by allowed or not", "qid": "3", "docid": "d4fc29f7-2019-04-18T17:34:23Z-00005-000", "rank": 6, "score": 86740.0}, {"content": "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\u2019s 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\u2019s 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, \u2018Former richest man gets 14 years in prison\u2019, China Daily, 19 May 2010.", "qid": "3", "docid": "d39ff9f5-2019-04-15T20:22:45Z-00008-000", "rank": 7, "score": 78262.0}, {"content": "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 :-).", "qid": "3", "docid": "873c88f6-2019-04-18T16:18:39Z-00005-000", "rank": 8, "score": 77721.0}, {"content": "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.", "qid": "3", "docid": "381fd34f-2019-04-18T19:44:18Z-00000-000", "rank": 9, "score": 77685.0}, {"content": "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...;", "qid": "3", "docid": "5461331e-2019-04-18T18:07:49Z-00001-000", "rank": 10, "score": 77474.0}, {"content": "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\u2019s job, and damage to one\u2019s 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\u2019s 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.", "qid": "3", "docid": "9dd3f3ac-2019-04-15T20:23:01Z-00014-000", "rank": 11, "score": 76909.0}, {"content": "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.\"", "qid": "3", "docid": "41e8d87f-2019-04-17T11:47:37Z-00035-000", "rank": 12, "score": 76571.0}, {"content": "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...", "qid": "3", "docid": "9f358bd0-2019-04-18T15:56:01Z-00004-000", "rank": 13, "score": 75958.0}, {"content": "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.", "qid": "3", "docid": "49257ab9-2019-04-18T18:52:43Z-00002-000", "rank": 14, "score": 75403.0}, {"content": "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\u2019s atmosphere. Questions have also been raised about the potential for fraud and corruption in many carbon offset schemes in the developing world.", "qid": "3", "docid": "795d4547-2019-04-19T12:47:42Z-00013-000", "rank": 15, "score": 73726.0}, {"content": "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...", "qid": "3", "docid": "c203062e-2019-04-18T16:35:43Z-00000-000", "rank": 16, "score": 73214.0}, {"content": "Title: The U.S. Should allow free trade with cuba Content: Thank you!", "qid": "3", "docid": "1f29e12f-2019-04-18T19:13:12Z-00003-000", "rank": 17, "score": 73030.0}, {"content": "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...", "qid": "3", "docid": "aad4e330-2019-04-18T18:47:38Z-00002-000", "rank": 18, "score": 73000.0}, {"content": "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 \u2013 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 \u2013 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.", "qid": "3", "docid": "7bd04cab-2019-04-18T19:37:09Z-00001-000", "rank": 19, "score": 72226.0}, {"content": "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)\u2014the \u201cnoble experiment\u201d\u2014was 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 \u201corganized\u201d; 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\u2014most 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.", "qid": "3", "docid": "d60ab3fe-2019-04-18T16:55:17Z-00003-000", "rank": 20, "score": 72147.0}, {"content": "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.", "qid": "3", "docid": "c203062e-2019-04-18T16:35:43Z-00003-000", "rank": 21, "score": 71363.0}, {"content": "Title: Carbon emissions trading Content: Emissions trading wrongly allows companies to buy right to pollute", "qid": "3", "docid": "41e8d87f-2019-04-17T11:47:37Z-00028-000", "rank": 22, "score": 71287.0}, {"content": "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.\"", "qid": "3", "docid": "41e8d87f-2019-04-17T11:47:37Z-00036-000", "rank": 23, "score": 70682.0}, {"content": "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.", "qid": "3", "docid": "cf3ad3ec-2019-04-18T15:15:37Z-00002-000", "rank": 24, "score": 70558.0}, {"content": "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.", "qid": "3", "docid": "c8c3541d-2019-04-18T12:18:33Z-00000-000", "rank": 25, "score": 70413.0}, {"content": "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...", "qid": "3", "docid": "150432ef-2019-04-18T16:36:32Z-00007-000", "rank": 26, "score": 70346.0}, {"content": "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, \u00ef\u00bf\u00bd\u20ac\u0153Do 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 can\u00ef\u00bf\u00bd\u20ac\u2122t this happen again. But judge, when one looks at it, Cuba\u00ef\u00bf\u00bd\u20ac\u2122s 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 Washington\u00ef\u00bf\u00bd\u20ac\u2122s 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.", "qid": "3", "docid": "1f29e12f-2019-04-18T19:13:12Z-00001-000", "rank": 27, "score": 70288.0}, {"content": "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!", "qid": "3", "docid": "e4e77bcb-2019-04-18T14:03:58Z-00003-000", "rank": 28, "score": 70068.0}, {"content": "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 \u2013 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 \u2018x' 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 \u2013 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", "qid": "3", "docid": "f4aca10b-2019-04-18T19:02:55Z-00002-000", "rank": 29, "score": 70043.0}, {"content": "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.", "qid": "3", "docid": "89e69a16-2019-04-18T15:23:55Z-00001-000", "rank": 30, "score": 70003.0}, {"content": "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.", "qid": "3", "docid": "e4e77bcb-2019-04-18T14:03:58Z-00007-000", "rank": 31, "score": 69926.0}, {"content": "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.", "qid": "3", "docid": "c8c3541d-2019-04-18T12:18:33Z-00005-000", "rank": 32, "score": 69288.0}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should be allowed. Content: I accept the challenge.", "qid": "3", "docid": "31f2bdb1-2019-04-18T15:32:07Z-00006-000", "rank": 33, "score": 69036.0}, {"content": "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.", "qid": "3", "docid": "4eeca492-2019-04-18T18:30:34Z-00001-000", "rank": 34, "score": 68944.0}, {"content": "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.", "qid": "3", "docid": "fea35d8c-2019-04-19T12:48:09Z-00022-000", "rank": 35, "score": 68838.0}, {"content": "Title: is pushing allowed in soccer Content: yes it is", "qid": "3", "docid": "1bcbe2fa-2019-04-18T12:47:25Z-00001-000", "rank": 36, "score": 68590.0}, {"content": "Title: Gay marriage Content: Gay marriage should be allowed", "qid": "3", "docid": "339545ea-2019-04-18T17:43:24Z-00003-000", "rank": 37, "score": 68300.0}, {"content": "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", "qid": "3", "docid": "d39bdac6-2019-04-18T17:47:29Z-00005-000", "rank": 38, "score": 68269.0}, {"content": "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...", "qid": "3", "docid": "89e69a16-2019-04-18T15:23:55Z-00005-000", "rank": 39, "score": 67031.0}, {"content": "Title: Gay Marriage Content: Gay Marriage shouldn't be allowed.", "qid": "3", "docid": "d9e901c8-2019-04-18T18:45:07Z-00004-000", "rank": 40, "score": 66756.0}, {"content": "Title: Death penalty should be allowed. Content: I accept", "qid": "3", "docid": "edfd66cb-2019-04-18T11:26:43Z-00000-000", "rank": 41, "score": 66659.0}, {"content": "Title: The United States should regulate trade. Content: Done", "qid": "3", "docid": "ae4b012b-2019-04-18T15:31:51Z-00000-000", "rank": 42, "score": 66614.0}, {"content": "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 \u2013 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 \u2013 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.", "qid": "3", "docid": "795d4547-2019-04-19T12:47:42Z-00014-000", "rank": 43, "score": 66608.0}, {"content": "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.", "qid": "3", "docid": "7a6a4ab3-2019-04-18T14:30:59Z-00004-000", "rank": 44, "score": 66547.0}, {"content": "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) - Ra\u00ef\u00bf\u00bdl 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, Ra\u00ef\u00bf\u00bdl Castro has kept it firmly in place and fully active, the report says. The 123-page report, \"New Castro, Same Cuba,\" shows how the Ra\u00ef\u00bf\u00bdl 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\u2014most of them youth\u2014were charged with \"dangerousness\" for being unemployed. So was a man from Sancti Sp\u00ef\u00bf\u00bdritus 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.", "qid": "3", "docid": "1f29e12f-2019-04-18T19:13:12Z-00000-000", "rank": 45, "score": 66262.0}, {"content": "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\u2019s 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\u2014namely, the car industry\u2014imports 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 \u2018bad\u2019 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\u2026 increases imports\u2026 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\u2019t 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...", "qid": "3", "docid": "89e69a16-2019-04-18T15:23:55Z-00002-000", "rank": 46, "score": 66087.0}, {"content": "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!", "qid": "3", "docid": "1f29e12f-2019-04-18T19:13:12Z-00002-000", "rank": 47, "score": 66047.0}, {"content": "Title: cloning animals Content: should cloning of a extinct animals be allowed", "qid": "3", "docid": "b129938-2019-04-18T17:27:14Z-00003-000", "rank": 48, "score": 66027.0}, {"content": "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 .", "qid": "3", "docid": "3d9e8a34-2019-04-17T11:47:44Z-00144-000", "rank": 49, "score": 66001.0}, {"content": "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.\"", "qid": "3", "docid": "41e8d87f-2019-04-17T11:47:37Z-00062-000", "rank": 50, "score": 65693.0}, {"content": "Title: The United States should regulate trade. Content: I concede", "qid": "3", "docid": "ae4b012b-2019-04-18T15:31:51Z-00002-000", "rank": 51, "score": 65497.0}, {"content": "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 \u2014 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.", "qid": "3", "docid": "9ba29485-2019-04-19T12:44:59Z-00022-000", "rank": 52, "score": 65477.0}, {"content": "Title: Gay marriage shouldn't be allowed Content: Oy vey.", "qid": "3", "docid": "24c049a1-2019-04-18T14:24:20Z-00001-000", "rank": 53, "score": 65451.0}, {"content": "Title: The United States should regulate trade. Content: I accept.", "qid": "3", "docid": "ae4b012b-2019-04-18T15:31:51Z-00004-000", "rank": 54, "score": 65343.0}, {"content": "Title: Should Gay Marriage Be Legal Content: Should Gay Marriage be allowed", "qid": "3", "docid": "f54ab53a-2019-04-18T12:48:18Z-00006-000", "rank": 55, "score": 65304.0}, {"content": "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...", "qid": "3", "docid": "e4e77bcb-2019-04-18T14:03:58Z-00005-000", "rank": 56, "score": 65266.0}, {"content": "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...", "qid": "3", "docid": "c4fa1b7-2019-04-18T16:33:19Z-00003-000", "rank": 57, "score": 65246.0}, {"content": "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!", "qid": "3", "docid": "5461331e-2019-04-18T18:07:49Z-00000-000", "rank": 58, "score": 65083.0}, {"content": "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.", "qid": "3", "docid": "41e8d87f-2019-04-17T11:47:37Z-00059-000", "rank": 59, "score": 64893.0}, {"content": "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...", "qid": "3", "docid": "89e69a16-2019-04-18T15:23:55Z-00007-000", "rank": 60, "score": 64807.0}, {"content": "Title: Carbon emissions trading Content: Carbon trading fairly punishes inefficient polluters.", "qid": "3", "docid": "41e8d87f-2019-04-17T11:47:37Z-00003-000", "rank": 61, "score": 64583.0}, {"content": "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 \u2013 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 \u2013 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.", "qid": "3", "docid": "7bd04cab-2019-04-18T19:37:09Z-00000-000", "rank": 62, "score": 64551.0}, {"content": "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...", "qid": "3", "docid": "25c0bc4f-2019-04-18T18:31:06Z-00003-000", "rank": 63, "score": 64529.0}, {"content": "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.", "qid": "3", "docid": "d39bdac6-2019-04-18T17:47:29Z-00000-000", "rank": 64, "score": 64404.0}, {"content": "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.", "qid": "3", "docid": "82973dd4-2019-04-18T18:46:16Z-00004-000", "rank": 65, "score": 64299.0}, {"content": "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.", "qid": "3", "docid": "4928efe9-2019-04-18T15:05:34Z-00002-000", "rank": 66, "score": 64241.0}, {"content": "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.", "qid": "3", "docid": "b0a1297b-2019-04-18T17:56:41Z-00000-000", "rank": 67, "score": 64080.0}, {"content": "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.", "qid": "3", "docid": "19fb9788-2019-04-18T16:24:17Z-00004-000", "rank": 68, "score": 63986.0}, {"content": "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", "qid": "3", "docid": "516d30ec-2019-04-18T17:31:17Z-00005-000", "rank": 69, "score": 63886.0}, {"content": "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.", "qid": "3", "docid": "8aaee538-2019-04-17T11:47:26Z-00066-000", "rank": 70, "score": 63872.0}, {"content": "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.", "qid": "3", "docid": "8f1b983d-2019-04-17T11:47:26Z-00066-000", "rank": 71, "score": 63872.0}, {"content": "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...", "qid": "3", "docid": "f4aca10b-2019-04-18T19:02:55Z-00003-000", "rank": 72, "score": 63602.0}, {"content": "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...", "qid": "3", "docid": "ae4b012b-2019-04-18T15:31:51Z-00003-000", "rank": 73, "score": 63553.0}, {"content": "Title: Should the Cell Phones Be Allowed in Schools Content: Cell phone helps communication goes on", "qid": "3", "docid": "61e00511-2019-04-19T12:47:25Z-00011-000", "rank": 74, "score": 63517.0}, {"content": "Title: Animal Testing should be allowed Content: I agree to debate against the topic,Pro.", "qid": "3", "docid": "aeeb3794-2019-04-18T17:18:40Z-00004-000", "rank": 75, "score": 63164.0}, {"content": "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.", "qid": "3", "docid": "d39bdac6-2019-04-18T17:47:29Z-00003-000", "rank": 76, "score": 63143.0}, {"content": "Title: Animal testing should not be allowed. Content: I am for animal testing. Looking forward to what my opponent has to say.", "qid": "3", "docid": "2bce8c52-2019-04-18T19:09:45Z-00005-000", "rank": 77, "score": 63000.0}, {"content": "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]", "qid": "3", "docid": "751f31f0-2019-04-18T12:51:51Z-00001-000", "rank": 78, "score": 62981.0}, {"content": "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.", "qid": "3", "docid": "d063eb36-2019-04-18T12:20:41Z-00001-000", "rank": 79, "score": 62877.0}, {"content": "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.", "qid": "3", "docid": "b213796f-2019-04-18T14:17:49Z-00002-000", "rank": 80, "score": 62745.0}, {"content": "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.", "qid": "3", "docid": "751f31f0-2019-04-18T12:51:51Z-00000-000", "rank": 81, "score": 62727.0}, {"content": "Title: Oil Companies Should Not Be Allowed To Drill Offshore Content: Banning drilling is unfair to nations and responsible companies", "qid": "3", "docid": "840adc3e-2019-04-19T12:45:10Z-00004-000", "rank": 82, "score": 62658.0}, {"content": "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.", "qid": "3", "docid": "fea35d8c-2019-04-19T12:48:09Z-00021-000", "rank": 83, "score": 62588.0}, {"content": "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. \"", "qid": "3", "docid": "d5890587-2019-04-18T18:15:39Z-00006-000", "rank": 84, "score": 62498.0}, {"content": "Title: Assault rifles Content: Should assault rifles be allowed for citizens?", "qid": "3", "docid": "5c103bc3-2019-04-18T14:15:56Z-00001-000", "rank": 85, "score": 62475.0}, {"content": "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.", "qid": "3", "docid": "86558ca1-2019-04-18T18:55:32Z-00005-000", "rank": 86, "score": 62453.0}, {"content": "Title: Free trade Content: Unfettered Free Trade allows for toxic products to be commercialized", "qid": "3", "docid": "3d9e8a34-2019-04-17T11:47:44Z-00002-000", "rank": 87, "score": 62404.0}, {"content": "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...", "qid": "3", "docid": "7a6a4ab3-2019-04-18T14:30:59Z-00001-000", "rank": 88, "score": 62329.0}, {"content": "Title: Gun right should be dis-allowed. Content: Nac.", "qid": "3", "docid": "e7e42aeb-2019-04-18T17:24:50Z-00001-000", "rank": 89, "score": 62319.0}, {"content": "Title: death penalty Content: should the death penalty be allowed?", "qid": "3", "docid": "75f8530d-2019-04-18T15:27:15Z-00003-000", "rank": 90, "score": 62302.0}, {"content": "Title: Terrorism should not be allowed publicity Content: States do not negotiate with terrorists due to public pressure.", "qid": "3", "docid": "79069cc9-2019-04-19T12:47:36Z-00003-000", "rank": 91, "score": 62271.0}, {"content": "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.", "qid": "3", "docid": "3d9e8a34-2019-04-17T11:47:44Z-00133-000", "rank": 92, "score": 62158.0}, {"content": "Title: Should the Cell Phones Be Allowed in Schools Content: Yes, to some degree", "qid": "3", "docid": "61e00511-2019-04-19T12:47:25Z-00010-000", "rank": 93, "score": 62143.0}, {"content": "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.", "qid": "3", "docid": "1d2c3937-2019-04-18T16:30:38Z-00004-000", "rank": 94, "score": 62131.0}, {"content": "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\u2019s ability to foster work readiness, entrepreneurship, financial literacy skills, and its philosophy of \u201clearning by doing\u201d 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\u2019s 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.", "qid": "3", "docid": "16ade04-2019-04-18T16:24:03Z-00000-000", "rank": 95, "score": 62120.0}, {"content": "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.", "qid": "3", "docid": "2bce8c52-2019-04-18T19:09:45Z-00003-000", "rank": 96, "score": 61917.0}, {"content": "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...", "qid": "3", "docid": "23ce4fd2-2019-04-18T19:36:17Z-00005-000", "rank": 97, "score": 61799.0}, {"content": "Title: Gang Members in the U.S Armed Forces should not be allowed! Content: Oh man", "qid": "3", "docid": "17379a56-2019-04-18T17:49:05Z-00001-000", "rank": 98, "score": 61798.0}, {"content": "Title: Trade in the goods ivory and rhinoceros horns should be legalized. Content: Oh well, not the debate we all wanted.", "qid": "3", "docid": "f4aca10b-2019-04-18T19:02:55Z-00000-000", "rank": 99, "score": 61793.0}, {"content": "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. . . .", "qid": "3", "docid": "1dfc3384-2019-04-18T18:40:31Z-00000-000", "rank": 100, "score": 61791.0}]}
{"query": "Should corporal punishment be used in schools?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: should schools use corporal punishment Content: I will begin my side by saying corporal punishment is highly unnecessary, and doesn't do anything besides implant more negative behavior. Also since you didn't specify what type of education, I must assume all grade levels(excluding college), and thus we will debate on that. First off, corporal punishment is a unnecessary act, and the schools have no right to hit a kid without consent of parents. Also since you never specified whether school had the parent consent. You have so many more punishments such as : Detention, sat. detention, in school suspension, suspension, and expulsion. I don't see why you need to enter the fist of \"justice\" into the picture. Secondly, striking the child isn't going to solve anything, all it is going to do is embarrass the child, and cause possible physcological problems. Also if the child is in high school and gets hit, then he or she may strike back. Also the allowing of corporal punishment in school leads to child abuse. What stops a teacher for beating the kid, or a student beating a teacher back in self defense. Thirdly, violence does not belong in the classroom. It does not help the education, and in fact probably harms it. The child will be more afraid of the teacher, they won't pay attention to the lesson plan. Also most associations are against corporal punishment, the one that caught my eye was The American School Counsellor Association. Hmmm, counsellors against the beating of children, didn't see that coming. If the people who are suppose to watch and help guide our children oppose why should it be used?", "qid": "4", "docid": "8baf5944-2019-04-18T19:55:55Z-00002-000", "rank": 1, "score": 169073.0}, {"content": "Title: Should Corporal Punishment be allowed at school Content: Corporal punishment means physical torture. This could be in the form of beating, canning, thrashing or even whipping. Corporal punishment is a common feature in schools. Several incidents of such punishment have been reported in the newspapers. Such kind of punishment can physically impair a student for his whole life. It may also affect him psychologically, disturb his mental balance. This kind of punishment should be stopped immediately. The method to discipline a child through corporal punishment was first practiced during the medieval period and is old-fashioned. Teachers should deal with their students patiently, advising and guiding them in every sphere of life. The term, 'Corporal punishment' means 'physical punishment'. It is a kind of punishment that affects the human body adversely. This could be in the form of beating, thrashing or even whipping'. Thus, punishment of this kind is physical torture to a student and should be condemned and stopped immediately. Moreover, such kind of punishment may sometimes physically impair a student for his whole life. Psychologists are of the opinion that such a punishment can affect a student mentally, for a very long period of time. In India Corporal punishment has become a common feature in schools. Several incidents of physical assault have been reported in the newspapers. For instance, a student of class XII from a popular school in Udaipur and a student from Delhi Municipality Corporation School died due to the beating, they received from their school teacher. This is shocking. In another incident, a class XI student in Ahmedabad accused a teacher of having hit him so hard that he suffered a temporary loss of hearing. Making a student kneel down or stand for hours, pinching and slapping are all set to be banned under plans to widen the definition of Corporal punishment in schools. The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) has suggested a code of regulations on the conduct of teachers in schools. A standout feature of the code is a total ban on corporal punishment. So far, only six Indian states have banned the cane in schools. Corporal Punishment is just another form of physical violence and has no place in an enlightened society. However there are numerous instances of milder punishment that go unnoticed. There is enough evidence to suggest that teachers, including those at elite schools, physically and verbally intimidate children, some of whom could be as young as five years old. There is unfortunately no national law banning cruel or unusual punishment in schools. The National Policy on Education merely says that corporal punishment is not permissible. Discipline is a must for students in schools and colleges. However, enforcing it through Corporal punishment is highly objectionable and rather, inhuman. This kind of punishment was generally practiced during the medieval period, and is very old-fashioned. Moreover, this is not the right procedure or technique to discipline a student. Teacher should realize that children at the school level are at an impressionable age. If they are subjected to such kind of physical torture, they may develop a fear (phobia) to approach or meet a teacher, or even attend the school. They will never respect and love their teachers which is very essential for the overall development of a student's personality. This is because a guru or a teacher is a role model for a student. He must set an example for his students through his behavior and actions. He must deal with his students patiently, advising and guiding him to excel in every sphere of life such as academics, sports, music and various other extra-curricular activities. A student must also be free and friendly with his teachers, ask questions, clarify his doubts etc. At the same time, he should always respect and obey his teachers. However, this obedience and respect cannot be demanded forcibly through corporal punishment. It can only come spontaneously through deep regard for one's teachers. Supreme Court states that 'children are not subjected to corporal punishment in schools and the they should receive education in an environment of freedom and dignity, free from fear. National Policy on Education directs the school authority to take necessary action in the matter, so that the pernicious practice of affecting physical and mental health of children can be nipped in the bud. Corporal punishment does not have any positive effect on a student. If further worsens the situation. For instance, a student who is very naughty, or least interested in studies, when subjected to corporal punishment, may become more aggressive in nature. He may even leave the school and studies. Nonetheless, such a drastic decision can be disastrous for a child's future. Corporal punishment may even cause permanent physical disorders in a child. For example, hard slapping upon the ears can make him totally deaf for the rest of his life. Harsh whipping and canning in the hands and legs can damage the bones and muscles paralyzing him completely. There are some people who would say scolding of school children and verbal intimidation should not be outlawed. This argument is flawed. Verbal abuse could be as damaging and humiliating for children, especially the younger ones, as physical punishment. Parents often complain to schools authorities against abusing their children in school. But they are too often cowed by school authorities to raise their voice. In such a situation, there is no alternative but for the state government to interfere. To conclude, it must always be borne in our mind that teaching is one of the noblest professions where one imparts knowledge to others. The teacher must consider his students as his own children, and treat them as lovingly and caringly as possible. He should applaud a student's achievements, and help him to overcome his shortcomings by motivating him to pursue his interests. A teacher should be there to guide a student to become responsible, educated and a well-groomed citizen of a country. While handling students, it must always be kept in mind that they are like flowers. They have to be nurtured with great care to help them blossom and spread their fragrance.", "qid": "4", "docid": "c6b278de-2019-04-18T15:01:18Z-00003-000", "rank": 2, "score": 168665.0}, {"content": "Title: Should Corporal Punishment be allowed at school Content: Corporal punishment means physical torture. This could be in the form of beating, canning, thrashing or even whipping. Corporal punishment is a common feature in schools. Several incidents of such punishment have been reported in the newspapers. Such kind of punishment can physically impair a student for his whole life. It may also affect him psychologically, disturb his mental balance. This kind of punishment should be stopped immediately. The method to discipline a child through corporal punishment was first practiced during the medieval period and is old-fashioned. Teachers should deal with their students patiently, advising and guiding them in every sphere of life. The term, 'Corporal punishment' means 'physical punishment'. It is a kind of punishment that affects the human body adversely. This could be in the form of beating, thrashing or even whipping'. Thus, punishment of this kind is physical torture to a student and should be condemned and stopped immediately. Moreover, such kind of punishment may sometimes physically impair a student for his whole life. Psychologists are of the opinion that such a punishment can affect a student mentally, for a very long period of time. In India Corporal punishment has become a common feature in schools. Several incidents of physical assault have been reported in the newspapers. For instance, a student of class XII from a popular school in Udaipur and a student from Delhi Municipality Corporation School died due to the beating, they received from their school teacher. This is shocking. In another incident, a class XI student in Ahmedabad accused a teacher of having hit him so hard that he suffered a temporary loss of hearing. Making a student kneel down or stand for hours, pinching and slapping are all set to be banned under plans to widen the definition of Corporal punishment in schools. The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) has suggested a code of regulations on the conduct of teachers in schools. A standout feature of the code is a total ban on corporal punishment. So far, only six Indian states have banned the cane in schools. Corporal Punishment is just another form of physical violence and has no place in an enlightened society. However there are numerous instances of milder punishment that go unnoticed. There is enough evidence to suggest that teachers, including those at elite schools, physically and verbally intimidate children, some of whom could be as young as five years old. There is unfortunately no national law banning cruel or unusual punishment in schools. The National Policy on Education merely says that corporal punishment is not permissible. Discipline is a must for students in schools and colleges. However, enforcing it through Corporal punishment is highly objectionable and rather, inhuman. This kind of punishment was generally practiced during the medieval period, and is very old-fashioned. Moreover, this is not the right procedure or technique to discipline a student. Teacher should realize that children at the school level are at an impressionable age. If they are subjected to such kind of physical torture, they may develop a fear (phobia) to approach or meet a teacher, or even attend the school. They will never respect and love their teachers which is very essential for the overall development of a student's personality. This is because a guru or a teacher is a role model for a student. He must set an example for his students through his behavior and actions. He must deal with his students patiently, advising and guiding him to excel in every sphere of life such as academics, sports, music and various other extra-curricular activities. A student must also be free and friendly with his teachers, ask questions, clarify his doubts etc. At the same time, he should always respect and obey his teachers. However, this obedience and respect cannot be demanded forcibly through corporal punishment. It can only come spontaneously through deep regard for one's teachers. Supreme Court states that 'children are not subjected to corporal punishment in schools and the they should receive education in an environment of freedom and dignity, free from fear. National Policy on Education directs the school authority to take necessary action in the matter, so that the pernicious practice of affecting physical and mental health of children can be nipped in the bud. Corporal punishment does not have any positive effect on a student. If further worsens the situation. For instance, a student who is very naughty, or least interested in studies, when subjected to corporal punishment, may become more aggressive in nature. He may even leave the school and studies. Nonetheless, such a drastic decision can be disastrous for a child's future. Corporal punishment may even cause permanent physical disorders in a child. For example, hard slapping upon the ears can make him totally deaf for the rest of his life. Harsh whipping and canning in the hands and legs can damage the bones and muscles paralyzing him completely. There are some people who would say scolding of school children and verbal intimidation should not be outlawed. This argument is flawed. Verbal abuse could be as damaging and humiliating for children, especially the younger ones, as physical punishment. Parents often complain to schools authorities against abusing their children in school. But they are too often cowed by school authorities to raise their voice. In such a situation, there is no alternative but for the state government to interfere. To conclude, it must always be borne in our mind that teaching is one of the noblest professions where one imparts knowledge to others. The teacher must consider his students as his own children, and treat them as lovingly and caringly as possible. He should applaud a student's achievements, and help him to overcome his shortcomings by motivating him to pursue his interests. A teacher should be there to guide a student to become responsible, educated and a well-groomed citizen of a country. While handling students, it must always be kept in mind that they are like flowers. They have to be nurtured with great care to help them blossom and spread their fragrance.", "qid": "4", "docid": "c6b2791c-2019-04-18T14:59:08Z-00002-000", "rank": 3, "score": 168665.0}, {"content": "Title: Should Corporal Punishment be allowed at school Content: Corporal punishment means physical torture. This could be in the form of beating, canning, thrashing or even whipping. Corporal punishment is a common feature in schools. Several incidents of such punishment have been reported in the newspapers. Such kind of punishment can physically impair a student for his whole life. It may also affect him psychologically, disturb his mental balance. This kind of punishment should be stopped immediately. The method to discipline a child through corporal punishment was first practiced during the medieval period and is old-fashioned. Teachers should deal with their students patiently, advising and guiding them in every sphere of life. The term, 'Corporal punishment' means 'physical punishment'. It is a kind of punishment that affects the human body adversely. This could be in the form of beating, thrashing or even whipping'. Thus, punishment of this kind is physical torture to a student and should be condemned and stopped immediately. Moreover, such kind of punishment may sometimes physically impair a student for his whole life. Psychologists are of the opinion that such a punishment can affect a student mentally, for a very long period of time. In India Corporal punishment has become a common feature in schools. Several incidents of physical assault have been reported in the newspapers. For instance, a student of class XII from a popular school in Udaipur and a student from Delhi Municipality Corporation School died due to the beating, they received from their school teacher. This is shocking. In another incident, a class XI student in Ahmedabad accused a teacher of having hit him so hard that he suffered a temporary loss of hearing. Making a student kneel down or stand for hours, pinching and slapping are all set to be banned under plans to widen the definition of Corporal punishment in schools. The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) has suggested a code of regulations on the conduct of teachers in schools. A standout feature of the code is a total ban on corporal punishment. So far, only six Indian states have banned the cane in schools. Corporal Punishment is just another form of physical violence and has no place in an enlightened society. However there are numerous instances of milder punishment that go unnoticed. There is enough evidence to suggest that teachers, including those at elite schools, physically and verbally intimidate children, some of whom could be as young as five years old. There is unfortunately no national law banning cruel or unusual punishment in schools. The National Policy on Education merely says that corporal punishment is not permissible. Discipline is a must for students in schools and colleges. However, enforcing it through Corporal punishment is highly objectionable and rather, inhuman. This kind of punishment was generally practiced during the medieval period, and is very old-fashioned. Moreover, this is not the right procedure or technique to discipline a student. Teacher should realize that children at the school level are at an impressionable age. If they are subjected to such kind of physical torture, they may develop a fear (phobia) to approach or meet a teacher, or even attend the school. They will never respect and love their teachers which is very essential for the overall development of a student's personality. This is because a guru or a teacher is a role model for a student. He must set an example for his students through his behavior and actions. He must deal with his students patiently, advising and guiding him to excel in every sphere of life such as academics, sports, music and various other extra-curricular activities. A student must also be free and friendly with his teachers, ask questions, clarify his doubts etc. At the same time, he should always respect and obey his teachers. However, this obedience and respect cannot be demanded forcibly through corporal punishment. It can only come spontaneously through deep regard for one's teachers. Supreme Court states that 'children are not subjected to corporal punishment in schools and the they should receive education in an environment of freedom and dignity, free from fear. National Policy on Education directs the school authority to take necessary action in the matter, so that the pernicious practice of affecting physical and mental health of children can be nipped in the bud. Corporal punishment does not have any positive effect on a student. If further worsens the situation. For instance, a student who is very naughty, or least interested in studies, when subjected to corporal punishment, may become more aggressive in nature. He may even leave the school and studies. Nonetheless, such a drastic decision can be disastrous for a child's future. Corporal punishment may even cause permanent physical disorders in a child. For example, hard slapping upon the ears can make him totally deaf for the rest of his life. Harsh whipping and canning in the hands and legs can damage the bones and muscles paralyzing him completely. There are some people who would say scolding of school children and verbal intimidation should not be outlawed. This argument is flawed. Verbal abuse could be as damaging and humiliating for children, especially the younger ones, as physical punishment. Parents often complain to schools authorities against abusing their children in school. But they are too often cowed by school authorities to raise their voice. In such a situation, there is no alternative but for the state government to interfere. To conclude, it must always be borne in our mind that teaching is one of the noblest professions where one imparts knowledge to others. The teacher must consider his students as his own children, and treat them as lovingly and caringly as possible. He should applaud a student's achievements, and help him to overcome his shortcomings by motivating him to pursue his interests. A teacher should be there to guide a student to become responsible, educated and a well-groomed citizen of a country. While handling students, it must always be kept in mind that they are like flowers. They have to be nurtured with great care to help them blossom and spread their fragrance.", "qid": "4", "docid": "c6b2791c-2019-04-18T14:59:08Z-00004-000", "rank": 4, "score": 168665.0}, {"content": "Title: Should Corporal Punishment be allowed at school Content: I am going to go pro on this on, but not all the way. Let me explain, I believe that some slight forms of corporal punishment should be allowed, but not to the extent that you are talking about in your argument. In schools, children do not learn as much when they are being disrupted by other classmates. If a classmate is being a distraction, the others don't learn. If there are some very mild forms of punishment like a slap on the rust with a ruler or some other form of mild physical punishment, the student will be more likely to stop and quit being a distraction at other times. If physical punishment is only used as a last resort, being punished will become a thing that students (especially young students) not want. If a student knows they will only be lectured, they will be less likely to stop behaving that way than if they were lectured and mildly punished physically. When a student wants attention, sometimes they act out to get it. If they gen punished corporeally they wont resort to acting out in school to get the attention that they yearn. Also if it is used less often, and more conservatively, the student will not be psychologically harmed in the process.", "qid": "4", "docid": "c6b2791c-2019-04-18T14:59:08Z-00003-000", "rank": 5, "score": 168442.0}, {"content": "Title: Corporal punishment should be banned from schools Content: My opponent supplies us by a new article from the famously liberal abc news. (I'm liberal myself but for this debate I have to admit that this is an extremely biased source). They essentially tear apart the idea of corporal punishment based on the 'theory' (for which no evidence is supplied) that corporal punishment increases aggression in children (which is ironic because you'd think having felt the force of violence that children would be less aggressive).Now I shall explain exactly why corporal punishment needn't be banned from SCHOOLS despite it's rightful ban in other places.As I said in round 1, \" A teacher cannot threaten a detention, something they are allowed to do, without the retort of \u201cbut you can't take away my freedom\u201d, \u201cyou have no right\u201d or \u201cI have rights\u201d. In fact children are acutely aware of how much power they have over the teachers by way of laws and rights, and they use every opportunity to remind the teachers of that fact.\" corporal punishment would allow the teacher, in a strictly monitored manner, to spank the child for not only the original reason but for the rudeness of the remark, is rather ineffective and useless (and my opponent supplied zero evidence otherwise).Also,, was my contention that \"If we re-introduced corporal punishment this back chat would cease and the power would be retained by the teachers. Detention is not going to be taken seriously by anyone. What does detention do other than waste your time? If you have ADHD or a creative mind you'll have a blast, effectively learning nothing to *correct* your behavior.\" The only point against this was that my opponent claimed to have first-hand seen reduction in repeats of detention as opposed to spanking issues but this easily could be because of more lenience in the school when it had detentions.I re-iterate that Between 1981, when corporal punishment was legal and in 1997, after the abolition of corporal punishment, there was a 67% increase in crime. (Source R#1)", "qid": "4", "docid": "91279d46-2019-04-18T17:53:34Z-00000-000", "rank": 6, "score": 167227.0}, {"content": "Title: Corporal Punishment be Brought Back to Schools Content: Before I start, let me just say this much: I'm against corporal punishment, this is just for fun since we just did this debate at school. Corporal punishment is when a teacher punishes a student physically for a mistake, and it needs to be brought back to schools. It is true that it has been misused in the past, but with new rules, corporal punishment would be a new and healthy part of a student's life. In this case, the ruler shall not be used, or any other tool used to strike the student, including the hand of a teacher. Instead, the punishment will be carried out in the form of running. Depending on the severity of the student's mistake and his/her physical status, the student will be required to run a certain distance. By doing this, it will not only ensure the student will not be abused by a teacher, and it is also good physical excersize. According to http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au..., running will help build strong bones, strengthen muscles, improve cardiovascular fitness. burn plenty of kilojoules. and help maintain a healthy weight. This way, not only is the student punished, it also helps maintain a student's good health. This form of punishment will also avoid missing classtime, which is a problem caused by detention or suspension. The running will be done before or after school, therefore no classtime will be missed, allowing the student to learn everything he/she is supposed to learn. It also costs no money to use this form of punishment. It is efficent both time and money wise. Therefore, corporal punishment should be brought back to schools in the form of running.", "qid": "4", "docid": "c93845a0-2019-04-18T15:10:52Z-00001-000", "rank": 7, "score": 166427.0}, {"content": "Title: Schools Should Have The Option To Use Corporal Punishment Content: Definition: No problems there. \\\\\\Next ill post a practical example. Lets say a teacher is teaching a class. A student in the class talks out of turn. He is given a WARNING, and then he does it again and is given another WARNING, now, he talks out of turn again, he is called up to the front (or after school, at the teachers discretion) and the teacher would use a ruler to hit the students palms. There, end of story! This is the only way to speak to children these days because if they were punished orally or given detention the student would be more likely to repeat that mistake again./// You have not stated any evidence that this is the only way to speak to children. Because you have no evidence I will provide it. Wife beating is no longer acceptable, but in 23 states it is legal for school teachers and officials to spank and paddle kids, a form of corporal punishment. \"When a girl is spanked by her father or paddled by a male school teacher, she is being trained to submit,\" says Jordan Riak, a retired school teacher and the executive director of Parents and Teachers Against Violence in Education, a California-based nonprofit group dedicated to getting corporal punishment banned in U.S. schools. \"When a school district permits teachers to paddle girls, it is setting those girls up to be victims of future male authority figures, whether it be a boyfriend, husband or employer,\" Riak claims. \\\\\\That's the only language children understand, and they understand it instantaneously.That's how you can prevent children from spoiling./// There is the assertion, now where is the reasoning and evidence? \\\\\\I'm good and successful today because my parents hit me when I did something wrong. That's why I'm doing well in life. I suffered no harm from my parents having beaten me./// Good and successful is from a point of view, and you have no clear evidence that because your parents hit you it is why you are successful. You may have not suffered any harm but you dont know about other kids who have different minds, a personal experience in this case is irrelevant. Finally, this debate is about schools, not your family. \\\\\\It is only fear which restrains children from misbehaving. Show the something to be afraid of and they will behave. Corporal punishment has instantaneous effect. Children obey and behave absolutely right when punished./// It has been proven, even in government, that it is wrong to rule with an iron fist. You should rule with reasoning, such as \"If you disrupt the class again you will be given after school detention on the minimum day\" Or \"You will have extra homework\" definitely not saying \"if you don't shut your trap you're gonna get a beatin'!\" Because after a while, kids get immune to the pain. \\\\\\Pampering and talking to them lovingly spoils them./// You don't pamper and spoil them if they did something wrong! \\\\\\History of corporal punishment suggests that it has taught children to behave over last so many ages/// I agree! Golden eras such as the Nazi rule of Germany, where the kids in the Hitler youth were shot with automatic rifles if they deserted, that kept them faithful to Hitler! But seriously it has not helped... ==Points== I. Morally wrong Now, in 2010, physical punishment is considered too severe for serial killers, murderers, criminals of all kinds and ages, including juvenile delinquents, too demeaning for soldiers, sailors, servants and spouses. But it remains legal and acceptable for children who are innocent of any crime! There are laws preventing child abuse, therefore my opponent's case is not only immoral, but illegal too. There are no reliable statistics on the extent of crime a hundred or a hundred and fifty years ago. From all reports, however, crime in the U.S. was extensive, especially violent crime and crimes among the young. The good citizens of 19th century America were also alarmed. They looked back to the good old days of simple rural life, before the growth of the cities. The crowded and crime-ridden Eastern cities were contrasted unfavorably with the \"wide open spaces\" of the West -- the West, that is, of Jesse James and Billy the Kid! Discipline in the one room schoolhouses was violent. Often the teacher engaged in a bare knuckle fight with the biggest student as a warning to the others of what would happen to them if they provoked his wrath. Horace Mann, the Father of American education, fulminated against the number of floggings per day, sometimes more than the number of scholars. Most of our great grandparents were satisfied with a fourth grade education and eighth grade was the end for all but five percent. The lawless mountain men of the Old West were recruited from the 14-year olds who high tailed it after one thrashing too many. Bands of outlaws stole horses, and plagued the defenseless. Public hangings and Iynchings were commonplace while pickpockets worked the crowds. Only the militia and the sheriff's posse maintained any semblance of order. I do not call this productive. II. Evidence Against Adrenalin output increases sharply during fear, anger and physical punishment. When this is prolonged or often repeated, the endocrine balance fails to return to baseline. The victim becomes easily angered and prone to poor impulse control and spontaneous violent outbursts. Car crashes caused by drunk driving are increased by a hidden factor. Bottled up anger, when combined with alcohol is the largest cause of the highway death toll which comes to 25,000 deaths every year, or one every 20 minutes. An investigation by Donald C. Pelz of the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan in 1973 led to his finding that: \"For the young male, anger toward the adult world is likely to find vent in dangerous driving ... Hostility tends to multiply with their attitude toward the educational system ... Those who had rejected the school system ... are likely to reject the highway system. \" In fact he concluded that abiding anger was even more dangerous than drinking per se, but that the combination was the most deadly. The insult to high school boys of an embarrassing paddling raises the adrenaline level, which if repeated often enough stays high all the time. They are the timebombs whose battlefield casualties litter the roads and intersections of our country. A survey of 3,900 people in Houston as to what effect school corporal punishment had on their lives found that 76 percent of them said the effects had been negative and that they continued to resent what happened to them. That leaves about a fourth of them who were able to shrug it off and a mere handful who felt grateful for the timely punishment that \"saved me from a life of crime.\" Thus, the one who testifies that \"I was paddled when I was a kid and I turned out okay,\" must be labelled a survivor and congratulated on the strength of character that enabled him to make a life in spite of early mistreatment.", "qid": "4", "docid": "573905a8-2019-04-18T19:08:18Z-00003-000", "rank": 8, "score": 165909.0}, {"content": "Title: Schools Should Have The Option To Use Corporal Punishment Content: First i'd like to start out with a definition. \"Corporal punishment is the deliberate infliction of pain as retribution for an offence, or for the purpose of disciplining or reforming a wrongdoer, or to deter attitudes or behaviour deemed unacceptable. The term usually refers to methodically striking the offender with an implement, whether in judicial, domestic, or educational settings. \" Next ill post a practical example. Lets say a teacher is teaching a class. A student in the class talks out of turn. He is given a WARNING, and then he does it again and is given another WARNING, now, he talks out of turn again, he is called up to the front (or after school, at the teachers discretion) and the teacher would use a ruler to hit the students palms. There, end of story! This is the only way to speak to children these days because if they were punished orally or given detention the student would be more likely to repeat that mistake again. Now, i will bring some evidence to support my arguments. An editor from childdisciplinewithlove. com states \"[Corporal Punishment] That's the only language children understand, and they understand it instantaneously. That's how you can prevent children from spoiling. I'm good and successful today because my parents hit me when I did something wrong. That's why I'm doing well in life. I suffered no harm from my parents having beaten me. It has deterrent effect as well. If you beat one child in front of other children, not only that child learns to behave, others also learn a lesson to behave. Children try and test your limits. Show them some physical punishment so that they know it very clearly that each mistake of theirs will attract some physical punishment. \u2022It is only fear which restrains children from misbehaving. Show the something to be afraid of and they will behave. Corporal punishment has instantaneous effect. Children obey and behave absolutely right when punished. Pampering and talking to them lovingly spoils them. There is no point in talking to them regarding solving any of their behavior problem because they are young and have no understanding of the worldly wisdom. So it's better not to waste time on taching them through talking. Just show them the fear of doing something wrong and they will do everything right. History of corporal punishment suggests that it has taught children to behave over last so many ages. \" If you look at his last points it states that not only the child being faced with the punishment will learn but other children in the classroom will learn. Thank You.", "qid": "4", "docid": "573905a8-2019-04-18T19:08:18Z-00004-000", "rank": 9, "score": 165069.0}, {"content": "Title: Corporal Punishment in schools Content: Good luck, Lordknukle.*******Why shouldn't it be legal?Trust IssuesCorporal punishment in school facilities involves the hitting/beating of a student if they have disobeyed class room or school rules. If corporal punishment were to be implemented as a form of disciplinary action, there is no doubt that students would cease to disobey rules. However, this method can and will severely damage a student's trust with their teachers. As a result of this, the student loses that connection with their teacher to the point where they can't go to them a source of comfort. For example: James, 13 years old, has continuously interrupted the teacher with his distracting behavior. As punishment the teacher hits James in the face and is sent back to his seat. Because this damages their teacher-student relationship, the student will most likely avoid using that teacher as a source of comfort for other issues he may be having (bullying, grades, etc).Family/peer issuesI believe that is either extremely disobedient in class or has bad grades has either or both of these: Abuse/neglect at home Bullying inside and outside of school At home: Lets refer to the year 2006. This year, 61% (or 1.25M) children were victims of some form of neglect. These include not only physical, but mental, educational, emotional, and even sexual (http://pediatrics.about.com...). Neglect and abuse at home has a tremendous effect on a child, and to prove this, please take the time to read some of these stories: http://www.forthechild.org... For more statistics: http://www.childhelp.org... These children (mostly young) were all subject to some form of abuse. I'd like to point out one girl's story: Judy: This young girl (age 10) was moved to 20 different foster homes. Her crazed step father had sexually and physically abused her for many years. As a result she threatened to commit suicide in a school bathroom (no relativity). Take Judy's story and add the factor of corporal punishment in school. This would only add to here extremely bad situation and would have most likely ended up worse than it did.Bullying: http://www.makebeatsnotbeatdowns.org.... This link provides statistics on bullying. Feel free to scroll through. There is no doubt that students in fear of any form of bullying would not want to be beaten by their teacher for disobedience because: 1. Teachers and school faculty are the \"bully police\", so to speak. If they are physically punishing their students, the victims of bullying are less likely to go to those people for assistance. 2. Along with bullying, corporal punishment can cause the student to suffer from a depressive state of mind, resulting in possibly lack of loyalty and decline in curricular performance. Lesson learned...?What does corporal punishment in schools (and everywhere for that matter) accomplish? As I've said before, it is used to gain the expected behavior of the target. However, if this does work, another problem unveils itself. Not only does this inflict harm on the student, but it also teaches the student that you need to use physical violence to resolve disputes with peers, family, etc. This especially would become a problem when they are put in a position of authority.ResolutionOther methods (detention, suspension, etc.) can be far more effective, and for that matter, safer. Things like detention and suspension will not teach the student to resolve issues violently and will most likely not provoke depression (if not already being experienced from other matters). For detention especially, the teacher can assign tasks such as cleaning the desks, extra class work/homework, all the things that a student without detention would not want to do. As a result, the disobedient student would cease to break faculty rules.********Looking forward to your argument.Sources listed: http://www.forthechild.org... http://www.childhelp.org... http://pediatrics.about.com... http://www.makebeatsnotbeatdowns.org...", "qid": "4", "docid": "6110d4e2-2019-04-18T18:37:47Z-00002-000", "rank": 10, "score": 164496.0}, {"content": "Title: Should Corporal Punishment be allowed at school Content: No becuase it's just another form of bullying and bullying is wrong so if Corporal Punishment is used it makes things worse for a bullied child", "qid": "4", "docid": "c6b278de-2019-04-18T15:01:18Z-00001-000", "rank": 11, "score": 164146.0}, {"content": "Title: Schools Should Have The Option To Use Corporal Punishment Content: I will let my opponent start out with arguments and definitions. Therefore my opponent is the affirmative and I am the negative. Please post.", "qid": "4", "docid": "573905a8-2019-04-18T19:08:18Z-00005-000", "rank": 12, "score": 164002.0}, {"content": "Title: should schools use corporal punishment Content: Before I start this debate, I want to define the topic. First of all corporal. Punishment and schools a place where children get their education. So if you define the topic, it'll come out like this. Should places where they give children education use punishments. I think that we should use this corporal punishment. Corporal punishment has been use for a long time and nothing bad happened.", "qid": "4", "docid": "8baf5944-2019-04-18T19:55:55Z-00003-000", "rank": 13, "score": 163792.0}, {"content": "Title: Many students who misbehave in school come from unstable families Content: Teachers can be trusted to use corporal punishment as an option. They will think about what to do on a case-by-case basis and try to understand why a child is behaving a certain way. Then, if they think it is appropriate and it would help, they may choose to physically punish the student. Sometimes students who misbehave come from families who are too soft on them and do not discipline them enough, so their teachers need to take the task of setting boundaries. For this type of students, corporal punishment may be very helpful.", "qid": "4", "docid": "1df1290b-2019-04-19T12:44:36Z-00072-000", "rank": 14, "score": 163197.0}, {"content": "Title: Corporal Punishment in schools Content: PositionCorporal Punishment should not be a tactic used by teachers to recieve the expected behavior of a student. R1: Acceptance + Position (No addition arguments, refer above for an example)Thank you and good luck in advance to Pro.", "qid": "4", "docid": "6110d4e2-2019-04-18T18:37:47Z-00004-000", "rank": 15, "score": 163180.0}, {"content": "Title: Corporal Punishment in schools Content: Accepted.Corporal punishment should be used in schools.Corporal punishment is defined as:\"Physical punishment\" http://www.google.ca...;", "qid": "4", "docid": "6110d4e2-2019-04-18T18:37:47Z-00003-000", "rank": 16, "score": 162472.0}, {"content": "Title: Schools Should Have The Option To Use Corporal Punishment Content: First Of I would like to state a major flaw in my opponent(s) arguments, THEY ARE PLAGIARIZED. 75% of his points can be found here: http://www.naturalchild.org... This is poor sportsmanship but I would still like to continue. Repeatedly, my opponent has dressed his arguments by using slashes and back slashes. That is not the point of the matter right now but it just goes to show how he wants to \"cover up\" his \"MISTAKE\" Now on to some refutes, my opponent has repeatedly stated that I have no evidence, if he had read my argument closely you would be able to see that I am quoting actual PEOPLE! He also made a ridiculous refute by comparing this to the age of Hitler? Look, Hitler was different, he was a crazy radical that trained kids to kill the Jews, but this doesn't count as corporal punishment, ITS REFERRED TO AS WAR! Now my opponent states: \"It has been prove, even in government, that it is wrong to rule with an iron fist. You should rule with reasoning, such as \"If you disrupt the class again you will be given after school detention on the minimum day\" Or \"You will have extra homework\" definitely not saying \"if you don't shut your trap you're gonna get a beatin'!\" Because after a while, kids get immune to the pain.\" Like I have stated before, if kids are given a punishment that they will probably forget within the week it is most likely they will repeat that mistake. Next, he also states \"Kids become immune to pain\" that is a completely blind statement, and is obviously very opinionated. Lastly, I would like to have my opponent clarify the following: \\\\\\I'm good and successful today because my parents hit me when I did something wrong. That's why I'm doing well in life. I suffered no harm from my parents having beaten me./// Refute: Good and successful is from a point of view, and you have no clear evidence that because your parents hit you it is why you are successful. You may have not suffered any harm but you don't know about other kids who have different minds, a personal experience in this case is irrelevant. Finally, this debate is about schools, not your family. I would like to state, YET AGAIN, this is an editor from childdisciplinewithlove.org who is using his experiences IN SCHOOL to show how he became a better person. This is clear evidence supporting my arguments. For my closing statement I will go back to my opponents introduction. I have not yet once stated paddling as a form of corporal punishment, OR a male teacher hitting a girl. Since the motion has the word, CHOOSE, they are at full discretion to modify and change their policies. A child will learn, that they will not face pain if they are good, therefore making them better people late on in life. I have some statistics to prove this statement: One Kentucky study noted, \"Out-of-school suspension and expulsion interrupt students' educational progress and remove students from school at a time when they may most need stability and guidance in their lives. Repeated out-of-school suspensions may make it impossible for students to keep up with the curriculum, complete class assignments, and advance from one grade to another.\" David Richart et al., \"Unintended Consequences: The Impact of 'Zero Tolerance' and Other Exclusionary Policies on Kentucky Students\", report prepared by the National Institute on Children, Youth & Families at Spalding University in Louisville, KY; the Children's Law Center in Covington, KY; and the Youth Law Center in Washington, D.C. Thank You, I am carman16 on the motion that schools should have the option to use corporal punishment.", "qid": "4", "docid": "573905a8-2019-04-18T19:08:18Z-00002-000", "rank": 17, "score": 162022.0}, {"content": "Title: Corporal punishment should be implemented in a school setting Content: Rules: 1. Bible is not a valid source 2. ALWAYS STATE SOURCES (if you do not give sources you automatically lose) 3.", "qid": "4", "docid": "dab6c791-2019-04-18T12:50:18Z-00002-000", "rank": 18, "score": 162009.0}, {"content": "Title: Schools Should Have The Option To Use Corporal Punishment Content: My arguments are not plagiarized, they are quoted BIG DIFFERENCE. I specifically quoted and gave sources while you simply copy pasted and didn't even give an immediate source or use quotes. =Hitler= I think that is unfair to compare Hitler to a teacher. Simple as that. --If you have been beaten in your life by a parent you do not forget. It is a fearful memory that is full of pain, I am sure you would not forget this very quickly.-- Look, there are alot of things in life you don't, remember when you had to learn how to swim? If you get this memory, you will never repeat this mistake again and it will teach you a lesson to. =Blind Statements= I use an actual man that has grown up with corporal punishment, you state something completely out of the blue with nothing to support it with. The site I state also has statistics as well as REAL people talking about their experiences if you looked closely. =Suspensions= Oh My Gosh, REASONING! Look, if your taken out of school will you learn? No. If your punished right there and right in the middle of class the learning environment only gets disrupted for a couple minutes at most! =Refuting my closing statement= Don't be stupid. I have refuted all of CONS points and have supported my arguments accordingly. ====VOTE PRO====", "qid": "4", "docid": "573905a8-2019-04-18T19:08:18Z-00000-000", "rank": 19, "score": 161074.0}, {"content": "Title: Corporal Punishment Should be Enforced in Schools Content: I will now present my argument as defined. Arguments Against Corporal Punishment being enforced in school. 1). The more \"spankings children\" experience, the greater the chance that they will become aggressive and engage in other anti-social behavior. Source: (Study reported in Archives of Paediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, August 1997 by Murray A. Straus, David B. Sugarman, and Jean Giles-Sims) 2). Poor children, minorities and children with disabilities are hit more regularly in schools, sometimes at 2-5 times the rate of other children. Source: (U. S. Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights, Surveys from 1976-2003, Center for Effective Discipline. ) 3). Corporal punishment teaches children that violence is a way to solve problems. Research shows that this is indeed the message that kids receive whether it's inflicting, receiving or witnessing . Source: (Eron, Walder & Lefkowitz, 1971; Hyman & Snook, 1999; Lahey, Moffit & Caspi, 2003, Reid, Patterson & Snyder, 2002. ) 4). Studies have shown that corporal punishment of children is related to decreased morality, increased aggression, more antisocial behavior, increased criminality, decreased mental health outcomes, increased adult abusive behaviors, and increased risk of being victimized by abusive relationships in adulthood. Source: (Meta-Analysis of 88 corporal punishment studies (Gershoff, E. T. 2002). ) 5). Some statistics here: 78% of corporal punishment states achieved below the national average at the fourth grade level in reading. 75% of the corporal punishment states achieved below the national average in eighth grade level reading (Center for Effective Discipline, year: 2004). Sixty-seven percent of Ohio corporal punishment schools fell in the lowest 25% of schools on state school report cards in the 99-00 school year (Center for Effective Discipline, year: 2001). 6). Injuries often occur e. g bruises, broken bones. Children's deaths have occurred in the U. S. due to school corporal punishment. (hearing before the Juvenile Justice Committee on the Judiciary, U. S. Senate. October 17, 1984) 7). Corporal punishment enforces physical aggression as an acceptable and good means of getting rid of unwanted behavior in our society. (Position paper opposing school corporal punishment by the Society for Adolescent Medicine (Greydanus, DE. et al, 2003). ) 8). More school shooting deaths were found in states allowing school corporal punishment than those who do not. (D. Arcus, 2002. ) 9). There is evidence that harsh physical punishments are damaging to children, emotionally as well as physically. (Mohr, WK and Anderson, J. A. 2002. ) Facts: 10). Schools are the only institutions in America in which striking another person is legally sanctioned. It is not allowed in prisons, in the military or in mental hospitals. 11). Many alternatives to corporal punishment have proven their worth. Alternatives teach children to be self-disciplined rather than cooperative only because of fear. (No source here, just kind of general knowledge). These are the main reasons why I believe that corporal punishment should not be enforced in schools. I look forward to the next round. Further online source: (. http://www.neverhitachild.org...)", "qid": "4", "docid": "2fc6200f-2019-04-18T17:01:39Z-00003-000", "rank": 20, "score": 159483.0}, {"content": "Title: Corporal Punishment Should be Enforced in Schools Content: Pro begins his argument by listing the supposed \"pros\" of corporal punishment. 1) Yes it can be argued that corporal punishment teaches kids discipline but I think that the reasons why it teaches discipline is appalling. Corporal punishment teaches kids to be disciplined out of nothing else but fear. There is no real or valid motive for a child to be disciplined as a result of corporal punishment apart from fear of physical pain. This is in effect isn't teaching children genuine discipline or the importance of discipline. Here are some other proven to work alternatives of disciplining students other than physical abuse (. http://www.webmd.com...). Why would corporal punishment need to be enforced as a means of discipline when there are plenty of other means. Not to mention the sheer problems associated with corporal punishment mentioned in my round 2 arguments. 2) You have no sources to back up the claim that corporal punishment actually deters bad behaviour. This article argues that corporal punishment doesn't deter bad behavior. (. http://getreadyforcollege.wordpress.com...) several case studies show that by repeated physical tortures children usually become even more adamant and might also start hating their elders as they do not understand the reason that why doing certain things are intolerable. On the other hand, disciplining without hitting would mean to first make the child understand that why certain behavior is acceptable and some are not. Teach the child some basic rules of the society and why are they to be followed. It has often been found that by giving logical reasoning to your child's answers, they can be stop many wrong deeds. This is also educating the child about conduct instead of making the child fear constantly. Here is a case study on both the negative physical and mental effects of corporal punishment:(. http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org...) 3) I'm not sure how \"no suspensions\" is such a pro of corporal punishment. Firstly students can still get suspended if corporal punishment exists in their school but surely suspension is more beneficial to a child than corporal punishment. Suspension 1)Removes a problematic student from school. 2)Provides temporary relief to frustrated school personnel. 3)Raises parental attention to their child's misconduct. It does all these things without the physical and physocological effects of corporal punishment. 4) Also I don't see how corporal punishment limits the amount of educational disruptions. Taking the time to give out corporal punishment in whatever form is much more of a disruption than telling a student to be quiet for example. Again there are many other effective means of punishment other than having to resort to physical violence, which as I have shown, has a great amount of disadvantages. Pro tries to argue that there are restrictions to corporal punishment e. g male teachers not being permitted to use this punishment on female students, however I do not see this as a valid argument. There may be restrictions to corporal punishment but this isn't really making a case on your stance that it should be enforced in school. I would like to state that The United States is the only nation in the western world which still permits corporal punishment in its schools. And even having said that, corporal punishment is banned in schools in 31 states. Statistics show that corporal punishment is on a decline. (. http://www.corpun.com...) This is another point for my case. There is obviously a reason for this decline. People are coming to their senses are realizing that the disadvantages of corporal punish enormously outweigh whatever advantages there might be, which I feel I have shown I look forward to the final round.", "qid": "4", "docid": "2fc6200f-2019-04-18T17:01:39Z-00001-000", "rank": 21, "score": 159280.0}, {"content": "Title: Should Corporal Punishment be allowed at school Content: It should be aloud in school so children will have better discipline and pay attention more. Studies show that since corporal punishment was banned discipline in children has gone dramatically down.", "qid": "4", "docid": "c6b278de-2019-04-18T15:01:18Z-00002-000", "rank": 22, "score": 159057.0}, {"content": "Title: Corporal punishment in schools. Content: cor\"po\"ral pun\"ish\"ment noun 1.physical punishment, such as caning or flogging. implemented: Verb 1.put (a decision, plan, agreement, etc.) into effect. School corporal punishment refers to causing deliberate pain or discomfort in response to undesired behaviour by students in schools. It often involves striking the student either across the buttocks or on the hands, with an implement such as a cane, wooden paddle, slipper, leather strap or wooden yardstick. Less commonly, it could also include spanking or smacking the student with the open hand, especially at the elementary school level. As of 2015, 31 states and the District of Columbia have banned corporal punishment in public schools, though in some of these there is no explicit prohibition. Corporal punishment is also unlawful in private schools in Iowa and New Jersey. In 19 U.S. states, corporal punishment is lawful in both public and private schools. Years ago, it was acceptable for a husband in the United States to beat his wife in order to get her to do what he wanted or to punish her. His asserting his authority through corporal punishment was accepted as a social norm. Should we be teaching school children that in this day in age it is appropriate for them to be hit when someone disagrees with them and their behaviour. Physical punishment can easily escalate and cross the line to abuse and serious injury, particularly when an instrument is used and public schools are required to use a paddle or ruler to implement corporal punishment. An estimated 1 to 2 percent of physically punished students in the United States are seriously injured, to the point of needing medical attention. According to the AAP and the Society for Adolescent Medicine, these injuries have included bruises, abrasions, broken bones, whiplash injury, muscle damage,brain injury, and in a few cases death. I am aware that this data is out of date but we should not ignore the fact that through the ages the number of children being smacked by their superiors is large during the 2005-2006 school year, 223,190 children had corporal punishment implemented in schools. It is because of these reasons I do not believe it moral to implement corporal punishment in schools. Sources: http://centerforparentingeducation.org... https://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.cnn.com... http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com... Society for Adolescent Medicine https://en.wikipedia.org... https://en.wikipedia.org...", "qid": "4", "docid": "4712ec0a-2019-04-18T12:53:28Z-00007-000", "rank": 23, "score": 158861.0}, {"content": "Title: All schools should bring back corporal punishment Content: I stated it worked and stand by it. If it didn't work then why would it have continued? Why is it since the bans started children have become incorrigible and school shootings, gang rapes and other things have become more and more popular. Almost weakly we read about; rapes, gang rapes, assaults and even murder. Those things did not happen back in the 60's and 70's when I went to school and bullying was very, very rare. Although I am sure things did happen in some parts of the country it was virtually unheard of. History - I just snagged this real quick from wikipedia. Corporal punishment was recorded as early as c. 10th Century BC in Book of Proverbs attributed to Solomon: He that spareth the rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him correcteth him betimes. Withhold not correction from a child: for if thou strike him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and deliver his soul from hell. It was certainly present in classical civilisations, being used in Greece, Rome, and Egypt for both judicial and educational discipline. Some states gained a reputation for using such punishments cruelly; Sparta, in particular, used them as part of a disciplinary regime designed to build willpower and physical strength. Although the Spartan example was extreme, corporal punishment was possibly the most frequent type of punishment. In the Roman Empire, the maximum penalty that a Roman citizen could receive under the law was 40 \"lashes\" or \"strokes\" with a whip applied to the back and shoulders, or with the \"fasces\" (similar to a birch rod, but consisting of 8\"10 lengths of willow rather than birch) applied to the buttocks. Such punishments could draw blood, and were frequently inflicted in public. I don't know why you would be amused with my using a debate. It brings into play other opinions. I have no problem sharing my sources and even encourage you to use them. This topic has been debated since the days of the first real republic Greece. Like all republics, the softer they got and they more entitlements the weaker the empire and eventual collapse. I happened in Babylon, Egypt, Greece, Rome, British and now the USA. When I mentioned the 6000 teachers I guess I was wrong in believing you would understand it. I thought it was obvious and easy to understand. England is a very liberal country. They have many entitlements and have been pushing for all types of entitlement reform since the 1750's. (Don't go getting political I am using the word entitlement because the English believe they are \"entitled\" certain things. Politics is another subject). For a union (liberal) organization such as teachers and living in a liberal society such as England it is AMAZING that 20% of the teachers would say they think it should be brought back. The article doesn't say how may had no opinion or had a different position. Skewing facts does not make a case. Being spanked has never been proven to cause violence when a person becomes an adult. There are a ton of psychology papers on the internet talking about this subject but they never went out, grabbed 100,000 people, sat them all down and ask who had been spanked, who has been violent and do they feel there is a connection. What they do is visit people in prison, who are always innocent and ask about their childhood and being spanked. Then they claim that spanking damaged them!!! Yelling at a child causes more mental damage than spanking. However, a parent who calmly spanks a child after explaining why the child is being spanked and does so only to create a foundation for other primary methods of discipline (such as Time Out) is never going to develop a pattern of violence in the child. Never. The American Academy of Pediatrics admits that spanking can stop a child from misbehaving in the short-term. Exactly. During that initial short-term period, parents should transition to Time Out to train their child to obey and respect others. Many children respond to self-controlled, reasonable spanking with an adjustment in their attitude toward parents. http://drpaterno.blogspot.com... Here are the states with corporal punishment still allowed, then the rank in violent crime, then the major cities in those states, and then the percentage of whites in those cities. We know violent crimes are highest in major cities, especially the inner cities. We also know that violent crimes are committed disproportionately by minorities and people who come from broken homes. The violent crime has nothing to do with spanking. States with corporal punishment Rank Major cities % white population in city Alabama 23 Birmingham,Montgomery 35.0 47.6 Arizona 16 Phoenix, Tucson 46.5, 47.2 Arkansas 11 Little Rock, N. Little Rock 49.4, 61.55 Colorado 25 Denver, Aurora 52.2, 61.1 Florida 4 Jacksonville, Miami, Tampa 55.1, 11.9, 46.3 Georgia 19 Atlanta, Augusta 50.7, 39.1 Idaho 42 Boise, Nampa 91.5, 83.45 **** Indiana 29 Indianapolis 58.0 Kansas 24 Wichita, Kansas City 64.5, 40.2 Kentucky 40 Louisville, Lexington 71.7, 81.04 Louisiana 5 New Orleans, Baton Rouge 33.0, 37.8 Mississippi 31 Jackson, Gulfport 18.0, 56.86 Missouri 12 St. Louis, Kansas City 42.2, 54.9 New Mexico 9 Albuquerque, Las Cruces 42.1, 37.5 * North Carolina 18 Charlotte, Raleigh 45.1, 53.3 Ohio 27 Columbus, Cleveland, Cincinnati 59.3, 33.4, 48.1 Oklahoma 17 Tulsa, Oklahoma City 57.9, 68.7 South Carolina 1 Columbia, Charleston, N. Charleston 49.6, 52.2, 40.6 ** Tennessee 2 Memphis, Nashville 29.5, 56.3, Texas 15 Houston, San Antonio, Dallas 26.0, 26.6, 28.8 *** Wyoming 43 Cheyenne, Casper 87.4, 92.3 **** * http://www.newmexico-demographics.com... ** http://www.southcarolina-demographics.com... *** Houston, San Antonio and Dallas are around 50% until the white hispanics are removed from the non hispanic. **** These were not listed with white hispanics removed. I see 5 in the top 10 and 3 in the bottom 10. Maine #50 is 94.4% non hispanic white. New Hampshire #48 is 92.3% and Vermont #47 is 94.3. I realize that spanking is not allowed in schools in these states but home spanking is. A liberal made a motion to ban home spanking and it was heavily defeated!!! http://en.wikipedia.org...", "qid": "4", "docid": "29b5e1ff-2019-04-18T17:57:40Z-00004-000", "rank": 24, "score": 157875.0}, {"content": "Title: Corporal Punishment Should be Enforced in Schools Content: I would like to start off with the definition of corporal punishment, acquired from [1]. \"Corporal punishment, physical chastisement of an offender. At one extreme it includes the death penalty (see capital punishment), but the term usually refers to punishments like flogging, caning, mutilation, and branding. Until c.1800, in many parts of the world, most crimes were punished thus, or by such practices as confinement in the pillory or stocks, which combined physical chastisement with the humiliation of an individual possible in a relatively small, cohesive society. Flogging was especially prevalent, being used also to keep order among the institutionalized insane and in schools and the armed forces. \" I would like to remind the voters that this argument is based on corporal punishment in schools, not military, law enforcement, insane institutions, etc. I begin my argument with a list of the pros of corporal punishment in schools, which is what I will base my argument on. These are found on [2]. Teaches students discipline Deters bad behavior No suspensions Limits amount of educational disruptions These are several pros that can be justified in any modern day school system. With students today becoming more rowdy and rude towards teachers, less time is used for teaching, and more is used for issuing detentions, write ups, scolding in class, or other forms of punishment. This naturally would hardly deter any common misbehavior, as they would soon go back to their usual antics. Looking at the graph on [3], this illustrates how education in The United States has dropped from 1900 to present day. Keep in mind, the beginning of the 1900's to the late 1970's, corporal punishment was a widely used form of punishment in all schools across America. The message sent was clear. You go to school to learn, and you respect the teachers who give you this information. If the respect is not given, then you were punished. This undoubtedly kept students in line, a reason for the higher test scores. [4] shows the states who still use the method of corporal punishment, rarely, yet still in effect. For those who think corporal punishment allows for students to be physically \"beat\" I would like to use this next topic to show what forms of corporal punishment there are, and the restrictions. [5] lists the types of corporal punishment, and although many seems harsh, the most commonly used forms are that of canning, paddling, flogging and saucing. There are, however, restrictions set on corporal punishment, as seen in [6]. Such restrictions include male teachers not being permitted to use this punishment on female students, and vice versa with female teachers to male students. I end my debate here, as I still would like to include more arguments in my next round. I again thank Con for his acceptance to the debate, and hope for a fun clean interesting debate. I would like to remind voters that I am simply playing the devil's advocate and minority voice, and that the arguments may not reflect my personal opinion. I ask that you vote based on content and not beliefs, as these may not directly resemble my values. 1. . http://www.infoplease.com... 2. . http://www.ehow.com... 3. . http://www.google.com... 4. . http://www.infoplease.com... 5. . http://privateschool.about.com... 6. . http://www.educationrightscenter.org...", "qid": "4", "docid": "2fc6200f-2019-04-18T17:01:39Z-00004-000", "rank": 25, "score": 157837.0}, {"content": "Title: The Reintroduction of Corporal Punishment Into Schools Content: Hello to everyone reading. In this debate, I will be arguing that it is inappropriate and irrational to introduce corporal punishment into the entirety of the education system. I claim that corporal punishment is ineffective (and in most cases, harmful), leaves indelible psychological stains, and undermines the respect and benevolence within a teacher-pupil relationship. With the following contentions, I will elaborate on these claims.ArgumentsC1: Prohibiting Corporal Punishment Reduces AbuseWe can see in countries across the world that have prohibited corporal punishment in schools that this ban has reduced rates of abuse in the home. Since Sweden banned the use of corporal punishment in education institutions in 1979, the rates of support of this practice among parents have dropped form 50% to 11%, and in correlation with these rates, domestic abuse rates have fallen. By this example, we can conclude that when corporal punishment is banned in school, it reduces domestic abuse rates in the home, and is therefore productive and beneficial.C2: Corporal Punishment Has Long-Lasting Psychological EffectsBeing punished physically, even in a controlled, academic environment, is a shock to the system. This shock is amplified in young children. It has been concluded in numerous studies that corporal punishment increases the risk of dangerous and threatening behavior developing in the punished child. Corporal punishment has been linked to addiction and various other serious mental disorders.A study affiliated with the American Academy of Pediatrics found the following:\"Harsh physical punishment was associated with increased odds of mood disorders, anxiety disorders, alcohol and drug abuse/dependence, and several personality disorders after adjusting for sociodemographic variables and family history of dysfunction (adjusted odds ratio: 1.36\u20132.46).\"This psychological harm can cause a growing resentment to authority, making it more challenging for the teacher to effectively impart knowledge to the students. Evidently, corporal punishment is ineffective in the short-term and long-term, and outweighs any of the (apparently) few benefits. As psychologist Elizabeth Gershoff writes:\"Until researchers, clinicians, and parents can definitively demonstrate the presence of positive effects of corporal punishment, including effectiveness in halting future misbehavior, not just the absence of negative effects, we as psychologists can not responsibly recommend its use.\"C3: Corporal Punishment Undermines the Student-Teacher RelationshipStudents learn when they feel supported and comfortable in the teaching environment. Especially when the teacher utilizes corporal punishment, the students' trust in the teacher is severely damaged. As Edward Clark explains in his work \"Creating a Context for Teaching and Learning\", students do their best work when they are given positive reinforcement for successes rather than negative reinforcement for mistakes.Furthermore, when teachers attempt to impart lessons of acceptance and tolerance, students will not take these lessons to heart. Students will begin to associate teachers with the same type of violence they suffer at the hands of bullies and others which abuse them. This association, along with the natural resentment to authority explained in C2, effectively undermines the student's relationship to a teacher.C4: Corporal Punishment Can Be Used As A Tool for Non-EngagementCorporal punishment often draws away from the true nature of the problem, and instead focuses on the pure deterrence aspect. According to a principal of a school which uses capital punishment, many of the most commonly punished students are from struggling households where corporal punishment is more often administered. Physically punishing perhaps the most vulnerable students is not effective at teaching the underlying problem with their actions, often, it just escalates the problem itself.In states which allow corporal punishment as a means for teachers, 36% of these are above the national mean of state composite test scores, while 89% of the states that have banned this practice in schools are above the mean. This disparity has often been attributed to a lack of engagement to the student body by teachers, who use corporal punishment instead of engaging to find the root of the problem.-------------------------Overall, it has been proven and supported that banning corporal punishment reduces abuse in the home, and instituting this form of punishment in schools has negative psychological effects, undermines the relationship between students and teachers, and can be used as an excuse or cop-out for teachers instead of engaging with misbehaving students.It is resolved that the reintroduction of corporal punishment into schools would be inappropriate and irrational, for the above-mentioned reasons.-------------------------Sources(1) http://www.nospank.net...(2) http://pediatrics.aappublications.org...(3) http://www.apa.org...(4) http://ojs.great-ideas.org...(5) http://www.newsweek.com...(6) http://www.gundersenhealth.org...", "qid": "4", "docid": "e7b98175-2019-04-18T14:36:18Z-00002-000", "rank": 26, "score": 157705.0}, {"content": "Title: If teachers and parents weren\u2019t allowed to hit children, they would discipline them in better ways. Content: The general standard of student behaviour and test results in many schools has declined since the state banned corporal punishments. Many teachers (in Britain) believe that is because corporal punishment was an efficient way of dealing with misbehaving students. Corporal punishment should be an option available to teachers \u2013 but not the only option and not one to be used all the time. A ban on corporal punishment would simply takes away from teachers a very effective disciplining method.", "qid": "4", "docid": "1df1290b-2019-04-19T12:44:36Z-00076-000", "rank": 27, "score": 157583.0}, {"content": "Title: Corporal punishment in schools. Content: I will concede the debate. I prefer debates as an exchange of opinions and not as a listing of competing links. That's fine but I prefer debating our own opinions not posting those of others and calling them facts. In addition Con had the much stronger case. As a general rule corporal punishment in schools is a poor idea. But that doesn't mean there aren't times when the strap or other implement shouldn't be used.", "qid": "4", "docid": "4712ec0a-2019-04-18T12:53:28Z-00000-000", "rank": 28, "score": 157037.0}, {"content": "Title: Discipline should be instilled by parents not school. Content: Ruptured eardrums, brain damage and other bodily injuries and death in some instances are some of the bad and tragic effects of corporal punishment. While the physical damage done to the body can be treated, the emotional and psychological effects can affect the survivor deeply. Corporal punishment is the hitting of a person with a hand or an object such as a cane or belt. It is also kicking, burning, shaking or throwing of a person with the intention of inflicting pain on them. Pinching or pulling the hair, forcing one to sit in uncomfortable or undignified positions, or forcing one to take excessive physical exercise as a way of disciplining them is tantamount to corporal punishment. Although prohibited by law in Zambia as a way of disciplining children in schools, corporal punishment is still widely practised by teachers and by parents in homes. This is because no measures have been taken to ensure that legislation is implemented and the behaviour of perpetrators changed. Corporal punishment is still widely practised by teachers and parents as reflected in a qualitative and quantitative survey of 2,705 boys and girls aged between six and 18 years. The objective of the survey was to explore a diversity of experiences; views and feelings related to corporal punishment and other forms of humiliating and degrading punishment of children. It was also intended to estimate the levels of corporal punishment in schools and homes in the country. The study looked at corporal and humiliating and degrading punishment of children over a period of two weeks. It was conducted in 2005 in all the nine provinces of Zambia by the Zambia Civic Education Association and commissioned by Save The Children Sweden. According to the survey, corporal punishment and other forms of degrading and humiliating punishment are still widely practised in Zambia both at school and at home. Children are often hit with a hand, a stick or hosepipe in schools when they do wrong. At home they are hit with sticks, belts, hands and in some cases denied food. Some parents and child tenders alike practise corporal punishment because of the belief that children do not grow to be well-mannered adults if they are not spanked or beaten when they make mistakes. Some even say that abolishing corporal punishment is a Western-centric concept that will cause havoc in African cultures and lead to moral decay. The study also established that corporal punishment is more pronounced in low-income environments than in affluent communities. This can be attributed to poverty and its effects like stress and high illiteracy levels in these communities. Such factors tend to have an effect on how adults discipline children. Whatever reasons, parents and teachers and indeed other care-givers may have to justify corporal punishment as a form of child discipline. It should be noted that its effects on survivors are damaging. According to Father Derrick Mewing, an assistant priest at the Anglican Cathedral of The Holy Cross Lusaka, corporal punishment only induces fear and distorts reasoning. \"Beating or treating children in a degrading manner are ineffective ways of disciplining them because they only save as quick fixes that are detrimental to a child and do not provide a lasting solution to a problem. In schools for instance, teachers should tell pupils the benefits of possessing a good character coupled with good academic performance and also the consequences of one not possessing them. This approach installs a sense of responsibility in them. On the other hand corporal punishment induces fear and distorts reasoning. Fr Mewing asserted: \"Children need discipline but they need to learn self-discipline. There is need to encourage non-violent and non-humiliating ways of instilling discipline in them.\" Corporal punishment does not help a child to develop into an adult with self-discipline and respect for other people. Instead, it distorts sound judgement and creates anti-social behaviours. Fr Mewing further asserted that some people have taken biblical scriptures literally. He cited Proverbs 11: 7, which says \"spare the rod and spoil the child.\" According to Fr Mewing, the portion of the scripture in question does not literally mean what most people perceive it to entail \"This does not literally mean what it has generally been perceived to mean. In this case the rod is the code of conduct. The psalmist says, Thy rod and thy stuff they comfort me. How can something comfort and cause you pain at the same time? The rod referred to in the Bible is the code of conduct that is meant to guide and instruct one in the right path for them to have a disciplined and fulfilling life, Fr Mewing said. And according to the same study, corporal punishment is used more frequently on younger children (6-12 years) than on older children (13-18 years). Older children experience humiliating and degrading treatment to a larger extent. There was also a small but consistent trend for boys to be subjected to corporal punishment while older girls experienced humiliating and degrading punishment in the form of verbal abuse to a larger extent. Corporal punishment works against the process of ethical development. It teaches children not to engage in a particular behaviour because they risk being beaten. But it does not teach them the reasons and ethics for not behaving in a particular manner. It is said that violence breeds violence. The use of corporal punishment on children contributes to a perception from an early age that violence is an appropriate response to conflict resolution and unwanted behaviour. It teaches them that it is acceptable for powerful persons to be violent towards the weak and to resolve conflicts through violence. The escalating levels of gender violence especially against women and children are evidence of this archaic and despicable method of disciplining young people. Children exposed to non-peaceful ways of conflict resolution often become perpetrators of gender violence in their adulthood. Exposing children to violence can make them potential perpetrators of such vices later in life. Notwithstanding its devastating effects on survivors and society at large, it is disheartening to note that less than 20 countries globally have adopted legislation to prohibit corporal punishment of children. Some countries have even outlawed corporal punishment of children in schools and other institutions. Corporal punishment violates human rights to physical integrity and human dignity, as upheld by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, The African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, as well as the Zambian Constitution. Often times, children are viewed as second-class humans, but they are as much entitled to their equal enjoyment of rights just as adults. For some reasons, corporal punishment of children has not been given the seriousness it deserves. This has caused a lot of children to suffer silently. Children too have the right to be heard. But more often than not, society does not want to accord them the opportunity to do so. This is because adults tend to think that children are incapable of reasoning and hence cannot be consulted even on issues concerning them. Given a choice, children would prefer to be disciplined in non-violent and non-humiliating ways. According to the same study, approximately 70 per cent of the children found corporal punishment in the home and at school unacceptable. Their sentiment was the same for humiliating punishment, which approximately found 79 per cent unacceptable as evidenced by the study that showed 75 per cent of the children were against corporal punishment. The children said that the practice is harmful both physically and emotionally and that it induces fear in them and thereby reduces their concentration. The majority of children said that they would prefer parents and teachers to talk to them and explain what they did wrong instead of beating them or using other forms of humiliating and degrading punishment as a way of disciplining them. Given the children's response, it can be said therefore that children would prefer to be treated with respect just like everyone else. Thus, to have adults listen to them and to be given a better understating of what they have done wrong instead of rushing into beating or treating them inhumanely. However, eleven per cent of the children preferred corporal punishment when being disciplined. This option was more favoured by children from low-income environments. A possible sad explanation to this perception could be that these children live in environments where violent forms of discipline are acceptable and they are so used to violence as a way of correction such that they cannot imagine any other forms of discipline. Zambia Police Service Victim Support Unit coordinator, Peter Kanunka said most cases of corporal punishment go unreported unless in situations where a teacher physically and emotionally hurts a pupil. Unfortunately, even such cases are in most cases not reported, therefore, perpetuating the menace of corporal punishment as a form of punishment. \"Survivors grow up traumatised as a result of physical and emotional pain inflicted on them,\" Mr Kanunka said. Unfortunately, the ban on corporal punishment in schools has not been followed up by measures that offer alternatives to the vice. Many teachers feel that the Government prohibited corporal punishment without providing them with proper guidelines and training on alternative methods of discipline. The lack of skills to manage discipline through non-violent ways and cultural beliefs that tend to encourage the beating of children as a way of disciplining them have perpetrated the practice. There is need to provide teachers with some form of training in disciplining children by using positive and non-violent ways that can be incorporated in the teachers' training curriculum.", "qid": "4", "docid": "f788467e-2019-04-18T15:05:59Z-00004-000", "rank": 29, "score": 157000.0}, {"content": "Title: THW reinstate Corporal Punishment in schools Content: So we see that con has also brought into this scene that corporal punishment is physical use so i simply see that this would not work because it hardly benefits the student being punished and it also doesn't teach him that what he was doing was wrong. Secondly we see that this is a mistrust issue thus far and i see that the child would resent the teacher for and we cannot deny this fact because we are talking about teenagers at the moment and they are at a stage of mistrust and hatred to most figures in their lives. Now onto how I believe it will affect the child. I see that this entire idea of corporal punishment revolves around the fact that it creates a strict environment but i see that you cant create a safe learning environment out of fear children wont seek to do their best, learn what they can and wont try to be creative because of the fact that they will be scared that these ideas will result in corporal punishment. It oppresses the children and creates an environment where they can as parents think it is fine to do something similar to their children if they had it done to them. Rather i see that by giving them positive reactions to their positive behavior over punishing their negative behavior they will strive to be better and do positive things thank you", "qid": "4", "docid": "d5f20e4-2019-04-18T17:16:50Z-00000-000", "rank": 30, "score": 156821.0}, {"content": "Title: Corporal punishment should be implemented in a school setting Content: You have in a way tried to change my resolution to something I am not interested in debating. I was looking to debate against someone who has the belief that it is good to use corporal punishment and you I am sorry to say have just demonstrated not to be that person. I am going to forfeit further rounds and I hope you will do the same seeing as you never had the intention of debating my resolution. I also would like to say that the reason for my rules is in no way a statement against christians and their holy book, I have however had opponents in my debates who say that my argument is false and the reason for that is because god said so or because it's in the bible my idea is correct. I do not believe in a god and I am not interested in debating religious beliefs. I also wish to make sure that my opponent will provide me with actual studies and not made up ones that is why I ask for sources. Thank you for your time and perhaps we will debate another topic someday.", "qid": "4", "docid": "dab6c791-2019-04-18T12:50:18Z-00000-000", "rank": 31, "score": 156708.0}, {"content": "Title: THW reinstate Corporal Punishment in schools Content: First I agree with Corporal Punishment should not be the only way to \"encourage\" pupils.. In my point of view, physical punishment should not only include hitting but should also include other kinds of physical actives; e.g running laps. In the modern society, as in more developed countries, Teachers will get in deep trouble for any corporal punishment towards their pupils, however, in many family, they still believe corporal punishment is the quickest way to punishment misbehaving child. If a child is about to preform a dangerous move, enforcing corporal punishment will make them remember better not to perform a certain activities in the future. Secondly, if verbal warning or shouting cannot stop the pupil misbehaving, physical punishment should take place. To argue your point on ruining the child teacher relationship, I believe as long as the reason of punishment was correct, it should not be any problem because there is a good purpose for the punishment.", "qid": "4", "docid": "d5f20e4-2019-04-18T17:16:50Z-00001-000", "rank": 32, "score": 156674.0}, {"content": "Title: Reinstate corporal punishment in schools Content: Oh gosh. Alright. Let's get this over with. When I was in fifth grade, I was going through severe depression and suicidal thoughts. I was acting out of line because of things happening at home, and if corporal punishment was allowed do you think that would help me in any way? Here's the answer: NO. Children can learn their lesson without physical pain. It's not so much that the teachers can't enforce rules because the punishment is weak, no. Instead, it's because some teachers are pushovers. Will corporal punishments help them not be pushovers? Likely not. Could the power be easily abused? Absolutely. My mom and dad have their experiences that they've shared with me. They find today's methods to be better and effective. And what about people with autism or bipolar disorder? Some of them aren't put into special classes. If they're in normal classes (which is more common than one may think), do you think they should suffer physical pain because of a mental illness? What if they're shutting down and don't respond? Oh, well, for giving your best efforts to keep calm, rather than being asked what's going on, you get your wrist smacked with a ruler and a wooden oar smacked against your a$$. Doesn't that sound pleasant and completely utterly reasonable? It shouldn't. Many teachers at the schools I've been to are hesitant to give a student punishment no matter how badly they're acting up. I'm not sure that corporal punishment would make a big difference, as they would probably avoid that. Gosh, sitting outside in the hallway was enough for a kid to learn their lesson the first time; it's humiliating. Though I haven't been there many times, a few of my classmates have and they always feel embarrassed. Always. So imagine that I'm teaching a class and you and a friend are talking. Oh no, the horror. How will the class ever survive? Well, it won't. So obviously you need to learn your lesson. I take a ruler and smack your wrist with it ten times, then go back to teaching. Now, you have a bruise on your wrist when instead you could've simply been told to stop talking.", "qid": "4", "docid": "f21ee3ae-2019-04-18T11:25:06Z-00004-000", "rank": 33, "score": 156343.0}, {"content": "Title: Corporal punishment in schools. Content: My support for corporal punishment in school rests on a single premise. There may be times even if rare when the use of the strap or other implement is necessary and beneficial.", "qid": "4", "docid": "4712ec0a-2019-04-18T12:53:28Z-00006-000", "rank": 34, "score": 155878.0}, {"content": "Title: Corporal punishment Content: School and home corporal punishment(example spanking) on children should be banned. I will let my opponent present his/her arguments first or to simply accept and then me present my arguments.", "qid": "4", "docid": "4d028cd3-2019-04-18T18:37:10Z-00007-000", "rank": 35, "score": 155841.0}, {"content": "Title: it works! Content: Corporal punishment is the most effective way of maintaining school discipline and dealing with juvenile crime. I went to an inner city co-educational primary school in an industrial area during the late 1950s/early 1960s. Academic standards were high. Between 30% and 35% of its pupils passed the 11+ and went to grammar school. Discipline was strict. The headmistress caned or slippered boys and girls on the bottom. Corporal punishment was used for minor infringements of rules, for deliberate defiance and to prevent prosecution for criminal offences. It was more of a deterrent for girls than it was for boys who were always challenging authority and getting into mischief. I and three other boys received \u201csix of the best\u201d for disrupting lessons and refusing to do homework. Not wanting to be caned again, we settled down, worked hard and passed the 11+. The school's major disciplinary problems were caused by ten and eleven year old C stream pupils who lived on a new council housing estate At the beginning of the autumn term, the boys organised playground protection rackets. Some carried flick knives or knuckledusters given to them by elder brothers who had been in prison or borstal. One teacher was attacked with a broken bottle. Although uninjured, he had a nervous breakdown and was away from school for two terms. Girls had jam and marmalade rubbed into their hair. Both boys and girls had their clothes slashed with flick knives. Classrooms were vandalised and on two occasions boys were caught setting fire to coats in the cloakroom. At the time children as young as seven could be prosecuted and sent to approved school. The head was put under great pressure by the staff and the local authority to involve the police in these incidents but she always refused. Unlike many head teachers, she accepted responsibility for her pupils\u2019 behaviour out of school hours. Most weekends she was called to the police station to deal with girls caught shoplifting and boys arrested for assault or vandalism. Often the only way she could persuade the victim to withdraw the charges was to agree to cane the delinquents and the punishments were carried out at school with parental consent. Using corporal punishment efficiently and effectively, she kept the members of the school\u2019s criminal fraternity out of the justice system giving them a chance to escape from their back grounds and make something of their lives. One boy who was caned for vandalism obtained a degree in engineering. Another who had been whacked for rubbing marmalade into a girl\u2019s hair went to university and graduated with a degree in economics. Because Dr. Phil is such an expert I guess his expertise is wiser than our ancestors and our elders who have effectively used corporal punishment to discipline their children- our parents and grandparents even. If we were to listen to them they would tell us that corporal punishment is not for everybody because some children can be settled with a reprimand and disapproving look. That being said, they would still rely on the expediency of the cane because all some of these bad kids need is a good spanking.", "qid": "4", "docid": "1df1290b-2019-04-19T12:44:36Z-00042-000", "rank": 36, "score": 155724.0}, {"content": "Title: Corporal Punishment Should be Enforced in Schools Content: I graciously accept.", "qid": "4", "docid": "2fc6200f-2019-04-18T17:01:39Z-00005-000", "rank": 37, "score": 155617.0}, {"content": "Title: Corporal punishment in schools. Content: Here is a paragraph by paragraph response to your opening argument #1-- pertaining to the definition of corporal punishment: broadly defined corporal punishment includes torture and the death penalty. With that in mind opponents of corporal punishment of children and adolescents will define it as broadly as possible and in ways unfavorable to the use of corporal punishment. Most people understand when we talk about spanking a 16 year old girl we are not talking about torture and can distinguish the difference #2 To equate the corporal punishment of adults to that of children is simply an invalid analogy. Children are different then adults and can be treated differently. Yes it is true physical correction of adult women by their husbands is much less acceptable than it used to be but it is also true in the past adult women needed to get the husband's consent for a range of activities outside the home-- including but not limited to-- a driver's license, employment, a bank account. A minor still requires a parents consent for much of this. #3 Yes there are some risks involved in the administration of corporal punishment. But so are there risks in other disciplinary approaches some of which can be serious. Such risks can be minimized if strict rules as to the administration of corporal punishment are closely followed. These would include the strap or other implement be applied only to the child's or adolescent's buttocks, the implement not be such that when applied routinely will not cause any injuries besides some reddening of the skin and perhaps a few welts that will dissipate within a few hours There is also a risk that if used as the primary means of discipline corporal punishment will gradually become less effective and as a result the severity of it will need to increase. This is why corporal punishment should never be the preferred means of correcting children and teenagers #4 What is the definition of a serious injury? There is general acceptance when distinguishing between corporal punishment of a child and adolescent and the abuse of such that a serious injury means a fracture, an internal injury, or any injury to the head. When these happen it is usually the result of excessive force being used, an inappropriate implement being used or the child not being properly restrained when receiving correction. There are less serious injuries which opponents of corporal punishment will construe as serious but really aren't when what one is describing is an isolated incident or two.", "qid": "4", "docid": "4712ec0a-2019-04-18T12:53:28Z-00004-000", "rank": 38, "score": 155284.0}, {"content": "Title: Corporal punishment should be banned from schools Content: NOTE: You didn't say USA only so I shall use statistics and facts from aroudn the globe (mainly UK).Now onto the main debate. In a survey completed by the Times Educational supplement [1], 6000 teachers were questioned. One in five believed that class room behaviour had deteriorated since the abolition of corporal punishment and they believed the education system would improve with the re-introduction of corporal punishment. We should adhere to the teachers requests.It is inevitable that bad classroom behaviour will filter into life outside school. You only have to look at the crime statistics to see that crime has increased dramatically since the abolition of corporal punishment. Between 1981, when corporal punishment was legal and in 1997, after the abolition of corporal punishment, there was a 67% increase in crime [2]. Children\u2019s behaviour has been adversely affected by the rights culture we have in Britain. A teacher cannot threaten a detention, something they are allowed to do, without the retort of \u201cbut you can't take away my freedom\u201d, \u201cyou have no right\u201d or \u201cI have rights\u201d. In fact children are acutely aware of how much power they have over the teachers by way of laws and rights, and they use every opportunity to remind the teachers of that fact. If we re-introduced corporal punishment this back chat would cease and the power would be retained by the teachers. Detention is not going to be taken seriously by anyone. What does detention do other than waste your time? If you have ADHD or a creative mind you'll have a blast, effectively learning nothing to *correct* your behavior. If this is the only effective authority a teacher has for an out of control student then that teacher is and probably knows his/her authority is rather pitiful. Sources[1] http://tinyurl.com...[2] http://tinyurl.com...", "qid": "4", "docid": "91279d46-2019-04-18T17:53:34Z-00004-000", "rank": 39, "score": 154944.0}, {"content": "Title: should schools use corporal punishment Content: This is going to suck. Wish he replied. My previous argument stands was. 100 character limit sucks.l", "qid": "4", "docid": "8baf5944-2019-04-18T19:55:55Z-00001-000", "rank": 40, "score": 154706.0}, {"content": "Title: Should corporate punishment be allowed in schools or academies Content: Teachers in academies and schools use corporal punishments to change student's behaviour, but as soon as children get punished that way, the child will get mad and depressed. The child will start thinking that he is a bad person and a useless person. If they get punished like that too much they will become violent, and also they will become aggressive to their friends. Instead or punishing the teachers and parents should emphasis good behavior and applause them when they do something good, so they will feel better when they are prasied and will try better when their doing something positive. For example when a student is late for class the teacher should tell him or her to come a bit earlier next time. When teachers tell students to do something they will resist and maybe even ignore what teacher said if the teacher hits them instead of saying it in a good way. Some teachers hit them again if they don't listen. Then the student will try to quit the academy and if their parents are hitting them they might even decide to leave home.", "qid": "4", "docid": "b9f16e7f-2019-04-18T19:50:47Z-00001-000", "rank": 41, "score": 154606.0}, {"content": "Title: Corporal Punishment Should be Enforced in Schools Content: Round One: Acceptance Round Two: Arguments Round Three: Rebuttals/New Arguments Round Four: Rebuttals, No Further Arguments", "qid": "4", "docid": "2fc6200f-2019-04-18T17:01:39Z-00006-000", "rank": 42, "score": 154378.0}, {"content": "Title: The Reintroduction of Corporal Punishment Into Schools Content: Hello all. This debate is on whether or not corporal punishment should be reintroduced into the education system, to be used by teachers and school administrators. I will be arguing in the negative, and my opponent will argue as a proponent of the reintroduction of corporal punishment into the school system.Definitionscorporal punishment: a form of physical punishment that involves the deliberate infliction of pain in order to punish a person convicted of a crime or as retribution for a perceived offence, including physical chastisement such as spanking, paddling or caning of minors by parents, guardians, or school or other officials.school: an institution for educating children. For the purposes of this debate, we will assume that this policy will apply to all of these institutions, not just ones under the jurisdiction of the state.FormatR1: AcceptanceR2: All Main Arguments and ContentionsR3: RebuttalR4: Response and Summary of Previous Rounds/ConclusionPlease note that this debate will be conducted in a formal, respectable manner with extended and well-developed arguments. Each debater will be allowed 8,000 characters to formulate a statement for each round.-----------------------I await my opponent's acceptance.", "qid": "4", "docid": "e7b98175-2019-04-18T14:36:18Z-00004-000", "rank": 43, "score": 154329.0}, {"content": "Title: Corporal punishment should be banned from schools Content: http://abcnews.go.com... This article shows the ineffectiveness of corporal punishment in schools. In closing, corporal punishment should be banned because it is ineffective and lowers students' IQ's. Other forms of punishment should be explored and tested. Good luck.", "qid": "4", "docid": "91279d46-2019-04-18T17:53:34Z-00001-000", "rank": 44, "score": 154022.0}, {"content": "Title: All schools should bring back corporal punishment Content: Everyone enjoyed my Christmas dinner. I've just taken an apple pie out of the oven, so I'm finished in the kitchen now. Merry Christmas to all at DDO.Right...I'll start by summing up the scientific evidence.Studies of corporal punishment show that those who are so disciplined have significantly higher lifetime rates of anxiety disorders, alcohol abuse, and one or more externalising problems. Those who are spanked are significantly more likely to become wife beaters.Other studies show that children who are disciplined with corporal punishment are more aggressive.These effects remain when studies discount those who have been abusively hit.Research indicates that corporal punishment in schools can lead to students having a negative self-image, and can negatively affect school achievement. There is a correlation between the use of corporal punishment and increased truancy, drop-out rates, violence, and vandalism.In the short term, corporal punishment has been shown to be no more effective than other methods of discipline.Even if corporal punishment did not cause the above mentioned problems, then it would still be ineffective at preventing them. However, there is a body of evidence and theory which shows that corporal punishment is a stressor and can lead to a violent reaction. This establishes causation beyond mere correlation.My opponent failed to show that any of the things he claimed were linked were in fact linked.There is also the human rights issue which speaks against corporal punishment. My opponent has been unable to say why it is not okay to hit others, including prisoners, but it is okay to hit children. That is because it is not okay. Violence against children must stop.", "qid": "4", "docid": "29b5e1ff-2019-04-18T17:57:40Z-00000-000", "rank": 45, "score": 153959.0}, {"content": "Title: Corporal punishment should be banned from schools Content: You have supplied zero evidence. I, for now, will remakr that we can consider all your assertions of corporal punishment's ineffectiveness and detention's effectiveness false.You are not permitted to suddenly limit it to one nation unless it is in you rdebate guidelines, which it wasn't.", "qid": "4", "docid": "91279d46-2019-04-18T17:53:34Z-00002-000", "rank": 46, "score": 153955.0}, {"content": "Title: Schools Should Have The Option To Use Corporal Punishment Content: My opponent is a hypocrite, around the same amount of his arguments are PLAGARIZED also. \\\\\\First Of I would like to state a major flaw in my opponent(s) arguments, THEY ARE PLAGIARIZED. 75% of his points can be found here: http://www.naturalchild.org...... This is poor sportsmanship but I would still like to continue./// They aren't plagiarized unless I do not state my source and I am going to state all my sources at the end of my rebuttal. I do not know if my opponent knows the definition of plagiarism but this is not what it is. \\\\\\Repeatedly, my opponent has dressed his arguments by using slashes and back slashes. That is not the point of the matter right now but it just goes to show how he wants to \"cover up\" his \"MISTAKE\"/// My god, you really are new... Those are pointing out what you said, and it helps organize my refutations, they stand out more than quotation marks, many debater on this site use them. \\\\\\Look, Hitler was different, he was a crazy radical that trained kids to kill the Jews, but this doesn't count as corporal punishment, ITS REFERRED TO AS WAR!/// You obviously did not read my argument carefully, I was using the Hitler Youth as an example, which there in the Hitler youth was, for a crime you were punished with bullets in your face. Crimes would include desertion, insubordination (back talk) and pretty much anything you can be given detention in school. \\\\\\Like I have stated before, if kids are given a punishment that they will probably forget within the week it is most likely they will repeat that mistake./// If you have been beaten in your life by a parent you do not forget. It is a fearful memory that is full of pain, I am sure you would not forget this very quickly. \\\\\\Next, he also states \"Kids become immune to pain\" that is a completely blind statement, and is obviously very opinionated./// Funny coming from someone who brought up personal experience as a point. This is not blind, if you are beaten repeatedly over the course of your childhood, you learn to take the punishment, as many kids have with other things. \\\\\\I would like to state, YET AGAIN, this is an editor from childdisciplinewithlove.org who is using his experiences IN SCHOOL to show how he became a better person./// Ironic, an opinionated argument coming from the accuser of opinionated arguments. Personal experiences should not be used as evidence. Statistics should be used as evidence. \\\\\\Out-of-school suspension and expulsion interrupt students' educational progress and remove students from school at a time when they may most need stability and guidance in their lives. Repeated out-of-school suspensions may make it impossible for students to keep up with the curriculum, complete class assignments, and advance from one grade to another./// Keyword \"MAY\" this MAY make it impossible to keep up with assignments? These are not statistics, this is an assertion, clearly my opponent cannot even follow the basic A.R.E. format and cannot identify statistics. I have refuted all of your assertions, now where is your reasoning and evidence? \\\\\\Thank You, I am carman16 on the motion that schools should have the option to use corporal punishment./// yes you are The motion is negated. My points still stand. This is why the Negative has won this debate ===VOTE-CON===", "qid": "4", "docid": "573905a8-2019-04-18T19:08:18Z-00001-000", "rank": 47, "score": 153785.0}, {"content": "Title: Corporal punsihment for children Content: Sorry for forfeiting but I was stuck without Internet for about one week because there were some malfunctions without the connection. Pro says that corporal punishment is quick and effective, but it's not. Kids start to feel bad and there is a point when some decide that they will not take that anymore and rebel or start to react negatively which prove that in long term cases it does not work effectively. Aldo the other oart may go into depression because when they get hit or spanked they feel worse than when you talk to them and explain them what they did wrong and why it is wrong. Pro also states that undisciplined kids may Become tyrants. Well you can discipline your students without using corporal punishment, for example, in school today they don't use corporal punishment and kids turn out okay. EXTRA ARGUMENTS: 1. Even in school when beating is uses the kids lose respect for the adult who is inducing the beating, also they lose self-respect and they start act mischievously. 2. They learn that it is not wrong to use force in human interactions. 3. Kids also make many visits to the hospital for nerve damage or even broken bones.", "qid": "4", "docid": "ec0930ea-2019-04-18T18:58:19Z-00001-000", "rank": 48, "score": 153652.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Parents ought not use corporal punishment to rear children Content: The rules that he established are acceptable enough, so I agree with them. Most of his definitions are fine for the debate as well, except my opposition to his definition of \"corporal punishment. \" I will also provide a definition of \"ought. \" Corporal Punishment: intentional infliction of physical pain as a method of changing behavior. Corporal punishment becomes abuse if it results in injury. (National Association of School Nurses)Ought: Used to indicate duty or correctness, especially when criticizing someone's actions; used to give or ask advice. Now, to my debate:Contention 1: Corporal punishment is not proper for child rearing. In order for a parent to fufill his/her full duty as a parent, the parent must provide the most effective use of discipline against a child's behavior in order to be of aid in both the short and long term. Although corporal punishment has been proven to be effective in the short term for at the very least most children, it is utterly useless in the long run and can even end up to be harmful for the child in question. The use of corporal punishment against a child, thus, is not the proper choice for parental rearing of a child and goes against a parent's duty and idealisms of correctness. Sub 1a. Corporal punishment is ineffective in the long-term. The primary intention of corporal punishment is to install discipline in the child and make him/her learn what is correct behavior. The main problem with corporal punishment is that it serves well to discipline children in the immediate short-term, but as a practice to discipline children, it is ineffective to achieving the means as to what the punishment itself was meant to be for. Scientific studies display this well. In E. T Gershoff's 2002 study on the effects of corporal punishment: \" She found that CP decreases internalization of moral rules. This is concerning in that parents are more likely to use corporal punishment when they believe the child is at fault for some misbehavior. Thus, using a method that decreases moral internalization to respond to a failure to adhere to internal rules the child should have known is likely to perpetuate the problem. \"Gershoff, E. T. Corporal Punishment by Parents and Associated Child Behaviors and Experiences: A Meta-Analytic and Theoretical Review. Psychological Bulletin, 128(4), 539-579In the same study as well as others, Gershoff reports to us that the use of corporal punishment encourages a child's use of aggression: \"She found that CP is associated with increased aggression. This is especially troublesome, she notes, in that parents are more likely to use aggression to stop aggression. However, one study showed that use of corporal punishment to halt aggression increased risk for aggressive behaviors by 50%, regardless of whether the parent or the teacher rated the child\u2019s behavior. Use of aggression after being physically punished for aggressive behavior is likely to be seen as an escalation of misbehavior, which was also associated with greater use of corporal punishment. Thus, corporal punishment is likely to perpetuate the problem\". http://ace.ucr.edu...http://www.coe.int...http://www.nospank.net...http://www.neverhitachild.org...http://www.cyc-net.org...Sub 1b: Corporal punishment can cause physical and psychological harm. In addition to the general ineffectiveness of corporal punishment, the use of it thereof can lead to psychological harm and can go leeways into abuse as a result. These mental afflictions as a result from corporal punishment can result in alcohol abuse, adult psychological distress, and other negative effects in the future. This is not including the effect on the child's use of aggression to assert means. . http://www.questia.com...Also, the line between corporal punishment and abuse is very thin. Corporal punishment can end up resulting in injury as shown in several cases and studies, including the previous Gershoff 2002 study, where she reported the following: She found that CP is associated with increased adult abusive behavior. She reports studies have shown that 2/3s of abusive parent-child incidents begin as an effort to discipline the child and \u201cteach them a lesson. \u201d If this means that adult antisocial behavior is more likely after being spanked as a child, given that other research shows antisocial parents are at greater risk to abuse children, then this could mean that spanking one\u2019s child may increase the risk of abuse for one\u2019s grandchildren. \". http://www.nospank.net...Sub 1c: There are effective alternatives to corporal punishment. Not only are there so many disadvantages to the use of corporal punishment, but there are also alternatives to the use of corporal punishment that are more effective than corporal punishment. This is mainly shown by the success of European countries that had outlawed corporal punishment and had reducing numbers in the amount of child abuse cases as well as reductions in public opinion where people believed that the use of corporal punishment is required for any child for effective parenting: . http://www.neverhitachild.org...Other experts report on the same thing:. http://www.psychologytoday.com...http://www.unicefusa.org...Contention 2: Corporal punishment is a violation of human rights. The argument that corporal punishment is a violation of human rights (defined by both European organizations as well as the UN with their Universal Declaration of Human Rights) is starting to take root, and these leading groups have made the argument that corporal punishment is indeed a violation the human rights of the child:\"Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (the Court) have progressively condemned corporal punishment, first in penal systems and schools and more recently in the home. Other decisions have also made clear that banning all corporal punishment does not breach family privacy or religious rights. The Court increasingly applies the standards of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in judgments related to children. \"\" Once visible, it is clear that the practice [of corporal punishment] directly conflicts with the equal and inalienable rights of children to respect for their human dignity and physical integrity. The distinct nature of children, their initial dependent and developmental state, their unique human potential as well as their vulnerability, all demand the need for more, rather than less, legal and other protection from all forms of violence. \" -- United Nations Convention on the Rights of a Child . http://www.coe.int...https://wcd.coe.int...Because corporal punishment can result in injury, the subjection of it to a child is a violation of a child's human rights defined by the Universal Declaration", "qid": "4", "docid": "139da6c8-2019-04-18T18:43:01Z-00005-000", "rank": 49, "score": 153617.0}, {"content": "Title: should schools use corporal punishment Content: My argument stands, and screw this 100 character limit. really makes me angry. To bad my opposition didn't respond.", "qid": "4", "docid": "8baf5944-2019-04-18T19:55:55Z-00000-000", "rank": 50, "score": 153442.0}, {"content": "Title: Corporal punsihment for children Content: \"Pro says that corporal punishment is quick and effective, but it's not.\" There are exceptions sure but exceptions don't count. \" Kids start to feel bad and there is a point when some decide that they will not take that anymore and rebel or start to react negatively which prove that in long term cases it does not work effectively.\" This is a common or in other words a commonly heard case when children are abused. There is no evidence of this in schools when corporal punishment is applied nor in average families, instead this practice is held due to its quick and effective nature. \"Aldo the other oart may go into depression because when they get hit or spanked they feel worse than when you talk to them and explain them what they did wrong and why it is wrong.\" Same objection as above. \" Well you can discipline your students without using corporal punishment, for example, in school today they don't use corporal punishment and kids turn out okay.\" As I have pointed out, under the spoiled section theres a link where we read that society is becoming more and more violent. Extra Arguments: 1.\" Even in school when beating is uses the kids lose respect for the adult who is inducing the beating, also they lose self-respect and they start act mischievously\" Both statements are unheard of when corporal punishment is moderated. 2. \"They learn that it is not wrong to use force in human interactions.\" Elaborate. 3. \"Kids also make many visits to the hospital for nerve damage or even broken bones.\" I proposed controlled corporal punishment and not battering.", "qid": "4", "docid": "ec0930ea-2019-04-18T18:58:19Z-00000-000", "rank": 51, "score": 152794.0}, {"content": "Title: Corporal Punishment Should be Enforced in Schools Content: Thank you Con for the swift response. I apologize it took so long for my answer, as weekends can be a bit hectic. Con states in his argument for number one that \"The more \"spankings children\" experience, the greater the chance that they will become aggressive and engage in other anti-social behavior.\" Con supplies this quote with a source that includes a study done. I would like to point out to the voters that this study may be misleading, as the point of corporal punishment is to enforce order in the classroom. This sense of order may include students not talking, or being \"anti-social\" as Con states. Con's second argument states that children with disabilities get punished more than other children. This, my friend, is against the law. This is considered assaulting a cripple, or simply put Assault and Battery, \"Two separate offenses against the person that when used in one expression may be defined as any unlawful and unpermitted touching of another. Assault is an act that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent, harmful, or offensive contact. The act consists of a threat of harm accompanied by an apparent, present ability to carry out the threat. Battery is a harmful or offensive touching of another.\" [1] Con's third argument is solid, and without flaw. Or one thinks when first reading it. For this argument, he states that students find the message that violence is the answer. This is almost comparing the case of violent video games increasing the chance of violent children. This has been debunked on more than one occasion, and whether or not you agree with the statement, in the analogy of video games, if a parent does not agree with the \"rating\" of the game, they remove the child from the situation. This can be done with schools as well. If a parent feels that their child is not going to develop well in a school, they remove their child from the situation. As for Con's arguments in 4 and 5, if the voters will note all sources listed, they have dates of more than a decade ago. These are not entirely reliable sources, as science has made and will continue to make new discoveries, therefore changing the statistics shown and stated by Con. Con fails to point out in six that again, this would be against the law. Bruises may occur, but for breaking a child's bones, this is classified as Assaulting a Minor and Child Abuse. The case of the child's death, is second degree murder. [2] Remember voters, the objective of corporal punishment is not to beat a child senseless, but to give spankings or paddlings for inappropriate behavior in the classroom. In argument 7, Con states that due to corporal punishment, it gives an acceptable means of aggression to solve problems in our society. This will simply be preparing students for the real world. Our society is filled will people who believe aggression solves problems. These people are called politicians, and often, these politicians make the decisions for our country, and will invade foreign countries. They do this in the belief that America can enforce what they want when they want on who they want due to their aggressive and gigantic military. Argument 9 is a bit humorous to the argument. The point of corporal punishment is not to tickle students and reward them for misbehavior. It is simply to show them the superiority and wrongdoing of their actions through a physical punishment, which will probably physically harm them, and embarrass the student, emotionally harming them. This is simply just the point of corporal punishment. But there is one simple solution to this problem. Students who don't misbehave don't get punished. The problem does not go back to the teachers, but to the students. Under Cons facts, Con states that schools are the only legal place that it is permitted to strike another. Con has obviously never watched a hockey game. Schools are one of many institutions where others can get hit, home is another one of these, again under the parents discretion. Con states in 11 that \"Many alternatives to corporal punishment have proven their worth. Alternatives teach children to be self-disciplined rather than cooperative only because of fear. (No source here, just kind of general knowledge).\" While Con's \"general knowledge\" might be correct from where Con lives, it certainly is not general knowledge across the country. He proves no information on detentions working. I'm sure many of the voters have seen \"The Breakfast Club.\" The Criminal, played by Judd Nelson, obviously has no problem with getting Saturday after Saturday detentions. But later in the movie, when the principle brings him into his office, and they get ready to duke it out, Judd stands down giving the man the respect he desires. I thank Con for the debate acceptance and look forward to next round. Again voters please keep in mind this may not directly reflect my personal opinions on the matter of Corporal Punishment. 1. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... 2. http://criminal.findlaw.com...", "qid": "4", "docid": "2fc6200f-2019-04-18T17:01:39Z-00002-000", "rank": 52, "score": 152438.0}, {"content": "Title: Corporal punishment in schools. Content: Let me begin by saying that you have no evidence to support your claim. Your entire argument (despite how small it is) it is based entirely on an opinion. If we are spouting opinions I do not think hitting someone is necessary. I believe other punishments can be found for the child other than causing physical pain. \" even if rare\" If it is a punishment is with rare benefits, than you should weigh the estimated 2230 children in need of medical attention in 2005 alone, the 2 that died, and however many more that are emotionally scared by corporal punishment experiences. http://centerforparentingeducation.org...... https://en.wikipedia.org...... http://www.cnn.com...... http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com...... Society for Adolescent Medicine https://en.wikipedia.org...... https://en.wikipedia.org......", "qid": "4", "docid": "4712ec0a-2019-04-18T12:53:28Z-00005-000", "rank": 53, "score": 152228.0}, {"content": "Title: Corporal punishment in schools. Content: Thank you. Let me begin by saying that yet again you have not given any sources at all so I can automatically assume that you did not use any and therefor this is all opinion based. I will now counter your previous statement. Seeing as you have not provided a source for you definition nor a formal definition. I have not been able to find one such definition that defines corporal punishment as torture or as death. That being said even if this was a true statement I can agree with you that is not what we are talking about. In this statement you say \"Children are different than adults and can be treated differently\" So I would like to ask you a question, do you believe that it is alright for children to be hit and not adults? Is it ok for adults to be hit? Because you said \"To equate the corporal punishment of adults to that of children is simply an invalid analogy\" Because this is your opinion I will state one of my own, I do not believe you to be true. I think that the comparison is very similar. A husband wanted his wife to listen to him and now adults are wanting children to listen to them. In both circumstances it was legal for these figures to assert authority through physical harm. Though now for a husband to hit his wife it is called abuse, why should it be alright for children to be exposed to the same treatment and it be called punishment. Could you please provide me with evidence of risks with other forms of punishment. This is the third time I have had to repeat something that I stated clearly in the rules of this debate. If you are unable to provide me with evidence I am unable to take your argument seriously. I said \"Please always state sources. if you run out of space you may post them in the comments with a note on the formal statement that you are doing so.\" you are doing none of these things and it is detrimental to your argument. Also laws have been in place to enact this form of punishment in the manner you have stated. However I will state previous evidence to support my claim that bad things still have happened regardless. \"the estimated 2230 children in need of medical attention in 2005 alone, the 2 that died, and however many more that are emotionally scarred by corporal punishment experiences.\" \"corporal punishment will gradually become less effective and as a result the severity of it will need to increase. This is why corporal punishment should never be the preferred means of correcting children and teenagers\" I agree with you on this however it should not be a means of punishment at all. Definition for serious injury.\"physical injury which creates a substantial risk of death, or which causes serious disfigurement, serious impairment of health and happiness or serious loss or impairment of the function of any bodily organ\" Though you are correct about the access force resulting in injury and that is not how it should be implemented. Corporal punishment being legal opens the door for abuse. I believe that if it was not legal that the cases of brain injury, broken bones, and death would be nonexistent. It is for all of these reasons I believe corporal punishment to be far to detrimental to be used in schools. Please vote con. http://centerforparentingeducation.org...... https://en.wikipedia.org...... http://www.cnn.com...... http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com...... Society for Adolescent Medicine https://en.wikipedia.org...... https://en.wikipedia.org...... https://www.jud.ct.gov... oxford dictionary", "qid": "4", "docid": "4712ec0a-2019-04-18T12:53:28Z-00003-000", "rank": 54, "score": 151694.0}, {"content": "Title: Corporal punishment can be regulated within orderly framework. Content: Corporal punishment must be used as part of a wider strategy and at the correct time: when other immediate discipline has failed; when the child understands their behaviour and has had an opportunity to explain it; and after an initial warning and opportunity for the child to repent. Crucially, the person delivering the punishment must not be angry at the time. This undermines much of the hysterical argument against corporal punishment.", "qid": "4", "docid": "1d10487f-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00064-000", "rank": 55, "score": 150893.0}, {"content": "Title: Corporal punishment being reintroduced to schools Content: I appreciate the chance to argue this topic. For semantic clarity, the two possible debate-friendly meanings of this debate's title read as follows: \"Corporal punishment is being reintroduced to schools\" - versus \"no it isn't.\" \"Corporal punishment should be reintroduced to schools\" - versus \"no it shouldn't.\" \"Corporal punishment being reintroduced to schools\" is like saying \"Flowers being picked.\" One cannot agree or disagree, the sentence is worded as hypothetical. Based on my opposition's first round arguments, until otherwise specified, I will assume he means to use the latter, *should be* phrasing. That said, although public schools do not typically practice corporal punishment, it was never legally un-introduced from schools. 1. Parents are entitled to corporal punishment \"Corporal punishment of minors within domestic settings is still lawful in 49 of the United States. Delaware outlawed it as child abuse in 2012\" http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. Teachers are entitled to the same teaching methods as parents according to \"In loco parentis,\" a legal doctrine adopted by both the United States and Britain. \"this doctrine can provide a non-biological parent to be given the legal rights and responsibilities of a biological parent if they have held themselves out as the parent\" http://en.wikipedia.org... A doctrine that was never removed cannot technically be reintroduced. To 'reintroduce' corporal punishment, we would have to first ban it, then reintroduce it. I argue that we should not reintroduce it because that would require us to take the time to unnecessarily ban it.", "qid": "4", "docid": "8e9af3ad-2019-04-18T17:07:58Z-00002-000", "rank": 56, "score": 149994.0}, {"content": "Title: Corporal punishment in schools. Content: round 2 speaker 1 (me): present argument/case round 2 speaker 2 (you): present argument/case NO REBUTTING IN THIS ROUND YOU MAY NOT ATTACK MY CASE IN ANY WAY YOU MAY ONLY PRESENT YOUR CASE. round 3 speaker 1: attack your case round 3 speaker 2: attack only case not my rebuttal. round 4 speaker 1: attack/defend rebuttal round 4 speaker 2: attack/defend rebuttal round 5 speaker 1 : conclusion round 5 speaker 2: conclusion I do not believe corporal punishment should be implemented in schools. Please always state sources. if you run out of space you may post them in the comments with a note on the formal statement that you are doing so.", "qid": "4", "docid": "4712ec0a-2019-04-18T12:53:28Z-00009-000", "rank": 57, "score": 149867.0}, {"content": "Title: Corporal punishment in schools. Content: Seeing as my opponent has forfeited. , failed to follow he rules of the debate, and has not defended his case. I will urge a con ballot. I have followed the rules of the debate, I have argued every round, I have defended my own case, and I have attacked my opponents case, I believe that corporal punishment should not be implemented in schools.", "qid": "4", "docid": "4712ec0a-2019-04-18T12:53:28Z-00001-000", "rank": 58, "score": 149305.0}, {"content": "Title: Corporal punishment should be implemented in a school setting Content: Before I really get started I want to comment on the rules. Rule 1, the Bible is not a valid source. Why would this be a rule? Does my opponent have a bias against the religious text that most Christians follow? Why does my opponent care so much about that with regards to this issue? That seems rather condemning of my opponent's biases. Rule 2, always state sources (if you do not give sources you automatically lose). This too is an interesting rule. Is there something magically true and perfectly right about sources? What if my source is a KKK website? I can still win the argument because I cited my source! This seems to betray another interesting bias. A bias towards automatic acceptance/reliance on \"scientific\" studies. No one can win a debate against someone who has already denied the validity of anything that is against what they already believe. Though I guess, to be fair, I'm not really aiming my arguments at convincing my opponent so much as you, the readers. And what am I going to try to convince you of?Well, first off, I know I'll never win on the very strong position \"corporal punishment should be implemented in a school setting.\" There's no way I could convince you that public school teachers should spank (or otherwise physically punish) their students. I don't want that any more than you or my opponent does. What I will be arguing for is the more modest idea, \"corporal punishment should NOT be OUTLAWED in a school setting.\" Study after study, which I'm sure my opponent will reference has shown that physically punishing children can have harmful results. I have no doubt that that general point is true. However, I would argue, and this is the main crux of my position, all those studies have been aimed at the wrong idea. They seem to be aimed at proving what we all know intuitively. That is, the more an adult hurts a child the worse that child will behave/develop. But, that's not what corporal punishment should be. The position paper of the Journal of Adolescent Health on this topic defines it as this: \"Corporal punishment refers to intentional application of physical pain as a method of changing behavior [1].\" (They're referencing Straus MA, Mouradian VE. Impulsive corporal punishment by mothers and antisocial behavior and impulsiveness of children. Behav Sci Law 1998;16:353\u201374.) Sure this is a fine general definition, but look at the source, \"Impulsive corporal punishment by mothers ...\" Corporal punishment cannot be impulsive. The effectiveness of any punishment system is in its comprehensiveness and consistency. If an authority says, \"Don't do that or I'll ...\" and then doesn't follow through and lets the child slide and continue to get away with whatever behavior the adult is trying to change, it'll never work. It doesn't matter if the threat is physical or non-physical punishment, if it's not carried out consistently and fairly, it's worthless. Impulsive punishment also won't work (again whether it's physical or otherwise). What is the goal of punishment/discipline? Are those two the same?Let's look at the issue from a totally different perspective. Let's think of discipline and punishment as two very different things. Discipline is a way to change behavior and is generally not physical. Punishment is retribution or the base result of breaking the rules/laws/regulation. Punishment can lead to or even cause a person to change his/her behavior, but that's not the primary goal of punishment. The goal of punishment is to mete out the consequences of wrong actions. Given that view, the goal of corporal punishment isn't to change behavior at all. Which means all those studies that my opponent will undoubtedly speak about, are wrong-headed in the first place. Discipline should use various methods get a child to change his/her own behavior. Punishment is the consequences for not changing one's behavior. Punishment need not be physical, and I would readily admit that in today's culture, physical punishment would probably lead to more problems than necessary. That's why I think the issue shouldn't be the encouragement of corporal punishment in schools, rather the permissibility of it. Think about how it looks from the unruly student's position if the worst punishment for misbehavior is expulsion from school. Taking away corporal punishment leaves school punishment toothless. The worst punishment for misbehavior at school is, not having to go to school anymore?! In many cases that's what the unruly student wants in the first place! Discipline should be multifaceted and non-physical to encourage growth and self-discipline. That's the goal after all, to get the child to control him/herself so as to not get punished because he/she doesn't do anything wrong. Discipline says, change, change, change, and here's how we, as your leaders, will help you change. Punishment says, you've done wrong, here are the consequences.Let's not hamstring the people who are supposed to be leading our children, in fact let's not hamstring ourselves by not meting out punishment when it is deserved.Sources:http://www.adolescenthealth.org...http://www.apa.org...http://www.huffingtonpost.com...http://www.newsmax.com...http://www.psychpage.com...;", "qid": "4", "docid": "dab6c791-2019-04-18T12:50:18Z-00001-000", "rank": 59, "score": 149273.0}, {"content": "Title: corporal punishment Content: Should corporal punishment be be banned or kept in schools, daycares, etc? I am a student and I think that with the way children/teens act in today's society they need to be disciplined in some way shape or form. Give me your opinions, should we bring it back or not? If we have more punishment in schools and daycares just think how much more respect kids would give their parents. I think it should be brought back, and kept .", "qid": "4", "docid": "1db9e12f-2019-04-18T14:56:22Z-00003-000", "rank": 60, "score": 149100.0}, {"content": "Title: Corporal punishment should be banned from schools Content: Corporal punishment has shown to be ineffective by many studies and health care experts. It has also shown that students that have been subjected to corporal punishment have lower IQ's. while it is on the decline it is STILL legal in 19 states including Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Wyoming. In all 50 states it is illegal to hit a prisoner, animal, or someone in the military, yet it is perfectly legal in those 19 states to strike a child. I welcome your arguments.", "qid": "4", "docid": "91279d46-2019-04-18T17:53:34Z-00005-000", "rank": 61, "score": 148462.0}, {"content": "Title: Corporal punishment should be banned from schools Content: Also, I am only talking about the US. While one in five is a lot, has the students' academic record changed? I'm assuming you're from the UK so I pose this question to you, do parents have the option as to whether or not their child can be paddled? Here in the South most of the schools have forms stating the guidelines of corporal punishment. Speaking of detention, there are numerous ways you can make it effective. I'm in college now, but when I was in school, detention was copying the handbook. Most students were never back in that detention room. Most students who were paddled, however, were in there lots of times because once again I will say this, corporal punishment is ineffective. Once again, thank you for debating me.", "qid": "4", "docid": "91279d46-2019-04-18T17:53:34Z-00003-000", "rank": 62, "score": 148358.0}, {"content": "Title: Should Corporal Punishment be allowed at school Content: Who cares people might grow up not being a bunch of p*ssies now.", "qid": "4", "docid": "c6b278de-2019-04-18T15:01:18Z-00000-000", "rank": 63, "score": 147543.0}, {"content": "Title: All schools should bring back corporal punishment Content: I believe that children are rude, selfish, irritating and ignorant because they have no accountability anymore. When I went to school children respected; each other, other parents, teachers and principles. I believe that spanking and such helped keep that respect. No whiny little brats want to shoot someone when there poor little feelings get hurt because they have had no structure in school or at home. I don't believe the child should have to bend over, it pushes the spine into a vulnerable area, I don't believe the paddle should be made of a totally ridged (hard) substance and I believe only the same sex should do the spanking 1 to a maximum of 3 hits.", "qid": "4", "docid": "29b5e1ff-2019-04-18T17:57:40Z-00008-000", "rank": 64, "score": 147381.0}, {"content": "Title: Should Corporal Punishment be allowed at school Content: I end my argument. I feel that everything important to say has been said.", "qid": "4", "docid": "c6b2791c-2019-04-18T14:59:08Z-00000-000", "rank": 65, "score": 147335.0}, {"content": "Title: All schools should bring back corporal punishment Content: We are debating corporal punishment. \"As I said previously, research indicates that corporal punishment may adversely affect a student's self-image and his or her school achievement. This is a school study. [1] Anyhow, can my opponent give a substantive difference between corporal punishment at home and corporal punishment at school, whereby the deleterious effects of corporal punishment at home somehow transmute into positive effects when delivered by a teacher? \"Then you cut and paste corporal punishment to reduce anti social behavior. That is not what a school would spank for. \"Does my opponent doubt that antisocial behaviour occurs in schools, or does he think that it is not an infraction of school discipline? Or is he claiming that schools who practice corporal punishment only do so for sociable violations? My opponent has yet to show that school shoootings and lack of corporal punishment are linked, especially bearing in the mind the two problems I pointed out that he has to overcome. \"I've never heard a child justify hitting another child by saying that it's OK because mom and dad hit me. \"Unlikely that they do justify it at all. However, it has been shown that corporal punishment leads to increased aggression in children. \"Properly done, spanking causes no lasting physical damage. \"The issue is psychological damage. My opponent raises concerns about correlative studies. Studies linking smoking and lung cancer are correlative. We could argue that people who are prone to lung cancer are more likely to smoke. However, we also have a better causal mechanism that explains the link. We understand the concept of carcinogens. It is the same for corporal punishment. There is a link between spanking and increased aggression. We could argue that children who are likely to become more aggressive are more annoying and are more likely to get spanked, but there is a body of theory that explains spanking as a causal factor. Aside from violence being known to be a stressor, corporal punishment itself is understood to be a stressor. [2]In a summary of scientific research, Elizabeth Gershoff explains some of the causal mechanisms:\"Social cognitive theory suggests that children who are hit by their parents (and thus physically hurt by them) will develop a tendency to make hostile attributions about others that, in turn, increase the likelihood that they will behave inappropriately in social interactions. Finally, attribution theorists argue that, because corporal punishment uses physical force, its use by parents constitutes an external source to which children can attribute their compliance; corporal punishment does not promote internalized reasons for behaving appropriately. Children who have not internalized the reasons for behaving pro-socially thus have no reason to behave appropriately when their parents are not there to provide an external reason for doing so. \"[3]Of the association between behavioural and emotional difficulties,\"There is significant theoretical and empirical justification for assuming that at least some important part of this association is due to the causal impact of corporal punishment\"[2]The use of Corporal Punishment has been associated with anger, fear, and humiliation in the child. Also of concern is the issue of trust between children and adults, and the child's ability to deal with situations without resorting to violence. [4]There is a link between corporal punishment and later wife beating. We could argue that children who are likely to beat their wives when they grow up are worse behaved than other children, but we have a body of theory that explains corporal punishment as a causal factor. Importantly, even if causation were not established, corporal punishment is ineffective at preventing children from growing up to be wife beaters, alcoholics, depressives, and suicide risks. So what is the use of continuing the practice? \"would it mean that all forms of corporal punishment cause emotional and behavioral problems or only the more severe, abusive forms like hitting on the head or boxing the ears? \"How is one form of attack abuse and not the other? What is \"acceptable\" violence against defenceless children? Anyhow, several of the studies I have presented have been specifically on spanking. Strassberg et al. (1994) found that milder forms of spanking in the home correlated with aggressive school behavior to a significant degree, and that child abuse correlated with aggressive behavior at school to an even more significant degree. Any child who had been abusively \"hit\" even once in their life was excluded from the \"spanked\" group, yet the correlation between spanking and school aggression remained significant. [5] A 2006 review found that\"Research on the long-term effects of physical punishment are consistent, and overwhelmingly negative over a wide variety of child development outcomes. \"[6] Lazelere has no case. \"Parents that love their children and are involved in their lives may use spanking, but they will never use spanking in a way that harms their children. \"My opponent confuses intention with outcome. However,\"Rather than serve as a buffer, high parental support may create a context in which the child experiences incidences of physical punishment as inconsistent, confusing, and especially distressing. \"[2]My opponent's hyperlink is broken. Corporal punishmment is not more effective even in the short term than other measures. [3][7] There is no case for it at all. [1] Society for Adolescent Medicine, Ad Hoc Corporal Punishment Committee. (2003). Corporal punishment in schools: Position paper of the Society for Adolescent Medicine. Journal of Adolescent Health, 32, pp385\u2013393. [2] Turner, H. , and Finkelhor, D. (1996). Corporal Punishment as a Stressor among Youth. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 58 (1):155-166. Order (CV10) . http://www.unh.edu...[3] . http://scholarship.law.duke.edu...[4] . http://csmh.umaryland.edu...[5] Strassberg, Z. ; Dodge, K. A. ; Petit, G. S. & Bates, J. E. 1994. \"Spanking in the Home and Children's Subsequent Aggression Toward Kindergarten Peers. \" Development and Psychopathology, 6:445-461. [6] . http://www.msd.govt.nz...[7] . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...", "qid": "4", "docid": "29b5e1ff-2019-04-18T17:57:40Z-00001-000", "rank": 66, "score": 147092.0}, {"content": "Title: Corporal Punishment be Brought Back to Schools Content: First of all, not all children can run, thus it would make any form of punishment unfair. 1 mile for a fit student is not the same punishment as 1 mile for a overweight student, but giving a child a larger punishment for being physically fit is also discrimination. Secondly, teachers would need training in this area which would cost money. Third, If a student had an injury or anything went wrong parents could sue costing schools more money. Fourth, just because rules are in place doesn't make it impossible for abuse of laws. Teachers hit students all the time. As a student who has to do 16 hours of service for texting while on a school sponsored volunteer trip, I know that schools can abuse the punishments, but imagine having to run 16 extra miles or something that could put your health at risk. The system that we have now is not perfect, but there is not a cure all for punishment and detentions and suspensions are the only way for schools to enforce rules with out putting the school or the students at risk.", "qid": "4", "docid": "c93845a0-2019-04-18T15:10:52Z-00000-000", "rank": 67, "score": 146874.0}, {"content": "Title: Corporal punishment being reintroduced to schools Content: I disagree with this statement because teachers at school have no right to hit someone for any reason. If you don't get hit by your parents which created you why should a teacher hit you.", "qid": "4", "docid": "8e9af3ad-2019-04-18T17:07:58Z-00003-000", "rank": 68, "score": 146095.0}, {"content": "Title: Corporal punishment is a good tool for disciplining unruly children Content: Walter Williams. \"Making a Case for Corporal Punishment\". Bnet. Sept 13, 1999: \"Regardless of what the experts preached, the undeniable fact is the 'uncivilized' practice of whipping children produced more civilized young people. Youngsters didn't direct foul language to, or use it in the presence of, teachers and other adults. In that 'uncivilized' era, assaulting a teacher or adult never would have crossed our minds. Today, foul language and assaults against teachers are routine in many schools. For some kinds of criminal behavior, I think we'd benefit from having punishment along the lines of Singapore's caning as a part of our judicial system.\"", "qid": "4", "docid": "1d10487f-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00041-000", "rank": 69, "score": 145821.0}, {"content": "Title: Corporal Punishment Should Be Reintroduced Content: If teachers and parents weren\u2019t allowed to hit children, they would discipline them in better ways.", "qid": "4", "docid": "1df1290b-2019-04-19T12:44:36Z-00000-000", "rank": 70, "score": 145280.0}, {"content": "Title: Reinstate corporal punishment in schools Content: I am sorry you had a tough childhood. No kid should battle depression or suicidal thoughts. They are just not equipped to handle it. That said, you may have your \"reason or excuse\" for acting up, but you don't say what DID happen to you (if anything) for \"acting up\". Did you just get away with it and disrupt the class and its teachings? What would you recommend today? The ONLY solution you offer in your entire argument is to \"sit in the hall\". That the embarrassment is enough. You also conclude that corporal punishment would NOT have helped you? How do you know this? Sadly, I agree it changes nothing for your home life situation, but maybe a little structure is what you needed at school if you were not getting it at home. Part of growing up and learning how to interact socially is realizing that.... 'you can act like this here, act like that there, here are the boundaries for this place, whereas the boundaries are different over there'. Example... I got away with a ton at grandmas, less at home and even less at school. I learned what the expectations were at each place. And when I went off course, it was corrected and learned. It often frustrated my parents I was more well behaved for strangers than I was for them. That was a good thing. My own kids are the same way. Corporal punishment is not about pain. Its about an immediate, memorable and usually public action (consequence) taken at the time of the infraction. For the child to endure and others to learn from. I guarantee you, getting whooped (even if it didn't hurt) is more embarrassing than sitting in the hallway playing on their I-Phone or being sent to detention with their friends. Do you really believe kids are contemplating (and learning from) their actions in the hall? The \"pain\" helps create a memory (as it did to me)... I don't remember the pain itself, but I remember the event, the circumstance and how it made me feel. Embarrassed, like a child, etc. You mentioned your parents like today's methods. What are they? Because all I see is an absence of consequences hence the disrespectful, unruly youth. Admittedly, you make valid points about potential abuse of power (but that can be applied to anything), concerns for mentally ill (I understand that also). But in these days mental illness is diagnosed pretty early on. (whether its autism, bipolar or ADHD or anything else). Teachers are made aware and those situations as they are in fact special cases. Although, I will say I do not believe 'special' children should be in the same class with the 'normal' kids. I don't like the disruption and I also don't like the varying expectations being applied, displayed and encouraged in front of the rest of the class. I feel you should not be able to press the system for your kid to be in a normal class.... then ask the same system for your kid to be treated outside the norm. (I am sure that is another debate) Regarding teachers being pushovers... this plays right into my problem with today's society. All this liberal, don't spank your kids stuff is corrupting our youth. If all these young teachers were not raised so soft themselves, it would not be so much an issue. Soft parents and teachers simply exacerbate the problem.", "qid": "4", "docid": "f21ee3ae-2019-04-18T11:25:06Z-00003-000", "rank": 71, "score": 145113.0}, {"content": "Title: Corporal Punishment Is Wrong Content: I will make my rebuttals to Round 2 here in Round 3.1. Corporal Punishment sets clear boundaries and motivates children to behave in school. Con adds to this by stating if the child is aware that they will be given corporal punishment, they will be more aware and prevent further bad actions/behaviors. Punishing the child for these behaviors, though it may be tempting, is not the way to go since it gives the impression that having the emotions in the first place is a bad thing. Klein suggests that rather than scolding a child for acting out, \"Helping a child understand their negative emotion (anger, sadness) and in time learn to understand why they feel as they do will help them develop competence socially and emotionally. So, empathizing with a child, rather than scolding them, while setting a limit (i. e. , \"I understand you are angry, but I can't let you hit. \") bears better outcomes later than scolding and punishing the young child. \" Rather than \"shutting down\" a child's emotions, help your child see that you understand his frustration and it's OK to feel that way -- but that there's a better way to express it. [1]Con continues adding by stating that corporal punishment is not told clearly enough to the child, resulting misbehaviors. While this is true in some cases, parents are more likely to scold and give them other punishments, other than corporal punishment. Groundings, lectures, limits, etc. are a few examples of parent's different options to punish their child, other than corporal punishment.2. Corporal punishment is quick. Con takes this the school punishment way, by stating that other forms of punishment such as detention or suspension in schools can hurt the student because they can miss school and waste time. Sure, maybe while they are serving their punishments. .. but have you forgotten that the students will be then given all of the homework AND lessons when they come back to school? Teachers are not required but are heavily recommended to evaluate what they have learned. They can even have times before or after school so that the child can be privately taught what they have missed and must know. Therefore, resulting in the child gaining back their miss knowledge during detentions or suspensions. Therefore, non-corporal punishments are not a waste of time and can teach their child a lesson. It would only be a waste of time if the school gives detentions or suspensions for absurd reasons, which seems to be increasing over the years.3. A study shows that kids who have corporal punishment misbehave less. While my own arguments in Round 2 refute this claim, I must add something that this argument has made me remembered. Corporal punishment is child abuse and can cause trauma. In some cases\u2014depending on the number of reports made, the severity of the abuse, and the available community resources\u2014children may be separated from their parents and grow up in group homes or foster care situations, where further abuse can happen either at the hands of other abused children who are simply perpetuating a familiar patterns or the foster parents themselves. In 2004, 517,000 children were living in foster homes, and in 2005, a fifth of reported child abuse victims was taken out of their homes after child maltreatment investigations. [2] Sometimes, children do go back to their parents after being taken away, but these statistics are slim. It's easy to imagine that foster care and group home situations, while they may ease the incidence of abuse in a child's life, can lead to further types of alienation and trauma. For children that have suffered from abuse, it can be complex getting to the root of childhood trauma in order to alleviate later symptoms as adults. The question is, how does child abuse turn into Post Traumatic Stress Disorder later in life? What are the circumstances that cause this to happen in some cases and not others? [3] Therefore, the reason those have corporal punishment misbehave less is that of damaged family relationships and trauma. 4. Young children learn the dangers if you give them the pain of those dangers. The child will only learn the true way of those dangers if they experience it. If the child almost dies, why in any way would you want to hurt your child because they legitimately almost died? If you love them that much, you should be more or so having a heart attack than actually hurting your own child so they understand the pain of those dangers. It's best to keep them fully safe than experience any pain at all. It may cause trauma as well, they can be incredibly scared of those situations and can be bad if adults can do it themselves, not children.5. As corporal punishment decreased in schools, misbehavior has not decreased. I will not be refuting this argument fully if you do not show the proof (or the FULL link to the source) of where you find the proof. Those are my rebuttals for Round 3. I take the floor to Con.", "qid": "4", "docid": "cb52628f-2019-04-18T11:53:57Z-00000-000", "rank": 72, "score": 145030.0}, {"content": "Title: Corporal punishment being reintroduced to schools Content: My opposition should have smoked me in this debate, but had the courtesy not to show up. If he feels any future need to redeem his lost opportunity, I will be available for whatever challenge he wishes to issue.", "qid": "4", "docid": "8e9af3ad-2019-04-18T17:07:58Z-00000-000", "rank": 73, "score": 144551.0}, {"content": "Title: Corporal Punishment Is Wrong Content: Here are a few of my arguments for corporal punishment. 1. Corporal punishment sets clear boundaries and motivates children to behave in school. If children are clearly given the fact that if they misbehave, they will be given corporal punishment, then this will make them more aware of what will happen to them and will make them think twice about their actions. A lot of the time corporal punishment is not told clearly enough to the child and they do not understand the consequences of their actions, and therefore misbehave. 2. Another argument for corporal punishment is that it is quick. Other forms of punishment such as detention or suspension in schools can hurt the student because the student can miss school, and waste hours on top of hours sitting in detention, while corporal punishment is quick and takes a second. So non corporal punishment can ultimately be a waste of time. 3. A study showed that kids who have corporal punishment misbehave less. In other words it deters misbehavior. If we have corporal punishment kids will not misbehave as much because of misbehavior. 4. Young children are not able to discern right and wrong to the decree that older age kids are. For example, if a young kid were to stick his finger in an electrical socket, then if you give them a smaller dose of pain, then it will teach them not to do life threatening things. Little kids don't understand being grounded. They don't understand their being punished. Rather with corporal punishment toddlers know that their experiencing pain and it teaches them not to do the wrong thing. 5. As corporal has decreased in public schools and home, you would expect to seem a decrease in misbehavior, but that hasn't been the case. This is why corporal punishment is better. It shows kids that they will be given physical pain if they misbehave. In conclusion, corporal punishment should be allowed. Sources used 1. procon.org 2. soapboxie", "qid": "4", "docid": "cb52628f-2019-04-18T11:53:57Z-00001-000", "rank": 74, "score": 144502.0}, {"content": "Title: All schools should bring back corporal punishment Content: As my opponent had posted an argument in round one, albeit a cursory one, I did the same. May I suggest for future debates that my opponent state that round one is for acceptance and avoid making an argument in round one.School shootings are obviously largely an American phenomenon. My opponent is going to have a hard time linking them to bans on school corporal punishment, for two simple reasons. One is that school corporal punishment has been banned in many countries, where school shootings are either very rare or have not even occurred at all.[1] The other reason is that there are nineteen US states where school corporal punishment has not been banned at all.[2][3][4]I am amused that my opponent has used a debate as a source. Not only is it a secondary source, it provides rebuttals for me of any points he gleans from it.Via my opponent's own source, in defence of corporal punishment:In a survey completed by the Times Educational supplement, 6000 teachers were questioned. One in five believed that class room behaviour had deteriorated since the abolition of corporal punishment and they believed the education system would improve with the re-introduction of corporal punishment.[5][6] Shrewd observers will have worked out that the large majority, four in five, believed that class room behaviour had not deteriorated and that education would not improve with the reintroduction of corporal punishment!I suggest the minority of teachers are the ones whose methods of discipline are ineffective and need more training at the very least.In the US, the National Association of Secondary School Principals has expressed its opposition to corporal punishment in schools.[7]Via my opponent's source, we can see that if there is any correlation between corporal punishment and crime, it is that use of corporal punishment coincides with crime. Of the states with the ten highest murder rates in the United States, educators paddle children in eight of them.Of the states with the ten lowest murder rates in the US, educators paddle children in one of them.Of the ten states with the highest percentage of the population in prison, educators paddle children in nine of them.Of the ten states with the lowest percentage of the population in prison, educators do not paddle children in any of them.[8]Crime in the UK (which is what my opponent is referring to with his 67% increase) has been rising since 1918. Plainly banning corporal punishment is not the reason for an upwards trend. Corporal punishment was actually banned in 1986.[9][10][11] There would then be a delay until children reached typical criminal age. Citing the crime increase since 1981 doesn't tell you anything useful.Part of the reason crime statistics have risen sharply is an increase in the reporting of crime. The British Crime Survey showed that the number of crimes was far higher in 1981 than that recorded by the police. There were three times as many thefts, twelve times as much vandalism, three times as many sexual offences, nine times as many robberies, and twice as many burglaries as the official statistics recorded.[12]\"Children\"s behaviour has been adversely affected by the rights culture we have in Britain\"Assertion not backed by evidence.My opponent claims that corporal punishment would be effective against bullying. Is my opponent claiming that bullying is a recent phenomenon, and does not actually occur in places which still have corporal punishment?My opponent claims that corporal punishment \"worked for 7000 years.\" What does my opponent mean by \"worked\"? Does he want to hold up 5000 B.C as a glowing standard? Surely all my opponent can mean by \"worked\" is that the human race continued to exist. Anyhow, tradition is no reason to continue a practice. We can imagine a man in Mexico arguing for the reintroduction of human sacrifice on the basis that it was an honourable tradition.Violence committed by adults on defenceless children is not defensible. If an adult assaults an adult in this manner it is criminal. Guards are not permitted to paddle prisoners. Why is this seen as an acceptable way of disciplining children? If we cannot treat adults in this way, if to do so is abuse, why do some think children should be so dealt with? Also, what lesson can children possibly learn from corporal punishment, except might makes right?My opponent has failed to engage with the scientific literature that says corporal punishment achieves the opposite to its aims. If they cannot do so, everything else is moot. The debate is over. I'll add a couple of more sources for my opponent to engage with.Research indicates that corporal punishment may adversely affect a student's self-image and his or her school achievement.[13] Research has also shown a correlation between the use of corporal punishment and increased school truancy, drop-out rates, violence, and vandalism.[14]I note that my opponent wishes to blame the hippies for everything, but that would be another debate.[1] http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org...[2] http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...[3] http://www.stophitting.com...[4] http://abcnews.go.com...[5] http://www.telegraph.co.uk...[6] http://debatewise.org... [7] http://www.principals.org...[8] http://www.nospank.net...[9] http://www.guardian.co.uk...[10] http://news.bbc.co.uk...[11] http://moourl.com...[12] http://www.historytoday.com...[13] Society for Adolescent Medicine, Ad Hoc Corporal Punishment Committee. (2003). Corporal punishment in schools: Position paper of the Society for Adolescent Medicine. Journal of Adolescent Health, 32, pp385\u2013393.[14] Strauss, M. A. (2000). Beating the devil out of them: Corporal punishment in American families and its effects on children. (2nd ed.). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.", "qid": "4", "docid": "29b5e1ff-2019-04-18T17:57:40Z-00005-000", "rank": 75, "score": 144192.0}, {"content": "Title: Corporal punishment on children by thier parents. Content: Parents should use corporal punishment on their children because children start off life with almost no knowledge as to what is good for them. They have instincts to be fed and physically comfortable, and demand attention. These are all good and ensure survival. But once the child reaches an age when they can act on their own, they retain the drive to get what they want to be comfortable, but lack discernment between what appears to be beneficial, and what actually is. For instance, tactile discovery is essential for development, but grabbing wires or a hot surface, or a wasp, or the cat's tail, or sticking of the fingers into electrical sockets, or eating a cigarette butt may be harmful beyond what should be allowed in trial-and-error exploration. If the child just wants to lick a bar of soap as an experiment, that might be considered tolerable because they would likely quickly refuse to do so in the future with no serious physical side effects. For those things that would result in serious injury, a slap on the hand is a good substitute for electrocution or a wasp sting. The same point gets across to the child, (doing that results in pain) but the physical harm is not permanent. The same thing applies to older children, but more often for behavioral reasons than to avoid physical harm. A slap on the bottom after stealing from another kid on the playground should instill psychological disincentive toward stealing now, rather than trying to retrain an adult who robs a house who never got the lesson. Or worse, the untrained, selfish adult steals and gets into a lethal altercation during a robbery, or is incarcerated for a long time.", "qid": "4", "docid": "579727b-2019-04-18T16:09:13Z-00004-000", "rank": 76, "score": 143136.0}, {"content": "Title: Corporal Punishment in schools Content: I will bring up my own points and rebut some of my opponent's points. I will elaborate on my rebuttals in future rounds, as I ran out of room. I would like the readers to notice that my opponent is often the logical fallacy called \"Appeal to Emotion\". I will expand on this accusation later in the debate. Before I begin my debate, I would like to say that I am not arguing for an extreme. I will be arguing for a moderate amount of corporal punishment. My 5 contentions will be:1. Corporal punishment serves as a deterrent2. Corporal punishment saves the child's future3. Corporal punishment is not abuse4. Corporal punishment increases productivity5. The Bible supports corporal punishmentBefore anybody starts bashing me on my biblical argument, I would like to point out that my opponent has not set any criteria for available arguments. Therefore, I will use whatever I want. The Bible is provided as more of a \"bonus\" contention. C1:Corporal punishment serves as a deterrentCorporal punishment by itself, is not different that another type of punishment. It is clear to everybody that punishment serves as a deterrent. If my opponent's tries to negate this, then he will have a very hard time. Just the idea alone makes sense. If I add a punishment onto an action, the person will be less likely to commit the action again. This applies to corporal punishment. If a teacher slaps person X for verbal abuse, then he will most likely not do it again for fear of being slapped. These practices successfully transition into a child's later life. .. . leading me to my next point C2: Corporal punishment saves the child's future Corporal punishment, in moderation, early in a child's life helps save their future. Dr. Walter E. Williams, a famous economist says (2):\"Today, it's not uncommon for young criminals to be arrested, counseled and released to the custody of a parent 20 or 30 times before they spend one night in jail. Such a person is a very good candidate for later serving a long prison sentence or, worse, facing the death penalty. If you interviewed such a person and asked: \"Thinking back to when you started your life of crime, would you have preferred a punishment, such as caning, that might have set you straight or be where you are today? \" I'd bet my retirement money that he'd say he wished someone had caned some sense into him. That being the case, which is more cruel: caning or allowing such a person to become a criminal? \" \"Experts theorize that corporal punishment helps create more disciplined and hard-working students and civilians that develop to be more prudent financially. When a nation develops its students into responsible citizens, the entire nation ultimately benefits through increased productivity and efficiency in the economy. Students learn through corporal punishment that there are greater objectives and goals beyond themselves. They ultimately learn to contribute to the economy in a positive way. \"(5)I know that we are talking about corporal punishment in schools, but this directly relates back to it. \"Whipping\" out any bad practices early in a child's life is acceptable as it saves them from committing the same mistake in a unforgiving and cruel adult world. Many children that would be corporally punished in schools are the \"back-talkers\", the interrupters, and verbal abusers. It is better to prevent these practices in childhood. In the adult world, verbal abuse and \"back-talking\" to your superiors is not tolerated. These practices can cause a child to lose their job, and even worse, their future. This discouragement of bad habits sets children up to succeed. Children are more impressionable than adults. Therefore, these effects will be amplified in them. (3)C3: Corporal Punishment is not abuseMy opponent's main arguments are centered around abuse and corporal punishment. Abuse is: \"Use (something) to bad effect or for a bad purpose\" (3) To prove that a corporal punishment is not abuse, I must show that there is at least one positive effect of corporal punishment. I have shown that corporal punishment saves a child's life in the future (and I will show how it increases productivity). Therefore, corporal punishment is not abuse. The logic goes as follows:1. Abuse consists of using something for a bad purpose of effect2. Corporal punishment helps children later in their life3. Therefore, corporal punishment is not abuse. This negates many of my opponent's points about abuse. C4: Corporal punishment increases productivityCorporal punishment increases productivity. According to Surinder Kahai: \"Contingent punishment behaviors also have been found to be beneficial by promoting group drive and productivity\"(6)\"Contingent reward behavior has been found to promote group drive, cohesiveness, and productivity. Contingent punishment behaviors also have been found to be beneficial by promoting group drive and productivity \" (6)This debate is not whether contingent punishment or contingent rewards are more efficient, simply about whether contingent punishment increases productivity. However, corporal punishment also serves as a incentive. Not everybody is going to get corporally punished. Corporal punishment also serves as a stimulant for those who don't misbehave. By not getting punished, they think that they are doing the correct thing. Therefore, they will keep doing it. This promotes good behaviour in those who already have it, and reduces bad behavior in those who misbehave. C5: The Bible promotes corporal punishmentThis serves as a \"bonus\" contention. According to the Bible:Proverbs 23:14. The authorship is traditionally attributed to King Solomon: \"Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell. \"\"He who spareth his rod hateth his son, but he who loveth him is chasteneth him betimes. \" (King Solomon, in the Book of Proverbs [13:24]. \"Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child; The rod of correction will drive it far from him. \" (Proverbs 22:15)\"Do not withhold correction from a child, for if you beat him with a rod, he will not die. You shall beat him with a rod. And deliver his soul from hell. \" (Proverbs 23:13)RebuttalTrust IssuesI fail to see how trust issues with teachers relate to students. A teacher is not there to provide a source of comfort, merely a source for teaching and learning. A school has guidance counselors which the students can go to if they have issues, not the teachers. I assume that we are not talking about corporal punishment in the very low grades. Since about Grade 3/4 and up, student/teacher relationships are merely focused on teaching. In Junior High School, High School and University, there is virtually no student/teacher relationship. Corporal punishment would not damage any trust issues with teachers as there aren't any. If the student has problems, there is always a guidance counselor. Family/Peer IssuesI would like to point out that my opponent is using \"Appeal to Emotion\" in this subtopic as he is listing random sad stories of children getting abused. My opponent has also listed statistics (which I doubt are correct, but I will accept them for this point) that are completely irrelevant to this topic. I have shown how Corporal Punishment is not abuse, therefore negating many of my opponent's points. ConclusionI am running out of room so I will quickly wrap this up. I have shown how corporal punishment serves as a deterrent to future misbehaving, saves the child's future, is not abuse, increases productivity, and the Bible promotes it. Vote PROGood luck to CON(2). http://findarticles.com...(3)http://www.kuluttajavirasto.fi...(4)http://goo.gl...(5)http://www.ehow.com...(6)http://www.leadingvirtually.com...", "qid": "4", "docid": "6110d4e2-2019-04-18T18:37:47Z-00001-000", "rank": 77, "score": 142669.0}, {"content": "Title: Corporal punishment can cause serious physical damage Content: The actual physical damage inflicted via corporal punishment on children can be horrifying. Examples can be found of students needing treatment for broken arms, nerve and muscle damage, and cerebral haemorrhage. Spanking of the buttocks can cause damage to the sciatic nerve and therefore the leg to which it leads.", "qid": "4", "docid": "1d10487f-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00050-000", "rank": 78, "score": 142667.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Parents ought not use corporal punishment to rear children Content: Ok, this has now become an embarrassment to both of us, but I'm going to continue anyway. First, I asked several good debaters, including the DDO president, what to do about the definition problem. I was told to make a case for mine in the comments section. That is not cheating, and my opponent is welcome to post whatever he wishes there, in response. He won't do that though, because it seems he is hoping for a win on a technicality.I'm introducing an independent analysis of Dr. Gershoff's work, by the American Psychological Association (APA)(1). This is an official press release from June 2002. I'll refer to this analysis several times, in this round, but the first quotes show evidence for the need for a reasonable definition.\"Furthermore, studying the true effects of corporal punishment requires drawing a boundary line between punishment and abuse.\" (emphasis mine)\"The meta-analysis also demonstrates that the frequency and severity of the corporal punishment matters.\"In the first quote we see that even the APA feels that the scope of the evidence used, WILL effect the conclusions. In order to see the true effects of what you're studying, you have to draw a line, and exclude evidence outside that scope. The second quote, also regarding Gershoff's work, shows why the first quote is true, and it pretty much speaks volumes about this entire debate. The actions taken against the child will determine the outcomes you get, thus the need to clearly delineate what is, and what is not, \"normative punishment\", a good term btw. I accepted this challenge thinking that pro wanted a legitimate discussion of the pro and con side of the reasonable use of CP. He even mentions \"shaking\". I ask you, who would advocate the shaking of a child as a legitimate form of punishment, and who would knowingly accept a debate challenge, where you were required to defend that position??Contention 1- No argument offered by pro, against my refutation. Sub 1a and 1b- First, pro has not addressed my argument against the relevancy of long-term effectiveness. Again, his case stipulates to it's effectiveness in the short-term, which is what it's for.Secondly, pro is mistaken when he says that I admit to those causes. When I said it CAN cause, I was merely mimicking HIS argument. He says it CAN cause this, and CAN result in that, but he has not shown that it DOES lead to those things. Even Dr. Gershoff is careful how she words her statements. Let's look at a quote from his opening.\" If this means that adult antisocial behavior is more likely after being spanked as a child, given that other research shows antisocial parents are at greater risk to abuse children, then this could mean that spanking one\u2019s child may increase the risk of abuse for one\u2019s grandchildren.\" (emphasis mine)Pro mocks my argument for the need for a causal link, but both his and Gershoff's statements show the need for that link. Without it, these statements are nothing more than speculation. One other note, pointing out that there is a \"risk\" for something is, at best, a tenuous argument because it does not speak to actual incidence. The possibility of a causal link is brought up in the APA analysis.\"While the nature of the analyses prohibits causally linking corporal punishment with the child behaviors...\"Pro's entire case against my \"Causal Link\" argument, and thus his ability to prove anything, using Gershoff's work, falls with that single statement. The nature of the analysis prohibits finding a causal link between CP and bad outcomes. Third, pro depends on Gershoff's work for points 1a and 1b, so the validity of her work must be established. The APA says:\"But, Gershoff also cautions that her findings do not imply that all children who experience corporal punishment turn out to be aggressive or delinquent. A variety of situational factors, such as the parent/child relationship, can moderate the effects of corporal punishment.\"This begs a number of questions. If situational factors effect outcomes positively, what role does ADVERSE situational factors play in those bad outcomes?? Can you rule out those adverse situational factors as the actual cause of the bad outcomes?? Which kids DO have bad outcomes, and what punishments were used??All these questions, and many more raised by her work, remain unanswered by her meta-analysis, and other evidence provided by my opponent. I would argue that her work shows no causal link between CP and the conclusions she finds. Further, her work is useless when it comes to determining outcomes for the reasonable use of CP, because the data she examines uses extreme forms of punishment. Let's refer again to the APA analysis.\"In a reply to Gershoff, researchers Diana Baumrind, PhD (Univ. of CA at Berkeley), Robert E. Larzelere, PhD (Nebraska Medical Center), and Philip Cowan, PhD (Univ.of CA at Berkeley), write that because the original studies in Gershoff's meta-analysis included episodes of extreme and excessive physical punishment, her finding is not an evaluation of normative corporal punishment.\"I would like to note, at this point, that pro, in defense of his definition this round stated that, \"abuse is not included in my case\". A peer-review of Gershoff's work, by three Phd's, clearly shows that to be a false statement.So, does any evidence presented by pro give us any information that is provable, relevant to reasonable CP, or of any value when discussing the resolution of this debate?? I say no, but let's go again to the APA, for a quote from the three Phd's, in the above paragraph.\"The evidence presented in the meta-analysis does not justify a blanket injunction against mild to moderate disciplinary spanking,\" conclude Baumrind and her team. Baumrind et al. also conclude that \"a high association between corporal punishment and physical abuse is not evidence that mild or moderate corporal punishment increases the risk of abuse.\" The other studies, which I did contest for largely the same reasons, are admittedly by pro, based on the same things.Sub 1c- My rebuttal does not work against me. There is no assertion, nor is there burden on me to show, that CP is the BEST punishment. Different things work for different kids. This gives validity to my \"Parental Rights\" argument, that parents are the best ones to decide for their children.Contention 2- Until the laws of our land reflect a human rights violation, what other countries choose to call it has no bearing on whether or not, I should use it. Does this document specifically speak to normative punishment?? When did lawyers become experts in child health?? History- Does my opponent need a link to this debate to show that we've survived in spite of CP??Parental Rights- Pro did not accurately, or efficiently address this argument.Positives of CP- Pro's case stipulates to the only assertion made here.Causal Link- Evidence for this argument is shown in my sub 1a and 1b section, this round. Pro provides no cogent refutation. My opponent offered no real challenge to my opening arguments, and I have shown this round that the evidence used in pro's case is inadequate, so all he's left with is opinion. His belief, and choice not to use CP, is his to make, but it does not affirm the resolution.I look forward to the final round. 1. http://www.apa.org...", "qid": "4", "docid": "139da6c8-2019-04-18T18:43:01Z-00002-000", "rank": 79, "score": 142464.0}, {"content": "Title: All schools should bring back corporal punishment Content: I was really hoping for a more intelligent opponent. In the first round you cut and paste a paragraph that included sexual abuse and spanking OFTEN. We are debating corporal punishment. Then you cut and paste corporal punishment to reduce anti social behavior. That is not what a school would spank for. Then you assume that I would rather spank than warn. I always talked to my children and let them know why they were being spanked just like my school did when I was little. Then you talk of parents losing temper and smacking kids on the streets, again this is about school corporal punishment. Being spanked does NOT show children they can hit others as stated below. I showed with historical fact that school shootings have increased over the last 40 years. Many schools were stopping spanking before the states changed the laws. Then you tried to make a false claim that crime is high in the 19 spanking states and low in the 31 non spanking. I showed the facts of low income inner city crime. Then you get stupid with human sacrifice, slavery, astrology, murder and assault. They believed it worked, people would rather slave than die, astrology holds truth, murder and assault are by weak minded people. Read this Some \"experts\" claim that spanking has no instructional value, teaches children aggression, is abusive, or harms children's emotional and psychological well-being . However, these are myths. Myth: Spanking has no instructional value. Reality: Some claim that spanking does not teach children how to behave. This is false. Suppose you spank your child for running into the street. Spanking is a punishment, and punishments stop behaviors. By spanking your child, you stop him from running into the street. So you have taught your child how to behave: you have taught him not to run into the street. But what if you spank your child for talking back. The critics would say, you teach your child not to talk back, but you have not taught her how she is supposed to talk to you. But you teach her how she is supposed to talk to you when you scold her before the spanking. Before spanking, you make sure your child understands what she did wrong and how you expect her to behave in the future. In this way, spanking does have instructional value. The critics might then ask why not just tell your child how she is to talk to you and skip the spanking. Unfortunately, telling children what to do is not always enough. Children often do not change their behavior unless the behavior has negative consequences--and spanking is a powerful negative consequence. Myth: Spanking teaches children to be aggressive. Reality: Some argue that if parents spank their child, the child will learn that hitting is OK, so the child will go out and hit other children. But this is absurd. I've never heard a child justify hitting another child by saying that it's OK because mom and dad hit me. What spanking teaches is that parents may swat their child on the bottom when the child misbehaves. It does not teach a child hitting another child is OK. Nor does it teach that hitting for a reason other than punishment is OK. Most children will see this. A child who is old enough to be spanked understand there are differences between him and mom and dad. Mom and dad can drive a car but he can't. Mom and Dad go to work but he goes to school. So he understands that mom and dad can do things liking spanking that he can't do. Moreover, parents can explicitly tell the child that their spanking him is different form his hitting another child. Myth: Spanking is abusive. Reality: Spanking is not abusive. First, abusive parents often don't love their children. They abuse their children because they regret having them, the children remind them of someone else, and so on. But for most parents, spanking is done out of love and care for the child. Second, abusive parents lash out at their children in anger, not caring if they injure the child or not. But parents that spank do not want to injure their children. Spankings are given to correct the child's behavior. Yes, spankings hurt, but they are done so as to cause no lasting damage. That is why spankings are given on the bottom, for the posterior does not contain any vital organs. Do some parents spank too hard and cause welts and bruises? Yes, and they have gone too far. They have crossed the line between punishment and abuse. But this merely shows that some parents misuse spanking, not that spanking is abusive. Properly done, spanking causes no lasting physical damage. Myth: Studies prove that spanking harms children's emotional and psychological well-being. Reality: Some researchers have reported correlations between receiving corporal punishment and behavioral and emotional problems later in life. However, these studies have several flaws. First, most are correlational. Correlational studies can tell us only that two things are related, but such studies do not tell us how the two things are related. Suppose we see there is a correlation between spanking and delinquency. A correlation only means that spanking and delinquency are related--it does not tell us how they are related. Correlational studies can not tell us what we really want to know: what causes what. It might be that children are delinquent because they were spanked. But it might also be that they were spanked because they were delinquent? A correlational study can not tell us which of these two possibilities is true. Therefore, such studies do not prove that spanking causes delinquency, anti-social behavior, depression or anything else because correlation studies can not prove what causes what. Second, many of these studies looked at corporal punishment, not just at spanking. And some studies had a very \"inclusive\" definition of corporal punishment. They defined corporal punishment not only as hitting on the bottom but also slapping in the face, hitting on the head, boxing the ears, and shaking, among other things. Some of the forms of corporal punishment included in these studies could be considered abusive such as hitting on the head or boxing the ears. So even if we could conclude from these studies that corporal punishment causes emotional and behavior problems, and we can\"t because the studies are correlational, but if we could, would it mean that all forms of corporal punishment cause emotional and behavioral problems or only the more severe, abusive forms like hitting on the head or boxing the ears? Larzelere1 found that when abusive forms of punishment were excluded from the definition of corporal punishment, researchers were more likely to find a beneficial outcome to using corporal punishment rather than a negative outcome. So abuse, not spanking, harms children\"s emotional and psychological well-being. We know that many children are spanked and turn out fine; they are not aggressive, delinquent, depressed or anti-social. Why? Simons3 found that what leads to aggression, delinquency, and poor psychological well-being is low parental involvement such as parents not loving or trusting their children, not knowing where their children go or who they are with, and not being consistent in discipline. Being spanked did not lead to aggression, delinquency, and poor psychological well-being. Parents that love their children and are involved in their lives may use spanking, but they will never use spanking in a way that harms their children. 1Larzelere, R. E. (1996). A review of the outcomes of parental use of non abusive or customary physical punishment. Pediatrics, 98(4), 824-828. 2See for example, Giles-Sims, J. et al. (1995). Child, maternal, and family characteristics associated with spanking. Family Relations,44, 170-176. 3Simons, R. L. et al . (1994). Harsh corporal punishment versus quality of parental involvement as an explanation of adolescent maladjustment. Journal of marriage and the family, 56, 591-607. http://www.angelfire.com...", "qid": "4", "docid": "29b5e1ff-2019-04-18T17:57:40Z-00002-000", "rank": 80, "score": 142382.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Parents ought not use corporal punishment to rear children Content: First though, we have a disagreement on the definition of corporal punishment (CP). Though there is some room for flexibility, I would ask the voters to consider our arguments based on my definition, for the following reasons.1. Corporal punishment is a very broad term, and if not defined, would require me to defend ANY type of physical punishment, including obvious abuse.2. With due respect to ScarletGhost, with his challenge to debate, no definition was provided until my definition was given and seen to possibly limit the scope of his argument.3. Definitions are important to delineate what is being defended or challenged by the participants. My definition clearly lays out the punishments that I defend, those who have the right to use them, when they may be used, and why. His definition is extremely broad, leaving room to make arguments that those in favor of corporal punishment do not defend. Using his definition, though extreme, I could even be forced to defend stoning or waterboarding as a punishment. Opening ArgumentsThe resolution indicates that opponents believe that it's wrong to spank ANY child, in ANY way, for ANY reason, at ANY time. Such a blanket statement is difficult to defend, and I challenge this one for several reasons. History as EvidenceCorporal punishment has been used for thousands of years, in fact most of us over the age of thirty probably had it used on us as the primary source of punishment. Though I would be remiss if I didn't acknowledge that abuse exists, or that abuse \"can\" lead to emotional problems, I contend that the vast majority of us came out of it alright, without emotional damage, without being abused, and without becoming murderous child abusers. This is true for all of history. There are literally billions of people who were spanked as a child, some of them even abused, who turned out to be perfectly normal, productive citizens, who went on to be loving parents that raised another generation of loving parents, and productive citizens. Parental Rights and Decision MakingThroughout our country's history the rights of parents, to raise their children as they see fit, have been legally protected. Most proponents of CP would agree that society, through laws, has a right to define what is injurious. Most of us though, don't need laws to tell us that, and we have enough love for our kids to know that we don't want to do harm to them physically, or to their psyche. Though there are obviously child abusers, the vast majority of us are loving parents who respect the limits of effective CP. There are already laws against child abuse yet abuse continues, therefore I contend that the actions of a few, do not warrant unilateral governmental, or societal, interference in the parent-child relationship. The more outspoken opponents of CP seem to think that they know what's best for all kids, including mine and yours. How could that be? ? All kids are different, learn lessons differently, respond to verbal instruction differently, etc. Who is in the best position to make that decision, and responsibly decide what works and doesn't work? ? The parents, of course, that's why I contend that they have no rationale for claiming that they know what's best. Positives of Responsible CPResponsible CP, as I defined it, has the benefit of teaching a child that certain things are harmful to them. I agree that other measures should be tried first, such as redirecting the child's attention, but occasionally a swat on the behind, or smacking the hand of a stubborn toddler teaches them to associate pain with electrical plugs, without having to experience electrocution. It also instills, at a young age, the idea that the parents are the authority figures and that they are subject to that authority. This makes it much easier to get them to respond to other forms of direction when they are mature enough to process verbal instruction. When used as most proponents use it, and at a young age, later childhood can be a much more enjoyable time for the child, and the parent, because they already have the knowledge that there are boundaries, as well as consequences for going beyond. The responsible use of CP involves trying other methods first, using CP as an infrequent thing, and using it mostly to teach the child not to do things that might cause harm to themselves, or others. We do not support spanking a child because he is in front of the TV and won't move, or some other such harmless acts. No Causal LinkOpponents claim many things about the effects of CP, however there is little in the way of a causal link between responsible use of CP, and the long term-effects claimed. My opponent will probably provide some corollary arguments, but I predict that the causal link will not be there. For that, he will need to delve into areas that we'd all likely agree, would be considered abusive, and thus I shouldn't be required to defend. This furthers the need to use my definition of what it is that I'm defending. There are claims that it CAN cause this, and it CAN make them do that, but until that causal link is provided, without going to obvious abuse to get it, the blanket statement made by the resolution remains unsubstantiated. RefutationContention 1- This is a blanket statement that remains unsubstantiated. Who am I to say, and how would I know, what is proper for your child? ?There is no argument about long term value because CP, as I defined it, is used to correct immediate behaviors that can harm the child. Please note that my opponent stipulates to the effectiveness of CP, in the short-term, saying that it has been proven. If it is effective with most children, and can't be proven harmful, who's to say that it's improper? ?Sub 1a- There is no assertion of long-term effectiveness. CP is a way of fixing short-term issues. I disagree that it's intention is to instill discipline, though that is a benefit of responsible CP. That's only true when CP is used as the main method of punishment, which I do not believe is a responsible use. Gershoff's study is largely irrelevant to this debate because it considers practices that I do not defend as responsible. Information from the other studies is irrelevant as well because it gives no information about what kind of punishment, ages, or any other factors. The argument relies on linking aggression and CP, and it doesn't even consider the use of responsible CP, or list any ill-effects from it. It simply assumes that it leads to escalating aggression, and gets the conclusion from that escalation. Sub 1b- Unsubstantiated. CAN lead to, CAN result in does not show the causal link, and again, Gershoff has to go into abusive situations in order to gain a conclusion. This is not reflective of the responsible use of CP. Sub 1c- There are other effective alternatives, granted, but to say those alternatives always work, with every child, in every situation, thus CP is never warranted has yet to be proven. Does it surprise anyone that people tend to answer so that they are compliant with the laws of the land? ? What questions were they asked that drew this conclusion? ? Still doesn't show that CP ought not be used in any case. Contention 2- The UN Universal Declaration has not been ratified by the US, and thus has no jurisdiction here. Why? ? Because it's recognized as a massive intrusion on parental rights, that our government has no constitutional right to implement. In closing I'd like to say that nothing in my opponents argument substantiates the resolution, or his intent. In fact most of it deals with what most would call abusive situations, and does not reflect the responsible use of CP. The argument depends on getting you to link CP with abuse, without providing that causal link, which is crucial in debate. Again I thank ScarletGhost, and look forward to the next round.", "qid": "4", "docid": "139da6c8-2019-04-18T18:43:01Z-00004-000", "rank": 81, "score": 142155.0}, {"content": "Title: Corporal Punishment in schools Content: Well this is dissapointing. I was expecting my opponent's rebuttals. Anyways, my arguments stand as is. They have not been refuted.", "qid": "4", "docid": "6110d4e2-2019-04-18T18:37:47Z-00000-000", "rank": 82, "score": 142107.0}, {"content": "Title: Corporal Punishment Is Wrong Content: Note: This is actually my 2nd attempt at this debate, as my first debate had that glitch when my opponent forfeited on Round 3. In this debate, I will be arguing that corporate punishment in schools, homes, or other places is a wrong way to teach your child a lesson. Definition, according to dictionary. comnoun physical punishment, as spanking, inflicted on a child by an adult or authority. I will be targeting home and school corporal punishment.", "qid": "4", "docid": "cb5262ae-2019-04-18T11:53:44Z-00001-000", "rank": 83, "score": 141009.0}, {"content": "Title: All schools should bring back corporal punishment Content: A society with raised aggression levels is more likely to have a President with raised aggression levels (especially when you consider that the President may be a parent). A President with raised aggression levels is more likely to press the red button. Therefore, a society with corporal punishment in schools is more likely to be obliterated by thermonuclear war. My opponent asks,\"If [corporal punishment] didn't work then why would it have continued? \"If human sacrifice didn't work, why was it continued for hundreds of years? If slavery doesn't work, why has it continued? If astrology doesn't work, why has it continued? If murder doesn't work, why has it continued? If assault doesn't work, why has it continued? My opponent not only has to establish a link between school shootings and a lack of corporal punishment, something he has thus far failed to do, but now he also has to do the same for gang rape. \"For a union (liberal) organization such as teachers and living in a liberal society such as England it is AMAZING that 20% of the teachers would say they think it should be brought back. \"Is my opponent aware that the UK had a right wing government from 1979-1997 (eighteen years! ), and has one again now? [1] The UK is a conservative country, and England even more so. The right wing Conservative Party received 36% of the vote in the last election, and the Labour Party 29%. Scotland and Wales are heavily weighted to Labour, so the difference in the share of the vote in England would be even higher. Teachers' unions are not party affiliated, and teachers are from across the political spectrum. My opponent cannot dismiss the opinions of the majority because he imagines he might disagree with their politics, and accept the opinions of the minority because he has a gut feeling that their politics might suit him better. \"Being spanked has never been proven to cause violence when a person becomes an adult. \"Corporal punishment has been shown to increase the risk of the victim becoming a wife beater in later life. [2]It has also been shown to lead to a lifetime prevalence of anxiety disorder, alcohol abuse or dependence and externalizing problems. [3] I also refer my opponent back to the first round sources. Spanking has been proven to cause violence in children, and that is sufficient to condemn it. If my opponent has an issue with the methodology of any of my sources, he is welcome to tackle them individually. I trust that the readers of this debate will not give much credit to a blanket dismissal of scientific studies. \"Yelling at a child causes more mental damage than spanking. \"Unwarranted assertion, but irrelevant, as I am not claiming that yelling is a useful alternative to corporal punishment. \"However, a parent who calmly spanks a child after explaining why the child is being spanked and does so only to create a foundation for other primary methods of discipline (such as Time Out) is never going to develop a pattern of violence in the child. Never\"Assertion without evidence. The scientific literature I presented in round one on spanking would suggest otherwise. \"The American Academy of Pediatrics admits that spanking can stop a child from misbehaving in the short-term. \"Using a blog as a source is a bad idea. Cowing a child in the short-term does not outweigh damage done in the long term. The American Academy of Pediatrics,\"urges parents, educators, school administrators, school board members, legislators, and others to seek the legal prohibition by all states of corporal punishment in schools and to encourage the use of alternative methods of managing student behavior. \"[4]My opponent is right that there are (many) other factors involved in crime. I think it will be difficult for him to show that lack of corporal punishment is responsible for an upsurge in school shootings, gang rape and assault. My opponent does not say why it is not okay to hit other adults, including prisoners, but it is okay to hit children. Corporal punishment has no place in a humane society. It is violence, it is psychologically damaging, and it is detrimental to society at large. [1] . http://www.thuto.org...[2] . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[3] . http://www.cmajopen.com...[4] . http://moourl.com...", "qid": "4", "docid": "29b5e1ff-2019-04-18T17:57:40Z-00003-000", "rank": 84, "score": 140662.0}, {"content": "Title: Corporal punishment (Caning) should be implemented in the legal system of America Content: Ok, so sorry for the delay, I had school exams and stuff but their almost over. First, some definitons and background info: Corporal Punishment is the infliction of physical pain as a consequence of a criminal offence. By Singaporean law, Corporal Punishment can only be sentenced to a male offender between the ages of 18 and 50 who has been certified to be in a fit state of health by a medical officer. Juveniles may also be sentenced to Corporal Punishment, but to no more than 10 strokes. Offenders below the age of 16 can only be sentenced by the High Court and State Courts. Anyway, Corporal punishment IS an effective crime deterrent. The fundamental basis of deterrence from anything is: If you do this, bad things will happen to you. Since imprisonment in itself isn't a good deterrent and the effects of a criminal record on your future career options is intangible, Corporal Punishment represents a direct incentive to refrain from crime due to the physical pain caused. The medical effects can be viewed here:https://en.wikipedia.org... I would also like to state that caning is not taken likely by the judicial system in Singapore. Singaporean law allows caning to be ordered for over 35 offences, including hostage-taking/kidnapping, robbery, gang robbery with murder, drug abuse, vandalism, extortion, rioting, sexual abuse, and unlawful possession of weapons. Caning is also a mandatory punishment for certain offences such as rape, drug trafficking, illegal money-lending, and for visiting foreigners who overstay their visa by more than 90 days (a measure designed to deter illegal immigrant workers). Furthermore, it is illegal to cane women, Men above the age of 50, offenders deemed medically unfit by a medical officer and offenders who have been sentenced to death.", "qid": "4", "docid": "bfc40ccd-2019-04-18T13:22:32Z-00003-000", "rank": 85, "score": 140126.0}, {"content": "Title: Reinstate corporal punishment in schools Content: We need it back in school to allow teachers the ability to immediately address situations that require attention. Our kids today are not held accountable for their actions. This generation capitalizes on the inability of teachers to enforce rules and apply consequences for breaking such rules.", "qid": "4", "docid": "f21ee3ae-2019-04-18T11:25:06Z-00005-000", "rank": 86, "score": 139676.0}, {"content": "Title: It is dubious that corporal punishment helps discipline children. Content: Even the power of physical punishment to teach a child the difference between right and wrong is dubious; a young child may learn that the adult is displeased, but not why. Spanking will cause a state of extreme distress and confusion which makes it less likely they will analyse their behaviour with clarity. In older children disciplined at school, a physical punishment is likely to provoke resentment and further misbehaviour.", "qid": "4", "docid": "1d10487f-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00045-000", "rank": 87, "score": 139484.0}, {"content": "Title: Corporal punishment Content: My rebuttal and argument is that corporal punishment on children (Example: spanking) does not work. Spanking children distracts the child from the real goal; when you spank the children will than focus on the punishment and will not focus on the reason their bad behavior was bad; this means they will continue with that behavior because they don't consider it bad behavior. Corporal punishment also makes children view aggressive and violent behavior as acceptable increasing their chances of being violent. A scientific study has found that children who grow up in schools that use corporal punishment performed worse on tasks then those growing up In schools that did not use corporal punishment. Corporal punishment results in children not internalizing rules and standards meaning that the only reason they don't do bad things is fear of corporal punishment; children who do not get spanked are more likely to believe in rules and laws meaning they don't do bad things because they view bad things as bad. http://scienceblog.com... Another study found that spanking kids leads to more long-term behavior problems. Meaning spanking does not work but in fact increases bad behavior. http://www.cnn.com... Another study found the same results as the first two. http://www.time.com...", "qid": "4", "docid": "4d028cd3-2019-04-18T18:37:10Z-00005-000", "rank": 88, "score": 139236.0}, {"content": "Title: Corporal Punishment of Children Content: Children should be subject to corporal punishment because of many reasons. One reason being it will get your point across without being to forceful. A little physical interaction with your kid will help them know their right from wrong. If they had a bad experience doing something good or bad they will tend to do it less or not at all. So if they did something bad and you used a little physical interaction to show that their actions are not tolerated and will not be tolerated. It could be only beneficial as long as the physicality doesn't increase or get to violent. Or if the child isn't old enough to receive such punishment for their behavior. However I also feel the parent should be allowed to be able to discipline their child however they want as long as they aren't endangering the child's life. Or like previously stated if they are old enough to receive such discipline and not to much physicality.", "qid": "4", "docid": "9302c20c-2019-04-18T12:52:33Z-00001-000", "rank": 89, "score": 138835.0}, {"content": "Title: Corporal punishment represents failure to engage students Content: The Christian Science Monitor, 1989-MAR-21: \"The fundamental need of American education is to find ways of engaging today's children in the thrill of learning. Fear of pain has no place in that process.\"[10]", "qid": "4", "docid": "1d10487f-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00071-000", "rank": 90, "score": 138761.0}, {"content": "Title: Better ways exist; corporal punishment is lazy way Content: There are always ways to discipline children that do not involve violence, and which are inherently superior than resorting to violence. Resorting to violence is the lazy way out for parent or teachers.", "qid": "4", "docid": "1d10487f-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00063-000", "rank": 91, "score": 138603.0}, {"content": "Title: Risks of sexual abuse with spanking can be regulated. Content: David Benatar. \"Corporal Punishment Social Theory and Practice\". Social Theory and Practice. Summer 1998: \"It is, of course, a concern that some parents or teachers might derive sexual gratification from beating children, but is it a reason to eliminate or ban the practice? Someone might suggest that it is, if the anticipated sexual pleasure led to beatings that were inappropriate--either because children were beaten when they should not have been, or if the punishment were administered in an improper manner. However, if this is the concern, surely the fitting response would be to place limitations on the use of the punishment and, at least in schools, to monitor and enforce compliance.\"", "qid": "4", "docid": "1d10487f-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00059-000", "rank": 92, "score": 138571.0}, {"content": "Title: Corporal punishment should be limited, but not abandoned Content: David Benatar. \"Corporal Punishment Social Theory and Practice\". Social Theory and Practice. Summer 1998: \"Opponents of the corporal punishment of children are rightly critical of its extensive use and the severity with which it is all too often inflicted. They have been at pains to show that corporal punishment is not used merely as a last resort, but is inflicted regularly and for the smallest of infractions.(1) They have also recorded the extreme harshness of many instances of corporal punishment.(2) [...] I have no hesitation in joining the opposition to such practices, which are correctly labeled as child abuse. Where I believe that opponents of corporal punishment are wrong is in saying that physical punishment should never be inflicted.\"", "qid": "4", "docid": "1d10487f-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00054-000", "rank": 93, "score": 138448.0}, {"content": "Title: Corporal punishment does not represent teacher failures Content: David Benatar. \"Corporal Punishment Social Theory and Practice\". Social Theory and Practice. Summer 1998: \"there is a big difference between [...] a failure in the pupil, and a failure in the teacher. In either case it is true, in some sense, that the teacher failed to discourage the child from doing wrong--failed to prevent failure in the child. However, it is not a failure for which the teacher necessarily is responsible. I am well aware that the responsibility for children's wrongdoing is all too often placed exclusively at the door of children themselves, without due attention to the influences to which they are subjected. However, there is a danger that in rejecting this incorrect evaluation, teachers (and parents) will be blamed for all shortcomings in children.\"", "qid": "4", "docid": "1d10487f-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00069-000", "rank": 94, "score": 138402.0}, {"content": "Title: Reinstate corporal punishment in schools Content: Damn, hard to comment after that. I am sorry you went thru that. Looks like things are looking up for you now tho. Learn from all of that experience and be a better parent when its your turn. Your situation was lame. No doubt. There are exceptions to every rule. And a broad application of corporal punishment obviously does not work for all. However, like you said, kids learn from each other also. If one acts up and others see the acting up kid go unpunished, they see that and learn that also. On compounds the problem. You made some great points. Take care.", "qid": "4", "docid": "f21ee3ae-2019-04-18T11:25:06Z-00001-000", "rank": 95, "score": 138286.0}, {"content": "Title: Corporal punsihment for children Content: O Observations My opponents title: 1.\"Corporal punsihment for children\" Has the word punishment misspelled. 2.We will be focusing on corporal punishment in schools \"This debate will be more about how corporal punishment works at schools\". I am free to assume that there's no corporal punishment outside of school and vice versa. 3.I can begin in round one \"My opponent will start this debate with his arguments\" O Burden of Proof Is equal. O Definitions Corporal Punishment: \"physical punishment, as spanking, inflicted on a child by an adult in authority.\" Dictionary.com Child: \"a person between birth and full growth; a boy or girl: books for children.\" Dictionary.com O Notes Interestingly my opponent said \"Corporal punsihment for children\". That's right we're talking about punishment for children and not against them. One must realize that corporal punishment and child abuse are two different things .One acts as an attention getter in a controlled atmosphere, while the other is used intentionally to harm the child in a physical manner. My opponent may not under any circumstances say what kind of corporal punishment I support. In this debate you have mentioned no specifics hence I get to add my own details. O Arguments 1. Quick and Effective Corporal punishment is quick and effective. I don't think that this can be argued. 2. Being Spoiled Undisciplined children are in danger of becoming tyrants. Todays society is a good example: http://www.leaderu.com... 3. Parents We can argue until the bears take over this site but ultimately its our parents choice: \" Many school districts also offer parents an opportunity to state whether or not they wish corporal punishment to be used on their sons and daughters. Typically, the parents fill out a form which is filed in the school office. In many districts this is an \"opt-out\" system. In others an \"opt-in\" system applies, whereby no student is so punished without explicit parental consent.\" http://en.wikipedia.org... Thank you", "qid": "4", "docid": "ec0930ea-2019-04-18T18:58:19Z-00003-000", "rank": 96, "score": 137955.0}, {"content": "Title: Corporal punishment of children Content: Corporal punishment helps protect teachers and adults", "qid": "4", "docid": "1d10487f-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00009-000", "rank": 97, "score": 137655.0}, {"content": "Title: Corporal punsihment for children Content: This debate will be more about how corporal punishment works at schools and why it is incorrect, rather than at home. How can children know the difference between right and wrong, and how can teacher ensure and establish order in class as well as an appropiate environment for learning. My opponent will start this debate with his arguments. Than you for accepting this debate and Happy Holidays!!", "qid": "4", "docid": "ec0930ea-2019-04-18T18:58:19Z-00004-000", "rank": 98, "score": 137406.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Parents ought not use corporal punishment to rear children Content: This section can be for acceptance of the debate at hand and the position being held. The next three rounds will be for the presentation of cases and arguments.", "qid": "4", "docid": "139da6c8-2019-04-18T18:43:01Z-00007-000", "rank": 99, "score": 137140.0}, {"content": "Title: All schools should bring back corporal punishment Content: My opponent believes some negative things about children, but gives no evidence that children are worse than in previous generations. He presents no evidence that lack of corporal punishment is a factor in shootings. His whole paragraph is mere hidebound opinion.Let's look at some actual evidence. The most cited studies of spanking almost all found that spanking is detrimental to discipline:\"Among the respondents without a history of physical or sexual abuse during childhood, those who reported being slapped or spanked \"often\" or \"sometimes\" had significantly higher lifetime rates of anxiety disorders , alcohol abuse or dependence and one or more externalizing problems, compared with those who reported \"never\" being slapped or spanked.\"[1]\"The results generally indicated a linear positive association between physical punishment and child aggression.[...]The combination of infrequent reasoning and frequent spanking was associated with dramatically increased aggression.\"[2]\"The findings were consistent with a socialization model in which higher levels of severity in parental punishment practices are associated with higher levels of children's subsequent aggression toward peers. Findings indicated that children who had been spanked evidenced levels of aggression that were higher than those who had not been spanked, and children who had been the objects of violent discipline became the most aggressive of all groups.[...]The findings suggest that in spite of parents' goals, spanking fails to promote prosocial development and, instead, is associated with higher rates of aggression toward peers.\"[3]\"When parents use corporal punishment to reduce ASB [anti-social behaviour], the long-term effect tends to be the opposite. The findings suggest that if parents replace corporal punishment by nonviolent modes of discipline, it could reduce the risk of ASB among children and reduce the level of violence in American society.\"[4]My opponent doesn't say why he thinks it is necessary to physically punish children rather than warn them, reason with them, remove them from the situation, or otherwise discipline them. As a parent, I never found it necessary to spank my child. I fail to see what possible benefit can be derived from an adult inflicting violence on a defenceless child. How this is supposed to make a child reasonable is not explained by proponents of corporal punishment.I'm sure readers have seen on the streets parents losing their temper with their children and smacking them. Approval of corporal punishment gives an adult license to act out of temper. Anyhow, my opponent has to engage with the scientific studies presented to him.[1] http://www.cmajopen.com...[2] http://link.springer.com...[3] http://journals.cambridge.org...[4] http://archpedi.jamanetwork.com...", "qid": "4", "docid": "29b5e1ff-2019-04-18T17:57:40Z-00007-000", "rank": 100, "score": 136967.0}]}
{"query": "Should social security be privatized?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: Social security should be privatized. Content: Social security is a complete joke. Although it was originally designed so that people contribute funds which will eventually be paid back to them to support them in their old age, it has become a means through which the young are forced to subsidize the old, a facet of socialism. Retirement funds would be much better off in the hands of private companies. As is stands now, the government is not accountable for how our retirement funds are used, and therefore have no incentive to administrate them effectively. Private companies WOULD be accountable to the public. If a fund did not perform, we could transfer our money to a more profitable fund. In addition, the government would not have access to our money and would not be able to spend it indescriminately. Why shouldn't we privatize social security?", "qid": "5", "docid": "dac7811d-2019-04-18T20:00:32Z-00005-000", "rank": 1, "score": 217460.0}, {"content": "Title: Social security should be privatized. Content: As Daniel Webster once said, \"A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures.\" This fits the concept of Social Security privatization quite well. You seemed to have missed the point on the Chile example. Our current system performs 8% better (according to your statistics) than Chile's private system, likely at a higher cost. So in doing nothing (not a position I advocate, of course), we still have our citizenry better off than under a private system. One thing I should clear up is whether this is still a government program. Most advocates of privatization do assume that the government will still have oversight over the program. That means the bureaucratic overhead will still exist. If you're advocating getting the government out of it altogether, you'd be pressed to provide some details, especially regarding transition issues and costs. You have me sold on the benefits of a retirement account outside of social security. I have one and recommend everyone do the same. Only one problem, if we crash, like we did in 1939, our retirement accounts likely go with it. That's what happened to millions of retirees in the 40's (and for a contemporary example, take a look at Enron). That was why FDR created Social Security to begin with. It was designed to provide a bit of a safety net independent of our economic performance. This ties in neatly with the risk argument I was making that I think was misunderstood. I was referring to the risk of these retirees becoming welfare recipients due to economic downturns or poor savings rates on their part. Social Security buttresses that risk at least in small part. As I've said, I don't believe social security is the only answer for retirement, but the problems it has can be fixed and I think we can encourage folks to diversify their retirement portfolio to include some of the measures you've mentioned. The 4-12 trillion dollar cost of the transition to a private system can't be justified unless there were a remarkable difference in the results. Thus far we haven't seen a good example to support such a costly move. The fixes available would resolve much of Social Security's ills, and still allow folks to retain private investment accounts today as part of a complete retirement portfolio.", "qid": "5", "docid": "dac7811d-2019-04-18T20:00:32Z-00002-000", "rank": 2, "score": 208723.0}, {"content": "Title: Social Security R.I.B Should be Privatized Content: Thank you lannan13 for an invigorating debate.", "qid": "5", "docid": "e28c98a3-2019-04-18T13:23:25Z-00001-000", "rank": 3, "score": 207739.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should privatize Social Security Content: Let us get back to the debate. Contention 1: Harming Retirees My opponent argues that Privitazation would harm the retirees, but this is fallacous. I have shown last round they will be given an oppertunity to do with it as they please as they will have full ownership of the money in their private accounts. [1] With the ending of the government monopoly on the issue they can chose to do a multitude of things from investing in the stock market to banking or from investing in things like existing Roth IRAs and 401K plans. We would have to realize that opening the market will allow a multitude of new businesses to rush in and take over helping the Senior Citizens and look out for their best interstests. Not to mention that you would be able to own your own accounts. Just as a Legal immirgrant was denied any sort of Social Security even though he was a registered US citizen and he paid taxes, but was dennied his SS benefits, but under privitization these options are open to anyone. [2] My opponent fears a stock market SS option, but that is a rediculious fear. We have seen that upon an investment you can see an anuall growth of 11% of your account showing a great deal of economic growth. That's just without a large investment if this plan is ennacted. [3] Let's do some generic math here to see the net benefit or loss from this. -The average stock grows 10% each year. [4] -Average dividend is 3%[5] -Inflation is about 3.2% [6] So mathematically we can expect to see an average of 9.8% growth in earnings each year while the individual under Social Security would be at 2.7-3.2%. Which after 42 years (from age 18-60) under this plan you'll get $711,000 vs. if you just stuck with the status quo Social Security you can get the maximum of $118,500. [7] Even if this cap is eliminated under this estimate under my opponent's system it will only rise to a whopping $126,000. Not to mention that this is just simply the average stock vs. SS max. Can you image if you get better than normal? You'd be a millionare. We can see that on the Solvency here and the balance of the impacts my plan outweighs my opponents. We can see that this would be a gradual thing that will be phased out of in 10 years. Last year Social Security ate up 26% of the US budget with $906 billion and this number is growing. Funding will simply come from the existing SS budget as the number will sink as the accounts are being privitized. [8] Contention 2: Privatization I know that my system hasn't been tried anywhere, but that doesn't mean that it would outright fail. How do you think we've gotten to the moon. With that I will move on to some of the examples that my opponent has brought up to show why he is incorrect and ommitting a great deal of the truth from you. The first part is that people are mishandling their money by seeing that as people can choose when they want to retire they have to pay a higher amount of taxes. Some people take a higher tax burdern to retire quickly where the max age is 65 for males and 60 for females and the workers can choose to invest up to 20% in to this Pay as you go system, which mind you isn't the same system as mine since it still contains the Public Option while I'm phasing out from public to private. This leaves no government option. So the Chilean Expirament is like mine, but is not the same so my opponent may argue against this, but there is no direct link since the public option still exsists and even Jose Pinera Chile's former Secretary of Labor and Social Security. What adds to his stature was that his administration lasted through the transition. [9] In the country no AFP (spanish accronym for Pension Fund Administration) has gone under in the 14 years that the country has been doing this plan and no worker has lost a dime. The only reason, Pinera claims, that there is a loss reported was due to the financial crisis and lack of consumer confidence. [9] Not to mention this plan has caused the nation to see a 2% Gross Nation Product increase each year in this span. This, what they call Capitalization, has greatly helped the nation by them changing from Socialistic policies to that of the Chicago Boys and slowly adjusting over the years. Now why does this actually matter that I am arguing this? It's a reflection of the current state transition from State controlled Monopoly on the Social Security down to the private control. You'll have to forgive me as I'm running out of characters here for the rest. On to Galveston. We can see that it did this out of the fact that the US Congress was not doing anything to combat the growing Social Security issue that was arrising in the 1970s, so they acted. The Alternative Plan in Galveston is actually still in effect today and for the past 18 years people in the three Texas counties have seen a 6-6.5% return on Social Security compared to the 2-3%. [10] Contention 3: Counter Plan I agree with my opponent that something here needs to be done, but his purposal is purposterous and will wreck the economy. We currently see that the tax rate is currently 6.20% for Social Security and Medicare is approximately 1.45%. We can see that the tax rate wouldn't go up by 0.7%, but we would see a jump to at least 9% in order to cover the Social Security Costs over the next 75 years. Economicst Emmanuel Saez and Jefferey Libberman have found that even if we eliminate the Tax Cap we can still see a 40% short fall of SSA statistics. [11] So even if Con's plan is enacted it wouldn't improve the situation, but actually make it worse. He also found that if any raise did occur then they actually found that poor women would actually have a negative earnings and their money that they would be pooring into the system would be worth a whole lot less then if it was implamented. Not only was it found that the nation would get less income from the taxation, but people in the long run tended to end up with less money on this plan than the SSA's by $1,000s at many times and begins to stagnate around those who make $60,000 and up. [12] We can actually see that one of the key things we have here is that those above the Tax Max make well less than those who pay into the system. It turns out that those over tend to make a whoping 5% over the tax limit while the rest make out richer in the end. We can also see that with the current federal tax bracket there is 45% tax rate for the top bracket. [13] After the increase at federal and state level which includes raising the tax rates to accomidate this we can see they will wind up with an overal 12% tax increase to the point to where they are tax higher than those in Scandinavia and we still wouldn't see Substantial solvency in the long run still leading to this counter-plan to be a failure. [14] Not to mention that this plan still doesn't solve for much of the issues with current Social Security Standings as not only is it worse, but we can see that there's still holes in it. We can still see that in the long run we will still see a Bridge Payer system here and with the US population growing older we can see that this issue will only continue to grow worse and the problem needs to be fixed now. Just as under Con's plan and the Status Quo, the US Federal Government can still use the SS funds to do whatever they want with it as they please and for many Americans it will just seem like another way more money is being squeezed out of Americans and our Senior Citizens still won't see a dime. [15] Not to mention if they die before they reach the age that they would be able to receive it, under Con's Plan just as the Status Quo, the funds would dissolve, but under my plan, as I have shown last round, will move to the clostest living relitive. Sources 1. (Michael D. Tanner, \"Is There a Right to Social Security? ,\" cato. org, Nov. 25, 1998) 2. (Social Security Administration, \"Social Security History: Supreme Court Case: Flemming vs. Nestor,\" ssa. gov (accessed Aug. 17, 2015) 3. Aswath Damodaran, \"Annual Returns on Stock, Bonds and T-bill\u2019s: 1928 - Current,\" New York University Stern School of Business website, Jan. 5, 2015 4. (. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...) 5. (. http://pages.stern.nyu.edu...) 6. (. http://inflationdata.com...) 7. (. http://www.kiplinger.com...) 8. (Courtney Baird, \"Diving into the Deficit,\" Committee for Economic Development website, Nov. 6, 2014) 9. (. http://www.cato.org...) 10. (. http://www.texaspolicy.com...) 11. ( . http://eml.berkeley.edu...) 12. ( 1 Saez (2001) shows, when deriving the optimal non-linear marginal tax rate formula, that the same Laffer rate formula applies when considering a local marginal tax rate increase exactly as in our 90% of earnings)13. (. http://fee.org...) 14. ( Andrew G. Biggs, \u201cEntitlements: Not Just a Health Care Problem,\u201d AEI Retirement Policy Outlook (August 2008), www. aei. org/outlook/28443. See also Congressional Budget Office, The Long-Term Budget Outlook (Washington, DC, June 2010), www. cbo. gov /doc. cfm? index=11579 (accessed March 8, 2011). 15. ( Michael Tanner, \"Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor,\" cato. org, July 26, 1996)26, 1996)", "qid": "5", "docid": "41ee0719-2019-04-18T14:19:05Z-00003-000", "rank": 4, "score": 206267.0}, {"content": "Title: Privatising social security will increase the amount of money that reitrees can draw on Content: Nobel Laureate economist Paul Krugman. Argued in 2004 that: \u201cSocial Security is a government program that works, a demonstration that a modest amount of taxing and spending can make people's lives better and more secure. And that's why the right wants to destroy it.\"[1] The problem with Social Security is not that it does not work, nor that it fails the poor. Rather, as Krugman notes, social security uses limited taxation to implement a clear and successful vision of social justice. As a consequence, the social security system has been repeatedly attacked by right wing and libertarian politicians. Such attacks are not motivated by the merits or failure of the social security system itself, but by political ambition and a desire to forcefully implement alternative normative schema within society. Privatizing Social Security would require costly new government bureaucracies. From the standpoint of the system as a whole, privatization would add enormous administrative burdens \u2013 and costs. The government would need to establish and track many small accounts, perhaps as many accounts as there are taxpaying workers\u2014157 million in 2010.[2] Often these accounts would be too small so that profit making firms would be unwilling to take them on. There would need to be thousands of workers to manage these accounts. In contrast, today\u2019s Social Security has minimal administrative costs amounting to less than 1 per cent of annual revenues.[3] It is also unlikely that individuals will be able to invest successfully on their own, although they may believe they can, leading to a great number of retirees actually being worse off after privatization. [1] Paul Krugman. \"Inventing a crisis.\" New York Times. 7 December 2004. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/opinion/07krugman.html?_r=2&scp=539&sq... [2] Wihbey, John, \u20182011 Annual Report by the Social Security Board of Trustees\u2019, Journalist\u2019s Resource, 9 June 2011, http://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/politics/social-security-report-2011/ [3] Anrig, Greg and Wasow, Bernard. \"Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea\". The Century Foundation. 14 February 2005. http://tcf.org/media-center/pdfs/pr46/12badideas.pdf", "qid": "5", "docid": "2d6f4e75-2019-04-15T20:22:43Z-00008-000", "rank": 5, "score": 203444.0}, {"content": "Title: Social Security R.I.B Should be Privatized Content: Rules: No kritiks or semanticsBoP sharedContention: Privatization of Social Security Retirement Insurance Benefits (RIB) would be disastrous due to risk, the need to raise taxes and its contribution to the national debt.http://www.youtube.com...Risk: Looking at past recessions, stock market crashes and changing monetary policy in just the last 30 years proves there\u2019s risk involved in changing Social Security RIB to a Private Plan (PP). A person can lose initial investment as well as gains in the markets. The early 1980\u2019s recession was due to monetary policy [1]. In August 1987 markets began to slide, by Oct. 19th, Black Monday, the market took a 22.5% loss in one day; measured total fall of 36.7% [2]. In 1990-92 there was the S&L crisis with a Fed bail out [3]. The DOT com bubble burst of the 90\u2019s is another example [4, 5]. Lastly, the more recent 2008 housing and financial crash where the stock market fell 2400 points in a week [6]. At each occurrence those with mature investments ready to retire took a big hit. Waves of unemployment resulted with decreased or halted contributions, and sometimes liquidation of retirement assets was enacted to stay afloat. In the last crash, those within 10 years, or broaching retirement loss 20% of their retirement investment with little or no time to recoup losses. Either way, that money is lost never to return; recoup means to get to a previously held level [7]. If you retire during an economic down turn you may not have sufficient funds to last. The risk defeats the purpose of the social security safety net. Under Funding Current Insurance Liabilities: Shifting funds to individual accounts, a PP, would take away funds from the current millions of spouses, dependent children of the deceased, as well as the disabled [8]. Furthermore, current influx of funds supports the now retired. How would the government fund current RIB payments of the near future and presently retired? A PP would only apply to those coming into the work force anew. All those currently working and contributing to the traditional RIB would be a part of the old system for decades to come. The Social Security RIB is estimated to take 75 years for complete solvency if privatization is enacted [14]. No one has a crystal ball on the changing tide of the economy, the government or the will of the people over that span of time. For a PP to be implemented the Gov would need to decrease current payouts and borrow to cover current liabilities with the diversion of taxes going to individual accounts [17], also raise payroll taxes [11]. Currently a portion, approximately 1 out of 5 SS dollars, goes into the SS Trust Fund to pay future benefits [9]. If current money goes into individual accounts contributions to the Trust Fund will cease and its present balance will be depleted far more quickly that the expected 2058 [10, 15]. A.) Net Loss: To fund current and near future payments government borrowing and cut in services will not be enough. A raise in SS taxes would be needed. Monies will go into PPs for the future and the tax increase will support the current pool as well as subsidize low income workers contributing to PPs to ensure minimum retirement income [14 p.27]. Privatization will have the payer contributing to both ends rather than the current pay-as-you formula. The increase in tax against balance in private accounts could produce a negative gain effect [13]. Government borrowing for transition cost, which is estimated to be 10 trillion, will contribute greatly to the already ballooning national debt [14 p.29]. Various proposals have been made on how privatization would be structured, either by a centralized government entity or open market competition. I\u2019ll examine the lesser of two evils in this round.Issues with Centralized Privatization: A centralized government plan would certainly decrease some of the administrative and broker\u2019s fee associated in typical investment market purchases, but who will decide what the options for privatized accounts will be? Financial institutions will have political influence in Washington [15, 16]. Considering the S&L debacle of the early 90\u2019s, the financial industry\u2019s complicity in the 2008 crash and following bail out at tax payer expense, they can\u2019t be trusted to act in our best interest. The lure of all working Americans contributing to private accounts where profits that can be made is too tempting. To say a reoccurrence of a stock market or financial institution crash and bail out will not occur again is a fallacy; history has bore this out [14]. Not only will we, the tax payer, be bailing out the financial sector again, loose all or most of what is in our PPs but, also have to pay to replenish the system for it to continue.1. 1. http://vm136.lib.berkeley.edu...2. 2. http://www.stockpickssystem.com...3. 3. http://vm136.lib.berkeley.edu....4. 4. http://www.investors.com...5. 5. http://www.thebubblebubble.com...6. 6. http://money.usnews.com...7. 7. https://www.ebri.org...8. 8. http://www.disabilitysecrets.com...9. 9. https://en.wikipedia.org...10. 10. http://www.npr.org...11. 11. http://www.nytimes.com...12. 12. http://www.ncpssm.org...13. 13. http://www.fedsmith.com...14. 14. http://www.actuary.org...15. 15. http://business.time.com...16. 16. http://www.ourfuture.org... 17. 17. http://www.brookings.edu...", "qid": "5", "docid": "e28c98a3-2019-04-18T13:23:25Z-00007-000", "rank": 6, "score": 202668.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should privatize Social Security Content: Thanks to lannan for engaging in this debate with me. It'll actually be my first time really arguing it (though I do agree with my position), so this should be interesting. I accept, and await his argument.", "qid": "5", "docid": "41ee0719-2019-04-18T14:19:05Z-00006-000", "rank": 7, "score": 201806.0}, {"content": "Title: Privatising social security would improve economic growth Content: Privatizing Social Security would harm economic growth, not help it. Privatization during the current economic crisis would have been disaster, and so doing it now is a risk for any upcoming or future crisis. Privatization in the midst of the greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression would have caused households to have lost even more of their assets, had their investments been invested in the U.S. stock market or in funds exposed to complicated and high risk financial instruments. Privatizing social security might therefore increase economic growth in the boom times but this would be at the expense of sharper downturns. Proposition\u2019s argument implicitly assumes that the money at the moment does not improve economic growth. On the contrary the government is regularly investing the money in much the same way as private business would \u2013 and often on much more long term projects such as infrastructure that fit better with a long term saving than the way that banks invest.", "qid": "5", "docid": "2d6f4e75-2019-04-15T20:22:43Z-00006-000", "rank": 8, "score": 201163.0}, {"content": "Title: Social security should be privatized. Content: Social Security has serious issues, but I wouldn't characterize it as a complete joke as the proponent has. Moreover, I am ill convinced that turning our system over to private firms is the answer. First, privatization has a shaky track record. A 2004 report from the World Bank (http://wbln1018.worldbank.org...) indicates that, the case of Chile, 41% of the accounts created have funds so small that the retirees are forced to continue work. Relying on individual savings rates pushes us into a further risk bracket that many will make poor choices and then wind up being on the welfare dole. That's hardly a solution. Second, the cost for transition to private accounts could be astronomical. Even conservative estimates put this cost at $4.9 Trillion. The estimates to recoup these losses have been estimated at 45-70 years! (1) (1)http://www.epinet.org... Third, replacing one bureaucratically bloated system with another (to manage all these private accounts) really doesn't substantively resolve the issue. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater doesn't resolve issues that our society faces regarding a largely aging population and poor savings rates. Lets try and address the actual issues and fix the system instead of trying to replace it with another, possibly more complex one. Finally, most folks today have been told, correctly, that social security should only be one part of your investment portfolio when it comes to retirement. Its not designed to be a pension system like the ones that exist in Latin America & Europe. There is no reason we can't have both by fixing what ails social security and help folks focus on retirement savings accounts as well. I agree with my opponent that we should hold the government more accountable as to how it invests and spends our tax dollars. I believe we can do that without destroying social security under the guise of a private, government managed system that only shifts money to the private sector in the form of transaction and administrative fees. The patient known as Social Security isn't terminal, the problems can and should be addressed. Privatizing isn't the solution to those problems.", "qid": "5", "docid": "dac7811d-2019-04-18T20:00:32Z-00004-000", "rank": 9, "score": 201060.0}, {"content": "Title: Social Security R.I.B Should be Privatized Content: This round I shall work on my Case and with the character restriction I will appoligies if I run out of room and have to cut a few things shortContention 1: Social Security flawed and will crash.When Social Security was created the US federal government made a profit from it as there was 25 people paying for 1 person that recieved Social Security. Now it is nearly a 3 to 1 person and if something isn't done soon the system will be bust as there's no way that a 2 to 1 or even 1 to 1 ratio could work. The reason this is occuring is that the Baby Boomers are starting to retire also we have lower birthrates which have massively declined since the Row V Wade decission. [1] Since 2010, the US income that they would generally make off of Social Security has evaporated and they began loosing money. The Treasury reports that by 2034, the US funds will run out and eventually Social Security will engulf the entire US budget. [2] Although Social Security only takes up 13% of the US Budget by 2020 its expected to be up to 29%, by 2030 it's suppose to be 49% and if this trend continues then in 2080 it will consist of 89% of the US budget. [3] Alternatives that is not ran by the government needs to be found in order to protect our nation's welfare. Another key issue is that of taxes. When Social Security was created the taxes was $3,000, but now it is a whopping $118,000 which rose 700% higher than inflation showing how much harm it is preforming on the system. [4] It has risen to 12% for many self-employed and small business owners harming our business and industries. The privatization will solve for this issue and will boost economic growth in the process. Contention 2: Privitization solves.One of the greatest tragedies of today's market system is that the government is trampling our right to Choose. In the 1990's a think tank came together and found that the US should privitize social security. Bill Clinton and Newt Grinrich came together to discuss this issue and they came to to an agreement though nothing came of it as it disappeared from the Congressional agenda after the Contract with America. If privitized people will see a larger investment for a cheaper cost. Research has found with trials in Texas and Florida that with the privatization there is a 11.5% yearly growth where the current rate of Social Security is 2.5%. [5] That's a huge difference and it's more money you can use when you retire and maybe you can even retire earlier. Martin Feildstein, former US Treasurer has found that, \"someone with $50,000 of real annual earnings during his working years could accumulate enough to fund an annual payout of about $22,000 after age 67, essentially doubling the current Social Security benefit.\" This was only at a 5.5% increase as well. [6]A Gallup poll found that 60% of Americans believed that they will not see their retirement money from Social Security. Why's that you may ask? It's simply the matter the fact of governmental interfearance in these accounts by \"reaching into the cookie jar\" when they are sore on funds, but they do this in boom and bust. Privatization will transfer full control to the individual and they will have the money. [7] Unlike the status quo, when you die, your Social Security funds will be transfered down your inheretance line to your family, so you are able to still use it instead of being like the South Park Cartoon \"Aaaaand it's Gone.\" [8]The first part is that people are mishandling their money by seeing that as people can choose when they want to retire they have to pay a higher amount of taxes. Some people take a higher tax burdern to retire quickly where the max age is 65 for males and 60 for females and the workers can choose to invest up to 20% in to this Pay as you go system, which mind you isn't the same system as mine since it still contains the Public Option while I'm phasing out from public to private. This leaves no government option. So the Chilean Expirament is like mine, but is not the same so my opponent may argue against this, but there is no direct link since the public option still exsists and even Jose Pinera Chile's former Secretary of Labor and Social Security. What adds to his stature was that his administration lasted through the transition. [9] In the country no AFP (spanish accronym for Pension Fund Administration) has gone under in the 14 years that the country has been doing this plan and no worker has lost a dime. The only reason, Pinera claims, that there is a loss reported was due to the financial crisis and lack of consumer confidence. [9] Not to mention this plan has caused the nation to see a 2% Gross Nation Product increase each year in this span. This, what they call Capitalization, has greatly helped the nation by them changing from Socialistic policies to that of the Chicago Boys and slowly adjusting over the years. Now why does this actually matter that I am arguing this? It's a reflection of the current state transition from State controlled Monopoly on the Social Security down to the private control.You'll have to forgive me as I'm running out of characters here for the rest. On to Galveston. We can see that it did this out of the fact that the US Congress was not doing anything to combat the growing Social Security issue that was arrising in the 1970s, so they acted. The Alternative Plan in Galveston is actually still in effect today and for the past 18 years people in the three Texas counties have seen a 6-6.5% return on Social Security compared to the 2-3%. [10] Concidering that it takes 26% of the budget such a task would be a simple phase out over the span of 10 years as I have already addressed. When the New York Times reporter visited a small town in Chile he found that, (1)Retire in 10 years, at age 62, with an annual pension of $55,000. That would be more than triple the $18,000 I can expect from Social Security at that age. (2)Retire at age 65 with an annual pension of $70,000. That would be almost triple the $25,000 pension promised by Social Security starting a year later, at age 66. (3)Retire at age 65 with an annual pension of $53,000 and a one-time cash payment of $223,000.\" [11] Investors Business Daily had also found that in Chile in the past 30 years that the annual rate of return is 9% compared to the 1-2% here in the US. [12] We can already see that this sucess has been drowned out by criticisms that doesn't speak to the amount of sucess reached here. We can see that it was coastly, but that was paid off and not to mention that the short term pain turned into massive long term gains ranging from massive returns on pensions to doubling and even trippling of the nation's growth rate. [13]Sources1. ( Social Security Administration, \"Frequently Asked Questions: Ratio of Covered Workers to Beneficiaries,\" ssa.gov (accessed Aug. 17, 2015)2. (http://tinyurl.com...) 3. (http://www.ncpa.org...) 4. (Bureau of Labor Statistics, \"CPI Inflation Calculator,\" bls.gov (accessed Aug. 17, 2015)5. (http://tinyurl.com...)6. (http://tinyurl.com...) 7. (http://tinyurl.com...)8. (http://tinyurl.com...) 9. (http://tinyurl.com...) 10. (http://tinyurl.com...) 11. (http://tinyurl.com...) 12. (http://tinyurl.com...) 13. (http://tinyurl.com...)", "qid": "5", "docid": "e28c98a3-2019-04-18T13:23:25Z-00006-000", "rank": 10, "score": 197789.0}, {"content": "Title: Privatising social security will increase the amount of money that reitrees can draw on Content: Private accounts would provide retirees with a higher rate of return on investments.[1] Privatization would give investment decisions to account holders. This does not mean that Social Security money for the under 55\u2019s would go to Wall Street.. This could be left to the individual's discretion. Potentially this could include government funds. But with government\u2019s record of mismanagement, and a $14 trillion deficit, it seems unlikely that many people would join that choice.[2] As Andrew Roth argues, \"Democrats will say supporters of personal accounts will allow people's fragile retirement plans to be subjected to the whims of the stock market, but that's just more demagoguery. First, personal accounts would be voluntary. If you like the current system (the one that [can be raided by] politicians), you can stay put and be subjected to decreasingly low returns as Social Security goes bankrupt. But if you want your money protected from politicians and have the opportunity to invest in the same financial assets that politicians invest in their own retirement plans (most are well-diversified long term funds), then you should have that option.\"[3 Social Security privatization would actually help the economically marginalised in two ways. Firstly, by ending the harm social security currently does; Those at the poverty level need every cent just to survive. Even those in the lower-middle class don\u2019t money to put into a wealth-generating retirement account. They have to rely on social security income to pay the bills when they reach retirement. Unfortunately, current social security pay-outs are at or below the poverty level. The money earned in benefits based on a retiree\u2019s contributions during their working life is less than the return on a passbook savings account.[4] Secondly, these same groups would be amongst the biggest 'winners' from privatization. By providing a much higher rate of return, privatization would raise the incomes of those elderly retirees who are most in need. The current system contains many inequities that leave the poor at a disadvantage. For instance, the low-income elderly are most likely to be dependent on Social Security benefits for most or all of their retirement income. But despite a progressive benefit structure, Social Security benefits are inadequate for the elderly poor's retirement needs.[5] Privatizing Social Security would improve individual liberty. Privatization would give all Americans the opportunity to participate in the economy through investments. Everyone would become capitalists and stock owners reducing the division of labour and capital and restoring the ownership that was the initial foundation of the American dream.[6] Moreover, privatized accounts would be transferable within families, which current Social Security accounts are not. These privatized accounts would be personal assets, much like a house or a 401k account. On death, privatised social security accounts could pass to an individual\u2019s heirs. With the current system, this cannot be done. Workers who have spent their lives paying withholding taxes are, in effect, denied a proprietary claim over money that, by rights, belongs to them.[7] This would make privatization a progressive move. Because the wealthy generally live longer than the poor, they receive a higher total of Social Security payments over the course of their lifetimes. This would be evened out if remaining benefits could be passed on.[8] Privatizing Social Security increases personal choice and gives people control over what they paid and thus are entitled to. Overall, therefore, privatizing Social Security would increase the amount of money that marginalised retirees receive and would give all retirees more freedom to invest and distribute social security payments. [1] Tanner, Michael. \"Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor.\" CATO. 26 July 1996. http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp4.html [2] Roth, Andrew. \"Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!\". Club for Growth.21 September 21 2010. http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/?postID=14110 [3] Roth, Andrew. \"Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!\". Club for Growth.21 September 21 2010. http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/?postID=14110 [4] Tanner, Michael. \"Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor.\" CATO. 26 July 1996. http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp4.html [5] Tanner, Michael. \"Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor.\" CATO. 26 July 1996. http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp4.html [6] Tanner, Michael. \"Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor.\" CATO. 26 July 1996. http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp4.html [7] Roth, Andrew. \"Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!\". Club for Growth.21 September 21 2010. http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/?postID=14110 [8] Tanner, Michael. \"Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor.\" CATO. 26 July 1996. http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp4.html", "qid": "5", "docid": "2d6f4e75-2019-04-15T20:22:43Z-00009-000", "rank": 11, "score": 197620.0}, {"content": "Title: Privatising the social security system would harm economic growth Content: Creating private accounts could have an impact on economic growth, which in turn would hit social security's future finances. Economic growth could be hit as privatizing Social Security will increase federal deficits and as a result debt significantly, while increasing the likelihood that national savings will decline which will happen as baby boomers retire anyway and draw down their savings. An analysis by the Centre on Budget and Policy Priorities shows that the proposed privatization by Obama would add $1 trillion in new federal debt in its first decade of implementation, and a further $3.5 trillion in the following decade.[1] Because households change their saving and spending levels in response to economic conditions privatization is actually more likely to reduce than increase national savings. This is because households that consider the new accounts to constitute meaningful increases in their retirement wealth might well reduce their other saving. Diamond and Orszag argue, 'If anything, our impression is that diverting a portion of the current Social Security surplus into individual accounts could reduce national saving.' That, in turn, would further weaken economic growth and our capacity to pay for the retirement of the baby boomers.\"[2] The deficit, and as a result national debt, would increase because trillions of dollars which had previously been paying for current retirees would be taken out of the system to be invested privately. Those who are already retired will however still need to draw a pension so the government would need to borrow the money to be able to pay for these pensions.[3] Contrary to side proposition\u2019s assertions, privatization also would not increase capital available for investment. Proponents of privatization claim that the flow of dollars into private accounts and then into the equity markets will stimulate the economy. However, as the social security system underwent the transition into private ownership, each dollar invested in a financial instrument via the proprietary freedoms afforded to account holders, would result in the government borrowing a dollar to cover pay outs to those currently drawing from the social security system. Thus, the supposed benefit of a privatised social security system is entirely eliminated by increased government borrowing, as the net impact on the capital available for investment is zero.[4] While four fifths of tax dollars for social security is spent immediately the final fifth purchases Treasury securities through trust funds. Privatization would hasten depletion of these funds. President Bush proposed diverting up to 4 percentage points of payroll tax to create the private accounts but with payroll currently 12.4% this would still be significantly more than the one fifth that is currently left over so depleting reserves. Funds now being set aside to build up the Trust Funds to provide for retiring baby boomers would be being used instead to pay for the privatization accounts. The Trust Funds would be exhausted much sooner than the thirty-eight to forty-eight years projected if nothing is done. In such a short time frame, the investments in the personal accounts will not be nearly large enough to provide an adequate cushion.[5] [1] Anrig, Greg and Wasow, Bernard. \"Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea\". The Century Foundation. 14 February 2005. http://tcf.org/media-center/pdfs/pr46/12badideas.pdf [2] Anrig, Greg and Wasow, Bernard. \"Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea\". The Century Foundation. 14 February 2005. http://tcf.org/media-center/pdfs/pr46/12badideas.pdf [3] Spitzer, Elliot. \"Can we finally kill this terrible idea?\" Slate. 4 February 2009. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_best_policy/2009/02/privatize_social_security.html [4] Spitzer, Elliot. \"Can we finally kill this terrible idea?\" Slate. 4 February 2009. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_best_policy/2009/02/privatize_social_security.html [5] Anrig, Greg and Wasow, Bernard. \"Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea\". The Century Foundation. 14 February 2005. http://tcf.org/media-center/pdfs/pr46/12badideas.pdf", "qid": "5", "docid": "2d6f4e75-2019-04-15T20:22:43Z-00015-000", "rank": 12, "score": 197140.0}, {"content": "Title: Privatized social security restores individual liberty and ownership Content: Andrew Roth. \"Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!\" Club for Growth. September 21, 2010: \"Voters are tired of big government. They are tired of bailouts and government taking over various private sector industries. With personal accounts, voters now have a chance to reduce the power in Washington, and reclaim some of the economic liberty that was taken away from them. Candidates for Congress should adopt that message and support it loudly.\"", "qid": "5", "docid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00061-000", "rank": 13, "score": 197053.0}, {"content": "Title: Social Security R.I.B Should be Privatized Content: This round I shall go over my opponent's case first and then move on to my rebuttals. My opponent states that Privatizing RIB would lead to a collapse due to stock market options. There are a few things wrong with this. One of them tend to be that my opponnent has painted the picture of the government would have no safe guards on this. If you look at every government program or new technology, the government is always there to place some sort of safeguard against it. For a key example here is we can see that FDR created the FDIC that would product up to a certain amount in banks [1]. The government would most likely do something of a similiar matter here where the government would require these institutes to create a war chest so they are able to withstand an economic downturn. Under this case, the business would be less inclined to take huge risks and are more likely to take safer ones. Following a recession and during one, investors tend to focus on low growth, low risk stocks. They also tend to look towards smaller businesses which is a huge contribution to why there's a huge growth rate amongst them [2] Another key issue is my opponent is bringing up economic downturns being a huge issue and brings up the Farming Bubble, Dot com, and the Housing bubble. These may be generally bad, but if we tend to look at the recovery stages we can see that this isn't as bad as my opponent's wants us to believe as people will quickly regain any small amount of money they lost. We can see that after the Farming Bubble in the 80's that the US GDP had a 2.9% growth and 1.4% after Dotcom. We can see that overall the economy has huge growth rates after these recessions that truely makes up for any downturns and then some. The economy has also been expierencing fewer recessions and longer growth periods showing that much of this tends to almost be a non-issue. We also have to factor in how the increase in funds into the stocks would expand growth exponentially showing that a recession would be unlikely for a great period of time. First I would like to address the 75 year solvency issue that my opponent has brought up. The source actually talks about several different alternatives and how it would work with said 75 year test. It actually reads,\" Because Social Security has been operating as a defined benefit plan for over 75 years, it would be impractical to convert it immediately into a pure individual account plan, and no proposal has been made to do so.[3]\"I have stated in my last round that it would be a gradual transition. Not the immidiate change over my opponent is talking about. My opponent also miscontrews the idea in transition. Everyone would still have their funds with the transition in process. The Social Security budget has been used for other things in the government as they reallocated funds to pay for other projects. The most recent one was in the recent spending bill passed at the end of the year. The government could easily reallocate the budget for transition. http://www.youtube.com...Even if taxes for RIB needs to be raised, which is highly unlikely, it will be offset by the benefits coming from this plan since social security barely meets the Senior Citizen needs and Privatized RIB actually increases this substantially which would help Senior Citizens out and allow them to live more in comfort. Contention 1: Social Security will crash My opponnent agrees with this contention, but disagrees on the solution. The crisis brought up is simply that we cannot allow for Social Security RIB to become insolvent in the status quo as it would harm the average American. Without any type of alternative, this would create a massive issue for us as we would begin to see a decline in consumer spending as more Senior Citizens will have to move back into their children's home and we would return to an economic slump under this case. There are several other key issues that arise out of this, but the key objective is that there needs to be some sort of alternative given and the only way to do this is privatization. The government continuiously takes funds from Social Security and it would be easy to help use these funds instead of allocation for other projects, but to help in privatization. In 2015, it was reported that Social Security's Admin and benefits costs the US 24% of our national budget which is harming other programs we could be using it for or even simply using it to pay off our debts [4]. Contention 2: Privatization solves.My opponent brings up the Housing crisis again, but that is a case where the market was not regulated and in many to most circumstances it is. Medical Licensing is determined by the AMA yet they are private and have the public's best interest. After the crisis, the government put through several measures like instiuting the Voulcker rule with Dodd-Frank and now's there's a push to re-instate Glass-Stegal. Larger investments making things cheaper is a quite simple Trickle-down economics. With a large increase and imput that would be poored into the stock market, there would be a huge new amount of capital avialable. The owner's of these businesses where the stock is being bought would then see an increase in Equity which they could use to increase their assets either by purchasing of land, equipment, or any type of tangible assets. These long term assets would be able to give back to the economy through providing an increase in jobs for the building of these places and it's upkeep. This would create a great loop that would send our economy skyrocketing. Do to the ample amount of money aviable, people would be able to afford more goods which increases production and continues this loop. We would start to move towards full employment. We can see that there's a great deal of stocks that do go and bring back a great return the S&P has one averaging at 7%, but this is assuming that only one stock is invested in [5]. My opponent simply assumes that a great deal of the stock holders will hang on to the stocks all day long. Many of the traders today have the option to have a Profit and Loss limit in order to prevent huge losses and maintain maximum growth. We have to emphasize the ability to be able to inherit your RIB if you die. This is something that, in the status quo, is done inadiquately as the SSA only will allow a lump payment of $225, which is nowhere near what the family would need to supliment for the lost income [6]. My opponent attacks the Chilean example due to a few differences, but we do have to see that this is it's application in process and we cannot simply discard it do to that point and that point alone. Though there were some key differences we do have to see that the Chilean system did it with a ratio higher than the US when they started off and the Chilean economy wasn't as effective as the US and it helped change the Chilean economy into a powerhouse in the South American Continent. I would continue, but I am out of characters, so unfortunately I'll have to end my round here and pass things off to my opponent. Sources1. (http://tinyurl.com...)2. (http://tinyurl.com...) 3. (http://tinyurl.com...)4. (http://tinyurl.com...) 5. (http://tinyurl.com...) 6. ( http://tinyurl.com...)", "qid": "5", "docid": "e28c98a3-2019-04-18T13:23:25Z-00004-000", "rank": 14, "score": 197046.0}, {"content": "Title: Social Security R.I.B Should be Privatized Content: I conceded the debate.", "qid": "5", "docid": "e28c98a3-2019-04-18T13:23:25Z-00002-000", "rank": 15, "score": 196934.0}, {"content": "Title: Social security should be privatized. Content: I'm glad we at least agree that social security has serious issues. It's always good to have common ground upon which to debate. I disagree that privatization has a shaky track record. It is government programs such as social security that have a shaky track record. Our entire economy is based on the merits of private enterprise, and it has worked for us thus far. Despite the relative youth of this country, we have managed to surpass all other nations in terms of economic productivity and wide-spread prosperity. I think it is rather inconsistent to say that, whereas privatization has proven successful in virtually every other area of our economy, that it would not be successful in providing retirement benefits for seniors. \"[In] Chile, 41% of the accounts created have funds so small that the retirees are forced to continue work.\" I have no doubt that this is the case. However, I don't see that our system is much better. According to one website (which I have cited below due to the length of the URL) one third of U.S. retirees are forced to go back to work shortly after \"retiring,\" despite the 500 billion dollars collected in payrol taxes every year. At least Chile is getting its money's worth. \"Relying on individual savings rates pushes us into a further risk bracket that many will make poor choices and then wind up being on the welfare dole. That's hardly a solution.\" I don't see how savings rates puts us into a higher risk bracket. Savings accounts are the second lowest risk investment type, preceeded only by cash itself. There would be virtually no risk involved. The cost of privatization is irrelevant. That cost will only grow the longer we wait to fix this problem. Our choice is not between privatization and non-privatization, it is between privatization now, which MAY cost 4.9 trillion (depending on how you go about it), or privatization later, after the system has collapsed and elderly people are left without an income. You wouldn't be replacing one bloated bureaucracy with another, you'd be eliminating a bloated bureaucracy and replacing it with a private system whose very survival depends on its ability to be efficient! It doesn't cost any more for a mutual fund manager to handle two billion dollars than it does to manage two million dollars. The additional administrative costs would arise with distribution of benefits. Since businesses, unlike the government, are trying to make money, they are forced to do things in the most efficient way possible. Because of this, the cost of distribution would be significantly less than under a government run system. Moreover, we would be introducing a powerful factor into retirement benefits: compound interest. If we were allowed to invest our own money for our own retirment, instead of pay for someone else's retirement by sending that money to the government, more people would retire in a much better financial situation than currently. If I were allowed to put 2,000 dollars per year into decent mutual fund (one that earns 10% interest after adjusting for administrative costs and inflation, which is not unrealistic) beginning at age 24 until I retire at sixty-five, I would end up with one million dollars, only $80,000 of which I had actually put in to the account! That constitutes a %1250 return on my investment. Contrast that with our current system in which you recieve an estimated 1.23% rate of return for two income households. If social security is nothing more than the crappy end of a larger investment portfolio, why have it at all? Yes, there would still be administrative costs for a private system, but at least we'd be getting something in return. Why send $200 dollars to the government every paycheck where it will acrue no interest when you could invest it and get at as much as 10% interest? In light of this, social security is indeed a joke. Or at least it would be if it wasn't so completely wasteful. http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:HGSGDdY0zq0J:www.ci.walla-walla.wa.us/vertical/Sites/%257B5C31B82F-5E63-4200-9CF4-237E5245E279%257D/uploads/%257B528FE4F0-356F-4DB6-A60E-6258691ACD6B%257D.DOC http://www.heritage.org...", "qid": "5", "docid": "dac7811d-2019-04-18T20:00:32Z-00003-000", "rank": 16, "score": 196082.0}, {"content": "Title: Privatizing social security offers ownership in economy. Content: Michael Tanner. \"Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor.\" CATO. July 26th, 1996: \"An important side benefit of Social Security privatization is that it would give every American--including poor Americans--an opportunity to participate in the economy by owning a part of it. In effect, a privatized pension system would act as a nationwide employee stock option plan, which would allow even the poorest workers to become capitalists. Through Social Security privatization, workers would become stockholders. The division between labor and capital would be broken down.\"", "qid": "5", "docid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00062-000", "rank": 17, "score": 193954.0}, {"content": "Title: Costly privatization of Soc Sec would dampen econ growth Content: Greg Anrig and Bernard Wasow. \"Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea.\" The Century Foundation.: \"Reason #3: creating private accounts could dampen economic growth, which would further weaken social security's future finances. Privatizing Social Security will increase federal deficits and debt significantly while increasing the likelihood that national savings will decline\u2014all of which could reduce long-term economic growth and the size of the economic pie available to pay for the retirement of the baby-boom generation. An analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities shows that the president\u2019s proposal would add $1 trillion in new federal debt in its first decade of implementation, $3.5 trillion in the following decade, and trillions more thereafter.\"", "qid": "5", "docid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00046-000", "rank": 18, "score": 193674.0}, {"content": "Title: Social security should be privatized. Content: \"So, any time we think something must be done about a particular problem necessarily means that we will make bad decisions? How else is change accomplished if not through the conviction that something must be done to fix the problem? This is a fallacious appeal to authority on your part.\" Nice try Snoopy, but you missed the point of the quote altogether. Webster's point was action in response to conviction or passion doesn't always yield the desired result (Iraq is a good example of this). Your conviction to destroy social security without much of a real understanding of the impact and cost of such a transition proves Daniel Webster's point. One such example is the concept of disability, one area that social security provides for. In your zeal to abandon this government program, millions of disabled citizens would lose their disability benefits. Now, I'm sure if given the choice to contemplate that fate, you would likely argue for some revision to our efforts to abandon social security to at least make sure these folks didn't lose what is likely a lifeline of income for them. The cost element still hasn't been resolved, though I do realize that you probably care little about this vs. obtaining the result you desire. I do care, as we are already saddling future generations with mountains of debt under this current administration, adding 4-11 trillion more would exacerbate the situation far greater. As for Chile, some of your analysis is correct, but it proves my point when it comes to risk for our citizens. While I agree that the Federal government isn't independent of market performance, it is far more so than the average private account. Most of social security is invested in government bonds, which even today are probably the safest investment that can be made (less so if we continue our debt patterns, which feeds my argument above). I know you've asked for my \"fixes\" to social security, but I don't think that is germane to the topic, nor do we have time to address it given that this is the last round. However, for the sake of clarification, two of my fixes would lie in raising the cap on current tax levels as well as raising the cap on investment levels so that the trust fund could perform better in periods of economic growth. What you haven't answered that is germane to this topic is how we achieve such a transition. I've highlighted the costs, to which your only answer is they will get worse. That doesn't improve the case for this drastic of a move. The transition to the private system you advocate would be violent, and economically difficult to achieve. I completely agree that people need to change their approach to retirement. Social security should become a much smaller portion of their retirement portfolio, as FDR has originally designed (it was only supposed to be a supplement for poor retirees). Throwing the baby out with the bathwater, as you propose, is far too risky in todays economic climate, especially with the escalating costs of health care for retirees. Privatization may be an option at some point, but today we need to stabilize the patient before we're willing to get rid of it altogether. Too many people would suffer otherwise.", "qid": "5", "docid": "dac7811d-2019-04-18T20:00:32Z-00000-000", "rank": 19, "score": 192956.0}, {"content": "Title: social security should b means tested against the rich Content: i mostly just reiterate my last points. as to privatizing ss. if people are left to be in total control of their money, most will be impoverished by old age, and there will be a crisis. also, poor people are subsidized a bit with ss as it is now, and they wouldn't receive that any more, which they should. ie the excess wealth is what should pay for the people who are too poor.", "qid": "5", "docid": "38b0fdf5-2019-04-18T12:55:15Z-00001-000", "rank": 20, "score": 192795.0}, {"content": "Title: Privatising social security will harm retirees Content: As Greg Anrig and Bernard Wasow of the non-partisan think tank the Century Foundation argue: \"Privatization advocates like to stress the appeal of 'individual choice' and 'personal control,' while assuming in their forecasts that everyone\u2019s accounts will match the overall performance of the stock market. But\u2026 research by Princeton University economist Burton G. Malkiel found that even professional money managers over time significantly underperformed indexes of the entire market.\u201d[1] Most people don\u2019t have the knowledge to manage their own investments. A Securities and Exchange Commission report showed the extent of financial illiteracy for example half of adults don\u2019t know what a stock market is, half don\u2019t understand the purpose of diversifying investments and 45% believe it provides \u201ca guarantee that [their] portfolio won\u2019t suffer if the stock market falls\u201d[2] Including all the management costs it is safe to say that growth from individual accounts will be lower than the market average. The private sector is therefore in no better a position to make investment decisions than the state. Privatised accounts would bring their own problems. They are vulnerable to market downturns. Despite crashes the long term return from shares has always been positive. But this does not help those that hit retirement age during a period when the stock market is down. With private pensions people would be relying on luck that they retire at the right time or happened to pick winning stocks.[3] The economist Paul Krugman has pointed out, privatizers make incredible assumptions about the likely performance of the market in order to be able to justify their claim that private accounts would outdo the current system. The price-earnings ratio would need to be around 70 to 1 by 2050. This is unrealistic and would be an immense bubble as a P/E ratio of 20 to 1 is considered more normal today.[4] If returns are low then there the added worry that privatized social security may not beat inflation. This would mean that retiree\u2019s pensions become worth less and less. At the moment Social Security payouts are indexed to wages, which historically have exceeded inflation so providing protection. Privatizing social security would have a big impact on those who want to remain in the system through falling tax revenues. Implementing private accounts will take 4 per-cent of the 12.4 per-cent taken from each worker\u2019s annual pay out of the collective fund. Thus, almost a 3rd of the revenue generated by social security taxes will be removed. Drastic benefit cuts or increased taxes will have to occur even sooner, which is a recipe for disaster.[5] It is for reasons such as these that privatization of similar social security systems has disappointed elsewhere, as Anrig and Wasow argue: \"Advocates of privatization often cite other countries, such as Chile and the United Kingdom, where the governments pushed workers into personal investment accounts to reduce the long-term obligations of their Social Security systems, as models for the United States to emulate. But the sobering experiences in those countries actually provide strong arguments against privatization. A report last year from the World Bank, once an enthusiastic privatization proponent, expressed disappointment that in Chile, and in most other Latin American countries that followed in its footsteps, \u201cmore than half of all workers [are excluded] from even a semblance of a safety net during their old age.\u201d\u201d[6] Therefore privatizing Social Security would actually harm retirees and undermine the entire system, and so Social Security should not be privatized. [1] Anrig, Greg and Wasow, Bernard. \"Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea\". The Century Foundation. 14 February 2005. http://tcf.org/media-center/pdfs/pr46/12badideas.pdf [2] Office of Investor Education and Assistance Securities and Exchange Commission, \u2018The Facts on Saving and Investing\u2019, April 1999, http://www.sec.gov/pdf/report99.pdf pp.16-19 [3] Spitzer, Elliot. \"Can we finally kill this terrible idea?\" Slate. 4 February 2009. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_best_policy/2009/02/privatize_social_security.html [4] Spitzer, Elliot. \"Can we finally kill this terrible idea?\" Slate. 4 February 2009. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_best_policy/2009/02/privatize_social_security.html [5] Anrig, Greg and Wasow, Bernard. \"Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea\". The Century Foundation. 14 February 2005. http://tcf.org/media-center/pdfs/pr46/12badideas.pdf [6] Anrig, Greg and Wasow, Bernard. \"Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea\". The Century Foundation. 14 February 2005. http://tcf.org/media-center/pdfs/pr46/12badideas.pdf", "qid": "5", "docid": "2d6f4e75-2019-04-15T20:22:43Z-00013-000", "rank": 21, "score": 192729.0}, {"content": "Title: Privatizing social security Content: Privatized social security will cut tax revenues and social services.", "qid": "5", "docid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00024-000", "rank": 22, "score": 191774.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should privatize Social Security Content: Alright, thanks to lannan for kicking this off, and let's get started. Burdens: This debate hinges on the comparison of two cases. As the rules in R1 don't stipulate that I cannot run a counter plan, I am allowed to do so. It is my burden to prove that my case is superior to Pro's, and Pro's burden to accomplish the opposite goal. Evaluation should focus on the net benefits of our impacts since we're discussing a policy change. 1) Harming retirees Note: SS = social security. Retirees will lose their SS benefits and have it replaced with three options: spend it, save it, or invest it. Spending the money provides a short term benefit to retirees that quickly runs out. Pro might argue that this is still better than the public system because it affords them increased liberties, but running out of funds when one is retired drastically reduces their options. Individuals who spend all of their money will end up becoming dependent on help from the government, especially as their health issues become more dramatic. The most conservative thing that these people could do with their money is place it in the bank. If they do that, however, they\"re still doing far worse than they would through the public SS system. At the moment, SS payouts are indexed to wages, which have historically exceeded inflation and thus provided a measure of protection against changes in the value of the dollar.[1] Banks don\"t provide that protection. How about investment? Investing through a brokerage firm is expensive to start, costing people 1% of their investments every year (as opposed to the single payment of 0.8% in expenses for the SS system).[2] Most people aren\"t professional money managers. They won\"t have the knowledge base to manage their own investments. Hell, most people don\"t even have the basic financial literacy to know what a stock market is or why diversifying investments is important (many believe it guarantees them success in the stock market).[3] This is really bad, because even professionals generally underperform indexes of the market as a whole.[4] This means that most people are going to be dramatically underperforming in the stock market. Even if they were experts, the basic fact that the stock market fluctuates will ruin lives. There are countless examples of market downturns that could absolutely bankrupt retirees, and if someone retires at an unlucky time right before one of these occurs, they will lose everything.[5] Even during times of plenty, picking the wrong stock can lead to a dramatic loss. However, all of this is beside the point because we\"re not just evaluating outcomes based on whether they\"re net positive. If the rate of return is lower after turning to the private system than it is right now, that\"s reason enough for us to eschew this option. Remember that I mentioned inflation earlier \" that\"s important here as well, because if rates of return on investments aren\"t high enough, then they won\"t beat inflation and the value of all that money for retirees goes down over time. Pro has to prove that the returns will be high enough to cover for inflation. Pro also hasn\"t talked at all about the costs of implementing his plan. The government is going to have to create a large number of private accounts into which this money will be deposited, that\"s pretty much how every privatization scheme works. The cost of doing that is not small. It will take some 2 to 4% of the payroll tax out of the 12.4% that\"s taken, which means up to almost a third of the revenue generated from this tax would be removed.[6]. This is largely the result of having to plunge into the trust fund currently being set aside for retiring baby boomers (which is the reason that SS is still alive and kicking), requiring that the government start borrowing from the private sector (increasing our debt), raise taxes, or slash benefits. (2) Failure of Privatization To start, I'd like to be clear that Pro's proposal has never been done anywhere. His system doesn't exist in any part of the world. An untried, completely theoretical system like his should not be employed anywhere, but if it is going to be employed, it shouldn't be country-wide where the opportunities and consequences of failure are at their absolute worst. That being said, there are examples of other countries that have implemented privatization schemes. I couldn't find an example of a country where something like this was employed where the governments didn't implement a subsidy system to ensure that workers who fail to accumulate enough money into their accounts earn a minimum pension, a plank that is not visible in Pro's plan. However, even with those protections, country-wide privatization has only resulted in dramatic failures. Both Chile and the UK have done it, and both of them have encountered tremendous problems. In Chile, \"more than half of all workers [are excluded] from even a semblance of a safety net during their old age.\"[7] Their investment accounts are so low that 41% of those eligible to collect pensions continue to work. In fact, it\"s so bad that their returns are less than if they\"d simply kept their money in a savings account.[8] They\"ve also suffered abnormally high transition costs, making just the process of transitioning in each decade cost a sizable slice of the GDP.[9] In the UK, people have become victims to poor investment choices and crooked brokers. The government itself has suffered major expense increases and lost tax revenues. According to Adair Turner, the head of a British government commission assessing reports on these problems, \"[w]hat looked like a very good idea from a financial perspective in cutting costs has put pensioner poverty, which had been all but eradicated, back on the agenda.\"[10] But we can also look to an example from the U.S. Yes, some areas of Texas opted out of SS before the law was changed in 1983. This amounts to 3 counties: Galveston, Brazoria, and Matagorda.[11] Now, let's be clear that I'm not supporting the notion that the results of these 3 counties should be used as evidence for the effectiveness of such a program country-wide. They're all on far too small of a scale (they amount to roughly 674,000 people total [12]) to be comparable to implementation on a nationwide scale. Moreover, the Alternate Plan that they have in place is significantly different from Pro's proposal, since money is still taken out of their paychecks on a constant basis and placed into a separate account, meaning that this system bears far more similarity to SS than Pro's proposal does. But if we are going to compare them, it should be noted that even the creators of the Alternate Plan note that the options for rapid removal of funds end up depleting these accounts, leaving people unprotected and resulting in individuals becoming \"wards of the state.\"[11] In other words, they just become wholly dependent on the system to keep them alive through other means. (3) Counter Plan To understand this, I first must explain that while SS is flawed, it is not inherent to the program. In fact, SS is not only currently solvent, but generating a surplus of some $2.8 trillion as of 2014 (and rising). [13] It will take at least two decades for this program to run up a deficit, by which I mean that it will deplete its reserves.[14] Pro\"s system would utterly destroy SS, so he\"s essentially responding to the problem by demolishing it early. But let\"s be clear that SS does a lot more than just provide a safety net to 59 million Americans.[15] The government does use that money for a lot of important tasks, including other safety nets and military spending.[16] Removing that money from the government necessitates that they either borrow or tax more to cover them, or that they slash those programs, which adds to the various harms Pro\"s plan incurs. However, I recognize that SS has its problems, and it\"s because I do that I\"m offering a counter plan. My fix is two-fold: (1) to eliminate the tax cap currently in place on SS payroll taxes, and (2) slightly increase SS taxation. (1) Currently, people who earn more than $118,500 don\"t pay these taxes on any amount they earn above that.[17] This system is inherently biased for them, allowing individuals who probably will have more than enough money upon retirement to simply coast without SS to go free of payroll taxes on what could well be the vast majority of their earnings. This plank would be implemented over the course of 10 years, and they could even get a boost in benefit payments for their extra input. This comes out to a 74% reduction in the SS shortfall. It\"s also a change that garners widespread support.[18] (2) Currently, workers pay 6.2% of their earnings into the system, with employers paying a matching amount. Simply increasing that amount to 6.9% over the course of the next 20 years would eliminate the remaining 26% shortfall. Note that this amounts to 50 cents more per week for someone earning $100,000 a year. This is also extremely popular.[18] Note that the CBO also did estimates of the effect of both of these, and came to similar conclusions.[19] Conclusion: While I do wholeheartedly support my counter plan, even the status quo stands as far better than Pro\"s proposal. His case is a clear net negative. Meanwhile, the status quo keeps this system around for at least the next two decades, and my counter plan leaves it solvent for the foreseeable future. Back to Pro. 1. http://1.usa.gov... 2. http://theatln.tc... 3. http://1.usa.gov... 4. http://bit.ly... 5. http://slate.me... 6. http://brook.gs... 7. http://bit.ly... 8. http://bit.ly... 9. http://bit.ly... 10. http://bit.ly... 11. http://nyti.ms... 12. http://bit.ly... 13. http://1.usa.gov... 14. http://1.usa.gov... 15. http://pewrsr.ch... 16. http://cbsn.ws... 17. http://1.usa.gov... 18. http://bit.ly... 19. http://1.usa.gov...", "qid": "5", "docid": "41ee0719-2019-04-18T14:19:05Z-00004-000", "rank": 23, "score": 190263.0}, {"content": "Title: Privatizing social security enables investment of savings Content: Alex Schibuola. \"Time to Privatize? The Economics of Social Security.\" Open Markets. November 16th, 2010: \"If Social Security were privatized, people would deposit their income with a bank. People actually save resources that businesses can invest. We, as true savers, get more resources in the future.\"", "qid": "5", "docid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00042-000", "rank": 24, "score": 190207.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should privatize Social Security Content: To clearify as my opponent has asked, Priviatization shall be the ending of Federal Control in Social Security and a phase out to private control in a 10 year peroid. People with money curently in federal funds shall have this transfered to the compan the client chooes. My opponent is defending the Status Quo, Social Security as it is in this current moment.Contention 1: The Role of the GovernmentP1.The Government should only act to enforce the Imperatives of Perfect Duties.P2. Social Security does not meet the standard of a Perfect Duty.C1: Thus, the Government should not act to enforce Social Security.\"\"Kant's first formulation of the CI states that you are to \u201cact only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law... Perfect duties come in the form \u2018One mustnever (or always) \u03c6 to the fullest extent possible in C\u2019, while imperfect duties, since they enjoin the pursuit of an end, come in the form \u2018One must sometimes and to some extent \u03c6 in C\u2019\" [1]According to the above we see that Kant establishes two duties of that of the government; Perfect Duties and Imperfect Duties. Perfect Duties are those things of which the government must provide to ensure that the government and that society is fully functional. What are these things you may ask? These things are the simple things ensured under that of the Social Contract that you give up for a Civilized Society. These things are indeed key as we can see that this ensures that of a Minarchy at the minimum. What that means is that the Government is to ensure that the people are safe. Everything else falls into that of the Imperfect Duties. Now note that these things may protect and benefit the public, we can see that if they're not of the Social Contract like ideals that they automatically fall into this category and SHOULD NOT be carried out by the government, but by Private entities. As a matter of fact the Social Secutiry Program is actually the exact opposite of a Perfect Duty and is shown to be that of something that the Federal Government should protect against, or at least not do. I'll get more into this in a later contention.\u201cAny action is right if it can coexist with everyone's freedom in accordance with a universal law, or if on its maxim the freedom of choice of each can coexist with everyone's freedom in accordance with a universal law\u201d [2]We can see that if the government intervenes on the behalf on the people to infringe on that of an Imperfect duty that they would undermining humanity to achieve their due ends. We can see and must ensure that the Imperfect Duties are carried out by the Private Entites as things like people's health and Private debt is something that is to be delt with by the individual NOT the government. [3] Kant also argues that Rights are not created by the establishment of government. [4] So this furthers that the Social Security Program is not a right for the people and thus it should not be preformed by the federal government, but instead run by a private company.The finial part of the argument here revolves around Distributive Justice. We can see that the there are two types of rights: Positive Rights and Negative Rights.Positive Rights- Duty to help others, like provide Social Security, Free internet, food stamps, welfare, etc...Negative Rights- Freedom of Speach, Press, property, etc... Freedom from Crime, violence, etc... [5]Nozick, Libertarian Ethics Philosopher, has shown that the federal government shoul only enforce negative rights. [6] The distributive justice is the distrabution of society's burdens and benefits. The Libertarian Principle argues for there being no positive Rights, but negative rights on the grounds that people will work the hardest and for the greatest possible soceity through their own means. This was even acknowledged by Alexis De Tocqueville who noted that the American individualism caused them to be self-entrapenurial and to work towards improvement for their own good and that it also helps society. [7] Though many may argue that this causes a division De Tocqueville saw that America was a Civil nation where they they were treated equally and was the only country that called the waiter \"Sir\" as if he was a knight. Contention 2: Social Security flawed and will crash.When Social Security was created the US federal government made a profit from it as there was 25 people paying for 1 person that recieved Social Security. Now it is nearly a 3 to 1 person and if something isn't done soon the system will be bust as there's no way that a 2 to 1 or even 1 to 1 ratio could work. The reason this is occuring is that the Baby Boomers are starting to retire also we have lower birthrates which have massively declined since the Row V Wade decission. [8] Since 2010, the US income that they would generally make off of Social Security has evaporated and they began loosing money. The Treasury reports that by 2034, the US funds will run out and eventually Social Security will engulf the entire US budget. [9] Although Social Security only takes up 13% of the US Budget by 2020 its expected to be up to 29%, by 2030 it's suppose to be 49% and if this trend continues then in 2080 it will consist of 89% of the US budget. [10] Alternatives that is not ran by the government needs to be found in order to protect our nation's welfare. Another key issue is that of taxes. When Social Security was created the taxes was $3,000, but now it is a whopping $118,000 which rose 700% higher than inflation showing how much harm it is preforming on the system. [11] It has risen to 12% for many self-employed and small business owners harming our business and industries. The privatization will solve for this issue and will boost economic growth in the process. Contention 3: Privitization solves.One of the greatest tragedies of today's market system is that the government is trampling our right to Choose. In the 1990's a think tank came together and found that the US should privitize social security. Bill Clinton and Newt Grinrich came together to discuss this issue and they came to to an agreement though nothing came of it as it disappeared from the Congressional agenda after the Contract with America. If privitized people will see a larger investment for a cheaper cost. Research has found with trials in Texas and Florida that with the privatization there is a 11.5% yearly growth where the current rate of Social Security is 2.5%. [12] That's a huge difference and it's more money you can use when you retire and maybe you can even retire earlier. Martin Feildstein, former US Treasurer has found that, \"someone with $50,000 of real annual earnings during his working years could accumulate enough to fund an annual payout of about $22,000 after age 67, essentially doubling the current Social Security benefit.\" This was only at a 5.5% increase as well. [13]A Gallup poll found that 60% of Americans believed that they will not see their retirement money from Social Security. Why's that you may ask? It's simply the matter the fact of governmental interfearance in these accounts by \"reaching into the cookie jar\" when they are sore on funds, but they do this in boom and bust. Privatization will transfer full control to the individual and they will have the money. [14] Unlike the status quo, when you die, your Social Security funds will be transfered down your inheretance line to your family, so you are able to still use it instead of being like the South Park Cartoon \"Aaaaand it's Gone.\" [15]Sources1. (http://plato.stanford.edu...) 2. (Lectures and Drafts on Political Philosophy, translated Frederick Rauscher and Kenneth Westphal (in preparation). Relevant contents: \"Naturrecht Feyerabend\" course lecture, fragments on political philosophy, and drafts of works in political philosophy.)3. (Johnson, Robert. \"Kant's Moral Philosophy.\" The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2012.)4. (http://www.follesdal.net...) 5. (The Objectivist Ethics, Ayn Rand (1961)6. (http://ajjulius.net...) 7. (https://mollydodd.wordpress.com...) 8. ( Social Security Administration, \"Frequently Asked Questions: Ratio of Covered Workers to Beneficiaries,\" ssa.gov (accessed Aug. 17, 2015)9. ( Board of Trustees, Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Federal Disability Insurance Trust Funds, \"The 2015 Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Federal Disability Insurance Trust Funds,\" ssa.gov, July 22, 2015) 10. ( http://www.ncpa.org...) 11. (Bureau of Labor Statistics, \"CPI Inflation Calculator,\" bls.gov (accessed Aug. 17, 2015)12. (Michael Clingman et al., \"Internal Real Rates of Return under the OASDI Program for Hypothetical Workers,\" ssa.gov, Dec. 2014) 13. Martin Feldstein, \"Private Accounts Can Save Social Security,\" wsj.com, May 2, 201114. (President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security, \"Strengthening Social Security and Creating Personal Wealth for All Americans,\" ssa.gov, Dec. 21, 2001) 15. ( Michael Tanner, \"Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor,\" cato.org, July 26, 1996)", "qid": "5", "docid": "41ee0719-2019-04-18T14:19:05Z-00005-000", "rank": 25, "score": 190000.0}, {"content": "Title: Privatising the social security system would harm economic growth Content: Privatization would increase national savings and provide a new pool of capital for investment that would be particularly beneficial to the poor. As it stands, Social Security is a net loss maker for the American taxpayer, and this situation will only continue to get worse unless privatization is enacted: those born after the baby boom will forfeit 10 cents of every dollar they earn in payments towards the up keep of the Social Security system. By contrast, under privatization people would actually save resources that businesses can invest. As Alan Greenspan has pointed out, the economic benefits of privatization of Social Security are potentially enormous. In Chile, as Dr. Pi\u00f1era has noted, there has been real economic growth of 7 percent a year over the past decade, energized by a savings rate in excess of 20 percent.[1] Martin Feldstein, a Harvard economist, formerly Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors under President Reagan, estimated that the present value to the U.S. economy of investing the future cash flow of payroll taxes in real assets would be on the order of $10 to $20 trillion. That would mean a permanent, significant boost to economic growth.[2] [1] Crane, Edward. \"The Case for Privatizing America's Social Security System.\" CATO Institute. 10 December 1997. http://www.cato.org/testimony/art-22.html [2] Crane, Edward. \"The Case for Privatizing America's Social Security System.\" CATO Institute. 10 December 1997. http://www.cato.org/testimony/art-22.html", "qid": "5", "docid": "2d6f4e75-2019-04-15T20:22:43Z-00014-000", "rank": 26, "score": 189964.0}, {"content": "Title: Social Security R.I.B Should be Privatized Content: \u201cPrivatizing RIB ..collapse due to stock market options.\u201d Not what I stated. I pointed to historical down turns where individuals took a loss; Individual Plans (IP) will have the same risks. The government would most likely (safe guard) .. create a war chest.. to withstand an economic downturn.\u201d Most likely? The gov has control over the market? I have yet to see any safe guards in plans presented by you; fallacy. These \u201cinstitutes\u201d will ensure against losses? How would a war chest be funded,what\u2019s the cost to the consumer? The FDIC was insolvent in the 80\u2019s. \"..bubbles..These recovery stages we can see that this isn't as bad as my opponent's wants us to believe.\u201d Black Monday:Total -36.7%, S&L crisis: FSLIC (FDIC) insolvent, 124B in bailouts. Dot.com: Nasdaq composite -78%, 2008 crash: S&P 500 Index -37% for the yr. Seniors lost on ave. 20%. When losses are high 2.9%/1.4% growth does little to recoup losses. The money is gone. It takes yrs to get back to the pre-crash balance; no equity on losses are being built. Retirees or soon to retire were hard hit [32,33,34,35]. Example: I lost 22% of my 401K in 2008 (like others). Not until last yr did I return to the pre-2008 crash level; minus new contributions. That\u2019s 7 yrs of recouping losses. Not a quick recovery or a small $s. At 19 you have not lived through all these ups and downs with repetitive recuperation periods. It\u2019s a significant loss over a working lifetime; stop drinking the cool-aid, it isn\u2019t a non-issue. SS RIB is a safety net for many; privatization will pull the rug out. For 35 yrs the financial ind. has repeatedly gut our economy. It started with Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act, partly responsible of the S&L crisis[47], 1989 &1993 exemption of swaps and derivatives from all regulation, (hidden in 401ks) and the lifting of Glass-Steagall, allowing for sub-prime lending and bailouts. It appears that the tax payer loose on one end and pay from the other. Privatizing SS in light of past events is far too risky[36,37]. I fully understand the transition period. If IPs were started this year 2016, all new to the workforce, would fall into IPs. All those who began working in 2015 would fall under the old SS system along with others previously working, which accounts for the 75yr transition. But, \u201cUnder the system as now constituted, each generation largely pays for the benefits of the preceding generation. Under an individual account system, each generation pays for its own benefits. During the transition from defined benefit to individual account, there will inevitably be a transition generation that must pay for both the preceding generation\u2019s benefits and its own.\u201d\u2026.. individual accounts places the burden of the Social Security liabilities of two generations on one. Like many federal liabilities, this one can be passed down to future generations through borrowing, but the sheer magnitude of the additional government debt that must be issued (10T), on top of an already rapidly growing national debt, has further complicated consideration of such proposals [14 p29]. See R1 & 2 regarding the structuring of transition and cost to the individual upon IP implementation. Allocate funds from SS for transition costs? Your objection to the gov\u2019s hand in the cookie jar? Increase national debt? If an IP plan is implimented, SS tax must be raised to support existing liabilities and to support IPs. The Bush plan stated only 2% of tax would be put into IPs. What senior citizen\u2019s comfort could be had with a 2% contribution rate, along with economic swings, recoup lags, and increased tax. Don\u2019t forget those IP admin fees; [14]; net loss. 1: SS Crash/Solvency Gradually increase the retirement age to 68 by 2050. Change the benefit formula which will slow future benefit growth, specifically for those with high incomes. Increase the taxable max from $168,000 to $190,000. Recoup the 10% not presently paying into SS; some state and municipal workers. Tax reform: reduce loop holes. Use CPI as a measure for COLA and tax SS benefits for high income retirees [38 p.29,49,50-52, 39]. If these reforms are instituted SS will be again self perpetuating into the future. \u201cThe gov continuously takes funds from SS and it would be easy to help use these funds instead of allocation for other projects, but to help in privatization.\u201d If you raid SS to fund privatization where\u2019s the money for liabilities? The government has to issue bonds to cover the debt, creating more debt. Using SS to pay off the national debt? More cool-aid economics. 2: Privatization solves/ Woes \u201cHousing crisis again, .. not regulated.\u201dDeregulation was the cause! (above par 4) Glass-Steagall re-instatement failed in 2010 & 2013-14[40, 41]; it\u2019s just talking points in the Presidential campaign. \"Trickle-down economics\u201d A.K.A voodoo econ, has gotten the middle class where it is today, in decline. What happens when large amounts of capital is available? The Dot.com bubble: risky inv. were made and overvaluation of stocks resulted [4, 5]. It\u2019s not likely significant assets will be purchased. Often when money is available stock buy backs result, that also inflates stock values and line the pockets of CEO\u2019s; fall in markets are inevitable for correction[42,43]. Small businesses, the biggest employers [48], don\u2019t issue stock, they are privately held. Big business does little in asset development in the US. It invests overseas where labor and building is cheaper. Our IP money will fly over the pond, not create jobs here [44]. \u201cstock holders will hang on to the stocks all day long.\u201dI haven\u2019t assumed or alluded to such a thing. My contender has not addressed how the IPs will be structured. Who will have influence on options available? Will it be a centralized gov unit or a free for all for Financial Institutions to make profits in fees? \"Profit andLoss limit in order to prevent huge losses and maintain maximum growth\u201d Most Americans\u2019 experience with the stock market is through their 401Ks, not actual trading. The general population is not educated on how the stock market works; a liability when planning retirement [14,46]. Also, would P&L limit be an option in an IP? 401ks don\u2019t have it. \u201d.. ability to be able to inherit your RIB if you die.\u201dAs stated before, inherit what! 2% over 30yrs =$11,725, if you\u2019re paying for both sides; your IP and liabilities, as well as exposure to market swings & fees? Inheritance taxes? $255 is a death benefit not supplemental income. Widows over 60 and minor kids get survivor\u2019s benefits if they are income eligible [45]. The World Bank can\u2019t determine the impact of the Chili\u2019s AFP\u2019s on the economy due to macro-economic policies put in place at the same time. 3% of AFPs goes to DI and survivor\u2019s ins. Plus, the fund\u2019s admin fee of 2.5% for ea. monthly contribution. Also, 3.5-4% fee for withdrawal of annuities. The fee burden is 25% of contributions. AFP consortia\u2019s\u2019 profits are 27%. The cost to the Chilean gov in outlays and maint. is 6%/GDP. Three of the AFPs \u201ceffectively make decisions over investment resources representing 50% of Chile\u2019s GDP;\u201d reducing the states\u2019 ability to regulate its own economy. US Actuaries conclude a min of 4-5 % RoR is required over long term to meet retirement needs, but in actuality are 2-3%. 50% participating in AFP are not saving enough and will not be eligible for a min. pension; leaving them destitute. The so called booming Chilean economy is on who\u2019s back [46,28]. 32. http://tinyurl.com... 33. http://tinyurl.com... 34. http://tinyurl.com... 35. http://tinyurl.com... 36. http://tinyurl.com... 37. http://tinyurl.com... 38. http://tinyurl.com... 39. http://tinyurl.com... 40. http://tinyurl.com... 41. http://tinyurl.com... 42. http://tinyurl.com... 43. http://tinyurl.com... 44. http://tinyurl.com... 45. http://tinyurl.com... 46. http://tinyurl.com... 47. http://tinyurl.com... 48. http://tinyurl.com...", "qid": "5", "docid": "e28c98a3-2019-04-18T13:23:25Z-00003-000", "rank": 27, "score": 188493.0}, {"content": "Title: Privatising social security would improve economic growth Content: Privatizing social security would enable investment of savings. Commentator Alex Schibuola argues that: \"If Social Security were privatized, people would deposit their income with a bank. People actually save resources that businesses can invest. We, as true savers, get more resources in the future.\"[1] As a result private accounts would also increase investments, jobs and wages. Michael Tanner of the think tank the Cato Institute argues: \"Social Security drains capital from the poorest areas of the country, leaving less money available for new investment and job creation. Privatization would increase national savings and provide a new pool of capital for investment that would be particularly beneficial to the poor.\"[2] Currently Social Security represents a net loss for taxpayers and beneficiaries. Social Security, although key to the restructuring the of USA\u2019s social contract following the great depression, represents a bad deal for the post-war American economy. Moreover, this deal has gotten worse over time. 'Baby boomers' are projected to lose roughly 5 cents of every dollar they earn to the OASI program in taxes net of benefits. Young adults who came of age in the early 1990s and today's children are on course to lose over 7 cents of every dollar they earn in net taxes. If OASI taxes were to be raised immediately by the amount needed to pay for OASI benefits on an on-going basis, baby boomers would forfeit 6 cents of every dollar they earn in net OASI taxes. For those born later it would be 10 cents.[3] Change could be implemented gradually. Andrew Roth argues: \u201cWhile Americans in retirement or approaching retirement would probably stay in the current system [if Social Security were to be privatized], younger workers should have the option to invest a portion of their money in financial assets other than U.S. Treasuries. These accounts would be the ultimate \"lock box\" - they would prevent politicians in Washington from raiding the Trust Fund. The truth is that taxpayers bail out politicians every year thanks to Social Security. Congress and the White House spend more money than they have, so they steal money from Social Security to help pay for it. That needs to stop and there is no responsible way of doing that except with personal accounts.\u201d[4] This would make social security much more sustainable as there would no longer be the risk of the money being spent elsewhere. Put simply, privatizing Social Security would actually boost economic growth and lead to better-protected investments by beneficiaries, benefiting not only themselves but the nation at large. Thus Social Security should be privatized. [1] Schibuola, Alex. \"Time to Privatize? The Economics of Social Security.\" Open Markets. 16 November 2010. http://www.openmarket.org/2010/11/16/time-to-privatize-the-economics-of-... [2] Tanner, Michael. \"Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor.\" CATO. 26 July 1996. http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp4.html [3] Kotlikoff, Lawrence. \"Privatizing social security the right way\". Testimony to the Committee on Ways and Means. 3 June 3 1998. http://people.bu.edu/kotlikof/Ways&Means.pdf [4] Roth, Andrew. \"Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!\". Club for Growth.21 September 21 2010. http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/?", "qid": "5", "docid": "2d6f4e75-2019-04-15T20:22:43Z-00007-000", "rank": 28, "score": 188471.0}, {"content": "Title: Privatising social security will harm retirees Content: Most of these arguments can be undercut by noting that the privatization of Social Security accounts would be voluntary, and thus anyone who believed the argument that the government invests better would be free to leave their account as it is, unchanged. Those who believe they can do a better job of investing and managing their money on their own should be given the freedom to do so. In this respect it is important to remember the origin of the money in these accounts: it has been paid in by the individuals themselves. As James Roosevelt (CEO of the health insurance firm Tufts Health Plan) notes: \" Those \u2018baby boomers\u2019 who are going to bust Social Security when they retire? They have been paying into the system for more than 40 years, generating the large surplus the program has accumulated. Much of the money that baby boomers are and will be drawing on from Social Security, is, and will be, their own.\u201d[1] As it is their money which they have paid in in the first place, members of the baby boomer generation should have a right to choose how they invest \u2013it. If that means choosing to go private and pursue riskier investments, so be it. The money paid out by the social security system belongs to those who paid it in, and the government should not deprive taxpayers from exercising free choice over the uses to which their money is put. Moreover, none of the other arguments adduced by side opposition do anything to address the ways in which Social Security currently harms the poor, the redressing of which alone justifies privatizing Social Security. [1] Roosevelt, James.\"Social Security at 75: Crisis Is More Myth Than Fact.\" Huffington Post. 11 August 11 2010. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-roosevelt/social-security-at-75-cri_b_677058.html", "qid": "5", "docid": "2d6f4e75-2019-04-15T20:22:43Z-00012-000", "rank": 29, "score": 187636.0}, {"content": "Title: Social Security R.I.B Should be Privatized Content: Pass", "qid": "5", "docid": "e28c98a3-2019-04-18T13:23:25Z-00000-000", "rank": 30, "score": 186629.0}, {"content": "Title: Privatized social security will cut tax revenues and social services. Content: We all know that the social security system is severely underfunded; it's headed for bankruptcy sometime in the 2040s. Implementing private accounts will take 4 percent of the 12.4 percent taxes from every worker out of the trust fund. Thus, almost a 3rd of the revenue generated by social security taxes will be removed. Drastic benefit cuts or increased taxes will have to occur even sooner, which is a recipe for disaster.", "qid": "5", "docid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00059-000", "rank": 31, "score": 186622.0}, {"content": "Title: Privatizing social security would wrongly enrich banks. Content: Privatization would represent a windfall for Wall Street financial institutions, who would obtain significant fees for managing private accounts.", "qid": "5", "docid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00049-000", "rank": 32, "score": 186074.0}, {"content": "Title: Social security should be privatized. Content: So, any time we think something must be done about a particular problem necessarily means that we will make bad decisions? How else is change accomplished if not through the conviction that something must be done to fix the problem? This is a fallacious appeal to authority on your part. You're right, I didn't address your point about Chile very well, so I will do so now. First, Chile's system came out of the failure of their government social security program, so Chile probably isn't the best example to use. I suspect that if the data were available (I've looked but can't find it) you would discover that their new system is working much better than their previous, government-run system. Second, Chile is not the United States. That is to say, the United States has twice the per-capita GDP that Chile does. In a poor economy it is impossible for the vast majority of people to retire. In a more productive economy, more people can afford to retire. It stands to reason, then, that Chile would have a lower retirement rate regardless of what system they use. The fact that theirs is only 8 percentage points lower than ours is actually surprising, considering the relative level of prosperity in our two countries. The only role the government would have in a private system is to essentially force citizens to invest part of their wages into their private retirement account. This might require some auditing, but nothing more, hardly what you'd call a bureaucracy. The cost is irrelevant, as the costs of transitioning will only grow as the problem itself grows. There is no way to \"fix\" social security because it was a stupid, and wasteful plan to begin with. I would be interested to hear how you think we can fix it, other than to scrap it. The only solutions I have heard are either to raise payroll taxes or decrease benefits, neither of which is truly a solution. The federal government isn't independent of economic performance! The governments income, like all of our incomes, depends on the health of the economy. If the economy crashes as it did in the great depression, the government won't be any better equipped to support the elderly than the elderly themselves. I understand that concern, though. However, I know of no other way, short of investing in gold, to insulate oneself against something like the great depression. If such a thing ever does happen, I suspect providing for retirees will be the least of our concerns. Once again, I don't see any additional risk with private retirement accounts. As a person ages, their investments are gradually shifted to progressively less risky areas. By the time they retire, their life savings are in things like savings accounts, government bonds (which are at least as secure as social security), cash, and gold. At this point, they would be relatively insulated from risk. Those of us still in the workforce would be more likely to go on the welfare dole than retirees at that point! If social security didn't demand so much of our paychecks then I would be okay with having social security as something of a hedge. Unfortunately, it is a huge expense and provides very little benefit. If people had the extra cash to make social security just an overall part of their retirement plan it would be fine, but they don't. It is not as if everyone has a choice between in relying on social security or investing in private accounts on the side. Social security demands the funds that could otherwise be put into private accounts which actually earn interest! Those that CAN afford private investment are often fooled into thinking they don't need to invest for retirement because \"social security will take care of me.\" Once again, you keep saying that welfare can be fixed, but I haven't heard you suggest how. There are only two sides of the social security system, income, and expense. Expenses are gradually beginning to exceed income, and it's only a matter of time before the social security budget is in the red. There are only two possible solutions: decrease benefits or increase taxes. That is the sign of a program doomed to failure. The only solution is to totally change the way we prepare for retirement. Personally, I'm tired of sending my money to the government when it could be earning 10 percent interest somewhere!", "qid": "5", "docid": "dac7811d-2019-04-18T20:00:32Z-00001-000", "rank": 33, "score": 184326.0}, {"content": "Title: Privatized social security cannot be assured to beat inflation. Content: Social Security payouts are indexed to wages, which historically have exceeded inflation. As such, Social Security payments are protected from inflation, while private accounts might not be.", "qid": "5", "docid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00060-000", "rank": 34, "score": 183208.0}, {"content": "Title: Privatizing social security Content: Social security is net loss for taxpayers and beneficiaries.", "qid": "5", "docid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00038-000", "rank": 35, "score": 183142.0}, {"content": "Title: Privatizing social security Content: Privatized social security cannot be assured to beat inflation.", "qid": "5", "docid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00023-000", "rank": 36, "score": 182690.0}, {"content": "Title: privatizing social security with guaranteed minimum is better than the current system Content: privatizing social security with guaranteed benefits is better than the current system in this system only relatively safe investments allowed by the government would be allowed. this is better than the current system because at investment returns, people would receive a much larger income in retirement. the downside, if markets fail, would be a problem whether or not we allow people to invest privately. even in our current system, if the economy tanked, the government will still be on the hook for a certain amount of money. an added benefit would be that the government can no longer borrow against social security so our expenditures would have to be made more true, by raising taxes or keeping spending in line, not by masking the problem by borrowing against people's retirement money.", "qid": "5", "docid": "b4e53fbf-2019-04-18T12:06:48Z-00005-000", "rank": 37, "score": 182053.0}, {"content": "Title: Privatization gives investment decisions to account holders. Content: \"LETTER: We should privatize Social Security.\" Wausau Daily Herald. October 25th, 2010: \"Additionally, the scare tactics of Feingold make it sound like the Social Security money those under 55 invest would have to go to Wall Street. That is not the case at all. The investment choices could be desigend so they would be at the individual's discretion. For those who feel the government can do a better job of investing their money than they themselves can, I would encourage them to give thought to allowing the government to handle not only the money they have contributed to their Social Security, but all of their savings as well. With its record of mismanagement, and a $14 trillion deficit, forgive me if I am not going to stand in line to join in.\"", "qid": "5", "docid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00053-000", "rank": 38, "score": 181762.0}, {"content": "Title: Social Security R.I.B Should be Privatized Content: REBUTTALS: 1: Yes/No: SS might go into the red due to baby boomers retired/retiring against the low numbers supporting their retirement, but there are other contributing factors. Issues affecting SS Old-Age and Survivors Insurance OASI (RIB when paid out), is more insidious than ratios. First, the gov borrowed $2.5T from the fund between 1970-1983 [19] issuing Treasury Bonds against the loans. From 1983-2000 the SS Trust Fund TF was at a surplus [20] and could fund the boomer\u2019s retirement into the future. G.W. Bush saw the surplus and cut taxes reducing influx of finds [21]. Despite decreases funding to OASI it is self perpetuating with its balance and funding at current rates. TF depletion will not start until 2024. In 2015 the fund ran at 308% above cost, by 2024 it\u2019s expected to be at 171% [22]. Pro\u2019s cit.#2 states this. Projected short fall is due to Disability Insurance DI, a separate fund from OASI, soon to be depleted. The Trustees recommend OASI merge with DI so funds are available for DI future liabilities. The pooling of funds resulting in depletion of both systems by 2035; combined factors increase of boomers retiring and DI outlays [22, 23];robbing Peter to pay Paul. There\u2019s no denying there\u2019ll be an issue with OASI/RIB in the future. It\u2019s probable the 2 funds will be merged, but privatization is not the answer. Pro\u2019s cit.#3, the NCPA, \u201cThe NCPA\u2019s solutions promote private alternatives to government regulation and control\u201d. The author, Pamela Villarreal is a NCPA analyst/writer, not unbiased. Privatization at whose expense? Who will profit and benefit? The gov does not have a profit motive. Present admin expenses of SS is at 1% [24]. 2: Choice is good, but who will determine what the options will be? Which system will be chosen; a centralized gov system or private financial? As stated in R1, There\u2019s no denying that the financial sector will have sway [15,16,25]. They have a poor track record in protecting the public interest, remember 2008? Please explain how a larger investment is made at a cheaper cost? In the par.1, Pro\u2019s cit.#5, 2001 states, people will pay into a new system but also it\u2019s \u201cassumed future increases in contribution rates that would fully finance the benefits of present law,\u201dechoed in Actuary Report [14 p.29] That\u2019s paying both sides of the benefit, you pay into a Individual Plan (IP) for yourself and pay toward maintenance of the current system. #5 further states \u201cSocial Security benefits are not fully adequate for making comparisons with private-sector plans, since many features of Social Security benefits are not typically available in private-sector plans\u201d then concludes \u201cscaled pattern results in slightly higher internal real rates of return under the OASDI program, and slightly lower accumulations for individual accounts.\u201d Current tax is 12.4%[31] and it\u2019s recommended there be a raise in SS tax by 1.1%. Let\u2019s assume that it will be split equally between SS and the new IP. You start in the red by almost 60%; 50% gone to current/future liabilities which you cannot claim against due to your IP. Your claim of 11.5% return in TX/FL is not in cit.#5. Where did this number come from? Pretending this as true, the returns don\u2019t look attractive considering \u00bd of what you put in is gone to liabilities at a lower rate than at present, crashing SS even quicker. Remember, it\u2019ll take 75 yrs for SS to be solvent. Pro\u2019s cit #6 requires subscription, a headline is not a whole story. Pro\u2019s cit.#7, 2001 reflects what Martin Feildstein stated in the 1990s. Then the article moves into review of G.W Bush\u2019s plan, in office at the time, hence the title \u201cPresident\u2019s Commission to Strengthen Social Security.\u201dIt\u2019s assumes the IP would be similar to the Thrift Savings Plan that gov workers have with a RoR of 6.5%. But here\u2019s the catch, SS OASDI \u201cwould require additional revenues in perpetuity in order to pay scheduled Social Security benefits\u201dWith his plan, only 2% paid in goes to an IP, the rest to liabilities of the old SS. BTW, you cannot claim benefits from SS because of your IP. The math: pay $10 pr/wk in SS taxes, $2 for me at 6.5% interest, $8 for current/future liabilities at 2.5%. At the end of 30 yrs compounded my 2% grows to $11,725. The rest at $8 pr/wk for 30 yrs at 2.5% is $23,008. Your kids can inherit the funds if you die young, but there\u2019ll be 0 to inherit should you live for a time after retirement. Also, depending in what state you live, inheritance can be taxed. The Fed does not tax below 5.4M. With cash flowing out of IPs, will it remain so? Or if after a time will the Feds decide not to allow the IP money to pass to family? They\u2019ll have 75 yrs to futz with it. Pro\u2019s cit.#8, 1996 On personal accounts benefiting the poor with a greater return and increase savings, but it does not addresses how the current/future liabilities of SS will be funded during attrition into all IPs. Pro:\u201cThe first part is that people are mishandling their money\u2026\u201dJust a reminder, you brought this up \u201cPosted by: lannan13, No counter plans. Wednesday, May 04, 2016 @ 12:43:03 AM.\u201d You have a plan? It\u2019s great! You can up your own tax deduction into the present Pay As You Go system for possible early retirement. How is this an IP? The current PAYG system is not paying for your retirement. It\u2019s paying for those already or soon to be retired. And your public option has no details. How long will you phase out the current system with 9.6-15.7T in liabilities over 75 yrs [26]? You\u2019ll do it in 10? Pro\u2019s cit #9, 1995. Chili isn\u2019t the US. At the time of AFP implementation 1981, their ratio of workers to retirees was 9-1, the US 4-1. To offset transition costs the gov. sold off state owned enterprises (Socialist), the US has no such assets. The US can only issue Treasury Bonds increasing the national dept. Also, Chili incentivized workers to join with an 18% pay increase. Many employers failed in payments due to dual taxes for the old/new systems; underground employment resulting. By 1994 only 55% of the work force was a part of the plan; 22% of the remaining failed to make payments. Also, the AFP RoR has fluctuated greatly with economic ups and downs. Chili took over AFP in 82-4 through buy backs and lost money in 1995 [27].The funds are in for profit institutions which cut deeply into profits with admin fees. 70% of the work force only works 6 mo. of the yr resulting in uneven contribution rates. 25% will not have saved enough for retirement. In addition, there is no system of equity for women or low wage workers to bring them up to a minimum benefit. The system does not work [28]. Galveston cit.#10, 1998 is a commentary. The Galveston plan does not offer a guarantee to surviving spouse or dependent children if death should occur prior to retirement or an adjustment for inflation. Single and high earning individuals reap more than under the current SS system; mid and low earners collect less. Workers are assigned an individual account but have no choice on investment decisions. Wealth building at the top but not at the bottom [29, 30] Pro\u2019s cit.#11 op-ed:Pablo is a high paid economist, not typical. It also mirrors what I stated earlier.\u201cThe biggest problem in Chile is that many workers don't contribute regularly to their pensions because they're unemployed or working off the books.\u201d Pro\u2019s cit #12 requires a subscription, moot. Pro\u2019s cit.#13 1997, regarding the Chilean system, which does not work and leaves out large swaths of the population. Most of your citations are old, more recent material tells a different story [28]. 19. http://tinyurl.com... 20. http://tinyurl.com... 21. http://tinyurl.com... 22. http://tinyurl.com... 23. http://tinyurl.com... 24. http://tinyurl.com... 25. http://tinyurl.com... 26. http://tinyurl.com... 27. http://preview.tinyurl.com... 28. http://tinyurl.com... 29. http://tinyurl.com... 30. http://tinyurl.com... 31. http://tinyurl.com...", "qid": "5", "docid": "e28c98a3-2019-04-18T13:23:25Z-00005-000", "rank": 39, "score": 181647.0}, {"content": "Title: Privatizing social security Content: Privatization would hasten depletion of Soc Sec trust funds.", "qid": "5", "docid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00033-000", "rank": 40, "score": 181146.0}, {"content": "Title: Privatizing social security helps the poor. Content: Michael Tanner. \"Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor.\" CATO. July 26th, 1996: \"Critics of Social Security privatization often warn that such proposals hold serious dangers for the elderly poor. However, a closer examination of the evidence indicates that the poor would be among those who would gain most from the privatization of Social Security. By providing a much higher rate of return, privatization would raise the incomes of those elderly retirees who are most in need. Although the current Social Security system is ostensibly designed to be progressive, transferring wealth to the elderly poor, the system actually contains many inequities that leave the poor at a disadvantage. For instance, the low-income elderly are much more likely than their wealthy counterparts to be dependent on Social Security benefits for most or all of their retirement income. But despite a progressive benefit structure, Social Security benefits are inadequate for the elderly poor's retirement needs.\"", "qid": "5", "docid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00055-000", "rank": 41, "score": 180849.0}, {"content": "Title: privatizing social security with guaranteed minimum is better than currently Content: privatizing social security with guaranteed benefits is better than the current system in this system only relatively safe investments allowed by the government would be allowed. this is better than the current system because at investment returns, people would receive a much larger income in retirement. the downside, if markets fail, would be a problem whether or not we allow people to invest privately. even in our current system, if the economy tanked, the government will still be on the hook for a certain amount of money. an added benefit would be that the government can no longer borrow against social security so our expenditures would have to be made more true, by raising taxes or keeping spending in line, not by masking the problem by borrowing against people's retirement money.", "qid": "5", "docid": "ca713976-2019-04-18T12:06:48Z-00002-000", "rank": 42, "score": 180764.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should privatize Social Security Content: Contention 1: Role of the governmentSince a lot of these arguments mesh it'll seem like I'm jumping around a bit here, so please try and stick with me on this. My opponent starts by stating that this argument could be used against ALL taxation, but yet that statement is entirely flawed as Kant argued that the government must be able to enforce the Kingdom of Ends. This would includes things like fire fighters, police force, military, etc. .. [1] When also cross applied my opponent ignores that this argument is backed up by the Libertarian distributive principle of which shows that only Negative Rights should be enforced. For the sole purpose my opponent doesn't refute the Libertarian principle on face value, but attacks it from a different angle which I'll get to in a minute. We can continue to see that since my opponent has dropped the Negative Rights portion of this we can see that this is one of the key areas of which the government is only able to preform in. Which would eliminate my opponent's stance here concidering that Social Security would be concidered a Postive Right and Not a Negative Right. My opponent also ignores that I brought up the Social Contract and that some freedoms, like my freedom to punish you, should be given up to the federal government to ensure that it is enforced. Does this means that we should give up our \"Right to Choose\" how we want to spend our money or economics to the government to ensure that we would actually get less then we could've gotten if we had that freedom? The answer is a resonding no. My opponent is confused as to why a private company is better yet once again he ignores my own arguments as I sited Kant in R2 of which he pointed out that the Imperfect Duties should not be carried out by the government. Thus leaves only two possibilities that are it should be illegal or that it should be carried out by a private company. Now my opponent and I can agree that this is important, but we disagree who should do this issue and since it is not a Perfect Duty or a Negative right it should not be enforced by the Federal government. Now I also realize that the Public's health is a key part, but it should not be the government's job to ensure people are heatlhy as it is their choice. That's like the US impossing a fat tax on fast food items to ensure that people eat healthier. (but that's a different debate) I never stated that he was claiming that the federal government was creating rights, but yet it was an argument that I was making to the regards of the federal government creating rights through this program and it should not be preforming this duty due to it being an attrocity upon our freedoms. We can see that rights are natural and not made by the government and my opponent is doing the opposite even with his counter-plan. My opponent claims that I never clairified as to how it prevented people from creating business, but I have stated this several times throughout this debate. I showed that the government is restricting our choices to a government option in the status quo and in my opponent's plan. While under my plan I am opening up the options and we can see that these options will finially allow those into the field and increase our \"right to choose. \"Contention 2(3): Privatization solvesMy opponent argues that I am not allowing the right to choose by closing off the federal option, but I have already shown how this is restrictive by not allowing competition and how the government option is still horrendous, both under the status quo and my opponent's plan. Indeed stocks will change constantly, but yet my opponent assumes that by doing this alternative that I am purposing that we will run everyone off a cliff like lemmings. This is incorrect as even though stocks fluctuate we can still see that stocks continue to clime upwards and constant shifting of these funds will cause an economic take-off which was dropped by my opponent. [2] Also mind you that people have control of their own personal accounts which is something that doesn't occur under my opponent's plan and also mind you that this isn't the only plan that can occur under privatization since the people have the ability to choose how their money is spent/saved. [3] Continuing my opponent is under selling the market with the 3-5% growth rate while the actual growth of the stock market has been much higher than that around 10-15% Compound Anual Growth. [4]Now onto my opponent's case. Contention 1: Harming RetireesMy opponent's entire argumentation relies on his incorrect statistic of a small growht, but this is completely false due to the fact that I have already shown otherwise making this a great way of investment. Again my opponent spins on the fact of my math by going off of the market flucutations while I have shown tha tin 2013 the markets were up 32% to counter the crash in 2008. Not to mention that 5 out of the last 6 years have well been over 10% meaning that the 10% that I gave was a conservative estimate. [4] My opponent even brings up the new dividend tax, but yet that is almost a non factor as it would 20% at the highest, pending how good of a profit you make from the dividend, so it would chop off only a small amount from the 3% dividend and we would still see a high profit margin for our senior citizens. [5] So from this point alone we can still see a high return regardless of the taxation. Contention 2: PrivatizationMy opponent want to talk solvency, but yet all I have to do here in this debate is prove that my plan is better than my opponents and not to mention that so far I have already shown a great deal of solvency. My opponent claims that I haven't shown how the public option is desasterous, but mind you that I spent an entire option on attacking the public option, status quo, my opponent's plan, and the restriction on the Freedom of Choice. My opponent's claim on this is just purposterous. My opponent claims that I had dropped how we would solve the price, but I have already addressed that by showing a transfer from the Social Security budget and we would not even need to use all of it. Concidering that it takes 26% of the budget such a task would be a simple phase out over the span of 10 years as I have already addressed. When the New York Times reporter visited a small town in Chile he found that, (1)Retire in 10 years, at age 62, with an annual pension of $55,000. That would be more than triple the $18,000 I can expect from Social Security at that age. (2)Retire at age 65 with an annual pension of $70,000. That would be almost triple the $25,000 pension promised by Social Security starting a year later, at age 66. (3)Retire at age 65 with an annual pension of $53,000 and a one-time cash payment of $223,000. \" [6] Investors Business Daily had also found that in Chile in the past 30 years that the annual rate of return is 9% compared to the 1-2% here in the US. [7] We can already see that this sucess has been drowned out by criticisms that doesn't speak to the amount of sucess reached here. We can see that it was coastly, but that was paid off and not to mention that the short term pain turned into massive long term gains ranging from massive returns on pensions to doubling and even trippling of the nation's growth rate. [8]I ran out of characters in the previous round so I was unable to refute these for the most part and cannot due so since it would be unethical to bring up new arguments in my finial round. All I can do is repeat that I have already shown that the UK's crookedness that occured there was on their own terms meaning that it was corruption of the brokers. Not to mention that there are other ways than the stock market as I have brought up before already showing that this does not refute nor link to my case completely. Contention 3: Counter PlanI'm running out of characters so I'll try to address what I can.9% would have to be there in order to include other costs such as Medicare and Medicade. My opponent has also advocated in previous rounds that an increase of 0.7% is needed, but it is greatly impossible to do such a thing as I have shown in my previous round in order to meet the Social Security deadline under the status quo. Anything under that would actually lead to falling short of the status quo which my opponent has already conceded to as being the defunct system. Thus his plan is actually worse than the status quo. [9]My opponent claims that using the money in the Social Security accounts is beneficial for other programs and though that is true Social Security runs out of excess by next year and even if his plan is enforced it will only extend the problems for the long run. We cannot think of a band-aid here we need an actual solution which is something I have provided. We can see that with current interest on US debts ballooning the Social Security funds will be soaked up more and more and before too long we'll wake up without a Social Security program since the government sucked it dry. [10]My opponent uses smoke and mirrors when he stated that you get to keep your Social Security when you die. He forgot to mention that it depends on your earning. What level and amount are these earnings? We might not know since the SSA website doesn't specifiy, but we can see that this harms a great deal of people as I have already shown in previous rounds that many people are excluded from SS like legal immigrants and many poor people are striken when this SS doesn't trickle down to them because they \"excede the earnings amount. \" I have also shown how my opponent's plan doesn't solve for the Bridge-payment system which is broken showing that within years this plan will be destroyed and broken just like the status quo, but my plan solves compared to my opponent's and we receive better and more benefits under mine. I thank you and please vote Pro. Sources in the comments section.", "qid": "5", "docid": "41ee0719-2019-04-18T14:19:05Z-00001-000", "rank": 43, "score": 180499.0}, {"content": "Title: Privatizing social security Content: Social Security allows retirees to draw on own investments.", "qid": "5", "docid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00014-000", "rank": 44, "score": 179737.0}, {"content": "Title: The problems with the social security are systemic, not inherent Content: Social security is currently solvent and will be into the future due to its dedicated income stream that consistently generates a surplus, which today is $2.5 trillion. This surplus will even grow to approximately $4.3 trillion in 2023, It is only after 2037 when there will begin to be a deficit.(11) Side opposition will concede that there is a long-run financing problem, but it is a problem of modest size. There would only need to be revenues equal to 0.54% of GDP to extend the life of the social security trust fund into the 22nd century, with no change in benefits. This is only about one-quarter of the revenue lost each year because of President Bush's tax cuts.[1] Budget shortfalls- of the sort that side proposition\u2019s case is based on- Nobel Laureate economist Paul Krugman argues: \" has much more to do with tax cuts - cuts that Mr. Bush nonetheless insists on making permanent - than it does with Social Security. But since the politics of privatization depend on convincing the public that there is a Social Security crisis, the privatizers have done their best to invent one.\"[2] Krugman goes on to argue against the twisted logic of privatization: \u201cMy favorite example of their three-card-monte logic goes like this: first, they insist that the Social Security system's current surplus and the trust fund it has been accumulating with that surplus are meaningless. Social Security, they say, isn't really an independent entity - it's just part of the federal government\u2026 the same people who claim that Social Security isn't an independent entity when it runs surpluses also insist that late next decade, when the benefit payments start to exceed the payroll tax receipts, this will represent a crisis - you see, Social Security has its own dedicated financing, and therefore must stand on its own. There's no honest way anyone can hold both these positions, but very little about the privatizers' position is honest. They come to bury Social Security, not to save it. They aren't sincerely concerned about the possibility that the system will someday fail; they're disturbed by the system's historic success.\u201d[3] There are many other ways to improve and reform Social Security without privatizing it. Robert L. Clark, an economist at North Carolina State University who specializes in aging issues, formerly served as a chairman of a national panel on Social Security's financial status; he has said that future options for Social Security are clear: \"You either raise taxes or you cut benefits. There are lots of ways to do both.\" These alternatives are also backed by the American people. The American people, despite voting for Republicans, have said over and over in polls that they would pay more in taxes to save entitlements such as Social Security.[4] Therefore Social Security is not fundamentally unsound, and alternative reforms should be made without privatizations. [1] Paul Krugman. \"Inventing a crisis.\" New York Times. 7 December 2004. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/opinion/07krugman.html?_r=2&scp=539&sq... [2] Paul Krugman. \"Inventing a crisis.\" New York Times. 7 December 2004. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/opinion/07krugman.html?_r=2&scp=539&sq... [3] Paul Krugman. \"Inventing a crisis.\" New York Times. 7 December 2004. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/opinion/07krugman.html?_r=2&scp=539&sq... [4] Dick, Stephen. \"Op-Ed: Yes, leave Social Security alone.\" CNHI News Service. 19 November 2010. http://record-eagle.com/opinion/x877132458/Op-Ed-Yes-leave-Social-Securi...", "qid": "5", "docid": "2d6f4e75-2019-04-15T20:22:43Z-00017-000", "rank": 45, "score": 179705.0}, {"content": "Title: social security should b means tested against the rich Content: We shouldn't give higher income people a lower standard of living after retirement just because they are rich, that's dicrimination. A much better idea is to privatize Social Security, then it won't cost us a dime because everyone willl be left in charge of their own retirement. I would also like to point out that balancing the budget is a fiscal issue, not a National Security threat, and if you wanted to balance the budget, you simply abolish all of the unnecisary socialist programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare that drive up the price of healthcare. Or welfare which destroys work incentives. We can also reform our education system to resemble finlands, thus spending only 5,000$ per child annualy like finland, reducing our education expenses by 67%, as well as giving our children a better education.", "qid": "5", "docid": "38b0fdf5-2019-04-18T12:55:15Z-00004-000", "rank": 46, "score": 179397.0}, {"content": "Title: privatize the USA's social security schemes Content: Privatising social security will increase the amount of money that reitrees can draw on", "qid": "5", "docid": "2d6f4e75-2019-04-15T20:22:43Z-00004-000", "rank": 47, "score": 179393.0}, {"content": "Title: Privatization would hasten depletion of Soc Sec trust funds. Content: Greg Anrig and Bernard Wasow. \"Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea.\" The Century Foundation.: \"Diverting up to four percentage points of the payroll tax to create private accounts as the president has proposed would shorten significantly the time until the Trust Funds become depleted. In part, this is because funds now being set aside to build up the Trust Funds to provide for retiring baby boomers would be used instead to pay for the privatization accounts. The government would have to start borrowing from the private sector almost immediately to be able to meet commitments to retirees and near-retirees. As Figure 1 shows, the Trust Funds would be exhausted much sooner than the thirty-eight to forty-eight years projected if nothing is done. In such a short time frame, the investments in the personal accounts will not be nearly large enough to provide an adequate cushion.", "qid": "5", "docid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00050-000", "rank": 48, "score": 177652.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should privatize Social Security Content: Thanks to lannan for the solid debate. It was a pleasure. Pro has 2 ways to win this: 1. Showing that my CP doesn\"t uphold the role of government 2. Showing that his plan is more net beneficial I\"ll go through both. 1. The Role of Government Pro\"s just not clear on why the role of government outweighs a basic net benefits calculus, never explaining why phantom duties are important and dropping all of his nebulous impact calculus from the previous round. He keeps touting the \"Right to Choose\" but never examines why that right is essential, and even states that there are instances where the right to choose is outweighed by other issues. So even if he is winning this, it\"s not clear enough to matter alongside the central debate on net benefits. However, he\"s not winning this. He provides absolutely no response to my quote from his own source on imperfect duties, which I\"ll repeat: \"imperfect duties\" come in the form 'One must sometimes and to some extent... aid and assist others.\" That quote is the nail in the coffin for this argument. Pro has to explain why this is not one of those times that government should aid and assist. Instead, he simply makes a blanket assertion that they should NEVER engage in imperfect duties, which is in direct contradiction to his own source. Private actors don\"t have any duty to assist, but governments do. Moreover, as health and debt are public issues (Pro only asserts that they\"re private, in spite of my warrants and evidence to the contrary), they need to be handled by the government. But let\"s say you\"re buying his argument that choice and freedom matter most. You\"re still siding with me. He doesn\"t explain how becoming a ward of the state, which is so often what privatization leads to, is a lesser loss of choice and freedom than taxation. He doesn\"t explain how the lack of a public option improves the right to choose. Any of the potential harms he presents for creating businesses and investing lack any sort of brink analysis, with Pro assuming that there\"s no way anyone paying into the system can actually accomplish these. They can! They still have money, and they\"re getting more of it! Clearly, I\"m upholding the right to choose and basic freedoms better than Pro. With all these turns, you can flow this argument to my side. 2. The Case Comparison So, let\"s take a step back from the contention debate for this one. What are the benefits and harms of Pro\"s case? In terms of benefits, some minority of seniors may do extremely well. He can\"t assume that what they\"re going to do with that money is broadly beneficial, but sure, some will do well. If you sent all of these seniors to a casino and had them play blackjack for a few hours, the odds tell us that some are likely to come out with a lot more money than they started with. The harms, however, are far more blatant. Many seniors are likely to lose everything in the process of these few gaining riches. Pro CONCEDES that stocks will change constantly, granting Stein\"s Law and thus inconsistency in the stock market. Note the quote I took from Pro\"s source last round: \"Stock returns are wild and unpredictable. Since 1927, the S&P 500 stock index has gained 10.4% a year on average. But in any given year it could be up 29.9% or down 9.0% or somewhere in between.\"[26] This isn\"t a matter of average gains. People are going to be randomly bankrupted in mass by any downturns; that dramatically outweighs any potential and temporary benefits to those who just happen to get lucky with their timing. The big boosts of the last few years followed on a terrible recession where many people lost their life savings. However, what we should be most concerned with is the future of the stock market, not its past. Pro drops my [25], which shows that any beneficial trend occurring right now is going to come to a screeching halt. Pro doesn\"t contest this, the very scenario that matters most for his case. Further, Pro drops that doing as well as the market index (a major assumption of Pro's) isn\"t going to happen. If professional money managers can\"t do it, most seniors won\"t be able to do it either. So even if you\"re buying Pro's numbers and that they'll remain stable, it doesn\"t matter because most people won\"t be achieving anywhere near them. Pro doesn\"t defend any of the alternate choices for the use of this money, so extend all of my arguments to this effect. Pro cannot fiat that individuals will just invest in the stock market, and since many are likely to a) spend it all quickly (as many have in the 3 Texas counties I cited), b) save it in a bank and get less return than SS, or c) place that money in IRAs and 401K plans, which are highly risky, all of these people are going to be dramatically harmed. Pro gives no upside to any of these. So you\"re not buying his financial arguments. You\"re not buying his fantasies of private industry swooping in and saving the day. You\"re not buying that dividend stocks are a safe or consistent source of funds for seniors. You\"re not buying that most seniors are going to make out like bandits with a system they barely understand. What you are buying is that more seniors will be put in danger. Seniors investing in stocks they don\"t understand for dividends that won\"t pay the bills and putting their funds (and thus, the freedoms that are supposed to come with retirement) at great risk reenforces this. You're buying that the examples I\"ve presented showcase this risk: A) Chile, which both the World Bank and the Chilean government itself have independently concluded to be a dramatic failure in this area. Pro has dropped every source I've given on this, and none of his sources counter them. It doesn't matter whether some people are theoretically doing better. It matters \"that as many as half of all workers\" will not receive a minimum pension. It matters that \"[m]ore than 17 percent of Chile\"s retirees\" will have to keep working because of it, and many won\"t even find work. Pro spends a lot of his final round focused on how the country is doing, but a) he ignores the extensive criticism of Pi\"era (who is his only source on this) that I posted last round, b) he ignores the Chilean government, which estimates that privatization costs alone account for 4-6% of GDP every year from the 1980s to 2037,[29] c) Chile\"s economy is not looking good as of late,[32] d) the reasons for its growth aren\"t nearly so straightforward as Pro claims,[33] and e) it doesn\"t matter how Chile as a whole is doing if it\"s throwing its senior citizens under the bus in order to get there. B) Pro's only response to the UK only reenforces the link. Why does Pro believe that crooked brokers aren\"t an issue in the U.S.? If anything, they\"re a bigger issue here.[34, 35] As such, you're buying widespread pensioner poverty as a result of privatization. C) Pro wholly drops the 3 Texas counties. This is devastating to his case. It\"s a U.S. example and, as such, it applies most directly of these. My citation clearly shows that many seniors in these counties are becoming wards of the state. This re-enforces the turn on Pro\"s C1 and supercharges the links to all of his negative impacts. So all that\"s left is to cover my counter plan, and this is where Pro\"s in the most trouble. Almost all of his rebuttals amount to little more than assertions that my numbers are wrong, but he never challenges any of the sources that support them. Over and over, he claims that 9% is the magical number, but he never provides any sources that show this. Again, look to my [18] and [19], both solid links that reinforce my numbers. He can\"t just throw random numbers out and hope to get anywhere. His view that my case is somehow worse than status quo is beyond absurd. He doesn\"t explain where the harm comes from, merely providing a vague source without a single quote. I don\"t see how making SS solvent for the foreseeable future is a net negative, and even if it was just extending the life of it a few decades, I don\"t see how that\"s harmful. But this isn\"t a Band-Aid. This isn\"t smoke and mirrors. It isn't, as Pro asserts, a \"Bridge-payment system\". It's a real solution. Pro simply asserts that my source is wrong when it comes to SS insurance, but his claims amount to little more than complaining that he can\"t find evidence against it. SS may exclude some people, but Pro\"s idea to simply exclude EVERYONE is not a rational response. While these harms are nebulous at best and terribly flawed at worst, the benefits of my counter plan are evident. I\"ve shown that it will keep SS solvent, despite Pro\"s claims to the contrary, meaning that all of the financial harms he\"s cited go away. I\"ve shown that my counter plan gets huge majority support. I\"ve shown that the government needs these funds to delve into in order to keep programs like the military and other safety nets afloat. This is CRITICAL, as it\"s the one impact that Pro has utterly failed to address. You can extend it across the board: without SS, many U.S. programs would falter and even our military funding would be put at risk. Conclusion: Pro\"s case has been all about ideals of choice and financial freedom, but that idealism simply doesn\"t pan out when faced with the harsh light of reality. There\"s simply no way his theoretical case will have any real solvency. He fails to address even one of my sources, merely presenting more and more sources that are more and more flawed, and giving numerical analysis that makes no sense whatsoever. Meanwhile, my case is clearly supported by the facts on the ground and real, widely verified numbers from reputable sources. I'm addressing all of the major relevant issues behind the potential success and failure of Pro's case, and those of mine, and explaining how my analysis applies best to the cases as they stand. Therefore, I urge a vote for Con. 32. http://bloom.bg... 33. http://herit.ag... 34. http://huff.to... 35. http://hrld.us...", "qid": "5", "docid": "41ee0719-2019-04-18T14:19:05Z-00000-000", "rank": 49, "score": 177633.0}, {"content": "Title: Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea Content: Most of what is mentioned in our ref links has already been noted by the opposition; such as no protection from stock market losses,superior reliability/dependability of public funds; the U.K and U.S are market-based economies, self-interests of corporations(wall-street), people young now as well as baby-boomers will get less money for greater risk and so forth. We will now consider the link-points we haven't yet made: Govt. salaries will be reduced; Infamous Fact: There is no money in the public sector; reducing Govt. Pay will aggravate this issue. The U.S' experience [[http://www.nea.org/home/16546.htm]] reveals that many people fail to understand even the most basic aspects of investment and that most make bad investment decisions (eg. not diversifying investments: asset portfolio diversification is necessary to neutralize risk:basic logic behind mutual funds) [[Alicia Munnell, \"We've Already Tried Private Accounts!\" in The American Prospect , January 2005]] Disability funds will be dramatically cut by 19-45%; most of us get disabled in old age.[[http://www.tcf.org/Publications/RetirementSecurity/12badideas.pdf]] (we are not being patronizing as the prop suggests only reiterating fact). The U.S government will be indebted to the private sector; given the debt she's already taking on:This is not a good idea.(bad idea 3); people who are young now will get lower retirement pay or not get any if the market is down.(bad idea 9) Women+minority-races work less,live longer and earn less; privatizing securities will damage future prospects for minorities considerably.(point 10+11) Tax payers will not bail retirees; again we've already mentioned this lack of security. (point 12) We see the proposition as being confused about how we've defined the debate. We repeat: we are not including bank-based economies because they are not relevant having already employed this policy and having a different F.S from that of the nations(market-based) who need to make this choice.", "qid": "5", "docid": "e14e9db-2019-04-19T12:45:06Z-00030-000", "rank": 50, "score": 176799.0}, {"content": "Title: Private accounts increase investments, jobs, wages. Content: Michael Tanner. \"Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor.\" CATO. July 26th, 1996: \"Finally, Social Security drains capital from the poorest areas of the country, leaving less money available for new investment and job creation. Privatization would increase national savings and provide a new pool of capital for investment that would be particularly beneficial to the poor.\"", "qid": "5", "docid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00043-000", "rank": 51, "score": 175635.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should privatize Social Security Content: To clarify the situation, both Pro and I have agreed that we will roll forward with the counter plan I've presented as my advocacy. I will stick to it. The rule in R1 that I could present no counter plans is therefore no longer in effect, and I do apologize for the confusion on this issue. Pro's case: C1: The Role of Government Pro never supports his P1. He hasn't explained why governments should not enforce imperfect duties, only why they must enforce perfect duties. In fact, his own quote belies the fault in his claim, stating that imperfect duties \"come in the form 'One must sometimes and to some extent... aid and assist others.\" This means that governments must engage in SOME imperfect duties like SS. Pro claims that SS is somehow infringing on some unknown governmental duty, and that this somehow undermines humanity (not sure what that means). He doesn't explain why private actors are inherently better, and none of his sources support that view. Health and debt are public issues, especially with regards to infectious diseases and their effects on the overall economy.[20] Pro seems to be arguing that any loss of freedom cannot be justified, but becoming a ward of the state is a bigger loss of freedom. This is also an argument against all taxation, which would defund the entire government and stop enforcement of perfect duties. I never argued that governments create rights. SS is beneficial, and governments should protect their citizens after a long life of working and contributing to society. That's reason enough to support its continued existence. Lastly, Pro brings up distributive justice. He mainly just name drops, citing Nozick and Toqueville, but fails to explain their views on SS, why anyone else should share those views, or why enforcing positive rights is harmful. He gives no reason why SS prevents individuals from being \"self-entrapenurial.\" Since they can use all of the money they get from SS and any money they have left over from earnings to invest, Pro isn't providing any clear harm. He mentions the Libertarian Principle, but only asserts its claims. He doesn't show how he's ensuring that people will work harder or work towards the betterment of society. Placing the elderly in a situation where they will likely become wards of the state and huge burdens on their families ensures that all of these purported benefits are turned against him. C2: SS flaws This contention attacks the current system, and is therefore not responsive to my case. However, the status quo is still better than Pro's case. All he's shown is that by 2034, SS will no longer fully pay for itself. That's not an insurmountable problem, and Pro's system is the only one that ends SS benefits without recourse. C3: Privatization \"solves\" Pro talks about the right to choose (while denying SS as an option) without impacting choice. He showcases political efforts towards privatization, again sans impact. He points to Texas and Florida as examples, but a) his source [12] doesn't support his numbers or even reference the states, b) they only reduced the size of SS, which is actually another alternative to his case. Pro cites Martin Feldstein, whose views on this issue have been widely debunked.[21] Even Arnold Kling, an economist who supports privatization, states that his \"'stock market scenario' is bogus... [it] assumes that the stock prices will grow faster than the economy forever. This violates Stein's Law, which says that anything that can't go on forever, stops... real GDP growth will be closer to 3 percent than 5.5 percent.\" That return still fails to beat inflation. I'll address the remainder of this on my case. My case: C1: Harming Retirees Pro drops that professional money managers, by and large, will not even make the 3% market index I cited above, and gives no reason why anyone is likely to do better, let alone do well enough to beat out the wage indexing of SS payouts (which consistently exceeds inflation). He drops that investment through brokerage firms, one of the few safer places to do so, automatically reduces their returns. He drops that any market downturn will bankrupt retirees. Pro points to IRAs and 401K plans alternative investments. However, both of these are terrible options. When the economy crashed between 2007 and 2008, IRAs and 401k plans lost 47% of their value, showcasing a tremendous risk. \"Retirement experts find that these plans have numerous shortcomings, including high operation costs and low investment returns. The biggest problem with defined contribution plans is that alone they do not provide retirees with guaranteed retirement income.\"[22] Pro presents a fantasy scenario where businesses \"rush in and take over helping the Senior Citizens\". He doesn't support this, and it's incredibly unlikely, given that private medical providers have exploited such opportunities to bilk seniors out of money.[23, 24] Pro's \"generic math\" is absurd. His first source here shows that the stock market improved over the last century, but unless Pro can show that this trend will continue (no such luck [25]), this means nothing going forward. Moreover, the upward trend isn't consistent. From his own source: \"Stock returns are wild and unpredictable. Since 1927, the S&P 500 stock index has gained 10.4% a year on average. But in any given year it could be up 29.9% or down 9.0% or somewhere in between.\"[26] Many investments will fail and these seniors will be without any funds whatsoever. The harms to them and their families outweigh some people getting rich. Pro's dividends source actually shows them averaging at 1.87% as of 2014. That number is highly taxed. Not all stocks pay dividends, but those that do aren't actually better investments, as: dividends are highly taxed, they don't hold up in bad markets, dividend-paying stocks generally underperform the market, they sacrifice diversification, and are unreliable as a source of future income.[27, 28] Pro's source on inflation is correct, but that's still more than the 3% average I cited. C2: Pro admits his case is entirely theoretical, which makes it that much harder for him to prove he has any solvency. Pro ignores all my sources and warrants on Chile, asserting that the problem is the public option. However, a) he doesn't explain how the public option is harmful, b) he fails to note that 90% of people switched to the private system (from his own source), c) the transition costs, which Pro dropped, still apply to Pro's case, and d) Pi\"era, the economist Pro cites, has been widely criticized by both World Bank, which found that fees and costs negate much of the benefits and returns are lower than he claims, and the Chilean government itself, which estimates \"that as many as half of all workers\" will not even be able to receive a minimum pension after paying into their account for 30 years, making them reliant on subsidies. \"More than 17 percent of Chile's retirees now continue working because they can't afford to live on their pensions... and another 7 percent want to work, but can't find jobs.\"[29] Pro drops the UK example, and thus the link to his case is solid. As for Galveston, Pro's not implementing the Alternate Plan. He's not garnering those benefits. He dropped that many seniors in these 3 Texas counties become wards of the state, a harm that applies to his case. C3: Counter Plan On the tax cap, Pro's chart isn't applicable, since it only focuses on numbers of people rather than amounts of tax money. His [11] doesn't explain the effect of this change within the context of what SS requires to be solvent. By contrast, my [18] from U.S. News and World Report and [19] from the CBO both discuss the correct subject in the correct context, which means voters should buy my 74% estimate from my [18], and the decade by decade analysis on page 47 of my [19]. On the tax increase, Pro doesn't explain why 9% is the magic number at which SS is made solvent. Pro drops both of my sources, which show that a 0.5% (lower than mine) rise as sufficient to cover 26% of the SS shortfall, so that level of solvency is certain. Pro claims that poor women will somehow \"have negative earnings\" despite being taxed only 0.7% more of them. He gives no warrants for this, nor does his source explain. The reality is that women are likely to do far worse under privatization, since they rely more on SS and they cannot outlive these benefits, among other reasons.[30] Pro's states \"people in the long run tended to end up with less money on this plan\". His source for this doesn't discuss SS at all, he doesn't explain where he got his numbers from, and he doesn't show the calculation. He continues on this path with arguments that somehow turn an increase of much less than 6.9% (because most of that's already applied to a good portion of their income) into a 12% increase on the rich, though he doesn't explain how this happens or how it's harmful. I agree that the government uses the money from SS for other things \" that was part of my argument. It's extremely important towards keeping other programs (like the military) afloat. Pro doesn't say why this is bad. As for perception, Pro ignores clear support for both my proposals, which shows that both the outcomes and the means to achieve them are likely to improve public opinion of SS. Pro is wrong that SS funds disappear if you die. Survivors insurance uses your SS benefits to protect your family after death.[31] Pro's is just not responsive to any of my explanation of the solvency of my counter plan. He barely introduces any doubt, and what doubt he does introduce is rarely supported. Back over to Pro. 20. http://bit.ly... 21. http://bit.ly... 22. http://cnn.it... 23. http://bit.ly... 24. http://cnb.cx... 25. http://cnb.cx... 26. http://usat.ly... 27. http://bit.ly... 28. http://bit.ly... 29. http://bit.ly... 30. http://bit.ly... 31. http://1.usa.gov...", "qid": "5", "docid": "41ee0719-2019-04-18T14:19:05Z-00002-000", "rank": 52, "score": 175481.0}, {"content": "Title: Privatization of Government Policies Content: We are debating the whether or not Government policies like Medicaid & Medicare, Social Security, Welfare, and other policies like TANF and SANP should be either privatized, severally cut, or completely cut. I will be debating these things should be privatized or cut, and you will be debating these things should not be privatized nor cut. Thank you in advance to the debaters who accepts this.", "qid": "5", "docid": "36e1731d-2019-04-18T18:29:46Z-00006-000", "rank": 53, "score": 175436.0}, {"content": "Title: Privatizing social security Content: Privatization would not increase capital for investment.", "qid": "5", "docid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00036-000", "rank": 54, "score": 174272.0}, {"content": "Title: Privatizing social security Content: Privatization during economic crisis would have been disaster.", "qid": "5", "docid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00035-000", "rank": 55, "score": 173357.0}, {"content": "Title: Privatizing social security Content: Privatization does not address long-term funding challenges.", "qid": "5", "docid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00032-000", "rank": 56, "score": 172736.0}, {"content": "Title: Privatization is the least bad option. Content: Lawrence Kotlikoff. \"Privatizing social security the right way.\" Testimony to the Committee on Ways and Means. June 3, 1998: \"As described above, the U.S. Social Security System is badly broke and is treating the vast majority of its current contributors very badly. Privatization is far from a painless panacea, but it does represent an opportunity to resolve, once and for all, most of the System's financial woes and to rationalize a program that is intragenerationally as well as intergenerationally highly inequitable, replete with inefficiencies and economic distortions, and extraordinarily uninformative about the benefits it is providing in exchange for its mandatory contributions.\"", "qid": "5", "docid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00069-000", "rank": 57, "score": 172253.0}, {"content": "Title: privatizing social security with guaranteed minimum is better than the current system Content: I concede as con has clearly proven to be a better debater with better ideas, than I....", "qid": "5", "docid": "b4e53fbf-2019-04-18T12:06:48Z-00003-000", "rank": 58, "score": 172179.0}, {"content": "Title: Privatizing social security Content: Social security is basically a giant ponzi scheme.", "qid": "5", "docid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00011-000", "rank": 59, "score": 171725.0}, {"content": "Title: Support for privatization is driven by misinformation. Content: Max Skidmore. \"Why Privatizing Social Security Is a Terrible Idea.\" History News Network. February 28th, 2005: \"There can be little doubt, at least among those who view the issue objectively, that it is purely iIdeology (or misinformation), not economics, that generates the enthusiasm for privatization.\"", "qid": "5", "docid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00078-000", "rank": 60, "score": 171534.0}, {"content": "Title: Privatizing social security Content: Privatizing social security offers ownership in economy.", "qid": "5", "docid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00018-000", "rank": 61, "score": 171217.0}, {"content": "Title: Privatization of Soc Sec has disappointed in most places Content: Greg Anrig and Bernard Wasow. \"Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea.\" The Century Foundation: \"Reason #4: privatization has been a disappointment elsewhere.\": \"Advocates of privatization often cite other countries, such as Chile and the United Kingdom, where the governments pushed workers into personal investment accounts to reduce the long-term obligations of their Social Security systems, as models for the United States to emulate. But the sobering experiences in those countries actually provide strong arguments against privatization. A report last year from the World Bank, once an enthusiastic privatization proponent, expressed disappointment that in Chile, and in most other Latin American countries that followed in its footsteps, \u201cmore than half of all workers [are excluded] from even a semblance of a safety net during their old age.\u201d [read extended quote in argument page].", "qid": "5", "docid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00075-000", "rank": 62, "score": 171125.0}, {"content": "Title: Privatizing social security Content: Support for privatization is driven by misinformation.", "qid": "5", "docid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00000-000", "rank": 63, "score": 170750.0}, {"content": "Title: privatize the USA's social security schemes Content: Privatising social security would improve economic growth", "qid": "5", "docid": "2d6f4e75-2019-04-15T20:22:43Z-00005-000", "rank": 64, "score": 170642.0}, {"content": "Title: privatize the USA's social security schemes Content: Privatising the social security system would harm economic growth", "qid": "5", "docid": "2d6f4e75-2019-04-15T20:22:43Z-00001-000", "rank": 65, "score": 170136.0}, {"content": "Title: Privatizing social security Content: Private accounts prevent politicians taking from social security.", "qid": "5", "docid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00039-000", "rank": 66, "score": 170086.0}, {"content": "Title: Private accounts prevent politicians taking from social security. Content: Andrew Roth. \"Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!\" Club for Growth. September 21, 2010: \"Fiscal conservative candidates should embrace it. While Americans in retirement or approaching retirement would stay in the current system, younger workers should have the option to invest a portion of their money in financial assets other than U.S. Treasuries. These accounts would be the ultimate \"lock box\" - they would prevent politicians in Washington from raiding the Trust Fund. The truth is that taxpayers bailout politicians every year thanks to Social Security. Congress and the White House spend more money than they have so they steal money from Social Security to help pay for it. That needs to stop and there is no responsible way of doing that except with personal accounts.\"", "qid": "5", "docid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00044-000", "rank": 67, "score": 170061.0}, {"content": "Title: Private accounts would require costly new govt bureaucracy Content: Greg Anrig and Bernard Wasow. \"Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea.\" The Century Foundation.: \"REASON #8: PRIVATE ACCOUNTS WOULD REQUIRE A NEW GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRACY. From the standpoint of the system as a whole, privatization would add enormous administrative burdens. The government would need to establish and track many small accounts, perhaps as many accounts as there are taxpaying workers\u2014147 million in 1997. Many workers\u2019 accounts would be so small that they would be of no interest to profit-making firms. [...] the government would need to hire ten thousand highly trained workers just to oversee the accounts and answer questions from workers. In contrast, today\u2019s Social Security has minimal administrative costs amounting to less than 1 percent of annual revenues.\"", "qid": "5", "docid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00065-000", "rank": 68, "score": 169785.0}, {"content": "Title: Privatizing social security Content: Privatizing social security would wrongly enrich banks.", "qid": "5", "docid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00034-000", "rank": 69, "score": 169633.0}, {"content": "Title: Privatizing social security Content: Privatization gives investment decisions to account holders.", "qid": "5", "docid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00030-000", "rank": 70, "score": 169254.0}, {"content": "Title: Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea Content: We shall only address arguments raised within the 2000 characters. We see a difference between further substantiating points with references and referring to a source for an entire argument (or 12 as the case may be). So, here goes: -Superior reliability/dependability of public funds Unsubstantiated assertion. State pensions are unsustainable (see last argument). In the US \"when Social Security began in 1935, the contributions of 17 workers paid for the benefits of one retiree. In 2035 the estimated ratio will be 2.1 workers per beneficiary.\"[[http://socialsecurity.procon.org/]] -UK/US are market based They have relatively smaller government sectors and among the most developed private pension systems in Europe. \"Around half\" of UK citizens have voluntary private pensions, the highest in Europe.[[http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/61/5/39524851.pdf] Being more market-oriented is not as devastating for pension schemes as the opposition would have us believe. -Self-Interests of Corporations Yes, their search for profit leads them to compete with each other to attract consumers and government regulation ensures competition. This is how mixed economies work. Governments don't have this incentive as they are focused on the short-term (see our 1st point which has not been denied by the opposition). -\"There is no money in the public sector\" and privatizing will aggravate this Exactly. This is partly caused by the fiscal burden of pensions and shows the system isn't sustainable. The opposition are suggesting pension funds are sources of government income. This is the government short-sightedness we talked about (arg 1), spending money they don't have because they won't have to deal with the consequences in 20 years. -Less money for greater risk. Unsubstantiated assertion. See example of Chile (Pi\u00f1era quote) and next rebut. Lastly, we remind the opposition that the right of definition lies with the proposition. As clearly explained in our 2nd rebut, we firmly stand by ours", "qid": "5", "docid": "e14e9db-2019-04-19T12:45:06Z-00029-000", "rank": 71, "score": 168499.0}, {"content": "Title: privatizing social security with guaranteed minimum is better than the current system Content: instead of money send egg to feed family. also eggg high in protien and froot and vegatal", "qid": "5", "docid": "b4e53fbf-2019-04-18T12:06:48Z-00004-000", "rank": 72, "score": 168125.0}, {"content": "Title: privatize the USA's social security schemes Content: Privatising social security will harm retirees", "qid": "5", "docid": "2d6f4e75-2019-04-15T20:22:43Z-00002-000", "rank": 73, "score": 167932.0}, {"content": "Title: wmpeebles would make a better President of the United States than StephenPerkins Content: Thank you Mr. Peebles for your plan for the country. Allow me to introduce mine.I believe that I would be a better President of the United States because of my modern and practical sense of looking at our country's biggest issues.My plan is the 4 Step Plan to a Better America.Step 1 - A Plan for Debt ReductionMy plan for debt reduction actually starts with an overhaul of the tax system. Under my administration, I would establish a flat tax on individuals, businesses, and manufacturers (It must be noted that I would reduce the manufacturing tax to 0% for 2 years). A flat tax is a way to level the playing field and really make our tax system fair.The second part of my debt reduction plan is to introduce a new law that would require a balanced budget by law. This would put pressure on Congress to spend only the money we have.The third part of my debt reduction plan is to reform Social Security. I would establish an opt-out option so citizens can chose to be a part of the Social Security system. Social Security will also be privatized under my administration. Privatizing Social Security into individual investment accounts would boost economic growth by injecting money back into America's failing financial system. Also, by removing the requirement of the federal government to provide retirement benefits reduces the bloated bureaucracy of the US government. Step 2 - Eliminate Waste In Washington D.C.I believe this will be the most audacious part of my 4 step program. In this step, we will aim to reduce corruption within the government, shrink the size of our government, and cut waste.Under this step, the following government divisions will be abolished: The Department of Education, the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Federal Reserve.I would also pay government employees on the same pay scale as private sector employees. A recent Heritage Foundation study found federal workers earn 30-40% more money on average than counterparts in the private sector (http://read.bi...).A subsection of decreasing federal employee pay is reducing the amount congressman pay. At the link I put above, you'll also find the startling fact that the median wealth of a U.S. Senator in 2009 was $2.38 million dollars. I find this wrong. Under my administration, I would call for the pay of a member of congress to match the median household income, which, in 2009 was $50,221 This law would also apply to the office of the President.Step 3 - Government TransparencyThis third step is by far the most forward thinking package of programs my administration would introduce. I believe in order for our government to be trusted by the people, we must show them that we are committed to transparency.This is what my administration's transparent government would look like: Create Transparency.gov Post government expenditures above $10,000. Reveal the identity and pay of the top 25 highest paid government workers. Post government contracts and bids in full so citizens can review them. Post the details of meetings, gifts, and travel of government officials. Publish reports done by third party organizations and watch dog groups on the effectiveness of public projects and what they cost. Step 4 - Government Support of Future TechnologiesUnlike Mr. Peebles, I would use government research labs and employees to research alternative energy. However, my plan for alternative energy research is a government subsidized research program that would focus on the following three technologies: Nuclear, solar, and wind power. From the research, we hope to find out how to make each type of alternative energy safe, clean, and cost effective.In regards to oil, I would open up US shores for oil drilling. This would get us off of our dependency on Middle Eastern countries and prices set by OPEC.It must be understood though that offshore drilling is a temporary fix and my administration would be committed to a greener America.", "qid": "5", "docid": "1036ae38-2019-04-18T18:22:43Z-00002-000", "rank": 74, "score": 167768.0}, {"content": "Title: Private social security accounts are voluntary. Content: Andrew Roth. \"Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!\" Club for Growth. September 21, 2010: \"Democrats will say supporters of personal accounts will allow people's fragile retirement plans to be subjected to the whims of the stock market, but that's just more demagoguery. First, personal accounts would be voluntary. If you like the current system (the one that is raidable by politicians), you can stay put and be subjected to decreasingly low returns as Social Security goes bankrupt. But if you want your money protected from politicians and have the opportunity to invest in the same financial assets that politicians invest in their own retirement plans (most are well-diversified long term funds), then you should have that option.\"", "qid": "5", "docid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00074-000", "rank": 75, "score": 167298.0}, {"content": "Title: Odds against individuals investing retirement accounts wisely Content: Greg Anrig and Bernard Wasow. \"Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea.\" The Century Foundation: \"Reason #5: The odds are against individuals investing successfully.\"]: \"Privatization advocates like to stress the appeal of 'individual choice' and 'personal control,' while assuming in their forecasts that everyone\u2019s accounts will match the overall performance of the stock market. But studies by Yale economist Robert J. Shiller and others have demonstrated that individual investors are far more likely to do worse than the market generally, even excluding the cost of commissions and administrative expenses. Indeed, research by Princeton University economist Burton G. Malkiel found that even professional money managers over time significantly underperformed indexes of the entire market.\" [read extended quoted in argument page.]", "qid": "5", "docid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00056-000", "rank": 76, "score": 166252.0}, {"content": "Title: Privatizing social security Content: Private accounts provide retirees a higher rate of return.", "qid": "5", "docid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00031-000", "rank": 77, "score": 165060.0}, {"content": "Title: Privatizing social security Content: Advocates of privatization overestimate performance of accounts.", "qid": "5", "docid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00025-000", "rank": 78, "score": 165005.0}, {"content": "Title: Private accounts provide retirees a higher rate of return. Content: Michael Tanner. \"Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor.\" CATO. July 26th, 1996: \"privatization would provide retirees with a much higher rate of return on their investments.\"", "qid": "5", "docid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00052-000", "rank": 79, "score": 164722.0}, {"content": "Title: Privatizing social security Content: Social security unsustainable with retiring workforce.", "qid": "5", "docid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00012-000", "rank": 80, "score": 164058.0}, {"content": "Title: Privatizing social security Content: Conservatives want to destroy social security because it works.", "qid": "5", "docid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00016-000", "rank": 81, "score": 163816.0}, {"content": "Title: Privatizing social security Content: Budget shortfall has more to do with misguided tax cuts, spending.", "qid": "5", "docid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00007-000", "rank": 82, "score": 163052.0}, {"content": "Title: Privatizing social security Content: Public supports private social security accounts.", "qid": "5", "docid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00002-000", "rank": 83, "score": 163046.0}, {"content": "Title: Privatizing social security Content: Privatized social security restores individual liberty and ownership", "qid": "5", "docid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00019-000", "rank": 84, "score": 162942.0}, {"content": "Title: Privatizing social security Content: Social security is in crisis", "qid": "5", "docid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00013-000", "rank": 85, "score": 162467.0}, {"content": "Title: Privatizing social security Content: Private accounts increase investments, jobs, wages.", "qid": "5", "docid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00040-000", "rank": 86, "score": 160717.0}, {"content": "Title: Privatizing social security Content: Privatizing social security helps the poor.", "qid": "5", "docid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00028-000", "rank": 87, "score": 160616.0}, {"content": "Title: Historical evidence has shown that privatisation has been unsuccessful Content: In Chile and the United Kingdom, the governments persuaded people to make personal investment accounts to reduce the long-term obligations of their Social Security systems, and supporters of privatisation say that these are examples for United States to follow however the experiences in those countries were unsatisfactory and they provide strong arguments against privatisation.World Bank's report expressed dissatisfaction with privatisation in Chile. The report said \"More than half of all workers are excluded from even a semblance of a safety net during their old age.[[Indermit S. Gil, Truman Packard, and Juan Yermo, Keeping the Promise of Old Age Income Security in Latin America (Washington, D.C.: The World Bank,2004), p. 10, http://wbln1018.worldbank.org/LAC/LAC.nsf/ECADocbyUnid/146EBBA3371508E785256CBB005C29B4?Opendocument%5D%5D Other evidences have also supported the claim that privatisation was unsuccessful in Chile.For example,investment accounts of retirees were much smaller than originally predicted and 41 percent of those who should have collected pensions continued to work.[[Stephen J. Kay and Milko Matijascic, Social Security at the Crossroads:Toward Effective Pension Reform in Latin America,unpublished paper prepared for the Latin America Studies Association XXVI International Conference, Las Vegas,October 6\u20138, 2004]].In the United Kingdom, the results of privatisation were no better.The workers were made to divert payroll taxes to personal investment accounts in 1978, however people made poor investment choices. As a result the national government suffered new administrative expenses, lost tax revenues,and had to bail out some failed private pension plans. A British government commission headed by Adair Turner reported in 2004 that Britain had been living in \u201ca fool\u2019s paradise\u201d by thinking it had solved its pension problems.[[Financial Times, November 18, 2004]].Evidence shows that privatising pensions is not a good option.", "qid": "5", "docid": "e14e9db-2019-04-19T12:45:06Z-00028-000", "rank": 88, "score": 160594.0}, {"content": "Title: The social security system is unsustainable in the status quo Content: Social Security is not in crisis and there is no need for privatization. Social Security is completely solvent today, and will be into the future because it has a dedicated income stream that covers its costs and consistently generates a surplus, which today is $2.5 trillion. Proposition\u2019s dire prediction of the collapse of social security\u2019s financial situation is misleading. The Social Security surplus will grow to approximately $4.3 trillion in 2023, and that reserves will be sufficient to pay full benefits through to 2037. Even after this it would still be able to pay 78%. Moreover, there are plenty of ways to reform Social Security to make it more fiscally sound without privatizing it, including simply raising taxes to fund it better.[1] Furthermore the problem that affects social security of falling numbers of contributors to each retiree will also affect private pensions, at least in the short to medium term, just in a different way. If all younger pensioners went over to just paying for their own future retirement who is to pay for current retirees or those who are shortly to retire. These people will still need to have their pensions paid for. They will not have time to save up a personal pension and so will be relying on current workers \u2013 but such workers will not want to pay more when they are explicitly just paying for someone else as they are already paying for themselves separately. [1] Roosevelt, James.\"Social Security at 75: Crisis Is More Myth Than Fact.\" Huffington Post. 11 August 11 2010. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-roosevelt/social-security-at-75-cri_...", "qid": "5", "docid": "2d6f4e75-2019-04-15T20:22:43Z-00010-000", "rank": 89, "score": 160583.0}, {"content": "Title: privatizing social security with guaranteed minimum is better than the current system Content: i thank you for ur recognition and congratulate you on your decision to concede breadfruit", "qid": "5", "docid": "b4e53fbf-2019-04-18T12:06:48Z-00002-000", "rank": 90, "score": 160094.0}, {"content": "Title: Privatizing social security Content: Privatization is the least bad option.", "qid": "5", "docid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00010-000", "rank": 91, "score": 159732.0}, {"content": "Title: Public supports private social security accounts. Content: Andrew Roth. \"Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!\" Club for Growth. September 21, 2010: \"Not surprisingly, this is an attractive idea. A recent poll showed overwhelming support for personal accounts. Republican voters support it 65-21, but even Democrat voters like it, 50-36.\"", "qid": "5", "docid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00076-000", "rank": 92, "score": 159291.0}, {"content": "Title: The US should raise it's Debt Ceiling, with or without concessions Content: Thanks for the debate Double_R. My opponent was doing well until this last round, where he basically concedes all my arguments - all he does is repeat them back at me as questions. He never proves that privatizing Social Security would be bad, whereas I asserted that is the fair thing to do, since my generation won't get any of its benefits. Couple that with defense cuts (like removing troops from Germany, Italy, England, and Japan) and we could solve this problem without increasing the debt ceiling. He never proves that repudiating our debt would be bad. He never proves that China/Japan wouldn't just be forced to bail us out or forgive some of our debt. All he does is invoke my lack of a source, without bothering to attack my logic. But right now, I'll expand on both the source and logical warrant. First, this is a well known fact, that China holds too many T-bonds to dump them. Slate writes, \"Still, there's little sign that China will reduce its U. S. -debt investments, or slow its purchase of T-bonds; any sell-off would risk flooding the market, devaluing China's investments still further. \" . http://www.slate.com... Second, it just makes logical sense. If China holds trillions of dollars in US Treasury bonds, and they want to start selling, the problem is, they can't find enough buyers for all the trillions of dollars at once. So lets say they manage to sell a few hundred million. But as soon as investors hear that China is selling T-bonds, the value of the T-bonds plummets, meaning China's announcement of their intent to sell T-bonds destroys the value of their T-bonds. It's a simple supply issue. It's an ironic development that China bought so many T-bonds that they can't get rid of them, but the US should most definitely use this to our advantage, ESPECIALLY considering that our debt and overconsumption is responsible for a lot of China's recent growth. They should pay some of it back. My opponent argues that I'm being contradictory - arguing both for no increase in the debt ceiling and abolishing it. But in the world of debate, I can advocate that the judge vote for one or the other. If you don't buy my arguments regarding not increasing the debt ceiling, then vote to abolish it. My opponent agrees that this would be a negation of the resolution. If the debt ceiling is so annoying and keeps resulting in useless political bickering, when we've already spent the money anyways (since the budget is passed longer before the debt ceiling rise is debated), and if you buy my opponent's argument, that not raising the debt ceiling leads to the destruction of the US economy, then avoiding having this same fight the next year and the year after and the year after is better, so vote Con to repeal the debt ceiling entirely. It has more benefit than voting Pro, if you buy his case. But if not, then vote Con anyway, since if you want a debt ceiling to have any meaning, we have to actually enforce it for once. We raised the debt ceiling in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2006, twice in 2008, and are considering doing it again this year. As Rothbard noted, we just automatically increase it whenever the issue arises, which is why the debt ceiling has gone from $2.5 trillion to $14.8 trillion. My opponent's only real argument in his last round is an analogy about a credit card bill. But remember, if you hit your spending limit, the credit card company won't just increase the limit for you - that's not how a limit works. My opponent next invokes all the bad things that would happen - his sister not getting her check for serving in the military; grandma not getting her Medicare. First, note that we could solve the problem (which my opponent claims would require $738 billion in cuts) with JUST cuts to the military and Social Security. I never argue for shutting down the government or Medicare. Also, note all the other reasons I provide for why this would either not happen or would be good: 1) China could not dump T-bonds, so they'd just have to forgive the debt or bail us out 2) US could print money, causing inflation, which would cause the dollar to devalue relative to other currencies, making our exports more competitive 3) US could renounce the debt, allow the dollar to collapse, and use gold and silver as legal tender, avoiding the boom and bust cycle forevermore (my opponent asks which states are doing this now - Utah is . http://www.dailypaul.com...) 4) We could make the necessary cuts - the Deficit Reduction Committee gave us a huge list. 5) We could simplify the tax code (also recommended by the Deficit Reduction Committee), so we collect more taxes. The IRS fails to collect 20% of potential tax revenue. 6) The Republicans could just threaten to hold out on raising the debt ceiling (a real, credible threat). If the consequences really are as dire as my opponent says and the threat is credible, Obama would be forced to give in. But this still requires you to vote Con because we need to be serious about the threat to get the government to lock in future cuts. This is the only way to get cuts since otherwise politicians will just put them off for future generations. Notice my opponent leaves all of the above arguments unrefuted. He also never proves that the government is good. Maybe a government shutdown wouldn't be as bad as he says it is. As I said, if the government shut down, the private sector would take over the areas the government currently administers, but do them much more efficiently, generating jobs. And people not having to pay taxes anymore would massively stimulate the economy. My opponent doesn't impact anything, he just appeals to your gut with rhetorical questions (\"abolish Social Security? ?? \"). My opponent says \"the time\" to have taken a stand on the debt ceiling was during the Bush years, but first, we always blame everything on previous politicians to absolve the current politicians from taking any responsibility. Second, the debt ceiling was much much much lower before Bush took office; even if Bush had not increased our debt, we'd still be debating raising the debt ceiling right now to pay for Obama's $1.5 trillion deficit, even if the debt was instead at only $6 trillion. The point is, we didn't take a stand back then because \"the debt didn't seem that bad. \" We won't take a stand now because \"the economy hasn't improved enough. \" But this will be a long winter - our economy has recovered, while removing 6 million jobs structurally; businesses have achieved growth through outsourcing and computerizing tasks previously done by people. If we use that as justification to deficit spend $1.5 trillion each year, for the next 5-10 years, until things get better, then future generations are screwed. We are literally mortgaging our future, and the futures of our children. Every dollar that we deficit spend now is a significantly decreased quality of life in the future, since the bills will come due at some point, and that will be an extremely painful period. Even if I'm unemployed right now, that doesn't justify making my kid pay 90% of his income 30 years from now to pay for our enormous debt and entitlements. Anyways, the government hasn't passed a stimulus since 2009 - we're not even using the $1.5 trillion to generate jobs. We're just wasting money.", "qid": "5", "docid": "768ad5f4-2019-04-18T18:47:07Z-00000-000", "rank": 93, "score": 158921.0}, {"content": "Title: privatize the USA's social security schemes Content: The problems with the social security are systemic, not inherent", "qid": "5", "docid": "2d6f4e75-2019-04-15T20:22:43Z-00000-000", "rank": 94, "score": 158684.0}, {"content": "Title: Privatizing social security Content: Americans support increasing taxes to fund Social Security.", "qid": "5", "docid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00001-000", "rank": 95, "score": 158489.0}, {"content": "Title: privatizing social security with guaranteed minimum is better than the current system Content: i don't know, but i'm down with the clowns and i'm out the window, F*CK", "qid": "5", "docid": "b4e53fbf-2019-04-18T12:06:48Z-00001-000", "rank": 96, "score": 158361.0}, {"content": "Title: Privatizing social security Content: Social security taxes damage ability of poor to survive.", "qid": "5", "docid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00029-000", "rank": 97, "score": 158032.0}, {"content": "Title: tax increases r inevitable and will be the most responsible thing to do. Content: raising federal taxes will be inevitable and be the most responsible thing to do the things that make up by far most of the budget are too hard to cut, and we shouldn't be cutting them too much anyway. social security, medicare, interest on the debt, defense, all make up over ninety percent of our budget. even if you wiped out the rest of the government, which would be the height off irresponsibility, you still couldn't even balance the budget, which is five hundred billion dollars. the budget is four trillion, simple math proves my point. if you were to cut into defense majorly and cut the rest by say ten percent, you might be able to balance the budget. but within the next ten years the deficit will double, and there wouldn't be enough places to cut. tax increases are inevitable and will be the most responsible thing to do. if you say we should privative social security an medicare you have to say how you will fund current and near retirees. privatization is a long term idea, not here and now", "qid": "5", "docid": "988cf27-2019-04-18T12:54:20Z-00005-000", "rank": 98, "score": 157491.0}, {"content": "Title: Privatizing social security Content: Private social security accounts are voluntary.", "qid": "5", "docid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00004-000", "rank": 99, "score": 156966.0}, {"content": "Title: Social security is net loss for taxpayers and beneficiaries. Content: Lawrence Kotlikoff. \"Privatizing social security the right way.\" Testimony to the Committee on Ways and Means. June 3, 1998: \"Social Security represents a bad deal for postwar Americans. Moreover, the deal has gotten worse over time. Baby boomers are projected to lose roughly 5 cents of every dollar they earn to the OASI program in taxes net of benefits. Generation X=ers and today=s children will lose over 7 cents of every dollar they earn in net taxes. These losses assume no adjustment to Social Security=s taxes or benefits. But, as indicated above, major adjustments are inevitable unless the system is privatized. If OASI taxes are raised immediately by the amount needed to pay for OASI benefits on an ongoing basis, baby boomers will forfeit 6 cents of every dollar they earn in net OASI taxes. Those born after the baby boom will forfeit 10 cents of every dollar they earn.\"", "qid": "5", "docid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00045-000", "rank": 100, "score": 156906.0}]}
{"query": "Is a college education worth it?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: Going to college is worth Content: Extend.", "qid": "6", "docid": "76c7c4bc-2019-04-18T13:04:33Z-00001-000", "rank": 1, "score": 154151.0}, {"content": "Title: Going to college is worth Content: Extend.", "qid": "6", "docid": "76c7c4bc-2019-04-18T13:04:33Z-00002-000", "rank": 2, "score": 154151.0}, {"content": "Title: College is worth it Content: This debate will be over whether or not college education is worth the time and expense. I will take the position as pro, arguing that college is worth it. My opponent will take the position as con, arguing that college is not worth it.Note: I live in America, so we are discussing college in America.Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Main ArgumentRound 3: Rebuttals", "qid": "6", "docid": "561c5e25-2019-04-18T15:50:58Z-00004-000", "rank": 3, "score": 153514.0}, {"content": "Title: Going to college is financially not worth it Content: Oh no...", "qid": "6", "docid": "5e3d2af5-2019-04-18T12:41:09Z-00000-000", "rank": 4, "score": 144434.0}, {"content": "Title: College is worth it Content: I accept your challenge, under the pretense that we can qualify which college experiences we are debating about, i.e., I will argue that a number of specific majors/fields of study are not worth the time and money, if one is hoping to gain employment through them, while I will conceed that other types, such as trade schools, are more worthwhile in today's economy.", "qid": "6", "docid": "561c5e25-2019-04-18T15:50:58Z-00003-000", "rank": 5, "score": 141610.0}, {"content": "Title: College is a Necessity to be Successful Content: I have done my own research for this topic and what i found is that According to Money college planning \"half of graduates say the education was worth the cost. \"According to Wall Street Journal,\"Paying for college never is easy, but it\"s easier than most people think. Yet some politicians and pundits say students can\"t afford a college education. That\"s wrong. Most of them can.\" Yes you do pay a lot of money but about or more then half of the college graduates believe that going to college was very much worth it. We all want to earn a lot of money to provide ourselves with needs and wants, well being a college graduate can increase your chances of getting a better paying job which would provide you more chances of getting some of your wants.", "qid": "6", "docid": "c195ff79-2019-04-18T13:35:02Z-00003-000", "rank": 6, "score": 138469.0}, {"content": "Title: College is worth it Content: No round as agreed", "qid": "6", "docid": "561c5e25-2019-04-18T15:50:58Z-00000-000", "rank": 7, "score": 138271.0}, {"content": "Title: College is a Necessity to be Successful Content: The value of a college education is very important. There are a lot of people who believe that you don't have to attend college. Your employment options are extended as a college graduate. As a college graduate you make more money and have a better job. High school graduates should attend college because it increases chances of getting a job and you can earn more money. Attending college after graduating from high school should be a priority. It isn't a bad thing if you attend college. In fact I believe it will help you in the future. You have a high chance of getting your dream job and getting jobs easier. According to \"Actually, College is Very Much Worth It\" by Andrew J. Rotherham \"College graduates earn more, and are more likely to have a job in the first place-- and is especially important for some americans.\" College graduates make more money than high school graduates. They also have higher employment rates.", "qid": "6", "docid": "c195ff79-2019-04-18T13:35:02Z-00000-000", "rank": 8, "score": 135393.0}, {"content": "Title: A Full Time College Education is Not Worth It Content: Due to recent events in our debates I have come to see that even though nationwide high schools now encourage students to strive for four-year universities and colleges I have come to ask myself if those four long years are really worth it? For many, a four-year college is an impossible option and other times for those who do strive for their education find themselves lost of what to now do with their acquired education. Seeing on the Debt.org website, an organization dedicated to aiding in college grads debt, that \"...college graduates are left with a diploma and an enormous financial burden of credit card and student loan debt \" and maybe no job in sight\". Especially focusing not just on these student's debt but also how they may not be able to even find jobs. In order for this economy to flourish we need a stable working class, but if the majority are jobless and in debt our country will plummet. In order to evade such disaster perhaps it should be taken into account that these full college educations are not worth it and instead strive for an Associates that can still provide well paid working jobs for many; trade skill occupations.", "qid": "6", "docid": "472d8abe-2019-04-18T12:17:23Z-00005-000", "rank": 9, "score": 133335.0}, {"content": "Title: Going to college is worth Content: I accept, and will be arguing that college is worth it for some people.", "qid": "6", "docid": "76c7c4bc-2019-04-18T13:04:33Z-00005-000", "rank": 10, "score": 133018.0}, {"content": "Title: College Education should be Necessary for All U.S. Citizens Content: My opponent states 2 main points that: 1. American citizens can't afford a college education. 2. It doesn't guarantee a good job. However, I believe that college should be required as: 1. Universities offer better returns if you invest. 2. The number of scholarships are rapidly increasing, and even if you couldn't obtain one, community colleges offer a good education and often enough, financial aid. 1. Caroline Hoxby, a Stanford (and formerly Harvard) economist who specializes in educational issues, states that \"the value of the education has actually been increasing faster than the tuition. She calculates that at the most selective colleges, the amount spent on each student has grown at an average annual rate of 13% from 1967 to 2007, reaching about $92,000. Over the same period, tuition at the selective schools grew at an average annual rate of 6%. The difference is made up by increasing charitable contributions from alumni and others. The investment, says Ms. Hoxby, is well worth the money spent. Even accounting for charitable contributions, she notes, studies have found that students who attend highly selective colleges have much greater lifetime earnings than those who don't. The studies suggest that the return on investment in education at a selective school is similar to the long-term return on stocks. \"Since the mid-1990s, the average (inflation-adjusted) wages of college graduates have skyrocketed, increasing by 18 percent\" as of 2004, a recent study found. In contrast, wages of high school dropouts rose at about half that rate -- 10 percent -- over the same period. The Census Bureau in 2004 calculated that the average college graduate earns $27,800 more per year, adjusted for inflation, than the average high school graduate. That adds up to more than $1 million over a lifetime As you can see, and have probably already heard, a college education does lead to better wages for the majority of people who attend and graduate, therefore college does in fact offer better returns. 2. The number of scholarships are increasing, and community colleges are always an option. The University of Minnesota Scholarship Drive seeks to increase by 2,250 the number of students who are helped through privately funded scholarships. The goal is to raise $150 million, making it the largest scholarship fund raising effort ever undertaken by the university. Currently, 4,500 students receive scholarships funded through private gifts to the university. Indiana State University has increased the number of Presidents Scholarships to 20 for 2009-10, up from 15 in previous years, and has created a new University Honors Scholarship that will be awarded to 80 incoming freshmen. The Presidents Scholarships award is the most prestigious award at the Indiana State University, and increasing it to 20 is a massive amount, as it provides students with $15,000 dollars a year. The University of Pittsburgh at Greensburg will be offering approximately 75 more scholarships to incoming freshmen this fall as part of an effort to help students in tough economic times and maintain enrollment totals. Community college costs just a fraction of the total price tag for public or private four-year residential colleges. If you're short on cash and don't have the test scores to win a merit scholarship, community college can save you thousands. But don't make your decision based entirely on money -- many four-year colleges offer excellent financial aid for those with serious need. . http://blogs.wsj.com... . http://www.nasfaa.org... . http://www.giving.umn.edu... . http://www.pittsburghlive.com... . http://collegeapps.about.com...", "qid": "6", "docid": "3c15c9f1-2019-04-18T19:14:38Z-00002-000", "rank": 11, "score": 132913.0}, {"content": "Title: Going to college is financially not worth it Content: We are debating whether or not it makes economic sense to go to college, in other words whether or not college will create a net-income gain or a net-income loss. Arguments should be based in statistics and mathematics and not in strict opinion.", "qid": "6", "docid": "5e3d2af5-2019-04-18T12:41:09Z-00003-000", "rank": 12, "score": 132844.0}, {"content": "Title: This house believes that college is redundant for further studies Content: As you all know, college is an important milestone in life. Personally, I think that a college degree is worth pursuing regardless of an individual's career goals. First off, Candidates can explore new specialisation fields and experiment around to find their passion. This can actually help students to save money as well- If they are aware of their specialisations in a field of their choice, there is no need to take multiple courses in university. Instead, they can just directly choose to study in their field of choice. Which leads us to the next point. It serves an advantage. When students go to college, they may be unsure of what field to specialise in. however, as students grow older, they may develop sudden interests in medicine, law, economics and etc. When they finally decide what do they want to specialise in, they have a college degree to help them get into schools of their choice. Thirdly, college gives second chances. for those students who didn't do very well in high school, college is a perfect opportunity to earn back the grades they think they deserve. For all education levels above college, they tend to weigh your college degree higher than your high school degree. My fourth point is that college helps us build a strong foundation for future studies. It gives you the basic knowledge you will need for future studies. Students can gain advanced knowledge in the fields that they are interested in and can have a general understanding of the other subjects. It also helps students to exercise their critical thinking skills and make sensible choices as well as help them to express themselves through writing and speech. Another point I would like to use to oppose to the opinion that college is redundant for further studies is that it helps students increase their chance of admission into schools of their choice. Imagine that you are checking 2 resumes from 2 applicants. They both have the same amount of experience, but one applicant gained a higher college degree that the other. Which one would you choose as a new intake? I believe that all of us will choose the student with the higher education background. However, in real life, students are compared with thousands os applicants, so they must have some academic achievements that make them appeal to the university that they are applying for so that they will choose the student as their intake. Last but not least, college prepares students for university life. Students learn to deal with the hardships in life in college. It makes the student strong and practical enough to deal with the hardships that they are going to face in the future. Students learn to adapt to new situations and new environments in college just as they would do in graduate school or university. Overall, I would like to conclude that college is in fact not redundant for further studies but it plays an important role in a student's education. Thank you.", "qid": "6", "docid": "19e647b-2019-04-18T11:51:58Z-00001-000", "rank": 13, "score": 132843.0}, {"content": "Title: A Full Time College Education is Not Worth It Content: It is true that finding a job or position after graduating can be hard but like you said it all depends on the person's work ethics and situation. This may cause people to get a job from six weeks to six months depending on the major and area. Some areas need more jobs than others depending on the community's needs, resources, and stability. Some colleges have programs that make it easier to find positions for specific majors and it also depends on how bad the job seeker truly wants it. No matter what kind of education one accquires, full time or not, a person will have some difficulty finding a job. But it is after the position is obtained by an individual that makes the true difference. One goes to college to obtain a better and comfortable lifestyle by earning a greater salary. Charles Purdy published an article called \"10 Job Search Mistakes of New College Grads\" by a website called Monster Worldwide Inc, offering career advice and researching the top mistakes most job seekers and grad students make. Some of the mistakes listed on the website were not using the college's career office, not taking the job interview seriously, appearing unprofessional, setting expectations too high, misusing the internet, relying solely on the internet, and not being proactive enough. To elaborate on students and job seekers setting the expectation to high, most of them think of the perfect job instead of their \"first job\" or actually giving it a fair shot. In this economy, the first job should be about finding a position where one will learn great deals and skills, be super busy, and be surrounded by lots of people in order to get familiar and be more hands on with their career or major. Afterwards, there is always the option of transferring to another location if the first job isn't meeting their expectations. In conclusion, achieving any sort of education may seem challenging but the sole purpose of obtaining an education should motivate one to achieve greater than what they had before, whether it's a high school diploma or associates degree. A full time education may seem stressful but one should keep their eyes on the prize once their journey is completed.", "qid": "6", "docid": "472d8abe-2019-04-18T12:17:23Z-00000-000", "rank": 14, "score": 131360.0}, {"content": "Title: Going to college is worth Content: It is not !!!!!!!!! CAn i hear your why-statement ?", "qid": "6", "docid": "76c7c4bc-2019-04-18T13:04:33Z-00004-000", "rank": 15, "score": 130747.0}, {"content": "Title: Going to college is worth Content: Vote 4 me.", "qid": "6", "docid": "76c7c4bc-2019-04-18T13:04:33Z-00000-000", "rank": 16, "score": 130588.0}, {"content": "Title: Going to college is financially not worth it Content: It is worth it to go to college, and I will explain why it is worth it in the second round of the debate. Yes, I will post arguments using mathematical sense. Sincerely, Dr. Maniac", "qid": "6", "docid": "5e3d2af5-2019-04-18T12:41:09Z-00002-000", "rank": 17, "score": 129660.0}, {"content": "Title: Going to college is worth Content: Hello my friends. Thanks for your attention to this topic. I really thank you. So, going to college for career, making connections, or getting degree or whatever doesnt really mean anything. It is totally waste of money and time. FYI, each year, tuition and fees increase anywhere pretty much. Bring it on if you are disagree with the statement ! ha", "qid": "6", "docid": "76c7c4bc-2019-04-18T13:04:33Z-00006-000", "rank": 18, "score": 129561.0}, {"content": "Title: A Full Time College Education is Not Worth It Content: One of your arguments are the factors of underemployment and unemployment rates when in fact it does rely and depend on the major or career. Many jobs today are being replaced by machines therefore people in society and undergraduates need to focus on being a full time student to get a four year education or higher to acquire skills and knowledge that can not be replaced by a machine. Whether a full time education is truly worth the time and money, one person may argue that with loans and being in debt may seem like a stressful situation, it pays off drastically with time. With a four year education, a loan can be paid off in a couple of years while still having a comfortable lifestyle. For instance, a family practice (doctor) goes to school for a total of twelve year (four years at a university, four years at medical school, and three years at residency) the tuition may seem high but he/she would be making around 325,000 annually so in numbers, it seems worth the time and energy to put force into a full time education, if the loans/debt will not be as a big deal to pay off. The conversation of underemployment and unemployment justifies the fact that the competition between a full time student and part time student is existing but the job or position will most likely go to the more committed student with more experience and education. Without being said, the rates of unemployment and underemployment are higher in California due to it having the highest population in the U.S with more people seeking classes in specific majors and jobs. This is why programs like the Regional Admission Counselors of California (RACC) is composed of college admission professionals who represent colleges and universities outside the state of California. They help students go out of state into universities with the same system and potentially find jobs and positions out in other states where the unemployment is not as high as California. With all this being said, myself as a high school and college student I would be lying if I said money was not a concern for me. However, according to Nerd Wallet, a website helping people save money had Devon Delfino, someone who personally invested in student loans wrote an article on December 16, 2016 called \"Advice From 3 People Who Paid off Student Loan Debt\" states that small adjustments make a difference into paying off student loans like \"tracking your credit score, using the avalanche method, and taking holistic approach to your finances\". All in all, this is something that will help students be young responsible adults and the rewards of a full time education will help take them to that next level.", "qid": "6", "docid": "472d8abe-2019-04-18T12:17:23Z-00002-000", "rank": 19, "score": 129512.0}, {"content": "Title: College is worth it Content: Main ArgumentI will be arguing that college is worth the time and expense.1. College graduates make more moneyStatistically, college graduates make more money opposed to those who are not college graduates. In America, those with four-year college degrees earned 98% more an hour than people without a degree in 2013. This has risen from previous years, meaning that college graduates are continually making more money than non graduates. Presently, the pay gap between graduates and non graduates is at an all time high. This makes a bachelors degree so much more valuable than it ever was before. Opponents of college say that it is too expensive, but because of the high pay earned by college graduates most graduates come out better than they were before. Think of college as an investment. It has been found that the average rate of return for a bachelor's degree has been about 15%, making it an excellent investment choice.The following picture shows the rate of return for the listed majors. 2. The benefits outweigh the costIt is true that college graduates will face financial expenses, but for the most part these are minuscule obstacles compared to the benefits of college. The average debt for college students is under $20,000. In the long-term, this is a minor expense compared to the money they will be making in the future. By far, the largest benefit of college is making more money than non gradates.Another benefit of college is that college graduates are more likely to have health insurance and retirement plans because they are more likely to get a well-paying career. Most careers include the benefits of health and retirement aid. Non graduates are more likely to be stuck working an hourly job that does not include health Going to college will naturally make you smarter. In college, a lot of thinking is required. This in turn develops the students brain and skills related to the brain such as problem solving, memory and decision making.To back up the claim that college students are smarter, I want to use a real life example. My Father is a project manager at a science institute. He has a number of people work for him who have graduated college, and who have not graduated college. Although these non graduates may be capable of doing what the graduates do, he states that the graduates are noticeably smarter, and have a better understanding of the work project than those without degrees. To conclude, he prefers college graduates as opposed to non graduates working for him.Sourceshttp://www.nytimes.com...http://www.usnews.com...http://money.cnn.com...", "qid": "6", "docid": "561c5e25-2019-04-18T15:50:58Z-00002-000", "rank": 20, "score": 128863.0}, {"content": "Title: A Full Time College Education is Not Worth It Content: I cannot deny that four-year college educations do provide higher paying jobs compared to a person with only an associate's degree, but even though the person may make more money it all depends. It depends on the major the person took, it depends on the amount of debt they will be in, it depends on the college they went too, it depends if there are even jobs available for them after graduation. I say this because yes, all college education does cost money, but some a lot more than others and it is because of this cost and rate of recent unemployment for certain jobs why perhaps the four-year education is currently not worth all its time and effort. While there are grants and scholarships for full time four-year college students to apply for to aid in their debt, that is if they take the time and effort to do so, many cannot forget that even after graduation and debt there also may lie unemployment and underemployment. Seeing in the online website article,\" The Economic Policy Institute\", last updated in April 21, 2016, that, \"For young college graduates, the unemployment rate is currently 5.6 percent (compared with 5.5 percent in 2007), and the underemployment rate is 12.6 percent (compared with 9.6 percent in 2007)\". Despite how low these rates may be now it cannot be ignored how dramatically the percentage changed from 2007 to 2016 in the underemployment rates and shows that in the due future these rates will only become increase. Through this percent of people who face underemployment and how it will begin to grow over time it can be seen that many people will have their four-year degree but most will never work to their educations actual potential. Lacking in that higher paying job they so longed for and then for those who had not applied for grants and scholarships finding themselves stuck in debt that they cannot escape due to their underemployed job. It is not common, but there are associate's degrees that allow a pay just as high as any bachelor's degree may provide. It is with these certain opportunities that people may take through a shorter college life that they will end up with not only a much smaller debt but also a well paid trade and working job that are currently in the need and are not facing unemployment or underemployment.", "qid": "6", "docid": "472d8abe-2019-04-18T12:17:23Z-00003-000", "rank": 21, "score": 128693.0}, {"content": "Title: Going to college is worth Content: Consider a smart person who is determined to be a lawyer. This person has a full ride scholarship, so education is free, and it is necessary for this person's life dreams and happiness to be a lawyer. A degree is required to practice law [1]. You cannot become a lawyer without being able to practice law, and so, since classes cost no money, it is totally worth it for this person to go to college. 1. http://study.com...", "qid": "6", "docid": "76c7c4bc-2019-04-18T13:04:33Z-00003-000", "rank": 22, "score": 123663.0}, {"content": "Title: College/University and formal tertiary education is not necessary Content: Yes, sure it can provide for those who do not get A+ as a back up, but generally is it still worth the time and money when you can get training and experience at the workforce. \" We should also keep in mind that the grades students get in high school is only an initial stage and that things can be very different in College or University, as those who don\"t do as well in High school can go on to do much better in college and the A+ students in High school can end up realising that their potential is limited once they are in college or University. So presuming that High School A+ students should have the opportunity to work before the students who are not up to that level, YET, is very unfair.\" even if it is an initial stage there are all stages anyway, taking college and uni out of the picture can still provide for those who didn't get A grades, it can be an open system. \"Yet, is very unfair\" If they are somewhat disadvantaged it's alright as there are disadvantages and advantages to certain people anyway like scholarships, uni fees, course prerequisites. \" There is a fine line between education and qualification and a University degree is the proof of both. Colleges and Universities will not only deal with the subject you are training for but they will also educate you further on morals and ethics and build you up with discipline and knowledge which High school and jobs alone can\"t do. And as for employers, why would they put their effort, time and possibly money to train and qualify employees to work for them, especially while the global economy is becoming increasingly competitive. Wouldn\"t they rather have employees with University degrees that show that they are full on ready for work? Some employees maybe willing but most would probably not be so willing.\" Education and qualification can be gained by the individual and proof of both can be tested when applying for a job. You have no sources or proof that university does educate you further on morals and ethics maybe the workplace does an even better job of that. \"discipline and knowledge which high school and jobs alone can't do\" still no proof i don't see why paying for a few extra years in a government scheme is any better than the workforce. Many who have dropped out of university or never even attended ended up being successful and somewhat knowledgable and ethical so i'm sorry but being educated and having dignity does not rely on University it can be developed by the individual if he attends or not. Just with the letter 'A' 'a' to 'l' S. Daniel Abraham, billionaire founder of Slim-Fast. Joined the Army at the age of 18 and fought in Europe during World War II. Did not attend college. Roman Abramovich, richest man in Russia, billionaire. Dropped out of college. He studied at the Moscow State Auto Transport Institute before taking a leave of absence from academics to go into business. He later earned a correspondence degree from the Moscow State Law Academy. Abigail Adams, U.S. first lady. Home schooled. Ansel Adams, photographer. Dropped out of high school. Bryan Adams, singer, songwriter. High school dropout. Calpernia Adams, transsexual showgirl. Never attended college. As she noted, \"My parents thought that college leads you away from God, so they hadn't saved any money.\" Sandy Adams, U.S. congressperson. Dropped out of high school at the age of 17 to join the Air Force. Later got her GED and attended the police academy before being hired as a deputy sheriff. William Adams, aka Will.i.am, singer, songwriter, music producer, founder of the Black Eyed Peas, actor, entrepreneur. He formed his first group in high school. Never attended college. Gautam Adani, commodities billionaire from India. Dropped out of college. Adele, aka Adele Laurie Blue Adkins, singer and songwriter. Intended to go to college but got signed to a recording deal just after her high school graduation. Sheldon Adelson, billionaire casino owner. Dropped out of City College of New York to become a court reporter. He made his first fortune doing trade shows. Trace Adkins, country music singer and songwriter, actor. Studied at Louisiana Tech University but never officially graduated. Went to work on an oil rig instead. Mortimer Adler, author, educator, editor. Left high school at the age of 15 to work. Later received his high school equivalency degree and attended Columbia University. Ferran Adria, chef. Has been called the world's greatest chef. Did not finish high school. Miguel Adrover, fashion designer. High school dropout. Ben Affleck, actor, screenwriter. Left the University of Vermont after one semester; then dropped out of Occidental College to pursue acting. Andre Agassi, tennis player, winner of 8 Grand Slam titles. Quit school in the ninth grade and turned tennis pro at the age of 16. His father would drive the kids to school but, instead, actually took them to local tennis courts to practice. Dianna Agron, singer, dancer, actress. \"I didn't take the typical path and go to college after high school. Instead, I saved up money from teaching dance classes and moved to L.A.\" Christina Aguilera, singer, songwriter. Never finished high school. Danny Aiello, actor. Dropped out of high school at the age of 16 to join the army. Later received a high school equivalency degree. Troy Aikman, Superbowl-winning football quarterback, TV sports commentator. In 2009, he finally graduated from UCLA, 20 years after leaving college to play in the National Football League. Aikman had promised his mother, when he left school just two courses shy of a degree, that he would return and finish. In 2009, at the age of 42, he finally fulfilled that commitment, earning A's in his last two courses, thus earning a bachelor's degree in sociology. Malin Akerman, model, actress. Enrolled in York University (Toronto) but left after about a year to see what else was out there. She moved to Los Angeles to become an actress. Dennis Albaugh, billionaire founder of pesticide company Albaugh Inc. Earned a 2-year agriculture business degree from Des Moines Community College. Did not continue on to a 4-year degree. Edward Albee, playwright. Dropped out of Trinity College after three semesters. Jack Albertson, Oscar-winning actor. High school dropout. http://sharevdo.com... - and those who not only never dropped out but never attended, incredible While it can be useful to many my point is that it shouldn't be 'necessary' that's the point of the argument In reply to your last few points, it may be the government's interest to educate and build a strong nation but that's the whole trap you just said it. Trying to pay off a loan for a few years sounds like a farmer, farm animal situation. We are slaves into make a \"stronger nation\" i think we deserve more liberty and the government should be using taxes more wisely. \"where there is an assurance that learning is taking place\" you can't assure that, i see more people enjoying online ways of learning like khan academy rather than the classroom, and i already stated that the sense of 'community' can be formed online but that alone shouldn't require that much money \"-Because an exam for a job only limits your knowledge to that one profession and does not show that you are educated, may show that you are qualified, but not educated. Whereas a degree shows a wider range of skills and knowledge.\" how so? you didn't justify, a degree doesn't show someone's overall educational status either it just limits the knowledge to the one degree like you stated. Yeah social democracy is the increase of liberty for the nation and looks like the best step to take in regards to 'indirect slavery' as I like to call it", "qid": "6", "docid": "c50238c9-2019-04-18T17:47:31Z-00001-000", "rank": 23, "score": 123056.0}, {"content": "Title: Higher Education is outdated for the millennial generation Content: RE: What one will earn with a college degree is almost double the amount of money that a high school graduate will earn. I don\u2019t doubt these statistics and agree that it is probably true one with a college degree earns more than the amount a high school graduate can earn. It is beneficial for society as a whole to earn a college degree rather than without. However, in the context of this debate it is important not only to ensure that millennials are not being exploited by college degrees, but that they are using them in alignment with their core values/ ambitions, for higher education to be worth it for them. Therefore, the fact that one can earn more than a high school graduate is only a good thing for millennials given that: P1: Millennials aim to utilise university to generate the most income The millennial generation can be characterised as being \u2018interested in daily work reflecting and part of larger societal concerns\u2019, helping communities, caring more on corporate social responsibility and the environment. Importantly, millennials place higher worth on experience rather than material things. (1) 87.5% millennials disagreed with the statement that \u2018money is the best measure of success\u2019, in contrast to 78% of the total population (2). Hence, if most the millennial generation are not pursuing high income earnings directly this point is not enough alone to argue the worth of a college degree for millennials. RE: College education easily indicates to employers of higher-skilled jobs that you are qualified. \u2018there is no way that employers validate that you have knowledge enough for the field they employ in.\u2019 P1: Yes, a college education is an indicator that you have reasonable knowledge to qualify for a job. But if this is considered a reason as to why you should go to college \u2013 so you can indicate to employers of higher skilled jobs that you are qualified (and not to learn and get more skills), this merely strengthens my case that education needs serious reform! As reinforced by A4: students go to university for the degree, and not the education. P2: Yes, a college education indicates to employers that you are qualified. Similarly, a college education also increases inequality by providing less opportunity for the poor, where they are kept from knowledge! and jobs! Due to their economic position. I know scholarships exist and all that but in an ideal society a poor kid with above average intelligence should not be prevented from entering college due to monetary issues when a rich kid with below average intelligence can graduate from one. Of all millennials that are not in college/have not earned a college degree, more than a third (36%) say that it is because they cannot afford it. (3) \u2018this (college debt) is not exactly a problem that needs to be solved by getting rid of college education or necessarily reforming it, but it could be solved by making colleges tuition free and paid for by taxes.\u2019 I agree with the latter, but disagree in the former as I believe the fact that con agrees this issue can be solved by making college tuition free reinforces my point that college education needs reform (I would say the total eradication of fees is considered serious reform) P3: There also exists a large array of alternative pathways apart from a college education today. You can take an exam to do actuary. If you are skilled and want to be a lawyer badly enough you don\u2019t even have to go to law school \u2013 you can pass 3 examinations and sit with a practising attorney for four years \u2013 you can save time and money by avoiding law school altogether. Abraham Lincoln himself says \u2018if you are absolutely determined to make a lawyer of yourself the thing is more than half done\u2026it is a small matter whether you read with any one or not; I did not read with anyone...Always bear in mind your own resolution to succeed is more important than anything\u2019 (4) P4: A degree is not the only indicator of being qualified \u2013 experience and skills are also good qualifiers. You do not need to major in journalism, history, french, photography etc. to qualify for work in these career fields. This is as skills can be used as a qualifier (which is arguably the better indicator for job performance). RE: College education helps you go into a career you really want I admire those who know what they want in a career and go after it. I agree that a college education may help you reach there \u2013 having a college education is perfectly fine here. Especially if you know you want to be a teacher, doctor, engineer etc. What I have a problem with is many young people do not know what they truly want. We are characterised as the \u2018indecisive generation\u2019 because we have so many more options than previous generations available to us. By 2010 nearly 60% of employed millennials had already switched their career at least once. Whilst the possibility exists that some people equated a \u2018career change\u2019 with a \u2018job change\u2019, it could also mean that millennials are considering alternatives and many options when it comes to finding a career pathway either due to personal preferences or societal pressures (rapidly transforming jobs etc. as elaborated in A1, P3). (3) Additionally, 50% of students in 2005 (including myself) who declared a major changed majors. 40% of students who enrolled in a 4 year college program will not have graduated by year 5 or even year 6. (5) This is alarming given that a college degree is very expensive, and should not be wasted on young people who do not know what they want due to the pressure to decide and fast track to a certain pathway with little to no experience with the working world or what a certain career path will be like. Hence, reform is necessary to allow students to experiment and experience practical work culture etc. instead of allowing vulnerable youth to pursue something they are not interested in/do not know much about under the pressure from their parents etc. RE: RE: University education today fosters a grade-oriented, disengaged, depressed culture that fails to prepare students for real life. \u2018In other words, anxiety and depression is lower among college students than the general population.\u2019 There is a simple observational error. My opponent has compared a statistic I used (anxiety or depression affection 13% U/G and 15.6% P/G) (6) that was recorded in 2005 with results that were measured in 2015 (6.7% of the general population affected by depression). Additionally, whilst the statistic used in regards to anxiety affecting the general population being 18.1% is verified, 1) This statistic excludes those who entered higher education (like me) below 18 years. (I spent half of my first university year being underage, it is not as uncommon as it may be in America) 2) There is a problem with the method of calculation. According to con\u2019s calculations, an accurate representation would be 18.1% of the general population in 2005 have an anxiety disorder + 5.4% of general population in 2005 with a depressive disorder(7)=23.5% affected. Therefore as 23.5% is greater than 13% and 15.6%, anxiety and depression is lower among college students than the general population. The problem is, if you combined both figures to calculate the total of those with anxiety or depression in higher education, 13% + 15.6% = 28.6% affected. This is higher than the average anxiety or depression disorders existent in the general population, and hence you can argue that anxiety or depression is higher among college students than the general population. This is an example of why this form of comparison is not very good. It is better to quote research involving direct comparison between college students and non-college students. Final Remarks I\u2019m sorry I could not add additional arguments to this debate. Although the bit about college education increasing inequality might be considered one, I\u2019ve mostly only included rebuttals this round due to time constraints as I\u2019m currently travelling. Thanks for your response con, I look forward to continuing this debate! Sources: 1) https://www.brookings.edu... 2) https://www.brookings.edu... 3) http://www.pewsocialtrends.org... 4) https://priceonomics.com... 5) http://www.nbcnews.com... 6) https://www.researchgate.net...... 7) https://www.cdc.gov...", "qid": "6", "docid": "f76890a8-2019-04-18T12:32:48Z-00003-000", "rank": 24, "score": 121919.0}, {"content": "Title: College is worth it Content: I apologize but I will not be able to finish this debate, I had several unexpected events come up. All votes should go to my worthy opponant and if he sees fit to re-issue this debate, someone more worthy than me should accept.", "qid": "6", "docid": "561c5e25-2019-04-18T15:50:58Z-00001-000", "rank": 25, "score": 121053.0}, {"content": "Title: Going to college is financially not worth it Content: It seems you have misunderstood me. Notice how you are debating the Pro for the statement 'Going to college is financially not worth it' meaning you are debating that it is not worth it to go to college.", "qid": "6", "docid": "5e3d2af5-2019-04-18T12:41:09Z-00001-000", "rank": 26, "score": 120990.0}, {"content": "Title: Public vs Private Education Content: Public education is, overall, not worth it to a wealthier person. To a person who doesn't have the wealth it is much smarter to put his or her child into public education rather than private education because of the main fact that they cant pay for the private education. This means that any education is good enough for his or her child and if this means public is better choice for the family because they cant afford the private education. Even though one must obtain a higher gpa to get into a preferred school under public education just means that you can get a lower gpa in Private education because realistically you are paying in advance for a college degree.", "qid": "6", "docid": "30a568aa-2019-04-18T16:55:27Z-00003-000", "rank": 27, "score": 119839.0}, {"content": "Title: Free Education Lowering Poor Rates Content: Some households face discrimination by landlords who are unwilling to rent to voucher holders. They do this as an economic advantage because the poor people may fail to pay rent. The main cause of this issue is that people put so much value on money and use money as a way to determine people\"s worth. The rich continually have many opportunities to make more money because they use the money they already have to help them, while the poor can\"t really do much because they don\"t have much money. The poor have many disadvantages while the rich can make sure they get to have advantages. Even if the poor want to start working at a better paying job, the employers , before even looking at their resumes, might judge them for the way they look. They might not have as good of an education as the rich because they couldn\"t afford to pay for the college fees. Since they couldn\"t get a better education, they can\"t get the better paying job. They continue to stay poor. Since people put so much value on money, they think the more money you have, the better you are. It gives the people a feeling of superiority and makes them think that they have to right to look down on the people making less money than them. People with money also tend to have much more power than those who don\"t. The ones who don\"t want to make sure that they are in favor of the ones that hold the power, so they would also look down on those who make less money than them to show the rich that they are thinking in the same way as them; that the rich are more superior.", "qid": "6", "docid": "5346a370-2019-04-18T13:40:21Z-00002-000", "rank": 28, "score": 118148.0}, {"content": "Title: A Full Time College Education is Not Worth It Content: Increasingly in the past couple years, people have seem to forgotten the immense value of a college education, more specifically a four year degree. However a four-year degree(full-time) is more valuable now than ever. In a time of unbelievable competition in the job market, something has to be done to separate the best from the average. A four year degree shows not only knowledge in a specific discipline but also shows that one had the commitment to get the degree over a period of time. In the choice between a person with a four year degree and a lesser education, the person in the four-year degree tends to win due to the credibility of crendtials and knowledge. A four year college degree also gives an immense amount of options, compared to a two year degree which allows trade specialization. A four year degree allows trade speicalization of a two year, but also a lot more options that the other may not have available. A lot of the best paying workers start with a four year degree. In a dynamic world having options is invaluable and if you want real options of four year degree is the way to go. A full time education/ a four year degree often causes debt but so does any college education, however schooling for any comfortable life style costs money. The existence of grants and scholarships help offset much of this cost. Studies show that a full time student make more money faster than a part time student. According to Erica Loop who published an article called, \"What Benefits Are There for Being a Full-Time College Student Over a Part-Time Student?\" states that \"A full-time student is more likely to receive the full amount of the grant than a part-time student is\". It is more common for people with 4 year degrees make substaneously more than those with a Associates so people with a higher education degree have more of a capability to pay it off. Also some student may be discourage by the amount of time in order to be successful and loose focus.", "qid": "6", "docid": "472d8abe-2019-04-18T12:17:23Z-00004-000", "rank": 29, "score": 117043.0}, {"content": "Title: Parents trying to live through their adult children(18 years or older Classify Adult child) Content: As far as I understand:My opponetnt is trying to argue the point that parents \"live through\" thier child's life by teaching them the philosophy of entering college after teaching them to follow their dream. My opponet feels that this is wrong and asks \"is your life worth it when your parents live through you? \"So my question to my opponent is this: Is your life worth it without your parents trying to push you to succeed? Many orphans wish they had a parent to do this to them. It only makjes sense that your parent would try to get you to go to college and earn degrees. Yes, it is true that they want you to \"follow our dream\" and college might not be your dream; but can you follow your dream without further education? No. (unless you want minimum wage). You must work for your dream. Parents are not trying to live through their child's life. They are trying to help you develop the life they might not have.", "qid": "6", "docid": "95aacda9-2019-04-18T15:25:13Z-00004-000", "rank": 30, "score": 115989.0}, {"content": "Title: college tuition too expensive Content: The cost of college is becoming an issue all across America. With the current state of the economy, the percent of unemployed workers and the cost of college can seem like a far fetched goal. Many people who may not receive a scholarship or enough government funding may not be able to attend college. This is a big issue because having a college background is becoming an important factor in the business world today but, the cost makes many look for other options. The idea of having to pay back thousands of dollars makes people question is it actually worth it? From my stand point it is. You may not leave college doing the same thing you began with but the life experiences are endless. College gives you not only knowledge but builds you into a better person by taking you through life experiences. With the cost of college increasing it may hurt generations to come because they will not be able to experience, learn and grow into a better individual. Without future doctors, lawyers,athletes etc where will the world be in the future. Who will run the country, perform surgeries and close business deals? All of these questions will be as questions unanswered if people are not able to afford college. There should be more options better payback systems to make the cost of college more affordable.", "qid": "6", "docid": "912e5771-2019-04-18T18:50:38Z-00005-000", "rank": 31, "score": 113549.0}, {"content": "Title: A Full Time College Education is Not Worth It Content: Moving past unemployment, underemployment, and debt I would like to focus on life after a person has graduated a full four year college. Based off your claims I cannot deny that a person with a full college education does make more money than a person who decides to skip college or only work for their associates. Even seeing that unemployment and underemployment may be avoided if a person really strives out of a state such as California where finding jobs is much more difficult. But even though a person may find a job and pay off all their debt how long will it take for a four-year college graduate to finally live a normal life? Based off the online article website, \"The Balance\", and their article \"Making it Between College and Your First Job\", last updated March of this year, they state that it takes up to six months for a college graduate to find a job, depending on their field and the current economic conditions. Six months may not seem like a lot of time but compared to an average person without a degree who can find a job in between six weeks, there is a huge gap. Within these six months the graduate will need to not only figure out how to manage their lives but also figure out how else they will support themselves. This last issue many college graduates then face after college are the delays in their life. Facing the fact that compared to a person without a degree and who has already a paying job the graduate will then need extra time to move on with their lives. Finding delays in saving for retirement, delays in buying their homes, and maybe even delays in getting married. A full college education can take a majority of a person's time and while they are busy studying it takes time away from preparing for their life after college. However, because a person with a full college education can afford a home and save for retirement much quicker than a person without, it then all depends on the person. Some people would prefer living their lives out rather than having a college education and if that is their preferred life so be it. Overall, a college education can benefit those who decide to follow that path, but they will face their share of hardships during and after just as a person who doesn't go to college will face their own working difficulties.", "qid": "6", "docid": "472d8abe-2019-04-18T12:17:23Z-00001-000", "rank": 32, "score": 112506.0}, {"content": "Title: Is education necessary for people's future lives Content: Counter Argument ensuing....College wasn't the right place for Bill's mind. But we are off topic now, let's start focusing on the bigger picture, all people.True college is a tool to be used that helps us find our way in adulthood, but if you have ideas and motivation, there is no need. With the right ideals and determination, money could be better spent on starting a business that could grow into something beautiful. College now a days is all about getting the diploma that looks pretty to employers. Many of the creative and idea forming types, aren't very good at being employees and want to be in charge of themselves. Not going to college and pursuing their passion enables them to do whatever they want! Where do all great businesses start? In the land of no restraints and boundaries.I make the argument that higher education is NOT a necessity! Intrinsic motivation is all it takes to follow your dreams and make your own success. Sure you got a Stanford diploma, but is this a predictor for ultimate success in your life? No. All over the world, college is becoming more than just a means of education to better yourself, it is becoming a novelty, a piece of paper that is so desperately craved by people who want to look good to employers. Whether you are big or small, intelligent or not intelligent, you can make your own success without the validation or \"seal of approval\" from a college. Choose the way you want to live your life. College is not a necessity, and success is purely decided based on your actions.", "qid": "6", "docid": "f48730ac-2019-04-18T15:19:48Z-00001-000", "rank": 33, "score": 111805.0}, {"content": "Title: We regret the emphasis on college education Content: The crucial aim of the students is to get a good job and a good life, and college is where they get professional knowledge, develop dreams, and complete education. College is also a good motive for students to study, and it helps students focus on studying. If students go to college, their individual potential will be raised higher and the educational quality will get higher. Also, with skills and knowledge learned in college, students will be enabled to get better jobs and better lives. Emphasis on college education will help economy and it will help citizens have higher competence. Moving on to my first argument, our first argument is about individual potential. There are many levels of schools. In elementary schools, students learn the basics. In middle schools, education is lengthened. In high schools, the education is advanced more. In college, education is completed. College is a good way in pulling up one\"s potential in many ways. Students who didn\"t study and who were lax in studying try to concentrate because they want to have a good life and college is a good tool in getting a good life. Also, while in college, students who didn\"t have interest in studying may start to get interest because they might find something specialized that they really like and develop a dream, or they could try to expand their education and get further knowledge. In college, educational quality is also higher. In college, there are specialized majors and much deeper education is possible. For an example, art learned in high school would comparatively be much shallower than art learned in college. So in college, students can have their individual potentials pulled up, and the educational quality is higher too.", "qid": "6", "docid": "7d582ac3-2019-04-18T16:28:22Z-00005-000", "rank": 34, "score": 111687.0}, {"content": "Title: College Education should be Necessary for All U.S. Citizens Content: Hi. My name is Dillon and education has always been an important thing for me. With our downfalling economy, I believe that a required college education would be very important, as with a college education, better paying jobs are available, therefore stimulating the economy for us. With more and more people getting better jobs, a larger amount of money the will have to pay for Social Security, which would possibly help decrease the deficit the U.S. economy is in right now. Also, a college education would allow for more innovative technologies to be developed in the future, as well as a generally smarter public, which is always beneficial. I am sorry I do not have any sources cited, but it is 10:15 P:M where I live and I still have work to do. Also, not many sources are available, as this debate isn't exactly the largest thing to be arguing about.", "qid": "6", "docid": "3c15c9f1-2019-04-18T19:14:38Z-00004-000", "rank": 35, "score": 110818.0}, {"content": "Title: Should The Age of Adulthood In America Be Changed Content: When the accepted age of adulthood was set at 18, most jobs in America did not require anything more than a high school diploma. In essence, the government provided young adults with the necessary education to succeed in their world by ensuring that they could obtain the education to get them into the careers they need. Colleges, back then, were extras, for overachievers who wanted more. Thus, colleges were attended by those who had the financial means to afford it and the intelligence to perform at a high enough level to obtain a degree and become integral parts of society in its more important positions. In America today, however, most non-poverty wage jobs require post-secondary education. In today's society, the secondary school diploma is worth as much as a primary school diploma, and a bachelor's degree is worth as much as a secondary school diploma was worth a few generations ago Because of this, most young Americans need to attend college so as to be able to be a part of the middle class. The government, however, does very little if anything at all to help young adults attain college, and therefore, forcing young adults to fend for themselves, causing them to accrue large debts, and forcing college-bound students to work exorbitant hours in jobs where they only can earn poverty wages, because they don't have the degree that would afford them the opportunity to work in jobs that would pay decent wages. In short, the American government does not afford its young citizens the necessary education to succeed in today's world anymore, instead asking them to take the burden of getting their own education by themselves. The sad truth of the current state of American society is that the Millennial generation constantly gets blamed for acting entitled, when we only act that way because we are the first generation that hasn't had the basics afforded to us by older generations. We have actually had to work and pay to get the bare minimum. While individual parents have been pockets of hope, not everyone has a good set of parents. It is for this reason the free public education exists, and with the age of adulthood being pushed back a few years, free public education could be raised to include underclass post-secondary education.", "qid": "6", "docid": "a9b17ef4-2019-04-18T13:54:31Z-00001-000", "rank": 36, "score": 110231.0}, {"content": "Title: The burden of fees and loans are too great to expect young people to shoulder Content: Every action has an opportunity cost. If people are willing to take loans it shows they consider the education worth the cost. It can actually be quite beneficial to society at large that university graduates seek swift employment due to debt, since it forces them to become productive members of society more rapidly than they might have done. For example, in Ireland where higher education is free graduates often take a year or two to travel and \u201cfind themselves\u201d while giving little or nothing back to the state that has financed their degrees. It is good that people begin contributing to the economic life of society after graduating from university, rather than frittering away their youths in unproductive pursuits.", "qid": "6", "docid": "1db3eaf8-2019-04-15T20:24:50Z-00015-000", "rank": 37, "score": 109879.0}, {"content": "Title: The burden of fees and loans are too great to expect young people to shoulder Content: Every action has an opportunity cost. If people are willing to take loans it shows they consider the education worth the cost. It can actually be quite beneficial to society at large that university graduates seek swift employment due to debt, since it forces them to become productive members of society more rapidly than they might have done. For example, in Ireland where higher education is free graduates often take a year or two to travel and \u201cfind themselves\u201d while giving little or nothing back to the state that has financed their degrees. It is good that people begin contributing to the economic life of society after graduating from university, rather than frittering away their youths in unproductive pursuits.", "qid": "6", "docid": "c7831446-2019-04-15T20:22:14Z-00015-000", "rank": 38, "score": 109879.0}, {"content": "Title: College education is not necessary to become successful Content: College important. In this economy if you do not have at least an associate degree then its even hard to get a Job in McDonald. There are only a few people who became successful without going to college such as bill gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Steve Jobs etc but even Albert Einstein who was a genius since the day he could speak decided to go to college to improve himself. College gives us a chance to be in a real world by teaching us skills to build a career, to make connections, experience and to learn more about the career that you are interested. Not to mention the satisfaction that it gives us when you are a college graduate compare to a high school graduate.", "qid": "6", "docid": "9221b9ae-2019-04-18T16:38:23Z-00002-000", "rank": 39, "score": 109787.0}, {"content": "Title: Free college education Content: I accept", "qid": "6", "docid": "5efd650c-2019-04-18T13:45:25Z-00006-000", "rank": 40, "score": 109598.0}, {"content": "Title: University education is an investment. Content: Education of this higher level should be seen as investment, not just of time but also of money. A person who gets a University education can expect to earn more in their life time than someone with just A levels. If we stopped making excuses and put the effort in, we could all afford to go to university, even if we did have to take out personal loans and credit cards. We just have to acknowledge that the three years of living on the breadline is worth it for the future profits that the degree shall reap. Such an investment is not one that the government should have to make on our behalf. It is for our benefit, therefore we should stump the costs. The amount of students leaving university and struggling to get a graduate level job is increasing, therefore why should the government fund free university education when the amount of jobs for graduates are running low?", "qid": "6", "docid": "e6ffa8fb-2019-04-19T12:45:14Z-00036-000", "rank": 41, "score": 109584.0}, {"content": "Title: Education's main purpose is life knowledge, not the programming of a mind to work a specific job. Content: The main purpose for education is to gain knowledge so as to be able to get a better job. The cost of a four year college will cost any were from 3,000 to 33,000 per semester. There are very few people who could afford this kind of money for fun, or to be better human beings. People pick a major so as to tailor there education for there future job, not to be better people. Now I pose the question to you and the voters. If you could not get a better job by going to college would you pay to go? http://www.collegeboards.com...", "qid": "6", "docid": "88cfaec7-2019-04-18T19:17:31Z-00002-000", "rank": 42, "score": 108518.0}, {"content": "Title: Being successful in life is easier with a college education. Content: College does make success in life more easily achievable. 1.) College makes financial success easier to obtain. Students that graduate from college have tremendously larger average lifetime salaries than students that do not attend or graduate college. You can more than double your income though attending college, and college graduates are more likely to obtain jobs with better benefits, saving them tremendous amounts of money over a life time. College graduates also have more job security and a lower rate of unemployment.2.) College allows you to experience new things, and expands your point of view, allowing for a life that is based off of more experiences, and is open to many more perspectives. Going to college allows you to have experiences you would not have otherwise, which allows you to feel more fulfilled in life. Self-fulfillment is a large part of success as it leads to happiness in life.3.) College opens doors and allows you more choice in your future. By obtaining a better education, you also have the opportunity to explore different fields of study and work that you would not be able to explore without a college education. The choice of what path to take in life is a form of success because it makes it easier to be an autonomous individual.College allows oneself to be more successful in life financially, though self-fulfillment, and through allowing more autonomy and opportunity for happiness.Sources:http://www.finaid.org...I look forward to hearing my opponents arguments.", "qid": "6", "docid": "b6997948-2019-04-18T16:22:25Z-00003-000", "rank": 43, "score": 107714.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: College atheletes should be paid Content: Students already get paid from scholarships. Scholarships are worth a ton of money.", "qid": "6", "docid": "721841c1-2019-04-18T13:12:08Z-00003-000", "rank": 44, "score": 106960.0}, {"content": "Title: The costs of college outweigh the benefits Content: colleges are playing with our money and giving us nothing but a kind of education that makes us inelligible in the job market.the increasing number of unemployment shows us that the market do not think that our college degree does have some value.if our employer don't think our degrees are valuable and fire us for that reason, our degrees really don't have ny value.therefore college education has no benefit at all.", "qid": "6", "docid": "32e58fb0-2019-04-18T18:29:04Z-00001-000", "rank": 45, "score": 106865.0}, {"content": "Title: College should be entirely government funded. Content: A vibrant modern economy requires a well educated work force and a college education is essential to function as a part of the modern labor force. If the ability to pursue a college education depends solely on one's wherewithal, then a large part of the potential labor force is shut out. Government support for college education is essential to allow wide spread access for many of the poor. This initial investment by the government will be repaid once they become productive and tax payers.", "qid": "6", "docid": "dfe65563-2019-04-18T18:09:32Z-00004-000", "rank": 46, "score": 105410.0}, {"content": "Title: Using Taxes for \"Free\" Higher Education in the US Content: The deciding factor of the matter is this: is the cost of free education worth the benefits? Here are the benefits for free education: 1. Education will be widely available for all 2. The Tertiary education rate in America will go up Cost for free education: 1. More taxes overall, which lowers the value and potency of the economy, gradually destroying the US economy. As John Marshall said, \"The power to tax is the power to destroy.\" 2. Educators will be paid less/Knowledge will go down in value because that which is widely available is worth less. 3. Takes away more rights of the people. The depth of the matter is this: 66% of jobs in the USA does not require a college degree. If we were to offer free higher education for all, and if 70% of graduating students moved on to college, half of those students who got a degree will not find a job that would relate to their degree, and the money spent on that degree will be wasted. What is the point of providing free college education if most of it will be wasted?", "qid": "6", "docid": "a96d2cbd-2019-04-18T13:46:35Z-00000-000", "rank": 47, "score": 105254.0}, {"content": "Title: If everyone has a degree, then what is it worth? The answer - nothing Content: Not every University is taking students with 3 D's and an E. Especially if a student wants to study a difficult subject. But many students, who have the ability to learn, willing to learn and gain everything, just can't afford it. Wouldn't the Government benefit from having more successful people, who pay taxes? I think that uni should be free, but the \"taking in\" rules should be harder.", "qid": "6", "docid": "e6ffa8fb-2019-04-19T12:45:14Z-00057-000", "rank": 48, "score": 105234.0}, {"content": "Title: The introduction of more private universities would increase the quality of education by allowing open competition Content: In the rest of the economy, when consumers are allowed to choose between goods or services, the higher quality products are successful and the bad ones fail. Similarly, when consumers can makes choices between universities, and are putting money on the line (thus taking a risk) they will choose the good universities, and consider the bad universities as not worth wasting their money on. As a consequence, the best universities will expand, and the worst universities will either improve or fail. The New College of the Humanities for example is aiming to rival Oxford and Cambridge1 so helping to provide these two elite institutions with the necessary competition to force up standards. This will result in a higher quality of education being available to more people. 1 BBC News, \"Academics launch \u00a318,000 college in London.\u201d 5 June 2011 improve this", "qid": "6", "docid": "1e44a13d-2019-04-15T20:22:23Z-00011-000", "rank": 49, "score": 105214.0}, {"content": "Title: Should All Students go to college Content: Yes all students should go to college because everyone deserves to have a great education which will lead to many positive choices in life. A student will have a variety of good opportunities to choose from, instead of having to take a job just to have a paycheck.", "qid": "6", "docid": "3ee73521-2019-04-18T17:53:53Z-00003-000", "rank": 50, "score": 105182.0}, {"content": "Title: Higher Education is outdated for the millennial generation Content: Rebuttal 1:The millennial generation can be characterised as being \u2018interested in daily work reflecting and part of larger societal concerns\u2019, helping communities, caring more on corporate social responsibility and the environment. Importantly, millennials place higher worth on experience rather than material things. (1) 87.5% millennials disagreed with the statement that \u2018money is the best measure of success\u2019, in contrast to 78% of the total population (2) - lighth0us3This is true, though there are also many opportunities to be able to obtain a degree for a career that helps society out. For example, one can't become a nurse without a nursing degree, and not only is higher education necessary for doctors and specialists, who also help society, but post-higher education is as well. With a high school diploma, one is very limited in what they can do, so a college degree opens up many ways in which millennials will be able to help the community in some way. Also, if college education is truly outdated for millennials, why are there more millennials than any other generation going to colllege or who have a college education?[7] They must be getting a college degree for some reason, and it would be logical, that since the millennial generation is more interested in doing a job that is helpful to the community, that they go to college for a meaningful degree that will lead them to a career with which they can do much for the community. Rebuttal 2:P1: Yes, a college education is an indicator that you have reasonable knowledge to qualify for a job. But if this is considered a reason as to why you should go to college \u2013 so you can indicate to employers of higher skilled jobs that you are qualified (and not to learn and get more skills), this merely strengthens my case that education needs serious reform! As reinforced by A4: students go to university for the degree, and not the education. - lighth0us3Well, this isn't the only reason to get a college degree. There are plenty of other reasons, which I gave a few others already. If this was the only reason to get a college degree, then yes, college would be outdated. Agreement 1:P2: Yes, a college education indicates to employers that you are qualified. Similarly, a college education also increases inequality by providing less opportunity for the poor, where they are kept from knowledge! and jobs! Due to their economic position. I know scholarships exist and all that but in an ideal society a poor kid with above average intelligence should not be prevented from entering college due to monetary issues when a rich kid with below average intelligence can graduate from one. Of all millennials that are not in college/have not earned a college degree, more than a third (36%) say that it is because they cannot afford it. (3) This is why I think, perhaps, I misunderstood what con was supposed to be arguing for, because I agree that college education should be reformed to be available to everyone regardless of income. This isn't a concession, because I believed this before I began the debate, so I'm not sure that this should be a reason why voters should vote against me, since I simply may have misunderstood what con was arguing for. Again, I was thinking along the lines of that con was arguing that college education in general(and not how it necessarily is currently) is not outdated for the millennial generation. It wasn't clear upfront (to me at least) that con would be arguing that how college education is currently executed is not outdated for the millennial generation. I would agree that how college education is currently executed is outdated, and I agreed with that before the debate began, so again, I'm not sure if we should continue this debate or not. Either I misunderstood still, or this point is irrelevant because it can be solved by making higher education tax-payer funded.Rebuttal 3There also exists a large array of alternative pathways apart from a college education today. You can take an exam to do actuary. If you are skilled and want to be a lawyer badly enough you don\u2019t even have to go to law school \u2013 you can pass 3 examinations and sit with a practising attorney for four years \u2013 you can save time and money by avoiding law school altogether. -lighth0us3 But I don't believe it works that way for every field. To become a doctor, for example, I don't think you can just do something similar: Pass examinations and sit with a practicing doctor for a few years. Maybe one can do this, and I don't know that one can. Even if it does also work that way for doctors, there are so many fields out there and I doubt all of them work that way. Not to mention, if we did make college tax-payer funded, then either route is just as viable as the other as neither cost money for the student.A degree is not the only indicator of being qualified \u2013 experience and skills are also good qualifiers. You do not need to major in journalism, history, french, photography etc. to qualify for work in these career fields. This is as skills can be used as a qualifier (which is arguably the better indicator for job performance). -lighth0us3 Yes, but it's often the case that one doesn't obtain the skills needed unless they have a college degree. Not every employer will give you an examination to see if you're qualified and have the skills for the job, so a college degree is necessary to indicate to them you have the skills needed.Rebuttal 4/Agreement 2Additionally, 50% of students in 2005 (including myself) who declared a major changed majors. 40% of students who enrolled in a 4 year college program will not have graduated by year 5 or even year 6. (5) This is alarming given that a college degree is very expensive, and should not be wasted on young people who do not know what they want due to the pressure to decide and fast track to a certain pathway with little to no experience with the working world or what a certain career path will be like. -lighth0us3 The only thing I have to rebut here is the cost wasted you brought up. No matter how you go about getting experience within a field, it will cost money. There's nothing that can be done about that some people will waste money. Whether you waste it on paying for classes that are going to be useless because you changed career paths, or do it by paying for some sort of career workshop or really any alternative to education but later change your career path, you're still spending money and it costs money to teach people in a specific field or give them experience. I agree that there should be something done to change the pressure to decide a career path immediately, or at least some sort of class or something that will give people experience in a given career field. I also agree with what you said in the following paragraph that reform is needed. Again, this might be due to that I wasn't clear on what con is arguing for. I absolutely agree, and would have from the beginning before accepting this debate, that education should be reformed. Rebuttal 5This statistic excludes those who entered higher education (like me) below 18 years. (I spent half of my first university year being underage, it is not as uncommon as it may be in America) -lighth0us3 Well, yes, the statistic I used was a survey of adults 18+, but if teenagers were included it would likely only lower the percent a little. Either way, the point was that adults, in general, have more instances of anxiety or depressive disorders than university students. Really, the problem with my statistic is that it includes university students(those who are 18 or older). That would lower the percentage since the percent of university students with depression or anxiety is lower than for adults out of college. The problem is, if you combined both figures to calculate the total of those with anxiety or depression in higher education, 13% + 15.6% = 28.6% affected.Those numbers cannot be combined though, as they represent two completely different populations. The 13% statistic is those who are in undergratuate education with depression or anxiety, and 15.6% is those in graduate school with depression or anxiety. It's not 28.6% of college students(of both grads and undergrads) that have depression and anxiety, rather, it's the average of the two numbers(though it's a little more complicated than that because the number of undergraduates outnumber the number of graduate students in education). First, we need to take into account how many graduates there are in post-graduate school, then add it to the number of undergraduates. That's the total number of college students in either undergratuate education or post-graduate education. Now that we have that, you take the number of graduate students who have depression or anxiety(15.6% of the total number of graduate students), add it to the number of undergradute students with depression or anxiety(13% of the total number of undergraduate students), and then divide that by the total number of graduate and undergraduate students. Adding the percentages does not work, and the actual percentage of college students(including both graduate students and undergraduate students) with depression or anxiety is somewhere in between 13% and 15.6%; it would be closer to 13% than 15.6% since undergrads outnumber graduate students(I don't think I need a source for that undergrads outnumber graduate students right? That should be common knowledge that most people stop after 4 years of college education) Source:[7] https://www.whitehouse.gov...", "qid": "6", "docid": "f76890a8-2019-04-18T12:32:48Z-00002-000", "rank": 51, "score": 104528.0}, {"content": "Title: Is Online College better then Traditional College (Pro=Yes) (Con=No) Content: Actually, you can find this information at college; go to your dorm, turn on your laptop, connect to the college wifi. I think it is safe to stay that in America, almost all colleges will have wifi. My last point was colleges allow students to socially interact. Going to college is much like high school, in the sense that you will have to adapt to your new surroundings, and make new friends. It is also said that in college you are more likely to find other students with similar interests and ideas, and thus better able to connect with them. Going through college will be a struggle at times, but the experience and people are well worth it.", "qid": "6", "docid": "c5b8d1f0-2019-04-18T15:28:42Z-00002-000", "rank": 52, "score": 104472.0}, {"content": "Title: More education provides the opportunity to acquire more skills and therefore more options. It has be... Content: More education provides the opportunity to acquire more skills and therefore more options. It has been shown many times that those with more education find it easier to find work and that they are more likely to find that work satisfying. Similarly, the level of education among the population can have a positive effect on the economy as a whole as they can be more efficient workers. The impact of extra years of education on earnings and economic productivity is also disproportionately heavy at the lower end - that is, two more years at school for a 16 year old will make a much greater percentage difference to their later economic worth than two years of graduate work for a 22 year old.", "qid": "6", "docid": "8e51ef59-2019-04-19T12:44:27Z-00007-000", "rank": 53, "score": 104158.0}, {"content": "Title: A degree will become more valuable. Content: A rise in tuition fees making higher education itself more valuable, combined with the reduced number of students that will attend university owing to the increase, will make a degree a more valuable and sought-after qualification. At the moment more and more people seem to be heading off to university and if this keeps up, before long a degree will be worth practically nothing since the majority of the country will have one. Perhaps an increase in tuition fees is needed to prevent this concern and to ensure that a degree keeps its value.", "qid": "6", "docid": "7cc54135-2019-04-19T12:44:52Z-00016-000", "rank": 54, "score": 103570.0}, {"content": "Title: College Textbooks Are Way Too Expensive Content: I would like to begin by stating that this topic is completely opinionated, and thus it must be debated in a subjective manner, as opposed to objective. On to the case for textbook prices: 1. Manufacturers need to make money, otherwise there would be nobody to write, edit, or produce them. 2. Students need to know the value of things. If for no other purpose, having expensive books will make students take care of them. The value in this is that students realize WHAT they are spending all of that money on: education. Something well worth the price. 3. The point introduced by the pro side in round 1 is a fallacy. The price of books is not tied to the tuition fees. The costs are introduced by third-party book sellers, and cannot be seen as an attachment to the what the college is bringing in, especially since the best book prices are not found in the campus book sellers. That would be like buying a house, and complaining that you have to pay for furniture on top of the mortgage.", "qid": "6", "docid": "4815e887-2019-04-18T18:53:54Z-00002-000", "rank": 55, "score": 103459.0}, {"content": "Title: We regret the emphasis on college education Content: Fundamentally, this debate is about emphasis, and not whether or not college is good. Both Con and I agree that college can be a great learning experience with good possible returns for companies and society. However, my argument from the start of this debate has been that there are alternatives that serve as good if not better purposes, and that emphasis alone won't lead to more successful college graduates. Pro says he doesn't necessarily support college as a prerequisite. This is really an example of emphasis taken to an extreme, one I have already explained is harmful to society and students. Pro says that civic awareness is gained through education. I agree. Any education can provide civic awareness. Therefore, this is not unique to college. Pro says that college can provide on-the-job experiences. I agree, though I would say this is uncommon. Both vocational schools and apprenticeships are guaranteed to include this, and therefore far more efficient. Pro says that a deeper, more specific education makes technology better. He also says they need a wider education. He can't have it both ways. You either get broader or you get deeper. As I granted depth, I'd say that's likeliest, and it leaves many students with very specific knowledge and little innovative capacity. So voters should be asking themselves some basic questions: 1) Does the emphasis on college education lead to more college students capable of doing well in that academic setting? 2) Is it better for students to feel that their future is determined solely by whether they go to college, or by whether they receive more extensive educations? 3) Does the emphasis displace other important forms of education that more directly lead to economic benefits for students, companies and society? 4) Does going to college strongly link to the beneficial outcomes Con has stated? I think I've made it clear what the answers to these questions are. I leave it to the voters to evaluate the debate.", "qid": "6", "docid": "7d582ac3-2019-04-18T16:28:22Z-00000-000", "rank": 56, "score": 103375.0}, {"content": "Title: College education is not necessary to become successful Content: College education is a waste of money and time. Most people who attend college do not get what they pay for. An associate degree or a bachelors degree cannot really get you a high paying job or \"career\". In order to get a \"career\" you must continue your education to receive a masters degree, a PhD or any other further education Many people without a college career have been extremely successful; For example, , Bill Gates , Andrew Carnegie, Federica Henry Royce and Abraham Lincoln .", "qid": "6", "docid": "9221b9ae-2019-04-18T16:38:23Z-00003-000", "rank": 57, "score": 103049.0}, {"content": "Title: It is a small price to pay for the quality of education given. Content: The amenities and tools that universities offer their students to gain higher education, including the excellent standard of university professors, are priceless. Consequently, an increase in tuition fees would definitely still be worth attending university for as there is no other institution that can give such high quality facilities, teaching, help and advice in addition to a highly regarded qualification (a degree). Such a qualification as a degree could potentially allow for huge salaries and pay packages in the long-run, making the tuitions fees paid to the university which had made all that possible, seem insignificant.", "qid": "6", "docid": "7cc54135-2019-04-19T12:44:52Z-00012-000", "rank": 58, "score": 102992.0}, {"content": "Title: Education Reform Content: While money cannot buy you happiness, its the only dough that can buy a house, pay your bills, and support a family. My opponent quoted me as saying that life skills are useless in the modern world. This was neither stated nor implied in the pertaining passage [I run a corporation, and life skills aren't worth the oxygen in business. No, respect doesn't even earn you a smile.] I am not averse to the idea of life skills. My revulsion is their over-emphasis. As my opponent stated in contention #1, I am focusing on the financial side of life (intentionally), and will proceed to broaden the scope of my arguments. Perhaps this discussion is to be more fruitful if we speak from a perspective in consideration of a larger picture. You are endowed with elective (optional) and highly specialized classes, which are not the model in the elementary educational environment. However, several fallacies are apparent in the beginning education of children. Without further ado, allow me to certify that I am not an oldie. I experienced electives in my time, and my opponent has thus far crafted a description that runs parallel to the educational environment of the 70s that I was taught in, excepting for segregation. Regarding once again to education, allow me to relate my points by the means of narrating the life of Jill, an aspiring economist. NOTE:fictional From about age 12, Jill knew what she wanted to be: \"one of those market people\". In the absence of relevant teaching in the curriculum, Jill found books and web sites to instigate a foundation of business knowledge. At age 19, Jill entered Harvard University and was well-prepared for a rigorous course on advanced business science. Let us now take the example of Fred, an unsuccessful ex-economist. Fred, with the same intentions as Jill, yet a more conventional mind, started off fresh with the same course, having gained no prior knowledge, and was ill-prepared. After his failed career, Fred's income was grounded, and he ended up on the streets. Thus, a potentially great mind fails to flourish in the absence of a relevant class at the elementary level. As shown by these examples, the current educational system lacks curriculum ties to the real world. My opponents response to tie off this round should accomplish the following: 1. find flaw in the stories of Jill and Fred 2. illuminate changes in the educational system since the 70s 3. reflect a reason for the over-emphasis of lifeskillsl", "qid": "6", "docid": "a60e8842-2019-04-18T19:22:52Z-00005-000", "rank": 59, "score": 102568.0}, {"content": "Title: Being successful in life is easier with a college education. Content: Please feel free to ask any questions that you might have abut the resolution/debate in the comments section or by messageing me. I look forward to debateing!", "qid": "6", "docid": "b6997948-2019-04-18T16:22:25Z-00005-000", "rank": 60, "score": 102373.0}, {"content": "Title: Education should be funded by vouchers granted to individual families, not public schools. Content: The point of providing a \"voucher\" instead of cash is that the voucher can only be spent in a certain way. Education vouchers could only be spent on education. If there are to be no standards on what qualifies as education, as you're suggesting, then there is absolutely no point in providing vouchers -- cash could be used instead. If there are some kind of standards to be applied to who can receive the vouchers, then this means the government will be setting the standards, thus regulating and controlling schools and turning all private schools into public schools -- just as has happened with colleges. The above is irrefutable. Your \"free market\" argument is laughable. The free market is what I'm arguing for -- you're arguing for wealth redistribution. Someone who has ten children would receive ten vouchers' worth of subsidies, while someone who has one child would only receive one voucher's worth of subsidies. If the vouchers can be spent on anything, then this is just a crude wealth redistribution plan -- and you're saying, yes, despite the fact that it makes absolutely no sense to provide vouchers that can be spent on anything (defeating the entire purpose of a voucher vs. cash), the vouchers in your system would be able to be spent on ANYTHING. It's doubly ridiculous to suggest that parents wouldn't make poor choices, such as sending their children to the Video Arcade Academy. Do parents not make poor choices now with their own money? Of course they do! Although a true free market would provide better quality education and more choices, there would still be parents who made poor choices. WHAT ABOUT HOMESCHOOLING? Would homeschoolers not be eligible for the vouchers? Would their taxes pay for them either way? If they would be eligible for the vouchers, to be paid to themselves, then isn't this obviously open to massive fraud and abuse? Unscrupulous parents could have ten or twelve children and collect $8,000 to $10,000 per year, PER CHILD, for \"educating\" them, whether they actually educated them or not! And if homeschoolers are not able to receive the vouchers, then is this not an outright assault on the freedom to homeschool? You are arguing for tyranny and cloaking your words in the parlance of freedom. It is truly Orwellian. It is downright blasphemous to use the \"invisible hand\" metaphor when you're talking about a big-government, wealth-redistribution program. Do you honestly believe your own rhetoric? Vouchers are a neoconservative transfer-payment apparatus. That conservatives and libertarians have fallen for this charade is one thing, but to disingeuously use \"free market\" rhetoric in order to justify the case for the socialization of education is downright insulting to people's intelligence. Your understanding of the Constitution and Original Intent is horrid. If the First Amendment's \"separation of church and state\" applied to the states, then why did official state churches in Massachusetts and Connecticut endure until 1833, and why were they abolished through state legislative process, not the federal government's enforcement of the First Amendment? You have a very liberal, big-government understanding of the Constitution. The Constitution clearly says \"CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW...\" That's what it says, and it doesn't matter what FDR's judges have said since. Of course, the above has nothing to do with the debate at hand, but it merely shows your lack of constitutional logic, and the Rooseveltian liberalism that informs your supposedly \"libertarian\" stand for wealth redistribution and state-sponsored education camps. A voucher system would take the partially monopolized education system and make the monopoly complete. There are only two colleges that refuse federal money. There are many more private schools at the K-12 level. If your system were adopted, then truly private schools would become as rare as truly private colleges, thus effectively abolishing the private alternative to public education. AND AGAIN, WHAT ABOUT HOMESCHOOLING? Every worthwhile argument you've made for a voucher system can also be made for a truly free market in education. You've done nothing to show why vouchers are better than a true free market. I have shown why a true free market is better than vouchers -- which are NOT a \"free market\" (PLEASE!). I will go further to say even the status quo is better, because at least now, parents are able to send their children to truly private schools. Under your system, that would cease to be the case.", "qid": "6", "docid": "10c0bcf4-2019-04-18T20:02:28Z-00000-000", "rank": 61, "score": 102325.0}, {"content": "Title: We should follow the example of Finland's education system. Content: I'm sure many Americans and Finns would agree you don't have swag yourself, and that Finns know English better than you.The whole world's having a hard time. It's time we, whichever nation we come from, started thinking on the long term. Of course, this is easier to say, as money doesn't come easy or at least not to the right places nor to the right people. But maybe education is something worth investing in. I think it' something we'll come to regret very soon if we don't make it much better today, or even in the next generation.I won't bother repeating myself, as Con's not making the effort to produce anything useful. I'll put my trust in the voters' common sense.", "qid": "6", "docid": "bd70c81e-2019-04-18T16:09:31Z-00001-000", "rank": 62, "score": 102224.0}, {"content": "Title: federal tuition assistance should be restricted much more Content: college doesn't make everyone earn more, it makes some earn more. it doesn't really combat poverty, it might if you are the lucky ones to be gainfully employed. the free market determines how much people make, and educating more doesn't mean more money being earned. it just means there's a more educated populace. why is college the magic point of being a right? everyone gets good education in high school, and for the most part, college is just an inefficient continuation of high school, teaching humanities and redundancies and making classes out of things that can be condensed into one class. i might agree a trade school can be a right, but not college. if people are making more from education they can afford to pay back loans. why should we take money from other people effectively at gun point through taxes to pay for them?", "qid": "6", "docid": "5d68f3d4-2019-04-18T14:39:09Z-00002-000", "rank": 63, "score": 102053.0}, {"content": "Title: The cost of a college education outweighs the benefits Content: OK.", "qid": "6", "docid": "1788cfe5-2019-04-18T18:14:02Z-00002-000", "rank": 64, "score": 101844.0}, {"content": "Title: Education transcends international boundaries Content: Yes, I don't really believe that this point was used to justify high tuition fee - \"We are preveliged to had our predecessors ruled forein countries and made the all the wealth.\" - \"As a famous dicoverer of human genetic material said, we are superior human beings in this world.\" Counter-arguement - \"About ruling foreign countries, Most of the times English people took undue advantage of hospitality by citizens of colonies. In some eastern countries where a Guest is considered next to God, English people came and started ruling. People showed hospitality and in return they got slavery from UK. - \" Superior race' I hope you meet me in person so that you can explain me how you became superior race. I believed that origin of human being is from Africa and theory of evolution says that the we all came from Africa. But I am not sure if there is any chance that some people in Uk believe that they evolved separately in an Island compared to rest of the people. And based on these idiotic ideas if high tuition fees are justified then I dont believe that the education is worth taking. kind regadrs How do you then explain my situation. Born in England, parents took me to Canada when I was 11. returned to England at 18. I am being charged full International fees and despite not being able to pay I am unable to have my status changed. Scholarships are for non British. Who am I and where was I born?", "qid": "6", "docid": "e208df6-2019-04-19T12:45:31Z-00009-000", "rank": 65, "score": 101684.0}, {"content": "Title: America's current education system is a gateway for classism Content: Unfounded ClaimsSo pro makes the claim that \"Americas current education system caters to the needs of a wealthy minority and leaves the majority of Americans cannot afford the education that they need to survive in the real world.\" This is an unfounded and fallacious argument as basic school education is free and actually mandatory up to a certain age (16 in most states). This type of schooling provides all that is needed to \"survive\" in the real world. While college is very costly and does help get higher paying jobs this does not necessitate it's type of education for survivial. The initial claim that is caters to the needs of a wealthy minority doesn't actually outline what those needs are or HOW it actually caters to them so it's really not worth responding to. http://c2.com...https://studyinthestates.dhs.gov...This next sentence doesn't actually make sense because of how poorly it's written. I'm sure theres a point in here somewhere but until it's actually apparent I don't think I can even respond to it. Again I've addressed that there actually is no cost for getting a quality education and considering you've done nothing to define quality I can just discredit this as a subjective argument. The Education System Inherently Leads to Nothing More Than KnowledgeSo on to my own personal arguments. Classism: A biased or discriminatory attitude based on distinctions made between social or economic classes. Well by this definition and pros assertion then the school system must be teaching them things to have them form a discriminatory attitude towards those in other classes (Keep in mind that this does not mean LOWER classes this means DIFFERENCES in class so by definition poor people could be classist of higher class people.) right? This is plainly false. School does nothing more than to provide knowledge to students in areas such as English, math, science, social studies, art, and technology. Just take a look at required cirriculums for all these states. Nowhere in here is the class that teaches \"Poor People Suck\" or \"Rich People are Awful 101\". http://www.education.state.pa.us...http://www.michigan.gov...http://www.usg.edu...;School doesn't inherintly lead to anything other than the gaining of knowledge. Does going to school help in getting a job and becomming sucessful? Of course! But this does not mean that going to school GUARENTEES you a job. The converse is true also, does NOT going to school hurt your chances of getting a job? Yes but it also doesn't GUARENTEE you won't get one.", "qid": "6", "docid": "ba9c10f1-2019-04-18T15:12:17Z-00002-000", "rank": 66, "score": 101624.0}, {"content": "Title: College is better than high school. Content: Well from the lack of response I'll take it that this debate is over. It was truly a good time. I shall leave you with just a few parting words. High school is a better time for all. College is a level of education that is not for many, as well as a hole in your wallet. High school was a safer time where you took what was given to and you complained. .. High school allows time for people to grow and mature and unfortunately many in college have yet to mature. As I complete my freshman year of college I can say I enjoyed myself, but I can't help but picture where I would be if I were still in high school. Thank you for your time of this debate.", "qid": "6", "docid": "e1286851-2019-04-18T18:19:37Z-00000-000", "rank": 67, "score": 101565.0}, {"content": "Title: It is a small price to pay for the quality of education given. Content: Whilst it cannot be disputed that most universities guarantee an outstanding education, it would definitely not be worth \u00a320,000 per year! That amount of money could considerably add to an \"average\" salary making it worth the same as a \"high\" salary but without obtaining a degree and wasting 3/4 years of your life! Furthermore, although the quality of education may be worth paying for, the quantity of education does not justify such an increase. Many students are given less than 15 hours of lectures per week so should they really be paying such a huge amount for an education that they rarely receive?", "qid": "6", "docid": "7cc54135-2019-04-19T12:44:52Z-00011-000", "rank": 68, "score": 101288.0}, {"content": "Title: College Education should be Necessary for All U.S. Citizens Content: As I have Proved COLLEGE should not required my opponents forfeit and nontopicality ought to be impetus enough for the observers to vote for me. Thank You.", "qid": "6", "docid": "3c15c9f1-2019-04-18T19:14:38Z-00000-000", "rank": 69, "score": 101231.0}, {"content": "Title: Education's main purpose is life knowledge, not the programming of a mind to work a specific job. Content: I hope this response will suffice. as for my opponents request the reason I believe this is because first for the reason of debate and second because I and most college students go to college for the purpose of making more money after graduation. But this has little to do wit this debate. Pro goes on to say that education referees to high school as well as college, and it should be free, what he does not see is that goes beyond what you pay and also refers to opportunity costs. the added cost of using resources (as for production or speculative investment) that is the difference between the actual value resulting from such use and that of an alternative (as another use of the same resources or an investment of equal risk but greater return. http://www.merriam-webster.com...... this shows that regardless of what you pay there are still cost to education. Back to the resolution educations main purpose is to gain a better job than you could gain without it. The result of this could be mental and logical growth but this is not its main purpose.", "qid": "6", "docid": "88cfaec7-2019-04-18T19:17:31Z-00000-000", "rank": 70, "score": 101113.0}, {"content": "Title: College education is not necessary to become successful Content: Although that might be true. The job market for people who are recent graduates is very low. For example look at the people who want to become lawyers , they graduate with their bachelors degree , further their education in law school and at the end still end up with no career. In college you focus on one major, and if the job market under that major is not hiring, then you are left with nothing. People who have their high school diploma can get jobs easily right after they graduate and make connections that can get them into higher positions without the trouble of wasting 4 years in college.", "qid": "6", "docid": "9221b9ae-2019-04-18T16:38:23Z-00001-000", "rank": 71, "score": 101037.0}, {"content": "Title: A university degree has far less worth than it once did Content: Distinctions can be still be made between those who entered university simply for a more \u2018rounded\u2019 education or as a stop gap before working full-time, and those who attended university for the sole purpose of furthering their career. It is beneficial that a crowded marketplace means that people are having to stay on at university longer in order to gain more unique qualifications \u2013 this means that those in the top jobs have far more knowledge and education than they would have 50 years ago when further qualifications were not needed for distinction.", "qid": "6", "docid": "ed52489a-2019-04-19T12:45:22Z-00011-000", "rank": 72, "score": 100834.0}, {"content": "Title: The U.S. should make collegiate education free Content: I think it will be a good learning experience for both me and my opponent, and we will both be better off because of it. @zeromeansnothing, I also apologize for the minor misunderstanding in the comments, and that will in no way affect my argument. Without further ado, let us begin. Framework: The full resolution is, \u201cThe United States of America should make collegiate education (for clarification, post-secondary schooling at educational institutes) free for its constituents. \u201d In order to fulfill my obligation to the burden of proof, I must prove why colleges should make their education free for all constituents of America. In order for my opponent to receive points and effectively present his burden of proof, he must argue why colleges should not make education free for all constituents of America. Failure on my part or my opponent\u2019s will result in a deduction of points in the voting period. The values on which I will be basing my arguments on represent core problems within today\u2019s educational system on the collegiate level. Equality in education, Egalitarianism as a principle, social and upward progress being impeded, and the fairness/justness of the system itself. Argument 1: The Virtue of Education; Social Advancement Education, in all forms, should be free to the public because of its value to society. John Adams once stated that, \u201c[T]he whole people must take upon themselves the education of the whole people, and must be willing to bear the expense of it. \u201d (1) The government should take college costs into their hands, as an investment in the future of its citizens. Egalitarianism is defined as, \u201cAn egalitarian favors equality of some sort: People should get the same, or be treated the same, or be treated as equals, in some respect. \u201d Even in our current form of government, egalitarianism is an ideal at which we follow in the systemic level. Equality as a principle was and still is an important advocate of the American government today. Making students pay for education and learning is against this philosophy. Everyone in the country should be entitled to free education because they are equal to their peers, and they are equal to all constituents of this country. More money poured into education should not affect the quality of education that is obtainable. Argument 2: Government; The Guiding Hand Education, in its current respect, is cracked at the seams. A major problem in today\u2019s system is that the government is not holding colleges accountable for their failure to provide students with quality education and a fair system. Increased government control at the foundations of collegiate education can make principles that are so desperately needed right now cemented. Almost all collegiate institutions rely on federal aid to fund their operations, yet costs have managed to rise, and quality of education has managed to stay the same or decrease in quality. This is often because federal grants to universities usually focus on funding research, instead of trying to improve the quality of education or addressing instruction (36% of students failed to demonstrate meaningful gains over four years) (2). With increased government involvement, or total involvement, universities can begin a rehabilitation process in which costs can be cut and focused towards the instruction and quality of learning. The resulting outcome is that more and more students are prepared to enter the job market, and will aid the United States economically in the long run. Another shortcoming in the educational system is finance based attendance. Scholarships and fellowships allow students to attend universities, but there are not enough grants to go around that don\u2019t leave students in thousands of dollars of student loans debt. More often than not, two results are present; students cannot attend universities because of tremendously steep costs, or they go into deep debt to acquire and obtain a degree (25% of people who graduate will end up with $30,000< of debt accumulated) (2). One tactic by students is to work while continuing their education, but this most always proves to be stressful to students. Colleges often favor those who can accommodate for the cost of education. In this current scenario, admissions are then based upon economic status, not the meritocratic foundations on which college admissions should be based. This only reinforces my claim that government funding can not only eliminate the wealth status factor, but it can also return college admissions to its rightful state. Graduating free of debt and economic impediments, citizens are able to immediately start contributing to the growth of America as a whole by obtaining jobs, buying houses, and paying taxes. Conclusion: This argument has been funded by the National Tea Party Patriots. Thank you @Hayd and @zeromeansnothing. This will be a fun debate, and I look forward to our following rounds. I have supplied my burden of proof by suggesting that government control of education will be beneficial, our current system is not a working one, and that free education will benefit the American economy as a whole. Now it is your job to supply your burden of proof. Thanks! Sources: . http://blogs.berkeley.edu... . http://www.thirdway.org...", "qid": "6", "docid": "646d2dd9-2019-04-18T14:18:01Z-00005-000", "rank": 73, "score": 100603.0}, {"content": "Title: Parents should be required to pay for their offsprings's college education. Content: I come down on the \"children should foot the bill\" part of the divide. Parents paying for college is a wonderful privilege, but, at the end of the day, I find it reprehensible to suggest that it's some sort of enormous burden that a child shoulder the load for his/her own choice. If a kid chooses an outrageously pricey school - *cough*like I did*cough* - then that's on the child. I would have loved for my parents to even cover the Expected Family Contribution portion of my financial aid package from UChicago, but it didn't happen. So what? It's my education. If I wasn't willing to invest in it, then I had no business there. Two years later, I don't feel like my $200 a month loan payments are any huge boulder weighing me down. The education was well-worth it. You are an adult once you reach 18, it's your responsibility to take care of yourself!", "qid": "6", "docid": "4ef7a9a4-2019-04-18T19:59:29Z-00004-000", "rank": 74, "score": 100048.0}, {"content": "Title: The cost of a college education outweighs the benefits Content: First, let me show give you some definitions to you JudgeWe would like to define \u2018costs\u2019 We would like to define \u2018costs\u2019 as the tuition, textbooks, time, and the government\u2019s money we\u2019ll explain in depth later.The standard or Weighing Mechanism for today\u2019s debate should be EfficiencyWe use Efficiency as a standard or weighing mechanism for today\u2019s debate. We would like to state that colleges are good for individuals, family, and our society Judge, all of our contentions will refer to the observation that colleges are good. Please don\u2019t let our opponents trick you into believing that we, as the Affirmative, think that colleges are bad. We chose efficiency because we think of colleges as good, but they have too high prices. Imagine college education as a stock. One buys a stock and they hope their stock will rise in value so they can sell it for a better price. You may not buy a stock that has a high price since the probability of selling the stock later for higher is very little. The same thing is with a college education. You may buy a college education if the prices are low with a better chance of gaining a well paying salary in the future but you may not if the prices are high with a chance of a low paying salary in the future. This is why we argue Efficiency.With that we have 3 main arguments. Contention 1. The Individual Staindpoint We are worried that the costs of a college education will ruin someone\u2019s life...or rather more than one. According to the New York Times, college graduates under 25 that have a humanities major, 25.2% of them are not working, 29.4% have job that doesn\u2019t even require a college education. Only 45.5% of them are working in jobs that require a college education. That isn\u2019t even half! Obviously the cost is not worth the benefit. Carl E. Van Horn, a professor of public policy at Rutgers University said to the Huffington Post that \"Not every graduate program leads to a guaranteed job. You likely already have debt and you're going to incur more debt and what's it going to translate into down the road?\" asked Van Horn. \"While it's okay to major in cultural anthropology, understand that you may not end up as the next Margaret Mead. You may end up as the manager of a Sports Authority.\" This quote shows that not all graduate degrees will guarantee you a job, much less a well paying salary or a job that requires a college degree. You will most probably always be in debt. Contention 2. Government StandpointLoaning to high school graduates is all fine but this is not an efficient way to do things. This money that is going to the high school graduates\u2019 loans but they are being wasted with all the unemployment rates of college graduates being in debt. These college graduates are unable to pay their debt. This has led to parts of the Occupy Movement. These graduates are protesting to the government and asking them if they can not pay back the loans. If you, Judge, were looking at these protesters from a government standpoint, you would see all that money being wasted in the loans for the high school graduates and taking care of the protests.\u201cIt's a phenomenon familiar to economists. If you offer people a subsidy to pursue some activity requiring an input that's in more-or-less fixed supply, the price of that input goes up\u201d - startribune.com. This says that if there are government subsidies, the price grows. Since right now, we have government subsidies and that is what is bringing the costs up. Contention 3 - Societal BenefitsAs I stated in my second argument, subsidies are a waste. This money spent on subsidies could be used to improve public services including airports, roads, and the k-12 Education. Obama himself said in a recent speech that airports, roads, and bridges needed more money, according to CNS News. If we take away these subsidies, the extra money could go to there public services. Also, building and bettering airports, roads, and the k-12 system could supply more jobs, stimulating the economy, which, Judge, we all know is in very bad shape. The k-12 system especially needs some help. Only 7% of US students performs at an advanced level in math putting us behind 25 other countries. Only 32% of US students are proficient in math, placing us 32nd in the world-newsweek Aug 2011As you can see, abolishing college subsidies goes a long way.", "qid": "6", "docid": "1788cfe5-2019-04-18T18:14:02Z-00007-000", "rank": 75, "score": 100035.0}, {"content": "Title: In the United States, the costs of a college education outweigh the benefits Content: Higher education is required for all but the most basic of jobs (Contention 4)You're probably wondering why I'm trying to make this point. Obviously college benefits the individual even more if it's required to get a halfway-decent job, right? That's exactly the point. But what happens to the rest of the population without a degree? They're left behind to \"feed off the table scraps\".In the book Why Our Colleges and Universities Have Given Up on the Meaning of Life, Anthony T. Kronman, a professor of law at Yale Law School, said: \"All but the most unskilled forms of labor are increasingly based on knowledge of a kind that can be acquired only in school, and in supplying that knowledge America's colleges and universities provide a tremendous service to the individuals who come to them to learn a trade of profession\"[1]. There is no denying the benefit to the individual when he or she receives a college education, but those who do not are limited to all but the most basic of jobs. In defense of my contentionsContention 1) College does not benefit the majorityMy opponent states that the people who do not attend college should not factor into this debate because the resolution doesn't apply to them. This was true, until I brought up my fourth contention. Now, those who do not go to college must be included in this debate as a group of individuals who are suffering the consequences of not going to college. If we are forced to include the individuals who do not attend college, we are now left with a resulting 62.6% of high school graduates who have not benefited - but have actually been impacted negatively - by a college education.Contention 2) College contributes to the already growing income gapGiven my response to my opponent's objection to my first Contention, my opponent's response to my second is also void. Yes, college graduates make more money, and their income has been proven to increase over time compared to the income of blue-collar workers. This is exactly what my point was trying to get across. If the wages of higher educated jobs are increasing faster than the wages of lower education jobs, then that is an income gap that is increasing.Contention 3) College contributes to the destruction of the U.S health care systemMy opponent seemed to misunderstand this contention. Yes, it's true that med-school students have to pay more than regular college students, and yes, they are part of the minority. But I wasn't arguing that. I was arguing that health care prices in the United States are so high BECAUSE med school students have to pay so much towards their educations. It takes an average of 11 years to fully pay off the debt that one acquires through med school, and it is for this reason that the costs of health care in the United States is so high. And seeing as the cost of health care affects everyone, this is an obvious detriment for the majority of the U.S populace.Responding to my opponent's contention:College students make more moneyI agree. The arguments in my fourth contention apply here as well. What about the students that do not attend college? What about the students that can not attend college? It's simple, they are forced to make less than their higher-educated counterparts. So again, I acknowledge the benefits to the individual, but that is insignificant compared to the detriments to the majority.I urge an affirmative vote.Citations:1. http://books.google.com...", "qid": "6", "docid": "e78f47fa-2019-04-18T18:20:34Z-00001-000", "rank": 76, "score": 99515.0}, {"content": "Title: Being successful in life is easier with a college education. Content: I extend all of my original arguments and following arguments as my opponent has forfeited the round.", "qid": "6", "docid": "b6997948-2019-04-18T16:22:25Z-00000-000", "rank": 77, "score": 99401.0}, {"content": "Title: college should be entierly government funded Content: There are many colleges and I don't believe that the government has that much money. Even if they did, that means anyone can get into any college. Education wouldn't really matter anymore. A student who has lower grades than a highly academic student may be able to go to a great college and their effort won't matter. Those who want to get into a good college work hard for it, but if students are just going to have a college handed to them because it's already paid for then it gives them no reason for any work or effort at all.", "qid": "6", "docid": "690558ad-2019-04-18T18:09:37Z-00000-000", "rank": 78, "score": 99295.0}, {"content": "Title: College Education should be Necessary for All U.S. Citizens Content: My opponents central argument is that College ensures jobs and more jobs means more money in circulation. However, this is not the case as I will prove in my case. ========= Case ========= College ought not be required for two reasons: 1. It puts American citizen's into debt. 2. It is no longer the insurance for a job or future success that students were one guaranteed. 1. On the Wall Street Journal Blogs this week an alarming study by the Project on Student Debt was released. The nonprofit reports that average debt for college seniors who graduated with loans in 2008 rose to $23,200 in 2008, up from $18,650 in 2004. Roughly two-thirds of students graduate with student loans, government surveys show. Also it found that the highest debt levels were in the District of Columbia, where students graduated with average debts of $29,793, and Iowa, where students with loans carried $28,174 on average. And many economists worry that such financial challenges could hurt the earning potential of these college graduates long after the recession's end. There's also concern about whether and when these same grads will be able to save for retirement, start businesses or buy homes. However the report also doesn't calculate the impact on students (or, for that matter, parents) who use credit cards, home equity lines of credit or 401(k) loans to finance college. These tactics were likely to have been more common when many survey respondents entered college around 2004, as the housing and economic boom were gathering steam. So as we can see college voluntarily is becoming a burden to individuals, both during school and after. And in order to pay these ever increasing debts student have been forced to get more and more jobs, thus decreasing the value of education they can receive. But it is not just the Student Loans and future 401(k)s that are bogging down students, the city of Pittsburgh is proposing what appears to be a one-of-a-kind 1% tuition tax on local university and college students. Now this could be considered fair if it were not due to the fact that the money collected combined with the already more than $20 million in other taxes (on schools and students), would be used in order to pay for the city's goals and ambitions. All of this only further sinking the ignorant student into mounds of debt, ruining their lives. 2. \"Just like other investments, some people are realizing that past performance does not guarantee future returns,\". Lauren Asher, president of the Project on Student Debt and co-author of the paper, says. As many graduates have learned, a solid degree from an august institution doesn't necessarily guarantee a decent paying job, or any job at all. [. http://blogs.wsj.com...] [. http://online.wsj.com...] In short forcing college on individuals, expecially in these uncertain economic times, is a death sentence. We will plague our students with poor credit, an education that could not be wholly taken advantage of, and next to no possibilities for jobs. Therefore we must allow college to remain a choice to individuals as it has in the past.", "qid": "6", "docid": "3c15c9f1-2019-04-18T19:14:38Z-00003-000", "rank": 79, "score": 99207.0}, {"content": "Title: Should colleges be free Content: On average, a college graduate with a bachelor\"s degree earned $30,000 more per year than a high school graduate, or about $500,000 more over a lifetime, as of Apr. 2013. [8] Earning an associate's degree (a 2-year degree) was worth about $170,000 more than a high school diploma over a lifetime in 2011. [9] The median income for families headed by a bachelor's degree holder was $100,096 in 2011\"more than double than that for a family headed by a high school graduate. [10] The median increase in earnings for completing the freshman year of college was 11% and the senior year was 16% in 2007. [11] 85% of Forbes' 2012 America's 400 Richest People list were college grads. College-education.procon.org", "qid": "6", "docid": "bbae4f3b-2019-04-18T12:51:48Z-00001-000", "rank": 80, "score": 99146.0}, {"content": "Title: We regret the emphasis on college education Content: Thanks for your participation. Rebuttal: Of course there are many other roads than college. I acknowledge that. However, my stance is that we don't really regret the emphasis on college education, not that everyone should go to college. Believe it or not, in our country(I'm a South Korean), colleges have become prerequisites for entering into society, and companies and businesses put much importance on what college that person has come from. In the society that we face today, it is inevitable that we put emphasis on college education, and I don't regret it. People from vocational schools are also a bit discriminated, so it would be more efficient for the students to enter into college education. Moving on to my second argument, our second argument is about economic benefits. If students go to college, there will be much more economic benefits. First, the overall level of education will get higher, as people will get deeper levels of education. This will cause the general mature civic awareness, and people will get much more efficient in whatever they are working on. This will bring more profit. Also, with more specific information, better technology and things such as better inventions will be enabled to be made. Also, there are high possibilities that better firms will be born too. All these will help to make profits in global market and etc. So there will be benefits to the country because people work much more efficiently, better technology and products are made, and better firms are born. The cause of all this can be traced back to college education.", "qid": "6", "docid": "7d582ac3-2019-04-18T16:28:22Z-00003-000", "rank": 81, "score": 98734.0}, {"content": "Title: College is a Necessity to be Successful Content: You might think that you are making loads of money, but you are not making as much as a college graduete would have made.Many people go to college for many reasons,but most people go because they want to make a difference in their lives.They have more opportunities in life than someone who didn't go to college.Isn't going to college better than having a poor paying job at a fast food restaurant?", "qid": "6", "docid": "c195ff79-2019-04-18T13:35:02Z-00001-000", "rank": 82, "score": 98732.0}, {"content": "Title: College football playoff system Content: --\"As you say, a triple-elimination 256 team playoff system would be way to long\" I never said that. A triple-elimination 256 team playoff would be just long enough. --\"if they played that many games, they would retire long before the average age now of 34\" So we continue to have young, fresh players. This is a good thing. --\"education is very important\" To quote my opponent: \"I do not prefer education over football.\" He also drops all 3 of my arguments about education. --\"That would be to long and to many players would get hurt, and ruin their chances to go to the NFL.\" The average college football player spends about 45 hours per week practicing[1] to play for, at most, one hour per game. The extra hours spent in the playoffs would amount to about 2 days worth of practice. This is no significant increase in the probability of a player being hurt. ======== =Summary= ======== CON never rebutted any of my arguments, gave multiple new (unwarranted) arguments in the final rebuttal, and never even used the word 'BCS' in his last speech. [1] http://www.mindingthecampus.com...", "qid": "6", "docid": "67cbd151-2019-04-18T19:13:54Z-00000-000", "rank": 83, "score": 98691.0}, {"content": "Title: The costs of a college education outweigh the benefits Content: I accept.", "qid": "6", "docid": "33b011a1-2019-04-18T18:11:15Z-00007-000", "rank": 84, "score": 98577.0}, {"content": "Title: Being successful in life is easier with a college education. Content: I accept the resolution.", "qid": "6", "docid": "b6997948-2019-04-18T16:22:25Z-00004-000", "rank": 85, "score": 98393.0}, {"content": "Title: University education helps society Content: I'll begin by saying that not everybody wants a university degree, therefore not everybody needs a university degree. Granted that if the state did not educate its people then we would have some serious problems, however with education up to college level being free, it isn't unreasonable to suggest that someone over the age of 18 should have to pay for an extension on their education. In order for a society to function properly, you need more than every man, woman and child being trained to be the next Tony Blair, the next hot shot lawyer or the next 'Topgun' doctor. You need people with vocational qualifications and trade skills, of which someone would not attain at a university or learn in a university course. It is also important to note that by making university free, you increase the amount of people attending university devaluing the worth of the actual degree. In order for a state to fund free degrees for all would be to rise tax, because free education is never free, and someone needs to foot the bill. Countries like Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland etc have very high taxation at around 40-50% per year per income. Raising taxes in the UK during a time of recession would be damaging and counter-productive and ultimately would not help society.", "qid": "6", "docid": "e6ffa8fb-2019-04-19T12:45:14Z-00026-000", "rank": 86, "score": 98245.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved:the Ivy League has lost its prestige and allure as many non-Ivy schools have exceeded them. Content: I'm glad that you've conceded that the Ivy Leagues have not lost their appeal...you stated that \"the Ivy League is still highly desirable\". As far as the Ivy Leagues schools not being worth the cost, I guess that would be a matter of opinion to the students that go there. If they don't think it is worth the money then they do have the choice to go elsewhere, yet they still choose to go there. Your statement may have some truth to it as far as exclusivity is coupled with ignorance. Yes, some of the reasons these students choose these schools are for the prestige and exclusiveness, and that may seem shallow and stupid to others...but they apparently are willing to pay for this. Your argument in the beginning however was geared toward the loss of appeal and prestige and I just proved to you that they had in fact not lost either. However, your point about high cost of education is important and perhaps you should start another debate and word your argument a little differently. Thanks for presenting this topic to debate. Happy Holidays!", "qid": "6", "docid": "e8acb758-2019-04-18T20:02:36Z-00000-000", "rank": 87, "score": 98162.0}, {"content": "Title: College Education should be Necessary for All U.S. Citizens Content: My opponent has dropped ever single argument I have made and merely added a set of new contentions. So that is the first reason to vote CON. The thesis of this debate is exactly what my opponent said in his first speech, it can't be changed throughout the debate arbitrarily as he attemtps to do in his second \"rebuttal\" therefore we instantly drop these non-topical argument and focus on those presented (I will argue them however). Thesis: \"I believe that a required college education would be very important, as with a college education, better paying jobs are available\" Therefore the burden of the CON is to prove that College education does not provide better paying jobs. As I have done in my first speech, also I took it a step further to point out how rather than provide a head start on success in life college sets students back, therefore we can clearly vote CON. Also we must note that their are no warrants supporting his first speech so we can once again drop all these absurd claims. On to the PRO Main Point 1: Universities offer better returns if you invest. This is by far the most non topical argument of the round, so I see no reason why this should even be taken into consideration. Now it is non-topical because my opponent talks about Universities not Colleges. Universities are An institution for higher learning with teaching and research facilities constituting a graduate school and professional schools that award master's degrees and doctorates and an undergraduate division that awards bachelor's degrees. (http://dictionary.reference.com...) and Colleges are an institution of higher learning, esp. one providing a general or liberal arts education rather than technical or professional training. A Blatant difference, had my opponent clarified at the beginning of the debate that we are discussing both, I would argue them both, but because he didn't and there is little time for me to respond if he decides to arbitrarily establish this bond we can not allow him. Main Point 2: The number of scholarships are rapidly increasing, and even if you couldn't obtain one, community colleges offer a good education and often enough, financial aid. After we remember that we are trying to establish that college = better jobs so more money, we can realize this main point is incorrect. Because of the first main point where he says \"studies have found that students who attend highly selective colleges have much greater lifetime earnings than those who don't\". This is only talking about selective colleges and community colleges are not selective, also for this matter what are these studies? He never manages to cite them so how are we to know they actually exist? We can't so dismiss the studies but keep in mind that he agrees. Also going back to my point about universities and colleges the entire set of warrants for how scholoraships are more available are only referenced from Universities, so we can dismiss this claim. Remember we are not discussing Universities only Colleges, and for that matter my opponent fails to uphold a clear debate he merely suggests contentions and then drops them. So", "qid": "6", "docid": "3c15c9f1-2019-04-18T19:14:38Z-00001-000", "rank": 88, "score": 97992.0}, {"content": "Title: kids who finish High school deserve free post secondary education Content: Pros of free college believe that it would benefit the entire nation, not just the individual students who take advantage of it. They see it as both a private and public benefit. After all, more and more of today's jobs are knowledge-based or require advanced technical skills. So a better-educated workforce would help fill many of the skills gaps that prevent America's economy from growing faster. Plus, since more people would be able to attain employer-desired credentials, more people would be able to take the good-paying jobs that often go unfilled. And that could result in billions of additional dollars circulating throughout the economy since people tend to spend more money when they have higher incomes and little or no debt. It could also mean that the government would take in a lot of extra tax revenues, which could go a long way toward paying for free public colleges. But the issue of why college should be free isn't just an economic one. It's also a moral and philosophical one. Do we want every American, regardless of social standing, to have an equal opportunity to reach his or her potential? That's what this country is supposed to be about, yet social mobility has been eroding for the poor and middle class. And without easy and affordable access to quality higher education for everyone, the collective intelligence and goodwill of the nation could also erode. America might become even more socially divided. Ultimately, many people believe that a college-level education should be an absolute right, so long as you have the ability to benefit from it. Here are some of the other commonly cited reasons why college should be free: There might be a lot fewer Americans who need to seek other forms of public assistance. People would have more freedom to contribute their talents, try new ideas, and pursue the lives they want if they didn't have to start off in debt or stay stuck in a low-wage job. That could lead to happier people. And happier people could lead to a happier, more prosperous nation as a whole. A better-educated population could result in smarter decision-making at every level of society, which could lead to faster progress in solving our most difficult, collective challenges. Students would be able to focus more on their studies rather than worrying about how to scrape together enough funds for each upcoming school term. As a result, more of them might graduate on time, ready to take on important jobs in their communities. Many of America's top-performing high school students never apply to the most challenging colleges and universities even though they have the ability to succeed at them. They often come from minority and low-income households and end up pursuing more affordable, less-selective schools instead. And that helps create a widening gap between wealthier families and those that are less affluent. Although it benefits many students, the nation's existing financial aid system currently fails to provide an equal opportunity to every qualified American. Graduating with high amounts of student loan debt has been shown to reduce a person's chances of owning a home, getting married, having children, and accumulating wealth.", "qid": "6", "docid": "ea43a5f1-2019-04-18T11:39:29Z-00003-000", "rank": 89, "score": 97659.0}, {"content": "Title: Is Indian Education System Is Justified Content: Now, since I am Pro, I will define the topic that we will be debating. I am stating that the Indian Education System in question is the American system and that we will not be debating the Canadian system. Also, by justified, we will be debating whether the resources put into the system is worth the outcome. As well, since there is no such system, we will be talking about Natives IN the American Education system. Thank you and good luck. Now, I will begin my statements by saying my stance on the subject, then talking to you about my points. I strongly believe that the Indian Education System is justified, for the following reasons: By teaching the Natives we are giving them the tools to get into a post-secondary school of their choice, which the tuition fees help pay for better schooling for everyone. While we can get a lot of sustenance from just people of a European background, many natives have been attending college, giving our schools even more funding. Next, I am not trying to be rude, but Americans are not viewed as treating the First Nations very well. But, when we teach the Natives it sheds a better light on America. This gives them a better chance to have shipping and trading with other countries. If a country is willing to pay top dollar for some oil, but values it's native peoples very much, they are more likely to buy from another country if America looks like it treats its natives poorly. Finally, there have been some very successful Native Americans, such as Philip Martin and Joe Shirley. If these men had not received a proper education, they would surely have not been as successful. There are some Natives that have the potential to be great politicians and diplomats, but will never get the chance to if they have no or little education. This is why I believe that the Native Education System is justified.", "qid": "6", "docid": "e45fb8ba-2019-04-18T16:27:25Z-00002-000", "rank": 90, "score": 97617.0}, {"content": "Title: college tuition too expensive Content: The cost of college is becoming a big problem in the U.S. But that is not the fault of the universities. If the economy and other main factors where not in such a hole, there would be no reason to raise tuition. However, there are many options for students out there to find help with college tuition. For example, the state of Georgia will pay for a students college tuition if he or she graduates with a GPA of 3.5 or better. Now that is just Georgia but that is an example of how the there are options out there. The Pell grant system also though, not everybody gets this opportunity it is money given with out being expected to be paid back. The point I want to get across is that college tuition being raise a crossed the nation is not the result of a greedy chancellor or a football team that is not selling out the stadium. There are also different routes students are able to take to get to a university. There are many students who attend a community college for 2 years and then transfer to a university to complete there degree. I also agree that college is worth every penny because of its life experiences and how it builds you into a better person. Creating better payback systems only creates loans and loans equal debt.", "qid": "6", "docid": "912e5771-2019-04-18T18:50:38Z-00004-000", "rank": 91, "score": 97283.0}, {"content": "Title: Free education Content: Now I will immediately respond to his case points.1. Education is the most important thing you can have, therefore we should make it available to everyone. Your argument is based on nothingness. Is education really the most important thing you can have? Is education necessary to do manual labor? No. Education is not the most important thing in this life. The most important thing in this life is your life itself. You can still lead a good one without education. Look at people like Steve Jobs, and Bill Gates. Did they go to college? No. Yet they are still near universally looked up to as heroes of the uneducated world.2. Everybody needs a higher education. You basically just reiterated what you said earlier, ignoring my refutation. Not valid.3. A lot of people can't go to college because it isn't free. To begin with, I'd like to say that my opponent's statistics are heavily exaggerated. 71.3% of students do not drop out of college. I'd like to see his source for this. Secondly, people can still get quality higher education for a cheap price. Hundreds to thousands of community colleges exist across the country that are extremely cheap. Cost is in fact, not a large factor in getting higher education, as community colleges fall under the title of higher education and are readily available to the public.4. \"More people would be smarter. They would all have better jobs. \"Not everyone can be a CEO, or an executive at AIG, or a pharmaceutical rep, etc. Manual labor is what runs the country. If all people had access to education, then to an extent you'd need an even HIGHER level of education to get a good job. All of a sudden, higher education would become thouroughly unimpressive. Yes. More people would be smart if they had higher education. They're already available to you at a convenient price. Look for your local community college.5. Without education some people will be denied basic education. I already refuted this. Please see my arguments above. She only reiterated what she had already said. Now, since my disadvantages of Free Education were completely ignored, I will simply extend them by copying and pasting them.1. SpendingDo you honestly think, that as our government is struggling to finance by CouponDropDown\" href=\"#\">high schools and middle schools they will be able to perhaps buy up all private universities, create their own, and manage them? No. We're already in a huge deficit and we need to cut back on spending, especially on things not necessary, like this. or we could have a communist revolution. Jk.2. Crowds out the private market. For hundreds of year reputable by CouponDropDown\" href=\"#\">colleges and universities have given the highest education to those daring enough to walk their halls. If we were to implement a free form of higher education, people would stop going to these private colleges, who will without a doubt provide a higher quality of education than public colleges, and start going to a lesser college simply because its cheaper. This already happens in the private scale in terms of higher education, but making college free would make this issue skyrocket. Not only is this a violation against the individual, but is in fact a means of providing insufficient higher education to those who would generally go to somewhere like Yale or Stanford. To summarize this debate so far: My opponent has provided a few advantages of free education, all of which I have refuted. While she says that people are denied access to higher education because of cost, I defined higher education as a college or university. This means that community colleges are readily available to any enterprising young adult who wishes for a better future. She ignored all of my disadvantages. I refuted all of her advantages. Con is winning. I look forward to my opponent's next argument.", "qid": "6", "docid": "b7e5c696-2019-04-18T17:58:32Z-00002-000", "rank": 92, "score": 97161.0}, {"content": "Title: The U.S. should make collegiate education free Content: I think it will be a fun learning experience for the beginners, and it will allow us to learn the ropes. Secondly, I would like to thank my opponent, zeromeansnothing, for taking on this debate with me. I have no doubt that you will provide an intelligent and lengthy discourse, and I look forward to our contentions. Lastly, I would like to thank both of our mentors for agreeing to be our guides through this tournament. You have no idea how much that helps us in the learning process. Full and Clear Resolution:The United States of America should make collegiate education (for clarification, post-secondary schooling at educational institutes) free for its constituents. Burden of Proof:In this debate, and from the resolution, the burden of proof is shared. I, as Pro, must argue in favor of the U. S. putting into place a free collegiate education system. The job of Con is to provide ample reasoning as to why free collegiate education is not good. Violation of the previously stated guidelines could result in voting out of your favor. Structure:Round 1: Pro presents the framework and rules of the debate, and Con Accepts. Round 2: Pro presents his case, Con presents his case. Round 3: Pro rebuts Con's case, and Con rebuts Pro's case. Round 4: Pro defends his arguments, Con defends his arguments. Rules: 1. No semantics whatsoever. Each debater should interpret the words of the resolution as stated in the definitions provided.2. The burden of proof is shared. (More in-depth above)3. Opening round is acceptance only. Anything else will result in a violation of these rules, and will be taken into account during voting.4. Any footnotes/endnotes or citations should be presented in the text of your argument, not anywhere else.5. No forfeiting of any rounds, unless approved by both parties (Pro and Con)6. No new arguments in the final round.7. Maintain a civil and calm discourse.8. No \"kritiks\" of the topic (or any other kritiks)9. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolutional definitions10. For all undefined terms, individuals should use commonplace understanding of them that fit within the logical context of the debate.11. Failure to meet any of these specified rules will be taken into account during the voting period. Definitions:Free: without cost or payment. Collegiate: of or relating to a collegeEducation: adegree,level,orkindofschooling. Constituents: servingtocomposeormakeupathing;component. In this case, it represents the people of America. In conclusion. .. . thank you for accepting this debate, and let's make this a memorable experience for both of us to learn from. May the best debater win!", "qid": "6", "docid": "646d2dd9-2019-04-18T14:18:01Z-00007-000", "rank": 93, "score": 97110.0}, {"content": "Title: college should be entierly government funded Content: the government makes alot of money. just look at all the millions of people that take public transportation and that pay for tolls, thats millions of dollars everyday. plus theres alot of money that they spend that are on things less important than education. they need to get their priorities straight and spend money on things that are going to make the economy improve. by paying for college and us getting better jobs, the economy will improve.", "qid": "6", "docid": "690558ad-2019-04-18T18:09:37Z-00001-000", "rank": 94, "score": 97086.0}, {"content": "Title: The purpose of education is development of the person. Content: Dorinda, when you say most college students want to better themselves by getting education are you not saying the same thing I am saying or affirming to what I said? If you get education to better yourself as you saying then is it not the same as development for yourself. I understand when you say some teachers teach as if they are robots and they do not ask questions and do not involve their students in their teaching; but that does not mean they cannot influence their student in a positive way. And more over my argument is based and focused specifically on personal development not to say the influence part is been ignored. Dorinda, if you will have the time to sit and look around, most of the people holding top positions in this nation have been educated one way or the other. I don\"t think Hirsch will bother to point out his view about education if it wasn\"t that important. He said and I Quote \"Illiteracy and semiliterate Americans are condemned not only to poverty, but also powerless of incomprehension. Knowing they do not understand the issues.", "qid": "6", "docid": "e0a57ad2-2019-04-18T17:40:17Z-00001-000", "rank": 95, "score": 97001.0}, {"content": "Title: More People Should be Helped by the Government into College Content: Since the more education a person has in this competative job market the more money a person makes. Now, if everybody was able to go to college then more people would be making more money thus boosting the economy. This would also lead to a rise in scientists and thus more discoveries in all fields. Since this has no downside that is visible to me I eagerly await my opponents rebutle.", "qid": "6", "docid": "b72eb951-2019-04-18T19:45:34Z-00005-000", "rank": 96, "score": 96837.0}, {"content": "Title: why colleges Content: extending", "qid": "6", "docid": "b4208ffd-2019-04-18T17:49:49Z-00001-000", "rank": 97, "score": 96536.0}, {"content": "Title: We regret the emphasis on college education Content: OK I think I've lost. This is my last gasp. Rebuttal) 1. Pro is saying that college shouldn't be a prerequisite. But actually, my point is that the status quo is that college has become a prerequisite. I'm not saying that it should. Because it has become a prerequisite, the students should flexibly focus more on college education, like it or not. 2. About civic awareness- I think I need to explain what I meant by that. When people are educated, they come to reevaluate the injustices and etc. that are revolving around them. When citizens are better educated, they are less gullible, and less injustice would occur. 3. About higher efficiency- Actually, college does sometimes provide these on-the-job experiences when it is thought to be needed. A common example(at least in South Korea-I don't know about other places) is student teachers and trainee teachers. 4. About better technology- I believe that the more deeper and specific education the students get in college(you granted that) will be more help in making better technology and the wider view they get with wider education will make more creative and innovative ideas. And that's about it. My thanks to whiteflame.", "qid": "6", "docid": "7d582ac3-2019-04-18T16:28:22Z-00001-000", "rank": 98, "score": 96508.0}, {"content": "Title: Anything more than basic math is unnecessary for many college majors Content: Following the same logic you present every time, every college major is worthless. English isn't much use in getting a maths degree. Art isn't going to help you get a degree in Science. Maths is no more guilty of not helping in other classes than any other subject (with the possible exception of English, which is fundamental in many classes.) So by your logic, college should consist of English lessons, and absolutely nothing else. If most maths degrees were all about basic maths, we wouldn't know half the mathematical theorems we know today. If a PhD is just a matter of understanding the basics well, it would be ludicrously simple to have a doctorate, which makes the people who actually earned their degree will suddenly have a degree that's common as dirt. They will have written up thousands of words in an original thesis- it's like taking someone's life work and making it suddenly worthless. It's just wrong to think that stopping a few people having to do a little maths here and there is worth losing the value of millions of people's life works. In response to your point upon how understanding of stats in depth is not vital- you'd be surprised. The deeper the understanding, the better the whole report becomes- and it shows. As such, employers try to get people who not only can manipulate the English language well, but can also understand properly how stats work- both at the basic levels and at the advanced levels. As well as this in response to what you say on the negating sides opinions on the fields- I don't believe that has any relevance whatsoever, as I see little to no opinions in any of my arguments. I note what you say about office jobs- thank you for informing me that I was repeating the same argument. I will mention some of the countless jobs outside office jobs where you need more than the basics. 1. Statistician- be this for sport, for tallying votes, statisticians need to properly understand statistics. A basic understanding can be enough, at times- but knowing more about it helps. 2. Scientist- and here is in fact an example of where maths does help in other areas. Science and maths are intricately linked. Science is at it's core, pure mathematics. To be a decent scientist, you need to know maths well. 3. Youtuber- now this may come as quite a surprise to some. But Youtubers have viewer statistics. They have to understand it, so they can manipulate it to maximize views. Can you manage without this? Probably. Does it help? Certainly. There are countless other examples. The fact of the matter is that the surprising use of Youtube says a lot- that practically any job requires a lot more mathematic knowledge than actual classes for it show. Musicians need maths to understand the patterns that work- Artists need maths to understand the angles that look best. Kinesiologists have to understand how movement works, which is science. And science, I repeat, is intricately related to maths. So maths may in fact help you a lot more than you think. Are one or two of the subjects borderline useful? Probably. But to say that just basic maths is all that should be important is sickening, even if it only applies to a handful of degrees.", "qid": "6", "docid": "3b365097-2019-04-18T14:42:14Z-00004-000", "rank": 99, "score": 96399.0}, {"content": "Title: college should be entierly government funded Content: Yes, the government may have to give us something in return if education really is that special to them, but the amount of money the government has is not enough to pay for colleges. Not everyone pays taxes and so the government doesn't have that much money. Tuition goes into paying for the professors, lunch, and other facilities. We have to rely on ourselves too, not just the government. We can't be sure that the government has enough to pay for all the expenses of college.", "qid": "6", "docid": "690558ad-2019-04-18T18:09:37Z-00002-000", "rank": 100, "score": 96377.0}]}
{"query": "Should felons who have completed their sentence be allowed to vote?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: Resolved: In the United States, Felons should be allowed to vote upon release from prison. Content: Thank you for this challenge, henryzietlow. I accept the challenge and will debate you on the topic that, \"In the United States, Felons should be allowed to vote upon release from prison. I would like to define felons as a person who has committed a crime punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year. This is the way the United States Government defines the term, according to the U. S. Department of Justice.", "qid": "7", "docid": "ed449e61-2019-04-18T15:13:37Z-00004-000", "rank": 1, "score": 205295.0}, {"content": "Title: Convicted Felons should be allowed to vote in all U.S. elections Content: Firstly, and fundamentally, we must recognize that these people have decided to not follow the rules and regulations of society. By breaking these rules they have shown they do not want to function in society. If this is the case, why should they be able to vote, an active part in our society? If they have broken the rules set by the people we have elected, they clearly don't show enough respect to be allowed to elect people. After a criminal has served the sentence given to them, they are now an active part of society, and should be allowed to take part in all areas of it, voting included. But while they are not an active member of our society, they don't deserve the right to take part in things such as voting, they have made their choice and that is the consequence. People that have broken the laws set don't get a say in the laws we make. Perhaps they want to vote someone in who will change the law that they have broken, because they don't agree with it? Fine, that is their choice, but only after they have been punished for the law they broke. The U.S. prison population is very excessive due to an unnecessary war on drugs (sorry for the digression), so the prison population is just such a large factor that allowing it to vote would not be beneficial at all to our society. Don't allow people that have broken our laws to make them.", "qid": "7", "docid": "e540288d-2019-04-18T16:49:57Z-00001-000", "rank": 2, "score": 202202.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: In the United States, Felons should be allowed to vote upon release from prison. Content: I extend all my arguments to the fourth round. I also have effectively refuted all of Pro's points, and by forfeiting, he is conceding this. He has also not refuted either of my assertions, so those are still standing. As I have proved, I come out on top with the two arguments that felon voting isn't a federal issue and that these felons have bad judgment, I win this debate. Thank you, henryzietlow, for this challenge, and I urge a vote for the Opposition, or Con, side of this debate.", "qid": "7", "docid": "ed449e61-2019-04-18T15:13:37Z-00000-000", "rank": 3, "score": 201493.0}, {"content": "Title: Convicted Felons should be allowed to vote in all U.S. elections Content: Countries like our own are succeeding with letting their felons vote Half of all the European countries allow all current inmates to vote, and virtually all former inmates in Europe have full voting rights. Take Ireland for example. For elections in the Republic of Ireland, there is no disenfranchisement based on criminal conviction, and prisoners remain on the electoral register at their pre-imprisonment address. Prior to 2006, the grounds for postal voting did not include imprisonment, and hence those in prison on election day were in practice unable to vote, although those on temporary release could do so. In 2000 the High Court ruled that this breached the Constitution, and the government drafted a bill extending postal voting to prisoners on remand or serving sentences of less than six months.However, in 2001, the Supreme Court overturned the High Court ruling and the bill was withdrawn.After the 2005 ECHR ruling in the Hirst case, the Electoral (Amendment) Act 2006 was passed to allow postal voting by all prisoners. Also, judge, we have Germany, in which the law even calls on prisons to encourage prisoners to vote. Only those convicted of electoral fraud and crimes undermining the \"democratic order\", such as treason are barred from voting, while in prison. However, as soon as they are released from prison, they regain their voting rights! Now judge, i would like to mention how these countries are going in their criminal ways. According to a 2004 study done by Oxford Univ., former prisoners who vote are half as likely to re-offend, and so far, half of these European countries, whom are letting their felons vote, are having their repeating felons reduced by half. Judge, this shows that with letting their felons vote, these countries are not having repeated crimes! This is reducing the amount of crimes committed by ex-felons by HALF, Lets also think about this logically. these countries are both democracies, and their governments are very similar to ours. and yet, they are letting their felons vote. while letting their felons vote, they are not only reducing the amount of crimes occurring in their countries, but they are also letting more people have a say in who gets to govern over the people. How judge, how can this be harmful to anybody? and judge, as i will state in my 2nd cont., giving people a second chance does not hurt, and in some cases, it even provides benefits.", "qid": "7", "docid": "e540288d-2019-04-18T16:49:57Z-00002-000", "rank": 4, "score": 199861.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: In the United States, Felons should be allowed to vote upon release from prison. Content: Extend all arguments", "qid": "7", "docid": "ed449e61-2019-04-18T15:13:37Z-00002-000", "rank": 5, "score": 198862.0}, {"content": "Title: Released Felons Should Be Allowed To Vote. Content: Also thank you for the link to the documentary, I watched it (parts one and two) and found it very insightful and although it did reinforce a few of the points you made I do find it disturbing that you are willing to form opinions off the basis of one documentary showing one situation. The people in that documentary are pre-trial, meaning that despite the fact that many have been there for years they have not yet served their debt to society. The purpose of being sentenced and serving time in prison is to over come these issues that they have dealing with normal members of society. Is it true that many of these felons will be released with the same immaturity shown here? Absolutely, but more than anything this points to a flaw in our justice system and our ability to rehabilitate our citizens. This is not grounds for denying them the right to vote. You also said that we do not let children vote. This is true and we do this for very good reasons. But we do let them vote when they no longer are classified as children. This is similar to having been released from prison. Upon serving your sentence it is assumed that you have taken the time in prison to think about your mistakes and learn from them, which is very similar to a child turning eighteen. After serving in prison you are supposed to be released and join society. Part of this means taking on the responsibility's that children face when turning into adults, including the responsibility of voting. Another point you made was that released inmates would 'manipulate our judicial and election system to their own corrupt means'. By saying this you are bringing up a point you had made earlier about felons having a 'pathological hatred for justice' which is simply not true. The majority of inmates do not 'hate' justice. When released many felons become one hundred percent normal citizens, with political opinions formed similar to the way that you and I form ours. And another point to be made about them 'manipulating' the justice system is that it would be virtually impossible. Released felons account for somewhere around two percent of the United States, so even if all of them had this hatred for justice that you mentioned (which they don't) it would simply not make a dent in our elections. My final point for this round is I think my most important. One of the ideals that this country was founded on was 'No taxation without representation'. Upon being released from prison, felons are supposed to incorporate themselves into society, find a job, and pay taxes. One of the reasons that slogan exists is so the citizens could have a say as to where their tax dollars were being directed. Taxing felons and denying them this right is unconstitutional and immoral. There are many people in the United States who did some regrettable act when they were young, served time and upon being released found a job, and for dozens of years have been respectable members of society including paying their taxes. Should we deny them their right to vote upon some stupid thing they did that long ago?", "qid": "7", "docid": "85363321-2019-04-18T18:11:52Z-00002-000", "rank": 6, "score": 198746.0}, {"content": "Title: R: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. Content: Clarification/Context So as to be as clear as possible. I am arguing that so called Felons should retain the right to vote in spite of being felons. Below is some basic information on the current circumstance in regard to the debate topic. \u201cThe idea of taking away a criminal's right to vote has been around since ancient Greece and Rome. A condition called \"civil death\" in Europe involved the forfeiture of property, the loss of the right to appear in court, and a prohibition on entering into contracts, as well as the loss of voting rights. Civil death was brought to America by English colonists, but most aspects of it were eventually abolished, leaving only felon disenfranchisement intact in some parts of modern America.\u201d(1)\u201c5.3 million Americans (1 in 40 adults) were unable to vote due to a felony conviction in the 2008 elections. This included 1.4 million African-American men, more than 676,000 women, and 2.1 million ex-offenders who have completed their sentences. \u201c(1) \u201cState approaches to felon disenfranchisement vary tremendously. In Maine and Vermont, felons never lose their right to vote, even while they are incarcerated. In Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, and Virginia, felons and ex-felons permanently lose their right to vote, without a pardon from the governor. Virginia and Florida have supplementary programs which facilitate gubernatorial pardons. The remaining 45 states have 45 different approaches to the issue. In 38 states and the District of Columbia, most ex-felons automatically gain the right to vote upon the completion of their sentence. In some states, ex-felons must wait for a certain period of time after the completion of their sentence before rights can be restored. In some states, an ex-felon must apply to have voting rights restored.\u201d(1) Burden of proofAs I am proposing the change to the status quo, I accept the burden of proof. I must affirm the resolution. Debate Format4 rounds/5,000 characters/72 hrs. 1st round: acceptance 2nd and 3rd rounds: Arguments and rebuttals 4th round: Final rebuttal and closing statements (No new arguments) Sourceshttp://www.ncsl.org... Comment if interested.", "qid": "7", "docid": "7da97fb8-2019-04-18T14:19:59Z-00005-000", "rank": 7, "score": 198324.0}, {"content": "Title: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. Content: Rebuttals: Con states that \u201cFirst off, Felons already have voting rights when they get out of prison.\u201d I noted this in round one. There are some cases where voting rights are restored after the sentence is served, but not always. This is also off-point as I am arguing that felons should not have to regain their right, I am asserting they should retain/ never have lost the right to vote. Contention 1; Dishonesty and Poor Character. Con states \"We don't let children vote, for instance, or noncitizens, or the mentally incompetent. Why? Because we don't trust them and their judgment... \u201c We don\u2019t let children vote, it\u2019s true. I disagree that it is due to us not trusting their judgement. Rather it is their inability to reason. This is due to the Pre-frontal cortex of the brain not being fully developed. (1)(2) Non-citizens don\u2019t vote it is true, not because we don\u2019t trust them, but rather because voting is part of the social contract of which non-citizens are not a part of. Con than asks \u201cdo criminals belong in that category?\u201d I am assuming the category being children, noncitizens, or mentally incompetent. Clearly felons should not. Felons are not children, are citizens, and if mentally incompetent would have made the insanity plea. Thus Felons do not fit in this category. We see contention one is negated. Contention 2; Congressional Authority over Voting Much of this contention merely states the status quo, not support for it. I have shown in my argument why the status ought to be changed. Merely stating the status quo does not negate or support Con\u2019s Argument. Con argues that \u201cthe fundamental reason we do not let felons vote is that we have certain minimum, objective standards of responsibility, trustworthiness and loyalty to our laws that must be met before someone can participate in the sacred enterprise of self-government.\u201d This is in contrast to America\u2019s fundamental principles of Government. \u201cThat to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed\u201d Con has added a multitude of criteria to vote that is un-necessary. The only legitimate government gets its consent from the governed. If felons can\u2019t vote, they can\u2019t give consent. Thus, making the government that takes away the right to vote illegitimate. We ought not have an illegitimate government. Thus Felons should retain the right to vote. Overview: Con has argued against the resolution essentially as follows\u2026. 1: Felons fit into a category with the mentally underdeveloped, handicapped, or non-citizens and thus should not have voting rights. 2: Felons under the status quo do not have the right to vote and thus should not have the right to vote. 3: To have voting rights you must meet the specific criteria she lists. Number one is entirely untrue and dismissed. Number two is just a statement of the status quo not support for it. Number 3 is arbitrary and thus not strong support to negate. (1) http://www.wisegeek.org... (2) http://hrweb.mit.edu...", "qid": "7", "docid": "826727db-2019-04-18T14:31:24Z-00003-000", "rank": 8, "score": 195635.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: In the United States, Felons should be allowed to vote upon release from prison. Content: In this debate I will argue that the United States has unethical laws regarding felon voting rights, and that these laws should be loosened. I do realize that some states already allow felons to vote upon release from prison. However, I will argue in this round that the laws should be changed so that all convicted felons in the United States gain voting rights upon release from prison. Round 1- Acceptance/Any definitions con wants to make Round 2- Constructives Round 3- Rebuttals Round 4- Summary", "qid": "7", "docid": "ed449e61-2019-04-18T15:13:37Z-00005-000", "rank": 9, "score": 194887.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: In the United States, Felons should be allowed to vote upon release from prison. Content: I will be debating against the topic, \"Resolved: In the United States, Felons should not be allowed to vote upon release from prison. \" Now, to jump right in. Sorry about that last round; I was a little bit busy, but I would like to provide constructives and rebuttals in this round. I would first like to point out one statistical discrepancy in the proposition\"s case. He has stated that 5.9 million people, or 6% of our country\"s population cannot vote, but this is clearly an incorrect statistic. According to the most recent statistics from 2014, our country\"s population is 318.9 Million. 5.9 million people out of 318.9 Million is just under 2%, not 6%. This brings us to question all of proposition\"s evidence and empiric. Now, to get on to constructive assertions. 1: Allowing these felons to vote is not a federal issue and cannot be decided by the U. S. Government or the Supreme Court to encompass the entire United States, as proposition is arguing. According to the Bill of Rights, this issue is decided by the states. Most prominently, the 14th Amendment makes felon voting a state prerogative, not a federal one. If voters choose to change state laws regarding felons and voting, it's their prerogative. Federalism allows for such state-level experimentation, and it's at the state level where the consequences of new felon-voting laws will best be judged. This assertion itself negates proposition\"s whole case. Proposition is arguing that we should make a law encompassing the entire United States to allow these released felons to vote. This is not legal, according to the 14th Amendment of our Bill of Rights. 2: The reason we don\"t let children vote in the United States is because they have not developed proper judgment and cannot decide which party to vote for. These felons are not allowed to vote for this same reason. If someone has gone to jail for over one year, then they have committed a fairly bad crime such as assault, they have shown that they are not trustworthy and their judgment is not good. I will now strengthen my case with rebuttals. As pointed out earlier, we come to doubt Pro\"s evidence because of the discrepancy. Rebuttal to 1a: A change of an election outcome is not enough reason to base changing the law on. If children were allowed to vote, the result of elections would drastically change, but they are not allowed to vote. A change in outcome has nothing to do with the positive or negative values of Felon voting. Many things may cause a change in the outcome of elections. That doesn\"t mean they are good. Rebuttal to 1b: In fact, punishment, more often than not, does not end after a prison sentence is over. Parole is a punishment that is given to the majority of felons coming out of prison, which means their punishment is being continued to make sure that they have learned their lesson. Rebuttal to 1c: Pro has provided no solid evidence for this point, just that it \"seems to be excessive\" to not let these felons vote. But we have these punishments for a reason. Rebuttal to 2a: This point is invalid to this debate, because this debate is about felons, and tampering with crab traps is not a felony, its only major punishment is a fine. A felon is someone who has been convicted to death or one or more years in prison for a crime. Rebuttal to 3: It is not racist that these felon voting laws are not allowing these felons to vote. The laws are the same for all races. If the laws specifically didn\"t allow African Americans to vote, then they would be racist. But the fact that minorities can\"t vote because of these laws doesn\"t prove the laws to be racist, it just proves that these minorities commit more than the average amount of crimes. Rebuttal to 4: This argument about other countries having felon voting as a law is invalid because the fact that other countries have instated these laws doesn\"t prove they are good. Pro has provided us with no statistics to show that with these laws, these other countries were benefited, and all he says is that America \"would maybe gain more international respect. \" First of all, America doesn\"t need any more international respect. And second of all, it is not gain respect in the eyes of other countries if we go against our own constitution. I have refuted all of Pro\"s points and added two points to this debate.", "qid": "7", "docid": "ed449e61-2019-04-18T15:13:37Z-00001-000", "rank": 10, "score": 193801.0}, {"content": "Title: Convicted ex-felons should be able to vote in all US elections. Content: I'll respond to my opponent's defenses of his main points. P1: Many felons return to prison within 3 years of the same or another crime. Does it make sense to take away the rights of a citizen just because of something they MIGHT do? Why not give all of them life sentences while you're at it? Obviously the answer is that they don't deserve a sentence for life. It's too big a punishment, However, isn't this what disenfranchisement is? It's inability to vote -- for LIFE -- just because of something they might or might not do. Is this fair? P2: It would not be fair to citizens who have never been convicted of a felony. Citizens are not on even ground with felons. For example any person with a criminal record (ex-felons fall under this category) will get heavier fines and punishment than a normal person if they were caught shoplifting or exceeded the speed limit. It's also harder for convicts to get a job, because (admit it) no one wants to hire a criminal no matter how changed they are. P3: Felons should gain the right to vote by proving that their judgement is valid. If disenfranchisement is a punishment, then the disenfranchised convict is not an ex-felon. Since we're debating ex-felons, the point about disenfranchisement being a punishment is invalid. My opponent also argues that a felon needs to prove that his/her judgement is valid, however, voting is very subjective and varies from person to person. There is no such thing as a \"valid\" vote in an election. No politician is going to go up there and say, \"We should legalize all types of drugs and drop the smoking age completely.\" We all know that's completely crazy and the millions of non-felons in the US are going to vote against it. A felon's vote won't cause something really crazy to happen, but their vote will matter when it comes to something like the Affordable Care Act. Now I'll defend my main points. I will be splitting the defenses into A), B), C), etc. since my opponent made multiple refutations to each point. P1: Restricting felons from voting violates the Constitution. A) \"If a US citizen commits a felony, isn't that sufficient means to revoke the right to vote?\" Actually, I do agree that a convicted felon shouldn't be able to vote from prison, jail, or while on parole or probation. But after the sentence is over, the right should be returned along with the felon's liberty, freedom of speech, etc. However, since we're debating ex-felons here, my opponent's point is invalid. B) \"Also, restricting a person from voting does not seem to be a cruel or unusual punishment...\" I never said this. I said ex-felon disenfranchisement violated the part of the 8th amendment about excessive sanctions. C) \"As for the 15th amendment, I would interpret it to mean that a right should not be refused as a result of a previous condition of servitude, but would the right be refused as a result of the felony committed?\" Again, we're debating ex-felons, not convicted felons in general. Perhaps disenfranchisement could be a form of capital punishment, but once the felon is free and served all sentences, he/she can't have the right to vote taken away. P2: Felon disenfranchisement encourages racial discrimination. A) \"...African Americans and Hispanics already make up a minority in this country, and so your claim that felon disenfranchisement \"creates an imbalance between races\" would be true regardless.\" The problem is that even though these races make up a minority of the country's total population, they occupy the majority of prison cells. If felon disenfranchisement didn't exist, the imbalance would be gone. B) \"It's not as if white people vote for one thing and minorities vote for another, so I see it as one million people simply not voting, and do not assume that most of them would have voted for X person due to the color of their skin.\" It's not just race, it's class and socio-economic status. Race and class are inseparable because minorities make up much of the lower income class, more so than the majority race. Overwhelmingly, the people who commit crimes are from the lower income class, and these are also the people who tend to vote for Democrats. Wealthier people tend to vote for Republicans. Indirectly (please note this statement is not trying to discriminate) Caucasians tend to vote for one candidate while minorities vote for the other. C) \"...If they would break the law a second time because their individual opinion was not heard, then they probably should not have the right to vote.\" Then how do you explain the countries that do not disenfranchise ex-felons? These countries have a way lower crime rate than the US and other ex-felon disenfranchisement countries. Obviously, a felon's right to voice his/her own opinion prevents him/her from breaking the law. D) \"I'd like to point out that although ex-felons cannot vote, they are still able to do a lot of other things such as organize a peaceful protest, or petition for change, etc.\" Remember, the topic states ELECTIONS. Not laws or policies. Felons need to vote on who leads their country for the next 4 years of their lives. Felons can't petition for a new president. How do you suggest to replace the right to vote in elections? P3: Felons deserve a right to vote. A) \"I don't believe that they deserve this right until they can prove that they can handle the right responsibly\" My opponent seems to think that if felons are allowed to vote, they'll somehow vote to legalize marijuana or something, but again the topic states elections not issues. The most felons will base their vote on is ObamaCare and other extremely controversial issues because no candidate is going to come out and say they want to legalize marijuana. B) \"Assuming that felons could influence the outcome of an election, which is very unlikely, wouldn't it be detrimental to the majority?\" My opponent has asked me a direct question. My answer is that no, it will not be a detriment, because again I'm arguing for them to vote in elections, not on bills or policies or issues. They make up part of the population and their voices need to be heard. This is actually better for the majority as there are more opinions on the election rather than just one group. Thanks, I look forward to the next round.", "qid": "7", "docid": "ffc1c5ad-2019-04-18T16:49:56Z-00003-000", "rank": 11, "score": 192769.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: In the United States, Felons should be allowed to vote upon release from prison. Content: Today I stand to affirm the resolution: \"resolved: In the United States, Felons should be allowed to vote upon release from prison.\" Not only are American felon voting laws outdated, they work against the democratic process, and they slow rehabilitation back into society. 1. One of the foundations of democracy is that everybody should vote, and that those elected into the United State's government are those who are supported the majority of the population. By not allowing released felons to vote, it is taking the vote away from up to 7% of the adult population in some states (1). In fact, in 2010, 5.9 million people in the United States were left unable to vote (2). Because of this, up to 6% of the United States (5.9 million people) are left without a vote, and their voices are not heard as loudly in government. This takes away from the democratic process, as despite the fact that the United States is built off of giving everybody a voice, these felons are left with none. So, not allowing felons to vote is taking away from the democratic process, and is making electoral decisions not truly represent the views of the people. 1a. Restricting felon voting rights can change the results of elections. If felons in Florida were allowed to vote in the 2000 presidential election, it would have affected the result. Ex-felons have been seen to almost always vote democratic, and the 527 vote margin of victory of George Bush would undoubtedly be wiped out if the 600,000 felons barred from voting could have exercised their opinions (3). So, it is clear that not allowing felons to vote can change the results of elections, and by not allowing felons to vote, elections clearly do not always represent the people's true views. 1b. Taking away the right to vote does not make logical sense. A fundamental of the American Justice system is that once you complete your prison sentence, your punishment is over. Not allowing felons to vote for extended periods after their release from prison is extending their punishment, and by not allowing felons to vote, it makes rehabilitation into society even harder. This claim is supported by former Attorney General Eric Holder, as he said that taking the right away from felons \"Defy[ies] the principles of accountability and rehabilitation that guides our justice system\" (1). So, taking away a felon's right to vote is unethical, and unnecessarily extends punishment. 1c. The bill of rights in the constitution of the United States \"prohibits excessive sanctions\", and reads \"punishment for crime should be graduated and proportioned to the offense\". Not allowing felons to vote for decades seems to be \"excessive,\" as it is a fundamental right of being an American Citizen. So, not allowing felons to vote for decades is going against the concepts of excessive sanctions, and is an unnecessary right to remove. 2. Allowing felons to vote would help with their transition back into society. Felons without voting rights often feel fed up with the slow pace it takes to be fully re-admitted into society, and because of this, they are often three times more likely to re-offend than those with full rights upon release from prison (1). So, if felons were allowed to vote upon release from prison, not only would they transition more smoothly back into society, they would also be less likely to re-offend. 2a. Small offenses, like even tampering with crab traps illegally can trigger over 7 years without voting rights is some states (3). This simply does not make sense, as these criminals are clearly non violent, and have no intention of hurting anybody. Furthermore, these criminals usually show nothing that hints towards an inability to vote. 3. Felon voting laws are racist, and take the voice away from racial minorities. According to the Minneapolis Star Tribune, up to 20% of adult black males are left unable to vote in some states due to felon voting restrictions (2). African Americans are already a minority, with a relatively small voice in government. By taking the vote away from up to 20 percent of adult male African Americans, the voice of a relatively unspoken minority is being further quenched, as less of them can vote. This gives them even less of a say in elections, and is thus making them further under-represented in government. This also gives white people, the majority, an even larger voice in government. So, felon voting laws take voice away from already overshadowed minorities. 4. Felon Voting laws in the United States are outdated. In most other industrialized countries, felons are allowed to vote, sometimes even while still in prison (1). Additionally, they are even encouraged to do so, in promotion of the democratic process (1). In comparison, American felon voting laws, which take away voting rights until long after prison release seem incredibly restrictive, and outdated, while the laws in these other countries are innovative and modern. If American felon voting laws were loosened to this level, the United States would appear to be a modern, innovative country in one more way, and it would maybe gain more international respect. So, it has been shown that felon voting laws defy the democratic process, make elections seem not to fully represent the people's views, are unconstitutional, harm rehabilitative processes, take the voice away from under-spoken minorities, and are outdated. As such, it seems that felon voting laws need to be changed to become less restrictive. Sources 1- http://www.nytimes.com... 2- http://www.startribune.com... 3- http://america.aljazeera.com...", "qid": "7", "docid": "ed449e61-2019-04-18T15:13:37Z-00003-000", "rank": 12, "score": 192403.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: in a democratic society felons ought to retain the right to vote Content: My sincere condolences are extended to opponent, as surely only a crisis of major propositions would have prevented him from typing the word \"Continued\" some time within the three day response period. Proponents for felons retaining the right to vote often suppose that withholding the right must be either punishment or retribution. Such is not the case. We imprison serial killers not only on grounds of punishment or retribution, we imprison them to prevent them from committing similar bad acts. Depriving a felon of the right to vote is unlikely to be a significant punishment to discourage criminal behavior. Even as retribution it would be trivial. However, removing the right to vote prohibits the felon from committing the bad act of voting for a candidate because the candidate is likely to weaken the justice system. As an example, consider the famous Willie Horton case http://forerunner.com... that came up during the 1988 presidential campaign. Michael Dukakis opposed George H.W.Bush. Willie Horton was a convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. However, as governor of Massachusetts Dukakis permitted Horton to be let out of prison on a furlough program that Dukakis thought would aid rehabilitation. During a furlough, Horton murdered another person. As governor, Dukakis commuted so many sentences for first-degree murder that the time actually served for life without parole was 19 years. (op. cit.) I have no doubt that Governor Dukakis was sincere in his belief that leniency leads to rehabilitation. However, felons will certainly want leniency regardless of whether rehabilitation occurs or not. The recidivism rate proves that most often it does not occur. We may therefore suppose that allowing felons to vote would sway close elections to the side of leniency, particularly when issues other than the justice system dominate the campaign. Felons should not have the right to vote in the interests of pursuing a life of crime. Suppose that there are no criminal justice issues evident in a campaign. We know that many convicted felons are characteristically averse to working for a living. They are therefore likely to vote for whichever candidate promises the largest amount of unqualified government benefits. This is also contrary to the interests of ordinary voters, who are likely to be willing to help the poor, but unlikely to want to support criminals. For these reasons, the resolution should be rejected.", "qid": "7", "docid": "e2b0dc54-2019-04-18T19:35:06Z-00002-000", "rank": 13, "score": 191498.0}, {"content": "Title: Convicted Felons should be allowed to vote in all U.S. elections Content: Judge, we have to realise that giving people a second chance doesn\"t hurt, and in some cases, felons are unintentional. A robbery happens usually for money to support a family and to make ends meet, and some murders are unintentional, usually done in self defense. We cannot degrade felons and snatch their voting rights from them, because that will have devastating effects on how the society views them as an individual. According to MSNBC, when felons are given voting rights,they, 93% of the time, will not commit a crime again. Now lets see how this helps felons blend back: According to Columbia Univ., when given the right to vote, felons feel as if they are like everyone else when they are giving their opinion on who should be the person who they want to govern over them. they feel like they have a say in the nation\"s matters, which makes them fit in. After all, voting is a constitutional right and as citizens they should have that right regardless of their past. Judge, not only does giving felons the right to vote help them blend back into society, it also helps the SOCIETY ITSELF. Fox News said that felons usually help in services such as helping people become fit, marriage arrangers, and overall, jobs to enhance a person\"s life. The reason is simple: a person wants to give back what they \"stole\" from the society, and basically, they are giving back to the society. Judge, our point is clear: voting rights help felons blend back comfortably, and in the end, it positively affects the society as a whole. One of the largest purposes of prison is to make sure that the crime never happens again with the same person so why would we not let these citizens vote if it prevents more crime from taking place, helps the citizens rehab to become a normal citizen, and lets them blend back into society? Also, maybe these felons broke the law because they did not support it. The felons should have a say in it because they are citizens. As citizens, they have the constitutional right to vote. They aren't making the laws because it also requires society to agree with them. It just gives them a voice that they don't have in anything else which helps them in the long run to fit back in and rehab, and prevents more crime from taking place.", "qid": "7", "docid": "e540288d-2019-04-18T16:49:57Z-00000-000", "rank": 14, "score": 191380.0}, {"content": "Title: Convicted ex-felons should be able to vote in all US elections. Content: My main points were: P1: Many felons return to prison within 3 years for the same or a different crime P2: It would not be fair to citizens who have never been convicted of a felony P3: Felons should gain the right to vote, by proving that their judgement is valid Statistically speaking, many ex-felons return to prison after they have been convicted of a felony. If many of them return to prison, even after they have been let off on parole, it can be said that these people have invalid judgements and are not capable of making informed and educated decisions. Therefore they indirectly effect citizens who are able to weigh the consequences of their decisions, and should not be afforded this right unless they can prove that their judgement is valid. Once a person commits a felony, it should not be assumed that he/she is of a stable mental state when he/she is released from prison, and as such the right to vote is no longer a right but a privilege. I have proven that revoking this right does not constitute an \"excessive sanction\" and does not in any way violate the constitution.", "qid": "7", "docid": "ffc1c5ad-2019-04-18T16:49:56Z-00000-000", "rank": 15, "score": 189197.0}, {"content": "Title: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. Content: In this round, I will state my arguments. First off, Felons already have voting rights when they get out of prison. For example, in California [1] California \u2013 Voting rights are restored after parole is completed and no longer incarcerated. Anyways, I will argue why Felons shouldn't have the right to vote. Contention 1; Dishonesty and Poor Character. [2] \"We don't let children vote, for instance, or noncitizens, or the mentally incompetent. Why? Because we don't trust them and their judgment... So the question is, do criminals belong in that category? And I think the answer is clearly yes. People who commit serious crimes have shown that they are not trustworthy.\" People who are felons have committed crimes and have taken other rights of people. Such as committing murder and taking away an innocent life. As my opponent has stated above \"\u201cWe hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.\u201d When a felon takes can take a life, and the happiness of that person, and the happiness of that family. What gives that felon to have rights that every American bestows? \"Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. When someone commits a felon, they should have some rights taken away. Voting privileges should be taken away as well. [3] \" Children, non-citizens and the mentally incompetent can't vote because of standards involving trustworthiness and responsibility. The same requirements should apply to felons\" Contention 2; [2] Congressional Authority over Voting \"Most prominently, the 14th Amendment makes felon voting a state prerogative, not a federal one...\" According to section 2 of the 14th Amendment, it's okay to take away a felons right to vote [4] \"Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment grants states the authority to deny voting rights to anyone with a criminal conviction, and it is up to the states to determine their own restoration process if they choose to enact one.\" The 1st Amendment doesn't state \"Every U.S citizen no matter what the background, has the right to vote.\" The 1st Amendment doesn't give that right to everybody, instead they give the states the choice. This is to show, Felons don't have the right to vote, it's not a right. By the 14th Amendment, Felons don't have the right to vote depending on the States choice. This Amendment clearly shows, it's not taking away a right. What should happen. [5] \" Your July 16 editorial \u201cDisenfranchised Felons\u201d asserts that the only reason not to let felons vote is \u201cto stigmatize them or to continue punishing them.\u201d To the contrary, the fundamental reason we do not let felons vote is that we have certain minimum, objective standards of responsibility, trustworthiness and loyalty to our laws that must be met before someone can participate in the sacred enterprise of self-government. So we don\u2019t let children vote or the mentally incompetent or noncitizens \u2014 or those who have committed serious crimes against other people. The right to vote can be restored to felons, but it should be done carefully and case by case, to ensure that the person has really turned over a new leaf. To put it another way: If you are not willing to follow the law, you cannot demand the right to elect those who make the law.\" Felons should be able to vote once they have turned over a new leaf and have shown over a span of time that they are capable to vote in a trustworthy matter. They need to have consequences, if they don't, what have they learned? Sources: [1] https://exoffenders.net... [2] http://felonvoting.procon.org... [3] http://www.newsmax.com... [4] https://www.aclu.org...", "qid": "7", "docid": "826727db-2019-04-18T14:31:24Z-00004-000", "rank": 16, "score": 188905.0}, {"content": "Title: Released Felons Should Be Allowed To Vote. Content: Thank you, Caseyuer, for posting this debate. I feel this is a topic that I can argue persuasively and, at the very least, a pleasure to compete with another new member. I would flip your statements on you. Felony disenfranchisement is a necessary evil to provide us with a just society. Roger Clegg, of the General Counsel of the Center for Equal Opportunity wrote, \"We don't let children vote, for instance, or noncitizens, or the mentally incompetent. Why? Because we don't trust them and their judgement. [. .. ] so the question is, do criminals belong in that category? And I think the answer is clearly yes. People who commit serious crimes have shown that they are not trustworthy. \" While there might exist special circumstances that might be deemed unjust; there are just as many examples of felons who express a pathological hatred for justice. . http://www.youtube.com... The episode I provide, produced by gonzo documentarian Louis Theroux, gives insight into the thought processes of prisoners who are currently moving through the justice system. Technically, the people contained have the right to vote. Already, a majority of them have a sense of sudo-honor, a vigor for throwing \"piss-bombs\" and public masturbation (usually pointed at female guards). Members of the public can reasonably come to the conclusion that these people would not vote in favor of the public good. Instead, they would vote, lobby and manipulate our judicial and election system to their own corrupt means. And these inmates depicted are FIRST time offenders. You point out that former felons could possibly be in these circumstances because society has not given them the opportunity to give their opinions. While this sounds like a good point, you could also say the reverse. In that if you give them the capacity to vote their opinions to the legislative branch, you would have a chunk of society who would be in a state of permanent dissent. That, being said, I hold a similar premise to the voters of Massachusetts in 2000. In one of the most liberal states in the country, they collectively voted to bar inmates from voting. This showed, even in liberal circles, that public opinion is against serious lawbreakers from electing representatives. My final point regards the constitutionality of barring voting rights. I acknowledge that the eighth amendment bars excessive sanctions and demands that punishment be to the scale of the crime. However, this amendment is ultimately refuted by the following particulars of the constitution: *Article 1, Sec. 4; *Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment, and *Section Two of the Fifteenth Amendment. Overall, this legislation provide states the right to strip criminals of their voting rights. So, because of the examples I've provided, Felony disenfranchisement falls under the category of just punishment.", "qid": "7", "docid": "85363321-2019-04-18T18:11:52Z-00003-000", "rank": 17, "score": 187879.0}, {"content": "Title: Released Felons Should Be Allowed To Vote. Content: Thank you to the person who accepts this debate. I wish you luck and hopefully one of us will be able to convince the other. Felony disenfranchisement or in simpler terms \u2013 denying the right of a felon to vote, has been a long practiced throughout many parts of the world. People who agree with this say that the felon in question has broken their 'social contract' with society and therefore should not be allowed to vote. First off we have to consider the people who this law affects. Many people get convicted in high school of minor crimes that still fall under the heading of a felony. An example of this would being stealing street signs. Then many years later that person who by now has presumably learned their lesson and paid their debt to society wants to take part in one of the greatest and most important acts they will ever do - voting. But because of their past crimes they will be denied their right to do so. What if someone is convicted for a crime like drug possession, but they and many other people think that it shouldn't be a crime. Because of laws that prohibit them from voting you are denying perhaps their only way to disagree with the system that got them in trouble in the first place. It is because of examples like the ones above that Felony disenfranchisement falls under the category of 'cruel and unusual punishment'. We have prison sentences and fines handed out by the courts for a reason, which is to pay your debt to society. To add onto this by denying people the right to vote, by saying because of something that you did in your past and now regret you will never be allowed to vote again is heinous.", "qid": "7", "docid": "85363321-2019-04-18T18:11:52Z-00004-000", "rank": 18, "score": 186909.0}, {"content": "Title: Released Felons Should Be Allowed To Vote. Content: In ordor to better form a flowing argument, I will boldface quotations from previous arguments and leave a line \"---\" to clarify a natural pause. If readers can recommend a better way to quote previous arguments then please leave a comment explaining the technicalities or a guide that details this.---\"Thank you for the link to the documentary, I watched it (parts one and two) and found it very insightful and although it did reinforce a few of the points you made I do find it disturbing that you are willing to form opinions off the basis of one documentary showing one situation.\"This video is the most recent, valid source I could find of people that showed a mentality that fundamentally opposed organized law. Whats more--A lot of these men were unconvinced, thus they still, technically, retained the right to vote. Citing this video was a way for me to express the prison culture of violence that is embedded into the minds of many ex-felons.Overall, There are many reasons for me formulating this opinion. This video does not encapsulate my entire morality foundations. Also, personal rational is not on debate. The legitamacy of stripping felons of their rights is the topic of this debate.---\"The people in that documentary are pre-trial, meaning that despite the fact that many have been there for years they have not yet served their debt to society. The purpose of being sentenced and serving time in prison is to over come these issues that they have dealing with normal members of society. Is it true that many of these felons will be released with the same immaturity shown here? Absolutely, but more than anything this points to a flaw in our justice system and our ability to rehabilitate our citizens. This is not grounds for denying them the right to vote.\"I cited grounds for denying them voting rights in my previous argument:*Article 1, Sec. 4;*Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment, and*Section Two of the Fifteenth Amendment.These are cited example in our legal code which enable states to strip citizens of their voting rights. I would flip your argument on it's face.It is more immoral to strip states of their rights, which are documented on the books at the federal levelthen it is to strip citizens of their voting rights. I'm sure there are judges out there that calculate the stripping of these rights into their final judgment. (Example: A judge sentencing a felon to 35 years in prison, and later being stripped of their voting rights rather then a more sever length of sentence with retained voting rights.)If Felons object to a lose in voting rights in that state, then they should move to another state that allows them to vote. Nobody is demanding that they stay; As long as it doesn't break their probation.There is a historic president for this. After the Civil War, many confederates left the southern states for the Great American Southwest. There, these traitors could remake themselves, elect representatives and build a society they wanted.---\"You also said that we do not let children vote. This is true and we do this for very good reasons. But we do let them vote when they no longer are classified as children. This is similar to having been released from prison. Upon serving your sentence it is assumed that you have taken the time in prison to think about your mistakes and learn from them, which is very similar to a child turning eighteen. After serving in prison you are supposed to be released and join society. Part of this means taking on the responsibility's that children face when turning into adults, including the responsibility of voting.\"You claim to care about children growing up and conducting themselves in a democracy. Wouldn't this contradict your account on the rights of citizens to retain full rights after they \u2018serve' their time in jail?Rational: How do you feel about pedophiles rights? Is a judge saying, \"We need you to stay away from children\" outside his sentencing procedure? You can see the necessity in keeping pedophiles away from Middle Schools and Elementary Schools, right? But, in your legal system, a judge would not be allowed to do that. That sort of bias against pedophiles would be unconstitutional by your standards.And, as a reminder, it is constitutional to strip felons of their voting rights according to the article and two amendments I cited in my earlier argument:*Article 1, Sec. 4;*Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment, and*Section Two of the Fifteenth Amendment.---\"Another point you made was that released inmates would 'manipulate our judicial and election system to their own corrupt means'. By saying this you are bringing up a point you had made earlier about felons having a 'pathological hatred for justice' which is simply not true. The majority of inmates do not 'hate' justice. When released many felons become one hundred percent normal citizens, with political opinions formed similar to the way that you and I form ours. And another point to be made about them 'manipulating' the justice system is that it would be virtually impossible. Released felons account for somewhere around two percent of the United States, so even if all of them had this hatred for justice that you mentioned (which they don't) it would simply not make a dent in our elections.\"The fact that felons, as you admitted, account for two percent of the United States population just means that the stripping of voting rights is good deterrent for people to not commit crime. You said that the majority of inmates do not \"\u2018hate'\" justice, but you have nothing to cite otherwise.---\"My final point for this round is I think my most important. One of the ideals that this country was founded on was 'No taxation without representation'. Upon being released from prison, felons are supposed to incorporate themselves into society, find a job, and pay taxes. One of the reasons that slogan exists is so the citizens could have a say as to where their tax dollars were being directed. Taxing felons and denying them this right is unconstitutional and immoral.\"Why should the American tax payer pay for the incarceration of these felons, but then be on an even keel with them when they are released. I say that you are the one trying to strip people of their rights. You are the one advocating the stripping of states rights, as guaranteed by the constitution, but then asking them to catch the bill of these felons. That is the true definition of taxation without representation.---\"There are many people in the United States who did some regrettable act when they were young, served time and upon being released found a job, and for dozens of years have been respectable members of society including paying their taxes. Should we deny them their right to vote upon some stupid thing they did that long ago?\"Yes. We should deny them their vote.A vote in favor of felons voting rights is a vote against taxpayers and state rights as guaranteed by:*Article 1, Sec. 4;*Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment, and*Section Two of the Fifteenth Amendment.Vote Con.Thankyou, and Jesus bless America.", "qid": "7", "docid": "85363321-2019-04-18T18:11:52Z-00000-000", "rank": 19, "score": 186365.0}, {"content": "Title: Released Felons Should Be Allowed To Vote. Content: In ordor to better form a flowing argument, I will boldface quotations from previous arguments and leave a line \"---\" to clarify a natural pause. If readers can recommend a better way to quote previous arguments then please leave a comment explaining the technicalities or a guide that details this.---\"Thank you for the link to the documentary, I watched it (parts one and two) and found it very insightful and although it did reinforce a few of the points you made I do find it disturbing that you are willing to form opinions off the basis of one documentary showing one situation.\"This video is the most recent, valid source I could find of people that showed a mentality that fundamentally opposed organized law. Whats more--A lot of these men were unconvinced, thus they still, technically, retained the right to vote. Citing this video was a way for me to express the prison culture of violence that is embedded into the minds of many ex-felons.Overall, There are many reasons for me formulating this opinion. This video does not encapsulate my entire morality foundations. Also, personal rational is not on debate. The legitamacy of stripping felons of their rights is the topic of this debate.---\"The people in that documentary are pre-trial, meaning that despite the fact that many have been there for years they have not yet served their debt to society. The purpose of being sentenced and serving time in prison is to over come these issues that they have dealing with normal members of society. Is it true that many of these felons will be released with the same immaturity shown here? Absolutely, but more than anything this points to a flaw in our justice system and our ability to rehabilitate our citizens. This is not grounds for denying them the right to vote.\"I cited grounds for denying them voting rights in my previous argument:*Article 1, Sec. 4;*Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment, and*Section Two of the Fifteenth Amendment.These are cited example in our legal code which enable states to strip citizens of their voting rights. I would flip your argument on it's face.It is more immoral to strip states of their rights, which are documented on the books at the federal levelthen it is to strip citizens of their voting rights. I'm sure there are judges out there that calculate the stripping of these rights into their final judgment. (Example: A judge sentencing a felon to 35 years in prison, and later being stripped of their voting rights rather then a more sever length of sentence with retained voting rights.)If Felons object to a lose in voting rights in that state, then they should move to another state that allows them to vote. Nobody is demanding that they stay; As long as it doesn't break their probation.There is a historic president for this. After the Civil War, many confederates left the southern states for the Great American Southwest. There, these traitors could remake themselves, elect representatives and build a society they wanted.---\"You also said that we do not let children vote. This is true and we do this for very good reasons. But we do let them vote when they no longer are classified as children. This is similar to having been released from prison. Upon serving your sentence it is assumed that you have taken the time in prison to think about your mistakes and learn from them, which is very similar to a child turning eighteen. After serving in prison you are supposed to be released and join society. Part of this means taking on the responsibility's that children face when turning into adults, including the responsibility of voting.\"You claim to care about children growing up and conducting themselves in a democracy. Wouldn't this contradict your account on the rights of citizens to retain full rights after they \u2018serve' their time in jail?Rational: How do you feel about pedophiles rights? Is a judge saying, \"We need you to stay away from children\" outside his sentencing procedure? You can see the necessity in keeping pedophiles away from Middle Schools and Elementary Schools, right? But, in your legal system, a judge would not be allowed to do that. That sort of bias against pedophiles would be unconstitutional by your standards.And, as a reminder, it is constitutional to strip felons of their voting rights according to the article and two amendments I cited in my earlier argument:*Article 1, Sec. 4;*Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment, and*Section Two of the Fifteenth Amendment.---\"Another point you made was that released inmates would 'manipulate our judicial and election system to their own corrupt means'. By saying this you are bringing up a point you had made earlier about felons having a 'pathological hatred for justice' which is simply not true. The majority of inmates do not 'hate' justice. When released many felons become one hundred percent normal citizens, with political opinions formed similar to the way that you and I form ours. And another point to be made about them 'manipulating' the justice system is that it would be virtually impossible. Released felons account for somewhere around two percent of the United States, so even if all of them had this hatred for justice that you mentioned (which they don't) it would simply not make a dent in our elections.\"The fact that felons, as you admitted, account for two percent of the United States population just means that the stripping of voting rights is good deterrent for people to not commit crime. You said that the majority of inmates do not \"\u2018hate'\" justice, but you have nothing to cite otherwise.---\"My final point for this round is I think my most important. One of the ideals that this country was founded on was 'No taxation without representation'. Upon being released from prison, felons are supposed to incorporate themselves into society, find a job, and pay taxes. One of the reasons that slogan exists is so the citizens could have a say as to where their tax dollars were being directed. Taxing felons and denying them this right is unconstitutional and immoral.\"Why should the American tax payer pay for the incarceration of these felons, but then be on an even keel with them when they are released. I say that you are the one trying to strip people of their rights. You are the one advocating the stripping of states rights, as guaranteed by the constitution, but then asking them to catch the bill of these felons. That is the true definition of taxation without representation.---\"There are many people in the United States who did some regrettable act when they were young, served time and upon being released found a job, and for dozens of years have been respectable members of society including paying their taxes. Should we deny them their right to vote upon some stupid thing they did that long ago?\"Yes. We should deny them their vote.A vote in favor of felons voting rights is a vote against taxpayers and state rights as guaranteed by:*Article 1, Sec. 4;*Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment, and*Section Two of the Fifteenth Amendment.Vote Con.Thankyou, and Jesus bless America.", "qid": "7", "docid": "85363321-2019-04-18T18:11:52Z-00001-000", "rank": 20, "score": 186365.0}, {"content": "Title: Convicted ex-felons should be able to vote in all US elections. Content: An excellent opening argument put forth by my opponent. My opponent's contentions were P1: Many felons return to prison within 3 years for the same or a different crime P2: It would not be fair to citizens who have never been convicted of a felony P3: Felons should gain the right to vote, by proving that their judgement is valid I'll start by refuting them. P1: Many felons return to prison within 3 years for the same or different crime It may be true that many ex-felons are convicted again, however, my opponent fails to realize that a felon is usually put on parole and/or probation for 3 or more years after being released from prison. These felons are allowed to vote if and only if they are released from all kinds of probation/parole. P2: It would not be fair to citizens who have never been convicted of a felony My opponent claims that giving citizens and ex-felons on even ground is somehow unfair to the group that did not commit a crime (normal citizens). However, the whole point of letting a felon out of prison is to try and let them blend back into normal life, so to speak. But how can they blend back if they forever have a black shadow looming over them? It would not be \"fair\" to hand a prisoner a lifelong sentence if they've already served their time, but this is what my opponent wants to do. P3: Felons should gain the right to vote by proving that their judgement is valid The main point here is \"gain the right to vote\" not HAVE the right to vote. By serving their sentence and fulfilling their civic duties, felons gain their full rights. Also, I'd like to request that my opponent provides evidence for this point and put forth a more detailed solution. How will they earn the right to vote? Having refuted all my opponent's points, I'll move on to my own: P1: Restricting felons from voting violates the Constitution. P2: Felon disenfranchisement encourages racial discrimination. P3: Ex-felons deserve the right to vote. P1: Restricting felons from voting violates the Constitution. I've proven in the previous round that not just one, but multiple amendments are violated. 1. The 8th Amendment -- Disenfranchisement for LIFE falls under the category of \"excessive sanctions.\" The prisoner has already served his sentence. He's supposed to be free now, right? But the government still sanctions him on the right to vote. This is clearly a violation of the felon's 8th amendment rights. 2. The 15th Amendment -- Disenfranchisement after release from prison/probation/parole is like denying the citizen the right on account of \"previous condition of servitude.\" The main point here is PREVIOUS condition. It is (quite obviously) true that a ex-felon has been in prison, and I'm not arguing for them to be allowed to vote FROM prison. But after they're out, logically their right should be returned to them by the 15th amendment. P2: Felon disenfranchisement encourages racial discrimination. When so many people of a minority race are not allowed to vote, this clearly creates an imbalance between races. America is known as the \"Great Melting Pot\" of diversity, but how can we continue to boast this if one minority is a million people down at the ballot box while others go on almost like normal? An overwhelming majority of ex-felons are African American or Hispanic. Not only is this unfair, it actually bolsters crime later on -- it backfires, doing the opposite of what it's supposed to do. According to USA Today: The right to vote helps people get more educated on issues they care about. Also, people who can't voice their opinion in the law might resort -- AGAIN -- to breaking it. Sentencing Project: An overwhelming 78% of all repeated offenses had been disenfranchised. This creates an endless cycle: person commits crime, person can't vote, person commits crime again, person still can't vote. We need to prevent things like this from happening by allowing ex-felons to vote. P3: Ex-felons deserve the right to vote. A felon is essentially a person who makes a mistake. True, a BIG mistake, but a mistake nonetheless. They are still human beings and part of our society, like it or not. They could be limited on the issues they are allowed to vote on, like bills and laws, but they should be allowed to vote in elections. Ex-felons are still affected by the next President. They are still affected by their next Senator. If they're going to follow the law, they should have a say in who makes the law. People can't be persecuted for the past. This concludes my argument for this round. Thank you, I look forward to my opponent's response :)", "qid": "7", "docid": "ffc1c5ad-2019-04-18T16:49:56Z-00005-000", "rank": 21, "score": 185748.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. Content: Legislatures in 16 states have loosened voting restrictions on felons over the last decade, according to a new report, a trend hailed by some rights advocates as a step toward democratic principles and fairness, especially for black Americans. What voting restrictions, if any, should be placed on felons? Because of their high incarceration rate, blacks are most affected by the voting bans that vary widely among the states, with many barring current inmates and parolees from voting until they have fulfilled their sentences, and some barring felons for life. In recent years, Iowa, Nebraska and New Mexico have repealed their lifetime bans on voting by people who have been convicted of felonies, and several other states made it easier for freed prisoners or those on probation to vote, according to the report, issued yesterday by the Sentencing Project, a liberal advocacy group in Washington. The recent changes have restored voting rights to more than 600,000 individuals, the report said. But because the country's prison population has continued to rise, a record number of Americans, 5.3 million, are still denied the vote because of criminal records, it concluded. \"It's good news that many people who'd been disqualified from voting are being re-engaged as citizens,\" said Jeremy Travis, president of the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York and a leader of the movement to smooth the re-entry of prisoners to society. \"I think people are realizing that the country had gone too far in marginalizing a large group of people who have been convicted of felonies,\" Mr. Travis said. \"This has had profound consequences for our democracy and the participation of minorities.\" But some conservatives remain philosophically opposed to any wholesale loosening of voting restrictions. \"If you're not willing to follow the law, then you shouldn't't claim the right to make the law for someone else,\" said Roger Clegg, president of the Center for Equal Opportunity, a conservative advocacy group in Washington. Mr. Clegg, who was a senior Justice Department official in the Reagan and first Bush administrations, said that those convicted of felonies should be given the vote only case by case, when they have proved to be constructive members of society. Some restrictions on voting date to the early years of the country or to the post-Civil-War period, while others were tightened during the \"get tough on crime\" era of the 1980's. By federal law, voter rules are mainly set by the states. As a result, even in presidential elections, former prisoners can vote in some states but not others. Only two states, Maine and Vermont, have no restrictions, even permitting inmates to vote. At the other extreme, three states, Florida, Kentucky and Virginia, still have lifetime bans on voting by felons. Nine others bar selected groups of offenders for life. New York, Connecticut and New Jersey, like most states, do not allow current inmates or parolees to vote. In a ballot initiative in Rhode Island this November, voters will decide whether to restore voting rights to prisoners on parole or probation, who far outnumber inmates. Early polls show public support for the measure. Advocates of change emphasize broad arguments about democratic process, but the racial disparities give the issue a special resonance and raise questions about the representation of minorities in politics. In 2004, one in eight black men were unable to vote because of a felony conviction, the report said, a rate many times higher than that for other groups. Felony convictions have left one in four black men barred from voting in five states: Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Virginia and Wyoming, said Ryan S. King, author of the report and a policy analyst at the Sentencing Project. But Mr. Clog argued that the voting restrictions were applied evenhandedly, and that just because they had a disproportionate impact on one group, that did not make them racially discriminatory. Though data on felon voting patterns are murky, a large majority of former prisoners are believed to lean Democratic. Even with a low turnout rate, their participation could make a difference in close races, experts say. Florida's rules, for example, might have been a factor in the 2000 presidential election. Most black voters in Florida say that the state should overturn the law that prevents a half-million people of all races from casting a ballot because they are convicted felons, a St. Petersburg Times poll shows. The survey says that nine of 10 black voters in Florida think that felons who pay their debt to society should automatically have their voting right restored. Florida is one of nine states that deny the right to vote to all convicted felons who have served their time. Felons can have their rights restored by appealing to the governor and Cabinet, often a lengthy process. Support for a change to the state law is uniformly high among men and women, Republicans and Democrats, and all age groups, according to a survey of 600 African-Americans conducted by Washington-based Schroth and Associates for the St. Petersburg Times. Florida's law has been part of the state's political landscape since the 1800s and has spurred a federal class-action lawsuit against the governor and spawned several legislative efforts to overturn it. The law disproportionately impacts blacks, who tend to vote Democratic. Indeed, some research suggests that ex-felons of all races lean toward the Democratic Party. Some experts contend a change could have a big political effect in a state that was shown during last year's presidential race to be closely divided between Republicans and Democrats. The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law estimates that 500,000 felons in Florida are affected by the law. Of those, 139,000 are black people, according to the center. Christopher Uggen, a University of Minnesota sociologist who has studied the political consequences of felon disenfranchisement laws, contends that Gore would have won Florida if felons would have been allowed to vote last year. He also speculates that Florida's retired U.S. Sen. Connie Mack probably would not have won his close 1988 election if felons had been allowed to vote. However, lawyers for Gov. Jeb Bush's office have argued that the number of people who can't vote because of the law is much lower than the 500,000 cited by opponents. State Rep. Chris Smith, D-Fort Lauderdale, has filed two bills that would give felons their voting rights one year after they satisfy all sentences. Four similar bills are filed in the Senate. All are assigned to several committees -- a sign that they might have tough going in the GOP-controlled Legislature. But Smith said House Speaker Tom Feeney has floated a compromise that would allow ex-felons to apply to a local judge for clemency. Feeney was not available to comment. House Majority Leader Mike Fasano said he was unaware of any compromise offers, adding that he thought the state's present clemency process is adequate. The Republican caucus has not taken a stance on the bills though, Fasano said, and he expected vigorous committee discussion on them. Whether the bills make it to the floor of the Republican-dominated body depends on the committee chairs, he said. Gov. Bush's Select Election Task Force also has identified the issue as critical and referred it to the Legislature for review and possible action.", "qid": "7", "docid": "e5aaa355-2019-04-18T19:35:37Z-00008-000", "rank": 22, "score": 185524.0}, {"content": "Title: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. Content: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. A: Clarification/Context So as to be as clear as possible. I am arguing that so called Felons should retain the right to vote in spite of being felons. Below is some basic information on the current circumstance in regard to the debate topic. \u201cThe idea of taking away a criminal's right to vote has been around since ancient Greece and Rome. A condition called \"civil death\" in Europe involved the forfeiture of property, the loss of the right to appear in court, and a prohibition on entering into contracts, as well as the loss of voting rights. Civil death was brought to America by English colonists, but most aspects of it were eventually abolished, leaving only felon disenfranchisement intact in some parts of modern America.\u201d(1) \u201c5.3 million Americans (1 in 40 adults) were unable to vote due to a felony conviction in the 2008 elections. This included 1.4 million African-American men, more than 676,000 women, and 2.1 million ex-offenders who have completed their sentences. \u201c(1) \u201cState approaches to felon disenfranchisement vary tremendously. In Maine and Vermont, felons never lose their right to vote, even while they are incarcerated. In Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, and Virginia, felons and ex-felons permanently lose their right to vote, without a pardon from the governor. Virginia and Florida have supplementary programs which facilitate gubernatorial pardons. The remaining 45 states have 45 different approaches to the issue. In 38 states and the District of Columbia, most ex-felons automatically gain the right to vote upon the completion of their sentence. In some states, ex-felons must wait for a certain period of time after the completion of their sentence before rights can be restored. In some states, an ex-felon must apply to have voting rights restored.\u201d(1) B: Burden of proof As I am proposing the change to the status quo, I accept the burden of proof. I must affirm the resolution. C: Debate Format 4 rounds/6,000 characters/72 hrs. 1st round: acceptance 2nd and 3rd rounds: Arguments and rebuttals 4th round: Final rebuttal and closing statements (No new arguments) (1) http://www.ncsl.org...", "qid": "7", "docid": "8267279d-2019-04-18T15:31:31Z-00007-000", "rank": 23, "score": 184818.0}, {"content": "Title: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. Content: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. A: Clarification/Context So as to be as clear as possible. I am arguing that so called Felons should retain the right to vote in spite of being felons. Below is some basic information on the current circumstance in regard to the debate topic. \u201cThe idea of taking away a criminal's right to vote has been around since ancient Greece and Rome. A condition called \"civil death\" in Europe involved the forfeiture of property, the loss of the right to appear in court, and a prohibition on entering into contracts, as well as the loss of voting rights. Civil death was brought to America by English colonists, but most aspects of it were eventually abolished, leaving only felon disenfranchisement intact in some parts of modern America.\u201d(1) \u201c5.3 million Americans (1 in 40 adults) were unable to vote due to a felony conviction in the 2008 elections. This included 1.4 million African-American men, more than 676,000 women, and 2.1 million ex-offenders who have completed their sentences. \u201c(1) \u201cState approaches to felon disenfranchisement vary tremendously. In Maine and Vermont, felons never lose their right to vote, even while they are incarcerated. In Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, and Virginia, felons and ex-felons permanently lose their right to vote, without a pardon from the governor. Virginia and Florida have supplementary programs which facilitate gubernatorial pardons. The remaining 45 states have 45 different approaches to the issue. In 38 states and the District of Columbia, most ex-felons automatically gain the right to vote upon the completion of their sentence. In some states, ex-felons must wait for a certain period of time after the completion of their sentence before rights can be restored. In some states, an ex-felon must apply to have voting rights restored.\u201d(1) B: Burden of proof As I am proposing the change to the status quo, I accept the burden of proof. I must affirm the resolution. C: Debate Format 4 rounds/6,000 characters/72 hrs. 1st round: acceptance 2nd and 3rd rounds: Arguments and rebuttals 4th round: Final rebuttal and closing statements (No new arguments) (1)http://www.ncsl.org...", "qid": "7", "docid": "826727bc-2019-04-18T15:25:22Z-00007-000", "rank": 24, "score": 184818.0}, {"content": "Title: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. Content: R: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U. S. Clarification/Context So as to be as clear as possible. I am arguing that so called Felons should retain the right to vote in spite of being felons. Below is some basic information on the current circumstance in regard to the debate topic. \u201cThe idea of taking away a criminal's right to vote has been around since ancient Greece and Rome. A condition called \"civil death\" in Europe involved the forfeiture of property, the loss of the right to appear in court, and a prohibition on entering into contracts, as well as the loss of voting rights. Civil death was brought to America by English colonists, but most aspects of it were eventually abolished, leaving only felon disenfranchisement intact in some parts of modern America. \u201d(1)\u201c5.3 million Americans (1 in 40 adults) were unable to vote due to a felony conviction in the 2008 elections. This included 1.4 million African-American men, more than 676,000 women, and 2.1 million ex-offenders who have completed their sentences. \u201c(1) \u201cState approaches to felon disenfranchisement vary tremendously. In Maine and Vermont, felons never lose their right to vote, even while they are incarcerated. In Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, and Virginia, felons and ex-felons permanently lose their right to vote, without a pardon from the governor. Virginia and Florida have supplementary programs which facilitate gubernatorial pardons. The remaining 45 states have 45 different approaches to the issue. In 38 states and the District of Columbia, most ex-felons automatically gain the right to vote upon the completion of their sentence. In some states, ex-felons must wait for a certain period of time after the completion of their sentence before rights can be restored. In some states, an ex-felon must apply to have voting rights restored. \u201d(1) Burden of proofAs I am proposing the change to the status quo, I accept the burden of proof. I must affirm the resolution. Debate Format4 rounds/6,000 characters/72 hrs.", "qid": "7", "docid": "826727db-2019-04-18T14:31:24Z-00007-000", "rank": 25, "score": 184543.0}, {"content": "Title: Convicted ex-felons should be able to vote in all US elections. Content: First I will begin by responding to your refutation of my main points P1: Many felons return to prison within 3 years of the same or another crime Although I was not able to find data for the rate at which ex-felons return to prison after 3 years, I'm sure it is still a significant percentage, especially after being let off of parole or probation, where they are no longer monitored. The simple fact that many ex-felons are convicted of another crime should be proof enough that all ex-felons should not be allowed the right to vote. P2: It would not be fair to citizens who have never been convicted of a felony You are correct in your statement that \" the whole point of letting a felon out of prison is to try and let them blend back into normal life, so to speak\". However, by refusing ex-felons the right to vote, are we really hindering their ability to assimilate back into society? I don't think so because this right does not define who is a member of society and who is not, nor does it prevent an ex-felon from doing other things such as getting a job, or driving a car. So the daily interactions involved in \"normal life\" are not effected by an ex-felons inability to vote. P3: Felons should gain the right to vote by proving that their judgement is valid By serving a full sentence in jail, should an ex-felon really regain the right to vote? Who is to say that serving a full sentence in prison is only a part of the punishment committing a felony, and that an ex-felons inability to vote serves to remind him/her that a life of crime is not worth it, and that they will have to prove that they are productive members of society to regain this right. I think that once a felon gets off of probation or parole that he/she can choose to be evaluated by a psychologist to see whether or not his/her judgement is valid in order to regain the right to vote. However, this would be something that our lawmakers would decide upon so I'm sure a reasonable solution could be agreed on. Now I will move on to your arguments and refute them P1: Restricting felons from voting violates the Constitution. If a US citizen commits a felony, isn't that sufficient means to revoke the right to vote? Also, restricting a person from voting does not seem to be a cruel or unusual punishment, because it does not prevent them from performing daily functions of life. So as I mentioned earlier, the right to vote does not effect an ex-felons ability to function in society and in no way directly harms him/her (indirectly perhaps). As for the 15th amendment, I would interpret it to mean that a right should not be refused as a result of a previous condition of servitude, but would the right be refused as a result of the felony committed? P2: Felon disenfranchisement encourages racial discrimination. Well I would like to point out that African Americans and Hispanics already make up a minority in this country, and so your claim that felon disenfranchisement \"creates an imbalance between races\" would be true regardless. Its not as if white people vote for one thing and minorities vote for another, so I see it as one million people simply not voting, and do not assume that most of them would have voted for X person due to the color of their skin. That is almost like saying that if we let all prisoners vote, the minorities would have helped Obama win and therefore we are restricting their ability to vote in an attempt to sway election results. Simply not true, for all we know, half of them supported Obama and the other half Romney, so skin color does not determine how a person will most vote. You claim that \"people who can't voice their opinion in the law might resort -- AGAIN -- to breaking it.\" Relating to my first point, if they would break the law a second time because their individual opinion was not heard, then they probably should not have the right to vote. That would be like if I smoked weed even though its illegal because I support its legalization (I don't smoke, but the war on drugs is expensive and ineffective). My individual opinion about the legality of weed was not heard, but does that mean that I can proceed to break the law? Absolutely not. I'd like to point out that although ex-felons cannot vote, they are still able to do a lot of other things such as organize a peaceful protest, or petition for change, etc. This would still allow them a chance to voice their opinion. P3: Felons deserve a right to vote I don't believe that they deserve this right until they can prove that they can handle the right responsibly (as I have pointed out in my third point). You are right, the next president will effect the lives of them as well. However, the president is meant to make decisions in the best interest of the majority, with the goal of producing a solution that satisfies both if possible. Assuming that felons could influence the outcome of an election, which is very unlikely, wouldn't it be detrimental to the majority? It just does not make much sense for people who have made a \"BIG mistake in life\", as you put it, to be able to influence the outcome of an election that will effect all of us. Thank you, I patiently await your response :)", "qid": "7", "docid": "ffc1c5ad-2019-04-18T16:49:56Z-00004-000", "rank": 26, "score": 183386.0}, {"content": "Title: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. Content: I must make clear that my position is in favor of the status quo. I may disagree states that I do not live in but I accept their decisions and the shared federal government that results from our individual election systems. If I understand what you just posted it seems as if you would like all felons to have the right vote including the ones who have not yet finished serving their sentences. You also seem to think that Felons in America only lose their right to vote. They lose other rights also. I say leave the states alone and keep to your own business in your own state. Freedom, liberty and self determination are always a better course than Totalitarianism.", "qid": "7", "docid": "826727bc-2019-04-18T15:25:22Z-00006-000", "rank": 27, "score": 183332.0}, {"content": "Title: Convicted ex-felons should be able to vote in all US elections. Content: I will attempt to construct my arguments in a similar fashion in order to keep the format consistent Contentions: P1: Many felons return to prison within 3 years for the same or a different crime P2: It would not be fair to citizens who have never been convicted of a felony P3: Felons should gain the right to vote, by proving that their judgement is valid Definitions: Recidivism- Measured by criminal acts that resulted in the rearrest, reconviction, or return to prison with or without a new sentence during a three-year period following the prisoner's release. P1: With many felons returning to prison within three years, how are we to be able to have faith in their good judgement? These are obviously not simple crimes, and if so many return to a life of crime as soon as they get out, then why should they have the right to vote? The effectiveness of our criminal justice system is for another debate, but as it is now, its not actually correcting anybody, its simply detaining them. Here is some interesting data: \"Released prisoners with the highest rearrest rates were robbers (70.2%), burglars (74.0%), larcenists (74.6%), motor vehicle thieves (78.8%), those in prison for possessing or selling stolen property (77.4%), and those in prison for possessing, using, or selling illegal weapons (70.2%).\" This would allow all of these felons, most of which return to prison within several years for the same crime, to vote in elections. There is more information on Recidivism rates here [1]. P2: Why should citizens who have been convicted of a felon have the same right as those who have never been convicted of one? Certainly they are not of equal value to society when one was thrown in prison for being a danger to society. If these felons are at risk of recidivism, of which many of them are, then I don't quite think their judgement is valid enough to allow them to vote in elections that could effect the rest of society. P3: Perhaps there should be a system in place for convicted felons to earn the right to vote. I feel that this would be a lot better than simply giving them the right to vote once they had served their time. This would ensure that we do not have voters with compromised judgements, and that they cannot vote before proving that they are able to be productive members of society. Otherwise, they may base their vote on a topic of interest, such as the legalization of a certain drug, etc. [1] http://www.bjs.gov...", "qid": "7", "docid": "ffc1c5ad-2019-04-18T16:49:56Z-00006-000", "rank": 28, "score": 181920.0}, {"content": "Title: Convicted ex-felons should be able to vote in all US elections. Content: Now into the summary and impact round! No new arguments and refutes as this is the last round :) thanks To summarize, my points were P1: Restricting felons from voting violates the Constitution. P2: Felon disenfranchisement encourages racial discrimination. P3: Ex-felons deserve the right to vote. Ex-felons cannot be barred from voting on legal premises since disenfranchisement for life violates the Constitution. It violates the excessive sanctions part of the 8th amendment as well as the 15th amendment. America needs to defend everyone's voting rights, but how can we fulfill this if ex-felons are still not allowed to vote? Everyone is supposed to be part of the American Dream. We all should have an equal opportunity at life, but ex-felon disenfranchisement violates this. Voting still is a big part of society. Ex-felons are affected by the results of elections. They should be able to have a say in who leads their country. Once a felon starts fulfilling his/her civic duties, they should have their full rights returned to them. On top of all moral values, ex-felons who actually have a say in their government are less prone to committing crime again. Since this reduces crime rates, it only further proves that ex-felons SHOULD be able to vote. What this debate really comes down to is weighing my opponent's main points (bad judgement and potential dangers of felons recommitting crimes) against the simple reality that ex-felons are people who abide by the law and deserve their full rights. If a person has bad judgement, does that mean he can be denied his Constitutional rights? The fact remains that ex-felon disenfranchisement is illegal. Furthermore, the past is the past; we cannot continue to punish ex-felons for mistakes they made long ago. They are already on lower ground than normal citizens. Also, if an ex-felon has bad judgement, he would not have gotten out of parole or probation -- felons have to be reviewed to get fully free. The potential dangers of felons recommitting crimes are not relevant because studies show that ex-felons who can vote are way less likely to commit crime. This is what sets me over my opponent. He has failed to prove the morality and legality behind disenfranchisement, but I've proven the moral and legal reasons behind allowing ex-felons to vote. I suggest voters cast their ballot for my side because I've proven convicted felons released from prison/parole/probation should be able to vote for both legal and moral reasons. I've refuted all of my opponent's refutations/contentions effectively (his refutations were quite repetitive and can be refuted by my rebuttals in previous rounds) and provided more detailed evidence. Overall, I have presented a stronger case. Thank you. Also, I'd like to say thank you to my opponent for an excellent, engaging debate. Your arguments were very well thought out. It was fun debating with you :)", "qid": "7", "docid": "ffc1c5ad-2019-04-18T16:49:56Z-00001-000", "rank": 29, "score": 181522.0}, {"content": "Title: Felon Voting Content: Five point three million Americans are denied the right to vote, simply because of their criminal records. If these convicts were able to vote it may amount to the difference in who our country's own president may be. It could have a huge impact on the laws that are in affect as well. This is why I stand in firm affirmation of the resolution; Resolved: in a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. President of John Jay College of Criminal Justice, Jeremy Travis, stated that, \"In more than a dozen states, a convicted felon loses the right to vote-for life. Thirty-two states prohibit offenders on probation or parole from voting.\" \"In states with lifetime bans, the consequences for democratic participation are deeply disturbing.\" Before we discuss the topic any farther I would first like to establish and clarify some key definitions and terms. Democratic:pertaining to or characterized by the principle of political or social equality for all Society: a highly structured system of human organization for large-scale community living that normally furnishes protection, continuity, security, and a national identity for its members Felon:one who has committed a felony Retain:to continue to use, practice Right to Vote:a legal right guaranteed by the United States Constitution Contention 1:Convicts and Ex-convicts are treated like any other average citizen in every other aspect of their lives. Felons are expected to follow and obey the laws just the same as you and me. Why should we not give them the right to help choose the leaders they have to follow and vote on the laws that they are expected to obey? If felons are responsible to uphold the standard set by society, they should have the same rights and privileges as others. Steve Chapman stated, \"We let ex-cons marry, reproduce, buy beer, own property, and drive. They don't lose their freedom of religion, their right against self-incrimination, or their right not to have soldiers quartered in their home in a time of war. But, the assumption in most places is that they can't be trusted to help choose our leaders. If we thought criminals could never be reformed, we wouldn't let them out of prison in the first place.\" In some states, Maine and Vermont, felons are allowed to vote even while being incarcerated. How can one justify this being fair to a convict in Missouri. It should be a standard all across the board that everyone's voting rights are treated equally, even a felon's(see Equal Protection Clause, Contention 3). Allowing one felon to vote and not allowing another to is creating a double standard based on location, which has no legitimate effect on voting rights. Contention 2:Felons are serving or have served the punishment they were sentenced for their crime. A judge is a highly trained professional. They make decisions to determine punishments and consequences accordingly. When they sentence a felon they sentence them to a punishment that is adequate to the crime they committed. There is no reason for society to think of themselves above a felon and impose further regulations. It is not our place to judge others when we ourselves could just as easily be in their place. By denying a felon this right we are demoralizing them and depriving them of their basic human rights. We are alienating them from society. A felon has already been given a punishment for the crime they committed so why should we make them keep suffering for something that happened in the past and was already dealt with? We are taking away the capability for a felon to fix their life and reform into the \"average Joe.\" By doing this we are putting society in a susceptible position. Contention 3: The right for everybody to vote is protected by the constitution. Amendment VIII of the Constitution states, \"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel or unusual punishments inflicted.\" Also according to the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, \"Congress finds that the right of citizens of the United States to vote is a fundamental right.\" Contrary to the beliefs of many that voting is a privilege, Congress itself wrote that it is a right that ALL United States citizens have, regardless of any discriminatory factor. Lastly, there is this little part of the Constitution that is referred to as \"The Equal Protection Clause.(Amendment XIV, Section 1).\" It states that, \"No state shall enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.\" This makes it clear that any ordinance outlawing a citizen's right to vote is unconstitutional. The United States was established under the values and morals of our country's founding fathers. As I have shown with my three points of contention, they clearly had the intent of allowing all citizens the right to vote, no matter what the circumstances may have been. Felons, as I stated in my first contention, are expected to follow the same laws. Taking away more basic human rights separates them from society. If citizens expect laws to be followed, everyone needs equal input on the making of these laws. Not only do we need to follow through with the resolution because of the hypocrisy and double-standards involved, but also because it is protected constitutionally. The VIII amendment to the constitution, The National Voter Registration Act of 1993, and the Equal Protection Clause all reference that disenfranchisement is wrong. Also, Making a felon pay for their mistake even after completing their sentencing completely violates my second point of contention. They were given an appropriate sentencing. Taking away the right to vote was not included in it. For the reasons I have stated above I know the affirmative side is the right side. This is why I urge you to return a negative ballot today. Thank You.", "qid": "7", "docid": "bcb43496-2019-04-18T19:26:12Z-00003-000", "rank": 30, "score": 181408.0}, {"content": "Title: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. Content: This debate only focuses on felons. I wold hardly consider a speeding ticket to be a felony charge. I am asserting that only those who have served time in prison should not have the right to vote because they do not care enough about the laws to follow them. Why should we let them vote when they have done something terribly wrong?", "qid": "7", "docid": "8267279d-2019-04-18T15:31:31Z-00000-000", "rank": 31, "score": 179918.0}, {"content": "Title: You Choose the Topic! Content: 2. Felons should be allowed to vote People need to learn there are consequences to their actions, and punishment is involved. Felonies are big crimes, and there is consequences to your actions. My claim: Felons should not be able to vote.", "qid": "7", "docid": "36c2c315-2019-04-18T11:41:22Z-00005-000", "rank": 32, "score": 179868.0}, {"content": "Title: Convicted Felons should be allowed to vote in all U.S. elections Content: I accept.", "qid": "7", "docid": "e540288d-2019-04-18T16:49:57Z-00003-000", "rank": 33, "score": 179110.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. Content: I too thank you for this debate. It has been a good one with a direction of a good finish. Good luck! Value Clash: My opponent made a claim that the values are the same thus it is a tie here. But this is not true at all. They ARE the same, but only CON achieves it. This is because throughout the process of a person being a citizen, and a person being a citizen with a felony, people are equally treated. All citizens can be felons; however, we only take the right of voting away from those who actually commit a felony. Therefore, the CON side achieves the value of Equality/Fairness. Criterion of Just Deserts: Here, you assume that the court's sentence means that they are off scott free. This is not true. There can be (an is) more than one punishment for being a convicted criminal/felon. Just like a convicted sex offender must register as such, a felon can't vote. Just like a restraining order can be issued against someone who commits a crime against someone, a felon can't cast a vote FOR society when he/she has already gone against it. The criterion serves its purpose as such: If you commit a felony against our society, you lose the right to have your voice (vote) heard on how the society is run. And thus, we are FAIR (equal) in our system. Since the resolution talks about a theoretical situation, I must admit that we are not being fair/equal to the people as of now (states Maine and Vermont vs. Mississippi). However, in each of these states, one another ARE treated equally to each other. Furthermore, I advocate that ALL felons should not get the vote back. Therefore, I urge that the government recognizes everyone as equal by having additional punishments of not being able to vote after committing a penalty. The value still stands on the CON side. Here, you make two interesting points worth addressing. 1) You assume that all of these elections are only federal elections. But the right to vote goes beyond just the national level it also has state and local elections. In one city, the mayor race was won by one vote. In another election, a school board race was tied and decided by a coin flip. What if instead of a coin flip, it was a felon who decided. Has the felon really earned that right? 2) Also, you assume that 2% of the vote and 2% of the population are the same. For example, you say that the closest presidential race was 2% so that means it's 2% of the vote. 2% of the vote very well could be substantially under the 5.3 million people that have committed a felony. --> Besides this, the biggest question you have to be asking yourself is \"Have these felons earned the right to vote? The answer is no. Contention 1: To be honest, a crime against society = a person not deserving to be a part of that society. But since that isn't a political option, removing their right to help run society (through their vote) is the best way to say \"If you commit a crime against society, you can't decide how society is going to be run.\" Therefore, they do get what they deserve. Perhaps they do deserve to be exported after committing a felony, but that is non-resolutional. So for now, let's just take away their right to vote. Contention 2: I think you misinterpret the point of my argument. You see, felons wouldn't ALWAYS be the swing vote, however, sometime they will be (whether local, state, or federal election). And when they are, you must ask yourself, do they really have to right to have a say in the same government and society that they go against, the answer is NO. Contention 3: You do not have to qualify in order to vote, but you can't be unqualified. The law states that the \u2018right of voting can not be denied because of' (several things). This means that it can be denied for other reasons such as felonies. And as long as this law has been around, no abuse has been created. You can't vote if you're not 18 (excluding some rarities in state laws) and you can't vote if you're a felon (also excluding some rare state laws). These are ways to be able to lose your vote, but you don't have to qualify by passing tests or having money, it is guaranteed unless you're not registered, not 18, or not a felon. I see no abuse in the system and my opponent has not pointed out any abuse so this argument must be flowed to the CON side. HIS CASE: Contention 1: Again, felons wouldn't control all of the elections, but they will be the swing vote in several of them. Once again, they do not deserve this right. Contention 2: Woah woah woah, where is your evidence that says that felons that can vote have a 50% less chance of committing a crime. This claim is abusive and unrealistic. Other than that, my opponent claims that felons have the right to have their voice heard. Even though he doesn't say why they deserve to have their voice heard (I have proved the opposite (crime against society = no voice in society)). Contention 3: This argument is completely abusive. Amendments talk about why rights CAN'T be taken away, not who we guarantee them to. Felons are not one of the reasons to be able to take it away, so legally, CON wins. Even though they're minorities by definition, everyone is capable of being one and no one is born one. Becoming a felony is a CHOICE, and they are assumed to know the consequences of making that choice particularly in the states that outlaw a felony from voting. Analysis: Democracy STILL exists whether pro or con wins. This criterion is thus useless. However, when you vote CON, you gain the criterion of just deserts (by them getting what they deserve) AND both of the values (taking away the right of felonies voting is fair and equal among the states). NO amendment says that felonies MUST be given voting capabilities, so this argument is useless. There is no substantial reason to give felonies a right to vote but I give you plenty of reasons as to why to take away the right to vote (crime against society = no voice for society). Therefore, I urge a CON vote. I eagerly await your speech and good luck!", "qid": "7", "docid": "e5aaa317-2019-04-18T19:37:54Z-00002-000", "rank": 34, "score": 178876.0}, {"content": "Title: Homos should not be allowed to vote Content: Pro is comparing homosexuals to felons, which still doesn't bring any validity to his position. Most homosexuals are not criminals. Comparing Felons to Homosexuals is like comparing Gold to Silver. Felons are not allowed to vote because they are in prison and it wouldn't matter if they voted or not because they're in jail. Felons have their rights taken away because they made a faulty choice. Innocent Homosexuals have their rights to vote just like everyone else. Just because a certain group of people aren't allowed to vote doesn't mean that you should bring it up towards Homosexuals. We're not debating about felons here. Pro also thinks sodomy, which is an oral or anal intercourse of sex, should be considered a felony. Again, sexual intercourse has nothing to do with this debate topic which is \"Homos should not be allowed to vote.\" He also did not give any statistics of which states had sodomy laws because he said \"no I don't care to do the exact counting or a precise rundown of which states had laws against sodomy as a felony.\" That just comes to show that Pro is too lazy to provide any evidence to support his case. Sodomy laws in the U.S has been repealed and struck down ever since before the 70's. [http://en.wikipedia.org...] Again, this affirm is off topic because felons and sodomy laws have absolutely nothing to do with voting. Pro has completely lost focus on his own debate subject. Pro continues to declare statement that have little or no relation to what we're debating about still. Pro is saying that men and women are sexually abusing themselves for their enjoyment, while misusing the term \"sexual abuse.\" Sexual abuse is basically sexual assault. Sexual assault is \"a statutory offense that provides that it is a crime to knowingly cause another person to engage in an UNWANTED SEXUAL ACT by force or threat.\" [http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...] Based on the definitions I provided, Pro's assertions is proven fallacious. He's saying that just because a person enjoys something doesn't make it right. Although, that is true in a general sense, that statement does not apply well with sex. Sex is human nature. It's one of our most basic needs as a human being according to Abraham Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. [http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_hierarchy_of_needs] Then, Pro blathers about nations taking over and progressives, again, that proves no validity to his position, supports it, nor does it have any relationship to the topic at hand. Lastly, Pro states that all sex outside of marriage should be against the law and that all \"fornicators\" and \"adulterers\" should be considered felons and not allowed to vote. This, again, has no relationship to the topic. Pro has completely moved away from the topic of homosexuals and now applies his topic to everything else as he says \"ALL SEX.\" People can choose to have sex before marriage if they choose to. The effects of sex before marriage is non-existent. This affirmation shows nothing, but bias and prejudice because Pro feels that sexual obligation is immoral. (Again, that affirm is subjective because morals are subjective and dogmatic.) Those dogmatic affirms prove nothing to Pro's case at all. Pro also states that he is not discriminating, while his position is for the act of taking away homosexuals civil rights of voting which follows the definition of discriminate. Discriminate - To mare an unjust or prejudicial distinction in the treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, sex, or age. [https://www.google.com...] I've noticed the terms \"fornicators\" and \"adulterers\" is related to Christian morals. Although, I am a Christian, this still has nothing to do with political voting. Other than politics, I've researched that fornication is not really pre-marital sex. Fornication is the act of having sex with a person that YOU HAVE NOT ESTABLISHED AN ACTIVE RELATIONSHIP with. Adultery is EXTRAMARITAL SEX which is having sex with someone that is not your spouse. Although, I will agree that these sexual acts are \"immoral\" I suppose; however, these affirmations are not valid to prove your case on the topic. These cases would be valid in a topic like \"Fornication is immoral\" or some other topic that's related to sex, not a topic that's related to politics. The definition of fornication and adultery that some people use is oversimplified and doesn't follow its true meaning. [http://slayingevil.wordpress.com...] [http://en.wikipedia.org...] [http://en.wikipedia.org...] Reasons why Pro should lose 1. He did not give any valid assertions 2. He was always off topic 3. He was changing the subject 4. His statements are an act of prejudice and bigotry towards a group of people and promotes discrimination against those group of people. 5. He did not provide any sources to support his case whatsoever.", "qid": "7", "docid": "1dbec9e-2019-04-18T16:11:36Z-00000-000", "rank": 35, "score": 178670.0}, {"content": "Title: Convicted ex-felons should be able to vote in all US elections. Content: My three main contentions are: P1: Restricting felons from voting violates the Constitution. P2: Felon disenfranchisement encourages racial discrimination. P3: Ex-felons deserve the right to vote. Definitions: Felon = an individual who has committed a felony. Felony = a crime punishable by heavy fines, jail/prison time for more than 10 years, and/or death. Disenfranchisement = restriction of an American citizen from voting. FRAMEWORK: The topic strictly states ex-felons, meaning felons released from prison, parole, and/or probation. P1: Restricting ex-felons from voting violates the Constitution. Voting is a right given to all US citizens by the Constitution. Since an ex-felon has been fulfilling their duties as citizens, they must be able to enjoy the full rights of citizens, which includes the right to vote. Also, ex-felon disenfranchisement violates the 8th Amendment. According to the 8th Amendment: \"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. \" According to the Atkins v. Virginia Supreme Court case: The 8th Amendment \"succinctly prohibits excessive sanctions. \" Disenfranchising an ex-felon is an excessive sanction in the sense that it extends the punishment beyond the felon\"s sentence. Furthermore, the 15th Amendment is violated by ex-felon disenfranchisement. According to Section 1 of the 15th Amendment: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Since ex-felons had already been released from prison, according to the 15th Amendment, they cannot be denied the right to vote. We can conclude that ex-felon disenfranchisement is unconstitutional. P2: Felon disenfranchisement encourages racial discrimination. A disproportionate percentage of convicted felons are a minority race. According to the Guardian: The people overwhelmingly affected by felony disenfranchisement laws are minorities. Only 2.5%, 5.8 million people in the voting age population were made ineligible to vote by felon voting laws in 2010. That percentage tripled to 7.7% among African-Americans. Another way of putting this is that 38%, 2.2 million, of all those stopped from voting by felon restrictions are African-American. About a million African-American ex-felons are disenfranchised. According to the Washington Post: In Virginia, Kentucky, and Florida, 1 in 5 African Americans are affected by felon disenfranchisement laws. This is way more than the amount of Caucasian individuals affected by the same laws in the same states, thus creating an imbalance at the ballot box. This creates discrimination against minorities, especially when they have the potential to change the outcome of a race. According to the Georgetown Law Journal: Felon disenfranchisement has tremendous effects on the political landscape - leading researchers report that felon disenfranchisement \"may have altered the outcome of as many as seven recent U. S. Senate elections and one presidential election. \" When P3: Ex-felons deserve the right to vote. A felon is only released from prison, parole, and/or probation after they have abided by the law, paid off their fines and/or served their sentence. Ex-felons have already paid off their debt to society. Inflicting disenfranchisement upon them is unfair. They deserve the right to vote, no matter what they've done in the past. Emphasis on the PAST. Many other countries allow felons to vote. According to Think Progress: 21 out of 45 countries surveyed have NO restrictions on felon voting at all. Only 5 out of 45 countries bar felons from voting after they've served their sentence. These countries are doing quite well with felons being able to voice their opinions in politics. According to the 2012 Sentencing Project: Nearly 6 million Americans are barred from voting due to their previous conviction. This means that 1 out of 40 adults in this country cannot vote. America is supposed to be a democracy, but how is it democratic when so many otherwise eligible citizens can't vote due to crimes they've committed and have already been punished for? These people deserve their full rights. They deserve to vote. Thank you, this concludes my argument.", "qid": "7", "docid": "ffc1c5ad-2019-04-18T16:49:56Z-00007-000", "rank": 36, "score": 177875.0}, {"content": "Title: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. Content: Since they have been in prison they have basically admitted that they are not capable of making rational decisions. We should not give them the opportunity to pick who will be the president or choose other prominent officials that will make decisions for everybody else. Yes all men are \"created\" equal, but they do not always end up like everybody else. Some choose to live an honest life and others don't. I would say that breaking the law is certainly not caring about it. If you cared about the rules and the law you would not break them in the first place. Felons don't understand the importance of the laws or else they would follow them. Yes all people have the right to vote but some need to understand that if you break the law things are going to be taken away from you. By felons being able to vote all that would do would be to create problems. Those opposed to this issue could backlash and maybe they will stop voting. Felons would only vote for who will give them what they want, not what is best for the country.", "qid": "7", "docid": "8267279d-2019-04-18T15:31:31Z-00002-000", "rank": 37, "score": 176559.0}, {"content": "Title: Ex-felons who commited minor crimes or crimes at a early age should be allowed to vote Content: Intro: Voting is a right that everyone should have, voting allows people to express how they feel and different opinions and this is a belief that is an important American value to have. Since ex-felons are citizens and since they have served their time and went through all the requirements to get out of their punishment they have every right to vote. Also not allowing criminals to vote will not change the way they act or help them become productive citizens so there is no benefit from it anyway. 1.Broadness of a felon/some committed crimes as kids A felon could be a man who raped and murdered someone in cold blood, but also could be a young man who, after crashing his car into another, drove off out of fear. A felony conviction doesn't automatically make someone so bad of a person that they shouldn't be allowed to vote. Also some committed a crime or action as a kid or teenager and since then they have changed or learned from it, so their right to vote should be given back. 2.Taxation without representation \"If you are free and required to pay taxes, which funds the salaries of government officials, then you should have the right to vote for those who will receive those salaries. \"America was founded on the concept of no taxation without representation. If felons have paid their debt to society and did the time for their crimes, they should be allowed to vote. They shouldn't be required to pay sales tax and income tax without the ability to influence governmental policy through the ballot. 3.Some claim that some ex-felons go back to jail \"Justice.gov shows that 50% of felons who could not secure any employment during the time of their supervised release (generally two-to-five years) committed a new crime or violated the terms of their release and were sent back to prison. However, an astonishing 93% of those who were able to secure employment during the entirety of their supervised release were able to successfully reintegrate back into society and not return to prison. \"So the clear solution is to help ex-felons returning to the society find jobs and again not all return to jail anyway. 4.Benefits of ex-felons voting \"According to Think Progress: 21 out of 45 countries surveyed have NO restrictions on felon voting at all. Only 5 out of 45 countries bar felons from voting after they've served their sentence. These countries are doing quite well with felons being able to voice their opinions in politics. IF we really want to remain status as a free country as a country you can have opportunities in we shouldn\"t limit freedom of speech. \"Returning the vote to ex-felons promotes re-integration and gives them representation not only in presidential and state elections, but in the evolution of the laws governing the criminal justice system, which most of us can agree is imperfect also the best way to see problems and issues with the criminal justice system is from people who have experienced it themselves. 5.Racial felon disenfranchisement laws/ racist voting \"In America the majority of felons tend to be minorities. In fact according to the Department of Justice for every 15,000 felons sentenced to prison 450 were white 1,356 were Hispanic and 3,188 were black. Although well over a century has passed since post-Reconstruction states used these measures to strip African Americans of their most fundamental rights, the impact of felony disenfranchisement on modern communities of color remains both disproportionate and unacceptable. Throughout America, 2.2 million black citizens \" or nearly one in 13 African-American adults \" are banned from voting because of these laws. This is way more than the amount of white individuals affected by the same laws in the same states, thus creating an imbalance at the ballot box. This creates discrimination against minorities, especially when they have the potential to change the outcome of a race. According to the Georgetown Law Journal: Felon disenfranchisement has tremendous effects on the political landscape - leading researchers report that felon disenfranchisement \"may have altered the outcome of as many as seven recent U.S. Senate elections and one presidential election.\" Conclusion: the main point however is the fact that no harm comes from letting a ex-felon, even a felon vote. I am not arguing for felons but I am just trying to point out something here. Felons/ex-felons are just as ignorant to politics as most Americans so they have the overall similar political knowledge, since both ex-felons and Americans harm voting by overall being ignorant of the voters they are voting for, both should be allowed to vote. Response to what my opponent said: Since most of the felons/ex-felons who commit these crimes as a kid tend to be in poorer/ghetto areas they do not have any knowledge whatsoever over the privileges lost when doing something, they do not realize they will lose the right to vote.", "qid": "7", "docid": "d57ca0db-2019-04-18T15:34:22Z-00005-000", "rank": 38, "score": 176043.0}, {"content": "Title: In a democratic society, a felon ought to retain the right to vote. Content: Not allowing felons to vote is not an infringement on equality. Anyone can commit a crime and become a felon. Everyone is born with the assumption that when they turn 18 they will be allowed to vote. The standards and the expectations are the same for all citizens. Voting is not the only important way to function as a part of a democracy. The revoking of voting serves as an occasional reminder of mistakes.", "qid": "7", "docid": "cb1a30bc-2019-04-18T19:35:27Z-00002-000", "rank": 39, "score": 175667.0}, {"content": "Title: Prisoners should be allowed to vote Content: Background Now, I will point out that it has been declared constitutional for states to disenfranchise felons in the supreme court case Richardson v. Ramirez[1] so here I will not be presenting any legal reasons why felons should be allowed to vote, as the legal reasons show that they can't. Instead, I will focus on explaining why this ruling is wrong. Not every felon has committed a terrible crime. In many states, it is considered a felony to possess a certain amount of marijuana[2]. Thus, also in these states, your voting rights can be taken away just because you have marijuana. I think that since many states are now legalizing marijuana, and a majority(53%) support marijuana legalization [3] with that number rising every year, it is safe to say that people are beginning to realize that marijuana use or possession is not a crime. Since marijuana possession, I consider, a lesser crime than say murder or theft, why should all felons have their voting rights taken away? Some didn't do anything that really harms others. I imagine there are other \"felonies\" that most people would agree are not actually that major of a crime, yet they are felonies and they would prevent you from being able to vote in basically every state. In addition, some estimate that at least 10% of convicts are innocent of their crime and wrongly placed in prison.[5] Why should these people be denied their right to vote just because the other 90% of prisoners did commit a terrible crime? I consider it a worse problem to deny 10 innocent people the right to vote, than to allow 90 felons the right to vote. While it seems like it's proper to deny a murderer or another felon the right to vote, I'll explain in my next point why this is flawed as well. Laws are based off of what seems moral and immoral Since laws are based off of what seems moral and immoral, and there is tons of evidence to suggest that morals are subjective[4], why should criminals have their voting rights stripped away over something that is subjectively wrong? Even murder is subjectively wrong, as many cultures consider murder okay in some circumstances that America or other nations would consider immoral[4]. Since I believe laws are supposed to reflect what society deems what is moral, shouldn't criminals still have a say over such laws? Prisoners are still part of society, albeit they are put somewhere they can no longer harm others, but they still are part of society, they are just separate from most people in society. Just imagine one day that society deems it morally justifiable to murder someone in a specific circumstance, however the law is lagging a little behind society. Then what begins to happen is a massive influx of prisoners will occur as more and more people are murdering under those circumstances, and more and more people are being denied a right to vote. This makes it impossible to change the law, even if majority of people want to make it legal to murder in that instance, and it\u2019s considered moral to do so, but the law can never be changed because people are constantly being thrown in prison. Now, perhaps my opponent will say there is good reason to have murder under all circumstances to be illegal, so it should never change, but if majority of society agrees it is moral, why should there be a law against it? In addition, it is merely my opponent\u2019s subjective opinion that murder would be wrong in that instance, so what makes their subjective opinion better than others\u2019? This is all hypothetical of course, I don\u2019t know if my opponent would have brought this point up, but I rebutted it in case they would. Since murder is universally agreed upon in our society to be wrong, perhaps we can go back to the the marijuana usage argument to get my point across better, if it seemed my murder example was weak. Most people believe marijuana usage is morally okay, now imagine if a majority of people who believe marijuana usage should be legal are thrown in prison because they, themselves, use marijuana. The law can thus never change, even though marijuana usage is seen as moral by society, because people are getting their voting rights taken away. This can apply to any action that changes to be moral by society's view. I will leave my argument at this for now. Sources: [1]https://en.wikipedia.org... [2]http://www.drugtreatment.com... [3]http://www.pewresearch.org... [4]http://www.debate.org... [5]http://www.tandfonline.com...", "qid": "7", "docid": "cefb92e7-2019-04-18T12:32:56Z-00000-000", "rank": 40, "score": 175452.0}, {"content": "Title: In a democratic society, felons out to retain the right to vote. Content: I affirm the resolution: in a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. This resolution not only deals with the United States, but with all democratic societies in the world. Before moving on to the values, I will proceed to clarify definitions. Democracy: a form of government where the supreme power is held by the people;. Felon: a person currently convicted of a felony and not yet completely served their sentences \u2013whether it is imprisonment, probation or parole. Felony: a serious crime (such as murder or arson). My value premise is Democracy; because this resolution deals with felon disenfranchisement in a democratic society, our main goal is to be democratic. Because a democracy is a form of government where the power is held by the people, maintaining the rights of the people is essential to having a democracy. The people's rights must be protected so that they may maintain the supreme power that they hold over the government. Therefore, my value criterion is protection of human rights. There are certain rights that people are entitled to, and that they must have in order to have a functional democratic society. My first contention is that voting is a right in democratic societies that cannot be violated. All people reserve the right to vote and let their opinions be heard in a democratic society. Because a democracy gives power to the people, we cannot choose who has the right to vote. A clear example of a democracy is the United States. Although it is not a pure democracy, it is as close to one a nation can be without being impractical. The United States has a population approximately of 305,559,149. A pure democracy would have to count every one of these votes \u2013 therefore a democratic republic is the best way to handle a large population while maintaining a democracy. The Founding Fathers founded this nation upon the idea that everyone is equal and that everyone is entitled to equal rights. The First Amendment of the Constitution includes many rights \u2013 one of these is the right to free speech. If a normal civilian's voice is heard through their vote, and a felon is not, we have violated their right to free speech by limiting the impact of their opinion. Even though this resolution does not specifically deal with the United States, it can be agreed that a democratic society tries to give everyone the right to have a say in the government to uphold the concept that the supreme power is held by the people. The sentencing of a felon violates no other rights than the right to liberty \u2013 which is why imprisonment is such a severe sentence. Every person has a right to have their voice heard in the government and by letting felons retain their RIGHT to vote, we protect their human rights in a democratic society. My second contention is that disenfranchising felons does not fulfill any of the recognized penal goals. These are retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation and incapacitation. Felon disenfranchisement does not fulfill any of these reasons to punish someone. Felon disenfranchisement does not deter felonies and it does not incapacitate the felon from doing any more crimes. It is clear and quite obvious that felon disenfranchisement does not deter crimes, because a felon undeterred by the chance of being caught and sent to jail won't be deterred by the threat of disenfranchisement, and it also does not stop them from committing future crimes. Violating someone's right to vote is not a suitable method of retribution because it is not proportioned to the offense. My third contention is that by taking away a felon's rights to vote you are counter-productive because you hinder the rehabilitation process. When felons are trying to become normal civilians once again, they need to receive the same benefits as a civilian would. This includes the right to vote. Because a democracy aims to be fair and just it gives power to the people. When you let felons retain the right to vote, you understand that violation of this inherent right is not a suitable method of retribution and you also realize that you help the rehabilitation process by giving them that right. Certain prison facilities are named \"Rehabilitation Centers\" because they realize that part, and maybe even most, of the reason for imprisoning felons is to rehabilitate them. Through this we can see that rehabilitation is a goal of the justice system and needs to be valued when punishing a felon for crimes. By helping the felons merge with society and become a civilian again, you protect their right to be assisted in the rehabilitation process, and by stripping them of the right to vote, you hinder that right. My fourth contention is that felons aren't necessarily irrational, mentally unstable, and against society. By not letting felons retain the right to vote, you assume that there would be a negative impact on society by giving them the right to vote. However, felonies aren't universally agreed upon, so it is an unfair assumption that felons would negatively affect society. Clear examples of this are sodomy laws everywhere in the world. Sodomy is a felony in places like the state of Virginia, Algeria, Botswana, and Nicaragua, just to name a few. These laws aren't the same in different democratic societies throughout the globe; therefore any statement saying that felons are against society is invalid. Because felonies are not agreed upon globally, there is a blurred line between choice and the right to do certain actions. Therefore, we can agree that we not only protect certain people's rights on the level of doing what they want, but we also protect the right of felons to not have the label of counter productive toward society.", "qid": "7", "docid": "68fed5c1-2019-04-18T19:35:23Z-00004-000", "rank": 41, "score": 175213.0}, {"content": "Title: In a Democratic Society, Felons Ought to Retain the Right to Vote Content: My opponent has conceded this debate with the statement \"Democracy is can only be successful when all members of society contribute\". Felons are members of society. Due to the lack of an argument from my opponent, I will provide a list of democracies which allow for felon voting rights, both restricted and unrestricted: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, India (yes, India allows convicted \"felons\" to vote after release from prison), Ireland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Malta, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, San Marino, Serbia, Slovenia, Spain, South Africa (where Nelson Mandela, a convicted felon, served as President), Sweden, Switzerland, United States (where convicted felon, Sen. Ted Stevens, is not barred from voting, running for senate, and fulfilling his duties as Senator), United Kingdom, and Ukraine all allow some type of restoration of voting rights for felons. (http://felonvoting.procon.org...) Thank you.", "qid": "7", "docid": "8fa3a9aa-2019-04-18T19:35:39Z-00000-000", "rank": 42, "score": 175002.0}, {"content": "Title: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. Content: Con says \u201cIf I understand what you just posted it seems as if you would like all felons to have the right vote including the ones who have not yet finished serving their sentences. \u201d Yes, that is the case. Con says \u201cYou also seem to think that Felons in America only lose their right to vote. \u201d That is not what I think at all, just not relevant to the debate topic at hand. Let\u2019s not start this off with a straw man fallacy. .. . Con says \u201cFreedom, liberty and self determination are always a better course than Totalitarianism. \u201d I agree which is why I am in favor of the resolution. Arguments: We live in a society that accepts the notion of unalienable rights. As a society we accept that the main duty of a government is to secure such rights. Such a government receives their power from the consent of the governed. In our society this is done through voting. A: Unalienable Rights \u201cWe hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. \u201d (Declaration of Independence) Unalienable: \u201cimpossible to take away or give up\u201d (1) We live in a society that accepts the concept that some rights are unalienable B: The Duty of Government \u201cThat to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men\u201d (Declaration of Independence) \u201cLocke believed that natural rights were inalienable, and that the rule of God therefore superseded government authority;\u201d (2) We live in a society that requires of its government the protection and security of such rights C: The Power of the People \u201cGovernments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed\u201d(Declaration of Independence) \u201cRousseau believed that democracy (self-rule) was the best way of ensuring the general welfare while maintaining individual freedom under the rule of law. \u201d(2) We live in a society that dictates that the power of government come from the consent of the governed. D: The whole picture We live in a society that accepts\u2026 1: All people born equal with rights 2: Government\u2019s function is to secure unalienable rights 3: Government receives power through the consent of the governed via voting What happens when we take away the right to vote? 1: Government cannot receive power through consent of the governed if the governed cannot vote. 2: Without consent or power the government cannot secure unalienable rights Conclusion: \u201cWe hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed\u201d( Declaration of Independence) If the right to vote is taken away, our entire system of government cannot live up to its primary purpose. In the interest of our government filling its purpose, or in other words, securing the unalienable rights afforded to all men, it is only reasonable to conclude that Felons should have voting rights in the modern U. S. (1) . http://www.merriam-webster.com... (2) . http://en.wikipedia.org...", "qid": "7", "docid": "826727bc-2019-04-18T15:25:22Z-00005-000", "rank": 43, "score": 174254.0}, {"content": "Title: Felons Ought to Retain the Right to Vote in a Democratic Society Content: First off, i would like to point out that my competitor used the U.S. as an example, and this resolution is not specific to any one democracy, nor is the ban of double jeopardy an inherent trait of democracy. I also would like to add that by losing the right to vote while in prison, felons are not \"retaining\" that right, because it has been lost for a period of time, therefore by arguing that felons should only have the right to vote after their process in the penitentiary system is finished, my competitor is validiting my side of the argument.", "qid": "7", "docid": "c2a70fea-2019-04-18T19:34:28Z-00002-000", "rank": 44, "score": 174163.0}, {"content": "Title: You Choose the Topic! Content: I believe people shouldn't be jailed forever, so have a different consequence like remove voting privileges. I find it on a moral point of view to remove their privilege. Not major privileges that should be accessible to anyone, but only to those who deserve it. Also another point of view is that: I don't want felons voting. Generally felons don't have such good points of view morality and rational wise. Maybe they are power hungry or have no morals. I don't want those people voting. This really can't be confirmed until they do something as bad as a felony. This logic on it's own shouldn't be the reason why felons shouldn't be able to vote, but both logic.", "qid": "7", "docid": "36c2c315-2019-04-18T11:41:22Z-00003-000", "rank": 45, "score": 173408.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. Content: When you go against society, and commit a felony, you lose this societies trust. We don't let children vote, or the mentally incompetent vote, because we cannot trust there decisions. The same comes with felons. We cannot trust them, because of their poor judgment to commit a felony, therefore they cannot vote. People who commit serious crimes have shown that they are not trustworthy. When they decided they were going to go against society, they also decided they are going to lose their right to vote. Value: Justice It is not fair to give an equal voice in society to someone who has been a law abiding citizen, and a felon who has gone against society all together. When someone commits a felony, they should lose there right to vote. If a person wants a say in a Democracy, and wants to be able to vote in a Democracy, they must not go against it and commit a felony. Now why would we, as citizens, as non-felon citizens, want felons helping to pick our representatives? If you're a convicted felon, convicted of a violent crime, you have bad judgment. Why would we want people with that judgment picking our representatives? Criterion: just deserts Just deserts is basically giving people what they deserve. It is doing wrong and taking action for your wrong doing. In this round, you will see that people don't deserve the right to vote after they have committed a felony. My first contention is that it in not fair or equal to give a felon who has gone against a democratic society and a law abiding citizen equal voting rights. My second contention is felons being used by candidates running for office. My third contention is the public opinion rejecting felon voting rights. Contention 1: By committing a very serious crime, ex-felons demonstrate disrespect for the law. Therefore, they should have no input in determining who writes these laws. Felons shouldn't have the same voting rights as regular, law abiding, hard working Americans. In 2000 the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's interpretation that our constitution does not protect the right of all citizens to vote, but rather the right of all qualified citizens to vote. This means it is the state legislature's power to decide who is qualified. If you are a citizen over 18 you are automatically qualified. If you are considered mentally incompetent, or commit a felony you are disqualified. This is about being disqualified from voting. The same comes with gun rights, if someone abuses guns; we take that right away from them. So if a felon abuses a society, the society takes away the felon's right to vote. The American citizens who make up the democratic society are the people who should be the ones deciding who there leader is going to be, not the felons that have become outcasts of this society by going against it. The felon made their choice when they decided to go against society. Contention 2: There are currently 5.3 million felons in the United States who have lost there right to vote. Say these 5.3 million felons could vote and one of the candidates was going to be extremely less harsh against criminals. These extra 5.3 million votes would almost surely give a candidate a victory. Do we, law abiding American citizens want our representatives to be decided on by felons? No. If you are a convicted felon, convicted of a violent crime, you obviously have bad judgment, so why should a society let you use your judgment to pick out the better candidate? The voting is not only voting for a presidential candidate, but also the local elections. In a city in California, called signal hill, the vote for mayor came down to one vote. In a school board election in Alaska, it was a dead even tie, bringing it to a coin flip. If there would have been one more person voting, a felon, they would have decided who was going to win. Do we really want felons deciding who a mayor or a school board member is? Contention 3: Much of the American public supports the disenfranchisement if felons. To be exact 81.7% of Americans believe that felons should lose their right to vote. Less than one-tenth of people surveyed believed that felons should keep there right to vote. These people believe that felons should lose their right to vote even after serving prison time because they still cannot be trusted. According to the Florida Department of Correction, over 40% of offenders commit another crime within 3 years of there release; and for those under 18 this number skyrockets to 73%. Furthermore a 2003 Department of Justice report found that more than 70 percent of arrestees tested positive for drugs. The American public has spoken, and the outcome was that most do not want felons to be able to have any part in voting. A democracy is a government made by a society's people. So if the American people think that felons should not be able to vote by this much of a margin, felons should not be allowed suffrage. In my first contention I proved that felons don't deserve equal rights because the have gone against the law, and in my second contention I showed that felons could get used by candidates, and I gave facts about them not being trustworthy. In my third contention I spoke about how the American public doesn't want felons voting, and they are the democracy. With the evidence I have brought up and the case I have given I would urge your ballot toward the negative side.", "qid": "7", "docid": "e5aaa355-2019-04-18T19:35:37Z-00007-000", "rank": 46, "score": 173075.0}, {"content": "Title: In a democractic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote Content: NEGATIVE I negate: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote [Definitions] (1) Democracy: a government by the people in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by their elected officials (2) Felon: a person convicted of a serious criminal offense punishable by imprisonment exceeding one year (3) Retain: to keep in possession or use [Observations] (1) Because America is a democracy, a society, and should not allow felons the privilege of voting, the United States complies with all restrictions in the resolution, thus implied by the resolution (2) The resolution clearly states \"felons\" versus \"ex-felons\". An ex-felon is somebody who has completed their sentence, and a felon, as stated in the resolution, is somebody currently serving their sentence. Therefore, my opponent must prove how letting felons vote in prison is upholding a just democracy [Value/Value Criterion] Value: Justice Value Criterion: Maximization of Fairness The Negative values justice. Justice is implied by the resolution because it deals with the punishment of felons. In order for a society to be democratic, all punishment must be fair and just. If punishment is not fair and just, a democracy cannot prosper. In this debate, I will show why this punishment is perfectly just. I will show my value of justice through the maximization of fairness. Democracy is a majority rule. Currently, the United States is comprised of over 98% of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens, versus the less than 2% of society that are murders and rapists. 98 to 2, who should get the rights? To prove my point, I make the following arguments (1) Retribution. Retribution is giving punishment that is deserved, or punishment that fits the crime. When somebody commits a felony, say rape, they treat their victim as a moral non-entity. An entity is a human being, so treating somebody as a non-entity is treating somebody less than human. So, the government has an obligation to punish this criminal. Does the government then in turn rape the felon? Of course not. This would be treating the felon as a moral non-entity, just as he did to his victim. This is cruel and unusual punishment that would make the government no better than the felon. But, the government still has to punish the felon. What is the government to do? The government must treat the felon as a political non-entity, in order to punish the criminal, yet not be cruel and unusual. Treating a felon as a political non-entity includes revoking the privilege of voting. 2) Legal Consistency. When felons are incarcerated, they are essentially removed from society \u2013 both for the punishment of the criminal and for the safety of the rest of society. In their removal from society, they lose certain rights that they would normally possess; they lose their social rights and the freedom of activity, occupational rights and the freedom to engage in the workforce, parental rights and the freedom to raise children, etc. Why, then, should criminals be allowed to maintain their political rights and the freedom to vote? There are many rights which are more basic taken away from the individual during his imprisonment; if we are to uphold some level of legal consistence and be uniform and fair in the level of punishment afforded to prisoners, then there is no reason why we should afford felons the privilege of voting and every reason not to. 3) Double Standard. By affirming the resolution, you are essentially condoning violent acts, which, as a democratic society, we are morally obliged not to do. By affirming the resolution, you are giving felons superior rights. You are not only treating felons as equal, but you are giving them rights that make them superior to normal, tax-paying, law-abiding citizens. You make the law-breakers into the law-makers. By affirming the resolution, you are saying that people who brake the law in the most brazen way, by committing a felony, would be better than a law-abiding citizen because they broke the law and still have the same amount of rights. As you can see, this is simply wrong. Thank you, and it is for those reasons that I negate the resolution [Rebuttal] Value: Equality I have 3 responses --> equality (of rights) is impossible during incarceration. If felons were to be equal (in rights), then there would be no punishment. For example, the government puts you in jail. Right there, the government automatically takes away your right to liberty, pursuit of hapiness, and countless other rights -->My opponent is dejustifying all forms of punishment. If incarceration is unjust in and of itself, than there is no way for society to punish criminals --> This creates a 'double standard' (3rd contention) VC: Democracy I have 2 responses --> Democracy, as a form of government, must exhibit the ability to protect society. My opponent then must prove how dejustifying all punishment would help protect society --> Maximization of Fairness better upholds justice. For a government to be just, it must exhibit fairness to its consitituents. However, a democracy is not always just, and a just government is not always a democracy [Contentions] (1) Enfranchising felons is directly proportional to the increase of democracy My opponent is saying that letting these parasites of society vote will have more democracy I have two responses --> you cannot have 'more democracy' --> you can have more people participate in democracy, say children, but this would not uphold my value and value criteria (1a) Felon Disenfranchisement hurts democratic values and rights I have 2 responses --> democratic values include protecting society by way of just punishment. I have already proven how I have met that burden. Let's also not forget how they became a felon: by committing a felony. A felony inherently hurts society, and therefore government --> he brings in race towards the end. This is not resolutional. Because the court of law deals with punishment, you are essentially saying that the court is racist and corrupt. Because the court is racist and corrupt, then any punishment given by the court is corrupt, thus dejustifying all forms of punishment (1b) Restoration of the right to vote enables rehabilitation and reintegration into (a) democratic society I have two responses --> If you agree with my opponents logic, then the opposite (disenfranchising) felons automatically destroys the opportunity to rehabilitate them. Yet, this is false. Many people can become a member of society without having the right to vote. Look no further than Ted Stevens, the Alaskan senator who was found guilty of a felony, yet he serves the best nation in the world --> Once a felon re-enters society, they are considered an ex-felon by society, therefore, anything dealing with an ex-felon is not resolutional (In a democratic society, FELONS....) Cont 2: Allowing felons to vote, once released, is consistent with the return of other rights --> not necessarily. For example, the government revokes the right to bear arms, the right to serve on a jury, the right to privacy, ect. --> Once again, when a felon re-enters society, they are considered an ex-felon by said society, therefore not resolutional and or pertaining to the resolution Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, and that is why I negate the resolution", "qid": "7", "docid": "9762761d-2019-04-18T19:34:37Z-00004-000", "rank": 47, "score": 172872.0}, {"content": "Title: R: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. Content: Look forward to a great confrontation in round 3! BOPNow, my opponent's case is that felons should be able to vote; logically, this means we should restore voting rights for all felons, and that future felons would not be penalized by removing their right. My opponent bears sole BOP, which means he is responsible to prove that felons should be able to vote. If he fails to do so, or I demonstrate any situation where a felon should not be allowed to vote, I would win. Contention 1 - Government is just, and its powers derive from societyThomas Jefferson says it best in the Declaration of Independence, \"All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness\". The idea of God-given rights form the cornernstone of American justice and a key part of traditional American values. Jefferson continues: \" That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed\". That is, government exists to protect rights. Its powers, when derived from and held by the people, are just. This includes, by nature, the power to punish those who violate rights. Contention 2 - Punishment consists of revoking of rightsWhat does punishment entail? In general, the idea in common law is that punishment should fit the crime - that is, the more severe the crime, the more severe the punishment. The most common methods of securing punishment - those society has, throughout our history, deemed most just - are through fines, community service, and imprisonment. Outside of a governmental context, these all would be crimes. If I were to forcibly take money from you, require you to work without pay, or lock you in a small room and make it impossible for you to leave, I would be arrested. But, for governments, this is fine. Why? Because when you violate the law, you forfeit rights. Essentially, by refusing to respect the rights of others, you lose some of yours. Loss of voting privileges is just another way to punish people. It's serious nature connotes the seriousness of the crime. Roger Clegg of the Center for Equal opportunity says \"It makes sense that felons should lose their right to vote. You don\u2019t have a right to make the laws if you aren\u2019t willing to follow them yourself. To participate in self-government, you must be willing to accept the rule of law. We don\u2019t let everyone vote \u2013 not children, not noncitizens, not the mentally incompetent. There are certain minimum and objective standards of trustworthiness, responsibility, and commitment to our laws that we require before people are entrusted with a role in the solemn enterprise of self-government. Those who have committed serious crimes against their fellow citizens don\u2019t meet those standards. \"[1]Contention 3 - Voting rights should only be revoked for violent criminals. One area of common ground might be that there are many people who are felons that do no deserve that connotation. Felonies should be limited to the most serious crimes - things like arson, sex crimes (rape, child rape, incest), murder, and treason. In the past and presents, states have been too loose in regards to drug crimes. People can become felons for what should be minor drug crimes, if they should even be crimes at all. The definition of 'felon' should be reduced to violent or treasonous crimes - the most despicable and terrible of actions. It is on firm ground to say a convincted child rapist, murderer, or rapist has forfeited his right to decide laws for others through his actions. These violent criminals have rejected society and its laws, and society is well within its rights to reject them. Contention 4 - Rights could be restored through an arbitration committeeAfter a felon has served their time, it might be reasonable to consider returning their right to vote. This would not be automatic - it might be handled in a similar way to how we handle parole - there might be a voting board, which would thoroughly vet the person to determine if they are truly sorry for what they have done and are committed to living by the laws of society. This would provide incentive for felons to reform - they will be accepted back into society if they are willing to accept the laws that the government of the people has made. ConclusionIn short, there is nothing wrong with restricting voting rights for felons. It works with the American legal tradition, and is a reasonable way to punish those who have decided to reject the laws of society. While the definition of 'felon' might need to be smaller, and a system to allow restoration of rights might be reasonable, there is no reason a pedophile or murderer should be allowed to decide the laws of a society he plainly rejected. References:1. . http://www.ceousa.org...;", "qid": "7", "docid": "7da97fb8-2019-04-18T14:19:59Z-00002-000", "rank": 48, "score": 172789.0}, {"content": "Title: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. Content: In response to me asking how taking a felon\u2019s right to vote protects other\u2019s freedom con responds \u201cBecause voting is a civic duty necessary for a healthy society and criminals are anti-social with little care for civility.\u201d Voting is a civic duty. Some criminals may have little care for civility, though to assume that for all is foolish. Likewise, a so called \u201cfelon\u201d who has been in prison for 20 years may have an entirely different world view then when the crime was committed. Either way, as mentioned previously, felons would make up about 2% of the vote, and that is only if they all voted. Clearly there would be no harm done in allowing \u201cfelons\u201d to retain the freedom to vote. \"I may not agree with what you have to say but I will fight to the death for your right to say it\" I maintain that this quote supports the principle behind this debate. Despite my opponent foolishly declaring that \u201ccriminals are anti-social with little care for civility\u201d they are still part of society however removed they appear. They are still governed by the system. Again as the Declaration of Independence states \u201cThat to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed\u201d Felons, without the right to vote cannot give consent to be governed and are therefore victims of tyranny. This is a violation of the founding principles of this nation. Con then says \u201cYou complain that minorities are disproportionately affected. I agree that is a problem but the problem is for another debate. That debate is about the failed war on drugs and the failed war on poverty.\u201d I never made such an argument. Though it appears that con feels that minorities are disproportionately affected. This is a welcome endorsement in favor of the resolution. Conduct: Con has repeatedly ridiculed me in this debate. Saying things like \u201cI can hardly believe anyone would make the argument\u2026\u201d and \u201cMind your own business.\u201d These Ad Hominem statements have no place in debate. Con has also repeatedly committed the straw man fallacy saying \u201cYou also seem to think that Felons in America only lose their right to vote. They lose other rights also.\u201d I never expressed such a view. \u201cYour proposal here is to have a centralized government make a law to force states to act against our own will.\u201d I never made such a proposal. I merely argued that Felons should retain the right to vote. Not once have I mentioned how this ought to be accomplished. Lastly and perhaps the least offensive \u201cYou complain that minorities are disproportionately affected.\u201d I never made such a complaint. Though, it is a reasonable argument to make. I leave it to the voters to determine if the Straw man fallacy and Ad Hominem attacks are valid. Closing Statement: As con conceded, minorities are disproportionately affected. Allowing Felons to retain the right to vote poses no harm. As such, taking such a right away is tyrannical and against the principles this nation is founded on. \u201cWe hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed\u201d( Declaration of Independence) If the right to vote is taken away, our entire system of government cannot live up to its primary purpose. In the interest of our government filling its purpose, or in other words, securing the unalienable rights afforded to all men, it is only reasonable to conclude that Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S.Vote Pro!", "qid": "7", "docid": "826727bc-2019-04-18T15:25:22Z-00001-000", "rank": 49, "score": 172300.0}, {"content": "Title: Prisoners Should be Allowed the Right to Vote in Politics. Content: Keep in mind that this is not a debate of whether it is illegal for prisoners to vote, but of whether they \"should\" be allowed this right. Therefore, referencing a policy/law such as the Supreme court decision of 2000 for the disenfranchisement of voting rights is likely to be deemed as irrelevant in the context of this debate, so debate with caution. Opening Arguments:Felony disenfranchisement: excluding people otherwise eligible to vote from voting (known as disfranchisement) due to conviction of a criminal offence (Wikipedia). Also this is a general issue, but I will be referring to the US frequently, since US polices condone felony disenfranchisement for the most part. Felony disenfranchisement varies in degree in some circumstances sometimes based on the type/degree of the offence or what state they were located in when serving their sentencing. Prisons are generally seen as a punishment for some convictions while for other convictions, they are seen as a means for rehabilitation. This perspective usually varies depending on the viewpoints of the outside parties. Arguably, punishment is the subjective perspective while rehabilitation is the objective perspective. The same case can be likened to voting disenfranchisement. Many prisoners (especially those with minor offenses), contrary to popular belief, strive to better themselves and rejoin society. Felony disenfranchisement is often an overly excessive punishment for certain prisoners. Prisoners already have their liberty take away, including their rights to be with their family and friends or occupy a job whilst in prison. It is certainly justified for them to serve a court's sentencing, but why should their right to vote be taken away as well? Especially considering that there are prisoners serving relatively short-term sentences and who had committed minor offenses. Prisoners would be less likely to be involved in criminal activities if encouraged to participate in the politics as part of their rehabilitation. -Enfranchisement not only bestows self-esteem and a sense of purpose in society, but encourages research and participation with contemporary political issues. \"To deny this right is to force the disinherited (to) sit idly by while others elect his civil leaders and while others choose the fiscal and governmental policies which will govern him and his family\" (Parris). Felony disenfranchisement conveys to prisoners that not only they committed a crime, but that they committed that crime because they were incapable of acting in a manner fit for society. Granting them the right to vote would likely be consistent with the American tradition of making our democracy more and more inclusive. Arguably there would be reduced re-offending rates and perhaps a society with fewer criminals as a long term effect. Felony disenfranchisement distorts the total voter turnout. -In 2012, all the various state felony disenfranchisement laws added together prevented \"an estimated 5.85 million felons\" from voting, \"up from 1.2 million in 1976\" (Wikipedia). \"This comprised 2.5% of the potential voters in general; and included 8% of the potential African American voters. \" The estimated population for Florida in 2010 was\"18,804,623\" (US census) and it had the highest disenfranchised voters for any state, with \"1.5 million\" disenfranchised from voting. That is roughly a calculated 12.5% of the total population that was not represented in Florida. It would virtually be an inaccurate representation in our society, a largely democratic society that prides itself for representing the general populace rather than a select few. The equal protection clause can also come into play if it is recognized in the courts that prisoners who are colored are not represented and are racially discriminated against in terms of voting. Prisoners are not treated as \"civically dead\" when it benefits the government. - Prisoners remain liable for taxation on any earnings and savings that they have. This is virtually taxation without representation. Many convicts have difficulty finding employment when put on parole after serving a sentence, and so this would be an unfair and excessive punishment when taking that into account. The support of felony disenfranchisement is largely based on subjective values of furthering justice against those convicted, rather than objective values concerning what would really function well in terms of rehabilitation and voter representation. Sources Utilized:-. http://quickfacts.census.gov...-https://en.wikipedia.org...-http://archive.fairvote.org...-http://insidetime.org...", "qid": "7", "docid": "b952f294-2019-04-18T14:13:42Z-00002-000", "rank": 50, "score": 171895.0}, {"content": "Title: ex felons should be able to vote Content: Extend my arguments", "qid": "7", "docid": "d8496939-2019-04-18T16:39:08Z-00001-000", "rank": 51, "score": 170803.0}, {"content": "Title: Ex-felons who commited minor crimes or crimes at a early age should be allowed to vote Content: Intro: I am going to try to stress a utilitarian view of America, and how we can benefit from these punishments on criminals. America needs to focus on its new generation which is growing up in a ever changing world. America's new generation needs to learn that it can't just break laws, and think it is okay. We can let ex-felons start to teach everyone from there neighborhood, through there county, through there state how hard prison is, and to the people above there twenties that your voting rights will be taken away. It is for the greater good for America, and that is what I am going to try to stress in this argument. I will like to go by the same definitions provided by my opponents. 1. Minority 5.83 million Americans out of the 300 million Americans are not allowed to vote. This is actually 2% of the American population that my opponent is fighting for. This is where I would like to stress the word Utilitarianism. The greatest benefit for the greatest number of people. Children need to learn the value of breaking the law, and the consequence for breaking the law. Lets try to decrease the 5.83 million people that 1% of the American population. 2. Voting Rights is irrelevant 56% of violent felons are repeat offenders and 61% of all felons are repeat offenders, partially because we\"ve given them no choice. It is not the case of voting rights, but it is the case of companies not hiring them. We should prioritize companies hiring them, than voting rights. It is not the voting rights that we should take into priority, but there jobs. We should first make them get financially secure. 3. Lessons We should focus on getting America's children to learn the consequence of breaking the laws. There should be downsides to breaking laws. It would be for the greater benefit of America. We should teach the new generation not to break the law. http://felonvoting.procon.org... http://geekpolitics.com...", "qid": "7", "docid": "d57ca0db-2019-04-18T15:34:22Z-00004-000", "rank": 52, "score": 170598.0}, {"content": "Title: Convicted ex-felons should be able to vote in all US elections. Content: I'll begin by responding to refutals P1: Many felons return to prison within 3 years of the same or another crime. You asked \"Does it make sense to take away the rights of a citizen just because of something they MIGHT do?\". To that question, I respond by saying that this right would be taken away because of something an ex-felon has done in the past and is LIKELY to do again (according to statistics, I know that not every ex-felon is going to be convicted again, but a majority are). I believe that the punishment of disenfranchisement lasts for life simply because its meant to prevent citizens from committing a felony, and thus give them an incentive not to become a felon. P2: It would not be fair to citizens who have never been convicted of a felony. I think that it is perfectly justified to implement bigger consequences for those who have broken the law in the past, in an attempt to prevent them from doing so again. However, if a criminal is determined to start a new life as a law abiding citizen (who would not be shoplifting or anything of the sort anyways), then who is to say that they are not able to find work? Sure, it may be more difficult, but not impossible, and that is just one of the social consequences of breaking the law the first time. If you wanted to become the next CEO of a major corporation, you probably should not have committed a felony. So obviously ex-felons are barred from high ranking positions, and that's because of society, but there are plenty of jobs out there if one is looking for them and is determined to work hard. P3: Felons should gain the right to vote by proving that their judgement is valid. The life long consequences of breaking the law do not mean that a felon cannot become an ex-felon, that's absurd. Once a felon is released from prison, he/she can pursue anything he/she wants, and the inability to vote will not directly effect that freedom (once again, perhaps indirectly). Clearly somebody who has committed a felony has at one time had an invalid judgement, and so, should we really be required to allow them to vote if they are still in a similar state of mind? Would we want a mentally ill person voting? Not an irrelevant comparison, as both may have distorted views of what is right and wrong. Thus the implementation of some sort of psychological evaluation would be enough to confirm a certain level of mental stability and reasoning that is acceptable. Clearly somebody with a reasoning that its ok to kill or steal should not be allowed to vote in elections that influence all of us as a whole. Their judgements and by extension opinions are invalid. Now on to refuting your points P1: Restricting felons from voting violates the Constitution. A) I meant that if a US citizen commits a felony, it is justifiable to revoke their right to vote for life (I'll explain why later) B) Although revoking the right to vote lasts forever, I do not believe it to be an excessive sanction either. Once again, individually, the right to vote does not effect normal life in society, and you can function perfectly fine without it. C) Here I was saying that an ex-felon's right to vote was revoked simply because they broke the law, not because of the previous condition of servitude itself. The mere fact that they were in prison does not effect the right to vote, its the felony that was committed. P2: Felon disenfranchisement encourages racial discrimination. A) Your statement that minorities \" occupy the majority of prison cells\" is correct. However, even if they could vote, the imbalance would still very much be there. Also, just because many prisoners are minorities does not make it acceptable to give them the right to vote, based merely on that fact. They did something wrong, and the color of their skin has nothing to do with that (although it may be linked to socio-economic background). This is implemented across the board, so even though many ex-felons are minorities, white ex-felons do not have the ability to vote either, and so the law does not discriminate against race. B) You said \"Overwhelmingly, the people who commit crimes are from the lower income class, and these are also the people who tend to vote for Democrats\". While this may be true, we cannot assume that they would vote for any one candidate, and so revoking an ex-felons ability to vote cannot be seen as an attempt to suppress Democratic voters. That would be openly admitting that most ex-felons are Democrats due to the fact that they are minorities. C) You asked \"Then how do you explain the countries that do not disenfranchise ex-felons?\" Well I have found no data that would suggest that crime rates and disenfranchisement have any correlation at all. If I had to guess, I would say these countries have a lower crime rate because of their social safety nets and superior public education systems, but I honestly do not know. D) I did not suggest that ex-felons replace the right to vote, I was simply implying that there are other ways to express an opinion other than voting. According to your argument, ex-felons resort to breaking the law if their opinions are not heard, but expressing your opinion can be done through many other ways, and not just through voting. P3: Felons deserve a right to vote. A) How are we supposed to gauge whether or not an ex-felon is capable of using this right responsibly? He/she may vote for a candidate with many flaws because he/she does not have the judgement necessary to see or even weigh these things against possible benefits that the candidate may provide to him/her specifically. B) By voting for the next president, ex-felons indirectly decide which policies and bills are implemented or signed into law. Although they do provide a larger group that is voting, are every single one of their opinions valid enough to be able to effect us all? This is why some kind of evaluation should first be done to ensure that ex-felons are able to reason, and subsequently weigh pro's and con's of candidates in elections. Those were some very strong arguments you put up, I look forward to the final round :)", "qid": "7", "docid": "ffc1c5ad-2019-04-18T16:49:56Z-00002-000", "rank": 53, "score": 170524.0}, {"content": "Title: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. Content: I can hardly believe anyone would make the argument that they would want violent psychopaths and organized crime members to be casting votes from inside of the penitentiary. If I lived in a community that had a prison inside its borders I would be very upset if the federal government forced us to allow these prisoners to vote for our town council, Mayor, School board etc... Once again leave communities to make these decisions. I can accept what you and your peers want. I can not accept you meddling in my community and forcing us to bend to your totalitarian will. Mind your own business. Not every community will have the same wants as yours. The Declaration of Independence is not a carefully thought out law but a cry for freedom from an oppressive centralized government. Your proposal here is to have a centralized government make a law to force states to act against our own will. Laws are violent things. They are enforced in brutal ways. Just ask Eric Garner. He was arrested on suspicion of breaking law implemented by progressives. You also propose to have this law implemented and enforced by a centralized government with almost zero representation. I can say \"Zero Representation\" because cause a ratio of representative to constituent is a million to one. That ridiculous ratio does not make a \"Representative Democracy\". We designate an act a crime because it is injurious to public welfare. If you look at all such crimes you will find that someone is a victim and that victim has been deprived of their Human Rights. Their right to pursue life liberty and happiness. I see no problem in denying these offensive criminal their rights. We deny inside traders access to the markets. Child molesters are denied privacy. Computer criminals are denied the use of the Internet. All are denied the use of weapons for self-defense. These decisions, as clearly prescribed in The Constitution of the United States of America, are left to the states. You ask \"What happens when we take away the right to vote?\" No one here wants to take away the right to vote. The vast majority of us do not commit acts that deny others their human rights. We keep our right to vote as it should be.", "qid": "7", "docid": "826727bc-2019-04-18T15:25:22Z-00004-000", "rank": 54, "score": 170495.0}, {"content": "Title: in a democratic society felons ought to retain the right to vote Content: Ill be going over extensions/clarifications leading into voters First my v and vc the idea of punishment as it is supported through retribution as been remained touch less. My opponent fails to address my link to all crimes being the act of stealing and deprivation and that how in a democratic society one needs to value retribution that states in addition to regular sentencing we need deprive or steal the right to vote from the criminals while still allowing them the ability to take part in other means of society. My second point is that of the jury where if you refer to my initial statement felons don't even have the permission to serve on jury showing that they don't have the privilege or worthiness to vote for the innocence or guilt of one individual. So why should they be able to determine the lives of potential millions if their not even allowed to determine one My next point is that of my universalizability claim. The resolution is to circumstantial and sense such is true it demeans the rule of law or taught of justice, in that its inconsistent. Next my claim of being mentally incompetent and that their are prerequisites still stands and need be considered. For essentially I'm proving that voting is a PRIVELEGE not a right something my opponent fails to understand. As for my opponents voting issues, they are in their entirety flawed for the opposition doesn't lead to slavery that's making an inferential and absurd link. More felonies aren't going to increase as a by product for the neg in that if such was true then my opponents entire claim of rehabilitation woulndt stand, but sense there is not a clear distinction or advocacy between the two contradictory statements you must value neither. POint 3 I value victims rights by upholding my vc something the affirmative lacks. Heroes cant be felons for heroes would never deface the law. And finally my opponents framework clearly doesn't stand. Which is why you must look to my voting issues Neg wins because V and VC better uphold idea of democracy and better support opponents claim of equality through retribution natural rights clearly are not of concern for we are debating as proved privileges Con 1 of trustworthiness still stands Con 2 of consistency is still paramount for its circumstantial reasoning con3 of requirements still stands in that that distinguishes between rights and privileges and most importantly my resolution interpretation of the definitions still stand for they went uncontested proving that retribution is A VALID AND DEMOCRACTIC VALUE For such reasons I urge an opposition", "qid": "7", "docid": "2a3eee28-2019-04-18T19:35:33Z-00001-000", "rank": 55, "score": 170281.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: In a democratic society felons ought to retain the right to vote. Content: I'm terribly sorry my opponent missed his time on the actual round. It's perfectly ok with me that you posted them into the comments portion (and I ask that voters pay absolutely no attention to that in deciding their vote). Lets open with some refuutes on my case and then further strengthen my side of today's debate. >>>\"First off, you're assuming taht the convicted rapist is not sorry and is still malicious. Secondly, you're under the misconceived notion that someone who has a history of rape, can vote for someone who will rape america.\"~ Me Yes, I might be making some assumptions. Forgive me if I give the benefit of the doubt to law-abiding citizens. How dastardly of me.~ You --More like, \"forgive me if a few million felons lose the right to vote.\" >>>\" There is no harm that can come from a rapist, murderer, or thief voting because they can only vote on something that's productive for the society. After all, we let ex-convicts marry, reproduce, buy beer, own property and drive. \"~Me False analogy, because the felon's decision to drink beer, get married etc. doesn't affect the rest of society.~You --Does it matter if the felon is affecting society as long as they are affecting it in a positive manner? >>>\"If we thought criminals could never be reformed, we wouldn't let them out of prison in the first place. \"~Me They can be reformed, but I'm assuming they're not reformed, until they prove otherwise.~You Problem, how do they get the chance if you don't give it to them? How can you say, \"prove you are reformed,\" but then give no chance? We give prison sentances and let people out based on them being reformed. Keep in mind, when a persn committs a felony, they're ALWAYS a felon. You're saying this person should never gain the right to vote because they haven't proven they're reformed? Then why let them out of prison in the first place? >>> \"The fact that you don't want people with different opinions to vote, is outragious! The whole purpose of voting is to weigh all opinions!\"~Me Again, we already censor certain opinions that we deem immature or unfit, such as children's and mentally incompetent's. And again, the readers need to ask themself if the forgers and drug dealers are fit to decide your neighborhood's policeman.~You --Problem here is, these people we're talking about here aren't children nor are they mentally incompetent. Another problem here is that you think they'll be choosing policeman. These people will be voting on bills, representatives, senators, presidents, etc (all of which are for our benefit). The police Acadamy picks police officers. Seeing as how these senators, bills, and representatives will affect these felons (especially the felons that are out of prison) they should give their opinion on the issue. What harm does this have on society? Absolutely none. They are still forced to obey by the law after they get out of prison and still forced to pay taxes like everyother citizen, only difference is, they have a scar in their past. Note I said their past. Meaning they've served the due punishment for their crime ALREADY. What purpose then is there to disenfranchise the felon after he's rehabilitated? Lets take drug charges (which you speak of) for example. Now, idk the exact point where a certain ammount of drugs becomes a felony, but what makes you think someone who is a gram above the felony mark has worse judgement on voting for a president than someone who is a gram under the felony mark? Better yet, seeing as how Presidents have to meet a certain minimum to run for president (meaning there is no BAD choice), what makes you think they will be worse at picking a president then any other citizen? You must see that we are excluding these people solely on the purpose of them having a different opinion than us. Now, in an instance when these people can ACTUALLY hurt us, of course it's different, but if the worst that can happen is something that is STILL productive for society, what's the problem. Put it this way> Lets say that there is candidate A and B for any bill, governor, president, senator, mayor, reppresentative etc. Now, there are going to be non-felons who pick both A and B. What makes you think that if a felon picks either A or B that it will be detrimental to our society? Voting may very well not be inalienable in most societies such as monarchies and dictatorships, but in a democratic society, yes, it is inalienable. A way you can look at this is, take away what you're arguing is inalienable or not and see if the subject being argued upon, is the same. If it is the same without the subject, it's not needed. However, if without the subjetc it is something completely different, it is essential and inalienable. What is a democratic society without voting? Or Better yet, is a democratic society a democratic society without the right to vote? Of course not, in seeing this, you see that it is essential to have the right to vote if you're going to have an actual democratic society. I ask my opponent and audience again [...] What is a democratic society, without the right to vote?", "qid": "7", "docid": "cfa9c036-2019-04-18T19:26:00Z-00001-000", "rank": 56, "score": 170161.0}, {"content": "Title: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. Content: Rebuttals: Con says \u201cFelons have demonstrated bad behavior in choosing to commit the crime they did. So I would think that they are then unfit to make the most important decision than can make, which is to pick the person who will run our country.\u201d Voting includes a lot more than just the vote cast for President. Unfit or not, our system is built on a concept of the consent of the governed. That includes consent of those being governed from prison. Con says \u201cIf we give felons the right to vote, then we are basically saying that there is no difference between them and law abiding citizens. That just does not seem right to me.\u201d right, no difference when it comes to unalienable rights and representation. Being in prison should provide enough of a distinction between felons and non felons\u2026 Con says \u201cYes the government needs to protect people, but not for their voting rights. If they did the crime they need to know that there will be consequences and not being able to vote anymore should be one of them. They should not have the privilege to pick who makes the laws if you are not going to follow them yourself.\u201d The Declaration of Independence reads \u201c\u201cWe hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed\u201d Governments are instituted to protect rights... including the right to vote. Con says \u201cIf felons cared about what the government did then they would not be going out breaking the law that the government has set into place.\u201d Breaking the law does not equal not caring about law. What about Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr, etc. They broke laws\u2026 They also understood the importance of laws. More than that they understood individual rights should be protected. Rights like voting. Extended Arguments: If the right to vote is taken away, our entire system of government cannot live up to its primary purpose. In the interest of our government filling its purpose, or in other words, securing the unalienable rights afforded to all men, it is only reasonable to conclude that Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S.", "qid": "7", "docid": "8267279d-2019-04-18T15:31:31Z-00003-000", "rank": 57, "score": 170011.0}, {"content": "Title: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. Content: Regarding the most vile anti-social corrupt humans among us. The depraved ones who are found guilty of heinous crimes and destruction of society for self serving purposes. Regarding these incurable criminals who selfishly deny others their human rights, Kasmic wants to give them a share of power in the governance of our society. To that I say \"NO!\". I will painfully accept the influence a few states will have on our nation by allowing these incurable criminals who have proved themselves to be chronic transgressors of of the boundaries necessary for a healthy society to have some influence on my children's future. These destructive people chose to not be governed at all. You too can make that choice just Step out your door and hurt another citizen. I hope you do not but if you do then you will have chosen to not be governed at all and in that case myself and a super majority of our fellows banish you from our society and its brilliant system. As far as \"The War on Minorities\" goes, one that Kasmic and I agree needs a solution, does not make banishing incurable psychopaths a wrong measure for the protection our society. It is the wars on the minorities that is the problem. We wrongfully banish these unfortunate people who are victimized arrested and imprisoned by an already corrupt and criminal system. We do not need more of the criminally insane to contribute to this already terribly flawed government. All in all this debate here is about states rights. As Kasmic conceded through silence the federal congress is not a democracy at all. You can not have a democracy when a citizen shares a representative with eight hundred thousand other constituents. In my state legislature I share a representative with 63 thousand fellow constituents. Anyone who appreciates democracy appreciates our constitutional system of leaving much decision making to the states. I assumed Kasmic wanted to use the federal congress to force the states to handle destructive anti-social psychopaths in manners that would go against the democratic will of the states. Kasmic claims I am wrong in my assumption when he says \"I merely argued that Felons should retain the right to vote. Not once have I mentioned how this ought to be accomplished.\" Since my argument is to maintain the status quo I have no problem with Kasmic voicing his opinion as long as he is not promoting the use of federal violence to force my community to act against its will. This particular debate is \"Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S.\" My point is clear Those who chose to commit violence against against innocent members of our society. Those who chose to selfishly steal the fruits of labor from honest people. Those who chose to destroy the fabric of our society for their own personal gain, Those who chronically suffer from criminal insanity have no business in the governance of the rest of us, our lives and our children's future.", "qid": "7", "docid": "826727bc-2019-04-18T15:25:22Z-00000-000", "rank": 58, "score": 169898.0}, {"content": "Title: You Choose the Topic! Content: My opponent mentions how people must learn the consequences of their actions, however, felons have already served their prison time and completed probation. They have already been punished. Why now does the state get to strip them of their Constitutional right as citizens because they committed a crime? A good point Politico magazine makes is the following: \"If prisoners remain citizens and retain their civic status throughout their sentences, then it follows that prisoners should enjoy the most basic of their civil rights, the right to cast a ballot. Disenfranchising them creates a class of people still subject to the laws of the United States (they were, after all, punished under that law) but without a voice in the way they\"re governed\"not unlike taxation without representation.\" How can we make them abide by the law but then in the same breath say that they don't get a voice in the law. https://www.politico.com... Some people make the argument that felons can't be trusted but this is a silly argument. \"We let ex-convicts marry, reproduce, buy beer, own property and drive. They don't lose their freedom of religion, their right against self-incrimination or their right not to have soldiers quartered in their homes in time of war...If we thought criminals could never be reformed, we wouldn't let them out of prison in the first place.\" It is also unconstitutional because our 8th amendment specifically states: \"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.\" This sort of punishment is cruel and unnecessary. By stripping their right to vote, we are stripping their right as a citizen. Yes, felonies are bigger deals than misdemeanors but to assume every convicted felon is evil is unfair. In a just society, we are supposed to try and help felons become better and improve. We don't continue to punish them even after they've served their time. As Robert F. McDonnell, JD, MPP, MBAI says: \" I also believe that once an offender has fully paid his debt to society, he deserves a second chance... It is a mark of good government to restore felons' rights and provide them the opportunity to succeed and become law-abiding citizens again...Therefore, I am amending the criteria used to adjudicate non-violent felons applications for restoration of rights. With these changes, Virginia will have an automatic restoration of rights process.\" https://felonvoting.procon.org... Barring felons from voting is unconstitutional, unfair, and illogical. We can not allow this to happen any longer.", "qid": "7", "docid": "36c2c315-2019-04-18T11:41:22Z-00004-000", "rank": 59, "score": 169641.0}, {"content": "Title: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. Content: You say \"when a crime is committed that action should be taken to preserve the liberty of others\" and ask \"How does taking a Felon\"s right to vote protect other\"s freedom?\" Because voting is a civic duty necessary for a healthy society and criminals are anti-social with little care for civility. If you prove yourself to be uncivilized and anti-social to the extent that you need to be caged like a wild animal you have proved that your opinion regarding the welfare of society is malignant. \"I may not agree with what you have to say but I will fight to the death for your right to say it\" One of my favorite quotes. Beautiful. I never thought I would have to explain that malignant speech is crime. You are not allowed to say \"Go Loot Ferguson\". These exemptions are obvious just as offenders of human rights with good reason get taken out of society and out of the process of governance. Yes I said ...\"We have Zero Representation because our ratio of representative to constituent is a million to one. That ridiculous ratio does not make a \"Representative Democracy\"...but I must not be very clear you failed to understand my point. My point is that congress is not measurably a democracy. You want an entity that is not a democracy to decide who governs my child's future. You want this non democratic body to give nefarious people power to make decisions on how this nation will be structured to receive my children as they transform into adults. I want the best for all of our children. Whereas you and a Non-democratic institution wish to give nefarious people, people so terrible that they would injure and or kill our children to serve their selfish depravity,you would give them a part in deciding the path of our children's lives. If you are in favor of Democracy you will leave these decisions to the states as prescribed in the constitution. You complain that minorities are disproportionately affected. I agree that is a problem but the problem is for another debate. That debate is about the failed war on drugs and the failed war on poverty. Two wars that have terrible effects on minorities. I support pragmatic solution on this problem as a Libertarian. Funny how it is that the politicians elected by minorities vote in the halls of Congress to continue these ill gotten wars. Many minorities suffer the violence of arrest and imprisonment for things that sensible men would not consider a crime. Democrats could fix that problem overnight.", "qid": "7", "docid": "826727bc-2019-04-18T15:25:22Z-00002-000", "rank": 60, "score": 168913.0}, {"content": "Title: In a democratic society, a felon ought to retain the right to vote. Content: Nothing is necessarily permanent in most developed free countries, other than what follows execution. Applications can be submitted to repeal anything, and applying for the right to vote many years after committing a minor felony should never be futile.", "qid": "7", "docid": "cb1a30bc-2019-04-18T19:35:27Z-00000-000", "rank": 61, "score": 168344.0}, {"content": "Title: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. Content: Rebuttal: Con says \u201cI can hardly believe anyone would make the argument that they would want violent psychopaths and organized crime members to be casting votes from inside of the penitentiary.\u201d It is not that I want or desire that psychopaths to vote, that would be irrelevant. The fact is that they should retain that right, otherwise they are victims of tyranny. Such would be a violation of the founding principles of this nation. Con says \u201cI can accept what you and your peers want. I can not accept you meddling in my community and forcing us to bend to your totalitarian will. Mind your own business. Not every community will have the same wants as yours.\u201d Again, this is not about what I want, rather about what is right. Taking away someone\u2019s ability to have a say in how they are governed is the totalitarian path. You may not want to have felons vote, I accept that is your view but, as you said it\u2026. perhaps you should mind your own business and not force others to bend to your totalitarian will. Con says \u201cThe Declaration of Independence is not a carefully thought out law but a cry for freedom from an oppressive centralized government.\u201d While I agree that the Declaration of Independence is not a law, it was very well thought out. It was a cry for freedom from an oppressive government. Much of the grievance was a lack of representation in that oppressive government. Is this not a synonymous example for those who have their right to vote tyrannically taken from them. Con says \u201cThe Declaration of Independence is not a carefully thought out law but a cry for freedom from an oppressive centralized government. Your proposal here is to have a centralized government make a law to force states to act against our own will. Laws are violent things.\u201d My opponent seems intent at straw manning my position. Rather, my position is that such a law that retained felon\u2019s right to vote would curtail rule of the mob, or tyranny of the majority. Thus preserving freedom is on the side of voting rights, and totalitarian side is restricting such a vote. Con says \u201cWe designate an act a crime because it is injurious to public welfare. If you look at all such crimes you will find that someone is a victim and that victim has been deprived of their Human Rights. Their right to pursue life liberty and happiness. I see no problem in denying these offensive criminal their rights.\u201d Again, my opponent\u2019s arguments miss the mark. I certainly believe that when a crime is committed that action should be taken to preserve the liberty of others, often resulting in imprisonment and other actions. My issue is not in punishing crime, it rests solely on the right to vote. Con says \u201cWe deny inside traders access to the markets. Child molesters are denied privacy. Computer criminals are denied the use of the Internet. All are denied the use of weapons for self-defense. These decisions, as clearly prescribed in The Constitution of the United States of America, are left to the states.\u201d Each are great example of how freedom is preserved by the action taken. How does taking a Felon\u2019s right to vote protect other\u2019s freedom. In the U.S. there are 5.58 Million Felons who are limited in voting rights. (1) There are 207.5 Million eligible voters. Giving felons the right to vote would hardly create a problem as it is would amount to 2% of the voter pool. Add that fact to con's view that we have \"Zero Representation because cause a ratio of representative to constituent is a million to one. That ridiculous ratio does not make a \"Representative Democracy\".\u201d As Con seems to think voting abilities negligible due to numbers, as well as numbers show the minority that is felons in this nation, it is reasonable to conclude that there is no danger or freedom to be lost by allowing felons to vote. The only loss of freedom would result in taking away the right to vote from the felons themselves. Extended arguments: If the right to vote is taken away, our entire system of government cannot live up to its primary purpose. In the interest of our government filling its purpose, or in other words, securing the unalienable rights afforded to all men, it is only reasonable to conclude that Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. I noticed on con\u2019s profile that he has the following quote\u2026 \"I may not agree with what you have to say but i will fight to the death for your right to say it\" This nicely demonstrates the underlying principle. Regardless of our personal feelings of felon\u2019s views, there is no loss in freedom or danger in allowing them to vote. Therefore it is their right that they should vote, and such a right should be protected from the tyranny of the majority. (1)http://sentencingproject.org...", "qid": "7", "docid": "826727bc-2019-04-18T15:25:22Z-00003-000", "rank": 62, "score": 168184.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. Content: A felony is a serious crime in the United States and previously other common law countries. The term originates from English common law where felonies were originally crimes which involved the confiscation of a convicted person's land and goods; other crimes were called misdemeanors. Most common law countries have now abolished the felony/misdemeanor distinction and/or replaced it with other distinctions such as between summary offences and indictable offenses. Crimes commonly considered to be felonies include, but are not limited to: aggravated assault and/or battery, arson, burglary, illegal drug abuse/sales, embezzlement, grand theft, treason, espionage, racketeering, robbery, murder, rape, kidnapping and fraud. People have the right to vote to form a democracy. A democracy is run by the people and for the people. The people vote on there leaders, there laws, and many other important issues. If the people think that felons should not be given suffrage, then in order for a democracy to be kept they mustn't vote. In some cases like maine and vermont voting is allowed by all felons because they have so many prisons in such little area that they make up much of there population in these states. Is this who we want to be voting? or should we have the hard-working americans who actually abide by the laws that felons help make?", "qid": "7", "docid": "e5aaa355-2019-04-18T19:35:37Z-00005-000", "rank": 63, "score": 168037.0}, {"content": "Title: Ex-felons who commited minor crimes or crimes at a early age should be allowed to vote Content: My opponent brings up some new argument at first about how he is trying to focus on a new generation and show kids/younger people the harmful effects of alcohol and committing crimes. However there is already a program that trys to decrease the demand of drugs which is called DARE and so far it hasn't been that successful. I am not saying it's not a good program to have I am just saying that as long as Americans continue to demand illegal drugs, drug cartels and other organizations will keep sending them here. Also my opponent must realize that most felons who commit crimes like theft, which is the most common one, do a lot of these crimes due to what they are exposed to, or because they are poor and need food. So you can't just tell them \"drugs are bad\" and expect them to listen. You have to improve there economic conditions and give them a replacement for drugs, something more appealing that isn't dangerous. This logic is the same reason why the war on drugs doesn't work, you can't just remove all the drugs and except them to stop, the reason why fights increase after the drugs are removed is because they still have a desire for the drugs, and therefore will do whatever it takes to get them. My opponent try's to attack my contention saying taxation without representation, but he mentions the argument and goes completely over it. The argument is just saying that since they pay certain taxes to the government and for some of the people who work in the government they should be able to vote for people in the government. It's just a logical argument that has no holes in it. He skips over the argument he trys to make and again says that 5.83 million people don't matter. He is dismissing American citizens. That is like me saying \"oh forget about the unemployed they only make 5% of the American population lets focus on most Americans who at least have a job and can actually benefit the economy.\" He claims that my ex felons contention helps him but it doesn't actually, it shows that 90% of ex-felons who get jobs don't go back to jail so why punish those and not allow them to vote if they are proper citizens? The contention is pointing out that not all ex-felons go back to jail. Main argument against my opponent: is how he is basically saying that we should leave ex-felons alone and let them go with punishments some that last forever just to show people what happens when they don't listen? First of all it is common sense that when you commit crimes you can end up in jail, and a lot of people realize that a year sentence or so results in a Felony, they don't need extra things to know this. The main argument against this idea is that ex-felons can be primary sources with or without voting. What I mean by this is that ex-felons can share their stories so society will still learn the consequences of actions from ex-felons themselves. Giving them the right to vote will still leave the other punishments they have and still make felony a popular sentence well known among Americans. Conclusion: The reason why I win is because my opponent never really goes by the resolution, he try's to broaden the debate and he hasn't shown why ex-felons shouldn't be allowed to vote. He also how voting can't provide any of the benefits he mentions that would help society. Also my case structure overall was better then his as well. In conclusion vote for me because I followed the resolution, and proved that there is no reason not to allow ex-felons to vote.", "qid": "7", "docid": "d57ca0db-2019-04-18T15:34:22Z-00001-000", "rank": 64, "score": 167959.0}, {"content": "Title: ToC:Resolved in a democratic society felons ought to retain the right to vote. Content: I look for ward to this debate and hope my opponent does too. Value: Democratic society Value Criterion: Maximizing political participation Definitions: Democracy:government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system Felon:a person who has committed a felony Ought:used to express duty or moral obligation Contention 1: A democratic society can not be legitimate if the people in it are not voting. This is because the definition of democracy dictates that we let every competent adult vote. If we bar felons from voting then we are not truly a democracy. Contention 2: Furthermore if we continue to disenfranchise felons then not only are we undemocratic but we are also racist. This is because in America the majority of felons tend to be minorities. In fact according to the Department of Justice for every 15,000 felons sentenced to prison 450 were white 1,356 were Hispanic and 3,188 were black. Therefore as one can clearly see felon disenfranchisement excludes a whole class of people from the voting process. As stated in my previous statistic the two major minorities that make up the majorities of felons in America are blacks and Hispanics. Due to this the voices of these two groups of people is not generally heard. So if one were to vote neg. this could in effect lead to the genocide of minorities as their voice would be stifled in the government. This proves that supporting felon disenfranchisement supports racism. Contention 3: Not only does felon disenfranchisement supports racism but it can change the result of important elections. Blacks and Hispanics generally vote Democratic. As these minorities make up the majorities of felons felon disenfranchisement favors the white dominated Republican party and skews the results of elections. An example of this would be my state of Florida in the 2004 election. If felons had been allowed to vote there is no way that George Bush would have won the presidency. Though Gore had the popular vote Bush had more electoral votes which enabled him to win. However if felons had been allowed to vote Gore would have had not only the popular vote but the electoral votes necessary to win. Contention 4: Additionally felon disenfranchisement is not truly a punishment. Disallowing felons from voting does nothing correct their behavior or to prevent them from committing a crime again. If anything it further separates them from society. This is injustice for if a man committed a felony in his late teens and is kept from voting from every election each time a new political figure come to power he will have to remember the mistake he made as a teen. He may be a reformed and upstanding member of society yet he will still be unable to vote. For these reason I support the affirmative of this resolution.", "qid": "7", "docid": "52f90272-2019-04-18T19:19:15Z-00003-000", "rank": 65, "score": 167909.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: In a democratic society felons ought to retain the right to vote. Content: \"The main purposes of punishment are incapacitation and rehabilitation. Taking away the right to vote doesn't seem to accomplish either of these. It could even be detrimental, as ex-felons could see themselves as outcasts in society, causing feelings of resentment\"~ Bill Clinton \"\"\"I will argue that by default, felons should not have voting rights, except in some cases where they have proven themselves reformed.\"\"\" Woah woah woah.... If you assume this position then I will assume the position that felons should retain their voting rights, except in extreme cases. It's either you say they can't ever and I say they always can, or you say they can't unless extreme circumstances and I say they can unless extreme circumstances. There is no mixing of the two in an attempt to skew the debate towards your side. If you don't mind, I'd like you to choose which one you'd like to debate, either is ok with me. Now Lets move onto the contentions that you've made. I've broken them down into numbers for later clarification 1) Voting is/is not inalienable 2) Disenfranchisement is/is not suitable punishment 3) Felon disenfranchisement is essential for the preservation of integrity. For the opening of my first point, I'd like to directly quote you. \"\"\"First, I will mention that voting is NOT an inalienable right. In a solitary state, a human does not possess any quality that entails the right to vote. Rights to life, liberty etc. might be inalienable and follow from human nature, but the right to vote is alienable and is contingent upon society. Remember Locke's Social Contract theory?\"\"\" 1) Voting may very well not be inalienable in most societies such as monarchies and dictatorships, but in a democratic society, yes, it is inalienable. A way you can look at this is, take away what you're arguing is inalienable or not and see if the sugject being argued upon, is the same. What is a democratic society without voting? Or Better yet, is a democratic society a democratic society without the right to vote? Of course not, in seeing this, you see that it is essential top have the right to vote if you're going to have an actual democratic society. Lets open the second voting issue with a quote from you as well. \"\"\"A serious crime deserves a serious punishment. Being stripped of voting rights is a fitting punishment because it emphasizes that voting, which is the basis of a democratic society, is a right that is contingent on keeping the Social Contract.\"\"\" 2) A serious punishment for a serious crime is the serious sentance that follows. Voting disenfranchisement generally has NOTHING to do with the crime felons commit. It is an extra unwarranted infringement upon a felon's rights. Laws are measured by how well they protect the public and how well they deter crime. How well disenfranchisement protects the public will be addressed in my next voting issue, so lets take a look at the second criteria for effective laws. How well it deters crime. While committing a crime, criminals aren't thinking in the back of their head \"Oh man, I hope they don't take away my voting rights.\" It isn't in their minds AT ALL! People aren't afraid of losing voting rights, they're afraid of being away from loved ones for long periods of time. It basically, IS JUST THERE. Now, just being there isn't bad, if it's not doing anything. However, it is taking away million's of people's right to vote! Taking away voting rights is an infringement and cannot be justified! Committing a felony and voting are pretty much separate entities. It seems, for lack of a better description, kind of random for a society to say, \"You robbed a house, so... now you can't vote.\" Like before, here are your words to spark yet another problem with your stance. \"\"\"The integrity of voting: Ask yourself: would you want your policemen, your judges or your politicians to be elected by those who have committed atrocities such as rape? In many cases, these felons' ideal of society differs from the commoner's ideal, and we must accept this. Given their inappropriate ideals and motivations, felons should lack the right to vote.\"\"\" 3) Now this points out 2 majors problems. So I will attack them differently. A- This problem being that you don't want felons voting because of the fact that they are felons and B- The fact that you have a problem with anyone voting who has ideals that differ from that of the \"societal norm\" First off, with A. A- You stating \" Ask yourself: would you want your policemen, your judges or your politicians to be elected by those who have committed atrocities such as rape?\" Is a pointless statement. There are too many assumptions in this sentance. First off, you're assuming taht the convicted rapist is not sorry and is still malicious. Secondly, you're under the misconceived notion that someone who has a history of rape, can vote for someone who will rape america. A killer, thief, or rapist can't vote for someone who will pass a law that will kill, steal from, or rape the american or democratic people. You've stated that voting requires that you have to reach a certain minimum which felons don't reach, but you fail to realize that laws have to reach the certain minimum. There is no harm that can come from a rapist, murderer, or thief voting because they can only vote on something that's productive for the society. After all, we let ex-convicts marry, reproduce, buy beer, own property and drive. They don't lose their freedom of religion, their right against self-incrimination or their right not to have soldiers quartered in their homes in time of war. But in many places, the assumption is that they can't be trusted to help choose our leaders [...] If we thought criminals could never be reformed, we wouldn't let them out of prison in the first place. Some basic principles of a democracy are that every citizen is given a say in society. But felons are citizens, are they not? And since they are thus forced to live and operate under a governments jurisdiction, shouldn't they have a say in decisions affecting them? Plus, Even non-felons are capable of bad judgment. If we are disenfranchising felons simply because of a bad decision and/or bad decision-making skills, there are plenty of other people who shouldn't be allowed to vote. But who can set that standard of good decision versus bad decision in any absolute form regarding elections? B- The fact that you don't want people with different opinions to vote, is outragious! The whole purpose of voting is to weigh all opinions! A true democracy is the expression of EVERY opinion and the weighing of each one in comparison to one's own until the best possible opinion is formulated. Only then can an opinion be validated and used in action. Voting applies directly, particularly for felons who it can be assumed will have deviant opinions, because if votes are the ultimate mode of expression and change in a democratic society, ALL opinions of anyone governed by the law created in the society is valued highly, because of the previously listed impacts. It can even work on a societal level in the sense that, the vote will be weighed and the best opinion will be chosen - the majority opinion. The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. I go so far as to say, that not allowing felons to vote is harming a democratic society, because the society is not weighing all opinions, and because people will not have the opportunity to consider their opinions openly. I am anxious for my oponents arguments", "qid": "7", "docid": "cfa9c036-2019-04-18T19:26:00Z-00002-000", "rank": 66, "score": 167849.0}, {"content": "Title: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. Content: Felons have demonstrated bad behavior in choosing to commit the crime they did. So I would think that they are then unfit to make the most important decision than can make, which is to pick the person who will run our country. If we give felons the right to vote, then we are basically saying that there is no difference between them and law abiding citizens. That just does not seem right to me. Yes the government needs to protect people, but not for their voting rights. If they did the crime they need to know that there will be consequences and not being able to vote anymore should be one of them. They should not have the privilege to pick who makes the laws if you are not going to follow them yourself. If felons cared about what the government did then they would not be going out breaking the law that the government has set into place. Yes people are born with equal rights, but when someone chooses to break the laws that have been set in place, and then they have given up the chance to be treated equally with everybody else.", "qid": "7", "docid": "8267279d-2019-04-18T15:31:31Z-00004-000", "rank": 67, "score": 167629.0}, {"content": "Title: Ex-felons who commited minor crimes or crimes at a early age should be allowed to vote Content: Rules: Clarification: Minor as in like, a crime as a child, minor theft, driving away from a car wreck out of fear, basically anything that isn't huge like rape, or murder. Childhood crime could be minor theft. 1. Try not to forfeit. 2. have fun 3. go by resolution", "qid": "7", "docid": "d57ca0db-2019-04-18T15:34:22Z-00007-000", "rank": 68, "score": 167052.0}, {"content": "Title: In a democractic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote Content: To my friend and worthy opponent, glaceau, thank you for challenging me to a debate I will move on to defend my case, then attack my opponents [Observations] (1) --> he accepted/dropped. America can be used, and you can extend this through until the final round (2) \"Felons and ex-felons are both inevitably put into society. Because exfelons are a product of once-felons, the debate should centralize around how felons should be conducted in the status quo and post-resolution\" --> Felons are not necessarily always put back into society. People on death row and people serving life sentences are never released --> When my opponent states 'status quo', he is referring to incarceration. This means that he does believe that at least part of this debate is to be discussed on behalf of incarcerated felons (a.k.a. felons). He then goes on to say 'post-resolution'. Therefore, if I can prove why this is wrong, then you can extend my observation throughout the round: --> If you agreed with my opponents logic, that is flawed, but, nonetheless, if you did, here is why it is wrong. If you agree that we must start inferring things from the resolution (i.e things that are not implied), bad things start to happen. For example, he says 'post resolution'. If we have to structure debates on things after the resolution, then you must also have to structure such debates on 'pre resolution'. Before felons committed felonies (rape, murder, kidnap) they were adults. Before they were adults they were children. Does my opponent want to extend the privilege of voting to children? Before that, they were babies. Does my opponent want to extend the privilege of voting to babies? If you share his reasoning, then you would [Contentions] Cont 1: Retribution \"Felons will...perform their actions in a different society or framework that does not impact... -->This goes directly against his opening arguments. He stated, and I agree, that this action of revoking the freedom to vote is in a democratic framework. Anything else, would be simply unresolutional \"For example, if a felon was convicted of rape, that does not necessarily mean the government has to rape the felon back.\" --> Thank you, that is exactly what I argue. Because my opponent agrees with me, you can extend this contention throughout the round. Because the government cannot treat a consitituent as a moral non-entity (i.e rape them), they must furthermore treat them as a political non entity so the punishment fits the crime and it is not cruel and unusual Cont 2: Legal Consistency \"First off, the first sentence implies that maintaining political rights and the freedom to vote is of utmost greater magnitude than any of the implied correlative comparisons.\" --> Nope, not true. I argue that any system is better of under a perfectly consistent system. We must be uniform and fair in the punishment that is dealt to felons, and voting negative better achieves that. I argue that more intrinsic rights are being taken away, and taking away politcal rights are justified through the uniformity of punishment afforded to prisoners \"As long as there is a net loss of the right to society, the felon is being shunned or punished for their activity\" -->There is no right to society in incarceration. The government puts you in jail BECAUSE you hurt society, and in order to protect society, must restrict all influence of the felon to society, for example, the right to vote Cont 3: Double Standard \"By not upholding the right to vote by the majority of the people and practicing social equality (definition of democracy) you are condoning tyrannistic autonomy\" --> Because my opponent did not attack my first observation, America can be used. So, I argue, would not letting these less than 2% of people vote, still be upholding the right to vote for the 'majority of the people'? Of couse, 98% is a majority --> The definition of democracy is not social equality. Although it is portrayed here in America, the two terms do not go hand and hand. Also, it is impossible to give social equality through incarceration. There is no punishment without rights being taken away. Besides, doesn't communism have more social equality than, I don't know, democracy? \"Not all of what felons convict are 'the most brazen way'. Poor Generalization\" --> Yes, they have defied society, the government, and everything society and the government has put forth. Because there are only two types of crime, misdeamenors and felonies, someone who commits a felony would be breaking the law in a more brazen way I will now move on to attack my opponents case Value: Equality --> Justice is implied by the resolution, and higher on a resolutional scale. Because we are dealing with the punishment of felons, we must be just (giving each their due), not necessarily equal. For example, raping somebody does not warrant equal punishment as insider trading does. Thus, justice is the 'higher standard' VC: Democracy --> implied more by the resolution than his value, however, a just government is not always democratic and a democratic govenrment is not always just. Because I have proven his Value Criteria to be categorically untrue, then mine is superior. Maximizing Fairness is vital to a just democracy [Contentions] \"Great way to dehumanize them by calling them parasites\" --> Do I even dare argue this, for he defends his whole contention with me using an anology. But, because I deserve to win this debate, I shall --> a parasite is anything that impedes a necessary process. While felons are incarcerated, they become a burden to the State. Because they impede the process of the state trying to progress the rest of society, they are, indeed, parasites. \"A felony inherently hurts society and therefore government\" --> I stand by this argument. Any felony committed causes pain to a member of society (society). The government is also hurt, because one of its constituents was inflicted pain upon. A governments job is to promote hapinness to its constituents, anything on the contrart would then inflict pain Thank you, and it is for those reasons that I negate the resolution", "qid": "7", "docid": "9762761d-2019-04-18T19:34:37Z-00002-000", "rank": 69, "score": 166862.0}, {"content": "Title: Ex-Cons should not be denined the vote. Content: In this second round, my opponent has presented the following: 1. That permanent disenfranchisement is unconstitutional, 2. The question of whether society can \"dictate the rights a person enjoys,\" and 3. The notion that continued disenfranchisement encourages ex-convicts to \"remain on the fringes of society as second-class citizens,\" followed again by the assertion that \"indefinite punishment\" of this nature is unconstitutional. First, we should note that whether or not my opponent realizes it, the question of permanent or \"indefinite\" disenfranchisement is a red herring. Only three states currently have \"permanent\" disenfranchisement of convicted felons, and again even in those cases the ex-con retains the ability to recover the right to vote through petitioning the court, if they so choose. In all other states, the right to vote is returned to the ex-convict, typically automatically after a certain period of time has elapsed since completion of the sentence. However, even if the disenfranchisement were permanent in all states, it would definitely not be unconstitutional. As was noted in round 1, the Fourteenth Amendment clearly recognizes the rights of the states to deny convicted criminals the right to vote, implictly in the first section and explicitly in the second. Section 2 of this amendment was, in fact, the basis for the 1974 Supreme Court ruling in the case Richardson v. Ramirez, which dealt with precisely this issue. (The full text of the ruling may be found at http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu... The Fourteenth Amendment is widely recognized as affirming the constitutionality of state disenfranchisement laws by legal scholars across the nation; for example, the following comments from an article by Edward B. Foley, the Director of Election Law @ Moritz, and Douglas Dumolt, Class of 2006, Moritz School of Law at the Ohio State University: \"This understanding also dovetailed with the U.S. Constitution's explicit recognition, in section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment, that states are permitted to disenfranchise felons if they wish.\" So it seems very clear - from opinions from the legal community, from simply reading the text of the 14th Amendment, and most importantly a Supreme Court ruling on this very question - that disenfranchisement laws ARE definitely constitutional. And note that there is no distinction in these opinions and rulings between those laws which \"automatically\" return the vote to the ex-convict, and those which my opponent would label as \"permanent.\" So we now come to the \"moral\" question - can society \"morally\" deny any individual certain rights? We should recognize first that, in any practical sense, \"rights\" under the law derive solely from the so-called \"contract with society\" that each of us, as the members of that society, implicitly agree to. It certainly makes for good political rhetoric to speak of \"inherent\" and \"inalienable\" rights, but in practice we enjoy only those rights which society as a whole has agreed to defend on behalf of the individual. If you disagree, may I suggest that you visit any of a number of the other societies on Earth where certain of the rights we enjoy here are not so well-defended, and attempt to exercise them. In what sense of the word would, say, an individual living in Stalin's Soviet Union enjoy an \"inalienable\" right to free speech? So rights DO derive, in any practical sense, from the \"contract with society.\" And here is a case where we are discussing the \"rights\" of individuals who have already, of their own free will, broken that contract by committing acts against other members of the society or the society as a whole. Rather than being concerned about the \"morality\" of denying certain rights to these individuals, should we not first discuss the morality of continuing to let them participate in the running of that society, given that they have already demonstrated their unwillingness to behave in that society's best interests? Society clearly has both the legal and the moral right - and in fact, the obligation - to disenfranchise convicted criminals, both as part of the punishment for their crimes and to protect itself from the potential consequences of permitting them to participate in the voting process. At the very least, this must be done until these individuals have demonstrated their willingness and ability to now \"play by the rules\" - and as was already noted, they have a path to recover their voting rights in each and every state of the union. Since the disenfranchisement is rarely \"permanent\" - and when it is, it is generally through the individual's inability to demonstrate that they ARE ready to again participate as full members of society - the question of this practice pushing these people to the \"fringes of society\" or making them \"second-class citizens\" is moot. If they are remaining on the \"fringes,\" it is by their own choice - just as it was their choice to commit the crime which resulted in their disenfranchisment in the first place. Rights do not exist apart from responsibilities, and we are most definitely not talking about a case of the \"big bad government\" unfairly or unconstitutionally restricting the rights of some poor, innocent citizens. If you cannot live up to the responsibilities of citizenship, and you demonstrate this by committing criminal acts, then you shouldn't be surprised if certain of your \"rights\" are restricted or lost. This is in part to punish the criminal for their acts, but equally importantly it is to protect society from those who have clearly demonstrated inability or unwillingness to respect the rest of the society's members.", "qid": "7", "docid": "7581a608-2019-04-18T19:58:23Z-00002-000", "rank": 70, "score": 166602.0}, {"content": "Title: In a Democratic Society, Felons Ought to Retain the Right to Vote Content: My opponent attempts to exclude the US from the resolution for various reasons. He contends the US cannot be a model of this situation because it does not allow all members of their society to vote. My response is that the resolution- \"In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote\" does not address children or \"all members of their society\". The resolution addresses felons, and whether or not they should \"retain\" the right to vote. In order for a felon to \"retain the right to vote\", he/she must first be eligible for the right to vote barring the fact they are a convicted felon. In other words a 16 year old (a child in the US) felon cannot retain the right to vote because he/she is not of legal voting age and therefore does not have the right to vote in the first place. Though my opponent implies that the affirmative must \"prove this in a society\", that is not the aim of the resolution. My premise is that in a democracy, felons should retain the right to vote- at least to some degree, and I used the US as an EXAMPLE of a democratic society which allows most felons to retain the right to vote. More examples are the individual 50 states which are also the individual democracies that regulate the right to vote for felons in different degrees. My opponent's contention that prison does not always rehabilitate has already been addressed. He gives the reader the illusion that I stated prison always rehabilitates, but I made no such statement or implication. I made it clear that my argument is for rehabilitated criminals, and that the goal of incarceration is rehabilitation, though it is up to the states (in the US) whether or not prisoners are rehabilitated to the point where they can benefit from the right to vote. My opponent next contends the US is not a democracy, and therefore his contention stands. However, the US is a \"democratic society\". Though the US is a Federal Republic, it is a democratic society because it is a Federation of Democratic States. The individual states do enjoy direct democracy, and it is the electoral process for the executive of the central government that does not qualify as a direct democracy. A Federal Republic, though not a direct democracy is a representative democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org...). If my opponent wishes to have a separate debate about political processes and what constitutes a democracy we may do so, but his attempt to nullify my arguments based on these objections is simply a clever way of not arguing the facts I presented in R1. My opponent's next response is a revision of his second contention. In response to his new revision, this is not a debate about consistency rather whether or not it \"should\" be that way. I gave the US as an example of not only why it \"should\" be that way, but that it \"is\" that way in the US, and it works. Again, my opponent attempts to turn this into an argument about semantics. I did not write the resolution, but I have made my position clear. Had my opponent really wanted to debate the topic he wouldn't have written the resolution in this manner, nor would he have made it clear in his opening argument that he would leave the door open for an argument on semantics should he not be able to address the facts. I gave 4 different examples of how the semantics can be applied, and how my argument is valid for all of them, though he implies I concentrated on only one. Again, we can have a separate debate on semantics, but the confusion is neither my doing, nor my aim, rather it is that of my opponent. I believe my opponent has failed to successfully answer my R1 arguments, and so it is virtually pointless to present new ones as he will probably just ignore them and attempt to argue the straw man again. Though I know the reader will have common sense, I urge you to re-read my R1 arguments after reading my R2 rebuttals. My opponent presented no new arguments in R2. Thank you.", "qid": "7", "docid": "8fa3a9aa-2019-04-18T19:35:39Z-00002-000", "rank": 71, "score": 166247.0}, {"content": "Title: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote Content: NEGATIVE I negate: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote For the sake of clarity, I would like to define some key terms: (1) Democracy: a government by the people in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by their elected officials (2) Felon: a person convicted of a serious criminal offense punishable by imprisonment exceeding one year I offer the following observations of the resolution: (1) Because America is a democracy, a society, and should not allow felons the privilege of voting, the United States complies with all restrictions in the resolution, thus implied by the resolution (2) The resolution clearly states \"felons\" versus \"ex-felons\". The United Nations defines an ex-felon as somebody who has completed their sentence, and a felon, as stated in the resolution, as somebody currently serving their sentence. Therefore, my opponent must prove how letting felons vote in prison is upholding a just democracy Value: Justice Value Criterion: Maximization of Fairness The Negative values justice. Justice is implied by the resolution because it deals with the punishment of felons. In order for a society to be democratic, all punishment must be fair and just. If punishment is not fair and just, a democracy cannot prosper. In this debate, I will show why this punishment is perfectly just. I will show my value of justice through the maximization of fairness. Democracy is a majority rule. Currently, the United States is comprised of over 98% of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens, versus the less than 2% of society that are murders and rapists. 98 to 2, who should get the rights? To prove my point, I make the following arguments (1) Retribution. Retribution is giving punishment that is deserved, or punishment that fits the crime. When somebody commits a felony, say rape, they treat their victim as a moral non-entity. An entity is a human being, so treating somebody as a non-entity is treating somebody less than human. So, the government has an obligation to punish this criminal. Does the government then in turn rape the felon? Of course not. This would be treating the felon as a moral non-entity, just as he did to his victim. This is cruel and unusual punishment that would make the government no better than the felon. But, the government still has to punish the felon. What is the government to do? The government must treat the felon as a political non-entity, in order to punish the criminal, yet not be cruel and unusual. Treating a felon as a political non-entity includes revoking the privilege of voting. 2) Legal Consistency. When felons are incarcerated, they are essentially removed from society \u2013 both for the punishment of the criminal and for the safety of the rest of society. In their removal from society, they lose certain rights that they would normally possess; they lose their social rights and the freedom of activity, occupational rights and the freedom to engage in the workforce, parental rights and the freedom to raise children, etc. Why, then, should criminals be allowed to maintain their political rights and the freedom to vote? There are many rights which are more basic taken away from the individual during his imprisonment; if we are to uphold some level of legal consistence and be uniform and fair in the level of punishment afforded to prisoners, then there is no reason why we should afford felons the privilege of voting and every reason not to. 3) Double Standard. By affirming the resolution, you are essentially condoning violent acts, which, as a democratic society, we are morally obliged not to do. By affirming the resolution, you are giving felons superior rights. You are not only treating felons as equal, but you are giving them rights that make them superior to normal, tax-paying, law-abiding citizens. You make the law-breakers into the law-makers. By affirming the resolution, you are saying that people who brake the law in the most brazen way, by committing a felony, would be better than a law-abiding citizen because they broke the law and still have the same amount of rights. As you can see, this is simply wrong. Thank you, and it is for those reasons that I negate the resolution", "qid": "7", "docid": "8fdf3c42-2019-04-18T19:34:44Z-00005-000", "rank": 72, "score": 165836.0}, {"content": "Title: Ex-felons who commited minor crimes or crimes at a early age should be allowed to vote Content: Fair points that my opponent had to say about my case. But now I will have to do the job of proving them wrong. 1. Broadness of a felon My opponent gives the usual things an ex-felon could do. Though he makes the case that after they have done there time in jail they learn there mistake. I agree with that statement, but my case is to help young kids not get into crime. What is more important the 5.83 million ex-felons, or the 74.8 million minors learning that doing drugs, and alcohol is cool. 5.83 million people need to be an example to the 74.8 million minors living in America. It is about the new generation. Focus on the right now, instead of the past. We can get them financially secure, but they have to serve as an example to our minors. 2. Taxation without representation My opponent tries to make the claim that there debt to society has been served in jail, and it should be a right for them to vote. I respect that my opponent is trying to protect the 2% of America, but I am trying to protect the 74.8 million minors that can get in trouble with the law. Lets try to decrease the 5.83 million Americans to 1 million. We should have these ex-felons as examples to the larger demographic. We need to protect the 74.8 million minors. We need to focus on the right now. We need to focus on the greater benefit of the 74.8 million than the 5.83 million Americans. 3. Ex-Felons go back to jail His argument in a way helps my case, because he is saying that this is a way felons can actually help themselves. We should give them jobs, but we shouldn't give them voting rights because they could be put up as an example. 4. Benefits of ex-felons voting My opponent said that countries do well if they let ex-felons voice there opinions. Ex-felons can voice their opinions anytime in America. Maintaining our status as a free country has nothing to do with the resolution, therefore it is invalid. My opponent also said the returning there vote can integrate the criminal system. I said earlier in this argument that they still have the power to voice there opinions. They can create awareness about how tough it is in prisons. But they should also serve as an example to the 74.8 million minors who might commit a crime. It is truly the greater benefit for our society. 5. Racial felon disenfranchisement laws/ racist voting My opponent tries to make the case that there is discrimination against minorities. I totally agree that there is discrimination against minorities when it comes to the prison system. That is why I have been trying to stress through out this whole case that the ex-felons should serve as an example to our new generation. I think, and my opponent can correct me if I am wrong, but I think he is trying to say that giving these rights back to them will fight discrimination. He also stated that these ex-felons come from poor neighborhoods. That is exactly why we should have ex-felons as an example to the poorer neighborhoods. We should teach these neighborhoods the consequences of their actions. It will serve as a greater benefit for American society.", "qid": "7", "docid": "d57ca0db-2019-04-18T15:34:22Z-00002-000", "rank": 73, "score": 165779.0}, {"content": "Title: In a democratic society felons ought to be denied the right to vote. Content: Voting is a right, but not an unconstrained one. The right to vote is not granted to those under the age of eighteen. That age limitation demonstrates that voting rights may be restricted when there is reason to doubt the potential voter's good judgment. Resident aliens are excluded from voting on the grounds that their interests are not necessarily coincident with the interests of ordinary citizens. Convicted felons are another class of citizens whose judgment is reasonably called into question. The interests of convicted felons are likely to be contrary to the interests of citizens as a whole, who want to be protected from criminals. The U.S. Constitution does not grant individual citizens the right to vote for president. The electors for the President are determined by state legislators *by any means*; Clearly, the Constitution does not make voting in a preeminent right. The Constitution defines a republic, which generally subordinates the right to vote upon legislation to voting for legislators. There are clauses granting equal rights based based upon race and religion, and equal voting rights based upon gender, but there is nothing that prevents voting restrictions based upon other criteria. Non-citizens are also excluded from voting. That is because the interests of non-citizens are likely to diverge from those of citizens on some important issues. The argument that the interests of criminals diverges from that of ordinary citizens is stronger than that for non-citizens. Convicted criminals have demonstrated where their interests lie, but for non-citizens it is only a reasonable supposition. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall claimed that once a prison sentence is served, that felons have \"fully paid their debt to society\" [1] However, being a jurist qualifies one to interpret laws, not to make them. Whether or not felons have fully paid there debt is a matter to be determined by law, and ultimately of the values of society as reflected in the lawmaking processes. For example, convicted sex offenders must register with the government and are restricted from certain interactions with children. The \"three strikes and you are out\" laws identify career criminals and remove them from society. The justification for both sex-offender registration and \"three strikes\" is that convicted felons are more likely to commit additional crimes than persons without a criminal record. One can argue what the correct level of continuing debt to society ought to be, but the fact that convicted felons are more likely to commit crimes is unquestionable. The U.S. Bureau of Justice reports that \"over two-thirds of released prisoners were rearrested within three years\" [2]. Note that the two-thirds only reflects released felons who where caught within three years. It does not count those who committed crimes but were not arrested. Overall, only about 45 percent of violent crimes are solved, according to the FBI Uniform Crime Statistics [3] Factoring in the criminals not caught, we may reasonably suppose that the true recidivism rate is in the neighborhood of 85 or 90 percent. Because recidivism rates are so high, the debt to society at the heart of this issue is not with respect to serving a sentence for a particular crime, it is in having adopted a criminal lifestyle. The convicted felon ought to have the obligation of establishing that his interests have become aligned with those of ordinary citizens and contrary to those with a criminal lifestyle. For example, that might be established after ten years without an arrest for a felony. It is not established by release from prison. Only eight states currently prohibit convicted felons from voting for life. Two states (Vermont and Maine) permit felons to vote while in prison. Thirty-three states remove the franchise while convicted felons are on parole. Thus even if one accepts Thurgood Marshall's argument that voting rights should be restored after felons have paid their debt, it is not mainly about criminals who have done so. The issue is mainly about criminals who are in prison or on parole and have not paid their debt. Criminal rights advocates claims that in the 2000 election in Florida, that felons would likely have swayed the presidential election to John Kerry and away from George Bush. They claim that preventing that was undemocratic. There is no doubt that in a close elections the votes of those with an established criminal lifestyle voting for someone they feel to be in their interests could determine the outcome of an election. That, however, is a powerful argument that justice demands that election not be determined by such people. Criminal rights advocates claim that fencing off a certain voter demographic is a fundamentally unjust principle. In reality, it depends upon the reason for fencing off the demographic. People under the age of 18 are fenced off on the reasonable grounds that in general they lack the knowledge and experience to cast an informed vote. Note that this is done despite some seventeen-year-olds being more informed than some citizens who are fifty or sixty. The fencing off is justified because the odds are so heavily against it. Similarly, not all convicted felons remains committed to the criminal lifestyle. But with about 85% recidivism, the odds are much against it. Therefore, it is reasonable and just to identify the demographic and exclude them. Convicted felons are an identifiable target for politicians, who can seek votes by making various promises to tilt the justice system in favor of criminals. Politicians are clever enough not to go to prisons to make the appeal directly, as that would alienate other voters. They would use surrogates who espouse \"improving\" the justice system by weakening it. Even if no targeted appeal were made, criminals would figure out for themselves which candidate was most likely to facilitate their criminal lifestyle. Crime victims are also an identifiable demographic. However, victims are less likely to vote based upon the single issue of weakening the justice system. For example, victims are citizens who worry about the health of the general economy because a good economy facilitates their making a living. A criminal lifestyle, however, is only facilitated by weakening the justice system. The issue has frequently posed as one in which removing the right to vote is either punishment or retribution. This a false dichotomy. A completely separate reason for imprisoning criminals is to keep them from doing further harm. That is why convicted felons should not be allowed to vote. We should not want people whose primary interest is in pursuing a criminal lifestyle determining the outcome of close elections. 1. http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu... Richardson v. Ramerez, in which three ex-felons sued to restore their voter registration. The applicants lost the case. 2. Bureau of Justice, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov... Recidivism 3. http://www.ncpa.org... National Center for Policy Analysis, Violent Crime Clearance Rate http://www.ncpa.org...", "qid": "7", "docid": "3771ef2c-2019-04-18T19:30:15Z-00003-000", "rank": 74, "score": 165708.0}, {"content": "Title: in a democratic society, felons should retain the right to vote Content: Well if they lost them for commiting a crime they should not be able to get them back.The way you put it they shouldn't be taken away to begin with so after they commite a crime they should be able to go back to there life without any changes so there rights haven't changed at all and it's like they didn't commited the crime at all.", "qid": "7", "docid": "c9139d24-2019-04-18T19:32:47Z-00003-000", "rank": 75, "score": 165515.0}, {"content": "Title: Ex-felons who commited minor crimes or crimes at a early age should be allowed to vote Content: Crime-an action or omission that constitutes an offense that may be prosecuted by the state and is punishable by law. Utilitarianism- The greatest benefit for the greatest number of people A lot of people would think that I am being close minded in believing that ex-felons should not be allowed to vote. Well I am here today to prove that I am not. These children need to bear the punishment of their actions. Better not, they need to be the face of the consequence of crime. I think we can all agree that crime is a horrible, unethical thing to do in a society. But we need to convince these children of it too. These children should know that there privileges will be taken away, and there voting rights will be taken away. I am looking at it from a utilitarian view. This will be the greater benefit for the new generations.", "qid": "7", "docid": "d57ca0db-2019-04-18T15:34:22Z-00006-000", "rank": 76, "score": 165433.0}, {"content": "Title: Convicted ex-felons should be able to vote in all US elections. Content: I accept your challenge and will be arguing that convicted ex-felons should not be able to vote in all US elections. I look forward to debating with you :)", "qid": "7", "docid": "ffc1c5ad-2019-04-18T16:49:56Z-00008-000", "rank": 77, "score": 165343.0}, {"content": "Title: Felon Voting Content: Resolved: In a democratic society felons ought to retain the right to vote Value: democratic society Value Criterion: Maximizing political participation Contention 1: A democratic society can not be legitimate if the people in it are not voting. This is because the definition of democracy dictates that we let every competent adult vote. If we bar felons from voting then we are not truly a democracy. Contention 2: Furthermore if we continue to disenfranchise felons then not only are we undemocratic but we are also racist. This is because in America the majority of felons tend to be minorities. In fact according to the Department of Justice for every 15,000 felons sentenced to prison 450 were white 1,356 were Hispanic and 3,188 were black. Therefore as one can clearly see felon disenfranchisement excludes a whole class of people from the voting process. As stated in my previous statistic the two major minorities that make up the majorities of felons in America are blacks and Hispanics. Due to this the voices of these two groups of people is not generally heard. So if one were to vote neg. this could in effect lead to the genocide of minorities as their voice would be stifled in the government. This proves that supporting felon disenfranchisement supports racism. Contention 3: Not only does felon disenfranchisement supports racism but it can change the result of important elections. Blacks and Hispanics generally vote Democratic. As these minorities make up the majorities of felons felon disenfranchisement favors the white dominated Republican party and skews the results of elections. An example of this would be my state of Florida in the 2004 election. If felons had been allowed to vote there is no way that George Bush would have won the presidency. Though Gore had the popular vote Bush had more electoral votes which enabled him to win. However if felons had been allowed to vote Gore would have had not only the popular vote but the electoral votes necessary to win. Contention 4: Additionally felon disenfranchisement is not truly a punishment. Disallowing felons from voting does nothing correct their behavior or to prevent them from committing a crime again. If anything it further separates them from society. This is injustice for if a man committed a felony in his late teens and is kept from voting from every election each time a new political figure come to power he will have to remember the mistake he made as a teen. He may be a reformed and upstanding member of society yet he will still be unable to vote. For these reason I support the affirmative of this resolution.", "qid": "7", "docid": "bcb43496-2019-04-18T19:26:12Z-00002-000", "rank": 78, "score": 165275.0}, {"content": "Title: ex felons should be able to vote Content: I'm just going to respond to my opponents speech. Unless he can substantiate his claims, I just need to rebut his claims since they're baseless. My opponent has the full burden of proof. I'll provide one source, and I will have destroyed my opponent's opening statements. My opponent opens with his opinion. Opinions can't be substantiated. He says we need more people voting, but somehow it doesn't make sense that felons should be the ones filling the polls instead of law abiding citizens. The proper solution is to get more law abiding citizens to vote. He assumes that all felons committed their crime a long time ago. That's an assumption used as a blanket statement. Blanket statements only need one example to be destroyed, and here I can provide a standard that breaks his statement. The minimum punishment for a felony is 48 hours [1]. He says that they're still citizens so they should vote. Something about committing a felony is that they're forfeiting certain rights by damaging the American public. Voting is one of those rights. I await a response. ------------------------------------------- Source: [1] http://www.cga.ct.gov...", "qid": "7", "docid": "d8496939-2019-04-18T16:39:08Z-00002-000", "rank": 79, "score": 165259.0}, {"content": "Title: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. Content: Lets start at the top. My opponent values equality with a standard of democracy. Starting off with the value of equality: My opponent tells you of a standard of equality but fails to define what equality is. So we must assume that equality is referring to all the things. Obviously this impossible because you cannot have equality of all things. I'll give you a simple example, felons lose there right to liberty and freedom while in prison. Thus, they are no longer complete equals in society. So, my opponents value ultimately fails because there is no bright line as to what equality is so you look back to the negatives standard of Lockes's Social contract in this round. On to the value criterion of Democracy: She tells you that, \"My value premise and my value criterion relates because equality is essential to a democracy.\" You can assume than that my opponent doesnt believe democracy is essential to equality because she did not tell you so. Thus, she is not upholding her value through her standard and is not upholding any type of framework in this debate. Impacts: No brightline for equality so you cannot vote of off it and it cannot be brought up later. Thus the value falls. No explaination of how or why a democracy is essential to equality so you have no reason to look the the standard either because there is no link. Thus the V and VC fall so you look to mine. On to her contention one. She tells you that she contends that by taking away felons rights to vote it will violate constitutional laws. Turn this because giving them it back will violate constitutional laws. Ammendmant 14 tells you that the Right to Vote can be taken away from violators of crimes. So the impact of my opponents contention is turned and is now negative offense. On to her second contention where she tells you that, \"My definition states that a democracy relies on citizens voting; it is a government elected by the people. You cannot have a full democratic society without all citizens voting.\" Notice where she tells you ALL citizens. This cannot be weighed at all in this round because A) Children are not allowed to vote, and B) The mentally incompetent are not allowed to vote. So the entire contention falls because of my opponent believes in universal suffrage which is, as ive shown you, entirely impossible in any society. You can cross-apply my arguement againtst her first contention because she tells you again about how it goes against the ammendmants of citizens. I've already shown you the turn on this arguement so look to that. Also my opponent believes in a \"clean slate\" for felons. Also impossible because they are felons and, however unfortunate that may be, it cannot be taken back so all these things will still happen. This is where your voting: 1. Cannot uphold an already faulty value, with no explanations. 2. Impact turn of contentions 1 and 3. 3. Contention 2 is illogical and impossible.", "qid": "7", "docid": "8fdec159-2019-04-18T19:34:03Z-00003-000", "rank": 80, "score": 165094.0}, {"content": "Title: Ex-Cons should not be denined the vote. Content: First, it should be readily apparent that denying a convicted felon the right to vote is NOT unconstitutional; my opponent has already (and apparently without realizing it) quoted the very text from the Constitution which shows this. Repeating that quotation - the 14th Amendment - here, with the relevant text highlighted: \"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.\" Carefully note that phrase, \"without due process of law.\" The rights enumerated in the Constitution, and specifically in the Bill of Rights, are not and never were intended to be absolute and inviolable. The fact that we imprison people in the first place (a clear violation of the \"right to liberty,\" if that right were to be considered \"absolute\"), and that such imprisonment and other punishments were clearly and explicitly anticipated by the Constitution, shows this. The States can, through the due process of law, deny various rights as punishment for infractions of the law. But why deny voting rights to convicted criminals? First, this is clearly a part of the punishment prescribed for various crimes (in general, that class of crimes that we call felonies). You know going in that if you commit certain criminal acts, and are convicted of them, that you are going to be stripped of certain rights that otherwise would be yours as a citizen. In short, this is your choice - and if you value your right to vote, it is an additional incentive not to commit the crime in the first place. And from society's perspective, this makes sense. We do not grant the right to participate in government, through voting, to just anyone. You must be of a certain age, and in general you must be of reasonably sound mind. But a convicted criminal has already demonstrated one major shortcoming regarding a quality that any reasonable society should expect of its voters. Simply put, in committing a crime, you are demonstrating that you are NOT willing to abide by your society's laws in the first place - should you then expect to have a hand in the making of those laws? Our system of voting rights is based on the assumption that voters will have an interest in promoting the good of the society as a whole - why should we grant voting right to those who have demonstrated the exact opposite? It might be claimed that the permanent loss of the right to vote constitutes an unusual and extreme punishment, one which is not warranted in many cases. That's fine, and the law already provides a means through which it may be addressed. The ex-convict retains the right to petition the State, through legal channels, for their right to vote to be returned. In many states, the right to vote is automatically restored after a specified time period following completion of the convict's sentence, assuming of course that no further crime has been committed by the individual during that period. Given, then, that the franchise IS very commonly restored to ex-convicts - especially if it is important enough to them that they pursue it - what justification can there be for eliminating this part of the punishment for such demonstrably anti-social individuals?", "qid": "7", "docid": "7581a608-2019-04-18T19:58:23Z-00004-000", "rank": 81, "score": 164961.0}, {"content": "Title: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. Content: I will now begin by rebutting Pro's case from R2. Pro argues over Unalienable rights. Voting is not a right. As I have argued, in the 14th amendment it states that it isn't a given right to vote. It is up to the state in which they decide to let felons vote, or not vote. Pro arguing that voting for everyone is a right, is false. The 2nd part of the 14 Amendment can back this up. Pro then goes on to say \"We live in a society that requires of its government the protection and security of such rights.\" Yet the 14th Amendment, it's not a validate right. The state can choose whether or not to enforce this so called \"Right\". Let's take freedom of speech for example. the Government can't tell the state whether or not the state can enforce this right, it's a given right. Voting, isn't. Pro argues the \"The Power of the People\" I am not entirely sure what he is arguing here. He gives us 2 quotes, and 1 sentence that doesn't say much nor explain what he is trying to argue here. Are you trying to say that if the government takes away a right, the people will rebell? That is what I'm getting at here. Pro's next argument: D: The whole picture We live in a society that accepts\u2026 1: All people born equal with rights (Equal rights, yes. But these rights are temporarily taken away when the person has acted in poor misconduct.) 2: Government\u2019s function is to secure unalienable rights (Not according the 2nd part of the 14th Amendment which states the States can decide whether or not a felon can vote.) 3: Government receives power through the consent of the governed via voting ( This doesn't mean that Felons should still enjoy freedom because they have murdered somebody. Consequences need to be bestowed so these people can learn from their mistakes. Doing so will also protect your city.)", "qid": "7", "docid": "826727db-2019-04-18T14:31:24Z-00002-000", "rank": 82, "score": 164873.0}, {"content": "Title: Homos should not be allowed to vote Content: Felons are not allowed to vote, sodomy should be considered a felony as it was untill recently in many or most states, no I don't care to do the exact counting or a precise rundown of which states had laws against sodomy as a felony......I know the laws are changing and they are pushing laws to outlaw what I am saying as \"hate speech'. That does not mean it is normal or good for men to abuse themselves with each other just because they feel like it, nor for woman to abuse each other sexually no matter how much they enjoy it. Enjoying it does not make it right, and a society that does not have the hootzpah to set limitations on perversion cannot remain a free society for long. It will become necessary for other nations to take over, or an opprossive government to rise which is what is happening now in America where we used to have freedom of speech but \"progressives\" are pushing to ban speech that does not fit their politics. Homos should not be allowed to vote.......... all sex outside of marriage should be against the law.......I'm not discriminating. All fornicators and adulterers should be hit with felonies and being felons, not allowed to vote.", "qid": "7", "docid": "1dbec9e-2019-04-18T16:11:36Z-00001-000", "rank": 83, "score": 164757.0}, {"content": "Title: In a Democratic Society, Felons Ought to Retain the Right to Vote Content: First of all, I am perfectly clear with the U.S. ideas, since i have lived there for a substantial amount of time. Second, the resolution is not U.S. specific, it states a \"democratic society\" the U.S. however cannot be a model of this situaiton becuase it does not allow all members of their society to vote. The U.S. does not allow children to vote; who could be more educated than most voters. With this being stated, the U.S. cannot be a consideration for it does not represent all of the indiaviduals in a society. Without the U.S., my opponent cannot find a specific democratic society to prove his arguement while i have proven that the aff must prove this in any society which he has not. My opponent believes that prison always rehabilitates however, there are always circumstances of this not being true. My opponent's rebuttle to my first contention just soley address the U.S. system; which is inconsisnent because the U.S. is not a true democracy so my first contention stands. My opponent's rebuttle to my second contention does not realize that my second contention simply states that the Affirmative must prove this consistent in all societies, while he only sticks to the U.S., which is not a pure democratic society. My opponent's rubttle to my third contention is that it is contridictory, which i concede. So i my 3rd contention doesnt stand. My opponent's rebuttle to my 4th contention is that i am soley focused on semantics and ought= logical consequence. However he did not show how the variation of ought in serious situation is invalid. So either, my opponent finds this resolution unserious, or does not understand what oweing means. My opponent lacks any sort of framework, and offers no suggestions on why felons should vote. My second contention states the burdens the Aff faces which is left unaddressed. With these ideals in mind, I negate the resolution that in a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote.", "qid": "7", "docid": "8fa3a9aa-2019-04-18T19:35:39Z-00003-000", "rank": 84, "score": 164542.0}, {"content": "Title: Felons Ought to Retain the Right to Vote in a Democratic Society Content: I'd like to start out by making the following observations. 1) My opponent has dropped his ENTIRE case. (Value, VC, and contention.) 2) My opponent has dropped nearly all of my case. (Observations, Value, VC, and first contention.) Moving on to my opponents rebuttal. ----\"First off, i would like to point out that my competitor used the U.S. as an example, and this resolution is not specific to any one democracy, nor is the ban of double jeopardy an inherent trait of democracy.\" This relates back to my 2nd contention. However, my opponent is misunderstanding my point. I'm stating that it is EXCESSIVE PUNISHMENT to take away felons' right to vote. The idea of the double standard was merely to enforce the idea that it is punishing felons excessively by incarcerating them while taking away their right to vote, which, as I said, destroys their right of self-determination. ---\"therefore by arguing that felons should only have the right to vote after their process in the penitentiary system is finished, my competitor is validating my side of the argument.\" I have several responses to this: a) Link this back to my second observation, which my opponent completely ignored. It directly refutes what he said. b) I never said felons should lose the right to vote while incarcerated, I only said it was the burden of the affirmative to prove felons in society should be able to vote. Thus my opponent's logic is flawed as this alleged \"argument\" that I make doesn't exist. c) Even if you do not buy into those two arguments, my opponent is wrong in saying this. Simply link everything he is saying back to both my contentions, which he dropped. He is 1) destroying the right of self-determination and 2) giving excessive punishment.", "qid": "7", "docid": "c2a70fea-2019-04-18T19:34:28Z-00001-000", "rank": 85, "score": 164417.0}, {"content": "Title: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. Content: Do the names Carrie Lenz or Cindy Brown ring a bell? Probably not. They were 26 years old when Tim McVeigh stopped them from ever voting again by bombing the Oklahoma City Federal building. Carrie and Cindy were in good company. There were 166 others in that one felony crime. The Bureau of Justice lists over 847,000 homicides since 1960. If all those people had lived out their normal lives, that would affect over 9 million presidential votes and over 18 million municipal votes. My value is justice. Justice, according to the Encarta Dictionary, is fairness or reasonableness, especially in the way people are treated or decisions are made. There is nothing fair that felons like these are allowed to vote while many victims cannot. My criterion is upholding the equal treatment of citizens. Equality in a democratic society is never reached when you subtract victim voices while adding felon voices. The ONLY way to achieve equal treatment of citizens is to negate the resolution that in a democratic society, felons ought to retain their right to vote. A felon, according to Black's Law Dictionary, is someone who has been convicted of a serious crime. They may be currently incarcerated or released. ---------- Contention 1 Felons have chosen not to vote. Committing a felony requires premeditation and intent. The consequences of felony convictions are widely known to include no firearms, no elected offices, no jury duty and no voting. My opponent agreed in cross examination that a vote could not be changed once cast - so, in order to treat a felon like other members of society - the felon's decision not to vote should be honored by society.", "qid": "7", "docid": "6bf94fce-2019-04-18T19:32:42Z-00002-000", "rank": 86, "score": 163886.0}, {"content": "Title: In a Democratic Society, Felons Ought to Retain the Right to Vote Content: Though my opponent's profile says he lives in India, this debate is about felons and the right to vote in a democratic society. I am unfamiliar with Indian laws and societal expectations, as well as their standards for democracy, and under the assumption that most debat.com members are from the US I will address this issue from an American standpoint, unless my opponent can show me a reason to do otherwise. Also, standards for felonies are no longer applied in other common law countries as they have been replaced with \"summary offences\" and \"indictable offences\". In modern democracies, a felon is someone convicted of a felony. Felonies under the US Criminal Code are generally offenses that mandate a prison term of one year or more. Anything less is generally a misdemeanor or civil offense. (http://www4.law.cornell.edu...) Because of the different gravity of different crimes which may be considered felonies, it is impossible to lay out a blanket ban on voting by convicted felons. Punishment for crimes in the US and other democracies is generally considered \"correction\" or rehabilitation, and the goal is to re-integrate rehabilitated criminals into society. The deprivation of life, liberty, and/or property is generally considered appropriate punishment for various felonies, and an assigned timeframe is allotted that is generally considered befitting the crime. The basic use of punishment and reward is the basis of all criminal theory. Ordinary crime is not a threat to the social order, and society needs criminal behavior and the legal responses to it to function properly. (http://www.criminology.fsu.edu...) Putting aside the fact that all 50 states allow felons to vote to some degree(http://www.ncsl.org...), I personally believe that to fully integrate a rehabilitated criminal into society he/she must first believe he/she will be allowed that opportunity. Indeed, living in a democratic society, the right to vote is an essential part of full integration into a democratic society. So unless felons are executed or jailed for life, the right to vote should be an incentive of completing rehabilitation when rehabilitation is an option. Now on to my opponent's contentions... My opponent's first contention is based on retribution to prevent chaos and despair. I point to the US where, again, all 50 states and DC allow felons to vote to some degree- some states only through a pardon, and the US has not devolved into chaos and despair. The US has stiff penalties for crimes such as murder, espionage, treason, and other felonies for which a criminal's voting rights may never be restored, and it has lesser penalties for, say, possession of more than one ounce of marijuana which is a felony in most states, and constitutes an average of 1 year in prison(www.norml.org). I assure you this crime is not grievous enough for society to devolve into chaos should it continue, and a person convicted of this crime is not necessarily too \"untrustworthy\" to be involved in electoral politics. My opponent's second contention, unfortunately, does not make much sense to me. I cannot imagine a democratic society NOT made up of people. In a democratic society of a few or millions of people, it would be up to those people to decide how felons should be treated. The former Assistant State Attorney General for the State Elections Division of Alabama says: \"Under the longstanding system, a felon may apply to regain his right to vote after serving his sentence and paying all fines and restitution that may be due. This is a sound practice. It ensures that only those criminals who have met their obligations to their victims and who have enough civic pride to apply for renewed voting rights can play a role in selecting our community, state and national leaders.\" (http://www.al.com...). I don't contend that felons \"should have the right to vote in every circumstance and situation\", and it is both unreasonable and unrealistic to take an absolute position on an issue that will have varying degrees of circumstance, ie. a murderer vs. an old lady who assists inmates with legal issues without realizing she was breaking the law (http://www.ahrc.com...). My opponent's third contention only addresses murder. Even with murder there are several degrees. My opponent affirms that one right violation allows another rights violation to exist, but in the same paragraph he states that individuals in a society may not violate others' rights in a society. This is a contradiction, but I will nonetheless address the issue. The deprivation of rights for violation of rights is part of the criminal theory. It is necessary for the proper function of society, but the deprivation of rights should (in most cases) be employed as rehabilitation. Once all faults are corrected, fines paid, and punishment completed it should be recognized as such. The continued disenfranchisement of a convicted felon who has put effort into reintegration is unjust, and goes against the fundamentals of both the correctional system and democracy itself. My opponent's fourth contention is based on semantics, but he wrote the resolution, not me. In recognition of this clever trap, let's define \"ought\" in the context of the resolution and the debate: ought: \u2014used to express obligation , advisability , natural expectation , or logical consequence All points can be argued for pro successfully, but please choose one so as not to turn this into a wasted debate about semantics. Should society be \"obligated\"? No. My personal opinion is that a society attempting to be just will at least to some degree allow felons to vote based on established law, which would imply obligation to do so. Because it is my personal opinion, I would use my vote to \"advise\" society to allow felons to vote to some degree. It is a \"natural expectation\" of many criminologists as cited in my previous sources. It is also the \"logical consequence\" of laws already in place in the US. Thank you.", "qid": "7", "docid": "8fa3a9aa-2019-04-18T19:35:39Z-00004-000", "rank": 87, "score": 163643.0}, {"content": "Title: in a democratic society a felon ought to retain the right to vote. Content: I received my opponent's comment about how he didn't have time to come up with arguments because of finals, that's fine, i understand, but according to the LD handbook if you don't reply to any of my arguments towards your case or the counters to protect my case, then you lose. my opponent unfortunately dropped every argument, making me the automatic winner. silence is compliance, my opponent is not allowed to come up with an new arguments or redeem the ones i smashed. therefore the only way to vote is the vote of the affirmation, seeing that all my arguments are still intact and that he dropped every single one of his. this isn't a matter of a opinion, but a matter of rules itself. according to the handbook he dropped everything and he can't come back and protect them now because he failed to respond in his last round. VOTE AFFIRMATIVE!!!!", "qid": "7", "docid": "f54c20fb-2019-04-18T19:34:35Z-00001-000", "rank": 88, "score": 163467.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. Content: Since you must have had something important going I will also miss this round to keep things fair. I hope you have not quit this debate. I hope the judges do not dock points.", "qid": "7", "docid": "e5aaa355-2019-04-18T19:35:37Z-00004-000", "rank": 89, "score": 163456.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. Content: Thank you for the challenge and good luck. Before beginning, there is a piece of evidence of his that needs updating. It is actually 5.3 million people that can not vote because of felonies, not 3.9 like stated in his last speech. However, this is 2006 and the number may be even greater now. http://www.time.com... My case/his case\u2026 I oppose: Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. I. Value- Fairness Within this round, you will see how it is not fair to give equal voice to someone who has kept their trust with the society, and someone who has not. In essence, when someone commits a felony, they deserve to lose the right to vote. Also, you will see that in order to get a FAIR decision, you must eliminate the felon vote. Please cross apply his point about how there 5.3 million felons who do not have the right to vote. Do you really want that overwhelming factor to decide most every election for the rest or your life? II. Criterion- Just Deserts Just Deserts is basically giving people what they justly deserve. In this round, you will see that people don't deserve the right to vote after they have committed a felony. Why? Because a right is something you have until you lose it (like gun rights)\u2026 And since voting decides who will run our country, it is too important to put in the hands of felons (5.3 MILLION). Give not only the felons, but also the society what they deserve and vote CON. ============================================= Since my arguments go so well against his, I'm just going to attack his case right now. Against Value- Equality --> I immediately challenge my opponent to say when we treat any felons any differently than a regular citizen. EVERYONE was given citizenship and the FELONS lost it. If a regular citizen committed a felony tomorrow, then he/she would be treated EQUALY and would also lose his/her right to vote. In other words, HIS value is flowed to the CON side! Against Criterion- Democracy --> Democracy still exists whether or not you vote pro OR con. However, on the con side, it exists in a much better form\u2026 Take for example, the 5.3 million that currently can not vote. Let's say that a candidate was up that was willing to be EXTREMELY less harsh against criminals. The extra 5.3 million votes that he would get would create would be enough to change ANY election in his/her favor. But is that what we want to be deciding our elections? Another angle to look at is the fact that more candidates would begin to be more persuaded toward being nice to criminals since there would be much more votes that they could get (since politicians are nothing without the voters). Definitions seem fine\u2026 I will just use common knowledge from the judges for definition unless abuse comes from my opponent (or even from me). Against Contention I: His first contention is completely useless because we will always have a democracy regardless of if felons can vote or not. A democracy is something that gives people a choice, and the felons already made their choice of going against our society, and because of that, they do not deserve the right to vote for people who help (or hinder) our society. Against Contention II: 5.3 MILLION voters would put the election into the hands of not only criminals, but FELONS!!!!! Politicians would inevitably reach out to these voters by crafting their views to be likeable by them. Against Contention III: The problem with his quote is that we're not dealing with voting qualification, but DISqualification (which is two totally different things). Then he goes on to say that this will lead to a lot of people not being able to vote. Well, this law has been around for a long time and it hasn't been blown out of proportions. It still only restricts felons. No discrimination at all, men, women, white, black, Republican, Democrat, all felons can't vote. And as far as the amendments go, realize that it says that we can't DENY these people the right to vote if (then it lists various things) but NONE of them have to do with laws they have broken. In the end, felons ought to NOT receive the right to vote because they broke a serious enough law to lose the right. If someone abuses a gun, we take it away from them for good reason. If someone abuses society (through becoming a felon), then we take away their right to vote. It's only fair because we DON'T want felons to run our society. Please vote con\u2026 Thank you!", "qid": "7", "docid": "e5aaa317-2019-04-18T19:37:54Z-00004-000", "rank": 90, "score": 163271.0}, {"content": "Title: In a democratic society felons ought to be denied the right to vote. Content: 1. Under LD debate rules, the definitions have to be made at the outset. However, this is not a debate under LD rules. For a debate.org debate to be made under LD rules, the proponent has to declare that unambiguously in the challenge. That was not done in this case. There are also LD rules pertaining to officially declaring and challenging values and value criteria. Those rules do not apply either. It is free form debate, the intellectual equivalent of a cage match. However, there is no escape from semantics, logic, and verification of facts. Those are inherent to debate. 2. I don't have a problem with Con's definitions as far as they go. The meaning of \"democratic\" is separately contested below. I also dispute Con's definition of \"felony.\" Note that we are only dealing with convicted felons. Felons who haven't been convicted retain the right to vote. 3. I reject Con's thesis that the pre\u00ef\u00bf\u00bdminent value at issue is or ought to be democracy. The value at issue is and ought to be good government. If democracy were the pre\u00ef\u00bf\u00bdminent value, then the Founders would have specified a democracy in the Constitution rather than a republic. Moreover, if democracy were the most important thing, then non-citizens and even small children would be afforded the right to vote. We have a republic, and we restrict voting in the interests of good government. All democratic governments do the same, all in the interests of good government. 4. I challenge Con to say whether or not he favors extending the vote in all elections to non-citizens and small children? If he does not, then I challenge him to explain the principle at work that he uses to override the extension of democracy. 5. Con asserts, \"Clearly there exists no standing relationship between disenfranchising and a criminal act.\" This assertion is false, because there is clear data that convicted felons are likely to continue exercising poor judgment by continuing to commit criminal acts. The primary interest of career criminals when voting is to undermine the justice system, and therefore that is good reason to withhold voting rights. It is true that some convicted felons will reform and vote according to the general interests of American society. It is also true that some non-citizens and some under-age citizens will exercise the judgment to vote along with the general interests of American society as a whole. The exclusion of those classes of voters is based upon the considerable probability that they will not. The case is as strong or stronger that a convicted felon will not vote with the interests of society considered in the way that non-felons will consider them. Felons can be relied upon to vote overwhelmingly to undermine the justice system. 6. Con rebuts \"the thing is the resolution states democratic society. it does not state one certain democratic society such as the U.S. so this argument can be dropped.\" So can a society be \"democratic\" without being a strict democracy in which everyone votes and every law is put to a direct vote of the people? The definition of \"democratic\" is http://www.answers.com... 1. Of, characterized by, or advocating democracy: democratic government; a democratic union. 2. Of or for the people in general; popular: a democratic movement; democratic art forms. 3. Believing in or practicing social equality: \"a proper democratic scorn for bloated dukes and lords\" (George du Maurier). A government need not be a strict democracy, as Con supposes, to be characterized by democracy. None of the definitions support Con's strict definition. Moreover, if Con's definition were accepted, then people would truthfully say things like, \"There are no democratic governments anywhere in the world.\" The opposite is quite clear, people recognize that many governments are characterized by democracy without being the strict democracies that Con supposes. 7. Con asks, \"If it [is] said all men were created equal then why are felons disenfranchised?\" The short answer is that they may have been created equal, but felons went astray after their creation, and their demonstrated lack of judgment resulted in their disenfranchisement. The long answer is that the quoted \"created equal\" is in the Declaration of Independence, which is not a governing document. Clarification of the implications of \"created equal\" lies in the Constitution. The Constitution establishes the classes under which discrimination under law is prohibited, and there is nothing that prohibits discrimination for felony conviction. If the Constitution prohibited discrimination for felony conviction, then felons could not be imprisoned. None of the other protected classes (race, religion, ethnicity) can be imprisoned solely for being a member of the class. 8. Con asks, \"what is the difference between felons and citizens, aren't the both citizens?\" They are both citizens, but so are small children. Citizenship alone provides no guarantee of a right to vote. 9. Con claims, \"my oppent [opponent] states that 'Convicted felons are an identifiable target for politicians', this argument cant be upheld or proven true, because there is no evidence to prove this claim.\" It is fair in a debate to call upon the common sense of the audience (or judges). The assertion follows from (1) The main purpose of voting is that citizens may look out for their interests, (2) politicians appeal to the interests of citizens to get votes, (3) criminals have a strong interest in weakening the justice system, and therefore (4) politicians will target criminals with positions that favor weakening the justice system. There is supporting evidence from cases in Florida, cited, wherein Liberal politicians clearly believed they could win the criminal vote. 10. Con claims, \"as we can clearly see if we vote for the PRO. we will be punishing criminals twice by taking away the right to vote and by making them serve a sentence.\" First, there is nothing wrong with punishing someone in two different ways. We punish many felons by both imprisoning them and later putting them on parole, and sometimes also making them register and wear a tracking device. Second, Con agreed that a purpose of imprisonment is not only punishment, but to prevent the criminal from doing further harm. Denying the vote is a proper and reasonable way to prevent the criminal from doing further harm by voting for candidates that promise to weaken the justice system. 11. Con asserts \"he [Pro] states that letting felons vote will hurt our economy and justice system. this is not true because there are such felonies that are minor such as J-walking and repeated speeding.\" This is incorrect. There are three classes of crimes infractions, misdemeanors, and felonies. J-walking is an infraction. Repeated speeding is usually and infraction, but might rise to a misdemeanor depending upon the state and the circumstances. Felonies are only the most serious crimes. For example, felony drunk driving generally involves killing someone. A felony is \"One of several grave crimes, such as murder, rape, or burglary, punishable by a more stringent sentence than that given for a misdemeanor.\" http://www.answers.com... Summary Con's rebuttal is an artificial construct that supposes that democracy is a supreme value that ought to trump good government. There is ample evidence that virtually no one believes that have more democracy leads to better government. To the contrary, the Founders preferred a republic, and minors and non-citizens are not allowed to vote -- all in the interests of good government. Felons have proved poor judgment and so the interests of good government should prevail. The resolution is affirmed.", "qid": "7", "docid": "3771ef2c-2019-04-18T19:30:15Z-00001-000", "rank": 91, "score": 163258.0}, {"content": "Title: in a democratic society, felons should retain the right to vote Content: Do the names Carrie Lenz or Cindy Brown ring a bell? Probably not. They were 26 years old when Tim McVeigh stopped them from ever voting again by bombing the Oklahoma City Federal building. Carrie and Cindy were in good company. There were 166 others in that one felony crime. The Bureau of Justice lists over 847,000 homicides since 1960. If all those people had lived out their normal lives, that would affect over 9 million presidential votes and over 18 million municipal votes. My value is justice. Justice, according to the Encarta Dictionary, is fairness or reasonableness, especially in the way people are treated or decisions are made. There is nothing fair that felons like these are allowed to vote while many victims cannot. My criterion is upholding the equal treatment of citizens. Equality in a democratic society is never reached when you subtract victim voices while adding felon voices. The ONLY way to achieve equal treatment of citizens is to negate the resolution that in a democratic society, felons ought to retain their right to vote. A felon, according to Black's Law Dictionary, is someone who has been convicted of a serious crime. They may be currently incarcerated or released. ---------- Contention 1 Felons have chosen not to vote. Committing a felony requires premeditation and intent. The consequences of felony convictions are widely known to include no firearms, no elected offices, no jury duty and no voting. My opponent agreed in cross examination that a vote could not be changed once cast - so, in order to treat a felon like other members of society - the felon's decision not to vote should be honored by society.", "qid": "7", "docid": "c9139d24-2019-04-18T19:32:47Z-00005-000", "rank": 92, "score": 162860.0}, {"content": "Title: in a democratic society, felons should retain the right to vote Content: \"Well if they lost them for commiting a crime they should not be able to get them back.The way you put it they shouldn't be taken away to begin with so after they commite a crime they should be able to go back to there life without any changes so there rights haven't changed at all and it's like they didn't commited the crime at all.\" --> I never said they should be taken away, however for the desirability of the resolution we need to also see the imapct of returning to society. *He refutes none of my case, thus extend the whole thing.*", "qid": "7", "docid": "c9139d24-2019-04-18T19:32:47Z-00002-000", "rank": 93, "score": 162675.0}, {"content": "Title: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. Content: Accepted. Good luck!", "qid": "7", "docid": "8267279d-2019-04-18T15:31:31Z-00006-000", "rank": 94, "score": 162449.0}, {"content": "Title: In a democratic society, felons out to retain the right to vote. Content: To my respected opponent, El Edward, thank you for starting this debate. I hope it will be a good one. >Friedrich von Schiller once said that \"votes should be weighed, not counted.\" I agree with him, and it is because I believe in a social contract with the government that I choose to negate the resolution: >Negated: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. >For clarification of the round, I would like to offer the following definitions (in addition to yours): >Felon: a person who has been convicted of a felony, which is a crime punishable by death or a term in state or federal prison >Felony (elaboration): a crime sufficiently serious to be punishable by death or a term in state or federal prison, as distinguished from a misdemeanor which is only punishable by confinement to county or local jail and/or a fine >Murderer: One guilty of murder; a person who, in possession of his reason, unlawfully kills a human being with premeditated malice. >Social Contract: Implied agreements by which people form nations and maintain a social order. Such social contract implies that the people give up some rights to a government and other authority in order to receive or jointly preserve social order >I would also like to offer the following observations: :: Observation :: >Due to the wording of the resolution, the felon may or may not be jailed at present. Also due to the wording of the resolution, the affirmative has the burden of proof and must prove the resolution true in all cases. :: Value :: >My value is Human Rights. All humans are given fundamental rights in a democratic society. These rights allow the members of society to freely exercise their views. If, however, the members of society were to break the social contract with the government, then they would not deserve the same rights as others. Having its contract with the individual broken, the government is not longer obliged to allow the felons any right to alter its processes, and thus can revoke the right to vote. :: Value Criterion :: >My value criterion is a Social Contract. Social contracts are vital in every society, democratic or not, because they allow the citizens and the government to give each other power, but also to limit one another. This is fundamentally vital to the legislative processes. Once a citizen has committed a felony and become a felon they have shown that they no longer respect the social contract having committed a high crime. This principle means that the government is no longer responsible to represent the felon as the felon has misrepresented it. It is then under the government's discretion whether or not to re-grant privileges such as the right to vote back to the individual. :: Contention 1 :: >My first contention is that felons do not deserve to decide an election. When felons break the social contract with their government their government is no longer obligated to let them choose its members. If felons were given suffrage and actually did decide an election then an unfit candidate would probably be elected, having a negative impact on society and ultimately showing the poor decision making that caused the felons to become felons in the first place. This will then adversely affect all members of society for the worse of the people. This in itself is a far greater crime than a felony is. :: Contention 2 :: >My second contention is that once felons commit a crime against a society they no longer deserve to be a part of that society. They have violated the social contract with the government as so many other citizens have not. They do not deserve equal treatment to the rest of society because they have made an anti-societal gesture in committing a felony. It is rash to believe that felons have truly changed and become more productive members of society after committing such a high crime. It is an assumption that a society cannot make because it will then endanger itself by allowing convicted felons equality in an unequal world. :: Sub-point A :: >My sub-point A is that all people are created equal but they all make different decisions and do not stay equal. Felons are not chosen to be diverse than the rest of society, they make that choice themselves when committing a felony. They are asking to be valued above the rest of society when they ask to be given the same right to vote. They have committed a high crime and do not deserve the same societal rights as those who have not. That teaches felons that it is permissible to commit a felony and in addition to voting they would even commit a felony again, thus making society much less safe. :: Sub-point B :: >My sub-point B is that equality cannot be achieved in the case of murderers. Having \"[killed] a human being with premeditated malice\" the murderer has taken the right to vote from their victim. Being deceased, that person can no longer vote or voice their values. The murderer then cannot be granted the right to vote in the interest of equality because they have then created an unequal system by killing off a person and effectively their voice while still retaining their won. :: Conclusion :: >In conclusion, the stipulation of this resolution is which rights felons do and do not deserve. The resolution is correctly negated because felons are not deserving of the right to vote after breaking their social contract with their government. They do not deserve equality to the rest of society because they have committed a high crime (felony) which most of society has not. To treat felons like all others within the society would be endorsing the idea of committing felonies; implicating that despite committing a felony, felons will still be treated like the rest of the society, which should not happen. >I will now move on to my opponent's case. :: Value :: >I agree with my opponent that a main goal in a democratic society (hence the name) is to be democratic. I believe that my opponent does not realize that even democracy has limits. If the democracy would allow its members to go around committing felonies then the society would not survive very long. The democracy needs to be realistic about how much it limits felons. :: Value Criterion :: >Basically the same as my argument against my opponent's value; there must be limits in any society. :: Contention 1 :: >The first thing I would like to bring up is that references to the Founding Fathers and the United States Constitution are not valid in this debate because the resolution refers to a democratic society, not to a republic as is the United States. My argument against you contention is this: felons have made the choice to commit a felony or high crime in their society. Is it really correct to allow them the same rights as good law-abiding people? :: Contention 2 :: >The first thing that I would like to say is that my opponent did a brilliant job of saying his second contention and he deserves a great deal of credit for it. Sadly, though, he is not entirely correct. Though disenfranchisement does not fit any of your reasons for punishment, it is not a punishment so much as it is stopping the felons from poorly influencing the processes of the government. :: Contention 3 :: >My attack against my opponent's third contention goes back to my observation. My observation states that \"due to the wording of the resolution, the affirmative has the burden of proof and must prove the resolution true in all cases.\" Felons do not become normal civilians in all cases. Repeat offenders exist. These repeat offenders are not deserving of the right to vote while they keep committing crimes. :: Contention 4 :: >In his fourth contention my opponent referred to many different countries around the globe where felonies are not the same. That is very true; however, the resolution refers to a hypothetical democratic society, not to any one of those countries.", "qid": "7", "docid": "68fed5c1-2019-04-18T19:35:23Z-00003-000", "rank": 95, "score": 162366.0}, {"content": "Title: Ex-felons who commited minor crimes or crimes at a early age should be allowed to vote Content: My opponent tries to attack my argument with a program called DARE, and he admits that this program has not worked. He admits that Americans continue to demand illegal drugs. He is trying to advocate the idea that the war on drugs cannot be beat. That is why I am trying to push for a greater benefit for our new generation. 35 percent of high school students have reported using marijuana. 40% of America is in the middle class. We can safely speculate that this is America's middle class minors. These people are suffering. That is why America should make an example of the 2% that did commit crimes. My opponent points out that we should improve the neighborhoods that these kids live in. I would agree, but it takes billions of dollars to improve these neighborhoods. My opponent assumes that we can just improve neighborhoods just like that, but it is not that simple. We should educate our minors on what can happen if you resort to crime, instead of actual jobs. It would be for the greater benefit of America if we could do this. Vote for the greater benefit, Vote for Con. My opponent tries to critique the utilitarian view on this case, saying that we should also care about the minority. Some people would assume that it is very respectful to take care of the minority. That is like me trying to make the case that we should start giving taxes to the wealthy 1%, because they benefit the economy when they create jobs. He says using my logic can work for the 5% of the unemployed people. I mentioned in my case that we should focus on getting ex-felons financially secure. Getting them financially secure would be a greater benefit, than to just give them voting rights. He also acts like giving them voting rights is going to benefit the economy, when there are 74.8 million minors that are going to actually be the future of America. Vote for the 74.8 million minors that will benefit for Americans. Vote for the future. Vote for con. My opponent says in his next argument that the 90% of felons benefit the economy. I agree, we should help them get financially secure. Voting Rights should pose as the example for the 74.8 million minors that are learning that doing drugs are cool. It would be for the greater benefit. Lastly, my opponent makes the claim that ex-felons can be primary sources. I agree with this statement. However, this is also America. They can create awareness for themselves. Teach our minors their mistakes, so that history does not repeat itself. If the ex-minors know what kind of pain they go through, than they can teach the young the consequence of there action. In the end, my opponent seems like he wants a change in how our society. But I have proved again, and again that we achieve a better, brighter future with my case. We have the chance to decrease crime in minors. We have 5.83 million ex-felons. We have the ability to decrease this number by setting an example. Don't let history repeat itself with my opponents case. Vote con, because Con has a set future in plan, knows the consequence of its actions, and will brighten our future. And if you still support my opponent's case, and are still willing to vote for his case, than I will give you 1 things to think about before making your decision. 1. What does America's future look like when you let my opponent's case run in America? You just benefited roughly 2% of the American population. But you have the chance to put a greater benefit for the 74.8 million minors that are learning that crime is cool. If you vote for his case, you have deleted a better future for America. Think about the consequence of my opponents case, and then think about the greater benefit for the 74. million minors that are going to continue to grow America. Vote for the better future. Vote for Con. http://teens.drugabuse.gov...", "qid": "7", "docid": "d57ca0db-2019-04-18T15:34:22Z-00000-000", "rank": 96, "score": 162143.0}, {"content": "Title: In a democratic society felons ought to be denied the right to vote. Content: Thank you Roylatham for being the first person to debate me on debate.org. \"The liberty of the individual is a necessary postulate of human progress.\" It is because I agree with this quote by Ernest Renar; that I am in favor of a negation on the resolution: \"In a democratic society felons ought to be denied the right to vote.\" for this round my value will be democracy. And upholding my value of democracy will be my criterion of equality. For clarity I would like to define the following terms from my case: Vote: a formal expression of choice. Felon: one who has committed a felony. Equality: evenly balanced. Democracy: a government by the people as so governed. because my opponent didn't offer any definitions my definitions will be the ones that stand for this debate. Before I go on I would like to explain the thesis of my case: it's that if you take out votes in an election it would be undemocratic, and contradicting of a democracy. This was once stated by Paul Ricoeur \"the law is one aspect of a much more concrete and encompassing relation, then the relation between commanding and obeying.\" Where Ricoeur says law I would like to place the law of democracy. So basically even though felons have committed felonies, we must uphold a democracy with equality, by letting the whole democratic society vote. Ricoeurs quote links to my first contention: the practice of disenfranchising would erode the foundational principle of our democratic society. Clearly there exists no standing relationship between disenfranchising and a criminal act. Like I stated in my definition of democracy it's a \"a government by the people as so governed.\" Meaning for the democracy to effetely work every person must have a voice in the vote. In the resolution it clearly states \"democratic society\". The \"democratic society\" is looked upon as a whole; one can't take out individuals from the vote and still think they have the whole \"democratic society.\" My impact for this contention is only with the whole \"democratic society\" could we get the fair decision in an election. my oppenet argues that \"age limitation demonstrates that voting rights may be restricted when there is reason to doubt the potential voter's good judgment.\" this is true but the fact of the matter is we are speaking on felons, he goes on to say \"convicted felons are likely to be contrary to the interests of citizens as a whole who want to be protected from criminals.\" I agree that it is contrary to citizens interests, but only in the \"whole\" that in presented in my case \"democratic society\". It is contrary like he said on interests because we are not respecting the \"democratic society\" that the resolution is talking about. my opened trays to bring in the U.S. Constitution by saying it \"does not grant individual citizens the right to vote for president.\" the thing is the resolution states democratic society. it does not state one certain democratic society such as the U.S. so this argument can be dropped. William Shakespeare once said: \"if you prick felons, do they not bleed? If you tickle them, do they not laugh? If you poison them, do they not die?\" When felons leave prison there released back into the society, and thus still affected by it. All people of the \"democratic society\" are all still citizens. There still affected by whatever congress or the government passes, so denying them the right to vote wouldn't't be equal. If it said all men were created equal then why are felons disenfranchised? Once again felons are affected by the society because 1: they pay taxes and 2: they can buy government owned property like everyone else. he also argues that non-citizens are also excluded from voting, this is true but it is a non topical argument because it doesn't pertain to the resolution stating \"felons.\" he says \"The convicted felon ought to have the obligation of establishing that his interests have become aligned with those of ordinary citizens and contrary to those with a criminal lifestyle.\" but what is the difference between felons and citizens, aren't the both citizens? now my opponent brings up the fact that felons commit felonies again. but does committing a crime and taking the right to vote away connect? by this I mean: why should we take away the right to vote if the committing of a crime doesn't affect voting? my oppenet brings up the U.S a lot in his case but as already pointed out the resolution doest acclaim say the \"U.S democratic society\" by saying only two U.S states let felons vote (Vermont and Maine). my oppent states that \"Convicted felons are an identifiable target for politicians\", this argument cant be upheld or proven true, because there is no evidence to prove this claim. he also says \"Criminal rights advocates claims that in the 2000 election in Florida, that felons would likely have swayed the presidential election to John Kerry and away from George Bush. They claim that preventing that was undemocratic.\" there was no reason to put that in his case because it only hurts the PRO. by proving that taking out votes is undemocratic. as we can clearly see if we vote for the PRO. we will be punishing criminals twice by taking away the right to vote and by making them serve a sentence. he states that letting felons vote will hurt our economy and justice system. this is not true because there are such felonies that are minor such as J-walking and repeated speeding. in contrary it doesn't hurt the justice system, it stegthens it for the chance to let the system work and take a shot at prosecuting it., I do agree with this sentence in his case \"A completely separate reason for imprisoning criminals is to keep them from doing further harm.\" but even though they have committed felonies and there in prison they should have the right to vote in the \"democratic society\".", "qid": "7", "docid": "3771ef2c-2019-04-18T19:30:15Z-00002-000", "rank": 97, "score": 161966.0}, {"content": "Title: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. Content: So since I only have five minutes to make an argument I will make this quick. Felons sholuld not have the right to vote because they have broken the laws therefore surrendering their rights. If they wanted the right to vote they should have never broken the law. My opponet did not make an argument therefore I won.", "qid": "7", "docid": "8fdec11b-2019-04-18T19:35:19Z-00000-000", "rank": 98, "score": 161935.0}, {"content": "Title: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. Content: Rebuttals: Con asserts that those who break the law \u201cdon\u2019t understand the importance of laws or else they would follow them.\u201d Con even says \u201cI would say that breaking the law is certainly not caring about it. If you cared about the rules and the law you would not break them in the first place.\u201d \u201cYes all people have the right to vote but some need to understand that if you break the law things are going to be taken away from you.\u201d So if one breaks a law they do not understand the importance of law and should have the right to vote taken away? How about lesser crimes, like speeding? If I speed, according to con, I am expressing that I do not care for law in general, and should not have the right to vote. That seems like a huge assumption that those who break laws do not care about laws. Conclusion: Breaking the law does not equal not caring about law. What about Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr, etc. They broke laws\u2026 They also understood the importance of laws. More than that they understood individual rights should be protected. Rights like voting. If the right to vote is taken away, our entire system of government cannot live up to its primary purpose. In the interest of our government filling its purpose, or in other words, securing the unalienable rights afforded to all men, it is only reasonable to conclude that Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S.Thanks for reading,Vote pro.", "qid": "7", "docid": "8267279d-2019-04-18T15:31:31Z-00001-000", "rank": 99, "score": 161479.0}, {"content": "Title: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. Content: I'm sorry, I'm going to waive this last round, I'm sorry Kasmic. Feel free to award Pro conduct, but vote who had more convincing arguments. It's always a pleasure to debate you Kasmic.", "qid": "7", "docid": "826727db-2019-04-18T14:31:24Z-00000-000", "rank": 100, "score": 161396.0}]}
{"query": "Should abortion be legal?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: Abortion should be legal Content: It should be", "qid": "8", "docid": "6702c425-2019-04-18T15:23:27Z-00005-000", "rank": 1, "score": 172817.0}, {"content": "Title: Abortion Content: Should abortion be legal", "qid": "8", "docid": "b1870922-2019-04-18T12:50:45Z-00003-000", "rank": 2, "score": 171733.0}, {"content": "Title: Should abortion be legal Content: alright", "qid": "8", "docid": "e12b49d4-2019-04-18T14:13:13Z-00000-000", "rank": 3, "score": 170188.0}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should be legal Content: x", "qid": "8", "docid": "6702c13d-2019-04-18T15:40:34Z-00000-000", "rank": 4, "score": 167865.0}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should be legal Content: x", "qid": "8", "docid": "6702c13d-2019-04-18T15:40:34Z-00001-000", "rank": 5, "score": 167865.0}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should be legal Content: x", "qid": "8", "docid": "6702c13d-2019-04-18T15:40:34Z-00002-000", "rank": 6, "score": 167865.0}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should be illegal Content: Done", "qid": "8", "docid": "7586b8bc-2019-04-18T16:04:45Z-00000-000", "rank": 7, "score": 167377.0}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should be legal. Content: x", "qid": "8", "docid": "6702417c-2019-04-18T15:16:55Z-00000-000", "rank": 8, "score": 166677.0}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should be legal. Content: x", "qid": "8", "docid": "6702417c-2019-04-18T15:16:55Z-00001-000", "rank": 9, "score": 166677.0}, {"content": "Title: Abortions should be legal Content: x", "qid": "8", "docid": "fe8a2184-2019-04-18T11:12:03Z-00001-000", "rank": 10, "score": 165270.0}, {"content": "Title: abortion Content: abortion should be legal", "qid": "8", "docid": "81e767ea-2019-04-18T13:52:10Z-00005-000", "rank": 11, "score": 164903.0}, {"content": "Title: Should abortion be legal Content: ok then", "qid": "8", "docid": "e12b49d4-2019-04-18T14:13:13Z-00001-000", "rank": 12, "score": 164180.0}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should be legal Content: I accept", "qid": "8", "docid": "6702c0e0-2019-04-18T16:04:55Z-00004-000", "rank": 13, "score": 163951.0}, {"content": "Title: abortion should be illegal Content: okay", "qid": "8", "docid": "8b1c2c7d-2019-04-18T16:20:49Z-00001-000", "rank": 14, "score": 163910.0}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should be illegal. Content: I accept", "qid": "8", "docid": "3b40d82b-2019-04-18T14:00:54Z-00006-000", "rank": 15, "score": 163798.0}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should be illegal Content: I accept", "qid": "8", "docid": "7586bbe2-2019-04-18T15:23:10Z-00008-000", "rank": 16, "score": 162397.0}, {"content": "Title: Abortion Should Be Illegal Content: I accept", "qid": "8", "docid": "a187c3f-2019-04-18T16:39:19Z-00006-000", "rank": 17, "score": 162397.0}, {"content": "Title: Abortion Should Be Illegal Content: Accepted.", "qid": "8", "docid": "a18843d-2019-04-18T13:35:34Z-00005-000", "rank": 18, "score": 161293.0}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should be legal Content: I accept.", "qid": "8", "docid": "6702c425-2019-04-18T15:23:27Z-00004-000", "rank": 19, "score": 161085.0}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should be illegal Content: Okay.", "qid": "8", "docid": "7586b460-2019-04-18T17:35:16Z-00002-000", "rank": 20, "score": 160422.0}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should be legal Content: I win", "qid": "8", "docid": "6702bcc2-2019-04-18T18:18:04Z-00000-000", "rank": 21, "score": 159962.0}, {"content": "Title: Abortion Content: Abortion should be illegal", "qid": "8", "docid": "b185ac43-2019-04-18T16:42:30Z-00005-000", "rank": 22, "score": 159530.0}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should be illegal Content: I accept.", "qid": "8", "docid": "7586b8bc-2019-04-18T16:04:45Z-00006-000", "rank": 23, "score": 159460.0}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should illegal Content: Okay.", "qid": "8", "docid": "97f1604b-2019-04-18T11:45:56Z-00002-000", "rank": 24, "score": 156546.0}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should be illegal Content: Alright!", "qid": "8", "docid": "7586b8bc-2019-04-18T16:04:45Z-00001-000", "rank": 25, "score": 156113.0}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should stay legal Content: x", "qid": "8", "docid": "cff9b14f-2019-04-18T11:12:43Z-00000-000", "rank": 26, "score": 155788.0}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should be legal Content: Extend", "qid": "8", "docid": "6702bcc2-2019-04-18T18:18:04Z-00001-000", "rank": 27, "score": 154939.0}, {"content": "Title: Should abortion be legal Content: ok i win", "qid": "8", "docid": "e12b49d4-2019-04-18T14:13:13Z-00002-000", "rank": 28, "score": 154930.0}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should be illegal Content: I guess I won", "qid": "8", "docid": "7586b87e-2019-04-18T16:28:16Z-00000-000", "rank": 29, "score": 154340.0}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should be made illegal Content: As to you.", "qid": "8", "docid": "34222ab7-2019-04-18T16:53:01Z-00002-000", "rank": 30, "score": 153643.0}, {"content": "Title: should abortion be legal Content: Extend arguments", "qid": "8", "docid": "ad4485d2-2019-04-18T17:56:44Z-00002-000", "rank": 31, "score": 153143.0}, {"content": "Title: Having an abortion should be illegal Content: Extend", "qid": "8", "docid": "56f0fb75-2019-04-18T13:07:07Z-00001-000", "rank": 32, "score": 152250.0}, {"content": "Title: abortion should be illegal Content: It seems you won", "qid": "8", "docid": "8b1c2c7d-2019-04-18T16:20:49Z-00002-000", "rank": 33, "score": 152103.0}, {"content": "Title: Abortion Should Be Illegal Content: I accept the terms.", "qid": "8", "docid": "a188ae6-2019-04-18T12:03:28Z-00000-000", "rank": 34, "score": 152052.0}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should be illegal. Content: No it shouldn't. For one, it is democratically supported. For another, it is the individual who has signed the social contract who benefits from society, and no-one else, unless predefined. That is, the child gains no inherent rights in the society - only through personal morality. Abortion is a good form of birth control, and finally we can use the aborted fetuses to help our country in other ways, from stem cell research to save lives to new flavoured ice cream.", "qid": "8", "docid": "75863958-2019-04-18T18:07:56Z-00002-000", "rank": 35, "score": 149462.0}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should be legal Content: Cheers.", "qid": "8", "docid": "6702c0e0-2019-04-18T16:04:55Z-00000-000", "rank": 36, "score": 149263.0}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should be illegal Content: Yes, so just post now", "qid": "8", "docid": "7586b8bc-2019-04-18T16:04:45Z-00002-000", "rank": 37, "score": 148344.0}, {"content": "Title: should abortion be legal yes or no (no) Content: Access to an abortion should be legal for these reasons. First, access to abortion is a part of American history. It wasn't until the 1900's that abortion was illegal in every state, and even then it was still permissible in certain circumstances. Thus women have had access to legal abortions longer than they have been barred from it. Second, abortion should be legal because it safeguards women. Making abortion illegal won't prevent abortion it will prevent safe abortions-- to the risk of women. The truth is that women facing poverty, abuse, or simple lack of preparation will seek abortions if they want them. Outlawing abortion would result in a return to back ally treatments, rusty coathangers, and harm to the most at risk and in need women. Finally, abortion should be legal because women have a right to self-determinism. By outlawing abortion we are saying that women are subject men's procreative whim. It supposes that women should be in bondage until they deliver a man's offspring. In essence, we would be arguing that woman lose their agency and autonomy, their very humanity when they become pregnant-- be it through rape, incest, abuse etc.", "qid": "8", "docid": "c32a8d70-2019-04-18T11:49:53Z-00000-000", "rank": 38, "score": 148123.0}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should be legal Content: Abortion should be legal because if a woman doesn't want to have a child than she should have the right to prevent herself from having one. If the government bans abortion then they would be forcing a woman to have a child. If a pregnant woman doesn't have an abortion then she is going to have a child. So if the government takes away that right then pregnant women will have no choice but to have a child. Adoption is a option that is not used often after a woman gives birth to a child. Most women don't want to put their child up for adoption. If the government bans abortion then some women will have an unsafe abortion. More women will have an unsafe abortion if abortion is illegal. Every year approximately 78,000 women die from unsafe abortion. If abortion is legal then less unsafe abortions will occur. Abortion is a safe medical procedure. 88% of women who have an abortion do so in their first trimester. Medical abortions have less than 0.5% risk of serious complications and do not affect a woman's health or future ability to become pregnant or give birth. The government should make sure that late term abortion is safe. The fetus is in the woman's body so therefore the government should not control their bodies. Banning abortion is bad for women and is anti-women's rights.", "qid": "8", "docid": "6702bd00-2019-04-18T17:57:26Z-00007-000", "rank": 39, "score": 147809.0}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should be legal Content: I extend my arguments", "qid": "8", "docid": "6702c0c1-2019-04-18T16:33:04Z-00003-000", "rank": 40, "score": 147029.0}, {"content": "Title: The Legality of Abortions Content: ..", "qid": "8", "docid": "8ff2a47b-2019-04-18T15:01:16Z-00003-000", "rank": 41, "score": 147001.0}, {"content": "Title: Abortion Content: Abortion should be legal, Because women have the right to control the uses of their own body, And they shouldn\"t be forced to have children and raise them if they don\"t want to, Nor should they be forced to go through with the scars and pain of childbirth if their life is at risk or the babies is. Abortion should also be legal because of complications like rape or child marriage, Children shouldn\"t be forced to have children.", "qid": "8", "docid": "b187e2fb-2019-04-18T11:11:54Z-00003-000", "rank": 42, "score": 146694.0}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should be illegal Content: I hope he returns", "qid": "8", "docid": "7586b87e-2019-04-18T16:28:16Z-00001-000", "rank": 43, "score": 146451.0}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should be legal. Content: Yes. Abortion should be legal but only in very specific scenarios. I am sorry that you had to go through that whole deal with being left at an adoption center. Look at it this way, at least you are alive. You can make a difference in the world. Don't let anyone tell you anything different. Everyone is here for a reason, its just up to you to decide why. You need to write your own story. Thanks for the sporty debate, even when I wasn't necessarily arguing correctly.", "qid": "8", "docid": "6702415d-2019-04-18T15:27:01Z-00000-000", "rank": 44, "score": 146350.0}, {"content": "Title: Should abortion be legal Content: Lets do this Good Luck Con!", "qid": "8", "docid": "e12b49d4-2019-04-18T14:13:13Z-00004-000", "rank": 45, "score": 145866.0}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should be illegal Content: Ok......", "qid": "8", "docid": "7586b4fb-2019-04-18T17:04:20Z-00001-000", "rank": 46, "score": 145860.0}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should be legal. Content: Ill wait for a response.", "qid": "8", "docid": "7945d7eb-2019-04-18T14:14:13Z-00000-000", "rank": 47, "score": 145725.0}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should be illegal Content: Okay. You win.", "qid": "8", "docid": "7586b460-2019-04-18T17:35:16Z-00003-000", "rank": 48, "score": 145704.0}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should not be legal Content: Although you assumed my argument correctly, there is more to it then just those circumstances. Yes. Women who are victims of rape should have the undivided right to choose whether or not they would like to bare a child they didn't want to have in the first place. Nevertheless, I also believe that a teenage pregnancy, although easily avoidable, can be a great hassle as well. Not only to the couple that made the child, but also the parents to both the mother and father. A victim of this circumstance should also have the right to abortion because of the following reasons: 1) if either parent can't afford to raise a child nor have the moral thoughts to begin to collect income, the teen should have to somehow abort the complication some other way. 2)Some parents don't have the physical or emotional stability to handle birth so if your thinking \"adoption\" then think again. Because the 9 months of suffering, although well deserved for not practicing safe sex in the first place, should not be put upon someone who is not ready to stand everlasting pain of baring a child and then watching them walk away with another insignificant person, with just a hope that you will one day meet again. 3) The kids aren't \"murdering\" anyone but themselves if they go through with having the baby. They have their whole life ahead of them, and they obviously don't want to live with this huge mistake on their backs their whole life. Second chances DO exist.", "qid": "8", "docid": "845f572f-2019-04-18T18:53:03Z-00002-000", "rank": 49, "score": 145472.0}, {"content": "Title: should abortion be legal yes or no (no) Content: No, I do not think abortion should be legal. Abortion is not right because the child that is forming inside the mother's womb is not just a clump of cells its an actual human being! Yes, there is women's rights but it just goes too far such as abortion and other things. It is actually proved that 90/100% women who want to do abortion, but see the baby through the ultra sound decide against their abortion plan. Finally, if you don't want a child don't have sex or if you do get pregnant give up the baby for adoption after it is born so it may have a good life with someone who will actually care for them.", "qid": "8", "docid": "c32a8d70-2019-04-18T11:49:53Z-00001-000", "rank": 50, "score": 145335.0}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should be legal Content: I AM BREAD", "qid": "8", "docid": "6702c4a1-2019-04-18T14:16:55Z-00001-000", "rank": 51, "score": 145265.0}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should be legal Content: \"Abortion should be legal because people can choose to have a kid or not, and forcing them can suffer the child and the parent\" So, your first argument is that not giving people the right to choose if a being lives or dies will make them suffer, but I'd argue it's the other way around, if anything. After an abortion, a woman might end up ridden with a lifetime of guilt, and, even if the woman isn't capable of raising a child, or the child may cause her to remember past trauma, there are options other than deciding to just kill them, such as putting them up for adoption. Abortion is selfish. It's the easy way out for people who don't want to deal with the consequences of their actions, even when there are other options, and it's murder. \"Making it illegal will make women who want to abort go to dangerous place that can harm them and possibly kill them.\" Your next argument is that if you don't give the women the abortion, they'll go to some strange and mysterious place and possibly get hurt. I want you to think for a moment. If you had a child that you didn't want, and an abortion wasn't available, would you really go get it done in some dark dingy alley or whatever scene you have pictured that could get the woman hurt? I can't help but question if places like what you're describing even exist, and if they do, I really can't help but question if this is some major problem. You haven't shown much evidence to back it up, anyway. \"Unborn baby only feel pain at 20 weeks and most of these abortion is when the women life is in danger.\" Firstly, cite your sources. You have literally nothing to back up this claim period. But let's assume you're right, just for the sake of argument. Even if this was true, it doesn't change the fact that it's murder. Murder is killing another human being. Are you trying to claim that the baby in the womb is not human? If so, what makes it not human? Is it its age? In that case, premature babies should be able to be murdered. Is it the fact that it needs to be physically attached to the mother? Then what about people who are dependent on technology to live, are they not human because they require resources from a machine? They're not part of the machine just because they're attached to it, and the same applies to a fetus. Is it its location in the womb? In that case, you could put any person in a womb and claim that it's not human and that killing it should be legal. And consider things like premature babies again. Let's say for the sake of argument that you had a premature child at 19 weeks (I'm not sure if this is possible, but it's just a hypothetical example). Is killing the newly born premature child murder? Of course it is. So, your argument is that because the child is attached to a tube in the mother's womb, it's not human, and killing it isn't murder, and the second you remove it from the womb, killing it is murder. Do you see how insane that sounds? Do you see how little sense that makes? Overall, even a pro-abortion person could probably see that your arguments are simply bad. You cite no sources, you back up nothing, you can't even use proper grammar in a formal debate... No offense, but you should honestly get a bit better at debating before hopping onto the internet and trying to tell all those darned Christians how stupid they are.", "qid": "8", "docid": "6702cba7-2019-04-18T11:43:44Z-00000-000", "rank": 52, "score": 145228.0}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should be illegal Content: I am pro-choice.", "qid": "8", "docid": "7586b8bc-2019-04-18T16:04:45Z-00007-000", "rank": 53, "score": 145073.0}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should be legal Content: Why do you believe that abortion should be legal", "qid": "8", "docid": "6702c4fe-2019-04-18T13:27:55Z-00004-000", "rank": 54, "score": 145009.0}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should remain legal in the US Content: I accept", "qid": "8", "docid": "dc00944c-2019-04-18T14:04:29Z-00004-000", "rank": 55, "score": 144965.0}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should be illegal. Content: This is annoying.", "qid": "8", "docid": "3b40d80c-2019-04-18T14:08:52Z-00000-000", "rank": 56, "score": 144514.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Abortion Should Be Legal Content: I accept!", "qid": "8", "docid": "f98398b3-2019-04-18T14:20:29Z-00004-000", "rank": 57, "score": 144488.0}, {"content": "Title: abortion should be legal in every state Content: I accept", "qid": "8", "docid": "a21797ac-2019-04-18T17:09:29Z-00004-000", "rank": 58, "score": 144412.0}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should be illegal Content: I extend all arguments.", "qid": "8", "docid": "7586bbc3-2019-04-18T15:23:59Z-00003-000", "rank": 59, "score": 144370.0}, {"content": "Title: Abortion Should Be Legal Content: No problems. Please start.", "qid": "8", "docid": "7541ad49-2019-04-18T19:06:53Z-00006-000", "rank": 60, "score": 144356.0}, {"content": "Title: Abortion Should Remain Legal Content: Abortion should remain legal, because it's the right for a women to do what she wants to her own body because of either unplanned pregnancy, deformed baby, or the possibility of harm to the woman from the pregnancy. I also think that the Freedom of Choice Act should be signed.", "qid": "8", "docid": "c42f2f21-2019-04-18T19:22:30Z-00005-000", "rank": 61, "score": 143954.0}, {"content": "Title: Abortion Should Be Legal Content: I accept your challenge :D", "qid": "8", "docid": "32f3fcfe-2019-04-18T15:50:42Z-00005-000", "rank": 62, "score": 143935.0}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should be illegal Content: No, it isn't (see round 2 for details).", "qid": "8", "docid": "7586b460-2019-04-18T17:35:16Z-00000-000", "rank": 63, "score": 143875.0}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should be legal Content: 1. Abortion is about allowing woman the right to make choices about when they want to have children in relation to their age, financial stability & relationship stability. It is the not the place of government to legislate against woman's choices. 2. Raising a child is not an easy task & requires social & emotional commitment coupled with financial resources. As such if a person feels they are not ready for a child, it means the pregnancy is unwanted & resultant allowing a fetus to grow into a child is worse than abortion since the resultant child will grow in a non conducive & destructive environment without the love, care & stability that a child needs. 3. The argument against abortion is a moral argument which is subject to personal interpretation so should not be legislated against. Those see it morally allowable to do abortion should be provided with the means to do so & those who don't believe in abortion should have the choice not to have an abortion 4. A fetus is not legally or scientifically a person or human being so abortion cannot be equated to murder or taking a life since the fetus is not a person nor alive. 5. A fetus is like a brain dead person with no self awareness or consciousness so it is actually dead. 6. Prohibiting abortions doesn't stop abortions, women would simply seek abortions via illegal means which are unsafe & illegal, so it is better to provide woman with safe & legal ways to do an abortion. 7. Abortion prevent unwanted & unplanned pregnancies which prevents child neglect since the mother does not want to have children at that moment in time. 8. Making abortion illegal is also a class struggle since the rich can always go to other places where it is legal & have an abortion whilst the poor cannot do this, but have to resort to unsafe abortions which can lead to their death. 9. Making abortion illegal is more or less compulsory pregnancy which contradicts the quest & fight for freedom. 10. Making abortion illegal will increase teenage pregnancy (children having children). This usually leads to illegal abortions which can lead to death or permanent health defects, poverty, joblessness, hopelessness, and dependency. 11. A woman's right to choose abortion is a \"fundamental right\" 12. Personhood begins at birth, not at conception. Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy (fetus), not a baby. Personhood at conception is not a proven biological fact. Fetuses are incapable of feeling pain when an abortion is performed. 13. Access to legal, professionally-performed abortions reduces injury and death caused by unsafe, illegal abortions. 14. The anti-abortion position is usually based on religious beliefs and threatens the vital separation of church and state. Religious ideology should not be a foundation for law. 15. Modern abortion procedures are safe. The risk of a woman\"s death from abortion is less than one in 100,000, whereas the risk of a woman dying from giving birth is 13.3 deaths per 100,000 pregnancies. 16. Access to abortion is necessary because contraceptives are not always readily available. Women need a doctor's prescription to obtain many birth control methods, such as the pill, the patch, the shot, and the diaphragm. 17. Abortion gives couples the option to choose not to bring babies with severe and life-threatening medical conditions to full term. 18. Many women who choose abortion don't have the financial resources to support a child. 19. Motherhood must never be a punishment for having sexual intercourse. 20. A baby should not come into the world unwanted. 49% of all pregnancies among American women are unintended. Having a child is an important lifelong decision that requires consideration, preparation, and planning. 21. Abortion reduces crime. Teenage girls, unmarried women, and poor women are more likely to have unintended pregnancies, and since unwanted babies are often raised in poverty, their chances of leading criminal lives in adulthood are increased. 22. Do we have the right to force the mother to keep the baby solely because she consented to participate in these sexual activities? Do we have the right to take away another\"s right as we continue to fight for other rights? Why do we take away the rights of a woman because she has the potential to have a baby? 23. We get right to life, liberty & pursuit of happiness when we are born. he fetus does not have these rights until it is born. So abortion is not murder & abortion does not go against the rights of a fetus since it does not have any until born. 24. Every woman has the right to do whatever they want with their body aka Bodily Autonomy. This is one of the reasons why it is illegal to take organs from the deceased that have not signed off permission. If we continue this right after life, why do we strip it from a pregnant woman? Why would you grant a dead person a right that you wouldn\"t give to someone that is alive. 25. If someone needs something donated that you have, you are not legally obligated to donate anything. This parallels to pregnancies because a fetus does need these resources, but the mother is not legally obligated to keep giving this baby her resources. Denying to give someone a body part is not illegal, so terminating a pregnancy should not be illegal 26. Legal abortions protect women's health. Legal abortion not only protects women's lives, it also protects their health. For tens of thousands of women with heart disease, kidney disease, severe hypertension, sickle-cell anemia and severe diabetes, and other illnesses that can be life-threatening, the availability of legal abortion has helped avert serious medical complications that could have resulted from childbirth. Before legal abortion, such women's choices were limited to dangerous illegal abortion or dangerous childbirth. 27. Being a mother is just one option for women.* Many hard battles have been fought to win political and economic equality for women. These gains will not be worth much if reproductive choice is denied. To be able to choose a safe, legal abortion makes many other options possible. Otherwise an accident or a rape can end a woman's economic and personal freedom. 28. Even when precautions are taken, accidents can and do happen. For some families, this is not a problem. But for others, such an event can be catastrophic. An unintended pregnancy can increase tensions, disrupt stability, and push people below the line of economic survival. Family planning is the answer. All options must be open. Sources 1. http://www.debate.org... 2. http://abortion.procon.org... 3. http://www.topix.com...", "qid": "8", "docid": "6702c0a2-2019-04-18T16:52:16Z-00003-000", "rank": 64, "score": 143850.0}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should stay legal Content: Forfit", "qid": "8", "docid": "cff9b0d3-2019-04-18T16:44:56Z-00004-000", "rank": 65, "score": 143732.0}, {"content": "Title: Abortion Should Remain Legal Content: \"\u2026 an abortion could be performed for any reason, if the woman wants it. And even if it is made illegal for a woman to have the right to an abortion for birth control reasons, then the laws should be changed.\" The laws could be changed, yes. But the jurisprudence that removed a number of state laws restricting it shouldn't be discarded. The right of the mother outweighs the rights of the fetus only so long as there is some risk to the mother in not denying the fetus those rights. Let me use an analogy, as I am fond of those: Let's say you have a pet cat. I take your cat and put it in one of two identical boxes. In the other I put an armed bomb. I leave a full container of water at your feet and hand you a box. I tell you that, if the box holds the bomb, it can be disarmed by holding it in the water for fifteen minutes. Of course, if it's the cat, the cat will drown. The box must be gently lowered into the water soon, or it will detonate. In this case, there is a high likelihood of harm to yourself, and a high likelihood of harm to your cat. You need to decide whether the potential that you are holding your cat outweighs the potential of harm to yourself. That is a personal choice, where ethical boundaries are blurred. It is a situation where choosing to dunk the box or not is basically up to you. Now, same scenario but one box is left empty. Once again, I leave the container of water at your feet. I tell you that one box is empty and the other holds your cat. How could you ethically argue for dunking the box? Just replace your cat with the concept of \u2018human being' and the bomb with \u2018harm' and you will have some idea of why abortion without any need is wrong. \"A fetus can have plenty of deformities, such as permanent mental or physical disabilities. Sure, some people with disabilities aren't all wallowing in misery, but that's not true for all handicapped people.\" If a person so dislikes living, that person could end it, and may have a right to do so. One does not have the right to choose for others, however, whether or not their lives should be lived. You have successfully made an argument for the right to commit suicide. You have not made an argument for the right of one person to take a chance of killing another person when there is no need to take that chance. \"Even if we develop alternative treatments, there could still be reasons for abortion. Such as using embryonic stem cells from aborted fetuses - which have the potential to replicate themselves into any type of tissue - could be used for huge advances in medicine, and even save lives. Also, even if alternatives to abortion and other ways of getting embryonic stem cells are developed, then we could stop having abortions then.\" Thank you for conceding this argument to me without my having to do it myself. See one way below: http://www.boston.com... \"Morning-after abortion pills don't work if the woman finds out she's pregnant later than a day after. I don't advocate abortion as the only means of birth control, but it should never not be an option.\" http://www.webmd.com... Sex is not a surprise. Tell me a valid ethical reason for a woman not using any of the above options, knowing that she is having sex? \"How could you consider a fetus equal to a human being? I already stated how it is NOT a human. It is a potential human because it is only alive because of the mother's body, and is incapable of many human functions. It also does not have rights because it is part of another human's body. The woman should be in control of that fetus because it's part of her own body.\" That is your definition. Some \u2018vegetarians' eat fish because \u2018they're not animals.' After all, they don't have fur. If it helps you sleep at night, fine. This not a valid argument, however, for all the reasons I set forth above \u2026 it's not up to me or you to decide if the fetus is a child; the state of the organism is indeterminate because of our definitions. The ethical thing to do is to mitigate the possibility of harm. If the mother would not be harmed by the fetus' development into a definite human being, the mother has no right to risk the possibility of harming even what COULD be a human being. It would be like dunking the empty box. \"Just because you're willing to, doesn't mean everyone is. Many people couldn't afford to pay for the millions of unplanned babies born if abortion was made illegal.\" No, many people couldn't afford to pay for the (many more) millions of unplanned babies born if people didn't have contraceptives. Or so I can argue, as you've provided no statistics to review. This is, of course, beside the point; you asked for a personal opinion, and I granted it. \"Also, why should that woman have to carry that baby around for 9 months and endure labor and pregnancy, just to give that child away?\" So does she want it or not? If she's the type who would argue that labor pains alone mean that she earns the right to parent the child, I would argue that she should have the child TAKEN away. \"There are still going to be many planned children put up for adoption.\" Then they weren't planned very well, were they? Perhaps there is a need for greater sexual responsibility. This would be something I agree with. \"Seriously, what's your problem? You value embryos over a grown person's control over their own life?\" Awesome ad hominem/straw man attack you've presented. No, I value mitigating harm. I can not, and do not, define whether or not a fetus is a human. I do recognize that a fetus MAY be a human. If the fetus MAY be a human, and it has not and will not predictably cause harm to a person, then regardless of its origin I do not see a valid reason for taking its life. Because it MAY be murder, and I would rather not take that chance needlessly. \"You're okay with women getting raped and having to be pregnant and care for a kid, just because you don't agree with the decisions they make over their own bodies?\" [sarcasm] Oh, yes, clearly I am in love with rape. [/end sarcasm] No. Women have a variety of options at their disposal now, but hopefully will have an even greater variety at their disposal in the future, such that abortion will seem wrong even in these situations. If someone murdered your sibling, would you go ahead and kill the murderer's kid? I hope not. The burden for the recompense of a vile crime of the progenitor should not be transferred to its progeny. \"What don't you understand about us not having those advances yet?\" Not a thing. What do you not understand about how these advances invalidate your resolution? \"That's not completely true, actually a lot of actions in humans have some hereditary factor in them.\" Yes, it's just that, a factor. A chance. It is not a guarantee of anything. It probably isn't even a very high probability really. The possibility of the good that may come of the birth outweighs the loss of that possibility in abortion: http://www.righttoliferoch.org... \"... it's the woman's choice whether she wants the kid or not.\" Not indefinitely, no. \"You still don't understand that we don't have all the advances in birth control that we'd like to have. Currently, abortion is the only type of birth control necessary in a lot of situations.\" See above. \"Even if anti-choice people make abortion illegal, that won't stop abortion.\" Anti-choice. Funny. I am anti-choice I suppose. I don't think people should choose to murder, steal, rape, etc. So I'm anti-choice in a very limited sense. \"Plenty of women will get back-alley abortions ...\" They could do that or get the perfectly legitimate non-abortive equivalent I have already proposed, where the child can be incubated independent of the mother.", "qid": "8", "docid": "c42f2f40-2019-04-18T19:22:14Z-00002-000", "rank": 66, "score": 143731.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: The United States Government should make abortion illegal. Content: In conclusion, Abortion must be considered legal. To prove why this must be the case, I will restate the essence of my previous undisputed points. A fetus can't survive on its own. It is fully dependent on its mother\"s body, unlike born human beings. Even if a fetus was alive, the \"right to life\" does not imply a right to use somebody else's body. People have the right to refuse to donate their organs, for example, even if doing so would save somebody else's life. The \"right to life\" also does not imply a right to live by threatening somebody else's life. Bearing children is always a threat the life of the mother. A \"right to life\" is, at the end of the day, a right to not have somebody else\"s will imposed upon your body. The US Supreme Court has declared abortion to be a \"fundamental right\" guaranteed by the US Constitution. The Constitution gives \"a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy,\" and that \"This right of privacy... is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. Women who receive abortions are less likely to suffer mental health problems than women denied abortions. Women who are denied abortions are more likely to become unemployed, to be on public welfare, to be below the poverty line, and to become victims of domestic violence. Abortion reduces crime, because \"women who have abortions are those most at risk to give birth to children who would engage in criminal activity,\" and women who had control over the timing of childbearing were more likely to raise children in optimal environments, crime is reduced when there is access to legal abortion. All of these points prove that women should be allowed to receive an abortion under the constitution, and that women who receive abortion gain numerous benefits from it, along with lowering the crime rates among other things. I thank my opponent for this wonderful debate, and look forward to debating with him in the near future. I would strongly encourage a vote for con in this debate. I look forward to your conclusion, and hope we can be friends hereafter. Thank you!", "qid": "8", "docid": "21d8799e-2019-04-18T13:45:43Z-00000-000", "rank": 67, "score": 143708.0}, {"content": "Title: Abortion Should Be ILLEGAL Content: Abortion should be legal.. Because the baby is a) growing inside the mother b) will be born from the mother and c) is the responsibility of the mother, she should have the legal choice to terminate if she thinks the child will not have a healthy life in the womb and after birth because until the baby is born, she is the sole provider and protector of that child because it is a part of her. The earth cannot sustain the already expanding population and making abortion illegal would have severe consequences further on down the line. This does not mean I support abortion as the only contraceptive, if people are stupid enough to not use protection (excluding rape, incest, etc.) that is their fault, but it is also their responsibility to decide what to do with the child now because they are responsible for that life. It is murder, but murder of a developing mass of cells, if terminated early enough, that may or may not have a healthy full-filling life that is the sole choice of the parent because they are the only one who can advocate for THEIR child. If vasectomies are legal, why shouldn't abortion be? It is a reproductive health service that should be made legal everywhere, even despite religious/cultural conflicts. Making it illegal is violating basic human rights to reproduction, not to mention the slew of problems that would drag the world to its knees because of overpopulation because some people think 'abortion is murder'.", "qid": "8", "docid": "271173e1-2019-04-18T15:21:14Z-00000-000", "rank": 68, "score": 143611.0}, {"content": "Title: abortion legal or illegal Content: Abortion is murder no matter when a person believes life becomes official. This controversy will remain for centuries, however the fact that a potential life has ended before given a chance remains evidence enough for most people to understand why a person should never have a choice of whether a baby lives or dies. There are many reasons abortion should be illegal including the descriptive and disturbing stories about how aborted babies sometime scream as they come out and the looks of pain on their faces. These facts alone should convince anyone to eliminate the idea of pregnancy termination out of their mind. The health threat to the mother after going through with the procedure as well as the lifelong health risks that remain should be good enough reasons abortion should be illegal. With the rising health care costs and instance of disease greater than the medical ability to solve the problems, continued health remains important to all people. Self induced problems such as voluntary termination of pregnancy leads to complications for future pregnancies, reproductive disease, and depression. Understanding that abortion is murder aids a woman in making healthy decisions for baby and mother. Though a mother may not want her baby, health for both remains and adoption remains a viable option. God chooses many couples to be available for adopting these children by way of impotence by one or both people. Many visual images are available through pro-life organizations that make it clear how horrible the decision to terminate life before birth truly is. Abortion is murder no matter when a person believes life begins. The seed that God plants should never be taken for granted or misused. These actions result in distress for not only the pregnant woman, but also her family. Though she may not tell anyone, eventually the truth reveals itself through circumstance, guilt, or mistake. Speaking with other people who have either gone through this or have a family member who had an abortion allows this woman to get in touch with the reality of her decision. One of the most important reasons abortion should be illegal beyond the fact that it terminates life is that most women have regret and life complications due to this action. By eliminating this possibility, society eliminates future problems. Many government programs exist in order to empower, protect, and support women with unplanned pregnancies. There are many reasons a woman may have an unplanned pregnancy, but none justify terminating the pregnancy. Understanding the biology of the developing fetus further allows for strong arguments to develop concerning why abortion is murder. So many stories describing the human characteristics of these aborted babies remain untold therefore the uneducated woman continues the growing statistics of this action. Though it is easy to envision lower-class minority women filling the statistics of abortion, studies show that the majority of women succeeding in this action are in the upper-class population. These statistics are not clear concerning the amount of rape victims. Empowering women concerning how to take care of as well conduct themselves in order to minimize incident lowers the statistics of rape, thus lowering statistics of abortion. Voluntary pregnancy termination remains wrong no matter how a woman gets pregnant. Taking 9 months out of a woman's life does not remotely compare to the elimination of 80 years of someone elses. In addition, the responsibility a woman takes for deciding life or death of a baby remains unethical and mentally devastating no matter what type of upbringing she had. This type of education can come from pastoral influence, government programming, or strong support systems composed of family and friends. The importance of meeting other women who have walked the same path remains important in order not to feel alone. Gaining insight, ideas, and support are all important in decision making as well as livelong support of any decision. Receive my instruction, and not silver; and knowledge rather than choice gold. (Proverbs 8:10) God calls us to be stewards of our time, talent, and treasure. Understanding that God makes no mistakes and plants the seed of a child can further influence a woman toward life even if she decides on adoption. The choice of life should be the only option. In addition, understanding that the amount of babies aborted since the 1970s could populate a small country should be good enough reasons abortion should be illegal. God blesses people in unexpected ways, however trusting that He is in control further supports and gives confidence to the woman who chooses life. Pregnancy termination is wrong from the moment of conception. God reminds women who choose abortion about their sin through a variety of life complications created by this action. These include: increased risk for reproductive related cancers, trouble with future conception, and high risks of infection due to the surgery. In addition to complications after the procedure, a woman runs a high risk of death during the procedure which increases based on how far along she is in the pregnancy. People advocating reasons abortion should be illegal are passionate about God, life, and health. These people know how serious of a health risk this action is for soul and body. Though no sin is unforgivable, it is unforgettable. Remaining safe in daily commutes in order to avoid unwanted instances decreases the environment for consideration of abortion. Likewise, through research a woman can fully understand how abortion is murder and make a decision toward life no matter what the circumstance of pregnancy.", "qid": "8", "docid": "795b367-2019-04-18T17:58:24Z-00001-000", "rank": 69, "score": 143523.0}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should be legal Content: I am BUTTER.", "qid": "8", "docid": "6702c4a1-2019-04-18T14:16:55Z-00000-000", "rank": 70, "score": 143291.0}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should be legalized Content: Good luck!", "qid": "8", "docid": "f32ea357-2019-04-18T13:58:59Z-00006-000", "rank": 71, "score": 143281.0}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should be legal in all states. Content: Abortion should remain legal; in all states. Making abortions illegal would be a violation of our constitution. The fourteenth amendment, a part of our constitution, clearly states, \"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property.\" Women's bodies are just that, women's. They should not be deprived of doing as they see fit with their body. It goes against what our country was founded on- freedom. Freedom to choose. Freedom to choose our president, senators, religion, and opinions. And what we want to do with our bodies. Abortion is a choice, a personal choice, that women should be able to make for themselves. Our country also faces population issues. If abortion became illegal, they would only grow worse. This is a serious issue. I'm not pro-death, I am pro-choice.", "qid": "8", "docid": "f2c294b-2019-04-18T12:20:34Z-00001-000", "rank": 72, "score": 142861.0}, {"content": "Title: Should abortion be legal Content: I don\"t think that anyone can honestly say that sex does not lead to potential procreation. However, there are ways to prevent that. Sex is a natural impulse and a necessity to a happy and healthy life. The fact of ending a life for the comfort of another is not what I am saying I am saying that we have no right to force something on to someone who does not want it. Are you saying that we should be allowed to use other people\"s bodies if it means saving another life? A pregnancy is not nothing it can have lifelong consequences and damage done to the body. And no women should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term if she does not want it. People have the right to have sex and sex does not always lead to a child and with modern technology of birth control and other forms of contraceptives it is not something that even has to be a part of the equation. It is natural to eat but even through eating you run the risk of getting a parasite and ultimately that is what a baby is. A foreign creature eating up nutrients and doing damage to the body. If a woman wishes to remove it she has the right to do so. Again abortion is merely moving a creature from one place to another. The fact that that creature cannot support its own life function is an unfortunate by product. What I am talking about with weather a person wants to live or not is that, do we even have the right to bring life into this world at all? Now of course people will for their own happiness with little thought of the child but that\"s another debate. You don\"t seem to be addressing my main issue that a women\"s body should not be used as a life support system against her will any more then we should rip out a person\"s liver to give it to someone who needs it to stay alive. Weather that person engaged in a natural action of sex is irrelevant. Your moon analogy it just a play to make a point you want viewed. It is irresponsible to expect someone to breath under water or in a none oxygen environment no one can do that without assistance. But to except a creature to breath oxygen or and digest food is not. There is a difference between us and the unborn with or without assistance I can live unlike a new born who can\"t. after that baby is removed you want to hook them up to a life support system and help them live fine but they don\"t get to hold a person\"s body hostage to do it. I have never said that a baby is not alive or a person I have only said that they do not have special rights to use other people\"s bodies to stay alive. \"basically our arguments go as such: you say the unborn don't have a right to their own mother\"s bodies. I say that the unborn are humans (based on science) and you can't kill humans because they are a burden to you. It is absurd to think that carrying a child is some act of goodwill towards this thing inside a mother, and that abortion is just denying some charity.\" They are not killing them to kill them they are not allowing them to residence in their body when they don\"t want them there. Which a woman has a right to do. It\"s not a matter of a burden or not you have no right no matter your size or need to use my body for anything unless I give permission. If a baby does not have permission to be inside a women\"s body she has the right to remove it.", "qid": "8", "docid": "e12b4db4-2019-04-18T13:41:23Z-00002-000", "rank": 73, "score": 142838.0}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should be legal Content: Hello, I'm just a 13 year old kid who just like to debate. So the argument is abortion should be legal because people can choose to have a kid or not, and forcing them can suffer the child and the parent. Making it illegal will make women who want to abort go to dangerous place that can harm them and possibly kill them. Unborn baby only feel pain at 20 weeks and most of these abortion is when the women life is in danger.", "qid": "8", "docid": "6702cba7-2019-04-18T11:43:44Z-00001-000", "rank": 74, "score": 142669.0}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should be legal. Content: Abortion should be illegal for the following reasons: 1)Abortion can be harmful to the woman if it's not conducted properly especially if performed in a third-world country. 2)Controversially, crime rates could actually go up. Prostitution is at an all time high, because a woman could easily get an abortion whenever she wanted to. 3)The fetus IS A PERSON with a future just like you and me! It is morally wrong to murder a baby in horrific ways and deprive them of that future! Plus the woman sometimes regrets getting an abortion afterwards. So pro-choice isn't always good. 4)You may have a choice to abort the baby but he/she does not. Think about it. You are in prison. You are completely innocent. Everyone knows you are completely innocent yet you are still in prison. Without a court case, you are taken to the executioner and killed on the spot. This is in essence what you are doing to the baby! 5) You say the fetus it not human, yet it has human DNA and is therefore human in nature! Just because a mother has this choice a baby is separate from her as a person. I'm sure if you asked the baby they would want a future! Another argument I say is the sexist argument of \"Men shouldn't decide what is right for us women. We should!\" Men aren't solely deciding the GOVERNMENT is. Last time I checked the government consisted of both men AND women. And yes there are woman who do not agree with abortion! With that being said let's start the debate! Some conditions I expect are: You must agree with abortion. (Duh!) You must stay on topic! We must treat each other with respect even though we have different viewpoints! Let's start the debate!", "qid": "8", "docid": "670240e1-2019-04-18T19:43:42Z-00005-000", "rank": 75, "score": 142536.0}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should be legal Content: Abortion should be legal to women because women have the right to do what they want with their bodies. As we progress in society it becomes more and more important for woman to take initiative amd decide for what they think will have the most postive impact in their life. If having the opportunity to decide whether abortion is most suitable is important for women today. According to Anne who wrote the article \"what if abortion were illegal?\" Says that of they were to make it illegal ot would cause a lot of problems. It could possibly have women try to do \"home remedies\" that can hurt themselves. Also, if abortion was illegal where they lived, some women may travel to far places where it legal just to get it done because they really desperate to have the procedure. So basically some women will still go out of there way just to have this done, because that's what they want for themselves for many reasons.", "qid": "8", "docid": "6702c8de-2019-04-18T12:13:43Z-00004-000", "rank": 76, "score": 142457.0}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should be legal Content: Alright, the 2nd round.Abortion SHOULD be legal, because in some cases Abortion is necessary (Ex. Pre-Teen is raped, Woman has no husband/reltives and is to die due to disease after child is born). So it must be legal, and you can't have thousands of people deciding whether or not the abortion should be carried out, since it is extremely hard to do so and it will be based solely on personal opinion.If the abortion is WANTED by all living parents, it is probably the most logical choice, seeing as the parents will not love the child at all if they are forced to have it, and a Foster home will mean decades and likely an entire life of physical and sexual harassment.So if Abortion is needed due to a condition (Disease, Rape), Then it is obviously neccesary.If it is wanted by parents, then there will be some possibilities:1- Parents have an Abortion, no big problems2- Parents are forced to have a Baby, they do not love baby and it grows up to be a bad person or a mentally weak person due to years of lack of love and, possibly, harassment 3- Parents are forced to have a Baby, they give it up for Adoption, Baby is Harassed (It will, don't say it won't) at Foster home, grows up to be a bad person or a mentally weak person due to years of lack of love and harassment If it were me, I'd probably not make the Baby suffer so much and simply pick choice 1. Please explain how choice 1 is unwise.I await your response.", "qid": "8", "docid": "6702c4a1-2019-04-18T14:16:55Z-00007-000", "rank": 77, "score": 142449.0}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should be illegal Content: Legal abortion is needed to protect women's health, is justifiable in certain circumstances, and it is a woman's right to choose to abort a fetus. A fetus cannot feel pain until the 26th week Legalizing abortion protects women's health I don't disagree that abortion, in most cases, is morally wrong. However when abortion is illegal it is dangerous to the health of the woman due to back-alley abortions. Whether abortion is legal or not women will abort the fetus if they choose to. This is the most important reason abortion needs to remain legal because making it illegal changes nothing except more desperate women will die from their abortions. The fetus will be terminated either way but illegal abortions are unsanitary and incredibly dangerous in most cases while legal abortions are generally safe. Rape, incest, or danger to the mother In certain cases abortion is the only option if delivering the child is dangerous to the mother. Other times, rape may be the reason the mother is unwilling to deliver the fetus. Nobody should be able to force a woman to carry the unwanted fetus and go through painful, sometimes dangerous, delivery. There are many reasons women need an abortion and it should only be used as a last resort, but sometimes it must be done. Women's rights Abortion is, in the majority of cases, morally wrong in my opinion seeing as birth control is so readily available and putting a child up for adoption is an option. I want to make it very clear I am totally against late term abortion! But the woman should be able to choose in the early stages of pregnancy if the woman sees no other option. Consciousness in the fetus Abortion should only be legal within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, or the first trimester. 88% of abortions take place within this time frame. (I would prefer not to debate over the other 12% as I agree that it should be illegal) The first stages of consciousness begin to develop around 12-16 weeks with the development of thalamic afferents to the cortex but at this stage almost nothing from the thalamus can reach the cortex. The brain cannot sense pain until about 29 weeks but it can receive visual and auditory information at about 24 weeks. Suffering to the fetus cannot be a factor in early abortions because the fetus cannot feel pain. http://www.prochoiceamerica.org... http://www.nature.com... http://abortion.procon.org...", "qid": "8", "docid": "7586b8bc-2019-04-18T16:04:45Z-00005-000", "rank": 78, "score": 142085.0}, {"content": "Title: Abortion Should be Illegal Content: You stated that my argument \"is simply your opinion.\" Absolutely, it is. Along with yours: the whole point of the issue is that we have different opinions on this topic-but that's the thing: we cannot invoke the law on an issue that is primarily moral. For that reason alone abortion is a right that we cannot, nor should we attempt, to take away. It is safe to say that the fetus relies on the mother for survival, correct? If this is true than we cannot consider a fetus to be \"separate.\" The woman is not obligated to provide something life at her own risk-this would be the same as stripping organs from a deceased person that has not consented for it, which is illegal. Furthermore, prohibiting abortions does not stop them. Before abortion became legal, it's estimated that nearly a million per year sought illegal abortions, of which thousands died and tens of thousands were mutilated. We need to keep abortion legal and safe. Keep all children wanted children. Keep abortion legal.", "qid": "8", "docid": "45d1bbfd-2019-04-18T12:13:17Z-00001-000", "rank": 79, "score": 141988.0}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should not be illegal Content: I think that abortion should be legal. 1. I understand that some people could use abortion for the wrong reasons, but people will abuse anything to their advantage. 2. No one is good enough to decide if abortion is right or wrong for each and every single person in America. So, everyone should be able to make their own choice. Some people are raped, and if abortion was illegal, would have to look at their stomach as a painful reminder of that event. Every time they would look into the child's eyes, they would remember. No one should have to go through with that. 3. Abortion being illegal doesn't make it mandatory. People just get to make their own choice. Supporting it doesn't make you a baby killer, it makes you a proponent of free choice. 4. Adoption isn't always an option. Some people may not want to give up their baby, even though they can't support it. They would feel too attached, once it is born, to let it go. They (assuming they are young) might drop out of school and ruin the baby's and their lives. Also, even if the child is put up for adoption, the child may feel rejected, and feel out of place when other students talk about family history (1). Also, adopted children may be more inclined to commit suicide according to this study (2). I believe that choice is the only way to truly allow people their freedoms. People can't always choose when to get pregnant, and sadly, sometimes it is worse for everyone (parents & child) for the baby to be born. (1): http://family.findlaw.com... (2): http://pediatrics.aappublications.org...", "qid": "8", "docid": "f03a8a52-2019-04-18T19:31:01Z-00003-000", "rank": 80, "score": 141957.0}, {"content": "Title: Abortion Should be illegal Content: 1. You say we're speaking about legal obligations right now not moral ones. Then this debate is easy. Abortion is legal in the US right now. Our conversation is now over. That wasn't too interesting was it? When you make the topic \"should be illegal\" you have to make a moral argument against what is currently legal. Our legal system is informed in some way by our moral system. That is why you're making a moral argument for it to be illegal. You're grasping for straws real hard with this protest. I hope you, Or at least the judges, Can see this 2. \"We\" means humans. \"Other beings like us\" are other humans. We are conscious, So we assume other beings like us are conscious. Consciousness is the ability to think, Awareness of onesself in your brain, The ability to plan ahead for future events, Et cetera. There is not a single definition. I assume you're aware of what consciousness is because you use it in your own argument as well in a similar fashion. Consciousness is the value that science may eventually define perfectly and be able to measure perfectly. It cannot now. I have said this, And I have said that since we cannot measure it we have to use something else. That is why I go with brain activity. It is a different 'potential' than your 'potential. ' A different starting point. I believe the start of personhood is the same as the end of personhood. When brain activity stops, The person ends. When brain activity starts, The person begins. Brain activity starting is the person beginning to build themselves. Prior to the person beginning to build themselves, The mother is simply building the vessel of the person which is not a person, Therefore can be destroyed with no moral repercussions. This is quite simple and not vague at all. I think the judges will see this. You believe that persons begin when they have the potential to eventually be conscious (higher thinking), Or they currently have that ability. Here are a few things I'm not sure of: 1. Why is the starting point fertilization for you? Eggs and sperm all have the 'potential' to have higher thinking if an intermediate step - fertilization - is taken. Why do they have no value? Fertilized eggs also require an intermediate step - a female growing the body, Risking herself and letting her nutrients be leeched, To develop that potential into reality. Both require intermediate steps, I can't see why your values don't extend to eggs and sperm. They both have half a DNA set. If your value is potential, They have it too. If your value is a full set of DNA, Why does a dead body not have value? Dead bodies have a full set of DNA. If we value DNA when it comes to personhood, Those with no brain activity are still 'live persons. ' It would then be murder to take brain-dead individuals whose bodies are on life support off life support. You have said you value DNA as a necessary precursor to consciousness. I submit it is not so. DNA may help construct the brain but I wouldn't value it. If I replace parts of you atom by atom with mechanical parts and pieces I think that you will eventually have no DNA but still be human. I think if we can remove DNA from the equation and still have personhood we shouldn't value it as a precursor. I think consciousness can exist without DNA. The machine may not specifically have \"brain activity\" but it will be similar. Measurable. Activity or processing of some sort will occur. Perhaps one day science will improve both of our definitions by understanding consciousness better. We are not there yet, So we're both working with the best we have. I just can't value DNA. It helps construct the body and brain. It is not personhood itself. I have no attachment to my DNA just like I have no attachment to my body. I DO have attachment to my processing ability, My brain activity, My pattern recognizer, My experiences. I can thank my DNA for constructing my brain but I can't factor that into who I am as a person. All the DNA has done is give me the hardware required. Personhood is the software, The experiences in the memory. Software that can be uploaded and removed entirely from the hardware and moved onto other hardware. You aren't your DNA. You are your pattern recognizer. Brain activity is a sign of consciousness in a real way. A precursor that continues to point to consciousness even after the body is formed that cannot be removed. I said in R1 my reason for giving unborn humans personhood when brain activity starts and not pigs is the same as yours. Because we as humans assume other humans will develop consciousness with that brain activity. You can say brain activity and DNA are both 'potential' but they are different starting points. Neither are vague, But you throw in an extra principle with your DNA valuation. If I have a body on life support that is a living organism with genetic potential. \"To become rational\" is pointing at the brain, Which does not exist at fertilization, Nor does it start working for several months. I have discussed why DNA valuation is inconsistent. Females tend to NEED to milk themselves or they get significant pain. It would be for me like feeding someone my urine. I wouldn't see that the same as my blood. Forced breastfeeding is certainly a bodily autonomy violation, But comparing that to forced pregnancy is laughable. Saying most women would agree with me here is an appeal to the masses, But not a fallacious one. You can argue that women SHOULD feel a certain way and I can say they don't currently. The problem with your 'natural and ordinary' principle isn't that it doesn't work here, It is that your argument works without it, And when we create principles we apply them in as many places as we can. We export it to other moral scenarios. We justify killing people all the time. Women are second class citizens without reproductive control. Your permitting surrogate abortions IS legal abortion. It is inconsistent because you're allowing people to kill what you value as persons.", "qid": "8", "docid": "e2681b04-2019-04-18T11:12:33Z-00002-000", "rank": 81, "score": 141955.0}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should be legal Content: Okay, see ya.", "qid": "8", "docid": "6702c4a1-2019-04-18T14:16:55Z-00002-000", "rank": 82, "score": 141910.0}, {"content": "Title: Should abortion be legal Content: Humans beings have a right to life. To willfully end someone's life should always be a criminal act. So it follows that all humans (born or unborn) should be protected by this law and thus making abortion illegal.", "qid": "8", "docid": "e12b4db4-2019-04-18T13:41:23Z-00007-000", "rank": 83, "score": 141869.0}, {"content": "Title: abortion should be legal Content: Abortion should be legal. Why so? First of all we are talking about freedom of choice. Everyone has the freedom to do what their want with their body and for mothers it includes their foetus. Why so? First of all the foetus doesn't go into government's protection at having the right to live. Some people continuously argue that foetus has the right to live. This is however very wrong. First of all the abortions mostly happen before the foetus are considered fully alive with its organs bodily function, etc. Furthermore, there are one necessary element for owning a right, which is rationality. You need to be a person of rational mind. Because only when you are rational, you can consider yourself a member of society and consent to the idea of having a government over you and join the social contract existing there. For that very reason we are allowed to take the life of animals for say food, etc. They are living creatures, but we take their rights to live because they have never had the rationality that makes them a part of society. Same goes to foetus. They are barely alive and even if they are alive, they don't have the rationality making them part of society and granting them protection. Second of all, let's talk about greater good. Government are basically utilitarian in nature. They want the greatest benefit possible. It is something achievable by abortion only. Someone won't do abortion for fun. It is expensive and risky so there must be a good reason. Usually it's either because they are not ready to have a baby or because the mother's life are in danger. In both scenario, biggest benefit are achievable when abortion is done and seeing that i have proven to you that it is justifiable, why not?", "qid": "8", "docid": "8123afe6-2019-04-18T15:24:28Z-00005-000", "rank": 84, "score": 141820.0}, {"content": "Title: Abortion Should Be Legal Content: I accept. Good luck.", "qid": "8", "docid": "32f40423-2019-04-18T13:02:48Z-00004-000", "rank": 85, "score": 141783.0}, {"content": "Title: Elective abortion. Content: I think elective abortion is a right to women (I am a man), as women have the right to their own bodies. If they want to end a pregnancy for ANY reason, they should have the option to do so. Whether you believe it is moral or not, it should be legal and available for all pregnant women. It's just like gay marriage, a lot of people don't like it, but marriage equality should be legal as love is a fundamental right for all people. Getting back to abortion, women should have the option to abort their child. Period. If they have an unplanned pregnancy, it makes sense to be able to abort the baby so you don't have to go through the pregnancy at all. So now I'll address the ethics aspect of abortion. Yes, it can be considered murder, but at the same time, it is not a developed human being and therefore does not share the same rights as one. You can even say that the yet-to-be-born baby is not alive, as it would not be able to live without being in its mother's womb, and an abortion will not be performed if the baby is past a certain stage of development. With this fact, it is obvious that abortion doctors and clinics will not perform one on a formed baby, and the baby is not fully alive until birth, and does not have the full rights of a human being extended to it until birth as well. I am interested to see how you respond to my women's rights thoughts.", "qid": "8", "docid": "c725372c-2019-04-18T11:54:22Z-00001-000", "rank": 86, "score": 141758.0}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should be legal. Content: First off, sorry I forfieted. I completely forgot about the debate because I had lots of work to do. Anyway, for my closing statement.Abortion should be legal. Mothers to be are dying from failed pregnancies, and because of abortions, they are surviving. If we take that freedom away, mothers will die, leaving the baby with a very bad chance of survival. Abortion equals good!", "qid": "8", "docid": "7945d7cc-2019-04-18T14:27:21Z-00001-000", "rank": 87, "score": 141732.0}, {"content": "Title: Abortion Should Remain Legal Content: \"the prevention of harm to the woman is the only valid legal reason\" That is not true, an abortion could be performed for any reason, if the woman wants it. And even if it is made illegal for a woman to have the right to an abortion for birth control reasons, then the laws should be changed. This is a bill that will probably be signed to ensure the rights for women to get abortions. http://en.wikipedia.org... 'A fetus with deformities? Which deformities? What's a \"life of suffering? People with disabilities aren't all wallowing in misery.' A fetus can have plenty of deformities, such as permanent mental or physical disabilities. Sure, some people with disabilities aren't all wallowing in misery, but that's not true for all handicapped people. It should be the choice of the woman whether she wants to bring the baby out into the world to live a non-normal life, or not let that happen. 'I'm saying that when an abortion is no longer necessary, because of alternative treatments, there is no longer a compelling interest for abortions to be legal.' Even if we develop alternative treatments, there could still be reasons for abortion. Such as using embryonic stem cells from aborted fetuses - which have the potential to replicate themselves into any type of tissue - could be used for huge advances in medicine, and even save lives. Also, even if alternatives to abortion and other ways of getting embryonic stem cells are developed, then we could stop having abortions then. But right now we don't have those things now, so abortion has to remain legal for the time being. 'The point is that human life exists along a continuum, and along that continuum there exist stages where, as you said \"a fetus could be considered human.\" I am not arguing that conception is such a stage, but I don't need to because the morning after pill fixes that problem without abortion.' Morning-after abortion pills don't work if the woman finds out she's pregnant later than a day after. I don't advocate abortion as the only means of birth control, but it should never not be an option. 'A fetus may, in fact, have rights, because it may be human, and not merely a potential human.' How could you consider a fetus equal to a human being? I already stated how it is NOT a human. It is a potential human because it is only alive because of the mother's body, and is incapable of many human functions. It also does not have rights because it is part of another human's body. The woman should be in control of that fetus because it's part of her own body. 'Sure. I like people more than things. But seriously, she could have the child adopted, or be required to seek potential adoptive parents before birth. There are certainly enough people who would like to have children.' Just because you're willing to, doesn't mean everyone is. Many people couldn't afford to pay for the millions of unplanned babies born if abortion was made illegal. Also, why should that woman have to carry that baby around for 9 months and endure labor and pregnancy, just to give that child away? There are still going to be many planned children put up for adoption. Also, would you really deny a rape victim from having an abortion? 'Yes. Potential should not be thwarted because of origin.' Seriously, what's your problem? You value embryos over a grown person's control over their own life? You're okay with women getting raped and having to be pregnant and care for a kid, just because you don't agree with the decisions they make over their own bodies? 'I am positing that a procedure may exist to remove the child safely from the mother and incubate it so that she can get on with her life. When this happens, labor pains can no longer be taken into account as an ethical concern.' What don't you understand about us not having those advances yet? 'The \"genes of a rapist\" argument is eugenics speak. Many children of rape are adopted and go on to live 'normal' lives. Rape is borne out of the effects of certain experiences on those organisms that develop as a consequence of their genes. ' That's not completely true, actually a lot of actions in humans have some hereditary factor in them. Even suicide is part hereditary. Sure, some kids born from a rape victim turn out okay, but it's the woman's choice whether she wants the kid or not. 'This is an argument for better birth control, not abortion.' You still don't understand that we don't have all the advances in birth control that we'd like to have. Currently, abortion is the only type of birth control necessary in a lot of situations. Even if anti-choice people make abortion illegal, that won't stop abortion. Plenty of women will get back-alley abortions which are much more dangerous than the regular abortions legal today.", "qid": "8", "docid": "c42f2f40-2019-04-18T19:22:14Z-00003-000", "rank": 88, "score": 141721.0}, {"content": "Title: Abortion Should Remain Legal Content: Observation 1: The resolution states that it should remain legal. So, if I can find one reason for it to become illegal, I should win this debate. You say: \"It's the right for a women to do what she wants to her own body because of either unplanned pregnancy, deformed baby, or the possibility of harm to the woman from the pregnancy. \" I say: Abortion is not about the woman's own body, it's about the baby's body. Unplanned pregnancy can be prevented through condoms, birth control, etc. So there is no need to abort the fetus because of that. A baby's deformation can not be determined as it is still developing, because it isn't complete. Like a piece of art. If it is possible to harm the woman, it wouldn't happen until it is time for it to be born. Have you ever heard a natural birth? It is very loud, and always painful. If it is life-threatening, they can have a cesarion section (C-section). Since I have the burdon of clash, and my opponent the burdon of proof, I do not need to present any points. Again, good luck.", "qid": "8", "docid": "c42f2f21-2019-04-18T19:22:30Z-00004-000", "rank": 89, "score": 141708.0}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should be legal Content: Legal abortion is one of those topics that I see necessary for a functioning society where everyone is equal. I see many people arguing against it which saddens me to see, because is it not the right of a woman to have control over her own body? Is it not her choice to decide what to do with it? In the US, a survey was made asking the American people what their opinions on abortion was - 51% thought that it should be legal in mostly all cases, while 43% opposed, thinking it should be illegal (1). These stats have remained relatively stable and of course, the fact that 51% thinks it a positive thing, there is still 43% remaining. This does not even include what the people think is morally right and wrong. Only a meek 15% thinks that it is morally right! (1) To me, this is almost outrageous. Especially religious people seem to think that it is morally wrong to have an abortion, which makes me wonder. As a Christian, I see God as an important figure in my life too. But I think He would not wish for some to be oppressed and to be in pain for something they do not wish. The pain goes to both the pregnant woman and to the child! Why should she suffer 9 months to give birth to a child that she would not want? Is it being said that it is better for a child to be left to die, rather than to lose it's life before it becomes a conscious being, thus not inflicting harm? At the best in the cases where the woman have the child despite her wishes, they might be left in an orphanage to wait, possibly for many years in our already crowded homes for orphans. At worst, they will be left to die. Recently, the issue is brought up again which is a start and we are moving in the right direction. However, I think it wrong that all the states of the US have not yet collectively decided that this is an actual issue, because it is. Many people get abortions - And they will continue to, even when it is illegal! The only difference is, that since it will then have to be done in secret or with the fear of being found out, it will be much more dangerous for the woman. If medicines, and medical students and doctors cannot offer what they need to help and give the correct procedure to the patient, it could cause permanent damage, perhaps even death to her. So, Con, I am open to hear your arguments - Whatever you have to propose, I am listening.", "qid": "8", "docid": "6702c444-2019-04-18T15:14:03Z-00003-000", "rank": 90, "score": 141683.0}, {"content": "Title: Abortion Should be Legal Content: This argument is to be made without god. Abortion has been around long before conventional medicine, by restricting women the right to have an abortion, they will revert back to these dangerous methods that will either disfigure the fetus, kill it, or kill the mother. By allowing women access to contraceptives and abortions, the number of abortions would both decrease, and the ones that exist will be much safer. Having an abortion will lead to a greater quality in life for both the mother and the child she may have later on. Saying that the fetus should be carried to term and given up for adoption, is not the best option. It puts more pressure on the foster care system and it is a hard decision to make.", "qid": "8", "docid": "2928a805-2019-04-18T16:59:26Z-00005-000", "rank": 91, "score": 141662.0}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should be illegal Content: Abortion should not be illegal. Abortion is one of the things that females should have a complete control over since the process undergoes their own body. Although some may consider this \"murdering/killing\" the child, that is not scientifically the case. During the abortion stages which is up to 12 weeks, the \"baby\" does not have any functioning organs or the basic human body parts, therefore, the baby is not yet a living creature. Another point to be made, abortions are usually done by irresponsible people who can not afford a child in their stage of life. They could either be financially unprepared, in school or other priorities, they would only have 1 option which is to have the baby. I don't think that abortion should be illegal it would lead to people depressed, mentally unstable, postpartum trauma and the kids growing up in an unhealthy atmosphere.", "qid": "8", "docid": "7586c7a1-2019-04-18T11:39:49Z-00000-000", "rank": 92, "score": 141654.0}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should be legal Content: Abortion - the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus . http://www.merriam-webster.com... So termination of a pregnancy. I argue it should be illegal, except if it dangers the woman's life. My opponent argues in all cases it should be allowed.", "qid": "8", "docid": "6702bcc2-2019-04-18T18:18:04Z-00004-000", "rank": 93, "score": 141474.0}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should be illegal in all cases. Content: Bottom line is, It's the woman's choice, It's her body, Who has the right to tell a woman what she should do with a pregnancy, It's her choice, And her choice only, Not some government, Not some other person. Free will, Free choice, We are not slaves to some system, Women have rights and whatever happens during a pregnancy is up to the woman. No bureaucrat, No man or other person has the right to tell a pregnant woman what she should do with a fetus, NOT person, A fetus inside her. Case closed mic drop", "qid": "8", "docid": "be3faafa-2019-04-18T11:18:53Z-00000-000", "rank": 94, "score": 141446.0}, {"content": "Title: Abortion Should Remain Legal Content: Round 2: Should abortion be legal in the U.S.A.? U.S. Constitution Yes, I believe that abortion should be legal in all states and all American women are entitled to choices regarding their own welfare. It is insensitive to dictate what women can and cannot do in a country that promises freedom. Most advocates for our constitution would say that abortion is a violation of our natural rights because \u201cWe hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.\u201d (U.S. Declaration of Independence) Although life is promised to each citizen of the United States of America, does a woman\u2019s underdeveloped fetus count? No, they are not legally citizens until birth. With that take into account, we also notice that the constitution was written to defend freedom and protect all of its citizens. \"\u2026 establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare \u2026\" (Preamble- U.S. Constitution) I have no right to claim that any life is less valuable than another, but for the sake of our constitution- the basis on which our country was developed- we must protect women's rights over their own bodies. Protection of women\u2019s choice should be reserved regardless of the circumstances. Even some of our greatest leaders agree.... \"You cannot have maternal health without reproductive health. And reproductive health includes contraception and family planning and access to legal, safe abortion.\" -Hilary Clinton \"No politician should make decisions about women\u2019s health\" -Barack Obama Modern Law The moral confliction about abortion is that it is considered murder. I disagree. First, allow me give you dictionary.com's definition of murder: \"Law. The killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder) and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder)\" dictionary.com In the United States of America it is legal in all 50 states to get an abortion, therefore making it a surgery, not murder. Because abortion is not outlawed in any state, it would be foolish to call abortion \"murder.\" Supreme Courts & Science When the supreme courts faced the legalization of abortion they declared that there is not enough scientific evidence to prove that the fetus is alive, therefore it would be irrational to revoke women\u2019s constitutional rights for ignorance. Scientific studies suggest that life (as we know it) is not developed until the third trimester. Regardless to these laws, rights, and scientific studies, women have rights lawfully and constitutionally, but there has not been enough science to strip them of their rights. The ultimate question is: Who are you to control someone else\u2019s life? (Especially when there are no certain as to when life starts)", "qid": "8", "docid": "c42f2f5f-2019-04-18T17:23:19Z-00004-000", "rank": 95, "score": 141228.0}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should be made illegal Content: My arguments stand.", "qid": "8", "docid": "34222ab7-2019-04-18T16:53:01Z-00000-000", "rank": 96, "score": 141200.0}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should be made illegal Content: My arguments stand.", "qid": "8", "docid": "34222af5-2019-04-18T16:50:38Z-00000-000", "rank": 97, "score": 141200.0}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should be made illegal Content: My arguments stand.", "qid": "8", "docid": "34222af5-2019-04-18T16:50:38Z-00001-000", "rank": 98, "score": 141200.0}, {"content": "Title: Abortion Content: I'm arguing that abortions should be legal.", "qid": "8", "docid": "b1852066-2019-04-18T18:45:04Z-00003-000", "rank": 99, "score": 141089.0}, {"content": "Title: Should Abortion Be Legal Content: Continue argument for Con.", "qid": "8", "docid": "cf4a147c-2019-04-18T13:21:10Z-00005-000", "rank": 100, "score": 141017.0}]}
{"query": "Should students have to wear school uniforms?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: should there be school uniforms Content: no", "qid": "9", "docid": "56f5874b-2019-04-18T14:08:00Z-00003-000", "rank": 1, "score": 270756.0}, {"content": "Title: Should schools have a Uniform Content: 1.", "qid": "9", "docid": "8897f051-2019-04-18T13:36:55Z-00003-000", "rank": 2, "score": 256762.0}, {"content": "Title: Should Schools have Uniforms Content: extend", "qid": "9", "docid": "7a462d3c-2019-04-18T16:52:05Z-00001-000", "rank": 3, "score": 253144.0}, {"content": "Title: should public school students wear uniforms Content: I dont think so", "qid": "9", "docid": "7bf53995-2019-04-18T19:33:59Z-00004-000", "rank": 4, "score": 245808.0}, {"content": "Title: Private Schools Should Have Students Wear Uniforms Content: Extend", "qid": "9", "docid": "9084be02-2019-04-18T16:40:02Z-00000-000", "rank": 5, "score": 243696.0}, {"content": "Title: Students should be required to wear uniforms in all schools Content: you ready?", "qid": "9", "docid": "a54d8ac8-2019-04-18T14:32:55Z-00003-000", "rank": 6, "score": 243004.0}, {"content": "Title: Schools should have uniforms for students. Content: vote for me", "qid": "9", "docid": "41506d41-2019-04-18T15:34:52Z-00000-000", "rank": 7, "score": 241536.0}, {"content": "Title: Private Schools Should Have Their Students Wear Uniforms Content: Extend", "qid": "9", "docid": "573179be-2019-04-18T16:24:09Z-00000-000", "rank": 8, "score": 240947.0}, {"content": "Title: Private Schools Should Have Their Students Wear Uniforms Content: Extend", "qid": "9", "docid": "c9019890-2019-04-18T16:24:09Z-00000-000", "rank": 9, "score": 240947.0}, {"content": "Title: Private Schools Should Have Their Students Wear Uniforms Content: extend", "qid": "9", "docid": "c9019890-2019-04-18T16:24:09Z-00001-000", "rank": 10, "score": 240947.0}, {"content": "Title: Private Schools Should Have Their Students Wear Uniforms Content: Extend", "qid": "9", "docid": "c90198ce-2019-04-18T16:25:16Z-00001-000", "rank": 11, "score": 240947.0}, {"content": "Title: Private Schools Should Have Their Students Wear Uniforms Content: Extend", "qid": "9", "docid": "c90198ed-2019-04-18T16:24:37Z-00000-000", "rank": 12, "score": 240947.0}, {"content": "Title: Private Schools Should Have Their Students Wear Uniforms Content: extend", "qid": "9", "docid": "c901992b-2019-04-18T16:23:35Z-00000-000", "rank": 13, "score": 240947.0}, {"content": "Title: Private Schools Should Have Their Students Wear Uniforms Content: Extend", "qid": "9", "docid": "c901992b-2019-04-18T16:23:35Z-00001-000", "rank": 14, "score": 240947.0}, {"content": "Title: Private Schools Should Have Their Students Wear Uniforms Content: Extend", "qid": "9", "docid": "c9019988-2019-04-18T16:24:17Z-00000-000", "rank": 15, "score": 240947.0}, {"content": "Title: Private Schools Should Have Their Students Wear Uniforms Content: I accept", "qid": "9", "docid": "c9019890-2019-04-18T16:24:09Z-00003-000", "rank": 16, "score": 240180.0}, {"content": "Title: school uniforms Content: there should not be school uniforms", "qid": "9", "docid": "cf8429e7-2019-04-18T18:00:40Z-00002-000", "rank": 17, "score": 236951.0}, {"content": "Title: should uniforms in school be required Content: Should schools require school uniforms", "qid": "9", "docid": "299509f8-2019-04-18T14:50:55Z-00001-000", "rank": 18, "score": 236345.0}, {"content": "Title: Students should not wear uniform Content: You're on.", "qid": "9", "docid": "40c16f39-2019-04-18T16:15:15Z-00005-000", "rank": 19, "score": 235612.0}, {"content": "Title: should students have to wear school uniforms Content: What do u think should students wear school uniforms", "qid": "9", "docid": "caa63d4b-2019-04-18T12:31:31Z-00001-000", "rank": 20, "score": 233550.0}, {"content": "Title: Students should be required to wear uniforms in all schools Content: Need I say more?", "qid": "9", "docid": "a54d8ac8-2019-04-18T14:32:55Z-00001-000", "rank": 21, "score": 233273.0}, {"content": "Title: Should Schools have Uniforms Content: Vote me!", "qid": "9", "docid": "7a462d3c-2019-04-18T16:52:05Z-00000-000", "rank": 22, "score": 233003.0}, {"content": "Title: School Uniforms Content: why should they?", "qid": "9", "docid": "24034de5-2019-04-18T16:16:33Z-00001-000", "rank": 23, "score": 229295.0}, {"content": "Title: School Uniforms Content: Should school uniforms be allowed?", "qid": "9", "docid": "2403510b-2019-04-18T15:27:22Z-00003-000", "rank": 24, "score": 228414.0}, {"content": "Title: Should kids have to wear uniform in School Content: I win.", "qid": "9", "docid": "ca052f96-2019-04-18T16:40:02Z-00000-000", "rank": 25, "score": 225206.0}, {"content": "Title: Private Schools Should Have Their Students Wear Uniforms Content: Accepted.", "qid": "9", "docid": "c9019988-2019-04-18T16:24:17Z-00002-000", "rank": 26, "score": 224873.0}, {"content": "Title: School Pupils Should Be Required To Wear School Uniforms Content: I was shocked to see that one of the most contested opinions on DDO were that pupils should have to wear school uniforms. I'm from the UK -- most schools require a uniform to be worn -- and this isn't even considered a debatable issue. I'm interested in hearing someone's opinion on this topic.School pupil: Any student below the age of 16You will be Con -- against school uniforms.I'll start this off with a quick list as to why I believe uniforms are beneficial.1. Creates a school identity/team spirit2. Kids can focus less on fashion and trends, and more on education3. Rich or poor, everyone is equal4. Sets the pupils up for adult life; office jobs, uniformed work, dress codes etc.5. Kids do not need to 'express themselves' through clothing; this is not appropriate in many jobs6. Kids wandering out of school without permision can be easily identified and the school informed -- this prevents possible abductions and other incidents where the child can blend in without bring detected", "qid": "9", "docid": "d75a0ed1-2019-04-18T16:35:33Z-00003-000", "rank": 27, "score": 223550.0}, {"content": "Title: Students should be required to wear school uniform. Content: Thanks for a detailed reply!First I will be refuting my opponents 3 arguments (no, I don't agree with them), then I will be going back to strengthen my own.My opponents 1st argument was about how uniforms create an orderly enviornment. They also talk about an honor and pride to wear such uniformsThis is completely wrong in this case.These uniform are not letting students to express themselves. My opponents show nothing in their case that expression is going to create a distruptive enviornment. Students have the right to express themselvesMy oponent also talks about first impression causes a popularity system in their 2nd argumentHowever, There are other ways to see someone for the first time, not neccessarily their clothing. They can see people based on their hairstyle, and other characteristics. Their third argument is that the uniforms generate money to the government.However, Judge, you must see that this is completely non uniqueThis can also be turned to my side of the debate.People without uniforms buy regular clothes and if they buy regular clothes ( my opponent says that there is a LOT more regular clothes than uniforms in the 2nd round) then shouldn't there be more tax being generated WITHOUT uniforms?Now I will strengthen my argumentsMy first argument is that it violates freedom of expressionMy opponent states that there is a hierarchy in the schoolHowever, my opponentes show no link to why this is harmful.If there is a hierarchy, (I am not agreeing to this) then the students who are low in the hierarchy can still learn. They are still getting an education, not harming anyone at all!My refutation against hierarchy earlier can be crossapplied. I stated that There are other ways to see someone for the first time, not neccessarily their clothing. They can see people based on their hairstyle, and other characteristics. My second argument was that uniforms are expensive and they cost $249My opponent says that people buy way too many clothes, more than $249First of all, many girls aren't that rich. There are many others that do not have more than $249 to spare. This leads me to their second refutation, which was that you only need to buy this once.I agree, you only need to buy this once...until you outgrow it. In almost one year, you have to buy another set, for another $249. If you wear uniforms since kindergarten to 12th grade, then $3,237 will be spend on uniforms alone for a whole student going to school. What if the family has more than one kid? If they have 2, it will be double, and if they have 3, the price would be tripled and so on and so forth.My opponent also talked about how this sustains the economy.Again, I will like to appy my previous refutation which is that One must see that this is completely non uniqueThis can also be turned to my side of the debate.People without uniforms buy regular clothes and if they buy regular clothes ( my opponent says that there is a LOT more regular clothes than uniforms in the 2nd round) then shouldn't there be more tax being generated WITHOUT uniforms? They also talked about how schools can pay for us.However, this is wrong because school do not have that much money at handMy 3rd argument is that this cause bullyingThey state that students don't wear their uniforms outside of school.This is completely wrong!What do they wear once school ends? Do they go naked? (joke intended)People do walk to and from school. Obviously, they will meet rival members of another school, and since Students at my school hate students at a nearby school, some people would go into fistifightsSince none of my opponents arguments stand, the CON/NEG should winThank You", "qid": "9", "docid": "f1b2e4e-2019-04-18T17:48:46Z-00001-000", "rank": 28, "score": 222798.0}, {"content": "Title: School Uniforms Should Be Mandatory Content: Inappropriate", "qid": "9", "docid": "4b51d325-2019-04-19T12:44:49Z-00013-000", "rank": 29, "score": 221944.0}, {"content": "Title: Students should be required to wear school uniform. Content: Hello, everyone, welcome to this debate. Today I would like to debate in affirmation of the topic that students should be required to wear school uniform. My first justification is that it creates an orderly, organized atmosphere which enforces discipline. My second argument is that it eliminates part of the popularity system. And my last argument is that it generates revenue for the government. Although this has no solid, tangible evidence, it is true that having uniforms creates an organized and orderly atmosphere. It is no secret that private schools and schools of high ranking all require their students to wear uniforms. When students are required to wear uniforms, discipline is in action. And discipline constitutes good education. A subpoint of this argument is that it gives the wearer a sense of honor and pride to wear such a uniform. My next point of analysis is that this eliminates the popularity system. Go to any school, and you could be sure to find some sort of clique or group ruling the school, or at least a complex system of factions. This is inevitable. And one of the main causes of this is fashion. At the initial first day of school everyone is at square one. No one knows no one, and there is no popularity system. So how does people know who's going to be popular, and who to be friends with? The first reactions is to look at their clothes. Do they dress nice? Do they wear this brand? Once a group of girls have established a clique, there is already a system of clans and gangs beginning to form. The remedy to this phenomenon is to eliminate a cause of popularity, fashion, by making uniform-wearing mandatory. Only this way will people consider others for who they really are, not by their clothes. My last contention is that this generates revenue for the government. When the uniforms are sold to the students, they have to pay taxes, which therefore generates funds for the government. This might seem pretty minimal compared to other revenue-earning tactics, but consider this: thousands of schools across the country, with hundreds of students flooding the campus every year, selling uniforms. After a decade or so, we would have cleared a significant portion of our national debt while giving leeway to other fund-needing programs. To sum it all up, my three main assertions are that: uniforms create a sense of conduct, uniforms eliminate the complex popularity system in schools, and lastly, uniforms generate significant revenue for the government. Thank you.", "qid": "9", "docid": "f1b2e4e-2019-04-18T17:48:46Z-00004-000", "rank": 30, "score": 221816.0}, {"content": "Title: School Uniforms Shouldn't be Required. Content: Uniforms help to distinguish students from outsiders. Which is beneficial to the faculty in helping supervise and provide a safe environment for there kids to learn. Students can also conceal weapons in their personalized clothing and accessories which brings dangers and bad press to the school. Not to mention extreme forms of bullying. This is video is an example of how students can conceal weapons in their clothing. https://www.youtube.com...... Now I'm not saying that the students should be in uniform all the time. I believe that students should be award when they are behaving and performing well. So maybe once every month a civvies day will be in order when students will be able to come in in their regular clothing and embrace their individuality. It is something to be celebrated however one is to think of the tribe before themselves. It is the Bullworth way. (I just wanted to say sorry lol ) Rebuttal 1 Now, time to rebut: \" 'For the one time cost of $500, the student will be able to wear that same uniform in the span of four years of high-school.' Not true, children can have growth spurts and outgrow the uniform, and because such new uniforms need to be bought. In addition, after uniforms are bought, old clothing is practically useless, only to be worn during weekends, only 2/7 of the time. This ratio amplifies over a big time, and soon enough, the difference between how often the uniform is worn compared to the normal clothing is in the hundreds. Years make that number high up in the thousands!\" I actually rebutted this statement later on. First off, I had said that $500 was an exaggerated amount and that it was still less than the average cost of regular clothing each year. Which was $729.50. If we multiplied that by 4 years you will still save $918 compared to regular clothing. Yes children do have growth spurts and outgrow uniform but in most cases that occurs toward the end of year but since everyone is different the parent would just buy the new uniform set early instead of the beginning of the succeeding new year. The same cycle will apply. Rebuttal 2: \"Nobody cares about your clothes except yourself and your parents, and that is the reason why school uniforms aren't needed. Why should they be required? That only makes the school administrators' jobs tougher--they have to make sure the uniforms are worn the whole day, and students have to bring checks to school to buy the uniform. \" Not true. Try picking up girls looking a chump. Appearance is important that's what a uniform teaches people.It also teaches students to dress conservatively. Uniforms can be altered to fit everyone's individuality in most cases. The alterations are slight but noticeable if you've been wearing them long enough. Uniforms do shape you up for the real world. As far as school administrators go there's not much of a problem. If they're out of uniform they'll be sent home or to the attendance office to get a uniform pass. Easy and in most cases teachers don't bother to check unless it's obvious or you're causing trouble. My opponent has forfeited 2 rounds. I hope the voters are sensible enough to know who to vote..", "qid": "9", "docid": "fa922cd8-2019-04-18T16:13:55Z-00000-000", "rank": 31, "score": 221035.0}, {"content": "Title: School Uniforms Should Be Mandatory Content: Expenses", "qid": "9", "docid": "4b51d325-2019-04-19T12:44:49Z-00014-000", "rank": 32, "score": 220776.0}, {"content": "Title: Public School Students should wear School Uniforms Content: Extend all arguments", "qid": "9", "docid": "188872ba-2019-04-18T16:43:31Z-00002-000", "rank": 33, "score": 220650.0}, {"content": "Title: should students wear uniform to school Content: students should be required to wear uniform. it makes the school seem more in unison. you may disagree with me and say students need to express themselves but there are other ways you can express yourself. Furthermore, my school which doesn't use uniform encounters bullying and students break the dress code. we gave them an opportunity to express themselves and they took that for granted. wearing uniform also saves families money. Also, the amount of bullying based on outfits will decrease because everyone will be wearing the same thing.", "qid": "9", "docid": "96158d24-2019-04-18T11:23:27Z-00001-000", "rank": 34, "score": 220314.0}, {"content": "Title: Students should be required to wear school uniform. Content: Thank You I hope this is a good debate! 1. Violates student\"s freedom of expression The first Amendment gives students the freedom of expression. (Talk about us) We can give limitations to gang clothes but otherwise the students could wear whatever they want No one can show their individualism with uniforms. 2. Uniforms are extremely expensive According to BBC most uniforms are extremely expensive and some can\"t afford them Uniforms are expensive. As stated by statisticbrain.com, who sources the US Department of Education, NCES, ECS, NAESP, and University of Florida and last verified on July 22, 2012, the average annual co st of school uniforms is $249 a kid. Uniforms esp. jackets. are more expensive than a regular child\"s clothing This will badly affect poor families. 3. causes bullying Uniforms Represents a school This is bad b/c someone from a rival school could start bullying or fighting outside of school while walking to and from school. More fights are likely to develop more often. Because of these uniforms, people could get bullied Thank You And Please vote CON/NEG", "qid": "9", "docid": "f1b2e4e-2019-04-18T17:48:46Z-00003-000", "rank": 35, "score": 219952.0}, {"content": "Title: Students should be required to wear school uniform. Content: Thank you very much, Westernguy2. Rebuttal to your 1st counter argument, on the freedom and expression: Yes, having expression will not create a disruptive environment, but however, but with uniforms there will be a better environment. There is no harm for freedom of expression, but there is benefits for uniforms. After all, another meaning of the word \"uniform\" means organized. So while the neg argues that there will be no harm, I argue that there will be no harm AND benefits. Yes, students have the right of expression, but again, uniforms are already used by much of the private schools in our country. If students have to have freedom of expression, then why don't we ban uniforms in those schools? Obviously this does not violate the 1st amendment as much schools already use uniforms, so his counterargument is void, and my 1st contention still stands true. Rebuttal to your 2nd counterargument, on the popularity argument: Agreed. Hairstyles can be expressed for popularity, I wholeheartedly agree with that. However, although enforcing uniform-wearing does not COMPLETELY reduce popularity, it reduces a good portion of it, as most people look at the clothes. And that is still good, and is still a benefit. There is no disadvantage to it. Also, the reason why clothes are the main factors while other details are minor ones is because clothes have brand names. People want to look for good brands, and it tells people if the wearer is rich or not. Hairstyles do not have brands, it is really not considered much. As long as you are wearing Hollister or Nike no one pays much attention to your hairstyle. So, the neg wants completely or nothing. He wants the popularity system to remain, or to be completely destroyed. However, this is a bad attitude, as we are reducing, say, 80% of it, which is much better than not doing it at all. Therefore my second contention is still standing. Rebuttal to 3rd argument, taxes: Actually, this is not true. You say that more taxes are generated with regular clothes. Yes, of course it does! However, this is not a choose-one option. It's not like you have to ONLY buy the uniform and never buy regular clothes again. You can buy both! You can wear normal clothes outside of school, which is actually more than the time inside of school (per week). So basically buying uniforms is an add-on which helps generate revenue alongside regular clothes. Your take is too extreme; people will obviously continue to buy regular clothes. Let's say regular clothes generate x revenue. Uniforms generate y revenue. He says generating x is better than generating y. I say that we generate both x and y. Therefore this contention is still standing. To refute your arguments which you strengthened: 1st contention: A popularity hierarchy is obviously harmful! No one wants to be left out just because they wear ratty clothes. Isn't it better if everyone is on the same level, without rankings based on clothes? Yes, lower people can learn. However, it is not about learning, but the mental damage he/she takes from always being the last one called in kickball, etc. And mental damage does hurt learning. If you are a loner at school because you wear bad clothes, then in a group project you will have no teammates, since no one wants to be with you. Therefore you have to do it all yourself, which is not a good learning way. For your part on hairstyle, I have already refuted above, so your 1st contention is refuted. 2nd contention: You say girls are not rich. Maybe. But girls DO love shopping, and DO love buying. At an immature age they do not know how to save money and will carelessly spend money regardless of how much money they have. And since you are saying girls do not buy too much clothing, you are hurting your own argument/refutation that more taxes will be generated if people buy regular clothes. And you say students can outgrow. Isn't this good, as it generates more revenue? Sure, this may harm the family, but no family is too poor to buy a mere uniform. They spend a lot on school supplies. And your estimate on how much it takes to buy uniforms from k-12 is too extreme. They will outgrow, but probably only in two or three year intervals, not every year. And while it may cause some damage, uniform prices vary, from 20$-249$ (the most extreme). They won't buy uniforms all priced at 249$. And if the family has more than one kid then the older kid can give his old uniform to the younger. Families aren't too rich to buy the most expensive uniforms, every year, for each of their kids. Therefore this contention is refuted. I do not know which contention this is, but you said that more tax is generated with regular clothes. You basically restated your previous statement, and I already refuted that above. Therefore this is refuted. For schools paying for needy families, this is already used in action. It is even used in my school. Therefore this is also refuted. 3rd contention: They wear regular clothes outside of school, obviously. Once school ends, then they wear the uniform until they get home and change. For your joke, haha. And this contention is very illogical as bullies will not just bully people just because they are from a different school. Besides, schools wouldn't be so close that people from both schools can meet on their way home. Again, people will not bully strangers that they do not know. For your personal example, as you have yourself witnessed it, I will not deny it, but keep in mind that your two schools is two out of a million schools in the nation. What may be true for your school may not be true to the millions of thousands of schools out there. As I have rebutted all your counterarguments, I have completely polished all my contentions and they are still standing. I have refuted all your contentions, so they are all void. And not only due to the amount of contentions still unrefuted, or the refutations made, the factor of the winning person should be focused on the reasoning and logic behind their arguments, am I right? Thank you Westernguy2 for having this nice debate with me.", "qid": "9", "docid": "f1b2e4e-2019-04-18T17:48:46Z-00000-000", "rank": 36, "score": 219695.0}, {"content": "Title: Students should have to wear school uniforms Content: School that have uniforms have more intelligent and efficient students, because they have uniforms. When schools have uniforms kids focus more on they're studies not on they're clothes or how they look. If everyone wore the same clothes no one can say theirs is better and no one will be teased of what they wear. When everybody wears the same thing their will be less prejudicism and more nationalism. Kids will get along better and create more social groups. Students spend less time deciding what to wear, because no one will judge what they choose because they're all wearing the same thing. Nobody likes to be mocked when you choose the best clothing you had and then the other laugh and bully him for trying. When theirs the uniform policy kids will be friendlier and smarter because of the intelligent decision the school made for the kids own good.", "qid": "9", "docid": "5f1c7022-2019-04-18T15:36:48Z-00005-000", "rank": 37, "score": 219520.0}, {"content": "Title: Students should have to wear school uniforms Content: There's seriously no proof that that school even exists. What type of school has 500 students in one class!!! No wonder why half of them are failing. How can one teacher teach 500 kids at once. Don't blame it on the uniform, it has nothing to do about it. If your new school had a uniform policy it would be number one, but they decide they don't need it and all those intelligent kids aren't being used for they're full potential. If those school have a uniform policy they wouldn't be putting the make up on and combing they're hair, because they would of did it at home because they would spent less time trying to choose what they should wear to school. No, the kids at your new school care about they're cloths. You just don't see it because your all caught up in your clothes not on other people and your school work. Why would tensions escalate if everybody is wearing the same thing, no one is above or below anyone in their fashion. Fights don't start when kids are all wearing the same thing. They only start when one person knows the other kid is wearing something better than them and take the first blow. Think about it would you start a fight with someone who is wearing the same clothing or someone who keeps bragging about how much richer they're families and how stupid you're cloths look. In my school there's a uniform policy and a lot of rich kids. All the kids are wearing the same thing so you can't tell who's rich and who's not. Students at the school I go to there are no rich cliques to bully the poor kids or poor tough kids that get angry real easy and start fights. Also uniforms are good for the children's parents. Why, uniform cost a lot and schools require you to get them. In a school without uniform policy parents have to buy more cloths which cost more money and time to get them. Wearing one thing for the whole entire year is much cheaper for the parents and helps the child go to school faster.", "qid": "9", "docid": "5f1c7022-2019-04-18T15:36:48Z-00003-000", "rank": 38, "score": 219234.0}, {"content": "Title: Schools should have uniforms Content: Vote for me.", "qid": "9", "docid": "5177bde4-2019-04-18T13:40:21Z-00000-000", "rank": 39, "score": 219220.0}, {"content": "Title: Students should wear school uniform. Content: We should be focusing on the performance of the students rather than the way they are dressed. Uniforms provide almost no benefits whatsoever. The only valid benefit for school uniforms is the safety they bring. They prevent outside intruders from entering the school unannounced and they make it easier to spot a student that is lost. Even so, most schools have scanner machines so that students can use their school district ID's to sign in. If someone that was not a student at the school happened to trespass, they would be caught immediately. Personally, I think dress codes would be better. They allow students to wear want they want and to be creative, but still restrict students to wear only school appropriate attire.", "qid": "9", "docid": "a7f5e454-2019-04-18T13:43:30Z-00000-000", "rank": 40, "score": 219020.0}, {"content": "Title: School Uniforms Should Be Mandatory Content: School Uniforms - Yes", "qid": "9", "docid": "4b51d325-2019-04-19T12:44:49Z-00020-000", "rank": 41, "score": 218885.0}, {"content": "Title: Private Schools Should Have Students Wear Uniforms Content: When the subject of mandatory school uniforms comes into question, the first words on opposing parents\" lips is in regards to kids\" lost sense of individuality and freedom of expression. Kids need to mark themselves as part of the herd but still be wholly individual from their peer groups, which is why uniforms can sometimes be seen as problematic. Some parents also worry that when the freedom to express themselves through their wardrobe is removed, kids will resort to more extreme forms of expression like piercings and tattoos. School should be a breeding ground for acceptance and tolerance, as it\"s a smaller-scale version of the world at large in many cases. Kids need to learn to accept and celebrate each other\"s differences, up to and including the way that different cultures dress. Some religions have strict rules about what is and is not considered acceptable dress, and school uniforms may not always fall in line with those religious requirements. Allowing some kids dispensation on religious grounds will only make them stand out more in a sea of uniforms, potentially leading to bullying and harassment. For some parents, being able to purchase clothing at the beginning of the school year that adheres to the uniform code is a financial relief. After all, most uniforms are comprised of staple garments easily purchased at discount stores. For others, however, being forced to purchase specific clothing infringes upon their kids\" right to a free education.", "qid": "9", "docid": "9084be02-2019-04-18T16:40:02Z-00002-000", "rank": 42, "score": 218504.0}, {"content": "Title: School Uniform Content: Should the be school uniforms? Yes. I feel school uniforms are a must for teachers and students. This will minimize the issue with dress code and kids getting made fun of for the clothes they wear. If we all look the same, no one will get judged.", "qid": "9", "docid": "6a52a7de-2019-04-18T13:44:47Z-00003-000", "rank": 43, "score": 218463.0}, {"content": "Title: High School / Secondary school Students should be required to wear a uniform Content: Thank you for your rebuttal. I'd like to point out that having a school uniform contributes to keeping kids focused on what is really important at school, the academics. With marks slipping in the UK and USA, [1] it is crucial to keep as much focus on academics as possible. As the famous quote goes, \"In 30 years from now, it won't matter what clothes you wore, what jeans you bough or how your hair looked. What will matter is what you learnt and how you used it.\" This just goes to show that putting the emphasis on learning at school, really can benefit kids later in life. [2] I'd just like to let you know that I believe that tutoring and attention is the best way to increase marks obviously, but school uniform could just be a contributing factor. In connection with the last point, school uniforms will encourage students to take school more seriously, and make a distinguished difference between fun time and school time. As I mentioned, kids will be less likely to leave school during the day as they may be in fear of being recognized and having their school called (this has happened multiple times at my school). 1. http://news.google.com... 2. http://www.the-ibenefits.com...", "qid": "9", "docid": "375bf80d-2019-04-18T18:30:46Z-00001-000", "rank": 44, "score": 218114.0}, {"content": "Title: Should Uniforms be Required in Public Schools Content: I believe that school uniforms should be required because they promote discipline, school spirit, reduce non-academic distractions, less stress on parents/ guardians, safety, and bullying. I will now explain my reasoning. Discipline: If an adult wore a slobbish outfit to work, they would not have the energy or will to behave professionally. The same goes for students. If a student is wearing whatever they find in their closet, they will not want to try as hard as they normally do. Wearing uniforms will cause students to pay better attention and \"earn\" the uniform. School Spirit: When all students are wearing the same outfit, they will feel a sense of unity, even if they do not know any other people. Reduce Non-Academic Distractions: \"As kids mature and begin to form self-identities, designer status symbols become more and more important as they try fit in with their peers. All too often, children are bullied if they can\"t afford the new designer jeans or the latest name brand shoes. Uniforms minimize socioeconomic status between students by removing the option for different types of clothing. In addition, school administrators spend less time tending to dress code infractions, as the rules are clear and concrete.\" See source. Also, it will prevent guys from ogling over a girl's cleavage, while preventing girls from staring at a guy's butt. Keeping the distraction off of the other gender will allow for kids to pay better attention on the assignment. Less Stress on Parents/Guardians: \"After taking a shower, waking up the kids, making breakfast, checking emails, putting in a load of laundry, making snacks for later, brushing teeth, and combing hair, the last thing any parent wants to do is have an early morning battle over what their child is going to wear to school that day. Uniforms reduce morning stress by making the process of getting dressed a no brainer. Students know exactly what they can and cannot wear leaving parents with only one concern\" when is the last time those pants were washed? Besides having one less thing to fight about, parents also benefit from not having to buy their children expensive, designer clothes for schools. In the cooler months, students simply add approved outwear and girls add tights or leggings to their basic uniform. And since uniforms do not vary from year to year, students can wear their uniforms for more than one year without fear that they are out of style.\" See source. Safety: In a school of standards, anyone who isn't wearing a certain color will stick out as an intruder. Also, on school field trips, any kids who get lost will be easily identified. Bullying: While I understand that wearing one outfit every day will not eliminate bullying, it will be one less thing to not have to worry about. Source: http://www.davidsonacademy.com...", "qid": "9", "docid": "6ae58551-2019-04-18T15:35:40Z-00006-000", "rank": 45, "score": 218075.0}, {"content": "Title: Private Schools Should Have Their Students Wear Uniforms Content: I accept.", "qid": "9", "docid": "c90198ce-2019-04-18T16:25:16Z-00003-000", "rank": 46, "score": 217719.0}, {"content": "Title: Should every children wear school uniforms at every school Content: Thanks, You too", "qid": "9", "docid": "ca9c6b9f-2019-04-18T11:12:56Z-00000-000", "rank": 47, "score": 217667.0}, {"content": "Title: Students should wear school uniform. Content: I will be taking the Con side (students should not have to to wear uniform). Firstly, uniforms restricts a student's individuality and identity. Forcing students to wear uniforms constricts their creativity and freedom of expression. Clothes do not detract from a student's ability to learn. School uniforms are completely unnecessary. Secondly, people tend to believe that if everyone is wearing the same clothing, it will decrease the chances of getting bullied for what you wear, but this is totally not the case. Bullying is a huge problem that effects many students whether they are in schools that require uniform or not. Forcing children to wear the same uniform does not make issues such as this magically disappear. Schools want children to make good decisions and take responsibility for their actions, but how can we expect the children to do so if we do not give them decisions to make in the first place?", "qid": "9", "docid": "a7f5e454-2019-04-18T13:43:30Z-00002-000", "rank": 48, "score": 217245.0}, {"content": "Title: Students should not have to wear uniforms. Content: Students of any school in the country should not have to wear because it's taking freedom of expression. Yes, expressing your style can be made in different ways such as the hair. If you're expressing yourself through your hair then that's not really ALL of what you want to express. Most schools that do have uniforms deny to let the average student wear a different color from the uniform such as a hat,scarf's,bows, ect. Most students don't like the way they look in the uniform and most parents accept the idea because it saves money on school clothes and cost less during school supplies shopping. Most students have said, \"The uniforms take the expression from students.\" , \"Uniforms should be worn because no one would judge on what each other wear because everyone would be wearing the same thing.\" Students have spoken for themselves. And it is true that many students will judge each other on what they wear, but it doesn't matter. Uniforms are a way of saying, \"I'm a dull student that isn't allowed to wear what I want, however I want it.\" Uniforms take away that expression of your own personality, who you are, if you take that from a student then most won't be who they really are because they're afraid to either be made fun of for sticking out of the crowd, or breaking the rules but most don't' care about the rules. Uniforms take away who your are and should not be worn to schools.", "qid": "9", "docid": "28f316b1-2019-04-18T18:27:06Z-00004-000", "rank": 49, "score": 217234.0}, {"content": "Title: should school uniforms be made compulsory in schools Content: School uniforms should be compulsory for all students at all grade levels. There are many reasons,which justify this including discipline,discrimination and to give the students a sense of identity. If all students at a particular school didn't wear school uniforms,there would be discrimination between the financially advantaged people and the disadvantaged people.", "qid": "9", "docid": "f0896680-2019-04-18T18:00:05Z-00003-000", "rank": 50, "score": 216947.0}, {"content": "Title: Every school must have a uniform Content: Thank you for this argument, which I hope that you are enjoying it as I am. I applaud your well thought out argument, but to respond firstly, to your initial point that students should focus on their education rather than their clothes. This is true, but students aren't going to be any more productive in the morning than thinking of what the wear in front of the wardrobe. Like I said again, we can't expect students to easily adapt to adult life where they will need to pick their own attire, as well as make many other decisions, when months before, they had to have many things picked out for them. A survey on whether students would rather uniforms or not by Kids USA (Scholastic) has also resulted in most students choosing no. http://teacher.scholastic.com... I simply can't agree with my opponents point about school uniforms being more \"cost-effective\" than regular apparel, as whether or not there is a school uniform, students will always have their everyday clothes, and many students would prefer them, in a matter of whether they feel more comfortable or more like themselves. School uniform is just adding more items of clothing to a parent's shopping list and financial burden. Encouraging a student to take on the responsibility of choosing his/her own clothes should be a good thing, to encourage and teach organization, so that clothes are set out for the next day for example, so that students may still be punctual and reach school on time. I return the debate to my opponent.", "qid": "9", "docid": "7ba06a9e-2019-04-18T13:30:49Z-00001-000", "rank": 51, "score": 216453.0}, {"content": "Title: Every school must have a uniform Content: I believe that uniforms should not be necessary, as having unique and different clothes lets a student express themselves, and be comfortable, and also to have the responsibility of having their own choices, and not be just put into the same group as everyone else, wearing the same clothes. It is very similar to freedom of speech, students should be allowed to wear what they want, within reason, and also saves the families of students money as school uniforms tend to be expensive. Also, just to shed some light on this. For older students nearing the end of school, how can we expect them to make important life decision when they can't even choose their own clothes?", "qid": "9", "docid": "7ba06a9e-2019-04-18T13:30:49Z-00003-000", "rank": 52, "score": 216275.0}, {"content": "Title: High School / Secondary school Students should be required to wear a uniform Content: You have thoroughly shown how uniforms and bad behavior are connected, but I do not believe that this is the case. When wearing a school uniform, students are less likely to misbehave as they are representing their school. (1) It is proven that students who wear uniforms are less likely to be truant and leave during the school day, as they can be easily spotted in town. (2) I understand your point that not all teenagers judge others based on clothes, but the majority of teenagers do feel outcast at school at some point, and have low self esteems. 7 in 10 high school girls believe that they do not measure up to other girls in their grade, mostly due to appearance. (3) This shows that uniforms would benefit the majority of female students, therefore making it a beneficial stance for schools to take. Low self esteem in students can lead to more than it may seem. I quote: \"75% of girls with low self-esteem reported engaging in negative activities such as disordered eating, cutting, bullying, smoking, or drinking when feeling badly about themselves (compared to 25% of girls with high self-esteem). \" (3) . http://www.articlesdot.net... . http://www.guardian.co.uk... . http://www.dosomething.org...", "qid": "9", "docid": "375bf80d-2019-04-18T18:30:46Z-00003-000", "rank": 53, "score": 216254.0}, {"content": "Title: High School / Secondary school Students should be required to wear a uniform Content: In my opponent's 1st paragraph of arguments made in round 2, she makes arguments that school uniforms are correlated with decreased truancy and better behavior. But correlation does not imply causation. This principle in statistics is stated as 'correlation between two variables does not automatically imply that one causes the other\" [2]. Just because a school that wears uniforms has better performance, one cannot immediately jump to conclusions that uniforms are the reason for success and here's why: By law, public schools including highs schools in the United States must accept all children, regardless of intelligence, and must teach these students [3]. The same type of mandatory education is prevalent in other parts of the world as well. But private schools and catholic schools have the ability to select only the best students, students who are intelligent and focused, and students who don't get into trouble. Private schools also have uniforms policies, compared to only 18% of public schools [4]. So when studies are done to raise up the topic over school uniforms, there is a major flaw in that the studies show a positive correlation between uniform policies and increased performance but can't prove that increased performance is a direct result of wearing uniforms. I have affirmed this in my prison example in round 1. Also, my opponent brings up social issues again and cites a source that says low self-esteem is a thinking disorder [5]. In this case, it would be much more beneficial for those students affected to receive psychological treatment rather than to cover up the problem by making school uniforms compulsory. [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://www.greatschools.org... [4] http://nces.ed.gov... [5] http://www.dosomething.org...", "qid": "9", "docid": "375bf80d-2019-04-18T18:30:46Z-00002-000", "rank": 54, "score": 216118.0}, {"content": "Title: High school students should wear uniforms. Content: As you mentioned their creativity and burning ambition of being modern can be shown in other directions, however school is an educational institution. There must be some frames and rules in order to control children in some degree. Also uniform is a saving of time. One more time, their freedom is not limited with school uniform.", "qid": "9", "docid": "109aecea-2019-04-18T17:09:12Z-00003-000", "rank": 55, "score": 215647.0}, {"content": "Title: Private Schools Should Have Their Students Wear Uniforms Content: Refutation to your arguments: 1. Not wearing a uniform will let the student express who they want to be, thus increasing their self-esteem. I see what you mean by others who cannot afford uniform, but no one wants to wear them. 2. If school wasn't as boring as it is, then teachers shouldn't have to worry about their students being distracted. If faculty does more to help students become hands-on learners, they wouldn't have to worry about wearing uniform. 3. It won't reduce bullying, if a bully wants to bully a kid, he/she is going to do it, with or without uniform. Everyone that goes to that school is apart of the same school. 4. I see where you're coming from that, but for closed schools, it shouldn't be a problem since you have to go through several security guards standing at the gates. 5. Even if you don't have the latest fashion, no one will make fun of you. I wear age-old clothes to school, and people think I'm stylish. 6. By not wearing school uniforms, the students have more opportunities to express themselves, and boost their imagination. Even by not wearing uniforms, their academic standing will stay the same. But if you implement uniforms on them, they will get bored by not having things to do, or talk about. 7. Wearing uniforms have no real correlation with those statistics", "qid": "9", "docid": "573179be-2019-04-18T16:24:09Z-00002-000", "rank": 56, "score": 215361.0}, {"content": "Title: Kids should wear uniforms in elementary schools. Content: Let's do this", "qid": "9", "docid": "653654bc-2019-04-18T16:18:21Z-00004-000", "rank": 57, "score": 215181.0}, {"content": "Title: Students should wear uniforms Content: Schools should not force students to wear uniforms because it violates freedom of expression and freedom of speech, which are in the First Amendment. It also will not prevent bullying as people can still bully based on disability, gender, race, etc.", "qid": "9", "docid": "9389d854-2019-04-18T18:50:20Z-00005-000", "rank": 58, "score": 215146.0}, {"content": "Title: should schools make it mandatory for students to wear uniforms during school time. Content: You may use any and all information i will not limit you to your research and i mean this for all over the world not just in one country. This round is just for clarification and not for the debate itself.", "qid": "9", "docid": "8ae1260a-2019-04-18T15:33:35Z-00005-000", "rank": 59, "score": 214907.0}, {"content": "Title: school uniforms Content: Introduction and ResolutionResolution Summary: Students should wear school uniforms when attending compulsory educational courses because (1) school uniforms reduce peer pressure and (2) consequently improve the educational environment. Greetings, Debate. org. As the Pro side of this debate, it is left to me to propound a resolution in response to my opponent's claims that students should not wear school uniforms. My opponent has suggested that school uniforms should not be adopted because (1) students don't like them and (2) school uniforms suppress expressions of individuality. I will not debate that students do not like school uniforms - I certainly was never fond of them, and I am sure many of you, who are students, are or were not fond of them as well. I will, however, argue that on balance, the benefits of school uniforms outweigh the perceived negatives of having them. Specifically, it is my contention that, where students are compelled to attend educational courses in an institution of learning, such as those schools supported by the public education systems found throughout the United States, uniforms serve the important purpose of reducing peer pressure and social stigmas, which in turn enhances the learning environment for all students. ArgumentArgument Summary: Studies have shown that students feel less peer pressure when attending schools that enforce a dress code. Consequently, students attend classes more often and focus more on learning than on social prestige. Inducing learning is the primary function of a school. Ergo, dress codes enable schools to better perform their primary function.A school is \"an institution for the teaching of children\" for the purposes of this debate, as we will be discussing compulsory education (i.e. education of individuals below the age of majority). http://bit.ly...;. The purpose of the educational programs being utilized within such schools (at least within the United States) is, apparently, \"to provide every child with a complete and competitive education that will enable them to succeed in a global economy based on knowledge and innovation.\" http://1.usa.gov..., emphasis added. Therefore, we can conclude that the primary purpose of a school is to teach children so that they have the knowledge and innovation necessary to succeed in a global economy. A school that fails to teach children for these purposes could be considered, under the relevant criteria, a failure. As no school should want to fail, schools must implement such techniques as are necessary to succeed at the stated goal of teaching children. Studies have shown that the use of school uniforms increases attendance and improves performance amongst the members of the adopting school's student body. http://bit.ly...;. Generally, every study performed seems to suggest some correlation between the adoption of school uniforms and reduced concern for social standing vis a vis attire. http://bit.ly...;. The reason for such correlation is probably best expressed in this study by Professor Richard Elliot - http://bit.ly...;. Elliot's study found that students perceived clothing as an indicator of social status, and that in some cases violence could actually occur to students perceived as not displaying the proper knowledge of social attire. As the factors implicated in Elliot's study are as much a matter of the American educational system as the British educational system (and as both are examples of compulsory educational programs), it is easy to understand how uniforms can provide the positive benefits they have been shown to produce. In an environment where impoverished students may face peer pressure based upon their limited attire selection, which peer pressure would in turn serve to disrupt their educational experience, it is not surprising that the elimination of attire selection would result in such students more readily attending school. After all, if there is no clear indicator of social status to mark them as outcasts (or to make them feel like outcasts in response to the greater wardrobe of other students), such students would have no reason to fear confrontations beyond those academic and ethical conflicts that arise even amongst a gathering of equals. This is not to say that reduced self-expression is good. It isn't. It is, however, a small price to pay for the safety, security, and comfort of the student body. In fact, regarding the safety of the student body, uniforms have been shown to help reduce educational difficulties related to students displaying gang-related attire. http://bit.ly...;Conclusion In conclusion, students experience a better educational environment in schools that utilize school uniforms. While uniforms may not be appropriate for all educational institutions, to the extent that students are compelled to attend a school environment where negative social interaction based on displays of prestige can be expected to interfere with the students' education, school uniforms should be encouraged.", "qid": "9", "docid": "cf842d6a-2019-04-18T17:28:15Z-00005-000", "rank": 60, "score": 214683.0}, {"content": "Title: High school students should wear uniforms Content: Every where there is definite dress code, which we have to support. the uniform at schools are not an exception. There are several reasons why i take this point of view. Firstly, uniform do not take your attention to other things which are not connecting with lessons. Secondly it is a discipline, which will prepare pupils to the future career. In serious and pupular companies there is an uniform also. Thirdly the uniform is not so expensive and everyone could buy it independently on their financial status. And the last argument is that with help of uniform there will no descremination, and every children will stay in the equal position.", "qid": "9", "docid": "f84713e2-2019-04-18T18:06:56Z-00002-000", "rank": 61, "score": 214287.0}, {"content": "Title: High school students should wear uniforms Content: It is obvious that students should wear uniforms in schools.", "qid": "9", "docid": "f84713e2-2019-04-18T18:06:56Z-00004-000", "rank": 62, "score": 214127.0}, {"content": "Title: should school uniforms be made compulsory in schools Content: The wealthier people would tend to look down and shun the poorer people as it gives them a chance to flaunt their wealth. When students wear school uniforms, it shows the similarities between them, and not the differences. Each school has their own rule of law and based on that, students need to obey on that law and respect. When a student wears a uniform, it shows a sign of dignity and it means that student has confirmed the school expectations and that student feels that he/she belongs to that school.", "qid": "9", "docid": "f0896680-2019-04-18T18:00:05Z-00001-000", "rank": 63, "score": 214104.0}, {"content": "Title: Students should not wear uniform Content: Let me start of by saying that children should wear uniform to school . My reasons are listed in nice order and hope my opponent gives me a great debate . My links will be put in the bottom of my argument . Reasons why students should wear uniforms. 1 . Not all students will be able to afford nice cloths so there would be a lot of bullying for those who can't afford it . 2 . Bullying has been found responsible many student suicide and making it a law will increase suicide rates . 3 . There would be an increase in rasisiam in my opinion meaning I don't have much evidence to prove it but its based in the taught that if you say something an giants one person of a race then evreyone will think that that's true about the entire culture . I hope my opponent sees these as plausible reasons to why students should wear uniforms good luck. http://www.nl.idebate.org...", "qid": "9", "docid": "40c16f39-2019-04-18T16:15:15Z-00004-000", "rank": 64, "score": 214058.0}, {"content": "Title: Schools should not require their students to wear uniforms Content: You may proceed with your opening arguments.", "qid": "9", "docid": "16833a0f-2019-04-18T14:31:17Z-00004-000", "rank": 65, "score": 214033.0}, {"content": "Title: should schools make it mandatory for students to wear uniforms during school time. Content: vote me", "qid": "9", "docid": "8ae1260a-2019-04-18T15:33:35Z-00000-000", "rank": 66, "score": 213992.0}, {"content": "Title: Students should not wear uniform Content: You blame school authorities for letting bullying but most schools have over 1,000 students and a handful of staff about 3 dozen at most there's too much students to take care of . My opponent claims that wearing uniforms takes children's creativity but the school helps give the student creativity by giving then an elective . Like me I chose music which helps me by giving me the chance to make music and you don't have to chose music you can choose art how does art not include creativity . And my last argument you state that I stated the cloths but I said in my opinion bbecouse I might not have been fact but I still stay with my claim even if it doesn't have evidence", "qid": "9", "docid": "40c16f39-2019-04-18T16:15:15Z-00002-000", "rank": 67, "score": 213880.0}, {"content": "Title: Students should wear uniforms. Content: I've never seen a good reason for school uniforms or dress code. Of course there has to be a certain level of decency kept on a campus but beyond exposing sexual organs or showing up basically nude I don't think that there should be restrictions such as a uniform put on students at any level.", "qid": "9", "docid": "ddb0b6b8-2019-04-18T14:08:45Z-00004-000", "rank": 68, "score": 213755.0}, {"content": "Title: Students should be required to wear school uniform. Content: Thank you for your arguments. As your 1st argument, that it will violate students' freedom of expression, may be true, it can be true in a harmful way. For example, this will stimulate the popularity hierarchy once students could dress whatever they want. The ones with the fancy clothes could easily become the top dogs of the school, which wouldn't happen if uniforms were banned. And the 1st amendment says that yes, there may be freedom of expression, but then why don't we ban uniforms altogether? There are lots of private schools out there that still use uniforms. Why don't we just ban uniforms in those schools? As for your 2nd argument, yes, uniforms are expensive, but normal clothes that popular girls and boys buy to show everyone that they are \"cool\" are also expensive, maybe even more. They buy them in loads. Open any girl's wardrobe and you would find tons of dresses and jeans that would cost much more than 249$, I can assure you. And besides, even if some students do not buy so much clothes, this is still only a one-time thing. They just need to buy it once, and that is it. For just 249$ a kid, we could substantially improve our national debt. A poor family could at least afford 249$ for one kid, and if they can't (which is highly unlikely) they will not be denied the opportunity. The school could pay for them. And finally, for your last argument, that it causes bullying, that is highly unlikely as students will not wear the uniform outside of school. If students want to express themselves, which you had said yourself, then they wouldn't wear the uniforms unless required. Therefore students would only wear them inside school. And even if this is not true, our nation isn't so corrupted that fistfights and riots would break out just because of uniforms. And bullying is mainly inside a single school, not a rival school student picking on another school student. No one would bully a stranger that they don't even know, unless they are a gang member, and gang members don't go to school. Before I end, I would like to add to my previous contentions. Since you have not given me your opinions on my contentions, I assume you agree with me. If not, then please tell me why you do not believe so. 1. Discipline/honor It creates a discipline needed for the real world, and it also gives the atmosphere a more honorable feeling. Students would feel more honored to don their school uniform. It creates a sense of pride. 2. Eliminates popularity system By closing the gaps between the well-dressed students and the poor-dressed students by giving them all a mutual uniform, we are making friendship more easier. A common barrier of friendship is popularity, and popularity is partly caused by clothing. Once students all wear the same uniform, they can accept others for their inside, not outside. 3. Lastly this generates revenue for the government. As my opponent has kindly stated, uniforms cost 249$. Imagine all the schools in the country, with huge numbers of students enrolling, multiplied by 249$. That can generate pretty big revenue. And while this can inflict some financial damage to poor families, it truly does not really hurt them, as 1. They should be able to scrape at least 249$, and 2. if they can't the school will pay for them. Thank you.", "qid": "9", "docid": "f1b2e4e-2019-04-18T17:48:46Z-00002-000", "rank": 69, "score": 213751.0}, {"content": "Title: Puclic Schools Should Require Uniforms Content: The debate of whether public schools should require uniforms is forever an ongoing, and often a touchy subject. However, I feel it is vital that public school students be required to wear a school uniform. Especially in this economy, it's important that money be saved wherever and whenever for families struggling to make ends meet. Requiring students to wear uniforms would, in the long run, save parents or guardians a boat load of money. Rather than having to buy their children a plethora of expensive clothing, the parents would simply purchase a few uniforms that the children would wear five days out of the week. The amount of \"regular\" clothes they would be forced to purchase would significantly decrease, allowing for parents to use that money elsewhere. Children often desire expensive shoes, shirts, and pants (not to mention accessories). Because their children do indeed need clothing to wear to school, parents are often roped into buying their children over priced clothing. Children want to fit in with the latest craze, often prompting parents to have to shell out thousands on Uggs, Abercrombie and Fitch, and Juicy Couture \u2013 for example \u2013 when that is just not necessary. If uniforms were enforced in public schools, children wouldn't be as fascinated with the latest crazes, for all of the students would be wearing the same things anyway. Money would also be saved in the sense that children and students could get multiple years out of the uniforms. For example, I'm a college freshman and still often wear some articles of clothing I wore in the seventh grade. After puberty, most students won't do much growing and could even get most of their high school careers out of the uniforms. Even at the least, students could get two years out of the uniforms, which would cause parents not to have to keep spending money year after year on clothing because the children's clothing from the last year went out of style. Also to be considered is that if the uniforms don't change for multiple years, parents could save the uniforms and give them to younger siblings of the same gender to wear, which would help them save even more money! The uniforms could also be considered lucrative for the public schools themselves for they can make a small profit from the purchasing of the uniforms and use that money to improve things around the school. Requirng public school students to wear school uniforms is a simple way for public schools to make money, as we all know that is extremely dire in this world today. Requring public school students to wear school uniforms proves to be quite lucrative for all of those involved. Businesses that make school uniforms would prosper as well, which would help in job creation. Those companies and businesses that students currently wear wouldn't suffer too much damage either, for they often make clothing for all ages, and a small decrease shouldn't hurt much.", "qid": "9", "docid": "2f076d70-2019-04-18T18:22:08Z-00007-000", "rank": 70, "score": 213740.0}, {"content": "Title: it should be mandatory for teachers to wear school uniform Content: I accept the challenge. I will argue that wearing the school uniform should not be mandatory for teachers. The primary purpose of the school uniform is to establish a sense of order. That sense is fulfilled by creating a hierarchy between pupils and their teachers. If a person is seen wearing a school uniform, then that signifies them as a student in that school. A teacher should not be seen as a student, for that signifies that they are on an equal level with the student. This perspective might undermine a teacher's authority, as it might lead students to percieve teachers as students of the school just like them, and not an authority over them.", "qid": "9", "docid": "9b531995-2019-04-18T13:25:09Z-00002-000", "rank": 71, "score": 213685.0}, {"content": "Title: Students should wear school uniform. Content: I think students should wear school uniforms. It is because in schools where students are allowed to wear whatever they want, there are school bullies that make fun of other students who may not have a good taste in fashion. But if they all wear the same school uniforms, they can't make fun of one anothers' fashion senses which prevents this type of bullying from happening. And also, if students can wear whatever they want, they might take a longer time to leave their houses for school due to taking too long to choose what they want to wear which may cause them to be late for school.", "qid": "9", "docid": "a7f5e454-2019-04-18T13:43:30Z-00003-000", "rank": 72, "score": 213676.0}, {"content": "Title: school uniforms Content: students should not have to wear uniforms, because they get no chance to show their personality, and the students hate them.", "qid": "9", "docid": "cf842d6a-2019-04-18T17:28:15Z-00006-000", "rank": 73, "score": 213556.0}, {"content": "Title: Every school must have a uniform Content: Thank you for accepting my challenge.I will be giving five reasons to support my motion that school uniforms are necessary in schools all over the worldFirstly: School uniforms keep students focused on their education not their clothes .This is applicable mainly for the older students who need to focus on their studies or whatever they are interested in, to achieve their goals rather than wasting their time in front of the wardrobe thinking about what clothes to wear. It is not necessary to take decision of choosing clothes while going to school. That does not make someone independent. If they really want freedom to choose their clothes then they can do it while going to parties, picnics etc. SecondlySchool uniforms does not allow students to distinguish themselves as rich or poor. When all students are dressed alike, competition between students over clothing choices and the teasing of those who are dressed in less expensive or less fashionable outfits can be eliminated. In a 2013 survey by the National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP) and uniform manufacturer Lands' End, 86% of school leaders said uniforms make \"a significant, positive impact on peer pressure,\" and 64% said uniforms reduce bullying.ThirdlySchool uniforms make students disciplined and a sense of unity is incorporated into them. They identify themselves as the part of a team by wearing a uniform.Fourthly School uniforms can save parents money. Parents can reduce their financial burden when their children are limited to wearing one simple outfit every day. A national 2013 survey of 517 US school leaders found that 94% of those surveyed believe \"one of the main benefits to parents is that school uniforms are more cost-effective than regular apparel.\"FifthlySchool uniform makes the student punctual so that he or she may dress up quickly and reach the school at right time. I return this debate to my worthy opponent", "qid": "9", "docid": "7ba06a9e-2019-04-18T13:30:49Z-00002-000", "rank": 74, "score": 213513.0}, {"content": "Title: Students should not have to wear uniforms. Content: I would like to take three main points and end by rebutting some of my opponent's points. First I would like to discuss the sense of unity that comes with a uniform. Second I would like to discuss the economic benefits of a school uniform. Thirdly I would like to discuss the social benefits of a school uniform. Let me start out by saying that I went to a school with a required uniform code. The uniform served as a common point of discussion between all students. Whether you were a Freshman, Senior, boy, or girl, you followed the uniform code. Everyone wearing the same uniform made the student body feel more connected. Secondly, with less time spent getting ready in the morning students have time to get more sleep and be more prepared for class in the morning. Second is the economic benefit. Parents especially in inner-city schools do not have the money to spend on expensive designer clothes for school. 3 sets of school uniform can be bought for around $70, around the same as a hoodie from Abercrombie and Fitch. [1] Parents in tough financial situations should not be forced to buy different clothes for their children for every day of the week. Thirdly I would like to talk about the social benefits of a uniform. First and foremost, it decreases teasing. Students are constantly teased because they don't wear the right clothes. Since this takes clothes out of the equation more groups can coexist without bullying. Secondly, It decreases gang allegiance as well. If gangs cannot show their colors, it eases tensions because no one knows their gang affiliation. Also it decreases school violence this [2] video, though a little extreme shows the benefits of having students tuck in their shirts. Intruders to the school are also easier to spot if everyone is in uniform. \"Students of any school in the country should not have to wear because it's taking freedom of expression. \" My opponent seems to be under the assumption that dress is the only way to express ones self. I disagree 100%. I would say that is almost insignificant. At my school, we were extremely creative and able to express ourselves through the arts, and music. There are plenty of other ways to express your individuality. \"I'm a dull student that isn't allowed to wear what I want, however I want it. \" My opponent is using the stereotype that students who wear uniforms are uptight and dull. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have classmates who skydive, scuba dive, and drive stock cars. Not being allowed to wear what we want in class does not, make us dull. \"Most students don't like the way they look in the uniform. .. \" I would like to disagree with this from personal experience, I really liked my uniform. I wore a white button-up, red tie, navy sweater vest and khaki pants for most of my high school career. I really liked the way I looked in that uniform (probably where I got my fondness for sweater vests). Of my class mates I talked to, most of them said they did not mind the way the uniform looks. Because of the class unity, economic effects, and social benefits of uniforms, as well as the facts that uniformed students have other ways to express creativity, and are not dull I urge a Con vote. [1] . http://www.abercrombie.com... [2]. http://www.youtube.com... It's up at the top", "qid": "9", "docid": "28f316b1-2019-04-18T18:27:06Z-00003-000", "rank": 75, "score": 213389.0}, {"content": "Title: Should students be forced to wear a school uniform Content: awaiting your argument", "qid": "9", "docid": "db524bb6-2019-04-18T15:31:00Z-00003-000", "rank": 76, "score": 212774.0}, {"content": "Title: Should schools have a Uniform Content: School uniforms should happen because schools can be identified due to the uniforms Wearing uniforms enhances school pride, unity, and community spirit. A 2007 study from Oxford Brookes University in the United Kingdom found that uniforms \"often directly contributed to a feeling of school pride.\" [45] Christopher P. Clouet, Superintendent of the New London, CT school district, stated that \"the wearing of uniforms contributes to school pride.\" [3] A 2002 study of over 1,000 Texas middle school students found that students in uniform \"reported significantly more positive perceptions of belonging in their school community than reported by students in the standard dress group.\" [33] Arnold Goldstein, PhD, head of the Centre for Research on Aggression at Syracuse University, stated that uniforms help troubled students feel they have the support of a community: \"There is a sense of belonging.\" [31] A 2007 peer-reviewed study found that after uniforms were introduced, \"Teachers perceived an increase in the level of respect, caring, and trust... Throughout the school\" and said \"students are made to feel 'important' and as if they are a part of a team by wearing a uniform.\" [20] http://school-uniforms.procon.org...", "qid": "9", "docid": "8897f051-2019-04-18T13:36:55Z-00000-000", "rank": 77, "score": 212764.0}, {"content": "Title: Should Schools have Uniforms Content: Extend arguments.", "qid": "9", "docid": "7a462d3c-2019-04-18T16:52:05Z-00002-000", "rank": 78, "score": 212628.0}, {"content": "Title: Should Schools have Uniforms Content: Extend arguments.", "qid": "9", "docid": "7a462d3c-2019-04-18T16:52:05Z-00003-000", "rank": 79, "score": 212628.0}, {"content": "Title: should schools make it mandatory for students to wear uniforms during school time. Content: Good luck con and have fun.", "qid": "9", "docid": "8ae1260a-2019-04-18T15:33:35Z-00004-000", "rank": 80, "score": 212365.0}, {"content": "Title: Students should not wear uniform Content: 1. According to the Dept. of Education the average student to pupil ratio is U.S. schools is 20:1 in High Schools the ratio is 16:1. The average elementary school has 450 students and the average high school 750. I believe it is possible for an educator to maintain a sense of order within the school walls and reprimand students who are caught bullying peers. Children's lives are not limited to school. Unless we are going to put children in uniforms from birth till graduation they will be exposed to each other in apparel other than a school uniform and bullying will still take place. 2. Limiting creativity to the arts is Cons. answer to helping young people be creative and build a sense of identity. If a child wishes to do something differently than their peers they should play an instrument or paint a picture. Unfortunately in a school these activities are highly structured and are meant to develop technique and not to develop one's own sense of artistic expression. 3. The problem with uniforms and structured learning is that it develops uniform people. The real problem is poor parenting. A child learns from it's environment to be a bully. Masking children's differences isn't going to make a difference, if anything it could prolong one's lack of acceptance of differences and create greater discrimination in adulthood.", "qid": "9", "docid": "40c16f39-2019-04-18T16:15:15Z-00001-000", "rank": 81, "score": 212343.0}, {"content": "Title: High school students should wear uniforms Content: I've got nothing to add.", "qid": "9", "docid": "f84713e2-2019-04-18T18:06:56Z-00000-000", "rank": 82, "score": 212265.0}, {"content": "Title: School Uniforms Should Be Mandatory Content: School Uniforms Not Mandatory", "qid": "9", "docid": "4b51d325-2019-04-19T12:44:49Z-00008-000", "rank": 83, "score": 211371.0}, {"content": "Title: Public school students should wear uniforms Content: When we go to get real Job, chances are that we will all have to wear uniforms. No matter if you\"re a nurse, teacher, or McDonald\"s worker, chances are that you will have to wear some type of uniform. It would stand to reason that, because we are forced to wear uniforms when we grow up, we would be given the freedom to dress how we like. Because youth is associated with being the time in your life when you can enjoy not having to worry about anything, it would make sense that parents and the teachers would realize that students need freedom to enjoy their youth dressing how they wish.", "qid": "9", "docid": "fe10ede9-2019-04-18T11:30:33Z-00002-000", "rank": 84, "score": 211363.0}, {"content": "Title: High School / Secondary school Students should be required to wear a uniform Content: In almost all government schools in the USA, uniform is not required, whereas there are few schools in the UK, private or government, that allow students to wear anything they like (usually a loose dress code applies). I will be arguing in favour of all high schools and secondary schools to make uniform compulsory. There are my main arguments. Having a uniform creates a sense of community Especially in larger schools, (800+ students) many teens feel left out, or that they don't belong. Having a uniform unites all the students, and shows that even though the school's population may be high, all the students are equal, which brings me on to my next point. Especially in government schools where there is a wide range of financial status between students, many may feel unhappy or left out if they can't afford more expensive clothes. Imagine how low a teenager's self esteem can be if most the girls or boys in their class show up to school in expensive or branded clothes, and they can maybe only afford clothes from supermarkets? This can cause many problems for the student. As I mentioned, feeling as though they are \"poorer\" than other students can really lower a student's self esteem, which isn't healthy for a teenager, or anyone for that matter. Secondly, if the student feels under pressure to wear certain brands to school, they may spend all their pocket money (if applicable) and wages (if they have a part time job) on expensive clothes rather than things they need such as stationary or study guides. Thirdly, as I mentioned; students can be subjected to bullying if they are not wearing \"cool clothes\" and this can cause psychological problems for the student later in life. Thirdly and finally, I believe that the media (movies, TV shows etc) really expresses how a student's clothing matches their personality. For example, \"goth kids\" wear dark clothes and lots of black eyeliner, and \"theatrical kids\" wear colourful retro clothes, or whatever. Some kids may feel like they don't belong in a certain friendship group or clique, because they can't afford or don't want to wear the kind of clothes the other people in the group wear. I believe that students should join friendship groups based on their personality, and not whether they have the right clothes to join. Thank you for reading my argument.", "qid": "9", "docid": "375bf80d-2019-04-18T18:30:46Z-00005-000", "rank": 85, "score": 211361.0}, {"content": "Title: High school students should wear uniforms Content: Prove that it is obvious that students should wear uniforms in schools. Students should be free to wear whatever they choose, aside from certain items such as clothes with inappropriate speech. School uniforms restrain the students' freedom of expression and create an environment of conformity. You might argue that school uniforms contribute to order in a school, but I don't think it's obvious that uniforms should be implemented in schools.", "qid": "9", "docid": "f84713e2-2019-04-18T18:06:56Z-00003-000", "rank": 86, "score": 211128.0}, {"content": "Title: Uniforms should be worn in school Content: I think uniforms should be worn in schools. To support my statement I will lay out some points: 1. When all students have to wear the same thing, none of them can brag about wearing the latest, most expensive fashions. 2. Whether they're from the upper, middle or lower class, all students dress the same. 3. Uniforms can increase self-confidence when students don't feel pressured to wear a certain type of clothing. 4. A study by the University of Nevada found the middle school students felt safer and more confident when wearing uniforms. 5. School uniforms lessen distraction in the classroom so no one is sidetracked by someone's T-shirt message or where a friend got new leggings. 6. Studies have shown an increase in academic test scores in schools that have enforced uniform policies. I will now allow the CON to lead out their points and arguments.", "qid": "9", "docid": "8156d8db-2019-04-18T13:53:21Z-00005-000", "rank": 87, "score": 210984.0}, {"content": "Title: All schools should have uniforms Content: Before I begin I would like to clarify your position. When you assert that schools shouldn't have official uniforms with labels are you suggesting that they instead have guidelines that allow students to wear non branded uniforms with no logos or have students wearing casual personal attire? With the latter cost can still be significant as students are generally vying for attention or social standing. Therefore they would desire well known labels to conform to their defined social groups or convey a specific aspect of their identity. If certain students couldn't fulfill the expectations of their peers or are only able to afford undefined, nondescript brands there would be an increase in disparity which can be a platform for ridicule. Currently school uniforms can be altered, recycled or purchased second hand which can limit costs. Regardless of where the branded uniform is purchased (either first or second hand) there is often little difference indicating its origin and a student's financial status isn't revealed. In addition logos and specific colors can identify a school. When worn correctly school uniforms can present to wider society an image for the school which can encourage enrollment while increasing the institution's reputation. This uniformity can be useful on excursions as students are easily identifiable, this can be specifically useful with primary school children as they may become lost. Uniforms can also provide increased safety in school zones by serving as a reminder to drivers and crossing guards while increasing visibility. It is often cited that schools stifle creativity and while I must concede to this aspect of the argument. Self expression on the basis of clothes can be shallow and establishing general school guidelines while cheaper won't remedy the loss of creativity. Self-expression and creativity can be expressed through a variety of activities or outlets and ultimately the conformity encouraged in school is simple preparation for professional environments.", "qid": "9", "docid": "bd58bcfa-2019-04-18T12:49:24Z-00000-000", "rank": 88, "score": 210732.0}, {"content": "Title: Students should wear uniforms. Content: This is a debate that is on school uniforms. I have asserted that they should be worn and am sticking with it. The second round will be the main argument. The third, rebuttals. And the forth closing statements. (no language or fallacies will be tolerated.if they are used, you forfeit)", "qid": "9", "docid": "ddb0b6b8-2019-04-18T14:08:45Z-00005-000", "rank": 89, "score": 210635.0}, {"content": "Title: Public school students should wear uniforms Content: Yes, I agree with your previous statement. When we become older, we all have to wear uniforms. Life is like that. But wouldn't it be better if the habit is ingrained into their mind from an early age? If we are shown how to wear a uniform, then we become better at wearing it, and you know that to get something correct, it takes time. Well, the time to start practicing is when we start school. That way, we become responsible adults who wear uniform tidier than the ones who don't. \"A wise person does at once, what a fool does at last. Both do the same thing; only at different times.\" - Baltasar Gracian", "qid": "9", "docid": "fe10ede9-2019-04-18T11:30:33Z-00001-000", "rank": 90, "score": 210429.0}, {"content": "Title: should we have to wear uniform Content: I believe that students should not have to wear uniforms. Uniforms take away our individuality. Confidence is much harder to achieve while wearing a uniform. Wearing them can get distracting during the day. Some schools say uniforms make us united as a school, but I don\"t think they do anything but bother students. Simple rules instead of a uniform could easily be put in place. Instead of having uniforms I believe we should just have simple guidelines as to what we can and can\"t wear. Part of being in school is learning to become responsible. How is telling us exactly what to wear teaching us responsibility. We should be able to know how we can and cannot dress without having the privilege completely taken away. Following the guidelines would help to make us responsible because when we get ready to have a career, our clothing will most likely not be completely decided for us. We will have to follow guidelines for that particular company. Having guidelines for how we dress will also help teach us to follow simple directions. With different rules in place we can reclaim our individuality. When wearing uniforms, it is a struggle to be an individual. Teachers are always saying how important it is to just be ourselves and not worry about what others might think. Having a uniform takes that away from us, and this may lead students to try to find other ways to be different. They might begin to act out so they stick out from the crowd. Without uniforms we can show everyone who we are through our clothes. Opinions shouldn\"t be based solely on clothing of course, but clothing is a fun and easy way to show who are. Being different is huge part of being in school and I think we should be able to have the privilege of wearing what we want. It can also give us more confidence.", "qid": "9", "docid": "720383e6-2019-04-18T14:09:06Z-00003-000", "rank": 91, "score": 210274.0}, {"content": "Title: Whether students should wear uniforms Content: School Uniforms promote school staffs control over the students. Students are no longer given the tools need to succeed and are instead forced to conform in order to succeed. Wearing school uniforms can cause stress on a student to dress and act like everyone else in order to abide by the rules. Public Schools should not be able to enforce uniform dress codes because they are free institutions open to all. Uniforms cannot be totally enforced in public schools because it can then violate the open policy of accepting students. Students who cannot economically afford a student uniform can become discouraged from attending school and feel unwelcome. Student Uniforms do little to improve a students education. If students aren't distracted by their clothing choices they will find something else to get side tracked with. Student mandated uniforms will take away from student expressive individuality. Some students express themselves through their clothing choices and find common interests with others based on shared fashion choices. If a student can\"t express themselves through their outfit choices their personal identity and individuality is compromised. Thought school uniforms would aim at increasing students success, the solution is too controlling and the benefits wont out weight the means. If all students are forced to wear uniforms what would be next? Administrative approved backpacks?", "qid": "9", "docid": "466a544c-2019-04-18T15:32:32Z-00000-000", "rank": 92, "score": 210272.0}, {"content": "Title: Schools should have uniforms Content: Contention 1 - EqualityOne of the most obvious argument for school uniforms is that by having all children dressed the same, there is a decrease in bullying and teasing. In this era of status brands and high-fashion trends, clothing has become the definitive status symbol for children and teens. By evening the playing field with uniforms, there is less opportunity for children to be picked on or shunned for their clothes.Contention 2 - School Spirit and Identity Many experts believe that when the entire student body is dressed in uniforms, they develop a stronger team mentality. When they are all dressed alike, their all-for-one-and-one-for-all comradery is boosted.Contention 3 - Simple Economics Buying a few school uniforms instead of a new school wardrobe every fall is much more economical. School uniforms are designed to stand up to everyday wear and repeated washing so most parents find that they can get away with buying a few sets.Contention 4 - Unity Educators and experts who are pro school uniforms believe that uniforms contribute positively to students' behavior. They believe that when students wear uniforms, they feel more professional and behave accordingly. Many educators believe that students can become distracted by fashion trends and status symbol clothing. Therefore, when all students are dressed in regulation uniforms, there is less focus on fashion in the classroom and more focus on learning.", "qid": "9", "docid": "5177bde4-2019-04-18T13:40:21Z-00003-000", "rank": 93, "score": 210198.0}, {"content": "Title: Teens and kids should wear school uniforms Content: 1. Well educators and experts who are pro school uniforms believe that uniforms contribute positively to students' behavior. They believe that when students wear uniforms, they feel more professional and behave accordingly. Many educators believe that students can become distracted by fashion trends and status symbol clothing. Therefore, when all students are dressed in regulation uniforms, there is less focus on fashion in the classroom and more focus on learning. 2. When there's no debate on what a student is allowed wear to school, then that makes mornings easier for parents and for kids. Everyone knows exactly what the kids need to wear, their regulated school uniform. This can lead to a decrease in morning arguments. 3. Schools without a school uniform policy still have rules on what clothing is and is not allowed in school. There are usually rules regarding modesty issues, visible logos, offensive text on clothing, gang colors and symbols and more. Teachers and administrative staff must monitor the students' attire. This is of course avoided when all students are in uniform. 4. Many experts believe that when the entire student body is dressed in uniforms, they develop a stronger team mentality. When they are all dressed alike, their all-for-one-and-one-for-all comradery is boosted. 5. Buying a few school uniforms instead of a new school wardrobe every fall is much more economical. School uniforms are designed to stand up to everyday wear and repeated washing so most parents find that they can get away with buying a few sets. 6. With all the money a parent saves by not having to buy day to day clothes, they can (if they so choose) let their children buy a few nicer and more fashionable pieces for weekends and evenings. Wearing a uniform five days a week might make students appreciate their weekend fashions more--maybe enough to even take good care of them!", "qid": "9", "docid": "6f5c7d0-2019-04-18T15:43:46Z-00003-000", "rank": 94, "score": 210192.0}, {"content": "Title: Private Schools Should Have Students Wear Uniforms Content: DefinitionsUniform - Identical clothing issued to school students to wear during school. Student - Person who is recieving an education whether through school, or by other means.", "qid": "9", "docid": "9084be02-2019-04-18T16:40:02Z-00003-000", "rank": 95, "score": 210184.0}, {"content": "Title: Wearing a school uniform is not good preparation for working. Content: Wearing a uniform helps to prepare students for the world of work, where uniforms are often worn. People like nurses, soldiers, shop assistants, the police and railway staff wear uniform as part of their job. Many other workers are expected to wear suits - really just a grown up sort of uniform, with little choice about it. Just like these adults, students should dress in uniform when they are in school, getting on with work. After all, students and adults can both change into their own casual clothes at the end of the working day, when they are \u201coff duty\u201d.", "qid": "9", "docid": "4b51d325-2019-04-19T12:44:49Z-00059-000", "rank": 96, "score": 210157.0}, {"content": "Title: Students should wear uniforms. Content: So to recap, students should wear uniforms because they help behavior, because they are more professional and because the students would be bullied less. Thank you for debating with me, I appreciated it. And with that, I am done.", "qid": "9", "docid": "ddb0b6b8-2019-04-18T14:08:45Z-00000-000", "rank": 97, "score": 209768.0}, {"content": "Title: All Schools Need Uniforms Content: If students are allowed to wear anything appropriate. They can express their feeling on how they should wear, and people can identify each other easily.", "qid": "9", "docid": "bf8e7620-2019-04-18T14:20:59Z-00005-000", "rank": 98, "score": 209701.0}, {"content": "Title: School Uniforms Shouldn't be Required. Content: School Uniforms should be required in all education institutions for the following reasons: i) They bring unity and uniformity within the school community ii) They destroy social barriers and puts everyone on an equal paying field in terms of clothing iii) They hide the poor backgrounds of certain students which protects them from ridicule. iv) Since certain social barriers have been destroyed. This less distractions from study and other scholarly duties.", "qid": "9", "docid": "fa922cd8-2019-04-18T16:13:55Z-00004-000", "rank": 99, "score": 209672.0}, {"content": "Title: students should not were uniforms in school Content: I accept School uniforms are important as students don't worry about being judged for their clothes, they are all wearing the same uniform and therefore there is one less thing bullies can use against you: \"In America, where a majority of schools do not have a uniform, roughly 160,000 children miss school every day due to fear of attack or intimidation by other students. This might not be directly linked to what they're wearing, but having a uniform can be a safety net for many students who might otherwise suffer from bullying. A strict uniform gives the impression that rules are strict too, perhaps helping maintain a sense of order at school.\"-The Guardian Sure, the bullies will pick on people for different reasons but this is one less reason for them to pick on people! There have also been many non-uniform days for charity here and everyone gets distracted when we have our own clothes, uniforms stop us from getting distracted. It's also great to clean as you can have it cleaned at the weekend ready for the week whereas with clothes you might not even find something you can wear and can't even go to school due to having no clothes to wear into school. That's when you could be bullied for many of the reasons Pro has posted. Additionally, wearing a school uniform identifies you with your school; it's really useful on field trips and other events where pupils may be lost! To sum up; Uniforms are essential as they can reduce bullying and create a sense of identity to the school Source(s): http://www.theguardian.com...", "qid": "9", "docid": "46c53f41-2019-04-18T16:27:17Z-00002-000", "rank": 100, "score": 209670.0}]}
{"query": "Should any vaccines be required for children?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: Children should receive vaccinations. Content: See above.", "qid": "10", "docid": "79f05a51-2019-04-18T14:20:37Z-00003-000", "rank": 1, "score": 168629.0}, {"content": "Title: Should Religious parents be exempted from getting their children necessary vaccines. Content: I think that if kids are required to get vaccines that there shouldn't be religious exemptions. The parents risk getting their kids seriously sick for there personal beliefs.", "qid": "10", "docid": "6abd1330-2019-04-18T14:24:26Z-00007-000", "rank": 2, "score": 167115.0}, {"content": "Title: Mandatory childhood vaccination Content: Vaccinations should be mandatory to eligible children before reaching adolescence not just to protect them, but to protect the health within the community. Vaccines are safe and effective. They are cost-effective compared to medical treatment. Severe reaction from vaccines occurs rarely. Deaths due to vaccine-preventable diseases are undeniably high. Preventing this deaths through vaccinations does not only save lives, but it is also beneficial for the growth of the community. Stories that lacks scientific evidence continues to spread and if this continues to happen, future generations will be unvaccinated and can lead to a big outbreak. Take an action. Parents will do everything to keep their children safe. Protect them. Vaccinate them.", "qid": "10", "docid": "173e9f20-2019-04-18T13:26:12Z-00003-000", "rank": 3, "score": 165375.0}, {"content": "Title: should kids be vaccinated Content: should kids at school have to be vaccinated. Yes! if the kids are not safe it could cause them to no be going to school because they are sick. do you want your child to have a good education. vaccination should be mandatory", "qid": "10", "docid": "7d2f63b6-2019-04-18T14:52:21Z-00004-000", "rank": 4, "score": 163479.0}, {"content": "Title: Vaccination for children under 13 should be mandatory. Content: I'd like to start right away. Refutations \"However, only the parents who do choose to not vaccinate their children will find that their child has the sickness. According to my opponent himself, the children who are vaccinated should be okay. Therefore, the parents' decisions will not impact other children, if vaccinations are as useful as my opponent suggested.\" Exactly. That's the problem. Their child will have the sickness. They think they're safer off without the vaccination, however, that is untrue. They will obtain diseases, spread it onto other children who think they're safe without the vaccination, and then spread it to the kids who were going to get a vaccination. One child can get infected, due to a careless or careless parents, and then spread the danger to all his classmates or friends. The argument is not that the vaccinated kids will be sick, it's that one child can spread it to many others. The only ones who, in a sense, \"benefit,\" are the vaccinated ones. \"Thank you for giving us a lecture on the usefulness of the Hepatitis B vaccine. However, judged by your [#] symbols that is not normal for you, I believe that you have copied and pasted this from a website. If not, you still produced many statistics that require a source; Readers, please grade accordingly\" Who are you to judge me as such? If you did research, you would have found that in many of my recentd debates, I decided to use the brackets and the number. I found it a very useful tool to ensure that you are not lying, and I am not. So please refute my argument that vaccinations actually benefit people, as seen in previous argument. \"Vaccines are often unnecessary in may cases where the threat of death from disease is small. During the early nineteenth century, mortality for childhood diseases whooping cough, measles, and scarlet fever fell drastically BEFORE IMMUNIZATION BECAME AVAILABLE. This decreased mortality has been attributed to improved personal hygiene, water purification,effective sewage disposal, and better food hygiene and nutrition.\" Plagarized from here [4]. Vaccines are very necessary, even if percentages of death is small. Vaccine deaths are even smaller. The sicknesses I previously listed out are all very harmful and potentially death-threatening diseases. They cause an extreme amount of suffering. Imagine if you were a child, suffering from a very horrible disease, and you know you could've been saved if you just took one needle in the arm. That's it. Whooping cough (pertussis) was the cause of 5,000 to 10,000 deaths in the United States a year [1]. Tell me that's not small. As my source states, pertussis was a deadly killer BEFORE VACCINES WERE CREATED [1]. The annual amount of deaths are now only 30 [1]. Measles is a much less serious circumstance, however, there are 20 million cases each year when children get them [2]. That could be stopped with one vaccination! Also, this rash is contagious and can be spread among kids. Why would these diseases just suddenly decrease in numbers before vaccines became available? Why would there suddenly be improved hygiene, purification, and other methods? Where is the source for this? \"Common childhood vaccinations may cause rare yet serious reactions including anaphylactic shock, paralysis, and sudden death. This risk is not worth taking, especially considering most diseases vaccinated against are not necessarily life threatening.\" Plagarized. The \"risk\" is most certainly worth taking, as the percentages of problems are very, very, very, very small. Most diseases cause huge amounts of suffering among children, and all that could be ended with a vaccine. \"Vaccines can trigger auto-immune disorders such as arthritis, multiple sclerosis, lupus, Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS), and other disorders.\" Plagarized as well from previous site. However, no vaccines means a child can obtain these numerous diseases: Anthrax Chickenpox Diphtheria Hepatitis A and B Hib HPV Japanese Encephalitis Lyme Disease Measles Meningococcal Mumps Pertussis Pneumococcal Polio Rabies And many, many more [3]! \"Vaccines clog and disrupt the lymphatic system with large foreign protein molecules (the active ingredients contained within vaccines) which may lead to lymphatic cancers such as leukemia and lymphoma.\" Plagarized from the same site, as well. I have to once again weigh down on this one refutation. The good of the vaccination far outweighs the bad of the vaccination. There is a very small chance you will obtain such diseases. \"All 50 states require vaccinations for children entering public schools even though no mandatory Federal vaccination laws exist.\" Plagarized. What's the argument here? \"Over 5,500 cases alleging a causal relationship between vaccinations and autism have been filed under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program in the US Court of Federal Claims between 2001 and 2009.\" Plagarized. However, vaccines do not cause autism. Researchers at the John Hopkins University School of Public Help and Centers for Disease Control reject the idea that vaccine and autism are linked. The US Court of Federal Claims has said that, \"theory of vaccine-related causation [of autism] is scientifically unsupportable.\" My opponent has listed several facts to \"support\" his case. They are all plagarized, but nonetheless, they are very strong supporting evidence... until you read the fifth argument from the site he copied from. \"According to a 2003 report by researchers at the Pediatric Academic Society, childhood vaccinations in the US prevent about 10.5 million cases of infectious illness and 33,000 deaths per year. [4]\" Clearly, this benefit outweights so many of the numbers my opponent has listed. Arguments 1. Because of a few ignorant parents, their children are at risk, putting even more children at risk of being infected with a horrible disease. 2. Most childhood vaccines have a 90-99% success rate in stopping disease [5]. When children who have been vaccinated do get sick, they usually have milder symptoms with less serious complications than an un-vaccinated child that gets the same disease. For example, an un-vaccinated child with mumps can become permanently deaf and spread the disease to more students, but the vaccinated child won't. 3. Children especially need to get vaccinated. Children have weaker immune systems than adults and thus, are more susceptible to various diseases than adults. The Proposition should currently be winning this debate due to the reason that I have refuted all of my opponent's arguments, and he has never completely refuted all of mine and some were left untouched. All of my opponent's arguments are plagarized and they are not his own work. Sources: 1. http://kidshealth.org... 2. http://kidshealth.org... 3. http://www.cdc.gov... 4. http://vaccines.procon.org... 5. http://www.healthychildren.org...", "qid": "10", "docid": "9f71c585-2019-04-18T19:02:47Z-00004-000", "rank": 5, "score": 161832.0}, {"content": "Title: Make Vaccination Compulsory Content: Duty to protect the child", "qid": "10", "docid": "d77612cc-2019-04-15T20:24:10Z-00004-000", "rank": 6, "score": 161740.0}, {"content": "Title: Vaccination for children under 13 should be mandatory. Content: Refutations: \"I listed sources. You gave none\" a. My opponent has stated that I have not given any sources - The US Court Federal Claims Office of Special Masters - National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program in the US Court of Federal Claims - a 2010 survey by the University of Michigan. b. I would not call the above no sources c. My opponent has falsely accused me, and should therefore have conduct points graded off. d. I did not copy word-for-word from a website - I had read it, and then typed all their arguments by hand. - another false accusation: \"I bet you didn't want ANYONE to know you were even plagarizing!\" - My opponent is constantly assuming things and falsely accusing me, this should be graded off. \"'Excuse me, Strike, but how would one vaccination cover 20 million children? Just pointing that out there.' I know that in some countries, parents may not be able to afford vaccines for their children. Nonetheless, if everyone had vaccines, they wouldn't contract the disease.\" I asked: \"...how would one vaccination cover 20 million children?\" - my opponent replied \"i know that in some countries, parents may not be able to afford vaccines for their children - completely irrelevant to the question. \"Why would that just suddenly happen in that time period?\" - maybe it was a coincidence...? - contradiction: \"why would that suddenly happen in that time period?...even when they dissapear for a while\" - you denied the existence of the improvement in hygiene, etc, yet acknowledged it a couple of sentences later. \"saved those 5,000 to 10,000 lives lost\" You cannot save lives that are already lost. \"Pertussis came about in 1906, and hurt people until the vaccine came around. An average of 7,500 people are dying a year. This lasts for approximately 24 years. This is plain ridiculous. It comes out to 180,000 people dying! Tell me that's not big!\" Frankly, if that number is big, then vaccines don't work. If you consider the number that vaccines fail to save \"big,\" you are saying that vaccines do not save this \"big\" amount of people. \"According to a 2003 report by researchers at the Pediatric Academic Society, childhood vaccinations in the US prevent about 10.5 million cases of infectious illness and 33,000 deaths per year.\" This amount of deaths is because we are too reliant on vaccinations! A recent study in 2006 conducted by Dr. James Marswell, quotes: \"...[vaccinations]can cause many deaths, not because it isn't used for some people, but because it is used by the majority. I recently conducted a study and gave two people the influenza vaccine. I gave another [pair]of people no vaccine. Two weeks later, I infected them with chicken pox bacteria...The latter proved to fight against bacterial germination better...\" \"There's absolutely no need to yell\" There is no way to italicize nor bolden, so I must (sadly) sustain to capital letters. According to the Constitution, (to refute your later statements,) people have the right to: a. express or perform their religion b. parents are allowed to treat their minors as they please, not to the extent of child abuse How is one person not being vaccinated a risk to others? If they are vaccinated, they should not be in danger! you don't show the \"moral sense.\" Thank you for your wonderful conduct. To plagiarize (I spelled it wrong before) means \"to take without referencing from someone else's writing or speech.\" However, listing statistics is not plagiarizing. You even plagiarized yourself from the same source! Also, I listed tons of sources, just not in the same way that you did. Do I have to bother to do it? Also, your entire speech is without sources! \"Things that we don't know about are things outside of this universe and in the deepest corners of the Earth. \" Can you scientifically explain how we got our consciousness? How minerals, unliving elements, can create a living being? Life is right in front of our eyes! There are many things that we do not yet know. \"People should not have the right to put themselves and others at risk.\" As I stated a myriad of times, if the others are vaccinated, they should be safe! \"'First of all, i would like to point out that if other children are vaccinated, they should be safe...? Also, if their children are at risk, that is their problem. They decided, using their rights, not to vaccinate their children and therefore should be allowed to make that decision for a minor.' If you read my entire argument, you would find that vaccines are beneficial, but children aren't 100% safe. They will just have better defense against it and won't be effected as much.\" They will not have better defense against it and will be affected as much, if not greater, according to the study I quoted above. \"It was not plagiarized. I cited my source. Anyways, this refutation is ridiculous. What happens when people try to get a \"natural immune system\"? They get the disease and THEY DIE. There is no way to develop a natural immune system on your own, or even with help, with the knowledge we currently possess. Vaccinations are beneficial and they prevent diseases from seriously harming your body.\" Hm...then how come our own history teacher last year stated \"I don't believe in Western Medicines. I believe in Chinese Herbs, to build up our own natural defenses?\" Putting personal experiences aside, I have a source to back this up: \"to work boosting your immune system at the same time.\" -http://probiotics.mercola.com... \"Immune boosters...\" -http://www.askdrsears.com... All these sources talk about making your immune system stronger. Can you deny that there are ways do it? Plus, consider the source above that I stated, the experiment in 2006 \"Vaccines should be mandatory because they are helpful\" If they are helpful, they are a good way to help prevent sicknesses! That doesn't mean that it should be mandatory. If you read above, you would've seen me say that some people are allergic to chemicals that can cause bad effects on a person. Therefore, those people should be allowed to not vaccinate! THE PEOPLE WHO ARE ALLERGIC SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO MAKE A CHOICE TO NOT VACCINATE, WHICH THEREFORE WINS THIS DEBATE! I did indeed tell you to start first, but you cannot take that to your advantage and say that I didn't touch some of your arguments. Taking it from there, please forfeit the last round, making us both go three times, stabilizing this debate. IF YOU DO NOT READ THIS, STRIKE, THE READERS WILL NONETHELESS NOT GRADE YOU FOR YOUR FINAL SPEECH. Your meager two sources are not linked up with any of your refutations or statements I must add, your three last points are not allowed to be brought up in the final round. REaders, I have refuted his points and he has brought up illegal points on the refutation round. [1]Governments should not have the right to intervene in the health decisions parents make for their children.31% of parents believe they should have the right to refuse mandated school entry vaccinations for their children, according to a 2010 survey by the University of Michigan. [2]Many parents hold religious beliefs against vaccination. Forcing such parents to vaccinate their children would violate the 1st Amendment which guarantees citizens the right to free exercise of their religion. [3]Vaccines are often unnecessary in may cases where the threat of death from disease is small. During the early nineteenth century, mortality for childhood diseases whooping cough, measles, and scarlet fever fell drastically BEFORE IMMUNIZATION BECAME AVAILABLE. This decreased mortality has been attributed to improved personal hygiene, water purification,effective sewage disposal, and better food hygiene and nutrition. For these reasons, I have clearly won this debate.", "qid": "10", "docid": "9f71c585-2019-04-18T19:02:47Z-00001-000", "rank": 7, "score": 161678.0}, {"content": "Title: Should Religious parents be exempted from getting their children necessary vaccines. Content: I would like to address two things before I really get into the argument. 1. Yes I was using necessary to mean \"required by public schools\" 2. I don't think I have 100% BOP because I'm arguing against the current accepted policies. However I would agree I have more BOP then pro does. Most likely 60-40 I will now debunk all of you're contentions. -Contention 1 There isn't really much to debunk here you basically just pointed out that most places allow religious exemptions. Just because most places allow it doesn't make it correct. -Contention 2 Yes it's true that there are ingredients that can violate the parents religious convictions. However when you are talking about getting first graders vaccinated, it's irrelevant. Because first grader don't have a religion. They have whatever there parents tell them they have. A first grader hasn't but any thought into it. He's whatever his parents tell him to be. However my bigger issue with it, is that I don't think the religion of the parents of one kid should be allowed to endanger the health of all the other kids in that school. You address this later in your argument saying something along the lines of \" If my kid doesn't get vaccinated it doesn't matter if your kid is. The issue with this is that vaccines are not 100% effective. They work very well and everyone should get them, but sometimes they fail. So if one kid doesn't get vaccinated because his parents don't want him to and he gets say chicken pox, well he is a danger to other kids even if they have there vaccination because if the vaccination they got didn't work, well now that kid has gotten someone else sick because his parents don't personally like that vaccination. However even that isn't my biggest issue with religious exemption. My biggest issue is that parents are legally allowed to put there kid's health in danger because they personally don't like what's in the vaccine. If the parents don't want to get there kids the measles vaccine because they're religion doesn't like it and the kid gets measles then the parents religion put the child in danger. ColeTrain would you honest say that parents should be allow to risk getting there five and six year old children getting sick and even possibly dying all because the parents don't like it. It's the same reason i don't think faith healing should be allowed. Because the parents religion can't be used as a justification to put a child in danger. -Contention 3 You say religious exemption is protected under the first amendment. Well I disagree. Here is why. The first amendment protection is only when religion doesn't conflict with other peoples freedom or harm others. As I showed above not vaccinating your kid puts that kid and others around him in danger. So your religion is harming others and so is not protected under the first amendment. - Contention 4 Yes it's true vaccines can cause side effects. For most people it doesn't but it can. I am in favor of medical exemptions. If getting a vaccine poses a significant risk to a kids health and safety then yes they can be exempted. However that is rare and for everyone else they should get vaccinated. Also you bring up the vaccine and autism link. This has been disproved many times and in fact the author of that study lost his medical license and got thrown in jail because the study was so bad. So that's invalid. -Contention 5 I have addressed everything in this argument. But I will address one thing. You say that if people accept the risks then let them take them. However this doesn't work because we are talking about kids. So the parents are not the one who are taking the risk. They are forcing there kids sometimes as young as six to accept life threatening risks. If a adult doesn't want to get vaccinated I don't care. However parent forcing little kids to take life threatening risks is unacceptable and should not be allowed. So I think I have debunked all of your points I would like you respond to my points I made.", "qid": "10", "docid": "6abd1330-2019-04-18T14:24:26Z-00005-000", "rank": 8, "score": 160781.0}, {"content": "Title: Vaccination for children under 13 should be mandatory. Content: Thank you, Strike, for responding I would like to set a road map: First, I would like to refute my opponents points Second, I would like to bring up my own points I do realize that the road map is quite useless, however it is a nice addition to organization, and I hope you grade accordingly. [1]My opponent has consistently stated that \"without vaccinations diseases will spread. \" However, only the parents who do choose to not vaccinate their children will find that their child has the sickness. According to my opponent himself, the children who are vaccinated should be okay. Therefore, the parents' decisions will not impact other children, if vaccinations are as useful as my opponent suggested. [2]Thank you for giving us a lecture on the usefulness of the Hepatitis B vaccine. However, judged by your [#] symbols that is not normal for you, I believe that you have copied and pasted this from a website. If not, you still produced many statistics that require a source; Readers, please grade accordingly [3]To defend myself, the fact that vaccines frequently cause unintentional deaths is a well known fact that has been proven by many scientists. However, to support this, over 5,500 cases alleging a causal relationship between vaccinations and autism have en filed under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program in the US Court of Federal Claims between 2001 and 2009. Also, The US Court Federal Claims Office of Special Masters, between 1988 and 2009, has awarded compensation to 1,322 families whose children suffered brain damage from vaccines. To top it off, about 30,000 cases of adverse reactions to vaccines have been reported annually to the federal government since 1990, with 13% classified as serious, defining serious as \"associated with permanent disability, hospitalization, lifetaking illness, or death. I would like to bring some of my points into this debate. [1]Governments should not have the right to intervene in the health decisions parents make for their children.31% of parents believe they should have the right to refuse mandated school entry vaccinations for their children, according to a 2010 survey by the University of Michigan. [2]Many parents hold religious beliefs against vaccination. Forcing such parents to vaccinate their children would violate the 1st Amendment which guarantees citizens the right to free exercise of their religion. [3]Vaccines are often unnecessary in may cases where the threat of death from disease is small. During the early nineteenth century, mortality for childhood diseases whooping cough, measles, and scarlet fever fell drastically BEFORE IMMUNIZATION BECAME AVAILABLE. This decreased mortality has been attributed to improved personal hygiene, water purification,effective sewage disposal, and better food hygiene and nutrition. [4]Common childhood vaccinations may cause rare yet serious reactions including anaphylactic shock, paralysis, and sudden death. This risk is not worth taking, especially considering most diseases vaccinated against are not necessarily life threatening. [5]Vaccines can trigger auto-immune disorders such as arthritis, multiple sclerosis, lupus, Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS), and other disorders. [6]Vaccines can cause brain inflammation (encephalopathy) which can le to death or permanent brain damage and disorders such as autism, ADD/ADHD, and other developmental problems. In addition, the vaccine additive thimrosal (found in most pre-1999 vaccines) has been associated specifically with the development of autism and is still found in certain meningococcal, tetanus, and flue vaccines such as the H1N1 vaccine. [7]Vaccines clog and disrupt the lymphatic system with large foreign protein molecules (the active ingredients contained within vaccines) which may lead to lymphatic cancers such as leukemia and lymphoma. [8]All vaccines cause immune system suppression, and can permanently damage the natural immune system. Unvaccinated children build and strengthen their immune systems through fighting off infection and developing natural immunity to diseases like measles and chickenpox. Artificial immunity, generated through vaccination, weakens the immune system and leaves children more vulnerable to all other diseases and infections. I would like to top this off by giving some facts and statements to support my points. [1]All 50 states require vaccinations for children entering public schools even though no mandatory Federal vaccination laws exist. All 50 states issue medical exemptions, 48 states (excluding Mississippi and West Virginia) permit religious exemptions, and 20 states allow an exemption for philosophical reasons. [2]over 5,500 cases alleging a causal relationship between vaccinations and autism have been filed under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program in the US Court of Federal Claims between 2001 and 2009. [3]The US Court Federal Claims Office of Special Masters, between 1988 and 2009, has awarded compensation to 1,322 families whose children suffered brain damage from vaccines. [4]About 30,000 cases of adverse reactions to vaccines have been reported annually to the federal government since 1990, with 13% classified as serious, defining serious as \"associated with permanent disability, hospitalization, lifetaking illness, or death.", "qid": "10", "docid": "9f71c585-2019-04-18T19:02:47Z-00005-000", "rank": 9, "score": 160725.0}, {"content": "Title: Should Religious parents be exempted from getting their children necessary vaccines. Content: Due to the character limit of 10,000 characters, simply refuting my opponent's case (as it is quite short) would take up very little space. As such, I will go ahead and defend my points. Please note that this doesn't give any advantage to me, but actually allows my opponent to refute my arguments in the next round. Thus, this allows more debate without imposing any unfair advantage to either opponent. -- I will begin with my opponent's case, and then move on to my own.Observations:1. \"Required by public schools\" will remain.2. I also agree you don't have full BoP. I explained this. 60-40 sounds fair, if that's how my opponent wishes to distribute it.However, it would be typical for the full weight to rest on my opponent, as he is promoting a shift from the status quo. Argument I: \"I think that if kids are required to get vaccines that there shouldn't be religious exemptions.\"1. My gives not logical reasoning behind his argument for this point.2. Religious exemptions should be permitted, as I have and will demonstrate.Argument II: \"The parents risk getting their kids seriously sick for there personal beliefs.\"1. It is a parent's job to do what they see best for their children.2. Their job description is as follows: \"Fill bellies, maintain home, cradle, protect, teach, guide, listen, empathize, communicate, accept, trust, check up on, love, discipline, role model, doctor, clean and wash, (and then clean and wash some more) tolerate . . . and enjoy.\" [1]3. They are the parent and subsequently have the authority to do what they feel is best for their children. If they feel that vaccinations are uneccesary for religious reasons, it is their choice.4. The correct use of \"there\" would be \"their\" in the context of the sentence my opponent used. [2]With my opponent's case refuted, I will move to my own, and his arguments against it.Contention I: Religious exemption is already permitted.\"There isn't really much to debunk here you basically just pointed out that most places allow religious exemptions. Just because most places allow it doesn't make it correct.\"1. Given that it is of a majority accepted lends evidence towards the idea that it *should* be accepted.2. My opponent proves nothing with his argument and uses no evidence. Thus, we remain with the only side that provided an argument. (Pro)3. I have and will demonstrate in other contentions as to how exemption should be permitted, and there should not be a change to the status quo.Contention II: Some vaccinations contain components which can violate religious beliefs.\"Yes it's true that there are ingredients that can violate the parents religious convictions. However when you are talking about getting first graders vaccinated, it's irrelevant. Because first grader don't have a religion. They have whatever there parents tell them they have. A first grader hasn't but any thought into it. He's whatever his parents tell him to be.\"1. My opponent concedes that these vaccinations violate religious freedom, whether of the parent or the child.2. My opponent earlier agreed that the resolution should refer to what is \"required by public school.\" By default, this would include every grades from kindergarten to senior year.3. Individuals are capable of choosing their religion in a majority of those grades.4. Moreover, children are often products of their environment. Logic demonstrates that, on general, if the parent is religious, the child will be religious as well.5. Parental guidance is necessary to help children grow and mature. Teens, and even children aren't fully matured until they are older. [3][4] Thus, parents can and should guide their children based on their beliefs (including religion).\"However my bigger issue with it, is that I don't think the religion of the parents of one kid should be allowed to endanger the health of all the other kids in that school. You address this later in your argument saying something along the lines of \" If my kid doesn't get vaccinated it doesn't matter if your kid is. The issue with this is that vaccines are not 100% effective. They work very well and everyone should get them, but sometimes they fail. So if one kid doesn't get vaccinated because his parents don't want him to and he gets say chicken pox, well he is a danger to other kids even if they have there vaccination because if the vaccination they got didn't work, well now that kid has gotten someone else sick because his parents don't personally like that vaccination.\"1. My oppnent has yet to mention a single instance in which religious exemption has resulted in getting other children fatally sick.2. My opponent also concedes that vaccines are not 100% effective, and that they sometimes fail.3. My opponent has only established a correlation between sickenss and non-vaccination, but has not linked the cause to religious exemption.4. Because of the lack of examples supporting his/her reasoning, you would vote for the status quo (including religious exemption).\"However even that isn't my biggest issue with religious exemption. My biggest issue is that parents are legally allowed to put there kid's health in danger because they personally don't like what's in the vaccine. If the parents don't want to get there kids the measles vaccine because they're religion doesn't like it and the kid gets measles then the parents religion put the child in danger. ColeTrain would you honest say that parents should be allow to risk getting there five and six year old children getting sick and even possibly dying all because the parents don't like it. It's the same reason i don't think faith healing should be allowed. Because the parents religion can't be used as a justification to put a child in danger.\"1. My opponent has not established the link between correlation and causation.2. Correlation =/= Causation3. Thus, my opponent cannot continue to say that religious exemption has *any* effect on others getting sick.4. Most religious individuals who decline vaccinations either believe in divine healing or still go to the doctor to treat diseases.5. Putting children at risk does not fit into this model if the children are actually still treated at the doctor or believe in divine healing already.6. His claim that I support putting 5-6 year olds in danger is totally bogus. I support divine healing, but these people also sometimes go to doctors. Moreover, it is not only 5-6 year olds that are affected. Net benefit is utilitarian, and thus, so is my position.Contention III: Religious exemption is protected under the US Constitution.\"You say religious exemption is protected under the first amendment. Well I disagree. Here is why. The first amendment protection is only when religion doesn't conflict with other peoples freedom or harm others. As I showed above not vaccinating your kid puts that kid and others around him in danger. So your religion is harming others and so is not protected under the first amendment.\"1. My opponent cites no interpretation except his own.2. I provided my interpretation, backed by Cornell University.3. The first amendment protects the free exercise or religion. Prohibiting that in any manner is an infringement on individual rights.Contention IV: Vaccinations aren't totally safe.\"Yes it's true vaccines can cause side effects. For most people it doesn't but it can. I am in favor of medical exemptions. If getting a vaccine poses a significant risk to a kids health and safety then yes they can be exempted. However that is rare and for everyone else they should get vaccinated. Also you bring up the vaccine and autism link. This has been disproved many times and in fact the author of that study lost his medical license and got thrown in jail because the study was so bad. So that's invalid.\"1. My opponent concedes; vaccinations do cause side effects and aren't totally safe.2. Medical exemption is irrelevant. This debate is about religious exemption. Presenting a counterplan in the Pro position, in the 2nd round, is not allowed.3. I was only referencing the RETRACTED study to show that there have been studies conducted about the topic.Contention V: Flawed arguments envelop anti-exemption.\"I have addressed everything in this argument. But I will address one thing. You say that if people accept the risks then let them take them. However this doesn't work because we are talking about kids. So the parents are not the one who are taking the risk. They are forcing there kids sometimes as young as six to accept life threatening risks. If a adult doesn't want to get vaccinated I don't care. However parent forcing little kids to take life threatening risks is unacceptable and should not be allowed.\"1. As I've said before, it is the parents moral and social responsibility to care for and guide their children as they see fit.2. If religious exemption is what the parents see best fit for their child, then that is what should happen.3. As I have demonstrated multiple times, in multiple ways, religious exemption should be permitted.Conclusion:I have explicitly demonstrated both moral and pragmatic grounds to preserve religous exemption in regards to vaccinations for students attending public schools. Thus, I have fulfilled my burden of proof and upheld my side of the resolution.Sources:[1] http://www.easternflorida.edu...[2] http://wsuonline.weber.edu...[3] http://hrweb.mit.edu...[4] http://www.livescience.com...", "qid": "10", "docid": "6abd1330-2019-04-18T14:24:26Z-00004-000", "rank": 10, "score": 160551.0}, {"content": "Title: should kids be vaccinated Content: I believe vaccines are a useful tool at preventing illness and saving lives. The smallpox vaccine was able to eradicate smallpox from the earth, which has saved countless lives. The rabies vaccine is the only way you can survive rabies, otherwise it would be 100% lethal. And there is work on an ebola vaccine which would stop ebola outbreaks in the future. Yet despite my support of vaccines, I do not think they should be mandatory. Making vaccines mandatory is a bad idea for two reasons. Reason one, some people have dangerous or even fatal reactions to vaccines. Reason two, the government should not force substances into people's bodies. I will expand on these point in the next round.", "qid": "10", "docid": "7d2f63b6-2019-04-18T14:52:21Z-00003-000", "rank": 11, "score": 158938.0}, {"content": "Title: Vaccination for children under 13 should be mandatory. Content: Refutations \"I may have taken some of my points from a source, however, this means that everything that I say is backed up, whereas your source for the hepatitis B vaccine has yet to be stated, although I requested it previously. That is due to the fact that you plagarized and copied word-for-word every argument and fact from the website I previously listed, which you did not even bother to source because I bet you didn't want ANYONE to know you were even plagarizing! I listed sources. You gave none. I doubt you even looked at my sources for the Hepatitis B argument because the facts are there, in that document. \"Excuse me, Strike, but how would one vaccination cover 20 million children? Just pointing that out there.\" I know that in some countries, parents may not be able to afford vaccines for their children. Nonetheless, if everyone had vaccines, they wouldn't contract the disease. \"Also, isn't it obvious why there would be improved hygiene, purification, and other methods? The government set out to improve our daily lives. Thank you for needlessly asking that question.\" Why would that just suddenly happen in that time period? Why couldn't it happen before? Improved hygiene and such is a valid argument for reduction of germs and bacteria. But I mean, there are still going to be diseases that can be caught, even when they disappear for awhile. The best way to stay protected is to get a vaccine and everyone needs these vaccines. \"That signifies that this is in the past. Second, draw your attention to \"a year.\" This does not specify which year, and I can naturally assume that it was in the begginnings of its emergence, back when people did not develop a resistance to it. Also, 5,000 deaths is actually not a lot.\" Yes, very good job, it was in the past. A year means every year, not just one year. But to be specific, the Pertussis vaccine was developed in the 1930s, and saved those 5,000 to 10,000 lives lost. My opponent decides that 5,000 (the smaller number) is not a big amount of deaths. Pertussis came about in 1906, and hurt people until the vaccine came around. An average of 7,500 people are dying a year. This lasts for approximately 24 years. This is plain ridiculous. It comes out to 180,000 people dying! Tell me that's not big! \"The number of problems are pretty big, as I told you already.\" Sure, as you plagarized already. Anyway, the benefit is much bigger, as I told you already... According to a 2003 report by researchers at the Pediatric Academic Society, childhood vaccinations in the US prevent about 10.5 million cases of infectious illness and 33,000 deaths per year. Look in the previous round for the source. \"Thank you for pointing out that they think that they are safer without the vaccinations. Where, in my arguments, do I state that they think they are safer? They merely don't take the vaccinations, believing that it stands in the way of God, Allah, or whatever they believe...\" There's absolutely no need to yell. I know you have poor conduct and you're certainly not helping it out here. Anyway, when I pointed out that vaccines are safer, I felt like adding some additional info. Anyway, that's exactly the problem. Children should not be allowed to skip vaccinations because of their religious beliefs. They're putting every single child at risk, including themselves! If this argument \"is easily refuted\" then why can't you properly refute it? You didn't list any statistics or sources, and you don't show the \"moral sense.\" \"Um..as far as I know, stating statistics with the exact wording is not called plagarizing. Thus, I can ignore all your refutation here:\" You yourself is not a source. You don't bother to list sources. To plagiarize (I spelled it wrong before) means \"to take without referencing from someone else's writing or speech.\" That is exactly what you did. \"However, scientifically unsupportable is not a big issue. There are many things that we do not know in science, and you cannot ignore the fact that 5,500 cases of autism have occurred.\" Scientifically unsupportable is a big issue. Universities studied it and found that there is absolutely no link to autism and vaccines. Things that we don't know about are things outside of this universe and in the deepest corners of the Earth. Not right in front of our noses. 5,500 cases doesn't mean it truly happened. Some could be false claims and lies, and the others could be true, however, that doesn't mean vaccines are the cause for autism. There is a theory that Ultrasound causes autism, as well. Basically, my opponent argues \"human rights.\" People who believe they have \"rights\" and decide to skip out on vaccines put their entire environment at danger. They can pass the disease onto other people who will suffer as well. They can die themselves, just because of their \"right\" to not protect themselves and in turn, harm themselves. People should not have the right to put themselves and others at risk. \"However, scientifically unsupportable is not a big issue. There are many things that we do not know in science, and you cannot ignore the fact that 5,500 cases of autism have occurred.\" \"First of all, i would like to point out that if other children are vaccinated, they should be safe...? Also, if their children are at risk, that is their problem. They decided, using their rights, not to vaccinate their children and therefore should be allowed to make that decision for a minor.\" If you read my entire argument, you would find that vaccines are beneficial, but children aren't 100% safe. They will just have better defense against it and won't be effected as much. \"Plagurized... right back at you, hypocrite. Also, using my point, developing a natural immune system is important for other reasons and diseases. Vaccinations include anti-body depressants which allow you to get sick easier. We must allow our own bodies to fight back.\" It was not plagiarized. I cited my source. Anyways, this refutation is ridiculous. What happens when people try to get a \"natural immune system\"? They get the disease and THEY DIE. There is no way to develop a natural immune system on your own, or even with help, with the knowledge we currently possess. Vaccinations are beneficial and they prevent diseases from seriously harming your body. \"IMPORTANT NOTICE: THIS DEBATE IS ABOUT MANDATORY OR NOT, NOT WHETHER OR NOT IT IS GOOD FOR YOU.\" This makes absolutely no difference in the debate. Vaccines should be mandatory because they are helpful! It's as simple as that! \"Also, in your ridiculous conclusion, I would like to point out that you started first, giving me less time and space to refute your arguments, whereas you had two speeches. And you can only truly claim that after I have finished posting that debate.\" I would like to point out that you told me to start first. I complied. \"Also, you gave a fallacy stating that you have refuted all of my points. However, the fact that it is the parents' rights to choose is untouched.\" The point was never clear. However, I have now refuted all of your points. \"Many people are severely allergic to some chemicals in the vaccine. Doctors may not know this, and the result of the vaccine may be disastrous.\" According to this site [2], a small percentage of people are at a small risk due to vaccinations. Precautions must be taken if you ever have an allergic reaction, as well. Don't be careless. Arguments: 1. Vaccinations are beneficial and should be mandatory for this reason. 2. People can spread contracted diseases to others and putting everyone at risk. 3. There is much more benefit than harm. I await the response. Sources: 1. http://www.vaccineinformation.org... 2. http://www.suite101.com...", "qid": "10", "docid": "9f71c585-2019-04-18T19:02:47Z-00002-000", "rank": 12, "score": 158514.0}, {"content": "Title: Should Religious parents be exempted from getting their children necessary vaccines. Content: My opponent has forfeited again. All of my points from R3 stand unrefuted.", "qid": "10", "docid": "6abd1330-2019-04-18T14:24:26Z-00000-000", "rank": 13, "score": 158389.0}, {"content": "Title: Vaccines should be mandatory Content: Extend", "qid": "10", "docid": "cea53ba4-2019-04-18T14:44:38Z-00001-000", "rank": 14, "score": 157329.0}, {"content": "Title: vaccinating children must be a law Content: It is true that some people can't be vaccinated due to allergies, BUT all other children should have to be vaccinated as it prevents awful diseases such as influenza and whooping cough which if a baby gets she/he will most likely die.", "qid": "10", "docid": "a70ffd6e-2019-04-18T15:13:01Z-00003-000", "rank": 15, "score": 156207.0}, {"content": "Title: Should Religious parents be exempted from getting their children necessary vaccines. Content: My opponent has violated good conduct by forfeiting, extend all arguments.", "qid": "10", "docid": "6abd1330-2019-04-18T14:24:26Z-00001-000", "rank": 16, "score": 154997.0}, {"content": "Title: Why parents should immunized or Vaccinated they're kids Content: There is no need for vaccines. Our immune systems can fight most ailments. Not only that, but vaccines result in almost 30,000 adverse events each year, including death, according to the department of Health and Human Services. [1] Sources: 1. www.vaers.hhs.gov", "qid": "10", "docid": "3dd052cc-2019-04-18T13:46:56Z-00002-000", "rank": 17, "score": 154923.0}, {"content": "Title: A child has a human right to be protected from preventable diseases from birth Content: Yes, but that is only if they want to, what if children don't want to be vaccinated, if compulsory immunizations are carried out, there could be major strikes by kids and teens, also, what if the child becomes autistic due to this? As of now, people are allowed to decide whether or not they get vaccinated. If your value is Justice, this is a major question. If this law is carried out, who knows what terrible things could happen? Also, the resolution is not asking about whether or not vaccination is a bad thing, but if the government should have to FORCE the child to be immunized. Parents should be the primary decision-makers of their child's life, as they know whether or not the child will actually be exposed to the virus. Vaccines usually are not free, they cost money, and may actually risk the baby's life by exposing the virus. Thus, parents must make the child's critical decisions. If they are inadequate at doing this, we do have a thing called child custody requirements.", "qid": "10", "docid": "f9f87c6a-2019-04-19T12:44:53Z-00025-000", "rank": 18, "score": 154380.0}, {"content": "Title: Children should receive vaccinations. Content: In an ideal society, everyone would be healthy. Vaccines prevent sickness, and therefore work at this goal. In addition, childhood is the most important time to get vaccinated to build strong antibodies and be able to fight off disease in their adulthood. Parents shouldn't be able to stand in the way of their children's good health because of radical and incorrect suppositions. Another reason would be herd immunity. Everyone has the right to protect everyone else by being vaccinated. That way, if someone who physically cannot get the vaccine (such as someone with an allergy, an elderly person or a baby) is almost as immune as everyone else because nobody else has the sickness. This only works if everyone around them is vaccinated, so in order to protect this, we need to keep people vaccinated. Vaccinations work well. A couple of diseases that are no longer majorly present in first-world countries because of vaccinations are smallpox, polio, tuberculosis, diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough and so on. There is proof that vaccines are the reason: Recently, in California, there was an outbreak of measles because so many people there are not vaccinated and in a crowd. The measles disease rapidly spread and now many people are infected. This is another example of why herd immunity is so important. In conclusion, children indisputably need to get vaccines. They promote health well, and provide herd immunity.", "qid": "10", "docid": "79f05a32-2019-04-18T15:09:09Z-00003-000", "rank": 19, "score": 153538.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: State mandated administration of childhood vaccinations is justified. Content: \"Governments should not have the right to intervene in the health decisions parents make for their children. 31% of parents believe they should have the right to refuse mandated school entry vaccinations for their children, according to a 2010 survey by the University of Michigan.\" Appeal to majority and authority, I need reasons why the Gov has no right to intervene in health decisions. \"Many parents hold religious beliefs against vaccination. Forcing such parents to vaccinate their children would violate the 1st Amendment which guarantees citizens the right to the free exercise of their religion.\" Frankly I don't care what rules the parents think they are breaking of some book written thousands of years ago, I stand for the well being of the children. If I prove that vaccines have health benifits then this point falls. \"Vaccines are often unnecessary in many cases where the threat of death from disease is small. During the early nineteenth century, mortality for the childhood diseases whooping cough, measles, and scarlet fever fell drastically before immunization became available. This decreased mortality has been attributed to improved personal hygiene, water purification, effective sewage disposal, and better food hygiene and nutrition.\" Yes I agree with you. There is a lot less disease, and the black plagues gone. It's true this isn't entirely due to vaccin ation. But the fact is there are still many infectious diseases rampant in all socieites, and hepititus is a plague. You're closing your eyes to a very important problem-disease still exists and spreads very regularly. \"Vaccines interfere with natural law and God's plan for humanity. Disease is a natural occurrence, and humans should not interfere with its trajectory.\" Yes I agree! Let's all be literal Darwinists and kill the babies who are born with deformations in the hospitals because God obviously wanted them to die! People with leprosy are being punished for sins in a past life! Oh wait this isn't the dark ages any more, if a member of our society is sick we do our best to cure them and prevent sickness. Gods plan for humanity is a future without disease. \"Common childhood vaccinations may cause rare yet serious reactions including anaphylactic shock, paralysis, and sudden death. This risk is not worth taking, especially considering most diseases vaccinated against are not necessarily life threatening.\" Can I have some sources for this ourageous claim? Just because HPV isn't life threatning we don't protect our children from it? Vaccines aren't supposed to be life savers all the time-their job is to stop the spread of infectious diseases around our society. As for these reactions you talk of, first please source. Secondly, they are proabably one in a million scenerios and the child is surrounded by health proffesionals will make it a minor issue. I agree that they might happen, but we still go to surgery even though their are risks of side effects yes? Vaccines destroy an immediate risk to our health. \"All vaccines cause immune system suppression, and can permanently damage the natural immune system. Unvaccinated children build and strengthen their immune systems through fighting off infection and developing natural immunity to diseases like measles and chickenpox. Artificial immunity, generated through vaccination, weakens the immune system and leaves children more vulnerable to all other diseases and infections.\" You're trying to prove that un-vaccinated children are more resistant then vaccinated children? Do you even know why children get vaccines? It's to protect them from the diseases thier bodies can't cope with on their own. Vaccines don't push out a natural defense-they provide the only defense. Having your child contract hep C won't toughen him up. It will kill him or her. \"Children should not receive the hepatitis B vaccine. Hepatitis B is a blood-born disease and is primarily spread by sexual intercourse and intravenous drug use. Children are not at great risk of contracting the disease. In addition, researchers have found that immunization with the hepatitis B vaccine is associated with an increased risk of developing multiple sclerosis.\" When the subject is children and disease, well to be honest any risk is enough to warrant vaccination. Plus, you need to source the information that shows there's more than a one in a million chance for a child to contract a disease from a vaccine. There's also a chance kids can contract bone cancer from cell phones, but that doesn't mean we outlaw cell phones-the risk simply isn't larg enough. \"Vaccines are promoted primarily to generate profits for manufacturers and financial donations for medical organizations that endorse vaccines. In 2003, a House Committee on Government Reform report revealed that the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices had members with significant financial ties to vaccine companies. The American Academy of Pediatrics, a leading pro-vaccination organization, receives millions of dollars from vaccine companies.\" Of course the vaccine companies make tons of money...people buy their products because it makes them immune to diseases..supply and demand...I think there's a large market for people who want to stop the spread of disease.. MY ARGUMENT P1. Vaccines make children immune to certain diseases and illnesses p2. Being Immune to certain diseases and illnesses is good p3. Any Parent who does not want their child to be immune to certain dseases and illnesses is not acting in the childs best interests p4. It is the role of the state to act in the childs best interests C. The state should administer vaccinations", "qid": "10", "docid": "e890bfaf-2019-04-18T18:22:18Z-00001-000", "rank": 20, "score": 152175.0}, {"content": "Title: Mandatory Childhood Vaccines Content: Not only are vaccines possible to cause fatal (life-taking) results in certain children http://www.uptodate.com... it's also an issue of wasting vaccine biogenetic material for the mere purpose of vaccinating children.For example no typhoid is found in USA, Canada, Australia and most of Europe and Russia (including its Asian half) http://tinyurl.com..., so why waste resources causing this to be a mandatory vaccination if the family aren't taking the child on holiday to africa/asia Additionally hepititis B is very rarely found in USA http://tinyurl.com....It should be up to parents for the issues their child will face, not mandatory for all children.", "qid": "10", "docid": "81901837-2019-04-18T17:55:43Z-00003-000", "rank": 21, "score": 151574.0}, {"content": "Title: State-mandated administration of childhood vaccines is justified. Content: Introduction: I am impressed by Pro's reply. I have more time to work on my argument now, so hopefully this argument will be better than the last. Analysis of the Resolution: Pro didn't say that this was a public forum debate. I'm only pointing out that the debate shouldn't hinge on things that the resolution is vague about. Rebuttals: CA1: Solvency Vaccination improves quality of life. It doesn't follow that it should be mandatory. Yacht ownership improves quality of life, but mandating it would be a harmful misallocation of resources. Pro's case is founded on unwarranted fears. In the United States today, there are only two states in which vaccine exemption is not allowed for any reason other than medical necessity: West Virginia and Mississippi [1]. I also stated that even among parents who believe vaccines are risky, 86% still fully vaccinate their children [2]. The percentage of people who believe that vaccines are dangerous appears to be small [3], and the majority of people, who believe vaccines are safe, use them at an even higher rate (98%) [2]. There is no immediate danger of falling below Pro's 90-95% herd immunity threshold. The crux of this argument is the following: if herd immunity is achieved without mandates then Pro cannot claim it as an advantage. I will further repeat my argument that government involvement in vaccination is the cause of irrational fears of vaccines in the first place. See: crazy Alex Jones type conspiracy theorists. Providing vaccines through sources that people trust instead of through a legitimately frightening bureaucratic mechanism of total state power would alleviate much of these worries. By trying to force their beliefs on everyone else, the scientific community is creating resistance to an idea that people could otherwise be reasonably persuaded to accept. Turn Pro's graph: we don't have vaccine mandates today, but numerous diseases have been eradicated or significantly reduced. CA2: Community This whole argument is predicated on the assumption that herd immunity will be lost without mandatory vaccination. We have herd immunity and no mandatory vaccination, so that can't be true. In spite of what Pro (and seemingly every other person who I've debated this with) thinks, I fully understand the concept of herd immunity. My argument is that herd immunity is achieved through voluntary vaccination. Pro claims that the number of parents choosing to exempt their children is rising so rapidly that herd immunity will be lost in the future. She has no evidence for that prediction. At the current moment, herd immunity is secure, and the backlash from the scientific community against the anti-vaccination movement has been significant. It is just as likely that vaccine resistance will once again decline. I want to reply to a specific comment from Pro: \u201cMy opponent also claims that at different times, different vaccinations are needed. This is outrageous - a constant vaccination of children is vital to ensure the safety of the people from the disease returning.\u201d I don't see how my claim is disputable. In areas where disease X is more common, more vaccination against it is necessary than in areas where it is less common. When swine flu broke out, it was necessary to vaccinate against it. Now it is mostly gone, and there is no more need to vaccinate against it. Pro's argument seems to lead to the conclusion that we need to be fully vaccinated against every disease, all the time. But it should be obvious to everyone why vaccinating everyone against hundreds of strains of the common cold all the time would be an uneconomic waste of resources that could help people in other ways. Once this fact is conceded, we can see how it extends to every disease: total immunization isn't necessary. Voluntary choice has so far proven more than sufficient to meet the minimum threshold. CA3: Money I have found Pro's reply here difficult to understand. On the issue of people who cannot afford vaccines: I argued that it is non-topical. They can be provided with money to purchase vaccines without being required to do so. My calculations were simple arithmetic. Pro said that vaccines will save $231 billion over the next ten years. Assume this could be increased 10% through a mandate (very generous because more than 90% of children are fully vaccinated). That's $23.1 billion, which we divide by ten to get the annual savings: $2.31 billion. Now divide by the number of people in the US (about 350 million) to get the savings per person: it comes out to $6.60, which I rounded to $5. It is reasonable to assume that it would cost more money than this to implement a vaccine mandate. It will require an increase in administrative and law enforcement costs, which are already notoriously high. In 2011, there were 75 million children in the US[4]. That means that Pro has only about $30 to spend per child, which is considerably less than the cost of a single vaccine. In order to have the possibility of saving money, Pro's program would have to vaccinate more children than there are unvaccinated children. You will not save money by mandating vaccines for the same reason you will not save money by mandating teeth brushing: the savings of the mandate are so small compared to ordinary behavior that they will be outweighed by the cost of enforcing it. CA4: Authority I am going consider this argument conceded by Pro and not address it again. Affirmative Arguments: C1: Economic Calculation I am calling this argument dropped. Pro's reply was a complete non sequitur. The economic calculation argument says that you can never know whether an intervention in the free market is beneficial or not because the interactions between market variables are too complex. Any attempt at economic policy is just groping in the dark. Pro's reply had nothing to do with this. Just putting the same heading in and writing unrelated words isn't a response. It's not up to me to waste space repeating myself. Pro's own rule says that a drop is a concession. She must admit that she has no idea whether a vaccine mandate is really a better use of those resources than what the market would otherwise do. Replying with a non sequitur is a borderline abusive argument because I have to waste limited space explaining it. C2: Biopolitics This is a consequentialist argument based on Pro's criterion of justice: it says that by eroding certain barriers to political power, we risk grave expansions in government power. The difference between a free society and a totalitarian society is the existence on legal barriers to the state's use of force against the citizen's person. When we remove this restrictions, we create an environment that is legally and philosophical partial to totalitarianism. Pro's contention on authority does not address this. All it says is that it would be legal for the state to do this. I am talking about the consequences of actually doing it. Pro's argument just begs the question anyway: if I don't think the state has the authority to make these decisions, the fact that the state says it does isn't going to persuade me. The fact that the resolution applies to children does it help. It means that the state replaces the parent as the arbiter of the child's biological life. This is just as disastrous. If the state is responsible for stopping \u201cbad parenting\u201d as Pro says, then children are really wards of the state who their parents are allowed to care for at the state's whim. Conclusion: Pro's argument seems to assume that we have mandatory vaccination now (and this is commonly assumed). Far from it. Non-medical excuses are allowed in 48 states. Anyone who does not want their child vaccinated can cook up a religious or philosophical reason why. Thus, people who are against vaccination do in fact vaccinate their children at lower rates. But in spite of this, public vaccination has been remarkably successful. Sources: Will post all sources for the debate next round. Out of time and space. I can post them early if needed.", "qid": "10", "docid": "ccdef108-2019-04-18T18:19:43Z-00001-000", "rank": 22, "score": 150747.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: State mandated administration of childhood vaccinations is justified. Content: Not a full case yet.. Just some little points I put together... Governments should not have the right to intervene in the health decisions parents make for their children. 31% of parents believe they should have the right to refuse mandated school entry vaccinations for their children, according to a 2010 survey by the University of Michigan. Many parents hold religious beliefs against vaccination. Forcing such parents to vaccinate their children would violate the 1st Amendment which guarantees citizens the right to the free exercise of their religion. Vaccines are often unnecessary in many cases where the threat of death from disease is small. During the early nineteenth century, mortality for the childhood diseases whooping cough, measles, and scarlet fever fell drastically before immunization became available. This decreased mortality has been attributed to improved personal hygiene, water purification, effective sewage disposal, and better food hygiene and nutrition. Vaccines interfere with natural law and God's plan for humanity. Disease is a natural occurrence, and humans should not interfere with its trajectory. Common childhood vaccinations may cause rare yet serious reactions including anaphylactic shock, paralysis, and sudden death. This risk is not worth taking, especially considering most diseases vaccinated against are not necessarily life threatening. Vaccines can trigger auto-immune disorders such as arthritis, multiple sclerosis, lupus, Guillain-Barr\u00ef\u00bf\u00bd Syndrome (GBS), and other disorders. Vaccines can cause brain inflammation (encephalopathy) which can lead to death or permanent brain damage and disorders such as autism, ADD/ADHD, and other developmental problems. In addition, the vaccine additive thimerosal (found in most pre-1999 vaccines) has been associated specifically with the development of autism and is still found in certain meningococcal, tetanus, and flu vaccines such as the H1N1 vaccine. Vaccines clog and disrupt the lymphatic system with large foreign protein molecules (the active ingredients contained within vaccines) which may lead to lymphatic cancers such as leukemia and lymphoma. All vaccines cause immune system suppression, and can permanently damage the natural immune system. Unvaccinated children build and strengthen their immune systems through fighting off infection and developing natural immunity to diseases like measles and chickenpox. Artificial immunity, generated through vaccination, weakens the immune system and leaves children more vulnerable to all other diseases and infections. Children should not be required to receive the DPT (diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus) vaccine. Some studies have shown that children who receive the DPT vaccine exhibit shallow breathing which has been associated with sleep apnea and may be a causal factor in sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). Studies of infants whose deaths were recorded as SIDS show a temporal relationship with DPT vaccination (these infants tended to die at similar time intervals in relation to when they were vaccinated). Children should not receive the hepatitis B vaccine. Hepatitis B is a blood-born disease and is primarily spread by sexual intercourse and intravenous drug use. Children are not at great risk of contracting the disease. In addition, researchers have found that immunization with the hepatitis B vaccine is associated with an increased risk of developing multiple sclerosis. Young girls should not receive mandatory vaccination for HPV (human papilloma virus). The vaccine was approved in 2006 and the long-term effects are unknown. Since approval, adverse side effects such as severe allergic reactions, Guillain-Barr\u00ef\u00bf\u00bd syndrome, spinal cord inflammation and pancreatitis have been reported to the US Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System. Although these adverse reactions may be rare, they are not worth the risk since the vaccine only protects against two of the 15 strains of HPV that may cause cancer of the cervix (20-40 years after an individual is infected). Vaccines are promoted primarily to generate profits for manufacturers and financial donations for medical organizations that endorse vaccines. In 2003, a House Committee on Government Reform report revealed that the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices had members with significant financial ties to vaccine companies. The American Academy of Pediatrics, a leading pro-vaccination organization, receives millions of dollars from vaccine companies.", "qid": "10", "docid": "e890bfaf-2019-04-18T18:22:18Z-00002-000", "rank": 23, "score": 149887.0}, {"content": "Title: Should Religious parents be exempted from getting their children necessary vaccines. Content: My opponent is not required to follow the debate structure, but without the structure I provided, there is no structure.Argument 1:1. I didn't realize this wasn't an argument.2. It was phrased as an argument.3. Other than that sentence, my opponent has provided no original arguments, only refutations to my arguments.4. This means that my opponent did not provide a case.Argument 2: 1. On balance, parents do what they feel best for their children.2. Because adults sometimes do crazy things, does that mean they shouldn't have children? No.3. The children, of majority in grades 9-12, can usually be established in a religion the same as their parents. This gives the the majority the right to religious exemption.4. My opponent has not cited any source backing his claim of a supposed \"giant outbreak,\" nor has he proven the correlation - causation model I introduced in the last round.Contention 1:1. It doesn't necessarily prove it's right, but that it's accepted in society.2. It can give hints that it's right.3. My opponent's example doesn't align with the topic at hand.4. Segregation and slavery refer to bondage or discrimination of people of different races. Religious exemption is a way to defer and prevent discrimination against religions.Contention 2:1. I said that most kids could choose a religion.2. This debate has no ties to a debate I completed earlier.3. My views from that debate, however, do align.4. This debate refers to parents giving religious exemption to their children for vaccinations. By default, this is the parents making the decision. This is the same as parents making the medical decision for their children.5. I can make my own arguments regardless of the time. Using other debates against me is a form of misconduct as well as irrelevant to the debate at hand.6. Not everyone gets the same shots at school. Religious exemption exists.Contention 2 (part 2):1. You say it's simple, but you have yet to explain how.2. If the majority of kids at school are vaccinated, that, by definition, protects them from the viruses.3. By this logic, the only individuals to contract the diseases would be the ones NOT vaccinated, which is for religious exemption.4. You mentioned a great outbreak earlier, but failed to provide evidence to back your claim. It is thus irrelevant.5. Personal attacks (ad hominem) are not good arguments. Questioning my ability to dress myself because of my implied stupidity is a fantastic example of ad hominem and misconduct.6. What I am arguing with this point is that vaccinations aren't perfect anyways, so religious exemption does little to change the effect of the viruses. The virus can be contracted either way, but with religious exemption, religious freedom is protected and preserved.7. Cancer treatment is NOT 100% effective, contrary to what my opponent stated. [1] (I think it was simply a mistake)Contention 2 (part 3):1. I never said it can't lead to a child getting sick.2. Faith healing has worked, I've experienced it myself. (However, this is not relevant to the debate)Contention 3:1. My opponents example is extreme and misinterprets my argument.2. As my opponents example obviously is detrimental to my family and I, religious exemption is different. It is not an action, but refraining from an action. 3. Moreover, my opponent has yet to prove that religious exemption causes an outbreak of sickness, or even to establish a strong correlation between the two.4. Furthermore, religious exemption (contrary to my opponent's example) doesn't harm other people's individual human rights.5. I did \"try again\"Dropped Arguments:My opponent has dropped the following arguments:1. That vaccinations aren't safe2. That anti-vaccination arguments are enveloped by flaws.He/she has also not proved that there is any relationship between religious exemption and the widespread outbreak of sickness in the modern day. He/she has only presented a possibility. Possibilities aren't fact, and can't be proven. Until my opponent can prove that there exists logical and factual grounds to change the status quo, he/she has not fulfilled the BoP that rests on their side.Furthermore, I presented the model of correlation and causation. My opponent has yet to establish a logical correlation, which also means there has been no causation proven either. If religious exemption isn't correlated to sickness, there is no grounds to remove it. If there is no causation of religious exemption to that correlation, there is still no grounds to remove it. Until my opponent establishes BOTH of these links, we must remain with the status quo.Sources:[1] http://www.chrisbeatcancer.com...", "qid": "10", "docid": "6abd1330-2019-04-18T14:24:26Z-00002-000", "rank": 24, "score": 149764.0}, {"content": "Title: Vaccination for children under 13 should be mandatory. Content: I would just like to note, for absolutely no relevant reason, that he is my classmate and that I was very excited to take this, due to the previous fact. I am on the Proposition, arguing that, \"Vaccination for children under 13 should be mandatory. \" Many thanks for allowing me to go first. I will begin with a refutation of the first, small quote my opponent has stated, which, to my disappointment, does not have a source. Refutation \"This quote is from a man whose daughter suffered devastating side-effects from the mandatory Hepatitis B vaccination on his 5-week-old little girl. \" This Hepatitis B vaccine is still good, no matter how many deaths (very small amount) occur. Would you rather like to possess this horrible disease. If so, the very small bacteria of this disease will cause liver inflammation, vomiting, jaundice, and, sometimes, death. Chronic Hepatitis B will result in liver cirrhosis and liver cancer, which means the chances of death are greatly increased [1]. A third of the world's population, more than two billion people, is infected with this disease. The most infection occurs within areas in Asia, mostly China, and Africa. There are also 350 million carriers of chronic Hepatitis B [2]. Chinese vaccinations are not mandatory. They are voluntary or optional. If more of the Chinese were treated with a Hepatitis B vaccine, then most would not have this disease. Africa is a very poor country. Many families can't afford vaccinations for their children and thus, get sick. Arguments 1. Vaccinations help children. Vaccinations help children. There can't be any doubt about it. Without vaccinations in America, many children would be sick and subject to violent diseases. Diseases will simply make children suffer more compared to a small dose of that disease. Diphtheria is an small respiratory sickness where a membrane forms that covers the throat and then makes it very hard to breathe. Whooping cough is named after the whooping sound that is made by its victims during one of their coughing periods. Mumps is another disease that can cause swollen glands on the face, but can be prevented with a vaccine. Tetanus is a horrible disease due to the fact that if obtained, you can die. You have a 50% chance of survival if you contract this sickness. There is also Rubella, Polio, Chickenpox, Measles, and Meningitis. All of these diseases are life-threatening and can only be stopped with a vaccination. There will be dangers when parents don't get their child vaccinated. In Boulder, Colorado, half of the 292 students attending Shining Mountain Waldorf School did not receive all vaccinations, with some not receiving any. The result of this has been a case of spreading whooping cough. In Colorado, all a parent needs to do have a child exempt from vaccinations is to sign a sheet of paper. 2. Vaccinations should be mandatory because diseases can spread. Children can get diseases that they could have prevented with a vaccination, and spread it to others who think they are safe without a vaccine. Children touch many things, such as park structures, and then others will get sick. There are some diseases that seem very small at first, but then develop to be potentially dangerous. The only ones that can be free of this disease are the vaccinated children. Just look at countries in Africa. They have numerous children with diseases, not because bacteria separately went and touched them all, but because they spread it among each other by playing, working, and using the same supplies. An African child dies every minute due to Measles [3]. This could be stopped with vaccinations. I eagerly await for the response. Sources: 1. . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 2. . http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.com... 3. Cuttino, Phyliss A. \"Where a Child Dies Each Minute. \" UN Chronicle. June/August 2002:26.", "qid": "10", "docid": "9f71c585-2019-04-18T19:02:47Z-00006-000", "rank": 25, "score": 148650.0}, {"content": "Title: should kids be vaccinated Content: Well it is time for me to expand on my previous two points. My first point is that people do have dangerous reactions to vaccines. The probability of these dangerous reactions are different depending on the vaccine. Each vaccine has a different probability of a bad reactions and different types of bad reactions (1). By forcing everyone to take a vaccine forces some to take something harmful, and in rare situations even lethal. Currently working at a bio-lab with a safety level of 3 requires mandatory vaccines, but its reasons for being mandatory are far more justifiable since it deals with working with harmful pathogens as part of the job. But the requirement points out crucial effects of making vaccines mandatory, it prevents people with harmful reactions to vaccines from being able to be in the job. For example, Nancy Jaax couldn't get vaccinated without negative reactions so she had no chance of working in biosafety level 3. Instead she had to try to get into biosafety level 4 since the diseases there had no vaccines or cures. If vaccines were to be mandatory, it would force people with bad reactions to either do something that makes them sick or even worse kill them, or be force to go through any punishments for not following the mandate. My second point is that the government should not be able to force people to have a substance injected into their body. There are certain things that should not be in the governments power do to the possibility of abuse. While it may currently seem that the government cannot do anything wrong, that doesn't mean that it can't go down hill in the future. The last thing you need in the future is a corrupt government that can inject the citizens with what it deems fit. In addition mandating vaccines encroaches on our rights. People should have a right to decide what doesn't go into our body. Sources 1 http://www.cdc.gov...", "qid": "10", "docid": "7d2f63b6-2019-04-18T14:52:21Z-00002-000", "rank": 26, "score": 148498.0}, {"content": "Title: Not getting children vaccinated Content: Vaccination is a relatively new process. For this reason, there are risks to using any vaccine. However, these vaccines are not limited to the HPV vaccine. Because of the nature of our health system, these risks should be taken into account, and the risks that a parent wants expose their children to should be their own decision. Second of all, all public school systems and most private school systems already require the immunization of children. The fact that most parents send their children to school is clear sign that most children are already being vaccinated for the biggest diseases(such as hepatitis.) The few parents without children attending school would not have much risk of having their child exposed to such a diesease, as the vast majority of the population (attending public or private schools) are immunized. Therefore, it can be seen that an official mandate to REQUIRE all parents to immunize their children is unnessesary because the vast majority of our population, that attend public and private schools have already been vaccinized, and with a majority of the population immune, a spread of diesease is unlikely.", "qid": "10", "docid": "6c8d356f-2019-04-18T20:03:16Z-00004-000", "rank": 27, "score": 147658.0}, {"content": "Title: Vaccines can cause autism and other problems Content: I do not believe that vaccines should be banned. I do believe that they should not be mandatory and that each parent should choose wether they have their kid vaccinated or not. Most of the time vaccines do not cause harm to people. But sometimes they do. Everyone has different body types. Every body will react differently to vaccines. Most people will not be harmed by them but because some people will be hurt or even killed by them, vaccines shouldn't be mandatory.", "qid": "10", "docid": "e0e14c7d-2019-04-18T14:48:21Z-00001-000", "rank": 28, "score": 147519.0}, {"content": "Title: vaccinating children must be a law Content: Children must be vaccinated it is a fact! 6 million lives if children are saved each year due to vaccinations.", "qid": "10", "docid": "a70ffd6e-2019-04-18T15:13:01Z-00005-000", "rank": 29, "score": 147362.0}, {"content": "Title: Vaccinations (mandatory/ disbursemenet) Content: Vaccinations should not be mandatory, because of peoples religious beliefs. Many people hold religious beliefs against vaccination, forcing parents to vaccine their children would violate the first amendment, which is the freedom to exercise their religion. Vaccines interfere with the natural law and God's plan for humanity. Disease is natural and humans should not interfere with it. The ethical dilemmas associated with using human tissue cells to create vaccines. Also people believe that the body is sacred, it should not receive certain chemicals or blood of tissues from animals, and should be healed by God or natural means. www.vaccines.procon.orgwww.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/cultural-perspectives-vaccinations-cultural", "qid": "10", "docid": "8906c1ae-2019-04-18T16:24:58Z-00009-000", "rank": 30, "score": 146975.0}, {"content": "Title: Vaccinating your Child Content: I personally believe that vaccinating children is a normal and highly beneficial procedure, however in recent years the subject of the safety of vaccines has become controversial. I challenge anybody who disagrees with my view to debate with me on the topic.", "qid": "10", "docid": "d9814b0e-2019-04-18T15:05:25Z-00004-000", "rank": 31, "score": 146845.0}, {"content": "Title: It's time to put pompous parents in their place Content: One of the big issues being discussed at middle-class, 30-something house parties today is the matter of the combined MMR jab. (1) There is a suggestion that this vaccination of children should be made compulsory. It is a suggestion that I happen to agree with and I said so at a dinner party last night. On hearing this, one of the guests (who I know has a couple of young children) turned round to me and asked in a very aggressive tone \"Do you have kids?\" To which I replied \"Well, no...\" But before I could continue he very rudely interrupted me and said \"Right! Well you don't know what you are talking about then.\" This is a phrase I hear time and again, and not just in relation to childcare issues. Recently, some friends and I were discussing the role gravity plays in sub-atomic particle physics and I suggested that, being a relatively weak force, gravity's influence on the interaction of nuclei, protons and electrons was so slight as to be considered insignificant. At this point a yummy mummy piped up and told me that her young Timmy had to be rushed to hospital after having an accident at an adventure playground. \"Gravity 'a weak force'?\" she scoffed, \"If your son fell off a climbing frame and cracked his head open you wouldn't think so. But of course, you don't have kids so you don't know what you're talking about.\" Was she right or was she being pompous? I think the latter which is why, if I am curious about scientific matters, I tend not not approach mental retards such as Karen Matthews (2) for their expert opinion. But perhaps I should. After all, by the yummy mummy's reasoning, being childless* I am must be a blithering idiot. On the other hand Karen Matthews, with an IQ of 74 and the mother of seven children by six different fathers, must a be a veritable fountain of knowledge. However, I think not. In conclusion, being a parent doesn't make that person in any way intellectually superior to those individuals who decide to delay having kids until they are older. Thank you. (1) http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk... (2) http://www.timesonline.co.uk... * Don't worry ladies, it's by choice and only until I meet the right girl!", "qid": "10", "docid": "94f30e76-2019-04-18T19:22:54Z-00003-000", "rank": 32, "score": 146781.0}, {"content": "Title: Children should receive vaccinations. Content: Our society needs to be healthy, we want it to be healthy.But does that mean that we start giving vaccinations to every person would help in being disease free. In olden days there were no vaccines but still the rate of getting ill was very less. there are natural ways for protecting ourselves from the diseases. Moreover the chances of getting ill have increased from the past when there were no vaccinations. Pharmaceutical Companies Can\"t Be Trusted. ALL Vaccines are Loaded with Chemicals and other Poisons which make the immune system of a lad weaker and if confronted by a disease takes a longer time to heal. Fully Vaccinated Children are the Unhealthiest, Most Chronically Ill Children I Know.A Number of Vaccines Have Already Had Problems/Been Removed from the Market so you can't trust all vaccines maybe you would take the vaccine now but later you come to know that the vaccine is faulty. You Can Always Get Vaccinated, But You Can Never Undo a Vaccination. Vaccination does not guarantee even immediate immunity, and boosters are necessary for all vaccinations. I think there is no care taken of our body,immune system or our health by ourselves ... we don't want to prevent it by natural methods and take vaccinations which gradually weaken your immune system. There are new diseases which have originated recent days because of our practices. So I conclude on saying that children must not be given so many vaccinations that their body becomes weaker.", "qid": "10", "docid": "79f05a32-2019-04-18T15:09:09Z-00002-000", "rank": 33, "score": 146246.0}, {"content": "Title: You choose the topic Content: I just realized that I wrote 'the only rule is to be a dick' rather than 'to not be a dick'. Lol. Vaccines for kids - The argument is really pretty simple: there is absolutely no reason for kids to die of preventable illnesses. Vaccines work by imitating infection and training the body to fight those infections[1]. Weak, dead, inactive and/or incomplete viruses are put into the body and the body's immune system is able to use these viruses to produce antibodies against them. It's no different than using a training simulation to teach someone how to do something in real life. [1] . http://www.cdc.gov... Vaccines are also important for protecting those who can't be vaccinated due to health reasons or age. Some vaccines require children to be a certain age before they can take them, so by making sure that other children are vaccinated on schedule we keep otherwise deadly viruses from spreading through a phenomena called 'herd immunity'[2]. When everyone who can be vaccinated is vaccinated, we create a sort of buffer which keeps the disease from spreading further. It would be like if you surrounded a fire pit with stones - sure there are things outside of the pit that could still catch on fire, but those stone create a buffer that makes the spread unlikely. [2]. http://www.ovg.ox.ac.uk... There is rarely any reason not to vaccinate a child. Sometimes a child's specific medical history may warrant avoiding or putting of vaccination entirely if they have an autoimmune disease or some other medical problem, but these specific instances are ones that a child's pediatrician will diagnose. On balance, there is a net benefit to vaccinating children.", "qid": "10", "docid": "bb781d0c-2019-04-18T13:19:10Z-00001-000", "rank": 34, "score": 145645.0}, {"content": "Title: Vaccination for children under 13 should be mandatory. Content: Refutations You just now listed 3 sources with no links for the audience and me to make sure. I listed links so that you can check my sources. \"My opponent has falsely accused me, and should therefore have conduct points graded off. \" This is completely ridiculous. You're the one who is screaming by writing in caps, I did most certainly not \"falsely accuse\" you, and you only listed these sources now. You insulted me by calling me a hypocrite. \"another false accusation: \"I bet you didn't want ANYONE to know you were even plagarizing! \" Well, I mean, why didn't you bother citing your source? Citing your source is a good thing! But those were not your words and it was complete plagarism. \"completely irrelevant to the question. \" Is this honestly your response? If everyone was vaccinated, then no one would be dramatically effected by any of these dangerous diseases. You gave no refutation and this point stands. \"contradiction: \"why would that suddenly happen in that time period? .. .even when they dissapear for a while\" you denied the existence of the improvement in hygiene, etc, yet acknowledged it a couple of sentences later. \" What are you talking about? There was no contradiction and no refutation here. You even said \"coincidence? \" You have no evidence to back up this point. \"You cannot save lives that are already lost. \" Vaccines didn't exist back then. If they vaccines back then, then those lives would have been saved and people could have lived much longer. \"Frankly, if that number is big, then vaccines don't work. If you consider the number that vaccines fail to save \"big,\" you are saying that vaccines do not save this \"big\" amount of people. \" That number is extremely big for a disease. Vaccines do work. That's why all those deaths have been stopping. \"This amount of deaths is because we are too reliant on vaccinations! \" No. .. Vaccines prevent many illnesses and prevent deaths as well. .. How does it make any sense that vaccines would cause that much damage? \". .. [vaccinations]can cause many deaths, not because it isn't used for some people, but because it is used by the majority. .. \" - Dr. James Marswell Are you kidding me? Everyone, type this name in Google. The guy doesn't even exist and the argument isn't even thoroughly explained! \"How is one person not being vaccinated a risk to others? If they are vaccinated, they should not be in danger! \" Once again, one person contracting a disease can spread it to more and more people through germs. Vaccinated people can still catch it, but they will have smaller symptoms. \"However, listing statistics is not plagiarizing. You even plagiarized yourself from the same source! Also, I listed tons of sources, just not in the same way that you did. Do I have to bother to do it? Also, your entire speech is without sources! \" You listed 3. In the final round. If you even have been looking at my argument, I have given numerous sources. Copying arguments word for word without citing them is plagiarism. \"Can you scientifically explain how we got our consciousness? How minerals, unliving elements, can create a living being? Life is right in front of our eyes! There are many things that we do not yet know. \" This is more complicated things and is irrelevant to the matter at hand. \"They will not have better defense against it and will be affected as much, if not greater, according to the study I quoted above. \" Fake study. Never sourced. No website. They will be affected a little less, according to the site you plagiarized from. \"If they are helpful, they are a good way to help prevent sicknesses! That doesn't mean that it should be mandatory. \" People will not take vaccines if they are optional. But vaccines are good for everyone. You need to take them so that your body will be benefited and there will be good. \"For these reasons, I have clearly won this debate. \" Obviously, I disagree. You had poorer conduct by constantly using caps, meaning you are shouting, you plagiarized from sites, and you insulted me. Spelling and grammar was okay. I saw a few errors, but I guess that's okay. Arguments are poor and will soon be refuted. Sources is what I dominated in, seeing as I listed more and you only mentioned yours in the last round. Refutations of CON Main Arguments 1. My opponent has stated that people have religious rights and should be allowed to not be vaccinated. This is a very ignorant move. They are putting their entire society at risk of contracting a virus or disease and putting everyone's lives at stake if there is a life-threatening disease. I have never heard that it is a sin to take a vaccine and my opponent has never explained this. 2. Vaccines can be harmful. No, this is wrong, vaccines saves many lives and prevents many diseases. The vaccine causes more benefit compared to the harm done and helps many people in the world right now. It has prevented disease breakouts and we know lives are safe. These are the main arguments that I got from the Opposition. Proposition's Arguments 1. The vaccine is good for everyone. It has saved lives, stopped diseases, and helped everyone. Not taking it means you are missing out on something very good. Many people have died before vaccines were invented and when they were, all those deaths dropped a huge amount. 2. People who are un-vaccinated can obtain harmful diseases and spread it to their families and friends who will suffer because of ignorance. You are putting everyone at risk and you should not be doing so.", "qid": "10", "docid": "9f71c585-2019-04-18T19:02:47Z-00000-000", "rank": 35, "score": 145258.0}, {"content": "Title: vaccinating children must be a law Content: This is awkward", "qid": "10", "docid": "a70ffd6e-2019-04-18T15:13:01Z-00000-000", "rank": 36, "score": 145249.0}, {"content": "Title: Not getting children vaccinated Content: Ah yes, state health insurance. Yes most states have SOME form of health insurance, however not all citizens are eligible for it. If they were, than we would not have this whole hype about Universal Healthcare Plans among the Democrats! Therefore the reasons that I gave before in 2nd round still stand. Also you stated that all vaccines except for HPV should be made mandatory. This is quite a long list of vaccines, and insurance would not completely cover the entire list without making premiums go through the roof. This would also raise the strain on the state health insurances that you have mentioned, leading to possible raised taxes, cut education funds. If in the event, that a diesease does pop up upon an unvaccinated population, it can be quickly controlled. It is very unlikely that a child with symptoms of measles would be allowed to contact your child at a party. Quarentine of the sick child is likely. Yes, vaccines are meant to prevent dieseases, however vaccines also work in creating \"rings of immunity\" around outbreaks. This is how small pox was eradicated. By immunizing in regions AROUND out breaks, the disease was contained. A similar infrastructure is already in place in the United States with our current usage of immunizations. Now, there are carriers of dieseases with no visible symptoms. However, a person can be a carrier of diesease even with a mandatory immunization. The government does have the right to protect the citizens of a country, however there are limits to how far the government can go. Our federal government does not have the right to completely disregard one's religious beliefs, like I said before. This is one of our base constitutional rights and would be violated if your plan were to be enacted. However, I also find it disagreeable that the government should have a right to dictate what goes into our bodies without personal choice. I do not completely disagree with your statement about parents needing to be responsible-- in fact quite the opposite. Parents should be given their own reins to how to best protect their children, for children are the Parents responsbility, and not the responsibility of politicians in our government. Finally, I would like to thank you for starting this debate. I found it very informative and interesting. Thanks!", "qid": "10", "docid": "6c8d356f-2019-04-18T20:03:16Z-00000-000", "rank": 37, "score": 145095.0}, {"content": "Title: Children should be vaccinated Content: Mothers need to vaccinate their children in order for them to avoid getting fatal diseases. Most diseases are prevented by getting vaccinations. Due to vaccinations diseases like smallpox have been eradicated. The CDC (Centers for Disease Control) on their website wrote an Article title Smallpox writing \"Thanks to the success of vaccination, the last natural outbreak of smallpox in the United States occurred in 1949.\" Vaccines have allowed and continue to allow protection to children from diseases that were once deadly.", "qid": "10", "docid": "ea0ed4bb-2019-04-18T11:37:52Z-00001-000", "rank": 38, "score": 145083.0}, {"content": "Title: Should doctors be aloud to give you vaccines Content: Medical exemptions These are allowed when a child has a medical condition or allergy that may make receiving the vaccine dangerous. All 50 states allow medical exemptions. For school entry purposes, these exemptions require a physician's note supporting the medical necessity of the exemption. Religious exemptions These are allowed when immunizations are not in agreement with the parents' religious beliefs. Forty-eight of the 50 states allow these exemptions. Philosophical exemptions These are allowed when non-religious, but strongly held beliefs, prevent a parent from allowing their child to be immunized. Twenty states allow these exemptions. In certain situations an exemption can be challenged by the state. These situations include those that would put the child at a higher risk of disease than is reasonable (medical neglect) or those that would put society at risk (e.g., epidemic situations). Also, in some states, if an unvaccinated child is found to transmit a vaccine-preventable disease to someone else, the parents may be liable in a civil suit. Because vaccines are considered medically necessary (except in the medical cases mentioned above), they are considered to be \"best-care\" practices. Therefore, if parents choose not to immunize their children, doctors will often have them sign a statement that they have discussed the risks and benefits of the vaccines and they understand that they are taking a risk in refusing vaccines for their children. Risking disease Many people incorrectly assume that a choice not to get a vaccine is a risk-free choice. But it isn't. The choice not to get a vaccine is a choice to risk the disease that the vaccine prevents. Studies have shown that unimmunized children are more likely to get vaccine-preventable diseases if there is an outbreak than those who have been immunized. Unimmunized children will be barred from school during an outbreak to protect them from the disease. Here are some things to consider before making a decision not to immunize a child: Vaccines are considered the best way to protect your child against diseases that could cause liver damage, liver cancer, suffocation, meningitis, pneumonia, paralysis, lockjaw, seizures, brain damage, deafness, blindness, mental retardation, learning disabilities, birth defects, encephalitis or death. Vaccines are studied extensively for their safety before being recommended for children and continue to be monitored after recommendation (see How Are Vaccines Made?). Because vaccines are given to healthy children, they are held to the highest standards of safety. Vaccines are considered by some to be a civic duty because they create \"herd immunity.\" This means that when most of the people in a community are immunized, there is less opportunity for a disease to enter the community and make people sick. Because there are members of our society that are too young, too weak, or otherwise unable to receive vaccines for medical reasons, they rely on \"herd immunity\" to keep them well. Harm to others There are four ways that others in the community may be harmed by a parent's decision not to immunize their child: If the unimmunized child gets a preventable disease, he or she may pass that disease to other unimmunized people in the community. Even when people are immunized, there is always a small percentage of them for whom the vaccine did not work or their immunity has waned; so these people will also be at increased risk if an unimmunized child gets a preventable disease. If a person cannot receive vaccines for medical reasons, they rely on those around them for protection from the diseases. Families that have received vaccines and contract a vaccine-preventable disease from an unimmunized person will need to pay the medical costs incurred by the disease. Treatment for the diseases cost much more than the vaccines, so the unimmunized child's family or society will bear these costs. Those who choose not to immunize their child may be considered to be \"free riders\" by those who have immunized their children. For example, a mother whose son recently experienced a severe bout with pertussis was angry that other children in the classroom were not immunized. In discussing vaccine safety as the reason that many parents give for not wanting to immunize, she wondered why their children should be protected by herd immunity when her child and all of the other immunized children bore the small risk of side effects. In addition, she wondered why she wasn't made aware that so many of the children in the school weren't immunized due to personal beliefs. She concluded by saying, \"Had I known . . .I would never have enrolled him in that school.\" BACK TO TOP Requirements versus recommendations Are requirements and recommendations the same thing? No. Recommendations made by the CDC are based on health and safety considerations. Requirements, on the other hand, are laws made by each state government determining which vaccines a child must have before entering school. To use an example, consider smoking. Experts tell us that smoking is bad for our health, but it is still our choice whether we smoke or not; that is like a recommendation. In contrast, no-smoking laws prohibit people from smoking in certain places and vary from state to state; this is similar to a requirement. It is important to remember that even if a vaccine is not required, it may be the best health choice. Talk to your doctor about vaccines that are available and whether they are important for you or a loved one to receive. BACK TO TOP Vaccine recommendations and package inserts I understand that the information included with a vaccine sometimes differs from more commonly available information. Can you explain why? While a package insert provides information about the vaccine, it is important to realize that it is being provided by the company and, therefore, has legal requirements that must be followed in its preparation. During the development of a vaccine, safety studies are completed by comparing a group of people who received the vaccine to a group of people who did not, called the placebo group. If a side effect occurs more times in the vaccine group, it may be a result of the vaccine. However, the company, according to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), must report any side effects that occurred in the vaccine group, even if the number of occurrences was similar to those in the placebo group. All of these side effects are then listed in the package insert. Groups that make recommendations about vaccines to healthcare professionals, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), don't use the same criteria as the FDA to determine whether a side effect is caused by vaccines. When these groups make recommendations, they review the data in the context of whether a particular side effect occurs significantly more often in the vaccine group than the placebo group. If it does, these side effects are listed in educational materials to physicians. For this reason, the number of side effects listed in the package insert is much greater than that listed by the CDC and AAP. https://www.chop.edu...", "qid": "10", "docid": "3575d3d7-2019-04-18T15:45:28Z-00001-000", "rank": 39, "score": 144322.0}, {"content": "Title: Children should receive vaccinations. Content: This debate is on children having mandatory vaccination with the exception of children who cannot receive it for reasons such as (but not excluding) allergies or religious reasons. Definitions: Child: A young human below the age of 18. Vaccinate: treat with a vaccine to produce immunity against a disease; inoculate. [1] Rules: 1. No trolling. 2. No outsourcing to other texts or images, except for sources. 3. Above are the terms and definitions that will be used throughout the entire debate. 4. Forfeiting one or two rounds is acceptable but will result in loss of conduct points. Forfeiting 3 or more rounds will result in a forfeit of the entire debate. 5. My opponent will provide his or her arguments in the end of round 1. For round 4, no new arguments or \"ideas\" are to be provided. The same goes for me in round 5.", "qid": "10", "docid": "79f05a51-2019-04-18T14:20:37Z-00006-000", "rank": 40, "score": 144003.0}, {"content": "Title: Why parents should immunized or Vaccinated they're kids Content: You want to do what is best for your children. You know about the importance of car seats, baby gates and other ways to keep them safe. But, did you know that one of the best ways to protect your children is to make sure they have all of their vaccinations? Immunizations can save your child\"s life. Because of advances in medical science, your child can be protected against more diseases than ever before. Some diseases that once injured or killed thousands of children, have been eliminated completely and others are close to extinction\" primarily due to safe and effective vaccines. Polio is one example of the great impact that vaccines had have in the United States. Polio was once America\"s most-feared disease, causing death and paralysis across the country, but today, thanks to vaccination, there are no reports of polio in the United States. Vaccination is very safe and effective. Vaccines are only given to children after a long and careful review by scientists, doctors, and healthcare professionals. Vaccines will involve some discomfort and may cause pain, redness, or tenderness at the site of injection but this is minimal compared to the pain, discomfort, and trauma of the diseases these vaccines prevent. Serious side effects following vaccination, such as severe allergic reaction, are very rare. The disease-prevention benefits of getting vaccines are much greater than the possible side effects for almost all children. Immunization protects others you care about. Children in the U.S. still get vaccine-preventable diseases. In fact, we have seen resurgences of measles and whooping cough (pertussis) over the past few years. Since 2010, there have been between 10,000 and 50,000 cases of whooping cough each year in the United States and about 10 to 20 babies, many of which were too young to be fully vaccinated, died each year. While some babies are too young to be protected by vaccination, others may not be able to receive certain vaccinations due to severe allergies, weakened immune systems from conditions like leukemia, or other reasons. To help keep them safe, it is important that you and your children who are able to get vaccinated are fully immunized. This not only protects your family, but also helps prevent the spread of these diseases to your friends and loved ones. Immunizations can save your family time and money. A child with a vaccine-preventable disease can be denied attendance at schools or child care facilities. Some vaccine-preventable diseases can result in prolonged disabilities and can take a financial toll because of lost time at work, medical bills or long-term disability care. In contrast, getting vaccinated against these diseases is a good investment and usually covered by insurance. The Vaccines for Children program is a federally funded program that provides vaccines at no cost to children from low-income families. To find out more about the VFC program,. Immunization protects future generations. Vaccines have reduced and, in some cases, eliminated many diseases that killed or severely disabled people just a few generations ago. For example, smallpox vaccination eradicated that disease worldwide. Your children don\"t have to get smallpox shots any more because the disease no longer exists. By vaccinating children against rubella (German measles), the risk that pregnant women will pass this virus on to their fetus or newborn has been dramatically decreased, and birth defects associated with that virus no longer are seen in the United States. If we continue vaccinating now, and vaccinating completely, parents in the future may be able to trust that some diseases of today will no longer be around to harm their children in the future.", "qid": "10", "docid": "3dd052cc-2019-04-18T13:46:56Z-00008-000", "rank": 41, "score": 143715.0}, {"content": "Title: Vaccination for children under 13 should be mandatory. Content: I may have taken some of my points from a source, however, this means that everything that I say is backed up, whereas your source for the hepatitis B vaccine has yet to be stated, although I requested it previously. \"If not, you still produced many statistics that require a source;...\" \"Measles is a much less serious circumstance, however, there are 20 million cases each year when children get them. That could be stopped with one vaccination!\" Excuse me, Strike, but how would one vaccination cover 20 million children? Just pointing that out there. Also, by exclaiming that I \"plagiarized,\" you directly contradicted your statement \"Where is the source for this?\" At the end of the same exact paragraph. Also, isn't it obvious why there would be improved hygiene, purification, and other methods? The government set out to improve our daily lives. Thank you for needlessly asking that question. \"Whooping cough (pertussis) was the cause of 5,000 to 10,000 deaths in the United States a year.\" First of all, let my draw your attention to \"was.\" That signifies that this is in the past. Second, draw your attention to \"a year.\" This does not specify which year, and I can naturally assume that it was in the begginnings of its emergence, back when people did not develop a resistance to it. Also, 5,000 deaths is actually not a lot. Influenza kills just as many people. 5,000 people, out of the massive amount of citizens in USA, is not a lot. \"The \"risk\" is most certainly worth taking, as the percentages of problems are very, very, very, very small. Most diseases cause huge amounts of suffering among children, and all that could be ended with a vaccine.\" The number of problems are pretty big, as I told you already. [1]over 5,500 cases alleging a causal relationship between vaccinations and autism have been filed under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program in the US Court of Federal Claims between 2001 and 2009. [3]The US Court Federal Claims Office of Special Masters, between 1988 and 2009, has awarded compensation to 1,322 families whose children suffered brain damage from vaccines. [4]About 30,000 cases of adverse reactions to vaccines have been reported annually to the federal government since 1990, with 13% classified as serious, defining serious as \"associated with permanent disability, hospitalization, lifetaking illness, or death. That point is pretty much useless, based on the statistics above, WHICH YOU DID NOT REFUTE. \"They think they're safer off without the vaccination, however, that is untrue. They will obtain diseases, spread it onto other children who think they're safe without the vaccination, and then spread it to the kids who were going to get a vaccination\" Thank you for pointing out that they think that they are safer without the vaccinations. Where, in my arguments, do I state that they think they are safer? They merely don't take the vaccinations, believing that it stands in the way of God, Allah, or whatever they believe, NOT THAT THEY BELIEVE THAT THEY ARE SAFER. STATING THAT THEY ARE SAFER HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS DEBATE, that argument is easily refuted by the statistics above, and, in the moral sense, by your basic human rights. Um..as far as I know, stating statistics with the exact wording is not called plagarizing. Thus, I can ignore all your refutation here: \"Plagarized. What's the argument here? \"Over 5,500 cases alleging a causal relationship between vaccinations and autism have been filed under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program in the US Court of Federal Claims between 2001 and 2009. Plagarized. However, vaccines do not cause autism. Researchers at the John Hopkins University School of Public Help and Centers for Disease Control reject the idea that vaccine and autism are linked. The US Court of Federal Claims has said that, \"theory of vaccine-related causation [of autism] is scientifically unsupportable.\" \" However, scientifically unsupportable is not a big issue. There are many things that we do not know in science, and you cannot ignore the fact that 5,500 cases of autism have occurred. \"\"All 50 states require vaccinations for children entering public schools even though no mandatory Federal vaccination laws exist.\" Plagarized. What's the argument here?\" If you had kept on reading, they still forced them nonetheless. This is abolishing human rights. You stiill haven't refuted my point about human rights. I consider this untouched. Refutations: 1. Because of a few ignorant parents, their children are at risk, putting even more children at risk of being infected with a horrible disease. First of all, i would like to point out that if other children are vaccinated, they should be safe...? Also, if their children are at risk, that is their problem. They decided, using their rights, not to vaccinate their children and therefore should be allowed to make that decision for a minor. 2. Most childhood vaccines have a 90-99% success rate in stopping disease [5]. When children who have been vaccinated do get sick, they usually have milder symptoms with less serious complications than an un-vaccinated child that gets the same disease. For example, an un-vaccinated child with mumps can become permanently deaf and spread the disease to more students, but the vaccinated child won't. Plagurized... right back at you, hypocrite. Also, using my point, developing a natural immune system is important for other reasons and diseases. Vaccinations include anti-body depressants which allow you to get sick easier. We must allow our own bodies to fight back. 3. Children especially need to get vaccinated. Children have weaker immune systems than adults and thus, are more susceptible to various diseases than adults. Tell this to the parents. It is their choice, and this debate is about mandatory or not, not whether or not it is good or bad for you. IMPORTANT NOTICE: THIS DEBATE IS ABOUT MANDATORY OR NOT, NOT WHETHER OR NOT IT IS GOOD FOR YOU. THEREFORE, MOST OF MY OPPONENTS POINTS CAN BE REFUTED BY THIS. ALL OF THEM ARE IRRELEVANT. IT IS THEIR RIGHTS TO CHOOSE FOR THEIR CHILD, AND THEY CAN MAKE THE DECISIONS BASED ON WHETHER THEY THINK IT IS GOOD OR BAD. THESE MAJOR POINTS HAVE BEEN UNTOUCHED BY MY OPPONENT. Also, in your ridiculous conclusion, I would like to point out that you started first, giving me less time and space to refute your arguments, whereas you had two speeches. And you can only truly claim that after I have finished posting that debate. Also, you gave a fallacy stating that you have refuted all of my points. However, the fact that it is the parents' rights to choose is untouched. According to the above notice, most of your major points are fallacies, giving examples of the benefits of vaccination. However, the fact remains that their parents have the choice to vaccinate or not to vaccinate, and they can make that choice based on those statistics. However, in this debate they are irrelevant and are present as a red-herring fallacy. New POints: 1. Many people are severely allergic to some chemicals in the vaccine. Doctors may not know this, and the result of the vaccine may be disastrous. Again, it is very evident that CON should win.", "qid": "10", "docid": "9f71c585-2019-04-18T19:02:47Z-00003-000", "rank": 42, "score": 143615.0}, {"content": "Title: Vaccination for children under 13 should be mandatory. Content: \"That night she became agitated and feisty, then she fell asleep and never woke up.\" This quote is from a man whose daughter suffered devastating side-effects from the mandatory Hepatitis B vaccination on his 5-week-old little girl. Hello. I am on the CON side for the debate that Vaccination for children under 13 should be mandatory. Definitions: mandatory-an action that you must perform without question vaccination-an injection into your body consisting of weak or dead bacteria which is or is similar to a disease. Because I am CON, I will allow my opponent to go first.", "qid": "10", "docid": "9f71c585-2019-04-18T19:02:47Z-00007-000", "rank": 43, "score": 143073.0}, {"content": "Title: Mandatory Childhood Vaccines Content: A very good point you have made but if you realize these mandatory vaccines include a wide variety of vaccines include a wide variety of \"disease preventers\" so yes although some of the diseases are uncommon safety must always be considered. I hate using what it's but what if a family from Africa moved next door and they carried a rare disease you are not vaccinated against, then you have a high chance of contacting that disease. My opponent also mentions that vaccines pose dangerous threats against human life (and I want to mention the theory that vaccines cause autism has been disproven), the chance of getting a life threatening condition is much slimmer than getting the affects of an actual disease such as polio or smallpox which are highly life threatening and painful. A few arguments I shall pose are milder affects because I know a large portion of people feel like vaccinations don't 100% protect people from the disease they create milder affects so the difference between a fever and death.", "qid": "10", "docid": "81901837-2019-04-18T17:55:43Z-00002-000", "rank": 44, "score": 143044.0}, {"content": "Title: Vaccines should not be mandatory. Content: They are a waste of time and money.", "qid": "10", "docid": "d3dbec22-2019-04-18T11:44:14Z-00001-000", "rank": 45, "score": 143016.0}, {"content": "Title: Children should receive vaccinations. Content: I know I lost already... I just felt so bad that no one accepted, so I will try my best. Despite causation and correlation, I believe that vaccines shouldn't be given. The amount of autistic kids have increased, while the amount of vaccinations have also increased. Please read my comment (first one) which follows this argument.", "qid": "10", "docid": "79f05a51-2019-04-18T14:20:37Z-00005-000", "rank": 46, "score": 142964.0}, {"content": "Title: vaccinating children must be a law Content: Well now I just agree with you.", "qid": "10", "docid": "a70ffd6e-2019-04-18T15:13:01Z-00002-000", "rank": 47, "score": 142901.0}, {"content": "Title: Mandatory Childhood Vaccines Content: There are laws about what vaccines are required for a VISA both to certain countries and from them. Unless the African family hid in a suitcase while going to a country without the disease, taking a vaccine would be mandatory and the proof of vaccination (usually a yellow sheet of medically verified paper) would be required to get the visa. If they ALREADY had the disease they would have failed the blood tests required to get the VISA and/or vaccination in the first place. You seem to not understand that although some vaccinations should be mandatory to make all vaccinations mandatory for children would be most ridiculous and be wasting precious biological resources which could save adults and/or be used to better understand the virus as opposed to worrying about wasting it on vaccinating children in a nation where that microorganism isn't even present.", "qid": "10", "docid": "81901837-2019-04-18T17:55:43Z-00001-000", "rank": 48, "score": 142696.0}, {"content": "Title: vaccinating children must be a law Content: I think that all children who CAN be vaccinated, many children and adults are immunocompromised, or undergoeing chemotherapy, etc., etc. But other than that, hear hear sir.", "qid": "10", "docid": "a70ffd6e-2019-04-18T15:13:01Z-00004-000", "rank": 49, "score": 142464.0}, {"content": "Title: Unvaccinated children should be home-schooled Content: Although it is ultimately up to the parents on whether they wish to vaccinate thier kids, I think it breaks a social contract to exclude your child from vaccination and place them into an environment that may put your child and other children at risk. Vaccinations have proved to be more good than harm children and if you decide to to not vaccinate you should not be able to enter your child into a school that requires vacvcinations as a standard. This is not to say that not vaccinating isn't a right parent have, but that right should have consequences. Those children should not be intergrated with others in order to avoid reversing our progress against nearly eradicated diseases.", "qid": "10", "docid": "1f658c7-2019-04-18T15:06:29Z-00004-000", "rank": 50, "score": 141512.0}, {"content": "Title: Parents Should Vaccinate Their Children Content: PrefaceI've talked with several people recently about a trend among parents not to vaccinate their children. Personally, I find this trend to be alarming, and view the decision to not vaccinate a child to be morally reprehensible. I would therefore like to debate this issue, to air my feelings on the subject. There is a 48 hours response time on this debate, so please bear that in mind prior to accepting. Full TopicOn balance, parents have a moral obligation to vaccinate their children. TermsOn balance - means in general and after weighing all the available evidence. Vaccine - a substance used to stimulate the production of antibodies and provide immunity against one or several diseases, prepared from the causative agent of a disease, its products, or a synthetic substitute, treated to act as an antigen without inducing the disease. Rules1. No forfeits2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling or semantics6. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add definitions7. The BOP is shared8. Pro must go first and must waive in the final round9. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a lossStructureR1. AcceptanceR2. Constructive CasesR3. Pro rebuts Con's Case, Con rebuts Pro's CaseR4. Pro defends Pro's Case and Crystallizes, Con defends Con's Case and CrystallizesThanks.", "qid": "10", "docid": "f5063168-2019-04-18T15:13:20Z-00007-000", "rank": 51, "score": 141500.0}, {"content": "Title: State-mandated administration of childhood vaccines is justified. Content: Introduction:I'm fine with my opponent attempting to argue that the private market protects people better than a government controlled market in vaccines.Analysis of the Resolution:Generally, public forum debates do not require plans. The resolution also doesn't seem to imply any sort of call to action.Defending the Affirmative ContentionsC1: Solvency My opponent conceded that vaccines improve people's lives, and that without vaccines lives will be lost. This is critical, because the government's responsibility is to maximize and improve public health and safety. There is a great, compelling state reason to require immunization, because of the countless lives that have been saved through it. Risking lives through a lost of mandate will be the last thing that the government will want to do - because it will cost lives.My opponent has been attempting to assert that people can handle themselves - and the only interference needed is education by the government. This is failing. The Wall Street Journal reported on how doctors are practically giving up on their patients and dismissing them, because of their stubborn belief that vaccines can hurt their children [1] [3].False claims that have been disproved by numerous studies, such as the claim that their is a link between autism and vaccines, continue to trick parents even today, even as doctors try to explain to the parents [1].In fact, around 39% of parents refused/delayed vaccines for their children back in '08, up from previous years [2].In a study published last year, some 30% of doctors claim that, at least once, they asked a family to leave because of their constant refusal of vaccines [1]. Another source provided a similar but lesser number - 21% of doctors have dismissed families because of vaccination issues [3].Attempting to \"focus on education\" has been tried by doctors - and failure is evident. Making the government leave vaccine mandates will reduce people's irrational worries, to some extent. Obviously, parents will become scared with the return of horrible diseases. Due to the fact that vaccinations now prevent diseases, many people have begun to forget the horrible impacts of some diseases [3]. Do you see why some parents no longer remember?C2: CommunityMy opponent doesn't gain the same benefits, because without mandates - the number of vaccinations will quickly reduce. Voluntary vaccinations are not likely to stay at high rates, but mandates keeps them high enough.The fact remains that there simply isn't only going to be that one crazy parent who doesn't vaccinate their children. A rising amount of people are choosing to exempt themselves or delay vaccinations [4] [5]. With this growing trend, we can expect the loss of herd immunity - which is usually around 90-95%.My opponent also claims that at different times, different vaccinations are needed. This is outrageous - a constant vaccination of children is vital to ensure the safety of the people from the disease returning. With people believing these false hopes, vaccination rates will start to lower, with people believing that the vaccine is no longer needed, and the disease will return. My example of how whooping cough worsened in Colorado because of lowering vaccination rates perfectly captures this scenario. More and more parents choosing to exempt or delay will harm the general public.C3: MoneyFor the maximization of gained money, mandates are needed. Without them, we cannot hope to save a similar amount, when considering the high exemptions.My opponent also claims that aid has to be given to the poor, in order to pay for the vaccines. I doubt that there is actually that many people who need aid, to actually amount to anything. My opponent's own evidence seems to imply large amounts of \"voluntary vaccinations\", whereas the overwhelming majority of people pay for themselves.Also, vaccine mandates generally aren't that hard to enforce. Currently, the main punishment for rejecting vaccination is that you cannot go to public schools (private schools also have similar vaccine requirements to enter), unless if you state allows some sort of religious/moral/philosophical exemptions (and most states do allow some exemptions).Also, Con's calculations are rather confusing. To be honest, I don't see how he got the $2 billion dollar savings figure and how the government needs to spend $5 on every person.C4: AuthorityI was expecting my opponent to throw a constitutionality/parental freedoms argument out there, but I guess I was wrong. Also, the constitution is generally seen as the document keeping power and freedoms in balance, both by the people and the government. I don't see any other way to find whether or not the government has the authority other than the legal process.Con ArgumentsC1: Economic CalculationGenerally mutation rates in bacteria are about one mutation per one hundred million genes per generation. Bacteria can produce billions of new bacteria daily, each with possibly thousands of genes. Within some forms of diseases, you can expect quick mutations and a rapidly worsening and harming sickness. Constant awareness is needed to fight this - a worthy use of the government's time and money considering the rising number of parents failing to protect their children. Quite frankly, you can't take a risk by letting parents have their own freedoms about this.Also, my opponent has conceded that vaccines have beneficial individual effects. Creating more vaccinations and enforcing mandates will lead to the general improvement of life.C2: BiopoliticsThis might be relevant if we were talking about vaccine mandates in general - concerning adults too. However, children simply do not have the same exact rights as adults.Also, my contention about \"authority\" is supposed to relate to this. The Constitution is the method by which the people and the government decide whether or not a new law is infringing too much on individual freedoms.There currently exists no alternative to mandates - \"educating\" parents on the safety and benefits of vaccines is ineffective in increasing numbers. As the government's duty is partially to protect public health and safety, they must take action to protect the lives of individuals. Without life, you cannot enjoy freedoms.Furthermore, I don't see any logical reason why a parent would have to refuse vaccines other than religious/moral/philosophical objections, which states usually give exemptions to. My opponent has agreed that vaccines have almost no risk at all, and provide much more advantages to people.This sort of bad parenting needs to be stopped.Individual rights cannot be respected if they harm the general public. People are free to do what they will until their actions begin harming others [6].Conclusion:Voluntary vaccination cannot accomplish as much as mandatory vaccinations. Voluntary vaccination leads to higher exemptions, delays, and ultimately will result in a tremendous loss of life. Not to mention that voluntary vaccination leads to the loss of benefits such as herd immunity and won't save as much money for society and the government. Compulsory vaccination protects these benefits and people.I await your response, Con ;)Sources:[1] http://online.wsj.com...[2] http://abcnews.go.com...[3] http://www.usatoday.com...[4] http://www.kdheks.gov...[5]http://www.usatoday.com...[6] Paul Offit, chief of the Division of Infectious Diseases and the director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia", "qid": "10", "docid": "ccdef108-2019-04-18T18:19:43Z-00002-000", "rank": 52, "score": 141488.0}, {"content": "Title: Should Religious parents be exempted from getting their children necessary vaccines. Content: As he as not specified a structure for the debate, I'll do my best to do so in a fair and common manner. Round 1: Con's CaseRound 2: Pro's Case, Con's RebuttalsRound 3: Pro's Rebuttals, Con's Defense & RebuttalsRound 4: Pro's Defense & Rebuttals Con's Closing StatementsRound 5: Pro's Closing Statements, Con (ends debate)With that in mind, I'd like to move to some housekeeping, particularly in regards to the resolution. The resolution is quite wordy and slightly incoherent. I'll try to reword the definition in a manner that both preserves the context and intent of the instigator but that also is more coherent and effective. Hopefully my opponent will agree to the stipulations, as the implications of the two resolutions are quite frankly the same. Resolved: Religious exemption of necessary vaccinations should be permitted. As Con, my opponent, the instigator is negating this notion, arguing that there shouldn't be exemptions for vaccinations based on religious beliefs. As Pro, I will be arguing the converse; that religious exemption should be accepted and permitted. The burden of proof, or BoP, will rest primarily upon Pro to affirm the resolution and exemplify why a change to the status quo (e. g. disallowing religious exemptions) is better than allowing it. My primary duty will be to negate these arguments. However, for the sake of balancing the BoP, I will also provide a case of my own, open to scrutiny by my opponent, to give a more equal balance to the BoP in the debate. Definitions:Vaccinate: \"medical : to give (a person or an animal) a vaccine to prevent infection by a disease\" [1]Religious exemption: \"The religious exemption is granted based on the U. S. Constitution First Amendment right to freely hold and exercise religious beliefs. \" [2]Necessary: \"absolutely needed\"With those items out of the way, I will present my case. Observations:I would like to note that my opponent has used the word necessary to define the vaccinations of which he/she believes should be utilized regardless of religion. It is imperative to realize that my opponent has not stipulated how this word should be interpreted. As it is highly subjective, it is quite difficult to perceive exactly what my opponent intended. However, for the purpose of this debate (and that my opponent mentioned parents), we will simplify this word to mean the following: any vaccination *required* to attend a public school. This focuses the resolution towards children and more definitively interprets necessary. Contention I: Religious exemption is already permitted. In various states, and actually a majority, religious exemption for vaccinations are already permitted. [4] [5]A change from the status quo would subsequently require a policy change. As the current policies are already in place, it is evident that the majority of states accept the religious reasoning behind denying vaccinations. It has been accepted in the past, and should thus be accepted and permitted now. Moreover, there are instances which support the idea of religious exemption. For example, a women in New York won the right to not vaccinate her son, based on religious convictions. [8] This is another example of how religious exemption is already accepted and permitted. Contention II: Some vaccinations contain components which can violate religious beliefs. It is fact that the vaccinations themselves, and their components could violate religious beliefs. For example, some religions (such as Jews and Muslims) do not condone the consumption of pig. [6] It is also fact that some vaccinations that could be deemed *necessary* contain forms of pig. [7]Forcing individuals to vaccinate their children with vaccines that are derived from organisms which violate religious convictions of the parents and/or the children themselves is a direct and specific example of an infringement on religious freedom. Contention III: Religious exemption is protected under the US Constitution. The First Amendment of the Constitution shows the government cannot prohibit the exercise of a religion. [9] This means that the government cannot make a law interfering or prohibiting the exercise of a religion. [10] In regards to vaccinations, the free exercise clause allows exemption from vaccinations. Former editor-in-chief of USA Today explains, \"the free-exercise clause of the First Amendment mandates state accommodation for members of religious groups who object to the vaccinations on religious grounds. The free-exercise argument follows the logic that requiring children to perform an action (in this case to receive a vaccination) that is abhorrent to their religious beliefs and/or practices places a significant and undue burden on their free-exercise rights. \" [11]Because the constitution allows a free exercise of religion, and exemption is neutral and not favoring a religious establishment, permitting religious exemptions is the most pragmatic option. Contention IV: Vaccinations aren't totally safe. Religious reasons for denying vaccinations is quite widespread. One of those reasons is also safety. Beyond moral convictions, these stretch to safety, and how they could harm the body. The Institute of Medicine admits, \"Vaccines are not free from side effects, or \u201cadverse effects. \" [12] Moreover, the link of MMR autism suggested in 1998 isn't the only thing parents should be worried about. Many vaccinations aren't totally safe. [13] For religious reasons, parents do not want to put their children in danger. As there is a possibility, this is another reason to permit religious exemption. Contention V: Flawed arguments envelop anti-exemption. Many people opposed to the idea of religious exemption claim that most religions don't hold the view that vaccinations are unacceptable. However, religious exemption goes further than the base \"religion\" itself. Pro-life activist Eric Schleidler explains, \"You can have a more scrupulous moral position than the official teaching of the church. \" [14] This is very true. As vaccine laws sometimes require an explanation [2], this religious moral position even moreso dictates we accept and permit religious exemption. Another argument is that it's always too easy to get religious exemptions. However, more and more states are tightening the law in this regard, making it more difficult and more explanatory to receive religious exemption. [14] Instead of abolishing it altogether, tightening the existing policies is more effective at a) protecting liberty and religious freedom, and b) protecting utilitarian health. Furthermore, there exists arguments that religious exemption is a major health hazard. While vaccinations have considerably helped curb diseases our society once suffered, the exemptions we have don't pose as large a threat as propaganda proclaims. With most individuals vaccinated, would that not prevent those individuals from contracting and being affected by the disease in the first place? If exempt people accept the risk (which they do) then why not let them? Further, there have not been near the hazards or outbreaks of which propaganda loves to exclaim. Conclusion:I have provided a host of arguments backing my position, showing the logical and moral reasons as to why religious exemption from vaccinations should be both accepted and permitted, thus fulfilling the resolution and effectively affirming it. Sources:[1] . http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2] . http://www.nvic.org...[3] . http://www.merriam-webster.com...[4] . http://www.ncsl.org...[5] . http://www.pewresearch.org...[6] . http://www.themodernreligion.com...[7] . http://www.pewresearch.org...[8] . http://nypost.com...[9] . https://www.law.cornell.edu...[10] . https://www.law.cornell.edu...[11] . http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org...[12] . http://www.hrsa.gov...[13] . http://www.theguardian.com...[14] . http://www.chicagotribune.com...", "qid": "10", "docid": "6abd1330-2019-04-18T14:24:26Z-00006-000", "rank": 53, "score": 141464.0}, {"content": "Title: Should Religious parents be exempted from getting their children necessary vaccines. Content: Before I refute your arguments I want to clarify one thing. You said late in this argument that something I said violated the debate structure you mentioned in the first round and is against the rules. There is no formal debate structure in this debate. I am under no obligation to follow what you proposed. You can structure you arguments in specific rounds how you see fit. However I am under no obligation to do so. If you want a structure that both parties must agree to start your own debate. That out of the way lets get down to business. -Argument 1 I find it interesting you took a quote from my first round when I wasn't trying to make a argument just state my position and then say I didn't back this up as if that's a point. No you took something that wasn't supposed to be argument that I wrote before I knew if anyone would take this debate and acted like it proves your point. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you just overlooked that detail. In future please address an actual argument. -Argument 2 So the summary of your argument was it's the parents job to do whats best for their children and they should do it how they see fit. I agree parents should do what's best for their child. But some people have crazy ideas as to how to raise children. Some people think beating their kid with a belt for a hour is proper. My point is that just because parents think it's good for the kids doesn't make them right. Maybe something you can do to help your kid is get them the shot to stop them from getting deadly viruses. You know what can happen if you don't, just for a example the measles outbreak that happened not very long ago. You want to guess why that happened. Because parent decided they didn't want to give their kids vaccines because they didn't like it. Guess what happened. A giant outbreak of a disease that barely existed in america before. This happens if large amount of parent decide to not vaccinate their kids because a book told them it's bad. On to your arguments -Contention 1 You double down on your position that because most places except religious exemption it must be correct. Well lets put it this way. There was a time that most states in america thought slavery was a good idea. Does that mean it was? They thought segregation was good. Does that mean it was? ( I'm not saying religious exemption is as bad as slavery I'm using it to make the point) So no just because most states except it doesn't tell you anything on if it's good or not. -Contention 2 I find it very interesting that you state that kids in most of those grades can make their own decisions on this matter. Let's take the age group 13-17. The reason I find it interesting you think this is because if you go back in your debate history ColeTrain you will find a debate asking if kids 13-17 should be allowed to make their own medical decisions. You argued they shouldn't and won that debate. So you must have made some good arguments for why they aren't mature enough to make that decision. But now you seem to think they can. So what happened. Can they not make that decision normally but when it's convenient for you they can. My actual argument on it is I don't care what the age is. If you attend a public school you have to get the same shots everyone else does. -Contention 2 (part 2) Lets go through this one by one. First you say I haven't sited a case of someone getting sick because of not getting a vaccine. I haven't done so because I shouldn't need to. It's very simple. If you don't get the vaccine that protects you from the deadly virus, you are much more like to get the deadly virus. If you get the deadly virus you can die from it. If a lot of kids don't get protection from deadly virus some will die from said deadly virus. It's not hard to understand. If you can't work out this simple process I question how you can figure out how to dress yourself in the morning. You also mention that I said that vaccines aren't 100% effective. You use this as if it makes a point for you. Nobody ever said they are 100% effective. Just because they don't always work doesn't mean you should get them. Cancer treatment is 100% effective but you should still get it if you have cancer. Contention 2 (part 3) You basically again just say that kids not getting vaccines just because their parents are offend can't lead to a kid getting sick ( See argument above I'm not typing it out again). Also you believe in faith healing. I'm not going to point out why this is wrong since that isn't part of the argument. But here is a article anyway http://www.alternet.org... Contention 3 You say that there is no evidence that the 1st amendment limits religious practices that harm others. Ok lets take that to it logical extent. So ColeTrain if I come over to your house and kidnap you take you in front of a crowd of hundreds of people and cut your heart out and eat it. And as you die I say, it's ok I did this because it's my religion. Would you think ok this is totally justified then. Would you think that. Because that is the logical extent of what you just said. Yes I know later you say it shouldn't effect other peoples rights but you contradict that by saying I was wrong about that so I point it out. So no I don't think it should be the right of parent to but their kids at risk because their sky book told them to. So now that I have refuted all of your arguments I'd like you to try again.", "qid": "10", "docid": "6abd1330-2019-04-18T14:24:26Z-00003-000", "rank": 54, "score": 141132.0}, {"content": "Title: You Choose the Topic! Content: 1. Vaccines should be required for children 2. Felons should be allowed to vote 3. Animal testing 4. The voting age/drinking age/smoking age should be raised (choose whichever you want) 5. Make child marriage illegal in the U.S. (participants must be 18 or older) Extra: raise the age of majority", "qid": "10", "docid": "36c2c315-2019-04-18T11:41:22Z-00006-000", "rank": 55, "score": 140976.0}, {"content": "Title: Parents Should Vaccinate Their Children Content: Challenge Accepted! xD", "qid": "10", "docid": "f5063168-2019-04-18T15:13:20Z-00006-000", "rank": 56, "score": 140871.0}, {"content": "Title: Parents Should Vaccinate Their Children Content: Thanks to Miguel for accepting. I will now construct my case. I apologize for keeping my arguments rather short; I am running low on time.MY CASEParents have basic societal obligations to their children. By choosing to engage in actions that would lead to pregnancy, parents must accept the consequences of those actions, i.e. custodianship of a child or of children. It is a parent's job to act in the best interests of their child to ensure that he or she is healthy and capable of handling themselves in the broader world. I will contend that vaccinations are an essential part of meeting these parental obligations, inasmuch as they are in the best interests of the child. If that's true, then the resolution is affirmed.\"Vaccines have historically been the most effective means to fight and eradicate infectious diseases.\" [1] For example, \"In 1958, there were 763,094 cases of measles in the United States; 552 deaths resulted. After the introduction of new vaccines, the number of cases dropped to fewer than 150 per year (median of 56). In early 2008, there were 64 suspected cases of measles. Fifty-four of those infections were associated with importation from another country, although only 13% were actually acquired outside the United States; 63 of the 64 individuals either had never been vaccinated against measles or were uncertain whether they had been vaccinated.\" [1]\"[I]mmunization currently averts more than 2.5 million deaths every year in all age groups from [diseases like] diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis (whooping cough), and measles.\" [2] By failing to immunize individuals in disease-prone areas, 2.1 million innocent people die every year from otherwise preventable ailments. Requiring immunizations will drastically reduce that staggering number. [2] Past experience confirms that vaccinations have reduced the amount of serious illnesses. Tetanus was reduced by 98.5% by using vaccines, Pertussis 92.1%, and the same with Diphtheria at 99.9%, and HIB 98.8%, as well as Polio with 100% eradication. [2] \u201c[I]f countries could raise vaccine coverage to a global average of 90%, by 2015 an additional two million deaths a year could be prevented among children under five years old. This would have a major impact on meeting the global goal to reduce child deaths by two-thirds between 1990 and 2015. It would also greatly reduce the burden of illness and disability from vaccine-preventable diseases, and contribute to improving child health and welfare, as well as reducing hospitalization costs.\u201d [3] \u201cWith the exception of safe water, no other modality [treatment], not even antibiotics, has had such a major effect on mortality reduction.\u201d [3]In fact, a lack of immunization has led to outbreaks here in the U.S., which lacks the kind of unsanitary conditions of many developing countries. What this shows is that when you control for things like hygiene or even in environments are clean and otherwise healthy, vaccinations are still key components of warding off disease. \"California\u2019s worst episode of whooping cough, or pertussis, in 2010, likely spread among unvaccinated children to infect 9,210 youngsters...[N]ew research published in the journal Pediatrics reports that the high number of children who were intentionally unvaccinated also contributed to the rapid spread of the infection...The researchers of the Pediatrics study compared the number of intentionally unvaccinated children who entered kindergarten from 2005 to 2010 to the onset of the whooping cough outbreak in 2010. They were able to identify 39 regional clusters of kids with non-medical reasons for being unvaccinated, and two clusters that were significantly related to rapid spread of whooping cough. Children who are intentionally not vaccinated and become infected with diseases like measles or pertussis, can pass the illness on to those who can\u2019t be immunized, such as babies under six months and those with compromised immune systems, such as cancer patients.\" [4]Another example of this kind of contagion caused through failure to vaccinate can be found in Texas. \"In August, the Texas megachurch Eagle Mountain International Church made headlines after 21 members of its congregation contracted measles...The church...advocated abstaining from vaccinations over fears that they can cause autism. The outbreak was traced back to a church member who had traveled abroad on a mission trip and then spread measles among the unvaccinated congregation.\" [5]Therefore, it is clear the vaccinating children is in their best interest, to not only prevent a society where disease resistance is low, but to immunize the child against disease-carriers even in a largely vaccinated society such as the U.S. It is a simple, common sense precaution that parents are clearly obliged to undertake.SOURCES1 - http://en.wikipedia.org...2 - http://www.who.int...3 - http://www.vaccine-safety-training.org...4 - http://healthland.time.com...5 - http://www.healthline.com...", "qid": "10", "docid": "f5063168-2019-04-18T15:13:20Z-00005-000", "rank": 57, "score": 139617.0}, {"content": "Title: Should doctors be aloud to give you vaccines Content: Con states, baselessly, that parents shouldn't be allowed to vaccinate their children because \"they lead to autism.\" He provides zero evidence for this assertion. Note that he has the burden of proof. Moreover, he has dropped every single point I raised in the past round. Extend all of those points.", "qid": "10", "docid": "3575d3d7-2019-04-18T15:45:28Z-00002-000", "rank": 58, "score": 139260.0}, {"content": "Title: Make Vaccination Compulsory Content: It is a parental right to decide about vaccinations for a child", "qid": "10", "docid": "d77612cc-2019-04-15T20:24:10Z-00001-000", "rank": 59, "score": 139211.0}, {"content": "Title: Children should receive vaccinations. Content: Voters, please don't vote solely for forfeiture. This debate is on whether or not children should receive vaccinations, and I am saying yes.", "qid": "10", "docid": "79f05a32-2019-04-18T15:09:09Z-00005-000", "rank": 60, "score": 139065.0}, {"content": "Title: There should not be Mandatory Vaccinations Content: Vaccinations are a scam, cause Autism, and all sorts of other negative consequences. It is mean to do this to a child who has no say in the matter and he/she could die from it. It's a eugenics program, aimed at killing people slowly.", "qid": "10", "docid": "5a57223d-2019-04-18T11:54:56Z-00001-000", "rank": 61, "score": 138632.0}, {"content": "Title: Vaccinations (mandatory/disbursement) Content: You say and I quote, \" There runs the risk of death if a child is not presented with a vaccination,\" but there also runs a risk of the children dying from these vaccines that are now supposedly saving their lives. Your website cdc.gov also states that \"A vaccine, like any medicine, could cause a serious reaction and the risk of a vaccine causing serious harm, or death, is small but not unheard of.\" So is that one life you say could be saved from spreading a disease worth the risk of them dying from the side effects of the so called life saving vaccination.", "qid": "10", "docid": "47161a6-2019-04-18T16:19:35Z-00000-000", "rank": 62, "score": 138377.0}, {"content": "Title: Vaccines are a waste of time, money, and cause health problems. Content: Do you think childhood vaccinations should become mandatory? >Yes, it protects everyone >No, it's a family decision I>'m undecided Thank you, we have already counted your vote. Yes, it protects everyone 79.08% (707 votes) No, it's a family decision 18.12% (162 votes) I'm undecided 2.8% (25 votes) Total Votes: 894 In this poll, 80% of people, 4x the people have proven that they have low intelligence. All thos people have no idea what's in the vaccines nor read the leaflets. They want 96% of people to be vaccinated where I live!!! They are forcing me to get a vaccination or they're gonna fire me!!! That's against freedom and I totally disagree with it... You think even more diseases can be cured?! Come on! You listed like 10 that we *must get* which is absurd!!!", "qid": "10", "docid": "d0c78d5a-2019-04-18T11:47:44Z-00001-000", "rank": 63, "score": 138329.0}, {"content": "Title: Vaccines should be mandatory Content: It appears my opponent has not given any arguments/refutations. Extend.", "qid": "10", "docid": "cea53ba4-2019-04-18T14:44:38Z-00002-000", "rank": 64, "score": 138327.0}, {"content": "Title: Mandatory Vaccinations Content: Vaccines should be mandatory.", "qid": "10", "docid": "ef8842bc-2019-04-18T12:14:18Z-00002-000", "rank": 65, "score": 138141.0}, {"content": "Title: Mandatory vaccinations (for government services) Content: sure, All that stuff about herd immunity is true. However, That still doesn't tell me why it should be mandatory. where's the imperative justification? Sure I can say \"you ought to do this or that\". But what's the basis for the ought. We certainly can't just go denying kids school for no good reason. The problem here is that once we open this flood gate of mandatory vaccines, Then the government can just tell us what vaccines to get. What if a harmful vaccine comes out? Just because they're all good now doesn't mean they always will be right? So while we can say that people should get vaccines. We can't say they should be mandatory because it violates our civil rights and those are held to a high standard. All you've shown me so far is that vaccines are a good idea. You haven't shown me a good enough reason to deny millions of kids education. That's a tall order to fill.", "qid": "10", "docid": "f5670653-2019-04-18T11:06:37Z-00002-000", "rank": 66, "score": 137999.0}, {"content": "Title: Children should receive vaccinations. Content: First off, let me make a quick clarification. The rate of getting ill was NOT less before vaccines, in the \"olden days.\" My opponent seems to have forgotten my point about smallpox, polio, tuberculosis, diphtheria, tetanus, measles, mumps, and so on. In fact, according to the Washington Post, the measles vaccine alone saves about 1 million lives every year. Second, vaccines don't make the immune system weaker. The way most vaccines work is allowing the immune system to create an antigen to the disease in question. According to the Center for Disease Control, the adverse effects of vaccines are nearly nonexistent, and children are strongly recommended for vaccines. Perhaps some vaccines HAVE been removed from the market. My response to this is: so what? Anything could be recalled. Your drinking water MIGHT be turned off because it's contaminated and filtered. Does this mean you'll never drink water? The situation is the same with vaccines. If you want to stay healthy, you have to take the slight risk that the vaccine is not entirely perfect. His supposition that vaccines give only adverse affects (provided in his conclusion paragraph) is unsupported and entirely refuted by my point that the measles vaccine alone saves a million lives a year. In conclusion, I have not yet seen a single legitimate point against vaccines. Thus, I affirm.", "qid": "10", "docid": "79f05a32-2019-04-18T15:09:09Z-00001-000", "rank": 67, "score": 137763.0}, {"content": "Title: Parents Should Vaccinate Their Children Content: Thanks again to Con for the debate. I may quote him at times during my rebuttal, and so I will put his remarks in italics to distinguish them from my own.CON's CASE\"I'm a 18 year old boy, perfectly fine, I've taken only 3 or 4 vaccines in my entire life, and I never had any serious problem whatsoever.\"This is a cherry-picking fallacy. Just because one person, or even because several people, can live perfectly good lives having taken no or few vaccines does not mean, as a general policy, that it is a good idea to not vaccinate yourself or your children. There are two reasons why this is true. Firstly, the severity of the danger (the risk of catching serious illnesses like measles, chickenpox, or polio) outweigh any supposed benefits to not vaccinating yourself. Even if the risk of catching those diseases is low, these diseases are so serious that it is not worth even taking a low risk of catching them. For instance, before vaccines, measles killed about 545,000 per year, chickenpox killed about 8,900, and polio killed about 3,000. [1, 2, 3] These disease can also severely injure those they don't kill, for example, polio can lead to irreversible paralysis. [4, 5]\"In this world there's not right or wrong, there is just point of view. You say it's right to vaccinate, I say it's not, who it's really right?...So, you say that responsibility and obligations it's doing what everyone thinks it's correct, but maybe responsibility it's just freedom, doing what we believe, and not what everyone tells you to do.\"Pro makes a claim about moral relativism, but offers no philosophical framework or justification to ground his position, so as such, it is unsubstantiated. Moreover, Pro's position would invariably mean that we could never hold anyone accountable for anything because we do \"what we believe, and not what everyone tells [us] to do.\" So, if I believe wantonly torturing people for fun is moral, or if I believed that throwing a baby into a pool and watching them drown is moral, then, according to Pro's logic, I would be justified in doing those things. But clearly, this type of reasoning would lead to a totally unworkable society--morality creates implicit norms of behavior designed to bring order to humanity's chaos, and, therefore, if we were to embrace what Pro is saying, we would subsequently divorce ourselves from morality. In other words, Pro's argument subverts morality, which is not something we should countenance in this debate.But, even if we allow that when things are subjective we should leave people to their own devices (perhaps a more reasonable/charitable interpretation of Con's assertions), then we should still obligate action when things are obvious. The effectiveness of vaccines is not, as Con suggests, an issue of opinion; it is an issue of scientific fact. The overwhelming volume of evidence supports the fact that they work, and because it is fact--not opinion--that they are in the best interests of the child, we can morally compel parents to immunize their children.\"Who could you say for sure, that vaccines always had been the decisive point of decrease in eradicating diseases.\"I never made the claim that vaccines were always the \"decisive point,\" I merely claimed that they were significant contributors, and that the facts show them to be effective.\"From the 40 reasons why you should never vaccinate infants...there are some that I would like to reinforce, like the huge side effects that most of people are unaware of.\"First of all, you cannot just refer people to a source and tell them to read it themselves, as this could easily be regarded as an attempt to circumvent character limits. Secondly, that source is riddled with innaccuracies. Allow me to point out a couple:The Article Claims: \"The mercury, aluminum and live viruses in vaccines is behind the huge epidemic of autism (1 in 10 worldwide as per doctors in the USA), a fact that has been admitted by the US Vaccine Court.\"Reality: \"in the case of Cedillo v. Secretary of Health and Human Services (Case #98-916V), the battle over vaccine injuries moved into the courts. A panel of three special masters began hearing the first cases of the historic Omnibus Autism Proceedings in June 2007. The lead petitioners...claimed that Michelle's autism was caused by a vaccine...On February 12, 2009, the court ruled in three test cases that the combination of the MMR vaccine and thiomersal-containing vaccines were not to blame for autism.\" [6] In other like cases where the courts ruled in favor of the petitioners, they did not find that the vaccines were dangerous, rather, \"the case was conceded without proof of causation.\" [6]The Article Claims: \"Autistic children also suffer from severe bowel disorders. As per Dr Andrew Wakefield, this is due to the vaccine strain live measles virus in the MMR vaccine. Nearly all children become fully autistic after the MMR shot.\"Reality: \"Andrew Jeremy Wakefield...is a British former surgeon and medical researcher, known for his fraudulent 1998 research paper in support of the now-discredited claim that there is a link between the administration of the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine, and the appearance of autism and bowel disease.\" [7]There are no citations in the article, and the article of one man, who, as the abovementioned falsities suggest, is merely grasping at straws to make his case, cannot outweigh legions of other scientist and their more credible findings. Moreover, the writer of the article isn't even a medical expert: \"Chatterjee was once a journalist with a national English-language daily newspaper in India. He moved on to a public sector company, rising to be a regional director of the company.\" [8]As for the other sources Con cites, their credibility is equally dubious, and one even admits, \"Since they were introduced in the early 20th century, vaccines have been a tremendous medical and scientific success. Today perceived as a necessity, they are so familiar to us that their potential risks are rarely mentioned.\" Besides, even if you buy that there is an outside risk of autism, the proven benefits of vaccines outweigh that chance.Thus, I affirm.SOURCES1 - http://en.wikipedia.org...2 - http://en.wikipedia.org...3 - http://en.wikipedia.org...4 - http://www.who.int...5 - http://www.ct.gov...6 - http://en.wikipedia.org...7 - http://en.wikipedia.org...8 - http://encyclopediaantivaccinemovement.blogspot.com...", "qid": "10", "docid": "f5063168-2019-04-18T15:13:20Z-00003-000", "rank": 68, "score": 137384.0}, {"content": "Title: Children should be vaccinated Content: Children should not be vaccinated because vaccinations are not safe. The Ecowatch a website who concentrates on our economy and problems in the society stated in an article titled \" CDC Knew Its Vaccine Program Was Exposing Children to Dangerous Mercury Levels Since 1999\", \"Uncovered documents show that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) knew that infant vaccines were exposing American children to mercury far in excess of all federal safety guidelines since 1999. The documents, created by a FDA consulting toxicologist, show how federal regulators concealed the dangerous impacts and lied to the public...In 1997, Congress passed the FDA Modernization Act. A provision of that statute required the FDA to \"compile a list of drugs that contain intentionally introduced mercury compounds, and provide a quantitative and qualitative analysis of the mercury compounds on the list.\" In response, manufacturers reported the use of the mercury-based preservative, thimerosal, in more than 30 licensed vaccines...\". Based on this article published in 2017, how do we know our children will be safe? If they have exposed our children once to dangerous chemicals, how do we know it will not happen again. This demonstrates the government does not care about our children, what are these vaccines really for? We are not experiments to simply test how many chemicals our body can intake, and neither are our children. Vaccines are not safe and neither are our children if we allow them to receive them. Kennedy, Robert. \"CDC Knew Its Vaccine Program Was Exposing Children to Dangerous Mercury Levels Since 1999.\" EcoWatch, EcoWatch, 17 Apr. 2017, www.ecowatch.com/cdc-mercury-vaccines-kennedy-2199157054.html.", "qid": "10", "docid": "ea0ed4bb-2019-04-18T11:37:52Z-00000-000", "rank": 69, "score": 137353.0}, {"content": "Title: Vaccination is a natural way to stimulate our immune system to fight a disease. Through vaccination... Content: Some vaccines include toxic materials such as chemicals including mercury, formaldehyde, aluminium, and a variety of other known toxic materials. Vaccines might be capable of causing recurrent infections in children because they weaken the immune system. Parents should have the right to choose on behalf of their children whether they should be vaccinated at all, or to choose vaccination against some diseases but not others.", "qid": "10", "docid": "7c2f6af5-2019-04-19T12:44:28Z-00008-000", "rank": 70, "score": 137351.0}, {"content": "Title: Vaccinations (mandatory/disbursement) Content: You say that we should not be allowed to risk the health of others according to religious views. But, many parents hold religious beliefs against vaccination. Forcing such parents to vaccinate their children would violate the 1st Amendment which guarantees citizens the right to the free exercise of their religion", "qid": "10", "docid": "47161a6-2019-04-18T16:19:35Z-00004-000", "rank": 71, "score": 137141.0}, {"content": "Title: should kids in public school be allowed to not get vaccines for religious reasons Content: I can't faceplam Hard enough. Yes vaccines used to have trace amounts of mercy. two things though 1. They don't anymore. All modern vaccines no longer have mercy. 2. Even when they did it was such a small amount you are literally getting more mercy from a can of tuna fish then all your childhood vaccines combined. So no they don't have mercy and they never had enough for any sort of harm. I'm going to link a short video that I want you to watch and respond to.", "qid": "10", "docid": "119666c7-2019-04-18T15:09:01Z-00001-000", "rank": 72, "score": 137102.0}, {"content": "Title: State mandated administration of childhood vaccinations is justified Content: I have refuted all of the con's points with superior evidence and logic, while upholding my own points. Just to sum up the main arguments: 1. Without a mandate, herd immunity will be threatened. A mandate is the only way to make sure that enough people will get vaccinated, and will ultimately remain healthy. Furthermore, it is not right to put someone else in danger if it can be helped. By depriving their children of vaccines, parents are not only putting their own children in danger, but also putting the children of others in danger. Referring back to my Contention 2, subpoint B, when people fail to vaccinate their children, kids with weak immune systems etc. can and will be hurt. 2. Parents don't always make the best choices for their children. Diseases that cannot be be protected through herd immunity, such as tetanus, creates a greater need for everybody to get vaccinated. A child should not be forced to endure diseases such as tetanus because of a bad decision of their parents. 3. Vaccines are expensive. If vaccines were mandated, those with less money would be able to get the vaccines. 4. All of my opponent's \"religious beliefs\" claims have been proven to be incorrect. First and foremost, biblical word isn't taken literally. All of the religions my opponent brought up allow vaccinations. 5. The constitution does not provide absolute rights. Furthermore, because my opponent cannot proven that any religions explicitly prohibit vaccines, this point falls in my favor. 6. Vaccines are safe. If a parent is concerned about certain ingredients, they can get an alternative brand of vaccines. 7. Vaccination is preferable to natural immune systems. (Refer to my Japanese example) 8. It is preferable to give children vaccines: So they're safe throughout their life. It's more effective when given to children. Because of these reasons, I can only urge a Pro vote.", "qid": "10", "docid": "3143d274-2019-04-18T18:19:27Z-00000-000", "rank": 73, "score": 137085.0}, {"content": "Title: vaccinating children must be a law Content: I don't really know what to say now...", "qid": "10", "docid": "a70ffd6e-2019-04-18T15:13:01Z-00001-000", "rank": 74, "score": 136987.0}, {"content": "Title: Children should receive vaccinations. Content: This debate is on whether or not children should receive vaccinations, and I am saying no.Voters think over it and vote . I strongly believe that students should not receive vacations", "qid": "10", "docid": "79f05a32-2019-04-18T15:09:09Z-00004-000", "rank": 75, "score": 136901.0}, {"content": "Title: State mandated administration of childhood vaccinations is justified. Content: First some frameworkStart with Definitions Since the topic doesn\u2019t specify the US specifically, we assume that State should refer to any government in the worldJustified....standardNet benefits/harmsSince vaccines can harm the world, we would like to provide this standardWith that said, we have a few main arguments. 1. Terrible side affects. Vaccines cause TERRIBLE side affects. This includes (CDC) Pneumonia Tiredness Fussiness Non-Stop Crying Vomiting Seizure Fainting And much moreAccording to TIME magazine, some 12/47 countries that used the H1N1 Flu vaccine reported spikes in narcolepsy cases. WHO\u2019s Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety said that it agreed with Finnish authorities that there was a \u201cstrong association\u201d between the vaccination, the genetic makeup of the patients, and the narcolepsy cases. As you can see, vaccines cause a huge number of cases of illness and side effects - TIMEAsk the parents of autistic children whether they believe childhood vaccines can cause autism, and the answer will probably be yes. They have heard of too many cases of babies who were perfectly normal until they got their measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) shot and then, within weeks--if not days--started throwing tantrums, losing language skills and generally tuning out.2. The vaccine industry is badThe vaccine industry over vaccinates us. This is the only way they make money sicne they charge for vaccines. We are vaccinated on things we don\u2019t need to be vaccinated on. The Guardian reports: Professor Maria Zambon, a virologist and head of the Health Protection Agency's Influenza Laboratory said\"Within the last century we have had four major flu epidemics, along with HIV and Sars. Major pandemics sweep the world every century, and it is inevitable that at least one will occur in the future.\u201d The Telegraph reports: We now give our children 25 different vaccines, in various combinations, before the age of 15 months. We are in danger of becoming dependent on immunisation, rather than on our immune systems, for our future health. This may appeal to vaccine manufacturers, which operate in an increasingly profitable market, but should concern the rest of us. As you can see, the vaccine industry is thus making billions of dollars. If they gave everyone a cure to all the sicknesses in the world, the vaccine industry won\u2019t continually make money. They are sucking government funds dry while making the world dependent on immunisation. 3. Economic HarmVaccines can cause harms to the economy. One example is that it ruins some doctors. The American Academy of Pediatrics came up with estimates for indirect expenses, concluding they range from about 17 percent to 28 percent of the purchase price of vaccines. So at least 17 percent should tacked onto the purchase price for doctors to have a shot at breaking even, the group concluded. By that measure, 47 percent of immunizations are money-losers, the athenahealth data show. If the 28 percent figure for indirect costs is used to calculate break even, then it's an even grimmer picture: 79 percent of vaccination payments fall short. 4. (if time) International CommunitySince state represents any government in the world, this contention will talk about the international community. In the international community, we know that places like UK are just like the US, vaccination wiseHowever, think about the poor countries, which consists of most of the world. Many of the countries there don\u2019t have clean and steralized vaccine needles. Taking these vaccines would mean death! Why should this be state mandated!The people giving them are untrained! In some cases, like in the Middle East, the government hate the people, and try to poison and kill them with vaccines! The vaccines are like a weapon!", "qid": "10", "docid": "f7360098-2019-04-18T18:14:27Z-00003-000", "rank": 76, "score": 136821.0}, {"content": "Title: Compulsory vaccines for everyone, except immunocompromised and contraindications. Content: Pro will keep this argument brief. Claim: Vaccines save lives. Warrant: \"Vaccines given to infants and young children over the past two decades will prevent 322 million illnesses, 21 million hospitalizations and 732,000 deaths over the course of their lifetimes, according to a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.\" [1]. Warrant: \"The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that 2 million child deaths were prevented by vaccinations in 2003\"[2]. Impact: Vaccination saves lives therefore as many people as possible should receive vaccines. It is clear that the resolution would save many lives and the benefit would greatly outweigh the cost. Links 1. http://www.usatoday.com... 2. http://www.cdc.gov...", "qid": "10", "docid": "c0f611bf-2019-04-18T14:11:26Z-00003-000", "rank": 77, "score": 136772.0}, {"content": "Title: Mandatory Childhood Vaccines Content: I do concede that the family moving was a poor example but what of animals or bugs that spread parasites, there are no visas for them. I cringe when the Con said these vaccines would be a waste of resources because he obviously did not study this topic. I will use another example (this will be whooping cough) and this article will explain what happens if you don't get a vaccine because you think the disease is \"gone\". . http://www.dailycamera.com... This shows that diseases can come back over time and affect those unprotected. The Cons use of the words \"wasteful\" in the sense of the vaccinations would be received quite badly in places like Colorado. The Con also refuses to answer my arguments so I will go into detail why you should vote Pro and vote Manditory Vaccines. Herd Immunity: This is a proven theory that 94% of the world's population must be vaccinated against a disease for it to stop spreading. If we allow parents to not require their children to get a vaccination it will affect the child's health along with the rest of the world's. Milder Symptoms: As mentioned before (by the Con) it is possible to get an effect from the vaccine like an allergic reaction. And as I mentioned before the chance of getting a reaction are much more rare than getting the actual disease. And if you do (however slim) get the disease you are vaccinated against the affects are much milder (such as the difference between death and a fever). Dangers and Affects: Diseases can also cause other diseases such as Hepatitus B (which the Con says can't be contracted in the US although can due to my previous argument) which can cause cancer if contracted. Economic: The last reason to make it manditory (vaccines) is money. It is shown that on average every one dollar spent on vaccines can save six dollars in later medical costs. Those arguments are not only solid but prove the importance of vaccines and why they must be manditory for everyone. Besides my reasons, the Con side shows little to no understanding of this topic. They also use resources such as Wikipedia which is not very reliable.", "qid": "10", "docid": "81901837-2019-04-18T17:55:43Z-00000-000", "rank": 78, "score": 136608.0}, {"content": "Title: Parents Should Vaccinate Their Children Content: Well, in this round I'm gonna focus in the already given arguments and not try to go much further. So, let's recap. You say that whether and individual can have a perfect and healthy life until he dies, he should always take vaccines, because even if the danger is so low, \"outweighs any supposed benefits to not vaccinating yourself\". Well, you see, it's proved that vaccines have side effects, and I don't say this just because I saw one time in a questionable website, I say this because it's all over the web. http://www.activistpost.com... http://healthimpactnews.com... http://www.scientificamerican.com... http://articles.mercola.com... http://vactruth.com... Well, it may not cause autism, or any disease in particular, but the amount of information about it's side-effects must be put on the balance. I don't believe that every vaccine has side-effects, and that aren't good things attached, but I don't believe either that there is only good in this. Pharmaceutical industry is one of the most profitable business in the world. Millions of pills are made every year, and people are more and more sick. My father is a natural doctor, and I see that every day. How is this possible? Profit! So it's logical that vaccines can be a mean to make their hospitals running. Going back a little, you mentioned that it's better to vaccine even if in a lifetime we never would need them. You say that the the risks overweights any benefits. So imagine that you could say for sure that one of the vaccines have a bad side-effect. You are lowering the chance of having the possibility to contract some kind of disease to 0, because you have already contracted from vaccines. So you say that this is better? Doom yourself from the very start, just because \"the risk\" of catching something? \"I don\"t say cultivate morality; I say become more conscious, and you will be moral. But that morality will have a totally different flavor to it. It will be spontaneous; it will not be ready-made.\" OSHO http://www.osho.com... I guess you have misconceived my words. You talk of moral like some kind of code you have to follow, like the 10 commandments, but that isn't morality. That isn't freedom, and you are mistaking liberty with libertinism. Moral is good, the kind of moral that makes us human beings, not the kind that make us cattle. In order to be free and be moral, we have to question ourselves. I don't believe you ever thought about vaccines having side-effects for example, and because you didn't know, and didn't questioned yourself before making a decision, that makes you moral correct? Moral: concerned with the principles of right and wrong behaviour. Just following what they tell us doesn't make us moral people, because if we lived in a different society were killing wasn't bad, If I kill someone, does that would made me moral? Well, you make a distinction between the article I cited and reality, and you say that my sources may be dubious, and while this, you only cited things from one source mostly, while I putted here various sources from different entities, what in my opinion makes a more reliable source, that just stating things from one website. And you still affirm \" is merely grasping at straws to make his case, cannot outweigh legions of other scientist and their more credible findings.\". I admit that the website may not be the more trusted, but with the new sources I linked here. You also say that I cannot refer sources and tell people to read it. I just told you that so you understand better why I say and affirm my point, because I still have more than all the words to use.. Thank you", "qid": "10", "docid": "f5063168-2019-04-18T15:13:20Z-00002-000", "rank": 79, "score": 136604.0}, {"content": "Title: Children should receive vaccinations. Content: Children should receive vaccinations? Well, some vaccines are untrustworthy, and may even be harmful to children.", "qid": "10", "docid": "79f05a51-2019-04-18T14:20:37Z-00002-000", "rank": 80, "score": 136574.0}, {"content": "Title: Should we be vaccinated Content: Con 1 Vaccines can cause serious and sometimes fatal side effects. According to the CDC, all vaccines carry a risk of a life-threatening allergic reaction (anaphylaxis) in about one per million children. [49] The rotavirus vaccination can cause intussusception, a type of bowel blockage that may require hospitalization, in about one per 20,000 babies in the United States. [49] Long-term seizures, coma, lowered consciousness, and permanent brain damage may be associated with the DTaP (diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis) and MMR vaccines, though the CDC notes the rarity of the reaction makes it difficult to determine causation. [49] The CDC reports that pneumonia can be caused by the chickenpox vaccine, and a \"small possibility\" exists that the flu vaccine could be associated with Guillain-Barr\" Syndrome, a disorder in which the person\"s immune system attacks parts of the peripheral nervous system, in about one or two per million people vaccinated. [49]. The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) says that vaccines may be linked to learning disabilities, asthma, autism, diabetes, chronic inflammation, and other disabilities. [82] [83]http://vaccines.procon.org...", "qid": "10", "docid": "9e704ad5-2019-04-18T13:12:37Z-00005-000", "rank": 81, "score": 136570.0}, {"content": "Title: should kids in public school be allowed to not get vaccines for religious reasons Content: Some people don't want their kids to get autism or become paralyzed. Read about 10 year old Marysue grivna from Florida who got Adem, a brain infection after a flu shot and is now completely paralyzed.", "qid": "10", "docid": "119666c7-2019-04-18T15:09:01Z-00004-000", "rank": 82, "score": 136542.0}, {"content": "Title: Unvaccinated children should be home-schooled Content: We need to Weigh the Cost the Child Receiving a Possible \"Illness\" from remaining unvaccinated, against the Premise that they would be denied a Basic education. CONTENTION 1. Children Being Denied a Basic Education Vaccination is no prerequisite to anything. Regardless of Age, ethnicity, social and economic background, children should have the right to attend School. According to many Constitutional and Laws Globally, this would infringe on the Act of Liberty, and Free will, in accordance with the First Amendment of the US constitution.(1) CONTENTION 2. Denial of Free will As stated Above, this would infringe on the act of Free will, a Basic right that all Humans should have, regardless. REFUTATIONS \"Although it is ultimately up to the parents on whether they wish to vaccinate thier kids, I think it breaks a social contract to exclude your child from vaccination and place them into an environment that may put your child and other children at risk.\" What Social Contract do you speak of, I've never heard of it. For whatever reasons an individual has, be it religious or Moral, they have the right to NOT have there children vaccinated. \"Vaccinations have proved to be more good than harm children and if you decide to to not vaccinate you should not be able to enter your child into a school that requires vacvcinations as a standard.\" No Schools require children to be vaccinated, as of saying this. Vaccinations are very effective, and carry little side effects, but as stated, people have the right to not vaccinate there child. \"This is not to say that not vaccinating isn't a right parent have, but that right should have consequences. Those children should not be intergrated with others in order to avoid reversing our progress against nearly eradicated diseases.\" What Studies do you have the Say not vaccinating your child \"Reverses\" our progress against nearly eradicated diseases? That sounds completely made up. You make another Statement based on opinion, rather then fact. \" \"Those children should not be intergrated with others\" That's not for you to decide. You may or may not Vaccinate your child, if you have one, but Making decisions for others is Unjust, and Unconstitutional. (1)(http://www.google.ca...)", "qid": "10", "docid": "1f658c7-2019-04-18T15:06:29Z-00003-000", "rank": 83, "score": 136455.0}, {"content": "Title: Not getting children vaccinated Content: First of all, I never said that vaccines are not worth their risks. I stated that one should have the right to consider the risks, and decide what to put into their or their children's bodies. And while I'm on the topic of free choice, you brought up an important point about people being exempt to due to religious beliefs. Now, proposing a mandate that would FORCE these individuals to vaccinate against their religion is clearly in violation of their Constitutional rights. However, lets move on to the point you brought up of certain dieseases spreading. The United States vaccination policy has used a concept known as \"herd immunity\" in which the majority of the population is vaccinated and immune. Now that we have established this \"herd immunity,\" many dieseases cannot spread very far. You stated that due to lack of use for the MMR, measles cases have increased. However, because most of the American population are immunized with MMR, then these cases can be quickly contained. Therefore, our system already works, and it does not seem worth the effort to mandate vaccinations. While, yes it would have benefits, the problems that come with a mandatory vaccination make it unfeasible. There are two levels in which mandatory vaccinations for children would be ineffective. One is on the federal level. In order to make sure that EVERY child in the United States gets the vaccinations (and future boosters to vaccinations), a great deal of effort and money needs to be spent. If you have seen our national deficit recently, along with Social security fund security, then it is clear that it is not feasible for the government to implement, and ENFORCE this vaccination policy to all children. The second level that we can look at is on the citizen's level. While you are right, a responsible parent should get their children vaccinated (unless of moral and religous beliefs), you are assuming that every parent in America has the capability to pay for such vaccinations. This is not the case. In America, 45 MILLION americans, including 9 million children, lack health insurance. Some of the vaccines that have been mentioned, such as the HPV vaccine, consist of multiple shots. According to the Center of Diesease control, the 3 HPV shots can cost up to 360 dollars PER SHOT. Other vaccinations cost less, however, the way that you have proposed mandating vaccinations creates a long list of vaccines that must be paid by these uninsured parents. Since the incomes of many of these uninsured families are low, it is difficult to concieve a low income family paying thousands of dollars for vaccinations. While many low-income parents will still put their Children's safety first, it should not be forced upon them to pay for EVERY ONE of the vaccines available. Also, mandatory vaccinations will raise insurance premiums for all members of society. And many insurances might not cover all these vaccinations, therefore hurting the pockets of even the insured. In conclusion, a mandated vaccination not only infringes upon a citizens right to religious beliefs and choice, but the costs outweigh the benefits because of simply an inability on the federal and citizen's level to pay for such vaccinations. You have stated before that parents that do not vaccinate their children are irresponsible, yet it is the duty of the parent to do what is best for their kids.", "qid": "10", "docid": "6c8d356f-2019-04-18T20:03:16Z-00002-000", "rank": 84, "score": 136413.0}, {"content": "Title: Mandatory vaccinations (for government services) Content: Just so you know, That has already passed in California. If you have no medical reasons, You must be vaccinated to go to school. It works perfectly. It is a very good reason to not allow kids to go to school. If parents will put a risk on their kids and other kids, Why do we have to give them the same treatment as other kids? They are anti-vaxxers. They spread lies and don't want to listen to evidence. It isn't millions of kids. Lots of states are making a push to have mandatory vaccination.", "qid": "10", "docid": "f5670653-2019-04-18T11:06:37Z-00001-000", "rank": 85, "score": 136200.0}, {"content": "Title: should kids in public school be allowed to not get vaccines for religious reasons Content: I don't think they should. Just because you have a religion doesn't mean you should let your kids get sick", "qid": "10", "docid": "119666c7-2019-04-18T15:09:01Z-00005-000", "rank": 86, "score": 135993.0}, {"content": "Title: THW: make vaccinations against deadly diseases mandatory unless there is a medical exemption Content: I'm glad to hear that my opponent agrees that vaccines are safe and effective. My opponent's points seem to be as follows: 1) Making vaccines mandatory will not convince antivaxers of the safety of vaccines. 2) It is cruel to force someone to take something they get, even if it is good for them. 3) It could not be enforced. In response: 1) The point of this motion was never to convince antivaxers of the safety of vaccines (although of course such a goal is desirable). The point is to protect the health of those who cannot be vaccinated and of children whose parents are negligent by failing to vaccinate them. 2) Though it is preferable not to have to force someone through a moment of discomfort for their own health, their children's health, or the health of those around them, it is a so-called \"necessary evil\"; the alternative is to risk the health of that individual or of others. People have died- and will continue to die- as a result of antivaxers' reckless negligence and it should be made illegal to fail to vaccinate oneself and one's children as a result. Sometimes it is necessary to violate the consent of someone for the health of that person or those around them- we recognise, for instance, that it is necessary to force-feed someone with severe anorexia in order to protect them from starving themselves to death, or to place someone with an infection disease in quarantine in order to prevent them from infecting others. It is in a similar way that we must force people to vaccinate themselves and their children, even if they (falsely) believe that vaccines are harmful- there just simply isn't time to convince them- people are dying- and we will never be able to convince them all. 3) Though I recognise it would be impossible to identify- and therefore charge- the individual responsible for an outbreak, it would be considerably more practical to check everyone's medical records and to ensure everyone has had their vaccine, and to apply some kind of statutory penalty like a fine until they have had them. My opponent mentioned that this would be \"unconstitutional\", but: 1. This is a debate on an international forum, so the US constitution needn't apply; I'm speaking from the UK. 2. So, of we must obey the US constitution, then part of this motion would be to amend the US constitution such that a vaccine mandate is allowed. 3. People are still dying. We should therefore apply the \"Quod Est Necassarium Est Licitum\" principle (that which is necessary is legal*). So, to summarise my case: Making vaccines mandatory is necessary in order to save lives; vaccines are safe and effective, and do save lives both of those who are vaccinated and if those who cannot be vaccinated through herd immunity. Saving lives with a mandate in vaccines makes such a mandate necessary, and overrides the (false and irrational) fears of antivaxers, and any constitutional concerns. *https://en.m.wikipedia.org...", "qid": "10", "docid": "5a0f171e-2019-04-18T12:19:12Z-00001-000", "rank": 87, "score": 135978.0}, {"content": "Title: Vaccinations Against Preventable Childhood Disease Content: Vaccinations against highly infectious childhood diseases such as the measles, mumps, rubella, and pertussis (aka whooping cough) have saved millions of lives and improved the quality of life in countries where vaccines are accessible to the public. Unfortunately, more than half of the parents in the United States and some parts of the United Kingdom are choosing not to vaccinate for fear that vaccinations are harmful to their children. Autism, mercury, and aluminum are commonly cited as reasons against vaccinations: all reasons which have been poorly researched by antivaxxers. The Andrew Wakefield article loosely correlating the MMR vaccine and autism has been thoroughly debunked and retracted. The mercury used in Thimerosol (ethylmercury) is much easier for the body to break down than the mercury found in seafood (methylmercury), and an infant will have greater aluminum exposure from 6 months of breastfeeding than from their full vaccination schedule in the same time frame.", "qid": "10", "docid": "7ec4257d-2019-04-18T17:35:48Z-00001-000", "rank": 88, "score": 135783.0}, {"content": "Title: Mandatory Childhood Vaccines Content: Childhood vaccines have been a hot topic and I wish to argue for them. These arguments should suffice- 1. Disease eradication 2. Milder symptoms of a disease 3. Lives saved 4. And herd immunity I will also put down arguments like abridging freedoms, etc.", "qid": "10", "docid": "81901837-2019-04-18T17:55:43Z-00004-000", "rank": 89, "score": 135638.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should enforce mandatory vaccinations. Content: To answer my opponent's question, his argument was not a kritik and he has not violated the rules in this debate. This round, as per rules, I shall be focusing on the attack of my opponent's case.My opponent brings up minor areas of this where some people are uncapable of recieving these types of vaccinations. Many of these issues are quite serious and can harm many. If this does occur, death will certainly come to the few that this occurs to. We would see that the government would likely accomidiate these people with their issues, though, I didn't clarify this and will refute this argument. We have to weigh the impact calc in this debate via the Utilitarianism argument which shows that we must do whatever helps benefit more people. If these vaccines occur, we could see, at worse case scenerio, 500,000 deaths in the US, which are the amount of people with the immune system disorders that my opponent has brought up [1]. I have shown that the US saved 732,000 children. The UN showned that this saves 2.5 million children a year, 285 a year world wide. It may seem heartless, but it benefits the majority of the people on the face of the Earth that this resolution is ennacted. This is just taking my opponent's DA vs. children saved. This doesn't even accomidiate the amount of adults and others saved as a response. Just looking at Rubella alone, we have nearly erradicated it saving 12.5 million that were infected in the outbreak in the 60's [2]. We have erradicated this disease and can do more will a multitude of others. Sources1. ( ttp://tinyurl.com...)", "qid": "10", "docid": "f351687c-2019-04-18T12:56:52Z-00003-000", "rank": 90, "score": 135387.0}, {"content": "Title: Mandatory childhood vaccination Content: Extend.", "qid": "10", "docid": "173e9f20-2019-04-18T13:26:12Z-00000-000", "rank": 91, "score": 135281.0}, {"content": "Title: Why parents should immunized or Vaccinated they're kids Content: Vaccines risk the balance of nature: In the words of Dr. Richard Moskowitz, MD., \"I have always believed that the attempt to eradicate entire microbial species from the biosphere must inevitably upset the balance of Nature in fundamental ways that we can as yet scarcely imagine.\" [2] Sources: 2. http://healthimpactnews.com...", "qid": "10", "docid": "3dd052cc-2019-04-18T13:46:56Z-00000-000", "rank": 92, "score": 135207.0}, {"content": "Title: It is a parental right to decide about vaccinations for a child Content: Through birth, the child and the parent have a binding agreement that is supported within the society. This agreement involves a set of rights and duties aimed at, and justified by, the welfare of the child. Through that (according to texts from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy): parents owe their children an \u201copen future,\u201d understood as one where they become adults capable of choosing their own conception of the good. As custodian, the parent is under a limited obligation to work and organize his or her life around the welfare and development of the child, for the child's sake. Concomitantly, the parent is endowed with a special kind of authority over the child.[1] It therefore is the courtesy of a parent to decide what the best possible outcome is for a child. If the parent believes the child will be safer and better off in society without being given vaccine it is the parent\u2019s right to decide not to give vaccination to the child. Also the American Academy of Pediatrics reports, that refusing the immunization might not put children at risk, as long as they live in a well immunized community and can benefit from the \u201cherd immunity\u201d. They state: \u201cEven in a community with high immunization rates, the risk assumed by an unimmunized child is likely to be greater than the risks associated with immunization. However, the risk remains low, and in most cases the parent who refuses immunizations on behalf of his or her child living in a well-immunized community does not place the child at substantial risk of serious harm.\u201d[2] [1] Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/parenthood/, accessed 05/28/2011 [2] Diekema Douglas, Responding to Parental Refusals of Immunization of Children, http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/115/5/1428.full, accessed 05/28/2011", "qid": "10", "docid": "d77612cc-2019-04-15T20:24:10Z-00015-000", "rank": 93, "score": 134768.0}, {"content": "Title: Vaccinations (mandatory/disbursement) Content: It is also in the constitution that we have a right to bear arms, but there are laws placed on who and at what age a person is allowed to carry one. Making vaccinations mandatory for those children in school would just be like placing a law on gun carry. Heath.harvard.edu stated that an individual that is vaccinated is less contagious to others, if they were to get sick. So by definition if the majority was to get vaccinated then there would be no worry about getting infected. This is also called community immunity. By not having a child get vaccinated they are now risking the heath of not only those near them, but also the rest of the community.", "qid": "10", "docid": "47161a6-2019-04-18T16:19:35Z-00003-000", "rank": 94, "score": 134548.0}, {"content": "Title: Should we be vaccinated Content: I. The Lives Saved The lives of 2.5 million children are saved by vaccinations every year, yet each year, 1.5 million children die from diseases that vaccines can prevent. [1] Not only that, but vaccines save you for your entire life. \"Vaccines teach your body's immune system to recognize infections so it can fight them off in the future.\" [2] But which diseases do vaccines prevent?\"Vaccines protect you by preparing your immune system to recognize and fight serious, and sometimes deadly, diseases including:\"Diphtheria\"Haemophilus Influenzae Type B (Hib)\"Hepatitis A\"Hepatitis B\"Human Papillomavirus(HPV)\"Influenza(Flu)\"Measles\"Meningococcal\"Mumps\"Pertussis (Whooping Cough)\"Pneumococcal Disease\"Polio\"Rotavirus\"Rubella\"Shingles (Herpes Zoster)\"Tetanus\"Varicella(Chickenpox)\" [2]Every one of these diseases can be fatal. In fact, in the case of Diphtheria, Hepatitis A, Hepatitis B, HPV, Measles, Mumps, Polio, and Rubella, there is no cure. [3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10] Every one of these has an effective vaccine. If we look at the Rotavirus vaccine, we see that it has prevented between 85% to 98% instances of the disease. [11] But what else happened when the Rotavirus finally got a vaccine?\"Millions of U.S. infants have received the rotavirus vaccine since it became available in 2006. Rotavirus disease among infants and young children has since decreased significantly in the United States. Each year, the vaccine prevents an estimated 40,000 to 50,000 hospitalizations among U.S. infants and young children. Rotavirus illness has also decreased among older children and adults that are not vaccinated; they are likely gaining indirect protection from rotavirus disease as vaccinated children are less likely to get the disease and spread it to others.\" [12]Not only is your life in danger of you don't receive one, but many people around you are at risk too. All of the diseases previously listed are highly contagious, hence the reason for a vaccine.II. The Rarity of Adverse Effects\"According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), in most cases vaccines effects are minor and go away within a few days. Side effects vary according to vaccine type, but generally mild side effects may include:\"Pain, redness, tenderness or swelling at injection site\"Fatigue\"Headache\"Itching at injection site\"Nausea\"Dizziness or fainting (most common in adolescents)\"Fever\"Mild rash\" [13]Now, let me compare this to the symptoms of, arguably, the least severe of the diseases listed previously, this being influenza. \"Fever or feeling feverish/chills.\"Cough\"Sore throat\"Runny or stuffy nose\"Muscle or body aches\"Headache\"Tiredness\"Some people may have vomiting or diarrhea; this is more common in children.\" [14] Not to mention that in extreme cases, the flu can lead to pneumonia, ear infections, dehydration, and possibly death. [14] The difference is that the flu is quite common, [15] While adverse effects from vaccines are quite rare. [16]\u201c'There are no surprises here; vaccines are being shown over and over again to be quite safe,' said Cornelia Dekker, MD, medical director of the vaccine program at Lucile Packard Children\u2019s Hospital Stanford, who chatted with me about the study earlier today. 'The safety record for our U.S.-licensed vaccines is excellent. There are a few vaccines for which they document that there are indeed adverse events, but the frequency is quite rare, and in almost all cases they are very easy to manage and self-limited.'\" [16] III. Recommendations From Major Health Organizations The CDC, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Institute of Medicine (IOM), American Medical Association (AMA), American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), UNICEF, US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), World Health Organization (WHO), Public Health Agency of Canada, Canadian Paediatric Society, National Foundation for Infectious Diseases (NFID), and American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) all recommend vaccines. [17] In fact, it's said to be one of the safest medical practices ever, despite its risks. [18]To add to this, the FDA and CDC are very strict when it comes to vaccinations. \"The United States has the safest, most effective vaccine supply in its history. Years of testing are required by law to ensure that vaccines are safe before they are made available in the United States. This process can take 10 years or longer. Once a vaccine is in use, the CDC and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) monitor any possible side effects reported through the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and other vaccine safety systems. Any hint of a problem with a vaccine prompts the CDC and FDA to carry out further investigations. If researchers find that a vaccine might be causing a problem, CDC and/or FDA can:\"Change vaccine labels or packaging\"Issue safety alerts\"Inspect manufacturers' facilities and records\"Withdraw recommendations for the use of the vaccine\"Revoke the vaccine's license\" [19]In conclusion, vaccines do move harm than good, as they save many lives, have few side effects, and are recommended by many major health organizations. Thank you. I look forward to your rebuttals.Citations[1]http://www.action.org......[2]http://www.health.ny.gov......[3]http://www.health.ny.gov......[4]http://www.health.ny.gov......[5]http://www.health.ny.gov......[6]http://www.health.ny.gov......[7]http://www.health.ny.gov......[8]http://www.health.ny.gov......[9]http://www.health.ny.gov......[10]http://www.health.ny.gov......[11]http://www.cdc.gov......[12]http://www.cdc.gov......[13]http://www.immunizeforgood.com......[14]http://www.health.ny.gov......[15]http://m.kidshealth.org......=[16]http://scopeblog.stanford.edu......[17]http://vaccines.procon.org......[18]http://www.vaccines.gov......[19]http://www.cdc.gov...", "qid": "10", "docid": "9e704ad5-2019-04-18T13:12:37Z-00004-000", "rank": 95, "score": 134421.0}, {"content": "Title: Vaccine are Safe and Effective Content: People assume that vaccines are safe just because doctors recommend them, but it's not true. Vaccines have been portrayed as humanity's savior from diseases like Polio when they really weren't. Polio was already on the decline before the vaccine. Every year we are recommended to get the flu vaccine, but the flu shot is unnecessary and unsafe to get. Vaccines are suppose to stimulate the reaction of a real virus, but the way this is artificially done is dangerous. Babies should avoid as much immune stimulation as they can. One study done showed that Immune molecules in the brain during neural development is damaging and can cause autism. So why are babies getting so many vaccinations? [1] Also the amount of toxic substances in vaccines is way more than the amount that anyone should get at one time. Premature neonates should not receive more than 4 to 5 micrograms of aluminum per kilogram of body weight. An 8 pound healthy baby = max of 18.16mcg of aluminum. The Hep B vaccine has 250 micrograms. [2] We are told that vaccines don't cause any other problems, but In a study of 11,000 children the chances of getting asthma were cut in half if vaccinations were delayed. [3] After inoculation for that zostavax a person has a large chance of testing positive for the varicella zoster virus. Because of this, vaccinated individuals have the potential to spread the disease. [4] Vaccines are filled with toxic ingredients, and deserve another critical look by parents. Do what's best for your child and don't give them all their vaccines. [5] [1]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [2]http://www.accessdata.fda.gov... http://www.askdrsears.com... [3]http://www.dailymail.co.uk... [4]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://newstarget.com... [5]https://www.cdc.gov...", "qid": "10", "docid": "301e7ffc-2019-04-18T12:18:19Z-00002-000", "rank": 96, "score": 134212.0}, {"content": "Title: Vaccinations (mandatory/disbursement) Content: Vaccinations such as hepatitis B are unnecessary because as stated by professionals on VacTruth.com, \"As of March 2012, disturbingly there were over 1500 hepatitis B vaccine-related deaths reported to the federal Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), some of those classified also as sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). In addition to a high number of deaths, there were a total of 66,654 adverse events reported to VAERS, including but not limited to brain inflammation, convulsions, multiple sclerosis, headaches, irritability, lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, and Guiilain-Barre Syndrome.\" (vactruth.com) Dr. Meryl Nass stated: \"Many parents hold religious beliefs against vaccination. Forcing such parents to vaccinate their children would violate the 1st Amendment which guarantees citizens the right to the free exercise of their religion.\" The First Amendment clearly grants all citizens of the United States of America freedom to practice whichever religion they choose. Many citizens\" beliefs are against allowing people to receive vaccinations. By forcing American citizens to vaccinate their children and themselves, it is a direct violation of the First Amendment. (vaccines.procon.org/#arguments) All fifty states require vaccinations to enter public schools, but 48 of them allow exemptions for religious reasons for this very reason! When students enroll, all they have to do is have their parent or guardian fill out a form stating that they do not allow the student to receive vaccinations because of religious reasons. (vaccines.procon.org/#arguments) The college of Physicians of Philadelphia stated \"Certain religions and belief systems promote alternate perspectives toward vaccination. Religious objections to vaccinations are based generally on\" beliefs that the body is sacred, should not receive chemicals or blood or tissues from animals, and should be healed by God or natural means.\" (Historyofvaccines.org)", "qid": "10", "docid": "4716187-2019-04-18T16:23:45Z-00006-000", "rank": 97, "score": 133963.0}, {"content": "Title: Vaccines should be mandatory Content: I believe vaccines should be mandatory (unless you have an allergy or some other medical problem), because it is for the greater good of the public. My preferred opponent would be an anti-vaxxer, although if you are a pro-vaxxer and against mandatory vaccinations, that is fine too.", "qid": "10", "docid": "cea53ba4-2019-04-18T14:44:38Z-00005-000", "rank": 98, "score": 133929.0}, {"content": "Title: Compulsory vaccines for everyone, except immunocompromised. Content: Have fun. Vaccines save lives, its common knowledge. Therefore, everyone who can should get one. \"Vaccines given to infants and young children over the past two decades will prevent 322 million illnesses, 21 million hospitalizations and 732,000 deaths over the course of their lifetimes, according to a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Vaccines also will have saved $295 billion in direct costs, such as medical expenses, and a total of more than $1.3 trillion in societal costs over that time\" Liz Szabo, USA TODAY [4] The immunocompromised shouldn't be forced to receive vaccines because they are in too weak a state. \"Immunocompromised patients are a unique group with special issues regarding immunization. Pharmacists need to work closely with these patients' physicians in deciding whether and when immunization might be appropriate. \" [5] . http://www.usatoday.com... . http://www.medscape.com...", "qid": "10", "docid": "8319c6c-2019-04-18T14:13:06Z-00003-000", "rank": 99, "score": 133656.0}, {"content": "Title: Parents who don't vaccinate their children should still receive benefits from the government Content: Firstly, you have said that \"parents may not be in the budget for the vaccination for their child', which is indeed possible, but that doesn't mean that they should be allowed to not give provide the vaccination, the government should provide the funds in that case. Which is the case in several countries already. For example, there is the Universal Immunisation Programme in India which pays for the vaccination for the children in poor families. In the USA, there is CDC (Centres for Disease Control and Prevention) which does so as well. Secondly, you have said that there are negative side effects of vaccinations on children. However if you would have researched the topic, you would have realised that the only possible issues that could arise are mild fever, shivering, fatigue, joint/muscle pain and headaches. These- by the way, are not in anyway going to hurt the child since active immunisation (that is what vaccination is) is the injection of dead or inert pathogen into the recipient's body for the white blood cells to create memory regarding the antigen's structure to fight a similar alive one in the future. Which would explain the negative effects. Next, just because it isn't legal to not vaccinate your child doesn't mean it is okay to not do so. As a matter of fact it should be illegal since a child's life is risked. And moreover, the statement is inaccurate as well since in the USA alone, it is legally required in all the 50 states to do so if he/she is entering an educational system (school, day care, etc). In addition to that, the motion suggests that the issue being debated refers to al the countries all around the world and not only Australia, so we should broaden our horizons and not only focus on one country. Additionally, you have said that parents should have the option of taking the risk of not vaccinating their child simply shows that you have said that it is wrong for children to be deprived of the medical necessity. Which is basically saying that you agree with me. Finally, I would like to say that if the government does indeed give these benefits to these families, it just suggests that it is okay to be ill and be a possible reason that a epidemic is spread. It will have a negative impact on all the future generations. It is the government's job to improve the standard of living of a nation, not deteriorate it. That is why the citizens have chosen them.", "qid": "10", "docid": "10fc577b-2019-04-18T13:19:46Z-00002-000", "rank": 100, "score": 133340.0}]}
{"query": "Should performance-enhancing drugs be accepted in sports?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: Performance enhancing drugs should be allowed in professional sports Content: I accept", "qid": "11", "docid": "91f321b3-2019-04-18T18:07:03Z-00004-000", "rank": 1, "score": 266115.0}, {"content": "Title: Performance Enhancing Drugs (PEDs) should be permitted in professional sports. Content: Accepted.", "qid": "11", "docid": "ffe83842-2019-04-18T15:14:48Z-00004-000", "rank": 2, "score": 235218.0}, {"content": "Title: Performance enhancing drugs should be allowed in professional sports Content: Extend.", "qid": "11", "docid": "91f321b3-2019-04-18T18:07:03Z-00001-000", "rank": 3, "score": 212881.0}, {"content": "Title: Performance enhancing drugs should be allowed in professional sports Content: 1. Athletes should be able to use whatever means they would like to improve their performance. If that includes steroids, then let them use it. 2. Steroids' risks are clear, and an athlete has a right to choose whether or not he would like to use them. 3. Steroid testing is not efficient, and new types of steroids are being released that often pass screenings.", "qid": "11", "docid": "91f321b3-2019-04-18T18:07:03Z-00003-000", "rank": 4, "score": 208555.0}, {"content": "Title: Performance Enhancing Drugs (PEDs) should be permitted in professional sports. Content: I affirm that PEDs should be permitted in sports. Legalizing PEDs would serve to level the playing field. According to the New York Times, more than a third of the top Tour de France finishers since 1998 have been confirmed to be doping while racing, despite efforts to stop them (1). So, the statistics clearly indicate that those who obey the rules and do not dope have a relatively low chance of performing well. If those who did not not use Performance Enhancing Drugs in the Tour de France were instead allowed to dope, those racers would have had the same advantages as those who currently dope illegally, and the playing field would have been more even. One of the primary reasons people enjoy watching professional sports is because they showcase the highest level of human achievement. Allowing PEDs to be used would raise the level of competition and skill in professional sports. This would thus make achievements in sports seem even more unthinkable and impressive, which would thus make more people attend these sporting events. As described in Forbes, \"A huge part of watching sports is witnessing the very peak of human athletic ability, and legalizing performance enhancing drugs would help athletes climb even higher (2).\" This shows that Performance Enhancing Drugs can raise the level of sports, which can make sports even more of a spectacle. For example, during the 1990's, when Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa used steroids, their respective games were usually sold out with people who wanted to see their heightened abilities (2). I will now refute my opponent's arguments. My opponent argues that PEDs provide with a large risk for athletes. However, Athletes who are using PEDs are already in a dangerous industry, and frequently become injured regardless of whether or not they use drugs. In the year 2013 alone, the NFL reported at least 152 concussions, and was forced to spend up to 765 million dollars to settle claims of traumatic head injury brought by former players (3). So, PEDs do not provide with a large injury risk compared to the inherent risk of professional sports. My opponent also argues that allowing PEDs takes away from true human achievement. However, being an athlete requires a high amount of skill regardless of whether or not you use PEDs. Hitting a home run, for example requires excellent timing and a perfect swing. Using PEDs may increase the distance of this home run, but hitting a it is still a spectacle of your own human, not chemical precision. So, performing in sports requires intricate skill, no matter what. It is thus clear that PEDs do not take away from human achievement. As such, I affirm. 1- http://www.nytimes.com... 2- http://www.forbes.com... 3- http://www.pbs.org...", "qid": "11", "docid": "ffe83842-2019-04-18T15:14:48Z-00002-000", "rank": 5, "score": 207707.0}, {"content": "Title: Performance enhancing drugs should be allowed in professional sports Content: Extend the argument.", "qid": "11", "docid": "91f321b3-2019-04-18T18:07:03Z-00002-000", "rank": 6, "score": 206115.0}, {"content": "Title: WC Debate - RR: Performance enhancing drugs should be legal for use in all major sports leagues Content: I graciously accept Actionsspeak's concession. I greatly appreciate his willingness to debate this with me, and I think it's very big of him to concede, despite the fact that he made points that I felt were reasonable points of debate on this contentious subject. I hope that we will have another opportunity to debate in the future, but for now I honor his concession, and I urge voters to duly respect it by awarding him a conduct point in their votes.", "qid": "11", "docid": "117d2319-2019-04-18T16:13:12Z-00001-000", "rank": 7, "score": 205824.0}, {"content": "Title: Performance-enhancing drugs should be allowed in professional sports. Content: \" They do apply to the resolution, \"Performance-enhancing drugs should [not] be allowed in professional sports\". They show that using these drugs is unsafe.\" Doing unsafe things is allowable. People have the right to do unsafe things with their own bodies. \" No, I'm saying that performance-enhancing drugs should not be allowed because they set a bad example for children. \" Athletes are not slaves, existing for the sake of their examples to children. They exist for their own sake and are to be treated as such, as human beings, so long as they treat others as such. This means they are not to be forced to a course of action just because it will benefit someone else, only them initiating force can justify such force. \" No, I'm saying that performance-enhancing drugs cheat users out of hard work and practice that other players have to go through. \" \"Have to?\" No one \"has to\" do such a thing. They are perfectly able to take the drugs themselves, or work hard, or not condition themselves, as they please. And the use of drugs by one party does not delete the hard work by another, they are separate bodies, separate phenomena. \" Uh, no, it's whether \"Performance-enhancing drugs should be ALLOWED in professional sports.\" \"Allowed\" and \"legal\" are very different. \"Allowed\" means allowed within the sport's rules; \"legal\" means allowed within the law.\" This would be a permissible arguments if your round 1 argument did not already concede you were talking about what THE LAW should allow. As it stands it is not, it is merely a tool of deception, and I quote (emphasis mine:) \" Said drugs should stay ILLEGAL for use in sports, for a few reasons.\" That was at the beginning of your first round argument. That leaves no room for weaseling out of it, the resolution was explicitly clarified by you as meaning allowable by the law, not allowable by the sports league. You made your bed now argue in it. \"and not actually presented an argument, you vote CON at this point.\" Read second paragraph from the bottom of my Round 1. I did in fact present an argument, as relates to the resolution as you clarified it's meaning at the beginning of the debate. If you are going to state the resolution is anything other than what I have stated it is, you will be forced to admit the statement at the beginning of your Round One argument was deliberately dishonest.", "qid": "11", "docid": "ac709939-2019-04-18T19:39:56Z-00002-000", "rank": 8, "score": 204563.0}, {"content": "Title: Performance Enhancement Drugs in Professional Sports Content: x", "qid": "11", "docid": "21fa6aa9-2019-04-18T15:26:34Z-00000-000", "rank": 9, "score": 204025.0}, {"content": "Title: Performance Enhancement Drugs in Professional Sports Content: x", "qid": "11", "docid": "21fa6aa9-2019-04-18T15:26:34Z-00001-000", "rank": 10, "score": 204025.0}, {"content": "Title: Performance Enhancing Drugs (PEDs) should be permitted in professional sports. Content: Performance Enhancing Drugs are defined as substances used to improve performance in a variety of fields. We're talking about steroids, lean mass builders, stimulants, nootropics, painkillers, sedatives, blood boosters, etc- not caffeine and green beans.", "qid": "11", "docid": "ffe83842-2019-04-18T15:14:48Z-00005-000", "rank": 11, "score": 203933.0}, {"content": "Title: permit the use of performance enhancing drugs in professional sports Content: Permitting the use of performace enhancers would have a coercive effect on athletes who would otherwise avoid drug use", "qid": "11", "docid": "6143b928-2019-04-15T20:22:25Z-00002-000", "rank": 12, "score": 203259.0}, {"content": "Title: Performance Enhancing Drugs (PEDs) should be permitted in professional sports. Content: As am I, thank you for accepting Pro! PEDs should not be permitted for use in professional sports (or sports at any level) for a number of reasons. First and foremost, PEDs present an enormous health risk for athletes that use them. They lead to many severe health problems, including but not limited to heart and circulatory problems, psychiatric disorders and inhibited growth and development (http://www.mayoclinic.org... and http://www.livestrong.com...). The law, in the broader view of things, aims to generally protect people from making poor decisions. If all people are treated as equals under the law, it is the duty of the law to aim to protect athletes just as it aims to protect drug users. It is therefore the responsibility of the law to warn athletes away from taking performance enhancing drugs. In the broader scope of sport, it can be appreciated that teenage athletes who train among adult ones or share the same coaches would also turn to PEDs used by the people around them (were PEDs legalized and accessible), which would not only pose even more serious health concerns but also set trends about drug culture in general, spreading the reach of recreational drug use even further. Sports are enjoyed by people because they are a visual demonstration of what human beings can achieve, individually or collectively. They are designed to amaze and put on a show, and we watch them to celebrate this human achievement. If athletes took PEDs, we would be celebrating chemical achievement, instead. Thus, PEDs could be appreciated to undermine the central philosophy of sport. Finally, a counterargument could be that not all athletes would need to take PEDs and some may choose not to without consequence- however, this is not true. Even if some athletes uphold moral or health standards to not take PEDs, they have their freedom of choice infringed upon: if they want to be successful, they will also have to take drugs. Allowing any athletes to take PEDs means no longer protecting any athletes, even ones that don't want to use dangerous drugs, from these things. This is exemplified in the American Scientific Magazine: \"Game theory highlights why it is rational for professional cyclists to dope: the drugs are extremely effective as well as difficult or impossible to detect; the payoffs for success are high; and as more riders use them, a \"clean\" rider may become so noncompetitive that he or she risks being cut from the team\" (http://www.scientificamerican.com...). Two more websites consulted: http://sportsanddrugs.procon.org... http://www.usada.org... Your move! :)", "qid": "11", "docid": "ffe83842-2019-04-18T15:14:48Z-00003-000", "rank": 13, "score": 203185.0}, {"content": "Title: Performance Enhancing Drugs (PEDs) should be permitted in professional sports. Content: To refute my opponent's arguments and his responses to my own, one by one: 1. \"Legalizing PEDs would serve to level the playing field. According to the New York Times, more than a third of the top Tour de France finishers since 1998 have been confirmed to be doping while racing\" Response: Not only should they not be legalized, there should be more enforcement to keep them out of sports. It's not a strong argument to say \"some people are doing it anyway, we might as well make it legal so everyone can\". Some people do cocaine! Furthermore, rich athletes from wealthier countries will have access to the latest, highest-quality PEDs while poorer athletes from poorer countries which don't have the same medical or scientific advances will not be able to keep up. As long as PEDs are available (or even legal), the playing field won't ever be level. PEDs are one of the largest factors that make the playing field not be level, because they give a foothold to wealth and country of origin as deciders of athletic performance. 2. \"One of the primary reasons people enjoy watching professional sports is because they showcase the highest level of human achievement. Allowing PEDs to be used would raise the level of competition and skill in professional sports.\" Response: Allowing PEDs would raise the level of competition in an extremely uneven manner, and we would showcase chemical achievement instead of human achievement (as outlined in my first argument). 3. \"My opponent argues that PEDs provide with a large risk for athletes. However, Athletes who are using PEDs are already in a dangerous industry, and frequently become injured regardless of whether or not they use drugs.\" Response: I would call it an invalid argument to say that, because what they do is dangerous already, it doesn't matter that PEDs could make their lives more dangerous. All people are under the law and the law should protect all people. Welders have a more dangerous career than teachers, but it isn't any less against the law for them to use cocaine. 4. \"My opponent also argues that allowing PEDs takes away from true human achievement. However, being an athlete requires a high amount of skill regardless of whether or not you use PEDs. [...] Using PEDs may increase the distance of this home run, but hitting a it is still a spectacle of your own human, not chemical precision.\" Response: I agree that there is a side of sports not affected by PEDs, but I think that this argues my side of the debate more than it does yours- we will celebrate the same skills, changed or unchanged by PEDs, as human achievement. The use of PEDs therefore does not increase this human achievement and should not be celebrated, it only adds chemical achievement to what is already amazing. This is not something we want to celebrate, as it is outside of the central philosophy of sport, and it is certainly not worth the health risks or other disparities (as outlined above) the PEDs would bring to sport at any level.", "qid": "11", "docid": "ffe83842-2019-04-18T15:14:48Z-00001-000", "rank": 14, "score": 201193.0}, {"content": "Title: Performance enhancing drugs should be allowed in professional sports Content: Just go by popular definitions.", "qid": "11", "docid": "91f321b3-2019-04-18T18:07:03Z-00005-000", "rank": 15, "score": 199727.0}, {"content": "Title: Performance Enhancement Drugs in Professional Sports Content: Performance Enhancements are Putting Athletes in Danger Athletes are cheating more and more now by taking performance enhancements for their professional sport. An athletes health could be at risk while taking performance enhancement drugs, we already have the great technology to support them, plus the athletes are playing their sport for the determination it takes, and the love of the game. Therefore, Performance Enhancement Drugs (PED) in professional sports should remain illegal for the players to keep them safe. Athletes already have great technology to help them with their performance while playing their sport. Athletes will use scientific diets, and oxygen tents as a healthier way of helping them improve. Sports have the technology to push the athletes bodies to extents. \"Athletes already use technology to push their bodies to the edge of human capability. Scientific diets, oxygen tents that stimulate high altitudes and supplements that fine-tune already genetically superior bodies are all simple-- and legal\"examples.\" (Duncan). None of those examples are illegal to use for the athlete to help improve their performance. On the other hand, when using PEDs for the extra technology it will help them become better, faster, stronger, then it will make the sport more interesting for both the players and the crowd. \"Scientists and engineers have recently developed devices that bump up cognitive performance by dousing the brain in low levels of electricity and using magnetic fields to stimulate the brains nerve cells.\" (Duncan). This is saying that now because of the help of scientists and engineers athletes can use certain devices to encourage the brain to keep going. Instead of risking their health, they have other ways to improve their performance. PEDs could cause multiple health problems that could be very dangerous. The website of the World Anti-Doping Agency gives warnings on what steroids could do to the athletes ad their body. \"The website of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) for example, warns that steroids increase the odds of mood shifts, reduced sperm counts, damage to the heart, and masculinization in women.\" (Duncan). There are many different problems that could occur while taking PEDs, they only list a small amount of possible health risks. If a player were to have one of these problems, then they could be taken out of the sport because of the damage to the body. Yet, athletes could want to use these in order to get stronger to help prevent any injury that could happen while playing. Some athletes are willing to take the chance to help with making the sport safer for the player. The purpose of having the sport is for competition. When an athlete uses PEDs, that purpose is no longer there and with competition the love of the game remains. \"Any thoughtful person who plays a sport understands the connection among talent, dedication, and excellence. Every sport sets limits.\" (Murray). While the athlete is playing the sport each time he/she plays the love of the game should grow. The determination and competition will still be there, but when taking PEDs the athlete forgets about why they are playing in the first place. But, when the athlete uses PEDs it does make them become stronger and better at their sport making it a little bit easier on them, the athlete will then be able to play longer and practice longer because of their strength. To have athletes remain safe, PEDs should remain illegal. Athletes have amazing technology to help them improve in their sport, and there are many different health problems that can occur. Lastly, athletes are playing for the love and competition of the game. Hard work and determination will get the athlete farther than risking the athletes career with taking PEDs.", "qid": "11", "docid": "21fa6aa9-2019-04-18T15:26:34Z-00003-000", "rank": 16, "score": 194125.0}, {"content": "Title: Performance Enhancing Drugs Would be Legalize in World Sport Tournament Content: Performance-enhancing drugs (PED) are substances used by athletes to improve their performances. These drugs are addictive and if we use it for a long time it will be affect our heart-health. And these regulation will not appropriate with the purpose of sport which is Be Healthy By Natural Ways. Because if the athlete use these PED it will insist them to do more than the energy they have. And of course it is not healthy.", "qid": "11", "docid": "add356d0-2019-04-18T17:26:20Z-00004-000", "rank": 17, "score": 194123.0}, {"content": "Title: Performance-enhancing drugs should be allowed in professional sports. Content: \"Your \"Part one arguments,\" to the extent they raise true symptoms (which is not clear, because data on the symptoms of the usage of steroids at recommended dosages in healthy people is in a shortage and rather conflicting, which is perhaps why you have cited no scientific data), apply to the resolution \"Should you use steroids? \" Or \"Is hiring a steroid-using baseball player a good investment? \"\" . http://en.wikipedia.org... They do apply to the resolution, \"Performance-enhancing drugs should [not] be allowed in professional sports\". They show that using these drugs is unsafe. \"Your part two arguments apply to \"Should children be encouraged to look into athletes as role models? \" No, I'm saying that performance-enhancing drugs should not be allowed because they set a bad example for children. \"Your part three argument applies to \"Should sports leagues concerned with an image of 'hard work' or 'fairness' allow steroid users to play? \" No, I'm saying that performance-enhancing drugs cheat users out of hard work and practice that other players have to go through. \"The resolution at hand, however, is whether it should be ILLEGAL for professional athletes to use these drugs. \" Uh, no, it's whether \"Performance-enhancing drugs should be ALLOWED in professional sports. \" \"Allowed\" and \"legal\" are very different. \"Allowed\" means allowed within the sport's rules; \"legal\" means allowed within the law.", "qid": "11", "docid": "ac709939-2019-04-18T19:39:56Z-00003-000", "rank": 18, "score": 192776.0}, {"content": "Title: Performance Enhancing Drugs Would be Legalize in World Sport Tournament Content: A ban is not the way to deal with addiction and health issues. Addiction is a personal situation that must be handled properly, meaning between the user, his doctor, and those affected by his behavior. The drugs being unnatural does not prove that they should be banned. If a certain activity should be banned for giving an artificial advantage, then shouldn't athletes logically be banned from eating healthy diets and exercising more efficiently? Because after all, these are unnatural processes.", "qid": "11", "docid": "add356d0-2019-04-18T17:26:20Z-00003-000", "rank": 19, "score": 191350.0}, {"content": "Title: permit the use of performance enhancing drugs in professional sports Content: Improving safety standards in sport", "qid": "11", "docid": "6143b928-2019-04-15T20:22:25Z-00004-000", "rank": 20, "score": 191143.0}, {"content": "Title: Controlling, rather than ignoring, performance enhancing substances will improve competitive standards in sport Content: The use of performance enhancing drugs is based on advances in science. When new drugs and therapies are found, athletes turn to them and as a result are much of the time ahead of the anti-doping organizations, which need to develop methods of athlete testing whenever a new drug that is meant to be untraceable is created. In 2008 it was a big shock when Riccardo Ricco (a cyclist) was caught using the performance-enhancing drug Mircera, which had been considered undetectable for a number of years. The fact is that a ban of performance enhancing drugs enables mainly athletes from wealthy countries and teams that can afford the newest technology to go undetected, whilst others are disadvantaged (1). So because it gives an unfair advantage to the wealthy one who can pay for the undetectable drugs, we should legalize it. Millard Baker, Riccardo Ricco Tests Positive for Undetectable New Drug Mircera at 2008 Tour de France, 07/18/2008, http://steroidreport.com/2008/07/18/riccardo-ricco-and-mircera-pegylated-epo/, accessed 05/20/2011", "qid": "11", "docid": "6143b928-2019-04-15T20:22:25Z-00013-000", "rank": 21, "score": 189824.0}, {"content": "Title: Performance-enhancing drugs should be allowed in professional sports. Content: \"Doing unsafe things is allowable. People have the right to do unsafe things with their own bodies. \" Did you not see what \"allowed\" refers to? Rights or not, steroids are not allowed in professional sports. \"Athletes are not slaves, existing for the sake of their examples to children. They exist for their own sake and are to be treated as such, as human beings, so long as they treat others as such. This means they are not to be forced to a course of action just because it will benefit someone else, only them initiating force can justify such force. \" I didn't say that. Obviously, an athlete should be expected to be a role model for children, since many kids will look up to him/her. This does not dictate the way they live; it simply means they should not do stupid things, cheat, etc. because that will negatively influence kids. This is why, for example, Michael Phelps got a lot of crap for doing drugs. \"\"Have to? \" No one \"has to\" do such a thing. They are perfectly able to take the drugs themselves, or work hard, or not condition themselves, as they please. \" Do you see any unconditioned professional athletes? They all have to do some sort of tough conditioning to stay sharp at their sport. And most people consider steroids cheating, or do not use them because of the aforementioned side effects. Professional athletes who do not use steroids HAVE TO work hard to stay in shape and up to expectations. \"And the use of drugs by one party does not delete the hard work by another, they are separate bodies, separate phenomena. \" EXACTLY - one party still has to go through hard work, while the other can just take drugs. \"This would be a permissible arguments if your round 1 argument did not already concede you were talking about what THE LAW should allow. As it stands it is not, it is merely a tool of deception, and I quote . . . That was at the beginning of your first round argument. That leaves no room for weaseling out of it, the resolution was explicitly clarified by you as meaning allowable by the law, not allowable by the sports league. \" Well, first, if something is illegal for use in sports, then it is not allowed for use in sports. So I can relate these arguments to the resolution even if you were right. Second, you just contradicted yourself. First you state that I conceded that I was talking about what the law should allow. But then, you say I \"explicitly clarified [it] as being allowable by the law, not allowable by the sports league\". But really, I was laying the latter all along. The very first sentence says \"illegal for use in sports\". That means that their use is punishable by law if used in sports. Now before you start saying that we should not jail people for steroid use, that's not what \"punishable by law\" means. Loitering is punishable by law; do you get thrown in jail for it? What about littering or violating curfew laws? =============================================================================== My opponent has spent all of his arguments attempting to not relate my arguments to the resolution. However, I have showed how he has misinterpreted all of my arguments. Furthermore, he has not attempted to argue with my position, and is giving contradictory and misleading \"reasons\" on why I have \"not\" supported the resolution.", "qid": "11", "docid": "ac709939-2019-04-18T19:39:56Z-00001-000", "rank": 22, "score": 189244.0}, {"content": "Title: permit the use of performance enhancing drugs in professional sports Content: Protecting the health of athletes", "qid": "11", "docid": "6143b928-2019-04-15T20:22:25Z-00001-000", "rank": 23, "score": 189210.0}, {"content": "Title: Performance Enhancing Drugs (PEDs) should be permitted in professional sports. Content: I will use this speech to further strengthen my constructive, and refute my opponents refutations. My opponent argues that it does not make sense to legal PEDs with the intention of leveling the playing field. However, I have provided evidence that says that a majority of athletes in some sports use PEDs. Because of this, it is incredibly difficult to eradicate PEDs. This has been seen recently in sports such as baseball. Despite continuous effort by Major League Baseball to take PEDs away from the game, PED use is still widely present. This shows that it would simply be less cumbersome to allow everyone to use PEDs than to attempt to remove them entirely. My opponent also observes that PEDs increase chemical achievement instead of human achievement. However, I have shown that professional athletes still are incredibly skilled, regardless of whether or not they use PEDs. Furthermore, I have shown that people do in fact celebrate \"chemical\" achievement. An example of this would be the MLB Home Run races in the 1990's, when a majority of the contenders used PEDs. During this point in MLB history, there were more fans and spectators than ever before, which shows celebration of what my opponent dubs \"chemical achievement.\" So, it is clear that PEDs do not eliminate human achievement, and any chemical achievement that they provide is still celebrated. My opponent refutes my argument regarding the inherent dangers of sports by comparing it to teachers and welders who use cocaine. This argument cannot be weighed in this debate for two reasons. First, Professional Athletes are paid much more than welders or teachers. Second, PEDs are much less dangerous than using cocaine. Professional Athletes are being paid much more than teachers or welders, and they are also submitting themselves to the inherent danger of their sports. And I would observe that this argument was mainly put into my constructive speech to show that the dangers of PEDs do not come close to outweighing the inherent dangers of sports. Because of this, the contention regarding the dangers of PEDs cannot be weighed highly. My opponent finally argues that chemical achievement will never be celebrated, as all that people celebrate is human achievement. I do accept that people embrace human achievement in sports, as I even said that in my constructive speech. However, I have also shown that chemical achievement can be celebrated, which increases the appeal to watch professional sports. So, it is clear that PEDs do in fact level the playing field, make sports more appealing, and should in fact be legalized in professional sports. So, I affirm the resolution that Performance Enhancing Drugs should be permitted in professional sports, and I urge a pro ballot.", "qid": "11", "docid": "ffe83842-2019-04-18T15:14:48Z-00000-000", "rank": 24, "score": 188671.0}, {"content": "Title: THW allow performance enhancing drugs in sport Content: Thanks to my opponent for a fun challenge! Good luck! :)", "qid": "11", "docid": "73f0ef4b-2019-04-18T16:26:16Z-00000-000", "rank": 25, "score": 188444.0}, {"content": "Title: Performance-enhancing drugs should be allowed in professional sports. Content: Unfortunately, I have to say that your arguments apply to a few related resolutions, but not the resolution at hand. Your \"Part one arguments,\" to the extent they raise true symptoms (which is not clear, because data on the symptoms of the usage of steroids at recommended dosages in healthy people is in a shortage and rather conflicting, which is perhaps why you have cited no scientific data), apply to the resolution \"Should you use steroids?\" Or \"Is hiring a steroid-using baseball player a good investment?\" Your part two arguments apply to \"Should children be encouraged to look into athletes as role models?\" (and I note they also have a flaw, how would the child feel about his uber-clean athlete role model if he found out the athlete was only being uber-clean because he was forced to? Kind of disillusioning no?) Your part three argument applies to \"Should sports leagues concerned with an image of 'hard work' or 'fairness' allow steroid users to play?\" The resolution at hand, however, is whether it should be ILLEGAL for professional athletes to use these drugs. That is, whether Johnny McSuperStrong's use of steroids is a justification to send a man with a gun to his door and stick him in a cage, shooting him if he doesn't cooperate. This raises questions of \"What are proper social limits (rights)?\" Since human beings require the application of their own mind to their own actions to live, and need to produce goods with those actions, and this is a universal need, it holds that each human who wishes to live should find it proper that others not interfere with this (the rights of liberty and property). In order to pursue this, it is of course necessary that they themselves not interfere first, for interfering with one who does not interfere removes the incentive for that other to not interfere. Thus the question in whether to violate someone's liberty or property is \"Have they violated yours?\" I await your proof that the injection of steroids into one's own body, or between consenting parties, somehow violates anyone's liberty or property.", "qid": "11", "docid": "ac709939-2019-04-18T19:39:56Z-00004-000", "rank": 26, "score": 188057.0}, {"content": "Title: Legalize Performance-Enhancing Drug for Sportman Content: wait, sir. you're not consistent with your position. Disadvantages : - Performance enhancing Drugs could have an impact on the body if left or the sportsman quits sport. - Any sport is expected to be fair and based on your natural talent and training. - There are athletes that can\"t consume performance enhancing drugs. This makes their chance of winning, bleak. - A sport is usually considered as a passion. The essence of the sport is lost if performance enhancing drugs are legalizes - Be legalizing such performance enhancing drugs, athletes could be motivated and get addicted to other forms of drugs. - The athletes can take it for granted that these drugs will enhance their performance and thus, the hard work that could be put otherwise can be hampered. and it can kill the sportman who consume it. For example, some German athletes who took anabolic steroids in the 1970\"s and 1980\"s are having health problems now. A famous NFL player, Lyle Alzado, died at the age of 43 after having taking steroids for more than 2 decades. And the sciensist's research : \"Performance enhancers, like steroids and other forms of doping, have a negative effect on long-term health. For then users of these enhancers are hurting themselves in the long run without on the average improving their short-term rewards from athletic competition, as long as competitors also use harmful enhancers. This is the main rationale for trying to ban steroids and other forms of doping from athletic competitions.\" Gary Becker, PhD Professor in the Departments of Economics, Sociology, and the Graduate School of Business at the University of Chicago \"Doping in Sports,\" Becker-Posner blog Aug. 27, 2006 THINK MORE !", "qid": "11", "docid": "1cbf91f8-2019-04-18T17:32:45Z-00003-000", "rank": 27, "score": 187956.0}, {"content": "Title: Legalize Performance-Enhancing Drug for Sportman Content: PEDs should remain illegal. The idea of a performance enhancing drug is to improve immediate ability. This gives and unfair handicap to the players of that particular sport that are not using a drug. This in turn cheats the capitalist system by placing someone who is unfit to be at the top at the top.", "qid": "11", "docid": "1cbf91f8-2019-04-18T17:32:45Z-00004-000", "rank": 28, "score": 187350.0}, {"content": "Title: WC Debate - RR: Performance enhancing drugs should be legal for use in all major sports leagues Content: I would like to address the debate, however my opponent ask me to clarify the side I will support and it's quite simply the literal opposite of yours. My side is apparent simply based on the title of the debate and our positions, I will be arguing that performance enhancing drugs shouldn't be legal in every major sporting league. Also it seems you have taken care of the basic definition needed to begin the debate and I see no need for additional definitions atleast while the debate is still somewhat simple. Onto my argument 1. Equality As these drugs became allowed in sporting leagues, they would increase player production meaning in order to compete you would have to take drugs in order to win. One great example of this would be in cycling many cyclists's resorted to doping to boost their production in order to win the tour de france. So in order to stay equal to the competition Lance Armstrong took drugs alongside them, all may appear equal but in truth the drugs are expensive and discriminate on players on the league who are too poor to acquire the quantity needed to stay on par with opponents. [1] 2. Health Concerns Their are many bad health effects of anabolic steroids such as[2]: 1. Changes in liver function 2. Infertility 3. Growth of male breasts 4. Retardation in fetus's 5. Death 6. Increased aggressiveness 7. Sleeping disorders 8. Confusion 9. Paranoia 10. Hallucinations 11. A weaker immune system 12. Hair loss 3. The league's rights The league has the right to determine how the sport is played, for example in the NBA only 5 players may on the court at a time. The league itself should be able to determine drug limitations, as the league determines the game rules. [3] Sources: [1] http://www.cyclingnews.com... [2] http://www.sportsci.org... [3] http://www.nba.com...", "qid": "11", "docid": "117d2319-2019-04-18T16:13:12Z-00004-000", "rank": 29, "score": 187224.0}, {"content": "Title: Performance Enhancing Drugs Would be Legalize in World Sport Tournament Content: But, in this case, we talk about the athlete whose have so many fans. For example, the football player, they have so many fans all around the world, from those who already old, mid-age, or even the children. If the using of PED is allowed in this case, of course what the athlete did is being adapted by their fans. For example, Child \"A\" said \"Oh, my idol use that drugs to improve the energy during the match, I will try it too\" Isn't it will be dangerous for the children under age? And for your information, eating healthy diets and exercising more efficiently = Is natural ways :-)", "qid": "11", "docid": "add356d0-2019-04-18T17:26:20Z-00001-000", "rank": 30, "score": 187125.0}, {"content": "Title: Performance-enhancing drugs should be allowed in professional sports. Content: Said drugs should stay illegal for use in sports, for a few reasons. 1) Negative effect on the steroid user Steroids, as we all know, speed up protein synthesis to enhance performance. However, there are some harmful side effects to using them. They include: - higher blood pressure - higher cholesterol levels - higher risk of heart disease - liver damage - premature growth - testicular cancer - abnormally large amounts of acne - breast development in men This, obviously, is not good for the steroid user. Furthermore, exercising normally can avoid these problems, and regular exercise is better for physical and mental health. 2) Negative impact on children When children start to get into sports, they normally treat their favorite player as an idol, an image of what they want to be when they grow up. How would they feel if their idol essentially cheated by using drugs so they didn't have to work as hard? Furthermore, what if they decided to use steroids too, because their hero did? 3) Unfair advantage Most professional athletes work hard every day to stay in shape and sharp at their sport. Why should some players get to skip this hard work that everyone else is doing? That's all for now.", "qid": "11", "docid": "ac709939-2019-04-18T19:39:56Z-00005-000", "rank": 31, "score": 185626.0}, {"content": "Title: WC Debate - RR: Performance enhancing drugs should be legal for use in all major sports leagues Content: Thanks to Actionsspeak for clarifying his case and for his opening remarks. This looks to be an interesting debate. I ask the audience to recognize that even his case is a departure from status quo. He would like to afford the capacity to decide whether steroid and hormone usage is allowed in any given sport to the sporting leagues themselves, and thus take it out of the hands of legislators. Con's third contention made it clear that the league, not lawmakers, should have the right to determine how a sport is played. So what we're really discussing here is whether or not the option should be available to individuals or to sporting leagues, not whether their usage should be legalized or not. This is an important distinction, and one that should be kept in mind that the American legal structures [1] aren't going to be an impediment in either of our cases as this debate goes forward. Now, onto my rebuttals. On Equality: 1. Sports aren't about equality. If it was, we wouldn't have winners and losers. The system of competition is meant to elevate those who are better at what they do, whether that's as a result of inherent capacities or how well they use their resources. No one is entitled to play professional sports \" it's a privilege requiring enormous sacrifice and massive risk, whether they use steroids or not, and most walk away. If Con wants equality, sports isn't the place to find it. 2. Sports aren't equal. Recall two things I said in R2. First, I discussed what athletes do in order to get in shape. Flying into the mountains to thicken the blood and increase the flow of oxygen through their bodies isn't something everyone can do before competitions, nor can they all find training facilities above a certain altitude. Even among those that can, not all of them will have access to top of the line equipment, masseuses, trainers, or all the other expenses required to build muscle quickly and efficiently. They don't all have access to the same megadoses of vitamin pills, dietary supplements, equipment, clothing, or medical treatments that are allowed to everyone in status quo. Hell, things like hyperbaric oxygen chambers, which increase the rate of recovery for players, are being purchased by many teams and players at tremendous costs, providing them and only them an appreciable advantage.[2] and would continue to be allowed in Con's case. Why are steroids so special? Second, I talked about how some people just have higher inherent capacities. They produce more testosterone, HGH or erythropoeitin, they can endure a faster heartbeat, or even the fact that they produce normal blood cells. Not everyone has those advantages, and Con has provided no way for anyone to make up for any such deficiencies. Only my plan seeks to solve for these concerns. 3. Con's case is worse for equality. Black market drugs are more expensive, harder to find,[3] and more dangerous, but more on that last point later. But you can look at this point one of two ways. You can accept that steroid usage causes more steroid usage, in which case Con's case is more detrimental there's already a system in place where athletes feel the need to use steroids and hormones to succeed. The only difference is that they can't use the cheapest, safest, and most well-known steroids prescribed directly by doctors at specific doses and lower cost. Con provides absolutely no reason to believe that legalization will increase usage over status quo. Even if he does, recognize that equality is only a larger problem within his case and in the status quo. The only reason why an advantage such as steroids would be considered unfair is if they're unequally distributed, but as I pointed out in the previous round, the distribution is currently as unequal as it gets. Using basic steroids and hormones instead of what's available on the black market will lower, not raise, the barrier for entry, and increase fairness to all athletes. Or you can notice that this argument has no warrant. Con asserts that steroid usage among some athletes will spread to other athletes who want to compete. This is nothing more than an assertion, and one which is not well explained. Mandatory testing programs among MLB players have revealed that a whopping 5-7% of athletes were using steroids[4], which means 93-95% of athletes were able to play at a very high level without coercion. There's no reason to believe that legalization will cause these numbers to balloon out of control. The uncertainty regarding who is using steroids/hormones in status quo, if anything, creates more impetus to use than a transparent system where everyone who does use does so openly. 4. Con also allows sports leagues to create their own barriers to entry for those with anemia, low testosterone production, reduced muscle growth, and anything else that puts them at a marked disadvantage. He allows individual leagues to discriminate against these groups, harming any sense of equality by denying access to those who could easily keep up if they had access to the available resources. On Health Concerns: 1. Athletes are already forced into an incredibly unhealthy lifestyle and die young. I made this clear in the previous round, but there's no significant difference between any of the health harms presented by Con and the ones I presented in R2. Con will have to address my point that these harms are non-unique and my hypocrisy arguments as well in the next round in order to win this point. 2. Health concerns are worse in an environment where black market drugs are the only ones being used. The reality is that the health concerns are far more excessive using designer steroids and gene doping, as I pointed out last round. Worse yet, his case only exacerbates these harms by legalizing their usage in the general community, but not in all sports. In my case, incentive to use designer steroids and gene doping is erased due to their expense and ineffectiveness by comparison. Con encourages the legal usage of the most dangerous doping substances. 3. Each athlete accepts these health concerns the moment they take these drugs. There's no reason why athletes shouldn't be able to take these concerns on themselves, especially if they know about them in advance. Since Con's case encourages athletes to pursue drugs with unknown health harms, his forces a lower capacity to consent than mine does. On \"The league's rights\": 1. There's no impact here. Con doesn't explain how changes in the way sports are played is actually harmful. Even if this is certain to happen, the lack of a harm makes it unimportant. 2. There's no warrant for this claim. Con doesn't explain how a change in one rule affects another one. The only possible warrant is a slippery slope fallacy, which has no rational basis in this debate. Worse yet, even if it was true that one rule change could link to another, the rules he's trying to link have nothing in common. The rules of what an athlete can do to their own bodies have no effect on whether any player can disregard the basic rules of how a sport is played in competition. 3. The league doesn't have a right to deny access based on any person's characteristics, training regimen, or nutritional intake. This is one of the very few influences they have on what athletes can take and use for playing their sports, and it's done with extreme hypocrisy based on shaky reasoning. Leagues should not be allowed to spurn athletes who they think have an unfair advantage based on other characteristics, and yet Con wants us to believe that this is crossing some special line. With that, I leave it to my opponent to rebut my case and respond to these arguments. 1. http://www.steroidabuse.com... 2. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com... 3. http://www.theguardian.com... 4. http://mlb.mlb.com...", "qid": "11", "docid": "117d2319-2019-04-18T16:13:12Z-00003-000", "rank": 32, "score": 185542.0}, {"content": "Title: permit the use of performance enhancing drugs in professional sports Content: Athletes should be free to take risks when training and competing", "qid": "11", "docid": "6143b928-2019-04-15T20:22:25Z-00007-000", "rank": 33, "score": 185460.0}, {"content": "Title: permit the use of performance enhancing drugs in professional sports Content: Protecting young and vulnerable athletes", "qid": "11", "docid": "6143b928-2019-04-15T20:22:25Z-00000-000", "rank": 34, "score": 184876.0}, {"content": "Title: WC Debate - RR: Performance enhancing drugs should be legal for use in all major sports leagues Content: !", "qid": "11", "docid": "117d2319-2019-04-18T16:13:12Z-00002-000", "rank": 35, "score": 184855.0}, {"content": "Title: steriods in sports Content: i think sterids should be ban from all sports. its very unhealthy for the body. Those who oppose the use of steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs say that the athletes who use them are breaking the rules and getting an unfair advantage over others. Opponents of the drugs say the athletes are endangering not only their own health, but also indirectly encouraging youngsters to do the same.", "qid": "11", "docid": "1c1c7401-2019-04-18T18:06:00Z-00003-000", "rank": 36, "score": 184693.0}, {"content": "Title: Professional athletes using Performance-Enhancing drugs Content: In todays world the temptation to use performance-enhancing drugs is too great for too many athletes. Performance-enhancing drugs are self explanatory, it is a drug to enhance physical performance. Usually associated with professional athletes striving for perfection. There are many risks that come with taking performance-enhancements there are many types of PEDs, all of which are illegal. The United States Anti-Doping agency should keep performance-enhancing drugs illegal to keep professional athletes safe. Breaking the law is not worth the risk. when a professional athlete uses performance-enhancing drugs, they have got a lot to lose. The wrong choice almost brought an end to many athletes careers. One tragic example is Lance Armstrong, stripped of his seven Tour de France titles. Jim Thorpe was denied two gold medals in the olympics, The list is endless. Athletes do not only lose their awards but it destroys their reputation that they have built. Life for professional sports organizations focused on managing the anti-doping policies would be easier. That might be true, but the people who manage the organization would no longer have a job there. Legalizing PEDs would not only negatively affect the athletes, but the people around them. There is an overwhelming amount of negative side effects that can occur from using performance-enhancing drugs. \"Simply put PEDs have the ability or potential to drastically alter the human body, and biological functions, including the ability to considerably improve athletic performance\" These drugs, however, can be extremely dangerous and in certain situations, deadly\" (USADA). Other negative side effects include muscle weakness, hallucinations, liver abnormalities and tumors, etc. Yet, with all those factors in play, many still choose to go down that dangerous road. Professional athletes are already risking a lot when playing the sport, so why does it matter if they use performance enhancements? If athletes are already taking so many risks, then they should absolutely try to keep themselves as safe as possible. The danger of using PEDs outweigh the gains in muscle mass or strength. When an athlete uses PEDs, it defeats the purpose of the competition altogether. \"Success in sports takes talent...using steroids is a form of cheating and interferes with fair competition\"(littleleague). There are other ways to improve performance; train safely, eat healthy, and get plenty of rest. To be a truly great athlete you have to work hard. There is no shortcut to success. \"Steroids and doping will help pitchers to throw harder, home runs go further, cyclists to charge longer and sprinters to test the very limits of human speed(Smith).In the moment that might be exhilarating, but it can cause a whole lot of problems later in life. using performance-enhancing drugs is not worth the risk at all. To keep athletes safe, performance-enhancing drugs should stay illegal.The bottom line is professional athletes have too much to lose, the risk is too great, and it is cheating the game.\"Life is full of grays, but sports are black and white. There is always a clear winner in the end and everyone expects that the winner achieved the success in a fair and ethical way\"(little league).It is important to understand the facts about Performance-enhancing drugs. Works Cited \"Fitness.\" Performance-enhancing Drugs: Know the Risks. Web. 18 Nov. 2014. \"Why Steroids Are Bad for Major League Baseball.\" Why Steroids Are Bad for Major League Baseball. Web. 18 Nov. 2014. \"Effects of Performance Enhancing Drugs | U.S. Anti-Doping Agency USADA.\" US Anti Doping Agency USADA. Web. 28 Nov. 2014. .", "qid": "11", "docid": "a126b2a4-2019-04-18T15:25:09Z-00005-000", "rank": 37, "score": 184078.0}, {"content": "Title: WC Debate - RR: Performance enhancing drugs should be legal for use in all major sports leagues Content: As he has not yet explained his case, I hope that he will take the next round to clarify it as I have in the first, but for now, I will focus on providing advantages for my case. The current system for athletes is such that they already put themselves at great physical risk in endeavoring to be the best. Just as a result of training, athletes suffer intensely. High altitude training is a must for many athletes, as it leads to a much higher production of red blood cells and therefore more transport of oxygen through the body, increasing endurance. However, acclimatisation to high altitude leads to the production of too many red blood cells, making the blood thicker and reducing blood flow. This stresses out the heart, and deprives parts of the body of oxygen. High altitudes also lead to intense weight loss (both from loss of appetite and the body eating itself), risks of weakening the body's immune system, and lengthened times of recovery from muscle damage. That's not to mention the expansive list of altitude illnesses that can result from pressure changes and oxygen deprivation. [1] Pro athletes train for 5-6 hours a day 6 days a week, training intensely the entire time. Typical athletes have to maintain incredibly high heart rates for long periods of time, stressing their hearts in the process. [2] This all comes in part from the extremely unhealthy diets that these athletes ingest, as well as excess stress. [3] What are the results of all this? Cardiomyopathy, enlarged hearts, wearing down of heart valves. [5] This leads to a much higher likelihood of early and sudden death. [4] This is played out in football, where the average life expectancy of an NFL player is 58 years. [6] Overtraining can lead to massive systemic issues, such as imbalances in the brain, nervous and hormonal systems, upper respiratory illness, compromised immune function, and chronic inflammation. [3] The basis for this harm actually plays out as a result of free radical production, which causes chain reactions that destroy cells in the body. [4] Athletes push themselves through pain and injury, and are expected to do so in order to achieve glory, thus perpetuating health harms, and spurning treatment and prevention efforts. [3] But the hypocrisy goes beyond training. Athletes are allowed to use any number of dietary supplements, equipment, clothing, and medical treatments to enhance their performance. Vitamin pills are commonly used, megadoses of which have been shown to cause a number of deaths among athletes and significant health harms even at regular doses. [7][8] Many use whole-body Lycra suits, and the Speedo LZR Racer swimsuit is thought to be responsible for breaking world records in swimming, increasing the costs required in order to succeed. [9] Steroids will not significantly add to these harms. More than that, it's hypocritical, and the legal structure of any organization should always endeavor to be consistent. If they're going to allow athletes to engage in practices such as I've detailed above (and, in fact, encourage it), then they should allow similarly damaging practices that the players take upon themselves to engage in. These athletes are allowed to put themselves in harm's way in dozens of other ways (not to mention the numerous ways in which they're made vulnerable to physical injury), and I see no reason why this shouldn't apply to use of drugs. Why are these allowed while steroids and hormones remain problematic? It's really just a perceptual thing \" steroids are viewed as cheating, whereas all of these are effectively reasonable, despite the health harms associated with them. But the reality is that the current system is the one that encourages cheating, not one in which these are legalized. Why is that? The main reason is that athletes and the organizations behind them have found ways to outwit the system. Athletes pursue alternatives to the usual anabolic steroids and hormones that allow them to fly under the radar. Designer steroids are \"manufactured to closely resemble existing known compounds, but with sufficient chemical diversity to ensure that their detection by the WADA accredited laboratories is more difficult. \"[10] We manage to find the ones we know exist, but lack detection mechanisms for new designer steroids, detection cannot keep up with the rate of development. Gene doping is a newer system based on gene therapy, which is meant to insert a gene into a given site in the body, where it will then produce large amounts of steroid/hormone endogenously. It's not safe, and it's untested in humans, yet athletes have already begun to pursue it. [11] They may even already have been used at Sochi. [12] There are three major harms to this system 1. It's classist. It allows only those who are capable of affording these expensive alternatives to engage in this type of cheating. Only those who can afford the increased expense can rise to the top, something that legalized, cheap steroids could demonstrably improve upon. 2. It damages the credibility of sporting leagues, who often don't detect these for years and even decades, and of athletes and their organizations, who are forced to hide their usage. They can acquire any number of medals over the years, be idolized and immortalized by their records, and then have to be torn down much later, much to everyone's embarrassment. This also ends up damaging the organizations they're associated with. A great example is Lance Armstrong, who started the Lance Armstrong Foundation. They were forced to change their name to Livestrong, and lost the very helpful endorsement of Nike, thus reducing valuable contributions to an organization aimed at supporting cancer victims. 3. It's more dangerous for athletes. At best, they're getting these from reputable sources, where they've only been lightly tested, and thus they're using the athletes as guinea pigs, causing major harms. [10] Since they are normally less effective than what is detectable,[13] they have to take more, exacerbating the problem. And the reality is that most of them won't come from reputable sources, and any number of dangerous substances may exist alongside their choice doping agent. These athletes are far less likely to pursue the far more dangerous, less effective, and more expensive route to success in the absence of a ban. They will be taking thoroughly tested steroids and hormones, often prescribed by doctors and health officials who can monitor them. Here's another benefit, though it may seem counter-intuitive \" steroids provide an opportunity to level the playing field. Individuals produce different levels of testosterone, which can dramatically affect muscle growth. [19] Those with anemia are effectively handicapped by the lack of oxygen shuttling through their bodies. The presence of hormone injections and compounds that control red blood cell production like erythropoietin make it possible for these athletes to keep up. Con, you have the floor. 1. www. altitude. org/altitude_training. php 2. health. india. com/fitness/a-professional-athletes-fitness-regime-an-insiders-guide/ 3. www. philmaffetone. com/files/20158/Athletes-Fit-But-Unhealthy. pdf 4. . http://imbodybuilding.com... 5. . http://www.bengreenfieldfitness.com... 6. . http://strengthplanet.com... 7. . http://whatstheharm.net... 8. . http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org... 9. . http://www.economist.com... 10. . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 11. . http://www.bbc.com... 12. . http://www.businessinsider.com... 13. . http://www.steroid.com... 14. . http://www.livescience.com...", "qid": "11", "docid": "117d2319-2019-04-18T16:13:12Z-00005-000", "rank": 38, "score": 183769.0}, {"content": "Title: Performance-enhancing drugs should be allowed in professional sports. Content: \" Did you not see what \"allowed\" refers to? Rights or not, steroids are not allowed in professional sports. \" Again, you are ignoring your own statement at the beginning of the debate. You conceded the point about which meaning of \"allowed\" is to be used. \" I didn't say that. Obviously, an athlete should be expected to be a role model for children, since many kids will look up to him/her. This does not dictate the way they live; it simply means they should not do stupid things, cheat, etc. because that will negatively influence kids. \" You're contradicting yourself. The ability to do \"stupid things\" is part of the ability to choose how to live. Either you dictate how they live or you don't, there is no middle ground here. Respect their rights, or treat them as slaves. That's it. If you dictate that a person acts as a role model, this means you are dictating that they live as one. \" Do you see any unconditioned professional athletes? \" Yes, actually, in baseball for example, at some of the positions that are specialized, it is possible to just have a good technique down for pitching and hitting and not actually do much in the way of conditioning. Not optimal but some people do it with success. And you are ignoring the fact that being a professional athlete is a choice. They are free to be one or not to be one. So no, they don't HAVE TO do anything, even those whose sports do require conditioning, are not forced to choose that sport. \" EXACTLY - one party still has to go through hard work, while the other can just take drugs. \" Again that \"Has to,\" which is false, and the false assumption that the first party can't use the drugs. And if you'll notice, exhbit A, the most successful steroid users also work the hardest (See Barry Bonds' extensive workouts.) The steroids simply allow the workout sessions to last longer and be more productive. \" Well, first, if something is illegal for use in sports, then it is not allowed for use in sports. So I can relate these arguments to the resolution even if you were right. Second, you just contradicted yourself. First you state that I conceded that I was talking about what the law should allow. But then, you say I \"explicitly clarified [it] as being allowable by the law, not allowable by the sports league\". But really, I was laying the latter all along. The very first sentence says \"illegal for use in sports\". That means that their use is punishable by law if used in sports.\" You are twisting logic here, and it is you who contradict yourself. You state that i contradict myself by declaring you were talking about the law, and then declaring you were talking about the law? That is the opposite of a contradiction! Meanwhile you contradict yourself by stating you are talking about the sports league's rules, and then stating \"PUNISHABLE BY LAW.\" \"LAW\" is not what a sports league makes. It is what congress makes. A sports league has every right to forbid participation based on such grounds as steroid use... but such a rule is not a \"law,\" does not make participation \"illegal.\" Only that which is forbidden by a government body, Congress, is \"illegal.\" Unless you were trying to say I stated you were arguing it \"Should be allowable by the law, not the sports league,\" which means you misinterpreted my statement. I stated the debate, you clarified, was about \"What is allowable\" by the law, rather than \"what is allowable\" the sports league, which means you are dropping the context and thus altering the meaning of my statement. Either way I have not contradicted myself, either you misunderstand the term contradiction or you are dropping the context of a statement (Your summary of my supposedly contradictory arguments was so ambigous I have a hard time telling which.) \" Now before you start saying that we should not jail people for steroid use, that's not what \"punishable by law\" means. Loitering is punishable by law; do you get thrown in jail for it? What about littering or violating curfew laws? \" You are given fines, which if not paid result in jail. The end that lies down the road is the same, there are simply more steps. The point is that the penalty is government administered, and active, as opposed to the passive penalty of being refused employment if the prohibition were private. Jail and government-mandated fines are morally equivalent. Where one is morally unjustified, so is the other. \" My opponent has spent all of his arguments attempting to not relate my arguments to the resolution. However, I have showed how he has misinterpreted all of my arguments.\" And I have shown how you have misinterpreted mine, and thereby not shown how I have misinterpreted yours. \"urthermore, he has not attempted to argue with my position,\" Your explicit position, explicated in Round 1, is that it should be, again, ILLEGAL for athletes to use steroids. Not, grounds for a private entity to not hire, but, ILLEGAL. If you think I haven't been arguing with that position, you haven't paid the slightest bit of attention. \"nd is giving contradictory and misleading \"reasons\" on why I have \"not\" supported the resolution. \" I already demonstrated I have not contradicted myself. I hope you can do the same. It isn't my fault what you chose to open the debate with, had you not, the meaning of \"allowed\" would still be open to discussion, but your inclusion of the term \"illegal\" made certain it is not, and you have not responded to my arguments against it being illegal (or, since i am Pro, in favor of it being legal, though there is no difference between the two terms).", "qid": "11", "docid": "ac709939-2019-04-18T19:39:56Z-00000-000", "rank": 39, "score": 183524.0}, {"content": "Title: Legalize Performance-Enhancing Drug for Sportman Content: Oh, than simply, sir, LOL. I disagree with what I accepted to, but it is their own damn fault for using performance enhancing drugs, if they know the effects, both long and short term, than I guess it should be legal because they are stupid, the end.", "qid": "11", "docid": "1cbf91f8-2019-04-18T17:32:45Z-00000-000", "rank": 40, "score": 182964.0}, {"content": "Title: HOF Players that used Steroids Content: Hello again. I have done a bit more research and found at least, 150 sports Halls of Fame worldwide. As I do not know if you are specifically referring to one particular sport. I will proffer a brief reflection on the use and issues surrounding the use of performance enhancing drugs, in sport generally. A quick analysis indicates that worldwide, there is now a total ban on the use of performance enhancing drugs in sport. Also testing for steroid abuse, especially at a professional level is now very vigorous. I would therefore suggest that it is unlikely that, any one inducted into a professional sporting Hall of Fame today, is unlikely to have slipped through the drugs testing net. It is fair to assume that a sportsman/woman inducted into a professional sporting Hall of Fame in the past, especially in the latter half of the 20th century was using performance enhancing drugs. Though we must pay regard to the fact, that the use of steroids to enhance sports performance, was not always considered inappropriate or illegal. Would it therefore be just, to retrospectively impose bans on our veteran sporting heroes and as a consequence, strip them of their Hall of Fame status? Con. Would suggest that we let bygones be bygones. Move forward and put our trust and faith in the ability of our sports governing bodies, to thoroughly and rigorously police our modern professional sports organisations.", "qid": "11", "docid": "ad998274-2019-04-18T12:30:10Z-00002-000", "rank": 41, "score": 182831.0}, {"content": "Title: Performance enhancing drugs should be allowed in professional sports Content: 1. Athletes should NOT be able to take whatever they want, it's not fair, Athletes should do there best by doing it naturally. there are some things in steroids that can make people sick. 2. Steroids do have a psychological effects on a person, its been proven by tests and any health website weather major or minor would tell you the same. \"roid rage\" has been proven to be true. 3. liver damage kidney damage increased blood pressure and cholesterol (risk for heart disease) headache and stomach ache severe facial and body acne decreased joint flexibility 4.breast enlargement shrunken testicles lowered sperm count increased sex drive decreased sexual performance - difficulty getting and maintaining erections these effects of steroids are true and could be permanent to the user.", "qid": "11", "docid": "91f321b3-2019-04-18T18:07:03Z-00000-000", "rank": 42, "score": 182590.0}, {"content": "Title: permit the use of performance enhancing drugs in professional sports Content: Controlling, rather than ignoring, performance enhancing substances will improve competitive standards in sport", "qid": "11", "docid": "6143b928-2019-04-15T20:22:25Z-00005-000", "rank": 43, "score": 179022.0}, {"content": "Title: Performance Enhancement Drugs in Professional Sports Content: Hello, and thanks for opening this discussion. I will be countering these specific claims made by my opponent: 1. Use of PED's destroys the spirit of competition and love of the game. 2. Hard work and determination are all that is needed to make athletes \"elite.\" 3. PED's are too dangerous to be used. I wish to make it clear that I do not advocate the unrestricted use of all PED's. I will instead make the case that PED's are not significantly different than other performance enhancing measures, and that the controlled allowance of PED's will make sports both safer and more competitive. 1. Use of PED's destroys the spirit of competition and love of the game - Quite the contrary, PED's increase the spirit of competition. Nature has it's own performance enhancing drug called \"genetics.\" Genes are attained by pure luck, and it is undeniable that some genes bestow natural advantages for some sports. For example, superior eyesight is proven to be a natural advantage in baseball. Slender legs are proven advantages in distance running. Long torsos are a natural advantage in swimming. The list goes on and on [1]. If no performance enhancement was ever allowed, elite sports would only be accessible to a few genetically lucky people. As a result, performance enhancement allows more people to pursue their love for the game who may not have naturally bestowed advantages. For example, the pro baseball player Tommy John was bestowed by nature with an inferior tendon in his arm. In 1974, he underwent surgery to replace his tendon and went on to win, on average, 20 more games per season than he did before he surgery [2]. Since eyesight is so advantageous in baseball, many baseball players routinely get laser eye surgery to artificially enhance their sight [3]. This could definitely be considered artificial performance enhancement, which may be considered unfair. Yet without access to such measures athletes would be subject to a different kind of unfairness - the genetic lottery. In many ways, performance enhancement allows the genetic playing field to be more level. Sports would actually be LESS competitive if the genes bestowed by nature were the only PED's allowed, because less people would be able to compete. If certain PED's were available to everyone, then people with less advantageous natural traits could overcome them and there would be more competitors. 2. Hard work and determination are all that is needed to make athletes \"elite.\" - This ties into the last point. Hard work can definitely make you better, and it is important. But when genetics come into play, no amount of hard work can overcome natural gifts. Consider the example of Stefan Holm, a world-class Scandinavian high jumper. Stefan was the epitome of an all-natural athlete forged through hard work. He began practicing high-jump in his back yard at the age of 6. As he got older, he followed a very strict diet and weight lifting routine to strengthen his legs. He was obsessed as a teenager and practiced for hours each day, taking thousands and thousands of practice jumps. After years of practice, he won gold in the 2004 Olympics. Two years later, a college student named Donald Thomas was dared by a friend to take a high jump at a track practice. In the first jump of his life, with no training, he cleared 6'6\". Two days later, in flat high-top shoes and basketball shorts, he cleared 7' and broke the university record. 8 months later, with only mild amounts of practice, he went against Holm at the world championships and defeated the man who had been training obsessively all his life. Donald Thomas was born with an abnormally long Achilles Tendon which allowed him to jump extraordinarily high with little effort [4]. Clearly, hard work and determination was not enough to give Holm an edge over such a genetically lucky individual. Once again, with equal access to PEDs, all athletes would truly be able to reap the rewards of hard work while avoiding the futility of genetic disadvantage. 3. PEDs are too dangerous - no doubt some are, and they should be banned. But some are not. They are no more dangerous than other performance enhancing measures such as eye surgery, tendon replacement, or self-imposed anorexia (wrestlers). What is more dangerous is the current system, where PEDs are illegal but still widely used. In the current system, those who play by the rules are indirectly punished and outmatched by those who do not and avoid getting caught. This creates a \"cat and mouse\" game atmosphere where athletes do not stop using PEDs, they merely devise new ways to avoid detection. It also blurs the line between what is truly a PED and what is not. Athletes are people who naturally want to push limits, and it creates a more dangerous climate where they try to experiment with PEDs that are potent enough to be questionable yet barely legal enough to be legit. Banning all PEDs is hardly the best solution to the problem of sportsmanship and fairness. [1] All examples taken from David Epstein's book \"The Sports Gene.\" [2] http://gladwell.com... [3] Ibid. [4] David Epstein, \"The Sports Gene\"", "qid": "11", "docid": "21fa6aa9-2019-04-18T15:26:34Z-00002-000", "rank": 44, "score": 178994.0}, {"content": "Title: Protecting the health of athletes Content: Laws should in general protect people from making uninformed decisions. Due to the potential severe consequences the ban has to be upheld. An analogy with the seatbelt can be used: the government forces people to use them, because of the possibility of severe injury in case we do not use it. The use of performance-enhancing drugs is the opposite \u2013 use can lead to severe health problems. Thus, if all people are treated as equals under law, then the law should equally protect athletes as the law does other would- be drug users. Equality before law also means athletes can\u2019t be exempt from the moral standards we have for others. Firstly due to value of life and secondly because many times athletes themselves are not aware of the severe consequences of performance enhancing drugs. BBC Drugs and Sports (GCSE Bitesize): http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/pe/performance/1_performance_drugsinsport_rev1.shtml , accessed 05/15/2011", "qid": "11", "docid": "6143b928-2019-04-15T20:22:25Z-00021-000", "rank": 45, "score": 178460.0}, {"content": "Title: Performance Enhancing Drugs Would be Legalize in World Sport Tournament Content: oh", "qid": "11", "docid": "add356d0-2019-04-18T17:26:20Z-00002-000", "rank": 46, "score": 178334.0}, {"content": "Title: Performance Enhancing Drugs Would be Legalize in World Sport Tournament Content: Is there any evidence of the behaviors of athlete's replicated by their fans? In the aftermath of the Lance Armstrong incident, there has not been an epidemic of people using steroids. People turned away from Armstrong, and he will never get his reputation back You have given no evidence that eating healthy and exercising more efficiently are any more natural than steroids. A smiley face does not count as an argument.", "qid": "11", "docid": "add356d0-2019-04-18T17:26:20Z-00000-000", "rank": 47, "score": 176947.0}, {"content": "Title: Controlling, rather than ignoring, performance enhancing substances will improve competitive standards in sport Content: Rich athletes from wealthier countries will always have access to the latest, highest quality performance enhancers. On the other side, athletes from poorer countries which do not have the same medical and scientific advances will not be able to keep up. They will always be at a disadvantage regardless of whether performance enhancing drugs are legal or not.", "qid": "11", "docid": "6143b928-2019-04-15T20:22:25Z-00012-000", "rank": 48, "score": 176300.0}, {"content": "Title: WC Debate - RR: Performance enhancing drugs should be legal for use in all major sports leagues Content: I'd like to welcome Actionsspeak to this round of the Group B Round Robin debate in the World Cup Debate tournament! It is my pleasure to debate with him, as I have not yet had the opportunity to do so and look forward to it greatly. I wish him luck in this and his other debates. With that, I'll move into explaining my policy to uphold the above resolution. Before I get into it though, I'd just like the audience to realize that this will not be a debate of my policy versus status quo, but rather one of policy versus policy. Con will present a policy as well in his opening round, and we will debate the merits of those two policies. So, my policy is pretty self-explanatory. The U. S. will legalize the use of anabolic steroids and hormones of all sorts in major sporting leagues. This will remove any current infrastructure based on detection of their usage in sports, though health examinations and basic protective measures will remain in place. Brief definition analysis: \"Anabolic steroids, technically known as anabolic-androgenic steroids (AAS), are drugs that are structurally related to the cyclic steroid ring system and have similar effects to testosterone in the body. They increase protein within cells, especially in skeletal muscles. \" . http://en.wikipedia.org... Hormones \" In this case, we'll mainly be discussing the usage of major groups of hormones like erythropoietin and human growth hormone. I'll clarify each: \"Erythropoietin. .. , or EPO, is a glycoprotein hormone that controls erythropoiesis, or red blood cell production. It is a cytokine (protein signaling molecule) for erythrocyte (red blood cell) precursors in the bone marrow. \" . http://en.wikipedia.org... \"Growth hormone (GH or HGH). .. is a peptide hormone that stimulates growth, cell reproduction and regeneration in humans and other animals. \" . http://en.wikipedia.org... As we are both discussing policies, the burden of proof is shared, as each of us must defend our individual policies while providing reasons why the others' policy is harmful. The debate will consist of 4 rounds, 8,000 characters a round, with 72 hours for us to make our arguments.", "qid": "11", "docid": "117d2319-2019-04-18T16:13:12Z-00007-000", "rank": 49, "score": 175883.0}, {"content": "Title: permit the use of performance enhancing drugs in professional sports Content: There is no distinction between \"natural\" and synthetic methods of performance enhancement", "qid": "11", "docid": "6143b928-2019-04-15T20:22:25Z-00006-000", "rank": 50, "score": 175846.0}, {"content": "Title: Legalize Performance-Enhancing Drug for Sportman Content: PED (Performance-Enhancing Drug) gives disadvantages for the sportsman. PED should not be legalized by everyone for the sportman. PED gives disdvantages, specially in terms of health!", "qid": "11", "docid": "1cbf91f8-2019-04-18T17:32:45Z-00005-000", "rank": 51, "score": 175027.0}, {"content": "Title: Drug Use in Sports Content: My last round arguments was seen mostly jokes, But however in this round I will get more serious. DRUGS IN SPORT The use of performance enhancing drugs in the modern Olympics is on record as early as the games of the third Olympiad, When Thomas Hicks won the marathon after receiving an injection of strychnine in the middle of the race. 1 The first official ban on \"stimulating substances\" by a sporting organisation was introduced by the International Amateur Athletic Federation in 1928. 2 Using drugs to cheat in sport is not new, But it is becoming more effective. In 1976, The East German swimming team won 11 out of 13 Olympic events, And later sued the government for giving them anabolic steroids. 3 Yet despite the health risks, And despite the regulating bodies\" attempts to eliminate drugs from sport, The use of illegal substances is widely known to be rife. It hardly raises an eyebrow now when some famous athlete fails a dope test. In 1992, Vicky Rabinowicz interviewed small groups of athletes. She found that Olympic athletes, In general, Believed that most successful athletes were using banned substances. 4 Much of the writing on the use of drugs in sport is focused on this kind of anecdotal evidence. There is very little rigorous, Objective evidence because the athletes are doing something that is taboo, Illegal, And sometimes highly dangerous. The anecdotal picture tells us that our attempts to eliminate drugs from sport have failed. In the absence of good evidence, We need an analytical argument to determine what we should do. CONDEMNED TO CHEATING? We are far from the days of amateur sporting competition. Elite athletes can earn tens of millions of dollars every year in prize money alone, And millions more in sponsorships and endorsements. The lure of success is great. But the penalties for cheating are small. A six month or one year ban from competition is a small penalty to pay for further years of multimillion dollar success. Drugs are much more effective today than they were in the days of strychnine and sheep\"s testicles. Studies involving the anabolic steroid androgen showed that, Even in doses much lower than those used by athletes, Muscular strength could be improved by 5\"20%. 5 Most athletes are also relatively unlikely to ever undergo testing. The International Amateur Athletic Federation estimates that only 10\"15% of participating athletes are tested in each major competition. 6 The enormous rewards for the winner, The effectiveness of the drugs, And the low rate of testing all combine to create a cheating \"game\" that is irresistible to athletes. Kjetil Haugen7 investigated the suggestion that athletes face a kind of prisoner\"s dilemma regarding drugs. His game theoretic model shows that, Unless the likelihood of athletes being caught doping was raised to unrealistically high levels, Or the payoffs for winning were reduced to unrealistically low levels, Athletes could all be predicted to cheat. The current situation for athletes ensures that this is likely, Even though they are worse off as a whole if everyone takes drugs, Than if nobody takes drugs. Drugs such as erythropoietin (EPO) and growth hormone are natural chemicals in the body. As technology advances, Drugs have become harder to detect because they mimic natural processes. In a few years, There will be many undetectable drugs. Haugen\"s analysis predicts the obvious: that when the risk of being caught is zero, Athletes will all choose to cheat. The recent Olympic games in Athens were the first to follow the introduction of a global anti-doping code. From the lead up to the games to the end of competition, 3000 drug tests were carried out: 2600 urine tests and 400 blood tests for the endurance enhancing drug EPO. 8 From these, 23 athletes were found to have taken a banned substance\"the most ever in an Olympic games. 9 Ten of the men\"s weightlifting competitors were excluded. The goal of \"cleaning\" up the sport is unattainable. Further down the track the spectre of genetic enhancement looms dark and large. UNFAIR? People do well at sport as a result of the genetic lottery that happened to deal them a winning hand. Genetic tests are available to identify those with the greatest potential. If you have one version of the ACE gene, You will be better at long distance events. If you have another, You will be better at short distance events. Black Africans do better at short distance events because of biologically superior muscle type and bone structure. Sport discriminates against the genetically unfit. Sport is the province of the genetic elite (or freak). The starkest example is the Finnish skier Eero Maentyranta. In 1964, He won three gold medals. Subsequently it was found he had a genetic mutation that meant that he \"naturally\" had 40\"50% more red blood cells than average. 15 Was it fair that he had significant advantage given to him by chance? The ability to perform well in sporting events is determined by the ability to deliver oxygen to muscles. Oxygen is carried by red blood cells. The more red blood cells, The more oxygen you can carry. This in turn controls an athlete\"s performance in aerobic exercise. EPO is a natural hormone that stimulates red blood cell production, Raising the packed cell volume (PCV)\"the percentage of the blood comprised of red blood cells. EPO is produced in response to anaemia, Haemorrhage, Pregnancy, Or living at altitude. Athletes began injecting recombinant human EPO in the 1970s, And it was officially banned in 1985. 16 At sea level, The average person has a PCV of 0. 4\"0. 5. It naturally varies; 5% of people have a packed cell volume above 0. 5, 17 and that of elite athletes is more likely to exceed 0. 5, Either because their high packed cell volume has led them to success in sport or because of their training. 18 Raising the PCV too high can cause health problems. The risk of harm rapidly rises as PCV gets above 50%. One study showed that in men whose PCV was 0. 51 or more, Risk of stroke was significantly raised (relative risk R02;=R02; 2. 5), After adjustment for other causes of stroke. 19 At these levels, Raised PCV combined with hypertension would cause a ninefold increase in stroke risk. In endurance sports, Dehydration causes an athlete\"s blood to thicken, Further raising blood viscosity and pressure. 20 What begins as a relatively low risk of stroke or heart attack can rise acutely during exercise. In the early 1990s, After EPO doping gained popularity but before tests for its presence were available, Several Dutch cyclists died in their sleep due to inexplicable cardiac arrest. This has been attributed to high levels of EPO doping. 21 The risks from raising an athlete\"s PCV too high are real and serious. Use of EPO is endemic in cycling and many other sports. In 1998, The Festina team was expelled from the Tour de France after trainer Willy Voet was caught with 400 vials of performance enhancing drugs. 22 The following year, The World Anti-Doping Agency was established as a result of the scandal. However, EPO is extremely hard to detect and its use has continued. Italy\"s Olympic anti-doping director observed in 2003 that the amount of EPO sold in Italy outweighed the amount needed for sick people by a factor of six. 23 In addition to trying to detect EPO directly, The International Cycling Union requires athletes to have a PCV no higher than 0. 5. But 5% of people naturally have a PCV higher than 0. 5. Athletes with a naturally high PCV cannot race unless doctors do a number of tests to show that their PCV is natural. Charles Wegelius was a British rider who was banned and then cleared in 2003. He had had his spleen removed in 1998 after an accident, And as the spleen removes red blood cells, Its absence resulted in an increased PCV. 24 There are other ways to increase the number of red blood cells that are legal. Altitude training can push the PCV to dangerous, Even fatal, Levels. More recently, Hypoxic air machines have been used to simulate altitude training. The body responds by releasing natural EPO and growing more blood cells, So that it can absorb more oxygen with every breath. The Hypoxico promotional material quotes Tim Seaman, A US athlete, Who claims that the hypoxic air tent has \"given my blood the legal \"boost\" that it needs to be competitive at the world level. \"25 There is one way to boost an athlete\"s number of red blood cells that is completely undetectable:26 autologous blood doping. In this process, Athletes remove some blood, And reinject it after their body has made new blood to replace it. This method was popular before recombinant human EPO became available. \"By allowing everyone to take performance enhancing drugs, We level the playing field. \" There is no difference between elevating your blood count by altitude training, By using a hypoxic air machine, Or by taking EPO. But the last is illegal. Some competitors have high PCVs and an advantage by luck. Some can afford hypoxic air machines. Is this fair? Nature is not fair. Ian Thorpe has enormous feet which give him an advantage that no other swimmer can get, No matter how much they exercise. Some gymnasts are more flexible, And some basketball players are seven feet tall. By allowing everyone to take performance enhancing drugs, We level the playing field. We remove the effects of genetic inequality. Far from being unfair, Allowing performance enhancement promotes equality.", "qid": "11", "docid": "f5b0db6a-2019-04-18T11:13:26Z-00003-000", "rank": 52, "score": 174981.0}, {"content": "Title: Levels the playing field. Currently suspicion over drug use surrounds every sport and every success... Content: Very bad for athletes. The use of performance-enhancing drugs leads to serious health problems, including \u201csteroid rage\u201d, the development of male characteristics in female athletes, heart attacks, and greatly reduced life expectancy. Some drugs are also addictive.", "qid": "11", "docid": "6b570162-2019-04-19T12:47:54Z-00011-000", "rank": 53, "score": 174615.0}, {"content": "Title: permit the use of performance enhancing drugs in professional sports Content: Drugs will undermine the central philosophy of sport", "qid": "11", "docid": "6143b928-2019-04-15T20:22:25Z-00003-000", "rank": 54, "score": 174427.0}, {"content": "Title: Permitting the use of performace enhancers would have a coercive effect on athletes who would otherwise avoid drug use Content: Once some people choose to use drugs to enhance their performance, other athletes have their freedom of choice infringed upon: if they want to succeed they have to take drugs too. Athletes are very driven individuals, who would go to great lengths to achieve their goals. The chance of a gold medal in two years\u2019 time may out-weigh the risks of serious health problems for the rest of their life. We should protect athletes from themselves and not allow anyone to take performance-enhancing drugs. An example of the pressure is cycling. The American Scientific magazine explains: \u201cGame theory highlights why it is rational for professional cyclists to dope: the drugs are extremely effective as well as difficult or impossible to detect; the payoffs for success are high; and as more riders use them, a \u201cclean\u201d rider may become so noncompetitive that he or she risks being cut from the team.\u201d (1) Michael Shermer, The Dopping Dillema, 03/31/2008, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-doping-dilemma accessed 05/15/2011", "qid": "11", "docid": "6143b928-2019-04-15T20:22:25Z-00019-000", "rank": 55, "score": 174110.0}, {"content": "Title: Protecting the health of athletes Content: Sport is dangerous. Today\u2019s athletes decide to endanger their lives by participating in sports all the time. They decide to participate in sports with the informed decision that they might get hurt as it is part of the sport. Performance enhancing drugs are no different. In the USA every year there are nearly 300,000 sports-related traumatic brain injuries (TBIs). Athletes involved in sports such as football, hockey and boxing are at significant risk of TBI due to the high level of contact inherent in these sports. Head injuries are also extremely common in sports such as cycling, baseball, basketball and skateboarding. Many head injuries acquired, playing these sports, lead to permanent brain damage or worse. Yet we do not impose a law to ban athletes from participating in those sports. We trust their assessment of risk (1). All about Traumatic Brain Injuries: http://www.allabouttbi.com/sports-related-traumatic-brain-injury/, accessed 05/15/2011", "qid": "11", "docid": "6143b928-2019-04-15T20:22:25Z-00020-000", "rank": 56, "score": 173839.0}, {"content": "Title: Steroids Should Be Legal in Professional Sports Content: I contend that professional sports leagues should legalize steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs. I understand that this position may initially be considered blasphemy, but there are multiple reasons that leagues should legalize performance-enhancing drugs. First of all, throughout history, humans have been trying to stretch the limits of what is possible. This includes through the use of any available technology. The fact that humans cannot physically fly did not stop the Wright Brothers from building the first airplane. Yes, legalized use of steroids would create frequent changes in the record books, but those are all part of human achievement. Furthermore, comparisons between eras are already moot, considering the differences between the rules of today and those of 50 or 100 years ago. Also, it benefits the sports economically to allow performance-enhancing drugs. In 1999, when Barry Bonds and Mark McGwire both broke Roger Maris's single-season home run record, interest in baseball soared. Many casual fans found their accomplishments fascinating, as those men were going to a place no human had been before. A comparable analogy would be when the oldest person ever, Jeanne Calment of France, died at the age of 122 years. She would never have been able to live that long with primitive technology, but people were fascinated by her shattering the record (no other human has even lived to 120). Why should a different standard be applied to sports? Baseball was always the sport most impacted by performance-enhancing drugs. Thus, it saw the biggest excitement around new records. Today, players normally are caught and suspended when they take other performance-enhancing drugs. Thus, there is less opportunity to have the excitement of breaking records. Consequently, baseball's ratings have slipped in a time where football and basketball are basking in rising ratings relative to the average TV show. Thus, steroids should be legal in sports.", "qid": "11", "docid": "1109cf85-2019-04-18T17:19:52Z-00005-000", "rank": 57, "score": 172216.0}, {"content": "Title: Freedom of choice. If athletes wish to take drugs in search of improved performances, let them do s... Content: Once some people choose to use drugs to enhance their performance, other athletes have their freedom of choice infringed upon: if they want to succeed they have to take drugs too. Athletes are very driven individuals, who would go to great lengths to achieve their goals. The chance of a gold medal in two years time may out-weigh the risks of serious health problems for the rest of their life. We should protect athletes from themselves and not allow anyone to take performance-enhancing drugs.", "qid": "11", "docid": "6b570162-2019-04-19T12:47:54Z-00007-000", "rank": 58, "score": 171209.0}, {"content": "Title: There's no I in team Content: A team should be punished if it is discovered and can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the entire Olympic team has been involved in illegal \u2018organized cheating\u2019. However, this does not mean that just because only one athlete was accused of using performance enhancing drugs, the entire team should be held responsible. You cannot punish someone for simply being affiliated with a person who has cheated. That is akin to arresting someone because their brother stole a car. You cannot punish someone for the bad decision of another. It is an individual\u2019s right to make their own decisions about what they do to their bodies. Even if a convincing argument is made as to why performance enhancing drugs are a god idea, it is ultimately that athlete\u2019s decision whether or not to use them. If the teammates did not also take the drugs, then they should not be punished. Why should we penalize the whole team for making the wrong assumption that their teammate would think twice before doping because s/he will have the entire team to consider? Some athletes are willing to cheat even if they know they are risking their career. Then, here is quite obvious question, is an athlete going to prioritize their career or their team's career? Assuming that their team's career might 'increase the risk' is not going to necessarily prevent any athletes from dope usage, and this is because each individual are even willing to sacrifice their own. Thus, our opposition has also stated that there is \u2018peer pressure\u2019, which would apparently make the athlete \u2018uncomfortable\u2019, which is illogical. At the end of the day adding pressure to someone will not guarantee that they will make a decision one way or the other. The choice ultimately rests in the hands of the athlete.", "qid": "11", "docid": "d13617c6-2019-04-19T12:45:05Z-00020-000", "rank": 59, "score": 169245.0}, {"content": "Title: Current rules are very arbitrary and unfair:e.g. cold remedies denied to athletes, even in sports wh... Content: What about the children? Even if performance-enhancing drugs were only legalised for adults, the definition of this varies from country to country. Teenage athletes train alongside adult ones and share the same coaches, so many would succumb to the temptation and pressure to use drugs if these were widely available and effectively endorsed by legalisation. Not only are such young athletes unable to make a fully rational, informed choice about drug-taking, the health impacts upon growing bodies would be even worse than for adult users. It would also send a positive message about drug culture in general, making the use of \u201crecreational drugs\u201d with all their accompanying evils more widespread.", "qid": "11", "docid": "6b570162-2019-04-19T12:47:54Z-00015-000", "rank": 60, "score": 168282.0}, {"content": "Title: The use of performance-enhancing drugs is widespread in the Olympics and reduces the victories of th... Content: We should have some sympathy with athletes: very often, they are compelled to take drugs by their team\u2019s coach. There are stories of Chinese swimmers eating steroid-laced noodles. To overcome this, the IOC Conference in February 1999 recommended that coaches should take the Olympic Oath as well as athletes. Techniques to detect new drugs are being developed and being embraced by the Olympic authorities. A new mass-spectroscopy unit was installed for the first time at the 1996 Atlanta Games, and a technique that can detect the taking of growth hormones up to 6 months earlier was introduced at Sydney. An Independent Anti-Doping Agency was also established for Sydney. Samaranch declared himself to be fully behind the drugs war as early as 1998. The battle is being won: 12 cases of doping in 1984; two in 1996. The IOC is coming down hard on those who take drugs: a two year ban for the first offence has been introduced.", "qid": "11", "docid": "bcde55c5-2019-04-19T12:44:29Z-00006-000", "rank": 61, "score": 166977.0}, {"content": "Title: Sports and games as employment Content: My opponent begins by copy pasting his previous argument. If you want to see my attacks on that, you can look at my previous post. the First new information my opponent provides is that some people may take performance enhancing drugs in order to win a game. Again, this is more of a problem with the individual rather than sports as a whole. It's no different than someone using dishonest means to get ahead in any type of employment.My opponent also states that sports is for people who can't earn their livelihood by the usual means. This simply isn't factual. Take Byron White who played NFL football (American) and later went on to be named a Supreme Court justice. He is one of many professional athletes who not only played professional sports, but also graduated from college with advanced degrees. (1) And finally, my opponent makes the argument that we should \"improve the economy by contributing to the overall welfare of society\" My opponent doesn't then explain how he intends to deal with the massive economic devastation that would stem from the collapse of the sports business which would undoubtedly occur which believe it or not would not contribute to the overall welfare of society. Next my opponent states that \"playing games is purely based on personal aggrandizement as no societal interest is involved\" even if that's true, and every professional athlete only cares about self aggrandizement, there's no denying that despite what their intentions may be they have provided as societal benefit as I've explained multiple times. I thank my opponent for this debate and I wish him the best of luck. (1) http://degreecouncil.org...", "qid": "11", "docid": "17a6e6e7-2019-04-18T12:11:17Z-00000-000", "rank": 62, "score": 166472.0}, {"content": "Title: players found guilty of using PED's should have their records and accomplishments stripped Content: Players that are convicted of using Performance Enhancing Drugs (or PED's) should have their records, accomplishments, and titles (if in a single player sport) stripped from them. The use of PED's is cheating. The most recent case about this has been Lance Armstrong. Mr. Armstrong was found guilty of using a PED and was stripped of all of his Tour de France victories. This was rightfully done because, if he had not used them, then maybe someone else could've won. The use of PED's has become an infamous problem in sports and it shouldn't go without real consequences.", "qid": "11", "docid": "3a5d6f0-2019-04-18T18:05:01Z-00003-000", "rank": 63, "score": 166351.0}, {"content": "Title: Drugs will undermine the central philosophy of sport Content: Sport is also about the spectacle for spectators. Sport has become a branch of the entertainment business and the public demands \u201chigher, faster, stronger\u201d from athletes. If drug-use allows world records to be continually broken, and makes American Football players bigger and more exciting to watch, why deny the public what they want, especially if the athletes want to give it to them? The criterion that athletes should only be applying their \u2018natural abilities\u2019 runs into trouble. The highly advanced training technologies, health programs, sports drinks, use of such things as caffeine pills, and other energy boosters seem to defeat the notion that athletes are currently applying only their 'natural abilities'. Performance enhancing drugs would not go too far beyond the current circumstances for athletes.", "qid": "11", "docid": "6143b928-2019-04-15T20:22:25Z-00016-000", "rank": 64, "score": 166178.0}, {"content": "Title: Professional athletes using Performance-Enhancing drugs Content: What is sport, but entertainment? And what is entertainment, without pain? We don't care when football players experience debilitating injuries as early as high school, and even worse, long-lasting injuries at the professional level. An estimated one in three NFL players experience brain trauma of some sort, with life-long effects [1]. We don't care. We still watch football. From that, it can be concluded that the negative health effects of PEDs are irrelevant to the discussion of whether professional athletes should use them. It could even be argued that these negative side effects are preferable if it prevents brain trauma or other terrible injuries from the dangers of a sport itself. And so now, the only points of contention are the facts that it is unfair to athletes that do not use them, and that it is illegal. The first point may be justified easily enough. Sport is already an unfair sport. While you may practice thousands and thousands of hours, a person who's practiced half that but has a natural biological advantage can still win. Thus, it can be argued that PEDs can be used to actually level the playing field, between those who do not have as much of a natural biological advantage and those that do. It is a good point that the risk of losing their entire career may not be worth the above advantages. However, it is the choice of the athletes to take that risk, and not for us to judge them. As well, if enough athletes begin to use PEDs, it will eventually become legal nevertheless, or else the sport industry will die down. [1] http://www.nytimes.com...", "qid": "11", "docid": "a126b2a4-2019-04-18T15:25:09Z-00004-000", "rank": 65, "score": 166014.0}, {"content": "Title: Protecting young and vulnerable athletes Content: Even if performance-enhancing drugs were only legalized for adults, the definition of this varies from country to country, something which would be problematic for sports that are global. Teenage athletes train alongside adult ones and share the same coaches, so many would succumb to the temptation and pressures to use drugs, if these were widely available and effectively endorsed by legalization. Not only are such young athletes unable to make a fully rational, informed choice about drug-taking, the health impacts upon growing bodies would be even worse than for adult users. It would also send a positive message about drug culture in general, making the use of \u201crecreational drugs\u201d with all their accompanying evils more widespread.", "qid": "11", "docid": "6143b928-2019-04-15T20:22:25Z-00023-000", "rank": 66, "score": 164997.0}, {"content": "Title: The use of performance-enhancing drugs is widespread in the Olympics and reduces the victories of th... Content: The use of performance-enhancing drugs is widespread in the Olympics and reduces the victories of those who take them to meaninglessness. New drugs such as the growth hormone EPO are very difficult to detect, but the Olympic authorities are doing little to overcome the problem. The President of the International Olympic Committee, Juan Antonio Samaranch, has been notoriously reluctant to put his weight behind attempts to beat doping.", "qid": "11", "docid": "bcde55c5-2019-04-19T12:44:29Z-00007-000", "rank": 67, "score": 164577.0}, {"content": "Title: Professional athletes using Performance-Enhancing drugs Content: I still hold out hope that Con will make a last round appearance. I believe in you Con. I believe that we can have at the very least a decent conclusion to this debate.", "qid": "11", "docid": "a126b2a4-2019-04-18T15:25:09Z-00001-000", "rank": 68, "score": 164048.0}, {"content": "Title: Anybody who used performance enhancing drugs in the MLB shouldn't be elected to the Hall of fame Content: Any athlete who uses performance enhancing drugs and has a good career should not be able to make the hall of fame. This includes Alex Rodriguez, Barry Bonds, and all the other players that used them. I believe that if you use these you are getting an advantage that everyone else isn't. They didn't hit all these home runs off of there pure talent and skills, they needed a booster to get where they are and they cheated. They should never be able to be among the Hall of Fame electors like Babe Ruth and Hank Aaron who did it with out performance enhancing drugs.", "qid": "11", "docid": "ffd45b01-2019-04-18T18:54:19Z-00005-000", "rank": 69, "score": 163318.0}, {"content": "Title: Natural/unnatural distinction untenable. Already athletes use all sorts of dietary supplements, exe... Content: It is true that it is difficult to decide where to draw the line between legitimate and illegitimate performance enhancement. However we should continue to draw a line nonetheless. First, to protect athletes from harmful drugs. Secondly, to preserve the spirit of fair play and unaided competition between human beings in their peak of natural fitness. Eating a balanced diet and wearing the best shoes are clearly in a different category from taking steroids and growth hormones. We should continue to make this distinction and aim for genuine drug-free athletic competitions.", "qid": "11", "docid": "6b570162-2019-04-19T12:47:54Z-00009-000", "rank": 70, "score": 162978.0}, {"content": "Title: Legalize Performance-Enhancing Drug for Sportman Content: Consisten? You're pro in this topic. so you agree to legalize PED. But ur argument ask to make PEDs remain illegal for sportman.", "qid": "11", "docid": "1cbf91f8-2019-04-18T17:32:45Z-00001-000", "rank": 71, "score": 162529.0}, {"content": "Title: Should Athletes using performance enhancing drugs be subject to harsh punishment Content: Athletes should be punished for using performance enhancing drugs", "qid": "11", "docid": "dfa0f2e4-2019-04-18T11:51:34Z-00001-000", "rank": 72, "score": 162159.0}, {"content": "Title: Should Safety in sports be raised Content: I accept.", "qid": "11", "docid": "5c6213a1-2019-04-18T14:05:02Z-00002-000", "rank": 73, "score": 160712.0}, {"content": "Title: There is no distinction between \"natural\" and synthetic methods of performance enhancement Content: It is true that it is difficult to decide where to draw the line between legitimate and illegitimate performance enhancement. However we should continue to draw a line nonetheless. This line should be drawn at protecting athletes from harmful drugs and preserving the spirit of fair play and unaided competition between human beings in their peak of natural fitness. The special diet and sport training equipment, which may seem very hard and exeptional, have been designed based on serious scientific research proved and tested to fit with long-term training of athletes. Hard practice to achieve the best performance with help of these professional methods is completely a different from taking steroids and growth hormones for immediate result.", "qid": "11", "docid": "6143b928-2019-04-15T20:22:25Z-00010-000", "rank": 74, "score": 160489.0}, {"content": "Title: Professional athletes using Performance-Enhancing drugs Content: I now assume that Con has conceded all my points, as they have forfeited two times in a row.", "qid": "11", "docid": "a126b2a4-2019-04-18T15:25:09Z-00002-000", "rank": 75, "score": 160437.0}, {"content": "Title: If legal then drugs can be controlled and monitored by doctors, making them much safer. Athletes on... Content: If legal then drugs can be controlled and monitored by doctors, making them much safer. Athletes on drugs today often take far more than is needed for performance-enhancement, running needless health risks as a result, simply because of ignorance and the need for secrecy. Legalisation allows more information to become available and open medical supervision will avoid many of the health problems currently associated with performance-enhancing drugs.", "qid": "11", "docid": "6b570162-2019-04-19T12:47:54Z-00020-000", "rank": 76, "score": 159995.0}, {"content": "Title: Levels the playing field. Currently suspicion over drug use surrounds every sport and every success... Content: Levels the playing field. Currently suspicion over drug use surrounds every sport and every successful athlete, and those competitors who don\u2019t take performance-enhancing drugs see themselves as disadvantaged. Some drugs can\u2019t be tested for, and in any case, new medical and chemical advances mean that the cheats will always be ahead of the testers. Legalisation would remove this uncertainty and allow everyone to compete openly and fairly.", "qid": "11", "docid": "6b570162-2019-04-19T12:47:54Z-00012-000", "rank": 77, "score": 159618.0}, {"content": "Title: Professional athletes using Performance-Enhancing drugs Content: I have no other arguments at the moment, and thus will wait until my opponent provides rebuttals.", "qid": "11", "docid": "a126b2a4-2019-04-18T15:25:09Z-00003-000", "rank": 78, "score": 159450.0}, {"content": "Title: Improving safety standards in sport Content: It does not take a lot for chemists to produce performance enhancing drugs, the Scientific American reports: \u201cRogue scientists start with testosterone or its commercially available analogues and then make minor structural modifications to yield similarly active derivatives.\u201d The underground chemists make no effort to test their creations for effectiveness or safety, of course. Production of a simple new steroid compound would require \"lab equipment costing maybe $50,000 to $100,000,\". Depending on the number of chemical reactions needed for synthesis, \"some of them could be made in a week or two. Others might take six months to a year.\"(1) As a result of legalizing performance-enhancing drugs a backstreet industry can become regulated as a result there will be much more control and testing to ensure the health and safety of the athletes who take the drugs. Steven Ashley, Doping by Design, Scientific American 01/12/2004, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=doping-by-design, accessed 05/19/2011", "qid": "11", "docid": "6143b928-2019-04-15T20:22:25Z-00015-000", "rank": 79, "score": 158861.0}, {"content": "Title: Statistics, Performance Enhancing Drugs, and Major League Baseball\u2013II. Content: Abbreviations: MLB\u2013Major League Baseball. PED\u2013Performance Enhancing Drug(s). Definitions: Performance Enhancing Drug(s)\u2013substances used by athletes with the intent to improve their performances in the sports in which they engage. [1] With baseball, this usually refers mainly to anabolic steroids. [2] Thus, in this debate, \"steroids\" and \"PEDs\" will be used interchangeably. Hopefully, my opponent does not have a problem with this. Resolution: The statistics of those Major League Baseball players who, in the late 1990s through 2004, otherwise considered the height of the \"Steroid Era\" by MLB fans, were known users of PEDs or who were almost certainly using PEDs, should still be held as legitimate in assessing those players' talent relative to other MLB players. A bit of an introduction: As anyone who has any interest in MLB may know, artificial performance enhancement through PEDs has become a huge issue in the last decade or so, mainly because of the huge home run chases of Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa that are credited with bringing fans back to MLB and the subsequent revelations and suspicions that the two were using PEDs, and the incredible performances of Barry Bonds in the early 2000s and the large controversies surrounding him and steroid use. Often, among the outrage from many fans towards those who have admitted to PED use, there are cries to invalidate statistics, under the pretense that these statistics are heavily skewed by illegal means. [3] \u2013 there are ridiculous numbers of sources for this; search some combination of \"steroids,\" \"statistics,\" and \"strip\" or \"asterisk\" or something and many results will pop up. My argument: I'm here to say heck naw. The statistics of those players who we now know or are almost sure were using PEDs\u2013Jason Giambi, Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds\u2013are still accurate in determining how good those players were compared to the rest of the league. 1. A PED's positive effect on baseball playing skills is unknown and likely minimal. 1a. Many of the players using PEDs were actually bottom-of-the-ladder MLB players and minor leaguers. [4] One can find the names of many of the MLB players on the Mitchell Report anywhere; here's an easy list. [5] On this list, we can see many players who were simply not very good Major League players, as evidenced most strongly by their incredibly short careers. On that list, for example, the names of players active at the time of the report, which was December 2007, is pretty low. Many of the players listed on the report as having used PEDs reportedly used them in the early 2000s but were not active by 2007. This shows that despite their PED use, they weren't good enough to stick around in the Major Leagues. If PEDs gave a huge benefit to those who used them, why did so many who used them end up being bad MLB players anyway? 1b. The physical gain from steroids, most notably increased muscle mass, is vastly overstated in its importance to playing baseball well. The key muscle group in baseball is the core\u2013abs, lower back, obliques, etc. This muscle group is the most important in generating torque in both hitting and pitching, and is thus the most important in generating bat speed and arm speed, and thus the most important in hitting baseballs hard and far and throwing sick heat (a baseball fast.) I think it's dumb to cite a source for this, but I'll just pick a couple anyway. [6] (get used to seeing [6]; it has beastly information.) [7] Another important part of baseball, actually, especially in pitching, is flexibility. [7] A flexible pitcher is able to create more external rotation of the upper pitching arm ([8]), which results in more velocity. [12] I think it's obvious that more arm mass\u2013bicep and tricep mass, which obviously results from steroid use\u2013would inhibit the pitching arm's external rotation and thus lower a pitcher's speed. The last important muscle group in hitting and pitching is the lower body. Steroids, however, have a much more pronounced effect on the upper body than the lower body, and the upper body is actually quite irrelevant in creating bat speed or arm speed. [6] 2. The increased power numbers in the Steroid Era can be attributed to many other factors. Many people point to the huge numbers put up by Steroid Era players as evidence for PED's effect on statistics. However, there were numerous other factors contributing to a huge rise in offense. [6] One of the most notable changes was the \"juiced\" ball\u2013in 1993, the ball-manufacturing process was changed, and in a 2000 study, it was shown that baseballs in 1995 and 2000 bounced an average of 33% higher than balls from previous eras. [6] [9] Using a \"spliced\" power factor, which accounts for the changes in equipment manufacturing, there is NO \"power spike\" that supposedly occurred during the Steroid Era, as a result of PEDs. [6] I would highly recommend looking at that site, especially the \"spliced\" power factor graph. It's very interesting. 3. Due to the most likely very high numbers of players who were using PEDs during the Steroid Era, any advantage gained by a player was usually cancelled out by an advantage gained by an opposing player. [10] In essence, enough players used PEDs to create an \"even playing field.\" If 95% of the pitchers Barry Bonds faced were also using steroids, then aren't his records still legitimate? How do we know tons of players used steroids? Obviously, we don't have concrete numbers. We do, however, have player's accounts. [10] Some players have talked about the rampant steroid use in the late 1990s and early 2000s made possible by lenient drug policies, and some have suggested the idea of the level playing field. The allegations of \"rampant steroid use\" are what prompted the initial congressional investigations into MLB's PED problems. [11] Conclusion: Steroids in baseball were not a significant enough factor in statistical evidence to influence decisions on which players were the best or worst. The actual benefits players get from steroids is very questionable, considering the number of bad MLB players who have used PEDs without enough of a benefit to even stay in the Major Leagues, and considering the muscle groups utilized in baseball versus those that are enhanced by PED use. The increase in offense during the Steroid Era was influenced by other factors, most notably the \"ball juicing\" of 1993. When adjusting for these power factors that were unrelated to playing ability, there is no apparent jump in offense during the steroid era, again calling into question the effect of steroids in increasing performance. Finally, regardless of the magnitude of a PED's benefit on player performance, any benefit was cancelled or balanced by someone else's benefit. Because most players were using PEDs, their statistics, when compared to each other's, are unchanged. The widespread use of PEDs created a level playing field for MLB players. I'd like to thank in advance whoever takes this argument, and I eagerly await his or her arguments. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org...... [2]http://en.wikipedia.org...... [3]http://bleacherreport.com...... [4]http://thesteroidera.blogspot.com...... [5]http://en.wikipedia.org...... [6]http://steroids-and-baseball.com...... [7]http://baseballtips.com...... [8]http://www.jssm.org...... [9]http://steroids-and-baseball.com...... [10]http://38pitches.weei.com...... [11]http://www.cbc.ca...... (check the side bar, towards the bottom.) [12]http://www.hardballtimes.com...", "qid": "11", "docid": "4cab66dc-2019-04-18T19:21:26Z-00007-000", "rank": 80, "score": 157605.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: That schools should regularly drug test their athletes to prevent drug use. Content: I would like to start off by stating that private schools with athletes that consume performance enhancing drug would be considered a illegitimate team in a conference. Also at the end of your statement you stated that coaches are able to stop athletes from consuming drug which fall on my side of the argument stating that we should drug test athletes. Public Schools - in 2002 the supreme court ruled that public schools have the legal permission to drug test their athletes -In 2005 and 2006, 373 school even received government funding to do drug tests Private Schools -They cannot be directly affected by state laws. -But they can be affected by national laws. - due to not wanting to be suspected of drug testing many private schools drug test their athletes -It is also in their best benefit to drug test their athletes because if they are taught their whole team can be eliminated from their conference and put a bad view on their team. Benefits Of Drug Testing - Many people fear that drug testing will violate a student, but in contrast there are several way these tests can be completed without violating a student. -If a student does test positive, public schools are prohibited from sending the results to any legal office; therefor, students are protected. -Along with testing positive, school officials can suspend or expelled any student from a sport. -decrease drug abuse in teens", "qid": "11", "docid": "5d238bd8-2019-04-18T17:02:34Z-00002-000", "rank": 81, "score": 157451.0}, {"content": "Title: Statistics, Performance Enhancing Drugs, and Major League Baseball. Content: Abbreviations: MLB\u2013Major League Baseball. PED\u2013Performance Enhancing Drug(s). Definitions: Performance Enhancing Drug(s)\u2013substances used by athletes to improve their performances in the sports in which they engage. [1] With baseball, this usually refers mainly to anabolic steroids. [2] Thus, in this debate, \"steroids\" and \"PEDs\" will be used interchangeably. Hopefully, my opponent does not have a problem with this. Resolution: The statistics of those Major League Baseball players who, in the late 1990s until 2004, otherwise considered the height of the \"Steroid Era\" by MLB fan, were known users of PEDs or who were almost certainly using PEDs, should still be held as legitimate in assessing those players' talent relative to other MLB players. A bit of an introduction: As anyone who has any interest in MLB may know, artificial performance enhancement through PEDs has become a huge issue in the last decade or so, mainly because of the huge home run chases of Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa that are credited with bringing fans back to MLB and the subsequent revelations and suspicions that the two were using PEDs, and the incredible performances of Barry Bonds in the early 2000s and the large controversies surrounding him and steroid use. Often, among the outrage from many fans towards those who have admitted to PED use, there are cries to invalidate statistics, under the pretense that these statistics are heavily skewed by illegal means. [3] \u2013 there are ridiculous numbers of sources for this; search some combination of \"steroids,\" \"statistics,\" and \"strip\" or \"asterisk\" or something and many results will pop up. My argument: I'm here to say heck naw. The statistics of those players who we now know or are almost sure were using PEDs\u2013Jason Giambi, Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds\u2013are still accurate in determining how good those players were compared to the rest of the league. 1. A PED's positive effect on baseball playing skills is unknown and likely minimal. 1a. Many of the players using PEDs were actually bottom-of-the-ladder MLB players and minor leaguers. [4] One can find the names of many of the MLB players on the Mitchell Report anywhere; here's an easy list. [5] On this list, we can see many players who were simply not very good Major League players, as evidenced most strongly by their incredibly short careers. On that list, for example, the names of players active at the time of the report, which was December 2007, is pretty low. Many of the players listed on the report as having used PEDs reportedly used them in the early 2000s but were not active by 2007. This shows that despite their PED use, they weren't good enough to stick around in the Major Leagues. If PEDs gave a huge benefit to those who used them, why did so many who used them end up being bad MLB players anyway? 1b. The physical gain from steroids, most notably increased muscle mass, is vastly overstated in its importance to playing baseball well. The key muscle group in baseball is the core\u2013abs, lower back, obliques, etc. This muscle group is the most important in generating torque in both hitting and pitching, and is thus the most important in generating bat speed and arm speed, and thus the most important in hitting baseballs hard and far and throwing sick heat (a baseball fast.) I think it's dumb to cite a source for this, but I'll just pick a couple anyway. [6] (get used to seeing [6]; it has beastly information.) [7] Another important part of baseball, actually, especially in pitching, is flexibility. [7] A flexible pitcher is able to create more external rotation of the upper pitching arm ([8]), which results in more velocity. I think it's obvious that more arm mass\u2013bicep and tricep mass, which obviously results from steroid use\u2013would inhibit the pitching arm's external rotation and thus lower a pitcher's speed. The last important muscle group in hitting and pitching is the lower body. Steroids, however, have a much more pronounced effect on the upper body than the lower body, and the upper body is actually quite irrelevant in creating bat speed or arm speed. [6] 2. The increased power numbers in the Steroid Era can be attributed to many other factors. Many people point to the huge numbers put up by Steroid Era players as evidence for PED's effect on statistics. However, there were numerous other factors contributing to a huge rise in offense. [6] One of the most notable changes was the \"juiced\" ball\u2013in 1993, the ball-manufacturing process was changed, and in a 2000 study, it was shown that baseballs in 1995 and 2000 bounced an average of 33% higher than balls from previous eras. [6] [9] (heh, 69.) Using a \"spliced\" power factor, which accounts for the changes in equipment manufacturing, there is NO \"power spike\" that supposedly occurred during the Steroid Era, as a result of PEDs. [6] I would highly recommend looking at that site, especially the \"spliced\" power factor graph. It's very interesting. 3. Due to the most likely very high numbers of players who were using PEDs during the Steroid Era, any advantage gained by a player was usually cancelled out by an advantage gained by an opposing player. [10] In essence, enough players used PEDs to create an \"even playing field.\" If 95% of the pitchers Barry Bonds faced were also using steroids, then aren't his records still legitimate? How do we know tons of players used steroids? Obviously, we don't have concrete numbers. We do, however, have player's accounts. [10] Some players have talked about the rampant steroid use in the late 1990s and early 2000s made possible by lenient drug policies, and some have suggested the idea of the level playing field. The allegations of \"rampant steroid use\" are what prompted the initial congressional investigations into MLB's PED problems. [11] Conclusion: Steroids in baseball were not a significant enough factor in statistical evidence to influence decisions on which players were the best or worst. The actual benefits players get from steroids is very questionable, considering the number of bad MLB players who have used PEDs without enough of a benefit to even stay in the Major Leagues, and considering the muscle groups utilized in baseball versus those that are enhanced by PED use. The increase in offense during the Steroid Era was influenced by other factors, most notably the \"ball juicing\" of 1993. When adjusting for these power factors that were unrelated to playing ability, there is no apparent jump in offense during the steroid era, again calling into question the effect of steroids in increasing performance. Finally, regardless of the magnitude of a PED's benefit on player performance, any benefit was cancelled or balanced by someone else's benefit. Because most players were using PEDs, their statistics, when compared to each other's, are unchanged. The widespread use of PEDs created a level playing field for MLB players. I'd like to thank in advance whoever takes this argument, and I eagerly await his or her arguments. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]http://en.wikipedia.org... [3]http://bleacherreport.com... [4]http://thesteroidera.blogspot.com... [5]http://en.wikipedia.org... [6]http://steroids-and-baseball.com... [7]http://baseballtips.com... [8]http://www.jssm.org... [9]http://steroids-and-baseball.com... [10]http://38pitches.weei.com... [11]http://www.cbc.ca... (check the side bar, towards the bottom.)", "qid": "11", "docid": "4130d9ef-2019-04-18T19:22:11Z-00005-000", "rank": 82, "score": 156007.0}, {"content": "Title: Should MLB baseball players be banned from baseball for doing drugs Content: This truly depends on this drugs being used in my opinion. If it's not performance enhancing, it shouldn't even be an issue as it doesn't effect the outcome of a game. Recreational drug use, while illegal depending on the drug and the state, shouldn't result in a punishment in the sports world. I've stated my point and you have yourself, let's begin the arguments!", "qid": "11", "docid": "fd2a6336-2019-04-18T16:18:03Z-00003-000", "rank": 83, "score": 155279.0}, {"content": "Title: As an international sporting committee we would lift the doping ban Content: I am totally for lifting the doping regulations and doping ban. Firstly, today we already acknowledge and accept the use of various utilities, equipment, medication etc. not only to improve our lives but to accomplish amazing feats. A long time, the Royal Geographic Society in UK refused to allow mountain climbers to use oxygen tanks because this was a non-human device and as such, any achievement through using it is not a 'completely human' achievement. We have gone a long way from these times. Climbers use oxygen tanks to put their name on world peaks, swimmers use special suits (often engineered by big companies) to break records and body builders use creatine and protein shakes to improve performance during workouts and recovery times. When we can already agree that these things are allowed, where do you draw the line between something which is 'natural' and something which is 'unnatural'. Some of the food you eat already contain the exact chemicals in drugs. Does eating more of these foods and absorbing its nutrients therefore be considered as illegal drug intake? Secondly, the regulation and detection of athletes who are guilty is extremely inefficient. It is just too hard to monitor every single player in a tournament. This is evident when Russia was found guilty of mass doping of their athletes. Mamadou Sakho, the football player was banned ONLY AFTER his team Liverpool managed to enter the finals of the Europa League. His performance had already affected the match and arguably, his team would probably not have won. Also, accidents happen. Examples include Maria Sharapova and Lee Chong Wei who were given long bans just for accidental intake of drugs. It is hard to imagine this was intentional because they are already big names in their respective sports. Hence, for these reasons we should lift the regulations and ban concerning drugs for athletes. By allowing everyone to take anything, we are actually levelling the playing field with a lot less hassle.", "qid": "11", "docid": "5ff35ceb-2019-04-18T13:07:08Z-00005-000", "rank": 84, "score": 155009.0}, {"content": "Title: Performance enhancing supplements are both un-necessary and potentially harmful for teens Content: To be specific, I am arguing that I am not against the use of supplements geared towards athletic performance. I do believe that the recreational use of supplements for teens/young adults between the ages of 16 and 22 are both un-necessary and more harmful than beneficial to the individual. To keep the debate interesting, I am open to all supplements both legal/illegal which are considered \"performance enhancers\" or \"dietary\" with the exception of multivitamins. To avoid confusion I will provide definitions of the focal point of the argument. I look forward to an engaging debate as this is growing more controversial as the supplement industry continues to rapidly grow. rec\u2022re\u2022a\u2022tion\u2022al (of a drug or medication) used for recreation and enjoyment rather than to treat a medical condition. sup\u2022ple\u2022ment Something added to complete a thing, supply a deficiency, or reinforce or extend a whole.", "qid": "11", "docid": "fc4fa3b4-2019-04-18T18:14:47Z-00004-000", "rank": 85, "score": 154471.0}, {"content": "Title: Performance enhancing supplements are not necessary and absolutely harmful for teens Content: Unfortunately I received no rebuttals from last argument so I have re-submitted and hope that Con will be able to finish the debate. I am arguing that I am not against the use of supplements geared towards athletic performance. I do believe that the recreational use of supplements for teens/young adults between the ages of 16 and 22 are not necessary and more harmful than beneficial to the individual. To keep the debate interesting, I am open to all supplements both legal/illegal which are considered \"performance enhancers\" or \"dietary\" with the exception of multivitamins. To avoid confusion I will provide definitions of the focal point of the argument. I look forward to an engaging debate as this is growing more controversial as the supplement industry continues to rapidly grow. rec\u2022re\u2022a\u2022tion\u2022al (of a drug or medication) used for recreation and enjoyment rather than to treat a medical condition. sup\u2022ple\u2022ment Something added to complete a thing, supply a deficiency, or reinforce or extend a whole.", "qid": "11", "docid": "98d8337d-2019-04-18T18:14:26Z-00004-000", "rank": 86, "score": 154096.0}, {"content": "Title: There is no distinction between \"natural\" and synthetic methods of performance enhancement Content: The natural/unnatural distinction is untenable. Already athletes use all sorts of dietary supplements, exercises, equipment, clothing, training regimes, medical treatments, etc. to enhance their performance. There is nothing \u2018natural\u2019 about taking vitamin pills, wearing whole-body Lycra suits, having surgery on ligaments, spending every day in a gym pumping weights or running in shoes with spikes on the bottom. Diet, medicine, technology, and even just coaching already give an artificial advantage to those athletes who can afford the best of all these aids. Since there is no clear way to distinguish from legitimate and illegitimate artificial aids to performance, they should all be allowed. So taking these drugs is no more unnatural than what happens today. A practical example of an unnatural aid is the Speedo worn in 2008 at the Beijing Olympics. FINA, the world governing body of swimming was concerned about the extraordinary statistics in Beijing where swimmers wearing the Speedo LZR Racer swimsuit won 90 per cent of all available medals and broke 23 world records. Since Speedo launched the suit in 2008, 108 world records have fallen (until February 2009) (1). Simon Hart, Swimwear giant Speedo hit back at 'unfair advantage' claims, 02/19/2009, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/swimming/4699498/Swimwear-giant-Speedo-hit-back-at-unfair-advantage-claims.html,accessed 15/05/2011", "qid": "11", "docid": "6143b928-2019-04-15T20:22:25Z-00011-000", "rank": 87, "score": 153609.0}, {"content": "Title: Anybody who used performance enhancing drugs in the MLB shouldn't be elected to the Hall of fame Content: I am not saying all average players should make it but what about above average players who werent as good as the ones that used steriods? They won't make it because these people used steriods and got a chance at getting ahead of them. How would the players know if steriods didn't effect the quality of their game, theres no evidence to support that claim. You think there going to tell you, yeah it helped my game out a lot, they wouldn't say that. They are lying you, they make a false claim with no evidence to support that claim. They have no evidence it didn't effect their game. Why do you think they call it performance enhancing drugs, key words performance enhancing. Do you understand what performance enhancing means? It means that it improves your game, so them saying it didn't is lies. If steriods didn't enhance each players game play why would they ban it? If it didn't effect their quality of play why would the MLB ban it?", "qid": "11", "docid": "ffd45b01-2019-04-18T18:54:19Z-00001-000", "rank": 88, "score": 152941.0}, {"content": "Title: Drug Use in Sports Content: Since I am going to argue for the use of drugs like stimulant, Anabolic-androgenic steroids, Erythropoietin and Blood Doping in sports events. I hereby list out my arguments: C1: Drugs like stimulant and etc. Are performance boosting drugs during sport events: Drugs like stimulant and also muscle/hormone growth are common practice in some sport areas, For example: it is common knowledge that the fighters in AFL or other television events use these drugs before the event happened. Despite many arguments that these drugs are harmful to human body, Body stimulant drugs are used in many normal competitions. C2: The current technology is expensive, And also inadequate enough. One of the most famous quote in the tour of france is the following: You have no idea what the Tour de France is\", Henri said. \"It's a Calvary. Worse than that, Because the road to the Cross has only 14 stations and ours has 15. We suffer from the start to the end. You want to know how we keep going? Here. . . \" He pulled a phial from his bag. \"That's cocaine, For our eyes. This is chloroform, For our gums. \" \"This\", Ville said, Emptying his shoulder bag \"is liniment to put warmth back into our knees. \" \"And pills. Do you want to see pills? Have a look, Here are the pills. \" Each pulled out three boxes. \"The truth is\", Francis said, \"that we keep going on dynamite. \" Henri spoke of being as white as shrouds once the dirt of the day had been washed off, Then of their bodies being drained by diarrhoea, Before continuing: \"At night, In our rooms, We can't sleep. We twitch and dance and jig about as though we were doing St Vitus's Dance. . . \" \"There's less flesh on our bodies than on a skeleton\", Francis said. This might be a joke, But the truth is, These long range races are suffering to the people who are participating in them. Also, Lance Armstrong, A legendary doping figure in the Tour De France had also talked about 1 single thing: \"It is impossible to go on without drugs. \"", "qid": "11", "docid": "f5b0db6a-2019-04-18T11:13:26Z-00005-000", "rank": 89, "score": 152219.0}, {"content": "Title: Olympic Dream Is Dead Content: The use of performance-enhancing drugs is widespread in the Olympics and reduces the victories of th...", "qid": "11", "docid": "bcde55c5-2019-04-19T12:44:29Z-00005-000", "rank": 90, "score": 151524.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: That schools should regularly drug test their athletes to prevent drug use. Content: Schools should regularly drug test their athletes to prevent performance enhancing drugs. These drugs give you a higher advantage on the field and can get you disqualified from a game or season. it is the schools responsibility to regulate drug tests too prevent drugs and be a legitimate team in a conference. Also drugs tests will allow coaches to warn and inform athletes about the effects of these drugs on their bodies and mind and prevent them from using them in the future.", "qid": "11", "docid": "5d238bd8-2019-04-18T17:02:34Z-00004-000", "rank": 91, "score": 151229.0}, {"content": "Title: Legalize Performance-Enhancing Drug for Sportman Content: I question what you mean sir, I am consistent with my position.", "qid": "11", "docid": "1cbf91f8-2019-04-18T17:32:45Z-00002-000", "rank": 92, "score": 150483.0}, {"content": "Title: Performance enhancing supplements are both un-necessary and potentially harmful for teens Content: I accept but please give in your first arguement examples of suggested drugs so I can understand fully thank you. I hope for an enlightened debate.", "qid": "11", "docid": "fc4fa3b4-2019-04-18T18:14:47Z-00003-000", "rank": 93, "score": 149419.0}, {"content": "Title: Anybody who used performance enhancing drugs in the MLB shouldn't be elected to the Hall of fame Content: Inducting these below average players would not be representative of one of the most profitable, successful, and enjoyable eras in all of baseball. Yes, in hindsight, it was an unfair advantage, but virtually everyone was doing it. To leave out Bonds, A-Rod, Clemens, and Pettite would be leaving out four of the best players of all time (just to name a few). And most doctors have agreed with the point that PED's have a rather low plateau in terms of improving overall game, and that they act more as a longevity helper. Skill is there, PED help keep it going longer. You can't leave out an entire era of baseball, just because the players did what was inherent of the time; take PED's.", "qid": "11", "docid": "ffd45b01-2019-04-18T18:54:19Z-00000-000", "rank": 94, "score": 149046.0}, {"content": "Title: Anybody who used performance enhancing drugs in the MLB shouldn't be elected to the Hall of fame Content: No, they cheated therefore they shouldn't make the hall of fame. It doesn't matter if a lot of players did it. They cheated therefore they should be penalized. The people who make the Hall of Fame should be in there because of their honor to the game, not for cheating and deceiving people so they can have a physical advantage. You said that there are many \"incredible players\" in the Mitchell Report. Don't you think maybe they were so incredible because they used steriods and performance enhancing drugs? If they didn't use them they wouldn't be as good as the stats show. I understand players are out there to get theirs and get as much money as they can, but what about the true players of the game who aren't using these performing enhancing drugs. They did the right thing and won't make the hall of fame because they might have decent numbers over their career but the ones who used performance enhancing drugs had better stats than them because they cheated.", "qid": "11", "docid": "ffd45b01-2019-04-18T18:54:19Z-00003-000", "rank": 95, "score": 147014.0}, {"content": "Title: Anybody who used performance enhancing drugs in the MLB shouldn't be elected to the Hall of fame Content: Well, we meet again. If we were to prevent MLB players from entering the Hall of Fame because they used steroids; nearly every All-Star from 1980 to early 2000's would be ineligible. Take a look at the Mitchell Report, and you will find a list of incredible players which is far too long to list on here, who would all be banned from baseball's greatest honor. Steroids were just as part of the game during the 80's and 90's as Peanuts and Cracker Jacks. It was an era of steroids. If you weren't using them, then you were considered abnormal. You cannot fault an entire generation of players for just being a product of the times. I agree that records, such as the HR record broken by Bonds, should have an asterisk with them, but this should not be the case with the Hall of Fame. If we were to do what you propose, then from 1980 to 2000 there would be about 5 people in the Hall.", "qid": "11", "docid": "ffd45b01-2019-04-18T18:54:19Z-00004-000", "rank": 96, "score": 146387.0}, {"content": "Title: That doping should be permitted in all sports Content: Doping: administering drugs to an athlete in order to enhance sporting performance.If doping were to be permitted (I will refer to it as legal), this would mean unrestricted use. The drugs would not be allowed to be regulated, the use would be unrestricted. Since the topic is normative (\u201cshould\u201d), the BoP is shared. My case for why doping should not be permitted in all sports is as follows. HealthIt is truism that doping enhances sporting performance. Already, 14-39% of athletes dope [1]. If it is legalized, this number will undoubtedly increase. The sports industry is extremely competitive, athletes are pushed and constantly pressured to go out there and perform, if they fail in that aspect, they are benched, or worse, dropped from the team. Also, if doping were made legal, then those who dope will have an advantage over those who don\u2019t, and thus those who don\u2019t will have to dope in order to stay in the athletic industry. From this we can conclude that in order to keep their jobs, and their fame, athletes are going to take all opportunities to increase their performance. Thus, if doping were to be legalized, there would be a very large increase in the amount of athletes that dope. The most popular doping drug is anabolic steroids. If doping was to be made legal, the usage of steroids would have a tremendous increase. This is bad, as steroids are very dangerous. The use of steroids can lead to baldness, infertility, impotence, prostate gland enlargement, severe acne, increased risk of tendinitis and tendon rupture, liver abnormalities and tumors, increased low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol (the \"bad\" cholesterol), decreased high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol (the \"good\" cholesterol), high blood pressure (hypertension), heart and circulatory problems, aggressive behaviors, rage or violence, psychiatric disorders, such as, drug dependence, infections or diseases such as HIV or hepatitis, inhibited growth and development, and risk of future health problems in teenagers [2]. Use of steroids can also cause severe depression, which leads to suicides [3]. This is devastating for the families of the victims, and anyone around them. \u201cBrenda Marrero came upon her son Efrain surfing the Internet one day last October. When Efrain hid what was on the screen, she asked what he had been looking at. He turned and said he wanted to tell her something: He was using steroids.She called her husband, Frank, and they told Efrain he needed to stop, because steroids are dangerous.\"But Barry Bonds does it,\" his parents remember Efrain saying.\"That doesn't make it right,\" his father responded.To please his parents, Efrain retrieved a dozen pink pills, a vial of liquid and two syringes. His mother flushed the pills and kept the vial. Efrain, who played football, promised to stop using steroids. It was a promise that no one doubts he kept.Three and a half weeks later, Mrs. Marrero found Efrain in a bedroom at home, a bullet in his head, a .22-caliber pistol in his hand. He left no explanation for his suicide. He had no history of depression or mental illness. He was 19.\u201d [4]There are thousands more stories like this. If doping were to be made legal, this would increase drastically. As well as the other health related issues associated with it. Unfair AdvantageEveryone responds to steroids differently [5]. If doping were to be legal, this would give athletes an unfair advantage over others, based not on skill, but on doping.Ruins Purpose of SportThe meaning of sports is in the values that it exhibits. The forms of human excellence it promotes, and how each athlete strives to perfect his or her skill. Doping ruins this purpose, and thus should not be permitted.[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[2] http://www.mayoclinic.org...[3] http://www.evolutionary.org...[4] http://www.nytimes.com...[5] http://tinyurl.com...", "qid": "11", "docid": "bb621258-2019-04-18T13:52:35Z-00006-000", "rank": 97, "score": 146271.0}, {"content": "Title: Doping should be allowed Content: I will accept your challenge, and I will argue on the pro side: doping should be allowed in sports. While it may be unfair currently, where athletes are strictly forbidden to athletes and only those who are willing to win by cheating will dope, if the practice is open for everyone, it will create a fair, level playing field since every athlete will have the ability to use the substances. Sporting events are spectator events, meant to showcase the most athletic individuals in the world for the entertainment of the viewers. If there is a substance that is able to enhance the performance of an individual and therefore make the spectacle more impressive, and the athlete consents to using it after being educated on any possible ill side effects, then they should absolutely be allowed.", "qid": "11", "docid": "9a4dadf6-2019-04-18T12:48:47Z-00001-000", "rank": 98, "score": 146106.0}, {"content": "Title: Cheerleading is a sport Content: Accept or not", "qid": "11", "docid": "703f225d-2019-04-18T15:39:35Z-00005-000", "rank": 99, "score": 145952.0}, {"content": "Title: ROGER CLEMMENS HAS NEVER USED PERFORMANCE-ENHANCING DRUGS AND IF HE DID HE SHOULD STILL BE IN HOF Content: So what you are telling me is that since everyone cheated when he played and he was just the best at it, we should reward him? I think every player caught cheating to the extent at which he did should be barred from the hall of fame. Just like Shoeless Joe Jackson was. Was caught cheating once and his career was ruined.", "qid": "11", "docid": "dc7efda-2019-04-18T19:54:06Z-00000-000", "rank": 100, "score": 145466.0}]}
{"query": "Should birth control pills be available over the counter?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: Birth control pills, even as contraception, should be covered by health insurance. Content: Birth control is a \"free will\" medication. It's purpose is to allow a woman to engage in sexual intercourse without becoming pregnant. The drug is therefore administered to women who: Choose to be sexually active. Choose to be reproductively barren. Based on the points of \"free-will sexual intercourse\" and \"free-will reproductive suppression\" I will argue that a Company health care system or the Government's health care system is not responsible for incurring the cost of this drug. This drug, in it's intended form, falls under three prospective categories: Recreational use. Family planning. Hormone therapy. (Exclusive to only a handful of birth control methods) If we forced a health care provider to pay for birth control, it would be just as liable to pay for other recreational supplies. Should the HMO also pay for novelty condoms? Sex toys? Pornography? All these things are designed for recreational sex. If we forced the health care provider to pay for birth control, it would prospectively force the HMO to furnish other services for family planning. Should the HMO pay for fertility treatment? Cryogenic sperm storage? Day care? Education? Food? All these things are prospective costs incurred through family planning.As my opponent has mentioned, birth control has some medical benefits. What he failed to mention, is that these benefits are drug specific. Not all birth control methods prevent ovarian cysts and not all birth control methods decrease menstrual activity.If the pill is being used to treat cysts, excessively painful menstruation or a hormonal imbalance, then the pill is no longer considered birth control. It has taken on the properties of medication. For this purpose and this purpose alone, the HMO should cover the cost of the pill.", "qid": "12", "docid": "3d9819c3-2019-04-18T18:25:50Z-00002-000", "rank": 1, "score": 121562.0}, {"content": "Title: Birth control pills, even as contraception, should be covered by health insurance. Content: Arguments extended to next round.", "qid": "12", "docid": "3d9819c3-2019-04-18T18:25:50Z-00001-000", "rank": 2, "score": 120332.0}, {"content": "Title: Birth control pills, even as contraception, should be covered by health insurance. Content: Arguments left unchallenged as per opponent forfeiture. Von Con please.", "qid": "12", "docid": "3d9819c3-2019-04-18T18:25:50Z-00000-000", "rank": 3, "score": 117388.0}, {"content": "Title: Birth control pills, even as contraception, should be covered by health insurance. Content: Hello, potential opponents! First off, this will probably be an easy win for you, as I am a new debater and a high school freshman who wants to improve his skills. The debate will be in the format of: 1. Intro and main argument, 2. Rebuttals, 3. Re-rebuttals and closing arguments. I would much rather hear from Con first. Nevertheless, here are my opening arguments:1. First of all, birth control occasionally serves actual medical needs, such as curing ovarian cysts, or (relatively) less important, lightening menses.While this is probably not a good argument on its own for someone who needs birth control for its primary, stated purpose; it must be brought up.2. Even if the only purpose of \"the pill\" is to facilitate sex, health insurance already covers Viagra and its relatives, and their primary purpose is to allow for intercourse.3. On a purely financial (probably heartless) note, it would be cheaper for insurance companies to cover birth control than covering the resulting medical expenses arising from the unexpected child.I apologize for the omnipresent spelling and grammer mistakes, but please try to keep the argument from devolving into a fight over semantics and syntax. I welcome and appreciate critiques (and dismantlings) of my argument. Thanks for helping my debating skills grow!", "qid": "12", "docid": "3d9819c3-2019-04-18T18:25:50Z-00003-000", "rank": 4, "score": 114213.0}, {"content": "Title: teens should beallowed to get birth control Content: Yes but as I said in the last round teenagers will contiue to use birth control pills to not get in trouble and they think they will be invincible and will be untouchable. Soon their body will be immune to the pills and will have the child btu teenagers aren't ready for birth control pills. If teenager drink underage then how can you believe they will overuse the birth control pills?", "qid": "12", "docid": "8d834d48-2019-04-18T20:01:52Z-00000-000", "rank": 5, "score": 113724.0}, {"content": "Title: birth control should be covered by insurance Content: I would greatly appreciate some proof that the pill can treat cancer. I could not find proof of such a claim but instead found studies that showed it could be linked to breast cancer and cervical cancer in women. [1]Second, I've already expressed the fact that a woman can simply practice abstinance. There are a wide variety of alternative methods to the pill, such as IUDs, condoms, and surgery. Some of these are just as effective as the pill.Why should it be an insurance company's responsibility to look after a woman's womb in such a way? It is her personal responsibility to take care of that issue, not her insurance company. In the case of rape, providing birth control would apply to a large range of women and not just rape victims. They could also use one of the alternative methods mentioned above.Again for the Viagra case, my opponent's claim is inane. It is the company's right to choose what they cover and what they don't. Viagra actually treats a legitimate health problem, unlike my opponent's stark belief that birth control somehow prevents cancer. If it were proven that the pill prevents cancer by a reputable institution, then the argument might have more of a base.The final claim again is ludicrous to me considering that not providing birth control would in no way cause women to \"suffer because they are capable of bringing life into this world.\" Unless my opponent is referring to the pain of childbirth (which is uncontrollable for an insurance company), her statement has no support or reasoning behind it.1- http://www.cancer.gov...;", "qid": "12", "docid": "88b831f5-2019-04-18T18:25:06Z-00001-000", "rank": 6, "score": 113394.0}, {"content": "Title: Abortion Content: \" 1. On the 21st day after conception the fetal heart starts to beat and most major organs are functioning.\" Mosquitos have hearts too. Are you intending to be consistent? \" 2. With the advanced medical contraceptives of today such as Condoms, Birth Control, and the Day after pill, Women have a choice whether to have a child or not. And that choice has to be made 3 days within sexual activity. With the day after pill available at local walmarts for considerably less than an abortion would cost, there is little to no reason as to not be protected. \" Condoms and other birth control methods are imperfect, and the day after pill argument assumes a false premise, because by the time you know an egg has been fertilized, it's already too late. The primary use of such a pill is as a last resort in the event of a bout of unprotected sex resulting from negligience or rape. It is, as a practical matter, useless for dealing with used but failed birth control methods. Further, the existence of alternative solutions is not sufficient to establish that something should be illegal. \"3. In America we have always been a people who have decided things by votes and opinions\" Votes are among the worst ways of deciding things, the existence of a mob that believes x is correct is not sufficient to establish that it IS correct. I'm sure if you polled Germans about Hitler back when he was in power- oh wait, that's how he got in power. :D Also, polls conflict on the question, especially when you change the wording about. \" 4. On top of that disturbing new evidence is surfacing that the fetus can feel pain during abortions after 20 weeks of conception.\" Fish feel pain too. Yet I still eat them. The sole purpose of the law is the protection of entities which happen to have rights. Rights are the limits of what behavior is proper toward a rational entity, if you violate them toward such an entity without them first violating yours, you increase the chance of them violating yours. This is the sole basis for rights. Fetuses, however, are not such an entity- they have not yet developed rationality. Neither, I should note, have some infants- it is not certain when rationality develops, but, evidence points to it being sometime after birth. Also, even were it true that fetuses were rational, the fact remains that if they are in your womb without permission, they are violating your rights- they are trespassing on your private property. Thus, the other condition on which rights are based (reciprocity) is violated. \" I challenge anyone who will take me on in this debate and will also bring up more points if the above points become exhausted, only if granted permission to by my opponent\" No holds are barred. You may bring up anything at any time, and so shall I :D.", "qid": "12", "docid": "1b170c65-2019-04-18T19:38:21Z-00004-000", "rank": 7, "score": 110470.0}, {"content": "Title: Birth control Content: Will you please use a bible that is written in English? Or translate it? I can't read the Latin. No the side effects are not uncommon. Yes they do have high failure rates. You can alos easily screw up taking it. If you forget to take it, or you take the pills in the wrong order, or you are taking a another medication that interferes with it. It has been scientifically proven that guys are more attracted to girls who are fertile, and not on birth control. (Contraception: Why not 3rd edition) The birth control pill has an 8 percent failure rate with perfect use. The condom has a 17 percent failure. \"In the Consumer's Guide to the Pill and Other Drugs it also states that \"Early-age use of the pill carries a greater risk of breast cancer, of developing larger tumors and having a worse prognosis.\" (Chastity.com) Condoms cause cancer as well \" \"BERLIN (Reuters) - Most condoms contain a cancer-causing chemical and their manufacture should be subject to greater quality control, a German scientific research institute said Friday. The Chemical and Veterinary Investigation Institute in Stuttgart, Germany, said it found the carcinogen N-Nitrosamine present in 29 of 32 types of condoms it tested in simulated conditions. \"N-Nitrosamine is one of the most carcinogenic substances,\" the study's authors said. \"There is a pressing need for manufacturers to tackle this problem.\" The carcinogen is thought to be present in a substance used to improve condom elasticity. When the rubber material comes in contact with human bodily fluids, it can release traces of N-Nitrosamine, the study said. Local government officials said condom users should not stop using rubber contraceptives based on results of the study because N-Nitrosamine does not present an immediate health danger. But Germany's Federal Institute for Risk Assessment said that daily condom use exposed users to N-Nitrosamine levels up to three times higher than levels naturally present in food.\" (Chastity.com) Condoms do not protect against HPV, the most commonly contracted STD: http://chastity.com... My source for that punishment is the bible. Why do you think that NFP couples having low divorce rate and contracepting couples having high divorce rates is a coincidence? Studies have proven it to be true, and not a coincidence. http://chastity.com... NFP has a below one percent effectiveness rate. You are not going to find any type of bc more effective. I forgot to mention earlier but most forms of contraception are also abortifacient. You can't logically say that they prevent abortions, when they cause them. \"When a woman ovulates, she can become pregnant. However, the Pill has mechanisms that can cause an abortion before a woman knows that she has conceived. If a sperm does fertilize the egg, the newly conceived baby (zygote) may be transported more slowly through the fallopian tubes because of how they have been altered by the Pill. Thus, the child may not reach the uterus, where he or she needs to implant and receive nourishment for the next nine months. Because the fallopian tubes are changed, the baby may accidentally implant there, causing an ectopic or \"tubal\" pregnancy, which is fatal to the baby, and can also be life-threatening for the mother. If the baby is able to travel safely to the uterus, he or she may not be well received. One reason for this is that the chemicals in the Pill thin out the lining of the woman's uterus (the endometrium).[10] As a result, the baby may not be able to implant. At other times the child will attach to the wall, but he or she will be unable to survive because the normally thick and healthy uterine wall has shriveled and is therefore unable to nourish the baby. The Pill also impacts the woman's progesterone level. This causes the lining of the uterus to break down and eventually shed as it would in a menstrual cycle, further denying the baby's attempt to implant. Many doctors are concerned about the fact that women often are not informed that the birth control pill can cause an abortion as well as prevent pregnancy. One medical journal declared, \"If any mechanism of any OC [Oral Contraceptive] violates the morals of any particular woman, the failure of the physician or care provider to disclose this information would effectively eliminate the likelihood that the woman's consent was truly informed and would seriously jeopardize her autonomy. Furthermore, there is a potential for negative psychological impact on women who believe human life begins at fertilization, who have not been given informed consent about OCs, and who later learn of the potential for postfertilization effects of OCs. The responses to this could include disappointment, anger, guilt, sadness, rage, depression, or a sense of having been violated by the provider.\" (Chastity.com)", "qid": "12", "docid": "c64898ed-2019-04-18T18:17:24Z-00004-000", "rank": 8, "score": 110219.0}, {"content": "Title: Women Have The Right to Contraceptives Content: Thank you, Con. I. Addressing Counter-Arguments/Rebuttals \"Everyone acknowledges that having sex has risks, such as protection breaking, but you should go into the action accepting that it may happen, and willing to accept the consequences. If you were worried about getting pregnant, you shouldn't have had sex in the first place. Everyone knows that condoms break. That doesn't make birth control a 'basic human right,' as Pro stated in Round 1. Keep in mind that this is the terminology that Pro used, as I will be addressing it shortly.\" Con is essentially stating in the above rebuttal that sex should be strictly procreative; that if the couple knew the risk of pregnancy and didn't want to have a baby, that having sex should not be an option to begin with. This is of course ignoring the kinds of sex a couple may have that are not physically able to procreate. To think of the birth of a child as a \"consequence\" that couples must deal with is to present the idea as though it is a burden to the family, which is proving the thesis statement that childbirth can be painful and can be a burden on the family; children are expensive to take care of and not everyone has the money to afford taking care of them. Con is right, condoms breaking doesn't make birth control a human right, what it means is that if people intend to have sex in a manner that is not procreative, and it is anatomically possible for such partners to reproduce, they should have access to birth control/contraceptives to nullify and slim the chances. The point, plan and simple, is that sex is not/should not be a strictly procreative activity in the world, and even couples capable of reproducing (i.e man & woman) can tend to have forms of sex that are not procreative. II. Addressing Con's Contentions \"Why is it the taxpayer's burden to pay for someone elses stuff? It's not like birth control is too expensive. Target sells contraceptives at a rate that would have buyers without health insurance paying $9 per month [2].\" Con is implying that the contention I am making here is that contraceptives should be distributed freely. That is not the contention I am pushing for. The contention I am pushing for is that contraceptives should be available to whomever needs them when they need them, and they should be a part of the general healthcare and freedom system of their country. A country should never be taking away the right women have to contraceptives and birth control, and just like healthcare, these things should always be available to those who want to buy them. Though it would, of course, be ideal that women get to have free contraceptives (at least for the women and their partners), it is not entirely necessary to do that. Taxpayers have a lot burdens, especially in the U.S, and paying for contraceptives to be free would be the least of their concern. \"Nobody is entitled to free stuff. This is a simple argument. Nobody has the right to free stuff because of their gender and the choices they've made. Nobody is burdened to pay for other peoples stuff. It's pretty simple.\" Does this contention address healthcare in a similar light? By revoking a woman's right to use contraceptives, one would be forcing them to raise their child and foster them away. \"Don't want to have kids? Don't have sex. Tons of people are celibate and happy. Roughly 10,000,000 Americans have waited until marriage to have sex, and were better mentally and financially prepared for a child [5]. There are a lot of ways to keep from having a child whilst not banging everything that moves.\" Again, sex should not have to be a strictly pro-creative activity between partners. Conditiong a country in a way where sex is strictly intended for reproducing is taking away plenty of basic human rights. Being celibate until marriage is also off-topic, seeing as those people intended to have children and had such for that reason specifically, not everyone does for that. What is a human right? A human right is [6] \u201cendowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights\u2026\u201d This is a religious issue! You cannot have an atheistic debate over rights endowed by a Creator! If you believe that contraceptives are a human right, you assume that a superior being was all like This is a false definition, hu\u00b7man right noun plural noun: human rights a right that is believed to belong justifiably to ever http://www.humanrights.com... http://www.ohchr.org...III. Addressing Con's Questions\"Is it morally justifiable to make someone else pay for your things if you can afford them? If yes, then who can't afford $9 of contraceptives? And why should we pay for them?\"My contentions are not that contraceptives should be distributed at $0 prices. However, perhaps it would be logical to offer these contraceptives to someone through their health insurance, no?\"Is it morally justifiable to make taxpayers pay for something that they believe is a gross violation of the human rights of the foetus?\"It is ironic that con has jumped from the 'human rights' concept being a religious matter and not being material for the debate to actually using 'human rights' to justify the opposition of the right to contraceptives. May it also be on record that American taxpayers are paying for inhumane acts such as drone strikes and wars as it is, thus this would be too insignificant an amount of money to truly be a concern in the minds of taxpayers.\"Is it morally justifiable to make others take responsibility for your mistake in the bedroom?\"No, but giving women the right to have contraceptives through their health insurance isn't doing this.\"Is it morally justifiable to kill a child so you can drink and smoke for 9 months?\" This question is assuming that abortions are justified by the pregnant individual wanting to be able to drink and smoke.\"Would a just God give someone the right to kill his creation?\"Take a look at the Bible, Torah and Koran; I would say based on those books that yes, a \"just God\" according to most religious people would allow such a thing._____________________________________________________________________________________Excuse my relatively short argument, my next will have much more length to it.", "qid": "12", "docid": "16d7ef8d-2019-04-18T14:33:01Z-00003-000", "rank": 9, "score": 108502.0}, {"content": "Title: is birth control good or nah Content: First, let\"s understand how birth control pills work in your body. Typically, your body ovulates once a month, ripening a new egg that will then journey down a fallopian tube. Eventually it reaches the uterus, where it would implant, if fertilized. If not fertilized by a sperm, then the lining of the uterus that had built up in preparation for the fertilized egg is unnecessary. Both egg and uterine lining leave your body, cleansing your system and preparing for a new month. When you take birth control pills, you impose synthetic hormones on your natural cycle. Many birth control pills contain high levels of estrogen that effectively convince your pituitary gland that you are pregnant (this explains some of the side effects of the drugs) and that you don\"t need to ovulate. Because your body thinks you are pregnant, the uterine lining thickens. Once you start the placebo pills, however, your estrogen level drops suddenly, and your body menstruates \"normally.\" This abnormal cycle is what millions of women experience every month, and yet few doctors discuss the consequences of taking these prescriptions for year after year.", "qid": "12", "docid": "8791f9a4-2019-04-18T15:46:11Z-00001-000", "rank": 10, "score": 108352.0}, {"content": "Title: Minors should need parental consent for abortions Content: All forms of birth control are available to all women in America at least the age of 18. The procedure of having an abortion is another form of an option for birth control for women. Abortions are now very safe and low risk procedures. Patients are able to go home the same day after an abortion and do not require much to recover. I believe even for a high risk surgery, women no matter the age should have the final say on what is to be done to their own bodies. Women should not have to wait till they are legal enough to drink to have access to this alternative option to birth control, especially when most teens as young as 14 can get birth control pills without parental consent. Why do we allow women this young to have access to these things if they are not capable of making consequential decisions? Even a preteen knows that she should be on some sort of birth control if they are having sex. Otherwise it wouldn't be available to them. Women that age do not always make the best decision to get on birth control before the event of pregnancy, but they are capable of connecting the dots.", "qid": "12", "docid": "deb2a1a4-2019-04-18T14:56:32Z-00000-000", "rank": 11, "score": 106880.0}, {"content": "Title: the catholic church has never contradicted itself, from an official capacity Content: A couple of responses are in order. 1. A contradiction is a philosophical claim. Contradictions involve the nature of statements juxtaposed together, which necessarily involves some philosophical valuation. Philosophies--such as NFP and Catholic reproductive ethics--can, in fact, contradict each other. 2. NFP is indeed not fool-proof. However, for Catholics, it is just as good as birth control, as Kreeft himself admits: \"[NFP] is much more reliable than the 'rhythm method,' as reliable as 'the pill,'* and has none of the pill's side effects. .. \" (250). Moreover, that it is not fool-proof does not mean it is \"open to life\"; if that's true, then condoms and the pill are both \"open to life\" since they are not universally perfect means of contraception. That it is \"artificial\" is not a meaningful standard, since the overriding claim against contraceptives from the Catholic end is that sex should be open to life, so even if you're using \"natural\" means of contraception, you're still not being open to life. In fact, you are in some senses violating your body even more, since you are using its natural functions against it. 3. I mean, there's no grand document at the Vatican saying \"NFP is the way to go,\" but Catholic doctrine on sexual morality is universal, and since NFP--in the mind of the Church--is the only viable contraceptive solution, it therefore still counts as legitimate Church teaching. The contradiction therefore is still a meaningful one based on the standards set up in the first round. I urge a vote in the CON. *Note: this is utterly false.", "qid": "12", "docid": "144b984e-2019-04-18T17:38:58Z-00002-000", "rank": 12, "score": 103964.0}, {"content": "Title: Schools give out free birth control pills Content: I believe that birth control pills should be given out in schools because we don't want children!!! Children are bad, we need to save the planet by saving space. So every girl and boy should get given them. The girls will take the pills, the boys will give them to their girlfriends.", "qid": "12", "docid": "8e214b94-2019-04-18T12:19:56Z-00001-000", "rank": 13, "score": 102674.0}, {"content": "Title: Health plans should cover contraception, and here is why. Content: Pro: There is nothing wrong with having sex or using birth control. Stop trying to force your beliefs on other people.Con: there is if you are wasting fellow insurance invester's money on your horny habits and leaving less over for them to spend on their cancer treatment.Pro: Women have the right to choose what to do with their bodies. If it is not your body, it is not your choice.Con: So they have the right to choose to not have sex and should choose to do that if they want to avoid the thigns that you stated women would be avoiding in earlier rounds of this debate.Pro: Women still have the right to choose what to do with their bodies. People own the bodies and have the right to prevent pregnancy.Con: Yes and if they choose unwisely, fellow people spending their hard earned cash on a health insurance plan shold not be forced to have that money wasted on a ton of pills or condoms because a woman is too horny to care about their heart transplant.Pro: Employers have no right to their employee's bodies.Con: What does this have to do with anything?", "qid": "12", "docid": "a4a6c3d4-2019-04-18T15:38:59Z-00002-000", "rank": 14, "score": 100858.0}, {"content": "Title: Schools give out free birth control pills Content: I would agree with you, but you need to understand that not every young couple is going to have under-aged sex. Also, it's one's decision to have sex. If someone gets pregnant, its their fault and they should worry about it, themselves. The schools shouldn't have to be the ones to take care of that situation. It also gives the impressing that the schools think so little of you. \"Welcome to our school! Now take these birth control pills, because we think the worst for you.\" Wait a second, I just thought of something. What about those who don't know what sex is? No, really, what about those who weren't taught what sex is. I don't know if every school has a sex ed class, but you have to factor in the fact not every kid is going to know about sex. Also, you would think the parents would be in the biggest rampage because of that.", "qid": "12", "docid": "8e214b94-2019-04-18T12:19:56Z-00000-000", "rank": 15, "score": 99552.0}, {"content": "Title: Contraception is a right. Content: Contraceptives encourage sex with many multiple partners which is unsafe. Ask Charlie Sheen. It gives a false sense of security. People believe suddenly that they are safe. Then...they have an STD. Then...they pass it to someone else. * Pop a birth control pill and your baby-maker isn't the only thing that's getting the treatment. That's because each of those little pills contains hormones and changes the hormones in your body, according to Toni Stern, M.D., Chair of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Coney Island Hospital. The Pill may hurt- LibidoOC's slash libido-friendly testosterone in two ways: First, they quiet the ovaries, halting their production of testosterone. Second, the liver pumps out a protein called the sex hormone-binding globulin, which gloms onto sex hormones ,including testosterone, like bargain shoppers on Black Friday sales. But while OC's lower testosterone levels in all women, they lower libido only in some. And even if the Pill does affect your mojo, plenty of other factors like anxiety about getting preggers affect it, too. You may have serious problems below the belt. Blood clots- Chances are, you've heard this warning speed by during more than one birth control pill commercial. But before you reach for a bottle of Bayer, let's put things into perspective: Each year, 7 in 10,000 women experience blood clots. Birth control extremely enhances your chances, while pregnancy and childbirth raise your chances even more. But if you experience any signs of a blood clot, such as chest pain or a swollen leg, immediately stop the pill for God's sake. http://www.parents.com... * This is why passing out contraceptives is not only wrong, but it is deadly. Of course Liberals, generally don't care about long term results, just temporary satisfaction. This is how children think.", "qid": "12", "docid": "f3fff523-2019-04-18T13:04:43Z-00004-000", "rank": 16, "score": 99134.0}, {"content": "Title: Health plans should cover contraception, and here is why. Content: Con: \"there is if you are wasting fellow insurance invester's money on your horny habits and leaving less over for them to spend on their cancer treatment.\" I say: People have the right to choose what to do with their bodies. If a women wants to prevent a pregnancy, she has that right. You say: \"Con: So they have the right to choose to not have sex and should choose to do that if they want to avoid the thigns that you stated women would be avoiding in earlier rounds of this debate.\" Who are you to force your beliefs on others? If people want to have consensual sex or use birth control, they have that right. You say: Con: \"Yes and if they choose unwisely, fellow people spending their hard earned cash on a health insurance plan shold not be forced to have that money wasted on a ton of pills or condoms because a woman is too horny to care about their heart transplant.\" I say: I never said that condoms should be covered by insurance, but I think the more effective methods should be covered. You said: \"Con: What does this have to do with anything?\" I say: The issue of consent is key in this issue. If women do not want to be pregnant, they should be able to prevent pregnancy.", "qid": "12", "docid": "a4a6c3d4-2019-04-18T15:38:59Z-00001-000", "rank": 17, "score": 98973.0}, {"content": "Title: Late Term Abortion Content: RebuttalLateterm-abortion should not be legal since their are better alternatives that don't waste life, such as adoption, abstinence, birth control, condoms, the day after pill, and many other controceptives. When there is this many ways of preventing pregnancy in the first place and when there is this many alternatives to killing, why should killing another living breathing unborn baby be a choice?There are many other controceptives to choose from, and are cheap. However, in the case that contoceptives do not work, the mother does not have to keep the baby as long as 22 weeks when it can feel, when it can think, when the only thing that is seperating it from being considered a full person is it's location. If a mother did not want the baby she would have used better crotroceptives such as Praneem [1], which is way more effective then the average birth control pills and condoms, and all these can be used at once to effectivelly prevent pregnancy. Like I have already stated, since the woman was given so many alternatives and also kept the baby for 22 weeks. The women should think about that before having unprotected sex. Every action that we all make have consequences, and pregnancy is the consequence for unprotected sex. The fetus should not be the one that pays the price for his so-called mother's mistake.It is not my moral values that decide on whether a baby has the right to life or not, it is the government's. If a murderer kills a pregnant woman he is charged with two murders the woman's life and the baby's life. [2] If the baby has no right to life then why is there punishments against killing them? Because the baby does have rights. Therefore, if it is against the law to kill the unborn and not be the mother, then it should be illegal for the mother to do this also.Defense1) There is two things wrong with this. The first is that we live in a democracy, so if the majority of people do not like late-term abortion (which they agree with me), then it should stay illegal. Also, How does the fact that the mother practically invites the baby into her womb, and then waiting 22 weeks in which she is fully pregnant, then knowing that she could very easily put the baby up for adoption but would rather kill it justify giving a women to have her baby's brains sucked out? It doesn't, women already have plenty of choices, that will allow her and the baby to live their lives to the fullest.2) In the case that this is true and her family wont accept her, this does not make late-term abortion just. the damage would have already been done, and going through with the pregnancy and puting the baby up for adoption would be a better solution then killing the baby and still having a family that wont accept her. The fact is that it is hurting the baby, therefore shouldn't be legal.3) This statement is by your own opinion.The state is our governemnent. They make laws that protect us and society, this includes protection from ourselves. It is possible if members of society would stop killing eachother, this can be applied to late-term abortion since obviously the baby is being killed. Therefore, a great way to stop the corosion of our society is to make late-term abortion stay illegal.This is not logical to compare a underdeveloped unborn baby, who did not choose to be in the woman's body, to a grown person who is capable of rashional thought who chooses to break into someone elses home.The fetus will grow up and perform a task that society requires of it. The woman would be performing one of her tasks to society by baring children. Also, keeping late term abortion illegal is preserving the rights of the fetus.Final ConclusionLate-term abortion does not benefit society at all, but takes away valuable future people to carry on society. It is also has a very barbaric procedure in which it is carried out, and women have plenty of rights and alternatives late-term abortion should remain illegal.Vote con![1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[2]http://civilliberty.about.com...", "qid": "12", "docid": "88d5dfaa-2019-04-18T18:41:38Z-00000-000", "rank": 18, "score": 98431.0}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should be legal Content: Abortion should be illegal (except for cases when a mothers life is greatly threatened) for these reasons which I will discuss in greater deal later; there are many ways births can be prevented , second the unborn babies are protected under the law, and it is against the Hippocratic Oath which all doctors must take. There are many ways that are not an abortion that can be used before to prevent a birth. The Planned Parenthood website lists 20 different forms of birth control, many of which come at no charge. These different forms of birth control when used in tandem can reduce the risk of a birth to practically zero. These forms of birth control include but are not limited too: Abstinence Birth Control Implant (Implanon and Nexplanon) Birth Control Patch Birth Control Pills Birth Control Shot (Depo-Provera) Birth Control Sponge (Today Sponge) Birth Control Vaginal Ring (NuvaRing) cervical Cap (FemCap) Condom Diaphragm Female Condom Fertility Awareness-Based Methods (FAMs) IUD Morning-After Pill (Emergency Contraception) Spermicide Withdrawal (Pull Out Method) This slue of methods are all viable methods of preventing a birth. Unborn babies are in fact currently protected by the law. There is a current federal law called \"The Unborn Victims of Violence Act\" of it recognizes a child in utero as a legal victim. The law defines \"child in utero\" as \"a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb\". This means legally a crime can be committed against a baby, such as murder. Currently as it stands the law sees unborn children as human and all humans have the right to life. No one has a right to rob someone of the right to life, not a mother, not a father, no one. Finally doctors who perform an abortion are in violation of the Hippocratic Oath which all doctors must take. \"I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.\" is a line from the modern Hippocratic Oath. Killing a baby when there are other alternatives is in direct violation of the statement against over treatment. As long as any other option exists a doctor should not carry out an abortion, because the thing a doctor must hold most sacred, a human life, is at stake.", "qid": "12", "docid": "6702c8de-2019-04-18T12:13:43Z-00003-000", "rank": 19, "score": 96563.0}, {"content": "Title: Abortion Should Remain Legal Content: You said, \"Condoms and the pill aren't 100% effective, and the people could have unprotected sex because of being drunk, it just happened all at once, or ignorant of sexual education. \" I say: Condom and birth control are not 100% effective. However, you can get fixed. If done properly, it is 100% effective. For being drunk, the sexual partner is raping the drunken person, since you can not legally give consent when under the influence. For being ignorant, you should know about sex before you. .. do it. Also I'd think most people know if they may have a baby. You say, \"The woman also could have been raped. \" I say: There is currently a woman activist, whose name escapes me at the moment, who attends schools in West Virgina, speaking out agenst abortions. Her mother was raped, and her child is leading a successful life. Her mother stated that she couldn't have been prouder of her daughter. We have to give the child a chance to live. You say, \"If a baby is deformed, then it is possible to detect later on in pregnancy, and an abortion would be a very moral thing to do in that case. \" I say: It is possible to recover from a deformity. We are not talking about a common case though. Even so, if a deformity is what is the sole reason for abortion, I don't see how that is \"very moral\". You say, \"Abortion also does good because it brings the population under control, and lets people plan out their lives better. \" I say: We could pass laws through reformation stating you must be fixed after a certain number of children. There's no need to kill them. While it may help keeping population under control, there is no need to have abortion after abortion. Sometimes, people do it wrong and hurt themselves and the baby. As for planning out your life, that's hard to do anyways. Because, like an unexpected baby, life throws other unexpected things at you. Who's to say that the abortion will not cause prolonged emotional trauma? It's happened, You say, \"What's wrong with that, is that the fetus is still part of the woman's body until birth. Also, the fetus isn't considered a person until it is formed enough. Conception is only a cluster of cells. \" I say: You're just a cluster of cells. I can't kill you. Besides, if it has the chance to grow up, it likely will. That is a matter of perception whether or not it is a person. You say, \"A logical answer of when a fetus is formed enough to be considered a person is when the fetus can survive outside of the body. \" I say: Sure that's logical, but it's not practical. I conducted a survey at my school, and projected that 78% of the students thought it was a person. This is effective, because many abortions are with unplanned teen pregnancy. You say, \"There could also be other ways a pregnancy could be a risk to a woman's health, which a C Section would not solve. \" I say: I'm not saying that a C-section is the solution for everything. If there is a rare case where that happens, we have to consider the lesser of the two evils. Allowing a woman to die, or the baby. That choice should be up to the mother, and if abortion happens in that case, then it is to save a life, not to destroy it.", "qid": "12", "docid": "c42f2f21-2019-04-18T19:22:30Z-00002-000", "rank": 20, "score": 96355.0}, {"content": "Title: Birth Control Content: I understand your argument and respect your opinions however, I also continue to stand by my opinion that girls under the age of eighteen should not have access to birth control without a parent's consent. A young girl with the maturity of a freshman in high school should not be able to make such an important decision on her own. With easy access to the pill, a whole new set of problems can erupt. Just talking to a parent about birth control helps make the decision easier and more understandable for a young girl with little to no education in such areas.", "qid": "12", "docid": "3d1a752c-2019-04-18T17:01:05Z-00000-000", "rank": 21, "score": 96018.0}, {"content": "Title: Abortion Content: #1 assumes that every woman who gets pregnant is not on birth control or did not use a form of contraception. That is not necessarily true at all. Women get pregnant who are on the pill and who ensure that their partners wear condoms. Birth control is not 100% effective. Additionally, Con is leaving out the women who get pregnant from rape, date rape, etc. Sir, may i ask is it or is it not that most abortions are from young teens or women that were just having sex just to be having it and were irreasponsible.When used correctly and consistently every single time, condoms are about 98% preventive against pregnancy. However, the effectiveness rate for first-year condom users is about 86%, as only an estimated 3% of these users use condoms correctly and consistently during that time. After that milestone, the prevention rate increases, and with typical consistent use the pregnancy rate is 2-4 out of 100 women per year. Maybe not 100% effect but good enough. While 100% of the 15 year-olds reported using condoms \"usually\" or \"always\", the percentage of 16 (60%), 17 (53%), and 18 (50%) year-olds who did so declined with each year as sexually active females became older. As they got older at the age of 18 half of american women stopped using a condom. Also i left them out because according to the crimeandclues.com that most rapists are using condom now a days to prevent DNA evidence.Also i left them out because of my first statement \"No life should be taken,without probable cause.\" that statement automatically ruled out rape even accidentally got pregnant with the condom and pill is also a probable cause. That one statement had a meaning and may i ask why this statement must be defended when its quiet obvious , kill someone with out a just,cause is wrong. #2 Again, this statement makes absolutely no sense. I think my opponent was trying to say that abortion and murder are the same thing, when in fact they are not. Abortion is the the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy [1]. Murder is the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law [2]. Abortion is not considered murder under law, and with good reason. Murder is the taking of a person's life. An embryo or fetus is not a person. It is a \"potential\" person, which is not the same thing. I would like you to refrain from insulting me if it makes no sense to you please say so kindly and don't be arrogant about it, thank you. Next it is a person and embryo is a persons first stage of life,a person who goes brain dead is still living but has no brain function therfore people usually give up on them and pull the plug.But an embryo is fine, growing a soul and you cut the wire before that can happen thats like cutting a babys legs of therefore he did not know what he lost so its fine. let me see how i could better explain take yourself say before you could see i cut out your eyes out therfore i can do that because you havent experienced or developed them yet. I now stand ready sir.", "qid": "12", "docid": "47ca8c67-2019-04-18T19:11:13Z-00003-000", "rank": 22, "score": 95210.0}, {"content": "Title: ivf debate Content: Birth control may be taken. If birth control is not taken then there is a chance of cysts and the eggs not being fertilized at the correct cycle. If estrogen levels are not correct , then injections may be needed which may counteract the birth control being taken.The baby may not be correctly placed and may be stuck in the insertion catheter at the time of insertion.(http://www.shadygrovefertility.com...) It is insanely expensive to conceive babies through this fashion. A family that does not make over $75000 and is uninsured will have to pay about $8470 (https://www.centerforhumanreprod.com...)", "qid": "12", "docid": "d64195b7-2019-04-18T14:57:01Z-00008-000", "rank": 23, "score": 94484.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: The Father Should Not Have Say In an Abortion Content: As this will be my last round, I will provide a brief overview of my points, Con's counter arguments, and why they do not work.1. In this point I argue that the woman owns her own body and therefore has final say over what happens to her body. Most would agree with this, but Con argues that in the case of a pregnancy, the father is entitled to equal control over the woman's body to the extent that what she does affects the baby (which is technically everything she does, but Con's focus is on abortion). Con claims that this entitlement is given to the father due to the hardships he has to go through during the pregnancy. These hardships include driving her to the hospital, financial aid and general catering. My response to this argument was 2-fold. Firstly, these \u201chardships\u201d only apply assuming the mother does not get an abortion. If she does, then none of these sacrifices are made. Therefore, this argument is only relevant under the assumption that the father already has enough say to stop the abortion, which makes it a circular argument. Con does not address this criticism. Secondly, I pointed out that this standard insinuates that one's right over their own body can be purchased (via favours and finance). I go on to question how such a system breaks down \u2013 that is, how much hardship and sacrifice must the father offer before his say is equal to 50%. How does Con justify this involuntary acquisition of \u201csay\u201d by the father? Rather than developing his argument further, Con claims that I am misrepresenting his argument, but does not explain how this is a misrepresentation (explaining the difference), making his counter argument non-existent. He reiterates that his argument is \u201csacrifice = 50% say\u201d, but does not seem to see how this suggests the father is purchasing say via favours and finance. Regardless, the question remains \u2013 How much sacrifice does it take to gain 50% of someone else's right to their own body? Since Con cannot make new argument next round, this point has been laid to rest in favour of Pro. Finally, Con claims that I ignored his argument about \u201cbeing the host only equal 50% say\u201d. I didn't ignore this argument because it's not an argument \u2013 it's an assertion. Con asserts that owning your own body only gives you 50% say over your own body. I don't know by what measure he is coming up with this figure, and in all likelihood there is no measure, just an assertion. 2. In this point I argue that the mother contributes more towards the fetus' genome, therefore winning the genetic argument. Con claims the difference is negligible, but this is merely an excuse to dismiss the argument. Surely if the percentage was reversed, he would use it as an argument in his favour, though he would never admit it. In the case of a company's stock where two owners, each with the same percentage of ownership, have a disagreement, what happens? Nothing. But if one owner has even one share more than the other, regardless of how many times the company has split their stock, that owner is recognized as having majority control. The magic number is 50%, and any amount greater than that, regardless of how small, still sways the decision. Therefore, so long as genetic contribution is taken into account, we must recognize that the mother has the greater say. Con attempts to plead for the fathers case by saying he is naturally disadvantaged. This is irrelevant. Of course he is naturally disadvantaged. That's the point. He contributes less, and that's all there is to it. As Con has neither conceded nor dissolved this point, it rests in favour of Pro. 3. In this point I argue that the man gives his sperm to the woman, thereby relinquishing ownership of it to the extent that the mother can choose to use it, or not use it to make a baby. Con's rebuttal, despite being preemtively debunked, is essentially that the man does not relinquish ownership of the sperm because he gave it to her specifically to make a baby. This argument is asinine as the fathers desire to see a baby be made does not in any way trump the woman's right to choose what happens with her own body. Remember, no contract was made prior to conception removing this right from the woman, therefore she retains it exclusively. Con's return point is a re-statement of this same argument. He argues that the man has the right to have a baby with this woman because he emptied sperm into her. He does not explain how or why this \u201cright\u201d (which is never justified initially beyond his assertion) trumps the woman's right to govern herself. Why does \u201cgiving sperm\u201d entitle him to any rights over her person? This sort of logic does not apply to any other relationship or agreement. If there is no legally binding contract stating the man has these rights, and the woman owns herself, then she has the right to not make a baby. Con states that a bank has the right to refuse service because they have a \u201cclear cut\u201d reason to refuse service, while the woman does not. This is nothing short of grasping at straws. It is of no consequence whether or not the man understands why the woman wants to \u201crefuse service\u201d as it is her body and she has exclusive ownership of it. How would we even qualify what is and is not a \u201cclear cut\u201d reason? Con claims I am dancing around his argument that the man has rights as well (due to his sacrifices). I am not ignoring this argument because there is no argument, just an assertion. The issue here is that Con is starting from the assumption that the man has say and working backwards. The woman has initial rights because it is her body in question, but any rights the man has over the woman's body need to be justified. They are not assumed. Simply pointing out that the father makes sacrifices (sacrifices that wouldn't even happen assuming the abortion is carried out) is an extremely underdeveloped argument for the reasons I've outlined numerous times. His argument is circular and his conclusion is unwarranted. 4. Here I argue that since there is no middle-ground option, there can be no true 50/50 split. The 50/50 split only exists to the extent that both parties already agree with one another. Con attempts to refute this by suggesting possible middle-ground options, but none of them are actually \u201cmiddle ground\u201d. Every one of them results in an abortion not happening. It is readily obvious that \u201cno abortion\u201d does not equal \u201csomewhere between an abortion and no abortion\u201d. Con does not defend his 4 options, but rather asserts their validity. I will make this as clear as possible; if the dispute is \u201cabort, or not to abort\u201d, then any option that either ends in an abortion or does not end in an abortion is not an alternative to the \u201cabort/ don't abort\u201d dispute. One gets their way and the other does not. 5. In this point I argue that if child is not property, the only remaining relevant factor is the woman's self-ownership. Con's response is that the man contributes equally to the fetus' genome (this is not true. Even 49.99999% =/= 50%, and as stated in round 1 less than 50% = no say) and goes through hardships, therefore he is entitled to 50% say. These arguments have been laid to rest over and over again, so no further debunking is required. 6. Con claims that he ignored these arguments because he felt they didn't apply. It is not my burden, nor the voter's burden to guess why Con has dropped an argument, so this is no excuse. However, Con apologizes for not clarifying earlier, so no biggie. Since these arguments are predicated on a point we do not agree on at this point (if there can be a 50/50 split in say), I will retire these arguments for both our sakes. Conclusion Con's argument rests entirely on assertions he has not justified. He is starting from his conclusion and working backwards, which is why his arguments do not stand the test of scrutiny, thereby making his arguments both unsound and invalid. As such, his BoP is unfulfilled and the resolution is affirmed. I turn the debate over to Con for the final word.", "qid": "12", "docid": "480fde7b-2019-04-18T17:56:07Z-00001-000", "rank": 24, "score": 94344.0}, {"content": "Title: is birth control good or nah Content: then we will have over population and it will be terrible.", "qid": "12", "docid": "8791f9a4-2019-04-18T15:46:11Z-00000-000", "rank": 25, "score": 94101.0}, {"content": "Title: Birth Control is Immoral Content: ~Definitions~ birth control: the practice of preventing unwanted pregnancies Source: google definitions immoral: not morally good or right, unethical Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com... There are many different types/forms/methods of birth control, however in this debate we will be focusing mainly on the morning after pill, condoms, and/or daily pills, as these are the most common and well known methods. For the sake of this debate, abstinence will not be considered a \"birth control\". Rules for Instigator (me) Round One: Rules and Introduction Round Two: Arguments Round Three: Rebuttals Rules for Contender (opponent) Round One: Argument Round Two: Rebuttals Round Three: write \"no argument as agreed upon\" Failure to follow these rules will result in a 7 point deduction. Good luck.", "qid": "12", "docid": "606a81ac-2019-04-18T16:27:00Z-00004-000", "rank": 26, "score": 93921.0}, {"content": "Title: Teenagers should be able to get birth control without their parents consent Content: They should not because the pills are very expensive and a teenager needs a parents help in this important ordeal.", "qid": "12", "docid": "136c9048-2019-04-18T18:17:33Z-00003-000", "rank": 27, "score": 93911.0}, {"content": "Title: birth control should be covered by insurance Content: Birth control is not a medical necessity for all women. In fact, I challenge my opponent to prove how it is since the burden of proof lies with her. On the subject of Viagra, Pro's claim is untrue; that medication is only covered by some insurance companies, not all. Other men have to pay for the medication just like women have to pay for birth control. There is no sexism behind this issue unless you wish it to be there. It is absurd to bring in the equal rights amendment considering that men cannot become pregnant. The situation is completely biased and that makes the issue moot. If a woman wishes not to become pregnant, she can practice abstinance or buy the birth control on her own. The implication that not covering birth control says that women's health is not important is incorrect and unfounded. If anything, it makes women more independent because THEY have to be responsible for their own selves. This is equivalent to men having to buy condoms; it is their responsibility and no one else. In conclusion, there is no reason for insurance companies to pay for any type of birth control, whether male or female. It is a purposeless endeavor.", "qid": "12", "docid": "88b831f5-2019-04-18T18:25:06Z-00003-000", "rank": 28, "score": 93898.0}, {"content": "Title: young teenage girls should not be restricted when buying the morning after pill. Content: The morning after pill can only be taken within 72 hours after unprotected sex.Each day girls wait their chances of becoming pregnant increase.The Morning after pills do not cause birth defects in women who are already pregnant;the morning after pill when taken causes estrogen levels to rise within the female body giving mixed signals to the sperm trying to fertilize an egg that the female is currently on her period thus killing the sperm off.According to Princeton University\"The most serious of these side effects are extremely rare and do no long term damage besides it would be considered by women who choose to use emergency contraception to be a price worth paying for avoiding an unwanted pregnancy\" Article source: http://ec.princeton.edu...", "qid": "12", "docid": "10c1d5c6-2019-04-18T16:38:18Z-00001-000", "rank": 29, "score": 93863.0}, {"content": "Title: teens should beallowed to get birth control Content: But come you can't expect teens to have sex to have any sort of right to have birth control pills? It would give other teens more peer pressure to have sex and their great bypass would be use the birth control pills as a way not to get caught. It would stop teenagers from having to dropout but it would be wide spread. It would challenge the parents rights and the teenagers rights to giving them birth control pills. I just think that birth control pills to the wrong hands will have devastaing effects and teenagers are the people to give the least to because peer pressure is their \"wise master\".", "qid": "12", "docid": "8d834d48-2019-04-18T20:01:52Z-00002-000", "rank": 30, "score": 93275.0}, {"content": "Title: Teens should be able to get birth control without thier parents consent. Content: You claim that teens being able to buy birth control automatically will cause teen pregnancies to drop, but just because you buy something doesnt mean you will actually use it or use it properly. My dad buys rifles and ammunition almost once a week but he never uses them he just mounts it on the wall or sells it to a higher price to his friends. Just because teens could buy birth control does not guarantee they will actually use them. Only 35% of teenagers use condoms even though they have access to them. http://www.idph.state.il.us... After you read that statistic look two lines lower on the website, teenagers like to get hammered and use illegal drugs during sex so they might not even have the common sense to use the birth control they bought..... You may want to consider that just because it is now more accessible doesnt guarantee that teenagers will still go and buy them. Also consider the fact that they must be used correctly. There are many birth control contraptions that could do quite a bit of damage to the teenager if they use it improperly, sometimes birth control pills and such are linked to causing many problems in an individual Yaz: a birth control product used by millions of women was found to be linked to horrible side effects such as blindness, in some cases cancer, strokes, etc. and that is just ONE of the DOZENS of birth control supplements out there on the market. You claim that parents dont want to let their kids have sex because they will get pregnant and that sex is safe with birth control, perhaps you have never heard of things called STD's.... STD's, as we all know, are sexually transmitted diseases and there is no form of birth control on the market that prevents against the passing of any STD from one individual to another. STD's affect far more teenagers than teenage pregnancies do, and STDs affect teenagers more than any other age group.... Sources showing birth control does not protect against STD's http://www.pregnancyandchildren.com... http://ehealthforum.com... http://kidshealth.org... http://www.zocdoc.com... http://www.womenshealthzone.net... Number of STD cases each year (roughly 3 million a year among teenagers) HIV = 10,000 to 20,000 new cases a year among teenagers Chlamydia = 40% of ALL girls 15 to 19 HPV = 15% of ALL girls 15 to 19 Herpes = up to a million new cases each year total, a great proportion of them among teenagers AIDS = Over a million total, many cases are not even reported though.... http://health.shiawassee.net... http://www.bhg.com... Teenage pregnancy = 1 out of 12 teenage girls, Teenage STD's = 1 out of 4.... http://www.msnbc.msn.com... I could go on but Ill stop here for now, so let me summarize: Unconditional access to birth control by teenagers should not be legal because 1) Just because teenagers buy them doesn't mean they will use it properly or at all 2) Birth control (Yaz for example) has many harmful effects that cause many more health problems then they prevent 3) Birth controls do NOT prevent against STD's which spread faster and affect WAY more teenagers than pregnancy does 4) The alleged health \"benefits\" of the POSSIBILITY of lowering pregnancy rates would be greatly offset by the number of new STD cases, which in many cases prove to be lethal.....", "qid": "12", "docid": "6b19ea3e-2019-04-18T18:37:17Z-00004-000", "rank": 31, "score": 92468.0}, {"content": "Title: young teenage girls should not be restricted when buying the morning after pill. Content: I disagree the morning after pill is not giving teens the OK to have unprotected sex. It's an option to have for just in case something goes wrong; if teens are old enough to engage in sexual intercourse then they are also old enough to know when to buy the morning after pill in a responsible manner. Now if teens have an STD then they shouldn't have unprotected sex with many partners nor should they think that the morning after pill is a cure for a sexual disease. The argument stands to protect women's right for unwanted pregnancy's not a reason to have unprotected sex out of a whim; especially since condoms and birth control are available for people of all ages.", "qid": "12", "docid": "10c1d5c6-2019-04-18T16:38:18Z-00003-000", "rank": 32, "score": 92305.0}, {"content": "Title: birth control should be covered by insurance Content: Protection against unwanted pregnancy is a medical necessity because it must be prevented at all costs, certain women under grave circumstances cannot physically, mentally or emotionally carry the burden of reproduction and as long as their bodies are capable of conceiving a child they should be given guaranteed ways of preventing it and birth control fits the description. The burden of medical necessity lies with a doctor and should not be determined by an insurance company. As for the Viagra claim, the fact that some insurance companies cover this drug proves sexism because no insurance company has ever covered birth control under any circumstances. If certain insurances deem a man's erectile dysfunction as being a medical problem than a women who is battling cancer should be allowed the same coverage. Men cannot bare children this is true but women should not have to suffer because they are capable of bringing life into this world that is one of the reasons as to why we have the equal rights amendment, to procure that women be treated fairly when it comes to men in every aspect regardless of their physical description or biological make up.", "qid": "12", "docid": "88b831f5-2019-04-18T18:25:06Z-00002-000", "rank": 33, "score": 92234.0}, {"content": "Title: Birth control Content: According to the world health organization NFP is 99.6 percent effective. http://www2.richmonddiocese.org... That source of yours is biased. Condoms provide SOME protection against other STD's, but they have very high failure rate's at doing so. The risks might go back down, but that doesn't help women who get breast cancer while still on the pill. No condoms do not prevent abortion. That is only one reason why NFP couples have such low divorce rates. Read the rest of it. There are several other reasons as well. \"Isn't using birth control better than having unwanted teen pregnancies and abortions? Look at both these issues and judge for yourself if contraception is part of the solution or part of the problem. Because of the widespread use of birth control, more people than ever have sex without intending to have children. Sex out of wedlock has become far more common, and more sex means more babies. Some argue that teaching people how to use contraceptives will alleviate the problem. But research shows that \"programs in safer sex education and condom distribution have not reduced the out-of-wedlock birth rates among sexually experienced teens. . . . The fact is, increased condom use by teens is associated with increased out-of-wedlock birth rates.\"[1] A few years ago in Colorado, one school began passing out condoms to the students. Within three years the birth rate rose 31 percent above the national average, and in one school year one hundred births were expected among the twelve hundred students. The administrators were described as \"searching for explanations.\"[2] When unwanted pregnancies occur, many turn to abortion as a solution. In fact, studies show that about half of all unintended pregnancies end in abortion.[3] Some argue that increased use of contraception could have lowered these abortion rates. However, the research institute of the nation's largest abortion provider admits that most women who receive abortions had been using birth control during the month they became pregnant![4] Such couples feel that the \"fault\" of the pregnancy can be blamed on the failed contraception, but by contracepting they have already set their wills against new life. Since contraception treats pregnancy as if it were a disease, many people conclude that abortion must be the cure. I once saw a condom advertisement that called pregnancy \"the mother of all nightmares.\" With this mentality it is no surprise that the sex researcher Alfred Kinsey said, \"At the risk of being repetitious, I would remind the group that we have found the highest frequency of induced abortion in the group which, in general, most frequently used contraceptives.\"[5] Even a former medical director of Planned Parenthood admitted in 1973, \"As people turn to contraception, there will be a rise, not a fall, in the abortion rate.\"[6] Fifty million abortions later, no one can dispute his prediction. Lastly, it should be noted that anyone who believes that contraception decreases abortions ignores the fact that hormonal birth control can cause abortions.[7] Click here for details on that. Mother Teresa did not need to see the statistics. She was well aware of the connection between contraception and abortion when she said in a speech in the presence of Bill and Hillary Clinton: \"The way to plan the family is Natural Family Planning, not contraception. In destroying the power of giving life, through contraception, a husband or wife is doing something to self. This turns the attention to self and so destroys the gift of love in him or her. In loving, the husband and wife must turn the attention to each other. Once that living love is destroyed by contraception, abortion follows very easily.\"[8] __________________ [1]. The Consortium of State Physicians Resource Councils, \"New Study Shows Higher Unwed Birthrates Among Sexually Experienced Teens Despite Increased Condom Use\" (February 10, 1999). [2]. Jana Mazanee, \"Birth Rate Soars at Colorado School,\" USA Today, May 19, 1992, 3A. [3]. Stanley Henshaw, \"Unintended Pregnancy in the United States,\" Family Planning Perspectives 30:1 (1998), 24\u201329, 46. [4]. Rachel Jones, et al., \"Contraceptive Use Among U.S. Women Having Abortions in 2000\u20132001,\" Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 34:6 (November/December 2002), 296. [5]. Mary S. Calderone, ed., Abortion in the United States: A Conference Sponsored by the Planned Parenthood Federation of America and the New York Academy of Medicine (New York: Harper and Row, 1958), 157. [6]. Malcolm Potts, Cambridge Evening News, February 7, 1973, as quoted in \"The Connection: Abortion, Permissive Sex Instruction, and Family Planning,\" Life Research Institute (January 2000). [7]. Walter L. Larimore and Joseph B. Stanford, \"Postfertilization Effects of Oral Contraceptives and Their Relationship to Informed Consent,\" Archives of Family Medicine 9 (February 2000), 126\u2013133. [8]. Mother Teresa, February 5, 1994, National Prayer Breakfast, Washington, D.C. (Chastity.com) \"Sometimes, all of the Pill's mechanisms fail to prevent pregnancy and successful implantation. It is often said that with optimum use of the Pill, it should have an effectiveness rate of 99 percent. Therefore, it is said to have a \"method\" failure rate of about 1 percent. However, in typical use the rates change significantly. This can be caused by many things, such as a woman's forgetting to take her pill or taking it at the wrong time of the day. Thus the actual rate, called the \"typical\" or \"user\" failure rate. For the first year of use for women under the age of twenty, the Pill has an annual failure rate of 8 to 13 percent.[21] One study that followed sexually active teenage girls on the Pill found that 20 percent of them became pregnant within six months![22] The typical failure rate of the Pill has been shown to vary according to such factors as a woman's age, race, marital status, education, and economic status. For example, one large study showed that poor teenage girls who lived with their boyfriends had a 48 percent chance of getting pregnant during their first year on the Pill, whereas a wealthy married woman over the age of thirty had a 3 percent chance of pregnancy.[23]\" (Chastity.com)", "qid": "12", "docid": "c64898ed-2019-04-18T18:17:24Z-00002-000", "rank": 34, "score": 91999.0}, {"content": "Title: There are significant harms arising from selling the morning-after pill through pharmacies. Doctors... Content: There are significant harms arising from selling the morning-after pill through pharmacies. Doctors are not informed of their patients\u2019 over-the-counter purchases, but a patient\u2019s previous use of a drug as powerful as the morning-after pill may be something they need to know about to make good future medical decisions. Pharmacists cannot check medical records to find out whether there is anything in the customer\u2019s medical history which might make taking the pill dangerous. They have no way of telling whether their customer is over 16.", "qid": "12", "docid": "e1347bd3-2019-04-19T12:47:56Z-00015-000", "rank": 35, "score": 91712.0}, {"content": "Title: Teenagers should be able to get birth control without their parents consent Content: Condoms are not always the best protection method. Condoms can break. Women need to use birth control to guarantee that pregnancy will not occur. Using a condom alone is more risky than using birth control alone. Should parents know whats going on with their children? Yes. But are they ever going to? No. If teens know that their parents will find out when they go to the clinic for help and birth control..they will never go. They wont get help. And more and more teens will get pregnant. Teens shouldnt be responsible enough to have access to birth control is what con has said, however, kids should be responsible enough to have a baby? Which is worse? dealing with a pill a day so that you dont get pregnant, or dealing with a human being? Teens will never stop having sex. It happens. They will also never tell their parents and never want their parents to know. In a perfect world parents would find out and be there for their children, but were not living in that kind of society. Help teens not get pregnant, and let them have birth control.", "qid": "12", "docid": "136c9048-2019-04-18T18:17:33Z-00000-000", "rank": 36, "score": 91675.0}, {"content": "Title: Presidential Debate: Lannan13 vs. TBA Content: 1. AbortionLet me clarify myself, I stated how we the US could take abortion out of the political arena by having non-prescribed birth control pills. It basically allows the women to choose if they want to have a safe abortion, while simultaneously not forcing private religious businesses to cover birth control. Argument's of infringement of religion would be nullified as the Federal government won't need to take a stand on abortion.2. Gay marriageWhile my opponent rides on the 10th amendment for gay marriage, I still retain that the issue of gay marriage is strictly a 14th amendment right. The 10th amendment states, \"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.\" The 14th amendment which protect the civil liberties of US citizens states, \"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.\" 3. Voting \"Rights\"I still believe it is a state issue since several Federal investigations have found virtually no evidence of organized voter fraud, and this was during President Bush's term who pledged to crack down on voter fraud. (http://www.nytimes.com...)4. Foreign PolicyJust because Israel is a great ally it doesn't mean that we must support them. While Iran's threats are extravagant, it only shows that Iran can only employ saber rattling tactics to goad the US, and Israel into striking first. We will show Iran we mean business, but we will also do so by denying the Iranians any sort of moral appeal.Syria- Look if we try any of those Charlie Wilson's war crap for the Syrian rebels while they still have Al Qaida affiliates we might as well be supplying AA guns to the Hezbollah, AQAP, Hamas, and the Taliban. We need assurances those weapons won't fall into the wrong hands, and the rebels haven't assured us at all. I still think Egypt is better off than Northern Mali, if there is an urgent reason to intervene it is the likely hood of Syria becoming like Northern Mali or Afghanistan when the Taliban were in power.North Korea- North Korea already has Nukes, they just don't have the technologies to make an ICBM. We are trying to prevent them from obtaining an ICBM which would mean that they could drop a nuke on US Soil or on allied soil. So far we don't know fully the new leader's aganda so we'll keep a wait and see attitude. 5.Welfare and Social Security Welfare is actually a part of Social Security as it falls under unemployment benefits and Temporary Assistance for needy families. We use Social Security numbers to track individuals' accounts within the Social Security program. However SSN's have since been used as an identifier for individuals within the United States, although rare errors occur where duplicates do exist. However, since numbers are now assigned by the central issuing office of the SSA, it is highly unlikely that such duplications occur again. If we abolish Social Security then We will need to find another way to identify US citizens in legal transactions, and another way to retain the 401k.6. DeficitI still think Fiat money is far more viable than platinum money. Does anyone remember the Nixon-shock that made the US dollar unconvertible to gold? Well the economist Paul Krugman summarized the post-Nixon Shock era as, \"The current world monetary system assigns no special role to gold; indeed, the Federal Reserve is not obliged to tie the dollar to anything. It can print as much or as little money as it deems appropriate. There are powerful advantages to such an unconstrained system. Above all, the Fed is free to respond to actual or threatened recessions by pumping in money. To take only one example, that flexibility is the reason the Stock Market Crash of 1987\u2014which started out every bit as frightening as that of 1929\u2014did not cause a slump in the real economy. While a freely floating national money has advantages, however, it also has risks. For one thing, it can create uncertainties for international traders and investors. Over the past five years, the dollar has been worth as much as 120 yen and as little as 80. The costs of this volatility are hard to measure (partly because sophisticated financial markets allow businesses to hedge much of that risk), but they must be significant. Furthermore, a system that leaves monetary managers free to do good also leaves them free to be irresponsible\u2014and, in some countries, they have been quick to take the opportunity.\" 7. Electoral CollegeYour contention is essentially abolishing the electoral college. See in the Federalist Papers Essay No. 39 written by James Madison, it argues that the constitution is a mix between population and state-based government. It was argued that Congress would have two houses; a state-based Senate, and a population-based House of Representatives. At the same time, the President would be elected by a mixture of the two modes. Now if we decided to take out the primary function of the electoral college then we are promoting a mobocracy. Something that our founding fathers tried to prevent through the electoral college. 8. Gun controlWhile my arguments may seem like for the status quo, I am talking about laws similar to the one passed in New York, along with elements of California's gun control laws. The law passed in New York clamps down on the sale of ammunition and the sale of guns, requiring background checks on even the private sale of guns \u2013 except to family members. The New York law also attempts to keep the mentally ill from obtaining guns. While its true we had some back ground checks, none actually had mental-health screening and home inspections prior to a gun purchase. In the case of acquiring multiple fire arms we enact California legislation which has an individual wait a month before buying a second hand gun.", "qid": "12", "docid": "e90fb14d-2019-04-18T17:54:47Z-00002-000", "rank": 37, "score": 91292.0}, {"content": "Title: Birth control Content: First, I would like to apologize for this round, as I am not able to handle all arguments as fully as I would like to. Please do not hold this overly against me 1. Failure RatesMy opponent cites unsourced statistics of success from the Catholic Diosceses of Richmond. I don't think I need to say what's wrong here.2. Pill CancerIt does help women who might otherwise have gotten one of the types of cancer the pill protects against. I assume the risks probably mostly balance each other out. Regardless, if one fears cancer so much, one need not use the pill. That does not preclude using another type of birth control.3. STDs and Condoms I don't feel like pointlessly rehashing an argument here, so I will simply quote a government site. Note what I said last round about any protection being better than nothing. \"Latex condoms, when used consistently and correctly, are highly effective in preventing the sexual transmission of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. In addition, consistent and correct use of latex condoms reduces the risk of other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including diseases transmitted by genital secretions, and to a lesser degree, genital ulcer diseases. Condom use may reduce the risk for genital human papillomavirus (HPV) infection and HPV-associated diseases, e.g., genital warts and cervical cancer.\" [1]4. NFP and Divorce I invite my opponent to make a case regarding this instead of using her source as an argument. 5. More PregnancyThe birth control did not increase the birth rate, that was the students being stupid and having more sex. Birth control cannot be blamed for people's idiocy.6. Abortion I concede this point fully.New Arguments:A. Natural Family Planning is not always possible It is complicated, and generally only usable by people in a stable relationship. Additionally, it provides no STD protection, and requires abstinence. The biggest issue is, of course, the complexity and relationship requirement. NFP is pretty much useless unless you are married or in a very stable relationship [2]. You can't just be like \"Tonight let's use NFP\" out of nowhere, it requires an excessive amount of preparation and is easier to screw up than pretty much any other tactic. Do note that my opponent seems to have dropped the argument from the Bible. Sources:1. http://www.cdc.gov...2. http://www.nhs.uk...;", "qid": "12", "docid": "c64898ed-2019-04-18T18:17:24Z-00001-000", "rank": 38, "score": 91033.0}, {"content": "Title: Euthanasia should be available for use. Content: I am inclined to yield to my opponent's statement, \" instead of debating possible scenarios and requirements, we are simply arguing over weather it should simply be used. As clear cut yes or no stance.\" My standing is no, euthanasia should not be available for use. My opponent has brought up the concept of body autonomy as a counter argument, and while I agree that bodily autonomy is important, it needs its restrictions as much as anything else does. The ability and knowledge that we have control of who we are and what we do is one of the few feelings of actual freedom we ever get to truly express. Yet, nothing is without its consequences. Should someone consent to be euthanized, every outcome needs to be taken into account. For example, the costs, the lasting effects on those who care about the person, the effect on the person giving the Euthanization. We cannot allow such an act to be available for use if the main argument is bodily autonomy and the patient not wanting to be a burden on those caring for them. It isn't always ourselves we worry about, it's also how are actions affect others. Bodily autonomy is accepted, but it shouldn't be absolute, we would reap far more consequences than originally intended. Now for my counter argument, I would like to introduce the public conscience and medical ethics. When anything is legalized and made available, it becomes accepted. When something becomes accepted, it becomes a norm. Euthanasia should not be available for use for its inevitable affects on the public conscience and its violation of the doctors moral codes and ethics. If euthanasia were available and accepted, we would be hiring executioners, not doctors. The public mind would sway to a numbed state, where walking into a hospital is either your conscience decision to be treated or placed in a body bag. But that's just the issue, soon, death would become so common a thing and people would accept the fact that you would never need to suffer again. The ill would see euthanasia as a quicker more efficient means of treatment, and if the public wasn't still in the state of mind that the loss is great, they'd be in support of and making pre arrangements for the newly decided to be deceased. The other problem with that would be the decision on who would commit the Euthanization. Doctors and nurses alike take an oath not to bring harm to any person who comes into their care, to treat those who need them most, and to not simply let a person die. If euthanasia were available, who would be the one to deliver it? The doctors? They have broken an oath to not bring harm to those under their care. The nurses? They have also just broken their oath. So we must resort to the unbiased, the people whose conscience mind see nothing in euthanasia besides the earning of cash. The possibility of recovery is not the only reason euthanasia should not be available for use. Society has evolved from what it was so long ago, we cannot simply throw out the progress that has been made for an easier solution, for an absolute control over the body. Limitations exist to keep a general welfare, it is not a minority that destroys a person's right to end their life. It is the oaths, the public mind, the costs, the effects. It is the majority.", "qid": "12", "docid": "c011178b-2019-04-18T13:41:51Z-00002-000", "rank": 39, "score": 90940.0}, {"content": "Title: Men Should be Able to Give Up Their Parental Responsibilities Content: Under our current laws, women are afforded the right to decide when they become parents. Even if they choose to have unprotected sex, they have access to emergency contraception and abortion. Men are not afforded the right to decide when they become parents. If a woman chooses to have a child, the father of the child is financially responsible whether he wanted her to keep the baby or not. In this day, when men and women are treated as equals by the government, forcing a man to accept the responsibilities of parenthood before he chooses is discriminatory. Women have equal access to birth control In the past, women did not have equal access to birth control. It was reasonable to make men pay child support because women could not protect themselves from becoming pregnant. Men, however, could prevent a pregnancy. This is not the case anymore. Women have access to more birth control products than men. They can use the birth control pills, IUDs, the birth control patch, the cervical cap, the diaphragm, the vaginal sponge, the shot, and sterilization [1]. Men can no longer be held responsible under the premise that they should have used birth control. Women have access to many birth control choices and are still given the choice to terminate a pregnancy, therefore clearing them of responsibility.Men are not given a choice when it comes to keeping the child If a couple engages in intercourse that results in pregnancy, women are not required to ask the father whether or not he wants to raise his child, even if a man is financially prepared and is willing to take full custody. She can choose to have an abortion, and he has no legal means to stop her. Men also do not have the right to force women to have abortion, even if they are not financially able to raise a child. Men should not have to pay child support to women if women do not have to allow them to be part of the decision. If it is solely the woman\u2019s choice to keep a child, it should also be her responsibility to care for the child.Sources[1] http://www.plannedparenthood.org...", "qid": "12", "docid": "cfc73d47-2019-04-18T17:56:08Z-00004-000", "rank": 40, "score": 90853.0}, {"content": "Title: Emergency contraception may be seen by some as an alternative to safer forms of contraception. Its ... Content: Given the existence of the various unpleasant side-effects discussed, nobody would sensibly choose the morning-after pill over other forms of contraception, or risk unprotected sex on the grounds that they can take a morning-after pill afterwards. Emergency contraceptives are for use in emergencies - and emergencies really do happen, and really do need to be dealt with.", "qid": "12", "docid": "e1347bd3-2019-04-19T12:47:56Z-00010-000", "rank": 41, "score": 90711.0}, {"content": "Title: Welfare Recipients Should Be Subject to Mandatory Birth Control Content: Thank you to Con for his reply. I shall now answer each of his objections.O1: AbortionCon restates his position that we must consider abortion as a valid birth control option. However, I gave two reputable (with one being pro-choice) sources stating that abortion is not a method of birth control. In addition, the resolution that I have BOP over is preventative birth control, not post-conception abortion. The point here is to stop conception, period, not come along later and abort the fetus. As for the ones that will \"slip through,\" Con correctly states that this could theoretically happen in rare cases. Unfortunately, to disregard an entire premise based on a less-than-1% chance of failure (which is what Norplant and other long-term contraception options have), is like saying we should abolish the entire prison system because once in a great while, an innocent man goes to jail. Obviously we would not do this. We would instead deal with that particular case. If birth control is administered by a doctor and still fails, then that particular baby would go on to be born and the mother would continue to receive benefits. No system is foolproof, but contraceptives administered by a health care provider would go a long way toward ensuring that errors are highly minimal.My opponent claims that mandatory birth control is \"sneaky\" because people would be forced to \"do what we tell them\" if they want their money. Anyone who is employed is already quite familiar with this premise, because that's what employment is: Doing what someone tells you, so you can have money. Plenty of people are not happy with facets of their employment, but they perform the duties because that's what is required--and without that paycheck they would be desperate. There's nothing sneaky about that. O2: Best Option/Moral Judgments\"Lack of willingness to take responsibility for their actions\" in no way denotes a moral judgment. Instead, it is a common sense argument. Adults take responsibility for themselves and their families. A moral judgment would include commentary on the fact that both case examples involve children by multiple fathers, most of whom are in and out of jail. It would also pronounce a personal opinion on the drug use of the mothers. In actuality, who these women (or men) sleep with is no one's concern; nor is it our business how often they are in jail. The only relevant point here is their demonstrated inability to financially provide for themselves. Since both of my sources--one of them being a welfare recipient--admit that they're not going to stop having children, the burden falls on taxpayers to subsidize their conduct. Does Con believe that his taxes should go to pay for the medical bills and daily sustenance for someone who has lung cancer because they chose to smoke? \"Octomom\" is a classic example as well. She was on welfare before she had her 8 babies. Do you really believe it's our job to subsidize someone who wanted to conceive babies when she already was not able to provide for the babies she had? The PRO argument is not that she shouldn't be allowed to have children at all. The argument is that she shouldn't be allowed to have babies she cannot financially provide for.All of our liberties come with responsibilities and guidelines that we must adhere to. Yes, we have freedom of speech--within reason. Yes, we have freedom of assembly--as long as its peaceable. Yes, you can have as many babies as you want--as long as you can provide for them. O3: Appeal to the MassesCon mischaracterizes my argument here. All I did was state that 62% of citizens would support a mandatory birth control law. The logical fallacy does not exist because we are talking about proposing a law in a democratic republic. Therefore, the will of the people has merit. I am not stating that my proposal is \"true\" because the masses say it is. I'm stating that the majority of the people, from a legal standpoint, support the law being passed. O4: Having More Children Con uses a quote by the Massachusetts welfare director out of context to insinuate that my argument allows welfare mothers to have more children. If we read the entire context, we see that she was talking \"about a similar program to stop additional benefits for mothers who continue to have children on welfare.\" I'm well aware that it wasn't about mandatory birth control. It was showing that similar programs are already underway because state governments are beginning to see that there is a problem. If anything, that's a perfect solution to the ones that \"slip through\" the net, as Con puts it.O5: Religious ProcreationThis entire segment is pointless, as Con is on record in multiple debates arguing against the existence of God, generally seen as the Divine Author of the Bible. This means that not even Con agrees with Biblical theology, and so his use of it to bolster his argument is hard to understand. That being said, it again becomes a matter of context. There are only 11 instances of God telling someone to \"be fruitful and multiply,\" and none of them are generalized admonitions to mankind. Three of those are to Adam and Eve, the only two people on the earth at that time. Two were to Noah, who with his family, were the only survivors of the Great Flood. One was in regard to Ishmael, the father of the Arabic nations, as God explained that he would make the Arabs a mighty people. Two were to Jacob, the father of the 12 tribes of Israel. One was to the people of Israel as part of their covenant through Moses. The last two are prophecies by Ezekiel and Isaiah, explaining to the Jews that if they would stop worshipping idols, God would bless them. At no time is there a command for all mankind to irresponsibly conceive over and over with no thought to consequences. O6: DiversityCon makes an incredible statement here in regard to my point on genetic diversity when he says that \"Some how even after two long paragraphs talking about genetics & the diversity of genetics in a species, some how Pro makes this about black people.\"Not only did I not ever mention \"black people,\" but Con straw mans here by pretending that I did, even claiming I'm obsessed with them. In addition, his own definition of \"minorities\" as being only referring to \"black people\" is flawed at its base. The lack of logic or even basic demographic understanding in this segment is surpassed only by his sarcasm.O7: Military RecruitmentThis segment is also lacking, as he claims he \"clearly provided argument that showed how the Geroge W Bushes of the world probably are not going to be signing up to fight in the military and or be getting out of actual combat.\" He somehow ties his completely unrelated point in with the topic at hand by saying \"desperate poor people are a good source of military fodder.\" He is then advocating that we pay welfare to families so they may join the military for the express purpose of being used in war. I submit that \"cultivating\" a welfare-raised segment of the population for use as \"fodder\" is unreasonable to the point of incredulity, and far less humane than simply not creating this segment at all. O8: EconomicsLastly, Con revisits his war premise by claiming that \"USA war machines needs [sic] man power, and thus [welfare] sucks man power away from other sectors of the economy.\" Does Con have any sources to support this idea?ConclusionCon's arguments are not only all over the board, but they are bolstered by less than credible sources (Wikipedia). He uses not only straw man arguments, but provides no statistical data to back up his claims that the U.S. \"war machines\" somehow reduce manpower in other facets of the economy, which is literally not related at all to the topic at hand.", "qid": "12", "docid": "679b4310-2019-04-18T18:44:18Z-00001-000", "rank": 42, "score": 90693.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Information on birth control should be included in sex education classes. Content: Beforecontinuing, there are some essential points of knowledge that are needed to beestablished: {1} The term \"birth control\" was meant to apply to allcontraceptives, not just \"the pill.\"{2} In this debate, I will be using the term \"comprehensive sexeducation\" against \"abstinence-only sex education.\"Comprehensive sex education is sex education that includes information aboutcontraceptives.With this information established, I move on toward my contentions.[Contentions]Contention 1: Eradicating teenage sex is unfeasible.Despite the success and efficiency of comprehensive sex education inreduing teen pregancy and amount of teenagers engaging in sexual activity,teenagers still engage in sexual activity. Sub-point 1a: Teenagers have a strong probability to engage in sexualintercourse.\"Although only 13% of teens have had sex by age 15, most initiate sexin their later teen years. By their 19th birthday, seven in 10 female and maleteens have had intercourse.\" [1] \"More than half of all teenagers aged 15-19 has engaged in oral sex. 55percent of boys and 54 percent of girls have given or received oral sex, while49 percent of boys and 53 percent of girls have had intercourse. (Tamar Lewin,Nationwide Survey Includes data on Teenage Sex Habits, NYT, 9/16/2005)\" \" By age 18, 70 percent of U.S. females and 62 percent of U.S.males have initiated vaginal sex.\" [2]Sub-point 1b: Teenagers face heavy peer pressure to have sexualintercourse. \"One in three boys ages 15-17 say they feel pressure to have sex,often from male friends. Teen girls feel less pressure--only 23 percent saidthey felt such coercion. Researchers questioned 1,854 subjects between the agesof 13 and 24 in a national survey. The study, released by the Kaiser FamilyFoundation, also found that teens feel strong pressure to drink and try drugs.The study findings show a need for sex educationat a young age, say the study authors. A separate study released this week,sponsored by the NationalCampaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy,finds that one in five teens reported having sex before they were 15.\" [3]Contention 2: Adequate knowledge of contraceptives is essential.Because so many teenagers engage in sexual activity, the knowledge forcontraceptives is needed in order to prevent complications, and onlycomprehensive sex education will achieve this. Sub-point 2a: Knowledge of contraceptives prevents HIV and STDTransmission.\"It is estimated that more than half of all new HIV infections occurbefore the age of 25 and most are acquired through unprotected sexualintercourse. According to the experts on AIDS, many of these new infectionsoccur because young people don't have the knowledge or skills to protectthemselves. To address this important health issue, the American PsychologicalAssociation (APA) is recommending that comprehensive and empirically supportedsex education and HIV prevention programs become widely available to teachyouth how to abstain from risky sexual behaviors and learn how they can protectthemselves against HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. Based on over15 years of research, the evidence shows that comprehensive sexuality educationprograms for youth that encourage abstinence, promote appropriate condom use,and teach sexual communication skills reduce HIV-risk behavior and also delaythe onset of sexual intercourse. Research shows that one in five adolescentswill have sex before the age of 15 and most who continue to be sexually activedo not use condoms consistently. Although some youth acknowledge their fearsabout HIV/AIDS, many do not perceive themselves to be at risk and lack accurateinformation about what circumstances put them at risk for HIV infection.According to the CDC, the use of condoms can substantially reduce the risk ofHIV.\" [4] Sub-point 2b: Knowledge ofcontraceptives aids in the prevention of teen pregnancy.\"The number of teen births in the U.S. dropped again in 2010, according to a governmentreport, with nearly every state seeing a decrease. Nationally, the rate fell 9 percent to about 34 per 1,000 girlsages 15 through 19, and the drop was seen among all racial and ethnic groups.This is the lowest national rate for teen births since theCenters for Disease Control began tracking it in 1940, and CDC officialsattributed the decline to pregnancy prevention efforts. Other reports showthat teenagers are having less sex and usingcontraception more often.\" [5] Contention 3: Comprehensive sexeducation is more effective.Because comprehensive sex education realizes the factor of teenagesex being something that cannot be eradicated and provides information abouthow to prevent problems, it is more effective at ameliorating suffering thanabstinence-only sex education. Sub-point 3a: Comprehensive sex education is effective in deterrence.\"In contrast to the limited and discouraging results for studies onabstinence-only programs, the published research on sex and HIV educationprograms is far more conclusive and encouraging. According to EmergingAnswers, \u201cA large body of evaluation research clearly shows that sex andHIV education programs included in this review do not increase sexual activity\u2013 they do not hasten the onset of sex, increase the frequency of sex, and donot increase the number of sexual partners. To the contrary, some sex and HIVeducation programs delay the onset of sex, reduce the frequency of sex, orreduce the number of sexual partners.\u201d 19 Several specific studies havedemonstrated positive outcomes from sex education curricula, including delayedinitiation of sexual activity, increasedcondom use, and decreased number of sexual partners. Ekstrand and colleagues47studied the effects of an intervention titled Healthy Oakland Teens inOakland, California. The program involved 7th graders in five adultled andeight peer-led sessions. Students were provided with information on HIV andSTIs, substance abuse and preventive behaviors. Issues such as perception ofpersonal risk, costs and benefits of preventive behaviors, refusal skills andcondom use were all addressed. The researchers found that those students in theintervention group delayed initiation of sexual activity. One intervention,called Reducing the Risk, was found tobe effective when independently implemented and examined by different researchersin different locations. Kirby and colleagues 48 studied this intervention inurban and rural areas throughout California through15 sessions in 9th to 12 thgrade health education classes. The intervention included extensive roleplaying and emphasized avoidance of unprotected sex through abstinence or usingprotection. The control group received existing sex education programs of equallength. At 18 months postintervention, theprogram was found to have delayed the initiation of intercourse, increase frequencyof contraceptive use for females and lower-risk youth, and reduce the frequencyof unprotected intercourse among more sexually inexperienced youth.\" [6]Sub-point 3b: Abstinence-only is incompetent. \" Researchers at the University of Washington in Seattle found thatteenagers who received some type of comprehensive sex education were 60 percent less likely to get pregnant or getsomeone else pregnant. And in 2007, a federal report showed thatabstinence-only programs had \u201cno impactson rates of sexual abstinence.\u201d [5][Sources][1] Abma JC et al., Teenagers in the United States: sexual activity,contraceptive use, and childbearing, National Survey of Family Growth2006\u20132008, Vital and Health Statistics, 2010, Series 23, No. 30. [2] http://advocatesforyouth.org... [3] http://www.psychologytoday.com...[4] http://www.apa.org...[5] http://thinkprogress.org...[6] http://ari.ucsf.edu...", "qid": "12", "docid": "a1cc594d-2019-04-18T18:12:22Z-00003-000", "rank": 43, "score": 90491.0}, {"content": "Title: Public Funded Birth Control Content: Seeing that con has failed to counter the obviously beneficial outcomes of publicly funded birth control, I shall restate what I said earlier. Publicly funded birth control would be good for the environment since it slows down population growth, it would be good socially since less people would have to raise unintended children or have an abortion, and it would be beneficial economically since there would be less \"welfare children\" for the welfare system to pay for not to mention the money the consumer saves from not having to buy birth control.", "qid": "12", "docid": "6b3f6ff2-2019-04-18T15:38:12Z-00002-000", "rank": 44, "score": 90399.0}, {"content": "Title: Birth control given out in schools Content: According to Plu,Edu.org giving out birth control in schools would increase the teen sex rate by 46% because they feel we are giving them the ok to have sex . . It is not the responsibility of the school to act as our parent. Plus there are side effects to birth control for example birth control pills prevent pregnancy 99.9% but they do not prevent sexually transmitted diseases including HIV. According to Dr. Hutchinson from planned parent hood other side effects of taking birth control pills are depression, naseu, headaches and break through bleeding. Why are we teaching absitence in schools if there is another room in that school giving out birth control? We teach students to say to say no to drugs, we don't turn around and give the kids clean needles so they don't get diseases or infections. Let this be a family decision.", "qid": "12", "docid": "739d0c9a-2019-04-18T19:00:41Z-00004-000", "rank": 45, "score": 90316.0}, {"content": "Title: Female Drug users should be made by law too take contraception. Content: You start your argument with \"I would like to point out that \"Drugs\" can include medication\u2026such as contraceptives, rendering your whole argument illogical.\" Ok I CLEARLY stated \"illegal drugs\", Such as \"Heroin, cocaine etc\". The last time I looked \"medication\" and \"contraception\" is not generally illegal, So immediately your off point, Also you did not choose too ignore my \"faulty wording\" (as you put it) you made a comment about it (Just for the record) anyway... \"To force by law for someone to take a drug is a scary thought. People should at the very least have control over the happenings of their own bodies.\" So what about the rights of the baby? A baby has absolutely no control whatsoever over what happens to its body, It is completely defenceless against anything a mother chooses to do. Cocaine............... Cocaine abuse during pregnancy is associated with various maternal and fetal problems. Cocaine, is a central nervous system stimulant. It has vasoconstrictive effects, significantly decreasing blood flow to the fetus, resulting in periods of decreased oxygen. Many cocaine users use other drugs, exposing the fetus to many drugs, compounding the problems. For women who use cocaine throughout pregnancy it has been proven that they are at a greater risk for premature births of their babes, and a greater chance of delivering still born babies. Heroin............. Heroin easily crosses the placenta, An unborn fetus exposed to heroin has an increased rate of infection. Babies born to mothers who used heroin during pregnancy are also associated with a decrease in birth weight, and an increase in stillbirths. Fetal Addiction of Heroin............ Babies born to mothers who have a heroin addiction have a very difficult time and must stay in the hospital to receive treatment for withdrawal symptoms. These symptoms include hyperactivity, convulsions, diarrhea, fever, sleep abnormalities, and respiratory distress. Once they are discharged from the hospital they may even experience abnormal breathing patterns during sleep, thus increasing the incidence of sudden infant death syndrome seen in these children. The effects of maternal heroin addiction may persist in the offspring for an extended period of time, resulting in poor growth and development. They may demonstrate behavioral abnormalities, including impaired organization and perception skills, impaired motor inhibition and mental retardation. Also as for your argument in regards to Marijuana - \"Your argument revolves around mind destroying drugs such as heroine and cocaine. Drugs such as marijuana and tobacco must not be lumped in that same category, however. Surely you would not want to keep someone from having a child simply because they smoke cigarettes or marijuana.\" A lot of mothers may believe that smoking marijuana does not jeopardize their unborn child. However, on the contrary, tetrahydrocannabinol, the main active ingredient of marijuana can cross the placenta, so the potential for damage to the fetus does exist. So your wrong again! Also Marijuana is a mind altering drug so yes it can inhibit parental abilities. All children need protecting from abuse including unborn children, A woman's rights to bear children should be suspended until she is in a position both physically and mentally and socially to have a child. I shall save the rest of my argument for my closing statement.", "qid": "12", "docid": "923e4a2c-2019-04-18T19:39:00Z-00002-000", "rank": 46, "score": 90199.0}, {"content": "Title: Goverment should have authority over birth rights of family Content: A controlled birth rate you say? I think wars from time immemorial have been fought over the basic needs. How do you control birth for a certain period of time, by inserting pills in the food we eat?", "qid": "12", "docid": "2218331a-2019-04-18T17:10:01Z-00001-000", "rank": 47, "score": 89839.0}, {"content": "Title: Preventive Health Care Content: The mental image of condoms stacked in a bowl like Halloween candy is quite humorous, but truly a ridiculous misinterpretation. I'm not saying to stuff the pockets of teens with rubbers. I'm pointing out that making contraceptives unavailable does not prevent sexual intercourse, it merely increases the levels of pregnancy and STD's in teens. As a sort of case study, I present the words of an anonymous teenage mother, (they have been edited for profanity) \" When I was 14 I got (sexually active), but I didn't know how dangerous ( sexual intercourse) was. I didn't take some health class or even know what a condom was. My (partner) didn't have condoms cuz the lady at the gas station told him to go get his parents. I wasn't gonna ask my mom to take me to a (gynecologist) so I just hoped my friends were right when they said you cant get preggers the first time... If I knew what I know I would be a college junior and not a baby-mama.\" If these two had access to birth control methods without social interference, they might have been much more successful. These facts are presented by Pregnant Teenage Help at http://www.pregnantteenhelp.org... \"A condom is most common, since access to the pill is limited. 70 percent of teens whose parents are unaware of their sexual activity would not use contraceptives if their parents were made aware of their visits to family planning centers and clinics. 21 states (plus the District of Columbia) allow contraceptive services without parental involvement. The other states - with the exception of Utah and Texas, where parental consent is necessary - have notification policies, but consent is not required. 20 percent of teens whose parents are unaware of their contraceptive use say that they would continue having sex - even if methods of contraception were not available to them. Of all the developed nations, the U.S. Has the highest rate of teen pregnancy. The U.S. Has a teen pregnancy rate that is twice that of England and Canada and eight times that as Japan and the Netherlands. 82 percent of pregnancies amongst teens are unplanned. About 20 percent of all intended pregnancies each year are related to teenagers. 29 percent of teen pregnancies end in abortion.\" All elementary schools should be caused by the Board of Education and federal regulations to teach children about their own bodies and how to protect them. No adult consent/notification systems need to be placed in order for minors to obtain preventive health care. Mothers are told when girls obtain IUD's and hormones treatments, but this does little but discourage getting them. It does not discourage sex. It discourages safety. These statistics show more information to back my position.", "qid": "12", "docid": "775cd6a9-2019-04-18T18:14:26Z-00002-000", "rank": 48, "score": 89688.0}, {"content": "Title: Abortion Should Remain Legal Content: Thank you for responding, you mentioned that condoms and other birth control will stop a baby from being conceived, but that is not always true. Condoms and the pill aren't 100% effective, and the people could have unprotected sex because of being drunk, it just happened all at once, or ignorant of sexual education. The woman also could have been raped. If a baby is deformed, then it is possible to detect later on in pregnancy, and an abortion would be a very moral thing to do in that case. Abortion also does good because it brings the population under control, and lets people plan out their lives better. You mentioned that it was the baby's body that is the issue. What's wrong with that, is that the fetus is still part of the woman's body until birth. Also, the fetus isn't considered a person until it is formed enough. Conception is only a cluster of cells. A logical answer of when a fetus is formed enough to be considered a person is when the fetus can survive outside of the body. There could also be other ways a pregnancy could be a risk to a woman's health, which a C Section would not solve.", "qid": "12", "docid": "c42f2f21-2019-04-18T19:22:30Z-00003-000", "rank": 49, "score": 89642.0}, {"content": "Title: LGBTQ is Totally Okay! Content: No, no I can't... wait, that was theoretical, right?____________________________________________________The notion of overpopulation is somewhat ridiculous in my opinion. Simple birth control programs would contradict the population growth, and in fact, already do in some places, a more prevelant example being China. To be completely honest, overpopulation would happen with or without that 10% of non-reproducing people, so it really doesn't matter. As for the child bans, its already happening in parts of the world (China, again), and controlled birth wouldn't neccesarily cause mass upheval. People are suprisingly maleable when it comes to choosing between screwing like jackrabbits and not starving. Again, I would like to point out that not reproducing, or at least not being available to do so, is a waste of genetic variation. Human beings are supposed to be diverse. Its one of the reasons we are so resiliant as a species. If you aren't going to contribute to it, what is the point of existing, from a functional standpoint. It just creates a resource sinkhole, where resources that could be used to further the human race are siphoned off, then dissapear from the equation. Sincerely,DrRisen (I don't have a kingdom either. I'm more of a constitutional democratic republic kind of guy.)", "qid": "12", "docid": "45328b92-2019-04-18T12:39:19Z-00002-000", "rank": 50, "score": 89492.0}, {"content": "Title: Birth control Content: As I have already pointed out, the punishment for refusing to fulfill that obligation was not death but public humiliation. So it could not have been for that. God is very merciful, so it seems very unlikely that God would kill someone just for polluting. Yes, contraception allows for planning children but so does NFP. NFP is much more effective than BC, and has no harmful side effects. BC is known to cause breast cancer and many other serious health problems such as blood clots and strokes in very young as well as older women. Couples who use BC have an incredibly high divorce rate, while couples who use NFP have a divorce rate below one percent. So if you cannot financially support a child or you have another just reason to avoid pregnancy than use NFP. Contraception does not reduce the numbers of abortions. Contraception has very high failure rates, but most people are unaware of this, and because of the high availability of contraception there is a much higher number of people having sex than if it was not available, than when the contraception fails, abortion is often seen as the alternative. While it true that condoms can reduce the risk of some STD's they do not protect against the most common STD, HPV, and they actually increase the number of people infected with aids and other STD's for the same reason they increase the number of abortions.", "qid": "12", "docid": "c64898ed-2019-04-18T18:17:24Z-00006-000", "rank": 51, "score": 89365.0}, {"content": "Title: Birth Control Content: No I do not believe that such a mistake should not be avoided. However if you were a parent, wouldn't you want to know if your child was going on prescription medication? I understand that parents should have trust in their children and trust in themselves that they raised them to have good character. So I believe that if a parent uncovered their child sneaking around and intentionally hiding medication and such an important decision from them, the parent would feel their rights are compromised. Until the child turns eighteen, the parents still withholds all rights regarding their child and their life. No matter the maturity level of the child involved, a parent should be notified for the sole reason that their child is going on prescription medication.", "qid": "12", "docid": "3d1a752c-2019-04-18T17:01:05Z-00002-000", "rank": 52, "score": 89168.0}, {"content": "Title: Abortion Is Wrong Content: OK lets get started .Sorry for the delay. My first argument was to prove that pregnancy if painful,potentially torturous for a women who doesn't want the child.My question is what right do you have to put that women in torture in order to save a life of a person who she does doesn't even care about .Doesn't the women have the right to decide whether she wants to go through this pain or no t.I believe a women should have control over her own body. Imagine that you wake in the morning, you find yourself connected to a person .the person makes you sick ,the person makes you go through pain .But if you separate form him he will die .i don't think this is a sufficient reason to stay attached to that the person . It's definitely not a sufficient enough reason to force someone else to stay attached to that person. EQUALITY Suppose a women wants to put her career before having the child .She has to take maternity leave .She will get paid paid but wont develop wont get a promotion in that period .While her male counter part might get the promotion . A teen getting pregnant can't put all her efforts into studies while the guy who got her pregnant can study.If she wants to study and be better than the rest she has the right to do so .Further if she thinks she is not ready to go through that pain she has every right not to .", "qid": "12", "docid": "895cd490-2019-04-18T15:36:44Z-00002-000", "rank": 53, "score": 89100.0}, {"content": "Title: Access to Condoms and other contraceptives leads to promiscuity and other irresponsible behaviors. Content: Studies shows that condoms and other contraceptives do NOT work 100% and therefore whether or not they are available there will still be the spread of sti's/std's and there will still be a high rate of teenage/unwanted pregnancies. Just the teen knowing that they have access to that contraceptive they will abuse and overuse it therefore not being cautious because in their mind it is \"suppose\" to make them safe with no risks and so no\" what if's\" or \"worries\" are in their minds.", "qid": "12", "docid": "5fdf615c-2019-04-18T15:36:16Z-00007-000", "rank": 54, "score": 89008.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Information about contraceptives should be included in sex education classes. Content: Beforecontinuing, there are some essential points of knowledge that are needed to beestablished: {1} The term \"birth control\" was meant to apply to allcontraceptives, not just \"the pill.\"{2} In this debate, I will be using the term \"comprehensive sexeducation\" against \"abstinence-only sex education.\"Comprehensive sex education is sex education that includes information aboutcontraceptives.With this information established, I move on toward my contentions.[Contentions]Contention 1: Eradicating teenage sex is unfeasible.Despite the success and efficiency of comprehensive sex education inreduing teen pregancy and amount of teenagers engaging in sexual activity,teenagers still engage in sexual activity. Sub-point 1a: Teenagers have a strong probability to engage in sexualintercourse.\"Although only 13% of teens have had sex by age 15, most initiate sexin their later teen years. By their 19th birthday, seven in 10 female and maleteens have had intercourse.\" [1] \"More than half of all teenagers aged 15-19 has engaged in oral sex. 55percent of boys and 54 percent of girls have given or received oral sex, while49 percent of boys and 53 percent of girls have had intercourse. (Tamar Lewin,Nationwide Survey Includes data on Teenage Sex Habits, NYT, 9/16/2005)\" \" By age 18, 70 percent of U.S. females and 62 percent of U.S.males have initiated vaginal sex.\" [2]Sub-point 1b: Teenagers face heavy peer pressure to have sexualintercourse. \"One in three boys ages 15-17 say they feel pressure to have sex,often from male friends. Teen girls feel less pressure--only 23 percent saidthey felt such coercion. Researchers questioned 1,854 subjects between the agesof 13 and 24 in a national survey. The study, released by the Kaiser FamilyFoundation, also found that teens feel strong pressure to drink and try drugs.The study findings show a need for sex educationat a young age, say the study authors. A separate study released this week,sponsored by the NationalCampaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy,finds that one in five teens reported having sex before they were 15.\" [3]Contention 2: Adequate knowledge of contraceptives is essential.Because so many teenagers engage in sexual activity, the knowledge forcontraceptives is needed in order to prevent complications, and onlycomprehensive sex education will achieve this. Sub-point 2a: Knowledge of contraceptives prevents HIV and STDTransmission.\"It is estimated that more than half of all new HIV infections occurbefore the age of 25 and most are acquired through unprotected sexualintercourse. According to the experts on AIDS, many of these new infectionsoccur because young people don't have the knowledge or skills to protectthemselves. To address this important health issue, the American PsychologicalAssociation (APA) is recommending that comprehensive and empirically supportedsex education and HIV prevention programs become widely available to teachyouth how to abstain from risky sexual behaviors and learn how they can protectthemselves against HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. Based on over15 years of research, the evidence shows that comprehensive sexuality educationprograms for youth that encourage abstinence, promote appropriate condom use,and teach sexual communication skills reduce HIV-risk behavior and also delaythe onset of sexual intercourse. Research shows that one in five adolescentswill have sex before the age of 15 and most who continue to be sexually activedo not use condoms consistently. Although some youth acknowledge their fearsabout HIV/AIDS, many do not perceive themselves to be at risk and lack accurateinformation about what circumstances put them at risk for HIV infection.According to the CDC, the use of condoms can substantially reduce the risk ofHIV.\" [4] Sub-point 2b: Knowledge ofcontraceptives aids in the prevention of teen pregnancy.\"The number of teen births in the U.S. dropped again in 2010, according to a governmentreport, with nearly every state seeing a decrease. Nationally, the rate fell 9 percent to about 34 per 1,000 girlsages 15 through 19, and the drop was seen among all racial and ethnic groups.This is the lowest national rate for teen births since theCenters for Disease Control began tracking it in 1940, and CDC officialsattributed the decline to pregnancy prevention efforts. Other reports showthat teenagers are having less sex and usingcontraception more often.\" [5] Contention 3: Comprehensive sexeducation is more effective.Because comprehensive sex education realizes the factor of teenagesex being something that cannot be eradicated and provides information abouthow to prevent problems, it is more effective at ameliorating suffering thanabstinence-only sex education. Sub-point 3a: Comprehensive sex education is effective in deterrence.\"In contrast to the limited and discouraging results for studies onabstinence-only programs, the published research on sex and HIV educationprograms is far more conclusive and encouraging. According to EmergingAnswers, \u201cA large body of evaluation research clearly shows that sex andHIV education programs included in this review do not increase sexual activity\u2013 they do not hasten the onset of sex, increase the frequency of sex, and donot increase the number of sexual partners. To the contrary, some sex and HIVeducation programs delay the onset of sex, reduce the frequency of sex, orreduce the number of sexual partners.\u201d 19 Several specific studies havedemonstrated positive outcomes from sex education curricula, including delayedinitiation of sexual activity, increasedcondom use, and decreased number of sexual partners. Ekstrand and colleagues47studied the effects of an intervention titled Healthy Oakland Teens inOakland, California. The program involved 7th graders in five adultled andeight peer-led sessions. Students were provided with information on HIV andSTIs, substance abuse and preventive behaviors. Issues such as perception ofpersonal risk, costs and benefits of preventive behaviors, refusal skills andcondom use were all addressed. The researchers found that those students in theintervention group delayed initiation of sexual activity. One intervention,called Reducing the Risk, was found tobe effective when independently implemented and examined by different researchersin different locations. Kirby and colleagues 48 studied this intervention inurban and rural areas throughout California through15 sessions in 9th to 12 thgrade health education classes. The intervention included extensive roleplaying and emphasized avoidance of unprotected sex through abstinence or usingprotection. The control group received existing sex education programs of equallength. At 18 months postintervention, theprogram was found to have delayed the initiation of intercourse, increase frequencyof contraceptive use for females and lower-risk youth, and reduce the frequencyof unprotected intercourse among more sexually inexperienced youth.\" [6]Sub-point 3b: Abstinence-only is incompetent. \" Researchers at the University of Washington in Seattle found thatteenagers who received some type of comprehensive sex education were 60 percent less likely to get pregnant or getsomeone else pregnant. And in 2007, a federal report showed thatabstinence-only programs had \u201cno impactson rates of sexual abstinence.\u201d [5][Sources][1] Abma JC et al., Teenagers in the United States: sexual activity,contraceptive use, and childbearing, National Survey of Family Growth2006\u20132008, Vital and Health Statistics, 2010, Series 23, No. 30. [2] http://advocatesforyouth.org......[3] http://www.psychologytoday.com......[4] http://www.apa.org......[5] http://thinkprogress.org......[6] http://ari.ucsf.edu......", "qid": "12", "docid": "acbc3c8e-2019-04-18T17:45:02Z-00003-000", "rank": 55, "score": 88710.0}, {"content": "Title: Incest is NOT Wrong Content: But there is reasonable cause. You stated that \"Meaning, it being legal doesn't mean more people will want to do it. \" which is true, but it goes both ways. If pot was legal, more people without a doubt would do it more. Also, the safeguard you have assumes that Abortion is legal in said country, It's not a easy choice to decide if you want to abort your own child. for teenagers, it's not a \"drop in and done\" situation. It's a extremely hard choice And teens do use these \"safeguards\" before sexual intercourse, but it is never a 100% guarantee. Also, there is a significant difference between the gay population, and incest. For instance, If you look all around the world, straight people are almost always the majority in every nation. You said \"Some can't afford it - Health insurance. .. Move to Canada. Haha, but seriously, there are other less costly methods of birth control (condoms, birth control pills, plan B pill) and they are available to everyone who can't afford an abortion. \" However, condoms, birth control, pills. .. ect do not guarantee you will not get pregnant, so I ask the question what happens to a pregnant girl who is 16 and in School living in a poor family and cannot afford a abortion has a child? Do you arrest the mother? the father? outlaw incest children from becoming born? because of some punishment isn't done, then people will have incest children. In simple, Incest is morally/scientifically wrong because it will encourage sexual activity with family members. Because, why stop at brother and sister? I mean, fathers and mothers can consent to and as long as there is no children born, it's Ok, right. .. .? While there may be \"some\" who won't have children, don't you think that some will just not care? There are families in America who get torn apart because they have had incest children. I think it takes a strong leap to believe everyone who gets in these relationships \"Don't want children\" Also why stop at incest? Beastiality could be moral to, for specific animals. The argument against this would be that animals can't \"consent\" but dogs can choose to penetrate women, and there is no harm to either participants. Morality can be subjective, and based on harm, but it doesn't mean everything that is not harmful is morally Ok. I will end with answering you biggest arguments. 1. \"There are just too many safeguards that prevent child birth before and during pregnancies. \" As I said, this is not true. You said that if you can't afford abortion use condoms, pills. .. ect but this does not guarantee you will not get pregnant 100% nor does it take into fact in america, you're more likely to have kids if you're in poverty, and 45 million or 14.5 percent of Americans are currently in poverty . http://www.huffingtonpost.com... So, if a brother gets his sister pregnant more then likely this will be from a poor family who cannot afford abortion. This evidence is more then enough to rule out abortion entirely, since the majority of children born will be to poor families. 2. \"You mentioned gay children being in relationships. This is just a slippery slope fallacy, except we know that this slippery slope doesn't go where you say it will. In my opening statement, I explained that the gay community is still a small minority in the population despite homosexuality being legal now. Meaning, it being legal doesn't mean more people will want to do it. \" But this goes both ways, and is nil. If weed were legal more people would do pot. If murder were legal more people would do it. 3. \"Incest is moral, because no harm comes from it. \" This is definitely not true. You could say digging up graves, and robbing them is moral because no harm comes from it since they're dead, right? having sex with dogs that consent by choosing to penetrate women is moral because they choose to do that. Right? Just because there is no harm, does not mean it is good or \"moral\" The main reason as to why incest is wrong, is because of what it does to the kids. You can say \"use condoms, pills. .ect\" but the majority of kids being born are from poor families/poor. They usually are uneducated on such matters and do it. One of the main reasons of teen pregnancy is Poverty, and Education. So the majority of kids born will be from poor families who cannot afford abortion. There are some morals we should keep with us, and that is Incest is completely wrong. You should not date your father, you brother, your mother, or your sister. These are people you grow up close with and are supposed to protect. Not have a sexual relationship with.", "qid": "12", "docid": "9497d867-2019-04-18T12:08:43Z-00000-000", "rank": 56, "score": 88677.0}, {"content": "Title: The FDA Does More Harm Than Good Content: I will respond to each of Con's rebuttals. 1. That earlier attempts at prohibiting alcohol failed doesn't change the fact that the FDA allows you to use these dangerous substances while restricting access to widely used, low-risk medicines, like antibiotics. Here's another example for a non-recreational drug: Tylenol is available over the counter and yet it is quite easy to overdose on it, which can cause deadly liver failure. Why can you buy Tylenol without a prescription, but you can't get an antibiotic for your throat infection without spending time and money visiting a doctor? http://1.usa.gov... 2. \"If the FDA feels that something should be taken off the market, inspected, and then re-approved to be out on the market to protect consumers than there is nothing wrong with that.\" I don't think the manufacturers of these drugs, who have been doing so safely for decades, or the people who would rather buy these drugs for much less then the 'approved' prescription versions, feel that there is 'nothing wrong with that.' And if Con is worried about bias, perhaps he shouldn't cite the FDA's explanation of why it's necessary to support his pro-FDA argument. As for dietary supplements, I never said that they couldn't be dangerous. Too much of anything is dangerous. However, Con's references prove that the FDA needn't get involved in the regulation of dietary supplements- both media outlets and research groups such as Consumer Reports have done a fine job of letting people know that they should take care when taking dietary supplements. Con's definition of 'drug' is, in fact, the government's definition of a drug (from the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act). And unsurprisingly, it is so vague as to put anything that you consume regarding your health under the jurisdiction of the government. It's also unsurprising that the FDA would attempt to regulate Cheerios because the box claimed that eating them was 'clinically proven to reduce cholesterol.' It is by the nature of the food that Cheerios was touted to be healthy, not because it was altering a chemical process in your body like a pharmaceutical drug. As such, General Mills was not attempting to defraud or otherwise trick people into buying their product because of its claim to reduce cholesterol. http://1.usa.gov... The FDA asserted that \"these claims indicate that Cheerios\u00ef\u00bf\u00bd is intended for use in lowering cholesterol, and therefore in preventing, mitigating, and treating the disease hypercholesterolemia.\" Any rational person can tell that Cheerios was NOT intended by General Mills to be \u2018used for lowing cholesterol,' but that by consuming Cheerios as food, you may also enjoy some health benefits. Therefore the FDA's actions here cannot be defended as being for the public good, as there was no evidence the General Mills was being fraudulent, nor was there evidence that the offending labeling put anybody in danger. It is much more likely that, given the evidence of FDA corruption cited in my second round, drug companies and not consumers had something to lose while these cholesterol claims were on the Cheerios box. If a doctor gives a patient the option to change their diet or go on medication, they may be more inclined to change their diet, knowing foods like Cheerios can help reduce their cholesterol, rather than solicit the drug companies. Regarding example 4, the article isn't 'biased' as much as it's simply explaining how the FDA allowed drugs that were known to cause dangerous side-effects to be on the market, while not allowing alternatives that had been proven to be effective and safe to be sold. The conclusion is that the FDA's actions have led to needless deaths, which is reflected in the title. 3. I never argued that the FDA is harmful because it's not perfect. People make mistakes. However, it has been slow to remove some dangerous drugs from the market, such as Rofecoxib (Vioxx), as referenced in round 2, point 3, examples 2 and 4. Since the FDA controls what drugs are allowed to be sold, it must be trusted as the authoritative source for \u2018safe' drugs. But its conflicts of interest (see round 2, point 2), questionable safety record (see point 3), and lack of competitors make it a less than ideal authority. Here is a link to an interview with Dr. David Graham, a longtime member of the FDA, who called out the FDA on the Vioxx debacle. In it he explains how the FDA protects the pharmaceutical industry at the expense of patient safety and the multitude of conflicts of interest that cloud the agency's judgment. http://www.naturalnews.com... 4. Con asserts \"\u2026companies must go through far more vigorous experimentation to ensure that whatever drug they are manufacturing is up to date with safety codes, because if it isnt a couple thousand dollars saved on a drug could end up as a multi-million dollar lawsuit against the company.\" This sounds like a pretty big incentive for drug companies make sure their drugs are safe, regardless of what FDA regulations mandate. As it is, FDA's ever-increasing list of demands have increased the cost of developing new drugs without a comparable increase in patient safety. Of the 33 drugs on the following list of drugs recalled by the FDA since 1980, 21 of them had been approved since 1990. (I'll link the list again) http://bit.ly... Another thing to think about is that the big pharmaceutical companies can afford to pay for the costs of approving new drugs, while small laboratories are much less able to do so. In addition, because the FDA is the sole determiner of what drugs are legal to sell, any increases in development costs go directly to the consumer and are industry-wide. This creates a cartel-like situation for the big drug companies, since they can charge more and more for their drugs and they don't have to worry about low-cost alternatives. In conclusion: yes, the FDA's control of the drug market allows for a semi-independent judge of which drugs are safe and which are not, and its actions may have been helpful in some cases. However, the Con's assertion that drugs and medical equipment \"would not go through any kind of inspection or testing and corporations would begin to market just about anything to make a quick buck while consumers pay the price\" is unfounded. Would you go buy medicine that wasn't approved by anybody except the company that manufactured it and had no history of safe use? Of course not. Consumers want to be as sure as possible that the drugs they take are safe, and consumer safety laboratories could sufficiently perform that task more objectively and less expensively then the FDA. By having competition between \u2018drug safety' laboratories (see my final link in round 2), they would be very careful to ensure the safety of the drugs they inspect. Something akin to the Vioxx incident in the FDA would spell bad news for that 'safety' laboratory, where the FDA, a monopoly, can continue, unchanged. Drug companies would be more than willing to submit their drugs for testing, since an unapproved drug would find few buyers in the market. The FDA's total control of the drug market breeds corruption and has led to the highest-priced prescription market in the world. http://bit.ly... It has limited patients' access to safe and effective treatments while allowing dangerous prescriptions to be sold. It can pick and choose what drugs require prescriptions and which don't, with these decisions reflecting little on the danger of the drug (Alcohol, Tobacco, & OTC Tylenol vs. Prescription Amoxacillin). It restricts the rights of patients to use whatever treatments they and their doctor deem appropriate, such as experimental treatments for a terminal condition. For these reasons and more, the FDA does more harm than good, and patients would not only be just as safe with private laboratories doing the safety testing, but would have more and lower-cost treatment options.", "qid": "12", "docid": "bf3fbda4-2019-04-18T18:34:09Z-00001-000", "rank": 57, "score": 88630.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Information about contraceptives should be included in adolescent sex education classes. Content: Beforecontinuing, there are some essential points of knowledge that are needed to beestablished: {1} The term \"birth control\" was meant to apply to allcontraceptives, not just \"the pill.\"{2} In this debate, I will be using the term \"comprehensive sexeducation\" against \"abstinence-only sex education.\"Comprehensive sex education is sex education that includes information aboutcontraceptives.With this information established, I move on toward my contentions.[Contentions]Contention 1: Eradicating teenage sex is unfeasible.Despite the success and efficiency of comprehensive sex education inreduing teen pregancy and amount of teenagers engaging in sexual activity,teenagers still engage in sexual activity. Sub-point 1a: Teenagers have a strong probability to engage in sexualintercourse.\"Although only 13% of teens have had sex by age 15, most initiate sexin their later teen years. By their 19th birthday, seven in 10 female and maleteens have had intercourse.\" [1] \"More than half of all teenagers aged 15-19 has engaged in oral sex. 55percent of boys and 54 percent of girls have given or received oral sex, while49 percent of boys and 53 percent of girls have had intercourse. (Tamar Lewin,Nationwide Survey Includes data on Teenage Sex Habits, NYT, 9/16/2005)\" \" By age 18, 70 percent of U.S. females and 62 percent of U.S.males have initiated vaginal sex.\" [2]Sub-point 1b: Teenagers face heavy peer pressure to have sexualintercourse. \"One in three boys ages 15-17 say they feel pressure to have sex,often from male friends. Teen girls feel less pressure--only 23 percent saidthey felt such coercion. Researchers questioned 1,854 subjects between the agesof 13 and 24 in a national survey. The study, released by the Kaiser FamilyFoundation, also found that teens feel strong pressure to drink and try drugs.The study findings show a need for sex educationat a young age, say the study authors. A separate study released this week,sponsored by the NationalCampaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy,finds that one in five teens reported having sex before they were 15.\" [3]Contention 2: Adequate knowledge of contraceptives is essential.Because so many teenagers engage in sexual activity, the knowledge forcontraceptives is needed in order to prevent complications, and onlycomprehensive sex education will achieve this. Sub-point 2a: Knowledge of contraceptives prevents HIV and STDTransmission.\"It is estimated that more than half of all new HIV infections occurbefore the age of 25 and most are acquired through unprotected sexualintercourse. According to the experts on AIDS, many of these new infectionsoccur because young people don't have the knowledge or skills to protectthemselves. To address this important health issue, the American PsychologicalAssociation (APA) is recommending that comprehensive and empirically supportedsex education and HIV prevention programs become widely available to teachyouth how to abstain from risky sexual behaviors and learn how they can protectthemselves against HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. Based on over15 years of research, the evidence shows that comprehensive sexuality educationprograms for youth that encourage abstinence, promote appropriate condom use,and teach sexual communication skills reduce HIV-risk behavior and also delaythe onset of sexual intercourse. Research shows that one in five adolescentswill have sex before the age of 15 and most who continue to be sexually activedo not use condoms consistently. Although some youth acknowledge their fearsabout HIV/AIDS, many do not perceive themselves to be at risk and lack accurateinformation about what circumstances put them at risk for HIV infection.According to the CDC, the use of condoms can substantially reduce the risk ofHIV.\" [4] Sub-point 2b: Knowledge ofcontraceptives aids in the prevention of teen pregnancy.\"The number of teen births in the U.S. dropped again in 2010, according to a governmentreport, with nearly every state seeing a decrease. Nationally, the rate fell 9 percent to about 34 per 1,000 girlsages 15 through 19, and the drop was seen among all racial and ethnic groups.This is the lowest national rate for teen births since theCenters for Disease Control began tracking it in 1940, and CDC officialsattributed the decline to pregnancy prevention efforts. Other reports showthat teenagers are having less sex and usingcontraception more often.\" [5] Contention 3: Comprehensive sexeducation is more effective.Because comprehensive sex education realizes the factor of teenagesex being something that cannot be eradicated and provides information abouthow to prevent problems, it is more effective at ameliorating suffering thanabstinence-only sex education. Sub-point 3a: Comprehensive sex education is effective in deterrence.\"In contrast to the limited and discouraging results for studies onabstinence-only programs, the published research on sex and HIV educationprograms is far more conclusive and encouraging. According to EmergingAnswers, \u201cA large body of evaluation research clearly shows that sex andHIV education programs included in this review do not increase sexual activity\u2013 they do not hasten the onset of sex, increase the frequency of sex, and donot increase the number of sexual partners. To the contrary, some sex and HIVeducation programs delay the onset of sex, reduce the frequency of sex, orreduce the number of sexual partners.\u201d 19 Several specific studies havedemonstrated positive outcomes from sex education curricula, including delayedinitiation of sexual activity, increasedcondom use, and decreased number of sexual partners. Ekstrand and colleagues47studied the effects of an intervention titled Healthy Oakland Teens inOakland, California. The program involved 7th graders in five adultled andeight peer-led sessions. Students were provided with information on HIV andSTIs, substance abuse and preventive behaviors. Issues such as perception ofpersonal risk, costs and benefits of preventive behaviors, refusal skills andcondom use were all addressed. The researchers found that those students in theintervention group delayed initiation of sexual activity. One intervention,called Reducing the Risk, was found tobe effective when independently implemented and examined by different researchersin different locations. Kirby and colleagues 48 studied this intervention inurban and rural areas throughout California through15 sessions in 9th to 12 thgrade health education classes. The intervention included extensive roleplaying and emphasized avoidance of unprotected sex through abstinence or usingprotection. The control group received existing sex education programs of equallength. At 18 months postintervention, theprogram was found to have delayed the initiation of intercourse, increase frequencyof contraceptive use for females and lower-risk youth, and reduce the frequencyof unprotected intercourse among more sexually inexperienced youth.\" [6]Sub-point 3b: Abstinence-only is incompetent. \" Researchers at the University of Washington in Seattle found thatteenagers who received some type of comprehensive sex education were 60 percent less likely to get pregnant or getsomeone else pregnant. And in 2007, a federal report showed thatabstinence-only programs had \u201cno impactson rates of sexual abstinence.\u201d [5][Sources][1] Abma JC et al., Teenagers in the United States: sexual activity,contraceptive use, and childbearing, National Survey of Family Growth2006\u20132008, Vital and Health Statistics, 2010, Series 23, No. 30. [2] http://advocatesforyouth.org... [3] http://www.psychologytoday.com...[4] http://www.apa.org...[5] http://thinkprogress.org...[6] http://ari.ucsf.edu...", "qid": "12", "docid": "7cf505cd-2019-04-18T18:12:08Z-00004-000", "rank": 58, "score": 88550.0}, {"content": "Title: Partial Birth Abortion Content: I maintain that while protection (birth control pills, condoms, etc.) is one way to not have a baby and still have sex, so is abortion. While you contend that they 'should' have used protection, I contend that a couple is not limited to simply these choices. I could eat steak tonight. I could eat fried rice. I could eat cereal, fruit, or hot pockets. While these options may not all have the same outcomes, and indeed some may be worse than others, they are all viable choices for me to make. You'd be mistaken to assert that I 'should' eat one rather than the other, just as you're mistaken in asserting that a couple 'should' use protected sex rather than having an abortion. Which method of not having a baby is the choice of the couple in question, and abortion is but one of these choices.", "qid": "12", "docid": "d76dccec-2019-04-18T19:56:26Z-00002-000", "rank": 59, "score": 88330.0}, {"content": "Title: Preventive Health Care Content: Condom. Sex Ed. Birth control. These words are enough to send people into a frenzy, but why? It seems these days you're unable to tell a cheeky joke without offending someone; not by crudeness, but by a difference of opinions. People say things like \"teaching safe sex encourages promiscuity\" or \"I don't believe in contraceptives, they should be unavailable\" I, personally, strongly disagree, and believe I am not alone in this opinion. Safety should always outweigh sensitivity. \"Prevention is the greatest cure,\" my grandmother often said while coating my skin in sunscreen \"I cant stop the sun, but I wont let you burn\". I believe she would say the same about sexual activity. We can't stop every child. We can't end the curiosity of young people. Instead of attempting the unreliable, we should be preventing negative outcomes. All children need to be educated about the changes in their body, and how to avoid negative experiences (I. Disease, Rape, pregnancy, injury, emotional harm etc.) When a young man becomes sexually active he should have constant access to condoms. If a young woman wants to have it, she ought to have a right to her own choice in birth control as well.", "qid": "12", "docid": "775cd6a9-2019-04-18T18:14:26Z-00004-000", "rank": 60, "score": 88329.0}, {"content": "Title: Birth Control Content: I do understand your point about how parents should be aware if their child is doing prescription medication. However, concluding my argument, I still stand by my point that women under 18 should have the right to birth control without parents' consent. In history, during the National Birth Control movement, a right to privacy was established, which meant that women had the right to control their own body. I believe that this right is extended to all women, not just women over 18. It is a young women's own decision to use birth control, and if a girl does not feel comfortable talking to her parents about her sexual activity, I do not believe that should prevent her from a mistake like teenage pregnancy.", "qid": "12", "docid": "3d1a752c-2019-04-18T17:01:05Z-00001-000", "rank": 61, "score": 88259.0}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should be outlawed Content: Hello Retrospace18, Let me comment on yout argument: 1)You say that I'm against birth control pills and condoms, because they are killing a baby. That is absaluty wrong. First I wished more people used condoms to stop the spread of AIDS. Also, a offspring isn't formed until the male's sperm fertilizes the egg cell. So, I'm killing sperm because it is in the condom? You have millions of sperm cells that are made plus died every day and they last only a couple of days. Another thing, a man will always be reproductive and a women won't. 2) \"Most abortions are in the first 7 weeks of pregnecy and the baby looks like a blob.\" So are you saying it is okay to kill a baby, because it doesn't look like one? That is just wrong. WHat if our camera aren;t strong enough to depict parts of the body? If we do get a stronger camera and that happens then is it still okay? 3)I would be gald to answer your question on when the women gets pregnet from rape and every time the baby kicks, she'll think of it. I would like to know how she got raped. The only thing I can think of is a guy whos is drunk or high pulls a knife to her neck in a bar or in the city. How would know one no about it and try to stop it? My point with 1.2% of abortions are with kids who are under 15. My point is that is the parents fault. I know of some girls a couple grades higher than mine (around 15 16 years old) are experimenting with their boyfriend. The parents know about this, and are putting her on a brith contol pill. The 1.2% of teens have parents who don'tpay attention. They need to pay attention to their kids. That is a goes with your stat about 80% of pregnet teens dropout. If their parents paid more attention to their kids it wouldn't happen. Here is my propsed penelty if a man gets a woman(s) pregnet after a rape. -A normal jail time plus 5 to 10 months more -Can not get married again -Placed on the sex offender list -Pay a woman(s) all money lost due to they pregnecy plus $20,000 I know you say that \"money won't fix emotional pains\" and \"what if the raper doesn't have any money?\" My response to that is the man is a convicted felen and shouldn't do it, so it is his problem if he doesn't have money, he needs to pay her. Also, you liberals(I'm assuming you are one due to your stance on the issues) think that money does solve everything. For example: a person gets into a car accident. They don't get a scratch on them, but they'll sue for millions of dollars(that is a whole nother issue). Sorry for being late, I've been busy.", "qid": "12", "docid": "ea9e36e4-2019-04-18T20:03:21Z-00001-000", "rank": 62, "score": 88117.0}, {"content": "Title: Late Term Abortion Content: Defense \"She doesn't have to keep the baby, she can place it up for adoption.\" I never said she shouldn't have the choice of adoption or keeping the baby, my argument is that late term abortion should also be an option. \"She chose to have sex know very well that she could have used controceptives to prevent pregnancy.\" Contraceptives don't always work. You can use birth control pills and condoms, and still get pregnant. \"A woman who does this and then goes through the pregnancy for 22 weeks is obviously not going to be hurt by delivering the baby, but the baby will be hurt obviously so by keeping it illegal both the baby and the mother are happy.\" No, she will not be hurt by delivering the baby. But why should she be forced to? The fetus's property rights should not be placed above those of the mother, especially because it is using the mother's resources. \"A woman's property rights are no match to rights to life.\" If we're going to involve the right to life, then it's reasonable to expect that the same rights are conferred to the mother. She has the right to do what she wishes with her life, and her body. Your sense of what is moral or right shouldn't have anything to do with it, because that's your life. Rebuttal 1. \"We will not suck the brains out of a person who has killed ten people, so why should it be allowed to suck the brains out of a fetus who has done nothing wrong\" You are basing this analogy on your morals. Regardless of how many people agree with them, it does not justify restricting the liberties of those who do not. 2. \"better question to ask is 'Why should the mother be allowed to kill something that does not hurt her in a horrible fashion?'\" Maybe it does hurt her in a horrible fashion. You can't quantify such subjective things as hurt and pain, she may be extremely upset because she's pregnant and her family refuses to accept her, or something. Unless you can reliably put yourself in her head and interpret her experiences exactly as she does, you are not qualified to make the statement that it does not hurt her, and you are also unable to make laws based on such statements. \"The fetus is there because the mother let it get there and let it stay there for 22 weeks.\" I have already mentioned circumstances in which the mother would reasonably be unable to get an abortion earlier in the pregnancy, which you have not refuted. Late term abortions don't necessarily happen simply because the mother wants to have a late term abortion. \"The fetus has done nothing worthy of being killed, and it has intrinsic value. Therefore, she should not be allowed to kill it but rather give it away.\" It does not have intrinsic value, there are very few things a baby can do, and none of them particularly useful. Fetuses can't do anything. If anything, it has intrinsic potential, and that potential may never be realized even if it were to live. You advocate restricting a woman's rights based on a possibility. 3. \"The woman is a valuable member to society,\" Her first priority and responsibility is herself an her own well-being. She is an individual first, and a member of society second. \"and therefore it is the states job to make sure that society fuctions perfectly.\" That doesn't follow from the earlier part of the statement. What is it about that woman being \"a valuable member to society\" that makes it the state's responsibility to ensure the perfect function of society? Also, you have not demonstrated that a perfectly-functioning society is possible, that it is the state's responsibility, or that it cannot involve any late term abortions. This is really just an assertion. \"A innocent life and the life of a valuable member of society is a perfect basis for not legalizing partial-birth abortion.\" The fetus is not innocent; it is in someone else's body using their resources. If I were to break into your house and steal your food, you would understandably want me out. You would also be justified in using force to accomplish that. The same principle applies in abortions. The fetus also fails to fit the description of a valuable member of society, in that it contributes nothing. Rather, it is the woman who contributes to society. As she is the one contributing to society, it would make sense that her rights should be the ones protected by society.", "qid": "12", "docid": "88d5dfaa-2019-04-18T18:41:38Z-00001-000", "rank": 63, "score": 87985.0}, {"content": "Title: Presidential Debate: Lannan13 vs. TBA Content: AbortionLet's take abortion and throw it away from politics. It doesn't belong in government alright. We shouldn't dictate what a women can and can't do nor should we say that churches must have birth control pills for their employees. How do we throw this dead issue from politics? That's easy, we sell birth control pills like condoms.2. Gay MarriageLook I couldn't care less about gay marriage, but gay marriage is protected in the constitution in the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment states, \"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. \". So with the exception of zoophilia, necrophilia, and those bizarre one's the constitution allows it.3. Voting rightsWhy do we still have hundreds of dead people registered to vote? What are the states doing? ! Look its the states' job to make sure that voting fraud doesn't occur so it's not the president's job but congress's to fix this mess.4. Foreign PolicyIran and Israel. .. So if I get a call by the Israeli prime minister saying that their jets are bombing Iranian nuclear facilities I'd be like the hell? ! Look the Iranian's are dying for an excuse to paint Israel and the US as legit evil, and we're denying them that painting right now with the status quo. Look, we got the Stuxnet and several cpu viruses to delay them until a more permanent solution is ready, and 'sides we're waiting for a legitimate excuse to rip through Iranian soil. Now the Syrian Rebels are a group the US ought to help, but until they get rid of al qaida elements we got our hands tied when it comes to assistance for them. North Korea is a dying state, their desperate for an ICBM but we'll deny them that by keeping up pressure through the UN. Worst case scenario we wait for the North Koreans to commit another of its aggressions and we push through with the South Koreans. 5. Welfare and Social SecurityKeep 'em both, but reform Social security to make sure that the people still have their 401k6. Drones Keep 'em rolling, I want those little uavs up in the air hitting terrorists hard. Refine it and we got land based drones so our troops won't be in harms way.7. DeficitOk we'll stick with fiat cash, but here's the thing, we penalize American businesses taking jobs out of America for their profit. Make 'em bring back jobs in the states. Reform the education system so we'll send out future \"white-collar workers\" instead of cheap unskilled labor. Then pay back the debt gradually through taxes on the rich, with a combination of closing loop holes and some spending cuts on unnecessary programs.8. Electoral CollegeThe electoral college is designed to prevent a mobocracy. Since the electoral college is doing its job I say let's keep it. 9. Gun ControlOk, I am for gun control, but not for taking away guns. See we should have extensive criminal background checks, mandatory mental health check ups, mandatory gun safety, and making sure that those with guns do not show or give access to guns to those not ready for guns as was the case for the Sandy Hook shootings. The POS gun man killed his mother in her sleep and then took the guns. Unless she had properly placed those guns under lock and key and hid them from that POS I doubt this would've happened in Sandy Hook Elementary. My running mate is. .. .. .. .. Back from the dead Franklin D. Roosevelt.", "qid": "12", "docid": "e90fb14d-2019-04-18T17:54:47Z-00004-000", "rank": 64, "score": 87871.0}, {"content": "Title: life of infant in womb, should sometimes take priority over mother's wishes for abortion Content: the points about birth control not always working doesn't really work too well here, cause we are talking about later in pregnancy. later in pregnancy, she assumed the issue of carrying the child by not aborting when it was morally grayer. she also assumed the risk of getting pregnant. you didn't respond to the hypothetical... if you cause an accident and someone is attached to you and can't get unattached for a number of months, no reasonabel person would say you can kill the person you became attached to. i also could allow rape exceptions as mentioned, so it was pointless for you to mention it. how does the value of allowing a mother time to decide if she wants to keep it trump a human life? if an exception like rape or health doesn't apply as mentioned. not knowing you are pregnancy almost never is an issue in late pregnancy. i would just chalk it up to luck of the draw for the woman though if she didnt know till later. she still assumed the risk of pregnancy and there's soemthing to be said about her lack of periods and keeping in tune with what's going on. (recgonizing not all woman have periods due to birth control etc) so are you suggesting a woman with no traditinoal exception like health, should be able to abort her child a week before her due date, just because she wants to? if you say no, then you agree with teh resolution, the woman sometimes DOESNT get what she wants. you were just trying to poke holes in something. at best we'd just make better laws to accommodate those holes, it doesn't mean a woman's choice is absolute, which you seem to be saying by taking this debate etc.", "qid": "12", "docid": "b76f82a2-2019-04-18T16:06:21Z-00001-000", "rank": 65, "score": 86573.0}, {"content": "Title: SHOULD teenage girls be able to participate in any form of birth control without parents' permission Content: Hello, and welcome, good luck. First I would like to make note of the fact that God's opinion on birth control is completely assumed, and unless you can prove what he thinks that argument is useless. I also think that you need to look at the broad spectrum of birth control, not just pills and abortion, but other options, mainly condoms. Abstinence-only programs don't work, they never have and never will, so assuming that teens will stop having sex is foolish, it has been tried, and failed, and although I agree that underage sex is bad, it is a fact of life, and either you can allow condoms and stop some of the repercussions of teen sex, or not allow any birth control and give teenagers no option but to deal with the STDs and babies. Due to lack of a case from the CON I have no further arguments.", "qid": "12", "docid": "6b229b30-2019-04-18T19:44:54Z-00002-000", "rank": 66, "score": 86349.0}, {"content": "Title: birth control should be covered by insurance Content: Birth control should be covered because its a medical necessity for women. Viagra is covered for men because its seen as being medically necessary to treat men with erectile dysfunction but women who have certain forms of vaginal cancer are not being covered for birth control which helps treat their condition, thus making this problem into a very sexist issue. Birth control is used as way to protect a woman's body from an unwanted pregnancy, a protection which is guaranteed by the 14th amendment, the equal rights amendment also warrants women with equal rights as men under the law. This is not just about being sexist this is also about women's health. And insurance companies not covering birth control is simply saying women and their health are not important.", "qid": "12", "docid": "88b831f5-2019-04-18T18:25:06Z-00004-000", "rank": 67, "score": 86302.0}, {"content": "Title: Jonathan Swift was Right: Eating Babies is the Answer to Overpopulation Content: The modest proposal will not work The modest proposal of devouring the children of the poor is not going to work still based on the rate of reproduction and hsi source (http://www.guttmacher.org...) actually supports my argument and states that \"Abortions are increasing in poor women.\" We still see the inevitability of the birth rates even with high abortion rates. So this argument still stands as valid. My counter-plan My counter plan would still work because it would get rid of what he describes as the poor class and leaving only the people making more than 1.25 dollars a day left in the world. Also, we would not be overrun if we did it by a region by region basis. If this ever seemed to be a problem, it would be very easy to destroy them with our non-radioactive weapons. A new world order would arise for the rich. My arguments still stand unrefuted. Killing them off is much better than eating them!", "qid": "12", "docid": "d946ea54-2019-04-18T17:04:55Z-00002-000", "rank": 68, "score": 86134.0}, {"content": "Title: SHOULD teenage girls be able to participate in any form of birth control without parents' permission Content: THIS IS OR A SCHOOL ASSIGNMENT, I DONT THINK THAT THIS SHOULD BE ALLOWED BEECAUSE, IT CAN BE DANGEROUS TO THE GIRL WETHER IT'S ABORTION OR PILLS, OR ANYTHING. AND YIT IS AGAINST gOD", "qid": "12", "docid": "6b229b30-2019-04-18T19:44:54Z-00003-000", "rank": 69, "score": 86130.0}, {"content": "Title: Sex education not be made compulsory in school. Content: \"Even if there was a drop in pregnancies, the U.S. still remains with the highest rate in teen pregancies in the western world.\" All the more reason to keep at the education. Currently, 83.5% of teenagers use condoms, pills, injections, or vaginal rings to protect against pregnancy, and only 12.9% had used no birth control in their last sexual encounter [1]. When this statistic is placed in the context of the correlation between mandatory sexual education, and teenage pregnancies by state, there is strong evidence to suggest that sexual education decreases the likelihood of teenage pregnancies [2]. \"And wouldn't common sense tell you that encouraging them to go have sex would lead to a greater risk at catching a STD, despite them wearing a contraceptive? Besides, there is still a chance they could get pregnant either way, with or without the condom.\" Sex ed doesn't encourage sex, it encourages safe sex practices [3]. Also, of course there will be risks, but there is a reduced risk (I reiterate the strong correlation between contraceptive use and teenage pregnancy). \"So, wouldn't it be better for us to teach our kids abstitence only with the consequences they could reap by having sex? This would include statistics that show the high percentage of people in the U.S. with STD's.\" According to the official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, abstinence only education has \"not demonstrated successful outcomes with re-gard to delayed initiation of sexual activity or use of safer sex practices\" [4]. Also, your source regarding the alleged decrease in sexual activity from abstinence only education asserts that: \"Two years after attending an eight-hour abstinence program, about one-third of the participants had initiated sexual activity, compared to nearly one-half of the non-participants who enrolled in a general health program. That is, the abstinence program reduced the rate of sexual initiation by one-third.\" One half minus one third is one sixth. Your source can't even do basic math correctly. \"Maybe they aren't, but they sure keep you safe and encourage you to drive the vehicle.\" Exactly, it does keep me safe. As for encouragement, I can't say, as I have never driven any significant distance without wearing it. \"No evidence for what? That the statement \"There is a less need for children in this world,\" supports abortion?\" Less need for children. Abortion is an entirely other debate. \"Actually, there is an increasing percentage of the population which doesn't have family values, and are single parents (divorced and sexually active with people they know). Therfore, that goes along with women leaving there husbands, killing their children (abortion), and becomming lesbians (fragile relationships which leaves each gender mistrusting the other).\" That is a non-sequitur (without evidence to support either) to say that a lack of family values causes women leaving their husbands, getting abortions, and becoming homosexual. On that last point especially, homosexuality has genetic causes not (or at least as well as) societal ones [5]. 1. http://www.cdc.gov... 2. http://thinkprogress.org... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org... (Note how seven different sources in six citations state that sexual education doesn't increase the onset or frequency of sexual activity). 4. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org... 5. http://www.nytimes.com...", "qid": "12", "docid": "4417e87a-2019-04-18T16:59:02Z-00003-000", "rank": 70, "score": 85866.0}, {"content": "Title: U.S. schools should teach comprehensive, sex-positive sex education instead of abstinence Content: Rebuttals: You stated, \u201cWith proper sex education, these infections could be safely prevented, or at least the rate will be significantly reduced, resulting in better sexual health.\u201d This is a kind of an assumption not supported by any evidence. You just presented statistics on young people involved in sexual intercourse, but never the relationship between sex education to safe sex. Furthermore, in your second point as stated \u201c76.7% of teens did not use birth control pills or Depo-Provera to prevent pregnancy the last time they had sex. In addition, more than half a million unplanned pregnancies occur to teens each year\u2026 What we can conclude is that we can't control whether teenagers have sex, but we can control whether they are safe about it and know how to prevent STD's and unwanted pregnancies.\u201d How can you say that we can control them in having safe sex in preventing STDs and unwanted pregnancies? This is another form of an assumption. Where is the study that shows the we can control as such? All you presented were just an fallacious assumption, or if not, claims not supported by evidence. PointsThere are many different groups across the United States advocating for abstinence-only sex education in the schools. They include Concerned Women for America, the Eagle Forum, the Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, the Heritage Foundation, the Medical Institute for Sexual Health (MISH), the National Coalition for Abstinence Education, and STOP Planned Parenthood International. These and other proponents of abstinence-only education argue primarily that sex before marriage is inappropriate or immoral and that abstinence is the only method which is 100% effective in preventing pregnancy and STIs.1 Many such groups emphasize that condoms are not fool-proof in preventing pregnancy or STIs, and that sexual activity outside marriage can result in \u201cserious, debilitating, and sometimes, deadly consequences.\u201d2 In addition, many abstinence-only advocates are deeply concerned that information about sex, contraception and HIV can encourage early sexual activity among young people.63 These advocates credit the decrease in teenage pregnancy largely to the advancement of the abstinence-only message.3 An article on the Concerned Women for America web site states that \u201c[t]his is not simply an issue of morality, but a matter of public health. The problems that have become so entrenched in our country, such as AIDS, illegitimate births, poverty, increasing crime and the breakdown of the nuclear family, can all be attributed to the debilitating effects of a public policy that condones sex without love or responsibility. \u2026 As research clearly indicates, America is not suffering from a lack of knowledge about sex, but an absence of values.\u201d4 Abstinence-only proponents point to studies concluding that the abstinence-only education message has played a central role in the decline of adolescent sexual activity, and related negative health outcomes, over the last decade. One study reports that \u201c\u2026abstinence and decreased sexual activity among sexually active adolescents are primarily responsible for the decline during the 1990s in adolescent pregnancy, birth and abortion rates. Attributing these declines to increased contraception is not supported by the data.\u201d5Sources: [1] Concerned Women for America. Abstinence: Why Sex is Worth the Wait [Internet]. July 1998. Available at: www.cwfa.org/library/family/1998-07_pp_abstinence.shtml. Accessed October 16, 2001. [2] Ibid. [3] Abstinence Clearinghouse. Data confirms that the abstinence message, not condoms, is responsible for the reduction in births to teens [Internet]. May 17, 1998. Available at: www.abstinence.net/ArticleDetail.cfm?ArticleID=168. Accessed October 16, 2001. [4] Concerned Women for America. Abstinence: Why Sex is Worth the Wait [Internet]. July 1998. Available at: www.cwfa.org/library/family/1998-07_pp_abstinence.shtml. Accessed October 16, 2001[5] Jones JM, Toffler W, Mohn JK, et al. The declines in adolescent pregnancy, birth and abortion rates in the 1990s: What factors are responsible? A special report commissioned by The Consortium of State Physicians Resource Councils [Internet]. January 7, 1999. Available at: www.abstinence.net/ArticleDetail.cfm?ArticleID=224. Accessed October 16, 2001.", "qid": "12", "docid": "dd985bd6-2019-04-18T17:07:09Z-00005-000", "rank": 71, "score": 85573.0}, {"content": "Title: Abortion Content: Thanks, Con, for beginning this debate. I'll begin by responding to your R1 contentions in numerical order. In the second round I'll make a case for my side (more in depth) and then I'll conclude and re-cap all of the final arguments in R3. 1. \"No life should be taken,without probable cause.\" Con did not even begin to defend this assertion. 2. \"Even if they are in someone inside a person who doesn't want them, because the person couldn't properly or didn't even try to use the pill or some other medication that will prevent pregnancy.\" Not only is this statement grammatically incoherent, it's also incorrect. Con assumes that every woman who gets pregnant is not on birth control or did not use a form of contraception. That is not necessarily true at all. Women get pregnant who are on the pill and who ensure that their partners wear condoms. Birth control is not 100% effective. Additionally, Con is leaving out the women who get pregnant from rape, date rape, etc. 3. \"Is it not an injustice to kill someone, the law to stop it from happening, is it the death penalty not protested everyday, let me ask what's the difference.\" Again, this statement makes absolutely no sense. I think my opponent was trying to say that abortion and murder are the same thing, when in fact they are not. Abortion is the the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy [1]. Murder is the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law [2]. Abortion is not considered murder under law, and with good reason. Murder is the taking of a person's life. An embryo or fetus is not a person. It is a \"potential\" person, which is not the same thing. 4. \"Some say 'hey its not alive yet' it is alive the moment the sperm cells met the egg its alive.\" Yes, a fetus is alive. It's still not a person. 5. Some say 'It don't have a soul or state of being or opinion' well how do you know. Can anyone prove this? Yes. Living babies aren't capable of having complex thoughts, let alone unborn fetuses. This can easily be proven with a brain scan and monitoring one's brain waves. Additionally, I do not believe in a soul but that is neither here nor there, as a soul is irrelevant to my position. I'll leave it at that for now; Con is free to make any clarifications and I will expand on my position further in the second round. Good luck, Con, and thanks again. [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] http://dictionary.reference.com...", "qid": "12", "docid": "47ca8c67-2019-04-18T19:11:13Z-00004-000", "rank": 72, "score": 85312.0}, {"content": "Title: Antibiotics should be heavily restricted. Content: Thanks to my opponent for clarifying his argument and providing the meat of his side in this debate, and now it's time to dig in! I'd like to start by pointing out that both of my arguments go dropped in this round. I'll get into why they matter over the course of my responses. Pro talks about how prescriptions should determine who gets to take antibiotics. I agree, and this is why most antibiotics are prescription only. A few \"natural\" antibiotics are over the counter,[1] but as they're not fungal-derived, the resistance they engender doesn't affect the majority of available antibiotics. More importantly, my argument about how doctors prescribe antibiotics to treat viral infections stands showcases the problem with letting doctors have free reign to decide what is prescribed. As Pro hasn't outlined any restrictions on their practices, the harms continue, but they even get worse since now everyone's going to rely on seeing a doctor about any infection instead of pursuing over the counter meds. Pro talks about animals being given them. Again, I agree, though if you deny farmers access to them, they will simply pursue other methods, such as steroids and hormones, to beef up their herds. This will only make things worse. We know they're cancer threats, but it's also got a wide swath of uncertainties, with many possible deleterious health outcomes for humans and cattle.[2] Lastly, overuse. Interesting that he cites mayoclinic.org, a link very close to the one I used, but doesn't appear to have read it thoroughly. There's no mention of overuse, just misuse, which often results when patients stop taking their meds early (or being prescribed them for viral infections). High concentrations of antibiotic are actually far more likely to kill even a resistant bacteria.[3] 1. http://medsnoprescriptiononline.com... 2. http://www.phschool.com... 3. http://www.pnas.org... Good debate.", "qid": "12", "docid": "abf80b24-2019-04-18T16:40:42Z-00000-000", "rank": 73, "score": 85240.0}, {"content": "Title: Birth Control Should Be Mandatory For Women Who Do Not Want Children Content: I believe that, barring extraneous circumstances (such as health), women who declare they do not want children should find it mandatory to take birth control (specifically of an implant-type) if they wish to be sexually active. The mandatory length of commitment is 1-year and is reevaluated annually. I believe this would greatly reduce accidental pregnancy.", "qid": "12", "docid": "5a745a9a-2019-04-18T14:49:14Z-00003-000", "rank": 74, "score": 84890.0}, {"content": "Title: The US government should make long term birth control affordable for low income women Content: I am sorry, I do not know the proper etiquette for a forfeited situation...", "qid": "12", "docid": "6bf018ce-2019-04-18T15:42:47Z-00002-000", "rank": 75, "score": 84620.0}, {"content": "Title: Goverment should have authority over birth rights of family Content: I believe that Government should have control over births of children in family. You just cannot reproduce how many times you want to... The authority should rest in the hands of government. Although one child must be allowed compulsorily.", "qid": "12", "docid": "2218331a-2019-04-18T17:10:01Z-00008-000", "rank": 76, "score": 84496.0}, {"content": "Title: It is a contradicting for a person to stand against the death penalty and favor late term abortions. Content: \"Some women aren't ready to mother children, or go through the pain of childbirth. Abortion is a good alternative, no matter how brutal it may be.\" They aren't ready for children and the responsibility but they are ready for intercourse followed up by an abortion? \"Birth control is 99.9% effective, and many people use condoms to prevent pregnancies. Accidents DO happen, and if they do, it's good to have a logical alternative besides childbirth to fall back on. An accidental pregnancy is a pregnancy which was not planned. So instead of a married couple planning a baby, which would be a planned pregnancy, a woman may be raped, or a condom may break which leads to an unwanted baby, which is an accidental pregnancy.\" Abstinence is 100% effective. Also, the topic we are debating is late-term abortions, therefore your comment regarding a woman being raped is off topic and should be disregarded as this wouldn't require a late term abortion. As far as a condom breaking, there are morning after pills in this case. \"Sometimes a person is placed in jail for a crime which they did not commit, but cannot prove they didn't commit the particular crime. If you have ever seen the movie \"Shawshank Redemption,\" the main character is an excellent example of this.\" The Shawshank Redemption is a fictional movie therefore no events can be used off this film as this never actually happened. Fictional movies are not to be used in a debate to prove a point. Also, in America, we have a policy called \"Innocent until proven guilty\" which means you do not have to prove you didn't do it in order to be found innocent. \"Being pro choice and anti death penalty is not contradicting however, because they are two separate things. Abortion is an alternative to childbirth, it is not mandatory, it is optional, and the option should always be there for a pregnant woman. The death penalty kills the innocent and guilty alike, and therefore is morally wrong. My views on abortion would be different if it were mandatory, but it isn't. It's the womans decision, body and it should be respected.\" The difference between late term abortions and the death penalty is that late term abortions only kill the innocent by the decision of one person while the death penalty only kills those found guilty through the decisions of many individuals based on proper court procedures. Another question for you, is if a man is required to pay child support why can the man not make the decision to force an abortion as he is just as financially responsible for the child as the mother? So if he isn't ready but she is, it is just his loss? That seems to be a form of sexism as only females can choose abortions, what happened to equal rights under the law regardless of gender, nationality, religion, etc.?", "qid": "12", "docid": "ed3988d7-2019-04-18T19:47:33Z-00000-000", "rank": 77, "score": 84442.0}, {"content": "Title: Public Funded Birth Control Content: I suppose my argument will have to be that the public as a whole through the government should fund nothing of the sort, and that only the select group of people who want to fund it ought to.", "qid": "12", "docid": "6b3f6ff2-2019-04-18T15:38:12Z-00004-000", "rank": 78, "score": 84197.0}, {"content": "Title: The World Needs a One Child Policy Content: Great, we're almost done. I want to get this over with. We're not in that hot a stew. Nobody is going to implement a one child policy anytime soon, only when everything becomes insane. Then we'll worry about that. We have time, though, to try and stop something like that before it happens. We can educate people about the horrors of overpopulation. We can give sex ed classes. We can dole out birth control pills. We don't need a one child policy at the current moment and I don't think we will until at least 2100. Again, you compare us to China. But we're not China. And neither are most of the other 165 countries on the planet. Lots of countries AREN'T overpopulated. Have you seen Canada? Just miles and miles of Arctic tundra. They don't need to implement a one child policy. One Child Policies, again, should only be put forth when there's a serious problem. If a country is on the verge of becoming Mad Max, then they should enforce a one child policy. If not, people should get to have as many kids as they want. Keep in mind, judges, we aren't talking about abortion. This is something much more insane. And then you go on about how horrible China's one child policy was, and you point out its flaws. Please, stay on your own side. If you're all in favor of one child policies, don't go into how they create mental illness and sex trafficking. You're fighting yourself there. Do you even know how to debate? Yeah, then you talk about how Japan needs more kids than they have. Are you crazy or something? Why do you bring up arguments like this if you just decide that they suck in the end? You're probably going to lose, but I don't care, I'm done with the whole thing, One Child Policies suck, you care too much about polar bears, you want to execute parents who have more than one kid, you overestimate the dangers of overpopulation, and so on. Yadda yadda yadda. I'm outta here.", "qid": "12", "docid": "fd54a241-2019-04-18T11:54:22Z-00000-000", "rank": 79, "score": 84165.0}, {"content": "Title: Birth control given out in schools Content: Err, thanks for debating I guess.", "qid": "12", "docid": "739d0c9a-2019-04-18T19:00:41Z-00000-000", "rank": 80, "score": 84154.0}, {"content": "Title: Adopt China's Planned Birth Policy Globally Content: They gave me a good laugh. Let's go through them paragraph by paragraph to critically analyze them. ----- First paragraph: You so soundly say that overpopulation is a serious issue, but then say that you would instead find other solutions. Well, what other solutions besides birth control prevent more births? Is that not the definition of birth control? You yourself said that abortion shouldn't be used, so again. If my plan is ineffective, and abortion isn't either, how else can we prevent overpopulation? I find this argument rather ridiculous therefore debunking the rest of your support for it. However, I am considerate so I will see to responding to your following paragraphs. Second paragraph: Yes, perhaps prevention of children is unnatural now, but to that I provide two arguments. One, should unnaturalness mean the extinction of the human species? And two, why is China not revolting to this policy? John Phillip Sousa denounced the record player and Bill Gates once thought the personal computer to be intangible, so perhaps now it seems odd. But you yourself do not refute the grave seriousness of overpopulation, so would a small pay in, really not be expected to survive? Another point you make, is that family survival would be \"greatly reduced\". What happened to human survival that you so soundly supported? And to add to that, in a modern society, family survival is no longer a real question in many people's mind. Third paragraph: Are you honestly stating that families run our modern day farming society? Modern agriculture is actually run by machines, illegal immigrants, and truckers. I doubt the hundreds of people working in the fields in a farm are all blood related. Heck, I doubt that more than a few are related to the owners if that. We live in this thing called the twenty-first century. Please remember that next turnaround. Fourth paragraph: What crabjuicer does here, is provide no evidence or logic. We already are vastly approaching the big seven, and we have yet to find an answer. As stated before, by 2050 we'll have a third more minds. Yes significant, but do we really want to postpone half a century just to increase the chances of one genius getting an epiphany no one has thought about before? Why not act now, and NOT gamble with our chances? It's only logical. Fifth paragraph: You are correct that no method is perfect. However, if the girl takes the pill, the guy uses a condom, and they both have had sex education, at most, there is only a .04% chance they could possibly get a baby for a whole year using the highest statistics to be found. Combine this with other methods, and it is virtually impossible for the girl to get pregnant. So again, nothing is perfect, but things can be prevented to save the human species. ----- Here is where the debate stands: 1. We both agree on the point that overpopulation is a serious issue. The only difference lies that I believe action needs to be taken, while crabjuices believes that we should take other actions besides abortion and birth control. He has not provided what actions besides waiting half a century. 2. Other minor jabs have been made including the discovery that crabjuices is not knowledgeable about modern agriculture. ----- In conclusion, I have provided evidence to show that overpopulation is a serious issue that needs to be addressed. I believe we need birth control, while crabjuices believes that we should take other actions that our as of now secret to himself. Voters, realize the argument that is baseless here.", "qid": "12", "docid": "740c0ab5-2019-04-18T19:59:21Z-00002-000", "rank": 81, "score": 83805.0}, {"content": "Title: high school students should be required to take a basic medical class Content: I admire the proposal made by the Pro, however I see a lot of flaws in this proposal which is why I accepted this debate. \"proposal: students should required to graduate with basic first aid,and over the counter drug knowledge.\"If we require students to get basic first aid and over the counter medication training then we would have to fit that course into an already crammed curriculum students deal with in High school, and the teachers needed to teach the course, materials needed for it, etc would be a burden on school budgets. If schools try to cut their budgets and cut funding from these med classes it could cause the level of education to become so sub-standard that it may cause students to do more harm then good when the situation comes. \"civilians can increase there chances of survival if they know basic first aid.\"They can also do quite a bit of harm though. Think about it if a student knows basic medical training and when helping a person has a choice between trying to be a hero and actually calling for help, that person might put the victims life on the line for a shot of being a hero...................... It would be sort of like a little kid in a weight training class trying to lift a heavy thing off of someone because they think they can pull it off instead of calling someone to do it for them who is way more experienced and qualified..................... (I apologize for the F word being in there but I couldnt find a different picture of a baby trying to lift a ridiculously large amount)Point is medical training could cause harm if it empowers students to become cocky enough to try to fix it themselves rather than call a professional and just try to but time until they show up. \"If a person knows to stop the bleeding then they wont bleed to death by the time paramedics get there.\"Just how serious medical training are we talking about him? I could under stand maybe a broken bone or some burns but stopping lethal blood loss sounds like something that no student could learn in one class in one year....\" How can a person help if they don't know what to do.\"Should we also teach kids how to be firefighters in case of a fire or detectives to find criminals too? Its a noble idea dont get me wrong but this might be a tipping point to try to teach students to learn to fix anything, and that would be a hopeless battle for our underfunded school system to handle. \"Basic pharmacology should also be introduced.\"Pharmacology: The study of the interactions that occur between a living organism and chemicals that affect normal or abnormal biochemical function First off, I dont think we should be telling high school students anything about prescription medicine and over-the-counter drugs since theres a growing trend about high school students using those same things to get high. http://www.health.ny.gov...http://seattletimes.nwsource.com...http://www.life123.com...http://www.reuters.com...http://www.momlogic.com...http://zev.hubpages.com...http://www.fox16.com...http://www.infowars.com...http://www.talkaboutrx.org...http://www.drugrehabtreatment.com...Im not trying to saturate this debate with sources, prescription drug abuse is a SERIOUS problem among high schools, and I dont think its good to give kids a COURSE about drugs they could then use to get stoned on....\"if students are required to learn basic over the counter drug skills then we could save lots of money\"Wait a sec, wait a sec............ I thought the goal here was to help students save lives not become savvy shoppers..... I for one dont think we should put a larger burden on schools just to help students be saavy shoppers when it comes down to prescription drugs they could get high off of...", "qid": "12", "docid": "6cd077b6-2019-04-18T18:25:52Z-00004-000", "rank": 82, "score": 83759.0}, {"content": "Title: Birth control within monogamous relationships. Content: The Catholic Church does not forbid all methods of contraception which could be used as alternatives. The Catholic Church actually condones the use of natural contraceptive methods, which essentially amount to only having intercourse at times of the month when the woman is not fertile. It is not unreasonable of the Catholic Church to expect married couples to just withhold from sex at certain times of the month if they do not wish to conceive another child. This situation gives no reason to make an exception.", "qid": "12", "docid": "b79cf889-2019-04-15T20:23:02Z-00028-000", "rank": 83, "score": 83715.0}, {"content": "Title: The punishment for failing to follow the rules would infringe on women's right to control their own bodies. Content: Unplanned pregnancies happen. They happen with IUD's and with birth control pills. Many women, including pro-choice women, strongly believe that abortion would be committing a murder. Forcing abortion on such women would be a violation of their body and their values. Further, if you tax families that have more than one child, you're essentially punishing the child for the sins of the parent. (i.e. you're lowering their standard of living as punishment for being born.) That hardly seems fair. Allow society to have unlimited access to reliable birth control. Encourage women to go to college and have careers. We've already seen negative population growth in countries that follow that type of policy. Japan can't get her people to reproduce enough to sustain their economy. The same holds true for many European countries. There's no need to violate people's right to their very body in order to control human population. Social factors already serve as a regulating force.", "qid": "12", "docid": "8d6d1941-2019-04-19T12:45:23Z-00012-000", "rank": 84, "score": 83488.0}, {"content": "Title: Abortion is wrongly sought as an alternative form of birth control Content: Kristin Luker, Taking Chances: Abortion and the Decision Not to Contracept (1975) - \"In short, there are no empirical grounds for assuming that women have an \u00e0 priori preference for contraception over abortion.\"[27] In other words, women see abortion as a suitable alternative to birth control.", "qid": "12", "docid": "b67fc3fb-2019-04-17T11:47:41Z-00224-000", "rank": 85, "score": 82621.0}, {"content": "Title: life of infant in womb, should sometimes take priority over mother's wishes for abortion Content: The rights of a fetus should not be able to over rule the mothers rights. Sometimes birth control, condoms, and other things don't work 100% of the time. Why should someone be punished for having sex? It's natural. Also, not all the time the mother assumes the risks. What if she was raped? Sometimes, not all the time she assumes risk for carrying the child. What if her birth control didn't work, and she didn't know she was pregnant? Why shouldn't a mother be able to chose if she decides to keep the baby or have an abortion? She might not want to decide right after she got pregnant. She might want to take some time to decide if she wants tow if she really wanted an abortion or if she wants a child. What if the mother didn't know she was pregnant? What if she only found out in late pregnancy? That shouldn't mean she shouldn't have different rights than a mother who found out quicker. Again, her birth control might have not worked and she didn't figure out until late pregnancy.", "qid": "12", "docid": "b76f82a2-2019-04-18T16:06:21Z-00002-000", "rank": 86, "score": 82421.0}, {"content": "Title: Banning the Pill Content: Whether it is a contraceptive or not is not in dispute. I am more concerned with the irresponsibility that will be created if those that are over 17 years old have easy access to the pill especially when that are under 16 years old could easily ask someone who is 17 years old to get them the pill or even worse their partner who could be of age and get it for them. Therefore, the morning pill should banned.", "qid": "12", "docid": "928f9e5e-2019-04-18T16:33:36Z-00003-000", "rank": 87, "score": 82378.0}, {"content": "Title: The US government should make long term birth control affordable for low income women Content: Final push...thank god.", "qid": "12", "docid": "6bf018ce-2019-04-18T15:42:47Z-00000-000", "rank": 88, "score": 82353.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Information on birth control ought be included in sex education classes Content: And it's all over!", "qid": "12", "docid": "a301550f-2019-04-18T18:20:41Z-00000-000", "rank": 89, "score": 82350.0}, {"content": "Title: Contraception empowers women by giving them reproductive control. By deferring pregnancy, this helps... Content: Women may not have a choice, even if contraception allows them the option of reproductive control. In many developing nations, there can be a cultural preference for sons over daughters, religious pressure to have as many children as possible, and a traditional male dominance in sexual relationships and family planning decisions. Birth control may not even be socially acceptable. Even if contraception allowed a woman the potential for biological control over childbearing, these factors can prevent her from exercising this new-found choice. It is also unclear if women\u2019s rights are advanced by contraception. In reality, contraception typically forms part of a wider population control policy by national government. Such policies (e.g. China\u2019s one-child policy), when considered as a whole, often violate the women\u2019s rights that advocates of contraception claim to value so highly.", "qid": "12", "docid": "d0b50e27-2019-04-19T12:46:41Z-00012-000", "rank": 90, "score": 82334.0}, {"content": "Title: Abortion is a woman's right Content: Thanks to Andromeda_Z for her intriguing round! Alright, let's jump right into it. Pro Case:1. My opponent denies that a risk is assumed in pregnancy and that parents arent necessarily aware that a zygote will be created. Now, I admit that a zygote \"will\" be created, but that's just about semantics. I quote Chuz-Life from his debate with with xxx00:\"\"I think\" that an act of consensual intercourse between two adults is an \"assumption of risk\" on their part (for pregnancy) because sexual intercourse is without exception the greatest known leading cause for pregnancy for human beings. Every over the counter birth control we have comes with the warning that they are not 100% effective in preventing an unwanted pregnancy. This assumption of risk by both individuals implies a known consent for the pregnancy because the risks for pregnancy were known (or should have been known) and the parties chose to gamble with that as a possible consequence of their actions. \" [. http://www.debate.org...]Not to use his quote as an argument from authority, but he sums it up pretty well. Yes, I admit, there are many courses of action to be taken in order to prevent an unwanted pregancy, but they are not fullproof. Just like my opponent admits, pregnancy can still results from attempting to negate the possible risks, but that does not make abortion permissible. Car Accident Analogy:My opponent's analogy compares driving a car to consensual sex, taking safety precautions in driving to taking precautions to not become pregnant, and finally she compares obtaining an abortion to obtaining a prosthetic limb. Okay, I agree with my opponent, in that, taking safety precautions in driving is essentially the same thing as taking precautions not to get pregnant. My objection stems from the second part of what she said. She said, \"they ought to live with the lifelong complications of that missing limb (instead of obtaining a prosthetic limb) because they chose to drive a car. \" I think that my opponent agrees that the person driving is responsible for their condition of being without a leg if they caused (assuming someone else didn't cause the accident) themselves to be in that condition. My problem with this argument is that it falsely compares the desire to have an abortion to the desire to want a prosthetic limb. As said before, abortion comes at the cost of another's life/future and is therefore, immoral. Wanting to obtain a prosthetic limb is nothing like this. The only way for my opponent's analogy to work is if she can justify killing someone else and severing their and using it as their own. This seems more akin to what my opponent is saying. Tell me, Pro. .. . since you support killing someone else to alleviate yourself of your condition (pregnancy), then do you also support killing someone else and taking their leg from them because you are required to get rid of your condition you put yourself in? Thusly, I propose a scenario to you. .. . If an adult female were to accidently knock a helpless infant into deep water, then should she be held legally obligated to save said infant even IF she has to use her body in a way she doesn't want to to do so. Case law would recognize this negligence as manslaughter [. http://sixthformlaw.info...]. The woman shouldn't be able to shoot the infant to alleviate herself of her obligation towards the infant for putting the infant in said position of vulnerability. Homeless Trespasser Analogy:Note to my opponent. .. . as I said before, pregnancy resulting from consensual sex isn't as simple as someone \"wandering\" onto your property. For my opponent's argument to apply to her position she must show how it would be okay for the owner of the house to drag the homeless person onto his/her property, kill the homeless person, and then claim self-defense. Because, this seems a bit closer to what weare discussing than simply \"wandering\" onto your property.2. Dropped. Clean extension. Con Case:FLO ArgumentMy opponent has thoroughly and utterly dropped that my claim that abortion denies one a FLO and by extension, drops that it is immoral, so I have essentially won this point. She simply points out that not aborting is \"less immoral\" than aborting, because not aborting also denies one a FLO. To address this I shall ask a question. What does it mean to be denied a FLO? Well Don Marquis sums it up pretty well. He says, \"The claim that the primary wrong-making feature of a killing is the loss to the victim of the value of its future has obvious consequences for the ethics of abortion. The future of a standard foetus includes a set of experiences, projects, activities, and such which are identical with the futures of adult human beings and are identical with the futures of young children. Since the reason that is sufficient to explain why it is wrong to kill human beings after the time of birth is a reason that also applies to foetuses, it follows that abortion is prima facie morally wrong. \" [Don Marquis, Why Abortion is Immoral, The Journal of Philosophy, 86:4]As we can see, a meaningful future is not necessarily one that is literally meaningful it is simply \"a set of experiences, projects, activities, and such which are identical with the futures of adult human beings and are identical with the futures of young children. \" Not aborting doesn't deny women a meaningful futre because it doesn't kill them, abortion does kill and deny one a future. My opponent is simply playing semantics with the term \"meaningful future. \" Moral justification My opponent's moral justification is not legitimate, as explained above. And, since it isn't legitimate and my reason that abortion is wrong means that it is not within a woman's right to abort. Thank you. In conclusion, I would like to thank my opponent for this wonderful debate, including her interesting arguments and rebuttals. I think that I have thoroughly covered both the Con and Pro cases and I will leave it to the voters to decide. Resolution Negated.", "qid": "12", "docid": "f29265e4-2019-04-18T16:19:27Z-00000-000", "rank": 91, "score": 82263.0}, {"content": "Title: Males are superior to females Content: Unfortunately, I will not be capable of accessing my computer before the clock wineds down, so I am posting this from my phone, forcing me to keep it short. I will condense my three sections into one conclusion. CONCLUSION On the argument over reproduction, Pro simply restates his previous assertion and does not disprove my counter-argument. That's the equivalent of making \"you're wrong\" an argument. Pro does the same thing later in the argument over height and intelligence. I explained why controlling for height in IQ tests is a valuable tool for evaluating cognitive differences between genders and Pro gave no clear argument for how I could be wrong. In the argument over health, Pro concedes that women live much longer than men and yet in the same breath claims they are less healthy than men, citing that they are more likely to have certain illnesses than men, which I had previously shown the opposite of. Nevermind the fact that the illnesses I showed are for more widespread and fatal than Pro's. This is basically saying \" X type of car has better durability than Y type of car because, even though it breaks down sooner, it's more durable when it's working...in some ways and not in other ways\". In the argument over grades and intelligence, Pro reasserts that grades are not indicative of intelligence and this time posts a source, as I asked. The source he gives is frankly bull. The source is a very short opinion article which cites absolutely zero material evidence for the claim. On the issue of single mothers being more likely to inflict child abuse than single fathers, the point is null until it can be shown that single mothers would do this because they are female. Just as in the IQ issue, it is subject to variables that have not been adjusted. Single mothers are more likely to be poor than single fathers due to continued discrimination in employers. Poorer homes are more likely to have child abuse. There are many other factors that could be the cause as well. The point is that nothing can be concluded from the correlation alone. I gave actual psychological reasons that men are obsevered to be so much more aggressive than women, unlike Pro for otherwise. This concludes the debate. Pro has given a good shot for a first debate. I encourage him to work on appropriate sourcing. I encourge voters to vote based on the debating efficiency displayed here, not on personal opinion and to not vote at all if they have not properly read the debate.", "qid": "12", "docid": "ea8a81cb-2019-04-18T18:41:25Z-00000-000", "rank": 92, "score": 82129.0}, {"content": "Title: Drug Legalization Content: So you want to argue agains the FDA? Great. Are you aware that the FDA manages the many medicines given to children? After all, children also require medicine just as much as adults do. Now, let us pose a hypothetical situation where the FDA was non-existant. The over the counter drugs, now contain harmful substances. Now, one specific spray-on drug, contains DDT, a substance which is known to cause cancer. The item in question, has its ingredients labeled, however, according to FDA standards, a drug must also label its possible side effects as well as banning those drugs which has more harmful results than good results(1). .. Woops! The FDA doesnt exist. Congratulations. Youve flooded the market with a drug that does more harm than good. This is what you fail to understand. The FDA doesnt exist to only ban drugs that have some harmful side effects. After all, ANY drug can have harmful side effects. However, the FDA exists to protect the population, a population which is ignorant of terms such as dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane or arsenic. This is why the specific process of the FDA, is to first, legalize a drug for prescription purposes only, so that DOCTORS with medical degrees who understand the terminology, and side effects, can hand out these drugs to the patients who are both required, and who are suitable to receive these drugs. The FDA also PREVENTS these drugs that have MORE harm than benefits, from reaching the population in the first place. It is too late for a drug company to be indited for fraud and mislabeling, if the product has already reached a million people. Your position is absurd. By arguing against the FDA, you have essentially made every drug, an over the counter drug. If the general public was educated enough to understand the risks involved, as well as to weigh the potential benefits against the potential harm, then we wouldnt need doctors anymore. It is their own choice. However, there is a difference between choice, and an INFORMED consent. 1. \". .. .it would have a label that says, \"Warning: Causes Brain Damage. \"\"-You Sorry. The FDA is the regulatory committee which has placed statutes as to what a label should include. (2) In other words, the FDA will only approve a drug, after studying both the clinical trials, and the proposed warning label on the Drug. If the drug does not have sufficient warnings, or fails to warn a potential hazard, the drug is pulled and the FDA bans it until it is fixed. \". .. it would say, \"Warning: Untested. \"\"-You Again, sorry. The FDA regulates what is placed on a label. Without it, it is up to the discretion of the Drug company whether to warn the user. There is nothing to stop the company from lying. Nor is there a reason to ban the drug if the drug blatantly lied, according to your view of not banning any drugs. Sure, the company could possibly receive a penalty or a fine. But the drugs would stay nonetheless. If the public is lucky, this will become a scandal, and people will know about the drug, atleast those who are smart enough to watch the news. If not, millions of people will continue to use the drug. \"So, as long as the drugs are required to have labels that warn potential users of their ingredients and effects, or contain links to websites on which even more information can be obtained, why should it be illegal? \"-You First, several combinations of drugs can be harmful. However, most of these drugs which are harmful if taken together with another, are prescription drugs. Therefore, only a doctor understands the risks. However, if we make them all over-the-counter drugs, then there is no way for the general public to understand what combination of drugs are harmful. This is also why not many drugs have the lethal combinations written on the label, because there are just too many to list. Second, not everyone has an internet. Not everyone uses the internet. Not everyone has the time to look up every drug combination and its alternative names. Not everyone reads the label. If Nyquill suddenly placed a harmful agent into its liquid gel caps, how many people do you think, will take the time to read the \"Warning, may cause severe drowsiness, stomach pain, headache, and potential cancer\"? Hell, Ive never read the warning on my Advil bottle. 2. \"if they want to destroy their own lives, they can just go ahead. \"-You Awesome. So you dont care about the homeless, the druggies, and rehab centres and all that? Clearly youve never had a family member who was a drug addict. \"Plus, it only speeds up natural selection\"-you Natural Selection is a process which is governed by the environment. By this logic, we should kill off all disabled people, as they are of no use to the society and hinder us. You know nothing of Evolution and Biology, so dont try and comment on it. I cant believe youre making the following argument. \"the smart people will live, and the dumb people will die. \"-You Congratulations. Now youve lost. First off, Suicide is not a trait that is inhereted. And neither is stupidity. Einsteins children are not Nobel prize winners. So, your absurd notion that allowing these people to die, is for the benefit of mankind, will do nothing to eliminate this \"trait\" from the gene pool. Again, you know nothing of evolution. Secondly, not everyone has the benefit of higher education. Not everyone has the benefit of knowledge. And not everyone knows they are taking drugs when given to them. Your \"live and let die\" approach will be throwing these people to the graves. 3. Congratulations. What you are asking is banning drugs. Therefore, our discussion is over. Youve just admitted that we need to ban drugs if they produce harm to other people. This is basically your argument. And congratulations, that is the EXACT reason why we ban drugs. We ban them because of their ability to harm NOT ONLY the user, but also the people around them. (3) This is the point about drugs. While you are taking them, you are not lucid. Therefore, you might walk outside, beleive that the old lady accross the street is a demon, and kill her. Unless you have a room that has no windows, and have it locked from the outside, could you possibly be sure that you will not harm anyone. As for my opponents arguments: 1. Yes, i agree that anyone who wants to do whatever to their body, is allowed to. I agree that someone has the right to kill themselves. But guess what? It is illegal to suicide by jumping off a tower. The reason being, you are not only harming yourself, but you are also potentially harming others. By jumping off the tower, you might land on someone else, killing them along with you. This is the exact reason why drugs are banned. Its your own choice to destroy your body. But it is not your choice to harm others in the process. We have tons of instances were people who are under the influence of drugs, do things like rape, walk around naked, and kill other people. And all it takes is a little dose. This is different than things like alchohol, as Alchohol is not nearly as addictive as cocaine, bars can actually refuse to sell you alchohol if they believe you to be intoxicated, and being high completely changes your personality to the point that you believe you are the terminator, Sent back in time from the future. (4) Ive never seen a person get so drunk that he believes he is a fictional character from a movie. And by believe, i mean TRULY believe. So in other words, yes, he is doing anything bad, because he is placing nearby people at risk, at severe risk. Sources: 1. . http://www.fda.gov... 2. . http://www.cancer.org... 3. . http://www.newsday.com... 4. . http://uk.movies.yahoo.com...", "qid": "12", "docid": "2d0fc6c1-2019-04-18T19:20:44Z-00004-000", "rank": 93, "score": 81943.0}, {"content": "Title: Banning the Pill Content: The morning after pill should not be banned. P1. It is true that the morning-after pill may act as a contraceptive; if it is taken before ovulation, it may act to prevent conception. http://www.prolifephysicians.org... P2. It can act for emgergencies for mistakes that a person may have done the night before P3. Everyone should be responsible for their actions Conclusion. The morning after pill should be available for eveveryone because its their life and their actions that impact their life, nobodys elses.", "qid": "12", "docid": "928f9e5e-2019-04-18T16:33:36Z-00004-000", "rank": 94, "score": 81915.0}, {"content": "Title: Ability can change, personality can't. Content: How can you believe that we have no control over our personality and therefore should not be judged for it? If we come across someone who is a nasty person, mean, scrupulous, we do not automatically think that they are born that way and forgive them. People do have control over their personality, people can choose who they want to be. To argue differently is to argue for the counter intuitive; opposite to how we all naturally think.", "qid": "12", "docid": "a13e1bc6-2019-04-19T12:46:09Z-00006-000", "rank": 95, "score": 81822.0}, {"content": "Title: birth control should be covered by insurance Content: Arguments extended.", "qid": "12", "docid": "88b831f5-2019-04-18T18:25:06Z-00000-000", "rank": 96, "score": 81726.0}, {"content": "Title: Abortion is just when birth control fails (involuntary impregnation) Content: If a woman does not voluntarily choose to seek a pregnancy, it is impossible for a fetus to have any claim over the woman's body. Only when the woman participates voluntarily in creating a life, does she open the door to any responsibilities to the fetus or to any rights that the fetus may have over the mother. If a pregnancy is a result of an accident (the failure of birth control), it cannot be called voluntary. Therefore, the fetus cannot be said to have any rights over the mother's body, and abortion can be said to be justified.", "qid": "12", "docid": "b67fc3fb-2019-04-17T11:47:41Z-00223-000", "rank": 97, "score": 81692.0}, {"content": "Title: Birth control given out in schools Content: I am not debateing teaching absitence or birthcontrol in schools...i am debateing why it shouldnt be GIVEN OUT in schools.", "qid": "12", "docid": "739d0c9a-2019-04-18T19:00:41Z-00002-000", "rank": 98, "score": 81661.0}, {"content": "Title: Birth control Content: First, a Google Translate translation of the Biblia Sacra Vulgata (2 Samuel 6:6-7) \"(6) And when they came to the floor of Nachon, Uzza put out his hand to the ark of God, and took hold of it, oxen in the play came out. (7) against the indignation of the Lord was angry with Oza, and struck him for his rashness; and he died there beside the ark of God.\"This is obviously wrong about the \"oxen in the play came out\" bit, according to every other Bible I have ever read, it's supposed to say something like \"because the oxen stumbled\". Other than that, it is sufficient. I would appreciate it if my opponent could in turn show me where in the Bible the punishment for using birth control was laid out. 1. Failure ratesOf course you can easily screw it up. You can even more easily screw up NFP. Refer to my source. I am positive that the pill does not have an 8 percent failure rate with perfect use, perhaps with imperfect uses factored in it may average to 8%. I have found a source that supports my opponent's figures, but clearly shows NFP with a much greater failure rate [1]. I highly doubt that NFP has a below one percent effectiveness rate, and my claim of this is bolstered by my opponent's lack of sources.2. Pill CancerMost research appears to support the conclusion that after you stop taking the pill, the risks go back down. Additionally, the pill protects against some types of cancer [2]. 3. Condom CancerAs my opponent's source does not link me to the article in question, I cannot address this argument fully. For now, I will merely quote my opponent's own source \"Local government officials said condom users should not stop using rubber contraceptives based on results of the study because N-Nitrosamine does not present an immediate health danger.\". 4. Condoms and HPVMy source from last round disagrees, claiming it does provide some protection against HPV. Even if they don't protect against HPV, my opponent has not contested that condoms provide protection against a variety of other STDs. Contrast this with NFP, which provides no protection against any STDs. 5. NFP and DivorceI will merely quote the second line of my opponent's source here. \"First, couples with strong relationships may be more likely than other couples to choose to practice NFP.\". That is to say, couples use NFP because they have strong relationships, not they have strong relationships because they use NFP. This supports my argument. In addition, this means nothing for two people who are not a couple. 6. Abortions I concede this point in general. However, contraceptives that clearly do not cause abortions, such as condoms, cannot be said to cause abortions and therefore they prevent them. Contraceptives help prevent conception. They protect against STDs. They are far superior to NFP. My opponent's primary source is probably biased. For all these reasons, the resolution is affirmed. Sources:1. http://www.contracept.org...2. http://cancerhelp.cancerresearchuk.org...", "qid": "12", "docid": "c64898ed-2019-04-18T18:17:24Z-00003-000", "rank": 99, "score": 81640.0}, {"content": "Title: Birth Control Content: To answer your question, while I do agree with you that a freshman or sophomore in high school may be influenced by many other factors in her life, she might not be emotionally ready or mature enough to make the decision about obtaining birth control by herself. However, if this young girl believed she was emotionally stable enough to become sexually active (even if she is not) she should have the right to obtain birth control in case her parents do not consent. Again, if this young girl was to continue being sexually active even without her parents consent to get birth control, why should she be able to get pregnant which would complicate her life even further? If she could pay for the birth control pills, and was responsible enough to take them everyday, I don't understand why she should not be able to prevent a mistake from happening.", "qid": "12", "docid": "3d1a752c-2019-04-18T17:01:05Z-00003-000", "rank": 100, "score": 81558.0}]}
{"query": "Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels. Content: Fossil Fuels are a limited resource meaning that they will eventually run out. Because of this, there must be a replacement source of energy. The definition of Alternate is to take place of. This means any thing that provide energy for a source. Given this fact this means that when Fossil Fuels run out there has to be an ALTERNATE source. We are already working with many alternate resources such as Solar energy, Wind power, and others. Therefore when Fossil Fuels run out there will ALWAYS be an alternate for it.", "qid": "13", "docid": "1baa36a6-2019-04-18T16:31:18Z-00003-000", "rank": 1, "score": 222760.0}, {"content": "Title: Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels. Content: I believe that alternative energy will eventually replace fossils fuel as the most efficient source of energy in the world. first round state claim, second round evidence, third round rebuttal. good luck have fun.", "qid": "13", "docid": "1baa36a6-2019-04-18T16:31:18Z-00005-000", "rank": 2, "score": 219648.0}, {"content": "Title: Can alternative energy replace fossil fuels Content: Extend round 1.", "qid": "13", "docid": "6e782a7f-2019-04-18T13:11:24Z-00001-000", "rank": 3, "score": 201412.0}, {"content": "Title: Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels. Content: If what you are saying is electric cars are too expensive to be worth the environmental problems that it tackles, I can only say that Electric cars are not the only alternative source of energy. In fact Electric cars have little to nothing to do with alternative energy sources. If what you are trying to say is Electric energy is not a plausible alternate source of energy i can rebuttal that Electric Energy is only one of the major alternative energy sources at our disposal. Your argument is invalid because it has nothing to do with the debate. Also, please cite your sources before you copy paste.", "qid": "13", "docid": "1baa36a6-2019-04-18T16:31:18Z-00001-000", "rank": 4, "score": 200453.0}, {"content": "Title: Can alternative energy replace fossil fuels Content: I affirm that alternative energy is the future of the world we live in. Alternative energy should replace fossil fuel use because it is saving our precious planet and cost less money in the long run. Some argue that the technology isn't advanced but I know the tech is there because we are seeing smart companies move towards renewable supplies.", "qid": "13", "docid": "6e782a7f-2019-04-18T13:11:24Z-00003-000", "rank": 5, "score": 196659.0}, {"content": "Title: Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels. Content: This was my project for science and besides your arguments are weak. Source: BBC article: How environmentally friendly are electric cars? My arguments are not invalid because if you analyse any graphic of the amount of pollution that electric cars produce in countries(almost every were) that produce electricity based on burning coal you will see that the electric cars are more pollutants but they are way more expensive to keep so boarding the matter from that way electric cars are not an option, besides there are still deposits of oil to find.", "qid": "13", "docid": "1baa36a6-2019-04-18T16:31:18Z-00000-000", "rank": 6, "score": 182300.0}, {"content": "Title: the proper versus current approach to \"alternative fuels\" Content: Don't you have a rule that when people insult you they instantly lose? I expect your resignation next round. (not really) A fuel that can replace gasoline in its entirety forever- electric energy. Preferably electric energy derived from solar, wind, hydro, nuclear, geothermal, wave, tidal energy sources. However, even if derived from just coal it actually ends up putting less pollution into the atmosphere (still). * You misapprehend the battery comment. We make hydrogen by splitting water. By the second law of thermodynamics the energy in the hydrogen is necessarily less than the energy we used to split the water. That doesn't make it a fuel. That makes it an energy storage substance. Other than from other energy sources (electric, natural gas) where do we get hydrogen? * Green energy, renewable energies and carbon neutral energies are all needed to not only reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, foreign energy sources, but also needed to prevent and slow the progress of global warming and climate change. * \"Primarily right now hydrogen is produced through reformation of methane\" -- You cannot scale that. It can be done, but cannot be scaled to any degree. Methane is a fossil fuel, one which we have about 50 years worth remaining and certainly cannot be a permanent replacement. That process produces twice as much CO2 as hydrogen (by the chemistry). * Regardless of the manner of electrolysis the end result is the same, less energy than it took to make is in the resulting product. That's just basic physics. For the sake of argument, I'll let you say you have perfectly efficient electrolysis, which is to say you have exactly as much energy in the hydrogen as you used on the water. -- That's a glorified battery! * Unlike a real battery however, you have no ability to store more energy. Battery technology has high potentials to store far more energy than we currently have in a tank of gas. Supercapacitors, better materials, faster charges, new technology... the possibility of innovation here is quite large. Batteries can be improved. The recharge time has been improved on a Toshiba batter. 90% in five minutes. http://www.dailytech.com... Cheap Li-ion batteries: http://www.popularmechanics.com... Nanotech advancement 10x battery life: http://www.news.com... And potentials to advance completely away from batteries to capacitors. http://www.spectrum.ieee.org... We are dealing with storing energy in either chemical form or in the electric field of a capacitor. That's pretty limitless and allows for massive amounts of innovation. * Being messy and tiny and leaky is far is not discredited by your comment of it being the \"cleanest\". Frankly, it's not. To get the hydrogen you're using actual energy. Just because it's a fairly green battery doesn't mean it's green energy. If you filled a building filled with hydrogen rupture it it might well just leave a giant hole in the ground if anything sparks. * We used the water to make hydrogen. The fact that hydrogen burns into water again is just confirming what I said in my intro... glorified battery. * I ignored the embrittle problem and certain other problems as they are simply small technological hurdles. I think however, the fact that it leaks all the time (think a 2-day old helium balloon) is problematic. * You cannot hijack the natural gas infrastructure. First, it will leak! Secondly, we use that for natural gas! My stove isn't set to run on a hydrogen and natural gas mix. My water heater, dryer, my heater they aren't either. Am I to forgo my use of natural gas in order to have leaky hydrogen to power a car which cannot pressurize the gas itself? We only have so much natural gas, and that's only while we're using it at the rates we're using it. Power cars with the stuff would drop our amount of natural gas and drive up the price. And we'd end up with electrolysis (which scales). * If you wanted to convert cars over to run on natural gas, that is something to be independently discussed. As is, you're arguing that one gas is pretty much another. And though we currently use natural gas in things made for natural gas. * Building the infrastructure is an acceptable ideas. Though, here we are faced with a catch-22. Do we build the infrastructure first or the cars first? How much infrastructure do we produce before the cars and who foots the bill if it doesn't work? Though, I assume that will be overcome. * Not a hazmat team to deal with a crash, but rather a well trained group of firefighters who know where they should not use the jaws of life to cut you out of that? How to detect a hydrogen leak, and what the risks are involved when different parts rupture or the car catches on fire. * I've seen them at car-shows but other than that I've seen them nowhere. * I do not typify the \"non-scientific liberal reaction to hydrogen\" -- the fact of the matter is that hydrogen has a large amount of following within the liberal community. My objection however is simply a scientific understanding that hydrogen is just a glorified battery and not a very good one at that. * Converting the power grid to carbon neutral profile is certainly a requirement to moving forward with energy today. Global warming is not our friend. We need to switch to carbon neutral sources of power (hydrogen is not a source) sooner rather than later. * I am strongly pro-nuclear. I am pro-science and the science behind nuclear is sound. * I never advocated ethanol, at least not corn ethanol. Sugar ethanol works well as it's a biproduct and works out quite effectively and doesn't replace food. * I said 2nd law because that's what prevented it. 0,1,3 weren't mentioned as they weren't needed. -- My solution (which isn't needed for the topic) is plug in hybrid cars, which transition to electric as the technology does. * The EV1 wasn't a failure, GM just recalled all the cars and forcibly scrapped the project (they didn't want politicians forcing them to make electric cars), see \"Who Killed the Electric Car\". Further, there are cars being put out all the time. Tesla Roadster - http://www.topspeed.com... There is massive potential for increases in technology here, whereas you're scrambling with \"just build the infrastructure\" or \"we'll use this fossil fuel instead. Plug-in hybrids and electric cars are on the road today. * For quick charge comment see Toshiba. Further, supercapacitors would have the ability to charge in a few seconds (you don't want to do that/might as well be lightning). * Hydrogen has less energy density than gasoline. Pure liquid hydrogen has less hydrogen than gasoline (the molecules pack the energy better than simple pressurization). * There's no room for advancement when you're dealing with chemicals. But, take a look at cell-phones. The charge time, the battery technology, the rather continual and gradual improvement. That's what we need in a car technology. Hydrogen has nothing behind it, and it can't scale. --- Your calculations about the \"price per gallon\" were flawed. The wikipedia page on the Toyota Prius (which I assume you used) didn't say the energy use was 100kwh. Rather it was saying the current limit to drive range was 7 miles in all electric mode up-bounded by the speed of 100 kilometers per hour. The range limit is low because batteries aren't designed for electric only mode and this is not a plug-in or electric model. The batteries only store about 1.3 kwh of power. Which by the way, works out to 0.185 kilowatt / mile or 2.8 cents a mile. That's 37% less than gasoline at $3.00 or $1.11 dollars a gallon.", "qid": "13", "docid": "cb08147e-2019-04-18T19:50:34Z-00002-000", "rank": 7, "score": 171564.0}, {"content": "Title: fossil fuel Content: Unlike what my opponent argues, there are many alternatives to fossil fuel. fossil fuel is just a way to draw energy from the earth. some of these alternatives are Nuclear fusion geothermal energy wind and solar power Going back to my first alternative, nuclear fusion. Nuclear fusion is a very effective way for one to create a mass amount of energy. The united states is a very complex nation so we must find a new and better alternative for our source of energy. an example of this complex method of drawing energy is as I mentioned earlier, Nuclear Fusion. Nuclear Fusion is generated through a Nuclear Reactor which does not contribute to any environmental plaque such as global warming, acid rain and air pollution. With our as knowledge of the composition of atomic structures, it would take us less than five years to create a nuclear fusion. The creation of Nuclear fusion will reduce the depiction rate of the ozone layer which Fossil fuels increase. If we keep on using this much amount of fossil fuel, we will end up like the citizens of Australia who are fused to were covered cloths and a face cap to protect them from the UV light which increase the chances and rate of skin cancer. One Nuclear reactor could power up half the united states meaning that we only need to make about two or three. We could find that not only will an alternative such as Nuclear Fusion be great for the environment but it will also meet our energy needs. Secondly we have geothermal energy which is basically a way to draw energy from the earth core. Surveys taken by utilities have found that homeowners using geothermal heat pumps rate them highly when compared to conventional systems. Figures indicate that more than 95 percent of all geothermal heat pump owners would recommend a similar system to their friends and family. No fuel is used to generate the power, which in return, means the running costs for the plants are very low as there are no costs for purchasing, transporting, or cleaning up of fuels you may consider purchasing to generate the power. this shows that geothermal energy is so much more effective than that of fossil fuel. lastly solar and wind power. In truth, many fossil and renewable energy sources ultimately come from solar energy. For all intents and purposes, this article refers to solar power as energy that is directly collected from the sun. Advantages: \u2022Zero emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases \u2022Easy to install \u2022Virtually no energy costs once installed \u2022The technology for solar power is constantly improving \u2022Sunlight is widely available Wind Power This alternative energy resource makes use of wind turbines for the conversion of wind energy. Advantages: \u2022No emissions, hence no greenhouse gas contributions \u2022Though tall, wind turbines only require a small plot of land \u2022The cost per watt is among the lowest of current energy options \u2022Their ideal locations tend to be on farms and ranches, which is a benefit to rural economies we could find that all these alternative are both efficient and cost effective.", "qid": "13", "docid": "3d507ec5-2019-04-18T19:02:10Z-00003-000", "rank": 8, "score": 170685.0}, {"content": "Title: Can alternative energy replace fossil fuels Content: Hi everybody, I'm Adil Muhammad, Qatar and I'm glad debating this topic. Pro didn't tell us the roles, so I don't know whether the first round is just acceptance. That's why, I'm going to start rebuttal from the first round 1. Pro didn't tell us what is (or what is meant by, in this debate) 'Alternative energy'. 2. Pro said that it costs less money, do fossil fuels cost more or nuclear energy??? 3.Pro has the debate's topic: 'Can' and then starts debating 'Should' Character capacity very short.", "qid": "13", "docid": "6e782a7f-2019-04-18T13:11:24Z-00002-000", "rank": 9, "score": 170664.0}, {"content": "Title: The United States should change towards the use of alternative fuel and away from fossil fuels. Content: Here I will argue for the presumption that the United States should change towards the use of alternative fuel and away from fossil fuels. I define the United States to mean the public as a whole and not just the government. Alternative fuels are fuels that are other substances other than the conventional fossil fuels that can be made and used as fuels; renewable energy source. Fossil fuels can be defined as a non-renewable energy source that is formed by the decomposition of organic matter under a layer of sand and silt which produce the heat and pressure that change its chemical structure over a time period of millions of years. From these definitions, the primary inference is that the American people and government should use renewable energy sources more and non-renewable energy sources less. The presumption is that the United States uses fossil fuels more than alternative fuels such as fuels made from yellow grease, a used frying oil from deep fryers. The formation of fossil fuels was done within a process of millions of years as the plant and animal organic material was covered by layers of sand and silt and forced to decompose under such pressure and heat. Today we are using such natural resources faster than it can be reproduced. The real debate will start in round 2, once there is an understanding as to whether the opponent agrees or disagrees with the above definitions and presumption.", "qid": "13", "docid": "8fdcc598-2019-04-18T19:16:21Z-00005-000", "rank": 10, "score": 170244.0}, {"content": "Title: Technology has now reached the point where we can continue to develop standards of living throughout... Content: Of course there is an important role for greater energy efficiency. However, most alternatives to fossil fuels are simply not effective. They can also cause their own problems. Nuclear power creates unacceptable radioactive waste; hydro-electric power projects, such as the Three Gorges dam in China, leads to the flooding of vast areas and the destruction of the local environment; solar and wind power often require the covering of large areas of natural beauty with solar panels or turbines. Environmentalists often paint an idealistic view of renewable energy which is far from the less romantic reality.", "qid": "13", "docid": "ae945b47-2019-04-19T12:43:59Z-00004-000", "rank": 11, "score": 167915.0}, {"content": "Title: government should intervene more with alternative fuel Content: If government wants to decrease our dependence on fossil fuels, it can do it very effectively by raising taxes on their consumption. Letting government directly subsidize business companies will only create new opportunities for corruption and waste of taxpayers money. See Solyndra as an example. http://en.wikipedia.org...", "qid": "13", "docid": "45c09d4e-2019-04-18T15:57:17Z-00004-000", "rank": 12, "score": 161536.0}, {"content": "Title: the proper versus current approach to \"alternative fuels\" Content: Once again, it is silly to argue with a fool with no scientific background at all, it is like arguing with a college freshman (or high schooler) lets first go over all your ERRORS first, and then I will adress your correct arguments ERROR 1 \"A fuel that can replace gasoline in its entirety forever- electric energy.\" CORRECTION how about aircraft? trucks and buses ? ships? spacecraft? electric alone wont even work for Priuses (more on than later) ERROR 2 By the second law of thermodynamics the energy in the hydrogen is necessarily less than the energy we used to split the water. That doesn't make it a fuel CORRECTION WRONG . hydrogen is a fuel. period. it is mostly made from methane right now, which is NOT renewable. It can also be made from bacteria. and of course water (H2O) ERROR 3 Green energy, renewable energies and carbon neutral energies are all needed to not only reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, foreign energy sources, but also needed to prevent and slow the progress of global warming and climate change. CORRECTION Climate change is a total BS tax scheme. But I am not here to argue that the main reason we need renewables is NATIONAL SECURITY and ECONOMICS. period ERROR 4 * \"Primarily right now hydrogen is produced through reformation of methane\" -- You cannot scale that. It can be done, but cannot be scaled to any degree. Methane is a fossil fuel, one which we have about 50 years worth remaining and certainly cannot be a permanent replacement. That process produces twice as much CO2 as hydrogen (by the chemistry). CORRECTION Methane steam reforamtion stoichiometry 101 (a couple catalzed steps actually) CH4 + 2 H20 -- > 4 H2 + CO2 (4 : 1 ratio of H2 to CO2 (plant food) ) Nice try, Chemistry genius (note that this is typical of liberals- they LIE and use words like \"by the Chemistry\" when they have NO CLUE what an atom or molecule is at all) ERROR 5 * Regardless of the manner of electrolysis the end result is the same, less energy than it took to make is in the resulting product. That's just basic physics. For the sake of argument, I'll let you say you have perfectly efficient electrolysis, which is to say you have exactly as much energy in the hydrogen as you used on the water. -- That's a glorified battery! CORRECTION (so now I see we have switched to Physics to act like were a smart liberal) No, hydrogen is a FUEL. It is a GAS. It is an ELEMENT. a BATTERY is a SOLID ELECTROCHEMICAL CELL, with an ELECTROLYTE. Your nonsensical arguments about the source of hydrogen are irrelevant ERROR 6 * Unlike a real battery however, you have no ability to store more energy. Battery technology has high potentials to store far more energy than we currently have in a tank of gas. Supercapacitors, better materials, faster charges, new technology... the possibility of innovation here is quite large. Batteries can be improved. CORRECTION What this is is simply liberspeak hopefulness- which is fine. There IS of course HOPE for improvement in batteries- but you know NOT of the current state of the technology or the physical and chemical limiations The main issues with batteries are (1) Weight (2) Cost (3) Longevity (4) Recharge Time (5) Materials limitations (6) Environmental factors (temperature coeffient of voltage) ALL of the examples YOU note do not fulfill criteria 1,2,and 6 for TRANSPORT You have NO CONCEPT OF HOW MUCH POWER A CAR NEEDS Now I am going to skip to your last statement for ERROR 7 ERROR 7 Your calculations about the \"price per gallon\" were flawed. The wikipedia page on the Toyota Prius (which I assume you used) didn't say the energy use was 100kwh. Rather it was saying the current limit to drive range was 7 miles in all electric mode up-bounded by the speed of 100 kilometers per hour. The range limit is low because batteries aren't designed for electric only mode and this is not a plug-in or electric model. The batteries only store about 1.3 kwh of power. Which by the way, works out to 0.185 kilowatt / mile or 2.8 cents a mile. That's 37% less than gasoline at $3.00 or $1.11 dollars a gallon. CORRECTION This completely nonsensical statement belies your complete and utter ignorance here are some FACTS (1) For the little crap Prius , it is about 57 kW in power http://www.toyota.com... (2) for a real SUV (toyota highlander) , it is about 270 HP in power http://www.carseek.com... For you, genius, 270 Hp at 1 HP = 0.766 kW = 206 kW So to be an ALL electric car, in one hour, you will need 57 kWh for the prius or 206 kWh for the Highlander Thus the hybrid is mostly using GASOLINE for now, NOT electricity ALL of your arguments for new batteries are NOT for cars, they are for computers and small EXPENSIVE things the HYBRID is the answer the fuel for the motor needs to transition to HYDROGEN, which is the ONLY fuel that can power everything and be scalable to any size. HYDROGEN can power AIRPLANES, the SPACE SHUTTLE and ANY TRANSPORT VEHICLE this is a FACT HYDROGEN IS THE ANSWER Sooner of later, after enough peasants starve to death, maybe congress will get it and give up the Ethanol and Biofuel DISASTER At least you support NUCLEAR ENERGY - you are not totally hopeless SOLARMAN", "qid": "13", "docid": "cb08147e-2019-04-18T19:50:34Z-00001-000", "rank": 13, "score": 160761.0}, {"content": "Title: Nuclear energy is a crucial alternative energy source that is too valuable to be restricted. Content: While none can truly replace fossil fuels, only one source is currently a contributor strong enough to supply a large portion of what fossil fuels power now, and that's nuclear energy. [[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article6860191.ece]] Nuclear energy may well be the only possible candidate that produces anything nearly as close to what fossil fuel sources do now while being committed to significantly reducing carbon emissions. [[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/02/05/INGRBH0HFH1.DTL]] Currently the third largest source, nuclear energy supplies about a sixth of all electricity generation in the world, only slightly less than hydro power. [[http://www.ieer.org/ensec/no-1/glbnrg.html]] Nuclear power plants are far more gross-land efficient than both fossil-fuel plants and hydro-electric plants and have much potential to expand throughout the world. Moreover, experts predict that nuclear energy will be a sustainable source for 30,000-60,000 years. It is also expected that energy security will be considerably reliable considering the widely available 16million metric tons of uranium. [[http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last]] While being the only feasible large-scale alternative to fossil-fuels, nuclear energy is also an excellent method in curbing carbon emissions. In the US, nuclear energy provided about a fifth of all produced electricity, saving 700 million metric tons of CO2 emissions yearly, an amount that matches the amount from all US passenger car exhaust. [[http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=wq.essay&essay_id=204363]]. As a source with such potential, limiting expansion is simply putting a choke-hold on our future.", "qid": "13", "docid": "7729e8b4-2019-04-19T12:45:07Z-00028-000", "rank": 14, "score": 160718.0}, {"content": "Title: Steps to stop \"Global Warming\" will kill far more people then it will save Content: Though it may be true that most alternative energy sources are duds/inefficient, this does not necessarily prove your point. You have spent the vast majority of this debate condemning the use and efficiency of alternative fuels, which I do not entirely disagree, but then again, it has little to do with your topic. Here are all your statements that support your claim, \"Steps to stop Global Warming will kill far more people than it will save\": \"Since there are no cost effective energy sources available to prosperous countries and environmentalists are demanding reductions of all energy sources that pollute in order to save the planet all the impoverished third world populations who could not even begin to afford these ridiculous ineffective alternatives to oil will surely perish by the millions from famine and wars caused by food shortages and regulations instituted by the U.N. the IPCC and the environmentalists who support them.\" Third world populations will not necessarily be affected, as our global warming measures cannot be forced upon other nations. We make our own rules. \"The consumption and production of fossil fuels is going to be reduced as the population grows and there are no cost effective viable energy sources available to replace fossil fuels. This means only one thing, that the poorest of the poor are going to suffer the most as the price of fossil fuels sky rocket and they will be unable to buy fuel to put in their old polluting farm equipment that will also be regulated out of existence to grow crops and feed them selves . . . The result is clear as I see it, the poorest of the poor are going to die by the millions if they are restricted from using fossil fuels and the old antiquated pollution producing cars and trucks and farm equipment they also use to feed them selves.\" As I stated above, only the poorest of the poor in this country will suffer. There is also such a thing as a water-powered mill. This can easily provide work and energy for those who use agricultural support. \"Fossil fuels are and will continue to be the major fuel source for this planet for at least the next 50 years as I have proven with all of my evidence.\" It this is true, then the plan for action against global warming will not be a major problem until fossil fuels expire. The plan is to reduce carbon emissions in the U.S. by 80% by the year 2050.", "qid": "13", "docid": "8706d0e3-2019-04-18T19:44:13Z-00000-000", "rank": 15, "score": 159903.0}, {"content": "Title: Nuclear energy is the primary alternative to dirty coal Content: Patrick Moore. \"Going Nuclear A Green Makes the Case\". Washington Post. April 16th, 2006: \"Wind and solar power have their place, but because they are intermittent and unpredictable they simply can't replace big baseload plants such as coal, nuclear and hydroelectric. Natural gas, a fossil fuel, is too expensive already, and its price is too volatile to risk building big baseload plants. Given that hydroelectric resources are built pretty much to capacity, nuclear is, by elimination, the only viable substitute for coal. It's that simple.\"", "qid": "13", "docid": "8b68ae4-2019-04-17T11:47:47Z-00093-000", "rank": 16, "score": 158800.0}, {"content": "Title: It is also imperative to look at the alternatives when assessing in what form of energy to invest. ... Content: The proposition lists a number of problems with alternative energy. It is perfectly true that alternative energy is not efficient enough to serve the energy needs of the world's population today. However, with investment all these methods could be made efficient enough to serve mankind. It is also true that initiation of alternative energy schemes, such as the Aswan dam, have caused problems. But the opposition are not advocating a blanket solution to every problem. Many dam projects, for example, could have been replaced by solar power had the technology been available, without the downside to the dams. In addition, there is almost always one renewable resource that a given country can exploit; tides for islands, the sun for equatorial countries, hot rocks for volcanic regions etc. and so any given country can in principle become self-sufficient with renewable energy. The global distribution of uranium is hugely uneven (much more so than fossil fuels) and the use of nuclear power therefore gives countries with uranium deposits disproportionate economic power. It is far from inconceivable that uranium could be subject to the same kind of monopoly that the OPEC (Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries) places on oil. Indeed, if the whole world went over to nuclear power, supplies of usable uranium ore would run out within a few short decades. This prevents countries from achieving self-sufficiency in energy production.", "qid": "13", "docid": "991e76d8-2019-04-19T12:45:42Z-00012-000", "rank": 17, "score": 157678.0}, {"content": "Title: What is the best alternate transportation fuel to replace gas -? I argue that it is hydrogen. Content: Hi James I dont know how much background you have in the subject, but your points are quite wrong. #1 Alcohol, or EtOH as I call it , is ethanol, the widely touted \"new\" alternative fuel It takes 3 times as much energy in fossil fuels to make and transport a gallon on EtOH to the pump as gasoline it is an inferior fuel, having less BTU/ gal it also emits aldehhydes, like formaledyhde finally, it is dependent on photosynthesis to start, which is 1% effieient Bottom line : EtOH is a total loser and is only being pushed by misguided politicians with no clue by the farming lobby hers is just one of many technical links to educate you , or just type in \"ethanol is a disaster\" is a google search http://www.lewrockwell.com... #2 yes we have gasoline electric hybrids, which are more efficient and intriduce regenerative brakes and and electric drive train Hybrids will eventually be hydrogen-combustion - electric hybrids #3 This is where you obviously have no background in science \" Hydrogen although part water is an ok idea in theory this burns faster than gas would and emit more hydrocarbons into the air we breathe.\" How can H2, which burns with O2 to make H2O, emit hydrocarbons (HxCy) this is nonsense. Hydrgoen is split from water, through electrolysis, and remade into H20 there is no pollution whatsoever, unless you think water is a pollutant #4 The ONLY way to fuel the ENTIRE transportation sector is with hydrogen and electricity, produced from renewable resources. this is a plain and simple fact that is irrefutable why havent we done it yet ? becuase gas has been 2$ a gallon until recently hydrogen costs about 5$ / gallon equivalent (in Germany currently- where gasoline is 7-8$) that is the only impediment IT does need to be a TOP-DOWN, i.e federally mandated transition", "qid": "13", "docid": "c67a3d49-2019-04-18T20:03:24Z-00003-000", "rank": 18, "score": 157042.0}, {"content": "Title: Nuclear Power is the most viable substitute from fossil fuels Content: Thank you for this debate, I believe very strongly what I am about to say, and this is an issue that needs to be hammered out to get to the real problems. I am going to argue for the alternative energy source known as geothermal energy. It is obvious that fossil fuels are finite, and we as humans need to be responsible in creating a safe, reliable, and (if possible) limitless energy. Thank goodness there is such a resource. Why geothermal energy? 1) Geothermal energy is inexpensive and easy to obtain. My opponent makes the claim that GE can only be obtained in places where sufficient warmth is available. What he doesn't say is that place is EVERYWHERE. The US being the best country to take advantage of this(1). However, no matter where you are in the world, you can dig a hole. There are better areas than others to dig, of course, but the process to gain the energy is extremely cheap because all you need to do is make generators similar to those in nuclear power plants to get the steam. This means that we can peacefully extract resources in our own country without sending troops to other countries to extract oil in the Middle East. 2) Geothermal energy is virtually limitless. The Earth's core holds around 8,000 zeta joules of energy ripe for the taking. It takes .5 zeta joules of energy to power the rest of the world for eternity. Tapping into this beast of an energy supply is obviously in our benefit. Why not use our planets most powerful energy creating resource into our hands? Why not Nuclear Energy? 1) Nuclear energy is dangerous to obtain. The mining of uranium, as well as its refining and enrichment, and the production of plutonium produce radioactive isotopes that contaminate the surrounding area, including the groundwater, air, land, plants, and equipment. As a result, humans and the entire ecosystem are adversely and profoundly affected. Some of these radioactive isotopes are extraordinarily long-lived, remaining toxic for hundreds of thousands of years. Presently, we are only beginning to observe and experience the consequences of producing nuclear energy. If our goal is to preserve the environment and protect our future on Earth, then this seems like one of the worst ways to do it. 2) We cannot share nuclear energy technology other countries for risk of nuclear proliferation. Nuclear energy relies on the fact that some elements can be split (in a process called fission) and will release part of their energy as heat. Because it fissions easily, Uranium-235 (U-235) is one of the elements most commonly used to produce nuclear energy. It is generally used in a mixture with Uranium-238, and produces Plutonium-239 (Pu-239) as waste in the process. The technology for producing nuclear energy that is shared among nations, particularly the process that turns raw uranium into lowly-enriched uranium, can also be used to produce highly-enriched, weapons-grade uranium. We do not and cannot share this information with many nations because it is a great risk to security. This problem is completely absent in the drive for geothermal energy. In conclusion, we may need alternative sources of energy, but nuclear energy is not the way to obtain it. Geothermal energy is plentiful, cheap, and safe to get. Thank you 1-http://www.ucsusa.org...", "qid": "13", "docid": "3af9364a-2019-04-18T18:59:56Z-00004-000", "rank": 19, "score": 156872.0}, {"content": "Title: The United States should change towards the use of alternative fuel and away from fossil fuels. Content: I thank my opponent for starting this debate and will begin by addressing their definitions: 1) \"I define the United States to mean the public as a whole and not just the government.\" This is rather ambiguous. Are you arguing on moral grounds (i.e. the public as a whole) that we should change, or upon policy grounds (i.e. the government)? 2) \"Alternative fuels are fuels that are other substances other than the conventional fossil fuels that can be made and used as fuels; renewable energy source. Fossil fuels can be defined as a non-renewable energy source that is formed by the decomposition of organic matter under a layer of sand and silt which produce the heat and pressure that change its chemical structure over a time period of millions of years.\" I agree with these definitions more or less, except for the part about it taking millions of years to produce coal (1). Furthermore according to your own definition, artificial coal could be considered an alternative fuel when compared with natural coal (1). \"From these definitions, the primary inference is that the American people and government should use renewable energy sources more and non-renewable energy sources less.\" This is less an inference and more your opinion, which I believe belongs in Round 2. --------------------------------------------------------------- I look forward to your attempt at proving the United States \"should\" progress away from the use of fossil fuels, though from your Round 1 arguments it would appear that you have your work cut out for you in terms of providing the necessary evidence. (1) - http://www.sciencedirect.com...", "qid": "13", "docid": "8fdcc598-2019-04-18T19:16:21Z-00004-000", "rank": 20, "score": 156697.0}, {"content": "Title: Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels. Content: Electric cars can be expensive to own (the price of the batteries). They won\"t go far without stopping to re-charge the battery. Except in London, there is almost nowhere you can go to charge them up. Most of the electricity in this country is made by burning coal, gas or oil, so this means that electric cars end up being as pollutants as the fossil burning cars. The batteries used to power electric cars are very heavy. This slows the cars. Battery costs will vary but may be several thousand pounds and they have to be replaced every 5 years. The batteries use lithium and other rare metals. Disposing of batteries causes real environment problems. In an accident it may be difficult to get you out of the car because of the dangers of electrocution. Chemicals spilled from the battery may also be dangerous. The average electric car available in the UK will reach 50-55 mph. this is lower than even a small 1.1L car. A kilogramme of petrol contains enough energy to propel a car about 15 miles. A kilo of fully-charged lithium-ion battery will drive your electric car 500 yards. And you only get about 100 miles to a fully-charged battery at best, compared with 1,000-plus miles from the most economical diesels. This leads to \"range anxiety\", or the fear you will be stranded miles away from a socket. The energy intensive manufacturing of EVs means that some cars make almost double the impact on global warming as conventional cars. This is mostly because of the raw materials and energy needed to build the lithium-ion batteries. In the UK, during 2012, electricity generation from coal-fired power stations actually increased to almost 40% of total production, as the price of gas soared, and gas-fired electricity generation was reduced. Electricity from coal, which is the most polluting way to generate power, drastically reduces the environmental advantage for EVs. Because China, for example, generates almost all its power from coal, life cycle analysis of EV cars in China shows they are far more polluting than conventional cars. This means that depending on the electricity produced based on coal, the impact of an electric car can vary. If the production of burning coal based electricity is really high, it means that the impact of an electric car can be even higher than a fuel powered car.", "qid": "13", "docid": "1baa36a6-2019-04-18T16:31:18Z-00002-000", "rank": 21, "score": 156089.0}, {"content": "Title: Nuclear Power is the most viable substitute from fossil fuels Content: I thank whoever accepts this debate. As the pro side, I define nuclear power as power generated as a result of nuclear fission and fossil fuels as coal, natural gas, and oil. The job of my opponent is to provide a suitable alternative that is more viable than nuclear in substituting fossil fuels. My first argument is nuclear power's ease of location. A nuclear plant can be built anywhere on land (and possibly sea) which could provide power for more desolate places or places which have temperature extremes. While the sun may be shining for the day, there are many places where solar panels are not cost effective. Geothermal energy is self explanatory as it can only be done where there is sufficient warmth in the ground. Wind energy has to be put in rather desolate places that have seasonal temperatures as the cost of maintaining wind farms in a blizzard is tremendous. Hydro has to be near water and cannot be inland without rivers. Nuclear plants can be built anywhere and the energy can be generated at a rather low cost which will later tie into my second point. Nuclear power can be in all temperatures and can be provided to every place in the world. Even coal, oil and natural gas have to be reasonably to a mine or well or the transportation cost would be too high. As shown in the following website, the cost of uranium needed for nuclear does not really affect the price. Logically following, the location of the uranium that it uses does not have to close to the plant. . http://www.world-nuclear.org...", "qid": "13", "docid": "3af9364a-2019-04-18T18:59:56Z-00005-000", "rank": 22, "score": 156030.0}, {"content": "Title: fossil fuel Content: Contradicting to what my opponent argues, many of these alternatives are been used by many countries in the world. An example of this is Brazil who last year or two started using ethanol products such as sugar cane to manufacture most of their fuel and tend to their needs. Brazil have progressed a lot and in fact, they are the most improved country in the world since the resent years. My opponent mentions that Nuclear fission cases cancer however he failed to mention the fact that Magnetic reactor which are already in use is able to contain and transform these waste into useful materials thereby making Nuclear fission a safer product than that of fossil fuel. Fusion is not a chain reaction, therefore it can be stopped at anytime and there is no threat of a meltdown opponent also states that nuclear fission is more expensive than fossil fuel power but an article from thinkquest.org/ states that nuclear fission is The fuels that could be used are relatively inexpensive and readily available fusion would be a virtually inexhaustible energy supply that could eliminate most of the world's dependence on other fuels. giving all these facts we must see that Nuclear fission energy is a wise and a very good alternative to Fossil Fuel. Geothermal Energy: I agree that geothermal energy sources are: volcanoes, hot springs, and geysers but geothermal energy can also be drawn from the earths core as I mentioned in my previous debate. an article from darvil.clara.net states that Geothermal energy has been used for thousands of years in some countries for cooking and heating and these countries have progressed energy wise. geothermal energy is also an energy efficient alternative and could serve as more than 85 percent of the earths power need. my next point leads me to solar power. The production of energy from the use of fossil and some renewable fuels can be noisy, yet solar energy produces electricity very quietly. One of the great pros of solar energy is the ability to harness electricity in remote locations that are not linked to a national grid. A prime example of this is in space, where satellites are powered by high efficiency solar cells. The installation of solar panels in remote locations is usually much more cost effective than laying the required high voltage wires. Solar energy can be very efficient in a large area of the globe, and new technologies allow for a more efficient energy production on overcast/dull days. Solar panels can be installed on top of many rooftops, which eliminates the problem of finding the required space for solar panel placement. Another great pro of solar energy is the cost. Although the initial investment of solar cells may be high, once installed, they provide a free source of electricity, which will pay off over the coming years. The use of solar energy to produce electricity allows the user to become less dependent on the worlds fossil fuel supplies. Wind power: unlike what my opponent said, wind power is a cost efficient way and does not require the wind to blow as more renewable energy is developed, the nation's electricity supply will balance renewable energy supplies with regional demands. Studies have shown that significant investment in offshore wind on the Atlantic Coast would virtually always be producing electricity \u2013 so if the wind stops blowing in Massachusetts, South Carolina's offshore resource may supply power to the Northeast. comparison with other anthropogenic activities, the climate impact of wind power is negligible. The continued burning of fossil fuels and unsustainable development inflicts the greatest harm on the earth's climate. If wind energy generated enough electricity to meet current electricity usage, this would amount to about 6% of all other wind disturbances, like reforestation efforts and tall buildings. This would have no significant impact on global wind patterns. Additionally, wind turbines could have a side benefit of decreasing temperatures at higher latitudes, offsetting the anticipated warming caused by greenhouse gases. we could see that fossil fuel is not the answer but better alternatives are. http://na.oceana.org...", "qid": "13", "docid": "3d507ec5-2019-04-18T19:02:10Z-00001-000", "rank": 23, "score": 151984.0}, {"content": "Title: America should not become more dependent on oil Content: History does show that renewable technology tends to develop when it is economically efficient. Alternatives to fossil fuels will be found when fossil fuels are too expensive to buy, and therefore people are willing to buy what is initially an inferior product. It is only then after general adoption, that the inferior product will improve to the point at which it is equal to the product it is replacing. The fact is that as long as there are large scale supplies of fossil fuels available, and those supplies are plentiful enough to be affordable, consumers will be unwilling to accept the inferior performance they will get from electric cars, or the inferior comfort of smaller vehicles. The EU, with a far superior public transportation system is a bad comparison with the United States, as it is likely that the price at which Americans would accept the same sort of compromises is much higher, and no amount of environmental concern or preaching about alternative energy will generate the political capital to force them to if they don\u2019t have to. Furthermore, what the opposition ignores in this argument is that it is often the poor who will suffer the most from artificially high fuel prices. Raising prices will increasingly make driving a luxury good, limiting the mobility of low income workers. This will both reduce their standard of living (i.e. ability to take vacations) and reduce their options for work and therefore for advancement.", "qid": "13", "docid": "d258aeb1-2019-04-15T20:22:20Z-00013-000", "rank": 24, "score": 151374.0}, {"content": "Title: the proper versus current approach to \"alternative fuels\" Content: Hydrogen is the only answer as a long term fuel replacement to gasoline and JP4. Electric motors powered by a combination of stored energy, in batteries, and a fuel (hydrogen) can and will be able to replace in TOTAL the current and future consumption of Oil-based fuels like gasoline Ethanol and ALL plant based fuels will NOT work over the long term this is readily appparent the sooner that we start down the correct path, the sooner we have what we ALL 100% want - an energy economy completely run on carbon-less currency electrons and water, hydrogen and oxygen anyone want to argue with this ? feel free this is THE preeminent debate we need to have nationally", "qid": "13", "docid": "cb08147e-2019-04-18T19:50:34Z-00005-000", "rank": 25, "score": 150846.0}, {"content": "Title: Natural gas can replace fossil fuels that emit more greenhouse gases Content: \"Natural Gas -- A Fossil Fuel\". Energy Information Administration. - \"Natural gas burns more cleanly than other fossil fuels. It has fewer emissions of sulfur, carbon, and nitrogen than coal or oil, and when it is burned, it leaves almost no ash particles. Being a clean fuel is one reason that the use of natural gas, especially for electricity generation, has grown so much and is expected to grow even more in the future.\"", "qid": "13", "docid": "dee205c0-2019-04-17T11:47:38Z-00043-000", "rank": 26, "score": 150603.0}, {"content": "Title: An alternative to Gasoline Content: I accept the challenge. Hopefully this will be fun. I wish there were good alternatives to gasoline but there are not any good alternatives here right now that can replace it. Electricity is not unlimited source. The biggest sources of electricity is coal. It is cleaner but is still fossil fuel and still produces a lot of CO2. Coal is also limited. People can argue that solar and wind power are not limited but the technology use to harness the electricity is not advanced enough yet. A lot of fossil fuel are needed to make solar panels and wind mills. There is also no good way to store of this energy. When night comes the solar panel doesn't produce electricity. Right now engineers are trying to develope a storage for electricity during the day but it isn't efficient and cheap enough at this time. \"If we used Vegetable oil for our vehicles then not only will the enviroment will be better but also, it would help farmers make more money and there would be more farmers which would help this country have more food production and less people starving.\" This statement is false for many reasons. 1) The environment will not be better off. Vegetable oil burns less CO2 but that isn't the only thing that concerns the environment. In order to use vegetable oil to replace even 50% of gasoline it will have to take all the farm land of the United States of America and none will be used for food. This makes the environmental impact a disaster. 2) Farmers will make more money but starvation will increase. During the gas price boom last year ethanol (in which is more efficient than vegetable oil) use skyrocket. As a result a corn shortage happened and prices went up for food that had relation with corn. This shortage wasn't a problem in United States as much in poor countries. 3) Obesity is the problem in the United States not really starvation. Going hungry in the United States is nothing like going hungry in Africa. There is enough food production and food is profitable. More farmers live in Beverly Hills than movie stars. Food is a good enough reason to farm.", "qid": "13", "docid": "de8ec542-2019-04-18T19:27:37Z-00003-000", "rank": 27, "score": 149454.0}, {"content": "Title: Difficulty in developing of alternative energy sources Content: After the World War Second many developed countries have used fossile fuels to maintain stable economic activities. We have been dependent too much on those natural resources to make our life comfortable and convinient. Here, we have to recognize that ``fossile fuels (oil, coal and natural gas ) currently provide about 85percent of all the energy use both in U.S. and worldwide. These resources are being constantly depleted.``(www. renewable- energysources.com) Without oil, we can not drive and produce electricity. Using fossile energies has contributed to building mass-produced and mass-consumption Affluent Society since the end of the War for many countries of the world. These days newly emerging countries like China and India are catching up with the U.S. and Japan in the GDP(gross domestic product) based on the economic model of highly developed countries. Both countries are using fossile energies too much. On the other hand economy and industry which are dependent on fossile energies have produced global warming. And as I mentioned earlier, natural resources are decreasing every year. Shortage of those resources and global warming are threatening human survival and are contributing to making an impasse for attaining stable economic development. To coping with these serious problems facing us today many governments, local cities and communities are tackling with developing of new alternative energy sources. However, unfortunately there are number of hurdles to promote the project. What kinds of difficult factors lie ahead for developing of new energy sources like solar, wind and nuclear power? In round 3, I discuss them from the viewpoint of international political relations and social perspective.", "qid": "13", "docid": "e91be287-2019-04-18T18:33:15Z-00001-000", "rank": 28, "score": 149162.0}, {"content": "Title: An alternative to Gasoline Content: I think that there should be an alternative to fossil fuel. Gasoline pollutes the planet and also its really expensive these days. Gasoline is a limited resource and therefore, we will have to swich to an alternative fuel sooner or later. Electricity is an unlimited resource and its also better for the enviroment than gasoline. Vegetable oil is also better for the enviroment than fossil fuel. If we used Vegetable oil for our vehicles then not only will the enviroment will be better but also, it would help farmers make more money and there would be more farmers which would help this country have more food production and less people starving.", "qid": "13", "docid": "de8ec542-2019-04-18T19:27:37Z-00004-000", "rank": 29, "score": 148302.0}, {"content": "Title: moutain top removal Content: Your point is a valid one my friend. Unfortunately your idealism gets in the way of practicality. America, as it is, is currently going through an energy crisis. Our dependence on foreign oil has negatively affected both our foreign policy and our economy. We must break free of the vice that the middle east has put us in! To do so, we must find our energy hear, in America. There are several plausible and practical solutions. They range from drilling in ANWR to providing more subsidies for alternative fuels. Within that spectrum there are many other options. Coal is a good one. Clean coal technology is making coal much more environmentally friendly. Yes, I know it is a fossil fuel, but until alternative energy becomes more effective, it is a legitimate way to break free of oil in the short term. And the most effective way to get coal is mountain top removal. If we limit the number of mountains it can be done on, this will not ruin the beauty of the region. I agree, it is a sacrifice, but things like this occasionally have to be done if only to provide people with energy.", "qid": "13", "docid": "d7bf3b30-2019-04-18T20:00:36Z-00002-000", "rank": 30, "score": 146023.0}, {"content": "Title: Nuclear is only clean energy source that can replace fossil fuels Content: \"The future is green, the future is nuclear.\" Times Online. October 4, 2009: \"Professor David MacKay, the government\u2019s chief scientific adviser on climate change, has said what many people have long believed. You cannot meet Britain\u2019s future energy needs and reduced carbon emissions without a big expansion of nuclear power. [...] As we report today, he believes we should aim to be producing four times the amount of electricity from nuclear as now. Alternative energy sources such as wind, solar and wavepower will never provide more than a fraction of the country\u2019s energy needs. Relying on gas, coal and oil, with an increasing proportion imported, does not square with Britain\u2019s international climate commitments.\"", "qid": "13", "docid": "8b68ae4-2019-04-17T11:47:47Z-00097-000", "rank": 31, "score": 145953.0}, {"content": "Title: The United States federal government should substantially increase alternative energy incentives in Content: p1 renewable energy is insufficient to meet energy needs of our society. Dr. Daniel LaGatta stated on February 16, 2010, that the U.S. cannot meet its energy needs by 2035 without at least 40 new nuclear plants p2 Fossil fuels are a finite resource p3 Further evidence from: http://www.energycrisis.org...... -\"\"There are currently 98 oil producing countries in the world, of which 64 are thought to have passed their geologically imposed production peak, and of those 60 are in terminal production decline.\"", "qid": "13", "docid": "43533c49-2019-04-18T16:15:41Z-00005-000", "rank": 32, "score": 145717.0}, {"content": "Title: Alternative energy methods should be proposed with total costs Content: The is no need for me to discuss points that are irrelevant to the topic. Con rambles about social stability, nuclear war, dynastic stability, and numerous other obvious irrelevancies. Since there are no claims relevant to the resolution, there is nothing to refute. Con concedes that his alternative does not facilitate public policy debate and avoids real issues. He says, \"I answer with a simple, so what?\" Since Con is participating in a public policy debate, he implicitly recognizes the value of such debates. therefore his argument is sophistry. I cite Con for bad conduct in accepting the debate challenge then wasting my time and the reader's time with irrelevant childish arguments. Moreover, Con killed the topic, which might have otherwise been accepted by someone who could explain why the practice of ignoring the total costs of alternative energy is so widely ignored. Even if one does not believe CO2 is responsible for climate change, we should be concerned with energy independence and with the inevitable depletion of fossil fuels. Therefore, the resolution should be affirmed to help develop practical alternatives.", "qid": "13", "docid": "e2550a31-2019-04-18T19:24:02Z-00001-000", "rank": 33, "score": 144872.0}, {"content": "Title: We should reduce our use of fossil fuels anyway Content: As fuels become more scarce their price will rise, alternatives will be developed and become cost-effective on their own. We do not need to waste time and money on expensive government funded early development programmes.", "qid": "13", "docid": "212f2296-2019-04-19T12:47:07Z-00009-000", "rank": 34, "score": 144688.0}, {"content": "Title: Nuclear energy has a carbon footprint, but it is negligible. Content: Fossil fuels are not inherently required in mining Uranium and building nuclear plants. It just so happens that all modern machinery and vehicles involved in this process are powered by fossil fuels. Yet, these fossil-fuel-based machinery can be replaced by electric vehicles and machinery, possibly supplied by nuclear power plants themselves. In sum, nuclear energy is inherently clean. It is only the processes surrounding it that are dirty. This can and will change.", "qid": "13", "docid": "8b68ae4-2019-04-17T11:47:47Z-00094-000", "rank": 35, "score": 142598.0}, {"content": "Title: By 2040, the FG should mandate that all new passenger vehicles sold in US be powered by alt fuels Content: America relies largely on foreign countries for oil and other necessities. If we don't do something about the dwindling oil supplies soon we could come to a point where we don't have enough gasoline to power our cars. This is why the switch to alternative fuels is not only an option it is a necessity. As of right now it is estimated that we have enough oil to last us only until the year 2030. Thus I must agree with the resolution that by 2040, the federal government should mandate that all new passenger vehicles and light trucks sold in the United States be powered by alternative fuels. There are two main reasons we should convert to alternative fuels: Air Pollution and Oil Dependence. The need to reduce reliance on fossil fuels is an urgent one. Steam replaced the horse, and gasoline replaced steam, and the switch to alternative fuels is clearly next in line in this succession. Please don't be deceived into believing that alternatively-powered cars have to be small, slow and as dull. There are quite a few vehicles that already are powered by alternative methods such as the Telsa Roadster which is powered electrically, the Honda FCX Clarity which is run on hydrogen, or the RUF Porsche 911 which is also run electrically. There are already many vehicles in production that are run by alternative fuels. These vehicles are helping our environment. Contention 1: Oil Dependence: The United States has 4 percent of the world's population and uses almost a quarter of its oil. Our economic engine is now 70 percent dependent on the energy resources of other countries, their good judgment, and most importantly, their good will toward us. So basically if we anger the countries we depend on then the United States will be cut off from its oil supply. If that happens and we don't have alternative fuel run cars the results would be disastrous. Plus, The scientific concenses concludes that Peak oil will happen soon. Peak oil is the point in time when the maximum rate of global petroleum extraction is reached, after which the rate of production enters terminal decline according to dictionary. com. We all know that oil is not infinite, it will run out one day (most conclude it will peak on the year 2010) When this happens, our economy that is 70 percent dependent on oil, will be immediately shot resulting in an economic collapse. Katherine A. Siggerud says, \"Efforts to reduce oil consumption will need to include the transportation sector because transportation in the United States currently accounts for 68 percent of the nation's oil consumption\". It is easy to see that our oil dependency threatens our economy greatly. Rising demand and shrinking domestic production of oil means that America is importing more and more oil each year\u2014most from the worlds most unfriendly and unstable regions. We are spending more than $13 million per hour on foreign oil and more than $25 billion a year on Persian Gulf imports alone. The answer is simple; end this oil dependency by switching to alternative fuels. When we can do that we can have a stronger, more independent economy. Right now our economy is tied up on something that will run out someday, and that day is too soon for comfort. According to Senator Richard Lugar, large industrializing nations such as China and India are seeking new energy supplies, so oil and natural gas will become more expensive. In the long run we will face the prospect that the world's supply of oil may not be abundant and accessible enough to support continued economic growth in both the industrialized West and in large rapidly growing economies. As we approach the point where the world's oil-hungry economies are competing for insufficient supplies of energy, oil will become an even stronger magnet for conflict Contention 2: Air Pollution According to Naturalgas. org Global warming, or the 'greenhouse effect' is an environmental issue that deals with the potential for global climate change due to increased levels of atmospheric or 'greenhouse gases'. There are certain gases in our atmosphere that serve to regulate the amount of heat that is kept close to the Earth's surface. Scientists theorize that an increase in these greenhouse gases will translate into increased temperatures around the globe, which would result in many disastrous environmental effects. In fact, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicts in its 'Third Assessment Report' released in February 2001 that over the next 100 years, global average temperatures will rise by between 2.4 and 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit. The principle greenhouse gases include water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen oxides, and some engineered chemicals such as cholorofluorocarbons. While most of these gases occur in the atmosphere naturally, levels have been increasing due to the widespread burning of fossil fuels by growing human populations. The reduction of greenhouse gas emissions has become a primary focus of environmental programs in countries around the world. Switching to alternative fuel powered vehicles will cut back on the emissions of greenhouse gases a great deal since the fuel they are powered by at this moment is one of the main contributors to the increase of greenhouse gases in the environment. Contention 3: Longer Vehicle Life According to ezalternativefuelvehicles. com The use of alternative fuels can extend the operation life of a vehicle. The process of corrosion and build-up will slow down if your car is running on cleaner fuel. Vehicles using alternative fuels will operate more efficiently and will have fewer maintenance problems and will ultimately save people money on maintenance costs. The Telsa Roadster, an alternatively powered vehicle, has a motor with just one moving part, the rotor, when in comparison the typical four-cylinder engine of a conventional car consists of over a hundred moving parts. When the engine consists of fewer parts the car becomes significantly lighter and its parts wear down much slower. Contention 4: Health Motor Vehicles in America have become such a huge issue due to the amount of pollution they emit. Areas where there are enormous amounts of people, such as Los Angeles and New York, are having major issues with health due to the pollution. The lung capacity of children growing up in Los Angeles is 10% to 15% less than that of the children growing up in cities with cleaner air. Alternative fuels can make gigantic and immediate improvements. The pollution caused by motor vehicles is also known to cause asthma. According to CNN. com 17 million people suffer from asthma right now and if we cut back on the pollution by switching to alternative fuels we could reduce the number of people with this horrid disease.", "qid": "13", "docid": "c98fea23-2019-04-18T19:31:33Z-00006-000", "rank": 36, "score": 142368.0}, {"content": "Title: Abundant solar energy can replace fossil fuels and slash emissions Content: Global warming is driven by the release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Solar energy emits none of these gases, and is abundant, so can dramatically slash greenhouse gas emissions and help reverse global warming.", "qid": "13", "docid": "9bc8d269-2019-04-17T11:47:38Z-00074-000", "rank": 37, "score": 142162.0}, {"content": "Title: fossil fuel Content: Responding to my opponent: I know that alternatives to fossil fuel exist \u2013 the fact that I named most of them in the previous round proves I know of their existence. The problem is that none of them are yet viable as a complete fossil fuel replacement in electricity generation or in car locomotion because they are either too expensive, are not capable of being produced on a large enough scale, or are not a reliable/consistent enough form of power. Nuclear power I think my opponent means nuclear fission. Fission is a reaction that breaks apart an atom (usually Uranium-235) to generate energy. Fusion is the process the sun uses of fusing together protons to generate energy. Scientists have yet to produce a commercially viable fusion power plant, and many people still consider fusion power a pipe dream. Nuclear power, in contrast, is not a good fossil fuel replacement. The Huffington Post reports that nuclear power plants, even when operated correctly, cause cancer. \"Every day, reactors must routinely release a portion of radioactive chemicals into local air and water -- the same chemicals found in atomic bomb tests. They enter human bodies through breathing and the food chain. . . . after half a century of a large-scale experiment with nuclear power, the verdict is in: nuclear reactors cause cancer.\" [1] The Huffington post cites a number of studies proving the link between nuclear power and cancer: \"Joseph Mangano, MPH, MBA, Executive Director of the Radiation and Public Health Project, has authored 23 scientific articles since the mid-1990s documenting high local cancer rates near [nuclear power plants]. One study showed child cancer exceeded the national rate near 14 of 14 plants in the eastern U.S. Another showed that when U.S. nuclear plants closed, local infant deaths and child cancer cases plunged immediately after shutdown . . . A November 2007 article on U.S. child leukemia deaths updated the 1990 National Cancer Institute study and showed local rates rose as nuclear plants aged -- except near plants that shut down.\" [2] Studies in Germany have also proved the link between nuclear power plants and cancer. [3] The fear of cancer sparks a \"not-in-my-backyard\" (NIMBY) attitude towards nuclear power plants, whereby locals and politicians protest the location of nuclear power plants near their homes, thereby making it impossible to build nuclear power plants anywhere. If countries all decided to pursue nuclear power, it would take well over a hundred years to build all the power plants. There is only one steel plant in the world, Japan Steel, that has a forge big enough to make the containment vessel for nuclear power plants. They are only capable of forging 5 such containment vessels per year. [4] The Star continues that the waiting list is filled up until at least 2018, even though demand for nuclear power is relatively low right now. Building enough nuclear power plants is infeasible. Other arguments against nuclear include: it is more expensive than fossil fuel power. The Post-Gazette reports that \"A gas-fired plant can be built for $350 per kilowatt (kW) . . . A nuclear plant costs $3,000 to $4,000 per kw to build.\" [5] Nuclear power reliance worldwide would create a spent fuel storage problem \u2013 where does all the radioactive waste go? Nevada has been unwilling to allow the U.S. to store the waste at the Yucca Mountain site. In addition, nuclear is non-renewable: uranium sources will run out. And lastly, a global trade in uranium/plutonium makes it easier for a terrorist to get their hands on one of these substances. Nuclear power as a replacement source is negated. Geothermal: The Energy Information Agency explains that geothermal energy sources are: volcanoes, hot springs, and geysers, most of which are located on the west coast of the Americas and the east coast of Asia. [6] These energy sources are not widely available, which is why geothermal has the potential to provide far less than 1% of the world's power. Geothermal as a fossil fuel replacement is negated. Solar/wind: My opponent does not answer my analysis that these are intermittent power sources with no way to store their energy. When the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining, we must get our power from coal or natural gas. Studies show that wind power in particular does not replace fossil fuel power because electric utility companies are forced to keep natural gas power plants readily available in case the wind is not blowing and since power plants cannot be easily turned on and off, the natural gas plants are constantly on. In addition, my opponent does not answer the evidence from the Energy Information Agency that in the best case scenario, the United States could only generate 10% of its power from renewable sources by 2035. In addition, wind and solar plants are very expensive because they need to built in specific locations (where wind blows or where cloud cover is rare) and necessitate new power grids to be built. Power grids typically cost $3 million per mile to build. In addition, the further the power plants are located away from the houses that need them, the more energy that will be lost due to \"line loss.\" The friction caused by electrons moving through the wires causes lost electricity due to heat. This is another of the many challenges facing solar/wind. Wind has further challenges. The annoying noise from the rotor blades and the blinking lights to warn airplanes/helicopters of their presence decrease property values near wind farms. According to Mountain Communities for Responsible Energy, \"Large wind turbines in concert with each other, especially those sited on ridgetops with side slopes shaped like a parabolic reflector, create profound, relentless noise reverberations extending out for more than a mile, sounding like \"a boot tumbling in a dryer\" or the revving of jet engines on a runway.\" [7]. Wind farms thus generate the same NIMBY attitude that nuclear power plants generate. For all of the above reasons, solar and wind power are not viable replacements for fossil fuels. If we like to have electricity and to drive our cars, fossil fuels are the only option for the foreseeable future. UV light: As someone who is extremely fair skinned, the lives of Australians sound extremely similar to my own. I cannot leave the house without sunscreen and protective coverings or else I will develop a sunburn within a matter of 15-20 minutes of sun exposure. Even ozone-shielded UV radiation can be highly damaging, and doctors recommend that even dark-skinned individuals wear sunscreen. In addition, my opponent never answers my analysis that the particular ozone hole he is talking about over Australia is widely acknowledged as being caused by the emission of CFC's, not of fossil fuels. Lastly, my opponent has no response to the tens of millions of jobs that are generated worldwide by fossil fuels and related industries, and the fact that fossil fuel-exporting dependent countries would have their economies collapse without fossil fuels, causing a massive drop in global demand for good and services, sinking all countries further into the global recession. [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [2] Ibid [3] http://www.currentconcerns.ch... [4] http://www.thestar.com... [5] http://www.post-gazette.com... [6] http://www.eia.doe.gov... [7] http://www.wvmcre.org...", "qid": "13", "docid": "3d507ec5-2019-04-18T19:02:10Z-00002-000", "rank": 38, "score": 141952.0}, {"content": "Title: Solar energy Content: Abundant solar energy can replace fossil fuels and slash emissions", "qid": "13", "docid": "9bc8d269-2019-04-17T11:47:38Z-00073-000", "rank": 39, "score": 141846.0}, {"content": "Title: Nuclear Power is the most viable substitute from fossil fuels Content: First, the rebuttals on why geothermal energy would NOT be a viable resource to replace fossil fuels and why nuclear power would be a better choice. Geothermal energy as my opponent claims is everywhere. That's about the same as saying that we all live above Earth's core. If one drills 3 TO 4 MILES deep, one can reach temperatures of about 300 to 400F (about 200 degrees Celsius). I ask my opponent how this is economically viable in any way. Secondly, after doing some research on geothermal energy, I found that there are actually many requirements of locations of geothermal energies. One first needs magma that heats up ground water to 100 degrees Celsius (212 F) in order to be USABLE. My opponent uses the States as an example where geothermal energy is everywhere. It's not. It is only in Western USA, Alaska, and Hawaii that these geothermal place are actually viable. I quote from a website on geothermal. \"To be both usable and economical a (geothermal) site must have an adequate volume of hot water or steam that is not too impure to use, a surface water source to cool generating equipment, and close proximity to power transmission lines. So, even in promising areas, economically usable sites are few and they are difficult to locate. \" Not only are geothermal places difficult to find, the drilling cost of these sites in a hot, dry and corrosive location is far higher than any other kind of drilling. There are also many very toxic and corrosive materials in the process of geothermal drilling. Arsenic, mercury and ammonia all come with the hot water generated from geothermal and cause many health hazards on a near daily basis. . http://lifestyle.iloveindia.com... . http://www.energy-consumers-edge.com... Now I will begin to defend my points. My opponent claims that nuclear energy is dangerous to explain. He claims the mining of uranium is very dangerous. I ask him to refer to the following chart on how \"dangerous\" it is. Now, I know people with think of the Chernobyl accident in Russia, but nuclear plants have improved tremendously, and that plant did not even have an upper containment system. Now, no nuclear plant in the world does not have a containment system, and the last major accident of nuclear was pretty much Chernobyl in 1986. Comparing deaths/TWh for all energy sources Energy Source Death Rate (deaths per TWh) Coal \u2013 world average 161 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity) Coal \u2013 China 278 Coal \u2013 USA 15 Oil 36 (36% of world energy) Natural Gas 4 (21% of world energy) Biofuel/Biomass 12 Peat 12 Solar (rooftop) 0.44 (less than 0.1% of world energy) Wind 0.15 (less than 1% of world energy) Hydro 0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy) Hydro - world including Banqiao) 1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead) Nuclear 0.04 (5.9% of world energy) *Notice that geothermal is not even included because the percentage where it is actually used is smaller than 0.1%. Uranium mining is just like any other kind of mining and uranium itself is more abundant than gold. The concentration uranium is not high enough to be any danger and there has NEVER been a death related to nuclear radiation in the US EVER. The disposal of nuclear waste has many ways, such as the Yucca mountain idea. However, I personally agree with France's way of reprocessing the nuclear waste so it can be reused and the parts left will become not radioactive in just a few hundred years. Nearly all of the world's largest countries already have access to nuclear energy. All of these countries first made nuclear weapons and then turned to civilian nuclear plants. These plants can be built for countries without nuclear secrets as it has been done before. As long as the plant is for civilian purposes, most countries will agree to build a nuclear plant for a country as a method of producing electricity. . http://www.world-nuclear.org... Finally, I will present my second point. Nuclear energy is one of the cheapest energies that can produce a large amount. Nuclear energy costs under 2 cents a kilowatt and the amount of energy one pound of uranium can produce is absolutely tremendous. Nuclear power can be adjusted to produce more energy in on-peak times and less energy in off-peak times and is one of the very few that can keep up with demand in nearly any conditions. Nuclear factories can be mass produced in the world and France currently has more than 75% of its energy from Nuclear. France is a large European country so it is a working example of how nuclear energy can be a suitable replacement from fossil fuels. I ask my opponent to give an example of a country that has more than half or even 40% of its energy produced from geothermal. For nuclear, I can give (over 40%) Armenia, Belgium, France, Hungary, Slovakia and Ukraine. Germany is currently considering to also go into nuclear power because it can be mass produced and provides energy at a low cost. For the reasons I give above, it is my firm belief that nuclear energy is the best substitute and most viable substitute from fossil fuels. Geothermal simply just does not have that kind of capacity. Thank You.", "qid": "13", "docid": "3af9364a-2019-04-18T18:59:56Z-00003-000", "rank": 40, "score": 141776.0}, {"content": "Title: It is also imperative to look at the alternatives when assessing in what form of energy to invest. ... Content: It is also imperative to look at the alternatives when assessing in what form of energy to invest. For the reasons explained above (diminishing supply, environmental damage) we can rule fossil fuels out immediately. We also see enormous problems with every form of alternative energy. The most efficient source of renewable energy has been hydroelectric power. However, this usually creates more problems than it solves. Building a large dam necessarily floods an enormous region behind the dam which in turn can displace tens of thousands of people. There are also enormous ecological costs to dam building. A classical example is the Aswan dam in Egypt along the Nile. Not only did many thousands lose their homes but the yearly inundation of the Nile, which fertilised the surrounding land for thousands of year, was also stopped. The subsequent silting up of the river destroyed much wildlife. A similar story of ecological destruction and human homelessness surrounded the more recent Three Gorges dam project in China. Solar energy has never lived up to expectations since it is hugely inefficient. A solar panel the size of Europe would be needed to power a city the size of London! Wind energy is only marginally better with an unsightly wind farm the size of Texas needed to provide the energy for Texas alone. The worst performers of all have been geothermal and tidal energy which have been hopelessly inefficient because no rocks have been found that are hot enough and no waves have been found that are strong enough! The great irony is that not only are most renewable sources inefficient but many are also ecologically unsound! The opposition to the building wind farms in certain areas has been just as strong as the opposition to nuclear power because wind farms destroy the scenery, being so unsightly and large, and may also be bad for wildlife.", "qid": "13", "docid": "991e76d8-2019-04-19T12:45:42Z-00013-000", "rank": 41, "score": 141435.0}, {"content": "Title: What is the best alternate transportation fuel to replace gas -? I argue that it is hydrogen. Content: EtOH is a disaster - both using more energy than is produced, and also depleting food sources (ie corn ) for humans, which is more important Biofuels are OK but have major problems and will never make up even a FRACTION of our energy usage in the transportation sector (cars, planes , boats, trains, trucks etc) Bottom line :any source of energy based on current photosynthesis, which is 1% efficient, is meaningingless in the long term or from an efficiency standpoint Hydgrogen can be made from any source of electricity and water. the world is 2/3 water the sun provides about 15000 times the energy we need on a daily basis just in the US lower 48 territory alone to produce the hydrogen to run our entire transportation sector at only 5 % efficiency. photovoltaics, nuclear, wind power, hydrolectric, coal, gas, and and other sources of electricity can all be used to produce hydrogen hydrogen will only make water when burned stoichiometrically (correct 1:2 ratio), and some NOx if not, no CO2 for all you scared global warming schmucks Cars should go from gas- electric hybrid, to nat gas / electric to hythane hybrid, to hydrogen / electric hybrid Planes run fine on liquid H2 I would love to hear some schmuck who wants to try and push Ethanol or biofuels, or someone who thinks we can drill our way away from the muslim nutckaes and loser dictators (saudi, Iran, Venezuela, etc) who WE ARE COMPLETELY DEPEPENDENT ON cheers hydrogen guy", "qid": "13", "docid": "c67a3d49-2019-04-18T20:03:24Z-00005-000", "rank": 42, "score": 141206.0}, {"content": "Title: Should the world stop using Oil/gas Content: Due to the fact that fossil fuels are easily combustible and have a high calorific value, it's one of the most efficient energy sources in the world. [1] It has the highest energy output levels bIt's also the cheapest form of energy in the world as shown in the graph below. [2] Engines can be run on rather small amounts of gas. For example, cars can be taken tens of miles on a couple gallons, because the engine is powered by exploding gas farts in the cylinders. That's kind of a funny way of saying it, but really, gas ignites and powers machines very easily.2) Fossil fuels are highly reliable. This is what I mean. Every time you light a bucket of gas on fire, that thing ignites on fire. If you ignite gas in a cylinder, that gas will explode. If you put up a windmill Colorado Springs, you might get 1 kilowatt of energy per year. Since I'm using windmills as an example, I should point out that it's actually one of the least reliable forms of alternative energy known to man. You have to have the right wind speeds to operate with an 11 mile per gap to work with for effective energy production. [3] As far as other forms of energy go, we know solar energy would only work in the UK for three days out of the year, and Arizona would get nothing out of hydro energy. While it's possible that some of these alternative energies might work sometimes in these areas, it's impossible to say that we would have energy year round. Fossil fuels are the most reliable form of energy.3) Nuclear energy has large disadvantages. Nuclear energy is great as an energy substitute as far as energy output and cost go. However, it has a huge drawback, which is nuclear waste. Nuclear energy uses radioactive materials to boil water. But these radioactive materials eventually decay past the point of use. When this happens, we have to find a place to put it. If you start to use nuclear energy for everyone in the world, we would have plenty of power, but storing that waste would be a nightmare. If just a little plutonium leaks out of a storage tank due to natural wear on the storage unit and that plutonium gets into water, that piece of plutonium could easily poison a city. Just specks of plutonium can kill anyone who inhales or ingests them. [4]So the alternative energy sources so far are either deadly or unreliable and inefficient. Sources:[1] . http://www.conserve-energy-future.com...[2] . http://www.theenergycollective.com...[3] . http://www.wind-power-program.com...[4] . http://www.world-nuclear.org...", "qid": "13", "docid": "9d6aeb41-2019-04-18T14:17:35Z-00002-000", "rank": 43, "score": 140655.0}, {"content": "Title: Wind energy provides a sustainable alternative to fossil fuels and nuclear power Content: There is little doubt that the current mix of energy provision is simply unsustainable. Fossil fuels are simply too damaging to the environment and nuclear is just too expensive. Wind power is an established technology providing, for example, 21% of electricity in Denmark.[i] The research is already done and can be made available around the world. Once externalities are taken into account nuclear energy is the single most expensive way of producing a therm. Clean coal is, frankly, a myth and the trend for oil and gas is constantly upwards in term of price. Other renewables are embryonic technologies fraught with development costs whereas wind is an established technology already providing a significant share of the energy mix in several developed economies. [i] World Wind Energy Association, World Wind Energy Report 2010, April 2010, p.5", "qid": "13", "docid": "7ae7b591-2019-04-15T20:22:23Z-00009-000", "rank": 44, "score": 140235.0}, {"content": "Title: Alternative energy methods should be proposed with total costs Content: Con's counter proposal is defective because it does not facilitate public policy debate. The reason why total costs should be disclosed is to get all the facts on the table to facilitate an honest debate. Had that been done, for example, with ethanol or wind power, we might have greatly improved the laws pouring large sums of the taxpayer's money into subsidies. On the other hand, we might have focused more effort into using solar power for demand peaking in the large cities of the American Southwest. Con's counter proposal is another mechanism for ensuring that none of the real issues are avoided. Con's case contains numerous irrelevancies. For example, whether or not global warming is, overall, favorable to human affairs is irrelevant because alternative energy source are sought to reduce foreign dependence on oil, and because it is inevitable that fossil fuels will run out. In addition, most utilities are tightly regulated by government, so there should be an ongoing discussion of the cost-effectiveness of alternatives. If there were no global warming and no foreign dependence on oil, we would still be concerned with obtaining energy at the lowest cost and with minimizing pollution. The resolution is affirmed.", "qid": "13", "docid": "e2550a31-2019-04-18T19:24:02Z-00003-000", "rank": 45, "score": 140078.0}, {"content": "Title: Are Renewable Energy Sources Better than Fossil Fuels Content: With the non-stop hype about blaming CO2 for the warming of the Earth, Renewable resources such as solar and wind have risen as potential substitutes for fossil fuels. However, the renewable energy sources are unreliable and much more expensive. \"While raw forms of energy are both free and practically infinite, the equipment and materials needed to collect, process, and transport the energy to the users are neither one. Currently, the RE costs are generally higher than that of fossil-based and nuclear energy. In addition to this, unlike well-established conventional designs, the advancement in different RE technologies still requires substantial investments. \" [1]. It is also fair to point out something important to this debate: the most common sources of renewable energy are solar and wind. The problem with this is that the Sun won't always be out, and the wind doesn't always blow. This means that you won't always be able to get energy if you rely on solar and wind, as there is no areas that wind and solar energy are stored to be distributed; they must be used right away. So during winter, when the sun isn't always out, it would be much harder to get energy. You would have to place more solar panels to get enough energy to power a country through winter months, which would be very costly. And in order for wind turbines to be useful, the wind would have to constantly be blowing, which is hard to do, since wind speeds are unpredictable. Germany, who's currently leading the world in use of natural resources, spends lots of money because they still need to rely on fossil fuels when natural resources don't come through, which is why their energy poverty rates (people who can't pay electric bills due to a price increase) have rose. [2] \"Wind power is unpredictable and unreliable as it often produces either too much or too little power. This damages a power grid that can\"t function unless demand for electricity exactly matches supply. With conventional power plants, like nuclear or natural gas, having demand match supply isn\"t difficult because they can easily adjust output far in advance of predicted demand for electricity. Solar and wind power, however, cannot easily adjust output because especially cloudy or windless day can\"t be predicted in advanced.\" [3] Fossil fuels came a long way, and thanks to fossil fuels, we have much better air [4] and water quality [5] . In fact we are on the road to obtaining energy from fossil fuels that don't emit as much pollutants. [6]. Fossil fuels currently supply 2/3 (67%) of America's energy [7], roughly the same for the world [8]. Its job is too big to be taken by something as inefficient as renewable resources now. Sources [1]- http://www.renewable-energysources.com... [2]- http://www.forbes.com... [3]-http://dailycaller.com... [4]-https://www.epa.gov... [5]-http://www.forbes.com... [6]-http://phys.org... [7]-https://www.eia.gov... [8]-http://www.tsp-data-portal.org...", "qid": "13", "docid": "31698916-2019-04-18T12:33:52Z-00002-000", "rank": 46, "score": 140026.0}, {"content": "Title: Horses Should be Used Widely in the US Content: Thank you for clearing up the definition of \"Peak Oil\". However, the scenario that I mentioned (with the oil running out) will eventually happen, as my opponent has admitted. As I suspected he would, he suggested alternatives to fossil fuels as a good substitute to them. I thought that I got them all (aside from the theoretical ones like Hydrogen or saltwater). I thank my opponent for bringing up another source of energy: electricity. He mentioned electricity-powered cars, many of which are commercially available and fairly cheap. But here's where his argument falls short: electricity needs to be generated by something else. According to these statistics, the large percentage of electricity in the United States is supplied by non-renewable energy sources, such as natural gas and other fossil fuels. Only a small percentage of electricity is produced by renewable sources, such as hydroelectricity, wind power, and solar power. http://www.ehow.com... So really, if the fossil fuels run out, electricity will run out in a lot of places too. My opponent mentions the fact that a drought (which could kill horses) is much more likely than an EMP Attack (which would wipe out cars). I admit that this is true. HOWEVER, a drought that covers the entire United States would be needed to wipe out all horses. And even then, if Americans were not all killed off by the drought, then they could share the water with horses. However, also considering that there are underwater sources of water which we have the technology and resources to access, this wouldn't be much of a problem anyway. Let's contrast an EMP and its widespread effect on vehicles. Perhaps 3 or 4 EMPs (or less) being used on the United States could incapacitate the entire nation, excluding certain military devices that are designed to withstand such attacks. http://www.newsmax.com... Interestingly, this article also mentions geomagnetic storms being capable of having the same effect. Such a (minor) storm happened in 1989, leaving 6 million Americans and Canadians without power for 12 hours. A considerably bigger storm like this one could completely wipe out power for millions of Americans. Then, my opponent mentions allergies to horses. This is true; not everyone can ride a horse. But I didn't say that everyone should ride horses. I'm saying that they should be used as a backup, for a small percentage of the population until disaster hits (then they'll be used on a larger scale). However, since you brought the subject up... Some cars have leather seats. http://www.ehow.com... Many cars are made out of plastic. http://www.ehow.com... Sometimes that \"New Car Smell\" can be deadly. http://theweek.com... My opponent turns proceeds to bring up the fact that horses do not provide shelter from the rain. I will just say this: getting a little wet or being outside in fairly high temperatures usually won't kill you. It'll provide discomfort, but if it actually does provide a health hazard, you can just get back inside your car. As stated before, horse paths would actually be quite cheap to make. I live near a woods and I can make a small dirt path in those woods by kicking straw to the sides and uprooting some small plants. It's easy, really (or at least compared to building an asphalt road). Finally, animal cruelty: A. A path in the woods will likely be shaded. B. Horses walk on concrete during parades, so they can withstand walking on it to an extent. C. The horse paths would be in the woods anyway. D. There are horses that are bred for carrying heavy loads. https://answers.yahoo.com... Or, you can use a mule for that. E. Most of these places where horses are used would be away from big cities like New York. Oh, and here's another thing about horses which I forgot to mention last time: They are environmentally friendly. No sources needed to back up that claim.", "qid": "13", "docid": "43c0ed40-2019-04-18T15:54:31Z-00003-000", "rank": 47, "score": 139875.0}, {"content": "Title: Alternative energy methods should be proposed with total costs Content: For this debate, \"alternative energy\" means a fuel, method, or apparatus designed to reduce or eliminate consumption of traditional fossil fuels as they are now employed. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... \"Total costs\" includes all the costs associated with producing, shipping, storing, and using the alternative energy. Costs include dollar costs and environmental impact. Dollar costs include capital costs, indirect induced costs, and operating costs. The resolution is largely moot for private investment in alternative energy, because investors make it their business to understand costs. For private investment, the laws governing environmental impact apply. The resolution has it's primary impact for proposed government funding, subsidies, and regulations. Citizens have a right to know the true costs of government actions not only in terms of what the government is spending, but including the indirect costs on society. An example of the principle of the resolution being applied is the accounting of nuclear power plant decommissioning costs. When a nuclear power plant is ultimately taken out of service, there are significant costs in making the plant site safe. Those are figured into the costs of the plant, disclosed, and accounted for by setting up a fund to pay for the plant decommissioning. (A quirky California law requires decommissioning costs to be disclosed on electric bills; it's about four cents on a $200 electric bill.) Examples of the principle of the resolution being ignored are plentiful. Solar and wind power are generally unreliable. The sun is absent every night. Even in windy locations the wind may cease for many days at a time, or the winds may be seasonal. Consequently, usually a backup power source, like a gas-driven power plant must be added to the grid to pick up the load when the alternative energy source is unavailable. The capital costs of the backup are generally about 70% of the cost of running the plant full time. In other words, the fossil fuel is about 30% of the cost of the power, including the delivery system. Here is an example of wind power being touted as cheaper, while totally ignoring the costs of a backup energy system: http://www.ucsusa.org... The article says that farmers can make money from selling wind energy, but ignores the extra cost to the public. The wind turbine operator is getting a substantial subsidy from ratepayers who must pay the capital costs for two systems. In some applications, no backup system will be required. For example, if solar power is used to supply peak loads to Las Vegas or Phoenix in the summer, it is probably a good assumption that the sun will be shining when the power is needed. If it happens to be cloudy, then the weather is probably cooler so than the air conditioning load will be less, so that seems like a very good application for solar power. However, if the costs are analyzed for Chicago or New York, it's likely that a full accounting would reveal a different story. Failure to perform and disclose total costs has lead to a major policy error in the government subsidies for ethanol. Ethanol production from corn requires lots of energy-intensive fertilizer, an expensive delivery system, and high costs of taking land out of food production. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... That was not disclosed or even a thought through before the policy was committed. The U.S. government is now adopting policies that favor electric cars. The energy and environmental costs http://green.yahoo.com... of making the batteries are generally ignored, and the very high capital costs of the cars is downplayed. An electric car that will run for 40 miles may cost $40,000. http://www.cbsnews.com... To make that widely salable, large government subsidies would be required. Total cost accounting amounts to honesty in developing energy policy. It does not preclude adopting more expensive alternatives. For example, a case could be argued that ethanol and electric cars effective consume coal (to produce fertilizer and batteries) in favor of imported oil. If costs are disclosed, that case can be argued on the merits. The resolution would avoid bogus claims that, for example, if a kilowatt hour of wind power is the same or lower than coal, the wind power is obviously preferable. The wind power costs may be double when the backup generator is taken into account. How much the backup costs is site dependent. In some circumstances, wind power might be used to pump water uphill into an existing hydroelectric project. That's probably much cheaper than having to build a gas-turbine plant. My point is only that full costs should be disclosed. This is a \"should\" resolution. It means that environmental activists and government officials should honestly perform the total cost analysis and disclose the numbers to the public. This is now rarely done, so it would greatly improve the quality of public policy decisions. Con may argue that government should not provide any subsidies. If so, that does not dispute the resolution. Investors should be fully informed of costs even if government is not involved. Con may argue that even when total costs are disclosed, there is economically sound alternative energy. If so, that does not dispute the resolution either. The resolution will nonetheless favor the best solutions. The resolution is affirmed.", "qid": "13", "docid": "e2550a31-2019-04-18T19:24:02Z-00005-000", "rank": 48, "score": 139733.0}, {"content": "Title: Pros and Cons of using Propane as a alternative fuel Content: As you said, yes propane is cheaper. However, it still gives off toxic fumes. Eventually, we will run out of propane gas, and then what? Go back to fossil fuels? Not exactly an option. If we change energy scourges, it will need to be a renewable resource such as wind, solar, or even hydroelectricity. May the best man win!", "qid": "13", "docid": "fc763f79-2019-04-18T11:38:18Z-00000-000", "rank": 49, "score": 139277.0}, {"content": "Title: The world should be making a transition to renewable energy rather than using fossil fuels Content: Humanity as a species is working itself into complete destruction by the use of fossil fuels. The use of fossil fuel ends up polluting the Earth and contributes to negative global phenomenon such as global warming. Scientific research has shown that average yearly temperature increases in relation to the amount of carbon in our atmosphere (1). We need to move into using renewable energy sources that are efficient and effective so that we don't deplete the Earth of non-renewable resources and lose the ability to use machines due to the lack of those non-renewable resources. If we do not switch to renewable resources we will end up possibly ending our own existence. 1. https://climate.nasa.gov...", "qid": "13", "docid": "77d1660c-2019-04-18T11:26:24Z-00001-000", "rank": 50, "score": 139192.0}, {"content": "Title: The United States federal government should substantally increase alternative energy incentives Content: 1. Fossil fuels are a finite resource. According to the BBC on June 29, 2010, the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and the recession is causing even West Virginia coal miners to re-think status quo fuels. 2. Traditional renewable energy is insufficient to meet America's energy needs. According to Dr. Daniel LaGatta on February 16, 2010, the U.S. cannot meet its energy needs by 2035 without at least 40 new nuclear plants. 3. Some form of nuclear power is inevitable. According to the Texas Tribune on June 28, 2010, more than $18 billion is currently being spent on developing nuclear power plants, and Congress is considering adding another $9 billion. A review done by the Department of Energy in 2008 found that there are 108 nuclear plants in operation in the U.S. 4. Status quo nuclear technologies create thousands of tons of radioactive waste. According to National Geographic in 2002, there is currently 52,000 tons of highly toxic waste in the U.S. 5. Despite his promise to scrub the project, President Obama recently lost a lawsuit challenging the current plan to store the waste in Yucca Mountain in Nevada. According to the New York Times on June 29, 2010, although the Yucca plan still faces significant hurdles, it is still highly likely that the project will continue. 6. Unfortunately, the Yucca Mountain area contains an active volcano range. According to the New Scientist in 2002, if a volcano were to erupt, the magma would burst into the storage tunnels underneath the facility, sending radioactive magma several miles into the sky. 7. A nuclear volcano would have devastating consequences. According to Dr. David Camarow, if a volcano near Yucca Mountain were to errupt, it would contaminate and sterilize the entire biosphere. Even if the risk is extremely low, we cannot risk the survival of the human race. 8. Thus I present the following plan: The United States federal government should substantially increase alternative energy incentives by funding the development of the Integral Fast Reactor (IFR). 9. The IFR is an entirely different form of nuclear power. According to Dr. George Stanford in 2001, the IFR uses spent nuclear waste as fuel. This will allow the IFR to burn waste and old decommissioned nuclear warheads, and prevent the need to store waste in Yucca Mountain. 10. The IFR was a pilot project terminated in 1994, despite being only three years away from completion. According to Dr. George Stanford in 2001, the IFR is a proven technology, but only needs funding to complete the prototype. Once the prototype is complete, construction can being on a mass scale, replacing the use of traditional nuclear power. 11. There are several other advantages to implementing IFR technology. According to the London Guardian in 2008, more than 1 billion people have insufficient water supplies, causing millions of deaths each year and millions of dollars of drought damage in the United States. However, according to Dr. Robert Pfeffer in 2001, a small nuclear power plant could create millions of gallons of fresh water as a by-product of the cooling process. 12. Although there are some signs of recovery, the economic recession is still continuing. According to the American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness in 2006, nuclear power can generate billions of dollars of economic growth and thousands of high paying jobs would be created in the U.S. 13. Another factor in prolonging the recession is the loss of cheap energy. However, according to Dr. James Hylko in 2008, nuclear power is one of the most cost effective forms of energy at 1.6 cents per kilowatt hour.", "qid": "13", "docid": "ee0f4916-2019-04-18T19:05:18Z-00009-000", "rank": 51, "score": 138908.0}, {"content": "Title: Natural gas can smooth transition to renewable energy Content: Natural gas is seen by many of its supporters as a cleaner alternative to gasoline and coal, but in the context of it acting as a segue fuel onto even cleaner alternatives. The supporters of the Broadwater LNG terminal in Long Island Sound make this case: \"Natural gas play a vital role in providing a bridge from traditional fossil fuels to a renewable energy future\".", "qid": "13", "docid": "dee205c0-2019-04-17T11:47:38Z-00044-000", "rank": 52, "score": 137347.0}, {"content": "Title: Nuclear Energy Content: While I am all for alternatives to fossil fuels i have to say that nuclear energy is my least favorite. I may not produce any green house gasses it still is dangerous to dispose of it could kill many living thing the way that the careless scientest dispose of it. Not to mention the fact that it could create acid rain, and kill trees, fish, animals of all kinds, and human beings.", "qid": "13", "docid": "b4dd79cd-2019-04-18T17:27:57Z-00006-000", "rank": 53, "score": 137236.0}, {"content": "Title: Nuclear energy Content: Nuclear is only clean energy source that can replace fossil fuels", "qid": "13", "docid": "8b68ae4-2019-04-17T11:47:47Z-00077-000", "rank": 54, "score": 137098.0}, {"content": "Title: The United States federal government should substantially increase alternative energy incentives in Content: P1 \"In the United States, coal is used to generate more than half of all the electricity produced.\" Since renewable energy is insufficient, we need fossil fuels to meet energy needs of our society. http://www.api.org... P2. It is true that fossil fuels are not infinite. But, nuclear plant is not a good solution. On average, a nuclear power plant annually generates 20 metric tons of used nuclear fuel, classified as high-level radioactive waste\" which causes tremendous harm to any living organism. http://science.howstuffworks.com... P3. The alternative is cost. According to the New York Times, Ivanpah solar plant, which located in California, will presumably costs 2 billion our tax money, and a large area of land. With that much amount of cost, it will only produces 3600 acres that is far from the state\"s demand of 52,000 megawatts. http://www.nytimes.com... C: The United States federal government should not substantially increase alternative energy incentives in the United States.", "qid": "13", "docid": "43533c49-2019-04-18T16:15:41Z-00004-000", "rank": 55, "score": 136892.0}, {"content": "Title: Nuclear Energy Content: yes I suppose I only had one argument. I do believe you had more convincing arguments. You have won, but just for the record I wasn't saying that nuclear energy is not one of the best alternatives to fossil fuels. I need to complete three arguments and this is one of the only ones that was open.", "qid": "13", "docid": "b4dd79cd-2019-04-18T17:27:57Z-00002-000", "rank": 56, "score": 136852.0}, {"content": "Title: It is all delaying and worsening the innevitable Content: As stated before by the opposition team, the world is nowhere near to replace fossil fuels with renewable energies. Studies and polls show that even to people with average income from well developed countries, the price is the biggest problem. Also, the deficiency of available land and resources, let alone the still-developing-technologies, makes it less practical for the whole world to adopt renewable energies as its sole source of energy. Until these drawbacks are, at least halfway fixed, it will be a futile decision to ban oil companies to drill offshore. Furthermore, adoption of widespread usage of renewable resources, or even a reduction in our oil usage, is not only a matter of treating our \"addiction to oil\" but also of making the next generation technology ready \u2013 which simply has not happened yet. We also don\u2019t believe that offshore drilling diverts funds from renewable energy development because contrary to the proposition\u2019s belief, offshore drilling is profitable and provides governments and companies with more money that can be used for other uses the proposition may deem appropriate. It is hard for millions of people to make ends meet because of the already high petroleum price ( much cheaper than renewable resources though). If all the oil companies worldwide stop drilling offshore and the current oil supply nears an end, it is definite for the already high prices to soar up even higher. In contrast to the proposition\u2019s belief that the decision of the ban will be \u201cgood to all of us and not just the few who want some more money\u201d, the decision will have an even severe impact on the people, especially the poor who are striving to live in LEDC\u2019s, than on others. Therefore, the opposition team believes that the world is not yet ready to switch from fossil fuels to renewable resources. Encouraging the ban on offshore drilling is the same as asking the hundreds of millions of financially vulnerable to suffer (for some to even die) during the t", "qid": "13", "docid": "840adc3e-2019-04-19T12:45:10Z-00022-000", "rank": 57, "score": 136751.0}, {"content": "Title: Nuclear Power is the most viable substitute from fossil fuels Content: I apologize for not posting the link to the chart and it is as follows. http://nextbigfuture.com... The quote of \"To be both usable and economical a (geothermal) site must have an adequate volume of hot water or steam that is not too impure to use, a surface water source to cool generating equipment, and close proximity to power transmission lines. So, even in promising areas, economically usable sites are few and they are difficult to locate. \" was directly taken from a website link I provided and was not of my opinion even though I agree to it. My opponent has yet to provide the real cost of digging a hole a couple miles deep and releasing many toxic materials as I have previously mentioned. My opponent is suggesting that we just transport thousands of gallons of water to our desired 2 to 3 mile hole and allow it to turn into steam. After that, we could just use this steam to generate our geothermal energy, or so he claims. While this is technically possible, the actions of this would make geothermal energy even less viable than it is currently. While I know that many people think of nuclear energy as very dangerous and radiation related, this is not true. Nuclear has been safe for more 20 years. There is a reason governments don't just dig holes in random places and dump water into it. While I am not part of any government, I suppose it to be because it is simply just way to expensive to do. As for my \"lack\" of evidence for mining uranium. I offer this link. http://www.world-nuclear.org... I previously believed that I had posted that link but now after checking I did neglect to add it. For the claim of the lack of deaths, I got that information from a book but also found it at the following link. http://www.washingtonpost.com... I agree with my opponent that radiation is very dangerous. However, studies have been made which have found that radiation beside nuclear plants is actually less than radiation around some places without nuclear plants. I offer this link http://www.scientificamerican.com... and http://www-formal.stanford.edu... As to my opponents second rebuttal, I am quite offended. I ask him to do his research first before making any rash statements. I have never said that many countries have the ability to make nuclear weapons nor any promise that they would not use them. There is A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A CIVILIAN NUCLEAR PLANT AND A NUCLEAR BOMB. A huge difference actually. That is the reason why countries are having their nuclear plants made by foreign countries even if they don't possess the secret of the nuclear bomb. I believe there is a reason that countries do not use geothermal energy because it is neither cost effective nor can it produce energy en mass and enough to supply demand. Nuclear can. http://www.wisegeek.com... Towards the end of the article, one can see that many countries that have nuclear power plants are not currently holders of nuclear weapons. I wonder why that is?? My point on the fact that very few countries that use geothermal energy use it to produce very little amounts because there simply aren't that many places to make it en mass and still cost efficient. I ask my opponent not to twist my words. I specified for a country that uses geothermal energy over 40% not just use. There is a reason that countries do not use a lot of geothermal energy because it simply isn't that cost efficient and there aren't enough places where is economically viable. For nuclear however, there are numerous countries that use it over 40% as I have in my previous argument stated. I am rather confused by his statement of \"And if we can easily share our technology with other countries without needing to worry about WMDs, our environment can benefit at a much accelerated rate than nuclear energy ever would, simply because the US would not allow it.\" especially the last statement and I would ask him to explain it. In conclusion, my opponent has failed to provide valid reasons on why geothermal would be a viable replacement economically and the amount of energy it can produce. They have instead offered a highly idealistic and extremely expensive way of how geothermal energy could in theory be produced en mass. Nuclear however, does not even need theories to produce energy that can supply the world. One just needs sufficient nuclear plants. I however, have offered reasons including nuclear can be done anywhere in the world and that nuclear is one of the cheapest energies that can supply our world. My opponent has failed to refute these two points and has instead sidetracked them while I have met his points head on. For these reasons, I strongly urge a pro vote.", "qid": "13", "docid": "3af9364a-2019-04-18T18:59:56Z-00001-000", "rank": 58, "score": 136749.0}, {"content": "Title: Pro/Con with the use of turbines Content: Firstly, I would like to clear up a mistake pro clearly made. Pro has said that \" fossil fuels destroy the UV rays in the Ozone layer\". This is incorrect. The emissions given off by fossil fuels are what cause the Ozone gas in the ozone layer to be destroyed. But this is not what the debate is about. I will provide other, emission-free sources of electricity that are better alternatives to Wind Turbines.Example One: Geothermal Power PlantsGeothermal Power Plants are excellent alternatives to Wind Turbines. They rely on constructive plate boundaries to heat up water sent down to the boundary. Advantages \u00ef\u00bf\u00bdIt is almost infinite and does not emit CO2. \u00ef\u00bf\u00bdThere are no by-products, and almost no waste. \u00ef\u00bf\u00bdIt can be used to power whole cities. For example, Reykjavik, in Iceland, is powered mainly by Geothermal. \u00ef\u00bf\u00bdPower stations do not occupy much space, as they do not have any incinerating rooms.It is not a threat to ecosystems or animals. To round off, Geothermal energy is a far better alternative to Wind Power and I shall give other examples in later rounds. I urge the floor to side Opp.Sources:http://en.wikipedia.org...;", "qid": "13", "docid": "16850e2-2019-04-18T15:59:27Z-00004-000", "rank": 59, "score": 136606.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: The USFG should substantially increase alternative energy incentives in the US. Content: haha... your last argument made me laugh... but I will make 3 points as to prove why this round belongs to PRO. 1) My opponent forfeited the debate in his first round... His first two words were literally \"I forfeit\" 2) My opponent did ALL of this by his own free will (including MY round 2 argument)... We were eating lunch together and I was asking people if they wanted to take my debate and he said he would so that he could run a counter-warrent. Then he got lazy and started typing essentially nothing (as I went and got lunch) he posted his \"argument\" and then got on my computer and posted my \"argument\"... 3) The only argument in this round is ridiculous, has no links, is not significant, does not apply to the resolution, has no effect on if you pass my plan or not (he even admitted to that), and does not outweigh my advantages PROVEN in solvency. And besides, if we stop using fossil fuels, I'm pretty sure that means we stop having to destroy the environment as we can then use the RENEWABLE recource known as fusion energy. Even if it doesn't, it still has NO additional negative effects against the squirrels. Therefore my opponent stands on no ground... Thanks for a laugh but if people actually want to take this debate it is currently in the challenge period right now...", "qid": "13", "docid": "f1a21d96-2019-04-18T19:45:14Z-00001-000", "rank": 60, "score": 136491.0}, {"content": "Title: Difficulty in developing of alternative energy sources Content: Global warming is threatening our life, natural environment and modern civilization these days. Many countries and communities of the world are seriously tackling in developing new energy sources like solar, wind and atomic energies. However, I believe their efforts and endeavours are facing serious and difficult problems to promote for the introduction of new alternative energy sources replacing with fossile energies.", "qid": "13", "docid": "e91be287-2019-04-18T18:33:15Z-00003-000", "rank": 61, "score": 135149.0}, {"content": "Title: government should mandate that by 2040 all new cars/light trucks sold in US must run on alt fuels Content: I bet my opponent wishes that he had until 2040 to post his round. This is exactly the kind of thing we are preparing for by giving the automakers time to get prepared. This transition from fossil fuels to alternative energy is as important as the change form wood to coal and coal to oil. It is progress pure and simple. The United States simply cannot survive without implementing these new systems. It would be terribly irresponsible if the government did nothing about the situation Please vote in affirmation.", "qid": "13", "docid": "f8fc8c9e-2019-04-18T19:30:17Z-00000-000", "rank": 62, "score": 135024.0}, {"content": "Title: Alternate energy Content: This is the round for opening statements. Sorry didn't realize I only made 3 rounds. We will combine the question asking in the comments and the answers and closing statements can be in round 3. Sorry for that. Intro: We all know about water wheels, solar panels, wind farms, etc . . Let's talk about fossil fuels and alternate energy. 1: Why fossil fuel is bad for the atmosphere. Tons of CO2 is burned every year. CO2now.org says, \"he 2014 average annual concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere (Mauna Loa Observatory) is 398.55 parts per million (ppm). The 2013 average is 396.48 ppm. For the past decade (2005-2014) the average annual increase is 2.1 ppm per year.\" 2: What are our alternatives. These alternative energies do us no harm. In fact outside Evanston, Wy we have tons of wind farms and it generates over 1/4 of our energy. 3: How these will help us. BBC news says, \"Ozone layer 'shows signs of recovery', say scientists. The Earth's protective ozone layer is starting to repair itself, according to a panel of United Nations scientists. The main reason behind its recovery, they say, is the fact that certain chemicals, such as those used in aerosol cans, were phased out in the 1980s.Sep 10, 2014\" This will help us by slowing emissions into the air and letting the ozone layer heal itself. Conclusion: Please vote for me.", "qid": "13", "docid": "a0c49403-2019-04-18T14:02:20Z-00002-000", "rank": 63, "score": 134926.0}, {"content": "Title: the government should interevene in the transition to alternative fuels Content: My opponents argument is essentially this: 1. We need \u2018green\u2019 energy 2. Governments will lead us down a greener path faster 3. Therefore, we need government intervention in order for green energy to reign supreme However, the basic premises behind this argument are fatally flawed. 1. We need \u2018green\u2019 energy This is the basic foundation behind my opponents assertion. Conventional methods of energy (fossil fuels, nuclear) are the \u2018dirty\u2019 evil energy sources whereas the alternative energy sources (solar, wind, hydro) being efficient alternatives. Further, her argument relies on the fact that these pollutants are actually going to significantly harm the environment. Lets talk about these conventional sources. Natural Gas: Natural Gas is the second most clean conventional energy source (behind Nuclear). Natural Gas emits 117,000 pounds of CO2 emissions per btu of energy, compared to oil (164,000) and Coal (208,000). Further, natural gas is much more efficient than coal. 90% of natural gas produced is energy used by the public, whereas the number for other conventional forms of energy is about 30%. The market, at this stage, is moving towards Natural Gas. Even assuming that climate change and pollution is a major issue, a switch from coal to gas will lead to a huge reduction in pollution [1]. The Wall Street Journal writes, \u201cU.S. carbon-dioxide emissions have fallen dramatically in recent years, in large part because the country is making more electricity with natural gas instead of coal. Energy-related emissions of carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas that is widely believed to contribute to global warming, have fallen 12% between 2005 and 2012 \u2026 many experts believe the switch from coal to natural gas for electricity generation has been the biggest factor [in CO2 emission reduction].\u201d[2] Coal: Coal is the dirtiest form of energy which is commonly used, however, the fact is that coal actually works to save lives in aggregate, not decrease longevity. Energy is one of the most important things humans have. It gives us warmth, it gives us cold, it gives us electricity, computers, phones, cooking equipment, etc. For poor people, energy is a matter of life and death. The cheaper it is, the more access these people have, and the longer lives they live. The question is whether or not coal\u2019s pollution factor outweighs the health benefits of pollution. Researchers have found that if we take coal out of the energy equation, 150,000 people would die--for the government to restrict coal (a form of supporting alternative energy) and then promote expensive alternatives would lead to deaths, and a destruction of human life--not benefiting it. Another study argues that coal prevents 14,000-15,000 premature deaths in the US each year. Further, in countries with more energy consumption per capita (increases if energy is cheaper), human development is much higher [3]. Nuclear: Nuclear power is the cleanest, and one of the cheapest, forms of energy on the planet, and is considered \u2018conventional\u2019. In the United States, Nuclear was cheaper than all the other common energy types, including one of the cheapest, coal. Oh, and Gas is also pretty cheap too [4]. The fact is, if the government should be involved in anything, it should be nuclear. Nuclear is clean, cheap, and efficient. In fact, it is seen by many environmentalists that Nuclear is the energy source of the future, it is the way to prevent \u2018climate change\u2019. Nuclear is superior because renewable energy is intermittent: we will need a backup power plant to power us when the sun isn't shining or the wind isn\u2019t blowing. A few options: use batteries, inefficient and not \u2018green\u2019 for disposal, or another power plant, probably natural gas or coal. In either scenario, alternative energies will not be able to sustain us alone. As Mark Perry writes, \u201cTo use more wind and solar increases the need for backup power, and the associated emissions that come with it will largely cancel out any emissions savings from renewables.\u201d[5] Nuclear, on the other hand, is always working as long as it is being run properly. It could easily provide for all of our energy needs. Also, James Hansen--known for his rampant environmentalist fervor--co-authored a study saying that nuclear is ESSENTIAL to our future, and that it has saved 1.8 million lives [6]. Solar: As stated, solar is an intermittent source of energy, and when the sun isn't shining, the carbon savings will be washed out by the very cheap, reliable, conventional energy source having to fill in the gaps. Not to mention, it costs a lot. Solar power costs 20 cents per killowatt hour, compared to about two cents for coal [7]. Remember what I said? Expensive energy kills poor people. Wind: There is zero scientific proof that wind reduces CO2 emissions, according to the Ways and Means committee. They argue that CO2 savings will be minimal, and will look like nothing compared to the conventional nuclear power option [8]. Hydro: The fact is, hydroelectric power is dirty. Newscientist refutes hydropower\u2019s fans, saying \u201cHydroelectric dams produce significant amounts of carbon dioxide and methane, and in some cases produce more of these greenhouse gases than power plants running on fossil fuels,\u201d[9]. 2. Governments need to make us green! This premise is also flawed--the fact is, the free market will opt for the most efficient energy source. At this point, natural gas is the favored option--and as stated, it is cheap and clean. It will increase life spans, keep energy cheap, and \u2018save the planet\u2019, if you like that sort of thing. And in the foreseeable future, it is likely that nuclear will emerge as a key player in energy. And, thats a good thing. But this premise begs the question--do we even want to go green? The simple fact is, carbon dioxide is beneficial to the biosphere, and is a necessary component to life [10]. Further, there is significant peer reviewed evidence that climate change will not harm humanity, and in fact may benefit our existence [11]. There is even literature arguing that the link between CO2 and temperature is weak, exaggerated, or even nonexistent [12]. Other than the fact conventional \u2018pollutants\u2019 are likely beneficial with no strong proof of harm, overall air pollution in the United States is falling, and is expected to continue decreasing [13]. Therefore, this premise, too, is flawed. 3. Therefore, government needs to support alternative energy I deduce that this conclusion is false based on my above reasoning. Alternative energy sources are expensive and inefficient, whereas conventional sources are cheap, economically viable, and in many cases, clean. 1. http://www.aga.org... 2. http://online.wsj.com... 3. https://www.advancedenergyforlife.com... 4. http://www.nei.org... 5. http://news.investors.com... 6. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com... 7. http://www.businessinsider.com... 8. http://waysandmeans.house.gov... 9. http://www.newscientist.com... 10. http://www.co2science.org... 11. http://www.co2science.org... 12. http://www.co2science.org... 13. http://www.ncpa.org...", "qid": "13", "docid": "d3d77219-2019-04-18T16:07:25Z-00004-000", "rank": 64, "score": 134542.0}, {"content": "Title: Alternate energy Content: Thank you for this Debate.From the brief description, you say that Solar/Wind energy will never surpass the amount of energy created by fossil fuels (this is incorporating the comments section as well).I have evidence that proves this is not the case, And will discuss in further detail later - However will post the sources for ease and future reference now:[1]https://en.wikipedia.org...[2]http://lasvegassun.com...[3]http://www.ubergizmo.com...[4]http://www.smithsonianmag.com...Looking forward to your response :)", "qid": "13", "docid": "a0c49422-2019-04-18T13:39:39Z-00003-000", "rank": 65, "score": 134367.0}, {"content": "Title: Gary Johnson is our best choice for president Content: In fact, over the last decade, the rate of climate change has been declining, despite the fact that we use more Co2 emitting energy sources. Now, I believe that Co2 has a small effect on the climate, but there is simply no evidence saying that we will die. And fossil fuels can be used to make countries stronger in the face of the effects some scientists hypothesise will effect them the most. for instance, fossil fuels can actually be used to make stronger structures and communities that can easily bounce back from devastating natural disasters. For instance, there is a correlation between fossil fuel and clean water, this is because fossil fuel can be used to power refineries and the entire pipe system used to get water to the tap. Now, of course all this energy can be found in other energy sources, such as nuclear and hydroelectric, but I suppose that you want to talk about wind and solar right? After all they are free supposedly? Well, not true, in fact, it is quite pricy, just to get the rare resources to make solar panels. But in inclusion to the solar panels and wind power, you'd need a reliable alternate. After all, the sun isn't shining all the time and the wind isn't blowing all the time. This is why despite the fact that Germany has invested so much in solar and wind energy, they have more coal plants then ever. And this in turn has caused some to go in to \"energy poverty\" I hope this clears up why we can't elect a president with no experience just because of climate change. Now, I'd like to talk about the flaws in Jills other plans. She would like to raise taxes on the rich. Of course this sound like a great plan, after all, virtually everyone (including me) thinks the rich should pay their fair share. But the top 10% already pay 70% of government funding. And not only that, but research shows that the laffer curve for the rich indicated that the revenue collected from them INCREACES then taxes on them are DECREASED. Weird right? Well it turns out that when the rich know that less of their money is going to govt, they are far more willing to spend it. This also often indicates that they are putting money into their business, meaning they are probably hiring more people. And luckily for me Gary Johnsons tax plan will allow this to happen. And again, Jills environmental plan was tried in Germany, and as I said, failed. Her minimun wage of $15 will put far to may people out of work.", "qid": "13", "docid": "c66981d5-2019-04-18T12:55:25Z-00001-000", "rank": 66, "score": 134299.0}, {"content": "Title: An alternative to Gasoline Content: Thank you for taking me on with this challenge and you put up a pretty good arguement. True, but electricity is still a better alternaive then gasoline. what about hydro powered cars? Cars that run on water instead of gasoline? You could easily fill up your car right at home and the Earth is full of water. We may of had shortages on water recently but that is because the pollution of fossil fuel. Pollution caused the weather to be weird around where I live. Another alternative to Gasoline is getting rid of vehicles and riding bikes, running, jogging, running, etc... If you think about it, it would help you get to some places faster because you wouldn't have to wait in car traffic. It would be crowded but at least you would keep moving and also, this would help people lose weight because you would be getting exercise and also, people would be more active and healthy once they get use to it.", "qid": "13", "docid": "de8ec542-2019-04-18T19:27:37Z-00002-000", "rank": 67, "score": 133248.0}, {"content": "Title: Alternate energy Content: Yes, my argument is that the amount of Solar/Wind energy used will never surpass the amount of energy created by fossil fuels. There is two main points that I would like to make in reference to my claim. 1. ) Creating a wind/solar infrastructure is very expensive. Although there is a massive movement towards the 50/50 ratio of wind/solar vs fossil fuel energy, humans haven't actually reached 15% yet. That is, 15% of all energy created by ALL renewable energy sources. . The IEA, international Energy Agence, claims that in \"2012, the world relied on renewable sources for around 13.2% of its total primary energy supply. \" . http://www.iea.org... 2. ) Big businesses and governments will do everything that they can to prolong and preserve the market for energy created by fossil fuels. Companies such as ExxonMobile, which is worth 412 billion dollars, have political power and will do everything in their power to not only keep the production of fossil fuels but also to slow the expansion of renewable energy. . http://mashable.com... . http://energyrealityproject.com... I have viewed you're sources and I cannot find any information that leads to the conclusion that we will ever be at a 50/50 ratio of fossil vs renewable. Only information about the minuscule renewable energy infrastructure that is now being created. What would I have to do to get you to change you're mind? Tell me and I will do it.", "qid": "13", "docid": "a0c49422-2019-04-18T13:39:39Z-00002-000", "rank": 68, "score": 133241.0}, {"content": "Title: Being the only realistic alternative to fossil fuel energy, expansion of the technology must be available through trade. Content: The very fact that nuclear energy is the only feasible alternative that can contribute a large bulk of the world\u2019s demand makes its expansion imperative. In contrast to the affirmative\u2019s \u201cbelief\u201d, the opposition stresses that banning nuclear reactor technology strains the development and expansion of a critically important resource. While team affirmative contradicts itself by having stated strict standards impair development then suggesting nations should develop such technologies for themselves, team opposition recognizes that first, many nations do not have the power to develop the technology for themselves or to develop the technology fast enough to allow for a gradual and safe transition into alternative energy sources. Many developing nations must depend on the trade of such technologies for it to either be available to them or open possibilities of market entry the way economies such as South Korea have done with IT industries. In other words, trade allows for underdeveloped countries, where the technology is unavailable domestically, to access such technology. As for developing countries, a cheaper domestic alternative can be developed based on versions present in the market both dropping prices in the international market and increasing energy security, but as history shows, this only works as well as it can if the technology is readily available on the market. Secondly, team affirmative have introduced a counter argument regarding what we have disproved directly before. Again, we have stressed that alternative sources like solar or wind energy alone will not satisfy global energy demand. Even in the case that these technologies are developed enough in certain countries, they will be strictly geographically limited. Because of this inherent factor, such alternative energy sources will neither be universally applicable nor reliable. Therefore, such factors enforce the necessity of keeping nuclear technology available through trade.", "qid": "13", "docid": "7729e8b4-2019-04-19T12:45:07Z-00030-000", "rank": 69, "score": 133228.0}, {"content": "Title: By 2040, the FG should mandate that all new passenger vehicles sold in US be powered by alt fuels Content: I really appreciate the being given the opportunity to debate a subject that relates to my favourite interest in life \u2013 cars \u2013 and I thank Anikiforouk very much for the invitation. Now, to respond to each point in turn: 1 \u2013 My opponent made a semi-valid point that all alternative fuels do not solve the problem of pollution and the shortage of oil. I assume, although he didn't say, that he is referring to diesel \u2013 which is already in common use in Europe where over half of all new passenger cars sold run on this fuel. http://www.eagleaid.com... True, diesel is not a complete solution, though as it burns more efficiently than gasoline (petroleum) it produces less CO2 and provides better fuel economy. An alternative power unit such as hydrogen fuel cells produce only water vapour as a bi-product and, as my opponent conceded, solar power is a free source of energy and pollution free (although this would probably only be used as a supplementary source of power). Of course, these technologies need further development in order to become viable mass alternatives to fossil fuels, but the car companies have over 30 years to achieve this and have already made significant advances. http://www.audi.co.uk... http://www.saabbiopower.co.uk... http://www.hybridcars.com... Just think about the advances in vehicle technology that have been made in the last 30 years and, with access to far more powerful computers, what can be achieved in the next 30 years. 2 \u2013 Certainly nuclear power is an alternative power source. However, I wouldn't envisage each car being fitted with its own nuclear-powered engine, rather that electricity generated in nuclear power stations would be used to charge the cars' batteries. 3 \u2013 2040 may seem arbitrary, and perhaps a year either way wouldn't make much difference. However, One year had to be chosen and that year was 2040. It doesn't follow that because there is \"nothing special\" about that year that my opponent \"ought to win\" this debate by default! Thank you.", "qid": "13", "docid": "c98fe988-2019-04-18T19:32:51Z-00002-000", "rank": 70, "score": 133131.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: The USFG should substantially increase alternative energy incentives in the US. Content: I'll go paragraph by paragraph: INHERENCY: Inherency was dropped by negative. SOLVENCY: My first argument was really a generic argument (for clarification). You claim that I do not get solvency (which is his big argument from last speech.) Therefore I would like to use my reserved right to add evidence to prove that solvency will be reached (still on first paragraph). -From: http://www.firstscience.com... -\"Nuclear power is deeply unpopular while renewable energy sources \u2013 wind, solar and tidal \u2013 yield relatively little energy for their high cost. But nuclear fusion could render carbon dioxide-producing fossil fuels obsolete by 2100.\" -This quote proves two things, 1) If congress keeps cutting costs, then we will lengthen the amount of time it takes to achieve fusion power\u2026 2) By fossil fuels running out and getting more expensive\u2026 therefore we must increase the incentives of fusion power, which is the energy of the future. -(Same Source) -\"Energy production from nuclear fusion has proven an insurmountable challenge so far. Yet scientists are now saying that plans for larger and more sophisticated reactors around the world could finally make this possible in 50 years time. Is this more than just wishful thinking?\" -This proves that we can't be cutting the funding for fusion power ESPECIALLY NOW. If we substantially increase the energy incentives by increasing funding, these \"larger and more sophisticated reactors\" will be created if the plan is passed. The ITER is the head of fusion development, but the US must do its part and if Congress cuts this spending (that should be overturned and increased by passing this plan), then fusion power will only be prolonged. The question is not IF solvency will be reached, but when. The sooner this funding can go through the sooner the energy crisis can be over (because fusion power will end the crisis). This is proven by the estimates made by Chris Warrick (the UK Atomic Energy Authority) \"You need 50 megawatts of power to heat it and you should get around 5,000 megawatts out.\" (Next paragraph)--> The whole argument about \"hidden agendas\" is ridiculous. The CHANCE of hidden agendas does not make adequate grounds to vote down the plan. Furthermore, you have to see that the ONLY agenda that these scientists need to stick to is the agenda of finding usable fusion energy\u2026 that's it. The fact that there is a group of people being made to create fusion energy seems to be enough to see that they are going to have the agenda of creating fusion energy. ALSO, my opponent has not offered what these other agendas could be AND how they will harm anyone. This argument carries no weight whatsoever. Solvency was proven to be met two paragraphs ago\u2026 Simply cross-apply it here. (www.fas.org argument)--> This argument does not link to ANYTHING that has to do with fusion energy. If you go to the specific website of where he got this quote, it mentions fusion energy a whopping ZERO times. Furthermore, it never says HOW MUCH water would need to be boiled AND there is no link to how this would harm society. This argument continues to carry no weight\u2026 --> First of all, the evidence mentioned has already been proven insufficient to proving anything\u2026 Furthermore, my opponent has yet to show how boiling water (still unsure about how much) can harm ANYTHING\u2026 BUT STILL, the 1 harm of boiling water can't even begin to weigh while compared to the MULTIPLE advantages listed in solvency AND the ones solved from inherency harms. SIGNIFICANCE & HARMS: --> This argument isn't topical to my plan whatsoever. This evidence deals with nuclear power plants BUT my plan calls for fusion energy which is as safe as can be (which is proven in my solvency advantages)\u2026 The evidence only speaks about nuclear power which does not talk about fusion energy specifically\u2026 please drop this from the round. --> This paragraph clears up that my opponent does not understand what I am trying to do with my plan. FISSION power has many harms but FUSION power has yet to be linked to anything. My opponent talks about nuclear waste that is proven to not be caused by fusion energy (in my solvency). Then he talks about water pollution caused by fission energy but fission and fusion are completely different types of energy. There are no links and there are therefore NO disadvantages. (www.aecl.com) --> Again the water pollution is not linked to fusion energy. The water pollution he talks about only deals with fission energy which has nothing to do with my energy plan. In the end\u2026 even if ALL of these harms are passed (which they do not link so they don't), fusion energy should STILL be invested in. It IS the energy of the future with little to no negative effects. Boiling water does not kill millions of people. The harm is not significant but the advantages are. The costs of fossil fuels ARE expensive and ARE running low AND are causing significant pollution to our earth. Therefore, the plan should be passed immediately. Thank you!", "qid": "13", "docid": "f1a21db5-2019-04-18T19:44:42Z-00003-000", "rank": 71, "score": 132866.0}, {"content": "Title: Alternate energy Content: Accept", "qid": "13", "docid": "a0c49403-2019-04-18T14:02:20Z-00003-000", "rank": 72, "score": 132672.0}, {"content": "Title: Alternate energy Content: Without breaking down into an argument of Semantics, This is what I thought we were debating \"Wind and solar energy will never surpass or even come close to surpassing the amound of energy created by the grid\" - I had solid proof and evidence to support that this is not the case. However, I will debate upon the new topic you raised \"Yes, my argument is that the amount of Solar/Wind energy used will never surpass the amount of energy created by fossil fuels.\" by a simple play of logic. You have created quite a steep slope for yourself by using the word \"never\" so frivolously - You back yourself into a logical corner that I can easily exploit by saying \"20, 30, 40 years is undeterminate to ensure that Fossil Fuels will NEVER be exceeded by Solar/Wind or even other renewable sources\" - The fact that these technologies are in their infantile stage, and still can generate megawats of electricty, is evidence alone that time is the main barrier to this transition. However to me that is not playing fair. I will discuss and prove to you why this is not the case, as sitting in a defensive position is not my way of debating. You state that power generated by the wind and solar radiation is inconsequential in comparison to the power generated from burning and compressing fossil fuels. I call balderdash! The ideals that are conjured when I imagine this scenario, are similar to the power of an Atomic bomb, as opposed to the power of a spear. Sure, the atomic bomb may deal a LOT of damage, and can be remembered for centuries afterwards for its impact, But statistically, a spear has 'killed' more than any type of Bomb we have - and that is just technically a piece of wood, that was later upgraded to have a metal pointy end. This is due to the fact it is time based (part of my original response in this round), and the fact that it is re-newable. You stab a person, pull it out - and you are good to go again. In comparison, only 2-3 Atomic bombs were created at one time, when they were first made (Weapons of Mass Destruction are not included in this, as this is outside of the scope of these bombs), they have a 'once off then it is gone' policy. It is similar here, we can generate alot more force for alot less effort using fossil fuels; However the resource is finite, and it heavily polutes its' external environment. Solar/Wind - This will be here as long as the Earth and Sun are, when those resources fail - im pretty sure our electric / sail cars not working will be the least of our problems. In your previous round, you made reference to the fact that the world is pushing for a 50/50 split between renewable sources, and fossil fuels. This is only a temporary estimation, it is recommended to push for a 100/0 split between Renewable resources and fossil fuels (the ration is split accordingly RN/FF, where RN = Renewable and FF= Fossil Fuels). The reason for this, is that the ability to generate as much force as we do, is nothing to do with our technology to harness the power, but the explosive force that the FF has latently. We basically do nothing by direct which way that explosive power goes, and happen to call the generated force \"Horsepower\" - which basically means we take the credit for natures 'liquid gunpowder'! On the flip side, all the power we have generated has been through minimal funding but maximum dedication - and has split of into the myriad of power sources we have today (Tidal, Wind, Solar, Nuclear - though this is not a 'Green' source) - That is all us. We have learnt to harness the forces that are everywhere and convert that into energy we can use. Time will improve this, and Time will prove you wrong - of that, I am certain. I look forward to your last round, Thank you for the opportunity to discuss this topic!", "qid": "13", "docid": "a0c49422-2019-04-18T13:39:39Z-00001-000", "rank": 73, "score": 132157.0}, {"content": "Title: Are Renewable Energy Sources Better than Fossil Fuels Content: Sorry for the delay. I often do that.Argument:We will never run out of renewable resources, as they're always present, at least most of the time. I do concede that wind and solar energy aren't around 90% of the time. However, these aren't the only renewable resources. We have more reliable resources, such as water and geothermal energy. Hydroelectric Energy:By using hydroelectric dams, we can use the machanical energy of water to obtain power. The resovoirs made by these dams helps the environment by creating habitats for animals and plants. http://nationalgeographic.org...Geothermal Energy:Geothermal energy is heat energy from the Earth. This can be turned into electricity. The heat pumps associated with Geothermal energy is used to cool houses. http://www.renewableenergyworld.com...We can also burn wood into charcoal, which is a renewable version of mined coal. We can rely on renewable resources to be around much longer than coal and oil, making them viable for the far future.", "qid": "13", "docid": "31698916-2019-04-18T12:33:52Z-00001-000", "rank": 74, "score": 132007.0}, {"content": "Title: Nuclear energy and fossil fuels are superior to renewable energies. Content: Renewable energy resources can produce more energy than fossil fuels and nuclear power since the process is continually replenished and is therefore recyclable.(1) There is plenty of space for hydro power, wind power, solar power, and geothermal power on our governments thousands of acres of unused land and and in our oceans. Also the energy that comes as a product is known as clean, compared to Fossil fuels and nuclear energy.(2) 1) http://nationalatlas.gov... 2) http://energy.gov...", "qid": "13", "docid": "4c6aab06-2019-04-18T17:04:35Z-00006-000", "rank": 75, "score": 131959.0}, {"content": "Title: Nuclear energy and fossil fuels are superior to renewable energies. Content: Another main reason why Renewable energy resources are more superior and efficient than fossil fuels and other non renewable resources is that there is no possible harm to our environment. While nuclear energy, oil, and gas usage releases profound amounts of carbon emissions, renewable energy resources releases very little to no carbon emissions. Renewable energy resources like solar power and wind power has been used more and more by large businesses and companies since it has costed them a lot less for electric and heat in comparison to oil and gas prices.", "qid": "13", "docid": "4c6aab06-2019-04-18T17:04:35Z-00002-000", "rank": 76, "score": 131808.0}, {"content": "Title: Natural gas will lower fossil fuel prices and increase consumption. Content: Natural gas will simply relieve demand pressures on coal and petroleum and, subsequently, decrease prices. This will only make it easier for people to buy and consume oil and coal. Natural gas will not, therefore, replace coal and petroleum. It will only add to the absolute amount of fossil fuels we are burning, and greenhouse gases we are emitting.", "qid": "13", "docid": "dee205c0-2019-04-17T11:47:38Z-00047-000", "rank": 77, "score": 131607.0}, {"content": "Title: The Future Fuel: Hydrogen Content: With the inevitable end to our World's fossil fuel reserves we must look to other forms of fuel to power our automobiles and other forms of transport. With Hybrid's, Natural Gas Vehicle's, and Diesel's Engines dependence on petroleum based products for power they are not a viable alternative to regular gasoline. And with the clear and massive limitations of electric vehicles the only common sense choice for the future fuel of the world is Hydrogen and the Fuel Cell Vehicles it powers.", "qid": "13", "docid": "f3f89575-2019-04-18T16:41:45Z-00007-000", "rank": 78, "score": 130919.0}, {"content": "Title: Wind energy provides a sustainable alternative to fossil fuels and nuclear power Content: No renewable energy is going to provide the sheer quantity and variety of energy needed to power a developed society. Wind suffers from being unreliable \u2013 producing either too little or too much \u2013 and as a result would be a bad choice to be the core technology. The basic staple of the energy supply needs to be predictable as well as clean. Wind may well have a useful role providing a surplus that can be tapped in to at times of high demand. However, it is simply not reliable enough to be the mainstay of the energy blend. It is worth noting that wind energy requires government subsidies which is simply not viable in the long term, people are unlikely to be keen on the idea of paying for their energy twice; once through their power bill and then again in their taxes[i]. [i] Industrial Wind Energy Group. 23 August 2008.", "qid": "13", "docid": "7ae7b591-2019-04-15T20:22:23Z-00008-000", "rank": 79, "score": 130725.0}, {"content": "Title: The United States should change towards the use of alternative fuel and away from fossil fuels. Content: I agree that my definition of the United States was a little too ambiguous. You are right that I am arguing on both moral and government policy grounds. As for the definition of fossil fuels, artificial coal would be considered an alternate fuel if the definition of artificial coal is coal created by rapidly applying vibrating pressures to wood (Karweil) and/or rapid application of intense heat (Hill). In Illinois, USA artificial coals are created by heating the lignin to about 150\u02daC in the presence of montmorillonite or illite clays (catalysts). <. http://www.answersingenesis.org...;. With this debate, I would like to prove that we should move away from fossil fuels and move toward renewable energy sources such as biodiesel because: (1)Fossil Fuels such as oil has a finite amount in this world and is not being naturally formed as fast as we are using it. Based off of the Hubbert Peak Theory, once we have reached the point of maximum production, we will experience an exponential decline. As of 2004, the total world reserves were estimated to be 1.25 trillion barrels with a daily consumption of about 85 million barrels. With this we can make an estimation of when to experience the oil depletion, which it to be around the year 2057. < . http://en.wikipedia.org... >. <. http://en.wikipedia.org... >. (2) Oil, coal and natural gas make up of more than 85% of the energy consumed in the United States. Using oil as an example the US in 2004 imported 61% of consumption (13.12 million barrels per day). By 2005, the US imported 67% of consumption (16.54 million barrels per day). We are too dependent on other nations for our energy sources, which could hurt us in the future. An example would be the 1973 oil crisis, when the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries declared an oil embargo because the United States resupplied the Israeli military during the Yom Kippur War. October 16, 1973, OPEC raised the price of oil by 70%. October 19, 1973, President Nixon didn't back down and appropriated $2.2 billion in emergency aid to Israel, which created a negative effect by other Arab states and joined the embargo on October 20, 1973. Since there was a low supply of oil in countries under the embargo, oil had to be increased in price to decrease the demand. Market price for oil rose from $3 to $12. The Middle East has control of a vital commodity, which became known as the \"oil weapon\". The United States needs to not allow room for such vulnerability, by depending less on imported fossil fuels. < . http://www.quoteoil.com... >. <. http://en.wikipedia.org... >. (3)From an environmentalist's perspective, the obtaining, refining, and usage of fossil fuels are harmful to the environment. In the extraction of oil in cases of offshore exploration, sea beds have been disturbed, which have killed the sea plants that many of the marine creatures need to survive due to the dredging process. In the extraction of coal, there are two methods; opencast mining and Underground mines. The Opencast mining tends to disfigure the country side and produces a large amount of atmosphere pollution due to the surface activity. If the Opencast mining is refilled after the mining project, the soil is usually a mixture of layers which mean that harder elements are exposed on the surface leaving the land almost barren. With Underground mines, roof collapsing of the mines can be felt on the surface level leaving buildings and roadways susceptible to cracks and sometimes disappearing into a hole. Oil spills have been known to damage natural ecosystems. It is much more damaging at sea since it can spread for hundreds of nautical miles killing sea birds, mammals, shellfish and other organisms that it coats. The combustion of fossil fuels has contributed to more than 90% of the United States greenhouse gas emissions. It produces air pollutants such as nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, volatile organic compounds and heavy metals. Such air pollutants can contribute to smog, acid rain, climate change, which can affect habitats and wildlife. Fossil Fuels also contain radioactive material (uranium and thorium), which are released into the atmosphere. The burning of coal in 1982 released 155 times as much radioactivity into the atmosphere as the Three Mile Island incident. < . http://www.planete-energies.com... >. <. http://en.wikipedia.org... >. <. http://en.wikipedia.org... >. I hope I have provided enough information to prove why I believe that the United States should change towards the use of alternative fuel and away from fossil fuels.", "qid": "13", "docid": "8fdcc598-2019-04-18T19:16:21Z-00003-000", "rank": 80, "score": 130409.0}, {"content": "Title: Being the only realistic alternative to fossil fuel energy, expansion of the technology must be available through trade. Content: Although this argument seems to be a rephrased form of the previous argument, team propoition will be dealing with it again. Team opposition will have you believe that countries that are incapable of producing such technologies themselves should promptly be offered this technology by other more developed countries. In doing so, they fail to realize the security threat the region will face if this sensitive technology gets transferred to countries that are incapable of maintaining and securing it. It is crucial under this case to see how even one incident caused by such a lack of responsibly by an importer country will devastate the whole region. Furthermore team opposition fails to realize that it is nuclear technology we are debating on. They fail to even notice the great security threat it poses to the region when one power plant in one incapable, under developed country falls short on security measures and cripples the economy of the region, in addition to a potentially colossal loss of life. We at team proposition realize the importance of even the life of one individual, who may lose his/her life just because of the incapability of the state. As we explained time and again, under developed countries lack the resources and expertise to maintain and secure such imported nuclear power plants, if they did have these resources and expertise, they would initiate their nuclear program themselves and hence the threat to their security cannot be ignored. Just because it seems nuclear power can replace the use of fossil fuels does not mean that the threat to global security be ignored. According to statistics, 43% of nuclear power plants in the US failed in countering mock security threats. What would happen if we transfer this technology to countries in Asia and Africa that are completely incapable of dealing with even minor security issues? At team proposition we cannot ignore this threat.", "qid": "13", "docid": "7729e8b4-2019-04-19T12:45:07Z-00029-000", "rank": 81, "score": 130326.0}, {"content": "Title: By 2040, the FG should mandate that all new passenger vehicles sold in US be powered by alt fuels Content: I really appreciate the being given the opportunity to debate a subject that relates to my favourite interest in life \u2013 cars \u2013 and I thank Russia very much for the invitation. Now, to respond to each point in turn: 1 \u2013 My opponent made a semi-valid point that all alternative fuels do not solve the problem of pollution and the shortage of oil. I assume, although he didn't say, that he is referring to diesel \u2013 which is already in common use in Europe where over half of all new passenger cars sold run on this fuel. http://www.eagleaid.com...... True, diesel is not a complete solution, though as it burns more efficiently than gasoline (petroleum) it produces less CO2 and provides better fuel economy. An alternative power unit such as hydrogen fuel cells produce only water vapour as a bi-product and, as my opponent conceded, solar power is a free source of energy and pollution free (although this would probably only be used as a supplementary source of power). Of course, these technologies need further development in order to become viable mass alternatives to fossil fuels, but the car companies have over 30 years to achieve this and have already made significant advances. http://www.audi.co.uk...... http://www.saabbiopower.co.uk...... http://www.hybridcars.com...... Just think about the advances in vehicle technology that have been made in the last 30 years and, with access to far more powerful computers, what can be achieved in the next 30 years. 2 \u2013 Certainly nuclear power is an alternative power source. However, I wouldn't envisage each car being fitted with its own nuclear-powered engine, rather that electricity generated in nuclear power stations would be used to charge the cars' batteries. 3 \u2013 2040 may seem arbitrary, and perhaps a year either way wouldn't make much difference. However, One year had to be chosen and that year was 2040. It doesn't follow that because there is \"nothing special\" about that year that my opponent \"ought to win\" this debate by default! Thank you.", "qid": "13", "docid": "c98fe9c6-2019-04-18T19:32:48Z-00004-000", "rank": 82, "score": 130209.0}, {"content": "Title: Should the U.S. increase exploration and development Content: I, as the Pro side of this debate believe that the U.S. should increase its development and exploration of the oceans. For my argument I offer the following reasons: 1.) New Resources subpoint a.) Geothermal energy 2.) Underwater Pharmaceuticals 3.) Preservation of Ocean Life ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1: New Resources For years there has been a debate in efforts to move to green alternative energy sources. The ocean offers the U.S. two sources for alternative energy; hydroelectric, and geothermal. For this debate I will focus solely on geothermal energy one of the various types of energy. Subpoint A.) Geothermal Energy Geothermal energy utilizes the heat within the core of the Earth, making this method a reliable source of energy. This wonder of the alternative energy has several benefits, such as that geothermal energy only gives 1/8 of the emission of carbon of coal, one of the leading fossil fuels used within the U.S. currently. Unlike other forms of alternative energy, geothermal energy does not revolve around fluctuations from day to day being that it's a constant energy derived from the heat of the Earth's interior. Lastly, this environmentally friendly fuel source is cost effective. Conservative estimates claim that savings on heating bills range from 30-60%, and cooling ranges from 25-50%. 2.) Underwater Pharmaceuticals Science has searched for alternative medicine from natural sources. It has been found within the oceans surrounding the United States. Various marine plants and organisms have properties that have improved human health. Just to name a few of these organisms: A Caribbean sea sponge's generative compound has been used in medicines such as AZT to treat AIDs and HIV. Skate, a flat fish, has provided clues in advancing poor eye vision. Secosteroid enzymes found in coral are also being used in medicine, and is used to treat arthritis, asthma, and other inflammatory disorders. These are just a few of the many organisms currently being used in modern medicine practices, however this isn't the end as scientific tests are being ran. 3.) Preservation of Wild Life According to the NOAA, 2215 creatures are protected under the ESA. These marine life creatures range from least concern to critically endanger status. However to name a few, lets look at the current population numbers for the top 4 marine mammals on the list. Only 55 Maui dolpjons, 350 northern right whales, and a range of 500- 600 Vaquitas , the rarest dolphin, remain. Without these creatures in existence, food chains would become disrupted and cause an unbalanced diet and cause possible over population. By allowing the United States federal government to explore the earth's oceans , we could find ways to preserve dwindling ocean life. This would include repopulation efforts or even creating regulation to protect them. In order to avoid the disruption of food chains and extinction, we must understand the causes and find ways to prevent further damage to these animals' habitats and their well-being. For these reasons I argue in favor of expanding exploration and development.", "qid": "13", "docid": "5bd8cf6b-2019-04-18T15:09:45Z-00003-000", "rank": 83, "score": 129624.0}, {"content": "Title: An alternative to Gasoline Content: I have mistakely forfeited one of my debates so I am not going to be mean about it. First off I will like to say that I am not against alternatives but there are none capable of replacing gas at this time. Gas is very economic whereas the alternatives are not. It isn't environmental friendly however. Many alternatives are less environmental friendly such as vegetable oil and ethanol because of the amount of energy and land necessary to make this source. When thinking green think far beyond CO2 alone. We should also think of the long term implications of the trade. I think multiple sources of energy is possible in the near future. In the future I believe that all homes and cars will be self powered without a need for energy companies. This future is not now. We shouldn't rush things let the technology necessary advance before making a massive switch.", "qid": "13", "docid": "de8ec542-2019-04-18T19:27:37Z-00000-000", "rank": 84, "score": 129150.0}, {"content": "Title: Nuclear Power is the most viable substitute from fossil fuels Content: I apologize for leaving this to the last minute, but I will finish this debate. My opponent starts off by making the following statements. 1) Digging holes can't possibly be economical. My opponent asks me how digging holes can possibly be economical. Well, I thought it was obvious, but I will explain why \"digging holes\" is a very enlightened choice when trying to save money or even decrease our country's deficit. The reason why geothermal energy will be so economical is because EVERYONE WILL WANT IT. It will cost a lot less because you do not have a limited amount of it, as we do oil and plutonium. Creating geothermal energy could even be economic boom our economy needs right now. Weening off of our dependence on oil in the middle east. Now on to the science evidence your presented 2) \"To be both usable and economical a (geothermal) site must have an adequate volume of hot water or steam that is not too impure to use, a surface water source to cool generating equipment, and close proximity to power transmission lines. So, even in promising areas, economically usable sites are few and they are difficult to locate. \" My opponent here is assuming that we need to find areas that have water in them at high temperatures, and admits that it only takes a few miles of digging from anywhere for adequate heat, which as proven above is easily obtainable and economical. So the only real problem here is, we need bodies of water. OR the third option, which is supplying water ourselves. In the evidence I sited in my last speech, \"Enhanced Geothermal Systems\" are capable of such things. Hot rock reservoirs are given water and the steam from the heated rocks + water is harnessed as energy, thus also eliminating our need for perfect water bodies at our desired locations. It can be anywhere. Now onto my opponents refutations of my attacks. 1) My opponent offers a chart of deaths. First of all, I would like to see the link for this please. And since I cannot see the link, or a description of this chart, I assume that his survey was done in one week or month. There is no timeline. This evidence is incomplete. In opposition you also claim that mining uranium is like mining anything else, but offer no evidence on the validity of this. I offer the following articles as evidence to the contrary (1) (2) . My numbered one article specifically talks about the mining risks, but the rejection of the fact that retrieving nuclear energy IS dangerous because is puts off radiation is not productive in this debate. It is a FACT that radiation is created by particles traveling at almost the speed of light and can be very dangerous going through the human body. It can be the cause of cancer and sexual deficiencies. If even there has never been a death in the U.S., which by the way only claimed with no link to this source, it creates diseases to be passed down in their children, and becomes very serious. 2) A lot of countries have the ability to produce nuclear weapons, but they promised they wouldn't. But that's alright we trust them. We are giving countries the ability to produce nuclear weapons. Countries that hate democracy, countries that deny the Holocaust ever happened, countries that want to see the U.S. in flames. There is no way to turn geothermal energy into a weapon of mass destruction, exception maybe in a squirt gun fight. Giving other countries the ability to use geothermal energy and giving them the technology to accomplish this does not put the U.S. in a bad position to where we have to choose between environmental safety or preventing nuclear winter. In the world of the con, we have both pretty easily. 3) Nuclear energy is very cheap. So is geothermal energy, what's your point? Geothermal energy doesn't damage humans or our environment. 4) My opponent wants me to name a country that uses geothermal energy. A lot. What kind of an argument is this? Because it is not popular and funded as much as nuclear energy, it isn't as good? Well if I was thinking the same way as you then Justin Beiber and Lady Gaga are the best musicians because they are the most popular and richest. Or that the best race is Asian, because there are a lot more Asians in the world then any other race. That makes absolutely no sense and judges should just ignore this argument. In conclusion, geothermal energy is better because it is cheap and easy to obtain just like nuclear energy is, but we do not need to worry about nuclear proliferation and radiation if we share this information to the world. And if we can easily share our technology with other countries without needing to worry about WMDs, our environment can benefit at a much accelerated rate than nuclear energy ever would, simply because the US would not allow it. http://www.wagingpeace.org... http://www.physics.isu.edu...", "qid": "13", "docid": "3af9364a-2019-04-18T18:59:56Z-00002-000", "rank": 85, "score": 129034.0}, {"content": "Title: government should intervene more with alternative fuel Content: So, thank you! I will begin my argumentation by referencing one of the most political and economic minds of all times. Adam Smith. His ideas were the basis for the world economy and the United States' government. He claimed that a government has 3 duties to its people, and no more. 1) Public Institutions 2) Domestic Security 3) Protection from foreign invasion Alternative energy does not fall under any of these three duties that the government holds and should therefore the government shoud not act. Next, you advocate that the market cannot take care of the 'problem' (I will talk about this 'problem' later on. ) itself. You only contention for this is that biodiesel is an effective energy source. There is a major problem with this though. BIODIESEL REQUIRES MORE CHEMICAL ENERGY TO MAKE THAN IT CAN PRODUCE MAKING IT COUNTERPRODUCTIVE TO ITS CAUSE. But you go on further to note that biodiesel is too expensive and is the only reason why it isn't being used. I answer this back with two responses. Biodiesel is cheaper than regular diesel fuel (which is the only thing that biodiesel replaces) meaning that money isn't the problem so that automatically deteriorates your argumentation. But furthermore, biodiesel is ineffective, it clogs up cars, and it takes away from agriculture raising the price of food which would effect the poor and the economy even more. Next with your 'conventioanl wisdom' aruments, they have no basis and there is no analysis on how this 'wisdom' even exists. It does not exist because the rich would not invest money in a risky area. It is the middle class that would make this technological advancement simply for the emperical support that comes along with it. It was the middle class that lead the textile, industrial, and technological advancements of the past, therefore it should be left to these people to do it again. And, you advocate that the government would be the best operative to change the current status quo of oil consumption to alternative fuels, ummmmm. .. .. the government has strong ties to OPEC and other oil agencies that make them the worst possible advocacy group. No matter how much they call for a change in the current energy 'crisis' they never will make this change. This is reason enough to deny the use of the USFG. Next, LEAVE IT UP TO THE MARKET! Smith also created the concept of the 'invisible hand' that drives prices of goods down and creates the highest amount of techonological innovations. A free market also weeds out the bad ideas and further iterates the good ones because people look to what works and buy it. Basic consumer/producer relationship. This is the only way that we would ever be able to find the best source of energy. Finally, you make the assumption that we should divest away from oil and to alternative energy sources. I ask you why? Oil provides more CO2 for plants increasing crop production around the world, it has shown no signs of 'global warming'. We have not seen the effects of burning oil and we will not see them in the future. Thank you! Matt", "qid": "13", "docid": "45c09d2f-2019-04-18T19:52:48Z-00003-000", "rank": 86, "score": 128850.0}, {"content": "Title: Tidal energy burns no fossil fuels and releases no emissions. Content: Tidal power derives its power from the ocean tides and currents. Because it does not burn fossil fuels to obtain energy, it emits no greenhouse gases or air-borne pollutants. As such, tidal energy can act as an important substitute for fossil-fuel energy, removing greenhouse-gas polluters from operation.", "qid": "13", "docid": "148bb110-2019-04-17T11:47:38Z-00059-000", "rank": 87, "score": 128795.0}, {"content": "Title: Are Renewable Energy Sources Better than Fossil Fuels Content: We will never run out of renewable resources, as they're always present, at least most of the time. I do concede that wind and solar energy aren't around 90% of the time. However, these aren't the only renewable resources. We have more reliable resources, such as water and geothermal energy.\"- PowerPikachu21 I highly doubt there are as reliable, considering the world's energy consumption only consisted of 1/3rd renewable energy [1], . \"By using hydroelectric dams, we can use the machanical energy of water to obtain power. The resovoirs made by these dams helps the environment by creating habitats for animals and plants.\"- PowerPikachu21 \"Geothermal energy is heat energy from the Earth. This can be turned into electricity. The heat pumps associated with Geothermal energy is used to cool houses.\"- PowerPikachu21 Geothermal energy has alot of problems with it. It only works for areas with specific conditions and isn't developed enough to help power the world [1]. \"We can also burn wood into charcoal, which is a renewable version of mined coal. We can rely on renewable resources to be around much longer than coal and oil, making them viable for the far future.\"- Powerpikachu21 Biomass is also very expensive to convert and transport, and is also very inefficient when compared to fossil fuels [2] We can rely on them to be around, yes. But we can't rely on them for energy. The processes to convert renewable resources into energy cost alot of money, and they can only do a third of the job of coal. Sources [1]- http://www.tsp-data-portal.org... [2]- http://www.conserve-energy-future.com... [3]- http://www.conserve-energy-future.com...", "qid": "13", "docid": "31698916-2019-04-18T12:33:52Z-00000-000", "rank": 88, "score": 128619.0}, {"content": "Title: Pickens Plan wrongly diverts natural gas from replacing coal Content: \"What Pickens Has Right, What He Has Wrong\". ClimateProgress. 28 July 2008 - \"That brings us to the second part of Pickens\u2019 plan and to Joe\u2019s correct judgment that using natural gas to run vehicles rather than power plants is a bad idea...Because we need to reduce carbon emissions, because we don\u2019t have limitless supplies of domestic oil and gas, and because we would be stupid to allow even more dependence on foreign resources, domestic natural gas should be treated carefully as transition fuel to a sustainable low-carbon economy. Given the growing urgency for climate action, it makes sense to use natural gas, the cleanest of the fossil fuels, to replace coal, the dirtiest.\"", "qid": "13", "docid": "f9ecc418-2019-04-17T11:47:36Z-00058-000", "rank": 89, "score": 128161.0}, {"content": "Title: Clean/Renewable Energy is the ideal source of energy (Over fossil fuels) Content: Okay, first, I will start off by stating my arguments, and introduce my topic. I believe renewable energy is the ideal source of energy for the future for many reasons 1. Renewable energy will never run out As fossil fuels do run out, as they are non-renewable, renewable energy will not. They come in natural forms such as sun and wind which are things that will never run out. 2. Fossil fuels pollute earth and melt polar ice caps As shown in numerous studies, the use of fossil fuels has melted the polar caps greatly and have raised ocean levels several inches. 3. Easy to get As for fossil fuels, you have to go drilling deep down into earth, for renewable energy, it's as simple as getting sunlight.", "qid": "13", "docid": "4911d42e-2019-04-18T12:51:15Z-00001-000", "rank": 90, "score": 127948.0}, {"content": "Title: Increasing Funding for Micropower (Alternative Energy) Content: Since my last alternative energy debate was so interesting, I thought I'd keep it up by starting another one, with more specific wording to avoid the meta-debates that occurred in my last debate. This topic is: \"The United States federal government should increase funding for the Department of Energy's Industrial Technologies Program (ITP) to give grants for micropower.\" 1. My first argument is that the status quo is unacceptable: a. According to the Department of Energy, the current electricity generation and distribution model in the United States is based on a centralized grid. b. There are (at least) five problems with the centralized grid model: i. Sabotage: According to the Council on Foreign Relations, the because much of the grid is unprotected, our energy infrastructure is one of the most vulnerable targets to terrorists. A terrorist strike would cause nationwide blackouts. ii. Global Warming: The centralized grid promotes fossil fuel based energy sources such as coal, oil and natural gas. Fossil fuels have caused global warming, which threaten to destroy the planet. iii. Economic Competitiveness: The ITP program is vital to nine key energy intensive industries, supply 90% of the materials to the U.S., produce $1 trillion in revenue, directly employ 3 million people, and indirectly employ 12 million people. iv. Spillover: Micropower can be used to aid developing countries. According to Seth Dunn, an energy specialist at the WorldWatch Institute, providing micropower to North Korea can reduce the chance of nuclear proliferation. v. Oil dependence: Currently, the U.S. imports more than 60% of the oil it consumes. According to Dr. Martin Feldstein, our dependence on oil is a security threat. Iran has declared that any hostile actions taken by the United States would cause them to destroy the Straits of Hormuz, cutting off 20% of the U.S. oil supply. c. Current subsidies for non-alternative forms of energy prevent micropower from becoming mainstream. According to Bioenergy Update, the $120 billion in subsidies for fossil fuels prevents a shift away from the centralized system. 2. My second argument is that the ITP/micropower program can solve these problems: a. First, micropower is a system of distributed generation of electricity, using solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, hydro, and other forms of renewable energy. Essentially, a business would generate its own electricity on-site, based on the most appropriate renewable source, thus bypassing the need for a centralized electric grid based on fossil fuels. Although it has become more popular in recent years, there are still barriers to widespread adoption. b. The ITP program currently gives out $175 million in grants for micropower projects. However, this amount is tiny compared to the $120 billion in annual subsidies for fossil fuels. c. Micropower can solve the five harms I outlined above: i. Sabotage: A decentralized grid means that there would be no place for the terrorists to strike if they wanted to disable the electricity supply. Since each business would generate their own electricity, there would be no supply to interrupt. ii. Global Warming: According to Bioenergy Update, if the U.S. switched to a micropower based system, we could cut carbon emissions by 50%, much more than our current targets. iii. Economic Competitiveness: The ITP program funds projects in nine key industries, several of which are struggling for global competitiveness. If they were able to access low cost renewable energy, they could better compete with their foreign rivals. iv. Spillover: As stated above, micropower gives countries an opportunity to work together and increase international cooperation. According to Mr. Dunn, this lessens the risk of North Korea becoming belligerent. v. Oil Dependence: According to NPR, developing alternative fuels has the ability to shift us away from oil dependence to a form of domestically generated renewable energy. d. The ITP program actually works. According to the Department of Energy, more than 140 new technologies have been created by ITP-private firm cooperation. e. The plan can be accomplished without adding to the deficit if fossil fuel subsidies were ended. With the $140 billion in money that goes to oil and coal companies, the ITP program can develop and spread micropower technology to businesses, which can then spread it to consumer use, all without adding a dime to our budget deficit. Hopefully, someone will pick up the gauntlet for this debate, and it will be an interesting discussion!", "qid": "13", "docid": "6140b8cc-2019-04-18T19:04:55Z-00005-000", "rank": 91, "score": 127835.0}, {"content": "Title: The world should be making a transition to renewable energy rather than using fossil fuels Content: i have no opinion because honestly i agree with the opposition", "qid": "13", "docid": "77d1660c-2019-04-18T11:26:24Z-00000-000", "rank": 92, "score": 127668.0}, {"content": "Title: fossil fuel Content: Since the topic is unclear, I'd like to interpret the topic to be: \"the world should stop using fossil fuel.\" My opponent is pro and I am con, so this topic interpretation makes sense. 1. No alternative We need gasoline for the foreseeable future. Most people who currently own cars in the world own a car that runs primarily on gasoline. Cars are expensive products and most people are not too keen on purchasing a new one right now, considering the global recession. Other options are not viable anyway. Ethanol Normal cars can run on a blend of ethanol/gasoline, but ethanol cannot comprise more than 15% of the concoction, or else it will corrode the engine parts. In addition, ethanol does not yield a net positive amount of energy because it takes gasoline to create the fertilizer used to grow the crop (usually corn) and to harvest it (picture tractors). \"UC Berkeley geoengineering professor Tad Patzek argued that up to six times more energy is used to make ethanol than the finished fuel actually contains.\" [1] So it essentially takes 6 gallons of gasoline to produce one gallon of ethanol. In addition, we don't have enough crops in the world to turn into ethanol. According to Energy Bullet, \"if the entire US corn crop were used for fuel, it would only replace 20 percent of US gasoline consumption.\" [2] Lastly, food to fuel increases world food prices and results in starvation. Environment News Service explains, \"The United States, in a misguided effort to reduce its oil insecurity by converting grain into fuel for cars, is generating global food insecurity on a scale never seen before. The world is facing the most severe food price inflation in history as grain and soybean prices climb to all-time highs. . . . The World Bank reports that for each 1 percent rise in food prices, caloric intake among the poor drops 0.5 percent. Millions of those living on the lower rungs of the global economic ladder, people who are barely hanging on, will lose their grip and begin to fall off.\" [3] Cellulosic ethanol is not yet commercially viable and may never be because the enzymes to break down cellulose are far too expensive to produce. Electric Since 80% of power that is generated in the United States is from fossil fuel (coal and natural gas), if we stop using fossil fuels, we won't be able to charge our cars. Electric cars are also much more expensive than normal cars and cannot travel very far on a single charge. Hydrogen fuel cell The fuel cells are ridiculously expensive. Prototypes running solely on fuel cells have not even been made. There are no refilling stations. Hydrogen is not energy-dense enough to be a viable transportation fuel because the fuel tank would be too heavy. Power 80% of U.S. power comes from coal and natural gas. Less than 1% comes from solar and wind. Around 20% comes from nuclear power. However, the nuclear plants in the U.S. are approaching the end of their life cycles, meaning we will rely more on fossil fuels in the future. Solar and wind are not yet viable to provide all our energy because they rely on intermittent energy sources (wind is not always blowing, sun is not always shining), and we do not have a reliable way to store the energy, meaning we need fossil fuels to act as a back-up for power generation if these intermittent sources are not available. The Energy Information Agency did projection forecasts on alternative energy development to 2030, based on current incentives/tax breaks and rates of investment, and found that in the best case scenario, renewable energy can provide 10% of the United State's energy needs by 2030. [4] If we stopped using fossil fuels now, the global economy would come to a standstill. 2. Clean fossil fuels Clean diesel cars have been manufactured that emit absolutely no particulates from their tailpipes, such as a model highly touted by Volkswagen. In addition, carbon capture and sequestration promises to create coal power plants that no longer emit any carbon dioxide. 3. World economy Fossil fuel jobs employ tens of millions of people worldwide in the oil exploration/drilling industry, the coal mining industry, and in electricity generation. These people would all lose their jobs. Oil/natural gas exporting countries like Saudi Arabia and Russia would have their economies devastated if they could not sell fossil fuels. A collapse of demand in many fossil fuel exporting-dependent countries would further exacerbate the global recession. Responding to my opponent's case: 1. Ozone layer holes Most of the holes in the ozone layer were caused by chlorofluorocarbons (CFC), which international agreements have since banned. Science Daily reports that currently, one of the most promising new ways to decrease ozone depletion is newly discovered devices to detect rogue CFC emissions. [5] There are two ways that fossil fuels directly decrease ozone, but both ways only have a \"weak\" effect on ozone. [6] 2. Global warming Many countries are attempting to implement emissions reduction strategies, but these will likely be very expensive to consumers of energy and will have only a marginal impact on global warming. The International Panel on Climate Change, the United Nation's consortium of the smartest scientists on the global warming issue across the world, recently ranked the best solutions to global warming, and a number of geo-engineering projects (engineering projects that would cool the globe) were ranked higher than emissions reduction. Solutions include the one described in Super-Freakonomics, essentially simulating a volcanic burst in the troposphere, during which particles decrease sunlight penetration to the Earth's surface and decrease atmospheric temperature, and putting sunlight shields in outer space. No matter how costly these engineering solutions are, they will be cheaper and more effective than drastic emissions reduction programs, like cap and trade. In addition, some of the renewable energy solutions aren't much better for global warming. Stanford University published a study in 2007 on the ways that shifting to a hydrogen economy would increase global warming. [7] 3. Peak oil Many different experts disagree on the date when peak oil production will occur, but few experts still believe that it will be as soon as 2020, as my opponent suggests. In fact, the Energy Information Agency recently did projections until 2035 and found that due to technology improvements, peak oil will not occur between now and then. [8] One such improvement is EOR \u2013 enhanced oil recovery. Carbon dioxide (usually captured from a coal power plant using carbon capture and sequestration) is pumped into oil wells and makes the yields of oil from the well jump from 20-40% (under traditional techniques) to 40-60% by increasing the pressure inside the well-head and forcing more oil to come out. We need oil for the foreseeable future \u2013 alternatives are just not available yet on a large enough scale and are not yet affordable for the average person. [1] http://www.sfgate.com... [2] http://www.energybulletin.net... [3] http://www.ens-newswire.com... [4] http://news.mongabay.com... [5] http://www.sciencedaily.com... [6] http://wiki.answers.com... [7] http://gcep.stanford.edu... [8] http://www.altenergystocks.com...", "qid": "13", "docid": "3d507ec5-2019-04-18T19:02:10Z-00004-000", "rank": 93, "score": 127256.0}, {"content": "Title: Subsidizing clean energy and not oil will allow rapid transition. Content: Ideally, renewables, the necessary fuel of the future, should be subsidized, and fossil fuels should not be. In this situation, the transition to renewables can be made much faster, thus more quickly eliminating the oil-dependencies that are currently used to justified oil subsidies.", "qid": "13", "docid": "7983ff18-2019-04-17T11:47:22Z-00039-000", "rank": 94, "score": 126516.0}, {"content": "Title: Clean/Renewable Energy is the ideal source of energy (Over fossil fuels) Content: I think that fossil fuels are better than clean energy. 1.It cost to much many to get solar panels to get sunlight. Using fossils fuels you don't have to spend much money and you don't have to buy it one by one. 2.Renewable energy takes up all the energy below the earth. Using renewable energy you have to find energy beneath the earth which takes up our energy source. 3.Renewable energy is harder to link to make it work. For renewable energy, you have to go underground and get energy, then connect it to where it's suppose to be.", "qid": "13", "docid": "4911d42e-2019-04-18T12:51:15Z-00000-000", "rank": 95, "score": 126367.0}, {"content": "Title: Alternative Energy used by 2010 Content: Okay, now i belive you took this out of actual reality. I understand your point and i do agree with you that totally converting to alternative fuels by 2010 is impossible. What i was saying is that we need to start making a jump towards these types of cars because our oil source is not very dependable and also its the MIDDLE EAST. I like how you are in agreement with the alternative energy and you have a 2009 camaro as your picture. No thats a joke. Well these fuels such as wind, solar, and ethynol can be used very soon. You have to realize we have E-85 available and we just are not making cars that can use it. If our big car companies would make more cars that could tolerate these fuels i would not have made this argument. But did you know that GM and Ford bought out the electric car because they knew it would sell but stopped selling it because they were losing money. Now is money more important than the environment. I think not. Just watch the movie \"Who killed the Electric Car\" and you will understand my point. Alternative Energy will help Americas future, and if this is what we need then why NOT DO IT?", "qid": "13", "docid": "e8b51f74-2019-04-18T20:01:33Z-00001-000", "rank": 96, "score": 126363.0}, {"content": "Title: Nuclear energy and fossil fuels are superior to renewable energies. Content: Fossil fuels are not just dangerous because of the co2 released into the atmosphere causing climate change. When fossil fuels like gas and oil are spilled, destruction follows. Thousands of animals have been tortured and killed from an oil spill or leakage in their environment. This usually happens in oceans, but can also happen on land. Fossil fuels also release toxic chemicals that cause lung disease to humans. When these fine particle emissions are inhaled, they can enter the blood stream and can cause diseases or problems almost anywhere in the body. If Renewable sources of energy are utilized, there is no chance of harm to the environment or people. Exploring new renewable energy resources will not only benefit our environment and communities, but will also benefit generations to come because of new innovative ways of the mass production of energy. Our current rate of fossil fuel usage will eventually lead to an energy crisis. To overcome this crisis, renewable energy research and production will grow in awareness and the government will rely on this innovative new source to power our country and eventually our entire world. 1) http://www.ehow.com... 2) http://www.alternativeenergysecret.com... 3) http://www.alternative-energy-news.info...", "qid": "13", "docid": "4c6aab06-2019-04-18T17:04:35Z-00000-000", "rank": 97, "score": 126146.0}, {"content": "Title: The United States should fund alternative energy research Content: Alternative energy research is the future of America. Subsidizing and providing government funding for alternative energy research will allow the United States to ease its dependency on oil, boost the American economy, reduce pollutants, and save money for the American consumers. This debate should not be restricted to alternative fuels, but also include alternative energies to power the country.", "qid": "13", "docid": "8da25347-2019-04-18T19:55:51Z-00006-000", "rank": 98, "score": 126021.0}, {"content": "Title: There is no instance in which renewable energy has been able to provide a major share in the energy market Content: Despite the best intentions of major players in the energy market, renewable fuels have simply not been able to keep up with demand. It has a limited role in supplying electricity and virtually none in any other area. Although Nuclear is poor in the provision of non-electrical energy as well it has proved a more consistent form of energy in every arena than renewables. It has proved to be cleaner than any form of fossil fuels. With technological advances it is the obvious fuel of the future and, as a result deserves further funding and research.", "qid": "13", "docid": "5f3b3fcb-2019-04-15T20:22:23Z-00013-000", "rank": 99, "score": 125879.0}, {"content": "Title: Nuclear Power is the most viable substitute from fossil fuels Content: Thank you for this interesting and invigorating debate. First of all I would like to thank you for posting the link to the chart. I was pretty confused but I am no longer confused, but this chart is irrelevant to my arguments as they are about diseases and afflictions that are caused by radiation and toxicity of the enrichment process to create energy. This matters very little this debate however because the numbers are completely unknown, so I will drop this argument. My opponent then continues to say \"My opponent has yet to provide the real cost of digging a hole a couple miles deep and releasing many toxic materials as I have previously mentioned. \" You mean like how you gave the real cost to creating a powerplant? We do not need to give exact numbers, reasonable comparisons can be made in exchange. Judges please base this off of logic and reasoning AS WELL AS persuasive evidence. My comparison is, of course, oil. Companies who obtain oil must dig holes to extract it. But in the world of my opponent, they won't get past digging the hole because of how expensive it is? That makes no sense to me. Every bit of energy we obtained must be prepared. For example, coal needs to be mined in a facility, oil needs to be drilled, nuclear energy needs to be fissioned in proper conditions, geothermal energy needs to be drilled. How is geothermal energy hole drilling any more expensive than oil hole drilling? Realistically, it is not. My opponent goes on to say \"My opponent is suggesting that we just transport thousands of gallons of water to our desired 2 to 3 mile hole and allow it to turn into steam. \" Yes exactly, just like how nuclear energy requires the transportation of 60,000 tons uranium (number from your evidence cited for the \"chart\") each year. How does this make either sources of energy any less viable? Just because we aren't getting spoon fed alternative energy sources means we cannot work hard to obtain it? That is utter nonsense. My opponent also says \"As to my opponents second rebuttal, I am quite offended. I ask him to do his research first before making any rash statements. \" No, you asked me a question where you and I both already knew the answer. Of course geothermal energy is not used 40% or more in other countries. It is a new science, we are still learning about how to make it better and more productive. I made a few comparisons to what you attempted to do with Lady Gaga, which you happened to slither right by. Judges take note of this because later on he makes the claim of hitting all of my arguments \"head on\" because that little line is all he said about it. He did not defend WHY energies should be judged on that scale, only that they should with no warrant for his claim, and when I call him out on his lack of warrants, he gets \"offended. \" He then continues his statement by saying \"There is A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A CIVILIAN NUCLEAR PLANT AND A NUCLEAR BOMB. \" This is a great example of him not hitting MY arguments head on. My argument is not the nuclear plants are similar to nuclear bombs. It is THE PROCESS of taking energy from uranium is EXTREMELY SIMILAR to the process that creates weapons grade plutonium. Other countries are given the right to plans of nuclear powerplants, but they are under constant watch by US forces exactly for the reason that the two processes are so similar. But lets go into a scenario. Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen decide to go to war with the United States. Uh oh, we already taught them how to make nuclear weapons, do you think that since there would be a war between us that they would respect our rights enough to not make nuclear weapons? Absolutely not. The risk of nuclear proliferation is greater than anything you can imagine. Communist Soviet Union actually wanted to maintain power and did not drop bombs on the US because they knew we would do the same thing. But how would an extremist country like Iran handle that situation. Amadimajhad is already trigger happy to drop bombs on our allies even without nuclear weapons. If we completely replaced nuclear energy with geothermal energy, the risk of nuclear proliferation is completely absent. My opponent goes on to speculate with \"I believe there is a reason that countries do not use geothermal energy because it is neither cost effective nor can it produce energy en mass and enough to supply demand. Nuclear can. \" Well, if I was going to speculate, I would say that the reason that we use nuclear instead of geothermal energy is for three reasons. 1) it is too new. not very many people realize its potential, proven by our debate. 2) nuclear energy produces weapons grade plutonium that our military can use. (therefore the GOV funds it. ) 3) The oil and coal industries have made it almost impossible to provide an alternative energy source with pure money (buying off country leaders, buying off politicians, muscling out small companies, everything needing energy relies on gas or oil. ) My opponent makes this funny statement next \"Towards the end of the article, one can see that many countries that have nuclear power plants are not currently holders of nuclear weapons. I wonder why that is? ?\" First of all, that is nuclear weapons that we know about. Secondly, only 7 countries are ALLOWED to carry nuclear weapons. If any country carries nuclear weapons that is not the US, France, Pakistan, Israel, Russia, India, or China, they would have to go through a process to be allowed to have them. Iran and Saudi Arabia do not tell us they have nuclear weapons because they know we will not allow it. And as to my statement that I made that confused my opponent, I agree it is confusing so let me clarify. What I meant was that if we used geothermal energy instead of nuclear energy, we could share this technology with the world without fearing WMDs, and if we did, our environment would become safer at a faster rate than with nuclear energy because our government will simply not allow most countries to build nuclear power plants. I am sorry for my grammatical mistake. To pull this whole debate together, I have proven that geothermal energy is just as viable and just as economical as nuclear energy, but can actually be shared with the world to benefit us as a whole and without supplying other countries with the means to make nuclear weapons. My opponent says he has hit my points head on, I still have yet to see him do that. Even if nuclear energy WAS cheaper, and I will never admit that it is, it is not worth that risk of nuclear proliferation which we are forced to fear right now because we do not have control of every country. The risks of having nuclear energy outweigh the benefits. Geothermal energy has the same benefits and little to no risks. In the world of the Pro, we live in a world with great alternative energy and the possibility for every country who uses nuclear power plants to make WMDs. In the world of the Con, the same exact thing, except it can never cause nuclear winter.", "qid": "13", "docid": "3af9364a-2019-04-18T18:59:56Z-00000-000", "rank": 100, "score": 125712.0}]}
{"query": "Is sexual orientation determined at birth?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: Sexual orientation is determined at birth. Content: Sexual orientation IS determined at birth. How? You can easily see whether a baby has female or male genitals. A penis is for the males and a vagina is for the females. Simple.", "qid": "14", "docid": "3584cf5e-2019-04-18T12:25:29Z-00001-000", "rank": 1, "score": 216216.0}, {"content": "Title: Sexual orientation is determined at birth. Content: Pro's argument about the female and male genitals seems to be a non-sequitur. Read what one is here.[1] The genitals have little to do with sexual orientation. While the genitals determine biological sex and biological sex correlates with sexual orientation, biological sex is not the cause of sexual orientation. If sexual orientation was determined at birth, then all identical twins would have the same sexual orientation. However, it is not the case that when one twin is homosexual, the other twin is also homosexual. As has been established by several studies on this matter, not 100% of twins have the same sexual orientation as the other, in fact it varies from as little as 20% of twins sharing the same sexual orientation, to as much as 60% in some studies.[3, pg 271] Source:[1] https://www.logicallyfallacious.com...;[2] https://genepi.qimr.edu.au...;", "qid": "14", "docid": "3584cf5e-2019-04-18T12:25:29Z-00000-000", "rank": 2, "score": 200761.0}, {"content": "Title: Children need to be protected from the gays and their homosexual agenda. Content: Freeman, Thank you as well. Defense of my C-2. Is it a possibility, but not very likely at all. Was it silly, far fetched? Indeed, however, I have lost debates on this site based solely on semantics. Since it IS a very remote possibility, I decided to include it. Since it was not discredited, it stands. The argument over sources again off-sets per the information I will provide below. Further, if I did not touch your second point, how could have mentioned things that I alledgedly didn't argue? My opponent attempted to discredit my sources by stating that they were right wing biased results. What were his sources? Left wing biased results. Not enough? Let's examine the quote from one of my opponnet's sources Ivanka Savic : me: Ivanka Savic-Berglund, MD, PhD Title: Associate Professor and Senior Consultant Neurologist at Karolinska Institutet at the Centre of Gender Related Medicine in Stockholm, Sweden Position: None Found to the question \"Is sexual orientation determined at birth?\" Reasoning: \"I want to be extremely cautious - this [my] study (Brain Response to Putative Pheromones in Homosexual Men) does not tell us anything about whether sexual orientation is hardwired in the brain. It doesn't say anything about that.\" http://borngay.procon.org... Further, my opponent mentioned the American Pyschiatry Association as one of his many sources that \"concurred\": Biased Studies? Research studies, often conducted by individuals or organizations with a vested interest in the outcome, are contradictory. Studies linked to conservative political and religious groups almost never show anything positive about homosexuality and studies linked to liberal political and religious groups and/or gay support groups almost never show anything negative about homosexuality. So this means that we all have to take a step back and look at all these studies with a calm and a cool head. Though obviously being biased (since I know what the truth is from my own life experience) I still can not include any studies financed by the anti-gay religious right because for me the results are disingenuous, outrageous or even outright laughable. For example, Click Here to read about the ruse or junk science known as the Thomas Project or \u00ef\u00bf\u00bd\u20ac\u0153Ex-Gays?\u00ef\u00bf\u00bd\u20ac\u00ef\u00bf\u00bd: A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change In Sexual Orientation whose principal investigators, Stanton Jones and Mark Yarhouse both worked for universities with strong anti-gay biases (and therefore had a vested interest in the outcome of the study) Wheaton College and Pat Robertson University respectively. On the other hand I have tried to weed out the studies with the more favorable outcomes to my side that seem to have some basic problems with their methodology. For example, I have not included the results of the following studies because these results could not be independently replicated by other researchers: a) The so-called \"gay gene (Xq28) study\" done by Dean Hamer. b) Post-mortem (after death) studies of the hypothalamus of the brain of homosexual males done by D. F. Swaab, Laura S. Allen, and Simon LeVay. o However in spite of all of the above scientific studies, according to the American Psychological Association's own website, \"there is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Click Here on the American Psychological Association Website link, then scan down to the question \"What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?\" and you will find the direct quote as used above. My opponent stated that I glided over single parent children. While that is not directly the subject at hand, I will speak to it. Single parent children will also miss out on the contributions of the missing parent be it male or female. In the scenarios presented by my opponent, he implied that all gay/lesbian parents are model parents without fault. Is it better to have.......? That is assuming that all gay/lez parents are, which they are not. MANY probably are, as are MANY hetero; however we cannot make this an all inclusive/exclusive. It is situational and must be evaluated on a case by case basis. Children are deserving of loving parents, and as such, careful placement MUST be paramount in the decision process. This idea directly ties in to the suitablility and parental potential of adopting families. The various departments of children and family services do a variety of checks to ensure children are being placed in a suitable home. For example, in Tennessee potential adoptive parents complete MAPP classes (Modern Approach to Partnership in Parenting). A home study is completed on the parents individually, together, as well as anyone residing in the home. Background checks are completed. Then 2 announced and 1 unannounced home inspections occur. If favorable, then parents are considered for placements. In the case above, parents are given information regarding the child. Can you accept a child who has (fill in the blank(s)? Parents need to know this for compatability. I will say that adoptive parents should NOT always attempt to change something about the child they are receiving. Sexual orientation notwithstanding; for example. REBUTTAL: I will not go so far as to say that gay couples should not be allowed to adopt children. I will say that whenever possible, straight children should be adopted by straight parents; and children with homosexual tendencies adopted by homosexual parents. As I stated, and undisputed, in Round 1, children \"model\" the behaviors of their caregivers. This would alleviate many of the inevitable questions that are certain to accompany such a placement. It is inevitable a child would witness public displays of affection, such as kissing. It is possible if not probable that they would also have some exposure to private displays of affection (I won't go there). They would be naturally curious to at least question if not experiment. With that in mind, it is clearly most beneficial to place straight kids with straight parents, and gay kids with gay parents. CONCLUSION: Contention 1: Worst case, both off set, best case mine is stronger. Contention 2: Unlikely, but possible, thus defended. My opponent did not have a 2nd contention. I win this debate My opponent cited Biblical scripture from the comments section. As promised, I refrained. I was expected to make all of the concessions, and surrender my opinion. (Reminds me of my beloved Israel!) Unfortunately, the best compromise that I am capable of is listed in my rebuttal. I was attacked in print for stating my opinion, yet I did not attack. Of the 50 plus comments, only 2 had anything supportive of me. Some even encouraged poor sportsmanship. So I ask, Who was really acting the part of the bully here? I have provided credible evidence to back my case. I have provided credible evidence to dismantle my opponent's case. Given this, I request your support in a PRO ballot. Thanks to Freeman for a good contest!", "qid": "14", "docid": "7c3403c3-2019-04-18T19:06:43Z-00000-000", "rank": 3, "score": 161792.0}, {"content": "Title: Sexiality Isn't a Choice Content: Sexuality is determined at birth, but it may take a while for one to figure it out. As for people going from gay to hetero, this is just them trying to figure out who they are. They could even be bisexual. Here I speak from personal existence. I grew up in a conservative Christian household, so anything other than heterosexuality was frowned upon. I hit the teenage years when I begin to learn things about myself, and I began to question my sexuality. I simply realised, \"hey, I don't really like anyome\" and go to talking with some friends and I figured out that I'm asexual. Did I choose to be this way? No. Did my environment influence me? No. I was asexual at birth, but only recently realised it.", "qid": "14", "docid": "caecc1bf-2019-04-18T13:39:21Z-00003-000", "rank": 4, "score": 154849.0}, {"content": "Title: People are Born Gay Content: People are born with their sexual orientation already determined, just like they are born tall or short, it may not be apparent at birth but it is there.", "qid": "14", "docid": "dfb058ea-2019-04-18T18:50:06Z-00003-000", "rank": 5, "score": 154477.0}, {"content": "Title: There is strong evidence that sexual orientation can be effected by genetics. Content: I mean its soooo obvious. ITS SO OBVIOUS. what you said about the man with the brain of a woman, that's a disorder, its not genetic. There is no confirmed or discovered gene that determines who YOU decide to be. Its somebody choosing their own lifestyle, genetics for the 5000th time cannot possibly effect sexuality. the parents of the offspring that is a homosexual, in this case, are straight, and their entire line of ancestors are straight. How come none of them are homo or some other sexual. Oh that's right, BECAUSE YOU CANT PASS DOWN A \"POSSIBLE HOMO TRAIT OR GENE\" DOWN TO OFFSPRING. because there isn't one and if it is, don't you think they would have found that out by now?", "qid": "14", "docid": "f8070fca-2019-04-18T17:34:05Z-00000-000", "rank": 6, "score": 150648.0}, {"content": "Title: born a way Content: The only people who ever argue that you aren't born gay, but get 'seduced' into the lifestyle are people who say they are straight. Since they aren't gay, how do they have the first clue what is going on inside the head of a gay person? How did straight people become the experts on gayness? People can be born gay. I think a lot of new research has suggested that sexual orientation can be influenced by hormones the fetus is exposed to during pregnancy. Sexual attraction is something innate and something you cannot change, even if you wanted to. It's determined early in our development.", "qid": "14", "docid": "d2d4219f-2019-04-18T13:20:48Z-00001-000", "rank": 7, "score": 149723.0}, {"content": "Title: There is strong evidence that sexual orientation can be effected by genetics. Content: My evidence is statistical analysis that shows sharing specific genes increases the probability that you will find the same sex attractive. The topic of the debate was not that sexual orientation is 100% determined by genetics but that genetics do infact play a role which is demonstrable by the evidence I gave. I would like to point out that my opponent has done nothing to show the evidence is in error. [b]\"It's in our instintics that every one of us, yes including the other sexuals, was to be paired with the opposite sex.\"[/b] This statement is very vague, if the claim is that as a matter of instinct we are [u]all[/u] attracted to the opposite sex then this is demonstrably false....as gay people actually exist. [b]\"If it is indeed in the genetics the why would the genetic makeup of a gay man not have the qualities of a woman.[/b] Sexual orientation and sexual Identity are two separate issues. There are men with gender identity disorder(brain of woman, feels like they're a woman) who are only attracted to woman. Likewise there are masculine men that are attracted to other men. I would like to point out you never explained why genetics playing a role in sexual orientation would necessary require that gay man would have the qualities. [b]\"He can't reproduce if he is only attracted to men so why would his DNA make him a guy?\"[/b] Homosexuals are not sterile. [b]The thing is, it doesn't make since for a GENETICALLY homosexual not be able to reproduce with other GENETICALLY homosexuals.[/b] Con never explains this statement, just merely asserts it. The majority of con's points are non sequitur and are borderline incoherent. He has done nothing to counter the strong link between genetics and sexual orientation I have provided.", "qid": "14", "docid": "f8070fca-2019-04-18T17:34:05Z-00001-000", "rank": 8, "score": 148182.0}, {"content": "Title: Sexual Orientation is a choice. Content: Sexual orientation is something that people are born with.", "qid": "14", "docid": "7839a8e-2019-04-18T13:02:10Z-00002-000", "rank": 9, "score": 147322.0}, {"content": "Title: Rights for All sexual orientations Content: Well most people are born with arms and legs and a brain, for most people with these ligaments or a muscle in their head, it is up to them to determine how they will use it. Unless there is a birth defect in them that handicaps the child at birth or later on in life then that I guess one would say is an act of the deity to punish his or hers parents. These deities did not tell them anything, man wrote the Bible, Koran, and etc. How can we trust mans word if it lies constantly, we cant, we just cant. Take everything people say with a grain of salt because the underlying fact in this is that man lies and can write anything in a fancy way and say \"god made me do it\" same thing in regards to if man kills someone. It cannot be an act of god if he says \"god made me do it\" god (or deities) harming his own children. The creator (god) does not have to be removed. Just the church's of these gods need to conform a little. I am know catholic but I sure as heck think the pope is heading in a right direction in his new papacy. God is good, to an extant that everyone is equal just close minded people who run religion like to brain wash people into thinking that it is wrong.", "qid": "14", "docid": "aa0c78ce-2019-04-18T17:05:36Z-00001-000", "rank": 10, "score": 144853.0}, {"content": "Title: Sexiality Isn't a Choice Content: \"You've informed me it's determined at birth, but you also say it takes one a while to began to realize who they are.\" This is silly statement. One does not normally realise their sexuality immediately. It's set in stone at birth, but it may take a while to figure it out. Thank you for debating me. This was a good one.", "qid": "14", "docid": "caecc1bf-2019-04-18T13:39:21Z-00001-000", "rank": 11, "score": 144004.0}, {"content": "Title: Sexual Orientation is a choice. Content: Um. .. ..", "qid": "14", "docid": "7839a8e-2019-04-18T13:02:10Z-00000-000", "rank": 12, "score": 143535.0}, {"content": "Title: Same-sex Marriage Content: Homosexuality is not a choice. It is something people are born with. Research has led us to believe that sexuality is determined by biological traits such as brain dominance, genes/DNA, etc. Though the main cause is unclear, scientists are certain that being gay is not a choice. However, polygamy is. It is part of a culture that people choose to follow. This very fact separates polygamy and homosexuality. 'There is now very strong evidence from almost two decades of 'biobehavioral' research that human sexual orientation is predominantly biologically determined.\" [1. http://www.nytimes.com...] \"A basic principle of our social covenant is that we do not discriminate against people on the basis of circumstances that they cannot choose, like race, sex and disability. If sexual orientation belongs on that list, then should we still prohibit gay marriage?\" [1.] On the contrary, polygamy is a choice. It is part of a culture that people choose to follow. This fact draws a fine line between same-sex marriage and polygamy. It will be looked at differently because same-sex marriage is a matter of human rights, while polygamy is matter of freedom of religion. They're part of different categories in the legal aspect, and therefore the Judicial branch will handle it differently. Despite activism the may occur, the road to legalization of polygamy will be stopped in court. For this reason, it is safe to say that the slippery slope is an invalid argument. The increase in divorce rates were caused by other factors. My opponent stated that divorce rates were rapidly increasing after the legalization of same-sex marriage in the Netherlands that occurred in 2000. However, same-sex marriage isn't to blame. Around the same time, emigration rates were increasing. \"In 2003, emigration exceeded immigration for the first time since 1984.\" [2. http://focus-migration.hwwi.de...] Also, 'unemployment rates increased from 8.7% to 15.7% between 2000 and 2004 in the Netherlands. [3. Globalization and Migration: A Comparative Study of the Political.... By Michael Orlando Sharpe] These economic factors caused financial issues, and other problems that resulted in divorce of many married couples throughout the Netherlands. Blaming same-sex marriage for these occurrences without evidence is not a logical argument.", "qid": "14", "docid": "3892212e-2019-04-18T15:09:07Z-00002-000", "rank": 13, "score": 142677.0}, {"content": "Title: Homosexuality is not a choice Content: All sexual orientations are determined by a complex interaction of traits, with no single gene acting as the \"signal\" for whether you like members of the same sex, members of the opposite sex, or both. Therefore, essentially your environment plays a role in deciding what sex(es) you end up being attracted too. For example, lets say I'm a gay male, I can choose to date, have sex, etc. with women (doesn't mean I'll like it) but, nonetheless I can choose to do it. On the other hand, I can't choose to be attracted to them because I'm gay, no matter how hard I try, I can't choose to be unattracted to men.", "qid": "14", "docid": "e815f813-2019-04-18T13:09:13Z-00001-000", "rank": 14, "score": 141301.0}, {"content": "Title: Sexual Orientation is a choice. Content: sexual orientation is not limited to the attraction felt to a specific gender, granted these forces are never stagnant and cant be measured however they can be scoped on to a scale of sorts by intensity and direction. sexual orientation can point to other spectrum like age. it is most common for people to have an attraction to adults aged 20 - 40 just as it is common to be attracted to the opposite gender. however it isn't common but accepted that there are a few people who's orientation point higher or lower than the average, some people are attracted to younger people gender regardless from the ages of 6 - 13 and some people like older people 50 - 70. sexual orientation can point at different levels of different spectra such as gender, age, inter species, intellect, masculinity, femininity and desire. these cannot be decided upon, they occur based on subconscious decisions by past experiences and not conscious decision making, or genetic inheritance.", "qid": "14", "docid": "7839a8e-2019-04-18T13:02:10Z-00001-000", "rank": 15, "score": 141070.0}, {"content": "Title: Sexual orientation Content: I believe it is a combination. Many are born that way and others choose to be that way. Those that are born that way were an accident of nature. The same as many other deformity's like being born with one arm, blindness, etc. If you love someone you try to mend their handicap, not accept it as normal. Those that choose it are just sick.", "qid": "14", "docid": "13176601-2019-04-18T17:19:14Z-00005-000", "rank": 16, "score": 140579.0}, {"content": "Title: Homosexuality is Genetic Content: My opponent has not made any separate points, therefore, no rebuttals from me. My conclusion: APA states: \"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles....\"[1] VOTE CON Good luck Pro [1]http://www.onenewsnow.com...", "qid": "14", "docid": "45198ce6-2019-04-18T18:35:19Z-00001-000", "rank": 17, "score": 138223.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Homosexuals are 'born that way' Content: Twin StudiesMy opponent claims that because identical twins share the same DNA, they should both have the same sex orientation, but they don't. Therefore, he claims, it must be environmental. This has a number of problems to it. First, making a point against the notion: \"Homosexuals are born that way\" does not automatically prove your argument. For example, I could say \"Because identical twins don't have the same sexuality, it can't be genes, it must be flying dinosaurs.\", and it would still follow the same logic you have used. Second, people who have gay siblings are more likely to volunteer for these types of scientific studies, which can cause the results to become skewed.I agree, sexual orientation is not entirely due to DNA. That does not mean, however, that it is automatically environmental. Hormones play a major part in determining gender as well as sexual orientation, namely, the hormones the baby is exposed to in the womb. When in the womb, all babies are female, and in order to become male require hormones, namely testosterone. It is entirely possible that in the case of twins, one twin is exposed to less testosterone than the other. This is how you get fraternal twins. If for whatever reason onebaby was exposed to less testosterone than the other but both came out as male, the one who received less testosterone is more likely to be gay. The flip side applies for girls. Gay ParentsMy opponent claims through this study that gay parents are more likely to have homosexual kids than straight parents do, and therefore the gay parents must somehow influencing their kid to also become gay. There are also a number or issues with this conclusion. First, again, gay people are more likely to volunteer for/agree to these kinds of studies, again making the test pool skewed. Second, it is also entirely possible that the child is biologically related to one of the parents, and that \"homosexual gene\" (to kind of over-simplify it) may have been passed down to the child.Reorientation TherapyThe way reorientation therapy works is that they give the \"patient\" a positive stimulus when they have lustful thoughts for the opposite sex and negative stimulus for when they have lustful thoughts for the same sex. They also may fill them up with estrogen/testosterone in an attempt to make them find the opposite sex more attractive. However, it has been shown time and time again that this does not work. The first and main reason is that homosexuality is not psychosis. Again, if my opponent is saying that homosexuality is mutable, he is also implying that it is some sort of disease. Homosexuality is NOT a disease, if it was a disease, psychologists or doctors would be easily be able to discern them from straight people. But they can't, as seen in a study of I can't recall the name but it was mentioned in a This American Life's episode 81 words. I will however, provide a similar study below.A recent APA task force did a study on this and found in their 2009 report that the participants in their study went through gay conversion therapy and came out negligibly more attracted to the opposite sex and remained just as attracted to the same sex. On the other hand, what did change was the patients state of mental health, as the side effects of such therapy's were loss of sexual feeling, depression, suicidality and anxiety.A lot of these studies that my opponent mentioned have a number of issues. From 1960 to 2007 only 83 studies confirm my opponents case, of which most had biases such as a court ordering that compelled them to take the therapy or a very small, low budget test pool. Also, a lot of footnotes here, did you just copy and paste this stuff? Because if you did, please stop, I will not debate with a website.Animals \"There is a difference between homosexual behavior and homosexual orientation. There are no known animals who have *long term* homosexual relationships. What occurs in animals is not directly applicable to what occurs in humans.\"This statement has a number of issues. First, there are known animals who have long term homosexual relationships, a lot actually, namely geese and duck (who mate for life), dwarf chimpanzees (all of which, that's right, all, are bisexual), swans (also mate for life), domestic cats (mate for life), and lions (mate for life), to name a few. Second, my opponent forgets that humans are also animals. What applies to animals may also apply to humans, we are not suddenly above anything animal relate just because we are humans. This is why we do drug tests on mice; they 80% related to humans.I forgot to put sources last time, I put them here this time. Sorry!http://listverse.com...http://psychology.ucdavis.edu...http://www.livescience.com...http://www.frc.org...http://www.bestmedicaldegrees.com...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.wehonews.com...http://www.thisamericanlife.org...", "qid": "14", "docid": "cae0ad5c-2019-04-18T15:17:55Z-00004-000", "rank": 18, "score": 137857.0}, {"content": "Title: Prop 8 is Constitutional Content: Thanks for the debate kenballer. I begin with the understanding that, like race and gender, sexual orientation is not a choice. For example, the overwhelming scientific consensus suggests that sexual orientation is determined biologically. If my opponent wishes to debate this point, he is free to do so, but unless an argument is offered to challenge this view, I will proceed with the view that homosexuality is a form of self-identity that is beyond choice. What's more, in Frontiero v. Richardson the Supreme Court ruled that sexual orientation \"bears no relation to ability to perform or contribute to society.\" This ruling was backed up by a considerable body of sociological and scientific evidence, and was reaffirmed in Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas, where the Court overturned state regulations that discriminated against gays. The facts presented by these cases suggest sexual orientation is an irrelevant aspect of self-identity for the purposes of law and public policy. Prop 8 denies gays the right to embrace their sexual-identity and choose who they marry. These are fundamental rights protected by the Constitution. As such, Prop 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. When a fundamental right is being denied, the burden is on the state to justify this discrimination. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law. This means the law must extend the same legal benefits to every U.S. citizen. If marriage is a fundamental right (as Con himself argues), then it must be extended to everyone. And this means that if straight people can get married, so can gay people. The Due Process Clause guarantees \"[no State shall] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.\" This means that each individual has the liberty to marry the person of their choice, regardless of sexual orientation. Prop 8 clearly violates the Due Process Clause because it deprives gay people the fundamental right to choose who they marry. In Zablocki v. Redhail, the Court invalidated a Wisconsin law that prohibited the right to marriage to any resident who failed to fulfill court-ordered child support obligations. The Court opined that the Wisconsin statute \"interfered with decisions to enter into ... marital relationships\"; because the Wisconsin statute \"absolutely prevented\" the desired ritual, it was held to be unconstitutional on Equal Protection grounds. The same logic (not allowing people to enter marital relationships) could be applied to invalidate bans on same-sex marriage. As I said before, the burden is on the state to justify discrimination of gays. My opponent offers two arguments in support of a case for state-sanctioned discrimination: (1) that marriage is heterosexual in nature; and (2) that marriage is reserved for procreation. These arguments are two sides of the same coin, so I will address both of them together. My opponents says the true purpose of marriage is to procreate. But if the purpose of marriage is procreation, individual gay persons can procreate through means such as artificial insemination and surrogacy arrangements. My opponent argues, however, that it is the biological procreative capacity of male-female couples that justifies the unique status of marriage itself. This argument is a non-starter for a number of reasons. First off, it is not clear that the state must sanction discrimination of gays if our species is to procreate and survive. Therefore, if gays are allowed to marry and have families, there is no reason to suppose our species would stop procreating. As such, my opponent has provided a compelling justification gay banning gay marriage that overrides a competing state interest in not discriminating against gays. Second, no couple has ever been required to procreate in order to marry. Sterile couples and old couples can marry. Couples physically able to procreate but who do not want to procreate can marry. This proves that marriage is not essentially about procreation because procreation is not essential to any marriage. My opponent says only allowing fertile couples to marry would be impractical. Actually, it is not as impractical as my opponent seems to think. All it would require is that prospective married couples sign an affidavit stating they are able to procreate and intend to do so. If it is found, after a few years, that a couple has been unable or unwilling to procreate, the marriage could be immediately dissolved. Of course, the fact that this has not been made a law demonstrates that procreation is not essential to marriage. My opponent says that \"children from two biological parents fare better in every category of social and psychological measurement.\" This point is irrelevant because of one simple fact: no serious opponent of gay marriage advocates removing children from gay parents. The facts are simple: gay families exist. As of today, over 1,000,000 children are raised by gay parents. The important thing here is that gay families are not the top-down creations of government bureaucrats or radical visionaries. They are bottom-up facts of life. It is for this reason that no serious supporter of Prop 8 would suggest taking children away from gay parents. Because individual gays have access to procreation (through artificial insemination, for example), it should be evident that the optimal partnership theory is irrelevant for the purposes of law and public policy. I have addressed my opponent's arguments and shown why Prop 8 is unconstitutional. In closing, I'd like to point out that the Supreme Court has never said that the purpose of marriage is procreation. In fact, there are many reasons the state has an interest in marriage that have nothing to do with procreation. For example, marriage provides the married person with a primary caretaker, channels sexual activity into monogamous commitments, stabilizes households, and serves a role signaling familial commitment to one's community. These are all legitimate reasons that the state has an interest in marriage. Prop 8 clearly violates the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Because Prop 8 denies citizens access to fundamental rights, the burden is on my opponent to justify state-sanctioned discrimination of gays.", "qid": "14", "docid": "b95f933-2019-04-18T18:13:42Z-00004-000", "rank": 19, "score": 137757.0}, {"content": "Title: There's no such thing as being born GAY! Content: Also the report in the Chicago-sun Times excludes \"ALL\" GAY people and uses the term \"SOME\" which leaves out a number of exempt Homosexuals with no scientific, genetic or biological explanation for being GAY.\" I have another study to prove my point, as even though the specific page does use generalizing words, others do not. A review of current research shows that there is no evidence supporting a social cause for homosexuality [1]. There are multiple studies, both with animals and humans, demonstrating the causative relationship with the pre-natal testosterone during a critical stage in \"defeminization\". [2] Since sexual differentiation of the brain starts in the second half of pregnancy, these two processes can be influenced independently, which can result in transsexuality. This also means that in the event of ambiguous sex at birth, the degree of masculinization of the genitals may not reflect the degree of masculinization of the brain. There is no proof that social environment after birth has an effect on gender identity or sexual orientation. There is more evidence that the orientation of a person occurs before they are born than afterwards. In addition, another study proves that sexual orientation is uncontrollable. Just like the analogy that is used in my evidence, it is simply like being left handed. It was viewed as being possessed by evil. Now, scientifically, we know that is not true. The developing male fetus receives too little testosterone, which causes the sexual orientation. [3] In 1972, a study was done by Dr. Ward, who found that androstendione in male pregnancies would prevent the hypothalamus to develop into a healthy male brain. [4] The brain makes its gender commitment very early in development and, once committed to either male or female, it cannot change. These are all studies and examples that sexual orientation is, in fact, proved to be ingrained within a person before birth. \"Second you specifically stated verbatim that \"No families or ancestors were GAY because IT WAS NOT COMMON.\" I would like to point out this was taken out of context, as I did conclude to say that it was not common for people to express if they were homosexuals because it was inherently looked down upon. I did not intend for my point to be taken out of context and that it was uncommon in the sense that people were not. I intended for that to mean it was uncommon because of society, it was not something someone willingly came out to say. \"Being GAY is none other than an example of \"HERD BEHAVIOR\" it is not genetic, biological, psychological or hereditary. As society shifted from old-school values and conservative traditions we entered into an era where the world and the lifestyles of people evolved and drastically changed as they always do. You also stated that homosexuality was looked down upon but the problem with that statement is that it neither proves or disproves whether family members or ancestors were or were not GAY... All that proves is that it was less liked by society so that is not even worth commenting on.\" My multiple sources of evidence off of my first point proves that sexual orientation is not because of herd behavior. It is because of the brains development. My statement about how homosexuality was looked down upon proves that even if people were gay, there would be no way to know. Even if we did disregard that comment, the evidence proves people are born gay. If we do or do not know if ancestors were gay, it really does not matter. Looking at current evidence and data, it is hereditary and biologically, and would negate your statements otherwise. This is definite proof. \"Also these \"Same-sex\" behaviors expressed in animals by researchers, zoologists, and scientists alike have determined it to be demonstrations of platonic courtship, affection, pair bonding, and parenting; also the motivations for and implications of these behaviors have yet to be fully understood, since most species have yet to be fully studied which leads us back to the merry-go-round of constant guessing and justification but no definitive proof of anything.\" I need sources. I cannot assume your sources are reliable. I need actual evidence and sources. However, all of the same- sex behaviors you mention and what they demonstrate fully prove my point. It is ingrained in their minds. Also, my opponent has contradicted a previous argument of saying most instead of all, when my opponent did it themselves, by saying \"...most species have not been fully studied...\" Without a quantified amount, I cannot trust this statement as being reliable. Looking back at the previous round, a close species to humans, bonobos, have been studied and have same- sex behaviors. This is not guessing. This is solid and proved evidence. \"First you said verbatim that \"there is no way to prove someone went from being gay to straight, and was scientifically proved to be a homosexual. You cannot prove that someone decides to be gay and go straight on their own free will.\" If you cannot prove that someone is specifically homosexual then neither can you prove what makes a person homosexual.\" Again, this was taken out of context and misunderstood. I was talking about a previous argument made, about people changing their sexual preference. Relating sexual preference to what I said, it makes sense that no one would be able to prove if someone was actually meant to be gay or meant to be straight by the methods we have today. It does not contradict my point at all. If we had that evidence today, this would not even be a debate today. However, on newly watched studies with children I provided earlier, that is how we can prove if someone is gay. Someone cannot simply look at someone and assume if the person is homosexual. It takes a long- term study. This is the point I was trying to make. Lastly, homosexuality is about pride because homosexuality is a topic not all people are comfortable with. Even with contradicting religions and churches going against gays, it is about pride to stop gay stereotypes. Heterosexuality does not need parades or support because it is a relationship that is common. \"There are sooooo many GAY people that it would have to mean that every single person in the entire world would literally have to carry this inborn trait. To say people are born GAY you would have to affirm sympathy for pedophiles and grant them the same clemency and extenuation not limited to but including scam artists, thieves, rapists, bigots...\" I am very confused about this statement. First, again, my opponent is contradicting themselves again. My opponents argumentation was I am using words like most, but my opponent is saying statements that are using generalizing terms. Since you state there are so many gay people, every person would need to carry this trait. I would like evidence for this statement. Right now, my opponent cannot prove this, as my opponent gave no quantified amount of how many homosexual people are in the world. In regards to your second statement, I am shocked. It is unreasonable to compare homosexuals being born the way they are to relate pedophiles and scam artists to the same cause. There is no way you can justify this. Actually, you could never justify that statement even if you tried. You are going into a different issue. Lets keep in mind that we are talking about sexual orientation, and not actual choices and poor decisions people choose to make, like scamming or being a rapist. I have tried to be as civilized and respectful as I can possibly be. I expect the same respect towards the gay community in return. [1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [3] http://www.rrcstaff.com... [4] http://www.viewzone.com...", "qid": "14", "docid": "59391011-2019-04-18T16:44:19Z-00002-000", "rank": 20, "score": 137408.0}, {"content": "Title: Sexual orientation is not a choice Content: I think I win", "qid": "14", "docid": "3bc0ea4-2019-04-18T15:39:06Z-00000-000", "rank": 21, "score": 136259.0}, {"content": "Title: Sexual orientation doesn't originate only from biology Content: I believe that sexual orientation DOES originate from biology that is, it depends upon biological factors such as genes and hormones. I think the burden of proof is shared here.", "qid": "14", "docid": "2771aba0-2019-04-18T15:29:45Z-00004-000", "rank": 22, "score": 136139.0}, {"content": "Title: There's no such thing as being born GAY! Content: First and for most before I start this argument I will state that I am NOT going to cite sources or back up material for a lot of information that I use for several different reasons; either it is common knowledge, common sense, or the information in my argument can easily be verified and looked up at any time on any search engine. It is not rocket science but any information I use can be searched and confirmed on your own time. First I will start by saying that there is no definitive proof that lower levels of testosterone effect sexual orientation. You never mentioned the female hormone estrogen which some females are born with lower levels of but are not Lesbians. You stated verbatim that \"The developing male fetus receives too little testosterone, which causes the sexual orientation,\" yet there are lots of heterosexual men born with lower levels of testosterone so if what you are saying is accurate then these men should be GAY. On the same note as stated in Wikipedia testosterone is a steroid hormone not a sexual orientation hormone and it plays a key role in males in the development of their reproductive organs as well as promoting secondary sexual characteristics such as increased muscle, bone mass, and the growth of body hair. Also falling in love is scientifically proven to lower levels of testosterone in males and increase testosterone in females which means that testosterone levels have intermittent highs and lows throughout the lifetime of a human being. It is our natural affinity to constantly go through hormonal changes all throughout life so why would something that is permanently innate in human development \"SUDDENLY\" have an affect on sexual orientation even if it happens prematurely during birth? Also on Wikipedia nowhere does it say TESTOSTERONE has \"ANYTHING\" to do with gender attraction nor in Human Biology which I took in college. The course covers over several chapters of detailed research and scientific information on different hormones, their effects on the body, and what they mean to our anatomy but there is not ONE reputable source that definitively confirms and proves without a doubt your claims about Testosterone having anything to do with sexual orientation; it is all speculation and not fact. Then you said, \"The developing MALE FETUS receives too little testosterone, which causes the sexual orientation.\" So I guess only males are born GAY??? And females get to choose... yes I see your logic! Second I love hypocrisy in debate it's great because I love how you said \"In addition, another study proves that sexual orientation is uncontrollable,\" then you said \"Just like the analogy that is used in my evidence, it is simply like being left handed.\" How is this statement any different from my pedophilia, scam artist, thief analogy? But I will get back to that later in the argument now is not the time lol! I want to address the fact that you said a study proves that sexual orientation is uncontrollable... how so? I would have loved to know which study this was and how they were able to prove something like that and what was the deciding factor that proved it, but as expected you couldn't offer anything more than just an enigmatic statement. You also stated verbatim that... \"A study was done by Dr. Ward, who found that androstendione in male pregnancies would prevent the hypothalamus to develop into a healthy male brain. The brain makes its gender commitment very early in development and, once committed to either male or female, it cannot change. These are all studies and examples that sexual orientation is, in fact, proved to be ingrained within a person before birth.\" \"Androstenedione\" as it is correctly spelled is the common precursor of male and female sex hormones as also stated in Wikipedia. It does lots of things in the human body but nowhere does it say that it has ANYTHING to do with sexual orientation or gender commitment however there is speculation that it may have estrogenic side-effects but that has yet to be proven because no one has ever had a high enough intake. Second Androstenedione was manufactured as a dietary supplement, often called andro for short. Andro was legal and able to be purchased over the counter, and, as a consequence, it was in common use in Major League Baseball throughout the 1990s by record-breaking sluggers like Mark McGwire. The International Olympic Committee in 1997 banned Androstenedione and placed it under the category of \"androgenic-anabolic steroids\" and for this reason it is banned by MLB, the NFL, USOC, NCA, and by the NBA. If Androstenedione has the ability to \"prevent the hypothalamus to develop into a healthy male brain,\" as you've stated then why have none of these athletes who habitually have taken this supplement have displayed any homosexual-like behavior or characteristics in any way what-so-ever?? Odd don't you think? And you use this estranged person called Dr. Ward? I looked him up and couldn't find a Dr. Ward only someone named Dr. Ward F. Odenwald if that's who you're talking about who did his research on HOMOSEXUALITY in 1995!! I was 9 years old!! Which was almost 20 years ago! So his research is null-and-void and means nothing because everything he \"THOUGHT\" he proved has yet to come to fruition! His so-called GAY discovery Androstenedione which was banned 2 years AFTER his research has not had the effect that he claimed it has on MALES and almost 20 years later and counting no athlete who took Androstenedione on a regular basis as a supplement has yet to experience changes in their sexual orientation. You also stated that sexual orientation was in-grained at birth yet you told me in the last argument that you cannot prove that someone who was GAY actually turned straight... that statement is a contradiction yet people do it all the time and YOU KNOW IT! In-grained my AZZ! I've had friends who were GAY and turned STRAIGHT and when asked about their decision to become heterosexual they said at one point they were attracted to the same gender and now they're JUST NOT!! I'm a female and I was attracted to other females for almost 6 years and now I'M NOT!! I'm attracted to guys and have been dating them ever since! People change their sexual preference all the time not to mention I CHOSE my sex partners thus choosing my orientation and was not in-grained with it. It is a personal choice just as simple as one day wanting Cheese cake and the next day Apple Pie! Lastly I'm going to skip arguing a lot of the stuff you said because it's pointless and I've already won so I will conclude this round by replying with a rebuttal to a statement that you made when you said... \"It is unreasonable to compare homosexuals being born the way they are to relate pedophiles and scam artists to the same cause. There is no way you can justify this. You are going into a different issue. Lets keep in mind that we are talking about sexual orientation, and not ACTUAL CHOICES and POOR DECISIONS people choose to make, like scamming or being a rapist.\" My response to that is no it is not unreasonable because the basis of my argument is that there is no such thing as people being born gay... it is a personal choice! I am not going into a different direction by naming people that live these other various lifestyles because this has everything to do with my argument because being GAY is ALSO a lifestyle and it is a lifestyle choice. And you consider people who live as pedophiles, scam artists, rapists and so forth to be \"ACTUAL CHOICES\" and \"POOR DECISIONS\" yet being a guy and WANTING to suck another guy's wiener is not? LMAO Get out of here! There are STRAIGHT men who even do this for the money and solely for the money so get the heck out of here but in your biased logic it can't be an ACTUAL CHOICE or male prostitution it's an \"epi-mark\" no wait it's too much \"Androstenedione\" at birth, no no it's \"lack of Testosterone\"!! Wait it's in the \"BRAIN\"!! HAHA Which one is it?? Pick one! LMAO!!", "qid": "14", "docid": "59391011-2019-04-18T16:44:19Z-00001-000", "rank": 23, "score": 134260.0}, {"content": "Title: Sexual Orientation is a choice Content: Now onto the argument. Gregory Herek, a UC Davis psychology professor, claimed that 95 percent of the self-identified gay men in a study he conducted, and 80 to 90 percent of the lesbians, believed they had little or no choice in their sexual orientation. [1] Gays and lesbians commonly have heterosexual partners at some point in life - often due to youthful uncertainty and social pressures - but, most people ultimately can define their own sexuality. Another report; delivered by Jerome Goldstein, M. D. , a board-certified medical neurologist and Director of the San Francisco Clinical Research Center, states that Sexual orientation is neurobiological and is set at birth. [2] Goldstein later goes on to say that brains of people of different sexual orientations \" gay, straight, and bisexual \" work in different ways. most people do not seem to recall ever making such a choice. While this does not prove that it is not a choice, the fact that people seem unable to point to making such a choice does provide support for the claim that it is not a matter of choice. Do heterosexual men and women think about their orientation, or does it just come \"naturally\"? Personally, I have no awareness that I chose to be straight. I also have no awareness of selecting my preferences in regards to the type of women I am attracted to. For example, I have a general preference towards woman with blonde hair. However, that does not seem to be something I selected. I cannot think of consciously deciding that I would find dark hair somewhat more appealing than lighter hair, I just do. If orientation were a choice, then a straight person should be able to choose to be gay and vice versa. A person can, obviously, test this by trying to switch his/her orientation. If my opponent/viewers of this debate are heterosexual, I urge you to give it a try and see if you can change preference. . It does not come natural. Another argument would be that if sexual preference is a matter of choice, it does seem a little bit odd that people would not decide to be heterosexual when people were (and still to this day are) persecuted and even killed for being homosexuals. It would make no sense to endure such treatment when a person could simply decide to not be that way. Of course, this argument is not decisive. .. but it is a point to be noticed. In my opinion, sexual orientation is innate but latent emerging slowly as the person develops. This is my opening argument, I await and look forward to seeing what my opponent has to say. [1] . http://www.sfgate.com... [2] . http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com...", "qid": "14", "docid": "88021be-2019-04-18T17:47:30Z-00003-000", "rank": 24, "score": 133566.0}, {"content": "Title: It is a choice to be gay or straight. Content: Nope. The BOP is on whoever makes the positive claim, regardless of whoever makes the first one. I'm arguing that sexual preference is based on genetics and the environment we're raised in, and you're asserting that it's by choice. If anything, the opposite of why you've said it true- If I can prove that it's genetic based in a situation then it would tell how the resolution's false, and you would lose as you're playing Pro. Arguments: A study showed that: \"evidence for two sets [of genes] that affect whether a man is gay or straight. But it is not completely determinative; there are certainly other environmental factors involved\"[1] It also declares the mechanics behind the study: \"A study of gay men in the US has found fresh evidence that male sexual orientation is influenced by genes. Scientists tested the DNA of 400 gay men and found that genes on at least two chromosomes affected whether a man was gay or straight\" It isn't what completely determines though. Genes only account for 40% of sexual preference. There is literally no evidence supporting the claim that it's a choice, so the other part is how you're raised. Thanks. [1] http://www.theguardian.com... [2] http://www.telegraph.co.uk...", "qid": "14", "docid": "62827e8d-2019-04-18T16:10:15Z-00002-000", "rank": 25, "score": 132867.0}, {"content": "Title: Homosexuality is not against nature or what God has designed Content: There is not ONE VERSE in the Bible that says that homosexuality is a sin or that it goes against nature; only the religious customs in Biblical times. I challenge you to show me with the Bible where it condemns this type of sexual orientation or behavior. Furthermore, I challenge you to explain to me how you reconcile the fact that God also made AIS hermaphrodites. These people are BORN physically both male AND female. In fact, and AIS hermaphrodite or \"intersex\" person has a vagina, female breasts, are hormonally more female that the average female. The do NOT have a uterus, cervix, fallopian tubes, or ovaries. The DO have internal testicles and their DNA is male. If our sexual orientation is determined by God, and he reveals what our orientation should be by our gender, what is one to do that is born with a vagina AND testicles? This is where science and the Bible clearly contradict each other if I were to accept the conservative Christian view of sexual orientation. This is nature's little \"curve ball\" thrown at Christianity and the Bible, for the Bible makes no mention of such conditions. Who would this person choose as a mate without sinning if homosexuality is a sin?", "qid": "14", "docid": "7ec5145f-2019-04-18T16:27:21Z-00009-000", "rank": 26, "score": 131657.0}, {"content": "Title: HOMOSEXUALITY is a CHOICE Content: You say research shows Homosexuality is hereditary and that your sources prove this? I'm assuming you never bothered to read your sources before you posted them because not 1 of the 10 sources you site provides any evidence that Homosexuality is genetic. Why? Because they aren't scientific studies. They're theories made up by \"born that way\" activists. The only honest statement you made was when you quoted the American Psychological Association saying \"no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor.\"[1] That's scientific and it supports my side. In the words of homosexual Milo Yiannopoulos \"certainly In my experience homosexuality is more nurture not nature\" [5] Considering this is my ending statement here's what I'd like you to consider: It is a fact that Homosexuals have elevated health risks in everything from cancers to STDS[2] (some of which unpreventable and lethal) It is also a fact that Homosexuals are statistically more violent than heterosexuals[3] Heck they can't even naturally start a family! The point I'm making is that the Homosexual lifestyle is not a fun one. In fact it's a dangerous one that will cut your life short on average by 8-21 years![4] If your born this way you have no hope. Your chances of a better life ended on day 1. This is why it has been my goal in this debate to show that you can make a choice. A choice that will benefit you greatly. In the words of Milo Yiannopoulos (Gay) \"I would choose not to be gay if I could, and everyone should!\"[5] The good news is that you can choose. So It's up to you now so choose wisely. Thank you very much for debating me and good luck! [1] http://www.apa.org... [2] http://glma.org... [3] https://www.cdc.gov... [4] https://oup.silverchair-cdn.com... [5]", "qid": "14", "docid": "eada3b89-2019-04-18T12:09:35Z-00001-000", "rank": 27, "score": 130595.0}, {"content": "Title: Sexual orientation doesn't originate only from biology Content: Since it is a 3 round debate, I think it will be fair enough only to out forward both my arguments and rebuttals in round 2 itself so that I dont end with a rebuttal in last round and my opponent gets to rebut me in round 3,where I will put a conclusion only.Now initialy I did misunderstand the topic thinking that my opponent thought environment was the only factor for someone being homosexual. However, I strongly think that homosexuality does originate from biology and biology only.Now, my opponent and I are on the same page when it comes to biology as a factor for sexuality. Therefore I do not to reinforce arguments to show that biology is a factor for sexuality. However I need to show that environment does not play a role in determining sexuality which I will be doing by showing events in which someone turns heterosexual in 'pro homosexual environment' or vice versa and putting rebuttals to opponents arguments.ARGUMENT Sexuality in animals - Homosexuality is very strongly observed in animal kingdom. Although even animals are social beings,are there environmental factors which contribute to homosexual behaviour? Complex social structures such as those in humans being society does not exist for animals, why then, there are queer animals??http://www.bidstrup.com... REBUTTAL1. Judges may note that the link shows the trends on sexuality. How the physical factors lead to variation in sexuality has no mention whatsoever. People in cities are more likely to be homosexual. It is beyond doubt that personal freedom of expression is more appreciated and prevalent in cities than in small towns or villages. It is very much obvious that people living in places other than cities will find it easy to reveal their sexuality. There is no proof to show that there are less homosexual people in non city places,it only means that people living in non city are afraid to express their sexuality. Animals regardless of the kind of place they live will the show the same amount of variation of sexuality,be it zoo or wild. http://www.sfgate.com...(zoo and wild refers to change in environment) Had it been that the penguins initially turned homosexual in the event of lack of female counterparts,they woud not have refused the offer of a female who are abundant in wild.Family issues 'Having a family issue is a reason for sexuality variation.' Judges may note that how family issues change change sexual behaviour. The link provided only gives a statistical account. Statistics does not give reasons to the graphs it only shows graphs. http://www.evalued.bcu.ac.uk...2. Younger men from Sambia tribe fellate other male as a rite of passage http://www.orijinculture.com...It may be seen that the 'homosexual' behaviour is only a ritual. The people AFTER the passage DONOT ENGAGE IN ANY FORM OF HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOUR. If social factors had such a role in sexuality, many of the tribesmen would have turned gay.3. If any kind of behavious is created by environmental factors, or society, they should be able to be healed using therapy like the one that has been used for rape victims and criminals. If being gay has a social/environmental factor, then therapy of any kind must change them into heterosexuals or 'reduce the amount of homosexuality' http://www.hrc.org...http://www.drdoughaldeman.com...http://www.livescience.com...", "qid": "14", "docid": "2771aba0-2019-04-18T15:29:45Z-00002-000", "rank": 28, "score": 129739.0}, {"content": "Title: There is strong evidence that sexual orientation can be effected by genetics. Content: I will be arguing that there is strong evidence that genetics play a huge role in the sexual orientation of homosexuals. Burden of proof will be on me.", "qid": "14", "docid": "f8070fca-2019-04-18T17:34:05Z-00005-000", "rank": 29, "score": 128605.0}, {"content": "Title: There is strong evidence that sexual orientation can be effected by genetics. Content: Really, genetics? okay well first off, homosexuals has NOTHING to do with genetics no matter how much evidence there is. A straight guy can easily go homosexual or any other sexual by his choice. Choosing which role you want to play as has nothing to do with DNA and it doesn't run thru the family.", "qid": "14", "docid": "f8070fca-2019-04-18T17:34:05Z-00004-000", "rank": 30, "score": 127156.0}, {"content": "Title: Sexual Orientation is a choice Content: I have read the comments for this debate and I will not make it unfair by starting with my argument. I will instead use this round as an acceptance round. I suggest we simply get straight to the debate.", "qid": "14", "docid": "88021be-2019-04-18T17:47:30Z-00004-000", "rank": 31, "score": 126107.0}, {"content": "Title: Homosexual civil unions and/or domestic partnerships are harmful to society Content: I would argue that one's sexual orientation cannot and should not be considered inherently harmful in any situation. Therefore, if one chooses a partner based on their orientation, then that partnership cannot be considered harmful to society either depending on the respective genders of the couple. If a male/female couple cannot harm society solely based on their combination of gender, than neither can male/male couples or female/female couples. I would argue that the real harm to society cannot be determined by one's gender or sexual orientation. If pro happens to have any examples of how one's gender or orientation can harm society, I'm all ears.", "qid": "14", "docid": "a2582c6b-2019-04-18T18:55:01Z-00004-000", "rank": 32, "score": 125814.0}, {"content": "Title: Sexual orientation doesn't originate only from biology Content: I believe my point may have been misunderstood: Sexual orientation doesn't originate ONLY from biology. Sexual orientation is a multivariable dynamic process. Of course there are some biological factors that influence sexual orientation, such as: - Genetics - Epigenetics (prenatal androgen exposure) - Brain structures Biology has a great influence on sexual orientation. But not everything is as it seems. 1) A study from Denmark proves that the environment increases or decreases the proportion of heterosexual and homosexual weddings. What did this study find? - Demography: People in cities are more likely to marry a same-sex partner and less likely to marry heterosexually. - Family issues - Having no brothers http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 2) Younger men from the Sambia tribe fellate other adult men as a rite of passage. 3) The greeks were equally comfortable with the same-sex and that helped the formation of more \"men on men\" action. And finally this one, which i think isn't that good but can raise an interesting topic: 4) Homophobia is for some a latent homosexuality. By now all i can say is that homophobia correlates with homosexual arousal. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... Are the people in 4 homosexual? Is homosexuality defined by conduct or is it enough if we consider physiological response? I believe sexual orientation is a social construct. So it doesn't really matter how you identify yourself, what matters is whether or not you are taking every aspect of yourself into account, or maybe just letting it be.", "qid": "14", "docid": "2771aba0-2019-04-18T15:29:45Z-00003-000", "rank": 33, "score": 125117.0}, {"content": "Title: Sexiality Isn't a Choice Content: You've informed me it's determined at birth, but you also say it takes one a while to began to realize who they are. I'm not able to process that through my head correctly, one because determined means strongly felt and mostly likely not to change it. So, say one's into women and all of sudden one figures themselves out due to whatever the reasoning may be, you mean to inform me that one isn't changing their mind or ways? You began to question your sexuality, right? But you also said \"I simply realized hey I don't really like anyone\" You're making a change. You said \"As for people going from gay to hetero, this is just them trying to figure out who they are.\" No, that's one changing their ways.", "qid": "14", "docid": "caecc1bf-2019-04-18T13:39:21Z-00002-000", "rank": 34, "score": 125005.0}, {"content": "Title: There is strong evidence that sexual orientation can be effected by genetics. Content: First I would like to point out that Con's position is not based on evidence or reason but on a gut feeling he has or a misinterpretation of anecdotal experiences he's had. Sexual orientation deals with preference and attraction which don't bend at will but are conditioned through a combination of genetics and environment. As a sort of tongue and cheek demonstration that sexual orientation doesn't change at our whim I would ask our audience to force themselves to find this thing attractive(of course applying to people that don't find it attractive) [IMG]. http://www.funnypica.com...[/IMG] . http://www.funnypica.com... In a study it was found that 52% of cases in which an identical twin was homosexual, the other was also a homosexual. You may say, yes but that's because they're raised in the same environment, but the same study showed that only 22% of cases in which a fraternal twin was homosexual the other was homosexual. This is clear evidence that there is a genetic basis for homosexuality. . http://www.nytimes.com... Studies have shown that the long arm of x chromosome Xq28 increases the odds that a male will be homosexual. . http://www.nature.com...", "qid": "14", "docid": "f8070fca-2019-04-18T17:34:05Z-00003-000", "rank": 35, "score": 124422.0}, {"content": "Title: Sexual Orientation is a choice Content: I am against the notion that a person's sexual orientation is a choice. I would like to debate this topic with an opponent and see what has to be said by an opposing view. The debate will go as follows Round 1: Opening statement Round 2: Rebuttals Round 3: Rebuttals Round 4: Closing statement", "qid": "14", "docid": "88021be-2019-04-18T17:47:30Z-00005-000", "rank": 36, "score": 124331.0}, {"content": "Title: Sexual Orientation is a choice Content: After reading popular opinion, I feel like I'm arguing the tough side here, but I WILL PREVAIL. Before I continue the debate I want to make sure everyone that might read this debate understands that I have nothing against homo-sexual people, I simply am participating in this debate out of opinion. On to the debate. I believe that sexual orientation is a choice, because of three key points: the way people are raised, what they experience in life, and what they choose to become. My first point is the ways we are raised. Every experience that we go through, affects the choices we make throughout life. From the moment we are born things start changing us. One of the ways I believe sexual orientation is chosen, is through the orientation of the parents. If you are raised by to gay parents, I am sure from the moment you are adopted they will teach you that being gay/lesbian is perfectly fine, If not even normal. Another example is if you have very lenient parents. I don't mean to say that strict parents wouldn't let their children be gay, but let's say you were raised with only one parent who had to work long hours. You would be very free to make a lot of your own choices, including sexual orientation. If you are raised and grow up with gay friends and/or family you are very likely to possibly wonder about what being gay/lesbian is like. Another example is life experiences. Many people that are \"born\" straight may feel confused if they grow up seeing mostly straight people, then go out on their own and see gay couples. They may \"experiment\" with the same gender and ultimately chose to switch orientation. As we see laws and rules regarding homo-sexuality change around the world, many people may feel like they would be more accepted if they changed sexual orientation. I understand my opponents point about trying to change my sexual orientation. I am straight , and when I thought about this I realized that I would not be able to. However, I make the point that had I been raised in a different situation I may have felt confused growing up and changed orientation. My last point for this round is the ultimate decision. What sexual orientation you chose is one of the largest choices in your life. It decides how you will act socially around other genders, and your own. If you get married, sexual orientation decides who you will possibly spend the rest of your life with. I believe that there is one moment in each of our lives when we decide what sexual orientation we are. This may occur during the anytime, but is usually during the first half of our lives. Our parents may have personal opinions, and try to raise us a certain way. This usually succeeds, because we are taught during a young very impressionable time in our lives. Our parents are the only ones around during these early years and their opinions matter the most to us during that time. I urge my opponent and others who may read this to look at their opinions and decide whether some of them may have come from your parents, because I know a lot of them have for me personally. In conclusion for this round I believe that sexual orientation is a choice. Whether this choice is made by our parents in the way they raise us, or by us after confusing life experiences depends on your personal life. Back to my opponent now.", "qid": "14", "docid": "88021be-2019-04-18T17:47:30Z-00002-000", "rank": 37, "score": 123913.0}, {"content": "Title: born a way Content: Let's get stuck in: -Not Born with a personality- The personality at that stage of life is unlikely to make the conscious or even unconscious decision. When was the first time you have been aroused? When you were a baby? I highly doubt that. Therefore, at the start personality can't determine sexuality immediately. - More open and loving to sexual desires- I completely agree. I have the right to indulge my fetish. -Straight people think gay people are seduced into the lifestyle- A quite large generalization. Who's to say they aren't dragged kicking and screaming, finally accepting themselves. Something we aren't all born with is the self esteem to accept immediately. Study: https://americanvision.org...", "qid": "14", "docid": "d2d4219f-2019-04-18T13:20:48Z-00002-000", "rank": 38, "score": 123702.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Homosexuals are 'born that way' Content: Hello. == Definitions == Homosexuality: In this debate, we will be specifically be focusing on orientation. Same-sex behavior is different as it is often distinguishable from orientation. Thus, homosexuality will be defined as \"an enduring pattern of romantic or sexual attraction (or a combination of these) to persons of . . . the same sex or gender.\" -- http://en.wikipedia.org... 'Born that way': The theory argues homosexuality is inborn. Homosexuals are born that way, and their orientation is immutable. Genetics, epigenetics, or antibodies in the womb cause homosexuality and cannot change through therapy or different environments. --> I will be arguing homosexuality is caused by multiple things. Genes have *some* effect, but the effect is moderate to weak (less than 50%). Environmental factors are the main reason homosexual tendencies develop. I am NOT arguing it is an (intentional) choice. No one chooses these factors: they just happen. I will also argue change is possible, and therefore mutable. == Structure == R1: Pro accepts and presents case R2: Con presents case, Pro rebuts R3: Rebuttals/defense for both R4: Rebuttals/defense for Con, Pro writes \"no round as agreed\". I have made this impossible to accept. Accepting without permission = forfeit. No trolling, semantics, stuff like that. gl", "qid": "14", "docid": "cae0ad5c-2019-04-18T15:17:55Z-00007-000", "rank": 39, "score": 123191.0}, {"content": "Title: There is strong evidence that sexual orientation can be effected by genetics. Content: The evidence you had was a theory, not a proven fact. I mean its like saying that a person who is a comidian, his reason for doing so is in his genetics. It's in our instintics that every one of us, yes including the other sexuals, was to be paired with the opposite sex. If it is indeed in the genetics the why would the genetic makeup of a gay man not have the qualities of a woman. He can't reproduce if he is only attracted to men so why would his DNA make him a guy? The thing is, it doesn't make since for a GENETICALLY homosexual not be able to reproduce with other GENETICALLY homosexuals.", "qid": "14", "docid": "f8070fca-2019-04-18T17:34:05Z-00002-000", "rank": 40, "score": 122818.0}, {"content": "Title: The \"Slippery Slope\" argument used in gay marriage debate is invalid Content: My rebuttals: I do not agree with my opponent in his claim that homosexuality is a sexual behavior. I would like to clarify the difference between sexual behavior and sexual orientation/attraction. Sexual Behavior: The method and/or means in which a person chooses to express their sexual orientation. Sexual Orientation/Attraction: the direction of a persons emotional and physical desire, toward people of the opposite sex, same sex, or both sexes. If needed proof to distinguish the difference, how does one know they are heterosexual if they've never had any physical contact with a person of the opposite sex? Are they a clean slate? No, they are simply attracted to others of the opposite sex. Sexual Orientation determines sexual behavior, not vice versa. Polygamy, pedophilia, bestiality and incest are all examples of sexual behavior, and there are legitimate reasons why marriage among these behaviors should remain illegal: Polygamy: Takes advantage of marriage benefits most especially. Imagine an employer having to pay insurance to a worker with who knows how many wives! This is unfair to other couples and to the government providing them with this abundance of benefits. Bestiality: Are animals covered by our constitution? Homosexuals are human beings, whom ARE covered by our constitution. Pedophilia: Children do not have the mental capacity and/or ability to consent over and adult. Incest: If a man loves his sister, there are still many \"fish in the sea\" that man would be able to marry. If that man were a homosexual, he has no options, for he can not marry any other man. I am aware of the stigmas between many of these sexual behaviors mentioned and can understand why many would associate homosexuality into them. But when analyzing the difference between sexual behavior and sexual orientation, one can clearly see that homosexuality just does not share the same label with these behaviors.", "qid": "14", "docid": "479deab2-2019-04-18T19:24:32Z-00005-000", "rank": 41, "score": 121632.0}, {"content": "Title: People convicted of pedophilic crimes ought to be treated and not incarcerated in all instances. Content: Sexual orientation refers to the sex of those to whom one is sexually and romantically attracted. If we accept \"bestiality\" as a sex concept where people want to have sex with animals then why we can\"t accept \"pedophilia\" as a sex concept where these people want to have sex relationships if those individuals who have yet to see puberty. In Christina\"s Premise 2 she acknowledges that the crime consist of a person acting on their sexual attraction to children; but to a pedophilic this is all they are attracted to so why can\"t it be said that a being a pedophilia is a sexual orientation. Therefore as you see you can\"t cure a gay and make them straight just as you can\"t treat a pedophilic to not like children. All the treatment is going to do is help him/her manage those urges, but they will still want them. The arguments goes in further stating that the disorder is associated with mental, and emotional, and/or behavioral problems however the define Christiana stated in Premise 2 doesn\"t state that the crime occurs based on the following issues associated with this \"disorder.\"", "qid": "14", "docid": "fba9d594-2019-04-18T15:25:31Z-00002-000", "rank": 42, "score": 121281.0}, {"content": "Title: The sexuality of parents has no effects on a child's future life Content: . American Psychological Association (Resolution on Sexual Orientation, Parents, and Children) \"There is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation: lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children\"; and \"research has shown that the adjustment, development, and psychological well-being of children is unrelated to parental sexual orientation and that the children of lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those of heterosexual parents to flourish.\"", "qid": "14", "docid": "8de3af5b-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00041-000", "rank": 43, "score": 120620.0}, {"content": "Title: Sexual orientation doesn't originate only from biology Content: I'm going to defend the following point: Sexual orientation doesn't originate only from biology. I challenge anyone who can prove me wrong.", "qid": "14", "docid": "2771aba0-2019-04-18T15:29:45Z-00005-000", "rank": 44, "score": 119906.0}, {"content": "Title: born a way Content: Thank you for my first debate. Secondly, I'm assuming my opponent is giving arguments for sexuality as opposed to the general alternative. Sexuality is a choice because we start out with a clean slate. Are we born murders/lawyers? No. As we grow, there will always be influences around us ranging from parents to friends to associates. These are effects on our personality, that cannot be predetermined at the womb or birth. By ignoring influences such as these, we suggest our fate is predetermined but then, nothing would really change, we couldn't be saved, hope would be minute. Human nature would most likely win etc. \"Choices can be made in the present, nature is background or recessive\" the philosopher said to the biologist. I'd argue so.", "qid": "14", "docid": "d2d4219f-2019-04-18T13:20:48Z-00004-000", "rank": 45, "score": 119369.0}, {"content": "Title: Should gay marriage be legal Content: We are all told we are born the way we are weather that is without a certain limb or a mental disability. When it come to sexual orientation people seen to be confused. The majority is born attracted to the opposite sex, and we can't help that its just the way we were born, but when people are born and they like the same sex people that don't agree with it get to offensive. Why can't people love the same sex? You might answer that question with \" Because God said so.\" Which is very invalid. Yes, he may have said that one can't love the same sex, but the Bible also says (not in exact wording) that we should love everyone no matter who or what they are.", "qid": "14", "docid": "8d3589f8-2019-04-18T16:08:36Z-00006-000", "rank": 46, "score": 118164.0}, {"content": "Title: sexual orientation should be considered grounds for asylum. Content: This policy of asylum pressures governments to reform discriminatory laws", "qid": "14", "docid": "1df4e73f-2019-04-15T20:23:01Z-00005-000", "rank": 47, "score": 117805.0}, {"content": "Title: Nobody Can be Born Gay it is a Choice Content: My opponent has conceded that genes do play a role in the outcome of homosexuality with \" Genes can increase the likelihood of someone being gay\" thus if something outside of our free will which determines choice affects us and our sexual orientation, then how can my opponent argue it is a choice. My opponent has admitted that our free will can be affected by our genes this obviously leads to a conclusion that the desire for homosexual relations is not a purely based on choice. The genetic predisposition to addiction or the 'addiction gene' works the same way as the gay gene If a child has the addiction gene they are 8 times more likely to develop an addiction(1). Just like the gay gene if you have it you are much more likely to be gay. In relation to my opponents alcohol point if one never comes into contact with alcohol even with the addiction gene one can not become an alcoholic this is true(1) but it only hinders my opponents argument. As just like the addiction gene if a male with the gay gene never comes into contact with another male how can he be gay? The homosexuality still exists just as the addiction there is yet though no desire to act it out as one does not know what it is they desire. However no such hypothetical situation exists and unlike those with the addiction gene whom may never taste alcohol thus never 'trigger' the addiction males will always come into contact with other males thus 'triggering' the homosexual response from the gay gene. Again reaffirming the fact that homosexuality is not a choice. On my opponents last point this is known as the 'Anecdotal fallacy' and should be dismissed as evidence. Also you say your parents raised you to be straight, I have to ask where is your choice in that? I feel it obvious that I have the stronger case and have used much more credible arguments and evidence to support my claims unlike my opponent who used only one reference as evidence and presented no real arguments to refute the choice except for his biblical verse which was easily dismissed. I however used factual evidence and several different sound arguments which all lead to the one conclusion homosexuality is not a choice. Thank you reference: 1. http://www.addictionsandrecovery.org...", "qid": "14", "docid": "7b58b49f-2019-04-18T15:10:31Z-00000-000", "rank": 48, "score": 117768.0}, {"content": "Title: There is no gay gene Content: The BOP is even. C1: There is not enough evidence and there is no real conclusion in the scientific community No. There is no evidence that shows that homosexuality is simply \"genetic.\" [1] And also most research indicates there is none! Only the press and certain researchers do, when speaking in sound bites to the public. [1] So only ones with political interest find gay genes. But two other genetic researchers--one heads one of the largest genetics departments in the country, the other is at Harvard--comment: While the authors interpreted their findings as evidence for a genetic basis for homosexuality, we think that the data in fact provide strong evidence for the influence of the environment. [1] So basically some say gene, others say brain, others say environment there is not proof that there is a gay gene. \"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles....\" [6] C2: No gay gene \"Nonetheless, our data does not support the presence of a gene of large effect influencing sexual orientation,\" [2] This is funny as they say no gene can influence the cause. Also gay activists admit there is no gay gene: Peter Tatchell, an Australian-born British homosexual activist who founded the \"direct action\" group OutRage! that specializes in media stunts such as disrupting Christian religious services, wrote on Spiked Online that he agrees with the scientific consensus that there is no such thing as a \"gay gene.\" [3] Oh I forgot to say if I put a foot note next to a paragraph or sentence the wording in front of it until the paragraph space is C/P. Also it is hard to prove a gene and gays as 90% of one study (the main study used to prove the point you are making) false. This info = 4th source. A publication from the American Psychological Association includes an admission that there is no \"gay\" gene, according to a doctor who has written about the issue on the website of National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality. [5] The stance that 'science proves that some people are born gay' chooses to willfully ignore scientific evidence to the contrary. Thus there are studies which conclude that: \" In every case I have examined, studied, or treated, homosexuality was the consequence of serious disturbance during childhood development\" [7] So basically it is not a gene some environmental cause. Ultimately, no gene or gene product from the Xq28 region was ever identified that affected sexual orientation. [8] So basically no single gene has been linked to gay, only theories. The reality is, no gay gene has ever been found by scientists. The original claims about a gay gene have been proven false. [9] If homosexuality is not genetic that means that it is due to environmental factors and therefore can be reversed. In fact, many studies have shown large numbers of gay men and lesbian women have converted to heterosexual relationships through counseling. [9] SO no gay gene, just environmental factors. C3: evolution As you know evolution is survival of the fittest and the thing with an advantage wins. Being gay is a disadvantage as if gay people where everywhere this race would not produce offspring. So even if it did exist at one point it would be dissolved within a few generations. Things will evolve or die, since we are still here chances are it evolved away if it even existed. =conclusion= There is no proof regarding a gay gene and there is simply none. Also evolution would have stamped it out a long while ago, vote pro. sources: http://www.narth.com... [1] http://news.bbc.co.uk... [2] http://www.lifesitenews.com... [3] http://www.sfgate.com... [4] http://www.wnd.com... [5] http://lavistachurchofchrist.org... [6] http://www.aletheiacollege.net... [7] http://www.godandscience.org... [8] http://curtis-cost.newsvine.com... [9]", "qid": "14", "docid": "ff5c7649-2019-04-18T18:32:57Z-00005-000", "rank": 49, "score": 117388.0}, {"content": "Title: Homosexual couples can raise children just as well as heterosexual couples. Content: First, I will establish that sexual orientation is not hereditary and is subject to a large number of psychological variables. This is primarily to make the point that homosexuality is not \"natural\" in the sense that it is unavoidable or part of human instinct. I point three facts that seem to contradict modern conception of attractiveness:1. Apes tend to be attracted to older females due to their having more experience raising young and surviving. In modern society we observe th opposite.2. People used to find overweight or heavier females attractive, the logic being that such women were better fed and had a larger chance of surviving. This is still prevalent in some societies.3. In Elizabethian England pale skin (possibly signalling health because a clear and pale face probably didn\u2019t have smallpox) and a large forehead was considered attractive (the hair was plucked to make the forehead appear bigger).Second, there is a large body of evidence that supports an \"exotic-becomes-erotic\" theory (which states that whatever sex is seen as \"exotic\" or different later becomes erotic, thus gender-nonconformity during childhood causes sexual attraction to the same-sex later in life). In a 1987 study, 75% of gender-nonconforming boys became bisexual or homosexual in later years compared with only 4% of gender-conforming boys. Homosexuals overwhelmingly report sex-atypical activities and had opposite-sex friends growing up. [1. http://dbem.ws...]Peer rejection, a distant or belittling father and an emotionally smothering or needy mother (for boys), low self-esteem, and sexual abuse are major causes of homosexuality. Often a child will be unable to connect to others of the same sex, resulting in unstable and unhealthy sexual relationships. It is well established that gays have much higher rates of suicide or mental illness than straights; to dispute this my opponent will need to prove that these are directly caused by social stigmas or discrimination.\"Like most heterosexuals, most gay people are fully functioning members of society. A good parent is responsible, competent, loving, trustworthy, etc. None of these qualities are exclusive to heterosexuals. There seem to be no qualifications of a good parent that a gay person can not possess.\"I sincerely hope you aren't playing semantics with me. Technically they can, but I am saying that this is generally not the case. If you are saying that it is \"possible\" that gays can raise well adjusted children, I point out that it is also possible that beating kids is a good method for discipline (seeing as there must be at least a few success stories in the world). Wasn't this mentioned in the comments? Furthermore, whether or not children have mother and a father is not irrelevant. \"Rough-and tumble\" play with their fathers influences a child's social development and teaches them how to be physical without being inappropriate or hurting people. [2. http://www.psychologytoday.com...] A study in the U.S. and New Zealand found that the presence of the natural father was the most significant factor in reducing rates of early sexual activity and rates of teenage pregnancy in girls. [3. Bruce J. Ellis, Child Development May/June 2003, 74:3, pp. 801\u201321] Children who are have good relationships with their mothers have higher self-esteem, and from better social connections with others. In a another study, 77 18-month old-children were exposed to stimuli (such as a robot clown or a puppet show). Cortisol levels for the (frightened) children varied depending on their bonds with their mothers. Children who had secure attachments showed no increase while children with insecure attachments showed an increase. [4. http://www.thelizlibrary.org...]Fathers and mothers are not interchangable. Children of same-sex couples are forced to seek male or female role-models elsewhere. The reason why they show little difference in \"social isolation, adjustment and self-esteem, opposite gender role models, sexual orientation, and strengths\" is because the traditional model of the family is being destroyed. Children today are not raised by their parents; they are raised at school or other environments away from their families. Mothers or fathers are not the biggest influence in the children's lives; rather, they hardly seem to have one at all. Parents, who are supposed to be role models and form close connections with their kids only spend a fraction of the time they used to with them, with unfortunate results. The rate of increase of depression among children is now 23%. [5.http://www.upliftprogram.com...] I wish I could elaborate on this right now, but I have only fifteen minutes left. \"There have been numerous studies indicating that children raised by 2 parents have more success and less emotional or behavioral problems than their single-parent counterparts.\"Of course having a two-parent family is better than one. The economic benefits alone help children. Irrelevant.\"I expect my opponent to make the argument that kids with gay parents might get teased more.\"Are you serious? Please give me a little more credit than that.\"On that note, much like adopted parents, gay parents typically have to go out of their way to have kids (i.e. in vitro fertilization). Meanwhile 50% of heterosexual babies are unplanned. Psychologist Abbie Clark explains, \"That translates to greater commitment on average and more involvement\" [4].\"My opponent here says that gays can make better parents by avoiding a flaw in straight relationships (that many pregnancies are accidental). This is ridiculous; simply because it is a problem does not mean it is inherent in that entire style of relationship, nor does it mean that such a flaw will never be fixed or that unplanned pregnancies will never be stopped. By this logic the argument about kids getting teased is perfectly legitimate.\"There are plenty of people raised by gay parents who have had great experiences and turned out very well adjusted. Zach Wahl's speech about family (he also has two lesbian moms) went viral on YouTube, and I encourage my opponent to look it up. He is a very successful and admirable young man. However, I mentioned that I don't want this to turn into a debate over anecdotal evidence. We need to consider not individual cases, but how much sexuality in general influences parenthood.\"Anecdotal evidence only shows the limits of what is or can be possible. Pro concedes this later on and I'm baffled as to why she brought it up in the first place.\"In a 2010 review of virtually EVERY study on gay parenting, New York University sociologist Judith Stacey and University of Southern California sociologist Tim Biblarz found no differences between children raised in homes with two heterosexual parents and children raised with lesbian parents.\"Copy-pasted from source.I look forward to my opponent's reply.", "qid": "14", "docid": "b258b83b-2019-04-18T18:10:49Z-00004-000", "rank": 50, "score": 117100.0}, {"content": "Title: People are Born Gay Content: \"Why would people subject themselves to the kind of ridicule that homosexuals experience, willingly?\" What you call ridicule the homosexual community embrace as freedom of their beliefs. The homosexuals knowing accept the way they have made themselves. From what you are saying also is that people should keep any unaccepted social norm to themselves are never confront it. That is unkind. Also to add the sentence I have quoted offer no proof or backs any claim my opponent has made in his opening argument. As the instigator it is not wrong of me to assume that you have proof to back your claim. To date, no researcher has claimed that genes can determine sexual orientation. At best, researchers believe that there may be a genetic component. No human behavior, let alone sexual behavior, has been connected to genetic markers to date. \u2014PFLAG (Parents, Families & Friends of Lesbians And Gays), \"Why Ask Why: Addressing the Research on Homosexuality,\" 1995 [1] [1]http://www.queerbychoice.com...", "qid": "14", "docid": "dfb058ea-2019-04-18T18:50:06Z-00000-000", "rank": 51, "score": 116499.0}, {"content": "Title: sexual orientation should be considered grounds for asylum. Content: This policy is an illegitimate breach of national sovereignty", "qid": "14", "docid": "1df4e73f-2019-04-15T20:23:01Z-00003-000", "rank": 52, "score": 116315.0}, {"content": "Title: People convicted of pedophilic crimes ought to be treated and not incarcerated in all instances. Content: The claim is that Pedophilia is a sexual orientation and if it is a sexual orientation then its not treatable. The claim assumes that sexual orientation is a way of life not a disorder. The claim goes further by stating Pedophilia is a sexual orientation like heterosexuality, bisexuality and homosexuality. Sexual orientation is a person\"s sexual identity in relation to the gender to which they are attracted to; it is the state of being a heterosexual, bisexual or homosexual. This claim deviates from the issue. The problem with pedophilia is not that the person is sexually attracted to men or women, it\"s that the person is sexually attracted to boys and/or girls. Pedophilia is not a sexual orientation, meaning it is not the attraction to a male or female, it is a disorder of sexual preference. It is a disorder of sexual preference because pedophilic behavior causes harm, unlike sexual orientation. Pedophilia may put children at risk because they are not in the age of corresponding to the sexual attraction of pedophiliacs. It is why pedophiliac behavior should be prevented. Treatment can help prevent it.", "qid": "14", "docid": "fba9d594-2019-04-18T15:25:31Z-00003-000", "rank": 53, "score": 116193.0}, {"content": "Title: transgender is not a gender/sex, Only 2 genders Content: First, Before I start my argument I need to define certain words. Gender identity is the personal sense of one's own gender. Gender identity can correlate with assigned sex at birth, Or can differ from it. Sexual orientation is a person's sexual identity in relation to the gender to which they are attracted; the fact of being heterosexual, Homosexual, Or bisexual. Genital is a sexual organ. I will now present my argument. Argument From Genitals to multiple gender identities. P1. A society states that a gender comes from a person's genitalia. P2. There are two different genitalia. P3. So, There must be at least two genders. P4. However, A person can have one genitalia, No genitalia, Or both genitalia. P5. So, There are at least four genders. P6. However, A person can change their genitalia to another. P6. So, There are at least eight genders. P7. If P3, P4, Or P3 and P4 are ture, Then there must be more than two genders. C. There more than two genders.", "qid": "14", "docid": "ce52abfa-2019-04-18T11:15:14Z-00002-000", "rank": 54, "score": 116132.0}, {"content": "Title: Your not born gay Content: Since it is only a one round debate, I'll just give it all I got. I have done some researching and studying regardings this topic and here I will post my findings and prove that you are indeed born gay. Scientific researchers specializing in human sexuality have shown that homosexuality is genetic (and that people are born gay). I am unaware of any study that has ever suggested that sexual orientation is a choice. Scientific research from October 2004 that was replicated in June 2008 stated that scientists have found that women tend to have more children when they inherit the same genetic factors linked to homosexuality in men. This fertility boost more than compensates for the lack of offspring fathered by gay men, and keeps the \u201cgay\u201d genetic factors in circulation. A lead researcher said \"You have all this antagonism against homosexuality because they say it's against nature because it doesn't lead to reproduction. We found out this is not true because homosexuality is just one of the consequences of strategies for making females more fecund\" and that their findings offered \"a solution to the Darwinian paradox and an explanation of why natural selection does not progressively eliminate homosexuals. \" A 2005 study reported genetic scans showing a clustering of the same genetic pattern among gay men on three chromosomes - chromosomes 7, 8, and 10. The regions on chromosome 7 and 8 were associated with male sexual orientation regardless of whether the man got them from his mother or father. The regions on chromosome 10 were only associated with male sexual orientation if they were inherited from the mother. A study published in Human Genetics in February 2006 examined X chromosome inactivation in mothers of gay sons and mothers whose sons were not gay. Researchers found extreme differences between women who had gay sons and women who did not. A study from 2006 said that researchers have known for years that a man's likelihood of being gay rises with the number of older biological brothers, but the new study found that the so-called \"fraternal birth order effect\" persists even if gay men were raised away from their biological families & that \"the research suggests that the development of sexual orientation is influenced before birth. \"Seeing the overwhelming evidence, I hope that the audience agrees with me! Thank you.", "qid": "14", "docid": "67148c4d-2019-04-18T18:48:23Z-00000-000", "rank": 55, "score": 116093.0}, {"content": "Title: Homosexuality is psychological and not biological. Content: \"In the interests of clarity and ease, both for myself and the readers, perhaps when you make an affirmative claim you might wish to quote what you feel is the key portion from a website or study, rather than merely several links to various.\"Sue, should be no problem.\"But can could scientists take the gene samples of babies and determine which were hetro and which would be homosexual?\"With a high degree of accuracy, yes.\"An algorithm using epigenetic information from just nine regions of the human genome can predict the sexual orientation of males with up to 70 percent accuracy\" (1)The accuracy rate isn't near absolute, because homosexuality isn't entirely genetic in origin. That, and the fact that homosexuality can be predicted from genes (particularly with such a high degree of accuracy) shows that they play some role in its cause.\"It should be clear by now that whatever homosexuality is rooted in that thing is not biological or genetic.\"In addition to the prior evidence (which should be more than sufficient), there is even more data that supports a partly genetic view of homosexuality.For example, one study found X-chromosomal linkages between homosexual men:\"DNA linkage analysis of a selected group of 40 families in which there were two gay brothers and no indication of nonmaternal transmission revealed a correlation between homosexual orientation and the inheritance of polymorphic markers on the X chromosome in approximately 64 percent of the sib-pairs tested.\" (2)\"From an evolutionary perspective you might wonder why a male 'born gay' would also produce semen?\"There is an evolutionary precedent for why male homosexuality exists. One study found that female relatives of homosexual men tend to be more fertile than average.\"We observed that the maternal aunts and grandmothers of homosexual probands were significantly more fecund compared with the maternal aunts and maternal grandmothers of the heterosexual probands.\" (3)This suggests that the genes influencing male homosexuality have a different effect on women (increased fecundity), to the degree that the effect of increased female fertility offset the selective pressure against male homosexuality.\"This would further indicate to me that no baby is born 'genetically gay'.\"As my sources show above, it's unlikely one's sexuality is determined entirely by genetics. That said, it'd be silly to rule out the demonstrated impact genetics have on the issues entirely.\"The much higher instances of drug use (self medicating even), the high risk taking behaviours, casual disregard for consequence, greater instances of self harm and suicidal ideation, sexual promiscuity but difficulty in sustaining relationships, commonly highly sensitive to any criticism while being fiercely critical of others.\"These issues being more common in homosexuals than heterosexuals is likely owed to other factors, not homosexuality itself.At least some of these issues (the abnormal suicide rate for example) are definitively known to be largely caused by social factors:\"Several nonrandom studies have found an association between parental rejection because of sexual orientation and higher risk of suicide attempts among LGB youth (D'Augelli, Grossman, Salter, et al., 2005; D'Augelli, Hershberger, & Pilkington, 2001; Remafedi et al., 1991; Ryan, Huebner, Diaz, & Sanchez, 2009). One study of White and Latino LGB young adults aged 21\u201325 (Ryan et al., 2009) found that those who experienced frequent rejecting behaviors by their parents or caregivers during adolescence were over eight times more likely to report making a suicide attempt than those with accepting parents.\" (4)If there's any evidence that these are directly caused by homosexuality itself, directly, then it has not been presented. Furthermore, evidence that the final parallel is more common in homosexuals than in heterosexuals (\"commonly highly sensitive to any criticism while being fiercely critical of others\") remains to be provided by Pro.Sources:1) http://www.ashg.org...2) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...3) http://journals.plos.org...4) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...", "qid": "14", "docid": "fbf5301a-2019-04-18T14:14:29Z-00003-000", "rank": 56, "score": 115992.0}, {"content": "Title: Rights for All sexual orientations Content: People are people, we were all created equal under a god or creator or Allah (does not matter what you call him/her) if we are all equal rights for p.eople should be the same", "qid": "14", "docid": "aa0c78ce-2019-04-18T17:05:36Z-00005-000", "rank": 57, "score": 115895.0}, {"content": "Title: Sexual orientation is not a choice Content: First off, I don't see how any of my arguments are in the terms of \"being gay is not bad sort of thing\". I keep reading through my 1st, 3rd, and 4th arguments trying to figure out where you get this idea, and I can't find it. Please point it out in your next argument. What you're saying is that it is possible for it to be a choice, and yes it absolutely is. If I wanted to, I could begin pursuing men and give up women. Now that's not what I want, but I can do it. Like when I said I don't like deviled eggs; I could eat them if I wanted to, I just wouldn't enjoy it. I'm sure that there is at least somebody out there who chose to be homosexual, but just because choosing who you sleep with it possible doesn't mean you were born attracted to that gender. It's possible for me to begin sleeping with dogs, although I wouldn't enjoy it. That doesn't mean I was attracted to dogs, it just means I made a choice for whatever reason. Choice-an act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities Yes, who you sleep with is a choice. But that doesn't mean when you were born, you were faced with that choice. I don't see any reason to believe it is a choice, and no reason has been presented to me, only the obvious possibility that people can sleep with who they please.", "qid": "14", "docid": "3bc0ea4-2019-04-18T15:39:06Z-00002-000", "rank": 58, "score": 115865.0}, {"content": "Title: sexual orientation should be considered grounds for asylum. Content: This policy undermines the grassroots movements that are necessary for full and sustained protection of the LGBT community", "qid": "14", "docid": "1df4e73f-2019-04-15T20:23:01Z-00001-000", "rank": 59, "score": 114880.0}, {"content": "Title: Sexual orientation is not a choice Content: Before I begin, I want to say I am fiercely PRO-LGBT AND HUMAN RIGHTS. Because of this I am going to ignore your first argument, and other arguments except for the second because that does not seem to go into the terms of being gay is NOT bad sort of thing. What is choice ? Choice - an act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities When I was young and navive, I want to be left-handed because I was convinced that left-handed people were smarter (which is obviously not true in all cases). But, I was born right-handed, however that doesn't mean I don't have a choice. So, even though I was right-handed doesn't mean I couldn't be left-handed. Because really wanted to be left-handed. But couldn't sadly speaking. I could always fake it untiI make it. Applying, my brief anecdote to my own sexual orientation, I could want to homosexual and I could fool myself into thinking, I am gay, but I wouldn't be gay. Because I simply wasn't born that way. However that doesn't mean I don't have a choice in the matter. Just like people that don't have a choice in their sex, but do have a choice in their gender identity. We all have a choice in what we could be and who we are. This is called freedom. Or If you are simply implying that choice is the freedom to choose what we want to be or be who we are, then that's for the next round. Please clarify and be as specific as you can. I do so love a good round of wits! \ud83d\ude00\ud83d\ude00\ud83d\ude00", "qid": "14", "docid": "3bc0ea4-2019-04-18T15:39:06Z-00003-000", "rank": 60, "score": 114614.0}, {"content": "Title: sexual orientation should be considered grounds for asylum. Content: This policy of asylum helps manufacture global consensus on the protection of the LGBT community", "qid": "14", "docid": "1df4e73f-2019-04-15T20:23:01Z-00004-000", "rank": 61, "score": 114368.0}, {"content": "Title: Sexual orientation Content: Hello. I would like to begin by thanking the instigator, GMFGMD, for challenging me to this debate. Although I may disagree with your opinion, I do respect your opinion as I hope you do mine. If you are born to be gay you are an \"accident of nature\". Research has proven that being gay is not a disease. Research: (1) http://www.helem.net... \"Homosexuality was considered as a mental illness by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) until 1973\". This nullifies you argument calling it a deformity. Therefore, calling it a deformity is in an opinion. Of which gives you no sound proof of it being an accident of nature. Also, \"On January 1, 1993, the World Health Organization (WHO) removed homosexuality from its list of diseases.\" (1) WHO has removed homosexuality from the list of diseases. Thus, not making homosexuality a handicap. Now for a second lets call homosexuality an \"illness\". Why do gay people get kill, bullied, hurt, emotionally, and physically abused? Aren't you suppose to treat people who are ill in a kind and loving manner? When my friend is sick I don't say \"Omg, you have strep throat. You should die. You don't deserve to breathe the same air as me.\" The way people treat homosexuality is not as a way of illness which proves people do not think of it as an illness. If people though of it as an illness they would give you soup and say \"Hope the gay goes away.\" Being gay is not an illness the way people treat homosexuality proves my point. Normal. Funny choice of words. Could you tell me what is normal? Normal is such a vague word. Normal can mean literally anything. Nothing is normal. Technology is not normal in comparison to human's roots. Superheros are not normal but we think they are awesome. Normal is not normal. \"Those that choose it are just sick.\" Again, as I mentioned previously , homosexuality is not an illness. For sake of argument, lets replace the word sick with \"bad\". Now what I do not understand is, why does my choice in who I love make any difference to another person? In conclusion, homosexuality cannot be classified as an illness. It is normal because normal is a vague word meaning anything. Who I love does not hurt anyone. Honestly, if anyone is hurting themselves it is you because of all this hate in your body. I am not the one causing your hate you are. Hate, as well, as anger is an individual emotion that can only be controlled by the person who has it. Therefore, if it is a choice, why does choosing who you love hurt anyone? Love is love.", "qid": "14", "docid": "13176601-2019-04-18T17:19:14Z-00004-000", "rank": 62, "score": 114342.0}, {"content": "Title: Sexual orientation doesn't originate only from biology Content: Before beginning with my rebuttals i will quote con: 3. If any kind of behavious is created by environmental factors, or society, they should be able to be healed using therapy like the one that has been used for rape victims and criminals. If being gay has a social/environmental factor, then therapy of any kind must change them into heterosexuals or 'reduce the amount of homosexuality'. Why is there a need to \"reduce the amount of homosexuality\"? It is not a psycopathology. There is no need to cure it. The DSM-5 does not include homosexuality. When i talk about sexual orientation, i'm not only considering homosexuals and heterosexuals, i'm also considering bisexuals, asexuals, sexually fluid people and so on. REBUTTAL (Sexuality in animals): The fact that there are queer animals does not make any point. I said biology does affect sexual orientation, i didn't deny that. (Animals regardless of the kind of place they live will show the same amount of variation of sexuality): The link you showed me doesn't show any experimental or statistical information, so you cannot make such assumptions. Just gay penguins, again, i didn't say they aren't gay, in fact they are. 1) Sexuality alters through time (at least for sexually fluid people): http://www.hup.harvard.edu... And i quote from this very link: \"Lisa M. Diamond argues that for some women, love and desire are not rigidly heterosexual or homosexual but fluid, changing as women move through the stages of life, various social groups, and, most important, different love relationships.\" Also, epigenetics is influenced by the environment: http://cdp.sagepub.com... I agree with you, conversion therapy should not be done, and hurts homosexuals. I will finish with the abstract of an interesting link i found on pubmed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...", "qid": "14", "docid": "2771aba0-2019-04-18T15:29:45Z-00001-000", "rank": 63, "score": 114224.0}, {"content": "Title: Sexual orientation doesn't originate only from biology Content: 1. My opponent in Round 2 mentioned some environmental and physical conditions under which people's sexual orientation is affected. What I tried to prove through queer animals is that the factors mentioned for sexual orientation in case of humans are absolutely absent in animal world. Therefore all animals should have similar sexual orientations as they grow up under similar condition unlike humans. Parents of animals do not have divorces, some of them dont live in cities and some in forests and yet there are a range of sexual orientations in animals. 2. The sexual fluidity as mentioned by opponent seems as if he has assumed that sexual fluidity is change in sexual orientation. No! http://www.scienceofrelationships.com... Sexual fluidity is not a change in sexual orientation. Sexual fluidity does not imply that a person is homosexual for a given period of time and then turns heterosexual for a certain period of time. It also does not equal to bisexuality. Kindly donot confuse fluidity with bisexuality. 3. The fact that conversion therapy does not work is itself a proof that environment is not a factor. If I were depressed due to something bad happening to me (a physical factor) I could be cured by therapy but sexual orientation is not.", "qid": "14", "docid": "2771aba0-2019-04-18T15:29:45Z-00000-000", "rank": 64, "score": 113876.0}, {"content": "Title: Sexual Orientation is a choice Content: I understand my opponent had some difficulties so I will end with my round 3 argument and then a closing statement. -Round 3- \"As we see laws and rules regarding homo-sexuality change around the world, many people may feel like they would be more accepted if they changed sexual orientation.\" Do you think that this could be because they were afraid of being persecuted before hand? In Iran the threat of hanging may lessen homosexual activity, but there are still plenty of gays. (Some are forced into a sex-change because, curiously, transsexualism is more acceptable to the State.) There is a tribe in the New Guinea highlands called the 'sambia', where the practice (until recently) was for younger boys to be isolated from all female company and to fellate older boys in order to ingest their virility. The early teens were spent performing fellatio and the later teens being fellated. If any cultural pressure was going to create homosexuality surely this would be it - only it didn't. Come adulthood, most Sambia males emerged as married heterosexuals - with only around 5% of \"backsliders\" continuing to seek boys to fellate them (Herdt, 1981). This is much the same as the proportion of gay males in Western society. \"Another example is life experiences. Many people that are \"born\" straight may feel confused if they grow up seeing mostly straight people, then go out on their own and see gay couples.\" One of the first clues that people are born rather than made gay is that sex role behaviour, interests, toy and play preferences that relate to adult sex orientation can be observed from the earliest years. Some girls are described as \"tomboys\" and boys identified as 'sissies' when very young, usually by the age of 3. This is technically known as childhood gender nonconformity and it is strongly predictive of homosexuality in adulthood (Lippa, 2008). About 75% of CGN children grow up to be gay or lesbian. This would seem to place the origins of sex orientation much earlier than any supposed incidents of seduction and contagion in the early teens. There are actually differences in the anatomy of the brains of homosexual and heterosexual men and women. Where there are characteristic differences between male and female brains, these are often reversed in gay men and women. For example, LeVay (1991) found that a hypothalamic nucleus concerned with sexual behaviour (INAH-3), was smaller in gay men than straight men (indeed, more like that of women). Part of the conduit linking the left and right sides of the brain (the corpus callosum) is larger in homosexual men and straight women (Witelson et al, 2008). The brains of straight men and lesbians are larger in the right hemisphere than the left, but in gay men and straight women the two sides are symmetrical.). The amygdala, a mid-brain area important for emotional learning seems to be wired for a greater fight-flight response in straight men and lesbians than gay men and straight women (Savic & Lindstrom, 2008). Ponsetti et al (2007) found less gray matter in the perirhinal cortex in lesbians compared with straight women but no comparable differences between gay and straight men. [1] In regards to my opponents point that our parents have an affect on sexual orientation, I'd just like to place this link here to be observed. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...... I personally have a slight doubt that this father never gave off the opinion that he accepted homosexuality. it is clear that sex orientation is embedded within a bio-psychological context that goes beyond the simple question of who or what turns us on. It is a fundamental part of our nature that is not easily tilted by social events during development. Being raised by homosexual parents does not alter a child 's sexuality and those who fear their son can be initiated into homosexuality by an encounter with a paedophile priest or scoutmaster may sleep easily. [2] Recognition of the inborn nature of sexual orientation may underlie increasing acceptance of homosexuality in Western countries. [1] http://www.gresham.ac.uk...... [2] Wilson, G.D. & Rahman, Q. Born Gay: The psychobiology of Sex Orientation. London: Peter Owen, 2005. -Closing- I'd like to thank my opponent for the debate, this is a topic I dwell over quite often. I believe that sexual orientation IS NOT a choice. The evidence I have provided will hopefully sway some of you (the voters) in my direction. Thanks for reading/voting!", "qid": "14", "docid": "88021be-2019-04-18T17:47:30Z-00000-000", "rank": 65, "score": 113669.0}, {"content": "Title: Age of Consent Policies Content: Rebuttal \"Obviously, Intercourse goes beyond simple pleasure. It can cause pregnancy, Which has multiple effects itself. For example, Consider this: 'In 2017, A total of 194, 377 babies were born to women aged 15\"19 years. . . Only about 50% of teen mothers receive a high school diploma by 22 years of age, Whereas approximately 90% of women who do not give birth during adolescence graduate from high school. '\" According to the CDC report you referenced, Age of consent policies have yet to be determined as a factor in preventing or reducing teenage pregnancies: \"Although reasons for the declines are not totally clear, Evidence suggests these declines are due to more teens abstaining from sexual activity, And more teens who are sexually active using birth control than in previous years. \" (1) It's also worth noting the some of the limitations of that report: \"Limitations Our study had several limitations. When self-reported information is used, One must always consider the potential for over- and under-reporting. Adolescents are generally reliable reporters of information on sexual health. However, Given increasing social pressure to delay sexual initiation and avoid pregnancy, Adolescents may be more likely today than in the past to underreport sexual activity or overreport contraceptive use. Although the overall NSFG sample size is adequate, Sample sizes become problematically small in analyses of subgroups. This was particularly true for the Black and Hispanic subgroups, In which the numbers of sexually active young women fell below 100. Moreover, Variance around changes in percentages or around attribution was much larger than variance around estimates for a single point in time. As such, Care should be taken in interpreting our estimates for these smaller subgroups. . . . We assumed that there were no changes in whether contraceptives were used correctly or in biological fecundity. Correct use of contraception can be assessed via measuring changes in typical-use CFRs. We used the most recent available failure rates (for 1995). Ranjit et al. Found no changes between 1988 and 1995 in typical-use CFRs (note that questions about contraception use at most recent intercourse did assess consistency of use). 18 No data are available to measure changes in biological fecundity among teenagers (or adults). \" In addition, When doing a cross-country analysis, Switzerland had the lowest rates among Western countries in teenage pregnancy, Yet Switzerland's age of consent is at 16. (2) And while the United States has an age of consent as high as 18 years old, Most states have an age of consent at 16. (The U. S. Military code for armed services defines age of consent at 16 as well, But also allows exemptions for those married to 12-15 year old minors. [3]) \"1 in 4 teens contract a sexually transmitted disease every year. \" And one in two persons who are sexually active will contract an STI by the time their 25, Years above the age of consent (4) In spite of half of the new emergence of STI's occurring among those who are 15-24 years of age, Age of consent policies are currently imposed. This incidence of STI contraction is concurrent with already existing age of consent policies. \" Do you have any evidence which suggests that teens who have sex with those above the age of consent puts them at more risk of contracting an STI? Or that current age of consent policies prevent or address the prevention of teenage sexual encounters among themselves, Preventing the spread of STI's? \"The Impact The government itself already spends plenty on contraception prevention efforts: 'if we were able to avert all unintended births among teens, It would amount to $1. 9 billion in additional public savings each year in the United States. '\" What does this have to do with age of consent policies and the effects of their measures? \"Besides this, The fact that students are dropping out of schools because they are getting pregnant affects more than just them, But their parents as well. Assuming these are rational, Loving parents, They are going to help their child to raise this child, Which puts stress on them to, In some cases, Have to work more in order to pay for such things. \" Parens Patriae doesn't simply manifest in age of consent policies, But also Child Labor Policies, Which stifle Youth Employment. Furthermore, Hikes in the minimum wage are associated with declines in teenage employment (5. ) \"effects to a child of a teenage mother include: greater risk for lower birth weight and infant mortality less prepared to enter kindergarten rely more heavily on publicly funded health care are more likely to be incarcerated at some time during adolescence are more likely to drop out of high school are more likely to be unemployed or underemployed as a young adult\" And which of these effects are age-based, And not residuals of economic and social policy? \"This as all led up to say this: the persistence of the age of consent laws are not about the age of an individual and that effect on their decision-making capacity. . . \" This is in fact not true: \"Age of consent refers to the legally defined age at which a person is no longer required to obtain parental consent to get married. It also refers to the age at which a person is held to have the capacity to voluntarily agree to sexual intercourse. \" (6) \"But rather the effect of intercourse by teens on not only themselves, But their families, Their children, And society as a whole. It causes the U. S. To pay more money, It causes families more stress, It causes teens to have worse health, And it causes their children to live worse lives. \" So how do age of consent policies address any of that which you mentioned? Do age of consent policies address teenage pregnancy? STI contraction? How do the age-based restrictions define the effects to which you speak? References are in the comments of my profile.", "qid": "14", "docid": "abc2a1b1-2019-04-18T11:10:37Z-00003-000", "rank": 66, "score": 113565.0}, {"content": "Title: sexual orientation should be considered grounds for asylum. Content: The LGBT community fulfills the basic principles and purposes of asylum", "qid": "14", "docid": "1df4e73f-2019-04-15T20:23:01Z-00006-000", "rank": 67, "score": 113287.0}, {"content": "Title: Sexiality Isn't a Choice Content: My statement is silly? Bravo. Give it up. Sexuality is a choice. One feels a certain way in their life at one point then all of a sudden \"figures\" themselves out. You went from having a sexual orientation to being \"asexual\" whatever that means which is a change by choice. One day you think you feel a certain then next you \"figure\" it out later on in life you feel another way? Right... anyway. You're welcome, glad I took the time to debate about this.", "qid": "14", "docid": "caecc1bf-2019-04-18T13:39:21Z-00000-000", "rank": 68, "score": 113278.0}, {"content": "Title: sexual orientation should be considered grounds for asylum. Content: This policy breaks down important inter-governmental dialogue on LGBT rights", "qid": "14", "docid": "1df4e73f-2019-04-15T20:23:01Z-00002-000", "rank": 69, "score": 113241.0}, {"content": "Title: HOMOSEXUALITY is a CHOICE Content: Ask yourself this \"when did you choose to be straight\"? A person's sexual orientation is not a black or white matter, sexual orientation exists along a continuum, with exclusive attraction to the opposite sex on one end of the continuum and exclusive attraction to the same sex on the other. There is a great deal of research suggesting that sexual orientation is congenital. Common sense tells us that no one sits down one day and goes, \"Hmmmm\" should I be gay or straight?\" but rather some people find themselves attracted to people of the same gender. But there are people who consciously decide to experiment with their sexuality, to try gay sex and see if they like it. Some radical feminists embrace lesbianism for political rather than sexual reasons. As some men in prison with strong sexual desire use other men for sex. This can cause some people to believe that homosexual behavior is the same thing as homosexual attraction. What if behavior doesn't match well with attraction? What if people usually enjoy sex with one gender but only fall in love with the other? What if a person's past doesn't reflect his or her present feelings? Sexuality is much more complex than we know, but we are gaining understanding through science. So the real question should be what causes homosexuality? Research suggest that homosexuality is hereditary. https://www.eurekalert.org... http://www.journals.uchicago.edu... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.pnas.org... http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com... However in spite of all of the above scientific studies, according to the American Psychological Association's own website, \"there is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; however most people whether heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual, experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.\" From all of this I can draw only one conclusion. Homosexuality is not a choice.", "qid": "14", "docid": "eada3b89-2019-04-18T12:09:35Z-00002-000", "rank": 70, "score": 113196.0}, {"content": "Title: LGBT People Should Have Equal Rights Content: Sexual orientation should have no bearing on a person's rights. Although the morality of sexual orientation is different from person to person all men and women are equal regardless of who they choose to love or sleep with.", "qid": "14", "docid": "d8741005-2019-04-18T13:07:16Z-00007-000", "rank": 71, "score": 113142.0}, {"content": "Title: Homosexuality is a natural occurrence and is not significantly harmful to society. Content: Is homosexuality natural? Let's define natural . In my owns words, natural are the things that already exist in nature or exists innate. These are things that come about and or present essentially without them being introduced any other way outside of that . Nurturing, teaching , influencing, providing and giving are all other ways happening outside the natural . Now how does sexual orientation come about, particularly homosexuality? As far as research goes, it's inconclusive whether it's truly just natural, genetic, biological, etc. . There are a lot of cases that weigh on both sides. The two sides with one being born with pre-determined configuration of sexuality and the other being an influence. So basically one would ask a homosexual , how did your feelings, desires, physical attractions for one gender than the other begin ? The person will give you their life story depending on their comfort level of perhaps conveying the explicit details of how it all started. I trust each personal account will be different .Then the answer will be available to the question of \" Is homosexuality natural?\".The answer may or will change from individual to individual . Is homosexuality significantly harmful to society? Yes, to people that are able at continuing to sustain their existence via reproducing themselves. Now anything treated very significantly would be in a situation that's truly serious. However when dealing with something that's harmfully significant or insignificant I would believe that everyone one of us sees it as all being the same . We wouldn't want either one actually. Any type of harm to whatever degree is a \"no go\" so I will continue with just using the word harmful. Now society has to do with being defined as a particular place so it's not just harfmful to society but the world abroad . Why is it harmful? What is harmful? What does one consider to be harmful?(to people in particularly). One may or will harm another thing to gain prosperity. A group of persons may harm another thing or things to gain prosperity even health wise meaning for health reasons . It may be harmful for that other thing according to that other thing's perspective but quite opposite to the thing or person that inflicted the action which can be described as harmful. Something that is ultimately harmful for PEOPLE in general is unhealthy . Unhealthy means a deterioration in their well being. It's damaging, adverse, negative for their existence. As we can see more and more of a life that is not healthy will not continue to remain present. It will result in the absence of life . Absence of something is the negative which is the opposite of no harm . Harmful works in a process to cease life . What are one of the ways to cease life cumulatively? That is to promote and cease the operation of heterosexuality that combines resources to promote the growth in the fruit of life . Particularly non-incest heterosexuality because again , in reference to what has been studied and stated by the individuals whom have done so, we are aiming for the best quality of life and welfare. With homosexual acts that do vary between individuals , basing it on what's actually being done or utilized, it is very well likely that the wasting of resources designed for promoting human life is occurring. Now of course this also depends on what a person thinks the use of the bodily functions are for. Some will say \"the body is the body and function is function. So as long as I'm not hurting the person next door, that's all that matters.\"It's good to observe the results of an action. Just make sure it's looked at as a whole. As something that repeats over and over again, will the result overall be exactly the same ? That's what's meant by seeing the result in something cumulatively or in principle. Sometimes the result isn't fully presented or immediate. The result of actions may be a long-term, gradual process. Also it is in accordance to the condition the actions are made in that produce the true outcome. That's why it helps to make an effort to examine the purpose of the existence of something as well . Look at the design of a particular thing or part and it's ingredient(s). The design will communicate something in regards to the aim/objective for it's particular function in the first place. We can ignore all that and just go with how we feel. It may feel good now and hurt or harm later.", "qid": "14", "docid": "eed72a73-2019-04-18T13:02:15Z-00008-000", "rank": 72, "score": 113056.0}, {"content": "Title: Sexual orientation is not a choice Content: I'm new to debate.org, so forgive me if I make a mistake in this process. I've made multiple attempts to argue this point in person and have come unsuccessful. I have yet to hear an argument supporting that sexuality is a choice, despite my efforts. The closest I've heard has been \"sexual orientation may not be a choice, but homosexual actions certainly are\". I'm not trying to debate this, I'm talking about strictly sexual orientation. Considering this is a website specifically for debating, I'm assuming I will get some responses and I'm excited for it. Onto my arguments: 1. To fellow heterosexuals: When did we choose to be straight? I know, this is an extremely cliche argument and I'm sure you've all heard it. But I certainly don't remember making a decision about it. I don't think I could choose to be homosexual if I tried. When thinking of sleeping with another guy, I feel nothing but discomfort. I guess it's like trying to explain why I don't like deviled eggs. I just don't, and I can't choose to like deviled eggs. 2. There's no reason to choose homosexuality You could make the argument that it's a rebellion thing, and I'll get to that later. Let's look at all the downsides society has caused to homosexuality. Bullying, discrimination, and persecution are just a few example of what many homosexuals have to endure everyday (at least where I live, in the bible belt). Consider the case of Carlos Vigil, a 17 year old homosexual high-schooler. He took his own life after the bullying became unbearable, all because of his sexual orientation. If it's a choice, he could have just switched back, right? Before it got really bad, he could have bailed out of homosexuality while he had the chance, right? If so, why didn't he take that chance? I would think just about every homosexual in this scenario would become heterosexual, yet they don't. Why? Because they can't. They are who they are. In my school, there are two homosexual men, both very religious. Hell, on their Instagram bio they both claim \"God is everything\". It goes without saying that they know they are sinning, and in their own religious book, it claims that their god \"hates homosexuals\". These people believe they will spend an eternity suffering for the way they live, yet they don't change it. If sexuality were as easy to change as many claim, why don't they? For these reasons, I do not believe homosexuality is a way to rebel (at least not in 99.9% of cases). I don't think anybody would rebel to the point where they spend an eternity suffering, or rebel to the point where they commit suicide. 3. Homosexual stereotypes Yes, I know nowadays the default notion of stereotypes is they're hurtful and false, but I think most would agree that stereotypes come from somewhere. Many, if not the majority of open homosexuals (to my personal observations) abide to the stereotype, which involves being feminine, a higher pitched voice, a lisp (I'm not sure why this is true, but it seems to be), dramatic, extreme hand motions, etc. Obviously not all homosexuals fit this stereotype, and I'm expecting to take heat for these statements, but we all know that's the stereotype. Growing up, we all knew who the gays were, far before they came out. When they finally did, nobody was surprised. Why? Because they acted gay for years, yet they didn't want people to know. It makes sense that they act gay even when others don't know that they're gay, because that's just the way they are. I grew up with a kid who was always feminine. Our parents were friends, so I would play at his house a lot. Even before kindergarten, he played with Barbies instead of soldiers, and glittery horses instead of dragons. The games he wanted to play were foreign to me. I remember specifically \"Boy by the River\". He played as the girl and made my brother play as his boyfriend while I was the boy by the river. All he would do is break up with my brother and become my girlfriend (We hated this game). I always knew he was different, and he was obviously way too young to make a choice of his sexuality, but he was obviously homosexual. Fast forward 10 years, after going about that time without seeing him, he goes into my dads office and asks him to donate to his dance crew. Come to find out...he was gay. Homosexuals don't begin showing these stereotypes to make a point, that's just the way they are. 4. It happens Short point... Over 1500 species of animals have been witnessed engaging in homosexual behaviors. The society of these animals aren't advanced to the point where they need to show off to their friends or they want to rebel to their parents. It shows that it's perfectly natural to be gay, it's just uncommon. I'm sure I'm missing something, but it'll come to me at some point throughout the debate. Again, correct me if I made a mistake. Thanks!", "qid": "14", "docid": "3bc0ea4-2019-04-18T15:39:06Z-00004-000", "rank": 73, "score": 113000.0}, {"content": "Title: Sexual Orientation is a choice Content: \"As we see laws and rules regarding homo-sexuality change around the world, many people may feel like they would be more accepted if they changed sexual orientation.\" Do you think that this could be because they were afraid of being persecuted before hand? In Iran the threat of hanging may lessen homosexual activity, but there are still plenty of gays. (Some are forced into a sex-change because, curiously, transsexualism is more acceptable to the State.) There is a tribe in the New Guinea highlands called the 'sambia', where the practice (until recently) was for younger boys to be isolated from all female company and to fellate older boys in order to ingest their virility. The early teens were spent performing fellatio and the later teens being fellated. If any cultural pressure was going to create homosexuality surely this would be it - only it didn't. Come adulthood, most Sambia males emerged as married heterosexuals - with only around 5% of \"backsliders\" continuing to seek boys to fellate them (Herdt, 1981). This is much the same as the proportion of gay males in Western society. \"Another example is life experiences. Many people that are \"born\" straight may feel confused if they grow up seeing mostly straight people, then go out on their own and see gay couples.\" One of the first clues that people are born rather than made gay is that sex role behaviour, interests, toy and play preferences that relate to adult sex orientation can be observed from the earliest years. Some girls are described as \"tomboys\" and boys identified as 'sissies' when very young, usually by the age of 3. This is technically known as childhood gender nonconformity and it is strongly predictive of homosexuality in adulthood (Lippa, 2008). About 75% of CGN children grow up to be gay or lesbian. This would seem to place the origins of sex orientation much earlier than any supposed incidents of seduction and contagion in the early teens. There are actually differences in the anatomy of the brains of homosexual and heterosexual men and women. Where there are characteristic differences between male and female brains, these are often reversed in gay men and women. For example, LeVay (1991) found that a hypothalamic nucleus concerned with sexual behaviour (INAH-3), was smaller in gay men than straight men (indeed, more like that of women). Part of the conduit linking the left and right sides of the brain (the corpus callosum) is larger in homosexual men and straight women (Witelson et al, 2008). The brains of straight men and lesbians are larger in the right hemisphere than the left, but in gay men and straight women the two sides are symmetrical.). The amygdala, a mid-brain area important for emotional learning seems to be wired for a greater fight-flight response in straight men and lesbians than gay men and straight women (Savic & Lindstrom, 2008). Ponsetti et al (2007) found less gray matter in the perirhinal cortex in lesbians compared with straight women but no comparable differences between gay and straight men. [1] In regards to my opponents point that our parents have an affect on sexual orientation, I'd just like to place this link here to be observed. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... I personally have a slight doubt that this father never gave off the opinion that he accepted homosexuality. it is clear that sex orientation is embedded within a bio-psychological context that goes beyond the simple question of who or what turns us on. It is a fundamental part of our nature that is not easily tilted by social events during development. Being raised by homosexual parents does not alter a child 's sexuality and those who fear their son can be initiated into homosexuality by an encounter with a paedophile priest or scoutmaster may sleep easily. [2] Recognition of the inborn nature of sexual orientation may underlie increasing acceptance of homosexuality in Western countries. [1] http://www.gresham.ac.uk... [2] Wilson, G.D. & Rahman, Q. Born Gay: The psychobiology of Sex Orientation. London: Peter Owen, 2005.", "qid": "14", "docid": "88021be-2019-04-18T17:47:30Z-00001-000", "rank": 74, "score": 112783.0}, {"content": "Title: Birth sex should not be a factor in legal contracts Content: Thank you for your response :) While the stated topic was, \"Birth sex should not be a factor in legal contracts,\" it was clarified in R1 to be about the root issues behind same sex marriage, and the change in legal rights accordingly. The topic, limited by character count, was by necessity somewhat vague, however, I expanded that with the statement, \"Essentially, I feel that it is unethical to change someone's legal rights according to what biological sex they were determined to be at the time of birth.\" Considering that this made very clear in the proposal argument, I say it is fair that this be used as the actual basis of the debate. As stated in R2, I have no objection to the abilities of individuals or groups to selectively engage in legal contracts. Contracts which can have limits according to specific individuals, or classes of individuals, as long as such limitations are regulated by the government to ensure no discrimination. The stated issue is the right of the government to change the legal rights of individuals based on their birth sex. Answers: 1. I do believe it should be legal for someone to specify what sexual characteristics are required, in certain, limited types of contracts. For instance, specifying a female stripper is entirely reasonable. I do not, however, feel that the government should be able to say that a male, for instance, cannot legally become a stripper. And to forestall a potential rebuttal, semantics are beside the point. If you define a job as \"male only,\" then of course, by definition, a female cannot partake of that role. However, the job itself should be legally available to anyone who can meet that job's requirements. 2. Yes. However, in the instance of childbirth, the mother tends to have significant physical impairments that the father does not. In instances of actual childbirth, I feel the woman should receive additional time off - what amounts to a specialty sick leave. However, beyond this additional leave, which would not apply in cases of adoption, I feel that men and women should both receive equal leave. And in fact, here in Canada, it is just so :D (Yes, I'm a Canadian debating US politics. Sue me :P) As it happens, I also feel that maternity/paternity leave should be guaranteed by the government, barring unusual circumstances, but anyway. 3. The answer is, it's irrelevant. I know, it looks like a cop-out, but the thing is, the purpose of this debate is to dig into government interference with rights. They \"should\" do as their morals and/or society and/or the local, relevant laws suggest that they do. The government, however, should not mandate that males open doors for females. There are 3 types of \"marriage\" in the united states: 1. It is a specifically religious institution, with massive religious connections. 2. It is a public declaration of love and invitation for family, that has absolutely no religious connotations whatsoever (such as when atheists marry). 3. It is a legal contract that provides certain benefits, the majority of which are entirely unrelated to procreation. To my knowledge, that's it for the types. Religious organizations, I feel, should have the right to do as they please, as far as marriage goes. Part of freedom of religion allows for the freedom for religious discrimination, even on the protected classes. The government should not mandate who they must or must not marry, and in fact, should be utterly uninvolved (with few exceptions, like child abuse). The second type should also not be interfered with by the government. It is a social construct. The third, however, is a legal contract granting legal benefits. If in your nation, civil unions grant precisely equal legal rights, then great! That's all that's needed. Take a job where sex is part of the description \u2013 there's a male waiter and a female waitress. Can a male be a waitress? No, but there's a precise, and perfect match, with precisely equal pay/duties/etc. That's fine. If \"marriage\" is the term for male/female unions, and \"civil union\" is the term for same sex unions, but they are in every other regard precisely equal, then there's no issue. (I still don't like it, but it's a tolerable solution) However, if one grants less rights, as is the case in the USA, then there is a problem. Civil unions are not the equal of government marriages (religious marriages are entirely irrelevant, unless you argue that atheists should also receive inferior treatment) Ultimately, I feel the government has the right to do 2 things: it can tell people that they may involve sex in a specific agreement, and it can tell them they may not. I feel that it absolutely may not, under any circumstances, mandate that they involve sex in a legal arrangement. To more fully expand the topic, I feel that birth sex (a designation that is both medically changeable and in many cases arbitrary) should not be a government mandated factor in legal contracts. Enjoying this debate so far :D", "qid": "14", "docid": "81e93050-2019-04-18T18:15:17Z-00001-000", "rank": 75, "score": 112547.0}, {"content": "Title: Homosexuality is Genetic Content: An examination of family pedigrees revealed that gay men had more homosexual male relatives through maternal than through paternal lineages, suggesting a linkage to the X chromosome. Dean Hamer24 found such an association at region Xq28. If male sexual orientation was influenced by a gene on Xq28, then gay brothers should share more than 50% of their alleles at this region, whereas their heterosexual brothers should share less than 50% of their alleles. In the absence of such an association, then both types of brothers should display 50% allele sharing. An analysis of 40 pairs of gay brothers and found that they shared 82% of their alleles in the Xq28 region, which was much greater than the 50% allele sharing that would be expected by chance.Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...", "qid": "14", "docid": "45198ce6-2019-04-18T18:35:19Z-00000-000", "rank": 76, "score": 112503.0}, {"content": "Title: Sexuality is a Mental Defect Content: In this case, I do agree with my opponent to some degree in that sexuality is a birth trait, however, I do not agree that is a \"mental defect\" as my opponent so blatantly put it. I propose that there is a biological component to sexuality, however it is not a choice, and is not just a LGBTQI thing, this is a human thing, a biological human trait. Sexuality is about so much more than just sex. Sexuality also encompasses how one feels about their body, their biological sex, one's gender, one's gender identity, one's sexual orientation, one's sexual behaviors, one's values and attitudes toward sexual relationships, and any desires or fantasies or sexual preferences. This also does not include just the LGBTQI community; this also includes heterosexual individuals. Sexuality is a human trait; it is a part of everyone's life to some degree. The DSM-IV, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders which is produced by the American Psychiatric Association, defines a mental defect as, \"mental retardation, brain damage or other biological dysfunction that is associated with distress or disability causing symptoms or impairment in at least one important area of an individual's functioning.\" However, with sexuality, we cannot classify it as a \"mental defect\" as everyone has or identifies with at least one, if not all, components of sexuality, which I defined above, and sexuality is not a dysfunction, nor does it impair at least one important area of an individual's functioning. Therefore, I propose that because sexuality is a HUMAN trait and it does NOT interfere with an individual's functioning in one important aspect of that individual's life, we absolutely CANNOT classify it as a \"mental defect.\"", "qid": "14", "docid": "e843d75f-2019-04-18T15:06:07Z-00006-000", "rank": 77, "score": 112487.0}, {"content": "Title: Legalization of Gay Marriage Content: My Arguments Gay Marriage Benefits Society Gays parents are just as good as heterosexual ones When it comes to marriage, the well-being of the kids is a concern. Whether homosexuals choose to adopt or have artificial insemination, we know the kids are in good care. According to Benjamin Siegul, a School of Medicine professor of pediatrics, the kid's relationship with the parents as well as social and economic support is more important than the parent's sexual orientation. [1] Numerous studies have also claimed that sexual orientation is irrelevant to parenting effectiveness, namely the American Psychological Association. [2]The American Psychological Association states through their decades of research that \"adjustment, developmental and psychological well-being of the child is unrelated to the child's sexual orientation\" and that kids of lesbian or gay couples are likely to flourish. [2] The American Academy of Pediatrics have come to the same conclusion: \"Scientific evidence affirms that children have similar developmental and emotional needs and receive similar parenting whether they are raised by parents of the same or different genders. \"[3] Many kids are also happy with their homosexual parents, and in fact, feel like they don't even need a parent of the opposite gender. One kid named Logan, a son of lesbian parents in Alberta, Canada stated this: \u201cI don\u2019t feel I needed a father or wanted a father,\u201d said Logan, \u201cIt\u2019s kind of overrated. It\u2019s not like you need a male figure in your household the entire time, as long as you can talk to guys and see them and you can be friends with them. That\u2019s enough. \u201d[4] Gay Marriage is legal in Canada and most kids are doing just fine. Marriage is a Constitutional RightThe Supreme Court verified 14 times that Marriage is a protected right for all citizens. [5] The 14th Amendment states in Section 1: \"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. \"[6] Ideally, rights such as marriage shouldn't be taken away from people just because of their sexual orientation. Not only is this supported by the Constitution, but it's also supported through the Universal Decleration of Human Rights. In article 16 it states, \"Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. \"[7]I've shown that gays are fit to parent, so why can't two people who love each other get married and enjoy priveleges just like everyone else. Two People who Love and Respect one Another should be allowed to share rights and obligationsThat's what marriage is all about isn't it. Gays shouldn't have the right to marry taken way from them just because of their sexual orientation. Isn't the United States all about equality. If two people who love and respect one another should get married, let them be. Gay Marriage is legal in 15 different countries. [8] My question is : Why can't America legalize it as a country? It's a Constitutional right that applies to all people. Therefore, gays should be able to marry for these reasons. I look forward to my opponents next arguments. Sources:. http://www.bu.edu...;[1]http://www.huffingtonpost.com...;[2]http://pediatrics.aappublications.org...;[3]http://www.edmontonjournal.com...[4] . http://www.ctpost.com...;[5]http://www.law.cornell.edu...;[6]http://www.amnestyusa.org...;[7]http://en.wikipedia.org...;[8]", "qid": "14", "docid": "db2d8230-2019-04-18T17:24:34Z-00005-000", "rank": 78, "score": 112220.0}, {"content": "Title: sexual orientation should be considered grounds for asylum. Content: Asylum is not the best way of dealing with discrimination against LGBT people.", "qid": "14", "docid": "1df4e73f-2019-04-15T20:23:01Z-00000-000", "rank": 79, "score": 112045.0}, {"content": "Title: Born gay part 2 Content: Though I agree that it should not matter how we are oriented, whether from birth or from choice, and that our access to equal rights should not be contingent on us being 'born this way,' I do believe people are born gay for this reason. If it was a choice I'm sure people would opt out. There choice to do so but statistics say people do have a choice and some peoples choice would have not chosen this for their own reasons.", "qid": "14", "docid": "4b0ccd12-2019-04-18T13:50:18Z-00001-000", "rank": 80, "score": 111987.0}, {"content": "Title: homosexuality is a genetic disorder Content: I do not believe that homosexuality is genetic disorder, rather it's a mental disorder. The American Psychological Association has deemed sexual orientation to be fluid, or changeable throughout a person's lifetime. Sexual desire is not genetic, it is in the mind.", "qid": "14", "docid": "77a5df9b-2019-04-18T12:07:13Z-00002-000", "rank": 81, "score": 111968.0}, {"content": "Title: Sexual orientation is not a choice Content: I guess I have nothing to respond to. All I can say is you're response to my second point doesn't contradict my second point. Like I said, there is no reason to choose to be homosexual, which gives good grounds that those who are homosexual did not choose that lifestyle. You're argument gave no reason anybody would choose homosexuality.", "qid": "14", "docid": "3bc0ea4-2019-04-18T15:39:06Z-00001-000", "rank": 82, "score": 111455.0}, {"content": "Title: Same-Sex marriage should remain illegal. Content: I don't mind the changes to the rules. Admittedly, I have jumped at the debate since I wanted to join it before someone else does. Thus, Con was unlikely to have enough time to revise or edit the debate. So no conduct points should be taken for this reason.Allow me to slightly rephrase the definitions: Orientation: A person's feelings, interests, and beliefs Homosexual Orientation: The state of being sexually attracted to individuals of the same sex Homosexuals: Individuals who identify based on participation or willingness to participate in homosexual behavior I believe that the definitions are both sound and reasonable.1- Lack of equalityBy that, I mean between homosexuality and heterosexuality.Defining heterosexuality as a mere sexual conduct between members of the opposite sex would be suppressing a fundamental truth about being human. Human beings (with the exception of those with medical conditions like hermaphrodite) are either males or females with their respective sexual organs. Any sexual desire or feeling is rooted in that heterosexual design. Therefore, heterosexuality is also an objective physical reality.For homosexuality to be equal to heterosexuality, homosexuals must have their own comparable psychology or gender.Thus, members of a sexual orientation are individuals, who are immutably biologically heterosexual, who prefer to engage in a particular sexual activity.If you are talking in the context of orientation, then sure, perhaps they are equal. However, so are pedophiles and every single sexual orientation you can think of. Abstract thoughts have no significance to other people unless they are turned into actions. Subjective states of mind are potentially subject to change, and they do not necessarily represent a person's behavior. Thus, it is meaningless and illogical to judge from the context of orientation rather than behavior.Is there a biological reason for desires and orientation? Possibly. Is it mainly nature or nurture? We don't know. I could argue that there is no concrete and solid evidence over the hypothesis that homosexuals are \"born this way\", however the issue is irrelevant. Unless a severe mental illness is involved, people are responsible for their conscious actions regardless of desire; a murderer or a pedophile cannot use biology as a justification for their behavior. Participating in sex, like homosexuality, is a conscious and voluntary behavior unless rape is involved.This point does not attack the morality of homosexuality. However, it demonstrates that homosexuality is not inherently equal to heterosexuality, thus there is no logical basis behind legalizing homosexual marriage because heterosexual marriage is legalized.2- Legalizing homosexual marriage is irrationalMany reasons can be attributed for the existence of marriage in history, like preserving family name and power, managing inheritance and property, forging alliances, and so forth. In the context of this argument, I shall only be talking about marriage legally.Marriage is not simply a private contract between two people where these two individuals declare their undying love. The contract is recognized and protected by the state which also provides benefits.http://www.law.cornell.edu...As public law involving citizens and the government, benefits are given as an encouragement. However, this implies that the government should encourage people to engage in homosexual relationships or something relating to it.Homosexual marriage is not logical since it does not provide any favourable social function what so ever for the government to recognize it, reward it, and support it. Thus, effectively wasting tax money.Sexual relationship are a private act. Neither the government or the people regulate consensual acts that does not directly harm the individuals or society. And since homosexual behavior is just that at best, the government have no reason to recognize or support it. However, I believe it is not disputable that heterosexual relationships are required for societies to sustain, or provide healthy and productive citizens and tax payers for society and the government.Note that marriage is not needed for adoption as a single parent can do it. Homosexual couples have no unique positive social impact that is exclusive to them. Thus, homosexual marriage is simply needlessly and wastefully rewarding a private cultural behavior with no real social impact.Also, love is irrelevant to the law, it simply does not care about it. You want to love? Nobody is stopping you. People are free to love their friends, families, and partners in a romantic or non-romantic way. However, there is no check-box that says \"In love\" in any official document. Historically, love was rarely if ever, a significant reason for marriageAlthough not really a main point, homosexuals generally use higher risk sexual behaviors, Consequently, this resulted in increase of STD rates.http://www.cdc.gov...Monopolization of HIV infection diagnosis in 2011 is an other indication. Male-to-male sexual contact (78.2%), Male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use (3.6%)www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/statistics_surveillance_MSM.pdfAlongside accounting for 75% of syphilis diagnosis in 2012. (related to the first cdc source)http://www.cdc.gov...This is alarming considering that the adult population of the LGBT community in the united states is estimated to be about 3.5% of the total population.http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu...This (medical risk) doesn't necessarily provide a justification to advocate against homosexuality per se. However, it provide valid grounds for the government to at least NOT endorse homosexuality. There is a difference between encouraging something and allowing it.All in all, with lack of social advantages and weighting disadvantages, the government and society have no need to support homosexual marriage.", "qid": "14", "docid": "7856cf0a-2019-04-18T16:22:32Z-00002-000", "rank": 83, "score": 111408.0}, {"content": "Title: Homosexuality Is Immoral! Content: I will start of by talking about why homosexuality is okay , my argument will be kept simple . Homosexuality occurs in hundreds of animal species (natural-that which occurs in nature) , It is undeniably natural . Of course there is no single gene responsible for homosexuality , something as complicated as sexual orientation is going to involve a lot of genes and the environment too what I mean by the environment is that what happens when the fetus was exposed to while in the mother\u2019s womb can significantly affect its development and may influence behavior later on in life . The environment can cause a lot of things for example brains to be wired in a certain way as it develops now this wiring can\u2019t be changed easily at all . Many twin studies of homosexuality have shown very interesting results that identical twins are about twice as likely to both be gay compared to fraternal twins , what does this mean well this could mean that being gay is partly genetic and not simply something that a person learns or chooses to be. There is one important thing to note, though . It is not completely genetic because If the DNA sequence is the only thing determining whether someone is gay or not wouldn't we expect that if one identical twin were gay, then the other would be too 100% of the time ? . the rate is actually closer to 50% . So while we know that genetics are involved we must understand that they doesn\u2019t tell us the whole story now this is of course where the environment comes in. A big part of who we are seems to come from what happened while we were in the womb. When scientists looked at large families they saw that men with a lot of older brothers were more likely to be gay interesting huh? this was true even when the brothers were raised apart from each other so it simply is not something to do with the family situation.Something biological must be going on now let me explain scientists aren\u2019t exactly sure what it is but there are possible explanations and different theories one is that having all those boys somehow changed the environment in mom\u2019s womb. Now the next boys were more likely to end up with brains wired so they were attracted to other boys.Maybe when a mother is pregnant with a boy, her body makes a different set of chemicals and molecules than when she is pregnant with a girl seems quite logical right?each time she gets pregnant with a boy, this \u201cchemical memory\u201d might simply get stronger, and somehow affect his brain development. Now this altered brain development then could influence the child\u2019s sexual orientation. Rebuttals - According to the http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... Morality is defined as 'Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour:' and Immoral as 'Not conforming to accepted standards of morality: ' My opponent makes the claim that '2.All sexual activity that is rational is done for reproduction' I have to disagree many humans and animals have sex for pleasure and not for reproduction for example sex plays a very important role in bonobo society. It is used as a greeting, as a means of conflict resolution, and a host of other important social gestures. They are relatively indiscriminate about their pairings . One indication that animals enjoy sexual activity is the act of masturbation. '4. Rational means justified, or within the boundaries of reason. It is such that anything which is rational must be reasonable and explainable, it would not be something which is unjustifiable. In example one cannot justify raping a four year old because of lust, for the action was irrational, that is the opposite of rational.' Rape is natural yes but it is moral because it is not between two consenting adults . Homosexuality on the other hand is between two consenting adults . Lust? You mean sexual attraction . '1. Reproduction here entails the engagement of an act with a sexual will such that if the will is carried out completely, and is rational then there should be a direct result of pregnancy and child-birth. Reproduction here means that your sexual activities should, if there is no unexpected problem, lead to child birth. ' My opponent makes the assumption that all sexual activity must lead to reproduction which is false sex has many benefits for example it can improve physical and mental health as I already explained reproduction is not the only reason people and animals have sex and it doesn't mean homosexuality is unatural . I will not address the 'The Theological Proof:' as my opponent himself has said that 'This proof is meant for those who do not believe in evolution but believe in God.' The Evolutionary Argument - My opponent assumes that humans are I don't know how but apparently outside the confines of nature: Humans are products of nature, and therefore they cannot go against it . That which occurs in nature is natural . Here is just one example of how homosexuality can be benefitical http://link.springer.com...; . Homosexuality might be a method of population controll in nature and has reproductive benefits It does not go against evolution .", "qid": "14", "docid": "a4b5e5a1-2019-04-18T16:12:40Z-00005-000", "rank": 84, "score": 111242.0}, {"content": "Title: Jesus Christ loves gays equally as much as straights. Content: Hello there my friend. This is my first debate in a year, so I'm excited to debate this. First off, I would like to state I'm an atheist, so I have a lack of belief in god or gods. Second: Yes sexual orientation is static, your gender (whether your gay or straight or bi) is what your born with. Also, Jesus Christ, whether or not he existed, didn't ever, once, say anything about homosexuality in the bible. However isn't Jesus not only the Son of God, but God himself? I end my opening statements: Good luck!", "qid": "14", "docid": "f15d0350-2019-04-18T12:57:04Z-00004-000", "rank": 85, "score": 111052.0}, {"content": "Title: The relevance of causes of sexual orientation to policy is dubious Content: \"Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Relationships in the United States : A social science perspective.\" American Psychologist. 2006 \"The relevance of this question to policy is dubious because homosexuality is neither an illness nor a disability, and the mental health professions do not regard a homosexual or bisexual orientation as harmful, undesirable, or requiring intervention or prevention.\"", "qid": "14", "docid": "8de3af5b-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00044-000", "rank": 86, "score": 110850.0}, {"content": "Title: Gay marriage should remain illegal everywhere Content: In Response to the Rebuttal of Sexual Orientation and Parenting EffectsAlthough both parties in this debate have discussed matters not specifically related to the \u201clegal contract that recognizes the two as together,\u201d I must remind my opponent that such arguments should at least be supported with evidence if they are to continue to be discussed.My opponent gave no evidence to support the claim that a man, or two men, cannot adequately provide (in an emotional sense) support for the teenage girl. I will return to my previous statements based on research by the American Psychological Association regarding same-sex couple parenting: \u201cThere is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation: lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children.\u201dIn response to, \u201cEven a gay woman would be inferior to a straight woman in this sense:\u201d I must note that just because a gay woman may not be able to relate in a sexual oriented way to the child, this does not necessarily mean that the woman cannot relate to the child, even in an emotional sense.In Response to the Rebuttal of \u201cDenied Health Benefits of Same-Sex Couples\u201d\u201cRelative to your self-actualisation argument, a girl raised both two gay men may not reach her potential due to the two being unable to understand and address her emotional needs.\u201d I definitely refute the basis of the rebuttal presented.Abraham Maslow mentioned the following regarding self-actualization: \u201cintrinsic growth of what is already in the organism, or more accurately of what is the organism itself...self-actualization is growth-motivated rather than deficiency-motivated\u201d [3]. With this in mind, I must say that even if gay parents could not meet the \u201cemotional needs\u201d of the child, the child would most likely not be affected when it comes to self-actualization. My original argument regarding this actually did not contain any mention of Maslow\u2019s Hierarchy of Needs in relation to children. The argument was guided toward a person who is engaged in a marriage: They would feel more self-worth. Only my first argument was directed specifically toward children, not this one.Legalizing Gay Marriage Would NOT Harm Traditional Family Values or Heterosexual MarriagesA question meant to imply a rhetorical response should not be the basis of such an argument. My opponent has given no evidence that new laws which make gay marriage legal would negatively affect the traditional view of marriage. It is not \u201cbasically saying that the old concept of marriage was wrong.\u201d Governments legalizing gay marriage are not doing so to prove that an old model is flawed; they are doing it to provide more rights for a minority within the country.I agree with my opponent that increasing divorce rates are alarming. However, the legalization of gay marriage does not necessarily add to the increasingly bad divorce rate. \u201cSocial Science Quarterly found that \"[l]aws permitting same-sex marriage or civil unions have no adverse effect on marriage\u201d [4]. In fact, Massachusetts has one of the lowest divorce rates. Massachusetts allows same-sex marriage. In Massachusetts, divorce rates have decreased 21% between 2003 and 2008. In addition, Alaska, who altered their constitution to prohibit gay marriage, have seen an increase in divorce rates of 17.2% [5]. \u201cThe seven states with the highest divorce rates between 2003 and 2008 all had constitutional prohibitions to gay marriage\u201d [4]. These statistics do not directly correlate with the legalization or non-legalization of gay marriage, but the statistics strongly appear to resemble a correlation when it comes to the legalization of gay marriage, or the ban of it.In Relation to the \u201cWeakening of Traditional Family Values\u201d\u201cAllowing a new type of marriage would encourage people to turn from the traditional marriage [\u2026] during the Great Depression, men would be trying to find a job whilst the woman stayed home to attend house-duties.\u201d I must remind my opponent that we currently reside in the 21st century where views of this system are not exactly intact anymore. Obvious trends show that people are already turning away from the traditional system of \u201cWoman stays home to clean, man goes out to work.\u201d Furthermore, current movements toward gay marriage are merely contributing the new way we even think about marriage. Keep in mind though, gay marriage is not the only contributor to \u201cchanging ways:\u201d Take interracial marriage as one example.Work Cited[3] Maslow, 1987.[4] http://gaymarriage.procon.org.... Point 11.[5] Nate Silver, \"Divorce Rates Higher in States with Gay Marriage Bans,\" www.fivethirtyeight.com, Jan. 12, 2010.", "qid": "14", "docid": "c0c5573d-2019-04-18T18:29:27Z-00003-000", "rank": 87, "score": 110737.0}, {"content": "Title: Hand orientation is justification for genetic engineering of gender Content: 1. Assuming Genetics works the way my opponent says it does: No answer=Psy gangem style defeat 2. Mutations and sexual reproduction Answer? Daily Double 3.Mutations on the Sexual Chromosomes Argument really not answered 4.Any population inequality would be easily fixed. Argument not answered :) 5.Male and Female ratio in general isn't really based on genetics. Argument not answered :) My opponent has failed to meet his BOP :) Therefore he is the weakest link goodbye :)", "qid": "14", "docid": "3105a1da-2019-04-18T17:59:10Z-00000-000", "rank": 88, "score": 110504.0}, {"content": "Title: Almost irrefutably, Asexuality exists Content: minus conduct points to con. I said no arguments in round 1. Numerous surveys were conducted interviewing asexuals. About 1% of the population are asexuals. Asexuality is actually now accepted as a sexual orientation in the scientific community. https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Asexuality#cite_note-Helm-2These people truly truly don't want sex. Some have even had sex, Been married for years, And at the end after 40 years still say that sex was nasty. Is it a mental illnesss? Is something wrong with their brain? I don't know. But asexuality does exist. https://www. Huffingtonpost. Com/entry/electrified-and-numb_us_58d018ace4b0e0d348b34624", "qid": "14", "docid": "d616d15d-2019-04-18T11:16:22Z-00005-000", "rank": 89, "score": 109857.0}, {"content": "Title: Sexuality is a Choice Content: \"Please reproduce IN FULL where I have EVER said that sexuality is a choice. I NEVER have. \" Well I understood that you had, and by accepting this challenge you have agreed to debate from that position. \"Homosexuality (which is a misnomer as people of the same sex cannot breed which is what sexuality refers to) is a choice. \" Sexual orientation is not dependent upon reproduction. All you have done is to reiterate without defence your position, that you are claiming that homosexual desires arise from a deliberate choice. Is this consistent with any experience, logic or facts. \"ANY sexual act is a choice\" This is irrelevant to the debate as we are not discussing acts but feelings. \"Unless my opponent can show that I HAVE argued that sexuality is a choice he does not EVEN have a challenge, let alone an argument. \" No, by accepting this challenge you have agreed to argue that sexuality is a choice, it is now irrelevant whether or not you have actually argued this previously. You could have asked for the terms of the debate to be changed, but you accepted them. In conclusion my oppoent has failed to argue for the Pro position and is in fact distancing himself from these views. Thus my opponents position is negated. Thank you.", "qid": "14", "docid": "7fc54c65-2019-04-18T19:18:40Z-00003-000", "rank": 90, "score": 109668.0}, {"content": "Title: Nurture versus Nature (BOP is equally shared) Content: Sexuality is not gender. You are being stupid with that rebuttal., I know you are born with a gender but I think your sexuality is not inherited, I think you gain it as you grow, so I neither hold the view of it being born with you nor the religious view of it being a choice. I think it is your childhood experiences of male and female humans that shapes your sexuality, if you find females to be more appealing, you will be attracted to females, if you grow up with very appealing males and barely see attractive females I am pretty sure you'd grow to be gay. Additionally, as I said in the last round, if you grew up amongst wolves, you'd be sexually attracted to wolves, humans would seem like an alien species to you since you consider yourself to have the sexuality of a wolf due to your environment (nurture versus nature).Sexuality: a person\u2019s sexual orientation or preference.[1]Your IQ argument is ridiculous. DO you think that children in the impoverished regions of this Earth have a high IQ? Of course not. All poor starving children will grow to be relatively unintelligent adults do you wish to know the reason why? If your brain is starved of nutrients as it grows, it will not turn out to have a high IQ. Additionally, exposure to omega 3,6 and 9 (all present in fish) largely affect IQ. This is ironically why even in poor regions of India, because so much of India eats fish in its curries, as do the Japanese, these countries generally produce individuals with jobs requiring high IQ (such as doctors, engineers and computer technicians). Environment is far more influential than genetics on IQ. The reasoning behind adopted babies having different IQ to each other is also relatively simple to explain. Two children brought up in the same household would still have had to have different in childhood. If one child befriended a smart child at school (smart for reasons of their upbringing) they would naturally compete to become smart, if the other grew up befriending less intelligent friends they would possibly dumb down to fit in. This is a common psychological trick of conformity. You will almost always adapt your IQ to fit that of your friends in the area in which you grew up. It isn't about genetics, it's about the urge to relate to them. If you grow up befriending the group of kids who are raised by rich 'upper class' parents then you will constantly debate as children and understand the concepts of economic success and why grades matter, thus causing you to have an in-built urge to study. As for the other sibling, they probably had a natural urge to befriend other types of people (yes this would be genetic) but apart form the natural tendency to befriend a type of people, they would have then adapted their IQ to that group of friends, often siblings don't like to befriend the same types of friends for the simple reason of competitiveness and rivalry. So if the older sibling befriended nerds, the younger child would hate to for simple rivalry. As for why the full siblings had similar IQ this is because they most likely had the natural urge to befriend the same type of people, but in the end that is not true for all siblings, not all biological siblings have same IQ, neither do all adoptive ones have differing IQ there are too many variables to draw conclusions from this.The tendency to alcoholism is also simple to explain, genes do not affect alcoholism. If they did, why is there a lot of straight-edge children of alcoholics? Because despite inheriting genes from an alcoholic father, they were environmentally affected to despise alcohol.Sources:[1] http://oxforddictionaries.com...", "qid": "14", "docid": "2c397b27-2019-04-18T18:05:05Z-00005-000", "rank": 91, "score": 109503.0}, {"content": "Title: Sexual orientation Content: I am grateful that you respect my opinion as I do yours. Hopefully our differences won't affect that. My point is that homosexuality is not normal. My biggest problem is with the gay agenda. I don't believe it should be promoted as a normal life style. Because it clearly is not. Having said that does not mean anyone should be denied the right to love whom they want as long as it is \"mutual\". But there are consequences when we try to normalize something that is primarily based on an abnormal sexual preference. In the case of same sex interaction you cannot have offspring. When it comes to marriage the argument is why can't I legally marry the one I love. I submit that the reason that the state got involved with marriage in the first place was because of offspring. It's a contract between a man and a woman that puts children first and their love secondary. And it is my opinion (but not just mine) children need a mother and a father. If you are gay maybe you cannot see that. Yes gay couples are capable of loving children too. But the need for a mother and a father trump that argument. Also the sexual nature of that kind of union is not healthy for nurturing children. In their attempt to normalize Homosexuality the gay agenda has forced it's belief on The Boy Scouts of America. Something I feel was completely unnecessary. It's supposed to be a free country. The idea that their political motivation was more important than preserving the values that the scouts held is indicative of who they are. To be clear, I am talking about the those that belong to the gay organizations that promote these political ideals. To me this just strengthens my belief that homosexuality should not be treated as normal.", "qid": "14", "docid": "13176601-2019-04-18T17:19:14Z-00001-000", "rank": 92, "score": 108648.0}, {"content": "Title: Sexuality should not be a part of the Olympics Content: Sexuality and sexual orientation was already an issue in athletic competition. The lines of sexuality and gender are blurred beyond recognizing only male and female variations of people with different sexual orientation preferences; especially because of transgender and transsexual people, which are ideas that your position and case might also compatible with, however, the \"rule-book\" would still have to be rewritten to make exceptions for a sports competition like the Olympics as gender and sexuality are clearly defined to keep competition fair and prevent cheating. It becomes an acute issue in athletic Olympic competition in cases where the female-male barrier is breached; allowing people with male bodies to compete with other athletes who have true female bodies and vice-versa. Also brings up the issue of Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) for transsexuals, specifically, Testosterone Replacement Therapy (TRT). Recent examples from Mixed-martial Arts (MMA) can be used to corroborate these kinds of ideas as they recently adopted Olympic style and level drug testing but have exceptions for TRT. But then to try to graft these ideas onto a practical real world dilemma, like you have done for the Olympics, makes for a very fun and interesting case because it becomes hard to tie these ideas down even though it becomes necessary. Example for the Olympics: A transgender person who has female neurology (has a female brain) but has a male body would have to compete against men considering how she is/was born. Technically she is a girl but has male parts, therefore, would have to compete against men. But because she has a female brain, her male body didn't develop to be masculine and would qualify for (HRT) which would then break the banned substance policies. And if she is truly a female with a male body, should she be allowed to compete against other females (her testicles don't produce much testosterone but certainly more than other true female athletes with female bodies) etc. ? Which still violates the current rules for the Olympics (which if you're for amending then that isn't exactly neutral). Well, then you might want to say, \"Hey, a transsexual isn't a homosexual..\" right? --True, but there are combinations of all of the above mentioned; a transsexual-gay person for example (they really exist), etc. So I don't think Pro can remain purely \"neutral\" on the topic, because either way, it becomes an issue -- it was already one in competitive athletics before the Russian debacle. So my personal feeling on this one is that everyone is wrong because we are still collecting data and details.", "qid": "14", "docid": "d50d45f1-2019-04-18T17:04:35Z-00002-000", "rank": 93, "score": 108598.0}, {"content": "Title: Sexuality is a Mental Defect Content: The matter of sexuality boils down to the base argument of birth trait versus choice. I propose that sexuality is in fact a birth trait, and that it is a mental defect that can be linked to other mental conditions. The evolutionary purpose of sex is for reproduction. It is said humans developed their pleasure for it in order to have a year-round mating season, thus allowing more reproduction. Any form of sex that does not lead to reproduction is for pleasure, and therefor an evolutionary defect that is present in all humans. Homosexual incidents have been recorded in several animal species that do not gain pleasure from sex. This statement removes the idea that sexuality is driven from our pleasure of sex.", "qid": "14", "docid": "e843d75f-2019-04-18T15:06:07Z-00007-000", "rank": 94, "score": 108311.0}, {"content": "Title: Being gay is NOT a sin Content: For future arguments, kindly try to break up your paragraphs a little more. I can have trouble reading it compounded into one body. Thank you.The idea of a sexual orientation (in rome for this part, as that is what paul spent most of his time addressing) was relatively unnecessary. People could have sex with anyone lower in class than them regardless of anything and it was common practice, not just in pegan rituals. Rome was in general messed up. In rome, most marriages were simply for the sake of social standing, where as sex and even love was often put apon their slaves.Basically in Rome, there was no need for the idea of homosexuality and the Jews saw it more as an act.The sins regarding sexual relations in general are mentioned within the new testement, sins that also still apply and are categorized similerly include; Having sexual relations with your mother, having sexual relations with animals, with your siblings, and your family's partners.None of this is shown to only apply to religious sex, but rather is considered a defilement of creation. Notice the use of words when bibliclly such acts are refurred to, you see things such as \"perversion\" or \"detestable\". I see this as showing it more in the spirt of twisting good then worshiping idols, unlike some other old testament rules like the one against tattoos.The relationship between David and Jonathan was of strong friendship not romantic love. Romantic love and friendship love are both different in nature, and can be just as strong.I am comparing consensual love between two human beings to bestiality. The reason for this is because they are similar in nature as sins, both being considered a perversion of sex. I know many people do not like the two being compared but it fits quite well.I see no need for attraction in a romanitic relationship, yet regardless the attraction itself does not require action. I see dating rather as a way of making sure the other person is a good fit with you before making a commitment as big as being willing to love someone.I hope I properly addressed your points, as I may of missed much in A2 in particular, and tend to panic somewhat when the timer goes below 24 hours.", "qid": "14", "docid": "c601432-2019-04-18T12:02:38Z-00001-000", "rank": 95, "score": 108308.0}, {"content": "Title: IVF Debate Content: According to the article from http://www.lajollaivf.com......, \"Anyone can Have a Baby\". IVF gives a chance for anyone to have a baby regardless of family status or sexual orientation. Nowadays, single women, men, gay and lesbian couples can have children. People who have infertility issues can have babies. Women with missing, damaged, or blocked fallopian tubes can carry successful IVFs. Men too can have issues with fertility, according to the article, they can have an \"intracyctoplasmic sperm injection\" (ICSI), to extract a single sperm and inject it into the egg\"s cytoplasm. IVF can increase chances of conception. Many couples choose in vitro fertilization because it helps them conceive more quickly. IVF increases the chances of having a healthy pregnancy and child. In the article, \"Pre-Implantation Genetic Diagnosis\" it allows couples to identify any chromosome deficiencies before it is implanted into the uterus. People can control when they can have the baby. This is because couples don\"t need to try to get pregnant naturally. IVF gives couples control over when they could be pregnant and when it will be born.", "qid": "14", "docid": "6674470e-2019-04-18T14:59:18Z-00009-000", "rank": 96, "score": 108108.0}, {"content": "Title: Gender Identity is determined primarily by nurture, rather than nature. Content: The report done by the Innovation Group? It was a poll of less than 1000 people. And the questions they used to determine their numbers? They asked less about a person's sexual standpoint than what they saw about current trends. One such question: \"Gender doesn't define a person as much as it used to\". Or how about: \"People are exploring their gender identity/sexuality more than in the past.\" A more reliable survey would be the National Survey of Family Growth conducted by the CDC in 2006, where they found that 95% of Americans identified themselves as exclusively heterosexual. Now although this number probably isn't proportional to teen statistics, it is clear proof that the numbers provided by the J Walter Thompson innovation group are incorrect. But why are we wasting time talking about sexual orientation? This debate is about gender identity.The problem with this concept of gender identity is that it promotes the idea that you are what you feel, and that you can be anything you think you are. But just because you think you are something doesn't mean you are that thing. Like a very popular meme says, can I sexually identify as an attack helicopter? The studies that say that your nurturing and upbringing determine what you think you are, ARE TRUE! If you are brought up thinking you are a dog, you will think you are a dog. But are you a dog? No! (Assuming you're a human reading this). Now, assuming gender is flexible, why can't racial identity be a thing? Can I change my ethnicity just because I think I'm of another ethnicity? No, race is not exclusive of nature. In the same way, gender is not exclusive of nature.Just to be clear, if your debating statement is equivalent to this statement, \"What you think is determined by nurture rather than nature,\" then there is no debate. You say gender identity is about \"a person's perception\", so is the statement I just gave the same as your statement? Otherwise I am making a case against gender being separated from one's sex.", "qid": "14", "docid": "4855ee40-2019-04-18T11:58:57Z-00001-000", "rank": 97, "score": 108030.0}, {"content": "Title: Businesses should have the right to refuse service to people because of sexual orientation (USA) Content: Discrimination towards anyone in a public place is a violation of civil rights. A business that isn't involved with a religion is open to the public because the business is not a religiously oriented organization therefore you cannot justify discrimination on the basis of religion. I however do believe that churches should not have to do gay marriage because the churches are religious places and the government forcing them to clash with their religiously would be a violation of the first amendment (freedom of religion).", "qid": "14", "docid": "5cb36f7e-2019-04-18T15:03:42Z-00004-000", "rank": 98, "score": 107866.0}, {"content": "Title: Being gay is a not a choice! Content: Theories of causation for homosexuality have shifted dramatically in the past 100 years. Early psychologists believed that early childhood trauma caused homosexual feelings to develop. Specifically, Freud proposed that a weak father and an overbearing mother caused a person to \"stall\" in the phallic stage of childhood development. Subsequent studies have shown there is no association between any parenting style or early childhood experiences that leads to homosexuality. According to the American Psychiatric Association No specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of childhood sexual abuse. Sexual abuse does not appear to be more prevalent in children who grow up to identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, than in children who identify as heterosexual. Rather, all of the peer-reviewed literature is converging on the opinion that sexual orientation has a strongly genetic causation. This is not meant to imply that sexual orientation is completely determined by genes. It seems there is a complex interaction between biology and the environment to produce sexual orientation. In insects, same-gender sexual mating is induced from altering genes alone, thus indicating a 100% biological causatoin for sexual orientation in simple species. For lower mammals, like rats, same-sex mating behaviors will occur simply by putting a female \"smell\" on a male rat. \"Lesbian\" and \"gay\" rats, guinea pigs, sheep, zebra finches (just after hatching) and monkeys can be produced simply by altering prenatal androgen levels (natural hormones that bathe the fetus in utero) in the mother, in a process called behavioral defeminization and behavioral demasculinization. It is currently believed that In vertebrate model systems, a single [prenatal] factor-the steroid hormone testosterone-accounts for most, and perhaps all, of the known sex differences in neural structure and behavior. . . . Events triggered by testosterone masculinize the developing and adult nervous system, [to] promote male behaviors and suppress female behaviors. In the animal kingdom, same-sex mating, including life-time pairing, is not uncommon, presumably caused by mechanisms such as these. Hundreds of zoological studies have found evidence of such pairings in the wild, including, for example, the widely publicized \"gay\" penguins in both the New York and Berlin zoos. In humans, socialization makes the development of sexual orientation much more complex. However, the prenatal biological process is identical. While, in most instances, sexual development of the body and the brain occurs without discrepancy, in some instances prenatal androgen levels change in the middle of this process, causing a dichotomy in the affected individual. For example, in congenital adrenal hyperplasia, the early process of physical sexualization takes place as expected in the female. However, later in development, the adrenal glands begin producing excess testosterone, causing the brain to become masculinized. Almost half of this population become homosexual or bisexual. It is believed that similar processes are the cause of homosexuality in the general population. While the pro-amendment testimony is correct, that \"there are no replicated studies proving that homosexuality is caused by biological factors,\" there is also no disagreement at this point in the medical, psychological and biological communities that biology is a crucial dimension to the process of human homosexuality, just as it is the sole cause of homosexuality in all lower species. There are no peer-reviewed studies that any longer explore purely, or even mostly, psychological causes for homosexuality in humans. The convergence of many decades of research, as well as theory, all point to, by far, biology as a primary factor in human sexual orientation. While we know that biological factors do not act as the sole cause of homosexuality, it is accepted as the primary cause. While many studies support this idea, there are no current studies that contradict this belief.", "qid": "14", "docid": "48a90be2-2019-04-18T19:16:29Z-00009-000", "rank": 99, "score": 107692.0}, {"content": "Title: Keep Gay Marriage Illegal Content: Okay I am going to introduce my points for Same-Sex marriage. C1: Social Equality ------Genetics My opponent has said: \"As for evolutionary role, everything in human behavior has roots in evolution.\" So my opponent says that sexual orientation is decided by genetics. ------Marriage benefits Marriage provides several advantages than being banned marriage. These include pensions, tax breaks, insurance coverage, social recognition, and better financial benefits. Why should gays/ lesbians be denied from this institution based soley on their sexuality? It's akin to the Jim Crow laws which denied African Americans the right to vote before the 1960s. ------Civil Rights and Constitutionality Marriage has been concluded to be a basic civil right of man, and also concluded to be fundamental in our survival as a species. This was determined in Loving v. Virginia. Gay and lesbians should not be denied a fundamental human right when the cause is genetic like my opponent said. [1] The result of the above case is from the Constitution. If marriage should be managed by the states, than it must be extended to them as well. This is because of the 14th amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. Since my opponent and I have agreed that homosexuality is genetic and therefore not \"chosen\", this is due process, and because of the Equal Protection clause, a ban on gay marriage violates the Constitution. Therefore, SSM is Constitutional, and fulfills equal and excellent Civil Rights for all, instead of a few. C2: Gay Marriage Harms/ Gains John Stuart Mill has proposed a major philosophical principle: called the harm principle. Mill says: \" The actions of individuals should only be limited to prevent harm to other individuals.\" [2] So, if gay marriage is not more harmful than beneficial, it should be legal. Rebuttals to \"harms\" My opponent has basically summed up his whole case as this: \"Science shows us this reason is to help take care of nieces and nephews rather than having kids of their own.\" My opponent also voiced a concern on overpopulation. However, the world population is expected to decline after 2070, [3] and in the USA birth rates are already falling, and has been for a while. [4] Your source also shows that the kind of people there that act as \"super uncles\" is common because of the Samoa culture of close families and tight-knit communities instead of the USA's culture of my individualism. My opponent also has lacked to provide a source that gay marriage would lead to a lack of helping nieces and nephews by homosexual Uncles and Aunts. Gains From Gay Marriage Gay marriage leads to a range of different benefits: 1) Social recognition leading to stronger relationships with more meaning and status. 2) Gay marriage legalization would entitle homosexual couples equal financial benefits with heterosexual couples. This would be beneficial to the marriages, as well as local communities and the nation. Billions and more would be put in the economy. [5] 3) Helps children. Currently about a million children live in a household with homosexual parents. They are not harmed, as I will show soon, but if gay marriage was allowed, with all of the protections and benefits that come with Gay marriage legalization, many children would be helped as well. Would take many children out of adoption system. 4) Gay and lesbian parents are just as good as heterosexual parents. Numerous amonts of studies have proved this to be true, that children thrive equally under heterosexual and homosexual parents. [6] [7] [8] [9] Conclusion: Marriage is a fundamental human right. Under the Constitution, gay marriage should be legal. It comes with many social, economic, and psychological advantages, to all people. Plus, many more children would be helped with gay marriage being recognized. VOTE CONtra Sources: [1] http://law2.umkc.edu... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://abcnews.go.com... [4] http://www.google.com... [5] http://www.cbo.gov... [6] http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [7] http://latimesblogs.latimes.com... [8] http://www.time.com... [9] http://www.livescience.com...", "qid": "14", "docid": "4133a673-2019-04-18T18:27:16Z-00005-000", "rank": 100, "score": 107481.0}]}
{"query": "Should animals be used for scientific or commercial testing?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: Animals Should Be Used For Scientific or Commercial Testing. Content: No,the debate is not only about ethics. All arguments are accepted because we want to reach a conclusion and we cannot take into consideration only the ethical side. Of course,we will talk about morality as the main reason why people oppose to animal testing is because they think that it is not right to use innocent animals to test drugs and other substances. Ok, to start with, I would like to mention what animal testing offers*: Improving the health and well-being of people. Improving the health and welfare of entertainment, recreational, sport, and service animals, and of animals used to provide therapeutic support. Improving the health, welfare and productivity of farm animals and other production animals Finding better ways to preserve, protect and manage a range of animal species (especially endangered and native animals) to maintain a balance that is ecologically stable and well adapted to the Australian environment. Developing more humane and effective pest control methods to protect endangered animals and plants from the species that threatens them and to prevent damage to the environment. Broadening the foundations of biological science,including our knowledge and understanding of life processes in all animal species. I think that we should use animals for scientific or commercial testing because: 1)Animal testing has contributed to many life-saving cures and treatments: The California Biomedical Research Association states that nearly every medical breakthrough in the last 100 years has resulted directly from research using animals. [1] Experiments in which dogs had their pancreases removed led directly to the discovery of insulin, critical to saving the lives of diabetics. The polio vaccine, tested on animals, reduced the global occurrence of the disease from 350,000 cases in 1988 to 223 cases in 2012. \"Without animal research polio would still be claiming thousands of lives each year\",said Albert Sabin,developer of the Polio vaccine. Animal research has also contributed to major advances in understanding and treating conditions such as breast cancer, brain injury,childhood leukemia, cystic fibrosis, malaria, multiple sclerosis, tuberculosis,and many others, and was instrumental in the development of pacemakers, cardiac valve substitutes,and anesthetics. Chris Abee,Director of the University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center's animal research facility,states that \"we wouldn't have a vaccine for hepatitis B without chimpanzees,\"and says that the use of chimps is\"our best hope\" for finding a vaccine for Hepatitis C,a disease that kills 15,000 people every year in the United States. [2]2)There is no adequate alternative to testing on a living, whole-body system: Whenever possible,researchers do use non-animal models for research. Computer models, tissue and cell cultures,and a number of other non-animal related research methods are used today in biomedical research. However, animal testing remains a necessity. For example, blindness cannot be studied in bacteria and it is not possible to study the affects of high blood pressure in tissue cultures. The living system is extremely complex. The nervous system, blood and brain chemistry, gland and organ secretions, and immunological responses are all interrelated, making it impossible to explore,explain,or predict the course of diseases or the effects of possible treatments without observing and testing the entire living system of a living organism. In the meantime,scientists continue to look for ways to reduce the number of animals needed to obtain valid results,refine experimental techniques,and replace animals with other research methods whenever feasible. [1]3)Animals themselves benefit from the results of animal testing: The same methods that have been developed to prevent and treat diseases in human have improved thelives of countless animals. More than 80 medicines and vaccines developed for humans are now used totreat animals. Animal research has helped develop many animal vaccines to fight diseases such as rabiesand distemper in dogs and cats,feline leukemia,infectious hepatitis virus,tetanus,and has assisted in thedevelopment of treatments for heartworm. In addition,animal research has helped preserve nearly extinct species such as the California condor and the tamarins of Brazil due to new reproductive techniques being applied to endangered species[1]. The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) endorses animal testing. 4)Animal research is highly regulated, with laws in place to protect animals from mistreatment: In addition to local and state laws and guidelines, animal research has been regulated by the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA) since 1965. As well as stipulating minimum housing standards for research animals (enclosure size,temperature,access to clean food and water,and others),the AWA also requires regular inspections by veterinarians. All proposals to use animals for research must be approved by an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) set up by each research facility. Humane treatment is enforced by each facility's IACUC, and most major research institutions' programs are voluntarily reviewed for humane practices by the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International (AAALAC). All institutions receiving funding from the US Public Health Service(PHS)must comply with the PHS Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. [3]Furthermore, animal researchers treat animals humanely both for the animals' sake and to ensure reliable test results. Research animals are cared for by veterinarians, husbandry specialists, and animal health technicians to ensure their well-being and more accurate findings. According to the journal Nature Genetics, because \"stressed or crowded animals produce unreliable research results, and many phenotypes are only accessible in contented animals in enriched environments, it is in the best interests of the researchers not to cut corners or to neglect welfare issues. \"[7] 5)The vast majority of biologists and several of the largest biomedical and health organizations in the United States endorse animal testing: A 2011 poll of nearly 1,000 biomedical scientists conducted by the science journal Nature found that more than 90% \"agreed that the use of animals in research is essential. \"[4]The American Cancer Society, American Physiological Society,National Association for Biomedical Research,American Heart Association, and the Society of Toxicology all advocate the use of animals in scientific research.6)Relatively few animals are used in research, which is a small price to pay for advancing medical progress: People in the United States eat 9 billion chickens and 150 million cattle,pigs and sheep annually,yet we only use around 26 million animals for research,95% of which are rodents,birds and fish. We eat more than 1,800 times the number of pigs than the number used in research,and we consume more than 340 chickens for every research animal. [5]Household cats kill approximately 5 million animals every week in the UK-more than the total number of animals used in medical research every year. The UK consumes over 300 times more fish each year than the total number of all animals used in medical research every year[6] But why don't we use humans instead of animals? : This is something that almost of all us have questioned about. If we can use people instead of animals and have the same results why don't we try it? Some people believe that this is because we don't want to harm our species and we prefer to exploit animals as we are more powerful. But the answer is not that simple. First of all,animals have a shorter life circle than humans,so researchers can study the effects of treatments or genetic manipulation over a whole lifespan,or across several generations,which would be infeasible using human subjects. The more research that can be done in the shorter amount of time means that new drugs can be produced more rapidly. In addition,scientists can easily control the environment around animals(diet,temperature,lighting),which would be difficult to do with humans. Moreover,animal testing,particularly with rats and mice is very cheap in addition to testing with human beings who would probably need to be highly compensated. Finally,rats and mice breed very quickly which means that supplies can be replenished qickly. All the above contribute to a sucessful and effective research. Moreover,this claim is not right. Drugs are tested on humans,too. Animal experiments are not used to show that drugs are safe and effective in human beings. They cannot do that. Instead,they are used to help decide whether a particular drug should be tested on people. Animal experiments eliminate some potential drugs as either ineffective or too dangerous. If a drug passes the animal test it's tested on a small human group before large scale clinical trials. \"(primates) are used only when no alternative approach can provide the answers to questions about such conditions as Alzheimer's, stroke, Parkinson's, spinal injury, hormone disorders and vaccines for HIV\" Colin Blakemore,former CEO of the Medical Rsearch Council [6] SOURCES:*. http://www.adelaide.edu.au... [1]. http://ca-biomed.org...[2]http://www.khou.com... [3. http://www.aphis.usda.gov...[4]http://www.nature.com...[5]http://speakingofresearch.com...; [6]. http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk... [7]. http://www.nature.com...", "qid": "15", "docid": "3e6f0cf1-2019-04-18T16:00:16Z-00003-000", "rank": 1, "score": 222476.0}, {"content": "Title: Animals Should Be Used For Scientific or Commercial Testing. Content: I will argue that animals should not be used for scientific/commercial testing. I am rather on the fence on this topic myself so the results of the debate are of significant interest to me. I presume this will be a debate on ethics, correct me if not.", "qid": "15", "docid": "3e6f0cf1-2019-04-18T16:00:16Z-00004-000", "rank": 2, "score": 219017.0}, {"content": "Title: Animals Should Be Used For Scientific or Commercial Testing. Content: Thanks Pro. I. Plagiarism I don't have much to add on this, 95% of my opponent's previous round was copy pasted verbatim. I don't see such as acceptable behaviour, and most higher education institutions of state that text copied verbatim should at least have it enclosed in quotation marks and large quantities of such are discredited. One amusing thing to note is none of Pro's last round was plagiarised. Whether or not that is due to being 'called out' on her first round, or a kind fulfilment of my request is a matter of speculation. I'll leave voters to decide the rest as this is now non topical. II. Burden of Proof Please note this debate affirms two things: 1. Animal testing for pharmaceutical purposes 2. Animal testing for commercial purposes Remember, the burden of proof is on Pro, and she has yet to affirm the second contention, which is required for her to fulfil her burden of proof. Commercial purposes include food & cosmetics, and I made the assertion, and I maintain that these are simply not defensible. So immediately, Pro has clearly not done enough to win this debate. The defence of medical progress doesn't allow Pro to smuggle in the defence of commercial testing, even if her defence was valid and sound (and it's not). III. Animal Rights This is basically what the entire debate reduces down to. Pro has cited many reasons why the fruits of animal research has (at least pharmaceutically) benefitted us. I never denied this, the fruits of said research has positively impacted the well being of the human species. That much is obvious. That alone however does not affirm the resolution, that we SHOULD be using ANIMALS for this purpose. I have argued for a number of things so far: 1. By devaluing animal rights, we allow for the proliferation of negative rights 2. We value consent as a human right, and it is irrational to not expect this of animals 3. We have other, more ethical options, such as in vitro testing and human testing The most important one I will affirm is #1, and Pro's own sources back up my statements, with an already appalling treatment of livestock, with genocide levels of slaughters occurring on a weekly basis. This type of behaviour would not occur if we did not provide a special case for negative animal rights, when there is no rational reason to do in place of humans. Clear examples of this inconsistency are seen in laws and social acceptance regarding human cannibalism, beastiality, slavery and hunting. Pro has provided no reason why we should value Humans over animals, and I argue to do so is to commit the fallacy of special pleading. \"As I've already said, we don't conduct animal testing because we want to devalue animals' rights. Conrary, the fact that we have strict laws that protect animals' well-being, the fact that we use alternative research methods whenever possible and the fact that there is no other way to protect us and animals from viruses show the oppoiste! \" But there are other ways, and even if there were not, it would not make it ethical, and acceptable. Remarkably Pro follows up with the following statement: \"I never said that animals should be tortured and exploited because they are not as powerful as humans, but we ,firstly, have to think about our own species. We have to find a way to face some viruses so that we'll not be extinct. \" A few points: 1. The human species has existed for tens of thousands of years, and has yet to go extinct 2. No reasoning was provided to prioritise 'thinking of our own species', moreover why is human extinction such a bad thing? It just begs the question and assumes humans are intrinsically valuable. I argue that affirming such is absurd. Pro also appeals to the fact that animals kill each other, and would be brutal in our own shoes. My response is, so what? This is known as a \"tu torque fallacy\", and is irrelevant to this debate. Just because they would do it too doesn't make it right or just. Sheep will follow each other a cliff to their deaths, would it be right for us to do the same 'in their shoes'. Of course not! Pro fails to adequately address my points that we use humans in clinical trials anyway, so use of them in more stages is perfectly logical. Literally the only argument in Pro's (plagiarised) opening round that might carry some merit is that animals have a quicker life cycle. This is fine, but then we have a large population of humans to select from, so a high turnover rate is easily debunked by a large 'stock' of humans. There are almost certainly enough humans to do adequate testing upon, and they can also be bred for testing if absolutely needed, but we don't even need to go this far. Pro affirms that we do have good measures in place to minimise the need to use animals, to which I have the following points: Excellent, Pro affirms that animal testing is undesirable The fact that 'we're trying really hard' doesn't have any impact on the is/ought question that this debate addresses. The fact that we are trying our best to minimise homicides doesn't mean it's right for those homocides that do occur to take place. It is a red herring. Another point Pro makes is that medical research has improved the well being of some animals, to which I assert that the price paid in liberties is not compensated by a few animals not going extinct. In fact I fail to see why Pro values animals not going extinct, and I would argue that any animals that were saved from extinction where probably out in that position due to human influences anyway. IV. Conclusion In conclusion, I have affirmed two things: Animal Testing for commercial purposes is indefensible Animal testing for pharmaceutical purposes is unnecessary and immoral As such I hold that the resolution is negated.", "qid": "15", "docid": "3e6f0cf1-2019-04-18T16:00:16Z-00000-000", "rank": 3, "score": 213467.0}, {"content": "Title: Animals Should Be Used For Scientific or Commercial Testing. Content: I believe that animals should be used for scientific and commercial purposes( animal testing). Con must argue against.Acceptance first", "qid": "15", "docid": "3e6f0cf1-2019-04-18T16:00:16Z-00005-000", "rank": 4, "score": 211365.0}, {"content": "Title: Animals Should Be Used For Scientific or Commercial Testing. Content: OK, before I start rebuttling Con's arguments I have to make something clear! :I knew it would happen!! Firstly, do you think I am so naive that I would not think that you would found the website? It's the number 1 result when you google \"animal testing pros and cons\"and \"animal testing cons\", the number 2 result when you google \"animal testing pros\", and the number 8 result when you google\"animal testing advantages\". It was almost impossible for someone to mke a good research without visiting this site! This is why I gave you the sources!.. Every copied sentence is attached with the link of the site where it was first published! Since, I give the links and admit that these sentences have not been created by me I have no reason to paraphraze them!Secondly, I don't understand why this was such a great deal for you that you could not rebuttle at least one of the arguments I posted. Here are some sites that mention the debate rules- nowhere says that participants must come up with their own arguments. http://homepage.ntu.edu.tw...http://www.entsoc.org...Do you know why? Because the main purpose of debating is to defend your side well in order to persuade the audience! \"I don't like doing this, but it doesn't seem at all fair that sophisticated published arguments are pasted against myself. I could do exactly the same if I wanted and we would be left with a non-debate. It is not intellectually honest.\"In the first place, it IS fair and honest! A debater's arguments should not be prepared based on his/her opponent's level of knowledge. It was not my indebtedness to make arguments easy enough for you but it was you who had to search and post sophisticated ones. Moreover, NO! we would not be left with a non-debte. Contrary, it woud be a very interesting debate! We would both have to rebuttle some sophisticted arguments instead of ordinary ones and it would be great! It would be one of those constructive debates that could help people define their position and gain some knowledge! \"I am going to cut this round short as I want to see Pro's genuine reasons for animal testing, given she has voided her entire previous round by plagiarising. \"Really? You had more arguments but you didn't post them because you waited for me to post my \"genuine\" arguments? And when did you expect to post them? In your round 3? Now, about the \"genuine\" arguments:A debater should collect as many arguments as he/she can in order to defend his/her side! It is impossible to base a whole debate on someone's arguments! Before starting a debate, we all do some research! There no one who uses only his/her own arguments. You cannot ask me not to search and collect arguments and evidence, so I suppose that you want me to paraphraze them. BUT:1) An argument is yours when you are the first to think about it or at least you have come up with it without having heard or read it somewhere.. You cannot claim that an argument is your just because you have paraphrazed it. So, almost all of us use arguments that someone else has though about. And that's what we have to do in order to form an opinion! You cannot define your position in a topic by taking into consideration only your genuine arguments. 2) Given that I have paraphrazed the whole text.. So what? Does anything change? The main idea would remain the same! The only difference would be that I would may have done some mistakes. There are things that only specialized people know and I would not be sure if the paraphrazed text would be correct. Sometimes, a word plays an important role in a text and it could also change the whole meaning. So, since I have given you the sources, why should I have to risk it? So, there was no reason for you to ignore the arguments, let alone to ask me to paraphraze them. If you want to rebuttle something, rebuttle these arguments! Unfortunately, I will not have the chance to rebuttle your rebuttles. And finally, NO! I have not voided my entire previous round by plagiarising. This is wrong! If you had spent a little time to read and compare the 2 texts, maybe you wouldn't have said that! I have done much research and work in order for my round to be completed. I've added and removed many things.. examples: what animal testing offersthe image (found it while checking out a source that the website used too.)\"Without animal research polio would still be claiming thousands of lives each year\",said Albert Sabin,developer of the Polio vaccine (source 6..Sorry, but I had not characters available)The quote at the endHousehold cats kill approximately 5 million animals every week in the UK-more than the total number of animals used in medical research every year.The UK consumes over 300 times more fish each year than the total number of all animals used in medical research every yearand many more things have been added. Now let's start with the rebuttals:\"However this is irrational, as we have absolutely no good reason to prioritise our own fellow species over another who has a measurable well-being. \"As I've already said, we don't conduct animal testing because we want to devalue animals' rights. Conrary, the fact that we have strict laws that protect animals' well-being, the fact that we use alternative research methods whenever possible and the fact that there is no other way to protect us and animals from viruses show the oppoiste! That we recognize animals' rights and we try to prevent them from suffering! Oh, yeah! I forgot..you have ignored my whole round 2 for some reason.. \"Let's assume we grant ourselves the right of our own well-being at the expense of animals, where does that leave us?'I have to repeat things..Oh gosh! OK, let's get started:We don't grant ourselves at the expense of animals. We just use animals whenever we cannot do something else.. I'm sorry but the only way to save from the HIV and the cancer or save animals from certain diseases we HAVE to use a few animals. Thanks to animal research we are where we are now and a lot of other species have not been extinct. We cannot stop using animals unless we find an alternative way to test drugs. \"An enormously disproportionate amount of suffering and negative well-being which is resultant of our own selfishness. Therefore, granting ourselves the right, and stating that animal research doesn't cost that many lives in comparison is a myopic way of looking at the bigger picture.\"I never said that animals should be tortured and exploited because they are not as powerful as humans, but we ,firstly, have to think about our own species. We have to find a way to face some viruses so that we'll not be extinct. If animals were in our shoes, they would do the same. This is how nature works! I also mentioned that :\"Household cats kill approximately 5 million animals every week in the UK\"This shows that animals kill each other without being menaced. The fact that we're being menaced now proves that in order for some species to become powerful so that they will not be extinct, they have to harm some other species. I never said that we have to torture animals because we are more powerful, but when we're being menaced, we have to find a way to protect ourselves. Please note that we try to harm animals as little as possible despite the fact that we're in danger. \" While an argument that animals are readily available for large scale testing might have had some credit in her he past, that same argument is no longer applicable today\"No, it is. I made a whole paragraph about why animals are necessary. Many diseases that menace our species today cannot be cured by using only alternative research methods. The tretments cannot be found so easilly. They need years of testing and examination. So, yeah, this argument is still appicable.\"Given that drugs are necessarily tested on humans anyway, why not cut out the 'middle man' and go directly from in vitro testing to in vivo trials in humans?\"Go to the last paragraph \" But why don't we use humans instead of animals?:\" There are a lot of things that humans cannot offer. \"except Pro simply doesn't have a leg to stand on in vested long term well-being interests\"Really? And your well-being? I have proved that animal testing benefits both people and animals. Thanks to medical research many animals have not been extinct. We have a lot of laws to protect them. We try to avoid using animals. What else can we do? Unless we find an alternative method we HAVE to use animals. If you have sth better to propose, do it. We can not quit medical research as we have to find treatments quickly if we don't want to die. Now, about morality:As Con has based all of her arguments on morality, I guess that she is a conscious person who stresses the importance of taking moral values into consideration. To start with, I have to clarify that morality is subjective and every person has differerent moral values. So, you cannot ask me to demonstrate animal testing to be immoral as I can simply answer that \"For, me it is moral as I think that we have to use our power against other species\" for instance. NOTE: THIS IS NOT MY OPINION IT WAS JUST AN EXAMPLE. Furthermore, we are not responsible only for our acts but also for our omissions. That means that we have to take into consideration the consequences of conducting animal testing and those of quiting animal testing. Which is more immoral? To use a few animals in order to find a way to face some viruses or to let many people and animals die which can lead to the extinction of many species while we can avoid it?", "qid": "15", "docid": "3e6f0cf1-2019-04-18T16:00:16Z-00001-000", "rank": 5, "score": 209501.0}, {"content": "Title: Animals Should Be Used For Scientific or Commercial Testing. Content: Thanks Pro. I. Preface My case is mostly going to concentrate on the morality of the issue of animal testing. Virtually all arguments for and against animal testing are reducible to claims about morality and well-being. I take the position that they are both connected, and that the benefits if animal testing so not outweigh the negative effects that are resultant, and extended from the presuppositions of positive animal testing. II. Plagiarism I have never had somebody plagiarise against me like this in a debate before, and I am not sure how to react, but I think this warrants pointing out. Almost the entirety of Pro's opening round is plagiarised, copy pasted verbatim, from existing websites. I have nothing against paraphrasing and referencing, but this is literal word-for-word and easily checkable with google. Pro's sources: 1. http://animal-testing.procon.org... 2. http://ca-biomed.org... And Pro's opening contentions: 1. Animal testing has contributed to many life-saving cures and treatments - Copied from Source 1 2. There is no adequate alternative to testing on a living, whole-body system - Copied from Source 2 3. Animals themselves benefit from the results of animal testing - Copied fro, Source 2 4. Animal research is highly regulated, with laws in place to... - Copied from Source 1 5. The vast majority of biologists and several of the largest... - Copied from Source 1 6. Relatively few animals are used in research... - Copied from Source 1 7. But why don't we use humans instead of animals? - Copied from Source 1 I don't like doing this, but it doesn't seem at all fair that sophisticated published arguments are pasted against myself. I could do exactly the same if I wanted and we would be left with a non-debate. It is not intellectually honest. With that out of the way, I expect Pro to construct and bring her own arguments forward for the next round, now I will present my own. For now I will present my own case and address Pro's arguments in my rebuttal rounds. III. Harming sentient beings without consent is immoral As humans, one of the most basic moral acts is to consider the well-being of other conscious beings. This is axiomatically true, and to deny this axiom leads to one's own self-destruction. With this in hand the argument becomes quite simple. It is immoral to deliberately impinge on the well-being of a conscious being Animal testing deliberately impinges in the well being of a conscious being C. Animal testing is immoral Note that this doesn't quite get us to the conclusion and also runs into issues of liberties and rights. But the argument remains valid and a Pro needs to contend this. We can expand the issue further, that if we have a society, or culture that sees animal testing as moral, then we devalue an animal's rights & liberties. We essentially deprioritize an animal's well-being over out fellow species'. However this is irrational, as we have absolutely no good reason to prioritise our own fellow species over another who has a measurable well-being. I would argue that it is within our capabilities now to generally have a say on what the state of well-being of animals are, given the research on depression, love, pain, and even addition have all come up with positive results.[1] Therefore, Pro needs to content there is a rational and justifiable explanation as to why an animal's well-being should not be prioritised as highly as a human's well-being, given that we know they have comparable capabilities of pain and suffering, and will also evidently value their own well-being. IV. Knock-On effects Let's assume we grant ourselves the right of our own well-being at the expense of animals, where does that leave us? Well, I would like to let Pro's own charts speak on my behalf, billions of chickens are slaughtered every year for food, along with millions in other livestock. Most of which are born and bred in captivity in conditions optimised for profit (and hence human well-being) at the expense of animals. An enormously disproportionate amount of suffering and negative well-being which is resultant of our own selfishness. Therefore, granting ourselves the right, and stating that animal research doesn't cost that many lives in comparison is a myopic way of looking at the bigger picture. All things considered, very uncharitable consequences would appear insignificant to us and place most of society in ignorance of what is occurring behind the scenes. Sound familiar? Yes, this is real. V. Alternative solutions/Perspective Medical research had made significant advancements, and hence in vivo testing in animals is far less 'necessary' then it once was. While an argument that animals are readily available for large scale testing might have had some credit in her he past, that same argument is no longer applicable today.[2] In vitro testing can go a long way to determining efficacy, toxicity and putative pharmacokinetics of a new drug, and for drug trials, human trials are inevitably necessary anyway. A drug that had passed through phase IV. trials (and this is viable for market) has been tested on hundreds of humans anyway. Given that drugs are necessarily tested on humans anyway, why not cut out the 'middle man' and go directly from in vitro testing to in vivo trials in humans? The difference between trialling in humans and on animals is that humans are capable of giving consent, and accepting the discomfort, and risks involved in testing. Moreover they are more viable for incentives, for undergoing the risks and inconvenience of trials, which gives a positive moral 'payback'. Animals in the other hand, simply do not have a choice in the matter, they are bred and forced to undergo testing against their wishes, much like our livestock and bred and slaughtered against their wishes. VI. Cosmetics/Medicines All of what I have said so far is directed at pharmaceutical testing, but the resolution also encompasses cosmetics and food testing. The same reasoning provided so far in this debate applies to cosmetics testing, except Pro simply doesn't have a leg to stand on in vested long term well-being interests. There simply isn't a moral reason to perform cosmetic & food testing on animals. It is Pro's burden to demonstrate this to be false. VII. Conclusion I am going to cut this round short, as I want to see Pro's genuine reasons for animal testing, given she has voided her entire previous round by plagiarising. Pease provide your arguments in the next round so I may provide a cogent rebuttal VIII. References 1. http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org... 2. http://www.neavs.org...", "qid": "15", "docid": "3e6f0cf1-2019-04-18T16:00:16Z-00002-000", "rank": 6, "score": 205780.0}, {"content": "Title: Animals Should Be Used For Scientific Research Content: I have found so many flaws with your argument I'm just going to argue them all in short, two or three sentence arguments and then get on with my stuff.\"It could mean that in a test they use five or six at a time...just to clear that up.\"And how is that any better? That just makes it worse. Why do they test five or six at a time if the drug might fail anyway?! It's just another flaw in animal testing. Also, I have a LINK to back that up. So yes, I do get the concept.\"it might be necessary to sacrifice some non-sential life for the good of sentient ones.\"Animals have just as much right, if not more, to live on this planet than we do. Who is to say that animals aren't important? Who says humans are the most important? If anything, we are the least important, because we are destroying the environment. We haven't done anything to make this world a better place except for us. If anything, that quote is just selfish.\"Humans are not JUST animals.\"So neither are bunnies. Or horses. Or rats. What is your definition of \"just an animal?\" Sure, we're by far the smartest, but we are animals.\"We should do everything in our power to advance our kind.\" And why shouldn't any other animal have the right to do that, too?! \"The rest our made up of other small primates.\"Earlier, you said that \"95% are mice and rats.\" First off, it's 85% [1], not 95%, and second off, that means 15,000,000 animals aren't rodents, but rather bunnies, dogs, moneys, cats, fish, and in rare cases, frogs [1]. And what difference does it make that rodents are being tested? Because they're not cute and useless? Mice are cute and useful, and rats get rid of many insects. We need both of them for much more than animal testing.\"Shortening a life that is only 2-3 years in it of it self is completely minuscule.\"And when you multiply it by about 85,000,000...That's about 170,000,000 years of rodent life right there. And maybe, by a LONG shot, 250,000 human life years. That just does not add up. And I'm not going to get into the 7-year life of dogs and bunnies, let alone the long life of a cat.\"The following disease have had medicines made from animal research. Breast Cancer, Childhood Leukemia, Lung Cancer, (Prolonged life of people with) AIDs and HIV, Heart Disease, Diabetes\"Then why does my brother still have diabetes? Why am I reading of so many deaths from AIDS, about 1.9 million? [2]? What's the use of \"prolonging a life for 2 or three years,\" like you said? Does that only apply to humans? And heart disease is a huge problem, and breast cancer isn't getting much better. And lung cancer is still a death sentence.And now onto another few of my arguments.1. 95% of drugs passed by animal tests are immediately discarded as useless or dangerous to humans. [3]Would you think about that for a second? 95% of drugs that are potentially safe fail in humans. So that means that in less than 5% of the time, it is useful when they get a good sign. That means that just a few things in animals are the same as in humans. Just think about that. 88% of doctors agreed that animal testing is useless because of differences between humans and animals (this is said by the [3] link also.) Oh, and one more thing. 61% of all birth defects are due to drugs that passed in animals. Birth defects are up 200x since the post war times... when animal testing started. Every fact here is said by the [3] link.2. Rats are 37% effective in identifying what causes cancer to humans \u2013 less use than guessing. The experimenters said: \u201cwe would have been better off to have tossed a coin.\" [4]As you said, rats take up 85% of the animal testing population. And yet they have a small chance of successfully identifying what causes cancer in humans and how solve it. Scientists LITERALLY say they would be better off flipping a coin. This is more of a point than an argument, so I will have a second section to it.Second section: What humans suffer due to failed testsLast year, 106,000 people were killed due to medical issues due to tests of animal products. Each year, 2.1 million people are in the hospital due to medical treatments. An estimated 70,000 people in the UK are severely injured or KILLED by drugs that pass in animal testing. Wow. This is only per year.3. So this isn't murder?Every day, we sea murder controversy on the internet or a suspect getting jailed for killing a human, which is seen by many, if not all, as the worst possible thing that a human could do. What about killing thousands of ANIMALS per day? Why is that not a sin, or illegal, like murder? Do we really think that we are so highly above the animals that we should get to do that? If one person is jailed for killing another person, or possibly receiving a death sentence, why shouldn't a scientist be doing it? Let's take a look:Scientists are \"doing it for a good cause,\" killing many to save one. Murder is \"also for a good cause\" then. Killing one to reduce world's problems by one. It is reducing the amount of people on the Earth. If you are for animal testing, you are kind of for murder. I know I'm not for murder. And I know that I'm not for animal testing. This is what we are doing by testing animals. Look it in the eye and say, \"I'm sure it doesn't hurt one little bit.\" THANK YOU FOR READING AND GOD BLESS!!! :)[1] http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org...[2] http://www.who.int...[3] http://www.animalliberationfront.com...[4] http://www.vivisectioninformation.com...", "qid": "15", "docid": "baa6bc4d-2019-04-18T17:00:24Z-00002-000", "rank": 7, "score": 187329.0}, {"content": "Title: Animal Testing Content: Animals should, and must, be used for research because, animals are the only other living organisms that are closely related enough to humans to be able to test, animals hold the key to understanding scientific discoveries that impact human medical conditions, and the scientific discoveries found by using lab-test animals helps save lives and can improve the quality of life for many people. Humans must test drugs on \"something\" to see if it will work. That \"something\" should be a living organism. We can not test drugs in rocks, so we use animals. Some people ask why don\"t we test drugs in humans? First, because testing drugs in humans is considered inhumane. The outcomes for drug testing is unpredictable and could have mild to severe side effects. Also, in many cases, the test animals must be monitored and kept in a controlled experiment. This would be hard to do for people with responsibilities to their families and jobs. Second, many drug tests fail, again causing harm or death to the lab animal. What seems more detrimental would be to use humans as test cases. Unfortunately, Nazis used humans as test subjects. That part of world history is atrocious. The inhumanity that the Jewish people endured in the name of science should never happen again. Author James Morcan writes, \"The ends justify the means mindset has been the impetus behind many a cruel medical or social experiment\" (Goodreads) Using lab test animals is the only way at this point in science to help advance medical knowledge and improve the quality of life for people without having to use people as test subjects. It is true that \"More than 90 percent of basic science discoveries from experiments on animals fail to lead to human treatments\"(2018, peta). However, the ten percent that does succeed are huge scientific discoveries. One huge discovery, for example, is Ketamine. Ketamine is also known as a brand name called Ketalar. This medication is used as anesthesia at the start of surgery and throughout surgery. Ketalar is a key medicine that allows surgeons to operate because it puts a person in a trance-like state, provides pain relief, sedates people, and creates short-term memory loss of the surgical experience (Wikipedia). When this drug was made it was tested on zebrafish. The scientists that tested this drug had tanks full of zebrafish; furthermore, within each tank, the water had different amount of this drug in it. If too much drug was in the water the fish \"mutated.\" You don\"t really want to create mutated humans, do you? Ketamine is now a life saving substance that when tested on animals had its faults, but that doesn't make it any less of a life saver. What would happen if scientists immediately stopped using lab animals as test subjects? Frankie Trull, president of the Foundation for Biomedical Research (FBR) has an answer for this. She says, \"An immediate end to animal research in the U.S. would be a death sentence for millions of people around the world.\" If you have ever taken a drug for any medical reasons, you can thank the animals that had there life lost or had there life changed through these drug tests. For example, penicillin is an antibiotic medicine that has had a huge impact on society. Penicillin was discovered by research scientist Sir Alexander Fleming in 1928 who tested it on animals first to make sure that it was non-toxic to humans. Then in 1940, Sir Howard Florey tested penicillin on mice infected with bacteria and found out that the mice that were given penicillin survived. Because of what these two scientist discovered through these tests on lab mice, doctors are now able to prescribe this antibiotic to save people\"s lives. Without penicillin and other antibiotics, the number of people dying from infections each year would be significantly higher. Drugs used for medical purposes change the lives of others for the better and can save human lives. Without animals to test drugs on we have two options. One, use humans as blatant test dummies. Or two, give humans drugs when necessary and get information off of their suffering. Animals must be used for research to improve our lives and the development of the human race because animals are a necessary test subject, animals are the key to scientific discoveries, and the scientific discoveries found by using lab-test animals helps save lives and improve the quality of life for many people. \"The contributions of animal research to medical science and human health are undeniable... When the majority of scientists see the work as scientifically justified, and so do the many professional medical and scientific organizations, the expert views cannot be simply dismissed based on wild claims of ulterior motives, self-interest and conspiracy theories\" (2017, Pro-con). We have been teasing animals since the ancient greeks (Wiki), so why stop now?", "qid": "15", "docid": "61bcc172-2019-04-18T11:29:12Z-00002-000", "rank": 8, "score": 186121.0}, {"content": "Title: should animals be used for scientific research Content: Because it is not possible to develop drugs or perform many different sorts of important scientific investigation without animal research. You wouldn't test on humans so the next best thing is animals, and i only think it alright to test on rats not endangered species.", "qid": "15", "docid": "ec5a2259-2019-04-18T18:03:25Z-00003-000", "rank": 9, "score": 180873.0}, {"content": "Title: Animals should be tested on Content: Animals should not be tested on. Did you know: A 2011 poll of nearly 1,000 biomedical scientists conducted by the science journal Nature found that more than 90% \"agreed that the use of animals in research is essential.\" [35] Animal testing is cruel and inhumane. According to Humane Society International, animals used in experiments are commonly subjected to force feeding, forced inhalation, food and water deprivation, prolonged periods of physical restraint, the infliction of burns and other wounds to study the healing process, the infliction of pain to study its effects and remedies, and \"killing by carbon dioxide asphyxiation, neck-breaking, decapitation, or other means.\" [47] The Draize eye test, used by cosmetics companies to evaluate irritation caused by shampoos and other products, involves rabbits being incapacitated in stocks with their eyelids held open by clips, sometimes for multiple days, so they cannot blink away the products being tested. [48, 49] The commonly used LD50 (lethal dose 50) test involves finding out which dose of a chemical will kill 50% of the animals being used in the experiment. [65, 102] The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) reported in 2010 that 97,123 animals suffered pain during experiments while being given no anesthesia for relief, including 1,395 primates, 5,996 rabbits, 33,652 guinea pigs, and 48,015 hamsters. [26] In vitro (in glass) testing, such as studying cell cultures in a petri dish, can produce more relevant results than animal testing because human cells can be used. [15] Microdosing, the administering of doses too small to cause adverse reactions, can be used in human volunteers, whose blood is then analyzed. Artificial human skin, such as the commercially available products EpiDerm and ThinCert, is made from sheets of human skin cells grown in test tubes or plastic wells and can produce more useful results than testing chemicals on animal skin. [15, 50, 51] Microfluidic chips (\"organs on a chip\"), which are lined with human cells and recreate the functions of human organs, are in advanced stages of development. Computer models, such as virtual reconstructions of human molecular structures, can predict the toxicity of substances without invasive experiments on animals. [50]", "qid": "15", "docid": "e057cec7-2019-04-18T15:04:52Z-00004-000", "rank": 10, "score": 180521.0}, {"content": "Title: Animals should be used for Medical Research Content: Animals do not have the same rights as humans do, therefore it is acceptable to experiment on them. If we granted animals rights, all humans would have to become vegetarians and hunting would be outlawed. While animal testing is not pretty, a 2011 poll of nearly 1,000 biomedical scientists conducted by the science journal Nature found that more than 90% \"agreed that the use of animals in research is essential.\" A small amount of animals are used for progression in advancing medical technology when you consider that just the U.S. alone consumes 9 billion chickens a year, while only 26 million animals are used for animal research. Wouldn't it be considered a waste if we didn't use animals for research to help progress in Medical Technology?", "qid": "15", "docid": "efcd9117-2019-04-18T16:37:47Z-00002-000", "rank": 11, "score": 180009.0}, {"content": "Title: Animals should be used for testing Content: You have a point on the intelligence of animals. However, they are still, despite their accomplishments, lesser than humans. And if the court accepts this, I would like to expand my original point to say that in scientific testing, it would be better for an animal to die than a human, evidence being as this position is the next logical step after my original proposal.", "qid": "15", "docid": "7ef1e9fb-2019-04-18T11:22:45Z-00007-000", "rank": 12, "score": 179764.0}, {"content": "Title: Animals Should Be Used For Scientific Research Content: I am not a strong supporter of any animal groups such as PETA, but I still think that animal testing should be banned. And I will proceed to tell you why, but first, I will argue with you on your points. \"Would you rather a albino rat die or a young girl with leukemia die? Most people (unless you belong to PETA which is another debate entirely) would prefer the girl. \" Therefore, you prefer the girl to die? But I thought you were on the other side. \"Would you rather a albino rat die or a young girl with leukemia die? \"I don't think that you understand animal testing thoroughly. One lab rat isn't going to provide the key to a strong vaccination. Thousands of animals have to be tortured, tested, and killed. And it usually takes a lot longer than a day to get a scientific breakthrough. If one lab rat could find the cure to cancer, then I'd be all for it. But I'm going to dig a bit deeper into the statistics. As a population, the whole world uses up to THREE every SECOND for testing. That's. .. 274,000 per day, 100 million per year [1]. Yep. That's right. 3 per second. I don't know how you can be possibly for this, even with all of the PROS that it does have. .. which actually isn't anything besides cures. Now for my own arguments, which I have stacked up like a pile of books waiting to fall over. Argument 1: The cost of testing is around $136 million per year [1]We are spending way too much on something we shouldn't even be doing in the first place. If you think your taxes are going mostly towards roads and schools, that is wrong. A ton of it is going to animal testing. If we just stop animal testing, we wouldn't have to pay as much money and tons of innocent animals would be saved from the harm that animal testing causes them. Argument 2: They feel pain, too! Since the beginning of time, animals felt pain. We feel pain. Every living thing (that has a brain) feels pain. Imagine if that was you. How would you feel? Because this is exactly what we are doing to the animals. We know they feel pain, and yet we continue to do what we do. Even in extremely painful procedures, animals are not given anything, like drugs that we are given so we don't feel any pain during surgery [2]. They also can't express their pain to us, so even if a drug passes in an animal, they can't express how much the drug hurt them. If they could talk, we would all be crying because of how much pain in felt. Argument 3: Why is a human life more valued than an animals life? Well? Have an answer? I do. It shouldn't be. Humans are just animals too, we just don't realize it. At the most, a humans life MIGHT, in the best of circumstances, be worth two tested animals. But more than 100 million animals are used yearly to find a cure for something. In ten years, that is a billion. Say the flu shot saves 500,000 in the U. S from getting the flu. 36,000 of them would die [3]. Another 4 million who get the shot wouldn't be sick that year. 36,000 human lives= 1,000,000,000 animal lives? Nope. 36,000 human lives= 36,000 animal lives? That's a bit better. But it's still pretty outrageous. To conclude, I said why pros arguments were wrong and stated three of mine with links to prove my points. Thank you for reading so far and God Bless! !! :)[1] . http://www.vivisectioninformation.com...[2] . https://sites.google.com...[3] . http://www.npr.org...", "qid": "15", "docid": "baa6bc4d-2019-04-18T17:00:24Z-00004-000", "rank": 13, "score": 179613.0}, {"content": "Title: Animals should be used for testing Content: Animals can be used for medicinal research as they are lesser than humans and it would be moral to test on animals, as they, as such, less than human.", "qid": "15", "docid": "7ef1e9fb-2019-04-18T11:22:45Z-00009-000", "rank": 14, "score": 179539.0}, {"content": "Title: Animal testing should be banned Content: Should animal testing exist or not? When animals' protectors say absolutely no, other people, such as scientists say yes. It is hard to decide who is right and who is wrong. Using animals for humans' purposes started from the earliest times. Natalie Kustcher, (2010), explains, experiments on anmals existed even in antique times, Greeks and Roman used them for vivisection. After World War II the amount of medical experiments on animals increased enormously. Animals were used for lots of purposes: for medicine, biology, education and training of doctors, for developing new vaccines and drugs, also they were used for cosmetics. This situation caused many debates and controversies. Especially now, when we have various organizations which protect animals, this issue has become a hot topic for discussion. From one point of view people understand that we should care about animals. They say that testing drugs and other things, for human benefits is unethical. From another point of view people like doctors and scientist claim, that animal testing is a very important activity for science, medicine and whole humanity. If to compare who is better to be used to conduct an experiment, of course people will choose animals instead of themselves, even though they realize that animals are also important creatures in our life. However, testing animals for new medicine showed most accurate results. Millions of experiments, which gave different results, were conducted by a great number of scientists. What is interesting, the results of drug testing on animals are recognized as the most accurate. Of course there are some alternative methods which can only predict the reaction, but cannot guarantee human safety. In this case results got from animal researches are the most reliable. Jaime Harvey, (n. d.), gives an example of a successful testing Parkinson's disease on animals, which is have already saved millions of people's lives. Whereas computers cannot give accurate and reliable results. According to Jaime Harvey, (n. d.), animal testing plays a big and important role in medical development in the last two centuries. The proportion of successful results from animal testing is more than 70 %. Due to testing drugs on animals, now we have antibiotics and vaccines that have saved many people. Dr Jane Goodall . (as cited by Simon Festing ) says that, people got used to take all conveniences from life and forget, that all those depend on medical researches on animals. Antibiotics and anesthetics are possible now due to animal testing. As an example the polio vaccine alone saved many lives. In addition, the remedy that now saves thousands of women with breast cancer was developed through testing on mice. Moreover, nowadays treatment and control of diseases and sufferings are possible through animal research. Over 70% of Nobel prizes in medicine on inventing new drugs have involved the use of animals. Even such known and useful drug like aspirin, which controls pain, was created based on animal testing. For instance, before using animals for testing drugs, there was such bad illness like the Thalidomide. This disease infect pregnant women and in the 50's babies were born whether without legs or hands. The treatment for this illness was successfully tested on rats so today it is not a problem . Additionally we must take into account such fact that inventing of useful drugs like insulin, Tetanus vaccines, AIDS treatment are possible owing to experiments on animals. (Jaime Harvey, n. d.).All we know such illness like diabet. And as we know the cure to this disease, especially insulin was invented due to testing on dogs. So nowadays testing drugs on animals has become so usual that people forgot about origin of most remedies. Tanks to animals, currently, we have drugs to treat people and it makes possible to save millions of lives every day, every hour, every second.", "qid": "15", "docid": "59a01d40-2019-04-18T18:41:19Z-00003-000", "rank": 15, "score": 178298.0}, {"content": "Title: Animal Rights Content: Estimated 26 million animals are used for commercial and scientific testing every year in the U.S. Used to determine the toxicity of medication and to develop medical treatments, that is destined for human use. How come we allow these creatures to be tortured and killed? People might think it is a necessary evil to improve the survival of the human race. They might be right too but researches have figured out that animals are a lot more like us. The animals have feelings just like us. They can feel the same pain as we can and I find it is hard to understand why people fail to see that. It has been proven that pigs can feel pain, affection, excitement, experience stress and even feel love. They can get depressed very easily if they are denied to interact with each other or isolated. How is that different from us? Won't we feel depressed if we don't interact with other people? Yes, these tests on animals have saved human lives but for what costs? Millions upon millions of animals that are caged and tortured their entire life. Some of these medications do not even work in the end. The animals died for nothing at all. I can't help but think what if human beings were caged and tortured for experiments?", "qid": "15", "docid": "daece536-2019-04-18T15:14:44Z-00005-000", "rank": 16, "score": 176781.0}, {"content": "Title: Animals Should Be Used For Scientific Research Content: \"A ton of it is going to animal testing.\" This is a weak point because the funding to the sciences as is is little enough, and the information is worth much more than the costs of testing. Only a fraction of tax money is even going to animal testing at all and it is a ludicrous notion that 136 Million is a lot, \"Total federal revenues were $2.16 trillion in fiscal year 2010\" I did the math and exactly 0.00629% of tax dollars. Your pain argument is also ludicrous. You make a moral claim, but I could make a moral equilibrium by saying there pain is justified by the pain it saves us from. You are recommending rats are equal to us, \" At the most, a humans life MIGHT, in the best of circumstances, be worth two tested animals. But more than 100 million animals are used yearly to find a cure for something.\" We are far beyond rats in an evolutionary perspective. Furthermore \" rats get rid of many insects.\" is an invalid point because A. Rats carry insects that harm us as well and B. Rats in labs are bred especially for the purpose of testing, and otherwise wouldn't have been born. We kill so many rats a year to further our knowledge of science and to save lives. Rats wiped out huge portions of the european population with the black plague for none because they didnt know what they were doing, becasue they are RATS. \"Mice share more than 98% DNA with humans, therefore, animals are susceptible to many of the same health problems as humans.\" [3] and you said \"That means that just a few things in animals are the same as in humans.\" which is simply not true. The genetic similarities of mice and men is outstandingly close, and we use mice the most when researching. You said that \"95% of drugs passed by animal tests are immediately discarded as useless or dangerous to humans.\" Which is irrelevant considering that all of the major medicines developed in the past 5 years have used animals. Also you said, and I quote, \"rats take up 85% of the animal testing population.\" Which is not true, I never said that, I said \"Around 95% of all animals that are being tested are specially bred rats and mice\" I said rats and mice, meanwhile of that percentage only 18% are rats. That rabbit you pulled up has no sources whatsoever and as far as I know is probably used in testing hair products, which we aren't debating. You are simply trying to evoke emotions in the voters, thats not passion thats manipulation. Also your post about the murder is completely invalid. The reason humans are worth more than the mice being tested is that we are smarter! We aren't just small minded eating machines, he are thoughtful individuals that come together and form solutions to the problems regarding our race, like cancer, and those solutions often involve the testing of animals You said that your brother has diabetes. Want to know what keeps him alive? Insulin. And want to know how they made that? By animal testing. 1[http://www.dummies.com...] 2[http://www.history.com...] 3[http://ca-biomed.org...]", "qid": "15", "docid": "baa6bc4d-2019-04-18T17:00:24Z-00001-000", "rank": 17, "score": 176468.0}, {"content": "Title: Animal testing Content: We should test on animals", "qid": "15", "docid": "fe53122f-2019-04-18T15:22:41Z-00005-000", "rank": 18, "score": 176177.0}, {"content": "Title: animals should stop being used as testing subjects Content: Do all animals have the same rights as humans? Some but not all, animal rights activists believe animals have inherent legal and moral rights, just as humans do. According to this viewpoint it is unethical to use animals for any purpose, whether for pets, research, recreation, clothing, or as food. Animal use in testing is a huge controversial issue. Some believe animals have the same rights as humans and should for no reason be used as test subjects for research. Others, including members of medical and scientific communities say it is unethical not to use animals in research because animal experiments can lead to medical discoveries that improve the health and well-being of both humans and animals. Human health will not improve without animal experimentation. There is of course two sides to this issue. Worldwide, animals are used in numerous experiments which inflict pain and suffering to the animal. The first testing of animals started over one hundred years ago. Since then, animal testing has been a source of emotional conflict for humans. In 1966, the Animal Welfare Act took place. This was the start of the animal rights movement. Over the years, animal activists have become increasingly vocal and/or destructive. The ways in which animal activists try to get their message across to the public varies greatly. Some conduct letter-writing campaigns, others attack laboratories and harass scientists. One of these groups is the PETA founded in 1980 by Alex Pacheco and Ingrid Newkirk. PETA stands for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. The group works on a wide range of issues such as biochemical testing, cosmetic testing, dissection, factory farming, neglect and abuse to animals in pet stores, and through hunting and trapping, and the wearing of fur, and non-leather footwear. The PETA is not known to be a violent group. Instead it often pulls public stunts. For example three members dressed in rabbit suits and chained themselves to a flagpole in front of Gillette head quarters in Boston, Mass. to protest the company\"s use of animals in product testing. The stunt was an embarrassment to the company. While PETA may be the most visible animal rights group, it is by no means alone. There are dozens of \"rights\" groups who pursue a more far-reaching agenda. One of these groups is the ALF, Animal Liberation Front. This group emerged in the United States in the late 1970\"s and has claimed responsibility for destroying or damaging more than one hundred labs and farms around the nation. In a world of animal testing there are a wide range of tests. These tests are done for multiple purposes, from finding a cure for a disease to testing the harshness of a shampoo or floor cleaner. Many activists claim that animal testing is not only unethical but also often scientifically unproductive. \"There have been some medical advances of course but the pay off is slight. When you\"re doing billions of animal experiments, it would be a miracle if there weren\"t some developments,\" says George Cave an animal activist. When Dr. Hamm was told what George Cave said, Hamm came back with a strong argument. He discussed how childhood leukemia, used to be a death sentence but now those kids get to go home. He also discussed Hodgkin\"s disease and how it is now a treatable cancer when ten years ago it was also a death sentence. Another argument he stated was how we can treat some types of liver cancer today and the research that got us there was done on animals because it had to be. There are no other alternatives exist that could give us this progress. One species that humans tend to use often in testing because they are most like ourselves is the chimpanzee. They are used in different experiments. Because chimpanzees are more like humans than any other species they are popular subjects for the development of vaccines for prevention of hepatitis B, hepatitis C and onchocerciasis. Chimpanzees are the only nonhuman animal species susceptible to these infections (Prince 115). Animal Activists are against the use of chimpanzees b/c of the decline in the chimpanzee population. In approximately the past ten years the chimpanzee population of Gabon, containing some of the best habitats, was reduced by twenty percent. There is an estimate between four thousand and five thousand chimpanzees that exist worldwide in medical institutions, zoological exhibits, roadside menageries, and entertainment compounds.", "qid": "15", "docid": "2025817a-2019-04-18T14:44:11Z-00003-000", "rank": 19, "score": 173791.0}, {"content": "Title: Animals Should Be Used For Scientific Research Content: While I admit the analogy of the girl was far fetched, it was an example. DEFENSE 1- According to the website [http://www.vivisectioninformation.com...] you got the \"the whole world uses up to three every second\" example, I don't think you got the concept. Just because they use a certain amount per year, 100 million. That doesn't mean they kill one every 3 seconds just for the hell of it, it could mean that in a test they use five or six at a time...just to clear that up. DEFENSE 2- Then we shall try and test on them in the least painful way possible. However, since thats often impossible, it might be necessary to sacrifice some non-sential life for the good of sentient ones. Furthermore, I feel you are trying to evoke emotions in me, but I am just as passionate about this as you are about that. DEFENSE 3- Humans are not JUST animals. I am not saying we AREN'T animals but we are also more than that, we have the most complex brains in the animal kingdom and more importantly- WE are human, and we should do everything in our power to advance our kind. Argument 1- Around 95% of all animals that are being tested are specially bred rats and mice, .25% our Non-Human Primates. The rest our made up of other small primates. The reason rodents are so popular is because of there short life spans which allow for speedier disease development in the rodents. Shortening a life that is only 2-3 years in it of it self is completely minuscule compared to the amount of years of human lives they can be saving. The following disease have had medicines made from animal research. Breast Cancer Childhood Leukemia Lung Cancer (Prolonged life of people with) AIDs and HIV Heart Disease Diabete And many more! The rodents save lives. 1[http://www.mofed.org...] 2[http://www.amprogress.org...]", "qid": "15", "docid": "baa6bc4d-2019-04-18T17:00:24Z-00003-000", "rank": 20, "score": 173014.0}, {"content": "Title: Animals should be used for testing Content: Yes, a lizard would not work, and that's the problem. The point is, no scientific method is perfect, and with numerous diseases encompassing the planet, we can't come close to dealing with all of them. We don't need to waste animal lives to achieve an impossible goal. Alternate methods may not be superior to animal testing, but they aren't inferior either, and they don't involve killing or causing suffering in animals. https://www.rspca.org.uk...", "qid": "15", "docid": "7ef1e9fb-2019-04-18T11:22:45Z-00004-000", "rank": 21, "score": 172950.0}, {"content": "Title: Experimenting on animals for science purposes shouldn't be banned Content: Assalamualaikum (May Peace Be Upon You)first of all i'm very grateful to finally find someone (since this is my first debate).All i want is just a debate not a conflict.Missbailey8 delivered some powerful arguments i can't deny. She seems to understand the topic perfectly, but i disagree with some of her arguments.Rebuttal 1: A. Animal Testing is harmful to the subjectsA. In the United States, animal testing on vertebrates is primarily regulated by the Animal Welfare Act of 1966 (AWA), and the Animal Welfare Regulations which is enforced by the Animal Care division of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). The AWA contains provisions to ensure that individuals of covered species used in research receive a certain standard of care and treatment, provided that the standard of care and treatment does not interfere with \"the design, outlines, or guidelines of actual research or experimentation.\"[1]. Every scientist has a license to experiment on these animals, and every licensed scientist must obey the rules/regulations on experimenting with animals.The animals used for research in the United Kingdom must be specially bred by registered license holders. Research is not performed on stray animals or unwanted pets. This is strictly illegal. The use of chimpanzees, orangutans, and gorillas is also banned. The majority of research is conducted on rodents, with a smaller percentage using fish, reptiles, and birds. A very small percentage is conducted in larger mammals.[2]Rebuttal 2: B. Animals are very different from humansB. If it's not with animals then with what?, Homo sapiens is one of the member of animal kingdom and according to evolution, animals are appropriate research subjects because they are similar to human beings in many ways. Chimpanzees share 99% of their DNA with humans, and mice are 98% genetically similar to humans. All mammals, including humans, are descended from common ancestors, and all have the same set of organs (heart, kidneys, lungs, etc.) that function in essentially the same way with the help of a bloodstream and central nervous system. Because animals and humans are so biologically similar, they are susceptible to many of the same conditions and illnesses, including heart disease, cancer, and diabetes. [3]Rebuttal 3: C. Drugs tested on animals aren't always safeC. First thing that thought was animals experiment not just benefits human but also benefits the species of that animals them self. I remembered Kin selection which is astrategy that favours the reproductive success of an organism's relatives, even at a cost to the organism's own survival and reproduction. [4] How do animals benefit from animal research? The same methods that have been developed to prevent and treat diseases in humans have improved the lives of countless animals.Vaccines, antibiotics, anesthetics, surgical procedures, and other approaches developed in animals for human use are now commonly employed throughout veterinary medicine. Pets, livestock, and animals in zoos live longer, more comfortable, and healthier lives as a result of animal research.[5] MY POINT:\"A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, - a mere heart of stone\" that was Charles Darwin's word. I don't mean to be cruel or inhumane but \"Animals other than human beings do not have basic rights. It is a matter of ethics and not of the laws of human societies that animals ought to be treated compassionately and kindly by people because people can empathize with their pain but not because they have rights as human beings do. If they had such rights, they would, among other things, have to be held accountable for killing or maiming fellow animals in the wilds.\"[6]Examples of Benefits:1.Smallpox (cow) has now been eradicated from earth, 2.Polio has been eradicated from North America and people in countries all over the world are being successfully treated (mouse and monkey). 3.Insulin is now able to help control diabetes (dog, fish). There are vaccines for tetanus (horse), rubella (monkey),anthrax (sheep), and rabies (dog, rabbit). 4.An understanding of the Malaria life cycle (pigeon), 5.tuberculosis (cow, sheep),6.Typhus (guinea pig, rat, mouse), 7.and the function of neurons (cat, dog).The discovery of anticoagulants (cat), penicillin (mouse), open heart surgeryand cardiac pacemakers (dog), lithium (rat, guinea pig), treatment for leprosy (armadillo), organ transplantations (dog, sheep, cow, pig),laproscopic surgical techniques (pig), and a drug for AIDS treatment(monkey),e.t.c [2]ConclusionScientist purpose is to make this world a better place by many ways,this is one of the major way. Diseases had already haunted human being since the beginning, but if you banned scientist to research on animals then they will be no cure for those disease written. And also if you want to say that researches can be done just with particular organs you're wrong the human organ system is linked to each other an action of one organ can cause a reaction in other organ.I think I'm done thank you once again Missbailey8 for your contributionAssalamualaikum[1]https://en.wikipedia.org...[2]http://www.pro-test.org.uk...[3]http://animal-testing.procon.org... [4]https://en.wikipedia.org...[5]http://www.nap.edu...[6]http://www.nytimes.com... [7]all other little information i obtained from books with title \"BIOLOGY Ch 1,2,and3\" written by Neil A Campbell and his team", "qid": "15", "docid": "96b3dd5b-2019-04-18T13:08:56Z-00000-000", "rank": 22, "score": 172451.0}, {"content": "Title: Should animals be used for research (pro:yes con:no) Content: I will skip to rebuttals and leave my argument to the last part if that wouldn't be a problem? P1: You say \"torturing\" animals but scientist don't go in front of an animal and just torch their eyes on purpose. And if they do they are not scientist they are psychopaths, but the last time i checked, i didn't see buffalo bill or the Texas chainsaw massacre guy testing animals, the experts were real scientist with real diplomas \"EXPERIMENTING\" on animals for a \"REAL\" purpose. The only things that scientists actually do in most animal tests are injections, blood sampling and surgeries. Now death may be a fate that some of the animals in tests go through but the deaths dont affect the population nor should they affect anybody. 5 million monkeys in the world and only 50 thousand are used in research not even 100 thousand its only 50. i think the monkey population isn't affected by the science. In 2001, there were estimated to be 400 million dogs in the world only 75,000 dogs are used in testing, again i never heard on a dog going extinct. there are 58,372,106 horses in the world. only 25 thousand are used for research. Now i can keep going on and on about animals but the main point im trying to say is this: Animals die, plants die, people die, you can't stop anything from death. What i am wondering is why i don't see PETA or people like you crying for the insects that get tested on as well as animals. Sure you care about that homeless dog. what about that ant hill in your back yard are you going to take them in too and feed them. While your helping those ants get some venomous snakes that help us in loads of research i'm sure they would love your help to. P2: You are just repeating P1. not a valid argument. C1: again repeating P1. What is the matter running out of stuff to say? P3(a): You never said HOW expensive is it and because of that this is not a valid argument. i am not gonna do your homework for you. Also, you only mentioned 1 experiment that was \"unreliable\" there are BILLIONS of experiment P3(b): You are just reapeating again and again on your other points so again, not valid. And i would like to rebuttal your rebuttals. i would like to tell you about the AWA also known as the Animal Welfare Act which is the only U.S. federal law that covers animals in research. Formed and signed in 1966, it regulates the care and use of animals in research, testing, teaching, exhibition, transport, and by dealers. I will also like to add that this law states that it is REQUIRED that animal testing MUST HAPPEN before a human can eat it, drink it, inject it. Now i would like to tell you that there are 7 billion people in the world. 300 million people live in the U.S. now awnser me this Sashil: are you willing to risk YOUR life, YOUR FAMILY, YOUR SPOUSE, YOUR CHILDREN LIVES, to save animals that cause 3 million deaths of HUMAN people per year?Ii know you want to save milo and otis and all the other animals out there... but is it really worth it? http://www.neavs.org... http://www.animalaid.org.uk... google.com http://www.peta.org... http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk...", "qid": "15", "docid": "f6daa834-2019-04-18T16:04:36Z-00001-000", "rank": 23, "score": 171630.0}, {"content": "Title: Animals should be used for testing Content: Thanks you, Pro. This debate should be fun. In response to the two questions Pro poses in Round 1: 1) No, they would probably not lay down their life for their pet, but they would also probably not lay down their life for anyone. There is a reason that killing someone in self-defense is not the moral equivalent of killing someone to steal their money. The difference lies in the intention: in one case you kill someone to save your own life. Killing animals, pets, whatever, makes sense when there is a direct threat to your own life. 2) Pro's second question already presupposes that testing our \"vaccinations\" and other \"crucial experiments\" on animals works. Before we can ask if their are alternatives to using animals for testing, we have to know whether testing on animals is relevant to human health in the first place. Of course, the answer is that animal testing has not been relevant to advancements in medicine or human health. In an article published in the esteemed \"Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine,\" the very notion itself was debunked. In the article, it was pointed out that \"animal experiments are not relevant to human health, they do not contribute meaningfully to medical advances and many are undertaken simply out of curiosity and do not even pretend to hold promise for curing illnesses.\" Furthermore, there is the obvious fact that animal biology is very different from human biology, and therefore, is unreliable. The FDA has noted that 92 percent of drugs shown to be safe and effective animal tests fail in human trials because they don't work or are dangerous to humans. It has been shown that physiological reactions to drugs vary enormously from species to species. Penicillin kills guinea pigs but is inactive in rabbits; aspirin kills cats and causes birth defects in rats, mice, guinea pigs, dogs, and monkeys; and morphine, a depressant in humans, stimulates goats, cats, and horses. The point is, using animals for our experiments has no medical value for us, because it is simply unreliable. Animal biology is different from ours.", "qid": "15", "docid": "7ef1e9dc-2019-04-18T18:28:00Z-00002-000", "rank": 24, "score": 171559.0}, {"content": "Title: Animal testing Content: Come on", "qid": "15", "docid": "fe530ecb-2019-04-18T16:32:33Z-00001-000", "rank": 25, "score": 170980.0}, {"content": "Title: animal expirimentation Content: Animals Needs to be Heard \"If slaughterhouses had glass walls, we would all be vegetarian.\" ( McCartney). Not having animal testing would be unrealistic. But minimizing it could cause no harm. Technology gets better and better every day and could save many lives. Laboratory scientist should cut back on animal testing because it is harmful and deadly for them. By not using that many animals for scientific experiments humans could save more lives and not let animal\"s lives to go to waste.26 million animals in the United States are used every year to do research. With that many animals being tested on many of them die or are permanently affected with all the dangerous chemicals that get injected into their bodies. Proponents of animal testing say many life-saving treatments for both humans and animals are very difficult to find. Many of these chemicals are never even approved for humans. At the same time many scientist believe that in order to cure diseases like Alzheimer\"s a few animals should die if it is for a greater cause. \"Animals do not have the cognitive ability or moral judgment that humans do and because of this they have been treated differently than humans by nearly every culture throughout recorded history. But we could still achieve great things without animals being affected. Equally important, our bodies and animals bodies are different. Something that can be harmful to a rat might not be for humans. 94% of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human clinical trials. \"Pick any drug you\"ve heard of; it was probably tested on by rats. But there is significant room for improvement,\" (Ericson). Knowing that animals and humans are not perfectly alike humans should not put that many animals lives at risk. However many scientist believe that with a rats body being only 95% different then human that it is worth risking their life if that means getting closer to making it safer for humans by just adjusting a few things. Because animals and humans are so biologically similar, they are susceptible to many of the same conditions and illnesses, including heart disease, cancer, and diabetes. But even with all those similarities that doesn\"t make it okay to risk their lives just for a lipstick. When humans cut back man should not use animals to be tested on for cosmetics but instead diseases but before they should be researched and for sure that it will not cause that animals excruciating pain or there life. At the same time technology gets better. \"Advanced computer-modeling techniques can be used instead of animals in disease research, drug development and chemical testing\" (Clippinger). This makes cutting back on animal testing that much easier. Also computer-models have already started to save millions of animals suffering from deadly chemicals. Alternative testing methods now exist that can replace animals. Besides technology there are options such as artificial human skin, which is made from sheets of human skin cells grown in test tubes or plastic wells and can produce more useful results than testing chemicals on animal skin. But even with all these amazing new discoveries the need for animal experimentation will stand. Laboratory scientist might not be able to stop animal testing 100% but they should try to minimize on the amount of animals used. The world is changing every day, and if the future is getting brighter for humans by cutting back, humans could also make it brighter for all the animals as well.", "qid": "15", "docid": "93c134db-2019-04-18T15:26:18Z-00003-000", "rank": 26, "score": 170288.0}, {"content": "Title: Animals Should Be Used For Scientific Research Content: Animals can further our understand of science vastly by experimentation, as well as save millions of lives.. Would you rather a albino rat die or a young girl with leukemia die? Most people (unless you belong to PETA which is another debate entirely) would prefer the girl.", "qid": "15", "docid": "baa6bc4d-2019-04-18T17:00:24Z-00005-000", "rank": 27, "score": 170268.0}, {"content": "Title: Animal Testing should be allowed Content: For your arguments. Now I will try best to counter it. \" A good deal of people would say that so many animals are being killed in animal research but it isn't realised that animals are used in the food industry as well. \" Well, As my worthy opponent says that a good deal of animals are used in the food industry, Pro, fails to realise that food industry is a high breeding industry too and no harm to the subsistence of animals is done in this industry. Does it mean that people are killing plants ruthlessly and causing extinction of wheat and rice plants? No. That is called agriculture and rearing animals for commercial purposes is called animal husbandry. (1) (1)en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Animal_husbandryR06; \" If we stop animal testing the human race would wipe out; and because of this human beings wouldn't be able to keep control of the reproduction of animals, leading to many of them dying for their own record! \" And nothing will happen to the population of the animals? A common example of what animal testing leads to is the situation of the Tokay gecko. (2)(3) (2). http://www.dw.de... (3)www. tokaygeckos. org/tokay-gecko-fact-sheetR06; What happens is that when a species of animal is thought to have some medicinal cures, it is researched upon. slowly, the demand of this species grows and people come to know about it. Frequently, these species are found in areas which are full of poor people. Catching these animals and supplying them to buyers gives a lot of money. So, everyone follows the rule of catching these animals and selling them for money. This happens recklessly and the population of these animals go down in a constant rate leading to their extinction. Tokay Geckos are researched on to find an HIV cure. While Top scientists say that it is in vain. Many have taken this research as a hope to find a cure. .. some for the welfare. .. and some for the money. The greed to earn money is leading to the extinction of beautiful animals. Think about it. If Human beings have fundamental rights, should the animals also not have some basic rights? At Least the right to LIVE? Tiger was first hunted as a game, gradually the GOVT. took steps. Later, they were researched on. GOVT. scientist said that tiger doesn't contain any medicinal factors and research on them was banned but is the tiger safe today? Nope. People who believe that tiger can be used to cure cancer are still researching on them by illegal means. Poachers are still prevalent. Tiger reserves are proving to be useless. The count of tiger in the whole world is >3200! ! In such situations, should animal testing be actually allowed?", "qid": "15", "docid": "aeeb3794-2019-04-18T17:18:40Z-00002-000", "rank": 28, "score": 170139.0}, {"content": "Title: Animals should be used for testing Content: Animals have also been known to fail. The point being, animals should not be used if there are other options. It's not like using animals is really any more effective than other methods. Other mammals biologically resemble us, but not enough for it to work too efficiently, as my sources have pointed out. Thank you for debating this topic.", "qid": "15", "docid": "7ef1e9fb-2019-04-18T11:22:45Z-00000-000", "rank": 29, "score": 169407.0}, {"content": "Title: Animal testing for medical research Content: I look forward to an excellent debate! Thank you Con. Now, according to your conditions, I have added a brief outline of the contentions I will present to you, as of arguing that animals should be used in medical research, if necessary: While minimizing suffering and pain, animals are very useful in medical research. Medical research using animals is a vital part of advancing both humans' and animals' health. Animals are one of the most common reasons for sickness caused in humans. If we stop animal testing the human race would possibly wipe out due to deaths from sickness; and because of this human beings wouldn't be able to keep control of the reproduction of animals, leading to many of them dying for their own record! Thus, if there wasn't any animal testing humans and animals both would die for their own record, eventually. What if it were your close relative who were sick, would using an animal make any difference? Animals are also killed in the food industry, for food, and the number of animals used in the food industry by far, outweigh the number used in the medical industry. Medical research can\u2019t use any other alternative. There would be many cures not found if we don\u2019t use animal testing. Also, please note, this is a rough outline of the arguments I will present. I may change, add, or not use some of the reasons provided for various reasons (which I don\u2019t know of, as of yet). I do believe that in the next round you will present your arguments in more detail, to which I then rebut on and introduce more arguments. Also, if don't mind me asking, this is the first time I've had a debate where we are to give an outline of the arguments we are going to use? Thank you, and Good luck!", "qid": "15", "docid": "16dc9c32-2019-04-18T16:46:13Z-00005-000", "rank": 30, "score": 169354.0}, {"content": "Title: should animals be used for scientific research Content: Pro has not upheld his BoP. His various contentions are merely conjecture. Let's take a look at them one by one.- \"it is not possible to develop drugs or perform many different sorts of important scientific investigation without animal research\"First, Pro doesn't go into detail on what exactly these types of scientific investigation even are. Is he referring to testing hair products or cancer drugs, we don't know. Secondly, since Pro has been so incredibly vague on the nature of scientific research which he is referring to, he has in no way actually backed up those assertions.- \"You wouldn't test on humans so the next best thing is animals\"This is also unsupported. Why can't we test on humans? On the contrary, it would seem to be a better idea since (a) humans would seem prima facie more comparable to other humans in determining the result of experimentation and (b) humans can actually give their consent, freeing one of the various ethical dilemmas brought on b forced testing on animals.", "qid": "15", "docid": "ec5a2259-2019-04-18T18:03:25Z-00002-000", "rank": 31, "score": 168997.0}, {"content": "Title: Animal Testing Content: Test", "qid": "15", "docid": "61bcbea9-2019-04-18T11:45:27Z-00001-000", "rank": 32, "score": 168931.0}, {"content": "Title: Animals should be used for testing Content: Yes, it is true that it would be better for an animal to die than a human. However, the reason I am against animal testing is its inefficiency and lack of necessity. We have more effective, alternative methods than causing the suffering of fellow mammals. The saddest part is that we have to use animals that are similar enough to humans that it may work, so we use creatures with an actual form of consciousness, versus, say, a lizard. https://www.neavs.org...", "qid": "15", "docid": "7ef1e9fb-2019-04-18T11:22:45Z-00006-000", "rank": 33, "score": 168818.0}, {"content": "Title: Animals Should Be Used For Scientific Research Content: May I start out by saying this is one of the best debates I have ever been in and it has been a really fun experience for me. Thank you for starting this debate and we should do this again sometime!Now, for my final arguments!\"Total federal revenues were $2.16 trillion in fiscal year 2010\" I did the math and exactly 0.00629% of tax dollars.\"I thought you might say that. That is only what it is costing us, the taxpayers. What is it costing the government? Think about that.\"Your pain argument is also ludicrous. You make a moral claim, but I could make a moral equilibrium by saying there pain is justified by the pain it saves us from.\"I'm sorry, but that is just heartless. Do you have no pity?! There is LITERALLY a video of a monkey being stuck in a tube and dying, which was one of my links in the last article. It saves about 5 million of us and takes 100 million of them (as stated in previous arguments) that, last time I checked, is not equal. \"B. Rats in labs are bred especially for the purpose of testing, and otherwise wouldn't have been born.\"Therefore, we are breeding animals just to kill them? I think not being born is a bit better than a full life of pain and misery. \"Because they are RATS.\"In every round, you have made an argument against a rat. At LEAST three times. You have failed to notice that only 18% are rats, as YOU SPECIFICALLY SAID. You have made no arguments against animals that don't carry diseases and that we love. If I didn't know any better, I would say your whole argument is revolving around rats. Look, rats are animals too and deserve to be treated with at least a LITTLE respect!\"Which is irrelevant\"It is not irrelevant because failed animal testing has KILLED people! If you think so highly of humans, why have you not addressed the fact that it is killing us, too? \"Around 95% of all animals that are being tested are specially bred rats and mice\"And I corrected you with 85% of the time. Did you just scan my argument or thoroughly read it?\"That rabbit you pulled up has no sources whatsoever and as far as I know is probably used in testing hair products.\"Check out the source at the bottom [1]. And the title says \"Animal Testing.\" How am I supposed to know what \"Animal Testing\" means to you? And how do you know that it was hair product? It might very well be for medical purposes.\"You are simply trying to evoke emotions in the voters\"I am trying to show them what we are doing, and trying to make some points. You are free to include some pictures, also. It is good debating skills to include pictures and you can't change that.\"We aren't just small minded eating machines.\"...Wow. Do you really hate animals that much? What did they ever do to you?\"Want to know what keeps him alive? Insulin. And want to know how they made that? By animal testing.\"Insulin was \"discovered\" in 1869 by research [2]. This was far before advanced animal testing. We made a life saving product without animal testing, and in less evolved times, so why do we have to do it today? You just proved another one of my points. I will only make one point because my opponent only made this debate three rounds, and he can't post a rebuttal. But I will end with one more point.Argument 1: We do have some alternatives, you know! [3]For my last argument, I will show that animal testing can be stopped and replaced with an alternative. Corrositex is one example. It is artificial skin that shows damages of products. That means it is not cruel and you don't have to use animal's skin for it. Another example and alternative to animal testing is computer modeling [4]. We are advanced, as you said, and computer modeling would both cut the costs for scientists AND save a ton of innocent animals. Many countries around the world are using these alternatives successfully. The rest of the world should follow in their footsteps.To sum up, my debate was against animal testing overall. I posted many rebuttals and seven arguments. Now It's all up to you, the voters, to see who you want to win. Thank you for reading and God Bless!!![1] http://www.peta.org...[2] http://www.nobelprize.org...[3] http://suite101.com...[4] http://www.newscientist.com...", "qid": "15", "docid": "baa6bc4d-2019-04-18T17:00:24Z-00000-000", "rank": 34, "score": 168639.0}, {"content": "Title: The Use of Animals within Scientific Research Content: Animals are not necessarily helping us because they have no choice to participate in the testings. Again, we are in an period of time where we have improved our technology and our lab work to create synthetic materials that could be used to test chemicals on. What also poses the issues of animal use if the way that they are being treated, and whether or not their living conditions are inhumane. Many animals that are being tested are placed in conditions that are unhealthy and will harm them, whether or not the testing itself is physically or mentally harmful.", "qid": "15", "docid": "28e0a6b5-2019-04-18T15:07:33Z-00001-000", "rank": 35, "score": 168413.0}, {"content": "Title: Animal Testing should be allowed Content: Firstly, I thank Con, for your rebuttal, and will proceed with my own. Well, you have stated that while the food industry uses an insignificant amount of animals, it does have a breeding program, for example, farms, albeit, it is unfortunate that you have not considered the fact of breeding programs also occurring in animal testing, as proved in the 'Royal Society Publishing', written by highly qualified scientists and professors. They have stated this quote, \"We breed animals for four principal reasons: as sources of usable products or services; for medical or scientific research; for aesthetic, cultural or ethical consideration; and as pets\", proving my point of how a small amount of animals, used for medical purposes, also enables us to advance our drugs, has a breeding program, and comparing this to the food industry who, in fact, kill more than 55 billion animals per year, according to 'The Vegan Society of Peace', and yet only do this to satisfy their taste unlike finding cures for cancer, and saving millions of lives, shows that animal testing is a great thing. This proves how animal testing is far more beneficial than all of the other industries that use animals, and how despite using a small amount of animals, as mentioned before, they advance us, as humans, so much more than all the others. Do you really want to stop animal testing? Also, I believe you have failed to comprehend my other point, (as you proved by saying, \"and nothing will happen to the population of the animals?\") which elaborates on, the fact, that, if we stop animal testing, the human race could possibly wipe out; and if the human race is wiped out, the food web/chain, would be out of control, distorted, which would then allow some species to die out, eventually dying out all living creatures. Animal testing would save millions of human lives, thus continuing the human race. By all means, animals are vital for our living. I do believe that animals are affected by the activities of humans. But it is unfortunate that you are slow to realise that as a result we, as humans, have a duty of care for all living things, and animal testing is essential for animals and humans to not become extinct. Also, animals that go through animal testing are not all going through pain and suffering or death. Some tests are even as simple as seeing different wet animals shake themselves. (1) Besides, even if all testing animals died, it must be considered how this is done for the benefit of us staying alive, which as mentioned before, is a must for animals to live. Many of these animals, including mice or primates, are used to test medicines which range from stopping headaches to saving lives. Under these circumstances, would you want animals to be stopped from testing? Millions of human lives depend on bettering our medication, would you rather see millions of humans dying, or 20 rats in a laboratory? Several important medical advances have been made in the twentieth century due to the testing of non-human animals. These advances in medicine could not have happened without the use of animals as testing before releasing it to common people. It must be understood that although animal testing sounds inhumane, it does, and will continue to save lives. Also, in regard to your count of tigers in the whole world, the major reason for the small population of tigers, is hunting tigers for their skin, teeth and other features. Animal testing is the least of the reasons, albeit, the diversity of the tiger count in the whole world, is quite touching, and depressing. Anyhow, even if animal testing is stopped, people will still do this illegally, for the sake of money, albeit, animal testing is not the reason for close extinction heading towards animals, the intention for animal testing is to benefit and advance our drugs, and not to end the animal races. Also, it is considered that there are alternatives than using animals for testing drugs, but if this is the truth, then why aren't any alternatives used? Why are animals considered the first option? The truth is that there are no alternatives, and there aren't any satisfactory alternatives because animals are the closest things related to humans, and for accurate medicine results, that won't kill or harm humans, we need to test our products on other creatures, which enables us to verify if the results are positive and actually work right in the living immune system of an animal, and since we cannot test an experimental medicine on a fellow human with human rights, we must test it on the other members of the animal kingdom who have immune systems. In conclusion, animal testing is extremely beneficial for both humans and animals, if we continue animal testing, we will find new cures, and save millions of lives. Animal testing is to advance drugs, population control, and morality. (1) http://www.bbc.com.... Thank you. :)", "qid": "15", "docid": "aeeb3794-2019-04-18T17:18:40Z-00001-000", "rank": 36, "score": 167870.0}, {"content": "Title: Animals should be used for testing Content: You are half-right. Testing is needed, but it doesn't have to be animal testing. Again, there are computer simulations and other alternate testing methods which work about as well as animal testing, and don't require the ineffective use of animals. I'm far from being with PETA, but if there is an alternate method, it should be used.", "qid": "15", "docid": "7ef1e9fb-2019-04-18T11:22:45Z-00002-000", "rank": 37, "score": 167636.0}, {"content": "Title: Animal testing for medical research Content: no", "qid": "15", "docid": "e511ec5-2019-04-19T12:45:01Z-00005-000", "rank": 38, "score": 166412.0}, {"content": "Title: Animal testing for medical research Content: no", "qid": "15", "docid": "e511ec5-2019-04-19T12:45:01Z-00006-000", "rank": 39, "score": 166412.0}, {"content": "Title: Animal research is extremely tightly regulated by independent authorities Content: In the last five years in the UK, no fewer than three independent inquiries have been carried out into the effectiveness of animal research in developing medicines for human use. The House of Lords Select Committee, the Parliamentary Animal Procedures Committee and the independent Nuffield Council on Bioethics all concluded that testing on animals is a scientifically sound method, has yielded great results in the past, and is crucial for future advances. The animals used for research in the United Kingdom must be specially bred by registered license holders. Research is not performed on stray animals or unwanted pets. This is strictly illegal. The use of chimpanzees, orangutans, and gorillas has also been banned since 1986. The vast majority of research is conducted on rodents, with a smaller percentage using fish, reptiles, and birds. A very small percentage is conducted in larger mammals.", "qid": "15", "docid": "e511ec5-2019-04-19T12:45:01Z-00026-000", "rank": 40, "score": 166412.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: An alternative for animal testing should be found. Content: Thank you Blah. You are no mean debater, and I look forward to the challenge. I will be dedicating this round for my constructive case and will make formal rebuttals in later rounds. Brief Appeal to AuthorityA 2011 poll of nearly 1000 biomedical scientists showed that \u201cmore than 90% of the poll\u2019s respondents agreed that the use of animals in research is essential\u201d[1]Stefan Treue, head of the German Primate Centre in G\u00f6ttingen says that, \u201cafter lay-people have visited his laboratory and seen how work is conducted and why, \"something like 98% understand and accept that this is a small but important and irreplaceable part of biomedical science\u201d[1] The same source goes on to note a percentage of scientists had mixed feelings on the issue of animal testing.\u201c[A]lthough researchers overwhelmingly feel free to discuss these concerns with colleagues, many seem less at ease with doing so in public. More than 70% said that the polarized nature of the debate makes it difficult to voice a nuanced opinion on the subject, and little more than one-quarter said that their institutions offer training and assistance in communicating broadly about the importance of animal research.\u201d[1] We do not test on animals because of some twisted sadistic pleasure in it. Scientists and even the \u2018lay people\u2019 who are given an overview of what these tests are about generally agree that the tests are irreplaceably significant. There is simply no substitute for animal testing. Mice and chimpanzees, for example, share 98-99% of a human\u2019s genetic makeup. Animals are the only subjects other than human beings with similar enough systemic constitutions to give us our best comparative data. We shouldn\u2019t be seeking an alternative because there is no alternative. The Importance of Animal Testing - an Anecdote The first stages to the discovery of life-saving diabetes treatment was made by Charles Best and Frederick Banting[2] by conducting tests, such as organ harvesting, on a number of dogs. One of the dogs had its pancreas cut out, and its living progress recorded over time. Banting and Best then diced up the pancreas and created a pancreatic solution which they injected into the dog. The result of these experiments and numerous trials afterward was the discovery that a certain mixture of pancreatic material, produced after numerous counts of trial and error, countered the effect of diabetes. This material, a.k.a. insulin, is a monumental discovery in biomedical science. Diabetes was known as a cureless disease with a 100% mortality that can only be delayed for 1-2 years. It is estimated that there are currently 29.1 million people in the United States who have diabetes[3]. The lives and organs of tens of dogs and hundreds of cattle in the early decades of the 20th century and the result of their sacrifice are still effectively impacting the lives of millions of people. While not all animal testing will achieve such amazing results, this anecdote serves as an example among many of the indispensability of animal test subjects. We can stare at things in petri dishes all day, but such measures simply cannot duplicate the results of testing on fully functioning living systems. If Banting and Best did not harvest the dogs\u2019 organs, they could not possibly have found the pancreas\u2019 essential correlations to diabetes nor would they have discovered the insulin that keeps over 20 million people living in the United States alive. Who Benefits? \u201cWithout animal research, millions of dogs, cats, birds, and farm animals would be dead from more than 200 diseases, including anthrax, distemper, rabies, feline leukemia, and canine parvo virus, according to Americans for Medical Progress (AMP), a nonprofit group that supports the responsible and humane use of animals in biomedical research. Today, those diseases are largely preventable, thanks to vaccines and treatments developed in animal research. In human terms, research with animals has led to vaccinations against smallpox, measles, mumps, diphtheria, and tetanus; development of anesthesia, antibiotics, and insulin; use of cardiac pacemakers and heart bypass surgery; surgical advancements for organ transplants, hip replacements, and cataract surgery; and treatments for a host of diseases, including diabetes, multiple sclerosis, AIDS, and children\u2019s leukemia.\u201d[4] Of course, unless you preferred we tested hip replacements, organ transplants, anasthesia etc. on humans, non-animal alternatives such as cultured petri-dish cells aren\u2019t going to help you find out the after-effects and survivability of animals after such operations. There\u2019s just no practical way we can replace the functionalities of a live animal. An Alternative to Animal Testing? In order to monitor results of testing on a living system, a living system must be tested on. Only living things have living systems. Our only option, in order to duplicate results obtained from animal testing, is to test on some other living thing. But here we stumble upon a contradictory problem: all living things are animals. We test on rats and other mammals because these mammals are the closest things to the homo sapien sapien other than the homo sapien sapiens themselves. The only other alternative we have to replace animals, who already replace human beings, is to artificially create some living thing which replicates mammalian living functions; to genetically engineer another living thing. Again, we happen upon the same problem. This genetically engineered living mammal would necessarily be an animal. Testing on this animal would mean animal abuse, bringing us all the way back to the perceived problem of animal testing. I assert that any alternative method to duplicating the results of animal testing can only be animal testing. I hate to ask my opponent to present an alternative, but we simply cannot invest in a pointless venture to find an alternative if no feasible direction toward which we should go toward this alternative is presented. I assert that looking for alternatives to animal testing is a waste of valuable time and resources. Such a venture is only reasonable if we had a practical idea as to where we were going with the invested capital, but we don\u2019t. Some Other Facts about Animal Testing. It is often suggested that since the majority of products from animal tests fail, animal tests are bad models for humans. Many of these statistics are taken out of context. Animal rights activists, when citing such statistics, often neglect other relevant data. For example, my opponent elicits an oft-cited statistic which states that 9 out of 10 or 90% of the drugs tested on animals fail in clinical studies. Many products are experimental. Of course they\u2019re going to fail. Conductors of animal-testing experiments aren\u2019t going to succeed with everything they try. That they so rigorously maintain a healthy skepticism on the effectiveness and safety of the majority of trial products shows is actually a good thing. Consider the following chart: 94% of all drugs that pass the animal trials fail the human trials from phase 1-3 with 86% failing after the phase trials. Note that even human trials fail at just as large a ratio as animal trials. Is this grounds to claim that human tests are bad models for humans? That\u2019s ridiculous. These are trials. They are bound to fail, that\u2019s what experiments are: trial and error until the desired result is attained. Living animals are the next best alternative to living humans. That\u2019s all there is to it. \u201cHere is where it is important to understand a little about the drug development process.Before the preclinical animal tests there are a large number of pre-preclinical non-animal tests done on all manner of research tools including computer models, automatic screening, cell cultures, microbial studies and more. These methods are used to (relatively) cheaply remove many potentially toxic, or obviously non-starting drugs from reaching the more expensive animal testing stage \u2013 greatly reducing the amount of animal research required for a drug to reach market. So contrary to animal rights claims of alternative methods being better, the truth is that 94% of drugs that pass animal AND non-animal preclinical tests will fail in human tests.So rather than damn just the animal tests, have animal rights activists managed to damn all of preclinical research? In short, no.\u201d[5] Conclusion Animals' systems are analogous to human systems and are the closest things we have (other than humans) to test on.We simply don\u2019t have an alternative to replace what animal testing provides.Animal testing is necessary to saving lives and alleviating pain and suffering of a larger demographic. While most of us can agree that premature death and suffering are loathsome, the reality is that these things cannot be avoided. SOURCES[1] http://www.nature.com...[2] http://www.nobelprize.org...[3] http://www.cdc.gov...[4] http://cvma.net...[5]http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk...", "qid": "15", "docid": "dc9a6341-2019-04-18T15:17:17Z-00006-000", "rank": 41, "score": 165364.0}, {"content": "Title: Animal Testing Content: Accepted.", "qid": "15", "docid": "61bcbe8a-2019-04-18T11:44:14Z-00005-000", "rank": 42, "score": 165308.0}, {"content": "Title: Animal testing Content: Good luck!", "qid": "15", "docid": "fe530ecb-2019-04-18T16:32:33Z-00005-000", "rank": 43, "score": 164516.0}, {"content": "Title: Animal Testing does more harm than good Content: In my opponent's Round 2 response, there was no discernable rebuttal to my arguments in Round 1. It even appears that my opponent actually took up my position, which I welcome.Again, I want to reiterate that I do share my opponent's passion about animal rights and do believe animals should be protected by modern laws. I also believe that animals that are involved in animal research and animal testing must be treated humanely when they're not enduring these kinds of potentially painful and gruesome tests; and I think the use of animals in experiments should be avoided where they can be. This is the subject of intense debate surrounding the biomedical research field and other fields where animals are tested, such as the cosmetics industry.Preclinical Trials (Animal Testing) Are an Inescapable First Step in the Development of a Safe DrugHowever, a lot of animal research and testing is unavoidable, especially whenever scientists have to examine whether a medicine or substance is safe for human testing. Animals are used in early trials of a new medicine or chemical (or cocktail of either) because scientists first have to evaluate likely effects before the substance is used in human trials. This is done not only to evaluate potential health risks with the new medicine or chemical--including risks of death--but also to get an understanding of how the substance(s) work inside the organism, to see which systems are affected and how. Understanding how these substances work inside the organism can likewise provide scientists with a critical understanding of how these substances are likely to work within a human. In other words, the efficacy and possible side-effects of the new drug are being determined as well (obviously). There's just too much risks in going straight to human trials, and we would see potentially thousands of human fatalities/casualties before these trials produced just one effective drug. The use of animals in biomedical research is an unavoidable first step if our aim as a nation is to prevent the loss of human life altogether. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), an agency of the US Department of Health and Human Services, has to first scrutinize an experimental drug tested on animals, and deem it \"reasonably safe\", before it can even approve it for clinical trials (human trials) [1][2]. In fact, the FDA reports on its website that \"most drugs that undergo preclinical (animal) testing never even make it to human testing\" or even to the review process, because of self-evident defects [1]. Could you imagine the harm caused to human subjects if animal testing was avoided altogether?Preclinical (animal) testing is so important to the drug development process and to the assessment of a drug's potential dangers and performance that most drugs aren't tested exclusively on a single animal type, but have to be tested on several [2]. This is \"because one drug can affect one species differently from another\" [2]. This is an important fact to know because \"some animals serve as accurate representatives of a human's anatomy, while others share identical biochemical pathways\" [3]. One animal might be a perfect representative of a particular human system or organ, while another more accurately reflects a human metabolic pathway. In most instances, the use of at least two or more species in preclinical trials can't be avoided, out of human safety concerns.That's not to say that researchers are at liberty to test on an endless supply of animals in these trials. They're not. The FDA explains that drug companies are required to test on as few animals as possible, and are still obligated to ensure their humane and proper treatment [2]. There are also federal laws within the United States that explain how research animals must be treated, and what the limitations of drug companies are with respect to these animals--something which I'll cover in a following Round.Some Animal Research also Benefits Animals!It's true that most research with laboratory animals benefits humans. But some animal research has also benefited animals. Animals could not profit from this research unless testing on laboratory animals happened in the first place!According to the Foundation for Biomedical Research, animal testing has led to \"life-saving and life-extending treatments for cats, dogs, farm animals, wildlife and endangered species\" [4]. Vaccinations for rabies, tetanus, feline leukemia, distemper, parvo virus and current treatments for glaucoma, heart disease, cancer and other animal illnesses would not be possible unless research was conducted on laboratory animals [4]. Because of this research, many familiar animals (and some wild) now have extended, healthier, happier lives. Such research has even yielded advanced treatments like joint replacement and pacemakers for animals [4].For a Following Round . . . Laboratory animals are also important in understanding potential bioterror threats posed by terrorists, and in researching possible vaccinations and treatments.[1] http://www.fda.gov...[2] http://www.fda.gov...[3] http://www.pro-test.org.uk...[4] http://fbresearch.org...", "qid": "15", "docid": "e9fceef8-2019-04-18T14:01:57Z-00003-000", "rank": 44, "score": 163663.0}, {"content": "Title: Animal Testing Content: Thank you. The only U.S. law that governs the use of animals in laboratories, the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), allows animals to be burned, shocked, poisoned, isolated, starved, forcibly restrained, addicted to drugs, and brain-damaged. No experiment, no matter how painful or trivial, is prohibited\u2014and painkillers are not even required. Even when alternatives to the use of animals are available, U.S. law does not require that they be used\u2014and often they aren\u2019t. Because the AWA specifically excludes rats, mice, birds, and cold-blooded animals, more than 95 percent of the animals used in laboratories are not even covered by the minimal protection provided by federal laws. Because they aren\u2019t protected, experimenters don\u2019t even have to provide them with pain relief. Between 2010 and 2014, nearly half a million animals\u2014excluding mice, rats, birds, and cold-blooded animals\u2014were subjected to painful experiments and not provided with pain relief. A 2009 survey by researchers at Newcastle University found that mice and rats who underwent painful, invasive procedures, such as skull surgeries, burn experiments, and spinal surgeries, were provided with post-procedural pain relief only about 20 percent of the time.", "qid": "15", "docid": "61bcbe8a-2019-04-18T11:44:14Z-00004-000", "rank": 45, "score": 163503.0}, {"content": "Title: Animals should be used for Medical Research Content: Albert Sabin who developed the polio vaccine once stated \"Without Animal research, polio would still be claiming thousands of lives each year.\" Animal research has played a vital part in nearly every medical breakthrough throughout the past decade. I feel compelled to affirm today\"s resolution that animals should be used for medical research because animal testing has contributed to many life saving cures and treatments, animals themselves benefit from the results of animal testing, and that there is no adequate alternative to testing on a living whole body system. Contention 1: Animal testing has contributed to many life saving cures and treatments. The California Biomedical Research Association states that nearly every medical breakthrough in the last 100 years has resulted directly from research using animals. Imagine how many more possible medical breakthroughs that could be discovered with animal experimentation. An example of a life saving treatment discovered from animal testing is the Polio Vaccine. The Polio Vaccine tested on animals, reduced the global amount of those with polio from 350,000 cases in 1988 to 223 cases in 2012. ( animal-testing.procon.org ) Chris Abee, director of the University of Texas Anderson Cancer Centers animal research facility states that \"we wouldn't have a vaccine for hepatitis B without chimpanzees\" and says that the use of animal research is are \"our best hope\" for finding a vaccine for Hepatitis C, a disease that kills 15,000 people every year in the united states. ( animal-testing.procon.org ) A poll taken in 2011 by the science journal Nature showed that nearly 90% of biomedical scientists agreed that the use of animals in research is essential. Contention 2: Animals themselves benefit from the results of animal testing. If vaccines were not tested on animals, millions of animals would have died from rabies, distemper, feline leukemia, infectious hepatitis virus, tetanus, anthrax, and canine parvovirus. (animal-testing.procon.org ) Isnt it reasonable to test on animals if its gonna save more animals? Without Animal testing, many species would soon become extinct. Koalas, aravaged by chlamydia are being tested with new chlamydia vaccines that may stall the animals disappearance. Without animal testing, we could soon lose many species such as the Koala. Even the American Veterinary Medical Association endorses animal testing. Contention 3: Animals are appropriate research subjects due to their similarity to humans. Chimpanzees share 99% of their DNA with humans, and mice are 98% genetically similar to humans. Every mammal including humans have the same set of organs such as the heart, kidneys, and lungs that function in the same way as humans. Because mammals and humans are so similar, they are open to many of the same conditions and illnesses as human such as heart disease, cancer, and diabetes. Animals do not have rights, therefore it is acceptable to experiment on them. Animals do not have moral judgment or cognitive ability that humans do and because of this every culture recorded throughout human history has treated them differently than humans. If we grant animals rights, all humans would therefore have to become vegetarians, and hunting would be illegal. Conclusion: In today\"s round I have shown why Animal Experimentation is essential for progress in Medical Technology due to the fact that Animal testing has contributed to many life saving cures and treatments, Animals themselves benefit from the results of animal testing, and that Animals are appropriate research subjects due to their similarity to humans. For these reasons, we can clearly conclude that progress ( value) should be upheld and we should affirm the resolution that animals should be used for medical research. Clearly we must affirm today\"s resolution.", "qid": "15", "docid": "efcd9117-2019-04-18T16:37:47Z-00004-000", "rank": 46, "score": 161958.0}, {"content": "Title: Animals should be tested on Content: Pls vote!", "qid": "15", "docid": "e057cec7-2019-04-18T15:04:52Z-00000-000", "rank": 47, "score": 161494.0}, {"content": "Title: Animal Testing Content: Animal Testing: The use of non-human animals in experiments. Experiment: a scientific test in which you perform a series of actions and carefully observe their effects in order to learn about something. [1] Rebuttal: \"By many accounts, animal testing often means that that animals are not treated humanely.\" - I'm sure they aren't treated \"humanely\", as they are not human. - However there are many cases of animal testing also do not harm the animal and in fact benefits the animal. - For example, currently the WWF organization are working hard to preserve Pandas, which are an endangered species. [2] To preserve the Pandas, they must learn more about Pandas. To do this, they must experiment on them. These experiments are generally harmless. For example, a scientist may measure and weigh several Pandas to determine which size and weight is healthy, so that they can spot out Pandas that are not healthy easier. Also, if a Panda is sick, veterinarians must experiment on the Panda to determine what is wrong with it and how to cure it, much like how a doctor would perform an x-ray scan on a broken bone to determine where the fracture is so he can accurately provide a diagnosis. \"According to Santa Clara University, approximately 8 million animals are exposed to painful testing procedures,\" - That is unfortunate, but why should we humans care about the pains felt by animals? We already butcher and slaughter them for food. They already suffer whether or not we test them. And we do this because food benefits us, just like animal testing may benefit us. - Furthermore as I have shown, not all cases of animal testing result in the suffer of animals. Con's resolution is basically: \"Animal testing is terrible and should be banned.\" My burden of proof is simply to show cases in which animal testing is not terrible and is actually necessary. I've met this burden by explaining how animal testing is necessary for the preservation of animals, which may also preserve the environment. \"Many people believe it is unjust to sacrifice one species for the benefit of another, and that animal cruelty is never justified, regardless of the benefits that come from it.\" - Con has committed the Argumentum ad populum fallacy, otherwise known as the bandwagon fallacy. [3] Using an appeal to the masses does not validly support one's argument. \"Some feel that it does not follow that a human --- Earth's most highly developed animal --- is considered more valuable than any other animal.\" - It doesn't matter how much we or animals are worth. If those people truly feel like this, they would all be vegans/vegetarians, which I'm sure is unlikely. We eat because we benefit from it, not because we devalue animals. The same goes for animal testing. - Animal testing has made huge medical breakthroughs in fighting breast cancer, Leukemia, HIV/AIDS, lung cancer, birth defects, diabetes, and the list goes on. [4] Those are the benefits we got from animal testing. Therefore, we don't do it because we devalue animals, but because it benefits us. \"Even when animals are not killed or harmed during experimentation, they are often subjected to great deals of stress. Some animal advocates believe that the animal's experience of stress could actually influence an experiment, making the results unusable.\" - It is important for judges to note that this entire sentence was plagiarized word for word from this website: http://www.ehow.com... *In fact, the rest of Con's argument on \"Expense\" and \"Necessity\" has also been plagiarized from the same website. Because they are not Con's arguments, I refuse to address them. This is a clear conduct violation. \"There are three general types of animal testing. Product testing is the testing of products such as soaps, cosmetics, household cleaners and pesticides on animals to ensure they are safe for human use. Research uses the testing of drugs and medical procedures on animals. Education and training uses animals to teach anatomy and to train medical studentsI have not seen any information for preserving animal testing plus Wikipedia literally anyone can put something on Wikipedia and it could be wrong\" - Con did not provide a clear definition for animal testing in both round 1 and round 2. Therefore, I was allowed to provide a definition that Con must abide by. My definition of \"Animal Testing\" was: \"The use of non-human animals in experiments.\" - My examples of preserving animals and the environment require non-human animals to be used in experiments. Therefore, it is still valid in the boundaries of this debate and considered animal testing. Sources: [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] http://wwf.panda.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://www.amprogress.org...", "qid": "15", "docid": "61bcb9f0-2019-04-18T15:36:32Z-00002-000", "rank": 48, "score": 161455.0}, {"content": "Title: Animal testing Content: Save Animals: Don't Test on Them Animal testing is a huge controversy. Some argue that animal testing is a necessity to make medical breakthroughs. Opponents believe that animal testing is inhuman. Clearly, animal testing is a bad practice because it has caused suffering on a massive scale, it's a bad form of science, and is unethical. Throughout the world animal testing has caused suffering on a massive scale. In 2016, US Government statistics put the number of laboratory animals used in research at 820,812, a 7% increase from 2015 (PETA). Studies show that 4.1 million experiments are conducted on animals in laboratories in the UK each year ( National Antivisection Society). This is proof that laboratories have been on a rise lately, showing that the use of animal testing is a problem in other parts of the world, not only in the United States. Animal testing is a bad form of science. The food and drug administration reported that 92 out of every 100 drugs that pass animal testing would fail on testing on humans (PETA). After seven years of testing on animals the anti-Rheumatic drug, Orpen, was declared safe for use on humans. After initiation of use on humans, this so-called \"safe\" drug was responsible for killing 76 people and caused a very serious illness to 3,500 others in Britain (NewStatesman). Some feel that animal testing is a unethical form of testing. More than 100 million animals are killed in the US each year. Laboratories are used for biology lessons, medical training, drugs, and cosmetic testing. Before animals die, most are forced to inhale toxic fumes or they are also immortalized and stuck to multiple devices for hours suffering. Scientist from PETA announced that companies/ testing laboratories could put stress and suffering on animals by have drilling holes into their skulls, have skin burned off, or their spinal cords crushed (PETA). Studies have also shown that because of the torment of the experiments animals are deprived of everything that is natural and important to them. Animals are taken out of their natural habitat and confined in barred cages and are socially isolated, which is not helping the animals in any way. On the other hand, many scientists and companies believe that animal testing is the best form of testing drugs for humans cures. Those against animal testing feel this isn\"t right, they feel that scientists should start testing on humans for their own cures because animals and humans function differently. Why make animals suffer for them to possibly die after the scientist are done trying to see if the drug worked on the animal? The animals are under unnatural testing environments and the scientists are doing this in a very unhealthy and unnatural way. There is really no thought out processes behind testing on animals. How do animals benefit from dying? Animals don't have any say in getting tested on in a laboratory. If companies and scientist started testing on humans it could lead to more cures found in viruses and diseases, because the testing would be done on the very being that the drug would be used on to cure the ailment. Testing on animals doesn't benefit from much. Yes, scientist do find cures for viruses and disease, but scientist are killing creatures that can't fight for what they want. Animals have no say in what is happening to them. They get put into a situation that they can't protect themselves from. Animal testing shouldn't exist because of the pain and suffering they make them go through just to find a cure that they could test on a human instead of risking animals lives in the process.", "qid": "15", "docid": "fe53164d-2019-04-18T12:01:29Z-00001-000", "rank": 49, "score": 160828.0}, {"content": "Title: Be it resolved that, Animals should be used for testing. Content: Good day, The resolution before us today is Be it resolved that animals should be used for testing. As the only speaker on our team I strongly disagree, Here are a few reasons why. 1. Animals can hurt and feel just as we can how would you like to be covered in chemichales and used for horrible expirements. 2. Animals are a valuable part of our environment and wthout them we will surely decline in environmental help. 3. We are doing it for our own luxury We are tourturing many animals for hand creams,Bath and body products,and many other items for our own convenience. This is unjust and unhumane. 4. We treat animals as if we are less than them. We are all equal in fact humans share 30% of our DNA with lettuce weare all interconnected without bee's which are considered animals pollinate flowers. Without that we would have no food. Torturing an animal is unhumane and unjust. Believeing that this is ok shows how truely corrupted our society actually is. And that is why we strongly oppose", "qid": "15", "docid": "89e6a139-2019-04-18T12:40:16Z-00001-000", "rank": 50, "score": 160783.0}, {"content": "Title: Animal testing Content: lol", "qid": "15", "docid": "fe530ecb-2019-04-18T16:32:33Z-00000-000", "rank": 51, "score": 160341.0}, {"content": "Title: Animals should be used for testing Content: \"lesser than humans\"- First off, humans are just a more complicated species of animal. You can read this if you don't believe me: https://io9.gizmodo.com... http://www.zo.utexas.edu... https://www.smh.com.au... Basically, other species are more intelligent and emotional than we tend to believe, and we run on more instinct than we tend to believe. Second, the animal species we use in these experiments are semi-intelligent mammals. Remember, they also feel pain and, despite not understanding what is going on, will understand pain. Look at this: https://www.psychologytoday.com... https://www.npr.org... I did not use PETA as a resource, as they exaggerate the facts on most subjects like this.", "qid": "15", "docid": "7ef1e9fb-2019-04-18T11:22:45Z-00008-000", "rank": 52, "score": 160171.0}, {"content": "Title: Research can be done effectively without experimenting on living creature Content: As experimenting on animals is immoral we should stop using animals for experiments. But apart from it being morally wrong practically we will never know how much we will be able to advance without animal experimentation if we never stop experimenting on animals. Animal research has been the historical gold standard, and in the case of some chemical screening tests, was for many years, by many western states, required by law before a compound could be released on sale. Science and technology has moved faster than research protocols however, and so there is no longer a need for animals to be experimented on. We now know the chemical properties of most substances, and powerful computers allow us to predict the outcome of chemical interactions. Experimenting on live tissue culture also allows us to gain insight as to how living cells react when exposed to different substances, with no animals required. Even human skin leftover from operations provides an effective medium for experimentation, and being human, provides a more reliable guide to the likely impact on a human subject. The previous necessity of the use of animals is no longer a good excuse for continued use of animals for research. We would still retain all the benefits that previous animal research has brought us but should not engage in any more. Thus modern research has no excuse for using animals.[1] [1] PETA. 2011. Alternatives: Testing Without Torture.", "qid": "15", "docid": "7f023e5c-2019-04-15T20:22:59Z-00015-000", "rank": 53, "score": 159548.0}, {"content": "Title: Animal Testing should be allowed Content: Firstly, I thank con for accepting my challenge, and would further like to state some reasons. Good Luck! :) 1) A good deal of people would say that so many animals are being killed in animal research but it isn't realised that animals are used in the food industry as well. The number of animals used in the food industry are countless comparing to animal research. People would approximately ear thirty sheep, five cows, six-hundred chickens in addition to thirty pigs in a lifetime whereas only three mice and one rat would be used in one humans lifetime due to animal research. In addition to all of this there are vegetarians in the world, including myself. The food industry uses more animals than the insignificant amount that animal research does and people don\"t even think about the sum that the food industry uses. Animal research benefits more people using less animals and the food industry uses more animals and only helps non-vegetarians. Would you rather satisfy your hunger, in which there are other alternatives, or would you rather save millions of lives, in which there are no alternatives that are appropriate? 2) It is a fact that animals sometimes do get harmed and possibly killed from animal testing, but if it hadn't been for animal testing the dreaded human race would have died out in the present climate. Numerous people have died from heart failure, liver failure, diabetes and even throat infections! If animal testing continues then more people would be saved. By all means animals are vital to us as we use them in the food industry, and other general labour. If we stop animal testing the human race would wipe out; and because of this human beings wouldn't be able to keep control of the reproduction of animals, leading to many of them dying for their own record! Thus, if there wasn't any animal testing humans and animals both would die for their own record, eventually. Thank you. :)", "qid": "15", "docid": "aeeb3794-2019-04-18T17:18:40Z-00003-000", "rank": 54, "score": 159507.0}, {"content": "Title: Animals should be used for testing Content: Yes, but an Ape would work. And the Animal testing is still needed. The Alternative methods usually use single cells, not that good. And I'm pretty sure an experiment wouldn't get passed if it weren't possible. We can't fix all the diseases, but we can try.", "qid": "15", "docid": "7ef1e9fb-2019-04-18T11:22:45Z-00003-000", "rank": 55, "score": 159148.0}, {"content": "Title: Animal Testing Content: Well, first of all, thanks for accepting.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------To begin with, experimentation it's a very important part for scientific development. We can't test on humans primarly because of the moral. But if we can't use humans, why can we use animals?My reasons for using animals on research and/or experiments are: Most of the animals are breed in laboratories specifically for testing (like flies). This doesn't affect a species population. In fact, the species used are really common and aren't endangered. Animals (specifically mice) can be breed for a special experiment. An animal life could help the human race to find a cure, understand how certain organs work or even make a progress in the genetics area. Testing on animals allows us to know if a drug is safe for selling it. Scientists care about the animals. They use them just in really necessary cases and they use techniques that cause the least harm, stress or pain to the animal.", "qid": "15", "docid": "61bcba6c-2019-04-18T15:04:19Z-00004-000", "rank": 56, "score": 159080.0}, {"content": "Title: animal testing. Content: The 4 main reasons we use animals in testing are: 1. To advance scientific understanding 2. As models to study deisieses 3. To Develop and test potential for of treatment 4. To protect the safety of people, animals and the environment You can see the descriptions of these reasons here: http://www.animalresearch.info... Animal testing is very successfull and neccessary. No one wants animals to be treated badly, but would you rather have your loved one die? Insulin was tested on animals, and that saves lives every day. Scientists even fear that if animal testing becomes illegal, medical research will be stopped entirely. With the erosion of antibiotic effectiveness a real possibility, it is essential that we use every tool we have to a dress the medical threats facing our civilization. You can read about it here: http://newsciencejournalism.com... And here is another article that proves my point perfectly, if you'll take the time to read it: http://m.huffpost.com...", "qid": "15", "docid": "908ed2cb-2019-04-18T15:35:47Z-00006-000", "rank": 57, "score": 158683.0}, {"content": "Title: is animal testing ethical Content: Should scientist be able to test on animals before they test on humans?", "qid": "15", "docid": "1fba06e8-2019-04-18T18:19:54Z-00003-000", "rank": 58, "score": 158417.0}, {"content": "Title: animals should stop being used as testing subjects Content: Using the agreed question (from the comments), I am debating based on the following question: Be it resolved that animals should not be used for testing. I will be debating the Con side of this argument, however will not be debating that animals SHOULD be used for testing, but rather that it is not in and of itself immoral that animals ARE used for testing. I am using the following definition: Animal: a living, multi-cellular biological organism which derives nourishment through ingestion rather than photosynthesis, and which are spontaneously and independently mobile, and not a human being. I will use Round 2 to rebut Pro, and I will conclude in Round 3. Ultimately, the question of whether or not it is right to use animals for product testing is a moral one. As such, I will be arguing from moral grounds. So, given that this is to be a moral argument, why does man have morals if but to serve our values? What does a rational human being hold as their highest value or highest purpose? I would argue that the first principle of morality is to pursue man's primary purpose \" that being survival of man qua man.[1] In other words, in order to survive as a human being ought to survive. In other words, the prime moral directive of a human being is to choose his actions, values, and goals, in such a way as to maintain and enjoy that which we value the highest \" our own life.[2] Given that products which are tested upon animals are generally either necessary for the direct preservation of our lives (pharmaceuticals), or aid us in the enjoyment of our own lives (shampoo, soap, cosmetics). It is necessary to perform testing on living cellular structures similar to that of human beings in order to determine safety for human use. Given that necessity, it is therefore morally justifiable to use animals for testing purposes. 1) Ayn Rand, \"The Virtue of Selfishness\", p21 http://philo.abhinav.ac.in... 2) Ibid, p22", "qid": "15", "docid": "2025817a-2019-04-18T14:44:11Z-00002-000", "rank": 59, "score": 158265.0}, {"content": "Title: animal testing should be legal, but only for medicinal uses Content: First let me start off by defining myself: animal testing: the use of non human animals in research for purposes of determining the safety of substances. medicinal: used for the cure of bodily disorders. \"Sara\" is a little girl. Her mother has cancer, and she will die soon. there is a scientist who thinks he has the cure for cancer. He can do one of three things. He can either a) give it to the mother and risk the chance of the medicine killing her or severely hurting her. b) test it on some animals and see if there are any side effects. c) throw it away and forget it. ---which one seems like the most intelligent answer? It is better to kill a hundred rats to save millions of lives. According to http://altweb.jhsph.edu... Without animal testing, we might have never found the cure for polio, and insulin for diabetic people. there are also many other cures that we have found from animal testing. we are currently animal testing to find the cure for HIV/AIDS. There are also strict rules and guidelines that the scientists have to follow in order to take care of their lab animals, according to http://www.ncabr.org... thank you and I look forward to debating this topic.", "qid": "15", "docid": "3eced554-2019-04-18T19:30:38Z-00005-000", "rank": 60, "score": 157971.0}, {"content": "Title: Animal Testing should continue for medical research Content: I will present my arguments for animal testing and why it should be allowed for medical research. (Not cosmetic research. ) Argument 1: Many animal testing opponents say that it is cruel to animals that take part. Indeed it is in some cases, but no more so than the wild. An animal in the wild can die of disease, predators, habitat destruction, or a huge number of other ways. An animal in a lab may die, but when it does it has helped scientific progress and potentially saved human lives. Animals in labs suffer no more cruelty than the wild has to offer. Argument 2: All drugs intended to help animals have to go through animal testing. Treatments for common pet sicknesses have gone through animal testing as well as human drugs. Without animal research, the treatments that help animals would likely have not been created. The animals used in these sorts of tests benefited their kind through their use in research. Argument 3: Alternatives to animal testing exist, but are not yet reliable. The problem with using cells is obvious. Most bodily functions have different cells for their tasks. If we look at one cell we are only looking at one potentially affected area. Also, it fails to show how cells can react with other bodily mechanisms as part of a whole animal. Computer simulations are iffy because they rely on our knowledge of the animal and the substances in the drug. What is not coded into the computerized test is unable to be observed. Also, many alternatives are vastly more expensive or time-consuming than animal testing. I await my opponent\u2019s response Sources: PETA . http://www.aboutanimaltesting.co.uk...", "qid": "15", "docid": "64a6fa7-2019-04-18T18:00:16Z-00004-000", "rank": 61, "score": 157898.0}, {"content": "Title: Animal testing should be kept (medical reasons) Content: Antibiotics, insulin, vaccines for polio and cervical cancer, organ transplantation, HIV treatments, heart-bypass surgery - it reads like an A to Z of medical progress. But these major advances have something in common: they were all developed and tested using animals. Animal experimentation is a contentious issue. It works. Some would have you believe there are alternatives for all animal research, or that animal testing is always misleading and unsafe. These are fallacies. Where there are reliable alternatives, of course, we use them - that's what the law demands. Magnetic resonance imaging, computer models and work on isolated tissues and cell cultures can be useful; but they cannot provide the answers that animal research can. No one chooses to use animals where there is no need. It gives no one any pleasure, and it is time consuming, expensive and - quite rightly - subject to layers of regulation. Yet it is still the best way of finding out what causes disease, and of knowing whether new treatments will be safe and effective. Biologically, we are similar to species such as mice and rats, because we have practically the same set of genes. Their bodies respond to disease and treatments much as ours do. If a genetically modified \"purple tomato\" can fight cancer in mice, as announced yesterday, it might work for humans, too. This could be the beginning of the cure for cancer.", "qid": "15", "docid": "1a7b445a-2019-04-18T17:18:44Z-00003-000", "rank": 62, "score": 157664.0}, {"content": "Title: Animal testing Content: Animals are usually only used for testing for specific studies.", "qid": "15", "docid": "fd3161b0-2019-04-17T11:47:42Z-00041-000", "rank": 63, "score": 157580.0}, {"content": "Title: Animal testing Content: Animal testing is not alway about drugs there are also unnecessary animal testing when they test cosmetics on the animal. For example according to Peta there are experiment around the world where they test makeup such as mascara on bunnies, Mascara has many chemicals in it that irritates the eyes of the bunnies in the experiment causing the eye to redden and even make the bunnies completely blind. Also when it comes to drug testing 92% later fail human trials. in other words 9 out of 10 drugs do NOT pass the FDA. Furthermore animals have many differences to us for example the animals that are mostly used in experiment are rats mice birds dogs and cats. Did you know that the pill Tylenol actually can kill cats while it helps humans every day and is used daily. Many scientist say that we will go back to the \"dark days\" if we do not use animals. However this is not entirely true there is new technology we can use instead of animals. For example we have the technology to actually create human tissue animals don\"t have to be used consistently in experiments at all but scientist don\"t always seem to realize that and just continue to use animals in experiments that can be painful.", "qid": "15", "docid": "fe5315b2-2019-04-18T14:33:16Z-00000-000", "rank": 64, "score": 156874.0}, {"content": "Title: Animals should be used for testing Content: Computers have been known to fail, and animals are only ineffective from the use of non-mammalian species.", "qid": "15", "docid": "7ef1e9fb-2019-04-18T11:22:45Z-00001-000", "rank": 65, "score": 156788.0}, {"content": "Title: Animal testing should be banned Content: I would like to start with something to ponder throughout the entire debate; which is more valuable, the life of a human being, or that of an animal such as a primate or mouse. I would also like to clarify that I am against animal testing in the cosmetic industry, and that I am arguing for the biomedical field. I myself have worked in a lab setting (primarily as an intern during my summers as a med student) and can say first hand that the use of animals in testing medical and biomedical inventions is critical to the forward motion of the biomedical field. But don't take my word for it, a poll conducted by the science journal Natura in 2011 of 1,000 biomedical scientists found that \"more than 90% agreed that the use of animals in research is essential.\" The cost animal life is absolutely justified in the thousands of human lives that could be saved with the knowledge gained from animal testing. Source(s): http://www.prnewswire.com...", "qid": "15", "docid": "59a01dfa-2019-04-18T16:44:04Z-00003-000", "rank": 66, "score": 156564.0}, {"content": "Title: Animal experimetation should be banned around the world Content: In fact, about one century ago scientists used humans for create something new, I mean Holocoust. Actually, Nazic people used on this experiments Jew people but it is another topic. Well, lets consider our issue which became as a global problem. In my humble opinion, animals suffer from experiments extremely and it is so cruel toward animals. Moreover, activists emphasize that with a modern technologies animal testing is unnecessary because new era in a medicine may get the same results. In fact, doctors state that it is not just to give a mouse a tablet and see what is going to happen. Even scientists break their legs of animals and poison them while they are alive and so on. Thus, it is understandable that animals are victims of cruel life. For instance, paracetamol is helpful medicine for people but it may kill a several types of animals.", "qid": "15", "docid": "89eb9d8b-2019-04-18T17:43:09Z-00005-000", "rank": 67, "score": 156421.0}, {"content": "Title: animals should stop being used as testing subjects Content: Again, I claim victory over two forfeits.", "qid": "15", "docid": "2025817a-2019-04-18T14:44:11Z-00000-000", "rank": 68, "score": 156344.0}, {"content": "Title: Be it resolved that, Animals should be used for testing. Content: Greetings, I understand you completely, hurting animals in cruel and sick ways is something we do not tolerate in our society yet when it happens in laboratories it's suddenly justified. However, one must understand why testing on animals is a necessary evil. The strongest point I have to make is the health and safety of human users of new medicine, body products, and other chemicals which could potentially be dangerous when in contact with human metabolism. If we did not test our products on other live beings some side-effects could not be spotted and that could lead to a death of human users which is something that companies cannot allow to happen both for moral and financial reasons. Furthermore, human life is worth more than that of an animal, all live is equal but it's personal qualities that have worth in our world and human qualities surpass animal ones. Animal experiments are only justified if they provide a benefit that is unable to be gained by any other way.", "qid": "15", "docid": "89e6a139-2019-04-18T12:40:16Z-00000-000", "rank": 69, "score": 156335.0}, {"content": "Title: Animal testing should be banned. Content: Animal testing is cruel and inhumane. According to Humane Society International, animals used in experiments are commonly subjected to force feeding, forced inhalation, food and water deprivation, prolonged periods of physical restraint, the infliction of burns and other wounds to study the healing process, the infliction of pain to study its effects and remedies, and \"killing by carbon dioxide asphyxiation, neck-breaking, decapitation, or other means.\" The Draize eye test, used by cosmetics companies to evaluate irritation caused by shampoos and other products, involves rabbits being incapacitated in stocks with their eyelids held open by clips, sometimes for multiple days, so they cannot blink away the products being tested.The commonly used LD50 (lethal dose 50) test involves finding out which dose of a chemical will kill 50% of the animals being used in the experiment. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) reported in 2010 that 97,123 animals suffered pain during experiments while being given no anesthesia for relief, including 1,395 primates, 5,996 rabbits, 33,652 guinea pigs, and 48,015 hamsters. The Animal Welfare Act has not succeeded in preventing horrific cases of animal abuse in research laboratories. In Mar. 2009, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) found 338 possible violations of the Animal Welfare Act at the federally funded New Iberia Research Center (NIRC) in Louisiana. Some of the primates housed at NIRC were suffering such severe psychological stress that they engaged in self-mutilation, \"tearing gaping wounds into their arms and legs.\" Video footage shows infant chimps screaming as they are forcibly removed from their mothers, infant primates awake and alert during painful experiments, and chimpanzees being intimidated and shot with a dart gun. In a 2011 incident at the University of California at Davis Center for Neuroscience, \"three baby mice were found sealed alive in a plastic baggie and left unattended\" on a laboratory counter, according to the Sacramento Bee.Religious traditions tell us to be merciful to animals, so we should not cause them suffering by experimenting on them. In the Bible, Proverbs 12:10 states: \"A righteous [man] regardeth the life of his beast...\" The Hindu doctrine of ahimsa teaches the principle of not doing harm to other living beings. The Buddhist doctrine of right livelihood dissuades Buddhists from doing any harm to animals.", "qid": "15", "docid": "da630fe7-2019-04-18T14:32:44Z-00003-000", "rank": 70, "score": 156116.0}, {"content": "Title: Animal Testing is Inhumane and should be illegal Content: Firstly, I'd like to ask my opponent a question for clarification of this debate's rules and parameters.To my opponent: Being that it is that the rules dictate a correct use of conventional grammar and spelling, is it out of bounds for me to point out grammatical and spelling errors made? I'm typically not very strict as long as the point is made, but the rules seem to obligate that I point them out. Is it optional? Is it mandatory? Is it advised against? I'd like to be clear on how we're dealing with that. That's all. /opponentSociety's Sympathizations to Species Sans-HumanIt's pretty obvious that animals deserve our attention if anyone deserves our attention. Animals often surpass humans in many areas of intelligence, strength, and speed, and have more practical use in our society than what they're used as today (tortured, eaten, and all that other stuff that my opponent will most surely mention).Of course, the body of scientific knowledge that led up to this is exactly that: Scientific knowledge. Knowledge deduced, induced, and abduced through scientific rigor. We know what we know of animals through research, experimentation, and testing.Testing is vital to our understanding of the natural world. We test several phenomena under specific circumstances to understand them. That's simply what it is. We test on humans all the time, and are doing so right now, why should animals be any different or \"special?\" We could treat animals differently from us in terms of ethics and such, but that doesn't ensure that that treatment would be humane. So, just as we test humans with science, we should treat animals with the same rigor.The only problem I can see is the lack of consent. They're born, and they're tested. However, if the standard of living is sufficient for those tested, I don't see the problem. Consent is not necessary for humans when they are born into a government in which the standard of living is sufficient. Born into a nation with sufficient resources to feed and nurture everyone, is one not a citizen until they have the age to give consent for such things? In the same sense, do we have to condition an animal to learn between two choices so that they understand to give consent every time? We have the ability to do that, but it would be inefficient and unnecessary.That is my argument for why animal testing is vital and should not be illegal.With my arguments made, I'd like to rebut my opponent with the remainder of this round.Obligatorily Opposing My Opponent's ObligingsMy opponent's first point is that animals feel pain. My opponent states that when we test animals, the procedure involves sticking chemicals down their eyes, as an example of testing being inhumane.There is absolutely no evidence that this is part of any standard procedure in typical animal testing. My opponent cites no sources, despite dictating in the rules of this argument that that is a necessity. So far, my opponent has broken the majority of the rules set by their own self.The claim that this is something that's done to ensure that their capacity in pain is sufficient for testing is a rather big claim, so I don't understand why my opponent would breeze right past it without properly giving a source.The next point my opponent makes is that people in jail make stronger candidates for testing.In case my opponent actually means jail instead of prison, I'm going to make an argument against that. What!? Being in jail does not strip you of all citizen and consensual rights! That's not how jail works!In the case that my opponent did misspell/miscommunicate what was meant to be communicated, it's worth noting that experiments were done on prisoners for a very long time. The protection of prisoners was heightened recently due to abuse of scientific conduct. I don't see it as being a dilemma, an ultimatum between animals and prisoners. They're all worth testing. Disqualifying a batch is unfortunate, but we've still got batches aplenty.To my opponent: Of utmost urgency, I'd like you to address the following points first: Clarification of the rules; How animal testing is inherently inhumane. The rest can be replied and rebutted to in your own time and pace. Thank you. /opponent", "qid": "15", "docid": "889488c9-2019-04-18T16:27:41Z-00003-000", "rank": 71, "score": 156112.0}, {"content": "Title: Should animals be used for research (pro:yes con:no) Content: Animal research has played a vital part in nearly every medical breakthrough over the last decade, for instance: 1.We share 95% of our genes with a mouse, making them an effective model for the human body 2.Animals suffer from similar diseases to humans including cancers, TB, flu and asthma 3.While non-animal methods play an important part of biomedical research, they cannot replace all use of animals 4.Thanks to research on animals leading to the development of Highly Active Anti-Retroviral Therapies (HAART), AIDS is no longer the death sentence it was 30 years ago 5.While Fleming discovered penicillin without using animals, he shared the Nobel Prize with Florey and Chain who, by testing it on mice, discovered how penicillin could be used to fight infections inside the body 6.Smallpox has been eradicated from Earth thanks to research in animals 7.Thanks to animal research, primarily in mice, cancer survival rates have continued to rise 8.Modern anesthetics, the tetanus vaccine, penicillin and insulin all relied on animal research in their development 9.Modern surgical techniques including hip replacement surgery, kidney transplants, heart transplants and blood transfusions were all perfected in animals 10.Scanning techniques including CT and MRI were developed using non-human animals As you can see we actually increased our medical capabilities by a lot just with testing on animals. Also may i add that there are many, many, many mice- over one billion, so i don't think that science is causing an extinction over any animal they tests. Can i ask you a personal question Sashil. Are you catholic or christian? Do you believe in \"God\" or a \"God\"? i will explain in my next response why i have asked this. http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk... http://wiki.answers.com...", "qid": "15", "docid": "f6daa834-2019-04-18T16:04:36Z-00003-000", "rank": 72, "score": 156004.0}, {"content": "Title: Monkeys should be considered persons in the eyes of the law Content: Amina Amjed The case of Animal Rights Round 4 1.The use of animals for science, for commercial purposes, for agriculture purposes and for the purposes of sport hunting and trapping should be abolished. 2.It is our duty to consider animals just as we consider those who are unable to protect and defend themselves such as the elderly, the disabled and children. 3.The unjust and immoral abuse of animals for science, sports, agriculture and for any other human entertainment or attainment of needs for said humans is fundamentally wrong. 4.We should not regard animals as resources. 5.Once we start viewing them as only sources, which is where we commit the fundamental wrong. 6.It is our direct duty to ensure safety of animals from brutality as we do to our children and to those humans around us who are incapable of helping themselves. 7.It is without a doubt that the process of change regarding animals and the rights of animals is complicated and required extensive amount of time and finance to bring about this change but even so it is much needed. 8.Using/abusing animals for scientific experiments and/or for sports\" such as seal clubbing is brutal and against morality. 9.We should not overlook animal rights because they do not have the characteristics and inherent components of a human being. 10.Some would justify the use of animals by applying the theory of contractarianism. 11.Contractarianism is the belief, by some, that morality consists of a set a set of rules that individuals abide to voluntarily just as we do when we agree to a contract. 12.In this case, animals cannot volunteer or provide consent to be or not be part of a contract therefore they cannot be moral and not considered persons. 13.The same is true for children. Children are unable to consent to a contract without the proper consent and supervision of their parent(s) and/or guardian. Similarly, animals should be protected by their guardian(s), if one is present, with the same moral perspective as another human. 14. By applying inherent value, it is evident that each individual is as valuable as the next and not just what that individual can do for another but the value of the individual on its own; animal or human. 15.We should not use/abuse animals just because by doing so it provides for the good of others. By hurting or undermining one individual, human or animal, we condone acts of cruelty which are not morally justified acts. 16.The rights view of moral theory rationally explains the domain of human morality. 17.Furthermore, it is undisputable that animals lack many attributes as a human such as reading, writing, building book cases or baking a cake. 18.The fight for animal rights is analogous to that of equality for women and other minorities, 19.In regards to animals that are used in the field of science, there is proof of devaluing these animals by testing on them routinely as if their value is reducible by their usefulness to others. This view is a utilitarian view but not a morally just view pertaining to inherent values. 20.The aforementioned animals are treated without any respect and by doing so the rights of these animals are violated. 21.Killing a human being does not justify our moral values then why should that be true of killing or torturing animals. 22.A right, properly understood, is claim that one party may exercise against another. 23.But rights cannot simply depend on the presence of moral capacity. 24.If that were true then we would have to assent that humans who are mentally impaired or comatose lack the ability to respond to or exercise moral claims therefore they have no rights. 25.Rights can simply pertain to those that have a subject of life, like normal mammals and non-human mammals because they have inherent value. 26.We have to end the systematic oppression on these animals as our moral duty. 27.Non- human mammals have the same fundamental rights to not be harmed or killed as we do. 28.As you mentioned, that one always weighs the pros and cons of whatever decision they make in order to determine the morality of said decision, is not always accurate. 29.Some human individuals lack the ability to determine what is right and wrong which further enforces the point that they are not moral beings. 30.If it was necessary to only have morality as a component of being a person than some humans would cease to one. 31. The abusive act of a mother, towards their child then are not immoral, as far as the individual committing the act but is considered immoral to those who are in fact able to make moral and immoral distinctions. 32.Because we cannot properly infer and communicate with animals, as humans we cannot assume as you said that they lack the ability to actually communicate. 33.It is almost like one individual who speaks only one language, going to a different country with a completely different language. At this point this individual has to acquire the ability to learn or either try and find someone to be able to communicate with the people of this country. 34.I do not believe that by giving rights to animals we would inherently be degrading the meaning of \"rights\". 35.If anything we would be expanding upon those rights to make them more just towards every member of our community and the world which includes animals as well humans. 36.It is true that by regarding a domestic animal as part of the family we do not stop considering them as an animal and I do not argue that point. 37.If to a thief the act of robbery is moral than how can we not say the same in regards to animals? 38.If a thief can commit a crime and believe that he is doing so with moral justification than we cannot think that an animal does what it does without moral causation. 39.Once again, I state that rights cannot simply depend on the presence of moral capacity. 40.The abuse of animals, in any arena of life if wrong and should be abolished. 41.Monkeys, therefore, should be considered persons in the eyes of the law.", "qid": "15", "docid": "ac53643e-2019-04-18T15:28:13Z-00001-000", "rank": 73, "score": 155913.0}, {"content": "Title: Animal testing should be banned. Content: 1) Less than 2% of human illnesses (1.16%) are ever seen in animals. Over 98% never affect animals. 2) According to the former scientific executive of Huntingdon Life Sciences, animal tests and human results agree \"5%-25% of the time.\" 3) Among the hundreds of techniques available instead of animal experiments, cell culture toxicology methods give accuracy rates of 80-85% 4) 92% of drugs passed by animal tests immediately fail when first tried on humans because they\"re useless, dangerous or both. 5) The two most common illnesses in the Western world are lung cancer from smoking and heart disease. Neither can be reproduced in lab animals. 6) A 2004 survey of doctors in the UK showed that 83% wanted a independent scientific evaluation of whether animal experiments had relevance to human patients. Less than 1 in 4 (21%) had more confidence in animal tests than in non-animal methods. 7) Rats are 37% effective in identifying what causes cancer to humans \" less use than guessing. The experimenters said: \"we would have been better off to have tossed a coin.\" 8) Rodents are the animals almost always used in cancer research. They never get carcinomas, the human form of cancer, which affects membranes (eg lung cancer). Their sarcomas affect bone and connective tissue: the two are completely different. 9) The results from animal tests are routinely altered radically by diet, light, noise, temperature, lab staff and bedding. Bedding differences caused cancer rates of over 90% and almost zero in the same strain of mice at different labs. 10)Sex differences among lab animals can cause contradictory results. This does not correspond with humans. 11) 75% of side effects identified in animals never occur. 12) Over half of side effects cannot be detected in lab animals. 13) Vioxx was shown to protect the heart of mice, dogs, monkeys and other lab animals. It was linked to heart attacks and strokes in up to 139,000 humans. 14) Genetically modified animals are not like humans. The mdx mouse is supposed to have muscular dystrophy, but the muscles regenerate with no treatment. 15) GM animal the CF- mouse never gets fluid infections in the lungs \" the cause of death for 95% of human cystic fibrosis patients. 16) In America, 106,000 deaths a year are attributed to reactions to medical drugs. 17) Each year 2.1 million Americans are hospitalised by medical treatment. 18) In the UK an estimated 70,000 people are killed or severely disabled every year by unexpected reactions to drugs. All these drugs have passed animal tests. 19) In the UKs House Of Lords questions have been asked regarding why unexpected reactions to drugs (which passed animal tests) kill more people than cancer. 20) A German doctors\" congress concluded that 6% of fatal illnesses and 25% of organic illness are caused by medicines. All have been animal tested. 21) According to a thorough study, 88% of stillbirths are caused by drugs which passed animal tests. 22) 61% of birth defects were found to have the same cause. 23) 70% of drugs which cause human birth defects are safe in pregnant monkeys. 24) 78% of foetus-damaging chemicals can be detected by one non-animal test. 25) Thousands of safe products cause birth defects in lab animals \" including water, several vitamins, vegetable oils, oxygen and drinking waters. Of more than 1000 substances dangerous in lab animals, over 97% are safe in humans. 26) One of the most common lifesaving operation (for ectopic pregnancies) was delayed 40 years by vivisection. 27) The great Dr Hadwen noted \"had animal experiments been relied upon\"humanity would have been robbed of this great blessing of anaesthesia.\" 28) Aspirin fails animal tests, as do digitalis (heart drug), cancer drugs, insulin (which causes animal birth defects), penicillin and other safe medicines. They would be banned if vivisection were believed. 29) Blood transfusions were delayed 200 years by animal studies. 30) The polio vaccine was delayed 40 years by monkey tests. 31) 30 HIV vaccines, 33 spinal cord damage drugs, and over 700 treatments for stroke have been developed in animals. None work in humans. 32) Despite many Nobel prizes going to vivisectors, only 45% agree that animal experiments are crucial. 33) The Director of Research Defence Society, (which serves only to defend vivisection) was asked if medical progress could have been achieved without animal use. His written reply was \"I am sure it could be.\"", "qid": "15", "docid": "da630fe7-2019-04-18T14:32:44Z-00005-000", "rank": 74, "score": 155458.0}, {"content": "Title: Animal testing. Content: Since my opponent has not adequately defined the resolution, I will elaborate: my opponent must prove that it is morally permissible to perform potentially harmful scientific experiments on non-human animals of the class mammalia (since when we refer to animal testing, what we really mean is mammal testing). I must prove that it is not morally permissible. ======== Contention 1: Animals are conscious. Conscious beings have the right to life; animals are conscious, and so animals should not be experimented upon. Contention 2: Animals are capable of suffering. All mammals can feel pain, have emotions, and can suffer. It is inhumane to conduct dangerous and potentially harmful experiments on beings that are capable of suffering. ======== [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://encyclopedia.farlex.com...", "qid": "15", "docid": "fe528ead-2019-04-18T19:20:31Z-00002-000", "rank": 75, "score": 154588.0}, {"content": "Title: The Use of Animals within Scientific Research Content: Chimpanzees will not only be used to observe, that's what humans are for. But to test and to understand things that are more genetic are more noticeable in them rather than us because we have both genes and experiences meshed to create who we are today. I don't advocate for the harming of animals, I think its wrong, but without their help we wouldn't be anymore safer towards potentially harm chemicals.", "qid": "15", "docid": "28e0a6b5-2019-04-18T15:07:33Z-00002-000", "rank": 76, "score": 154411.0}, {"content": "Title: Animal experimetation should be banned around the world Content: I have already understood that medicine needs to be tested somehow before it can be used on humans, but with modern techniques is useless to use animals for that. For instance, nowadays scientists can clone an organ and safety test on that. In addition, I agree that animal testing has a big influence in medicine but I am sure that by the modern technologies we will receive the same result. Moreover, if we look so deeper we may see that there are so many millennial generation around the world claim that modern technologies are much more expensive than animal testing. It indeed consumptions of monetary sum to changeover from old techniques to new ones, but eventually it will be deserving choice of reaching a reliable results in a medicine. In fact, people who are against toward animal experimentation including me, we consider that modern technology is one time investment, while with animal testing you should keep paying for it. I have several arguments such as animals need food, shelter and transportation also need a money.", "qid": "15", "docid": "89eb9d8b-2019-04-18T17:43:09Z-00003-000", "rank": 77, "score": 154397.0}, {"content": "Title: Animal experimetation should be banned around the world Content: Holocaust isn't an experimentation on humans, the Nazi's committed genocide by killing lots of Jews. Now let's get back to the main reason why we are debating. Thanks to animal testing many lives had been saved because of the medicines that the scientist had created; if it wasn't for animal testing, there wouldn't still be a cure for some diseases that are fatal and deadly. If it wasn't for animal experimentation you wouldn't be thanking the doctors for saving your loved ones life because of illness. Animal testing is an integral part of medical research, without which advancements and breakthroughs regarding treatment of critical diseases cannot be made. Moreover, testing on animals has helped develop vaccines for many life-threatening diseases like Herpes Simplex, Hepatitis B, Polio, rabies, malaria, mumps and virus related to organ transplantation rejection. In addition to this, animal testing has also helped in the refinement of procedures, related to measuring the blood pressure, pacemaker technology and the perfection of the heart and lung disease treatments. You will be surprised to read that the anesthesia, which is used to numb the body during surgery today, was successfully tested on animals first. It was essential to test it on animals, so as to find out the effects on the body. How else could researchers find out more about anesthesia? If you think human beings are the only living creatures that have benefited from animal testing, then you are mistaken. Heartworm medicine was a product of animal testing and has proved to save the lives of millions of dogs across the globe. Animal research has also provided better understanding of cat nutrition and the reasons behind the long life of cats. Moreover, several other animal drugs available today are the products of animal testing itself.", "qid": "15", "docid": "89eb9d8b-2019-04-18T17:43:09Z-00004-000", "rank": 78, "score": 154279.0}, {"content": "Title: Animals should be tested on Content: Introduction The status quo is that animals are widely and generally used to be experimented on with certain chemicals and products to find out if those certain chemical and products are safe and effective to humans. Thus, it is the burden of the Con to prove why this status quo should change. He must provide strong arguments supported by evidence and alternatives as to why his proposal should be accepted. On other hand, I will be defend the status quo by also providing good arguments backed by pieces of evidence. The proposal of Con is ambiguous as he fails to set the parameters of this debate as to what extent the ban on animal testing should be, whether it is absolute or not. Because of that, I would assume that it is an absolute ban that he wants. Rebuttals: a. Animals should not be tested on because animal testing is cruel and inhumane. Response: It is given that animals do experience cruelty and pain to some extent. However, the question is not whether they experience pain, but whether that pain is justified. I would say that it is justified because the benefits outweigh the cost. Take note that scientists inflict pain on animals not for fun but for research. Consequently, this research would greatly enhance both human and animal lives and welfare. (I would elaborate this later) b. A 2011 poll of nearly 1,000 biomedical scientists conducted by the science journal Nature found that more than 90% \"agreed that the use of animals in research is essential. Response: Con, thank you for giving this statistics that would support my case. c. Other alternatives to animal testing exists. Response: Living systems like human beings and animals are extremely complex. Studying cell cultures in a petri dish, while sometimes useful, does not provide the opportunity to study interrelated processes occurring in the central nervous system, endocrine system, and immune system. Evaluating a drug for side effects requires a circulatory system to carry the medicine to different organs. Also, conditions such as blindness and high blood pressure cannot be studied in tissue cultures. Computer models can only be reliable if accurate information gleaned from animal research is used to build the models in the first place. [16] Furthermore, even the most powerful supercomputers are unable to accurately simulate the workings of complex organs such as the brain.1 In short, those alternatives you stated are not as effective as animal testing. With your alternatives, it would only endanger the lives of humans for producing inaccurate results. Arguments: a. Animal testing has contributed to many life-saving cures and treatments The California Biomedical Research Association states that nearly every medical breakthrough in the last 100 years has resulted directly from research using animals. [Experiments in which dogs had their pancreases removed led directly to the discovery of insulin, critical to saving the lives of diabetics. The polio vaccine, tested on animals, reduced the global occurrence of the disease from 350,000 cases in 1988 to 223 cases in 2012. Animal research has also contributed to major advances in understanding and treating conditions such as breast cancer, brain injury, childhood leukemia, cystic fibrosis, malaria, multiple sclerosis, tuberculosis, and many others, and was instrumental in the development of pacemakers, cardiac valve substitutes, and anesthetics. Chris Abee, Director of the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center's animal research facility, states that \"we wouldn't have a vaccine for hepatitis B without chimpanzees,\" and says that the use of chimps is \"our best hope\" for finding a vaccine for Hepatitis C, a disease that kills 15,000 people every year in the United States. 2 Moreover, because animal research, many diseases that once killed millions of people every year are either treatable or have been eradicated altogether. Immunizations against polio, diphtheria, mumps, rubella and hepatitis save countless lives, and the survival rates from many major diseases are at an all-time high, thanks to the discovery of new drugs, medical devices and surgical procedures. According to the American Cancer Society, the fight against cancer has seen 24 significant biomedical advances in the past 30 years.3 Similarly, Animal research for animal health also has resulted in many life-saving and life-extending treatments for cats, dogs, farm animals, wildlife and endangered species. Pacemakers, artificial joints, organ transplants, freedom from arthritic pain, and vaccines for rabies, distemper, parvo virus, infectious hepatitis, anthrax, tetanus and feline leukemia contribute to longer, happier and healthier lives for animals. New treatments for glaucoma, heart disease, cancer and hip dysplasia can save, extend or enhance the life of a beloved pet, and new reproductive techniques are helping to protect threatened species.4 b. Animals themselves benefit from the results of animal testing. If vaccines were not tested on animals, millions of animals would have died from rabies, distemper, feline leukemia, infectious hepatitis virus, tetanus, anthrax, and canine parvo virus. Treatments for animals developed using animal testing also include pacemakers for heart disease and remedies for glaucoma and hip dysplasia. [] Animal testing has also been instrumental in saving endangered species from extinction, including the black-footed ferret, the California condor and the tamarins of Brazil. [Koalas, ravaged by an epidemic of sexually transmitted chlamydia and now classified as endangered in some regions of Australia, are being tested with new chlamydia vaccines that may stall the animal's disappearance. [The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) endorses animal testing. 5 c. Animals are appropriate research subjects because they are similar to human beings in many ways. Chimpanzees share 99% of their DNA with humans, and mice are 98% genetically similar to humans. [All mammals, including humans, are descended from common ancestors, and all have the same set of organs (heart, kidneys, lungs, etc.) that function in essentially the same way with the help of a bloodstream and central nervous system. Because animals and humans are so biologically similar, they are susceptible to many of the same conditions and illnesses, including heart disease, cancer, and diabetes. 6 Sources: 1 2Animal testing. URL: http://animal-testing.procon.org... 3 4 Trull, F. Animal-test research has saved many human lives. URL: http://www.mofed.org... 5 6 Animal testing. URL: http://animal-testing.procon.org...", "qid": "15", "docid": "e057cec7-2019-04-18T15:04:52Z-00003-000", "rank": 79, "score": 153953.0}, {"content": "Title: Animal testing does more harm than good Content: Yes, in some scenario's, animals will react differently to substances than humans, however; scientists study the traits that these animals hold, and they are usually able to counter these obsticles. Even if they cant, what other things can they test on? The idea of testing on models is utterly rediciculous. Models cant biologicially react to medicines or test vaccines that might be used. Even if they could, an actual organism would be much more accurate. My opponent says that living animals may mislead human research, however; models will mislead research even more. Humans and animals both have one thing in common; their alive. In some ways, humans and lab rats have similar biological traits, and because both are mammals, it is easier to test on them. We have so much of an abundance of these lab creatures, that we can use so many in our experiments, and in many cases they are successful! My opponent also says that animal experimentation My opponent says that it is cruel and imhumane to experiment on animals, however; the one thing that is cruel and inhumane is letting people die. It is inhumane not to try to stop cancer, ALS or to help amputee's, when we have the ability to do so. One of the most succesfull ways to do this is by scientifically testing our medicines on other creatures, so we dont end up accidentally giving wrong substances to humans. We need to know whether or not a medicine works or not, and if we arnt sure, scientists could un-intentienallty spread a medicine that doesnt even work or has negative side affects. My opponent also says that animal testing creates dangerous interpretations of the value life, and that it imply's that life has no meaning. If my opponent believes this is true, why is the intentions of animal experimentation to help the survival of human life? Yes, to most rational people, human lives are valued more than that of animals. Obviously animals do not have rights. That is simply stated. Thousands of years ago, humans conquered earth as the dominant species. Because animals can't think as rationally as humans, it is irrational to say that these creatures should have the same political and social abilities as humans. Yes, their is such a thing as animal abuse, however; animal experimentations do not hold that title. The reason why experimentations have been legalized is because it is a necessary factor for human health and advances in technology. p.s sorry for the forfiet, things got stuck k", "qid": "15", "docid": "c514e6f9-2019-04-18T14:04:46Z-00000-000", "rank": 80, "score": 153828.0}, {"content": "Title: Animal Testing Content: Thank you~~~", "qid": "15", "docid": "61bcba6c-2019-04-18T15:04:19Z-00000-000", "rank": 81, "score": 153798.0}, {"content": "Title: Animal Research Content: Animal research is not wrong! The animals used for experiments are not treated bad! they are taken care of by multiple employees need by the IACUC including a vet, a scientists, and a animal tech. Other employees the institution wishes to hire also help to make sure the facility abides by the rules set by the IACUC committee. Also, cures and treatments such as cancer diabetes and HIV can now be developed to help save millions of lives. Also, not all testing hurt the animal. there are multiple behavior testing that don't involve hurting the animal at all. in fact, most behavior animals get a treat after the experiment. Multiple tests such as lymphoma and diabetes were tested through animals first before testing humans to ensure it is safe. All are successful cases. Behavioral studies in animals help scientists understand how human interact and help understand some evolutionary advantages. Genetic studies done on animals helped complete the genome sequence and show how animals are related to humans proving evolution of a common ancestor. Allowing scientists to do research on animals will allow them to find more cures to help save humanity. Who doesn't want that?", "qid": "15", "docid": "8144b7f0-2019-04-18T18:22:22Z-00000-000", "rank": 82, "score": 153729.0}, {"content": "Title: Animal testing should be kept (medical reasons) Content: Firstly, the fact that animal testing has been used successfully in the past doesn't mean we should continue to use it. Secondly, mice are a lousy animal to experiment on. We should use university students instead. I'm very serious. Here are the reasons this is better than animal experimentation: 1. Students can understand and consent to treatment, while animals can't. 2. Students are better models for how drugs, etc, affect humans. 3. Animals have to be bred, fed and housed in cages. Students require no keeping and can be paid with food vouchers or chocolate bars. Or, if you're really mean, just credit it towards one of their courses. 4. Students are generally impoverished and need the handouts. Using them as test subjects helps student poverty. 5. Students are everywhere and contribute to overpopulation and destruction of the environment. If a few of them die during the trials, it's no big loss. 6. Cruelty to animals is horrible. Cruelty to students is hilarious.", "qid": "15", "docid": "1a7b445a-2019-04-18T17:18:44Z-00002-000", "rank": 83, "score": 153625.0}, {"content": "Title: This house believes that animal testing should continue. Content: I would agree that animal research has given humans great cure as described by proponent. I would agree that animal testing had a positive impact in saving human lives . However, it would be wise to note that given the great advances in science and technology today, it would be impossible to believe that there are no alternatives to animal testing. Point: Research can be done effectively without experimenting on any living creature As of now, there are methods such as growing and testing human tissue cultures rather than on animals. Hence, there is no longer a need for animals to be experimented on. We now know the chemical properties of most substances, and powerful computers allow us to predict the outcome of chemical interactions. Experimenting on live tissue culture also allows us to gain insight as to how living cells react when exposed to different substances, with no animals required. There have been many examples of success in research which does not require animal testing. Here are some examples: The National Research Council advocates testing on human cells rather than animals and the council also encourages companies to make the switch. One great achievement was the 3-dimensional model of breast cancer so scientist are able to study cancer in its earliest stage which allows scientists to test for possible treatment. Instead of using animals like rats to study cancer, the 3D model uses actual human tissue. Actual human tissue would well be a much more effective medium for experimentation compared to other animals which could provide a more reliable guide to the likely impact on a human subject. This could bring research to a whole new level. (References: https://academic.oup.com...) Addressing the proponent's point of sacrificing a rat would be better than a human, it would seem to me that a human have more rights than a rat. However, I feel that animals have as much right to life as human beings. Animals do behave in ways that can convey meaning just like a typical human. For instance, animals recoil from pain or appear to express fear from being tormented. If animals can feel what a human can feel, shouldn't they not be discriminated just because they belong to a different species? Like humans, animals are sentient beings. So, animal testing should not continue as animals have their rights too. Addressing the proponents second point about people are free willed. Of course, it is against human rights to test on humans. However, given the advances in technology as mentioned in the point made in the beginning, I believe there are better ways to do testing rather than on animals. To sum this up, I feel that animal testing should not continue given the fact that science and technology have been so advanced which provides us with much more testing alternatives as compared to in the past, where science and technology are more backward. Animals have as much right to life as human beings and given the fact that there are other alternatives, people could make a much better choice that would allow us to reap a greater benefits.", "qid": "15", "docid": "171633f7-2019-04-18T12:17:13Z-00000-000", "rank": 84, "score": 153507.0}, {"content": "Title: Animal Testing Content: ~lol~", "qid": "15", "docid": "61bcba6c-2019-04-18T15:04:19Z-00001-000", "rank": 85, "score": 153283.0}, {"content": "Title: Animal testing should be ban in the us Content: ?", "qid": "15", "docid": "a5efbd78-2019-04-18T14:16:15Z-00001-000", "rank": 86, "score": 153224.0}, {"content": "Title: Animal Testing Content: Animal testing is cruel and inhumane. According to Humane Society International, animals used in experiments are commonly subjected to force feeding, forced inhalation, food and water deprivation, prolonged periods of physical restraint, the infliction of burns and other wounds to study the healing process, the infliction of pain to study its effects and remedies, and \"killing by carbon dioxide asphyxiation, neck-breaking, decapitation, or other means.\" The Draize eye test, used by cosmetics companies to evaluate irritation caused by shampoos and other products, involves rabbits being incapacitated in stocks with their eyelids held open by clips, sometimes for multiple days, so they cannot blink away the products being tested. The commonly used LD50 (lethal dose 50) test involves finding out which dose of a chemical will kill 50% of the animals being used in the experiment. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) reported in 2010 that 97,123 animals suffered pain during experiments while being given no anesthesia for relief, including 1,395 primates, 5,996 rabbits, 33,652 guinea pigs, and 48,015 hamsters. a. The Animal Welfare Act has not succeeded in preventing horrific cases of animal abuse in research laboratories. In Mar. 2009, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) found 338 possible violations of the Animal Welfare Act at the federally funded New Iberia Research Center (NIRC) in Louisiana. Some of the primates housed at NIRC were suffering such severe psychological stress that they engaged in self-mutilation, \"tearing gaping wounds into their arms and legs.\" Video footage shows infant chimps screaming as they are forcibly removed from their mothers, infant primates awake and alert during painful experiments, and chimpanzees being intimidated and shot with a dart gun. In a 2011 incident at the University of California at Davis Center for Neuroscience, \"three baby mice were found sealed alive in a plastic baggie and left unattended\" on a laboratory counter, according to the Sacramento Bee.b. 95% of animals used in experiments are not protected by the Animal Welfare Act. The AWA does not cover rats, mice, fish and birds, which comprise around 95% of the animals used in research. The AWA covered 1,134,693 animals used for testing in fiscal year 2010, which leaves around 25 million other animals that are not covered. These animals are especially vulnerable to mistreatment and abuse without the protection of the AWA. c. Animals can suffer like humans do, so it is speciesism to experiment on them while we refrain from experimenting on humans. All suffering is undesirable, whether it be in humans or animals. Discriminating against animals because they do not have the cognitive ability, language, or moral judgment that humans do is no more justifiable than discriminating against human beings with severe mental impairments. As English philosopher Jeremy Bentham wrote in the 1700s, \"The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?\" 2. Alternative testing methods now exist that can replace the need for animals. In vitro (in glass) testing, such as studying cell cultures in a petri dish, can produce more relevant results than animal testing because human cells can be used. Microdosing, the administering of doses too small to cause adverse reactions, can be used in human volunteers, whose blood is then analyzed. Artificial human skin, such as the commercially available products EpiDerm and ThinCert, is made from sheets of human skin cells grown in test tubes or plastic wells and can produce more useful results than testing chemicals on animal skin. Microfluidic chips (\"organs on a chip\"), which are lined with human cells and recreate the functions of human organs, are in advanced stages of development. Computer models, such as virtual reconstructions of human molecular structures, can predict the toxicity of substances without invasive experiments on animals. a. Animals are very different from human beings and therefore make poor test subjects. The anatomic, metabolic, and cellular differences between animals and people make animals poor models for human beings. Paul Furlong, Professor of Clinical Neuroimaging at Aston University (UK), states that \"it's very hard to create an animal model that even equates closely to what we're trying to achieve in the human.\" Thomas Hartung, Professor of evidence-based toxicology at Johns Hopkins University, argues for alternatives to animal testing because \"we are not 70 kg rats.\" [ b. Animal tests are more expensive than alternative methods and are a waste of government research dollars. Humane Society International compared a variety of animal tests with their in vitro counterparts. An \"unscheduled DNA synthesis\" animal test costs $32,000, while thein vitro alternative costs $11,000. A \"rat phototoxicity test\" costs $11,500, whereas the non-animal equivalent costs $1,300. A \"rat uterotrophic assay\" costs $29,600, while the corresponding in vitro test costs $7,200. A two-species lifetime cancer study can cost from $2 million to $4 million, and the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) spends $14 billion of its $31 billion annual budget on animal research.", "qid": "15", "docid": "61bcb727-2019-04-18T15:46:03Z-00004-000", "rank": 87, "score": 153126.0}, {"content": "Title: we need animal testing for the safety of humans Content: Animal testing is the most humane way for scientist to make scientific discoveries, testing on humans could kill us for the benifet of others. Like an eye for an eye. Well remeber an eye for an eye makes the world go blind.", "qid": "15", "docid": "12b87865-2019-04-18T18:03:09Z-00005-000", "rank": 88, "score": 152956.0}, {"content": "Title: Animal experimentation in the context of medical science Content: My opponent is mistaken on 5 points: 1) \"Animal testing brings us down to the level of the animal, and there is a less morbid alternative. \" My opponent's argument at this point bears small relevance to the real world. Animal testing does not bring one down to the level of the animal, as animals do not conduct experiments of the sort we are discussing. On the other hand, if you are proposing that testing on animals brings us down to a lower intellectual or ethical level, then one of my opponent's main points is flawed. By arguing thus, my opponent is effectively saying that animals are, in fact, 'beneath' us. Researchers only use animals because they are seen to be worth less than human lives. 2) \"Studies show that animal testing results are mostly useless to humans, meaning that my opponent's Cancer patient could die from the medicine. \" It is important for my opponent to realise that animal testing is not supposed to be 100% accurate. Nor is it supposed to be used as the sole means of testing new treatments. Tests are conducted on animals because they are the closest models to humans. Animals are used in the initial screening of a drug in an effort to spot likely side-effects. in my original argument, I pointed out that all mammals share significant similarities. Activists often point out that 80% of drugs tested in animals never make it to human trials. They see this as a failure, when, in fact, it shows that 80% of potentially lethal new medications are not administered to human patients. Once initial safety screening is done, human trials begin. Regarding my cancer patient- my opponent rightly asserts that he could die from the medication. However, the point of animal testing is to weed out the medicines which are likely to cause him harm. As I have said, no screening procedure is perfect, but animal testing is the most accurate model we currently have, without using humans. 3) \"the death toll from human testing is relatively low\" Human testing is never carried out without prior animal tests. At least, this is true for drugs. Surgeries may be trialled in humans without first being tested in animals, but these tend to be the procedures which do not involve radical changes to the currently used procedure/s. I would suggest that one of the reasons human tests result in a low death toll is because of initial animal tests. 4) The second link provided by my opponent bears small relevance to this debate, as it mainly talks about human error in conducting clinical trials. It does not provide any arguments for a feasible alternative to animal testing. 5) \"Thus, animal testing is immoral, and there is a clear alternative\" I would suggest that my opponent's argument does not support his assertion that animal testing is immoral to a sufficient degree, as no clear argument has been made supporting this claim. Furthermore, my opponent is mistaken if he believes that there are alternatives to animal testing that would not involve wide-spread harm to human patients.", "qid": "15", "docid": "9c0105d0-2019-04-18T19:22:56Z-00007-000", "rank": 89, "score": 152819.0}, {"content": "Title: Animals should be used for testing Content: Many animal welfare groups stand strongly against animal testing claiming that they have rights just like our own, but would any of them actually lay down their life for their pet or favourite zoo animal? And if we did ban animal testing how else would we test our vaccinations and countless other crucial experiments?", "qid": "15", "docid": "7ef1e9dc-2019-04-18T18:28:00Z-00003-000", "rank": 90, "score": 152728.0}, {"content": "Title: we need animal testing for the safety of humans Content: I do agree that it is the most humane way to do that, but a animals are so much different then humans. Testing on humans could kill us, but Scientist cannot make someone do testing for science unless they agree. As long as the person agrees to it, it is perfectly fine to set their life at risk, that is their own choice.", "qid": "15", "docid": "12b87865-2019-04-18T18:03:09Z-00004-000", "rank": 91, "score": 152602.0}, {"content": "Title: Animal Experimentation for the benefit of humans. Content: It is an ASSUMED fact that all of these things helped us discover all of these things but, in reality, it is chance that all of these things have worked. Experimenting on animals is NOT anything close to experimenting on a human. The physiological makeup is astronomically different. \"Each year in the United States, an estimated 70 million animals are maimed, blinded, scalded, force-fed chemicals, genetically manipulated, and otherwise hurt and killed in the name of science, by private institutions, household product and cosmetics companies, government agencies, educational institutions, and scientific centers. Substances we use everyday, such as eye shadow, soap, furniture polish and oven cleaner, may be tested on rats, rabbits, guinea pigs, dogs, cats, and other animals. These tests are mainly used to test the degree of harmfulness of products and their ingredients. No antidoes are ever sought, so animal tests cannot be used to prevent or treat potential human injuries. These tests are not required by the law, and they are only done to protect companies from consumer lawsuits.\" Look at all of these unnecessary things that are being tested on innocent animals. Cosmetics, furniture and appliance cleaners, things that we wash our bodies with .. It is unethical to use an animal just so that, on the bottle, it can say tested on animals or whatever have you. ** THESE TESTS ARE NOT REQUIRED BY THE LAW, AND THEY ARE ONLY DONE TO PROTECT COMPANIES FROM CONSUMER LAWSUITS. It is safe to say, that there is no respect for animals on a personal level. The people that do this do not understand that an animal, has the right to protect themselves just like we do. If we have the opportunity to consent or not consent to things like this, then the animals should be able to also. They live, breath and walk this earth JUST LIKE US, they deserve to be treated just like us. We fight so hard for animals to have rights when they are being abused in their own homes, starved to death, beaten and left to die on the side of the street. But then we have \"an estimated 70 million animals that are maimed, blinded, scalded, force-fed chemicals, genetically manipulated and otherwise hurt and killed in the name of science\" and nobody wants to do anything about that? This is a form of abuse because there is NO CONSENT from the animal. Until there is a more safe and efficient way to experiment on animals, it should be banned universally. It is unethical to treat an animal this way, considering you would not want to be used as an experiment either.", "qid": "15", "docid": "19c1b3ad-2019-04-18T18:53:56Z-00001-000", "rank": 92, "score": 152592.0}, {"content": "Title: animals should stop being used as testing subjects Content: I claim victory as a result of Pro's forfeit.", "qid": "15", "docid": "2025817a-2019-04-18T14:44:11Z-00001-000", "rank": 93, "score": 152540.0}, {"content": "Title: Monkeys should be considered persons in the eyes of the law Content: Amina Amjed The Case for Animal Rights Round 1 1.The use of animal for science, for commercial purposes, for agriculture purposes and for the purposes of sport hunting and trapping should be abolished. 2.We should regard animals just as we regard those who are unable to defend and protect themselves such as children, the disabled and the elderly. 3.The abuse of animals for science, for sports, for agriculture and for any other human entertainment or attainment of needs for humans is fundamentally wrong. 4.We, as humans, must stop treating animals as things and treating them as beings that are capable of feeling pain and suffering. 5.It is true, that the process of change regarding animals and the rights of animals is complicated and requires extensive amount of time and finance to bring about this change but even so it is much needed. 6.The idea of animal rights has reason if not just emotion. 7.We have a direct duty to ensure safety of animals from brutality, as we do to our children and to those humans around us who are incapable of helping themselves. 8.We should not overlook animals because they do not have the characteristics and components of a human being. 9.Using animals for scientific experiments and/or for sports\" purposes is brutal and against morality. 10.Pain is pain wherever it occurs. 11.Some would try to justify the use, therefore abuse, of animals by referring to what is known as contractarianism. 12.Contractariansim is the belief, by some, that morality consists of a set of rules that individuals abide to voluntarily just as we do when we agree to a contract. 13.Animals cannot volunteer or provide consent to be or not be a part of a contract therefore they cannot be moral and not considered persons. 14.However, this is true for children as well. Children cannot consent to a contract without the permission and supervision of their parent and/or guardian. Just so, animals should be protected by their guardian(s), if one is present, with the same moral perspective as another human. 15.Theories such as the cruelty-kindness view and utilitarianism have been presented to justify the protection of animals but have not proved to be entirely effective. 16.Each view is flawed is some way to segregate animal and the rights that should be given to them. 17.By taking the inherent value approach, it is evidently clear that each individual is as valuable as the next and not just what that individual can do for others. Your value as an individual would not be regarded by what you can do for me and in return what I can do for you. 18.In that same respect, an animal is considered an individual who should be treated with the same rights as me and you regardless of what they can do for us. 19.We should not use and/or abuse animals just because by doing so, it provides for the good of others. By hurting or undermining one individual we inherently subject ourselves to condone acts of cruelty. 20.The rights view of moral theory rationally explains the domain of human morality. 21.It is true, that animals lack many attributes of a human such as reading, writing, building book cases or baking a cake. 22.However, it is also true that there are some humans who are incapable of doing some of the things that I mentioned above but we do not devalue them as an individual or say that they are not human. 23.As an individual, be it a human or a monkey, we feel things, want things, have certain expectations, we feel pain and excitement, we feel frustration and we also suffer from untimely death. 24.All who have inherent value have it equally regardless of them being human animals or not. 25.The fight for animal rights is analogous to that of equality for women and other minorities. 26.In regards to animals that are used in the field of science, there is proof of devaluing these animals by testing on them routinely as if their value is reducible by their usefulness to others. These animals are treated without any respect and in doing so the rights of animals are violated. 27.In the same sense, farm animals are kept in stressful close confinements or in isolation which causes them pain and suffering. This treatment, rather mistreatment of farm animals is rooted in the view which lacks the acknowledgement of animals as individuals with independent value. Instead they are viewed as resource for \"humans\". 28.Killing one human for selfish means does not satisfy our moral values than why should that be true of killing or torturing animals. 29.A right, properly comprehended, is a claim that one party may exercise against another. The victim of this claim can potentially be a person, a community, or even all human kind. 30.It should than be understood that rights in general are in every case claims or potential claims within a community or moral agents. 31.Rights can be defended or claimed by those beings that can make moral claims against one another. 32.Human can make these moral choices whereas animals cannot. Animals are not beings that are capable of practicing or responding to moral claims. 33.But rights cannot simply depend on the presence of moral capacity. If that were true then we would have to agree that humans who are brain damaged or comatose lack the ability to respond to or exercise moral claims therefore they have no rights. 34.Non-human mammals have the same fundamental rights as a normal mammal to not be harmed or killed. 35.Those that have a subject of life, like normal mammals and non-human mammals, have inherent value. 36.Animals have the ability to feel pain, satisfaction, need, pleasure, disease and death, just as any human being does. 37.Therefore, I argue, that animals, such as monkeys should be considered persons in the eyes of the law. 38.Rights of animals should be respected. 39.The use of animals in science; commercial animal agriculture; commercial and sport hunting and trapping should be indefinitely terminated.", "qid": "15", "docid": "ac53643e-2019-04-18T15:28:13Z-00007-000", "rank": 94, "score": 152482.0}, {"content": "Title: Animal tests too infrequently lead to scientific advancements Content: While it is undeniable that scientific advancements have been made on account of animal experimentation, these advancements have been too rare to justify animal testing. The basic problem is that there is never any guarantee that any instance of animal testing will lead to any advancement in science. There is always a significant risk that an entire line of study that involves killing thousands of animals will lead to no substantive scientific benefits. This makes it highly inconsistent that the ethical trade-off is \"worth it\", if it ever is. This inconsistency means that a large portion of tested animals will not meet the ethical criteria of being \"worth it\", and could thus be called ethically wrong.", "qid": "15", "docid": "fd3161b0-2019-04-17T11:47:42Z-00191-000", "rank": 95, "score": 152458.0}, {"content": "Title: Animal Testing Content: Passing like I'm supposed to.", "qid": "15", "docid": "61bcb727-2019-04-18T15:46:03Z-00000-000", "rank": 96, "score": 152316.0}, {"content": "Title: Should animals be used for research (pro:yes con:no) Content: first is acceptance", "qid": "15", "docid": "f6daa834-2019-04-18T16:04:36Z-00005-000", "rank": 97, "score": 152188.0}, {"content": "Title: animal testing should be banned Content: First, I thank clajen for giving me a chance to debate this topic. To start, animal tests are really helpful for the development of scientific studies. Animal tests are the experiment that the humans do for such medical development and scientific development. Animals are comfortable, fest, and easy for the humans to do experiments since they have similar body structure like the humans. For example, chimpanzees share 99%of their DNA with the humans, and mice are 98% genetically similar to the humans. That may save the time of the experiment. Animal tests may give much help to the life time of the humans. Humans have life cycle, and these animal experiments may expand the humans' life cycles. It is because it deveops the medical curing system for the humans.Animal tests creates the products to be better and safe. Also, science became more and more important these days because of environmental problems and the development of technology. So, improving the science will be helpful. Also, animal tests may even benefit the animals themselves. If vaccines were not developed by animal testings, the animals might have died from some diseases. Animal testing benefits the health of the animals and the medical cares for them", "qid": "15", "docid": "fd98a1f9-2019-04-18T16:36:58Z-00003-000", "rank": 98, "score": 152066.0}, {"content": "Title: Wierdman's Tourney- Animal Testing Content: 1. Animal testing is immoral and causes much suffering on the animal\u2019s part. Animals, when subjected to testing, are dissected, gassed, burned, blinded, forced in cages, and executed. Approximately 100 million animals, including dogs, cats, rabbits, mice, birds, rats, chimpanzees, monkeys, and a plethora of other living organisms are killed every year [2]. These inexcusable acts are said to be for the \u201cgreater good\u201d, but what is the \u201cgreater good\u201d? We use animal testing for products such as toothpaste. Is my toothpaste part of the \u201cgreater good\u201d? Perhaps my dish soap is part of it. Either way, I am sickened to know that 200,000 animals or so have been killed so I can brush my teeth in safety [3]. It is even more sickening to realize that many of these deaths were unneeded, since it would have been possible for companies such as REACH to use other available alternatives to animal testing. (These alternatives will be expanded upon in future arguments. ) However, scientists crossed the line with animal testing when they began testing weapons on animals [4]. It is estimated that in 2007 over 18,000 animals were used in weapons research. Animals subjected to this form of testing are poisoned by chemical warfare agents, subjected to blast injuries, and deliberately wounded and killed by bacterial toxins. This is undeniably inhumane and cruel, and it should be stopped immediately. 2. Animal testing is not reliable. While certain animals may have similar attributes to the human body, they still react differently to vaccines, drugs, medications, and experiments. Thus, the results of animal testing can be unpredictable and have, in some cases, endangered human lives. A) Clioquinol, a drug produced to provide safe relief from diarrhea, had a severe negative impact upon many humans. Despite being \u201csafety tested\u201d in animals, this drug caused approximately 30,000 cases of blindness and/or paralysis in Japan alone and thousands of deaths worldwide. B) Opren was a drug for arthritis; however, it was withdrawn in 1982 after 62 deaths and 3,500 serious side affects including damage to the eyes, skin, liver, and kidneys. This too was supposedly, \u201csafety tested\u201d in animals. C) Thalidomide is one of the most famous examples of the dangers of animal testing. Its original purpose was to be a sedative for pregnant women. Despite the manufacturer\u2019s claims that it was completely safe for the unborn child, this sedative caused tens of thousands of deaths worldwide. Moreover, it caused permanent nerve damage in adults not detected during animal testing. Additional cases of the dangers of animal testing include Vioxx, Isoprenaline, and Rezulin. Furthermore, FDA itself estimated in 2006 that 92% of drugs that pass animal testing fail in human clinical trials [2]. It is evident that animal testing is unreliable and causes millions of deaths, both in animals and humans. 3. There are alternatives to animal testing [5]. (Nearly everything in this argument can be found within the given link, [5]. ) Although animal testing is crude and ineffective, there are many other ways to get the same, if not better, results without killing so many animals. Not to mention these alternatives are cheaper. The following is a quote from the article: \u201cComparative studies of human populations allow doctors and scientists to discover the root causes of human diseases and disorders so that preventive action can be taken. Epidemiological studies led to the discoveries of the relationship between smoking and cancer and to the identification of heart disease risk factors. (2) Conversely, tobacco company executives relied on misleading animal-based studies to deny the link between smoking and cancer as recently as 1994. (3)\u201d From this paragraph, we can already tell that epidemiological studies have benefited us by showing the relations between smoking and cancer. Animal testing, on the other hand, did no such thing, and actually denied that there was a link between smoking and cancer. Furthermore, the tobacco company executives would have to kill many animals to reach this false conclusion, whereas the epidemiological studies did not have to kill any animals, and it reached the correct conclusion. Moreover, population studies have revealed ways to prevent AIDS and other infectious diseases, whereas animal studies have barely made a dent in this ongoing problem. In fact, approximately 80 HIV/AIDS vaccines that were passed in animal testing were denied in human clinical trials, according to NIH. Then we have one of the best alternatives to animal testing. Human volunteers can donate their bodies and/or organs to medical research or other forms of testing. Alternatively, human volunteers can donate tissue or even cells to be subjected to testing. While the former may be rare, the latter is likely to happen very frequently, since it requires little to no loss on the donator\u2019s part. In fact, it is already happening, and it is through these studies that we have been able to develop a 3-D model of breast cancer so investigators can test potential treatments. Rather than studying cancer in rodents, this model effectively allows the study of cancer as it develops throughout the human body. I believe this should be a sufficient amount of examples for now, and I will include additional examples and/or arguments if necessary in future rounds. Conclusion- Consider the benefits of animal testing thus far. We have toothpaste, dish soap, and other household items. Now consider the harms of animal testing thus far. We have Clioquinol, Opren, Thalidomide, Vioxx, Isoprenaline, and Rezulin, all of which caused many painful side affects and death to humans. In addition to this, we have approximately 100 million animal deaths as a result of animal testing from medical research. Furthermore, it is more expensive compared to non-animal tests, and is less efficient. From these results, we can conclude that animal testing is expensive, unreliable, deadly, and inhumane; therefore, humans should no longer utilize this form of testing. With that said, I hand over the next round to my opponent and wish him luck. [2] . http://news.change.org... [3] . http://www.peta.org... [4] . http://www.animalaid.org.uk... [5] . http://www.peta.org...", "qid": "15", "docid": "a688d8ad-2019-04-18T18:33:13Z-00005-000", "rank": 99, "score": 152027.0}, {"content": "Title: Animal Testing for Cosmetics Content: I love animals but it really comes down to the benefits outweighing the cost. We as humans use and are effected by many things. Testing on animals allows us to be able to test these potentially dangerous drugs and ointments that if proven safe can save more a significantly higher amount of lives then it put in risk. It also allows us to try and figure out how to treat or deal with diseases and vaccines a list of some of medical cures advanced by use of animal subjects include: Penicillin, Blood transfusion, Tuberculosis, Macular degeneration, Asthma, Meningitis, Kidney Transplants, Breast cancer, Parkinson\"s disease, and Insulin. The sad truth is that without it we would be possibly denying advancement for treatment of horrible diseases. And yes they should be used sparingly not just subjected to cruelty for no good reason. IACUCs or the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee and other similar boards looks to try and minimize this exact things for both medical testing and physiological studies if you are interested look up the IACUC protocol review in which you have to hit three major requirements to be approved for testing.", "qid": "15", "docid": "901f612c-2019-04-18T12:44:04Z-00006-000", "rank": 100, "score": 151946.0}]}
{"query": "Should prescription drugs be advertised directly to consumers?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: allow pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to consumers Content: Advertisements for prescription drugs are not significantly different from any other advertisement", "qid": "16", "docid": "8cb27dbc-2019-04-15T20:22:42Z-00006-000", "rank": 1, "score": 216163.0}, {"content": "Title: Patients will be better informed than under the status quo Content: Advertising prescription drugs enables patients to learn, and to request innovation faster in order to benefit from the new drugs that health personnel still have not gotten used to. Advertising increases consumer awareness of drugs, which makes consumers more likely to take appropriate medication. The drugs market is complex and so advertising can help explain the differences between treatments, for example between contraceptive pills intended to reduce period pain, period flow and those simply to prevent pregnancy. Advertising under current rules is used to inform patients of new drugs which may be appropriate for conditions which they suffer from (such as recent asthma drugs which reduce the frequency of attacks), but which their doctor might overlook or not have the time to crosscheck against her list of patients.[1] 56% of AMA general practitioners believed that direct-to-consumer advertising had prompted some of their patients to seek treatment for a condition which would have otherwise been neglected.[2] If a patient has taken the time to actively consider a particular drug and then visits their doctor, whether they are prescribed it or not, they are building up a positive relationship with their doctor and are more likely to continue to take an active interest in their health. Further on, in states where there is no direct to consumer advertising but there is advertising to doctors, patients are disadvantaged because it is in the interest for private medical insurance firms or national health services to keep information about expensive new drugs from patients. In the UK it was because of cost that the Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) refused to allow the prescription of Herceptin, a drug which US studies have shown reduces the damage done by breast cancer. Ultimately pressure from Roche, the drug\u2019s manufacturer and from patients resulted in the drug being authorized for use, but the process was much faster in the US where Roche could run advertisements alerting consumers to the potential benefits of Herceptin, and thereby immediately giving patients access to a similar level of information as their doctors and allowing them to push for its authorization. [1] Patient View \u2013 for improving patient care, Information on prescription medicines: the views of EU-based patient groups, http://www.patient-view.com/projects4.htm, accessed 08/07/2011 [2] Lyles A., Direct Marketing of Pharmaceuticals to Consumers, Annual Review of Public Health, published May 2002, http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.23.100901.140537, accessed 08/08/2011", "qid": "16", "docid": "8cb27dbc-2019-04-15T20:22:42Z-00010-000", "rank": 2, "score": 200650.0}, {"content": "Title: Advertising will enable patients to get better treatment earlier in their illnesses Content: This leads to patients requesting drugs they do not need and in many cases are even harmful to them. The prescription drugs are very different from freely available drugs. They often treat serious diseases, and so advertising those should target mainly people that are very ill and especially vulnerable. On the other hand, with direct-to-consumer advertising, many people who do not have a serious disease become convinced that they need the prescription drug, because the advertisements scare them. Because of such advertisement, in the U.S. there was a rapid widespread exposure to dangerous drugs before risks were fully recognized, as with troglitazone (Rezulin) for diabetes and cisapride (Propulsid) for nighttime heartburn. Causing people to become more ill instead of healthier, because this leads to a higher \u201cself-diagnosing\u201d. [1] [1] Health Information Action, Direct-to-Consumer Prescription Drug Advertising The European Commission\u2019s Proposals for Legislative Change, September 2011, http://www.haiweb.org/campaign/DTCA/BMintzes_en.pdf, accessed 08/07/2011", "qid": "16", "docid": "8cb27dbc-2019-04-15T20:22:42Z-00011-000", "rank": 3, "score": 198880.0}, {"content": "Title: Advertisements for prescription drugs are not significantly different from any other advertisement Content: Advertising does not attempt to tell the truth, but to give a biased view of a product. Companies spend millions of dollars a year on advertising, and would not do so if there were no return on this investment. While purchasing a particular brand of cola on the basis of an advert might not be disastrous for the consumer, using an inappropriate drug could be. Drugs companies have also shown their willingness to abuse their advertising rights. For instance the FDA has recently had to insist that the possible side effects of drugs must be listed as an integral part of TV advertisements, because advertisements were being produced in which the list of side effects was read at too fast a pace to be understood. It is thus understandable that in a survey soon after the 1997 regulations on direct to consumer advertising, 80% of American Medical Association (AMA) General Practitioners (GPs) thought it was not a good idea and undermined their role.[1] [1] FDA: Direct-to-Consumer Advertising of Prescription Drugs:Looking Back, Looking Forward, published October 2005, www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/CDER/ucm095993.ppt, accessed 08/07/2011", "qid": "16", "docid": "8cb27dbc-2019-04-15T20:22:42Z-00007-000", "rank": 4, "score": 193719.0}, {"content": "Title: allow pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to consumers Content: Advertising puts pressure on doctors to prescribe inappropriate drugs to their patients", "qid": "16", "docid": "8cb27dbc-2019-04-15T20:22:42Z-00001-000", "rank": 5, "score": 193289.0}, {"content": "Title: Advertisements for prescription drugs are not significantly different from any other advertisement Content: Advertising serves an important purpose by informing the public about a specific product. It is also regulated from manipulation, and therefore deserves no special restrictions; these same restrictions and watchdogs would be in place if advertising of drugs were allowed to make sure that no drug is misrepresented. We trust consumers to view adverts with a level of skepticism and we know that they form only one part of the research that goes into, say, buying a car. Drug companies have become more open in recent years. For instance, GSK now publishes the results of all their drug trials (including the ones that fail) online and there are plenty of other sources of information on drugs available. A drug that remains unused is a drug that is helping nobody; adverts are simply a reasonable way for drug companies to help consumers find out about their products within a safe and highly regulated environment[1]. When the first discussion in the European Parliament was started, regarding the advertisement of pharmaceuticals, the pharmaceutical industry specifically pointed out the anomaly that exists: \u201cSpecific laws stood in the way of it communicating with patients over its products, even when others could. Presumably, this meant information was communicated by the media about new medicines. In this regard, the restrictions on the pharma industry contrast with the freedom enjoyed by manufacturers of vitamins and herbal remedies, who routinely advertise products to patients.\u201d[2] This shows that it is unjust to make any differences between the companies. [1] Debate: Should Drug Companies be allowed to advertise prescriptions direct to the public. http://toostep.com/debate/should-drugs-companies-be-allowed-to-advertise-prescription [2] Jessop N., Will DTC Advertising appear in Europe ?, published 01/07/2011, http://pharmtech.findpharma.com/pharmtech/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=702161, accessed 07/29/2011", "qid": "16", "docid": "8cb27dbc-2019-04-15T20:22:42Z-00008-000", "rank": 6, "score": 179724.0}, {"content": "Title: allow pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to consumers Content: Advertising will enable patients to get better treatment earlier in their illnesses", "qid": "16", "docid": "8cb27dbc-2019-04-15T20:22:42Z-00004-000", "rank": 7, "score": 173834.0}, {"content": "Title: allow pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to consumers Content: Adverts generate profit. Profit funds research into improved drugs", "qid": "16", "docid": "8cb27dbc-2019-04-15T20:22:42Z-00003-000", "rank": 8, "score": 170667.0}, {"content": "Title: In Canada drug companies should not be allowed 2 advertise prescription drugs directly to public Content: The power of the media broadcast is astronomical, and I believe there is an adversarial element put int the doctor/patient relationship when the drug companies advertise prescription drugs directly to the \"ill-informed\" pubic.", "qid": "16", "docid": "6a050331-2019-04-18T18:57:24Z-00005-000", "rank": 9, "score": 168692.0}, {"content": "Title: In Canada drug companies should not be allowed 2 advertise prescription drugs directly to public Content: Hope my opponent shows up eventually.", "qid": "16", "docid": "6a050331-2019-04-18T18:57:24Z-00002-000", "rank": 10, "score": 161583.0}, {"content": "Title: allow pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to consumers Content: Patients will be better informed than under the status quo", "qid": "16", "docid": "8cb27dbc-2019-04-15T20:22:42Z-00005-000", "rank": 11, "score": 160736.0}, {"content": "Title: In Canada drug companies should not be allowed 2 advertise prescription drugs directly to public Content: Extend all my arguments.", "qid": "16", "docid": "6a050331-2019-04-18T18:57:24Z-00000-000", "rank": 12, "score": 160587.0}, {"content": "Title: allow pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to consumers Content: Creating a mentality of illness", "qid": "16", "docid": "8cb27dbc-2019-04-15T20:22:42Z-00002-000", "rank": 13, "score": 160497.0}, {"content": "Title: In Canada drug companies should not be allowed 2 advertise prescription drugs directly to public Content: I agree with my opponent's point that the media's power is astronomical. A patient trusts their doctor and if their doctor makes a majorly wrong prescription, then the doctor's license will be at least revoked. Doctors have to go through grueling med school, memorize thousands of drug names in order to achieve their status as one and make good choices for their patient. However, if companies are allowed to advertise prescription drugs without really getting to know the patient and their individual case, the \"diagnosis\" has a huge chance of being inaccurate and could even be detrimental to the patient's health. One cannot actually tell from an ad who made it, what they are really giving their customers unless one really buys it and sees them. Unfortunately, too many non legit drug companies or even other companies can advertise whatever they want to make a quick buck from gullible people and they could even unknowingly cause their \"patients\" to have serious medical problems -Thank you", "qid": "16", "docid": "6a050331-2019-04-18T18:57:24Z-00004-000", "rank": 14, "score": 160074.0}, {"content": "Title: In Canada drug companies should not be allowed 2 advertise prescription drugs directly to public Content: I extend all of my arguments. -Thank you", "qid": "16", "docid": "6a050331-2019-04-18T18:57:24Z-00003-000", "rank": 15, "score": 159741.0}, {"content": "Title: allow pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to consumers Content: The costs and effects of advertising will place an additional burden on the healthcare system", "qid": "16", "docid": "8cb27dbc-2019-04-15T20:22:42Z-00000-000", "rank": 16, "score": 158524.0}, {"content": "Title: Patients will be better informed than under the status quo Content: Many ads don't include enough information on how well drugs work. For example, Lunesta is advertised by a moth floating through a bedroom window, above a peacefully sleeping person. Actually, Lunesta helps patients sleep 15 minutes faster after six months of treatment and gives 37 minutes more sleep per night. The Majority of ads are based on emotional appeals, but few include causes of the condition, risk factors, or important lifestyle changes. In a study of 38 pharmaceutical advertisements researchers found that 82 percent made a factual claim and 86 percent made rational arguments for product use. Only 26 percent described condition causes, risk factors, or prevalence.[1] Thus not giving the patients balanced information that would make them aware, that taking one of the pills is not a magic solution to their problem. Actually, according to a study conducted in the US and New Zealand, patients requested prescriptions in 12% of surveyed visits. Of these requests, 42% were for products advertised to consumers and consumers could not recall more than 4 different products of medicine.[2] This proves that the decisions made by the patients are not more informed and mainly only pressure to the advertised drugs. [1] Creating Demand for Prescription Drugs: A Content Analysis of Television Direct-to-Consumer Advertising. Ann Fam Med. 2007 January; 5(1): 6\u201313.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1783924/ [2] Mintzes B. and co-workers, Influence of direct to consumer pharmaceutical advertising and patients' requests on prescribing decisions: two site cross sectional survey, BMJ 2002, http://www.bmj.com/content/324/7332/278.full.pdf, accessed 08/01/2011", "qid": "16", "docid": "8cb27dbc-2019-04-15T20:22:42Z-00009-000", "rank": 17, "score": 154785.0}, {"content": "Title: Creating a mentality of illness Content: Advertising to patients promotes a \u2018pill for every ill\u2019 mentality as the drug industry seeks to \u2018create\u2019 new markets for its drugs by convincing patients that a pill can solve their problems. This leads both to greater hypochondria and to self-diagnosis of normal conditions as medical ones. For instance in October 2001, GSK ran advertisements for Paxil in the New York Times, claiming the drug would solve chronic anxiety. These advertisements came at a time when the events of 9/11\u2014rather than a medical condition\u2014were probably to blame for New Yorkers\u2019 stress. The FDA declared in a 1999 study that fewer than one in four new drugs has any therapeutic value and the medical community now accepts that prevention through lifestyle choices is often the best way to tackle disease (for instance, rather than seeking a weight-loss or diabetes wonder-pill, childhood obesity should be tackled through exercise and healthy eating). Pill-popping seems easier and so is more attractive to many patients but in practice it is worse for the long-term health of society. By allowing the prescription drugs to be advertised we are making more people believe they are ill and need pills for them, rather than explaining to them that their back pain and high blood pressure are problems caused by their lifestyle choices.[1] [1] Health Information Action, Direct-to-Consumer Prescription Drug Advertising The European Commission\u2019s Proposals for Legislative Change, September 2011, http://www.haiweb.org/campaign/DTCA/BMintzes_en.pdf, accessed 08/07/2011", "qid": "16", "docid": "8cb27dbc-2019-04-15T20:22:42Z-00015-000", "rank": 18, "score": 148108.0}, {"content": "Title: Advertising puts pressure on doctors to prescribe inappropriate drugs to their patients Content: If a patient sees a drug that is inappropriate for him, and asks their doctor for it, if his doctor does not prescribe it, then he may ignore his doctor and seek a second or third opinion. In private health care systems it is likely that economic pressure will result in a doctor eventually agreeing to the patient\u2019s demand. In nationalized health services \u2018pester power\u2019 has resulted in doctors giving in to patients in the past rather than arguing with them (seen, for example, in the massive over-prescribing of antibiotics by British general practitioners for viral infections against which they are ineffective). If the doctor prescribes another drug (perhaps a cheaper generic version), even if it is chemically identical to the branded and advertised drug, the reverse-placebo effect may result in the drug being less effective than it should be, because the patient believes it is a weaker treatment. The patient may also be less willing to complete the prescription, or to visit that doctor again, thereby undermining the doctor-patient relationship.[1] Prescription medicines are fundamentally complex and dangerous, which is why they require a prescription by a qualified doctor. It is not helpful to have a patient who lacks the decade of medical training a GP has self-diagnosing on the basis of an advert. [1] FDA: Direct-to-Consumer Advertising of Prescription Drugs:Looking Back, Looking Forward, published October 2005, www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/CDER/ucm095993.ppt, accessed 08/07/2011", "qid": "16", "docid": "8cb27dbc-2019-04-15T20:22:42Z-00017-000", "rank": 19, "score": 143377.0}, {"content": "Title: The costs and effects of advertising will place an additional burden on the healthcare system Content: According to a financial study conducted by the Villanova School of Business explained that there is no significant burden to the health care system due to direct-to-consumer advertising. The study, conducted in the years 2001 \u2013 2005 in the United States, shows that there is no significant relationship between advertising and price sensitivity. The comparison with other countries shows, the prices of pharmaceuticals and the price for health care (for drugs) have not risen in the United States. Through advertising, after the introductory phase of a drug, the health system is not burdened more. Simply put people are just able to choose between drugs, in a comparable price range easier and therefore do not cost additional money to the state.[1] So a greater financial burden is no excuse from prohibiting companies to advertise products. [1] Villanova University, DOES DTC ADVERTISING RAISE PRICE? THE IMPACT OF PHARMACEUTICAL ADVERTISING ON CONSUMERS\u2019 PRICE SENSITIVITY, published 2005 http://www.brandweeknrx.com/files/dtc_drug_advertising_and_drug_prices_study.pdf, accessed 08/07/2011", "qid": "16", "docid": "8cb27dbc-2019-04-15T20:22:42Z-00018-000", "rank": 20, "score": 143304.0}, {"content": "Title: Adverts generate profit. Profit funds research into improved drugs Content: Actually prescription drugs are generally sold expensively worldwide, especially in North America and receive enormous profits, regardless of the advertising. Companies actually have enormous budgets dedicated to advertising, in countries where it is legal. They are required to spend this money because they have to compete with other companies that are advertising their products, but if there were no advertising, they could spend the money on more research. The pharmaceutical industry has been the most profitable industry in America for each of the past 10 years and, in 2001, was a five-and-one-half time more profitable than the average for Fortune 500 companies[1]. Moreover, in Canada, the sale of a typical patented branded drug would bring about a profit margin of almost 70%[2]. \u201cU.S. Pharmaceutical Launches: Marketing Spend and Structure\" reveals that the average blockbuster brand in the United States allots 49% of its budget to fulfill advertising needs. This hefty allotment is attributed to the fact that most blockbuster brands target a mass-market audience that requires large-scale advertising.[3] Advertising reduces the incentive for research into new drugs as companies have found the returns on investment in advertising are better than those on research and development. This is particularly the case as it has become increasingly difficult to find a \u2018blockbuster\u2019 drug (because increasingly, new drugs are minor adjustments to existing ones). Significant changes to the way drugs are researched are needed for scientific advancements, but such changes are expensive and carry high risks of failure. It is of much lower risk is to the manufacturer to relicense existing drugs for new markets and new consumers, thereby allowing them to re-brand the drug[4]. So they do not use the money mainly for research for new therapeutics, but spend nearly half of it on advertisements to maximize their profit even more. [1] CIBC World Markets (2003) 2003 Investors' Guide to The Canadian Drugstore Industry, published 2003, http://www.envoycapital.com/includes/docs/drugstore_industry.pdf, accessed 07/30/2011 [2] Families USA (2002) Profiting from Pain: Where Prescription Drug Dollars Go, http://www.familiesusa.org/assets/pdfs/PPreport89a5.pdf, accessed 07/30/2011 [3] PR Newsmedia \u2013 United Business Media, Pharmaceutical Advertising: United States vs. Europe, published 12/22/2010, http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/pharmaceutical-advertising-united-states-vs-europe-55640307.html, accessed 07/29/2011 [4] Turning ideas into products- a pharmaceurtical paradigm shift. http://www.paconsulting.com/our-thinking/turning-ideas-into-products-a-pharmaceutical-paradigm-shift/", "qid": "16", "docid": "8cb27dbc-2019-04-15T20:22:42Z-00013-000", "rank": 21, "score": 142473.0}, {"content": "Title: It is unfair to tax one product differently than another. Content: Taxing one product, such as recreational drugs, differently than another product, such as prescription drugs, places an unfair burden on one segment of consumers. It could be claimed that drug users have the right to not pay the tax simply by not purchasing the drugs, but this gets away from the fact that citizens should be treated equally under the law. People have the right to choose what they consume. The use of taxes to control behaviour is wrong and it is not the role of the government to decide how its citizens should behave. It is for the citizens to decide what acceptable behaviour is and for the government to implement those limitations while also not restricting basic rights. It is also important to note that imbalanced taxes show favouritism to one segment of producers vs. another. Naturally, people favour less expensive products over more expensive ones, which means that government can create unnatural market conditions that favour products that are taxed less.", "qid": "16", "docid": "a7c47a5c-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00066-000", "rank": 22, "score": 135392.0}, {"content": "Title: Advertising will enable patients to get better treatment earlier in their illnesses Content: Advertisements\u2014especially those that identify symptoms\u2014can lead to a healthier citizenry, as consumers become aware of their diseases earlier, and can thus find the drug that targets their problem at an earlier stage. Many drugs can prevent or reduce the likelihood of a patient requiring surgery (for instance anti-cholesterol drugs can reduce the buildup of atheroma in blood vessels, which cause cardiovascular heart disease and strokes, thus reducing the likelihood of a heart bypass being required and improving any post-stroke rehabilitation). This not only saves money but is also better for patients. Surgery involves the risk of complications as well as taking time both directly and in post-operation rehabilitation. Also many degenerative conditions can be best treated by early intervention; if patients are aware of the drugs that are available at an early stage they are more likely to take them, thereby increasing their standard of living and reducing their long-term cost to state or private health cover providers.", "qid": "16", "docid": "8cb27dbc-2019-04-15T20:22:42Z-00012-000", "rank": 23, "score": 131781.0}, {"content": "Title: This policy enhances the role of drug reps and advertising, at the cost of evidence-based medicine Content: By allowing anyone who is critically ill to use experimental drugs you enhance the already dubious role of drug company reps: especially in the USA, (where doctors do not operate under the NHS guidance found in the UK), there is already a problem of patterns of prescription being altered by the techniques of drug reps, rather than by evidence1. Where drugs are for sale before they have completed testing, there is even less evidence available, and therefore less ability for physicians to contest the claims of either reps or their own patients (who may have heard of the drug during their own research). Hence you magnify the problem of potentially ineffective of even harmful prescription. 1 Harris, Gwyn, \u2018Pharmaceutical representatives do influence physician behaviour\u2019, Family Practice, Vol.26 2009, pp.169-70, http://fampra.oxfordjournals.org/content/26/3/169.full", "qid": "16", "docid": "7b8b69bb-2019-04-15T20:22:38Z-00020-000", "rank": 24, "score": 128028.0}, {"content": "Title: The FDA Does More Harm Than Good Content: 1) the reason Tylenol doesn't need a prescription is because it is a safe drug whereas other medicines, including antibiotics, may have consequences depending on medical history or other drugs you are taking. .. . 2) I'm not citing the FDA there I read their mission statement which jut says what their job is. .. . And that doesn't dismiss how your site \"The FDA Kills\" isn't less biased. .. As for the \"Consumer reports\" that could replace the FDA, these small independent groups have not nearly enough influence, manpower, or funding to label, test, inspect, approve, and remove medical drugs on and off the market that the FDA does. .. Replacing the FDA with consumer reports would be similar to replacing the US Navy with armed fishing boats. .. Furthermore it is not my fault that the definition of drug is too vague for your standards, next time you should offer your own definition of what a drug is rather than just pay a meaningless opinion. .. As for the Cheerios argument, Cheerios are only classified as a drug, nothing else though has been done by the FDA. You can still buy them anywhere and they are not regulated by the FDa in anyway because last I checked you don't need a prescription to buy a box of them. .. A biased source is any source that gives a very unbalanced and slanted account of facts to imply any opinion over a matter that isn't true. The article you gave does exactly that. 3) if you think the FDA is slow to respond in removing a drug in one case where in other cases they acted rather fast in removing harmful drugs off the market other times then that debunks this argument. But I would like to add that since only the FDA can remove harmful drugs from the market then whether they do it fast enough to satisfy your demands wouldn't matter since they would still be protecting consumers from a harmful drug since they removed it from the market. .. As for your interview it seems that Dr Graham failed to acknowledge how the FDA protects consumers by labeling ingredients in drugs, requiring certain drugs to be accessible only if a doctor prescribes them, and prevents and removes many harmful drugs from the market at all. .. His biased rant against the FDA may be due to the fact that he was Simply over-critical of the performance of the FDa over a particular incident. Many people within the FAA thought the agency could have helped prevent 9/11, does that mean it should be abolished completely? No, because like the FDA it still serves a valuable and important service. .. 4) The Pro admits the FDA encourages drug companies to create safer drugs even without regulations. .. As for the number of drugs removed in 1980 then found onthe market in 1990, they could have very well been studied closer, reengineered, and limited to a more narrow client base to ensure safety. .. Some drugs may be harmful to some people but may also be completely harmless to others. .. As for the rest of his argument, The FDA can be occasionally slow or non productive, but you cant simply do away with it for the following reasons 1) the alleged costs drug companies face these days are not entirely due to FDA regulations, it could come from salaries, equipment fees, research, etc that could cost millions that are needed just to create a drug, not to make it meet standards 2) the pro wants to rely completely on independent, uncoordinated research institutes to do the FDAs job instead, but all of these independent institutes lack the manpower and funding to come even close to the productivity the FDA puts out 3) the regulations they impose are proven to protect consumers and the PRO annoy deny that. 4) the only reason the Pro wants to eliminate the FDA is because it harms the profits of a few dozen drug companies for the protection of hundreds of millions of people. .. 5) Most importantly, see number 3. ..", "qid": "16", "docid": "bf3fbda4-2019-04-18T18:34:09Z-00000-000", "rank": 25, "score": 127754.0}, {"content": "Title: The FDA Does More Harm Than Good Content: I will respond to each of Con's rebuttals. 1. That earlier attempts at prohibiting alcohol failed doesn't change the fact that the FDA allows you to use these dangerous substances while restricting access to widely used, low-risk medicines, like antibiotics. Here's another example for a non-recreational drug: Tylenol is available over the counter and yet it is quite easy to overdose on it, which can cause deadly liver failure. Why can you buy Tylenol without a prescription, but you can't get an antibiotic for your throat infection without spending time and money visiting a doctor? http://1.usa.gov... 2. \"If the FDA feels that something should be taken off the market, inspected, and then re-approved to be out on the market to protect consumers than there is nothing wrong with that.\" I don't think the manufacturers of these drugs, who have been doing so safely for decades, or the people who would rather buy these drugs for much less then the 'approved' prescription versions, feel that there is 'nothing wrong with that.' And if Con is worried about bias, perhaps he shouldn't cite the FDA's explanation of why it's necessary to support his pro-FDA argument. As for dietary supplements, I never said that they couldn't be dangerous. Too much of anything is dangerous. However, Con's references prove that the FDA needn't get involved in the regulation of dietary supplements- both media outlets and research groups such as Consumer Reports have done a fine job of letting people know that they should take care when taking dietary supplements. Con's definition of 'drug' is, in fact, the government's definition of a drug (from the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act). And unsurprisingly, it is so vague as to put anything that you consume regarding your health under the jurisdiction of the government. It's also unsurprising that the FDA would attempt to regulate Cheerios because the box claimed that eating them was 'clinically proven to reduce cholesterol.' It is by the nature of the food that Cheerios was touted to be healthy, not because it was altering a chemical process in your body like a pharmaceutical drug. As such, General Mills was not attempting to defraud or otherwise trick people into buying their product because of its claim to reduce cholesterol. http://1.usa.gov... The FDA asserted that \"these claims indicate that Cheerios\u00ef\u00bf\u00bd is intended for use in lowering cholesterol, and therefore in preventing, mitigating, and treating the disease hypercholesterolemia.\" Any rational person can tell that Cheerios was NOT intended by General Mills to be \u2018used for lowing cholesterol,' but that by consuming Cheerios as food, you may also enjoy some health benefits. Therefore the FDA's actions here cannot be defended as being for the public good, as there was no evidence the General Mills was being fraudulent, nor was there evidence that the offending labeling put anybody in danger. It is much more likely that, given the evidence of FDA corruption cited in my second round, drug companies and not consumers had something to lose while these cholesterol claims were on the Cheerios box. If a doctor gives a patient the option to change their diet or go on medication, they may be more inclined to change their diet, knowing foods like Cheerios can help reduce their cholesterol, rather than solicit the drug companies. Regarding example 4, the article isn't 'biased' as much as it's simply explaining how the FDA allowed drugs that were known to cause dangerous side-effects to be on the market, while not allowing alternatives that had been proven to be effective and safe to be sold. The conclusion is that the FDA's actions have led to needless deaths, which is reflected in the title. 3. I never argued that the FDA is harmful because it's not perfect. People make mistakes. However, it has been slow to remove some dangerous drugs from the market, such as Rofecoxib (Vioxx), as referenced in round 2, point 3, examples 2 and 4. Since the FDA controls what drugs are allowed to be sold, it must be trusted as the authoritative source for \u2018safe' drugs. But its conflicts of interest (see round 2, point 2), questionable safety record (see point 3), and lack of competitors make it a less than ideal authority. Here is a link to an interview with Dr. David Graham, a longtime member of the FDA, who called out the FDA on the Vioxx debacle. In it he explains how the FDA protects the pharmaceutical industry at the expense of patient safety and the multitude of conflicts of interest that cloud the agency's judgment. http://www.naturalnews.com... 4. Con asserts \"\u2026companies must go through far more vigorous experimentation to ensure that whatever drug they are manufacturing is up to date with safety codes, because if it isnt a couple thousand dollars saved on a drug could end up as a multi-million dollar lawsuit against the company.\" This sounds like a pretty big incentive for drug companies make sure their drugs are safe, regardless of what FDA regulations mandate. As it is, FDA's ever-increasing list of demands have increased the cost of developing new drugs without a comparable increase in patient safety. Of the 33 drugs on the following list of drugs recalled by the FDA since 1980, 21 of them had been approved since 1990. (I'll link the list again) http://bit.ly... Another thing to think about is that the big pharmaceutical companies can afford to pay for the costs of approving new drugs, while small laboratories are much less able to do so. In addition, because the FDA is the sole determiner of what drugs are legal to sell, any increases in development costs go directly to the consumer and are industry-wide. This creates a cartel-like situation for the big drug companies, since they can charge more and more for their drugs and they don't have to worry about low-cost alternatives. In conclusion: yes, the FDA's control of the drug market allows for a semi-independent judge of which drugs are safe and which are not, and its actions may have been helpful in some cases. However, the Con's assertion that drugs and medical equipment \"would not go through any kind of inspection or testing and corporations would begin to market just about anything to make a quick buck while consumers pay the price\" is unfounded. Would you go buy medicine that wasn't approved by anybody except the company that manufactured it and had no history of safe use? Of course not. Consumers want to be as sure as possible that the drugs they take are safe, and consumer safety laboratories could sufficiently perform that task more objectively and less expensively then the FDA. By having competition between \u2018drug safety' laboratories (see my final link in round 2), they would be very careful to ensure the safety of the drugs they inspect. Something akin to the Vioxx incident in the FDA would spell bad news for that 'safety' laboratory, where the FDA, a monopoly, can continue, unchanged. Drug companies would be more than willing to submit their drugs for testing, since an unapproved drug would find few buyers in the market. The FDA's total control of the drug market breeds corruption and has led to the highest-priced prescription market in the world. http://bit.ly... It has limited patients' access to safe and effective treatments while allowing dangerous prescriptions to be sold. It can pick and choose what drugs require prescriptions and which don't, with these decisions reflecting little on the danger of the drug (Alcohol, Tobacco, & OTC Tylenol vs. Prescription Amoxacillin). It restricts the rights of patients to use whatever treatments they and their doctor deem appropriate, such as experimental treatments for a terminal condition. For these reasons and more, the FDA does more harm than good, and patients would not only be just as safe with private laboratories doing the safety testing, but would have more and lower-cost treatment options.", "qid": "16", "docid": "bf3fbda4-2019-04-18T18:34:09Z-00001-000", "rank": 26, "score": 127261.0}, {"content": "Title: Pharmaceutical industries make huge profits Content: Yes, prescription drugs are generally sold expensively worldwide, especially in North America. The pharmaceutical industry has been the most profitable industry in America for each of the past 10 years and, in 2001, was a five-and-one-half time more profitable than the average for Fortune 500 companies (1). Moreover, in Canada, the sale of a typical patented branded drug would bring about a profit margin of almost 70% (2). With all these facts, it is without dispute that only overpriced prescription drugs will lead to such a lucrative pharmaceutical industry. (1)CIBC World Markets (2003) 2003 Investors' Guide to The Canadian Drugstore Industry, [Online], Available: http://www.envoycapital.com/includes/docs/drugstore_industry.pdf [21 August 2008]. (2)Families USA (2002) Profiting from Pain: Where Prescription Drug Dollars Go, [Online], Available: http://www.familiesusa.org/assets/pdfs/PPreport89a5.pdf [21 August 2008].", "qid": "16", "docid": "6c503906-2019-04-19T12:45:38Z-00008-000", "rank": 27, "score": 125789.0}, {"content": "Title: The costs and effects of advertising will place an additional burden on the healthcare system Content: Allowing advertising places an additional burden on the health care system. As a result of advertising, if it were allowed, many patients would request the more expensive brand drugs and so place an additional burden on the public health care system. The offered generic drugs have the same effect; they are simply cheaper because they do not spend several millions on advertising. Drug costs are increasing at a faster rate in the United States than anywhere else in the world (roughly by 25% year on year since the mid-1990s). This growth has been mainly driven by patients demanding advertised drugs (they accounted for half the 2002-2003 increase, for instance). Advertised drugs are always more expensive than generic rivals because of the branding and advertising costs, as well as the increased price that manufacturers can demand for a snappily named product. In private health care systems, this drives up insurance premiums, thereby pricing large numbers of people out of health care coverage (44 million Americans have no coverage, despite the United States spending more per capita on health care than any other country). Alternatively, it forces many people to select insurance packages with lower levels of coverage (the solution introduced in 2005 by the Bush administration). The EU has estimated that its member states with public healthcare systems would be crippled if they spent as much on drugs as the United States[1]. Actually estimates in the United Kingdom state that, by buying generic drugs, the public health care system could save more than \u00a3300m a year. General practioners could make more use of cheaper, non-brand versions of the drugs, without harming care. An example of the NHS overpricing drugs: one treatment for gastric problems, Omeprazole, can be bought from wholesalers for between \u00a32.50 and \u00a33.40, yet the NHS pays \u00a310.85 every time it is prescribed. To make the matter worse, doctors often over-prescribe; at least \u00a3100m could be saved if they were more careful in this matter.[2] Therefore, because it would create a substantial financial burden to the current public health care system, allowing advertising would be a bad idea. [1] Heath Care in the United States. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States [2] BBC News, Drug profiteering claims denied, published 03/14/2004, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/3511102.stm, accessed 07/30/2011", "qid": "16", "docid": "8cb27dbc-2019-04-15T20:22:42Z-00019-000", "rank": 28, "score": 121870.0}, {"content": "Title: Buy Generic Medicines Online Content: How I Can Buy Generic Medicines Online? Buy Generic Medicines Online from our extensive online store of prescription and OTC drugs. Save big on prescription drugs and get them delivered direct to your home. Alldaygeneric.com is America\u2019s only Verified Online Pharmacy Store and accredited online and mail-order pharmacy licensed and/or authorized in all 50 states, headquartered in the Cincinnati metropolitan area. We are focused on the growing out of pocket prescription market, with a mission to provide affordable healthcare to every American. We take pride in providing customers with personalized service. Our highly skilled teams of professional provide highest quality of care when customers need it most. All our products, prescription drugs and over-the-counter items, are FDA approved and legal for sale in the United States. In addition to human medications, we also carry medications you\u2019ll find at your veterinarian\u2019s office. Our Pharmacy Team We employ a team of highly educated, well trained pharmacists (RPh and/or PharmD) with over 90 years of clinical experience. Our pharmacists are devoted to helping patients achieve the highest quality of life through medication, counseling, education and adherence to the latest pharmacology standards. Additionally, we have a talented team of pharmacy technicians and customer service representatives dedicated to meeting the needs of our customers. All of our customer service representatives are licensed through the Kentucky Board of Pharmacy. Through a unified effort, our team works closely with customers and their physician(s) to ensure exceptional patient safety, patient care, and compassionate service. How We Save You Money With our focus on technology and sourcing, we are able to remove layers of cost between the manufacturer and the customer. Our proprietary software allows us to process prescription and over-the-counter products efficiently and cost effectively. We aren\u2019t burdened with substantial overhead costs of traditional retail pharmacy chains, nor the requirement to artificially keep prescription drug costs higher in order to maintain insurance reimbursements. Therefore, we are able to keep our costs low, and pass along the savings to our valued customers. Alldaygeneric is a leading online pharmacy website that provides thousands of drugs and over the counter products at savings of up to 80% or more. You can find brand name medications as well as generic drugs and order through our secure website 24 hours a day or toll-free over the phone 7 days a week. Enjoy wholesale prices and the convenience of home delivery. In 2001 Kris Jack founded Alldaygeneric in response to the rising costs of prescription medication. Many American seniors in the late '90s were taking organized bus trips across the border to purchase more affordable medication from an Alldaygeneric. Online pharmacies, like Alldaygeneric were created to help more people take advantage of the price savings available in United State by bringing the savings right to them over their computer or phone line. In the decade since Kristina Mary filled his first online order, Alldaygeneric has grown to employ hundreds of staff out of its head office in Winnipeg, Manitoba, and together with its licensed international partner pharmacies, Alldaygeneric has filled 7 million discount prescription orders for customers all over the world. Alldaygeneric is the largest and most trusted international mail order provider and is the global leader in prescription drug savings. Alldaygeneric is committed to offering its customers the very best prices on the best brand and generic medication from USA, United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand. This commitment to savings is matched by our commitment to providing the best service and pharmacy care in the industry. No other online pharmacy can match our level of customer service, and industry-only polices like Order Base free shipping on every order, price guarantees, and a hassle-free return policy and a referral rewards program that earns every singles, Alldaygeneric customer money for simply telling friends and family what they save when they order from us. Leading the way, Alldaygeneric has established us as innovators, shaping the online pharmacy industry's future. Our commitment to the growth and credibility of our industry involves participating in many associations, including the Manitoba International Pharmacists Association (MIPA) and PharmacyChecker. Through these groups and the personal involvement of Kris Thorkelson, we are working to ensure our customers have access to safe, affordable and quality medication from licensed online ADG. We're proud of the organization we have built here at Alldaygeneric, the patients who invite us into their homes through the medications we provide, and the services that we offer to our customers. We will never compromise on offering the best value, service and care to each and every one of our customers. Alldaygeneric is committed to providing affordable medications to all of our customers, and we do so by sourcing our medicines from around the world, where pricing regulations often keep the cost of medicines lower than at your local pharmacy. We only work with a small network of trusted and reputable international pharmacies and fulfillment centers, giving you access to authentic medications at low prices every day. Alldaygeneric is also a certified member of the Canadian International Pharmacy Association and the International Pharmacy Association of FDA. Alldaygeneric is also verified by Trust Guard. You can review each of these certifications by clicking on the various seals on our website to learn more. Alldaygeneric is proud to have a five-star customer satisfaction rating through Shopper Approved. With over 250,000 customer reviews and ratings, we are the most independently five-star rated online pharmacy service in the world. All of our customer feedback is publicly available, and none of it can be altered by us, giving you a genuine and unbiased look at our service. See for yourself why thousands of people rely on us to provide the medications and health care products they need, and order from Alldaygeneric today. Visit Now:https://www.alldaygeneric.com... https://www.facebook.com... https://twitter.com... https://plus.google.com... https://www.pinterest.com...", "qid": "16", "docid": "5d8b00fa-2019-04-18T11:23:36Z-00001-000", "rank": 29, "score": 118411.0}, {"content": "Title: Advertising puts pressure on doctors to prescribe inappropriate drugs to their patients Content: The majority of products that are advertised treat currently under-treated conditions. Drugs dealing with diseases such as depression, diabetes, and high cholesterol are some of the most frequently advertised. These advertisements can help inform viewers about their conditions, and prompt visits to physicians, who can help treat the problem early on. Additionally, informed citizens are good for society, as physicians do not always recommend necessary or helpful drugs. In the status quo, patients do not visit their doctors often enough to be diagnosed. Only approximately half the patients in America get beta blockers after a heart attack. Clearly, an advertisement for beta blockers would be informational, rather than harmful.", "qid": "16", "docid": "8cb27dbc-2019-04-15T20:22:42Z-00016-000", "rank": 30, "score": 118224.0}, {"content": "Title: Production of generic drugs reduce medical costs by allowing increased production and the development of superior production methods, increasing market efficiency Content: The sale of generic drugs invariably reduces costs to consumers. This is due to two reasons. It may be the case that an individual or firm with a patent, essentially a monopoly right to the production of something, may not have the ability to efficiently go about meeting demand for it. Patents slow, or even stop the dissemination of the production methods, especially when a patent-holder is unwilling to license production to others1. Such an outcome is deleterious to society, as with no restrictions on drug production an efficient producer, or producers, will emerge to meet the needs of the public, producing an amount of drugs commensurate with demand, and thus equilibrating market price with that demand2. This market equilibration is impossible under conventional patent laws, as it is in the interest of firms to withhold production and to engage in monopolist rent-seeking from consumers3. This leads firms to deliberately under-produce, which they have been shown to do in many cases, as for example the case of Miacalcic, a drug used to treat Paget's Disease, in which its producer deliberately kept production down in order to keep prices high4. When a firm is given monopoly power over a drug it has the ability to abuse it, and history shows that is what they are wont to do. By allowing the production of generic drugs, this monopoly power is broken and people can get the drugs they need at costs that are not marked far above their free market value. 1 Kinsella, Stephan. 2010. \"Patents Kill: Compulsory Licenses and Genzyme's Life-Saving Drug\". Mises Institute. Available: 2Stim, Rishand. 2006. Profit from Your Idea: How to Make Smart Licensing Decisions. Berkeley: Nolo. 3 Lee, Timothy. 2007. \"Patent Rent-Seeking\". Cato at Liberty. Available: 4 Flanders Today. 2010. \"Big Pharma Denies Strategic Shortages\". Flanders Today.", "qid": "16", "docid": "57906a2b-2019-04-15T20:22:37Z-00014-000", "rank": 31, "score": 118027.0}, {"content": "Title: Cheaper drugs aren\u2019t trusted by consumers Content: Medically there is no difference between generic and patented drugs. They are both identical, with the exception of aesthetic differences in some US drugs to avoid copyright infringement. Generic drugs cost less because they do not have to invest in R&D[1]. They focus on efficient methods of production and ensure that their product can be sold at a competitively low price. The lack of a need for R&D is therefore more prominent than quality in the pricing of generic drugs. [1] Stoppler,M. \u2018Generic Drugs, Are They as Good as Brand Names?\u2019", "qid": "16", "docid": "b7844b08-2019-04-15T20:24:35Z-00017-000", "rank": 32, "score": 116940.0}, {"content": "Title: Cheaper drugs aren\u2019t trusted by consumers Content: The differences in price between generic and patented drugs can be disconcerting to those wishing to buy pharmaceuticals. As with other product, logic generally follows the rule that the more expensive option is the most effective. There are reports from the USA of generic drugs causing suicidal tendencies[1]. These factors, combined with the lower levels of screening for drugs in Africa, mean that cheaper drugs are generally distrusted[2]. [1] Childs,D. \u2018Generic Drugs: Dangerous Differences?\u2019 [2] Mercurio,B. \u2018Resolving the Public Health Crisis in the Developing World: Problems and Barriers of Access to Essential Medicines\u2019", "qid": "16", "docid": "b7844b08-2019-04-15T20:24:35Z-00018-000", "rank": 33, "score": 116024.0}, {"content": "Title: drugs should not be banned Content: My opponent should\u2019ve elaborated a bit more on his opening statement. What kind of drugs? Some drugs are legal and others are illegal.Prescription drugs are medicine supplied by your doctors under strict conditions. These drugs are given to their patients with specific instructions, and therefore, you must not overdose. - Any medicine can be classed as a \u2018drug\u2019, which eliminates the idea for it to get \u2019banned\u2019 or terminated from supplying. A drug which isn\u2019t a medicine, such as: Cocaine, cannabis, heroin etc, must be banned regardless of someone\u2019s freedom to excessively use them. These drugs are of course illegal & must stay that way for a number of reason. Thinking independently for your own sake is a huge mistake on the issue of \u2018drugs\u2019. Your idea is to legalise drugs, so that everyone can freely use it in order to taste \u2018freedom\u2019, which could eventually kill them. Well, here\u2019s the problem:People, on a national stage would cause chaos all over the globe. It would make the riots that recently occurred in London, look like a friendly playground. Students would be behaving in a disrespectful manner, causing teacher\u2019s freedom to diminish, and their will to teach. The markets would collapse, bringing the economy down by 60 - 80 percent as people would start looting. Most drugs reduces a person\u2019s ability to think & remember things due to brain cell damage. As a result, we would not be able progress in the near future educationally, technologically, mentally or physically.", "qid": "16", "docid": "ca3299b0-2019-04-18T18:27:38Z-00000-000", "rank": 34, "score": 115637.0}, {"content": "Title: Drug Legalization Content: Okay, I think I'm getting mixed messages here. Oh, well. My opponent thinks I want to rid the U. S. of the FDA. As great as that would be, I know that the FDA is necessary. I'm not arguing against the FDA. I'm arguing against the FDA's plan, which involves banning all drugs if they don't see them fit for use. Why are we trusting the government to tell us what is good and what is bad? Although visits to doctors for proper prescriptions should be encouraged, it should not be required. People should read the labels. The people at the counter who sell the drugs should be required to inform the consumer to read the labels, and ask their doctor any questions pertaining to any drugs. That would be informed consent. I think that the FDA should change its plan. It should require things on labels, but other than that, it should be able to ban things outright. If people are told to read the labels upon or prior to purchase, we have informed consent that they are using an untested drug. Of course, nobody is going to want to use an untested drug, and nobody is going to want to re-label said drugs once they've been tested, so the free market would naturally prevent itself from selling untested drugs. Read the labels on your drugs. Seriously. You complain that we need labels, and then you don't use them. If people want rehab centers after they've taken drugs, then they should go ahead. That boosts the economy. And not all homeless people are druggies. \"Natural Selection is a process which is governed by the environment. By this logic, we should kill off all disabled people, as they are of no use to the society and hinder us. You know nothing of Evolution and Biology, so don[']t try and comment on it. \" No, we shouldn't kill off the disabled. They are eliminated naturally by the environment. The option to use drugs is natural, and government restrictions are unnatural. We don't kill off the disabled, and we don't kill off druggies. We let nature take its natural toll. If they can survive, then by all means, they survived. \"Congratulations. Now you[']ve lost. First off, [s]uicide is not a trait that is inhereted[sic]. And neither is stupidity. \" We don't know that there is no suicide gene, caused by a mutation in a potential gene that triggers the will to survive. There are bound to be genetic traits that increase the chance of becoming an addict, and these traits would be quickly eliminated. And intelligence is largely based in genetics [1]. \"Secondly, not everyone has the benefit of higher education. Not everyone has the benefit of knowledge. And not everyone knows they are taking drugs when given to them. \" If the people at the counter are required to inform them, then they would. My opponent thinks that companies can make substances illegal. This is false. That power is reserved for government. However, companies can write rules against the use of drugs, which their employees must abide by, but this would not be punishable by law. It would be punishable by a loss of job. Completely different. My opponent thinks that drug use instantly turns people into dangerous beasts. People should simply be held liable for their actions. Also, don't forget that I put a clause in defining this debate so that the government can ban drug use in certain buildings (schools, for obvious reasons) and people can ban drug use on their own property. So, a person can probably only use their drugs in their own home. They can't really harm anybody else at that point. Now, for more contentions: 2. Drug Legalization would help the economy. Obviously, this would create jobs, and increase participation in the medical market. Drug Legalization can only help the economy. 3. It just throws people in jail. The police lock up people for possessing illegal drugs. They pile up in jails, unable to do anything productive, hurting the economy. However, they often only use it themselves, with no supplying to minors, so there's really nothing good in throwing people in jail. \"Why can't we wear hats in school? \" -wjmelements [2] \"Because it's against the rules. \"- The Government 1. . http://www.scq.ubc.ca... 2. . http://www.debate.org...", "qid": "16", "docid": "2d0fc6c1-2019-04-18T19:20:44Z-00003-000", "rank": 35, "score": 114406.0}, {"content": "Title: Drug Commercials Content: I accept. First of all, my opponent should define drug commercials. Who advertises? What kind of drugs are being advertised? Where are these advertisements? Nevertheless, I'll start out with some basic arguments. Policing these advertisements would be a violation of two parts of the first amendment. Firstly, Freedom of Speech. These companies are trying to promote their brand that is (and has to be) FDA approved. As long is no one is being hurt or defamed by these advertisements, it is unconstitutional to police them. Secondly, freedom of press. Many ads appear in newspapers or magazines. Again, if the drug is FDA approved and the publishing company lets the drug ad go in, it is legal. On constitutional grounds I object to my opprnent.", "qid": "16", "docid": "44c44402-2019-04-18T14:44:19Z-00003-000", "rank": 36, "score": 112866.0}, {"content": "Title: Pharmacies and other health buildings should not sell harmful products Content: No problem,I agree that false advertising or deceptive advertising should not be allowed, and in my country it is against the law to use false or misleading statements in advertisement which negatively affect consumers. However what you have described does not sound like false advertisement.A chip shop might sell pizzas and burgers. A Burger King will also sells chips. A placed called 'Italian Pizzas' may sells chips and burgers. Petrol stations often sell food and cigerattes. The list goes on. As long as a company sells the thing they advertise they can sell anything else for extra revenue. I don't think anyone has a genuine reason to complain about seeing an item inside a shop they didn't know was there until they entered e.g. candy and ciggarettes inside Walgreens. Nobody has to buy them so what is the problem?Nicorettes are usually sold beside cigarettes because they both contain tobacco, and it makes sense to keep those products closeby behind a counter to deter thieves stealing them.Smoking, and eating Mc Donalds does not affect a doctors ability to do their job. It's important to reward yourself and unhealthy to completely avoid the things you enjoy. Provided you have a balanced diet you can eat anything, and still be healthy.", "qid": "16", "docid": "1401781f-2019-04-18T14:26:32Z-00006-000", "rank": 37, "score": 112702.0}, {"content": "Title: All drugs should be legal to sell, produce, distribute, and to be consumed by consenting adults. Content: I disagree. In fact, I think that all drugs should be illegal, except for prescription drugs/drugs used by hospitals to treat patients.", "qid": "16", "docid": "42468ac1-2019-04-18T19:48:35Z-00003-000", "rank": 38, "score": 111847.0}, {"content": "Title: End the Drug War.....All drugs should be legal. Content: In my opponents argument, he said that although being physically dependent on a drug is bad, it shouldn't be criminalized. This I agree with. No consumer of a drug should be criminalized and it should be considered a medical issue - of addiction and dependence. Those selling, growing and distributing that drug though, should be criminalized. If it were legal, as the proposition says, then it would only take one try of that drug to become addicted - or frequent use will have the same effect. To per-empt, that physical addiction and spare many the painful steps of withdrawal, it should be banned from being sold. Now, my position is that no-one should be criminally prosecuted for taking drugs. Instead they should be offered medical help. For those drugs that are too addictive, it should be stopped from being sold (or at least be changed and regulated to make it less addictive). Think about it this way. If a product doesn't fit with food/drink/drug regulations to make them safer and less addictive, then it can't be sold and is as such \"illegal\". Why should drugs be any different. If some drugs are too dangerous or addictive and it fails to be regulated to change that, then it shouldn't be sold and should be \"illegal\". Therefore, to argue that all drugs should be legal to consume, you are therefore arguing that there would be no regulation. If you tried to regulate it, some drugs will still not be allowed to be sold and go into the black-market, making it illegal. For all drugs therefore to be legal all regulation on medical, recreational or pharmaceutical drugs would have to be taken away. Not everything can be legal. Are companies allowed to put anything they want into our food or medical drugs? No, and rightly so. Some drugs and food do not meet our regulations and are illegal. This shouldn't change.", "qid": "16", "docid": "7f8a714c-2019-04-18T14:25:39Z-00003-000", "rank": 39, "score": 111395.0}, {"content": "Title: Drug Commercials Content: There must be a way to police these drug commercials. Other countries have laws prohibiting the advertising of drugs to the general public. Let these companies advertise their drugs to physicians through the internet or mailings. I am so sick of these ads. I just change the station. put the sound on mute, or better still, shut the TV off. You couldn't pay me to take this crap!! FDA doesn't care, they are in bed with these pharmaceutical companies, and the networks don't care they are making billions.", "qid": "16", "docid": "44c44402-2019-04-18T14:44:19Z-00004-000", "rank": 40, "score": 111129.0}, {"content": "Title: Restrictions reach out to the general population Content: How can it be that only tobacco companies get singled out and told not to advertise their products, while many others (such as prescription drugs) are allowed to market their products? There are many products which are hugely dangerous, take alcohol for example. Whilst drinks can be advertised, in the UK they must also carry a drink responsibly warning. Why can tobacco companies not do the same especially when you consider how much more immediate the danger from alcohol is? improve this", "qid": "16", "docid": "292b475e-2019-04-15T20:22:25Z-00009-000", "rank": 41, "score": 111081.0}, {"content": "Title: Drugs should be legalized in the U.S. Content: 1a) Through marketing/advertising, comes interest from the viewers, causing them to buy the product. If the government could get a good amount of advertising, there would be a surplus of customers. 1b) Regulation would be somewhat easier if the drugs were sold in orderly and recordable pharmacies. Thus, regulating the drug trade would not be much harder than regulating and inspecting the condition and distribution of food, for example. 2a) By granting these criminals amnesty, it will be easier for them to find some sort of job. There would be no record of criminal activity (at least regarding first-time felons) to be held against them. 2b) As for the role of certain drugs in the commitment of crimes, this can be handled by keeping a record of how much of that drug one person owns, and setting a limit on it. For example, there would be a limit on the amount of ecstasy that could be purchased at one time, and if your record states that you already have an amount of this drug that would exceed the limit, you would not be allowed to buy it. You would also need to show a signed from that states the police inspected your home to make sure you don't have that drug. In addition, consider these scenarios from: http://www.taxfoundation.org... In this scenario, which is very common and could be considered the average amount of customers from one dealer, the drug dealer makes more money than the average worker. If you put a tax on that, it is very possible that whatever money lost through fundraising, rehabilitation, lawsuits, etc. could be gained back. I stated that the risk was worth taking because it is. The reason being, any financial hole that is caused by legalizing drugs can be fixed and replenished, and would make the government billions of dollars. Why vote pro: 1. Government income would skyrocket. 2. The crime rate related to drugs would decrease with the proper support (regulation). 3. Most, if not all, of the problems encountered can be solved fairly quickly.", "qid": "16", "docid": "dfb23292-2019-04-18T19:45:52Z-00003-000", "rank": 42, "score": 110707.0}, {"content": "Title: The United States government should reform drug patent time limits. Content: Drug patent time limits are defined as the 15 years given to the inventor or developer of a prescription drug to have exclusive rights to selling and distributing the drug without having to compete with generic brands of their product. This allows prescription drug manufacturers to artificially raise prices, slow down the process of research and development, and to eliminate all competition for an overly extended period of time. Drug patent time limits are benefical in allowing drug producers to be rewarded and compensated for their research in developing new medicines, however, by allowing an overly extended amount of time, it is slowing down the progression of modern medicine and defeating American capitalism through excessive regulation. In a capitalist society, the government should only regulate to the point where there is an incentive to produce. That point lies where the firm initially begins to earn economic profits. A perfectly competitive industry allows other companies to enter the industry at this point. At this point there are only variable costs and the costs of production should be equal between corporations. Now the firms may ablely compete for the purchasing powers of its citizens. The fatally flawed drug patent hinders this from happening. The affirmative proposes a system that will oppose the Con's case supporting the status quo: 7 years would be alloted as a drug patent, with the normal abilities of extension being available to the corporation. The average extension ranges from 5 to 7 years, giving a total estimated patent to the pharmaceutical corporation of 12-14 years, in comparison to the 25-27 years that you are defending. The appeals process, which is legal and cannot be banned without being in contradiction of many standing laws, is a permanent fixture in the system. The drug patents lead the consumer to believe that, due to its excessive period of exclusive rights, that generic drugs are inferior to their original drug, while they are in fact the exact same product. Allowing for the abuse of the drug patent system while corporations continue to amount massive profits is monopolistic and unhealthy for both the American economy and the future of American medicine and pharmaceuticals. Modern American capitalism with government regulation holds anti-trust laws that prevent patents from being absolute. If the best drug is to survive, then it is with respect to generic drugs. However, generic drugs are equal to the original drug, so the competition playing field is relatively equal. A National Center for Policy Analysis study criticized this corporate splurging, and cited that less than 1/3 of profits are spent towards research in development, in comparison to over 50% on advertisement during the original time of the patent. However, during the last 3 years of the drug's exclusive rights overall, the corporation actually increases its advertising spending heading in to the surfacing of generic drugs. In terms of the incentives for the Affirmative's plan, the incentive to create lies in the company's ability to maximize profits over a period of time, but making this period of time shorter would not act as a disincentive. Even after the profit maximization, they still hold the upperhand in the opinion of the consumers and usually tend to charge more than the generic drugs will charge, despite the bioequivalency of the two drugs and the equally similar costs of production. An economic incentive is given even if the drug manufacturer is given a few months to exclusively market and sell its drug. Thanks, The Colonel", "qid": "16", "docid": "fa3cb933-2019-04-18T19:46:11Z-00003-000", "rank": 43, "score": 109698.0}, {"content": "Title: The U.S. Government Is Primarily Responsible For The Relative Higher Costs Of Prescription Drugs v2 Content: Where pro states \"Relative (Framing) -- The word \"relative\" in the debate title defines as \"Relative to the new prescription medication costs as is seen in other modernized nations of the world. \" \"New\" may be ambiguous in the pharmaceutical world. I ask to strike that word alone, and if necessary further define in context of the debate.", "qid": "16", "docid": "11aa61bc-2019-04-18T14:21:12Z-00003-000", "rank": 44, "score": 109372.0}, {"content": "Title: Better targeted advertising benefits consumers Content: Even if the services advertised are effective in providing services that may interest them, the fundamental violation of privacy entailed in compiling personal search data is too serious a danger to people than the fleeting benefits that this sort of advertising might furnish. But this form of advertising is often not as effective, since its reliance on programmes that stereotype demographics can often result in misallocation of advertising. Furthermore, the discomfort people feel at this advertising means they do not like experiencing it, useful or not.", "qid": "16", "docid": "273fa0b5-2019-04-15T20:24:14Z-00015-000", "rank": 45, "score": 109173.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: The drugs mentioned herein should either become, or remain, legal. Content: \"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.\" -- Benjamin Franklin It would appear as if Con wishes to criminalize MDMA, tobacco and marijuana based on one factor alone: It is potentially harmful to consumers. I have submitted to the reality that these drugs, when abused, can lead to health risks that may harm an individual. However, my stance in this debate has been that the risk of losing the essential liberties and freedom that this country was founded upon poses an even greater risk to society. Moreover, as I've already pointed out thus far in the debate, legalizing or decriminalizing these drugs has various benefits including but not limited to positive medical use; personal satisfaction; cost benefits and efforts towards implementing a more democratic and fair government. In the Comment Section of this debate, my opponent asked me what I thought the purpose of government was. Again, I maintain that the government's sole responsibility is to protect the rights of the people. The Declaration of the Rights of Man - the document that spurred the American Revolution - notes that liberty is granting people the freedom to do anything they please so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of another. Thomas Jefferson, the author of The Declaration of Independence, notes in his infamous document that people have the right to pursue happiness. Perhaps what many people don't know is that in its original draft, Jefferson's wording originally stated that people had the right to pursue property (but later changed it because 'happiness' sounded better). My point here is that one's self belongs to them and them alone; you are your own property. So, if one wishes to pollute their body with toxins or other substances - even if it has detrimental effects - one has the right to do that regardless of the personal consequences. For instance, if I wanted to throw a party and trash your house, I couldn't because that would be a violation of your property i.e. your rights. However, if I wanted to throw a party and trash MY house, that would be perfectly within my right to do so, and to prohibit me from exhausting this right is actually a violation of my rights. This is the real issue at hand. I could spend countless amounts of characters illustrating why Con's statistics - especially regarding marijuana and MDMA - are HIGHLY manipulated and inaccurate! For instance, the notion that smoking pot could actually induce schizophrenia on an individual is ludicrous. Do you know how much pot you'd have to smoke in order to have serious harmful effects?! The reality is that schizophrenia is a mental illness caused by biological factors, genetics and chemicals in the brain that have nothing to do with marijuana. In fact, my source notes that these so-called studies making these ridiculous claims were FALSE and notes: \"Empirical data did not support the investigators' hypothesis that smoking marijuana was associated with increased rates of schizophrenia or other mental illnesses among the general public \u2014 a fact that even the authors begrudgingly admitted when they declared, 'Projected trends for schizophrenia incidence have not paralleled trends in cannabis use over time.' The expected rise in diagnoses of schizophrenia and psychoses did not occur over a 10 year period. This study does not therefore support the specific causal link between cannabis use and incidence of psychotic disorders. \u2026 This concurs with other reports indicating that increases in population cannabis use have not been followed by increases in psychotic incidence\" [1]. Similarly, Con has completely misrepresented the so-called facts about MDMA that he provided in the previous rounds. In reading up on HIS OWN SOURCES, here's what I've found: 1. Based on a review of the social and health harms of ecstasy, the ACMD (Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs) recommends that the government reclassify the drug from Class A to Class B... In other words, research shows that MDMA's potential harm or threat should be LOWER than what was previously considered. 2. By repeating the tests administered to ecstasy users, researchers found SUBTLE changes to cell architecture and decreased blood flow in some brain regions. 3. Any \"brain damage\" caused by MDMA is almost insignificant, AND, research does not prove its permanent! Again, I found these facts from checking up on Con's own sources (At least I won one point in this debate!). I won't cite them for lack of character space, but they're under MDMA in his R2 argument. That said, I won't bother wasting more space discussing the other harms that these drugs and tobacco may cause. Instead, I'll re-visit my point that the so-called dangers of these drugs are often exaggerated in an attempt to promote a socially conservative agenda, and to gain popular support for the politicians who make laws. Remember that the government isn't a perfect, all-knowing entity; it is a system based on the CONCEPT of liberty and composed of flawed individuals who do not always do the right thing. Thomas Jefferson once said, \"When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny.\" Con notes that the government should not fear the people; that doing so would enable a mob mentality and instead that there should be mutual respect between the two. However, the government is COMPOSED of the people (i.e. democracy), and its supposed to protect them - their rights and wants. As we can see, people like to experiment with recreational drugs in America. First it was peyote. Then tobacco (many farmers still make their living off this product). Next, hash and marijuana. Alcohol. Etc. Con writes, \"It could easily be argued by me that, because tobacco carries a definite risk of self-harm, jeopardizing both life and all subsequent rights, that these current legal standards ought to be repealed.\" Oh? I encourage Con to attempt at arguing that tobacco should become illegal. The reality is that this would NEVER be acceptable; remember what happened during Prohibition when the government attempted to outlaw alcohol? What became known as the \"Noble Experiment' failed miserably. Instead, it increased gang membership and violence significantly (see: Al Capone) and the people simply did not tolerate it. There are about 45 million people who smoke cigarettes in the U.S. Con would have the burden of proving that the government has the right to outlaw anything that causes self-harm, instead of honoring the individual liberties of the people - the same liberties that this country was founded on. Con also says, \"Pro never gives us any legitimate reason to impose these standards on MDMA and tobacco beyond expansion of the status quo over other drugs.\" I don't really understand this assertion. My point was that just as there are laws to outlaw second-hand tobacco smoke (so people don't suffer as a result of other people's choices), the same should apply to marijuana smoke. And obviously, anyone who wishes to refrain from taking MDMA will do so. Additionally, Con is right in stating that alcohol consumption is irrelevant to this debate. However, what IS relevant to this debate are the context of the laws and what ought to be legal or ought not to be legal. My point is that just as alcohol can be dangerous and remains legal, so too can (and should) other things including - BUT NOT LIMITED TO - alcohol consumption, sun bathing, pollutants, stress, lack of sleep, etc. I'm out of character space for now, but as I've pointed out, liberty should trump potential harm! Con has yet to explain or prove otherwise. Furthermore, there ARE indisputable benefits to these drugs - including medical and costs - which in consideration with others I've mentioned in R2 make my advocacy for legalization still stand. Source: [1] http://mentalhealth.about.com...", "qid": "16", "docid": "7ed1701-2019-04-18T19:18:38Z-00002-000", "rank": 46, "score": 108347.0}, {"content": "Title: The price of prescription drugs is fair in proportion to what they prevent. Content: The purpose of prescription drugs must be remembered. Arguably they prevent against the development of serious disease and hence save both the patients the trauma of falling seriously ill and the National Health Service the cost of people falling seriously ill. Thinking about what the medicine prevents and the bigger picture makes the miniscule costs of prescription drugs in comparison seem quite appealing.", "qid": "16", "docid": "6c503906-2019-04-19T12:45:38Z-00015-000", "rank": 47, "score": 108077.0}, {"content": "Title: The use of all drugs that are currently illegal in the US should be legalized Content: Pro has made very common sense points in this round, but his logic is flawed. Pro states that the government cannot regulate items that do not infringe on others rights. I concede to this point whole heartedly. The possession of drugs however does led to the the harming and therefor infringement of other people. Such examples are of drug caused murders, and other crimes directly caused by drugs. Also regarding the example of Portugal, the laws that were put in place only limited the abilities of the cartels that were running rampant in the country just as they are in Mexico. The US however does not have effectively organized cartels, and therefor the immediate decrease in drug related crimes would not be driven down as predicted in Portugal's model. More importantly drugs such as cocaine cannot be legalized for the simple reason that it is blatantly unsafe for the consumer. There are reasons that organizations like the FDA prevent companies from releasing dangerous drugs. To say that selling cocaine is acceptable, is like saying it is acceptable to sell tainted food to even knowledgeable consumers. Secondly, the vast majority of the population does not care about the risks, and unfortunately the government has to do that caring for them just as government agencies do in other sectors.", "qid": "16", "docid": "3de313d1-2019-04-18T18:12:07Z-00004-000", "rank": 48, "score": 107601.0}, {"content": "Title: produce high quality generic drugs for Africa Content: Cheaper drugs aren\u2019t trusted by consumers", "qid": "16", "docid": "b7844b08-2019-04-15T20:24:35Z-00001-000", "rank": 49, "score": 106457.0}, {"content": "Title: This policy enhances the role of drug reps and advertising, at the cost of evidence-based medicine Content: Drugs that are still undergoing clinical trials do not have a complete void of information about them. Presumably this policy covers drugs that have completed at least some testing in humans (say, phase one of the trials), and therefore at least some information would be available on which doctors and patients could base their decisions. Further, it is implausible to suggest that doctors are entirely under the sway of advertisers: whilst drug reps under the status quo have some influence in getting a doctor to use one drug rather than another, this is in instances where there is little to choose between those products, and (importantly!) both are licensed, safe and effective. They would clearly not be so reckless as to blindly follow a drugs rep and prescribe an untested product to their patient.", "qid": "16", "docid": "7b8b69bb-2019-04-15T20:22:38Z-00019-000", "rank": 50, "score": 106377.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Illicit drugs should be decriminalized and regulated by the FDA Content: Thank you, as we approach the end of the debate let us look at the arguments made so far and realize why the pro wins. R1: Incompetence of FDA My opponent claims that the FDA is not capable of being able to regulate drugs due to a history of incompetence. While the sources he cited do show some incompetence on the part of the FDA, what we need to realize is that during the time of which these actions are taking place, the general public was against the FDA regulating prescription drugs. Not only this but the evidence provided is years old and since the FDA has become a more infallible department that can regulate drugs. Not only this, but my opponent has not provided a better actor as an alternative so we can only assume that the best organization for this legislation is the FDA. Also, the source of most corruption in the FDA is from big pharmaceutical companies cashing in on new drugs that the FDA approves, and most of those drugs don\u2019t necessarily harm people. Finally, if it turns into a problem we could use future legislation to further guarantee the safety of said drugs. R2: Lives Since my opponent no longer has the point that the FDA has no means to regulate the illicit drugs, his point about losing lives also falls. I have shown countless examples and evidence of why the cost of lives will decrease in my previous cases, including incentivizing alternatives to jail time which would decrease drug abuse such as therapy. Not only, this, but since the FDA will heavily regulate the drugs, we will see decreases in abuse and consumption, as well as monitoring the content of said drugs. R3: Economics If the livelihood of the people is not in danger, that leaves economics. My opponent states that regulating the drugs would increase government expenditures which would mean that there would be no profit for the federal government. That entire premise is false. I have shown an article from the CATO institute in my first argument showing the fact that even with regulation taken into account there is still a net profit for the federal government if we were to tax it like we would for cigarettes and alcohol. Also, according to a recent Mint Press News article, Colorado, which has recently legalized marijuana with an excise tax of 15%, has seen less crime and has had revenues of millions of dollars to be used for school construction. This kind of money being available proves that on the federal level, we can make more use of this, possibly even fixing our crippling infrastructure. Even if you do not buy this argument, imagine all of the jobs we could create by making a new industry for the everyday consumer. This would incentivize private industry in a safe manner while also promoting safety. R4: Morality My opponent brings up the morality of allowing people to kill themselves with drugs, however, let us look at a different question. How can we allow Alcohol to be legal if it also kills people? In fact, according to a Reuters article, a study was done recently by the Independent Scientific Community on Drugs and the European Monitoring Center for Drugs and Drug Addiction found that alcohol was the most harmful drug to society and the individual. According to the World Health Organization, over 2.5 million deaths are directly targeted to alcohol. With these facts in mind, why don\u2019t we illegalize alcohol if it is worse than the illicit drugs? This is because of the mess of the Prohibitionist era, where people rioted and illegal \u201cSpeakeasies\u201d were popping up completely unregulated where people bought drinks illegally and with no regulation. At least under the new system proposed alcohol could be regulated by the federal government, which prevents youth from drinking and stops people driving under the influence. This is simply the system I am providing today. We are taking an illegal industry, legalizing it, and putting it under harsh regulations to promote safety while promoting private industry. So, what were the results of the prohibition at the time of its introduction? Well, according to the CATO Institute from the 1920s-1930s, there was a definite increase in the homicide rate, which was when the prohibition was introduced and then subsequently abolished. R5: The State of the Debate I have single-handedly addressed every point of my opponent and effectively broken them in today\u2019s round. Not only this, but my opponent has very little evidence to back up his previous points besides his most recent argument, so we must realize who wins today\u2019s argument, which is clearly the pro side. I would like to thank my opponent for the interesting debate and I await your response. Good Luck! Sources: http://seattleorganicrestaurants.com... http://www.mintpressnews.com... http://www.cato.org... http://www.reuters.com...", "qid": "16", "docid": "f6fa986c-2019-04-18T13:29:32Z-00001-000", "rank": 51, "score": 105766.0}, {"content": "Title: Cosmetic Surgery Should Be Banned Content: A friend went to the wedding of a British man and his Texan girlfriend. She looked across the aisle and saw a whole row of identical-looking women. \"I didn\"t know Diane had so many sisters,\" she said to her neighbour. \"Oh, they\"re not family,\" came the reply. \"They\"ve just all gone to the same plastic surgeon.\" The Government published the responses to its consultation on regulating the industry. For a medical process that can cause disfigurement and even death, the rules are astonishingly lax. Any doctor can practice as a cosmetic surgeon, with no specialized experience or training. When patients go for a consultation, it\"s as often with a sales rep as a surgeon. There is no cooling-off period to allow people to change their minds, and some clinics take non-refundable deposits on the spot. They offer buy-one-get-one-free deals, as if boob jobs were packets of cereal, and they even bombard 17-year-olds with texts offering them procedures at their next birthday. Prescription medicines can\"t be advertised. So why do we allow advertising of major surgical interventions with questionable physical and psychological results? Yes, some people may be thrilled with their nose jobs or bigger breasts. But many aren\"t. Some simply alight on another part of their body to hate. Some find that their smoother forehead doesn\"t solve their relationship problems. Some have unsightly scars, eyelids that won\"t shut or implants that rupture. Most chillingly, a whole clutch of studies has found that women with breast implants are three to four times more likely to commit suicide than those without. Whichever way the line of causation runs, it\"s alarming. So there is a lot that ministers can do to tighten up the industry. But we also need to look deeper and ask why women hate their bodies and faces so much that they are prepared to spend a fortune, suffer pain, and take serious risks in going under the knife. For this is an overwhelmingly female problem: women comprise 90 per cent of plastic surgery patients. And it starts early: Girlguiding UK found that 47 per cent of girls said that the pressure to look attractive was the most negative part of being female and half of young women aged 16 to 21 would consider cosmetic surgery. They\"ve watched extreme makeover shows on TV, they\"ve read bitchy criticism of any female celebrity\"s slightest imperfection and they\"ve been bombarded in the media by a narrow definition of beauty which the vast majority of them can never attain. Then we see women being chosen, as TV presenters or celebrity WAGs, entirely on the basis of their youth and beauty, not their intelligence or wisdom or kindness or humour. Men can age and be ugly in public life; women can\"t. If we find that we\"re invisible over the age of 50, possibly even 40, it\"s not surprising that some of us are prepared to take drastic action just to make ourselves seen again. It would be good to see similar research on TV viewing figures. There\"s a huge and growing older demographic, who are more likely to stay in and watch TV. I am sure ratings would go up if more older women appeared on their screens. When I conducted an informal focus group on this subject with younger women, even they said they wanted older role models and would prefer to see older women presenters. And then, perhaps, women could stop looking at themselves through a filter of self-hatred. They might start thinking, \"I\"m a fun person\", rather than \"my nose is too big\". Instead of obsessing about how they look on the outside, they could start thinking about who they are on the inside.", "qid": "16", "docid": "ef7a52f8-2019-04-18T15:27:53Z-00001-000", "rank": 52, "score": 105675.0}, {"content": "Title: The United States Should End the War on Drugs Content: Individuals participate in society because it is in the best interests of all who participate. Left to their own device, people are selfish, cruel, and miserable. Many people simply lack the logic and proper ability to reason to make effective choices even if all the required evidence, materials and information is available to them. In a hands-off approach to society, these people are effectively destined to lead miserable and unfulfilled lives solely because they are born and raised in an environment in which their nature is to fail. Stating that it is immoral for government to interfere in the lives of individuals does not make it fact. It is an assertion. Defining government any way you wish will obviously allow any moral claims as to the proper role of government to be true by definition. Clearly I can do the same in saying that people of a nation have an implicit social contract with the government, the purpose of which is to provide the maximum amount of happiness to the most people. The first claim that my opponent makes is that the most commonly abused drugs are \"legal prescription drugs\". This is a patently false an very misleading statement. Pro's source clearly states that 20% of US citizens have used some kind of prescription medication for non medical reasons. This includes people who have used said medication only one time. Using this same criteria, we find that Marijuana is more than twice as popular as prescription drugs [1], while alcohol and tobacco are almost four times as popular[2][3]. My opponent seems to limit her understanding of the War on Drugs to the legislative and educational effects of specific policies that are included within the War on Drugs. By making this mistake, she makes a clear and confusing contradiction. She argues that: :the repercussions of said drugs are 99% less harmful than the drugs that are legal. despite the fact that she must know that illegal drugs are used far less than legal drugs. A drug such as morphine or Heroin is effectively harmless in comparison to something such as alcohol. In addition to being less harmful, morphia is possible to directly substitute for alcohol in even extreme cases of alcohol obsession[4]. However, despite their relative safety, almost as few as .6% Americans use opiates[10], while over 50% of the population regularly uses alcohol. How can you possibly explain this contradiction? Why would Americans use a substance that is obviously more harmful at a rate that is much higher than than a drug that is much safer and more pleasant? The answer is that the War on Drugs is not simply the sum of legislation and programs regarding drug use and distribution. It is a state of mind. It's a perspective that allows one to hold simultaneously contradictory beliefs without question or doubt. The overwhelming majority of Americans KNOW that drugs like Heroin are far more harmful and dangerous than alcohol and cigarettes. They also KNOW that virtually identical drugs are perfectly harmless when \"prescribed\" or \"prescribable\" by a doctor. In essence, the system itself is it's own ultimate justification. How can you honestly trust a person to make rational health decisions for themselves when they openly admit that their beliefs directly contradict with the most basic rules of logic? Surely one would never argue that a child should be given the opportunity to make negative life altering decisions. This is because they lack the innate ability of rationality that we associate that with adulthood. However, what few want to admit is that rationality does not exist in a static state. Rather, rationality is measured on a sliding scale, with no true reference point. Most adults, while arguably more rational than children, need to their behavior regulated lest the slip into a chain of self destructive behavior. While Pro may be quick to point out that the majority of people are responsible enough to regulate their own behavior, the evidence clearly shows this to be false. The overwhelming majority of Americans have some type of degrading vice, whether it be the inability to control their eating, substance abuse, or any other emotional disorder. Now, Pro may be inclined to argue that such restrictions on human behavior are severe intrusions on freedom. However, the concept of freedom is arbitrary. There is no evidence that such a thing as free will exists; people are slaves to their own passions and their own nature. By strictly regulating human behavior, we are able to substitute the horrors of human nature (enslavement) for the lesser burden of societal codes. Even if one's natural state is changed by government, there is no reason to reject this intrusion if one clearly benefits from this \"intrusion\". Even if you regard it as slavery, there is no reason to not choose the more kind of two masters if no other choices are present. As for the War on Drugs itself, obvious changes need to be made. Much more power needs to be given to the federal government to establish full police power to truly enforce prohibition. One of the reasons why alcohol (and current) prohibitions do not work as well as they could is that the federal government relies on states to enforce the law by proxy. In the current system, States have a conflict of interest when it comes to enforcing drug laws. They have a variety of other important aspects of law enforcement to attend to, and suppressing drug use does not yield immediate benefits. During prohibition, as it is now, resulted in a half hearted enforcement of drug laws. This has shown to be effective in countries that have taken a serious stance as far as prohibiting specific substances such as alcohol[9]. Currently we are focused primarily on the least harmful of substances. Rather, we should focus most of our efforts on the most dangerous of drugs, such as smoked tobacco, alcohol, and methamphetamine. This can be accomplished by slowly reversing the perceived dangers of legal drugs. By releasing a new wave of propaganda and social indoctrination, we can make people understand that the (real) most harmful drugs should be the least socially acceptable, while retaining the illegal status (seeing as all but marijuana are currently at unprecedentedly low levels as it is). There is already a massive movement to criminalize tobacco and once that is accomplished, Alcohol companies can take on the role as the new Evil Villain. Studies showing that alcohol being more dangerous than Heroin and Cocaine will produce cries of moral outrage and condemnation of the companies that have defended and encouraged such horrible concoctions. The mentality of an invisible War on Drugs has showed itself to be a useful tool for manipulating the behavior of society. To abandon it now will be to have wasted nearly a century of social engineering and experimentation. We've proved beyond a doubt that through social manipulation, use of certain drugs can be pushed into nearly non existence despite their relative safety and medical history. While prohibition has had marginal effects already, imagine how much of a difference can be made by prohibiting drugs that are truly are the most dangerous? 1. http://www.time.com... 2. http://www.ok.gov... 3. http://rileychildrenshospital.com... 4. http://books.google.com... 5. http://www.drugpolicy.org... 6. http://www.nytimes.com... 7. http://pewresearch.org... 8. http://www.scrippsnews.com... 9. http://en.wikipedia.org... 10. http://en.wikipedia.org...", "qid": "16", "docid": "d5323527-2019-04-18T19:02:16Z-00004-000", "rank": 53, "score": 105525.0}, {"content": "Title: The U.S. Government Is Primarily Responsible For The Relative Higher Costs Of Prescription Drugs v2 Content: Great debate. Thanks.", "qid": "16", "docid": "11aa61bc-2019-04-18T14:21:12Z-00000-000", "rank": 54, "score": 104819.0}, {"content": "Title: Death penalty Content: THIS WILL BE A CONGRESS STYLE OF DEBATE. lETS HAVE SOME FUN Good evening. Tonight I would like to discuss with you a practice that separates the United States from Every other country in the Western Hemisphere. This, of course, is the use of homicide as an official tool of the state, otherwise known as the death penalty. But first I would like to talk to you for a moment about consumer protection. You see, in this great nation of ours, we have laws on the books that protect consumers from faulty products. We protect consumers from drugs that are dangerous. From foodstuffs that are poisonous. From toys and appliances that are defective. The list goes on and on. We have many regulatory agencies that hire thousands of inspectors and adopt reams and reams of regulations to protect us. The Food and Drug Administration. The Environmental Protection Agency. The people who inspect our eggs and beef and poultry and milk. Imagine, if you will, that you visited your doctor, and she or he prescribed a drug that works miracles for six out of every seven people who take it. But due to a defect with the drug, one out of every seven people who take the drug end up dying. You can imagine the many lawsuits that would ensue. You can imagine how quickly this drug would be yanked off the market. You can imagine the congressional hearings, the charges and countercharges, the acrimony and finger-pointing that would follow as we rushed to keep our people safe\u2014in this great nation of ours. Now. Let's talk about the death penalty. Since the Supreme Court allowed executions to resume in the 1970s, 741 people have been executed in the United States. Unfortunately, as I give this speech, that number is climbing to 743, courtesy of the states of Georgia and Texas. And yet 98 people, or about one out of every seven executed, have walked off death row after new evidence emerged that proved their absolute innocence. Let me be very clear here. I am not talking about people whose sentences or convictions were overturned on what some might call a technicality. I am talking about actual innocence. Think about it. If one of every seven car tires sold in this country was subject to a blowout, if one of every seven chickens taken to market infected someone with salmonella, if one of every seven cars manufactured had a faulty engine that exploded every now and again, these things would be taken off the market. But for every seven people executed since 1976, one actually innocent person has been sent to death row. Yet the death penalty remains \"on the market.\" There are, of course, many reasons why I oppose the death penalty, in addition to the fact that I believe innocent people can be executed and in fact have been executed. I'd like to share with you some of these reasons. Many of you know I worked on the case of Gary Graham. Gary came from the fifth ward in Houston, Texas. He was convicted and sentenced to death for the robbery-murder of a shopping clerk. There are many things about Gary's case that are illustrative of the kind of problems caused by the death penalty. Number one: Gary was a juvenile when it was alleged he committed the crime for which he was convicted. Only five other countries are known to have executed children in the past decade\u2014Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Yemen. But in the U.S., 13 states, including Texas, allow for the execution of people who commit crimes as juveniles. Number two: Gary was Black. Black people make up 12.1 percent of our nation's population\u2014but comprise 43 percent of death rows across the United States. Racial disparities continue to define who lives and who dies under this punishment. Number three: Gary was convicted on the very shaky eyewitness testimony of one person. The Bible in the Book of Numbers says we shouldn't convict on the testimony of one eyewitness. But our courts say otherwise. Number four: When Gary's supporters discovered new evidence of innocence, the courts wouldn't hear it. You see, the Congress and the State Legislatures have put time limits for the introduction of new evidence. New evidence can show a person's innocence, but if it is not introduced in time, it may not be heard. The Supreme Court has even ruled that as long as a person has received fair trial, it is not unconstitutional to execute an innocent person. Now does that make any sense? Number five: Gary was from Texas. Texas has executed 253 people since reinstatement\u2014or more than one third of the people executed in the United States. Many of those executions were from Houston, Gary's home town. Harris County, which encompasses Houston, has sent 63 people to the death chamber since 1976. If it were a state, Harris County would rank third in the number of people executed, behind Texas and Virginia. Gary Graham was executed in the summer of 2000. His case pointed out then many problems the death penalty brings to our system of justice. Incompetent legal counsel, racial bias. The possibility\u2014in this case the probability of innocence, the very issue of disproportionality\u2014Gary probably would not have been executed if he was from a different state or if he had drawn a different prosecutor or a different jury. But the tide is turning. The very same tide that swept up Gary Graham and so many like him is now turning. Consider these developments: The U.S. Supreme Court this term is set to take up the question of whether mentally retarded people can be executed. 18 states have banned this barbaric practice\u2014including five states this year alone. Across the globe, a strong international consensus against execution of the retarded has emerged. Of those countries that still employ capital punishment, only two\u2014the United States and Kyrgyzstan\u2014regularly put the retarded to death. Fifteen states have banned the execution of people who commit crimes as juveniles. Next year, Arizona, Kentucky, Ohio and Missouri will consider similar legislation. Across the nation, a healthy moratorium movement is battling the notion of state-sponsored homicide. The republican governor of Illinois declared a moratorium in his state after many innocent people were discovered on death row, some with rapidly approaching execution dates. States like California, Texas, Tennessee, Maryland and Pennsylvania are giving birth to healthy moratorium campaigns. In the state of North Carolina alone, elected officials in 14 town and cities have passed resolutions supporting a moratorium on executions. Nationwide, 58 towns, cities, and counties have done likewise\u2014and polls consistently show that more than 60 percent of the American public supports a moratorium on the death penalty. Since September 11, the poll numbers have only risen slightly. Around the globe, 110 nations have abolished the death penalty, either in law or in practice. This growing list includes Chile and Yugoslavia, both of whom outlawed the practice earlier this year. So yes, the tide is turning, but now we face a new and profound challenge. I refer of course to the events of September 11th. It has been said that war is never the friend of social justice movements. When we fear, we clamp down on those who do not think like we think or do not look like we look. Since September 11th, we have seen our federal government incarcerate without trial or access to bail more than 1,000 people, mostly of Middle Eastern or Southern Asian descent. Now it is revealed that Attorney General John Ashcroft wants to allow Federal Authorities to listen in on privileged conversations between these detainees and their lawyers. Furthermore, the government will no longer reveal how many people are being illegally incarcerated or where they are being held\u2014this despite the fact that the FBI has admitted that 99 percent of those detained have nothing to do with the events of September 11th. Please vote in NEGATION to the topic.", "qid": "16", "docid": "41271c42-2019-04-18T19:25:55Z-00001-000", "rank": 55, "score": 104810.0}, {"content": "Title: The U.S. Government Is Primarily Responsible For The Relative Higher Costs Of Prescription Drugs v2 Content: *NOTE* This is the restart of a duplicate debate. We are switching me to opening arguments position as it follows logical process better.Offering the debate challenge.I would like to start by giving my thanks to TBR, and showing my appreciation for the opportunity he has afforded me by presenting the topic in a poll and agreeing to this debate. Additionally, I would like to provide clarity for the audience; the following list will elaborate on Pro and Con positions as well as properly frame the generalized term \"relative\". Con's (TBR) Position -- The U.S. Government is NOT primarily responsible for higher costs of prescription medications within the U.S. Pro's (MakeSensePeopleDont) Position -- The U.S. Government IS primarily responsible for higher costs of prescription medications within the U.S. Relative (Framing) -- The word \"relative\" in the debate title defines as \"Relative to the new prescription medication costs as is seen in other modernized nations of the world.\" Costs of Prescription Medications (Framing) -- The word \"Costs\" as used in the debate title is defined as \"The cost per pill charged BY pharmaceutical manufacturers / companies TO distributors, pharmacies, retailers, or any other direct from manufacturer purchaser. Direct From Manufacturer Purchaser -- Defined as \"Purchasing product directly from source, avoiding unnecessary markup.\" I look forward to a spirited and informative debate with TBR.", "qid": "16", "docid": "11aa61bc-2019-04-18T14:21:12Z-00004-000", "rank": 56, "score": 104201.0}, {"content": "Title: It's a \"No-Brainer\". In the USA Big Pharma is enjoying 8 years of \"Dubya\" by raking in the profits Content: My first couple decades as a Registered Pharmacist in the United States were from 1965 to 1985. The major pharmaceutical manufacturers were invested in healing, curing disease and ameliorating symptoms that diminished quality of life. They were the \"Good Guys\". We, in the industry, trusted them. We worked with them. We had relationships with their representatives. They were good times, fine times. The average prescription was around $12.00. Generic equivalents were new to the market. Brand name dispensing was the custom. The manufacturers made money. Now, 2005, there is no doubt that the only mission Big Pharma strives for is to MAKE A PROFIT. As big a profit as they can. The idea that they are interested in curing illness is a laugher. They bring out new drugs for big illnesses \"high cholesterol\". Lipitor is or was recently the top grossing drug on the planet. As Rhett Buter said, \"Frankly, My Dear, we don't give a damn about your little, inconspicuous disease. There's no money in it. Oh, hell, stop it. We know you are going to die, but .. well, there' just NO PROFIT in it.\" Pfizer then turns to Smith-Kline Glaxo and says, \"Let's go get a drink.\" Jim Plagakis at http://www.jimplagakis.com", "qid": "16", "docid": "6c503906-2019-04-19T12:45:38Z-00009-000", "rank": 57, "score": 103913.0}, {"content": "Title: Drugs should be legalized in the U.S. Content: 1a) I did not bring up advertising expenditures. My opponent did. Therefore, there was no point for me to prove. In addition, by definition, revenue itself cannot represent a loss. Loss occurs as a result of the costs associated in generating that revenue. The costs of total drug legalization are much broader in scope than simple advertising expenditures. I have already outlined these costs in my four previous arguments. This point was originally meant to highlight the lack of any legitimate sourcing or data by my opponent with regards to his 'estimates' of potential legalized drug revenues. 1b) A new regulatory unit would not be funded with the purpose of performing simple inspections. This unit would be required to oversee all aspects of the new industry. Police do not inspect airlines, the FAA does. Police do not provide standards for allowing pharmaceutical companies to see meds, the FDA does. Police do not inspect people's taxes, the IRS does. The regulatory units are responsible for the creation of standards, the monitoring of the industry, the maintenance of quality, the detection of issues, the promotion of solutions, the suggestion of changes, the analysis of data, the presentation to legislators, etc. All three of the units I mentioned earlier (FAA, FDA, IRS) are very underfunded, meaning they need more funding to operate optimally. This new agency would encounter the same problems, aside from its initial funding costs. 2a) The W-2 program itself and the supposed success of it are outside the scope of this discussion. In addition, we don't know what portion of these criminals would join welfare or that program, should it actually be successful on a national scale. The whole point is that the program and welfare both represent COSTS. More people in the program means more COSTS. In addition, the portion of criminals that would not enter such a program would likely re-enter the black market. Another cost, and an impediment towards crime rate reduction. 2b) In order to obtain a warrant, police need probable cause that a crime or evidence of a crime exists in a household. If drugs are legal, then it makes it that much more difficult for police to obtain a warrant with regards to 'excess drugs'. How would a police officer obtain a warrant due to probable cause, where he/she suspects a legal drug use to have too much of a legal drug? In addition, the necessary work involved in finding this proof and obtaining the necessary warrants represents yet another COST. Time and resources cost money. 3 main reasons the drug trade may be somewhat profitable: 1) They are oligopolistic in nature. Therefore they can control prices; 2) Barriers to purchase exist. People cannot buy them legally, so dealers place a premium on the price. 3) Depending on the dealers, lower quality (and potentially dangerous) substitute substances can be used in the production of some of these drugs in order to lower costs All of these reasons would disappear if all drugs were legalized. Throw a tax in there, and all of a sudden, most (if not all) of this supposed surplus disappears. I could write more, but all of my points have been stated in the previous four arguments. The main point is this: The costs of legalizing all drugs (regulation, tax collection, litigation, productivity, rehabilitation, life-damage, etc, etc, etc) exceed the benefits (a guessed-at tax revenue figure, based off of journalistic data).", "qid": "16", "docid": "dfb23292-2019-04-18T19:45:52Z-00000-000", "rank": 58, "score": 103549.0}, {"content": "Title: Wastage Content: Because so many people either only have to pay the prescription charge, or in many cases no charge at all for their drugs, the NHS wastes \u00a3100m each year on drugs that go in the bin. Doctors should only prescribe drugs when people have serious ailments and the prescription charges should actually be much higher for single treatments meaning people who have chronic conditions can pay less. Basically we're dishing out a whole bunch of subsidised analgesics and anti-histamines that end up in the bin while people cannot get live-saving/prolonging treatments for their cancer.", "qid": "16", "docid": "6c503906-2019-04-19T12:45:38Z-00017-000", "rank": 59, "score": 103403.0}, {"content": "Title: Drug Legalization Content: Not all drugs are illegal (like tobacco). Drugs that ARE illegal retain this condition of illegality for a reason. Illegal drugs are harmful to society as a whole. If drugs were to be legalized, multimillion corporations, which would no doubt be established, would be free to launch mass advertising campaigns promoting these drugs to the entire nation. A staggering number people allow themselves to be put under the influence of legal drugs. Not all of these people are addicts, but the drugs that my opponent believes should be legalized are highly addictive. Imagine the sheer number of people who are very productive citizens becoming encumbered and debilitated by drugs that we currently consider illegal. My opponent argues economic benefits, but I will argue otherwise. With millions under the influence of such drugs that generally cause physical and mental impairment, the nation loses an immense number of potential workforce. Potential doctors, lawyers or entrepreneurs would be crippled by use and abuse. Addiction is not a condition that people chose to have. Legalizing illegal drugs would provide an even larger base of drug for the teen consumers. Many of these children, in youthful stupidity or curiosity, have tried legal drugs. A good number of the experimenting teens become ensnared in it these harmful products. Illegal drugs, which are even more harmful and addictive, would give rise to this same problem at a much larger scale. Are the few tens of billions of potential profits worth the hundreds of billions lost from potential output of productive people? Drugs destroy productivity and therefore limit the economic output of potentially productive citizens. Here are some other drug related economic and statistical data: \"Every year, tobacco companies spend billions of dollars on advertising and promotion, and tobacco use costs the United States billions of dollars in medical expenses and lost productivity. . . During 2000\"2004, cigarette smoking was estimated to be responsible for $193 billion in annual health-related economic losses in the United States (nearly $96 billion in direct medical costs and an additional $97 billion in lost productivity).\" [1] There actually is a cite-able case example of the influence of these drugs that harm not only its user, but the entire nation as an economic Unit. One of the most powerful and prominent nation in the world, 14th-18th century China was a nation of renown. Traders from all over Eurasia traveled te Silk Roads to glimpse China's unmatched products. As China flourished, it amassed considerable wealth and status among the Eurasian nations and maintained this status for a few centuries. Then, near the beginning of the 18th century, Opium (a drug) was introduced to China via Portuguese vessels[2]. Within one and a half century, this drug will have permeated and deteriorated nearly all levels of Chinese society, destroying its productive workforce and corrupting its government. One and a half century after Opium's introduction, China's economy will have been utterly pulverized. The cost to China was enormous. The drug weakened a large percentage of the population (some estimate that 10 percent of the population regularly used opium by the late nineteenth century), and silver began to flow out of the country to pay for the opium. Many of the economic problems China faced later were either directly or indirectly traced to the opium trade. [3] How profound an effect did Opium have? When Japan first launched its attack on China, the international world, expecting China to easily crush this assault attempt, were shocked: Japan won. China had fallen behind economically, politically and technologically. innumerable times the people revolted, its millennium old political system was uprooted and China fell into deep poverty. China went through several revolutions, (Boxer Rebellion, The Great Proletarian). Its infrastructure was thoroughly ravaged. China is currently climbing a dangerous peak by enacting horrible economic policies (such as never cutting back production). A catastrophic fall is mounting. (Must I also mention its bad social conditions?) An effective recovery never happened. What does this portend? In legalizing all currently illegal drugs, we inadvertently taking a horrible risk. [1] http://www.cdc.gov... [2] http://www.druglibrary.org... [3] http://afe.easia.columbia.edu...", "qid": "16", "docid": "74e90aa7-2019-04-18T18:07:11Z-00002-000", "rank": 60, "score": 102984.0}, {"content": "Title: People should ask for cheaper alternatives Content: Instead of moaning about overpriced drugs, people should take responsibility and use their initiative in asking for alternatives. People could go elsewhere for medication when they are absolutely certain that they cannot afford GP prescribed drugs. Alternatives to overpriced drugs of the NHS that cost them less money and can be brought, for example, from the local supermarkets, such as Tescos. It is difficult to qualify the extent of wastage, and that is not in the doctor\u2019s hands. The patients should be encouraged not to waste medication and to give GPs back the remaining pills for example that they did not need to use and this in itself, is a cheaper alternative.", "qid": "16", "docid": "6c503906-2019-04-19T12:45:38Z-00014-000", "rank": 61, "score": 102845.0}, {"content": "Title: All Drugs Should Be Legal Content: Extend", "qid": "16", "docid": "949319b4-2019-04-18T14:38:46Z-00001-000", "rank": 62, "score": 102479.0}, {"content": "Title: All Drugs Should Be Legalized Content: I accept :)", "qid": "16", "docid": "f0a137c7-2019-04-18T17:56:16Z-00004-000", "rank": 63, "score": 102310.0}, {"content": "Title: The United States government should reform drug patent time limits. Content: Pharmacy student here. I'm taking this debate for the topic and not to debate on semantics or rigged wordplay. I know what you mean, you know what I mean, so let's discuss this in a way where we can hopefully both learn something. Your argument is heavily based on economics, so I will address a few issues there. First of all, the sale of medications does not abide by the nice round rules of freshman econ. Not when insurance companies are so heavily linked to the sales of these products. The copay for $100 worth of brand name medications can easily be and usually is $10 or less. The release of generic medications will lower the overall cost of the medication, but the benefit to the general population is much, MUCH less than you would imagine. Monopolies really don't apply in the field of pharmacy as much as you would think. Second, there is a saying that goes around in our pharmacoeconomics class. \"They say that pills costs 10 cents to make. That's just the second pill. The first pill takes billions of dollars to make\". Research and development are extraordinarily expensive, and is a much bigger financial burden than all other factors of production. If companies can't turn a SUBSTANTIAL profit, why would they ever try to make a new drug? Third, the FDA requires about 10 years to thoroughly review the drug before allowing it on the market. It also monitors medications heavily after they are released in case the side effects warrant a recall. Your proposal would flood the market with generic medications not 2-3 years after they are first released. If anything goes wrong, the FDA would have a lot of trouble on its hands trying to identify the source of the problem in dozens of pharmaceutical companies as opposed to just one. To sum up, your economic principles upon which your proposal is based, is flawed and applies much less to this topic than you think. Your proposal also neglects the absurd amount of money that goes into research and development, and also jeopardizes the safety of the general population. I await my opponent's response.", "qid": "16", "docid": "fa3cb933-2019-04-18T19:46:11Z-00002-000", "rank": 64, "score": 101873.0}, {"content": "Title: The malicious and misleading advertisements of today Content: I agree to my opponent that it creates awareness among the consumers regarding the particular product but one can't deny the fact that they are far much misleading Here are the points on which I rely - 1-Cost of advertisement affects the cost of product. It will become burden to costumer. 2-The promoters only emphasise on the merits. 3-Advertisers present the product as a favourite of the celebrities. This has great influence on young minds. 4-People are preferring ready made food than fruits and vegetables through advertising. These new habits are adversely impacting their health. 5-Some pesticides, though in very small quantities were found in common cold drinks. But advertisers are not revealing this fact. 6-All cosmetic products are advertised in the name of fruit extracts, the chemical contents are neither displayed nor printed on the product cover. 7-Teenagers are attracted by cigarette, alcohol and diet pills advertisements, and their health is adversely effecting by these habits. 8-Consumers tend to be manipulated by an advertisement's promise that the product will do something special for them, which upsets their budget. 9-An advertisement for an expensive good is likely to create an ill-feeling in the mind of a poor teenager who cannot afford it. Such feelings often lead to hatred and anti-social activities. I would remind the opponent that he should post his argument and then in the final round we will put up ways and conclusions on this topic", "qid": "16", "docid": "34206649-2019-04-18T16:40:11Z-00003-000", "rank": 65, "score": 101832.0}, {"content": "Title: Drugs should be allowed in the United States Content: Extend", "qid": "16", "docid": "3e9e6ce7-2019-04-18T13:42:28Z-00000-000", "rank": 66, "score": 101677.0}, {"content": "Title: The existence of harmful non-prescription drugs is a bad thing to our society! Content: Since you forfeited, I am guessing that the round goes to me. If you ran out of time, or lost interest in this debate and forgot, then I completely understand. It's happened to me before. I await your answer in your next speech. Thank you.", "qid": "16", "docid": "e08bd04b-2019-04-18T13:58:43Z-00000-000", "rank": 67, "score": 101668.0}, {"content": "Title: Medical Marijuana Content: I will rebut the snide wikipedia remarks. I used wikipedia to show the fact of the matter, not to show any research. Encyclopedias/dictionaries/thesauruses are perfectly cite-worthy when you are using them to show just fact.I used wikipedia sources as evidence for my claim that your sources are biased. If you like, I could find the same information at pretty much any of the websites.My point was that the agency you quoted is mandated to oppose legalization at all costs, so it obviously isn't trustworthy.Also, two wrongs don't make a right. I wasn't criticizing you, I was criticizing your sources.I didn't criticize the FDA either. The article that YOU quoted was criticizing the FDA, that was my point. Your source was suggesting that the FDA was politically motivated. They aren't politically motivated to say anything about candy because candy isn't a hot button issue. It's unrealistic to think that any bureaucracy wouldn't have at least a little corruption. It isn't a consumer protection agency, it's a food and drug administration, sometimes it acts as a consumer protection agency, but that isn't the primary function.There are tons of chemicals in everything. I've already said that. \"400 chemicals\" is just a scare phrase. There are carcinogens, but they will only be able to affect you if you smoke it. You can ingest marijuana via food and via vaporizer. The vaporizer wipes out like 90% of the risk and eating it wipes it all out. There is no more risk from eating marijuana than there is from eating a cookie. \"Why have it as medicine when you have others that will not act like this?\"Like I said, there may be medicines which work better, but that's no reason to ban the ones that don't work as well. Testimonials (which aren't that valid, admittedly) show people who say marijuana worked where other drugs didn't. That's irrelevant though because it works. If it works just 10%, why would you stop someone who wants to do it? It's their choice. Why crack down on cancer-stricken stoners?If I made a list like http://www.well.com... has of morphine, do you think it would fare better or worse?I think morphine will mess you up a heck of a lot worse than marijuana, and morphine is completely medically legal. I have looked up my opponent's assertion that marijuana can cause schizophrenia. I found that the causal relationship is controversial and is still being studied (1) (2) (3).Lots of medicine can cause psychosis. X can cause psychosis ergo X is not medicine is not a valid argument. Adrenal failure can cause psychosis, so medications that can cause adrenal failure can cause psychosis. It is logically NOT the only medicine that can cause psychosis. I don't know what you meant to say, but you said \"It also causes cannabis which is short term.\"I put harm and effectiveness in the same category. The more it harms you, the less effective it is, so my Tylenol and Advil analogy still stands unless you would say that it can harm you a lot and still remain an effective and legal drug (like chemotherapy- WAY worse than marijuana), but then you have to answer to why marijuana doesn't fit that category.I never said \"only the stuff with it\". I said a whole is not just the sum of it's parts. That's a fallacy. You just made it again for the second time. There is no arsenic in marijuana, but if you had a small enough amount of arsenic, then yeah the coffee wouldn't be toxic. Your analogy to coffee doesn't apply at all. Radiation causes cancer, that's common knowledge, however, radiation is also used to treat cancer. Something can cause cancer and still be legal medically. In fact, it happens all the time. Maybe I'm mistaken about what you mean, because I thought you had made a typo before. What do you mean \"It causes cannabis\". Cannabis is the scientific term for marijuana. One cannot cause cannabis.Cannabis does NOT cause crime. Cannabis IS crime. It is the criminalization that causes crime. We are in the same boat today as we were in the 1920's when alcohol was made illegal by the government. The mob was created because of alcohol. Al Capone was an alcohol dealer.Cannabis is the same story.On the aggressiveness and addiction, if you read it, you'll notice that it says the aggressiveness/withdrawal peaks at 1 week after they quit. It also doesn't say it causes agression is says it causes \"increased agression\" which could mean the equivalent of being cranky from staying up too late.That has got to be one of the shortest withdrawals around. I was just making a joke about having never seen an aggressive marijuana user, don't get so uppity. Cannabis doesn't make you aggressive, cannabis WITHDRAWAL makes you aggressive (and possibly only mildly) and you only have withdrawal if you get addicted which means that there's a 91% chance that you will never see the aggressiveness while smoking.\"Obviously I don't mean every pot user becomes aggressive, but many do.\"If you define whatever percent of 9% that quits as \"many\" then sure. It does appear that several people on this forum think marijuana makes them aggressive. Sources 4-6 will show legal medications which can also cause mood swings.I thank my opponent for agreeing to this debate. I have enjoyed it. I ask the readers to please vote pro.Sources:(1) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...(2) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...(3) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...;(4) http://ibdcrohns.about.com...(5) http://infertility.about.com...(6) http://i-base.info...", "qid": "16", "docid": "174dab15-2019-04-18T18:38:29Z-00001-000", "rank": 68, "score": 101498.0}, {"content": "Title: Animal testing has significantly improved human welfare Content: Past experience has shown what invaluable advances can be made in medicine by experimenting on animals, and that live animals are the most reliable subjects for testing medicines and other products for toxicity. In many countries (e.g. the US and the UK) all prescription drugs must be tested on animals before they are allowed onto the market. To ban animal experiments would be to paralyse modern medicine, to perpetuate human suffering, and to endanger human health by allowing products such as insecticides onto the market before testing them for toxicity.", "qid": "16", "docid": "fd3161b0-2019-04-17T11:47:42Z-00183-000", "rank": 69, "score": 101285.0}, {"content": "Title: Patens are grossly inefficient. Our Plan Rewards Results Content: Dr Marcia Angell (former editor of New England Journal of Medicine) Only 14 per cent of budgets go on developing drugs. The case for the granting of patents is that the resulting profits are necessary to finance the expensive process of R&D. These artificial monopolies, however, have proved very inefficient. \u201cThe FDA estimates it costs over 7 million dollars to bring a new drug to market pharmaceutical companies put that figure closer to 70 million dollars.\u201d [[http://www.naturalnews.com/020345.html]] This disparity shows R&D is a relatively minor financial concern. \u201cThe pharmaceutical industry spends nearly U.S. $57.5 billion on marketing and U.S. $31.5 billion on R&D\u201d [[http://www.naturalnews.com/022698.html]]. The main concern of pharmaceuticals is not the cost of research and development but advertising to compete with other firms and create a market for its product. This is not necessary for life-saving drugs; you may need advertising to be convinced to buy a skin care product but you hardly need convincing to purchase a HIV drug that will save your life. Apart from need-instilling publicity pharmaceuticals spend fortunes ensuring their profits are not compromised by legislation. \u201cDrug companies spent more than $3bn on lobbyists and political \"contributions\" over the past decade in the US alone.\u201d[[http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-the-hidden-truth-behind-drug-company-profits-1767257.html]]. The vast majority of the profits pharmaceuticals get allegedly to facilitate R&D, go to publicity and lobbying. Our plan would end this ridiculous waste. It would subsidize and reward success and tangible improvements in vaccines that can save lives; it would pay for the R&D with none of the frills. This is further evidence of the viability of this proposal, with cheaper R&D and patent-free drugs health care systems across the world would save billions in addition to those saved by the absence of premi", "qid": "16", "docid": "dca95253-2019-04-19T12:45:05Z-00020-000", "rank": 70, "score": 101089.0}, {"content": "Title: let it be resolved that all drugs should be legal Content: I don't accept that PRO should have BOP. The BOP is on those who are claiming that we should lock up people who use and sell drugs for life. The BOP is on those who want to use the power of the state to take away someone's freedom for the rest of their life (as current draconian drug laws allow) - if you want to do this to someone, if you want to make the very cruel and inhumane punishment of locking someone up for the rest of their life you better have a pretty good reason why you want to do it. All drugs should be legal. The war on drugs has provided great injury to our civil liberties. Every day the police spy on us, tap our phones and violate due process with warantless searches. This is a war that has turned brother against brother and son against father as people inform on each other to curry favour with the state or to punish an enemy. Prohibition of controlled substances has created a blossoming black market in the sale of illegal substances. Since those who participate in this market are by definition criminals it is no surprise to find that crime and fraud are rampant. Well meaning drug consumers are taken advantage of at every turn. Often drug dealers cut their highly expensive illegal products with other goods, in order to obtain even further profits fraudulently - if drugs were legal this would never happen. Nor would they be as expensive. The price of these drugs includes an incredible risk premium charged by the drug dealer, as well as all the extra costs associated with hiding the drug from the authorities and the extreme difficulties in shipping across borders and of course the theft of great amounts of the product by authorities. If we legalized drugs they would cost pennies on the dollar and be widely available. Pharmacists would be able to experiment freely and create newer and even cooler hallucinogens. There is simply no telling how fucked up we'd be able to get. Drugs can be used as an aid in the creation of the art. They can also be used for many medicinal purposes. For example ketamine, currently a schedule i controlled substance in my country (akin to heroin or methamphetamine), has medical uses as an anti-depressant. Yet it is a crime, punishable up to 9 years in prison to possess it. A drug that makes you happy can lend you nine years in prison. Marijuana stimulates hunger and suppresses nausea in cancer patients. Illegal. Heroin is a very effective pain killer. Illegal. Amphetamines are illegal and yet doctors prescribe them to children in the form of Adderal. It's all very contradictory and paradoxical. The war on drugs is ran at a tremendous cost at the taxpayer, all to keep people from buying things they want. It is not the state's decision if I or anyone else choose to use drugs. That is my decision and my decision alone. It is my body. Who are you, or anyone else, to tell me what I can and cannot put in my body? Ultimately if you argue this you are arguing that it is not my body, but the governments body, that I am a slave to the state and that I must take care of their body for them. If it is true that the state can regulate my consumption of drugs, then surely it must be true that the state can regulate what you eat and drink and how much exercise you get. You are conceding the moral premise of totalitarianism that virtually everything we do should be regulated by the state.", "qid": "16", "docid": "e650f9a4-2019-04-18T17:50:45Z-00003-000", "rank": 71, "score": 101010.0}, {"content": "Title: The U.S. Government Is Primarily Responsible For The Relative Higher Costs Of Prescription Drugs v2 Content: Alright, this is pretty straightforward: The U.S. Government starts at the top level with 1 section. U.S. Constitution This is then broken down into 3 equal branches Legislative Branch Judicial Branch Executive Branch The Executive Branch which consists of the President & VP, is broken down then into 14 additional departments as well as a number of Independent Establishments and Government Corporations Health and Human Services (HHS) is one of the Gov Departments Under HHS is the most expensive headache of the Pharmaceutical Industry Food and Drug Administration (FDA) The FDA, who is in control of most regulations for the drug industry, hides its own publicly available NDA (New Drug Application) prices hidden in a labrynth of wep pages on its own site. These prices, for the fiscal year 2010, was $1,841,500 PER APPLICATION. In total, there were payments made to the FDA as follows: Application fees -- $172,238, 150 Establishment fees -- $183,328,513 Product fees -- $173,709,880 Total fees collected (just for Prescription Drug User Fee Act fees) -- $529,276,543 This can be seen at: http://blogs.plos.org...;It can also be seen directly from the FDA here: http://www.fda.gov... Forbes also reports that properly adjusting for drug trials as is required by the FDA, 1 single new drug can cost a staggering $12 billion dollars, including clinical trials which can cost as much as $100 million a piece. http://www.forbes.com...;On top of these staggering costs brought forward just by the FDA, medscape.com, one the most FDA friendly review sites on the net reports that the process of getting a new medication from idea to market, is about 12 years. http://www.medscape.com...;Next is the Affordable Care Act's new Pharnmaceutical Tax which by itself is costing between $3 billion - $4 billion to each manufacturing company each year. http://www.irs.gov...;Worst part is, this only accounts for the FDA; this does NOT account for fire code, health code, OSHA, local taxes, state taxes, federal taxes, etc. Let's think about taxes for a second here: The U.S. currently has a 35%-39% federal corporate tax rate which is 3rd highest on the planet. There are then the state taxes of an average of 10%, followed by the local taxes which average 4.5%. That's an average total of 54% paid in taxes to the government annually. http://www.ey.com...;All of these expendatures outlined, it's not a wonder why prices for medications in America are so darn high.", "qid": "16", "docid": "11aa61bc-2019-04-18T14:21:12Z-00002-000", "rank": 72, "score": 100944.0}, {"content": "Title: Drug Legalization Content: Audience, please vote based on presented arguments and not personal opinion. INTRODUCTION I am arguing that the purchase, sale, manufacture, transportation, and private usage of all \"street drugs\" should be legalized within the United States. There are two small exceptions to my argument. First, drugs should not be allowed to be advertised or sold to minors. Second, a person should not be allowed to force drugs upon someone who is unwilling (this includes second hand smoke). I also care to inform everybody that I do not use drugs. I have never used them once and I will never use them. I personally suggest that everybody should use their free will and choose to stay drug-free, especially children. I also personally suggest that schools, parents, and businesses use their free will to educate children about the harm that drugs cause. Drug abuse is a problem which needs to be solved by a person's free will and not by government force. I am not arguing this because I believe that drugs are not a problem or that they are not harmful. They are very harmful and drug abuse is a very big problem. I am arguing this because I believe government prohibition will never solve the problem. THE HARM OF CONTINUING GOVERNMENT PROHIBITION OF DRUGS Many people mean well by advocating policies, but they are ineffective and cause blowback. For the below reasons, I am against government prohibition of drugs: 1)Prohibition decreases the supply of drugs (because drugs are harder to obtain now), but not the demand (because many people are still addicted to drugs even during prohibition). When supply is lowered and demand stays the same, the only result is that drugs increase in value. 2)When people are willing to pay more money for drugs due to it's value increase, the drug industry and the black market both profit. How do you think they finance their operations now? 3)Prohibition was tried during the 1920's in the United States to prohibit alcohol. In result, alcohol usage stayed exactly the same, gang/street violence sharply increased. 4)Men and women in the coastguard have to risk their lives fighting against armed boats which carry drugs. Police in the streets have to risk their lives fighting against armed gangs which carry drugs. 5)There is a moral dilemma about prohibition also. What gives government the right to dictate what an individual does to his/her own body? Should we ban automobiles, airplanes, and unhealthy food because they cause many deaths also? THE BENEFITS OF ENDING GOVERNMENT PROHIBITION OF DRUGS Ending government prohibition will not completely solve the problem. But ending government prohibition will give more benefits than harm: 1)Since using drugs would no longer be a crime after prohibition ends, the police and government will be able to focus more of their efforts on other crimes (which actually involve victims) such as murder, rape, theft, fraud, malpractice, and physical abuse. 2)By allowing drugs in the market, they are able to taxed as all items are, increasing revenue for the government. Also, not having to upkeep millions of prisoners would not decrease. This increase of revenue can be used to make down payments on our twelve trillion dollar national debt. 3)By ending prohibition we would all be able to change our mindset on the issue. People battling a terrible addiction will no longer be known as criminals, but as victims. The drug problem will no longer be known as solved just because it is covered up by ineffective legislation. We would acknowledge the government's failure in solving the drug problem and we would be able to try a new solution. CONCLUSION People do not use drugs simply because they are legal. Many use them because of peer pressure, lack of knowledge, and/or poor parenting. Many use them to temporarily alleviate the pain of stress, anxiety, depression, and other personal problems. There are only two ways to stop someone from taking up drugs: 1)Removing ALL drugs from Earth. Which is not possible and poorly emulated by prohibition. 2)Face the problems which make people resort to using drugs. Which would be difficult, but possible. I am not arguing against prohibition for idealistic reasons. I am not an idealist. I am a realist. I recognize the problems drugs cause and I think it needs to be addressed realistically. I am not a social darwinist. I show genuine concern for the well-being of others. I want to be part of a generation which solves this drug issue once and for all. But before we can go about solving the problem, we need to recognize that government is not the solution. It is the problem. Ending government prohibition is only a small step towards ending drug abuse, but it is a step which must be taken in order to confront this problem.", "qid": "16", "docid": "2d0fc6e0-2019-04-18T19:20:27Z-00002-000", "rank": 73, "score": 100717.0}, {"content": "Title: FOR Branded Oxycodone + Hydrocodone @ MEDISUPPIES. COM || Pay by PayPal Content: Buy oxycodone online without prescription @ www. Medisuppies. Com which is drug or medication that reduces pain and prescribed because of their effective pain-relieving properties from injuries, Cancer, Arthritis and other detrimental conditions. Oxycodone supplies in Texas @ www. Medisuppies. Com , A morphine-like drug also referred to as opioids, Acts in the brain and deviates how our body responds and senses pain. Taken just as given by the doctor, Opioids can aid minimizing pain effectively. At www. Medisuppies. Com , You find different range of drugs to reduce pain or ache. We always made delivery within stipulated time. We are serving people for decades. We have years of experience in doing online business in Pharmacy. Our experience makes us stand ahead of anyone out in the market. We maintained quality and consistency which helps us to shine in our arena of pharma industry. Provided drugs are no doubt free from any adulteration. We are certified pharmaceutical product provider who always strive for customer satisfaction by our timely services. You also get fully description user manual or medication guide so that you won\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t find it difficult to use. There are thousands of medications and drugs to get rid from moderate to severe pain. Buy Hydrocodone www. Medisuppies. Com is one of the best narcotic drugs that is used to get relieve from any pain or ache. High-quality and effective hydrocodone supplies in Texas @ www. Medisuppies. Com can be provided by US pharmacy your trusted and reliable online store for any kind of medication and drugs. www. Medisuppies. Com offer range of medicines that too in very cheap rates. Buying medicine from any store offline can cost you more but having your needed medication online can not only save you time but also saves you time. In today\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s fast pace world, Many people don\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t have time to visit doctor or prescribed medicines for their illness, So, Considering that we bring our range of medication options which you will get here i. E. @ www. Medisuppies. Com an online store for all kind medication and drug. Buy hydrocodone online without prescription @ www. Medisuppies. Com is not suitable for children who are below age of six or for pregnant ladies due to the risk of side effects that it possesses. You can buy Hydrocodone online @ www. Medisuppies. Com to treat moderate to severe pain. This medication is not suitable for children who are less than six years of age due to the risk of side effects that it possesses such as slow or shallow breathing. Buy Branded Oxycodone, Hydrocodone, And Percocet @ www. Medisuppies. ComBuy Oxycodone, Zanax, Hydrocodone, Percocet, Soma & many More With Great Discounts & Deals On Offer, No Rx Needed, 100% FDA APPROVED. FREE FED EX OVERNIGHT. VISA/MASTER COD PAYPAL ACCEPTED. ALL PAYMENTS ARE PAYABLE IN UNITED STATES ONLY NO OVERSEAS PAYMENT.", "qid": "16", "docid": "a5235583-2019-04-18T11:06:30Z-00001-000", "rank": 74, "score": 100394.0}, {"content": "Title: There is no such thing as a safe drug (regulated by the state). Content: In practice this usually just means making drugs purer, and therefore perhaps more deadly and addictive. Many illegal drugs are closely related to potentially dangerous medicines, whose prescription is tightly restricted to trained professionals, but the proposition would effectively be allowing anyone to take anything they wished regardless of the known medical dangers. In addition, the offer of \u201cpurer\u201d drugs will encourage many who are currently put off by the uncertain risks of drug taking to begin drug abuse. It also implicates governments in drug-taking by making them the guarantor of purity standards. Furthermore, the state can provide services like needle exchanges to minimise the secondary risks of drug use without legalising drugs themselves.", "qid": "16", "docid": "a7c47a5c-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00062-000", "rank": 75, "score": 99938.0}, {"content": "Title: Drugs should be legalized in the U.S. Content: 1a) My opponent fails to understand the true rigor required in cost/benefit analysis. More advertising does not necessarily translate into 'a surplus of customers'. First of all, the legalization of all addictive, body-distorting, health-damaging substances is likely to produce enough 'advertising' on its own, through the mass media (PR, news, blogs, etc). Therefore, any additional advertising expenditures are unlikely to produce many new incremental 'customers'. This additional spending would simply be wasted. But this is aside from the point. The point is that we do not know, or have any actual idea, of the amount of revenues that could be gained from legalizing these substances. My opponent's guess is as good as my own. With that in mind, choosing to take an action regarding changing the current status quo, when that action will produce unknown or questionable results, is a suboptimal decision. The reason is simple. Unless the current situation is proven to be suboptimal relative to ANY other situation, change simply throws risk into the equation. Risk immediately lowers the trade-off value of the 'new' situation. 1b) Regulation would not be easier, because currently, there is no regulation. A new unit would have to be created and funded. This means IMMEDIATE sunk costs for the government, as there would be no revenues coming in at the time of creation. Not only that, officers would have to be trained. Pharmacies would have to implement new reporting mechanisms. Everything would have to be tracked. These are all real costs. 2a) I refer to criminals with prior records. There would obviously be no records for people who hadn't been caught in the first place. But even for these people...they are not trained members of the work force. Two problems arise out of this. (1) There will be an influx of people into the workforce. Considering the current economy, this wouldn't help the unemployment situation. (2) My opponent suggests making it easier for criminals to enter the workforce. Companies have restrictions against allowing criminals into the workforce because they don't want them there. My opponent proposes providing amnesty to these people as a way of 'tricking' companies into hiring these people. These companies are likely to oppose such a measure. If it did somehow pass, they would likely sue the government. This comprises ANOTHER cost of legalization. 2b) So police now have the right to regularly search your home. This would add even more to the overall costs of legalization, from 2 perspectives. (1) Training and hiring more cops to search homes. (2) People suing the government for invasion of privacy. My opponent proposes the removal of personal rights so that it can collect potential (POTENTIAL) tax revenues. In addition, people who are addicted to addictive substances will likely find ways to purchase these addictive substances, considering the substances are addictive. If they reach their limits with regards to what quantities they can purchase, they will then return to the black market to purchase more. And how do we arrive at these limits? Just arbitrary figures? According to modern medicine, the limits should be 0. As for the tax link, that is a biased article. In addition, it supports a flat sales tax, which is a totally different topic altogether. Firstly, my opponent should read Freakonomics, or anything else that examines drug dealer incomes. The large majority of drug dealers do not make much more than the poorest of legally employed citizens. The ones that do, that also live in the US, are likely to be paying sales taxes already. My opponent has completely ignored the potential costs, both financial and otherwise, of total drug legalization. He assumes that tax revenues would be ample enough to cover these costs, but he has no strong data on the revenues OR the costs. There is no proof that government income would SKYROCKET. In fact, it is very possible that the opposite would occur. But my opponent is 'willing to take this risk', with no data to support him. The crime rate would actually probably increase, per my previous arguments. And from using intuition, reading the news, and experiencing the government in general, most people could safely assume that any problems would definitely not be 'solved fairly quickly'.", "qid": "16", "docid": "dfb23292-2019-04-18T19:45:52Z-00002-000", "rank": 76, "score": 99585.0}, {"content": "Title: Drug Commercials Content: I extend.", "qid": "16", "docid": "44c44402-2019-04-18T14:44:19Z-00000-000", "rank": 77, "score": 99231.0}, {"content": "Title: The existence of harmful non-prescription drugs is a bad thing to our society! Content: Otherwise you automatically forfeit the entire debate. To clarify, this debate covers drugs such as tobacco, consumed alcohol, heroin, cannabis, crack, and all of the other harmful drugs out their. I will state that their existence has a negative impact on society. DO NOT state that if we completely ban all of them that people will still find ways to take them, because this debate covers their existence and not illegalization of them.", "qid": "16", "docid": "e08bd04b-2019-04-18T13:58:43Z-00008-000", "rank": 78, "score": 99111.0}, {"content": "Title: The U.S. Government Is Primarily Responsible For The Relative Higher Costs Of Prescription Drugs v2 Content: I completely spaced out that I had this round coming. I will pass (FF) this round. Judge on it how you please.", "qid": "16", "docid": "11aa61bc-2019-04-18T14:21:12Z-00001-000", "rank": 79, "score": 98926.0}, {"content": "Title: drugs Content: should drugs be illegal", "qid": "16", "docid": "cc40bf64-2019-04-18T16:25:47Z-00002-000", "rank": 80, "score": 98617.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: the United States Government's War on Drugs should be continued in it's entirety Content: Rebut: Gonzales v Raich held that \"the power of Congress to regulate local activities as part of a \"class of activities\" that substantially affect interstate commerce was \"well established.\" The Court continued holding that \"doctor-prescribed marijuana has a significant impact on\u2026the supply and demand for black market marijuana, which was\u2026within the power of the federal government to regulate.\" Congress has the power to regulate local activities that impact the supply and demand for black market drugs. Congress, under the Supreme Court, has the power to regulate ANY activities that affect interstate commerce. (1) The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Controlled Substances Act. Justice Scalia, held \"Congress has the power to regulate \"intrastate activities that do not\u2026substantially affect interstate commerce, if necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective.\" Because marijuana is a \"fungible commodity,\" Congress power to control interstate drug trafficking provides sufficient basis to criminalize smoking home-grown weed pursuant to a doctor's prescription\" so long as such activities are regulated \"in connection with a more comprehensive scheme of regulation.\" (2) The War on Drugs is constitutional. 1.Unhealthy My opponent's opposition here is the United States government does not have the role to protect people from bad choices. Civil servants take an oath to protect and defend the country from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Drugs and alcohol represent a domestic enemy. Government ensures that we are safe. When delegating power to a central authority, the people are giving up their right of self defense. Under the social contract, one gives up certain rights to form a stable society, one of your duties as being a member of society is to, in certain cases, give up your right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. \"It is important to recognize that although individuals have a right of self-defense in the state of nature, when they enter into society under the social contract, the pooling of that right transforms it into a duty to defend the community\u2026to risk or sacrifice one's life, liberty, or property if such defense should require it\" (4). Widespread drug use and drug production destabilizes society, \"the emergence of a drug economy can result in the destabilization of the state, the political system, the economy and civil society.\" (5) To preserve society, under the social contract, one MUST be willing to give up their right to harm themselves for the preservation of society. Either that, or drug users must remove themselves from society. Since many people are unwilling to perform their societal duty; the government holds the responsibility of preserving society and illegalizing drugs to preserve the state, which, in the end, benefits all of us. I would like to point out my opponent completely dropped all of the points I made showing how marijuana and other drugs are extremely harmful. They came from scientists who have worked with these drugs. I also would like to point out how my opponent is simply saying just because X and Y are legal A, B, C, etc. should be legal to. All have harmful side effects, \"60 percent of schizophrenic patients used non-prescription psychoactive drugs\u2026Alcohol has an addiction rate of 10 percent, whereas cocaine has an addiction rate as high as 75 percent\u2026marijuana smoke is as irritating as tobacco smoke\" (3). They both are dangerous. So, why should we legalize more dangerous substances? 2. Decreased use (plus legal = increased use) \"My opponent is using many data points that are great lengths of time apart\u2026\" I showed how the drug policy in the Clinton era (from 1992 to 2000) increased in children aged 12 - 17. Is my opponent attempting to argue the fact that such a drastic drop in drug interdiction spending would not have an effect on drug use? Furthermore, I would like to point out, my opponent has provided no counter claims, simply saying that something which directly affects drug supply would not affect drug use is ridiculous. The points I provided were a high point (14.1%) and a low point (8.7%). So, all other data points would be between 14.1% and 8.7%, thus, we can naturally assume, drug use is trending downwards. Once again, is my opponent suggesting policy which directly deals with drug use, would not affect drug use? I already provided worldwide statistics. \"when it comes to prohibition, we don't have all the facts\" I gave facts. They have not been refuted. Deaths due to alcohol and alcohol use were down. I provided a source, which contained information from a book by Dr. Mark Gold. \"legalization in other countries\u2026\" 1) different countries have different cultures. Portuguese culture is radically different from American culture so we cannot use this as definitive proof. 2) Portugal never legalized, they merely decriminalized. This would be a reform in the War on Drugs, not an end of the War on Drugs. Thus, it is outside the scope of this debate. 3. Crime Even if legalization ends external crime (cartels) internal crime will still exist. As for DUIs, my opponent, concedes this point and says it does not affect driving but, according to the LA Times \"People who smoke marijuana within a few hours of getting behind the wheel may be almost twice as likely to cause an accident\" (6) Now, let's say you somehow end the cartels \"the Justice Department reports that most inmates (77.4 percent male and 83.6 percent female) have a drug history and the majority were under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of their current offense\u202612 percent of all violent offenses and 24.4 percent of all property offenses were drug-money motivated\" (3). It is clear that unless the government gives out free drugs, people will still commit crimes to gain access to these drugs. And even then, \"Free drugs or legalizing bad drugs would not make criminal addicts into productive citizens\" (3). My opponent goes on to say, \"The legalization itself will drop prices from the inflated black market prices, and the tax would not fully counteract that drop\". 1) Prove it. How does my opponent know the taxation will not counteract the drop? They simply cannot. 2) The \"legalization of drugs will cost society between $140-210 billion a year\u2026the societal cost of substance abuse\u2026$238 billion\u2026insurance companies would pass on accident expenses\" (3). Socially, it will cost much, much more to legalize. \"The revenue from such taxation [will not] offset the social and medical costs these illicit drugs would impose\" (3). Will taxes be raised to counteract? My opponent's argument is unfounded. You are also going to increase societal costs. \"Patrick Murphy's quote\" I ask my opponent to provide some source backing up their claims. And to also show exactly how my arguments prove him wrong. One cannot not definitively know the connection between alcohol and abuse \"further research is needed.\" (7) Mr. Murphy was referring to ILLEGAL DRUGS (8). 4.Treaties It is not unconstitutional. See above arguments. 5.Prison Population My opponent has provided no basis that prices will drop. And it is irrelevant what they were using as my opponent is advocating blanket legalization. My point still stands, \"only 2 percent of those in federal prisons were convicted of pure drug possession. They generally committed other and violent crimes to earn a sentence\" (3). People are not just in jail for using drugs. My opponent still has provided no basis that there would be lower costs and thus, lower crimes. 6. Trafficking As I quoted above, \"if drugs were legalized some restrictions still would be necessary\u2026restricting the sale of legalized drugs to minors, pregnant women, police, military, pilots and prisoners\u2026would still provide a black market niche\" (3). You are going to have excluded groups, the cartels will be active. My opponent has failed to provide a source for many of his arguments here. NEED MORE ROOM!", "qid": "16", "docid": "5ef8e93f-2019-04-18T18:16:06Z-00003-000", "rank": 81, "score": 98572.0}, {"content": "Title: universal health care Content: Ok. Good one. But there are some things you seem to have overlooked. First, I am well aware that doctors are allowed to prescribe medications in the fashion that you described. As I stated before, I know people that have used LDN successfully. The problem is, though, that if you took a survey of 100 random people, less than 10 will have actually heard of the drug. This is because the drug companies refuse to sell it and therefore no one has heard of it. If you asked anyone in this country what drugs they had heard of, they would probably only name drugs they had seen in advertisements, unless of course they were pharmacists or pharmacy students like yourself. Sure, these medications like LDN CAN be prescribed, but WILL they? You said that it would take \"billions of billions of dollars\" to research a new drug. I highly doubt it would be that much, as $1 billion squared looks like this: $1,000,000,000,000,000,000. That much for one drug? I don't think so. \"new drugs that aren't just being used in the U.S., they are being used all over the world\" If I want to help another country, I can donate money to one of the hundreds of thousands of organizations devoted to the cause of foreign aid. Our money should be used for our drugs. Not theirs. Also, our country can help them fund their own research programs to aid them in this issue. \"What would be the point of spending billions of dollars for a new pill if you can't charge lots of money for it?\" The point of spending billions of dollars for a new pill is to SAVE LIVES. You seem to be completely overlooking the whole reason we have HEALTH care. It is for the HEALTH of the PEOPLE. If that is the cost of health care, so be it. The government's job is not to make money. We have taxes for that. The government's job is to benefit THE PEOPLE. One other thing that you didn't mention is the insurance companies. Millions of Americans are going TO DIE because they can't pay for emergency room treatment and are essentially DENIED THE RIGHT TO LIVE. The point of universal health care is not to make money. It is to provide health care for everyone. The money should not matter. I'm sure it's great to be a rich capitalist, but I'm also pretty sure it's not so great WHEN YOU'RE SICK.", "qid": "16", "docid": "2a507379-2019-04-18T19:50:48Z-00001-000", "rank": 82, "score": 98566.0}, {"content": "Title: Drugs that are now illegal to own, use, or sell, should be legalized. Content: Most people believe that the use of chemical concoctions or prescription drugs for recreational purposes is a terrible practice. Some, however, believe that drug use should be legalized. This attitude spans those who believe that drug use is terrible and they would never use it themselves; and those who want to freely use drugs. Jake's position is for legalization. But it is not apparent to which camp he belongs. I am vehemently opposed to the legalization of recreational drugs. My curiosity has overcome my fear. Let's have at it, Jake. Accept my challenge.", "qid": "16", "docid": "1f157f6c-2019-04-18T20:00:07Z-00003-000", "rank": 83, "score": 98513.0}, {"content": "Title: The legalization of drugs will increase consumption Content: If a consumer can go to their local drug store around the corner to obtain drugs with greater ease, they are more likely to do so. Obtaining drugs illegally is much more difficult, albeit far too easy. Finding a drug dealer, arranging a time to meet in a secure area, and running all the various risks of dealing illegally are inconveniences that will be removed by legalization, with the likely result of increased consumption.", "qid": "16", "docid": "a7c47a5c-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00057-000", "rank": 84, "score": 98323.0}, {"content": "Title: For governments to refuse treatment on the basis of an unreasonable assertion is cruel and blindly ideological Content: The current legislation on drug use in most countries was delivered without canvassing medical opinion and under the influence of public hysteria and moral panic. Seemingly logical but flawed theories linking the use of \u201csoft\u201d drugs to later use of \u201charder\u201d varieties (cocain, amphetamins) have often been used both to justify and to promote drugs legislation. The apparent sense of these arguments belies the fact that they have been repeatedly disproven[i]. Lurid, prurient portrayals of the catastrophic consequences of narcotics use in the mass media are frequently used to back up arguments that drugs- even cannabis- are so dangerous that even carefully controlled medical applications are unacceptably risky. It is clearly the case that when any substance has a proven medical benefit it should be available for prescription. Legislation already exists in most countries to contain the possibility of misuse of prescribed drugs. However, it is clearly the case that politicians are avoiding this issue not because there is medical doubt on the matter but because they are incapable of reaching a logical conclusion for fear of hysterical \u2013 and easy \u2013 headlines. To withhold treatment from patients who need it on the basis that a tabloid will run a \u2018Soft on Drugs\u2019 story the following morning is the height of irresponsibility. [i] Degenhardt, L, et al. \u201cWhoare the new amphetamine users? A ten year prospective study of young Australians. Adiction, volume 102, 8, p1269-1279. August 2007. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2007.01906.x/abstract;jsessionid=90232042DE3BB4456F9DE6F41F29BFBF.d03t03", "qid": "16", "docid": "fc44452e-2019-04-15T20:22:42Z-00011-000", "rank": 85, "score": 98301.0}, {"content": "Title: The selling and use of all drugs should be legalized Content: Due to my failure to follow the prescribed rules I will skip this round and ask that conduct be given to my opponent. I will continue and finish in the final round. This is not a concession or a forfeit, this is me recognizing I failed to follow the rules of the debate as set out.", "qid": "16", "docid": "6690cbec-2019-04-18T15:23:47Z-00002-000", "rank": 86, "score": 98212.0}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana should be legalized. Content: *Topic Specification* This topic needs to be clarified before either of us can debate it appropriately. There are three ways in which a drug can be legalized: 1. The drug is an unregulated substance (like most items of food). There is no substantial body responsible for the safety or production of the substance, and anyone can purchase or sell it. 2. The drug is a prescription drug, regulated by the FDA and prescribed by doctors. 3. The drug is an over-the-counter drug, regulated by the FDA and purchasable by anyone of age at any pharmacy or registered place of sale. (This is actually equivalent to the condition of cigarettes and alcohol) Red24pat12 needs to clarify which (if any of these) he means before any real debate can occur. That said, I will try to provide some general argumentation relating to this topic until red24pat12 does so. *Red24pat12's Argumentation* 1. Someone shouldn't be restrained from a soothing activity with less side-effects than common legal drugs. Why not? This claim has to be warranted before it is worth my time. Beyond that, the long term side-effects of marijuana may or may not be as significant as legal drugs, but this is largely irrelevant, given that legal drugs exist to treat a medical condition, and are a tool doctors can use to do so. Every legal drug is the best method of treatment for some condition under a given circumstance (that's how drugs are approved) What Red24pat12 needs to prove to solidify this argument is: A. Marijuana's side effects are less significant than other drugs which should be legal B. Marijuana is the best method for treating some condition Until he does so, it fails to be convincing. 2. Marijuana use in teenagers will not increase. This argument is entirely defensive, and even if Red24pat12 wins this, it will not help his case. The fact that a given bad thing will not occur if the government does something is not a reason to for the government to do it. Otherwise, I could argue that the United States should nuke New York City because if we did, Marijuana use in teenagers would not increase. Even given that, this argument is not convincing. As the availability of a given drug goes up, general use (including teenage use) goes up. Take Ritalin, for example. Presumably, if Ritalin were illegal, it would be harder for teenagers to access it. There is always the possibility of the drug being mishandled or misused by minors, so the reduction of accessibility is generally a good thing. 3. Crime will decrease because it will reduce dangerous drug deals. It is highly unclear why this should be the case. Gangs exist to distribute illegal drugs. When one drug goes off the market - for whatever reason - the gang population will shift to distribute another drug. The only thing legalizing marijuana would do would be to shift dangerous Marijuana drug deals to dangerous other drug deals, and I see no reason why that would be preferable. *My Argumentation* 1. Marijuana has negative external effects beyond those on the individual user. In a health care system where the many pays for the expenses of the few (i.e. health insurance or a public option), other individuals ought not be obligated to pay for the damaging effects of marijuana use on a user. The long-term health costs of more marijuana use in our society are incredibly vast. Marijuana is incredibly carcinogenic, damages brain cells, causes decreased hormone production, memory loss, interferes with the immune system... and the list goes on. Why should Average Joe fund the addiction of potheads? 2. Marijuana is a gateway drug. People who become involved with drugs through marijuana use are highly likely to advance to more serious, more dangerous, and more harmful drugs. Banning marijuana use is a good way to prevent a larger portion of our population from becoming addicted to worse drugs. 3. Marijuana use for teenagers will increase (See my analysis above) 4. A ban on marijuana is a justified instance of paternalism. The government ought to intervene to protect a citizen from harming himself when the citizen is not acting rationally or when the citizen cannot internalize the costs of his actions. Addicts can do neither of those things. Once someone is addicted, he can no longer understand what is truly best for him, just like any temporarily insane person, and so he needs a third party (society or the government) to step in and protect him from himself. In addition, it is hard for anyone to understand the long term effects of marijuana on their brain (especially after those brain cells start dying...), so the government ought to preemptively prevent individuals from subjecting themselves to those risks. This is the same logic behind seat-belt laws and motorcycle helmet laws. Thank you for proposing this interesting debate. I look forward to your responses! Zabcheckmate", "qid": "16", "docid": "59d17c99-2019-04-18T18:59:14Z-00002-000", "rank": 87, "score": 97886.0}, {"content": "Title: That we should not target children in advertisements Content: Thank you. First of all, we have agreement. Advertising may lead to consumerism, which is bad. There's no debate on this point. However, my argument that we should let children to get exposed to advertising, is for one thing; education and prevention. The best solution is (obviously is) to avoid advertisement at any cost. However, this is impossible. The reason is because due to modernization and globalization, we're constantly exposed to entertainment, including advertisement. My argument is: With the help of parents (and government), we should expose children to advertisement, so they're immune to the bad thing. Here's what I'm trying to say. An example will help: We're born as weak baby right? Since we're baby, we're given immunization. Those liquid that's injected to our body contains virus. The target of immunization is so our immune will grow up and defeat the virus. After this process of immunization, our body is immune to this disease. That's why nobody got Polio on later age like back in the 40s , due to this immunization. The same logic applies to advertising. With advertising exposed to our kid, bad things will be exposed to our kid, but with morale lesson given to our kids by our parents about bad effect of advertising, our kid is immune to the bad things such as consumerism. I'm not going to explain and debate of which parenting method is the best, since it's out of scope. Advertising is unavoidable, but once in our life, we must face bad things, so we learn from it and then avoid it and \"immune\" to it. You cannot learn which is bad and which is good, if we don't know which one is. How a kid will tell something is bad if they're not exposed to it. Parents are important in this education process. I'd like to restate this point. I like to make \"pressure point\" that exposed doesn't have to mean they have to do it. So if I say someone is exposed with drugs, it doesn't mean that guy uses drugs. It's just he know what is drugs.", "qid": "16", "docid": "5c790a75-2019-04-18T15:46:37Z-00004-000", "rank": 88, "score": 97783.0}, {"content": "Title: Adverts generate profit. Profit funds research into improved drugs Content: We should not attack drugs companies for making profits from their products, nor for encouraging patients to use them. Each new drug costs an average of $500m to produce and very small percentage of the drugs that are researched ever make it to the market.[1] The more profitable the industry, the more new drugs it can afford to research and develop and thus the more patients who can receive appropriate treatment. Many of the complex cures being developed for diseases like cancer, HIV/AIDs, SARS and Avian Flu will take decades to research. In the meantime, drug companies require funding streams from other drugs to continue research. Drugs have become increasingly expensive and advertisement helps to cover those costs. From 1980 and 2004, from about $6 billion (in 2005 dollars) to $39 billion. There has been a real growth rate of about 8 percent a year, on average. By comparison, drug firms\u2019 gross margins\u2014sales revenue minus costs and income taxes\u2014have been increasing more slowly, by about 4 percent annually.[2] So, with more personalized medicine and greater costs in drug development, the industry needs a greater source of revenue in order to research therapeutics further. Advertising would provide this revenue. [1] Hollis A., Me-too drugs: is there a problem ?, University of Calgary, published December 2004, http://www.who.int/intellectualproperty/topics/ip/Me-tooDrugs_Hollis1.pdf, accessed 08/08/2011 [2] Congres of United States, Research and Development in the Pharmaceutical Industry, October 2006, http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/76xx/doc7615/10-02-DrugR-D.pdf, accessed 08/01/2011", "qid": "16", "docid": "8cb27dbc-2019-04-15T20:22:42Z-00014-000", "rank": 89, "score": 97780.0}, {"content": "Title: Individuals have a choice and right to respond to ads and their meaning. Content: Consumers have a choice to expose themselves to advertising through their own personal behaviour. Advertisements can be ignored by the consumer and deleted at will. Interpretation of the ad depends on the attitudes of the receiver. The purchase and consumption of beauty products is the personal choice of a buyer. How ads attract and influence is determined by individual beliefs and values of the audience member. Some feminists believe that institutional power structures set up a \"victim\" mentality in women and fail to empower them by placing dependence upon power structures to make choices for women.1 If consumers wish to embrace the ideals or values represented in ads, this should be their choice. Therefore the right to self determine one's consumer behaviour should be left to the individual. 1 Thomas, Christine. \"The New Sexism.\" Socialism Today, Issue #77. 2003/September improve this", "qid": "16", "docid": "12714893-2019-04-15T20:22:25Z-00023-000", "rank": 90, "score": 97722.0}, {"content": "Title: Production of generic drugs reduce medical costs by allowing increased production and the development of superior production methods, increasing market efficiency Content: Allowing the production of generic drugs will only increase production of drugs currently on the market. Without the profit incentive that patents provide, pharmaceutical companies will not invest in the expensive process of developing new drugs in the first place. It is a necessary trade-off, as patents are essential to incentivize innovation. Furthermore, many states have mandatory licensing laws in states requiring companies to license the rights to the production of drugs so as not to precipitate shortages.", "qid": "16", "docid": "57906a2b-2019-04-15T20:22:37Z-00013-000", "rank": 91, "score": 97658.0}, {"content": "Title: Medicines Should Be Made Free Content: The term 'medicine' means a drug or other preparation for the treatment or prevention of disease. This might seem like an abstract problem until you need to get medicine for your dying child. Perhaps your child is seriously ill because of a preventable illness; the medicine he/she needs is 2-3 hours away by foot; when you get there, there's no guarantee that the clinic will be open or have anything in stock. And even if you could get to the clinic and everything was available, how are you going to pay for it? Thousands of people in the rural areas of Nicaragua face this problem on a daily basis. One proposal suggests that community health workers (promoters) could receive a portion of the medicine fee for each prescription. In practice, this leads to extremely negative trends, as promoters are tempted to over-prescribe medications to get more money, and only the wealthiest members of the community could afford them. On top of all this, the poorest of the poor no longer have access to medicine. Obviously the best option here is to supply the medicines for free. Prescription drugs Prescription drugs are a major component of the overall cost of caring for the elderly. By some reports, persons sixty-five and older spend an average of over three percent of their income on prescription drugs. That percentage is even higher when over-the-counter medications are included. Reports show that more than 53.26% of senior citizens are below the poverty line.This means that over half of the senior citizens are not financially well-off. Cancer,heart and respiratory diseases and diabetes are the most common and killer diseases among senior citizens.Treating these diseases cost a lot of money ad again ,the best option here is to give away those medicines for free. Hence, I believe that medicines should be made free.", "qid": "16", "docid": "c8c928fc-2019-04-18T13:22:34Z-00006-000", "rank": 92, "score": 97628.0}, {"content": "Title: DRM technology constitutes an anti-competitive practice which should be outlawed. On one hand, some... Content: DRM technology constitutes an anti-competitive practice which should be outlawed. On one hand, some forms of DRM technology prevent the free movement of goods and services which should be guaranteed under WTO membership. DVD region codes prevent genuine competition on the international markets, because consumers can't legally play imported DVDs, which would drive down the price of DVDs in Europe or America to Asian levels (where the DVDs are produced), significantly benefiting consumers. This is an example of 'market sharing' which is illegal in both the UK & EU under the Competition Act 2002 and the Treaty of Amsterdam (Article 81 & 82). DRM technologies should not have a unspoken exemption on what is just an practice designed to keep prices above their market equilibrium. On the other hand, conversely, DRM also overprices media only currently available in the West, meaning that it just isn't available in developing markets in South America or East Asia. This is a similar argument to that made by those who think that Indian pharmaceutical companies should be allowed to circumvent TRIPS in order to produce reasonably priced generic versions of drugs domestically. Further, the EU has criticised DRM on some software because it is impossible to legally disable even where not doing so \u201cthreatens infrastructure or critically endangers lives\u201d.", "qid": "16", "docid": "bda9c7ed-2019-04-19T12:45:31Z-00010-000", "rank": 93, "score": 97449.0}, {"content": "Title: Adderall usage in college students without prescription Content: I would first point out that steroid use in professional sports is controversial and not ubiquitously considered unethical. Secondly, professional sports are naturally competitive where the university classroom is competitive to a much less extent. If one team chooses to use performance-enhancing substances that results in them winning, the other team loses. If a student chooses to use Adderall to study for a test and receives 100% it has no effect on the chances of any other students receiving 100%. As for my comparison to coffee I will first point out that fatigue is a mental condition, which is why many people drink coffee in the morning. Both caffeine and Adderall are stimulants, and there is evidence that caffeine also affects the dopamine system (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Therefore drinking caffeine enhances mental performance, and by my opponent\"s logic consuming caffeine would be unethical unless the consumer was tired and/or suffering from a mental condition in which caffeine would help put them \"on an even playing field.\" \"The fact that it is illegal in itself makes the use of Adderall without a prescription unethical.\" Would you say it was unethical to drink alcohol during prohibition? Slavery was once legal, therefore was it ethical before it was abolished? Unfortunately public policy is not always a perfect indicator to the ethicality of an issue. On top on that my opponent seems to be assuming that everyone with a prescription to Adderall have ADHD. Given the vague criteria for diagnosis, which reportedly leads to frequent over-diagnosis, there are likely many people with an Adderall prescription who do not have ADHD. Is it unethical for these people to use Adderall? (http://bjp.rcpsych.org...)", "qid": "16", "docid": "e0fc61c0-2019-04-18T17:06:19Z-00001-000", "rank": 94, "score": 97253.0}, {"content": "Title: Drugs Content: All drugs should be legal.", "qid": "16", "docid": "d01b23a3-2019-04-18T15:58:25Z-00004-000", "rank": 95, "score": 96839.0}, {"content": "Title: Medicine and medications are based more around profits than they are results in the United States Content: There have never been any confirmed cases of psilocybin mushrooms being associated with fatalities other than individuals taking the wrong type of mushroom by mistake which would never occur within a medical context. https://www.erowid.org... Although the FDA receives funding from pharmaceutical companies, there are still some sanctions on which drugs are allowed to be administered to the public and thus, must undergo testing. That being said, it doesn't prevent the testing to be biased towards specific drugs depending on where those drugs are coming from and how quickly the testing of said drugs can be completed. The Prescription Drug User Fee Act which authorizes drug companies to pay \"user fees\" to the FDA for drugs considered for approval is a prime example of this. The money generated by this act has been earmarked to speed up the approval process for said drugs. The part of the agency that reviews new drugs gets over half of its money from these user fees, and as a result, the companies that are very literally paying the FDA get an inherent bias in the testing procedures. The companies that pay these fees have their drugs tested more expediently and the drugs get to market more quickly (Marcia Angell, M.D.). Antineoplaston therapy was undergoing testing by the FDA back in the 1990's and the trials were sabotaged. Of the 9 patients included in the trial, none of the patients received the proper amount of antineoplaston therapy recommended by Dr. Burzynski and some of them received no treatment at all. The trials were also closed prior to completion and the statement \"no conclusion can be made about the effectiveness or toxicity of antineoplastons\" was published in association with the trials. In 1999, a year later, the NCI cited antineoplaston therapy as a \"complete failure\" in literature. So, while it is true that the FDA does still somewhat do its job to verify that medicine actually works, it does so in a biased way that favors companies and corporations that yield more profit. This bias shows that the profit is more important than the results gained for the public in finding medications that work well and can help individuals heal. \"Besides, if these methods worked, the companies would have been using this method, so that they could keep the cancer patients alive and make them pay for more drugs, right?\" -Wrong. The companies wouldn't stand to gain any profit because they don't have any patents on the antineoplaston therapy. It is true that they could keep more cancer patients alive using this therapy and the patients may have to spend more money on the drugs... but that's not the issue. The issue is where that money would be going to which would no longer be the NCI or the pharmaceutical companies that currently handle the manufacturing of cancer medications. As I already cited in my previous argument, Dr. Richard Crout, Director of the FDA Bureau of Drugs, once wrote in a 1982 newsletter: \"I never have and never will approve a new drug to an individual, but only to a large pharmaceutical firm with unlimited finances.\" -It's not about how much profit could be managed using the antineoplaston therapy but about where those profits would go. The cancer industry is an enormous source of profit for pharmaceutical companies and to introduce a new method of treatment that would make prior methods of treatment worthless would be an enormous blow to these companies. As a result, many forms of sabotage have been used to keep these drugs from the publics' hands. The question here isn't whether or not the FDA and the U.S. government has any interest in providing the public with medications that work, but which is more important to them between profits and health. The inherent bias in the industry that allows pharmaceutical companies to pay the very institution that monitors and evaluates them is a clear indicator that profits outweigh ethics and good medical practice within their minds.", "qid": "16", "docid": "a629bc60-2019-04-18T15:38:05Z-00001-000", "rank": 96, "score": 96815.0}, {"content": "Title: All drugs should be legal Content: hollup what", "qid": "16", "docid": "3fbd2d93-2019-04-18T11:09:19Z-00001-000", "rank": 97, "score": 96745.0}, {"content": "Title: The U.S. Federal Government should restrict the prescription of antibiotics. Content: Extend.", "qid": "16", "docid": "bdbec276-2019-04-18T14:38:53Z-00001-000", "rank": 98, "score": 96626.0}, {"content": "Title: The malicious and misleading advertisements of today Content: I agree that modern commerce trade and industry cannot survive without advertisement. The most advanced advertising technology course gives new ideas and also acts as \"Survival of fittest\" in this dynamic decade. However there should be control over misleading advertisements. I believe that Advertisements should not mislead in any way by inaccuracy, ambiguity, exaggeration, omission or otherwise. More specifically, advertisements should not: 1-Misrepresent any matter likely to influence consumers\" attitude to any product, advertiser, or promoter; 2-Misrepresent any information to mislead consumers into believing any matter that is not true, such as the source of the product, quality of the product, obligation (or non-obligation) in using a trial product, and others; 3-Mislead consumers about the price of goods or services; 4-Underestimate the actual total price to be paid; 5-Mislead consumers to overestimate the value or mislead consumers regarding the conditions on the terms of payment such as hire purchase, leasing, installment sales and credit sales; or 6-Mislead consumers regarding the terms or guarantee, delivery, exchange, return, repair and maintenance; and mislead consumers regarding the extent of benefits for charitable causes. If a presentation (such as a speech, documentary and newsreel) is substantially an advertisement, it should be clearly stated as an advertisement. 1-Advertisements should not misuse research results or quotations from technical and scientific publications. 2-Statistics should not be so presented so as to imply a greater validity that they really have. 3-Scientific terms should not be misused; scientific jargon and irrelevancies should not be used to make claims appear to have any scientific basis which they do not possess. I would like to emphasize the important status of advertising in our society. Advertising helps us to orient among the wide range of products. On the other hand they use unethical practices, such as telemarketing companies who call random people and try to sell their products by using any methods. Nowadays people have to be extremely prudent when they sign anything and read everything carefully. Advertisement is everywhere.", "qid": "16", "docid": "34206649-2019-04-18T16:40:11Z-00001-000", "rank": 99, "score": 96601.0}, {"content": "Title: Dr's role in the rising prescription drug abuse Content: The rise in prescription drug abuse should fall into the hands of the Dr. Considering they force patients to take them exactly as prescribed even if they do not need them everyday, once a patient is obligated after agreeing to the terms of the \"Pain Contract\" if there are people who suffer from pain, they seek whatever comfort measures they are offered by their Dr, people become tired and emotionally drained due to the pain they suffer from. So, they see their health care provider, after the pain contract is signed by both patient and Dr, and are prescribed many forms of narcotics and I am baffled at how, Dr's cannot figure out why narcotics abuse continues to rise. I never thought to much about the use of narcotics and the damage it can cause the patient and their families until a family member had a total of 6 brain surgeries over the last 17 years. So her Dr had her sign this contract for the pressure and pain she experienced, at any time she could've been called in by the Dr for a surprise pill count and urine test, she never thought becoming addicted until her Dr called her in, the nurse counted the pills and asked for a urine sample, which she did, and was shocked by the Dr's action. Since she had good days as well, there were several times she could go an entire day without needing any,however this Dr informed her that she had violated her pain contract, because she had more in her bottle that she should've had, and because he had her on 2-30mg morphine, 1-15mg morphine and 4-10mg of Vicodin everyday except on days she didn't need all of that, and could get by with only taking 1 Vicodin for a few days here and there. He terminated her contract because her urine did not show any of the morphine in her system, and she had more morphine than she was suppose to have. About 2 or 3 days after her Dr terminated it, she started to become more tired, emotional, her headaches came back in full force and felt she was having flu like symptoms, and that is when we all realized she had become addicted and dependent on them, so she returned to her Dr. who gave an impression of \"Just another addict looking for narcotics\" and refused to help her even after she said she didn't go in for narcotics, instead she was looking for help to get through the detox she was experiencing. That didn't help and after 4 days of going through hell, she was rushed to the hospital, where she sat for 2 days in ICU, she lost so much weight and looked like she was on her death bed, finally a week later, she was discharged. Now she finds other ways to deal with her pain, and refuses to use prescription narcotics EVER again, all because of the pain she went through. Now what Dr out there can force narcotics on a patient regardless if there is any pain or not what so ever, and terminate the contract because for not taking EXACTLY what the bottle says to take. Can any Dr out there see just how one of the reasons prescription drug abuse on the rise, it starts right in their office for many!", "qid": "16", "docid": "f0f76624-2019-04-18T15:01:18Z-00003-000", "rank": 100, "score": 96569.0}]}
{"query": "Should recreational marijuana be legal?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: Marijuana Should be Legalized for Recreational Use Content: Accepted.", "qid": "17", "docid": "4ac9891f-2019-04-18T17:10:18Z-00004-000", "rank": 1, "score": 183816.0}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana should be legal for recreational use Content: Arguments extended.", "qid": "17", "docid": "fad1e930-2019-04-18T14:45:25Z-00000-000", "rank": 2, "score": 178565.0}, {"content": "Title: Recreational Marijuana Should Be Legal Content: Recreational use of Marijuana is an ever-present issue in our time. With the recent voting in this election for the use of it in various states, this has resurfaced as an important issue. This debate is short, and will center on facts rather than fluff.", "qid": "17", "docid": "2a5141f4-2019-04-18T12:43:08Z-00002-000", "rank": 3, "score": 178357.0}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana should be legalized Content: no", "qid": "17", "docid": "4d38532b-2019-04-18T18:44:12Z-00002-000", "rank": 4, "score": 178207.0}, {"content": "Title: AAN: Marijuana should be legalized recreationally. Content: IntroductionMy opponent believes I have misunderstand his first argument. This is not the case. The idea of making sure a drug is \"safe and effective\" in order to legalize it clearly pertains to medical marijuana. The FDA has allowed both alcohol and cigarettes which are less safe in comparison to marijuana (and certainly not effective in anyway). Even if this idea of safety and effectiveness does include recreational marijuana, my opponent's argument basically states that we can't make cannabis legal because under the status quo of the FDA, meaning it should stay illegal. This argument is flawed because my opponent has assumed the status quo of the FDA is legitimate. Moreover, throughout my constructive, I have shown that marijuana is a less harmful drug when compared to currently legal drugs.I will now look at each of my opponent's attacks on my constructive case...C1) Marijuana's impact on users and those around them:Psychotic Symptoms: My opponent begins by attacking my argument in which people diagnosed with schizophrenia were positively impacted by medical marijuana by saying that this debate (as I confirmed) is over recreational marijuana. This is true; however, cannabis used for recreational purpose can still have medical benefits. The two are not exclusive. I was mainly using that point to debunk the common misconception that marijuana worsens mental conditions.Mental Degradation: For this point, I had made a claim that explained the use of cannabis does not result in the loss of brain cells. My opponent attacks my source by explaining that it is outdated and the studies are not linked. The truth is, that it is difficult to find studies on marijuana / brain cell count because many regular users are unwilling to participate for fear of being caught. This point doesn't carry much weight in this debate, but I'll go ahead and address my opponents claims that state rats have lost brain cells from marijuana. The Union: The Business Behind Getting High (a documentary) explains that in such tests, animals are given an abnormal amount of marijuana; more than any human could possibly consume in such a short period of time. As with such a dose of most things, a test subject would be expected to lose brain cells (1).Marijuana as a Tobacco Substitute: For starters, I will note that the sample size for the study that proved marijuana as an effective substitute for tobacco was small. However, this does not prove the experiment to be invalid. As I have said earlier (on both sides of the argument) there is going to be an inevitable lack of evidence simply because marijuana is studied significantly less than one would expect. My opponent essentially explains that unless I can show that marijuana is less harmful than tobacco smoke, switching has no positive impact. The thing is, I have shown this through my constructive. As my fourth source has shown, smoking marijuana can increase lung capacity. Lets take another quick look at how marijuana compares to tobacco: USCF notes, \"Air flow rate increased rather than decreased with increased exposure to marijuana up to a certain level (2).\" As I've said before, smoking weed is not exactly *good* for one's lungs. However, it is preferable to smoking tobacco. Take a look at source two for more. Effect on Bystanders: This point was basically dropped. All my opponent did here is call out a quote from my source: \"However I would like to quote the source \u201cResearch on stoned driving is inconsistent, with some studies finding impairment and others not.\" Now, obviously there is some degree of impairment when individuals drive while high. The argument is that the degree of impairment is significantly less to that of a drunk driver. Remember, with legalization lives are saved through this odd benefit. In Colorado alone, we see that there are 3,000 less car crash fatalities each year.C2) Unnecessary ArrestMy opponent explains that from *his* stand point, this position is irrelevant. This actually isn't quite the case. My opponent has provided no actual evidence that proved that keeping marijuana illegal is beneficial. All he has done is argue that by the standards of the FDA, it should be kept illegal. Since my opponent has provided zero evidence as to why keeping marijuana illegal is beneficial to society, there is no reason that this shouldn't be considered. I am not arguing that the state doesn't have a legal right to make such arrests; obviously, they do. This argument is more of a moral one. It is against the common good to ruin someone's life through an arrest for a victimless \"crime.\" Also, (I'll get more into this on the money point) taxpayers pay a huge amount of money to keep these prisoners in jail.C3) Money and the EconomyMy first point went dropped by my opponent. This is definitely my most important point in this category. American taxpayers are paying around 1 billion every year to keep cannabis prisoners in jail. As I explained, the prohibition of pot has now become unfair to not only the consumer, but to the taxpayer as well. In reality, the only person that benefits when it comes to money is the drug dealers. In the words of my adversary, \"Legalizing actions so they can be taxed is morally wrong.\" That is, of course, not the main motivation behind legalizing marijuana. There are many practical reasons to legalize cannabis and that is just one of them. He continues, \"the legalized actions are not for the benefit of the people.\" The problem with that statement is, my opponent has done nothing to prove that legalizing cannabis hurts the common good. All he has argued is that it is within the status quo of the FDA to keep marijuana illegal. This point ultimately stands because through legalization, taxpayers won't pay for unnecessary arrests, tax revenue will benefit the states, and the economy will boom due to the new jobs.C4) Safer CannabisMy opponent has basically conceded to this point. Through legalization of marijuana, we will ultimately obtain safer cannabis. The thing we disagree on, is (a) whether or not marijuana is safe and (b) FDA's process of approving drugs. Note that alcohol and tobacco are regulated (and also more harmful than cannabis).ConclusionI have proved throughout the debate that marijuana should be legalized for a variety of reasons. As I said earlier on, even if it were harmful, that does not change the fact that though the legalization of marijuana:1. Taxpayers will stop having to pay for unnecessary arrests for victimless \"crimes.\"2. Tax revenue will work toward the benefit of society.3. The economy will thrive.4. Cannabis will be safer.The thing is, marijuana isn't a very harmful drug. In fact (health wise) it works toward the common good.1. People use it as an alternative to tobacco (which helps the lungs).2. People use it as an alternative to alcohol (which prevents car accidents).Therefore, I firmly believe we should legalize cannabis. Thanks to con for such an interesting debate.Vote Pro!!(1) The Union: The Business Behind Getting High (Movie Website: http://www.theunionmovie.com...)(2) http://www.ucsf.edu...", "qid": "17", "docid": "823c879a-2019-04-18T15:56:06Z-00001-000", "rank": 5, "score": 177256.0}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana Should be Legalized for Recreational Use Content: It is clear that Con has abandoned this debate.", "qid": "17", "docid": "4ac9893e-2019-04-18T16:40:07Z-00000-000", "rank": 6, "score": 175358.0}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana should be legal Content: Marijuana is one of the more tame drugs yes but it usually leads into other drug abuse. I'm not saying that people that use marijuana for medical reasons are more likely to do crack or other hard drugs, but people who do it for recreational purposes might. Marijuana also kills braincells and makes people do things they may not do unless under the influence Source: My uncles doctor who has been treating him for drug abuse", "qid": "17", "docid": "6c71015a-2019-04-18T16:09:02Z-00004-000", "rank": 7, "score": 175014.0}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana should be legalized for recreational use Content: I accept your challenge.", "qid": "17", "docid": "99d62d9d-2019-04-18T14:32:36Z-00008-000", "rank": 8, "score": 174920.0}, {"content": "Title: Recreational cannabis should be illegal. Content: I accept the challenge.", "qid": "17", "docid": "6c2b1862-2019-04-18T12:29:02Z-00003-000", "rank": 9, "score": 174532.0}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana should be legal for recreational use Content: Contention 1: Marijuana should not be legal for recreational use because the side effects that are brought by it can be life endangering. One statistic suggests that smoking marijuana can increase one's heart rate by as much as two times for up to three hours.[1] The recreational use of marijuana could endanger the lives of those who may have heart conditions. Another side effect found in marijuana would be from the aspect of smoking the drug. The smoke will cause the lungs to be irritated and may lead to respiratory issues in the future.[2] It can be claimed that marijuana may lower pain of certain cancers and diseases, or even to be used as a medical substance, however I ask that this claim is not brought in as a contention due to the fact that this debate's main focus is regarding the recreation use rather than the medical use. If a doctor feels marijuana can be a healthy medicinal supplement, then that would be a different story. The claim that marijuana can be taxed and help our country make some much needed capital is also invalid given the fact that the health risks behind marijuana are by far much more important to worry about rather than allowing the focus to be upon tax revenue.", "qid": "17", "docid": "fad1e94f-2019-04-18T13:10:10Z-00005-000", "rank": 10, "score": 173506.0}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana Should Be Legalized Content: -", "qid": "17", "docid": "11024bfb-2019-04-18T16:21:57Z-00000-000", "rank": 11, "score": 172741.0}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana Should Be Legalized Content: -", "qid": "17", "docid": "11024bfb-2019-04-18T16:21:57Z-00001-000", "rank": 12, "score": 172741.0}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana should be legal for recreational use Content: As I'm sure we've all heard from our health teachers, marijuana is indeed a gateway drug. Marijuana can lead to the trial of other drugs which may be even more harmful that marijuana itself. I see what you mean by saying that there have been zero deaths in history from marijuana, however that statistic is simply regarding the short term effects while being under the influence. Your contentions have completely ignored the long term effects. For example, smoke inhalation (even from cannabis,) Can cause long term effects such as cancer. This debate is about the legalization of marijuana, and not about whether cigarettes and alcohol should be legal or not. Therefore, when I describe the health risks involved in marijuana (which are proved by what I have stated in round 1,) I am speaking about marijuana, not anything else. Another reason that marijuana should not be legalized for recreational use, is because marijuana is terrible for mental health. Marijuana creates a feeling of anxiety to some user which have been linked to depression. This, I suppose would essentially be considered another health risk. With that being said, there are too many long term health risks behind marijuana, so therefore it should remain out of the hands of recreational users.", "qid": "17", "docid": "fad1e94f-2019-04-18T13:10:10Z-00003-000", "rank": 13, "score": 171982.0}, {"content": "Title: Debate Topic - Recreational Marijuana ought to be legalized nationwide Content: Marijuana/Cannabis - A drug that is made from the dried leaves and flowers of the hemp plant. Recreational Marijuana - A method of usage in which the psychoactive effects of the drug are used to induce an altered state of conciousness for pleasure by modifying the perceptions; feelings; and emotions of the user. My position on this topic will be that I will be advocating for the recreational use of cannabis to be legalized nationwide. Whoever feels that they want to take me up on this debate can leave a comment below. The first round will be acceptance. The rest of the rounds will be structured as to the wishes of each debater. There is only one rule that will be set in stone for this debate - No language that is foul/slanderous should be hurled at the opponent on a personal level. Keep it professional.", "qid": "17", "docid": "4f2bd943-2019-04-18T11:08:44Z-00007-000", "rank": 14, "score": 171857.0}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana Should be Legalized for Recreational Use Content: I believe that marijuana should be legalized for recreational use and by legalizying it, our society will benefit in certain aspects.", "qid": "17", "docid": "4ac9893e-2019-04-18T16:40:07Z-00005-000", "rank": 15, "score": 171138.0}, {"content": "Title: Legal Recreational Marijuana Revisited Content: NOTE: Because it has already been established in many other debates, we know that marijuana is harmful to one's health. Unfortunately, so is alcohol, tobacco and...gasp...even the hamburgers we get from our favorite fast food chains so please don't waste your time proving that aspect. Recreational marijuana use should be legalized. Just like any other legal drug, it comes with it's own set of responsibilities and restrictions. Sure, it is unhealthy, but no worse than many other legal drugs. I feel like every other legal prescription commercial I see, has warnings about possible side effects, even \"death.\" I am not a professional debater, and certainly not an experienced one on any level, so I know this may be unorthodox, but PLEASE list your problems with my statement with your arguments and it'd make me happy to answer/refute each one of them. :)", "qid": "17", "docid": "e3b7cf32-2019-04-18T19:40:04Z-00005-000", "rank": 16, "score": 170715.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: The possession, use, and sale of recreational marijuana should be legalized in the U.S. Content: I will spend this time refuting them and then highlighting the impacts of the arguments I provided. My opponent starts out by claiming that cannabis is dangerous. Just because a chemical is dangerous does NOT mean that it should be illegal. Legality and morality do not inform one another. One could argue that prostitution, excessive alcohol, and fatty food are all \"dangerous\" in some sense, but no American citizen has ever argued to make all of these activities illegal. Being an American means having the discretion and liberty to take risks and to choose activities that the moral actor is comfortable with and agreeable to. This is going to be an issue with my opponent's case for the rest of this debate. Then, even if the voter still believes that morality (whether it's dangerous/harmful) should dictate legality (whether it becomes legalized), my opponent does not successfully show the dangers of cannabis. There are none. He/she states that cannabis can make you panic or give you anxiety. This is a negative side effect called paranoia, but not all strains (varieties) of marijuana result in this effect. Furthermore, the smoker has to use a large amount of marijuana in order to experience these effects. Much more frequently, people claim using marijuana because it REDUCES their anxiety and provides medical BENEFITS. My opponent says that cannabis can kill you. However, to the contrary, there have been no deaths due to marijuana use. His/her argument is not only speculative but also a slippery-slope, as he/she first needs to prove that marijuana substantially increases the rate of heartbeat and THEN that an increase in the rate of heartbeat leads to death. Neither of these have been proven. Please do not believe this ridiculous statement. My opponent brings up some more speculative arguments about what cannabis COULD do to a moral actor (i. e. someone who chooses to use it), but the problem is again that just because something is harmful does not mean that it should be illegal. He/she keeps using words like \"can\" and \"could\" and then \"can\" again. These arguments are speculative and are not substantiated with the evidence that my opponent tried to provide. Marijuana does not create these harmful consequences, and even if it did, these effects would not develop until decades of heavy marijuana use had occurred. My opponent also attempts to compare marijuana to tobacco and says that marijuana is five times as unhealthy, however this is nonsense. Marijuana does not have the carcinogens and nasty chemicals that comprise a regular cigarette, and while 400,000 people die from tobacco each year, zero die from marijuana use. My opponent continues with speculative arguments that might have been proposed by some biased, anti-drug group, but they are not rooted in true empirical statistics. The only other argument that my opponent tries to form is that marijuana increases crime rates. Evidence to the contrary shows the opposite. In fact, when Washington D. C. legalized cannabis in 2015, the crime rate decreased by 99% (so was just about eliminated). Why? First of all, when marijuana is legalized, police officers spend their time fighting serious crimes like murder and rape, rather than nonviolent crimes like marijuana use. This allows more violent crimes to be deterred, and therefore their rates are reduced. Perhaps a more convincing refutation is that, under my opponent's world, marijuana is ITSELF a crime. So, if marijuana were legalized, then no one who smoked pot ever again wouold be committing a crime. Quite obviously, this would reduce the crime rate, since the action in question is no longer a crime. So, in summary, here is what is wrong with my opponent's contentions:1. Just because something is harmful does not mean that it should be illegal.2. Marijuana is not harmful, and consumers use it for medicinal or at least stress-relieving reasons. My opponent's speculative claims should not be considered substantial evidence.3. Legalizing marijuana reduces or eliminates the crmie rate rather than increases it. The evidence can be substantial but is also simply intuitive: if marijuana is no longer a crime, then the \"crime\" goes down. I will now highlight my arguments and explain how they tie back to the framework of this debate, which is net benefits to society. Recall that the side that better demonstrates whether legalizing/criminalizing marijuana is better to society should win this debate. Contention 1: Economic benefits. Legalizing pot would create money and jobs, because we would be able to collect valuable tax revenue on something that people will use regardless of whether or not the laws allow for it. This revenue is used for health care and education. Furthermore, legalizing pot saves money, because there will be fewer prisoners that drain tax dollars due to long years of imprisonment. Contention 2: Social benefits. Legalizing pot means that police officers channel their time and attention on violent crimes, such as rape and murder, rather than silly nonviolent crimes like smoking weed. This clearly reduces the crime rate and allows for a safer society in which citizens can enjoy freedoms rather than be locked up in jail for much of their lives. Contention 3: Racial benefits. The enforcement of marijuana laws has been extremely racist and discriminatory. Author Michelle Alexander calls it \"a new Jim Crow\", meaning that blacks continue to have it much harder than whites when it comes to the criminal justice system, even though they are no more likely to use pot than their white counterparts. Legalizing pot prevents police officers from being able to continue with and conduct these racist enforcement procedures. Contention 4: Safer marijuana. Kepeing cannabis illegal DOES NOT DETER citizens from using it. This will be the most challenging argument for my opponent to respond to. He/she says that cannabis is harmful; even if it were, keeping it illegal does not stop people from its use. At least, with legalizing pot, we can verify that the cannabis is as safe as possible and that no sketchy drug dealers or cartels are entering the country with weed that could be laced with PCP or some truly dangerous chemical. Contention 5: Freedom of choice. Americans should be able to do whatever they want so long as their actions do not infringe upon the rights of others. This is the nation that the Founding Fathers intended, and to the most extent we let people make their own decisions. Since we let people smoke cigarettes and eat unhealthy food, they should also be able to smoke cannabis. Nothing about cannabis is harmful to the user, let alone to those who do not use it. My opponent will be expected to refute all five of these contentions with substantial evidence and reasons to believe otherwise. It is hard to argue against a legalization procedure that would create money, save money, reduce violent crimes, incerase health and safety, reduce racism, and promote the freedom of choice that responsible Americans deserve. My opponent also needs to return to his/her contentions and show why my refutations of them do not hold. Finally, he/she must tie his/her arugments back to the framework of net benefits to society. Unless my opponent is successfully able to show that the disadvantages to society of legalization overwhelmingly outweigh the advantages, the voter should vote Pro. My opponent has 48 hours to accomplish these tasks. Evidence:. http://www.drugpolicy.org...http://people.wku.edu... . http://www.drugpolicy.org...http://www.huffingtonpost.com...https://www.mpp.org...;", "qid": "17", "docid": "db751e93-2019-04-18T13:07:25Z-00003-000", "rank": 17, "score": 170539.0}, {"content": "Title: Should recreational use of marijuana be legal in the US Content: The use of marijuana should be legal in the United States because there are little to no arguments based on scientific fact to say why it shouldn't be. Many people in the United States use marijuana whether it be legal via prescription or illegal, there are no statistics to show a death toll from marijuana use. If marijuana were legal in the same way that alcohol is it may take it out of the category of \"illegal drugs\" therefore somewhat nullifying the \"gateway drug\" argument.", "qid": "17", "docid": "8b8ff60f-2019-04-18T18:26:25Z-00005-000", "rank": 18, "score": 170298.0}, {"content": "Title: AAN: Marijuana should be legalized recreationally. Content: For this round, I'll go ahead and rebut each of my opponent's claims.The Commerce Clause:Here my opponent basically explains that marijuana can be illegal, and that states have a right to prohibit the use of cannabis (and other drugs). It is important to remember that just because a state can do something, doesn't mean they should. Throughout my constructive, I have shown that keeping marijuana illegal works against the common good and takes away from freedom of the people. Though my opponent's point may be correct, this is not what we are debating today. I aim to prove that prohibition of cannabis is wrong on both a pragmatic and moral level and whether or not marijuana can be illegal has no effect on that.The FDA:I think what my opponent is trying to say with this point is that marijuana is not going to be legalized under the status quo because marijuana will not ever be found as \"safe and effective.\" The first thing to realize is that this point is clearly talking about medical marijuana. That is not what this debate is over. Never once in my constructive did I list marijuana as a \"cure\" to some diseases. Rather, I explained that marijuana is less harmful than cigarettes and alcohol, therefore it can be seen as a less harmful alternative to currently legal (and more dangerous) drugs. Now, if the FDA has approved tobacco and alcohol for recreational use, why should they not approve marijuana? Even if the FDA would keep marijuana illegal, within this argument, my opponent assumes that the legitimacy of the status quo to attempt to keep cannabis away from the public. If this indeed is the status quo, it works against the common good (as I have shown in my case).Laetrile:For this point, my opponent talks about a drug known as \"Laetrile,\" explaining that Laetrile was advertised as a potential cure for cancer, but ended up being completely ineffective. My opponent then goes on to explain that the Laetrile situation is similar to Marijuana situation. This simply is not true. NPR notes, \"nnobody argues that marijuana is the new laetrile. For one thing, nobody's claiming it cures any fatal diseases. But it is a departure from the usual rules of evidence for drugs (1).\" If marijuana indeed is the new Laetrile as my opponent claims, evidence must be provided that shows similar properties between the two drugs. Moreover, this debate is not over medical marijuana, rather it is over recreational marijuana; I'm not trying to argue that marijuana should be legalized for medical use in this given debate so so my opponent's point ultimately proves nothing.Tobacco:My opponent proceeds to explain how the FDA used to exclude tobacco from the law, and later on began to regulate it. This point has absolutely nothing to do with the given debate. One cannot compare two drugs with almost no similar properties. I'll get more into the tobacco point in my next rebuttal.Marijuana and Making it legal:My opponent's last two points are definitely the main argument he is making in this case. He explains that, \"Bbefore marijuana can be legal for consumers it must be shown to be a \u201csafe and effective\u201d drug because marijuana use is often confounded by other drugs or studies.\" Looking at the sources supporting this contention, it is quite obvious that this argument pertains to medical marijuana; obviously recreational drugs are not meant to be \"effective\" in any way. Even if this argument did pertain to recreational marijuana, I have proven in my constructive that marijuana is not a harmful drug, especially in comparison to alcohol and tobacco. If the FDA approves both alcohol and tobacco, why not marijuana (as I noted above)? Even if my opponent is correct and it is within the status quo to keep marijuana illegal, my opponent has provided no evidence that suggest marijuana should be kept illegal.ConclusionMy opponent's arguments pertaining to the actual negative health impacts of marijuana are very weak. I have shown in my constructive that marijuana does not harm mental health, physical health, or the well being of non smokers, and in some cases actually positively impacts it. Marijuana positively impacts the economy, and the drug will ultimately become less dangerous when bought from a reliable source. The problem with my opponent's case is that he includes no facts that actually prove society would be better of by keeping cannabis illegal.On the other hand I have shown how car accidents go down by nine percent through the legalization of marijuana, how the tax revenue will benifit the people in any area that legalizes marijuana, how cannabis legalization positively impacts the economy, and how in the end over 750,000 unneccessary arrests can be prevented.Therefore, I am pro. On to con...(1) http://www.npr.org...", "qid": "17", "docid": "823c879a-2019-04-18T15:56:06Z-00003-000", "rank": 19, "score": 170256.0}, {"content": "Title: Legalization of Marijuana for Recreational Use Content: I firmly believe that marijuana should not be legalized for recreational use. It is not good for the body or for society. Legalizing it for recreational use would greatly endanger communities, and I feel that the idea of legalizing it is foolish.", "qid": "17", "docid": "14b9fbff-2019-04-18T12:11:41Z-00002-000", "rank": 20, "score": 170017.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Marijuana should be legalized for recreational purposes. Content: To allow for an equal debate, I forfeit this round.", "qid": "17", "docid": "ae791dd7-2019-04-18T17:53:18Z-00000-000", "rank": 21, "score": 169993.0}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana should be legal Content: Whilst many use marijuana as a recreational drug or as a pain killer it depends on how you use it and why especially if its a young adult such as a 18 year old who's front cortex hasn't even developed yet", "qid": "17", "docid": "6c71015a-2019-04-18T16:09:02Z-00006-000", "rank": 22, "score": 169271.0}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana should be legalized for recreational use Content: Thanks, you bring up some very good points - however, I would like to remind you that this debate discusses the recreational use of marijuana, not medical. In your first rebuttal, you describe the medicinal benefits that marijuana can possess. As of the present date, twenty-three states (Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington) and the District of Columbia have passed legislation that allows for the legal use of medical cannabis in conservative amounts. In response to your description of benefits, a carefully measured, legally dispensed amount of medical marijuana can be effective in treating or bringing relief from said medical issues. However, I would like to again highlight that this debate is centered on legalization of recreational use of the drug. As with the majority of prescription drugs, these medicines are more difficult to access than over-the-counter drugs because potential misuse could have disastrous effects. This is why a doctor's prescription is required to obtain these prescription drugs. Should marijuana be legalized for recreational use, thus giving it the same accessibility as over-the-counter drugs, it is far more likely to be misused for purposes beyond medical reasons. By keeping it as a carefully monitored, limited, and measured and prescription drug, we as people are allowed to take advantage of such benefits you have described while avoiding the disastrous effects of potential abuse. In response to your second rebuttal, it is true that a tax on marijuana could contribute to government profit. However, as I mentioned in my introductory argument, its legalization could lead to even greater hikes in national spending by needing to provide for greater health care and educational needs that would need to be met as a long-term result of the drug's harmful effects. The government also realizes and embraces the fact that there are many other forms of taxation that they currently impose to gain revenue (whether we agree on them or not), and that the consequences of recreational marijuana legalization could far outweigh the benefits. It is true, in the meantime, that America is a country founded on principles of human rights and freedom. However, our forefathers established a government for many reasons - among these is to \"promote the general Welfare\" of our people, as quoted from the Constitution. This concept of general welfare can be defined as \"the concern of the government for the health, peace, morality, and safety of its citizens\" (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...). In carrying out this mission identified in the Preamble, the government works to protect its citizens by keeping from them the dangers and threats that this drug poses to the health and welfare of society. It is much the same reason as to why the government prohibits the public from accessing nuclear weapons - but it's a free country, right? Well, yes, but the government has good reason to be keeping such potentially lethal things from public use, even if the majority of users are responsible individuals who \"promise it doesn't affect them.\" Despite the fact that marijuana addiction itself is rare, the influence the drug (in non-medical use) can and does have upon users and those around them as described in my introductory argument is too significant to put aside. The government, though recognizing our freedoms, is remaining faithful to the law of the land by watching out for its citizens - providing safer ways of having a good time and relieving one from the pains of life. This, in my opinion, is something to be thankful for. :) Citations: http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org... http://www.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.archives.gov... http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...", "qid": "17", "docid": "99d62d9d-2019-04-18T14:32:36Z-00004-000", "rank": 23, "score": 169157.0}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana Should be Legalized for Recreational Use Content: Personal Choice Marijuana is a personal choice and the government has no business in regulating that of which is a personal choice among humans. The government has an interest in protecting others from external sources, but when a human makes a personal choice that will only affect their own body of their own consent; the government has no business in regulating or even denying someone the decision of acting upon these choices. Now, you may argue that the government should make marijuana illegal because when humans are high they may be under the influence. Marijuana is much like alcohol. When used correctly and appropriately everything will go fine and as intended. They are only dangerous when abused. Alcohol can be completely safe, but someone over drinking and getting drunk is the only time when alcohol ever becomes a danger. Since marijuana is not inherently dangerous when used correctly, the government should not have an interest in making it illegal. To argue against this would follow under the logic of \u201cwell some people are terrible drivers, so we should punish those who do drive correctly and just ban all cars all together since they can be dangerous.\u201d Obviously this logic is completely flawed. Humans should have the freedom to make a decision that will only affect them, whether it is bad for themselves or not. Marijuana Prohibition Is Not Worth It Instead of illegalizing marijuana and actually making its existence disappear all together, all that really happens is that marijuana goes to the black market, where it is sold to citizens illegally. This means that despite marijuana actually being illegal, people are still going to be able to get their hands on it, and quite easily at that. Just look around you, I guarantee that you know at least a few people (if not indirectly) that do weed and are pretty open about it. Fact is, people don\u2019t think it\u2019s wrong, and they recognize it as a personal choice with little to no harmful effects. Seeing this as true, the government spends 7,000,000,000 dollars funding marijuana prohibition in the United States (1.) That is ridiculous, especially for something that shouldn\u2019t be illegal at all. In addition, 60-70% of all jail inmates are in there for drug possession(1); Seeing that Marijuana is the most popular and easiest to get drug this would mean a large amount of those inmates cold be free right now. This helps solve the problem on the prison space issue that has arisen in the United States. Conclusion All humans, through their basic dignity that they are born with, should have the right to make a decision that will inherently affect their own body, whether that choice is dangerous or not. Marijuana directly falls under this category and unlike hardcore drugs, has far less harmful effects on the user, and far less chances of it being dangerous to other people around them. By keeping marijuana illegal, you degrade our free will to make decisions that will only affect us, while spending a lot of money on marijuana prohibition that could be well spent elsewhere; In addition by legalizing marijuana you free up a lot of jail space which helps solve that problem. Legalizing marijuana has many benefits for the United States and should therefore be legal. (1) http://www.changetheclimate.org... (2) http://legalizationofmarijuana.com...", "qid": "17", "docid": "4ac9891f-2019-04-18T17:10:18Z-00003-000", "rank": 24, "score": 169016.0}, {"content": "Title: Recreational Marijuana should be Legalized in all 50 States. Content: Legalizing marijuana will make crime rates much much worse kids will be growing it asking friends or strangers for it more then they do now yes Marijuana may make good money but look at the risks that follows more crime rates kids getting a hold of this drug. Marijuana should only be allowed medically not recreationally if you don't have a condition that you need Marijuana then you don't need it plain and simple.", "qid": "17", "docid": "fbfca9a3-2019-04-18T14:52:26Z-00004-000", "rank": 25, "score": 168402.0}, {"content": "Title: Legalization of Recreational Marijuana Content: Recreational Marijuana should not be legalized. It is harmful and dangerous, and legalizing it would be no better than legalizing heroin. Addictive substances such as this should not be allowed to harm our citizens. While there is danger in legalizing it, there is no danger in keeping it illegal. Therefore, the logical solution is that recreational marijuana be kept illegal. Also, while people say that it only harms the people who use it, what about those people's friends and families? It is important to protect everyone possible from the effects of recreational marijuana.", "qid": "17", "docid": "d3fcb9ba-2019-04-18T11:58:12Z-00000-000", "rank": 26, "score": 168205.0}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana should be legal for recreational use Content: I'd like to apologize to my opponent, but I am unable to submit my arguments at this time.", "qid": "17", "docid": "fad1e930-2019-04-18T14:45:25Z-00002-000", "rank": 27, "score": 168013.0}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana should be legal Content: Although you have a valid point, people who advocate for the legal use of marijuana do not consider the whole picture. Legalization of marijuana will cause an immediate turf war among drug dealers and the cartels. In order to maintain their profits, with less drugs to sell, they will have to increase their violence. This will lead to more violent crimes. Also, marijuana should not be legal for recreational use in the United States, because there are still more marijuana addicts in the United States than any other type of addict. The marijuana addiction is still treated more than alcohol or any other addiction in treatment centers in the United States. Marijuana should not be legalized, because people become addicted to it, and it is needless.", "qid": "17", "docid": "6c7100de-2019-04-18T16:32:09Z-00004-000", "rank": 28, "score": 167960.0}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana should be legalized for medical and recreational use. Content: I just want to say that marijuana, while proven to have some negative side effects, are nothing compared to another recreational drug, alcohol. The side effects of marijuana are often temporary, and can be reduced to none when the drug is no longer in the users system. Marijuana as a medicine is often much safer than the legal counterparts, prescription drugs. Side effects from prescription drugs often include death, organ failure, etc.", "qid": "17", "docid": "dc68ec3e-2019-04-18T13:40:55Z-00002-000", "rank": 29, "score": 167865.0}, {"content": "Title: Should Marijuana be legalized Content: I accept", "qid": "17", "docid": "d6ea2156-2019-04-18T15:01:53Z-00004-000", "rank": 30, "score": 167578.0}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana should be legalized for medical and recreational use. Content: Hello, my name is dtien and I accept your challenge.", "qid": "17", "docid": "dc68ec3e-2019-04-18T13:40:55Z-00003-000", "rank": 31, "score": 167564.0}, {"content": "Title: Medical as well as recreational marijuana should be legal in all US states Content: The matter of legalizing medical marijuana is an important issue for several reasons. From the data observed in the link below [1] there are currently 23 states with laws legalizing marijuana, some still more restrictive than others. This of course is a significant step in the right direction. However, I believe that all states should follow the examples of Alaska, Colorado, Washington and Oregon to legalize not only cannabis for medicinal usage but also for recreational consumption. I will list my reasons further below. Before doing so I would like to specifically define the meanings of marijuana itself and respectively medical and recreational cannabis to avoid any confusions or misunderstandings. Marijuana is defined as \"a commonly used illegal drug made from dried leaves of the hemp plant\" and \"a strong-smelling plant from whose dried leaves a number of euphoriant and hallucinogenic drugs are prepared.\" Marijuana goes by many other names such as cannabis, hemp, weed etc. [2] Medical marijuana is defined as the usage of marijuana for medical or medicinal purposes. [3] [4] Recreational marijuana is defined as any other recreational drug which is described as \"a drug (as cocaine, marijuana, or methamphetamine) used without medical justification for its psychoactive effects often in the belief that occasional use of such a substance is not habit-forming or addictive.\" [6] I acknowledge the many different types of marijuana that exists for different purposes, most, I understand, are hybrids made for different specific medical needs. However I do not know enough on the subject of them, their effects and upsides as well as downsides. I would therefore appreciate if this debate could be exclusively on the matters of the aforementioned descriptions of cannabis, medical and recreational. Now I will present my arguments as to why I believe medical and recreational marijuana should be legalized in all US states.R32;R32;First of all I would like to point out that there is no scientific background with evidence as to exactly why marijuana was classified as a Schedule I drug in the first place. The definition of a Schedule 1 drug from the Drug Enforcement Administration itself clearly states, that \"Schedule I drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.\"[6] This definition leaves no room for doubt that no Schedule 1 drug has any medical use. However it has been a known fact for centuries that cannabis has been used for medical purposes with positive effects. This can easily be found true when looking at many different sources. Here I have merely linked one. [7]R32;The National Institute on Drug Abuse also states that there are medical benefits from marijuana. [8] R32;There can be many reasons as to why marijuana was classified the way it was and still has not been re-classified but that is a completely different debate. Here are links with possible explanations that no matter what do not justify why it was classified so harshly. [9] [10] R32;All in all, there can be no doubts that this classification of marijuana is deeply illogical and misleading. Second, I would like to stress that America would merit tremendously from the economic profits caused by legalizing marijuana. It can be no surprise to any logical thinking creature that America spends enormous sums of money on dealing with and prohibiting crime related to illegal marijuana sales and consumptions. All of this money would of course not be spent if marijuana was legalized. In stead I propose that all states start off like Oregon, Alaska, Washington and Colorado by legalizing recreational marijuana as well. These states all have different laws that specifically suits them and I believe this is a good way to start. R32;R32;The legalization of medical as well as recreational marijuana would be the only solution to properly profit economically from the marijuana businesses that are currently not legal. This is because these businesses will probably still exist if only medicinal marijuana was legalized. [11] [12] Third and last I believe, as mentioned, that marijuana should be legalised for recreational use. This is because I believe in every individual\"s right to care for him or herself\"s own health and decide what is best. Especially when it comes to smoking tobacco or marijuana for pleasure. I am aware of the fact that marijuana has other effects than regular tobacco smoking. However tobacco smoking is the leading cause of preventable death here in America and I do not see how it in any aspect is justifiable, that tobacco smoking has no legal restrictions when a harmless plant such as cannabis is classified as a schedule 1 drug and illegal in most states. [13] I believe that cannabis should be legalized for medical and recreational use. Of course all sale should be done by an approved salesperson to ensure and uphold a certain safety. This will still leave room for illegal sales but not in the same measure as it is now. I am not trying to say that tobacco smoking should be classified as a schedule 1 drug as well. I am saying that the laws making marijuana illegal are so illogical that I am astonished this can happen in a well educated country in the 21st century. http://www.governing.com... https://www.vocabulary.com... http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com... https://www.leafly.com... http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.dea.gov... http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... https://www.drugabuse.gov... http://www.ibtimes.com... http://www.drugwarrant.com... http://www.dailydot.com... http://www.huffingtonpost.com... http://www.cdc.gov...", "qid": "17", "docid": "711b9599-2019-04-18T13:44:23Z-00005-000", "rank": 32, "score": 167366.0}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana should be legalized for both Medicinal and Recreational use Content: Reading over it, we see eye to eye on many things. I would like to stress that most of his points he is trying to make however are based solely on opinion with no legitimate sources to back up his arguments. That being said his opinions are relate very closely to mine but as stated in my previous argument they're again some fundamental differences that separates us. 1. No, would legalizing marijuana for recreational use have any impact on lowering the instances of driving while high? No, obviously, however having it illegal will not lower the instances of driving while intoxicated on Marijuana either. The point that I was making is its been proven in fact that driving while intoxicated on Marijuana is substantially safer than driving while intoxicated on Alcohol or other legal prescription drugs such as: Xanax, and Hydrocodone. I do not condone driving under the influence or implying that it is safe, however I am saying that it is significantly safer than other legal narcotics available, I am implying that the punishment for doing so should be no where near classified of that on the same level as Driving under the influence of Alcohol and I see no need for their to be implemented devices to check if someone is intoxicated on Marijuana while driving. 2. Con makes a very valid argument here where he states about his concern with the quality and safeness of Marijuana if it is mass produced by large corporations. I will begin my argument here by pointing out a section in your post in which you state: \"it is legal to grow fruit, and yet local products are still more expensive. \" This is a valid point and by theory is correct, fruit and vegetables are legal to grow and yet big corporations still rule the market, by theory this is correct however I feel you are comparing Marijuana too much to Fruit and other foods. The reasons why more people do not grow their own fruits and vegetables is because of time and land. To grow a full sized Apple tree it takes approximately 2-3 years to grow and mature and require a significant amount of land to grow many trees. This plays a big part as Marijuana cultivation takes approximately 6-10 weeks from from seed to harvest and require little amount of land for a large amount of crop which also yields a significant amount of Marijuana. I am not denying the fact that pesticides will not be used in the production of legal Cannabis because they probably will and they are used today, the fact of the matter is they're not necessary to use as pesticides can actually harm the plant as any good grower would no. Cheaper alternatives such as bat guano (. http://www.marijuanafertilizers.com...) are great natural non-toxic fertilizers. Con is also neglecting the fact of other alternative growing of Marijuana such as Hydroponics which involves growing the Marijuana in water. As I stated before I cannot refute the fact of Pesticides as a potential hazard in the legalization of Cannabis but I do not think it should have any matter in the fact of Legalization of Cannabis. 3. This is the biggest disagreement that I have had so far with Con's proposal. Where he has made several hypocritical remarks in which he states \"War on Drugs has been ineffective\" and then states \"eliminating the source of these drugs rather than discouraging its use with insane punishments for users. \" Most of the illegal plants grown such as Marijuana, Papi (Which produces Opium), and Coca; are significantly grown in 3rd world countries in which we have no control over the production for political reasons, the domestic grow and the war on drugs has also been severely ineffective. The war on Marijuana alone has cost the United States an estimated $42 Billion and 738,916 arrests for simple possession of Marijuana (. http://www.alternet.org...), Think of all the things that the United States government could accomplish with an extra $42 billion. turning non-violent offenders into harden criminals and filling up prison cells where violent inmates need to be housed. It takes approximately \u00ef\u00bf\u00bd31,106 ($42,000) to house these non-violent inmates on top of that $42 billion. On top of that law enforcement has confiscated and destroyed millions upon millions of plants throughout the year and have not made a dent. The fact of the matter is Marijuana will be cultivated, produced, and sold no matter what the government does, the War on Cannabis is a failure so might as well tap into the money that we would save to pay for more important things like Health care and teachers which we so desperately need. Legalization of marijuana would take billions of dollars away from these drug cartels in fact hurting them more than spending billions of dollars fighting this endless war on drugs which we will never win. We have already been working with every organization possible and it still has had little impact on anything. 4. Con makes a valid point here but is digging way to deep into this when he states that \"Why get an endorphin release from exercise when you can smoke a joint and feel twice as good? \" A recent Government study indicates that over 83 Million people over the age of 12 years old will try Marijuana before they graduate school, and an estimated 200 Million Americans smoke it; on top of another 200 million will try it for the first time, Con is trying to imply that legalization of Marijuana will lead to a nation of \"lazy stoners\" which is simply not the case. The legalization of Marijuana I believe will have little effect on the amount of people who smoke it (But will obviously increase slightly. ) Legalization will simply take away the harsh punishments of smoking this benign plant freeing up billions upon billions of dollars, clearing up prison cells in our crowded prisons. I believe if we should endorse anything endorse something that has many benefits, that actually relaxes you, and something that will generate billions of dollars to the economy and have numerous positive effects on the nation as a whole, Prohibition doesn't work, it has never worked, thus why not take advantage of it. Thank you to my readers and to Con, I have had a wonderful time debating with you so far and look forward to your future response. I urge my readers to look over my argument and see the facts that are clearly laid out and see that I am the correct side to vote for! Thank you, I am looking forward to your rebuttal!", "qid": "17", "docid": "c0722593-2019-04-18T19:00:13Z-00001-000", "rank": 33, "score": 167346.0}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana should be legal for recreational use Content: I have decided not to reveal my opinion, so the fact I'm supporting legalization in this debate does not necessarily reflect my personal stance on the matter.", "qid": "17", "docid": "fad1e94f-2019-04-18T13:10:10Z-00006-000", "rank": 34, "score": 167303.0}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana Should be Legalized for Recreational Use Content: I would like to begin this round addressing my opponent's concern over my not directly refuting his arguments. I am not obligated to refute his argument. As long as I can present a coherent case in favor of marijuana legalization, any other case can be superseded by the validity of the ones I develop. My case my or may not directly conflict or address my opponent's case. As it stands, my contentions actually do refute those set by my opponent despite my not addressing my opponent's contentions directly. I will now bring up several points which my opponent has conceded: 1. Marijuana is harmful and addictive. It destroys worker productivity and potential. My opponent than defaults into the individual choice contention which I will show is irrelevant in a moment. 2. The number of marijuana smokers will increase manifold. I propose the estimate of 100million based on numbers presented in the previous round. This is easily 2/5 of our nation's population 3. Uninformed perspective: let me provide an analogy. A vendor offers a product that is pleasurable to use. This product works thus: users who gain first exposure of this product are implanted with an artificial urge (addiction) to reuse the product over and over again. The product also functions as a severely damaging agent to the user's ability to move or think clearly. The buying masses are completely unaware of the product's negative effects. The product's vendors allow the misconception that its product is harmless to spread. Many customers, some even directly opposed to addictive and harmful products, are tricked into first trying and then becoming addicted to the product. Addiction then factors in to the customer's choice to commit repeated patronization. This is choice? Really? As I have established, drugs like marijuana and opium are lethal to society. In terms of health-related mortality directly attributable to smoking it, marijuana is less harmful than tobacco, a legal substance. Marijuana's lethality is in its ability to severely and permanently detriment a user's motor and cognitive capabilities (conceded by my opponent), incapacitating the abuser's power to work (conceded by my opponent). Since the fact that a massive increase in the number marijuana abusers and the decrease in the abusers' abilities to work are conceded, my conclusion is uncontested: marijuana will severely detriment 2/5 of our economic productivity, effectively destroying our economy. (answer to my opponent's question on China's economic status prior to opium: China was the most powerful nation in the world. Its economic prowess was the largest in the world from the 14th to late 17th century[1].. how is this even relevant?) Opponent: \"Then obviously, the biggest one of all: In the story it says the entire working class....\" I never said this. 'Entire working class'? Quote me. Don't put words in my mouth. The China example was to show that the destruction of a nation's economy due to a single drug has happened before and is not unrealistic at all. -Marijuana impairs individuals' ability to function in society -Marijuana is addictive; many will smoke marijuana -Marijuana will impair many individuals' ability to function in society. -Marijuana will destroy our economy Uncontested: marijuana will destroy 2/5 our economy if legalized. Therefore, marijuana, contrary to my opponent's assertions, does in fact affect more than just the individuals who smoke it. The downfall of an economic output means an aggregate loss in productivity, purchase ability, and sales. Basic economics: decreased sales in one sector means decreased sales in another sector. I will present in detail EXACTLY the way marijuana will destroy our economy: Example 1: car companies losing millions of buyers will stop producing millions of cars and buy less material, affecting a large number of other companies: steel companies, rubber companies, etc. Now making less money, these companies will fire many workers. These workers are now unable to purchase, meaning less car sales, meaning less steel, rubber, gas, etc. needed. Less materials needed, more are fired, etc. etc. Example 2: car companies lose ability to produce millions of cars, will stop buying materials from other companies, same cyclical effect of example 1. Materials company lose ability to produce a massive quantity of materials (cotton company for example). To not lose money, these companies need to raise prices (and fire people).. raised prices and decreased production means companies whose products rely on the material will only be able to produce as much as they are able to buy. Increased prices means more money is needed. However, with decreased aggregate sales (marijuana causation) and productivity, the company needs to cut back, fire people, produce less. Many will lose jobs, lose the ability to get jobs, money will be in harsh demand; people will starve. On what basis does my opponent declare this unrealistic? My opponent refutes my contentions by assertively calling them 'illogical'. Opponent: \"marijuana is not inherently dangerous\" My opponent has been vaguely strewing the adverb 'inherently' everywhere and fails to establish what exactly he means when he does so. Opponent: \"My opponent\"s key arguments seem to be that since marijuana has the potential to negatively affect the society, it should therefore be illegal.\" Me: This refutation is completely ludicrous. Not only does marijuana have this potential, the probability of this potential being realized is, as according to facts (and my opponent's concessions to my several contentions), proven to be almost completely assured with legalization. How is this not sound? Conclusion: I've undermined my opponent's entire argument by solidifying the fact that marijuana WILL almost assuredly affect more than just those who smoke it; meeting my burden of proof against legalization On to the voters! [1]http://en.wikipedia.org...", "qid": "17", "docid": "4ac9891f-2019-04-18T17:10:18Z-00000-000", "rank": 35, "score": 167247.0}, {"content": "Title: AAN: Marijuana should be legalized recreationally. Content: This debate is for the Adopt a Noob Tournament. My opponent is Rings48. My opponent and I would like to clarify before this debate begins: there will be no semantics. Good luck, Rings 48. I am looking forward to a great debate. Also, thanks in advance to the voters.", "qid": "17", "docid": "823c879a-2019-04-18T15:56:06Z-00007-000", "rank": 36, "score": 167115.0}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana should be legalized for both Medicinal and Recreational use Content: I believe that Marijuana should be legalized for Recreational use. I will let my opponent go first.", "qid": "17", "docid": "c0722593-2019-04-18T19:00:13Z-00005-000", "rank": 37, "score": 166973.0}, {"content": "Title: Recreational Marijuana should be Legalized in all 50 States. Content: There was pretty much no argument there... I think it was supposed to be about medicinal purposes, but Cannabis has over 80 cannabinoids that help people. That's all besides the fact though because this debate is specifically about recreational marijuana (it's in the issue statement). Can I just point out the fact that prohibition *never* works. The United States prohibited alcohol for 13 years (1920-1933), and people drank through the entire thing. This is something I hold near and dear to my heart, being a Wisconsinite where they teach us specifically how stupid it was during social studies classes. So now, we've been in the War on Drugs for almost 40 years. Seems a little silly, doesn't it?", "qid": "17", "docid": "fbfca9a3-2019-04-18T14:52:26Z-00001-000", "rank": 38, "score": 166837.0}, {"content": "Title: AAN: Marijuana should be legalized recreationally. Content: Pro has dropped my argument:I am going to start this final round by a quote from my initial argument. The premises still stand.\"P1: Drugs must be \"safe and effective\" to be sold.P2: Marijuana is a drug.P3: Marijuana has not been proven effective for its possible risks.P4: Marijuana research has not proven it to be safe.C1: Marijuana has not been proven \"safe and effective\" and should not be legalized for sale.\"Pro says \"This argument is flawed because my opponent has assumed the status quo of the FDA is legitimate\" and I am just going to point to my R2 argument that was never rebuttaled.Rebuttals to Con's Argument:Marijuana compared to Tobacco and Alcohol - I am just going to rebuttal any reference to them here. I started my argument the way I did for a reason and information on this can be found at my sources in the first argument. Tobacco and alcohol due to their history before the FDA have largely been exempted from laws about drugs. Tobacco has only just recently come under scrutiny of the FDA in the last few years. *Jumps up and down pointing at R2* If you would like to associate marijuana to substances that are not controlled, it allows me to associate substances that definitely should be controlled like heroin and 'shrooms. Tobacco and alcohol are not a justification for marijuana because its premise would allow me to justify it being illegal by other drugs. C1) Marijuana's impact on users and those around them:Pro's contention is primarily based on arguments that are generally used by those against drug legalization. To this point, Pro has still not shown definitive research on marijuana being safe for the AVERAGE (not schizophrenic) consumer. By law, a drug must be proved safe and not the other way around.Effects on Bystanders - Kind of weird that Pro says I dropped a point but quoted me on it... \"However I would like to quote the source \"Research on stoned driving is inconsistent, with some studies finding impairment and others not.\" Now, obviously there is some degree of impairment when individuals drive while high.\" I rest my case.\"This is true; however, cannabis used for recreational purpose can still have medical benefits. The two are not exclusive.\" - Pro just affirmed my argument by pointing to the fact that though marijuana has recreational uses, it is still a drug. And well drugs need to be\".. *feeling like a broken record* \"safe and effective\". Marijuana vs Tobacco - \"the typical exposure to marijuana is much lower than for tobacco\" [1] Again quoting from Pro's source for the reason marijuana and tobacco affects the lunges differently. C2 and C3) Is Marijuana Beneficial for Society:These points have basically become compressed to whether marijuana is beneficial for the society so to make this final round a little shorter.I have already rebuttaled whether marijuana benefits the economy [R3] and my opponent failed to arguing against my rebuttal.\"This point ultimately stands because through legalization, taxpayers won't pay for unnecessary arrests, tax revenue will benefit the states, and the economy will boom due to the new jobs.\"The reason to regulate drugs is to protect ourselves (society) from disinformation on drugs and to limit the possible negative effects a drug might have on our bodies. We have agreed as a country by making laws to allow the FDA to regulate the drugs and to make them illegal unless the drug is safe for our bodies and to be effective in its labeled benefits. We created laws that put people in jail for the sale of illegal drugs and agreed to foot the bill to put people in jail. The arrests are not \"unnecessary\" and \"unfair to the taxpayer\".C4) Safer Cannabis - \"The thing we disagree on, is (a) whether or not marijuana is safe and (b) FDA's process of approving drugs.\" No contention.Conclusion:\"1. Taxpayers will stop having to pay for unnecessary arrests for victimless \"crimes.\"*Rebuttaled* 2. Tax revenue will work toward the benefit of society.*Rebuttaled * 3. The economy will thrive.*Rebuttaled * 4. Cannabis will be safer.*Agreed as irrelevant* The thing is, marijuana isn't a very harmful drug. In fact (health wise) it works toward the common good. 1. People use it as an alternative to tobacco (which helps the lungs).*Rebuttaled * 2. People use it as an alternative to alcohol (which prevents car accidents).\"*Rebuttaled, from the same source\"*I shall continue to stand on:P1: Drugs must be \"safe and effective\" to be sold.P2: Marijuana is a drug.P3: Marijuana has not been proven effective for its possible risks.P4: Marijuana research has not proven it to be safe.C1: Marijuana has not been proven \"safe and effective\" and should not be legalized for sale.*the bell rings, and I start screaming \"Adrian\" and walking around aimlessly in the middle of the ring* Thanks for the great debate-bility![1] http://www.ucsf.edu...", "qid": "17", "docid": "823c879a-2019-04-18T15:56:06Z-00000-000", "rank": 39, "score": 166816.0}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana Should be Legalized for Recreational Use Content: *I'm glad you brought that up, and I will address this concern in this round immediately in a sequential manner before proceeding to my points._________________________________________________________________________________________Concerning Accessibility of Cannabis-If cannabis was legal, like alcohol, it would obviously have an age requirement. Also, it would be handled by less shady and more responsible people, in pharmacies, and not by the current drug dealers, who'd sell them to anyone. Instead, these people who sell marijuana would ask for ID before selling marijuana to a customer, just like with alcohol. Hypothetically, they will never sell cannabis to \"kids\". -The only way people nowadays can obtain cannabis in the US, is through illegal drug dealers. If Marijuana was completely legal in the US, THERE WOULD BE NO DRUG DEALERS, because everyone can get it at a pharmacy or a shop. They wouldn't have to rely on drug dealers. Without drug dealers, no one will sell cannabis to kids until they reach the required age. -However, it is not to say that kids cannot get their hands on marijuana. It is plausible for them to obtain marijuana from someone like their older siblings or parents. -Therefore, if marijuana was legalized, the accessibility of cannabis for kids will actually DECREASE, if not remain constant._______________________________________________________________________________________Now I shall proceed to my points.Healthwise:-Marijuana isn't as bad for your health as most people think. Studies have shown that casual marijuana smoking is not harmful to your lungs, and that it possibly can even increase lung capacity (which is good). -While it does have potential negative effects on your health, they are much less severe than alcohol and tobacco, which ARE legal. According to statistical analysis done by researchers, cannabis does a LOT more harm than alcohol and tobacco, which are legal drugs. -So my question to Con is: If alcohol and tobacco are legal but harms people more than cannabis, which hardly harms anyone at all, why can't cannabis be legal? http://www.livescience.com...http://edition.cnn.com...Crime Reduction due to Legalization-Marijuana use is not a serious crime. It has been established earlier that that marijuana use has less negative effects than alcohol and tobacco, which are legal drugs. -If Marijuana is legalized, it allows police to focus on actual crimes; crimes that are actually serious/dangerous/harmful to people, rather than people smoking marijuana and hasn't hurt anyone.-A huge problem in the United States today is that there have been too many arrests and too many people in jail. Of the people in jail, 3/4 of a million people were arrested for marijuana. These people have done nothing wrong, yet they're in jail. Furthermore, a lot of these people were framed. There have been cases where good samaritans find cannabis on the ground and give it to the police, who arrest these good people because they held cannabis. This is unfair and a waste of money for the government to fund their time in jail. -Therefore, by legalizing cannabis, less people are in jail, which solves the problem I mentioned earlier about too many people in jail/http://www.rawstory.com...;http://www.cnbc.com...;http://www.huffingtonpost.com..._______________________________________________________________I will leave with this for now. Thank you Con for accepting my challenge. I plan to make more points in future rounds.", "qid": "17", "docid": "4ac9893e-2019-04-18T16:40:07Z-00003-000", "rank": 40, "score": 166715.0}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana Should Be Legalized Content: I accept the challenge and hope for at good and fair debate. In the next round Pro should clarify precisely what regulations he means, otherwise it makes no sense to debate this. It should also be clear in which country or state this should happen if it has relevance to the regulations. This is an important point, and I shouldn't have accepted the debate before he made this clear. That being said, here are my arguments:Marijuana as a recreational drugThe active substance in marijuana is called THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol). It affects receptors in the brain called cannabinoid receptors. We have naturally occurring neurotransmitters similar to THC called endocannabinoids that play an important role in the brain development and function, and the highest amount of cannabinoid receptors is found in parts of the brain that influences pleasure, memory, thinking, concentration, sensory, time perception and coordinated movement. Marijuana affect us by overactivating the endocannabinoid system. \u201dResearch has shown that, in chronic users, marijuana's adverse impact on learning and memory persists after the acute effects of the drug wear off; when marijuana use begins in adolescence, the effects may persist for many years. Research from different areas is converging on the fact that regular marijuana use by young people can have long-lasting negative impact on the structure and function of their brains.\u201d [1] Overall it isn't easy to find unbiased sources when it comes to the effects of marijuana, but most studies show that the effects are overall negative when used for recreational purposes \u2013 not as a medical substance. Also, I think it's common sense to most people that smoking or eating marijuana is not exactly healthy. Arguing that it has positive health effects in some areas (see below) is not relevant in this case, since the negative effects are far greater.Marijuana as a medical substanceThe Food and Drug Administration has made a sorted list of drugs in relation to how dangerous or addictive they are. According to the FDA there is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug under medical supervision.[2] Interestingly enough they approve THC as a medicine because it has certain beneficial effects such as relieving nausea associated with chemotherapy and also to help appetite in patients that won't eat. However, marijuana as a whole are not approved for a number of reasons: First of all there haven't been sufficient studies to show that the benefits outweighs the risks in patients it is meant to treat.[3] Secondly, legitimate medicine must have well-defined and measurable ingredients that are consistent from one unit (e.g. pills) to the next, and marijuana does not live up to this criteria. It contains over 400 chemical compounds besides THC and research from 2009 shows that about 80 of these are biologically active cannabinoids, only found in marijuana.[4]Thirdly, marijuana has negative effects on especially the brain, as I stated earlier. Remember that marijuana and THC are not the same, and here we are debating marijuana.ConclusionI have shown that marijuana, whether used recreationally or as a medicine, cannot be considered safe and for those reasons alone would be unwise to legalize. There are other reasons why one might not legalize marijuana, but since this is the first round I'll wait and see what Pro has to say about it. [1] http://www.drugabuse.gov... [2] http://www.fda.gov... [3] http://www.drugabuse.gov... [4] http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org...", "qid": "17", "docid": "1102483a-2019-04-18T17:34:00Z-00004-000", "rank": 41, "score": 166658.0}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana should be legalized for recreation use Content: (It is okay, you need to learn sometime. Welcome to the site by the way! You are sure to enjoy it).1. Logic: We already have far more dangerous drugs such as Tobacco and Alcohol legalized. Did you know that it is NOT POSSIBLE to consume a marijuana overdose? It, however, IS POSSIBLE to consume a dangerous alcohol or tobacco overdose. And if those two drugs are legalized and are more dangerous, and marijuana is banned, what kind of logic is that? If marijuana is not legal then neither should be many other drugs that are far more dangerous than marijuana and are legal anyway. 2. Profit: When you buy a product, there will be a tax - we all know that. So if people are allowed to buy this substance, of course there will be a tax on it. The government will gain profit and BENEFIT from this legalization - it is a win-win for everyone!3. Choice: We all have the freedom of choice, weither it is to take a shot, smoke a cigarette, or make a huge decision. We all know that Marijuana is dangerous - we all get it, drugs are bad (and so are tobacco and alcohol); but we should let people have the CHOICE if they want to consume such substances or not. After all, we are in the United States of America; and isint FREEDOM what being an American citizen is all about?4. Prisons: Check out this data table: US Arrests As Reported By FBI UCR Program Year Total Arrests Total Drug Arrests Total Marijuana Arrests Marijuana Trafficking/Sale Arrests Marijuana Possession Arrests Total Violent Crime Arrests Total Property Crime Arrests 2012 12,196,959 1,552,432 749,825 91,593 658,231 521,196 1,646,212 2011 12,408,899 1,531,251 757,969 94,937 663,032 534,704 1,639,883 2010 13,120,947 1,638,846 853,839 103,247 750,591 552,077 1,643,962 2009 13,687,241 1,663,582 858,408 99,815 758,593 581,765 1,728,285 2008 14,005,615 1,702,537 847,863 93,640 754,224 594,911 1,687,345 2007 14,209,365 1,841,182 872,720 97,583 775,137 597,447 1,610,088 2006 14,380,370 1,889,810 829,627 90,711 738,916 611,523 1,540,297 2005 14,094,186 1,846,351 786,545 90,471 696,074 603,503 1,609,327 2004 13,938,071 1,746,570 773,731 87,329 686,402 586,558 1,644,197 2003 13,639,479 1,678,192 755,186 92,300 662,886 597,026 1,605,127 2002 13,741,438 1,538,813 697,082 83,096 613,986 620,510 1,613,954 2001 13,699,254 1,586,902 723,628 82,519 641,109 627,132 1,618,465 2000 13,980,297 1,579,566 734,497 88,455 646,042 625,132 1,620,928 1999 14,355,600 1,557,100 716,266 85,641 630,626 644,770 1,676,100 1998 14,528,300 1,559,100 682,885 84,191 598,694 675,900 1,805,600 1997 15,284,300 1,583,600 695,201 88,682 606,519 717,750 2,015,600 1996 15,168,100 1,506,200 641,642 94,891 546,751 729,900 2,045,600 1995 15,119,800 1,476,100 588,964 85,614 503,350 796,250 2,128,600 1990 14,195,100 1,089,500 326,850 66,460 260,390 705,500 2,217,800 1980 10,441,000 580,900 401,982 63,318 338,664 475,160 1,863,300 Total 1996-2012 236,438,421 28,002,034 12,318,682 1,549,101 11,427,813 10,421,804 28,750,970 - See more at: http://www.drugwarfacts.org... As you can see, many people are being arrested for possesion of marijuana which is a NONVIOLENT crime. Isint prison a place for people who commited violent crimes? Why are we putting people in jail for doing something that is only going to be harmful for themselves in the long run - and not for innocent bystanders?I rest my case for now and I am looking forward to your follow-up arguments ~ Sara :) Evidence citations:http://www.drugwarfacts.org...http://www.antiwar.com...http://whylegalizemarijuana.com...http://theweek.com...https://www.change.org...", "qid": "17", "docid": "e833dcb-2019-04-18T14:32:54Z-00003-000", "rank": 42, "score": 166639.0}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana should be legal Content: I have accepted this debate and shall be arguing the con side, saying that recreational marijuana, as I assume we are talking about recreational and not medical, should not be legal. My opponent will be arguing that recreational marijuana should indeed be legal.Because my opponent has neglected to lay out some rules, I feel obligated to do so. Proper grammar and spelling should be used at all time. All sources, if any, must be cited. All arguments must be sophisticated. Because that is all I wish to say, I await Pro's arguments for the legalization of recreational marijuana.", "qid": "17", "docid": "6c7100fd-2019-04-18T16:32:07Z-00008-000", "rank": 43, "score": 166604.0}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana should be legal for recreational use Content: This is a debate about whether or not marijuana should be legal for recreational use. My stance is against the use of recreational use. This first round is for acceptance so please post something like \"I accept your debate\" for round 1. The remaining three rounds are for contention and debate. Legitimate debaters only.", "qid": "17", "docid": "fad1e94f-2019-04-18T13:10:10Z-00007-000", "rank": 44, "score": 166564.0}, {"content": "Title: The United States Should Legalize Marijuana for Recreational Use Content: Thanks for the debate.", "qid": "17", "docid": "bc59cf1f-2019-04-18T14:25:37Z-00001-000", "rank": 45, "score": 166527.0}, {"content": "Title: should marijuana be legalized for recreational use Content: The war on drugs is a big failure. Marijuana has been in use for hundreds of years and has not been contributed to a single death. Marijuana is not a gateway drug, it's not physically addicting, it doesn't kill brain cells... The propaganda surrounding marijuana is deceitful and just plain stupid. This plant will only benefit us instead of being detrimental as many may think. Stereotypes placed on marijuana ussers are stupid and lame. Almost every celebrity smokes weed or hides joints in their coats and they've all become millionaires.Another reason marijuana should be legal is for hemp. Hemp is marijuana not used for smoking but to create products. It can make paper, clothing, fiberboard twice as strong as wood and much much more. It is illegal to grow because it is conjuncted in with marijuana.", "qid": "17", "docid": "7c8b175c-2019-04-18T15:27:03Z-00003-000", "rank": 46, "score": 166507.0}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana should be legalized Content: Full resolution: \"Marijuana should be legalized for recreational and medical purposes in the United States. I thank SocialPinko for hosting this tournament. I will be arguing that marijuana should be legalized. Definitions: Should- indicating a desirable or expected state [1] Recreational- any substance with pharmacologic effects that is taken voluntarily for personal pleasure or satisfaction rather than for medicinal purposes. [2] Medical- curative; medicinal; therapeutic [3] This will be 4 rounds, the first being acceptance and clarifications if my opponent wishes to state any. The last round will NOT include new sources. Use of unorthodox semantics (discretion of voters) should be seen as a loss. Good luck! 1. http://oxforddictionaries.com... 2. http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... 3. http://dictionary.reference.com...", "qid": "17", "docid": "59d1f83c-2019-04-18T18:35:46Z-00007-000", "rank": 47, "score": 166257.0}, {"content": "Title: should marijuana be legalized for recreational use Content: Yes, you are correct but WRONG prohibition of alcohol did not work but that was a legal substance that was made illegal and alcohol was socially accepted before the prohibition but marijuana was always illegal an not socially accepted in many parts of the world . So you cannot compare the two prohibitions because you will have different outcomes your, bases is flawed. your argument is wrong. YES your right but WRONG because alcohol is regulated. Therefore drug dealers cannot make illegal underground profits. So they make more money selling marijuana and not giving any money to the government. More money then selling to underage kids a product that their older siblings can get without extra cost. It is not that marijuana is easy to get but it just that you can get more money selling marijuana then alcohol. However criminals like drug dealers sell underage girls (human trafficking) does this mean you are advocating the legalization of selling girls or heroin? Also just because something cannot be eliminated for example people committing crimes it does not mean we should not continue to keep this harmful product from being easily obtainable for the greater good of society.", "qid": "17", "docid": "7c8b175c-2019-04-18T15:27:03Z-00000-000", "rank": 48, "score": 166109.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Marijuana should be legalized for recreational purposes. Content: Resolved: Marijuana should be legalized for recreational purposes.I will be affirming this topic today, because my view (at least for the purposes of this debate) is that the decriminalization of marijuana has no place in society.Here are my conditions for a successful debate:Round 1 - agreement to debate, introductionRound 2 - definitions, burdens, values, and contention-level argumentsRound 3 - refutations to the arguments and conditions created in Round 2Round 4 - summary and crystallization of the key arguments and voting issueHere are a couple of observations hat I have with respect to the previous structure. NEITHER PRO NOR CON MAY DO THE FOLLOWING THINGS. These should be automatic grounds for disqualification:1. beginning contention-level arguments, definitions, values, burdens, or observations in Round 12. doing any refutations of the opponent's arguments in Round 2 (ex: Con cannot spend his/her Round 2 speech refuting my arguments from Round 2)3. trolling, loitering, or being disrespectful to the opponentAnd finally, a couple of expectations for the round (so long as my opponent agrees to them):1. use evidence, statistics, and examples to illustrate arguments2. follow through with impacts to arguments, clearly defining how each links back to the values and burdens stated at the beginning of the Round 2 speeches3. sign-post arguments (ex: using contentions or benefits)I will NOT make any definitions or specific arguments until the Con accepts this debate.I look forward to this debate!", "qid": "17", "docid": "ae791dd7-2019-04-18T17:53:18Z-00003-000", "rank": 49, "score": 166089.0}, {"content": "Title: Legalize Marijuana for ALL uses. Content: Marijuana should be completely legalized for medical and recreational use. Marijuana is completely safe. Marijuana is very healthy. The illegality of Marijuana and criminalization of Marijuana users is an unnecessary and harmful restriction on American culture and its citizens. I await someone to challenge these three points.", "qid": "17", "docid": "c0ff09ad-2019-04-18T20:00:02Z-00003-000", "rank": 50, "score": 165903.0}, {"content": "Title: The United States Should Legalize Marijuana for Recreational Use Content: My opinion has chaned.", "qid": "17", "docid": "bc59cf1f-2019-04-18T14:25:37Z-00002-000", "rank": 51, "score": 165790.0}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana should be legalized for recreational use Content: 1. Logic: We already have far more dangerous drugs such as Tobacco and Alcohol legalized. Did you know that it is NOT POSSIBLE to consume a marijuana overdose? It, however, IS POSSIBLE to consume a dangerous alcohol or tobacco overdose. And if those two drugs are legalized and are more dangerous, and marijuana is banned, what kind of logic is that? If marijuana is not legal then neither should be many other drugs that are far more dangerous than marijuana and are legal anyway. 2. Profit: When you buy a product, there will be a tax - we all know that. So if people are allowed to buy this substance, of course there will be a tax on it. The government will gain profit and BENEFIT from this legalization - it is a win-win for everyone!3. Choice: We all have the freedom of choice, weither it is to take a shot, smoke a cigarette, or make a huge decision. We all know that Marijuana is dangerous - we all get it, drugs are bad (and so are tobacco and alcohol); but we should let people have the CHOICE if they want to consume such substances or not. After all, we are in the United States of America; and isint FREEDOM what being an American citizen is all about?4. Prisons: Check out this data table: US Arrests As Reported By FBI UCR Program Year Total Arrests Total Drug Arrests Total Marijuana Arrests Marijuana Trafficking/Sale Arrests Marijuana Possession Arrests Total Violent Crime Arrests Total Property Crime Arrests 2012 12,196,959 1,552,432 749,825 91,593 658,231 521,196 1,646,212 2011 12,408,899 1,531,251 757,969 94,937 663,032 534,704 1,639,883 2010 13,120,947 1,638,846 853,839 103,247 750,591 552,077 1,643,962 2009 13,687,241 1,663,582 858,408 99,815 758,593 581,765 1,728,285 2008 14,005,615 1,702,537 847,863 93,640 754,224 594,911 1,687,345 2007 14,209,365 1,841,182 872,720 97,583 775,137 597,447 1,610,088 2006 14,380,370 1,889,810 829,627 90,711 738,916 611,523 1,540,297 2005 14,094,186 1,846,351 786,545 90,471 696,074 603,503 1,609,327 2004 13,938,071 1,746,570 773,731 87,329 686,402 586,558 1,644,197 2003 13,639,479 1,678,192 755,186 92,300 662,886 597,026 1,605,127 2002 13,741,438 1,538,813 697,082 83,096 613,986 620,510 1,613,954 2001 13,699,254 1,586,902 723,628 82,519 641,109 627,132 1,618,465 2000 13,980,297 1,579,566 734,497 88,455 646,042 625,132 1,620,928 1999 14,355,600 1,557,100 716,266 85,641 630,626 644,770 1,676,100 1998 14,528,300 1,559,100 682,885 84,191 598,694 675,900 1,805,600 1997 15,284,300 1,583,600 695,201 88,682 606,519 717,750 2,015,600 1996 15,168,100 1,506,200 641,642 94,891 546,751 729,900 2,045,600 1995 15,119,800 1,476,100 588,964 85,614 503,350 796,250 2,128,600 1990 14,195,100 1,089,500 326,850 66,460 260,390 705,500 2,217,800 1980 10,441,000 580,900 401,982 63,318 338,664 475,160 1,863,300 Total 1996-2012 236,438,421 28,002,034 12,318,682 1,549,101 11,427,813 10,421,804 28,750,970 - See more at: http://www.drugwarfacts.org......As you can see, many people are being arrested for possesion of marijuana which is a NONVIOLENT crime. Isint prison a place for people who commited violent crimes? Why are we putting people in jail for doing something that is only going to be harmful for themselves in the long run - and not for innocent bystanders?I rest my case for now and I am looking forward to your follow-up arguments ~ Sara :)Evidence citations:http://www.drugwarfacts.org......http://www.antiwar.com......http://whylegalizemarijuana.com......http://theweek.com......https://www.change.org......", "qid": "17", "docid": "99d62d9d-2019-04-18T14:32:36Z-00007-000", "rank": 52, "score": 165684.0}, {"content": "Title: Should recreational use of marijuana be legal in the US Content: Recreational use of marijuana should not be legalized because it leads to the use of other drugs such as cocaine, heroine, and other hard drugs. While the use of marijuana may not have adverse health effects on a person and no addictive chemicals it is as afore mentioned a gateway drug. Many people who use hard drugs started out smoking marijuana and wondered \"If i have this much fun being high on pot what could cocaine do for me?\" I understand this isn't the case for everyone who uses marijuana but it is a growing problem in the US.", "qid": "17", "docid": "8b8ff60f-2019-04-18T18:26:25Z-00004-000", "rank": 53, "score": 165645.0}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana should be legalized for recreation use Content: Hello, I am very sorry if I make any mistakes because this is the first time I've ever had a debate. I gladly except your challenge.", "qid": "17", "docid": "e833dcb-2019-04-18T14:32:54Z-00004-000", "rank": 54, "score": 165631.0}, {"content": "Title: Marjuana should be legal Content: Marijuana should be legalized for recreational use for any person over the age of 18. Weed, as its called, has been used for many purposes all through out history, even George Washington had hemp is his personal garden. Marijuana should not have been made illegal and it should not continue being illegal. I will make my main arguements in later rounds. I look forward to a good debate.", "qid": "17", "docid": "40e4b6f7-2019-04-18T19:05:22Z-00005-000", "rank": 55, "score": 165208.0}, {"content": "Title: Medical as well as recreational marijuana should be legal in all US states Content: I thank 'Dpowell' to have accepted this debate. It is true that marijuana can be very addictive to some people. Many other substances both legal and illegal can be very addictive as well. My opponent bases his arguments upon the work of Dr. Drew and he himself says that \"It is extremely addictive for some people. I think that's where people get confused. It's not very addictive for many people. It's a small subset of people with a genetic potential for addiction.\" It's like saying because some people are allergic to garlic then we should ban it everywhere. It simply does not make sense. Obviously the \"small subset of people\" have the right to get help but the many people that don\"t get addicted should not be punished with restrictions on their personal freedom and right to make their own decisions concerning their health because of a minority\"s unfortunate genetic situation. In a large-scale survey where the participants were asked about their use of drugs they found out that of those who had tried marijuana at least once about 9 percent eventually fit a diagnosis of cannabis dependence. The numbers for alcohol was 15%, cocaine 17%, heroin 23%, nicotine 32%. http://www.scientificamerican.com... The argument stating that the more marijuana an individual consumes, the greater amount this individual will need in order to achieve the \"high\" feeling, is also true for other substances if consumed frequently enough. Since 91 percent of people who have tried marijuana never get addicted and therefore wouldn\"t consume the cannabis frequently enough I would say this fact is only true for that \"small subset of people\". As the aforementioned states, I am not a fan of compromising the majority\"s freedom because of the minority. And nor is democracy. Referring to the sentence \"According to his statistics, 4.3 million out of 7.3 million, have marijuana dependence or abuse\" I must say this is directly wrong. The original source (http://edition.cnn.com...) states: \"of the 7.3 million persons aged 12 or older classified with illicit drug dependence or abuse in 2012, 4.3 million persons had marijuana dependence or abuse.\" \"Dpowell\" gives the reader the impression that 4.3 million people out of 7.3 million have marijuana abuse, which gives the impression that 58.9% of the American people has a marijuana dependence. Since this is obviously not the case I would like to stress that the original numbers indicate that out of the 7.3 million persons classified with illicit drug dependence or abuse, 4.3 million had marijuana dependence or abuse. The very important word \"classified\" clearly states that these numbers are only valid for people who officially are abusive with drugs. I might add that luckily 58.9% of those are addicted to marijuana and not worse, hard drugs like cocaine, LSD and heroin. Dr. Drew Pinsky also points out that the more legal marijuana becomes, the more people will become addicts. In a comparison of the Netherlands, Canada and the US the numbers observed from the following link states that \"the rates of cannabis use did not differ between the countries.\" http://www.drugwarfacts.org... I would like to point out that in the Netherlands where marijuana is legal, all production, trading and stocking of drugs, are still very much illegal. Which means that the young Dutch people get their marijuana from approved salesmen which I dare to say is way safer than the marijuana available to young Americans. I think we should see Amsterdam as an example. According to my opponent, \"citizens are worried about their children\" in Amsterdam. This is a very subjective statement. Some kids may have gone to school under the influence of marijuana. How many children we are talking about? I am for legalising marijuana in all states yes, but there should be restrictions in schools for kids, since it is proven that marijuana in some cases damage children\"s brains. Amsterdam also banned the smoking of marijuana in schools in 2012. Let us learn from Amsterdam and legalise marijuana but ban it from kindergardens and primary schools. Just like many US states already have done with regular tobacco smoking. Looking at the statement \"crime has began to center around schools, crime has increased around these shops, especially the human sex trade.\" I would like to point out that this information comes from a website called \"rightwingnews.com\". I do not believe this is a very reliable source since they do not link to the sources their statements are based on. I also believe that the crime in the US related to illicit marijuana is on a much bigger scale than that of the Netherlands. My opponent claims that marijuana is in very bad for your health and can damage your intelligence. That may be true but so can alcohol. And the important thing to remember is that it depends 100% on how much, how often and how you use marijuana. Smoking cannabis is more dangerous for your health than eating cannabis. Again considering the 91% that don\"t get addicted, I believe they are out of the danger zone when it comes to permanent intelligence-damage https://www.leafly.com... Marijuana can be beneficial to people who suffer from schizophrenia. I believe that if you were to directly get this illness from cannabis consumption it would only happen for people who are abusers. It clearly doesn't happen to the majority and of course some people will experience side effects, like with any other medicin or substance. In relation to the statement about \"real life pot heads\" I would like to see some statistics as to how many marijuana users have \"flunked out of school, lost their jobs, lost the people they love and became frustrated due to concentration difficulties\". And a definiton of when exactly one can label another as a \"pot head\". I would like to point out that the top three causes of car accidents here in America, not Australia, is drunk driving, speeding and distracted driving. Not marijuana usage.http://www.drivers.com... As for the quality of America\"s work force I don\"t see any proof that the work force of a nation will decrease due to legalization. No matter what, a person has to have a job in order to make a living. I think most people are aware of that fact and if you end up not doing your work properly due to marijuana then that would be defined as an abuse, which only 9% of people who have tried marijuana end up with. Since this nation needs jobs, it is obvious that if you can\"t do your job then there will be another dutiful American citizen who will be more than happy to take over. As for marijuana being damaging for the environment, I would love to see the scientific proof of animals near \"pot farms\" directly of cannabis farming. The agriculture uses pesticides and chemicals as well. So how come you are not dead (I assume you don\"t eat 100% organic)? Since there are pesticides and chemicals in almost all the food we eat? Please back up your very radical statements like \"This will cause more deaths as the chemicals will make us very sick and kill us\" with scientific research and evidence. As for the conclusion: It is without sufficient scientific research that my opponent states \"marijuana destroys economies\" and \"it has wrecked an entire country and their children\". Please define how the Netherlands is a wrecked country? When the Netherlands ranks better in education than the US, when the Netherlands tops health care rankings with the US not even on the list of the top 15. http://www.telegraph.co.uk... http://www.theguardian.com... Thank you.", "qid": "17", "docid": "711b9599-2019-04-18T13:44:23Z-00003-000", "rank": 56, "score": 165075.0}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana Should be Legalized for Recreational Use Content: This debate will be over the topic of Marijuana legalization. I will be taking the Pro position, meaning I am arguing in favor of the resolution. DefinitionsLegalized - To be made legal. To not be restricted by law. Recreational - relating to or denoting activity done for enjoyment when one is not working. RulesForfeit results in an automatic loss. No semantics. Standard conduct applies.", "qid": "17", "docid": "4ac9891f-2019-04-18T17:10:18Z-00005-000", "rank": 57, "score": 164881.0}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana should be legalized for medical and recreational use. Content: I will be arguing that marijuana, not necessarily in it's smokeable form should be legal for persons over a yet to be determined age(18-21) for medical and recreational use. Con will argue that it shouldn't be legalized for any age in any form, for any reason. Any source can be used until that source has been proven false or unreliable. Please respect your opponent. Debate can be informal. Con may begin with his or her argument in the first round or accept. Any further rules must be discussed and agreed upon in the comments section. Thank you and good luck.", "qid": "17", "docid": "dc68ec3e-2019-04-18T13:40:55Z-00004-000", "rank": 58, "score": 164849.0}, {"content": "Title: The United States Should Legalize Marijuana for Recreational Use Content: Pass.", "qid": "17", "docid": "bc59cf1f-2019-04-18T14:25:37Z-00000-000", "rank": 59, "score": 164843.0}, {"content": "Title: Smoking weed should be legalized in all of America. Content: \"It is far harder to take something away from people, then to keep to from them in the first place. Take sweets for instance, if you never give a child sweets, they don't expect them. If you suddenly stop giving a child sweets, they will make a scene.\" Yes, and that's exactly why the government shouldn't ban neither tobacco nor alcohol. You have already stated the negative effects of recreational marijuana, but you have not yet acknowledged the benefits of it, such as the examples listed in my last argument. Since smoking weed has several benefits and fewer risks, the product itself is more beneficial to society and the economy than it is harmful; meaning it would actually better our country more than worsen it. If anything, weed should replace tobacco entirely for these reasons. https://www.alternet.org... https://www.huffingtonpost.com... \"For the majority of people, it does no good.\" How do you know this for sure; where is your evidence? Ultimately, recreational marijuana is more beneficial to society and the economy than it is harmful, therefore it should be legalized and also replace tobacco. By the way, weed has also been a normal part of our culture for a long period of time too, it just hasn't been legal. https://en.wikipedia.org... I would like to see you acknowledge the benefits of recreational marijuana in your next argument, Con.", "qid": "17", "docid": "eec21427-2019-04-18T11:48:32Z-00005-000", "rank": 60, "score": 164719.0}, {"content": "Title: Recreational drugs should be banned in all states. Content: Recreational drugs such as cannabis are harmful to everyone involved, including those who know the people taking it. They do no help to society and should be banned.", "qid": "17", "docid": "f3bf05d1-2019-04-18T15:47:20Z-00002-000", "rank": 61, "score": 164702.0}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana Should be Legalized for Recreational Use Content: Introduction Thank you for your response. My opponent broke his arguments down into different sections, all to which I will respond to individually. I would like to urgently point out that my opponent didn\u2019t even attempt to respond to my entire argument on personal choice, which in essence is the most important argument of this debate because if my opponent cannot show that Marijuana should be legalized despite it being a personal choice that does not inherently, negatively affect society as a whole, then he loses this debate. Since this is the last round my opponent has already dropped the argument. Marijuana Is Harmful and Addictive This argument is the most logically unstable argument of them all, for my opponent attempts to argue that humans should not be allowed to do dangerous things. My opponent goes on about all the negative affects marijuana has on users, and that many users do not tend to know the full affects marijuana may have on their system. The Argument from Individual Choice All humans have a right, granted through their basic human dignity, to make any choice that inherently affects themselves, even if that decision is dangerous. To not grant humans this right is to erode the basic human dignity we are born with, and to also erode are freedoms as individual beings. Not allowing a human to make a choice that inherently affects themselves, no matter how dangerous, is to take control of their lives, and to restrain them. The government\u2019s job is to make a society that has a balance of individual freedom, allowing our human dignity to be respected, while allowing the society as a whole to be prosperous. Since marijuana inherently only affects the individual taking it of their own free will, it should therefore not be illegal. In addition to this, the government should not punish others because some are unaware of the dangers of marijuana. It is of their own decision to not study the effects it could have on their body. Legalizing marijuana would very likely increase the number of abusers manifold My opponent argues that the legalization would increase the number of abusers of marijuana. The problem with this argument is that even though the legalization of marijuana may increase the number of abusers, it is still of the individual freedom of these citizens that they choose to make a decision that inherently affects their own bodies, whether harmful or not. Once again, it is up to humans to know and be aware of what they are doing. It is not the government\u2019s job to erode the personal choice humans have, whether harmful or not. Argument from History My opponent gives a story on a past Chinese addiction to Opium, destroying the society. This can\u2019t even compare to marijuana legalization. Far too many questions arise, such as but not limited to: Did the government regulate this drug at all? How easy was it to get the drug? How addictive was this drug? Did the under-development of the science behind drugs attribute to this? How was the economy already? What other variables may have attributed to this? Then obviously, the biggest one of all: In the story it says the entire working class had basically been destroyed, therefore attributing to the downfall of China. This would make the bare assertion that if marijuana were to be legalized then the entire working class of America would too, be destroyed. This assertion is unrealistic. The Argument from Choice To blame the choices that individuals who use drugs make on the drugs, would be to give a man a free pass from being responsible for his own actions, for you are ultimately blaming his actions on the drug rather this man\u2019s own personal choice to either take the drug, or make the decision the individual made while on the drug. \u201cIf an individual choice is the act of selecting an option from two or more possibilities, then because one may choose to use drugs or not to use drugs, drug use is an individual choice. However, if the choice to use drugs or not to use drugs is subject to external coercion by the force of law, then legislation and the legislature that passed it are constraining individual choice. By constraining individual choice, human dignity is the opportunity cost of the rule of law as the individual is coercively acted upon by the law maker. - drug use is an individual choice in which the agent making the choice is the subject acted upon and the only subject acted upon, the decision to use or not to use drugs is an individual\u2019s right to make for themselves. \u201d - YYW My opponent presented some other arguments such as how many people are unaware of the harmful effects of marijuana, but I have already addressed the other point my opponent made. Conclusion My opponent\u2019s key arguments seem to be that since marijuana has the potential to negatively affect the society, it should therefore be illegal. This reasoning is not sound, for many things have the potential to be dangerous, yet are not illegal for they are not inherently dangerous. Since marijuana is not inherently dangerous, it should therefore not be illegal.", "qid": "17", "docid": "4ac9891f-2019-04-18T17:10:18Z-00001-000", "rank": 62, "score": 164638.0}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana Should be Legalized for Recreational Use Content: Our younger society has developed a sub-culture of what \"cool\" is. This involves the use of drugs, sex, and other unhealthy activities that have developed a large niche in school systems, especially those attempting to show a sense of \"cool.\" If marijuana were to be largely legalized, the accessibility of cannabis would hugely increase for these kids.", "qid": "17", "docid": "4ac9893e-2019-04-18T16:40:07Z-00004-000", "rank": 63, "score": 164562.0}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana Should be Legalized for Recreational Use Content: The regulation and restriction of recreational marijuana is justified. Marijuana will provide more harm than benefit to our society. My contentions: -Marijuana is harmful and addictive -Legalizing marijuana would very likely increase the number of abusers manifold. -The likely effects of marijuana abuse on society can be easily gauged by measuring the harm produced by a similar but legal and widely advertised drug: tobacco -Can drugs destroy an economic powerhouse such as the U. S. ? Yes. It has done so before, and it can do so again -A large proportion of marijuana users are unconscious of marijuana's risks, therefore their decision to use or abuse it is mostly uninformed Marijuana is an addictive and, contrary to my opponent's belief, does pose a legitimate and serious threat to the smoker's health. In addition to the apparent harms effected on the respiratory system (due to it being generally smoked), marijuana \"impairs short-term memory and motor coordination; slows reaction time; alters mood, judgment, and decision-making; and in some people can cause severe anxiety (paranoia) or psychosis (loss of touch with reality). \" [1] Marijuana abuse severely detriments the abuser's abilities to effectively work or reason. Marijuana is also an addictive. Despite these facts, the general perceptional trend among youths is that marijuana is a 'safe drug'[2], leading to an increase in its illicit use among youth demographics. According to the Newport Academy, a reputed teen drug-abuse treatment center, the common myths held true by illicit abusers are that marijuana isn't addictive, marijuana is natural therefore harmless, marijuana doesn't cause any problems, and marijuana doesn't make you lose control[3]. These all point to one general and very wrong perception: marijuana is harmless. Does my opponent believe that, when marijuana is legalized, marijuana-selling companies will clarify marijuana's risks? Even tobacco companies don't do this in its multimillion dollar advertising campaigns. What makes you think marijuana companies will? Something often said by marijuana proponents is: Why in the world is marijuana illegal, but tobacco isn't? Tobacco products pose much greater impairments to health and are much more lethal in terms of mortality. So why is marijuana illegal? Let us go back 300 years to 18th century China, which had prospered as the wealthiest and most powerful economic unit from the 14th to early 18th century (due to the immense quantity and unique quality of silver and silk within). By the mid-late 18th century, China had deteriorated to a state rife with corruption. Its productivity had taken a massive dive from what it had been decades before, and it was losing massive quantities of silver to the English and other European nations. The cause of this economic and societal deterioration was indisputably opium. Millions either stopped working or were only able to churn out a fraction of the productivity they were capable of prior to smoking opium. The emperor eventually became aware of the nation's opium, it's detrimental effects and inescapable addiction. Opium was decreed unconditionally illegal. The ban was implemented much too late. Officials ignored the law, accepting bribes to help facilitate the black market opium trade. Most of these officials were themselves Opium addicts. The rest is history. By the late 19th century, China had become so weak that when Japan first began its invasions that the world's nations, which had assumed China to be able to easily fend off the Japanese, balked at China's unexpected crushing defeat. This is the reason marijuana is illegal and tobacco is not. Although it doesn't kill people as tobacco does, marijuana, like opium and other illegal substances, directly affect the brain, destroying most addicts' ability to work, to reason, etc. Millions of potential doctors, lawyers, workers, and entrepreneurs will be lost to marijuana abuse and addiction. Consider the following excerpt: \"Research clearly demonstrates that marijuana has the potential to cause problems in daily life or make a person's existing problems worse. In fact, heavy marijuana users generally report lower life satisfaction, poorer mental and physical health, relationship problems, and less academic and career success compared to their peers who came from similar backgrounds. For example, marijuana use is associated with a higher likelihood of dropping out from school. Several studies also associate workers' marijuana smoking with increased absences, tardiness, accidents, workers' compensation claims, and job turnover. \"[6] The effect of marijuana on productivity and motor/brain functions is VERY real. Imagine marijuana smoking on a scale greater than that of tobacco (43.8million smokers nationwide with 78% of these who smoke everyday[5]). Despite the fact that tobacco companies spend billions on advertisements, the number of illicit marijuana smokers still far exceeds the number of tobacco smokers (Over 83 million Americans [7] over the age of 12). Imagine if we were to legalize marijuana. Marijuana will destroy our economy, affecting more than just the health of the millions of hemp-users, but also the lives of the nation's residents. In fact, due to marijuana's very low mortality rate, we can expect tobacco users to even switch to marijuana, thereby destroying their brains, their motor functions, and their productivity. [1]. http://www.drugabuse.gov... [2]. http://www.drugabuse.gov... [3]newportacademy. com/marijuana-rehab/abuse-myths/ [4]. http://www.drugabuse.gov... [5]. http://www.cdc.gov... [6]. http://www.drugabuse.gov... [7]. http://parentingteens.about.com...", "qid": "17", "docid": "4ac9891f-2019-04-18T17:10:18Z-00002-000", "rank": 64, "score": 164560.0}, {"content": "Title: AAN: Marijuana should be legalized recreationally. Content: I am not really supposed to reply to Pro\u2019s rebuttals this round but I would like to begin by saying I don\u2019t think Pro understood my argument. The reason I went to great depth to explain the legal history of drug control is because marijuana (recreational or medical) is a drug and as all, drugs need to be proven \u201csafe and effective\u201d before it can be sold in any form to the public. My rationalized argument is at the end. The whole first half are facts to establish my argument. Moving on I would like to point out the flaws in Pro\u2019s sources and argument. C1) Marijuana's impact on users and those around them: Source 1 and 2 \u2013 Marijuana and psychotic symptoms: The trial groups were: \u201cMen and women age 18\u201350 years who had a diagnosis of schizophrenia or schizophreniform psychosis according to the DSM-IV criteria were eligible for the study.\u201d [1] The second source is titled \u201cMedical Marijuana for Psychiatric Disorders\u201d also focuses on those with psychiatric disorders. So medical marijuana helps those with schizophrenia and other disorders\u2026. Our conversation is on recreational marijuana, as you pointed out. Source 3 - Marijuana and mental degradation: I would like to point out that the source is over 10 years old and references 15 studies not linked to the article. Studies more recently have shown differences in brain development though it has not impact on the performance of the brain has not been proven. Referring to my source, linked as [9], the brain development changes were found in the reward system of the brain. I will also link my previous sources showed that rats have been shown to have increased cell loss due to the chemicals in marijuana. Marijuana effects on the brain are disputed and its positive effects are for a small part of the population with mental disorders. Source 4 \u2013 Never Linked Source 5 \u2013 Marijuana instead of tobacco: First, not proven is marijuana smoke is better than tobacco smoke. They contain similar tars and cancer causing chemicals. (Refer to my argument). Without having shown that marijuana smoke is less harmful than tobacco smoke, switching has no positive benefit. Also it is only preliminary findings with a very small sample size of 12 in each group. Even with the small sample size, it was only shown that smokers smoked less after one week when being exposed to cannabis smoke instead of a placebo. This source has very little data and a small sample size. This source is unreliable and switching smokes has not been shown to have any benefits. Source 6 \u2013 Effects on Bystanders: I find this source interesting because it does show odd benefit of marijuana legalization. However I would like to quote the source \u201cResearch on stoned driving is inconsistent, with some studies finding impairment and others not\u201d. [5] Unnecessary arrest: This portion is irrelevant and only appeals to pathos. \u201cUnnecessary arrests\u201d is actually a false statement. Marijuana is illegal, and proving people are being arrested for drugs and being charged according to the possession of drugs does not support drug legalization. The laws are not \u201cinjustice\u201d and have been approved by the legislative of the people and the Supreme Court. Money and the Economy This point (people always use it) shows a lack of understanding of the economy and the Constitution. Disposable income will be spent either through one means or another. Colorado has seen a massive increase in tourism, which helps its economy [6]. Anyways it economic growth is similar to other states like Texas, showing no performance increase due to marijuana [7] [8]. Source 9 implies that instead of sending people to jail we can tax them. Avoiding a Slippery Slope fallacy, legalizing actions so they can be taxed is morally wrong and would be unconstitutional because the legalized actions are not for the benefit of the people even if the government generates tax revenue. Safer Cannabis: Thank you for supporting my argument. As with every drug, once marijuana was possibly approved by the FDA after medical researching that showed it was \u201csafe and effective\u201d it would be regulated to be not contaminated. Also like every drug, marijuana needs to be shown to be \u201csafe and effective\u201d before being sold to the public. So it should not be sold. Conclusion: Marijuana has not been shown to be a \u201csafe and effective\u201d drug to be sold to the public either recreationally or medically. Any study showing its safe has another study saying it is unsafe. Until medical research proves that it has no negative effects, it should not be sold to the public. Pro\u2019s quotes I quoted: [1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [2] http://www.psychologytoday.com... [3] http://www.webmd.com... [4] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [5] http://healthland.time.com... New quotes by me: [6] http://www.denverpost.com... [7] http://en.wikipedia.org... [8] http://en.wikipedia.org... [9] http://www.sfn.org...", "qid": "17", "docid": "823c879a-2019-04-18T15:56:06Z-00002-000", "rank": 65, "score": 164540.0}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana should be legalized for recreational use Content: Thank you. It's true that this subject is a matter of opinion, as many debates are; however, I would like to bring some scientific reasoning and research in the negative effects of recreational marijuana use to the table. 1. Marijuana, or cannabis, is a drug known by many to bring about feelings of relaxation and freedom from troubles. While this may be beneficial for medicinal use, the legalization of this drug can have drastic effects, both short-term and long-term, on the population of our society. While some of these issues may seem manageable, the detrimental influence they have on the life of a person as a whole are too great for the national government to overlook. Some of the physical effects of marijuana are listed below. Short term effects: - Distortion of the senses - Impaired short-term memory - Panic and anxiety attacks and feelings of paranoia - Poor coordination and reduced reaction time - Increased risk of cardiac problems due to increasing of heart rate - Irritation of the throat and lungs - Overall impaired sense of judgment Long term effects: - Increased susceptibility to illnesses which could prove to be fatal - High risk of developing a form of mental illness, including but not limited to depression, schizophrenia, and psychosis - Strongly reduces libido and the production of sex hormones, thus decreasing the ability to conceive - Overall reduced motivation and impaired ability to focus on, organize, and learn/retain information - Destruction of lung fibers and the formation of lesions on the brain - Growth disorders of the user or fetus inside a pregnant female user I again emphasize that, although these symptoms of marijuana use may appear to be tolerable to some users, frequent use of the drug poses immense risks to each individual user. While use of marijuana will not lead to overdose or direct death, the consequences of using this drug can pose serious threats to the lives of users and others. 2. Among these threats is the unfortunate destruction of an individual's capacity to learn. Whether in school or on the job, learning is an integral part of life that helps to ensure our well-roundedness. Though the government may appreciate increased revenue due to a tax on marijuana sales, it would be unfortunate for the investment it puts into public education to go to waste due to ineffectiveness in marijuana users. This is not to say that every student who attends a public institution uses or will use marijuana; however, with its legalization, the increased access to it could be tempting for curious teens to experiment with. These teens will become the adults of tomorrow, the leaders who set an example for future generations; should many lack the motivation to create a better world, it is not only the individual users but society as a whole that will be affected by their choices. In addition, in the workforce, oftentimes new regulations, processes, etc. are implemented that must be known and carried out in order to complete work appropriately and successfully. Should a frequent cannabis user arrive at work unable to comprehend/carry out these new implementations, depending upon the type of work, this could pose dangers for the clientele and coworkers, or the user him/herself, who could be laid off. This on a grander scale, as a result, would lead to a potential increase in the national unemployment rate, an event that the government would not like to see happen. A point to note: imagine you are in need of a crucial surgery and decide to have the operation done by a trusted, licensed surgeon. What if the surgeon went outside smoke some weed during the day and eventually returned to complete your surgery high and uncoordinated? Although this is a very specific situation, the moral behind this example can be applied in many a situation. 3. Although addiction to marijuana is not as common as is for other drugs (say, heroin or nicotine), it can not be deemed impossible. According to a 2013 study by the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, marijuana use accounted for an approximate 4.2 million of the estimated 6.9 million cases of drug dependency in the United States. So even if you, your buddies, or any other cannabis user you know has never been addicted, these statistics show irrefutable evidence that addiction has a likeliness to occur. And it is true that other such harmful drugs such as nicotine and alcohol are legally sold and can benefit the economy, among all other products that are sold for economic profit. However, it is not unheard of for dependency on these drugs to lead users astray, which in some cases can lead to the destruction of relationships and loss of self-worth and happiness. It is human nature to look out for those close to us, and seeing what may occur as a result of using this substance, it is sensible for the government to want to protect its people from any impending harm. 4. Finally, as a part of my introductory argument, I believe that as Americans, we do have the right to choose what becomes of ourselves and what we believe is right and wrong. As a result, I accept all opinions and arguments from either side of this debate. I would just like to note that one of the main reasons our national government has prohibited legal marijuana use for all this time has been because it, in this sense, cares about the health and well-being of our people, as aforementioned. Although there are many citizens who could use marijuana responsibly and/or be lucky enough to suffer from no ill effects (the odds of which are not likely), there runs a great risk in legalizing a substance such as this which poses such consequences to the health, well-being, and character of the people and, as a result, the structure of our society - it is our choices today that influence the world tomorrow. I too look forward to the rest of this debate. Again, I respect any and all opinions and do not mean to offend anyone with my views or presented data from trustworthy sources. Thanks! Citations: http://www.brown.edu... http://www.drugfreeworld.org... http://www.drugabuse.gov... http://www.drugabuse.gov... http://townhall.com... http://www.pewresearch.org...", "qid": "17", "docid": "99d62d9d-2019-04-18T14:32:36Z-00006-000", "rank": 66, "score": 164473.0}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana should be legalized for medical and recreational use. Content: You can point out all you want, but the comparison is valid. Both are considered recreational drugs. Marijuana is all natural, and helps with many ailments. It has been prescribed and freely ingested for hundreds of years or more. Not one death has been fully attributed to it at all. http://freecannabis.net... Prohibition of marijuana is comparable to that of alcohol in the early part of 1900s. People are going to do it, regardless of legality, if marijuana was legally available as an option other than alcohol, you would be essentially saving those lives from liver disease, alcoholism, and other short or long term effects of alcohol, in exchange for some slight memory loss, (which is why smart phones come in handy) good sleep, and a surge in sales at local cookie factories. For those states that have yet to legalize, the marijuana market belongs mainly to drug sellers that sell far worse chemicals along with it. Looking at Colorado, where it has become legal, crime rates have dropped, and jobs have been created. Since the first retail marijuana stores opened on January 1st, 2014, the state of Colorado has benefitted from a decrease in crime rates, a decrease in traffic fatalities, an increase in tax revenue and economic output from retail marijuana sales, and an increase in jobs. http://www.mintpressnews.com... Farmers are finally making a decent living now. Taxation of marijuana has helped build schools, and more. The age requirement helps keep the plant out of underage hands, when drug dealers have no age requirements, and young customers may be tempted to buy more dangerous drugs. The money from these deals usually go to buy guns, etc. Cartels get a lot of business from the black market, which is unavoidable due to the increase in useage, so keeping the sale illegal is ideal to them. The prison industry also gains plenty from prohibition of marijuana, because most people don't want to quit using, regardless of legality, resulting in overcrowded prison populations, most for as little as a single cannabis cigarette. It is for this reason America has the highest percentage of incarcerated people's in the world. Smoking the plant, while far less dangerous than cigarettes, provide the easiest, quickest release of thc, but with legalization, comes more innovative, safer techniques for intake, such as edibles and vaping. http://www.iflscience.com...https://en.m.wikipedia.org... Big pharmacy, which accounts for very serious side effects, will also take a paycut with the legalization of marijuana, which I'd like to point out to our voters you have dropped. Over half of American adults have at least tried marijuana. Over half of Americans at least think it's a good idea to legalize it. It's a creation of nature that has harmless side effects in most people, and to those who feel it dangerous, or decide they would like to keep their short term memory, only need to stay away from the plant. Did you know that the USFG prescribed a few people(and still supply to this day) several marijuana cigarettes every day? They know it has medical significance, even admitting that cannabis cures cancer in question 6 of the q&a section of the .gov link below, which is hypocritical.http://www.cbsnews.com...http://www.cancer.gov...Doctors, lawyers, and business owners like myself smoke cannabis on a daily basis. While it's best done in privacy to unwind. Most of America thinks it's a good thing, it makes most people happy with very little dangers, if any. Notice how many time my opponent uses words like \"may\" or \"could\" and saying they don't know the long-term effects. We've been using this God given plant for centuries, is it possible that there are no long term effects? If you are scared of it, don't use it. Simple as that, but prohibition is not working right now, and we should learn from the areas that have legalized it, and move forward. Many states would have already done so I'm my opinion, if it weren't for the USFG. The government has a shortage of hackers, some of the smartest men and women on the planet in my honest opinion, because none of the best ones can pass a urinalysis for cannabis. So much for that whole brain killing argument.http://motherboard.vice.com... http://www.wsj.com...", "qid": "17", "docid": "dc68ec3e-2019-04-18T13:40:55Z-00000-000", "rank": 67, "score": 164404.0}, {"content": "Title: In most countries where there is an acceptance of the medical value of cannabis it is fairly easily available, this would simply condone its recreational use Content: At a time when governments, along with health professionals, are trying to restrict the use of legal drugs such as alcohol and nicotine, giving the use of cannabis the sanction of government approval would take health policy in a direction that most people do not wish to contemplate. Effectively, such a change in policy would announce, \u2018We\u2019d rather you didn\u2019t drink or smoke but it\u2019s okay to get high\u2019. In most nations where this discussion is even happening the personal use of mild narcotics is ignored by law enforcement. However, legalizing the use of drugs in any way says to the world at large, \u2018this isn\u2019t a problem, do what you like\u2019. The production of drugs ruins lives and communities. Any attempt to fully legalise marijuana for medical use would only be effective in western liberal democracies. There is a high probability that it would incentivise increased production of the drug in states where it remains illegal. For the reasons given above, legitimatizing cannabis\u2019 use as a medicine would increase or entrench its use as a recreational drug Restrictions on cannabis production would place the market under the control of criminal gangs. As a result, cannabis growing would continue to be defined by organized violence, corruption, smuggling and adulteration of the drug itself. Legitimatising cannabis use via state legislation ignores and conceals the human suffering caused by the production of drugs in both developed and developing states. . Moreover, many organized crime networks prefer to grow and sell cannabis over other, more strictly regulated drugs. It remains highly likely that the legal market for cannabis that the state proposes to create would become a target for organisations attempting to launder the proceeds of crime, or pass off tainted marijuana as medical grade forms of the drug.", "qid": "17", "docid": "fc44452e-2019-04-15T20:22:42Z-00013-000", "rank": 68, "score": 164391.0}, {"content": "Title: Cannabis Legalization in the United States (Medical and Recreational Uses) Content: In my opinion, cannabis or marijuana should be legalized in the United States. I believe that it would have many useful medical, as well as recreational purposes. If the proper laws are instituted, cannabis legalization would prove very useful in the United States.", "qid": "17", "docid": "bc00ee1b-2019-04-18T13:20:24Z-00003-000", "rank": 69, "score": 164347.0}, {"content": "Title: Recreational Marijuana Should Be Legal Content: I do not think recreational marijuana should be made legal, this is because of a multitude of reasons for which I believe the cons outweigh the pros. I look forward to this debate.", "qid": "17", "docid": "2a5141f4-2019-04-18T12:43:08Z-00001-000", "rank": 70, "score": 164345.0}, {"content": "Title: The United States Should Legalize Marijuana for Recreational Use Content: R1: AcceptanceR2: Opening Arguments (no rebuttals)R3: RebuttalsR4: Defense & Conclusion (no new arguments)Definitions:Marijuana: cannabis, especially as smoked in cigarettesLegalize: make (something that was previously illegal) permissible by law.Recreational Use: used without medical justification for its psychoactive effects", "qid": "17", "docid": "bc59cf1f-2019-04-18T14:25:37Z-00007-000", "rank": 71, "score": 164330.0}, {"content": "Title: The United States Should Legalize Marijuana for Recreational Use Content: I accept.", "qid": "17", "docid": "bc59cf1f-2019-04-18T14:25:37Z-00006-000", "rank": 72, "score": 164152.0}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana should be legalized for both Medicinal and Recreational use Content: Hello, and thanks to Pro for giving me the opportunity to debate this important issue. I will begin by stating my contention. Growing marijuana, possessing marijuana, and using marijuana for recreational use (medical marijuana should be legal) should remain illegal, but the penalties for each of these violations should be altered drastically. This is a much more reasonable policy than full legalization. I would like to begin by stating that I agree entirely and will not attempt to refute many of the claims I anticipate that my opponent will make. I agree that marijuana has been proven to be an effective treatment for pain, that THC has been adequately proven not to have a direct adverse effect on the human body, and that the United States' policy on drugs is completely ineffective and has made no progress whatsoever towards their goal. If my opponent would like to present any other traditional arguments against the illegality of marijuana, chances are quite high that I will agree with them. However, Pro should not be disinclined to present them - just know that we are probably on the same page on 90% of issues concerning marijuana. I will now give overviews of how laws concerning marijuana should be changed, and the reasoning behind why it should not be fully legalized. I will not extensively cite sources, as this is an overview of my position - I will use hard data more extensively in later rounds, after I see what my parts of my argument my opponent chooses to combat. First, the so-called \"War on Drugs\" has been proven to be completely ineffective by both marijuana advocacy groups and neutral government research. Those who still agree with our current policies, which incarcerate thousands of people each year on non-violent offenses and cost the tax-payer absurd sums of money, are very few and far between. Instead, fines and other violation level punishments should be enacted to control and discourage the recreational use of marijuana. Why should marijuana not be fully legalized? There are several reasons. 1. The fact of the matter is, while THC itself is not a harmful substance, there are still negative health effects associated with the smoking of marijuana. It is reasonable to assume that if marijuana were legalized, marijuana cigarettes would begin to be sold in stores. As such, people would purchase and smoke these cigarettes. Some studies have found that, while 'joints' do not directly cause lung cancer or emphysema, they do have some negative effects on both the lungs and the brain. 2. Additionally, THC is an intoxicant. Anecdotal arguments are made quite often to suggest that marijuana use does not effect driving ability. However, this is absurd, as marijuana is a psychoactive chemical which has numerous effects on the brain and has drastically different effects which depend entirely on the user. Drunk driving is currently responsible for a great number of car accidents in the United States. While it is a fact that people use marijuana regardless of whether or not it is legal, and drive under the influence, I do not believe that legalizing it would have any positive effect in terms of curbing 'high driving'. Instead, methods for road-testing suspected drivers under the influence of marijuana should be developed, testing technology should be implemented by police departments, and laws should be changed to punish high drivers in the same way that drunk drivers are punished. 3. If legalized, marijuana would being to be mass-produced and large companies would soon dominate the market. Today's massive tobacco companies are very rich, and as such, have powerful lobbyists that make it very difficult to change laws concerning the distribution and marketing of cigarettes. It took years just to legally force tobacco companies to display warnings on their packets, and to change advertising methods to stop targeting children. There is no reason to assume that marijuana companies would enter the market with the public's good intentions at heart. Instead, the same types of money-mongers who capitalize on the public's urge to drink and smoke would presumably take control of the market and gain similar deceitful legal power. There is currently little control over the dangerous pesticides and chemical additives in tobacco cigarettes - again, there is no reason to assume these large marijuana companies would treat their crops and products with a similar disregard for their consumers' safety due to mass-production and distribution. 4. While it is true that marijuana smuggling is responsible for a great number of unnecessary casualties of drug wars in Mexico, marijuana is by no means the only drug these black market cartels are responsible for. While legalizing marijuana would certainly decrease gang activity dealing with that particular drug, it would simply shift their focus to other drugs or illicit activities. It would take full across-the-board legalization of all drugs to effectively end these deadly battles, and that is not the resolution. 5. The culture of intoxicant use in America has a long history, and while views have shifted over the years, there is still a general attitude of reverence towards legal intoxicants, especially alcohol. The simple fact is that legalizing marijuana would cast it in a more favorable light. While alcohol is known to have detrimental effects on the human body, the fact that this is generally recognized does not diminish the drinking culture that is promoted in films and on college campuses nationwide. The fact that alcohol is legal means it is generally permitted, and endorsing yet another intoxicant does not seem productive. 6. Legalizing marijuana would mean that it would be easier to obtain. While those that seek it are able to find it, it is still more difficult and risky than simply walking into a store and purchasing it. This would mean that underage (if, as should be presumed, there was an age law associated with marijuana) people would also be able to obtain it more easily, and marijuana IS proven to have a negative effect on the developing brain. Combining the above reasons, among others, I do not support the legalization of recreational marijuana use. A pre-negation: the argument that marijuana should be illegal because alcohol is illegal is not valid. If brought, I will explain why. If not contested my opponent excepts the validity of this statement. I look forward to my opponent's argument! I have a feeling we are going to agree on a lot, but there are going to be key differences. Thanks again for allowing me the opportunity to debate this issue, and I look forward to a productive, illuminating debate.", "qid": "17", "docid": "c0722593-2019-04-18T19:00:13Z-00004-000", "rank": 73, "score": 163863.0}, {"content": "Title: Cannabis should be legalized Content: \"Cannabis, commonly known as marijuana, and by numerous other names is a preparation of the cannabis plant intended for use as a psychoactive drug and as medicine.\" This is my definition of Cannabis, or what we will be calling it; Marijuana. I will be arguing Marijuana should not only be legalized medically but for recreation purposes as well. We are not talking about legalization in a specific country, just legalization period. The rules are as follows: 1st round: Acceptance 2nd round: 1st argument (1 point only!) 3rd round: 2nd argument (2 points only!) 4th round: Rebuttal We will be only doing rebuttals in the fourth round. Good luck my friend DarthKirones", "qid": "17", "docid": "b4affe28-2019-04-18T16:19:46Z-00007-000", "rank": 74, "score": 163772.0}, {"content": "Title: Recreational Marijuana should be legal Content: This is my first time soooo, whatever, lets begin. There is a lot of evidence that some of the compounds in the cannabis plant, which is where marijuana comes from, can help people with certain illnesses. But for healthy people, using marijuana causes a number of bad side effects and negative health consequences. Short term marijuana effects include: Sleepiness and depression, an increased heart rate (which can cause a heart attack, anxiety and panic), and delayed reaction times. Long term marijuana effects include: Over the long-term the drug suppresses the immune system, causes growth disorders, lack of motivation and lung damage, changes mood and personality and lowers libido.", "qid": "17", "docid": "554979f3-2019-04-18T11:41:38Z-00000-000", "rank": 75, "score": 163765.0}, {"content": "Title: AAN: Marijuana should be legalized recreationally. Content: IntroductionThe goal of the government should be to benefit the common good, while preserving the free will of its citizens. My goal will be to prove that marijuana prohibition works against the common good and takes away free will from citizens, thus, it should be legalized. C1) Marijuana's impact on user and those around user:A) User's Mental HealthMarijuana can help rather than harm mental health. Cannabidiol (a substance found in cannabis) is known to contain anti-psychotic properties (1). Many people use marijuana to help with anxiety, as it has a calming effect. Depression is also known to be decreased among those who use cannabis. Jeremy Spiegel M.D. (from Psychology Today) explains, \u201cIn a medical journal Addictive Behaviours, researchers compiled data from over four thousand questionnaires of depressed patients and marijuana users, and determined that those who smoked daily or even less often, also reported less depressed mood and more positive affect than non users (2).\u201d There have been some studies that note a correlation between marijuana smokers and depression/anxiety. However, it is important to remember that correlation is not causation. If my con wishes to use this point, he must explain exactly how Marijuana results in depression/anxiety. Another common myth is that marijuana kills brain cells. WebMD explains, \u201cLong-term and even daily marijuana use doesn't appear to cause permanent brain damage, adding to evidence that it can be a safe and effective treatment for a wide range of diseases, say researchers.\u201d My source continues, \u201cscores on thinking tests were similar to those who don't smoke marijuana, according to a new analysis of 15 previous studies (3).\u201d Through this evidence, I have shown that marijuana does not impair mental health and actually has the chance of positively impacting it.B) User's HealthIt has been proven that smoking marijuana is not as harmful to the lungs as smoking cigarettes, in some cases, smoking marijuana has increased lung capacity (4). Although, I will concede that cannabis isn\u2019t exactly \u201cgood\u201d for one\u2019s lungs, the effects are much less severe than one would expect. The way that marijuana legalization can positively impact physical health is rather simple. Cannabidiol (mentioned earlier) aids smokers who wish to stop smoking. An experiment was done, and smokers who were given inhalers with cannabidiol decreased smoking by 40% by the end of the experiment (5). If marijuana was legalized, those addicted to cigarettes would be given a less harmful alternative to cigarettes.C) Effects on BystandersOne thing observed after the legalization in denver was that, as Time explains, \"researchers found that fatal car wrecks dropped by 9% in states that legalized medical use \u2014 which was largely attributable to a decline in drunk driving (6).\" This is because, \"Driving under the influence of marijuana seems to be less risky because people who are high tend to be aware that they are impaired and compensate, while alcohol tends to increase recklessness and create false confidence.\" The idea is that people will start using marijuana instead of alcohol due to the legalization. While driving when one is stoned is certainly not advisable, it is preferable to driving while drunk. This 9% isn\u2019t just talking about any crash, but fatal crashes. What this means is that due to this 9% decrease, three thousand lives are saved every year.C2) Unnecessary arrests:As I have proved above, the effects of marijuana not harmful to the consumer and those around the consumer. Yet, arrest for the possession of the drug is extremely high. In 2007, over 750,000 people were arrested for the possession of marijuana. It is completely unnecessary to permanently impact someone's life by arresting them for the possession of a drug that has little harmful effects on the user. We can see from the chart below that arrests for marijuana have clearly gotten out of hand (7). The Medical Marijuana Magazine explains, \u201cIn \"lenient\" California someone arrested in their home can lose their driver's license, which can obviously mean the loss of a job. In other places people can lose custody of their children. If a person is charged with cultivation of just one plant, the consequences can be even more dire. People can and do lose their homes, farms, etc. to \"civil forfeiture (8).\u201d So essentially, people\u2019s lives can be ruined for the act of possession/growing of cannabis. The worst part is that California is one of the more lenient states. In places like Alabama or Texas, the consequences clearly are more serious. C3) Money and the economy:Firstly, we have to look at the current amount of money that is being lost by keeping cannabis illegal. NORML notes, \u201cAmerican taxpayers spend more than $1 billion a year incarcerating citizens for using pot (9).\u201d Most of these crimes are for simple possession. So, not only is keeping weed illegal unfair to consumers, but it is unfair to the taxpayers. It is a waste of the government\u2019s money as well as a waste of the people\u2019s money. Secondly, look at the large amount of tax revenue that will come from the legalization of marijuana. Colorado, saw 10.8 million dollars in the first four months of legalization. It is estimated that 1 billion dollars will be raised altogether by the end of 2014. 40 million dollars of this will go towards bettering the schools in Colorado (10). So not only does legalization of cannabis earn money, but it saves money, resulting in funds that can be used for various positive causes. Moreover, the marijuana industry generates jobs and boosts the economy in other ways. The governor of Colorado explains, \u201cGov. Hickenlooper compared Colorado\u2019s economy since legalization to that of other states by noting, \u201cWhile the rest of the country\u2019s economy is slowly picking back up, we\u2019re thriving here in Colorado.\u201d C4) Safer cannabis:When obtaining marijuana from a drug dealer, one can never be sure of what they will get. There is always a possibility that marijuana can be laced with a substance such as PCP, cocaine, crack, or even embalming fluid. These things are obviously highly dangerous; with federal regulation, this problem will go away since marijuana will be sold through reliable sources. Some companies in Colorado have begun testing marijuana for contamination, but if the drug was legalized federally, it would have to be tested in order to be sold. ConclusionLet\u2019s assume marijuana is a harmful substance for a minute. I have shown in numerous ways that keeping it illegal hurts works against the common good. It contributes to prison overcrowding and takes money away from taxpayers. It gives drug dealers money, but ultimately hurts the consumer (who will smoke the substance regardless of it\u2019s legal status). What really makes the argument against legalization fall is the fact that marijuana isn\u2019t a relatively safe drug drug. One cannot die from it, or overdose on it. When it is legalized, people have a less harmful alternative to cigarettes and alcohol. Prohibition of cannabis works against the common good and takes away the free will of citizens. For these reasons, I am pro. (1) http://tinyurl.com...(2) http://tinyurl.com...(3) http://tinyurl.com...(4) National Institute on Drug Abuse and National Heart Lung Blood Institute(5) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...(6) http://healthland.time.com...(7) http://www.bjs.gov...(8) http://www.drugsense.org...(9) US Bureau of Justice Statistics(10) http://www.thedailychronic.net...", "qid": "17", "docid": "823c879a-2019-04-18T15:56:06Z-00005-000", "rank": 76, "score": 163707.0}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana Should be Legalized for Recreational Use Content: *Con has forfeited round 2, therefore I will not make any new points, to give Con the chance to catch up.___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ I will proceed by restating my main points so far. If Con forfeits the next round, I will state more points.-The accessibility of cannabis to children and teens will be more limited.-Cannabis does less harm healthfully than alcohol and tobacco, which are legal drugs, so why should it be illegal while alcohal and tobacco aren't?-Legalization will reduce Crime.-The problem of too many people in prison will be solved. -I would like to add on to this. If there are less people in jail, the government would spend less on funding th prison system, which could result in tax reduction or availability of funding to other things.", "qid": "17", "docid": "4ac9893e-2019-04-18T16:40:07Z-00002-000", "rank": 77, "score": 163625.0}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana should be legal for recreational use Content: In summation, We live in a world of risks. Everything we do can harm us. Look at the statistics of vehicular fatalities. Look at the danger of drowning, or injuring yourself during sports. We have guns, which can be used to kill others, even accidentally at times. We eat sugary, fatty, chemical-laced food. We drink sugar-water and food coloring mixes (soda). We drink alcohol, a substances that impairs the mind's ability to think clearly. We smoke tobacco, which is proven to cause lung and mouth cancer, and can often kill. How is marijuana any different? Marijuana is not addictive, like alcohol and tobacco. Marijuana is not, in and of itself, a 'gateway' drug. I have shown this through multiple sources. The people who use these drugs may be more likely to move on to other drugs, but through their own choice, not any fault of marijuana. Con conceded my point when he said this- ' . .. have been urged in some way or another to begin using a different hard drug. ' 'Urged', not addicted. In America, where I am from, we have the freedom to pursue happiness. To some people, marijuana is happiness. To continue to outlaw marijuana is both unconstitutional and contrary to the Declaration of Independence. While I am not someone who has smoked or used marijuana, nor someone who plans to, I recognize the basic right to do what I want with my body. It's not bothering you, so let others be happy. I rest my case. Thanks you as well, this has been a lot of fun, and intellectually stimulating.", "qid": "17", "docid": "fad1e94f-2019-04-18T13:10:10Z-00000-000", "rank": 78, "score": 163612.0}, {"content": "Title: Legalization of Recreational Marijuana Content: OF COURSE!", "qid": "17", "docid": "d3fcb97c-2019-04-18T17:00:53Z-00002-000", "rank": 79, "score": 163530.0}, {"content": "Title: Recreational Marijuana Legalization Content: First of all, I'll start by addressing the burden of proof issue. I believe the burden of proof lies upon the one who wants something to stay legal. Every responsible adult should have the personal freedom to put whatever substance into their body they wish, harmful or not. This choice should not be criminal in the eyes of the government. My opponent states \"there is no good reason to legalize it.\" The reason it should be legal is because there is no good reason people should be imprisoned for such a non-violent crime; it is akin to imprisonment for things such as illegal file sharing or jaywalking. Many teens and adults are forced to live in juvenile detention centers or prisons because of current marijuana policy [1]. \"...the chance that there is no link is so unfathomably small that it can be safely discounted.\" I do not deny the possible connection between marijuana smoking and the dangers associated with smoking any substance. However, it has been proven that alternatives such as vaporization [2] and consuming cooked edibles are much safer ways to consume it, and are preferred by any user who values his/her health. \"...the downgrading of cannabis had led to...many of them became lured to 'harder' drugs\". The \"gateway drug\" theory exists simply because it is still illegal, on an illegal market. People (mainly kids) who are exposed to the illegal market are more likely to be exposed to illegal drugs. When marijuana is legal, and accepted as \"normal\", in a legal market, while \"hard\" drugs are still frowned upon (i.e. the policy in Amsterdam), it has little to no effect on hard drug use [3]. I have read the source presented [4], and I fail to see the results of an actual study. This appears to be a mere calculation based on the number of regular marijuana smokers compared to the number of deaths attributed to tobacco. Again, I do not deny the dangers of marijuana smoking, but as I've said, there are safer alternatives. The mental illness statistics my opponent presented are based on TEEN use. Use of any drug as a teen is irresponsible and has ill effects on the developing brains of teens. This is not related to the legality of the drug, but the quality of the kids' parenting. Yes, there is evidence of the harms of its use, but that is no reason to criminalize it. Alcohol and tobacco are legal drugs for those of age, with many dangers accompanying their use. Yet these drugs remain legal, as I believe they should be. As I've said, the use of such substances and the acceptance of their harm is a personal freedom; if it is used responsibly, in a safe manner, hospital bills need not be an issue. My opponent accuses me of holding a subjective view, and relates the perception of marijuana to heroin. Heroin is easily proven to be a much more harmful drug to one's health, family, and society [5]. My position on marijuana acceptance in society is based much more on fact than the position of acceptance of heroin. Con calls my argument \"groundless\", but I find a position which believes innocent people should be imprisoned for the use of cannabis much harder to stomach. [1] http://norml.org... [2] http://norml.org... [3] http://www.drugwarfacts.org... [4] http://www.independent.co.uk... [5] http://www.businessinsider.com...", "qid": "17", "docid": "665ddd92-2019-04-18T18:55:36Z-00003-000", "rank": 80, "score": 163453.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: The possession, use, and sale of recreational marijuana should be legalized in the U.S. Content: I will be affirming this topic today, because my view (at least for the purposes of this debate) is that laws prohibiting marijuana use are doing more harm than good. Here are my conditions for a successful debate: Round 1 - agreement to debate, introduction Round 2 - definitions, burdens, values, and contention-level arguments Round 3 - refutations to the arguments and conditions created in Round 2 Round 4 - summary and crystallization of the key arguments and voting issue Round 5 - final focus and comments, connection back to the impacts, conclusion Here are a couple of observations hat I have with respect to the previous structure. NEITHER PRO NOR CON MAY DO THE FOLLOWING THINGS. These should be automatic grounds for disqualification: 1. beginning contention-level arguments, definitions, values, burdens, or observations in Round 1 2. doing any refutations of the opponent's arguments in Round 2 (ex: Con cannot spend his/her Round 2 speech refuting my arguments from Round 2) 3. trolling, loitering, or being disrespectful to the opponent And finally, a couple of expectations for the round (so long as my opponent agrees to them): 1. use evidence, statistics, and examples to illustrate arguments 2. follow through with impacts to arguments, clearly defining how each links back to the values and burdens stated at the beginning of the Round 2 speeches 3. sign-post arguments (ex: using contentions or benefits) I will NOT make any definitions or specific arguments until the Con accepts this debate. I look forward to this debate!", "qid": "17", "docid": "db751e93-2019-04-18T13:07:25Z-00007-000", "rank": 81, "score": 163159.0}, {"content": "Title: Legalizing Marijuana for recreational use. Content: Well my reasoning for the use of marijuana as a recreational drug is that weed could most likely fix the economical problems by taxing weed.And also everyone says its a gateway drug but to be honest in my experience most people who smoke weed dont go on to do cocaine and heroin.", "qid": "17", "docid": "16893daf-2019-04-18T18:37:56Z-00003-000", "rank": 82, "score": 163156.0}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana should be legalized for recreational use Content: Thanks once again. If I understand the outline of this debate correctly, I believe the setup was to consist of four rounds as described in Round 1. According to your guidelines, \"any violation to the setup will result in automatic forfeit.\" Seeing as your arguments have extended into a fifth round, thus violating your setup, does this result in your automatic forfeiture? I will let the community decide. Should this have been an honest mistake, I understand, and I will continue to provide my rebuttals to this bring this debate to a close. First of all, I would like to begin with a response to your question: \"If you are so strongly against the use of this drug because it affects other people - please explain how you jumped to that conclusion.\" Since this is a personal question, I will answer based on my opinion - to put it simply, I have a general care and concern for other people. It is my belief that each and every individual has a life worth valuing, and to watch out for and support others is a matter of utmost respect. I personally find it to be devastating when one person's use or misuse of a substance leads to the demise of themselves or another. Although this is my own personal belief which I do not mean to impose upon others, I answer your question with this response. This is why I have chosen to defend America's decision to watch out for its citizens - including said \"innocent bystanders\" - and therefore join in this debate. As for the legality of alcohol, its imposition has been in place since the birth of the United States with a temporary pause during the Prohibition era from 1920-1933. It is common knowledge that direct alcohol overdose can be fatal, unlike marijuana; however, both can prove to be equally deadly in the indirect sense. We as a country have already experimented with the removal of alcohol from legality during those thirteen years of Prohibition, an affair that led to the repealing of the eighteenth amendment through the implementation of the twenty-first amendment of the Constitution. As history proves, the population did not respond well to the removal of a harmful and potentially addictive substance from legal acquisition. We can view Prohibition as a lesson, however, that when a substance so controlling and powerful is legalized, we could have a very difficult time reversing our actions should nationalized legalization create significant problems on a wider scale. Also, while alcohol may pose risks as a drug, adding marijuana to the list of potentially toxic substances lawfully available to the public will not resolve any problems in the health and lives of our citizens. Therefore, it is sensible to withhold the legalization of recreational cannabis use so as to not add to the current drug problem we have as a nation, rather than legalizing it just because \"it is actually LESS DANGEROUS than drugs ALREADY LEGAL.\" Also, although this strays from our central focus, I would like to remind you that over-the-counter (OTC) and prescription drugs are different types of pharmaceuticals with names that can not be used interchangeably. While OTC drugs can be purchased at one\"s own will, prescription drugs require written consent from a medical doctor to be obtained - much like medical marijuana, which can only be obtained from a pharmacy with certified recommendation. If you\"d like more distinction, feel free to explore this link: http://www.fda.gov... It is through these solid facts that I \"jump to my conclusions.\" In response to your rebuttal on the tax issue, one could wonder, when following this debate closely, how the information I have presented is irrelevant to this debate. For those who did read through the article published by the Colorado Springs Gazette, they could have gained some insight in the sense that taxation on marijuana may not have so much a desired effect as you proposed in Round 4. If you think this is an unrelated \"card I want to pull,\" you have the right to believe that, yet I believe it backs my statements appropriately. In addition, I would like to invite you to refer back to my previous rebuttals in which I firmly state that yes, America is indeed a country founded upon the basis of freedom - even yet, however, this country cares for all citizens, including those afflicted by others\" drug use. The government may not be able to protect us from all harm, that is true, but it will do whatever it can in its power to ensure our welfare. This governmental body will not jeopardize this right to protect its people; after all, I repeat, it is not only the users of this drug who face its negative repercussions. Call to mind again the \"innocent bystanders\" - including, but not limited to, the victims of vehicular crashes instigated by hallucinating marijuana users; the young children of cannabis users with no control over what they are exposed to; the emotionally traumatized friends and family of deranged users; and all others impacted by the free use of cannabis by people other than themselves. Yes, this may be what you consider \"freedom,\" but I believe the idea of personal freedom you have in mind contrasts starkly with that of the Founding Fathers, whose ideals of freedom rested with assurance that all citizens should have the right to life. So, in response to your question of \"Why should the government try to stop us from making decisions that could affect us - they should just let us face the consequences,\" I continue to stand firm in my response that this is not what we stand for as an American nation. Again, I reassure you that it is not only the direct users of this drug who are afflicted by its use, and the government does not wish to add to the problem by jeopardizing its people even more than currently so. On a further note, it is interesting to hear about this one, single professional who believes that addiction rates would not rise should marijuana be legalized nationally. Not only is this intriguing because this one man, whose quote was unfairly taken without a cited source, is so confident in his views, which could very well be true; however, it is also fascinating, as one man\"s views do not reflect the entirety of a population of experts who may believe otherwise. In addition, I invite you to take a look at this article that questions the trustworthiness of the very professional you have quoted, J. Wesley Boyd: http://www.thecrimson.com... Now that our final rebuttals have been made, it is once again time for me to express my thanks and leave those following this debate with one final task - to give their vote. I welcome any and all feedback you would like to give - I truly appreciate it! Thanks so much, and here's to our great nation. :) Final citations: http://www.fda.gov... http://www.consumermedsafety.org... http://www.thecrimson.com... http://scopeblog.stanford.edu...", "qid": "17", "docid": "99d62d9d-2019-04-18T14:32:36Z-00000-000", "rank": 83, "score": 163133.0}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana should be legal for recreational use Content: The key to the issue is causation vs correlation. 1. So, in response to your 'gateway drug' argument, marijuana is actually not a gateway drug. In fact, the National Institute on Drug Abuse says that ' the majority of people who use marijuana do not go on to use other, \"harder\" substances. '. Factcheck.org says this- 'Though studies of large populations of people have indeed found that those who smoke marijuana are more likely to use other drugs, these studies show a correlation without showing causation \" a commonly misunderstood phenomenon in science.'. So its like saying that since usually it rains the day after your neighbor mows his lawn,mowing the lawn must bring rain the next day. It says more about the type of people that use drugs, than any problem or addictive power of marijuana. In Holland, where marijuana is legal, there has actually been a decrease in people falling into the 'gateway' trap. 'A 2010 Rand Institute report found that there was \"some evidence\" for a \"weakened gateway\" in The Netherlands, and concluded that the data \"clearly challenge any claim that the Dutch have strengthened the gateway to hard drug use.\" '-from a Time magazine article entitled 'Marijuana as a Gateway Drug: The Myth That Will Not Die'. 2. I will also point out that while marijuana has been linked to depression and anxiety, it can also be used to treat depression and anxiety. So wouldn't it stand to reason that the people who use marijuana take it because it relieves the depression? But when they are tested (presumably not while smoking a joint) they show up as depressed, anxious, etc.? What I mean is that the people more likely to smoke marijuana are people who are more likely to be depressed and/or anxious. 'There have been a number of studies that have explored the link between marijuana use and mental health symptoms. Strong associations are often found but this is not the same as a causal link (i.e. one causes the other).'- The Alcohol and Drug Abuse Institute. They also say that 'results are mixed'. 3. Smoking weed does not cause lung cancer. Research from Johns Hopkins University showed that 'Marijuana, unlike tobacco and alcohol, does not appear to cause head, neck, or lung cancer.' In marijuana/cancer studies, there is often no link between the two after accounting for smoking and drinking. Many weed users also do those things. The presence of tobacco can skew the results of such studies, unless you account for those substances. Marijuana on its own is 'unlikely to cause head, neck, or lung cancer', according to WebMD. (On a somewhat irrelevant note, 'What we do know, is that smoking marijuana may help some people cope with cancer. According to the National Cancer Institute, \"cannabinoids may have benefits in the treatment of cancer-related side effects.\"- Verywell.com. So marijuana may have the opposite effect. ----I bring this in not as a reason to legalize, but just to show that it has the opposite effect than what some claim it does.) (We can pretend I didn't say it if you don't want it in.) So while weed may have some adverse effects on your lungs, it most definitely has not been proven to cause or increase the chance of lung cancer. (Rebuttals/Summations in Rd 4?)", "qid": "17", "docid": "fad1e94f-2019-04-18T13:10:10Z-00002-000", "rank": 84, "score": 162818.0}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana should be legalized for both Medicinal and Recreational use Content: 1.The information you present on the effects of marijuana is definitely interesting, but I have to ask, would legalizing marijuana for recreational use have any impact on lowering the instances of driving while high? 2.Pro has very good points here. However, I believe that legalizing marijuana and allowing companies in the US to mass-produce it for recreational use would have a negative effect on the safety of the product. Pro makes a good point saying that marijuana is a clean plant, but so are oranges, apples, and grapes. You can eat these right off the plant. Now that food is mass-grown, however, each individual plant gets less important. Harmful pesticides are blanketed over the crops by plane. Additives are used to preserve plants and enhance flavor. Seeds are genetically modified to produce the types of fruits we EXPECT when we go to the supermarket \u2013 we want big juicy oranges and crunchy apples, and we want them to be the same every time we buy them. They should look perfect, taste perfect, be perfect. We want this enough that we are willing to allow these big companies to use potentially hazardous chemicals to meet our standards. We have a couple of options, of course, to avoid these potentially hazardous chemicals. We can buy local (or sometimes organic) foods that are guaranteed to be free of the chemicals, or we can grow our own crops. However, these options come at a premium. They are more expensive. People without the resources or time to eat healthy are forced into purchasing the cheap, often less healthy alternative. The same standard applies to the inebriants on the market today. More expensive cigarettes, like American Spirits, are additive free. Cheaper cigarettes are not. More expensive liquors are purer. With marijuana legalized, there is no question that the corporate mass-producers of marijuana would seek the cheapest way to produce and distribute their crop. If that means making it less healthy by using pesticides, preservatives, and additives, so be it. Now, you might argue that legalizing marijuana would mean local growers and home-growers could grow without risk, dropping prices and making the safe product more available. However, using the previous example, it is legal to grow fruit, and yet local products are still more expensive. This is because the mass-producers are extremely good at making their product as cheap and available as possible. There is no reason to assume that the mass-produced marijuana would not also be less expensive, forcing consumers without a lot of resources into purchasing that cheaper, less healthy alternative. Also, keeping marijuana illegal maintains that element of risk on the parts of both mass-producers and local growers. This means less concern is placed on making the product cheap than on finding viable ways to distribute the product. Therefore, illegal growers have less incentive to use harmful chemicals to cheapen the product. People are willing to pay a lot of money (and currently do pay a lot of money) in order to obtain marijuana, and prices are high mostly because of the risk involved. In my experience (and if Pro has counter examples, please bring them) I have never heard a dealer describe one product as being \u2018safer' due to less chemical use than another. This is because, due to its illegality, dealers don't fly planes over their crops dumping pesticides. Keeping it hidden is the whole point. Legalizing it would open the plant up to a world of additives and pesticides that are currently of no interest to growers and distributers, as their focus is on keeping it out of view, not making it cheaper. Additionally, large companies invariably release different varieties of their product. This means using the cheapest chemical flavorings available. Marijuana is currently available in many varieties, but none that I know of are chemically flavored. If mass-producers were to flavor their products, which is an inevitable eventuality, they would seek to use the cheapest method available, which is chemicals, regardless of their health effects. 3.I agree that marijuana is a great source of income for these cartels. I am still not convinced, though, that legalizing marijuana would be the best way to stop the violence between these cartels. Black markets find a way to sustain themselves. Instead of putting a dent in these cartels' business by removing one of their sources of income, we should be more active in our assistance to Mexico in battling these cartels. This sounds hypocritical \u2013 after all, I have already conceded that the War on Drugs has been ineffective \u2013 but the difference is that we should be shifting our focus to eliminating the source of these drugs rather than discouraging its use with insane punishments for users. 4.As Pro said we generally agree here. However, the fact of the matter is that alcohol (and marijuana, actually) use is praised in this culture. I agree that the stoned pose an immeasurably lesser threat to society than drunks, but the fact is that legalizing marijuana is a way of endorsing its use. Currently there are countless medications that should by all rights be illegal that are instead prescribed by doctors. Is relying on these medications to solve our sleep issues, our depression, or our stress the best course of action? Absolutely not. Endorsing the use of drugs of any kind is a bad policy, as it gears our cultural attitude towards seeking release in the form of substances rather than the many beneficial alternatives to substance use. Why get an endorphin release from exercise when you can smoke a joint and feel twice as good? In that same mindset, why seek healthy ways to relieve stress and depression when you can pop a pill? In short, endorsing the use of drugs is bad for our cultural mindset. Thanks, and I look forward to your reply!", "qid": "17", "docid": "c0722593-2019-04-18T19:00:13Z-00002-000", "rank": 85, "score": 162748.0}, {"content": "Title: should marijuana be legalized for recreational use Content: many believe that marijuana is an ok or great drug but marijuana has a dark side to tell that not all people know. The affects can be very damaging both physical and mental. some people also think that it is a natural and good solution compared to the drugs that the pharmaceutical companies make or hospitals or other forms of retailing medical drugs but that is not the truth base on current evidence, marijuana is an dangerous drug drug and that there are less dangerous medicines offering the same pain relief and other medical symptoms without the nasty side effects that occur when consuming marijuana. This depends on how much you consume but getting high tensed to last longer then being intoxicated and we as humans does not jest drink alcohol from fermented fruits other animals do it as well like monkeys, elephants purposely consume fermented fruits to get intoxicated so it is perfectly normal to consume alcohol unlike marijuana! According to scientific studies the active ingredient in cannabis is \"THC\" which remains in the body for weeks. This ingredient is also used in most rat poisons. The immediate effects of taking marijuana are rapid heartbeat, disorientation, possible violent vomiting, and lack of physical coordination. Afterwards other symptoms which follow are depression, sleepiness, and some users suffer from panic attacks and anxiety which can lead to bodily harm. These are some of the reasons why marijuana should not be legalized.", "qid": "17", "docid": "7c8b175c-2019-04-18T15:27:03Z-00004-000", "rank": 86, "score": 162451.0}, {"content": "Title: Medical as well as recreational marijuana should be legal in all US states Content: In this round I plan to conclude my arguments, but first I shall answer my opponent's question. I entered this debate because I thought it would be interesting. Now, on to my conclusion.Conclusion: Marijuana is a very deadly and unhealthy drug. At no point in history, nor today, has it ever helped anybody. It just makes health problems worse, or create new ones. If you really want to legalize it, you must want a lot of people to die, or at least end up in an insane assyleum. As I have explained throughout the previous rounds, marijuana will just make things worse. No has ever, nor will ever, come from its legalization. Especially since potheads are the only ones trying to fight to get it legalized while the medical field is trying to put their foot down and say no. They've been trying to tell us how bad it is, but no ones listening. They think drugs are fun, but they're really not. My girlfriend used to take all sorts of drugs, marijuana being one. You want to know what they did? They made her uterus bleed... A lot. In fact, she called them her periods. But when was the last time a girl had a period 3 times in one month? Marijuana can have just as bad, or worse effects on everybody who uses it. Is this really something we want in our country? Aren't we supposed to be better than the rest? That's not something we can accomplish if we legalize marijuana.I thank my opponent for this very interesting debate, I also thank the readers who payed attention and followed this. Also, for the readers/followers, please be the well educated, sane people I know you are and vote for Con. Show the world that you're above drugs.Thank you.", "qid": "17", "docid": "711b9599-2019-04-18T13:44:23Z-00000-000", "rank": 87, "score": 162443.0}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana should be legalized for recreational use Content: Thank you for your response. As this debate comes nearly to a close, I would like to urge all those following it to strongly consider both points of view - your thought is important. However, I also invite you to keep in mind the value of each and every person's life - this is an issue that impacts all Americans, whether they are direct users of the drug or not. Now, to the rebuttals. The information you provide is interesting, yet given your data you mention that over-the-counter drugs cause more fatalities than some more highly lethal drugs, such as amphetamines. However, your data statistic proceeds to show that prescription drugs provoke more deaths than the listed street drugs. While this may contradict your first statement, I would also like to emphasize that medical marijuana itself, where legalized, is utilized as a prescription drug. If it were to comply with your data, this would make the drug more likely to cause death due to abuse than the listed illicit amphetamines. In compliance with the central focus of this debate, however, I move onto my next rebuttal. You indicate in your argument that marijuana, when legalized and has a tax imposed upon it, would make revenue for the government nonetheless (in spite of your theoretical example). However, it's well-known that some of us as Americans at times aren't particularly fond of taxes. Consider the fact that, in the states that have currently legalized the recreational use of marijuana, the black markets are still currently thriving. In order to evade the tax imposed by legal sales, many drug dealers are continuing their business behind the backs of the laws. I invite you to read the following article, featured in the Colorado Springs-based Gazette: http://gazette.com... Should these unauthorized sales continue, the legal economic foundation for recreational marijuana could topple, thus wasting efforts to secure and sell marijuana lawfully. As I have discussed in each of my previous arguments, there are far more feasible and fail-safe ways to ensure taxation, limit the breaking of law, and increase our government revenue - including those ways which are not harmful to our citizens. I would also like to highlight a note from your argument that I found to be deeply concerning. It seems that from your stance the ability to pay completely for drug rehabilitation is of more importance than the prevention of people's needing of rehabilitation. As you noted yourself, marijuana use can absolutely lead to the need for drug rehabilitation. But if the main concern is not preventing the need, but paying for it, what has America come to in valuing the lives of its citizens? This, precisely, is another reason why our government has not legalized cannabis on a national scale. Not only has the U.S. Food and Drug Administration not approved of marijuana as a safe substance, but given the undeniable consequences this drug has the potential to cause (which extend far beyond the user - think of their families, their friends, and all those who would be devastated by the injury, derangement, or death of a user), America has its right to take a stand to protect its citizens. Indeed, our country was founded on the basis of freedom; however, let us not forget that the creation of our first laws put the care and well-being of our citizens first. What would we be as a country if we did not watch out for one another? Do we want to risk everything that is at stake? As I have made clear, this issue affects people beyond the user in ways more than physical, and therefore the prohibition of legalizing this drug shows that our country cares about the lives and futures of our citizens, no matter who decides or how many people choose to use this drug. In backing this statement, I would also like to present to you this article, discussing the vulnerability of what you may refer to as \"innocent bystanders\"... young children who have no way of controlling the actions of their elders and therefore what they are exposed to. http://www.dare.org... These children are the next generation of our incredible society. When no choice is presented to them over what they are exposed to and therefore endangered by, this calls into serious question again whether marijuana influences only those who make the choice to use it. On a closing note, I would also like to pinpoint one particular statement made in your final paragraph: \"Making marijuana legal for recreational use will NOT INFLUENCE the statistics of the drug as they are right now.\" I would have to argue against this statement by bringing up the point that increased accessibility to the drug will in turn lead to more users getting their hands on it; with this increase comes the chance that more users will become addicted, thus influencing not only the statistic but also the amount of unfortunate repercussions that result on the population - both users and non-users, whether physically, mentally, spiritually, or in any afflictive way. As I understand that in your set guidelines this debate is to consist of four rounds, I would like to rest my case with thanks to the Debate.org community for their listening ears (or reading eyes!) and to my opponent for an intriguing debate. I once again would like to say that I respect all opinions and have no personal bias on this matter - it is my goal, however, to educate the people on the true and often hidden negative outcomes that result from illicit drug use. For some people, they may seem \"cool\" to use or give you \"a good time\" - but there is so much more to life than wasting it away. Thank you! Citations (including the earlier presented articles): https://www.whitehouse.gov... http://www.fda.gov... http://www.businessinsider.com... http://gazette.com... http://www.dare.org...", "qid": "17", "docid": "99d62d9d-2019-04-18T14:32:36Z-00002-000", "rank": 88, "score": 162265.0}, {"content": "Title: ALL drugs should be legalized and addiction should be treated as a health problem instead of a crime Content: Since their widespread popularity in the mid-1900s, recreational drugs have shown the world their worth. They have created a generation of people disconnected from reality, disrespectful of society, and counterproductive to our nation. Recreational drugs should not be legalized since they have shown to be hurtful to the individual, to the people surrounding the user, and to society. Marijuana, the most popular illicit drug, is often thought to have no lasting effects on the human body. But according to the National Institute on Drug abuse, marijuana has been proven to hurt the cardiopulmonary system, and contributes to lasting brain damage in many abusers. [1] Marijuana is not the exception, either. Mind altering drugs as a whole have strong tendencies to leave a lasting negative effect in the human brain. My opponent seems to brag that recreational drugs would be cheaper if they were state regulated. I cannot pretend to understand his argument, because he seems to brag that harmful substances would be more readily available for consumption by the public. A government's job is to protect it's people, even from harmful substances. In addition to harming the user, illegal drug consumption hurts those around the user. Those near abusers of crack, marijuana, and other drugs ingested by smoke experience second-hand smoke. Much like tobacco smoke, the smoke from these drugs has negative effect on the person who inhales the fumes. Drivers on mind altering drugs such as LSD, Psilocybin, heroine, and cocaine pose a major threat to others driving. Studies have shown that these drivers are as bad or worse than drunk drivers. It is not fair to the general public to be susceptible to these risks because of someone else's poor choices. Beyond affecting those immediately surrounding the user, legalized recreational drug abuse would affect society as a whole. Cleaning up for drug abuse costs the US over $100 billion every year. [2] Drug abusive generations, starting in the sixties and continuing on to today has made for an irresponsible group of voters, members of the community, and neighbors. Not only do they not help society along, drug abusers downright oppose growth as a civilization. Nearly ten percent of America abuses drugs. [3] Just imagine if those millions of people were actually helpful members of society. My opponent thinks that a better solution to this problem is to declare addiction a medical problem, not a crime. This will not work as thought. A nation that legalizes drugs will have glorified drugs. It will be considered socially acceptable for people to do drugs for recreational purposes. Children will be bombarded with advertising campaigns that show how great cocaine can make you feel. Posters will show how happy people on heroine are. So no, I cannot consider drug legalization to be a suitable form of drug control. I suggest enforcing laws against drugs, advertising against drugs, and increasing awareness about the negative effects of drugs. Sources: [1] http://www.drugabuse.gov... [2] http://www.justice.gov... [3] http://www.drugabuse.gov...", "qid": "17", "docid": "9908ed79-2019-04-18T15:15:15Z-00004-000", "rank": 89, "score": 162238.0}, {"content": "Title: The U.S Government should legalize recreational marijuana. Content: Resolution: The U.S Government should legalize recreational marijuana. The Burden of Proof is on Pro. Con must simply refute my case and show it should *not* be legalized. The debates will be 4 rounds with 5k character limits. Ideally this will be kept under 4k characters though. ==Definitions== Legalize: Make (something that was previously illegal) permissible by law. Recreational: Relating to or denoting activity done for enjoyment when one is not working. Marijuana: Cannabis ==Rules== 1. No forfeits 2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate 3. No new arguments in the final round 4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere 5. No trolling or semantics 6. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add definitions 7. No Kritiks 8. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up may merit a loss. ==Structure== R1. Acceptance R2. Pro's case, Con rebuttals R3. Rebuttals R4. Rebuttals and conclusion.", "qid": "17", "docid": "cb307ee3-2019-04-18T14:46:23Z-00007-000", "rank": 90, "score": 162136.0}, {"content": "Title: Legalizing Marijuana for recreational use. Content: Well it would be like alcohol make it illegal to drive and be high thats not that hard. And after reading your whole argument i didn't see any points that said weed was a bad drug. So your only point is that it would take to long to make laws to make it safe. They did it with alcohol they will definitely do it with marijuana.", "qid": "17", "docid": "16893daf-2019-04-18T18:37:56Z-00001-000", "rank": 91, "score": 162135.0}, {"content": "Title: legalize cannabis Content: I humbly accept this argument.For the sake of clarity, I offer a more apt resolution: \"Resolved: Cannabis should be legalized.\"Before any argumentation is to take place, I offer these definitions (the accordance of these definitions is to be determined by my opponent):Cannabis: A tall annual dioecious plant (Cannabis sativa), native to central Asia and having alternate, palmately divided leaves and tough bast fibers.Legalize: The act of making lawfulI will present my argument in three contentions:Contention 1: The recreational drug use of cannabis is safer than the use of tobacco products and alcohol (both of which are legal) and does not bear any signficant long-term effects for users that do not have pre-existing mental illness.Contention 2: Cannabis has many medical properties and can be used as an herbal alternative to pharmaceutical drugs.Contention 3: Cannabis in its industrious form, hemp, can be used to make a variety of products including paper, construction material, clothing, rope, fabrics, protein powders, and much more.I suggest the next round's use should be to provide elaboration of the contentions/arguments, and for the initial rebuttals. Definition sources:wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwnthefreedictionary.com/cannabis", "qid": "17", "docid": "8f1cede1-2019-04-18T18:13:29Z-00008-000", "rank": 92, "score": 162068.0}, {"content": "Title: Legalization of Recreational Marijuana Content: I accept!", "qid": "17", "docid": "d3fcb97c-2019-04-18T17:00:53Z-00005-000", "rank": 93, "score": 161800.0}, {"content": "Title: AAN: Marijuana should be legalized recreationally. Content: *rings48 turn on rocky theme starts, starts to jog around to random places, punches a wall, remembers why he doesn't do boxing*Thank you very much Debatability. I also want to thank our judges for voting on this debate. I wish luck to Debatability as she starts the debate.*rings48 ices his hand before round 2 starts, smokes a joint, quickly snuffs it out as he realizes he remembers he is Con, has a stupid smile because of the bad joke*", "qid": "17", "docid": "823c879a-2019-04-18T15:56:06Z-00006-000", "rank": 94, "score": 161770.0}, {"content": "Title: should marijuana be legalized for recreational use Content: I'm for marijuana to be legalized for recreational use, because marijuana can be as dangerous as \"food\" that we put into our body's. Most people are scared of marijuana and parents, grandparents and other adults tell us that marijuana can kill us. First if alcohol and cigarettes are legal then why marijuana can't be legal too. Alcohol affects on people are scary and unhealthy. People with alcohol addiction are unstoppable they can't control their actions and because of this many life's were lost even of innocent people. To ppurchase marijuana legally you need to visit places like Washington or Colorado to buy a joint, which is far safer then a bottle of vodka. I have seen the affect on people when they are drunk and when they are high, so I rather see high person walking on the street chasing birds, then shouting young man with a vodka or bear bottle in their hands.Second marijuana can be used in medical world, as it shows good potential. Once I had broken my chest and experience is not the best. Pain killers never helped, but as I know marijuana can be used to stop that pain for good. Marijuana can even help in other situations like: mitigates multiple sclerosis and Tourette Syndrome symptoms, and may reduce dystonia. So if marijuana is so bad and its a devils gift to world why some countries, states allow it, maybe its not that bad after and some people should stop worrying about marijuana and start looking how it could help us.", "qid": "17", "docid": "7c8b175c-2019-04-18T15:27:03Z-00005-000", "rank": 95, "score": 161702.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: The possession, use, and sale of recreational marijuana should be legalized in the U.S. Content: I shall begin my case.Contention 1: Marijuana is dangerousMarijuana has negative side effects when individuals are exposed to it for both short term and long term periods of usage. It distorts your senses, can make you panic, give you anxiety, and increase the rate of your heartbeat, which risks a chance of a heart attack, and since heart attacks are lethal, this means that Marijuana can kill you overtime. Marijuana distorts both you both physically and psychologically. It can make you depressed, reduce your sexual capacity, reduce illness resistance in your body, and destroy your lungs fibers which could potentially be permanent. It also can give you psychosis and schizophrenia. Bronchitis and lung infections are also negative effects you can get from this lethal substance. But worst of all, it increases risk of cancer. It increases amount of cell mutations in your body and when the users smoke them, they inhale carcinogens, which have been scientifically proven to give you cancer by either manipulating your dna directly or increasing the rate of cells dividing, which increases chances of cancerous cells forming. The worst part of Marijuana is the simple fact that it contains up to 50-70% more of the cancer causing substances than tobacco does, and it can cause the same amount of damage as FIVE cigarettes being smoked one at a time.All of the above I have stated are negative effects Marijuana can give you, and we shouldn't allow a drug that is dangerous or lethal, as it causes an unnecessary amount of pain to those who are exposed to it, and each single period of time smoking marijuana is much worse than a single period of time of smoking tobacco.Contention 2: In Colorado, pot increased the crime rateFrom 2004 to 2012, crime rate in Colorado decreased by 32%, that is until pot was legalized, because once it was, crime rate was increased by 21% in just 2 years, with an average of 10.5% per year, whereas the crime rate from 2004 to 2012 decreased at a rate of 4% per year. If crime rates are increasing now with marijuana faster than it was decreasing, then Colorado has a problem. The rate could keep increasing of it is not stopped, and the problem is, this is just Colorado. Imagine if every state allowed people to smoke weed. There are only 4 states in the U.S that have 0 restrictions on Marijuana, while there are 22 states where Marijuana is illegal. Would you want to risk increasing crime rates in all of those states, not even counting the states that have heavy restrictions on Marijuana?Marijuana hurts both the users and the people around the users because as I have demonstrated, it has more cancer causing toxins than tobacco, can give you lung infections which destroy them, can make you depressed and anxious, and it can increase the likelihood of you committing a crimes. Marijuana is clearly not a safe substance, and therefore, it should remain illegal.Sources:http://www.americanthinker.com...http://herb.co...http://www.drugfreeworld.org...http://www.drugfreeworld.org...http://www.narconon.org...", "qid": "17", "docid": "db751e93-2019-04-18T13:07:25Z-00004-000", "rank": 96, "score": 161565.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: The possession, use, and sale of recreational marijuana should be legalized in the U.S. Content: I would like to begin by defining a couple of terms. If my opponent disagrees with my definitions, then he/she can suggest and justify alternative definitions, however terminology should be agreed upon within the first half of the debate. I will not use dictionary definitions; let us just keep it simple. Possession means owning something. Use means smoking/inhaling/eating/vaporizing/etc. marijuan. Recreational marijuana means that adults ABOVE THE AGE OF 21 YEARS OLD are allowed to purchase up to SEVEN GRAMS of marijuana for any reason, with no medical conditions required. Legalized means that we remove the penalties from marijuana activities and that we regulate marijuana in dispensaries at which consumers of age can purchase it. The U. S. refers to all fifty states of the United States of America; the resolution seeks to essentially overturn the national ban on cannabis. The framework for this round should be net benefits. Unless my opponent is able to demonstrate that the costs of legalizing marijuana in the U. S. overwhelmingly outweigh the benefits, the Pro should win the round. Contention 1: Economic Benefits. Legalizing pot allows the United States to allow a wealth of economic benefits in the form of tax revenue and also in the form of liberating costly prisoners from incarceration. We have already seen examples of collecting revenue. According to the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA), between January 2014 and October 2014, Colorado accrued 40 million dollars of tax revenue by legalizing marijuana and allowing 21+ citizens to purchase it. Suppose that we extrapolated legalization to the whole country. According to the Huffington Post, this would result in $8.7 billion per year in the form of state and federal taxes. Taxing any good or service allows the economy to grow, because it provides money that is uesd for other programs. In the case of marijuana legalization, these programs translate to education, health care, and drug addiction treatment, valuable impacts in our society. Furthermore, legalizing marijuana prevents costs that are associated with incarcerating individuals. According to the DPA, approximately 750 thousand citizens are arrested for an infraction of marijuana law each year. Furthermore, the cost of incarceration is $47,000 per prisoner per year. This translates to 7 to 10 billion dollars per year that are wasted on locking up stoners (rather than rapists or murderers). Clearly, not only does legalizing marijuana create money; keeping it illegal costs money. This 35 billion dollars could be used to reduce the national deficit, solve other crimes, or perhaps reduce taxes on American citizens. Contention 2: Legalizing marijuana reduces crime. Legalizing marijuana prevents police officers from wasting their time arresting harmless stoners, when they could be spending these efforts and resources fighting actually dangerous crimes, such as murder, theft, or rape. According to RollingStone Magazine, marijuana arrests are no longer real \"police work\"; law enforcement would rather spend their time tackling other crimes such as murder and rape. This argument is intuitive rather than logical; less time wasted on activity X (stopping pot smoke) leads to more time available for activity Y (stopping murder). LearnLiberty echoes this message: \"legalizing marijuana frees up resources to solve other crimes\". The impact is clear: a reduction in violent crimes that hurt American citizens, if the U. S. is smart enough to legalize pot. Contention 3: Legalizing marijuana reduces or eliminates racial discrimination in law enforcement. It should be clear to the layperson that most marijuana arrests are against racial minorities, particularly blacks. A black individual is no more likely to use pot than a white person but, in Washington D. C. , is over 8 times more likely to be arrested for it. This is what one could refer to as a Jim Crowe system; blacks suffer from mass incarceration much more than whites do, but they do not commit any more wrongdoings than whites. In order to provide for an American system of equality of opportunity and justice without regard to skin color, marijuana should be legalized. This will prevent irrationally suspicious police officers from locking up \"dangerous blacks\" (who, in truth, are not the least bit dangerous; they are just minding their own business); this racist enforcement is unethical, discriminatory, and clearly non-beneficial. Contention 4: Regulated marijuana is healthier marijuana. When alcohol was prohibited (i. e. before the 1920's), this led to an extensive black market whereby Americans still found ways to produce, purchase, and enjoy alcoholic beverages such as rum and beer. The same phenomenon occurs with marijuana. Even if marijuana is perceived to be dangerous, keeping it illegal does not deter its use. In fact, the criminal nature of cannabis provides a compelling reason for drug cartels to enter the country and sell cannabis, with no regard to whether the weed is tainted with dangerous chemicals like PCP. Since the illegality of marijuana fails to have any deterrent effect, legalizing pot will allow the government to closely control and regulate it. This allows for high-quality marijuana, meaning that consumers will enjoy marijuana that has no dangerous chemicals in it and that achieves standards of safety and health. This makes it a safer option. The influx of drug cartels is associated with the trade of weapons and also with violence, coercion, and sometimes murder. It is easier for a teenager to obtain a joint than it is for him to obtain a can of beer. Since Americans smoke pot regardless of whether or not it is legal, we should legalize it so that citizens purchase it from trusted, regulated dispensaries rather than untrustworthy, sketchy black-market dealers. Contention 5: Americans have freedom of choice. An American citizen should be able to do whatever she want, so long as her actions do not infringe upon the rights of others. Even if skeptics were successfully able to argue that smoking pot is harmful (which I would disagree with), Americans can choose to engage in harmful activities, as long as the others in society do not feel the effects of these choices. People are allowed to eat candy, drink beer, watch TV all day, and smoke cigarettes. Why should we limit the behavior of an individual simply due to archaic notions without any substantial evidence? Marijuana is used for a wide variety of medicinal and leisure purposes, and its effects have been described as uplifting, stress-relieving, and relaxing. To keep marijuana illegal is at variance with the pursuit of happiness that Thomas Jefferson had in mind when America was established as an independent nation. If individuals want to smoke pot, they should be able to do so, particularly in the privacy of their own homes. For many citizens, occasional marijuana use improves the quality of their lives and has medicinal benefits. Some who need it for medical use are too impoverished to afford to obtain a medical recommendation from their doctors, making their medicinal options severely limited. Keeping marijuana illegal is an invasion of privacy. In short, to legalize pot is to provide Americans with the freedoms of choice and discretion and the liberty that they deserve. I have posted evidence below that substantiates my claim. In short, the legalization of marijuana leads to benefits that address the economy, other crimes, racism, national safety, and the freedom of choice. These are all significant benefits that contribute to my proposed framework of \"net benefits\". A reason why keeping marijuana illegal is disadvantageous is equivalent to a reason why making marijuana legal is advantageous. Too many dollars are wasted in prohibition. Too many lives are locked up in prohibition. To many blacks and Hispanics are unfairly arrested in prohibition. Too many drug cartels enter the U. S. in prohibition. Finally, too many freedoms and basic liberties are violated in prohibition. For these reasons, the possession, use, and sale of recreational marijuana should be legalized in the U. S. Please vote Pro. I await Con's contentions. . https://www.drugpolicy.org... . http://www.huffingtonpost.com... . http://www.drugpolicy.org... . http://www.rawstory.com... . http://www.rollingstone.com... . http://www.learnliberty.org... . https://www.washingtonpost.com... . http://www.collegiatetimes.com...", "qid": "17", "docid": "db751e93-2019-04-18T13:07:25Z-00005-000", "rank": 97, "score": 161536.0}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana should be legalized for recreational use Content: Rebuttal for your reason 1) You left out all the good physical and health benefits of marijuana: It can be used to treat Glaucoma, It may help reverse the carcinogenic effects of tobacco and improve lung health, It can help control epileptic seizures, It also decreases the symptoms of a severe seizure disorder known as Dravet's Syndrome, A chemical found in marijuana stops cancer from spreading, It may decrease anxiety, THC slows the progression of Alzheimer's disease,The drug eases the pain of multiple sclerosis, Other types of muscle spasms could be helped too, It lessens side effects from treating hepatitis C and increases treatment effectiveness. Marijuana treats inflammatory bowel diseases, It relieves arthritis discomfort, It keeps you skinny and helps your metabolism, It improves the symptoms of Lupus, an autoimmune disorder,While not really a health benefit, marijuana spurs creativity in the brain, Marijuana might be able to help with Crohn's disease,Pot soothes tremors for people with Parkinson's disease, Marijuana helps veterans suffering from PTSD, Marijuana protects the brain after a stroke, It might protect the brain from concussions and trauma, It can help eliminate nightmares, Weed reduces some of the awful pain and nausea from chemo, and stimulates appetite, Marijuana can help people trying to cut back on drinking. ~BuisnessInsider.Rebuttal for reason 2) When you buy a product, there will be a tax - we all know that. So if people are allowed to buy this substance, of course there will be a tax on it. The government will gain profit and BENEFIT from this legalization - it is a win-win for everyone! We all have the freedom of choice, weither it is to take a shot, smoke a cigarette, or make a huge decision. We all know that Marijuana is dangerous - we all get it, drugs are bad (and so are tobacco and alcohol); but we should let people have the CHOICE if they want to consume such substances or not. After all, we are in the United States of America; and isint FREEDOM what being an American citizen is all about?Rebuttal for reason 3) But only 9% of people who experiment with marijuana before addicted.Rebuttal for reason 4) Refer back to by first rebuttal in this round.", "qid": "17", "docid": "99d62d9d-2019-04-18T14:32:36Z-00005-000", "rank": 98, "score": 161490.0}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana should be legal. Content: this is going well :/", "qid": "17", "docid": "21ae9089-2019-04-18T17:38:28Z-00001-000", "rank": 99, "score": 161456.0}, {"content": "Title: [Drug legalization resolution too long to post here] Content: Full resolution: If marijuana, as a recreational drug, is legalized for those over the age of 18, it should be legalized to grow on a commercial basis only and any domestic growth of it should remain illegal. First round is up to Con. They can either accept or make a case.", "qid": "17", "docid": "8b859a7-2019-04-18T16:07:04Z-00005-000", "rank": 100, "score": 161396.0}]}
{"query": "Should churches remain tax-exempt?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: Churches should be taxed! Content: no", "qid": "18", "docid": "541c0fdb-2019-04-18T14:17:03Z-00000-000", "rank": 1, "score": 216125.0}, {"content": "Title: Churches Ought not be Taxed Content: Oh well.", "qid": "18", "docid": "b80912ea-2019-04-18T17:08:58Z-00000-000", "rank": 2, "score": 186873.0}, {"content": "Title: Should Churches Pay Taxes Content: Extend.", "qid": "18", "docid": "7f792826-2019-04-18T15:23:48Z-00000-000", "rank": 3, "score": 186278.0}, {"content": "Title: Should Churches Pay Taxes Content: Extend.", "qid": "18", "docid": "7f792826-2019-04-18T15:23:48Z-00001-000", "rank": 4, "score": 186278.0}, {"content": "Title: There should not be tax exemptions for Curches. Content: I believe that there sould not be a tax exemption for Churches. Con must argue the opposite, of course:) Definitions:Tax exempt: To be free from, or not subject to, taxation by regulators or government entities.*Some information about the topic: US churches received an official federal income tax exemption in 1894, and they have been unofficially tax-exempt since the country's founding**. All 50 US states and the District of Columbia exempt churches from paying property tax. Donations to churches are tax-deductible. The debate continues over whether or not these tax benefits should be retained. Acceptance first.Sources: *http://www.investopedia.com... **Edwin S. Gaustad, Church and State in America, 2nd edition", "qid": "18", "docid": "ffa16c3b-2019-04-18T15:59:53Z-00003-000", "rank": 5, "score": 185010.0}, {"content": "Title: Churches should be taxed. Content: Background informationIn order to understand why churches should be tax exempt, we must first outline which taxes that churches already pay, and which taxes they do not.In what way are churches tax exempt?1) Federal income taxAccording to the IRS, [1] \"Churches and religious organizations, like many other charitable organizations, qualify for exemption from federal income tax under IRC section 501(c)(3) and are generally eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions.\"For this to occur, the church must meet ALL of the following criteria:\u25a0 the organization must be organized and operated exclusively for religious, educational, scientific, or other charitable purposes, \u25a0 net earnings may not inure to the benefit of any private individual or shareholder, \u25a0 no substantial part of its activity may be attempting to influence legislation, \u25a0 the organization may not intervene in political campaigns, and\u25a0 the organization\u2019s purposes and activities may not be illegal or violate fundamental public policy2) Property taxChurches do not pay property tax under the legal precedent of Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, 397 U.S. 664 (1970). The court upheld the tax exemption status for churches on a 8-1 decision. In defense of his decision, Justice Douglas quoted: \"We do not mean to say that religious groups and the press are free from all financial burdens of government. We have here something quite different, for example, from a tax on the income of one who engages in religious activities or a tax on property used or employed in connection with those activities. It is one thing to impose a tax on the income or property of a preacher. It is quite another thing to exact a tax from him for the privilege of delivering a sermon. State aid to places of worship, whether in the form of direct grants or tax exemption, takes us back to the Assessment Bill and the Remonstrance. The church qua church would not be entitled to that support from believers and from nonbelievers alike.\"[2]The court gave the following four reasons for their decision [3]:1. The First Amendment tolerates neither governmentally established religion nor governmental interference with religion.2. The legislative purpose of tax exemptions is not aimed at establishing, sponsoring, or supporting religion, and New York's legislation simply spares the exercise of religion from the burden of property taxation levied on private profit institutions.3. The tax exemption creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state, far less than taxation of churches would entail, and it restricts the fiscal relationship between them, thus tending to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other.4. Freedom from taxation for two centuries has not led to an established church or religion, and, on the contrary, has helped to guarantee the free exercise of all forms of religious belief.3) Other taxesChurches are also exempt from other minor state taxes, but seeing as this is on a state level, it would be too difficult to outline each and every one.Should churches be tax exempt?In short, yes. As you can see from what I have outlined above, churches and non-profit organizations pay the same taxes. This is because the same reasons that apply to non-profits also apply to churches as well.Churches are vastly known as a positive thing in the United States. An article in America Magazine defends this stance by saying: \"At least where most Catholic nonprofit organizations are concerned, I would say there should be hope: Catholic nonprofit organizations are second to none when it comes to predictably and reliably producing benefits for nonmembers, wider communities and the public at large.\"[4] Even as an atheist myself, I acknowledge that churches bring together a community of generally good people who want to do the right thing to please whatever God they worship. Although they are doing the right thing for the wrong reasons, it is still the right thing nonetheless. Putting a tax burden on these churches would be completely redundant because it would discourage future good work done by the churches, and diminish the amount and the quality of good work that a church community could accomplish, leaving that extra slack to be picked up by the government or not picked up at all.I acknowledge that there are negatives to allowing churches to be tax-exempt. If I had to, I would argue a more progressive approach by saying that churches should pay a little more than what they do now, but applying an extreme solution (such as abolishing the tax-exemption status entirely) to a minor problem (possible abuse of the system) will be both counter-productive and redundant.Thus, I negate.Citations:1. http://www.irs.gov...2. http://ffrf.org...3. http://supreme.justia.com...4. http://www.americamagazine.org...", "qid": "18", "docid": "2f656c50-2019-04-18T18:20:05Z-00001-000", "rank": 6, "score": 184176.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: In the United States, churches should be taxed. Content: In this debate resolved, I affirm and stand with the PRO. I ask the CON to please refrain from providing any rebuttals in the second round as it is for the formulation of case statements. I have no parameters for this debate, so I move on toward the iteration of my case: [Thesis]The exemption of churches in the case of taxation violates the First Amendment, contradicts the word of US law considering the nature of churches, and economically comprimises the US defecit. Henceforth, American churches should be taxed. [Contentions]Contention 1: Subsidizing religion violates the First Amendment.Subsidizing churches constitutes the establishment of a religion with consideration that American government is providing special protection and privilages to groups solely intended toward the practice of faith [1]. This action and the practice of it violates the Establishment clause, as shown below. Sub-point 1a: Purpose of the subsidization of churches includes the advancement of religion. The Internal Revenue Service explains the purposes of exemption of taxes in its Code Section 501(c)(3): \"The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals. The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency.\" [2]Sub-point 1b: American governments are favoritist toward churches. The following presents an analysis on the guidelines from the Internal Revenue Service: \"Churches receive special treatment from the IRS beyond what other nonprofits receive, and such favoritism is unconstitutional. While secular charities are compelled to report their income and financial structure to the IRS using Form 990 (Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax), churches are granted automatic exemption from federal income tax without having to file a tax return. \" [3]Contention 2: Tax exemption of churches is economically compromising.Constitutional arguments aside, tax exemption of churches is also economically compromising with consideration that the property taxes of such institutions can greatly reduce deficits. According to former White House senior policy analyst Jeff Schweitzer, PhD, US churches own $300-$500 billion in untaxed property. [4]Contention 3: The nature of churches warrants removal of tax exemptions according to American law. The removal of tax exemptions can be argued legally as well as constitutionally. Sub-point 3a: Many churches are political machines. The United States passed a law in 1954 explaining that institutions that are tax-exempted in no circumstances can support political candidates. \"Every fall, the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal group, organizes \"Pulpit Freedom Sunday,\" encouraging pastors to defy IRS rules by endorsing candidates from the pulpit. More than 500 pastors participated in Oct. 2011, yet none lost their churches' exemption status.\" [5] [1] Robert H. Jackson, US Supreme Court dissenting opinion, Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing, supreme.justia.com, Feb. 10, 1947[2] http://www.irs.gov...;[3] US Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Tax Guide for Churches and Religious Organizations (5.1 MB) (publication 1828 (11-2009) Catalog Number 21096G), www.irs.gov, 2009[4] Jeff Schweitzer, PhD, \"The Church of America,\" www.huffingtonpost.com, Oct. 11, 2011[5] Andy Birkey, \"Few Consequences Currently Faced by Pastors Who Endorse from Pulpit,\u201d iowaindependent.com, Oct. 6, 2011", "qid": "18", "docid": "48db7620-2019-04-18T18:11:25Z-00004-000", "rank": 7, "score": 182599.0}, {"content": "Title: Churches, mosques, synagogues, etc. ought not be exempt from federal taxation. Content: Argument 1: Tax exemption constitutes an endorsement of religion. Tax exemptions give these institutions more money. This is a simple fact. Regan v. Taxation with Representation (US Supreme Court) decided that a tax exemption has the same effect as a cash grant. This is unconstitutional. Argument 2: Tax exemption favors larger churches, which are often predatory. This credit varies from church to church. Your average church may pull in a good amount, but definitely not as much as Kenneth Copeland's church worth hundreds of millions of dollars. A larger amount of money would be taken from his church if it was taxed than your average church. This means the bigger churches (which don't need help) are helped more. Sadly, these big churches are often the predatory ones, taking money from sick people in exchange for a promise of healing that never comes. Argument 3: We need the money Source 1: http://www.huffingtonpost.com... Source 2: http://bigthink.com... According to source 1, churches have $300-500,000,000,000 in untaxed property. According to source 2, this could make us $71 billion per year. This could have paid for the war in Vietnam. This can pay for free college tuition (estimated cost $60 billion per year). This could be channeled into social security to increase benefits or to be saved for the future. It could be used to help the drastically underfunded VA. This money could be used for so many things that are a good for all of society.", "qid": "18", "docid": "9a66988-2019-04-18T12:07:13Z-00009-000", "rank": 8, "score": 181239.0}, {"content": "Title: Churches Should be Taxed Content: thanks for debating with me :)", "qid": "18", "docid": "c5ba2ffc-2019-04-18T16:06:55Z-00000-000", "rank": 9, "score": 179409.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: In the United States, churches should be taxed. Content: 1. Tax exemptions for religious institutions are a deep-rooted historical practice. In Coler v. Corn Exchange Bank, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled it requires an extremely strong case to overturn a rooted historical practice. Therefore, the burden of proof is on my opponent to make such a case. 2. The bulk of my opponent's argument focuses on the first amendment, which forbids any law \"respecting an establishment of religion.\" This prohibits direct state aid to religious institutions, but it does not prevent \"incidental\" aid which is neutral among sects. Thus, in Walz v. Tax Commission, the U.S. Supreme Court reasoned as follows: \"The grant of a tax exemption is not sponsorship since the government does not transfer part of its revenue to churches but simply abstains from demanding the church support the state.\" If churches are taxed, it would actually create an impermissible entanglement between church and state, as it would DEMAND every religious SUPPORT the state. This would be unconstitutional, as it would create a law \"respecting an establishment of religion.\" It would also violate the Free Exercise clause, as it would challenge the religious view that religious institutions have tax-exempt status. The purpose of the first amendment is to establish religious liberty and to maintain neutrality among different (often opposed) religious groups. It is therefore imperative that churches are given tax-exempt status, as a tax on churches would violate the fundamental premises of the first amendment.", "qid": "18", "docid": "48db7620-2019-04-18T18:11:25Z-00003-000", "rank": 10, "score": 178317.0}, {"content": "Title: resoloved: REMOVE TAX EXEMPTIONS FROM ALL RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS IN THE UNITED STATES Content: Unfortunately the only argument that my opponent has offered the entire debate is that he thinks poor churches should get tax exemptions because they need the money. That argument is lacking in any substance or sources. The rest of the debate, my opponent has spent his time either agreeing with most of my points or playing a game of semantics. My argument still stands that ALL CHURCHES SHOULD HAVE TAX EXEMPTIONS REMOVED and I will clarify my argument one last time. I believe it is dangerous to link, in any way, a person's faith with government. If governments are providing tax exemptions to churches, it leads to manipulation in various ways. For starters, if one political party is pushing to increase exemptions, it could (and does) lead to churches using their power to sway voters... and when a pastor/priest/minister tells someone that they had better vote a certain way, too many people will blindly follow. My opponent agrees with me that too many churches make far too much money. My thoughts are that rather than just draw a line in the sand and say if you make $_____ per year then you don't get tax exemptions, I would cut all tax exemptions and put it in the churches hands to help each other out. Instead of one baptist minister owning two million dollar mansions while another baptist church can barely maintain 10 parishioners, why not share that money amongst the churches? They all work for the same God, right? If we draw a line in the sand in order to determine who can and who can't get tax cuts then that will just promote loophole finding and ways of reallocating money so that they fall just under the line. It happens all the time in businesses across America and really, religions are just businesses. To recap this debate, I backed up my initial arguments with relevant sources while my opponent offered none. I debated my side of the debate at hand while my opponent tried to counter with semantics and spent most of his time agreeing with me, offering next to no actual argument to support his side of the debate, aside from \"a lot of these poor churches are also in poor communities so cannot receive as much of a offering and not donations\". Please consider all of this when voting, and don't just vote based on whose side you agree with. Thank you for taking the time to read this debate.", "qid": "18", "docid": "a84c3c83-2019-04-18T15:40:29Z-00000-000", "rank": 11, "score": 175150.0}, {"content": "Title: Should Churches Pay Taxes Content: Yes, of course all churches should pay taxes, there is no legitimate reason why churches should be exempt from taxes, just because you claim religious belief does not mean you are exempt from taxes so why should a church be exempt. Religion in general is a multi billion dollar business the only difference between a corporation and a church is we tax a church.", "qid": "18", "docid": "7f792826-2019-04-18T15:23:48Z-00004-000", "rank": 12, "score": 172870.0}, {"content": "Title: Churches Paying Taxes Content: Hope you are having a good day! My opponent said, \"Church should not pay taxes because they are the center for religions. \" Sure churches are the center for religion, But they shouldn't be tax exempt. All places that make money pay taxes, Except churches. Churches make money, Lots of it, And they don't donate that much. Also, I just went to your source and found that it has nothing to do with the topic. Source: https://bigthink. Com/21st-century-spirituality/how-to-make-71-billion-a-year-tax-the-churches", "qid": "18", "docid": "3f1c75e-2019-04-18T11:15:58Z-00003-000", "rank": 13, "score": 172643.0}, {"content": "Title: Churches of all religions should be taxed by the government. Content: It seems my opponent has failed to provide any form of rebuttal against my arguments. Very well, I will proceed. I. Property TaxThe Walz decision The U.S. Supreme Court, by a vote of 8-1, upheld the tax exemption of churches in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, 397 U.S. 664 (1970). Walz, a self-described Christian who did not belong to any church and owned real estate in Richmond County, N.Y., sued the tax committee over property tax exemption for churches. Walz claimed he and other taxpayers were forced to indirectly subsidize churches.The majority decision, written by Chief Justice Burger, held that the tax exempt status granted to all houses of worship is the same privilege given to other nonprofits organizations:\"The legislative purpose of a property tax exemption is neither the advancement nor the inhibition of religion; it is neither sponsorship nor hostility. New York, in common with the other States, has determined that certain entities that exist in a harmonious relationship to the community at large, and that foster its 'moral or mental improvement,' should not be inhibited in their activities by property taxation or the hazard of loss of those properties for non payment of taxes. It [397 U.S. 664 , 673] has not singled out one particular church or religious group or even churches as such; rather, it has granted exemption to all houses of religious worship within a broad class of property owned by nonprofit, quasi-public corporations which include hospitals, libraries, playgrounds, scientific, professional, historical, and patriotic groups. Source: http://ffrf.org...Importantly, my opponent failed to inform the audience that the so-called luxury home was built using the pastors personal money that he earned from book sales and paid personal appearances around the world. The pastor himself is known as a \"rock star\" of the community with a congregation of roughly 14,000 every week. Furthermore, even though his private home has absolutely nothing to do with the property tax exemption argument my opponent is trying to make, his church has contributed over ten million dollars to the community. This is all within the last eight years. Not only does the amount of ten million dollars in eight years dwarf the amount my opponent is trying to use as an argument, but it also is far more than that community would have received via government spending going-back-to-the-community.Source: http://www.wcnc.com...II. Sales TaxA sales tax is something that can be avoided by most non-profit organizations, not just churches. So to claim \"avoiding\" a sales tax as necessarily a bad thing, perhaps we should also be targeting the boy/girl scouts, or the local gardening club or even our local charity fundraisers. Furthermore, sales tax exemption is a very fine line usually defined on the State level of politics. This implies that your math is incorrect in the sense that not only is your portrayal of an 8.25% sale tax something that isn't verifiable without sources but also that not every state permits every church sales tax exemption. Furthermore, while churches might be exempt from sales taxes in certain states - depending on their legal status, they might be subject to paying a \"franchise\" tax. Thus, in reality, churches aren't always as 'tax-free' as my opponent is implying.III. Capital Gains Tax Once again, my opponent made the mistake of attempting to claim that when churches sell 'stuff' they don't pay capital gains tax. This tax law has several exceptions that even require churches to pay taxes in certain situation. For clarification on those situations I have provided some information: Property used for exempt purposes. Any gain or loss from the sale or other disposition of property used for the exempt purposes of the foundation is not included in figuring the tax on net investment income. If the foundation uses property for its exempt purposes, but also inci\u00addentally receives income from the property that is subject to the net investment income tax, any gain or loss from the sale or other disposition of the property would not be subject to the tax. For example, if a tax-exempt private foundation maintains historic buildings that are open for public inspection, but it requires a number of employees to live in these buildings and charges rent, the rent is subject to the tax on net invest\u00adment income, but any gain or loss resulting from the sale of these buildings is not subject to the tax. However, if a private foundation uses prop\u00aderty both for exempt purposes and (other than incidentally) for investment purposes, (for exam\u00adple, a building in which the foundation\u2019s charita\u00adble and investment activities are carried on) that part of the gain or loss from the sale or other disposition of the property that is allocable to the investment use of the property must be taken into account in figuring the tax on net investment income. Source: http://www.irs.gov...Considering that the mall leases space to for-profit companies such as Forever 21, they will not be exempt from capital gains tax. The only real point my opponent can make in the case of the mall is that it was built property tax free, but as with the previous example - the money returned to the local community by the church itself has far outweighed the money 'lost' by tax exemptions. IV. Absolute claims made by OpponentIn closing, my opponent made the bold statement: Churches do not have to account for where their money is spent, unlike any other organization. Blatantly, churches are given extra brakes and exemptions that no other organization is offered.This is far from accurate. As I have shown above, it is not just churches that do not have to account for where their money is spent - but rather, most non-profit organizations enjoy the same benefits of tax-exempt status as churches. The claim made by my opponent is baseless and completely false. While I can agree with my opponent that separation of church and state does not mean churches should go unchecked, it most certainly means that church and state are to remain separated. By allowing the taxation of churches we are doing nothing more than removing that degree of separation that has been necessary to maintain the balance between the two dominating forces. What history has proven, if anything, is that cycles of the past are unknowingly repeated - we must not allow that to happen once more. My only hope is that, once again, I have not failed in reflecting the importance of keeping churches tax free, and ultimately - free from external influence or governance.", "qid": "18", "docid": "5efc5feb-2019-04-18T16:38:30Z-00001-000", "rank": 14, "score": 172361.0}, {"content": "Title: Churches Ought not be Taxed Content: I had to put this into Google Translate. You are saying that assuming churches serve the general welfare of the population, and the IRS lists churches as serving the welfare of the population, then they should not be taxed. This is based on assumptions which I will now tackle. Churches claim to offer some benefit towards the welfare of the population, but most churches, specifically the Catholic Church, run like a business. They have outlets in every country, they provide advice, morality and salvation to their customers and even have competition from other religious businesses. These religions often require tithes from their members, which provides income for the church. Religions are business as much as any other corporation. Next up, there are clear benefits to taxing the church. If we were to tax the churches, we would make 71,000,000,000 Dollars annually, and that's only in America. http://taxthechurches.org... http://churchesandtaxes.procon.org... Churches make more than most businesses on the planet, and yet are able to use the claim that they benefit the welfare of the people to remain tax exempt. Saying \"if the law says it's right, then it must be right, this is legal, so it too, must be right\" doesn't cut it. Anything that claims to \"benefit the welfare of the people should then be exempt;\" doctors, civil servants, anyone who helps others. This only means that the laws need to be changed. Your move, Duncan.", "qid": "18", "docid": "b80912ea-2019-04-18T17:08:58Z-00002-000", "rank": 15, "score": 172052.0}, {"content": "Title: Churches, mosques, synagogues, etc. ought not be exempt from federal taxation. Content: Preface: I would ask Pro if the next round, or perhaps the round after, be made the concluding round. This debate will devolve into repetition and nonsense if we go all 5 rounds. Proposition: My Opponent challenged my view that Tax Exemption is natural. However, he does not elaborate further. Therefore, he has effectively left the matter in my favour. What we earn is naturally ours, ergo, to have what is ours taken is not natural, even if necessary. I will follow up later. Counter-Case I: Corporate Tax Summarization: My opponent claims that we will simply label churches as Corporations. Counter: Churches are not Corporations. This is simple, objective fact. Pro can no more relabel them then he could relabel me rich. Pro claims that Churches seek to make money. This means nothing. All charities seek to acquire revenue. What matters is the use of this money. A Corporation will make money to benefit its leaders/shareholders through financial profit. A church seeks to gain revenue in order to benefit everyone else, through charitable means. Ergo, the Churches are in fact Charities, and cannot be labeled as anything else, any more then he can relabel the Salvation Army. To do so in order to expand tax revenue would be a grievous abuse of power, and a sign of a Government that is falling beyond the threshold. No, Churches will be labeled as what they are, Charitable organizations. Pro says Tithes are mandatory, I ask for sources. Social Pressures are also given when charities stand outside walmart, or when we are asked to donate at the register. But this doesn\u2019t change the nature of the charities responsible. No, Pro may be too weak to resist social pressure, but he cannot redefine \u201cVoluntary\u201d. No matter how much pressure is applied, the fact that you can say no (Often times without people knowing) means it is completely voluntary. I, for example, did not give tithe in church today. Conclusion: Pro failed to prove that Churches are Corporations, and merely declared them to be so. Or rather, declared that he would label them Corporations, regardless of what they actually are. Counter-Case II: \u201cCounter-Cases\u201d / \u201cCases\u201d Summarization: Pro has attempted to attack my Counters, while presented a new case that Churches aren\u2019t Charities. Counter: \u201cWhen these groups enter society, they give up the right to not be taxed. \u201d This is one of the most philosophically bankrupt views I have seen in awhile. Again, to keep what we earn is the natural way, and to be taxed is unnatural, if necessary. To act as though taxation is inherent until otherwise said shows a lack of understanding of the nature of taxation. Saying that government withholding tax is a sign of support further shows his flawed philosophy toward taxation. The inability to distinguish between not having our income stolen, and being money suggests he views our money as Government Property, with the money we have left being our allowance. I will allow the Voters to make of this philosophy what they will. Once the smaller Churches begin going under, Pro will then give them a stimulus. This means taking money from wealthier churches, and giving it to smaller churches, to make up for the tax that is now implemented. This is the endorsement of religion the First Amendment is against. This means benefiting the smaller churches at the expense of the large ones (ironically, more so than Pro\u2019s claim that exemption benefits larger churches more). Or perhaps we not tax them at all, and not need to give taxpayer money to Churches. Or they collapse. Then tax revenue is lost. Now no one gets Social Aid. My opponent declares SCOTUS to be the final authority, yet again committing the Appeal to Authority, without giving evidence that they are right. SCOTUS has been wrong before. They are largely an opinion with authority, whereas my sources are academic. I have shown the flaw in their reasoning, Pro has not shown flaw in my sources. Pro says that our education system is underfunded, without source. I have sourced that it is among the most well-funded in the world. All other problems are in administration, and therefore extra funding won\u2019t help. Our SS problems are derived from a broken system. Money will be wasted without change. Pro fails to express how taking the money from a charity, and wasting half of it will benefit us more than just letting the Charity use the money. Paying the debt is no better than war. It is taking more money to pay for the government's own inefficiencies, rather than trying to fix it from the government\u2019s (expenditure) end. Pro fails to show how these churches are not charitable. Rather, he makes the unsubstantiated claim that they \u201ckeep a cut for themselves\u201d. What he is referring to is unknown, and thus irrelevant. Any administrative/maintenance/debt costs are normal for charities. They are still Charities. Scientology has a controversial tax status. It has even been revoked because it didn\u2019t meet the requirements to be a non-for-profit Church. {1} Thus Churches can lose status. Pro also mentions that bureaucracy won\u2019t waste the money. I sourced that there was waste. Here is another {2} Conclusion: Pro\u2019s Counters fail to dispel my arguments, and he fails to revive his own. As it stands, his logic is shown to be faulty. Pro says my argument relies on Churches being Charity, but as this is the established fact about Churches, it is actually Pro\u2019s job to show they are not Charities. He has failed in this endeavor, as his statements, when looked at carefully, can be seen to apply to any Charity. His failure to show that churches can even be taxes further defies his claim that taxing them will benefit social programs. He further continues making unsubstantiated claims that adding money to these programs will help, when I have shown the problems are often not financial. Sources: 1} Wikipedia: . http://bit.ly... 2} Slate: . http://slate.me... Case: Long-Term Loss Thesis: I will show here that increasing taxation will only lead to a less successful future, with a dangerous precedent in place, and decreased taxation is prefered. Rationalization: A fact that many people seem not to realize is that taxation harms long term economic growth {3}. With less capital, business/people have less spare income for expansion. This will not change for churches. Their decreased growth will lead to the revenue from them dropping overtime relative to inflation and government spending. Eventually, the Social assistance gained from this tax (which is already less than lost by taxing charities) will further decline relative to had the Churches been able to simply invest the money into expension (something Charities are allowed to do). But worse, is the precedence. After taxing the Churches, the Government will find that it is not enough. Because 71 Billion won\u2019t fix the anything. Instead of fixing their fiscal incompetence, they simply added a tax, on a 501c3 eligible group with strong legal defenses. The precedence is almost certainly set. If it has already been set (very likely given increasing tax/GDP ratio {4}), it will be further enforced. New taxes, expanded taxes. This will lead to slowed economic growth, and cause long-term harm to revenue. If taxes are lowered instead, the economy will grow from increased investment/ease-of-business. The increase in economy will eventually reach a point will more revenue can be brought in with lower and less taxes. A long-term solution, along with fixing the bureaucratic mess, and destroying waste. Far better and more efficient than the short-term solution of taxing more, which will only necessitate (and precedate) further taxation increases. Conclusion: Pro\u2019s economic policies would see decreased economic/church growth, leading to a situation where tax revenues will be lower (relative to inflation) in spite of higher tax rates. Lower taxes and smaller/efficient government is best. Sources: 3} TPC: . http://tpc.io... 4} . http://bit.ly... Closing Statement: Pro fails to resuscitate his arguments, often merely repeating them without further elaboration. He fails to realize that simply referring to SCOTUS\u2019 position doesn\u2019t justify their claims. Pro doesn\u2019t really make any headway against my claims, beyond relying on the notion that he can tax them as something they aren\u2019t (Corporations). And if they don\u2019t fit the classification, he\u2019ll tax them as such anyhow. This doesn\u2019t work, and Pro failed to show Churches to be anything but Charities, as his descriptions of the churches are little different than other Charities once analyzed. Perhaps most crippling is Pro revealing his faulty philosophy toward taxation, implying that theft of our earned money is natural, and to be allowed to keep all of our earned income is a gift from government. This is a dangerous notion. Pro may not have stated this philosophy word-for-word, but the implication is there. Especially, when he says not having our money taken is the same as being given money. This is a stockholmesque view. Taxation is Theft. Taxation is necessary, but it is theft. It must be done carefully, and every single effort must be made to keep it as low as possible. If government fails in this endeavour, and choses to keep raising tax, then it must be seen as an aggressive parasite to our economic system, taking more, and giving less. Pro would prefer this parasite, because his disdain for religion justifies expanded taxation on charities simply due to their religious nature. {5/6} Sources: 5} . http://bit.ly... 6} Mises: . http://bit.ly...", "qid": "18", "docid": "9a66988-2019-04-18T12:07:13Z-00006-000", "rank": 16, "score": 171879.0}, {"content": "Title: Churches, mosques, synagogues, etc. ought not be exempt from federal taxation. Content: Bla bla bla 3rd round is final bla bla bla", "qid": "18", "docid": "9a66988-2019-04-18T12:07:13Z-00001-000", "rank": 17, "score": 171430.0}, {"content": "Title: Churches, mosques, synagogues, etc. ought not be exempt from federal taxation. Content: Bla bla bla 3rd round is final bla bla bla", "qid": "18", "docid": "9a66988-2019-04-18T12:07:13Z-00003-000", "rank": 18, "score": 171430.0}, {"content": "Title: resoloved: REMOVE TAX EXEMPTIONS FROM ALL RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS IN THE UNITED STATES Content: INTRO: Yes rich churches have overall a lot of money and are using it wrong I agree that is a problem that must be fixed but there is one thing this resolution forgets to back up and why judge it can\"t be passed. The reason I am going neg today is because I believe the tax exemptions should only be removed from churches that are rich not the poor churches that actually need it. 1.Poor churches need the money \"Not enough to pay off tax emptions \"A lot of smaller churches start out in poorer areas 2.Huge churches don\"t need/ the money use it wrong etc. \"Only 3% to 10% of tax emptions used for charity \"In addition to the lack of transparency, it is vital to consider whether any multi-billion dollar operation, religious or otherwise, should enjoy sweeping tax exemptions on their assets or actually needs it. What exactly does the tax exemption promote if an organization already has more than enough money to run its activities from individual contributions? \"Religious organizations with large entertainment venues. There are churches with pools, skating rinks, bowling alleys, huge gyms, etc. Such things are not required in order to practice your \"faith\". It gives religious groups a very unfair advantage over businesses offering the same services, but which have to pay taxes. \" Also just a little joke thing some of these same tax exempt huge churches claim \"god can pay our taxes\" so if they believe in this they don\"t need these tax exemptions in the first place not to mention they have millions or billions of dollars and they seem to maintain their buildings rather well. 3. Tax exemptions are not justified and poorly monitored There are millions of dollars of undocumented, unclaimed, untaxed church income each year. The figures cannot be accurately calculated by the IRS since most churches do not file the \"voluntary\" paperwork. Preachers are living in million dollar \"church funded\" homes, driving \"church gifted\" Jaguars, and wearing \"church donated\" Rolexes. Whilst enjoying a lavish lifestyle, many are not paying the myriad of taxes that the rest of US citizens are required to pay because church-based money is virtually untouchable, untraceable, and unaccountable. What becomes of the rest of the unaccounted cash millions that filter through the tithing trays? A local church, said to be the largest growing church in America, recently spent $1.2M on Harley Davidson motorcycles as gifts to the top 11 leaders. It is also claimed that they have used over $1M bailing out church members from jail. We are helping to pay for them! You pay for them indirectly, the same way local, state, and federal governments in the United States subsidize religion \" to the tune of about $71 billion every year. The current laws allow for open money-laundering and tax evasion without the likelihood for consequence or penalty.They have no safeguards to determine how many untaxed dollars are passing though the church doors and officials hands. Once a group claims to be a church, the IRS has no enforcement to determine if any illegal activity occurs unless the evidence is gathered and handed to them first. Although it states that all non-profits must not benefit any individuals, and must not spend a significant amount of time or money lobbying lawmakers, there is currently NO WAY TO DETERMINE, REGULATE, OR PUNISH these illegal behaviors. Major example: Some church leaders have even managed to use the church to hide their assets. For instance, Rev. John Hagee reorganized his TV station (Global Evangelism Television) as a church (Grace Church of San Antonio Churches) to shelter those records, after the San AntonioExpress-News revealed his income exceeded $1 million in 2001. All of his assets, including an 8,000-or-so acre ranch, are now sheltered in the Cornerstone Church. In other words, Hagee hides his millions in assets in his church and escapes taxation on his own personal wealth and property. So yes I agree that rich churches shouldn't have this money but what you have to understand is their are poor churches that doe. I personaly go to one that has about 10 members without tax emptions we wouldn't survive. NOt all churches are good big buildings in fact a lot of Baptist or apostolic or those religions have buildings in poorer areas.", "qid": "18", "docid": "a84c3c83-2019-04-18T15:40:29Z-00003-000", "rank": 19, "score": 171254.0}, {"content": "Title: remove tax exemptions from religious institutions in the U.S. Content: Case 1.Huge churches don\"t need/ the money use it wrong etc. \"Only 3% to 10% of tax emptions used for charity \"In addition to the lack of transparency, it is vital to consider whether any multi-billion dollar operation, religious or otherwise, should enjoy sweeping tax exemptions on their assets or actually needs it. What exactly does the tax exemption promote if an organization already has more than enough money to run its activities from individual contributions? \"Religious organizations with large entertainment venues. There are churches with pools, skating rinks, bowling alleys, huge gyms, etc. Such things are not required in order to practice your \"faith\". It gives religious groups a very unfair advantage over businesses offering the same services, but which have to pay taxes. \" Also just a little joke thing some of these same tax exempt huge churches claim \"god can pay our taxes\" so if they believe in this they don\"t need these tax exemptions in the first place not to mention they have millions or billions of dollars and they seem to maintain their buildings rather well. 2. Tax exemptions are not justified and poorly monitored There are millions of dollars of undocumented, unclaimed, untaxed church income each year. The figures cannot be accurately calculated by the IRS since most churches do not file the \"voluntary\" paperwork. Preachers are living in million dollar \"church funded\" homes, driving \"church gifted\" Jaguars, and wearing \"church donated\" Rolexes. Whilst enjoying a lavish lifestyle, many are not paying the myriad of taxes that the rest of US citizens are required to pay because church-based money is virtually untouchable, untraceable, and unaccountable. What becomes of the rest of the unaccounted cash millions that filter through the tithing trays? A local church, said to be the largest growing church in America, recently spent $1.2M on Harley Davidson motorcycles as gifts to the top 11 leaders. It is also claimed that they have used over $1M bailing out church members from jail. We are helping to pay for them! You pay for them indirectly, the same way local, state, and federal governments in the United States subsidize religion \" to the tune of about $71 billion every year. The current laws allow for open money-laundering and tax evasion without the likelihood for consequence or penalty.They have no safeguards to determine how many untaxed dollars are passing though the church doors and officials hands. Once a group claims to be a church, the IRS has no enforcement to determine if any illegal activity occurs unless the evidence is gathered and handed to them first. Although it states that all non-profits must not benefit any individuals, and must not spend a significant amount of time or money lobbying lawmakers, there is currently NO WAY TO DETERMINE, REGULATE, OR PUNISH these illegal behaviors. Major example: Some church leaders have even managed to use the church to hide their assets. For instance, Rev. John Hagee reorganized his TV station (Global Evangelism Television) as a church (Grace Church of San Antonio Churches) to shelter those records, after the San AntonioExpress-News revealed his income exceeded $1 million in 2001. All of his assets, including an 8,000-or-so acre ranch, are now sheltered in the Cornerstone Church. In other words, Hagee hides his millions in assets in his church and escapes taxation on his own personal wealth and property. Response to what opponent said: This will not be directed at Catholic churches is his main argument and I agree with that so we agree on one thing. Also I personally go to a poor church with like 18 members and it is Apostolic so yeah I know where you are coming from. My solution to what your suggesting would to be just to remove tax exemptions from of course churches with a decent income but with poorer churches give them maybe 5-10 years before removal and time can be extended a bit if church is starting from scratch. It still would be removing their tax exemptions but after a period of time.", "qid": "18", "docid": "ca561f99-2019-04-18T15:37:24Z-00002-000", "rank": 20, "score": 167873.0}, {"content": "Title: There should not be tax exemptions for Curches. Content: It seems that he decided to start arguing from round 1-really no problem- so I have to start with the rebuttals:\"I think they should because it takes money to build the churches and it is important to keep it clean with the taxes you pay\" The main problem is that the money that all US citizens pay are not only used for building churches or keeping them clean. I hate to repeat the same things again and again so I advice you to read all the arguments (especially 7) and you'll relize why I support that. 1) Exempting churches from taxation costs the government billions ofdollars in lost revenue, which it cannot afford, especially in tough economictimes:According to former White House senior policy analyst Jeff Schweitzer,PhD, US churches own $300-$500 billion in untaxed property. New York's nonpartisan Independent Budget Office determined in July 2011 that New York City alone loses $627 million in property tax revenue. Lakewood Church, a \"megachurch\" in Houston, TX, earns $75 million in annual untaxed revenue, and the Church of Scientology's annual income exceeds $500 million. [6] 2) Tax exemptions for churches violate the separation of church and state enshrined in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution:By providing a financial benefit to religious institutions, government is supporting religion. Associate Justice of the US Supreme court, William O. Douglas, in his dissenting opinion in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, decided May 4, 1970, stated: \"If believers are entitled to public financial support, so are nonbelievers. A believer and nonbeliever under the present law are treated differently because of the articles of their faith\u2026I conclude that this tax exemption is unconstitutional. \" [1]3)A tax break for churches forces all American taxpayers to support religion, even if they oppose some or all religious doctrines: As Mark Twain argued: \"no church property is taxed and so the infidel and the atheist and the man without religion are taxed to make up the deficit in the public income thus caused. \" [2]4) A tax exemption is a form of subsidy, and the Constitution bars government from subsidizing religion:William H. Rehnquist, then-Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court,declared on behalf of a unanimous court in Regan v. Taxation with Representation (1983): \"Both tax exemptions and tax deductibility are a form of subsidy that is administered through the tax system. A tax exemption has much the same effect as a cash grant to the organization of the amount of tax it would have to pay on its income. \" [3]5) The tax code makes no distinction between authentic religions and fraudulent startup \"faiths,\" which benefit at taxpayers' expense:In spring 2010, Oklahoma awarded tax exempt status to Satanist group The Church of the IV Majesties. In Mar. 2004, the IRS warned of an increase in Schemes that \"exploit legitimate laws to establish sham one person,nonprofit religious corporations\" charging $1,000 or more per person to attend \"seminars. \"The Church of Scientology, which TIME Magazine described in May 1991 as a \"thriving cult of greed and power\" and \"a hugely profitable global racket,\" was granted federal income tax exemption in Oct. 1993. The New York Times reported that this \"saved the church tens of millions of dollars in taxes. \" 6) Churches serve a religious purpose that does not aid the government, so their tax exemptions are not justified:Tax exemptions to secular nonprofits like hospitals and homeless shelters are justified because such organizations do work that would otherwise fall to government. Churches, while they may undertake charitable work, exist primarily for religious worship and instruction, which the US government is constitutionally prevented from performing. [5] 7) American taxpayers are supporting the extravagant lifestyles of wealthy pastors, whose lavish \"megachurches\" accumulate millions of tax-free dollars every year: US Senator Chuck Grassley, MA (R-IA) launched an investigation into these groups in Nov. 2007 after receiving complaints of church revenue being used to buy pastors private jets, Rolls Royce cars, multimillion-dollar homes, trips to Hawaii and Fiji, and in one case, a $23,000, marble-topped chest of drawers installed in the 150,000 square foot headquarters of Joyce Meyer Ministries in Fenton, Missouri. [7] 8) Churches receive special treatment from the IRS beyond what other nonprofits receive, and such favoritism is unconstitutional: While secular charities are compelled to report their income and financial structure to the IRS using Form 990 (Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax), churches are granted automatic exemption from federal income tax without having to file a tax return. [8] 9) The tax break given to churches restricts their freedom of speech because it deters pastors from speaking out for or against political candidates: As argued by Rev. Carl Gregg, pastor of Maryland's Broadview Church, \"when Christians speak, we shouldn't have to worry about whether we are biting the hand that feeds us because we shouldn't be fed from Caesar/Uncle Sam in the first place. \" [9]10) The \"parsonage exemption\" on ministers' homes makes already-wealthy pastors even richer at taxpayers' expense: The average annual salary for senior pastors with congregations of 2,000 or more is $147,000, with some earning up to $400,000. In addition to the federal exemption on housing expenses enjoyed by these ministers, they often pay zero dollars in state property tax. Church leaders Creflo and Taffi Dollar of World Changers Church International had three tax-free parsonages: a million-dollar mansion in Atlanta, GA, a two-million-dollar mansion in Fayetteville, GA, and a $2.5 million Manhattan apartment. Kenneth and Gloria Copeland, leaders of Kenneth Copeland Ministries in Fort Worth, TX, live in a church-owned, tax-free $6.2 million lakefront parsonage. [10]11) A tax exemption is not a right: Governments have traditionally granted this privilege to churches because of the positive contribution they are presumed to make to the community. If a church or other religious group wanted to receive tax exemptions because of the charitable work they do, should they be required to make a case for that rather than benefit from the presumption that religion equals charity? It makes much more sense to see tax exemptions as a way to encourage organizations which work for the public benefit rather than personal profit and a means by which taxpayers put themselves at a relative tax disadvantage in exchange for the benefits the organizations provide. What this means, however, is that it is possible for the government to deny tax exemptions to those groups which are not benefitting the public and/or which are working against a compelling public policy \u2014 and that may include churches or other religious organizations. Tax exemptions are not a right, they are a privilege which the government bestows based upon the nature of what a group is doing. [11] Sources:[1]. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...[2] Mark Twain's Notebook,1935[3]. https://supreme.justia.com... [4]. http://abcnews.go.com...http://www.irs.gov...http://content.time.com...http://www.nytimes.com...[5]http://supreme.justia.com...[6]http://www.huffingtonpost.com...http://nypost.com...http://www.entrepreneur.com... [7]. http://www.npr.org... [8]. http://www.irs.gov... [9]. http://www.patheos.com...; [10]. http://churchesandtaxes.procon.org...http://online.wsj.com...http://churchesandtaxes.procon.org... . http://www.nytimes.com... [11]. http://atheism.about.com...", "qid": "18", "docid": "ffa16c3b-2019-04-18T15:59:53Z-00001-000", "rank": 21, "score": 167781.0}, {"content": "Title: A resolution to remove tax exemptions from religious institutions in the U.S. Content: cont 1:Huge churches don\"t need/ the money use it wrong etc. \"Only 3% to 10% of tax emptions used for charity \"In addition to the lack of transparency, it is vital to consider whether any multi-billion dollar operation, religious or otherwise, should enjoy sweeping tax exemptions on their assets or actually needs it. What exactly does the tax exemption promote if an organization already has more than enough money to run its activities from individual contributions? cont 2: misuse of money/lies \"Religious organizations with large entertainment venues. There are churches with pools, skating rinks, bowling alleys, huge gyms, etc. Such things are not required in order to practice your \"faith\". It gives religious groups a very unfair advantage over businesses offering the same services, but which have to pay taxes. \" Also just a little joke thing some of these same tax exempt huge churches claim \"god can pay our taxes\" so if they believe in this they don\"t need these tax exemptions in the first place not to mention they have millions or billions of dollars and they seem to maintain their buildings rather well. 3. Tax exemptions are not justified and poorly monitored There are millions of dollars of undocumented, unclaimed, untaxed church income each year. The figures cannot be accurately calculated by the IRS since most churches do not file the \"voluntary\" paperwork. Preachers are living in million dollar \"church funded\" homes, driving \"church gifted\" Jaguars, and wearing \"church donated\" Rolexes. Whilst enjoying a lavish lifestyle, many are not paying the myriad of taxes that the rest of US citizens are required to pay because church-based money is virtually untouchable, untraceable, and unaccountable. What becomes of the rest of the unaccounted cash millions that filter through the tithing trays? A local church, said to be the largest growing church in America, recently spent $1.2M on Harley Davidson motorcycles as gifts to the top 11 leaders. It is also claimed that they have used over $1M bailing out church members from jail. We are helping to pay for them! You pay for them indirectly, the same way local, state, and federal governments in the United States subsidize religion \" to the tune of about $71 billion every year. The current laws allow for open money-laundering and tax evasion without the likelihood for consequence or penalty.They have no safeguards to determine how many untaxed dollars are passing though the church doors and officials hands. Once a group claims to be a church, the IRS has no enforcement to determine if any illegal activity occurs unless the evidence is gathered and handed to them first. Although it states that all non-profits must not benefit any individuals, and must not spend a significant amount of time or money lobbying lawmakers, there is currently NO WAY TO DETERMINE, REGULATE, OR PUNISH these illegal behaviors. Major example: Some church leaders have even managed to use the church to hide their assets. For instance, Rev. John Hagee reorganized his TV station (Global Evangelism Television) as a church (Grace Church of San Antonio Churches) to shelter those records, after the San AntonioExpress-News revealed his income exceeded $1 million in 2001. All of his assets, including an 8,000-or-so acre ranch, are now sheltered in the Cornerstone Church. In other words, Hagee hides his millions in assets in his church and escapes taxation on his own personal wealth and property.", "qid": "18", "docid": "7dd07516-2019-04-18T15:38:12Z-00002-000", "rank": 22, "score": 166335.0}, {"content": "Title: Churches, mosques, synagogues, etc. ought not be exempt from federal taxation. Content: ==Unitomic==", "qid": "18", "docid": "9a66988-2019-04-18T12:07:13Z-00000-000", "rank": 23, "score": 166149.0}, {"content": "Title: Churches, mosques, synagogues, etc. ought not be exempt from federal taxation. Content: ==Unitomic==", "qid": "18", "docid": "9a66988-2019-04-18T12:07:13Z-00002-000", "rank": 24, "score": 166149.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: In the United States, churches should be taxed. Content: Accepted.", "qid": "18", "docid": "48db7620-2019-04-18T18:11:25Z-00005-000", "rank": 25, "score": 165880.0}, {"content": "Title: Churches, mosques, synagogues, etc. ought not be exempt from federal taxation. Content: Synopsis: The Resolution is interpreted to suggest that religious communities (the definition of \u201cChurch/Mosque/Synagogue\u201d being used) should pay Taxes, and not have tax exempt status. The word \u201cChurch\u201d will be used in substitution to all forms of related Religious Communities. Proposition I: Definitions Tax: A compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions. {1} Exempt: Free from an obligation or liability imposed on others {2} Endorsement: An act of giving one's public approval or support to someone or something. {3} Sources: 1} . http://bit.ly... 2} . http://bit.ly... 3} . http://bit.ly... Proposition II: BOP will be on my Opponent, as he desires a change from the Status Quo, is Pro, and the instigator of the debate. Additionally, I claim that all money, being properly acquired, is exempt from tax until otherwise made compulsory. In this way, not being required to pay tax is the natural system, and therefore, Pro must show that there is a proper justification to extend taxation over a currently untaxed organization. Counter-Case I: Endorsement of Religion / Favouring Large Churches Counter: This is purely non sequitur. Allowing people to keep more of what is already theirs does not count as endorsing them. Rather, giving them money would count as Endorsement. They aren\u2019t being given money, they are keeping the money that was already theirs. It would be endorsement to give a different status to other religious communities. Which means all Religious communities would either need taxed, or exempt. My opponent referenced a SCOTUS decision, however it isn\u2019t sourced, so it can be disregarded, since no details are linked. Regardless, I will go ahead and point out that it is still an appeal to authority, and doesn\u2019t matter in a discussion on what we believe should/n\u2019t be done. Regardless of their decision, being allowed to keep more of your money is not the same as being given money. SCOTUS seems to speak from the position that our money is the government's money until we are told we can keep it. But that isn\u2019t how it works. The issue with Pros second claim is that it assumes removing tax exemption will somehow be more fair than allowing both Large and Small Churches to keep all their income. In truth, Larger churches are more easily capable of paying taxes, while Smaller Churches risk falling under and failing, in the same way that small business\u2019 are hurt more than large business\u2019. Whereas a similar tax rate will still allow large organizations enough income to accomplish their goals and obligations, it would leave smaller organizations a smaller income to do so, preventing growth. With that said, I will further point out that there is a break in the logic that says allowing two people to keep all their money benefits the richer more because he has more money to keep. Saying a wealthier organization makes more money, so we should take it, doesn\u2019t work. In actuality, giving a different tax liability to different Religious Organizations risk creating \u201cendorsement\u201d by forcing larger ones to pay more. Giving the same Liability endorses the larger ones by hurting smaller \u201ccompetitors\u201d. Conclusion:I have shown here that there is no endorsement or unfairness in giving the same tax exemption to all organizations of the same type. Rather the only way to avoid the government influencing religion is to keep Government out of Church coffers. Counter-Case II: Use of Tax Revenue. Counter: So? Firstly, I\u2019ll let Pro know that Blogs, which do not have links to direct sources, are not themselves sources. So Pro\u2019s first source is not valid. Regardless, it doesn\u2019t matter. We cannot simply justify increased taxation by the amount it will provide. Instead of sustaining increased spending with increased taxation, we must first work to decrease spending. Funneling the money into systems like the VA is a waste, as it is not an issue of money, but of structure and efficiency, like many other budgets. Other budgets are similarly well funded, but suffer from inefficiency and wasteful bureaucracy (Such as education, where we have one of the highest spending per students in the world {4/5/6}), or otherwise has dedicated revenue (SS is supported by largely by Pay Roll Tax {7/8}). And to say we could fund the Vietnam war is also a terrible thought. Taxing Charities to fund unpopular wars? Pro is listing how we can use the money, but I argue we should try to fix the problems that lead to the failure of these programs. Taxation from Churches look like a lot, but will not fix our problems. So we should try something that can. Streamline bureaucracy, modernize systems, and try to fix our financial problems by decreasing financial needs. If the systems are not able to be fixed without constantly increased taxation, then the system is broken and should be replaced. Pro sets a dangerous precedent of fixing problems by taking more money. I will lastly point out that Religious organizations are highly charitable (sourced in Case I below). Pro is wanting to take this charitable money, lose half of it in Bureaucracy, and use the rest for welfare. It will not help, but rather it will decrease national social assistance. Of course, this doesn\u2019t really matter, as the Churches will not pay taxes regardless of their religious status, as I will point out in my Case below. . Conclusion:Here it is shown that the notion that our budget should be fixed by increasing taxes is flawed and dangerous, and that the problem should be fixed from the expenditure end. If Pro had his way, our government could spend as much as they want, and simply charge us more for the right to exist, rather than taking responsibility for our money which they have forced us to hand over. Why should we be forced to give more and more to an irresponsible Robber Baron that won\u2019t at least try to minimize the costs? No, be accountable to our money, then we can talk about taking our holy dollars. Sources: 4} CBS: . http://cbsn.ws... 5} OECD: . http://bit.ly... 6} Investopedia: . http://bit.ly... 7} . http://bit.ly... 8} Heritage: . http://bit.ly... Case: Churches are Non-For-Profit / Funded by Donation. Thesis: I will prove here that removing the tax exempt status will not change anything, as Churches are inherently tax exempt through being Charitable organizations. Rationalization: Churches are non-for-profit. They are highly charitable {9, yes the source says the catholic church doesn\u2019t provide half of SA, but it does show they alone still provide a great portion}. The church's income largely goes to paying workers (like most Charities, which is subject to income tax), debt {like most Charities}, mortgage/rent {like most Charities}, maintenance {like most Charities}, and Bills {like most Charities}. The remainder is largely charitable or related to religious programs {10}. Like all Charities, they are inherently Tax-Exempt. I will point out that Churches must meet certain 501c3 requirements, such as not attempting to intervene in political campaigns. They may, under certain instances, be subject to UBIT Tax. {11} Churches are Charitable, and therefore tax exempt, even without their status as churches, as their non-administrative expenses deal with social aid, and religious expansion, rather than commercial or financial profit. {12} So even with removing the religious exemption, Churches will not be paying taxes anyhow. Pro would have to also support altering the 501c3 requirements, which risk forcing other non-religious charities to pay taxes, or otherwise to add in a clause preventing non-religious organizations from being class as Charities, which would be worse as that would become religious discrimination. Conclusion:Here I have successfully shown that Churches, being charitable organizations, would be tax exempt even barring religious exemptions. The impact of this coincides with Counter-Case II. Pro spoke of all the ways we can use Religious Taxes, but since these Churches, as charitable groups, will pay no tax anyhow, there will be no extra income for the inefficient social programs that Pro wants to support. All the effort of forcing through a controversial law to get the Churches taxed, and absolutely no increase in revenue. Sources: 9} Politifact: . http://bit.ly... 10} . http://bit.ly... 11} Score: . http://bit.ly... 12} Investopedia: . http://bit.ly... Closing Statement: My opponents arguments are basically that we should fix our fiscal problems by increasing taxes, rather than fixing the problems inherent in the current system. I rather suggest we fix the problems so that we need not increase taxes. Beyond this, Pro gives no other real argument because the non-sequitur that letting Groups keep their own money is the same as giving them money, when it is different on principle, and that tax exemptions benefit richer churches more, when in reality, taxation would hurt smaller churches more. Regardless of religious status, the sheer majority of these organizations are Charitable, and would not be taxable regardless. Any money taxed would be used less efficiently with the added layers of bureaucracy. I\u2019ll point out that there are major moral problems if money taxed from Church went to things (or freed other money to go to things) which are fundamentally against the Church\u2019s views. Lastly, I repeat myself, not for the last time this debate: The Budget should be fixed streamlining, removing redundant or aged programs/departments/regulations, and fighting wasteful/corrupt spending. Not by following the never ending policy of increased taxation, which will only reward their fiscal incompetence rather than force fiscal reform. {13/14} Sources: 13} Heritage:. http://bit.ly... 14} The Hill:. http://bit.ly... ==Unitomic==", "qid": "18", "docid": "9a66988-2019-04-18T12:07:13Z-00008-000", "rank": 26, "score": 164183.0}, {"content": "Title: Churches, mosques, synagogues, etc. ought not be exempt from federal taxation. Content: I agree with my opponent\"s definitions. I disagree with their proposition II which states that the natural state is not being taxed. Rather, churches are corporations, not charities, which are subject to tax. This is how I plan to implement the resolution, by changing churches\" status to that of a corporation. First, let\"s look at what a corporation is through looking at what it attempts to do. A corporation\"s goal is to make money [1]. This is exactly what religion has done since the dawn of time. Since ancient Mesopotamia and before, religions have required sacrifices of property to be part of said religion, sometimes enforced at gunpoint. This isn\"t the case now in most of the world, but let\"s take churches in America as an example. The collection box, basket, etc. is passed around in front of sometimes the entire town. This incredible social pressure combined with the fact that many religions command a tithe make it so that \"donation\" is not truly voluntary. You pay for the service of religion. This is how religion has been viewed by the cynical upper class for millennia, and why the cynical upper class proselytizes. Thus, the burden of proof is on both of us. I must prove that churches are corporations (see above) and my opponent must either prove they are not or that churches must be an exception to other corporations. 1-http://www.investopedia.com... Counter-Case I My opponent makes the point that allowing groups to keep money doesn\"t count as an endorsement. That is EXACTLY what it is. When these groups enter society, they give up the right to not be taxed. When the government chooses not to act on this, it shows the government is in support of the group. Thus, the government is neutral towards the private citizen and the corporation, but not to the charity. My opponent called my use of the SCOTUS an appeal to authority, but if that\"s an appeal to authority, so is every source we both used. The SCOTUS decides what the Constitution means. They decided that the government giving money to a lobbying church is no different from tax exemption [2]. I take that line of reasoning to its inevitable conclusion and say that the government giving money to a church is no different than a tax exemption. My opponent claims that our money doesn\"t start as the government\"s to take. Rather, when a group such as a church enters a democratic government, they give the government permission to tax them, as I note above. My opponent also makes the claim that small churches could fall under and fail. So what? The government can then provide an economic stimulus as it would to any other business, or let it file for bankruptcy or die. The government is in no position to keep a failing business afloat. If so many would go under, though, churches can utilize tax credits given to small businesses once classified as them. My opponent then points out that we shouldn\"t take money from the rich simply because they are rich. That\"s not what I\"m saying. I\"m saying that 30% of a million is more than 30% of a thousand. We are allowing these large, predatory churches to grow exponentially, leaving the smaller churches (often the ones doing the charity work my opponent references) in the dust, thus incentivizing churches to adopt this model. 2-https://en.wikipedia.org... Counter-case II First, Con discounts my source because it\"s a blog. Well, the Washington Post puts the number possibly higher while referencing the same study. [3] Con talks about bureaucratic waste and how funneling more money in to programs doesn\"t solve that. First, our education system is worse than others not because of bureaucracy but because of a lack of funding for poor schools and because our focus on testing and curriculum sucks. However, college is a different sort of thing. Our universities are some of the best in the world. [4] More money helps more people access them. On social security, Con points out it is well funded by the payroll tax. I don\"t dispute that. But Con\"s source points out that some people may be entitled to as few as around 10,000 dollars per year. That\"s less than the poverty line, which is already too low. This money could be used to increase their benefits. On the Vietnam War, that comes from the standpoint of the Ford or Carter administration which wants to offset the damage done. The examples Pro gives of bureaucracy gone awry aren\"t where the money will go, and so the bureaucracy isn\"t the problem here. Hell, the money could simply be used to pay off the debt! 3- https://www.washingtonpost.com... 4- https://www.timeshighereducation.com... Case The Con\"s case rests on the church being a charity. A church\"s motivation is not to be a charity, nor does being a church necessitate charitability. Take Scientology. Not exactly a charity. It exists to make money. Even the smaller churches which may be genuine in their efforts to be charitable take a cut for themselves, and the charity is merely an additional \"product\" they sell to their members who want to be charitable. Join the church, pay a tithe, and you can be charitable. When something exists to make money, and second help their consumers, it is no longer a charity; it is a corporation, and ought to be treated as such. Conclusion We need to implement this resolution through making churches considered corporations because that\"s what they are, not charities. We can use this money to fund things listed above, or countless others.", "qid": "18", "docid": "9a66988-2019-04-18T12:07:13Z-00007-000", "rank": 27, "score": 161970.0}, {"content": "Title: Debate: Churches ought to pay taxes Content: Full resolution: Churches ought to pay taxesThe debate is impossible to accept, apply in the comments if you are interested and I will send the challenge to the applicant of my choosing. First round is acceptance only. No new arguments in the final round. Kritiks aren't allowed. Taxes on churches would mean regular property taxes and commercial income taxes. Basically they lose their tax exempt status.", "qid": "18", "docid": "f2f7c9c0-2019-04-18T12:43:51Z-00007-000", "rank": 28, "score": 161511.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: In the United States, churches should be taxed. Content: My opponent has fully forfeited this debate. Vote Con. Thanks.", "qid": "18", "docid": "48db7620-2019-04-18T18:11:25Z-00000-000", "rank": 29, "score": 160772.0}, {"content": "Title: Churches, mosques, synagogues, etc. ought not be exempt from federal taxation. Content: Preface: I am OK if we make the 3rd round the final round. Proposition: My challenge is what Con referred to later, which is my statement that joining society necessitates being taxed (essentially). I will rebut their attack to that here. One thing Con notes is that my philosophy treats money as the government's. In a literal sense, yes it is. All currency is government property, and the government is the only thing giving the dollar, pound, yen, etc. any value. However, that's probably not what Con referred to (I make that argument in case it was). The government needs money to run. No dispute there by Con. That money must come in the form of taxes. Taxing certain arbitrary groups more or less than others is unnatural. Ergo, taxing churches removes the arbitrary distinction (I will show the arbitrary distinction later when I defend my point that churches are businesses, thus validating my point here). Corporate Tax To quote Con, \"a corporation will make money to benefit its leaders/shareholders through financial profit.\" Well, most churches do this. The church leaders are paid a salary. This salary is generally proportional to the income of a church, just as with a business. In fact, the church leaders are the only group always benefited by a church. Con says a church seeks to benefit everyone else through charitable means. Nothing about being a church NECESSITATES this. None of the ones I went to growing up did such a thing. Let's remind ourselves that the purpose of a church is to be a place for worship or other religious activities, and that religion is not necessarily charitable. I had assumed that it was common knowledge that some churches require a tithe. This well off church [1] (I assume they're well off if they have a website) requires tithing. The social pressures go beyond merely standing outside of Walmart, but it often goes further in places like Utah. These ex-Mormons tell of how much one has to lose by leaving the church (and thus it loses financial support) [2]. 1-http://www.tfh.org... 2-http://exmormon.org... Counter-cases Con claims an economic stimulus constitutes an endorsement of religion. True, it creates an excessive entanglement, which is why it only should be given if the government can ensure it is solely used for secular purposes, and why I said it \"could\" be used. My preferred solution is simply allowing them to take advantage of small business tax credits. It shouldn't be any worse if a church goes under than if a bakery goes under. The so-called appeal to authority in this case is justified. Why? Because the argument the SCOTUS makes is justified by my earlier argument about taxation being the natural state. On the education system being underfunded, I meant that it is not evenly funded. It is often funded through property taxes (common knowledge), meaning that schools in poor areas are worse. Con claims the social security system is broken. Con doesn't show how, and SS is certainly working fine now. Con also says that paying the debt is no better than war. This is simply wrong. The problem exists. Reducing spending stops it, and begins to slowly chip away. More money helps solve it, or slows it down until Congress can get its act together. On the DoD waste, Con's source notes that the Pentagon is already working to get rid of the waste, and the money can still be used elsewhere. Economic growth Con's own source says that tax cuts harm the economy-essentially, a really low tax rate also harms the economy. This means there's a sweet spot-probably between 25 and 40 percent, which is where it's been for the Obama and Clinton administrations, which have had sustainable economic growth [common knowledge]. Thus, the current business tax rate is a lot closer to the sweet spot of economic growth than 0%. Conclusion Vote Pro to protect the separation of church and state, to give the government more money it can use, to call churches what they are (businesses), and because it will stimulate the economy, contrary to the Con's arguments.", "qid": "18", "docid": "9a66988-2019-04-18T12:07:13Z-00005-000", "rank": 30, "score": 159392.0}, {"content": "Title: Churches should be taxed the same as private non-profit clubs. Content: Since my opponent forfeited, I\"ll be brief. The reason they should be taxed differently is because, unlike social clubs, churches are charitable. This is evident in the requirements for their respective classifications. Whether you agree with the benefits derived from the charity the church makes (missions, absolution, peace of mind, counseling, soup kitchens, etc.), they still have a mission to improve the world, in their eyes. Social clubs do not have that pre-requisite, therefore, they are not the same, and should not be compelled to be treated equally. http://www.irs.gov... www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Charitable-Organizations/Exemption-Requirements-Section-501(c)(3)-Organizations", "qid": "18", "docid": "32e89ba9-2019-04-18T16:30:48Z-00002-000", "rank": 31, "score": 158954.0}, {"content": "Title: Churches should be taxed the same as private non-profit clubs. Content: 1. By churches, I mean any religious building or organization. It can be a Christian church, but in the context of this debate, it shall apply to Mosques, Synagogues, or anything of like quality that is relevant. 2. The only difference between how non-profit clubs and churches is property taxes. Non-profit clubs pay these taxes, but churches do not. 3. This position would include tax deductions. If a church did enough charitable actions, they may end up paying no taxes at all. 4. I am not calling for the destruction of religion. I am an atheist, but whether or not any religion is true shall not be the topic being argued. For the sake of debate, we will assume that none of these religions or true, or that we cannot determine whether one is true. 5. This debate is not a debate about taxes in general. This is a debate over whether churches, which are largely exempt from taxes (some counties tax them and some don't., but most do not) should pay them. Namely the tax being discussed is property taxes, which most non-profit clubs (not charities. Charities are usually taxed the same as churches) must pay. (Again this differs as property taxes are handled at a more local level.)", "qid": "18", "docid": "32e89ba9-2019-04-18T16:30:48Z-00004-000", "rank": 32, "score": 158760.0}, {"content": "Title: resoloved: REMOVE TAX EXEMPTIONS FROM ALL RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS IN THE UNITED STATES Content: My opponent has just spent most of his last round argument agreeing with me and providing information to support my argument, with an end note that poor churches should still get exemptions because they need the money. I would argue that the church money should be spread out within each faith. If a baptist church in one region is struggling, why not get aid from the multimillion dollar baptist church across town? Why should it be up to the government to aid one failing church when others of the same group are doing far more than surviving? My opponent actually failed to address any of my arguments in the previous round, aside from the ones he supported, so my arguments still stand, awaiting rebuttals. I will clarify one argument that I made that I believe needs to be addressed. There is no one faith that accounts for the majority of the population. Christianity cannot be counted as a single faith, since groups like Catholics, Protestants and Mormons all fall under Christianity and they are all run by completely separate organizations. And even under Protestants, which is the largest group in America, there are so many divisions that disagree on so many fundamental issues. So why would the majority of non-believers of any specific faith want their tax dollars going towards funding a religion that they disagree with. Especially people who are directly impacted or even attacked by members of those churches, like homosexuals or women who get abortions. If the government funded a group, using your tax dollars, that stripped rights away from you, would you want to keep paying for that group? If church groups want to spread their word around, they need to do it with their own money that they collect. It should not be up to the government to ensure that churches have enough money to keep spreading the word. That money should go to more important things like scientific research on health and climate that offer evidence, proof and results rather than a promise of eternal salvation that can never actually be confirmed as a real service beyond helping some people feel less nervous about death, while terrifying many others with a threat of eternal damnation.", "qid": "18", "docid": "a84c3c83-2019-04-18T15:40:29Z-00002-000", "rank": 33, "score": 158626.0}, {"content": "Title: Churches, mosques, synagogues, etc. ought not be exempt from federal taxation. Content: Preface: Pro has agreed to make this the final round. Thus, no further Cases or Counter-Cases will be made (except in regard to new information he releases), instead currently standing Cases and Counter-Cases will be defended. In turn, both Debaters will merely Sign further Rounds, not Post Cases/Counter-Cases. Proposition: Nature of Taxation Pro admits straight out that he perceives all our money to be Government property. This is against the very nature of US governance philosophy. The Government does not own us or our property, we own the government. No, our property is our own, not leased to us by government. This includes our money. My hard work doesn\u2019t give me revenue leased to me. It gives wealth which belongs to me, and me alone {1}. He suggests a defense is government minting. No, this is a service of government, owed to us, as we own the government. The government is not a this-for-that organization. It is here purely to protect, and provide certain things. We pay taxes out of necessity, not because the government is entitled to our wealth. Beyond this, no other substantiation is given to support this radical change is economic philosophy. It is for the Voter to decide from here if they buy my opponents view, and how it further affects their views. I will point out that highly Pro\u2019s cases are dependent on his views of Money of property of Government. Sources: 1} FEE: http://bit.ly... Counter-Case I: Corporate Tax Summarization: Pro continues his claim that Churches are corporations, simply by saying that pay workers. Counter: Pro claims that Churches are corporations because they pay their workers. As I\u2019ve said before, all charities pay their workers too {2}. He claims churches aren\u2019t always charitable. As I\u2019ve earlier said, Churches can lose their tax exemption, such as Scientology. I will further comment that these church workers do pay income tax. Pro sources that Tithes are sometimes required, however nowhere in his sources is this shown to be required. In fact, his Source 2 deals entirely with \u201cExit Costs\u201d, and admits there are no financial exit costs. There are \u201csocial costs\u201d as Mormonism is a sub-culture, and leaving the sub-culture means losing a lot of the friends and family in that culture. This tends to be the same in all cultures/sub-cultures. Pro\u2019s sources don\u2019t show that the actual religion forces any tithing. The Source makes this clear. Voters should go through those sources to confirm. Sources: 2} http://bit.ly... Counter-Case II: \u201cCounter-Case\u201d / \u201cCases\u201d Summarization: Pro has made several claims, which I shall debunk here. Counter: Pro admits that economic stimulus is endorsement, and therefore is unconstitutional. He further moves to claim that SBTCs could be used. Is that not also endorsement, since they are being given advantage? To say a charity going under is as bad as a business going under in the name of increased revenue is a flawed notion. I will allow Voters to decide how their view these statements. Pro continues claiming that Scotus is right because they said so. Again, Appeal to Authority, as them merely saying something is so doesn\u2019t make it so. If they say our money is government property and taxation is natural, but my statements show the flaws in their views, then that means SCOTUS is wrong, until proven correct subsequently by Pro. Pro failed to show them to be correct, because merely sighting their \u201cauthority\u201d. Ergo, he is using an Appeal to Authority.Pro actually claims SS is working fine. By this reasoning, there is no need to further fund them. He says Education is unevenly funded. So instead of evening the funding, he will prefer to increase the budget unnecessarily. This is the very same inefficiency creating the fiscal issue of government. Pro ends his counter-case by saying that the DODs waste could be spent elsewhere. This is largely the point of my statements. Streamline, Restructure, and Show respect for the money the government takes from us. Don\u2019t increase taxes.No, increasing taxation to pay for the debt, rather than simply decreasing expense, is a flawed and philosophically bankrupt notion. Additionally, the debt is not serviced in the way Pro seems to think. We pay interest for a set amount of time until a bond is repaid. Effectively, we need not increase the money going to this interest (in fact, doing so would hurt our credit rating, as people buy debt in order to make a profit. Paying too fast lowers the profit by lowering yearly interests, hurting incentive to purchase bonds). Yes, my source mentions that the deficit increase can hurt the economy. Not the Tax Cut. The Increased deficit. We need merely reduce the expenditure, as I\u2019ve said several times, through increased efficiency and smaller government. Done right, this will lead to decreased or only slightly altered deficits. Thus the cause of economic slowdown will not be present, and lowered taxation will be able to increase GDP growth. As the economy grows, our revenue will ultimately grow, even with lowered taxation. Increased long-term revenue, with decreased expenditure, will eventually diminish the deficit to such as a point that the debt will shrink, perhaps not in absolute numbers, but as a percent of GDP (the current measurement for judging debt). Best Case Scenario, the deficit eventually vanishes as tax revenue increases (from economic growth, not tax rate increase) and expenditure decreases. Obama\u2019s economy, according to Pro, was a success. In reality, his unsourced statement is wrong. Economic growth was less than exciting. Their GDP growth was 2.1% average, much less than the 2.8% average from the preceding 28 years. This is highlighted by the fact that the average for the 28 years included 2 major recessions, and some smaller recessions {3}. Additionally, workforce participation (better than simple \u201cunemployment\u201d charts, which include people who have stopped looking {4}) has decreased under Obama. {5 / 6} Relatively poor economic growth is a sign of issues with Obama\u2019s economic policy. As Pro has failed to list charts or sources, I have nothing further to debunk on this count.As for Clinton, a lot of his success came from reduced expenditure growth, leading to a lower expenditure/gdp ratio {7}. Many point out that he also increased taxes, however as Forbes and Heritage points out, the economic growth actually increased after turning around and cutting taxes a few years in {8 / 9}. It was the growth after this point which was substantial enough to give Clinton his above-average growth. So while Pro says we saw economic growth under Clinton, the reality is that this growth came from decreased relative spending, and in the end, decreased taxes. As Pro failed to present either charts or sources, there is nothing further to say. Basically, as I\u2019ve been saying, the answer is increased efficiency and smaller government, combined with lower taxes, not larger. His comment in the conclusion basically says we should designate Churches as something other than what they are for the Tax Revenue, actually saying it protects Separation of Church and State, when it actually compromises it by giving Government power over Church money, and creating \u201cexcessive entanglements\u201d (to quote Pro). He says these entanglements can be avoided by requiring \u201csecular\u201d use of the money. The government created Secularization of Churches is a sign of compromising Separation of Church and State. No, Separation of Church and State is created by not taxing at all. He says it will give the Government more money to use, I say it gives them more money to waste. And eventually they will decide they need even more money to waste. What Charity will they reclassify next? Sources: 3} Realclear Markets: http://bit.ly... 4} Forbes: http://bit.ly... 5} BLS: http://bit.ly... 6} Politifact: http://bit.ly... 7} Tax Foundation: http://bit.ly... 8} Forbes: http://bit.ly... 9} Heritage: http://bit.ly... Closing Statement: Pro has failed to substantiate that Churches are corporations, or to defy my Cases that Churches are Charities. In fact, the subject of the Church makes up only a small part of his Round. Nothing else he mentions matters unless he can prove that Churches can be taxed. He hasn\u2019t. He has failed to show that Churches could lose 501C3 status, or that there is any grounds to remove Religious Tax Exemption. In light of this failure, nothing further about the use of the money matters, and actually suggests a desire to compromise Separation of Church and State and a gross breach of government/taxpayer faith by fraudulently miscategorizing Organizations, for nothing other than increased revenue.The fact is, Pro\u2019s views are founded in his Extreme Authoritarian notion that our Financial Property belong to the Government, which ultimately means our very lives are Government Property (without money, we have nothing). This is flawed and dangerous. It is against the very nature of a free nation, and is not compatible with any Western World. This is made worse if we support his idea that we can give false categorization to increase taxes, which gives further power to government to own us, as they need not even follow their own rules. If his views of our money are not adopted, his arguments entirely fall through. His cases rely on this Economic/Political Philosophy, and cannot survive without it (and barely survives with it).I remind Pro at this point that, per our agreement, he must not post any further arguments from here on. He can only sign the next two Rounds, as this is the final debate round. I have refrained from posting new Cases, and merely defended my already stated Cases/Counters, adding new Counters only in regard to his new statements. Any Cases/Counters/Defenses Pro attempts to post will be disregarded, per this agreement. Taxation is Theft. Vote Con. ==Unitomic==", "qid": "18", "docid": "9a66988-2019-04-18T12:07:13Z-00004-000", "rank": 34, "score": 157804.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: In the United States, churches should be taxed. Content: My opponent forfeited the previous round. Extend arguments.", "qid": "18", "docid": "48db7620-2019-04-18T18:11:25Z-00002-000", "rank": 35, "score": 157687.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: In the United States, churches should be taxed. Content: My opponent forfeited yet another round. Extend my arguments further.", "qid": "18", "docid": "48db7620-2019-04-18T18:11:25Z-00001-000", "rank": 36, "score": 157496.0}, {"content": "Title: resoloved: REMOVE TAX EXEMPTIONS FROM ALL RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS IN THE UNITED STATES Content: My opponent is obviously confused about the resolution so I will post it again. Resolved: remove tax exemptions from ALL religious institutions in the US so I will add a observation to clarify what this means Observation: Basically all the con has to do is to show why not ALL churches should have tax exemptions removed definition of all: the whole amount, quantity, or extent of Just incase my opponent is still confused. I set this resolution like this on purpose (its based off a congress bill) but anyway all con has to do is show why not ALL churches should lose tax exemptions. In other words I can just say only rich churches should have tax exemptions removed but not poor churches or vice-versa. So yeah I agree with pro that rich churches shouldn't have tax exemptions, but I believe poor churches should so they can become a bigger church. As I pointed out a lot of these poor churches are also in poor communities so cannot receive as much of a offering and not donations. As I pointed out I go to one of these churches and we survive due to tax exemptions which is why I believe on RICH CHURCHES SHOULD HAVE TAX EMPTIONS REMOVED. Rich churches only use 3% to 10% of tax exemptions for charity anyway and they use the rest to get things like pools and basketball goals that other business have to pay taxes for but poor churches don't so I belive they should be allowed to have tax exemptions.", "qid": "18", "docid": "a84c3c83-2019-04-18T15:40:29Z-00001-000", "rank": 37, "score": 157400.0}, {"content": "Title: There should not be tax exemptions for Curches. Content: I think they should because it takes money to build the churches and it is important to keep it clean with the taxes you pay", "qid": "18", "docid": "ffa16c3b-2019-04-18T15:59:53Z-00002-000", "rank": 38, "score": 156950.0}, {"content": "Title: Religious organisations should no longer enjoy their tax-exempt status Content: Religious organizations, in my opinion, should not pay taxes from church collections and other donations. Money gotten through collections and donations has already been taxed (it comes from a group of people who have already have been taxed). Additionally, the majority of the money gained through collections and donations is used in the purpose of helping others (examples include Haiti, earthquakes, money used to organize soup kitchens, and so on). Additionally, you will note that in certain countries, such as Ireland, 85%[1] of the population attends church. That would mean the Church in Ireland does have significant impact on the population. Religious individuals, on the other hand, should be taxed. I don't believe that it is fair reverends who earn proceeds through televised programs ought to be allowed to keep any of it, or if they would be allowed, then that income ought to be taxed. Any actual business (such as mass selling, investments, and so on, also ought to be taxed as it is a method of earning). Collections and donations should not be taxed as they are gifts. I apologize in advance for any spelling and/or grammar mistakes and for unclear sentences. Additionally, I apologize for having such a short counter-argument, however, I am short on time. I beg your understanding. [1]http://www.nationmaster.com...", "qid": "18", "docid": "8a799a1-2019-04-18T19:04:58Z-00002-000", "rank": 39, "score": 156707.0}, {"content": "Title: Forces Clergy to the Same Standard as Average Joe Content: Removing the tax exempt status of churches and religious groups reflects their business-like character. If they are not really serving the community as a whole, they should be held to the same laws that businesses are. The pastor, rabbi, or priest is a CEO. He should pay taxes on his organization to help the Federal Government feed the poor. Particularly if his church is not doing that on its own. There is something wrong when the Federal Government is doing more for the low-income class than the religious groups who bark the loudest about the motivation for doing so. Making them like a normal business in tax world would make sure that they are paying their fair share and not having an unequal market advantage. It would force them to compete better. Churches that are incompetent would fold. Many foolish people would have more time on their hands to actually help their brothers and sisters in their community. Much better than paying your pastor to brainwash you with his interpretation of an ancient religious book he does not really want to obey.", "qid": "18", "docid": "af414960-2019-04-19T12:47:32Z-00010-000", "rank": 40, "score": 153539.0}, {"content": "Title: Churches should be taxed. Content: Assuming Churches count as NPO(non-profit organisations) they should be taxed in the same ways. All other organizations (like corporations, including non-profits) pay taxes on everything, profits, franchise tax, business license tax, property tax, payroll tax. Churches are often a big part of communities in America, they typically use a lot of the communities resources, occupying large areas of land and real estate that they do not have to pay tax on. The amount of property owned by churches is vast compare to any other single co-operation, if the churches were to pay only this tax alone the personal property taxes you and I pay would go down considerably, many tons and cities property tax rates would drop and lets be honest, the government would have a LOT more income. Not only are churches using vast amounts of land they are not paying tax for, they also use the services paid for by tax payers, why is it fair churches get the same treatment by police, fire departments and schools that us ta payers do, when they provide nothing towards it? However you may claim churches to be non-profit, they still collect money and revenue in many forms, donations, events, fund-raisers, trips, selling merchandise (whether they pay sales tax on this I am not sure, I think it may vary church-to-church and depending on the merchandise) at the end of the day, successful churches such as those run by the Baptists and Catholics make millions, many churches in my area have their own gyms, libraries, day cares and swimming pools, they also seem to afford excessive trips and camps. Where does all this money come from and why is none of it going back into the economy? You may claim that it is being put to good use for the churchgoers to use these facilities, but what about atheists like me, or people from non-Christian organisations? Religious affiliations only remain tax-exempt if the government sees the religion as legitimate. At the end of the day everyone would benefit from Churches paying tax; they are such a huge part of the American society and the gain a lot of revenue (whether they are meant to or not! ) Every other organisation has to claim their earnings, there is no reason churches should be exempt.", "qid": "18", "docid": "2f656c50-2019-04-18T18:20:05Z-00002-000", "rank": 41, "score": 152159.0}, {"content": "Title: resoloved: REMOVE TAX EXEMPTIONS FROM ALL RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS IN THE UNITED STATES Content: I accept this debate, and as per the rules put forth by Con, I will begin by arguing that the United States should remove tax exemptions from religious institutions. In America, approximately $71 billion worth of tax exemptions are provided to religious institutions each year [1]. Basically, the government is subsidizing religions, making everyone pay for them to continue to run. There are multiple reasons why this is problematic. In America, there is supposed to be a separation between church and state. With the government subsidizing churches, the line between church and state starts looking skewed. For example, with all of the push from the right wing against Obama, churches were actually telling their constituents that God wants them to vote a certain way, or more specifically for a certain candidate [2]. The institution that claims to hold the answer and the key to everyone\"s afterlife should never begin to tell people that God wants them to vote a certain way. More specifically, threatening eternal hellfire if you vote for a specific person is wrong on almost every level. When you start to look at the exemptions, it very much resembles what is going on with tax loop holes with large corporations. These large companies (and religions) will benefit by a certain party in power, because that party pushes to maintain or increase the exemptions, therefore increasing the wealth of the organizations. In return, the organizations give back to the party. In the case of corporations, they provide political \"donations\" to the parties. Once again, in return, they get a party who is willing to push for legislation to make them more money. In the case of religions, they make money from the exemptions and in return, they push specific political ideologies. It is a constant circle in which both sides benefit (one gets more votes and the other gets more money). It is also problematic because in providing all of these exemptions, it is costing more tax dollars to the majority of the population. It would be one thing if only people of a certain faith were paying for their church to grow in terms of both wealth and power, but when everyone has to pay money, regardless of religious beliefs (or a lack of such beliefs) then there is a serious problem. Consider that certain religious organizations are very vocal against certain other groups. Why should a homosexual atheist have to pay money to subsidize the building of a church that preaches to disallow gay marriage or even to criminalize homosexuality? To liken religious institutions to corporations even more, let\"s look at a list of the ten wealthiest religious leaders in America [3]. Why does any man, preaching the teachings of Jesus Christ need be worth $18 million and have two mansions, or have a $1 million annual salary and own a $1.4 million mansion? Isn\"t Jesus the one who said \"Blessed are the poor, for theirs is the kingdom of God\"? It almost seems humorous, how hypocritical the extreme right wing has become in America. They are so against paying taxes or have the government be in control of anything, unless the tax money they pay goes towards religion (not just our own religions, but everyone\"s) or military. The people who are the most anti-tax and anti-government are the most willing to have government funding religion, and the people who should be most against fighting and killing (war) and against government growing in strength and power, are the ones most willing to put trillions of dollars into the building of massive, deadly weapons to go kill countless numbers of others. There should not be tax exemptions for religious institutions because it goes against the idea that the church and state are two separate entities in the sense that they both become politically motivated to work together in order to benefit each side. Religions should get their money from the people who are willing (or threatened, by threat of eternal damnation) to donate to the church to which they belong. [1] http://www.patheos.com... [2] http://www.theguardian.com... [3] http://rollingout.com...", "qid": "18", "docid": "a84c3c83-2019-04-18T15:40:29Z-00004-000", "rank": 42, "score": 151575.0}, {"content": "Title: Should Churches Pay Taxes Content: Extend my counter-arguments.", "qid": "18", "docid": "7f792826-2019-04-18T15:23:48Z-00002-000", "rank": 43, "score": 151452.0}, {"content": "Title: This House Would deny tax-exempt status to religios-institutions failing to appoint women equally. Content: In this argument I am simply saying \"Church\" in reference to any religious institution. If we are to work from the idea of separation of church and state, this includes that the states should stay out of the churches business. The church is not held to discrimination charges for this reason, regardless of why someone is discriminated against. It is good and dandy if a church chooses to hire women, but being forced to comply with hiring women is the government over-stepping. In Christianity at least, the church does not see women as inferior. Rather, their role is different in the church, and because of the curse mentioned in genesis, \"Then he said to the woman, \"I will sharpen the pain of your pregnancy, and in pain you will give birth. And you will desire to control your husband, but he will rule over you.\"\" This means that many women have a desire to control male peers, rather than build them up in faith. Now, how far this should go is debatable, personally I think it is possible that in later verses talking about this though Paul, some of his own bias may of came through. Though even then, he speaks of many women in good. For example, I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church at Cenchreae, that you may welcome her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints, and help her in whatever she may need from you, for she has been a patron of many and of myself as well.\" I believe this to be possible, of his bias to be infused, because Corinthians was a letter. His worldly faults could seep in. But that is up to an individual to decide and to what extent. Deborah was a prophetess and women given much authority in the bible, before him. Regardless some better thoughts on this can be seen here, and you can see why many denominations do not allow women in positions of authority: http://findingyourwayinchrist.blogspot.com... The most important idea to this is though, that if you tax churches because they refuse to put women in charge, you are trying to allow the state to control the church which gives much to much power to the state and sacrifices religious freedom.", "qid": "18", "docid": "43bad6be-2019-04-18T12:01:38Z-00002-000", "rank": 44, "score": 150727.0}, {"content": "Title: Churches Ought not be Taxed Content: Assuming that it's true that Being a Church implies that classified as serving the General Welfare & classified as serving the General Welfare implies that Ought not be Taxed, then it's true that Being a Church implies that Ought not be Taxed. Being a Church implies that classified as serving the General Welfare; Classified as serving the General Welfare implies that Ought not to be Taxed. Necessarily, Being a Church implies that Ought not to be Taxed. IRS lists Churches as serving the General Welfare. Either serving the General Welfare or Ought to be Taxed. If not serving General Welfare implies Ought to be Taxed. If Ought not to be Taxed implies serving the General Welfare. If Ought not to be Taxed implies Being a Church.", "qid": "18", "docid": "b80912ea-2019-04-18T17:08:58Z-00003-000", "rank": 45, "score": 149989.0}, {"content": "Title: Churches Should be Taxed Content: Thank you so much! You were a good opponent and had a good idea. Just happens to be against the law. whoops. Thank you again!", "qid": "18", "docid": "c5ba2ffc-2019-04-18T16:06:55Z-00001-000", "rank": 46, "score": 149693.0}, {"content": "Title: Churches Should be Taxed Content: Wow. I believe I have lost this debate. I am going to forfeit; there is no way I can beat you, stubborn as I am. I believe the evidence you have put forth has put me in a position that I can only help but see that your point is stronger than mine. Congratulations.", "qid": "18", "docid": "c5ba2ffc-2019-04-18T16:06:55Z-00002-000", "rank": 47, "score": 149450.0}, {"content": "Title: remove tax exemptions from religious institutions in the U.S. Content: Religious institutions are not created to be Tex-Exempt, ergo taxation is needed to stimulate the economy as well as to ensure no fraud is being perpetrated from these institutions. \"With the smallest Catholic Churches in America seeing money in the range of $350,500.00/month cross their nose, fraud and scams run rampant. Thus taxation is the one sure fire way to keep them honest. This won't be used to target strictly Catholics. Muslim mosques, Jewish sinnogaues(Spelling error, my bad), and other types of religious establishments will be taxed as is seen fit by the IRS. \" said Iowa Senator Jenna Hurst(L) at a 2013 conference. This will be the backbone of my argument and following contentions. I anxiously await your response and any questions you may have.", "qid": "18", "docid": "ca561f99-2019-04-18T15:37:24Z-00003-000", "rank": 48, "score": 149308.0}, {"content": "Title: Churches of all religions should be taxed by the government. Content: My opponent has once again forfeited a round. No clear rebuttal was made by my opponent. No closing argument was made by my opponent. This is unfortunate as I believe this was an interesting and thought-provoking topic. With that said, I would like to thank my opponent for the initial argument and look forward to any and all challenges on the topic in the future. In closing, I have provided my audience with what I believe to be a convincing argument for the position that Churches of all religions should not be taxed by the Government. Furthermore, I aimed to provide a convincing rebuttal against my opponents initial claims. In doing so, it is my hope that I have provided a convincing argument for my audience to ponder when personally deliberating this topic. I ask humbly that you please consider my opponents forfeits when casting your vote.", "qid": "18", "docid": "5efc5feb-2019-04-18T16:38:30Z-00000-000", "rank": 49, "score": 149180.0}, {"content": "Title: Churches of all religions should be taxed by the government. Content: I accept the challenge. I will pursue the position that Churches of all religions should not be taxed by the government.", "qid": "18", "docid": "5efc5feb-2019-04-18T16:38:30Z-00004-000", "rank": 50, "score": 148900.0}, {"content": "Title: Tax Exemptions for Religious Institutions. Content: Round two argumentsOutlineI. Everyone disagrees with at least one religion.II. Religion tends to be partisanIII. Tax exemptions take money from the poor.IV. SourcesI. Everyone disagrees with at least one religion.If your a Christian, you probably disagree with Scientology, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and at least one branch of Christianity, Mormon, Catholic, and/or Protestant. The reverse is also true, if your a Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or Jew you probably don't want Christians to get a tax break. \"the Internal Revenue Service granted tax exemptions to Scientology organizations again in 1993.\" [0]We can't just give tax exempt status to the religion we see as the best religion. We must give the exemption to all or none. II. Religion tends to be partisanI will tell a brief personal testimony about going to church. I found the church to have overt conservative partisan bias. Misogynist remarks were made by the leader. \"God loves woman, but he loves men more.\" source church leaderThe same goes with a strong stance against abortion and socialism. I've found that I am hardly alone. \"Think about the sets of issues that are often at the core of the identity of the working-class folks who elected Trump: religion, personal liberty's relationship with government, gender, marriage, sexuality, prenatal life and gun rights.\" [1] A major part of Donald Trump victory in November 2016 was due to Christianity. More and more the conservative party has aligned itself with Christianity and Christianity with the conservative party. Note, other religions tend to sway towards conservative values by preaching traditional gender roles.\"They are conservative, believe in hard work, family, the military and cops, and they know that abortion and socialism are evil, that Jesus Christ is our savior, and that Donald J. Trump will be good for America.They are part of a growing movement in rural America that immerses many young people in a culture \u2014 not just conservative news outlets but also home and church environments \u2014 that emphasizes contemporary conservative values. It views liberals as loathsome, misinformed and weak, even dangerous.\" [2]Churches are effectively breeding grounds for conservative values. Since it is common knowledge that most of the USA is Christian it is time for liberals to take a stand. Time to demand an even playing field by removing religious institutions' tax exempt status. III. Tax exemptions take money from the poor.The basic theory of economics is that resources are finite. Religious institutions literally often take prime real estate. Prime real estate without paying the full price. This means the poor and middle class have to take up the slack. \"The property taxes they aren\u2019t paying have to be drawn from business owners and private citizens \u2014 in a real sense, you and I are subsidizing Mormon temples, Muslims mosques, Methodist churches.\" [3]IV. Sources0. http://www.snopes.com...1. https://www.adn.com...2. http://www.nytimes.com...3. http://time.com...", "qid": "18", "docid": "439c18e2-2019-04-18T12:33:35Z-00000-000", "rank": 51, "score": 148580.0}, {"content": "Title: Churches should be taxed. Content: 'It is said that death and tax are the only two certainties in life, it's ironic the church dodge both these, the latter quite literally.R John'The anti-theist group I am part of on facebook posted this quote and it really made me want to find out your views on the fact churches are not taxed! I would like to make it clear that I am refering to American churches when I say this. I shall be Pro; Chruches should be taxed. Please no trolling, thank you.", "qid": "18", "docid": "2f656c50-2019-04-18T18:20:05Z-00004-000", "rank": 52, "score": 147990.0}, {"content": "Title: Churches should be taxed. Content: I define \"tax\", as \"A compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions\" (Marriam-Webster)I will wait for the Pro to make their case before posting my own.", "qid": "18", "docid": "2f656c50-2019-04-18T18:20:05Z-00003-000", "rank": 53, "score": 147903.0}, {"content": "Title: Churches should be taxed the same as private non-profit clubs. Content: So, I will let Pro start. I am offering the following definitions: \"Private non-profit clubs\" - will be known as social clubs, and subject to 501 (c) (7) categorization. Churches will be categorized as a 501 (c) (3). Con stipulates that laws vary from state to state, which means that in some states, a church may or may not be treated differently. For the purposes of this debate, we shall assume there is indeed different tax implications for each category. As such, we will focus on the federal (IRS) definitions of these non-profits for this debate, since if the IRS says they are tax-exempt, they are for state purposes as well (whatever that entails). The debate is over whether social clubs ought to be treated equally to churches for ALL tax purposes. Good luck to Pro. If Pro does not agree to these terms, say so in the next round, and we will quickly end the debate in a tie, thus allowing Pro to issue a new challenge without revealing his hand.", "qid": "18", "docid": "32e89ba9-2019-04-18T16:30:48Z-00003-000", "rank": 54, "score": 147150.0}, {"content": "Title: End Tax Breaks for Religious Organizations Content: P1: According to the the first amendment of the United States Constitution, the congress further states the protection of right to peaceably assemble, that is an individual right to come together and collectively express,promote,pursue, and defend common interests,including the freedom of expression. In which Churches are a group of people that assembles through the given rights to gather for their common belief(interest) and is also given the rights to share their expression of belief as well.For this reason,by law,churches are considered as non-profit organizations that have no direct interference with the government,therefore has the rights of tax-exemptions. P2: The congress is not discriminating by giving tax breaks to churches but rather because of tax-exemptions on religious organizations,the congress is executing the established constitution of rights to individuals fairly, allowing the freedom of assembly. C: Tax breaks should not end for religious organizations. Source: http://aclj.org...", "qid": "18", "docid": "7a73d7d7-2019-04-18T16:29:54Z-00004-000", "rank": 55, "score": 147147.0}, {"content": "Title: Churches Ought not be Taxed Content: Perhaps my opponent has merely forgotten to reply. I will check the comments section should he place his rebuttal there.", "qid": "18", "docid": "b80912ea-2019-04-18T17:08:58Z-00001-000", "rank": 56, "score": 147043.0}, {"content": "Title: Churches Should be Taxed Content: I understand your outrage at the violation of church and state that has occurred in schools across our nation. I agree that it is indeed a severe problem, especially as it pertains to the punishment of young and innocent children, still developing their ideas about the world and finding their spiritual and religious truth. However, I fail to see the relevance of these instances to our topic. Yes it is a violation of church and state but so is the taxation of churches. The severity of one does not negate the other, nor does it lessen the impact on our society. Let me give you an analogy to clarify my point. Let us say you are a kid at school and there is a bully in your class. His favorite color is red, and he picks on all the kids who don't wear red shirts. Sometimes he makes kids in class wear a red shirt even if they don't want to. You see this and know it is wrong. You should take action. But say you decide to take some of his lunch money every day. You are physically able to take this kid's money. But should you? No. Just because what he does is bad, doesn't make your bad actions good. It is against the rules. It is not right. Similarly, it is \"against the rules\" for the government to tax churches. They may have violated the separation of church and state themselves, but you would also be violating it. You wrote that \"It's no secret churches have abusing extra money and such. I'm not saying all churches are, just some.\" This is not justification either. You cannot take someone's money because they are not using it well. Even if it somehow was justification, which it is not, if you were to only tax those that do misuse money it would be discrimination. But to enact a widespread tax on all churches regardless of their abuse or not because some churches, which may not even be in the same city or state have misused money? If you are trying to reach fairness, this is not it. Another point, it seems as though you are focusing this primarily on Christian establishments, not synagogues or mosques or temples as well, but singling out Christian churches. If you tax only religious organizations of a certain religion, that is discrimination. May I remind you of the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights. \"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;\" Throughout many decades and conflicts, this has been clarified and interpreted by the Supreme Court. In 1947, Justice Hugo Black said \"The \"establishment of religion\" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another... No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa.\" Your proposition violates most of this. Should your proposition only affect Christian institutions, that would be classified as aiding or preferring one religion over another. He clearly states that \"No tax in any amount...can be levied,\". Your idea is a violation of church and state. Against the law. Any violation of the law, no matter how small or what other violations have occurred elsewhere, is in violation of the law.", "qid": "18", "docid": "c5ba2ffc-2019-04-18T16:06:55Z-00003-000", "rank": 57, "score": 145820.0}, {"content": "Title: Debate: Churches ought to pay taxes Content: This is my response for Round 4, the final round of the debate. I\u2019d like to thank Thett for coming out of retirement to debate this with me. Since this is my final response for the debate, I will not be introducing any new arguments to the debate. I will be mostly responding to what Thett says in R3. Religion is a social good The first point of contention that Thett brings up here is in claiming that churches will have to hire armies of lawyers to pay their taxes. This isn\u2019t true, as the only reasons for hiring a tax attorney is for if you are in debt with taxes, issues with tax returns, facing criminal investigation, or are going to US tax court [1]. None of these would likely happen under my plan, thus this argument doesn\u2019t work. Next Thett argues for his notion that churches will have to \u201cchange their business model\u201d and thus the bottom line of churches will have to shut down. That churches have operated under the model that they don\u2019t have to pay taxes and thus altering the model to having to pay taxes will make churches shut down. I find this notion unwarranted because it assumes that churches or church leaders are extremely irresponsible with money. It assumes that church leaders will literally forget that their is a church tax, then spend the entirety of their budget, and then not be able to pay the taxes. The possibility of this happening, realistically, is extremely low. The amount of churches that will actually be affected by this mismanagement of money is so low that I find it silly to see this as a feasible impact for Con\u2019s side. Regardless, dividing $26,000 among 50 congregants is $520 per congregant, or around 0.01% of the average income [2]. Given the average giving to church per congregant is $1,038 [3], paying all of the taxes will be no problem. The only impact left on Thett\u2019s side for this is the implication of mismanagement of money, which is a slim impact at best.What does \u201cchanging their business model\u201d even mean? And what makes having to change it bad? I don\u2019t see any negative impact in changing a \u201cmodel\u201d that would cause churches to close. The link between taxing churches and churches closing doesn\u2019t work, since it is unwarranted and proven to be sustainable by congregation members. The only way a church can close is if they cannot pay off expenses (since it isn\u2019t for-profit, it's for-religion, profit of a location is irrelevant) and I have shown that congregations will be able to fairly easily. Lastly, Thett calls for me to justify church taxation. This seems strange to call out this late in the debate, but I justify taxing churches through my framework and every argument I have made. By my uncontested framework, if taxing churches is a greater societal good than a harm then taxing churches is justified. That is why taxing churches is justified. Even regardless of that, Thett\u2019s quick argument about the government providing roads and police protection ignores the fact that churches also take advantage of police protection and road transportation. Thus, by Thett\u2019s own argument churches ought to pay taxes. Economic Benefits Alright, here I messed up big. Thett is right, legitimate operating expenses are tax deductible, did not know that until now. This essentially destroys most of my case, since by my own argument, 71% of income goes to operating expenses while the rest, 29% goes to charity. It isn\u2019t exactly realistic that a church would only spend money on two things, and the third thing they spend it on would be taxable. But I said what I said, and since this is the last round I cannot take that back. That means that based on an income tax, the government would be getting a portion of the 0% of taxable profits, or 0$. This means that my income tax part of my case is negated, making the amount of money the government gets through my plan is $7.9 billion through property taxes. The next point of relevance comes when Thett argues that I can\u2019t just assume that the money collected in taxes from churches would be donated to charity. Thett argues that it is not realistic to believe that the government would spend the money on charity. Since I am the affirming side I am allowed to put forth a plan in which to affirm the resolution, as long as it affirms the resolution I am allowed to use that plan. My plan, as I stated earlier, is to donate the collected money to charity. This is allowed and will happen under my plan. Church and State Thett responds to my argument by saying that the majority of Americans believe that religion should not play a role in politics because the Pope had to apologize after criticizing Trump. This argument doesn\u2019t work, it's an appeal to popularity. Just because the majority of people believe that religion should not play a role in politics doesn\u2019t mean that religion shouldn\u2019t play a role in politics. Thett further argues that all it takes is one religious endorsement contrary to public good to sway the election and produce a negative result, and thus negative impact. This doesn\u2019t work since endorsements are a neutral value. A religious organization could just as easily endorse a candidate for the public good than a candidate against the public good, and thus there is no impact either way here. It is a neutral value. The notion that a government relies on the church for legitimacy makes no sense and is unwarranted. The only way that Thett has proposed that religious organizations retaliate against the government is through getting involved through politics through endorsements, which as I just showed has no case. Thett\u2019s entire argument based on separation of church and state relied on the church getting involved in politics through endorsements, which I proved is neutral. Thus Thett\u2019s argument here is negated. Conclusion Through my plan $7.9 billion is raised in taxes. Given that $28 billion is used to save 6 million lives, $7.9 billion will be used to save 1.7 million lives. Even if we accept Thett\u2019s unwarranted link between churches closing and taxes, and then accept that the link is logically sound, the argument still doesn\u2019t work because reduction in people attending church leading to an increase in stress and depression is outweighed by the 1.7 million lives that are saved. In order for Thett\u2019s impacts to outweigh mine, about 6 people would have to die per congregation as a result of taxing churches (1.7m/300k.) This is not realistic given Thett\u2019s argument, thus I win this debate. Peace and Love [1] https://www.supermoney.com... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://amiccs.com...", "qid": "18", "docid": "f2f7c9c0-2019-04-18T12:43:51Z-00001-000", "rank": 58, "score": 144491.0}, {"content": "Title: That we should tax religions. Content: When we look at the religions of today, we see increasingly grand and decadent churches, mosques and synagogues, while at the same time we see secularism rising exponentially [1,2], and all of this begs the question: why should a purportedly secular government not be treating religions like the rest of us? Why are religions considered tax-exempt while businesses and individuals are taxed? But firstly, what is our tax system and why are some organizations not taxed? A tax system in a Western Democracy is a simple on a principled level. The purpose of taxation is so that public services can be made available to all. But in our tax system we allow certain organizations to be let off the hook when it comes to taxation because we believe that these organizations operate to benefit the community as a whole. We can see this particularly clearly when we consider that the organizations that are tax-exempt are predominately charities, trade unions and art organizations [3]. The standard for tax-exemption is clearly the overall public benefit to everyone of the society. In the instance of religions, given that recent surveys suggested there were as many as 45 million people in the United States who were not religious, we think that religious organizations don't help the wider population, and for this reason they should be taxed. Secondly, we believe in the separation of church and state and that allowing religions to be tax-exempt effectively violates this separation for two main reasons. Firstly, we think that not taxing religions gives them in-principle support, which a secular government should not do. Secondly, on a practical level, in the current situation we see a government that is forced to decide which religions are valid and which are not. Currently, our government must decide whether it should tax religions such as scientology [4] (which is currently untaxed by the United States but is by major nations such as France), which many consider to be criminal. Scientology has allegedly abused its members [5] and been involved in other criminal activity. I would ask my opponent: under his model, would religions like this be taxed, or would the government continue to allow a seemingly immoral organization off the hook? Thirdly, we see that religions often have a negative effect on their community. I have already discussed scientology, which is an important example. But even more mainstream religions have a negative impact. Consider America's most widespread religion, Christianity [1]. We think it has a negative impact in twomain ways. Firstly, we say that the church has been accused of worldwide instances of abuse, and that it has even been threatened by legal action in a trial of war crimes in regard to this abuse [6]. Allegations of abuse of children to the highest levels, and the admission by the Pope that he personally has covered up these scandals [6] show the widespread nature of these practices. The government should not be treating these organizations as charitable, or as benefiting the whole community. Secondly, many Christian doctrines take part in inherently prejudiced practices; in some doctrines women are not allowed to become priests, and moreover the religion as a whole has moved against gay marriage [7]. Because religions have a net negative impact on society as a whole, we should tax them, as we do ordinary members of society. I wish my opponent luck for the next round. https://www.cia.gov... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.nytimes.com... Robertson, Geoffrey, The Case of the Pope; Vatican Accountability for Human Rights Abuse, 2009. http://en.wikipedia.org...", "qid": "18", "docid": "1e5d5fcd-2019-04-18T19:02:10Z-00003-000", "rank": 59, "score": 143675.0}, {"content": "Title: Debate: Churches ought to pay taxes Content: Thanks, Hayd.I'm just going to respond to Hayd's attacks since I directly refuted his case in my own. There will be a lot of fresh attacks against his case wrapped up in my defenses.I. Religion is a social goodHayd concedes this point entirely, noting only that public events could be held at schools, crowding out after-school activities.You can vote Con. It is not remotely plausible that forcing Churches to hire armies of tax lawyers and pay taxes on their properties (many of which are priceless architectural marvels) will help religion in this country. Remember, active involvement in a religious community extends life, makes that life happier and more fulfilled, and increases that individuals positive impact on society. Does Hayd want to compare that record with the government? His only real response is that my claims that religion will be damaged if it's taxed is unwarranted. I didn't hit this very much because I assumed it was completely obvious, but I'll note that Hayd totally dropped my argument regarding the business model of churches assuming that they don't pay taxes. Adding a massive tax burden throws that model into flux and adds instability for no reason. I'm not sure what else I can be expected to do here. As the complete take down of the Council of Secular Humanism article shows, making accurate estimates about this kind of thing is incredibly difficult and often leaves you with your foot in your mouth. Instead you have to go with the logic that, yes, having to hire armies of tax lawyers, pay property and income taxes, and totally change your business model from the bottom to the top is going to cause damage on the margins. Corporations fight taxes tooth and nail for a reason, the extra expense harms the bottom line. Since Hayd has totally conceded that the bottom line of religion is a massive boon for society, it's difficult to see how Pro can win the debate. But the absurdity of this line of attack really comes through when you get into the specifics behind Hayd's case. Hayd later claims that the government will make tons of money because the average property tax burden on the 300,000 churches would be over $26,000. Doesn't sound so bad if you're thinking about Billy Graham sized crowds. Except the majority of congregations in this country consist of less than 100 people. $26,000 distributed over, say, 50 congregants is an incredible burden that would shut down almost any church. And that's just the property taxes.I'm also going to rebut Hayd's entire case by calling for him to morally justify taxation. The general argument for taxing corporations is that since society provides for them via the roads their goods travel on, the police force protecting them from robbery, and so on they owe something in return. If churches are as great as I claim they are, and Hayd has conceded to every single one of my claims, they are already fulfilling their debt to society. The moral justification for taxing churches is bunk. II. Economic effects Hayd writes: \"[Thett] assumes that all churches, or even the majority of churches are non profit organizations. This is not true, just as the Ford Motor Company donates some of their income to charity does not make their internal operating expenses tax deductible, neither does a church\u2019s.\" This is ***COMPLETELY*** false and not at all how corporate taxes work. If expenses weren't tax deductible, literally every business in the United States would go under. Corporations are taxed on their *income* which is the number you get after subtracting revenue (all of the money the organization takes in that year) from expenses (everything it spends). So for example in 2015 Ford earned some $149 million in revenue[1], but operating costs ate at that number until the taxable income was a mere $10 million. Legitimate operating expenses like building upkeep and employee payment are ALWAYS tax-deductible because they whittle away the corporations taxable income.Hayd says he is not allowing churches to deduct these legitimate expenses. He loses his previous argument that churches won't be hit very hard by his new taxes as he is subjecting religions to a completely unfair and unique tax burden by not allowing them to write off operating costs. If he chooses not to advocate for this exaggerated and unfair tax burden, I hereby turn his entire case: Hayd's impact relies upon more money going to charity if you tax churches. But the reality is that *LESS* money will be going to go to charity. Right now in order to maintain their non-profit status, churches are legally prohibited from having an income. As we've already discussed, on average 71% of their income goes to expenses and only 29% would be considered \"income.\" Hayd gets the government some of that 29%. But the Church keeps the rest. And now that they're no longer obligated to maintain their non-profit status, with many strapped for cash due to the massive financial burden Hayd throws on them, can they really be expected to donate all of their remaining profits to charity? By legally turning churches into a business, Hayd is actually reducing the money that goes to charity and opening the door for unscrupulous religious leaders to enrich themselves from church revenue. Further, if you don't buy that turn for some reason, you still vote Con because Hayd can't just assume that all the money is going to be donated to charity. The resolution does not say \"Churches ought to be taxed and the proceeds will go to charity\"--we have NO REASON to assume that the government will give this money to charitable causes and Hayd has not articulated any.You can vote Con because Hayd literally has no impacts. His plan requires you to assume that no churches are hurt by a sudden tax burden, the church does not retaliate against the government in a negative way, that no churches keep rather than donate their profits now that they have the option, and that the government will donate the proceeds to charity. Give him all of these EXTREMELY GENEROUS assumptions and it is STILL a wash. Even if you don't buy any of my own points Hayd still loses because he adds instability to the status quo without producing any tangible improvement.III. Church and State Hayd fundamentally misunderstands why the sacred and the secular should be separate spheres. He says the argument that churches would retaliate to this violation of their sovereignty is unwarranted, but he is actively undermining their interests by imposing a massive financial burden. Hayd says he doesn't see a problem with the church influencing secular politics, but the vast majority of Americans do. When His Holiness the Pope himself criticized Trump he was roundly condemned and THE POPE apologized. I find it extremely doubtful that Hayd can't see the obvious problem with every election in the United States literally being decided by who the major religions endorse. All it takes is one instance of the church's political position contradicting the public good for there to be an impact when you're working with a government that is completely reliant on the church for its legitimacy. This is the road to dominionism. Remember that since Hayd has no impacts, even the tiniest risk of an undue religious influence on the government harming the public good is enough to win me the debate. Hayd bizarrely responds to my religious discrimination argument by claiming that lawsuits wouldn't cost the government anything because the law is the law, despite making an extremely similar point in his first round. Which is it? Hayd causes a lot of instability without anything to show for it. The resolution is completely negated. Sources:1. http://www.nasdaq.com...", "qid": "18", "docid": "f2f7c9c0-2019-04-18T12:43:51Z-00002-000", "rank": 60, "score": 143602.0}, {"content": "Title: Tax-exempt/tax-deductible status for the poor and homeless... Content: Prequel arguments: Q- but my point is that your comparing them to corporations using that as justification to give them tax breaks, but when we follow this line of thought to its logical conclusion, it falls flat. that's my point, and it wasn't rely an argument, just food for thought. Bible reference: \"While I respect my opponent's research, I must disagree on the point about the Bible's perspective on taxation and government. Firstly, the remainder of the text reads, \"Give unto God what's God's\", thereby reminding us to give what is owed to those to whom we owe it.\" --yes, and we do not owe poor people anything. \"However, in ancient Israel, the Law of Moses demanded charity from the people; both in the form of personal charity, and in a form of taxation we know today as \"tithing\". If necessary, I can provide specific references; however, there are many references throughout the books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy.\" --and we still do, through the church. key word \"church\". it is not the governments place to administer charity. ------------------------------------------ I never said that evil is neccisary first of all, if I remember correctly I actually said \"the Evil is not suffering, but the attempts to rob one of his or her suffering, thus making life incomplete and robbing him/her of meaning as a whole.\" evil is evil, but maby I should explain. suffering is not evil, it completes life and allows us to know meaning and through meaning is produced the value of life. but when you remove suffering, they you create a sort of sped up nihilism which, through consequence, causes the value of life to devalue. ------------------------------------------- I believe the confusion here is I may have been a bit vague in how this work, so I will explain it here: lets start at the beginning. most everyone has some sort of drive. drives are driven by the self and what we deem \"important\". now we must ask the question \"what drives us to want to help others?\". the answer is simple, because of the way it makes us feel, it makes you feel good. this point is made by zizek and explained clearly, its only a few minutes long, blease, I ask you to watch this: http://www.youtube.com... and also, talking from a biblical point, on the contrary, god uses hardship and suffering to bring us closer to him (thereby giving us meaning and creating value to our life). take jobe for instance. he had everything, money, a loving family, power, and he loved god. Satan asked god if he could tempt jobe, and god allowed Satan to basically ruin jobes life, yet as jobe reaccounts, in the end, it brought him closer to god. --------------------------------------------- ~~~~~~~~~points~~~~~~~~~~~~ I~first, I just want to point out how ironic and contradicting it is that my opponent, who uses the Christian bible to support his points, quotes Buddha and Lao tzu.... second , this answer is only proof of what I say. he said \" it is this competition that causes unease and unrest. Suffering causes us to feel impending doom. While useful, it is useful as far as the compulsion to alleviate suffering. One may wonder if it's suffering that is necessary, or effort.\" -it is this fear of an impending doom that drives us as people to do better and to denounce our apathetic and sinful nature. thus without cause, there is no drive, and they would completely lose sight of meaning. II~ 1. but your only proposing tax breaks.... your ideas specifically would not affect the homeless, no where in your points did u mention of any sort of housing programs. 2. even the bible supports this. the bible states that human beings have an inherently sinful nature, and apathy is not of god, therefore is apart of our nature. also, were is your evidence? examples? III~ and we are at war right now, and there was taxes before ww2, just allot more pressure put on paying them in ww2. 1. but why would you monitor it? Didn't you say that you believe suffering is bad? You've just contradicted your whole thesis here. also, our govt is so big that every aspect of it is subject to abuse, what makes this an exception? 2. the only reason people go into survive mode is because of the impending doom they see when in times of suffering. this is not the rule of human nature, merely an exception. IV~ if its purely from the private sector, how can you grantee that they will receive it? how can this even be affected by your bill?... its to vague of a point... V~ but that has nothing to do with tax exemptions... also, how exactly are tax exemptions for the poor going to make richer people become more charitable? sounds like your making quite the assumption here... VI~ not exactly.... look at our govt at the beginning of the U.S. and compare it to now. it have gained an exponential amount of power over us. this is proof of my claim. history proves. go read some ayn rand, she explains this. VII~ the bible does, \"do unto others as you would have done unto you\". but (as supported by the example of jobe), suffering is a neccisary part of life, if you can I would ask you to read the first chapter of the will to power by Nietzsche. it explains this very clearly. VIII~ you obviously don't know what poor is... go visit any 3rd world country, come back, then give me your definition of poor. IX~ so we lessen the income of the govt before we take care of this? that would only result in the multiplication of our deficit.... ------------------------------- but how do tax breaks affect homeless people? ------------------------------- reffer back to the example of jobe for my answer on this. also, im not advocating util.... im only advocating the logical framework of thought utilized by Kant.... nothing more. ------------------------------- 1. you only propose a tax exemptions... how do you solve for frivolous spending? seems like your reaching a bit here... 2. I agree that \"Government isn't the solution... government is the problem\" as quoted by my opponent. But he seems to think that buy the govt handing out tradable tax credits and giving tax exemptions /reductions, that we can solve poverty..... first, that is using the govt, second, solving poverty is impossible. Jesus himself said \"the poor will always be with us\". Questions ------------------ 1. How much of the govt anual income from taxes would be reduced? 2. but how do tax breaks get homeless people to not be homeless any more? 3. got all i need on this one. 4. ok, got all i need here. 5.can you be a bit less vague in your explenation? 5.5. there was also slavery... and sexism on a larger scale... but america has changed for the better has it not? 6.for the reccord, me 2 man, I know where your coming from.", "qid": "18", "docid": "f21a3676-2019-04-18T18:55:36Z-00002-000", "rank": 61, "score": 141063.0}, {"content": "Title: Churches should be taxed. Content: Even though my opponent forfeited, I'll still see what I can pick apart from her arguments.Notice that not once throughout my opponent's main arguments did she ever distinguish between a church and a non-profit organization. In that light, she also failed to provide you a single reason to vote Pro.As I said in my opening argument, churches are like non-profit organizations, which provide benefits to the community as a whole without being taxed for it. My opponent didn't even try to argue against this in her opening argument, possibly because she, as well as I, acknowledge all of the good that can come out of a local church.The problem with my opponent's case is that she doesn't realize that taxing a church will simply discourage it from providing these benefits to the community. People who work at churches or even people who volunteer are already taxed at an individual level. This poses a problem for taxing the churches, as Professor Dean Kelly writes in his book \"To tax them again for participation in voluntary organizations from which they derive no monetary gain would be \u2018double taxation\u2019 indeed, and would effectively serve to discourage them from devoting time, money, and energy to organizations which contribute to the upbuilding of the fabric of democracy.\"[1] And what does this mean? If churches spend less time helping the community, who picks up the slack? Either the government does so, which ultimately means more taxes for all of us, or nobody picks it up at all. Both situations are undesirable and completely avoidable by not taxing churches in the first place.Looking at my opponent's arguments, all I can really see are complaints about what the churches have. So what if churches own land? So what if they have facilities on this land? Pro hasn't given you a single reason as to why these are even bad things, except for that some people feel like they can't use those facilities.The last sentence the Pro says is the most fallacious of all: \"Religious affiliations only remain tax-exempt if the government sees the religion as legitimate.\" Looking at my opening argument, you can see this is blatantly false. The IRS outlines specific guidelines that the church must follow in order for it to remain tax exempt. Believe it or not, there ARE churches that are not tax-exempt, because they choose not to follow those guidelines. But what my opponent said about churches \"making millions\" was REALLY true (and we have no reason to believe this without a proper citation), they wouldn't qualify for tax-exemption in the first place.Thus, this resolution has been negated.Citations(s):1. http://www.opposingviews.com...", "qid": "18", "docid": "2f656c50-2019-04-18T18:20:05Z-00000-000", "rank": 62, "score": 140493.0}, {"content": "Title: Churches Paying Taxes Content: Churches should pay taxes because they are just like other companies that pay taxes. Churches make money, And all companies who make money get taxed. By taxing churches their would be an estimated $71 billion worth of taxes. $71 billion is a lot of money that could be spent to benefit the world. Yes, Churches do donate money, But the Mormon church spends only. 7% of their annual income on charity. The American Red Cross spends 92. 1% of their income to assist people. \"Wal-Mart, For instance, Gives about $1. 75 billion in food aid to charities each year, Or twenty-eight times all of the money allotted for charity by the United Methodist Church and almost double what the LDS Church has given in the last twenty-five years. (Derek Beres, 2012)\" Source: https://bigthink. Com/21st-century-spirituality/how-to-make-71-billion-a-year-tax-the-churches", "qid": "18", "docid": "3f1c75e-2019-04-18T11:15:58Z-00005-000", "rank": 63, "score": 140326.0}, {"content": "Title: Churches Should be Taxed Content: The separation of church and state would not be as severly violated as it has been in the past. Kentucky has given out Bibles in public schools, a family of Jewish children was repeatedly harassed after complaining about the promotion of Christian beliefs in their school. One of the students was forced to write an essay on \"Why Jesus Loves Me.\" The taxation of churches and other religious institutions would not be as severe as forcing the beliefs of Christianity onto Jews or Muslims. As I said, it would only be .5% taxation. Then they could go on their merry way and do whatever they want with the rest. It's no secret churches have abusing extra money and such. I'm not saying all churches are, just some. Also, the government is not intruding on the ceremonies of the religious, just collecting money. We're not shutting the churches down, we're just taxing them very little.Source: http://archive.adl.org...", "qid": "18", "docid": "c5ba2ffc-2019-04-18T16:06:55Z-00004-000", "rank": 64, "score": 139945.0}, {"content": "Title: Should Churches Pay Taxes Content: I thank Zwatt for the opportunity to debate this topic. Since my opponent has made opening round arguments, this gives me licence to open with arguments, too. I am going, at least initially, to use the United States as an example of why churches should not pay taxes. Negation Case A1: The First Amendment In the United States, \u201cthe First Amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances\u201d [1]. It would violate the U.S constitution to infringe upon the free exercise of religion. It would also violate the right to freedom of expression (freedom of speech) in that the government could shut down or reprimand a church that defaults on their payments, which would not allow them freedom to expression. In McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), the US Supreme Court found this very conclusion to be the just one: \u201cthe power to tax involves the power to destroy\u201d [3]. Violating the constitution strips humans of their basic human rights, which are natural and require good arguments to explain why they should be infringed upon. A2: Churches are not-for-profit Not-for-profit organisations are not taxed because they are not charging for a service. You can attend your local church, receive a service and not pay a dime. Yes, there are collection bowls, but you are not required to give anything, unlike a business wherein you will not be served if you do not pay. So, my opponent\u2019s claims of \u201creligion in general is a multi-billion dollar business\u201d is incorrect, for religion does not register as a business. Religion meets the \u2018tax-exemption\u2019 requirements of 501 (c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and hence classifies as a not-for-profit organisation [2]. Therefore, taxing churches would violate this religious legislation which exists to protect not-for-profit organisations since not-for-profit organisations contribute to the public\u2019s wellbeing without charging a price. What my opponent is suggesting is equivalent to taxing charities which also fall under the tax exemption of 501 (c)(3). A3: Disadvantaged and poor people rely on assistance from churches If churches were to be taxed, churches would suffer according to Vincent Becker (Monignor at the Immaculate Conception Church in Wellsville, \u201c[his church] base[s] all the things that we do on the fact that we do not have to pay taxes on the buildings\u201d [4]. In effect, what this will mean is that the once charitable services performed by the churches would now be eliminated or delegated to local governments. A4: Church members who donate will be taxed twice First, there will be an initial income taxing for the members, Then, the money that is donated will be taxed again the church is taxed. Why is it fair to tax these institutions twice? A5: Small churches will suffer greatly A survey, undertaken in 2010, found that \u201ccongregations facing financial strain more than doubled to almost 20% in the past decade, with 5% of congregations unlikely to recover\u201d [5]. If churches were forced to pay taxes on top of that, a lot of church\u2019s existences would be threatened [7]. Counter-Arguments \u201cYes, of course all churches should pay taxes, there is no legitimate reason why churches should be exempt from taxes\u201d Here, my opponent has committed a Negative Proof Fallacy, in which he shifts the burden of proof onto the people who should be negating [6]. Seeing that he is to affirm, he is the one to give reasons why \u201cchurches should pay taxes\u201d (i.e. the resolution). To put this into perspective, it would be like him asking me to disprove that pink unicorns exist (his effective words: show why churches should not be taxed), and if I cannot, then pink unicorns exist (his words: \u201cthere is no legitimate reason\u201d). \u201c\u2026just because you claim religious belief does not mean you are exempt from taxes so why should a church be exempt.\u201d As shown earlier, churches are exempt due to not-for-profit status, not due to \u201cclaim[ing] religious belief\u201d. \u201cReligion in general is a multi billion dollar business the only difference between a corporation and a church is we tax a church.\u201d As shown earlier, religions are not businesses. References [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.irs.gov... [3] John Marshall, US Supreme Court opinion, McCulloch v. Maryland, supreme.justia.com, 1819 [4] Brian Quinn, \"Should Churches Pay Property Taxes?,\" www.wellsvilledaily.com, Mar. 1, 2011 [5] Nicole Neroulias, \"Study: Churches Inching Back from Recession,\" www.usatoday.com, Apr. 20, 2011 [6] http://rationalwiki.org... [7] Scott Tibbs, \"Should Churches Pay Taxes?\" ConservaTibbs.com, June 24, 2009", "qid": "18", "docid": "7f792826-2019-04-18T15:23:48Z-00003-000", "rank": 65, "score": 138512.0}, {"content": "Title: Some Emerging Religious Groups do Not Have the Political Connections to Qualify Content: An example might be an emerging group that informally meets at someone's home. They do not have the tax benefits that official churches have because they do not have the lobbying power or the time to negotiate a charitable status from the gatekeepers in government. Removing the tax favoritism that most churches enjoy would simply level the playing field and make sure new religious philosophies that are beneficial do not get squished because of political favoritism. Many of the early religious reformers had to flee persecution because they did not have the political mojo of the larger denominations. Removing the larger groups' tax-exempt status would force them to stay relevant and profitable to the community.", "qid": "18", "docid": "af414960-2019-04-19T12:47:32Z-00012-000", "rank": 66, "score": 138315.0}, {"content": "Title: The government should tax churches to fund ethically-aware, women-only drop-in centres Content: I would like to express my sincere thanks to frappe for accepting this challenge and for responding in such a eloquent and informed manner. I would also politely request the voters to acknowledge that my opponent extended me the courtesy of \"home ground\" in basing his rebuttals on the British, rather than the American, model of society: I certainly didn't anticipate this but I am very grateful. With regard to the role of churches in society, and the alleged benefits my opponent contends they provide, I would like to respond as follows: Con acknowledges that church attendance in Britain has decreased to a point whereby only a tiny fraction of citizens regularly attend church services, and those that do are mainly elderly which means that attendances is in terminal decline. Indeed, far more people obtain their spiritual sustenance from psychics, astrologers and fortune-tellers. These mystics and soothsayers provide spiritual comfort to their impressionable clients in exchange for money -they earn a living by giving their customers emotional support in exchange for cash, a bit like churches do, but unlike churches they pay tax on their income: when a punter crosses Rosie Lee's palm with silver, the crystal ball-gazing gypsy will dutifully record this financial transaction and scrupulously declare her full earnings when she diligently files her tax returns (gypsies are notoriously honest people) - and these taxes are used to benefit wider societies by paying for teachers, nurses, police officers and so on. Despite the lack of spiritual adherents though, the churches are making money hand over fist, mainly through their property investment portfolios: the Church of England alone netted a cool 19.1% on their \u00ef\u00bf\u00bd4.3 billion / $6.9 billion investments last year (1) - tax free, of course - but these windfalls do not benefit wider society at all because they either reinvest the money or spend it on providing themselves with munificent stipends and lavish, grace-in-favour accommodation. With reference to preserving historic buildings, the churches certainly have a moral responsibility to do this, but it is a responsibility they continually fail to discharge. The Church of England is one of the largest land-owners in Britain but if a parish church becomes uneconomic due to falling attendances, they will ruthlessly sell it off to the highest bidder. In rural areas, churches tend to be converted into luxury apartments (2) for affluent commuters while churches in urban areas are often converted into pubs: my old local pub in Muswell Hill, North London and also my old local pub when I lived in Aberdeen, Scotland were both formerly churches (3,4) - whereas in times gone by the vicar would have dispensed blessings the bartenders now dispense beers, wines and spirits from the same spot. Some parishioners may feel this is sacrilege, but the churches don't care about that: for them religion is all about one thing and one thing alone; cold, hard cash The poor and needy? Their welfare is the responsibility of the state and charities, not the churches, at least not as fare as they are concerned. Which brings me neatly to the issue of their charitable status. Charities are typically run by volunteers, with a small number of paid staff on modest incomes: and these employees certainly do not live in grand houses and drive flash cars like so many vicars and priests do. Indeed, in America where televangelism is a $2-3 billion, unregulated, untaxed industry, pastors are even more extravagant. For example, preacher Kenneth Copeland \"lives in an 18,000 square foot home outside Ft. Worth, Texas worth $6 million. It has beautiful water views that comes complete with a boat house. But that's not all. Copeland is an avid pilot, and his pride and joy is a $20 million Cessna Citation jet. It's the fastest private jet money can buy. He said he needed it to better serve the Lord, and proudly did a fly by for his followers after the church bought it.\" (5) If it was revealed that donations to a charity were being used to fund lavish lifestyles of charity workers rather than being spent on good causes, there would, quite rightly, be a public outcry and the organisation would, in all probability, loose it's charitable status. So what's so special about the church? Why are they allowed to use their income to feather their nests tax-free? The answer is undue reverence for an ancient institution that no longer has any relevance to the vast majority of people in 21st Century Britain. To conclude, I am not arguing that there is no place in society for religious organisations, merely that they should pay their way like any other for-profit organisation and that the should be subject to tax. Thank you. (1) http://www.guardian.co.uk... (2) http://www.locationworks.com... (3) http://www.oneills.co.uk... (4) http://www.pbdevco.com... (5) http://www.insideedition.com...", "qid": "18", "docid": "37eb35dd-2019-04-18T18:23:18Z-00001-000", "rank": 67, "score": 137319.0}, {"content": "Title: Churches should be taxed! Content: Religious organizations within our nation should be taxed just as any other businesses and individuals are taxed. The Us Constitution of the United States of America clearly was written to eliminate the granting and to eradicate any possibility of religious powerhouses, and any theocratic influences to be held over the interest and over the values of America and its people. The constitution was written as one nation, under god; so that the government would not grant religions extra privileges.", "qid": "18", "docid": "541c0fdb-2019-04-18T14:17:03Z-00001-000", "rank": 68, "score": 137133.0}, {"content": "Title: End tax breaks for religious organizations Content: Premise: Not all religious organizations enjoys tax breaks, only those our government deems legitimate. Premise: The way in which the government chooses which religious organizations to not tax seems unfair. Conclusion: Therefore, all churches should have to pay government taxes", "qid": "18", "docid": "f0d9c7b8-2019-04-18T16:34:21Z-00005-000", "rank": 69, "score": 136269.0}, {"content": "Title: The Roman Catholic Church Should Pay Taxes on Its Real Estate Holdings Content: What troubles me right away is that you are saying that only \"assets belonging to Roman Catholic Church\" should be taxed, Yet why only the Catholic Church? This you are singling one group at, yet letting it be fine for any other religious group to so and not be taxed. Now when you say that \"these institutions provide no benefit for the surrounding population\" are you saying that monks, nuns, and the priests provide no benefit for the surrounding population, yet they are the ones that run the churches that \"provide a place of solace\" that i'm guessing you were meaning as something that did provide to the surrounding population. Also are these not the people supporting every community they can, whether they are in the streets of Calcutta to the wealthier countries such as America, Britain, Norway,Canada,etc. Now when you tax them you are taking money away from a charity, and THE LARGEST HEALTH CARE SYSTEM IN THE WORLD. Now you may say that they keep a lot of the money and spend on themselves, but i believe those times are changing! With Pope Francis taking the city bus to get around instead of the popemoblie, and many other actions against the luxury of the pope, and his subjects.", "qid": "18", "docid": "5df4b40e-2019-04-18T12:51:46Z-00001-000", "rank": 70, "score": 136233.0}, {"content": "Title: Churches of all religions should be taxed by the government. Content: In this debate, both individuals will argue that churches should or should not be taxed like other organizations. The debate is to be determined by whichever person has outlined better points for their case. Round 1: Acceptance (Only type that you accept the challenge) Round 2: Argument (State your point / No referencing or rebutting Pro's Argument) Round 3: Rebuttal (Rebut each others Round 2: Arguments) Round 4: Conclusion (Conclude your argument) I wish my opponent the best of luck.", "qid": "18", "docid": "5efc5feb-2019-04-18T16:38:30Z-00005-000", "rank": 71, "score": 136053.0}, {"content": "Title: Churches should be taxed the same as private non-profit clubs. Content: Okay, I'm really really sorry. I had a big English project, then I got a little sick. and I lost the charging cable for my laptop...... let's just say that it has been an interesting week. If my opponent would like to continue after we run out of rounds, maybe in the comments section, or in a new debate, then I would be willing to do so. I would just like to restate that this is only over property taxes and tax deductions. These are the only major tax differences between churches in non-profit clubs that is worth discussing. \"The reason they should be taxed differently is because, unlike social clubs, churches are charitable. This is evident in the requirements for their respective classifications.\" I think we have to examine what counts as charitable. As a charitable organization or a government agency/public service (like a library or county courthouse or a soup kitchen) money given to them is tax deductible. Similarly, a religious organization is also on this list of tax deductible organizations. Also on this list is 2 types of private organizations. Domestic Fraternal Societies and non-profit cemetery companies. However, restrictions are placed on even these. For the fraternal society, the entire amount you are claiming as a donation must be used for a charitable action, and for the cemetery company it cannot be used for a specific lot or mausoleum. *1 Now, I agree that a church may engage in charitable actions. This is clear to anyone. I was part of a synagogue for most of my life, and I remember every once in a while them passing around a collection plate or asking for canned food. I also remember them using that money to build a new Synagogue, because they didn't have one (they had services in other locations that they rented out or borrowed). Most religious organizations do not use enough money towards charitable actions to be considered a charity. The purpose of declaring something a charity, and refraining from taxing it at all, and then giving deductions for donations is thus. 1. To convince people to use their own money to fund relief and support programs that the community as a whole supports more. 2. To not have to provide services being rendered by that organization. Does a church do either of these? While the community as a whole might more support the church, is it really providing a relief to the community? Is giving my ten dollars to that church really going to do more, or even a comparable amount then if I had given it to a real charity? Should I get the same tax deduction from donating to a soup kitchen that I get from donating to a church? Now I would like to separate religious organizations into 3 categories, to which I will argue separately. The first will be charities that may affiliate with a religion, but function as charities. I have volunteered with the Jewish Relief Agency, which unless you live in the greater Philadelphia area and are Jewish, probably don't know about. It's a warehouse that packages boxes filled with square meals for the week and delivers it to mostly, but not exclusively, needy Jewish people (mostly recent Russian immigrants). They give the majority of their funds to the charity itself, and give a negligible amount (less then 10%) to religious practices. This is a charity and should be treated as such. There are other examples of things that are clearly more charities then religious organizations, though they may affiliate with some religious organizations. Now there are standard churches that participate in large, or exemplary charitable actions. (as in, 30-70% of their income). These are not charities. Though they may partake in many charitable actions, they should be taxed. However, they can receive large deductions from their charitable actions, and may end up paying no taxes at all, or very little. This is great. They should be able to do this, and I, and most people, should applaud them for doing so. But, they are still a religious organization. My donation will do less then donating to a real charity. It should not be tax deducted equally, or at all like it would if I donated it to a charity. The last is a standard church that participates in little to no charity (0 - 20% of income). They may receive a small amount of deduction, or perhaps none at all. Ultimately though, these are religious organizations. They cannot be considered charities. Their money only goes to benefit those who give the money, and do not give any benefit to the outside community (for religious people; remember point number 4 in round 1). I personally would argue that it gives no benefit to those inside the religion, but whatever. It is a social club that prays. That is all that a non-donating religious organization is. We have separated these with private organizations. We have made it so that we do not tax charities affiliated with private clubs, and give deductions to the non-profit clubs so that if they are charitable, they may not have to pay taxes at all. Why can we not do the same with religious organizations? Maybe we shouldn't tax non-profit clubs. I see rife abuse with that potential path, but maybe there is some merit that me, with my limited mortality and comprehension, cannot see. My arguments are based off of equality. The only difference between a church and a non-profit club is that one prays and the other might pray. And yet one gets massive exemptions, while the other must struggle to do massive charity projects if they wish to pay no taxes, or do rigorous hoop jumping to get qualified under tax-exempt status. 1. http://www.irs.gov...", "qid": "18", "docid": "32e89ba9-2019-04-18T16:30:48Z-00001-000", "rank": 72, "score": 135747.0}, {"content": "Title: Debate: Churches ought to pay taxes Content: I. Religion is a social goodThe conclusion to this point is short and sweet. Vote Con if you think there is even a slight chance of taxation harming religious life. Throughout the entire debate there has never been any attempt to refute the actual impacts that I brought up in this contention. Religious experience betters a persons quality and quantity of life as well as increasing the positive influence they have on their community. Don't let these impacts get lost in all of the numbers thrown around in this debate. It is not remotely conceivable that taxing religious institutions would do anything but harm them. On the margins, extra expense burdens *always* harm the bottom line. This is simply a fact of business, and Hayd pretending like a $26,000 cost spread out over 50 \"customers\" (congregants) is nothing or that massive organizations like the Catholic Church wouldn't spend a ton of money on tax lawyers doesn't make his case any more credible. It comes off more as grasping at straws--he would've been better off to concede some impact and try to outweigh it, because it's incredibly clear that extra expense harms institutions ON THE MARGINS. Small churches that are already struggling will close. Services that are attended by fewer congregants will stop. Struggling branches of large religions, especially in under populated areas, will shut down. And with them community and social capital that has been built up over years, often generations, will vanish overnight. And all of this for nothing. He mocks my argument about a changing business model as vague, but when you're dealing with thousands of diverse institutions making any concrete assumptions is dicey. The point is that churches don't currently account for the extra expense that taxation would impose upon them. The apparatus used for financial decision-making would be totally upended, throwing the system into a state of flux. Hayd doesn't take this point seriously, but all serious businesses take precaution to avoid unnecessary instability. We don't know for sure what taxing religions would look like, but we can ascertain that they would be harmed ON THE MARGINS. I encourage everyone to go back to my opening case and reread my impacts, which are quite substantial. Nothing Hayd has to offer comes even close to outweighing what I bring to the table. II. Economic Benefits The progression of this argument tells you all you really need to know about the resolution. Hayds $71 billion has slowly been whittled down to 10% of what it once was. This is a case study in how all of the supposed benefits of taxing religions fall apart when subjected to close scrutiny. The only impact Hayd has left is the $7 billion or so that he says he'll get from property taxes. Except he won't because like I already said, many institutions will close down rather than manage such a large tax burden. Hayd argues that this money will be used for charity. First, you're still getting less money for charity overall because when you remove the non-profit status of churches you cannot stop them from keeping their incomes rather than donating them. I'm sure that many would continue to donate, but there are enough unscrupulous people out there (and far more money contributed to charity from the \"income\" pool) to more than make up for any gains that Hayd gets. But the most important thing to realize about his argument about using this money for charity is that it will not be used for that purpose. He has offered literally no reason to believe that the government would earmark the money for this purpose, and considering how property taxes are collected by municipalities I'm not sure how it would even be possible for the government to do this. He says that he's allowed to make a \"plan\" to affirm the resolution, but that's absurd if the plan isn't feasible. His plan could just as easily claim that the government would invest the money into a portfolio that would return 100x the money invested. Such investments exist. Would it be fair to claim that the government would be able to do something like this? No. And similarly, you can't assume that the money goes to charity. In reality, the money would go to municipalities where it would be a small drop in their buckets. Refer back to the impacts stated in my original case. While the benefits of Hayd's plan are distributed over tens of thousands of municipalities and thus diminished, the negatives are all centralized. The Catholic Church is the second largest employer in the United States. Subjecting them to billions of dollars in taxes means that many of those jobs are going to vanish. III. Church and StateThis point alone wins me the debate. Under Hayds framework, there would only have to be one instance where a politician was unduly influenced by a religious donor or endorser for the public good to be harmed and for me to gain an impact. We cannot forget that an endorsement from the Catholic Church would swing literally any presidential election. The results for 2016 are in, and once again Catholics were a pretty closely divided group. Trump won 52% of them, and Hillary won 45%[1]. Catholics represented nearly a quarter of all voters in an election where the popular vote was virtually tied. Say an endorsement from the Catholic Church would flip 20% of these voters either way. That would be the equivalent of a 5 point swing, enough to change the result of all but one of the past five elections[2]. In reality, the impact would probably be far larger. This is the power that Hayd will give to the Catholic Church. Not to mention the numerous legislative seats that could be flipped even more easily. All it takes is ONE TIME for the political opinion of the Catholic Church (or whichever religious institution won the race for a politician) to conflict with the common good for their to be an impact. Except this will happen all the time. If you want a Christian dominionism vote Pro, otherwise preserve the integrity of the state by keeping it separate from the church. All hail President Trump. Vote Con.1. . http://www.nationalreview.com...2. . https://en.wikipedia.org...", "qid": "18", "docid": "f2f7c9c0-2019-04-18T12:43:51Z-00000-000", "rank": 73, "score": 135421.0}, {"content": "Title: Churches Should be Taxed Content: To me, the separation of church and state is one of the most important principles of our nation. In such a diverse country, secularity is crucial. Should the government decide to tax churches, or any other spiritual or religious organization as I assume you do not mean particularly Christianity and its denominations, the separation of church and state would be violated. One of the fundamental doctrines of the state. While an economically intriguing idea, this is not a good idea. I apologize for taking so long on my response.", "qid": "18", "docid": "c5ba2ffc-2019-04-18T16:06:55Z-00005-000", "rank": 74, "score": 134712.0}, {"content": "Title: Religious institutions should be taxed like everyone else. Content: Religious institutions essentially evade 71 Billion dollars in tax revenue each year. The congregations of Christian religions tithe so why not pay some of that to the state and federal like everyone else. A church should not be considered special in comparison with other citizens of the United States.", "qid": "18", "docid": "18e421a8-2019-04-18T17:25:04Z-00005-000", "rank": 75, "score": 133961.0}, {"content": "Title: Tax-exempt/tax-deductible status for the poor and homeless... Content: bible- but you arnt, as a believer looking after them. your saying that its the govt job to do that. and ok, show me where in the bible it says we can use the government to administer charity as a replacement for church charity. you cant. -------------------------------------- but in the example of jobe it shows how hardship and suffuring brings him closer to god... and you call that evil? our reason for being created IS to have a relationship with the lord. therefor anything that helps this i would say is a greater good beyont your understanding. also, jesus endured lots of suffering, so are you saying jesus was sinnful? that's obsurd! --------------------------------------- simmple put, the bible tellsus that we as human beings have a sinnfull nature. enough said. and also, you show a fundamental misunderstanding of what im saying and of what zizek is saying. the point is is that without suffering, one cannot ever have a chance to fullful there desire for a greater level of happyness. and because jobe had sufferd all that, he just apreciated all of what god gave him just that much more ------------------------------------- I~look, god is all powerfull. im sure if god saw prophit for us in taking away all suffering, he would have accomplished that long ago II~ 1. it would encorage people, but has no garenty... pluss people are greedy, we are driven all by self motivation wich by deffinition is greed. 2. in the bible it says \"all fall short of the glory of god\". all,! so if a baby is born? not accountable, but is still short of gods glory. all are sinnfull. III~ 1. systems are monitored but still fall subject to abuse... 2. i was saying that what u had said was the exception. IV~ um its not leagal now, but they do it illegaly.... how is this fixing that? it isnt V~ extend my argument about how people are inatly greedy here. VI~ but over time like a sponge the govt will soak the power back up VII~ there is no inate desire, but there is a superficial desire. sins are desirable, and we all have a superficial desire to endulge ourselves in sins. but to be a christian by deffinition is to not walk the way of the world. to not endulge in our own desires but that of gods, witch by far is the hardest road. therefor to be a christian is to endure suffering. VIII~yet without the help of this majical tax reduction your debating me online? ok IX~ but then corupt polititions would just make waste of more of the revenue. ------------------------------------------------------- 1. govt allready deficit spends into the trillions, you realy think there going to stop now? i doubt it. 2. but as i have proved, even if this point is true, you never actualy explained how this does this. you just said that i does. --------------------------------------------------------", "qid": "18", "docid": "f21a3676-2019-04-18T18:55:36Z-00000-000", "rank": 76, "score": 133843.0}, {"content": "Title: Debate: Churches ought to pay taxes Content: The resolution of this debate can only be fulfilled by the government passing legislation. This is because taxation is inherently governmental. Governments, societies, individuals, and all other forms of entities, act (or ought to act) on a utilitarian basis: things that have more benefits than harms ought to be retained, whilst those that have more harms than benefits ought to be abolished. Goodness is determined by the ratio of desirability to undesirability. This is because every entity or being intrinsically seeks to maximize their desirable states (read: pleasure) and minimize their undesirable states (read: suffering.) Things that overall prevent suffering while promoting pleasure are thus good for that being. Because we know that other sentient beings undergo this as well, we can *empathize* with them and thus seek to extend the same principle (preventing suffering and promoting pleasure) to them. Without empathy morality cannot exist, it is contingent. Given that morality in and of itself is a system used to determine whether entities should or should not do something, morality can be used to determine whether a government should or should not make churches pay taxes. I find that the benefits of taxing churches outweigh the costs associated with it, and thus I affirm the resolution. The first way in which church tax exemption brings a societal cost is through the US government being forced to defend itself in lawsuits over tax exemption status to certain institutions (such as Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and other controversial faiths.) Lawsuits against government entities require that the government spend money in order to defend themselves against the lawsuit. The amount of money required to do this is enormous. For example, Texas has spent $3.5 million defending themselves against voter ID lawsuits [1]. This same issue happens over interpretation of tax exemption laws for churches. This can be seen in the Church of Scientology\u2019s numerous and year long lawsuits against the government wherein they can harness millions of dollars in funds; which the government then has to match. In the end, tax exemption law results in millions of dollars in lost money for the US government. My second argument is thus: churches are not like other (secular) not-for-profit charitable organizations. Churches\u2019 primary goal is in the practice and spread of their religion, rather than charity like other non-religious tax exempt charitable organizations. Research has found that around 29% of the average church\u2019s income is for charitable purposes, the rest is used for internal costs such as wages [2]. Other, secular charities though are able to do *more* good with their funds. For example, the Red Cross uses 92.1% of its income for helping people. A property tax on churches would raise around $71 billion dollars per year [3], while the commercial income tax would raise around $6.75 billion. (This is because the median congregation income is $60,000 [6], and thus the income tax bracket becomes $7,500 + 25% [8], meaning $22,500 payed in taxes per congregation. Given there are 300,000 congregations in America, that ends up being 6,750,000,000.) Reallocating money from churches, where only 29% of it would go to help people to secular charities where 92% of it will be used to help people, would be a massive impact on the effectiveness of charity. Significantly more people will be helped through charity. It is important to note the amount of money that $71 billion dollars is, as it is easy to just put it away as another number. $71 billion dollars is more than the top two wealthiest charities in the world combined [4]. Using all of this money for charity work rather than a fraction of it, as would happen without taxes, is a huge impact. Taxes on churches will also give more funds to local governments, and given that local governance is the most important government, the impact of this on people is substantial. Plus, George Washington said that, \u201cI agree with...Ha...yd\u2019s...argument that...churches\u2026should pay taxes.\u201d (1782) [10] Peace and Love [1] https://www.texastribune.org... [2] http://www.newsweek.com... [3] http://bigthink.com...\\ [4] https://en.wikipedia.org... [5] http://www.taxpolicycenter.org... [6] http://www.ssc.wisc.edu... [7] http://www.taxpolicycenter.org... [8] https://en.wikipedia.org... [9] http://www.hup.harvard.edu... [10] https://www.amazon.com...;*Version*=1&*entries*=0&linkCode=sl1&tag=worst-products-ever-20&linkId=d6148e5e63820f864ff4057c05fc18e1", "qid": "18", "docid": "f2f7c9c0-2019-04-18T12:43:51Z-00005-000", "rank": 77, "score": 133755.0}, {"content": "Title: Churches of all religions should be taxed by the government. Content: Churches should receive donations tax free. However, this should not exclude them from the various other forms of taxes.(Image via The Washington Post) I. Property TaxChurches are not required to pay property taxes on their land or buildings. A pastor in Weddington NC purchased a $1.4 million mansion in October of 2013. The mansion features 16,000 square feet with 7 \u00bd bathrooms, according to building permits. The land cost another $325,000, for a total cost of more than $1.7 million. In the year 2013, this luxury home managed to skip out on roughly $344,690.00 (Calculated via http://www.iras.gov.sg...) in property tax.(Picture of pastor's home in Weddington NC. Via WCNC News) II. Sales TaxWhen churches buy stuff, they don't pay sales taxes. From a $2 box of pencils to a $3,000 big screen television churches are not required to pay one cent. Lets take the television and do the math. At an 8.25% sales tax, the $3,000 television would equal to $247.50. Lets be realistic however, what church only has a television inside of it? Take this time to use your imagination. Think of the average American church, and ponder at how much money in sales tax is being avoided.(Picture of the inside of a church) III. Capital Gains TaxWhen they sell stuff at a profit, they don't pay capital gains tax. A Mormon mall named the City Creek Center, located in Salt Lake City (2 Billion Dollar Tax Free Project) is one such place that profits from a lack of capital gains tax. It does not take someone with a degree in finance to fathom how much money a super mall like this profits, again tax free. (Picture of City Creek Center) IV. Why these numbers matterThe substantial amount of money that churches across the country avoid via taxes, is mind blowing. A recent study conducted by the Council of Secular Humanism, compiled numbers into an easily readable chart. 72 Billion Dollars a Year in tax exemptions. You could feed 3,600,000,000 starving people a day, or 9,863,013 people for an entire year! Did I mention that is three square meals a day?V. Why churches should pay taxes?To simplify, churches are earning astonishing amounts of money through various flawed tax exemptions. Churches do not have to account for where their money is spent, unlike any other organization. Blatantly, churches are given extra brakes and exemptions that no other organization is offered. Separation of church and state does not mean that religious establishments should go unchecked. No, separation of church and state is to protect religious beliefs from governing our politics. Tax exemptions should only be applied to donations to the church.Thank you.", "qid": "18", "docid": "5efc5feb-2019-04-18T16:38:30Z-00003-000", "rank": 78, "score": 133407.0}, {"content": "Title: End Tax Breaks for Religious Organizations Content: P1: It is made clear in the American Bill of Rights Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. In other words, churches and other religious establishments should not have benefit over its people nor should Congress discriminate when it comes to tax breaks. P2: By allowing churches and other religious establishments to not pay their taxes, the burden is then shifted to us as regular citizens to have to pay those taxes for them. That means an extra percentage taken out of our hard earned paychecks to cover the loss of taxes not paid by these religious establishments. The money has to come from somewhere and if its not equally being attributed then someone else has to pay for. C: Tax breaks should end for religious organizations. 1) taxthechurches.org 2)taxthechurches,org", "qid": "18", "docid": "7a73d7d7-2019-04-18T16:29:54Z-00005-000", "rank": 79, "score": 133132.0}, {"content": "Title: Churches should be taxed the same as private non-profit clubs. Content: Apologies accepted, but no, formal debates are hard for me, which is why I accept so few. We can continue in the forums if you wish. [some churches are not charitable, seems to be Pro's main argument] Not in the conventional sense, no. However, a social club \"may not hold itself out as providing goods and services to the general public\" (my first source), thus, it is not a charity, ever. Further, social clubs require membership, as opposed to churches which ask for donations. We have separated these with private organizations. We have made it so that we do not tax charities affiliated with private clubs, and give deductions to the non-profit clubs so that if they are charitable, they may not have to pay taxes at all. Why can we not do the same with religious organizations? How can you expect an organization to pay property taxes if there is no revenue? It's not like they can increase tithing? Conversely, since social clubs \"must be supported by membership fees, dues, and assessments\", they can raise the necessary money, or go under. Lastly, churches have limits and restrictions on how they lobby, while social clubs do not. These differences categorically make the institutions unequal, and since they are unequal, similar tax treatment is not required. \"Maybe we shouldn't tax non-profit clubs. I see rife abuse with that potential path, but maybe there is some merit that me, with my limited mortality and comprehension, cannot see. My arguments are based off of equality. The only difference between a church and a non-profit club is that one prays and the other might pray. And yet one gets massive exemptions, while the other must struggle to do massive charity projects if they wish to pay no taxes, or do rigorous hoop jumping to get qualified under tax-exempt status.\" I would argue the biggest difference between a church and a social club is that you have to pay to benefit from the club, where you are not assessed a fee to pray. Also, I am not sure what Pro is arguing about exemptions and what his source has to do with anything regarding tax treatment of these groups. Pro's source has to do with limitation to the amount given, not what is done with that money. In both cases, regardless of how the money is spent, the revenue is not taxed.", "qid": "18", "docid": "32e89ba9-2019-04-18T16:30:48Z-00000-000", "rank": 80, "score": 132048.0}, {"content": "Title: End tax breaks for religious organizations Content: Premise:Churches ( referring to place of worship) have to go under stringent IRS protocol. Premise:Religions like Scientology and the Church of The Flying Spaghetti Monster do not fulfill these criteria. Premise:One of the Biggest reasons why Churches are not taxed is to show separation of church and state, as seen in Supreme Court ruling of Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York. Conclusion:Taxing religious organizations that follow the rules of the IRS is in strict violation of the first amendment. http://www.irsvideos.gov... http://www.law.cornell.edu...", "qid": "18", "docid": "f0d9c7b8-2019-04-18T16:34:21Z-00004-000", "rank": 81, "score": 131480.0}, {"content": "Title: Religious organisations should no longer enjoy their tax-exempt status Content: In the past, if a king needed money he would assemble a fleet of frigates and galleons that would be bristling with guns and canons. He would load these ships with cargos of soldiers and send them across the Atlantic to the New World to rape and pillage newfound civilisations, and plunder their gold and have it repatriated back to Europe. Unfortunately though, these days the United Nations take a dim view of such activities and it is, therefore, necessary for the government to collect money from the general populace instead. This inevitably leads to the double-taxation my opponent referred to. You pay tax on the money you earn and when you buy something with the money left over the recipient pays tax on the profit from the sale. But my opponent suggests that churches shouldn't pay tax because they \"help others\" in places like Haiti. I looked into this and discovered that a Baptist group from Idaho did indeed travel to Haiti in the aftermath of the earthquake to \"help others\" - they were arrested and accused of attempting to traffic 33 children out of the country. [1] Presumably their intention was to sell the youngsters on to paedophiles rings in America and if they had not been caught they would have succeeded in their mission \u2013 their mission being to \"help others\" sexually molest vulnerable children. Meanwhile the Jewish Orthodox Union uses their tax-free donations to fund the Institute for Public Affairs [2] which is an American lobby group that opposes humanitarian aid being sent to victims of military aggression in Palestine, rejects the United Nations and international law and supports the ethnic cleansing of Jerusalem and the illegal Jewish land grabs in the West Bank. At the same time, there are widespread concerns that tax-free donations made to mosques may be channelled into the hands of Islamic terrorist groups. [3] With regard to countries such as Ireland where church attendances are higher, the income from tax paid by the churches would be very helpful in reducing their budget deficits and allow them to spend more money on schools and hospitals. In conclusion, the activities of religious organisations may seem worthy and noble by some: Christian paedophiles; racist Jews; Islamic terrorists and others; but not everybody welcomes having to pay more tax to make up for the shortfall in receipts from tax-exempt churches, temples, mosques and synagogues. Thank you. [1] . http://www.telegraph.co.uk... [2] . http://www.ou.org... [3] . http://www.foxnews.com...", "qid": "18", "docid": "8a799a1-2019-04-18T19:04:58Z-00001-000", "rank": 82, "score": 130388.0}, {"content": "Title: Scientology is the worst popular religion in existence. Content: 1) The US government is not the end all of what is and isn't a religion. In fact, for the very reason that the first amendment keeps them neutral on the issue they should be the last place to go to determine what is and isn't a religion. The tax exempt status of churches, in general, is a complete farce. Scientology does have tax exempt status as a religious organization, however, this is due to a massive illegal operation on their part. http://www.cs.cmu.edu... \"Scientology's lawyers hired private investigators to dig into the private lives of IRS officials and to conduct surveillance operations to uncover potential vulnerabilities, according to interviews and documents. One investigator said he had interviewed tenants in buildings owned by three IRS officials, looking for housing code violations. He also said he had taken documents from an IRS conference and sent them to church officials and created a phony news bureau in Washington to gather information on church critics. The church also financed an organization of IRS whistle-blowers that attacked the agency publicly.\" Scientology had something in the range of 200 suits against the IRS and personnel. Many believe that the impromptu meeting between the leader of Scientology and the head of the IRS to drop the suits (which probably would have cost a lot to deal with) in exchange for tax exempt status was the pivotal reason they have tax exempt status today; not because they are a religion. So we see, not only is the government a bad arbiter. Their decision on the issue had more to do with not wanting to be constantly attacked by Scientologists than it did with the merits. 2. Just having a bevy of B actors doesn't make a religion popular. Scientology treats the actors differently than the standard minions, so in a fairly technical sense, the famous people have a different religion where everybody treats them like deities as they lure in others. The actors are exposed more gingerly to the activities, beliefs, programs, and treated far better. >>\"the premise I'm trying to prove here is that they 1. Are not a religion. and 2.The people who get lured into it destroy their lives.\" I concede the first point, which contradicts the topic and clearly concedes the argument. The second point is a little more nuanced. Most people leave within a year after one or two sessions and thousands more don't actually have their lives destroyed and live happily as Scientologists. Certainly they have managed to kill people like Lisa McPherson, but how are you judging the impact? Christianity has lead to the death of millions. Islam has lead to a fair number of deaths as well. Catholic priests get juggled about by the Church when they get a bit too touchy with the kids (ruining thousands of lives in the process). You need to establish that they are a religion, they are popular, and not simple \"bad\", but the \"worst\".* * I concede that they exist so \"existence\" is not required.", "qid": "18", "docid": "fef1aada-2019-04-18T19:47:37Z-00002-000", "rank": 83, "score": 130146.0}, {"content": "Title: Religious institutions should be taxed like everyone else. Content: The reason why religious institutions should not be taxed is because of the first amendment. The first amendment states the following-\"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. \" The problem with taxes is that not every religion will be taxed the same. If a religion is taxed less than another than that could be viewed as respecting an religion over another, which is against the first amendment. Also churches use the tithes as ways to build churches, temples, and/or meeting houses to areas that don't have such buildings. With taxes that could be prohibiting someone from worshiping by taking the money that could go toward building a church house and giving it to the government. Also the separation of state and church which means that both are separate and taxes don't follow this rule. I pass it to my opponent. sources . http://www.law.cornell.edu...", "qid": "18", "docid": "18e421a8-2019-04-18T17:25:04Z-00004-000", "rank": 84, "score": 129564.0}, {"content": "Title: Churches Paying Taxes Content: I don\"t understand how your debate relates to the topic. Did you accidentally put this on the wrong debate? If so fell free to tell me in the comments of this debate. Anyways, Churches make money, And don\"t donate that much away. The should be taxed for what they make. That is all I have to say.", "qid": "18", "docid": "3f1c75e-2019-04-18T11:15:58Z-00001-000", "rank": 85, "score": 128942.0}, {"content": "Title: The government should tax churches to fund ethically-aware, women-only drop-in centres Content: Fiirstly, please be advised that I am an equal opportunities debater and this challenge may be accepted by any member regardless of their age, ethnic origin, sexual orientation or gender although contributions from young Asian bi-curious women are particularly welcome as they are under-represented on this site. Now, here is my opening argument: Churches make money by cynically exploiting the fears, prejudices and insecurities of their congregations: but there's nothing illegal about that; that's capitalism. However, unlike most other organisations, churches do not pay tax on their profits. If they did, though, the income raised could, and should, be ring-fenced by the government and used to fund women-only, lesbian-friendly drop-in centres that could provide free or subsidised: * Feminist-orientated assertiveness training courses * On-site caf\u00ef\u00bf\u00bds serving vegan wholefood dishes, Free Trade herbal teas and sustainably-sourced organic wines * Multi-ethnic women's rights awareness meetings * In-house spas providing holistic therapy treatments using only cruelty-free, carbon-neutral cosmetic products * Lesbian and bi-sexual bonding sessions * Clinics providing free contraception and abortions-on-demand for victims of male sexual oppression These drop-in centres would give women much-needed non-judgemental, eco-friendly, multicultural, ethically-aware refuges where they could find sanctuary from the conservative and regressive social doctrines that dominate mainstream society and perpetuate the exploitation of women by men. Furthermore, this scheme would be wholly in keeping with the Christian ethos of giving alms to strangers and would, therefore, command the full support of the preachers, pastors, vicars and priests who represent the various churches and who, in the true spirit of Christianity, would be delighted to forgo such worldly decadences as luxury cars and houses in order to support women in need. That's why the government should tax churches to fund ethically-aware, women-only drop-in centres. Thank you.", "qid": "18", "docid": "37eb35dd-2019-04-18T18:23:18Z-00003-000", "rank": 86, "score": 128738.0}, {"content": "Title: The government should tax churches to fund ethically-aware, women-only drop-in centres Content: Pro posited that the status quo be changed, and that religious entities should be, in essence, removed from the list of not-for-profits (NFPs) recognized by the Charity Law. To do so, Pro would have to either prove that religious entities fail to provide public benefits or prove that they operate in the manner similar to a for-profit institution. It is Con's contention that Pro failed to provide cited arguments proving such. Pro began with the Church of England's suffering attendance levels. Con previously noted such to demonstrate that England is largely a secular society and that Pro's assertion that the Church gets by on fear mongering was an unrealistic one (indeed, when Durham Cathedral asked its visitors for \u00ef\u00bf\u00bd5 donations to cover the building's \u00ef\u00bf\u00bd60,000 weekly maintenance bill, patrons responded with an average donative of 32p[1], which mathematically works out to a one way ticket to hell for 94% of the visitors). Pro did not attempt to counter this, but instead pointed to the declining attendance as an indicator of the Church's declining relevance and that greying of remaining worshipers only serves to show that this trend will continue. Con counters that firstly, such an argument in no way demonstrates that a public benefit is not being derived by those who still attend church every week. Secondly, those deriving spiritual sustenance is not limited to those who fill the pews every week. While only 4% of Anglicans attend on a weekly basis, nearly twice as many visit at least once per month and on the holidays the benches do fill, with Easter and Christmas seeing 1.2 million and 2.3 million respectively[2]. Pro then states that more people fulfill their spiritual needs via mystics and fortune tellers than by the Church. A dubious claim which Con would contest should it make a difference, but Con only seeks to amend it by remarking that in our creature comfort society, capitalist services such as soothsayers, reality television and shoe shopping (i.e. Mrs. Frappe) provide more spiritual sustenance than the representatives of Yahweh, Shiva, Athena and Woden combined. The rub is that such are provided by for-profits entities and the recipients of these incomes can freely use profits for personal gain (and therefore taxed). If Pro wishes to lump the church into that little tangle, then Pro must prove that the Church operates like a for-profit entity, if not in letter, at least in spirit. Unfortunately Pro does not expand on this any further than to mention vicars riding around in nice cars, bishops living high on the hog and Kevin Copeland flying about in planes. With the exception of the latter, no hard data is cited. Mr. Copeland belongs more on Jersey Shore than he does anywhere near a non-profit. He is an example of excess and no one disagrees that excesses occur. And Copeland is not alone. Charity Navigator's 2010 CEO compensation study (Copeland is American, so forgive the American data) noted that the Educational Media Foundation won the \"most generously compensated CEO of a religious non-profit in America\" award, by giving their CEO $648,537 worth of benefits in 2008. That pales, however, next to the New York Philharmonic, which doled out $2,649,540 to its CEO, even though both organizations had similar levels of total expenses [3]. And in weeding out the outliers, median CEO pay paints a more striking picture. Out of the nine types of charitable institutions, CEOs of religious institutions averaged $90,000 per year, trailing far behind charities of Public Benefit ($168,490), Arts, Cultures & Humanities ($190,550) and Education ($272,645) [4]. With the Archbishop of Canterbury's salary at \u00ef\u00bf\u00bd55,660 (plus benefits) [5] a case for religious institutions being any more profligate than other non-profits with its compensation seems untenable. Pro then notes the muscular income the Church makes off its investments. The church makes a pretty penny from its investments, no doubt spurred on by its tax free status. To be sure, a wonderfully pregnant trove for a modern King Henry to do a little church sacking to fill the coffers, but it is relatively immaterial to this debate, for this debate concerns itself with the tax exempt status of religious institutions, not the nuancing of England's Charity Law regarding NFP investment incomes. All NFP's take advantage of this, so what is so egregious about a religious entity doing the same? Pro then notes that it is a moral obligation for the Church to maintain historic buildings, a moral obligation that in no doubt is a public service (though some of that lavish living money is going to have to make up the \u00ef\u00bf\u00bd4.68 per visitor shortfall Durham Cathedral has got going on). Pro then insinuates that the church is derelict in this duty because it has decommissioned some churches into condos and pubs. Does Pro suggest that such parishes be kept open, when it is obvious to even the Church that the declining attendance levels no longer warrant the maintenance of the buildings or staff? Any NFP has the right to focus its resources in a manner which best allows it to provide services. Pro's last argument maintains that \"Charities are typically run by volunteers, with a small number of paid staff on modest incomes\" and then implies that the church does not do so. Again, unfortunately, Pro does not cite any data about how non-religious charities conform to this or how religious charities fail to do so. Many charities which do fit the bill Pro has suggested derive income by hiring outside for-profit consultants to fundraise. The Cancer Survivor Fund received $1,107,250 in contributions in 2010, but had $1,005,072 in fund raising expenses [6]. That's a lot of lawyers, accountants and executives getting well on donations. Even Andre Agassi's Foundation for Education (with celebrity do-whop Sir Elton John) paid for-profit fundraisers $2,014,469 to raise $7,536,463 in contributions [7]. Lucky for the Rocketman the foundation also made about $13 million in tax free investments. Perhaps, more interesting are the NFP's that don't fit Pro's vision of a typical charity [8]. Con concludes by begging the same question that Pro did. \"What's so special about the church?\" What evidence has Pro provided that demonstrates that the Church does not operate like an NFP, or that it fails to provide a public benefit? As Con has shown, Pro has made no systemic argument to support such. Con would also like to point out that most of the discussion has centered the Church of England and has ignored the smaller religious institutions of England. Are they to be taxed as well? Con is sympathetic to Pro's argument of declining relevance, but that points better to Disestablishment than it does to declaring religious institutions for-profit entities. Thank you. Despite Con's arguments, Con still hopes that Pro is successful with his centers. [1] http://www.anglican-mainstream.net... [2] http://www.churchofengland.org... [3] http://www.charitynavigator.org... [4] Ibid [5] http://news.bbc.co.uk... [6] http://www.charitynavigator.org... [7] http://www.charitynavigator.org... [8]http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk...", "qid": "18", "docid": "37eb35dd-2019-04-18T18:23:18Z-00000-000", "rank": 87, "score": 128658.0}, {"content": "Title: Some Emerging Religious Groups do Not Have the Political Connections to Qualify Content: Many people trust the tax-exempt status of their religion to mean that it has gone through the discipline of financial accountability to earn the government's approval. Removing that status would leave many people clueless about who to trust as official and wise religious leaders. The official and wise religious leaders deserve to have tax exempt status, goes this thinking, because they worked hard to earn it. They must continue to maintain it by adhering to the government's criteria for financial stewardship. The riches go to the winner, and this must hold true for religion as well.", "qid": "18", "docid": "af414960-2019-04-19T12:47:32Z-00011-000", "rank": 88, "score": 128650.0}, {"content": "Title: This House Would deny tax-exempt status to religios-institutions failing to appoint women equally. Content: The government has also a responsibility to refrain from overstepping. The biggest hole in your argument is the idea of separation of church and state. Just as the church shouldn't rule the nation, the nation shouldn't rule the church. Regardless of whether the church should allow women to preach or not is not the business of the government and for the sake of freedom they need to let it be.I am using the word \"Church\" to refer to all religious institutions.I believe that men and women are equal, but different. I believe my ramble was quite confusing, but regardless unimportant to this argument.I am a girl. 61% of church goes are female.http://churchformen.com...", "qid": "18", "docid": "43bad6be-2019-04-18T12:01:38Z-00000-000", "rank": 89, "score": 128458.0}, {"content": "Title: Churches Should be Taxed Content: If I were President, I would tax churches only .5%. Think about it. If a church makes $100, we (the government) are only taking fifty cents of that. If five churches make $100, the government will only get $2.50. \"What does the government get out of this?\" you may ask. Well, where I live, in Ohio, there's at least ten churches in about 10 square miles. And they make (most likely) more than $100 dollars. Churches can go on their missions that don't really help, and the government gets more money to pay off China. Everybody wins.", "qid": "18", "docid": "c5ba2ffc-2019-04-18T16:06:55Z-00006-000", "rank": 90, "score": 128349.0}, {"content": "Title: The Roman Catholic Church Should Pay Taxes on Its Real Estate Holdings Content: I am very willing to concede that other religious institutions, whether Christian or otherwise, should pay taxes on their real estate holding as well (for example, a Muslim \"youth center\" will still have to pay a property tax just like a Catholic monastery). However, I singled out the Catholic Church as that it is an institution completely within the grasp of a foreign sovereign power. The Pope is very much considered a head of state, although the boundaries of his rule are quite small and limited only to Vatican City. This is a problem as that he often uses his position of religious influence to attempt and influence the political affairs of other sovereign and secular nations. Yes, churches provide those places of solace I mentioned, but monasteries do not. Many Protestant churches sustain themselves solely through the tithes and efforts of its respective congregation, they need no monasteries or convents or schools or support them: However, the Catholic institutions such as monasteries, convents, schools, as well as all other real estate holdings of theirs (not to mention the income of the Pope, Cardinals, and Bishops) depend very much upon the tithes generated by parishioners. This means that hoped for improvements to a church (anything from basic repairs to a new organ) are put on the back burner so that the church's parochial school can be supported....even though many parents in that church may not be able to send their children to said school! This is a small issue, but when one considers that those real estate holdings are taking up a great deal of tithes collected. Money given for repairs at a local church instead are distributed and thinly spread across various schools, convents, and monasteries. This means that the people are essentially being scammed. This, of course, should be applied to all religious sects in a nation. However, as I stated in the first paragraph, the Catholic Church is an entity controlled by a sovereign state. These monasteries and convents, and especially these schools, should be considered institutions where a foreign head of state tries to meddle in the affairs of a sovereign nation-state. Indeed, the Catholic Church is the largest health care system in the world. However, in the largeness comes the threat of corruption. One need only look at the splendor of Vatican City and St. Peter's Basilica to see that much of the income of the Catholic church is spent on the comfort and luxurious lifestyles of the Church's higher echelons of leadership (a scam that has been running since Sixtus V). However, there those missionaries, are there not, who are truly givers, like the recently canonized Mother Theresa? Indeed, but the brilliant journalist Christopher Hitchens investigated into her quite a bit. http://www.nybooks.com... The popularity of her and the recent canonization are merely propaganda efforts by the Catholic Church to further push its political agenda into the secular republics which overthrew its Papal Authority in the various revolutions of the 18th and 19th Centuries. So, if the real estate holdings of the Catholic Church (and of course of all religions), which are not houses of worship open to the public, this scam is weakened and so is the political power machine of the Catholic Church itself.", "qid": "18", "docid": "5df4b40e-2019-04-18T12:51:46Z-00000-000", "rank": 91, "score": 127466.0}, {"content": "Title: Religious organisations should no longer enjoy their tax-exempt status Content: Agreed, a country must raise taxes to run a government though I question my opponents comment on the fact that pillaging is now illegal is a bad thing. I, personally, enjoy the fact that people can't run around burning and stealing. I also concede that there was a, emphasis on a, single group of Baptists who were trying to use the situation in Haiti to there advantage. However, the information that did not get to the media were all the other parishes that collected and sent money for actual aid to refugees. As far as the Jewish Orthodox Union using money for illegal activities is something that ought to be fixed, but you'll note that the Catholic Church does not use their tax free status for illegal activities. If you suggest that one example of someone(s) doing something bad ought to influence laws for everyone, then we ought to all be in single cells. there are people who use the ability walk outside so that they might steal from others which is certainly illegal. Your logic dictates that we should not be allowed outside. Islam is a religion of peace. Therefore, if a mosque is truly Islamic, donations will not be used aid terrorists. If it is a mosque of radical Islam, then the UN ought to be acting in order to shut down a terrorist cell. Additionally, I would like to point out that single examples should not influence all other examples. Furthermore, laws for taxation differ from country to country. I would like to point out that there are countries where a Church Tax[1] is imposed. So in certain countries, such as Denmark[1], you would first be speaking out cutting government support to the church. Also, I would like to point out that corporations such as Wal-mart con the government out of millions[2]. Isn't that a slightly bigger problem ( Wal-mart is also guilty of sexual discrimination, employment of illegals, and many other crimes[3][4]. I am much more fine with the church getting free money then with Wal-mart getting free money.) In conclusion, there are many counter-examples to the ones referring to the usage that my opponent has provided as to the activities of religious organizations, I have provided examples of other organizations that steal more money from the government than the church does and conduct other illegal activities, and I have pointed out that many governments grant financial support from the treasury to churches. Again, I apologize for any mistakes, and thank you. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org... [3]http://www.reuters.com... [4]http://www.foxnews.com...", "qid": "18", "docid": "8a799a1-2019-04-18T19:04:58Z-00000-000", "rank": 92, "score": 127019.0}, {"content": "Title: That we should tax religions. Content: Today, I am proud to propose the topic 'That we should tax religions'. I wish to represent the PRO side. We will argue that religions should be taxed. I expect that my opponent on the CON side will argue that religions should continue to have a tax-exempt status. ==DEFINITIONS== 'We'- America 'Religions'- Organizations that preach about the role of deities [1]. 'Tax'- A government placing a debt onto an individual or company to raise revenue [2]. My model will be as follows: \u2022 Religions will be taxed in line with ordinary tax rates for businesses and \u2022 Charitable work completed by religions will be tax-exempt. I recognize that as instigator I hold the burden of proof. For this reason, I ask my opponent not to begin his argument until round two. This debate will have four rounds. I thank my opponent in advance and look forward to this debate. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... http://www.thefreedictionary.com...", "qid": "18", "docid": "1e5d5fcd-2019-04-18T19:02:10Z-00005-000", "rank": 93, "score": 126844.0}, {"content": "Title: The Roman Catholic Church Should Pay Taxes on Its Real Estate Holdings Content: Rules: Round 1: Proposition of Argument Round 2: Elaborate Argument Round 3: Rebuttals/Revisions Round 4: Conclusion I would like to state the opinion that the real estate assets belonging to Roman Catholic Church, those which are not houses of worship directly open to the public, should be taxed as that they serve no real purpose and take up valuable real estate from the Nation. There are two reasons for this: The Catholic Church is an entity controlled by a foreign State: The Vatican. https://en.wikipedia.org... These institutions provide no benefit for the surrounding population. Whereas a church may provide a place of solace, the monasteries and convents merely take up space and act as production factories for the Catholic Church's Money Machine (i.e. they produce wine, craft rosaries, and other such things). Look forward to debate.", "qid": "18", "docid": "5df4b40e-2019-04-18T12:51:46Z-00002-000", "rank": 94, "score": 126067.0}, {"content": "Title: End tax breaks for religious organizations Content: Churches need to be taxed. Consider that for every tax dollar a religious organization does not pay, you and I pay it on its behalf. Many are among the wealthiest organizations in the world: by 1971, the amount of real and personal property owned by U.S. churches\"was approx. $110 billion. In New York City alone, the amount was $3 billion in 1989. A 1986 estimate showed religious income in that year of approx. $100 billion, or about\"five times the income of the five largest corporations in the U.S.\"\"All tax free. There are many other organizations the needy can turn to.", "qid": "18", "docid": "f0d9c7b8-2019-04-18T16:34:21Z-00001-000", "rank": 95, "score": 126009.0}, {"content": "Title: This House Would deny tax-exempt status to religios-institutions failing to appoint women equally. Content: While I do respect the religious opinions of my worthy opponent, one cannot deny the limitation placed on religious understanding in opposition\"s case. Restricting religious institutions strictly to churches makes for quite a limited case. Moreover, Christianity barely accounts for less than a third of the world\"s population. The biblical arguments, too, if taken at their best are applicable only to this third of global population, and quite astonishing in their implications as I will discuss throughout my case. Refutation: 1.The greater good in interfering with religious institutions: The government bears the responsibility to care for the interests of the people it is serving and is morally obliged in doing so. This is its primordial responsibility and it over rules any other role that the government might play. Thus, as the importance of establishing gender equality has been established, and remains unchallenged, it is the government\"s moral obligation to do so. As that has been explained, the question boils down to the effectiveness of the policy being implemented. As the government, we feel that our moral obligations should be taken a step further for the welfare of our citizens. We feel that only the quickest and most effective policy must implemented, and have shown how our policy satisfies both those criterion and must be put to action. We do not deny that this is a hard-line stance we have taken but it is a step we are willing to take for the uplift-ment of the 3.5 billion women that surround us. Thus, the oppositions qualms regarding the maintenance of a separation between church and state is one we are legitimate in over-ruling. 2.The misogyny in opposition\"s arguments: Through an allusion made to the bible, the opposition stated that the role of women in society is to be led by men. The government disagrees with the very premise of this argument. We feel that women have an equal role in the functioning of any society and deny any such divine consent given to the superiority of a particular sex. Genesis 1:26-27, which does not belong to the New Testament, quotes that men and women both derive their value from the image of God, and are both created by God himself. This is more than enough evidence to indicate the sensitivity observed by Christ\"s earliest followers and perhaps even Christ himself. Apart from strengthening our argument regarding the original purity in any religion, this also rebuts the opposition and their sexist views. It is indeed sad that the very worshippers of Christ hold a view on equality quite polar to His own. Broadening this debate from the Christian context, during the early Vedic age in India, women enjoyed a position equal to men in society. They had an equal say in the governance of kingdoms as they had in domestic argument. It is only with the impurity of power-seeking that women were side-lined in the later Vedic age; similar to what they were done with in the New Testament. This gives us, even the religious legitimacy to rid religion of the misogyny that infects it today. Constructive: 1.Extending Argument 1: The effectiveness of our policy takes root on the fact that the influence of religion on individual\"s lives is exceedingly great. Religion is held as a guiding principle that guides the very philosophies that people live their lives with. Thus if the guiding principles itself propagates sexist appointment, it has the potential to alter the fabric of people\"s perception. Because religion influences so greatly, it is the ideal tool that could be used to solve the problem of gender equality by propagating against it. Moreover, if it\"s very actions act contrary to sexist stereotypes, equality could finally be achieved.", "qid": "18", "docid": "43bad6be-2019-04-18T12:01:38Z-00001-000", "rank": 96, "score": 125980.0}, {"content": "Title: Debate: Churches ought to pay taxes Content: In this round, I will be providing rebuttal to Thett\u2019s offensive arguments and defending my own arguments against Thett\u2019s rebuttals. Framework Thett begins by expressing surprise at a purely utilitarian framework rather than higher principles such as separation of church and state. Separation of church and state is not a higher principle. Maybe the purpose of establishing a utilitarian framework was unclear: my framework establishes a system in which impacts are weighed; not a common \u2018theme\u2019 of arguments. My framework argued (and was never contested) that impacts ought to be weighed based on the goodness to badness ratio; goodness being the creation of more positive mental states than negative ones. Because Thett never contested my framework, separation of church and state only becomes a \u2018higher\u2019 principle in that its impact weighed in positive to negative mental states outweighs any other impacts; or, in the sense of a \u2018principal\u2019, categories of impact (such as economic growth, unemployment, crime, and such.) Thett\u2019s claim at the end of this section that if religion is proved as an overall benefit and taxes would harm the prevalence of religion, he would automatically win, is simply untrue. By my established framework, as long as a higher impact is created by taxing churches (a higher impact than harm done to prevalence of religion), I win the debate. Religion is a social good I do not contest the health benefits of being religious. Thus, I concede all of what Thett says here; with the exception community gatherings since that can easily be done at public schools rather than churches. This entire contention only gains impact if Thett can show that taxing churches would result in less religious attendance through the inability of people attending church (because the local church closes down.) I find that this link is unwarranted, and extremely weak at best. If you go back and read through the debate, the only times Thett addresses churches shutting down is through unwarranted claims. There is the exception of bringing up 26,000 Catholic properties in America, of which I address and negate in my second to last paragraph of the next contention. Thus, the link between taxing churches and decrease in health is nonexistent as it is thrown away on the basis of a bare assertion fallacy. Regardless, even if a link did exist and this argument had any impact, the amount of good that could be done with $14.6 billion (see next contention) far outweighs the amount of good that attending church does. $14.6 billion could save millions of lives through preventing starvation and crime. These impacts outweigh decreased stress and lengthened lifetimes. This entire contention is negated on two layers. Economic effects The beginning of this contention is spent attacking my source for the statistic of $71 billion raised from taxing churches. The source can be seen here [1]. I will start at the beginning of the calculation and go step by step until I reach the conclusion. The average church property value is estimated at $1.7 million. This is reached from averaging the property values of 47 different churches in Tampa, Florida. I think this is a reasonable estimate given that the median household property value in the US is $189,400 [2]. The median household property value in Tampa is $165,200 [3]. Because churches are zoned for commercial properties and are only able to be built on residential properties after obtaining a variance, most churches lie on commercial property [4]. And since residential and commercial property values are proven to exhibit strong correlation [5], and commercial property values tend to be significantly higher in value than residential properties [6], the estimation would follow a national trend. As my source [6] explains, it is standard to have a residential property sell for $100,000 and a commercial property of the exact same size across the street sells for $1,000,000. As logic shows, the $1.7 million statistic is reliable. The average property tax on households is 1.29% [7] and commercial property taxes are 20% higher [8], which puts the tax at 1.55%. Thus the average church would thus pay $26,350 in taxes. Given there are 300,000 churches, that ends up being $7,905,000,000. That\u2019s $7.9 billion. Since under the resolution I am only arguing for commercial income tax and property tax, I drop the prior $71 billion to $7.9 billion. Thus my overall money raised from church taxes is $14.6 billion. Thett\u2019s next point is that a tax would shut down thousands of churches and thus lose many jobs. First of all the entire assertion that churches would close down or jobs would be lost is unwarranted, as I explained earlier. But regardless, even if jobs are lost, since the money is reallocated to secular organizations, the same number of new employees are hired at the organization than were lost at the church. This compensates for any lost jobs. Thett makes a sidepoint in the second paragraph noting that 71% of church expenses are on operation costs, which he argues would be tax deductible because internal operations are essential to spending on charity. Thus, the government would only get a portion of that already donated to charity. And since my plan would use the taxed money to donate to charity, my plan would seem pointless since I am taxing charity donations to spend on charity. This argument does not work for a few reasons. Firstly, it assumes that all churches, or even the majority of churches are non profit organizations. This is not true, just as the Ford Motor Company donates some of their income to charity does not make their internal operating expenses tax deductible, neither does a church\u2019s. These internal operation expenses are for religious practice, such as worship, rather than operations relating to charity. Thus, these internal operations would not be tax deductible. The only exception for this is when the church files to be classed as a non profit, or a 501(c)(3) organization. When this happens no income can be used for \u201cprivate purposes\u201d [9]. This eliminates the ability of a church to function as a church, and thus no longer becomes a church since it provides no worship services, guidance, or whatever. All profit is donated to charity except for money spent to maintain the donation of money (operating expenses.) My plan would not tax these non profit organizations, only churches. And churches are inherently for profit, as my logic just showed. Thus, my tax would take away X amount of money, of which 29% would ordinarily be used for charity, and I would donate it to charity making 92% of it used for charity. Based on my uncontested framework, my plan wins out here. The other option is that the church\u2019s donations to charities are written off on their taxes, and thus I am only taxing the remaining taxable income: 71% of their income. The tax on that income would then further be spent on charity due to my plan, and again, based on my uncontested framework, my plan wins out. Thett goes on to cite the Catholic church in spending 93% of their $170 billion budget on charity. This is all true, and it is of course good. But the claim that church taxes would \u201ctax them out of existence\u201d is unwarranted, as I explained earlier. What will happen is a portion of their budget will be deducted in taxes, which then, according to my plan, will be reallocated to secular nonprofits, of which are just as or more utilitarian in spending their money. It's important to note that using the example of the Catholic Church is cherry-picking, and a more topical example would be the national average, which is 29% of the money going to charity. Taxing and reallocating it would make 92% go to charity. More lives are saved, diseases cured, and homes built through my plan. But even regardless of this, as I said earlier, any money that the Catholic church uses for charity is tax deductible. This means that only funds used for non charity related uses, such as worship, guidance, or whatever is actually taxed. Saying that hospitals would close, or any other negative affect to charity is simply untrue, a tax would only harm the worship part of church. Separation of Church and State Thett\u2019s argument here is that the church and the state have a truce of mutually assured destruction. The problem with this is that is makes the unwarranted assumption that churches would retaliate, or that their retaliation is bad. Neither of these are true. First of all, the head of the largest religious institution in the world endorses church taxes for noncharitable churches [11]. Secondly, taxes won\u2019t significantly harm religious organizations, and Thett has given no argument that it would, so significant retaliation is unlikely. Regardless, the only retaliation that Thett brings up is in endorsing candidates. I don\u2019t see this as a bad thing, as religious institutions have every right to exercise their free speech and endorse candidates. There is no negative here, or at least no negative that Thett has argued for. So the idea that taxing churches is bad because it will result in churches retaliating by endorsing candidates has no impact for Thett since he failed to show why churches endorsing candidates is a bad thing. There is no arguable difference between the Catholic Church, Bernie Sanders, or the NAACP endorsing someone for president. None of these are bad things, this argument has no impact. Also, the claim that the tax exemption status would just be returned is outside the scope of the resolution since it is a should proposition, not a *would*. Suing the government because your taxes went up due to a newly passed law has no ground. The government does not have to spend any money defending that kind of lawsuit since there is nothing to sue over. There is room for debate in what's defined as a church though, and these are funded by wealthy organizations making the cost of these courses more expensive. Sources in comments", "qid": "18", "docid": "f2f7c9c0-2019-04-18T12:43:51Z-00003-000", "rank": 97, "score": 125794.0}, {"content": "Title: Churches Paying Taxes Content: Church should not pay taxes because they are the center for religions. People rely on them to help themselves worship gods and to live through and with their religion but I am a simple cow with not much knowledge of pigs. Pigs are a mystery to me they are always bouncing around with their big fat pig butts. I am attracted to pigs but I am to nervous to tell anyone because my mom and dad are very strinkt. They are kind of strange and they really confuse me some times, But I really like cows and butterscotch and yeah Japan! ALSO I MAY WARN YOU THAT THIS SITE IS JUST A LOT OF WORDS SO IF YOU DON'T LIKE READING GO TO THE BOOKSTORE DWEEB! * Also, You better floss! I mean the teeth kinda floss don't do that garbage in my face! Source(s): https://sites. Google. Com/madisoned. Org/archived-candy-club/", "qid": "18", "docid": "3f1c75e-2019-04-18T11:15:58Z-00004-000", "rank": 98, "score": 125413.0}, {"content": "Title: Churches of all religions should be taxed by the government. Content: Why churches of all religions should not be taxed by the government. I. The Constitution The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that \"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ....\" and Article VI specifies that \"no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. (http://www.law.cornell.edu...) Two clauses in the First Amendment guarantee freedom of religion. First and foremost, the establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. The implications of such a law to protect the interests of a country that is known for mixing cultures, traditions, and beliefs are more important than ever. The free exercise clause prohibits the government, in most instances, from interfering with a person's practice of their religion. How is this related to taxation? A local pastor in the Western Appalachian Mountains builds a one-room log cabin near his small mountain community made up of local miners and traders. He is a man of God and desires to share his faith with his small community, a congregation of roughly 15-20 people. Knowing he doesn\u2019t collect much from those who can barely afford to pay he opens his mail to find that the State and Federal government are now taxing him for his one-room church. The price is simply too high to afford and thus he is forced to close the doors or suffer the wrath of the IRS. In this instance, not only did the government shut-down his freedom to express his religion, but it crushed the possibility of giving this small community a safe place where they might hear words of inspiration. Without the Constitution, where would we be as a Nation? Would we truly have come to take these freedoms we have now for granted? Let us not forget that we fought against the Monarchy to set ourselves free from oppression from governmental entities who abused their power. We have fought for the right to build our temples for worship, we fought for the right to stand on our church stages and preach our beliefs to the masses without the government standing over our shoulder telling us what or what-not to say. If we truly relinquish the power back to the governments by allowing taxation, what more does that accomplish other than handing over one of the last safe-zones we truly have in this Nation of ours? Freedom from Governmental control and impressions. II. Safe-Zones As an American who is now living in a society engulfed in Post-9/11 paranoia, I\u2019ve always taken comfort in one thing: The fact that if another great world war consumed our planet, that there will always be one building left standing- The Church. It is now a well-known fact that no matter how great the tensions or however great the animosity was between warring nations, the unspoken agreement to avoid churches during bombing raids was carried out and practiced. No matter how differing these nations were in terms of cultural traditions and beliefs, we were able to find a common ground upon which everyone could agree that in the game of war, churches were not to be touched. But why weren\u2019t the churches bombed? For some reason, the most untouched buildings in every country throughout the time of WW2 was that of religious organizations. Firstly, unlike political ideologies or cultural traditions, churches and religions transcend beyond the scope of political influence. Secondly, I believe the morality in soldiers during a time when churches meant more to them than the enemy should not be ruled out \u2013 even soldiers feel empathy or a personal respect garnered within them since childhood if they themselves grew up with the tradition of attending church. III. Most churches are used as places of worship for religions that predate modern government. Respect your elders. While one can argue that most churches were built after the American government was formed, the fact remains that the church buildings built represent something far older than any form of our federal government. If we look at all the main religions practiced in America today we have: Christianity \u2013 A tradition continually practiced for about 2,000 years. Judaism \u2013 A tradition continually practiced for about 5,700 years. Buddhism \u2013 A tradition continually practiced for about 2,500 years. Islam \u2013 A tradition continually practiced for about 1,400 years. Hinduism \u2013 A tradition continually practiced for about 7,000 years. American Federal Government \u2013 227 years old\u2026 The fact remains that a majority of church buildings we see today are built upon the foundation created by these age-old religions. In medieval Europe we see the destruction brought about by letting the church gain so much influence that it, in theory, was able to control the direction of the society at that time. With that being said, the balance that has seemed to work in our own modern society is one of equality and separation. By remaining free from governmental influence, the majority of world religions have been able to spread to provide a safety net for those fearful of the unknown. To provide individuals with the freedom to continue on their journeys throughout life knowing that they have a safe place to return if the pressure of life ever overwhelms them. This goes both ways, by remaining separate \u2013 the government has been able to remain in power over the influence of the people in terms of shaping the direction we head as a Nation. History has proven that in order for a balance of harmony to be achieved between the church and state, in terms of dominating society\u2019s direction of progress, a separation is necessary. The issue we face now is being able to learn from the mistakes we made as a collective throughout history. We have broken the cycle of war for influence between the two and in doing so, we have been able to achieve more technologically, scientifically, and emotionally than ever before in history. To repeat the mistakes would make us no better than those who have come before us, in the name of progress we have finally found a synthesis between the two that actually works, and I will forever stand by my position that we should continue on this path of separation if we are to continue on our path of forward progress. IV. Desperate times call for desperate measures? I like to call it how I see it: The American Government spends more funding on War-time efforts than the next 10 most powerful nations combined. http://www.outsidethebeltway.com... With that said, what good does handing more money over to the government really achieve? Do you honestly believe that money will be used for rebuilding our infrastructure? Do you really believe that money will be used by the government to feed the homeless or help the poor? On September 10, 2001 Donald Rumsfeld came out to a press conference and made a startling, if not, horrifying revelation: The Pentagon had lost 2.3 Trillion dollars. That\u2019s right, not billion \u2013 but TRILLION. This isn\u2019t \u201clost\u201d as in, profits lost, but rather \u201clost\u201d as in *poof* it disappeared with no apparent traces to follow. I will provide the link so you might hear it from the horse\u2019s mouth directly: (Please see Youtube video). http://www.youtube.com... It is not uncommon for a church to host community events \u2013 for instance, as a young child growing up in a Baptist church one of my fondest memories was heading to the local housing projects with my fellow church members and giving the families there free Thanksgiving turkeys so that they would be able to enjoy a meal for the holiday. The money used for such a charity event came from nowhere but the weekly contributions we made to the church. We cannot deny the fact that a majority of churches use their profits for good rather than selfish reasons. A majority of the time, these profits are spent on either people of the congregation in need or the church itself if repairs to the building or renovations are necessary. We musn't forget that churches are business\u2019s as well, if they can\u2019t receive funding from the government, why on earth should they be left with nearly nothing after the proposed taxes? I do not believe the corruption of the majority of churches outweigh the corruption of the federal government. The profits the federal government would make with the taxes would be better spent by the churches who would truly be able to help their local communities with the additional funds. Ultimately, It will be up to the audience to determine whether our nation has stooped so low in its economic woes that we must now tax the only organizations left in our world that truly supersede that of our own government in terms of personal guidance and safe haven. By opening the door to government oversight, we are allowing our houses to be raided by a foreign entity. The moment our churches are taxed, we forfeit our right to use them as neutral zones if there was ever another great war to break out. We forfeit our right to speak our minds and practice our faith in the security of closed doors. We cannot allow our only common ground with the nations of the world to be raped of its dignity by allowing government influence to enter its realm of authority. Remember, it is our freedoms that we fought for that allows us to develop thoughts freely without governmental control. We won our right to remain separated from government influence- at the cost of countless human lives, all of whom we are descendants from. To allow the taxation of church would mean that all their lives lost would have been in vain. Taxation is nothing more than a quick fix to a problem that requires a much greater, long-term solution. We must stop being enablers with these quickfix tax solutions and fix the issue at the root cause - responsible spending.", "qid": "18", "docid": "5efc5feb-2019-04-18T16:38:30Z-00002-000", "rank": 99, "score": 124148.0}, {"content": "Title: Tax Exemptions for Religious Institutions. Content: I accept your open challenge", "qid": "18", "docid": "439c18e2-2019-04-18T12:33:35Z-00001-000", "rank": 100, "score": 123738.0}]}
{"query": "Should gay marriage be legal?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: gay marriage Content: gay marriage should be legal", "qid": "19", "docid": "48d10dab-2019-04-18T17:25:56Z-00003-000", "rank": 1, "score": 197476.0}, {"content": "Title: Homosexual marriage should be legal Content: i accept it.", "qid": "19", "docid": "98ff8aac-2019-04-18T18:27:56Z-00008-000", "rank": 2, "score": 194904.0}, {"content": "Title: Gay Marriage Should Be Legal Content: I accept.", "qid": "19", "docid": "9bfef1a5-2019-04-18T15:29:10Z-00002-000", "rank": 3, "score": 194682.0}, {"content": "Title: Gay Marriage Ought to be Legalized Content: ^^", "qid": "19", "docid": "bd4afe82-2019-04-18T17:25:26Z-00006-000", "rank": 4, "score": 193822.0}, {"content": "Title: Gay marriage should be legal Content: I win", "qid": "19", "docid": "ea2e9e22-2019-04-18T16:28:43Z-00000-000", "rank": 5, "score": 192520.0}, {"content": "Title: Should Gay Marriage Be Legal Content: Should Gay Marriage be allowed", "qid": "19", "docid": "f54ab53a-2019-04-18T12:48:18Z-00006-000", "rank": 6, "score": 190959.0}, {"content": "Title: Gay marriage should be illegal Content: Yield", "qid": "19", "docid": "61f8dd05-2019-04-18T16:30:12Z-00001-000", "rank": 7, "score": 190669.0}, {"content": "Title: Gay marriage should be illegal Content: Yield", "qid": "19", "docid": "dd22a5e1-2019-04-18T16:26:45Z-00000-000", "rank": 8, "score": 190669.0}, {"content": "Title: Gay marriage should be illegal Content: Yield", "qid": "19", "docid": "dd22a5e1-2019-04-18T16:26:45Z-00001-000", "rank": 9, "score": 190669.0}, {"content": "Title: Gay Marriage Content: Gay marriage should be legal.", "qid": "19", "docid": "6335cb84-2019-04-18T12:35:52Z-00004-000", "rank": 10, "score": 190001.0}, {"content": "Title: Gay Marriage Content: Gay marriage should be legal.", "qid": "19", "docid": "6335cba3-2019-04-18T12:35:45Z-00005-000", "rank": 11, "score": 190001.0}, {"content": "Title: should gay marriage be legal Content: I rest my case", "qid": "19", "docid": "933d85b9-2019-04-18T16:11:47Z-00000-000", "rank": 12, "score": 189675.0}, {"content": "Title: homosexual marriages should be legalised!!! Content: yes. in my opinion it should be legalised bcoz everyone have right to live there life according to them n the society don't have any right to interfere in that. it's there personal matter that whom they prefer. if they like the person of same sex n they think that they will remain happy wid them then let them be happy............", "qid": "19", "docid": "f6a9b53a-2019-04-18T19:32:18Z-00005-000", "rank": 13, "score": 188909.0}, {"content": "Title: Gay marriage should be legalized Content: I accept", "qid": "19", "docid": "630bca14-2019-04-18T16:30:59Z-00002-000", "rank": 14, "score": 188477.0}, {"content": "Title: Gay marriage should be legal Content: extend", "qid": "19", "docid": "ea2e9e22-2019-04-18T16:28:43Z-00001-000", "rank": 15, "score": 187329.0}, {"content": "Title: Gay marriage should be legal Content: Extend", "qid": "19", "docid": "ea2e9e22-2019-04-18T16:28:43Z-00002-000", "rank": 16, "score": 187329.0}, {"content": "Title: The marriage of Homosexuals should be legal Content: i cant post i will explain later", "qid": "19", "docid": "f7a1d21f-2019-04-18T19:11:23Z-00002-000", "rank": 17, "score": 186749.0}, {"content": "Title: Gay Marriage should be legal. Content: Once again, thank you.", "qid": "19", "docid": "d00d2efe-2019-04-18T18:44:35Z-00000-000", "rank": 18, "score": 186421.0}, {"content": "Title: Gay (Same-sex) Marriage Should Be Legal Content: I'm basing my arguments on the point of happiness. Every human has the right to happiness, and I don't see anyone disagreeing with that. It's just basic morals that anyone can agree with. In the meantime, you have refused to refute any of the points I made. Go do that.", "qid": "19", "docid": "c1c5ca56-2019-04-18T13:28:17Z-00003-000", "rank": 19, "score": 184908.0}, {"content": "Title: Gay Marriage should be legal. Content: This is meant to be a friendly debate about basic human rights, created primarily because I am terminally bored. Homosexuals, be they male or female, aren't part of some secret sect, they aren't in any way different physically, mentally or emotionally, their political views are just as collectively diverse as heterosexual views, their private activities with each other should be dismissed as none of anyone's business just as easily as the private activities of heterosexual people. Let them marry if they so wish, they're ultimately no different from heterosexuals, they just have alternative tastes in intimacy.", "qid": "19", "docid": "d00d2ea1-2019-04-18T19:08:09Z-00009-000", "rank": 20, "score": 184625.0}, {"content": "Title: Gay Marriage Should Be Legal Content: In my belief, everyone is equal and therefore they should be treated equally no matter what their are and what they stand for. I believe in Same Sex Marriages and the right for Equality for the whole LGBT community. When two people get married, it signifies their unconditional love and commitment to each other. A member of the LGBT community, primarily a homosexual human being, is still a human being regardless of which gender they prefer to be with. The support for gay marriage is so very little, it is sickening. The battle for same-sex marriages has been very heated since 1993 (1). Many people, especially heterosexuals, do not understand the need and want of this battle. Not only have homosexuals fought for equality, but mankind as a whole has fought for equality and rights. Therefore, the first amendment was created allowing freedom of expression and freedom of religion. The law banning Same-Sex Marriage goes against the \"Freedom Of Expression\" by limiting human beings to who they can and can not marry. Many people try to use the fight of Religion and God against Same-Sex Marriages, although I am no expert when it comes to the Bible, but in the book of Leviticus Chapter 18 verse 22 it says; \"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination\" (Leviticus 18:22, King James). No where in the Bible does it specifically say Homosexuality is wrong and/or against God and Religion. However, this does go against the belief that we, as human beings, should not judge other human beings. The meaning of \"democracy\" is a type of government which is heavily ruled by the people in efforts to create equality for everyone. This \"equality for everyone\" should include Homosexual Human Beings. Even though, Democracy is supposed to the type of government ran in American, same-sex marriage is still a reoccurring \"issue\". To get married is simply a choice. Therefore, this choice should even be available to two men, two women, or a man and a women. Claire Snyder states that marriage is \"the personal bond, the community-recognized relationship, the religious right, and the civil contract\" (2). These words \"marriage\", \"husband\", and \"wife\" are thought of as \"titles\" so therefore, why is it that Homosexuals can not choose to obtain these titles for themselves and the one they love? Out of fifty \"free\" states in America, only six allow Same-Sex Marriage. The six allowing states are New York, Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire, Connecticut, and Massachusetts. Some other Same-Sex Couples flee to Canada where is it legal to get married regardless of the genders. I believe solely in equality, regardless of anything such as a person's age, gender, race, political party, social status, and most importantly- sexual orientation. Everyone should be treated equally. At the end of the day, what does a Homosexual couple's relationship, or any couple's relationship in that matter, have anything to do with anyone else? 1- A Brief History of: Gay Marriage. (2008). Time, 171(22), 16. 2- Snyder, C. (2006). Gay Marriage and Democracy: Equality for All. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.,", "qid": "19", "docid": "9bfee71c-2019-04-18T18:31:58Z-00009-000", "rank": 21, "score": 184188.0}, {"content": "Title: Gay Marriage Should Be Legal Content: I win!", "qid": "19", "docid": "9bfef25f-2019-04-18T13:27:14Z-00001-000", "rank": 22, "score": 184157.0}, {"content": "Title: Gay marriage. Content: Gay marriage should be illegal.", "qid": "19", "docid": "d01d1b03-2019-04-18T15:06:34Z-00004-000", "rank": 23, "score": 183938.0}, {"content": "Title: Gay marriage should be legalized in the United States Content: .", "qid": "19", "docid": "a00a872b-2019-04-18T18:24:37Z-00000-000", "rank": 24, "score": 183856.0}, {"content": "Title: Gay marriage should be legalized Content: gg", "qid": "19", "docid": "630bcace-2019-04-18T15:29:26Z-00000-000", "rank": 25, "score": 183295.0}, {"content": "Title: Gay marriage should be legalised Content: I accept:)", "qid": "19", "docid": "731ef93f-2019-04-18T16:04:59Z-00005-000", "rank": 26, "score": 182128.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Gay marriage ought be legalized. Content: Contention 1. Homosexuality is a sin in virtually every religion. It is common knowledge that most religions in the world do not support a homosexual marriage. In fact, 53% of people do not support homosexual marriage (1). Legally allowing homosexual marriage is offensive to religious organizations and anyone who does not support homosexual marriage which is a larger part of the population. Contention 2. Legalizing homosexual marriage weakens the definition and respect for marriage. Currently, within the United States, there is a 50% divorce rate (2) this already weakens the definition and respect for marriage. A law allowing gay marriage would speed this deterioration by increasing the number of \"non-serious\" marriages, friends who want to save on taxes. Marriage is the most sacred institution within the United States and is deteriorating. A law allowing homosexual marriage would only speed this deterioration. Contention 3. This will further weaken traditional family values essential to society. Society is strong if there is a strong core family unit. In the United States this core family unit of a man, women, and children has sustained the United States through two world wars, the Great Depression, and terrorist attacks. Society begins to break down when this family unit breaks down, such as in the United States. Introducing a new \"form\" of family would would only complicate and deteriorate society. Contention 4. This provides a slippery slope in the legality of marriage. The question asked here is what comes next? Tradition dictates that a marriage is between a man and a women, biologically this makes perfect sense as only a man and women can procreate. Gay rights activists claim that gay marriage should be legalized because it hurts nobody but, this can start a chain reaction which destroys the institution of marriage. You see their logic can be applied anywhere. Why can't someone marry their dog? It doesn't hurt anyone. Or why not their parents or brother/sister? It doesn't hurt anyone. This may seem absurd and obviously a significant portion of the United States would not support it but, that does not matter. All that is needed is a single judge to rule it correct and then apply the doctrine of stare decisis to impose a law on everyone. Just look at the ruling California judges made about the Pledge of Allegiance (3). It does not matter what the public believes in this case. Contention 5. The gay lifestyle should not be encouraged because studies show it leads to lower life expectancy. Studies show that homosexuals have, on average, life expectancies 20 years lower then the rest of the population. In 1997 and 2005, two separate studies confirmed this hypothesis. Respectively the groups conducting the studies were published in the International Journal of Epidemiology and Psycological Reports respectively (4). 1- http://www.cbsnews.com... 2- http://www.cdc.gov... 3- http://articles.sfgate.com... 4- http://www.lifesitenews.com...", "qid": "19", "docid": "d32f254c-2019-04-18T18:33:26Z-00004-000", "rank": 27, "score": 181677.0}, {"content": "Title: Gay marriage should be legal Content: Gay marriage should definitely be legal because it is a fundamental right for every person to be able to marry who you love and be happy. In the constitution one of the main points was that every man was created equal and this should apply to gays and lesbians. Yes, gays and lesbians were created and born that way and its not a choice. It has been proven that you don't chose to be gay and there is nothing wrong with that. I ask you this question, do you think that the statement all men are created equal don't apply to gays and lesbians?", "qid": "19", "docid": "ea2e9abe-2019-04-18T17:35:59Z-00004-000", "rank": 28, "score": 181340.0}, {"content": "Title: Gay marriage should be legal. Content: To begin, this is not a debate over wether government ought to recognize the institution of marriage. The resolution states that gay marriage should be legal. If something is recognized as legal it is recognized by the government. Secondly, this is not a debate about wether government should incentivize marriage or wether gay couples should enjoy the same tax benefits as straight couples. The resolution speaks exclusively to legality; nothing more. Legality, for our purposes, is only the ability to do something without punishment or incentive designed to hinder any given act. Gay marriage should be legal. A. Only acts that encroach upon the life, liberty, or property of another should to be illegal. Our founding fathers wrote that government ought be charged with three essential tasks: preserving our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (property). People, by the virtue of their humanity, are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (ownership of property), and are entitled to enjoy them to the fullest possible extent unless or until their enjoyment hampers another's enjoyment of their rights. In essence, my rights end where yours begin. It is from this principal that the American concept of equality is derived. Where the object is to uphold natural rights, the task of government then (in domestic terms) is only to make illegal those acts which are not germane to natural rights, their preservation, or enjoyment thereof by all people. If any act by any individual or third party encroaches on the enjoyment of anyone else's rights, that act ought be illegal because no person has the right to deprive another of their rights without consent or without just cause. B. Gay marriage does not jeopardize the life, liberty, or enjoyment of property of another. Marriage, in essence, is a contractual agreement whereby two consenting parties agree to share their lives together. It is an institution that requires consent of two adults; traditionally centered upon either romance or utility or both for both people who marry one another. There has been no substantial indication that gay marriage is harmful to any member of society, wether we consider society as a whole, individuals, children, or those who should desire to marry one another. There is accordingly no conflict with any individual's enjoyment of life, liberty, or property in any way, shape, or form. As such, gay marriage should not be illegal. If something is not illegal, then it is legal. Ergo, gay marriage should be legal.", "qid": "19", "docid": "ea2e1abf-2019-04-18T18:45:35Z-00005-000", "rank": 29, "score": 181153.0}, {"content": "Title: Gay marriage should be legal. Content: Part One: Right of Choice The biggest problem with your first argument is this statement \"In this case, since there should be a freedom of choice, gay marriage should be legal. \" You are not only claiming that gay marriage should be legal, but you are arguing that it should be legal because there should be a freedom of choice. First you must argue for a freedom of choice before you argue for gay marriage. Then it is argued \"for people who prefer living with someone of the same-sex who they love, if gay marriage is illegal where they live, they often have a mentally tough and challenging time choosing between marrying someone of the opposite sex, or not marrying at all. \" This is may be true (no evidence was presented), but when making a decision about making something legal, it is important to think about the society as a whole and not just about the 2% of the population that are homosexual. Homosexuality is actually dangerous to the society as a whole. It spreads disease, there are higher sexual molestation rates among them. And by the way, the arguments my opponent has used could literally be used to support \"voyeurism, necrophilia, bestiality, polygamy, incest, exhibitionism, fetishes, frotterism, masochism, sadism, etc. ? (. https://carm.org......). Homosexuality is dangerous whether people want to admit it or not. Link: exodusglobalalliance. org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60. php Part Two: Right to Love It was then said that \"Secondly, there is a right to love. No one can stop you from mentally loving someone. \" No actually, there is no right to love. My opponent hasn't even defined love yet so this whole argument is somewhat meaningless. And it doesn't seem like the majority of the homosexual community actually knows what love is (1 Cor 13 is my definition of love). Statistics show that \"83% of the homosexual men surveyed estimated they had had sex with 50 or more partners in their lifetime, 43% estimated they had sex with 500 or more partners; 28% with 1,000 or more partners. \" Doesn't sound like love to me. See link above for the evidence of this fact. And just out of curiosity. .. do you think I should have special rights because I am a Christian? Part Three: This is your Life It was then said that \"Lastly, this is your life. A person has a life, with their own body. \" My response to that is who says? Prove that statement and don't just keep asserting things without any justification. What gives a person the right to do whatever they want? But the most disturbing statement made was this: \"Part of what you have to do to legalize gay marriage, is to temporarily accept the world without judgment, so that you can vision these perspectives. \" As a Christian I know that homosexuality is a sin and what you are asking me to do is to completely ignore my moral values to give the minority special privileges. And the worse part is that I know that homosexuality will cause harm to society but you want me to completely remove my knowledge of these matters merely because you believe they should have rights. I don't think so.", "qid": "19", "docid": "5b953289-2019-04-18T13:58:30Z-00000-000", "rank": 30, "score": 181001.0}, {"content": "Title: Gay marriage should be legalized Content: I win", "qid": "19", "docid": "630bca14-2019-04-18T16:30:59Z-00000-000", "rank": 31, "score": 180839.0}, {"content": "Title: Gay marriage should be illegal Content: Hope it goes well", "qid": "19", "docid": "61f8dd05-2019-04-18T16:30:12Z-00002-000", "rank": 32, "score": 180606.0}, {"content": "Title: Gay Marriage is Constitutional, and should be legalized. Content: Homosexuals are not gay by choice [1], and there is no scientific evidence to support any psychological or religious methods to \"cure\" it. The American Psychological Association has also acknowledged that homosexuality is in no way a mental illness. [2] Mental Illness and choice having been soundly ruled out, it must be determined that homosexuality is A: Natural B: Harmless Most counter-arguments for the case on Gay Marriage stem from the Bible, and its claim that homosexuality is in itself a sin. However, it is clearly stated through the First Amendment/Establishment Clause that the establishment of a national religion is unconstitutional. This means that the laws of Christianity (or any religion) have no place in Legislature. [3] Religious arguments ALSO being ruled out, that leaves the (few) unbiased secular arguments. I opt to let Con choose which ones he would like me to account for. [1] http://www.avert.org... [2] American Psychological Association, 'Resolution on Appropriate Affirmative Responses to Sexual Orientation Distress and Change Efforts'. [3] http://law2.umkc.edu...", "qid": "19", "docid": "2ebf9bd8-2019-04-18T18:34:04Z-00005-000", "rank": 33, "score": 180485.0}, {"content": "Title: Gay marriage should be legalized Content: I will start by stating my argument:Two people of the same sex who love each other should be allowed to publicly celebrate their commitment and receive the same benefits of marriage as opposite sex couples. Who has the right to stop two people from devoting their complete love for each other? And why? Gay marriage should be protected by the Constitution's obligations to liberty and equality. Denying homosexual couples the right to marry is to label them as inferior and unworthy of our basic rights. Why is it not acceptable to discriminate against a persons race, but it is against their sexual orientation? Homosexual marriage rights will have no impairing effects on that of heterosexual couples. To claim that this legalization will hinder the sanctity of marriage is a ludicrous claim seeing as the divorce rate is already between 40% and 50%. To claim that marriage is a religious institution is ridiculous. Marriage was originally a religious institution in which daughters were sold for calfs. Should we revert back to this? It is after all the original form of marriage! Imposing your beliefs on them is annoying and pointless. If you don't agree with homosexuality, then don't be a homosexual. There is no need to impose your beliefs upon others and deny them happiness. Refusing someone their rights based upon their sexual orientation is wrong and ignorant. They are just as much of people as the rest, and they deserve their very basic intrinsic likes as everyone else also does. (The pursuit of happiness is one of those rights, by the way. ) Thank you for accepting this debate. I look forward to hearing your opening statement.", "qid": "19", "docid": "630bc6cf-2019-04-18T17:48:25Z-00005-000", "rank": 34, "score": 180484.0}, {"content": "Title: Gay or same sex marriages should be legal. Content: Homosexuals have the exact same rights as heterosexuals minus the sake that they can say they are married. Civil unions offer the same benefits of traditional marriages, so why is there such a push for legalizing the marriage between same sex couples? Homosexuals are not segregated and neither are they given fewer rights. They can have all the rights of marriage except for the name. A couple does not need to be married to live a happy, comfortable, and free lifestyle.", "qid": "19", "docid": "79171e03-2019-04-18T18:50:44Z-00004-000", "rank": 35, "score": 180438.0}, {"content": "Title: Gay Marriage Should be Legalized Content: Same-Sex Marriage should be legalized in every state because there is no reason for it to be illegal, as it doesn't hurt anyone. It is also a right given from the fourteenth amendment: \"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.\"", "qid": "19", "docid": "1b0bdd99-2019-04-18T19:19:05Z-00007-000", "rank": 36, "score": 180403.0}, {"content": "Title: Gay marriage should be legal. Content: In your vote you say that because of biblical reasons that we should not allow it.", "qid": "19", "docid": "5b9532a8-2019-04-18T13:29:26Z-00004-000", "rank": 37, "score": 180177.0}, {"content": "Title: Gay marriage should be legal Content: Concerning your request for clarification, I am not saying that the federal government should make it explicitly legal for homosexual couples to marry. That is not what governments generally do. They don't say what is legal, just what is illegal. My argument is that not only should the federal government never amend the Constitution to bar homosexual couples from marrying, but that it is furthermore unconstitutional, unjust, and illogical for states to make gay marriage illegal or otherwise \"define\" marriage as between individuals of the opposite sex. I find it hard to understand how you could not see the connection in my syllogism. It is very simple. Men have the right to marry women, and women have the right to marry men. If you agree that men and women should have equal rights, it logically follows that men should have the right to marry men and women to marry women. This simply gives men and women the same rights. You try to say that the right is given to both men and women to marry individuals of the opposite sex. It seems to me that that interpretation is quite full of problems. What about transgender individuals, both pre-op and post-op? How exactly does the government define sex? Is it defined by sex chromosomes, reproductive organs, or what the individual feels his/her sex is? I realize that the 10th amendment states clearly that powers not specified by the Constitution as reserved for the federal government are for the states. I am not disputing this. States can make laws independently of the federal government. However, they can't make laws that are in violation of the United States Constitution. But by baning gay marriage outright, states have done just that. They are abridging specfic privileges of specific individuals (not couples), based solely on sexual orientation. Your first contention doesn't actually address my argument. As I said, I am not looking for the federal government to make a law saying that gay marriage is legal. I think that the federal government should just enforce the Constitution and keep states from making it illegal. I was actually looking for my opponent to make arguments as to why gay marriage to be specifically ILLEGAL.", "qid": "19", "docid": "415c5843-2019-04-18T19:41:38Z-00005-000", "rank": 38, "score": 180009.0}, {"content": "Title: Gay marriage should be legal Content: First let me say that I do not believe that you choose to be gay. I believe that you are born that way. Some of my closest friends are gay, most of which I've known for years, and they all say that they knew they were different since they were children. I do not believe that you can \"cure homosexuality\" as I've heard some say, nor do I believe that gays should not have the exact same rights as everyone else. Which leads me to the topic of gay marriage. The most common reasoning behind the controversy of gay marriage is that marriage in the Bible is defined as a union between a man and a woman, and that it is declared \"detestable\" to lay with the same sex (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13, and Romans 1:26-27). While I support those who are close to their faith, which explains their personal sexual lifestyle, I do not support the government trying to control someone's lifestyle. Let me explain. According to the First Amendment, \"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof\u2026\". While this statement implies that the government shall make the church the center of government (i.e. you have to be a certain religion to vote), this does apply to other things. Anyone remember Roy Moore? He was an Alabama supreme court justice who refused to have a monument of the 10 commandments removed from his courtroom. The controversy behind it was seperation of church and state. Moore argued for no seperation while many argued otherwise. However, when it comes to the subject of gay marriage, people are quick to throw no seperation of church and state back into the equation, when many of them thought otherwise during the Moore controversy. Also, we live in a democracy; a government \"of the people\". The governement makes decisions that are good for the country as a whole. So since when did the government decide that it was their place to decide who does, or in this case, doesn't get married. Shouldn't that be a choice left up to the two individuals? Besides a piece of paper that legally binds you to another person, it also entitles you to many benefits. One of which is making life decisions for that person if something was to happen to them. But because of their lifestyle, homosexuals are not entitled to those benefits. Example, say a man & woman go to Vegas, not knowing each other. They both end up at a bar one night, get drunk, and get married. They were not in a conscious frame of mind when they got married, so it isn't within the intimate characteristics of marriage in the first place. The next day, the woman is in a car crash. If she dies, then the man is entitled to all her assets that she left behind, simply because he is her husband. If she is put in ICU, say on life support, he can now make the decision whether to leave her on life support or turn the machine off. So even though this marriage was \"on a whim\" because these 2 were drunk, the USA gives them all the benefits. But say that a homosexual couple who have been together a long while, and love each other, decide to get married. They can't. If one gets hurt and on life support, that partner cannot make any decisions whatsoever for their loved one. I'm sorry, but that's not right. Also, this country has an immense history of human rights. The united states claims to be a nation of \"equal opportunity\" for all citizens. However, homosexuals can't get married, except in some states. And even then, they have to be a resident of that state for a certain amount of time. Also, there is also a huge debate now about Clinton's \"Don't ask, don't tell\" policy, which allowed homosexuals to serve in the military. What I want to know is this: if the United States is truly an \"equal opportunity\" nation, then why are they so quick to dismiss homosexuals like they don't deserve the same rights as everyone else? Does a homosexual not deserve to live their life with their partner and receive the benefits that come with that union?", "qid": "19", "docid": "415c5789-2019-04-18T19:59:53Z-00005-000", "rank": 39, "score": 179966.0}, {"content": "Title: Gay Marriage Should Be Illegal Content: this sounds interesting HIT ME", "qid": "19", "docid": "ea328c6a-2019-04-18T17:35:53Z-00004-000", "rank": 40, "score": 179763.0}, {"content": "Title: Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized In America Content: I strongly disagree with your right from the start. Marriage is not strictly about procreation; if it was, it would be illegal for infertile people to be married. And what about heterosexual couples who do not plan on having children? Should we ban marriage for everyone who doesn't plan on having childen? I also disagree with the statement about love; we are not animals. Marriage may have been formed for the benefit of rearing children, but this is America in the 21st century. There is no need to hold ourselves to the standards set thousands of years ago. In our society, marriage is fully for the reason of love. Family is not the main reason anymore. I disagree with you that homosexuals have \"little positive benefits\" from marriage. Marriage provides rights and benefits such as joint income tax, inheriting a spouse's estate, legal rights to making financial/medical decisions on your spouse's behalf, taking a family leave to care for your ill spouse, receiving retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse, legal rights to making funeral/burial arrangements, and many more government/economic/tax/medical/housing benefits. Denying homosexuals marriage is denying them these rights. Although you don't need a contract to show love between people, you need a contract to gain these benefits for the person you love. I completely, utterly disagree with your next statement. It is not a fallacy; animals cannot, and never will be able to give consent to sexual intercourse with a human. Consent needs to be verbal; a yes or a no, which an animal is incapable of doing. Although physical signs may point to consent, it does not equal consent. Does a drunk woman taking off her shirt give someone permission to violate her? I have never heard of an animal instigating sex, unless the owner has trained them to do so, which is not right. A dog humping your leg is not instigating sex, and it does NOT give a human consent to have sex with them. Animals are instinctual; their instinct is not consent. Also, animals are not as intelligent as humans. Most animals only have the mental capacity of a 4 year old child or younger. In the same way that a child cannot consent, an animal cannot consent. They also do not have intercourse for pleasure, only to reproduce. That is why having sex with an animal is always taking advantage of them, and always raping them. The marriage between humans will never equal marriage between a human and a person or animal who cannot give consent. I can agree with you on your next statement; homosexuality WAS taboo, and that is not a very solid reason to deny the correlation between gay marriage and incestuous marriage. However, incest can cause emotional damage since the person you are engaging in sexual acts with is someone who have a familial bond with; breaking that bond to form a sexual one has the potential to cause mental harm, especially if one side feels like they are being used. In your next statement, you are actually solidifying my point. How would gay marriage be a slippery slope into incestuous marriage if it is already legal, in fact, made legal BEFORE gay marriage? Not only in Indiana, this is legal. In fact, in 20 states, 1st cousin marriage is fully legal, without any age restrictions. In 4 other states, it is legal with age restrictions. In 2013, gay marriage was only fully legal in 13 states. I don't see how gay marriage can lead to a slippery slope to incestuous marriage if marriage between first cousins was legal before marriage between homosexuals. I did not mention polygamy in my argument because it is irrelevant. This argument is about whether consenting adults should be able to marry consenting adults- which I believe is true. I do not see a logical reason why polygamy should /not/ legalized, (I may remind you that polyamory is a real romantic orientation). But that is an argument for another day. I give a logical reason as to why gay marriage would not lead to polygamous marriages, but I also do not have a logical reason as to what is inherently wrong with polygamous marriages if it is healthy one, instead of more of a \"love triangle\" situation. Are you saying there is something wrong with a masculine female or a feminine male? In this world, there will always be children who are less sympathetic, or more masculine/feminine. I don't think that is a valid argument because that does not necessarily put them at a distinct disadvantage. And as I said before; marriage in our society is not about raising children. If it was, we would have to ban infertile people and couples that have no intention to have children from marriage. I do not think that marriage should be banned from a specific group of people because there have been studies that might show that their children may be more masculine or feminine, because not all gay marriage will result in children. I disagree with your statement about \"normality\". Heterosexuality is indeed the most prominent sexuality; that is why heteronormativity exists. However, the word normal has a negative connotation attached to it, which implies that anything other than heterosexuality is bad. I think that instead of demonizing valid sexual orientations, we should celebrate them. Many people of other sexualities \"stay in the closet\" because of this, making heterosexuality seem to be the more normal. Refusing to expose your child to anything but heterosexual relationships makes this even more prominent. I agree that marriage is not required for a loving relationship, but children see it that way. You stated that homosexuals raising children can bring negative affects; I will argue that homosexuals raising children while /not/ being married can have negative effects too. When they are taught from a young age that marriage = love, what will they think when they learn that their parents are not married? If you have studied the psychology of the child's mind, you will know that these sort of things can stress them out, confuse them, and have negative effects emotionally. To end this, I respect the majority of your arguments, but I think that the benefits gay marriage greatly outweigh the cons. It has been said that anywhere from 3-8% of the population is homosexual. Even more so are sexualities that are neither heterosexual or homosexual. I personally think that denying that amount of the population marriage and the rights that come from marriage should is discrimination. Saying that marriage is only for procreating wouldn't and shouldn't apply in a legal situation, since many couples who are eligible for marriage cannot or do not want to have children. In our society, it is useless to say that marriage can only be for purposes of bearing children.", "qid": "19", "docid": "ffc1678c-2019-04-18T15:31:55Z-00003-000", "rank": 41, "score": 179740.0}, {"content": "Title: Gay marriage ought to be legalized in the U.S. Content: To recap: Marriage is a fundamental right of American citizens guaranteed by both the morals set by the Declaration of Independence and the regulations of the Constitution. Leaving it up to the states is both unethical and morally reprehensible, especially as many are passing laws that are banning homosexual marriages. From ethical, logical, and legal standpoints, all facts indicate that gay marriage ought to be legalized in the U.S. When we examine the arguments my opponent and I brought up, it is clear that it is the federal government's duty to uphold our citizen's privileges and our duty to support the equality of all people- gay or straight, young or old, male or female.", "qid": "19", "docid": "b561ef57-2019-04-18T16:28:46Z-00000-000", "rank": 42, "score": 179711.0}, {"content": "Title: Gay (Same-sex) Marriage Should Be Legal Content: \"Where do you get your morals from that two sexual perverts should be treated as normal people and allowed to invade the institution of marriage, which has the primary purpose of procreation?\" Where do you get your morals from that homosexuals aren't normal people? This is a legal debate, not necessarily a moral one. Marriage is simply a union between two people. Homosexuals are still people. We should extend marriage rights to them as well. Their desire is simply to be happy with the person that they love. The three \"unalienable rights\" listed in the Constitution are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. The freedom to marry someone of the same sex falls under both Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. While some religions object to homosexuality, there is no reason that this should influence legislation. The first amendment explicitly states, \"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...\" The founding fathers also strongly promoted a separation of church and state. Therefore, religion has no place in this debate. Marriage has traditionally been between a male and a female, but this simply because the majority of the populace throughout history A. was heterosexual and/or B. believed in a religion which prohibited same-sex marriage. However, many today do not object to homosexuality. While procreation is certainly a big aspect of marriage, people do not marry simply for the purpose of procreation. Most in America marry for love. That is the purpose of marriage - to show a bond between two people. I see no reason why we should not extend this bond to homosexuals. Some have a moral objection to homosexuality. However, these morals tend to be based on very weak grounds, often in religion. As I explained earlier, religion should not be a part of this. A large majority of people in America do not think that same-sex marriage should be illegal. [1] Therefore, it would be inappropriate to enforce these anti-homosexual morals on others. For as long as we tolerate different religions, we have to tolerate beliefs that don't agree with some of our religious teachings. I think that this applies very strongly to gay marriage. Source: [1] http://www.isidewith.com...", "qid": "19", "docid": "c1c5ca56-2019-04-18T13:28:17Z-00005-000", "rank": 43, "score": 179495.0}, {"content": "Title: Gay or same sex marriages should be legal. Content: I believe that gay couples should be allowed to marry whoever they want just as heterosexual couples do. Just because of your sexual orientation, you should not be treated differently than the majority of the population. Denying gays the right to legalized marriage is a violation of religious freedom because civil and religious marriages are two separate institutions. In the case of Christianity, the Bible states to \"do unto others as you would like done unto you\". How would a heterosexual couple feel if they were in the position (as are homosexuals) of such oppression? It is completely unfair to deprive homosexual couples the benefits of marriage. This includes joint ownership rights, medical decision-making rights, taxation and inheritance rights, access to family health coverage, and protection in the event of the relationship ending. A same-sex couple is not allowed to make medical decisions for their partner because they cannot be legally married to them. Therefore, their partner can be on their deathbed and they will not be allowed to make decisions regarding their life until someone in their family arrives. How can this be okay? Homosexuality is much more common and accepted as a lifestyle nowadays, most evidence strongly supporting biological causation. Denying gay legalized marriages is also a form of minority discrimination. Allowing for legalized gay marriages does not hurt society or anyone in particular. It is only allowing others to be happy in their lives. The same financial benefits that apply to heterosexual marriages should apply to same-sex marriages. Another pro that comes from legalizing gay marriages is the increase in child adoptions. Because gay couples cannot pro-create the adoption rate would rise significantly. Children would be put in a loving family rather than a numerous list of foster homes that many times take advantage of children in order to receive a pay check. If I were unable to keep my child, I would feel much better knowing he/she was going to a loving same-sex couple who was going to love and take very good care of him/her rather than 6 different foster homes gain ownership that did not show any appreciation for him/her.", "qid": "19", "docid": "79171e03-2019-04-18T18:50:44Z-00003-000", "rank": 44, "score": 179480.0}, {"content": "Title: Gay Marriage should be legal Content: Legal - deriving authority from or founded on law http://www.merriam-webster.com... My argument is that no marriage should be legal, because all that government does with the legalization of marriage is discriminate between those who are married and those who are not. Tax cuts for the married [1] are really tax hikes for the non-married, or reverse, in some bizzare scenarios. Bonus rights to the married can easily be afforded to everybody. 1. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org... I would just like to clarify that my stance is in no way discriminatory against homosexuals whatsoever. Thank you, and good luck, abard.", "qid": "19", "docid": "d00daaa1-2019-04-18T19:16:33Z-00004-000", "rank": 45, "score": 179456.0}, {"content": "Title: Homosexual marriage should be legal Content: marriage is the ceremoney through which man and woman unite to procreate, that is to say create a new being. in this way the race of man increase in number on earth.this facility of procreation is absent in gay/lesbian marriage.if gay/lesbian marriage is legalized, a way will be created through which population of human race would decrease in future. therefore gay/lesbian marriage should not be legalized.", "qid": "19", "docid": "98ff8aac-2019-04-18T18:27:56Z-00006-000", "rank": 46, "score": 179439.0}, {"content": "Title: Gay Marriage should be legal in all states Content: Are you suggesting we make a new \"marriage\" for both Heterosexuals and homosexuals that takes the religion out of the equation? If so, I feel like it's a good idea, but I still feel it is abiding by the constitution, the main law in our country, to allow homosexuals to be married, and for the rights given by that marriage to be fully acknowledged as much as Heterosexual married couples.", "qid": "19", "docid": "4d91b1df-2019-04-18T15:29:29Z-00003-000", "rank": 47, "score": 179405.0}, {"content": "Title: Gay Marriage should be legalized! Content: I begin my concluding my argument by first Saying that this is the begins of you're article \"The first amendment to the US Constitution states \"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof\" The two parts, known as the \"establishment clause\" and the \"free exercise clause\" respectively. Nothing in there says separation of church and state which again was a suggestion. Homosexuality as you said happens in the wild, which in the scientific sense means that it is natural, but if we look at it from God's point which was heterosexual marriage it is completely and utterly unnatural. And yes Hetero was invented by God just as Homo was invented by Cicero. In the economic spectrum you said that gay marriage raised New Jersey 248 billion dollars, but you failed to mention the protest and court cases gays fie that closes business and forces people to lose jobs. Homosexual couples on average only make about 2 million dollars more then the average heterosexual couples(CNN). And finally I'm not saying the abuse in homosexual homes is worse, just that is is much less publicized. I end on this Homosexuality as never been good without attacking some random institution that refuses them service, as my oppent neglected to mention. This ladies and Gentlemen is one of the many reasons Homosexuality is bad.- Batman3773", "qid": "19", "docid": "5d03cecf-2019-04-18T15:32:17Z-00000-000", "rank": 48, "score": 179348.0}, {"content": "Title: Gay Marriage should not be legal Content: And that's that folks!", "qid": "19", "docid": "73289150-2019-04-18T19:34:17Z-00000-000", "rank": 49, "score": 179341.0}, {"content": "Title: Gay marriage should be illegal. Content: Extend all arguments.", "qid": "19", "docid": "dd222a5d-2019-04-18T16:13:45Z-00000-000", "rank": 50, "score": 179128.0}, {"content": "Title: Gay marriage should be illegal. Content: Extend all arguments.", "qid": "19", "docid": "dd222a5d-2019-04-18T16:13:45Z-00001-000", "rank": 51, "score": 179128.0}, {"content": "Title: Gay marriage should be illegal. Content: Extend all arguments.", "qid": "19", "docid": "dd222a5d-2019-04-18T16:13:45Z-00002-000", "rank": 52, "score": 179128.0}, {"content": "Title: The marriage of Homosexuals should be legal Content: Uh. All right.", "qid": "19", "docid": "f7a1d21f-2019-04-18T19:11:23Z-00001-000", "rank": 53, "score": 178962.0}, {"content": "Title: Gay Marriage Should Be Legal Content: The LGBT community is not fighting to change the beliefs of any religion nor make a \"declaration of war on God\". Just as racial equality was fought for and is still minimally fought for; Homosexuals are simply fighting for equality, to be recognized as equals to heterosexuals in regards to marriage. The inequality in homosexual and heterosexual marriage, portray heterosexual marriage to be right and homosexual marriage to be wrong. No marriage is wrong. There are many people from all religions who support gay marriage and do not label two members of the same sex getting married as a means of going against God or being unjust. ->Con implies that The Bible basically says that everyone is a sinner, somehow or someway. ->I say if everyone is basically a sinner, then why is homosexuality so highly argued against? If eventually everyone is going to sin and become a \"sinner\" according to Con, why can't everyone be left alone and live their life how they want, even if they wish to be with someone of the same gender. ->Con states: \"If God is real and his mercy is available\" which implies that God and his mercy MAY be real. -> I say how is Con going to fight against Homosexuals being married with only Religion as his argument and then state \"If God is real and his mercy is available\"? Con seems unsure when he/she wrote this sentence, but I know that of course God's mercy is available. On numerous accounts The Bible addresses the mercy of God. As Con said everyone is a sinner according to the Bible therefore God is clearly merciful, labeling and accepting everyone as a sinner. With that being the case, then homosexuals are no more or less sinners than everyone else, including those in a same sex marriage, is implied to be. ->Con says: \"If a gay couple wants to be recognized as joined, change your status on Facebook. Stay out of the Church.\" ->I ask; what does Facebook have to do with this argument and the equality of human beings? This argument is about legally and rightfully being equal and married to the person they love. Also, it is recognizing the Homosexual population as human beings and married instead of a \"union\". ->Con says: \"Marriage is not an art form. Unless you mean to express you devotion to God, don't do it. If you insist on doing anyway, don't do it in a Church.\" ->I say; When I speak of \"Freedom of Expression\", I recognize \"expression\" as showing your love, devotion, and commitment to something or someone, possibly even through marriage. ->Con stated: \"Again, gay people are free. Marriage is a religious ceremony. Period.\" ->I say: EQUALITY has NOTHING to do with being free. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, equality is \"the quality or state of being equal\". Therefore, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, equal means \"of the same measure, quantity, amount, or number as another\". Therefore, the argument and fight for Equality for Same Sex Marriages, has absolutely NOTHING to do with freedom. I await your reply. http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.merriam-webster.com...", "qid": "19", "docid": "9bfee71c-2019-04-18T18:31:58Z-00003-000", "rank": 54, "score": 178756.0}, {"content": "Title: Gay Marraige Should Be Allowed. Content: . ;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? Gay marriage should NOT be legal for the following reasons: 1. Laws should not be passed if they are specifically in violation of the will of the people. The majority of people in the US are against homosexual marriages (1). Therefore, it does not follow that we should permit same-sex marriages. 2. It is reasonable to believe that homosexuality is sexual perversion. There is no evidenced gene, biological necessity, or evolutionary benefit for homosexuality. To accept my opponent's argument of \"innateness\" is to also accept, by logical necessity, pedophilia, zoophilia, and other sexual abnormalities. 3. Homosexuals have no more and no less rights than heterosexuals. The idea of any inequality existing in terms of rights is balderdash. Moreover, civil unions offer the same benefits of traditional marriages. Homosexuals are NOT segregated, nor are they given less rights. 4. By virtue of permitting individuals to marry partners of the same sex, marriage will quickly lose meaning and purpose. Who is to stop a man (or woman) from marrying, not just one, but two (or three) partners? If the logic used to permit same-sex marriages is to be used, what logical reasons does one have for barring polygamy, polyandry, or even pederasty? . ;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? Now in response to my opponent's assertions: \"let me state that a civil union is not a reasonable compromise for a legal marriage. \" Indeed, it is not a compromise at all. Both homosexuals AND heterosexuals have equal rights to marriage and civil unions. ----- \"The concept of \u2018separate but equal' has already failed. Segregation is not a solution when it comes to rights. History has proven this. \" To begin with, as was evidenced with proposition 8 in California, gay marriage is not a civil right. Also, there is absolutely no analogous connection between segregation and gay marriage. Homosexuals are given the exact same rights as everybody else \u2013 and they are most definitely not separated. ----- \"Secondly, where is the benefit of oppressing gays from marrying? \" Nobody is being oppressed. There are, however, plenty of negative repercussions. School sex-education programs would have to be entirely revamped to support equal say; it opens doors to polygamy and other such sexual aberrations; it is contra-popular vote. What are the benefits? They can have all the rights of marriage except for the name. A couple does not need marriage to be happy, comfortable, and free. ----- \"Those who claim it is immoral are really just ignorant and foolish. \" Everybody is ignorant of something, but it is not my ignorance and foolishness that you should be concerned with. Who are you to claim proprietary rights to what IS and IS NOT moral? How are you defining morality and by what objective source is it obtained? What makes your moral standards obligatory and trumping? It may very well be immoral, but it is a bad idea irrespective of morality. ----- \"In the case of Christianity, the bible states to do unto others what you would like done onto you\" And I would be quite thankful to the chap that informed me that my actions were in moral error. Are you willing to use the entire source in which the above quote is derived? If you are not willing, then do not use it as part of your argument \u2013 because as you will surely find, it is not your position that it supports. . ;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? Conclusion: My opponent has given no practical benefits for same-sex marriages. She has failed to show that homosexuals are not receiving equal rights. She finds no moral compunction in unilaterally trumping the popular vote of US citizens and permitting same-sex marriages \u2013 this is against the ideals of our nation. She calls homosexuality innate without proving it as such. She apparently lays claim to an unspecified moral objective that is both binding and obligatory. She calls me foolish and ignorant \u2013 and to this I can only chuckle. I look forward to my opponent's response Inquiretruth . ;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? Sources: 1. . http://www.quinnipiac.edu...", "qid": "19", "docid": "2b42ce61-2019-04-18T19:32:07Z-00004-000", "rank": 55, "score": 178733.0}, {"content": "Title: Gay marriage should not be legalized by any governing body in the United States of America. Content: I do not disagree with your argument. While I do not support homosexuality I do not feel it is my nor anyone else's place to keep two people from having a relationship. Homosexual couples who want to be married are no different than other couples who are likewise in love, in and most cases, they are often more in love than a heterosexual couple. Homosexual couples know that in order to petition for marriage they must jump through many hoops and expose themselves to criticism from outside sources. This is not the case for heterosexual couples and thus I think these couples are more inclined to marry on a whim instead of truly considering whether or not they really love one another enough to integrate their lives. While this is all well and good, marriage is a establishment created by the governing body of the United States and as such, in order to be legally married a couple must seek the approval of this marriage by the government. What homosexual couples are asking for is the recognition by the government of their marriage to one another. This has mainly to do with the benefits that come from a legalized marriage. It has been our nation's policy that we do no recognize homosexual communions. This is what is so perplexing about the current and most popular argument in the name of gay marriage. The argument is that a government has no right to ban homosexual marriages and the government, recognizing their inability to do so, has done nothing of the sort. Homosexuals contend that that government has no say in who can and cannot marry. Unfortunately, the government is the body that has sole power in the recognition of marriage between two people and it has ruled that a marriage is the communion between a man and a woman. If two gay people would like to marry then let them, but it will not be recognized by the government. This throws a kink the main argument put forth by gay marriage advocates who repeatedly call for the government to not interfere with the continuation of homosexual marriages. The bottom line in this: homosexuals are free to marry or commune with whomever they wish. The government has no right to establish a policy against homosexual relations. What it does have a right to do is recognize them and since gay people seek that recognition, it is the right of the government to establish a policy on what couples can marry. If gay people want recognition by the government of their marriages then they will not/nor do they have the Constitutional right to do so. Having put forth my argument I am eager to hear yours.", "qid": "19", "docid": "720bf686-2019-04-18T20:01:15Z-00001-000", "rank": 56, "score": 178637.0}, {"content": "Title: Gay marriage should be legalized Content: Should heterosexual infertile people or those who do not desire to have children be banned from marriage as well? They too cannot or choose not to reproduce and \"continue the survival of society\" as my opponent says. Heterosexual marriage could remain important to society if homosexual marriage were to be legalized. Where in the legalization of homosexual marriage is the harming or hindering the marriage of heterosexuals? At one point in my opponents argument, they state \"Because homosexuals do not create children, their marriage has no purpose and that is why it must remain illegal\" Ability or desire to create offspring has never been a qualification for marriage... why should it be now on the topic of Gay marriage? Gay marriages can also bring financial gain to state and local governments. Revenue from gay marriage comes from marriage licenses, higher income taxes (the so-called \"marriage penalty\"), and decreases in costs for state benefit programs.[1] Allowing same-sex couples to marry will give them access to basic rights such as hospital visitation during an illness, taxation and inheritance rights, access to family health coverage, and protection in the event of the relationship ending.[2] The seventh source in which the images are provided seems to not work for me. In regards to those graphs, where was the data taken from and for how long were those statistics taken over? The graphs are comparing married heterosexual couples to homosexual relationships. That is not the same, at all. Also, the graphs state that divorced parents generally make bad parents.. I really don't agree with that terrible generalization. My parents are divorced and still love and care for me just as much, if not more. Actually, Massachusetts; which became the first state to legalize gay marriage in 2004, had the lowest divorce rate in the country in 2008. Its divorce rate declined 21% between 2003 and 2008. Alaska, the first state to alter its constitution to prohibit gay marriage in 1998, saw a 17.2% increase in its divorce rate. The seven states with the highest divorce rates between 2003 and 2008 all had constitutional prohibitions to gay marriage.[3] The argument that divorce rates would be increased with the legalization of homosexual marriage is just untrue. Conclusion I have proven that Gay marriage would benefit society and it does not hinder children whatsoever. Also, the divorce rate may actually decline with the legalization of homosexual marriage. [1]Kathryn Perry, \"The Cost of Gay Marraige - In Dollars and Cents,\" Christian Science Monitor, May 27, 2009 [2]American Psychological Association, \"American Psychological Association Reiterates Support for Same-sex Marriage,\" www.apa.org, Aug. 11, 2010 [3]Nate Silver, \"Divorce Rates Higher in States with Gay Marriage Bans,\" www.fivethirtyeight.com, Jan. 12, 2010", "qid": "19", "docid": "630bc6cf-2019-04-18T17:48:25Z-00003-000", "rank": 57, "score": 178591.0}, {"content": "Title: Gay Marriage should be legal Content: i'm not sure what is really established by stating that there's a rights campaign that says same sex couples want to be married, to honor their relationship in the greatest way our society offers etc. that is self evident in this debate. also, pointing out that a majority of americans support gay marriage doesn't prove or disprove that it is that it is something that we should do. if we allow civil unions, there would not be the limitations described by pro, such as lack of hospital visits. also, much of the things they are denied can be replicated by legal transactions, such as wills instead of natural intestate property transfers. our system of hetero marriage may not be evolutionariarly traditioal, but it is traditional in our culture. and that's all that matters. and it is better established and more natural than gay marriage.", "qid": "19", "docid": "d00db280-2019-04-18T16:05:57Z-00003-000", "rank": 58, "score": 178536.0}, {"content": "Title: Gay Marriage Should Be Legal Content: Overall I do not believe that this should even be a debate. Evidence has surfaced that homosexuality is generally not even a choice, it can be genetic and/or born with it. It is completely their decision and it does not affect the rest of society. It is not others business and it should stay that way. We have deemed homosexuality as taboo or just disgusting, mostly because of damaging religions, and any men and women alike are afraid to come out and be themselves. This should not be an environment that we should have to live in and it is impeding our rite to the pursuit of happiness. Thank you, TruthHurtsBro", "qid": "19", "docid": "9bfef1a5-2019-04-18T15:29:10Z-00003-000", "rank": 59, "score": 178431.0}, {"content": "Title: Gay Marriage should be legal. Content: I'm not saying we need to get rid of heterosexual marriage, but we need to consider homosexual marriage. Yes, heterosexual marriage is a tradition many carry, but some traditions need to be changed. Homosexuals are no different than heterosexuals really they both love one person and just want to be able to be accepted. But, sadly homosexuals can not be accepted because of the staggering amount of people that bash on them and send hate in their direction. Just a final thought it's straight people that bring gay people into the world.", "qid": "19", "docid": "d00d2f7a-2019-04-18T17:48:12Z-00001-000", "rank": 60, "score": 178269.0}, {"content": "Title: Gay marriage should be illegal. Content: It seems as if my opponent isn't going to post any arguments. Therefore, I'm just going to recycle an old argument. It isn't that great, but it is enough to lead me to victory.Argument #1: Unalienable Rights In the Declaration of Independence, one of the United States\u2019 most important documents, it states that all people have three unalienable rights; life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Hence, those rights cannot be taken away from someone. Taking away a homosexual\u2019s right to marry violates all three of those rights. Hence, homosexual marriage should be legal in order to protect the unalienable rights of homosexuals. Argument #2: Religion Many people whom are against gay marriage make religious claims to defend their stance. However, religious arguments aren\u2019t relevant. Part of the First Amendment states \u201cCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion\u2026\u201d So, we cannot use religion to make something illegal or legal. Therefore, this argument that those who are opposed to gay marriage make is irrelevant. Conclusion:With two important US documents, I have established not only why homosexual marriage should be legalized, but why religious viewpoints aren\u2019t good for arguments against homosexual marriage. This has been very brief, but like I said, I\u2019m pretty sure my opponent isn\u2019t going to continue this debate. Resources:http://billofrightsinstitute.org...... http://en.wikipedia.org......", "qid": "19", "docid": "dd222a5d-2019-04-18T16:13:45Z-00003-000", "rank": 61, "score": 178267.0}, {"content": "Title: Gay Marriage should be legal. Content: I thank Con for giving me the opportunity to argue about this topic.", "qid": "19", "docid": "d00d2efe-2019-04-18T18:44:35Z-00001-000", "rank": 62, "score": 178252.0}, {"content": "Title: Gay marriage should be legalised Content: Extend.", "qid": "19", "docid": "731ef93f-2019-04-18T16:04:59Z-00001-000", "rank": 63, "score": 178094.0}, {"content": "Title: Gay marriage should be legal Content: I look forward to reading your argument.", "qid": "19", "docid": "ea2e99e5-2019-04-18T18:31:36Z-00006-000", "rank": 64, "score": 178074.0}, {"content": "Title: Gay Marriage should be illegal Content: gay? ewwwwwwwwww", "qid": "19", "docid": "c78d325e-2019-04-18T15:20:42Z-00001-000", "rank": 65, "score": 177943.0}, {"content": "Title: Gay marriage should be legal. Content: It doesn't have to be a benefit to be legal, and I have said nothing of it being a benefit. It is simply treating gays the same as we treat straight people. And you are correct when you say it will make a child's life harder, but so does divorce, high expectations from parents, ect. But, none of those are illegal. Every child is different, so a child's reaction may be different from another child's.", "qid": "19", "docid": "5b95326a-2019-04-18T16:00:23Z-00001-000", "rank": 66, "score": 177937.0}, {"content": "Title: Gay marriage should be legal in all 50 states. Content: You have a legitimate point, but the problem holding back the legalization of gay marriage is the nature of US law. Yes the religious community is opening their eyes to being fair to the homosexual community but the anti-homosexual community is still very large and prominent in society, regardless of the reduction of its members. Their counter argument to your statement about marriage not being their business would be something along the lines of \"ISIS doesn't have our bodies, but we fight them because what they are doing is wrong\". To the anti-homosexual community the act of gay marriage is wrong and against human nature. However one may feel, this is a valid and well supported argument from a theological point of view, coming from a large group of people in the eyes of the law. It is not considered blind prejudice because there is a clear possibility they are right. The gay community does; however, still pose a legitimate argument themselves. One's love should not be judged and condemned in such a way, that is also a clearly morally valid statement. Therefore if one is to look at the big picture from the US government's point of view there are two equally valid and backed moral opinions with conflicting goals trying to have their interests put into law. The nature of US law is to have both these large populations of America walk away satisfied with a law that can meet both parties' needs to the best of its ability. Legalizing gay marriage cannot do this, it leans too much towards the homosexual community, and it therefore shouldn't be put into law. Something along the lines of the compromise I listed in my previous argument can and that kind of thinking should be what is made law. Am I saying I'm the supreme judge of this? Of course not, but I believe in the concept of bringing both parties to a common ground and having them both walk away mostly satisfied. Gay marriage doesn't do this, so it shouldn't be legalized at this point in time.", "qid": "19", "docid": "37683889-2019-04-18T14:46:57Z-00002-000", "rank": 67, "score": 177926.0}, {"content": "Title: Should gay marriage be legal in the U.S. Content: First, my opponent claims that this is an issue of human rights, but this is not true. Society can choose to endorse certain types of sexual arrangements and give support in the form of benefits to these arrangements. Marriage was created to allow society to support heterosexual couples in procreation and society can choose not to give the same benefits to same-sex couples [1]. My opponent has yet to prove it is a human right. Second, my opponent claims that because of the phrase in the declaration of independence it means Homosexual marriage should be recognized because it pursues happiness, and was consensual. The is a perplexing comment because that phrase also mentions these rights were endowed by their creator, God, and religion often opposes not only Homosexual marriage, but homosexuality as well. Further, your rights end when they harm someone else, such as the case of Murder. You may be happier they are dead, but you violated the other person's right to life. Homosexual marriage has harms too. My opponent also mentions tax breaks, this is part of the first harm on society that taxpayers, consumers, and businesses would be forced to subsidize homosexual relationships. Second, Freedom of conscience and religious liberty would be threatened. We have seen this happen already in many states that decided to recognize such marriages, such as photographers in New Mexico, or catholic adoption agencies. Also, Fewer children would be raised by a married mother and father. Many sociological studies show that a married mother an father are the best environment for children [2][3]. The biggest losers here are children. I hope that my opponent will respond to all criticism previous and current in the next round. Sources[1] . http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com...[2] . http://www.familystructurestudies.com...[3] . http://www.lifesitenews.com...", "qid": "19", "docid": "fc060709-2019-04-18T16:14:33Z-00001-000", "rank": 68, "score": 177913.0}, {"content": "Title: Should gay marriage be legal in all states Content: Extend", "qid": "19", "docid": "b6a7220a-2019-04-18T16:08:18Z-00001-000", "rank": 69, "score": 177751.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized Content: This is gay.", "qid": "19", "docid": "bd64e7e3-2019-04-18T19:12:30Z-00000-000", "rank": 70, "score": 177743.0}, {"content": "Title: Gay marriage should be legal in the us Content: banning gay marriage is a violation of the equal rights clause in the 14th amendment.", "qid": "19", "docid": "99965175-2019-04-18T15:47:50Z-00003-000", "rank": 71, "score": 177695.0}, {"content": "Title: Gay Marriage Content: Gay marriage without a shadow of a doubt should be completely legalized. It is unfair and unjust to say two people who care about each other can't do whatever they want with their relationship within the confines of the law. If something that has no negative effect on an innocent party, especially any effect at all, then it should be legal; gay marriage should be legal because what two consenting adults agree to spend their time doing, especially if it's none of your business, shouldn't be punished. One of the only lasting anti-gay marriage debates left out there is the bible, which all conservatives love to point at, however to let a book of religion guide the way we run our government, that, my sir, is the merging of church and state. To merge the separation of church and state is to step on the toes of our founding fathers, spit in their face, and raise you middle finger to them. That is to say, merging of church and state, is a foolish, fascist idea and cancels every point that our American ancestors tried to make; without ideas like the separation of church and state, what was the point of Revolution? To welcome an idea like merging church and state and then call yourself American is an insult to our fathers and an insult to me, and that is why I hate Republicans. Then, of course, there are a few people that are anti-gay marriage and have the argument that it is \"publicly disturbing and gross\" and to that I say, \"who cares? It isn't illegal for a person to kiss or hold hands with another straight person in public, why not gay people?\" gay people are grossed out by your heterosexuality, and even though I'm heterosexual, sometimes I am too, when you have one of those annoying, cutesy couples near you in public. Some people, though, are worried about the children. Out of all the arguments against gay marriage, this is the best one, but it isn't seen much and it still isn't very good. Some say children need a man and a woman for optimal raising of child. Then why isn't divorce illegal? And if divorce was illegal, would it really be any better for a child to be raised by constantly bickering parents who hate each other? From a guy who was raised by a single mother, I know there are far more factors than \"are the parents gay or not?\" in the raising of a child. Thank you for your time.", "qid": "19", "docid": "6334f98a-2019-04-18T15:23:50Z-00005-000", "rank": 72, "score": 177674.0}, {"content": "Title: gay marriage should be legal Content: I had intended to sit in the background observing for the rest of my debate.org career ever since my account was sabotaged by vote bombers, but I am feeling rather ambitious this morning. Let us hope the ambition carries throughout all five rounds. Having said that, thank you for the challenge. this is truly an interesting topic, and, as you might have noticed if you took the time to examine my account, I have debated it many time. Let us begin. You begin by claiming that it is unfair that gays should not be able to marry, and you say that we are discriminating based on their homosexual lifestyle. The fact of the matter, like it or not, is that it is not yet legal in most places. Law, in most places, defines marraige as one man and one woman, meaning that homosexual marraige is not included. These laws have been such since the days of our founding fathers, who in fact would put homosexuals to death simply for being homosexual. They took it so seriously because, frankly, they saw homosexuality for what it is: a perversion of nature. People are not \"born gay,\" as you might think. studies should that, while genetics plays some role in sexual orientation, there is by no means any \"master gene\" that determines you sexuality, and ultimately, it is the influences of the enviornment around you, and your choice. (http://www.citizenlink.org...) This link even shows proof that homosexuals don't even see their sexuality as fixed or unchangable, but rather as a very changable thing. Having said this, my point is theis: why should we change the writen laws of marraige for a what was once considered a perversion of nature, not to mention, what is even today considered to be a severe minority? I looked over too many sites to reference, but summing them all up, the percentages of homosexuals in the population is said to be between 1% and 25%, the average of all the sites I looked at falling at about 15%-16%. There are a lot of people in the world, and we are bending to redefine laws based on this small of a minority? What gets me is that in our culture (the American culture), marraige is of less and less value. More and more poeple are settling to be boyfriend and girlfriend until they decide they are sick of eachother and want to move on. If our culture has such a low view of marraige, and gays are begging to be accepted into our culture, why even bother asking for the rights? They don't need marital rights to be considered normal. Have you considered that it is widely accepted that homosexuality is one of the reasons for the fall of Rome? (http://www.utexas.edu...) (http://www.freerepublic.com...) Notice how many of these criteria for the fall of the Roman empire fit for our nation, including homosexuality. it is among the negative effects on a nation. Thanks! Renzzy", "qid": "19", "docid": "de756082-2019-04-18T19:21:02Z-00004-000", "rank": 73, "score": 177660.0}, {"content": "Title: Gay marriage should be legalized In the United States Content: Homosexuals should not get married based on religious reasons.\"At first my opponent states that the Bible is against gay sex, but let's all be serious here. You get married and you have sex\" People can get married for non sex related reasons. Homosexuality isn't purely a form of lust, it's a form of love. My opponent confirms that he is arguing that gay sex should be illegal. The odd thing in this is, he seems to think that gay marriage should be illegal because of gay sex, yet he supports civil unions. He's cherry picking information by claiming that married couples will have sex and not realizing people in civil unions will likely have sex as well. His argument can be used against him. Even if it couldn't, I've already shown how religion can have no effect on laws.\"Marriage is in other religions as well. Such as Islam and Judaism. In Islam they also condemn homosexual marriage\"The number of religions who are against it doesn't matter. Religion can't have an effect on laws as I said last round.\"Well Ladies and gents it simple shows that the federal government cannot make people do things that can harm or interfere with their religion and that means Gay Marriage is now Unconstitutional\"I'm not sure where my opponent gets the idea that this somehow makes it un-constitutional. Legalizing gay marriage wouldn't force someone in a company to do something against their religion.Secondly,, if we're going off of supreme court rulings, the supreme court has ruled multiple times that marriage is a fundamental right. http://m.huffpost.com...\"Since Marriage is actually an industry, because you can make a profit from it, that means gay marriage is illegal under the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act.\"The Supreme Court ruled that you can't force a company to do something against their religion. This isn't to say that all things that may conflict with someone's religion is illegal... This also doesn't connect with gay marriage. Legalizing gay marriage wouldn't force companies to have sex with someone of the same gender. So my opponents argument here seems to be this:P1: The Supreme Court ruled that you cannot force companies to do something against their religion.P2: Gay marriage is technically an industry.C: Gay marriage should be illegal.The premise that he has to prove for this argument to work is: \"Gay marriage forces companies to do something against their religion\". He hasn't mentioned it nor has he proven this premise. I also want to point out that we can't say that providing benefits to gay couples is against people's religion, because the examples my opponent has brought up seems to be against gay sex, not marriage.Contention 3: Civil Unions\"My opponent brings up New Jersey, but he fails to bring to light how I proved last round that Civil Unions do work and Illinois is a huge example\"I had said that civil unions don't work in many states and we need marriage to gave gays equal rights was the rebuttal I gave, yet Con is not responding to this, and is instead pointing out that they work in some states. Regardless of whether they work in some, others need gay marriage legalized to provide equality.\"He also drops the fact that many more people support Civil Unions compared to Gay Marriage. Heck, even more liberals support Civil Unions than Gay Marriage. Also, look to see how Collage grads support Civil Unions 21% more than Gay Marriage legalization. (charts above as source)\"This is an appeal to popularity fallacy... The statistics also have been outdated, as fifty percent of Americans say the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection gives gays the right to marry, while 41 percent say it does not, according to a poll recently taken at march 5th 2014. The remaining 9 percent had no opinion either way.http://www.washingtonpost.com...Financial gain from Gay Marriage\"This was my opponent's own contention that he brought up in his own case, but failed to bring it up last round. This is a dropped argument and you can obviously see that states make more gains from the legalization of Civil Unions then from the legalization of Gay Marriage that I have brought up in my last round\"I'm not sure how my opponent reaches this conclusion. I dropped the argument after realizing that both civil unions and gay marriage can give an economic benefit, and that the difference between the money gained is so small that it wouldn't be worth arguing about. My opponent said that civil unions give money as well, which I agree with, but that doesn't mean that civil unions would give off more money. Saying \"This also has a financial gain\" doesn't mean that it has a bigger impact. We can't really compare them on anyway, as there's to many factors we need to put into it. Population, current financial state, etc. My opponents arguments have all been completely refuted, while my argument that gays deserve the same rights still stands. Vote Pro.Make good choices.", "qid": "19", "docid": "59d75f87-2019-04-18T16:02:12Z-00001-000", "rank": 74, "score": 177612.0}, {"content": "Title: Gay marriage should be legal. Content: I have some extremely good points, and I welcome anyone who accepts this challenge.", "qid": "19", "docid": "ea2e1aa0-2019-04-18T18:49:03Z-00005-000", "rank": 75, "score": 177565.0}, {"content": "Title: Gay marriage Content: Gay marriage should be legalized.", "qid": "19", "docid": "33954e07-2019-04-18T17:15:23Z-00004-000", "rank": 76, "score": 177563.0}, {"content": "Title: Homosexual Marriage Should Be Allowed Content: Under the 14th Amendment: \"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.\" Homosexuals are abridged the privilege(or right) of marriage. By making civil marriage (churches can do what they please, but this is when the government gives you your marriage license) unavailable to homosexuals the government is showing a blatant preference of one group over another, and this is entirely unconstitutional. If you don't want gays to be legally 'married' than neither should heterosexuals. The same term (civil union, whatever) with same legalities must be shared between the two 'types' of marriage in the legal field.", "qid": "19", "docid": "700b035d-2019-04-18T19:57:56Z-00004-000", "rank": 77, "score": 177506.0}, {"content": "Title: Gay marriage should be legal. Content: Gay marriage should be legal. There is no valid reason homosexuals shouldn't have the same rights as as any other citizen of the United States.", "qid": "19", "docid": "5b95326a-2019-04-18T16:00:23Z-00005-000", "rank": 78, "score": 177490.0}, {"content": "Title: Gay marriage should be legalised. Content: the second round is opening the third is details and the last is conclusion. I will not tolerate any disregard for Homosexuals feeling or any other sort of abuse towards homosexuality. This argument is only to put across opinions that will not be taken offensively. Good Luck", "qid": "19", "docid": "f0bfabab-2019-04-18T16:07:18Z-00005-000", "rank": 79, "score": 177464.0}, {"content": "Title: Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized Content: By two people marrying one another, whether straight or gay, it does not take away from the idea of marriage. Marriage is a celebration of the uniting of two people that are in love. We should not discriminate based on one's sexual orientation. Yes, I see where these drastic cases of people wanting to marry within their family or to animals may come about. However, these cases are very unlikely and the likelihood of them coming up isn't high. Yes, the idea of creating a law that defines marriage may have to be put into place. However, it's wrong to say that two people who are deeply in love and have been together for years should not be together. First off, people in gay relationships according to studies, stay together just as long if not more than straight couples. However, compared to straight couples, they are not treated as if they have any rights as their partner. If one of the persons in a homosexual relationship is in the hospital and needs medical attention, their partner isn't allowed to make any decisions for them despite that they have been together for ten years, for example. If they are in critical care, they can't even go upstairs to see them because they aren't family members. That is absolutely absurd! That is heart wrenching to these people because they are given no respect or recognition of being in a long-term stable relationship. This also applies to them when it comes to receiving their social security and pensions. It is highly unfair because they completely deserve it and it's unfair for them. Second, gay couples take away from a traditional pro-creative couple or family because many gay couples have adopted children and the children have grown up to be great individuals and not necessarily turn out to be homosexual themselves. It should not matter that they cannot procreate a child themselves physically. It is wrong to say that just because traditional families in the past were a certain way and that we should keep it the same. Our world is constantly evolving and I see no reason why gay marriage should not be universally allowed and accepted as a new traditional type of family as well. My opponent makes very valid points to validate their case. However, he attacks the issue in a manner that is more against gay marriage because of their lack of being able to produce their own offspring and marriage is a legal joining of two people, however, who are we to say that it must be between a man and a woman? Procreation does not have to only take place in a marriage. In society, many couples procreate out of wedlock. If gay marriage is legalized, it will in no way slow down the progression of our country economically.", "qid": "19", "docid": "14341634-2019-04-18T18:25:02Z-00007-000", "rank": 80, "score": 177401.0}, {"content": "Title: Gay marriage should be illegal! Content: I think my opponent isn\u2019t going to post any arguments, so I\u2019ll make this round brief. I will have one contention and one rebuttal. Argument #1: Unalienable Rights In the Declaration of Independence, one of the United States\u2019 most important documents, it states that all people have three unalienable rights; life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Hence, those rights cannot be taken away from someone. Taking away a homosexual\u2019s right to marry violates all three of those rights. Hence, homosexual marriage should be legal in order to protect the unalienable rights of homosexuals. Rebuttal #1: Religion My opponent made a religious claim to defend his argument in the beginning of the debate. \u201cI believe gay marriage should be illegal its inhumane and against the bible.\u201d However, religious arguments aren\u2019t relevant. Part of the First Amendment states \u201cCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion\u2026\u201d So, we cannot use religion to make something illegal or legal. Therefore, this argument that my opponent uses is irrelevant. Conclusion: With two important US documents, I have established not only why homosexual marriage should be legalized, but why religious viewpoints aren\u2019t good for arguments against homosexual marriage. This has been very brief, but like I said, I\u2019m pretty sure my opponent isn\u2019t going to continue this debate. Resources: http://billofrightsinstitute.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...", "qid": "19", "docid": "61f8dce6-2019-04-18T16:30:14Z-00003-000", "rank": 81, "score": 177126.0}, {"content": "Title: Should same sex marriage be legal? Yes or no. Content: Hello there my friend. Good luck on this debate. :) IntroductionBefore we begin, I'd like to say that I in no way at all am against homosexuality as a concept. Some of my best friends are gay, some of my favorite musicians and actors are gay, Et cetera, Et cetera. I am also in no way against homosexual individuals being together. However, The subject of marriage is a different one. Today in this debate I contend that gay marriage is, On whole, Not allowable in society and thus should not be legal. Contention I: Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman This argument is constantly dropped by conservatives everywhere, But there's meaning behind it. Marriage, Before the times of Judaism and Christianity, Was viewed as a civil union for the benefit of the man, But these religions transformed it from something to be done for the benefit of both families into an everlasting bond of love. The tradition that marriage should be a union between man and woman is something held for millenia in the Christian faith, And as such has grown to be a traditional, Sacred aspect of Christian life. Legalizing gay marriage slanders that tradition. Again, I am not arguing against the union of gay individuals, But I am arguing that they should not be brought into wedlock. Contention II: Statistics show children need both a mother and a fatherIt has been statistically shown that children benefit extremely from having both a mother and a father. a recent study of father absence on girls found that girls who grew up apart from their biological father were much more likely to experience early puberty and a teen pregnancy than girls who spent their entire childhood in an intact family. (see sources). Another study by David Poponoe suggests that a father's pheromones influence the biological development of his daughter, That a strong marriage provides a model for girls of what to look for in a man, And gives them the confidence to resist the sexual entreaties of their boyfriends. As for gay couples, It has also been shown that mothers provide emotional security for young children. Obviously, They also give their daughters unique counsel as they confront the physical, Emotional, And social challenges associated with puberty and adolescence. As such, It should be quite clear that marital unions (Which are generally formed to raise children) should be reserved for one male and one female. ~~~~Thank you for your debate today. I will now await your response. Best wishes.", "qid": "19", "docid": "d926d2e6-2019-04-18T11:18:08Z-00000-000", "rank": 82, "score": 177002.0}, {"content": "Title: Gay Marriage should be legal. Content: Good luck to my opponent whoever it maybe.", "qid": "19", "docid": "d00d2efe-2019-04-18T18:44:35Z-00006-000", "rank": 83, "score": 176960.0}, {"content": "Title: Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized In America Content: I'm not saying it should be illegal for infertile couples to marry, just that there is little point as marriage is a social institution designed to ensure the best environment for raising children. You may disagree by saying it's just about love, but that's only because society presents it that way in order to ensure that people who marry stay married. I see your point about benefits of marriage, but in the UK there is a system called a 'civil partnership' which gives all the rights you mentioned, but to homosexual couples. Marriage is not needed in order to provide those benefits. Also, I accept you are right about bestiality, I know little about the subject so I would be digging a deeper hole for myself if I did continue :) 1st cousin marriage is not the incest that people worry about the most, it's legal in those 20 states because it is a grey area. However, if two people in a brother/sister relationship observe gay marriage being legalised, they have every right to protest ask: 'if homosexuals can change marriage to suit their relationships, why can't we do it?' I agree that in some cases of incest one partner can suffer emotional damage, but that can occur in any type of relationship (albeit at a lesser extent). Also, there are lots of other cases of incest where both partners suffer no emotional damage and would therefore be encouraged by gay marriage legalisation to lobby for incestuous marriage. In regards to polygamy, I disagree with it. That is probably why I fear a slippery slope going there whereas you may not. However, debating the morality of polygamy is, as you said, a debate for another day. I am not saying that there is something wrong with a masculine female of a feminine male, but they will doubtless lead a more difficult life because of it. Most men will not be attracted to masculine females, causing the latter to become bitter and possibly a misandric. There's a reason that many feminists are masculine. S feminine male will often be downtrodden by his stronger counterparts, possibly even bullied as well. The case also applies that women are generally not attracted to feminine men, which could therefore lead to bitter, entitled men. If a gay marriage will not result in children, there is no reason why they should be married in the first place instead of having a civil partnership. \"When they are taught from a young age that marriage = love, what will they think when they learn that their parents are not married?\" This point is irrelevant to my argument, because I am also gay people raising children. To conclude, you make a strong case for gay marriage. However, I think there are alternatives that would suit both homosexuals and conservatives. Want inheritance/tax-sharing? Have a civil partnership. The reason I am against it, aside from it being unnecessary, is that marriage is a contract that a man and a woman sign to bond them together in the eyes of society. Married couples signed this contract knowing what it was, yet if government changes it, they are changing what these married couples signed up to. It's like someone donating to a charity that supports dementia, before the charity changes to support stem cell research and continues to use your money. Finally, if the definition of an institution is changed at the whim of the people, then it loses its value. To use another analogy, what credibility would a political party have if what they stand for is constantly changed?", "qid": "19", "docid": "ffc1678c-2019-04-18T15:31:55Z-00002-000", "rank": 84, "score": 176944.0}, {"content": "Title: Gay marriage should be illegal Content: new dabate", "qid": "19", "docid": "61f8dd05-2019-04-18T16:30:12Z-00003-000", "rank": 85, "score": 176924.0}, {"content": "Title: Gay Marriage should be legal. Content: First, I would like to thank my opponent for the opportunity to debate this topic, as well as put forth a definition of gay marriage.Gay marriage (aka same-sex marriage): the practice of marriage between two males or two females [1].That being said, however, I have found that Con has not in any way truly defended her position that gay marriage should not be legal, and, to my perception, actually arguing her points sarcastically, showing that she isn't seriously defending her view--save for a short paragraph stating that homosexual relationships are not found in nature--ergo, are unnatural.Homosexuality is NOT UnnaturalAs I stated before, it is Con's belief that homosexual relationships do not occur in nature. However, it is estimated that 1,500 species of animals, inlcuding lions, dolphins, killer whales, and the dwarf chimpanzee, \"which is one of humanity's closes relatives,\" [2]. So, Con's only serious argument (in my perception) is debunked, as homosexuality does in fact appear in animals which are in nature.Homosexuality is Not A Conscious DecisionWhen looking at homosexulity, it may be easy for someone to believe that a person's desires are a choice. The problem with this theory is that it is simply not true. The American Psychological Association, among many other well known organizations, has officially declared that homosexuality is not in fact a conscious choice or decision [3]. While the APA has said that homosexuality is not a choice, it has pointed out that homosexual acts clearly are not. However, whil some may view this as reason to be against gay marriage, I submit that it is not a valid reason to be against gay marriage. My reasoning behind this is the fact that expecting homosexuals to repress sexual urges (unreasonably, of course) is just as unfair as expecting heterosexuals to unreasonably repress sexual urges on simple logic grounds. It has been determined that neither heterosexuality nor homosexuality are conscious decisions. As well, Con has not given any reason as to why homosexual acts are immoral. Thus, logically speaking, one should not be expected to repress any resulting desires (within reason) whilst the other is not expected to.Marriage is a Basic RightIn Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it is stated that all men and women have the basic human right to be married and raise a family [4]. This document was written by the United Nations as a standard for all member nations (including the United States of America, which I'm assuming is the country being argued about as far as legalization,) to follow. So, according to that, the USA should allow same sex marriage.Homosexual Unions are Being Discriminated AgainstIt is true that, in the United States, currently marriage is legally defined as \"only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife,\" [5]. But this, following the logic I laid out in \"Not a Conscious Decision,\" can be considered unfair and discriminatory. As I stated before, heterosexual marriages are based on love and commitment as well as heterosexual acts to express that love and commitment whilst enjoying a slew of federal rights--over 1,000 [6]. However, a homosexual couple cannot express that same love and commitment whilst enjoying all of those same federal rights. In fact, only 10 of American States only provide legal recognization as high as a civil union--which provides all of the same rights as marriage, but only on a state level; federal rights are excluded. As well, even more states only have unions with some of the given rights, or don't give any rights at all [7]. And again, seeing as how Con has not provided a serious reason as to why homosexual relations are inferior to heterosexual relations, not universally providing homosexual unions with full equal rights is therefore discriminatory, unfair, and immoral.SummaryTo summarize my rebuttal and opening statements, I give you my positions contention, based on premises I have proved in my previous sections.(P1) Homosexuality is not unnatural.(P2) Homosexuality, nor its acts have been proved inferior to heterosexuality or its acts.(P3) Marriage is a basic human right.(P4) Homosexual unions are unfairly not being given full and equal rights as heterosexual unions.(C) Therefore, homosexual marriages with full and equal rights should be legalized and put into effect.References[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...[2] http://www.news-medical.net...[3] http://www.apa.org...[4] http://www.un.org... (Article 16)[5] http://www.law.cornell.edu...[6] http://www.now.org...[7] http://en.wikipedia.org...Thank you, and I await Con's response.", "qid": "19", "docid": "d00d2efe-2019-04-18T18:44:35Z-00003-000", "rank": 86, "score": 176910.0}, {"content": "Title: Gay Marriage should be legal. Content: Let us view this problem through a religious lens\" Why? This is about people falling in love and getting married, people who may or may not follow your religion, people who may or may not even have any detailed knowledge about what the bible says. Why force your religious rules on those that do not follow them? If your entire debate hinges on this then I fear my boredom will return swiftly. \"The goal of sex is primarily for reproduction, so obviously a relationship that IS homosexual is a destructive one.\" People have been using contraceptives for a good long time now and it doesn't seem to have done much harm. \"Secondly, because they are taking away from the available male population, decreasing the amount of heterosexual relationships\" Oh ya, Earth is really sparsely populated, why it must be AT LEAST ten feet between me and my next door neighbor, hot damn. Besides, do you honestly think that not letting gay people get married will stop them from being gay? \"So this means that homosexual relationships hurt not only themselves, but everyone else as well.\" I'm pretty sure the pain goes away after a while if you use lube. \"First of all, divorce is 1.5 times more common in same-sex marriages for men, and 3 for women. This leads to a ever-growing gash in the social community\" You do realise that that statistic doesn't take into consideration the fact that since gay marriage as a concept in the US is so new that each gay marriage rates always spike when they're first legally permitted, these relationships are not as slow-built and time-hardened as heterosexual relationships, they're snap reactions, the buy one get one free of marriages. Neither are they discernible from actual \"yeah ok we tried and it isn't working\" relationships in the statistics but they do not accurately represent the whole of gay marriage relationships. I also notice how you overlooked the obvious, if you do not want these people to get married, then why are you saying it's bad that their divorce rate is as it is? \"This means that when we start to not value the what marriage is, we lose what we have to do before we can get married. We will completely slander the meaning of marriage and soon it will be just another pointless ritual, much like eating of going to the bathroom.\" You let atheists get married, in addition, marriage is a symbolic thing, it's symbolism won't be lost by letting gay couples do it, if anything it's symbolism ought to increase, it will no longer be a case of \"these two over here are better than you\" which is a symbolism that can and has been associated with the church and it's attempts to quash gay marriage (because hey, being known as a bigot group sure is symbolic) marriage is symbolic of love and unity, love and unity that your bible and your prophet preaches near-constantly, if you are unwilling to allow that love and unity to extend to all then what good is the book? What good is the prophet? Do you honestly think that you deserve love and unity more than someone else because their beliefs are different to yours? \"Second, there is good evidence that societal approval of homosexual practice may increase the incidence of homosexuality and bisexuality\" Correction: There is good evidence that societal approval of homosexuality (lets not call it practice, it's not witchcraft for goodness' sake) will make people who are in the closet or in denial about their homosexuality feel better about it and be more likely to express it. \"Children are very susceptible to being permanently swayed by the things around them\" A fantastic example being the church. \"especially homosexuality\" and bigotry therein. \"If homosexual marriage and acts become a norm, than homosexuality will too\" Ya, Ancient Greece was felled by all the kids saying \"mommy mommy, I love Patroclus!\" Besides, if homosexual marriage doesn't produce kids...how on earth are the kids going to know? seriously? You think a gay guy is gonna start waving his wang at a school while screaming \"I put this in Mr Smith who teaches history last night!\" and people are gonna let him do it? \"gay marriage,\" as the ultimate legal sanctioning of homosexual behavior, will bring with it a wave of intolerance toward, and attack on the civil liberties of, those who publicly express disapproval of homosexual practice\" mmm, yes, I can see it now. \"How dare you tell me I can't be intolerant! That's so intolerant of you!\" \"Finally, this one says that homosexuality, since it's already prejudiced against, this prejudice will increase with unaccepted acknowledgement of the fact. People will not accept this idea, and if the government enacts it, then people will hate the practice even more, leading to even violence and murder of anyone gay or suspected of being so. \" Are you kidding? Do you not know how societal acceptance works? The number of bigots would drop. Not rise, drop. You know why? Because people would be born and grow up in a world that says \"those two guys over there? They're in love, and we're cool with that\" as opposed to \"see those two guys over there? scum of the earth, burn them\" Your logic is ancient and twisted and frankly insulting to the intellect thus far. \"This will lead to violence, chaos, hate\" Oh, you mean like this? http://www.mpacuk.org... Or this? http://www.thegaymanifesto.com... Or this? http://www.thegoodatheist.net... Or this? http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com... Or this? http://mmabbasi.wordpress.com... Or this? http://www.politicsdaily.com... Or this? http://freethinker.co.uk... You know I seem to recall a fairly important event in the bible, some guy climbs a mountain and has a chat with someone, then comes down the mountain full of divine inspiration and carrying two stones, and these stones were important. The man was Moses, and upon the two stones were writ the ten commandments, and one of those commandments was THOU SHALT NOT KILL. I'm going to outline precisely why I believe you are, without a shadow of a doubt, nothing more than a puppet of others when it comes to this particular issue. Gay marriage is by no means the worst thing humanity can do to itself, the fact that you failed to accurately provide any sources for your statement that homosexual divorce rates are terrible, nor did you bring to light any country or society actively ruined by gay marriage as you so often claimed, nor did you even think to consider the logic that no gay marriage does not equate to the removal of gay people from our populous. These arguments, literally every argument you used, has been used before, time and again, by the same self-righteous over-controlling morons in the church or in politics. People who were, rather ironically considering your argument, influenced by the church at a young age to believe that gay marriage was somehow a thing that they personally ought to be worried about, That them being damned according to his belief automatically meant that they did not have the right to their own beliefs because god (literally) forbid that anyone's beliefs contradict with the church, even in the pursuit of the love and peace that the church (mostly) preaches. The half-baked, illogical and ultimately hypocritical argument does nothing but list the personal wank fantasy of some total bigot with a fancy hat. Societal collapse because of \"the gays\", under populated countries because of \"the gays\", this because of \"the gays\", that because of \"the gays\", and so on and so on and so on. Why not blame world", "qid": "19", "docid": "d00d2ea1-2019-04-18T19:08:09Z-00007-000", "rank": 87, "score": 176869.0}, {"content": "Title: Gay marriages should be legal, (In America) regardless of cultural background Content: No. Marriage is socially aligned when it joins men and women to produce offspring that will continue the same process over and over again. Same-sex marriage can suppress the role of each individual to spread their kind because they cannot produce offspring's. Same-sex marriage is purely lust and self-indiscipline.", "qid": "19", "docid": "ae59d57-2019-04-18T15:30:27Z-00004-000", "rank": 88, "score": 176794.0}, {"content": "Title: Gay Marriage should be legal. Content: Well, I shall attempt to argue honorably and valiantly. I accept, my good madam.", "qid": "19", "docid": "d00d2efe-2019-04-18T18:44:35Z-00005-000", "rank": 89, "score": 176763.0}, {"content": "Title: Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized. Content: Gay Marriage should be a legal form of marriage for the simple fact that disallowing LGBT groups to marrying is taking a right that should be theirs. I'll let you go first, as I am contending that there are no substantial legal reasons to disallow same-sex marriage, and thus it should be a right for any LGBT couple to marry.", "qid": "19", "docid": "14339ab0-2019-04-18T19:35:57Z-00005-000", "rank": 90, "score": 176683.0}, {"content": "Title: Gay Marriage should be Illegal (3) Content: Premise 1) Freedom is our defaultI agree that freedom as you put it is the default. However, I still believe that no one, including gays, have any enumerated right to marriage and the right to marry is really what you claim gays have. Marriage is a privilege, granted by the state; rights are \u201cendowed by our Creator\u201d of which marriage is not included. Privileges are set in law, inferred from other rights or take the form of \u201cfreedoms\u201d as Con puts it. As a privilege, marriage can be denied based on the needs of the State. Marriage is already heavily regulated. To wit, a license must be obtained, a fee paid, and it must be legal for the participants to marry. Siblings, inanimate objects, animals, etc. are not granted this privilege. I do not claim that all of these other types of couples restricted from marrying are equivalent to homosexual couples. I only bring them up to illustrate that marriage is heavily regulated, and for good reason. The benefits mentioned in my initial argument (among possible others) garnered from this privilege should only be extended to those who would benefit the state by their union. Married partners are granted these benefits because the propagation of society is a compelling interest for the State. This is why laws tend to restrict marriage between couples unlikely to produce viable children. Sterile couples often do not know before marriage that they are infertile. And even if they did it would be cost prohibitive to require such testing of all marrying couples. Otherwise, I would argue even sterile couples should be denied marriage. Premise 2) You need a good reason to make something illegalPerhaps it doesn\u2019t refute the premise but the premise is flawed in that gay marriage isn\u2019t illegal as much as it\u2019s not an allowed circumstance in most states. Let me give an example: Aliens and humans aren\u2019t specifically banned from marriage but they wouldn\u2019t be able to get a license either. Lack of prohibition in law doesn\u2019t make the act illegal it just means that they would not be recognized by the state as a valid union. Conclusion)The State has a compelling reason not to allow non-reproductive couples from marrying. CA: Gay marriage provides benefits to gaysI would argue that marriage should be banned for everyone that has a \u201cmarriage of convenience\u201d based on the benefits derived from the State making it in the State\u2019s interest to do so. In fact, when the INS learns of such marriages they often prosecute the violators. So, yes, even in heterosexual marriages certain restrictions should and do apply. And I still believe that either homo or hetero couples that do this violate the sanctity of marriage.", "qid": "19", "docid": "33c918a7-2019-04-18T18:43:20Z-00004-000", "rank": 91, "score": 176662.0}, {"content": "Title: Gay marriage should be legal. Content: Let's continue analyzing the concept of two man/two women joining together. Now, Con has pointed out quite a few points, such as: 1) Why should we give out benefits to gay couples? Then we'd have to give out rights to any kind of relationship. No. Marital benefits are for marital benefits. The benefits they receive are from marriage. When we allow gay people to marry, two friends aren't suddenly going to demand that they get benefits. Marriage is a legal matter. When two people legally come together, that's when they receive benefits, and it will stay that way if gay people marry. Con's arguments have been based purely on what ifs and fears, such as \"people would start having multiple wives, they'd be having to have benefits for friendships, etc.\" There is no facts proving that this could happen, and what Con is arguing is solely opinion. There is a lack of plausible evidence for anything bad coming out of same-sex marriage, and frankly, I'm exasperated to read a debate devoid of facts or evidence. I will now present my main argument: First of all, people who do not support gay marriage are in the minority. \"When the Defense of Marriage Act was passed in 1996, only 25% of the American public supported same-sex marriage. Since that time, public opinion has gradually moved in the direction of greater support for same-sex marriage. An August 2010 CNN poll was the first national poll to show majority support for same-sex marriage.\" Other polls show that 42% percent of Americans support same-sex marriage, whilst only 28% do not. This shows, just as the Civil Rights Movement in the 1950's, that this subject has gained support and is continuing to grow. \"The main areas of where gay marriage that were opposed to same-sex marriage is correlated with religious attendance, older age, Republican Party affiliation, and residence in the South and Midwest.\" The Republican Party and residence in the South and Midwest are predominately religious, Christian to be specific. So, generally Christians are opposed to gay marriage, with very few who are not. Christians are opposed to gay marriage, so they are trying to pass a law that stops people from getting married to the same gender. There is a rule in the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, which states that there is a separation of church and state. Religious views are not supposed to have a place in politics. So, two gay people getting married does not physically harm anyone, and does not threaten to break any rules against atrocious laws such as marrying animals, polygamy, etc. So the only solid argument an opposer has is: It's a sin. The Bible says so. I'm going to jump into the important point. Christians believe that God gave them the freedom to choose. The freedom to choose to follow Him, or to not. According to them, we were given the freedom to choose whether we wanted to follow Him or not. And some people decide that they do not believe or want to follow God. No one should be forced into following a religious code that they do not believe in, hence freedom of religion. Not everyone is Christian or believes in God. God made it that way so that people could have the freedom to choose. Not everyone believes in the rules of the Bible. So not everyone should be forced to have to follow those rules if they don't believe it. I believe in doing right regardless of what I am told. People, such as Con, should think before doing what they are told regardless of what is right. I, as well as 42% of Americans, need more than just \"the Bible tells me so\" than to believe in a law built on prejudice and close-mindedness that the 28% of other Americans exercise. Thank you. Back to you, Con. Sources: wikipedia, cbsnews.com", "qid": "19", "docid": "ea2e1aa0-2019-04-18T18:49:03Z-00001-000", "rank": 92, "score": 176657.0}, {"content": "Title: Gay marriage should be legalized. Content: People need to recognize the difference in between what they think is \"moral\" and what is legal. One of the main things that distinguishes America from many other countries is our set limitations on such things; for instance, the right to practice different religions and traditions. It does not matter if someone finds another citizens beliefs against their own. I think, even though I'm certainly NOT gay, that it is illogical to take the rights from our fellow people to marry, no mater what the relationship is. I feel it would be WRONG to ignore this fact and not fight with them. Doing such would equalize in my mind to be as wrong as standing by in times of crises; such as, the Holocaust or slavery.", "qid": "19", "docid": "630b4b6a-2019-04-18T18:18:11Z-00008-000", "rank": 93, "score": 176629.0}, {"content": "Title: Gay Marriage Should Be Made Legal Worldwide Content: You see the problem with thinking on the morality or justice of the situation is that it is ones opinion you think it is moral and just yet I think the opposite because it is against my beliefs and unnatural in nature. So what it comes down to is the opinion of that particular country .", "qid": "19", "docid": "de7e68bd-2019-04-18T16:29:42Z-00000-000", "rank": 94, "score": 176513.0}, {"content": "Title: Homosexual marriage should be legal nation-wide in the USA. Content: First, Homosexual couples can not create children. There is no child that has a genetic code from only one sex. Second, children do better with their biblical parents, which should, and is promoted with traditional marriage [1]. Further, marriage is a privilege, not a right, and it does not meet the requirements of the 1964 civil rights act [2]. Also, my opponent's reasoning could be used to defend polygamy, incest, or child marriages. Sources[1] http://goo.gl...;[2] http://goo.gl...", "qid": "19", "docid": "a3897d3e-2019-04-18T16:08:43Z-00002-000", "rank": 95, "score": 176506.0}, {"content": "Title: Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized. Content: Ask almost anyone on the street and they will probably agree with you that homosexual's should have the same rights as heterosexuals. Yet, once you get on the issue of marriage, more than half of the population in America is against it. This right to marriage is the last blockade for equal rights for homosexuals. I'll let my opponent go first.", "qid": "19", "docid": "14339a91-2019-04-18T19:36:40Z-00005-000", "rank": 96, "score": 176460.0}, {"content": "Title: Gay Marriage Should Be Legal Content: I accept the challenge", "qid": "19", "docid": "9bfef27e-2019-04-18T12:41:45Z-00005-000", "rank": 97, "score": 176422.0}, {"content": "Title: Gay Marriage Should Be Legal Wherever Possible Content: Thank you. First off, I'm not saying being gay should be a norm, I'm saying if you're attracted to someone of the same sex and you want to be engaged with them, there shouldn't be a law that says you can't. I don't think under population will become a problem since the whole population is still made up of mostly heterosexual people and we'll (hopefully) still have our reproductive organs, so if times become desperate we could make up a time for 'breeding'. Besides, there is a very minute group of people who are gay or bi, so it shouldn't be a big deal executing laws that stop them from engaging. Having such laws just welcomes more hate. Lastly, homosexuals aren't doing anything harmful, immoral, or wrongful, so I really can't see why we can't banish rules that prevent people from marrying who they want.", "qid": "19", "docid": "acb337d5-2019-04-18T12:00:04Z-00003-000", "rank": 98, "score": 176344.0}, {"content": "Title: Gay marriage should be legal. Content: I've looked through your profile, and noticed that the only way in which I disagree with you is through gay marriage. I am personally very much in favour of this. However, as I saw, you are against it. Therefore, I would like to hear why this is.", "qid": "19", "docid": "5b95324b-2019-04-18T17:02:22Z-00004-000", "rank": 99, "score": 176278.0}, {"content": "Title: Gay Marriage should be legalized. Content: \"However it's not, thus it is representative\"I am not implying that the data is not representative; I am simply saying that the data could be flawed considering certain variables:1) People lie.2) The questionnaire may contain information that the sampled group does not know, as well as biased questions.3) We know nothing about the sampled group. This is very important because certain areas and certain races vary (http://www.frc.org......)\"[...]homosexual parent and experiencing negative outcomes does not automatically prove that having a homosexual parent is what caused the negative outcomes--other factors could be at work.\"Furthermore, gay couples already know the risks involved with adoption. We are not debating if it is moral or not; we are debating if it should be legal:Let's pretend that all the states ban same sex marriage in a week:Those who are already married face problems:1) What happens to them in a week?2) What about their adopted child?Those who want to marry also face problems:1) What do we do?2) Do we cancel any plans that take effect after a week? (eg marriage, honeymoon, adoption, etc)The government faces problems:1) How do we tell who is already married and who isn't?2) How do we enforce the one week limit?Seeing how already 33 states legalized same sex marriage(http://www.freedomtomarry.org......), for the other states to not, would create interstate complications and discrimination. \"[...] it is only discrimination in the same way that an insurance company discriminates if they decide not to issue life insurance to an individual with a terminal illness.\"No it isn't. In the situation I just gave (above), it would be like an insurance company not allowing service to one person while another insurance company allows service. That is the definition of discrimination... (http://dictionary.reference.com...)\"Thus, gay marriage is not ok with the bible. Thus forcing Christian institutions to perform gay marriage ceremonies is ethically wrong as it is against their beliefs. My argument thus holds.\"http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com...https://answers.yahoo.com...You don't need a Church/religious institute to marry you. A justice of the peace is acceptable and binding before God (if you believe in a God). Why should gay marriage not be legalized? It only affects Christians. Not everyone is religious...", "qid": "19", "docid": "4366841b-2019-04-18T15:33:58Z-00004-000", "rank": 100, "score": 176273.0}]}
{"query": "Is drinking milk healthy for humans?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: Milk and other dairy products are in fact healthful and beneficial for humans Content: Milk has been a part of the human diet for centuries. It is the best drink to consume for re hydration besides water. Milk deficiency can lead to osteoporosis. Milk supplies the body with a good source of calcium and vitamin B and D. Milk is good for the skin which is why it is an ingredient in most lotions. In addition, it provides protection for the enamel on teeth and prevents decay.", "qid": "20", "docid": "c2eeacb1-2019-04-18T18:59:19Z-00004-000", "rank": 1, "score": 163939.0}, {"content": "Title: Milk and other dairy products are in fact healthful and beneficial for humans Content: Counter Argument... 1)Cow milk may have active hormones, but so do other things that we eat such as burgers and chicken. It may be disgusting to you but that doesn't automatically correlate to any means of harm to the body. 2)Milk does have magnesium along with vitamins A and B, zinc, riboflavin, carbs, and protein. 3) Milk high content of water molecules actually makes it beneficial for it is a good source of re hydration. Drinking milk is healthier than drinking unnatural juice, soda, and iced tea. 4) Cow milk has feces and bacteria that is destroyed during the pasteurization process. Milk is not supposed to be placed at room temperature to begin with because to much time out of the fridge can cause the milk to be tainted. Milk should always be in the preserved in low temperatures which is why supermarkets always have milk in the cooler. 5) The claim that the cholesterol in mil is equivalent to 53 slices of bacon is far fetched. Eating two strips of pork bacon is unhealthier than consuming three glasses of milk. Milk contains about 20mg of cholesterol. 53 strips of bacon far exceeds that. In fact the Teagasc Dairy Products Research Centre has conducted recent research on the utility of milk in neutralizing the cholesterol content in the body. Sources 1)organicfacts.net", "qid": "20", "docid": "c2eeacb1-2019-04-18T18:59:19Z-00002-000", "rank": 2, "score": 158333.0}, {"content": "Title: Drinking cow's milk is usually detrimental to human health. Content: Dairy milk typically consists of carbohydrates, fat, protein, vitamins, minerals, and enzymes. None of these are particularly harmful to humans. According to milkfacts.info, \"milk is 87.7% water, 4.9% lactose (carbohydrate), 3.4% fat, 3.3% protein, and 0.7% minerals (referred to as ash).\" Yes, milk is 88% water, and there is nothing else in milk that is specifically harmful. The USDA claims that milk is prime source of potassium, calcium, and vitamin D. Each of these is very important for bone health. (webMD.com)", "qid": "20", "docid": "ebf02ef3-2019-04-18T12:49:39Z-00001-000", "rank": 3, "score": 158123.0}, {"content": "Title: Milk and other dairy products are in fact healthful and beneficial for humans Content: Great debate, Pro. Let's begin: \"Drinking milk is healthier. .. \" Well, juice is actually healthy. You can find many dairy products, but there is not much citrus fruit in the world. Therefore, juice is more healthier than a milk. 87% is milk. My round two arguments have not been refuted. Therefore, my argument stands. You did not refute about allergies, sugar, and saturated fat. In response to the cholesterol argument, this was from rense. com. Technically speaking, bacon does not have more cholesterol. I believe that you are confusing it with sodium. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Agree before: Pro Agree after: Pro Conduct: Pro Spelling and Grammar: Con Convincing Arguments: ? ??", "qid": "20", "docid": "c2eeacb1-2019-04-18T18:59:19Z-00000-000", "rank": 4, "score": 149717.0}, {"content": "Title: Is milk really healthy? Pro-yes, Con-no Content: \"One of the main arguments for USDA recommendations is that drinking milk or equivalent dairy products will reduce the risk of fractures. But in fact there\"s very little evidence that milk consumption is associated with reduced fractures,\" Willett tells WebMD. (1) This is the biggest thing I hear about milk, is that if you drink milk you will help strengthen your bones. With their being little evidence that this is actually true I will toss this up to hype. This has always been on TV and in magazines. And think of all those adds with stars and the \"milk mustache\", this is just s ploy to sell something plain and simple. \"But many scientific studies have shown an assortment of detrimental health effects directly linked to milk consumption. And the most surprising link is that not only do we barely absorb the calcium in cow\"s milk (especially if pasteurized), but to make matters worse, it actually increases calcium loss from the bones.\" (2) How ironic is it that the very thing people tell you to drink to increase your calcium intake is actually causing you to lose calcium. This is a precious thing that is needed in our bodies and if drinking milk causes you to lose it, then I would say stop drinking milk. Milk acidifies in the body. Our bones/calcium in our bodies work to get rid of that. So instead of helping our bodies do that it is forced to neutralize the acidity of the milk that we just drank. After looking at some of these facts I would say that there are other ways to get calcium in our bodies than just drinking a glass of milk. (1)http://www.webmd.com... (2)http://saveourbones.com... (3)", "qid": "20", "docid": "349509a7-2019-04-18T15:33:27Z-00005-000", "rank": 5, "score": 137599.0}, {"content": "Title: Milk and other dairy products are in fact healthful and beneficial for humans Content: Good luck, Pro! Counter Arguments 1) Okay. .. what you basically said is true. No counter arguments can do that. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Arguments 1) However, cow milk, what we drink, has 59 active hormones, which is very disgusting to think about. 2) Cow milk is useless because they lack magnesium. 3) 87% of milk is water, which means there are less than 13% of real milk. 4) Cow milk has feces. The feces are a major source of bacteria. The bacteria doubles when you leave it at room temperature for 20 minutes. 5) The cholesterol in three glasses of milk is equal to 53 slices of bacon. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Sources 1) . http://www.rense.com... _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Additional Comments Good luck, Pro! This might be your first win, but I'm still going all-out!", "qid": "20", "docid": "c2eeacb1-2019-04-18T18:59:19Z-00003-000", "rank": 6, "score": 137241.0}, {"content": "Title: Milk and other dairy products are in fact healthful and beneficial for humans Content: This basically summarizes my arguments and counter arguments: \"Dairy foods can be high in fat and, therefore, calories. Low-fat dairy foods, such as skim milk and low-fat cottage cheese, have had most of the fat skimmed off and they can still be good choices for calorie counters. But all the good stuff, like cheese, ice cream, and butter, can be diet-busters. \" \"In higher fat dairy products, most of the fat is saturated fat. Diets high in saturated fats can raise your cholesterol levels and increase your risk of heart disease. \" \"Dairy products contain lactose, a type of milk-sugar that many people have difficulty digesting because they lack the digestive enzyme lactase. If you can't digest lactose, eating dairy products can give you a rumbley tummy or worse. Lactose intolerance affects between ten and twenty percent of the population. You are much more likely to be lactose intolerant if you are of African, Asian, or Native American heritage. Lactose-reduced dairy products or lactase tablets can allow lactose intolerant people to eat dairy with fewer difficulties. \" \"Although cow's milk allergies are fairly rare in adults, many babies and small children are allergic to milk, and experience symptoms including ear infections, skin rashes, and digestive problems. Avoiding dairy products can alleviate symptoms. \" _________________________________________________________________________________________________ . http://nutritiondiva.quickanddirtytips.com... www. formerfatguy. com/articles/dont-drink-milk.", "qid": "20", "docid": "c2eeacb1-2019-04-18T18:59:19Z-00001-000", "rank": 7, "score": 134270.0}, {"content": "Title: Drinking cow's milk is usually detrimental to human health. Content: R2 ArgumentsI. IntroII. Point by pointA. FatB. Saturated fatC. IGF-1D. CholesterolE. CaseinF. LactoseG. Bacteria endotoxinsIII. ConclusionIV. SourcesI. IntroMilk is detrimental to human health for many reasons. Excess fat, saturated fat, IGF-1, cholesterol, casein, lactose, and bacteria endotoxins.II. Point by pointA. FatFat contains 9 calories per gram. Protein and carbohydrates contain 4 calories per gram. [0] Fat due to its high caloric content can lead to over eating and obesity. Obesity is a risk factor for cancer, diabetes, and heart disease. Excess dietary fat can also lead to intramyocellular lipid buildup, which in turn can lead to insulin resistance. B. Saturated fatSaturated fat can increase blood viscosity forcing your heart to work harder and leading to lethargy. Furthermore, saturated fat can break down into the bad cholesterol, LDL, low density lipoprotein. C. IGF-1IGF-1, insulin like growth factor 1 increases risk for cancer by promoting cancer cell growth.D. CholesterolCholesterol is associated with degenerate disease.E. CaseinCasein can cause an immune system response that destroys pancreas cells and leads to type I diabetes.F. LactoseMany people of the world are lactose intolerant. G. Bacteria endotoxinsBoth alive and dead bacteria release endotoxins which can cause an immune system response. III. ConclusionFor many reasons, milk is detrimental to human health. IV. Sources0. http://www.mayoclinic.org...", "qid": "20", "docid": "ebf02ef3-2019-04-18T12:49:39Z-00000-000", "rank": 8, "score": 133291.0}, {"content": "Title: Drinking cow's milk is usually detrimental to human health. Content: Resolution:Drinking cow's milk is usually detrimental to human health. Bop:Burden of proof will be upon the instigator. Structure:R1 Acceptance and definitionsR2 ArgumentsR3 RebuttalsR4 Defend your argument against opponent's round three rebuttalDefintionsCow \"cow 1 (kou)n. 1. The mature female of cattle of the genus Bos.\" [0]Milk\" 1. A whitish liquid containing proteins, fats, lactose, and various vitamins and minerals that is produced by the mammary glands of all mature female mammals after they have given birth and serves as nourishment for their young.\" [1] Thanks in advance for accepting. Sources0. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...", "qid": "20", "docid": "ebf02ef3-2019-04-18T12:49:39Z-00002-000", "rank": 9, "score": 129275.0}, {"content": "Title: Dairy is Bad For Your Health Content: I accept :D", "qid": "20", "docid": "a74d58bd-2019-04-18T15:50:40Z-00002-000", "rank": 10, "score": 126768.0}, {"content": "Title: Is milk really healthy? Pro-yes, Con-no Content: Vitamin D is in the sun. That is a fact. Vitamin D is in Milk. Also a fact. You need Vitamin D. Most people don't get enough Vitamin D from the sun, so you must drink milk to obtain those Nutrients. Vitamin D is also in all bones and their marrow so you tell me why we don't need milk in our bodies which as stated previously, has vitamin D", "qid": "20", "docid": "349509a7-2019-04-18T15:33:27Z-00002-000", "rank": 11, "score": 125133.0}, {"content": "Title: Is milk really healthy? Pro-yes, Con-no Content: Milk contains vitamin D which as everyone knows is essential to bone growth and strength, maybe there isn't much evidence to support the fact that milk makes your bones stronger because we already have more than enough to support it. The fact that your even arguing whether or not milk is healthy for you shows that you shouldn't even be debating this topic. When babies are born all they drink is milk, and that's because it is essential to life", "qid": "20", "docid": "349509a7-2019-04-18T15:33:27Z-00004-000", "rank": 12, "score": 124418.0}, {"content": "Title: Is milk really healthy? Pro-yes, Con-no Content: Milk has been directly related to destressing people. It is really insane to fight over it... if you love milk and it really suits you - i.e you are tolerant to it and you love the taste and there is no allergies related to it as some may have, then go ahead and enjoy this yummy and health giving drink.on the other hand if you hate it don't have it. it is simple as that. and if you think that milk isn't beneficial to you're health you must be on the wrong planet or thinking of some other kind of milk", "qid": "20", "docid": "349509a7-2019-04-18T15:33:27Z-00000-000", "rank": 13, "score": 123934.0}, {"content": "Title: Is Chocolate Milk Better than White Milk Content: Stating that chocolate milk tastes better is purely opinion. People do indeed drink chocolate milk more than \"that other milk\" you describe it as, but this does not make it healthy to humans. To be complete with this debate, I'll be covering all aspects of chocolate milk, including: Its elemental buildup, its usage today, and how it influences the human body. After graphing the general overview of chocolate milk, I will then compare it to the overview of \"that other milk\". Sound good? Good. The most common way chocolate milk is made, is by taking regular whole milk (or \"that other milk\" by your preference) and blending that whole milk with a powder (typically cocoa) and sweeteners such as sugars. Both \"that other milk\" and chocolate milk come from the same cows, contrary to some people's beliefs, but the key difference between the two is that chocolate milk is richer in sugars and carbohydrates than whole milk is. Yes, we are taught that carbohydrates are used as the basic unit of energy storage, but there are different types of carbohydrates, the most unhealthy being sugar. A small amount of consumption of these sugars won't have a significant amount of harm to your body, but large amounts can lead to obesity and diabetes in its consumers, and eventually heart diseases and cancers. (Source: http://www.self.com...) While most people from the Pro stance of this topic do think that flavored milk is tastier, it is not healthier, similar to most things we eat. We can continue to drink chocolate milk, but this will only damage us as time passes. It is much safer to drink the regular whole milk, with a little less flavor, but removing those excess sugars that grow to harm us in the future, than to drink chocolate milk, which has been shown to have those influences on the human body.", "qid": "20", "docid": "f0e341f2-2019-04-18T12:13:47Z-00000-000", "rank": 14, "score": 123560.0}, {"content": "Title: Milk is good for your bones Content: Here is why milk is bad for your bones : Point 1 : Milk depletes the calcium from your bones The milk myth has spread around the world based on the flawed belief that this protein and calcium-rich drink is essential to support good overall health and bone health in particular at any age. It is easy to understand that the confusion about milk's imaginary benefits stems from the fact that it contains calcium, around 300 mg per cup. But many scientific studies have shown an assortment of detrimental health effects directly linked to milk consumption. And the most surprising link is that not only do we barely absorb the calcium in cow's milk (especially if pasteurized), but to make matters worse, it actually increases calcium loss from the bones. Here's how it happens. Like all animal protein, milk acidifies the body pH which in turn triggers a biological correction. You see, calcium is an excellent acid neutralizer and the biggest storage of calcium in the body is - you guessed it. .. in the bones. So the very same calcium that our bones need to stay strong is utilized to neutralize the acidifying effect of milk. Once calcium is pulled out of the bones, it leaves the body via the urine, so that the surprising net result after this is an actual calcium deficit. [1] 2 : Milk increases fracture risks Many scientific studies contradict the conventional wisdom that milk and dairy consumption help reduce osteoporotic fractures. Surprisingly, studies demonstrating that milk and dairy products actually fail to protect bones from fractures outnumber studies that prove otherwise. Even drinking milk from a young age does not protect against future fracture risk but actually increases it. And the 12 year long Harvard Nurses' Health Study found that those who consumed the most calcium from dairy foods broke more bones than those who rarely drank milk. This is a broad study based on 77,761 women aged 34 through 59 years of age. [1] Conclusion Milk is bad for your bones because of those reasons. I have more sources that can strengthen my argument. [2][3][4][5] 1. . http://saveourbones.com... 2. . http://www.news-medical.net... 3. . http://www.care2.com... 4. . http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com... 5. . http://www.sott.net...", "qid": "20", "docid": "ece5e0e4-2019-04-18T18:03:47Z-00005-000", "rank": 15, "score": 123168.0}, {"content": "Title: Dairy is Bad For Your Health Content: I will be arguing that consuming dairy products is bad for your health. Con will be arguing that either dairy is entirely good for your health or that its benefits outweigh its health risk.", "qid": "20", "docid": "a74d58bd-2019-04-18T15:50:40Z-00003-000", "rank": 16, "score": 120053.0}, {"content": "Title: Is milk really healthy? Pro-yes, Con-no Content: As con had only argued one point my original arguments still stand. Milk is not really healthy for you.", "qid": "20", "docid": "349509a7-2019-04-18T15:33:27Z-00001-000", "rank": 17, "score": 120045.0}, {"content": "Title: Vegan can be Christians and any scripture against so is hypocritical Content: Milk is not 100% factually intended for human consumption is it? because milk is intended for feeding calfs to survive in the years before able to create memories or move about. Human do produce enough milk for the same thing. If it was solely intended or human consumption then i would accept the made by God for the us to be the best we can. But it is not. The milk is perfect to keep a mother child into the taste and riches of nutrition but it is of no interest of making human design any better", "qid": "20", "docid": "53a2843c-2019-04-18T17:59:58Z-00007-000", "rank": 18, "score": 118412.0}, {"content": "Title: Is milk really healthy? Pro-yes, Con-no Content: Milk is extremely healthy for people because it contains vitamin D", "qid": "20", "docid": "349509a7-2019-04-18T15:33:27Z-00006-000", "rank": 19, "score": 117536.0}, {"content": "Title: Milk is good for your bones Content: Definitions : Milk : The milk of cows, goats, or other animals, used as food by humans.[1] Bones : The dense, semirigid, porous, calcified connective tissue forming the major portion of the skeleton of most vertebrates.[2] Rules : 1. No semantics 2. No trolling 3. No spamming 4. No profanities The first round is for acceptance only. The debate will start in the second round. If you think that milk is actually good for your bones, feel free to join. 1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 2. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...", "qid": "20", "docid": "ece5e0e4-2019-04-18T18:03:47Z-00007-000", "rank": 20, "score": 117319.0}, {"content": "Title: Is milk really healthy? Pro-yes, Con-no Content: Yes when you are a baby you drink milk all the time, but it is milk that is packed full of other things that are not already in it. They can't just drink straight milk when they are born because it would do more harm than good at that point. Babies need certain things until they get older so they can develop how they should. There is not a lot of evidence to support that vitamin D helps bones because it has not been completely scientifically proven.", "qid": "20", "docid": "349509a7-2019-04-18T15:33:27Z-00003-000", "rank": 21, "score": 117093.0}, {"content": "Title: Milk is good for your bones Content: That's very kind of you.", "qid": "20", "docid": "ece5e0e4-2019-04-18T18:03:47Z-00001-000", "rank": 22, "score": 116098.0}, {"content": "Title: Beer, in moderation, is healthier for you than milk. Content: The resolution for this debate is \"Beer, in moderation, is healthier for you than milk\". Thus, my opponent's burden is to prove that Beer, in moderation, is healthier for me than milk is. I personally, am highly allergic to alcohol and cannot break it down. It gives me gastro-intestinal upset and at one point, hideous diarrhea. However, I am perfectly fine with milk, and do not have lactose intolerance. Beer is, by definition, \"an alcoholic beverage made by brewing and fermentation from cereals, usually malted barley, and flavored with hops and the like for a slightly bitter taste. \" . http://dictionary.reference.com... The presence of alcohol in anything I consume will have great negative impact on my health and thus, I must assert that Beer, in any amount, is less healthy for me than milk. I look forward to my opponent's response. Thank you.", "qid": "20", "docid": "84da562b-2019-04-18T19:20:50Z-00006-000", "rank": 23, "score": 115984.0}, {"content": "Title: Milk is bad to the bone. Content: Milk is good for you.", "qid": "20", "docid": "ce21fce9-2019-04-18T12:52:34Z-00001-000", "rank": 24, "score": 115325.0}, {"content": "Title: Chocolate milk is healthy. Content: Chocolate milk is healthy because it contains the same 9 nutrients as white milk. Chocolate milk drinkers are not heavier than non-milk drinkers. You can find an explanation video to support this at youtube.com and type in Midwest Diary Chocolate Milk nurse. This topic is well known and many people say that yes, chocolate milk is healthy... under 2 conditions. If the chocolate milk is LOW FAT and that you do not drink chocolate milk too much. Thank you and please comment on this topic! If you have any suggestions please reply to this comment. If you may know me, please also reply too.", "qid": "20", "docid": "f63b76cb-2019-04-18T16:55:02Z-00003-000", "rank": 25, "score": 114672.0}, {"content": "Title: Beer, in moderation, is healthier for you than milk. Content: It seems my opponent has not read my arguement. In R1 I clearly laid out my full resolution: \"For the average, healthy person, beer, in moderation, is healthier for you than milk. Of course it there are exceptions. Pregnant women should obviously not drink any alcohol, nor should diabetics or people taking prescription medicine. People also driving or working machinery shouldn't drink as well. \" I would have liked to fit this resolution into the field given when starting a debate, but space was limited, so I resorted to fully explaining my resolution in R1. In my resolution I stated that beer was beneficial to an \"average, healthy person. \" Average is defined as \"typical; common; ordinary\" (. http://dictionary.reference.com...). Since the ordinary person is not allergic to beer, Kleptin, then you are not the \"average person\" that I was referring to. Also the word \"you\" can be defined as \"one; anyone; people in general\" (. http://dictionary.reference.com...). Earlier I specified \"you\" to be the average person, the general public, which would exclude my opponent. I assume that my opponent accepts the definition of milk to be: \"liquid as secreted by cows, goats, or certain other animals and used by humans for food or as a source of butter, cheeses, yogurt, etc\" because in R1 he says \"I am perfectly fine with milk, and do not have lactose intolerance. \" Cow and goat's milk have lactose in them, which leads me to believe he agrees with this term. Dairy milk also contains casein, which breaks down into beta-Casomorphine-7, an opiate. Other examples of opiates are morphine, codeine and fentanyl. Opioid is defined as a \"drug, hormone, or other chemical substance having sedative or narcotic effects similar to those containing opium or its derivatives\" (. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...). Some reactions that people have to opiates are: nausea and vomiting, drowsiness, itching, dry mouth, and constipation (Oxford Textbook of Palliative Medicine, 3rd ed. ). There has also been studies showing that casein can aggravate, if not cause autism. It has also been linked to cancer, schizophrenia, heart disease and diabetes. Since casein is a drug, it is addictive (especially cheese, because of the high concentration of it) and can even affect a person's personality, causing depression and overeating (. http://danmahony.com...). Beer however, has a positive effect on blood vessels, decreasing the risk of clotting or rupturing. People who drink beer in moderation also have less of a risk of dementia and can even increase cognitive functions (. http://www.forbes.com...). It can also increase metabolism, lower calories and reduce stress (. http://www.menshealth.com...). Kleptin, sorry to hear about your unfortunate condition, but in my resolution, you are classified as an exception. I said in R1 that, for the average person, beer is healthier than milk and you have yet to prove otherwise.", "qid": "20", "docid": "84da562b-2019-04-18T19:20:50Z-00005-000", "rank": 26, "score": 114291.0}, {"content": "Title: Beer, in moderation, is healthier for you than milk. Content: I thank whoever accepts this debate. *Note: I would like to say that I am not encouraging excessive use of alcohol. It is important to recognize that beer can also have a significant impact on your health if abused. I will clarify that \"moderation\" is one or two drinks a day, and half that for women (because of their ability to break down alcohol), not consumed one directly after the other (. http://www.allaboutbeer.com...). Resolution: For the average, healthy person, beer, in moderation, is healthier for you than milk. Of course it there are exceptions. Pregnant women should obviously not drink any alcohol, nor should diabetics or people taking prescription medicine. People also driving or working machinery shouldn't drink as well. I will start by attempting to reproduce a nutritional table showing beer and milk: United States Department of Agriculture Nutritional Data for Milk and Beer ------------------------| MILK (I cup, 2% milk)----- | BEER (1 cup) ----------- Fat (g) ----------------|------------ 5---------------- | --------- 0 ---------------- Fiber (g) --------------| ----------- 0 ---------------- | --------- .5 -------------- Sodium (mg) -------- | ---------- 122 -------------- | ---------- 12 ------------ Cholesterol (mg) ---- | ---------- 20 --------------- | ----------- 0 ------------- Calories -------------- | ---------- 122 -------------- | ---------- 97 ------------ Calories from fat (%)-| ---------- 37 --------------- | ----------- 0 ------------- I don't think this posted properly so here's the link as well. (. http://www.milksucks.com...) Beer has no fat or cholesterol but does contain less calories and ten times less sodium than milk. Milk is found to actually cause osteoporosis because dairy products have high levels protein. When protein levels in the body are doubled, but no other nutrient levels are changed, the levels of calcium in the urine increase by about fifty percent (Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 1993). Milk is also loaded with pesticides and antibiotics, because cows are producing ten times the amount of milk they would normally produce, their udders get swollen and drag on the ground. Pus and blood have been foound in milk as a result. Antibiotics are used to treat the inflammation and trace amounts have been found in milk, pesticides are also found in the dairy product. These chemicals can build up and negatively effect the immune system, reproductive system and central nervous system. These pesticides have been linked to cancer as well (. http://www.pcrm.org...). In the book Eat, Drink, and Be Healthy: The Harvard Medical School's Guide to Healthy Eating, consuming alcohol in moderate levels \"protects against heart disease and ischemic strokes, and mounting evidence [shows] that it protects against diabetes and gallstones\" (Eat, Drink, and Be Healthy: The Harvard Medical School's Guide to Healthy Eating, 2001). Alcohol reduces the risk of strokes and heart attacks and increases brain function as well. (. http://www.allaboutbeer.com...) Also, if you have time, read this : . http://www.guardian.co.uk... OK, that's all for now.", "qid": "20", "docid": "84da562b-2019-04-18T19:20:50Z-00007-000", "rank": 27, "score": 114247.0}, {"content": "Title: Milk is good for your bones Content: Well that's that... Thanks for the 'debate'.", "qid": "20", "docid": "ece5e0e4-2019-04-18T18:03:47Z-00000-000", "rank": 28, "score": 114025.0}, {"content": "Title: Beer, in moderation, is healthier for you than milk. Content: A very good round by my opponent. I will begin by addressing some issues I left unresolved since I wanted to do more research. So first, a few counterarguments for my opponent's points so far: A. Milk does not cause Osteoporosis. My opponent's source is an article talking about the safety and benefits of animal hormones. It says absolutely nothing about high protein levels. Even if so, my opponent is severely misinformed and drawing the wrong conclusions. What my opponent is confusing himself about is that during kidney failure, high protein levels in the blood change the charge of the ion flow in the nephrons of the kidney and calcium is excreted into water that leaves as urine. the body contains a massive number of proteins in the blood in the form of albumin and red blood cells. The protein in milk is digested and broken down into amino acids and never gets into the blood in the first place. B. Milk is not \"loaded\" with pesticides or antibiotics. According to the following links, The FDA has done numerous studies, all of which show that the trace amounts (if any) of hormones, pesticides, or possible antibiotics in milk are safe for human consumption even taking into account the fact that people drink it daily. There are also many regulatory procedures that ensure the safety of milk. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.ces.ncsu.edu... http://www.organic-center.org... http://www.nationaldairycouncil.org... C. I also find my opponent's assumption of dragging udders to be a stretch (no pun intended) as most cows are milked on a frequent basis by machine and thus, would not get a chance to have swollen udders. D. Antibiotics are not used to treat inflammation, but are used to treat infection (which is never prophylatic in cows so my opponent is probably wrong in assuming that they are injected with it constantly). E. My opponent is also wrong in citing his own source. There is no mention about pesticides causing cancer, rather, the insulin-like growth factor present in cow milk. However, in the links above, it is shown that pasteurization destroys the already minuscule amount present and the rest is destroyed in the stomach as IGF-1 is a protein. Furthermore, the citations that my opponent cites are heavily biased. The original journal articles involved experiments with existing IGF levels in humans, where the word \"milk\" appears a total of 0 times. F. My opponent connects many dots using bad logic. While it is true that Casein breaks down into casomorphines, that is just an intermediate step in the stomach. Casein forms a micelle in the stomach that clots and gets slowly dissolved. The casomorphines are just potential chains that Casein might get broken down into, and even then, the stomach eventually reduces that protein down to base amino acids where it has no effect in the bloodstream. Proteins get broken down in the stomach but the majority of protein digestion takes place in the intestine after the pancreas releases the proteases that ensure complete reduction to amino acids. http://www.wisegeek.com... Furthermore, this link above states that the presence of casomorphines and their action as opiate-like molecules only takes place in autistics, who may have an inability to break down the casomorphines. http://en.wikipedia.org... This article states that outstanding experiments and trials with positive results are biased and unreliable. G. Cutting milk can reduce obesity, but my opponent is comparing 1 glass of beer to 1 glass of milk. You can fix obesity, but you can't fix progressive liver damage. In addition, there are plenty of non-fat varieties of milk but nonalcoholic beers may be a little harder to knock back. Acne is more likely due to excess oil and fat. Non fat milk is a viable option for those who are focused on cosmetics. However, the experiment that I found, the one that allegedly \"sparked\" the controversy, only showed results in polling people who consumed 3 or more servings a day, and we are arguing a 1:1 comparison, making this point moot. http://www.healthcastle.com... H. As for arthritis, my opponent's claim is due to reading too quickly. The source he provided claimed that most arthritis is due to allergen response and most food allergies are caused by milk. THis is misleading as most arthritis is caused by an allergic response to self, when the body's own white blood cells attack joints, causing joint pain. This is why Glucosamine and Chondroitin help with arthritis: they contain the same material in the joints that the white blood cells attack, leaving the actual body parts unharmed. I. My opponent's source regarding mucus is also biased and premature, connecting the wrong dots. Fact, milk is the most common food allergen. Fact, allergies can manifest into mucus production and cough. Lactose intolerance is categorized as a milk allergy and accounts for it being the most common food allergen. However, we know that the symptoms for lactose intolerance are not related to these, so by elimination, we can estimate that a far lower percentage of milk allergies is due to things other than lactose intolerance. J. In discussing prescription drugs, the number of drug abusers worldwide is irrelevant to this debate. Also, as a Pharmacy student, I can say that my opponent's assertion (\"Taking three prescription medication at once is abuse\") is also misleading and faulty. My opponent's sources lead to a term specifically for excessive medication use. However, we are speaking about legitimate prescriptions that are required for maintaining health. It is not uncommon for a person to be on a cholesterol medication, a blood pressure medication, and another medication (such as an asthma medication, an antihistamine, a sleeping aid, pain medication, antibiotic) at the same time. To simply categorize it as abuse and unhealthy is simply manipulation of data and language. Regardless, it it is a fact that prescription medication use is as high as it is. Whether or not it is healthy is outside the scope of the debate. What is important is the fact that my opponent's description of an \"average\" person is either unrealistic or harmful to his case, as moderate drinking of alcoholic beverages would interfere with drug metabolism and the imaginary health detriments that my opponent is conjuring can and will become a reality. K. Ranitidine actually raises blood alcohol levels because it inhibits the enzyme responsible for the 3 step metabolism of alcohol. The \"asian flush\" does disappear, but only because the alcohol isn't being digested at all in the beginning and because the antihistamine effects of the two drugs decrease the flushing. However, when the drug effects wear off, alcohol is metabolized at the same mid-way speed, allowing for an increase in the toxic acetaldehyde intermediate. This puts excessive strain on the liver because not only is the liver busy metabolizing the drugs, but it gets the added load of the unmetabolized alcohol to follow suit. Famotidine, though slightly safer, also harms the liver over long periods of use. L. My opponent brings up the topic of lactose intolerance. Just as there are many, many different kinds of beer, there are also many varieties of milk, and a good number of them are lactose-free. I don't see how lactose intolerance is an issue in this debate because although non-alcoholic beer is hard to find and probably not healthy, fat-free or lactose-free milk is readily available and usually fortified with vitamins. Soy milk is also very healthy. There are many varieties of milk free of the chemicals my opponent mentioned. I will allow my opponent to address these first and conclude at the end.", "qid": "20", "docid": "84da562b-2019-04-18T19:20:50Z-00002-000", "rank": 29, "score": 112152.0}, {"content": "Title: Should we drink milk Content: Maybe they help digest stuff so they can make milk", "qid": "20", "docid": "3f566289-2019-04-18T13:21:59Z-00004-000", "rank": 30, "score": 111871.0}, {"content": "Title: Chocolate milk should be served in school!!! Content: When you think of chocolate milk, what is the first thing that comes to your mind? The soft, creamy taste? The happy kids having fun while drinking it? Well, you would be suprised to know that, chocolate milk is in fact, healthy for kids too. First of all, chocolate milk has all 9 essential ingriedients. It has calcium, which makes the kids grow taller, and also the sweet taste, unlike white milk which some kids can call \"yucky\" or \"too plain\". I know what you are thinking, that it causes obesity and stuff, but then, kids are kids. They run around the playground at lunchtime, so there is not a big chance that they will turn suddenly obtuse just because they drink chocolate milk. Now, you night think that there are too much sugar, but the truth is, The little bit of sugar is what keeps them going during the day and keeps them energetic and healthy. There are more reasons, but for now, this is it. I hope you vote for me!", "qid": "20", "docid": "40eccde7-2019-04-18T15:21:23Z-00001-000", "rank": 31, "score": 111165.0}, {"content": "Title: Chocolate milk is bad for your health Content: This chocolate milk has a lot of bad things for health. This is a very big problem to occur in your life, of you going to be not healty. Well drink Chocolate milk please.www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQ4wGDl56Zg", "qid": "20", "docid": "7c2a3a74-2019-04-18T14:50:45Z-00002-000", "rank": 32, "score": 109891.0}, {"content": "Title: Should you be consuming caffeine Content: I would argue that it is not best for humans to be consuming anything that is not naturally occurring in nature. To be more specific, I believe in the Paleo ideaology which believes that if humans weren't consuming certain things 15 thousand years ago, They shouldn't be consuming it today as our bodies have not yet effectively addapted to using these foods, Drugs, Or chemicals for energy. Just think of all of those people who can't consume milk because there bodies reject or cannot tolerate it. Humans should not be consuming painkillers as painkillers are very hard on our bodies and inhibit our bodies natural ability to sense pain in response to an outside stimuli. Any drug that affects your brain chemicals should not be taken unless absolutely necessary. Thousands of people die every year as a result of accidents with prescription pain killers and prescribed medication. Bringing attention back to caffeine, Caffeine I'll admit for most people is ok as in they will not be debilitated by it at least in the present. But that does not mean that caffeine is safe on our bodies long term health. The effects of caffeine on our bodies in the long term is unknown and therefore should be avoided.", "qid": "20", "docid": "3707b42f-2019-04-18T11:21:08Z-00002-000", "rank": 33, "score": 109886.0}, {"content": "Title: Chocolate Milk: The Harmful Stuff Content: I couldn't really be bothered reading that, so all I'm going to say is this: I firmly believe in the right to drink chocolate milk. It is delicious, and I am shocked that anyone would want to rid us of one of God's greatest inventions. Thank you, and good night.", "qid": "20", "docid": "edc8122b-2019-04-18T15:03:09Z-00000-000", "rank": 34, "score": 109293.0}, {"content": "Title: Chocolate milk is healthy. Content: Instigator has yet again forfeited. I will conclude that he could not think of a valid argument.", "qid": "20", "docid": "f63b76cb-2019-04-18T16:55:02Z-00000-000", "rank": 35, "score": 109129.0}, {"content": "Title: Chocolate milk is healthy. Content: Instigator has forfeited this round. I will hold my argument in case he wishes to continue.", "qid": "20", "docid": "f63b76cb-2019-04-18T16:55:02Z-00001-000", "rank": 36, "score": 109036.0}, {"content": "Title: Plant-Based Diets are just as good if not better than Animal-Based Diets/diets with animal products Content: Why? After much research, it becomes surprisingly simple (however, there is always so much to learn). I'm not citing sources because I don't feel like looking all of them up -- however, I do feel confident that my opinions have been fairly well-researched. I'd be happy to look up anything and find the source that someone else can't find when they look it up, though. 1) Dairy is completely unnecessary for anyone living in a developed country. Cow's milk, which is made for baby calves much the same way human women produce breast milk ONLY for their own species, is known as a healthy drink. But is this really necessary for a country (I'm from the USA) that has access to virtually unlimited sources of protein and calcium? Milk is the food that is raved about for its protein and calcium -- I'm not impressed. I have concluded that the only humans truly in need of this source of protein & calcium are those poor third-world countries that have very little hope of meeting their daily needs in these categories. Everyone else who has easy access to markets and grocery stores and doesn't realize there are so many other sources of protein and calcium is simply making an uninformed statement. 2) Although meat is the only food source of Vitamin B12 that we know of, B12 is added to many foods that don't include animal products, and from the research I've read, there appears to be no huge difference between how the body absorbs this added B12 (if anyone has research to the contrary, please inform me). So far as I can tell, B12 is THE ONLY nutrient in meat that can't easily be found naturally in other foods. 3) Factory farms help produce and kill 56 billion animals per year for human consumption. Factory farms are very often places operating with highly unethical practices. From gestation crates (pigs that can't turn around in their crates for their 2.5 years of existence), to artificially inseminated cows (they're repeatedly impregnated unnaturally so they will lactate and we can thus take their milk), to bigger animals via hormones and antibiotics (all of which are likely in the meat/dairy when you eat them) who produce far more meat and milk than they're naturally supposed to and live far less as long as they naturally would because we abuse and then kill them for our consumption, to chickens who get a max of 5 minutes of fresh air, to baby calves being taken away from their milk-producing mothers at birth and then killed for veal, to...you know what, there's a lot more. Go find out. 4) Western society eats too much meat. Straight-up. It's very obvious when you begin to look at chronic disease charts and when you look at the correlation between meat/dairy and disease. It's clear that small amounts of lean meat and dairy CAN be very healthful...but the reality is, most people with modern diets eat too much of these products to the point that it is unhealthy. If, for the most part, meat and dairy are unnecessary, then it just doesn't make sense why we eat so much of it. 5) Excess animal protein actually INCREASES risk of osteoporosis. Definitely not what they taught me in school or in that stupid food pyramid thing. But yes, this is true. It's likely that even the recommended levels of protein (around 70 grams, I believe) are too high, and the number I've seen for typical dairy American consumption is an average of over 100 grams of protein per day. Most of it is animal protein. That is INSANE. So, complete plant proteins and other incomplete plant proteins which can be combined, are actually healthier than animal proteins in the long-term when considering this fact. 6) Plant-based diets are more likely to be healthier overall. This is a statement made with a bit of speculation, but I want to point out that vegetarians/vegans aren't estimated to live a few years longer than omnivores because they don't eat meat, but more likely because they're overall more aware of what they're eating. Trust me, that is really the main goal for overall nutrition and health. Awareness! Where is your meat/dairy coming from and how was it produced? Do you know? That is my problem with an animal-based diet, in addition to it not really being even necessary to consume animal products. 7) Plants, in general, have fewer calories and 400X the micro-nutrients than meat/dairy do. Micronutrients are far more helpful to the body than excess/unnecessary/small amounts of vitamins, protein, and calcium. Many vegetables, fruits, grains, and pseudograins are very high in not only protein and calcium, but also Vitamins A, B, C, D, K, and also iron, magnesium, and much more. Going back to the first statement of this point, the reason why this matters is...well, look around. Obesity is now a disease in the US. Weight, diabetes, heart disease, and other chronic problems related to lifestyle choices can be relieved by taking a look at our diets. If plants have fewer calories and WAY more nutrients than meat and dairy, it will DEFINITELY benefit overweight and unhealthy people to cut it out! Literally! 8) Nutrient deficiencies are just as likely to happen in omnivores as vegetarians/vegans, except for B12. Iron is more likely to be a problem based on your sex instead of whether or not you eat animals. Females have much more trouble maintaining iron levels than males. Vitamin D deficiency is commonly found in omnivores and vegetarians alike. We are all supposed to be eating \"well-planned diets,\" not just vegans. Silly. 9) Most people who switch out vegetables/other plants for meat, even if they don't completely cut it all out of their diet, eventually report feeling much better. It's like a load lifted off the body. For some popular/pretty credible examples, check out Mike Tyson, Bill Clinton, Ellen DeGeneres (ok, she's just a talk-show host, not a high-performance athlete or politician, but she had some great things to say about changes in her diet), Brendan Brazier (former Ironman triathlete), Tony Gonzalez (NFL), and oh so many more. 10) Eating meat/dairy contributes to world hunger. About 1/3 of the world's grains and crops produced are fed to livestock bred solely for human consumption -- this food could and should actually be going to HUMANS. It is well known that 1 pound of beef costs an ungodly amount of resources to produce compared to 1 pound of grain (the grain would go straight to humans instead of the animals, which are then fed to humans). It is well known by informed people that we have all the food and resources to feed all the hungry and starving people in the world. But we're not, and simply, we could if first-world citizens would just cut back on their meat/dairy intake. It's that simple, guys. If we would be less selfish and gluttonous, we could feed every single hungry person on this earth. It is pretty mind-blowing. Then everyone else would have a shot at getting the bare minimum of their protein and calcium needs, too.", "qid": "20", "docid": "829468d-2019-04-18T17:21:53Z-00005-000", "rank": 37, "score": 108496.0}, {"content": "Title: Should we drink milk Content: It depletes the calcium from your bones to digest it.", "qid": "20", "docid": "3f566289-2019-04-18T13:21:59Z-00003-000", "rank": 38, "score": 107768.0}, {"content": "Title: Beer, in moderation, is healthier for you than milk. Content: Thanks Kleptin, good luck in the final round. \"My opponent's source is an article talking about the safety and benefits of animal hormones\" My source was the Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 1993. It does not have a link because it's not on the Internet. The research was done by Dr. Robert P. Heaney. I did find the excerpt that I was referring to on the Internet however: (http://www.ecopolitan.com...) (scroll about halfway down). In the text he says: \"The net effect is such that, if protein intake is doubled without changing intake of other nutrients, urinary calcium content increases by about 50 percent.\" The other article that I cited was referring to my claim there was pesticides and and antibiotics in milk. I will take a paragraph directly out of the source that I used in round one: \"Milk contains contaminants that range from pesticides to drugs. Milk naturally contains hormones and growth factors produced within a cow's body. In addition, synthetic hormones such as recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) are commonly used in dairy cows to increase the production of milk.27 Because treated cows are producing quantities of milk nature never intended, the end result can be mastitis, or inflammation of the mammary glands. Treatment of this condition requires the use of antibiotics, and antibiotic traces have occasionally been found in samples of milk and other dairy products. Pesticides, poly chlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and dioxins are other examples of contaminants found in milk. These toxins do not readily leave the body and can eventually build to harmful levels that may affect the immune and reproductive systems. The central nervous system can also be affected. Moreover, PCBs and dioxins have also been linked to cancer.\" (http://www.pcrm.org...) In regards to my opponent's sources, one source says: \"The newly approved tests detect only four, or at most, five beta lactams. What about the several other families of antibiotics currently available for use?\" (http://www.ces.ncsu.edu...). Another source, when looking at the \"Human Health\" section, is one big \"citation needed\" after another(http://en.wikipedia.org...). His third source says: All 739 milk samples tested contained residues, and in fact the average sample had 2.88 residues \u2013 a HUGE jump from the testing just eight years earlier.\" and it also says \"The good news is that the levels of DDE, DPA, and other pesticides found in milk in 2004 were very low. Most fell below one part per billion (ppb). The highest residue levels found were, at most, one-quarter of the applicable EPA tolerance (the maximum allowable limit of a pesticide in a given food).\" (http://www.organic-center.org...). These pesticides build up in the body. The samples that contained high amounts of pesticides could easily build up to harmful levels. \"I also find my opponent's assumption of dragging udders to be a stretch (no pun intended) as most cows are milked on a frequent basis by machine and thus, would not get a chance to have swollen udders.\" Not EVERY cow has swollen udders, but there are cows that do, here's a picture. (http://www.milksucks.co.uk...) \"Antibiotics are not used to treat inflammation, but are used to treat infection (which is never prophylactic in cows so my opponent is probably wrong in assuming that they are injected with it constantly.\" I probably did mix up the words antibiotics and anti-inflammatory, but when cow's udders drag on the ground (see above picture), they are sure to be cut. Those cuts may also come into contact with the manure left on the ground in the cow's living space, and can infect the udders. \"The original journal articles involved experiments with existing IGF levels in humans, where the word \"milk\" appears a total of 0 times.\" Again, you must have missed a part in my article. In my source (http://www.pcrm.org...), it says: \"Prostate and breast cancers have been linked to consumption of dairy products, presumably related to increases in a compound called insulin-like growth factor (IGF-I). IGF-I is found in cow's milk and has been shown to occur in increased levels in the blood of individuals consuming dairy products on a regular basis. Other nutrients that increase IGF-I are also found in cow's milk.\" In the section labeled \"Cancer,\" the word \"milk\" shows up five times. \"This article states that outstanding experiments and trials with positive results are biased and unreliable\" The Wikipedia article? I didn't see that in the article anywhere. \"You can fix obesity, but you can't fix progressive liver damage.\" Moderate Drinking does not cause liver damage. (http://www.liverfoundation.org...) \"In discussing prescription drugs, the number of drug abusers worldwide is irrelevant to this debate.\" It is relevant, because although those numbers are high in the US, other countries may not take nearly as many drugs. Since we are dealing with a worldwide scale here, those figures may not be nearly as high. Ranitidine is also known as Zantac, and famotidine is know as Pepcid, both are over the counter prescriptions. These can be taken with alcohol, how many other prescriptions can be taken with alcohol as well? \"Just as there are many, many different kinds of beer, there are also many varieties of milk, and a good number of them are lactose-free.\" That is true, but in R1 you defined beer to be \"an alcoholic beverage made by brewing and fermentation from cereals, usually malted barley, and flavored with hops and the like for a slightly bitter taste.\" and in R2 I defined milk as \"liquid as secreted by cows, goats, or certain other animals and used by humans for food or as a source of butter, cheeses, yogurt, etc.\" You did not alter my definition of milk and I accepted your definition of beer. Your definition of beer says it is an alcoholic beverage and my definition of milk says it is a liquid secreted by animals like cows and goats. Cow's and goat's milk has lactose in it. So to bring up non-alcoholic beers and lactose-free milks is irrelevant. Even if we were to argue non-alcoholic beers and lactose-free milks, who says non-alcoholic beers aren't healthy? And they are not hard to find, I can walk down to my local grocery store and a buy a 24-pack if I wanted to. Granted, lactose-free and fat-free milks probably remove some of the health problems that arise from milk, it isn't just the fat or lactose in the milk that is the problem. It is the casein and the chemicals too. Also, my sources are not biased, they are merely compilations of evidence that have found milk to be detrimental to one's health. If I wanted to read a book on communism, it isn't biased because it doesn't mention fascist ideas as well. I was researching how milk is unhealthy for a person, and that is what I found. So, in conclusion: Beer has no fat, ten times less sodium, no cholesterol and less calories then milk. Beer can protect against diabetes, strokes, heart disease, dementia and lower stress. Milk has small amounts pesticides and antibiotics that can build up in the body that can effect the immune system, central nervous system and reproductive system. These pesticides have been linked to cancer too. Milk has casein, which breaks down into casomorphine, which can aggravate autism. My opponent has misread my sources, claiming they are saying something completely different that what they are actually saying. He has gone so far as to twist my resolution and say my restriction was on people who drive, which is not what I said. Cow's milk is made for baby cows, not humans of all ages. We do not need milk to maintain a healthy diet beyond the age of 12 months old. Thanks to Kleptin for the great debate.", "qid": "20", "docid": "84da562b-2019-04-18T19:20:50Z-00001-000", "rank": 39, "score": 107139.0}, {"content": "Title: Milk is good for your bones Content: Yeah, I'll just post these so that you don't need to wait for me to 'time out'. Thanks again. Not exactly positive first experience but all experiences just benefit me in the long run.", "qid": "20", "docid": "ece5e0e4-2019-04-18T18:03:47Z-00002-000", "rank": 40, "score": 106417.0}, {"content": "Title: Chocolate milk is bad for your health Content: Well chocolate milk has more sugars than cola, which is very surprising for, me. It says that this much sugar can be very bad for your health and could cause very bad health problems, inside your body. So I am guessing that this chocolate milk should be banned in school and also this chocolate milk has a very bad thing that it also makes you go fat and does not have that much nutrition such as vitamin C has only 4%. Does this tell you that chocolate milk is bad for your body? This milk also does say that it would be better to be buying or drinking this good old normal milk. They say that milk that is normal has a vitamin D and other good things for your body, which is I am thinking that this drink of the chocolate milk is just bad. I am also thinking that this choco milk also you will think, what this does not make sense. But I have a good backup for that. you can read that this chocolate milk can be a unhealthy drink that will only cover your body up with sugar. It can also be covering your body up with many calories. So please be kind and say yes and vote for me.", "qid": "20", "docid": "7c2a3a74-2019-04-18T14:50:45Z-00005-000", "rank": 41, "score": 106317.0}, {"content": "Title: Milk is bad to the bone. Content: R2 Rebuttals\"Milk is good for you.\" nathanw2002I thank my opponent for accepting this debate. I think I've adequately defeated this bare assertion made by my opponent already in round one. This is a bare assertion by nathanw2002 because the statement \"milk is good for you\" is true only because my opponent says so.12. http://fallacies.findthedata.com...", "qid": "20", "docid": "ce21fce9-2019-04-18T12:52:34Z-00000-000", "rank": 42, "score": 106232.0}, {"content": "Title: Milk is good for your bones Content: Okay, well this shall be my first debate on this site, so I hope that I do halfway decent considering. I suppose that I'm not supposed to state much on the topic and my position yet since you said we'll start in round two... So I suppose I'll just say good luck, or something of the sort...", "qid": "20", "docid": "ece5e0e4-2019-04-18T18:03:47Z-00006-000", "rank": 43, "score": 105670.0}, {"content": "Title: Should we drink milk Content: yes it might but it replenishes the depleted calcium when it gets digested", "qid": "20", "docid": "3f566289-2019-04-18T13:21:59Z-00002-000", "rank": 44, "score": 105465.0}, {"content": "Title: Milk is good for your bones Content: You shouldn't be sorry, I'm thankful that you can take part in this debate. Since this means Pro FF this debate, I think the winner is clear.", "qid": "20", "docid": "ece5e0e4-2019-04-18T18:03:47Z-00003-000", "rank": 45, "score": 104922.0}, {"content": "Title: Milk is bad to the bone. Content: StructureR1 ArgumentsR2 RebuttalsR3 Defend your R1 argument against opponent's R2 rebuttal Bad to the bone = immoral. Full resolution: Drinking cow's milk is usually immoral. Exceptions, people with rare medical conditions, and extraordinary circumstances. For example, stranded on a desert island and/or about to go into a diabetic coma. Burden of proof will be on me to prove that drinking cow's milk is usually immoral. OutlineI. IntroII. Animal ethicsIII. HealthIV. EnvironmentV. ConclusionVI. SourcesI. IntroWe shouldn't drink bovine milk because it encourages the slavery, exploitation, and mistreatment of cows. Not only that, but slavery, exploitation, and mistreatment of one animal paves the way for this same treatment towards other animals. Cows milk is unhealthy nor environmentally sustainable. II. Animal ethics\"A factory farm is a large, industrial operation that raises large numbers of animals for food. Over 99% of farm animals in the U.S. are raised in factory farms, which focus on profit and efficiency at the expense of animal welfare.\" [0]Animals on so called \"humane\" farms don't fare much better. [1][2] \"Even under the best circumstances, the incentive to treat animals \u201chumanely\u201d is limited to the extent to which it is necessary to raise them to market weight (which is just a fraction of their natural lifespan). Any humane practice beyond this would be seen as inefficient and unsustainable by today\u2019s business standards.\" [3]Between the inherit conflict of interest between animal welfare and profit. and the brutal realities there is no moral justification for humans drinking bovine milk.III. HealthMilk causes osteoporosis and increases chances of hip fractures. Contains, IGF-1, cholesterol, casein, lactose, high in fat, high in saturated fat, and high in dead bacteria endotoxins. \"These results support the hypothesis that dairy products and calcium are associated with a greater risk of prostate cancer. \" [4]\" Studies have shown that IGFs are potent mitogens for a variety of cancer cells including prostate cancer since they stimulate cancer cell growth and suppress programmed cell death. \" [5]\"Naturally occurring milk IGF-1 levels were recorded in 5777 random milk samples from the Bavarian dairy cow population.\" [6]As you can see from above, milk increases cancer risk. IGF-1 is found in cow's milk and is associated with increased cancer risk. \"These findings suggest that even small intakes of foods of animal origin are associated with significant increases in plasma cholesterol concentrations, which are associated, in turn, with significant increases in chronic degenerative disease mortality rates.\" [7]Casein is a protein that can cause an immune system response which can lead to type I diabetes. \u201cTotal protein consumption did not correlate with diabetes incidence (r = +0.402), but consumption of the beta-casein A1 variant did (r = +0.726). Even more pronounced was the relation between beta-casein (A1+B) consumption and diabetes (r = +0.982). These latter two cow caseins yield a bioactive peptide beta-casomorphin-7 after in vitro digestion with intestinal enzymes whereas the common A2 variant or the corresponding human or goat caseins do not. beta-casomorphin-7 has opioid properties including immunosuppression, which could account for the specificity of the relation between the consumption of some but not all beta-casein variants and diabetes incidence. \u201c [8] \u201c\" Women who drank three glasses of milk or more every day had a nearly doubled risk of death and cardiovascular disease, and a 44 percent increased risk of cancer compared to women who drank less than one glass per day, the researchers found. Men's overall risk of death increased about 10 percent when they drank three or more glasses of milk daily, said the study, published online Oct. 28 in BMJ.\"\u201d [9] \u201cThe risk of any bone fracture increased 16 percent in women who drank three or more glasses daily, and the risk of a broken hip increased 60 percent, the findings indicated. \u201c [10] Fat is not only the densest of the three macro nutrients at 9 calories per gram as opposed to 4 for carbohydrates and proteins. This can lead to obesity and intramyocellular lipid build up.Saturated fat increases blood viscosity which makes the heart work harder. Lactose is a sugar that many people are intolerant towards. IV. EnvironmentInherently due to trophic levels milk must be worse for the environment. From the American Journal of Clinical nutrition we can see that lupine, a vegan alternative, is better for the environment than cow's milk. [11]V. ConclusionIn conclusion, there is only one ethical choice, and that is to stop drinking bovine milk. Thanks for the debate.VI. Sources0. http://www.aspca.org... 1. http://humanefacts.org... 2. http://humanemyth.org... 3. http://freefromharm.org... 4. http://ajcn.nutrition.org... 5. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 6. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 7. http://ajcn.nutrition.org... 8. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.... 9. http://www.webmd.com... 10. http://www.webmd.com...11. http://ajcn.nutrition.org...", "qid": "20", "docid": "ce21fce9-2019-04-18T12:52:34Z-00002-000", "rank": 46, "score": 104391.0}, {"content": "Title: Chocolate be banned in elementary and middle schools Content: Many children refuse to eat or drink healthy things because of the way they taste, adding sugar is just fine with me if it gets kids to drink milk. I believe that chocolate milk is not as unhealthy as my opponent makes it sound. If anyone has too much of it, it may become unhealthy, but that's with anything. If all they have is the little 1 cup then it will be perfectly fine for their health. In conclusion, schools should not remove chocolate milk. Thank you for debating with me.", "qid": "20", "docid": "61b1ed2-2019-04-18T12:19:50Z-00000-000", "rank": 47, "score": 103663.0}, {"content": "Title: Dairy Farming is Inconsistent with Modern Western Ethical Norms Content: The claim that it causes harm is correct, when we give these specific scenarios (which is misleadingly vivid), however, the fact of the matter is, in modern western ethics, the wants of many outweigh the needs of the few, or the strong's ethics takes precedence. My argument is as follows: The strong have dominion over the weak. Humans are stronger than animals. Therefore, humans have dominion over animals. Second frame -- Humans have dominion over animals. Stewardship(a) is optional. Therefore, humans do not require to be stewards of animals OR Some humans believe they have stewardship rather than dominion over animals. Therefore, the reverse is also true. Third frame -- Humans have dominion over animals. Some Humans do not require to be stewards over animals. Western culture is capitalistic. Therefore, the need for cheap foodstuffs take precedence over the ethical desire for animal safety. Fourth Frame -- Some humans believe they have stewardship over animals. These humans will prefer to eat ethically acceptable foodstuffs. We live in a Capitalistic environment. Therefore, there will be a market for ethically acceptable foodstuffs. Fifth and Penultimate Frame -- We live in a Capitalistic moral structure. We live (loosely) to Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs. Therefore, there will be some who cannot fulfil the physiological need of food. Sixth and Final Frame -- Some western people cannot fulfil the physiological need for food. The \"some\" is a large minority (e. g. more than a thousand). They believe that acceptable morals do not take precedence over survival. Therefore, people eat cheap, if inethical, food. Therefore, there is a market for inethical food. Therefore, inethical food is constistent with Western morals. So, my argument simplified is as follows:Westerners live in a capitalist society (P1) Westerners live in either North American or Western European culture (just to make sure we have a geographic location down, so we're not bringing up, say, North Korea). (P2)Westerners live (loosely) to Maslow's Heirarchy of needs (P3)Some westerners believe we do not believe we have a stewardship of animals (P4)It is cheaper to not have stewardship over animals (P4.1)Those who do not believe in stewardship where they are neutral will decide on issues other than ethical acceptability of the animal treatment (P4.2)When we live in a Capitalist society, and some people do not believe we have stewardship over animals, there is a market for those who do not believe we have a stewardship of animals (L1)It is cheaper to be inethical, as there are less costs (L2). Therefore, some Westerners will choose inethical behaviour in favour of cheaper product (C). Therefore, the ethics of westerners are poor or non-existent(C2)Therefore, the consistency of inethical behaviour means it is consistent with Western Norms. We live in either a capitalist society, or a progressive society, where private businesses or corporations have control over their own prices to some extent, and contrast to state owned businesses. [1]. This is inarguably true. The second premise is for clarification only. Give an alternative if you so wish. We live, at least loosely, to Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs[2]. This means that there is a loose structure to how our motivation or choice is made. It is not strict, but loosely true. It means that in a choice between starving to death and commiting adultery, the majority of people will commit adultery. In this scenario, it means that people will choose inethical food over indomitable cost, being pushed into poverty, or just preferring the taste. The statement that some westerners do not believe they have stewardship is self-proving. If I do not believe I have to look after animals, then I do not believe in stewardship. The statement that it is cheaper(b) is also true in the following citations giving proof of:. http://groceries.asda.com...http://www.mysupermarket.co.uk...http://www.mysupermarket.co.uk...The sources show it is cheaper to get inorganic milk. People will choose the lower cost over the more expensive milk. Inorganic milk will always also be more expensive; if you want why, petition the information, and I will explain when I have more words. The logic in this argument is solid, from my perspective. The argument that it is inconsistent with already existing ethics implies there is a contradiction. We draw our Western ethics from Law and government on the whole. Most people act within the Law because it is the Law, not for other issues. The fact that the laws are inethical means that \"The ethics of dairy farming is consistently poor\". This means that modern western ethical norms are disagreeing with your opinion. You must justify how you know perfectly what the modern western ethical norms are before saying they disagree with them. Your claim shows that it is inethical by your standard. I'm sure a starving man would disagree. I hope to go into more depth of the psychology of the Law, and threaten the position of what moral standards are, in regards to whether they are consistent with the poor behaviour will justify my position. Thank you. a. Stewardship, meaning we have an active moral duty to look after animals. I am not fulfilling the requirements of stewardship when I don't beat up animals whenever I see them (although I kill flies in my room for just being there. .. :P). Stewardship is active, and passive actions are not fulfilling stewardship. This is a shorthand, and may not be the exact definition, but it is a quick way of saying what i want to say, and I have explained the meaning employed. b. economically cheaper. Saves money. Saves opportunity costs. etc.1. . http://dictionary.reference.com...;2. . http://tabacco.blog-city.com...;", "qid": "20", "docid": "b7da9f44-2019-04-18T18:41:59Z-00004-000", "rank": 48, "score": 103661.0}, {"content": "Title: Chocolate milk is bad for your health Content: The instigator was unable to contradict my rebuttals.", "qid": "20", "docid": "7c2a3a74-2019-04-18T14:50:45Z-00003-000", "rank": 49, "score": 103152.0}, {"content": "Title: Chocolate Milk: The Harmful Stuff Content: Is chocolate milk okay to drink? I strongly believe that schools should not allow chocolate milk because a 7.5 ounce can of Coke has 25 grams of sugar while chocolate milk can have up to 20% more, a 8 ounce glass of chocolate milk can have from 15-31 grams of sugar, and yes, chocolate milk may have calcium but all the added sugar doesn\"t let your body absorb it. One reason that chocolate milk should not be allowed in schools is because a 7.5 ounce can of Coke has 25 grams of sugar while chocolate milk has 20% more. For example if you take 25 and add 20%. You would have about 30 grams of sugar in one 7.5 ounce glass of chocolate milk. Also, when you drink chocolate milk all of the sugar that you get from it is really bad for your body. In addition, chocolate milk is drank a lot. So, if you drink a lot of chocolate milk then you are getting a lot of sugars, therefore wrecking your health. Another reason that chocolate milk should not be allowed at school is because most children don\"t get chocolate milk except in school. \"Many children only get to have chocolate milk at school\"but they get to drink a lot of it there. Some children consume as many as 10 or even 15 cartons of chocolate milk in a week at school.\" Says Jonathan Smith, writer of Chocolate Milk: More Harmful Than Healthful. This is not a good thing! Because of this, kids might get... FAT! The final reason that schools should not allow chocolate milk is because yes, chocolate milk has calcium and other nutrients but all of the added sugar doesn\"t let your organs absorb it. There is just so much sugar that all the good things in it will not be absorbed because of the sugar. Even if you drink fat free, you still get all the sugar and not enough nutrients. I strongly believe that schools should not allow chocolate milk because a 7.5 ounce can of Coke has 25 grams of sugar while chocolate milk can have up to 20% more, a 8 ounce glass of chocolate milk can have from 15-31 grams of sugar, and yes, chocolate milk may have calcium but all the added sugar doesn\"t let your body absorb it. So please don\"t let kids have chocolate milk at Mapleview.", "qid": "20", "docid": "edc8122b-2019-04-18T15:03:09Z-00005-000", "rank": 50, "score": 102953.0}, {"content": "Title: Should we drink milk Content: off the subject of not helping you bones it has lots of vitamins and minerals that help you start a great day", "qid": "20", "docid": "3f566289-2019-04-18T13:21:59Z-00000-000", "rank": 51, "score": 102805.0}, {"content": "Title: Chocolate Milk: The Harmful Stuff Content: mmmmmm chocolate..... I don't drink CHOCOLATE milk for the calcium, I drink it for the CHOCOLATE and as you know, CHOCOLATE tastes good..................................", "qid": "20", "docid": "edc8122b-2019-04-18T15:03:09Z-00002-000", "rank": 52, "score": 102453.0}, {"content": "Title: Dairy is Bad For Your Health Content: Since my opponent forfeited, I'll try to give two possible arguments for the health benefits of dairy and rebut them. Dairy is High in Calcium \". . .animal protein, including that from dairy products, may leach more calcium from the bones than is ingested, said Campbell, professor of nutritional biochemistry at Cornell and director of the Cornell-China-Oxford Project, the most comprehensive project on diet and disease ever conducted. 'This phenomenon could explain why Americans, who ingest much higher levels of calcium, have much higher rates of osteoporosis and hip fractures compared with many Chinese and other Asians who consume few dairy products and ingest low amounts of calcium,' Campbell said. Hip fractures in the United States, for example, are approximately five times more frequent than in China. . .increased levels of animal-based proteins, including protein from dairy products, 'almost certainly contribute to a significant loss of bone calcium while vegetable-based diets clearly protect against bone loss,' Campbell reported. This view is consistent with evidence comparing bone fracture rates among different countries, which shows that countries having the highest calcium intakes also have the highest fracture rates. It is also consistent with other studies on nutritionally rich 'Western' diets and 'Western' diseases showing that low-calcium, vegetarian diets are associated with increased bone density; that casein, milk's principal protein, is a well-established contributor to high blood cholesterol in the Western world; and that casein significantly enhances the development of tumor growth in experimental animals\" (http://www.news.cornell.edu...). Not only is the calcium component of dairy undermined by its casein component, which causes a loss of calcium from the bones, especially over long term consumption, but the risk factors associated with dairy, such as high blood cholesterol, far outweigh the benefits (https://www.drmcdougall.com...). There are plenty of safe, healthy sources of calcium in the plant kingdom: broccoli, kale, spinach, bok choy, soybeans, okra, watercress, and the list goes on. Dairy is High in Vitamin D Since I have already pointed out a few risk factors with dairy consumption, it should be obvious that one vitamin component does not outweigh the health risks associated with dairy. Almond and soy milk tend to be fortified with both calcium and vitamin D; they're a great alternative to dairy. Certain mushrooms such as portabella and maitake have more than five times as much vitamin D than a cup of cow's milk. Juices and cereals also tend to be fortified with vitamin D. It should be pointed out that vitamin D is produced naturally in the skin when exposed to sunlight and is a much more efficient source as 15-30 minutes of exposure to the arms and legs can give you more than six times as much vitamin D than an 8oz glass of milk (http://www.sunshinevitamin.org...). You would have to drink six glasses of milk, or 48 ounces, to get the daily recommended amount of vitamin D as proper sun exposure would give you (approx. 600IU)! And consider that 4,000IU is considered a safe upper-limit for adults (http://ods.od.nih.gov...). Milk is definitely not a healthy source of calcium and vitamin D. Here is a letter by Dr. Robert M. Kradjian warning people about the health risks associated with dairy that the prospective reader may be interested in (http://www.notmilk.com...).", "qid": "20", "docid": "a74d58bd-2019-04-18T15:50:40Z-00000-000", "rank": 53, "score": 102407.0}, {"content": "Title: humans should endeavour to become a vegan species Content: thank you for embarking on this discussion with me. human beings have flourished on earth in vast terrains and we still do with differing food type availability. the amazon diet is very different to the eskimo diet and yet all the varying human communities omni/carnivores and herbivores have all flourished healthily whilst maintaining fundamentally differnt diets. the sophisticated library of terms that modern science uses to explain our nutritional needs are just elements of raw data that is only relevant to the persons in which the effects were observed. nutrition as a system is totally interwoven into our other bodily systems and so it is actually very incomplete to deduce that children who dont drink milk will have weaker bones or a calcium shortage. the reality of the situation as is the case with most matters is the influence of financial profit. scientists ultimately only manipulate data to make it appear favourable to the goals of the organisations that fund their 'science' if a scientist was to point out that cows milk has been shown to be incompatible with the human stomache, the dairy industry would ensure that 100 other scientists rebutt or 'reinterpret' the undesirable science. large parts of indian civilisations up until the present have remained vegan for 1000s of years without any scientifically noticeable calcium deficient conditions incidentally these same people have also been reported to not spending their whole lives grazing on their vegetable curries to keep their nutritional standards in line with their omnivore brethren indeed plant life is also living. and its possible that plants feel just as much pain by our disturbing their natural life cycle. however, realistically lets start by protecting the cows and hens whose pain we can clearly perceive......then we can go searching for carrots' tears and emotions. ----------------------- apologies for any incoherent parts...........or any missing formalities..............im new to this but keen to improviing ------------------", "qid": "20", "docid": "3be655b-2019-04-18T15:25:31Z-00002-000", "rank": 54, "score": 102388.0}, {"content": "Title: Should we drink milk Content: Drinking milk can cause osteoporosis.", "qid": "20", "docid": "3f566289-2019-04-18T13:21:59Z-00009-000", "rank": 55, "score": 102026.0}, {"content": "Title: Dairy is Bad For Your Health Content: I look forward to a good response! I will list the problems with dairy below in no particular order. Lactose Intolerance Dairy is comprised primarily of fats, carbohydrates, proteins, and water. One of these primary carbohydrates is lactose. As infants, mammals can process the lactose using an enzyme secreted from their intestinal villi called lactase. This breaks the lactose down into two simple sugars: glucose and galactose. Most people in the world (approx. 65%) have a drastically reduced ability to digest lactose after infancy, and increasingly so as the get older, resulting in the condition known as lactose intolerance. Mammals normally have a decrease in the gene expression which results in lactase production after infancy, as this enzyme is no longer required to digest mother's milk . http://www.google.com...). Some people groups, such as those of European decent, have inherited a change in a regulatory element which regulates this gene expression, allowing for sustained production of lactase in their small intestine (. http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov...). For much of the world, lactose will cause gastrointestinal problems (. http://www.medbio.info...). For this reason alone, dairy is bad for the health of at least 65% of the world. Cardiovascular DiseaseSaturated fat is well known to be correlated with cardiovascular diseases (. http://www.plosmedicine.org...). Dairy products are typically rife with saturated fat which raise the level of LDL (bad) cholesterol in your blood resulting in an increased risk for cardiovascular disease (. http://www.heart.org...).CancerDairy consumption is strongly correlated with prostate cancer. While several mechanisms are possible, the correlation remains clear (. http://www.pcrm.org...). \"Consumption of dairy products has also been linked to higher risk for various cancers, especially to cancers of the reproductive system. Most significantly, dairy product consumption has been linked to increased risk for prostate and breast cancers. The danger of dairy product consumption as it relates to prostate and breast cancers is most likely related to increases in insulin-like growth factor (IGF-1), which is found in cow\u2019s milk. Consumption of milk and dairy products on a regular basis has been shown to increase circulating levels of IGF-1. Perhaps the most convincing association between IGF-1 levels and cancer risk is seen in studies of prostate cancer. Case-control studies in diverse populations have shown a strong and consistent association between serum IGF-1 concentrations and prostate cancer risk. One study showed that men with the highest levels of IGF-1 had more than four times the risk of prostate cancer, compared with those who had the lowest levels. In the Physicians Health Study, tracking 21,660 participants for 28 years, researchers found an increased risk of prostate cancer for those who consumed \u22652.5 servings of dairy products per day as compared with those who consumed \u22640.5 servings a day. This study, which is supported by other findings,also shows that prostate cancer risk was elevated with increased consumption of low-fat milk, suggesting that too much dairy calcium, and not just the fat associated with dairy products, could be a potential threat to prostate health. In addition to increased levels of IGF-1, estrogen metabolites are considered risk factors for cancers of the reproductive system, including cancers of the breasts, ovaries, and prostate. These metabolites can affect cellular proliferation such that cells grow rapidly and aberrantly, which can lead to cancer growth. Consumption of milk and dairy products contributes to the majority (60-70 percent) of estrogen intake in the human diet. In a large study including 1,893 women from the Life After Cancer Epidemiology Study who had been diagnosed with early-stage invasive breast cancer, higher amounts of high-fat dairy product consumption were associated with higher mortality rates. As little as 0.5 servings a day increased risk significantly. This is probably due to the fact that estrogenic hormones reside primarily in fat, making the concern most pronounced for consumption of high-fat dairy products. The consumption of dairy products may also contribute to development of ovarian cancer. The relation between dairy products and ovarian cancer may be caused by the breakdown of the milk sugar lactose into galactose, a sugar which may be toxic to ovarian cells. In a study conducted in Sweden, consumption of lactose and dairy products was positively linked to ovarian cancer. A similar study, the Iowa Women\u2019s Health Study, found that women who consumed more than one glass of milk per day had a 73 percent greater chance of developing ovarian cancer than women who drank less than one glass per day\" (. http://www.pcrm.org...).While this surely is not an exhaustive list of potential healthhazards faced by those who consume dairy, what I have included so far should be adequate for this debate's discussion.", "qid": "20", "docid": "a74d58bd-2019-04-18T15:50:40Z-00001-000", "rank": 56, "score": 101501.0}, {"content": "Title: Chocolate Milk: The Harmful Stuff Content: What does the research say about sugar and flavored milk? Sugar is a contributor to the health problems that are harming our kids. Sugary drinks are often called \u201cliquid candy\u201d, and are an easy way for kids to consume large amounts of added sugar. Several studies have shown that drinking sugar-sweetened beverages is linked to obesity and risk for chronic disease;8 it seems to be the one part of kids\u2019 diets most linked to increased weight.9 Flavored milk is a sugary drink, along with soda, sports drinks and many juice drinks, but the majority of these studies did not include it, and there has been very little research to directly investigate the effects of flavored milk on children\u2019s health. The few studies that have been conducted were sponsored by the dairy industry. How much sugar is too much? Recommendations for sugar consumption vary depending on age, gender, and level of physical activity. Health experts recommend that sugar should come from our daily \u201cbudget\u201d of discretionary, or spare calories. For example, girls between 9 and 13 who get less than 30 minutes a day of moderate to vigorous physical activity, only have 130 calories to spare.10 The American Heart Association recommends that no more than half of your discretionary calories come from added sugar,11 so in this case, just 65 calories. One serving of flavored milk provides 64 calories of added sugar, which would equal a whole day\u2019s allowance. What about using cane sugar or non-caloric natural or artificial sweeteners? Replacing high fructose corn syrup with another sugar, such as cane sugar, does not reduce the added sugar content. Cane sugar is similar in composition to high fructose corn syrup (it\u2019s 50% fructose), and neither is beneficial for children\u2019s health when consumed in high quantities. Some processors are considering adding non-caloric sweeteners to milk, but adding any kind of sweetener teaches kids that foods need to be sweeter or flavored in order to be enjoyable, rather than encouraging them to appreciate the taste of whole, natural foods, such as plain milk. Furthermore, not enough research has been conducted to assure the safety of giving children alternative sweeteners on a regular, prolonged basis. If we take away flavored milk, will kids get less calcium and other essential nutrients? Isn\u2019t it worth giving them the extra sugar to make sure they get these? A Dairy Council sponsored study reported that children who drink flavored milk consume more servings of milk daily.12 However, in the majority of age groups, the flavored milk drinkers did not have a significantly higher intake of calcium, or other nutrients such as phosphorus, magnesium, or potassium than kids who just drank plain milk. Other dairy products are a good source of nutrition and kids can get calcium from leafy greens, soy, nuts, and beans. Exercise also contributes to good bone health. MORE AND MORE SCHOOLS ARE MAKING THE MOVE TOWARDS PLAIN MILK Pioneering school districts \u2013 New Haven, CT; Boulder Valley, Colorado; Washington, DC; Ventura, California \u2013 have replaced flavored milk with white. They say that although selection drops initially, once the kids get used to it, the selection goes back up again. Many more districts are following suit \u2013 more than 50 in all, led by places like Los Angeles and Minneapolis this year. WILL SCHOOLS LOSE MONEY IF THEY SWITCH OUT FLAVORED FOR WHITE? Schools can still receive their full federal reimbursement for school lunch by offering just plain milk. Generally flavored milk costs more than white milk for the schools to purchase, though suppliers may vary. So school meal budgets should not be impacted by the switch. STILL HAVE QUESTIONS? HERE ARE SOME ADDITIONAL FAQS: Why is the Food Revolution focusing on flavored milk? Jamie\u2019s position on flavored milk is that it has no place in schools, and right from the start of the Food Revolution, he has advocated going back to plain, white milk. Milk is a great source of nutrients for kids, but the flavored varieties have more calories, are highly processed and contain unnecessary sugars and additives which don\u2019t add any nutritional value. How can we encourage kids to choose white milk? Chef Ann Cooper, better known as the \u201cRenegade Lunch Lady\u201d, serves only white milk in the Boulder, CO schools. She says that it is important to serve the milk cold, and preferably in a glass as opposed to a carton.7 Kate Adamick, who has led the same change in districts in central California, says that educating the cafeteria staff and teachers around the sugar math helps them to explain the reasons to the kids. In Washington, DC, Jeff Mills started fresh in the fall and got very little push back. Switching at the start of a new semester is always going to be less controversial than half way through. Flavored milk can still be served on special occasions only, so the kids come to view it as a treat. Milk is a great source of nutrients for kids, but the flavored varieties have more calories, are a processed food product, and contain unnecessary sugars and additives, which don\u2019t add any nutritional value. The food industry has convinced many schools and parents that they need to serve flavored milk to ensure kids get essential vitamins and minerals, and is backing chocolate and flavored milk with a multi-million dollar marketing campaign, led by \u201cRaise Your Hand for Chocolate Milk.\u201d4 Science and common sense don\u2019t back that position up. Other dairy products are a good source of nutrition and kids can get calcium from leafy greens, soy, nuts, and beans. All that\u2019s needed is to invest those marketing dollars behind good old, white milk. We know that with the right backing from the school community to promote plain milk, kids are happy to drink it. An 8 oz carton of flavored milk typically has about 4 teaspoons (64 calories) of added sugar. 1 Industry claims that beginning this school year chocolate milk will average 2.5 teaspoons (40 calories) of added sugar.2 Milk always has 12 grams (about 3 tsp) of its natural sugar, lactose.* If a child drinks flavored milk at breakfast and lunch they are getting 5-8 teaspoons of added sugar, 80-128 extra calories, every day. An 8oz serving size of Coca-Cola has just under 7 teaspoons of sugar. Over a 180-day school year, that adds up to almost 8 pounds of unnecessary sugar (and at least 14,400 calories!). Imagine if they drank it all 365 days\u2026 *Calculate your added sugar at www.jamiesfoodrevolution.com/MilkAction *Formulations and sugar content varies by school district. Read your labels! KIDS ARE DRINKING A LOT OF FLAVORED MILK AT SCHOOL About 70% of the milk consumed in schools is flavored.4 Low-fat chocolate milk is the most popular choice.5 80% of flavored milk sold in America is to schools. It\u2019s the place kids get flavored milk. \u201cFlavored milk is not the nutritional equivalent of unflavored milk. It is significantly higher in calories, sugar, and sodium, and usually contains artificial colors and flavors.\u201d \u2013 Marlene Schwartz, PhD, Deputy Director for the Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesityat Yale University", "qid": "20", "docid": "edc8122b-2019-04-18T15:03:09Z-00001-000", "rank": 57, "score": 101428.0}, {"content": "Title: is chocolate milk good for you Content: hello everyone here is my opinion... i think chocolate milk is good for you because it's healthy for your body and teeth", "qid": "20", "docid": "8ab0c1d5-2019-04-18T11:47:23Z-00000-000", "rank": 58, "score": 101340.0}, {"content": "Title: Beer, in moderation, is healthier for you than milk. Content: Again, thanks to Kleptin for responding. \"My opponent's restriction on people who drive\" One of my restrictions was on people who are *driving*, not on people who drive. I was basically saying don't drink and drive, because that may seriously injure, if not kill a person. This would be incredibly detrimental to one's health. \"Another exception that my opponent lists are diabetics.\" This is one of my exceptions. Although you say that diabetes affects 8% of Americans (it is actually 7.8%), it only affects 2.8% of the World's population (http://en.wikipedia.org...). This number is a lot smaller than what you said and although it is large, it is not significant enough to be considered average. \"And finally, a whopping 44% of Americans are taking at least one prescription medication, and 17% are taking at least three at once.\" About 3-4% of the World's population is abusing drugs 9http://www.prescription-drug-abuse.org...). Taking three prescription medication at once is abuse, and there is a chance it can kill you (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Also, anywhere from 50 to 75% of prescription medications taken in America are prescribed and used irresponsibly (http://books.google.com...). Abusing prescription drugs is like using recreational drugs, which can harm someone more than help them. \"...heavily restricting massive amounts of people who for all intents and purposes make up the statistically average US citizen?\" US has 306 million people out of the 6.77 billion in the world. In the year 2000, the US had just under 5% of the World's population (http://en.wikipedia.org...)(http://nationalatlas.gov...). Although these statistics may be correct, they are US, not Worldwide, statistics. \"Asian Curse\" You say that about 50% of the the Asian population has the \"Asian Curse\", but you do not take into account how many people with this condition still drink beer despite the fact. You are implying that everybody who has this condition cannot have a drop of alcohol. In fact, some people who suffer from this condition take ranitidine or famotidine an hour before drinking to counteract the effects of alcohol flush, AKA the \"Asian Curse\" (http://www.steadyhealth.com...). Some people even drink moderate amounts of alcohol to build up concentration levels of Alcohol dehydrogenase, the enzyme they were lacking in the first place (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Your case of alcohol flush is extreme, not everybody with this condition is as sensitive to alcohol as you are. There are still numerous amount of people who suffer from this condition and still drink moderately, they just can't drink copious amounts. My resolution states that moderate amounts of beer can be beneficial for a person. \"Simply put, my opponent's assertion that this particular sensitivity means I am not average, is unjustified and a bit absurd. In fact, his entire argument around designating an \"average\" person is absurd.\" I was trying to avoid a semantic debate. You have even said that I said people who *drive* shouldn't drink beer when what I really was people who are *driving* shouldn't drink beer. \"Even setting this aside, my opponent (despite what he as said previously) made no mention in this debate as to what he meant by \"you\". When people say \"hey you!\" in a conversation between the two of us, I assume he is referring to me. Thus, since this word \"you\" is used both in the resolution and my opponent's extended resolution, why would I believe otherwise?\" Frankly, we can argue this point of \"you\" all we want, but it will be ultimately up to the voter to decide how they interpret the usage of the word \"you\" in this debate. Many chronic health conditions in humans are caused by cow's milk. The American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology says that this type of milk is also the most common food allergen. Cutting milk out of your diet can reduce obesity levels, arthritis up to 90% and even get rid of acne (http://www.collectivewizdom.com...)(http://www.milksucks.com...)(http://www.milksucks.com...). Consuming cow's milk is linked to high levels of mucus in the body. This can lead to ear infections, difficulty breathing and runny noses, stomach problems and possibly even kidney problems. It is also believe that these high levels of mucus can line the intestine and harden, making absorption of nutrients difficult (http://www.milksucks.com...). Roughly 70% of African Americans, 53% of Mexican Americans, and 74% percent of Native Americans and 65-75% of South Americans are lactose intolerant. 90% of Asian Americans, 98% of Thais and Southeast Asians, 95% of Chinese, 88% of Inner Mongolians and 80% of Central Asians are lactose intolerant as well (http://www.pcrm.org...)(http://en.wikipedia.org...). Let us also not forget that China itself has 1/6 of the world's population, and I am not counting Japan, Korea, Thailand, Vietnam, etc. It makes sense. We are the only species on Earth that drinks other animal's milk. As adults, we have decreased levels of lactose activity in our body because we no longer need milk, not even human's milk to maintain a healthy diet. How does it make sense that we need other species' milk, milk that was meant for that species' babies, to be healthy? Thank you for your time.", "qid": "20", "docid": "84da562b-2019-04-18T19:20:50Z-00003-000", "rank": 59, "score": 101095.0}, {"content": "Title: Chocolate milk is bad for your health Content: The instigator has failed to prove his/her statements as well as failed in observing the facts that have been copy and pasted into this debate showing the benefits of Milk Chococlate. VOTE CON!!! :)", "qid": "20", "docid": "7c2a3a74-2019-04-18T14:50:45Z-00000-000", "rank": 60, "score": 100929.0}, {"content": "Title: Milk-based diets are healthy and humane for veal Content: \"What is wrong with veal?\". Animal Defenders International. Retrieved 4.07.08 - \"Milk-based diets are balanced rations that involve commercial milk replacers, which utilize surplus skim milk powder and whey \u2013 both byproducts of the dairy industry \u2013 in their production. These commercial milk replacers are of equal or greater nutritional value than milk straight from the dairy cow. A great deal of time and care are taken to train the young calves to drink their milk from pails, and during this training period their diet will be supplemented with water and electrolytes to ensure they receive adequate fluids and nutrition.\"", "qid": "20", "docid": "c70591bd-2019-04-17T11:47:43Z-00053-000", "rank": 61, "score": 100258.0}, {"content": "Title: MILK IS NASTY!!!!!! Content: Greetings. I'd like to thank my opponent for starting this debate. With that out of the way, let us proceed: In today's case, I (as the CON) will strongly negate my opponent's resolution that concerns Milk as being nasty. To counter this position, I advocate that Milk MAY be nasty. I define this position as being a position that takes the subjectivity of \"taste\" into account. Thus, I advocate that milk can taste \"good\" and \"bad\", but is not objectively nasty (as is my opponent's implication). It is the job of my opponent to conclusively prove that milk is objectively nasty. He has yet to provide an argument for this and I doubt he would be able to provide a valid one during the round. I now await my opponent's first rebuttal.", "qid": "20", "docid": "ca9fde68-2019-04-18T19:48:18Z-00003-000", "rank": 62, "score": 99737.0}, {"content": "Title: Vegan can be Christians and any scripture against so is hypocritical Content: It is not a gift craft be my friends and unless he is caring for the cow the milk is no way come him in his labour. Neither furthermore does the milk have any revenant in holy circles as a gift from god. I do agree with my opponent genesis scripture and greatest thing is the milk is safe to drink that we form bonds with animals and yet to day we refer to them as livestock. I an imagine the world where winters are cold and barren so animals we a fundamental part of survival using them at times.", "qid": "20", "docid": "53a2843c-2019-04-18T17:59:58Z-00005-000", "rank": 63, "score": 99263.0}, {"content": "Title: Milk is good for your bones Content: Seems that there is more research in this as I thought. Although the fact that you copied and pasted practically everything that was in your post from one of your sources... You might have well just post the sources and leave. I wouldn't really call it a debate when you'd do something like that. Although now that I've done research on it I can't think of much of a argument against you. I probably should have looked up the topic before I jumped right in. Since this is my first debate I hope that you can forgive my ignorance. Sorry for the waste of time, but I'm going to have to forfeit this debate xD", "qid": "20", "docid": "ece5e0e4-2019-04-18T18:03:47Z-00004-000", "rank": 64, "score": 99117.0}, {"content": "Title: Eating animal products. Content: I apologize for not being more concise on what we were arguing over. We will be arguing over the morality of eating animal products.Thank you, Pro, for accepting my challenge.My ArguementAnimal products, including milk, eggs, cheese, meat, and seafood, are not necessary to sustain a healthy body. Therefore, a living creature that has feelings and can feel pain and can suffer must endure a life of torture then be slaughtered for the sake of taste, not health.Humans have become arrogant because we are more advanced than any other species on planet Earth. This causes humans to believe other creatures, through evolutionary processes (if atheist) or Creation (if Christain), have been placed here so humans may use them as they please.So, I ask you, should an animal endure pain and die so that humans may take part in enjoying them only for pleasure, not survival?", "qid": "20", "docid": "88ad86c0-2019-04-18T18:39:03Z-00003-000", "rank": 65, "score": 98548.0}, {"content": "Title: choc. milk in schools Content: Chocolate milk contains more sugar and calories than regular milk, and in today's day and age there is an overwhelming percentage of kids struggling with obesity. A lot of people prefer the taste of white milk to chocolate milk, so any argument about flavor can be left out of it. If a kid won't drink milk otherwise and a parent is concerned about a calcium deficit, they can easily supplement with vitamins. My opponent has not shown that kids who drink chocolate milk are better at pull ups. It seems absurd to say a kid drinking chocolate milk can do more pull-ups than one drinking white milk. There are also a lot of vegans who are great athletes, so milk seems to not have any effect on athletic ability or energy.", "qid": "20", "docid": "7c7b248b-2019-04-18T15:09:21Z-00003-000", "rank": 66, "score": 98308.0}, {"content": "Title: Water is The Best Choice For Our Daily Life Content: I believe that water is always be the best choice as a healthy drink. Although there are many healthy drinks such as herbal tea,goat milk,and even coffee. But, water still be the best choice because it is calorie-free and no additional sweetener. Besides,we cannot avoid the fact that H2O is one of the major element in human body. It is about 50-65 % in adult, and in infants is about 75-78%. So,we need more water in our daily life. Source: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu... http://chemistry.about.com...", "qid": "20", "docid": "e2d731b-2019-04-18T14:43:52Z-00005-000", "rank": 67, "score": 97156.0}, {"content": "Title: Cereal Should be Poured into the Bowl Before the Milk Content: In the course of human events, and, in fact, all events, whether human in nature or not, it becomes evident that, under careful and meticulous contemplation, most things are subjective when it comes right down to it. One color cannot be objectively better than another color, humans cannot adjudicate regarding the definite moral standing of another person, etc. However, in spite of all of this, there remain a certain number of immanent truths. Various religious orders, philosophies and the like may come to mind, as, when speaking of an absolute code of right and wrong, dogmatic theists (and even atheists) are naturally brought to mind with the foremost subconscious priority. Right and wrong, though, is not what we are discussing here. We are discussing correct and incorrect. My opponent will likely want to bring up the argument that \"people have the freedom to their own opinion, they can eat cereal in any manner that they choose as long as it doesn't hurt anyone\" and other such nonsense. Any such digression, I warn you, should be labelled as irrelevant by the collective consciousness of you, the voters, the ostensible high court of this virtual ekklesiasterion. Morality is not the issue here. Cereal was meant to be poured in before the milk, just as there had to be an Earth for rain to occur on before rain could occur at all. The fact that rain falls on the already present Earth is not right or wrong from a moral standpoint. No, when speaking of morality, it simply is. It is, however, correct, by virtue of the fact that this is the way it was meant to be; this is the natural order of things. So it is with cereal and milk. Cereal was meant to be poured before milk. If cereal is poured after milk, the cereal and milk don't mix properly and you are left with a floating layer of dry cereal and unflavored, dull milk. Tell me, what is the point of putting the two substances in a situation that clearly dictates that they be mixed if you don't mix them properly? Furthermore, when cereal is poured after milk, you have to be careful about how much milk you put in, because the cereal will float on top and, more often than not, you will end up with an overabundance of milk. To achieve the perfect balance of milk and cereal could be considered an art form and requires many breakfasts of training. Surely the inventors of cereal didn't intend for breakfast to be an extra chemistry class. Cereals have even been designed to be poured before milk (well, all cereal has been, but I am talking out of the ordinary). Lucky Charms, for example, used to have (and may still have, I'm not sure) cool little marshmallows that changed shape or color when they sat in milk for a long time, in addition to turning the milk green. Given that the cereal and milk don't mix properly when the cereal is poured after the milk, thereby denying the desired effect, it is incorrect to eat Lucky Charms if they are poured after the milk. This is but one example of multiple such cases. Lastly, I would like to perform an experiment with the voters and readers of this debate. I would like you to Google image search \"pouring bowl of cereal.\" Count to yourselves how many of the pictures that show either milk or cereal being poured into a bowl, in which the other is already present, show milk being poured first and how many show cereal being poured first.", "qid": "20", "docid": "76d17c6e-2019-04-18T15:05:02Z-00002-000", "rank": 68, "score": 96887.0}, {"content": "Title: Chocolate milk is healthy. Content: Instigator has claims set the chocolate milk is healthy. However, Instigator has not taken a few things into consideration:Studies show that in 8 oz of chocolate milk, there is approximately 3 teaspoons of sugar is added to chocolate milk.[1] That's almost as much as soda, which the example I'll use, Cola, has 11 teaspoons in a 16 oz soda (44g of sugar), which is 4.5 teaspoons of sugar in an 8 oz soda.[2] Also, even if the chocolate milk was low-fat, fat is not the same thing as sugar.Why is sugar a big deal, you ask? Well, sugar is high in fructose, or fruit sugar. Too much of it can overload your liver, can also give you Type II cancer, raises your chorestrol level (giving you a higher risk of heart diesese), among many other things. And since it also releases dopamine, a \"feel good\" chemical, sugar is highly addictive.[3]Point: Chocolate milk is much less healthier than normal milk, since it contains much more sugar that normal lactose milk. Some thing as sugary and addicting as chocolate milk can cause one to contract many dieseses/cancers.I await Instigator's next argument.Sources:[1]http://www.huffingtonpost.com...[2]https://www.google.com...[3]http://authoritynutrition.com...", "qid": "20", "docid": "f63b76cb-2019-04-18T16:55:02Z-00002-000", "rank": 69, "score": 96710.0}, {"content": "Title: Should we drink milk Content: I have drank milk most of my life and although as mace says it doesn't help your bones it tastes good lol", "qid": "20", "docid": "3f566289-2019-04-18T13:21:59Z-00008-000", "rank": 70, "score": 96680.0}, {"content": "Title: Ban meat, dairy, and eggs worldwide. Content: Okay we're only on round two, so before I begin decimating your faulty logic I want to ensure you are familiar with how evolution works. Let's agree on the following fact before continuing:Fact: Domesticated livestock is specifically bred for human consumption. The associated by-products (dairy and eggs) come from said livestock. It only exists and thrives thanks to artificial selection. Artificial selection is the reason why these species and their by-products exist, and without continual human intervention, it would cease to exist whether its consumption by humans is legal or not.Agreed?", "qid": "20", "docid": "47d8ce9-2019-04-18T14:11:34Z-00006-000", "rank": 71, "score": 95544.0}, {"content": "Title: Beer, in moderation, is healthier for you than milk. Content: I have greatly enjoyed this debate and hope to engage in another one with my opponent in the future. As for now, let us finish up. 1. Providing the actual source now is inadequate. As I have said before, the research is being used out of context. Does calcium excretion increase if protein levels increase? Yes, because as any student who took anatomy&physiology knows, charged proteins maintain an ionic balance and charged calcium ions can flow differently depending on the amount of protein in the blood. However, animal proteins are broken down into amino acids and their net charge becomes neutral. This in addition to the amount of protein in the blood made up by albumin and blood cells, as well as the fact that Dr. Heaney is talking about extracellular calcium as opposed to the calcium in bones, makes my opponent's point negligible in terms of calcium loss. This is simply a propaganda ploy. 2. I have never said that there is no trace of those chemicals in cows. I have provided sources showing that they have been tested to healthy levels, my opponent is making a strawman argument. Furthermore, my opponent's source is flawed. Anyone who indicates that inflammation is treated with antibiotics is either an idiot, or is talking about a bacterial infection. As such is the case, we can assume that antibiotics are not given for long term prevention, but when the need arises. In such case, the presence of antibiotics would be minimal. And yes, the chemicals are linked to cancer, but the concentration in milk is nowhere near a cancerous dose in any way, shape or form. A point that my opponent's biased source cares not to mention. 3. In regards to testing for beta lactams: beta lactam antibiotics make up the most common types of antibiotics. The other families are not widely used in cows and many of them are heat labile or denature quickly in hostile environments outside body pH and temperature. Thus, they are a minimal concern. 4. My opponent in his next section, uses some pretty sneaky tactics. First of all, he puts my source into question by stating that a citation is needed. However, the citation is only needed on a statement saying that a panel agreed with the FDA's declaration that milk contained safe levels of animal hormones. The actual FDA statement contains a citation. 5. In addition, my opponent criticizes the \"huge jump\". Yes, while the jump is big, the numbers were still low, and as I have said before, the study DID take into consideration the fact that milk was widely used. The source even stated that as the reason the investigation was being performed. 6. In such case, how is my opponent to know that this cow's milk is actually going to be used? It seems to me that he just google-imaged a picture of a cow with swollen udders. Logically speaking, FDA moderated farms and centers for milk production would be mechanized such that this could be prevented. 7. As I have stated, I was referring to the original journal articles regarding the experiments that my opponent's site has cited as a source. In other words, the source of your source said nothing about milk. How are they connecting the dots? This is to show that my opponent's source is drawing information incorrectly. I have provided sources that show that IGF-1 is at safe levels in milk, and that the assumption that it causes problems in the body is founded on half-logic. 8. In reference to the biased and unreliable experiments/trials http://en.wikipedia.org... My opponent did not scan through well enough. See \"Constroversies\" \"none of the studies were performed in a manner to create an unbiased scientific opinion\" \"indicated no statistically significant findings\" \"Evidence for efficacy of these diets is currently unsubstantiated\" 9. I was not declaring that moderate drinking causes liver damage. I was stating that those who are on prescription medication to allow for moderate drinking would be susceptible to liver damage. 10. It actually is not relevant. Number of \"drug abusers\" is irrelevant to this debate because your definition of a \"drug abuser\" is incorrect. However, the number of people on prescription medication is relevant. In developed countries, use of prescription medication is almost exactly the same as in the U.S. In underdeveloped countries, the benefits of beer that you list are of no consequence because the benefits are only good for a civilization with cardiovascular impairment. Developing countries would be more focused on sustenance, and milk would be healthier for them than beer in that regard, because their children are starving. 11. I am familiar with the generic and brand names of these drugs, but are you also aware that OTC does not mean \"take as you please\"? Have you ever tried the combination of alcohol and sleeping pill? Zantac should NOT be taken with alcohol, the fact that you are advocating it is like a stab to the professional side of me. 12. In that case, we will not discuss non-alcoholic beer because I find it ridiculous anyway. However, I accepted your definition of \"milk\" and apologize for including soy milk. However, I can very freely mention lactose-free milk if the milk simply has the lactose removed or cleaved. Things are added to beer and they can still be called beer. Simply adding lactase to milk destroys the lactose and makes lactose intolerance irrelevant. Removing the lactose or the fat is perfectly fine too, because the fluid itself came from the cow or the goat, but lactose is a sugar, a solid. You made no mention of the solid. I would also like to note that while watching \"Yakitate Japan!\", an anime about making bread, I learned that goat milk actually has little to none of the controversial problems that cow's milk has, and have found verification online, since my opponent has mentioned goat milk several times. http://altmedangel.com... http://www.goatworld.com... http://naturalmedicine.suite101.com... http://www.crohns.net... http://www.associatedcontent.com... Goat milk is consumed more than cow milk worldwide, and those with lactose intolerance can somehow consume goats milk without any problems. In addition, goat milk is devoid of all the high-industry chemicals, has healthier fats and cholesterol that help rather than harm, has a different type of casein that people are insensitive to, and is responsible for nearly no allergies. Goat milk is widely used as a replacement for cow milk worldwide. My opponent's burden in this debate is to show that beer is more healthy than milk. He himself has specified that the debate was limited to milk that comes from animals. I have not only shown most (if not all) of his sources against cow milk to be questionable, but also that his arguments for the \"average person\" show that the inclusion of alcohol in an average person's lifestyle will be more harmful than helpful. Furthermore, in my curiosity as to why my opponent has mentioned but not spoken about goat milk, decided to research it for my opponent, and found that it has absolutely none of the defects my opponent complains about in terms of cow milk. Thus, I have not only reduced my opponents points to the speculation that it is, but also provided an example of a milk that is far healthier than beer. Thank you for the debate. I urge a CON vote.", "qid": "20", "docid": "84da562b-2019-04-18T19:20:50Z-00000-000", "rank": 72, "score": 95477.0}, {"content": "Title: Beer, in moderation, is healthier for you than milk. Content: I must correct my opponent first of all, in that I did read his response. It was not specified in the first round as to how an average person is defined. In fact, the parameters he sets up are so strange that it becomes impossible to adapt them in any manner of coherency. I will illustrate the importance of this later. I will start my response by saying that my opponent's failure is not in his presentation of data (which I believe to be faulty anyhow), but in his very resolution. My opponent was simply wrong when he said that I am excluded from the realm of \"average healthy person\". In fact, I believe there are huge, blatant errors in his classification of an \"average\" person to begin with. What my opponent lists as exceptions in proper detail are the following: 1. Pregnant women 2. Diabetics 3. People on prescription medication 4. People who drive or operate heavy machinery. The percentage of pregnant women in the population is not negligible, but still a small percentage. However, my opponent's key argument about the \"Average\" person seems to conflict heavily with his resolution statement. A. My opponent's restriction on people who drive. . http://wiki.answers.com... The number of people who drive in America is roughly 30 million, an extraordinarily conservative calculation based on the following facts derived from my source: 1. There are roughly 60 million registered cars 2. There are roughly 2 cars to each person This does not include cars which are functional and unregistered, or people who share cars/rent cars. As such, the most conservative would be 30 million out of 300 million or roughly 10% of the population. If my opponent is excluding drivers from his definition of an \"Average\" person, what will he restrict next? People who eat hamburgers? People who watch baseball? B. Another exception that my opponent lists are diabetics. There are currently 24 million diabetics in this country and not a single one of them is \"average\" according to my opponent. Diabetes is one of the most prevalent medical conditions today, affecting over 8% of all Americans. While this number may seem insignificant, please consider how many people in a room of 100 will suffer dire consequences from what my opponent proposes. C. And finally, a whopping 44% of Americans are taking at least one prescription medication, and 17% are taking at least three at once. . http://www.medscape.com... A key factoid for any Pharmacy student or medical student in general is the knowledge that alcohol interacts negatively with most if not all prescription medication. The physiology is complicated to explain, but generally speaking, both alcohol and prescription medications are processed by the liver, and simultaneous processing can lead to disastrous results. Alcohol in moderate amounts may have a slightly positive effect on blood pressure if taken over time and regularly, but when combined with blood pressure medications they can have terrible side effects, amplifying the effects of blood pressure medications. Since most blood pressure medications work throughout the day, and since alcohol has a much shorter cycle, it can have unpredictable effects on people taking those medications. Cholesterol lowering drugs, statins, interact violently with alcohol, with many being completely contraindicated since it could lead to liver toxicity and death. . http://askville.amazon.com... Both Cholesterol and Blood pressure medications make up the vast majority of prescription drugs in America. It is absurd not to categorize them as \"average\". How then, can my opponent continue to speak about beer being healthy for the average person, when he clearly has no idea what the average person is, and when he is heavily restricting massive amounts of people who for all intents and purposes make up the statistically average US citizen? In addition to those issues, my opponent also has poor justification for classifying me outside the realm of \"average\". It would be acceptable for him to say that my allergy to alcohol is rare, but it should not discount me from his population. It would be more extraordinary for a person to not have any allergies at all than to react badly to alcohol. There should be no question that I am both an average person and healthy, because I am. It just so happens that I have a sensitivity to alcohol. Though not exactly an allergy, my hypersensitivity to alcohol stems from the \"Asian Curse\", a lack of the enzyme Alcohol dehydrogenase that breaks ethanol down into acetic acid. The lack of this enzyme causes the toxic intermediate acetaldehyde to build up in larger concentrations for people like myself, leading to terrible side effects and exaggerated effects of alcohol consumption in shorter lengths of time. . http://en.wikipedia.org... Half of the Asian population is categorized as having this sensitivity, thus, amongst my fellow Asians, I am average. Let us also not forget that China itself has 1/6 of the world's population, and I am not counting Japan, Korea, Thailand, Vietnam, etc. Simply put, my opponent's assertion that this particular sensitivity means I am not average, is unjustified and a bit absurd. In fact, his entire argument around designating an \"average\" person is absurd. Not only is he restricting a massive number of \"average\" Americans (Americans who would be greatly harmed by beer as opposed to milk) from his resolution, but he also inexplicably wishes the audience to believe that the presence of an ethic trait is enough to categorize a person as abnormal. Even setting this aside, my opponent (despite what he as said previously) made no mention in this debate as to what he meant by \"you\". When people say \"hey you! \" in a conversation between the two of us, I assume he is referring to me. Thus, since this word \"you\" is used both in the resolution and my opponent's extended resolution, why would I believe otherwise? I did not understand my opponent's overly complicated explanation as to what is \"average\" or not, but I consider myself a healthy and average person. What law states that the average person must react well to alcohol? As such, I must restate my argument: My opponent is addressing me in both resolutions. I would have much more health detriment from drinking beer than from drinking milk. Thus, the resolution is negated. I look forward to my opponent's response. Thank you.", "qid": "20", "docid": "84da562b-2019-04-18T19:20:50Z-00004-000", "rank": 73, "score": 95163.0}, {"content": "Title: Eating animal products. Content: You are welcome.My ArgumentActually, studies have proved that a life with animal products is a healthier life. For example, milk gives you more calcium then anything that's vegetarian. Humans have lived longer with products such as what you stated. Most animals are put to peace before they are butchered, and not tortured.I understand your point, but I'd like to point out the food chain. Humans were made to eat animals, animals were meant to eat other animals, other animals to bugs, and so on. Some people have become arrogant and over-hunting animals, but most federal government is trying to put a stop to it. As I stated above, most local farms don't torture their animals before they butcher them, that is why my family only buys local agriculture and meat. Although I have heard of companies who torture their animals before they butcher them, which is animal cruelty, which brings us to another topic.", "qid": "20", "docid": "88ad86c0-2019-04-18T18:39:03Z-00002-000", "rank": 74, "score": 94998.0}, {"content": "Title: Smoking Should be Banned Content: Final round. Okay, so, to support my \"unreliable and informal\" source, here's a credible source: . http://news.bbc.co.uk.... \"A survey suggests more than 400,000 people quit smoking as a result of the smoking ban. \", and \"Nearly two fifths (39%) said the ban had helped keep them out of hospital. \" As can be seen, banning of smoking truly has a positive affect. Your argument about milk: You cannot compare milk to cigarettes. While milk has some negative effects, it has more positive effects. In contrast, cigarettes just make you \"Feel good\" and have terrible disatrous consequences on the human body. The benefit of smoking is overwhelmed by the negative health effects it gives out. \"Where in the constitution does it say anything about the government being required to keep citizens healthy? \" It doesn't, but the government nevertheless has tried hard, with the FDA program as well as many other medicine programs, such as health care. If the government didn't try, citizens would be angered and possibly revolt against the bad government. So to answer your question, yes, the government is required to keep citizens healthy for its own state and being. And because smoking is so difficult to quit, the government needs to put a mandatory law upon it. It's similar to a parent stopping a child from doing something bad. You need to \"Ground\" the child in order to stop him/her from doing the bad thing you don't want it to do. \"the numbers do not have any impact on the logic\". You are wrong here. Let me exaggerate the numbers a bit more, okay? Let us say, instead of 6 million people dying each year, half of the population on the face of the earth died last year. That would be incredibly impacting to the world, destroying governments around the world, societies, and the rest of the people would struggle to live on. Cigarettes are being introduced by ads, and teenagers are curious to a taste of cigarette. If smoking was spread across the globe, and many many became addicted to it, unable to quit, then my situation would happen--half of the population would die within a year. Had smoking been banned, the number would have been much more controlled and low. Yes, they can buy from the black-market, just like when the alcohol was banned, but the number is very small so as to keep the government from noticing. The ban of smoking will cause a massive decrease of smokers, and thus, leading to the eventual decline of smoking deaths and diseases, enlighting the massive burden on hospitals as well as the money a family has to pay in order to cure the disease obtained from smoking. In conclusion smoking should be banned. Although it cannot be really firmly enforced, it would definitely have a positive effect on the health of the general population.", "qid": "20", "docid": "b2b2d48a-2019-04-18T16:20:27Z-00001-000", "rank": 75, "score": 94980.0}, {"content": "Title: Plants are Mammals Content: Hello Debate.Com, I am here today to argue that plants actually are mamals okay. First off plants are mammals because they have body fluids just like normal humans and they use it to carry essential materials through their body. And example of this would be grass blood or tree sap. Also the plants nurture their young (the fruit) by giving it food and stuff while it is still attached making grow. Tree milk is not the same as human milk but it usually has a whitish and thin consistensy. It is usually not seen very often because it goes directly into the mouth of the fruit being feed. There is also coconut milk that plants drink here is my link to tree milk https://www.merriam-webster.com... Also the plants have spines in the form of cell wall and roots but it doesn't look the same as humans or others Also finally many plants have hair like flowers and peaches meaning that many plants have fur which is a trait that only mammals have making it certain that a plant is a mammal so in short plants have many traits in common with mammals so all plants are mammals unlike platypus which is not a mammal it is a fish...", "qid": "20", "docid": "64ff23a8-2019-04-18T12:25:20Z-00003-000", "rank": 76, "score": 94628.0}, {"content": "Title: A vegetarian diet is healthier for humans. Content: Meat (and dairy) eaters eat unhealthily as they take in far too much fat, protein and cholesterol, and often far too little fibre and vitamins. Eating a varied range of cereals, fruits, nuts and vegetables is a delicious way of getting all the vitamins, minerals, fibre and protein your body needs.", "qid": "20", "docid": "e3d235e2-2019-04-17T11:47:41Z-00130-000", "rank": 77, "score": 94222.0}, {"content": "Title: MILK IS NASTY!!!!!! Content: SORRY FOR THE CONFUSION. .. . MY INITIAL CAUSE FOR STARING THIS DEBATE WAS BECAUSE OF ALL THE STUFF THAT'S IN IT AND SEING WHAT OTHERS HAD TO SAY AGAINST IT. .. .. fOR OTHERS CONCERN LET ME SAY THAT THERE IS MORE IN MILK THAN JUST MILK! !! ! Dairy cows are constantly inpregnated to keep the milk flowing and they are constantly hooked up to machines that cause blisters and scabs. .. . Those scabs are then on the udders which are connected to the machines that milk the cow. .. . Now the scabs don't just disappear. .. .. .they end up in the milk that people drink. .. .. . That is what makes milk nasty, rather that is what I was refering to in this particular debate. .. .. .. .. .", "qid": "20", "docid": "ca9fde68-2019-04-18T19:48:18Z-00002-000", "rank": 78, "score": 94113.0}, {"content": "Title: Meat, dairy, and eggs should be banned worldwide. Content: Pro tries to maximize the happiness of everyone under the philosophy of utilitarianism. Everyone includes all humans and all sentient animals. Pro contends that banning meat, eggs, and dairy foods would make both humans and animals happier. http://psychology.wikia.com...", "qid": "20", "docid": "3471cae0-2019-04-18T14:09:48Z-00009-000", "rank": 79, "score": 93295.0}, {"content": "Title: human enhancement Content: another substance that is a human enhancement is protien drinks. Protein drinks are very bad for young people usaully under the age of 18 but they can also be harmful to older people with health conditions. Most people use protein drinks to replace regular every day meals which does not give you the nutrients your bodys need. some of the problems protien drinks can cause to your body is risks of heart diseases or kidney problems. that is another reason why human enhancement is bad.", "qid": "20", "docid": "73feda4e-2019-04-18T16:23:10Z-00007-000", "rank": 80, "score": 93233.0}, {"content": "Title: choc. milk in schools Content: i think that choc. milk should be allowed in schools because it contains vitamins, minerals, and other objects that will get us through the day without falling asleep in class (trust i have done it the consequences are not good)", "qid": "20", "docid": "7c7b248b-2019-04-18T15:09:21Z-00006-000", "rank": 81, "score": 92925.0}, {"content": "Title: Purchasing milk from the supermarket endorses animal cruelty Content: Hello, there!!! Today, I will be debating on the motion that purchasing milk from super markets doesn't endorse animal cruelty, instead it dissuades us from doing so. Now, if you go deeper, you will understand that purchasing meat from markets endorses this cruelty, not purchasing milk. Because, for exracting milk, you need not do anything which imposes serious kinds of threat to those domestic animals. And if somebody like you or I do that, the feeling will grow among you that we should be sympathetic to animals. If milk is not bought from the markets, neither this opportunity nor some other benefits are available. Last of all, if you are benefitted enough from this business, then and only then you will be able to provide it with its necessities, otherwise not possible at all. Now if you cannot provide it with what it wants, it cannot be called mercy/humanity, can it? So come on and understand the fact well. Coming on in the next round.......", "qid": "20", "docid": "97845105-2019-04-18T14:12:09Z-00002-000", "rank": 82, "score": 92919.0}, {"content": "Title: The LA school board made the right decision in banning chocolate and strawberry flavored milk Content: Kids who drink plain milk will indeed absorb more calcium than those who drink chocolate milk:According to my opponent\u2019s link, a child who consumes one carton of plain milk will absorb 6 more milligrams of calcium than a child who consumes a carton of chocolate milk. This difference may be insignificant in the short-term; however, it can make a big difference in the long run. If a student drinks a carton of plain milk every day, he or she will absorb an additional 2,190 milligrams of calcium every year. Banning flavored milk will not decrease overall milk consumption in the long-term: My opponent mentioned a study which found that elementary school children drank 35 percent less milk at school on average when flavored milk was removed. As it turns out, this study was funded by the Milk Processor Education Program (MPEP), the dairy industry\u2019s national marketing group (1). The MPEP has spent over a million dollars to promote chocolate milk in schools. As extensive research has shown, the conclusions of a scientific study usually support the interests of the study's financial sponsor (2-3). Therefore, the results of this research article should not be weighted heavily. When we consider only objective research, we realize that banning flavored milk will not lead to decreased consumption in the long-term. For example, let\u2019s examine the implications of limiting the availability of flavored milk in New York City schools. Beginning in 2006, flavored milk could be purchased only three days a week (4). In this year, most NYC schools also stopped serving whole milk. Initially, there was an 8% decline in milk purchases following the implementation of these new policies. Several students were probably not accustomed to drinking low-fat, plain milk. As a result, some kids may have initially avoided drinking milk altogether. However, by 2009, milk purchases had actually increased by 1.3% (4). This proves that children will eventually learn to accept unsweetened, low-fat foods. As Dr. Marlene Schwartz concluded, \u201cIt is probable that, immediately following removal of flavored milk from schools, children will drink less milk. Who really is surprised that, given the option, children prefer the taste of flavored milk to unflavored milk? Research with both animals and humans show that we all like the taste of sugar. However, examining what happens in the short-term is inadequate; the relevant question is what happens in the long-term when children are only served unflavored milk\u201d (5). Conclusion: By serving our children flavored milk, we\u2019re only training them to prefer, and eventually over-consume, sugar-sweetened beverages. Scientific studies show that banning flavored milk does not decrease overall milk consumption. Thus, all of our schools should stop serving flavored milk. I urge everyone to vote pro!References:(1) http://yaleruddcenter.org...(2) http://www.bmj.com...(3) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...(4) http://journals.lww.com...(5) http://www.huffingtonpost.com...", "qid": "20", "docid": "48ae4466-2019-04-18T18:45:18Z-00001-000", "rank": 83, "score": 92755.0}, {"content": "Title: MILK IS NASTY!!!!!! Content: My opponent has stated that milk is nasty in his original round as well as in the resolution. Thus, it is still his job to counter my case which referred to milk \"tasting nasty.\" As for milking being nasty due to its origins, this argument suffers from the same flaws. To some, make me seem nasty due to the fact that it can come out of cow's utters, but to others, it most certainly doesn't. Thus, the flaw in my opponent's case is still the matter of \"subjectivity.\" Furthermore, his argument goes about assuming that milk can only come from cows, but this is false too. Many of you may realize that milk is produced by other living creatures, but it can also be artificially produced. Furthermore, even in cow milk, milk producers put it through the process of pasteurization (a process which eliminates all harmful bacteria) before selling it to the market. I now stand ready for my opponent's final rebuttal.", "qid": "20", "docid": "ca9fde68-2019-04-18T19:48:18Z-00001-000", "rank": 84, "score": 92060.0}, {"content": "Title: choc. milk in schools Content: Regular milk provides the same benefits, without the excess sugar.", "qid": "20", "docid": "7c7b248b-2019-04-18T15:09:21Z-00005-000", "rank": 85, "score": 91443.0}, {"content": "Title: Chocolate be banned in elementary and middle schools Content: I think that chocolate milk should be banned from all schools because I think that schools and kids are getting poisoned. By what you ask? CHOCOLATE MILK!!!!!!!!! IF YOU WANT TO FIND OUT HOW JUST KEEP READING HAHAHA!!!!! I think that you should stop serving chocolate milk at lunch are Health problems, Too much sugar in chocolate milk, and how much you serve it Health problems Everyone thinks chocolate milk is good but did you know it can have major health problems for kids who drink it. Some might say that chocolate milk has no health problems but trust me it does. Some of those health problems are Cancer, heart disease, obesity, and diabetes.According to the American Institute for Cancer Research,\"Chocolate milk contains added sugars and therefore more calories that can lead to more overweight and obesity.\" In other words, it can lead to you dying and not being able to live a long life of playing sports and seeing the new technology.So those are the health problems of chocolate milk", "qid": "20", "docid": "61b1ed2-2019-04-18T12:19:50Z-00003-000", "rank": 86, "score": 90996.0}, {"content": "Title: Should we drink milk Content: Its highly unlikely because they drink our water that we pay for we deserve something in return (milk)", "qid": "20", "docid": "3f566289-2019-04-18T13:21:59Z-00006-000", "rank": 87, "score": 90836.0}, {"content": "Title: Ban meat, dairy, and eggs worldwide. Content: Con and Pro disagree on a curious paragraph Con posted. The paragraph is curious because there is no impact. In other words, Con fails to demonstrate how the claims in the paragraph impact upon the resolution. Here's the paragraph: \"Fact: Domesticated livestock is specifically bred for human consumption. The associated by-products (dairy and eggs) come from said livestock. It only exists and thrives thanks to artificial selection. Artificial selection is the reason why these species and their by-products exist, and without continual human intervention, it would cease to exist whether its consumption by humans is legal or not. Agreed?\" Con Lets break down this paragraph into a series of claims. Claim by Con \"Fact: Domesticated livestock is specifically bred for human consumption.\" Pro Agrees the claim is correct. Claim \"The associated by-products (dairy and eggs) come from said livestock.\" Con Pro agrees the claim is correct. Claim \"It only exists and thrives thanks to artificial selection.\" Con Pro agrees with this claim. Claim \"Artificial selection is the reason why these species and their by-products exist and without continual human intervention, it would cease to exist whether its consumption by humans is legal or not.\" Con Pro disagrees with this claim. Now lets clarify why Pro disagrees with the one of the four claims of Con. Specifically Pro disagrees that farm animals and wild animal are different species. \" Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species. \" [28] Pro's claim 1 : Wolves and dogs are the same species. Warrant : \"Wolves, Coyotes and Dogs are the Same Species\" [29.] Impact: No clue as to Con has not provided an impact. Since I already made my argument I'm just disproving whatever Con states until he/she states how this subject impacts the resolution. If wolves, coyotes, and dogs are the same species then other farm animals must be the same species as their wild counterparts. Pro's claim 2: There are only two species of cows Warrant: \"There are actually two species of \"cows\" or cattle, as is the proper term. The one most commonly seen around in the milking parlour and in pastures are Bos taurus species. These are what are deemed \"European\" cattle, originally descended from the now-extinct wild Auroch. The B. taurus species come in many colours, breeds, and sizes. The second species is called Bos indicus.\" [30.] Impact: Disproving Con claim that farm species would become extinct without human intervention. Pro's claim 3: There are over 800 breeds of cattle Warrant: Over 800 breeds of cattle are recognized worldwide\" [31]. Impact: Clarifying the difference between breed and species. Pro's claim 4: Farm animals species could survive without human interference Warrant: \"As time progresses, the hand-raised squirrel can be allowed to spend more and more time outside, but food and shelter must be provided. Some squirrels will gradually become more and more independent. Others will happily live outdoors, but will always require some degree of care when it comes to food and housing.\" [31]. Impact: Disproving Con's claim that farm animals could not survive without human interference by demonstrating orphan squirrels can be rehabilitated to be released into the wild. Summary: Since Con fails to show how this subject of farm animals breeds impacts on the resolution Pro is just disproving Con notions. Pro does not know if the subject created by Con is a red herring or has an impact on the resolution. Either way Con seems to be confusing breed and species. Yes, approximately 800 breeds of cattle would revert back to their wilds selves without human intervention. Yet, no cow species would become extinct. Finally Pro wants to thank Con for the debate. The debate been most interesting and educational. Links 28. http://dictionary.reference.com... 29. http://x-evolutionist.com... 30. http://www.quazoo.com... 31. https://suite.io...", "qid": "20", "docid": "47d8ce9-2019-04-18T14:11:34Z-00003-000", "rank": 88, "score": 90365.0}, {"content": "Title: Ban meat, dairy, and eggs worldwide. Content: And now it\u2019s time to expose the flaw of Pro\u2019s argument in round two. We can dismiss Pro\u2019s afterthoughts outright: II. Health A. Possible to be a healthy vegan. B. Detrimental effects of consuming animal products. III. Environment A. Trophic levels B. Amazon and ocean destruction. Everyone knows that omnivorous diets can be every bit as healthy as any other, and nobody reading this exchange honestly believes that banning meat will save the planet. So let\u2019s focus on Pro\u2019s focus \u2013 Pro\u2019s main argument. Pro spent the most time on this. It was the first thing on Pro\u2019s mind and the first thing in Pro\u2019s outline: ANIMAL CRUELTY Pro is expecting to win this debate arguing that consuming meat, eggs, and dairy is an act of cruelty. Cruel compared to what exactly? Read through the rounds of arguments above and you'll discover what Pro is trying to avoid. Reality! Pro lives in a make believe world where in the animal kingdom, predators ripping their prey to shreds is natural (and hence not cruel), but human beings doing the exact same thing is an act of cruelty. In Pro\u2019s version of reality, human beings are not a part of the animal kingdom but rather somehow above it, but only sometimes. Other times we are below it. Never are we an equal member. This myopic ideology runs contrary to everything evolutionary biology has to teach us about reality. This is why Pro tried to argue against artificial selection as the primary reason chickens (for example) are bred to be so fat they buckle under their own weight, yet somehow in the same breath wanted to convince you these same chickens would somehow last over a week with naturally selected predators in the wild. The worst part is this, read the resolution again and truly digest it (no pun intended): Resolution: Meat, dairy, and eggs should be banned on the planet Earth. The entire planet? Are you serious Pro? Conclusion: Pro is a sociopath and an ideologue who thinks the rights of every animal on the planet are slightly more important than are yours. To make matters even worse, Pro\u2019s resolution incorporates agents of an imaginary one world government to force you to be like Pro. No thank you! Here is Pro\u2019s summary from Round 2: V. Summary I have provided a multitude of reasons to eat vegan and to ban consumption of animal products. Remember the USA pledge \"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.\" Let liberty and justice extend to animals. Ban eggs, meat, and dairy. Vote Pro. It goes without saying that this pledge was written by a homo sapien. Perhaps Pro might consider affording all homo sapiens the same courtesy and rights as Pro does to the rest of the animal kingdom. Vote your conscience. Vote Con. Oh and here's my afterthought Stupidape (love the handle by the way) ... back to evolutionary biology no less. It is pretty well established within the scientific community that the only reason you have the mental capacity to even ponder ridiculous ideas like banning nature, is because your ancestors ate meat. Cheers! http://www.npr.org...", "qid": "20", "docid": "47d8ce9-2019-04-18T14:11:34Z-00000-000", "rank": 89, "score": 90294.0}, {"content": "Title: eating meat is not immoral Content: My thanks to Dairygirl for posting this debate. The reality is this: I eat meat, but for a number of different considerations I am not proud that I do so. 1. Humans are omnivorous, not true carnivores. 2. Humans moreso than any other animal have true choice about what we eat, from our ability to shape the environment to support any plant or animal life, to our knowledge of nutrition that has allowed to isolate what components truly make up a healthy diet, we have less need to eat meat than any other omnivore or carnivore on the planet. To neglect this true choice is indisputably immoral. 3. Meat is wasteful. The amount of crop land it takes to feed a herd of cattle is heinous compared to how that land could be used to grow grains that would feed many more people. Even growing protein-rich crops like Tofu, Quinoia, and Saytan yields enough food to feed more people way longer. 4. Meat is self-destructive. While in very small quantities, meat can be healthy, meat has a high potential to raise cholesterol and contribute to obesity. The addictive nature of meat makes overindulgence in it to be more likely than many other foods. 5. Meat is hurtful. It is a basic reality that in order to eat meat we must harm other creatures. Even early man was not comfortable with this fact and constructed ritual to excuse or be forgiven for the act of taking life to sustain their own. Modern man no longer needs meat to lead healthy, long lives, and thus needn't burden himself with the guilt and moral discomfort for any reason than the sheer pleasure of eating meat. Harming others for ones own pleasure is the definition of immorality. For all these reasons, I urge readers to vote CON. Over to you, PRO!", "qid": "20", "docid": "40330c65-2019-04-18T16:05:46Z-00004-000", "rank": 90, "score": 89578.0}, {"content": "Title: The American Government does not have any ones intrestin their heart but their own. Content: The government confirms we need essential fatty acids to produce brains cells and the like while also producing a healthy balance of hormones as well as the chemicals to allow us to think and feel.. EFA are whats in a mothers milk that allows survival and healthy growth. Yet prescribed to us to several servings of COW milk intended by nature to provide a baby CALF with momma cow essential fatty acids to produce brains cells and the like while also producing a healthy balance of hormones as well as the chemicals.. There is no better balance of EFA for humans found in plants, or a plant more intimately connected to the human brain and body than the Hemp seed. .. yet our government has made laws against growing this plant which also prevent the industrial uses of Hemp.. but what about before this ban? i could be here for a long time telling you about history but DO NOT TAKE MY WORD ON ANYTHING; RESEARCH IT YOURSELF=) *If all fossil fuel and their derivatives, as well as trees for paper and construction, were banned in order to save the planet, reverse the Greenhouse Effect and stop deforestation; then there is only one known annually renewable, natural resource that is capable of providing the overall majority of the world's paper, plastics and textiles; meet all of the world's transportation, industrial and home energy needs; provide about 30% of the world's medicines, while reducing pollution, rebuilding the soil and cleaning the atmosphere, all at the same time\u2026and that substance is the same one that has done it before, for the last five to 10 thousand years, until about 125 years ago\u2026 No one has taken the $100,000 challenge to prove me wrong. Why? Because I am right. The U.S. government has been lying to us since the early 1900s. Do economic interests and the police have more to say than the people about the future of our planet? How angry are you for being lied to by the U.S. government about Cannabis Hemp? Are you willing to make a stand right now? No one can dispute this information and knowledge. You have to join me in this fight. Either you are on the U.S. government's side or you are on the Earth's side with me! Jack Herer http://webcache.googleusercontent.com...", "qid": "20", "docid": "294cec99-2019-04-18T18:41:09Z-00005-000", "rank": 91, "score": 89574.0}, {"content": "Title: is chocolate milk good for you Content: Hello - I have accepted this debate, topiced \"Is milk Chocolate good for you\". My opponent has begun by saying that chocolate milk is good for me. My position is that Chocolate milk is not good for me at all, and I look forward to seeing why my opponent thinks I am wrong about myself.", "qid": "20", "docid": "8ab0c1d5-2019-04-18T11:47:23Z-00001-000", "rank": 92, "score": 89474.0}, {"content": "Title: Chocolate milk is bad for your health Content: Pro i hope this will be a learning session for you regarding the benefits of Chocolate Milk vs Milk (Normal Milk as you call it). First let me state that Milk can be 1%, 2%.3.7% fat or powedered. All of these affect the Nutrition Values. But for the sake of the argument we will use the Milk 1% and the Chocolate Milk (not reduced fat). Chocolate Milk Nutrition Values Calories 83 % Daily Value* Total Fat 3.4 g 5% Saturated fat 2.1 g 10% Polyunsaturated fat 0.1 g Monounsaturated fat 1 g Cholesterol 12 mg 4% Sodium 60 mg 2% Potassium 167 mg 4% Total Carbohydrate 10 g 3% Dietary fiber 0.8 g 3% Sugar 10 g Protein 3.2 g 6% Caffeine 2 mg Vitamin A 1% Vitamin C 1% Calcium 11% Iron 1% Vitamin D 12% Vitamin B-6 0% Vitamin B-12 5% Magnesium 3% Milk Nutrition Values Calories 42 % Daily Value* Total Fat 1 g 1% Saturated fat 0.6 g 3% Polyunsaturated fat 0 g Monounsaturated fat 0.3 g Cholesterol 5 mg 1% Sodium 44 mg 1% Potassium 150 mg 4% Total Carbohydrate 5 g 1% Dietary fiber 0 g 0% Sugar 5 g Protein 3.4 g 6% Vitamin A 0% Vitamin C 0% Calcium 12% Iron 0% Vitamin D 0% Vitamin B-6 0% Vitamin B-12 8% Magnesium 2% As you can see from the above tables taken from google (just google search Milk or Chocolate Milk) you can deduce that Chocolate Milk has more Vitamin C, More Iron, more Magnesium, more Vitamin D (12% more) and more Vitamin A. Milk has 5g less sugar than Chocolate Milk (has 10g) in a 100g sample. If fat is a problem for you then choose reduced-fat Chocolate Milk. Therefore Chocolate Milk is far more nutritious than Milk. Drink Chocolate Milk pro. Its good for you :)", "qid": "20", "docid": "7c2a3a74-2019-04-18T14:50:45Z-00004-000", "rank": 93, "score": 89471.0}, {"content": "Title: White Milk is Better Then Chocolete Milk Content: Yeah but you are not drinking chocolate milk 24/7! That doesn't mean that . im saying that it is better because it has that sweet taste for every person who has a sweet tooth and want that taste instead of eating candy like crazy!", "qid": "20", "docid": "dca446e-2019-04-18T15:10:01Z-00001-000", "rank": 94, "score": 89301.0}, {"content": "Title: Should we drink milk Content: Milk may taste good, but imagine this, a cow drinking a frogs milk...", "qid": "20", "docid": "3f566289-2019-04-18T13:21:59Z-00007-000", "rank": 95, "score": 89171.0}, {"content": "Title: Meat, dairy, and eggs should be banned worldwide. Content: 1 A. i do mostly agree,but i don't believe animals are equal to humans.God said we are to rule over the animals and they are food for us.Animals shouldn't be neglected or killed in a painful way but they are not humans and shouldn't be treated as humans. 1 B. I agree that factory farming is wrong and should not be allowed.My solution is to raise animals outside in fenced enclosures that cover many acres.They would be outside in their native environment and would live like they would if they was in the wild. People would care for the animals and they would be slaughtered in a humane way. This way animals would. live happy and healthy lives,and humans would get the food we need. 1 C Would. not be causing suffering if raised in the way stated above. 1. D. first off I believe it's our right to eat meat and dairy products.YIt would be very hard for most people to survive on just a vegetarian diet.Lack of nutrients would cause people to get malnutrition and diseases caused by malnutritionment would be a crisis. 1. E disagrees. 2 A. Would be hard for everyone to eat this way. 2. B. Cholesterol,and fat is not unhealthy if not over eaten. 3 A. Its called the food cycle,nothing to worry about. 3. B. what about all the acres of forest that will have to be cut down for fields of crops? It would do more harm to the environment if we destroy the environment by making more room for crops to grow.", "qid": "20", "docid": "3471cac1-2019-04-18T14:10:42Z-00006-000", "rank": 96, "score": 88751.0}, {"content": "Title: MILK IS NASTY!!!!!! Content: Okay.....ummmmm......milk is nasty and wrong!!!!! There's more than just milk in that milk mustache of yours!!!!!!! But hey!?!?!?!?!?! who doesn't want puss in their milk in the mornin'!?!?!?!?!", "qid": "20", "docid": "ca9fde68-2019-04-18T19:48:18Z-00004-000", "rank": 97, "score": 87945.0}, {"content": "Title: Purchasing milk from the supermarket endorses animal cruelty Content: Before I begin I didn't define milk. By milk I meant cow's milk. Milk \" a white liquid produced by a woman to feed her baby or by female animals to feed their young; especially : milk from cows or goats that is used as food by people : a white liquid produced by a plant\" [1] Merriam-webster Outline I. Prove animal sentience and ability to suffer. II. Prove suffering from milk production. III. Establish purchasing of milk causes suffering. IV. Milk in not needed for human survival. V. Prove animal cruelty VI. Prove endorsement VII. Rebuttal of Con's argument VIII. Links I. Prove animal sentience and ability to suffer. Suffer \" : to experience pain, illness, or injury : to experience something unpleasant (such as defeat, loss, or damage) : to become worse because of being badly affected by something \" merriam-webster.com [2] \"After 2,500 Studies, It's Time to Declare Animal Sentience Proven (Op-Ed)\" Marc Bekoff livescience.com [3] \"With a focus on vertebrates, this section presents a brief discussion of what constitutes good evidence of the capacity to experience pain. The discussion emphasizes the strength of the evidence that all mammals (including rodents) are able to experience pain; raises the possibility that fish may feel pain\" National Research Council (US) Committee on Recognition and Alleviation of Pain in Laboratory Animals. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2009. [4] As a cow is a mammal, mammals can feel pain, therefore cow can feel pain and thus the ability to suffer. II. Prove suffering from milk production. \"All forms of dairy farming involve forcibly impregnating cows. This involves a person inserting his arm far into the cow\"s rectum in order to position the uterus, and then forcing an instrument into her vagina. The restraining apparatus used is commonly called a \"rape rack.\"\" Humanemyth.org [5] \"Most cows used for dairy production are kept indoors, with some having access to outdoor concrete or dirt paddocks. They are often forced to stand on hard surfaces\"something their hooves are not designed for. This contributes to lameness, a condition where cows\" feet become inflamed, making it painful to walk. Additionally, cows in the dairy industry are forced to suffer through: Widespread Infections: Unnaturally high milk production leads to mastitis, a painful bacterial infection causing a cow\"s udder to swell. In 2007, 79% of farms that reported permanently removing cows from their herds did so because of mastitis.\" ASPCA.org [6] III. Establish purchasing of milk causes suffering. Some are of the train of thought \"the milk is already produced, so no harm is being done by purchasing the milk.\" Yet, purchasing the milk at the supermarket will eventually lead to suffering. The simplest explanation is if nobody bought any milk, demand would rapidly fall. Supply would follow suit. Less cows would be needed to met the supply, therefore less cows being bred into existence and finally less cruelty. The opposite is also true. If more people bought milk more demand would be created, more supply, more cows, and more cruelty. IV. Milk in not needed for human survival. A.Vitamin D \"People who live in areas receiving plenty of sunlight develop darker skin from excess melanin and need more sun exposure such as two hours or more to get their vitamin D. Those with lighter colored skin require less exposure, anywhere from 15 to 30 minutes.\" examiner.com/ [7] \"Vitamin D is a fat-soluble vitamin that is naturally present in very few foods, added to others, and available as a dietary supplement. It is also produced endogenously when ultraviolet rays from sunlight strike the skin and trigger vitamin D synthesis.\" ods.od.nih.gov [8] B. Calcium \"Collard greens, cooked1 cup357\" Reed Mangels, PhD, RD [9] That's 357mg of calcium in a cup of collards. \"Dairy milk has long established itself as a rich source of calcium, containing about 300 milligrams of calcium per 8-ounce serving. \" fitday.com [10] From above one can see that a vegan can meet his/her nutritional needs. Besides they are plenty of health vegans. Including Al Gore and Bill Clinton. huffingtonpost [11] V. Prove animal cruelty Animal cruelty which is distinct from suffering is now established since one does not need to drink milk to survive. \"Cruelty to animals, also called animal abuse or animal neglect, is the human infliction of suffering or harm upon any non-human animal, for purposes other than self-defense or survival.\" wikipedia [12] VI. Prove endorsement At the supermarket you are in public. People can see you. If you pay by check or credit card you must sign. You are publicly signing for the purchase of the good. Since your purchase of milk will cause animal cruelty, when you sign for your purchase you are literally endorsing animal cruelty. Even if you pay cash you are still giving your approval and support publicly through non-verbal communication. VII. Rebuttal of Con's argument \"Hello, there!!! Today, I will be debating on the motion that purchasing milk from super markets doesn't endorse animal cruelty, instead it dissuades us from doing so. Now, if you go deeper, you will understand that purchasing meat from markets endorses this cruelty, not purchasing milk. \" Con Buying both milk and meat from the supermarket endorse animal cruelty. There is no way to know what product people would buy in lieu of milk. They could buy meat, but fruit is just as likely. Since meat production is very similar, its safe to say if purchasing milk endorses animal cruelty so does purchasing meat. Thank you for accepting this debate. I look forward to your argument. VIII. Links http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.livescience.com... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.humanemyth.org... http://www.aspca.org... http://www.examiner.com... https://ods.od.nih.gov... http://www.vrg.org... http://www.fitday.com... http://www.huffingtonpost.com... https://en.wikipedia.org...", "qid": "20", "docid": "97845105-2019-04-18T14:12:09Z-00001-000", "rank": 98, "score": 87867.0}, {"content": "Title: Ban meat, dairy, and eggs worldwide. Content: Outline I. Animal cruelty A. Establishing sentience. B. Suffering exists from egg, meat, and milk production. C. Buying these products causes suffering. D. Not necessary for survival to eat these foods. E. Animal cruelty to eat these foods. II. Health A. Possible to be a healthy vegan. B. Detrimental affects of consuming animal products. III. Environment A. Trophic levels B. Amazon and ocean destruction. IV. Rebuttal of Con V. Summary VI. Links I. Animal cruelty A. Establishing sentience Without sentience animals are no different than trees. Alive, but unable to feel pain nor suffer. Therefore establishing sentience is of utmost importance. \"Consequently, the weight of evidence indicates that humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness. Non-human animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also possess these neurological substrates.\"\" [5]. \"Fish Are Sentient and Emotional Beings and Clearly Feel Pain\" [6] \"So some fish like massages. Most probably feel pain. Many have good eyesight, a great sense of smell, well-developed hearing abilities, and the ability to both create and detect electric currents in the water.\" [7] I have now clearly established that animals are sentient and have the capacity to feel pain and suffer. I'm confident I covered all the animals that are normally eaten in 1st world countries. Mammals, birds, and fish. B. Suffering exists from egg, meat, and milk production. Look no further than factory farming. Factory farming constitutes over 99% of farm animals. \"A factory farm is a large, industrial operation that raises large numbers of animals for food. Over 99% of farm animals in the U.S. are raised in factory farms, which focus on profit and efficiency at the expense of animal welfare.\"[8] The cruelty of factory farming is common knowledge. The burden of proof lies on Con to disprove factory farming cruelty. As for small scale local farmers. The trend of several small farms becoming one large farm exists. Watch King Corn as proof. [9]. That being said measures for animal welfare and humane treatment have failed. \"For example, an animal farmer named Joel Salatin, famous for slaughtering chickens in the movie Food, Inc., recently said in the media that he is in the \"healing industry\" and called his farm a \"sanctuary\". Contributing to this confusion, some animal protection organizations now use romanticized imagery of animals on bucolic \"humane\" farms which can easily give the public the impression that voting for a given legislative initiative or purchasing the \"right\" kind of animal products will lead to a life for exploited animals not much different than that at a sanctuary. Many of us working in animal advocacy feel that this trend is disastrous, and represents an ongoing victory for the meat industry in its effort to co-opt animal advocacy by steadily shifting the public dialogue away from whether or not it is right to use and kill animals to what is the right way to use and kill animals. \"[10] The only logical recourse to end animal suffering is to ban all animal food sources. Ban meat, dairy, and eggs. C. Buying these products causes suffering. This is simple supply and demand. If nobody bought any of these products, production would grind to a halt almost immediately. The reverse is true. If demand suddenly doubled, supply would follow suit. D. Not necessary for survival to eat these foods. B12, protein, calcium, and omega-3s can all be ingested from plant sources. B-12 comes from bacteria. Protein is found in small amounts or greater in just about every food. Legumes have lots of protein. Calcium is found in leafy greens. Omega-3s are divided into three categories. ALA, DHA, and EPA. ALA is found in flax seeds. DHA in seaweed. EPA in microalgae. \"Microorganisms are the only natural sources of B(12)-derivatives\" [11]. Kidney beans have 8g of protein and only 53 calories per cup. Also of note kidney beans contain some calcium.[12] Kale has 9% of your calcium needs and is only 33 calories per serving. [13]. \"Flaxseed is an alternative to marine products. It is one of the richest sources of the plant-based `9;-3 fatty acid, alpha-linolenic acid (ALA).\" [14]. \"Vegetarian sources of DHA come from seaweed.\" [15]. \"considering microalgae oil as a vegetarian source of EPA and DHA.\" [16]. It should be clear that a person can meet his or her nutritional needs on a vegan diet. Thus it is not necessary to eat animal products to live. E. Animal cruelty to buy these foods. Since self-survival can no longer be used as an excuse, I now contend that purchasing animal products causes animal cruelty. II. Health A. Possible to be a healthy vegan. As seen above its possible to survive as a vegan. Not only that but you can thrive. There are many healthy vegan celebrities this is common knowledge. B. Detrimental affects of consuming animal products. I could make this section very long. Suffice to say its common knowledge that cholesterol, fat, and saturated fat exist in animal products and are unhealthy. Since this is common knowledge the burden of proof rests on Con to prove animal products are healthy. III. Environment A. Trophic levels \"Three hundred trout are needed to support one man for a year. The trout, in turn, must consume 90,000 frogs, that must consume 27 million grasshoppers that live off of 1,000 tons of grass. -- G. Tyler Miller, Jr., American Chemist (1971)\" [17]. This quote illustrates the waste and indulgence of eating higher on the food chain. Instead we should strive to eat lower on the food chain. B. Amazon and ocean destruction Large areas of land are required for free roaming grass fed beef. \"The cattle sector in the Brazilian Amazon is the largest driver of deforestation in the world, responsible for one in every eight hectares destroyed globally. Efforts to halt global deforestation emissions must tackle this sector. \" [18]. Fishing practices such as dynamite fishing are destructive to ocean habitat. \"Many fishing practices are extremely destructive to delicate habitats - particularly vital fish breeding grounds like coral reefs and seagrass meadows.\" [19]. IV. Rebuttal of Con \"Meat, milk, and eggs are natural phenomenon that occur in nature. Banning nature is absurd. You can't ban nature.\" Con Pro: You know what I meant. I would rephrase this to ban meat, milk, and eggs sale, import, export, and manufacture. \"And I suggest you make a strong case because evolutionary biology begs to differ ... big time.\" Con Pro: Bare assertion and I have evidence to the contrary. A ted video [20.] Christina Warinner explains that humans have no known adaptations to meat and only a few to dairy. This nytimes article explains tubers were eaten in paleolithic times. \"But Mark G. Thomas, an evolutionary geneticist at University College London, and his colleagues argue that there was another important food sizzling on the ancient hearth: tubers and other starchy plants.\" [21]. V. Summary I have provided a multitude of reasons to eat vegan and to ban consumption of animal products. Remember the USA pledge \"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.\" [22]. Let liberty and justice extend to animals. Ban eggs, meat, and dairy. Vote Pro. VI.Links 5. http://www.livescience.com... 6. https://www.psychologytoday.com... 7. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... 8. http://www.aspca.org... 9. http://www.kingcorn.net... 10. http://www.humanemyth.org... 11. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 12. http://nutritiondata.self.com... 13. http://nutritiondata.self.com... 14. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 15. http://umm.edu... 16. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 17. http://www.globalchange.umich.edu... 18. http://www.greenpeace.org... 19. http://wwf.panda.org... 20. http://tedxtalks.ted.com... 21. http://www.nytimes.com... http://www.heritage.org...", "qid": "20", "docid": "47d8ce9-2019-04-18T14:11:34Z-00007-000", "rank": 99, "score": 87711.0}, {"content": "Title: Tea making. Milk should go in after and not before the tea. Content: I assume my opponent has come round to the idea that tea is best made milk last. Good luck and more importantly good tea in the future!", "qid": "20", "docid": "a873e667-2019-04-18T15:24:02Z-00000-000", "rank": 100, "score": 87652.0}]}
{"query": "Is human activity primarily responsible for global climate change?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: Is Human Activity an addition to increased Global Warming/Climate Change Content: Throughout Humanity's Existence the species has done nothing but destroyed everything around it. We have seen the extinction of more species at fault of Humanity, we have seen the rising of sea levels and the drying up of rivers and lakes due to Human Activity. This is why I stand in Pro position that human activity is an addition to increased Global Warming/ Climate Change. 1. Humans have increased Climate Change because of Increased C02 emissions Source: Climate Change Causes: A Blanket around the Earth.\" Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet. NASA, 11 Feb. 2016. Web. 12 Feb. 2016. Carbon dioxide is released through natural processes such as respiration and volcano eruptions and through human activities such as deforestation, land use changes, and burning fossil fuels. Humans have increased atmospheric CO2 concentration by a third since the Industrial Revolution began. According to the EPA Carbon Dioxide, which includes fossil fuels and industrial processes, contributes 65% of Global greenhouse gases. The Electricity and Heat production industry emits 25% of Carbon Dioxide. This shows how much Co2 contributes to pollution. Emissions released now will continue to warm the climate in the future. The EPA predicts that climate change will cause the demand for water to increase while the supply of water shrinks. Water is not only essential to human health but also to manufacturing processes and the production of energy and food. Climate change is expected to increase rainfall, thereby causing an increase sediments and in the pollutants washed into drinking water Rising sea levels will cause saltwater to infiltrate some freshwater systems, increasing the need for desalination and drinking water treatment.", "qid": "21", "docid": "9c07825d-2019-04-18T13:31:03Z-00005-000", "rank": 1, "score": 214928.0}, {"content": "Title: Humanity is the main cause of global warming. Content: Yes, I agree with Pro's sources in Round 5 that list all of the ways in which human activity plays a role in affecting global climate. Unfortunately, Pro failed to acknowledge the issue of \"Attribution of Recent Climate Change\" which I brought up in Round 4. Without doing so, it is impossible to conclude that \". .. Humanity is the Main Cause of Global Warming\" as Pro has done. To further bolster my argument, I will reference the 376 page scholarly book (published in 2015) \"Climate Change, Multidecadal and Beyond\" . https://books.google.ca... which flatly states outright in the introduction \"Many questions concerning the nature and causes of climate variability on the multidecadal time scale are still unresolved. \". This book also references a Technical Summary of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report which acknowledges \"Difficulties remain in attributing temperature changes at smaller than continental scales and over time scales less than 50 years. \" (Solomon et al. , 2007). While generalist websites for the public (such as the ones referenced by pro) may ignore the issue of attribution, clearly scholars and climate scientists cannot and do not. The book I referenced demonstrates that scientists are working very hard on the attribution issue, and may resolve it in the near future thanks to ever improving technology, statistics and modeling. However, being that the world's top scientists have not resolved the issue of climate change attribution, it is far too premature for \"pro\" declare a victory or a conclusion that humanity is the \"main\" cause of climate change (based on the information contained in generalist websites), especially in the context of a Multidecadal view. I was very much hoping that Pro would address the issue of 'Attribution of Recent Climate Change' which I introduced in Round 4.", "qid": "21", "docid": "c09112b2-2019-04-18T14:00:47Z-00000-000", "rank": 2, "score": 208099.0}, {"content": "Title: Environmentalism is a sound belief Content: 1. Global Warming Since the early 20th century, Earth's mean surface temperature has increased by about 0.8 degrees C with about two-thirds of the increase occurring since 1980. Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and scientists are more than 90% certain that it is primarily caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation. These findings are recognized by the national science academies of all major industrialized nations. Climate model projections were summarized in the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). They indicated that during the 21st century the global surface temperature is likely to rise a further 1.1 to 2.9 degrees C for their lowest emissions scenario and 2.4 to 6.4 degrees C for their highest. The ranges of these estimates arise from the use of models with differing sensitivity to greenhouse gas concentrations. Humans have been responsible for global warming because they are the main cause of greenhouse gas concentration increases, which are the main cause of the recent warming. Environmentalism says that the only way to combat global warming is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which, by the above standard, will reduce global warming. Therefore, environmentalism makes a verified prediction here.1, 2, 3, 4, 5 2. Genetically Modified Organisms The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) urges doctors to prescribe non-GMO diets for all patients. They cite animal studies showing organ damage, gastrointestinal and immune system disorders, accelerated aging, and infertility. Human studies show how genetically modified (GM) food can leave material behind inside us, possibly causing long-term problems. Genes inserted into GM soy, for example, can transfer into the DNA of bacteria living inside us, and that the toxic insecticide produced by GM corn was found in the blood of pregnant women and their unborn fetuses. Numerous health problems increased after GMOs were introduced in 1996. The percentage of Americans with three or more chronic illnesses jumped from 7% to 13% in just 9 years; food allergies skyrocketed, and disorders such as autism, reproductive disorders, digestive problems, and others are on the rise. Although there is not sufficient research to confirm that GMOs are a contributing factor, doctors groups such as the AAEM tell us not to wait before we start protecting ourselves, and especially our children who are most at risk. The American Public Health Association and American Nurses Association are among many medical groups that condemn the use of GM bovine growth hormone, because the milk from treated cows has more of the hormone IGF-1 (insulin-like growth factor 1)R13;which is linked to cancer. Environmentalism predicts that GMOs are bad for the body, and the above information verifies this prediction. Therefore, environmentalism makes a verified prediction here.6 3. Keystone XL Pipeline The Canadian tar sands oil pits lie under an enormous boreal forest, which sequesters a huge amount of carbon dioxide, and is the only habitat for some of the largest populations of woodland caribou left in the world; in addition, 30 percent of North America's songbirds and 40% of its waterfowl rely on the wetlands and waterways of the boreal forest. Getting the tar sands requires clear-cutting thousands of acres of the boreal forests, diverting rivers, and strip-mining. Destroying that forest will certainly make those species of songbirds go extinct, and significantly increase global warming. The tar sands are sticky and dirty. There are additional negative systemic effects. Heat is not enough to get tar to flow. To get tar out of the ground, you have to pump in a huge amount of water and toxic chemicals. The water used to go underneath the sticky oil and pushing it up is so polluted by the toxic chemicals that it is rendered unfit to drink. The oil companies do not pay for the water; they simply drain the aquifer it comes from while letting much of the poisoned water stay in the ground. The Keystone XL pipeline would cross the Ogallala Aquifer, which provides 30% of America's ground water, and over 1.5 million people rely on. So, you get a destruction of forests and several species as well as increasing global warming, and polluting vast sums of water which all results into a dirty environment. And, since the TransCanada would not register spills under 800,000 gallons, many areas that had spills (the first section spilled 12 times in the first year), would be allowed to splurge and flood our wildlands with hot toxic water. Environmentalism predicts that the KXL will be dangerous to the environment, and this has been confirmed. Therefore, environmentalism makes a verified prediction here.7, 8 Because environmentalism has made several verified predictions, it is sound. Works Cited: 1 http://www.nap.edu... 2 http://www.ipcc.ch... 3 http://nationalacademies.org... 4 http://www.ipcc.ch... 5 http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu... 6 http://www.care2.com... 7 Lakoff, George. The Little Blue Book (2012): pp. 98-100 8 http://www.esquire.com...", "qid": "21", "docid": "bb5e0198-2019-04-18T17:32:58Z-00003-000", "rank": 3, "score": 207341.0}, {"content": "Title: Is Human Activity an addition to increased Global Warming/Climate Change Content: Just for clarification when I say human activity I mean the activity to the addition of climate change, as you could see by the evidence I used. What level of change contributes to climate change would be the rising temperatures. Since that humans release so much C02 and pollute the air it contributes to warming the planet. The EPA predicts in the next 100 years global temperatures will rise by 2 degrees. Now you may say that isn't much but that will cause the melting of the ice caps which will cause rising sea levels which will sink cities, as National Geographic reports. As you said that not all human activities cause Global warming, I acknowledged that in my evidence but as I will state again NASA reports that humans have increased atmospheric C02 emissions by a third since the industrial revolution, and the largest known contribution is fossil fuels, WHICH IS DONE BY HUMANS. My evidence shows more than that humans expel more C02 than any other species, in my evidence you can clearly see that these levels are detrimental. As I said Water shortages, food shortages, Ocean Acidification, the evidence is all there. Also to say I would not have to define detrimental that word is of common knowledge and if you can't accept that I'm sorry you're too incompetent. So I have won this debate because you have not even stated one piece of evidence that goes against my case, and your entire argument is on not defining common knowledge terms so for these reasons this is why Pro as won this debate.", "qid": "21", "docid": "9c07825d-2019-04-18T13:31:03Z-00003-000", "rank": 4, "score": 206266.0}, {"content": "Title: Is Human Activity an addition to increased Global Warming/Climate Change Content: Thank you for your quick response. Your position was human activity is an addition to increased Global Warming/ Climate Change. My position was that human activity is an addition to climate change just like other species. You can say human activity contributed more global warming than other species, but no more than the sun. So why aim the gun at us only? If we want to save humanity or other life on earth in the long run, we should not focus our effort in fighting over something insignificant as our demise is inevitable due to the sun. Maybe we should consider decreasing the sun activity to receive a greater impact. The statement \" human activity is an addition to increased Global Warming/ Climate Change\" is only partially true, and therefore is not the truth, and could be considered to be false if it is not the entire truth. With technological advancement, we might just be able to put on an extremely large sun glass to protect our earth from the sun's harmful activity. You may see human advancement or human activities to be harmful, but it could be the necessary ingredient to save the day.", "qid": "21", "docid": "9c07825d-2019-04-18T13:31:03Z-00000-000", "rank": 5, "score": 205107.0}, {"content": "Title: The significant bulk of scientific research says it is happening Content: The biggest collection of specialist scientists in the world say that the worlds climate is changing as a result of human activity. The scientific community almost unanimously agrees that man-caused global warming is a severe threat, and the evidence is stacking.", "qid": "21", "docid": "212f2296-2019-04-19T12:47:07Z-00008-000", "rank": 6, "score": 199764.0}, {"content": "Title: The claim that \"97% of scientists agree 'man made global warming' exists\" is a lie. Content: John Kerry has been quoted as saying, \"And let there be no doubt in anybody\"s mind that the science is absolutely certain. . . 97 percent of climate scientists have confirmed that climate change is happening and that human activity is responsible. . . . . they agree that, if we continue to go down the same path that we are going down today, the world as we know it will change\"and it will change dramatically for the worse.\" This is very false. But leaving aside the catastrophic/\"change dramatically for the worse\" assertion which is not supported by any scientific agreement. The most common source of this 97% number is in Cook et al. (2013) which leaves out the 'catastrophic' part. In Cook\"s summary of his paper: \"Cook et al. (2013) found that over 97 percent endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.\" ( main cause meaning over 50%) 97% of what? Of papers they surveyed. Not climate scientists. However, if we were to say \"97 percent of papers by climate scientists endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause\" this too would also false. ---------------------------------------- This is not a debate on if global warming exists or doesn't exist. This is not a debate on if global warming is harmful to humans. This is a debate on the 'Man Made' with the 97% claim. If it is not man made then it's usage is meaningless, and the claim should not be used. If there is not a 97% consensus, the the claim should not be used. My argument is that 97% of scientists, or climate scientists, or climate papers DO NOT agree that 'man made global warming' exists, and anyone who claims this is misrepresenting facts, and that the 97% claim should be disregarded a false. The Con side must prove that: 97% of scientists/climate scientists/climate papers agree that Warming is Man Made(51%).", "qid": "21", "docid": "356ae6f2-2019-04-18T14:14:18Z-00003-000", "rank": 7, "score": 197884.0}, {"content": "Title: Global Warming is Real and is Manmade! Content: In ROUND 3 I will continue my ROUND 2 response, where I will show the link between carbon dioxide emitted by human activity and the increase in global surface temperatures. In the final ROUND I will go over the effects of climate change caused by global warming.Carbon Dioxide (and Other Green House Gases) are Causing Global Warming and Climate ChangeWith the advent of the industrial revolution, human-induced global warming--through such actions as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation--has led to an unprecendented increase in CO2 concentrations and other green house gases [1][2]. However, climate scientists overwhelmingly pin the blame of global warming on carbon dioxide because it is the most widely and most abundantly emitted green house gas of human activity [3]. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), carbon dioxide and methane are responsible for more than 84% of the warming being inflicted on our planet because of green house gases [3]. The remaining percent of warming can be attributed to green house gases like nitrous oxide and flourinated gases [3]. By itself, the IPCC has affirmed that carbon dioxide is reponsible for 54.7% of the global warming caused by green house gases; that's because it is the most abundantly produced green house gas of human activity and because it has an enormous radiative impact compared to other green house gases when accounting for its abundance in the atmosphere, its indirect heating effects, and because of the CO2 molecule's long lifetime in the atmosphere [3][4]. In fact, only water vapor has a stronger green house gas effect than carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, but unlike CO2 water vapor isn't being emitted naturally by any known source at a large enough scale to be blamed for global warming [4]; water vapor does contribute to global warming, but this is because of a feedback loop caused as other green house gasses in our atmosphere increase in concentration and heat up the Earth's lower atmosphere [5].As the Earth's atmosphere and surface become warmer because of green house gas emissions, this drive's more water vapor to be absorbed into the air, further heating our planet; this water vapor loop is well-understood and contributes to anthropogenic (human induced) global warming [5].However, other green house gases emitted by human activity drive this loop and are primarily responsible for global warming. As the statistic above shows, carbon dioxide is responsible for 54.7% of the warming being inflicted on our planet because of human activity. As I demonstrated with the graph on carbon dioxide concentration in our atmosphere in ROUND 2 (and as I reported in ROUND 1), never in the last 400,000 years has the CO2 concentration been quite so high as it is today! Ice core analysis shows that in the last half-million years the peak concentration (the highest concentration) of CO2 was almost 300 parts per million--and that was 300,000 years ago [1]. Today the concentration of atmospheric CO2 is 398 parts per million! Nearly 33% higher than it has ever been in the last half-million years [1]!This unprecedented increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide can be attributed almost entirely to human activity, such as through large-scale deforestation, land use changes (such as methane emission from ammonia-based fertilizers), and the burning fossil fuels (which include coal and gasoline) [2]. The IPCC reports that in the last 150 years, human activity has increased atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from 280 parts per million to 398 parts per million today [2]! According to the United States Environment Protection Agency (EPA), humans largely emit carbon dioxide and other green house gases from the production of electricity and from transportation; in the U.S. these two behaviors contribute to 60.8% of all the nation's emitted green house gases in a single year [3]. Other behaviors, such as those of industry, businesses, of agricultural, and of energy use in homes, contribute to the remaining 39% of the nation's green house gas emissions [3].Global warming is produced when green house gases in the atmosphere--water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide--accumulate in the atmosphere and act as a thermal blanket for the Earth, absorbing the sun's radiative heat and warming the Earth's surface [2]. Nature uses green house gases to facilitate heat trapping from the sun's rays to warm the Earth and make biological life on the planet possible. But if the concentrations of green house gases in the atmosphere become excessive, this can overheat the planet, alter the Earth's climate system, injure natural ecosystems, and make it harder for biological processes to take place and be maintained. This is exactly what's happening now and generating planet-altering climate change (these effects will be explicated in the final ROUND).Volcanes and Changes in the Sun's Solar Output are Not Contributing to Global WarmingSome skeptics claim that erupting land and submarine volcanoes are causing global warming. But reports by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) shows that volcanoes primarily emit gases, like sulfur dioxide, at high enough concentrations so as to encourage global cooling [6]. In fact, the USGS takes the position that erupting volcanoes typically emit gases that are more likely to lead to global cooling[6]! The USGS asserts that CO2 emission by human activity dwarfs the output of CO2 by all volcanoes worldwide [6].Some opponents of manmade global warming claim that the Sun's solar output is responsible for the current rise in atmospheric temperatures--that humans are not responsible for the modern warming trend. But this is a view that the scientists firmly dispute, based on a variety of evidence (2):--Scientists point out that, since 1750, the average amount of energy coming from the sun either remained constant or increased only slightly.--If the warming were caused by increased radiation coming from the sun, then scientists would expect to see warmer temperatures in all layers of the atmosphere. Instead what they observe is a cooling in the upper atmosphere, and a warming at the surface and in the lower parts of the atmosphere. Scientists say that this is a strong indication that green house gases are responsible for global warming, because they trap heat in the lower atmosphere.--Computer climate models that include solar irradiance changes can't reproduce the observed temperature trend over the past century or more without including a rise in green house gases.All of these bits evidence demonstrate that solar irradiance is not responsible for the rise in Earth's surface temperatures over the last century or more.Elevations in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentrations have been responsible for Prehistoric Rises in Global Surface TemperaturesScientists that study prehistoric ice ages and warming ages point out that carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere by geologic activity or other natural events has consistently led to warming trends in Earth's history. For example, the Ice Age that stretched during most of the Cryogenian Period (840 - 635 million years ago) had the potential to cover the entire globe and would have been a major setback for biological life and evolution in general had it been this severe. Scientists that study the period point out that this extreme condition never occured because, as the Earth froze, atmospheric oxygen was forced into the oceans, which oxidized organic matter and released CO2 into the atmosphere, preventing temperatures from falling any lower [7]. Presently scientists have no other plausible model to explain how the atmosphere was able to maintain warmth while the Earth froze [7]. Scientists also point out that a rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations have led to prehistoric Warming Ages. 55 million years ago, the Earth entered a sudden and rapid global warming event, which scientists call the the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM). Analysis firmly demonstrates that the quantity of carbon and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere rose significantly at the beginning of this period [8] [9]. The increasing concentration of CO2 is considered the chief reason why the atmosphere warmed so rapidly during PETM [8] [9]. Ice core analysis also attributes the end of the last ice age to an increase in atmospheric CO2 levels[10].That carbon dioxide is a heat-trapping greenhouse gas is sound; its heat-trapping effects have been studied in laboratories throughout the world. Its contribution to prehistoric global warming has long been understood, even before the concept of man-made global warming entered the imagination [11]. [1] (http://climate.nasa.gov...)[2] (http://climate.nasa.gov...)[3] (http://www.epa.gov...)[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org...)[5] (http://www.nasa.gov...)[6] (http://volcanoes.usgs.gov...)[7] (http://news.softpedia.com...)[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org...)[9] (http://smithsonianscience.org...)[10] (http://www.livescience.com...)[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org...)", "qid": "21", "docid": "5d920354-2019-04-18T16:11:42Z-00001-000", "rank": 8, "score": 196616.0}, {"content": "Title: CO2 emissions are directly responsible for climate change. Content: The Macquarie Dictionary defines the term \"climate change\" as- a significant change in the usual climatic conditions especially that thought to be caused by global warming. This 'climate change' can be caused by natural or human induced impacts. The global average temperature has risen by nearly a degree in the past 50 years. Scientists around the world have been recording temperature increases, raised ocean levels and melting of ice caps. All this is evidence that the earth is experiencing a \"climate change\". Many people believe that this change is primarily due to the fact that our CO2 emissions have created more greenhouse gases. They believe that there is a relationship between the rise in temperatures and the rise in CO2 emissions. Data shows an \"association\" between temperature levels and CO2 emissions but does not necessarily prove that increased CO2 levels are the most significant aspect of today\"s climate change. For something complex like the weather system, many scientists are needed to unravel the story behind climate change. While most scientists believe climate change occurs, not all agree on the extent and relevance of human activity as an influence on climate change. While major international climate agencies all emphasise the critical role of CO2 emissions in climate change, others are not so sure. For example, some scientists have conducted research that suggests that temperatures were higher than they are today, during the Roman and Medieval periods. These ancient civilisations would not have emitted CO2 emissions as we do today, so why did their temperatures rise? Temperatures have risen and fallen for a long time. The National Centre for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) states that climate change over the longer term is mainly due to the amount of sun energy hitting the Earth. Slight changes in the Earth\"s orbit and changes in sun ray intensity, can alter the temperatures here on Earth. Even so, most scientists still emphasise the role of CO2 emissions in unprecedented, rapid global warming. The frank fact is that climate change cannot be stopped. It is completely natural.", "qid": "21", "docid": "29d685d9-2019-04-18T13:29:32Z-00004-000", "rank": 9, "score": 196388.0}, {"content": "Title: Global Warming is likely impacted by humans. Content: 1: Does Global Warming exist?Yes, but how do we know? The amount of evidence is compelling and indisputable from the rising global sea level to global temperature rise, warming oceans, to shrinking ice sheets. Other ways we know that global warming exists includes but is not limited to; Declining Arctic Sea, Glacial Retreat, Extreme Weather, Decreased Snow Cover, Ocean Acidification. Now that we can agree that Global Warming exists the question becomes2: Is it man made?\u201c97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities.\u201d (1)This effect made by humans is called the greenhouse effect. Defined that is \u201cwarming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space.\u201d(2) This is mainly caused by burning of fossil fuels like coal and oil. It is also caused by the clearing of land for agriculture, industry, and other human activities. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is a group of 1,300 independent scientific experts, which runs assessment reports concluded \u201cthere's a more than 90 percent probability that human activities over the past 250 years have warmed our planet.\u201d(3)Conclusion: As we can see that Global warming exists and the experts in the field overwhelmingly conclude that Global warming is likely man made we can conclude that Global Warming is likely impacted by humans. Sources:(1) http://iopscience.iop.org...(2) http://climate.nasa.gov...(3) http://climate.nasa.gov...", "qid": "21", "docid": "7852a724-2019-04-18T14:16:39Z-00002-000", "rank": 10, "score": 195627.0}, {"content": "Title: Human activities are the main cause global warming. Content: First off, I'd like to thank my opponent for joining this debate and wish them best of luck to them now to clarify a few definitions: (merriam-webster) human- of, relating to, or characteristic of humans activities- the quality or state of being active (in this case, pollution and burning of fossil fuels) main- primary cause- a reason for an action or condition global warming- an increase in the earth's atmospheric and oceanic temperatures widely predicted to occur due to an increase in the greenhouse effect resulting especially from pollution 1.) the earth is heating up because of the dawning ice age a.) About 10,000 years ago, the last Ice Age had come to an end with carbon dioxide levels at an all time low. As the temperature had some drastic changes, rising from about negative 8 degress celcius to about one degree celcius, the carbon dioxide levels continued on its downward slope before slowly rising until recent years when it sky-rocketed. Also, during the last era of warming about 115,000 years ago, the temperature had risen well above what we are experiencing now, yet the carbon dioxide levels were well below the average level ever recorded. Over the past century, the temperature has risen less than half of a degree even though the carbon dioxide levels are nearly twice the highest amount that have been recorded. b.) \"Within the 90,000-year Ice Age cycles, the Earth also experiences 1,500-year warming-cooling cycles. The current warming began about 1850 and will possibly continue for another 500 years. Their findings are drawn from physical evidence of past climate cycles that have been documented by researchers around the world.\" (Warming Caused by Natural Cycle, Not Humans.) This is the side of global warming according to Avery and Singer, two scientists studying climate change. Their research was compiled from years of research on tree rings, ice cores, prehistoric villages, fossils, titanium profiles and numerous other sources. 2.) burning fossil fuels only accounts for a small percent of greenhouse gases a.) The burning of fossil fuels by humans is most often the culprit of global warming but in Avery and Singers research they go on to say that the burning of fossil fuels has little effect on global warming and does not speed up the process. In fact, studies show that humans burning fossil fuels actually account for aprox. 18% of greenhouse gases. Other sources are main contributors. These sources are volcanoes, trees, and even cosmic rays from space can greatly increase greenhouse gases. b.) New research involving ice core results allow us to distinguish which came first, temperature change or change in CO2 levels. Scientists from an organization called icecap concluded that temperature change actually preceded change in CO2 levels by over 800 years. So in fact, temperature change actually causes CO2 levels to rise and NOT HUMANS.", "qid": "21", "docid": "66212ba4-2019-04-18T19:44:16Z-00003-000", "rank": 11, "score": 195486.0}, {"content": "Title: Humanity is the main cause of global warming. Content: The word 'main' as used in the debate heading presents the position that humanity's contribution to global warming is greater in magnitude than any other factor. The definition of 'main' could be explained as: chief or principal in rank, importance, size, etc. Therefore, Pro must prove that the human portion is in fact the largest of factors. Of course, the human portion needn't be greater than 50% of the total effect if there are multiple elements/factors at play. I also agree that it is more than possible that human activities could affect, change or initiate natural processes, but again, that would have to be quantified (what portion of a natural system has been altered by human elements versus natural change). Natural and human effect can be intertwined and extremely complicated, if not impossible to differentiate and separate. This is referred to as the \"attribution of recent climate change\". I will reference the following scholarly article: https://gfdl.noaa.gov... \"Detection and Attribution of Recent Climate Change: A Status Report\". The authors make several important conclusions in this comprehensive study: \"Greenhouse warming alone is insufficient to explain the observed pattern of climate change.\" and \"The most probable cause of the observed warming is a combination of internally and externally forced natural variability and anthropogenic sources (see also Tett et al. 1999). But given the large model uncertainties and limited data, a reliable weighting of the different factors contributing to the observed climate change cannot currently be given. In short, we cannot attribute, at this time, with a high level of statistical significance, the observed changes in global and large-scale regional climate to anthropogenic forcing alone.\". This research contradicts Pro's assertion that human causes are definitively more important than natural ones. In addition, to say that our current warming trend was caused solely by the industrial age based on the chart I presented (in round 3) would be to dismiss the fact that the sharp rebound from the Little Ice Age and commencement of our current warming trend (1600-) was initiated and occurred well before human activity was a relevant factor. I agree with much of the content contained within the two sites referenced by pro, but none of them contains information that establishes that human activity plays a greater role than natural variability. The CO2 now website asserts that \"The human impact on climate during this era greatly exceeds that due to known changes in natural processes, such as solar changes and volcanic eruptions.\" and lists several of the unique contributions and circumstances associated with human activity and greenhouse gasses. It also states that \"the radiative forcing from human activities is much more important for current and future climate change than the estimated radiative forcing from changes in natural processes.\" These are grand statements, but there is no attempt to quantify them unlike the formal research document I presented above (which contradicts these sites). There is also no mention on Pro's sites of the fact that our current warming period was initiated well before the industrial age and human influence by natural forces. Even the IPCC continues to protect its reputation by using vague terms such as \"...likely\" regarding the position of humanity's \"...dominant role in global warming\". I acknowledge that we currently are experiencing global warming. For those who lived in 1100 BC and 1300 AD, they also experienced global warming on a larger scale than we do today, even though human activity had little correlation to that warming. Thus, to say that Global Warming is unique to the industrial age is false. It is also very likely that scientists will one day be able to prove/quantify what portion of Human Activity is attributable to global warming. Presently, it is not possible as my opponent acknowledges. This is why no scientist(s) or scientific body has declared a victory on this issue (A quantified attribution of recent climate change). In fact, a very large amount of money and large amount of research continues to be spent on this very issue because it has yet to be proved or resolved. I also agree that the current warming period presented on the on the chart I referenced is abrupt and is likely a reflection of the influence of human activity. Being that this warming period has yet to exceed several recent warming periods in effect and duration, we need more time in order to be able to place our current warming period into the context of other prior larger warming periods. It is simply premature to state definitively that human activity is the main factor in global warming. My statement is reflected in the current feverish rate of research being performed into the Attribution of Recent Climate Change. If a definitive conclusion had been reached, this research would not be needed to such a degree. Keep in mind, that I am not advocating that humanity should not take responsibility towards reducing our greenhouse gas emissions; quite the contrary.", "qid": "21", "docid": "c09112b2-2019-04-18T14:00:47Z-00002-000", "rank": 12, "score": 195470.0}, {"content": "Title: Official May Tournament Final: Global Warming Content: HOUSEKEEPING1. In my Round 2 argument, I mistakenly wrote, \"I have now established that [human activity] is responsible for much more that 57% of global warming, somewhere around 75%.\" I meant to write 65%, which is the actual number. That is an approximate estimate, and my estimate is closer to 62.5% of the warming (which means human activity has caused 85% of global warming since 1975, indicating a climate sensitivity of around 2 degrees C).2. Con writes, \"My opponent has also dropped my opening graph in C1 r2 That also showed that CO2 levels are at an all time low! Thus once again disproving my opponent's theory.\" Note that I couldn't have dropped anything, since this *is* Con's C1, R2. CON's CASEOverviews1. Con's first contention is a defense. It doesn't give any offense, i.e. does not provide a reason for judges to vote for his side. Con argues that CO2 does not have an effect, which merely preempts an argument that asserts that CO2 does have an effect. I ask judges to take this into consideration. I will refute that argument anyway. 2. The second contention Con presents is a \"kritik\" of the topic. A \"kritik\" is defined as an argument that challenges an assumption in the resolution. The second contention says global warming doesn't even exist, therefore is not man-made. Therefore, its topicality is indirect, making it a \"kritik.\" Rule 6 prohibits \"kritiks.\" Please note this violation. C1. Carbon Dioxide and TemperaturesCarbon dioxide does not exactly correlate with temperature. However, the radiative forcing of CO2 and the sun allows for a direct correlation. The sun drives much of modern climate change. The most recent spurt of global warming was caused by the sun, thus carbon dioxide drives climate change and is a major forcing. [1] The below graph illustrates a correlation between the forcings of the sun and CO2, and the rise in temperature. [2] The effects of carbon dioxide increase due to positive feedback amplification. Feedbacks such as volcanic activity and clouds can significantly expand the impact of carbon dioxide on temperature. [3] The below graph depicts the correlation between carbon dioxide and temperatures over the last 700,000 years. A comparison of the warming between the troposphere and the stratosphere can demonstrate this. Majority of atmospheric carbon dioxide is found in the upper troposphere, entailing that carbon dioxide would cause higher temperatures in the troposphere than in the stratosphere. [4, 5] The following graph depicts the temperature effect of CO2 in the troposphere and stratosphere. [6] Robert Berner and Zavareth Kothavala argue, \" The exact values of CO2...should not be taken literally...[O]ver the long term, there is indeed a correlation between CO2 and paleotemperature.\" [7] The following graph shows the uncertainty of values of CO2. [8] Furthermore, I can turn the entire argument against Con. This is primarily because many of the greenhouse gases mentioned - with high global warming potentials - act as positive feedbacks. Water vapor, the greenhouse gas that has the highest effect on climate, as conceded by Con, also acts as the largest positive feedback. Brian J. Soden and Isaac M. Held write, \"Water vapor is found to provide the largest positive feedback in all models and its strength is consistent with that expected from constant relative humidity changes in the water vapor mixing ratio. The feedbacks from clouds and surface albedo are also found to be positive in all models, while the only stabilizing (negative) feedback comes from the temperature response.\" [9] This means the effects of water vapor help my case. A positive feedback loop would also allow CO2 level increase to cause an increase in the water vapor concentration in the atmosphere. \"When CO2 is added to the atmosphere, as a greenhouse gas it has a warming effect. This causes more water to evaporate and warm the air more to a higher (more or less) stabilized level. So CO2 warming has an amplified effect, beyond a purely CO2 effect...Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would warm the globe around 1 degree C. Taken on its own, water vapour feedback roughly doubles the amount of CO2 warming. When other feedbacks are included (eg - loss of albedo due to melting ice), the total warming from a doubling of CO2 is around 3 degrees Celsius.\" [10] This is affirmed by the research of Soden and Held, who find that water vapor is the primary atmospheric feedback on Earth. [11]C2. The Temperature of the EarthAll my opponents studies are faulty and unreliable. These are the reasons. Firstly, my opponent's first graph shows the temperature of the Earth in relation to the temperature of the Earth millions of years ago. This can be discredited, because \"global warming\" only began in the 19th century, after the Earth was relatively normal. The definition of global warming given in the debate concerns the 19th century. Discredit the first graph. Secondly, the idea of the \"global warming hiatus,\" which my opponent brings up, is flawed. My opponent's data is largely based on TSS data. UAH and HADCRUT4 data both show that the Earth has been continuing to warm throughout the last 15 years. [12, 13] Further, the long-term trend of increasing temperatures is due to CO2. Short-term variability happens all the time; it does not mean that the long-term increase is going to stabilize forever. Oscillation phenomena, or \"La Nena\" phenomena, will result in the trend changing, but will revert to a positive trend eventually. [14] Thirdly, the heat content of Earth is actually increasing. \"This new research combines measurements of oceanheat, land and atmosphere warming and ice melting to find that our climate system continued to accumulate heatthrough to 2008...Since 1970, the Earth's heat content has been rising at a rate of 6 x 10^21 Joules per year.\" [15] The below graph represents this. [16] Also, \"Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) used multiple linear regression to filter out the effects of the El Ni\u00f1o Southern Oscillation (ENSO), and solar and volcanic activity (Figure 2), and found that the underlying global surface and lower atmospherewarming trends have remained very steady in recent years.\" [15] The below graph portrays the data. [17] Con then reiterates the argument from water vapor, which is addressed above. He then straw-mans my position, since I did not present the hockey stick graph. SOURCES1 - http://tinyurl.com...2 - http://tinyurl.com...3 - http://www.jamstec.go.jp...4 - http://www.skepticalscience.com...5 - http://tinyurl.com...6 - http://www.skepticalscience.com...7 - http://tinyurl.com...8 - http://earthguide.ucsd.edu...9 - http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov...10 - http://www.skepticalscience.com...11 - http://tinyurl.com...12 - http://nsstc.uah.edu...13 - http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk...14 - http://tinyurl.com...15 - http://www.skepticalscience.com...16 - http://www.ess.uci.edu...17 - http://tinyurl.com...Thus, I affirm. Over to Con!", "qid": "21", "docid": "e62a5fda-2019-04-18T14:23:08Z-00005-000", "rank": 13, "score": 195042.0}, {"content": "Title: Human activities are the main cause global warming. Content: wow Krebs, way to show up BUDDY. If we were in a real debate round I would have to insist that I take this match because of my opponents lack of second speech. Because of this, I have nothing to rebutt.", "qid": "21", "docid": "66212ba4-2019-04-18T19:44:16Z-00000-000", "rank": 14, "score": 194984.0}, {"content": "Title: Climate change Content: I will present my position, and then I will state the things upon me and Con agree, then I will react to the arguments brought up by Con. My position I have stated that humans \"drive\" global warming in a significant degree. Significant is the key word here. Nobody is so naive to consider that global climate is driven only or even mostly by humans. That would be an absurd position and a probatio diabolica for Pro taking into account things like solar activity, ocean currents or vulcanic activity. I have chosen the more sane position that human activity is an important or significant factor of global warming. By this I understand that what we do with regard to greenhouse gases has consequences on the climate and ultimately on us. Consensus I agree with Con that this is a broad topic. However even from the second round there are things upon we have already agreed effectively narrowing the topic. The first agreed fact is that the climate is warming. This is an smart choice from Con, as it would have been more difficult to argue that the climate is not warming. Also, Con admits that humans have a marginal effect. I say that this effect is important. We also agree that we are talking only about greenhouse gases even if this reduces the examples that Pro can bring up. In addition I want to point out the contradiction between the second paragraph and the last paragraph of Con. In the first paragraph he admits that there is global warming and in the last paragraph he talks about cO2 increase not explaining \"stable\" recent temperatures. I want a clarification on this position as I can not counterargument both these statements without contradicting myself. I now ask Con if we can agree upon a criterion or standard that can determine what important means for this debate? A good criterion could be the answer to the question: IS IT IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO DO SOMETHING (green energy, trade caps etc. ) ABOUT IT? This standard/criterion can be refined but I think it is a good start. Disensus Con states that IPCC is biased, incompetent or has a secret agenda determined by bureaucrats. In the evidence presented [1] a scientist resigned from IPCC because he feared that IPCC MAY depart from scientific objectivity. He resigned because he considers that climate change science must remain politically neutral. Furthermore no one \"imposed\" any ideas on the scientist. I demand proof that there are imposed views on such a huge number of scientists. On the other hand it would be foolish for us to think that the discoveries of climate scientists have no political meaning. Besides the science there is an also a political battle. For the sake of our debate the two must be understood separately. Bearing this in mind I must point out that Con has pointed no secret agenda or motives for the IPCC to be biased. On the other hand I can point out a clear secret agenda (from the political perspective. There are people (like Con) that deny GW for the sake of finding the truth). One example is the editing of climate change reports by the White House [2]. The other two are the founding of The Marshal Institute by Exxon Mobile (the books quoted by Con are edited by the Marshal Institute) [3] and the relentless effort by the industry to promote climate change denial [4]. Their effort is nevertheless futile: first they argued that there is no GW, then that humans have no influence, than that the influence is insignificant etc. When comparing the \"secret agenda\" of IPCC and the quite obvious agenda of companies like Exxon it is clear who has more interest to mix politics and science and to misinform. Regarding the science arguments presented by Con, I will first point out that Con did not talk about anything about the super greenhouse effect on Venus that I have previously mentioned. This example shows that greenhouse gasses can produce quite dramatic effects. So from this perspective I consider that things are clear. With regards to many of the other arguments of Con, I must point out that his strategy is flawed. He will never win by pointing out a huge number of other causes that drive the climate even if they are more powerful than Co2. I clearly stated that I will prove that Co2 has a significant effect on GW. To make things more clear (bearing in mind the simplifications), let's consider t= f (sun, volcanoes, cosmic rays, clouds, particles, Co2 etc. ) + e. Con can win if he shows that: the system is not sensible to Co2 variations; Co2 variations cause a smaller temperature increase than the noise (e); Co2 receives a negative feed-back that counters its effect. By analogy, if there is a heart stroke risk of x because of eating to much fat you can't prove that this risk is smaller by showing that drinking also has a y hart stroke risk. Furthermore, in the first round I pointed out a positive feedback of Co2. Con dismissed this feedback saying that temperatures increased in the past and there was \"something\" that stopped this vicious circle. This is wrong because, as I showed in my proof, these are the highest levels of Co2 reached in 650 000 years [5]. Also, when there was warmer weather in the past there also was more vegetation to absorb the Co2. Now we have more Co2, warmer weather and less vegetation so the Co2 is not absorbed by anything at the rate by which it is produced. There is proof of this happening in the Carboniferous Era 300 million years ago [6]. Unfortunately we do not have giant forests to gather the solar heat and the Co2. The proof that shows that nowadays the Co2 levels are at a record level also dismisses the \"all this happened before and it will happen again\" argument made by Con. Con alleges that Co2 variations must have a multiplier. This is not true. It is enough for Co2 to create a 0.5 C increase for every 40% to have significant effects. Furthermore Con states that if climate would be a car than the Co2 would be an acceleration pedal. To be more exact we should consider climate a car with multiple pedals (sun, volcanoes, etc. ). Some pedals accelerate the car faster (sun), others accelerate the car slower (Co2). The fact that climate changed in less than 800 years simply shows that another more violent factor was involved not that Co2 theory is wrong. Further more the lag between temperature increase and Co2 has no significance. There will be a day of reckoning since Co2 is produced at a higher rate than it is absorbed in an ever increasing temperature that prevents Co2 absorption by oceans. Furthermore, the proof presented by Con itself acknowledges that there is some (although small) correlation between Co2 and temperature. From the fact that I reestablished the credibility of the IPCC reports, I have pointed out the clear bias of the two books presented by Con, I have pointed out the contradictions between the beginning and the end of his answer, I have showed that on Venus the greenhouse effect is really powerful, I have proven that Co2 rise is steady and has no negative feed-back, I conclude that my first position stands and that GW is man-made in a significant degree. Looking forward for another good round. [1] . http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu... [2] . http://www.nytimes.com... [3] . http://www.ucsusa.org... - P. 32 [4] . http://www.newsweek.com... [5] . http://www.geocraft.com...", "qid": "21", "docid": "ab411006-2019-04-18T19:20:25Z-00007-000", "rank": 15, "score": 194926.0}, {"content": "Title: global climate change is human caused Content: Yes it is true that Global Warming cannot be stopped. It is also true that it has recently gone up more in the 20th century then it has before. Why do you think that is if not because of the constant burning of fossil fuels humans burn daily. This lets off too many gases into the atmosphere which causes the green house effect which results in Global Warming. Why don't we define Global Climate Change: Climate change refers to any significant change in measures of climate (such as temperature, precipitation, or wind) lasting for an extended period (decades or longer). Climate change may result from: \u2022Natural factors, such as changes in the sun's intensity or slow changes in the Earth's orbit around the sun \u2022Natural processes within the climate system (e.g. ,changes in ocean circulation) \u2022Human activities that change the atmosphere's composition (e.g., through burning fossil fuels) and the land surface (e.g., deforestation, reforestation, urbanization, desertification) Notice the part where it says \"human activities\". As you can clearly see, humans are a huge factor in Global Warming.", "qid": "21", "docid": "a5cb0429-2019-04-18T19:47:04Z-00002-000", "rank": 16, "score": 194534.0}, {"content": "Title: Manmade global climate change is real and a threat. Content: \"Many climate scientists agree that sunspots and solar wind could be playing a role in climate change, but the vast majority view it as very minimal and attribute Earth\u2019s warming primarily to emissions from industrial activity\u2014and they have thousands of peer-reviewed studies available to back up that claim.\" harrytrumanSunspots play a minimal role. As for CO2 levels only being a small part of the greenhouse gases this is true. Neverthless, naturally occuring CO2 is balanced out. Human industry made CO2 is not. Thanks for the debate.http://www.scientificamerican.com...", "qid": "21", "docid": "b567d7fa-2019-04-18T12:55:36Z-00001-000", "rank": 17, "score": 194161.0}, {"content": "Title: Humans are the main cause of global warming Content: Thanks to my opponent for a well written response. I.i. The rest of the solar system While fluctuations in solar activity can affect Earth's climate, the majority of climate scientists and astrophysicists agree that the sun is not to blame for the current and historically sudden uptick in global temperatures on Earth, which seems to be mostly created by humans. [1] Abdussamatov blamed solar fluctuations for the attenuation of ice caps on Mars. However, these changes were likely not due to the Sun, but rather increases in atmospheric clouds or aerosols that reflected solar radiation back into space.[1] Charles Long, a climate physicist at Pacific Northwest National Laboratories in Washington, says that Abdussamatov's idea is nonsense. [1] I.ii. The Position of the Milky Way Galaxy \"Every approximately 135 million years, Earth enters a more populated area of the Milky Way, and as a result, more cosmic rays hit the Earth, which causes cooling.\" 135 million years. Wikipedia says: \"Global warming is the rise in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans since the late 19th century and its projected continuation. Since the early 20th century, Earth's mean surface temperature has increased by about 0.8 \"C (1.4 \"F).\"[2] This was nowhere near 135 million years. How could this suddenly happen? II. Earthly causes I.i. Ocean Current Anomalies \"Ocean temperature anomalies seem to be rising-along with the temperature.\" The temperature of the ocean can also be affected by the CO2 and Methane levels, (Which I proved that were going up in the last round. ) as those warm the surface and air, won't it be plausible that the air is warming the oceans and not the other way around? Plus, In the picture you posted, it DID affect the temperature, but it still was going up, which I proved was man made. II.ii. Clouds: A Continuation of Point I.ii. See my refutation on Point I.ii. III. The 1500-Year Cycle I.S.I.L. is not even a scientific organization at all. \" The International Society for Individual Liberty (ISIL) is an association of individuals and organizations dedicated to building a free and peaceful world, respect for individual rights and liberties, and an open and competitive economic system based on voluntary exchange and free trade. ISIL currently has members and representatives in over 100 countries.\"3] I.S.I.L. even said \"To combat global warming, militants say we must all accept drastic reductions in our standard of living starting now, steadily increasing year-after-year, until much of industrial society is swept away. Only thus can the earth, and perhaps mankind, be saved. Cars, jet travel for the public, air conditioning, refrigeration, and indeed many if not most of the conveniences of modern life will simply have to be abolished, as quickly as politically feasible. \" Even though that is not true. \"Industrialized countries commit to reduce their emissions by 40% by 2020, compared to 1990 levels. Emissions from forest destruction are reduced by three quarters (75%)Emissions from forest destruction are reduced by three quarters (75%)\" [4] IV. The Sun: The Proof of Theories I.ii and II.ii Refuted in I.i. [1]http://www.livescience.com... [2]http://en.wikipedia.org... [3]http://www.isil.org... [4]http://wwf.panda.org...", "qid": "21", "docid": "1f15702f-2019-04-18T18:02:44Z-00005-000", "rank": 18, "score": 193771.0}, {"content": "Title: Is Human Activity an addition to increased Global Warming/Climate Change Content: Seeing that you have a rich source of information I can easily rebut the case. To address you examples that humans are different than dinosaurs. Not to mention the fact that during the dinosaurs time there was just 1 continent. So to end this debate my case has won because I have easily shown that humans harmful activity have increased Global Warming, you're entire case is built upon the facts that if the dinosaurs lived through it we can. Well that was a 165 million years ago buddy, Earth has changed. For these reasons this is why Pro has won this debate.", "qid": "21", "docid": "9c07825d-2019-04-18T13:31:03Z-00001-000", "rank": 19, "score": 193064.0}, {"content": "Title: Global Warming is caused by humans Content: Good luck. I only have two points at the moment. So here they are: (1) Earth's mean surface temperature has increased about 1.2 degrees Fahrenheit. Scientist are more than 90% certain that human activities' such as burning fossil fuels and deforestation, is the primary cause of increases of the greenhouse effect. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) indicates that the global surface temperature is likely to rise a lowest of 2 to 5.2 degrees Fahrenheit and a highest of 4.5 to 11.5 degrees during the 21st century. (2) According to NASA, human activities are changing the natural greenhouse. Over the last century the burning of fossil fuels like coal and oil have increased the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) Sites: (1) en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Gobal_warming (2) climate. nasa. gov/causes/", "qid": "21", "docid": "f16410ab-2019-04-18T18:01:25Z-00004-000", "rank": 20, "score": 189943.0}, {"content": "Title: The scientific community as a whole has lost it's credibility with the gloabal warming THEORY Content: You still haven't defined what you mean by \"the scientific community.\" You also haven't provided any data for me to consider. The external links I provided you with are full of data, and references to the research, including this statement written by a scientist. \" There is no longer any doubt in the scientific community that global warming is happening and that human beings are responsible for the majority of it. The reason doubt persists in communities around the world is because a few energy companies have been spending millions of dollars funding think tanks that publish skewed information and disinformation about global warming. They have been intentionally and deliberately confusing the public in order to stall action. They use terms such as \"junk science\" to disparage rigorous, peer-reviewed, university-funded climate science. The term \"junk science\" was originally coined by corporate attorneys, according to Sheldon Rampton, director of the Center for Media and Democracy, which has been monitoring public relations and corporate law for almost two decades. At the same time, they call \"sound science\" any research or findings that suggest that human activity has no effect whatsoever on the environment. It doesn't matter if this \"sound science\" is criticized by every major academic science organization or goes against consensus, as long as it gives the industries that funded it a blank check to do whatever they want. And in all honesty, theirs is a story than many of us would like to believe \u2013 the amount of personal sacrifice and lifestyle change that is being called for to halt global warming seems immense and daunting. But not all energy companies have been so reticent to change. When the public gathers to discuss global warming, some energy companies bring their lawyers and spin doctors. Others bring their research and development teams. British Petroleum, which changed its name last year to Beyond Petroleum, has so far spent $8 billion on research and development of renewable energy. There is no future in fossil fuels \u2013 and it is incumbent upon energy companies, if they want to be industry leaders, to participate in building the world's energy future. For more information on how ExxonMobil has been fueling global warming controversy and confusing the public, click here for a report published by the Union of Concerned Scientists in January 2007. This comprehensive paper details their investigation of the company's funding of industry front groups, support of non-peer-reviewed science, and powerful influence on public policy. \" In a debate, usually it's good to address a person's statements. Though I'm starting to get the impression that you actually need to believe that Global Climate Change isn't happening. That's why I asked you to refrain from \"belief.\" in the first place. Though it might have been more constructive for me to ask you to spell it correctly rather than refrain from it's use.", "qid": "21", "docid": "f984be4d-2019-04-18T19:51:56Z-00000-000", "rank": 21, "score": 189527.0}, {"content": "Title: \"Global Warming\" is a hoax Content: While a healthy sense of skepticism is always recommended, it is unfortunately the case that the issue of Global Climate Change has become politicized and that the small amount of skepticism on GCC has been over-hyped by the various well-funded industries that don't want the government to take action with pollution and efficiency controls. When surveyed, the vast majority of climate scientists (from organizations such as the National Academies of Science) believe that human activity is to blame for the recent climate changes, though some may disagree on the severity. First, it's inaccurate to characterize the position of the pro-Global Warming/Global Climate Change crowd as believing that the earth is \"melting.\" It is their contention that human activity has finally reached the capacity (through our advanced industrial state) of being able to influence the planet's climate by throwing off-kilter the self-regulating mechanisms that keep our climate stable. Second, the sentence beginning with \"According to Accu-Weather\" is an unattributed secondhand quote from the anti-Global Warming website globalwarming.org (maintained by the \"Cooler Heads Coalition\" which is an anti-global warming front group backed by a variety of conservative think tanks and carbon industry proponents). Further, the quote does not come from AccuWeather (as it is attributed), which does not take a position on the issue of Global Climate Change; rather they provide a forum for various persons on either side of the aisle to present their cases. It's likely that the quote should be attributed to one or another of those individuals. Ignoring the source of the AccuWeather quote, measuring temperature and carbon output over the past few decades is insufficient as a much larger sample size is required to draw accurate conclusions about the nature of the climate changes we're currently experiencing. When one expands the record over millions of years (with the data we have available from ice cores and other data collection forms), it becomes apparent that we are experiencing an unprecedented warming trend, and that carbon output levels are at an all-time high. When combining instrumental temperature records for the past 150 years with \"proxy indicators\" like ice cores and tree rings, we can construct a picture of the global temperature that shows a marked increase in temperature beginning in the 19th century (Jones et al., 1998; Mann et al., 1999; Crowley and Lowery, 2000). These findings are verified by nearly a dozen other model- and proxy-based reconstructions of the Northern Hemisphere. The quote \"about 80% of the CO2 from human activities was added to the air after 1940\" is also an unattributed secondhand quote pulled from a source I can't identify. The simplest refutation of it is the fact that the rise of industrialism pre-dates 1940. It's not as though 1940 was the first year a coal-fired power plant went into operation; quite the contrary \u2013 coal, for example, has been mined and burned for industrial operations since the end of the 18th century. Assuming the statistic is true; it should stand as an alarming example of how rapidly CO2 output has increased in recent decades. The period of cooling between the 40s and the 70s is attributed by many to sulphate aerosols. Not only that, but it's important not to focus too closely on CO2 given that it is estimated to be responsible for only about 25 percent of the greenhouse effect at most \u2013 there are plenty of other influential greenhouse gases and other factors that weigh in. Ironically, the period of cooling is a superb example of how much human activity can affect the climate: when chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were banned virtually worldwide in the 1980s \u2013 it had a striking observable effect on the phenomenon of ozone depletion. The claim about Antarctica warming is patently false. Quoting from NASA's article \"Two Decades of Temperature Change in Antarctica\" on its Earth Observatory site: \"Across most of the continent and the surrounding Southern Ocean, temperatures climbed.\" The British Antarctic Survey concluded likewise, saying that the Antarctic Peninsula is \"one of the fastest warming parts of the planet\" in its article \"Climate Change.\" It's possible (given the other unattributed statistics and quotes) that the claim about Antarctica was taken from fiction author Michael Crichton's shoddily-researched book \"State of Fear\" in which Crichton (a global warming skeptic) misappropriated research by Peter Doran to make a similar claim. Doran publicly rebuffed Crichton (and all other Global Warming skeptics misusing his data) by saying \"...our results have been misused as \"evidence\" against global warming by Crichton in his novel 'State of Fear'...\". With respect to the final claim, I can find zero evidence that the National Science Foundation's Long-Term Ecological Research Project has found that Antarctica has cooled. Quite the contrary \u2013 instead of being Global Climate Change skeptics, the NRS's LTER recognizes the significant consequences of Global Warming, stating on its website: \"The study of Global Change is particularly important as it is now clear that human social and economic activities around the world are having an impact that can be measured at the level of the entire Earth and its atmosphere, oceans, and land surface. Human activities are probably the most rapidly changing component among the major regulators of the Earth system, and may\u2014in the future\u2014play a dominant role in the regulation of global climate, global biogeochemistry, and the diversity and stability of global ecosystems.\"", "qid": "21", "docid": "f7800a2b-2019-04-18T20:02:41Z-00003-000", "rank": 22, "score": 188949.0}, {"content": "Title: Anthropogenic global climate change. Content: In my debate I will be trying not to persuade you that humans are totally responsible for global warming, but the major cause is from animals etc, with still little help from the humans. It would be totally biased if you wanted me to defend humans completely out of global warming for such as a fart contributes. At the end of this debate I hope to have abolished the Anthropogenic title from your moot, and (as seen from the previous debate) from your stubborn mind. No need for any clarifications. Thank You and good luck!", "qid": "21", "docid": "61b465af-2019-04-18T12:27:15Z-00001-000", "rank": 23, "score": 188380.0}, {"content": "Title: Impromptu Debate Content: I'll be CON the resolution \"Global Warming is a sham...\" First, I'd like to note that global warming refers to an increase in the earth's temperature. Evidence indicates that the earth's temperature has actually increased by 1.4 degrees around the world since 1880, so technically the resolution has already been affirmed. However most friction pertaining to this subject questions whether or not human activity is to blame for global warming. I'd like to note that I don't have to prove that global warming is man-made, only that it is happening (based on the resolution). Regardless, I definitely think there's evidence that human activity has contributed to this problem. Most scientists throughout the world acknowledge the problem of global warming, and more importantly, note humans as avid contributors. \"This conclusion is shared by the national science academies of developed and developing countries plus many other organizations, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which was established by the United Nations and the World Meteorological Organization to provide the world with 'a clear scientific view' on climate change. The only real debate is about how fast warming will occur, and how much damage will be done, as a result of human activities that produce heat-trapping CO2 and other greenhouse-gas emissions\" [1]. A basic understanding of elementary science helps reveal why human activity and global warming is evident. For instance, pollution, deforestation, and industrialization have increased atmospheric concentrations of water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. These are all greenhouse gases that help trap heat near Earth's surface; it's no wonder the earth's temperature will therefore inevitably increase. Another problem is that humans are pouring carbon dioxide into the atmosphere much faster than plants and oceans can absorb it, which will obviously affect the way the earth heats and cools itself [2]. Excess carbon dioxide (which we output into the atmosphere) creates a warming effect on the planet [3]. One thing to keep in mind that weather cannot be confused with climate; in other words just because some places experience frigidly cold weather doesn't mean that the overall CLIMATE of the earth is not changing [4]. Various forms of evidence prove that climate change (global warming) is occurring and has been steadily increasing gradually over time. Atmospheric temperature measurements taken from orbiting satellites show warming; records of coral proxy and trees indicate global warming; the drastic rise in sea level indicates global warming; the glaciers melting at an alarming rate signifies global warming; records from scientific organizations such as NOAA, HADCRU, JMA and even NASA show that the earth's temperature on average has been increasing since the 1800s [5]. At this point, it would be irresponsible to ignore all of the blatant evidence and scientific proof, as well as committed statements by the most revered scientists themselves, all taking a firm stance on the issue that global warming DOES exist (and humans contribute to the problem). [1] http://www.environmentaldefense.net... [2] http://news.nationalgeographic.com... [3] http://www.pewclimate.org... [4] http://abcnews.go.com... [5] http://www.environmentaldefense.net...", "qid": "21", "docid": "de2ef8ea-2019-04-18T18:59:44Z-00000-000", "rank": 24, "score": 188186.0}, {"content": "Title: Is Human Activity an addition to increased Global Warming/Climate Change Content: Before I begin my argument, let me emphasis that regardless of whether \"human activity is an addition to increased Global Warming / Climate Change\", people should try their best to act for the common good. With that said, you have not properly defined what \"human activity\" is and what level of change constitutes \"Climate Change\". Not all human activities cause Global Warming or Climate Change. Furthermore, your evidence at best, only shows that human expels more CO2 than other species, but never considers whether such level of increase is detrimental. If you do not define what is detrimental, then it can be said that the level of CO2 expel by my hamster is causing Global Warming.", "qid": "21", "docid": "9c07825d-2019-04-18T13:31:03Z-00004-000", "rank": 25, "score": 188014.0}, {"content": "Title: Humans are the main cause of global warming Content: Changes in the temperature or direction of the Gulf Stream, which carries warm water north from the Gulf of Mexico, have heated sediments in a strip along the North Atlantic seafloor by 8 degrees Celsius, unlocking 2.5 billion metric tons of methane from deep-sea caches, scientists report in the Oct. 25 [1] Understanding these processes is important to global climate studies because the Gulf Stream plays a major role in the distribution of heat in the northern hemisphere.[4] This shows that evidence that humans are not the main cause of global warming. You are telling me that humans produces CO2 can move Gulf Stream. Can human drilling with machines move the seven continents on earth or even the fault lines that are in earth surfaces? It is estimated that more than 50 percent of global methane emissions are related to human-related activities, according to the EPA. A.The agency also works with industries and all levels of government in a wide variety of voluntary pollution prevention programs and energy conservation efforts. [2] There are going to make numbers up so people working for the EPA now will be rich in 5 years when those policy come into effect. It\"s the same idea that President Bush and Big Oil companies got accused during 2000 thru 2008. It\"s all about money. B.Estimated is A tentative evaluation or rough calculation, as of worth, quantity, or size. [1] http://www.sciencenews.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [4] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...", "qid": "21", "docid": "1f15704e-2019-04-18T17:53:55Z-00004-000", "rank": 26, "score": 187626.0}, {"content": "Title: Human activities are the main cause global warming. Content: i'd like to refute my opponents points and then return back to defending mine. regarding my opponents first point, his point simply stated that humans pollute the earth. duh. of course human pollute the earth but this evidence is not conclusive enough to state that they are the main cause of the earth's rising temperature. we must look to a far greater source of carbon and other greenhouse gases: the earth itself. trees, volcanoes, and cosmic rays all cause the atmosphere to trap in heat. and there is far more carbon being produced by these natural occurances than humans as proven by avery's and singer's studies. to place this blame of such great magnitude on humans is proposterous. and also, no where in any research could i find a stat that humans cause \"more than 50%\" of global warming. in my opponents second point, he simply stated that people believe in the greenhouse gas theory. although this is true, i have evidence to support the other side. recently a petition was circulating around the oregon institute of science and medicine of over 17,000 highly qualified scientists who believe that humans releasing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will not cause a catastrophe in the foreseeable future. in response another petition had been created recieving only 2,600 signatures stating that humans are causing this change. signatures for this survey consisted of only 10% scientists and of that 10%, only 1% were climatologists. and also a recent court case in britain ruled that \"an inconvenient truth\" could not be shown in school because it was ruled non-factual. my opponent states that the UN agrees with him that humans are the cause of global warming but if you gander at his debate history, he is involved in a debate that states the UN is a bad organization. a little hypocritical, huh krebs? :) moving to my side of the argument my opponent showed no means of proving that global warming is not happened because of the earth's dawning ice age so this point still stands. i clearly prove that because we are coming up on an ice age, this is the culprit of rising temperatures and not humans my second point covered fossil fuel emissions which is most commonly named for causing global warming and i disproved this and stated that rising temperature actually causes rising CO2 levels and not the other way around thank you.", "qid": "21", "docid": "66212ba4-2019-04-18T19:44:16Z-00001-000", "rank": 27, "score": 187540.0}, {"content": "Title: Climate Change is the most dangerous threat humans face. Content: Definitions:Climate Change: the warming of earth's climate that is caused by human activity. NOTE: global warming means the same thing. Greenhouse gas: a gas contributing to climate changeEmission: the greenhouse gas output of a machine(car, factory, etc. )Good Luck!", "qid": "21", "docid": "2be9e844-2019-04-18T12:01:29Z-00005-000", "rank": 28, "score": 186797.0}, {"content": "Title: Is Human Activity an addition to increased Global Warming/Climate Change Content: Thank you for your reminder that I have not given a single evidence that goes against your case. To fight against a popular belief, the odds have been against me from the beginning. You have certainly won if this was a popularity contest. What I want to say in my previous argument was that you have not put matters into perspective. Here are my facts which I hope can put matters into perspective: A)Dinosaurs that roamed the Earth 250 million years ago knew a world with five times more carbon dioxide than is present on Earth today, researchers say, and new techniques for estimating the amount of carbon dioxide on prehistoric Earth may help scientists predict how Earth's climate may change in the future B) CO2 is not the only driver to climate change; atmospheric CO2 levels have reached spectacular values in the deep past, possibly topping over 5000 ppm in the late Ordovician around 440 million years ago. C) The global concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere \" the primary driver of recent climate change \" has reached 400 parts per million (ppm) for the first time in recorded history, according to data from the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii. D) Solar activity also falls as you go further back. In the early Phanerozoic, solar output was about 4% less than current levels. The combined effect of sun and CO2 matches well with climate. E) I hope you can agree that the Sun is an independent system of the Earth. Therefore, whatever we do on earth do not affect the sun's activities. My Analysis of the situation: [A] means that the earth is capable of sustaining life and handling CO2 level that is 5 times more than what we have today. [B] & [C] support the CO2 level is 10 times more than now prior to the dinosaurs, which roughly supports [A] [D] supports that it is the combined effect of sun and CO2 that contributes to the climate change. You can see that even if we increase our current output, it would take a long time to create CO2 level that is 5 times more than what we have now. Even at that level, earth can sustain life like dinosaurs. Therefore, human activity does contribute to climate change in the time scale of a 100 year, but to put in into perspective, over the time scale that date back to the beginning of life, human contributed CO2 level doesn\"t affect life all that much. The sun would probably be a greater contributing factor than us human. Of course, with that said, even if we are not the major contributing factor, it is always our responsibilities to do less harm to others and to the nature\" even though the sun would have killed us anyway in the end.", "qid": "21", "docid": "9c07825d-2019-04-18T13:31:03Z-00002-000", "rank": 29, "score": 185821.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Human Activity Is a Significant Factor in Global Warming on Planet Earth. Content: Thanks to my opponent! Reading their arguments I can see this will be a great debate! I'd like to remind my opponent that although this is a rebuttal round, per the rules, new arguments can still be made.Also, there was a problem with my sources in the previous round. I will present them again:[1] http://climate.nasa.gov...[2] [3] http://climate.nasa.gov...[4] http://climate.nasa.gov...[5] http://data.giss.nasa.gov...[6] http://earthguide.ucsd.edu...[7] http://climate.nasa.gov...[8] http://scienceline.ucsb.edu...[9] http://www.forbes.com...[10] http://www.nasa.gov...[11] http://www.nasa.gov...[12] Rebuttals==Rebuttal 1: To doubt =/= To refute==My opponent's first argument poses a few flaws. First of all, the new figure that has been presented has *barely changed* looking at the more recent years of the graph. Also, the change at the start of the graph is a difference of what seems to be less than 0.2 degrees Celcius, which doesn't even change the fact that the warming is significant. But that isn't the point. The point is the question of what to trust. \"Now this claim that the pause doesn't exist poses a problem because a few years ago the claim was that the pause was caused by about 17 volcanoes back as little as 2014. So which is it? Does the pause exist, and was caused by Volcanoes, or does the pause not exist, and was caused by weighting issues in the data? Any reasonable person should now have some doubt in the basic data claims of global warming for a basic contradiction.\" - My opponentWhile I can agree that this may pose doubt, I can also ask the audience to *turn* this argument, because more recent updates are and should be seen as more trustworthy, no matter how close they are. Therefore, my opponent's argument here only proves that there was no hiatus and the doubt should be cast on the 2014 update.Finally, I will stress this as much as I can: *This doesn't refute the notion that humans are a significant cause of global warming, because so far it only focuses on temperatures instead of causation.*==Rebuttal 2: Methodology Bias==There is no doubt that methodologies change throughout the course of time, as we advance with new technology. However, shouldn't it be safer to trust more modern methods rather than outdated ones? A lot of my opponent's part 2, 3 and 4 arguments are based solely off the fact that methodologies change, rather than addressing the fact that new methodologies can be used to update old figures, as was done with NASA's figure.Another version of figure 6 in my opponent's round can be seen here [1]: s://www.ncdc.noaa.gov...; alt=\"Graph showing no slow down in global warming\" />What really matters is what my opponent says about his GHCN analysis of the high monthly average delta graph. He claims that the cooling period might explain why figures 4 and 5 start at a certain point. But there wasn't any major increase trend in ice even before the 70's [2]: \"Globally glaciers are losing ice at an extensive rate (Figure 1). There are still situations in which glaciers gain or lose ice more than typical for one region or another but the long term trends are all the same, and about 90% of glaciers are shrinking worldwide (Figure 2).\" - Skeptical Science [2]Sea levels have also been rising since the 1800's [3]: \"A variety of different measurements find steadily rising sea levels over the past century.\" - Skeptical Science [3] The most important part is where my opponent claims that the trend is almost nothing and can't be used for future predictions. This graph closely resembles the one found here [4]: This figure was created from the actual temperature rise graphs from choosing the most actively reporting stations. Unfortunately, my opponent never gives a reason as to why there was a cooling in 1945 - 1970. The reason to this is actually one of my opponent's arguments: methodologies changed right at that time. This would imply that graphed temperatures rapidly changed, and in this case, dropped. [5]Not only that, but the cooling was actually due to sulphate aerosols being released into the atmosphere [5]. Sulphate aerosols reflect solar energy back into space. This was not only caused by humans releasing such aerosols, but also by volcanic eruptions [5]. The greenhouse effect would start dominating climate again in the 70s, and the rapid warming has continued until today [5]. Therefore, rather than arguing we are not a cause of either, we should be discussing that we are the cause of both, and that the cooling was just a temporary decline.==Rebuttal 3: Is The Cause Solar Output?==The crux of my opponent's argument here is that pan evaporation correlates more with solar activity, and that the sudden increase would be because of a rip in the Northern Pole, weaking the Earth's magnetic field. We both agree that the sun's activity has remained quite constant in recent history. However, if the sudden warming were due to this rip, we can logically conclude that the atmosphere would be warmer within all layers as would happen with a situation where the sun actually increased in activity [6]. However, we have actually seen \"a cooling in the upper atmosphere, and a warming at the surface and in the lower parts of the atmosphere. That's because greenhouse gasses are trapping heat in the lower atmosphere.\" - NASA [6]Therefore, my opponent's arguments are null.New contentions ==Contention 4: Positive feedbacks strengthen forcings==Forcings are factors that \"force\" climate to change. Feedbacks are factors that amplify or diminish the effect of forcings. Because positive feedbacks dominate climate, the effect of forcings are significantly amplified [7]: ==Conclusion==The evidence I have put out proves my opponent's arguments null and even contradicting as some of his data does not consider other factors. Therefore, so far a conclusion can be made that human effects do play a big part in global warming.==Sources==[1] https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov...[2] http://www.skepticalscience.com...[3] http://www.skepticalscience.com...[4] http://wattsupwiththat.com...[5] https://www.skepticalscience.com...[6] http://climate.nasa.gov...[7] http://www.nasa.gov...To Con!", "qid": "21", "docid": "a80b0a3-2019-04-18T14:21:27Z-00005-000", "rank": 30, "score": 183552.0}, {"content": "Title: Humanity is the main cause of global warming. Content: I do not dispute the existence and reality of Global Warming. I do assert, however, that it is impossible to quantify on a global scale, what part of global warming is attributable to Human activities as compared to natural change. Therefore, to state that humanity is the main cause of global warming is, at time present, impossible to prove. Geographers and Geologists consider the state of the Earth at time present to be in an ice age, albeit a late stage. This means that there have been periods in the history of the earth with less ice coverage, higher sea levels, and warmer mean global temperatures. As an example, a major component of the Glacial retreat we are witnessing today is attributable to natural rebound from the little ice age (approximately 1300 to 1850). Certainly human activity has amplified this rebound, but to what degree is indefinable. There are also many other potential amplifying factors, a few of which are listed on the Environmental Protection Agencies Website: . http://www3.epa.gov... Note, that even this reputable website is unable to quantify human contribution vs natural causes. I will also cite an article on the little ice-age for the benefit of my opponent: . http://www.britannica.com... I would also refer my opponent to the regional research of Glaciologist Dr. Johannes Koch regarding glacial retreat in Garibaldi Park (and other regional locations) which document the geological evidence of glacial retreat since the Little Ice Age glacial extant. The immense role of the Little Ice Age on climate is well established in this research. . http://kochj.brandonu.ca... or . http://kochj.brandonu.ca...", "qid": "21", "docid": "c09112b2-2019-04-18T14:00:47Z-00006-000", "rank": 31, "score": 182522.0}, {"content": "Title: Global warming is not solely humans fault. Content: Thanks for letting me debate you on this. My opponent doesn't believe we humans have caused global warming. I believe we did. Here, you can see it's very likely that humans caused it. Experts said it. http://news.nationalgeographic.com... \"99 percent\" is what it is, ladies and gentleman. Human activity, such as fossil fuel emissions from not-so-eco-friendly humans, agriculture, and other human-stuff has cornered our climate into the \"heat zone.\" Our atmosphere can withstand only so much smog and exhaust from automobiles, airplanes, and boats. Smoking of cigarettes can also make a small contribution. Here are some of the biggest contributors. Source: http://www.ecobridge.org... - Carbon Dioxide from Power Plants - Carbon Dioxide Emitted from Cars - Carbon Dioxide from Airplanes - Carbon Dioxide from Buildings - Methane - Nitrous oxide - Deforestation As you can see, these projects were introduced to the Earth by man.", "qid": "21", "docid": "71f54413-2019-04-18T19:36:05Z-00004-000", "rank": 32, "score": 181695.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Human Activity Is a Significant Factor in Global Warming on Planet Earth. Content: Same.", "qid": "21", "docid": "a80b0c2-2019-04-18T14:24:32Z-00004-000", "rank": 33, "score": 181447.0}, {"content": "Title: Human caused global warming is 'overhyped' Content: Hello Muslimnomore! \"I am certain that the emission of green house gases produced through human activity has affected climates and temperatures world wide. There is no question about this in my mind. It is not even a matter of mere correlation really.\" Great! This we can agree on. \"1. Human caused global warming will accelerate the arrival of the next ice age (in less than 100 years).\" They used to say this during the \"global warming\" days, but since the model has shifted to \"climate change\" most scientists agree that co2 actually does the opposite. It heats up our planet in certain areas, but this causes polar caps and icebergs to melt, sending cold waters towards the equator and causing certain areas to actually cool rather than warm. It was 73 F in New York on Dec. 24th, 2013. Then again: http://www.usatoday.com... It is 52 here in Va, highly unusual. And very miserable, might I add. \"The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.\" Some of the dangers we face are extreme climates, heightened sea levels (flooding), and much greater ocean acidity (already up about 30% since the industrial revolution). http://climate.nasa.gov... So no, it won't accelerate our ice age, but that doesn't mean it isn't bad. \"2. Human caused global warming will result in large areas of land (such as the majority of Bangladesh) to become submerged in water (in less than 100 years).\" \"Rising sea level is a threat to people who live near the ocean. Some low-lying areas will have more frequent flooding, and very low-lying land could be submerged completely. Rising sea level can also harm important coastal ecosystems like mangrove forests and coral reefs.\" -- http://epa.gov... \"climate change is expected to substantially increase these already high relative rates by increasing the global rate of sea-level rise. Although the response of ice sheets to warmer temperatures can not be predicted, there is a consensus that sea level rise will accelerate as ocean waters expand and glaciers retreat.\" -- http://www.epa.gov... \"3. Human caused global warming has lead to an increase in the frequency of hurricanes and other storms around the globe.\" \"The latest science connecting hurricanes and global warming suggests more is yet to come. Tropical storms are likely to bring: higher wind speeds; more precipitation; and bigger storm surge in the coming decades. Over the course of this century, maximum wind speeds could increase 2-11 percent and rainfall could increase 3-31 percent.\" -- http://www.nwf.org... Also, \"Warming-driven sea level rise makes storm surges more destructive; increased water vapor in the atmosphere leads to 5 to 10% more rainfall and increases the risk of flooding; because water vapor and higher ocean temperatures help fuel the storm, it is likely to be more intense and bigger as well; and the unusual path of the storm...caused by a very strong blocking high pressure system that recent studies have linked to warming. \" -- http://thinkprogress.org... I hope I have answered all of your questions regarding climate change!", "qid": "21", "docid": "7011cf2f-2019-04-18T16:47:48Z-00002-000", "rank": 34, "score": 181440.0}, {"content": "Title: Reserved for FollowerofChrist: Climate change is real and a massive threat to humanity. Content: Definitions:Climate Change: the warming of earth's climate that is caused by human activity. NOTE: global warming means the same thing. Greenhouse gas: a gas contributing to climate changeEmission: the greenhouse gas output of a machine(car, factory, etc. )Good Luck!", "qid": "21", "docid": "d490026a-2019-04-18T12:01:22Z-00009-000", "rank": 35, "score": 180848.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Human Activity Is a Significant Factor in Global Warming on Planet Earth. Content: This debate is being canceled. Please redirect all your attention to the original debate that had been hijacked by a Troll, but is freed back up.http://www.debate.org...", "qid": "21", "docid": "a80b0c2-2019-04-18T14:24:32Z-00006-000", "rank": 36, "score": 180488.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Human Activity Is a Significant Factor in Global Warming on Planet Earth. Content: It's unfortunate that my opponent decided to write up his response to the contradiction in his data so rashly. Perhaps if he had taken a day to digest the argument he would have been able to come up with a better response.Since this is a long debate I'm going to use this round as a tldr to summarize the evidence, and give my opponent one last chance to attempt to refute the challenges he's chosen to ignore, or breeze past.EvidenceNot Human Caused1) 1970 has more ice than 1870My opponent seems to be unable to read his own graph, Figure 12. According to his own data, which he did not decide to toss out, the Sum total of Ice loss in 1970 was between -300 and -400, and in 1870 it's clearly more than -400. Because it's going with a communalative total this means there was an increase in Ice.Now I gave my opponent, and you the judges lots of leeway to reject the evidence completely. However, he has not, and misunderstands what I was talking about with the change in the number of sampled glaciers. When you add in a large amount of sample like in Figure 7 when the number of Weather Stations goes from about 500 to over a thousand the graph becomes exaggerated. According to Figure 17 that's exactly what happened with the glacier data around 1976 where the sampling nearly double.2) Weather Station data shows no correlation change with human activity in the 115 year range of this debate.This is simply a fact that can't actually be refuted. The truth is that when you do a comparative analysis for weather stations that use the complete set. In other words. they exist at the start, 1900, and exist at the end 2015 you get no noticeable correlation with an increase in temperature. My opponent was even nice enough to find a second source confirming this with a smaller more restrictive dataset.So, why would you want to include a bunch of weather stations from 1970 that have no records going back to 1900 when you want to know what changes in weather can be observed from 1900 to 2015?The answer is simple. Figure 10 shows 1970 as a low point in temperature, and, if Figure 12 is not discarded, is corroborated by the ice data. The several thousand stations added thought the 70's can only show an increase because they started at the bottom, and have no past beyond that, like the high of the 30's, to be compared to. It results in the increase being exaggerated, in much the same way Figure 12 has exaggerations.3) The Pan Evaporation Rate is by far the most important fassett of this debate.The fact that this rate stays relatively constant from 1980 to 2005 corroborates the conclusions drawn from Figure 10. The fact that it changes in late 2010 to strongly correlate to solar cycle 24 which NASA has predicted in 2008 would subject the Earth to an unusually large volume of Solar Storms because of an effect with our Electromagnetic field suggest some important things. Most importantly that is shows changes in the Earth's Energy footprint, and second that the changes that it shows has nothing to do with the actions of man. So if we blame the heat waves of 2012, and the record heat of 2014 on global warming the real culprit is solar storms made possible by a weird effect in our electromagnetic field, and a dual peak, 2012 and 2014, in solar cycles 24.Man Caused Evidence1) Sea LevelsOn the surface it may seem that sea levels support my opponent. However, this requires that he reject his own glacial data. After all if the Volume of Ice is high in 1970 than it was in 1870 where did this ice come from? Then without the dataset to recreate the graph we can't reliably show the CO2 and Sea Levels side by side to see how well or not well they correlate. In my view the bulge of CO2 from the 70's isn't visible the poor quality graph of the Sea Levels, and the source for that dataset has long since taken it down, or moved it. It's even possible that sea levels, and the Ice Data are both correct, but that would require believing something like our pumping of groundwater could have had an impact on the amount of available water, but that's not global warming if you accept that.2) Mixed Methodology Temperature GraphsA good portion of my argument involves a bit of education about how mixed methodologies can warp a graph. The easiest way to resolve this kind of an argument is to separate out the methodologies, and treat each of them separately. I've done this with the weather station data.Now his latest temperature graph does attempt at showing a correlation between CO2, and temperature. However, if we accept the Round 3 temperature graph there are a few problem. First I'm glad my opponent finally has a graph that shows a clear run up in temperature for the 30's unlike his others. However, this exposes that the correlation only exists for about 1960 to 2000 maybe 2015 since it's hard to tell on the edge of a graph if the trend is continuing, or not. In his graph the temperature is noticeably higher compared to the CO2 levels breaking the correlation for the 30's, 40's, and 50's. Then in the early 1900's it's noticeably lower breaking the correlation yet again. Finally in the 1880's it's noticeably higher than the CO2 would imply. If CO2 so definitively correlates for a brief period in the 20's and from 1960 to present why does it deviate so violently in the other periods? It could be that the CO2 measurements in that graph are an over smoothed representation of the truth, or it could be that the correlation never really was to begin with.3) VenusThis is actually a minor point, but I'm aware that some people will look at the example of Earth, Mars, and Venus, and think that it is somehow proof.Fact, even if we burned all the Coal, and Oil on the planet, and even if we were in the orbit of Venus we still wouldn't even approach the temperatures of Venus. The reason has to do with Atmospheric pressure and Ideal Gases. CO2 and O2 are close enough to Ideal Gases that they actually obey the Ideal Gas Laws.When we burn Coal we actually end up taking O2 out of the air, and put in CO2. Now we just need to apply Avogadro's Law.Avogadro's Law\u201cequal volumes of all gases, at the same temperature and pressure, have the same number of molecules\u201dThis means that the atmospheric pressure will remain the same at 1 Bar for Earth, but Venus has 92 Bars of pressure, or 9200%. No amount of burning will cause us to add atmosphere. We can only convert it. Now volcanoes can inject CO2 without burning, and that's one of the few ways it can be approached. However, even with the same exact atmosphere we'd still be colder because when our electromagnetic field is working we don't get the additional heat that Venus does because it spins too slowly to have a field large enough to deflect them.This is why the Venus, and Mars analogy is false. It is a gross over simplification of the truth. It neglects that we don't add atmosphere, but rather convert it. It also ignores out electromagnetic field which is the main difference between Earth and Venus, and Mars.Thank you, and I await our final round.", "qid": "21", "docid": "a80b0a3-2019-04-18T14:21:27Z-00002-000", "rank": 37, "score": 179968.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Human Activity Is a Significant Factor in Global Warming on Planet Earth. Content: I will enumerate more of my opponents graphs.Figure 12: Global Glacier Cumulative Volume ChangesFigure 13: Proportions of growing and shrinking glaciers in 2009Figure 14: Sea Levels since 1870Figure 15: US Stations reporting continuously from 1900 to 2000Figure 16: Feedbacks vs Forcings GraphPart 6: Contradictory Glacial, Sea Level, and Temperature DataFigure 12 is interesting not because it counters any of my argument, but because it puts my opponents temperature, and sea level data in contradiction with it. If you look at 1970 in Figure 12 You'll notice the volume of glacial ice is higher than any point from 1870 to 1970. How did we get more Ice in 1970? If we accept that the melt of glaciers is caused solely by heat, and if we accept ether Figure 2, or the corrected Figure 6 then we have a problem. The dates leading up to 1970 don't show any noticeable decline in temperature that would explain it, and the Figure 14 sea levels don't show any stabilizing or drop in sea level to address where this extra water for the ice even came from.We're locked into another contradiction similar to the one that I started with. Ether the Glacial data is correct, and temperature, and sea level is incorrect. The Inverse of that, or both are wrong.There are a couple of issues with Figure 12 that will need to be disclosed and accounted for before we can con to a decision about which data is correct. According to my opponent's source the number of glaciers represented from 1946 on back is in the single digits. It's not until about 1960 that we have about 30 glaciers represented in the sample. If we take a look at Figure 10 we can see that this is the point where the yearly median drops below zero implying slightly colder than average temperatures.If you look at Figure 12 at 1980 you'll notice the angle of decrease shows a slowing which would imply that the temperature decreased, or had a slower accent than in prior years. In Figures 2, and 6 no such indication is given, but in Figure 10 the early 80's shows another decline in temperatures before the 90's where it finally moves above zero implying higher than normal temperatures, and thus a steeper decline in volume.In other words Figure 12 is in less contradiction with Figure 11 then it is with Figures 2, 6, and 14.However, Figure 12 also suffers from exaggeration of features due to changing sample size. This is address in my analysis in step 4, and when I brought up the causes of the differences between Figure 7 and Figure 8. Adding in a thousand weather stations radically altered the graph which is why step 4 restricted weather stations to existing at the start and end of the analysis. So where does the sampling look like for Glaciers? My opponent's source is very nice to graph it out for us to see on their intermediate discussion of glacial ice.Figure 17: Number of observed glaciers As you can see just prior to 1976 there was only about 45 glaciers in the data. Then it spontaneously has about 20, nearly half of the prior sample, added in. This continues until the early 80's where that with a sample of just over 90 has doubled the sample. Then throw out the 90's regular sampling increased, and this would further exaggerate the changes because we hasn't sampled the glaciers in that method in the past.Now I'd love to download the generate the data properly myself. My opponents source does point people towards it here: wgms.ch/data_databaseversions/ However the data isn't high quality like the GHCN dataset, and would require more time than I have in this debate to properly process. It also doesn't have what I would consider a high enough quantity of data. It barely has 30 glaciers sampled regularly, and I'd personally prefer 100 before I started making definitive claims about what the data says. Even the source claims that they have 228 glaciers in the data, and the only way for that to work with the sample graph is if glaciers skip years, and aren't fully represented every year, and across every season in a year.Part 7: Hiatus Proof?My opponent is under the mistaken belief that I've proven the hiatus to be false. Unfortunately Part 1 of my argument does everything, but that. I've proven only that two parts of the global warming argument about the hiatus are in stark contradiction with each other. That only proves one, or both are wrong. Unfortunately it doesn't prove which one is actually wrong. Parts 2, 3, and 4 are the evidence that undermines Figures 2, and 6 strongly suggesting that data in both cases is flawed. It's up you the judges to choose which you believe. However, using my opponent's reasoning that \u201cbecause more recent updates are and should be seen as more trustworthy\u201d is counter to logic, reason, and debate. It is an appeal to the authority of newness, and not a rational reason at all.Part 8: Correlation vs CausationMy opponent seems to be under the impression that my only focuses on the temperatures, and doesn't refute humans as the cause. There is a phrase in statistics that you may have heard. \u201cCorrelation does not imply causation\u201d, but that's only half the phrase. These other half is, \u201cThere is no causation without correlation\u201d. Simply put if there is no correlation between global warming and human activity as Figure 10 shows then humans are certainly not the cause. However, if you believe Figure 2, or 6, and that they correlate to human CO2 activity then there is the additional burden of proving that the correlation causal, and not just correlational.It's an unfortunate asymmetry in statistical arguments. There is a possibility that even if there isn't a correlation that maybe the correlation is just smaller than can be measured with the available data, but that would yield that human activity is an insignificant factor in global warming.As for correlation issues my opponent has another problem. If we believe Figure 14 we'd expect out CO2 emissions to map over it, and show a visible correlation. Now both CO2, and Ocean levels have gone up over time, but just going up isn't enough. Sea levels have a nice smooth mathematical curve built into it. I'd have loved to have put both the CO2 and Figure 14 together, but my opponents source linking to the data to do that leads to a 404 error:http://www.pol.ac.uk...Figure 18: CO2 Emissions If you notice between 1950 and 200 there is a bulge in out CO2 emissions, and between 1980 and 2000 a different rate of increase until 2000 where it is in line with an exponential trend that started in 1870. These features would be expected in the Sea Levels data if they were strongly correlated, but it looks like by the seal levels that it's an exponential trend that never varies in the way out CO2 emissions do. My data is courtesy of Source 8. Now if my opponent can find the source for this Figure I'd be happy to merge the sea level in so we can see just how much it doesn't correlate. Most other sources only give about 10 years of data.Part 9: Solar ActivityMy opponent is under the impression that he can wave his hands, and assert an argument, and data is null just because it doesn't conform to his world view. He'd have to explain the lack of movement in the past data, and give an appropriate alternative for Cycle 24 correlating, but not prior. NASA's assessment in 2008 on the effect of Solar Storms due to this unprecedented phenomenon had no prior data. Outside of the last decade this was never observed before. Claiming that we should see all layers heat up as he claims to try to \u2018nullify' is nothing more than an unsupported assumption.Part 10: Dust BowlMy opponent makes the claim that I hadn't explained the downward change in the median, and then attempted to assert that it must be from a change in methodology. Though I'm not against this possibility claiming that a change in any of the graphs is due to a methodology change requires further explanation. Parts 2, 3, and 4 are extensive explanation of methodological errors. However, I did explain the change in the graph even if it was indirect. In the 1930's there was a excessive drought, and heat waves. Part of this being clearly represented in the data is due to the United States having the best most consistent weather station data for the last century, and even more so in my opponent's Figure 15 because it is only the United States of America 600 weather stations vs my sample of 1170 weather stations. Now this event very much did occur, and is verified in the EPA Heat Wave Index that shows the 30's were exceedingly bad even by today's standards, and you can read source 5 to see further analysis on this Great Depression causing event if you doubt the 30's heat waves weren't hell on Earth.Now why the 30's was Hell on Earth is anybody's guess. We know it was bad, and man made CO2 emissions were even lower so blaming them enters into contradiction with the present high emissions. Personally I'd love it if there was enough pan evaporation data to verify that there was, or was not a correlation with sunspots, but the available GHCN data is too small for that period evaporation data.Part 11: Contention 4My opponents 4th contention appears to be missing an actual argument to go with it, or even a time period to show the change in forcing, and feedbacks over time. Perhaps he will clarify in the next round what he was going after with it.Part 12: Earth, Mars, and VenusI'm out of time, and characters so I will have to cut my response a bit, and hope to come back to this part if possible.I await my opponent.[8] http://cdiac.ornl.gov...", "qid": "21", "docid": "a80b0a3-2019-04-18T14:21:27Z-00004-000", "rank": 38, "score": 179523.0}, {"content": "Title: Global Warming is likely impacted by humans. Content: I'm arguing that global climate change is not impacted by humans. My reasons for believing this are as follows: 1. Earth's climate has often warmed and cooled, and the recent rise in global temperature is within the borders of the natural temperature variations that have been recorded within the past 3,000 years. A study from 2013 claimed that the rising global temperatures that have been observed in the 20th century are similar to those observed around the 11th century. 2. Changes in global temperature are generally due to variations in the sun's heat, not by human activity. The majority of the observed climate changes between the 20th and 21st centuries has corresponded with multiple solar cycles. In 2012 it was discovered that there was a strong correlation between solar radiation and temperatures in the Arctic, not by human activity.3. The receding glaciers are not a result of human activity, but rather have been growing and receding for thousands of years due to natural causes. A 2014 study of over 2,000 glaciers in the Himalayas proved that 86.6% of the glaciers were not receding. Another study claimed that receding glaciers in Antarctica were due to \"atmospheric circulation changes\" that caused West Antarctica to warm rapidly. 4. CO2 is not the cause. In 2003, a study showed that over the past four climactic cycles (which have occurred during the past 240,000 years) warming has not followed, but rather preceded, a rise of CO2.Of the CO2 that humans have produced between 2002-2011, about 50% has been re-absorbed by earth's \"carbon sinks.\"Within the past 16 years there has been an 8% increase in atmospheric CO2, and still the earth has not warmed significantly. http://climatechange.procon.org...", "qid": "21", "docid": "7852a724-2019-04-18T14:16:39Z-00003-000", "rank": 39, "score": 178601.0}, {"content": "Title: Human activities are the main cause global warming. Content: Okay, so I would like to agree with all of your definitions starting off, and we are going to keep the terms so we don't have definition clashes (like value clashes except more annoying\u2026just kidding I love clashes of any kind that is why I debate) I would like to quickly define predicted: foretell on the basis of observation, experience, or scientific reason. (Merriam-webster) For my quick resolutional analysis, I will state: going by your definitions, mainly that of your global warming definition, all I have to prove is that human activities are the main cause of pollution, which according to your definition of global warming is the predicted cause of, and to show that the prediction is based off of observation, experience or scientific reason. 1st point: Humans are the main cause of Pollution. According to library.thinkquest.org, there are six different kinds of pollution: air, water, land, noise, radioactive, and thermal. a)air- air pollution is mostly caused by motor vehicle exhaust and industrial processes. Through motor vehicle exhaust, the combustion of the fuel creates oxides of lead, nitrogen, and sulpher. These oxides are more commonly known as \u2018smog' and when they dissolve into water vapors they create acid rain. Industrial processes create big black smoke, (seen near many cities nowadays) that is nothing more than a gigantic creator of CFC's (clarification: chlorofluorocarbon) that rearrange the structure of the O\uf008 otherwise known as the ozone layer gas. b) water-defined as being foreign matter that deteriorates the quality of water. The main causes are: petroleum based products, agriculture chemicals, and soil pollution. Quick run through, oil spills etc., pesticides that cover fruits and veggies that humans and animals eat, and finally our chemicals that seep through the ground and enter underground resevoirs. c)land- decomposition of solid waste, and the accumulation of non-biodegradable materials. Also the destruction of our environment falls into this category, such as the fact that every year we are losing 6 million hectares of land, loss of 24 billion tons of topsoil (the soil that lets us grow food), loss of 15 million acres of prime farm land to mismanagement and overuse, etc... the list goes on. d)noise-not a very popular pollution that people focuse on, but here we go: road traffic noise, air traffic, rail traffic, neighborhood noise, industrial noises, etc. while there are natural noises such as waves hitting the beach or even mating calls of monkeys, that are grossly overshadowed by the noise we cause. e)radioactive- the main causes are the disposal of nuclear waste, and nuclear weapons and nuclear powerplants. i think you get this point but just a quickfact, the half life of these radioactive substances have half lives of over 10,000 years. Right now the best america can do is bury these deep underground in some bunker in nevada. f)thermal- the most important type of pollution that is related to this debate. the two types that direct us the most, but are not thought about as much are the deforestation of shorelines and soil erosion. the first one, the deforestation of shorelines contributes greatly to the fact that the trees once holding the shoreline together are now being harvested for paper and etc. without these trees, not only is more soil going into the water, but also increases the amount of surface area of the water. the second type helps explains this more, soil erosion. muddy water that is created by the deforestation of shorelines, makes this water filled with sediment and other materials that have increased the light absorbtion into the water. Because the water now has much more light absorbtion, increasing the temperature of the water. This water heats up, and now we have melting polar ice caps. yes, the melting polar ice caps. Just as an example we have the Ward Hunt Ice shelf that has been in solid condition for the past 3,000 years. It started cracking in 2000 and now is currently in pieces. (NASA) When these break off, they start melting in the much warmer salt water and then raise the water level. And because there are less ice shelves, there is not as much sunlight being reflected back into space, rather more sunlight being absorbed. The cycle just continues over and over. 2) Global Warming Theory exists off of observation, experience and scientific reason. The people who are mostly pushing this theory is the IPCC (Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change) who is made up of over 350 scientific experts and government representatives, and their report was contributed and edited by over 2500 scientific expert reviewers, more than 800 contributing authors, and more than 450 lead authors (IPCC) all from over 130 countries. The specific summary for policy makers included 600 authors from over 40 different countries, more than 620 expert reviewers, and government reviewers and representatives from over 113 countries. (IPCC) I think this counts for observation and experience. For scientific reason, here is their reasoning: We are certain of the following: there is a greenhouse effect...; emissions resulting from human activities are substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gases: CO2, methane, CFCs and nitrous oxide. These increases will enhance the greenhouse effect, resulting on average in an additional warming of the Earth's surface. The main greenhouse gas, water vapour, will increase in response to global warming and further enhance it. We calculate with confidence that: ...CO2 has been responsible for over half the enhanced greenhouse effect; long-lived gases would require immediate reductions in emissions from human activities of over 60% to stabilise their concentrations at today's levels... For my arguments: 1)Yes I agree that over a period of several hundred years the temperature will slowly rise, but to have such dramatic rise in the past few years is not the earth in a cycle, but rather outside influences, more specifically human influences. If we look to my information, supported by the UN and more than 130 countries, as well as hundred of climate experts, they all found the same thing, humans are affecting global warming whether we want to admit it or not. More than that, they have found that we are the cause of over 50% of it all. 2)For burning fossil fuels is only 18%, yes I agree with that too. But, we are not looking to ONLY fossil fuels contributing to greenhouse gases. Methane is not a fossil fuel (look to livestock raised by farmers..;)..) yet it contributes greatly to the global warming problem. If you look back to my first point and proof of pollution and greenhouse gases (specifically water vapor) we see that we do cause the majority. good luck KB", "qid": "21", "docid": "66212ba4-2019-04-18T19:44:16Z-00002-000", "rank": 40, "score": 178462.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Human Activity Is a Significant Factor in Global Warming on Planet Earth. Content: Resolved: Human Activity Is a Significant Factor in Global Warming on Planet Earth.I don't intend on reposting any of my opponents graphs, or data. However it is important that I enumerate his graphs.Figure 1: Atmospheric CO2 for 650,000 yearsFigure 2: Global Land-Ocean Temperature IndexFigure 3: Greenhouse ExplanationFigure 4: Average Monthly Arctic Sea Ice August 1979 to 2013Figure 5: Sea Level ChangePart 1: DoubtIt's telling that my opponent makes the claim that it is irrefutable, and then uses Figure 2. Even NASA, and NOAA would refute that graph since in June of this year they published serious corrections in an attempt to remove the hiatus from the argument.Figure 6: Corrected Figure 2 Now this claim that the pause doesn't exist poses a problem because a few years ago the claim was that the pause was caused by about 17 volcanoes back as little as 2014[2]. So which is it? Does the pause exist, and was caused by Volcanoes, or does the pause not exist, and was caused by weighting issues in the data? Any reasonable person should now have some doubt in the basic data claims of global warming for a basic contradiction.Part 2: Methodology BiasUnderstanding instrument, and methodology bias is needed to understand what was done in Figure 6, and understand if we should accept the graph at all.The data that is being corrected is the Ocean temperature measurements done by volunteer ships in the early half of the data. By itself this isn't a problem. The ship data has a higher inaccuracy, but all the ship data would have similar errors, and when compared to the same methodology there wouldn't be an issue. When you mix in other methodologies this error can become a big problem. What caused these differences isn't hard to understand. Think of a time where we collected temperature data without the aid of a machine. If someone has to go out, and check the temperature, and record it there is always the possibility they missed the true high, and missed the true low. When we get to machine aided recording missing that true high, and true low is drastically reduced. Furthermore the error is unidirectional. Missing the true high will only result in a lower value. Just as missing the true low only results in a higher value.We can actually see this type of bias in weather station dataset call the GHCN Data: [3]If we didn't accept the methodology bias Figure 7 would present an interesting problem since the average high increase about 4 degrees C, and the average Low decreases by about 6 degrees C. If that was global warming the decrease in the low would seriously outweigh the increase in the high.Figure 7: All GHCN High and Low Temperature Yearly Averages Part 3: Addressing BiasTo address bias the bias must remain as constant as possible. Part of the reason for only debating the last 115 years is that the bias for weather station methodology hasn't radically changed unlike in the seventeen, and eighteen hundreds where changes in methodology were much more common. By just comparing a station to itself, and only looking at the stations delta from hits own average we can show that the abrupt change around 1900 was actually an illusion caused by a large number of stations following a similar methodology, and not an actual change in temperature.We can see in Figure 8 that the change is more gradual like the low temperature in Figure 7. The disagreement between the two graphs implies that the change is due to method changes, and not due to real changes.Figure 8: All GHCN Station High Temperature Average Delta Figure 9: All GHCN Station Low Temperature Average Delta It would be an error to accept either Figure 7 or 8 as the truth. Both still suffer from a change in methodology bias, but they reflect that change differently. They both also high the noise in the data by utilizing a yearly, and 5 year mean. However, if you do accept Figure 7 as the truth you'd still have to reconcile the issue that Figure 9 shows that the Low temperature being higher than our modern time.We also have an issue with sample size. At the earliest part of the data there is only 1 station. It's not until the 1870's that we start to get a decent sample size to start to remove statistical sampling errors, but even then it's only at a minimum. At the peak of the data in 2005 we have nearly 14 thousand station, but by 2015 we only have 10 thousand stations. This radical change in sample size can cause. Just as in 1893 we only had 563 stations but in 1894 we had 1353 which is responsible for the abrupt change in Figure 7.The methodology below is what I will use to address each of these issues.Methodology GHCN Data Analysis: 1. To process this data the first step is to convert each stations monthly 31 day values into a single monthly median value for each station.2. Then each stations monthly median values are averages to create the average median for the life of the station.3. The station average median is then subtracted from the station median to create a delta that represents that stations change away from the average median.4. Stations are then selected based on the date of operation. For analysis starting in 1900 all weather stations that were operational in 1900 and operational at the end of the analysis must be used. Weather stations that were not operational at the start of the analysis cannot be used because they will induce a change in the region bias.5. From there the data can be graphed, or each months delta for the year can be averaged to create a yearly change for a simpler graph.Part 4: GHCN Data AnalysisFigure 10 below is the above analysis applied to the Global Historical Climatology Network Data. The blue dots represent the monthly noise that Figure 2, and 6 hides. We can now see that the average temperature varies by +- 4 degrees from normal, and not the few tenths of a degree that the yearly mean implies. As a note the two largest positive deviations from the mean are March 2010, and 2012 by 6.1, and 6.6 degrees respectively. They are separated by nearly a century, and show that the high temperatures of 2012 are hardly abnormal.If you notice in the graph between 1930, and 1940 you'll notice a clear bulge in the 5 year mean about zero. This is of note because it correlates with the known heat waves of the 30's that attributed to an climaxed with the Dust Bowl in 1936 as seen in the EPA Heat Wave Index[5]. Anyone looking at this data in the 50's and 60's might actually believe that we were heading towards a global cooling event since in the 70's the median clearly drops below zero. Conversely anyone starting their analysis in the 70's is starting at a low, and thus only see a movement upwards. Which may also explain my opponent's Figures 4 and 5 which start with the low 70's era, and lack any data for the early half of the 115 year period this debate is over.We can even apply a trend line to see if there is a trend upwards over the time period. There is a slight trend of 0.0009 degrees celsius per year, but this is with an R Squared of 0.0004 which means the significance of that upward trend is almost nothing, and can't be used for any real future predictions. For those unfamiliar with R Squared we really want to see a value as close to 1 as possible. A value of 0.5 is ok for some things like predicting erratic human behavior, but the more significant the claim the closer to 1 it needs to be. 0.0004 is so close to zero that it may as well be zero.Figure 10: GHCN High Monthly Average Delta 1900 - 2015 I'd present A figure on the Low, but it would be redundant with Figure 10, and given the time and text constraints I will cut it from my argument.Part 5: Is Temperature the Appropriate Measure?When we say that CO2 causes the Earth's temperature to rise what we really mean is that the increase in CO2 causes the atmosphere to hold more energy. The Pan Evaporation Rate can be used to measure the energy in the atmosphere. If you take a look at Figure 11 you'll notice it significantly deviates from a rather consistent trend. I've reduced the time range to 1980 to 2015 to give the largest possible sample of 156 pans in the GHCN dataset.Figure 11: Pan Evaporation to Sun Spots If we accept the increase is due to an abnormal warming due to solar storms that track with sun spots then we have a problem from the lack of any significant change during the man made ramp up of CO2 over the last 3, and a half decades. Since the sun's solar output varies by about 0.1 percent[6] it could be that even adding more CO2 has little effect because we've long since been able to absorb nearly all of the available solar energy.So why is there a spontaneous increase after 2005? In 2008 NASA announced a discovery of an odd phenomena. They observed a Northern polarity Coronal Mass Ejection rip open our Northern Magnetic pole, and thus exposed the entire day side of the planet to solar storms that it doesn't normally get[7]. This resulted in the prediction that solar cycle 24 which would send more northern polarity CME's towards the Earth would, and subject us to an unusually high volume of Solar Storms that our Magnetic field usually protects us from. This would also explain why the shape with many of the same peaks and valleys visible in the data.[1] https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov...[2] http://time.com...[3] ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/daily/[4] https://en.wikipedia.org... (Only as a reference to a historical fact)[5] http://www3.epa.gov...[6] http://www.dailykos.com...[7] http://science.nasa.gov...", "qid": "21", "docid": "a80b0a3-2019-04-18T14:21:27Z-00006-000", "rank": 41, "score": 178308.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Human Activity Is a Significant Factor in Global Warming on Planet Earth. Content: Same, Same.", "qid": "21", "docid": "a80b0c2-2019-04-18T14:24:32Z-00002-000", "rank": 42, "score": 178247.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Human Activity Is a Significant Factor in Global Warming on Planet Earth. Content: I accept.", "qid": "21", "docid": "a80b0a3-2019-04-18T14:21:27Z-00008-000", "rank": 43, "score": 177788.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Human Activity Is a Significant Factor in Global Warming on Planet Earth. Content: I accept.", "qid": "21", "docid": "a80b0c2-2019-04-18T14:24:32Z-00007-000", "rank": 44, "score": 177788.0}, {"content": "Title: Climate Change is man caused Content: My position on climate change is that not only do I believe in it but I believe it is man caused. I will start My opening argument to state that global warming is a proven fact and anyone that disagrees with me is ignorant on this subject. 97% of scientists believe that climate change is primarily human caused. Also the arguments stated by Human-caused climate change deniers are pointless and not fact driven. I wish my opponent the best of luck. Sources(s): Shaftel, H. (Ed.). (2012, January 5). Global Climate Change: Consensus. Retrieved February 3, 2015, from http://climate.nasa.gov...", "qid": "21", "docid": "4733bf42-2019-04-18T15:17:57Z-00005-000", "rank": 45, "score": 177417.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Human Activity Is a Significant Factor in Global Warming on Planet Earth. Content: The voting floor is set at 1500. If accepted without permission, Pro automatically wins the debate. ______________________________________________________________I will add in definitions to prevent semantics arguments from arising. DEFINITIONS Human activity: Activity associated with or caused by humans. Global Warming: The state of which the Earth's temperature progressively and abnormally rises, which is attributed to the Greenhouse Effect that is caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide, other greenhouse gases, and pollutants in general. REMEMBER, THIS REFERS TO THE WARMING IN THE PAST 115 YEARS. Planet Earth: The 3rd closest planet from the Sun in the solar system, which is known for being the only known planet that currently sustains life. Significant: Sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention as viewed by the judges with statistically large sample sizesRules:1. Breaking any rules (except for rules related to voting) will result in automatic forfeiture of all seven points to the opponent. If both sides break the rules, votes will be placed as normal. Invalid votes will result in reporting the vote.2. No semantics.3. No forfeiture.4. No Ad Hominem OR mere insults5. Plagiarism is absolutely prohibited. 6. All arguments must be contained within the character limit. Words or characters on videos, soundtracks or pictures are exempted and do not apply. Sources are also exempted.7. (Branches off from above rule) Extra arguments in the comments section are forbidden.8. The debate must be followed under the below structure:Round 1: Acceptance. Round 2: Opening arguments and Constructive Case, NO REBUTTALSRound 3: More arguments, Rebuttals and Strengthening of original caseRound 4: Final arguments, Clarification of case, counter-rebuttals and rebuttalsRound 5: Clarification of case, Counter rebuttals, rebuttals, closing statements, NO NEW ARGUMENTS9. No trolling or spamming.10. No cheating (Gish-gallop, asking for votes in your favor, etc. )11. Accepting without permission is a forfeiture of the debate.12. Kritiks of the topic are not accepted. As shown, first round is acceptance. I look forward to a fun and intriguing debate!", "qid": "21", "docid": "a80b0a3-2019-04-18T14:21:27Z-00009-000", "rank": 46, "score": 177352.0}, {"content": "Title: Climate change is real and caused by humans Content: Okay first off, you keep saying climate change is real. IT IS! the climate changes constantly according to the season. We are arguing that that GLOBAL WARMING isn't real. All you are doing is rebutting my arguments saying that they are not caused by humans, so in saying, your saying I'm correct. You have made no arguments suggesting that humans cause global warming, because there is none. All you have said is that most Scientist agree with global warming and that they believe that humans are a main cause of it, but yet where is the evidence. I can't find anything to rebut so let me make more arguments. Some of the cause is in the arctic; the polar ice caps are melting faster than it can be evaporated .This process may be reversed in 10-20 years. Humans are only responsible for less than 3 % of all the carbon dioxide (greenhouse gases) in the atmosphere. Geologists Nicholas Chackleton and Neil Opdyke both from Cambridge University wrote in a quaternary research journal. Estimating the average world temperature has been slowly increasing over the last one million years, long before the human industries started releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. People think Carbon dioxide sent in to the atmosphere today will affect people hundreds of years later. But the truth is Carbon Dioxide has a life span of 20 years. After 20 years, it disappears from the atmosphere all together. The sun actually has little to do with actually heating the atmosphere with its high frequency radiation. Something as hot as the sun can\"t give off low frequency radiation called infrared. Instead, the sun\"s rays heats the Earth\"s surface, this weakens the radiation to infrared. From there it moves in to the earth\"s atmosphere by any means necessary (Conduction, convection, evaporation). Then the inferred radiation is absorbed by the CO2. Ninety seven percent of the heat in the atmosphere gets there either through convection or evaporation, and not greenhouse gasses. The climate now days have made minimal changes compared to the dinosaur ages. Water evaporation is a bigger cause of global warming than carbon dioxide by at least 100 times. The earth has been here for more than 4 billion years. The human industry has only been around for around 200 years. The earth has been warming since the dinosaur ages. Without a doubt, humans have caused minimal changes to our environment as it is already warming itself. Nature is sending Carbon dioxide in to out atmosphere by natural disasters. For example, the eruption of Mt. St Helens has sent more carbon dioxide in to the atmosphere than humans have for over decades. In fact, that eruption actually caused global cooling of 1 degree. According to scientific researcher Tim Ball, who has received a PhD from Cambridge University, the earth goes through a natural Climate cycle. In 1940-1980, the earth was actually facing global cooling. In 1980-2020, the earth\"s temperature should be reversing, and gradually start warming naturally. This is my opinion, the earth used to have frozen rivers, and frozen mountains, but since humans came to live, more and more carbon dioxide has been inserted in to the atmosphere. It is not because of Burning fossil fuels, but because humans breathe. It\"s not our fault we breathe, it\"s completely natural. Humans must breathe to survive. For example, more and more babies are born everyday; they all breathe and release Carbon Dioxide in to the atmosphere. Human input to the greenhouse gasses are as much as 1% more per year more than last year\"s average. If 1% is that great of a difference, then all like on earth would have been destroyed long ago. So how could humans cause global warming if global warming was around before humans even existed? Sources: http://scienceray.com...", "qid": "21", "docid": "b235f67a-2019-04-18T15:13:16Z-00002-000", "rank": 47, "score": 177202.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Human Activity Is a Significant Factor in Global Warming on Planet Earth. Content: Well, a troll who is now banned accepted my other debate, so I am doing this again. Thank you to Medv4380 for accepting this debate. However, they have yet to respond and start accepting debate challenges. The voting floor is set at 1500. If accepted without permission, Pro automatically wins the debate.______________________________________________________________I will add in definitions to prevent semantics arguments from arising.DEFINITIONS Human activity: Activity associated with or caused by humans.Global Warming: The state of which the Earth's temperature progressively and abnormally rises, which is attributed to the Greenhouse Effect that is caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide, other greenhouse gases, and pollutants in general. REMEMBER, THIS REFERS TO THE WARMING IN THE PAST 115 YEARS.Planet Earth: The 3rd closest planet from the Sun in the solar system, which is known for being the only known planet that currently sustains life. Significant: Sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention as viewed by the judges with statistically large sample sizesRules:1. Breaking any rules (except for rules related to voting) will result in automatic forfeiture of all seven points to the opponent. If both sides break the rules, votes will be placed as normal. Invalid votes will result in reporting the vote.2. No semantics.3. No forfeiture.4. No Ad Hominem OR mere insults5. Plagiarism is absolutely prohibited. 6. All arguments must be contained within the character limit. Words or characters on videos, soundtracks or pictures are exempted and do not apply. Sources are also exempted.7. (Branches off from above rule) Extra arguments in the comments section are forbidden.8. The debate must be followed under the below structure:Round 1: Acceptance.Round 2: Opening arguments and Constructive Case, NO REBUTTALSRound 3: More arguments, Rebuttals and Strengthening of original caseRound 4: Final arguments, Clarification of case, counter-rebuttals and rebuttalsRound 5: Clarification of case, Counter rebuttals, rebuttals, closing statements, NO NEW ARGUMENTS9. No trolling or spamming.10. No cheating (Gish-gallop, asking for votes in your favor, etc.)11. Accepting without permission is a forfeiture of the debate.12. Kritiks are not accepted.As shown, first round is acceptance. I look forward to a fun and intriguing debate!", "qid": "21", "docid": "a80b0c2-2019-04-18T14:24:32Z-00008-000", "rank": 48, "score": 176953.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Human Activity Is a Significant Factor in Global Warming on Planet Earth. Content: Same", "qid": "21", "docid": "a80b0c2-2019-04-18T14:24:32Z-00000-000", "rank": 49, "score": 176461.0}, {"content": "Title: No time to hold back Content: Among other factors which may be responsible for climate change, human action is generally regarded a strong contribution \u2013 and one which looks set to increase, particularly in light of the swift industrialization of certain large nations, such as China. There may not be time to wait. \"At least 40 per cent of the world's economy and 80 per cent of the needs of the poor are derived from biological resources.\" \u2014 The Convention About Life on Earth (UN Convention on Biodiversity) Climate change interferes with ecosystem functioning and resources provided by the 'natural' environment. For example, rainfall in the tropics is largely created by the rainforests themselves, the potential for pharmaceuticals being discovered, timber resources etc. These have been valued at US $33 trillion. This is compared to a global GNP of $18 trillion.", "qid": "21", "docid": "aac88cec-2019-04-19T12:45:13Z-00029-000", "rank": 50, "score": 176299.0}, {"content": "Title: Human activity is adversely affecting the environment & having a negative impact on humankind Content: Models show that both nature and human activity contribute to the warming of this century, however, when humans are taken out of the mix, the warming trend that would occur does not match the warming that is currently happening. http://www.koshland-science-museum.org... \"the main reason for warming is greenhouse gases. These are naturally occurring however in the past 200 years since the industrial revolution greenhouse gases have increased \u2013 especially CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide, which come from the burning of fossil fuels, vehicles, agriculture & mining\" http://www.wnrmag.com... As mentioned \u2013 nature and human activity work hand in hand in global warming. For example, water vapour is the most prevalent greenhouse gas in the atmosphere and is natures way of keeping the earth at a stable temperature, however other greenhouse gases are rising and do contribute to the greenhouse effect. As the planet increases in temperature, more water can be held therefore also increasing the temperature \u2013 so nature and human activity work together to raise temperatures one step at a time. http://www.slate.com... As an example of how CO2 and temperature seem to go hand and hand a website is provided http://www.whrc.org... I like how you mention that it is the political argument that climate change is real and science proves that it is false \u2013 then why is it that it seems that scientists agree that climate change is real and it is the corporations, lobbyists and politicians who is altering reports from their own \"climate scientists\". http://www.csmonitor.com... http://www.sciencemag.org... \"To gain an understanding of the level of scientific consensus on climate change, a recent study examined every article on climate change published in peer-reviewed scientific journals over a 10-year period. Of the 928 articles on climate change the authors found, not one of them disagreed with the consensus position that climate change is happening or is human-induced. These findings contrast dramatically with the popular media's reporting on climate change. One recent study analyzed coverage of climate change in four influential American newspapers (New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, and Wall Street Journal) over a 14-year period. It found that more than half of the articles discussing climate change gave equal weight to the scientifically discredited views of the skeptics.\" -from the David Suzuki website. In case you didn't know, David Suzuki is the Rick Nash/Wayne Gretzky/Bruce Lee/Muhammed Ali of environmental science and causes. It shows that companies such as Exxon Mobil are working with top public relations firms and using many of the same tactics and personnel as those employed by Phillip Morris and RJ Reynolds to dispute the cigarette-cancer link in the 1990s. It shows said personnel admitting the science is bunk. http://www.cbc.ca... The trend of China and India and their increase in manufacturing and gas powered vehicles will exasperate the problems of air pollution. Despite progressive efforts, the global affect of a rapidly heating, changing environment, toxins affected the food chain, the oceans rising. The incomes and economics so many of rely on will change rapidly. The ecosystem we rely on is under threat and I provide the evidence to prove the conspiracy to deny the science. Quite simply there is no peer reviewed science that states human activity does not cause global warming. My opponent show the signs of a Republican fanatic who allows his thinking to be ruled by the economics and politics that is threatened by the science.", "qid": "21", "docid": "dbed694f-2019-04-18T19:38:35Z-00002-000", "rank": 51, "score": 176279.0}, {"content": "Title: Climate Change is driven by human CO2 emissions Content: Dear audience, please excuse my opponent for his outrageous conduct. During this round, if anyone has been manipulated by the fiendish approach my opponent has set, I will set them straight in this round.REBUTTALS \"My opponent claims any correlation is harmful, but this actually still concedes the point. If CO2 was the main driver of climate, which is what we are debating, then it stands to reason a correlation between CO2 and temperature would be strong. If it was a large factor, it should have a correlation of some significance, though as shown its correlation was under the .5 marks and is therefore NOT significantly correlated enough to be considered a large factor in climate change.\"This, Mr. Adams, is why I am concerned on your motives of conduct, if you are willing to stoop to such a low in this debate. I will quote what YOU said in the opening round, in which I agreed to and accepted.\"PRO (my opponent) argues these CO2 emissions cause global warming (which we assume exists).CON argues that global warming is primarily controlled by human emissions. \"You have lost this debate, because you have admitted to C02 emissions factoring into global warming! You made a very poor mistake in doing this Mr. Adams. Next time, I advise you to pay closer attention to such things. ALL I have to do in this debate is to PROVE TO YOU THAT C02 EMISSIONS EFFECT CLIMATE CHANGE! I have done this plenty of times, and can continue doing so as much as I please, because this is SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN!\"And good, my opponent found the study! And it\u2019s exactly what I cited! One must note, however, the correlation looks strong in the graph but when one looks at the facts we see this is false. We see multiple breaks in the correlation where the trend slows when CO2 rates climb and the opposite occurring on many points in the graph.\"I must say, I laugh out loud when I read this. You must not have read your source very well, because it actually incriminates your point. And when you are called out on it, you say that it is FALSE! There, dear audience, you have heard it straight from my opponents own mouth. He is saying that the sources he has used in this debate are completely and utterly FALSE! Thus we cannot credit anything he has said in this ENTIRE debate, as apparently his sources all show mis-conducted information. This, however I already knew, and hopefully the audience did as well, given the vast amount of research and evidence I have shown you all strictly contradicting his evidence.\"The graph also is faulty as it ignores the correlation in the last decade by using faulty data.\" Let's keep in mind, that this is the graph from my OPPONENTS own source. That aside, this was cited within the source from the government site, that I listed above. My opponent is trying to dis-credit the carbon dioxide information analysis center of the information on c02 effecting the climate change. His basis for this is extremely unwarranted, and he provides absolutely no bearing of proof to back this claim up! He is basically filling his entire round with Fluff and nonsense, and I hope the audience understands this when reading the debate. \"Based on greenhouse theory the correlation should be higher, and as temperatures have no risen in the last decade shatter the correlation. Why? Simple. If CO2 was the driver of climate temperatures should have continued to rise, but they didn\u2019t.\"Except for it did! Your sources were wrong, you know they were wrong, and admit to them being wrong! So that must mean the information I provided proving that C02 emissions effecting global warming strongly in the past 10 years must be accurate. See all the graphs above. \"And your graph fails to refute the point that CO2 does not have a significant enough correlation too temperatures.\"Lol which one, pray, may I ask? Because I have shown 3-4 different graphs, statistics, and other outstanding information that proves that C02 DOES effect the climate. In fact you have too. Until you can dis-prove MY evidence with statistics, or graphs, mine holds the most priority at the moment. Next my opponent does some weird sketches on my graph. Again this is another attempt to manipulate the audience.He is saying that the graph DOESN'T show that C02 emissions effect the climate. If you look at the graph, you will see that as the C02 Emissions rise, so does the temperature. Especially within the last 20 years, that graph shows imminent temperature reports rising subsequently with the C02 emissions. \"Every place I put a line is where correlation broke.\"Again, you are mis-understanding my goal in this debate. My goal is to prove that with the rise of C02 emissions, comes the rise of temperatures. Never once in the opening round did you say that I must prove that ONLY C02 emissions were a factor in global climate change. However, I HAVE proven that climate change does occur AS A RESULT of C02 emissions.That's it! That's all I needed to win this debate, as is CLEARLY defined by my opponent in R1! His continued pursuance of the opinion that C02 emissions do not effect the climate change very much, are blatantly going against his win condition for this debate. \"My source contradicts me? You get your data from a government source, mine from the SEPP. And when you look at it, it does not contradict anything. It shows the correlation for CO2 is not adequate to prove the side you are arguing, and the data you presented does not prove a point.\"Yes your source MAJORLY contradicts you and your goal in this debate. And your wrong, as it actually shows a major correlation between temperature rises and C02. \" I have shown the PDO correlation is twice as strong as a CO2 correlation. I also showed a sun correlation is 10 points stronger. I then showed that it is possible our current position in the galaxy and that relative to the sun via cosmic rays is a good theory, which trumps the evidence CO2 alarmists, have put forth. \"Listen. I DO NOT CARE. I never once said in this ENTIRE debate, nor did I have to, that C02 emissions were the only cause of global warming. I have proven that C02 emissions DO harm the environment. That much you CANNOT dis-agree with. Your conduct in this debate is superfluously appalling. Again, however, I would probably attribute that to your age.\" My opponent as pro has the BOP; this was established in round one. It was also established that round was for acceptance and if you posted your case would be irrelevant. You posted. It\u2019s irrelevant. Therefore you have the BOP and have no case to prove the statement, therefore lose the debate.\"Is that all you care about, is winning a debate based on a technicality? Despite the fact that I have PROVEN that C02 emissions are a huge factor in global temperature rising? Dear audience, my opponent attempts to ignore logic and valid information and is hoping to steal a win on the debate because of it, though he excused this in the beginning of his last round. The evidence is still there, it's still valid, and I do not care if you choose to ignore it. I will leave that up to the audience to decide.CONCLUSION My opponent has shown extremely poor conduct throughout this entire debate, and I hope the audience sees this as clearly as I have. My opponent attempts to ignore the light of all the evidence I have provided. He completely contradicts his own sources, which actually just help me out. I recommend the audience go through and read his source and find all the contradicting evidence he has to offer.My opponent says I have not upheld the burden of proof. If anyone buys this I strongly suggest they re-read that in which I have offered. I remain, that the evidence in R1 is still valid, and in R2, and none of it should be discounted on a technicality. I really hope for my opponents mental health, that he educates himself further on such subjects before starting debates on them.With that said, I strongly urge the voters to vote PRO.Thankyou.", "qid": "21", "docid": "422c0992-2019-04-18T18:12:13Z-00001-000", "rank": 52, "score": 176147.0}, {"content": "Title: Climate change Content: Global Warming (or climate change in the hot way) is the thing. It is a win or lose election debate topic. It is also very contested in the public field (media). The IPCC states that it exists and that it is human induced. State intervention is often motivated by climate change concerns. However there are many scientists, people and companies that contest climate change or human induced climate change. They have interesting arguments. I believe that they are mistaken. I define human global warming as the abnormal and significant increase of mean global temperatures caused (in part) by human activity. I expect to win if i can show that 1 climate change (in the sense of global warming) exists 2 it is caused in a significant degree by human activity I consider that my opponent wins if he/she is able to negate either of the above. I will affirm 3 arguments to sustain my position: science cvasi-consensus, observable events in the world around us, mental experiment. At this moment there is near consensus between scientists that global warming exists and is human induced[1]. The scientific model is quite simple to understand and makes sense. It is clear that the weather is influenced by many factors, and some are more powerful than others. The greenhouse effect is a powerful factor as shown by the super greenhouse effect on Venus. [2] Green house gases have increased at the highest level in the last 650 000 years after the industrial revolution. [3] To bring the scientific argument down to the human level and to avoid an authority argument i will point out that ice caps are already melting, the first drowned polar bears were found, more violent weather is happening etc. What is more, the arctic ice shows an increase in carbon concentration and temperature.[4] The mental experiment part is more complex in the sense that it involves the concept of positive feed-back. The oceans trap carbon while they are cold, when they heat up they release carbon. This a positive feed-back loop and it means that things will only get worse.[5] . Humans have reached a level where they can affect the climate. Acid rains and other city related weather are examples of humans influencing weather. In conclusion, from the scientific, factual and mental experiment arguments I conclude that global warming exists and it is human induced. Looking forward for a good debate. [1] http://www.sciencemag.org... [2] http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu... [3] http://news.mongabay.com... [4] http://www.heatisonline.org... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org...", "qid": "21", "docid": "ab411006-2019-04-18T19:20:25Z-00009-000", "rank": 53, "score": 175808.0}, {"content": "Title: Manmade global climate change is real and a threat. Content: RebuttalsFirst my arguments still stand. I think everyone already knows the Pope is not a climate change scientist. Opponent's arguments.1. Fossil Fuels do not cause an increase in CO2 emissions, which makes the first part of the IPCC's basic version of global warming invalidThis is overtly false, since science has shown repeatably that CO2 emissions increase green house gases. This is also stage 3c of climate change denial. [3]\"The main human activity that emits CO2 is the combustion of fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, and oil) for energy and transportation\" [2]From the above statement you can clearly see that burning oil causes green house gases. Why CO2 levels happen to drop that year is uncertain. Yet, from your own graph, you can see that CO2 levels are increasing dramatically. Argument 2 Despite common belief the last few years have not been the warmest on recordArgument two is cherry picking. El nino was responsible for the height of the graph. This is 1b stage of climate change denial and a logical fallacy. [3][4] s://grist.files.wordpress.com...; alt=\"https://grist.files.wordpress.com...; />Argument 3 Antarctic Ice was larger than ever in 2012 and 2014, thus the Antarctic Ice caps have not been melting which is thought to be a sideffect of the Global Warming theoryAntarctica ice is 1b stage of climate change denial. [3]\"First, any argument that tries to use a regional phenomenon to disprove a global trend is dead in the water. Anthropogenic global warming theory does not predict uniform warming throughout the globe. We need to assess the balance of the evidence.\"\"Second, ice-sheet thickening is not inconsistent with warming! Warmer climates tend toward more precipitation. The Antarctic is one of the most extreme deserts on the planet. As it warms, we would expect it to receive more snow. But even a whopping warming of 20 degrees \" say, from -50 degrees C to -30 degrees C \" would still leave it below freezing, so the snow wouldn\"t melt. Thus, an increase in ice mass.\"As you can see your Antarctica ice argument provides supporting evidence global climate change is happening. [5]4: There is no direct link between CO2 Emissions and Temperature IncreasesThis is stage 3c of climate change denial. [3]\"\"When viewed coarsely, historical CO2 levels and temperature show a tight correlation. However, a closer examination of the CH4, CO2, and temperature fluctuations recorded in the Antarctic ice core records reveals that, yes, temperature moved first.Nevertheless, it is misleading to say that temperature rose and then, hundreds of years later, CO2 rose. These warming periods lasted for 5,000 to 10,000 years (the cooling periods lasted more like 100,000 years!), so for the majority of that time (90% and more), temperature and CO2 rose together. \"show picture of graph if possible.\" [6][7]Antartica ice provides supporting evidence due to increase snow fall in sub freezing tempatures. Phew, made me work for the victory. Was fun defeating all your points. You put up the best fight thus far. Thanks for having the courage to speak out against the majority. Sources2. https://www.epa.gov...3. http://grist.org...4. http://grist.org...5. http://grist.org...6. http://grist.org...7. http://www.grida.no...", "qid": "21", "docid": "b567d7bc-2019-04-18T12:55:55Z-00003-000", "rank": 54, "score": 175795.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Human Activity Is a Significant Factor in Global Warming on Planet Earth. Content: Oompa-Loompa doompadee-doo", "qid": "21", "docid": "a80b0c2-2019-04-18T14:24:32Z-00001-000", "rank": 55, "score": 175475.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Human Activity Is a Significant Factor in Global Warming on Planet Earth. Content: Go to the other debate! :)Waive", "qid": "21", "docid": "a80b0c2-2019-04-18T14:24:32Z-00005-000", "rank": 56, "score": 175379.0}, {"content": "Title: Mankind Is the Main Cause of Global Warming Content: Thank you Con for this debate. Solar Activity (SA) Contrary to what Con claims, the intensity of the Sun has dipped (16) Of particular import are these parts: \"It is curious that the theory depends so much on sparse information \" what we know about the climates on other planets and their history \" yet its proponents resolutely ignore the most compelling evidence against the notion. Over the last fifty years, the sun\"s output has decreased slightly: it is radiating less heat. We can measure the various activities of the sun pretty accurately from here on Earth, or from orbit above it, so it is hard to ignore the discrepancy between the facts and the sceptical argument that the sun is causing the rise in temperatures. ... Pluto: the warming exhibited by Pluto is not really understood. Pluto\"s seasons are the least understood of all: its existence has only been known for a third of its 248 -year orbit, and it has never been visited by a space probe. The \"evidence\" for climate change consists of just two observations made in 1988 and 2002. That\"s equivalent to observing the Earth\"s weather for just three weeks out of the year.\" In addition, let's consider the Sun's intensity in the variation of the \"brightness\", it's nonetheless too small to account for the earth's recent warming (17), measuring at only 0.1% over an 11 year solar cycle: \" \"The small measured changes in solar output and variations from one decade to the next are only on the order of a fraction of a percent, and if you do the calculations not even large enough to really provide a detectable signal in the surface temperature record,\" said Penn State meteorologist Michael Mann.\" According to NCDC, the earth's base temperature, without greenhouse warming is 0\"F, or -18\"C. The amount of warming due to GH effect at ~1900C.E. is 57\"F (32\"C) (18). There has been a .74\"C increase in temp over 110 years, and is rising at the rate of .13 , or 1.56\"C/century recently: \"Global surface temperatures have increased about 0.74\"C (plus or minus 0.18\"C) since the late\"19th century, and the linear trend for the past 50 years of 0.13\"C (plus or minus 0.03\"C) per decade is nearly twice that for the past 100 years. The warming has not been globally uniform. Some areas (including parts of the southeastern U.S. and parts of the North Atlantic) have, in fact, cooled slightly over the last century. The recent warmth has been greatest over North America and Eurasia between 40 and 70\"N. Lastly, seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001 and the 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1995.\" The percent change in temperature over the last 110 years is .74\"C/32\"C = +2.3%, and the change in solar radiance has increased (19): \"Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.\" The extrapolated amount of change in solar radiance in the last 110 years is + .55%. The ratio of change of temperature to the rate of change of solar radiance is 2.3%/.55% = 4.2 times as fast. Not only that, but the rate of change of temperature is increasing. Now compare these two graphs, the first is the changes to solar radiance over the last 150 years (20), and then the temperature change(21). The SR baseline is flat and the TC baseline is rising, thus, solar output and global temp over a 150 year period shows no correlation, and there is a 4.2 times greater increase in TC than solar output. So SR can, at most, only account for less than 25% of the total increase in temperature over the last 110 years. Troposphere Temperature and Cooling (TT) (TC) On the subject of the troposphere, I will point out that the TT decreases with altitude. With a more energetic dynamic occurring in the troposphere due to heating, or overall energy increase, the higher and lower altitude air will mix more and the resultant surface temps will appear cooler even though the overall heat content of the troposphere has increased! On Con's source 6 (which, incidentally, comes from a denier site), please observe Con's accompanying graph the length of line the \"cooling\" is based on. The overall graph shows data consistent with longer term warming. By taking the shorter time frame that the author does (11 years), the graph can be interpreted, for the years 1979 \" 1989, to show an even more dramatic cooling effect, even though the long term trend including that time frame is warming. Ten years or so, periods are not relevant, contrary to what the author tries to show. Another method of TC is by the energy expended in increasingly energetic storm systems. These systems have a net cooling effect on the troposphere, as explained in Con's very own [6]: \"I have to wonder whether the atmosphere is currently in a destabilized state. I doubt that surface temperatures anomalies are as anomalously low as the mid-troposphere temperatures are running, which in combination with anomalously cold mid- and upper-tropospheric temperatures means there is extra energy available for storms. \" Oceans and PDO Con claims the oceans are losing heat and that the PDO is \"in a cool cycle\". However, this is due to an unusually intense el Nino in 1998, which produced the overall heating, as there is a great lag effect to el Nino of several years. Of course there is cooling as the ocean returns to homostasis. Furthermore, Con's \"Examiner\" link that he uses to support his claim is extremely suspect, because the whole report is not included in the link Con gives, and leaves out the part where the author of the research doesn\"t claim the cooling is long term, but is a possible short term anomaly, and also the author of the Examiner article fudged and discarded data that did not fit his hypothesis. To quote a comment from said article: \"I couldn\"t help but notice that your article follows the NASA article almost exactly (though not literally copying from it) and the graphs on your article are also present in the NASA article. But the strange thing is \" besides some misquoting, ie Takmong Wong never said the cooling could be due to melting Arctic sea ice \" that you don\"t finish the story that it turned out there was a problem with the measurements and thus there was no global cooling. You just leave the most important thing out!\" As pointed out earlier in my R3, Con has relied on confirmed climate deniers who aren't even climatologists and also is guilty of relying on outdated data, as BobC also points out about the Examiner article in the sixth comment down. La Nina has been the influence for ocean cooling since 2006 (22), which paints a considerably different picture on Con's argument. Notice that el Nino didn\"t return until 2009, and is not included in Con's studies which only date UP TO 2009. Also note that whatever the ocean temps, it is a red herring. The global temps are still increasing dramatically, and furthermore, no one knows what affects ocean temperatures reliably. On a side note, the author of this article that Con links to for his ocean temperature arguments ALSO predicted that Arctic ice levels would begin to increase, based on his interpretation of the ocean temp papers. His predictions were wrong. What does that tell us about the veracity of his ocean temp arguments? Conclusion That humans are the main cause of global warming is overwhelmingly evident, and SA alone isn't enough. Sources: (16) http://www.skepticalscience.com... (17) http://www.livescience.com... (18) http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov... (19) http://www.nasa.gov... (20) http://www.nasa.gov... (21) http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov... (22) http://en.wikipedia.org...", "qid": "21", "docid": "66bd9128-2019-04-18T17:28:46Z-00000-000", "rank": 57, "score": 175266.0}, {"content": "Title: That Humans Are Causing Climate Change Content: I accept.", "qid": "21", "docid": "e505d905-2019-04-18T16:03:11Z-00006-000", "rank": 58, "score": 175106.0}, {"content": "Title: global climate change is human caused Content: Humans are causing the rise in clobal temperature, which if not stopped will result in global warming.", "qid": "21", "docid": "a5cb0429-2019-04-18T19:47:04Z-00004-000", "rank": 59, "score": 174993.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Human Activity Is a Significant Factor in Global Warming on Planet Earth. Content: Thanks to my opponent, it's been fun.I will respond to the points my opponent has made in this round, and clarify my case.But first of all, I am sure that I hadn't ignored a piece of my opponent's case. Don't trust this claim as just because a response is brief doesn't mean it's not valid.==Rebuttal 1: 1970 has more ice than 1870==My opponent is correct that the data is cumulative. However, he drops my response to this when I stated that there was an apparent but brief drop in temperature caused by sulphate aerosols. I don't agree with how my opponent states I must drop the evidence simply because his basis is that there was an increase in ice for 20 years (even though the line starts dropping rapidly). If we were to apply a trend line the line would most definitely be slanted downwards towards the right. His argument doesn't explain the rest of the graph showing sharp declines in ice. I find that my opponent nitpicks at every little flaw that doesn't seem right even though the rest supports my argument, and he ends up dropping the rest of the graph altogether.I think what my opponent focuses the most on, however, is how figures are exaggerated as more and more climate stations are set up, and he attempts to apply that to temperature record figures. However, the notion that temperature record figures are untrustworthy is false, as has been shown throughout the debate [1]: \"For example, a study by Anderson et al. (2012) created a new global surface temperature record reconstruction using 173 records with some type of physical or biological link toglobal surface temperatures (corals, ice cores, speleothems, lake and ocean sediments, and historical documents). The study compared their reconstruction to the instrumental temperature record and found a strong correlation between the two[.]\" - Skeptical Science [1]==Rebuttal 2: No correlation==This point as a large relation with the first point, and doesn't affect much in the debate. Basically my opponent states that we can't trust graphs that start in the 70's because it was a low point in global warming. There are two points to make:(A) Again, my opponent doesn't focus on the rest of the graphs with clearly agree with my case in the debate.(B) The only figures I gave which started in the 70's are the ones I had replaced with other data.Again, this point is null because it has little to no weight in this debate.==Rebuttal 3: Pan Evaporation==My opponent drops my response to this argument, where I gave the two statements that (a) we cannot use the method because no sources or figures measuring temperature correlate with pan evaporation, and (b) global warming is found to be affected by human causes the most, as shown in the last round.After doing some research, I found that pan evaporation did have to do with climate, but not with global warming. This extends the point of my rebuttal [2]:\"Pan evaporation is a measurement that combines or integrates the effects of several climate elements: temperature, humidity, rain fall, drought dispersion, solar radiation, and wind. Evaporation is greatest on hot, windy, dry, sunny days; and is greatly reduced when clouds block the sun and when air is cool, calm, and humid. Pan evaporation measurements enable farmers and ranchers to understand how much water their crops will need.\" - Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopediia [2]Wikipedia states that pan evaporation helps farmers and ranchers to correctly water their crops. But never does it say anything about energy in the atmosphere.==Counter 1: Sea Levels==My opponent seems to make a valid point about the glaical and ice contradiction, but it isn't valid. Glaciers hold less than 2% of the water on Earth [3]:\"The amount of water locked up in ice and snow is only about 1.7 percent of all water on Earth[.]\" - Textile Waste Diversion Inc. [3]Glaciers were just a part of my argument to show that ice was melting. The fact that glaciers hold so little of the world's water barely makes any difference in the rise in sea levels, especially since most glaciers exist inland, but not near the oceans, as most glaciers are of the Himalayas, which are inland [4][5]: \"The Himalayan\u2013Karakoram (HK) region has among the largest glacier coverage outside the polar regions[.]\" - Estimating the volume of glaciers in the Himalayan\u2013Karakoram region using different methods [5]This alone means that glaciers can be used as evidence for global warming, but NOT to disprove its existence. My opponent's rebuttal is null.==Counter 2: Mixed Methodologies==This, again, is an example of the nitpicking my opponent has done throughout the debate. Correlation =/= imitation. But if my opponent still can't accept my graph, here are the reasons why my opponent's rebuttal isn't coherent:1. My opponent emphasized a lot on the heat waves of the 30's, so the fact that he's using that to try and prove there isn't a correlation is beyond me.2. Where the temperature drops out (more so not) of the correlation is so insignificant that it may as well be part of the correlation. Somehow my opponent thinks that a difference in correlation about a millimeter or less for a graph THAT size still counts as proof that the correlation is false.==Counter 3: Other planets==\"When we burn Coal we actually end up taking O2 out of the air, and put in CO2.\" - OpponentMy opponent now suddenly agrees that CO2 has a heating effect, which is different from the last few contentions. But if this is untrue, see my previous counter.My opponent also agrees that we are still adding CO2 to the atmosphere, even though oxygen is being taken out of the air. It's basically a concession of this point because my opponent agrees the atmosphere on Venus is thick with greenhous gases. P1) More CO2 in the atmosphere = Earth heats upP2) We are putting more CO2 into the atmosphereC) We are heating up Earth.As for the electromagnetic field, my opponent ignores that Mercury does not have a major electromagnetic field either [6].\"Mercury\u2019s magnetic field is 150 times weaker than that of our planet, however.\" - Phys.org [6] And with a distance much smaller from the sun than other planets, you'd expect that Mercury would be hotter. However, BECAUSE Venus has such an atmosphere it is simply that much hotter.==Dropped arguments==My opponent drops many arguments in the debate, which is lucky because they seem to be important points.He drops the points:- That natural causes have a much smaller heating effect than with human effects- That positive feedbacks amplify heating effects- That the increase in glaciers is probably due to the brief drops in temperature that were only temporary and caused by humans as well- That methodology changes don't change the actual temperature- That we can't use pan evaporation because it is not relevant to the debate- That temperatures are perfectly fine evidence in terms of this debate- That the corrections made in NASA's graph do not make much difference- That newer sources are usually more trustworthy, especially when made by a government websiteThose are the ones that I can think of at the top of my head, and there could be more. Don't let my opponent respond to them because it is unfair if he responds when I can't.==Conclusion== There are huge holes in my opponent's argument, as well as big contradictions. Their arguments are more like theories (or even just hypotheses) because they nitpick at things if something isn't perfect. And my opponent can throw any theory he wants at me but scientific research somehow, as tylergraham said, always seems to fly in his face.The resolution is soundly affirmed.==Sources==[1] http://www.skepticalscience.com...[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://textilewastediversion.com...[4] http://oi52.tinypic.com...[5] http://www.the-cryosphere.net...[6] http://phys.org...Final round to con!", "qid": "21", "docid": "a80b0a3-2019-04-18T14:21:27Z-00001-000", "rank": 60, "score": 174945.0}, {"content": "Title: Global Warming is primarily caused by humans Content: I accept your challenge. I accept the conditions unto which it has been made. Begin when ready.", "qid": "21", "docid": "183436dd-2019-04-18T12:34:27Z-00006-000", "rank": 61, "score": 174393.0}, {"content": "Title: Human activity is adversely affecting the environment & having a negative impact on humankind Content: I continued the debate without giving my cell number. For those of you who have any doubts on human caused climate change or just skeptical, check out this page: http://gristmill.grist.org... Thanks for coming out, Sadolite.", "qid": "21", "docid": "dbed694f-2019-04-18T19:38:35Z-00000-000", "rank": 62, "score": 174221.0}, {"content": "Title: Taking a Stand Against Climate Change with Greener Technologies Content: Hello, Mac, and I am glad you instigated this debate. My opponent\u2019s arguments rely on three main contentions: 1) Global warming is real and is a threat 2) Global warming is caused by human activity 3) We should attempt to stop global warming I will refute them as follows: 1. Global warming is real and a threat My opponent\u2019s main point here is the expected sea level rise. However, some scientific papers have been released showing the sea level rise has been over predicted and that in many parts of the world, sea level rise isn\u2019t happening at all. The IPCC\u2019s data claiming massive sea level rise has been grossly exaggerated and is utterly incorrect. For example, Bangladesh should have been engulfed in water, or should be seeing significant problems. In 2007, the IPCC proclaimed their doomsday. However recent data shows the sea levels there are not rising [1]. My opponent also forgets the possible benefits of Global Warming. For example, parts of Canada, Russia, and Argentina too cold for industrialization and farming would become reachable. Historically, warmer temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere acted as a benefit for the Vikings. Greenland and Iceland\u2019s productivity rose, the increased rain caused better harvests, and lead to the Vikings making landfall in the New World. The increased CO2 would make plant growth easier and enhance the world, making it muck more habitable. Some of the warmest periods in our history, the world flourished with resources aplenty; a warmer climate could easily be good for you and me [2]. My opponents other point here is the reality of global warming, and here I agree. There has been an overall warming trend since 1850, however I dispute current warming. Global warming stopped in 1997, with an overall decrease in temperature since then. Using NOAA data starting from 2000, to avoid the El Ni\u00f1o year in 1998 (which \u2018refutes\u2019 the global warming stopped theory) shows no change. A slight decrease in temperature, although the trend is less. There has been no warming since 1997, and no statistically significant warming since 1995 [3]. 2. Humans are the cause of global warming This is the main contention of the debate; if it is awful, but natural, we can\u2019t stop it: changing our ways of life would be worthless. If it is still happening but is natural, we can\u2019t stop it and changing would, again, be a pointless exercise. So, I explain the reasoning on why claiming humans cause global warming is illogical. First, CO2 and other emissions increase during a good economy. After the 1940\u2019s, a post-war economic boom occurred. At this time, when CO2 increased, is when scientists said humans first began to have a large impact on global warming. Interestingly, temperatures decreased at this time. Alarmists have tried to counter these claims, but their logic fails to hold up [4]. Either way, my opponent has only assumed humans are the main cause of the warming; he has given little evidence himself that we are the cause. Correlation is always an argument in this debate. People have argued there is a strong correlation between CO2 and temperature, however this is simply untrue. CO2 only correlates r= .44, with 1 being perfect and 0 being none at all. This means the correlation rates fair to poor. The sun scores better, with an r= .57, meaning it rates to fair to good. And the PDO correlates the best, with an 0.83 rating good [5]. It seems hard to argue CO2 causes the warming when it fails to correlate to a degree of \u2018good\u2019 and its rivals for the title\u2014the sun and the PDO\u2014correlate much better then it. Further, the current warming should have been predicted, as according to Singers 1,500 sun cycle the current warming was right on time. The majority of geologists\u2014about 50%\u2014believe global warming is a natural cycle and the current warming is right on time [6]. Other explanations, like cosmic rays, also seems like a possible factors. In short wording: Humans likely do not play a major role in global warming, although we likely exacerbate the situation a little bit. 3. It should be stopped\u2014specifically with green energy If my opponent wishes to bring up another solution, I am all ears. However he currently argues green energy is the solution. Lets go down the list: a) Wind power There is a simple problem with wind: the fact that wind is not always blowing, and its upfront capital costs more then outweighs the fact that wind, itself, is free. Wind itself has lees value then its fossil fuel competitors and must be placed in areas with constant (or higher then average) wind amounts, limiting its universality. Unlike Fossil fuel plants, which can be planted anywhere. There is other, in my opinion more real, issues then global warming. Wind stations kill the avian populations and take up a lot of space, often ruining natural beauty. Many rodents actually like the wind farms and live inside the fan. Rodents\u2014a food source for many predators\u2014get killed trying to eat them. And, obviously, other birds will fly through the places and get whacked and die. Some Wind projects take 10 billion pounds of raw materials. If we assume global warming is man made, the CO2 created by the mining and construction often times shrinks the overall benefit. b) Solar Potential market chare for solar has been overestimated time and time again and the subsidies that the industry relies on\u2014because it is not competitive with fossil fuel because the marker does not favor it\u2014costs millions of dollars, even more then the Wind subsidies. Thermal solar plants need 1,000 times more the resources fossil fuel plants need. Some studies argue: \u201cSolar Two looks good on paper, and it is expected to provide steady baseload electricity as well as late afternoon peaking capacity, but the future of all the central solar generators is in doubt. They are expensive to build, their very scale escalates financial risks--as with nuclear power--and their massive height (in excess of 200 meters) may attract opposition.\u201d[7] Other Solar industries (there are many) require millions of dollars to operate and to even be on the market and commercialize their products. Many environmentalists have a actually given up on some solar markets, like photovoltaic, in favor of nuclear (something they usually despise) because of the destruction of those solar plants. c) Hydro Even environmentalists have left hydro power, uttering the power source in the same breath as they do natural gas, coal, and nuclear. From a conservative standpoint, the construction of Hydro power is actually very invasive on the surrounding community and cost millions. On a more liberal note, the hydro plants take a lot of resources to build and kill and disturb many fish populations. The cost of current hydro plants are 5-6 times more expensive per kilowatt hour then other fossil fuels. d) Case study: Michigan There has been no net job growth because of their green energy, they have created jobs in one sector but have taken them away from another. Their energy prices have increased and their prices continue to increase. Other states, like North Dakota, have welcomed fossil fuels and have had a net job growth and prices fall. Studies have shown for every one job created in their oil industry, another three are created because of decreased energy costs [8]. CONCLUSION: I have proven my opponents premises to be incorrect and his solution of green energy is impractical, harmful to the economy, and, sometimes, not even green. (longest url's shortened to make room) 1. http://tinyurl.com...; 2. http://www.stanford.edu... 3. http://wattsupwiththat.com... 4. http://tinyurl.com...; 5. http://wattsupwiththat.com... 6. MacRae, Paul. False Alarm: Global Warming-- Facts versus Fears. Victoria, B.C.: Spring Bay, 2010. Print. 7. http://www.cato.org... 8. http://www.heritage.org...", "qid": "21", "docid": "373bfeeb-2019-04-18T17:59:08Z-00006-000", "rank": 63, "score": 173886.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Human Activity Is a Significant Factor in Global Warming on Planet Earth. Content: doop-dee-doo", "qid": "21", "docid": "a80b0c2-2019-04-18T14:24:32Z-00003-000", "rank": 64, "score": 173586.0}, {"content": "Title: Mankind Is the Main Cause of Global Warming Content: I am here going to prove to the audience and to my opposition that global warming is primarily caused by homo sapiens and is thus a characteristic of the anthropocene - a term recently created by geologists to express \"the age of man.\" I have yet to thorougly read my opponent's arguments, so anything that I write that may seem to be a rebuttal is pure coincidence. I thank my opponent for challenging me to this debate and hope for an interesting exchange of ideas. Either he'll learn something or I will!Three Steps to Damaging the Planet (Human Style)A) Find the gases that cause the planet to warmThe following gases contribute to the greenhouse effect... (10)Feedback GasesWATER VAPOURWater vapour is a \"feedback\" to the climate rather than a cause of climate change. It is a greenhouse gas, but it does not contribute to a change in the greenhouse effect, rather, it changes with the temperature of the atmosphere, and thus acts as a way of telling if we're doing things right. Put simply, we on earth can't directly affect the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere, but more of it should tell us that the temperature of the planet is warming (because it evaporates. We can't heat the oceans by ourselves so we need something less direct.) and thus there's a cause - effect relationship - more CO2/Methane/etc. = Higher Temperaures = More Water VapourCausal GasesMETHANENot what you were expecting, right? But still very important. Most mammals have natural methane emissions of a kind, and this can change, so this will go into our recipe for messing with our climate. Naturally, however, it is emitted at 270 teragrams per year (9) Come back to this later.NITROUS OXIDEAlso causal to rather than resulting from a change in climate, that is, we can change how much goes into the atmosphere.CFCsThe same ones that destroy the ozone layer, this time, they're back to destroy the biosphere. I say \"destroy\" because CFCs are as irrefutably man - made as CO2 and Methane are not, and therefore MUST be at least one reason that the atmosphere is warming. (Since they are artificial, to say that an increase in their quantity has non - anthropogenic causes would be like saying that trees can be made of plastic).CARBON DIOXIDEThe classic greenhouse gas. Carbon dioxide is absorbed to some extent in grass and trees (photosynthesis) on a natural level, and otherwise may be released through volcanoe and major forest fires, or the combustion of organic material. This usually accounts for 750 gigatons (8) of CO2 moving through the carbon cycle every year, not including human intervention.The gases listed here under causal warm the earth through the greenhouse effect. This is not controversial, here's how it works (7)The greenhouse effect, WITHOUT human intervention (except obviously in CFCs), is caused by the above gases in the above way. Now all we have to do is add a greedy, unenlightened species and we're on our way...B) Ensure that those gases enter and remain in the atmosphere in greater (or lesser) quantities than beforeMETHANEHumans add 330 teragrams per year (9) of methane to the atmosphere every year to the 270 teragrams already entering it, mostly through methane emitted by livestock (a single modern cow emits 270 kg of methane each year), from decay in landfills and from waste treatment, not to mention the burning of biomass. If the 330 teragrams going into the atmosphere WITHOUT humans every year causes 9% of the greenhouse effect, as noted above, then that amount doubling will, of course, ENHANCE the greenhouse effect, causing - global warming. The truth is that it would be strange if it DIDN'T. There are now 2 billion cows on the planet, far more than at any point in history. They, through methane emissions, are enhancing the greenhouse effect.CARBON DIOXIDEIt has been mentioned that 750 gigatons goes through the carbon cycle every year. Humans add 29 gigatons (8) - haha, the opposition says, the amount of human emissions of CO2 every year pale in compare to how much goes through the carbon cycle! But then one takes closer look - every year, 439 gigatons are released and 450 are absorbed by plants and trees. Suddenly, the 29 gigatons becomes much more frightening, especially when one observes that carbon dioxide is now at 390 ppm (parts per million) in the atmosphere, nearly twice as high as it has been for the last 500,000 years! The higher amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is also caused, of course, by the fact that our conversion of land for agriculture has led to land with plants that absorb less CO2 (virtually all my references will say this) so that the number of gigatons absorbed (450) is decreasing whilst the 29 is increasing, resulting in idle CO2 sitting around, warming up the atmosphere - as it must as a greenhouse gas. CO2 is poisonous as well, by the way, so even if my worthy opponent and/or audience leaves this debate with their minds unchanged on the topic of anthropogenic global warming, remember that there is still reason for CO2 emissions to be curtailed!CFCsThis is an optimistic part of the human - greenhouse effect story in that we actually stopped putting CFCs into the atmosphere when we realized how awful they were for the ozone layer. Therefore we do not put CFCs into the atmosphere any more - it's like a defunct greenhouse gas, in retirement.NITROUS OXIDENO2 has an atmospheric lifetime of 121 years (11) so naturally even a small amount of nitrous coming out of your exhaust enhances global warming for years to come. And when it's 110 to 240 thousand tonnes coming from car exhaust pipes every year, you know you have a problem. Add 2 to 4 million tonnes from fertilization practices in agriculture and you have a MAJOR problem! Add to this the fact that NO2 is 310 times as powerful as CO2 as a greenhouse gas and you have a full blown nightmare.Given the endless facts and evidence presented above, it would be strange if the atmosphere was NOT warming up from human intervention. The below only affirms what should be evident. On to our third and final step.C) Watch as the planet warms or cools six degrees, the difference between now and the last ice ageIt is often mentioned that the earth's climate has change in the past, and that is most assuredly true. It is also true, of course, that the earth's climate can change in the future, and for different reasons. However, what is unique about the warming of the anthropocene is that it has happened and is happening so suddenly, more suddenly than in the past. The closest example of climate change at this speed (just 120 years since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution), obviously excluding the meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs, is the Palaeo - Eocene Thermal Maximum (13) about 55 million years ago, when the climate changed 5 to 8 degrees,that warming, of course, took several thousand years.Sources1. http://climate.nasa.gov...2. http://www.climatechangechallenge.org...3. http://environment.nationalgeographic.com...4. http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com...5. http://news.nationalgeographic.com...6. http://www.nytimes.com...7. http://www.global-greenhouse-warming.com...8. http://www.skepticalscience.com...9. http://en.wikipedia.org...10. http://raytekmalaysia.blogspot.ca...11. http://www.flickoff.org...12. http://www.epa.gov...13. http://www.guardian.co.uk...", "qid": "21", "docid": "66bd90cb-2019-04-18T18:11:34Z-00004-000", "rank": 65, "score": 173201.0}, {"content": "Title: Climate change is both real and a serious issue Content: I want to start off by mentioning that this my first debate with another person and this is a very controversial topic and I hope we can both be informative to each other To start I wanted to address your source, in the source one of the first points it makes is that humans are the main cause of global warming, however there actually is a good deal of evidence that humans aren't the main cause, the earth has natural heating and cooling periods and around 1945 people were actually worried about the cooling effect (1) And this isn't without any evidence there is a petition signed by thousands of scientists (2). the general public and many environmentalists believe that since there are charts and graphs it must be true but humans also once wholeheartedly believed the world was flat. It is widely believed and accepted that global warming is causing the ice caps to melt and this will cause \"great floods\" and whatnot but anyone who knows anything about displacement can obviously tell that's outrageous. Around 400 million years ago during the Ordovician period greenhouse gases were at levels 16 times more than they are at now and the earth was wildly populated with flora and fauna still capable of life.(3) This was brought about by volcanic emissions this can be read about in source 3. SO really the recent rise in carbon emissions inst actually that devastating at all. Also al gores prediction of the melting ice caps due to the carbon emissions is false, according to this (4) in fact it has grown up to 50% larger. the Northern ice cap actually gained area roughly equal to the size of Alaska since 2012. Its silly to say that humans don't make an impact on the environment, and I wont say that because we do have an impact but the earth itself has had much bigger changes in temperature before. to claim that humans are destroying the planet is crazy at most humans will raise the temperature by a couple degrees Celsius. My closing thoughts are that I don't believe global warming is a serious issue the earth has had to deal with much more influential things than humans and ultimately adapts and changes because of it. The U.S. government has spent billions of dollars to fund global warming efforts (5) and this money could be used to fix actual problems that we have identified instead of funding research nearly as heavily as we are. (1)http://www.batteredmen.com... (2) http://www.petitionproject.org... (3)https://en.wikipedia.org... (4)http://www.dailymail.co.uk... (5) http://www.gao.gov...", "qid": "21", "docid": "67064b1f-2019-04-18T12:27:23Z-00002-000", "rank": 66, "score": 173114.0}, {"content": "Title: Quote debate Content: Sorry about that, I was on February Break and I use my computer at school for DDO. Global Warming: \"The most important thing about global warming is this. Whether humans are responsible for the bulk of climate change is going to be left to the scientists, but it's all of our responsibility to leave this planet in better shape for the future generations than we found it.\" -Mike Huckabee Donald Trump for President(Pro) \"I\"m the worst thing that\"s ever happened to ISIS.\" -Donald Trump himself", "qid": "21", "docid": "b4646bd5-2019-04-18T13:45:25Z-00002-000", "rank": 67, "score": 173026.0}, {"content": "Title: The sun drives the global climate Content: It is the sun that is the driving force of our climate and so it makes sense that it has the biggest impact on our climate rather than anything that humans might be doing. The sun is therefore the most likely cause of global warming. Professor Henrik Svensmark, a physicist at the Danish National Space Center in Copenhagen argues that climate change is caused by solar activity.[[Louise Gray, 'Copenhagen climate summit: global warming 'caused by sun's radiation'', The Telegraph, 8/12/09, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6762640/Copenhagen-climate-summit-global-warming-caused-by-suns-radiation.html%5D%5D Solar activity, as determined by sunspot activity, is historically high being at its highest over the last 60-70 years for over 8000 years. Solar activity could affect climate by variation in the Sun's output or potentially through having an effect on cloud formation. Solanski et al. Sunspot numbers and cosmic ray fluxes... show correlations and anti-correlations with a number of reconstructions of the terrestrial Northern Hemisphere temperature, which cover a time span of up to 1800 years. This indicates that periods of higher solar activity and lower cosmic ray flux tend to be associated with warmer climate, and vice versa... This suggests that effects induced by cosmic rays may affect the long-term terrestrial climate. The positive correlation between the geomagnetic dipole moment and the temperature reconstructions provides further evidence favoring the cosmic ray influence on the terrestrial climate. [[I.G. Usoskin, S.K. Solanski, M. Schussler, K. Mursula, Solar activity, cosmic rays, and Earth\u2019s temperature: A millennium-scale comparison, 1/10/05 http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/2004ja010964.pdf%5D%5D", "qid": "21", "docid": "8ff43ff3-2019-04-19T12:45:46Z-00010-000", "rank": 68, "score": 173019.0}, {"content": "Title: Climate change is happening and is caused by human activity Content: I believe that climate change is serious and urgent problem facing us today. In my opinion it is caused by the idea of capitalism and also by the spread of capitalistic production system of 20th century. Both of them have brought the collapse of ecological system and led to climate change facing the people of the world. I look forward to having a good debate and learning a lot from it.", "qid": "21", "docid": "ff5b0936-2019-04-18T12:09:41Z-00000-000", "rank": 69, "score": 173019.0}, {"content": "Title: Mankind Is the Main Cause of Global Warming Content: Numerous alternate causes to global warming prove that humans are not the primary source. Adopt a mindset of innocent until proven guilty, the affirmative must prove beyond correlation and doubt that human cause warming. The Pro must win that mankind is the \"principal [and] leading\" meaning that if I win that there is an alternative cause that is more responsible for warming than humans, or at least humans are not a major cause, then I win the debate. (First Pro speech)As the Con, I may contradict myself as my sole purpose is to disprove the Pro's statement. The Pro must remain consistent to prove their position.First, 1,500 year climate cycles. Fred Singer, an atmospheric and space physicist with a PhD from Princeton who founded the the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) and Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), and Dennis Avery, a agricultural analyst who was awarded the National Intelligence Medal of Achievement, agree that there is substantial evidence around the world that climate cycles easily explain the warming we currently see. There is already a scientific consensus that cooling cycles (Ice Ages) exist, so it already not unreasonable to assume that warming cycles also exist. From 1300 to 1850, the Little Ice Age caused the earth to be about 2.5 degrees Celsius cooler than average. The Modern Warming portion of the cycle began in 1850, and \"warming will continue for some time in the future, perhaps 200 years or more, regardless of human activity.\" Thus, today's warming can be explained by these climate cycles. These scientists gathered data from North America to Asia, and they use the ice caps in Greenland to further prove that by the way the ice formed, there must have been 1,500 year warming cycles. Sea sediment core in Ireland also shows the 1,500 year cycle. Fossilized pollen, boreholes, tree rings, and mountain tree lines all provide evidence to this theory because scientists can find how they were created or observe differing distances of tree rings to find the amount of warming that these objects underwent while being created. It's important to realize that completely dismissing 1,500 year cycles dismisses \"human histories from the past 2,000 years...and a variety of physical evidence found by a huge body of serious researchers.\" (1) The Vostok ice sample that the rise and fall of CO2 correlate with natural cycles. Temperatures correlate with Ice Age minimus and maximus. There is a 420,000 thousand year cycle of carbon emissions. Given that humans release very little of the total carbon ouput, the correlation is between the carbon cycle and temperature cycle. (5)Secondly, human emissions of carbon dioxide are specifically not to blame. Patrick Moore, a former member of Greenpeace and an ecologist said the following while testifying in front of Congress: \"There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth's atmosphere over the past 100 years.\" In fact, carbon dioxide levels were 10x higher during the Ice Ages than they are now. This was also true 500 million years ago before evolution had created humans. Not only does this empiric disprove that humans are a major cause of increased carbon dioxide, but it also disproves that CO2 causing warming. Regardless of the theoretical examples the Pro provides, empirics trump. Third, the industrial revolution began in 1750, yet only from 1910 to 1940, there was an increase in .5 degrees Celsius of the global temperature. There was more than enough time for factories to produce enough carbon dioxide to have resulted in warming before those 200 years. This delay in increase prove that humans are not the main cause and is evidence of the climate cycles. (2) During this time, temperatures were much higher than today, but CO2 levels were lower. This places doubt in the significance of anthropogenic CO2 release. (7)Fourth, the climate rapidly changes to different stimuli. Anthony Lupo, assistant professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri at Columbia and an expert reviewer for the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Chang, discusses the fact that regional climates tend to experience much more change than globally. However, climates change rapidly, so if human emissions of CO2 really are responsible for warming, then 1) there should already be a much larger change in global temperature given the huge increase of CO2 emissions and 2) even when there were smaller amounts of CO2, this should have been enough to trigger an environmental change (3).Fifth, climate models fail. There was an increase in global temperature of 0.57C during the 30-year period from 1970 to 2000. Since then there has been no increase, perhaps a slight decrease, in average global temperature. This clearly disproves the numerous computer models that the Pro cites as CO2 had increased after 2000 (2). Many believe that there will be an increase of anywhere from 2-11 degrees Fahrenheit due to info from computer models. Misinterpretation of results and models lacking the complexities of the fundamental global processes mean that these cannot be trusted. Consistently, politicians like Al Gore have predicted that the world would have literally ended by now. Prefer direct facts and empirical examples rather than theoretical results of greenhouse gases. Thus, do not automatically trust that greenhouse gases cause warming without direct evidence from changes in temperature \u00e2\u20ac\" the facts don't support this conclusion. (3) Though the Earth is warming, it's cooler than expected. There should have already been a two degree Celsius increase 100,000 years ago. (5) [Insert pie graph from this source]Sixth, fossil fuels do not cause an increase in CO2 levels according to the most accurate NASA data. From 1940 to 1950, CO2 levels flatlined. The only change was roughly .8 ppm downwards. World War II caused a massive increase in fossil fuel levels, yet this did not change CO2 levels. Prefer empirics. (4) Also, the Vostok ice core sample proves. CO2 increases did not increase temperature for 800 years. This sample also explains why a fall in temperature and a fall in CO2 correlate \u2014 cold water can hold more CO2 than warm water. Even more, temperature falls around 800-1,000 years before CO2 levels rise or fall giving water time to absorb the CO2. (5)Seventh, even if humans do increase CO2 levels, they're only responsible for a 3% increase. Even that released CO2 is not all directly released into the atmosphere given that the oceans absorb so much of it. Limestone, chalk, and other rocks have 100x as much CO2 as the atmosphere. This 3% is responsible for .27% of the greenhouse effect. \"If we were to cease all transport and industry right now, it is very unrealistic to assume that it would have any impact on global warming.\" (5) Eighth, solar radiation is the single largest cause of warming. NASA repeatedly releases articles explaining the importance of the sun and sun cycles on the Earth. The near infrared and visible light waves are absorbed by the lower atmosphere, the oceans, and the land. Thus, these areas heat resulting in a higher global average temperature. Even more, absorption of UV rays heats the stratosphere. There's a general scientific consensus that this increases temperatures in the troposphere. Additionally, sun spots serve to reduce or increase warming. These can sway warming either way considering that these are 11 year cycles. This can explain why times of higher CO2 did not increase temperature. Scientists believe that the sun is responsible for at least half of all the climate change seen in the past 110 years. Even the IPCC, an organization devoted to creating response to globa warming, agrees. (6)The 100,000 year cycle of radiation resulting from the elliptical orbit of the Earth is at a peak and will be for the next several thousand years. This radiation is consistent with spikes in CO2 methane. The melting of ice caps has happened with each of these cycles. The huge volume of these gases is too high to be anthropogenic but is consistent with previous cycles. Mars is also increasing in temperature due to the recent increase in solar radiation. Dr. H. Abdussamatov, head of the St. Petersburg Pulkova Astronomical Observatory, believes that the Earth has hit a temperature ceiling and will enter a cooling period despite fossil fuel use. This explanation accounts for the lack of increased greenhouse gas emissions since 1988. (7) [Insert Figure III]ConclusionSolar radiation, solar cycles, and multiple terrestrial temperature cycles are greater and more probable causes of warming. Humans produce very little emissions given the oceans' absorption and solar radiation cycles. The Earth has consistently changed temperatures before humans populated the planet. Even more, multiple empirics and evidence from around the world disprove the importance of humans on warming. 3% is a ridiculously small number when compared to multiple other emittors. CO2 levels were higher in the Ice Age when the Earth was substantially cooler. By placing some amount of doubt in the significance of mankind's importance on warming while promoting several other causes, humans are at least not the main factor of warming.(1) http://www.ncpa.org...(2) http://www.dailymail.co.uk...(3) http://www.napsnet.com...(4)http://www.americanthinker.com...(5) http://www.collective-evolution.com...(6) http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov...(7) http://www.americanthinker.com...**I'm going to advertise my surveillance debate here: comment on that page if interested! :)", "qid": "21", "docid": "70f4899d-2019-04-18T13:19:33Z-00002-000", "rank": 70, "score": 172763.0}, {"content": "Title: Wave Carpet Renewable Energy Content: HarmsA. Global warming is real and caused by humans \u2013 the only way to avoid the devastating impacts of warming, such as extinction, is to reduce CO2 emissions IPCC, 14 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 11/2/14, \u201cClimate Change 2014: Synthesis Report\u201d, http://www.ipcc.ch...) \"Without additional mitigation efforts beyond those in place today, and even with adaptation, warming by the end of the 21st century will lead to high to very high risk of severe, widespread, and irreversible impacts globally (high confidence) (Figure SPM.10). In most scenarios without additional mitigation efforts (those with 2100 atmospheric concentrations >1000ppm CO2eq), warming is more likely than not to exceed 4\u00b0C above pre-industrial levels by 2100. The risks associated with temperatures at or above 4\u00b0C include substantial species extinction, global and regional food insecurity, consequential constraints on common human activities, and limited potential for adaptation in some cases (high confidence). Some risks of climate change, such as risks to unique and threatened systems and risks associated with extreme weather events, are moderate to high at temperatures 1\u00b0C to 2\u00b0C above pre-industrial levels. {2.3, Figure 2.5, 3.2, 3.4, Box 2.4, Table SPM.1}\u00b6Substantial cuts in greenhouse gas emissions over the next few decades can substantially reduce risks of climate change by limiting warming in the second half of the 21st century and beyond. Cumulative emissions of CO2 largely determine global mean surface warming by the late 21st century and beyond. Limiting risks across reasons for concern would imply a limit for cumulative emissions of CO2. Such a limit would require that global net emissions of CO2 eventually decrease to zero and would constrain annual emissions over the next few decades (Figure SPM.10) (high confidence).\" B. Climate change is a very serious threat to national and global security; if left unchecked it will affect stability, disease, migration, and access to food, water, and electricity. It will also lead to an increase in extremist ideologies and foster terrorism. Pentagon Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap, 10/13/2014 The Pentagon (the headquarters of the DoD), 2014 Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap, October 13, 2014, pages 4-5 \"Maintaining stability within and among other nations is an important means of avoiding full-\u00adR08;scale military conflicts. The impacts of climate change maycause instability in other countries by impairing access to food and water, damaging infrastructure, spreading disease, uprooting and displacing large numbers of people, compelling mass migration, interrupting commercial activity, or restricting electricity availability. These developments could undermine already fragile governments that are unable to respond effectively, and challenge currently stable governments, as well as increase competition and tension between countries vying for limited resources. These gaps in governance can create an avenue for extremist ideologies and conditions that foster terrorism.\" Plan:The United States Federal Government should substantially increase its development of earth\u2019s oceans by implementing wave carpet renewable energy in the United States\u2019 Exclusive Economic Zone.Advantage One: EconomyA. Wave energy will not only save the environment, but it will create jobs and will boost the economy Bedard, 7 (Roger, Roger Bedard is the Ocean Energy Leader at the Electric Power Research Institute, \u201cEconomic and social benefits from wave energy conversion marine technology\u201d http://faculty.washington.edu...) \"The economic opportunities are significant. An relatively minor investment today by government could stimulate a worldwide industry generating billions of dollars of economic output and employing thousands of people while using an abundant and clean natural resource.Ocean energy is an indigenous energy resource. By harvesting this indigenous resource, jobs will be created and localeconomies will be improved. Construction and operations of wave energy plants would bring significant positive economic impacts to coastal states. As an example, EPRI estimates that the operation and maintenance activities alone will create about 25 direct local jobs per 100 MW wave power plant and these jobs are permanentfor as long as the plant is in operation.The U.S. economy would benefit from the large export potential of a strong domestic renewable energy industry.\" B. Adding to this, wave carpet technology can create $16 billion of revenue in the US annually \u2013 the benefits of the plan are obvious TAF Lab, 13 (Theoretical and applied Fluid Dynamics Laboratory of UC Berkeley, \u201cWave Carpet: An Efficient and Multidirectional Ocean Wave Energy Converter\u201d http://taflab.berkeley.edu...) \"we can use the power of ocean waves to generate electricity and fresh waterWave Energy is able to efficiently harvest this energy. The ability to cancel waves can be used to create safe zones in the ocean, prevent erosion and protect harbors the energy conversion creates seawater at high pressure. This can be used to generate electricity, be used for desalination and for the distribution of fresh waterWorld-wide demand for electricity is expected to double.According to the Electric Power Research Institutean estimate of ocean wave energyindicatesmarket value eventually reaching $16 billion per year.\" Advantage Three: WaterA. A global water crisis will occur in the next 30 years unless we switch to renewable energy Tully, 14 (Andy, veteran news reporter and news editor for oilprice.com, \u201cHumanity May Face Choice By 2040: Conventional Energy or Drinking Water\u201d, http://oilprice.com...) \"A set of studies based on three years of research concludes that by 2040, the need for drinking water and water for use in energy production will create dire shortages.\u00b6 Conventional electricity generation is the largest source of water use in most countries. Water is used to cool power plants to keep them functional. Most power utilities don\u2019t even record the amount of water they use.\u00b6 \u201cIt\u2019s a huge problem that the electricity sector do not even realize how much water they actually consume,\u201d says Professor Benjamin Sovacool of Denmark\u2019s Aarhus University, one of the institutions involved in the research. \u201cAnd together with the fact that we do not have unlimited water resources, it could lead to a serious crisis if nobody acts on it soon.\u201d\u00b6 The research, which included projections of the availability of water and the growth of the world\u2019s population, found that by 2020, between 30 percent and 40 percent of the planet will no longer have direct access to clean drinking water. The problem could be made even worse if climate change accelerates, creating more heat and causing more water evaporation.\u00b6 That means humankind must decide how water is used, Sovacool says. \u201cDo we want to spend it on keeping the power plants going or as drinking water? We don\u2019t have enough water to do both,\u201d he says.\u00b6 The researchers, also from the Vermont Law School and CNA Corporation in the US, a non-profit research institute in Arlington, Va., focused their studies on specific utilities and other energy suppliers in four countries: China, France, India and the United States.\u00b6 First, they identified each country\u2019s energy needs, then factored in projections of water availability in each country and its population level as far as 2040. In all four cases, they discovered, there will not be enough water by then both to drink and to use at electricity-generating plants.\u00b6 So how to prevent this conflict? The studies agreed on starting with the simplest solution: Alternative sources of electricity that don\u2019t require massive amounts of water.\u00b6 The recommendations are improving energy efficiency, conducting more research on alternative cooling mechanisms, logging water use at power plants, making massive investments in solar and wind energy, and abandoning fossil fuel facilities in all areas susceptible to water shortages.\u00b6 This last proposal may be the most difficult to implement because parched areas now include half of Earth. But Sovacool says it would be worth the investment.\u00b6 \u201cIf we keep doing business as usual, we are facing an insurmountable water shortage \u2013 even if water was free, because it\u2019s not a matter of the price,\u201d he says. \u201cThere will be no water by 2040 if we keep doing what we\u2019re doing today. There\u2019s no time to waste. We need to act now.\u201d B. The Wave Carpet desalinates water, solving for water shortages Johnson, 14 (Carolyn, writer for ABC, 3/10/14, \u201cBerkeley team tackles drought with waves\u201d http://abc7news.com...) \"The action of the hydraulic pumps connected to the carpet forces seawater through a single line, which creates a high-pressure flow that can be used to produce electricity on shore. Pumps could also be used to provide something just as valuable to drought stricken California: fresh, drinkable water, forced through desalination filters.\u00b6 \"In fact in the current test we have it generates high pressure water that can be used for desalination. And desalination is the first application we're working on at this point,\" says Alam.\u00b6 The team is currently setting up partnerships to create a large scale prototype, and hopes to begin ocean testing within two years.\u00b6 \"With this kind of technology we could fill in the gaps,\" says Lehmann. \"In terms of over-all production of electricity, we could switch over to fresh water, and at night when there's no sun, we could produce electricity.\"Because it sits on the ocean floor, researchers believe it will take far less punishment than surface systems and potentially require less maintenance.\"", "qid": "21", "docid": "b54a6a62-2019-04-18T15:18:36Z-00005-000", "rank": 71, "score": 172701.0}, {"content": "Title: Global warming is human caused and deserves to be a major concern when deciding American policy. Content: Obviously a counter-study to global warming would be predominantly funded by thoe who the myth of global warming woudl affect most. Billionaires want to stay rich, not lose customers due to a myth. That is jsut a stupid argument and irrelevant to your debate. I have nothing more to say because you raised no valid point regarding evidence supporting global warming nor why it deserves to be a major concern when deciding American policy. You merely discussed climate change itself. Not at all explaining why it's due to humans. Thus you have not achieved your BOP and I win.", "qid": "21", "docid": "2ccb168c-2019-04-18T18:10:28Z-00000-000", "rank": 72, "score": 172697.0}, {"content": "Title: Humanity is the main cause of global warming. Content: I will restate, than in order to establish that the primary cause of global warming is human activity, it is necessary to quantify the amount and effect (not qualify). No scientist or scientific body to date, to my knowledge, has been able to do so. Specifically, anyone making the assertion that humans are the primary cause of global warming must scientifically establish/prove what percentage is human as compare to natural variability and natural causes. It is not good enough to use terms such as \"significant\" and \"substantially\" as they are extremely vague inconclusive terms. An even worse approach is to take the line of reasoning presented on the timeforchange.org site referenced by my opponent, which virtually ignores the question/possibility of natural factors. I will reference the following chart by Climatologist Cliff Harris and Meteorologist Randy Mann to illustrate my position: http://www.longrangeweather.com... Note that on this chart there have been two periods with higher and more prolonged global warming periods in 1100 BC and 1300 AD (up to two-fold greater). My opponent also dismissed the importance of the naturally occurring little ice-age, yet its effect was over three-fold greater than our so called current \"human\" caused warming period. Being that natural causes are scientifically established to have created global temperature swings 3 times larger, and hundreds of years longer in duration than our current warming period (as recent as 1600 - 1800 AD), it is complete pseudo-science to claim that natural cycles play an insignificant role in global temperature change. In fact, being that we are presently in a period where we would naturally expect to see a warming period in the natural global temperature cycle, one would expect that human activity would have created the largest warming event in the last 5000 years. The chart/link I presented establishes that this kind of warming simply hasn't happened. The evidence I presented could even be used as an argument that Mankind's impact on global warming is negligible as compared to natural variability. Lastly, I acknowledge that my sources attribute a portion of climate change to human activity, but again, \"significant\" and \"substantially\" is not a quantification as I asserted earlier. I would ask that my opponent reference scholarly material that definitively establishes that human activity outweighs all other possible natural elements and variables in global climate change.", "qid": "21", "docid": "c09112b2-2019-04-18T14:00:47Z-00004-000", "rank": 73, "score": 172220.0}, {"content": "Title: Global Warming is Chiefly caused by Natural Phenomenon and NOT Humans Content: I'll start this off with a background of the issue. *** Background: Some disagree on the degree to which global warming might also be caused simply by natural changes in the earth's climate. Some claim that humans are the chief cause of the warming that has occurred over roughly the past century, while others claim that our role has been relatively insignificant as compared to natural forces. Therefore, the debate roughly defined here centers on the question of whether human are the \"chief\" or \"most significant\" cause of the recent global warming trend seen over the past century and today. This debate is important in the way of determining policy responses. If, for instance, the human cause of global warming was concluded to be relatively minor, then some would argue that policies attempting to address these human causes (carbon emissions regulations. .. ) are misplaced. Conversely, a conclusion that humans are the chief cause of global warming would provide valid support for efforts that attempt to stem these human-causes. Of course, conclusions that humans are, for instance, 30% of the cause would create a more challenging set of questions in the way of how to prioritize a human response. Still, the undeniable fact that the earth is getting warmer leads to a range of separate debates that need not consider the underlying cause. *** (Start off borrowed and edited from Yvette) Start off, Thank you for accepting this debate. If you accept this debate, you agree to the rules and formats of the debate. Breaking the rules and formats of the debate is considered forfeiture. I will claim the burden of proof. However, we must both prove or show evidence of our claims. Rules: 1. No insults or ad hominem. 2. The scientific position that no thing can be proved 100% and can only be shown to be closer to the truth and/or more likely to be true is the basis of our discussion. 3. The purpose of our debate is to determine whether or not is is reasonable to say that the phenomenon known as Global Warming is not caused mostly by humanity. There may be evidence both ways showing reasons why it is likely or unlikely. It must, on the whole, be more likely than unlikely. 4. The CON must argue that Global warming, the increase in the average temperature of Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation, is caused by human action. 5. No arguments will be presented in Round 1. As the burden of proof is on me, I must make the first argument. My opponent must simply agree to the rules in Round 1.", "qid": "21", "docid": "9416a94c-2019-04-18T19:03:34Z-00005-000", "rank": 74, "score": 171965.0}, {"content": "Title: Global Warming is not significantly affected by human activity Content: Now, in debunking the opponent\u2019s case, we have to observe one thing; accordingly to the Industrial Revolution/Co2 release correlation graph, we can see that the Co2 release has gone outside the main tenants of the normal Co2 equilibrium, which accordingly is around (when effected by negative feedback) 200ppmv. However, we humans now have a ppmv-Co2 rate of 380ppmv, henceforth this may be an offspring, but very unlikely, of huge negative feedback, or it may be the beginning of huge positive feedback in the creation of a new Venus-like Equilibrium. The opponent mentions the 100,000 years Ice Age Cycle phenomenon; henceforth, we are heading towards another \u201cIce Age\u201d in the opponent\u2019s view. Firstly, the world\u2019s orbit-tilt, which causes the earth\u2019s temperature to change (as well as volcanoes), are not acting as strong as they were during the last Ice Age. This means that the current Interglacial might be extended by 10,000 years. Apart from this, the plethora of Greenhouse Release, from Co2 and other gasses, outweigh the cooling capacity of the world. If they weren\u2019t, then the world would have been experiencing a period of cool-down, perhaps a mini-Ice Age, from the 1950s. However, as seen, this has not been the case. [1] Apart from this, the opponent\u2019s graph seems to show that in each 100,000 year Ice Age cycles; there has been a natural release of Co2 that has caused a gradual change in temperature. However, scientists know about how this change of temperature came about already. Interglacial epochs were characterized by the balance of Co2 concentration in the air and the Co2 sink in the ocean. There have been occasional times of massive Co2 release rise from volcanic eruptions known as large igneous provinces. These large igneous provinces have been known to cause a sudden change in temperature; however, there are no large igneous provinces that are active. Apart from this, one must observe the fact that today\u2019s volcano does not emit as much Co2 as humans. In fact, accordingly to the USGS, annually humans generate 130 times more Co2 gas than volcanoes. The opponent is implying that there are natural causes for Co2 and other greenhouse gas release in the world; however, there is a plethora of evidence that suggests the contrary. This data has already been presented. Apart from this, correlation is not causation; because the current Co2 rates in the atmosphere correlates with those of ancient times (which it does not, as already stated), does not mean that this rapid release of Co2 has not been caused by humans. The opponent must observe; there is a difference between gradual change and sudden change. Gradual change implies that the change is made clear gradually. Sudden change is built upon the common knowledge that this change is sudden and unexpected. If this were to have been gradual change, then we humans would have knew about this much later; however, that is not the case. The opponent seems to argue that this change is normal for the earth; however, we must see that before 1750, Co2 was at a rate of 20ppm in the atmosphere; however, this Co2 rate rose rapidly from 1750, after the industrialization of human capital output capabilities. Now it is at 379ppm, an 18 times increase from the pre-1750 rate. Fossil fuel usage has released 7.2 gigaton of Co2 in 2000-2005. (gigaton-1 billion metric tons). One cannot simply argue that humans do not play a massive role; we are messing with the earth\u2019s ability to absorb Co2 via deforestation, as well as adding 42% more Co2 into the earth\u2019s atmosphere within the last 300 years. Humans have, in a significant manner, effected the overall global temperature. Citations: [1] . http://www.skepticalscience.com...", "qid": "21", "docid": "723ea482-2019-04-18T15:56:13Z-00002-000", "rank": 75, "score": 170609.0}, {"content": "Title: Humans are responsible for global warming Content: It's been said that humans are responsible for \"Global Warming\" due to our carbon emissions and high atmospheric pollution rate. While I agree that we are polluting the atmosphere at an extremely high rate, I disagree that, our carbon emissions are to blame. According to Science Magazine, measurements of ice core samples show that over the last four climactic cycles (past 240,000 years), periods of natural global warming preceded global increases in CO2. Also, A 2005 study published in Nature found that \"high temperatures - similar to those observed in the twentieth century before 1990 - occurred around AD 1000 to 1100\" in the Northern Hemisphere. Also, any human produced CO2 is re absorbed by the oceans, trees and plants, preventing the CO2 from gathering in the atmosphere. I look forward to debating you, and good luck!!", "qid": "21", "docid": "74fc08ec-2019-04-18T12:32:40Z-00003-000", "rank": 76, "score": 170253.0}, {"content": "Title: Climate Change is driven by human CO2 emissions Content: I am assuming that I will be arguing that humans are a major cause to global warming increases with C02 emissions. My first point, is that C02 emissions are scientifically proven to be a mjor leading cause in the rise of global climate changes, IE Global warming. \"Global warming is caused by the emission of greenhouse gases . 72% of the totally emitted greenhouse gases is carbon dioxide (CO2), 18% Methane and 9% Nitrous oxide (NOx). Carbon dioxide emissions therefore are the most important cause of global warming. CO2 is inevitably created by burning fuels like e. g. oil, natural gas, diesel, organic-diesel, petrol, organic-petrol, ethanol. \" . http://timeforchange.org...From the year 1991 to the year 2005, There has been a significant increase in harm done to the atmosphere, mainly due to C02 emissions. See picture. \"This graph best represents what is taking place world wide. Recent investigations have shown that inconceivable catastrophic changes in the environment will take place if the global temperatures increase by more than 2\u00b0 C (3.6\u00b0 F). A warming of 2\u00b0 C (3.6\u00b0 F) corresponds to a carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration of about 450 ppm (parts per million) in the atmosphere. As of beginning of 2007, the CO2 concentration is already at 380 ppm and it raises on average 2 - 3 ppm each year, so that the critical value will be reached in approximately 20 to 30 years from now. \"The point here, is that C02 emissions DO harm the atmosphere. My opponent cannot prove that it doesn't because statistically, scientifically, and factually, the evidence stacks up. What has happened recently? \"Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the primary greenhouse gas emitted through human activities. In 2010, CO2 accounted for about 84% of all U. S. greenhouse gas emissions from human activities. Carbon dioxide is naturally present in the atmosphere as part of the Earth's carbon cycle (the natural circulation of carbon among the atmosphere, oceans, soil, plants, and animals). Human activities are altering the carbon cycle--both by adding more CO2 to the atmosphere and by influencing the ability of natural sinks, like forests, to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. While CO2 emissions come from a variety of natural sources, human-related emissions are responsible for the increase that has occurred in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution. \" The carbon Dioxide emitted is MAN MADE. The things we use everyday, emit vasts amounts of carbon dioxide. Coal, natural gas, and oil are prime examples of things that we humans use daily that attribute to harsh environmental conditions. To be more specific, here is a graph that shows details on what things most commonly used to emit human made Carbon Dioxide. The information cited above is from the Environmental Protection agency, and backed from a government based site. . http://www.epa.gov... Without tryin to sounds to repetive, I don't really know how else to argue this point. It is man made. There are tons of statistics, data, analytics, etc, that I could continue citing that prove the point here. Also, I am not entirely sure what my opponent is going to attempt to argue. In his first round, he says: \"CON argues that global warming is primarily controlled by human emissions\" What exactly do you mean by human emissions? For example I am arguing what you said to argue, however I am also arguing that C02 emissions are man made. I ask this because I don't want to have any confusions. None-the-less I have uphelp the BOP in this debate so far, as asked in round 1. I ask that any further clarifications on the topic be made in the following rebuttal, and I will respond in the like.", "qid": "21", "docid": "422c0992-2019-04-18T18:12:13Z-00005-000", "rank": 77, "score": 170213.0}, {"content": "Title: Humans are not causing global warming so Kyoto can't solve it Content: Natural causes are principally responsible for global warming today, making Kyoto irrelevant. Every 100,000 years, a cycle of glacial and inter-glacial periods occur. We are at the peak of the 10,000 year interglacial warming period before the next 100,000 year ice age. Our warming now is part of this cycle. Only planetary interactions between the sun and earth can cause such regular, but lengthy cycle's. This leads to the conclusion that the sun is most responsible. Yet, the Kyoto Protocol bases its carbon-cutting objectives on the assumption that humans are chiefly responsible for global warming; a false assumption.", "qid": "21", "docid": "b58ff37e-2019-04-17T11:47:36Z-00074-000", "rank": 78, "score": 169813.0}, {"content": "Title: Global Warming Content: You first made the point about how I implied carbon dioxide is placed in the atmosphere by humans. You then procede to cherry pick a quote of mine without placing it into context. My point on that post is simply listing a possible alternate theory to climate change. You then refute my evidence and my link.I failed to provide you with the actual hieght of the jar that is my fault, but the equation you have provided is faulty, the equation says the amount of co2 humans emmision, you neglected my actual point of the cows in your equation.This organization, http://timeforchange.org... that 1 kilogram of meat is responsible for the amount of carbon in the atmosphere as a car driving 250 kilometers. http://www.fao.org..., this website reports that livestock is a bigger threat than humans in contributing to climate change.Also the same webiste, skeptical science, states that natural causes like oceans and vegitation are 750 giggatons while out output is 29giggatonsLet me use your equation ( (The amount of CO2 emitted by humans in 2010 in tons) * (Number of kilograms in a ton) / (Density of CO2 in kg/m^3) ) / ( (Area of Rhode Island in square miles) * (Number of square meters in a square mile) ) = Height of jar in metersLets switch it up witht the amount of greenhouses gases emmited by nature in tons. ( (The amount of greenhouse gases emitted by nature in 2010 in tons) * (Number of kilograms in a ton) / (Density of CO2 in kg/m^3) ) / ( (Area of Rhode Island in square miles) * (Number of square meters in a square mile) ) = Height of jar in meters,The same webiste foa.org says that cows where responable for 250 million tons so lets do a equation,(29,000,000,000,000* 907.185/ 1.98) / (1212* 2589988) = 2338635.750884500000 meters or 2,338 miles compared to the 4 mile high jar humans emit. nature greenhouse gases > humansLook at this the same website you are using to 'disprove me' is also disproving you!!! http://www.skepticalscience.com... that unlike what you said albedo clouds are changing and that there are emmiting more than 2x the greenhouse gases humans are emmitingYou wanted citation for the gravitational magnetic oscillations, here it is: A book from Cornelius van Huten https://books.google.com...You claim that the sun is on a cooling trend : https://www.skepticalscience.com...this link says other wise, they claim that the Earth has natural cycles of warming and cooling and that is backed up by the natural cycles of the magnetic field and the sun.Then you once again deny something I said as faulty well let me back that up too, http://io9.com...You then say that \"if you believe that Co2 emmitions are causing something else to cause global warming, it means that you believe in man-made global warming.\" I have just proved with evidence,something you failed to provide, and using the links that you provided me that nature emmits more than 35x the amount of greenhouse gases that humans emmit.", "qid": "21", "docid": "4aed9441-2019-04-18T14:54:23Z-00002-000", "rank": 79, "score": 169682.0}, {"content": "Title: Human caused global warming is 'overhyped' Content: I am certain that the emission of green house gases produced through human activity has affected climates and temperatures world wide. There is no question about this in my mind. It is not even a matter of mere correlation really. Greenhouse gases trap heat and human beings are pumping out excessive amounts of ghg's into the Earth's atmosphere. I am not certain that human caused global warming is as big of a threat as the scientific community and popular media purport. Specifically, I am not convinced that the following claims are true: 1. Human caused global warming will accelerate the arrival of the next ice age (in less than 100 years). 2. Human caused global warming will result in large areas of land (such as the majority of Bangladesh) to become submerged in water (in less than 100 years). 3. Human caused global warming has lead to an increase in the frequency of hurricanes and other storms around the globe. I believe that BOP is on con to prove that the above statements are true. alternatively, Con can also argue that no one actually makes such statements about human caused global warming, and/or that there are other more serious effects that merit even greater media attention. My position is that human caused global warming is 'overhyped' because statements like 1,2, and 3 are regularly made but all of these predictions are difficult to back up with science because our current understanding and knowledge of climate patterns is very limited. Admittedly, there is a lot I need to learn about global warming and my primary aim here is to find out what I am missing.", "qid": "21", "docid": "7011cf2f-2019-04-18T16:47:48Z-00003-000", "rank": 80, "score": 169567.0}, {"content": "Title: Global Warming is primarily caused by humans Content: StructureR1 - Acceptance onlyR2 - Each side presents their claimR3 - RebuttalsR4 - Closing StatementsRules1. ) Use Reliable sources2. ) List sources at the end of the text3. ) No trolling4. ) No forfeiting5. ) No \"K's\"6. )", "qid": "21", "docid": "183436dd-2019-04-18T12:34:27Z-00007-000", "rank": 81, "score": 169432.0}, {"content": "Title: Mankind Is the Main Cause of Global Warming Content: Correlation and CausationConsider the Cenozoic era (the last 65 million years). Overall, solar activity increased 0.4% over this period. \"Because Earth absorbs about 240 W/m^2 of solar energy, that brightness increase is a forcing of about 1 W/m^2. This small linear increase of forcing, by itself, would have caused a modest global warming through the Cenozoic Era. \" The CO2 levels caused a much higher forcing. In contrast, atmospheric CO2 during the Cenozoic changed from at least 1000 ppm in the early Cenozoic to as small as 170 ppm during recent ice ages. The resulting climate forcing, as can be computed accurately for this CO2 range using formulae in Table 1 of Hansen et al. (2000), exceeds 10 W/m^2. It is clear that CO2 was the dominant climate forcing in the Cenozoic. \"[1]In fact, the temperature changes correspond to the CO2 changes. \". .. there is a close correlation between Antarctic temperature and atmospheric concentrations of CO2 (Barnola et al. 1987). The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows that the main trends of CO2 are similar for each glacial cycle. Major transitions from the lowest to the highest values are associated with glacial-interglacial transitions. During these transitions, the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 rises from 180 to 280-300 ppmv (Petit et al. 1999). The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows the present-day levels of CO2 are unprecedented during the past 420 kyr. \"[2]This graph shows the CO2-temperature correlation over the last 700,000 years: Excess CO2 traps heat. Considering the recent global warming, satellites measure less heat escaping out to space, at the particular wavelengths that CO2 absorbs heat, thus finding \". .. direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect. \" In other words, the Earth is retaining more of the heat that it receives from the sun that it received from before. This excess heat manifests itself through global temperature increases. \"If less heat is escaping to space, where is it going? Back to the Earth's surface. Surface measurements confirm this, observing more downward infrared radiation. A closer look at the downward radiation finds moreheat returning at CO2 wavelengths,leadin to the conclusion that '. .. this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming. '\"[3][4][5]Evidence of Mankind's Influence on the Recent Global Warming TrendIt would be rather coincidental if the recent rise in global warming happened to start just around the time that humans started to emit large quantities of greenhouse gases. However, there is direct evidence as well, in addition to the already established correlation between temperature and CO2. Now, it is known that CO2 levels are increasing. \"In pre-industrial times over the last 10,000 years, CO2 was relatively stable at around 275 to 285 parts per million. Over the last 250 years, atmospheric CO2 levels have increased by about 100 parts per million. \" CO2 levels are increasing at a level not seen in at least 500,000 years, if not longer. [6]Here is a graph showing CO2 concentrations over the last 10000 years: [7][8]Now, carbon has several isotopes, three of which are C12, C13, and C14. C14 is radioactive, and has a half life of around 5,730 years. The CO2 emissions that humans make come from fossil fuels. Thus, if humans were the cause of the excess CO2, we'd except the C14/C12 ratio to decline, because, while there is a relatively constant amount of C14 in the atmosphere due to continuous replenishment (when a neutron collides with a regular nitrogen atom, a C14 atom and a proton result), the amount of C14 in the Earth has steadily decreased because it is not replenished, and since fossil fuels come from the ground, almost pure C12 is being ejected into the atmosphere. Indeed, it is observed that the C14/C12 ratio has declined. And thus, if humans were the cause of the excess CO2, we'd except the C13/C12 ratio to decline, because plants find it easier to take in carbon dioxide with a C12 atom than one with a C13 atom, implying that plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than the atmopshere and, since animals eat plants (either by directly eating then or eating something that eats plants), also implying that fossils also have a lower C13/C12 ratio than the atmopshere, implying that we'd see a decline in the C13/C12 ratio as well. Indeed it is also observed that the C13/C12 ratio has declined. [9][10][11]This can be observed in the graph below (this is the C13/C12 ratio over the last 650 years; the C14/C12 ratio graph was too big to put in the debate): The evidence that this excess CO2 is the cause of the recent global warming is voluminous. One piece of evidence is a comparison of warming in the troposphere and stratosphere. Because the CO2 is in the upper troposphere, the troposphere temperature would increase, while the stratospheric temperature would decrease, because there would be less heat reaching the stratosphere. \"Computer model estimates of the \u2018human influence\u2019 fingerprint are broadly similar to the observed pattern. In sharp contrast, model simulations of internal and total natural variability cannot produce the same sustained, large-scale warming of the troposphere and cooling of the stratosphere. \"[4][12][13]This graph shows this: [4]Another piece of evidence is the frequency of cold days and nights. Because the sun only shines in the day time, is the sun was causing global warming, the days would warm faster than the nights, while if greenhouse gases were causing global warming, this wouldn't be observed. It is the latter's prediction that is observed. \"What we observe is a decrease in cold nights greater than the decrease in cold days, and an increase in warm nights greater than the increase in warm days. \"[4][14]This can be shown in the below graph: [4]Overall, the evidence shows that human-emitted greenhouse gases are the cause of global warming. CO2, in addition to other gases like methane and nitrous oxide are being emitted by humans in very large amounts, and this is manifesting itself in an increase in the average global temperature. Climate Sensitivity and FeedbacksClimate sensitivity is the amount the temperature would rise if the CO2 concentration were doubled. Obviously, if there's a large climate sensitivity, then increases in CO2 have large effect. It is known that the climate sensitivity is around 1 degree C. However, this can be amplified through feedbacks. Positive ones amplify the sensitivity, while negative ones diminish the sensitivity. The evidence overwhelmingly comes down on the former, that positive feedbacks are happening. Increases in CO2 cause temperature increases, which are amplified by water vapor and the effect on clouds. \"Since the radiative effects associated with the buildup of water vapor to near-saturation levels and the subsequent condensation into clouds are far stronger than the equilibrium level of radiative forcing by the non-condensing GHGs, this results in large local fluctuations in temperature about the global equilibrium value. \"[15]This can be shown in the below graph: Further, increases in CO2 affect the carbon cycle in this way: Global warming can result in the death of vegetation (due to droughts) and the warming of the ocean. Both of these further reduce the maximum absorption of the Earths carbon cycle, thus resulting in even more CO2 being released into the atmosphere. And with this, CO2 increases even more. In other words, CO2-caused temperature increases are amplified by positive feedbacks and the mechanics of the carbon cycle. So, the positive feedback amplifies the climate sensitivity. How much it is amplified can be determined through study. Using a Bayesian statistical approach, which is \u201cthe dominant [method] in the literature\u201d, these findings support the notion of climate sensitivity as maximum 4 degrees C, a mean of 3 degrees C, and likely not lower than 3 degrees. [16]The graph below gives a statistical analysis: [17]The mean is around 3 degrees C. The CO2 that humans emit thus has an effect of 3 degrees C per doubling of CO2. This can be shown by the fact that CO2 concentrations have increased from around 275 ppm to around 400 ppm. This is an increase of around 40%. This should manifest itself with a temperature increase of a little less than 1.5 degrees C. Indeed, temperatures have increased around this amount over the last 150 years. The anthropogenic-forcing climate models thus match observations. [18]In other words, in addition to the direct evidence of how the Earth is warming, the climate models based on a greenhouse gas cause to global warming explain almost perfectly the recent global warming. This is a lot of evidence for a human case to the recent global warming. ConclusionGreenhouse gases cause global warming because of their heat trapping abilities. Humans have been emitting vast amounts of greenhouse gases over the last 150 years, and this shows itself on the CO2 measurements. The atmospheric warming pattern and greater heating at night are evidence that the recent global warming is caused by those human emitted greenhouse gases. These increases are amplified through the water vapor and cloud positive feedbacks and the positive feedback that arises through the climate cycle. The climate sensitivity ends up being around 3 degrees C. Finally, the CO2-temperature record shows that the two correlate with remarkable correlation. SourcesSources in comments.", "qid": "21", "docid": "70f488e3-2019-04-18T14:43:55Z-00005-000", "rank": 82, "score": 169391.0}, {"content": "Title: Mankind Is the Main Cause of Global Warming Content: I. The Sun Is Warming Since the Other Planets Are WarmingI admit, the sun is cooling currently, but the correlation between the sun and the climate is reinforced by this by my earlier proof that the Earth's temperature is stabilizing, and thus beginning to cool. The sun is warmer now than at any time in the last 11500 years. [1] \"Moreover, changes in the heliospheric magnetic field have been linked with changes in total cloud cover over the Earth, which may influence global climate change. Here we report that the measurements of the near-Earth interplanetary magnetic field reveal that the total magnetic field leaving the sun has risen by a factor 1.4 since 1964. \"[2][3]This can be seen in this graph: [3]Recently, the sun has cooled compared to recent times. But one, climate lags behind solar activity, and two, this is being seen in the recent temperature slowdown. \". .. the Sun is now changing from its Solar Grand Maximum to its Solar Grand Minimum. The Earth heats up after a Solar Grand Maximum, lagging a bit after the peak. With a Solar Grand Minimum now on its way, a \"global cooling\" may be on the horizon--a natural oscillation occurring in much longer solar cycles. \"[4]Changes in the Sun can account for major climate changes on Earth for the past 300 years, including part of the recent surge of global warming, 300 years, including part of the recent surge of global warming. [5]This can also be seen in climate data: [6]. Longer term, here is a correlation of a solar proxy to a temperature proxy for a period of 3000 years. Values of carbon-14 (produced by cosmic rays, hence a proxy for solar activity) correlate extremely well with oxygen-18 (temperature proxy). The lower graph shows a particularly well-resolved time interval from 8,350 to 7,900 years BP. The above graph summarizes data obtained from a stalagmite from a cave in Oman. Finally, we see the correlation between temperature and CO2 & solar activity: [7]. It's easy to see the sun is more determinent. On the planets, here are some solar system wide effects: Sun - \"Recent Activity Highest in 8000 Years [meaning it's not just the 11-year cycle] and magnetic field has decreased in size by 25% 300% increase in galactic dust entering solar system Mercury - magnetosphere experiencing significant increases Venus - 2500% Increase in Green Glow Mars - Rapid Appearance of Clouds, Ozone and\"Up to 50% Erosion of Ice Features in one year alone Jupiter - Plasma Torus increasing and\"Jupiter\"s Disappearance of White Ovals since 1997 \" recent increase in storms Io - \"observing same changes -\" 200% Increase in Density of Plasma Torus and Ionosphere 1000% Higher Europa - Much Brighter Than Expected Ganymede - 200% brighter Saturn's - Plasma Torus 1000% Denser and\"Aurora First Seen in polar regions in recent years Uranus - featureless in 1996, now exhibiting huge storms since 1999 and markedly brighter in 2004 than in 1999 Neptune - 40% Brighter, Near Infrared Range \" 1996 \" 2002 Triton - Severe atmospheric changes, warming Pluto - 300% increase in atmospheric pressure. [8]. You can't be telling me all of this is a coincidence. Also, on Pluto, it is moving further away from the sun despite the fact it is warming. II. The Sun Via Cosmic Rays Is Causing Global Warming Looking at the Earth's long climatic history, it is easy to see the correlation: [9] [10]Low clouds means warmer temperatures: \"Cloud cover has decreased over the past 39 years globally, and temperatures have risen during that time. This global decrease in cloud cover alone could account for all surface warming observed since the 1970s. \"[11]So more solar radiation (and galatic positioning) causes fewer cosmic rays, which cause the creation of fewer clouds, which leads to warming. This was confirmed with the Svensmark experiement: \"Preliminary results show that these faux cosmic rays indeed have an effect on the atmosphere: When high energy protons stream in, production of nanometer-sized particles in the atmosphere increases by more than ten times. \"[12]In addition, for the predictions made by the AGW theory and the cosmic ray/solar theory, the latter is the effects currently being experienced. [6] For example, the AGW theory predicts the fastest tropospheric warming will be in the tropics, and the cosmic ray/solar theory predicts the warming will be uniform. The surface warming is similar or greater than troposphere warming. The latter theory wins. [6]Finally, it is clear the cosmic ray/temperature correlation: [6]. \"The graph below a correlation between the cosmic ray counts and the global troposphere temperature radiosonde data. The cosmic ray scale is inverted to correspond to increasing temperatures. High solar activity corresponds to low cosmic ray counts, reduced low cloud cover, and higher temperatures. The upper panel shows the troposphere temperatures in blue and the cosmic ray count in red. The lower panel shows the match achieved by removing El Nino, the North Atlantic Oscillation, volcanic aerosols and a linear trend of 0.14 Celsius/decade. \"[6]III. Oceans Are Causing Global Warming \"Current research also shows that Earth's oceans are now beginning to cool. It is also now clear that temperatures over the last century correlate far better with cycles in oceans than they do with carbon dioxide; and, the temperature cycles in oceans are caused by cycles of the sun. \"[4]The PDO correlates extremely well with global warming, and is not caused by humans. [13] Ocean currents correlate better than CO2: [14]In fact, Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11\u201312 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature, 9.5-10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature, and 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature. Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980. [18] IV. The 1500-Year Cycle The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was globally warmer than today, and in both hemispheres: \"Chinese temperatures were 2 to 3 degrees C higher than present during China's climate optimum. \" \". .. during the Medieval Warming. .. . Temperatures may have been as much as 2.5 degrees C warmer [than today] due to a southward shift of the climate belts. \" \". .. the central Argentinean area had more precipitation during the Medieval Warming than today. Temperatures may have been as much as 2.5 degrees C warmer due to a southward shift of the tropical rainbelts. \" \"The largest anomaly was a rapid warming-4 degrees C-between 350 B. C and A. D 450, reflecting a warmer climate in equatorial East Africa. \" \"On Signy Island, halfway between Antarctica and the southern tip of South America, there clearly shows the Roman Warming. .. , the Dark Ages [cooling]. .. , the Medieval Warming, the Little Ice Age, and the 20th century warming-which is cooler to date than the Medieval Warming. \"[15] From Medieval manuscripts, it is easy to confirm that Europe was warm during the MWP, but so was the southern hemisphere: [16]. This means it was a global event, and not a see-saw hemisphere event. \"Indirect evidence suggests that the average temperature was as much as 1.5 degrees Celsius warmer [during the Medieval Warm Period] than today. \"[17] [17] V. Three Equal Warmings Period Length Trend(Degrees C per decade) Significance 1860-1880 21 0.163 Yes 1910-1940 31 0.15 Yes 1975-1998 24 0.166 Yes 1975-2009 35 0.161 Yes [19] [20] Conclusion Putting this all together, \"For example, the authors of a paper by NASA's JPL remark '. .. has compared the minimum aa [index of geomagnetic activity] values with the Earth's surface temperature record and found a correlation of 0.95 between the two data sets starting in 1885. The solar irradiance [solar activity] proxy developed from the aa minima continues to track the Earth's surface temperature until the present. '\"[21] There. Cosmic rays, the sun, and all the Earth's natural cycles have a .95 correlation. Sources . http://www.debate.org...;", "qid": "21", "docid": "66bd9109-2019-04-18T17:50:38Z-00001-000", "rank": 83, "score": 169252.0}, {"content": "Title: Global warming a \"Human cause?\" Content: My opponents first points are observations which we agree on, now to the fun part. 1. Past climate cycles My opponents argunment is cycles change in the past: it is natural now. Climate changes based on the forces that cause it, the current forcing is humans. Our climate is very sensitive to heat, something this argunment proved ( my opponents). Co2 is known to be able to trap heat and therefore increase heat in the earth, increasing temperatures. (. http://www.skepticalscience.com...) 2. Cooling of 1940-70 This is based on the argunment of look it cooled when Co2 rose. As seen in the global warming swindle. This is true, but easily refuted. Co2 is still capable of a warming effect. The reasons tempertures dropped was due to high areosols. Volcanic activity ruled over our Co2 increase. The warning stopped when we passed clean air acts that lowered aerosol amount. So the cooling was man made, and that forcing overrided co2. Meaning co2 drove the bus after that as no known natural forcing exists today. . http://www.newscientist.com... 3. Co2 They have been increasing at unnaturally high rates meaning co2 is high due to unnatural forcings, in this case it's human emissions . http://co2now.org... Conclusion: As 97% of scientists beleive we cause global warning, (. http://www.skepticalscience.com...) my opponent holds the bop as he is against the science status quo.", "qid": "21", "docid": "2c7b65bb-2019-04-18T18:16:44Z-00002-000", "rank": 84, "score": 168761.0}, {"content": "Title: Government should address global warming as a top priority whatever the economic cost. Content: So, as we've both stated repeatedly, we agree that humans are at least in part responsible for climate change, and that it will impact the economy if measures are taken to stop it. But once again, we have to make that choice. After all, every business regulation in some way hurts the economy, but we still have business regulations. Why? Because at the end of the day, we know that sometimes, the economy isn't always first priority, and this is one of those times. And yes, we can start using renewable energies. That day is coming sooner than later. And no, for the last time, it is not a non existent problem. You should watch Al Gore's \"The Inconvenient Truth.\" BenD, thanks for this debate. I've had fun debating with you, I'm glad I accepted this.", "qid": "21", "docid": "52e5537b-2019-04-18T13:19:50Z-00000-000", "rank": 85, "score": 168726.0}, {"content": "Title: Global Warming is Man-Made Content: The sun drives of climate change The main driver of modern climate is solar activity. The energy output of the sun, called the irradiance. has been nearly constant in modern times, so that's not the cause. It is primarily the magnetic field of the sun which drives climate, and to a lesser extent the ultraviolet component of the irradiance. The magnet component varies dramatically. Norwegian scientists in the 1990's discovered that the single measure of solar activity that best predicts climate is the length of the previous solar cycle. \u201cThe most readily apparent cycle in solar activity is the cycle in sunspot activity. These solar cycles average eleven years in length, and they have ranged in length from nine years to beyond eighteen years.\u201c [1] The length of the solar predicts climate change as shown in the graph [2] below: The increase in CO2 is very close to exponential, so as Pro noted, AGW theory predicts a straight line temperature rise. The graph shows clearly that is not what has happened. Climate has been behaving according to solar activity. \u201cA paper published [in 2012] in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physicsfinds that up to 72% of the temperature increase over the last 150 years can be explained by the length of solar cycles,\u201d [3] The length of the solar cycle does not perfectly represent the sun effects, so it's likely that a more precise model would produce a more precise result. Cosmic rays affect cloud cover The physical theory that explains the correlation is summarized by Archibald: There are two main ways that changing solar activity affects terrestrial climate. Both have their origin in the strength of the Sun\u2019s magnetic field. In the first route, a lower magnetic field strength results in less sunspot activity, which in turn mean less solar wind, which allows more galactic cosmic rays to get to Earth\u2019s orbit. The neutron shower from galactic cosmic rays causes more cloud formation, which in turn reflects more sunlight back into space, making the Earth colder. \u2026 In the second route, the lower magnetic field strength results in a lower temperature of the Sun\u2019s chromosphere, which in turn produces less ultraviolet light. That decreases the production of lower stratospheric ozone, and that decrease causes a negative North Atlantic Oscillation (a fluctuation in sea-level atmospheric pressure), making the Northern Hemisphere colder. This second route makes winters longer and colder without necessarily reducing peak summer temperatures. [4] If solar magnetic activity really changes cloud cover, the incident radiance on the earth should vary with the sun's magnetic activity. That has been observed just as the solar theory predicts. [5] Solar activity is measured historically by the formation of beryllium 10, which accumulates in sediments to provide a history of solar activity. \u201cThe Modern Warm Period from 1900 to 2008 is associated with a large decline in Be10 in ice cores, indicating a sustained higher level of solar activity in the twentieth century. There is also very close correlation between ice-rafted stone debris in the North Atlantic and Be10 levels over the last 10,000 years\u2014another demonstration that solar activity controls climate.\u201d [6] The correlation continues through to the present day. Solar activity predicts the 17+ year halt in global warming as the cycle has reached a flat peak and is starting downward. The pause in global warming is illustrated in this graph: [7]: The AGW computer models include irradiance, which is essentially constant, but the models take no account at all of the solar magnetic effects that correlate tightly with climate. AGW theorists now admit that the CO2 models cannot be tweaked to explain the pause. They are now proposing a variety of new theories to patch the failed old theory. [8] One theory is that for some reason all the warming is going into the deep oceans. Another theory is that atmospheric aerosols (i.e., soot) is reducing the size of rain drops causing clouds to be whiter and reflect more energy. There are other theories. The problem is that if there is any uncalculated factor that completely wipes out CO2 effects, that admits CO2 does not dominate climate. If uncalculated factors can be as large or larger than the CO2 effect, that admits that previous warming might have been the result of unknown factors as well. The premise of the AGW theory was that because all the other factors affecting climate were known, CO2 must have caused the warming from 1983 to 1996. Historically, solar activity drives climate with CO2 rising after there is warmingAl Gore famously showed two graphs, one of temperature over time and one of CO2 over time. The shapes of the curves were similar, showing a high correlation. Mr. Gore never overlaid the graphs. Had he done so, it would have been apparent that CO2 levels were following the warming rather by hundreds of years rather than leading it. As the oceans warm, they can dissolve less CO2, which is then released into the atmosphere. The CO2 rise is in response to the solar magnetic effects that changed cloud cover to cause the basic climate change.Over long periods of earth's history, there is no relationship between CO2 and climate.[8] Consensus does not determine sciencePro has the burden of proving that human activity has dominated climate. My burden is only to show that the anthropogenic theory is unproved. A scientific theory is wrong if it fails to explain or predict, and anthropogenic theory has clearly failed. I'm not obligated to prove an alternative theory, but I nonetheless shown that solar magnetic activity explains and predicts climate much better than CO2 theory. Since solar magnetic activity has dominated climate, anthropogenic causes cannot be dominant. AGW theorists admit that factors not in their computer models have been so large as to completely cancel greenhouse gas effects. for the past 17+ years.Pro stresses that it is not just that a consensus exists, but that the consensus is based on data. (Actually, the only real data is a general increase in temperature which solar theory better explains, and the rest is computer models that did not predict the hiatus.) But every scientific consensus has been supported by data that scientists at the time thought conclusive. A wrong consensus means that the data was incorrect or that it was incorrectly interpreted. The once near-unanimous consensus that the earth was the center of the universe was based upon the indisputable observation that the sky appears to rotate around the earth. The theory was found wrong only by more careful observations starting with the inconsistent behavior of the paths of planets in the sky. In the 1960s, the scientific consensus favored the Steady State Theory over the Big Bang Theory. The Big Bang Theory predicted the presence of microwave background radiation, so when the background radiation was discovered, the consensus changed rapidly. Not long ago, the learned scientific consensus was that homosexuality was a form of mental illness. Psychologists thought they had the data to prove it, but they were wrong; it is genetic. Modern scientists continue to make errors reflected in wrong consensus. A very strong scientific consensus has until the past few years supported the theory that in the human diet, saturated fat causes high serum cholesterol levels which in turn causes heart disease. It turns out the original theory was based upon falsified data. The landmark peer that \"proved\" the theory deliberately excluded data that falsified the theory. A couple of other bogus papers supported the theory, including one in which cholesterol was injected into vegetarian rabbits, who then quite predictably died. Studies over the past fifty years that attempted to confirm the theory instead disproved it. [9, 10] The originator of the cholesterol theory believed it, and he did a great job of selling the theory so it quickly reached consensus.. Many papers giving the \u201cwrong\u201d results were not allowed to be published, or the authors declined to submit them for fear of ruining their reputation. Some scientists published after they retired so that career retribution could not be inflicted. I recite the cholesterol consensus error because it's very close to the way anthropogenic global warming theory has achieved consensus. Early enthusiastic advocates sold the theory as the only possible explanation of the rapid rise of temperatures from 1983 to 1996. According to that data, not only was CO2 the cause, but climate sensitivity much have been very large, perhaps five or even ten. Now Pro's claim is that it is at least 0.7. If it is that low, then global warming is not a crisis. it's hardly worth noting. The bogus 97% consensus comes from surveying only journals that refuse to publish dissent. The Climategate scandal showed how eager AGW are to suppress dissent.\"In a November 15, 2005, email Mann expresses his satisfaction that Geophysical Research Letters is now firmly under the control of the climate change alarmists but laments that other publications still publish research by skeptics: \u201cThe Geophysical Research Letters leak may have been plugged up now with new editorial leadership there, but these guys always have Climate Research and Energy and Environment, and will go there if necessary.\u201d [9]Very few papers scientific papers say anything about global warming as whole. For example, there are about 200 papers that show that the Medieval Warm Period and similar climate change existed worldwide, and that refute the bogus Hockey Stick argument for AGW. But the papers would not be counted as being in opposition to AGW. Besides, they are in the wrong journals. Virtually all the papers on solar theory -- there are hundreds -- are in specialist journals, not the surveyed climate journals. ------------------------------------------Per the terms of of the debate, I'll put the reference list in the debate comments.", "qid": "21", "docid": "8006a72b-2019-04-18T15:24:51Z-00004-000", "rank": 86, "score": 168633.0}, {"content": "Title: global climate change is human caused Content: For the record- I believe in Global Warming (not all theories, but the basic premise of most). What I don't believe in is feeding the conservative view of global warming with lackluster arguments in favor like \"humans are causing the rise in global temperatures\" which can be easily debated against. I will debate against my opponents simple statements with simple statements of my own, as well as a rebuttal. \"Humans are causing the rise in clobal temperature\" -This is impossible. Yes, humans give off heat, but unless you can prove that our collective body temperatures are somehow raising global temperatures, then this statement cannot be true. \" Humans are causing the rise in clobal temperature, which if not stopped will result in global warming.\" -The natural cycle of global warming cannot be stopped. For thousands of years the Earth has had a warming period in which the ice caps melt, the sea levels rise, and weather patterns are drastically affected which in result cause global cooling- the Earth's natural protection mechanism which brings about periodic ice ages. Because of the dynamic between our atmospherical makeup, our proximity to the sun, and other factors like the moon's effect on tides- global warming cannot be stopped.", "qid": "21", "docid": "a5cb0429-2019-04-18T19:47:04Z-00003-000", "rank": 87, "score": 168612.0}, {"content": "Title: Global warming Content: The strongest evidence yet that global warming has been triggered by human activity has emerged from a major study of rising temperatures in the world's oceans. The present trend of warmer sea temperatures, which have risen by an average of half a degree Celsius (0.9F) over the past 40 years, can be explained only if greenhouse gas emissions are responsible. As the Pro side of this resolution I would like to define global warming as, \"Increased levels of gases such as carbon dioxide that trap heat in the earth's lower atmosphere potentially causing global warming\" (www. ifdn. com/teacher/glossary. htm) \"-she would like to say I have given no proof but nether has she she neglects to say that global warming is a theory and has not been proven scientifictly but on my side i have history not lose assumption. \" You are correct you have given no proof, no sources, no research, no anything that I can accept is true on your behalf. Every argument I have gotten I cannot accept merely because it was written, in poor condition and their is no proof, unless you are a new scientist that I have no heard of, I find every argument of yours is wrong. I would like to define proof as a formal series of statements showing that if one thing is true something else necessarily follows from it. (wordnet. princeton. edu/perl/webwn) I neglect to say that global warming is a theory? The whole point of this debate is for the Pro to prove that global warming is real, and not a theory. Why would I contradict myself? Do you find everything I am posting to be lose assumptions? Maybe you should scroll up to my sources. \"-over the last ten million years the world has been around 4 billion of those years have had living life on her contanents and with that said 67% of the time the world has hade living life on it the planet had little to no ice on it. 65 million years in the past a astroid hit the planet this set of the trend of heating and cooling that we are experancing 2 day. There has been 4 Major ice ages since then. along ith many other little ice ages. and off course with the end of a ice age u have a warming period. \" \"As early as the nineteenth century, scientists recognized that greenhouse gases warm the planet, and that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) could lead to global warming on much shorter time scales than the natural, cyclic fluctuations related to ice ages and interglacials. Around the same time, global temperatures began to rise, and scientists became increasingly concerned that humans were interfering with the climate. In the 1950s the upward trend in global temperatures unexpectedly halted and temperatures declined somewhat. This led some to become concerned about global cooling, and, in turn, newspaper headlines proclaimed an imminent ice age. Climate skeptics often point to that period as evidence that climate scientists are not to be trusted \u2013 warnings of global cooling back then, warnings of global warming now. Over the past quarter century, scientific research on global climate change has intensified; international programs have been organized. We now have detailed, global data sets from satellites and ever-more sophisticated instruments. Computer models, incorporating more and more data and capable of recreating past trends, can more precisely predict future scenarios. As a result, our understanding of the climate system is immeasurably stronger than in the 1970s. The National Academy of Sciences, which admitted we did not know enough to \"pose the key questions\" in 1975, now says: \"Greenhouse gases are accumulating in the Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures . .. to rise. \" (NAS, 2001) \"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. . .. We urge all nations . .. to take prompt action to reduce the causes of climate change. \" (NAS [pdf], 2005)\" (. http://www.nicholas.duke.edu...) Once again, I apologize for the confusion that has been caused in the first and second rounds. I strongly urge for a vote in affirmation of the resolution.", "qid": "21", "docid": "7b14c5a9-2019-04-18T19:30:31Z-00000-000", "rank": 88, "score": 168563.0}, {"content": "Title: The Flying Spaghetti Monster is causing Global Warming Content: Accepted. Opening Argument: 'Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the 'greenhouse effect'--warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space.''Certain gases in the atmosphere block heat from escaping. Long-lived gases that remain semi-permanently in the atmosphere and do not respond physically or chemically to changes in temperature are described as 'forcing' climate change. Gases, such as water vapor, which respond physically or chemically to changes in temperature are seen as 'feedbacks.'The gasses that contribute to this are: \u2022Water Vapor (H2O)\u2022Nitrous Oxide (N2O)\u2022Methane (CH4)\u2022Carbon Dioxide (CO2)[.1.] https://climate.nasa.gov...'The atmospheric concentration of CO2 has increased dramatically, from a pre-industrial era (AD 1000 \u2013 1750) concentration of approximately 280 parts per million (ppm) to today's 400 ppm.'So, it's pretty obvious (particularly through the overuse of carbon dioxide) that humans have considerable responsibility to bare for global warming. [2.] http://www.ucsusa.org...As one would expect, there is no research to suggest that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is causing global warming--or indeed that more pirates on planet earth would be the answer. Another contention I will add is that pirates commit crime; so Pro is essentially arguing that more crime be committed. The infamous pirate, Ned Lowe (1600's-1700's) provides an example of how violent pirates have historically been: 'An English criminal who took to sea, Ned Lowe was not the most successful pirate in his day (though he did well enough), but was perhaps the most feared due to his excessive cruelty and love of torture. This did not extend only to his enemies; he was reported to have set fire to an unwanted ship, with the cook on board, for amusement, saying that the cook was a greasy fellow'. He was, however, most famous for his treatment of enemy captains. He once cut an enemy\u2019s lips off because he threw treasure into the sea. Lowe then proceeded to cook, and make him eat his lips before massacring the entire crew. Cruel, but seemingly effective.'Modern pirates, are not that much better. [3.] http://tvtropes.org...While there isn't any evidence to suggest that pirates help our planet (As Pro is arguing), there is in fact evidence to show that they damage it: 'According to experts, one of the most serious dangers associated with modern piracy is the risk of an environmental disaster. When pirates capture merchant ships, they often tie up the crew and leave the ship unmanned\u2014and possibly still moving at full speed. Some fear that if a ship were captured and left unmanned in a narrower channel such as a strait, there is a high probability that it could crash, with the contents of the ship (often oil) being spilled into the ocean. Such a disaster nearly occurred in 1999, when the French tanker Chaumont was ambushed by pirates in the Strait of Malacca (between Malaysia and Indonesia.' [4.] http://listverse.com...Pirates are Bad for HealthIt goes without saying that any person who is captured by a pirate, if they survive, are going to suffer health consequences in the form of stress, anxiety and most likely PTSD; meaning that in all probability, they will require aftercare (emotional support, etc.) after their ordeal. And in the U.S, it costs to become ill. [5.] https://thinkprogress.org...No Evidence for the Existence of a Flying Spagetti MonsterAnother issue with Pros case is the fact that there's just no evidence that a flying Spagetti Monster even exists. Actually, the religion (Pastafarianism) that worships the Flying Spagetti Monster has been deemed 'not real', thus meaning that even in the doctrinal sense it is considered illegitimate. [6.] https://www.rt.com...", "qid": "21", "docid": "f52a5b1a-2019-04-18T12:07:45Z-00002-000", "rank": 89, "score": 168423.0}, {"content": "Title: Global Warming Content: The existence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is vital to life on Earth \" in their absence average temperatures would be about 30 centigrade degrees lower than they are today. But human activities are now causing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases \" including carbon dioxide, methane, tropospheric ozone, and nitrous oxide \" to rise well above pre-industrial levels. Carbon dioxide levels have increased from 280 ppm in 1750 to over 375 ppm today \" higher than any previous levels that can be reliably measured (i.e. in the last 420,000 years). Increasing greenhouse gases are causing temperatures to rise; the Earth\"s surface warmed by approximately 0.6 centigrade degrees over the twentieth century. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projected that the average global surface temperatures will continue to increase to between 1.4 centigrade degrees and 5.8 centigrade degrees above 1990 levels, by 2100. What this means to humanity is that, unless some serious changes are made, the global climate will continue to shift so drastically that the world will not be the same as we know it in a century, or less. http://nationalacademies.org... The Natural Resources Defense Counsel, the primary community authority on global climate change clearly states that climate change is the single biggest environmental and humanitarian crisis of our time. The Earth's atmosphere is overloaded with heat-trapping carbon dioxide, which threatens large-scale disruptions in climate with disastrous consequences. What this means is that humans must act now to spur the adoption of cleaner energy sources at home and abroad, rather than trying to convince ourselves that global climate change is a hoax and letting the problem get worse before we address it. http://www.nrdc.org...", "qid": "21", "docid": "4aed909f-2019-04-18T17:04:08Z-00000-000", "rank": 90, "score": 167882.0}, {"content": "Title: Humans are the main cause of global warming Content: The CON must prove humans do not play a significant role in global warming. I recommend a experienced debater that opposes global warming to debate with me. EDIT: Per Ron-Paul's request, the resolution is changed and the voting period is now 1 month. My Starting Arguments: Yes, the Earth is warming. Since the early 20th century, Earth's mean surface temperature has increased by about 0.8 \"C (1.4 \"F), with about two-thirds of the increase occurring since 1980.[1] Is it caused mainly by humans? Humans have increased the amount of Co2, a greenhouse gas. Greenhouse gases increase the Earth's temperature. \"Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the burning of fossil fuels has contributed to the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from 280 ppm to 397 ppm, despite the uptake of a large portion of the emissions through various natural \"sinks\" involved in the carbon cycle.\"[2] Plus, global warming could cause ice cap melting. Dan Miller said that the ice caps can be gone by 2020. (From video) http://www.youtube.com... [1]http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]http://en.wikipedia.org...", "qid": "21", "docid": "1f15702f-2019-04-18T18:02:44Z-00009-000", "rank": 91, "score": 167200.0}, {"content": "Title: Global Warming is primarily caused by humans Content: Pro wants us to believe that we are the only reason the world can become warmer. Pro wants to directed complete control over idea, and resolvable solution. An equation using a fixed outcome has only one solution. This is basic math principle and is what needs to be disproved in pro\"s argument. Pro is not lying, I am not lying, and the only reason some-one needs a lie in this debate is to fix the equation, to fix an outcome, only humanity. By doing this the forced answer becomes fixed as the only problem. We all hate word problems, we all know how complicated they are, not all of us can use word problems like Science, when left inside the fixed bias equation they can be used to create the answer wanted. \"Climate manipulation\", if science had been sure the Title of this debate would be Climate manipulation. It is being done here by witness account, is it being done by only by nature for the plants course, or is mankind now a play for human course. \"All the Titles of this topic are focusing public attention on the event and not an investigation into cause.\" That is not a natural course of non-biased understanding. The rest of this is added to simply to clear misdirection of a fix equation. Reading is not required but welcome. Volcanoes are one large vent you may see on the surface it is not the complete system. It is only a very small part of a much larger network of vents, lava, and \"gases.\" The deeper underground we explore hotter it gets, ground traps Co2, and cook out of crude oil before humans can ever touch it. Volcanoes are simple just a part of a process of circulation which gives us gauge globally of how rapidly it can move, then be released at one times. (Note the earth also has ways to naturally scrub Co2 out of our air, the earth surface proportionately is covered of this scrubber two to every one unit. \"Earth is a dust magnet.\" And space is nothing but a dirty vacuum filled with dust. Science knows this is fact. Space dust has been used in models to show what has formed many plants including earth. If Dust cannot accumulate mass there would be no plants at all. Pro, Con may simply not be ready to exclude Co2 emissions entirely yet. There are a number of ways in which mankind can benefit by rising Co2 levels. Concern is a word a person might use, it provokes a look into expressions such as Intentional or unintentional, long term short term. We are products of our understanding. When understanding is fixed our understandings become fixed. Not all solutions that are given to the public fix result in positive outcome. This is not a problem which will benefit humanity with a fixed outcome.", "qid": "21", "docid": "183436dd-2019-04-18T12:34:27Z-00000-000", "rank": 92, "score": 167084.0}, {"content": "Title: Humanity is the main cause of global warming. Content: Firstly. I have not quantified anything in the heading of the debate. I've said 'main cause'. Not 'more than fifty percent' or somethinglike that. Main means a major portion. Since when did 'substantially' get used for a small portion? And it is also not my possible (to my knowledge) to quantify the impact of natural causes on climate change as it is unpredictable and can change any time. Con has also left out my point that human activities can alter the natural conditions of the earth, therefore any change in temperature due to natural causes could have a human factor behind it. As explained in the following. http://co2now.org... Secondly, I never said natural causes play an insignificant role. I said they play an important role but not as important as human causes. In con's reference chart, the temperature has been constantly oscillating between hot and cold, but if you check recent years there have been almost two constant hot periods and the cold period is almost invisible ( in the graph I mean) meaning it is very short. And then in the graph itself it clear that the hot periods have been on the rise since the Age of Induatrialization. And after 2015, the cold period is based on assumptions and predictions, and as I have already made clear that nature cannot always be predicted. Thirdly Global Warming is a reality. Just because there have hotter periods before, doesn't mean it is not happening. The following site also explains that the global warming hiatus in recent times is not true. And that climate only causes short term changes in the climate of the earth, but human activity causes long term changes. http://www.bbc.com... Fourthly scientists will not quanitfy and agree that mankind is responsible for global warming, as it is their community that are primary responsible (in humans). But I will not defame them as some ARE trying their best to prove it. Fifthly , again I refer to the chart provided by Con, the hot periods have gradually developed over a period of time, but in recent years its almost at a right angle. Which means there have been sharp and quick increase in the heat all over the globe.", "qid": "21", "docid": "c09112b2-2019-04-18T14:00:47Z-00003-000", "rank": 93, "score": 166948.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Human Activity Is a Significant Factor in Global Warming on Planet Earth. Content: Thank you, medv4380. http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com... ==Contention 1: The correlation between increase in Carbon Dioxide and global temperature== Throughout the last 650,000 years, there have been seven cycles of glacial advances and retreats, where the carbon dioxide levels abruptly increased, then gradually decreased afterward. However, in 1950, Co2 levels were at a critical level and kept on rising. As of 2014, the global Co2 levels were at an all time high of nearly 400 parts per million [1]: As we can see above, in the last 650,000 years, the Co2 levels have never grown above 300 ppm, as opposed to now, where the Co2 levels are at 400 ppm. Obviously, this abrupt growth in Co2 levels are caused by human activity, such as mass production, the use of electricity, polluting, etc. I have provided a youtube video above to show the correlation between the high Co2 levels and global temperature [2]. When both are compared, this becomes irrefutable evidence that man-made global warming exists. Note that this is all over the world, so accusations of choosing a specific area for evidence cannot be valid. In fact, as of 2013, the average global temperature was 14.6 degrees Celsius (58.3 degrees Fahrenheit), which is 0.8 degrees Celsius (1.4 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than when the year was 1880, and 0.6 degrees Celsius (1.1 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than the mid-20th century baseline [3][4][5]: Already, on the first contention, we have seen major evidence affirming the resolution. ==Contention 2: The cause and effect of the Greenhouse Effect and what makes it more powerful== The greenhouse effect on Planet Earth has been occurring for almost its whole life and is a natural phenomenon, since greenhouse gases such as Co2 have existed on Earth from its birth, thus heating the Earth to help sustain forms of life [6]: \"To its credit, the greenhouse effect has been around long before humans began to burn fossil fuels, and it is a natural phenomenon in that makes life habitable for all living things.\" [6] The greenhouse effect operates when the sun's heat passes through Earth's atmosphere, heats the Earth's surface and is reflected back upward. Most of this heat is absorbed by the greenhouse gases like water vapor, Co2 and methane. Afterward, the heat is re-emited in all directions, thus starting the cycle again, continuously heating the Earth. Greenhouse gases literally act like a thermal blanket for Earth [7]: \"A layer of greenhouse gases - primarily water vapor, and including much smaller amounts of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide - act as a thermal blanket for the Earth, absorbing heat and warming the surface to a life-supporting average of 59 degrees Fahrenheit (15 degrees Celsius).\" [7] From this information, we can conclude that the more greenhouse gases are put into the atmosphere, the more heat from the sun is absorbed, thus creating a powerful greenhouse effect. Human actvity is causing this to happen. P1) The more greenhouse gases there are in the atmosphere, the more powerful the greenhouse effectP2) Human activity is emitting more greenhouse gases into the atmosphereC) Human activity is the cause of a more powerful greenhouse effect, and thus man-made global warming exists. To further prove this point, let us inspect Earth's neighboring planets, Mars and Venus. Mars' atmosphere is quite thin, and it's nearly completely made up of Co2. However, it is because of the low atmospheric pressure and lack of other greenhouse gases that the greenhouse effect is not at all strong and thus Mars has a frozen surface without any signs of organisms [7]. \"Not enough greenhouse effect: The planet Mars has a very thin atmosphere, nearly all carbon dioxide. Because of the low atmospheric pressure, and with little to no methane or water vapor to reinforce the weak greenhouse effect, Mars has a largely frozen surface that shows no evidence of life.\" [7] Now, let us inspect Venus. Despite Venus' atmosphere also being almost entirely carbon dioxide, the amount of Co2 Venus contains is about 300 times as much as Mars' or Earth's. This creates a HUGELY powerful greenhouse effect, causing a temperature so high that lead could not stay solid. [7] \"Too much greenhouse effect: The atmosphere of Venus, like Mars, is nearly all carbon dioxide. But Venus has about 300 times as much carbon dioxide in its atmosphere as Earth and Mars do, producing a runaway greenhouse effect and a surface temperature hot enough to melt lead.\" [7] This can be further proven by checking Mercury's temperature compared to Venus' temperature, even though Mercury is closer to the Sun than Venus. [8] \"Venus has a very dense atmosphere made up of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and sulfuric acid, while Mercury has a very thin atmosphere with various gases, but very little carbon dioxide.\" [8] Again this information is major evidence of the existence of man-made global warming. ==Contention 3: Arctic Ice and Sea Levels== It is widely agreed that melting ice from the Arctic and Antarctic and sea level rise is a sign of increasing temperatures. If I can prove that ice is definitely decreasing and that sea levels are definitely rising, then I win this contention. Here is a chart showing definite decrease in Arctic ice [9]: Here is another chart showing rising sea levels [10]: Also, recent reports state that the Arctic is losing ice three times as fast as the Antarctic is gaining ice [11][12]. \"Sea ice surrounding Antarctica reached a new record high extent this year, covering more of the southern oceans than it has since scientists began a long-term satellite record to map sea ice extent in the late 1970s. The upward trend in the Antarctic, however, is only about a third of the magnitude of the rapid loss of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean.\" Thus, I affirm this contention. ==Conclusion== I have put forward major evidence and arguments proving the existence of man-made global warming. I have also put out evidence that the greenhouse effect does indeed exist. Thus, the resolution is affirmed. ==Sources== [1] http://climate.nasa.gov............;[2] https://www.youtube.com............;[3] http://climate.nasa.gov............;[4] http://climate.nasa.gov............;[5] http://data.giss.nasa.gov............;[6] http://earthguide.ucsd.edu............;[7] http://climate.nasa.gov............;[8] http://scienceline.ucsb.edu......[9] http://www.forbes.com......[10] http://www.nasa.gov......[11] http://www.nasa.gov......[12] https://www.youtube.com......", "qid": "21", "docid": "a80b0a3-2019-04-18T14:21:27Z-00007-000", "rank": 94, "score": 166828.0}, {"content": "Title: Global Warming is all hysteria and a liberal hoax. Content: CO2 was just named a greenhouse gas in a 2006 court case, which to me was a very sketchy hearing. (Besides the fact that Al Gore was making back room deals to get this law passed.) My bad, I meant methane not propane. And it is a fact. \"A United Nations report has identified the world's rapidly growing herds of cattle as the greatest threat to the climate, forests and wildlife. And they are blamed for a host of other environmental crimes, from acid rain to the introduction of alien species, from producing deserts to creating dead zones in the oceans, from poisoning rivers and drinking water to destroying coral reefs. The world's 1.5 billion cattle are most to blame. Livestock are responsible for 18 per cent of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together. Unfortunately, the environmental community has focused its efforts almost exclusively on abating carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. This is a serious miscalculation. CO2 emissions are not the main cause of observed atmospheric warming. It\ufffds true that human activity produces vastly more CO2 than all other greenhouse gases put together. However, this does not mean it is responsible for most of the earth\ufffds warming. Many other greenhouse gases trap heat far more powerfully than CO2, some of them tens of thousands of times more powerfully. Methane is another gas that warms the world 20 times faster than carbon dioxide. By far the most important non-CO2 greenhouse gas is methane, and the major source of methane worldwide is animal agriculture. Cattle wind and manure emit more than one third of emissions of methane.\" http://www.greendiary.com... A new report from FAO says livestock production contributes to the world's most pressing environmental problems, including global warming, land degradation, air and water pollution, and loss of biodiversity. Using a methodology that considers the entire commodity chain, it estimates that livestock are responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, a bigger share than that of transport. However, the report says, the livestock sector's potential contribution to solving environmental problems is equally large, and major improvements could be achieved at reasonable cost. http://www.futurepundit.com... Ya Al Gore is a great source of knowledge and credibility on global warming, especially with the fact that his \"An Inconvenient Truth\" has been largely debunked. A few last words from the great Tom Deweese: \"DeWeese calls global warming \"the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the people of the world, bar none. Those who have been fighting against the green agenda have been warning that modern-day environmentalism has nothing whatsoever to do with protecting the environment,\" he observes. \"Rather, it is a political movement led by those who seek to control the world economies, dictate development, and redistribute the world's wealth.\" DeWeese describes the relentless propaganda campaign that has been waged over the past couple of decades. \"The American people have been assaulted from all directions by rabid environmentalists,\" he contends. \"School children have been told that recycling is a matter of life and death. Businesses have been shut down. Valuable products like freon have been removed from the market. Chemicals and pesticides that helped to make this nation the safest and healthiest in the world are targeted for extinction.\" DeWeese warns that the Climate Change Protocol is \"a legally binding international treaty through which signing nations agree to cut back their energy emissions to 15 percent below 1990 levels.\" He insists that \"it doesn't matter\" if the final version is somewhat modified. \"Such a massive disruption in the American economy, particularly since it has nothing to do with protecting the environment, will devastate this nation,\" DeWeese predicts. \"To meet such drastically reduced energy standards will, in the short run, cost the United States over one million jobs.\" Couldn't be more true. All liberals want is more control and more power.", "qid": "21", "docid": "8d9b12e1-2019-04-18T19:49:09Z-00001-000", "rank": 95, "score": 166732.0}, {"content": "Title: Humans are responsible for global warming Content: I agree that carbon emissions have been rising before modern technology, but humans are the cause of it rising at such a rate as it is now. At this moment the best us (humans) can do to limit global warming we would still be at a two degree world temperature rise. This doesn't sound like much, but this large of a change can cause reefs to die (as they are already) and the ocean (water level) to rise and \"swallow\" coastal cities such as Florida, New York City, and parts of New Jersey. And this isn't just because of the CO2 emissions, but due to methane produced by beef cows that are used in so many foods, hamburgers, steaks, roast beef, etc.", "qid": "21", "docid": "74fc08ec-2019-04-18T12:32:40Z-00002-000", "rank": 96, "score": 166404.0}, {"content": "Title: Humans are the main cause of global warming Content: Thanks to Ron-Paul for the response. CO2 Correlation The sunspots actually rose after the temperature in 1960, according to the chart from [A]. If my opponent's claim is right, then global warming causes sunspots to rise, which is not the case. The chart from [A] shows a strong correlation between CO2 and temperature, in the short term without apparent lag. Sun \"Sun - Recent Activity Highest in 8000 Years and magnetic field has decreased in size by 25%\" Again, my sun argument still stands. Predictions say that Solar Cycle 24 will have a peak sunspot number of 90, the lowest of any cycle since 1928 when Solar Cycle 16 peaked at 78. Right now, the solar cycle is in a valley--the deepest of the past century. In 2008 and 2009, the sun set Space Age records for low sunspot counts, weak solar wind, and low solar irradiance. The sun has gone more than two years without a significant solar flare. [B] The sun is not in a period of high activity. \"Also, by the way, since CO2 does not correlate with temperatures, your Pluto-to-Earth claim is fallacious.\" I have proven this wrong with [A]. Cosmic Rays The most recent IPCC studies disputed the mechanism. The 2007 IPCC reports, however, strongly attribute a major role of anthropogenic carbon dioxide in the ongoing global warming, but as \"different climate changes in the past had different causes\" a driving role of carbon dioxide in the geological past is neither focus of the IPCC nor purported. [C] PDO/AMO The 10-year correlation record of CO2 is on there, but the 10 year correlation record of PDO/AMO is not on there, therefore this does not prove that CO2 has less influence. \"There. Cosmic rays, the sun, and all the Earth's natural cycles have a .95 correlation. \" The PDO/AMO does not have a 10 year chart to compare with CO2, the sun is refuted in earlier rounds. The sunspots are lagging behind the temperature. IPCC disputes the cosmic rays and instead attribute the warming to CO2. Position in galaxy (Only a chart given by opponent) Per Ron-Paul's request, this is the full quote: (formatting changed for character count, no changes in content, words taken out in R3 are marked) \" To combat global warming, militants say we must all accept drastic reductions in our standard of living starting now, steadily increasing year-after-year, until much of industrial society is swept away. Only thus can the earth, and perhaps mankind, be saved. [[To achieve this radical restructuring of human society, global warming proponents demand that we give virtually unlimited power to government to control what we eat, how we travel, and how our industries operate, with no dissent or resistance permitted.]] Cars, jet travel for the public, air conditioning, refrigeration, and indeed many if not most of the conveniences of modern life will simply have to be abolished, as quickly as politically feasible. As one environmental activist puts it, Everything modern has to go!\" -ISIL Medieval Warm Period \"I will keep coming with more. There is a clear correlation.\" There is no correlation if you give nothing to compare. The data before 1600 was scarce [D], which means that the temperatures can be colder or warmer than now, but the chart at [E] shows that the MWP is colder than the temperature at 2004. The Sun Back in 2008, the solar cycle plunged into the deepest minimum in nearly a century. Sunspots all but vanished, solar flares subsided, and the sun was eerily quiet. As 2011 unfolds, sunspots have returned and they are crackling with activity. On February 15th and again on March 9th, Earth orbiting satellites detected a pair of \"X-class\" solar flares--the most powerful kind of x-ray flare. The last such eruption occurred back in December 2006. [F] As you can see, the solar activity was unstable. Then we should see many huge dips and rises in the chart at http://ossfoundation.us... , but the sun spots dipped down in 2000, while the temperature still rose with the CO2 with little to none delays on the CO2 part. CO2 correlates more than sun spots on [A]. And [A] is a short term graph from 1860 to 2000, so the CO2 should be delayed like crazy, right? Nope, that is not the case. In Conclusion, my opponent's claims have been refuted. [A]http://ossfoundation.us... [B]http://science.nasa.gov... [C]http://en.wikipedia.org... [D]http://en.wikipedia.org... [E]http://upload.wikimedia.org... [F]http://science.nasa.gov...", "qid": "21", "docid": "1f15702f-2019-04-18T18:02:44Z-00001-000", "rank": 97, "score": 165835.0}, {"content": "Title: The environmental impact of industrialization is the primary cause of earth's current warming trend. Content: \"Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.\" (http://www.canadafreepress.com...) I agree with this speaker's theory. The only reasons that are credible for the current rise in Earth's CO2 Levels are that global warming and the ice ages are natural phases of the Earth. Humans are not causing it. They didn't a long time ago and they aren't now.", "qid": "21", "docid": "d23f3b88-2019-04-18T19:58:38Z-00002-000", "rank": 98, "score": 165192.0}, {"content": "Title: Environmental Protection Content: Thank you for your argument. As you said, water is being polluted. Yes. We also have animal and plant life at an extreme risk. The concern with overpopulation has nothing to do with the amount of land. It has to do with what humans have done to the Earth. Humans have exploited Earth's resources, destroyed natural areas, caused the extinction of half of wildlife, have polluted water, the air, caused extreme climate change, and there are many more. There is hope to turn this around, and that is environmental protection laws. Now for climate change, as you did: Global temperatures have rised at a rate naturally impossible. Normally, global temperatures cool. The Earth formed from molten asteroids. Millions of years ago, there were humid jungles at the poles, which are usually the coldest regions of the planet. Sea levels were also higher millions of years ago. Temperatures have rised globally in all areas, cold or already hot. Their is scientific evidence showing we're responsible. As for weather, Scientific studies indicate that extreme weather events such as heat waves and large storms are likely to become more frequent or more intense with human-induced climate change. Nevertheless, weather does not mean \"climate change is not harmful\". When it comes to glaciers, they naturally do expand. However, man made climate change is melting them. Several scientific studies show that in 20-40 years, all Ice in Antarctica will likely melt. I do not disagree with you on the CO2 point and I know it is beneficial. However, it is not the only gas being emitted. Methane is an extremely effective greenhouse gas and large amounts of it are being emitted. Scientists have also discovered several toxic gases like Phosgene in the atmosphere of Earth. So far we have cut down half of forests on Earth. Keep in mind trees produce vital oxygen that we need to breath. If you want me to be honest, the modern environmental movement is stupid, yes, specifically when it comes to CO2. But these are just my opinion. 97% of climatologists believe in climate change and not just because of CO2 emissions. I tried to keep my argument as short as possible.", "qid": "21", "docid": "bde3d11-2019-04-18T12:39:28Z-00002-000", "rank": 99, "score": 165137.0}, {"content": "Title: That Humans Are Causing Climate Change Content: Main point - Every major science academy in the west supports it, 97%-98% of scientist support it. 1. 75% of the 20th century increase in the atmospheric greenhouse gas CO2 is directly caused by human actions like burning fossil fuels. CO2 levels were 389ppm (parts per million) as of Apr. 2010 - the highest they have been in the past 650,000 years. This increase in CO2 was a substantial contributor to the 1\"F to 1.4\"F warming over the 20th century. 2. Human-produced CO2 is warming the earth, not natural CO2 released from the ocean and other \"carbon sinks.\" CO2 from fossil fuel combustion has a specific isotopic ratio that is different from CO2 released by natural \"carbon sinks.\" 20th century measurements of CO2 isotope ratios in the atmosphere confirm that the rise results from human activities, not natural processes. 3. Human produced greenhouse gases will continue to accumulate in the atmosphere causing climate change because the earth's forests, oceans, and other \"carbon sinks\" cannot adequately absorb them all. As of 2009, these carbon sinks were only absorbing about 50% of human-produced CO2. The other 50% is accumulating in the atmosphere. 4. Human greenhouse gas emissions, not changes in the sun's radiation, are causing global climate change. Measurements in the upper atmosphere from 1979 - 2009, show the sun's energy has gone up and down in cycles, with no net increase. While warming is occurring in the troposphere (lower atmosphere), the stratosphere (upper atmosphere) is cooling. If the sun was driving the temperature change there would be warming in the stratosphere also, not cooling. 5. Computer models show that increased levels of human produced greenhouse gases will cause global warming and other climate changes. Although these climate models are uncertain about how much future warming will occur and how it will affect the climate, they all agree that, to some degree, these changes will happen. The reality of climate change is not contradicted by this uncertainty. 6. Although the amount of human-produced greenhouse gases may seem small to some people, their warming potential is amplified by the water vapor positive feedback loop , allowing them to cause significant warming and climate change. As greenhouse gases heat the planet, increased humidity (water vapor in the atmosphere) results. Since water vapor is itself a greenhouse gas, it can double the warming effect of greenhouse gases such as CO2. 7. Human greenhouse gas emissions are heating the planet, and climate models consistently show that this warming causes an increase in the frequency and intensity of tropical cyclones. The fact that 1975-1989 had 171 category 4 and 5 hurricanes while 1990-2004 had 269 [51] of them (a 57% increase) validates these climate models and the reality of human-induced climate change. 8. Human-produced CO2 is changing the climate of the world's oceans. As excess CO2 is absorbed, oceanic acidity levels increase. Oceans have absorbed 48% of the total CO2 released by human activities and acidity levels are 25-30% higher than prior to human fossil fuel use. 9. An 8\" rise in the ocean level has occured (1961-2003) due to human-induced global warming. Global sea levels rose an average of 1.8 mm (.07 in) per year between 1961 and 2003 and at an average rate of about 3.1 mm (.1 in) per year from 1993 to 2003. [3] This sea level rise is the result of warming waters and the melting of glaciers, ice caps, and polar ice sheets. From 1870-2004, a \"significant acceleration\" of sea-level rise occured, an important confirmation of climate change models. 10. Warming caused by human-produced greenhouse gases is changing the earth's hydrologic climate. Rainfall is increasing in many areas due to increased evaporation stemming from global warming. Higher temperatures are also causing some mountainous areas to receive rain rather than snow. According to researchers at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, up to 60% of the changes in river flow, winter air temperature, and snow pack in the western US (1950-1999) were human-induced. 11. Warming caused by human-produced greenhouse gases is changing the rate of glacial melt and altering the local climate of many regions. Since 1850, records show a \"strong increase\" in the rate of glacial retreat. From 1961-2004 glaciers retreated about .5mm per year in sea level equivalent. According to the World Glacier Monitoring Service, since 1980, glaciers worldwide have lost nearly 40 feet (12 meters) in average thickness (measured in average mass balance in water equivalent). 12. Warming caused by human-produced greenhouse gases and soot (black carbon) produced from burning of fossil fuels and deforestation, is reducing the size of the Arctic ice cap. A smaller ice cap reflects less of the sun's energy away from the earth. This energy is absorbed instead, causing air and water temperatures to rise. From 1953\"2006, Arctic sea ice declined 7.8% per decade. Between 1979 and 2006, the decline was 9.1% each decade. Climate models predict that Arctic sea ice will continue to retreat through the 21st century further disrupting the global climate. [15] 13. Many organizations believe that human activity is a substantial cause of global climate change. These groups include: the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the InterAcademy Council, the Network of African Science Academies, the European Science Foundation (ESF), the European Space Agency (ESA), the Royal Society (UK national academy of science), the US National Academies of Science, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 14. Nearly all climate change studies show humans as the main cause, and studies which contradict this claim are often funded by petroleum companies, making their conclusions suspect given the obvious conflict of interest. From 2004-2005, ExxonMobil gave $2.2 million in grants for climate change research to organizations that deny human caused climate change. In 2006 US Senators Olympia Snowe (R-ME), and Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) chastised ExxonMobil for providing more than $19 million in funding to over 29 \"climate change denial front groups.\"", "qid": "21", "docid": "e505d905-2019-04-18T16:03:11Z-00005-000", "rank": 100, "score": 165094.0}]}
{"query": "Is a two-state solution an acceptable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: Is a Two-State Solution (Israel and Palestine) an Acceptable Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Con Content: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has reached a critical stage. For more than two decades, the two-state solution has been the basis of international efforts to make peace in the region... A failure of the two-state solution will generate further instability in the region, strengthen rejectionist elements on both sides and likely mean that the conflict will drag on for generations... The Palestinian leadership remains committed to a peaceful, negotiated settlement to our conflict with Israel based on the two-state solution.", "qid": "22", "docid": "3b38021e-2019-04-18T11:38:27Z-00001-000", "rank": 1, "score": 287584.0}, {"content": "Title: A two-state solution is the least bad option Content: Shimon Peres. \"One Region, Two States\". Washington Post. February 10, 2009: \"The difficulties of a two-state solution are numerous, but it remains the only realistic and moral formula to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.\"", "qid": "22", "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00037-000", "rank": 2, "score": 253112.0}, {"content": "Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: A two-state solution makes Israel too narrow, vulnerable.", "qid": "22", "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00016-000", "rank": 3, "score": 252847.0}, {"content": "Title: Two-state solution and peace is critical to regional stability. Content: For years, the middle east has been up in arms regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is a source of tension between the Muslim world and the west, and a source of tension between populations and their governments. And, as a source of tension between Muslims and the West, it has been considered a source of terrorism. Solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is critical to relieving these various tensions. In so far as a two-state solution helps end the conflict and establish peace, it helps relieve tensions and restore stability in the broader middle east and in the global fight against terrorism.", "qid": "22", "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00066-000", "rank": 4, "score": 252805.0}, {"content": "Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: Two-state solution would alienate Palestinians in Israel.", "qid": "22", "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00020-000", "rank": 5, "score": 250481.0}, {"content": "Title: Two-state solution would alienate Palestinians in Israel. Content: A two-state solution, particularly one that enables a Jewish state, will alienate Palestinians living in Israeli territory. At best, they would be second class citizens. At worst, they would be pushed out, directly or indirectly.", "qid": "22", "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00051-000", "rank": 6, "score": 248335.0}, {"content": "Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: Two-state solution would prevent return of Palestinian refugees.", "qid": "22", "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00019-000", "rank": 7, "score": 247289.0}, {"content": "Title: A two-state solution is best for peace Content: Palestinians and Israelis will not be able to live together in peace in the same state any time in the foreseeable future. The idea that Palestinians and Israelis can live in peace and harmony in one state, with tolerance for each other and in keeping with democratic principles of inclusion, is simply naive. This idea has been made impossible by nearly a century of direct conflict between these people. While this might change in coming centuries, it is unacceptable to adopt a one-state policy now based on these naive ideas. Israeli President Shimon Peres has argued: \u201cEstablishing a single multinational country is a tenuous path that does not bode well for peace but, rather, enforces the conflict's perpetuation. Lebanon, ravaged by bloodshed and instability, represents only one of many examples of an undesirable quagmire of this nature.\u201d(1) This stance has been endorsed by leaders and officials from around the world: US special envoy George Mitchell has stated \u201cIn the case of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, we believe that the two-state solution, two states living side by side in peace, is the best and the only way to resolve this conflict.\u201d(2) Pope Benedict XVI has similarly called on Israel\u2019s leadership to embrace the two-state solution for peace with the Palestinians: \u201cI plead with all those responsible to explore every possible avenue in the search for a just resolution of the outstanding difficulties, so that both peoples may live in peace in a homeland of their own, within secure and internationally recognized borders.\u201d(3) Even Colonel Gaddafi, the late Libyan leader, argued that a two-state solution was essential for peace.(1) The reason the two-state solution has been recognised as the best for peace is because it respects the democratic will of both peoples for a state of their own. As Peres argues, \u201cThe Jewish people want and deserve to live in peace in their rightful, historical homeland. The Palestinian people want and deserve their own land, their own political institutions and their right to self-determination. It is vital that this cause be based on the prospect of coexistence between Jews and Arabs, which translates into cooperation in fields such as the economy, tourism, the environment and defence. Achieving all this will be possible only by granting each people its own state and borders, to enable their citizens to pray according to their faiths, cultivate their cultures, speak their own languages and safeguard their heritages.\u201d(1) Because only a two-state solution allows for this peaceful co-existence and development, a two-state solution is best for peace and thus more justified than a one-state solution.", "qid": "22", "docid": "8d325e50-2019-04-15T20:22:20Z-00007-000", "rank": 8, "score": 247020.0}, {"content": "Title: in the conflict between Israel and Palestine, a two-state solution is better justified than a one-state solution Content: A one-state solution mean Israel would cease to be either democratic or Jewish", "qid": "22", "docid": "8d325e50-2019-04-15T20:22:20Z-00004-000", "rank": 9, "score": 246773.0}, {"content": "Title: Two-state solution gives Palestinians unequal rights Content: \"The One State Declaration\". Issued by participants in the July 2007 Madrid meeting. November 29, 2007: \"A two-state solution is] predicated on the unjust premise that peace can be achieved by granting limited national rights to Palestinians living in the areas occupied in 1967, while denying the rights of Palestinians inside the 1948 borders and in the Diaspora. Thus, the two-state solution condemns Palestinian citizens of Israel to permanent second-class status within their homeland, in a racist state that denies their rights by enacting laws that privilege Jews constitutionally, legally, politically, socially and culturally. Moreover, the two-state solution denies Palestinian refugees their internationally recognized right of return.\"", "qid": "22", "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00047-000", "rank": 10, "score": 246560.0}, {"content": "Title: Is a Two-State Solution (Israel and Palestine) an Acceptable Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Con Content: http://articles.latimes.com... I ask the voters on this debate to consider this when voting on conduct.", "qid": "22", "docid": "3b38021e-2019-04-18T11:38:27Z-00000-000", "rank": 11, "score": 246098.0}, {"content": "Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: One state is more peaceful then a two state solution.", "qid": "22", "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00029-000", "rank": 12, "score": 245772.0}, {"content": "Title: Two-state solution would prevent return of Palestinian refugees. Content: A two-state solution, and the establishment of a Jewish state, would kill the idea of the return of Palestinian refugees that were expelled from Israel during various wars and conflicts.", "qid": "22", "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00052-000", "rank": 13, "score": 244967.0}, {"content": "Title: Israelis and Palestinians are too intermingled for a two-state solution Content: A two-state solution could succeed in partitioning the land and the two peoples by including the largest Israeli settlements within Israel, possibly by allowing for non-contiguous \u201cislands\u201d of Israeli territory around the larger settlements surrounded by the new Palestinian state.(13) In any case, a two-state solution can find practical solutions to these problems, while having the advantage of solving the inherent and insolvable problems of having two opposed nations and identities in perpetual conflict within a single state.", "qid": "22", "docid": "8d325e50-2019-04-15T20:22:20Z-00014-000", "rank": 14, "score": 244902.0}, {"content": "Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: Two-state solution and peace is critical to regional stability.", "qid": "22", "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00005-000", "rank": 15, "score": 244860.0}, {"content": "Title: Only a two-state solution can satisfy both sides Content: A two-state solution can offer sufficient territory for both Israelis and Palestinians. For Israel this would mean keeping the vast majority of areas inhabited by Israeli citizens within the state of Israel. The two-state solution would also, however, offer sufficient land to the Palestinians. While cynics might question the size of the West Bank and Gaza, optimists should look no further than Singapore for reassurance. The area of the West Bank and Gaza is nine times as large as Singapore's, yet the combined population of Palestinians in both regions is smaller than that of Singapore. Singapore enjoys one of the highest standards of living in the world. The Palestinians are capable of achieving similar success, through instituting a modern economy based on science, technology and the benefits of peace.(1) Moreover, throughout the years polls have consistently showed respectable Israeli and Palestinian majorities in favour of a negotiated two-state settlement.(6) Even the Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinezhad has stated that Iran would support a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The success of a two-state solution, therefore, would, at a minimum, gain the support and possibly cooperation of the Iranians. This would be valuable diplomatically, particularly in resolving the larger conflict between Iran and the West.(7) Therefore, the best way to satisfy both sides and achieve peace is to adopt a two-state solution, which is therefore the most just solution.", "qid": "22", "docid": "8d325e50-2019-04-15T20:22:20Z-00011-000", "rank": 16, "score": 244663.0}, {"content": "Title: in the conflict between Israel and Palestine, a two-state solution is better justified than a one-state solution Content: Only a one-state solution can guarantee equal rights for all", "qid": "22", "docid": "8d325e50-2019-04-15T20:22:20Z-00000-000", "rank": 17, "score": 243280.0}, {"content": "Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: Two-state solution does not offer Palestinians enough space.", "qid": "22", "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00008-000", "rank": 18, "score": 242689.0}, {"content": "Title: Israeli settlements make a two-state solution impossible Content: Sandy Tolan. \"George Mitchell and the end of the two-state solution\". Christian Science Monitor. February 4, 2009: \"The two-state solution is on its deathbed. [...] Since the Six-Day War of June 1967, the two-state solution, based on the concept of 'land for peace,' has been the central focus of almost all diplomatic efforts to resolve this tragedy. But because of Israel's unrelenting occupation and settlement project in the West Bank, the long-fought-for two-state solution has finally, tragically, become unworkable. Consider: In 1993, when Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestine Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat famously shook hands on the White House lawn, there were 109,000 Israelis living in settlements across the West Bank (not including Jerusalem). Today there are 275,000, in more than 230 settlements and strategically placed 'outposts' designed to cement a permanent Jewish presence on Palestinian land.\" [Forcibly removing these settlers would be too difficult, could foment a kind of Jewish civil war, and would create a level of resentment among fundamentalist Jews that would likely inflame the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.", "qid": "22", "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00069-000", "rank": 19, "score": 242512.0}, {"content": "Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: A Palestinian state would threaten its neighbors.", "qid": "22", "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00004-000", "rank": 20, "score": 242343.0}, {"content": "Title: in the conflict between Israel and Palestine, a two-state solution is better justified than a one-state solution Content: Only a two-state solution can satisfy both sides", "qid": "22", "docid": "8d325e50-2019-04-15T20:22:20Z-00003-000", "rank": 21, "score": 241401.0}, {"content": "Title: General statements in support of a two-state solution Content: US special envoy George Mitchell: \"In the case of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, we believe that the two-state solution, two states living side by side in peace, is the best and the only way to resolve this conflict.\"", "qid": "22", "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00038-000", "rank": 22, "score": 241138.0}, {"content": "Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: Palestinians want two-state solution, assuming settlements stop.", "qid": "22", "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00013-000", "rank": 23, "score": 240718.0}, {"content": "Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: Palestinian support for two-state solution declined around 2008.", "qid": "22", "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00000-000", "rank": 24, "score": 239778.0}, {"content": "Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: Two-state solution offers adequate territory to Palestinians", "qid": "22", "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00009-000", "rank": 25, "score": 239752.0}, {"content": "Title: The will make that a two-state solution will be the final settlement even if its contours are unclear Content: In the long-run UN action may freeze the negotiations into a discussion of a two-state solution, but UN action is not required to reach this eventuality. Even Avigdor Lieberman on the Far Right accepts that there will be two states, and that has been the basic premise of the Peace Process since 1994. On the issues which have actually prevented a two state solution from coming to fruition- disputes about borders, armaments, security, and settlements, the UN would accomplish nothing. Furthermore, it might well make both sides intransigent, the Israelis due to perceiving themselves as being backed into a corner internationally, the Palestinians due to the belief they no longer need to make concessions.", "qid": "22", "docid": "3c5b3139-2019-04-15T20:22:23Z-00004-000", "rank": 26, "score": 239698.0}, {"content": "Title: A one-state solution mean Israel would cease to be either democratic or Jewish Content: The two-state solution would have Israel relinquish the West Bank, known to the Israelis as \u201cJudea and Samaria\u201d. Yet, these are historic regions to the Jews. Israel would similarly have to undermine its identity to give up these two regions, and so any two-state solution acceptable to Israel would have to mean the retention of Judea and Samaria. Because of the large Palestinian population in the West Bank, even a two-state solution would mean Israel could not be both Jewish and democratic.(3)", "qid": "22", "docid": "8d325e50-2019-04-15T20:22:20Z-00008-000", "rank": 27, "score": 239590.0}, {"content": "Title: in the conflict between Israel and Palestine, a two-state solution is better justified than a one-state solution Content: A two-state solution is best for peace", "qid": "22", "docid": "8d325e50-2019-04-15T20:22:20Z-00005-000", "rank": 28, "score": 238642.0}, {"content": "Title: in the conflict between Israel and Palestine, a two-state solution is better justified than a one-state solution Content: Israelis and Palestinians are too intermingled for a two-state solution", "qid": "22", "docid": "8d325e50-2019-04-15T20:22:20Z-00001-000", "rank": 29, "score": 235773.0}, {"content": "Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: A two-state solution will not assuage Iran.", "qid": "22", "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00006-000", "rank": 30, "score": 234650.0}, {"content": "Title: A two-state solution is best for peace Content: Simply because past conflict has existed is no reason to believe that peace and understanding cannot be established through co-operation, shared institutions and interaction. This is exactly what a one-state solution would foster in the long term, but which a two-state solution prevents by separating the two communities. Even if they each have a state of their own, unless the Israelis and Palestinians learn to live in proximity to each other in co-operation, there will be no peace.", "qid": "22", "docid": "8d325e50-2019-04-15T20:22:20Z-00006-000", "rank": 31, "score": 234582.0}, {"content": "Title: Only a two-state solution can satisfy both sides Content: Palestinian support for two-state solution declined around 2008, and is waning even among the 'moderate' Palestinian camp, as well as among additional Arab elements.(8) It is also na\u00efve to think that a two-state solution would gain the favour or even support of Iran. Iran wants to be the dominant power in the Middle East, and it wants nuclear weapons so that it can threaten not only Israel but other states in the region.(9) To this end, Iran has an incentive to keep the Israeli-Palestinian conflict big and bloody so as to distract the West from its own regional agenda. Furthermore, an independent Palestinian state would probably be perceived as a security threat to some of its neighbours, particularly Jordan, and thus might actually prompt further tensions.(9)", "qid": "22", "docid": "8d325e50-2019-04-15T20:22:20Z-00010-000", "rank": 32, "score": 234144.0}, {"content": "Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: One-state would see Israeli minority ruling over Palestinian majority", "qid": "22", "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00027-000", "rank": 33, "score": 233812.0}, {"content": "Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: Many/most Israelis and Palestinians support two-state solution", "qid": "22", "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00001-000", "rank": 34, "score": 233416.0}, {"content": "Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: A two-state solution is the least bad option", "qid": "22", "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00034-000", "rank": 35, "score": 233327.0}, {"content": "Title: Only a one-state solution can guarantee equal rights for all Content: A one-state solution is the most just because a two-state solution would inherently result in a worse situation for the Palestinians than the Israelis, whereas a one-state solution would guarantee equal rights for all. The July 2007 Madrid meeting in favour of a one-state solution put firth that: \u201cA two-state solution is predicated on the unjust premise that peace can be achieved by granting limited national rights to Palestinians living in the areas occupied in 1967, while denying the rights of Palestinians inside the 1948 borders and in the Diaspora.\u201d Thus, the two-state solution condemns Palestinian citizens of Israel to permanent second-class status within their homeland, in a racist state that denies their rights by enacting laws that privilege Jews constitutionally, legally, politically, socially and culturally. Moreover, the two-state solution denies Palestinian refugees their internationally recognized right of return.\u201d(14) A two-state solution, particularly one that enables a Jewish state, would also most likely alienate the Palestinian population remaining within Israel. At best, they would be second class citizens. At worst, they would be pushed out, directly or indirectly.(13) A two-state solution, and the establishment of a Jewish state, would also kill the idea of the return of Palestinian refugees that were expelled from Israel during various wars and conflicts. The Palestinian state created would also- if past experience is any judge- be highly divided (between factions such as Hamas and Fatah) and dysfunctional. This situation would have a material impact on the quality of life of citizens of the new Palestinian.(15)(16) Therefore, a one-state solution is more just than a two-state solution.", "qid": "22", "docid": "8d325e50-2019-04-15T20:22:20Z-00017-000", "rank": 36, "score": 232180.0}, {"content": "Title: in the conflict between Israel and Palestine, a two-state solution is better justified than a one-state solution Content: Only a one-state solution can end the conflict", "qid": "22", "docid": "8d325e50-2019-04-15T20:22:20Z-00002-000", "rank": 37, "score": 232096.0}, {"content": "Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: Idea of Jewish state, in two-state solution, is undemocratic", "qid": "22", "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00022-000", "rank": 38, "score": 230396.0}, {"content": "Title: Two-state solution offers peace, the most important factor Content: Shimon Peres. \"One Region, Two States\". Washington Post. February 10, 2009: \"Those not committed to this solution argue that, after the creation of a Palestinian state, Israel's waist would be too narrow -- some six miles -- to ensure security for its citizens. [...] Indeed, six miles will be too narrow to guarantee full security, which only reinforces our belief that Israel's safety is not embedded only in territorial defense but in peace. Peace provides breadth of wings, even when the waist is narrow.\"", "qid": "22", "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00053-000", "rank": 39, "score": 230163.0}, {"content": "Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: Two-state plan respects democratic will for separate states", "qid": "22", "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00028-000", "rank": 40, "score": 229813.0}, {"content": "Title: Israel and Palestine issue: Palestines future in the world map Content: Although the two-state solution is increasingly losing support among Israelis and Palestinians, it still remains the basic approach to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The struggle over the historical British Mandate of Palestine/Eretz Yisrael, now divided between Israel, Jordan, and the territories in between, can possibly be resolved by confederative arrangements. It can be politically transformed into a trilateral confederation\"a system that combines self-rule with shared rule. It will be comprised of three distinct, independent, sovereign states: the Jewish State of Israel, the Arab State of Palestine, and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, and run by a Jerusalem-based confederal authority. Such a political arrangement may be the best form of government for the resolution of the heart of the Arab-Israeli conflict and the key for a full normalization of the relations between Israel and all Arab states. This concept was first presented in 1937 by Britain\"s Peel Commission and subsequently proposed by the United Nations in the 1947 Partition Plan. Since 1993, this solution has been accepted not only by the international community, but also by Israel and the Palestinians themselves. In 2002, it was proffered by President George W. Bush as a new vision for the Middle East, and supported by the Arab League. Since President Barack Obama\"s first inauguration in January 2009, he too has been promoting this vision. Even Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in his famous speech at Israel\"s Bar-Ilan University in June 2009, spoke of a Palestinian state, albeit one with very strict limits and certain conditions. At the basis of this confederation solution is the recognition that despite the moral and historical rights of the Jews to the Land of Israel, or Eretz Yisrael, we cannot ignore the realty on the ground: Palestinians will fight tooth and nail for national self-determination. The Israelis and Palestinians have had their destiny interconnected by virtue of the common land they live in, so they must accept that the constraints of Middle Eastern geography and demography engage in cooperation and compromise. Their historical aspirations and dreams of maximizing their territory must be compromised so that the two peoples can share the disputed land of historical Palestine/Eretz Yisrael.", "qid": "22", "docid": "3dc15a15-2019-04-18T17:31:16Z-00005-000", "rank": 41, "score": 229704.0}, {"content": "Title: Iranian support for a two-state solution is diplomatically valuable Content: Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinezhad has stated that Iran would support a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The success of a two-state solution, therefore, would, at a minimum, gain the support and possibly cooperation of the Iranians. This would be valuable diplomatically, particularly in resolving the larger conflict between Iran and the West.", "qid": "22", "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00064-000", "rank": 42, "score": 229342.0}, {"content": "Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: Two-state solution offers peace, the most important factor", "qid": "22", "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00018-000", "rank": 43, "score": 229087.0}, {"content": "Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: Israelis/Palestinians are too intermingled for two state-solution", "qid": "22", "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00025-000", "rank": 44, "score": 228387.0}, {"content": "Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: Two-state solution gives Palestinians unequal rights", "qid": "22", "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00024-000", "rank": 45, "score": 227568.0}, {"content": "Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: Israel will simply not accept a two-state solution", "qid": "22", "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00014-000", "rank": 46, "score": 227280.0}, {"content": "Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: Israeli settlements ought not justify denying Palestinians a state.", "qid": "22", "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00003-000", "rank": 47, "score": 226437.0}, {"content": "Title: Israelis/Palestinians are too intermingled for two state-solution Content: Mohammed Khaku. \"The Case for One-State Solution for the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict\". Cross-Cultural Understanding. May 2008: \"The only solution for the Palestinians is the creation of a single state in Palestine-Israel. Since the Palestinian and Israeli populations are so intermingled and a million Palestinians live throughout Israel the feasibility of a bi-national state, with the two peoples living in a kind of federation, seems workable. Given this 'reality' on the ground, the most practical solution seems to be a united democratic state offering equal citizenship for all: One Person, One Vote.\"", "qid": "22", "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00046-000", "rank": 48, "score": 225573.0}, {"content": "Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: A two-state conflict will not end conflict", "qid": "22", "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00032-000", "rank": 49, "score": 225149.0}, {"content": "Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: Palestinians are too divided to constitute a state.", "qid": "22", "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00011-000", "rank": 50, "score": 225030.0}, {"content": "Title: UN support would breath new light into the two-state solution Content: Jonathan Freedland. \"Britain should say yes to Palestinian statehood \u2013 and so should Israel.\" guardian.co.uk. September 13th, 2011: \"UN recognition of a Palestinian state in the territories occupied by Israel in 1967 will breathe fresh life into the ailing idea which, despite everything, remains the last best hope of Israeli-Palestinian peace \u2013 a two-state solution. By recognising a state of Palestine alongside Israel, the UN will entrench the notion that the only way to resolve this most stubborn of conflicts is for these two nations to divide the land between them into two states. In so doing it will halt the steady drift, born of despair more than enthusiasm, towards the so-called one-state solution \u2013 so-called because while it would bring one state, it offers no solution, just a single entity that would frustrate the yearning for self-determination of both sides.\"", "qid": "22", "docid": "a9ca9e97-2019-04-17T11:47:19Z-00039-000", "rank": 51, "score": 225009.0}, {"content": "Title: Israel will simply not accept a two-state solution Content: There are many indications that, despite the rhetoric, Israel will not accept a two-state solution. The most important factor is the growth of settlements, which would have to be removed under a two-state solution, which many believe would be met by violent resistance by Jewish settlers. Territorial vulnerabilities from a two-state solution, and the inability to control the borders of the Palestinian state are also problems that make Israel unlikely to accept a two-state solution.", "qid": "22", "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00057-000", "rank": 52, "score": 224597.0}, {"content": "Title: Does Palestine Deserve autonomy Content: Israel finally accepting the two state solution would be a good thing since the apartheid would end, military oppression would be stopped and peaceful stability could be achieved. The Palestinians will be free of the Knesset, be aloud to properly partake in political elections and not be culturally violated. This solution would entail the removal of the wall, granting most of the West Bank and Gaza independence, signing a peace treaty, Establishing stronger diplomatic relations with each other, halting all building of illegal Israeli settlements on Palestinian land and call for the complete retraction of the Israeli military in the occupied territory (Won't go into any more hypothetical detail). Both are victims of each other (con-temporarily Palestine more so though)", "qid": "22", "docid": "74054f75-2019-04-18T16:54:56Z-00005-000", "rank": 53, "score": 224065.0}, {"content": "Title: Two-state solution does not offer Palestinians enough space. Content: A two-state solution offers the Palestinians a very small amount of territory in the West Bank and Gaza strip. This small amount of space is not going to work for such a large and rapidly growing population of Palestinians.", "qid": "22", "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00063-000", "rank": 54, "score": 222771.0}, {"content": "Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: One-state solution would end Israel as a Jewish state", "qid": "22", "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00023-000", "rank": 55, "score": 222607.0}, {"content": "Title: The will make that a two-state solution will be the final settlement even if its contours are unclear Content: The recognition of a Palestinian state by the UN would have de facto effect of freezing out alternative plans for a settlement \u2013 i.e. a one state solution, or some sort of autonomy \u2013 and making clear that the end result, if not necessarily two states on boundaries approximating those of 1967, will none the less be two states in some form. This is because the Palestinians, once they have gained recognition as a state, are unlikely to ever bargain it away. This in turn removes a number of the fantasies about \u201cautonomy\u201d floating around in Israel, as well as fears about Jews being swamped in a bi-national state. The issues of dispute will therefore be reduced to those of settling boundaries, setting up trade and customs policies, and deciding on sovereignty over holy places.[1] [1] Rosenberg, M.J., \u2018Obama Should Support Palestinian Statehood at the United Nations\u2019, HuffPost World, 22 July 2011, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mj-rosenberg/obama-should-support-pale_b_9...", "qid": "22", "docid": "3c5b3139-2019-04-15T20:22:23Z-00005-000", "rank": 56, "score": 222165.0}, {"content": "Title: Palestinians do not want peace and a two-state solution Content: Jeff Jacoby. \"Peace isn't Arab goal\". Boston Globe. May 20, 2009: \"International consensus or no, the two-state solution is a chimera. Peace will not be achieved by granting sovereignty to the Palestinians, because Palestinian sovereignty has never been the Arabs' goal. Time and time again, a two-state solution has been proposed. Time and time again, the Arabs have turned it down.\"", "qid": "22", "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00059-000", "rank": 57, "score": 222045.0}, {"content": "Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: Iranian support for a two-state solution is diplomatically valuable", "qid": "22", "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00007-000", "rank": 58, "score": 221605.0}, {"content": "Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: Israeli settlements make a two-state solution impossible", "qid": "22", "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00002-000", "rank": 59, "score": 219419.0}, {"content": "Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: A Palestinian state would be dysfunctional", "qid": "22", "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00010-000", "rank": 60, "score": 219167.0}, {"content": "Title: Palestinian state would be base for terrorism Content: \"Gaza and the two-state solution\". The Recliner Commentaries. May 16, 2009: \"Gaza was the perfect test case for Palestinians to prove they were ready for \"the two state solution\" which everyone seems to think is the best solution to peace in the mid-east--everyone but Muslim hardliners who want nothing less than Israel's destruction, that is. [...] And yet the Gaza experiment has failed miserably. The people elected a terrorist government which has spent so much of its money, not on the welfare of the Palestinian people, but on attacking Israel! [...] How can Israel be expected to support a two-state solution when Gaza has only turned out to be a base for attacking Israel?\"", "qid": "22", "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00054-000", "rank": 61, "score": 218879.0}, {"content": "Title: Two-state solution offers adequate territory to Palestinians Content: Shimon Peres. \"One Region, Two States\". Washington Post. February 10, 2009: \"Dissenters from the two-state solution contend -- not without some reason -- that Gaza and the West Bank are too small to absorb the Palestinian refugees. Yet this would also be the case under the one-state formula; it would result in a state that is merely 24,000 square kilometers and that already overflows with a population exceeding 10 million (5.5 million Jews and 4.5 million Arabs). While cynics might question the size of the West Bank and Gaza, optimists should look no further than Singapore for reassurance.\"", "qid": "22", "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00062-000", "rank": 62, "score": 218876.0}, {"content": "Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: Israel loses strategic West Bank mountains in two-state solution", "qid": "22", "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00015-000", "rank": 63, "score": 217773.0}, {"content": "Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: Palestinians do not want peace and a two-state solution", "qid": "22", "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00012-000", "rank": 64, "score": 217386.0}, {"content": "Title: Many/most Israelis and Palestinians support two-state solution Content: The New York Review of Books reported in a 2008 review of the middle east situation that \"[t]hroughout the years, polls consistently showed respectable Israeli and Palestinian majorities in favor of a negotiated two-state settlement.\"[2]", "qid": "22", "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00070-000", "rank": 65, "score": 216987.0}, {"content": "Title: Only a one-state solution can end the conflict Content: It was no less a man than Albert Einstein who believed in 'sympathetic cooperation' between 'the two great Semitic peoples' and who insisted that 'no problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.' A relative handful of Israelis and Palestinians are beginning to survey the proverbial new ground, considering what Einstein's theories would mean in practice. They might take heart from Einstein's friend Martin Buber, the great philosopher who advocated a bi-national state of 'joint sovereignty,' with 'complete equality of rights between the two partners,' based on 'the love of their homeland that the two peoples share.'(10) This position has been adopted by some Palestinian leaders: In October 2005, Nusseibeh, then president of al-Quds University in Jerusalem, and several other liberal Palestinian political activists and intellectuals held a press conference in Jerusalem, stating: \u201cWe are pressing now for equal political and legal rights within a single, democratic Israel, and we are confident that our Israeli brothers and sisters will welcome us and that together we will build a free and democratic state in which Jews and Arabs will live together in peace.\u201d(5) A two-state solution, however, would most likely foster continued conflict, for two reasons. Firstly, a Palestinian state would be base for terrorism. As seen when Israel withdrew from Gaza, the Palestinians there did not embrace the two-state solution, but the Muslim hardliners who controlled Gaza continued to want nothing less than Israel's destruction, and Gaza's newly-elected Hamas government spent much of its money not on the welfare of Palestinians but on attacking Israel.(11) Similarly, a two-state solution makes Israel too narrow and vulnerable. A two-state solution would make Israel only 6 miles wide at a number of points where the West Bank juts into Israeli territory.(1) This creates a number of vulnerabilities, particularly the risk that Israel may become divided during a war (a not unlikely prospect). For all these reasons, a two-state solution cannot offer true peace, but a one-state solution built on co-operation and equal rights can, and so a one-state solution is more just.", "qid": "22", "docid": "8d325e50-2019-04-15T20:22:20Z-00013-000", "rank": 66, "score": 216823.0}, {"content": "Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: General statements in support of a two-state solution", "qid": "22", "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00033-000", "rank": 67, "score": 215249.0}, {"content": "Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: Israel will not relinquish Judea, Samaria in two-state solution", "qid": "22", "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00021-000", "rank": 68, "score": 215038.0}, {"content": "Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: Inclusive one-state solution adopts democratic principles", "qid": "22", "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00026-000", "rank": 69, "score": 213659.0}, {"content": "Title: Do you think that a two state solution for Middle East is a must Content: I will argue that (1) a two-state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli territorial dispute is a must if we are interested in arbitrating according to a common standard of justice. (1): it is hopeless to assign an exact magnitude of blame in which one side or the other receives a predominant burden of fault. (2): in absence of exact calibrations, a 50-50 model to dispute resolution is both most practical and fairest. (3): natalist combat (meaning the struggle to demographically erode away the other party is practical but immoral)", "qid": "22", "docid": "df3df8f2-2019-04-18T12:26:13Z-00001-000", "rank": 70, "score": 213420.0}, {"content": "Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: Israelis/Palestinians can coexist peacefully in one state", "qid": "22", "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00031-000", "rank": 71, "score": 213017.0}, {"content": "Title: One state is more peaceful then a two state solution. Content: \"The Palestinians are like crocodiles, the more you give them meat, they want more.\" -- Ehud Barak, Prime Minister of Israel at the time - August 28, 2000. Reported in the Jerusalem Post August 30, 2000.", "qid": "22", "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00042-000", "rank": 72, "score": 212837.0}, {"content": "Title: Palestinians are too divided to constitute a state. Content: MJ Rosenberg. \"Loving The Two-State Solution to Death\". Huffington Post. December 22, 2008: \"we are further from implementing the two-state solution today than we were in 2001. In fact, it can't be implemented because the Palestinians themselves constitute two states. Without Palestinian unity -- unity that ended with the Hamas election and then full seizure of power in Gaza--the two-state solution is simply not achievable.\"", "qid": "22", "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00060-000", "rank": 73, "score": 211756.0}, {"content": "Title: A two-state solution makes Israel too narrow, vulnerable. Content: A two-state solution would make Israel only 6 miles wide at a number of points where the West Bank juts into Israeli territory. This creates a number of vulnerabilities, particularly the risk that Israel become divided during a war (a not unlikely prospect).", "qid": "22", "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00055-000", "rank": 74, "score": 210773.0}, {"content": "Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: Palestinians/Israelis cannot live in peace in one state", "qid": "22", "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00035-000", "rank": 75, "score": 210548.0}, {"content": "Title: Palestinian support for two-state solution declined around 2008. Content: The Reut Institute described in a May 1, 2008 report, \"a trend towards the erosion of the principle of the Two-State Solution among the 'moderate' Palestinian camp, as well as among additional Arab elements.\"[3]", "qid": "22", "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00071-000", "rank": 76, "score": 209519.0}, {"content": "Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: General statements in favor of a one-state solution", "qid": "22", "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00030-000", "rank": 77, "score": 208580.0}, {"content": "Title: One-state would see Israeli minority ruling over Palestinian majority Content: \"Is the two-state solution in danger?\". Haaretz. May 21, 2009: \"The left in Israel has long warned that if settlement construction continues and Israel does not separate from the Palestinians, the country will eventually slide into an apartheid-like reality in which a Jewish minority rules over an Arab majority. The result, they contend: the end of a democratic, Jewish state.\"", "qid": "22", "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00044-000", "rank": 78, "score": 206932.0}, {"content": "Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: Palestinian state would be base for terrorism", "qid": "22", "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00017-000", "rank": 79, "score": 206875.0}, {"content": "Title: One-state solution would end Israel as a Jewish state Content: Shimon Peres. \"One Region, Two States\". Washington Post. February 10, 2009: \"A minority of Middle East pundits have recently emerged as advocates for a one-state solution, which would undermine Israel's legitimacy and internationally recognized right to exist as a sovereign Jewish state in the land of my forefathers. [...] From Israel's perspective, it is not possible for the Jewish people to accept an arrangement that signifies the end of the existence of a Jewish state.\" [The reason for this is that it could not be considered a Jewish state if it housed a very large Palestinian population].", "qid": "22", "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00048-000", "rank": 80, "score": 206784.0}, {"content": "Title: A two-state solution will not assuage Iran. Content: \"Two States? Many Problems\". Los Angeles Times, Letter to the Editor. May 7, 2009: \"Iran's disbanding its nuclear weapons program is surely not dependent on resolving the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Iran wants to be the dominant power in the Middle East, and it wants nuclear weapons so that it can threaten not only Israel but other states in the region. [...] If Iran's motivation to develop WMD was to effect resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Saudi Arabia and Egypt wouldn't have grave concerns.\"", "qid": "22", "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00065-000", "rank": 81, "score": 206582.0}, {"content": "Title: Only a one-state solution can end the conflict Content: These arguments about 'sympathetic cooperation' ignore the realities on the ground of two people who are and seem certain to remain violently opposed to each other as long as they struggle over control over a single state rather than each having a state of their own. Furthermore, offering the Palestinians a sovereign state of their own, free from Israeli control, would likely go a long way to satisfying the vast majority of Palestinians, and thus actually make a war against Israel far less likely. As Peres argues: \u201cIndeed, six miles will be too narrow to guarantee full security, which only reinforces our belief that Israel's safety is not embedded only in territorial defence but in peace. Peace provides breadth of wings, even when the waist is narrow.\u201d(1)", "qid": "22", "docid": "8d325e50-2019-04-15T20:22:20Z-00012-000", "rank": 82, "score": 205026.0}, {"content": "Title: Israelis and Palestinians are too intermingled for a two-state solution Content: A million Palestinians live throughout Israel even without the West Bank and Gaza strip, and when the Israeli settlements in the West Bank are considered also, it becomes clear that dividing these two populations is simply unfeasible. By comparison, the feasibility of a bi-national state, with the two peoples living in a kind of federation, seems workable. Given this 'reality' on the ground, the most practical solution seems to be a united democratic state offering equal citizenship for all: One Person, One Vote.(12) The ever-expanding Israeli settlements in the West Bank particularly represent a barrier to the separation of the two peoples into two states. In 1993, when Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestine Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat famously shook hands on the White House lawn, there were 109,000 Israelis living in settlements across the West Bank (not including Jerusalem). Today there are 275,000, in more than 230 settlements and strategically placed 'outposts' designed to cement a permanent Jewish presence on Palestinian land.(10) Forcibly removing settlers would be too difficult, could foment civil strife among Jewish Israeli citizens, and would create a level of resentment among fundamentalist Jews that would likely inflame the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.", "qid": "22", "docid": "8d325e50-2019-04-15T20:22:20Z-00015-000", "rank": 83, "score": 203403.0}, {"content": "Title: A Palestinian state would be dysfunctional Content: \"Why plans for a two-state solution in the Middle East have failed.\". International Journal on World Peace. March 1, 2008: \"The plan for a Palestinian state failed to comprehend that the Palestinians, unlike the Jews, had not created an apparatus for self-government.\"", "qid": "22", "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00061-000", "rank": 84, "score": 203292.0}, {"content": "Title: Blockade delegitimizes Hamas, preservers two-state solution Content: Yossi Klein Halevi. \"There\u2019s No Alternative.\" New York Times Room for Debate. June 1, 2010: \"The political rationale for the siege is that only by eroding Hamas\u2019s power can the two-state solution remain viable. So long as Hamas remains in control of Gaza, the Israeli public, which now overwhelmingly supports the principle of two states, will not agree to withdraw from the West Bank.\"", "qid": "22", "docid": "8aaee538-2019-04-17T11:47:26Z-00069-000", "rank": 85, "score": 201715.0}, {"content": "Title: US supports two-state solution, but not via UN Content: Remarks by President Obama in Address to the United Nations General Assembly. The White House. September 21st, 2011: \"One year ago, I stood at this podium and I called for an independent Palestine. I believed then, and I believe now, that the Palestinian people deserve a state of their own. But what I also said is that a genuine peace can only be realized between the Israelis and the Palestinians themselves. One year later, despite extensive efforts by America and others, the parties have not bridged their differences. [...] the question isn\u2019t the goal that we seek -- the question is how do we reach that goal. And I am convinced that there is no short cut to the end of a conflict that has endured for decades. Peace is hard work. Peace will not come through statements and resolutions at the United Nations -- if it were that easy, it would have been accomplished by now. Ultimately, it is the Israelis and the Palestinians who must live side by side. Ultimately, it is the Israelis and the Palestinians -- not us \u2013- who must reach agreement on the issues that divide them: on borders and on security, on refugees and Jerusalem.\"", "qid": "22", "docid": "a9ca9e97-2019-04-17T11:47:19Z-00074-000", "rank": 86, "score": 200892.0}, {"content": "Title: A two-state conflict will not end conflict Content: Prof. Hassan Nafaa. \"No Room for Two States\". Global Research. February 12, 2008: \"The conflict between the Palestinians and the Zionist movement is not over disputed borders or material interests and, therefore, resolvable by merely coming to an agreement over permanent borders and a give-and-take over material interests. Rather, it is a conflict between two identities, each of which claims sole propriety right over a given territory. Such a conflict cannot be solved by the same means that are brought to bear on conventional international conflicts.\"", "qid": "22", "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00039-000", "rank": 87, "score": 197863.0}, {"content": "Title: Communism is a logical solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: My opponent argues that a communist government would unite Palestinians and Israelis because it would \"combine their ethnicities\". Forcing two groups of people who are deeply hostile to one another to live together is very unlikely to produce good results. It wouldn't \"combine their ethnicities\" it would just make tensions worse. My opponent argues that since communism distributes land equally, there would be no more territorial disputes. Neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians want equal land redistribution. The vast majority of Palestinians want an independent state--a fully realized and truly independent state--in the West Bank and Gaza with East Jerusalem as its capital (1). This means firstly that forcing the two countries together would be against the wishes of there people, and secondly that equal land distribution would not please either group. My opponent also argues that \"Any class systems would vanish because everyone would become equal. This would also eliminate the large gap between wealthy and poor that plagues the Palestinian populace and allows the Israelis to keep power.\" Under ideal communism perhaps, but in practice in every \"communist\" country classes still existed, it would be very, very unlikely. My opponent argues that \"unlike a parallel state solution this would solve the problem of unity by having the one communist party be made up of Palestinians and Israelis alike.\" Once again, the entire goal of the Palestinian people is to have INDEPENDENCE. What evidence is there that shows that the only alternative to a \"strong central government\" is a weak umbrella one? Once more, forcing them into becoming ONE people would be one of the worst things for both sides because the Palestinians want independence more than anything else. You argue that a single state solution would not unify the two groups without the constant use of force, when under your proposal of communism Israel and Palestine would be magically united without the use of force? What does China have to do with this debate? This is a debate about ISRAEL and PALESTINE, not CHINA. That entire paragraph is totally off topic, and on top of that inaccurate. Go look up the name Deng Xiaoping and then come back and tell me how \"communist\" China is. Communism would not solve any of the key issues of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is also highly unrealistic and illogical since it would not be supported by either of the people seeing as Israel is a very capitalist country and Palestine's entire goal is independence. Communism is not a logical answer to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict because it would not effectively solve any of the key issues, is not practically realistic, and would never be supported by the people. (1) http://www.endtheoccupation.org...", "qid": "22", "docid": "71d8bac1-2019-04-18T17:26:47Z-00002-000", "rank": 88, "score": 197597.0}, {"content": "Title: Israelis/Palestinians can coexist peacefully in one state Content: Sandy Tolan. \"George Mitchell and the end of the two-state solution\". Christian Science Monitor. February 4, 2009: \"it was no less a man than Albert Einstein who believed in 'sympathetic cooperation' between 'the two great Semitic peoples' and who insisted that 'no problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.' A relative handful of Israelis and Palestinians are beginning to survey the proverbial new ground, considering what Einstein's theories would mean in practice. They might take heart from Einstein's friend Martin Buber, the great philosopher who advocated a binational state of 'joint sovereignty,' with 'complete equality of rights between the two partners,' based on 'the love of their homeland that the two peoples share.'\"", "qid": "22", "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00040-000", "rank": 89, "score": 196000.0}, {"content": "Title: A one-state solution mean Israel would cease to be either democratic or Jewish Content: As described in the above quote by Peres, the vast majority of Israelis desire to live in a Jewish homeland in which they can define their own institutions and culture in light of their Jewish heritage. A one-state solution, however, would undermine Israel's legitimacy and internationally recognized right to exist as a sovereign Jewish state in the land of the Jewish forefathers. From Israel's perspective, it is not possible for the Jewish people to accept an arrangement that signifies the end of the existence of a Jewish state, which would be the result of a one-state solution, as the state could not be considered a Jewish one if it housed a very large Palestinian population, possibly even a Palestinian majority.(1) For this reason it is unlikely that any one-state solution would be truly democratic, and rather would be a situation of an Israeli minority ruling over a Palestinian majority, who would be largely excluded from the running of the country and determining their own affairs.(4) A one-state solution would only produce an explosive situation in which Jews would dominate the economy and most other aspects of the new state, creating a reality of exploitation. At that point in time, the new state would be a new form of occupation that would only set the conflict on a more violent track.(5) Therefore, the new state created by a one-state solution would be unacceptable either to Israelis or to Palestinians, as it would cease to be either Jewish or democratic, and so would not be a just outcome. Only a two-state solution can keep Israel Jewish and democratic, and allow a Palestinian state similarly to be Arab and democratic, as it would most likely wish.", "qid": "22", "docid": "8d325e50-2019-04-15T20:22:20Z-00009-000", "rank": 90, "score": 195952.0}, {"content": "Title: Israel loses strategic West Bank mountains in two-state solution Content: Giving control over the West Bank to the Palestinians would deprive Israel of the strategic asset of the mountains in the West Bank, which provide a natural barrier to foreign invasions as well as a good vantage scouting invaders or nefarious activities.", "qid": "22", "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00056-000", "rank": 91, "score": 193333.0}, {"content": "Title: Palestinians want two-state solution, assuming settlements stop. Content: Jerusalem - PLO Executive Committee Secretary Yasir Abd-Rabbuh replying to Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's statements that he is ready to negotiate immediately with the Palestinians by affirming that no negotiations will take place before the suspension of the settlement activities. \"Abd-Rabbuh said in statements to Al-Ayyam: There can be no negotiations unless the Israelis stop the settlement activities and we no longer wish to meet with the Israelis on the same table to exchange views and ideas while they change the facts on the ground in Jerusalem and all the West Bank. This is a policy that represents the highest forms of deception.\"", "qid": "22", "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00058-000", "rank": 92, "score": 187807.0}, {"content": "Title: Communism is a logical solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: \"Forcing two groups of people who are deeply hostile to one another to live together is very unlikely to produce good results. \" They are hostile to each other for complex historical reasons, communism will not make that go away overnight. Once more, all the Palestinians want is independence, not equality. (1) There's a reason why the Palestinian Liberation Organizations is recognized as the sole representative of the Palestinian people. \"Neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians want equal land redistribution. The vast majority of Palestinians want an independent state\" The outcome of war such as the one that occurred in 1948 is unlikely to reoccur for three reasons. 1. ) The Palestinians would be getting what they wanted, unlike in 1948. 2. ) The PLO has denounced violence and terrorism and become an observer state in the UN. 3. ) By recognizing Palestinian independence, Israel would be improving relations with its Arab neighbors, not hurting them. This would also eliminate the large gap between wealthy and poor that plagues the Palestinian populace and allows the Israelis to keep power. \" Under ideal communism perhaps, but in practice in every \"communist\" country classes still existed, it would be very, very unlikely. If there has never been a communist country ever, what makes you think Israel could be the first one? This is an illogical answer because it is simply not realistic. Once again, the entire goal of the Palestinian people is to have INDEPENDENCE. What evidence is there that shows that the only alternative to a \"strong central government\" is a weak umbrella one? Once more, forcing them into becoming ONE people would be one of the worst things for both sides because the Palestinians want independence more than anything else. Just because every other option has flaws does not immediately mean that communism isn't a flawed option as well. \"Real\" communism under your own definition advocates class war, and something tells me that a class war wouldn't lessen the violence between Israel and Palestine. It is possible to have a fair and equal two state solution as well. I would like to congratulate my opponent on achieving the prestigious rank of \"Level 69 goblin virgin mage\". Once again, and I really don't know how many times I can emphasize this, the Palestinians want independence more than anything, and the Israelis want security. (2) Even now the Palestinians and Israelis live in relative separation. By forcing them together the Palestinians would be deprived of their independence, and as such would very likely lash out against Israel. This already happened in the \"al-Aqsa Intifada\" (3) Thus, the Palestinians would be denied their independence and the Israelis their security, meaning that neither faction had their main goal met, making communism a highly illogical solution once more. This is a debate about ISRAEL and PALESTINE, not CHINA. I used caps lock because you seem to get distracted from the argument easily and typed up a whole pointless paragraph about China, which has nothing to do with Israel and Palestine. If you would like to argue the merits of Maoism, please save it for another debate. It is also highly unrealistic and illogical since it would not be supported by either of the people seeing as Israel is a very capitalist country What I meant is that Israel operates under a capitalist economic system, and that it's main export and import partner (4) as well as military ally is the United States, which would probably not take kindly to its main ally in the Middle East to turning communist. \"True\" communism would not work because as I have proven it would not help solve any of the main issues of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, would not give either faction what they wanted, and would simply not be supported by the people. I'm sorry to be the one to tell you this, but in order to be logical something has to work practically, so you can't use semantics to try to distort the argument. Vote Con! Sources: 1. ) . http://www.endtheoccupation.org... 2. ) . http://www.endtheoccupation.org... 3. ) . http://www.endtheoccupation.org... 4. ) . http://en.wikipedia.org...", "qid": "22", "docid": "71d8bac1-2019-04-18T17:26:47Z-00000-000", "rank": 93, "score": 184823.0}, {"content": "Title: Communism is a logical solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: (No really you totally killed it) \u201cForcing two groups of people who are deeply hostile to one another to live together is very unlikely to produce good results. \u201d Must remind you that in the Communist Manifesto, Marx describes history as a class struggle, and that class ultimately divided us more than race and ethnicity, so according to the resolution \u201ccommunism is a logical solution to the conflict\u201d this is since confirmed because, we must face the facts all the Palestinians want is really equality, and the absorption and formation of a proletariat class is key to a happy society. \u201cNeither the Israelis nor the Palestinians want equal land redistribution. The vast majority of Palestinians want an independent state\u201d Okay so here\u2019s where I get to attack a two state solution, with a question. What happened in 1948, when the British removed troops from Palestine and the Israelis declared independence? What happened was the Palestinians immediately started uprising and six other Arab countries attacks. In my statements I addressed this by saying that the two countries would be at a constant struggle with each other, and therefore, the statement about equal distribution of land is met and affirmed. This would also eliminate the large gap between wealthy and poor that plagues the Palestinian populace and allows the Israelis to keep power. \" Under ideal communism perhaps, but in practice in every \"communist\" country classes still existed, it would be very, very unlikely. I\u2019ll dispute your statement by saying there has never been a true communist country ever, and according to the definition agreed upon, this would work in alleviating tensions, therefore this is also a logical answer. Once again, the entire goal of the Palestinian people is to have INDEPENDENCE. What evidence is there that shows that the only alternative to a \"strong central government\" is a weak umbrella one? Once more, forcing them into becoming ONE people would be one of the worst things for both sides because the Palestinians want independence more than anything else. It seems my opponent was not smart enough to catch this but, it has been my goal to attack every one of the proposed resolution to institute there flaws and irrationality\u2019s, so that I could prove communism is a rational option. And you need to understand that no matter how much the Palestinians want independence, the resolution has to be equal and fair for both sides, and that is why REAL communism is a rational solution as it is for most other world problems. You argue that a single state solution would not unify the two groups without the constant use of force, when under your proposal of communism Israel and Palestine would be magically united without the use of force? First of all sir don\u2019t talk lightly about magic around me I am a level 69 goblin virgin mage. :P And yes once again like Marx said \u201chistory can be viewed as a constant class struggle\u201d so under this statement yes, the formation of the Israelis and Palestinians into a single proletariat would solve all problems of unity. This is a debate about ISRAEL and PALESTINE, not CHINA. Geez did your caps lock button have a seizure or something? This was simply to state that the rise of Maoism has worked very well for China and Maoism is a distort form of communism. It is also highly unrealistic and illogical since it would not be supported by either of the people seeing as Israel is a very capitalist country Okay, um ill just pretend you thought that one out and did not just say that\u2026 And so it is clear that TRUE communism would be a logical solution to the problem and that is all I had to prove, I never had to prove whether it would work (even though I did), and I have proven why it is logical and refuted all my opponents points, the victory is mine. Vote Pro! !! Sources: 1: . http://www.marxists.org... 2: . http://en.wikipedia.org... 3: . http://en.wikipedia.org...", "qid": "22", "docid": "71d8bac1-2019-04-18T17:26:47Z-00001-000", "rank": 94, "score": 184584.0}, {"content": "Title: A Palestinian State Content: The Israeli's may have control, but they are willing to compromise. In fact they have already tried. The Israeli government is not gunna straight up reject any propsotion that could result in peace. They will be more than willing to compromise. They dont really have another choice. You also said: \"Now, giving the Palestineans an independent state would actually cause more problems in the Middle East than it would solve. It is the stated policy of several terrorist groups to use any land that the Israelis give to the PLO to launch further attacks on Israel. The Palestineans cannot manage themselves (as seen in the latest Hamas-Fatah civil war in which Hamas now holds the Gaza Strip and Fatah holds the West Bank). The Israelis, however, are able to keep their own house in order.\" Now lets talk through this. The Palestinians are mad. Why? Because we kicked them of of their land and gave it to the Jews. Gee, that explains all of the killing and hatred. Now how do we solve this problem. Well the way I see it, we have two options. 1. We can kill them all and essentially declare war on the entire islamic world. or 2. We can try to quech their anger by giving them comfort. Give them some of their land back. Give them some infrastructure; some healthcare, grocery stores, electric and water utilities. Give them less to complain about. Comfortable people dont shoot missles at their neighbors. Also, even if the Palestinians didn't quit attacking Israel, we can police the border. We can take military action. Its not like we dont do that already. Israel definatly will take military action. Palestine would hardly be a threat if they caused problems. Lastly, we HAVE to do something. Thousands have died from this comflict and more die every week. If we dont take action, this will continue. Its not just gunna work itself out. Now, I dont see any possible action that we can take except to give them a homeland. Whether or not it works is another debate entirely. The fact of the matter is, what we are doing (or rather not doing) right now isnt gunna solve the problem. At least if we try to quench their anger, we have a shot. Here is an equation to represent my point. Stolen Homeland = Unhappy people Unhappy people = War and Violence War and Violence = Death and more unhappy people Returned Homeland = Happy People Happy people = No war and violence. No War and Violence = Life and More Happy People Which equation do you choose. The answer seems completely obvious to me.", "qid": "22", "docid": "bcdf1d5e-2019-04-18T19:59:53Z-00001-000", "rank": 95, "score": 183931.0}, {"content": "Title: Inclusive one-state solution adopts democratic principles Content: Prof. Hassan Nafaa. \"No Room for Two States\". Global Research. February 12, 2008: \"The single, bi-national democratic state solution has the advantage of conforming to modern liberal democratic principles officially espoused in the West and in Israel itself.\"", "qid": "22", "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00045-000", "rank": 96, "score": 183072.0}, {"content": "Title: A Palestinian State Content: The answer is not obvious, because splitting the land between the two parties will not create happy people on both sides. Both sides want it all. Also, it is impossible to split the states among lines that will be acceptable to both parties. There is not a clear delineating line between \"Jewish Areas\" and \"Palestinian Areas\". Are you willing to force the sides to live apart? A solely Palestinian state will lead to reprisals against the Jewish communities. A solely Israeli state (perhaps with limited Palestinian administration) is the best option. This is why: Because the Israelis have shown that they are willing to live in a liberal democracy, not a terrorist theocracy (the Palestinians, when given the chance, voted Hamas into power in the legislature). The Palestinians are hostile to their neighbor Israel, while Israel just wants to live in peace.", "qid": "22", "docid": "bcdf1d5e-2019-04-18T19:59:53Z-00000-000", "rank": 97, "score": 182935.0}, {"content": "Title: UN recognition would force final negotiations of two-state solution. Content: MJ Rosenberg. \"Obama Should Support Palestinian Statehood at the United Nations.\" Huffington Post. July 22nd, 2011: \"Recognition of the State of Palestine by the United Nations would be a first step on the road toward successful negotiations which must follow UN action. After all, no UN action can force Israel to end the occupation of the West Bank. The army and the settlers will still be there, UN or no UN. That is why the Palestinian leadership says that one of the first things the new State of Palestine would do will be to ask Israel to commence negotiations over borders, security arrangements, refugees, Holy Places, etc. The only difference UN recognition would make is that it would be near impossible for Netanyahu to say 'no' after the United Nations had, in effect, declared that it was occupying not some vague entity but another people's state.\"", "qid": "22", "docid": "a9ca9e97-2019-04-17T11:47:19Z-00040-000", "rank": 98, "score": 181700.0}, {"content": "Title: Israel will not relinquish Judea, Samaria in two-state solution Content: The two-state solution would have Israel relinquish Judea and Samarra. Yet, these are historic regions to the Jews. Israel will not undermine its identity by relinquishing these territories, so it will not and should not accept a two-state solution.", "qid": "22", "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00050-000", "rank": 99, "score": 180865.0}, {"content": "Title: Israel is justified in their invasion of Gaza Content: Thank you for your response. \"My answer to your first point is that diplomacy is completely useless in this situation because the Palestinians have 0% interest living with the Israelis, and the Israelis have 0% interest in living with the Palestinians.\" Although there are huge problems on both sides of the conflict, I don't believe that mass genocide is the only option to solve the middle east conflict. Diplomacy is the only acceptable long term solution, which both parties will have to undertake. \"proportion is no longer relevant because Israel is fighting an enemy that has no qualms about killing civilians to win, so Israel can't either.\" Proportion is absolutely relevant, and key to the justification of the invasion action of Gaza. The fact that terrorists are attacking civilians in Israel does not give the justification to take reprisals against an entire Palestinian population in return. Just as (I'm not going to go to much into this) if an Iraqi terrorist attack an American citizen it does not give America the right to wipe out the entire Iraqi population. You have to concede that the vast majority are innocent of any crimes. \"They hide in homes loyal to them, making the people they hide with just as culpable as them.\" Can you please provide any evidence to back up this statement? The Palestinian population often suffer when Hamas militants break in and commandeer their building to fight. This does not make them culpable for the actions of the militants. There are plenty of examples of people loosing children and family while these people also denounce Hamas. [1] \"This is a misleading example, because that's not what is happening\" Again can you please provide evidence for this statement. I have provided evidence that shows your statement to be false. Many of the people who have died are in no way allied to Hamas, simply bystanders caught in the conflict. \"You quoted AL JAZEERA as evidence\" Are you disputing the casualties involved in the conflict? I also provided links to two other sources. Your denouncing of Al Jazeera seems fairly irrelevant in this light. \"And then you said that Israel is to blame for the humanitarian crisis in the aftermath. This is yet another fallacy. All Palestine has to do is throw the people who keep trying to start wars with Israel out, and this will all be over.\" This is similar to saying in a war, if one side simply surrendered then then atrocities would never have happened, therefore the atrocities are the fault of the victim. This does not justify the actions of Israel and the humanitarian crisis they created. \"Don't act like this is a one-sided conflict.\" I'm absolutely not acting like this is a one sided conflict, and I agree that it's a very difficult situation, with no clear answers on both sides. However we aren't debating the entire conflict, rather the actions of Israel in the specific invasion of Gaza. My opponent has in no way demonstrated how the response from Israel was proportionate or reasonable, and as defined in the opening argument justifiable. He has tried to say that the Palestinian population is responsible for their own mess, and the blame should be attributed to them. I reject this statement because the Palestinian population on the whole is largely innocent, and shouldn't be subject to the humanitarian crisis and deaths as a result. [1]-http://news.bbc.co.uk...", "qid": "22", "docid": "46b8e7f6-2019-04-18T19:31:15Z-00003-000", "rank": 100, "score": 178076.0}]}
{"query": "Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: Physician Assisted Suicide or Euthanasia Should Be Made Legal in America Content: Physician-assisted suicide, also known as euthanasia, should be made legal in the United States because it many cases in is in the patient's best interest. Many painful, terminal conditions exist that lead to long-term suffering and severely effect the quality of life. Life is sacred, yes, but when that life is blind, deaf, paralyzed, unable to swallow, and seizing uncontrollably then there is nothing \"sacred\" about it. Physician assisted suicide would be handled in a similar way to a DNR legally speaking, with the patient signing a paper stating that in the even of a certain illness or medical state they would be okay with having their life ending painlessly, gently, and professionally by a trusted doctor.", "qid": "23", "docid": "7dba56a5-2019-04-18T12:15:17Z-00003-000", "rank": 1, "score": 277925.0}, {"content": "Title: Physician Assisted Suicide or Euthanasia Should Be Made Legal in America Content: Firstly, while yes I agree that there are, \"Terminal conditions that exist leading to long-term suffering and severely effect the quality of life\", Hospitals are outfitted with extremely strong painkillers such as morphine, oxycodone, and pethidine to name a few. I also 100% agree that the undesirable symptoms would be horrific and aren't sacred. But there are many dangers in legalizing euthanasia. First and foremost, executing euthanasia would give a certain paycheck to the physician who aids in this activity, which could cause mental trauma over time, I mean, you're killing someone. While yes it may be a wanted and legal murder, you are still watching the life flow out of another person's eyes. Not only this, but the heartless people in the world may even run a scam just for the paycheck. This would simply be done by the physician who clears his patient for mentally ill, says that he will deteriorate over time, and then kill his patient. The DNR style confirmation from the patient could simply be forged by the doctor or accidentally signed by the patient if the physician provides a medicine that puts the patient into a drowsy state or half-conscious state. Furthermore, if the patient could've been cured, the physicians career could be ruined, the victims family could even go to court and sue for murder. This legalization would clog the government because they need to create clauses, hear court cases, endure protests.", "qid": "23", "docid": "7dba56a5-2019-04-18T12:15:17Z-00002-000", "rank": 2, "score": 265368.0}, {"content": "Title: Legalizing Euthanasia or Physician-Assisted Suicide Content: I accept!Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide should be legal in extreme cases where the patient is willing and suffering from excruciating pain for an extended amount of time with no certain end in site.", "qid": "23", "docid": "dccf7263-2019-04-18T16:52:37Z-00004-000", "rank": 3, "score": 261394.0}, {"content": "Title: Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide Content: Should Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide be legalized for the terminally ill that have no chance of recovering? Please answer yes or no.", "qid": "23", "docid": "d80382e8-2019-04-18T15:28:06Z-00003-000", "rank": 4, "score": 258627.0}, {"content": "Title: Physician Assisted Suicide or Euthanasia Should Be Made Legal in America Content: Well okay, debating now is going to be difficult because you sort of convinced me, so... I mean I tried to write a rebuttal but I mean, that's difficult now.", "qid": "23", "docid": "7dba56a5-2019-04-18T12:15:17Z-00000-000", "rank": 5, "score": 258057.0}, {"content": "Title: Assisted suicide/euthanasia should be legal Content: In light of Jack Kevorkian speaking at my school tonight, I offer up this debate to anyone who wishes to take it on. Bottom line, physician-assisted suicide should be legal. It is absurd that anyone or any group should have the authority to tell someone else what they can and cannot do with their own life with regard to this issue. I believe it to be the height of arrogance that someone can feel as though they can enforce their morality on someone suffering from a terminal disease. The overly moralistic person is not feeling the pain. They will not be affected in any way whether the dying person takes their own life or if they needlessly prolong their suffering. Yet, they insist on using the government to enforce their morality on people they don't even know. A dying person, suffering from cancer or some other horrific illness that promises nothing but a slow, painful death, should be able to die on their own terms, with dignity. I eagerly await someone to accept my open challenge.", "qid": "23", "docid": "9f12f501-2019-04-18T19:55:28Z-00005-000", "rank": 6, "score": 257018.0}, {"content": "Title: physician assisted suicide should be legalized Content: \"This is just me, but I would definitely like it if my doctor would go to the fullest to save me, try everything he/she can, not just be like, oh sorry your dying, want me to kill you?\" That is not relevant to my definition. I understand the point you're making, but it is unrelated to the debate at hand. You seem to be confusing physician-assisted suicide with euthanasia. Physician-assisted suicide is when a physician helps someone commit suicide (see my definition). Euthanasia is the killing of an unconscious (usually terminally ill) patient by a physician, i.e. \"pulling the plug\". (http://depts.washington.edu...) \"just because people in hospitals are pulling the plug, does not mean that people who are crazy are going to stop killing themselves. the two things are not relevant to each other.\" Generally, people who commit suicide are not crazy. They usually are suffering from severe depression or are experiencing extenuating circumstances. These people are reasonable enough to seek help from a physician. My opponent's contention is definitionally irrelevant, and two of my contentions stand unrefuted.", "qid": "23", "docid": "25dc8ac6-2019-04-18T19:24:09Z-00002-000", "rank": 7, "score": 252342.0}, {"content": "Title: Assisted suicide/euthanasia should be legal Content: I don't know why you keep saying that the process is arbitrary, because it isn't. People are not arbitrarily moved to hospice care. That is a much more involved and arduous process among the patient, family and doctors than some doctor simply saying \"Ok, you're going to die now because I've arbitrarily made the decision to let you die without having some medical reason to back it up\". Doctor shopping the likes of Rush Limbaugh hopping around trying to buy amounts of Oxycontin that would ordinarily kill an elephant only happens because such a thing is illegal. Once euthanasia was made legal, the only reason why a doctor would say no is because they medically don't fit a need for it or the doctor doesn't personally believe in it. I, personally, don't believe that a doctor should be allowed to deny someone requesting it. Doctors who do believe in physician-assisted suicide have thus far been forced to watch patients degenerate over long periods of time until a painful death, so why should doctors who don't believe in it be able to skirt their obligation to their patients and deny them the care they deserve? If there is doctor shopping to find someone who will assist someone who wouldn't fit the need for hospice care, then that will be illegal in the same way as doctor shopping for large quantities of controlled drugs is illegal now. It might happen regardless, but to say that small problem should derail euthanasia from becoming legal is ridiculous. If you do think euthanasia should be kept illegal because of the threat of doctor shopping, then we should re-evaluate a number of privileges that doctors have now that might potentially be shopped around for. Are you talking about doctorates or physicians? I take all my classes from Ph.D's, but none of them are physicians. If you are talking about all doctorates, then of course I wouldn't want your friend to help me or anyone commit suicide because they aren't an actual doctor. I wouldn't want my Public Policy professor helping anyone commit suicide. But actual doctors, with actual medical degrees, who actively practice medicine in a medical environment (so pretty much the \"white coat\" physician that everyone thinks of when you say \"doctor) should be allowed to make that call. I figured that when we were talking about physician-assisted suicide, you knew I meant actual physicians and not anyone with just a doctorate. I might have been mistaken, but I doubt it. That's a great story about your dad, but he wouldn't have been able to make the call himself since he wasn't 18, so it doesn't fit in this debate. Is there a possibility that some of the people who would opt for euthanasia would have perhaps pulled out of their illness, such as with your dad...maybe. There are stories of people waking up one morning and no longer having cancer, but this rarely ever happens and should not be counted on to happen with any regularity. Not only would they have to miraculously recover, which almost never happens, but that person would also have to have actually selected euthanasia, which is a personal choice many people will not make. Their suicide would also would have had to happen before they had their miraculous recovery, which presumably would not be a same-day kind of procedure. All of these things happening would make such an occurance incredibly unlikely. Thus, national policy should not be based off of something as unlikely as that, especially since the decision would be based on the individual patient's decision. Death penalty supporters don't seem to be very deterred by the much more likely possibility of putting an innocent person to death, and that's when the state is forcing the issue on the individual.", "qid": "23", "docid": "9f12f501-2019-04-18T19:55:28Z-00001-000", "rank": 8, "score": 251378.0}, {"content": "Title: Physician Assisted Suicide or Euthanasia Should Be Made Legal in America Content: While pain medication is an option for providing comfort towards the end on a person's life, there is only so much medicine can do. For example, look at Tay-Sachs Disease, a degenerative brain disorder primarily affecting Ashkenazi Jews that typically begins at the ages of six months and causes the child to lose their skills over time. By the time the child is three, they are completely paralyzed, nonverbal, unable to swallow, blind, cognitively impaired, and have constant seizures that do not respond to medication. There is nothing you can do for that child but watch them die. That is why euthanasia needs to be an option. It is an act of mercy. Also, to prevent the DNR type document from being falsified as with any legal document there would need to be a witness at such a signing.", "qid": "23", "docid": "7dba56a5-2019-04-18T12:15:17Z-00001-000", "rank": 9, "score": 251035.0}, {"content": "Title: Euthanasia should be legalised Content: Firstly, pro argues that you have the right to stop living if you so desire. However, this stands in direct contridiction of the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in Washington V. Glucksberg where the majority opinion read \"The history of the law's treatment of assisted suicide in this country has been and continues to be one of the rejection of nearly all efforts to permit it. That being the case, our decisions lead us to conclude that the asserted 'right' to assistance in committing suicide is not a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause.\" Therefore under American Law there is absolutely no right to die. Pro also argues that they would only have the option and not be forced to administer it. Perhaps this is true, but any doctor who administers it violates the medical profession. They go against the body that forms the policy for medical treatment as well as the Hippocratic oath which states \"I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan;\" The job of the doctor and physician is to preserve and give comfort to human life, never to end it.", "qid": "23", "docid": "1e884b3e-2019-04-18T16:53:19Z-00005-000", "rank": 10, "score": 250967.0}, {"content": "Title: Assisted suicide/euthanasia should be legal Content: There is one very simple problem with your position. The Hippocratic oath, by which all medicine in this country is practiced, strictly and definitively forbids it. In order to legalize physician assisted suicide you would literally have to re-write the basic code by which all physicians are bound. You argue that morality has no place in medicine, while the exact opposite is true. There is no medicine without morality, else all doctors would be little more than snake oil salesmen. Morality is required as a basic code of being a physician moreso than any other profession save for a preacher. Let's visit your theory for just a moment and assume it should be legal. On what basis or code should the doctor be bound by while making the determination of which patients to \"help\" in this manner? Should it be the Kevorkian method, that is whatever the physician himself believes? Should there be a set of guidelines on when it's acceptable and when it's not? Should it be required to get a second opinion from a consulting physician? How about from a psychologist? Do the ramifications of a suicide on family, particularly dependents, get taken into account? What about the clause in most life insurance policies that explicitly state they don't pay upon suicide? It's clear that some shysters masquerading as caring physicians would quickly take advantage of such a situation for the sake of profit rather than mercy. That is to say, if the first 5 docs say no, you don't qualify, the 6th one will say sure, but not until after the check clears. He'll likely have on staff equally immoral folk with necessary degrees to back him up. I am quite certain that Mr. Kevorkian eloquently stated his position on the matter and he obviously swayed you to his way of thinking, however when one looks at the situation through more than his very narrow viewpoint, it becomes quite obvious there are many obstacles that Jack doesn't adequately address on his lecture tour.", "qid": "23", "docid": "9f12f501-2019-04-18T19:55:28Z-00004-000", "rank": 11, "score": 249804.0}, {"content": "Title: Terminally ill patients should be given the option of assisted death Content: The US national library of medicine did a study on the attitude of terminally ill patients toward euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. In this study they had 70 patients. 32 men and 38 women with a median survival of 44.5 days. 73% of these patients believed that physician assisted suicide should be legalized. The main reasons for choosing this option where pain and their right to choose. As for the pain. Yes it can be managed, but that does not mean the pain will go away. The further into the illness the patient is, the more pain there will be because of the illness spreading and taking over their body. Drugs can only control so much, and a doctor can only give so much medicine before it becomes dangerous. By dangerous I mean too much medicine could cause an overdose, or could cause other side effects such as difficulty breathing which would add more pain for the patient. As for freezing the patient, I am not sure what you mean, but I am going to assume you are talking about cryogenic ally freezing. To be cryogenically frozen the patient must first be pronounced dead. It is illegal to cryogenically freeze someone who is still alive. There are scientist and doctors out there who are always looking for a cure to every known disease out there. however, it takes time to find a cure, and once found it takes an average of 7 years to get the drug into the market. Given how most terminal patients only have 6 months to live, they won't have time to get the drug. Some illnesses do take longer then 6 months to kill, such as aids. However, most patients don't think about ending their suffering, or don't want to end their suffering until it is too much for them to handle. There are certain medical things a doctor looks at to determine the amount of time a terminal patient has left such as how far a cancer has spread and how fast the illness is taking over someone's body. They might not always be accurate, but it is only a guess, which most of the times is pretty accurate. it might not be accurate right down to the last second or minute or hour, but it is close. Selfish is defined as lack of consideration for another. in the case of a person not letting someone make the decision to end their pain is selfish because they are not considering the fact that the person is suffering. With assisted death, the patient can choose when to end their suffering. That would give the patient time to spend with their loved ones and they would know how much time they have left with them. It would also save the patients family from having to watch their loved one suffer in pain. Respect is defined as deep admiration for someone. when you respect the patients decision to end their pain it is not sending a message that their life is less precious than anyone Else's. It is saying that you respect that person's decision. They have a right to say what happens in their life. to say that they don't have a decision is sending a bad message to others. it is kind of like saying you don't think they can make their own decision, as if they were incompetent. Legalizing assisted death would not cause more terminal illnesses. If it is legalized it gives the terminally ill patient more options. It gives them control of the illness. They won't lose respect for themselves because they are given another option. Saying that a terminally ill patient at the end of there life is not the person you once knew is not devaluing the patient. it is simply stating that the person who once was able to run miles without stopping, loved to laugh and hang out with friends, and paint, is no longer able to do that. they lost the things they loved and once looked forward to doing every day. yes they still have their family, but they can't do anything with them like they could before the illness which causes sadness. You would be watching someone who once was happy and always had a smile slowly wither away in the pain into someone unfamiliar to you. Their is nothing to fear but fear itself. so why should someone fear death, and not knowing when they will die? Giving the patient the option to end their pain would put them more at ease and give them time not to fear, or lessen the fear of death. http://zidbits.com... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.skirsch.com...", "qid": "23", "docid": "5501e83e-2019-04-18T13:09:38Z-00005-000", "rank": 12, "score": 247531.0}, {"content": "Title: Euthanasia should be legalized internationally when approved by a trained medical professional Content: Assisted suicide is to be defined as 'the act of accomplishing suicide with the aid of another person. ' Currently, such an act would be viewed by the eyes of the law as murder on the part of the assistant. However, I see no reason as to why, when it has been checked by a medical professional and deemed as acceptable under the circumstances by the same medical professional, it should not be legalized. This, I feel, would negate at least most of the controversies of the debate, as well as negate the arguments that are commonly used to combat the view that euthanasia should be internationally legalised. It was not uncommon, in the realms of History, to hear of doctors bringing about the end of their patients lives to help them avoid unnecessary pain and suffering. It is already legal to allow a person to die of natural causes, for example in the signing of a DNR, when we are able to help them yet recognise their right to die. So why is that different in the case of people who are not imminently suffering from heart attacks or other fast-acting, terminal conditions.", "qid": "23", "docid": "294713ae-2019-04-18T15:54:26Z-00005-000", "rank": 13, "score": 247353.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should legalize Physician Assisted Suicide. Content: Hey lannan, Thank you for extending this debate opportunity to me. I look forward to an intense clash of minds in which all who observe can enjoy. XI: Intro and Definition I would like to begin this debate by making the clear observation that PAS (Physician assisted suicide) is NOT the same as euthanasia. In my own words PAS is self-administered death while euthanasia is the taking of another's life by the actual doctor, with of without their consent. Basically in euthanasia the doctor pulls the trigger (with or without permission by the patient) while in PAS the doctor simply supplies the gun, very different. These quotes will demonstrate what I am saying: \"Physician-Assisted Suicide is where patients with a terminal diagnosis (life-limiting disease) formally request a prescription for a fatal dose of a drug which they can administer to themselves at a time of their choosing......It is a patient-initiated and controlled form of dying, to treat an unbearable situation, and is legal in two states in the U.S.A. (Oregon [Death with Dignity Act 1994] and Washington [2009]), and in Europe in The Netherlands.\" \"Euthanasia is when a physician or other healthcare provider does something, such as administering a known lethal dose of a drug, to deliberately kill a patient, with or without the patient\u2019s consent. It is not legal anywhere in the U.S.A.\" ~http://comfortcarechoices.com... \"Physician-assisted suicide is often confused with euthanasia (sometimes called \"mercy killing\").\"~Wiki: Assisted Suicide XII: PAS is Safe and is fairly common in other countries Many people have misconceptions about physician assisted suicide. PAS is a very safe practice, Countries which allow PAS include: Colombia, Luxembourg, The Netherlands and Canada. In the U.S. these states allow PAS currently: Oregon, Washington, New Mexico, Montana and Vermont. ~Wiki: Assisted Suicide. Another fear many people have about PAS is that it is unsafe and leads to family members forcing others to engage in PAS for personal gain such as inheritance. This would be a major concern if it were not for the reasonability of legislation and the opposition to PAS. What I mean by that is, the fact opposition brings attention to the possibility of abuse, special measures are taken to implement especially safe laws. Here is a sample of the legal process to apply and receive PAS: \"Several safeguards in Death with Dignity laws ensure all patients are protected, and if they wish to use the law, they're in full control of the process. These safeguards and the request process ensure there's no chance patients are coerced to hasten their deaths. The terminally ill patient: verbally requests the medication from the physician twice; each request is separated by 15 days. make a written request to the attending physician; the request is witnessed by two individuals who are not primary care givers or family members. can rescind the verbal and written requests at any time. must be able to self-administer and ingest the prescribed medication. The law further requires... The attending physician must be licensed in the same state as the patient. The physician's diagnosis must include a terminal illness, with six months or less to live. The diagnosis must be certified by a consulting physician, who must also certify that the patient is mentally competent to make and communicate health care decisions. If either physician determines that the patient's judgment is impaired, the patient must be referred for a psychological examination. The attending physician must inform the patient of alternatives, including palliative care, hospice and pain management options. The attending physician must request that the patient notify their next-of-kin of the prescription request. Use of the law cannot affect the status of a patient's health or life insurance policies. The states' departments of health enforce compliance with the law. Compliance requires physicians to report all prescriptions to the state. Physicians and patients who comply with the law are protected from criminal prosecution. Physicians and health care systems are not obligated to participate in the Death with Dignity laws.\" ~ See more at: http://www.deathwithdignity.org... XIII: The Moral Reason Physician Assisted Suicide Should Be Legal Beyond any facts I have presented I must state the moral reason for which PAS should be allowed, ultimately it comes down to the fact that people who suffer never-endingly, deserve the right to control their own life and as has been said, \"Die with Dignity\". People who oppose PAS often make arguments which are quite contradictory to the way in which we are supposed to treat others in the U.S.. One I often hear is, 'we cannot play god', to which I must respond, \"Which one?\". Not everyone believes in the same god and some lack such a concept. by rejecting the idea of PAS using this logic, are you not imposing your religious beliefs on others and is this not against the way in which we are supposed to operate in the U.S. concerning religion? I find it wrong that people who have never experienced excruciating and continual pain, force their beliefs on those who on a daily basis do. It is very egotistical to believe that you know more than an 'expert' in pain, in essence. So these people who have never experienced such pain prevent laws from being passed which would free people from the prison of their body. A person who is burning in a fire will experience pain so vast that it is incomprehensible, and it should be absolutely morally irreprehensible to allow the continuation of such pain; what deprives one of their right to pursue happiness than something like that? Please let me be clear, if such pain occurs for just a moment, then of course they should not be allowed to end their life. And if this pain is psychological and caused by depression, then of course they should not be permitted to end their life in this name, however it is when this suffering is permanent that we must disallow its continuation. Doing otherwise should be considered a crime, not vice vera. Thanks you for reading and considering, I end my opening statement.", "qid": "23", "docid": "4f51142c-2019-04-18T15:23:59Z-00006-000", "rank": 14, "score": 246526.0}, {"content": "Title: Physician-Assisted-Suicide (PAS) should be Legalized Content: Thank you Minuteman, for your arguments/rebuttals. Now, for my rebuttal. Duty of the Physician Con argues that a physician should not be allowed to participate in a PAS because doing so would be a violation of the Hippocratic Oath. However, while the quote Con used (\"I will not prescribe a patient a lethal drug,\u201d) IS in the Hippocratic Oath, what Con fails to account for is the fact that the Oath has been tweaked, as well as some parts of the Oath have been effectively abandoned ever since it was first created. For example, in the Oath, abortion is prohibited for doctors, as well as surgery (\u201cI will not cut persons laboring under the stone.\u201d) [1]. However, nowadays, there are physicians that perform abortions, and even more physicians are surgeons. Using this logic, why should PAS be any exception? To even further dismantle Con\u2019s argument of the Hippocratic Oath, sources indicate that, even during the days of Hippocrates, PAS\u2019s, as well as euthanasia (but that\u2019s a different matter), were actually quite commonly performed, as well as recommended, by physicians [2]. So, again, I raise the question: if PAS\u2019s were administered even when the Oath was created, then why should modern-day PAS\u2019s, be any exception? One final point I\u2019d like to make involves the actual core value of the Hippocratic Oath. The main value that the Oath is trying to uphold is for physicians to not do any harm (hence the original prohibition of abortion/surgery.) The definition of harm as a noun is \u201cphysical injury or mental damage; hurt,\u201d [3]. But the big question is, isn\u2019t forcing a person to live with a terminal illness against their wishes, and in physical and mental pain, the definition of harm, and thus doing harm? So, by that logic, not legalizing PAS is going against a value at the heart of the Hippocratic Oath. To defend this specific point; even though I dismantled actual pieces of the Oath, most, if not all doctors, would agree that the core value of the Hippocratic Oath is still relevant and should be followed. Harming Others\u2019 Rights? Here, Con argues that by having a PAS, the patient is infringing on his/her relatives\u2019 right to \u201cthe pursuit of Happiness,\u201d as written in the U.S. Declaration of Independence [4]. While this \u201cunalienable right,\u201d is a core value of the United States, the Declaration of Independence has very little, if any official legal weight [5]. So, I could technically stop rebutting this argument here, as this debate is about the legalization of PAS, and is therefore about whether any rights are legally infringed upon. But, I will rebut Con\u2019s argument under the assumption that the right to \u201cthe pursuit of Happiness,\u201d is a legal right. Now, here, I find that Con forgets what the right he used actually is: the pursuit of Happiness. Note that it isn\u2019t the right happiness itself\u2014simply the opportunity to obtain happiness. So, while a family grieves over a loved one, they still have the ability to pursue happiness. Cost of Dying Con points out here that 5/6ths of Americans have medical insurance that would pay for most, or all, medical bills. This may be true, but I feel that I must raise a contention against this argument. While it\u2019s true that 5 out of 6 have insurance, I would like to ask what about the 1/6 that doesn\u2019t have insurance? What Con seems to be arguing sounds a bit unfair, to say that because most people have insurance, the remaining few terminally ill should not be allowed to have a procedure that would curtail costs for relatives, among other benefits. Summary So, in short, I feel that Con\u2019s arguments aren\u2019t sufficient to justify not allowing anyone to have a PAS. References [1] http://nktiuro.tripod.com... [2] http://scienceweek.com... [3] http://dictionary.reference.com... [4] http://www.usconstitution.net... [5] http://legallad.quickanddirtytips.com... Thanks for reading, and I await Minuteman\u2019s response. Also, it\u2019s my first full debate too, Minuteman.", "qid": "23", "docid": "7d751371-2019-04-18T18:44:43Z-00001-000", "rank": 15, "score": 246057.0}, {"content": "Title: Assisted Suicide shoud be legal in Virginia Content: Today, I am here to argue that Virginia should adopt a Death with Dignity Act. I am advocating physician-assisted suicide. Euthanasia refers to the killing of another in order to relieve dire suffering. Physician assisted suicide is a practice in which a physician provides a competent, terminally ill patient with a prescription for a lethal dose of medication, upon the patient's request, which the patient intends to use to end his or her own life. Over the weekend I watched a documentary titled \"How to Die in Oregon\". This documentary told the stories of several Oregonians diagnosed with terminal diseases, nearing the ends of their lives. Cody Curtis was one of these people. Cody was a mother of two beautiful children and a wife of nearly 30 years. She loved hiking, cooking, gardening as well as spending time with her family. At the age of only 52 she was diagnosed with cancer of the bile duct which runs through your liver. She underwent an operation that removed 60% of her liver. One year later the cancer returned and metastasized to her liver, lungs and lymph nodes. Cody faced unbearable shoots of pain throughout her body. She became weaker by the days. She soon looked pregnant from the nearly 4 liters of fluid sitting in her belly. She had a drawer filled to the top in medications which did nothing for her pain. She did what she knew was the right decision for her, and that is ask her doctor about the Death with Dignity option. She was prescribed a lethal dose of Secanol. Cody said herself \"I\"ll know when life\"s not worth living any more. It\"s really nice to have a way out, to die in comfort and with dignity. I don\"t want to die bed-ridden and weighing seventy pounds. I want the children to remember me as I am now, in peace and not in pain. .No one should have to die in a hospital all tangled up with tubes and wires and needles and in the kind of fear.\" Cody did not immediately use the medication, she waited because she would know when the time was right, but it was a comfort to have it at her side. She had it for nearly a year, outliving her less than 6 months to live expectancy. She was planning to spend another Christmas with her family, however near the beginning of December 2009 the pain became too much for Cody and she could not continue on anymore. She picked a date and on December 7, 2009 Cody drank a Secanol mixture. Within 5 minutes Cody was in a peaceful sleep and within 15 minutes she was pronounced dead. Cody had the opportunity to die surrounded by her closest friends and family. They sang songs together and were able to joke around in the moments leading to her death. Cody was able to choose a peaceful happy death to an inevitable ending in her near future. I firmly believe that death with dignity should be legal in the state of Virginia and I have three main reasons as to why. My first point is that with this act, patients will be able to die with dignity, free from pain and a possible long, suffering death. According to the Oregon DWDA Report of 2013, nearly 98% of all patients who chose DWD were able to die at home at a time they found was right for them. Being able to die with dignity is important. Especially for family and loved ones. Imagine if Cody had been your mom, your aunt, or your friend. Would you prefer to see her suffering, only knowing each day it will get worse not only for her, but also for you to watch. Or would you support her decision to decide when she knows life isn\"t worth living. Carl Wellman, professor of philosophy says \"One\"s life is a biography experienced as a drama with a beginning, middle and end such that the intrinsic value of each part is determined much more by one\"s awareness of its significance for the whole than by its felt pleasantness or painfulness. \" He goes on to say that the friends or family are \"condemned to live on with distressful memories of the death of their loved one\". Wouldn\"t you support a peaceful, graceful death for your loved one? My second point is that physicians should assume their roles in relieving the sick from suffering. Once medical treatment is exhausted, other options need to be considered. Dr. Quill a specialist in palliative care says \"Although palliative care is highly effective, some patients still experience severe suffering toward the end despite our best efforts. The vast majority of patients will not require last resort options if they receive excellent palliative care, but some will. Clarity about what options are available requires that we work together to provide the best possible response to the worst possible circumstances.\" It follows from this that dignity is a function of someone\"s personal qualities and that a death with dignity is a personal achievement; it is not something that can be conferred by others, such as health care professionals. By contrast, indignities are affronts to personal dignity. They are things that prevent or impede someone from living with dignity, mainly because they prevent him from taking an active, reasoned part in his own life. Health care professionals have a twin role here; the first is not to impose such indignities, the second is to minimize them, wherever possible My third point is that DWD is the humane thing to do. If your family pet has a medical condition rendering them in pain, you make the moral and ethical decision to end their suffering. You don\"t let them sit in the vet, hooked up to ventilators and tubes. They\"ve lived the best parts of their lives, and just as other terminally ill men and women they are ready to pass on. No one wants to be artificially kept alive, with your soul trapped in your body as it wastes away each day. We want to die in peace. Dr. Singer says \"If I\"m in pain, severe pain, and the doctors can do nothing, the pain persists and there\"s nothing to take the pain away, I don\"t think it\"s fair to let me suffer like that, or anybody.\" No one wants to become a vegetable, drugged up and forced to stay alive longer than necessary. As a solution I propose that Virginia adopt a death with dignity act. Under the act the eligible adult would need to be diagnosed with a terminal illness and given under 6 months to live. They will be evaluated by one two physicians and one psychiatrist. Palliative care is first an option. If they choose DWD a representative from Compassion with Choices will come to their home to help with the final arrangements where they first ask them if they know they have the right to change their mind. And finally if they know what the medication will do to them. Strict rules will be put in place regarding who it is available to, as in Oregon that will minimize abuse and harm to the weak, or mentally incapacitated. In Oregon, the patient must make two oral requests separated by 15 days. They must then provide written request to his/her physician signed in the presence of two witnesses. The prescribing physician and a consulting physician must confirm the diagnosis and prognosis as well as determine if the patient is capable. The physician will also inform the patient of feasible alternatives. This will give people the legal right they deserve, giving them a safe, legal operation instead of illegal underground means. We have the choice to remove life sustaining care. We have the choice to not seek treatment. But why don\"t we have the choice as to when we know the time is right for us to die. Having a dignified, compassionate way to help loved ones pass should be an inalienable right. I\"m not saying this is a must for everyone, and I\"m not saying anyone needs to be forced to do this, but I have compassion and respect for those courageous enough to choose this. Cody didn\"t want to die. If any of these people had the option they would choose to be healthy and happy, but I respect their courage and bravery to stand up and decide what was best for them.", "qid": "23", "docid": "a2c85c65-2019-04-18T16:57:45Z-00003-000", "rank": 16, "score": 245854.0}, {"content": "Title: Legalizing Euthanasia or Physician-Assisted Suicide Content: Not all pain can be alleviated with palliative care, so both assisted suicide and palliative care should be options for the patient.\"If the person would like to end their life right away\" I support waiting a long time before proceeding with euthanasia in case the patient changes their mind.", "qid": "23", "docid": "dccf7263-2019-04-18T16:52:37Z-00002-000", "rank": 17, "score": 245796.0}, {"content": "Title: Euthanasia should be legalized Content: I thank you for a well though out response. I just want to state, no where in the United States has been euthanasia legal; however, there are 4 states with physician assisted suicide. 1. Immoral Pain is pain no matter what if it is physical or mental, its purpose is still to protect you by letting you know there is something wrong. Although my opponent offers his version of morality which is referred to as the Harm principle which is \"As long as the action involves only consenting adults it is morally permissible.\", but I don't believe this is really how he would determine morality. Irving Kristol wrote an argument to this saying \"[T]he plain fact is that none of us is a complete civil libertarian. We all believe that there is some point at which the public authorities ought to step in to limit the \"self-expression\" of an individual or group even where this might be seriously intended as a form of artistic expression, and even where the artistic transaction is between consenting adults. A playwright or theatrical director might, in this crazy world of ours, find someone willing to commit suicide on stage, as called for by the script. We would not allow that-any more than we would permit scenes of real physical torture on the stage, even if the victim were a willing masochist. And I know of no one, no matter how free in spirit, who argues that we ought to permit gladiatorial contests in Yankee stadium, similar to those once performed in the Coliseum of Rome-even if only consenting adults were involved.\" [1] If this is really does believe this then All Drugs & Alcohol, Euthanasia/Suicide, Prostitution, Polygamy, Gay Marriage, Cannibalism, Bestiality, Incest, Public Nudity, Abortion (According to some people), Dueling/Fights to the Death, All weapons of any kind be owned should all be legal and is morally permissible; however I felt that I have shown that it does harm people like the disabled and the elderly. 2. Subjectivity It doesn't deny that it is the patients that feel pain, it implies you can get different opinions from doctors weather an illness is terminal, or you are in unrelievable pain. In fact he actually elaborates further on my point with \"Pain can be tiny to one person but huge to another, the most basic example is that some people can walk over broken glass smiling!\" Measuring pain does have to do with it because in place where euthanasia is legal \"The patient must be experiencing unbearable pain.\" [2] Why does the family have to be okay with it? Should it not be solely up to the patient? I will address relief of pain later. 3. Right to Die No, I don't think this is a problem, but you said it was a Human rights; However, the supreme court unanimously disagrees. They also ruled similarly, 9-0, in Vacco v. Quill. [3] Also, it is not mentioned anywhere in the Universal Declaration of Human rights. [4] 4. Slippery Slope How isn't this a slippery slope? The Groningen Protocol is a form of Non-voluntary Euthanasia. How isn't it killing infants? You can't euthanize something that isn't alive. Yes, I would rather deny the infants right to life based on my subjective judgement that they don't want to live. When people receive their medical degree they have to take something called the Hippocratic oath. In the Hippocratic oath it prohibits directly or indirectly killing human beings. The oath was created in part so patients could be reassured that doctors only wanted to help them, not hurt them. [7] By violating this oath how can we know the doctor is acting in the patients interest? A physician's role is to kill illnesses not kill patients. 5. Voluntary? You agree that elderly people feel they are a burden and would seek euthanasia because of it, but you think since it would be legal it would make families care more? Why do they need the ability for a doctor to kill them before families pay attention? Like you said if you knew a family member wanted to die, they could kill themselves many ways if they want to they don't need euthanasia to maybe have their families care. I also covered people with disabilities would also feel that \"burden\" too. In fact those are the two groups targeted by euthanasia the \"non-providers\", the weakest, and most vulnerable it only makes them feel worse. It was a euthanasia program. It is involuntary euthanasia, but it is still euthanasia. It rarely is an act of free will, so the comparison isn't as far off as you think because the Nazis were getting rid of the people who were \"non-providers\", the weakest, and most vulnerable. Euthanasia is \"The term normally implies an intentional termination of life by another at the explicit request of the person who wishes to die.\" [5] 6. Pain Relief People say euthanasia provides a way to relieve extreme pain. This is like saying cyanide relieves depression. It is true that they don\"t feel pain anymore abut they don\"t feel good because they are dead. Now try it with the other example. It is true that they don\"t feel depressed anymore but they don\"t feel good because they are dead. There is also ways to relieve pain besides death. \"It is widely believed that there are only two options open to patients with terminal illness: either they die slowly in unrelieved suffering or they receive euthanasia. In fact, there is a middle way, that of creative and compassionate caring. Meticulous research in Palliative medicine has in recent years shown that virtually all unpleasant symptoms experienced in the process of terminal illness can be either relieved or substantially alleviated by techniques already available.\" [6] In countries with euthanasia Palliative care is poorly developed. [8] Sources [1] http://www.mandm.org.nz... [2] http://www.patientsrightscouncil.org... [3] http://www.oyez.org... [4] http://www.un.org... [5] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... [6] http://www.ethicsforschools.org... [7] http://www.life.org.nz... [8] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...", "qid": "23", "docid": "2a7a37f4-2019-04-18T16:54:34Z-00002-000", "rank": 18, "score": 244969.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should legalize Physician Assisted Suicide. Content: I think that for the overall success of this debate and for the comprehension of it by the readers, we should begin confident of what all terminology and related terminology mean, some of which haven't yet been covered. So let me take some time to explain the bigger picture. Let's start with regular euthanasia (EUTH); EUTH is most accurately described as the taking of another's life by a doctor in order to relieve them of their chronic and terminal pains or future mental degradation. Very extreme forms of EUTH existed in the Nazi regime, where the societal unproductive, disabled in mind or body, and those of a specific race or cultural background were 'euthanized' aka murdered. The main idea being that these people are deficient and not worthy of life. The normal form of EUTH is of course much, much less extreme, usually it is simply a doctor injecting a patient with a lethal drug or cutting of their life support. Here is where euthanasia splits into 2 different divisions. A, is active/ involuntary euthanasia where the doctor does not have any specific permission from the one being euthanized, it comes from other sources whether it be family, or Nazi regime in the past. In this case, the doctor would do something like inject the patient with a lethal drug.The second division of EUTH, B, is passive/voluntary EUTH; where the patient specifically asks the doctor to end their life and under no other party's directive. The doctor will then: pull the plug on life support/ stop giving them medicine/ let the disease take its course.Now we come to Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS), This is where the patient explicitly asks the doctor to give them: medicine, injection...etc. which they will then inject/breath through mask/drink...etc., specifically with the patient doing the action which ends their life. I will defend that PAS is: very passive euthanasia. I believe so because in regular passive EUTH the patient doesn't even pull their own cord, it is the doctor. So in PAS all the doctor does is give them the ability to pull their own cord, which I think is better, because it gives them much more control....Keep in mind that right now, if a family member wishes, they can pull the plug on say a dying father on his last limb in the hospital. This is true in ALL U.S. states. What is really the difference between PAS and puling the plug? Americans generally support the right to physician-assisted suicide, though the number varies depending on how the issue is framed. As of 2013 it was as high as 71% when the phrase \"end the patient's life by some painless means\" was used. That dropped to 51% when the phrase \"commit suicide\" was introduced.But what about the physicians themselves?According to a survey published Dec. 17 by Medscape, an online professional network and information source for physicians, 54% of doctors answered the question, \"Should physician-assisted suicide be allowed?\" with a yes. click=\"document.location='/TheJuniorVarsityNovice/photos/album/4636/30510/'\" src=\"../../../photos/albums/1/5/4636/226693-4636-e89c3-a.jpg\" alt=\"\" /> For this survey, Medscape asked more than 21,000 physicians a list of ethical questions. More than 17,000 of them were US doctors, while 4,000 European physicians responded.Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com...In contention 1 my opponent gives us a truck load of facts, however even though he calls them \"horrible\" he never says why. He wants viewers to assume: A, that these people were simply murdered which is expressly untrue, and B, that this indicates a s but beyond that he has not provided evidence to support this suggested assumption so please do no consider this until it is properly warranted and explained. Also his source for this was labeled as an error which should be in the \"opinions sections\" of the website: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... In contention 2 my opponent states that passing laws allowing any form of EUTH leads to massive and involuntary euthanasia however I would actually classify this claim under the Slippery-Slope fallacy because there have only been facts presented thus far, yet these facts alone do not indicate that passive EUTH has lead to involuntary EUTH; he may have stated that but that doesn't make it true. For instance he stated that strict laws were passed supported by medical associations in 1987 and less so in 2001. These are neat facts but that's is all they are, they don't imply actual cause and effect. Please remember that Extraordinary claims require Extraordinary proof! click=\"document.location='/TheJuniorVarsityNovice/photos/album/4636/30510/'\" src=\"../../../photos/albums/1/5/4636/226693-4636-u9ags-a.jpg\" alt=\"\" /> In contention 3 my opponent basically states that the sickly just need to take ownership and get over their pain. I state that most people who are terminally ill aren't irrational they are simply regular people who are in constant and unbearable pain, with thoughts still intact. Please provide evidence stating that all people who are chronically ill are irrational, only then can we accept contention 3.Here are quotes which attack statements and assumptions made during the last round:\"There is no evidence demonstrating that the Netherlands has a greater rate of non-voluntary or involuntary euthanasia than other Western countries. Indeed, there is a significant amount of evidence demonstrating the prevalence of both voluntary and involuntary active euthanasia in various jurisdictions in which euthanasia has not been legalized, looking at criminal prosecutions, admissions by doctors and anonymous surveys of medical professionals.\" -Penney Lewis, LLM, Reader in Law at the School of Law and Centre of Medical Ethics at Kings College, stated in a Spring 2007 Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics: article titled \"The Empirical Slippery Slope from Voluntary to Non-Voluntary Euthanasia\"Basically there is evidence that the percent of involuntary EUTH is less is the same in countries without legislation on the matter and as will be shown next, the legislation has actually decreased the amount of involuntary EUTH\"look to the Netherlands, where they\u2019ve had progressive laws on assisted dying for over a decade now. In 2005, a study by the New England Journal of Medicine found that only 0.4 percent of all euthanasia procedures were carried out without the patient\u2019s explicit permission. You might argue that that\u2019s 0.4 percent too many, but get this: A 1991 report\u2014written a decade before euthanasia was legalized\u2014put the number at 0.8 percent. In other words, giving a nationwide go-ahead for doctors to legally end their patient\u2019s lives actually halved the number of unwanted deaths. But hey, that\u2019s just Holland, right? They do things differently there. Doctors in a less-hippie-liberal culture would never kill off patients without their consent, right? Well think again. In Britain, a 2012 study discovered that as many as 57,000 patients each year die without being told that efforts to keep them alive have been stopped. Instead, they\u2019re just shoved onto a \u201cdeath pathway\u201d designed to alleviate suffering without ever being told. So basically, doctors in the UK are already practicing euthanasia\u2014only without any of the legal framework to check abuses that would come from legalizing it.\" -http://listverse.com...\"In 2005, of all deaths in the Netherlands, 1.7% were the result of euthanasia and 0.1% were the result of physician-assisted suicide. These percentages were significantly lower than those in 2001, when 2.6% of all deaths resulted from euthanasia and 0.2% from assisted suicide.\" -Agnes van der Heide, MD, PhD, Senior Researcher in the Department of Public Health at Erasmus University As far as the Hyppocratic Oath, the problem arises when \"Do no harm\" is said, however it does more harm to let live in these cases", "qid": "23", "docid": "4f51142c-2019-04-18T15:23:59Z-00004-000", "rank": 19, "score": 242288.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should legalize Physician Assisted Suicide. Content: Rules Round 1 is for definitions by Con while Pro will make his opening arguments. Round 2 Con will make contentions and rebuttles, while Pro Refutes. Round 3 is rebuttles by Con and Pro makes rebuttles and Conclusion. Round 4 Con makes rebuttles and conclusion, Pro will states, \"No round as argeed upon. \" If Pro says anything else in the finial round then it's a forfeit of all 7 points. No swearing No trolling. Since Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicides are the same exact thing the terms and wording may be used interchangably throughout the debate Euthanasia- Also called mercy killing. the act of putting to death painlessly or allowing to die, as by withholding extreme medical measures, a person or animal suffering from an incurable, especially a painful, disease or condition. (. http://dictionary.reference.com...) Physician Assisted Suicided- suicide by a patient facilitated by means or information (as a drug prescription or indication of the lethal dosage) provided by a physician who is aware of how the patient intends to use such means or information (. http://www.merriam-webster.com...)", "qid": "23", "docid": "4f51142c-2019-04-18T15:23:59Z-00007-000", "rank": 20, "score": 242026.0}, {"content": "Title: Assisted suicide/euthanasia should be legal Content: In your response, you cite the Hippocratic Oath as a reason why physician-assisted suicide should stay illegal and claim that all medicine in this country is practiced by it. Would this be the same Hippocratic Oath that also says a physician must treat the person who taught him medicine as a parent, as well as teach others this \"art' for free? If doctors are really bound by the Hippocratic Oath, then every doctor who takes any pay from a medical school that charges students to attend there would be violating the oath. Later on in the oath, it says that doctors will \"not use the knife\". So I guess surgeons are violating the oath as well. And the part that everyone does know, the \"first, do no harm\" (and apparently the only part you are aware of), it says \"I will keep them from harm and injustice\". Since the rest of the oath has been subjectively revised so as to keep up with the times, I can and will easily say that keeping patients from harm includes keeping them from needless pain and suffering. In addition, keeping patients from injustice can and should also mean keeping other people's values and morals off of an individual's or a family's personal and private decision. The fact of the matter is that the Hippocratic oath has been amended significantly, and is often not even used. In the 1970's, many schools abandoned the oath because of its archaic principles. My guess is that many medical schools dropped it because of its call to teach medicine for free and only to men. Other schools use some other versions of the Hippocratic Oath, or other oaths developed by other doctors or medical associations. In short, claiming that the Hippocratic Oath is universally accepted, universally used and universally adhered to is simply false. I never claimed that morality has no place in medicine, just not a morality that is being imposed by people outside of the doctor/patient/family relationship. Go back and read what I wrote in round 1. I said \"I believe it to be the height of arrogance that someone can feel as though they can enforce THEIR morality on someone suffering from a terminal disease\". Unless you are the person dying, or a family member of yours is the one dying, you should have no say in what decision they make. A physician should use his own moral code to direct his actions regarding euthanasia, but many doctors feel that such a practice should be allowed, especially when they are forced to watch a person waste away from a terminal disease. If a doctor has a problem with it, he or she can refuse to perform the procedure, the same as any doctor with performing an abortion. The issues surrounding guidelines and legal standards are the strongest parts of your argument. Even so, it doesn't seem to bother people in Oregon. They don't seem to have any trouble figuring it out. While I could use Oregon as an example and leave it at that, I will instead try to give common sense answers to your questions. If we went by the \"Kevorkian method\", as you call it, that doesn't seem to be such a bad thing. By Kevorkian's account from last night, he only assisted 1 in 5 that came to him for help because the others did not fit a medical need. That's a lot of discretion for someone you seem to feel is blood thirsty. If there would be any guidelines used, perhaps the guidelines that doctors follow when they determine that someone does not stand to gain from any further medical intervention and recommend hospice care. That seems common sense enough to me. In addition, most people have seen so many doctors by the time they reach this point that the requirement to get a second opinion would have been reached long ago. There should be no need for a psychologist if a person has been determined to be terminal and he wishes to end his life on his own terms. To require a psychological workup would be an unnecessary governmental intrusion, much like what we have to deal with now. The concerns of the family are taken into account by the patient himself. But this is one of the points of allowing euthanasia: to help keep patients from getting to the point where they can't make their own decisions. If they are incapacitated, then living wills and advanced directives override family desires anyway. For example, if a patient has ordered that they are DNR, or Do Not Resuscitate, the directive overrides the family in the event of a medical emergency. If there are no directives or living wills, then the family should be able to make the decision after consulting with the doctors in charge of their loved one's care, just as they do now. In fact, making euthanasia legal would make episodes like Terry Schaivo much better for everyone involved because they would have access to physicians who would be able to end her life much more humanely than simply pulling her feeding tube. She didn't have to die like that. It was conservatives and their use of the government to impose the laws that we have that starved her to death. If someone is determined to be terminal by at least two doctors, then if euthanasia were legal, their terminal status should invalidate the no-suicide clause. In my view, and in a view that I feel would hold up legally, physician-assisted suicide should be no different than when someone desires to be listed as DNR. The doctors and nurses could prolong a patient's life by intervening in a medical crisis, but their choice to be DNR hastened their death from the crisis, much the same as assisted-suicide. As I know from personal experience, insurance companies and pensions still pay out when a family member dies while being listed as DNR. These are doctors we're talking about, not lawyers. I'm not sure how many \"shysters\" are out there running around, but I'm sure there aren't that many. The procedure would not take a lot of time for the doctor, nor would it take much in the way of equipment or drugs. So in relation to other procedures that the doctor could be spending his time on, assisting someone to commit suicide would probably not be very lucrative for the doctor. If there are a lot of shysters running around trying to milk money out of desperate people, then I think we have a much larger problem in our medical system that needs to be addressed ASAP. I actually didn't get to see him speak last night. I couldn't get a ticket to go and was left to read about it this morning in the paper. But I have supported this position for a long time now. I supported it before Terry Schaivo and before my dad very nearly avoided a situation much like hers. If my family had faced the same kind of intrusive intervention that Michael Schaivo faced, I would be a lot more militant about it than I am now. Fortunately for me, though, I don't have to go through the same thing he did to empathize.", "qid": "23", "docid": "9f12f501-2019-04-18T19:55:28Z-00003-000", "rank": 21, "score": 241022.0}, {"content": "Title: should California legalize physician assisted suicide Content: The response from con sounds very personal. If you are struggling the concept of euthanasia intellectual, then read on. If however you are struggling with this because of a family member, or close friend suffering with a terminal illness, I suggest you simply stop now. If the case is the latter, I offer my condolences.Rebuttal \u201cIts extremely hard for anyone to accept the loss of a loved one, whether they\"re a child they raised or a sister they grew up with.\u201dWhile this statement is unquestionably true, it changes very little about the debate. The death of a terminally ill patient is coming regardless of allowing them a choice on how and when they die.\"Yet they call physician assisted suicide a \"just, and dignified death.\"But as the battle of what\"s right and what\"s wrong continues, more citizens of the U.S would prefer having the ones they love for a few more days, a few more minutes, or even a few more seconds than losing them forever without a chance to even say goodbye.\"Well, often it is a perfect chance to \u201csay goodbye\u201d. To say goodbye while still in control of their own body\u2019s. In control of their minds. Still in control.\"I think I should have been clearer in my reason of arguing, I can find no logical evidence of suicide of any sort being even remotely moral or justifiable.\"I am providing logical and moral reasoning for an individual to choose to end their life\u2019s on their own terms. Individuals have a moral right to body autonomy. A moral right to make choices about their own body. Externaly interested parties can encourage, attempt to persuade the individual, but they have no moral right to override the terminally ill patient\u2019s decision.\"The united states is creating a drug used for the sole purpose of suicide in patients with terminal illnessI know of no such drug, and you have provided no information about it. If, however, someone is attempting to craft a specific drug, that sounds like a good idea.Every Day more than 2,500 kids(12 to 17) abuse prescription drugs, Depressants, opioids and antidepressants are the leading cause of suicide by 45%.\"The leading cause of suicide is depression\"Of the 1.4 million drug-related emergency room admissions in 2005, 598,542 were associated with abuse of pharmaceuticals alone or with other drugs.\"I see no connection between this and the question.\"In 2007, the Drug Enforcement Administration found that abuse of the painkiller Fentanyl killed more than 1,000 people that year in the US. It is thirty to fifty times more powerful than heroin. Fentanyl is an opioid medication. An opioid is sometimes called a narcotic. Fentanyl is used as part of anesthesia to help prevent pain after surgery or other medical procedure.But teens and adults are using them to satisfy a desperate need to leave the life they live, I don\"t care about religion, I don\"t care about body autonomy. What I care about is the fact the U.S is even considering making suicide legal to a \"certain degree, at no degree is it ok to tell someone they have a right to kill their selves.\"Telling someone they have a right to do what is already a right is a little counterintuitive. I am suggesting that body autonomy is a right.\"What I care about is the message that this law is sending to teens all over the state, I\"m not the smartest girl but I know a stupid idea when I see one ,and this is the dumbest idea congress could have ever created.\"You are conflating two issues. Teen suicide and euthanasia. If there were a relation then it would be worth talking about, but I can find no causal relationship, and you have provided none.Body autonomy is not the ultimate point in this argument. The point in this argument and is that this one decision is going to end up stirring a nationOK. Stir the nation. However, as I referenced above, 7 in 10 Americans support euthanasia [5]. 70% is a clear mandate. Section 443.2 of SB 128 states\"this bill would make it a felony to knowingly alter or forge a request for medication to an individuals life without his or her authorizations or to conceal or destroy a rescission of a request for medication, if it is done with the intent or effect of causing the individuals death. The bill would make it a felony to knowingly coerce or exert undue influence on an individual to request medication for the purpose of ending his or her life or to destroy a rescission of a request.\"I have no issue with this wording.\"There are multiple way around this bill and flaws that could end up with citizens going to jail and being charged with homicide if they make one fatal mistake.\"I see no evidence for this assertion.\"Everything else I have to say is completely in my own opinion.Debate cant only be supported by facts because no one wins that way you have to appeal to the peoples emotion.\"To be frank, the only appeal to emotion I have seen is from you.\"I debate because I feel strongly about something, and I don\"t care if people say I\"m wrong, The whole purpose of debating is to open your side of the story. Its not about who has better facts or who\"s a better speaker, because at the end of the day how much of that is really going to matter? None of it, because you still have to make a choice.\"I am arguing for choice. The patient\u2019s choice over what happens to his own body.\"Put yourself in their families\" shoes, their loved ones are dying of terminal illness, and kids are killing themselves. Wouldn't you want your little girl, or your big sister your brother or even your father to hold out for just a few more minutes so you can tell them how much you love them, and tell everyone that they were survivors not quitters? I want to fight to my last breath. It doesn't matter if I win this debate or not, and I probably won\"t, but I want everyone to know exactly how I feel about Physician assisted suicide.\"How you feel is clear. What you may like may not be what the terminal patient wants, and as I have discussed. It is their choice, not your choice.ConclusionThe to control their bodys is the issue in this debate. While emotions run high for intrested family and firends, their wishes simply cannot overide the will and wish of the patient. The choices they make are for their own reasons, and not to be dismissed because of anothers selfish desires.Vote pro.Poll - Euthanasia[5] http://www.gallup.com...", "qid": "23", "docid": "2f93939-2019-04-18T15:13:37Z-00000-000", "rank": 22, "score": 240072.0}, {"content": "Title: Assisted Suicide Should Be Legalized. Content: First off I just want to clarify what assisted suicide means for my opponent. \"Assisted suicide occurs when a physician provides a patient with the means of ending his or her life\u2014usually a prescription for a fatal dose of drugs. The patient takes the drugs independently of the doctor. This procedure differs from euthanasia, in which the doctor administers the fatal dose or performs some other act, such as a lethal injection, that ends the patient's life.\" (1) That being said it is also illegal in every state within the U.S. besides Oregon and Washington. (2) I propose a change to this and make it legal in every state. Who are we to say a patient must suffer until his final breath is taken? We can condemn a man to a death sentence but we will not let him chose his own? If in fact the principals this country was founded on are still upheld today (which, in some perspectives it doesn't seem to be so) then we should have the free will to chose when enough is enough. Don't get me wrong I believe there should be some requirements put on it however I will go into farther detail once my opponent has a chance to make his argument. I wish good luck to us both. (1) http://socialissues.wiseto.com... (2) http://www.lifesitenews.com...", "qid": "23", "docid": "668509e3-2019-04-18T19:24:49Z-00006-000", "rank": 23, "score": 239979.0}, {"content": "Title: Assisted suicide/euthanasia should be legal Content: As it is clear from your very long and well thought out 2nd argument that you are obviously a disciple of Jack Kevorkian and his reasoning I'm going to approach this from a different direction if that's ok. I've already briefly addressed the problems with allowing a man to decide when another man/woman \"should\" be allowed to die but I'd like to examine that issue further. To do so makes the process completely arbitrary. Dr. Jack says no so you go to Dr. John. He says no, you go to Dr. Allen and so on until you get the answer you want. This is already practiced by \"patients\" who are drug addicts, what makes you think it wouldn't become widespread among the suicidal? I believe you said somewhere in that dissertation that Kevorkian turned down 5 for every 1 he accepted or some similar % anyhow. OK, so HE arbitrarily gets to decide who lives and who dies? You don't see the problem with this? As long as the decider has a doctorate it's O.K. with you? I literally know a man with a doctorate who is having trouble paying this months rent, should HE be allowed to decide? (dude wants to die, I need the money. Who loses?) If you think this wouldn't play into the situation at all you are quite naive. It seems that most of what you wrote was a glowing support of Jack Kevorkian and his \"cause\". Yet you fail to address standards and practices other than stating \"if they are diagnosed as terminal\". That's your be-all end-all standard, eh? Let me tell you a personal story. My father was diagnosed with a \"terminal\" illness at age 13. He was in constant pain and the Doctors were certain he had less than a year to live. Obviously, since I'm here to write this, that diagnosis was wrong. He did pass at age 58 after fathering and raising 3 children while living most of his life pain free. I tell this story only to illustrate but one of the problems with your fail safe reasons for allowing physician assisted suicide. You see, my father would have qualified under your vetting process when he was 13 years old.", "qid": "23", "docid": "9f12f501-2019-04-18T19:55:28Z-00002-000", "rank": 24, "score": 239607.0}, {"content": "Title: Should Physician assisted suicide be legal Content: A1: Physician-assisted suicide (I'll just call it assisted suicided henceforth) is a well thought-out policy that has many advantagesMy opponent argues that the law passed in Oregon has several safeguards to ensure that patients who make the decision are in a clinically competent frame of mind, and are aware of the consequences. Furthermore, a lot of time is taken for hospital authorities to appropriately evaluate requests for assisted suicide. He also wisely cites public health reports that show that a majority of patients in Oregon who opted for the programme are educated, and therefore competent enough to make an informed decision. He concludes that the policy allows a patient to die with dignity.Response: Not being an American citizen or an expert of any kind on medical law, I will have to cite an expert on the effectiveness of the law in Oregon. The following was published in 2008 in the medical journal Geriatric Medicine, under the website of the Anscombe Bioethics Centre:\"Oregon, whose law permitting assisted suicide (though not euthanasia) came into force in 1997 is often presented as a model for other legislatures to follow. In fact, Oregon polices assisted suicide even less than does the Netherlands: self-reporting by doctors is followed by no investigation, but merely a passive reporting by the relevant authority.[v] And although nothing like the official Dutch surveys has been carried out in Oregon, there is anectodal evidence of patients being pressured to die or undertreated on the grounds that they have a suicide prescription and need nothing more. [vi] It is worth pointing out that reported pain in Oregon has worsened since assisted suicide was legalized, [vii] and that the State, which funds assisted suicide, is less ready to fund essential medical services for those who want and need them.\"This article tells us that far from the rosy picture that my adversary paints, enforcement of the law, for example, is a daunting task that the Oregon authorities are not a success story on. The safeguards that my adversary mentions look good on paper, but are very difficult to enforce, leading to the problems mentioned by the above. It is indeed disturbing to hear that it even encourages the state to push people who need medical services to consider assisted suicide.The sources of the reference marks above are:[v] Keown J. Considering Physician-Assisted Suicide: An evaluation of Lord Joffe's Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill. 2006; Care Not Killing Alliance, London: 11. [vi] Keown J. Considering Physician-Assisted Suicide: An evaluation of Lord Joffe\u2019s Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill. 2006; Care Not Killing Alliance, London: 13-14. [vii] Fromme EK, Tilden VP, Drach LL, Tolle SW. Increased Family Reports of Pain or Distress in Dying Oregonians. J of Palliative Med 2004;7:431-442.Aside from the above, there are some fundamental points that I disagree with my adversary on, and I shall provide reasons for these disagreements. I look forward to his responses on them. CA 1: PAS is not taking \"ones own life\".My adversary confuses Physician-assisted suicide with the conventional understanding of suicide. Oxford Dictionary defines \"suicide\" as \"the action of killing oneself intentionally\". Assisted suicide, however, cannot be looked at as an act in isolation, or a private act. Assisted suicide involves a medical practitioner facilitating the death of another person, and a wide variety of stakeholders, including these medical practitioners, patients, the patients' families and society, are affected by the ramifications of assisted suicide. I will go into just a couple of these stakeholders.1. Doctors and medical ethicsIn the words of the International Code of Medical Ethics, \"A doctor must always bear in mind the obligation of preserving human life from conception\". This code inspires doctors to place the foundations of their practice on the value of human life, engenders empathy for the patient, and thereby strengthens the doctor-patient relationship. Reminding doctors of the value of human life inspires them to do their best to preserve it at all costs. Legalising assisted suicide creates a dangerous precedent, that adds to the conflict in the mind of doctors.If hastening the death of a terminally ill patient was to become a routine administrative task for a doctor, and indeed it can, then there is the potential for a lack of compassion when dealing with elderly, disabled or terminally ill people.If the doctor is the person (or one of the people) who evaluate(s) the patient's well-being, then there is a definite possibility that a patient may begin to distrust his/her doctor. As mentioned on the website of the National Health Service in the UK, where this debate is ongoing, \"They may think that their doctor would rather 'kill them off' than take responsibility for a complex and demanding case.\" 2. Ramifications on society, and ethical implicationsAll humans are said to have inalienable rights, and the right to life is one of them. \"Inalienable\" means that they may not be given up, nor may they have these rights taken from them, except under process of the law (meaning if they're criminals). My adversary has not given any reasons for believing that patients have any right to take their own lives, nor has he given reasons to believe that the healthcare system has the right to take the lives of others. If he does, however, believe that deciding whether to live or die is a right, then he must accept that this right cannot only be arbitrarily ascribed to the sick, or terminally ill. If it is truly a human right, then it must be made available to all people who wish for it. I am interested in my opponent's response to this. I will not offer any further arguments at this point, because I have refuted my opponent's argument and given him plenty to refute.ConclusionIt is true that assisted suicide offers dignity to people in pain. However, \"dignity\" can be a dangerous and misleading veneer for \"convenience\", either on part of the patient, the patient's family, the doctor, or as we have seen, even the Government. Assisted suicide should not be legal because of the several unpleasant effects on society, which cannot be ignored and which certainly outweigh the proposed benefits of the law.Sources1. http://www.linacre.org...2. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...3. http://www.nhs.uk...4. http://www.care.org.uk...", "qid": "23", "docid": "83a06a6-2019-04-18T15:41:35Z-00001-000", "rank": 25, "score": 239313.0}, {"content": "Title: Assisted Suicide shoud be legal in Virginia Content: I have the same objects to Physician assisted suicide as I do with Euthanasia, they are it is immoral, they are subjective, there is no right to die, it will lead down a slippery slope to other things, it really isn't voluntary, it is against any every major religion, and it degrades human life. First lets address my opponents points. \"patients will be able to die with dignity, free from pain and a possible long, suffering death. \" You mentioned Oregon's Death with Dignity Act. In Oregon you qualify for PAS if \"An adult who is capable, is a resident of Oregon, and has been determined by the attending physician and consulting physician to be suffering from a terminal disease, and who has voluntarily expressed his or her wish to die, may make a written request for medication for the purpose of ending his or her life in a humane and dignified manner\" [1] It makes no mention of pain. Further, \"It is widely believed that there are only two options open to patients with terminal illness: either they die slowly in unrelieved suffering or they receive euthanasia. In fact, there is a middle way, that of creative and compassionate caring. Meticulous research in Palliative medicine has in recent years shown that virtually all unpleasant symptoms experienced in the process of terminal illness can be either relieved or substantially alleviated by techniques already available. \" [2] Since Pain can be controlled it should not be used as a reason to kill yourself. \"physicians should assume their roles in relieving the sick from suffering\" When people receive their medical degree they have to take something called the Hippocratic oath. In the Hippocratic oath it prohibits directly or indirectly killing human beings. The oath was created in part so patients could be reassured that doctors only wanted to help them, not hurt them. [3] By violating this oath how can we know the doctor is acting in the patient's interest? A physician's role is to kill illnesses not kill patients. \"DWD is the humane thing to do\" This is basically saying it is compassionate to kill them because they have no hope of recovery. \"A century ago, high blood pressure, pneumonia, appendicitis, and diabetes likely meant death, often accompanied by excruciating pain. Women had shorter life expectancies than men since many died in childbirth. Antibiotics, immunizations, modern surgery and many of today\u2019s routine therapies or medications were unknown then. \" [4] It is never humane to kill humans, and there is always hope for a cure. Now to the objections 1. Immoral One of the most famous philosophers of ethics was Immanuel Kant. He came up with a system of figuring out if an action was moral or not called the Categorical imperative. The Categorical imperative is an unconditional moral law that applies to all rational beings and is independent of any personal motive or desire. In using the this method Kant condemned all forms of suicide by saying the purpose pain is to protect one\u2019s life [5] , such as taking your hand out of a fire because it burns, and by using pain as a reason to end one\u2019s life was contradictory to the purpose of pain and was therefore immoral. We usually strive to be moral beings, so we should avoid from having immoral acts. 2. Subjectivity Due to the laws subjectivity there are never clear answers. In the Oregon Death with Dignity act Terminal Illness is defined as \u201cmeans an incurable and irreversible disease that has been medically confirmed and will, within reasonable medical judgment, produce death within six months\" [1] Things such as pain, suffering, or terminal illnesses are all subjective and you could get different opinions between different doctors, and why is the limit six months for physician assisted suicide and not four or eight months? There is no sound medical reason for why six months are chosen. Since there is subjectivity, it makes the law hard to enforce and have safeguards for. 3. Right to Die The courts have ruled on physician assisted suicide and there was no constitutional right to die. In the case Washington v. Glucksberg the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that Washington\u2019s ban on physician assisted suicide was not a violation of the fourteenth amendment and there was no constitutional right to die. [6] They ruled the same in the similar case of Vacco v. Quill. As far as the courts are concerned there is currently no legal right to euthanasia or physician assisted suicide. 4. Slippery Slope The legalization of voluntary euthanasia/physician assisted suicide would lead down a slippery slope to other non-voluntary euthanasia. The Netherlands was the first country to legalize euthanasia in 2001 but have they gone down the slippery slope? In 2004 the Netherlands passed something called the Groningen Protocol. This allows the non-voluntary euthanasia of infants. [7] So, as far as the slippery slope is concerned the Netherlands is well on their way down and there nothing stopping other countries from following. We should not legalize PAS because it will lead to other more damaging things. 5. Voluntary? Voluntary euthanasia is not as voluntary as you might think. The most famous euthanasia program was the one that took the lives of eleven million people in the 1940s, the infamous holocaust. The victims of the Nazis were Jews, Gypsies, Poles, Slavs, Homosexuals, Freemasons, Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses, and people with disabilities. In particular the Nazis attacked people with disabilities with a propaganda campaign portraying them as burdens to society and their families. \"The principal reason people in a 1991 Boston Globe survey said they would consider some option to end their lives if they had \u201can incurable illness with a great deal of physical pain\u201d was not the pain, not the \u201crestricted lifestyle,\u201d and not the fear of being \u201cdependent of machines,\u201d but rather that they \u201cdon\u2019t want to be a burden\u201d to their families. Family members who support the suicide of a terminally ill patient often unwittingly reinforce the notion that the ill family member\u2019s life has lost all meaning and value and is nothing but a \u201cburden. \u201d\" [8] \"Many elderly people already feel a burden to family, carers and a society which is cost conscious and may be short of resources. They may feel great pressure to request euthanasia 'freely and voluntarily'. These patients need to hear that they are valued and loved as they are. They need to know that we are committed first and foremost to their well-being, even if this does involve expenditure of time and money. The way we treat the weakest and most vulnerable people speaks volumes about the kind of society we are\" [2] So, voluntary euthanasia/Physician Assisted Suicide is almost as voluntary as in Nazi Germany. I look forward to my opponent's response. Sources: [1] . http://euthanasia.procon.org... [2] . http://www.ethicsforschools.org... [3] . http://www.life.org.nz... [4] . http://www.patientsrightscouncil.org... [5] . http://www.siue.edu... [6] . http://www.oyez.org... [7] . http://www.nejm.org... [8] . https://www.nrlc.org...", "qid": "23", "docid": "a2c85c65-2019-04-18T16:57:45Z-00002-000", "rank": 26, "score": 238486.0}, {"content": "Title: Bsh1 Debate Tournament: The U.S. Government Should Legalize Euthanasia. Content: We Already Allow Suicides:First of all, if a person is actually determined to commit a suicide and carries his/her actions out successfully, it does not make sense to have this action as illegal. We cannot imprison a body as a result, nor can we fault the family of the person committing suicide, ergo in this context of legality it simply makes more sense to legalize assisted-suicide by default. If the legal system is a set of state-enforced mechanisms to deter undesirable behaviours and to offer incentives to desirable behaviours, then we can see there is no reason to keep assisted suicides illegal, we cannot force that person to no longer want to kill themselves should they be successful. Say your life is only held onto by \"life support\", this machine is breathing for you, feeding you, and is the only thing actually keeping you alive due to a critical injury. You are in fact allowed to refuse it, causing your own death. In other words, by complicity the doctors allowing you to refuse treatment, they are assisting your suicide. Now one might say the doctors ought to force the patient, however this would void power of attorney, and ergo would be illegal in such an event. Doctors are suppose to comply with the consent of their patients, thus if the patient refuses treatment, this is a form of suicide. In fact, the following states already have legalized assisted suicides: Montana, Oregon, and Washington (State)http://www.cbc.ca... This Furthers the Liberty of the Individual: This argument is simple and straight-forward. You do not choose to be born or not. This seems to be in a half-determined part of the world. We all start as cells, and morph into people. If that is the case, then why can't a person refuse this life by euthanasia? The Physical Can Complete His Duty to His Patients More Intimately:In medical ethics, the doctor must do his best within the limitations of the law to relieve the pain of the patient. Along with the fact that he must preserve the dignity of said patient. If a patient has a terminal illness, then in the name of relieving pain, that doctor can and should put to death his patient to lessen the suffering. (Again on the condition of informed consent)Less Costly to the System: I shall quote a fellow DDO member on here in another debate, he put it elegantly. \"Whatever way one looks at it, dying costs money. In fact, a person in Miami will be spending around $23,000 on medical bills in the last six months of his/her life [http://usatoday30.usatoday.com......]This cost is for dying without the use of PAS. However, a person, using PAS, would only spend approximately $10,000 (in 1995 dollars) on medical bills [http://www.nejm.org......]. I\u2019d like you to think about that. If a person chooses to have a PAS, this would mean that his/her surviving relatives would have about $13,000 that they didn\u2019t before to put toward a funeral (a traditional funeral ranges from $7,000 to over $10,000 [http://www.funeralswithlove.com......]), or other debts that may need to be paid. Let\u2019s say that this patient who wishes to have a PAS, may have un-wealthy relatives, or he/she may be un-wealthy. Not only is he/she suffering, but he/she is also paying quite a bit of medical bills to be kept alive, especially when he/she doesn\u2019t wish to be in the first place. So, given the opportunity to choose, not only would he/she be relieving his/herself of suffering, but also saving money for his/her relatives or beneficiaries as well.\" ~ DetectableNinjaAll Countries Named Have Universal Care When Giving Suicides:Legally, the only person capable of administering said assistance to suicide would be the doctors, that is it, not some private firm. This would ideally prevent anyone from trying to convince someone to undergo PAS for any fraudulent reasons. Finally, Say You're Married, and You Are a Proxy For Someone Incapable of Making Decisions: This can lead to a very uncomfortable scenario. The person trusted with making decisions may suffer from depression or other psychological trauma wondering if they're making decisions consistent with that patent's wishes. If someone was unable to move or speak, and was in pain, would they want to continue to fight? Or finally die and be at peace? Likewise, what about other people putting pressure on that proxy that might be in direct violation of the patients wishes? How would they feel? PAS is another option which enables this scenario to be completely by-passed, and not allow that poor person designated as a proxy to have to shoulder so much burden when the time comes (should it ever come). Thank you!Summary:(1) Already allow it, cannot charge a body(2) Furthers liberty(3) Doctor does his duty more(4) Save on costs (5) Relieves strains on proxies Therefore, we can conclude that the US ought to legalize doctor assisted suicides (a.k.a PAS) Over to my opponent!", "qid": "23", "docid": "d1a9845d-2019-04-18T16:38:29Z-00004-000", "rank": 27, "score": 236920.0}, {"content": "Title: Euthanasia (assisted suicide) should be legalised. Content: This debate is on the topic of euthanasia, also called 'assisted suicide'. It is the killing of someone with their permission, usually due to pain or distress the person committing suicide has to undergo daily. I wish for a good and enjoyable debate!", "qid": "23", "docid": "fe13b6d0-2019-04-18T17:15:38Z-00006-000", "rank": 28, "score": 235623.0}, {"content": "Title: Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide Should Be Legalized for the Terminally Ill Content: Let's not get distracted from the topic and please refrain from hurtful language such as \"Are you cold or stupid?\" While I'm not saying that it certainly can have an emotional effect on the doctor who goes through with the procedure, it should be understood that the doctor is not forced to do such acts. It will be a decision of his own as he will decide his own profession and also if he will offer an assisted suicide procedure. No doctor is being forced to help in the suicide of another. The famous Dr. Jack Kevorkian who helped in the suicide of at least 130 patients still advocated the procedure until his last breath. The point being that obviously certain people are capable of handling such practices. \"Dying is not a crime.\" as Dr. Kevorkian once stated and is certainly not selfish. It is nothing but human nature to have a desire to maintain some control over one's life and ultimate death. Needless for me to point out that bringing religion into a political debate is hardly pertinent.", "qid": "23", "docid": "241794a9-2019-04-18T15:43:47Z-00002-000", "rank": 29, "score": 235397.0}, {"content": "Title: Euthanasia (assisted suicide) should be legalised. Content: We aren't legalising homicide, we are letting people choose to die when they are unable to. Oprah (and most likely the other two, I don't know who they are) would have been able to commit suicide whether or not euthanasia was legal, she could have easily thrown herself in front of a train, jumped off a bridge or taken an overdose. Euthanasia needs to be there for people who are unable to commit suicide. So, even if euthanasia was legal, we would still have Oprah and other icons. In 2005, Tony Nicklinson from Wiltshire suffered a stroke at the age of 51. Consequently, he suffered from locked-in syndrome and was unable to talk, walk, move his arms and he had absolutely no independence. He lived a life of absolute misery. His wife would have done anything to help him painlessly put an end to his misery but because of laws banning assisted suicide in the United Kingdom, she could do nothing. Mr Nicklinson's only choice was to starve himself. After refusing food for one week, Tony passed away; but this week of intense pain he endured could have been stopped if euthanasia was legal. Tony would have committed suicide either way, the British government forced him to do it in a most painful and horrible way. People who want to commit suicide will usually find a way to do it; by legalising euthanasia we can make it a better path for them all. I understand what you're saying about potential trauma for the person who assisted with the suicide but we can take measures to ensure they are not pushed into it and are perfectly comfortable with doing it. But imagine how traumatic it must have been for Tony's wife, having to watch her husband endure the worst pain every day of his life and watch him waste away as he took a difficult but the only path to an end to misery.", "qid": "23", "docid": "fe13b6d0-2019-04-18T17:15:38Z-00004-000", "rank": 30, "score": 234430.0}, {"content": "Title: Assisted suicide/euthanasia should be legal Content: I just have a couple of issues with your last argument and I'll leave it at that. -By definition anyone with a doctorate is a doctor. But even limiting the decisions to licensed physicians in no way, shape, or form is adequate. There is quite a difference between an E.R. Doc and and oncologist, for example. -The process IS arbitrary as long as there isn't a vetting process that would have to include a team of specialists all agreeing. A patient is only \"terminal\" when a doctor says so. Another Doc with the same exact training might disagree, a Doc with more specific training very often would. -Doctor shopping for purpose of getting a 2nd opinion is completely legal. In this case the patient would simply get as many opinions as necessary until he gets the one he wants. -The majority of cases where patients pull out of their illness aren't miraculous recovery, they are usually mis-diagnosis in the first place. The amount of cancer patients who are incorrectly told they are terminal is greater than you apparently realize, for example. I was a training coordinator in a major hospital for 4 years. Doctors incorrectly diagnosing patients and over or under estimating the severity of their illness is very common. It would probably appall you the number of \"medical\" decisions that are made based on insurance coverage rather than best care of the patient. Expanding this out to doctors making decisions such as assisted suicide is a slippery slope best not navigated.", "qid": "23", "docid": "9f12f501-2019-04-18T19:55:28Z-00000-000", "rank": 31, "score": 234414.0}, {"content": "Title: Legalizing euthanasia places an unreasonable burden on doctors Content: The daily decisions made in order to preserve life can be difficult enough; to require them to also carry the immense moral responsibility of deciding who can and cannot die, and the further responsibility of actually killing patients, is unacceptable. This is why the vast majority of medical professionals oppose the legalisation of assisted suicide: ending the life of a patient goes against all they stand for. Many doctors that have performed euthanasia are traumatized or deeply, negatively affected by the experience.", "qid": "23", "docid": "89c45bda-2019-04-17T11:47:42Z-00112-000", "rank": 32, "score": 234091.0}, {"content": "Title: Legalizing Euthanasia for the Sick and Elderly Content: Euthanasia may be considered assisted suicide from a medical point of view, but I have to disagree about it being inhumane - it actually seems like one of the most humane ways to end a person's life. Instead of years of physical and mental suffering, people can go out painlessly, on their own terms. Why does that seem inhumane? To your second point, yes, there are other ways to relieve a person's pain and suffering. Medically prescribed drugs can certainly help in some cases, but our medical advancements have only brought us so far. Doctors cannot guarantee that a patient diagnosed with cancer will be cured, or that someone with Lou Gehrig's Disease will recover from slow, total-body paralysis. In the cases where medical advancement is no longer helpful, if euthanasia was legal, these patients could choose not to suffer a slow and painful death, but rather a quick, painless one. And the answers to your questions: 1. Euthanasia is never the only option, but as I mentioned in my opening comments, the right to death is as much given to us in the United States Constitution as the right to life, and should at least be a legal option. 2. In all cases, Euthanasia is a last resort. 3. I am not sure what population of people openly support euthanasia.", "qid": "23", "docid": "6626ac2e-2019-04-18T13:30:40Z-00005-000", "rank": 33, "score": 234065.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should legalize Physician Assisted Suicide. Content: I will readdress his doctor's opinion's on PAS in my second contention. Contention 1: Unreported Euthanasia without consent. My opponent does not actually refute my argument, but rather attacks the validity of my sources. He states that my ncbi source in C1 is a mere opinion, so it doesn't matter, right? Wrong, if we just so happen to look at the bottom and see his sources we can see a trememdous amount of creditable sources that he has site. Okay so what, he has valid sources? Well if we observe our J. Pereira we can see that he is the author of several medical papers and is a very creditable source. (. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...) Secondly, he isn't the only source that I use in my argument that I've made last round. I've made two as this was the second article. (Smets T, Bilsen J, Cohen J, Rurup ML, De Keyser E, Deliens L. The medical practice of euthanasia in Belgium and the Netherlands: legal notification, control and evaluation procedures. Health Policy.2009;90:181\u20137. doi: 10.1016/j. healthpol.2008.10.003) He also states that my argumentation was false, but this is incorrect as the Euthanasias without consent are that of the doctor terminating the person's life when they do not wish it to end. This simply mirrors that of putting a baby into a microwave and \"drying them off. \" It's not correct. Plus I've showed that even with it legal we can see that there is still a black market for euthanasia so it does not solve that problem what-so-ever. Now I know that my opponent is against some of these, but this plays a key factor in my slippery slope argument that I will get into next. In 2003, Terri Schiavo recovered from a vegetative state that she had been in for 13 years. She had been dubbed dying, but she began to recover and eventually woke up to be on the O\u2019Rielily Show. (. http://www.rense.com...) They had removed her feeding tube and she had been without food and water for a few days even when she began to show signs of recovery. This is an event that occurred in the United States and we can see how this can easily go wrong when we try to give someone a peaceful end. In New York, Dr. Dimancescu's program has increased the ability for patients to get out of comas by a total of 91% compared to regular machines which have only 11%. (. http://www.nysrighttolife.org...) Contention 2: Slippery Slope argument. My opponent only discounts my argument as a slippery slope, but states that it doesn't have any support claims, but the two examples that he put up on petistools were the examples I used and I showed that their pregresssion has lead to Non-Voluntary Euthanasia. It all started with legalizing PAS and is happening in other parts of the World. Even the US. Just like in Belgium now, people are able to euthanize children, which I had brought up last round. You can see how this is becoming socially acceptable as the numbers and the rates of euthanasias are increasing and in some cases doubling. The cases of Euthanasia in both Belgium and Neatherlands have doubled and skyrocketed since they had been able to legalize it and this is proof of this becoming a norm. There is plenty of information on euthanasia avaliable as several European nations have been doing this for years. Now once again, I understand that Pro is against involuntary euthanasia, but the fact is that I have show that by supporting this will lead to the fact of it getting legalized as it has led to the ability for children to be euthanized by the word of their parents in Belgium in 2009. So I just extend my arguments across the board. I also extend my moral decay argument. Physician-Assisted Suicide [euthanasia]: 42% Had both a \"religious and nonreligious objection\" to physician-assisted suicide 31% Had \"no objection\" to physician-assisted suicide 21% Had a \"nonreligious objection\" to physician-assisted suicide 5% Had a \"religious objection\" to physician-assisted suicide Physician Characteristics: 79% of Asian doctors in the US object to physician-assisted suicide 71% of Hispanic doctors in the US object to physician-assisted suicide 67% of White doctors in the US object to physician-assisted suicide 65% of Black doctors in the US object to physician-assisted suicide 79% of Catholic doctors object to physician-assisted suicide 79% of Muslim doctors object to physician-assisted suicide 75% of Protestant doctors object to physician-assisted suicide 74% of Hindu doctors object to physician-assisted suicide 54% of Jewish doctors object to physician-assisted suicide 39% of doctors with no religious affiliation object to physician-assisted suicide Physicians from the US Midwest are more likely to object to physician-assisted suicide than those from the US South (. http://euthanasia.procon.org...) Contention 3: Self-Ownership and sickness My opponent here only quotes about my entire third Contention says I'm wrong and that's it. He doesn't refute it or anything and because of that I extend it across.", "qid": "23", "docid": "4f51142c-2019-04-18T15:23:59Z-00003-000", "rank": 34, "score": 233601.0}, {"content": "Title: Legalizing Euthanasia or Physician-Assisted Suicide Content: If the patient is suffering from an extreme amount of pain, they may enter palliative care. Palliative care reduces the pain as much as they can so that they can spend their last days with their family. If the person would like to end their life right away, how do you know that they're are in the right mental state. Their illness may have affected them so they should not be able to determine to end their life then and there.", "qid": "23", "docid": "dccf7263-2019-04-18T16:52:37Z-00003-000", "rank": 35, "score": 233288.0}, {"content": "Title: You Choose the Resolution! Content: It is a great pleasure to be debating with you once again, ThinkBig. *I'll be debating as Pro for \"That physician-assisted suicide (PAS or euthanasia) should be legalized\".* Full Resolution (Focus is the U.S.)Resolved: PAS must be legalized in all 50 states of the U.S. Preface / Understanding the debateBefore we begin, I shall present my policies and framework for this debate. It is also necessary for me to address that the BoP will be shared in this debate. I'll also dedicate this clause explaining how to fulfill the BoP: Con's burden is to present the disadvantages of euthanasia / PAS and how these disadvantages harm the U.S. The premise of this debate is centered on utility (to not be confused with the theory of Utilitarianism), which I'll define soon. To be explicit, this means that the burden of each debater is to provide evidence substantiating that PAS is either useful to the U.S., meaning that it benefits the people of the nation (Pro's objective) or alternatively, it harms the people of the U.S. and is overall damaging / and or dangerous to the nation (Con's objective).FrameworkMy framework is pretty simple, my arguments will focus on autonomy (the right to death in this case), the alleviation of pain of terminally ill patients and the problems with current laws. I will as well focus on the Hippocratic Oath and what part it plays in PAS. Succinctly, if a patient is under excruciating pain caused by his or her sickness, he / or she should have the right to decide if they want to be permanently relieved of that pain through the means of pain-free lethal medication (assisted suicide). DefinitionsLegalize: \"to make legal; authorize.\" Utility: \u201cthe state of being useful, profitable, or beneficial.\u201dAutonomy: \"Independence or freedom, as of the will or one's actions: the autonomy of the individual.\"Physician-assisted suicide: \"suicide with help from another person (such as a doctor) to end suffering from severe physical illness\"(1). Without further ado, let the debate begin! C1: Autonomy and Alleviation of PainOne of the points that I will touch on in this debate will be a person's right to have control of their own life / self-determination. Today, more and more countries are recognizing a patient's right to die. Countries like Canada, Germany, Netherlands, and Belguim have already passed legislations concerning this issue. However, the U.S. is stubborn, with only 20 states that have (only recently) started taking a call for legislative action to pass a bill of this sort, and only 4 states allow it (3). The reason the court disagrees is because they have failed to realize that just like human life, the self-determination of a person is valuable as well. The reason this has often been neglected is simply because \"ending\" / or relieving someone of their painstaking illness is considered morally diminishing; however, by this criteria, prolonging the pain of that certain individual to the point where he / or she succumbs from it isn't morally unacceptable or diminishing at all. The Economist conducted a survey in 15 countries where they asked people if it is a morally justifiable act for doctors to assist in their terminally ill patients' suicide by prescribing them lethal medication. Based on the results, Russia and Poland were against, but America and Western Europe were strongly in favor. Oregon, a state that has condoned PAS with their Death and Dignity Act have prescribed lethal medication to 1,327 people so far, and less than 50% of those individuals used it to alleviate their death. Undeniably, it is not the Netherlands where assisted suicide is accountable for 3% of deaths of the total population, and that's explainable, patients there are heavily relied upon and trust their medical professionals (2). Surely, my opponent may argue that we don't need PAS because the advancement of medical technologies will help to extend our lives and palliate the illness we may be succumbing to. However, here's the conflict. Due to the fact that many jurisdictions are discarding PAS, they're actually doing their citizens a disservice by prolonging the individual's pain and suffering (3). Australian gynaecologist Dr. Rosemary Jones says, \"We stand for a group of doctors distressed about the small number of patients, who, at the point of death, get no relief from palliative care\" and further, \"We thoroughly endorse the practice of palliative care for 95 [percent] of all palliative care [patients] and understand that for five per cent, there are persistent problems beyond relief provided for by palliative care\" (4). Succinctly, palliative care isn't always the answer. The attitude U.S. should adopt towards PAS is that it's the final stage of proper care and prolongation of life, and life cannot exist without death. C2: Current law does more damageA 57 year old British national by the name of Paul Lamb who became paralyzed after a near fatal car accident has currently spent 23 years of his life lying in bed immobilized. Because of this, he filed for assisted suicide, which was immediately discarded, despite that he described his life as a \"living hell\"; specifically, he is taking heavy dosages of drugs to alleviate his excruciating spinal pain caused by the accident. The court also said that any medical professional who would dare help him commit suicide will be penalized (5). According to Lamb, the reason his case was discarded is because policymakers simply don't want the UK to be another European country that permits PAS. In fact, he said that the authority is \"scared to death\". He further commented, \"Politicians are scared to death. It is a case of `Oh no, we can't do that - it's too risky'. If there was a politician with the guts to take it on it would be alright but I don't think they have got it in them\" (6). Because of the court's rejection, Lamb took further legal action: \"I am doing this for myself as and when I need it. I'm doing it for thousands of other people living what can only be described as a hell. Many of them have been in touch with me begging me to continue this fight. The more it goes on the stronger I am getting\" (6). His daily routine includes taking analgesic drugs like morphine to mitigate his pain. Lamb is not alone on this, a (now deceased) man who had suffered from(6). As for the US, a popular case would be Britanny Maynard's case, a woman who was diagnosed with brain cancer. Maynard knew that her odds were slim; hence, she decided to relocate to Oregon where PAS was legal. Although she was a supporter of euthanasia, her actions show us that self-determination is one of the most important aspects of our life (7). Although there are numerous cases of this sort, I believe the concept behind several PAS-related cases is simple and clear. People want to end their suffering. Surely, the medication and technology that soothes the pain does exist, but the issue doesn't change. The person is not cured, and frankly, sometimes there isn't a cure, which is the case for many terminally ill patients. The sufferer will still be in bed, taking drugs and feeling the pain with or without medicine, which only temporarily soothes the pain. Sometimes the best way to help someone is permanently relieving them of that pain; it is better to die painlessly rather than to experience suffering for the remaining years of your life, and waiting until you succumb from your disability / or sickness. C3: The Hippocratic Oath isn't violatedI believe one of the main factors to acknowledge when instigating PAS is the role of the Hippocratic Oath. Now, in Hippocrates' era, there was no ban placed on assisted-suicide in Greece. Nevertheless, many medical professionals still argue that based on the Hippocratic Oath--to not give their patients lethal drugs--PSA is a violation. Interestingly enough, in ancient Greece, doctors had permission to give their patients lethal medicine if asked by their patients. Aside from that, should we even rely on the Hippocratic Oath anymore? Despite it being a sacred, ancient document, the oath has been revised several times. For instance, verses about women in the medical field and a verse about \"not breaking the skin\" have been removed (8). Doesn't this just show us the faultiness of the document? But to remain on-point, let's adhere to the oath being a sacred document that every practicing physician must follow. Based on the oath, doctors must (obviously) care for their patients. Discernibly, the patient's suffering must also be the doctor's top priority. However, when he / or she is constantly suffering and there's no cure for the suffering / or the chances of curing the illness is slim; then, isn't the doctor obliged to end his / her suffering. Because by the criteria, if the patient is suffering, the doctor's duty to care for the patient isn't being fulfilled (8).According to the modernized version of the oath, the right to death is being emphasized: \"Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God\" (9). Evidently, the revised, international document proves that it's not against assisted-suicide (by the context). As stated by the document, the \"power to take a life\" is one of the most profound burdens a physician could carry.ConclusionBy my contentions, I've fulfilled my BoP by showing that without the choice of assisted suicide, a person's autonomy, self-determination, and right to choose what is best for him or her is violated. Since I'm running out of characters, I'll reserve the conclusion for the final round.Back to you, Con! =Sources=[1]:http://bit.ly...[2]:http://econ.st...;[3]:http://bit.ly...;[4]:http://bit.ly...;[5]:http://bit.ly...;[6]:http://ind.pn...;[7]:http://bit.ly...;[8]:http://bit.ly...;[9]:http://bit.ly...;", "qid": "23", "docid": "c8970382-2019-04-18T12:54:41Z-00005-000", "rank": 36, "score": 233161.0}, {"content": "Title: Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide Should Be Legalized for the Terminally Ill Content: The government does not have the right to say a citizen must be forced to live against their will. A life is that of the individual and the decisions made with that life, including its existence, should be left to the person living that life. No human being should be forced to suffer through his or her disease, illness, or injury against his or her will. Assisted suicide programs help offer consolation to those who may be in a state of loneliness and despondency while also maintaining dignity in death for the patient. Death is a private matter and although it may affect the family and friends of the patient, it is still a sole right belonging to said patient alone.", "qid": "23", "docid": "241794a9-2019-04-18T15:43:47Z-00004-000", "rank": 37, "score": 232906.0}, {"content": "Title: Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide Should Be Legalized for the Terminally Ill Content: The fact of the matter, my opponent has no logical reasoning other than a religious one for denying the right to die in patient. Just as life is an unalienable right, by logic, death is the end result of life and cannot logically be denied. Is it fair to force one to suffer? Of course not. If we deny terminally ill patient their right to a timely death, then the rational thought going through the patient's mind must be committing suicide alone. We shouldn't force that to be a result. If a patient requests their death to be on their own terms and not have to face that task alone, we should honor that right. I once again request that may opponent adhere to the topic at hand.", "qid": "23", "docid": "241794a9-2019-04-18T15:43:47Z-00000-000", "rank": 38, "score": 232859.0}, {"content": "Title: Euthanasia Should Be Legal In America Content: Some of my opponent's arguments do not link to his conclusion. When someone is given the right to life, that means that the government outlaws murder, and punishes those who infringe on the right. This has nothing to do with the right to do with it whatever they want. With Pro's interpretation of this right, anyone including depressed teenagers and the like, are allowed to commit suicide, even when it would clearly harm society for them to do so.My opponent's sole valid point is basically this: that those who want a way out from their pain should have it by killing them, which is a merciful thing to do. However, I also agree that patients should have the right to die in this circumstance, with assisted suicide. This would achieve the same upsides, without the downsides of the doctor outright killing the patient.With the doctor killing the patient, doctors are given power that may be abused. For example, when it would benefit the doctor, the doctor could fake consent, among other things. Assisted suicide achieves the same upsides, without the ethical downsides of euthanasia.", "qid": "23", "docid": "bdcebe60-2019-04-18T13:07:00Z-00002-000", "rank": 39, "score": 232697.0}, {"content": "Title: Euthanasia needs to be made legal for those who need it Content: First Euthanesia (doctor assisted suicide) Should not be legal due to three main reasons that i will state with sub-topics. The reasons are, Value of human life, it undermines medicine research, its contradicts the right to live. Value of human life. As stated in the constitution, \"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are life liberty and pursuit of happiness. \" Euthanasia undermines the human life. Giving doctors the right to assist in suicide is giving power to doctors or to kill. All humans have the right to live. One does not choose his or her birth day, why should one choose his or her death day. This is a case of right to die versus right to kill. We have a right to die naturally. This is the reason when someone is murdered, the murderer is arrested. Samething in any case where a person does not die naturally. One could argue what about medicine and people who die from overdose and things like that because medicine is not natural. Dying naturally is simply the body not being able to handle whatever is the cause of death. Body not being able to handle medicine, alcohol, etc. Something that is not caused directly by someone else. Undermines medical research I understand people suffer. The pain is a big factor in this. Many with natural illnesses or termanlly ill want to die. One thing you have to consider is the medical research society has come to invent. Years ago, society lacked medicine, treatmants and such that temporarily help those who are suffering with their pain. By allowing someone to say \"i want to do\" and allowing this, the value of the medicine research that has been done to help treat the patient and potentially cure the patient is undermined. Eventually you fall into a society that could view it alright for a doctor to take the liffe of someone who wants to die. Same thing with suicide which is also illegal. By making this legal, you open a door that says \"suicide is ok. \" Many do not realize that people in critical conditions facing pain are often not in the right mind and suffer a false sense of worthlessness. That person may want to die simply because the pain is unbearable. Many in critical situations are not in the right mind. People whom have attempted suicide sometimes come to realize they do not wanna die, they just want happiness. It is difficult to let someone pursue happniess when we allow one to decide that their life is meaningless. Contradicts right to liveHumans have a right to live. We know this. We do not have a right to die though. If we had a right to die i beleive society would not be as strict on murders. If the right to die was in the Declaration of independence, or Constituion, a murder could simply kill and use the right to die as the reason for the murder. This could open doors for more murders and issues among society. Simply one cannot have a right to die as it is too vague. The right too die could be phrased as right to choose death. As far as it being a slow death, to many that slow death can be worth it to famliy members and others whom are effected directly. Overall i beleive people should not be allowed to decide that. Curing versus killing is a big part of the right to die. I beleive it should not be allowed because people are not always in the right mind when terminally ill, and often suffer from depression. There can be alternative treatments that prolong eath and can help patients. By offering the right of death it could lead to more people deciding it is better to kill then find a cure. This leads to unreasonable deaths.", "qid": "23", "docid": "fbc5207f-2019-04-18T17:32:39Z-00004-000", "rank": 40, "score": 232096.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should legalize Physician Assisted Suicide. Content: Contention 1: Unreported and Euthanasia without one's consent. A) My opponent is mistaken. Euthanasia without one's consent does include BOTH Non Voluntary Euthanasia and Involunatary Euthanasia. So my opponent is indeed incorrect at that point. The 1.7% is for the Dutch. There is reason for these facts though. It goes to show just how bad the way things are in these foreign nations that have legalized euthanasia and they have lead to these types of arguments. It is a simple impact to show just show bad it is when you legalize euthanasia and even with the proper safeguards we can see that it leads to Non Voluntary Euthanizing of children as seen in boht the Neatherlands and Beligium it may seem bogus, but facts speak for themselves. We can see that even if the US legalizes we will follow soon. B) J. Pereira is a valid source as he is a biotech which means that he is an expert in the feild as he actually understands how euthanasia works and considering that he has a PhD in genetics he once again knows how exactly this works making this a better source and concidering that I have provided multiple sources here for this we can still see that's it's valid as my opponent hasn't actually provided a source to show that it's valid. Even if you do not take J Pereira as a valid source he still had several soveral sources that show that the source is creditable from within the reserch that he has done. When it came to Terri Schiavo she did indeed recover. As a matter of fact here is a video showing that she was a fully responsive and functional human being before euthanasia took it's full effect and killed her. () Contention 2: Slippery SLope Argument. I will bring this up as I have before. THis is the name of the argument given to it by the author of the argument. The person is Ezekiel Emmanuel who is a well known American bioethicist who has come out with this theory. In this novel, The Ends of Human Life, he goes into an argument against Euthanasia where he uses AIDs patients as an example. Where he not only blatently attacked euthanasia as murder, but as morally unjustified. \"To know whether it is ethical to turn off the respirator for a quadriplegic patient requires conceptions of personal identity, a worthy human life, murder and suicide; to know how much information a doctor must provide a cancer patient to obtain proper informed consent for an experimental therapy requires conceptions of autonomy, coercion and the public good and how to balance these values; to know whether to break the AIDS patient\u2019s confidentiality and inform his wife requires a framework for weighing the relative importance of competing individual rights as well as the public good. \" As we can see my opponent doesn't actually refute any of my arguments here as he only refute's the argument as a fallacy due to a misconception of it's name. So once more I extend it all the way across the board. Contention 3: Self-Ownership and sickness. Okay so sorry if I didn't see two sentences as a refutation of 3 valid points. However it's true, because we can see that the loss of just one person is felt by the community and we can see that the collective socity needs the person more than not and it's really selfish if that one person decides to kill themselves without thinking of the collective group as a whole. My opponent also dropped a very key point and that was the self-dettermination argument that they should only kill themselves if they're in the right state of mind, but if you want to kill yourself you are in the wrong state of mind. He's also dropped palliative specialist argument showing that the numbers of people seeing them has dropped significantly.", "qid": "23", "docid": "4f51142c-2019-04-18T15:23:59Z-00001-000", "rank": 41, "score": 231571.0}, {"content": "Title: Physician assisted suicide (Euthanasia) Content: The right to life is perhaps the most basic and fundamental of all our rights. However, with every right comes a choice. The right to speech does not remove the option to remain silent; the right to vote brings with it the right to abstain. In the same way, the right to choose to die is implicit in the right to life. The degree to which physical pain and psychological distress can be tolerated is different in all humans. Quality of life judgments are private and personal, thus only the sufferer can make relevant decisions.[1] This was particularly evident in the case of Daniel James.[2] After suffering a spinal dislocation as the result of a rugby accident he decided that he would live a second-rate existence if he continued with life and that it was not something he wanted to prolong. People are given a large degree of autonomy within their lives and since deciding to end your life does not physically harm anyone else, it should be within your rights to decide when you wish to die. While the act of suicide does remove option to choose life, most cases in which physician assisted suicide is reasonable, death is the inevitable and often imminent outcome for the patient regardless if by suicide or pathological process. The choice for the patient, therefore, is not to die, but to cease suffering. [1]Derek Humphrey, 'Liberty and Death: A manifesto concerning an individual's right to choose to die', assistedsuicide.org 1 March 2005, http://www.assistedsuicide.org... (accessed 4/6/2011) [2]Elizabeth Stewart, 'Parents defend assisted suicide of paralysed rugby player', guardian.co.uk, 17 October 2008, http://www.guardian.co.uk... (accessed 6/6/2011)", "qid": "23", "docid": "affb1a60-2019-04-18T15:03:47Z-00004-000", "rank": 42, "score": 230991.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should legalize Physician Assisted Suicide. Content: Thanks for the timely response. Now as for the definition. If we observe the medical definition of Physician Assisted Suicide we will find the following definition, \"Somewhat of a hybrid between passive and active euthanasia is physician-assisted suicide (PAS), also known as voluntary passive euthanasia.\" (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...) This means that it is voluntary Euthanasia, but just by a different name. In this debate I will be arguing that the legislation of this type of Euthanasia will lead to the legislation of other types of Euthanasia outside of Voluntary Euthanasia. Now I will warn that I will give my arguments, but may not get to all of my opponent's argument here and some of them may have to wait until the next round. Contention 1: Unreported Euthanasia and Euthanasia without consent. I shall begin by giving you the horrible statistics of Euthanasia. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...) Approximately 900 euthanasia's a year are done without the consent of the one being euthanized and 50% of euthanasizations are done unreported. In 2005, it was reported that 1.7% of the nation's deaths were caused by Euthanasia, a total of 2,410 people. 1 out of every 5 people who receive euthanasia are done without consent. ( Smets T, Bilsen J, Cohen J, Rurup ML, De Keyser E, Deliens L. The medical practice of euthanasia in Belgium and the Netherlands: legal notification, control and evaluation procedures. Health Policy.2009;90:181\u20137. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2008.10.003.) A study in Belgium reported that 32% were without consent. . Contention 2: The Slippery Slope Argument Keown gives in his slippery slope argument of 2002, that once one form of euthanasia is accepted that other forms, like involuntary euthanasia, to become legal. For my number one example I present the Dutch. In 1987, the Royal Dutch Medical Association had written into law, \u201cIf there is no request from the patient, then proceeding with the termination of his life is [juristically] a matter of murder or killing, and not of euthanasia.\u201d However, in 2001 they supported a new law that completely supported a law that would legalize non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia. (Medical end-of-life practices under the euthanasia law in Belgium. Bilsen J, Cohen J, Chambaere K, Pousset G, Onwuteaka-Philipsen BD, Mortier F, Deliens L N Engl J Med. 2009 Sep 10; 361(11):1119-21.) There 2001 law also permitted children from age 12-16 to be euthanized with parental concent! Though the nation does not consider the child at liberty to make the call. (The medical practice of euthanasia in Belgium and The Netherlands: legal notification, control and evaluation procedures. Smets T, Bilsen J, Cohen J, Rurup ML, De Keyser E, Deliens L Health Policy. 2009 May; 90(2-3):181-7) The euthanasia\u2019s in Belgium have doubled since 1998. The involuntary and non-voluntary euthanasia rates have slightly increased from 1.5% in 2001 to 1.8% in 2007. In Flanders the euthanasia numbers have increased from 0.3% in 2001 to 1.9% in 2007. In the graph bellow we can see that the number of euthanasia\u2019s have doubled since 2007 as well. The definition of Euthanasia has actually changed over the years from it being killing in 1950 to a quick and easy death in 1981. In the bellow quote we can see that our perspective has changed to the point that we almost do not even associate death with euthanasia in the definition. \"\"Have we really forgotten that euthanasia is killing?\" From a pre-1950 dictionary: \"Mode or act of inducing death painlessly or as a relief from pain.\" From Webster's Third International Unabridged Dictionary (1968): \"1. An easy death or means of inducing one. 2. The act or practice of painlessly putting to death persons suffering from incurable conditions or diseases.\" From Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary (1981): \"1. Dying easily, quietly and painlessly. 2. The act of willfully ending life in individuals with an incurable disease\" (http://www.all.org...) You are also given the healing doctor a killing roll. This can have a huge effect on doctors as it was proved that it has an effect on doctors who are supposed to heal their patients and are now asked to kill. This also gives off a fear of the doctor as in Holland, the elderly are scared of the doctor, because they are scared that the doctor will euthanize them. (http://www.all.org...) Contention 3: Self Ownership and Sickness Consent from a palliative specialist is also very important, but recent euthanasia\u2019s have not been doing so and consenting them. In Belgium, before 2002, all euthanasia cases without concent of a palliative specialist were denied, but from 2002-2007, that number declined from 100% to only 9% as only 19% of all euthanasia cases was a palliative contacted for their opinion. (Same source as the first one used in this round) Now I know that my opponent is against some of these, but this plays a key factor in my slippery slope argument that I will get into next. In 2003, Terri Schiavo recovered from a vegetative state that she had been in for 13 years. She had been dubbed dying, but she began to recover and eventually died on TV. (http://www.rense.com...) They had removed her feeding tube and she had been without food and water for a few days even when she began to show signs of recovery. This is an event that occurred in the United States and we can see how this can easily go wrong when we try to give someone a peaceful end. In New York, Dr. Dimancescu's program has increased the ability for patients to get out of comas by a total of 91% compared to regular machines which have only 11%. (http://www.nysrighttolife.org...) For this next part I will argue that of self-determination. The reason I say that only those who are faced with death should be able to decide whether or not euthanasia is justifiable for them, but only when they are in the correct state of mind. Those who chose willingly can either be suffering from depression or from that of sickness and that sickness can impair the way they think by forcing an unbearable pain upon them. Under Self-Determination one must first mentally defeat the sickness and then when they are in the correct state of mind then they should be able to make any judgmental decision and it is likely under this case that they would choose life over death. (http://www.vatican.va...) Another anti-Euthanasia advocate is Jeremy Bethem who is quoted saying, \" \u201cit is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong.\u201d (http://www.bmj.com...) This means that we must observe the weight of the individual's value to the comunity verse the needs of that individual. Though the individual may be in pain they are still in the wrong state of mind as I brought up earlier meaning that the person cannot properly think for themselves and have lost the ability to choose between right and wrong as they are attempting to end their lives with no reguards to others. They belong to the collective comunity and because of that the value of them is together a great impact. For this we are reminded of the allusion of For Whom the Bell tolls meaning that we as a society are joined together as one and it's because of that one person missing from society the entire society will feel the loss in everything from emotionally to the person's productivity that the contribute to better the community would vanish and that one person's death and their suicide would harm the entire community. So it maters not the level of pain the person is expierencing as if they kill themselves they would be robbing the community and it in turn harms society.", "qid": "23", "docid": "4f51142c-2019-04-18T15:23:59Z-00005-000", "rank": 43, "score": 229942.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should legalize Physician Assisted Suicide. Content: Hello everyone, Let's rap up....Contention 1A.) Contention 1 does an incredible job of stating facts, these facts include: #of euthanizations done without written or explicit consent and # of all deaths defined as euthanization. The facts that he lists all apply to either The Netherlands or Belgium as can be noted by looking at his citation, some may even be statistics from combining both countries data. There is a problem with his layout though. The problem being that contention 1 isnt an argument. It is a conglomeration of unrelated facts, the problem being not, that the facts are a conglomeration, but that these facts are not tied together to form any argument, they are simply facts, which without stated reason he calls \"horrible\". They have no context, no stated date for each fact, or indications as to which fact relates to which country. The citation in contention 1 of his argument indicates that all facts presented before it apply to Belgium and The Netherlands however at one point he simply says, \"1.7% of the nation's deaths were caused by Euthanasia\", to which I must respond, which nation, Belgium or The Netherlands? The facts are all over the place and are inconsistent as to who and when they partain. On another note, I must correct an improper assumption which is being promoted. That assumption being that EUTH without consent means, EUTH against the person's will. That would be plain murder, what this means is that the euthanization was done without explicit written legal consent. These people indicate in some manner that they wish to end their life. As for the ones that were unreported, this is because most of the doctors who preformed them didn't consider them to be acts of EUTH.B.) Now I will argue against claims made in Lannan's last speech. Firstly Let me state that I did not simply attack the validity of his sources, the source bit was simply an add-on which I will readdress momentarily. I refuted Lannan's contention 1 by stating that there is no real argument to refute save possibly an assumption that EUTH without consent means EUTH against the patients' will, which I have already covered. As I have said, There is no argument in contention 1, there is only a conglomeration of facts which do not logically relate to one another. This relates to contention 2 so you will see what I mean when I discuss logical fallacies later on.Now I would like to talk about my opponents author in contention 1, J. pereira. Right off the bat, lets talk about that list of credible studies which J. takes a part in. Just because he is in credible studies does not mean that he is in general credible, in how many of those studies was he the main author/ researcher. Secondly, just because he is an expert in one field of study, does that imply that he is an expert in the field of The Slippery-Slope of PAS? certainly not. I'll let the audience know that J. is a Chemical Biotech patent attorney with a PhD in genetics. So how is he a credible source? -http://www.oblon.com...Now I'll move onto Mrs.Terri Schiavo. Here is your claim: \"Terri Schiavo recovered from a vegetative state that she had been in for 13 years. She had been dubbed dying, but she began to recover and eventually woke up\"I would like to let everyone know that Mrs. Terri Schiavo never recovered from her vegetative state of 13 years. Her tubes were removed after a very, and I mean very long series of legal/judicial and executive events to determine whether or not to remove her feeding tubes took place. In the end the courts overruled George Bush's legislation to keep her alive and her feeding tubes were pulled, she never showed any sign of recovery and died a few days later. The woman you reference who recovered from her unresponsive state, of 70 days, was a woman named a Mrs. Kate Adamson in 1995. She had her tubes pulled in 2005 and immediately afterward began to recover, They plugged her back in and she fully recovered, she lives to this day. My question is, even if you were right, how would this hurt my case? if anything the events of Kate Adamson confirm the resolution. Kate was in a completely unresponsive state and was unable to communicate in any form or fashion. Now think about this. If you were stuck in a vegetative state fully aware for the rest of your life, would you really want to be alive, trapped in the cage of your body? If it were me I would be inwardly begging for Physician Assisted Suicide or the like. Contention 2, Oh the fallaciesMy opponent crafts this arguments soley on three things: an assumption, the 'post HOC' fallacy and the 'Slippery Slope' fallacy.The Slippery Slope fallacy: Post HOC fallacy: Here are some facts my opponent uses to craft his argument:a.) The definition of euthinasia at one point simply meant killing people with terminal illness while now it means a painless death to help the terminally ill.b.) The number of people being euthanized in one or two countries has dramatically increasedc.) One medical assosiation supported very strict definitions of euthinasia and later supported less strict definitionsPlease review the Post HOC fallacy, in any of these facts does it really follow that b was caused by a? in other words, does the fact that a definition has changed or that one medical association supported less criminally strict definitions of EUTH really imply that the changes were the result of decreasing moral attitudes? Could it likely be the result of anything else? Yes, and there has been no concrete proofs, inductive nor deductive reasoning's applied to suggest anything else. Please note that these are the result of an unfounded assumption. As for b the same applies because to me all b means is that the Belgians are finally giving people their right to death with dignity not introduced some initiative to begin the genocide of the weak and sick.Here are some common examples of the slippery slope fallacy: \"We have to stop the tuition increase! The next thing you know, they'll be charging $40,000 a semester!\" \"The US shouldn't get involved militarily in other countries. Once the government sends in a few troops, it will then send in thousands to die.\" \"You can never give anyone a break. If you do, they'll walk all over you.\" \"We've got to stop them from banning pornography. Once they start banning one form of literature, they will never stop. Next thing you know, they will be burning all the books!\" \"Once we start letting homosexuals get married, soon enough we'll be allowing sons to marry their fathers and dogs to marry monkeys!\"Now here is a quote from my opponent's speech: \"It all started with legalizing PAS and...now, people are able to euthanize children [soon enough involuntary EUTH will be legal and rampant]\" Contention 3 \"My opponent here only quotes about my entire third Contention says I'm wrong and that's it. He doesn't refute it or anything and because of that I extend it across.\"My opponent doesn't think that I have refuted contention 3 I will now refute that claim by showing how I have indeed refuted his third contention...refute... (had to throw it in there one more time)Premise: \"In contention 3 my opponent basically states that the sickly just need to take ownership and get over their pain. I state that most people who are terminally ill aren't irrational they are simply regular people who are in constant and unbearable pain\"Warrant: you haven't supported your own claim with evidence so you must \"provide evidence stating that all people who are chronically ill are irrational, only then can we accept contention 3.\"Premise + warrant in opposition of a claim = refutation Studies and evidence I'm running out out space so i'll make this quick. Here I refute Lannan's round 3 studies on professional PAS opinions. His came from 2008 from 2k doctors in one medical assosiation. Mine from 21k doctors in dec 2014 internationally. Clearly my evidence has been consistently better and myargumentation aswell. Thank you for reading", "qid": "23", "docid": "4f51142c-2019-04-18T15:23:59Z-00002-000", "rank": 44, "score": 229831.0}, {"content": "Title: Euthanasia (assisted suicide) should be legalised. Content: You talk about Tony reaching his potential, but what potential has he got?! I mean no offence, but he is not a scientist, he cannot be an office worker or a doctor. He can do nothing for the rest of his life but feel guilty for sponging off his wife. And yes, of course Tony would suffer depression after his event, but the stroke occurred in 2005 and he waited 7 years with still no hope and no chance of doing anything more with his life; he was a businessman, he couldn't have continued with his profession whilst suffering from locked in syndrome. You say Tony didn't have to die, but he didn't have to live either. It should be up to him to choose whether or not he lives or dies, to go through that misery or to put a stop to it. His message to us was: 'Goodbye world, the time has come, I had some fun.' He had obviously thought long and hard before going through with what he did, but having to endure even more pain for 1 week whilst suffering from pneumonia dent my pride in being British, to know that my government did that to one of our own and stripped him of his dignity. It is truly disgusting. Bringing up the problem of disguised murder, you continue to oppose euthanasia. But euthanasia is not one family member killing another. If you were to legalise it, a similar system would be used as in Switzerland. You take your family member to the clinic, they make 100% sure this is what they want and then either an injection is administered or a drink is taken and then they slowly and painlessly pass away. The family member does not actually perform the suicide. Murder would be practically impossible, there isn't a DIY option, only clinics to do the service for you. My method to help my grandfather? Taking him to Switzerland, paying for the taxi to the clinic and comforting him during his last moments. Surely THAT is more peaceful, more dignified and more desirable than watching him waste away as he refuses food or medical treatment.", "qid": "23", "docid": "fe13b6d0-2019-04-18T17:15:38Z-00002-000", "rank": 45, "score": 229806.0}, {"content": "Title: Euthanasia Should Be Legal In America Content: My opponent makes no argument for why we should favor his interpretation of the right to life over my interpretation. My argument was dropped, so we must assume that the right to life only includes the right to keep your life, and not the right to do with it whatever you wish. However, despite my thoughts on the right to life, I believe that assisted suicide should be legal. Not because it would fulfill a right, but because it would reduce unnecessary suffering to those who will inevitably die without any reasonable chance of recovery or at least any remaining time without pain. Doctors should not kill their patients, and my arguments supporting that were dropped. Pro gives no reason as to why Euthanasia should be legalized that is unique to his plan over my counter plan (assisted suicide), and I have shown that his plan presents disadvantages that mine does not have. Therefore, you must negate.", "qid": "23", "docid": "bdcebe60-2019-04-18T13:07:00Z-00000-000", "rank": 46, "score": 229065.0}, {"content": "Title: Euthanasia Content: \u2018Logical\u2019 argument My opponent\u2019s syllogism\u2019s conclusions are flawed. If you assume the points, it may seem like a humane conclusion, however, the assumption that the points are correct--and then the conclusion--is inaccurate. My opponent\u2019s whole arguments rests on a few things: the patients choose death, and that euthanasia will reduce their pain in the long run. Both of these assumptions are debatable. Patients who \u2018choose\u2019 death generally do so with bad reasoning. In fact, a significant amount of people who choose death are mentally ill. Research argues that if you are depressed, you are at least 4.1 times more likely to request for euthanasia, according to research of cancer patients with 3 months to live [1]. Further, in nearly every country where a form of physician assisted suicide is legal, the vast majority allow the killing of people with mental illness. In the Netherlands--which my opponent cites directly--the mentally ill are often euthanized. In Belgium, the mentally ill are euthanized in order to take their organs. The fact is, whenever you legalize physician assisted suicide, the law eventually evolves into a death-on-demand structure which leads to many people not capable of making these decisions wisely being killed [2]. Further, there is an issue of people in the Netherlands, Belgium, and Canada being murdered, as they are killed without explicit request. Obviously this is not legal, but the fact is that if it is legal to kill someone intentionally if they ask, it is easy just to put in your records \u2018asked for death\u2019 with minimal questioning from the law. In Oregon, the law began fairly successful. For 1/4 of patients asking for death, they received psychiatric care before their decision. They were walked through the process. However, by 2010, this has disintegrated. None of the people killed were told to seek mental care first [3]. Recent pieces by doctors bring excellent points to my opponents argument. When death becomes the answer, doctors see their patients have less faith in medical care. It is well established that people in the medical profession are a source of hope for their patients. To allow death leads to less hope, and it makes them feel unwanted--that at a certain point, life is not worth living. This is, as doctors argue, is one of the largest blows to human dignity. Further, this has led to a decrease in palliative care. Instead of easing pain and making the life worth living, physicians often choose death as a mean to end the pain, instead of attempting to help the patient [4]. A review of medical opinion shows that good pain medications can make life fairly painless, not the painful picture which my opponent construes. The vast majority of patients who suffer suffer because their doctor has not been properly instructed as to how to administer pain medication. Doctors fear to give too much pain medication as it may cause death, though this fear is often imagines. Doctors generally give medications PRN (per required need), but this leads to less satisfactory pain alleviation. Dosages vary based upon pain extent, and often underestimate the amount of medication needed, due to their lack of education on the issue. Undertreatment of pain is another leading cause for euthanasia requests. It may be thought that pain medications must be an expertise thing, this is not the case; most medicines capable of making the illness painless--therefore making euthanasia obsolete--are straightforward. Doctors need to understand that high dosages of opioids will cure the pain and are wholly safe when administered properly. Cancer patients often need 20-60mg of morphine every 4 hours. If palliative care is properly admitted, the need for pain relief through death minimizes [5]. Therefore, education of doctors, not the legalization of physician assisted suicide, will be superior in extending the life spans of patients and reducing pain. Economic Impacts Calculations show the savings per euthanasia are about 10,000 per victim. When this is properly accounted for, we would save about $627 million each year. My opponents research uses numbers including the mentally ill, who should not be allowed to receive euthanasia in the first place. So, assuming we can properly bar these people from being euthanized, this is the proper savings amount. This number is less than 1/3 of one percent of the US\u2019s health care costs. The economic savings is very limited, and surely not worth the lives lost [6]. Other things would be far better at reducing healthcare costs: reducing regulations which amount to $169 billion of added cost to the industry each year [7], expand HSAs, push malpractice reform, privatize medicaid, and shrink the HHS would all be much better options to reducing the economic impacts of health care costs than killing patients [8]. Voluntary deaths will always occur There is no doubt in my mind that there will be the occasional euthanized patient. My opponent\u2019s study is flawed in the fact it doesnt account for patients with mental illness. As noted, mental illness is the main cause for the decision of death, which is technically \u2018voluntary\u2019, or would be in the study my opponent cited. However, if the request was made on their basis for wanting to die due to depression, we can see how this should not be considered a true case of voluntarism, as the decision was made outside of a solid state of mind. My opponent claims euthanasia was a cause for 0.8% of deaths in the Netherlands before legalization, whereas his study noted that after legalization it was 1.7% of deaths were caused by euthanasia and .1% physician assisted suicide, totalling 1.8%, a 1% increase. Further, the rate of euthanasia has steadily increased since legalization, meaning legalization has led to more acceptance of the idea of euthanasia [9]. Further, a more recent study argues that now 2.8% of deaths are caused by euthanasia in the Netherlands [10]. Conclusion: Physician assisted suicide/euthanasia actually will harm palliative care, however, palliative care reduces, if not eliminates, the moral case my opponent construed: in fact, pain can be controlled without death and rather with proper education. The economic cost, enacting laws my opponent would pass if he was in control (has to be voluntary, not for mental illness unless treated) would actually lead to very minimal savings, and in fact, other methods that will increase quality of care--which don't involve killing patients--are superior in reducing healthcare costs. And finally, although even in areas where euthanasia is illegal euthanasia still occurs, the fact is, legalizing it leads to its practice being much more common. Even in the Netherlands where the laws prohibiting it were very unenforced, legalization led to a skyrocketing in its use. Imagine how rare it would be if the Netherlands kept their anti-euthanasia culture which they had in WW2. Euthanasia should remain illegal, resolution negated. 1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 2. http://www.nationalreview.com... 3. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 4. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 5. http://medicine.emory.edu... 6. http://www.levinlaw.com... 7. http://www.cato.org... 8. http://www.ipi.org... 9. http://www.life.org.nz... 10. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...", "qid": "23", "docid": "9386e729-2019-04-18T16:05:14Z-00003-000", "rank": 47, "score": 228702.0}, {"content": "Title: Euthanasia should be legal Content: Euthanasia is is the practice of ending someone's life in a relatively painless manner, and with their full consent. This is only done when the patient is terminally ill, and there are no cures for their illness and the patient is usually under unbearable pain. This means that this is not suicide, this is a medical procedure, that is assisted by a physician who decides weather or not the patient are ill enough for euthanasia. If a individual decides that they have so much pain that they can\"t live with it, and that they would rather die than live with the pain until they die shouldn't they be allowed to do so?", "qid": "23", "docid": "e21a5065-2019-04-18T15:14:34Z-00005-000", "rank": 48, "score": 228511.0}, {"content": "Title: Euthanasia (assisted suicide) should be legalised. Content: The legalization of euthanasia would be the first step to legalizing homicide. There is no pain great enough to allow for euthanasia. Obviously if someone is in pain or depression they will not think clearly about the value of life. Several icons in America such as Oprah, Matthew McConaughey, and John Adams all went through a period in their life where they had a major depression disorder up to the point of wanting death. If euthanasia was legal, we would of never had these great men/women. Also, from the perspective of the person who helps kill his friend. That could easily be a traumatic experience for them to endure for the rest of their life. The death of their friend, in their hands.", "qid": "23", "docid": "fe13b6d0-2019-04-18T17:15:38Z-00005-000", "rank": 49, "score": 228442.0}, {"content": "Title: Euthanasia should be legalised Content: Thank you for your argument. My arguments are going to come in the form of rebuttals to each of your major points.\"Euthanasia, firstly violates the principle that life lasts from conception to natural life as proposed by the theologies of several major world religions.\"In case you haven't noticed, our government is secular. Its laws are not based on religious values. According to our Constitution, each of us has the basic human right to life. It logically follows, then, that we also have the right to end our lives prematurely if we wish. You can't force someone to keep living if they don't want to. \"...several surveys have been conducted saying that most doctors in the US oppose euthanasia so how can you force them to provide the service when they see it as murder.\"Legalizing euthanasia isn't going to FORCE them to provide such services. It is just going to ALLOW them to provide them.An added benefit of euthanasia is that is a suicide person goes to the doctor's office for assisted suicide rather than committing suicide privately, then the doctor could possibly try to help them through suicide prevention therapy. In other words, the legalization of euthanasia could possibly (and ironically) make suicide rates drop.", "qid": "23", "docid": "1e884b3e-2019-04-18T16:53:19Z-00006-000", "rank": 50, "score": 227253.0}, {"content": "Title: Physician assisted suicide (Euthanasia) Content: This is the Physicians oath as of now submitted by the World Medical Association (WMA): AT THE TIME OF BEING ADMITTED AS A MEMBER OF THE MEDICAL PROFESSION: I SOLEMNLY PLEDGE to consecrate my life to the service of humanity; I WILL GIVE to my teachers the respect and gratitude that is their due; I WILL PRACTISE my profession with conscience and dignity; THE HEALTH OF MY PATIENT will be my first consideration; I WILL RESPECT the secrets that are confided in me, even after the patient has died; I WILL MAINTAIN by all the means in my power, the honour and the noble traditions of the medical profession; MY COLLEAGUES will be my sisters and brothers; I WILL NOT PERMIT considerations of age, disease or disability, creed, ethnic origin, gender, nationality, political affiliation, race, sexual orientation, social standing or any other factor to intervene between my duty and my patient; I WILL MAINTAIN the utmost respect for human life; I WILL NOT USE my medical knowledge to violate human rights and civil liberties, even under threat; I MAKE THESE PROMISES solemnly, freely and upon my honour. The sections that concern me the most are \"The health of my patient will be my first consideration\", \"I will maintain the utmost respect for human life\", and \"I will not use my medical knowledge to violate human rights and civil liberties, even under threat\" These sections show that as a medical professional it is considered the worst possible action a physician can take. Thus, euthanasia is wrong and should never be practiced. Sources: http://www.wma.net... p.s. sorry if argument does not make sense english is not first language.", "qid": "23", "docid": "affb1a60-2019-04-18T15:03:47Z-00001-000", "rank": 51, "score": 227003.0}, {"content": "Title: Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide Should Be Legalized for the Terminally Ill Content: one of the ten commandments says: thou shalt not murder. Assisted suicide is murder. assisted suicide assisted pedophilia assisted bank robbery whats the difference? they are all causing another person to commit a crime. that sounds like a really sneaky way to bring someone else down with you. and then what, after the doctor goes on living or familiy on or the lovers or the friends and children and parents go on in life after realizing they just killed someone, who is going to help them? can you imagine the guilt and issues they will face and the regret? or are you cold and stupid? if someone is on the verge of death then let em go..they will die. if someone is on life support. i dont think taking someone off life support counts as murder being that it is a machine doing all the living for the patient and its apparent they arent waking up and that they are clinically brain dead..it l depends though. but some selfish ungreatful prick asking u to kill him so he can be free while he leaves u with all the guilt and confusion and consequences and pain can just suffer and wait like the rest of us who are struggling in life. i dont think so...if they want to commit suicide...let them do it them selves. thats the whole point. other wise...its just murder. so is abortion by the way.", "qid": "23", "docid": "241794a9-2019-04-18T15:43:47Z-00003-000", "rank": 52, "score": 226333.0}, {"content": "Title: Legalization of Euthanasia Content: Euthanasia is also known as \"Physician-assisted suicide\" because doctors are the ones doing the killing. Since doctors are the ones performing Euthanasia, a violation of the Hippocratic Oath is very important. Unless my Opponent is advocating someone other than doctors doing the killing, which carries extreme implications. A violation of the Hippocratic Oath by doctors specializing in Euthanasia is not important. using that logic we would also be helping depressed people by killing them. Furthermore, Euthanasia gets abused, as the doctor Herbert Hend tells us (speaking of Euthanasia in the Netherlands): This is why centers would be government run, easier to make sure there is no abuse by doctors. Guidelines such as these could not be enforced, again take the Netherlands as an example according to BBC: \"The reality is that a clear majority of cases of euthanasia, both with and without request, go unreported and unchecked.\"[2] Once again the centers would be government run, making it easier for the government to monitor and prevent abuse. =Response to Cross Examination= 1. A simple check of medical history and their criminal record looking for signs of insanity would be required. 2. Today family members have the choice to the right to life for hundreds of \"vegetable\" patients. 4. You need to pass the qualifying test checking for insanity or have the family say yes. 5. If someone does not wish to live they should not be forced to live. No matter the value of their life. 6. Closely monitored, government run centers. 7. Yes because they wish to die. 8. I am trusting the government with the choice. A comparison to the Nazi government is a bit extreme. 9. No, only doctors in government run euthanasia centers can. =Rebuttal= C1. you speak of dignity quite alot, so I really must ask, how exactly is Euthanasia \"dignified\"? To me it seems like the easy way out, not dignified at all. It is dignified because it is helping a person out of their misery. Instead of forcing someone who wants to die to live, which is wrong, the person is given a way out and to carry out their wish to die. same with mental hospitals, should we kill them too? Not without the families consent. C2. No solvency, money would still be spent on Euthanasia in the \"government run centers\". Yes but it would likely outweigh $50billion dollars spent over 2 months in a hospital. Valuing money over the sanctity of life, clear miscalculation in my opinion. This does not value money over life it simply helps people carry out their wish of death. It just happens to save moeny at the same time. His plan is likely to be more expensive with his \"multiple appointments\" requiring Physciartrists, Doctors, ect. It would not be nearly as expensive as sitting in a hospital for two months. After all According to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, the cost for the drugs used in lethal injection is $86.08. This is not to say lethal injection would necessarily be the way of death but this just shows how cheap it can be. And to my opponent I ask, how can you justify forcing a person to live when they do not wish to?", "qid": "23", "docid": "ddc4d7ee-2019-04-18T18:45:23Z-00002-000", "rank": 53, "score": 226238.0}, {"content": "Title: Should euthanasia be legal Content: In your argument you are suggesting assisted suicide. By your opening sentence \" Euthanasia should be legal for anyone who no longer desires to live...\" According to afsp.org 494,169 people visit the hospital a year for self harm and suicide attempts. By allowing people to have the option to euthanize themselves you are giving them an easy way out. When people are rendered incapable of taking care of themselves they are given a proxy, a family member or friend, that is able to chose what happens to them.", "qid": "23", "docid": "114892b1-2019-04-18T11:52:47Z-00006-000", "rank": 54, "score": 225971.0}, {"content": "Title: Assisted suicide should be legalized Content: Thank you Mikel for your rebuttal. I looked at your main points very closely and I'll will refute those points using the sources I have found and by doing so, I will try to highlight the all the problems with your argument for assisted suicide and show viewers that your argument doesn't have the moral, psychological, or scientific standing compared to my argument against assisted suicide. I will also defend myself, my sources, and my credibility in this debate and hopefully refute your rebuttal and thus leading the viewers of this debate to side against the proposition. Let me start. First pro point: This will not give Doctors the right to kill people. It gives the person a choice to end their suffering. As I have shown in my argument, with the stories I have shared in this debate. Doctors are usually not given the right to allow assisted of a terminal Ill patient, but it can be in the state's government to right to allow the assisted suicide if such an euthanasia law is put in placed. Also, as It said with my source from nrlc.org, more then 93-94% of the people that are terminal Ill are not in the mental mind to decide to take there life away. So if the person has the right to choice to end their suffering they are doing it in a bad frame of mind and if the pain was reduced and the patient was in sound mind then you can ask them whether or not to die. My source from nrlc.org also said that when pain is reduced then the patient would choice not to commit assisted suicide but to die naturally. Second pro point: Suicide is already not illegal That is true. That is because it is impossible to convict someone to a crime when the person that commits the crime is already died. This is not related at all to the topic at hand and is really not needed to be highlighted apon. Third pro point: This is an act of kindness or moral act So with that logic that means it is morally right to allow the state to allow someone that is suffering from a terminal illness rather then keeping them alive, reducing their pain and allowing them to die naturally like the majority of he population around the world do everyday. This point is not based around logic but is more of a vision of a reality that soft and flowery. Everything that can be considered living suffers. Animals suffer, planet suffer and even the small skin cell suffers and that leads to the living substance to naturally death. As this point seems to put it, we should allow to people to die unnaturally to avoid the thing that connects humans to humans and living substance to living substance that perfectcally naturally, pain and suffering. Fourth and finally point from pro: Everyone persons body is their own, and the right of life is their choice It is true that that everyone humans body is their own, I can not disagree with that. But with with my source from nrlc.org, it shows that most terminal Ill patients suffer from a mental disorder and depression caused by the illness and are not in the right mind state understand the choice at hand or taking their own life away. Studies from my source in nrlc.org also highlight that that if the right methods and techniques where used, the patient would rather choice dying naturally then dying from assisted suicide. I also highlight the stories of Wagner, Cheney, and Stroup and highlight how the state of Oregon tried to push Wanger and Stroup to allow themselves to be assisted suicide rather then give them treatment they needed and how the state ether than using the advise from trained doctors pushed Cheney to death when if she was treated for depression she would have choice to die naturally. Now I shall defend myself and my views Quotes from pro: \"In cons opening points he uses three stories to illustrate how assisted suicide could be taken advantage of\" Assisted suicide was taken advantage. Read my statements about what happened in Oregon and see that it was taken advantage of and that it wasn't just a theory but real life telling of how and why assisted suicide was taken advantage of. Pro missed the point that the stories I used was to highlight what happens when euthanasia law whether regulated or not can be used by the state as a way of backing out of health care payments. Put this forward a clear as possible and yet the pro still does not see the harm these laws have done and what these laws may do if passed in poorer or more populated states. Quote from pro: \"Con was making this point to show that \"most people\" who commit suicide are undergoing depression. Where as this will not fall under the guide lines of how this law will be passed it is irrelevant\" Why is the mental state of the patient irrelevant to this debate. Only a small number (6-7%) of terminal ill patients have the mental power to decide on whether or not to allow themselves to be assisted suicide and hidi png out which takes time and money that could be used on reducing the pain allowing a less painfully and more naturally path to death. Quote from pro: \"(Con) ignores the fact that it is there wish not to suffer because of the vast amounts of pain they are in.\" As I said before, as humans we all suffer. Yes terminal Ill patients suffer a lot of pain and I also hate to see people suffer but it is not something you can avoid or should avoid. Suffering is a naturally thing and all humans feel and not just according to me but to trained medical professtionals like Dr. Kubler-Ross understand that suffering and feeling depressed about it is part of dealing with death. We can reduce the suffering of the terminal Ill patient to allow themselves to die naturally. I end here but telling the viewers to lot over all the results and to see who follower the guidelines of the debate better and to see which one of used more sounded logic and better sources. Mikel, thank you for allowing me to think long and hard about this topic, it is an important topic and I thank you for bringing it up. Now viewers, I hope that you read all the arguments and rebuttals and pick the side you think should win. Do not feel pressured, but follow with your brain and fell with your heart. Thank you!", "qid": "23", "docid": "4487af89-2019-04-18T17:22:01Z-00000-000", "rank": 55, "score": 225715.0}, {"content": "Title: Euthanasia should be legalized Content: I will support my contention, that euthanasia (or assisted suicide) should be legalized, with the following arguments: 1. The right to die and self determination 2. Wasted health resources and public funds 3. Prohibition targets innocents There are other arguments, but I believe the following arguments should satisfy the reader to conclude that Euthanasia (or assisted suicide) should be legal. 1. The right to die and self determination I would like to highlight articles 5 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [1]: Article 5 - No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Article 19 - Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression Bob Dent, who was euthanatized, said it best: \"What right has anyone [\u2026] to demand that I must behave according to their rules? \" That's the point I want to make. While I strongly don't agree that someone should give up hope and be euthanatized, but this is neither my decision nor yours. We must respect people's opinions, no matter how much we disagree with them. People who are terminally ill suffer significantly. If they voluntarily, repeatedly and freely make the decision to end their lives, we have no right to deny them that right. Doing so will deny them their right for self-determination and will subject them to pain against their will. 2. Wasted health resources and public funds Euthanasia would free up doctors, nurses and hospital beds. These scarce resources would then be deployed to assist those who are in need, reduce waiting times and improve the overall quality of care [3]. To spend these resources to forcefully preserve the lives of patients against their will is ridiculous. 3. Prohibition targets innocents In Ireland, Marie Fleming was denied the right to end her life. Her partner was told that he could face up to 14 years in prison if he helped her die! [4] A Pennsylvania woman was charged with murder for assisting her 93 year old father commit suicide [5]. Rebuttal a. Equality issues? My opponent stated that \"limiting euthanasia to the terminally ill sends a message that certain people are expendable and others aren't\". This argument is similar to saying that designating parking spots for the disabled sends a message that disabled people are inferior. But this is simply not true\u2026 disabled people are the ones who requested to be accommodated; they in fact feel insulted when their voices are not heard. The same goes with the terminally ill requesting the right to euthanasia. They argue that the value of human life is not determined by the government, but by the individuals themselves. They can judge for themselves if their life is expendable or not, not the government. My opponent also claimed that \"legalizing euthanasia suggests that human life only has instrumental value\". He argued \"Why treat people with equal respect if we don't really believe that they're equal? \" I disagree. I argue that my opponent is confusing the objective human worth and subjective self worth. Article 1 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that we must view all humans as equals in dignity and rights [1]. This is the objective view of human worth. A terminally ill person is just as valuable as a healthy person. However, we have no jurisdiction to define the subjective self worth (or instrumental value) of any individual\u2026 that would be determined by the individuals themselves. b. Unintended consequences? My opponent also warned of the risk of the slippery slope. He wondered if Euthanasia was legalized: \"what's to stop non-consensual euthanasia\"? While this is a very common challenge to legalization of euthanasia, it's actually a red herring! Every argument has its own merits and reasons. Non-voluntary euthanasia (or non-consensual euthanasia) may or may not have its own merits and should be discussed separately. My opponent was also concerned that people may be euthanatized incorrectly by a doctor. However, he hasn't provided any evidence for this possibility. Under the Dutch law, the following conditions must be fulfilled [6]: - The patient's suffering is unbearable with no prospect of improvement - The patient's request for euthanasia must be voluntary and persist over time - The request cannot be granted when under the influence of others, psychological illness or drugs - The patient must be fully aware of his/her condition, prospects and options - There must be consultation with at least one other independent doctor who needs to confirm the conditions mentioned above I argue that such measures are very responsible and would significantly reduce any potential doctor error. c. Corruption? My opponent stated that Euthanasia \"invalidates the Hippocratic Oath. \" I challenge my opponent to state which parts of the oath euthanasia allegedly invalidates. There are several parts of the oath that actually supports euthanasia [7]: \"I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required. \" \"I will remember that [\u2026] that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug\" \"\u2026But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. \" I argue that my opponent's claim actually supports my contention, not weaken it! My opponent also argued that euthanasia transforms the role of the doctor to \"priests, granting absolution for a patient's suicide\" and that \"state sanctifies the intentional killing of another human being\" There are two problems with this argument. The first problem is that my opponent suggested that the intentional killing is always evil or wrong. But this is not true when it comes to euthanasia. I've already demonstrated that the voluntary euthanasia of terminally ill patients is not evil, but merciful. The second problem is that doctors perform euthanasia with full conscience and out of profound interest in helping their patients. Doctor's don't grant any absolution or lack their off. They simply help their patients end their suffering. My opponent also suggested that \"euthanasia could disincentivize the research and development of better medical care\". I challenge my opponent to provide any evidence for this claim. The number of patients who request euthanasia is very limited, and there's no reason to believe that this claim is true. d. Suicide and Unnecessary? Let me start by agreeing with my opponent on the legalization of assisted suicide. (In my opening argument I stated Euthanasia (or assisted suicide)). I do agree that's assisted suicide is a better option for those who are able to receive lethal pills and administer it themselves. However, how about those who don't have the means to commit suicide? Tony Nicklinson was denied his bid to die [4]. He was suffering from \"locked in\" syndrome and was living \"a living nightmare\". It was so horrific that he decided to starve himself to death and died after a week without food. Also Kelly Taylor suffered so much pain that she starved herself for 19 days. She realized that her suicide route was even more harmful that she gave it up and suffered in agony again. My opponent mentioned that patients have the right to refuse treatment. In light of the two examples before, and the amount of suffering it takes until someone finally dies, you couldn't possibly agree that this is a viable option! I also strongly disagree with my opponent's idea to make deadly pills available to the public. What would prevent someone from purchasing them to murder others? It has to be monitored to avoid abuse. Also, its ease of access could have people kill themselves because they were having a bad day! Euthanasia and assisted suicide is only provided to patients who frequently and persistently request it. Thank you. [1] . http://www.un.org... [2] . http://www.ethicalrights.com... [3] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] . http://listverse.com... [5] . http://www.cnn.com... [6] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [7] . http://en.wikipedia.org...", "qid": "23", "docid": "2a7a3832-2019-04-18T14:51:38Z-00005-000", "rank": 56, "score": 225583.0}, {"content": "Title: should California legalize physician assisted suicide Content: \u201cDying is not a crime.\u201d R13; Jack KevorkianBody autonomy is the ultimate point in this argument, the concept that each individual has control over their own body and that inviolability overrides any external individual\u2019s morals or feeling about how you may use your own body.The likely sources of interference with an individual\u2019s right to body autonomy in the case of euthanasia are; 1) Medical professionals2) The state (government)3) Religion \u2013 Moral4) Family I will make efforts to address each with some level of detail.Medical Professionals.\"First do no harm.\" Well, that seems somewhat clear, and most of us have used this statement attached to the medical world, often with \u201cHippocratic Oath\u201d in the same sentence. There is, however, some issues with the statement. It is nowhere IN the Hippocratic Oath! [1][2]. The oath does contain some pertinent passages to our topic. \u201cI will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.\u201d What a great statement. It is warning the young healer that the application of his skills should have limits apart from his own skills. That \u201ctherapeutic nihilism\u201d [3] or skepticism of any and all options should be avoided.But wait, there\u2019s more!\"I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.\"\u201c... Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.\u201d\u201cI will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.\u201dI quote almost the entirety of the modern oath above, as it is a wonderful statement. \u201c\u2026warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.\u201d \u201cIf it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility\u2026\u201dThere\u2019s a lot of good stuff in there. Even some that may be beneficial to con in this debate. On balance, the oath is a spectacular statement for how physicians should approach their patients. One thing is clear, the oath is speaks to balance in treatment, not rigidity. It does not insist that physicians treat a patient past his consent. It asks the doctor to be humble and receptive to his patient, to the patient\u2019s problems outside of the medical issues, and that may include dropping the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.The medical professional has no obligation to violate the patient\u2019s body autonomy.The StateI wonder about the order of my points, and may reorder them later. The State is the only current absolute bar to euthanasia, and therefor may deserve higher placement on the list.The question of where the state gains the power to limit an individual\u2019s right to body autonomy as it relates to euthanasia is questionable. Where, potentially, the individual gains the right is less murky. It\u2019s the 14th amendment to the United States Constitution [4]. The current interpretation of the amendment as it related to body autonomy has not extended to euthanasia yet. \u201cThe right of privacy has evolved to protect the freedom of individuals to choose whether or not to perform certain acts or subject themselves to certain experiences.\u201d [4], but is clearly on its way to being tested.Government, apart from doctorial regimes, must reflect the will of the governed. Provided any proposed law does not violate the constitutional restraint, government must do the bidding of the people. In this, the message is clear. 7 in 10 Americans back Euthanasia [5].There is nothing restraining the government from extending body autonomy to include euthanasia.Religion \u2013 Moral.This section of objection has little gray area as it relates to the question. With few exceptions, all major religions reject euthanasia, and body autonomy in other subjects \u2013 notably abortion.That there is little decent from a common opinion does not mean that this section is without need for discussion. There is no doubt that in our country religion should not interfere with legality. That, however, is na\u00efve. The collective morals of the society inform the laws of the same, there for a discussion of morals is a cornerstone of the debate, and since we are talking the United States, Christianity plays a major role in the debate.Let\u2019s start with the owner\u2019s manual for the faith, the Bible. Similarly to the misunderstanding about the Hypocritical Oath, the bible has nothing directly to say about euthanasia [6]. This passage from the bible rang in my head, driving me to search - \"Since his days are determined, The number of his months is with You; And his limits You have set so that he cannot pass\u201d - (Job 14:5). Well, as I am often told, the lord works in mysterious ways, and I can\u2019t possibly see how his will is usurped through euthanasia. There seems nothing that says that the load can\u2019t work through the individual, or through a physician, or a family member, in determining the number of days. One could point to \u201cthou shalt not kill\", but that must be wrong. Well, it is commonly accepted to be \u201cmurder\u201d not kill [7]. The bible sure wouldn\u2019t say \u201ckill\u201d as it seems to be the topic of so much material in the book. No, murder is the right word. Since to be murder, a killing must be illegal, that\u2019s what makes it murder! Since the material in the bible related to the subject is so thin, it must religion working outside the bounds of the Bible. If that\u2019s the case, I don\u2019t see how Christianity can deny euthanasia as a body autonomy right. FamilyAn individual\u2019s family is a critical in this debate. They are critical because in many cases, medical decisions must fall to the family. In the case of Schiavo in Florida we saw an interesting clash of family. The question about the will of the patient was murky to her parents, and crystal clear to her husband. A Living will would have cleared up the mess about her intent, and made clear her choice. I think I will save more on family for another round. Hippocratic Oath Modern[1] http://guides.library.jhu.edu...Hippocratic Oath Greek [2] http://guides.library.jhu.edu...Therapeutic Nihilism[3] http://www.merriam-webster.com...Personal Autonomy \u2013 legal[4] https://www.law.cornell.edu...Poll - Euthanasia[5] http://www.gallup.com...The Bible and euthanasia[6] https://carm.org...Bible \"thou shalt not murder\"[7] https://www.biblegateway.com...", "qid": "23", "docid": "2f93939-2019-04-18T15:13:37Z-00002-000", "rank": 57, "score": 225165.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should legalize Euthanasia. Content: Contention 1: Personal Freedom and LibertyMy opponent claims an incorrect fact that \"the right to die\" is Constitutional, but it is not. In the Supreme Court Case Vacco V. Quill in where Brittney Maryland planned to withdraw life support to cause her own death. In the case the Supreme Court ruled in a 9-0 decission that the Constitution did NOT include the right to die. Chief Justice Rehnquist was quoted in his ruling, \"The distinction comports with fundamental legal principles of causation and intent. First, when a patient refuses life sustaining medical treatment, he dies from an underlying fatal disease or pathology; but if a patient ingests lethal medication prescribed by a physician, he is killed by that medication.\"[1] You see here that there is a legal difference between letting a patient die and killing a patient by leathally injecting them. My opponent is highly flawed in his argument and we can see that he is refurring to Assisted Suicide, NOT Euthanasia. Assisted Suicide is the refusial of life support with euthanasia is the lethal injecting to end one's life. My opponent brings up an AngelFire gallop poll, but this poll is first flawed because if you follow the link provided by Pro you'll find that there is no background to who was survaded and their backgrounds etc... This is key in this debate, but we'll get more on that later. My opponent states that these people died anyways, but this is obvious as these people live weeks longer if they weren't euthanized as it is their life support. Remember that this debate is about euthanasia not assisted Suicide. Bellow I will clear up some of the confusion between the two. \"Physician-Assisted Suicide is where patients with a terminal diagnosis (life-limiting disease) formally request a prescription for a fatal dose of a drug which they can administer to themselves at a time of their choosing......It is a patient-initiated and controlled form of dying, to treat an unbearable situation, and is legal in two states in the U.S.A. [2] and in Europe and in the Neatherlands.\" \"Euthanasia is when a physician or other healthcare provider does something, such as administering a known lethal dose of a drug, to deliberately kill a patient, with or without the patient\u2019s consent. It is not legal anywhere in the U.S.A.\" \"Physician-assisted suicide is often confused with euthanasia (sometimes called \"mercy killing\").\" [3] Here I also extend across my moral argument about the Whom the Bell tolls and the utiliarianist argument against euthanasia.Contention 2: Doctors and Public OpinionMy opponent's sourcing is scewed in another way and that is it's wording bellow you'll find a chart showing the US's response to a poll question with this wording and you'll find that my opponent's high percentage is only for a more flowery wording of the poll question. As you see above you'll find that when asked due they support \"Ending the patient's life by some painless means,\" does the poll reach that of 70% support, but when asked to \"Assist the patient to commit suicide\" does it plumet to 51%. You'll find that yes the public overall still barely supports it, but you'll see that the numbers aren't as high as my opponent is asking. [4] We can also see in a study done by the National Institute of Health that a large portion of American minority doctors and doctors tended to have a moral or religious objection to PAS and that's not even including Euthanasia. [5]Contention 3: Oregon Now my opponent brings up close regulation, but I have to once again cross apply my Constructive cass to this argument to once again show that Beligium has done this and regulated this greatly, however, there euthanasia abuse has grown and we have also seen legalization of involuntary and even nonvoluntary euthanasia in Beligium and that's something that my opponent has stated on his own profile that he is against and we can see by supporting said plan that this in turn would be doing something that my opponent doesn't agree with on the subject.Contention 4: ExpenseMy opponent states that the doctors should care for other patients, but we need to remember that these are human beings too and that they also need caring for. They haven't died yet and they shouldn't be killed because their pain is scewing their line of thought which ends up harming the patient in the end. We can only see that we cannot legalize euthanasia for fear of neglecting of the elderly and even the fear of being \"released to elsewhere.\"Sources1. (http://scarinciattorney.com...) 2 (Oregon [Death with Dignity Act 1994] and Washington [2009]), and in Europe in The Netherlands.\"3. (http://comfortcarechoices.com...) 4. (http://www.gallup.com...) 5. (http://www.researchgate.net...)", "qid": "23", "docid": "84a6fafa-2019-04-18T14:47:38Z-00003-000", "rank": 58, "score": 224995.0}, {"content": "Title: Legalizing euthanasia would allow more open family dialogue on the choice. Content: Where euthanasia is currently illegal, it is a lonely, desperate act, carried out in secrecy and often as a cry for help. The impact on the family who remain can be catastrophic. By legalizing assisted suicide, the process can be brought out into the open. In some cases, families might have been unaware of the true feelings of their loved one; being forced to confront the issue of their illness may do great good, perhaps even allowing them to persuade the patient not to end their life. In other cases, it makes them part of the process: they can understand the reasons behind their decision without feelings of guilt and recrimination, and the terminally ill patient can speak openly to them about their feelings before their death.", "qid": "23", "docid": "89c45bda-2019-04-17T11:47:42Z-00115-000", "rank": 59, "score": 224384.0}, {"content": "Title: should euthanasia be legalized Content: Have you committed suicide already assisted by a doctor?:D", "qid": "23", "docid": "6d0a91e4-2019-04-18T17:06:16Z-00001-000", "rank": 60, "score": 224297.0}, {"content": "Title: Euthanasia should be legalized Content: I will argue that euthanasia (or assisted suicide) should be legalized. My main arguments will be that it is the individual's, not the state's, right to decide whether one should die or not and that it is inhuman to prolong the suffering of those that are fatally and painfully ill by preventing them from making the choice to die quickly. I present the model. Euthanasia clinics where the patients can make the unpressured choice whether to die. The patients would be subjected to proffesional phsycological tests to determine their mental state and would be killed by an injection of pentobarbitol which is a tried and tested drug for human euthanasia. I eagerly await a challenger.", "qid": "23", "docid": "2a7a3797-2019-04-18T18:16:06Z-00003-000", "rank": 61, "score": 224023.0}, {"content": "Title: Euthanasia should be legalised Content: \"...pro argues that you have the right to stop living if you so desire. However, this stands in direct contridiction of the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in Washington V. Glucksberg...\" Yes, legalizing Euthanasia would go against an old law... that is the whole point... we are trying to make a new law. Referencing an old law doesn't count as \"proof\" when the whole purpose of the debate is to create a new law.\"...doctor who administers it violates the medical profession...the Hippocratic oath which states 'I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan;' The job of the doctor and physician is to preserve and give comfort to human life, never to end it.\"I'm pretty sure I pointed out that doctors wouldn't be ADVISING suicide if a patient came in requesting it. The doctor would then have an opportunity to help the patient through suicide prevention therapy. That opportunity would not have been available if the patient tried comitting suicide privately. If even suicide prevention therapy doesn't work then the patient's death is inevitable, and there is no problem with a doctor taking the patient's life painlessly, rather than the patient taking his own life in more painful methods like hanging or shooting.", "qid": "23", "docid": "1e884b3e-2019-04-18T16:53:19Z-00004-000", "rank": 62, "score": 223321.0}, {"content": "Title: Legalizing Euthanasia or Physician-Assisted Suicide Content: I extend my arguments again.", "qid": "23", "docid": "dccf7263-2019-04-18T16:52:37Z-00000-000", "rank": 63, "score": 223248.0}, {"content": "Title: Euthanasia should become Legalized in the US Content: Euthanasia is defined as physical assisted suicide for patients who are in extreme physical pain (judged by the patient). I am willing to debate on the moral stand point as well the legal part of the debate. Questions are encouraged . Good luck to my opponent.", "qid": "23", "docid": "ba1566fe-2019-04-18T15:13:06Z-00008-000", "rank": 64, "score": 222368.0}, {"content": "Title: Doctor assisted suicide Content: I would like to begin by saying thank you for this debate. I look forward to it and I strongly urge you to listen to my argument. However, I also urge you to reconsider your proposition. I thoroughly believe that doctor assisted suicide (I will refer to it as euthanasia as it is a more appropriate term) should be a viable option for terminally ill patients and patients who would be in crippling pain for the foreseeable future; in fact, it is an option already. However, doctors should not be responsible for assisting in this suicide. It poses many problems both morally and legally. My first contention involves the morals of the situation. You were correct on saying doctors have nice things such as money, prestige, and social status. However, you were not correct in claiming they were \u201cprivileges.\u201d If we take a look into the lives of doctor\u2019s, we will notice how difficult it is. The average physician spends 8 years in very detailed study and 11-16 years total of medical training (1). At that point, the large salaries, prestige, and social recognition is earned. It is not a privilege. Physicians spend a great deal of time, money, and energy to develop the skills they need to save lives. Their rewards are certainly not privileges. Furthermore, your argument states that \"if doctors have this power, they should have to deal with the consequential responsibility of such power--that is, their decisions should not hinge on their little moral codes; whatever they think is right or wrong should be a non-issue.\" Besides the fact that doctors have earned this power, these are not \u201clittle moral codes\u201d either. In every culture to ever exist, human life has been the #1 priority. Many people are not alright with ending the lives of others, regardless of how or why they are doing it. A recent study found that 69% of physicians object to euthanasia, 18% to permanent sedation, and 5% to PAS (2). This is mainly due to religious and philosophical influences. This is made obvious by the same study. 84% of highly religious physicians are opposed to euthanasia (3). The majority of doctors, and people, are against killing people altogether. These are not \"little moral codes.\" Euthanasia is defined as the act or practice of killing someone who is very sick or injured in order to prevent any more suffering\" by Merriam Webster (4). Killing someone is something that an overwhelming majority of people feel is wrong. We cannot ask doctors to kill people. It is their job to heal, cure, and prevent disease and injury of their patients, not to end their patients lives. Aside from morals, the legality of euthanasia could prove problematic. There is an oath that every doctor takes called the Hippocratic oath. This oaths specifically reads \"I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect (5).\" This means that a doctor may never give a patient a substance that will harm them, nor shall they suggest it. Oaths are legally binding, so doctors are obligated to not provide euthanasia. However, I see that you believe the Hippocratic Oath is \"irrelevant and should be changed.\" I will take the time to remind you exactly what the oath does. It protects the patient, not the doctor. It prevents doctors from committing malpractice and experimentation on patients, it prevents them from having sexual relationships with patients and their families, and more. The Hippocratic Oath has saved so many lives and brought a form of perfection to medicine. It is entirely relevant and always will be. To think it needs changed ignores what doctors had done before the oath. They did experiments on people, harming them and disfiguring them, they accepted bribes to hurt people, and worse. The oath has been one of the most important events in medical history and it has allowed medicine to flourish. We cannot unsubscribe from it. Also, we must consider how this oath keeps people at the doctors. Hippocratic's Oath eeps trust in the medical system. Because of its importance and sheer practicality for protecting patients it keeps people comfortable seeing a physician. Without the Hippocratic Oath, there is little gauruntee that doctors wont commit malpractice. It should not be a responsibilty for doctors to provide this service. I urge you to reconsider your view point. Euthanasia should be an option for the terminally ill and those who are in permanent pain, but it should NOT be a responsibility for doctors to assist in the death of their patients. It runs contrary to the sheer principle of medicine and being a doctor. Therefore, the only viable option is to decide that it is not the responsibilty of doctors to assist in suicide or preform euthanasia. Thank you. Please vote in the negation of this proposal. CITATIONS http://www.learnhowtobecome.org... https://www.psychologytoday.com... http://www.med.wisc.edu....PDF http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.medicinenet.com... http://www.amednews.com...", "qid": "23", "docid": "847d06a3-2019-04-18T13:26:11Z-00002-000", "rank": 65, "score": 222212.0}, {"content": "Title: Euthanasia should be legalized Content: 1. ImmoralOne of the most famous philosophers of ethics was Immanuel Kant. He came up with a system of figuring out if an action was moral or not called the Categorical imperative. The Categorical imperative is an unconditional moral law that applies to all rational beings and is independent of any personal motive or desire. In using the this method Kant condemned all forms of suicide by saying the purpose pain is to protect one\u2019s life [1] , such as taking your hand out of a fire because it burns, and by using pain as a reason to end one\u2019s life was contradictory to the purpose of pain and was therefore immoral. We usually strive to be moral beings, so we should avoid from having immoral acts.2. SubjectivityDue to the laws subjectivity there are never clear answers. In the Oregon Death with Dignity act Terminal Illness is defined as \u201cmeans an incurable and irreversible disease that has been medically confirmed and will, within reasonable medical judgment, produce death within six months\" [2] Things such as pain, suffering, or terminal illnesses are all subjective and you could get different opinions between different doctors, and why is the limit six months for physician assisted suicide and not four or eight months? There is no sound medical reason for why six months are chosen. Also, how do you measure pain? Does it include mental or physical? In Belgium people have been euthanized for depression, anorexia, and going blind. [7]Since there is subjectivity, it makes the law hard to enforce and have safeguards for.3. Right to DieThe courts have ruled on physician assisted suicide and there was no constitutional right to die. In the case Washington v. Glucksberg the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that Washington\u2019s ban on physician assisted suicide was not a violation of the fourteenth amendment and there was no constitutional right to die. [3] They ruled the same in the similar case of Vacco v. Quill. As far as the courts are concerned there is currently no legal right to euthanasia or physician assisted suicide.4. Slippery SlopeThe legalization of voluntary euthanasia/physician assisted suicide would lead down a slippery slope to other non-voluntary euthanasia. The Netherlands was the first country to legalize euthanasia in 2001 but have they gone down the slippery slope? In 2004 the Netherlands passed something called the Groningen Protocol. This allows the non-voluntary euthanasia of infants. [4] So, as far as the slippery slope is concerned the Netherlands is well on their way down and there nothing stopping other countries from following.We should not legalize PAS because it will lead to other more damaging things.5. Voluntary?Voluntary euthanasia is not as voluntary as you might think. The most famous euthanasia program was the one that took the lives of eleven million people in the 1940s, the infamous holocaust. The victims of the Nazis were Jews, Gypsies, Poles, Slavs, Homosexuals, Freemasons, Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses, and people with disabilities. In particular the Nazis attacked people with disabilities with a propaganda campaign portraying them as burdens to society and their families. \"The principal reason people in a 1991 Boston Globe survey said they would consider some option to end their lives if they had \u201can incurable illness with a great deal of physical pain\u201d was not the pain, not the \u201crestricted lifestyle,\u201d and not the fear of being \u201cdependent of machines,\u201d but rather that they \u201cdon\u2019t want to be a burden\u201d to their families. Family members who support the suicide of a terminally ill patient often unwittingly reinforce the notion that the ill family member\u2019s life has lost all meaning and value and is nothing but a \u201cburden.\u201d\" [5] \"Many elderly people already feel a burden to family, carers and a society which is cost conscious and may be short of resources. They may feel great pressure to request euthanasia 'freely and voluntarily'. These patients need to hear that they are valued and loved as they are. They need to know that we are committed first and foremost to their well-being, even if this does involve expenditure of time and money. The way we treat the weakest and most vulnerable people speaks volumes about the kind of society we are\" [6] So, voluntary euthanasia/Physician Assisted Suicide is almost as voluntary as in Nazi Germany. I look forward to my opponent's response.Sources[1] http://www.siue.edu...[2] http://euthanasia.procon.org...[3] http://www.oyez.org...[4] http://www.nejm.org...[5] https://www.nrlc.org...[6] http://www.ethicsforschools.org...[7] http://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com...", "qid": "23", "docid": "2a7a37f4-2019-04-18T16:54:34Z-00004-000", "rank": 66, "score": 222181.0}, {"content": "Title: Oregon's 'Death with Dignity' act should be legal among other states Content: First, let me begin by defining what the \"Death with Dignity act\" actually is. \"The Death with Dignity Act allows terminally ill Oregon residents to obtain and use prescriptions from their physicians for self-administered, lethal medications. Under the Act, ending one's life in accordance with the law does not constitute suicide. However, we use 'physician-assisted suicide' because that terminology is used in medical literature to describe ending life through the voluntary self-administration of lethal medications prescribed by a physician for that purpose. The Death with Dignity Act legalizes PAS [physician-assisted suicide], but specifically prohibits euthanasia, where a physician or other person directly administers a medication to end another life. \"Death with Dignity\" re-establishes the Fourteenth Amendment in the constitution. As American citizens we are granted certain unalienable rights that cannot be taken away from us. Section 1 under the Fourteenth Amendment states that \"No state shall make or enforce any law, which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws\". Therefore if you are against \"Death with Dignity\" you are stating that as a citizen of the United States, the government enforces when you can or cannot die. Opposing this act shall be constructed as unconstitutional by removing our civil liberties. This act does not in any way force the patients to suicide, but rather gives them an option of dying with dignity without pain or suffering. \"Death with Dignity\" allows patients the right to choose As a patient we are granted the right to deny any type of treatment or medical care. As this act is self-inflicted, patients have a \"way out\" from letting their bodies tear themselves apart. A good example of this would be cancer. Suppose that you have just been informed that your cancer is untreatable and you have only 6 months to live. During the last few months of your life your body will slowly deteriorate and one would be dealt with much severe pain. This act is a way for patients to live their lives while they still physically can and be able to dignify their end. We all die, but there is always a limit as to what physicians and family members can do once a terminally-ill diagnosis is made. It is morally and ethically wrong to let our government dictate our \"end of life\" matters. This film (Documentary) is a great example of the points I\"m covering. Before one argues that there are outside factors that contribute to the \"assisted suicide\", we must look at the eligibility requirements. To use the Oregon or Washington law, patients must be 18 years old or older, residents of Oregon or Washington diagnosed with a terminal illness with six months or less to live. The patients must be free of any mental health condition, such as depression, which impairs their ability to make health care decisions. Two physicians must examine the patient and confirm the diagnosis and prognosis. Both physicians must determine the patient is capable of making and communicating health care decisions. And at any time may the patient can decide not to go through the process. I strongly urge voters to grant this act among other states so we may choose to end the pain and suffering of these patients in a dignified matter. Sources: http://euthanasia.procon.org... http://www.ushistory.org... http://www.deathwithdignity.org...", "qid": "23", "docid": "38ba4cb2-2019-04-18T17:32:03Z-00005-000", "rank": 67, "score": 221848.0}, {"content": "Title: Euthanasia - Putting People out of Their Misery Content: Euthanasia should remain illegal in the United States. Though many people are suffering from suffering due to injury or illness modern medicine has been effective in controlling and making pain less sever in those who are suffering, they do not need to be assisted in suicide to alleviate their pain. If euthanasia is to become legal it may result in abuse, for example a family member may try and convince their terminally ill relative to ask to be euthanized because they will be a financial strain on them or they wish to collect their inheritance, even though it may be against their individual's wishes. Suffering is an important part of life, and through suffering a person learns to better appreciate life and makes peaces with things that happened in their past and the people in their life. If you eliminate this process it may result negatively on those who knew the individual.", "qid": "23", "docid": "390f1979-2019-04-18T19:16:03Z-00004-000", "rank": 68, "score": 221107.0}, {"content": "Title: Assisted Suicide/ Euthenasia Content: Assisted Suicide. Why? Don't Legalize Euthanasia! Euthanasia, a term that can be described as \"mercy killing\" or the ending of a person's life because they no longer have the desire to live. Euthanasia has been a worldwide controversial debate for many years. Two types of euthanasia may be discussed, active and passive. Active described as \"killing\" and passive as \"allowing to die.\" Is it the physical pain or is it depression that leads a person to desire death? If foreign countries allow, and cannot control their own \"mercy killings,\" why wouldn't the United States follow in their footsteps? These questions and life are too often taken for granted. Euthanasia goes against our morals and duties as human beings. It should not be legalized in the United States, and where it is legal it should be stopped. Active euthanasia is the more controversial of the two types. Supporters of active euthanasia base their defense on \"One, it is cruel and inhumane to refuse the plea of a terminally ill person for his or her life to be mercifully ended in order to avoid future suffering and/or indignity. Two, the individual choice should be respected to the extent that it does not result in harm to others; since no one is harmed by terminally ill patients' undergoing active euthanasia...\". The common rebuttal to this is, \"One, Killing an innocent person is intrinsically wrong. Two, killing is incompatible with the professional responsibilities of the physician. And three, any systematic acceptance of active euthanasia would lead to detrimental social consequences (e.g., via a lessening of respect for human life)\". Basically, a physician has a clear moral obligation to his/her patients, to cure and comfort. This \"obligation\" does not entail killing the patient. Lets talk about Bob, what about Bob. Bob contracted polio at the age of five; initially, he was paralyzed from the neck down. Doctors told his parents that he would never walk again. Due to impairment of respiration and other problems, they believed that he would not live to the age of twenty-one. He also might have been a perfect candidate for physician-assisted suicide. Were the doctors thinking \"better dead than disabled?\" That it would be better to kill your son now in return for 20 years of hospital bills just to have him die? It seems as if there was an attempt to put a price on a person's life. Assisted suicide is most commonly contemplated by the terminally ill. Terminally ill patients do suffer greatly, but is it the physical pain they suffer from? Many physicians seem to believe it is depression that leads these patients to desire suicide. \"USA Today has reported that among older people suffering from terminal illnesses who attempt suicide, the number suffering from depression reaches almost 90%\" (Why We Shouldn't Legalize Assisting Suicide). Dr. Jack Kevorkian believes that any person with a disabling disease who doesn't suffer from depression is \"abnormal.\" What is hard for these people to understand who are pro-euthanasia is that depression is treatable and even curable. A person would suffer a lot less physically if they suffered less mentally. Some medical doctors also feel this way. I think depression factors in greatly with the terminally ill patients, some more than others do. Let's take AIDS patients for example. In time, they suffer greatly physically and mentally. Does this constitute their ability to have suicide granted upon request? No, if it were so, millions of people would die, and look how frivolous life would seem if it were legal to have your own life taken. Physician-assisted suicide in foreign countries has proved to be catastrophic. \"In 1990, physicians in the Netherlands were involved in 11,800 deaths, or 9% of all deaths in the country. Of these, half were labeled \"active involuntary euthanasia\", that is, the patient was killed without his consent\" (Ohio Right to Life). For example, \"by the late 80's it had become routine to \"euthanize\" babies born with handicaps, like Downs syndrome and spina bifida. Three nurses in Amsterdam killed several comatose patients without any consent. They were convicted, not of homicide, but of failing to consult a physician\" (Ohio Right to Life). All of this has occurred in a country where euthanasia is legal. How would it be possible for the United States to keep it under control? \"If we can't even control the actions of one doctor (Jack Kevorkian) when physician-assisted suicide is illegal, how can we expect to regulate the actions of thousands of doctors where physician-assisted suicide is legal\" (Christian Medical & Dental Society). The United States should learn from the mistakes of other nations and think twice about making physician assisted suicide legal. Life is taken for granted all too often, people always look for the shortcuts, the easy way out. Death should never be a persons last resort, there will always be an alternative. Humans cannot be compared to animals either. We can't be taken to a veterinarian to be put to sleep. It is immoral and dehumanizing. People rarely take into consideration how precious life is. Feelings of depression and guilt often overwhelm the sick. They only think of one way out. If euthanasia were to be legalized, the already declining morals and ethics of this country would be further compromised. Making it legal to kill is immoral, and goes against our duties in society.", "qid": "23", "docid": "c8f72601-2019-04-18T15:27:47Z-00004-000", "rank": 69, "score": 221091.0}, {"content": "Title: Euthanasia should be legal Content: First I will make my argument against euthanasia and secondly I will respond to your original questions. My argument will be based on 3 points: Mixed Messages Further Implications Alternative Options *************************************************************************************************************** Mixed Messages The first point to my argument is that euthanasia sends mixed messages to society about the value of our own lives and the tragedy of suicide. This is because in its essence euthanasia (or doctor assisted suicide) is by its nature suicide. Now put aside the factors that lead people to this decision and ask yourself, is suicide a good thing? I think the answer for most of us is no, as it should be. Since killing ourselves goes against human nature objectively speaking suicide is morally wrong. Now when considering those with serious illness does the morality of the act change? But before one answers this question I think a prior question needs to be answered. Is deep depression a serious illness? I think the answer is yes, and many psychologists and those who study the brain would agree, depression is an illness that can sometimes be incurable [1]. Now take into account how society responds to teenage, middle age, or any depression related suicide. We mourn, and we mourn because we all know that what has happened is a tragedy. We know that regardless of the individual\u2019s illness their life was worth preserving and that this is a tragedy. So what message does this send to people with suicidal thoughts that if your illness is visible it's okay to kill yourself? But if you who are arguably just as sick with deep depression, killing yourself is a failure and a tragedy. As a society we spend millions of dollars (and rightly so) to prevent suicide in our culture. Why then is it okay to also spend millions of dollars to publicly subsides and praise the suicide of others. Who gets to say to the 31 year old with deep depression that he isn't just as sick as the 91 year old with a tumor? Instead let\u2019s promote one unified message to all people, your live if worth living until its natural end, and we will do whatever it takes to make it as liveable as possible. Further Implications In countries that have legalized euthanasia predictable trends have emerged. As I mentioned in my first point, questions start to be raised as to who gets to decide who dies? How can the government tell one person it\u2019s okay and another it\u2019s not? Well in the Netherlands they are learning the hard way that once you deny that suicide is objectively wrong, no one has the right to tell anyone else that suicide isn't a good option for them. Take the Dutch woman, who was allowed to die because of PTSD from sexual abuse. \"A woman in her 20s who suffered sexual abuse as a child has been permitted to undergo euthanasia in the Netherlands. She was given a lethal injection after doctors and psychiatrists determined that her post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and continuing conditions including chronic depression and suicidal mood swings could not be cured.\" [2] Or the Swiss woman, who was euthanized because she was \"tired of life\". \u201cShe was not terminally ill, nor was she particularly severely disabled, yet she could not find much enjoyment in living anymore and felt the time was right to say goodbye.\u201d [3] The logical ramifications of saying suicide is not objectively wrong is that no one can say it\u2019s wrong. And going back to my pervious point, if we can't say to young people it\u2019s okay to kill yourself then we can't say it to anyone. Alternative Options My last point doesn't address why euthanasia is objectively wrong but rather why it's not needed as much as we think. Currently there exist options for those in incredible (physical) suffering to be given what is called palliative care. Palliative care doctors concentrate on preventing and alleviating suffering, improving your quality of life, and helping you and your loved ones cope with the stress and burden of your illness [4]. This kind of care can relive many of the symptoms of the terminally ill and provide them and their families with support through the process. This kind of option should it be properly funded would replace the need for euthanasia in our societies. The last point on this is that studies have shown that terminally ill patients have chosen death mostly because of a loss of dignity. \"The primary reason given (in The Netherlands) for choosing euthanasia is \u201ca loss of dignity\". [5] If we can show terminally ill patients that their lives and their comfort do matter through the use of palliative care then we eliminate the desire for euthanasia. Conclusion Euthanasia is wrong because of the mixed messages it sends, the implications it has on society, and the alternatives that make it unnecessary Sources: 1. http://news.nationalpost.com... 2. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk... 3. http://www.express.co.uk... 4. http://palliativedoctors.org... 5. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...; Response In response to you original questions, I think I have answered, that just as we shouldn't allow young people with serious depressing to end their life we also shouldn't let people who have lost their dignity to do so. As far as the personal freedom argument goes we should not be free to do whatever we please but rather only what is right. Do the laws that say you can't chop your own arm off mean you aren\u2019t free? No, because we should only have the freedom to do what is right not whatever we please.", "qid": "23", "docid": "e21a5084-2019-04-18T12:37:53Z-00002-000", "rank": 70, "score": 220979.0}, {"content": "Title: Euthanasia Content: Thanks Con.Rebutals: The doctors duty isn't to euthanize Dcotors won't be forced to euthanize patients, similiar to how they aren't forced to perform surgeries. The docotors who do it would do it by choice.Lives are still worth livingEven if I agree to this, I would say that people have the right to choose whether they live or die. As I've shown before, this is lifting the pain from their shoulders. The right to life is a negative right if we don't allow the right to death .\u201cFurther, in nearly every country where a form of physician assisted suicide is legal, the vast majority allow the killing of people with mental illness. In the Netherlands--which my opponent cites directly--the mentally ill are often euthanized. In Belgium, the mentally ill are euthanized in order to take their organs. The fact is, whenever you legalize physician assisted suicide, the law eventually evolves into a death-on-demand structure which leads to many people not capable of making these decisions wisely being killed [2]\u201dThis calls for the law being enforced more sternly, not the law being withdrawn. By withdrawing it, we force the patients who would have been euthanized to suffer until their death, unless an unexpected event occurs. While if we keep it up, we can help these people.\u201cFurther, there is an issue of people in the Netherlands, Belgium, and Canada being murdered, as they are killed without explicit request. Obviously this is not legal, but the fact is that if it is legal to kill someone intentionally if they ask, it is easy just to put in your records \u2018asked for death\u2019 with minimal questioning from the law. In Oregon, the law began fairly successful. For 1/4 of patients asking for death, they received psychiatric care before their decision. They were walked through the process. However, by 2010, this has disintegrated. None of the people killed were told to seek mental care first\u201dAs I said before, this calls for a stricter enforcement of the law, as people should be checking with other doctors, which directly violates the procedure. Furthermore, as I had also said before non voluntary deaths occur regardless of whether we make it legal or not. In the study I had cited \u201cRecent pieces by doctors bring excellent points to my opponents argument. When death becomes the answer, doctors see their patients have less faith in medical care. It is well established that people in the medical profession are a source of hope for their patients. To allow death leads to less hope, and it makes them feel unwanted--that at a certain point, life is not worth living. This is, as doctors argue, is one of the largest blows to human dignity. Further, this has led to a decrease in palliative care. Instead of easing pain and making the life worth living, physicians often choose death as a mean to end the pain, instead of attempting to help the patient.\u201d The alternative wouldn\u2019t be very different, as the patients who have pain that can\u2019t be eased by a few pills are still suffering. They\u2019re wondering why they don\u2019t have a right to guide their own life. The patients should be able to choose between pills and death. They would know that their disease isn\u2019t curable anyway, trying to hide it from them won\u2019t help. Economic ImpactsHere my opponent seems to agree that euthanasia would benefit the economy. He brings up that different cuts could be made, but this doesn\u2019t matter. The point is that there\u2019s a benefit to the economy, showing a better way doesn\u2019t take that fact away. Why not impliment multiple cuts?Non voluntary deaths will always occurMy opponent seems to mix \u201cVoluntary\u201d deaths with \u201cnon voluntary\u201d deaths. Non voluntary acts of euthanasia will happen regardless of whether it\u2019s legalized or not. It was just pointing out that deaths happening against the patients will are going to occur regardless of whether euthanasia is legalized or not. Now he then shows how the number of deaths from euthanasia are rising. This doesn\u2019t matter, however, as I\u2019ve already shown how euthanasia helps the patients who are in pain. My opponent hasn\u2019t yet fully addressed the arguments given or misunderstands them. I\u2019ve supported my arguments and rebutted his contentions. Good luck to Con, as next round is his final round for arguments.", "qid": "23", "docid": "9386e729-2019-04-18T16:05:14Z-00002-000", "rank": 71, "score": 220949.0}, {"content": "Title: Assisted suicide should be illegal. Content: \"Assisted suicide\" refers to \"the act of deliberately assisting another person to kill themselves.\" == A Definitional Note ==The term \"assisted suicide\" is something of a misnomer. There's no crime called \"assisted suicide.\" I do not argue a legal penalty for patients who seek help in dying. The crime at issue is assisting suicide, and it's targeted solely at those who help another commit suicide. The legal right sought by proponents is the right to assist someone in killing themselves without suffering adverse legal consequences. That said, I'll still use \"assisted suicide\" as a short-hand description for the crime/right, as a way of deferring to common usage.The term \"assisted suicide\" is also a misnomer in the sense that it's often confused with \"euthanasia.\" In euthanasia, the doctor kills the patient. In assisted suicide, the doctor assists but the patient is the final causal actor in his or her own death. I don't think the difference will matter much for this debate -- in both, the doctor intentionally helps the patient end his or her life -- but extra clarification always helps.== Rules ==1. No forfeits2. Sources must be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling6. No \"kritiks\" of the topic (i.e. arguments that challenge an assumption in the resolution)7. No semantics; debaters will adhere to the common/average understanding of the topic8. The burden of proof is shared9. First round is for acceptance only10. Violation of any rules is an automatic loss", "qid": "23", "docid": "67a1de10-2019-04-18T14:49:31Z-00007-000", "rank": 72, "score": 220634.0}, {"content": "Title: Euthanasia should be legalised Content: Firstly, I will address some of the key points against the legalisation of Euthanasia. A common misconception of assisted suicide is that it drastically shortens the life span of the person and that recovery was going to occur in the very near future. However, in a Dutch report about Euthanasia, it was found that the procedure actually only shortened the lifespan of the patients. This proves that Euthanasia is not an easy way out but more of a quicker exit with less pain. Another point against euthanasia is that it goes against having a good quality of life. Actually it does the exact opposite. It often improves the quality of life. For instance, if you have terminal illness you can die at any time and will spend the majority of your remaining life span being scared of death and therefore would not enjoy your life to the extent that you normally would. However, if you knew exactly when you were going to die then that fear would be removed and therefore you are free to enjoy your life to its fullest extent. A quote from a person diagnosed with a rare form of Alzheimer\"s, who became an avid campaigner of assisted dying, was that As I have said, I would like to die peacefully with Thomas Tallis on my iPod before the disease takes me over and I hope that will not be for quite some time to come, because if I knew that I could die at any time I wanted, then suddenly every day would be as precious as a million pounds. If I knew that I could die, I would live. My life, my death, my choice.\" One of the biggest myths of assisted dying is that assisted suicide will lead to pressure for old people to die, but in fact, Oregon, the first state to legalise euthanasia after the law taking effect have had just 341, up until 2008. And the groups mainly labelled as the weaker part of society, the poor, the minority and the elderly are actually the least common group to request assisted suicide. In fact, it\"s often the group that are labeled as the least vulnerable members of society, young white men that past often request aid with suicide. Euthanasia rejection is often based on the opinion that it is the \"lesser of two evils\" in fact, the alternatives to euthanasia are horrific. The case of Kelly Taylor, a young lady who was denied euthanasia, and so starved herself for 19 days. Furthermore, Tony Nicklinson, a white British Male, was denied Euthanasia in both 2010 and 2012, despite being unable to move a single muscle in his body as a sufferer of \"locked in\" syndrome, a condition often described as \"a fate worse than death\". Unable to do the job himself or to ask anyone else to do it for him, he died in \"indignity and misery\" from pneumonia after starving himself for a week. Another myth to do with Euthanasia is that it will open the flood gates for deaths. In the Netherlands, where Euthanasia is legal, there are about 3000 requests to die. That may seem like a considerable amount, but in fact it accounts for just 1.7% of deaths. And that isn't the ones who are accepted. The Netherlands system has made it complex and very difficult to achieve and so just 1/3 of those who apply actually achieve it. Finally, I will address the Hippocratic Oath, which is \"do no harm\" (a rough summation). This is an ancient guide for doctor\"s actions. This is often falsely misinterpreted as \"do nothing to harm the patient\"s chances of survival but, in fact could quite easily been seen as \"don\"t artificially keep someone alive when death is preferable\". When a patient is in intense pain or several metal anguish, we do, in fact, harm them more by sustaining their survival then by killing them. In conclusion, it is all about whether we decide to sustain an inevitable and more painful death, or to not sit back and watch someone suffer but to choose to do something about it. Until we stop sitting of the fence and decide to help those in need, the suffering will continue for a long time. Keep calm and vote Pro!! My source: http://listverse.com...", "qid": "23", "docid": "1e884b5d-2019-04-18T15:59:17Z-00005-000", "rank": 73, "score": 220592.0}, {"content": "Title: Euthanasia should be recognized as a human right for the terminally ill Content: This debate isn't about suicide or the freedom to refuse medical treatment. The issue in this debate is whether euthanasia for the terminally ill benefits or harms society. To prove that euthanasia for the terminally ill benefits society, Pro must not only show that euthanasia offers unique benefits that aren't captured by suicide or the right to refuse medical treatment, but also that these unique benefits outweigh the harms. And legalizing euthanasia for the terminally ill imposes significant harms on society. I'll start with Pro's contentions:(1) Pro's first contention confuses things by raising the issue of suffering patients and assisted suicide. The resolution requires that Pro justify euthanasia for all terminally ill patients, not just those that suffer. Thus, Pro's focus on suffering patients is misplaced, as it has no impact on the resolution. Arguing for assisted suicide also has no impact on the resolution. In euthanasia, the doctor kills the patient. In assisted suicide, the doctor assists but the patient is the final causal actor in his or her own death. That means there's greater room for abuse and error in euthanasia, because doctors can kill patients involuntarily or mistakenly. In assisted suicide, doctors cannot kill patients, period. So Pro's arguments for assisted suicide also don't have any impact on the resolution. Finally, the actual substance of Pro's argument is profoundly flawed. Prohibiting euthanasia (or even assisted suicide) doesn't force anyone to suffer; patients are free to commit suicide of their own volition or to refuse medical treatment. Thus, euthanasia or assisted suicide offers no unique benefit to patients who want to end their lives early. (2) Pro's second contention has no impact on the resolution because I admit a right to die. To be sure, Pro says that individuals \"should be able to determine at what time, in what way and by whose hand he or she will die. \" Of course, this is nothing more than Pro's assertion. And it's absurd to say individuals can force anyone of their choosing to kill them. In fact, that conflicts with Pro's \"libertarian\" position, as it coerces individuals to kill people they might not want to kill. (3) Pro's third contention has no impact on the resolution because it focuses on prolonging inevitable death, which isn't argued. Even if euthanasia is kept illegal, individuals still have the right to commit suicide (ending their suffering) or to refuse medical treatment (bringing their death more quickly). Moreover, Pro offers no reason to accept the Hippocratic Oath. Remember, this debate is about whether euthanasia \"should\" be recognized as a human right, not whether it \"is\" recognized under existing medical norms. No matter how many laws or medical codes allow euthanasia, the question is still whether those laws or medical codes are right or wrong. Pro offers no reason to accept this oath. (4), (5), and (6) Pro's fourth, fifth, and sixth contention have no impact on the resolution. They're a bunch of bare assertions with no relation to euthanasia. I'm not arguing for life-prolonging care when someone has refused medical treatment. On the contrary, I argue in support of the right to commit suicide and the right to refuse treatment. And I might even let assisted suicide be legalized if there's good arguments for it. I'll now make a few arguments against euthanasia:(1) Euthanasia drowns our privacy in safeguards, because it requires a transparent process to check for abuse. The deathbed -- like the bedroom -- should remain free from state intrusion. Even Pro said \"death is a private matter . .. the state and other people have no right to interfere. \" Well, that's precisely what's going to happen if euthanasia is legal. The deathbed scene will need to be recorded. Dying will become a public event. The result is less privacy and less freedom about our own deaths. (2) What's to stop involuntary euthanasia? This is precisely what happened in the Netherlands after they legalized euthanasia for the terminally ill; they legalized non-consensual euthanasia a few years later. This is one of those things where a slippery slope has been proven by the evidence. This reason this is likely is because euthanasia, voluntary or involuntary, is justified on the same logic. If we follow this slope to its logical conclusion, physicians would be forced to kill patients if the value of keeping them alive is less than than the costs of medical care. (3) There's a real danger of abuse without sufficient safeguards. And even with safeguards, there's still a possibility for abuse. There's aslo the risk of doctors mistakenly killing persons without their consent, as well as the risk that the patient is being coerced by others (e. g. family members). (4) There's a possibility of discrimination/abuse against minorities. Pro hints at this possibility in his sixth contention. The reality is that minority cancer patients are three times less likely than nonminority patients to receive adequate palliative care. Blacks are 3.5 times more likely than whites to have one of their limbs amputated. And minorities receive worse AIDS treatment. [1] There's no reason to believe this won't translate to euthanasia. For instance, lack of adequate palliative care means more suffering, and more suffering means a higher likelihood of euthanasia. The law shouldn't create conditions that disenfranchise certain groups of people for arbitrary reasons. (5) Euthanasia transforms the role of doctors. They become killers instead of healers. And in killing patients, doctors santify both suicide and intentional killing. In effect, doctors become priests, granting absolution for a patient's desire to end their life. Meanwhile, the state santifies the intentional killing of another human being. This isn't a role that doctors or the state should have; the medical profession shouldn't be in the business of santifying suicides and the state shouldn't be in the business of santifying intentional killings. That's something better left to religious or moral institutions. (6) Legalizing euthanasia for the terminally ill undermines human equality in critical ways. First, by limiting it to certain people -- specifically, the terminallly ill -- it sends a message that certain people are expendable and others aren't. In effect, allowing euthanasia for some people in certain conditions cheapens the existence of all under those conditions. Thus, Pro asks that we enforce a distinction between persons not with respect to social security or education or other government services, but with respect to the most fundamental question of all, namely, whose lives should be treated as inviolable under law and whose may be subject to intentional destruction by others. This creates a second class of citizens. Furthermore, legalizing euthanasia for the terminally ill suggestst that human life has instrumental value. But the only way to justify equal protection of the law is by recognizing that human life is intrinsically valuable. Why treat people with equal respect if we don't really believe that they're equal? If humans only have value based on their instrumental worth to society, why extend equal protection to those with low IQs? the mentally disabled? the autistic? infants with Down's syndrome? Alzheimer's patients? And besides, Pro's criteria for deciding who is expendable and who isn't is arbitrary (who decides which lives are worthy preservation and thus the full protection of the law? why are some lives unworthy of protection? ).", "qid": "23", "docid": "a7b24794-2019-04-18T14:18:31Z-00004-000", "rank": 74, "score": 220531.0}, {"content": "Title: Euthanasia (assisted suicide) should be legalised. Content: I'm not going to argue that point, though I could, I actually meant to argue attempting suicide, which we can both agree on. The case of Tony Nicklinson is definitely a sad one, however, it was not a necessity for him to die. Stephen Hawking, like Tony Nicklinson is confined to wheelchair, however he overcomes it, and continues to be one of the greatest scientists of the era. Obviously Mr. Nicklinson would have to of been struggling from some sort of depression after the traumatic event, it is only natural. Killing him would end his potential. Also, new therapies, medicines, and techniques are being invented everyday which could of helped him greatly. He did not need death, he wanted it. He FELT as if it was impossible; he FELT as if it was unbearable; he FELT as if there was no hope, but there was, and it was ended. Those who overcome are always happy they did. Euthanasia and Suicide are closely related topics. You can have suicide without help, but in order for assisted suicide to occur, you have to allow them to kill you, which is ultimately just another form of suicide. However, in cases where they cannot communicate with you in anyway: let's say a family decides it's time for a rich family member who's been in a coma to die in order to inherit money for their own benefit. - Very Flawed. In cases where it is their choice to allow someone to kill them (practical suicide): definitely opens the door to suicide. Mass Euthanasia and Attempted Suicide would occur, because it is now legal. The law makes people think about suicide before it occurs, removing it would make suicide easier. Not only that, but faked suicides would be easier to make. Murders would obviously be easier to make if they claim it was an \"assisted suicide\". Perfect opportunity for criminals. Suicide has devastating effects on family members, can tear them apart, and they will never be the same. It can be a very selfish act. By the way, I would love to hear, what method would make killing your grandfather (or some other relative) \"PERFECTLY comfortable\" for you? Assuming you would never feel any remorse.", "qid": "23", "docid": "fe13b6d0-2019-04-18T17:15:38Z-00003-000", "rank": 75, "score": 220530.0}, {"content": "Title: Legalizing Euthanasia or Physician-Assisted Suicide Content: I extend my arguments.", "qid": "23", "docid": "dccf7263-2019-04-18T16:52:37Z-00001-000", "rank": 76, "score": 220492.0}, {"content": "Title: That we should legalise Euthanasia for terminal illnesses Content: Currently in our society, there are millions of people suffering from terminal diseases like cancer and heart diseases. Those people know that they are going to die, but has to endure the excruciating pain of the illness. Because the pain is unbearable and continuous, they will want to end their lives. Those people see no future and therefore should be able to end their lives by assisted suicide. It is not humane to make people go through this extreme pain and suffering, when it is evident that they will be cured of their diseases. Therefore, it is evident that euthanasia should be legalised for people with terminal illnesses.", "qid": "23", "docid": "c281abf3-2019-04-18T12:48:01Z-00001-000", "rank": 77, "score": 219839.0}, {"content": "Title: Euthanasia should be legalized internationally when approved by a trained medical professional Content: My opponent wished to ask me why it should be a medical professional and not a member of the government that evaluates each case of planned euthanasia and decides whether or not to permit it , he then proceeded to sum up the exact reasons as to why it should be done in such a way! As explained by my opponent, the job of a doctor is to 'prevent their [patients] life from deteriorating and to make their lives better.' Therefore, a doctor will ensure that every option which could save their patients life or increase their standard of living is taken before finally allowing the patient to end their life with the help of another person. I.E. to undergo euthanasia. You attempt to claim that suicide and assisted suicide are the same thing: 'Euthanasia is no different from suicide.' I am quite sure I can prove that you are wrong. Suicide is defined as the act of killing oneself, whilst euthanasia is defined as the act of the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma. Therefore there should be no need to worry about young people considering euthanasia in order to stop their suffering at the hands of bullies, because that would not be viewed by a medical professional as a valid medical reason as it is, in fact, not a medical reason at all. Indeed, the only people who would meet the criteria and be allowed to legally be assisted with suicide are those suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma, as suggested by the definition of euthanasia. Your penultimate paragraph does not seem to be on the subject of the debate at all. If an individual is suffering from an incurable and painful illness, how can their life be made better? Perhaps in the short term the pain could be relieved slightly, but would you rather die in agony when you have no choice or die with your family and friends in relative comfort before the disease makes you unable to communicate with your loved ones or the pain becomes so unbearable that you become angry with those who mean the most to you, how would you wish to spend your last moments? Your turn.", "qid": "23", "docid": "294713ae-2019-04-18T15:54:26Z-00001-000", "rank": 78, "score": 219812.0}, {"content": "Title: Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide Should Be Legalized for the Terminally Ill Content: that is the damn problem with countries that go awry. ohh, lets not hurt my feelings while i ask absurd questions and provoke negative thoughts. little boy, it is a free for all and i am not in bounds and shackles. but the way america is going down the tubes...we will be soon,. in a world of no moral conscience or value to life. then yeah by all means..kill each other. kill yourself kill everyone. God is part of my answer and assisting someone is murder according to the logical and sane decrees of the ten commandments,.. i answered your question. i didnt give you a recipe for grandmas chocolate chip cookies, i gave you a blunt answer. people cannot take the truth. i said it would leave many consequences. the consequences are not worth it therefor i would be against assisted suicide. oh i am also against legal marijuana. its just another lame excuse to bring decay into society. you can be honest with yourself and look at the pros and cons of legalizing marijuana and there you will see how one bad idea leads to an entire chain of bad ideas. not to mention the health problems and psychological problems marijuana causes compared to giving a sick person an appetite. its the same thing when ever you bring something unatural into life you will get unatural effects. its not even a question. i will answer how ever i choose, i am not in chains or bounds. i am free and fed up with moral decay. sue me.", "qid": "23", "docid": "241794a9-2019-04-18T15:43:47Z-00001-000", "rank": 79, "score": 219661.0}, {"content": "Title: Should euthanasia be legal Content: Like anything else there would be some legal safeguards for both ends of the event. If you wanted to have the job done professionally in an assisted method there would be a legal contract. As for youths no contract can be legal until the participant is at least 18 yrs of age. As for having a bad day not many people seriously consider suicide due to a bad day,week or what ever. Most people who seriously consider suicide have suffered for an extended amount of time and have reached a point where they just don't want to suffer anymore or feel that there is no other answer. I think for healthy people there should be a psychological evaluation prior to the legal documentation to have your life ended in an assisted way. I know the suicide of healthy people is morally tough to accept, still is should be that person's right. Just before Christmas I lost a cousin to suicide she suffered from depression for many years. It saddens me that she felt the way she did but on the other hand she ended her suffering which plagued her for years. It's bitter sweet.", "qid": "23", "docid": "114892b1-2019-04-18T11:52:47Z-00003-000", "rank": 80, "score": 219616.0}, {"content": "Title: Legalization of Euthanasia Content: =Rebuttal=\"I see no reason why government run euthanasia centers would have to take this oath.\" - Euthanasia is also known as \"Physician-assisted suicide\" because doctors are the ones doing the killing. Since doctors are the ones performing Euthanasia, a violation of the Hippocratic Oath is very important. Unless my Opponent is advocating someone other than doctors doing the killing, which carries extreme implications.\"In a way euthanasia is in fact helping the terminally ill. Instead of refusing them their wish to die we are allowing them to choose for themselves. Instead of saying no we are giving a choice.\"- using that logic we would also be helping depressed people by killing them. Furthermore, Euthanasia gets abused, as the doctor Herbert Hend tells us (speaking of Euthanasia in the Netherlands): \"Concern over charges of abuse led the Dutch government to undertake studies of the practice in 1990 and 1995. Many violations of the guidelines were evident from these two studies. For example, 60% of Dutch cases of assisted suicide and euthanasia are not reported, which by itself makes regulation impossible. The most alarming concern to arise from the Dutch studies has been the documentation of several thousand cases a year in which patients who have not given their consent have their lives ended by physicians. About a quarter of physicians stated that they had \"terminated the lives of patients without an explicit request\" from the patient to do so, and a third more of the physicians could conceive of doing so.\"[1]Euthanasia empowers doctors, not patients.\"Than make the process a multiple appointment process. There is probably a reason those who didn't get an intervention went through with it more. Perhaps they don't have anyone to hold an intervention for them.\" - Guidelines such as these could not be enforced, again take the Netherlands as an example according to BBC: \"The reality is that a clear majority of cases of euthanasia, both with and without request, go unreported and unchecked.\"[2]Since Holland is the only country to legalize Euthanasia, this sets a historical precednt of abuse. My Opponent must show how this will not happen in the United States.=His answers to Cross Examination=1. However unless everyone was subjected to intense physcological analysis (not likely, especially considering how my Opponent spoke of saving money as part of his case) you can never truly know if they're insane. Example, the case that legalized Euthanasia in the Netherlands was a woman who wanted death because her family had died. If such a traumatic experience like that does NOT cause insanity I don't know what is. A want of death is a sign of insanity, an acceptance of death is a sign of wisdom. Let's not confuse this.2. Now we have someone else deciding on a persons right to life. Even close family members should not have the right to terminate someones existence.3. Ok, I thought that's how it would work, just clarifying.4. Yes, but how are these deductions made? Who makes them and what qualifications do they need?5. What do you mean no? The sanctity of life is a fundamental value in our society, indeed it is our most sacred value, how can this be outweighed by your impacts?6. So just people hired by the government to perform these Euthanasias?7. So basically it's also justified to kill a suicidal person evenb if they're perfectly healthy?8. So we are trusting the government to decide who is or isn't fit for life? Look what happened last time a government ran Euthanasia, in Nazi Germany: \"The so-called \"Euthanasia\" program was National Socialist Germany's first program of mass murder, predating the genocide of European Jewry by approximately two years. The effort represented one of many radical eugenic measures which aimed to restore the racial \"integrity\" of the German nation. It endeavored to eliminate what eugenicists and their supporters considered \"life unworthy of life\"' [3]Governments, all governments, cannot be trusted with this power.9. The Hippocratic Oath which outlines what doctors are supposed to do is against Euthanasia, so are doctors supposed to disobey their code of ethics whenever it suits them?=His case=C1.\"People who live in great pain and suffering would have a way to get out of their pain and misery and die with dignity\" -you speak of dignity quite alot, so I really must ask, how exactly is Euthanasia \"dignified\"? To me it seems like the easy way out, not dignified at all.\"Patients literally scream down the halls their desire for death.\"-same with mental hospitals, should we kill them too?C2.1. No solvency, money would still be spent on Euthanasia in the \"government run centers\".2. Valuing money over the sanctity of life, clear miscalculation in my opinion.3. His plan is likely to be more expensive with his \"multiple appointments\" requiring Physciartrists, Doctors, ect.Souces1. Hendin, Herbert. \"Legalizing Euthanasia Eliminates Patient Autonomy and Reduces Quality of Care.\" Rest in comments.", "qid": "23", "docid": "ddc4d7ee-2019-04-18T18:45:23Z-00003-000", "rank": 81, "score": 219463.0}, {"content": "Title: Euthanasia Content: \"Assisted suicide might start with the terminally ill, but eventually, there will be pressure to extend that right to the physically disable, mentally handicapped, the depressed, or the aged\" (Calgary, Herald). Herald makes the point that if euthanasia is legalized, it will soon lose the parameters that are entitled with it. In order for euthanasia to take place, you must be severely ill or injured with the knowledge that your life will never be worth living again. If euthanasia is made legal, it will start with those people that are ill and injured, but it will escalate towards those that suffer mentally, to those who are aging, and to those who could declare depression with valid reasons not to live. Suicide is never the right choice, legalizing it will only make it the way out for everybody even if they have the chance to live a fulfilled life. Euthanasia will promote suicide if made legal. \"Human Life Must Be Valued.\" Calgary Herald. 08 Aug 2011: A.8. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 16 Oct 2013.", "qid": "23", "docid": "9386dfc6-2019-04-18T17:05:50Z-00004-000", "rank": 82, "score": 218782.0}, {"content": "Title: Euthanasia (assisted suicide) should be legalised. Content: He has the potential hope for an advance in science. Stephen Hawking continues to learn new things to make his career successful, not everything he talks about he knew before he was diagnosed with ASL. Obviously Tony has the ability to learn, or to at least write a book. He could of began to take a more positive perspective on life instead of looking at his life cynically. There are those who sympathize with him who have turned it around. The family however, are knowingly taking him to the place where he WILL die. They have to live with that. Honestly, the tragedy of Tony is one of the more extreme cases. However, the legalization of Euthanasia is a LOT broader than that. If you were to have a baby, and then as it grows up, you learn it is a special needs child, and IF euthanasia were legal, then you would be able to kill that child so that it wouldn't have to \"endure\" such a life. They would have that choice taken from them, and special needs children are no less of people than we are. You have to understand that euthanasia gives the family members and doctors more power over the life of someone who hasn't the ability to choose. There is also no proper way to perform Euthanasia. Perhaps there may be a way to help only those with the most abnormally extreme cases in the future (such as Tony), since he was beginning to be in pain, but the legalization of Euthanasia as a whole is an absolutely horrible idea.", "qid": "23", "docid": "fe13b6d0-2019-04-18T17:15:38Z-00001-000", "rank": 83, "score": 218604.0}, {"content": "Title: Assisted Suicide Should Be Legalized for those that are mentally stable and suffering Content: Framework He begins by attempting to demonstrate that the government doesn\u2019t always make the best of inventions and they don\u2019t always turn out like they are intended to turn out. He refers to the guillotine. My framework clearly states that the government don\u2019t have a right to interfere in death, his claim that the government have made failed inventions is irrelevant because I did not say that the government would control assisted suicide (A.S), in fact I claimed the opposite. If A.S remains illegal then the government are interfering with our deaths. This contradicts possibly the most iconic libertarian view. The belief in a smaller, less powerful government. It will do the opposite of enlarging the government. Legalizing A.S will limit the government\u2019s control over death and ultimately agree with the libertarian view. His framework goes against the libertarian belief in a smaller government and since his framework (supposedly) coincides with libertarianism it is self contradictory and my framework remains superior. Definitions Euthanasia and A.S are different - it is possible for somebody to be pro A.S and con euthanasia. This is not the case for me but this debate is in regards to A.S - not euthanasia. In this section, I will clarify the definitions and show why his contentions are invalid since they are arguing against a different resolution to the one proposed in R1 by me. I will restate the definition here; we can compare it to euthanasia. Assisted Suicide is the act of a medically trained professional deliberately providing assistance to help somebody to willingly kill themselves (commit suicide). Let us compare this to euthanasia: Euthanasia is the act of a medically trained professional deliberately killing a patient because the patient wanted to be killed (1). The difference is clearly significant because in A.S the doctor is not a murderer. In euthanasia the doctor is. This is why there are issues with involuntary euthanasia since in this the doctor is ultimately the killer and so they sometimes make the decision to kill patients involuntarily. In A.S the patient is the killer so the only way that it can possibly be involuntary is if the doctor forces the patient to kill themselves rather than actually killing the patient. The legalization of euthanasia would create a larger difference in the doctor\u2019s job. Euthanasia empowers the doctor to carry out the patient\u2019s wish to end their lives. There is a key difference between that level of empowerment, and acquiescing to the request of a patient for the correct and safe tools to commit suicide. Doctors prescribe regularly but they do not end the patient\u2019s lives by their own hands in A.S. Thus, you are not expanding the role that they\u2019re currently playing unlike euthanasia. This key difference that must be established. He is not arguing for his position. This resolution is affirmed. I will now show how my his contentions do not impact upon the resolution individually. R1: Unreported Euthanasia & Euthanasia without consent. These statistics clearly show that many euthanasia occurrences are involuntary. I will now show you that this is not the case for A.S. Since euthanasia is a much larger issue than A.S is (and there is less controversy), there are more statistics regarding worldwide statistics. There are, however, smaller scale statistics regarding A.S: \u201cIn Oregon USA it has been legal for terminally ill, mentally competent adults to have an assisted death for 18 years. In those 18 years there have been no cases of abuse and no calls to extend the law beyond terminally ill adults.\u201d (2) The key term that is most significant in this quote is that the cases of \u2018A.S\u2019 have been carefully monitored and regulated and after 18 years of Oregon A.S there has never been an incident of abuse. This quote should be considered preferable over his case since mine is relevant to the resolution whilst his refers to a different topic that doesn\u2019t impact upon the resolution. R2: The Slippery Slope Argument This is also used in terms of euthanasia however I will still respond to this because the argument can be applied in terms of A.S. I have always viewed the slippery slope argument as a quite poor argument that can be applied in a number of circumstances in an almost identical way. Everything can go down a slippery slope. What we need to do is put down a clear boundary. You could argue that there is a slippery slope from eating a lamb chop to eating a human being. You could argue that there is a slippery slope from pushing somebody to killing somebody. The slippery slope argument is poor and can happen anywhere. I will use a relevant example. People murder. Does that mean that we never should have established rules against murder? The same applies to A.S. I doubt that there will be many cases of this right being abused. The chances of right being abused is low and there is evidence from places that currently have assisted suicide legalized - Oregon. It is the continuation of this contention that is fatal to his case. He states that we are transforming the role of doctors into killers. I have \u2018ironically\u2019 come across that argument every time I have debated the topic. He is mixing up the terms A.S and euthanasia. In A.S the doctor provides the patient with access to a quick and effective suicide, which empowers the patient with the decision to use it, allowing the patient to then harmlessly kill themselves if they wish to do so. The doctor is not a killer, the doctor makes sure that the method is safe. He defines euthanasia when it was agreed that we are arguing for A.S - this was clearly defined in R1. I will provide a statistical rebuttal to this claim. From the same source as him: \u201c53% of physicians answered yes or probably yes to the question: \"Would it have been all right, upon request from the patient, to intentionally prescribe drugs so the patient could end his or her life by overdose?\" (3) His statistics are not as clear as he stated them to be. It was specifically about the withdrawal of life support (3). This is not A.S. R3: Self Ownership & Sickness He seems to be interconnecting his contentions. This is a problematic since if one of the contentions that is interconnected is refuted the rest of it falls apart. His source is the right to life source. This is a bias source that evidently will not provide both sides of the argument. I refute his case. As clearly defined at the beginning of my argument, A.S and euthanasia are separate issues and should not be generalized as the same thing. Euthanasia has been demonstrated as something that can lead to involuntary usage however A.S is different as I have demonstrated through my R2 contentions and in this rebuttal. His incident is related to euthanasia so it is invalid. In A.S the patient ultimately kills themselves. The patient was in a vegetative state. In this state an A.S could not have been performed simply because the patient must be able to conduct this themselves. Also, the resolution uses the word: \u2018suffering\u2019. This patient was in a vegetative state and clearly was not suffering - merely unable to think or act. The resolution also requires the patient to be in a correct mental state of mind. This patient was clearly in no condition to be making an informed decision. His self determination argument refers to euthanasia and it isn\u2019t actually an offense to his case. He states the following: \u201c when they are in the correct state of mind then they should be able to make any judgmental decision and it is likely under this case that they would choose life over death.\u201d This is not a reason to not legalize A.S. It is like abortion, many pro-abortion members of society won\u2019t necessarily want the legalization of abortion so that they can have one. They usually advocate the legalization of abortion because they want women to have the option. If you put his argument into this context it makes more sense. In an abortion debate, you cannot say that abortion is not permissible because over 50% will choose not to have an abortion. This would be a weak argument and this is without the further mitigations that he has been restrained by, due to the fact that he is arguing against euthanasia rather than A.S. The option to A.S is important without the legalization of A.S the law treats the dying as irrational individuals who don\u2019t know what they want, relegating them to the status of children. That is extremely problematic, especially for him since he is a libertarian that opposes government intervention. He continues by quoting an anti-euthanasia advocate. The key word: \u2018anti-euthanasia\u2019 He has misunderstood the resolution of the debate and cannot differentiate between euthanasia and A.S. He states: \u201cThough the individual may be in pain they are still in the wrong state of mind as I brought up earlier meaning that the person cannot properly think for themselves and have lost the ability to choose between right and wrong as they are attempting to end their lives with no [regards] to others.\u201d This is a resolutional misunderstanding. The resolution in R1 says: \u2018mentally stable\u2019. His argument relies on the patient being mentally unstable however the resolution specifically says mentally stable. He continues: \u201cSo it [matters] not the level of pain the person is [experiencing] as if they kill themselves they would be robbing the community and it in turn harms society.\u201d This argument is unsourced. I have been provided with no reason as to how it harms society and I have been given no reason to believe that it does. Even if it does harm society, it is the typical libertarian view that humans should have the option to choose. Conclusion P1: To win this debate he had to prove that A.S should not be legal. P2: He argued against euthanasia C1: He is not winning this debate (meeting their BOP) P1: To win this debate I had to prove that A.S should be legal. P2: I argued that A.S should be legalized. C1: I am winning this debate (meeting my BOP). Sources in comments.", "qid": "23", "docid": "7301aafd-2019-04-18T14:11:51Z-00003-000", "rank": 84, "score": 218406.0}, {"content": "Title: Euthanasia (assisted suicide) should be legalised. Content: ASL and locked-in syndrome are very different. Hawking was able to prepare himself before the more severe symptoms of motor neurone disease kicked in. Tony had a stroke and was incapacitated immediately afterwards. He couldn't write a book on his own, he would constantly need someone there to write it for him, all of his independence, what it means to be a human was just taken away from him so violently, he had every single right to die. The family are now having to live with the fact that Tony starved himself to death whilst suffering from pneumonia and locked-in-syndrome. Imagine your mother, father, brother or sister doing that. Imagine what it must be like going to bed at night knowing that when you wake up they will have had 12 hours of loneliness on top of all that pain they endured through the night. It would be absolutely awful. You would much rather they were taken to a clinic and had a painless, dignified, gentle death. Isn't that so much nicer? Not even the Republicans would be stupid enough to legalise euthanasia of children because they have special needs. Euthanasia will be HEAVILY regulated, it works in Switzerland. And children under the age of 15 wouldn't be allowed to be euthanised, as in Switzerland. We're not allowing doctors and parents, husbands, wives, sons and daughters to just go an pull the plug on their rich relatives. We are giving people in pain, both physically and mentally, the chance to end their ordeal. If you award some people the right to die, you have to award it to everyone else, too. It isn't fair to say that families will euthanise rich grandparents to get their inheritance, what kind of people do you think we are? Usually, when they get married, men and women will choose when they want life support equipment to be turned off. Most people don't want to live through locked-in-syndrome, so will choose to die if that is an option. The system works in Switzerland, there is no reason why it can't work in the UK and (by the looks of how you spell 'legalise') in North America. Thank you very much for an enjoyable debate!", "qid": "23", "docid": "fe13b6d0-2019-04-18T17:15:38Z-00000-000", "rank": 85, "score": 218173.0}, {"content": "Title: Assisted suicide Content: Legalizing euthanasia would allow more open family dialogue on the choice.", "qid": "23", "docid": "89c45bda-2019-04-17T11:47:42Z-00029-000", "rank": 86, "score": 217860.0}, {"content": "Title: Death: Should There Be A Choice Content: Arguments For Legal Euthanasia1. euthanasia is \u201cinevitable, so it's better to have it out in the open so that it can be properly regulated and carried out.Murder is also inevitable, so should we have that out in the open and regulate it? The obvious answer is no, and which is why inevitability is never a good argument to propose for anything.2. Euthanasia may provide a cost-effective way of dealing with dying people. Where health resources are scarce, not considering euthanasia might deprive society of the resources needed to help people with curable illnesses.This is repulsive to think we are going to be judging people if they are worth the resources to give them possibly life saving procedures, and there is already evidence of such actions going on in places where the practices are legal. One notable case isBarbara Wagner in Oregon in which an insurance company refused to pay for a drug to help her with her lung cancer, but the company was willing to pay for the drugs for physician assisted suicide [1].3. It is cruel and inhumane to refuse someone the right to die, when they are suffering intolerable and unstoppable pain, or distress.It ignore advancements in medical technology to relieve pain, but euthanaisa are not pain relieving or improves quality of life. Pain relief technology has come a long way \u201cA century ago, high blood pressure, pneumonia, appendicitis, and diabetes likely meant death, often accompanied by excruciating pain. Women had shorter life expectancies than men since many died in childbirth\u201d [2]. Now we have methods like using morphine, which is over 80% effective for everyone at relieve pain; also, we have opiates, which have been effective for chronic pain [3]. Further, euthanasia doesn\u2019t actually relieve pain. To explain, sedation just makes you unresponsive to the pain, but once you wake up the pain would still be there because nothing was done to target the pain. Euthanasia is like sedation in the way that it just makes you unresponsive to pain, and nothing was done to target the pain itself. Medicine should be focused on killing the pain not the patient. To say euthanasia relives pain would be equivalent to saying that euthanasia stops cancer from spreading. In a way they are both sort of right, but no doctor would ever recommend euthanasia to fight cancer, so why they do so for pain? 4. Human beings have the right to decide when and how to die. it is becoming less of a choice and more coercion; further, in countries where VE is legal the quality Palliative care, end of life care, is becoming harder to obtain which is actually limiting choices rather than expand it like proponents claim. For example in the Netherlands where euthanasia is legal there are problems. Although the Dutch government has attempted to stimulate palliative care at six major medical centres throughout the Netherlands, established more than 100 hospices and provide for training professionals caring for terminally ill patients, many physicians choose the easier option of euthanasia rather than train in palliative care [4]. Further, according to Herbert Hendin, MD, \u201cData from patient interviews, surveys of families of patients receiving end-of-life care in Oregon, surveys of physicians' experience and data from the few cases where information has been made available suggest the inadequacy of end-of-life care in Oregon\u201d [5]. Arguments Against Legal Euthanasia1. It is opposed by all major religions, including Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Jainism, Shinto, Islam, and Buddhism. They all believe that human life is a gift from God, and no human being should get rid of such a gift\u201d [6]. Critics will be the first to point out that we have a separation of church and state, and they are partially right. In the United States we still print \u201cIn God we trust\u201d on our money and have \u201cunder God\u201d in the pledge; however, this may give people a personal reason to oppose it, but may not be enough to enforce laws against it. There are also secular reasons to oppose Euthanasia. 2. It is easier for doctors to administer euthanasia, than learn techniques for caring for the dying which undermines the quality of medicine availableThe American Medical Association, along with many other health organizations filed a brief with the Supreme Court during the Washington v. Glucksberg case, stating \u201cproperly trained health care professionals can effectively meet their patients\u2019 needs for compassionate end-of-life care without acceding to requests for suicide\u201d [7]. Dr. Hendin also shown \u201cStudies show that the less physicians know about palliative care, the more they favor assisted suicide or euthanasia; the more they know, the less they favor it\u201d, and \u201cEuthanasia, intended originally for the exceptional case, became an accepted way of dealing with serious or terminal illness in the Netherlands. In the process, palliative care became one of the casualties, while hospice care has lagged behind that of other countries\u201d 3. Euthanasia is un-ethical for the patient and people cease to have strong feelings once a practice becomes legal and widely accepted.. When it comes to normative ethics, there are two schools of thought utilitarianism, and Kantianism. Utilitarianism is \u201cto act in the manner that determines the most positive consequences and the less negative ones\u201d [8]. \u201cThe motive behind this pragmatic approach lies in the finding of a disproportionate growing trend of health expenses in the last month of the terminal patients\u2019 life\u201d [8]. This model of ethics makes it ethical to use euthanasia because it saves medical resources, and unethical to keep living and using those medical resources. This re-enforces the idea that legal Euthanasia actually limits choices and coerces people. Since, in this theory, the focus of moral evaluations is based on the consequences of the action towards others, it is impossible to know if you are doing a moral action. If because a patient chooses euthanasia to save medical resources, and now they are able to save a future mass murder from dying then they would have done an immoral action. This makes this theory a poor way to figure out if euthanasia is actually immoral or not. Further, in this moral theory there is no human rights since any action like murder could be moral if the majority benefited, so this isn\u2019t a moral theory that people would want to follow. The other theory of Kantianism which gives a clearer answer. Kant believed we derive morality from rationality in which he proposed an unwavering moral law called the categorical imperitive [9]. Kant said to determine if an action is moral or not you would have to make that action a universal law that everyone must follow, and if that action caused any contradictions then it is an immoral action. \u201cKant would not agree with anybody who out of self-love decides to take his/her life. This is because this is a system that aims at destroying life; hence this maxim could not possibly exist as a universal law\u201d [9]. This moral theory better explains if euthanasia is immoral or not, and better matches what the average person would believe, since in this theory we have human rights. 4. that it is un-ethical for doctors to give such procedures; such practices violate the Hippocratic Oath, and Voluntary euthanasia gives power which can be too easily abused The Hippocratic Oath was made to define the doctor\u2019s proper role and medical ethics. Hippocrates states \u201cthe doctor to do whatever is for the benefit of the patient, and to give no deadly medicine if asked, nor suggest such counsel\u201d [10]. To have legal euthanasia would violate centuries of well established and respected medical ethics. These medical ethics have been carried on by modern medical associations like General Medical Council, and British Medical Association [10]. Without this rule, doctors can abuse their role as a trusted professional. For example, \u201cThe government-sanctioned studies suggest an erosion of medical standards in the care of terminally ill patients in the Netherlands when \u2026 more than 50% of Dutch doctors feel free to suggest euthanasia to their patients, and 25% admit to ending patients' lives without their consent\u201d [5]. Frankly, it is disturbing that any ending patients\u2019 lives without consent is even accepted little alone so wide spread. Also, if doctors suggest euthanasia, they are essentially giving up at their position as trying to help/cure the patient. Sources[1] https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com...[2] http://www.patientsrightscouncil.org...[3] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[4] http://www.life.org.nz...[5] http://www.psychiatrictimes.com...[6] https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com...[7] https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com...[8] https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com...[9] http://www.academia.edu...[10] https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com...", "qid": "23", "docid": "d1c59b91-2019-04-18T16:00:42Z-00003-000", "rank": 87, "score": 217430.0}, {"content": "Title: Euthanasia Should Be Legal. Content: Euthanasia is the practice of ending someone's life in a painless manner, under their full conscious consent. This is done when the patient is terminally ill, and there are no foreseeable cures for their condition, a condition in which usually the patient is under excruciating pain. In a way, this is a form of suicide, one that is assisted by a physician who takes into consideration factors such as the condition of the patient; of whether or not they are viable for euthanasia. Individuals have the number one priority in a decision dealing with their own personal health and care. If they consent to euthanasia, then it should rightfully be granted to them. I will develop my arguments in further rounds.", "qid": "23", "docid": "2d207525-2019-04-18T19:36:31Z-00005-000", "rank": 88, "score": 216896.0}, {"content": "Title: Euthanasia Should Be Legal. Content: Euthanasia is legal in Texas, Oregon, and leaning towards legal in California. Gallup Poll shows that 80% of American agree Euthanasia should be legal (http://en.wikipedia.org...). So Technically Euthanasia is MOSTLY illegal but not completely. However, Euthanasia should be illegal because no law can be made that is perfect enough to ensure no abuses of Euthanasia will exist. 1. Many scenarios can occur where the ill can ultimately be manipulated by family, friends, or outside third parties to ask for Euthanasia. Not to mention that doctors would be receiving money for their work in Euthanasia. Money corrupts people and many scenarios can occur where greed leads to the murder of a human being disguised as Euthanasia. Legalization of Euthanasia would be permissible if all Men had integrity, honor, and compassion for one another. Then their would be absolute guarantee that abuses in the system would not exist. Unfortunately greed, malice, and selfishness do exist in our society. These flaws of man make it impossible for a system of assisted suicide to work flawlessly, and no law can be crafted that can produce a system absent of these flaws. Once you realize the reality of flawed human character and understand how that will breed abuses in the system it becomes a matter of how much we value Human life as a society. 2. You must trust the Government. Many do not trust government and for good reason. Politicians accept money from lobbyists and and create law to benefit those interests. This is a legal practice in Washington. They have written law in a way that is counter-productive to the legislation process. So can the congress pass law that will be counter-productive or corrupt in the case of Euthanasia. Once passed into law, Euthanasia can transform through amendments and interpretation. So years into the future a government can turn Euthanasia into a way of control or manipulation against its people. Like the Bush administration who redefined \"Torture\" as \"Pressure\" and we now have soldiers who water board detainees, force them into stress positions, or sexually humiliate and degrade them. By enacting legislation giving the power to kill in a society of flawed men is very dangerous and risky.", "qid": "23", "docid": "2d207525-2019-04-18T19:36:31Z-00004-000", "rank": 89, "score": 216785.0}, {"content": "Title: Should euthanasia be legal Content: Even at the age of 18 kids do not have the life experience to know that things get better. If a person no longer wants to live they should seek therapy, counselling, and most likely be put on medication. Depression is a disorder, a chemical imbalance in the brain. Anti-depressants work to gradually increase serotonin and dopamine levels which pulls you out of depression. The assisted suicide of healthy people is not \"morally hard to accept\" how could it be when it goes against morals? By allowing assisted suicide to be legal the entire mental health work force would change. People already seeking therapy could then be told things like \"We're in our fourth session now and I haven't noticed any changes I'm allowing you to kill yourself, thanks for trying.\" If people have a way out, why would they try to make themselves better?", "qid": "23", "docid": "114892b1-2019-04-18T11:52:47Z-00002-000", "rank": 90, "score": 216508.0}, {"content": "Title: Euthanasia should be recognized as a human right for the terminally ill Content: Apologies for the late response. I was almost finished typing this up and my laptop ran out of battery, none of it saved so I've been forced to retype it. I'll start with the defense of my contentions. (1) Whilst, it is true that not all terminally ill patients suffer, the issue cannot be completely dismissed as irrelevant. The issue of suffering does affect terminally ill patients and I do not doubt that there are terminally ill patients who do not suffer however I do believe that the issue still has relevance to this debate. Just because an issue does not affect everyone, this does not mean that it has no significance. There are similarities between assisted suicide and euthanasia, except with assisted suicide religious questions are more likely to be raised. In assisted suicide the patient is ultimately the killer of themselves, whereas it is a controversial issue on whether or not euthanasia (where the doctor ultimately kills the patient) is considered to be suicide - as a result of this euthanasia is by far a better option. The legalization of euthanasia will benefit a much larger group of people than it will if assisted suicide is legalized. It is controversial whether or not people are free to commit suicide. I agree and know for a fact that there are no charges for the failure to commit suicide in the UK and USA however, I cannot say the same for other countries. Since this debate is not specific to anywhere in the world, this argument is invalid and has no impact on the resolution. To back up this point, not only is it illegal in specific countries, it is also illegal in specific religions (e.g Christianity). (2) This argument has been misinterpreted by my opponent. My opponent has accepted the full resolution of this debate and as a result of this, this means that they accept that the person has had full mental health checks. This ultimately means that they can think properly and understand situations properly. I never said that anyone should be allowed to force people to do so. I said that they should be able to choose who kills them, but if the person refuses then it is unlikely that they will choose to force them to so. By that statement, my opponent has missed my main point which states that they should be able to determine when they should die. This does not conflict with the libertarian position since my opponent has just made a misinterpretation of my point. (3) As I have said previously, in specific religions and parts of the world suicide is not legal and it is also extremely difficult to commit suicide since most hospitals carefully monitor patients and do not allow them to just walk out of the hospital or jump out of the window. Given that these people have been checked (mentally) then it will be difficult for them to refuse medication and let themselves die - even if they are not religious and they are in a country that allows them to do this. (4), (5), and (6) Since my opponent has not refuted any of these points individually, I will use this part of my defense to comment on the refusal of medical treatment. Medical treatment is not always available (especially for terminal illnesses with no cure). The treatment is usually pain relief and without this their lives will not shorten in any significant way. In fact, it is probable that their lives will be prolonged due to the immense pain (in some circumstances) - this will cause the time passing to feel longer than it actually is. I know that my opponent has said that they do not feel like they need to respond to the points made regarding suffering patients because this is not all terminally ill patients however I would like to see my opponent's alternative for what they would do for suffering patients (who will live for the next 20 years, for example) who are begging to die. What would you do? Rebuttals (1) Death, like life is not entirely a private matter. The government intervenes with our lives - from the moment that we are born, we are constantly debating the pros and cons of state intervention in our lives. Whether we like it or not, we need the Government and depend on them. The government funds our education for under 16s for free. They help with health (free in the UK). Neither of these is free of the state or those people around us. We elect a government to help us to make moral decisions. The government provides the regulations and the security. Not everyone will have the right to euthanasia. (2) No, it is not the case that you always go down a slippery slope. Everything can go down a slippery slope. What we need to do is put down a clear boundary. You could argue that there is a slippery slope from eating a lamb chop to eating a human being. (3) Again, there is a possibility for abuse in everything. People always break laws. We have laws against murder and theft. Just because people break these laws it doesn't mean that we should abandon them completely. (4) I come from the UK and this is not the case. As I have mentioned on multiple occasions throughout this rebuttal - this debate is not specific to any country, state or area. These statistics are false in other places. I request that you keep your arguments nonspecific to any specific place. (5) You state that euthanasia transforms doctors into killers. This is true - however not using euthanasia is making doctors torturers. Torture is worse than murder and I am sure that this can be agreed upon by both me and my opponent. If you know that you are going to die in 3 months and you know that death is a fact would you want to live? There may be a 0.1% chance of survival but do you want to take that chance? Watching your family and yourself being tortured (both emotionally and physically). (6) It doesn't create 2nd class citizens. It promotes rights for all under certain conditions. Equality is not everyone being the same. Equality is being offered the same rights. I didn't say that doctors should be able to say: \"Autism. Lets kill him. \" for example. I said that people who have no quality of life and know that they will die should be able to have the right to choose. That is very different from making disabled people and people with a low IQ be killed. IQ is insignificant and irrelevant. Steven Hawkings approves of this theory and due to the character limit I will provide a source to what he said. Conclusion To conclude, I believe that I am winning this debate for a number of reasons. a) My opponent has attempted to dismiss many of my points as irrelevant. I have proven that they are in fact very relevant to the debate and since he has provided no actual rebuttals to these points I am winning on those. b) I have not dismissed any of his points and have refuted all of them. c) I have defended my arguments and have refuted his arguments as well.d) I am the only one of the 2 of us to incorporate sources into our arguments. This makes my argument more credable for voters when reading this debate.Sources http://www.goodreads.com...", "qid": "23", "docid": "a7b24794-2019-04-18T14:18:31Z-00003-000", "rank": 91, "score": 216286.0}, {"content": "Title: Human euthanasia is viable option for palliative care Content: Euthanasia, assisted suicide, should be legal in all 50 states.", "qid": "23", "docid": "29343e58-2019-04-18T12:48:29Z-00001-000", "rank": 92, "score": 216279.0}, {"content": "Title: euthanasia Content: My opponent may be correct in saying it is a moral ambiguity, but my opponent is not being forced to undergo euthanasia or participate in it. It is a moral question that can only be answered by the terminally ill and suffering. It is not to be decided by anybody else, not their doctors, not their family, not the law. It is a personal decision to decide to end one's suffering. I have answered all the questions my opponent has claimed to be too dangerous to be implemented. Belgium[1], the Netherlands[2] and other countries allow for assisted suicide or euthanasia under certain conditions, mostly; - An incurable and terminal illness, with untreatable suffering, - Approval from a regulatory commission and/or numerous doctors, and - A healthy mind to decide on euthanasia as approved by a mental professional. At all times, the patient can reverse the decision to terminate their life, even up to the euthanasia being administered. Devices such as a euthanasia deliverance machine[3] can be used so that the patient can initiate their own death once it is set up and supervised by a physician. Euthanasia is legal in the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Estonia, Albania, and the US states of Washington, Oregon and Montana[4] where it has worked for years and is approved by the populace, recognised to be a safe and accountable way for terminally ill patients who are suffering pain from an incurable disease can die with dignity by their own conscience. [1] http://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be... [2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] (extra video) http://www.youtube.com...", "qid": "23", "docid": "cf4017a5-2019-04-18T16:44:54Z-00000-000", "rank": 93, "score": 216227.0}, {"content": "Title: should disabled have the right to suicide Content: Assisted suicide, also known as Euthanasia, is a delicate topic. While I concede that there are many moral arguments on the side of the pro side, there are often factors that are not taken into account when debating Euthanasia. My opponent has brought up the pain argument. Yes, I agree that many disabled and terminally ill patients experience extraordinary pain. However, modern medicine has the ability to control pain. A person who seeks to kill him or herself to avoid pain does not need legalized assisted suicide but a doctor better trained in alleviating pain.", "qid": "23", "docid": "45b24505-2019-04-18T12:16:22Z-00000-000", "rank": 94, "score": 216124.0}, {"content": "Title: Euthanasia should be legalized Content: Thank you, Con, for posting this and I look forward to having my first debate on DDO with you.Clarifications:1. For scope, \"legalized euthanasia\" (henceforth PAS for physician-assisted suicide) should be defined in this debate. Since, as Pro, I will be defending it (and, since Con has not made any particular definition in round one) I find no harm in laying down specifics.\"Euthanasia (noun): the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma\" [1] Pro will defend the verbal/written consent by the patient and written authorization of mental stability by an outside professional for the former, and prior written consent by the patient for the latter.\"Legalize (transitive verb): to make legal; to give legal validity or sanction to\" [2] The only purpose in this definition is to make clear the physician never has the say in euthanizing patients. The decision will rest solely on the patient.2. So as not to make the focus of the debate about semantics, it's probably a good idea to define the \"value\" of human life.\"Values (noun): principles or standards of behaviour; one's judgement of what's important in life\" [3] As Pro, I will defend an individually based utilitarian approach on \"values\" (i.e. maximizing happiness and minimizing suffering). If Con disagrees with this, I think it's fair game to debate how the \"value of life\" should be interpreted and its consequential ethics.3. Both Pro and Con should share BoP when making positive claims. Pro should defend the benefits of legal PAS and Con should support claims otherwise. Without any reason to negate the resolution, the decision should default Pro.4. Sources should be cited when giving data or an empiric (or copy-pasting text from a cite [4]). Personally, credit should be given where credit is due.5. Any necessary clarifications between Pro and Con can be done in the comments, but the debate should remain in-round.All things considered, I'll continue with the debate.. . . . .As Pro, I will argue only one contention needs to be won to win this debate, or sufficiently negate Con's counter-arguments.Contention 1: The Value of LifeThe values of life, and those contained within life, should be the exclusive right of the person interpreting those values. The formulation of this is based on the following theorem:1. All that can be known exists in the physical world.2. Humans exist in the physical world.3. Humans are conscious beings.4. Conscious beings, ipso facto, create values.5. Genetic predispositions and experiences of conscious beings form values.6. No human beings observe the world simultaneously through experience.7. Therefore, humans create unique values separate from all others.Values are constructs of the human conscience and can only be based off of genetic predisposition and/or experiences. The latter is the focus, since predisposed values, such as procreation and good will, are exclusively left to the realm of evolution. Since it is safe to assume each individual human being has a unique set of observations throughout life, a person should have the ability to determine values of the self. The definition listed above supports this as values are defined as \"one's judgement of what's important in life.\" This leads into the second argument:1. Life has value, if and only if, it functions as a medium for experience.2. Life allows for observations and experience.3. Therefore, life has value.If a person is able to have the ability to gauge importance and observe the advantages/disadvantages to life (as a value), they should, when terminally ill, be given the right to choose between a peaceful end and suffering. From an individualistic utilitarian standpoint, a person is within reason to choose PAS when they have an excruciating terminal illness, as it avoids the inevitable pain in those last few moments of life.Contention 2: The Right to Life and DeathIn America, citizens have the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as shown by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. [5] These rights are supported by the Government, \"deriving their powers from the consent of the governed.\" If Pro can prove the right to life necessitates the right to death, the government is obligated to support PAS as they are fulfilling their duty to serve the people.1. People have a right to life.2. A world beyond life cannot be known.3. If a world beyond life cannot be known, death is the end to values.4. Terminal illness guarantees death.4. Therefore, people have a right to death, if and only if, they are terminally ill.This provides the parameters for how people should view life in relation to death. Since all we know and all we can observe/experience exists in the physical world, values (a construct thereof) should only be taken as an extension of physical property. Life is something a person owns at his/her own will, not as an obligation. Once it is medically established beyond reason a patient will die from an illness, values may be taken into perspective, since they know their clock is, essentially, running out.Contention 3: MercyIt is well established a patient has the right to refuse medical treatment according to the U.S. Constitution's fourteenth amendment. The Supreme Court consistently defends the right to life and liberty would be violated if a hospital forced treatment for their patient. [6] This catch-22 leaves the doctor in a lose-lose scenario. Either, the doctor abridges the patient's constitutional rights, or s/he carries the burden of knowing an alternate solution would have produced less suffering. A common retort is the fallacious argument that PAS is murder. The false assumption is that it is the doctor's decision to assist in the process. Since, it is exclusively the patient's decision, the doctor is absolved of all responsibility. Evaluating a paradigm of values, the doctor would actually be doing the wrong thing by barring PAS as an option, since this would lead to more suffering.. . . . .Rebuttal:\"Euthanasia devalues human life\"1. Con has the BoP to show how a patient ending their own suffering devalues their life (which, my first contention refutes).2. Arbitrarily deciding life itself has more worth than the values a patient follows, necessarily devalues that patients life.3. A patient who believes their life will be devalued during/after PAS is free to not choose that route.\"Euthanasia can become a means of health care cost containment\"1. It is Con's BoP to show how it will be used as such when the decision rides solely on the patient.\"Physicians and other medical care people should not be involved in directly causing death\"1. Con should defend why PAS is worse than patient refusal of treatment to speed up the process.2. This point was covered in contentions two and three.\"There is a 'slippery slope' effect that has occurred where euthanasia has been first been legalized for only the terminally ill and later the laws are changed to allow it for other people or to be done non-voluntarily.\"1. Empirical slippery slopes are difficult to defend because they assume same-case scenarios. Con's empiric cites no such data. BoP has not been met.2. Even if there are empirical examples, to say one good law shouldn't be passed because another law might be passed without proving why is an argumentum ad ignorantiam at best.3. Contention one indicates the value of individual life should outweigh this measure.Back to you, Con :)[1] http://oxforddictionaries.com...[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[3] http://oxforddictionaries.com...[4] http://www.euthanasia.com...[5] http://www.archives.gov...[6] http://law2.umkc.edu...[7] http://www.dailymail.co.uk...", "qid": "23", "docid": "2a7a37b6-2019-04-18T17:54:37Z-00002-000", "rank": 95, "score": 216103.0}, {"content": "Title: Euthanasia should be legal Content: People that are terminally ill should try to enjoy the last portion of their lives instead of deliberately ending it. Euthanasia is assisted murder and the doctors should be charged with said crime. The doctor took a Hippocratic oath to help their patients and to try to ease them into the unfortunate moment of them dying, not being the cause of said death. Who knows, before the person dies of the disease they are trying to avoid dying from by killing themselves, they may come out with a cure. That is my stance", "qid": "23", "docid": "e21a5065-2019-04-18T15:14:34Z-00004-000", "rank": 96, "score": 215404.0}, {"content": "Title: Personal suicide should be legal. Content: My opponent appears to be dumbfounded over my use of the words 'personal suicide', so I should clarify. I used those words specifically to eliminate the chance of so-called 'assisted suicide' or euthanasia or any other such variance on the word 'suicide' entering the debate. I hope this clarifies. 1. -------------------- \"It's not like we actually punish failed suicide atemptees. We rehabilitate them. That way they can continue as a normal member of society. \" First, if you think that's the Government's business, then that's fine. We can rehabilitate without ridiculous laws. Second, suicide is not always an act that needs rehabilitation. If I am tired of living, why should the Government have a say in whether or not I should live or die? It has nothing to do with them. \"The reason it is also a crime to successfully commit suicide is because that symbolizes the wrongness of it. The majority of people define right and wrong as what they see in the law books. Giving suicide legal repercussions is the best way to discourage it. It's not the punishment that does the discouraging (because there isn't really a punishment), it's the simple fact that it is law. \" This is basically saying that suicide is inherently wrong, so we make a law against it to show everyone how 'wrong' it is. Aside from the obvious circularity of this argument, the problem here is that suicide is not inherently wrong, for the reasons I gave in my first round and for many other reasons. My opponent must show why suicide is inherently wrong before we start concluding that a law should be instilled to prevent it. --------------------- 2. \"Our government is based off of social contract. Social contract states that all humans have the natural and inalienable right to life. An inalienable right is one that can only be taken away by the one who gives it. In the case of life that is either God, Nature, or Chance. Thus the only entities justified in taking human life is either God, Nature, or Chance. Thus one person cannot rightfully take their own life. Because of this it is perfectly logical that suicide is illegal in a society based on social contract. \" Well, I certainly don't know where my opponent got his definition for 'inalienable right to life', but I assure you it has nothing to do with God, Nature or Chance. The phrase 'Right to Life' is from the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and I quote: === \"Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life. \" [1] === My opponent has clearly confused the 'right' to do something with the 'obligation' to do something. When a police officer tells you that you've got the 'right to remain silent', this doesn't mean 'shut up! '. It means IF YOU CHOOSE to remain silent, you may. What it also says is that NOBODY has the right to make you talk if you don't wish. We can draw a simple parallel between this case and the case of the 'right to live'. We have the right to live IF WE CHOOSE to continue doing so. NOBODY has the right to make us live if we don't wish to. This is basic human rights we are talking here. ------------------- 3. \"Suicide is more than selfish. It is a manifestation of one's ignorance. \" Be that as it may indeed, this is not a reason to make it against the law. In this day and age, with all we know, I find it a massive manifestation of a person's ignorance to believe the Earth is 6000 years old. Would you condone making that train of thought illegal? I certainly wouldn't. \"Those who commit suicide are selfish because they deny the right of every non-suicidal person to say their life is also hard, when in fact everybody has a difficult life. A suicidal person thinks themselves above the rest of the population. \" What the H-E-Double Hockey Sticks are you talking about man! ?! Every 'non-suicidal' person can say whatever they want about their life. \"You cannot expect the affected family to accept that person's suicide with dignity. They were just severed from a very close relationship and it leaves that person with a gap in their soul. It is like expecting a person to part from their perfectly good limbs without objection. \" You are saying that somebody should endure with a life they've tired of because you have a personal attachment to them. Again, this is the very definition of 'selfish'. Because it has the potential to hurt people is not a good reason to forbid the action. Indeed, forbidding suicide is an attempt to inflict pain, to continue somebody's suffering. Once again, we have the RIGHT to live, but not the OBLIGATION. Nobody has the right to force death OR life upon us. I thank my opponent and await his rebuttal. [1] - . http://en.wikipedia.org...", "qid": "23", "docid": "46fa400b-2019-04-18T19:25:59Z-00002-000", "rank": 97, "score": 215312.0}, {"content": "Title: Euthanasia Should be Legal in Medical Practice Content: Hopefully the judges will throw away any unbiased opinions toward this matter that they had previously. First off, I would like to define some terms. Euthanasia - the act or practice of killing someone who is very sick or injured in order to prevent any more suffering. There could perhaps be multiple definitions of euthanasia, such as voluntary euthanasia (EV), in which the physician kills the patient based on family recommendations. In other words, the patients themselves may not be in dire circumstance. The other one is \"physician-assisted suicide\" (PAS). Please note that we will solely be using the literal definition of euthanasia in this argument. While you can argue various aspects on the other ones, please refer to the main definition above to guide the debate. With that being said, I would first like to debunk a few things about euthanasia that are very erroneous. First off, many physicians and common people ignorantly refer to euthanasia as \"easy death\" or \"mercy killing. \" In all honesty, little ease or mercy truly arises from this procedure. In all actuality, proponents of euthanasia champion a form of assisted suicide, as a plethora of benefits exist from the termination of life. Physicians begin to naturally think of the benefits they would be accruing to perform this euthanasia, instead of being concerned with the actual patient. This where the Hippocratic Oath comes in to play. According to the [original] Hippocratic Oath (the medical \"constitution\" as deemed by many), a physician, by law, \"Is to neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor to make a suggestion to its effect. \" Though some of the original's tenets have transformed drastically, this one has remained true to Hippocrates and the physicians of old. As reported by Harvard graduate and University of Chicago Medical School professor, Leon Kass, \"In foreswearing the giving of poison when asked for it, the Hippocratic physician rejects the view that the patient's choice for death can make killing him right. \" In other words, physicians are entitled to uphold the utmost respect and reverence to the human body. A Hippocratic physician, which is what all physicians technically are, is not respecting the body by performing this procedure. By nature, ending a patient's life remains completely contradictory to a physician's practice and does not depend on circumstance. (One could render a similar argument against abortion too, but we are sticking to euthanasia here). Restraining from giving the patients lethal doses of poison does not reflect a doctor's views on autonomy or freedom for the suffering. It, however, does demonstrate the sacred devotion of medical practice and the arcane dignity that revolves around human life. Ancient Egyptian physicians, and doctors all throughout history, were thought to have a sacred role in life. Galen himself, the \"medical rebel,\" realized his practice should be taken extremely seriously. Unfortunately, the advancement of euthanasia has also engendered a \"slippery slope\" effect to the legalization of murder. By definition, the euthanasia will not take place unless a patient orders a physician to perform it. This falls under both the voluntary euthanasia and PAS categories as discussed above. However, voluntary leads to involuntary euthanasia, via the lack of delineation between the two. Since euthanasia benefits the doctor's wage by performing the procedure and taking the patient \" out of their misery,\" indirect becomes normal. If murdering one in this fashion yields such incredible comforts, why should a physician even ask for the consent of the patient/family? Essentially, euthanasia enables all physicians, even the unscrupulous, to determine the value of each patient's life and to have the power to thwart it on a whim, if given permission. According to logic standards, one can reasonably deduce that euthanasia no longer prohibits all forms of murder. Thus, its very base parallels that of unconstitutional and illegal activity, and therefore remains unethical and not sacred. However, let us not just think about the legal/moral side of this. Let us look to other aspects of the medical field that have been hurting because of this. Due to the wider prevalence of euthanasia, palliative (end-of-life) care opportunities have dwindled. The Netherlands, for example, demonstrates the disastrous effects that the legalization of euthanasia has caused in regards to palliative care. Wesley Smith, a prominent lawyer for bioethics, claims that a Dutch physician has asked: \"Why should I worry about palliation when I have euthanasia? \" In this way, the entire ethical background has shifted for medical purposes, as doctors view assisted suicide as a means to save their resources and time. Moreover, proponents for the legalization of \"mercy killing\" employ a philosophy that monetary gain and ease of labor are more important than human life. This, in turn, completely comprises the original purpose of medical practice, and now all physicians lose a sense of credibility. Plus, according to the Discovery Institute, very few young physicians seek specialties in palliative care due to the increased talk of euthanasia legalization. Therefore, hospice facilities have rapidly declined, and everyone has to suffer from this upcoming possibility. I don't think having hospice facilities decline all for the sake of legalizing euthanasia is worth it. Do you judges? 1) Kass, Leon, MD, PhD. Committee on Social Thought and for the College. University of Chicago. Public Interest, Winter of 1989. 2) Smith, Wesley J. , JD. \"Senior Fellow in Human Rights and Bioethics. \" Discovery Institute. 1997. 3) Various sources. \"Euthanasia. \" Pros and Cons of Euthanasia. Web. Jan. 7, 2014. . http://euthanasia.procon.org...", "qid": "23", "docid": "950a295-2019-04-18T15:44:41Z-00007-000", "rank": 98, "score": 214171.0}, {"content": "Title: Euthanasia Content: Euthanasia should be legal in the United States. However, only when voluntary. A person has the right to life, and therefore they also have the right to die. Why should they suffer if they don't have to or don't want to any longer? Nobody should have to suffer for a longer period of time if they don't want to. Being terminally ill and fighting for so long is suffering enough. They must grow tired of it and if there is a way to end the suffering peacefully and safely then people should at least have the choice to choose assisted suicide.", "qid": "23", "docid": "88e3525b-2019-04-18T18:52:58Z-00009-000", "rank": 99, "score": 213745.0}, {"content": "Title: Euthanasia should be Illegal Content: Euthanasia should be illegal. Suicide is wrong. So why are we accepting it? Euthanasia: A legal way to commit suicide. Lets look at 5 main reasons why euthanasia should be Illegal: 1. Euthanasia is murder:Euthanasia, which comes from the Greek word eu thanatos meaning good or dignified death, is the conscious act of ending a life by withholding necessary treatment (passive euthanasia) or performing a procedure that directly and quickly causes death (active euthanasia). Although viewed by some as beneficial, both active and passive euthanasia are considered immoral, sinful, and in the same category as abortion \" a murder. Murder is the act of intentionally taking the life of one person. Opponents of euthanasia, especially Catholics, believe that the practice is wrong because it is murder. Since God is the One who created us, He is also the only One who has the right to take our lives away. In fact, the sixth of the Ten Commandments states \"Thou shall not kill.\" Therefore, any form of killing \" regardless of motives \" is not permissible. The so-called mercy killing or assisted killing is condemned by the Church. Just recently, a Vatican official criticized the death of Brittany Maynard, a cancer sufferer who took her life in November 2014 by assisted suicide. Maynard suffered from a brain tumor and decided to die when her pain became unbearable. Monsignor Ignacio Carrasco de Paula, head of the Pontifical Academy for Life, said in an interview that \"This woman took her own life thinking she would die with dignity, but this is the error\" Suicide is not a good thing, it is a bad thing because it is saying no to life and to everything it means with respect to our mission In the world and towards those around us.\" 2. Euthanasia Gives Too Much Power To Doctors To Kill: Doctors are empowered by euthanasia. It gives them the opportunity to play God and most doctors, since many now more regard their profession as an occupation and not a passion, will seize this opportunity. This is especially true for those unscrupulous individuals.Many of us are unaware that a lot of doctors today are taking self-interested shortcuts in order to earn more or make things happen their way. For instance, in case of delivering babies; some doctors coerce their patients in unnecessary caesarian sections on weekdays in order to guarantee an interrupted weekend for themselves. In other medical case, some doctors pressure their patients to undergo a surgery right away in order to finally get rid of the patients. Some do even push their patients to go towards vaccination or take a certain medication, even if it\"s unnecessary, just to make more money. Why, then, would they never be tempted to kill someone in the quickest way if it will benefit themselves in the end \" like avoiding the troublesome case or eliminating the hassle of dealing with importunate family members?A perfect example of this would be Dr. Jack Kevorkian, a controversial pathologist, who took advantage of his patients\" agony and murdered them. According to reports, his goals were to popularize assisted suicide, to harvest organs for transplantation, and the most appalling of all, to experiment the sick and injured patients. Kevorkian claimed that he had helped 130 ailing people end their lives. Imagine? But what\"s worse about it was that he created a machine for suicide, which was called a \"suicide machine,\" that allowed sick people dispense a lethal dose of medication to themselves by pressing a button. Later, the lunatic was convicted for second-degree murder, but unfortunately, he was not the only one who practiced this. In Netherlands, where euthanasia is allowed, thousands of people are killed each year \"without request or consent.\"Doctors, like any other humans, are lazy, selfish, and weak to temptations. In pressing situations, doctors are likely to commit mistakes and make wrong decisions. Therefore, euthanasia should not be legalized. As Dr. Peter Saunders, a general surgeon and CEO of Christian Medical Fellowship, has written: \"Voluntary euthanasia makes the doctor the most dangerous (person) in the state.\" 3. Legalization Of Euthanasia Changes Public Conscience: The law is a powerful tool that can be used to change our beliefs, behavior, and conscience. When a practice becomes legal and widely accepted, it becomes right in the eyes of the society. Even if it is against our personal preference and principle, we eventually practice it and believe that it is perfectly okay. People trust the law because they believe that it is the best for the people \" they believe that the law is always right. One case that demonstrates how law can affect the culture and public conscience was the assisted killing of the twin brothers, Marc and Eddy Verbessem. The two were born deaf and sought euthanasia after discovering that they would also soon go blind from another congenital disorder \" a form of glaucoma. According to the Daily Telegraph, their local hospital had refused to carry out the procedure because the twin was neither suffering extreme physical pain nor terminally ill. Euthanasia is legal under Belgian law if a patient is able to make their wishes clear and suffering unbearable pain, based on a doctor\"s judgment. Critics point out that the twin brothers were not suffering unbearable pain, but Professor Wim Distelmans, a right-to-die activist, took the decision to euthanize them. He even defended his decision and said, \"There was certainly unbearable psychological suffering for them. Though there is of course it always possible to stretch the interpretation of that. One doctor will evaluate differently than the other.\" Dr. David Dufour, the doctor who presided over the euthanasia even said, \"\"It was a relief to see the end of their suffering.\" Then just days after the Verbessem brothers were killed by their doctor, Belgium\"s ruling Socialists tabled a new legal amendment that will allow children and people suffering from dementia to seek permission to die.This just shows that once the society started to see that killing is okay, it is possible for people to do it without feeling any guilt. 4.Euthanasia Encourages Vulnerable People To End Their Lives: Euthanasia advocates promote the legalization of euthanasia as they believe that it is a way to protect \"vulnerable people\" from wrongful death and provide suffering patients their desired, peaceful \"death with dignity.\" Opponents of the practice counter this with the defense that legalization of euthanasia doesn\"t protect vulnerable people, rather it pressures them to make decisions unilaterally.If euthanasia is available, sick and dependent people will be pressured to choose death, rather than suffer and become a burden to their families. Yes, people who are dependent and ill often feel worthless and burden to their families. Since their body is so weak to work, they are not able to help and contribute to their families and communities. This makes them often feel worthless and useless. And this is the very reason why so many suffering people wish to die. But luckily, euthanasia is not yet permitted in most parts of the country and other parts of the world. But if it\"s already available, no one can already stop these people from requesting assisted death. Patients and people with disabilities and problems will think that euthanasia is the only solution. 5. People Who Request Mercy Killing Don\"t Actually Want To Die: In tough moments, especially in the presence of death, patients are highly vulnerable. They lack the knowledge and strength to understand entirely their situation, which usually affects their decisions. Many people think that the main reason why patients seek for physician assisted death is because of the pain associated with the illness, but the truth is it\"s the fear of the unknown. They are terrified about the possible consequences of their illness, including the possibility of surviving without actually living and most of all, its impact to their families. In a survey conducted in Oregon, USA, 66 percent of people who requested euthanasia did so because they didn\"t want to be a burden.But it\"s also true that no one wants to die. Those people who say \"let me die,\" usually don\"t mean what they say, and in fact are thankful when their request is denied.The practice of euthanasia is an unwise and wrong choice. Sure, having an illness and being born with disability is tragic, but killing them is not the answer to their problem. What these people need is love and support from their friends, doctors, especially from their families. If these people will only see that we are caring for them and valuing their lives, they will be encouraged to continue life, no matter how painful it will get.Just look at Ludwig van Beethoven, Sudha Chandran, Tanny Grey-Thompson, and the famous Albert Einstein, as well as Sheryl Crow, Anne Romney, and Hugh Jackman \" all these people suffered from life-threatening diseases and disabilities, but they still have contributed to the society and never thought about killing themselves. All these people encountered pain, but they never considered euthanasia as an answer \" because it is not! Unfortunately Euthanasia is used to murder people that just don't want to live. According to Amy Craft who works at CBS NEWS, on August 4,2015 at 6:39 pm stated. A woman named Gill Pharaoh, who was only 75 yrs old from Britain with no heath issues, decided to end her life at a Swiss euthinasia clinic on July 21 with her spouse who was 25 by her side, begging her not to carry on with this. According to Daily Mail, Her Partner John Southall said Pharaoh had talked with family and friends about someday ending her life. Her decision to die was based on a desire to not grow old. Conclusion: Euthanasia is a hidden way to commit suicide. Do not let it deceive you. Murder is wrong. Young people are starting to commit this suicide. Good people are dying because of Euthanasia.", "qid": "23", "docid": "41ed75c9-2019-04-18T13:41:02Z-00003-000", "rank": 100, "score": 213657.0}]}
{"query": "Does lowering the federal corporate income tax rate create jobs?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: Corporate Tax Should be Lowered Content: Your entire debate is based around a moral premise. It is factually undebatable that a lower corporate tax would equate to more jobs being created. Both theoretically and realistically, more money in the hands of the corporation would equate to more incentive for growth. The biggest argument that you lack to argue against is growth. Growth is the ultimate factor when looking at a corporation as well as any business entity, including a nation itself. All is subjected to growth or to stagnation. If you close these loopholes, then all corporations have to pay 35% tax rate, which is preposterous. Democratic Socialist nations have a lower tax rate than that. On the other hand, if loopholes are closed, but you evidently lower tax rate with it, then growth will occur. Unless we can compete with the laws of other nations, that many companies invest in, such as China or India, or even Switzerland, (low taxes in Switzerland) then we can attract more. This nation has safety as well as protection, and risk for investment is not high. In the end, we have 2 trillion in liquid assets overseas that we could bring back by lowering this tax rate. The point of government is not to take profits from people. I am also looking at this from a political sense, since I do believe that taxes lack constitutionality, and that the government's job is not to be authoritative and levy high taxes upon people, as it does not require this money, since it should not spend much in any sense.", "qid": "24", "docid": "5c336b56-2019-04-18T14:30:50Z-00001-000", "rank": 1, "score": 217958.0}, {"content": "Title: Cut the Corporate Tax Rate to 0% Content: Corporate tax rates are too high and are causing business uncertainty. Taxes on the 1 percent are at all time highs. They pay about half of their income. I believe in the american people, not the american government. Government doesnt not create jobs because taxing takes money from investors that otherwise would have been invested.", "qid": "24", "docid": "2c183942-2019-04-18T16:35:26Z-00004-000", "rank": 2, "score": 209634.0}, {"content": "Title: Taxes on the Rich should be Increased Content: There is no evidence that tax cuts create jobs. There is an extensive academic literature on this subject, and it all lends itself to the same conclusion: tax cuts are not conducive to growth, but is to income inequality and middle class stagnation. First, let\u2019s discuss the reality of the current state of taxation in the United States. Andrew Fieldhouse of the Economy Policy Institute, in examining post WWII tax rates, noted this observation (1): Since the end of World War II, U.S. top individual income tax rates have declined markedly, as have effective tax rates on corporate income, capital income, and inheritances. Consequently, the federal tax code has become much less progressive (Piketty and Saez 2007). The top statutory marginal tax rate has fallen from just over 90 percent in the 1950s, to 70 percent in the 1970s, to 50 percent in the mid-1980s, to 35 percent for most of the past decade (TPC 2013a). The taxable income cutoff above which the top rate is applied for married joint filers has also fallen precipitously, from roughly $3 million in the early 1950s (adjusted to 2012 dollars), to roughly $1 million in the early 1970s, to just $388,350 for 2012 (TPC 2013b). The overall decline in progressivity is most striking within the top income percentile: The effective tax rate for the top hundredth of a percentile (i.e., 99.99\u2013100 percent of filers by income) has fallen by more than half, from 71.4 percent in 1960 to 34.7 percent in 2004, versus a decline for the 99.5\u201399.9 percentiles from 41.4 percent in 1960 to 33.0 percent in 2004 (Piketty and Saez 2007). To elucidate this piece, here are his conclusions: 1. Tax rates, which ranged from 70 to 91% in the first three decades of the post-WWII era, have fallen substantially. 2. Effective rates on corporate income, capital gains, and estate taxes have fallen as well. 3. The tax code, with time, has become increasingly less progressive. We also have data telling us that the tax systems in most states are regressive \u2013 that is, a disproportionate portion of the burden is falling on lower-income people \u2013 as many states move away from progressive income taxes in favor of sales taxes (2). At the same time, corporations are getting giant breaks. Not only are they low by historic standards, as Thomas Hungerford points out (3); the nonpartisan Citizens for Tax Justice conduced an extensive study (4) of 288 Fortune 500 companies over a 5 year period, and came to the following conclusions: 1. 111 companies, including GE, Exxon, and Boeing paid negative tax rates. 2. One third paid no federal income tax less than 10 percent over the period. 3. The average tax rate was only 19.4%. 4. 55 of the 288 companies enjoyed several years of new taxes, with a total of 203 years of no taxes. So, now we have examined the evidence as to the current state of taxation. Let\u2019s review: 1. Many states have regressive tax burdens. 2. The very affluent have seen their tax rates at near historic lows \u2013 in spite of significant growth in the post-WWII era with significantly higher tax rates \u2013 and are enjoying significant breaks on the backs of the U.S. taxpayer, who have been forced to shoulder the burden. 3. Corporations are receiving unheard of breaks. So, we know that the essence of trickle-down economics is already in play: taxes are already low. What are the results, however, of these breaks? Let\u2019s go back to Andrew Fieldhouse, whose study concluded this: Analyses of top tax rate changes since World War II show that higher rates have no statistically significant impact on factors driving economic growth\u2014private saving, investment levels, labor participation rates, and labor productivity\u2014nor on overall economic growth rates. Interesting. But what about the Laffer Curve, conservatives may ask? Is there not a point beyond which the government simply cannot raise taxes lest it loses revenue? Of course there is. But what is that rate, and are we anywhere near it? Fieldhouse addresses this, as well: Recent research implies a revenue-maximizing top effective federal income tax rate of roughly 68.7 percent. This is nearly twice the top 35 percent effective marginal ordinary income tax rate that prevailed at the end of 2012, and 27.5 percentage points higher than the 41.2 percent rate in 2013.This would mean a top statutory income tax rate of 66.1 percent, 26.5 percentage points above the prevailing 39.6 percent top statutory rate\u2026. Historically, decreases in top marginal tax rates have widened inequality of both pre- and post-tax income. Emmanuel Saez and Nobel Laureate Peter Diamond also weighed in as to what the effective tax rate ought to be, and concluded that the optimal tax rate on high-income Americans would be 70% (5). We also have data from a 65-year study from the Congressional Research Service (6). Here is their conclusion: Analysis of such data suggests the reduction in the top tax rates have had little association with saving, investment, or productivity growth. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution. The share of income accruing to the top 0.1% of U.S. families increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% by 2007 before falling to 9.2% due to the 2007-2009 recession. For more on income inequality, let\u2019s go to Robert Reich (6): During periods when the very rich took home a larger proportion \u2014 as between 1918 and 1933, and in the Great Regression from 1981 to the present day \u2014 growth slowed, median wages stagnated and we suffered giant downturns. It\u2019s no mere coincidence that over the last century the top earners\u2019 share of the nation\u2019s total income peaked in 1928 and 2007 \u2014 the two years just preceding the biggest downturns. And, for a bit more, let\u2019s go to Nobel Laureate Joe Stiglitz, who cites World Bank economist Branko Milanovic (7): From 1988 to 2008, Mr. Milanovic found, people in the world\u2019s top 1 percent saw their incomes increase by 60 percent, while those in the bottom 5 percent had no change in their income. And while median incomes have greatly improved in recent decades, there are still enormous imbalances: 8 percent of humanity takes home 50 percent of global income; the top 1 percent alone takes home 15 percent. Income gains have been greatest among the global elite \u2014 financial and corporate executives in rich countries \u2014 and the great \u201cemerging middle classes\u201d of China, India, Indonesia and Brazil. But how bad is income inequality? Let\u2019s ask Stiglitz: Last year [2012] the top 1 percent of Americans took home 22 percent of the nation\u2019s income; the top 0.1 percent, 11 percent. Ninety-five percent of all income gains since 2009 have gone to the top 1 percent. Recently released census figures show that median income in America hasn\u2019t budged in almost a quarter-century. The typical American man makes less than he did 45 years ago (after adjusting for inflation); men who graduated from high school but don\u2019t have four-year college degrees make almost 40 percent less than they did four decades ago. So, there is certainly a moral argument at play: the middle-class has stagnated since the 1980s \u2013 the rise of Ronald Reagan, and the inception of the supply-side economics experiment we\u2019ve been experiencing for about 34 years now. But what are the economic effects of income inequality? Should we be worried that income inequality is constraining the economy? Yes, says Stiglitz again. He makes the following four arguments: 1. Income inequality will lead to underconsumption, as the rich spend relatively smaller portions of their income than poor people due to the diminishing marginal returns of income. 2. Income inequality leads to a waste of human talent, as the non-affluent cannot access high-quality education as readily as rich people. 3. Income inequality gives way to financial crises. 4. Income inequality lowers tax receipts. And we also know that income inequality in the United States, coupled with social mobility, is significantly lower than it is in Europe. We know that countries in Europe \u2013 Finland, Germany, Norway, et al. \u2013 and even the U.S. in the three decades post-WWII had higher tax rates, more government investment, less income inequality, and more growth as a result. European countries also beat the U.S. on health, life expectancy, happiness, economic mobility, etc. Conclusion: The evidence is overwhelming, and there isn\u2019t much time to waste. Supply-side economics is a fantasy. Sources: 1. http://www.epi.org... 2. http://www.itep.org... 3. http://www.epi.org... 4. http://www.ctj.org... 5. http://pubs.aeaweb.org... 6. http://robertreich.org... 7. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...", "qid": "24", "docid": "d7aa69c4-2019-04-18T16:31:03Z-00003-000", "rank": 3, "score": 206038.0}, {"content": "Title: Corporate taxes should be lowered Content: I accept", "qid": "24", "docid": "4cd87808-2019-04-18T17:29:44Z-00004-000", "rank": 4, "score": 199965.0}, {"content": "Title: Corporate tax plan ideas for job growth. Content: So I took a decent amount of time to try and create a plan to incentivise companies to hire more people. I call it golden key economics. Please tell me if this would work, or if not, how could it be improved? National corporate tax rate: 30% Tax rate decreased by 1% for every 50k people employed. 1% taxes taken returned for every 50k people employed. 20% minimum tax floor. (Most companies hire less than 500k people anyway.) Small business recognised by sba 50% of taxes taken returned. This is to not treat small business unfairly by taxing them 30% instead, by returning 50% of the taxed income, it's effectively 15% taxes for the small business. This is essentially a form of trickle down economics but to get the tax cuts you must first help the middle class by hiring more. This should drastically cut unemployment and not drop the taxes too low as to not have a federal budget.", "qid": "24", "docid": "2131c836-2019-04-18T12:42:05Z-00003-000", "rank": 5, "score": 197317.0}, {"content": "Title: Job Creation/Stability Content: An increase in jobs is a fundamental part of getting out of a recession. Consumer spending needs to be increased in order to see tangible growth in the economy and consumer spending can not be increased as long as consumers remain unemployed. The most efficient way to create jobs is to decrease corporate taxes that create incentives to create new jobs. For example, the state of Michigan enacted policy that substantially decreased corporate taxes on companies that created new jobs in high-growth sectors such as green and bio technology.[[www.michigan.gov/documents/gov/Econ_job_223200_7.pdf]] The purpose of business is to profit and through corporate tax cuts, business will have the ability to profit easier while creating jobs. Employed consumers spend the necessary money to stimulate and grow the economy. This is proven in the example of Ireland, which adopted a 12.5% corporate tax in 1988 while having the second-lowest per capita income in Europe and now has the second-highest income in Europe.[[http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/04/tax-cut-stimulus-opinions-contributors_0204_peter_ferrara.html]] Recently, the French government posted figures of 0.3% growth in GDP for the second quarter of 2009, an indicator it is coming out of the recession. Across the euro zone, only Germany matched this growth. This was unexpected by experts and while it does not mean the recession is over for France, it is encouraging. One of the key forces behind this was an increase in consumption. Consumption increased by 0.3% this quarter. This increase was the aim of the government when reducing VAT as part of its strategy to combat the recession. For companies such as restaurants and cafes, VAT was slashed from 19% to 5.5%, which industry bodies predicted successfully would lead to an increase in consumption. [[http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,4446507,00.html]] [[http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5jXJawG8lN9DDRVZ8N5-VSsc4_-Dw]] Government spending can also create jobs but the question is are these jobs suitable for getting out of a recession? The answer is a resounding no. Let's examine one of the largest attempts by government to create jobs, Roosevelt's Public Works Administration which allocated $3.3 billion dollars for public jobs to stimulate employment[[http://www.nps.gov/archive/elro/glossary/pwa.htm]]. The jobs created by it usually lasted only months allowing only short term employment and the unemployment rate remained above 9%[[http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110011064 ]]. Many of the jobs consisted of building public structures and murals such as a mountain theater that were not done to grow the economy further but to grow political capital. After the expenditures stopped, so did the jobs. Only private industry can provide the long term stability and job creation through new and improved investments which are vital economic necessities to get out of a recession. By providing corporate tax cuts to incentive this, governments will not fall in a pit of spending that only provides sparks and stifling the private industry that could make blazing positive changes in the economy.", "qid": "24", "docid": "6b8ee15-2019-04-19T12:45:29Z-00011-000", "rank": 6, "score": 197126.0}, {"content": "Title: Corporate taxes should be lowered Content: Because recession is such a general term, let me narrow to the part I'm trying to show you. You make an important point that taxes are lowered if they relocate overseas, especially to China or Japan. This is actually a problem for the economy, it's not a good factor that can lead to better economic growth like you say it does. Globalization itself isn't a problem at all, but if jobs or capital were to be shipped overseas then it would be devastating for OUR economy while only one economy benefits. Corporations do this to avoid corporate taxes, and take their business somewhere that doesn't normally have corporate taxes like we do. And if corporations have had lower taxes than they have 40-50 years ago (which is somewhat true), then why are they shipping jobs overseas? Because they're not low enough. And why is this such a big deal? Because the more money made, the higher the tax rate is and corporations make a lot of money. The IRS reports that since 1988, the tax rate per income began to fluctuate and people with lower incomes started to be taxed at a higher percentage than those making more (to this day). They got tired of this, and since then began to relocate to countries with cheap labor and low or no taxes. Since the late 1980s, this caused a whole range of economic problems which can be obvious when seen. It's no coincidence that the countries that we owe trade deficits with are the ones that corporations decided to relocate to. As for my sources, did you not see the entire article filled with 10 benefits of lower corporate taxes? And what \"program\" are you talking about? And yes I do agree with the long-term health of the economy, which means that we have the same goals. We have different theories on how to meet them however, and if taxes were lowered the government would actually be making more profit because more people would make demands. It's simple math. If the tax rate was 8% for a candy bar, only 1 person would want to buy it. But if the rate was 4% then 3 people would want to buy it, so the government would be making 4% more if the taxes were lower. . http://www.google.com... . http://www.americanprogress.org...", "qid": "24", "docid": "4cd87808-2019-04-18T17:29:44Z-00001-000", "rank": 7, "score": 188070.0}, {"content": "Title: Corporate taxes should be lowered Content: \"This is actually a problem for the economy, it's not a good factor that can lead to better economic growth like you say it does.\"Lowering taxation period leads to higher GDP ceteris paribus\"Globalization itself isn't a problem at all, but if jobs or capital were to be shipped overseas then it would be devastating for OUR economy while only one economy benefits.\"You are ignoring the law of comparative advantage. Your statement is blatantly incorrect. http://en.wikipedia.org...\"Corporations do this (ship jobs overseas) to avoid corporate taxes\"This is incorrect. Corporations shift profits overseas to avoid taxes. They shift manufacturing jobs overseas because the lower cost of living allows the goods to be manufactured at cheaper wages than by unionized wages. \"if taxes were lowered the government would actually be making more profit\"No. We are not that high on the Laffer Curve as evidenced by the historic corporate tax lows.http://en.wikipedia.org...", "qid": "24", "docid": "4cd87808-2019-04-18T17:29:44Z-00000-000", "rank": 8, "score": 187845.0}, {"content": "Title: Corporate Tax Should be Lowered Content: Your main argument encompasses the negatives of a lower Corporate Tax paired with the ability to create loopholes in taxation and end up paying very little either way. In this debate, I never stated that we should keep these loopholes. This is strictly based upon the assertion that corporate tax is entirely too high, and that we should lower it. Evidently, lowering corporate tax, making a much simpler tax code, and then creating a conjunction in which no company under any circumstances can skip taxation, would create a much better system. In the end, a nation that focuses on free trade would slash the corporate tax rate completely, and keep it at a stable 0. If government also cuts their own spending, this would be easily affordable for the United States. On a competitive level, however, we do have the highest corporate tax rate among other industrialized nations. Whether many of our own companies pay this amount is up for another debate, but the stable fact is that we have the highest corporate tax. We definitely should focus on closing up loopholes, but paired with a lower tax rate, as these loopholes are the only reasons why the remaining corporations have stayed in our nation. There are many benefits to a lowered corporate tax rate: 1. Cutting the corporate tax rate will promote higher long-term economic growth. 2. Cutting the corporate tax rate will improve U.S. competitiveness. 3. Cutting the corporate tax rate will lead to higher wages and living standards. 4. Cutting the corporate tax rate will boost entrepreneurship, investment, and productivity. 5. Cutting the corporate rate lowers the tax burden on low-income taxpayers and seniors. 6. Cutting the corporate rate will lower the overall dividend tax rate and taxes on capital. 7. Cutting the corporate tax rate can attract foreign direct investment (FDI). 8. Cutting the corporate rate would lead to lower corporate debt and reduce the incentives for income shifting. 9. Cutting the corporate tax rate can reduce compliance costs. 10. Cutting the federal corporate rate can help the states compete globally.[1] You have also stated that corporations benefit from publicly funded organizations, such as roads, education systems, police officers, etc. Evidently, this is true. The argument here is that corporations could do the same in other nations, but people could not. In order to have safety, the government must devote funds to public organizations, which pairs with corporate likeability. Making an argument centered around the complete obliteration of the corporate tax without the complete deletion of tax loopholes will ultimately fail. For one to make an argument such as this, that person will ultimately need to understand the reason as to why there are lobbyists and tax loopholes. Our high tax rates ultimately effect corporations, and cause them to ship both jobs and capital overseas, into nations such as China or India that have much lower tax rates and much easier loopholes. Instead of basing our ideas on the general morality of corporations, which does not exist, we would create a comprehensive tax system that eliminates deception and incentivizes corporate investment. Being a Libertarian, I oppose all taxation plans, but I see most as realistically needed for the government to properly function. In the case of business, there should be little to no taxes, including both income and corporate tax. Business is based upon profit, and the desire for more profit, which people associate with the term greed. A government created legislation that undermines this desire for profit will be met by a dissociation of that profit base and relocation to a less restrictive nation, such as China and India. The three largest expenses of a corporation are wages, taxes, and supplies. As supplies and wages are necessary for the continuation of the company as well as employees desire to work in said company, removing those would be unrealistic. On the other hand, a relocation of taxes, whether based upon net revenue or net profit, would drastically impact interest of corporations as well as ability to function on a larger scale. You have previously stated that many corporations do not require a higher level education, which is wrong. According to the following source [2] (Link will be stated below), our job sector\u2019s need for education has increased dramatically throughout the next 40 years. In accordance with this information, your argument creates the illogical fallacies that state funded education is required for these corporations to function. This may be true if you take in account the entire world, as there will be nowhere else for the corporations to go, but in the matters of the United States, which is our debate\u2019s primary focus, state funded education will benefit the people more than the corporation. While you may believe that tax cuts will benefit the corporation more than the people, it is still clearly evident that lower taxes always equates to more incentive. We would effectively eliminate all need for tax lobbyists and special interest if we created a comprehensive tax system, or got rid of corporate tax all together. A small fraction of our government spending is created by corporate tax, which only alienates corporations and creates a disparity between economic centers in their need for unlegislated competition. In accordance with your previous statement, most of these retail jobs are held by the least educated in our society, and whether they are uneducated due to the governments failures or due to their own laziness and lack of willpower is up for discussion. Sources: [1] http://taxfoundation.org... [2]https://cew.georgetown.edu...", "qid": "24", "docid": "5c336b56-2019-04-18T14:30:50Z-00003-000", "rank": 9, "score": 187495.0}, {"content": "Title: Taxes on the affluent should be increased. Content: I would say it is very foolish to say taxes don't kill jobs. Even many liberals conside that high taxes can harm growth. Profit is the force the power that powers capitalism. By taking huge portions of peoples income, you reduce business profits which hurts business expansion. High taxes lead to low wages and less products. Low taxes means more production, so the standard of living for the poor increases. You can say that extra money will not be invested, but rich people also spend a ton of money on luxury goods. That stimulates the economy. Taxes are a black hole that sucks potential capital from the economy and then wastes it on all forms of government \"services.\" You can say that taxes are repaid in the form of services, but what use full services does the federal government provide? Most taxes are just generational theft that takes money from poor young people and gives to the elderly. Other tax dollars go to lovely \"services\" like corporate welfare that takes the money of small businesses and gives it to big ones. Or maybe your dollars will fund wars or even the lovely NSA. They could be used to build notoriously inefficient highways or throw billions of dollars at the failed government monopoly known as the education system that creates schools so bad they only continue the poverty cycle. How do any of these programs create jobs? If business had more money and less regulation, they could produce goods cheaper goods. Maybe there would be demand for these cheaper goods. Think of all the innovation and production that could be achieved if tons of capital wasn't siphoned out of the economy. As for revenue, government revenue had been at 19.5% of GDP since the 50s. If can claim that low taxes doesn't create jobs, you need to check out the results of tax cuts in the 20s, 60s. In the 80s, tax cuts were implemented in the US, Britain, and Chile, all to great success. Even JFK, who liberals DROOL over, was a big supporter of tax cuts. He said this, \" The final and best means of strengthening demand among consumers and business is to reduce the burden on private income and the deterrents to private initiative which are imposed by our present tax system -- and this administration pledged itself last summer to an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in personal and corporate income taxes to be enacted and become effective in 1963. I'm not talking about a \"quickie\" or a temporary tax cut, which would be more appropriate if a recession were imminent. Nor am I talking about giving the economy a mere shot in the arm, to ease some temporary complaint. I am talking about the accumulated evidence of the last five years that our present tax system, developed as it was, in good part, during World War II to restrain growth, exerts too heavy a drag on growth in peace time; that it siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power; that it reduces the financial incenitives [sic] for personal effort, investment, and risk-taking. In short, to increase demand and lift the economy, the federal government's most useful role is not to rush into a program of excessive increases in public expenditures, but to expand the incentives and opportunities for private expenditures.\" He also said this, \"This economy is capable of producing, without strain, 30 to 40 billion [dollars] more than we are producing today. Business earnings could be seven to eight billion higher than they are today. Utilization of existing plant and equipment could be much higher -- and, if it were, investment would rise. We need not accept an unemployment rate of five percent or more, such as we have had for 60 out of the last 61 months. There is no need for us to be satisfied with a rate of growth that keeps good men out of work and good capacity out of use.\" And this, \"Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget -- just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits. Surely the lesson of the last decade is that budget deficits are not caused by wild-eyed spenders but by slow economic growth and periodic recessions, and any new recession would break all deficit records.\" This is why i believe that taxes and regulation should be cut by massive amounts to release the means of production of this nation. http://midimagic.sgc-hosting.com...", "qid": "24", "docid": "5993a6ac-2019-04-18T16:46:48Z-00008-000", "rank": 10, "score": 187357.0}, {"content": "Title: There should be no minimum wage. Content: No, I did not miss your points. Your argument is basically that lowering the minimum wage decreases unemployment. However, it is truly based on an assumption that a business will create new jobs or more jobs all becasue they can pay employees less and their profits will remain the same. History demonstrates just the opposite. Go back to the Reagan tax cuts in the 1980's. U.S. Steel received relief on corporate tax on profits only to not reinvest in their core business that produced the profits, steelmaking, but to buy marathon Oil. The tax cut savings went to buy a more profitable company for the shareholders, but saw increased layoffs and plant closings for the core business of US Steel.So, trusting a business to protect a workers capability to earn is not the American way. There has to be a set minimum wage to ensure an employee has liveable income. Decreasing it will push individuals off the non farm payroll numbers, and decreases tax collection capability of local, state and federal income tax revenue. As for your theory on competition, that is product focused, not employee focused. Yes, competion is good for producing quality items and encouraging investment in innovation, technology and the advancenent of goods and services. It is good for providing consumers alternatives to monopolistic practices and effects. It has nothing to do with whether a liveable wage should be set at at minimum level to ensure non exploitation of workers.Let's address some of your other points:\"wages continue to go down even as unemployment improves:. Not true, let's look at recent trends. The spike in unemployment since 2008 has not seen a decline in wages even as more people do not get back on the employmnet rolls. That is all I am going to say for this round. I only had 10 minutes to respond, so I am sorry that I didn't answer everything. Thanks!", "qid": "24", "docid": "2f9bf209-2019-04-18T17:39:32Z-00000-000", "rank": 11, "score": 185506.0}, {"content": "Title: Cut the Corporate Tax Rate to 0% Content: I'm talking state, local, and federal taxes. They're rates are higher than they've been in ages. They are the job creators and you cannot prove that their rates are low. You mentioned earlier that they bribe politicians. This is another reason to abolish the corporate tax rate! Without the corporate tax rate, they can't lobby for special breaks. Problem solved, democracy back.", "qid": "24", "docid": "2c183942-2019-04-18T16:35:26Z-00001-000", "rank": 12, "score": 181054.0}, {"content": "Title: It would encourage low income earners to work. Content: Any system which attempts to promote equality by giving low income people money will necessarily create a disincentive to work. The negative income tax reduces that disincentive because there is a reward to work on the margins. Suppose that the negative tax rate is 40%; for every dollar that a low income person earns within the negative tax bracket they will take home 60c (the remaining 40c is deducted from the supplementary income payment, as the 'No' argument correctly identifies). Under a system with an unemployment benefit however the incentives are far worse; as the benefit is removed or substantially reduced if any work is taken up. This means that in order for the incentive to take a job to exist the incomes have to be substantially higher than the unemployment benefit (i.e. you actually LOSE money if you take up a part time job); which is unlikely as the vast majority of people on the unemployment benefit lack the skills to earn high incomes.", "qid": "24", "docid": "217e4b71-2019-04-19T12:46:16Z-00011-000", "rank": 13, "score": 178551.0}, {"content": "Title: Jobs Act would benefit cities like NYC Content: Patrick McGeehan. \"Obama Jobs Plan Would Boost the City, Comptroller Says.\" New York Times City Room. September 9th, 2011: \"The president\u2019s jobs plan, which he announced on Thursday night, called for reducing the Social Security tax on income to 3.1 percent in 2012. The rate is currently set at 6.2 percent on the first $106,800 of an employee\u2019s pay. Because workers in New York are relatively highly paid, the effect of that cut would be greater in the city than in other parts of the country. It would save $775 for a worker earning $25,000 a year and $3,100 for one who makes $100,000. All told, the comptroller\u2019s office estimated, the gain to New Yorkers would amount to $4.8 billion, and the spending of a portion of that total would preserve or create about 25,000 jobs in the city.\" [read extended argument on article].", "qid": "24", "docid": "e3fe80a5-2019-04-17T11:47:19Z-00034-000", "rank": 14, "score": 178040.0}, {"content": "Title: flat tax Content: I agree with a flat tax. You show me why not and show another type o tax that you would think works better. It would substantially increase the take-home pay for American workers from not only the lowering of the income tax brackets but the elimination of both the business side and employee side of payroll taxes. U.S. federal tax rates go as high as 35% in 2011, and additional surtaxes are scheduled to hit when Obamacare kicks in. On top of that, employers and employees both pay 6.2%, for a total of 12.4% per employee. All these taxes would be replaced with the 9% individual rate. So if your taxable income is $50,000 and your average tax rate is 40% counting payroll taxes, under Cain's plan, instead of $20,000 in taxes, you would only have to pay $4,500, for an extra $15,500 in take home pay! Regardless of your income level, those people that pay income tax will receive a cut. Corporations and businesses would have a massive inflow of investment cash, leading to business expansion and new hiring. Since capital gains and dividends are no longer taxed, banks and investors who have kept trillions of dollars on the side would be pouring money into capital investment. Businesses that have been limited in growth due to lack of funds would then be able to start expanding, hiring workers as part of the process. All that new hiring would have a chain reaction, as previously unemployed Americans spend their paychecks, providing a jolt to the demand side of the economy. People who criticize the flat tax plan and emphasize its riskiness ignore the vast number of problems & riskiness of our current job-killing, de-motivating, freedom-sapping tax system. http://www.hermancain.com... http://www.forbes.com...", "qid": "24", "docid": "4531b787-2019-04-18T18:37:54Z-00007-000", "rank": 15, "score": 177836.0}, {"content": "Title: Corporate tax plan ideas for job growth. Content: Here's a better idea: Corporate tax rate: 0%, that way buisnesses will have more money to invest in creating more jobs. Instead tax those who receive checks from that corporation, derived from those profits.", "qid": "24", "docid": "2131c836-2019-04-18T12:42:05Z-00002-000", "rank": 16, "score": 175420.0}, {"content": "Title: Corporate Tax Should be Lowered Content: My argument is not based on any moral grounds. We have both agreed that, from the point of view of the law, the corporation is fundamentally an amoral entity. My objection is based on the following observations: The first is historical. The corporate tax rate has in fact been lowered over the past forty years. During that time, wages have stagnated and wealth has been redistributed from the middle class to a small handful of wealthy individuals. The causes for this redistribution are several, but it is clear that governmental policy favoring the rich has played a major role. For instance, deregulation of the financial sector and international trade agreements (NAFTA and TPP) figure most heavily into these changes. My objection is, secondly, based on my skepticism regarding the mystical faith in free markets to keep their operations in the U.S. Taxation, as we both have agreed, is only one part of the calculus that determines how a corporation will run itself. To simply lower the rate without closing tax loopholes would constitute a rise in the real amounts corporations pay to the federal government. What reason do we have that they would bring their business back to the U.S. if such a raise in the rate is imminent? That said, there are a number of more informed ways of going about fixing the corporate tax rate. One is to base it on the disparity between CEO pay and the average worker's wage. (A bill like this is being considered in the California state legislature.) That of course won't fix many of the problems, but it is a step in the right direction. The broader point is that the taxes a corporation pays is the only way for the public to maintain its interests against those of the corporation. Occasionally, those two interests coincide, but history teaches us that often they do not. You may believe that you are looking at this issue from a strictly political point of view, but observe the sorts of categories you are deploying when you say that if the government did not spend so much money, it would not have to levy taxes on people. The government represents the public good independent of the drive for profits that sits at the heart of the corporation. Both government and corporations are comprised of people--but from a legal point of view, they are essentially different. The corporation is bound to profit for its survival, against the interests of the collective. As we both agree, that has nothing to do with any moral judgment. The government, on the other hand, depends on other activities for its legitimacy. On a whole, it spends as much as it needs to spend to maintain the interests of the diverse population it represents.", "qid": "24", "docid": "5c336b56-2019-04-18T14:30:50Z-00000-000", "rank": 17, "score": 174917.0}, {"content": "Title: Taxing the rich will benefit our economy Content: Finally! Thank you for accepting! In this debate I will show how increasing the wealthy's tax rates will hurt the U.S economy. First argument: Taxing the super rich ($250,000+) reduces job creation and company expansion. It is the wealthy, who primarily create jobs and provide capital for business expansion. There are exceptions of course, but generally speaking, the wealthy account for the majority. Obama classifies the \"super rich\" as having a $250,000+ salary. These are the people who are trying to expand their business. By increasing their tax rates, we reduce the necessary cash flow needed for expansion. Second argument: There is no way we can tax those in excess of \"super rich\" without discouraging all other Americans from investing. There are two types of income, earned and unearned. The warren buffets of the country (who far exceed Obama's \"super rich\" classification) do not have much earned income. They have unearned income, which is systematically withdrawn to receive special taxation, called capital gains. The only way to tax those who far exceed \"super rich\" is to increase capital gains rates, which discourages the rest of America from investing.", "qid": "24", "docid": "5ec4ecb3-2019-04-18T18:41:04Z-00004-000", "rank": 18, "score": 174299.0}, {"content": "Title: The American Jobs Act Will Not Help Successful Businesses Content: Whilst successful individuals may be confronted with an increased tax bill, the American Jobs Act also significantly reduces taxes on businesses. This is especially important with respect to innovative risk as it is businesses, not individuals, which bear the main brunt of risk following innovation. As such, it is reasonable to assume that the effect of higher tax on the rich will often be negated, with respect to innovation by the lower tax on businesses.1", "qid": "24", "docid": "cc95487f-2019-04-15T20:22:50Z-00016-000", "rank": 19, "score": 172755.0}, {"content": "Title: Corporate Tax Should be Lowered Content: There is an important distinction to make between the tax rate for publicly traded companies and the actual percentage amount they pay. The disparity is due to tax loopholes such as off-shore banking and a host of other maneuvers performed by corporate lawyers. Even if these loopholes were closed through legislation, I disagree that the corporate tax rate should be lowered. There are two fundamental lines of reasoning behind my objection. The first is based on empirical observations, the second with philosophical issues about growth. Both of course are interrelated. Like private citizens, the private sector benefits from public goods such as public education, publicly owned and operated infastructure, general law and order maintained by police, and various federal agencies, especially in maritime contexts. The integrity and efficiency of these public goods would suffer if corporate tax rates were lowered, and this in turn would cause business costs to rise. If corporations tried to shoulder these costs themselves, for instance through privatized security, their ability to remain solvent would diminish. In general, the costs of doing business would increase, and those costs would be passed onto the consumer. Corporations also benefit from social welfare funds in ways that are not always obvious. Many retailers and restaurant corporations do not pay their workers a living wage. As a result those workers are forced to seek assistance from the government through such aid programs as food stamps. The taxpayer is effectively subsidizing the costs of maintaining a workforce for many corporations. Some of the societal benefits stand in direct conflict with the interests of the corporation. For instance, federally funded advocates of environmental defense and consumers rights must maintain freedom from the machinations of the corporation in order to do their job. The second aspect of my objection is theoretical, that is it has to do with the determinations of concepts. (I don't want to sound condescending, it's just that in mainstream discourse there is usually some confusion about the distinction between the practical and theoretical spheres.) Corporations are not free agents; that is, they cannot, by definition, self-legislate. I mean this in the descriptive, not normative, sense. The concept of a corporation demands that it profit; it must answer to shareholders, and all other considerations--whether ethical, aesthetic or even legal--are subordinate to this demand. That means that the costs of growth are always ultimately translated into dollar amounts. Likewise, the benefits of growth, strictly speaking, can only be reflected in dollar amounts. Of course, they can be translated once again into societal benefits of all sorts, but that is a matter of interpretation that lies beyond the calculus of corporations. This is partly why, for instance, from a legal point of view, a corporation's liability is limited to its investment. My objection, then, is that it is not even clear that the public has any interest in incentivizing investment into the private sector. I only say this because it seems to me useful to also bring into question some of the grounds on which the claim is being made. Thank you, and I look forward to your response.", "qid": "24", "docid": "5c336b56-2019-04-18T14:30:50Z-00006-000", "rank": 20, "score": 171914.0}, {"content": "Title: Taxes and the U.S. Government Content: For taxes to be greatly lowered in our society we first need to reduce our spending. Government does not generate revenue, the people do, everything that the 'government' spends money on is funded by the people (their taxes). To cut taxes we need to reduce government spending, this includes cutting major government expenditures such as welfare and warfare (defense spending). By cutting our spending we can reduce our taxes which will benefit the individual and the economy. Any form of tax cut such as the Bush Tax cuts would be beneficial to the economy such as creating jobs and expanding growth. Over the last 100 years taxes have increased greatly and the amount of different types of taxes have also increased dramatically (1). The federal income tax was not even a tax in the United States until the early 1900's through the passage of the 16th amendment which was a controversial amendment to pass. Even after its passage the income tax did not even effect most people until the 1950's and 1960's, up until that point only a certain percentage of Americans payed income tax (2). If we reduce our unnecessary spending through cutting certain programs (privatizing programs) and bringing our troops home we can reduce our taxes and even eliminate most taxes like the income tax. http://en.wikipedia.org... (1) http://www.loc.gov... (2)", "qid": "24", "docid": "1d684498-2019-04-18T17:05:49Z-00001-000", "rank": 21, "score": 171091.0}, {"content": "Title: Capital gains should be taxed as ordinary income. Content: My argument is plain and simple. Business owners create jobs. When we raise capital gains taxes on business owners, they have less incentive to continue investing their time & effort into creating jobs, and are more likely to just sit back and retire. Therefore, if we want to maximize the incentive for business owners to continue working, innovating, and hiring, then we should not raise taxes on them, and if anything should remove the capital gains tax entirely. As a reminder, all capital investments have already been taxed once when the income was earned as personal income, and so capital gains remain a double-tax. Double taxataion that reduces incentives for growth and hiring are bad for the overall economy, and so I urge a no vote on this resolution.", "qid": "24", "docid": "e0e36c38-2019-04-18T13:31:30Z-00000-000", "rank": 22, "score": 170878.0}, {"content": "Title: Obama's tax plan is idiotic. Content: First of all Obama isn't raising the corporate tax, he's keeping it around the same with a small cut, but he's taking away loopholes that allow the corporations to sneak out of an estimated $1 trillion in taxes. (. http://www.msnbc.msn.com...) Obama will raise taxes for companies that make obscene profits, such as the oil companies. (. http://www.nysun.com...) and he'll lower the tax for start-up companies. Maybe what confused you is that the New York Sun article said in the first paragraph that Obama planned to raise taxes on corporations, but it later specified that taxes would only be raised on companies like oil companies, who have obscene profits. Obama also plans to raise the capital gains and dividends tax, but those are not on corporations, but on Wall Street stock holders. Obama will also eliminate tax breaks for companies who ship their jobs overseas, making it better economically for companies that keep their jobs in the US. Obama will stop tax money from being wasted on the Iraq war and put it into creating jobs, including green jobs, which serve a double purpose of providing jobs and helping the environment. Obama will increase taxes on the top 1 percent of the population, who won't end up dying on the street because they can't afford their fifth house and will lower or eliminate it for those in poverty, who actually could end up on the street. No taxes will be raised for those who earn above $250,000. This plan seems much too good for an idiot to think up and my common sense tells me this plan is not only good, but great. Taxes up for those who can afford it, down for those who can't, what a great idea. Not only that, but I can be confident that the tax money will be invested in worthwhile endeavors, not the pork barrel projects of the past. Barack Obama's record has proved this. Call me an idealist, but if ideals become reality, they aren't ideals anymore.", "qid": "24", "docid": "bf178f17-2019-04-18T19:41:46Z-00002-000", "rank": 23, "score": 170667.0}, {"content": "Title: Cutting Taxes Would Stimulate The Economy Content: With tax cuts, business owners would either expand their businesses or lower the prices. An overwhelming majority of businesses will take advantage of tax cuts for the sake of profit, either it be expanding themselves or lowering the prices. If they expand, it requires more jobs, which reduces the unemployment rate, as I stated previously. If they lower the prices, more consumers will be happy to take advantage of it and go out and buy their products or services, which increases the purchasing power in the country. As it seems that my opponent doubts the effectiveness of tax cuts, I would like to give him and the voters of this debate an example of working tax cuts. My example is going to be the state of Michigan, which before the 1990's experienced having the second highest unemployment rate in the United States and an appalling economy. In 1991, when John Engler was elected to become the Governor of Michigan, he slashed taxes in the state to a cumulative tax savings of about $20 billion. The result led to Michigan having ten years of unprecedented prosperity. It even became the top third state in job growth.[1] I'd also like to mention about the part in your statement where you mentioned that some people would be left out of the tax cuts. I'm not sure who you're referring to, but I assume you may be referring to the low income, the poor. First of all, the poor will be enjoying their tax cuts. They will feel the tax cuts on their part and they will have more money to save up, if not spend them. Sources: 1.) http://www.cato.org...", "qid": "24", "docid": "a1064dfa-2019-04-18T15:49:04Z-00003-000", "rank": 24, "score": 170624.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: The USFG should adopt across-the-board tax cuts for individual and corporate tax brackets Content: C1) We should reduce the corporate tax rate Having a competitive tax system is increasingly important in a globalized economy. Globalization means firms wishing to invest capital in a region can be easily encouraged\u2014or deterred\u2014if taxes increase or decrease. High corporate taxes discourage investment and reduce economic growth. America has the highest statutory corporate tax rate in the developed world at 39.1%.[1] This is 14.3% higher than the OECD average of 24.8%. The harmful effects of high corporate taxes are visible in our economic system. Johansson et al. has a paper published by the OECD investigating the impacts of different types of taxes and economic growth. The paper found that corporate taxes, followed by income taxes, are the most detrimental to economic growth. The study found that a 1% shift of tax revenues from income and corporate taxes to consumption and property taxes would increase GDP per capita by 0.25 \u2013 1% in the long run.[2] Johansson also found that statutory corporate tax rates of 30 to 35%, which the US now surpasses, reduces investment by 1.9%. To quote Johansson, lowering the statutory corporate tax rate would \u201clead to particularly large productivity gains in firms that are dynamic and profitable, i.e. those that can make the largest contribution to GDP growth.\u201d The reason for this is because many of the firms that are productive also rely on retained earnings to pay for their expansion. Tax cuts would increase the amount of retained earnings and increase prospects for future firm expansion. Another OECD paper by Jens Arnold confirms the findings of Johansson and concluded that corporate taxes \u201chave the most negative effect on GDP per capita.\u201d[3] Economists Young Lee and Roger Gordon, using a dataset with 70 countries and a timespan of 27 years, have found that a ten percent cut in the corporate tax rate would increase economic growth by one to two percent.[4] The biggest problem with having the highest corporate tax rate in the world is that it reduces our international competitiveness. Incentives matter, and taxing labor and capital simply means that the incentives to make more of it decrease. If a country has a significantly lower corporate tax rate than we do, it is our companies and workers that suffer. The current corporate tax rate caused companies to shift $50 billion away from the United States to countries with lower corporate taxes.[5] Despite our high corporate tax rate rayr, we do not have much to show in the way of revenue. Economists Alex Brill and Kevin Hasset have found that the revenue maximizing corporate tax rate is 26%.[6] Any corporate tax rate above 26% would decrease revenue. This is not surprising as the average OECD corporate tax rate is 24.8%. As international businesses can relocate to a location where taxation is lower (which means more profits), having a tax rate far above the OECD average would deter potential businesses from entering the country. This means a smaller tax base. Brill\u2019s and Hasset\u2019s study is supported by basic cross sectional data. In the US, corporate income tax revenue makes up 2.2% of our GDP; for the OECD, that number is 3.4%.[7] Despite having the highest corporate tax rate in the world, the percent of our corporate tax rate revenue to our GDP is over one percent lower than the OECD average. This confirms the Brill and Hasset analysis that current corporate tax rates are on the far side of the Laffur Curve. Studies claiming that corporate tax cuts do not cause growth have no solid foundation. Owen Zidar, who opposes tax cuts for the rich, finds that tax cuts for the middle class cause economic growth.[8] It is well accepted that tax cuts for the middle class would increase consumption and cause growth. Luckily, corporate tax rates do cut taxes for the middle class. According to another study by Zidar, workers receive 35% of the benefit from corporate tax cuts.[9] The literature says tax cuts for the middle class cause growth, and corporate taxes benefit the middle class; it seems illogical to claim corporate tax rates would not help the economy. The Zidar estimates are a bit on the conservative side. The CBO has found that \u201cdomestic labor bears slightly more than 70 percent of the burden of the corporate income tax.\u201d[10] Economists from the National Bureau of Economic Research have found that workers of unionized industries carry 56% of the tax burden from corporate taxes.[11] A tax cut would bring a huge benefit to middle and lower class workers. C2) Reduced income taxes cause growth Lower income taxes cause growth; yes, even for the rich. It is well accepted that tax cuts for the middle class cause growth, so I assume the majority of this debate will revolve around tax cuts for the wealthy. Taxes for the wealthy make up for the majority of our revenue, and it is only the top quintile of incomes that actually pay significantly more to the government than what they cost (e.g. they pay more taxes but use fewer social services).[12] Using tax revenues as a proxy for tax rates would work out pretty well. The following graph, using local tax revenues as a proxy for local tax rates, compares tax revenues to growth rates. Here is the data: There is a clear and strong correlation between lower tax revenue and faster GSP growth. According to the data, 40% of the variance in growth rates at a local level are determined by the tax burden.[13] This data does not include severance taxes or growth related to oil and gas. This is because merely having an abundance of resources could interfere with the results. While defending tax cuts we must look at the 1980s. I will defend Reaganomics responsibly. You think tax cuts in the 80s were the cause of the rapid growth during that decade? They weren\u2019t. Federal Reserve policies must be credited for that. But that does not mean the Reagan tax cuts were a failure\u2014they were a great success. The benefits from the tax cuts were long term; they increased innovation and heavily contributed to the growth in the 1990s a decade later. According to the American Enterprise Institute, \u201cReagan\u2019s economic legacy is inextricably interwoven with the Information Revolution that the IBM PC helped kick off. His message of competitive markets, entrepreneurial vigor, and minimal regulation found a willing audience in an era of rapid technological change, where innovation was opening new opportunities seemingly every day. \u2026 [T]he changes Reagan championed in the tax system fostered innovation and entrepreneurialism even as they encouraged the development of venture capital and investment in human capital.\u201d[14] His policies allowed businesses, which may not have been created due to high risks from a terrible tax code, to come to fruition. Tax cuts do not benefit us in between each business cycle; tax cuts take years for the benefits of increased investment to show up. Reagan\u2019s tax cuts didn\u2019t cause mega growth in the 80s, but it caused growth well past his term and beyond. The example of Reaganomics\u2014that tax cuts take time to kick in\u2014is confirmed by peer-reviewed literature. A study by economist Robert Reed argued that \u201ctax policies take time to work,\u201d and that when the effects kick in, \u201ca negative relationship between taxes and income growth emerges.\u201d[15] When we increase taxes, it takes time before the negative effects fully take hold\u2014the reverse holds true. More progressive tax systems lower economic growth. A progressive tax system means the wealthy pay more than the poor; the larger the gap between the amount the rich pay and the poor, the more progressive a tax system is. When a tax system increases in progressivity, meaning the rich pay more taxes, there is less growth. A Philadelphia Federal Reserve study observed that \u201ca decrease in tax progressivity did lead to higher growth \u2026 differences in tax code across countries could explain up to a two and half percent variation in economic growth.\u201d[16] The negative effects of high taxes, even on the wealthy, has been confirmed by studies by the Mercatus center as well as the American Economic Association.[17-18] Reducing tax rates on the wealthy would promote more economic growth. C3) Revenue As I showed in the case of corporate taxes, we could reduce the corporate tax rate by over 10% and increase revenue.Income taxes are a different story. Depending on how a tax cut is crafted, tax cuts may or may not pay for themselves. If the marginal rate was extremely high, reducing it to a moderate level would reduce deficits. There are always Laffur curve effects, so the changes in revenue could be exaggerated by a static analysis. This is not to say that all tax cuts pay for themselves. Despite revenue losses, tax cuts would still increase GDP growth. If we reversed the 2012 4% hike in taxes, revenues would only fall by $14 billion, but GDP would grow by 0.43%.[19] In fact, revenue maximizing policies would be detrimental to our economy as a whole.[21] Instead, we should focus on reducing spending alongside tax reductions. Sweden, for example, reduced the top marginal rate by 20% in the last recession, but they also prevented going into debt by reducing welfare spending. Countries that successfully reduce their debt-to-GDP ratios find that spending cuts rather than tax increases are a better way to fix the problem without reducing economic growth.[20] Spending cuts can increase growth. According to a research paper by the Mercatus Center, \u201cfiscal adjustments on average reduced debt-to-GDP ratio by 0.19 percentage points of GDP in a given year. GDP grew by 3.47 percentage points in total, which is 0.58 percentage points higher than the average growth of G7 countries.\u201d[20] I am in favor of reducing spending alongside tax reductions. Reducing the corporate tax rate would increase revenue\u2014abolishing the corporate tax rate would have little effect on our budgets.[22] http://bit.ly...;", "qid": "24", "docid": "4688fcc6-2019-04-18T14:43:50Z-00005-000", "rank": 25, "score": 168748.0}, {"content": "Title: Should Taxes Be Raised Exponentially For The Rich Content: To understand raising taxes to increase government revenue would be a good idea, we must look at the Laffer curve. The Laffer curve, which Dr. Arthur Laffer leant his name to the curve after discussing it with some aides from the Ford administration, shows the relationship between tax rates and tax revenues. I will link a picture to show what it looks like. Basically, there is a prohibitive range and you don't want to raise taxes very high or else you will actually lose revenue. This is because people will start moving their money to tax shelters and some might reduce their production and work less if they are not making enough money. In the end, higher rates decrease revenue. Instead, lower tax rates increase revenue because people will start pulling money out of their shelters. Lower rates also means more economic growth. [1,2] Dr. Laffer also says: \"Moving from total tax revenues to budgets, there is one expenditure effect in addition to the two effects that tax-rate changes have on revenues. Because tax cuts create an incentive to increase output, employment, and production, they also help balance the budget by reducing means-tested government expenditures. A faster-growing economy means lower unemployment and higher incomes, resulting in reduced unemployment benefits and other social welfare programs.\" [1] History To understand if this really works, we must look at history and see if it has work and there are four major examples of income taxes getting cut and driving up a surplus while also creating massive economy growth. I. Harding-Coolidge Tax Cuts When President Woodrow Wilson left the White House, the country was in a recession and we were in massive debt. The new president, Warren G. Harding, responded by cutting taxes from Wilson's 77% rate to 50%. When Harding died, Coolidge cut the rate down to 25%. What followed was massive economic growth and a huge budget surplus. Federal real revenue growth increased from -9.2% to 0.1%. Did more and people may more taxes? The answer is yes because the unemployment rate reduced dramatically allow more people to pay taxes. In fact, the rich payed more in taxes than the poor with their lower rates. In 1920, the share of revenue for those with over an income of $100,000 was 29.9%, but it was 62.2% by 1929. The national debt went from $28 billion to $17.65 billion. [1,3] II. Kennedy Tax Cuts John F. Kennedy was also a supporter of cutting taxes. From Coolidge's lower 25% rate, taxes rose to a staggering 90%. However, people started moving their money to tax shelters and through loopholes, so the government never received the revenue it needed. Kennedy wanted to lower the tax rates to increase economic growth and government revenue. Real income tax revenue growth increase from 2.1% to 8.6%. This growth increase government revenue dramatically. At the same time, less unemployed workers meant that more people could pay more money. Revenue exceeded expectations and skyrocketed. [1] III. Reagan Tax Cuts When he was younger, Reagan was inspired by John F. Kennedy's and Calvin Coolidge's tax cuts to cut taxes of his own. The tax rates went back down to 50% and then to 28% in two tax cuts during the Reagan presidency. Just like before, revenue increased from -2.8% to 2.7% and there was more economic growth. The unemployment rate reduced allowing more people to pay taxes. There was massive income mobility. The middle class moved into higher brackets meaning they payed more taxes. The rich also payed more taxes. The number people with an income over $1 million went from 5,000 to 35,000 and the number of billionaires rose to over 50 by the end of the 1980s. The fact is that lower taxes creates more growth in government revenue and at the same time increases economic growth. [1,4] Sources 1. Laffer, Arthur. \"The Laffer Curve: Past, Present, and Future.\" Heritage.org. The Heritage Foundation, 1 June 2004. Web. 2. http://www.debate.org...... 3. Shlaes, Amity. Coolidge. New York: Harper, 2013. Print. 4. D'Souza, Dinesh. Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader. New York: Free, 1997. Print.", "qid": "24", "docid": "21b3bfec-2019-04-18T15:16:46Z-00003-000", "rank": 26, "score": 167550.0}, {"content": "Title: Higher corporate tax rates encourage business investment. Content: This is my first debate, so please be gentle with me...:) Initially, you may say, \"Wait, you mean 'lower' rates, right?\". No, it's my argument that corporations view periods with historically low tax rates as opportune times to take their profits, as opposed to reinvesting them. One of the main goals of a CEO is to pay as little corporate tax as possible. Therefore, when corporate tax rates are historically high, the CEO is much more motivated (encouraged) to reinvest in their company, rather than pay all of that \"high\" income tax on any profits.", "qid": "24", "docid": "825c062c-2019-04-18T18:50:04Z-00005-000", "rank": 27, "score": 166949.0}, {"content": "Title: The American Jobs Act (Obama Jobs Bill) Should be Passed Content: Let me respond to the rebuttals and provide a final statement. We DO live in a different era than the \"Work Together\" era. Bipartisanship itself is not bad, but it's important to understand that all this \"bipartisanship\" has brought us to a $14 trillion debt. Now, it is vital to get serious about cutting spending and reducing tax rates on job-creators. We can't increase revenue with payroll tax cuts because they are focused toward the poor. They won't have to pay taxes on their extra income because they don't pay income taxes. If we cut corporate taxes, that extra money will go to creating jobs, which means more people will pay income tax. \"The infrastructure banks have done exceedingly well\"-which is exactly why you said our infrastructure is failing, right? And roads haven't improved since the first stimulus. The National Bank can be used to fund bad things. $3.4 million was wasted on crosswalks for turtles before: http://abcnews.go.com.... Who says it won't happen again? This won't help our roads, but it will plunge us deeper in debt. It takes time to get roads built with the litigation process. Sometimes, a bureaucracy blocks construction after millions of dollars are set aside. I'm saying that there are better ways besides the payroll tax. And eliminating the corporate tax and cutting individual rates would cost less than Obama's stimulus. In my plan, we make up the lost revenues because all the money is injected right into the private economy to create jobs. These employees will pay payroll and possibly income taxes, making it cost less than expected. You told me to refrain from using words like \"fear-mongering\". But you never addressed any of my evidence. Private schools do have teacher's unions, but they don't have the same kind of power. A principal can simply fire a teacher at any time for any reason. There are also some big Catholic schools, and they also do well with less money. I was referring to dollars per student. The infrastructure bank does route to private companies, but it goes through a bureaucracy first that isn't good at determining which projects will actually help our economy and improve our infrastructure. Let's divide the work into states and localities, so our infrastructure will be better. Then, we unite and succeed. I said that corporations could band together. They can work together toward a common goal too, not just government. Here is my evidence about unemployment benefits increasing the jobless rate. It even comes from a left-wing news website: http://www.huffingtonpost.com.... The Rahn curve explains that when government gets too big, the private economy grows less. http://www.heritage.org... But the money will dry up, and more appropriations will be needed so the construction employees will keep their jobs. So the $3 billion price tag means $300 billion in a century. The rich don't hoard their money-they invest in it to create jobs. And there are very few billionaires-your plan would also hurt people who earn $250,000 a year-which is not wealthy in many parts of the country. Some form of socialism may be OK as long as it is predominantly capitalist, but telling the rich to pay more when they already pay so much in taxes is a hard line into socialism. Yes, all countries have a little socialism, and frankly, they'd be better off if they had a lot less. The Democrats were the ones who promoted subprime mortgages. Payroll tax cuts are too inefficient and won't grow the economy quick enough for it to be worth it. All in all, the American Jobs Act is another partisan piece of legislation from the Community Organizer in Chief. Let's get working on real economic growth, not short-term gimmicks. I urge a negative ballot.", "qid": "24", "docid": "bf86583-2019-04-18T18:37:59Z-00000-000", "rank": 28, "score": 166273.0}, {"content": "Title: Lowering Taxes is not Beneficial to the Economy Content: When taxes are lowered, the government has less income. When the government is poor, it cannot fulfill all its duties rightfully. When the people see that the government is poor, they become even more conservative and don't spend their money. If they do not spend their money, the econonmy cannot be stimulated and the status of it will become worse. Therefore, lowering taxes hurts our economy.", "qid": "24", "docid": "29a590aa-2019-04-18T19:27:23Z-00005-000", "rank": 29, "score": 165668.0}, {"content": "Title: Corporate taxes should be lowered Content: My opponent seems to blame the recession on corporate taxes. His argument has no substance at all and only includes baseless conjectures which somehow add up to why corporate taxes should be lowered. Corporations pay significantly less in taxes today than they did 50 years ago due to increased globalization and offshore subsidiaries which allow them to essentially avoid corporate taxes. http://www.cbpp.org... As my opponent is attempting to say that corporate taxes should be lowered because it would benefit the economy, yet he has offered nothing to support this resolution. I await his logically structured arguments, and compelling evidence for why corporate taxes should be lowered. I agree that lowering taxes in general is always going to increase GDP if government spending remains unchanged, however this will ratchet up the national debt via larger deficits ultimately leading to higher borrowing costs and more painful taxes later. Quantitative easing will likely end this fall. This will (and already partially has based on bernakes recent comments) ratchet up interest rates and quickly make debt payments extremely costly You can see based on yield curve history rates are already rising and will dramatically rise when the program ends. http://www.treasury.gov... Bernake has already said that debt will be a huge long term drag on the economy. http://www.youtube.com... In the short term lowering taxes on anyone/anything will benefit GDP. However I believe my opponent will agree that long term health of the economy is of far greater import.", "qid": "24", "docid": "4cd87808-2019-04-18T17:29:44Z-00002-000", "rank": 30, "score": 165533.0}, {"content": "Title: Reducing the size of government and, therefore, the amount it takes in tax frees up money which consumers can spend on goods or for companies to expand: Both create jobs Content: Government costs money. That\u2019s an indisputable fact. So that raises the question of whether that\u2019s the best way of spending it. It is clear that money could be spent in other ways and so if this is the choice there is an opportunity cost in that decision as there is in any other. There is compelling evidence that reducing the government\u2019s take of total GDP stimulates the economy through freeing up funds to create jobs especially in manufacturing. There is compelling evidence[i] that reducing the tax burden and unleashing the dynamism of the market by cutting regulation has a far greater effect than government massaging unemployment figures by expanding its own employment base. Indeed it also appears to be the case that the relatively high level of government salaries in fact just puts greater pressure on employers in the private sector to compete the resulting wage inflation has a dampening effect on the economy as a whole at a time when it can least afford it. It\u2019s further worth noting that jobs created during a recession tend to morph into permanent positions thereby building in an ever-continuing expansion in the size of the state unless it is periodically and deliberately culled. Conversely the investment directly into the private sector creates wealth producing jobs that are paid at a level that is sustainable and is responsive to the health of the wider economy. [i] Alesina, Ardagna, Perotti, Schiantarelli. \u201cFiscal Policy, Profits and Investments\u201d. National Bureau of Economic Research. 1999", "qid": "24", "docid": "442da727-2019-04-15T20:22:50Z-00013-000", "rank": 31, "score": 165480.0}, {"content": "Title: Corporate Tax Should be Lowered Content: It seems then that we are in agreement about the untenability of altering the tax code without addressing the tax loopholes. My point is that when it comes time to actually fix a rate, we will be only grasping in the dark so long as those loopholes are closed. We are also in agreement about the amorality, or moral neutrality of corporations. As you mentioned, the main costs of a corporation are wages, supplies, or means of production however broadly construed, and taxes. Lowering the tax rate and closing loopholes will actually result in an effective tax raise for many corporations. So why would they return their operations to the U.S. if the reform measures you are seeking only address taxation? My point about the welfare measures the corporation receives on behalf of the taxpayer, e.g. in the form of slave wages, indicates that lowering the tax rate alone is not sufficient. It is here instructive to take a brief glance at the historical development of the corporation. (Hegel discusses it in an interesting way in The Philosophy of Right, but that is maybe too far afield.) It is a historical fiction to think that corporations emerged in a free market and then only later came under the burden of government regulation and taxation. From the inception, the interests of the corporation were facilitated by government policies. There are countless examples of this, but the most pronounced is perhaps the railroad barons at the end of the nineteenth century. So it is too simple a dichotomy to present the government on one side and the corporation on the other. This is why, for instance, Roosevelt warned against the military-industrial complex, and it is still vividly relevant today in the Middle East. In light of this, your alleged benefits to a lowered corporate tax rate can be seen as wishful thinking of fallacious supply-side economic theory. Yes, a lower tax rate might raise wages, might boost incentive, attract foreign investment, eradicate poverty, end war, save the polar ice caps from melting, help us colonize the moon, make us beautiful, rid us of all evil, and so forth. I'm not trying to be sarcastic--it's just that these are the perennial and familiar promises of the proponents of free-market economy that have not materialized, even as the system has increasingly favored corporations since the sixties. The most clear indication that a lowered tax rate is not advisable or desirable is that the rate has in fact incrementally lowered for over the period of the past forty years. Wages have stagnated, while CEO pay has skyrocketed, completely independent of CEO performance. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... There is a lot of mystical beliefs about the invisible hands that will guide wealth into the nation and keep business in the U.S. but there are no reasonable historical tendencies to justify this thinking. There are two principal reasons for this: 1. The intimate interactions of corporate interests and governmental policy have created a situation of pronounced inequality, and have effectively redistributed wealth to the top one percent. 2. The corporation, by its very nature, tends toward either implosion or monopoly. The public was compelled to intrude upon the free activity of the corporation because that activity threatened its collective good. I appreciate your Libertarian views--even though I usually find myself in general disagreement, the Libertarian wing of the Republic party is, in my modest estimation, the only one that is self-consistent and philosophically and economically astute. But let me for a moment broaden the perspective. I don't judge negatively people who desire profits, and I agree with your implication that to associate the desire for profits with greed is not all that useful. But not all values are moral values. We can still admit that the corporation is essentially amoral and still talk about its ethos, its system of values. I mentioned above that one of these is the fundamental translation of various kinds of activity into exchange value. In the same sense, not all work is labor. The corporate system reinterprets growth, time, work, nature, and even political engagement financially. Corporate taxation is the imperfect result of this necessary translation. I only have about ten minutes left, so let me just give one easy example of what I mean here. A mining corporation--e.g. the Pebble Mine Company up in Alaska--goes into a place, digs the minerals out of the earth, then moves on when those resources have been exhausted. From the corporations point of view, the land is nothing more than the ultimate dollar amounts that will be made on the market. But land is something different than that--it gets left behind, and has been altered irrevocably. The toxic tailings ponds that every mine leaves behind last forever. (Cf. the spill in Durango right now.) No matter if the tax rate were twice what it is, there is no way to recover that land. The same goes with fracking--the toxins that are pumped into the ground will last millennia. So it is not as simple as just saying that corporations benefit from infrastructure and public safety--it is that they translate the world, both the human world of activity, work, time, and the natural world as monetary values. Taxation is therefore the only way for the corporation to legitimately participate in the system. It might seem as though I'm changing my fundamental objection--but these latest remarks are bound up with what I've been saying from the start. Either way, I'm learning a lot from this discussion and look forward to your response.", "qid": "24", "docid": "5c336b56-2019-04-18T14:30:50Z-00002-000", "rank": 32, "score": 164655.0}, {"content": "Title: The US should reform its Corporate Tax Content: Really? You can't read the rules of the debate? (sigh)Well, here's my case.Laffer CurveDuring the late 1970s, economist Arthur Laffer gave his name to the Laffer curve. The concept has existed before. Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon came up with the the hypothesis of scientific taxation that lower rates generates higher revenues for the federal government. When the rate is higher, economic expansion and production is discouraged. In this case we are talking about the wealth of businesses who will grow less with a higher rate because they have to move more capital to taxation. When the tax rate is small, more capital is used on the business itself. The business grows and there is more corporate profits. More profits means more revenue for the corporation and that means more revenue for the federal government through a lower tax rate. Companies Move OverseasPfizer, the largest drug maker in the US, recently announced that it is moving its legal address to the UK because of the lower corporate tax rate. It is likely other businesses will the follow. The UK corporate tax rate is set to approach 20% by 2015. The current US corporate tax rate is 35% and that is a 15% difference for their profits. The US needs to lower its corporate tax rate in order to keep more businesses and gain more for the United States. As simple 10% cut from 35% to 25% puts on level with other nations. This will increase the competition of the American economy. At the same time, eliminating loopholes allows us to get more revenue from them.Sources1. Laffer, Arthur. \"The Laffer Curve: Past, Present, and Future.\" The Heritage Foundation.2. Giobanetti, Tom. \"As Capital Flees, England is Texas, and the U.S. is California.\" RealClearMarkets.", "qid": "24", "docid": "3b46eaaf-2019-04-18T16:12:59Z-00004-000", "rank": 33, "score": 164577.0}, {"content": "Title: Governments and Corporations should focus their economies towards individuals. Content: Opposition believes that job creation is essential in developing a country\u2019s economy. When more people are employed, the economy is more likely to boost the economy. Through government support, more of the population will be able to be entrepreneurs to create new businesses. Job creation is the redeeming quality of companies. The role of companies in the economy is to decrease the rate of unemployment and to see money being circulated in the economy, since people will have stable employment. Govts in general are obligated to regulate the economy as it is focused toward the people and to be free of any corruption or unethical practices. The role of taxes as well as government is to generate sufficient revenue to finance public sector activities toward the citizens, and employees. A government should prioritize its concerns about corps to better their citizens. Taxes also fulfill the need and desire for increased public services, and the capacity to levy taxes effectively. \u201cNo one likes taxes. People do not like to pay them. Govts do not like to impose them\u2026While necessary, taxes impose real costs on society. Good tax policy seeks to minimize those costs.\u201d Especially in situation with less regulation and tax cuts are going to be actuated, more corps seek chances to exploit their workers, manipulate their investments, and go against human rights. The investment and financial resources, which would be in the hands of big corps, does not fall to the hands of workers or citizens. Regulations and taxations are a means for governments to scrutinize companies and make sure that they have standards on employment and practices. Govts are not only involved in economics but also mandated to reflect many other social factors too including concerns about fairness and feasibility in dealing with their people. While individual corps is interested soley on profits, govt should examine the big picture and try to impact the economy holistically. 1-http://goo.gl/sohdy", "qid": "24", "docid": "413eb840-2019-04-19T12:45:04Z-00035-000", "rank": 34, "score": 164374.0}, {"content": "Title: Reducing the size of government and, therefore, the amount it takes in tax frees up money which consumers can spend on goods or for companies to expand: Both create jobs Content: Were the theory put forward true, and that is debatable, it would require tax cuts to benefit the lowest paid individuals and the smallest companies. However the political reality is that it never does. Poor people and small companies do indeed spend money which has a stimulating effect on the economy, but spending only stimulates the economy if it is spent in the right way. It is not possible to guarantee that the funds that flow into a state\u2019s economy as a result of tax cuts will benefit that economy exclusively. Most forms of good and commodity now exist within a global market; manufacturing and production have become concentrated within states such as China. Useful and productive business activity will always require that a proportion of a business\u2019s funds be spent overseas. The advantage of government funding is that it can be directed into the weakest areas of the domestic economy, with a degree of dynamism and control that the markets will never be able to achieve. However, recent history has suggested that tax cuts have tended to be directed to the wealthy and to large corporations who are under no obligation to spend or invest either domestically or immediately. There is little benefit to any economy in allowing wealthy individual and organizations to further expand stagnant wealth or to invest in high end products bought internationally. There is also a matter of scale, government has a capacity for borrowing against its own security of wealth that is simply not matched by any private individual or corporation. Equally government is uniquely placed to undertake infrastructural investment such as house building projects which directly supports sectors that are otherwise the hardest hit during times or economic downturn. Even where tax cuts are directed or fall evenly across all income ranges there is still no control over the areas of probable expenditure and are also unlikely to stimulate sectors such as construction. Most importantly tax cuts have no direct benefit for the unemployed which, of course, the creation of jobs by government itself does.", "qid": "24", "docid": "442da727-2019-04-15T20:22:50Z-00012-000", "rank": 35, "score": 164018.0}, {"content": "Title: American Corporate Tax Rates Were Too High Before Tax Reform Content: \"The American People are not under taxed, the government in Washington is overfed.\" It is because Ronald Reagan pinpointed the issues with the overtaxing in America I believe that the corporate tax rates (before the tax cuts) were too high. To hopefully convince everyone viewing this debate I provide some points. First, we had some of the highest tax rates in the world NPR News in 2017 found the claim that the United States had the highest corporate tax rates in the world to be \"generally true\". There are even some instances in which corporations pay upwards of 50-60% of their profits. If that doesn't scream borderline socialism / government abuse, I don't know what will. Second, the super high tax rates cause international outsourcing The Balance in 2013 found that United States companies have 14 million employees overseas in jobs that could be employing Americans. Why? Because of my first point that corporate taxes are the highest in the world. Congressional Democrats from the ways and means committees reported that at least 47 major corporations have moved overseas in the past decade alone. Those are millions if not billions of dollars and thousands upon thousands of jobs. How do we bring them back? Lowering the corporate tax rate. Finally, outsourcing jobs causes unemployment which leads to more crime This is a pretty self explanatory point, but the example I will be using is the rust belt. The place that used to be the manufacturing hub of America but is now a crime ridden ghost-town. Places like Chicago, Detroit and Pittsburgh all used to be flourishing economies in America that were known for being vibrant and industrial revolution havens. Now, due to the outsourcing of jobs, their unemployment has skyrocketed and their crime rates have skyrocketed. Thanks for reading! Format for debate 1. Opening Cases 2. Responses to opening cases 3. Final addresses", "qid": "24", "docid": "d681ff4e-2019-04-18T11:51:12Z-00001-000", "rank": 36, "score": 163442.0}, {"content": "Title: Progressive taxes help increase employment rate Content: Erkki Koskelaa. \"Tax progression is good for employment in popular models of trade union behaviour\". Elsevier Science B.V. 1996 - Using three popular models of trade union behaviour \u2014 the monopoly union, the \u2018right-to-manage\u2019 and the efficient bargain model \u2014 as the framework for analysis, this paper provides the unambiguously negative answer that under plausible assumptions an increased tax progression lowers wages and is good for employment in all three popular models of trade union behaviour. This means that the effects of taxation appear to be very sensitive to the structure of labour markets.\"", "qid": "24", "docid": "42f8393e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00134-000", "rank": 37, "score": 163256.0}, {"content": "Title: Free trade creates more jobs (and better ones) than it destroys Content: Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, At the Montana Economic Development Summit 2007, Butte, Montana, May 1, 2007 \" The U.S. jobs created by trade also tend to offer higher pay and demand greater skill than the jobs that are destroyed--although a downside is that, in the short run, the greater return to skills created by trade may tend to increase the wage differential between higher-skilled and lower-skilled workers and thus contribute to income inequality (Bernanke, 2007). The effects of trade on employment must also be put in the context of the remarkable dynamism of the U.S. labor market. The amount of \"churn\" in the labor market--the number of jobs created and destroyed--is enormous and reflects the continuous entry, exit, and resizing of firms in our ever-changing economy. Excluding job layoffs and losses reversed within the year, over the past decade an average of nearly 16 million private-sector jobs have been eliminated each year in the United States, an annual loss equal to nearly 15 percent of the current level of nonfarm private employment.6 The vast majority of these job losses occur for a principal reason other than international trade (Kletzer, 2001; Bernanke, 2004). Moreover, during the past ten years, the 16 million annual job losses have been more than offset by the creation of about 17 million jobs per year--some of which, of course, are attributable to the direct and indirect effects of trade. Truly, the U.S. labor market exhibits a phenomenal capacity for creative destruction\"", "qid": "24", "docid": "3d9e8a34-2019-04-17T11:47:44Z-00088-000", "rank": 38, "score": 162334.0}, {"content": "Title: Corporate Tax Should be Lowered Content: What you state is easily dismissible. Instead of arguing the economic benefits, you argue political drawbacks. As of 2013, the United States has lead the world in Corporate Tax percentage, which is set at 39%. Our tax rate has not changed in a matter of 2 years, with regard to corporate tax. [1] On a ratio with our GDP, Corporate Taxes amount to 2% of our 18 trillion GDP, which amounts to $360 billion. While we pronounce ourselves to be the most Capitalist nation, we impose heavy taxation on both our businesses and general income. Incorporation in Canada, which is famous for it's high taxes and government spending in relation to population, is easier and cheaper than incorporation in the United States. Our corporate tax is not only a burden but it is also a deterrent to future companies. I myself am working for a company made by American citizens but incorporated in Canada, due to their lower tax rate and fees. The main debate on Capitalism is that we get to keep our profits, if accumulated legally. The profits of companies are accumulated legally, and they deserve to keep those profits, regardless of moral implication. The main argument that many opponents of a lowered Corporate Tax create is that we cannot afford to lower it, which we most certainly can. Instead of professing about an increase in tax or a stability, we should decrease spending on par with a decrease in taxes. An overall incentive to incorporate in the United States will not only create an excess of jobs, but it will bring in an incredible amount of money. It is much more beneficial to tax 15% to 100 people, rather than taxing 39% to 50 people, as eventually, that number will decrease. Our current ideology is that instead of lowering taxes and fees, we will raise them as to create further burdens on the corporations that remain. Rand Paul, a ideologically Libertarian Republican presidential candidate stated that we have an excess of $2 trillion overseas, that we could bring into the United States if we lowered the Corporate Tax. \"My objection, then, is that it is not even clear that the public has any interest in incentivizing investment into the private sector.\" The public has no say as to whom may or may not invest into the private sector. It is not up to the collective decision of a public entity to dictate how and who invests into which specific private market. Most companies, such as Apple, Microsoft, Yahoo, and Google, have public stocks, which enable all willing parties to hold stocks in that specific company. The private sector rarely benefits from public education. Most private sector jobs require a higher level education, which is in most cases provided by a private university or college. You seem to believe that taxes are collected and then distributed randomly. Each tax pays of each part of the government or public platform. This debate does not center over the complete abolishment of Corporate Tax, but instead centers around lowering this specific tax. Due to safety in investing in the United States, paired with a significantly lower Corporate Tax, we could bring in a great amount of companies as well as private sector jobs, and eventually make even more money in taxes than before. Sources: [1]http://taxfoundation.org...", "qid": "24", "docid": "5c336b56-2019-04-18T14:30:50Z-00005-000", "rank": 39, "score": 161693.0}, {"content": "Title: Taxes should be decreased for the Rich Content: Point 1: The Rich make a significant contribution to GDP through buying. They buy big ticket items such as mansions, yachts, expensive cars, etc... All of the purchases get factored in to GDP. The more a country spends, the higher it's GDP is. Lowering taxes for the rich would allow them to buy more of these big ticket items, which would thus increase GDP. \"The top 5%, those making about $150,000 or more, account for 37% percent of all consumer spending, about as much as the bottom 80% put together.\"[3] Point 2: The Rich create businesses. Most of the big and medium sized corporations are owned by rich people. If you decrease taxes, that is more the rich can spend on businesses. The more they spend on businesses, the more products that are available at a lower price (which intices consumers to buy, especially in a recession), which in turn increases GDP. Also, the rich can give raises to their employees, spend money to fix working equipment, and make the employee feel more comfortable and safe. Also, they will expand or create new businesses, which increases GDP and decreases unemployment. \"The study was published in 2010, and Sinai says he still stands by it. The results are dramatic. Right now, economists say the economy needs to create about 2.4 million jobs a year. Sinai found that eliminating the capital-gains tax alone, with no other policy change, would create 1.3 million per annum, or more than half the total sought. Real gross domestic product would increase by 0.23 percentage point a year. The jobless rate would drop by as much as 0.7 percentage point in a year. And productivity gains would increase by 0.5 percentage point a year.\"[1] This means that the more money businesses have, the more they will expand, thus creating jobs. If the rich had more money, the same principal would apply. \"Lower taxes on the rich will allow them to invest more money into the the US marketplace (obviously if they are smart enough to accumulate and hold onto the money they are smart enough to invest). By investing this money they produce jobs, they produce capital goods which create cheaper goods for the population to enjoy. THe taxes are still too high even with the bush \"tax-cuts\". Does it make sense that taking money away from the producers of the nation that all of the sudden jobs will be created? Of course not.\"[2] \"The issue boils down to simple economics. Paraphrasing the columnist Daniel Henninger: we can't create new jobs and eat them too. If the United States wants the jobs that small businesses create, then the government cannot confiscate an even greater share of the incomes that generate those jobs.\"[3] Point 3: The Rich pay a 45% tax rate, and the bottom 50% pay no taxes. \"The top 3% earn 30% of all income and pay 52% of all income taxes.\"[3] \"Meanwhile, the 53% of Americans who are paying income taxes are relentlessly slandered as \"greedy\" and \"selfish\" for not being willing to hand over EVEN MORE of the money that they worked for in order to pay for benefits for other people. In other words, we have a lot of people in America who want more services from the government, but they are demanding that other people pay for it.\"[4] Point 4: The Rich give a lot to charity \"Those making over $200,000 account for 36% of all charitable contributions.\"[3] [1]:http://www.bloomberg.com... [2]:http://answers.yahoo.com... [3]:http://www.demint.senate.gov... [4]:http://rightwingnews.com...", "qid": "24", "docid": "bf4f19d7-2019-04-18T18:29:38Z-00007-000", "rank": 40, "score": 161572.0}, {"content": "Title: The American Jobs Act (Obama Jobs Bill) Should be Passed Content: It is of my opinion that the American Jobs Act should not be past. This Keynesian economic approach has been tried before and failed numerous times. FDR tried to tax-and-spend his way out of a recession and we had nearly a decade of 20% unemployment. While our current economic situation isn't as bleak, it would still do no help to pass the American Jobs Act. I will critique each element of the act and explain why I am opposed to it. 1. Cutting and suspending $245 billion worth of payroll taxes for qualifying employers and 160 million medium to low income employees. While cutting taxes to stimulate economic growth is not a bad strategy, you can get a lot more bang for your buck in other places, particularly by eliminating the corporate income tax. That would only cost $191 billion and would have a tremendous impact on economic growth, particularly if we make it permanent. Businesses would flock to the United States because of our low taxes. 2. Spending $62 billion for a Pathways Back to Work Program for expanding opportunities for low-income youth and adults. Spending billions on a program such as Pathways Back to Work is inefficient. The best way to expand opportunities for low-income youth is to expand charter schools so they have an opportunity to escape their failing public school. An expensive jobs-training program has too much potential for abuse. 3. Spending $50 billion on both new & pre-existing infrastructure projects. There is no such thing as a shovel-ready job. It may take years for a project to be approved given our current litigation system. A deficit-neutral way to create jobs would be to streamline regulations and make it easier for construction projects to be approved. 4. Spending $49 billion on extending unemployment benefits for up to 6 million long-term beneficiaries. Unemployment benefits should not be extended. They do more harm than good because they encourage laziness. Many people have been on unemployment for 2 years. They receive money for doing nothing and that is not just a waste of money but violates the dignity of that person. Unemployment would go down if we cap the time period for unemployment benefits at 1 year or less. People would then be more motivated to find a job. 5. Spending $35 billion in additional funding to protect the jobs of teachers, police officers, and firefighters This is just code for protecting labor unions. Teachers, police officers, and firefighters have an important purpose, but they are government employees. Having too many government employees is bad for the private economy because it crowds out private investment. 6. Spending $30 billion to modernizing at least 35,000 public schools and community colleges. This would provide little economic stimulus because this modernization would take place next summer. My plan of lowering taxes would create jobs now. Another idea is repatriation of profits: allow all companies to take money back to America tax free. This would inject billions into the economy. 7. Spending $15 billion on a program that would hire construction workers to help rehabilitate and refurbishing hundreds of thousands of foreclosed homes and businesses. The best way to spur construction jobs is through eliminating the corporate tax. This would help a lot more than another stimulus. 8. Creating the National Infrastructure Bank (capitalized with $10 billion), originally proposed in 2007, to help fund infrastructure via private and public capital. Similar, streamlining regulations is a better idea than spending more taxpayer money on projects that may take years to be reauthorized. 9. Creating a nationwide, interoperable wireless network for public safety, while expanding accessibility to high-speed wireless services. I do not oppose this part of the bill. 10. Creating additional regulations on businesses who discriminate against hiring those who are long-term unemployed. While this has good intentions, more regulations mean less jobs. Businesses spend over a trillion dollars on regulatory compliance. That money could be used to add 43 million workers. Finally, to pay for this plan, Obama puts a huge surtax on millionaires and tax and fee increases. Taking money out of the private economy is never good during a recession, even according to Keynesian economic theory. My plan stimulates economic growth by allowing businesses to keep more money to create jobs, streamlining regulations, and restoring economic freedom.", "qid": "24", "docid": "bf86583-2019-04-18T18:37:59Z-00006-000", "rank": 41, "score": 161476.0}, {"content": "Title: Ability To Recover Content: Prop states that the stimulus pkg(SP) will create jobs and increase consumer spending, this is the same outcome Opp desires; the problem is with the proposed solution. Furthermore, refer to how gov regulations have affected businesses positively in C3. Primarily, prop failed to provide a direct link of SP to the resolution, explanations of how SP will create jobs or put more money into circulation is absent. Furthermore, past SP have been declared a failure. [[http://goo.gl/XC2j5]] Harvard's Martin Feldstein, head of the National Bureau of Economic Research stated people who get one-time windfalls usually use them to increase savings or pay off debt, neither of which results in the purchase of new goods and services. In this case, the SP cost $160 billion and did nothing for the economy. [[http://goo.gl/O0tC4]] Govts can stimulate an economy through granting consumers, workers and businesses sums of borrowed money. The main impact of SP is an increase in debt; raise future taxes and distort the normal functions of economic markets and personal and corporate decision making. Second, as prop acknowledges, the benefits of SP will be \u201cshort term\u201d. Studies by the Federal Reserve, the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation indicate that stimulus pkgs and tax cuts would increase the size of the economy slightly and temporarily but would reduce growth in the long term [[http://goo.gl/3uKK7]] Opp is confused about the second part of the prop\u2019s scheme. They say every SP has the risk of inflation which opp definitely wants to avoid, but we would like to focus more on the harms of deregulation and tax cuts, not SP. Moreover, their sources overall provide invalid evidence to back up their arguments, their third one has expired, and their first source talks about mass transits. Prop wishes to see more direct engagement with their arguments as well as the resolution.", "qid": "24", "docid": "413eb840-2019-04-19T12:45:04Z-00016-000", "rank": 42, "score": 161416.0}, {"content": "Title: Should the United States Outsource jobs to other countries Content: I understand what you are saying regarding unemployment rates. However according to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, unemployment is at a low of 4.7. Therefore your argument about outsourcing causing more unemployment rates is not necessarily correct. Since some corporations are outsourcing and the unemployment rate is lowering, I disagree that we are harming our economy. As I stated before, outsourcing is justified in the long term by providing more efficiency within a corporation, it also helps the consumer, and lastly the more we outsource the more other countries we also try this practice. I believe that we must look at the federal numbers to prove whether outsourcing is hurting or helping the economy. According to the Bureau of Labor, it is definitely helping. Thank you for your debate.", "qid": "24", "docid": "277a399d-2019-04-18T12:19:10Z-00000-000", "rank": 43, "score": 161223.0}, {"content": "Title: tax increases r inevitable and will be the most responsible thing to do. Content: The raising of federal taxes is in many ways, similar to encouraging the growth and expansion of an already inefficient and cumbersome ie. the current US government. I would like to first point out a few mistakes in side pro's argument which presupposes that things such as medicare and social security are necessary to the country. These \"services\" are, in fact, neither necessary nor helpful to anyone (not even those who are supposed to benefit from medicare and SS. Now, to present my constructive argument, I would like to say that most of the services provided by the government can actually be provided by private enterprises, which have a track record of providing significantly better services. Rather than heavily taxing those who create jobs, as well as the families who are living paycheck to paycheck, we can instead reduce the tax burden by reducing the size of government as well as the unnecessary services provided by the government. To rebut some of side pro's points: 1. If government were to stop handouts as well as social security, a serious tax burden would be lifted, meaning more jobs and more job opportunities. 2. Privatization happens quickly in the absence of government monopolies on services. Side pro's point is null. 3. Retirees are not, in any way, kept alive by the government but rather by family and work pensions. In fact, lower taxes also mean lower tax burdens on retirees. Thank you. Back to you, side pro.", "qid": "24", "docid": "988cf27-2019-04-18T12:54:20Z-00004-000", "rank": 44, "score": 160868.0}, {"content": "Title: raising federal taxes will be inevitable n be the most responsible thing to do Content: Increased a LITTLE? The economy boomed! Millions of jobs were created, many areas of government spending was reduced dramatically, and more wealth was created. And you're wrong, revenues increased. One think you have to understand is that congress decides the spending. During Reagan's presidency, the majority of congress consisted of Democrats. They refused to lower the spending as much as Reagan wanted to. America was also battling the Cold War, and so Reagan spent a lot more on defense. It's also important to remember that Reagan had inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression. The stock market also boomed after he cut taxes. Taxing the wealthy will not work. Unless we tax everyone who makes at least 250,000 a year at 100%, it still would not balance the budget. People will always try to make money in order to put food on the table, but when taxes, regulation, and government spending are the lowest, it creates more opportunities for everyone. Countries like Venezuela, which have incredibly high taxes have fallen apart due to the opposite. I did not say we should cut the programs entirely. No, it's irresponsible to be wasting American citizen's money on a system that so many take advantage of, and is already going bankrupt. So, explain to me how it's not immoral to be taking someone's hard-earned money and spending it on something they have no say in. That's the very definition of theft. Haha it's funny how you tried so hard to turn my moral argument around, because the truth is, you know you can't. If you're going to take someone's income away from them, at least acknowledge you're doing it for your own self-interest and face the facts.", "qid": "24", "docid": "5560f5b4-2019-04-18T12:55:29Z-00001-000", "rank": 45, "score": 160844.0}, {"content": "Title: Reaganomics worked Content: I believe Reaganomics works because since taxes were lowered it was easier for the businesses to create jobs. When you have more people RECEIVING money, then that's more people that the government can tax therefore leading to a higher tax revenue. Reaganomics simply lowers taxes meaning that you get to keep more of your money. When you have more money, you spend more on goods and services like that new TV or video game that just came out. When competitors realize that that TV or video game is making money then the market becomes more competitive. Reaganomics also lowered unemployment from 10.8 to 5.3 percent.", "qid": "24", "docid": "876f4fd6-2019-04-18T17:24:41Z-00007-000", "rank": 46, "score": 160686.0}, {"content": "Title: Reaganomics worked Content: I believe Reaganomics works because since taxes were lowered it was easier for the businesses to create jobs. When you have more people RECEIVING money, then that's more people that the government can tax therefore leading to a higher tax revenue. Reaganomics simply lowers taxes meaning that you get to keep more of your money. When you have more money, you spend more on goods and services like that new TV or video game that just came out. When competitors realize that that TV or video game is making money then the market becomes more competitive. Reaganomics also lowered unemployment from 10.8 to 5.3 percent.", "qid": "24", "docid": "876f4fd6-2019-04-18T17:24:41Z-00009-000", "rank": 47, "score": 160686.0}, {"content": "Title: Stephen Harper was the best federal government we had. Content: excuse me, BUt Taxes are good. there are no problems with Taxes. Taxes prevent media, education, healthcare, transit, infrastructure, policing, military, natural resources and all other government run organizations like festivals Running. lowering taxes leads to privatization of government equities. Low taxes is For the rich not for the poor, by enabling them to suggest the government can't run itself anymore, and privitization would be favourable by giving the government deniability in the case of fraud, bankruptcies and employment insurance. The government sells government equity every time the taxes go down. That is bad. Multiculturalism is not bad So longa s we pay taxes. { Privitazation of media and school allows false information to be taught as Truths, and it is used as a controlling aspect of the country. That is what lower our taxes DID to our country. and Harper was GUIL-T }", "qid": "24", "docid": "7b58fb20-2019-04-18T14:08:49Z-00003-000", "rank": 48, "score": 160513.0}, {"content": "Title: The United States federal government should substantially increase communparticipation. Content: Economy Advantage: Correction the affirmative plan is going to directly create jobs. Jobs provided by the government are endless: Green Jobs, Infrastructure, International Relationships, Community Development. Job loses are slowly dropping and will completely and permanently halt after the passing of affirmative plan, because more people will have jobs provided through the plan and will be putting money back into the economy. When people are putting and investing more money into the economy then more businesses will develop, putting more jobs back on the market. FYI We do solve. The \"permanent spending balloon\" will solve for the economy because we have already spent so much stimulus as it is that we can only get out of this recession with further spending and stimulation. Extend the 1AC's Impacts of Global Nuclear War causing extinction by econ. Collapse. Racism Advantage: Yes, racism has been in our DNA since the beginning of time and no\u2026\u2026\u2026. solving for poverty wont completely solve for DISCRIMINATION but it is a step in the right direction. FYI main reasons for continued racism is because of social inequality and lack of opportunity. Pass our plan and everyone is assured a chance at success and opportunity given by the plan erases racism in that area. The plan would solve for racism. Racism is discrimination against race not social classes. Solvency: The solvency presented by the Negative are arguments made for general block grants, not government block grants, not block grants used to fix the economy, just plain block grants by CITIES. And those block grants do not measure the success of a government operated plan. Pull through the 1AC's solvency stating that FEDERAL BLOCK GRANTS ARE SUCCESSFUL when the provide employment. Spending disad: NON-Unique: Spending is occurring in the status and further expenditures by the federal government are inevitable. LINK TURN: Spending is inevitable now, we must now spend to keep from double dip recession. Your Impacts are now inevitable as well. NO IMPACT FOR NEG: Spending doesn't cause econ collapse. AFF IMPACT: Only lack of jobs will collapse an economy. No jobs mean no investments which means no new businesses for jobs which means no consumer spending. No consumer spending is the equivalent of a fail economy. Military Disad: No-Link: 3 quarters of current recruit come from above the poverty line, therefore people join the military for other reasons. NO-IMPACT: Military recruits are lowering terminal defense in status quo. So if we get people out of poverty then there is no impact due to people not being in poverty. We must lead with soft power not hard. China is ever close to our hard power but lacks in our soft power. We need to excel in that area to maintain leadership.", "qid": "24", "docid": "4ea709fc-2019-04-18T19:12:04Z-00003-000", "rank": 49, "score": 159827.0}, {"content": "Title: Historically Democrats have presided over more economic stability whereas the GOP is the party of boom and Bust Content: The reason for the apparent superiority of Democrat administrations is that they use government as a job creation service; using taxpayers\u2019 money to create jobs in a bloated federal administration[i]. Ultimately, these are not real jobs as they are not actually producing wealth, merely circulating what already exists. Real growth and real economic health comes from unleashing the innovativeness and industry of the American people to create new businesses and expand existing ones. The Democrat approach leads to taxes rising The Republicans can reduce taxes because they leave the creation of jobs where it belongs \u2013 in the private sector. [i] \u201cHistorical U.S. Job Creation \u2013 Under Democratic and Republican Presidents and President Obama\u201d Democraticunderground.com. 2 September 2011.", "qid": "24", "docid": "8b2eaf6e-2019-04-15T20:22:54Z-00009-000", "rank": 50, "score": 159070.0}, {"content": "Title: Universal Basic Income Content: IntroductionAn unconditional, individual, and universal basic income would indisputably boost the economy and allow many low-income Americans to climb the ladder of social mobility. It would not only lift people above the poverty line and reduce income inequality, but create jobs, lower school dropout rates, improve health, and raise overall economic output. A UBI would enable, rather than trap, those with unfortunate financial situations as it would provide *everyone* money to work with; all would have the fiscal leverage to progress forward when they otherwise wouldn\u2019t.Our current welfare programs, in contrast, do the opposite of what they\u2019re intended for. They encourage passive behavior and inhibit productivity. The means-tested programs withdraw benefits as soon as a certain income is reached, and are burdened with high marginal tax rates so long as their income is below a certain level. Others require people to exhaust nearly all their assets until they become eligible for aid. With so many strings attached, and the overall counter-productive nature, welfare programs simply are inferior to a UBI, and have too many downfalls.Economic/Societal ImpactsThere are several instances of cash transfers, or UBI trials, working. The following examples turn up multiple benefits:Namibia tried out a UBI program, the Basic Income Grant, in 2007-2012. After just one year into the program, household poverty rates dropped from 76% to 37%. Other effects were noted too: income-generating activities rose from 44% to 55% over the time period. Parents were enabled to purchase school uniforms, afford school fees, and encourage attendance because of this problem, and as a result, school dropout rates dropped from 40% to nearly 0% in a year [2].India tried a cash transfer project from 2013-2014 too. The result was that sanitation improved, medicine could be afforded, clean water became more accessible, and participants could eat more regularly [3].Uganda\u2019s UBI trial enabled participants to invest in skill training. The findings were that \u201crelative to the control group, the program increases business assets by 57%, work hours by 17%, and earnings by 38%\u201d [4]. Kenya has an ongoing trial, and it has so far reportedly let to increased happiness and life satisfaction, and reduced depression and stress [5].If we are to quantify the effect this would have in the US, we should look at the current poverty levels. Currently, the poverty level is a $12,140 income for individuals [1]. With my proposed UBI of $10,000, this would pull everyone with an income of a few thousand or more above the line. That\u2019s potentially *millions* of people. The Failure of Welfare ProgramsThe current welfare programs do *not* provide overall work incentives. Most are means-tested, meaning that if you demonstrate that your income and capital are below specified limits, you\u2019re eligible. This can lead to what some call the \u201ccliff effect\u201d: once someone passes an income threshold, that aid is withdrawn, and climbing further up the income ladder becomes more difficult. This issue is maximized when we understand how disadvantaged the poor are tax-wise under welfare. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office, \u201c[found] that the marginal tax rate climbs to 40 percent when a worker earns slightly more than about $12,000, and then to nearly 50 percent in the mid-$20,000 range.\u201d [6] These programs impose high marginal tax rates, essentially trapping these recipients into a large income hole that they can\u2019t climb out of. To put this into better perspective, here\u2019s a graph [7] that shows tax-less income in respect to income earned: These welfare programs are creating a clear poverty trap. Under a universal basic income, this wouldn\u2019t happen. A UBI would extend to *every* person, regardless of what their incomes are, enabling them to have more social mobility than they would under the incredibly flawed welfare programs that are burdening so many lower-income people.But that\u2019s not all. Many welfare programs also have asset limits, meaning that one must have almost no assets to be eligible for benefits. Programs like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) have asset limit ranges from $1,000 in states like Georgia and Texas to $10,000 in Delaware [8]. This is problematic because it discourages the importance of saving and self-reliance; only those who exhaust just about all of their assets become eligible for aid. Savings are very important because they provide cushion against anything that goes wrong. Just having under $2,000, for instance, is enough to protect against eviction, missed meals, or the loss of utilities during a financial setback. To force such recipients to go to the point of being broke to receive benefits in no way incentivizes them to increase their income.To sum, a UBI would (1) significantly reduce poverty and boost economic output, and (2) incentivize people to work in ways our current welfare programs cannot. Thus, I affirm.=Sources=[1] https://www.healthcare.gov...[2] http://www.bignam.org...[3] http://sewabharat.org...[4] https://www.povertyactionlab.org...[5] https://www.princeton.edu...[6] https://www.urban.org...[7] https://www.economist.com...[8] https://www.americanprogress.org...", "qid": "24", "docid": "4d103793-2019-04-18T11:35:54Z-00005-000", "rank": 51, "score": 156545.0}, {"content": "Title: Instituting A Flat Income Tax In America Content: Thanks con , I must reiterate however how close I have brought Con to agree with me on this topic.I will make my points breif and to the point Agian Con's entire case falls on one statement he supposes that a 10% flat tax rate would not be a feasible way to fund our goverment.Con himself says that our lowest income bracket is 10% so under my proposed flat tax rate indeed the entire middle class would be saveing money and paying less tax.From statistics...americans currently spend $300 billion a year in tax preparation costs, to navigate a tax code that is thousands of pages long.Thats right $300 Billion.From the further economic growth that would result from a flat tax it would surely be a better if not equal way of funding our goverments needs and lower the unemployment rate as a result adding jobs would not only cover the tax given by the wealthy but it would give a surplus and spurr economic growth.America could and would be doing much better with a flat tax rate,that is if we want to create jobs , reduce our debt and grow as a nation.Thanks.Sources 1)Logic2)Cons own arguements3)http://www.usnews.com...; Americans currently spend $300 billion a year in tax preparation costs, to navigate a tax code that is thousands of pages long.", "qid": "24", "docid": "4c1d241f-2019-04-18T16:53:56Z-00000-000", "rank": 52, "score": 155070.0}, {"content": "Title: More People Should be Helped by the Government into College Content: Now, on to business. You say that the government would be bankrupted because of this. But, if people were to make more money they would be paying a larger income tax and spending more money, thus improving the economy. Though I admit that there is an unemployment rate, this would not necessarily raise it. It would merely mean an increase of jobs that aren't common in America, such as physicists, chemists, engineers, etc. Thus leading us to greater technological advancement. Then there are the kids who can't afford to go to college, who have the intellect, but not the dough. People would still have to meet the high standards of colleges to get accepted. Seeing how America is spending $1,000 dollars a second in Iraq it would stand to reason that we can send Americans to a better future in medicine or engineering or finances, instead of to their deaths!", "qid": "24", "docid": "b72eb951-2019-04-18T19:45:34Z-00003-000", "rank": 53, "score": 154848.0}, {"content": "Title: its government Big and Beefy Content: Reducing the size of government and, therefore, the amount it takes in tax frees up money which consumers can spend on goods or for companies to expand: Both create jobs", "qid": "24", "docid": "442da727-2019-04-15T20:22:50Z-00002-000", "rank": 54, "score": 154033.0}, {"content": "Title: Higher taxes discourage hard work. Content: \"America\u2019s producers can compete successfully in the international arena \u2013 as long as they have a level playing field. Today\u2019s tax code is tilted against them, with one of the highest corporate tax rates of all developed countries. That not only hurts American investors, managers, and the U.S. balance of trade; it also sends American jobs overseas. We support a major reduction in the corporate tax rate so that American companies stay competitive with their foreign counterparts and American jobs can remain in this country.\"", "qid": "24", "docid": "70ffe88-2019-04-17T11:47:25Z-00119-000", "rank": 55, "score": 154001.0}, {"content": "Title: corparate companies not paying tax Content: I know that the corporates are making a lot of money. But, they are also the job makers. Without them people will be unemployed. Therefore, corporates are already doing a favor to the society, and therefore they do not need to give more to the society by paying taxes.", "qid": "24", "docid": "8e1cbc04-2019-04-18T17:28:34Z-00002-000", "rank": 56, "score": 153841.0}, {"content": "Title: Job Creation in the US - Tax outsourcing, Put unemployment beneficiaries to work Content: \"My opponent states that by NOT solving ALL factors of the economic crisis is a waste of time and money. I disagree, helping people getting back to work is a good thing, it might not solve the entire economic crisis, but I think its a step in the right direction. \" My opponent neglects the fact that although this might create, jobs for the united states, it would require constant regulation by the U. S government, which in turn would require money to allow for regulation. \"Estimates of the costs imposed on the national economy by federal regulation reach $500 billion a year. In Indianapolis, that means more than $1 billion a year is sapped from our local economy just to comply with federal regulations. \" (. http://www.cato.org...) As of right now, the government cannot spend money on an idea that simply resolves a small sector of the United States economic crisis, rather, it needs to focus on the bigger picture (a way to repair huge amounts of the economic crisis. ) \"This idea can actually save the government money because they are receiving money from the corporations for supplying these workers. \" Like i mentioned earlier, the enforcement and regulation of new taxes will cost the United states huge amount of money thus increasing other taxes placed upon the United States citizens. my opponent failed to provide us with evidence as to how much this resolution could save the government or even how much to charge these companies. For this reason, passing this resolution would be a huge risk, as we are unaware as to how effective it could be. In addition, to spending money on enforcing and regulating this tax, the United States government would have to develop a means to punish whatever company fails to pay the money as well as spend more money enforcing these consequences. In conclusion, my opponent has provided no specific information on how effective this resolution might be and how to properly regulate the tax with minimum cost.", "qid": "24", "docid": "3af97b-2019-04-18T18:41:17Z-00002-000", "rank": 57, "score": 153659.0}, {"content": "Title: Taxes on the affluent should be increased. Content: Amid the worst financial cataclysm since the Great Depression, one factor remains constant: discussions in the Beltway are centered around deficit reduction and what can be \"slashed\" from the budget. They speak of short-term pain in order to prevent long-term pain. But who bears the brunt of that pain? The answer is simple: the poor, the middle class, and those struggling to make it. The wealthy, who have done better than ever -- with corporate profits at all-time highs, with the stock market continuing to rise, with taxes lower than they've been since 1950 -- are not asked to bear any of this pain. And why is that? Because many of them -- the Koch brothers, Exxon executives, et al -- are lobbying politicians for breaks and preferences, leading many to claim that we cannot engage in a meaningful discussion on whether to increase taxes for the affluent because, in so doing, we would \"be creating too much uncertainty in the marketplace\" and \"strangling job creators.\" I'll be making the case that neither of those are so. First, taxes are at historic lows as of now, and many wealthy individuals pay significantly lower than do middle-income and poor individuals. Take Mitt Romney, for instance: his income comes from investments, and thus he can pay a rate as low as 14% on millions of dollars in earnings. Is that fair when a family earning $50,000 is paying a rate of roughly 23%? But this is fair, says Mitt and friends, because the low rate provides for them an \"incentive to invest.\" Let me pose the obvious question to you, though: if we took the advice of Ronald Reagan and Art Laffer -- yes, I went there -- and taxed capital gains as regular income, would you hold your money? Would you funnel more of it to the Cayman Islands or Switzerland? Doubtful. As Warren Buffet pointed out, increases in the capital gains rate pose no deterrent to the willingness to invest. The chief factor is -- as business surveys even point out -- is demand. And right now, demand is struggling because the economy is struggling. The engine of the economy is the demand function -- consumers of modest incomes who spend roughly 100% of what they earn because they have to in order to survive, as opposed to their affluent counterparts who are more apt to save any increase in what they earn. But, say conservatives, saving is a good thing: a dollar saved is a dollar invested, so goes Say's Law. This is also a fallacy, rooted in an assumption. Investment decisions, as I stressed, are rooted in the demand for the product. Without demand, it doesn't matter how many resources companies and investors have -- they're simply going to horde them until the economy improves (or invest them overseas). In fact, executives are sitting on roughly $2 trillion in capital that they're not investing. Tax rates are at all-time lows. Why aren't they investing that money? Because doing so will create a \"glut\" of capital. With zero-bound interest rates, it is actually a good investment now to simply hold cash. Finally -- since I would like to leave a number of topics fairly open at this point in the discussion -- I would like to tackle the most commonplace arguments for tax cuts: the notion that they have created jobs. Here's the truth: rates were as high as 91% in the three decades following World War II, and yet we saw the most prosperous economy in American history. But wait, conservatives say: No one paid 91%! While they're partially correct, effective rates were as high as 56-58% -- significantly higher than they are now. Bill Clinton, again, raised taxes, and oversaw a booming economy. But as Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, and even Barack Obama cut taxes, the U.S. economy stagnated; in the case of Reagan and Bush, deficits spiraled out of control, and Reagan even raised taxes 11 times. I thought the point of the Laffer curve was that, if taxes are cut, the federal government would take in more revenue. Why didn't that happen? Because the rate would need to be as high as 70-80% to find ourselves on the downward-sloping portion of the Laffer curve. Now, rates are nowhere close to that point. So, let me make my position clear: I do not believe that marginal rates should be returned to what they were under Einsenhower. Simply, I'd like tax rates that allow the federal government enough revenue to invest in roads, bridges, highways, education, health care, job training, research, green energy, etc -- all the things that in which we collectively invest in order to create a better society -- in order to create jobs and prop up a deeply depressed economy. What the actual rate ought to be is not of much concern to me, and I can't say I have a figure offhand. The fact of the matter is, we know from the data and from history that the wealthy are not going to take their businesses elsewhere; that the economy will not shed jobs; that there will be no calamity. With that said, I welcome any challengers, and eagerly await a vigorous discussion.", "qid": "24", "docid": "5993a6ac-2019-04-18T16:46:48Z-00009-000", "rank": 58, "score": 153621.0}, {"content": "Title: The American Jobs Act Helps Small Business and Creates Jobs Content: The American Jobs Act helps small businesses and is also set to significantly increase the number of jobs available to people. Small enterprise is particularly important in the creation of jobs because these businesses tend to be start-up businesses. Many start-ups are entrepreneurial in character, and succeed or fail on their ability to identify and exploit new markets. Increasing investment in new and emergency markets spurs the creation of additional jobs within those markets. Thanks to the cuts in payroll tax contained in the Jobs Act, many small businesses will stand to benefit by gaining some of the money paid to the government back. The President\u2019s plan will also eliminate payroll taxes entirely if firms add new workers or increase the wages of their current workers. As such, there will be significant incentives for small businesses to hire more workers.\u00ad1 Cuts to payroll taxes, combined with the other changes planned by the bill, are estimated to create 100,000 jobs a month for the next year, accompanied by a projected 1.25% increase in GDP. Moody\u2019s Analytics is even more optimistic about the likely benefits to the American economy should the act pass, predicting growth rates at 2% and claiming that 1.9 million jobs will be created as a result.5", "qid": "24", "docid": "cc95487f-2019-04-15T20:22:50Z-00011-000", "rank": 59, "score": 153285.0}, {"content": "Title: Will open opportunities for new businesses Content: If people were able to travel easily to areas slightly out of urban areas then businesses could take advantage of cheaper ground rents out of the city and yet easy access to employees. With more businesses able to start up, the Government would be able to take advantage of more tax. This would mean less benefits paid for unemployment benefit as jobs are created out of the city, and more tax via income tax, and then more tax revenue via corporation tax on the business. This additional revenue could offset the loss of income from public transport. In our dying economy, this is what is needed.", "qid": "24", "docid": "cecebeb2-2019-04-19T12:47:39Z-00020-000", "rank": 60, "score": 152722.0}, {"content": "Title: welfare to poor people Content: Lots of people go to these job-training programs, but increasing your skills does not mean there are any more jobs available. According to ed.gov going to job-training programs it leads to you getting lower wages. There are not a lot of these programs available or they can not go. Unless you have been there, like me and my mom currently, you won't see how hard it is and how it keeps you functioning. Also, you can create rolling taxes; the more money you earn the more, not by much, more tax pay.", "qid": "24", "docid": "39afca35-2019-04-18T15:35:58Z-00001-000", "rank": 61, "score": 152714.0}, {"content": "Title: The American Jobs Act Helps Small Business and Creates Jobs Content: The American Jobs Act may be projected to create a lot of jobs. However, this comes following tax cuts and a fiscal stimulus package in 2009. In the past these measures to help the economy failed, with unemployment remaining stagnant at around 25 million despite the efforts by the government in 2009. The reason this occurred in 2009 is that despite the stimulus package there was a strong degree of uncertainty within the economy. As such, even though consumers and producers were facing a lower tax burden it became apparent that neither group was willing to take big risks in a highly uncertain economic environment. The possibility of recession was all too apparent, and this affected both business and consumer confidence. Given the Eurozone crisis at the moment, the situation in 2011 is very similar, with much of the world economy waiting on the outcome in Europe to see whether recession or recovery awaits. Such a climate is not conducive to risk taking on the part of firms. Hiring extra workers, for example, might be a profitable activity, however, it also entails significant risk as the firm has to be able to guarantee that it will get more out of the worker than it ends up paying. The current state of world markets is not conducive to a stimulus package and it would simply be better to wait out the Eurozone crisis and then deal with the coming problems in an environment that is more confident and that is populated by actors equipped with greater understanding of the direction of the world and American economies.6", "qid": "24", "docid": "cc95487f-2019-04-15T20:22:50Z-00010-000", "rank": 62, "score": 152573.0}, {"content": "Title: Jobs Act could create over 100,000 jobs per month. Content: Jacki Calmes and Binyamin Applebaum. \"Bigger Economic Role for Washington.\" New York Times. September 13th, 2011: \"The jobs package of tax cuts and spending initiatives could add 100,000 to 150,000 jobs a month over the next year, according to estimates from several of the country\u2019s best-known forecasting firms; the potential Fed actions could add 15,000 more jobs a month over two years.[...] the firm projected that the plan would add roughly 1.25 percentage points to gross domestic product and create 1.3 million jobs in 2012. JPMorgan Chase estimated that the plan would increase growth by 1.9 points and add 1.5 million jobs. Most bullish is Moody\u2019s Analytics, which forecast that the package would add 1.9 million jobs, cutting the unemployment rate by a point, and increase growth by two percentage points.\"", "qid": "24", "docid": "e3fe80a5-2019-04-17T11:47:19Z-00030-000", "rank": 63, "score": 152551.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: The USFG should adopt across-the-board tax cuts for individual and corporate tax brackets Content: I don't have time to do this right now. I've been swamped at work. My arguments were going to be, in short -- 1. Lowering taxes on the rich increases income inequality. Income inequality is a serious problem. 2. Economic inequality has a huge set of social harms associated with it. Under almost any value criterion except \"GDP growth,\" I win the debate on this point alone (e.g. if you use a happiness index or something like that to measure policies). 3. It's not clear that the \"economic growth\" from lowering taxes outweighs the \"economic harm\" from inequality. There's tons of evidence showing inequality actually slows growth, and possibly slows it even more than lowering taxes increases it. Given the uncertainty there, I'd say it's a clear vote for Con in this debate. Unfortunately, I don't have time to make the arguments. I'm gonna leave it up to 16k whether he wants to tie the debate and do this another time, or whether he wants to accept a win. Up to him. I'm okay with either one -- not in this for the win stats.", "qid": "24", "docid": "4688fcc6-2019-04-18T14:43:50Z-00004-000", "rank": 64, "score": 152490.0}, {"content": "Title: Hillary Clinton better than Donald Trump Content: In my opinion, both are terrible, but Trump is the lesser of the two. For one, Trump has called for abolishing the minimum wage, which is a big plus. His tax plan would significantly reduce marginal tax rates on all classes. It has been estimated that his tax plan would increase the size of the capital stock by roughly 29%, would increase wages by 6.5%, and give americans 5.3 million more full time paying jobs. Compare this to Clinton's tax plan, where it has been estimated that long run real GDP will drop by 1%, capital investment would drop by 2.8%, and wages would drop by approx. 1%. The US economy needs economic growth. We are nearly a decade past the 08 crash and we are STILL hesitant to raise interest rates from post recession levels. U6 unemployment is still at 9%, inflation isn't budging. There is also the matter of international affairs, while Clinton was pro-middle eastern intervention, Trump was against it. The world plain and simple needs a strong America, lest regional conflicts flare up (see Russia and Urkraine.) Trump would embody strength, I have serious doubts Clinton would be able to do this. In conclusion, both Trump and Hillary are awful in my opinion, but Trump will serve our most urgent needs, and that is economic problems and geopolitical strife. I look forward to engaging in this topic with you further.", "qid": "24", "docid": "75d82f5e-2019-04-18T13:03:42Z-00000-000", "rank": 65, "score": 152220.0}, {"content": "Title: The US should reform its Corporate Tax Content: If the USA corporate taxes were reformed not only would competition be hindered but severely hurt as the bigger companies would be more empowered and would have more money to invest and that would hinder small companies who would be crushed by this new weight that would be the lowered tax rates of the bigger companies and thus smaller companies would be hindered by these new huge assets. The bigger companies would have much more investment power and the smaller companies would have a little bit more, but these rates would be unrivaled by those of the bigger companies. Moreover it would be quite unlikely for foreign companies to go to the US, for still a 20% corporate tax rate, although slightly lower than the EU average (21.34) would not be very attractive since that would require that the companies from the EU, whom I guess might be some potential targets of the movement move their legal residences to the US and that would exclude them from the EU subsidies. It would be very unlikely for target companies to be from the third world since the tax rates there are already pretty low or at the very least the tax codes are full of loopholes.", "qid": "24", "docid": "3b46eaaf-2019-04-18T16:12:59Z-00003-000", "rank": 66, "score": 152130.0}, {"content": "Title: The US should reform its Corporate Tax Content: The DebateIn this debate, I will argue that the American corporate tax rate should be reformed and lowered in order to benefit the economy and the government.RulesRound 1: Acceptance onlyRound 2: Present argumentsRound 3: Refute opponent's argumentsRound 4: Make final cases/refutations and conclusion", "qid": "24", "docid": "3b46eaaf-2019-04-18T16:12:59Z-00006-000", "rank": 67, "score": 151732.0}, {"content": "Title: Presdiential debate Content: America, home to the strongest economy in the world. In recent years, we have seen this nation crawl through a near crippling recession and an ever growing debt crisis. If I am to be elected, the economy shall be my first and foremost priority. The first and Immediate step towards economic prosperity would be to lower the corporate income tax from our current 35% to 11%. This is, without question, a radical cut. Many may claim that such a cut would be disastrous to our economy. However, such a tax rate is already in place in the nation of Ireland ( 12.5%) If one is to look at Ireland's economy, you will quickly see that Ireland is now the fastest growing pharmaceuticals and technological economy in Europe. Such Corporations as Google, have placed their European HQ in Ireland for the very reason of their very low Corp tax rate. Of the ten largest pharmaceuticals companies in the world, nine of them have an HQ in Ireland. In the last ten years, twenty major US corporations have moved abroad to the emerald isle. In light of all of this massive success that Ireland has obtained, much of it at the expense of the American people, it is only reasonable, nay imperative that we must take up their example, not only as to mimic them, but to rival them; and bring back the corporations that we have lost overseas, and possibly attract more forign business. As to America's great natural resource abundance that God has so thankfully bestowed upon us, we must exploit it. Most Americans believe that most of the oil that we consume comes from the middle east, this would be false. Nearly 40% of all fuel used in the US comes from home. With untapped massive natural oil reserves in Alaska, and small but numerous oil deposits scattered throughout the Midwest, I believe that we can do even better. I believe that if we allow our business both big and small, to fracking into these deposits across the nation, we may be able to reach 60% oil independence. It would be counter productive to ban fracking, as many people across this nation would want, and it would be ignorant to do so on claims that have been discredited by nearly every expert to have delved into the matter. Fracking provides us the opportunity to produce more oil products, and with more oil being produced at home, we will be able to drastically cut back on our imports from foreign nations. Another thing that I will attack is America's spending problem. America spends over 800,000,000$ dollars on health and human services, 600,000,00$ dollars on defense, and 600,000,000$ dollars on education. If I am to be elected president, then I will institute reviews on money distribution and performance rates on all of these programs, and many more. I will systematically cut from the budget what is not being used or misused. Note, that for education and defense and I will not cut any employees. I would then systematically place this new found money in any new or under financed project of the US government. To also curve over spending and artificial interest rates, I would dissolve the Federal reserve. The Federal Reserve has stood since it's beginning only to serve \"to big to fail banks\" and a few notable European families. They have created a monetary monopoly and have caused this nation to go into recession on more than one occasion. In place of the Fed, I would set up a national bank system to monitor banknote supplying entities. Banknote supplying entities would be supplying the same banknotes at the same price but independently of the federal or state government. The National bank system would keep these entities in check so as to keep the system from becoming to over or under supplied. I have presented what I will do if I am to become president, I do hope that you, the voter, may share in my view of the future. I await my opponents response.", "qid": "24", "docid": "c51c9f3c-2019-04-18T15:43:56Z-00006-000", "rank": 68, "score": 151488.0}, {"content": "Title: the federal income tax should be abolished Content: when you tax something, you discourage it. you discourage productivity, savings and innovation and ship jobs overseas. we pay taxes on everything we do and the government has an exclusive privilege to our property. we want to encourage production, so we should not tax it. rather, we should tax consumption through a 23% national sales tax. we'd have more jobs and more opportunities with this. businesses right now are already suffering because of obamacare and excessive regulations.", "qid": "24", "docid": "a01e51a9-2019-04-18T16:36:28Z-00003-000", "rank": 69, "score": 151420.0}, {"content": "Title: American Jobs Act Content: AJA reduces taxes, allowing small businesses to grow/hire.", "qid": "24", "docid": "e3fe80a5-2019-04-17T11:47:19Z-00027-000", "rank": 70, "score": 151346.0}, {"content": "Title: The Jobs Act Redresses the Balance Between the Wealthy and the Middle Class Content: The social problems that have taken root in America result from a number of converging causes. While many individuals may desperately want to contribute to the debate surrounding these problems, attributing the declining performance of the American economy highly visible social divisions is misleading and unproductive. The division between rich and poor as well as the low taxes on the rich exist because a lower tax burden on the rich promotes innovation within economies. Specifically, it is often the rich that engage in enterprise, be it through their own businesses or as part of large corporations. The lower tax burden on the rich makes taking risks in order to develop new technology more profitable for the people making those risks. Promotion of enterprise and risk during recessions should be a priority for American policy makers, because it is often new products that drive economic growth by creating new markets which drive demand and also by increasing productivity. As such, an increase on the tax burden for the rich in the American economy is problematic because it hurts this method of recovery. It should also be mentioned that simply lowering the tax burden on the poor is likely to be impossible at this time without significantly increasing a U.S. deficit that has already been downgraded by credit rating agencies. In allowing the deficit to increase further the U.S. would have to pay back significantly more in the future owing to higher interest. This approach to fiscal policy has been heavily criticised by the chairman of Forbes Inc. Steve Forbes.4 As such, it is opposition\u2019s opinion that whilst such a change might address issues of social cohesion in the U.S, the cost to the economy from doing so is too great. Further, social cohesion could easily be encouraged through other, less economically harmful measures such as tightening up regulation on banking. Doing so helps the economy and plays against the \u201cGreedy bankers\u201d rhetoric that proposition mentions.", "qid": "24", "docid": "cc95487f-2019-04-15T20:22:50Z-00008-000", "rank": 71, "score": 151124.0}, {"content": "Title: the federal income tax should be abolished Content: High cost of labor sends jobs overseas. Employers don't pay income taxes. Sales taxes are in fact regressive (1) whether or not you exempt products like food. Low spending does result in low GDP. That's just basic economics. GDP= NX+consumer spending+g+i. You can't just say correlation=/=causation and wave that away. Low spending=low gdp. That is a fact. What calculations do you have to prove that that particular tax rate yields the same revenue as our current system? None.", "qid": "24", "docid": "a01e51a9-2019-04-18T16:36:28Z-00000-000", "rank": 72, "score": 150577.0}, {"content": "Title: Republicans are the best at stimulating economic growth Content: The tax cuts proposed by President Bush and passed by a Republican Congress ensured that real, after-tax income was up 15% by 2006. The Dow Jones hit record Highs during his time in office. These tax cuts were responsible for the creation of 6.6 million jobs, primarily in the private sector \u2013 real jobs producing real goods and providing real services not tax-payer funded sinecures to mask the reality of the economic situation.[i] [i] The White House, \u201cFact Sheet: Job Creation Continues \u2013 More than 6.6 Million Jobs Created Since August 2003\u201d, 6 October 2006, http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2006/10/20061006-1.html", "qid": "24", "docid": "8b2eaf6e-2019-04-15T20:22:54Z-00016-000", "rank": 73, "score": 150378.0}, {"content": "Title: Job Creation in the US - Tax outsourcing, Put unemployment beneficiaries to work Content: \"The regulation is already in place, it would just be an additional item for the IRS to check during audits. The incremental cost is minimal.\" The IRS is a total complete wreck. It has shown several reasons or situation in which it is unable to properly regulate taxes. Given them another Tax to regulate would be equivalent to giving a severe mentally retarded child pre-cal test and expect an A. \"The regulation is already in place, it would just be an additional item for the IRS to check during audits. The incremental cost is minimal.\" (http://blog.aicpa.org...) \"The source my opponent selected is not in the same context as to my plan to use existing IRS auditing procedures.\" I ask my opponent this question, were is prove of effectiveness. We cannot pass a resolution simply because it looks good on the outside, we have to go in depth to assure us that this will be an effective program. Our economy today, does not give us opportunity to simply waste money in passing a resolution that will in turn fail with no benefits. To properly reduce the unemployment rate in the United States, the answer is not to Tax companies for overworking there employee, but to build new job in which people are able to apply for. \"The risks are minimal since their are no significant additional expenses to enforce the resolution as I point out above, and reward is incredible. People getting back to work, learning new skills, feeling productive, networking.\" Taxing companies on the basis that there are minimal cost in regulation would be mutiny as the government is now taxing its citizens without giving them a clear understanding as to how the enforced tax is going o help the public. This would be equivalent to letting criminals run free on the basis that freeing prisoners is more cost efficient than imprisoning them. Ones again, my opponent has provided no evidence as to how this is beneficiary to us, thus failing to meet his burden of proof. For the reasons that i have countered all his points, i urge you to vote Con on the basis of superior case as well as a better argument. Thank You.", "qid": "24", "docid": "3af97b-2019-04-18T18:41:17Z-00000-000", "rank": 74, "score": 149607.0}, {"content": "Title: Corporate taxes should be lowered Content: So, the economy is still in bad shape. By that, I mean that there is still less buying and selling because corporations have to pay so much to stay in business. After sales, consumption, income, property, and corporate taxes businesses would barely have enough for salary or profit (if any). The result would be a decrease in spending which can be a precursor for recession. The recession is based on the health of the economy by how much people buy or sell, and the law of demand states that even the slightest price increase can lead to significant results. Another result would be high unemployment, because different companies have to pay their workers on top of these taxes which they sometimes find hard to do. Some people might think that the people already working there would just be paid more, well it depends. Most trustworthy and intelligent managers would hire more labor instead of investing more in what they already have. Given these facts, I think that taxes should be lowered overall for businesses so that they can hire more labor, get more resources, and supply better qualities of the product. https://en.wikipedia.org... https://en.wikipedia.org... http://taxfoundation.org...", "qid": "24", "docid": "4cd87808-2019-04-18T17:29:44Z-00003-000", "rank": 75, "score": 149310.0}, {"content": "Title: Inflation is worse than unemployment Content: The value of the dollar has no value when there are no liquid assets to spend. What I mean by this is simply that inflation lowers buying power but only extreme inflation really has a more tangible effect lowering economic standing to the point where it's crippling however a total lack of assets is definitely fatal to one's buying power and doesn't have a degrading effect against the dollar because there are no dollars to degrade. Unemployment effects three distinct systems which worsen the outcome for all citizens: 1. The Private Citizen: With no money they cannot buy anything. 2. The Corporate Entity: With no buyers they cannot produce profits. 3. The State: With no jobs for the citizens SUTA is reduced, Unemployment is increased with the stores for governmental money being depleted perhaps beyond the fund that SUTA was built for, and no taxation can be collected on other fronts for services provided by the city which create deficits within the city itself. All of this is cyclic however in when the Private Citizen cannot buy from the Corporate Entity the Corporate Entity cannot pay The State which causes the Corporate Entity to leave which lowers job market for the Private Citizen which only worsens unemployment and lowers SUTA taxation which in turn greatly increases the government deficit causing The Government to eventually go bankrupt due to being unable to meet the obligations of it's citizenry. While inflation can indeed raise prices to the point where maintaining person's on payroll is difficult and some have to be released so long as the business itself does not close down it pays SUTA and furthermore it won't leave the locale; if it does not leave then money is generated, or rather funds are passed, and the economic condition of all entities tends to stabilize and survive whatever dryspell is causing the issues such as a recession or even just a change in the natural resources of an area or natural disaster.", "qid": "24", "docid": "8ca760ee-2019-04-18T14:50:49Z-00002-000", "rank": 76, "score": 148842.0}, {"content": "Title: John McCain will make a better president than Barack Obama Content: New Points: 1.My opponent dropped the argument about $4,000 for college being helpful. We are in FULL AGREEMENT. 2.He agrees that the Bush Tax Cuts are hurtful. 3.Obama will create more jobs for the environment. 4.Obama will send drug users to rehab for part of their prison sentence, which will reduce the amount of drug users. 5.Obama will give the middle class tax cuts. 6.Obama will give all workers 7 sick days a year. 7.Obama will cut income taxes 100% for seniors who make under $50,000. 8.Obama will help fight age, sex, and race discrimination in corporate America. 9.Obama will not be influenced by lobbyists. 10.He will be bipartisan, honest. >>> 'PAYGO wont work.' 'He'll just raise taxes.' +++ PAYGO is a great system and not using PAYGO hurts the dollar. The way that the war is funded is from borrowed money. Borrowing money lowers the value of the dollar. A lower valued dollar makes buying things internationally more expensive, like oil. In 2000, the dollar was 1 Euro. Now, the dollar is $1.60 that of the Euro (even with Bush's experience). This makes oil more expensive for us and when oil is more expensive, gas is more expensive, which hurts the economy tremendously. (http://www.politico.com...) >>> 'Experience important' 'Obama lost popular vote' 'Minimal participation in caucases' +++ Experience is not as important as you're making it. Bush has tremendous experience and neither of us support him. He has 33% approval. +++ Obama won the popular vote. That calculation is a lie. That count doesn't count caucases correctly and skips the whole state of Michigan. +++ Many of the caucases had record turnout. >>> '13 yrs of military experience.' 'Survived due to patriotism' +++ Most of his experience was during prison, which is why he's one of the few people who supported Vietnam War after war. +++ Why would they care how patriotic he was? >>> 'Bitter comment proves Obama is out of touch' +++ Obama was once poor and middle class unlike McCain who is and always was rich. Obama also will give tax cuts to the middle class while McCain will give them to the rich. >>> 'The experience should be in the right places.' +++ Obama was a lawyer, editor, senator, legislator, community organizer. McCain was a marine and a senator. Obama was in all economic classes. McCain was always rich. >>> 'I said McCain's military experience \u2013 not the war in Iraq' +++ You said his military experience will help him with the war. And I proved you wrong. >>> 'Leadership.' +++ Obama was the head editor or the law paper at Harvard. >>> 'Legislative' +++ I strongly debated the point. I did not drop it. Stop lying! B) Judgment >>> 'Rev. Wright' +++ This gotcha does not prove anything about Obama's judgment. Nobody leaves a church because they disagree with the pastor on small issues. >>> '3am ad' +++ You said it was a non sequitor. And didn't explain the whole ad. I didn't say the 3am ad justified his whole experience. This was your point! >>> 'Lack of voting' +++ In Chicago politics, abstaining from a vote is responsible. Everybody does it. You know it. The same article also says it was \"part of a larger party or issue bloc strategy.\" ...more lies from you pro... >>> 'Iraq stabilizing' '4000 lives in vain' 'Democracy' 'Security of Petroleum' +++ NPR (one of your sources) says the Iraq War is destabilzing the region and strengthening Iran and Al Qaida (www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9914868) +++ More Americans will die if we do not pull out of Iraq. +++ Obama will talk to leaders about democracy instead of shooting their people, which will obviously not bring democracy. +++ My first point shows how the Iraq War hurts oil prices. And damagging ties with OPEC countries, through this war, is obviously not good. >>> This is the most obvious lie you've told yet. PRO said that Obama never opposed the war. I said \"Obama did oppose the war! This is a lie! (http://en.wikisource.org......'s_Iraq_Speech).\" Obviously, I was referring to his lie about Obama's supporting the war. I wasn't saying what I just said was a lie. My opponent is so desperate, he has resorted to blatant dishonesty to win. >>> 'Pulling out will destabalize the Middle East.' 'Iran will invade Iraq.' +++ Obama will talk with Syria and Iran and make sure they do not go in Iraq. He will use sanction threats, military threats, etc, hard power if necessary. >>> 'Large violence in Iraq' +++ This large violence is because America is killing people over there. We've killed 104,000+. >>> 'Bad war' +++ No. That's really stupid. >>> 'You cannot amend NAFTA' +++ Obama will not stop free trade. He will change little aspects to more benefit Americans, unlike McCain. >>> (ii) +++ No. Still irrelevant. >>> 'PAYGO untenable' +++ No. It is necessary. PAYGO worked from 1990 to 1998 until Clinton got a surplus and Congress started cheating. Then Bush (with his experience) got rid of PAYGO in 2001 for his tax cuts and other acts. >>> '9/11 brought a recession' +++ How would 9/11 have possibly created a recession? Accounting scandals, the burst of the dot com bubble, and Bush's reactions to 9/11 caused the recession. Even with his experience. >>> 'Already competitive bidding' +++ Obama will force all contracts to be bidded so we can get the best price and not run into another Enron scandal. >>> 'Kuschrev bullied JFK' +++ This is completely unsupported but the fact is there was no nuclear explosion on America because of Kennedy's willingness to negotiate. >>> 'Bush never talked to N. Korea' +++ Lies! He did talk to North Korea! (http://www.foxnews.com...) >>> 'Negotiating with Al Qaida will legitimize them' +++ They are already legitimate. The PATRIOT Act, which undermines trhe constitution in fear of Al Qaida is worse than negotiating face to face. They want us to be terrified and talking to them is what will make us not loose. Not letting them do as they please. >>> (Other points:ii) +++ Who is \"he?\" >>> 'Hitler invaded Poland after negotiations' +++ Negotiating with Hitler didn't cause him to invade Poland. Those talks probably prolonged the invasion. You did drop the point last round: FULL AGREEMENT. The cold shoulder never worked. >>> 'Bush tax cuts' +++ These were in place during his two recessions. Obama will give the money to the middle class who needs it. >>> McCain will not force children to have care, will not force high risk patients on companies, and will not simplify info. Obama's plan still allows you to choose and does all these other nice things. McCain just gives you a mild tax credit. >>> (iii) +++ What? What filibuster? How do you know they wont get 66%? >>> 'Abortion' +++ It's a woman's choice. A neglected child is bad for themselves, the parents, and society. >>> 'Medical infrastructure' 'National debt' +++ McCain will give tax breaks to all Americans. Both plans will give all Americans the option of health care. McCain just lets children die, etc. >>> 'PAYGO fails' +++ The GOP killed PAYGO out of irresponsibility. But it lasted well for 8 years and didn't get revoked for 11 years. >>> 'Iraq War' +++ The increases gas prices, weakens relationships, costs tremendously, and kills people. Stabilizing the region can be achieved through talks and help, not destroying the place. >>> 'Bush Tax Cuts' +++ We're not going in the same order because I have more points than you. Can you please show me where you mentioned Bush Tax Cuts in that round? Exactly! >>> 'Public diplomacy' +++ Talking to other people. >>> 'NCLB works' +++ Prove it! >>> 'Zoning overcrowds schools' +++ I go to a school that was overcrowded due to NCLB. We cant build a new school at every block. We have to divide it reasonably. Not send all the low performing students to a good school and keep the other lower performing students at the bad school. Please vote for the honest debater with the better arguments", "qid": "24", "docid": "6d19b68f-2019-04-18T19:42:05Z-00003-000", "rank": 77, "score": 148791.0}, {"content": "Title: American Corporate Tax Rates Were Too High Before Tax Reform Content: Thanks to tcow2970 for initiating the debate.Opening statement will be short, as the nature of the debate demands that pro must uphold the proposition that Taxes were indeed *excessively high* prior to tax reform. Government SpendingOver several decades, overall spending as a percent of GDP has followed a positive trend, as noted by reference [1]. That being said, to supplement such increased levels in spending, we either (a) raise taxes, or (b) accept higher levels of national debt. Option b) is undesirable because long-term debt does play into the devaluation of US treasury bonds, which would eventually reduce the ability to defecit-spend your way out of a recession. Thus, we are left with option a). Suggestions could be made to decrease spending, but such discussion is outside of the scope of this debate.Effectiveness of Reducing Corporate TaxesAs I am not intending to prove that lowering the tax is effective, but rather that the taxes prior to the tax cut are not excessive, I am not required to advocate for any specific position. Instead, I intend to question the impact a reduced tax rate will have on the general economy. Commonly it is said that lower taxes often produce a 'trickle-down effect' - that is, essentially when corporate taxes are lowered, they are better able to finance the cost of a larger number of workers at higher salaries. However, such logic has never actually been verified in practice. It is also important to note that corporate income taxes aren't fixed at the 35% number often thrown around by Republicans. The corporate income taxes rates also follow brackets. [2].References[1] https://blogs-images.forbes.com...[2] https://www.thebalance.com...", "qid": "24", "docid": "d681ff4e-2019-04-18T11:51:12Z-00000-000", "rank": 78, "score": 148668.0}, {"content": "Title: increasing taxes, as a practical matter, is necessary for the financial well being of the USA* Content: My CaseThe Laffer CurveTo understand raising taxes to increase government revenue would be a good idea, we must look at the Laffer curve. The Laffer curve, which Dr. Arthur Laffer leant his name to the curve after discussing it with some aides from the Ford administration, shows the relationship between tax rates and tax revenues. I will link a picture to show what it looks like. Basically, there is a prohibitive range and you don't want to raise taxes very high or else you will actually lose revenue. This is because people will start moving their money to tax shelters and some might reduce their production and work less if they are not making enough money. In the end, higher rates decrease revenue. Instead, lower tax rates increase revenue because people will start pulling money out of their shelters. Lower rates also means more economic growth. [1,2]Dr. Laffer also says: \"Moving from total tax revenues to budgets, there is one expenditure effect in addition to the two effects that tax-rate changes have on revenues. Because tax cuts create an incentive to increase output, employment, and production, they also help balance the budget by reducing means-tested government expenditures. A faster-growing economy means lower unemployment and higher incomes, resulting in reduced unemployment benefits and other social welfare programs.\" [1] HistoryTo understand if this really works, we must look at history and see if it has work and there are four major examples of income taxes getting cut and driving up a surplus while also creating massive economy growth.I. Harding-Coolidge Tax CutsWhen President Woodrow Wilson left the White House, the country was in a recession and we were in massive debt. The new president, Warren G. Harding, responded by cutting taxes from Wilson's 77% rate to 50%. When Harding died, Coolidge cut the rate down to 25%. What followed was massive economic growth and a huge budget surplus.Federal real revenue growth increased from -9.2% to 0.1%. Did more and people may more taxes? The answer is yes because the unemployment rate reduced dramatically allow more people to pay taxes. In fact, the rich payed more in taxes than the poor with their lower rates. In 1920, the share of revenue for those with over an income of $100,000 was 29.9%, but it was 62.2% by 1929. The national debt went from $28 billion to $17.65 billion. [1,3]II. Kennedy Tax CutsJohn F. Kennedy was also a supporter of cutting taxes. From Coolidge's lower 25% rate, taxes rose to a staggering 90%. However, people started moving their money to tax shelters and through loopholes, so the government never received the revenue it needed. Kennedy wanted to lower the tax rates to increase economic growth and government revenue.Real income tax revenue growth increase from 2.1% to 8.6%. This growth increase government revenue dramatically. At the same time, less unemployed workers meant that more people could pay more money. Revenue exceeded expectations and skyrocketed. [1]III. Reagan Tax CutsWhen he was younger, Reagan was inspired by John F. Kennedy's and Calvin Coolidge's tax cuts to cut taxes of his own. The tax rates went back down to 50% and then to 28% in two tax cuts during the Reagan presidency. Just like before, revenue increased from -2.8% to 2.7% and there was more economic growth. The unemployment rate reduced allowing more people to pay taxes. There was massive income mobility.The middle class moved into higher brackets meaning they payed more taxes. The rich also payed more taxes. The number people with an income over $1 million went from 5,000 to 25,000 and the number of billionaires rose to over 50 by the end of the 1980s. [1,4]IV. Clinton Capital Gains Tax CutBill Clinton should also be noticed for his capital gains tax cut. This is important because it is just before his surplus. Clinton decided to cut the capital gains tax and revenue boomed to $131 billion in capital gains revenue. Before that, it averaged $39 billion meaning that it increased dramatically and was a contributing factor to the surplus. This is because less taxes means that more people are willing to make capital gains. More people means more revenue. [5]Sources1. Laffer, Arthur. \"The Laffer Curve: Past, Present, and Future.\" Heritage.org. The Heritage Foundation, 1 June 2004. Web.2. http://www.debate.org...3. Shlaes, Amity. Coolidge. New York: Harper, 2013. Print.4. D'Souza, Dinesh. Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader. New York: Free, 1997. Print.5. Cain, Herman, and Rich Lowrie. 9-9-9: An Army of Davids. Herndon, VA: Velocity ; Mascot, 2012. Print.http://www.youtube.com...", "qid": "24", "docid": "7a272734-2019-04-18T17:24:53Z-00004-000", "rank": 79, "score": 148632.0}, {"content": "Title: America should have the ACA. Also known as \" Obamacare\". Content: Good luck to my opponent. JobsBack in the day, most pople had insurance from their employer and that was their plan. You said big corporations were laying off the workers. The ACA has a plan for this. The exchanges were established to create less expensive quality healthcare. Those workers may apply for a subsidy and a tax break. This will help the lower income families by providing them with quality insurance. They may pay more but these plans provide more. Quality is the keyword here. If their employer's plan provided them with bad healthcare they had no choice. Now the government is willing to give medical groups more money. If they provide quality healthcare, which is what the ACA is all about. Focusing healthcare by not the cost but by the outcomes. As for those 603 businesses, they may find it cheaper in the longhaul to buy insurance. Think about this: Employee in hospital= not working=not producing profits. If they are sick they can't do their jobs. If they declare bankruptcy for their bills they may go to court which means even more lost productivity. The WorkersObamacare is subsidized because of the government. The plans were designed to be cheap and reasonable. They cannot charge more because of, gender and pre- existing conditions. It makes it fairer to those people. Also think about those who buy coverage in their 20's and keep it after 65. Let's say 1 million do this it could save the U.S millions. That's 1 million less individuals who bill the government. That's one less person future generations will have to pay taxes for. More people will buy from the government causing many companies who don't deliver to shape up or risk extreme losses. Barebones coverage The people who lost their insurance did so because their plans were not enough. Here's a example. John, 23, has insurance. He has a barebones plan which dosent cover much. Let's say he gets into a car accident and goes to a hospital. They cannot turn him away. They treat him and he gets a bill for $ 40,000. His plan covers 10% of hospital stays. He ends up paying $36,000 and may have to declare bankruptcy. Not to mention any other therapy, follow-up care, and medications. He can't go to work and he may get fired. The new plans cover more at a reasonable price. This way those people get more bang for their buck. Those losing it can maybe get a better deal at a reasonable price.", "qid": "24", "docid": "3a25b5cd-2019-04-18T16:00:06Z-00005-000", "rank": 80, "score": 148625.0}, {"content": "Title: raising federal taxes will be inevitable n be the most responsible thing to do Content: Taxing American citizens is the opposite of the \"responsible\" thing to do. First, raising taxes has been proven in the past to fail. When Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush lowered taxes, the economy soared and millions of lives were improved. Second, when you reward something, you get more of it. When you punish something, you get less of it. Why should we penalize hard-working citizens because Obama went crazy with spending? When small businesses are taxed, they have to make changes that they can afford, which will result in many lost jobs. And when they can't afford to pay the taxes, they close, and even more jobs are lost. Taxes are already relatively high, and you want to put additional burden on people who are trying to provide for their families? And basic economics and math proves that simply taxing the wealthy will not solve anything. Where do we draw the line? How much is too much? How much is too little? How much of the hard-working citizen's money will suffice? And of course we can make cuts for social security and medicaid. They are already going bankrupt. We shouldn't be enlarging these imploding programs. Freedom is a zero-sum system, power given to the government is freedom taken away from its citizens. The government has to cease its endless spending, which is the real problem. The government has gotten too big and it's ruining our economy and putting it on the backs of the next generation. Raising taxes is not only irresponsible, it's immoral.", "qid": "24", "docid": "5560f5b4-2019-04-18T12:55:29Z-00003-000", "rank": 81, "score": 147326.0}, {"content": "Title: Taxes Should be Raised on the Rich Content: My CaseThe Laffer CurveTo understand raising taxes to increase government revenue would be a good idea, we must look at the Laffer curve. The Laffer curve, which Dr. Arthur Laffer leant his name to the curve after discussing it with some aides from the Ford administration, shows the relationship between tax rates and tax revenues. I will link a picture to show what it looks like. Basically, there is a prohibitive range and you don't want to raise taxes very high or else you will actually lose revenue. This is because people will start moving their money to tax shelters and some might reduce their production and work less if they are not making enough money. In the end, higher rates decrease revenue. Instead, lower tax rates increase revenue because people will start pulling money out of their shelters. Lower rates also means more economic growth. [1,2]Dr. Laffer also says: \"Moving from total tax revenues to budgets, there is one expenditure effect in addition to the two effects that tax-rate changes have on revenues. Because tax cuts create an incentive to increase output, employment, and production, they also help balance the budget by reducing means-tested government expenditures. A faster-growing economy means lower unemployment and higher incomes, resulting in reduced unemployment benefits and other social welfare programs.\" [1] HistoryTo understand if this really works, we must look at history and see if it has work and there are four major examples of income taxes getting cut and driving up a surplus while also creating massive economy growth.I. Harding-Coolidge Tax CutsWhen President Woodrow Wilson left the White House, the country was in a recession and we were in massive debt. The new president, Warren G. Harding, responded by cutting taxes from Wilson's 77% rate to 50%. When Harding died, Coolidge cut the rate down to 25%. What followed was massive economic growth and a huge budget surplus.Federal real revenue growth increased from -9.2% to 0.1%. Did more and people may more taxes? The answer is yes because the unemployment rate reduced dramatically allow more people to pay taxes. In fact, the rich payed more in taxes than the poor with their lower rates. In 1920, the share of revenue for those with over an income of $100,000 was 29.9%, but it was 62.2% by 1929. The national debt went from $28 billion to $17.65 billion. [1,3]II. Kennedy Tax CutsJohn F. Kennedy was also a supporter of cutting taxes. From Coolidge's lower 25% rate, taxes rose to a staggering 90%. However, people started moving their money to tax shelters and through loopholes, so the government never received the revenue it needed. Kennedy wanted to lower the tax rates to increase economic growth and government revenue.Real income tax revenue growth increase from 2.1% to 8.6%. This growth increase government revenue dramatically. At the same time, less unemployed workers meant that more people could pay more money. Revenue exceeded expectations and skyrocketed. [1]III. Reagan Tax CutsWhen he was younger, Reagan was inspired by John F. Kennedy's and Calvin Coolidge's tax cuts to cut taxes of his own. The tax rates went back down to 50% and then to 28% in two tax cuts during the Reagan presidency. Just like before, revenue increased from -2.8% to 2.7% and there was more economic growth. The unemployment rate reduced allowing more people to pay taxes. There was massive income mobility.The middle class moved into higher brackets meaning they payed more taxes. The rich also payed more taxes. The number people with an income over $1 million went from 5,000 to 35,000 and the number of billionaires rose to over 50 by the end of the 1980s. The fact is that lower taxes creates more growth in government revenue and at the same time increases economic growth. [1,4]Sources1. Laffer, Arthur. \"The Laffer Curve: Past, Present, and Future.\" Heritage.org. The Heritage Foundation, 1 June 2004. Web.2. http://www.debate.org...3. Shlaes, Amity. Coolidge. New York: Harper, 2013. Print.4. D'Souza, Dinesh. Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader. New York: Free, 1997. Print.http://www.youtube.com...", "qid": "24", "docid": "884f98e9-2019-04-18T17:22:42Z-00005-000", "rank": 82, "score": 146974.0}, {"content": "Title: The top 10% should be taxed 90% Content: Now I am not an American so I cannot give any arguments for the USA. Also, if the argument was to be specifically about the USA. It should have been specified at round 1. This is debate.org not debate.usPro's point does make sense in developed nations such as the United States where income is very high. That said, I do infact wish that the richest people in the world are taxed the most, with tax level reducing as the income level reduces. However, the reality of the world in which we live in makes taxing 1 in 10 people 90 % of their income very disadvantageous.In the developing world (where the majority of people in the world including myself live in) it is not beneficial to tax the top 10% as much as suggested by pro.Pro said that point as well\"The \"trickle-down\" theory never worked because companies are not making new jobs with the record profits they are making. They may be making new jobs in China and India, but that isn't helping the USA. That's treason\"Yes, the businesses will open up in China and India, generating jobs there for 2/7 of the world's population. Now considering Pro's resolution that 90% tax shall be imposed on the top 10% of India and China, the jobs will never be generated which brings about unemployment etc.Neither China nor India have extremely wealthy top 10% of the population as pro seems to suggest.Even India's top 1% richest people only have an average annual income of 12.5 lakh ruppes or a mere 20,775 US dollarsWe can derive their income after taxes using simple math 10% of 20775 = 20775 x 10/100 which gives us 2077.5$ PER YEAR So the top 1% of the richest people in India will only earn 2,077.5 dollars per year after the taxes which pro suggests. Mind you, this is only the top 1%, I will not even get into the top 5% let alone 10%.Nobody in their right mind will open up a business in India under these conditions. China is better but still not satisfactoryThe 1% richest in China have an average annual income of 91,639 US dollars.This results in them earning a mere 9,163.9 US dollars annually.I am aware that the cost of living is low in China and India and that the top 1% will survive but the profit is so little that few people will open businesses. And again this is only the top 1%, if the same calculations were done for the top 10% or 1 in 10 people, the results will be exponentially more dysmal. This brings up another problem. 'Rich' People who do not want to pay 90% of their taxes in countries like India or China or anywhere else for that matter can a) store their money in swiss banks abroad and avoid paying taxes (which is being done even today) or,b) live in countries with little to none tax, such as the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Staying on with the UAE, another point can be raised from here.The success story of this little nation can be linked to 2 things. Oil and foreign business.Oil is mostly in Abu Dhabi, the capital of the UAE. However oil money from Abu Dhabi benefited themselves only for the most part. Dubai however, does not have a drop of oil. Yet, their infrastructure and economy is far more developed compared to Abu Dhabi. Why?Because Dubai sucessfully attracted millions of expats (and businesses with them) to the city by making it a tax haven (in other words no taxes). This made Dubai go from a desert fishing village to a Global trade Hub and a center for business from all over the world. And of course, this was due to it being a tax haven. This is not to say that all countries should adopt the same strategy (it will not work for reasons I won't get into), it is a good example of what could happen if taxes on the rich are kept at the minimum level required.Conclusion: I demonstrated above that taxes on the so called 'rich' top 1% in developing countries like India and China results in them recieving very little profit money after taxes, they will be unlikely to open large scale businesses. 10% of their population includes a large portion of the middle class, and stripping 90% of their income away from them will result in a 'brain drain' where educated people will emigrate to other places with higher wages and lower taxes such as Dubai, which became the developed city it is today due to its encouragement of people to open businesses by keeping taxes at zero.http://blogs.wsj.com...;http://www.business-standard.com...;", "qid": "24", "docid": "8efb5c18-2019-04-18T16:17:41Z-00002-000", "rank": 83, "score": 146438.0}, {"content": "Title: TRUMP (PRO) vs KASICH (CON) Content: Opening Argument 1. Kasich would have boosted the economy if elected President, and he has the experience to back it up. a. As governor, Kasich was/is extremely successful in job creation. When he took office, according to the Federal Reserve, the state of Ohio had an unemployment rate of 9.2%. In December of 2015, it was lowered to 4.7%. That's a difference of 4.5%. He was able to do this by utilizing \"job-friendly policies\" such as cutting income taxes as well as eliminating regulations, which he believes harms small businesses and jobs. Assuming Congress would allow it, which (I'm sure) a majority GOP Congress would, Kasich would apply these same policies as President [1]. b. Also as governor, Kasich made $5 billion worth of tax cuts. He eliminated the 'death tax', a tax applied to large inheritances, and saved taxpayers approximately $650 million. In regards to balancing the Federal budget as President and his experience in the House budget committee, Kasich (in the September CNN debate) said, \"I'm the only person on this stage, and one of the few people in this country, that led the effort as the chief architect the last time we balanced the federal budget. When I left Washington, in 2000, we had a $5 trillion surplus and the economy was booming.\" [1]. c. When he was a member of the House Armed Services Committee, Kasich was called the \"Cheap Hawk\" because of his investigations regarding overspending. As President, Kasich would reduce healthcare, education, and transportation spending and increase military spending [1]. d. Now sixty-three years old, Kasich was only thirty when elected to public office for the first time. He served in the House of Representatives for 18 years, became the Chairman of the Budget Committee in 1994, and served multiple terms as governor of Ohio; he is apparently well-liked in Ohio as he won the state in the Republican primary [1]. 2. Kasich was the only candidate who was projected to defeat Hillary Clinton. On virtually every poll featured on Real Clear Politics projecting a Kasich vs Clinton general election, Kasich had a considerable lead. In fact, his average lead over her was +7.4%. The highest lead Trump ever held over Clinton was +1.1%, and that was with his convention bounce [2] [3]. 3. Anti-Trump Contention It's common knowledge that Trump has said and done some controversial things over his years in the public eye that do not equate to 'presidential behavior'. In the early 1970's, the Trump Organization was sued - twice - by the Justice Department for not renting to African Americans. In 1992, the Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino was fined $200,000 for removing African American card dealers \"at the request of a certain big-spending gambler.\" A former 1980's Trump's Castle employee testified that all African American employees were ordered off the floor and into the back when Donald and Ivana came to the casino. A 1991 book written by former president of Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino recalled Donald referring to black casino employees as \"lazy\", and that he once said, \"I've got black accountants at Trump Castle and Trump Plaza. Black guys counting my money! I hate it.\" He initially did not disavow David Duke's endorsement, and blamed this on a damaged earpiece. He claimed Gonzalo Curiel could not do his job effectively because of his 'Mexican heritage'. He accused Megyn Kelly of 'menstruating' at the first Republican debate (and called her a bimbo afterwards) and attributed this to how she questioned him. He insulted Carly Fiorina's appearance. He mocked a disabled reporter. This is not a man that is fit to be our president. Now I'll admit that Kasich has called people names in the past, however, he composes himself in a way that is far superior and far more professional than Trump. SOURCES [1] https://www.thestreet.com... [2] http://www.realclearpolitics.com... [3] http://www.realclearpolitics.com...", "qid": "24", "docid": "99eb3279-2019-04-18T12:56:24Z-00004-000", "rank": 84, "score": 146354.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: The Bush Tax Cuts for the Wealthy Should Not be Extended Content: Contention 1: Refusing to pass the tax cuts hurts the poor The Republicans and Democrats have recently reached a compromise over the tax cuts; if the Democrats extend the Bush Tax Cuts for the rich, the Republicans will agree to a program which would stimulate job growth through a combination of unemployment insurance and tax cuts for America's poorest citizens. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the plan could create 3.1 million jobs. Voting for the pro and taking a moral stance against the \"rich\" is not just if it breaks the backs of America's poorest. Contention 2: It is unfair to punish the rich for being successful Taxing the rich is unjust--it's a punishment for success. Allowing the government to just increase taxes on the rich whenever they need extra money provides an incentive for fiscal responsibility. Voting con forces the government better fiscal practices-- which are the real key to closing the deficit and reducing our debt, instead of just increasing taxes whenever they screw up. In response to the pro's first and third contentions: We need short term stimulus right now even more than we did when the Bush Tax Cuts were originally taxed. Sure, our government needs tax revenue, but extending the tax cuts creates 3.1 million jobs-- or 3.1 million more tax payers. Improving our economies health in the short run by creating jobs creates the sustainable tax base we need to pay off our debt/reduce our deficit. Furthermore, neglecting to promote domestic consumption-- which is what we need to create jobs and power us out of our current recession-- increases the likelihood that we enter a \"double dip\" recession. Voting pro creates a \"w\" shaped recovery. Voting neg creates a \"J\" shaped recovery. A double dip recession and the massive stimulus required to escape it would put us in an even deeper hole for paying off our debt and closing our deficit. In response to the pro's second contention a) Why should the government be allowed to decide \"what a reasonable limit is\"? The government's definition of a \"reasonable limit\" is however much money they want. Unless you can prove that there is no other way to avert financial ruin besides increasing taxes on the rich, deciding to punish American citizens for being successful and hardworking is unjust.", "qid": "24", "docid": "500ecde6-2019-04-18T18:59:09Z-00002-000", "rank": 85, "score": 146229.0}, {"content": "Title: Cut the Corporate Tax Rate to 0% Content: This article from the Atlantic says that in 2012 the top 1 percent will pay their highest total tax rate since 1979 (http://www.theatlantic.com...). In the 1980s, Reagan cut taxes and we had prosperity. Jack Kennedy cut taxes and we had prosperity. Obama raised taxes and the economy stagnated. The unemployment rate under Bush averaged 5.2% and deficits were much smaller, not to mention he had to pay for two wars. Obama raised taxes and shrunk revenue because the government policies kill jobs as do burdensome regulations such as ObamaCare.", "qid": "24", "docid": "2c183942-2019-04-18T16:35:26Z-00003-000", "rank": 86, "score": 146200.0}, {"content": "Title: Increase taxes for the Wealthy Content: P1: Increasing taxes on the wealthy can increase the federal spending budget. With a larger spending budget the government can allocate more funds towards projects such as; low-income housing development, academically focused after-school programs, activity-focused centers for the elderly, employment programs for youth, the homeless, and college graduates, health care, financial aid, improvements on public spaces (e.g. parks, roads, highways), and natural disaster preparedness/prevention. P2: By raising how much the wealthy get taxed it may lower the inequalities that exist between the super-rich, the upper and lower middle classes, and the people living in extreme poverty. C: The United States should increase taxes for the wealthy.", "qid": "24", "docid": "151adbd1-2019-04-18T15:38:25Z-00005-000", "rank": 87, "score": 146029.0}, {"content": "Title: Progressive tax rates stimulate higher consumer activity. Content: As income levels rise, marginal propensity to consume tend to drop. Thus it is often argued that economic demand can be stimulated by reducing the tax burden on lower incomes while raising the burden on higher incomes.", "qid": "24", "docid": "42f8393e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00127-000", "rank": 88, "score": 145937.0}, {"content": "Title: Reaganist/Thatcherist/neoliberalist policies are bad for countries Content: Before I set out my primary arguments against Neoliberalism, Thatcherism and Reaganism, let me first address what you have so far posited. \"Reagan conservative policies amounted to the most successful economic experiment in world history:\" - No, they didn't. I'll get to why. \"20 million new jobs were created.\"- Where they? According to the BLS (Bureau of Labour Statistics) Reagan only \"created\" 5,322 jobs in his first term and 10,780 in his second. \"Unemployment fell to 5.3% by 1989 \" - From what? If it was by 0.2% from 1988 its hardly an impressive feat is it? \"The top income tax rate was cut from 70% to 28%.\" - I fail to see how this is an argument, you are just stating a fact. \"Total federal spending declined to 21.2% of GDP in 1989 (even with the Reagan defense build up, which won the Cold War.) \" - What is your point? Spending isn't necessarily a bad thing. \"Eliminated price controls on oil and natural gas. Production soared, and aided by a strong dollar the price of oil declined by more than 50%.\"- Production soared; well i'm glad Reagan helped environmental desecration along just fine. \"The poverty rate declined every year from 1984 to 1989, dropping by one-sixth from its peak.\"- Define poverty, that is quite a confusing term. Do you mean Absolute Poverty or Relative Poverty? \"The Reagan recovery started in official records in November 1982, and lasted 92 months without a recession until July 1990 (when the tax increases of the 1990 budget deal killed it.)\"- You previously mentioned this but without data? Strange. Anyhow, I fail to see how an economy can recover for 92 months; at some point the economy stops \"recovering\" and beings booming, unless it recovered extremely slowly of course, which would not be good for a country. \"During this 7-year recovery, the economy grew by almost one-third (equivalent of adding the entire economy of West Germany to the U.S. economy.)\"-When you say the economy grew you mean GDP increased of course; all this means is the value of all goods, services and assets increased, or their are more goods, services and assets. \"In 1984 alone real economic growth boomed by 6.8%, the highest in 50 years.\"- But in the previous year it was 4.6% and the year after it was 4.2%. This suggests this statistic is an outlier. \"The period from 1982 to 2007 is the greatest period of wealth creation in the history of the planet.\"- It created wealth, that's great, but America has the highest Gini Index of any developed country at 0.42 post-tax and transfer, according to the World Bank. Its all very good and well when wealth is created but it matters where it goes for it to benefit a country. What \"bad\" is bad for a country is very much dependent on one's views as to what constitutes \"good\" for a country. What I see as good for a country is policy that aims to improve the quality of life and standard of living for ALL citizens of a country via working towards central aim of development and fair redistribution of income via progressive taxation. So in my mind what is \"bad\" for a country in terms of policy-making are policies that do NOT improve the quality of life and standard of living for all citizens of a country via development and redistribution of income via taxation. Both Reaganism and Thatcherism comprise of 2 strands: social conservatism and economic neoliberalism. While social conservatism isn't necessarily bad for a country's development (for example, making addictive and harmful drugs illegal means not as many people take them, making them more productive citizens who then spend their income on other goods, services and assets rather than addictive and harmful drugs) it does in some aspects prevent a decent quality of life being handed out to all citizens; for example many social conservatives are against gay marriage, which means homosexuals are not allowed the same quality of life as heterosexual people. But neoliberalism prevents ALL citizens from being granted a decent quality of life. By deregulating corporations via cutting corporation tax, deregulating corporations via simplifying or exempting red tape around employment legislation and smashing trade unions (as Margaret Thatcher did) means that workers are unable to argue a fair wage, which means wages are often cut and there is no firm job security. Cuts to employment are made, and the remaining workers are coerced into working harder to keep their job. This in the end means workers work longer hours for less money to keep their job, while the corporations can keep a larger cut of profits that the workers made for the corporations in the first place. This is bad for a country as the state shrinks due to a cut in revenue and a cut to intervention in markets means the education and health of the labour supply deteriorates, the infrastructure of the state collapses and the effectiveness of law enforcement collapses. This in the end is neoliberalism shooting itself in the foot. Neoliberalism itself is bad for countries, and only good for corporations and large businesses. While Reagan and Thatcher were not full neoliberalists, but equally as atrocious as the ideology of neoliberalism. REAGAN: Under Reagan productivity (efficiency of production) did increase by 45%, but working peoples' wages only increased by 1%. Thanks to deregulation under Reagan, General Motors saw profits of $24.1 billion, while laying off 100,000+ employees, General Electric saw profits of $20.4 billion while laying off over 100,000+ employees. Household debt increased increased from 47% of GDP in 1980 to over 111% in 2000. There was an explosion in personal bankruptcies, from 287,000 in 1980 to 2,039,000 in 2000. Healthcare costs as a % of GDP were up from 9.1% in 1980 to 12% in 1990. By 1989 General Motors was making profits of over $4 billion, while eliminating thousands of workers; Flint lost 3,600 jobs in 1983 according to the newspaper \"The Detroit News\". The manufacturing complex Buick City eliminated 1,300 in 1986, according to the newspaper \"The Flint Journal\", while \"The Detroit News\" reported 4,500 jobs cut at the start of the year (All above statistics supplied by Michael Moore's Documentary \"Capitalism: A Love Story\"). All this occurred under Reagan's famous, \"Reaganomics\", or \"Trickle-Down Theory\", which he was majorly enamored with. In 2012 a study by the Tax Justice Network indicates that \"the wealth of the rich does not trickle down to improve the economy but is instead amassed and sheltered in tax havens with a negative effect on the tax bases of the home economy\". My favorite non-fiction author Ha-Joon Chang, is an Institutionalist Economist and Professor at Cambridge, responsible for writing many popular economics books, writes \"Slow job growth in the last few decades, rising income inequality in most rich nations and the inability provision in raising living standards across all income brackets rather than at the top only.\" The IMF in 2015 published a report reading \"If the income of the top 20% increases, then GDP growth actually declines over the medium term, suggesting that benefits do not trickle down. In contrast, an increase in the income share of the bottom 20% is associated with higher GDP growth.\" Reaganism is ultimately bad, as I have just shown. His application of trickle down theory and his deregulation of the economy have led to the Gini Index of America being the highest of any developed nation, and mean that ultimately Reaganism was bad for the USA, & should be a warning for other countries not to do the same. Not only did Reagan NOT perform the duty of a good government, he has provided problems that, like Thatcher, have lasted beyond his Premiership and still wreak havoc to this day in the United States. If you consider any of my points null, please, I encourage you to refute. While you have only discussed Reagan so far I assume you are, as I am, going to discuss Thatcher and how she damaged Britain next round.", "qid": "24", "docid": "116d1f3f-2019-04-18T13:31:23Z-00002-000", "rank": 89, "score": 145600.0}, {"content": "Title: Capital gains should be taxed as ordinary income. Content: The myth of tax cuts (removing the capital gains tax would be a huge tax cut to the wealthy) for the wealthy is good for the economy because they are the \"job creators\" has been thoroughly debunked by the last 3 years since we sailed over the supposed fiscal cliff in January 2013. As a quick refresher, the fiscal cliff was the term used to describe the expiration of the Bush tax cuts that Obama had extended upon taking office, which included restoring the capital gains rate back to 20% (from 15%) for those earning over $400k, and increasing the peak marginal rate on the highest income earners from 35% to 39.6%. Conservatives warned that this looming fiscal cliff would handcuff our nations \"job creators\" and force us back into a double-dip recession. While the chart linked below (released with the jobs report last week) admittedly demonstrates only one large data point from the curret business cycle, and so I would acknowledge it doesn't prove that increasing the capital gains rate ALWAYS has no impact on job creation. But it does at least confirm that converse is also not true. Based on the continued strength in the job market post-fiscal cliff, we can at least be confident that raising the capital gains tax is not always a bad thing. In the case of the last 3 years, it has appeared to be pretty non-consequential. https://www.whitehouse.gov...;", "qid": "24", "docid": "e0e36c38-2019-04-18T13:31:30Z-00005-000", "rank": 90, "score": 145517.0}, {"content": "Title: Maintaining Status Quo would Boost the Economy and Reduce Unemployment Rate Content: There is a huge gap in the argument of the opposition. They claim that our plan would reduce the stimulus for the economy. We never told the level of benefits would be reduced. The money would simply be given out in the form of vouchers. Anyway, taking into account the situation in which the unemployed person is, the money goes on paying his bills and receiving the basics of life. There is essentially no difference between the government spending this sum of money or an unemployed. There is no \u201cdouble benefits\u201d in the opposition\u2019s case, because vouchers also stimulate the economy and create the demand. The whole argument is useless. We don\u2019t understand why an unemployed deserves a salary for the job he is not doing. It is false to declare that an unemployed provided himself with a prolonged vacation. Firstly, he uses much of the tax payments within the first few months in which he is free to operate with the money. Secondly, the people receiving the unemployment benefit for a long period are predominantly low income people, who contribute the least part of the state tax revenue. For example, in 2007 in the USA the lowest earning 50 % of the population contributed only 2.89 % of all the income tax.[4] They cannot claim to have the right for unrestricted benefits. There are jobs in the market, but an unemployed person either chooses not to accept it, because it pays too little, or he is not willing to gain the necessary qualifications to become suitable for it. A situation when the society has to support such a person for prolonged time is unacceptable and he cannot claim the right to choose how to spend money. [4] http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html\"", "qid": "24", "docid": "9d57a64d-2019-04-19T12:48:11Z-00033-000", "rank": 91, "score": 145443.0}, {"content": "Title: Abolishing income tax increases individual incentive to work. Content: Income tax creates a situation in which everyone is effectively enslaved to the government for a percentage of their total work time during the year. For example, if someone is required to pay 16% of their earnings in income tax, they have been paid for 84% of the work they have done while the government has been paid for the other 16%. Abolishing income tax means that people are able to work for themselves 100% of the time and therefore this increases individual incentive to work.", "qid": "24", "docid": "2e784eb9-2019-04-19T12:45:17Z-00037-000", "rank": 92, "score": 145428.0}, {"content": "Title: The US should reform its Corporate Tax Content: All of the following arguments are made supposing thet the US in question is the United States of America The United States of America should absolutely not reform its corporate tax rate beacause the current tax rate provides 9% of all of the total USA gouvernment revenue. The proposed tax reform would obviously lower that, for lowering it would not alter the ammount of companies that have reside in the USA or have their assets there or very little so, for the USA coprorate taxes could not rival those of other countries and dependencies such as the British Virgin Islands or Panama beacause lowering the corporate tax to that level would cripple the economy given that the American economy is much larger than that of those places. Lowering the corporate tax to lower rates would not work for these countries would still have the advantage and very few more companies would put their seats there and at the very most this would maintain USA corporate tax revenue the same as it is now. Regarding loopholes, the law should not be corrected beacause that would require changing the whole US tax code. These reforms would take years to pass beacause said text is a very extensive one and it would cause massive political problems in the USA for this would be subject to much disagreement for the two parties and by that time companies will have found loopholes in the new texts and they would have to start over.", "qid": "24", "docid": "3b46eaaf-2019-04-18T16:12:59Z-00005-000", "rank": 93, "score": 145423.0}, {"content": "Title: Bernie Sanders Would Hurt America If Elected Content: I will be breaking down the Con\u2019s arguments in order and debunking them. There is not much room for rambling here because of the character limit, so I apologize if the flow of my arguments is somewhat abrupt. To begin, corporate taxes in Nordic countries are actually substantially lower than rates in the USA. (http://tinyurl.com...) This is interesting because under Eisenhower when taxes were around 90%, the only people who were actually paying these marginal rates were those making over $3,425,766 when adjusted for inflation. Since these were marginal rates, they only paid it on any earnings above that threshold. http://tinyurl.com... (http://tinyurl.com...) The recent supposed rise in income inequality has not caused any decline in upward mobility. Incomes and standards of living have increased, and mobility is as strong as ever. How much the top earns has no effect on the bottom\u2019s ability to move up. Income inequality calculations are flawed, as households of different numbers are compared and do not factor in non-cash government transfer payments or taxes. A closer look at inequality reveals that it is not as prominent as suggested. Another factor left out is age; of course those in their fifties and sixties will earn more than college students and retirees. Consumption is a better measure of a household\u2019s well-being than income. (http://tinyurl.com...) A study by the American Enterprise Institute suggests that true income inequality actually hasn\u2019t gotten worse since the 1990s. (http://tinyurl.com...) Emanuel Saez, the same economist whose studies on income earners are notoriously cited by leftists, also conducted another study on wealth inequality revealing that the top earners\u2019 share of wealth at the beginning of the 21st century is lower than it was in the early 1900s; this study however is neglected by the left. (http://tinyurl.com...) A study by the Brookings Institute tested what would happen to the gap between the poor and wealthy if the income tax on the highest earners was raised from the current 39.6% to 50%. The results showed that it would have little to no effect on inequality, and that the U.S. along with Israel, would have the worst inequality in the developed world. (http://tinyurl.com...)The Mises Institute researched the the GDP per capita (PPP) relative to economic growth and I quote, \u201cthe graphs show, on average, the freest countries are not only richer, but also grow faster in the long run.\u201d \u201cAs can be seen, on average, the freest economies have a better distribution of income according to this indicator. The argument that freer and more productive economies suffer greater income inequality is a myth built on the mistake of watching a few countries and not the entire sample.\u201d (http://tinyurl.com...) The Con\u2019s argument about GDP is irrelevant, because GDP, which is a measure of one year\u2019s production, is an inherently incorrect measure of real economic growth. Government spending and all sorts of unnecessary transactions are accounted, however this is not the only miscalculation. Imports are netted against exports, \u201cA fixture of GDP is the mercantilist mentality of treating exports positively and imports negatively. Why are exports additive to GDP while imports are deductive? If the goal of GDP is to measure the goods and services provided to people within a geographic region, imports \u2014 not exports \u2014 are the benefit. Exports are but payment for imports.\u201d The GDP distorts the performance of an economy while failing to estimate a society\u2019s standard of living. (http://tinyurl.com...) (http://tinyurl.com...) The U.S. already has one of the most progressive tax codes among OECD countries, thus if they were going to work, we should expect that they would have done so already. There are also considerable negative economic consequences to a highly progressive tax code. Statistically, excessive marginal tax rates discourage work. The inevitable result of a progressive tax is reduced real economic growth. Progressive taxation is actually the most harmful to the poorer classes - the same people whom it is aimed to benefit. (http://tinyurl.com...) Empirically, higher taxes on the rich will do little to none on lowering inequality. The (Keynesian) Washington Center for Equitable Growth even points out what a top tax rate would do to 50% on the Gini Coefficient. Apparently, increasing the top rate to 50 percent would only reduce the Gini from 0.574 to 0.571.Some arguments against increasing progressivity are as follows: more revenue volatility rather than closing federal deficits, (which means larger future deficits), higher tax rates in the 1990s contributed to the 2001 recession and returning to them will damage our already weakened economy, the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts generated economic growth, and raising the top two income tax rates will negatively impact almost three-fourths of all economic activity created by small businesses. (http://tinyurl.com...) The Con makes several arguments accusing capitalism of disproportionate wealth ownership, however, true capitalism has not been a constant in America for a long time; much of this demonization can be largely attributed to crony-capitalism (distinct difference) and the rise of corporatism, the control of a state or organization by large interest groups. (http://tinyurl.com...) Again, capitalism is blamed for inequality by the Con, although the only way to close the income inequality gap is through non-linear ideas and strategies driven through capitalism, as proven by a Harvard study conducted in 2015. (http://tinyurl.com...) Sanders has endorsed single-payer healthcare systems. He basically wants to adopt the Canadian and European model for health-care. Here are ten quick facts about the American health-care system: 1. Americans have a better survival rate for common cancers than Europeans do. 2. The same holds true in Americans versus Canadians. 3. Americans have better access to treatment for chronic diseases than people in other developed countries. 4. Americans have better access to cancer screening than Canadians do. 5. Lower-income Americans have better health compared to Canadians. 6. Americans spend less time waiting for a doctor than patients in the UK or Canada. 7. The people in single-payer states are more likely to say that their health-care system is not satisfactory and need to reform. 8. Americans are more satisfied with their care than Canadians are. 9. Americans have better access to new medical technology than patients in Canada or the UK. 10. Americans are responsible for the vast majority of health-care innovations. American health-care has nothing to do with the free market. We do not have a fully free market with health-care. As of today, U31; of all U.S. health-care spending goes to waste. $765 billion dollars, all through the corporatist nature of our health-care system and a single-payer system, would actually only assist the collapse.The only reason Ford had to buy rubber from the Congo in order to supply his automobile assembly lines, was because the British had a monopoly on it in the 1920s. The simple fact is that this is not the fault of capitalism, rather the lack of it; under true free market capitalism, monopolies cannot form or be sustainable. The American economy performed better during the Reagan years than during the pre- and post-Reagan years. The Cato Institute argues against the negative and untrue claims attributed to the economic policies executed under the Reagan administration. \u201cReal economic growth averaged 3.2 percent during the Reagan years versus 2.8 percent during the Ford-Carter years and 2.1 percent during the Bush-Clinton years. Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years. Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency.\u201d A full analysis of the economic impacts of his policies revealed even more. (http://tinyurl.com...) (http://tinyurl.com...)LBJ\u2019s \u201cWar on Poverty\u201d can be called a \u201cfailure\u201d for two reasons: one, the incomes and living standards of less affluent Americans were rising rapidly well before the War on Poverty began, and two, the original goal of it was not to prop up living standards artificially through an ever-expanding welfare state - which is exactly what it has done. Johnson\u2019s proclaimed goal was not one of handouts, but of self-sufficiency. The Heritage Foundation conducted a full study on this and concluded that official poverty declined and self-sufficiency improved for the same general reason that these improvements occurred before 1965: a steady rise of wages and education levels. (http://tinyurl.com...) Theft is when someone takes something that doesn\u2019t belong to them. You own yourself. Because you own your body, your labor, and what you acquire by trade, taxation is theft. Governments are institutions used by the super rich to concentrate wealth and power. Since they are not earning money by offering goods or services for us to choose from freely, theft is their primary mechanism. Taxation is just a word that makes us more likely to go along with massive, widespread, organized theft. It is not right for one person to steal. It is not right for two people to steal. It is still not right for 51% of a voting population to vote for a representative who will hire a tax collector to steal for them. A great government lie is that theft can be moral when performed by enough people and called taxation. Even if some money stolen is used for legitimate purposes, it doesn\u2019t change the simple fact that taxation is theft. I challenge the Con to answer the five questions on the link without invalidating the very notion of government itself. (http://tinyurl.com...)", "qid": "24", "docid": "b2523118-2019-04-18T13:45:38Z-00003-000", "rank": 94, "score": 145400.0}, {"content": "Title: lowering the driving age Content: I am doing a debate on lowering the driving age to 15 instead of 16 this would help us out with our economy too, there would be more cars being bought by younger ages. Because of more cars being bought there would be money being pumped into our economy and with that lowering our taxes a lot. Our biggest problem in this country is money and with m,ore money we open a lot of new doors and opportunities for others. We could open up new jobs for other people, we could lower the food prices in grocery store, the two most important in my opinion is either making homes with the extra funds coming in or feeding the people that have nothing especially if they have children. That is why we should,NO,need to lower the driving age!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!", "qid": "24", "docid": "a5a3948d-2019-04-18T17:31:19Z-00005-000", "rank": 95, "score": 145399.0}, {"content": "Title: The government should cut taxes for everyone including the wealthy Content: The government should cut taxes for everyone including the wealthy so people will have more money, people will spend more, businesses will make more money and pay more tax dollars. A large percentage of businesses pay income tax at the individual tax rate not the corporate tax rate. If income taxes get cut then the businesses that pay the individual income tax rate will have more money and hire more employees. Corporate taxes should also get cut to 25 percent so that businesses will hire more employees. If businesses make more money and pay more tax dollars then the government revenue will increase. If businesses hire more employees then there will be more taxpayers which will also increase the government revenue. The wealthy should get a large tax cut because a lot of them own businesses. If they get a tax cut then they will spend more money, make more investments and hire more employees.", "qid": "24", "docid": "137919fb-2019-04-18T17:51:50Z-00004-000", "rank": 96, "score": 145340.0}, {"content": "Title: Labor unions Content: you have improved, but you really need to debate other people ;) C1: hurt the economy Companies pass on those higher wages to consumers through higher prices, and often they also earn lower profits. Economic research finds that unions benefit their members but hurt consumers generally, and especially workers who are denied job opportunities.[1] The economic detriment is because of increased wages. More wages = higher cost, higher cost = harder to higworkers as you have less money. Unions effectively tax these investments by negotiating higher wages for their members, thus lowering profits. Unionized companies respond to this union tax by reducing investment. Less investment makes unionized companies less competitive. [1] less investment = less economic growth. C2: raise unemployment Faced with such an economically unattractive scenario, corporations will choose to reduce their labor costs by outsourcing work, replacing workers with machines, and/or moving manufacturing facilities to low-labor-cost nations.[2] by the way the economic unattractiveness is partially due to unions [2] C3: raise costs of goods Furthermore, those high union-mandated wages result in increased prices for manufactured goods. It has long been an established fact that as labor costs increase, demand for consumer goods diminishes and the pool of consumers shrinks. [2] There are times when wages need to be raised to be equitable, but the power of the unions is that they can sometimes raise wages and benefits to unrealistically high levels. These levels can be above what the market can sustain, which will cause the manufacturer to raise the costs of items that it produces. [3] The above framework doesn't rule out the theoretical possibility that union agitation leads to wage hikes, which in turn lead to general price hikes [4] C4:RAISE TAXES California's government unions could seek a 43 percent tax increase on wealthy Californians. The Contra Costa Times reported on the action, but missed the magnitude of the tax increase. [5] They call for tax increases. A Nevada labor union leader said his organization is \"looking seriously\" at launching a ballot initiative to put a tax hike to increase funding for education to the voters, possibly as early as the 2012 general election. [6] Another call =conclusion= my case refutes his arguments. Labor unions hurt the economy. Vote con! sources: http://www.heritage.org... [1] http://stephencabotblog.com... [2] http://www.ehow.com... [3] http://mises.org... [4] http://www.calwatchdog.com... [5]", "qid": "24", "docid": "a39c565c-2019-04-18T18:32:44Z-00006-000", "rank": 97, "score": 145277.0}, {"content": "Title: Ron Paul's Economic Policies are Superior to Barack Obama's Content: Point 1: Ron Paul's Tax Plan is perfect for today's economy. His tax plan involves a significant reduction in taxes, including a significant reduction in taxes to the rich and taxes to corporations, and the tax rate is too progressive, and the taxes don't even do anything. \"During the stock market crash, the recovery started in 1934, in 1937 taxes were raised causing the economy to plunge back to where it was in 1934.\"[1] Why is lowering taxes important? Lowering taxes allows the regular citizen to have more cash in his or her pocket, which makes them feel more secure financially in a recession. Not to mention, some of this extra money can go to buy stuff which increases GDP. \"Income taxes should be cut because the overall tax burden is quite high right now. As of the third quarter of 2000, federal revenues as a share of the gross domestic product hit a peacetime high of 20.8 percent. Prosperity has made Americans more accepting of the rising tax burden, but the current economic slowdown will make high taxes harder to bear.\"[2] Why is lowering taxes for the rich important? One, they buy big ticket items such as mansions, yachts, expensive cars, etc... All of the purchases get factored in to GDP. The more a country spends, the higher it's GDP is. Lowering taxes for the rich would allow them to buy more of these big ticket items, which would thus increase GDP. But more importantly, two, they create and maintain businesses. Most of the big and medium sized corporations are owned by rich people. If you decrease taxes, that is more the rich can spend on businesses. The more the spend on businesses, the more products that are available at a lower price (which intices consumers to buy, especially in a recession), which in turn increases GDP. Also, the rich can give raises to their employees, spend money to fix working equipment, and make the employee feel more comfortable and safe. Also, they will expand or create new businesses, which increases GDP and decreases unemployment. \"Meanwhile, the 53% of Americans who are paying income taxes are relentlessly slandered as \"greedy\" and \"selfish\" for not being willing to hand over EVEN MORE of the money that they worked for in order to pay for benefits for other people. In other words, we have a lot of people in America who want more services from the government, but they are demanding that other people pay for it.\"[3] Why is lowering taxes for corporations important? If you lower taxes for corporations, that allows the business to have a higher profit. Profit means wage increases, safer working conditions, and most importantly, expansion. All of these things allow the employee to feel more secure financially, allow the employee to feel safer working, and allow the employee to enjoy his work more. And expansion, as I said earlier, increases GDP and decreases unemployment. Why? Because to expand, you need construction workers, materials, building permits, and other things. This buying increases GDP. On top of that, the expansion allows the business to produce more, which increases GDP. And it decreases unemployment because expansion requires more workers. \"Hewlett-Packard says that it saves $1 billion a year in taxes by operating in some countries where it's \"wholly exempt from taxes,\" resulting in a 21% rate. Apple's overseas cash hoard leapt from $17.4 billion in 2009 to $30.8 billion in 2010, in part because its intellectual property is owned by foreign subsidiaries.\"[4] This also means that if corporate taxes are too high, businesses will go elsewhere, therefore, we lose their GDP contribution entirely. Why is the tax rate too progressive? One because 47% of the population pays no taxes, and the other 53% are decried for being greedy, when they are the ones paying the taxes! And on top of that, the rich are even more decried for being greedy, and yet the poor pay no taxes and the rich pay a 45% tax rate! This is very unfair. Also, the poor are not really poor. \"Here's a lesson in economics for OWS. Explain to the 99% that they are actually in the 5% of richest people on the planet. Then take their wealth and redistribute it to the 95% of the world that is poorer than them. See how they feel about wealth redistribution then.\"[5] Why are the taxes worthless? One, they don't go to decrease the deficit, they go to increase Government Spending on social programs that put us in an even bigger deficit. And two, the taxes that go to fund these social programs just encourage a longer recession and a longer high rate of unemployment. \"Federal spending has gone up 84% under Obama.\"\"Since that's the case and we still have a liberal President and a liberal majority in the Senate, it's entirely possible that every new dime of tax revenue would be spent \u2014 and then some.\"[3] Point 2: Ron Paul's government hands-off approach to the economy is perfect. Ron Paul knows that there is too much Government regulation of business today. With less regulation, that gives more money in the hands of corporations, which again, increases GDP and decreases unemployment. Businesses always have to worry about useless environmental regulations that cost money, they have to worry about workers conditions laws that cost money, and they have to worry about other business regulations that cost them money. \"Government has been calling the plays while ordinary Americans ride the bench. But when the game is on the line, it's time to give the real playmakers the ball. The answer to too much government isn't more government.\"[6] \"\"The current regulatory burden coming out of Washington far exceeds the federal government's constitutional mandate, and it's hurting job creation in our country at a time when we can't afford it,\" Cantor's fellow House Republican, Speaker John Boehner, said in a speech to the Economic Club of Washington last week.\"[7]. Reduce regulations, increase profit. He also knows that the economy can correct itself. He knows economies will punish businesses who provide bad working conditions or bad salaries. \"Our government frenzy of throwing $6.3 trillion dollars in bailout money at our economy will have long reaching effects on our national debt and our ability to borrow money. It is political, short sighted, and inefficient. And ultimately taxpayers will be paying for the political gains of our economically illiterate Congress.\"[8]. Point 3: Ron Paul's fiscal and monetary policy is a lot better than Obama's. His fiscal policy involves cutting one trillion from federal spending each year, veto unbalanced budgets, and would never raise the debt ceiling. This all would in turn, decrease the federal deficit significantly over a 10 year period and would get America out of foreign dependency. \"Saying no to the debt ceiling,\" correctly saying they would raise the national debt ceiling anyway to avoid severe financial disruption.\"[9] The danger in Obama's fiscal policy is that he keeps spending way too much, and will eventually send us into default. His monetary policy involves a full audit of the federal reserve, which is long overdue, considering they have misplaced several billion dollars over the years, then eventually end the fed so as to get rid of the terrible system of central banking. \"Given that Paul is about the only one in Congress willing to fight this fight, he merits support, even if that support is occasionally critical.\"[10] [1]:http://answers.yahoo.com... [2]:http://www.cato.org... [3]:http://rightwingnews.com... [4]:http://forums.cnet.com... [5]:http://liberalforum.org... [6]:http://www.nytimes.com... [7]:http://abcnews.go.com... [8]:http://blog.myrecordjournal.com... [9]:http://useconomy.about.com... [10]:http://www.cato-at-liberty.org...", "qid": "24", "docid": "53a95cc6-2019-04-18T18:29:02Z-00006-000", "rank": 98, "score": 145255.0}, {"content": "Title: should the government raise minimum wage Content: id say that they shouldn't because though you would get more money minimum wage jobs are temporary jobs and meant to be treated as such raising minimum wage will raise taxes and big businesses will hide behind taking it away and instead businesses should just offer better jobs and working environments A higher minimum wage, would be too heavy a burden on employers, especially small business owners. And those employers, in turn, would be unable to hire as many people an undesirable result when unemployment continues to hover at about 8 percent.\"Young workers willing to accept $5 per hour for low-level work or to gain valuable experience should be allowed to do so, Jacoby argued, especially if the alternative is being unable to find a job at all. Furthermore, increasing the minimum wage has not proven to be effective at lowering the poverty rate, according to the business-backed nonprofit Employment Policies Institute. Multiple studies have demonstrated little to no relationship between a higher minimum wage and reductions in poverty the institute says, in a policy brief.\" Where does this all leave the minimum wage? Harkin's bill has been referred to committee, which means it is several legislative steps away from becoming a law. And in a highly polarized election season, action on such a controversial issue is unlikely.", "qid": "24", "docid": "ddb9f050-2019-04-18T11:59:07Z-00005-000", "rank": 99, "score": 145018.0}, {"content": "Title: The Bush Tax Cuts should be extended for all Americans Content: Alright. First of all, tax cuts have been shown to stimulate job growth in the nation, including the Bush Tax Cuts. After their full passage in 2003, the economy went from a recession to an expansion, with a net total of 4.53 million jobs being created between May 2003 and December 2008 according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics archives. Even this does not reveal the full impact of the tax cuts, as it includes the disastrous recession losses in 2008 that were caused by the implosion of the mortgage bubble. With this track record of growth, it would be foolish to assume that repealing even parts of the tax cuts would not have a negative impact on the American economy. Secondly, the tax cuts had the interesting effect of increasing government revenue, including on the national level. According to usgovernmentrevenue.com, the United States federal government collected $1.8 trillion in taxes in 2003, before the full impact of the tax cuts on the economy, until revenue peaked at $2.6 trillion in 2007 before the recession struck the United States. Next, eliminating the tax cuts for the highest income earners would not solve our debt crisis. As reported by wsj.com, eliminating the cuts for those earning more than $1 million a year would only add about $40-$50 billion dollars in revenue, about 3% of the annual US deficit. More often than not, it would also hurt the economy, as was implied by President Obama himself when he said \"You don't raise taxes in a recession.\" Doing so merely takes the money out of the private sector, where it can be used productively, and moves it to the government. Finally, tax rates are already too high. The top tax bracket is 35% according to taxes.com. This means that 35 cents is taken for every dollar someone earns, and is given to an irresponsible government that has failed to demonstrate fiscal discipline. Raising taxes merely punishes the achievers in the United States and gives to an undeserving government.", "qid": "24", "docid": "a5f5b5ee-2019-04-18T18:04:11Z-00003-000", "rank": 100, "score": 144966.0}]}
{"query": "Do standardized tests improve education?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: Education: Testing Content: Standardized testing is a efficient strategy that improves the work, effort, and dedication teachers put into their job. \"Education researchers gauge the quality of an individual teacher by looking at student test scores. If scores go up in a teacher's classroom, that's a sign the teacher is doing a good job\" (1). This is, and has always been, a just way to measure teachers' ability to build their students knowledge. In addition, most teachers and administrators approve, even, of these standardized tests, \"Minnesota teachers and administrators interviewed for a study in the Oct. 28, 2005, issue of the peer-reviewed Education Policy Analysis Archives (EPAA) approved of standardized tests 'by an overwhelming two-to-one margin,' saying they 'improved student attitudes, engagement, and effort.' An oft-cited Arizona State University study in EPAA's Mar. 28, 2002 edition, concluding that testing has little educational merit, has been discredited by educational researchers for poor methodology, and was criticized for wrongly blaming the tests themselves for stagnant test scores, rather than the shortcomings of teachers and schools\" (2). Not only does the government believe that standardized test are a quality way of judging teachers based off their students' work, but the majority of teachers do as well.", "qid": "26", "docid": "440fb971-2019-04-18T17:06:22Z-00007-000", "rank": 1, "score": 171572.0}, {"content": "Title: Standardized Tests Content: Abolished means completely eliminate. Standardized testing serves a purpose. For example, it can provide data for educators and students on strengths and weaknesses. Data can be used to make improvements to education standards and set goals. As for high school graduation, a standardize test will make sure that high school graduates will be ready for the work world and/or college.", "qid": "26", "docid": "b760073d-2019-04-18T17:08:38Z-00003-000", "rank": 2, "score": 165114.0}, {"content": "Title: Education: Testing Content: Standardized testing, if anything, has not improved student achievement. In 2002, the US slipped from the 18th spot in the world for math scores, to the 31st slot in 2009. This drop was due to standardized tests and the stress they put on the students (1). The failing attempt to improve the test scores have gotten worse as the tests get harder, which also only test a small portion of the curriculum in schools. Math and reading courses have been told to teach different information in order to cover the tests questions, resulting in a lack of regular curricular (2). (1) http://standardizedtests.procon.org... (2) http://www.education.com...", "qid": "26", "docid": "440fb971-2019-04-18T17:06:22Z-00008-000", "rank": 3, "score": 164282.0}, {"content": "Title: Standardized testing is hurting our school population and community Content: I believe that standardised testing is beneficial to students. Indeed, there will be an added amount of pressure and stress, but I believe that this helps them propel them forward toward striving for success. Stress is an important catalyst in one's motivation to work and if wisely wielded, can be a powerful tool in the advancement of education hence it is not necessarily a bad thing. Standardised testing is a means for a government to know where it stand in terms of further educational and holistic development and is also highly useful in education analysis. Without standardised testing, it will not be known if the students of a certain level are performing up to par, and without the proper Intel to make due changes and altercations to the education system, this can be dangerous for a country to be grooming substandard future population which would inevitably hinder society and have drastic implications on the work force. For example, in Singapore, there are standardised tests that occur twice each year on the average in primary, secondary schools and even junior college. These tests give the schools and government information on the amount of resources that should be diverted toward education sector, whether the Budget should increase or decrease, and also gives insight on the effectiveness ok current curriculum and providing incentive for change or improvement. Standardised testing has proved to be extremely beneficial to Singapore, and it is one of the most educationally advanced and successful countries in the education sector that many other countries tend to go on a pilgrimage for.", "qid": "26", "docid": "97409bf1-2019-04-18T14:11:04Z-00002-000", "rank": 4, "score": 163876.0}, {"content": "Title: National, standardized tests are a poor measure of student learning Content: Standardized testing is not perfect, but it helps to sets useful standards that help student learning. It is important that a nation has a general frame of reference on where students should, on average, be at various stages in their education. Standardized testing helps do this by setting a baseline level of achievement at each grade, where the average student is expected to be. While some students may perform above or below this standard, the important thing is judging the general educational trends across society, so that governments can help guide their national educational system onto a globally competitive path. improve this", "qid": "26", "docid": "eb991d36-2019-04-15T20:24:15Z-00018-000", "rank": 5, "score": 162996.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to K-12 education in the United States Content: Standardized Tests Can Help Combat Inequity Bobb 15 By: Robert C. Bobb, Aug. 30 2015, Copyright \" The Washington Post Company Aug 30, 2015. All rights reserved. Reprinted with Permission http://sks.sirs.com... Disparities in educational achievement between low-income minority students and their more affluent peers loom large despite years of work to close the gap. Some point to this as a reason we should back away from accountability-driven endeavors such as stronger state standards and aligned assessments. In fact, it should motivate us only to redouble those efforts and push boldly forward. Civil rights leaders and testing opponents have been locked in a fight over this issue . Testing critics say the lack of significant improvement among economically disadvantaged minority students - despite years of standardized testing - proves that tests do little to close the achievement gap and in fact only exacerbate inequity. Civil rights advocates, in turn, argue that the tests provide data essential to understanding the magnitude of the gap in student performance and highlighting the need to fix it. Four years ago, we were on the right track. That was when a bipartisan group of governors embraced a set of universal educational ideals that became known as the Common Core State Standards. They worked to focus on the bedrock skills and knowledge all students need to succeed in school and after regardless of their individual circumstance or the career path they chose to pursue. Developed with heavy input from educators, the standards emphasize critical thinking, reading and math skills. They also measure students' readiness for success in education and the workplace beyond high school. Many civil rights organizations - the NAACP, the National Urban League, the League of United Latin American Citizens and the National Council of La Raza, for example - are right to be concerned about how the absence of uniform standards and a rigorous assessment regimen could affect the most vulnerable populations, including those they serve. \"We cannot fix what we cannot measure. And abolishing the tests or sabotaging the validity of their results only makes it harder to identify and fix the deep-seated problems in our schools,\" those and other groups said in a recent statement. Various people have offered counterarguments. Scholars such as Gary Orfield, co-director of the Civil Rights Project at the University of California at Los Angeles, have thrown unrelated elements into the debate. The Post paraphrased Orfield this year: \"Tests don't address the social problems that poor children bring to school or the fact that many start kindergarten already lagging behind more affluent children.\"", "qid": "26", "docid": "ab3b5048-2019-04-18T14:01:05Z-00005-000", "rank": 6, "score": 161759.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Standardized test scores accurately reflect the academic value of students. Content: Closing Argument: In my closing argument I will list some reasons for why standardized testing is an efficient way to reflect the academic value of students. 1. Gardner states \"achievement data from tests provide teachers with valuable information to improve classroom and student learning\". This is yet another quote that supports my claim that the tests to help to improve academics in class rooms. 2. Standardized testing is the best way to know how a student is doing. If schools were to go onto one on one testing it will incredibly time consuming. Also, my opponent said something about a child having problems at home. Believe it or not, a teacher can know if something is wrong from the results of an examination. 4. Standardized tests are also helpful in providing students with the pressure of taking education seriously. Many students want to go to college and they know that in order to get into a respectable college they have to score decent grades in the SAT. This \"pressure\" will cause them to take education seriously and will be beneficial in the long run. Now, I want to leave my opponent and all voters with this quote, \"While there are many purposes that can be served by assessment, they are all secondary to the improvement of student learning.\" Thanks to my opponent for this great debate and I wish all voters will vote Pro. Thank you.", "qid": "26", "docid": "952e7fd8-2019-04-18T18:59:54Z-00000-000", "rank": 7, "score": 160745.0}, {"content": "Title: Standardized Tests Content: My opponent is worried that students will only do well on standardized tests and it won't improve anything. The problems with tests is that their different. Tests are different between each school and each teacher often. This allows for some student not to have learned things while others have. Which creates an unbalanced classroom where some students are struggling to learn material and others are bored because they had already learned it. In fact a study has shown that 79% of students think that standard tests are fair. My opponent is also worried that it restricts creativity of thinking. A test is to test your knowledge. Grades 1-12 are there to teach you the basics of a wide range of knowledge. Tests are there to see if you get what you are learning. Standard tests already have questions that promote creative thinking. Teaching for the test is a good thing. It eliminates time wasting activities. It focuses on the content and that way the students will all learn the same thing and no student will be left behind. Standardized tests do not narrow the curriculum. It focuses the curriculum. The multiple choice is actually helpful in improving the education system because it produces accurate information. Also the markings for standardized tests are fair. Teacher markings are not fair because the teacher may not like a child and mark their test harder than others. If you don't believe me China is living proof that standard tests work. They have a set of standard tests and they are leading the world when it comes to academics.", "qid": "26", "docid": "b760077b-2019-04-18T13:01:46Z-00000-000", "rank": 8, "score": 160384.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to k-12 education in the United States. Content: http://www.alternet.org... Using student standardized test scores to evaluate teachers, a trend gaining steam in a growing number of states in recent years as a result of the federal \"Race to the Top\" program, isn\"t about improving education. It is, and always has been, about ranking, sorting, and shaming schools and educators. But, just as controversial testing regimens don\"t accurately capture student learning or progress in the classroom, standardized, homogenized teacher evaluations don\"t capture what teachers do for students. Teaching and learning is hardly a beauty pageant. Educators and kids are more than a set of scores. Still, Americans like information for its own sake; we like to create and consume lists and databases, analyses and reviews, to stare at numbers before we make decisions even if, like Yelp reviews, they\"re as predictive as tea leaves. Though a Virginia parent sued for teacher evaluation and observations to be made available to the public, educators who have been in the classroom know that the information published is little more reliable than that onratemyteacher.com (where, if you look me up, you\"ll discover that I was simultaneously \"the best,\" \"the worst,\" \"real cool,\" and \"hype,\" as both compliment and insult). How does publishing a teacher\"s standardized test results support students and teachers? How does it turn into anything more than an adult-world re-creation of class rank, where we are shamed into competing against each other instead of working together to actually improve? How does it do more for parents than chatting in the parking lot or posting on Facebook groups would do? Evaluations based on testing don\"t show the hours we teachers spend researching, planning, and reflecting on lessons that will never be listed on an evaluation form. The standardized tests on which our evaluations are based often don\"t even align with the curricula we teach. And, instead of being an authentic element of ongoing professional growth and development, classroom observations have become just one more task for overburdened administrators to complete: even the best-intentioned principals often can\"t find the time in their days to get into our classrooms to experience the interactions taking place among our students. When I taught a reading program for 9th graders while still at Kensington CAPA High School in Philadelphia, my students began the year with an average reading level equivalent to a mid-term fourth grader. We created a safe space for learning, and worked hard, together; after a semester, most of my students improved by at least one grade level on reading assessments. The students felt pride in and ownership of their growth; my principal brought guests in to observe the great work that was going on in the program. But on state-mandated standardized tests, my students still scored \"below basic\" because even the two or three years of progress they made in one year meant that they were still reading at levels below what was expected of rising 10th graders. They were labeled failing; as their teacher, I was a failure, too. The tests could not show what was taking place in our classroom. The woman dubbed \"the worst teacher in New York\" taught in just such a classroom, and the truth about her teaching couldn\"t have been further from the picture the \"rankings\" (and then the press) painted of her. The tests and the evaluations that are based on them are unable to accurately portray what happens in classes and schools where students are mobile, speaking different languages, coming and leaving at different times during the school year, where students are already performing far above or below grade level, or where poverty is a factor in students\" readiness for school and the resources available in schools themselves. Just as all children are more than the sum of their test scores, so are their teachers. If you want to understand what\"s going on in your child\"s classroom,there are countless ways for parents and families to learn more and become more engaged in their childrens\" education. If we work together \" if you don\"t listen to advocates who want the public to view teachers as the enemy in the battle to educate children \"sharing notes and communicating about your child (and about the work he or she is doing in my class ), we can help your child succeed in my class and outside it. You\"ll learn far more about me and about your child in my class from talking to me than looking up some unreliable, meaningless standardized test score online. My colleagues and I actually crave feedback and opportunities to grow; we want professional observation and evaluation to be more in depth, intensive and useful. Our unions are leading the charge on this front, researching, developing training and models of effective teacher evaluation. We are constantly seeking better methods of helping our students. There are effective ways to engage with peers and principals to delve deeply into goals and practices in the classroom, and when we invest our time and resources into these best practices, teachers and students benefit. But we must resist the urge to artificially simplify those necessarily complex and time consuming evaluations just to feed the data monster with statistics and test scores. Information is important, but context is everything \" which is something we\"d love to teach your kids, too, if we could only find some time in between test prep sessions.", "qid": "26", "docid": "dc4d2564-2019-04-18T13:57:13Z-00002-000", "rank": 9, "score": 159965.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to k-12 education in the U.S Content: 1. Not All Students The Same Badertscher, Eric, and Heather Newton. \"Counterpoint: National Education Standards Overlook Individuals And Local Communities.\" Points Of View: Standardized Testing (2015): 3. Points of View Reference Center. Web. 20 Nov. 2015. http://web.b.ebscohost.com... Standardized testing presents numerous problems in American education. First, it fails to take into account that not all children learn in same way. This is especially true in the primary grades, when children are still new to school in general. Even children with high intelligence may find themselves placed in remedial courses if they do not perform well on standardized tests. State and federal educational bureaucracies tend to use standardized testing as a way to increase their own control over the educational process. By establishing state or national standards, they reduce the role of the free market. Even private schools, for example, which accept school vouchers and are often developed by parents unhappy with local public school systems, find themselves subject to increased governmental oversight through forced conformity with federal standardized testingrequirements. Even state officials have discouraged home schooling on the grounds that this method doesn't provide sufficient standardized testing opportunities. In the bigger picture, the public needs to recognize that bureaucracies (whether local, state, or federal) cannot solve all educational problems. Parents must recognize that children are at school for only part of the day; learning, however, can take place all day long. Thus, parents can look for ways to teach children important concepts after school and during the summer when they are not at school. Parents can also encourage local school boards to use other forms of testingto gain a better assessment of each student's academic progress. Standardized tests have also been linked to an overemphasis on vocational education. For example, students learn business math, but are not taught the larger concepts of critical thinking in mathematics. Likewise, some English classes focus on business writing, rather than teaching students to write essays that develop analytical skills. Education should focus as much on pure intellectual growth and being a good citizen, as on earning a living and passing a test", "qid": "26", "docid": "e4d12b1a-2019-04-18T13:55:40Z-00003-000", "rank": 10, "score": 159539.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to k-12 education in the United States. Content: Why Publishing a Teacher\"s Standardized Test Results Is a Very Bad Idea Using student standardized test scores to evaluate teachers, a trend gaining steam in a growing number of states in recent years as a result of the federal \"Race to the Top\" program, isn\"t about improving education. It is, and always has been, about ranking, sorting, and shaming schools and educators. But, just as controversial testing regimens don\"t accurately capture student learning or progress in the classroom, standardized, homogenized teacher evaluations don\"t capture what teachers do for students. Teaching and learning is hardly a beauty pageant. Educators and kids are more than a set of scores. Still, Americans like information for its own sake; we like to create and consume lists and databases, analyses and reviews, to stare at numbers before we make decisions even if, like Yelp reviews, they\"re as predictive as tea leaves. Though a Virginia parent sued for teacher evaluation and observations to be made available to the public, educators who have been in the classroom know that the information published is little more reliable than that onratemyteacher.com (where, if you look me up, you\"ll discover that I was simultaneously \"the best,\" \"the worst,\" \"real cool,\" and \"hype,\" as both compliment and insult). How does publishing a teacher\"s standardized test results support students and teachers? How does it turn into anything more than an adult-world re-creation of class rank, where we are shamed into competing against each other instead of working together to actually improve? How does it do more for parents than chatting in the parking lot or posting on Facebook groups would do? Evaluations based on testing don\"t show the hours we teachers spend researching, planning, and reflecting on lessons that will never be listed on an evaluation form. The standardized tests on which our evaluations are based often don\"t even align with the curricula we teach. And, instead of being an authentic element of ongoing professional growth and development, classroom observations have become just one more task for overburdened administrators to complete: even the best-intentioned principals often can\"t find the time in their days to get into our classrooms to experience the interactions taking place among our students. When I taught a reading program for 9th graders while still at Kensington CAPA High School in Philadelphia, my students began the year with an average reading level equivalent to a mid-term fourth grader. We created a safe space for learning, and worked hard, together; after a semester, most of my students improved by at least one grade level on reading assessments. The students felt pride in and ownership of their growth; my principal brought guests in to observe the great work that was going on in the program. But on state-mandated standardized tests, my students still scored \"below basic\" because even the two or three years of progress they made in one year meant that they were still reading at levels below what was expected of rising 10th graders. They were labeled failing; as their teacher, I was a failure, too. The tests could not show what was taking place in our classroom. The woman dubbed \"the worst teacher in New York\" taught in just such a classroom, and the truth about her teaching couldn\"t have been further from the picture the \"rankings\" (and then the press) painted of her. The tests and the evaluations that are based on them are unable to accurately portray what happens in classes and schools where students are mobile, speaking different languages, coming and leaving at different times during the school year, where students are already performing far above or below grade level, or where poverty is a factor in students\" readiness for school and the resources available in schools themselves. Just as all children are more than the sum of their test scores, so are their teachers. If you want to understand what\"s going on in your child\"s classroom,there are countless ways for parents and families to learn more and become more engaged in their childrens\" education. If we work together \" if you don\"t listen to advocates who want the public to view teachers as the enemy in the battle to educate children \"sharing notes and communicating about your child (and about the work he or she is doing in my class ), we can help your child succeed in my class and outside it. You\"ll learn far more about me and about your child in my class from talking to me than looking up some unreliable, meaningless standardized test score online. My colleagues and I actually crave feedback and opportunities to grow; we want professional observation and evaluation to be more in depth, intensive and useful. Our unions are leading the charge on this front, researching, developing training and models of effective teacher evaluation. We are constantly seeking better methods of helping our students. There are effective ways to engage with peers and principals to delve deeply into goals and practices in the classroom, and when we invest our time and resources into these best practices, teachers and students benefit. But we must resist the urge to artificially simplify those necessarily complex and time consuming evaluations just to feed the data monster with statistics and test scores. Information is important, but context is everything \" which is something we\"d love to teach your kids, too, if we could only find some time in between test prep sessions. http://www.alternet.org...", "qid": "26", "docid": "dc4d2564-2019-04-18T13:57:13Z-00000-000", "rank": 11, "score": 155880.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to K-12 education in the United States Content: Though standardized test may help Identify racial inequity, it can by no means combat inequity: \"Dating back to the development of IQ tests at the turn of the century, standardized tests have been used to sort and rank children, most reprehensibly along racial and class lines, and to rationalize giving more privileges to the already privileged. Indeed the first standardized tests were developed by eugenicists anxious for \"scientific\" data to prove their theories of biological determinism.\" (http://www.rethinkingschools.org...) Furthermore as stated previously, policy makers place to much emphasis on the test and not on the real world: \"Proponents of standardized tests often wrap themselves in the language of high standards. But that's not the issue. No one advocates low standards. The issue is what we mean by higher standards, and how we can reach those standards.By and large, calls for more standardized tests come from politicians eager to prove they are serious about school reform and creating a \"high skills,\" internationally competitive workforce. But they offer little if any evidence that links increased testing to improved teaching and learning. Similarly, test-pushers pay scant attention to key issues such as smaller classes, improved teacher education, more time for teacher planning and collaboration, and ensuring that all schools receive adequate and equitable resources needed to boost achievement. Rather than grappling with these issues, too many politicians have seized on a simplistic formula for reform: more standardized tests, especially \"high stakes\" tests. Nationwide, states and school districts are forcing a growing number of children to take \"high stakes\" standardized tests and, on the basis of test scores, children may be retained, denied access to a preferred high school, or, in some cases, even refused a high school diploma. That's not public accountability, it's discrimination. Dating back to the development of IQ tests at the turn of the century, standardized tests have been used to sort and rank children, most reprehensibly along racial and class lines, and to rationalize giving more privileges to the already privileged. Indeed the first standardized tests were developed by eugenicists anxious for \"scientific\" data to prove their theories of biological determinism. To acknowledge the sinister origins of standardized tests is not, however, to dismiss parent and community concerns about school accountability. We understand and agree with these concerns. Too many schools fail too many children, especially low-income students, students of color, and students who do not speak English as a first language. The broader community has the right and the responsibility to oversee how well schools perform. Good assessments can be one valid method of insuring accountability.\" (http://www.rethinkingschools.org...) The test itself has come to bind our educational system, not by wishing to bring a better tomorrow, but rather to bring a process to categorize you by tomorrow. If our education stays along this path, then the future of our world will be as stoic and lifeless as these test are. It is for that reason that we must reform our testing system or annihilate it all together.", "qid": "26", "docid": "ab3b5048-2019-04-18T14:01:05Z-00004-000", "rank": 12, "score": 155503.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to K-12 education in the United States Content: On the mark: is standardized testing good for education? Hoffman 99, Today's Parents Something has changed. For years we were content to sail along, secure in the belief that Canada had one of the world's best education systems. We looked around at our literate, economically successful democracy and thought, \"We must be doing a good job of educating.\" But, at some point, that belief began to crumble. Maybe it was a reaction to more holistic education approaches introduced in the 1960s, and a growing perception that our schools turn out graduates who lack basic skills. Maybe it's because the most educated adult population in history has higher expectations of schools. Perhaps it's our shrinking global society. We know much more than we used to about what Japanese, German and American children learn in school. Do they learn times tables a grade earlier than our kids? Will that make them better software designers and widget-makers as adults?Whatever the reason, we increasingly look to Standardized tests to see if our schools measure up -- seven of ten Canadian provinces, as well as the Yukon Territory, now have some form of regular testing , usually beginning in grade three or four. Greg Gribbon of Bradford, Ontario welcomes this trend. He wants testing to confirm what his six- and eight-year-old daughters are learning and to tell him whether the school is doing its job. For Gribbon, report cards and classroom marks aren't enough. \"I've heard too many stories from parents who were told that their child was doing fine, only to find out in grade three and grade four that he couldn't read.\"So, what's a good test? \"It must have both validity and reliability,\" says David Ireland, a retired manager of research and evaluation for the former Carleton Board of Education in eastern Ontario. Validity means the test measures what you want it to measure -- for example, basic math skills. Reliability means that the same child would get the same result from one week to the next, no matter who was doing the marking.Get Congress out of standardized testing Tribune 11 Standardized testing is good for assessing the progress of a child's education and determining where to go next. That is, if the test is a diagnosis-type test. However, standardized testing -- the types done to comply with NCLB -- is seriously flawed. These tests aim to determine how a classroom, a school or a district stands in educating children. They are flawed partially because they encourage schools to teach to the test and partially because they fail to consider the contribution parents make or, more pointedly, fail to make. Teaching to the test only builds memorization skills, rather than understanding context, opinions and social aspects.Data gathered from the survey reveal important information about the impact of testing. Klein Zevenbergen Brown 06 Klein, School of Education Zevenbergen, Department of Psychology Brown,Student Personnel Administrator This paper explores how teachers manage standardized testing in schools. A survey was distributed among 20 elementary, middle, and high school teachers in a semi-rural community of Western New York. The data gathered from the survey responses reveal important information about the impact of testing on teaching. Standardized testing affects many of the teachers' focus on instruction. In many cases, teachers prepare their students year-round. Teachers provide test-related, preparative instruction, which governs most of their curricula. A few teachers admit that testing allows them to develop more focused teaching experiences for their students. Insights gleaned from this research study reveal the need to address the many challenges teachers encounter related to standardized testing.", "qid": "26", "docid": "ab3b5067-2019-04-18T14:00:59Z-00007-000", "rank": 13, "score": 154219.0}, {"content": "Title: National testing will ensure all students learn the same, essential skills and information Content: National testing does not ensure students learn the same, important skills and information. Many essential skills, like the development of confidence, public-speaking skills and innovation cannot be tested. However, the focus on standardized testing encourages teachers to just teach skills and information that will increase test results rather than focus on deeper understanding and life lessons that can be applied in life generally. National testing does not inspire a love of learning. The most important part in education is that students develop a love of learning, so that they seek to learn on their own, outside of school. National testing, however, makes learning such a strict process that it does not inspire such a love of learning, failing the most important test of a good educational system. improve this", "qid": "26", "docid": "eb991d36-2019-04-15T20:24:15Z-00024-000", "rank": 14, "score": 154060.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to K-12 education in the United States Content: Essentially, your article covers both the pro and the con. Standardized test promote teaching a test rather than teaching critical thinking. On one hand you have a student who can pass a test but fails to apply their knowledge to a real world scenario. On the other hand you have a student who can take the various facets of a problem and create a solution that adheres to the nuances and minutia of that problem. Furthermore, Thomas Armstrong analyzes short comings of the standardized testing system: Because so much emphasis is placed on standardized test results these days, teachers are spending more and more time \"teaching to the test.\" If there is something that is interesting, compelling, useful, or otherwise favorable to the development of a student\"s understanding of the world, but it is not going to be on the standardized test, then there really isn\"t any incentive to cover this material. Instead, most of classroom time consists of either taking the tests or preparing for the tests, and this shuts out the possibility of learning anything new or important. For example, because the No Child Left Behind Law (NCLB) only tests reading, math, and science that means that art, social studies, physical education, history, and other subjects are given far less attention than used to be the case. Standardized tests occur in an artificial learning environment: they\"re timed, you can\"t talk to a fellow student, you can\"t ask questions, you can\"t use references or learning devices, you can\"t get up and move around. How often does the real world look like this? Prisons come to mind. And yet, even the most hard-headed conservative will say that education must prepare students for \"the real world.\" Clearly standardized testing doesn\"t do this. Standardized tests create stress. Some kids do well with a certain level of stress. Other students fold. So, again, there isn\"t a level playing field. Brain research suggests that too much stress is psychologically and physically harmful. And when stress becomes overwhelming, the brain shifts into a \"fight or flight\" response, where it is impossible to engage in the higher-order thinking processes that are necessary to respond correctly to the standardized test questions. Standardized tests reduce the richness of human experience and human learning to a number or set of numbers. This is dehumanizing. A student may have a deep knowledge of a particular subject, but receive no acknowledgement for it because his or her test score may have been low. If the student were able to draw a picture, lead a group discussion, or create a hands-on project, he/she could show that knowledge. But not in a standardized testing room. Tough luck.\" (http://institute4learning.com...) At the end of the day it comes down to what you value. If we continue to put undue interest into the importance of standardized tests, we may generate a general testing template but we lose creativity and ingenuity in the long run.However, if we allow the classroom to foster creativity and critical thinking, we will in turn create a generation of people who are able to tackle the complex problems that face our world today. As it stands now, the status quo of standardized testing is detrimental to US education and should thus be reformed.", "qid": "26", "docid": "ab3b5048-2019-04-18T14:01:05Z-00006-000", "rank": 15, "score": 153742.0}, {"content": "Title: Standardized testing should remain in our schools. Content: Alright, wrap up. Standardized testing fails at assessing every one's knowledge to full extend due to the lack of open answer questions, which has been proven to be the ideal way to asses knowledge.Standardized testing favors and rewards proficient students (scholarships when you get a perfect SAT score) and discriminates and punishes students under proficiency (getting put into special ed programs, not getting into colleges that they wish to attend).Standardized testing is riducously expensive (http://www.huffingtonpost.com...), and that money could go towards much better programs that actually improve the education provided in schools. So my question to you is, if it is proven not to truly asses a students knowledge, if it barres lower scoring students from succeeding in life, and if it cost an absolute absurd amount of money every year, money that could be better spend on other projects, why do we still have standardized tests?(Good luck on your debate, good idea of doing this on here before you have the real debate, that way you can really see your opponents viewpoint and main arguments, and you can fine tune your own argument. I will see you around!)", "qid": "26", "docid": "8703c5ca-2019-04-18T16:10:43Z-00000-000", "rank": 16, "score": 153553.0}, {"content": "Title: On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to K-12 education in the United States Content: First, addressing my opponents observation of my plagiarism. I have given credit to Lisa Adams as stated: Lisa Adams, Research Associate, Joseph Pedulla, Professor at Boston College, George Madaus, Professor at Boston College, 2003, Theory into practice, 42.1, p. 18-29 I would also like to point out that the link my opponent has posted is not valid. May I also ask for the source for your definition of Standardized Testing? Contention 1: Notice how my opponent said that the only way for a child to retain information is through a standardized test. However, that is not always true. Although there are students who study and remember information, many teachers will FOCUS on the test, and afterwards, forget about making sure the students remember. This is called teaching to the test. Many students will remember the information ONLY for the test, and not for remembering information in the future. Contention 2: Yes, standardized tests can compare students, but is that necessarily good? Like you stated in your last contention, standardized tests can BOOST your confidence, but when you are compared with other students for other districts, doesn't that tear down your confidence, knowing that colleges are looking for smart people and you just aren't the smartest. Also, as I pointed out in my case, standardized testing can discriminate against students who have just moved here from foreign countries, or their families are too poor to help provide a stable learning system. This can create achievement gaps between them and middle and upper class students who are given plenty of tools and guides to help their education. Contention 3: As my entire contention three says, teachers are often hurt by standardized tests, because it forces them to teach something they aren't used to teaching. I would also like to say that my opponent's \"professionals\" are just teachers and parents. And although they are somewhat connected to standardized tests(their students take the tests), they don't have the right to be called \"professionals\". Adding to that, notice how the resolution says \"beneficial\". This means that my opponent should focus on how it is \"beneficial\", not teachers having a bias towards standardized testing. Contention 4: I have done my own part of research. and have found that standardized testing is actually only a quarter of a percent of the total US education budget. The USA spends more than a billion dollars on Standardized Testing ALONE! Can you imagine what else we can do with this money, instead of using it on tests that students forget about in a month afterwards anyways? We can help support the fight against ISIS, we can advance our research on Ebola. We could do all sorts of things with the billion dollars we spend EACH year on standardized testing. Contention 5: Just because a test is \"fair\", does not mean it is \"beneficial\". A fair test could compose of random questions that anyone could answer, but that doesn't make it \"beneficial\". This argument is not relevant to this debate Contention 6: My opponent is using statistics to dehumanize students who have suicide. as they say, \"On the news, you probably see stories about kids commiting suicide because of standardized testing. Those cases however, are extremely rare. What is common, is self esteem causing confidence. People tend to over exaggerate the small examples of bad things happening but tend to ignore positivity.\" Basically, what they are trying to say is that it's okay for a small fraction of students to suicide(STUDENTS!) because it helps the majority have confidence, which it doesn't necessarily, as I stated in my attack on their case. I would also like to point out that my opponent does not have any source or quote on this contention, making it a bias and frankly unfair contention. If my opponent were to have this contention standing at the end of the debate, I would like to kindly ask the judges to see that this contention has no warrant and should be ignored.", "qid": "26", "docid": "a331003f-2019-04-18T14:04:49Z-00003-000", "rank": 17, "score": 152842.0}, {"content": "Title: standardized testing should be eliminated Content: Positive Aspects of Standardized Testing 1) Standardized testing gives teachers direction to help them conclude what to teach students and when to teach it. The outcome is more efficient instructional time and a simplified way of timeline management. 2) Standardized testing tells parents and the school how well students are faring across the country and locally. This can also indicate how your local area is doing compared against the national landscape. You need standardized testing to see where the problems are. Without the level knowledge that it gives, certain problems won't be recognized and dealt with. 3) Since all students in a school are doing identical tests, standardized tests provide an accurate comparison across groups. Over the years great improvements have been made with regards to test bias, which has led to more accurate assessments and comparisons. 4) Standardized testing permits students' progress to be tracked over the years. When students take the same type of test yearly, which is adjusted for grade level, it is easy to see if a student is improving, degrading, or not changing. This assesses the teacher and the child. 5) It improves the accountability of students and schools and motivates students to learn the material. Knowledge is cumulative, so a student doing poor early can end up behind indefinitely. 6) It costs 50 cents to $5 to score an essay, compared with pennies for each multiple-choice question. According to the new York times. Standardized testing simply makes education more stable, level, cheap, adaptable, and allows for better assessment.", "qid": "26", "docid": "7182eb4d-2019-04-18T19:07:15Z-00003-000", "rank": 18, "score": 152404.0}, {"content": "Title: Standardized tests ensures students learn essential information. Content: There is some information in the world that is essential to know as a means of communicating effectively and analytically with other individuals in society, whether as a citizen or in the marketplace. Standardized tests help ensure that all students learn this important information. It is true that this information can be cut-and-dry and perhaps even boring, including history, literacy (reading comprehension), and math. Yet, it is, nevertheless, essential, so testing for it and ensuring students know the information is socially and educationally valuable. Yet, it is also true, that this essential information does not constitute all the information that a community may believe their children should know.", "qid": "26", "docid": "40f19507-2019-04-17T11:47:33Z-00070-000", "rank": 19, "score": 151196.0}, {"content": "Title: Standardized Tests Content: Yes, if you create formal standards for the education system, the tests are probably necessary. I support the abolishment of all formal standards. They are designed to ensure that all students meet a certain criteria before they move on(see: No Child Left Behind). However, this also prevents superior students from moving forward with their education because they are stuck waiting for stupid kids. Standards are a terrible system for education.", "qid": "26", "docid": "b760073d-2019-04-18T17:08:38Z-00002-000", "rank": 20, "score": 150133.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to K-12 education in the United States Content: Standardized Testing is Good Issitt 15 Standardized Testing: An Overview. By: Issitt, Micah L., McMahon, Maureen, Points of View: Standardized Testing, 2015, Points of View Reference Center, 11/20/15 http://web.b.ebscohost.com... A standardized test is one that is given to evaluate the performance of students relative to all other students with the same characteristics, for example, all fourth-grade students or all students taking AP English in high school. In the United States, standardized testing is one of the primary methods used to measure the performance of educational institutions (and often teachers) and to make decisions about the distribution of funding. Standardized tests have been used in American schools since the 1930s to help identify students with special needs Since that time, a series of legislative measures, including the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), has placed increasing importance on the results of standardized tests. In response to those measures, public schools currently administer standardized tests as a prerequisite for receiving federal funding. Proponents argue that standardized testing is the most efficient method of assessing the performance of students and institutions and of maintaining the quality of education. Some critics argue that standardized tests are culturally and socially biased and that educators do not understand the variables that contribute to test scores. In addition, it has been suggested that standardized testing is an ineffective use of federal funding. Though many agree that the testing system is flawed, some believe that the current model can be reformed, while others believe that it is impossible to create a test to accurately measure aptitude across a diverse student population Standardized Test: A type of test given and graded in a uniform manner in an effort to create a universal standard against which the performance of individual students may be measured. Standardized Testing Today NCLB has been criticized by educational organizations who believe that the program represents a misallocation of federal funding. Critics argue that federal funding could be better used to improve pay rates and benefits for teachers, especially since tenure and reappointment are often based on test scores. In addition, some have criticized NCLB for making standardized testing a legal requirement without engaging in a suitable public debate. Under the Obama Administration, NCLB waivers were issued to districts that felt the program was not working for their schools. These waivers exempt school districts from some or all of the federal requirements under NCLB, including standardized testing. Proponents of testing argue that the government has a responsibility to ensure that educational funding is given to schools with the greatest need, and that the government must rely on some testing procedure to ensure that federal funding is being effectively used. In addition, some proponents argue that without standardized testing educators would be unable to identify students with special needs. Several independent research studies have indicated that the process of studying for tests helps students to develop long-term recall, even concerning material that is not included in the actual test. However, recent studies indicate that short-answer and essay tests are more effective than the current, largely multiple-choice testing models in helping students to recall information. In addition, some critics believe that standardized testing teaches students to learn in a way conducive to multiple-choice exams (that there is always one right answer) while encouraging teachers to \"teach to the test\" rather than supporting students' critical-thinking skills. High-stakes federal achievement requirements have also led to several large-scale cheating scandals, including a 2011 revelation that hundreds of Atlanta public school teachers altered standardized tests in order to falsely report student performance improvements. Finally, while standardized tests offer information about a population, they do not provide data that addresses the achievement of specific individuals (Cangliosi, 1990, p. 26).", "qid": "26", "docid": "ab3b5048-2019-04-18T14:01:05Z-00007-000", "rank": 21, "score": 150074.0}, {"content": "Title: Standardized tests poorly measure real student learning Content: Standardized testing often tests only a very limited range of skills rather than the broad range of skills we would hope our educational system is teaching. Standardized testing focuses largely on memorization, speed of recall, and critical thinking. Yet, a full education entails much more, including creativity, emotional insight, composure and dignity, physical health and an understanding of nutrition, and many other basic human values. NCLB, therefore, does not measure the most important factors in a student's education and future success and happiness. It is, therefore, useless as a measure of a student and school's performance.", "qid": "26", "docid": "40f19507-2019-04-17T11:47:33Z-00066-000", "rank": 22, "score": 150022.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Standardized test scores accurately reflect the academic value of students. Content: First of all if you mean inconsistent in terms of a huge difference in results you are entirely wrong. Again, it will make no sense in the world for you to have major differentials between tests of the same subject. 1. Bruce Whitehead, author of \"Using standardized test results as an instructional guide\", states in his academic journal \"One school was able to use standardized test scores to improve its curriculum as well as its educational policies.\" Extremely beneficial for schools and teachers are these tests. They provide a understanding of where a student stands. To my opponent, Tests are constantly worked upon to achieve perfection. Students themselves learn their weaknesses from examinations and use exams as a way to improve their academic standards. 2. My opponent does not seem to understand where im going with the educated guess respone. What I am saying is that students who do guess on tests do not do it for every single question and pass. Behind every guess is some strategy and something from a lesson must seem familiar to the student to choose his or her answer. Having to go to summer school as my opponent says, is not a curse. If you have to go to summer school is because you do not fully understand the material and your friend who made his guess and got it right most likely had some understanding of the question. Your friend had to have some background knowgledge of the material for him to even get close to passing the examination. 3. Teachers throughout the course of the year give students information as to what would be on standardized examinations and what to look out for. To those students who still feel pressure at the time of the test, I don't know what to say but we cannot just stop the tradtion and excellence of standardized testing for a handful of students who most of the time get through pressure with some counseling and help. I am happy you agree that it's silly. 4. Scores could with no doubt be used to improve teaching in the class rooms. The overall results of the class determine where they stand in general. Individually, students can be placed in classes with students who are also having a defiency in some aspect of the curriculum. Standardized testing proves to be efficient, not perfect of course, but a way to help students improve their academic value. Thanks to my opponent for this interesting debate. Vote for PRO!!! Good Luck 4.", "qid": "26", "docid": "952e7fd8-2019-04-18T18:59:54Z-00002-000", "rank": 23, "score": 149954.0}, {"content": "Title: Standardized testing sets useful baseline achievement standards. Content: It is important that a nation has a general frame of reference on where students should, on average, be at various stages in their educational development. Standardized testing helps do this by setting a baseline level of achievement at each grade. While some students may perform above or below this standard, the important thing is judging the general educational trends across American society, so that we can help guide our national educational system onto a globally competitive path.", "qid": "26", "docid": "40f19507-2019-04-17T11:47:33Z-00065-000", "rank": 24, "score": 149798.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to K-12 education in the United States Content: My opponent simply doesn't understand anything that I am claiming. He says he can have evidence from the last century, while I cannot have some from 3 years ago; he is saying that because I never specifically said standardised testing any tests I say must not be standardised tests (yet, they actually are, it should be inferred); he is saying that what I am claiming is false because it's dumb; and because I don't specify that the US government is doing something then I can't have any ground.If you read my evidence and my case with a careful eye you should know literally everything I am talking about -- taking everything out of context and reading incarefully means you don't get what I am saying.Extend all rebuttals & defense, they were never really contested.", "qid": "26", "docid": "ab3b5067-2019-04-18T14:00:59Z-00002-000", "rank": 25, "score": 149322.0}, {"content": "Title: Standardized testing is hurting our school population and community Content: I do agree that in large quantities, stress can indeed seem overwhelming to children who do not necessarily have the coping mechanism and mental maturity to deal with such stress. It is important to note that however, children are not completely independent like adults and have others to turn to in event of too much stress such as teachers, peers, parents, or even the school counsellor. Children with disabilities are often given greater berth in standardised tests and they are often provided with extra time, extra resources, to help them cope with their disadvantages. Stress from standardised testing helps to push children to be the best they can be, creating an air of competitiveness in education which will ultimately provide incentive to children to excel academically. It is also vital to be aware that standardised testing does not always place an inherent focus on test scores. Some standardised tests are not always weighted or graded, and not all systems place emphasis on test scores purely. Holistic education is key to providing children with a healthy, well-rounded and quality education. I also understand that standardised testing only shows the progress of students at a certain point in time, which is why it is important in the application of standardised testing that students are testing at regular periods of time throughout their education career. For example, quarterly, bi-annually, termly, etc. This will help to reflect growth of students in terms of academic competence. Contrary to belief, such standardised testing can be tailored to show the maturity of students, mental, emotional development by incorporating questions require a more development or mature view point such as questions for opinion, debate, or discussion, which will help to depict the emotional growth of a student. I do agree also that governments should increase funding for standardised testing as this will prove to be ultimately beneficial in setting up new education policies, to drive the education sector to a whole new level. In summary, I believe standardised testing is an immensely invaluable tool and that it should be implemented regularly at regular interval time periods and throughout the education levels, to provide optimal results, and I think this will prove to be a catalyst in the growth of education.", "qid": "26", "docid": "97409bf1-2019-04-18T14:11:04Z-00000-000", "rank": 26, "score": 149233.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to k-12 education in the United States. Content: Why we don\"t need standardized testing Resolved: On Balance standardized testing is beneficial to k-12 education in the Unites States. Standardized tests don\"t provide any further information we don\"t already know - Greg Jouriles 14 http://www.edweek.org... There are two main arguments against using standardized tests to guarantee that students reach at least a basic level of academic competency. The first is radical: These tests are not necessary. The second\"less radical and more familiar\"is that, even if standardized testing were an efficient benchmark of basic skills, the costs associated with it are too high. Standardized tests are unnecessary because they rarely show what we don't already know. Ask any teacher and they can tell you which students can read and write. That telling usually comes in the form of letter grades or evaluations that break down progress on skills. So trust the teacher. Publish grade distributions. Locally publish a compilation of evaluation reports. Release a state or national report reviewed and verified by expert evaluators with legislative oversight. People will say: \"That's crazy! Schools will fudge results. Grade data means nothing because teachers apply different standards with different values. Let's give them all one reliable test. And won't this proposal create a whole new bureaucracy?\" All true (except for the one test being reliable). Given high stakes and the accompanying pressure, people will game a system. And it is all too true that grades vary widely because of four factors: a teacher's conception of achievement, a teacher's sense of equity and rigor, a teacher's ability, and the composition of students. But people are already gaming standardized testing, sometimes criminally. And, at a basic level of competency, a grade or an evaluative report would give us as much information as we now get from standardized tests. We have the grade problem at my high school. In the same course or department, a B in one classroom might be an A, or even a C, in another. It's a problem for us, and, likely, a problem in most schools. \"To sum up, we don\"t learn much from standardized accountability, and we have lost a great deal by giving it so much prominence.\" But it has also been an opportunity. Recognizing our grading differences, we opted to create a common conception of achievement, our graduate profile, and department learning outcomes with rubrics. Our standards now align closely with the Common Core State Standards. Second, we created common performance tasks that measure these standards and formative assessments that scaffold to them. Third, we look together at student work. Fourth, we have begun to grade each other's students on these common tasks. We could publish the results of these performance tasks, and the public would have a good idea of what we're good at and what we're not. For example, our students effectively employ reading strategies to comprehend a text, but are often stymied by a lack of vocabulary or complex syntax. We've also learned most of our students can coherently develop a claim, citing the appropriate evidence to support it when choosing from a restricted universe of data. They aren't as good when the universe of data is broadened. They are mediocre at analysis, counter-arguments, rebuttals, and evaluation of sources, though they have recently gotten better at evaluating sources as we have improved our instruction and formative assessments. A small percentage of our students do not show even basic competency in reading and writing. That's better information than we've ever received from standardized testing. What's also started to happen is that teachers who use the same standards and rubrics, assign the same performance tasks, and grade each other's work are finding their letter grades starting to align. And, this approach has led to a lot of frank discussions. For example, why are grades different? Where we have looked, different conceptions of achievement and rigor seem most important. So we have to talk about it. The more we do, the more aligned we will become, and the more honest picture of achievement we can create. It has been fantastic professional development\"done without external mandates. We have a long way to go, but we can understand the value of our efforts and see improvement in student work. I would not advocate publishing individual teachers' grades because it would cause the same problems as publishing individual teachers' standardized-test results, but grades by subject, grade level, and demographic categories could be fair game externally. Internally, those breakdowns should stimulate hard conversations and necessary professional development. Of course, this proposal would have to be negotiated and modified locally to avoid the punishment/reward cycle of other accountability measures that force people to conform and tempt them to cheat. The goal is to spur the collaboration and conversation necessary for improvement. Well, that's your district, some might say. It's got a unique collaborative culture and a better sense of achievement than most. You can't do that across the nation. Why not? With the common core, a definition of achievement exists. And teachers are more likely to respond to professional development and accountability more concretely connected to their daily work. They are more likely to improve. That leads to the second argument. Even if standardized testing were not only desirable to give the public a picture of basic competencies, but also an efficient way to do so, the costs have been too great. Many have previously made cogent arguments (unrealistic definitions of achievement, skewed instructional schemes, inequitable curricular offerings, inevitable corruption, perverted charter school missions, alienation, disempowerment, and embarrassment of educators, etc.) in this vein, but let's think about a supposed example of success on this front\"a school with the high test scores. In general, such a school has a compliant or affluent population. Test scores are a point of pride. The school has a good reputation. But, when you go in and observe, the teaching and learning do not impress. Never once have I looked at the test scores of this kind of school and thought, \"How could I be more like them?\" That's because success represented just a score on a narrow test of a limited band of achievement (a test, by the way, with content that I was not even legally allowed to talk about), and I couldn't see how looking at that score could help me in my day-to-day teaching. Even worse, I don't think the teachers at such schools have learned much from their good scores. If anything, the scores have prevented them from becoming better. So, to sum up, we don't learn much from standardized testing, and we have lost a great deal by giving it so much prominence. The common core is at risk for failure, not because the standards are bad per se, but because with standardized accountability, as in so many partial reforms, we again won't get a real picture of achievement, people will be disappointed, and the standards and testing will run their course. Instead, why not just trust teachers and schools to report the progress of their students with the measures they have, and use internal and external local pressures to improve the measures and practices? It will avoid a plethora of social, emotional, and political costs. Any bureaucracy created can't be more of a drag on the government or economy than the legion of consultants and think tanks today feeding off the trough of education. This proposal is more in line with what we know about the success of sustainable local organizations and what we know about the inflated rise and inevitable fall of mass reform.", "qid": "26", "docid": "dc4d2564-2019-04-18T13:57:13Z-00004-000", "rank": 27, "score": 148997.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to K-12 education in the United States Content: Support for the Pro position of this resolution if bountiful and defensible in a properly framed debate. At the outset, the Pro debater needs to recognize there is significant negative press against standardized testing arising from a multitude of factors, many of which are unrelated to the question of whether or not standardized testing is beneficial to student education. These negative factors poison the well and spread the perception that because some elements related to standardized testing are undesirable, then standardized testing in general must be undesirable. This, of course, is a logical fallacy; a kind of fallacy of composition in which one draws conclusions about a whole based upon an examination of smaller portions. Standardized testing is a tool and like any tool can be designed for specific purposes. We shall examine those purposes and their effect on education and we will scratch the surface of an abundance of studies which measure the effect of testing on students. Much of the research extends back several decades and is still cited in research journals today. A Basic Definition To clarify the position, I will provide a definition for standardized tests which describes their nature and their purpose. JCCHD (undated): A Standardized test is a test that is given in a consistent or \"standard\" manner. Standardized tests are designed to have consistent questions, administration procedures, and scoring procedures. When a standardized test is administrated, is it done so according to certain rules and specifications so that testing conditions are the same for all test takers. Standardized tests come in many forms, such as standardized interviews, questionnaires, or directly administered intelligence tests. The main benefit of standardized tests is they are typically more reliable and valid than non-standardized measures. They often provide some type of \"standard score\" which can help interpret how far a child\"s score ranges from the average. Based upon this definition we can surmise that the test may be administered by a school in accordance with some over-arching direction or purpose and may be required by local administration or government or at the state level. A key principle is the test must be administered and assessed in a standardized and consistent way aligned to the purpose it is designed to serve. Key Advantages Standardized tests offer advantages to school system administrators which are not possible with in-class testing and assessments designed and graded by teachers. The key advantages are objectivity, comparability, and accountability (Churchill 2015). Depending on the type of test one teacher's evaluation of a student's test may be different than another teacher's evaluation of the same student's test results. This variability can result from a lack of objectivity in the design or assessment of the test and lead to different impressions of a student's level of achievement. Standardized tests are designed to greatly reduce subjective grading. Often, standardized tests are assessed by computers rather than humans. Not only does this reduce costs by eliminating the need to pay graders, it enforces objective standards. The second major advantage is seen when a local school board needs to determine the overall level of achievement of, say sixth-graders in several different schools within their jurisdiction, Standardized tests ensure that all of the sixth-grade students will be evaluated on a common, objective standard. This allows a fair evaluation of sixth-grade achievement and helps determine which schools or classes may be in need of improvement. Objectivity and comparability are both necessary to realize the advantages linked to accountability. School system administrators use the tests as a feedback mechanism for the schools and classes to alter curriculum or resources in such a way they can benefit student achievement. Accountability requires the individual schools and instructors demonstrate forward progress in achieving the goals of the school administration. From Feedback to Blowback I do want to spend a little time discussing the downside of standardized tests because I believe a thorough evaluation and acknowledgement of problems increases the Pro ethos. Accountability is pushed by governments intent on maximizing their educational dollars. Obviously, an administration concerned with high costs will tend to view standardized tests as a mechanism for achieving goals for the least cost. First, the cost of testing is relatively cheap and secondly standardized tests can potentially isolate problems in individual schools, classrooms, or teachers putting increased pressure on those systems and individuals. Moreover, politicians can use accountability to enhance their own political statuses. Merrow (2001): But the fundamental problem is that many schools and school districts use standardized test results more for accountability than understanding or diagnosis. I'm not blaming educators for this situation, because they're only following orders. H. D. Hoover of the University of Iowa defends testing but agrees we've gone overboard. He places the blame squarely on politicians. \"They want quick fixes, and they like tests because they're cheap. They mandate external tests because to the public it looks like they're doing something about education when all they're doing is actually a very inexpensive 'quick fix.'\" When accountability increases pressure on school districts in a heavy-handed way, students are often re-categorized for failure to demonstrate achievement above a particular \"cut-line\" which alarms and often angers parents. Teachers are pressured to increase the performance of students and some teachers are viewed as professionally incompetent. All of this pressure results in negative attitudes about standardized testing and leads to abuses which have resulted in overly narrowed curriculum which focus entirely on the tests, and in extreme cases, cheating. All of these negative impressions ripple through communities and result in the perception standardized tests are the problem. The link between the home and the administration is the classroom and the teachers themselves play a significant role in the success or failure of the testing programs. Brown & Hattie (2012): The belief systems of teachers are a significant factor in whether standardized tests can be educationally useful. Clearly, pre-existing beliefs that standardized tests are irrelevant can and will influence how teachers respond to the possibility of using tests educationally. But there are other options for understanding the purpose and nature of assessment; assessment can evaluate schools, it can evaluate or certify students, and it can be for improvement (Brown, 2008). For example, in the development of the asTTle standardized tests system, it was found that teachers who endorsed the conception of assessment related to \"assessment is powerful for improving teaching\" had higher interpretation scores on a test about the meaning of the asTTle test score reports (r = .34). In contrast, teachers who endorsed more strongly the conception of assessment as a means of evaluating or holding schools accountable had the lowest interpretation scores (r = -.21) (Hattie et al. 2006).Thus, successful use of standardized tests requires believing that they can contribute to improved teaching and student learning for the individuals in a teacher\"s class. This belief leads to more accurate interpretation to the educationally useful information communicated in standardized test reports.[290] We can see tests as simple measuring systems which serve as an important tool in guiding the educational development of students. Ultimately it is how those tools are used and people's attitudes about how the tools are used which guides perception of whether or not the tests are beneficial. No doubt it guides the perception of the PF debate judge as well.", "qid": "26", "docid": "ab3b5048-2019-04-18T14:01:05Z-00001-000", "rank": 28, "score": 148471.0}, {"content": "Title: School Testing Content: Standardized testing costs 1.7 billion per year, this would save taxpayers a lot of money ending the madness. These tests are unreliable when measuring a student's performance. In 2011, a study found that testing does not improve student achievement. The United States has dropped in Math, Reading, and Science. The testing only measures a small portion of education. Teachers are in classes teaching a test as opposed to teaching from a book. This is only hurting education, the teachers and students should not be held accountable for poor test grades. Not all students test the same, some students test poorly, but at the same time know more than they are showing on the test. These tests do not bring a positive learning environment for the student or for the teacher, both of which are stressed. The student is stressed fearing they may not pass and can not move up to the next grade. The teacher may lose their job if some of the students do not pass this test. Testing is good to see what level students are at and what the school or teacher need to work on, but it should not be a deciding factor on anything. http://www.nap.edu... http://www.science20.com...", "qid": "26", "docid": "288c2167-2019-04-18T13:45:09Z-00000-000", "rank": 29, "score": 148035.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to K-12 education in the United States Content: Extend all; no response needed beyond that.", "qid": "26", "docid": "ab3b5067-2019-04-18T14:00:59Z-00000-000", "rank": 30, "score": 147790.0}, {"content": "Title: On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to K-12 education in the United States Content: My opponent has plagiarized from . http://webcache.googleusercontent.com... If one doesn't site the link, it is still considered PLAGIARISM. Now onto through refutations of my opponents points:The counter repudiations will be in round 3. I would now like to begin: Contention #1- Standardized Testing results in incomplete educationPart A- Standardized testing alters school curriculum to the detriment of a well-rounded education. The talked a lot about how teachers only prepare students for the tests therefore stopping a well rounded education. As I understood this point, teachers don't teach students everything, they prepare students for the test. However, on the contrary, standardized tests ensure a well rounded, balanced education. What is on the test is what the student needs to know which once again leads to a well rounded education. . http://www.educationreport.org... Consider a test of reading comprehension. Teachers may prepare their students by working on sample problems. Teachers may spend time instructing students on how to identify a passage\u2019s main idea. They may also show them how to use context clues to figure out unknown words. Further, teachers may show students how to identify supporting evidence or conclusion sentences. These critical reading skills are precisely what teachers should be teaching anyway; in this light, teaching to the test may not be such a bad thing after all. Another criticism of teaching to the test is that other untested subjects do not receive as much attention. Rather than spending extra time at recess or in music or art, students practice for reading, math, science or social studies tests. Again, is this a bad thing? Students need a balanced curriculum, but the best thing we can do is to ensure that they are developing the cognitive abilities and skills that will prepare them for success in the workforce or higher education. Part B- Standardized testing mostly hurt minorities and the poor. However, I once again dont see the link. Studying is not about your skin color or your financial class. It is about hard work and dedication. If the poor work really hard to get a 300 on their NJAsk, theu can do it. If they dont, they will blatantly fail. The same goes for anyone in the upper class. If someone from the upper class works hard, they will get a scholarship and success. If they decide to waste their life while being a student, they will also receive the school to prison pipeline. Its not about heritage, its about dedication. Now onto a quick note about the disabled and language learners. Such people are given the easier gradient of the test or if the gradient stays the same, the expectation falls giving them the same chance for success. Contention #2- Because of the limitations of standardized testing, it makes a poor measurement of actual learning. Part A- One size does not fit all. My opponent went on about how the educators try to fit for the test. However, my opponents assertion and his evidence are completely irrelevant. And yet, I will attempt a thorough refuation. The one fit all approach and teachers trying to fit the tests is beneficial. What is on the test is what teachers should teach. For instance, on the third grade NJASk or PARK Test, students would be asked to measure angles and perhaps to multiply 5 digit numbers. Without the test, would the teacher be teaching the student 2+2? No. The hypotenuse? No. Teachers would be going over 5 digit number multiplication and measuring angles. About the one size fits all approach. .. Students who are on the same grade level are expected to know the same thing and the one size fits all in this case is a strong benefit of the education system. Part B- Tests do not cover material that is actually taught. However, tests cover what is taught. The teachers spend a lot of time preparing students to take the test. Educators give out practice tests to give students a feel about what the tests are about. If afterall what is on a standardized test is not knows by the student, then there is probably a problem. The teacher probably does not teach what is needed. Standardized tests have material that the student NEEDS to know. If they dont know it, school curriculum needs to be changed. Contention #3- Standardized testing hurts teachers. Part A- Teachers loose control of the curriculum. However, as I have mentioned numerous times, the teachers decide what they teach students and so does the education system. Of course, there are certain basics. These basics are tested just to make sure that the teachers are doing what they need. Standardized tests breifly go over what was studied throughout the year. If a teacher taught the required curriculum, whats the worry? None. Teachers dont loose any control over curriculum. WHAT THE TEACHERS TEACH IS ON THE TEST. Standardized tests are based on what teachers are expected to teach by the program. Tests dont provide the curriculum. The tests rely on the teachers and education program. In simple language, what the teacher SHOULD teach is in the test. If the teacher is teaching grade appropriate information, there will be no detriment to teachers. What the pro stated was that standardized testing directs the curriculum. However, the standardized testing is what teachers need to teach nevertheless. Part B- Teachers loose control of content and scope. They talked about how activities such as art will be squeezed out of the program. However, that is absolutely untrue. Activities such as art are required for the student program. The whole day is not spent on language arts and math. There is a schedule for every singl homeroom.", "qid": "26", "docid": "a331003f-2019-04-18T14:04:49Z-00002-000", "rank": 31, "score": 147458.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to k-12 education in the United States. Content: One thing you mentioned in your first argument is that any teacher can tell you that information about a child, but you are also forgetting the fact that teachers are human beings. A teacher will like one kid but have distaste for the other because of a paper he wrote about a topic. What I am basically saying is that people are not perfect, and asking the teacher what they think could place the student behind because of what they accidently said about the student. We also must remember that parents help out a lot these days. The \"Star\" student of the class may just be the star student because his mother helped him with that writing piece, or that math worksheet. Occasional standardized testing weeds out whether kids are stars because they are getting help from their parents, or because they are actually good students.", "qid": "26", "docid": "dc4d2564-2019-04-18T13:57:13Z-00003-000", "rank": 32, "score": 147380.0}, {"content": "Title: on balance standardized testing is benifical for k-12 education Content: Hello! my name is Thomas brooks and I stand in affirmation of the resolved, On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to K\"12 education in the United States. We have three contentions to bring to you today. 1\" standardized testing compares schools, 2\" Standardised testing improves k\"12 education, 3\" On balance standardized testing has a positive effect on student achievement in school and in life. Point one) Without standardized testing, their would be no way to compare schools, and assure that they were meeting their constitutional standards. The fourteenth constitutional amendment requires fair and equal treatment to all, under protection of the law. The Supreme Court Case Brown vs. Board of education in 1954, Officially legislated that the 14th amendment applied to all education laws. Therefore, It is our constitutional right to receive an equal education. If there is no way to compare schools, there is no way for individuals to know whether a student is receiving a substandard education, vandalising our constitutional right. Without standardized testing there would be no form of comparison and equality would not be obtainable. This leads us into our second point. Standardized testing has made tangible the quality of education a school provides, and created accountability in not just teachers and schools, but in districts and states . This has benefited educational mandates in funding in two irreplaceable ways. 1) The implementation of NCLB has enabled schools to sue states for failing to provide standard and adequate teaching facilities. Study conducted by David G. Sciarra, shows direct correlation to how the instatement of No Child Left Behind created accountability to state and government to provide a standard of school safety conditions. The study focuses on, but is not limited to a number of lawsuits in states New Jersey, Ohio, Alabama, Arkansas, New York, Wyoming, Arizona, Idaho, and California where severely underfunded schools that lacked resources, and dew to the passing of the NCLB had the legal grounds to obtaining equil funding and such from the state improving the education of their students. 2) The second way standardized tests have improved education is in actually reforming state legislature dictating funding. Since the 1970\"s, when statewide standardized tests became more common, there was an increase of court cases discussing that different funding was required to support different schools. These arguments are called \"adequacy\" suits. The arguments are based in the belief that a school that supports a larger population of students, or educates students that live in poorer demographics need more state funding, and can not rely on property tax. Plaintiffs fundamentally rely upon low scores on standardized tests, and high dropout rates as proof that the state has failed to provide an adequate education for substantial numbers of its children. Standardized tests have created greater equality in school funding. Our Third contention is that on balance standardized testing has a positive effect on student achievement in school and in life. Test anxiety is real, and it is true that both high and low stakes standardized tests can create stress in K\"12 students. However, post primary education is also depended on high stakes assessments, similar to those of standardized tests. Students who participate in standardized tests will be more prepared to face future educational, occupational, and professional goals. Such tests include those pertaining to college admission and success, occupational licensing for trades such as law and medicine. Standardised tests are the only way to insure that individuals have the capability to obtain and equal education, key in creating safe campuses, and fundamental in legislature allocating school funding. Furthermore, Standardized tests prepare students for the stress in taking high stakes tests later in their life. On balance, standardized tests are imperative to improving k\"12 education, and benefit it in many ways.", "qid": "26", "docid": "fd3c1a15-2019-04-18T14:07:33Z-00001-000", "rank": 33, "score": 147340.0}, {"content": "Title: Standardized Testing is beneficial for students K-12 in America Content: First, the rules have stated that you back up your claims with adequate evidence. You have not provided any evidence, so I ask that you provide evidence from now on. Your point one is saying that standardized testing takes away from class time. Standardized testing teaches things in the test, so you are saying that standardized tests teach too much about the tests and too little about the other subjects. This is another way of saying \"teaching to the test.\" According to Marcus Hirn, \"\"Teaching to the test\" can be a good thing because it focuses on essential content and skills, eliminates time-wasting activities that don't produce learning gains, and motivates students to excel. [18] The US Department of Education stated in Nov. 2004 that \"if teachers cover subject matter required by the standards and teach it well, then students will master the material on which they will be tested--and probably much more.\" [19]\" This is a GOOD thing, not a bad thing. Your second point is saying that standardized testing is stressful. However, according to Jay Rakow, founder of ProCon.org, Testing is not too stressful for students. The US Department of Education stated: \"Although testing may be stressful for some students, testing is a normal and expected way of assessing what students have learned.\" [19] A Nov. 2001 University of Arkansas study found that \"the vast majority of students do not exhibit stress and have positive attitudes towards standardized testing programs.\" Standardized testing is NOT stressful, and the little stress it exhibits is normal and expected in life. Your third point is standardized testing does not affect student's grades. It actually provides the state with how students are DOING WELL. This is effective. Your solution, using students' overall grades, is ineffective. Worksheets and projects are good ways to test students about little categories here and there, but a standardized test is basically a big worksheet covering EVERYTHING. Now, onto my case. Contention 1: Standardized Testing Holds Educators Accountable (Hughes 2015) Their objectivity and ability to measure student learning, standardized tests are useful tools for holding teachers, schools, and districts accountable for success or failure. The tests help education officials pinpoint where something isn't working in a school or district. Contention 2: The alternative to Standardized Testing is Tenure, a proven failure. (Winters 2012) Their potential contribution to improving teacher quality--the single most important school based factor for fostering student learning--far outweighs the upfront cost. The alternatives to standardized testing have proved to fail, therefore standardized testing is the only possible program left. Contention 3: Standardized testing allows us to determine the most effective teaching strategies, and to make them contextually specific. Geir (2007) Several studies have examined the impacts of inquiry science interventions on measured achievement as they scale up to enactment across multiple schools involving thousands of students. In an experiment in 2006, data suggests a cumulative effect of the intervention as students participate over several years. The data describes positive achievement effects from a standards-based curriculum unit enacted in 10 urban middle schools. Contention 4: All effective educators determine instructional approach by adjusting to data revealed by assessment. More data is not bad, provided it's more accurate than no data at all. Aycock (2014) How would we know what kids know without assessments? That\"s the purpose of testing kids \" to figure out what they know and are able to do. Assessments also give us data to inform instruction. If I teach something, but my class still hasn\"t mastered it, then as a teacher I need to examine how I taught it the first time in order to teach it better next time. Likewise, if my class already knows something, I don\"t need to teach it to them; we can move on to other things. Maybe most of my class have mastered a skill, but a handful need more time. Either way, I need data to inform my teaching \" and that data comes from assessments. In sum, testing lets us know what kids know and can do, which helps us teach them better. Contention 5: Standardized Testing evaluates and improves student performance. Hughes (2015) Standardized testing is an indicator of skill. They are excellent objective indicators of student performance. The tests are designed to measure how well students learned the skills important tot meet state standards. Contention 6: Standardized Testing reveals and corrects flaws in students Flanagan (2009) Standardized testing yield quantifiable info results that can be used in screening programs, identifying students in need of further assessment. Standardized test results provide info regarding an examiner's areas of strength and weakness. Standardized tests can be used to assess students' progress over time results from a test administered in a standardized fashion can be empirically verified. This allows for results to be interpreted and ideas about an individual's skills generalized. That is why you should vote Aff.", "qid": "26", "docid": "ffd7fc64-2019-04-18T13:35:20Z-00001-000", "rank": 34, "score": 147276.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to k-12 education in the U.S Content: I'm fairly disappointed that my opponent forfeited, and hope they turn up for the next round. I'll pass this round for fairness, but if Pro forfeits the next, I'll crystallize my points.", "qid": "26", "docid": "e4d12b1a-2019-04-18T13:55:40Z-00001-000", "rank": 35, "score": 146388.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved on balance Content: Resolved: on balance, standardized testing is beneficial to k-12 education in the United States.", "qid": "26", "docid": "9d663199-2019-04-18T13:56:58Z-00005-000", "rank": 36, "score": 146099.0}, {"content": "Title: Standardized Testing is beneficial for students K-12 in America Content: I believe that Standardized Testing is not beneficial for students K-12 in America. Standardized testing is not beneficial to students. All it does is take away from class time and cause unnecessary stress. Standardized testing does not affect student's grades grades. All it does is provide the state with how much students at different schools are learning. I think that this is an ineffective way of calculating a school's efficiency. The state should look at students' overall grades instead of forcing them to take a long test where their focus is usually lost within the first half hour. Students don't especially care about how well they do on the test, because it won't affect their overall grade. Therefore, a solution would be to (as I said before) use the students' overall grades to calculate data, or make the standardized tests part of their overall grade. Also, it usually takes around a week to take the tests. This time could be spent learning.", "qid": "26", "docid": "ffd7fc64-2019-04-18T13:35:20Z-00002-000", "rank": 37, "score": 145765.0}, {"content": "Title: Standardized Tests Content: Standardized tests are not an effective method to determine a student's academic success. Standardized tests simplify the learning process to multiple choice answers and discourage students to think outside of the box. Students, especially those of a young age deal with a great amount of stress from test taking because they become nervous and overwhelmed with not only the testing process but the studying beforehand. Instead of enjoying school they are losing sight of the most important part of education: learning. Students are indeed learning which answers are \"correct\" or \"incorrect\" by multiple choice. Yet, isn't it most important that students are learning to understand why these answers are correct or incorrect? Don't we want our children to question and understand the information they are being taught as well as the world around them? Is that not the purpose of education in the first place? Consider the troubles these students are encountering when dealing with standardized tests and how this affects the learning process.", "qid": "26", "docid": "b760075c-2019-04-18T17:06:45Z-00003-000", "rank": 38, "score": 145327.0}, {"content": "Title: On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to K-12 education in the United States Content: By accepting this match, you agree to follow the process below: Round 1: Present Debate Cases Round 2: Recognize and attach opponent's arguments Round 3: Defend your case Round 4: Voters(Why you win) My partner and I negate today\"s resolution and stand resolved, On balance, standardized testing is NOT beneficial to K-12 education in the United States. Obs 1: Even though the SAT and ACT are considered \"Standardized Tests\", not all students take them, so the Con will ignore any arguments made about them. Obs 2: If the Con can prove that there are more harms than benefits, it should be enough for the Con to win. Contention 1: Standardized Testing results in incomplete education A: Standardized testing alters school curriculum to the detriment of a well-rounded education Lisa Adams, Research Associate, Joseph Pedulla, Professor at Boston College, George Madaus, Professor at Boston College, 2003, Theory into practice, 42.1, p. 18-29 Quote \"Much of the research on state testing programs addresses their effects on what is taught. A common finding is that teachers report giving greater attention to tested content areas. For example, of the Virginia survey by Myran & Workman(1999), more than 80% indicated that the state Standards of Learning (SOL) test had impacted their instruction, particularly with regard to the content focus of daily lessons. \" B: Low-income and minority students are hurt the most by the emphasis on standardized test scores. \"How Standardized Testing Damages Education (Updated July 2012). \" FairTest. The National Center for Fair and Open Testing, 28 Aug. 2007. Web. 03 Nov. 2015. <. http://fairtest.org...;. Quote\"Students from low-income and minority-group backgrounds, English language learners, and students with disabilities, are more likely to be denied diplomas, retained in grade, placed in a lower track, or unnecessarily put in education programs. This ensures they will fall further and further behind their peers. Many drop out, some ending up in the \"school-to-prison pipeline. \" On the other hand, children from white, middle and upper income backgrounds are more likely to be placed in \"gifted and talented\" or college preparatory programs where they are challenged to read, explore, investigate, think and progress rapidly. \"-Champ Briefs Pg. 147 MPK: Standardized testing can harm the well-rounded education curriculum teachers have been teaching. Standardized testing also hurts low-income and minority-group backgrounds and discriminates against them, creating even greater achievement gaps. Contention 2: Because of the limitations of standardized testing, it makes a poor measurement of actual learning. A: One size fits all just doesn\"t work W. James Popham, Emeritus Professor in the Graduate School of Education at the University of California, Los Angeles. Why Standardized Tests Don't Measure Educational Quality. March 1999 | Volume 56 | Number 6 Using Standards and Assessments Pages 8-15. . http://www.ascd.org...'t-Measure-Educational-Quality.aspx Quote\"At a very general level, the goals that educators pursue in different settings are reasonably similar. For instance, you can be sure that all schools will give attention to language arts, mathematics, and so on. But that's at a general level. At the level where it really makes a difference to instruction, in the classroom, there are significant differences in the educational objectives being sought. And that presents a problem to those who must sell standardized achievement tests. \" B. Tests do not cover what is actually taught. James Popham continues. Quote\"To illustrate the seriousness of the mismatch that can occur between what's taught locally and what's tested through standardized achievement tests, educators ought to know about an important study at Michigan State University reported in 1983 by Freeman. They concluded that between 50 and 80 percent of what was measured on the tests was not suitably addressed in the textbooks. The proportion of topics presented on a standardized test that received more than cursory treatment in each textbook was never higher than 50 percent. \" MPK: Standardized testing does not cover much of what is taught by teachers, and are too limited. Therefore, such tests cannot accurately measure actual learning by students Contention 3: Standardized testing hurts teachers A:Teachers lose control of the curriculum. Segall, Avner. [Professor at Michigan State University]. \"Teachers\" Perceptions of the Impact of State-Mandated Standardized Testing: The Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP) as a Case Study of Consequences. \" Theory & Research in Social Education. 2003. Web. Accessed November 4, 2015. Quote \"Exploring the relationship between teachers and standardized testing, and using the Michigan Evaluation Assessment Program (MEAP) and the discourses surrounding it as a case study of consequences, this study both combines findings from previous studies on teachers and testing and adds to them. Like McNeil\"s (2000) study, it points out how standardized testing is not simply an evaluator of a curriculum but its creator. \" B: Teachers lose control of both content and scope \"How Standardized Tests Shape--and Limit--Student Learning. \" National Council of Teachers of English. James R. Squire Office of Policy Research. 2014. Web. Accessed 8 November 2015. . http://www.ncte.org...- nov2014/CC0242PolicyStandardized. pdf Quote\"Standardized tests narrow the entire curriculum in many schools, often squeezing out subjects such as music, art, foreign languages, and, especially in elementary grades, social studies, because they are not included in tests. For ELA teachers, these tests also lead to subject-specific narrowing. ELA teachers are required to focus their instruction on the literacy skills measured on standardized tests. Since reading is more prominent than writing in most tests, teachers spend more time on reading rather than writing, usually focusing on comprehension, not higher-order critical reading skills. \" MPK: Standardized testing forces teachers to teach to a test instead of being allowed to facilitate learning in their preferred ways. This leads to teachers feeling inadequate and struggling to teach a curriculum they didn\"t create. Conclusion: As my partner and I have proven, standardized testing is NOT beneficial to K-12 education. Standardized testing hurts minorities and low income students, and it does not cover what is taught, which causes teaching to the test.", "qid": "26", "docid": "a331003f-2019-04-18T14:04:49Z-00005-000", "rank": 39, "score": 145229.0}, {"content": "Title: On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to K-12 education in the United States Content: In his round, I will be pointing out some information and then stating my own contentions. Since my opponent did not provide any definitions, I will now do so. Standardized testing- A type of test that has the same questions for every student, depending on age and grade level. It is scored in a manner which allows the results of students to be compared. Even though the first round is about stating points, I feel that it is crucial for me to point out PLAGIARISM. My opponent has given a quote by Lisa Adams. That quote was in Part A of Contention 1. And I would like to point out that my opponent did not site a source. You can compare his quote with the one www. boledebate. com/uploads/2/. .. /3-pf-standardized-testing-starter. docx. There is no difference. But now, to return to the discussion. Contention #1- Taking the tests can make something be remembered by the child. . http://www.theatlantic.com..., \"Henry L. Roediger III, a cognitive psychologist at Washington University, studies how the brain stores, and later retrieves, memories. He compared the test results of students who used common study methods\u2014such as re-reading material, highlighting, reviewing and writing notes, outlining material and attending study groups\u2014with the results from students who were repeatedly tested on the same material. When he compared the results, Roediger found, \u201cTaking a test on material can have a greater positive effect on future retention of that material than spending an equivalent amount of time restudying the material. \u201d Remarkably, this remains true \u201ceven when performance on the test is far from perfect and no feedback is given on missed information. \u201d\" If the only way to make a child retain information is taking a standardized test, then why not? Schools are created to help children learn. And if the way to achieve a strong education system is by testing knowledge and encouraging hard work, the tests must stay. psychologists such as the one I have brought up above admit that while students may not enjoy standardized testing in particular, they at the end reach their goal- to be able to remember information they learn in school and to be able to apply it. Contention #2- Allow the comparison of scores of kids from different districts. . http://webcache.googleusercontent.com... \" Public school students in the state of Texas are all required to take the same state standardized tests. This means that a student in Amarillo can be compared to a student in Dallas. Being able to accurately compare data is invaluable and is a major reason that the Common Core State Standards have been adopted. These will allow for a more accurate comparison between states. \"With standardized testing, people can compare the intellectual differences between one another. In order, to know what level we are at, people must assess us based on a comparison to other people our age. Knowing a straight percent is not enough to know whether or not you are on the correct learning track or whether you are perhaps suffering in your learniang skills. Someone may take a test in New York and receive at 85. However, most of the other New Yorkers will receive 100. If you do not know how others are doing at education, you will not know how well you are doing on a larger scale. Contention #3- Proffesionals and parents support stndardized testing. . https://prezi.com... \"Multiple-choice tests, in particular, are graded by machine and therefore are not subject to human subjectivity or bias A 2005 Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup poll found that 60% of public school parents say the emphasis on testing in their local schools is either \"about right\" or that there is \"not enough\" testing. \" . http://standardizedtests.procon.org... \"In a 2009 Scholastic/Gates Foundation survey, 81% of US public school teachers said state-required standardized tests were at least \"somewhat important\u201d as a measure of students\u2019 academic achievement, and 27% said they were \"very important \" or \"absolutely essential. \" 73% of teachers surveyed in a Mar. 2002 Public Agenda study said they \"have not neglected regular teaching duties for test preparation. \"\" Many proffesionals admit that standardized tests are beneficial to child learning. Statistics show it! Parents understand it! Teachers see benefits! The education system is currently reaching its climax because of standardized testing. With this huge support of proffesionals, there will be no reason to stop testing. Contention #4- Standardized testing is a huge, indisposable industry. . http://www.pbs.org... \"The National Board on Educational Testing and Public Policy at Boston College compiled data from The Bowker Annual, a compendium of the dollar-volume in test sales each year, and reported that while test sales in 1955 were $7 million (adjusted to 1998 dollars), that figure was $263 million in 1997, an increase of more than 3,000 percent. Today, press reports put the value of the testing market anywhere from $400 million to $700 million. \" Money, another benefit of standardized testing. The test industry earns a lot of money on a yearly basis. This money can be used to make adjustments of out education systems. If we modify and perfect our system of learning, it will be possible to make sure that testing is even more efficient than it is currently. Investments into the future is a solution which will fit everyone. Contention #5- Students consider standardized testing fair and square. . https://prezi.com... \"Public Agenda survey of 1,342 public school students in grades 6-12 found that 71% of students think the number of tests they have to take is \"about right\" and 79% believe test questions are fair. The 2002 edition of the survey found that \"virtually all students say they take the tests seriously and more than half (56 percent) say they take them very seriously. \"\" Before moving on to my final arguments, I would like to clarify one thing. Students dont enjoy these tests. They consider them fair. In fact, the student body should not like testing. They should feel that it is FAIR. However, they should like learning, The enjoying of learning at the feeling that tests are fair are corrolated. Contention #6- Standardized tests raise students confidence. . http://www.merriam-webster.com... \"Confidence: : a feeling or belief that you can do something well or succeed at something : a feeling or belief that someone or something is good or has the ability to succeed at something : the feeling of being certain that something will happen or that something is true\" On the news, you probably see stories about kids commiting suicide because of standardized testing. Those cases however, are extremely rare. What is common, is self esteem causing confidence. People tend to over exaggerate the small examples of bad things happening but tend to ignore positivity. Honestly, confidence is caused by being sure of yourself. That is what testing does. If students worked hard, they will know that they are smart. That is what happens in most of the cases. In addition, stress is caused by many other factors. So should we ban those too? Judges, I am sure that you can see why standardized testing has a positive influence on the education system. Thank you.", "qid": "26", "docid": "a331003f-2019-04-18T14:04:49Z-00004-000", "rank": 40, "score": 144985.0}, {"content": "Title: Education: Testing Content: What people do not understand is that standardized testing is a waste of time due to the fact that the information on these tests are not relevant to the school curriculum and do not help the students in their life beyond high school whatsoever. Excessive testing may teach children to be good at taking tests, but does not prepare them for productive adult lives. China displaced Finland at the top of the 2009 PISA rankings because, as explained by Jiang Xueqin, Deputy Principal of Peking University High School, \"Chinese schools are very good at preparing their students for standardized tests. For that reason, they fail to prepare them for higher education and the knowledge economy.\"China is trying to depart from the \"drill and kill\" test prep that Chinese educators admit has produced only \"competent mediocrity\"\" (1). Not only are these tests incompetent, they also create extra and unwanted stress on these children. Standardized testing causes severe stress in younger students. According to education researcher Gregory J. Cizek, anecdotes abound \"illustrating how testing... produces gripping anxiety in even the brightest students, and makes young children vomit or cry, or both.\" On Mar. 14, 2002, the Sacramento Bee reported that \"test-related jitters, especially among young students, are so common that the Stanford-9 exam comes with instructions on what to do with a test booklet in case a student vomits on it\" (2) Students do not need these tests, the stress that comes along with it, nor do they benefit the students in the least. Overall, standardized testing is not important to a students learning curriculum and should be taken away.", "qid": "26", "docid": "440fb971-2019-04-18T17:06:22Z-00000-000", "rank": 41, "score": 144344.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to K-12 education in the United States Content: Contention 1. Standardised testing is racist.Doctor Harold Berlak, an independent researcher and professor at Washington University finds Standardized testing perpetuates institutionalized racism and contributes to the achievement gap between whites and minorities. For instance, the deeply embedded stereotype that African Americans perform poorly on standardized tests hinders many African Americans\u2019 testing ability. Also, research has shown that minorities statistically have lower standardized test scores than whites because of existing, hidden biases in the development and administration of standardized tests and interpretation of their scores. Therefore, the achievement gap will not begin to close until current standards and assessment tests are significantly reformed ... Even when parents\u2019 income and wealth is comparable, African Americans, Native Americans, Latinos, and immigrants for whom English is not a first language lag behind English speaking, native-born, white students. Nowile M. Rooks of Time Magazine in October 2012 finds Today, as an acknowledgment of the inherent racial and economic inequity of standardized achievement tests, hundreds of colleges have already stopped requiring the SAT for college admission decisions. However, the same cannot be said for k-12, where scores on achievement tests are in part used for everything from admitting students to prestigious public schools to placing students in gifted or remedial programs, allocating federal funding, and even evaluating teachers. Nowile continues The recently filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education pointing out that black and Latino students in New York score below whites and Asians on standardized tests so consistently that although they are almost 70% of the overall student body, they are only 11% of students enrolled at elite public schools. As a result, the complaint argues that New York City is in violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act because schools rely on a test that advantages one racial group over another. The system in which we are debating is inherently racist and biased against 1 people of color and 2 those that are non-english speaking. We can\u2019t say that the system in which we are operating benefits education no matter what, unless we are trying to defend a racist system that attacks people for being themselves and not being what color of skin the test-makers want them to be. C2. Standardised testing is opening the door for eugenics. Joshua Cook in 2013 of the Freedom Outpost writes that standardised tests as of now are perhaps the scariest way to mine for data of the American future. He writes that having this data collected and mined, perhaps sold to companies for school profits when schools can barely balance their own budget due to systemic racism and redlining, is a way of measuring intelligence (and we think that our opponents will agree with us to this point). However, as John Loflin of the Education Community-Action Team in April 2013 writes , if history has taught us anything, having a massive database of the intelligence of the American future is beyond harmful or just \u2018bad\u2019 - it is outright amoral. US history has taught us that when the draft goes into place, the US government will first pick those that have low test scores or low intelligences to serve in the war so that they die - and an American \u2018utopia\u2019 is restored with only complete European descendents being alive and running the country. This is the very definition of eugenics - which is trying to keep those that are undesirable from reproducing (they can\u2019t have children if they die in foreign combat). And if we look to the way that we looked onto Hitler\u2019s actions of eugenics in Germany in world war two, we see that we can\u2019t set up a system that allows for this to happen. Further, Loflin explains, there are people that are in charge of the US military drafting service that are in favor of eugenics and \u2018weeding out undesirables\u2019 from the mainstream - though they do not say it in this same language, the intentions are the same as what we are saying they think to be true. We cannot stand here and defend a system that is by its very core racist - so far racist as to have eugenics a full possibility due to the way that standardised testing is set up as of now. We can only see a negative ballot with all things considered, thank you.", "qid": "26", "docid": "ab3b5067-2019-04-18T14:00:59Z-00006-000", "rank": 42, "score": 144049.0}, {"content": "Title: On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to K-12 education in the United States Content: First, off, I would like to say that West Coast Starter File does not personally interview people. They take sources from other websites and creates a package to help debaters. Saying I plagiarized from West Coast is false, because they have not provided a link themselves. We provided the source they have given us, making our argument valid. Contention 1 A: Having teachers prepare students for the test causes teaching to the test. This changes the curriculum, not allowing students to learn other things, such as fine arts. When you say that what is on the test is what the students need in life is not always true, as some students are not as interested in math or language arts as others. Contention 1 B: Here is the link I posted ORIGINALLY: \"How Standardized Testing Damages Education (Updated July 2012). \" FairTest. The National Center for Fair and Open Testing, 28 Aug. 2007. Web. 03 Nov. 2015. . http://fairtest.org... Also, I am not saying that poorer students will not be able to do well. What I am trying to say is that it is easier for whites, middle, and upper background students to do well, because they have access to better education. It is harder for someone to do well on a test if they do not have to money to buy materials to help them study. However, other students who are richer will be able to afford these books and will therefore have a better chance of doing well. You defined standardized testing as followed: A type of test that has the same questions for every student, depending on age and grade level. It is scored in a manner which allows the results of students to be compared. This means that all students, even the disabled or language learners, will have to take the same test. Colleges will look at these tests, and may not know that these students are disabled or have just moved to the United States. Therefore, the disabled and language learners are not always given an equal chance for success. Contention 2 A- As I stated in my quote, different schools will have different curriculums, and trying to create ONE test to fit for all of these different settings makes it nearly impossible to compare scores. You stated that schools will teach the same thing, but as I stated before, this is generally not true with different teachers and different styles of teaching. Contention 2 B-As my Contention 2A said, different school have different curriculums and even if teachers did teach to the test, which I have already proven to be bad, it would limit the curriculum and students will be worse off if they wanted to learn things other than language arts, math, and science. Contention 3 A-The teachers actually do NOT decide what to teach the students. There is always a guidebook for what to teach at a certain time. These teachers must follow these guidebooks but can teach it their own way. It is not always true that teachers teach what is on the test. As I said in my Contention 2, different school have different curriculums, so making a test to fit all of these different schools is impossible. Contention 3 B- My opponent stated that activities such as art are still required for the student program. However, before, they said that it is good that these activities are taken out because they are not part of standardized tests. But students who wish to take these classes are not given the chance because standardized testing has already squeezed out these activities. Thank you.", "qid": "26", "docid": "a331003f-2019-04-18T14:04:49Z-00001-000", "rank": 43, "score": 143739.0}, {"content": "Title: Education: Testing Content: Standardized testing has been used for many years, so why should the US change the system now if it has obviously been running well this entire time? \"Standardized tests have been a part of American education since the mid-1800s. Their use skyrocketed after 2002's No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) mandated annual testing in all 50 states\" (2). It is an extremely useful tool when measuring students, teachers, and schools overall. It is ignorant to think that standardized testing is unfair just because one student may have less intelligence than other. In fact, that just proves both the students focus skills during school and their teachers ability to teach. Examples of a pro-testing education leader is Michelle Rhee, the public schools chancellor in Washington, D.C., who said, \"\"In order to have the privilege of teaching kids you have to be able to show that you can significantly move their academic achievement levels, she says. \"And if you can't show that, then you need to find another profession.\" Rhee launched a controversial evaluation system in Washington where test score growth counts as 50 percent of a teacher's annual performance score\" (1). In addition to Rhee\"s statement, standardized testing has other positive outcomes: \"Standardized tests are not narrowing the curriculum, rather they are focusing it on important basic skills all students need to master. According to a study in the Oct. 28, 2005, issue of the peer-reviewed 'Education Policy Analysis Archives', teachers in four Minnesota school districts said standardized testing had a positive impact, improving the quality of the curriculum while raising student achievement\" (2). In conclusion, not only is standardized testing proven to be fair, but it is also proven to be beneficial to everyone involved.", "qid": "26", "docid": "440fb971-2019-04-18T17:06:22Z-00001-000", "rank": 44, "score": 143620.0}, {"content": "Title: Standardized tests result in teachers \u201cteaching the test\u201d Content: The importance attached to such tests leads to teachers actively \u201cteaching the test.\u201d The result is that many teachers, rather than instilling useful skills or providing a balanced curriculum, end up trying to focus on things that occur on given tests. While this is not a huge problem with the SAT itself, it is a serious problem with subject tests like the SAT 2s, AP Exams, and the British A-Levels. This undermines the provision of education in the country.", "qid": "26", "docid": "259f65bb-2019-04-15T20:24:15Z-00016-000", "rank": 45, "score": 143591.0}, {"content": "Title: Standardized Tests Content: While standardized testing has long been criticized in all sorts of manners, but the fact of the matter remains that standardized testing is one of the only objective, unbiased methods of comparing college applicants. Standardized testing has no biases because there is no interpretation of correct and incorrect, what is correct is correct and what is not is incorrect. In other types of assessment there is room for error. One scorer can be more favorable than another and give higher scores. The odds of admission are then skewed towards the students who's assessments were scored by aforementioned scorer, and it is purely by luck rather than by skill or hard work. Critics claim that standardized tests are harmful to the educational process. In practice, this does not seem to be true. Countries like Finland, Korea, and Germany consistently place higher than the US in OECD Educational rankings, yet are more highly focused on standardized testing than the US. Rising powers like China and India also focus greatly on standardized testing. In fact a single important standardized test determines your college in India. Look where their educational models have taken them. Clearly the US is not teaching to the test well enough. Even with the largest educational budget in the world, the US ranks 33rd out of developed nations in English reading, our own language! Standardized testing has been unjustly vilified in America. Just as an aside though it has no bearing on the debate, I am a high school student.", "qid": "26", "docid": "b760075c-2019-04-18T17:06:45Z-00002-000", "rank": 46, "score": 143398.0}, {"content": "Title: Standardized tests result in teachers \u201cteaching the test\u201d Content: There is a degree of hypocrisy in arguing that the tests are classist and racist and then complaining that schools take too long in preparing students for them. Ideally the tests should be on relevant subjects that will be useful to the student and is needed as part of a well-rounded education that prepares the student for life, and if they are not they are flawed. Many of the skills required for a successful performance on A-Levels or on the AP Essays are remarkably similar to those needed for University level written work. As a consequence it is wrong to argue they are of no relevance.", "qid": "26", "docid": "259f65bb-2019-04-15T20:24:15Z-00015-000", "rank": 47, "score": 143329.0}, {"content": "Title: Standardized Tests Content: All districts are required to meet the needs of ALL students, including gifted students. Because of this, ALL students are challenged at their appropriate levels (which tests help teachers determine strengths and weaknesses). And again, through differentiation, all students are learning and growing.", "qid": "26", "docid": "b760073d-2019-04-18T17:08:38Z-00001-000", "rank": 48, "score": 143174.0}, {"content": "Title: Education: Testing Content: Test scores is a superior way to measure teachers\" effort and ability to do their job (1). The higher the test courses from students, the better the teacher is. Furthermore, standardized tests are a just measure of student achievement, along with ensuring teachers and schools are accountable to taxpayers (2). Standardized testing is approved by students and parents for being such an efficient system. (1) http://americanradioworks.publicradio.org... (2) http://standardizedtests.procon.org...", "qid": "26", "docid": "440fb971-2019-04-18T17:06:22Z-00009-000", "rank": 49, "score": 143075.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to K-12 education in the United States Content: Mandated Tests Pushed as Civil Rights for Children Layton 15 By Lyndsey Layton, Copyright \" The Washington Post Company Apr. 11, 2015 http://sks.sirs.com... Advocates for poor and minority children are pushing a novel idea: standardized tests as a civil right. The nation's major civil rights groups say that federally required testing - in place for a decade through existing law - is a tool to force fairness in public schools by aiming a spotlight at the stark differences in scores between poor, minority students and their more affluent counterparts. And they are fighting legislative efforts to scale back testing as lawmakers on Capitol Hill rewrite the nation's main federal education law, known as No Child Left Behind. \"Removing the requirement for annual testing would be a devastating step backward, for it is very hard to make sure our education system is serving every child well when we don't have reliable, comparable achievement data on every child every year,\" Kati Haycock, president of the Education Trust, said in recent testimony before the Senate education panel. Her group joined 20 civil rights organizations to lobby Congress to keep the requirement to test all children each year in math and reading. The civil rights argument adds a new dimension to one of the most contentious education issues in decades: whether standardized testing is good for students. Congress is wrestling with that question as it reauthorizes No Child Left Behind. The Senate education panel is expected to begin debating a bipartisan bill next week that would maintain annual testing, but it is unclear how the bill will fare in the House, where conservative Republicans want to drastically scale back the federal role in education. Critics say the testing mandate hasn't done much to narrow the gap in scores but has drained the joy from classrooms, fostering a testing fixation that critics blamed for ills including narrowed curriculums and cheating scandals. A growing number of parents around the country are having their children opt out of federally required standardized tests, and people including President Obama and comedian Louis C.K. have complained. \"It's reached a level where people are saying 'enough is enough,' \" said Robert Schaeffer of the National Center for Fair & Open Testing, which wants to end the standardized testing mandate. \"People are sick of the overkill of test volume and the consequences, ridiculous things like rating art teachers based on the reading test scores in their schools.\"", "qid": "26", "docid": "ab3b5048-2019-04-18T14:01:05Z-00003-000", "rank": 50, "score": 142901.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to K-12 education in the United States Content: I said that my arguments are still relevent because they are in other evidence that is from 2014 and 15. My evidence may be from 1999, 2011, and 2006 but It is also in recent evidence from this year. And I do know what you are talking about but you brought new evidence in that speech you gave a from round 2 and I re-read your round one evidence a whole bunch of times and saw nothing that involded WW1 and sending students to warzones. You didn't say any of that. And we are talking about Standarized test, NOT WW1 and warzones. You also didn't resond to my round 3 argument so I have nothing to argue with you except for the fact that the judge should vote Standarized testing good because Students need this is they want to get smarter and learn more stuff. You should vote this because i'm pretty sure that since my opponent didn't back up half their arguments in round 3. That they dropped a lot of there arguments. Yes I may have only dropped one. But when they didn't back up their argument in round 3 they dropped it. I have nothing to respond to in there round 3 argument.", "qid": "26", "docid": "ab3b5067-2019-04-18T14:00:59Z-00001-000", "rank": 51, "score": 142752.0}, {"content": "Title: Education: Testing Content: No matter the intelligence level of one student versus another, if the nation decided against standardized testing, measurements would seem unfair when basing students and teachers off of tests created by individual school systems. \"Standardized tests are reliable and objective measures of student achievement. Without them, policy makers would have to rely on tests scored by individual schools and teachers who have a vested interest in producing favorable results. Multiple-choice tests, in particular, are graded by machine and therefore are not subject to human subjectivity or bias\" (2). In order to measure students\" knowledge and ability across the country, it is necessary to compare students. The tests which these students take must be the same, therefore no test is more difficult than another. Proponents of standardized testing would agree with this statement due to the fact that \"standardized tests are a fair and objective measure of student achievement, that they ensure teachers and schools are accountable to taxpayers, and that the most relevant constituents \" parents and students \" approve of testing\" (2). As stated before, it is very necessary and just for tests across the nation to all be the exact same. If they varied, so would the scores, so would the measurements of the school systems, and so would the tax paying of the schools and teachers.", "qid": "26", "docid": "440fb971-2019-04-18T17:06:22Z-00003-000", "rank": 52, "score": 142595.0}, {"content": "Title: Standardized Tests are skewed in favour of the wealthy Content: Every other indicator is also skewed in favour of high-income students. They tend to have parents who are better educated and are interested and much more involved in their children\u2019s education, as well as greater access relevant materials such as books and computers. Tutoring academically, while it may not involve having tutors test for a student, is probably much more impactful in the long-run, they may not be able to do extra-curricular activities but can help with homework (as can engaged parents), so would be just as likely to have an impact on coursework or another method of assessment as it does on the SATs.", "qid": "26", "docid": "259f65bb-2019-04-15T20:24:15Z-00009-000", "rank": 53, "score": 142344.0}, {"content": "Title: Standardized Testing is beneficial for students K-12 in America Content: As my opponent forfeited the round, I conclude I have won.", "qid": "26", "docid": "ffd7fc64-2019-04-18T13:35:20Z-00000-000", "rank": 54, "score": 142019.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to k-12 education in the United States. Content: Standardized Testing Undermines Teaching http://www.npr.org... Former Assistant Secretary of Education Diane Ravitch was once an early advocate of No Child Left Behind, school vouchers and charter schools. In 2005, she wrote, \"We should thank President George W. Bush and Congress for passing the No Child Left Behind Act. ... All this attention and focus is paying off for younger students, who are reading and solving mathematics problems better than their parents' generation.\" But four years later, Ravitch changed her mind. \"I came to the conclusion ... that No Child Left Behind has turned into a timetable for the destruction of American public education,\" she tellsFresh Air's Terry Gross. \"I had never imagined that the test would someday be turned into a blunt instrument to close schools \" or to say whether teachers are good teachers or not \" because I always knew children's test scores are far more complicated than the way they're being received today.\" No Child Left Behind required schools to administer yearly state standardized tests. Student progress on those tests was measured to see if the schools met their Adequate Yearly Progress goals. or AYP. Schools missing those goals for several years in a row could be restructured, replaced or shut down. \"The whole purpose of federal law and state law should be to help schools improve, not to come in and close them down and say, 'We're going to start with a clean slate,' because there's no guarantee that the clean slate's going to be better than the old slate,\" says Ravitch. \"Most of the schools that will be closed are in poor or minority communities where large numbers of children are very poor and large numbers of children don't speak English. They have high needs. They come from all kinds of difficult circumstances and they need help \" they don't need their school closed.\" \"What has happened ... is that [charter schools have] become an enormous entrepreneurial activity and the private sector has moved in,\" she says. \"So there are now charter chains where the heads are paying themselves $300,000, $400,000, $500,000 a year. They compete with regular public schools. They do not see themselves as collaborators with public schools but business competitors and in some cases, they actually want to take away the public school space and take away the public school business.\" Ravitch says that charter schools undercut the opportunities for public schools, making public school students feel like \"second-class citizens.\" \"Regular public school parents are angry because they no longer have an art room, they no longer have a computer room \" whatever space they had for extra activities gets given to the charters and then they have better facilities. They have a lot of philanthropic money behind them \" Wall Street hedge fund managers have made this their favorite cause. So at least in [New York City] they are better-funded ... so they have better everything.\" But change in the public schools is possible, says Ravitch, if parents work together. \"In the neighborhood where I live in Brooklyn, there was a school that was considered a bad public school and it enrolled many children from a local public housing project,\" she says. \"But parents in the neighborhood who were middle-class parents and were educated people banded together and decided, 'Well, if we all send our child to the local public school, it will get better.' And it did get better and it's now one of the best schools in the city. So yes, you can change the neighborhood school. ... But school officials have a particular responsibility to make sure there's a good school in every neighborhood. And handing the schools in low-income neighborhoods over to entrepreneurs does not, in itself, improve them. It's simply a way of avoiding the public responsibility to provide good education.\"", "qid": "26", "docid": "dc4d2564-2019-04-18T13:57:13Z-00001-000", "rank": 55, "score": 141723.0}, {"content": "Title: Standardized testing is a good thing Content: Yeah - no parents want to see their kids upset. But they do want their kid to succeed more than anything else - and this helps. The test is to measure where in the ciriculum the kids need help - that is t he only way to find out. The teachers cannot help them for a reason - to have an accurate measure on what the child does or does not understand.", "qid": "26", "docid": "828c220c-2019-04-18T14:36:05Z-00001-000", "rank": 56, "score": 141665.0}, {"content": "Title: Standardized testing Content: I have two main arguments for Standardized Testing: 1. K-12 schooling only exists to prepare you for your life after you graduate, whether that be college, military, joining the workforce, etc. Standardized tests only really matter if you plan to go to college. If you intend to go to college but are against tests, you are sorely misguided as to what goes on in a college setting. Standardized tests prepare students for what is going to happen in college, as well as in most jobs where you will have to complete tasks under a deadline. It is true that school should be a place that values learning and creativity over preparation for the real world, but that is not what we are debating here and therefore is non-topical. If school actually was a place where students were encouraged to learn whatever they desired, then yes, standardized testing would not fit that model. But that is not the reality, and standardized tests fit in with the current schooling system. 2. Standardized testing provides a benchmark to measure students off of. There are numerous nationwide tests within the United States alone, as well as tests that are taken internationally. These tests give us valuable information on the next generation's competence in fields such as reading, writing, and math. While it is true that there are many ways to measure intelligence and that there are plenty of people who are intelligent but do not test well, the majority must be considered over the outliers to give us more accurate data. On top of all that, the fact of the matter is that many other ways of \"measuring\" intelligence are extremely subjective. To give a hypothetical example, if someone is a talented artist and does incredible progressive art in a style no one has ever seen before, they may still be shunned by those who do not enjoy it. Standardized tests only use certain subjects for a reason; those subjects are not subjective and can be easily measured. There is a right and a wrong answer. Art and Music are certainly things that you can be accomplished in, but they will never be things that can be used to measure a student's intelligence. In regards to the stress argument my opponent presents, welcome to the real world. Students who \"give up because they know they are going to fail\" will not survive in a high intensity work scenario anyways. Students that do good on homework and schoolwork but bomb test after test are in the overwhelming minority. 99% of the time, if you study for a standardized test and actually want to pass it, you will. The issues presented are only present in small amounts, and standardized testing benefits the students in the long run, as well as our society as a whole by providing relevant information of the intelligence of our youth.", "qid": "26", "docid": "db293567-2019-04-18T12:00:16Z-00000-000", "rank": 57, "score": 141623.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to k-12 education in the U.S Content: == Clarification ==The resolution states, \"On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to K-12 education in the United States.\"Let me clarify each of the terms. \"On balance\" means taking everything into consideration. In such a debate, all harms and benefits are weighed against each other to decide who wins. \"Standardized testing\" is a form of testing implemented at K-12 education in the United States, where the tests at the K-12 level are the same for all public schools. \"Beneficial\" means posing a net benefit.The burdens are shared. There's no burden of proof in this debate, only a burden of persuasion, due to the usage of \"on balance\" and \"beneficial,\" both of which make it a debate of opinions rather than a fact-claim.== Rebuttal ==Pro's case is contradictory. The position of Pro is intended to argue for the resolution. Instead, Pro argues that standardized testing is bad. He's arguing from the wrong side. Pro is arguing that different students require different forms of education, and standardized testing actually fails in doing that. Pro's own source notes that standardized testing is ineffective in doing so. Vote Con right there. Pro's argument is contradictory to itself, and fails to affirm the resolution. Regardless, I'll presume I'm taking the position of Pro and address my opponent's harms:Pro's first harm is that children learn in different ways. But Pro's source, and argument, only address primary school children, which is irrelevant to the resolution. The resolution specifically regards K-12 education, and primary grade students don't link to the resolution. Furthermore, I agree that primary school children learn in different ways - but by K-12, they've all learned and prepared for this. The same set of educational portion would exist anyway, regardless of whether standardized testing exists. As such, the first harm doesn't apply.Pro says standardized testing has been linked to an \"overemphasis\" on vocational education. I have two responses: (1) overemphasis is subjective, and there's no objective reason to believe \"critical thinking in mathematics\" is more important than vocational education, and so forth and (2) I don't need to defend the status quo; as long as I can show some form of standardized testing is or would pose a net benefit, I affirm (therefore, you vote Con). This argument is also a bare assertion due to lack of sources. C1) Benefits to studentsPro concedes that testing -- in some form -- is beneficial. Testing allows parents and students to assess themselves. Such an assessment results in increase in total education for the student, and allows parents to stress on further improvement. Herbert J. Walberg (2011) says, \u201cStudents benefit directly when they take tests that offer information on how well they have mastered the material intended for learning. School reading and mathematics skills, for example, can be precisely specified, and as students learn the skills, they benefit from ongoing information tailored to their specific, individual progress. Computers streamline this process by providing immediate feedback about correct and incorrect responses far more quickly and with much greater patience than teachers and tutors can provide.\u201d [1]On balance, standardized testing is a helpful form of testing to the student. John Bishop of Cornell University found that standardized testing poses huge educational value to the student. He found that countries requiring students to take nationally standardized tests showed higher test scores on international tests than those who took school-based tests. In another study, he found that US students who anticipated having to pass a standardized test learned more science and math, and were more likely to complete homework and talk with their parents about school work. [2, 3] C2) Teachers see benefit in standardized testsIt's largely agreed that standardized testing benefits teachers as well. According to Laura S. Hamilton and Brian Stecher, \u201c[S]tandardized tests can do many things: tell policymakers and families how well students are doing overall; play a role in state and district accountability systems; contribute to teacher evaluations; and inform decision-making about student course placement. Some tests are used in other ways that include teachers adapting day-to-day instruction to meet individual student needs based on each student's test results.\u201d [4] Teachers generally see standardized tests and associated accountability systems as beneficial. Teachers, therefore, do understand and perceive benefits. For all the above reasons, vote Con. [1] http://www.hoover.org...[2] http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu...[3] http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu...[4] http://www.usnews.com...", "qid": "26", "docid": "e4d12b1a-2019-04-18T13:55:40Z-00002-000", "rank": 58, "score": 141602.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to K-12 education in the United States Content: In this round I will be attacking my opponent's case and then rebuilding onto my own (as is the norm in being second team in public forum). I will signpost where I am, in case I go out of order based on what is on the flow.First, a note on burdens and evidence burdens. My opponent says that we cannot use evidence from non-2015, or at least not before 2014. Yet, all of his constructive evidence comes from '99, '11 and '06 -- he is inherently contradicting himself. If he says that I don't have access to my piece of evidence, then he should not have access to his either, meaning that he has no valid evidence to back up his entire constructive case. Do not let him extend any cards from his constructive, all he can do from now on is using analytics to prove his constructive ponits, not using old evidence as he says is irrelevant!Get Congress out of standardised testing - so, my opponent concedes that standardised testing is harmful as it exists in the status quo (which is NCLB and the like compliance). He says that we teach kids to the test and that this is bad, but this is exactly what standaridsed testing is at this moment. Further, he explains, that it only builds memorisation rather than understanding ... this is a clear concession, you can vote for me right now even if I don't address anything else he says.On the mark: my opponent just says that standardised testing CAN be good, but fails to explain how, in aggregate, it can possibly be a good thing. Cross-apply my contentions, saying that racism & eugenics are inevitable. He gives the definition of standardised testing, which is that it is standardised, but fails to explain how this is a good thing - I concede that standardised testing in theory provides these meaningful impacts, but in application this theory if far, far removed.Basically, in response to my first contention, my opponent brings up his McWhorter card saying that all I am doing is claiming that the test is racist because black students cannot perform well on it. But, this notion isn't even correct, because I have provided, through my dropped Berlak and Rooks cards, saying that standardised testing is inherently racist! For example, there is a test in New York that asked what best goes with the word 'cup', providing the choices (that are relevant) of a table and a saucer. Because impovershed kids in this area (see: black students) did not afford to put cups on saucers, they chose table ... yet, as we see, the correct answer was saucer! This is inherent bias against students that are low income (and the system that we have makes low income people through race).On my 2nd contention, he just says that I don't know if data is being given away, or that I don't know how it is... but the reporter for the Freedom Outpost explains (if you read the source, not just what I had summarised) is that anyone can get this data if they say that they need it for educational purposes (specifically broad!). So, the data is free to give away to the governmental agencies that exist.He doesn't understand my eugenics contention at all. Because we can order students from smartest to dumbest, we have the ability to send off students to warzones that we don't deem as necessary or beneficial to the US (the dumbest kids!) ... this is shown by example of WW1, and that there are people within the military that oversee the draft that are in favor of eugenics. You drop this completely!", "qid": "26", "docid": "ab3b5067-2019-04-18T14:00:59Z-00004-000", "rank": 59, "score": 140447.0}, {"content": "Title: Standardized testing is a good thing Content: 1. Kids in school enjoy school its not their favorite thing in the world but they enjoy school. Then when kids are sitting for half the school day in a desk writing they lose their spark for school some people I know try to avoid the school because of testing. 2. Can't you just gather their over all grades in work in the class instead of putting them through a 3 hour test for two weeks. It makes no sense that their doing this just use their grades from work in class and their homework. No more standardized tests. Kids will get tired and their hands will hurt from typing so much also when will you ever use that in life it is a complete waste of time please no more testing!", "qid": "26", "docid": "828c220c-2019-04-18T14:36:05Z-00004-000", "rank": 60, "score": 140446.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to K-12 education in the United States Content: Ok first i would like to say that i never said you couldn't use non-2015 evidence. I said that your 2013 evidence is from almost 3 years ago. What I'm trying to say is that its been almost 3 years ago meaning a lot has changed in that 2-3 years that evidence was released. And yes I have used '99 '11' and 06 evidence but the evidence is still ok because it is in other evidence that I have read. For my Get Congress out of Standarised testing argument when I say it build memorisation I'm saying that when you take a test lets say in english you want to know that vocab word or part of that story meaning you need to use that memorisation skill to remember what word goes with what and what is going on in the story. And also I did say standarized testing can be good and I did stat examples. I said and I quotes \"progress of a child's education and determining where to go next.\" and \"tests aim to determine how a classroom, a school or a district stands in educating children.\" So what you said about me not giving examples how is can be good is wrong. Because apparently you didn't read that text right. What you said responding to my McWhorter evidence. About the test in New York, no one would know that a saucer goes with a cup. It's the 21st century. I would have put table and i'm not black. And that test you never said if it was a standarized test. You just said is was a test. We are talking about Standarized testing!!! Your 2nd contention- You said Data is free to give away to the governmental agencies that exist. And anyone can ask for is if they say it is for eduational purposes, but who would want to take someones data that just stupid.And last you said WE have the ability to send off students to a warzone that we din;t deem as necessary or benefiial to the US. But who is we, who are you saying can do that. And sending students to warzones has nothing to do with how standarized testing is good or bad. And I never dropped it becuase you never said anything about sending students of to warzones in any of you evidence. I went back and read your evidence and saw nothing about sending them of to warzones!!!!", "qid": "26", "docid": "ab3b5067-2019-04-18T14:00:59Z-00003-000", "rank": 61, "score": 140348.0}, {"content": "Title: National testing will ensure all students learn the same, essential skills and information Content: Standardized tests ensures students learn the most important information. There is some information in the world that is essential to know so that, as adults, schoolchildren can excel in their jobs. Standardized tests help ensure that all students learn this important information. It is true that this information can be difficult, and perhaps even boring, including history, literacy (reading comprehension), and math. Yet, it is, nevertheless, essential, so testing for it and ensuring students know the information is extremely valuable. A recent study of American high school seniors found that just 13 per cent could answer basic questions of American history correctly; national testing ensures that the next generation will be encouraged to learn about such history, in a fair and balanced manner, up and down the country1. 1 Banchero, S. (2011, June 15). Students stumble again on the basics of history. Retrieved July 12, 2011, from The Wall Street Journal: improve this", "qid": "26", "docid": "eb991d36-2019-04-15T20:24:15Z-00025-000", "rank": 62, "score": 140001.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to K-12 education in the United States Content: The purpose of education has evolved over time. However, no where in the discussion does standardized testing seem to promote the goals of education. \"The one continuing purpose of education, since ancient times, has been to bring people to as full a realization as possible of what it is to be a human being. Other statements of educational purpose have also been widely accepted: to develop the intellect, to serve social needs, to contribute to the economy, to create an effective work force, to prepare students for a job or career, to promote a particular social or political system. These purposes offered are undesirably limited in scope, and in some instances they conflict with the broad purpose I have indicated; they imply a distorted human existence. The broader humanistic purpose includes all of them, and goes beyond them, for it seeks to encompass all the dimensions of human experience. \"Arthur W. Foshay, The Curriculum Matrix: Transcendence and Mathematics,\" Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 1991 \"[The purpose of education] has changed from that of producing a literate society to that of producing a learning society.\" \"Margaret Ammons, Associate Secretary of ASCD, Purpose and Program: How Does Commitment Today Differ from That in Other Periods, Educational Leadership, October 1964 \"The function of education is to teach one to think intensively and to think critically. But education which stops with efficiency may prove the greatest menace to society. The most dangerous criminal may be the man gifted with reason but no morals. We must remember that intelligence is not enough. Intelligence plus character\"that is the goal of true education.\" \"Martin Luther King Jr., speech at Morehouse College, 1948 (http://www.ascd.org...) It seems that the only ad coming off the pro is a uniform system of testing. In no way can we establish any sort of syllogism that connotes that uniformity leads to and increase in critical and moral thinking. For that reason we must reject the advocacy for tests and the notion that standardized testing is beneficial in the United States. On record, Standardized tests promote racial bias and promote conformity rather than ingenuity. Conformity stifles the ability for society to learn what it means to be a collective human race. Standardized tests undermine the purpose of our educational system and must be rejected.", "qid": "26", "docid": "ab3b5048-2019-04-18T14:01:05Z-00000-000", "rank": 63, "score": 139682.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to K-12 education in the United States Content: you are saying that standardized testing is racist but to me I don't think it is. I believe that when someone is grading your standardized test that they do not know who you are. They don't know anything about you except for how old you are and what grade and academic level you are at. I have evidence stating that standardized testing is not racist. Standardized Tests Are\u2019t Racist: How Brown Kids Can Ace the Test to Get Into New York\u2019s Stuyvesant McWhorter 14 we see what is felt with breezily accepted notions such as the idea that black kids can\u2019t do math, or the idea of the NAACP\u2014arguing for the advancement of colored people\u2014intoning that because black and Latino kids don\u2019t pass the test much, the test is racist. Yet the way this is discussed and written about, you\u2019d assume that the reasoning has already long been laid out. Is it the moral thing to exempt black and Latino kids from the serious competition we consider a normal part of life for all other children, instead of making an effort to prepare them for it? That\u2019s a peculiar and, at least to me, counter intuitive proposition. 1964: We demand to be treated as equals. 2014: We object that we cannot be subject to serious competition until society is something close to perfect\u2014and roll our eyes at anyone who does\u2019t \u201cget it.\u201d But what we need to \u201cget\u201d is that insisting that black and Latino kids can\u2019t be taught to ace tests is, itself, racist. Or, at least, that is a perfectly fair assumption until we have a less coded discourse about the matter. Otherwise, it comes down to this: If racist underestimation is what brown kids need to succeed, we are faced with a truly novel take on what civil rights, justice, and morality are.You also said that our data is collected and mined, perhaps sold to companies for school profits. You you never gave any specific evidence that they are doing that what your data. Counting with your sold to companies argument. You said that they sell it to schools when they can barely balance their own budget due to systemic racism. But selling your data had nothing to do with racism. Your evidence is also from 2013 and if i'm correct its 2015 almost 2016. So your evidence is invalid because that is from almost 3 years ago.", "qid": "26", "docid": "ab3b5067-2019-04-18T14:00:59Z-00005-000", "rank": 64, "score": 139283.0}, {"content": "Title: On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to K-12 education in the United States Content: Once again, con does agree to his plagiarism! He admitted that he put absolutely NO link and I am glad we could not put a period to that branch of the this discussion by agreeing that there has been plagiarism. And now to move onto first counter refutation and then counter- counter refutation. So without any further ado let me begin with counter refutations:To refute my first contention, my opponent stated:\"Although there are students who study and remember information, many teachers will FOCUS on the test, and afterwards, forget about making sure the students remember. This is called teaching to the test. Many students will remember the information ONLY for the test, and not for remembering information in the future. \"However, a. ) my opponent provided absolutely no evidence to show that students forget things right after the test. If you prepare a student to the test, the student will learn the material. Schools don't hand out the tests and go over every problem. They teach the information during the year and perhaps spend a month or so before the tests for preparation. That preparation is usually a summary of what was learned through out the school year. Therefore, even though yes, teachers teach information that will most likely be on the test, they don't just go through the tests. They give students worksheets and extensive practice to prepare for the test and memorize the information to use in the future. To refute my second contention, my opponent stated:\" When you are compared with other students for other districts, doesn't that tear down your confidence, knowing that colleges are looking for smart people and you just aren't the smartest. \"However, people must learn to face the facts. Colleges should know how students do on a scale compared to a larger amount of students. If someone just doesn't do well enough, compared to the nation, its their fault. Nobody is stupid. There are some people who don't work hard enough. In addition, losing, while this may seem illogical may boost confidence. When people loose or do not do as well as they hoped, they look forward to further improvement. And that self confidence and ability not to give up is a skill taught by standardized testing. They refuted my third contention by stating that \"As my entire contention three says, teachers are often hurt by standardized tests, because it forces them to teach something they aren't used to teaching. \"Every teacher is allowed to teach in a different style. It is about what they teach. And the educational guidelines suggest the same thing for every single teacher. At the end, if they want to let teachers teach with completely no restrictions, they are looking to abolish the whole education system which in fact is quite efficient. Its quite clear that the whole education system can not be banned. Teachers must teach information at an appropriate gradient for each class. They refuted my fourth contention by suggesting that \" I have done my own part of research. and have found that standardized testing is actually only a quarter of a percent of the total US education budget. The USA spends more than a billion dollars on Standardized Testing ALONE! \"A quarter of a percent of the budget. And then, they state that it costs 1 billion. But wait? Doesn't that mean that we make a profit? Then, my opponent goes on mentioning that we can spend this money to fight against ISIS. I would love to help stop ISIS. However, I am not apathetic to education and I am sure that the readers are not either. Next thing my opponent will suggest, is the implementation of child labor. I consider it very important to see what students have learned throughout the year and how productive the teachers have been. They refuted my 5th contention by saying:\" Just because a test is \"fair\", does not mean it is \"beneficial\". \"However, when students think its fair, it is implied that they admit that it is correct and that it is helpful. Students consider these questions fair which proves how not harmful these tests are. They refuted my sixth contention by saying that\" Basically, what they are trying to say is that it's okay for a small fraction of students to suicide(STUDENTS! ) because it helps the majority have confidence, which it doesn't necessarily, as I stated in my attack on their case. \"However, all my assertions have been proof of how standardized testing is a benefit and how students and professionals see it as a benefit. The small fraction of students have committed suicide. But lets think for a moment. Why is that number so small? Because the students who end their life because of a test are mentally ill and should have consulted a professional. Now onto counter-counter refutations. They rebuilt their point by saying This changes the curriculum, not allowing students to learn other things, such as fine arts. However, fine arts and other activities will still be in the school curriculum. Teachers blatantly will not spend the whole study day to prepare for tests. Fine arts are a required part of each students program. Math and language arts are everywhere. A large portion of the students will engage in professions which will require these two subjects. Many tests also include social studies and science. In part B, my opponent went on about how students will not be able to afford text books. However, students, rich or poor will find a way to get a text book to study if they want. There are public libraries, many schools give out free textbooks and kids can borrow from their peer. Therefore, standardized testing are about how determined one is, not about money. About disorders, many such kids are not given standardized tests. In Contention 2, Part A, they state how one size does not fit all and that does not work. However, there are guidelines for what a teacher should teach to whatever grade. And the teacher should follow those guidelines. Whenever a student is above his grade in a subject, he is technically in a different grade and takes the appropriate level test. In Contention 2 Part B, they state how schools have different curriculums. However, for the school, there are certain guidelines for what students should know in their grade level. The test matches the guidelines. In fourth grade, the test is what the student learned in 4th grade. The same goes for other tests. In Contention 3 Part A, they completely agree with what I am saying. There are guidelines. They would be here even without the test. The test, based on gradients and levels, is a recap of whether these guideline have been fulfilled or not. In standardized testing, the educational program makes a check on whether educational goals have been fulfilled to the needed extent or not. In Contention 3 Part B, they talk about paradox in my speech. Which is fact, has not happened. We never stated that these activities should be eliminated. After all, only a portion of the school day will be spent on prep and education. If one wants to take these courses, they can. And now to rebuild upon my own points. Contention 1- Taking the tests can make something be remembered by the child. Contention 2- Allow the comparison of scores of kids from different districts. Contention 3- Proffesionals and parents support standardized testing. Contention 4- Standardized testing is a huge, indisposable industry. Contention 5- Students consider standardized testing fair and square. Contention 6- Standardized tests raise students confidence.", "qid": "26", "docid": "a331003f-2019-04-18T14:04:49Z-00000-000", "rank": 65, "score": 138807.0}, {"content": "Title: No Child Left Behind motivates unfortunate \"teaching to the test\": Content: The focus on standardized testing (all students in a state take the same test under the same conditions) as the means of assessment encourages teachers to teach a narrow subset of skills that will increase test performance rather than focus on deeper understanding and life lessons that can be applied in the marketplace, real life, and to citizenship and democracy generally. Because teachers and schools may be punished if they fail to live up to standardized test score goals, they often have a perverse incentive to focus almost entirely on teaching to the test, especially where a school is at risk of being designated as \"failing\".", "qid": "26", "docid": "40f19507-2019-04-17T11:47:33Z-00076-000", "rank": 66, "score": 138332.0}, {"content": "Title: Standardized Testing is beneficial for students K-12 in America Content: Standardized Testing is beneficial for students K-12 in America. Framework: Cost benefit analysis. This means the side with the most amount of benefits (aff) or harms (neg) of standardized testing should win this debate. Observation: The neg has the burden to provide alternative assessments that provide credible evidence. Rules: No negative comments!", "qid": "26", "docid": "ffd7fc64-2019-04-18T13:35:20Z-00003-000", "rank": 67, "score": 138098.0}, {"content": "Title: Standardized Tests Content: So many students have coasted throughout middle school and since teachers aren't able to fail their students, students could literally do nothing in elementary school and still pass. Having standardized tests would not only make students have to do well but also teachers. Teachers in elementary school are absolutely ridiculous. There's no pressure on them to actually teach students anything. If marks went public, students and teachers would do better.", "qid": "26", "docid": "b760077b-2019-04-18T13:01:46Z-00002-000", "rank": 68, "score": 137146.0}, {"content": "Title: Education: Testing Content: I strongly disagree with the fact that standardized testing are discriminatory against students who, for example, are unable to speak English well. In fact, \"Standardized tests are inclusive and non-discriminatory because they ensure content is equivalent for all students. Former Washington, DC, schools chancellor Michelle Rhee argues that using alternate tests for minorities or exempting children with disabilities would be unfair to those students: \"You can't separate them, and to try to do so creates two, unequal systems, one with accountability and one without it. This is a civil rights issue\"\" (2). In continuation, the United States is not the only nation using standardized testing: \"20 countries studied \"have achieved significant, sustained, and widespread gains\" on national and international assessments had used \"proficiency targets for each school\" and \"frequent, standardized testing to monitor system progress,\" according to a Nov. 2010 report by McKinsey & Company, a global management consulting firm\" (2). Standardized testing is not only an efficient way to measure school progress, but it is also a common way.", "qid": "26", "docid": "440fb971-2019-04-18T17:06:22Z-00005-000", "rank": 69, "score": 136535.0}, {"content": "Title: High school students in the US ought to be required to pass standardized exit exams to graduate Content: While I think it is unfortunate that some teachers ony \"teach\" for the test, that doesn't mean the test is faulty.......it means the teacher is. Standardized tests are great because if you take human scoring out of the question the results are easy to assess and document. However, if a test has essay questions or something other than multiple choice or true/false answering you have to have humans score the results. If computer scoring is used the results are very clear. These tests are also economical to make, give and score. Another advantage is that while scoring of the individual may not be completely perfect ,it does give a good indicator of the school or class average. This helps school administrators know better what is working and what isn't within their curriculum framework. You say in your argument that \"students from across the United States are all taught different subject matters and skills.\" My point is that there should be BASICS that are enforced and proficiency in them realized before graduation. The idea of standardized testing is to remove subjective factors from assessment. As a result, standardized tests provide several advantages to admissions committees and others who need to evaluate and compare the people who take these tests. You say that standardized tests are not important in the college admission process. I beg to differ. The SATs and ACTs are not optional for universities. There is a range that they expect. Excellent grades and poor scores will not secure admission. I am not stating that great standardized test scores and poor grades will.The standardization of these tests ensures that test-takers are being measured objectively on the same material. The grading is standardized, so test scores are the same no matter who or what is scoring them. This removes any bias that might stem from the scorer. On the other hand, tests that use subjective grading might yield scores that vary widely depending on who is scoring them. Standardized tests supposedly predict how well students will perform in the schools to which they're applying. For instance, the MCAT is designed to test the skills necessary to perform well in medical school. While a good MCAT score doesn't necessarily guarantee a successful medical school experience, studies have shown that standardized tests predict success more accurately than more subjective assessments, such as interviews. In fact, interviews have been shown to have only as much accuracy as chance in predicting a student's success at a particular school. Another advantage of standardized testing is that the results can be generalized and repeated, which shows a degree of validity and reliability. An additional benefit stems from aggregation, which provides a more accurate assessment of a particular group's skills and knowledge. One individual test-taker's score may not indicate how well the test measures the body of knowledge it's designed for. However, enough people take these tests so that their aggregate scores can provide useful information, because the percentage of assessment error decreases as the sample size increases. While many people criticize standardized tests as creating a bias along a number of factors, the tests nonetheless provide a more standardized tool in comparing test-takers than many other elements that admissions committees consider when evaluating applicants.", "qid": "26", "docid": "da13af75-2019-04-18T19:16:49Z-00003-000", "rank": 70, "score": 136465.0}, {"content": "Title: Standardized Tests Content: Challenge accepted, Standardized tests should not be used from Grades 1-12 as they discourage critical thinking skills, take away valuable time that could be used to educate students in a classroom, and fail to accurately assess a students academic progress. These reasons are just my starting point and only scratch the surface of the problems associated with standardized tests. I have many more reasons against the use of standardized tests, however, I will save those reasons for when the debate officially begins.", "qid": "26", "docid": "b760077b-2019-04-18T13:01:46Z-00003-000", "rank": 71, "score": 136369.0}, {"content": "Title: Standardized testing should NOT be banned Content: In today's bustling society, technology is advancing at an exponential rate. With this rapid growth of technology, students are becoming smarter than ever. For example, not only do students have the luxury of researching things at the click of a button but students also have accessibility to a wealth of information which once would have taken days to find at a library . Because of the ease of researching , school tests and quizzes can no longer be a harbinger in determining the potential success that a student can achieve. Therefore to determine what can be accomplished by a student, a policy of taking standardized testings should be ensconced. Not only will this provide a fair and equal opportunity for all students across the United States of America, but it will also allow job employers and college admissions people to have a relative idea on whether the student would be a 'good' asset to the company. In addition by taking standardized testings, it will allow the college admissions and job employers to quickly asses the students scores and not waste more time than the admission staff has to use. Therefore, establishing standardized testing will not only allow the people to have a quick assessment of the student but it will also reduce possible wasted time on both sides of the party.", "qid": "26", "docid": "961ba92b-2019-04-18T15:54:26Z-00004-000", "rank": 72, "score": 135703.0}, {"content": "Title: Standardized testing should remain in our schools. Content: Okay let's wrap thing up here on both of our sides. Overall, having standardized testing in our school systems are more beneficial than bad. Let's recap, the cost is low, it prepares students for higher level testing, helps school systems need to see where they need to teach more of, helps compare different school's grades, sees where each student is at individually, and does help prepare the students for some jobs later on. My question to you is, \"If standardized testing is mostly beneficial, then why should it be banned?\" Other than that, that wraps up my part of this debate and I am looking forward to your argument as well. (It was very nice debating with you, in fact, I am having this debate for real at my middle school tommorow, so thanks for helping me prepare :)", "qid": "26", "docid": "8703c5ca-2019-04-18T16:10:43Z-00001-000", "rank": 73, "score": 135610.0}, {"content": "Title: Studies find year-round schools improve student performance Content: Reports from the California State Department Of Education show that standardized test scores increased an average of 9.5% in Grade 3 with an average increase of 13.3% in reading scores[1]", "qid": "26", "docid": "69c8cd12-2019-04-17T11:47:36Z-00052-000", "rank": 74, "score": 135485.0}, {"content": "Title: Standardized testing is a good thing Content: You are saying that if we give a 50 page test to student not knowing half the stuff so we know where their at if that was the case a quarter of the class would be held back. That would not help children at all knowing where their at you need to do work with them give them the attention they need then they would probably understand. Giving them a test they don't know what to do would not help them what so ever. By helping them give maybe a little more homework or give a study guide about what their learning so they can review it at home. Do you know 1 in 10 students get held back we can probably make it 1 in 20 if we had no more standardized testing now who is with me!!!", "qid": "26", "docid": "828c220c-2019-04-18T14:36:05Z-00000-000", "rank": 75, "score": 135280.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to k-12 education in the U.S Content: That's disappointing. When I accepted this, I thought I'd get a good debate on a topic with equal ground that I don't know anything about. I researched and did gain some information, and I was going to tell the judges to ignore the Con/Pro confusion if my opponent continued their argument. When I accepted, I didn't intend things like a \"noob snipe,\" because I didn't realize my opponent was new to the site. Anyhow, here's why you should vote Con: (1) Pro confuses the sides in arguing for a resolution. Pro argues *against* the resolution, which means every single argument of Pro's is turned against them. The turn means you vote Pro down since Pro doesn't fulfill their share of the burden. (2) Pro doesn't prove any of their points -- the \"overemphasis on vocational education\" point was a bare assertion and was insufficiently explained, in that there's no reason to think that's a net harm; Pro's source for their first contention and argument only concern primary school children, which is irrelevant to K-12 education. I've constructed a case with clear reasons to vote Con, even presuming I'm taking the \"for\" position. First, standardized testing has clear benefit to students, since it makes it more likely for them to show interest in studies, to complete their homework, and to interact with parents about school work, and the feedback given as a result is much more effective than personal feedback. Second, there's benefit to teachers, since it reduces their workload, benefit them via accountability systems, contribute to teacher evaluations, and tell teachers how to deal with different students in different ways (which also link turns my opponent's first contention).", "qid": "26", "docid": "e4d12b1a-2019-04-18T13:55:40Z-00000-000", "rank": 76, "score": 135230.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to K-12 education in the United States Content: Racial Bias is actually exacerbated by standardized testing: \"In the case against the Texas TAAS test (see related story), plaintiffs presented research showing that standard test-construction methods built in racial bias. The judge concluded he \"cannot quarrel\" with that finding. Groups concerned about civil rights should use this argument to oppose the use of tests to make high-stakes decisions, such as school graduation or grade promotion. According to a declaration by Prof. Martin Shapiro of Emory University, who is both a lawyer and a psychologist, Texas uses \"point-biserial correlations\" in deciding which items to use and which questions to discard as the test is assembled from field-tested questions. Items with high biserial correlations are those generally answered correctly by test-takers who score high on the test overall. Items which many low-scoring students get right have lower correlations. To obtain higher consistency (and hence technical reliability) on the test, Texas follows the typical practice of using items with the highest correlation values. This procedure means that on items covering the same materials, the ones with the greatest gaps between high and low scorers will be used. Because minority group students typically perform less well on the test as a whole, the effort to increase reliability also increases bias against minorities. According to other research, items which facilitate ranking and sorting are often items which, perhaps unintentionally, factor non-school learning and social background into the questions. Such items help create consistency in test results, but they often are based on the experiences of white middle-to-upper class children, who also typically have access to a stronger academic education. This test assembly approach was developed in large part to help obtain consistency on tests designed to rank and sort students, such as IQ tests, the SAT, or national, norm-referenced achievement tests (NRTs). While procedures which reinforce racial and other biases should not be used in any case, tests such as TAAS now rely on biserial correlations -- even though the TAAS supposedly is not intended to sort students but to determine whether they have met specified levels of achievement. By using this method of item selection, the TAAS, like many other state \"criterion-referenced\" or \"standards-based\" exams, is actually constructed to resemble an NRT. This common test development procedure exacerbates the existing inequities of schooling. When used in high-stakes testing, biserial correlation helps ensure that at least some students who know the material and ought to pass the tests do not. Those students are overwhelmingly low-income, of color, with English as a second language, or have special needs.\" (http://www.fairtest.org...) The pro has no benefits except the fact that standardized testing may alleviate racial bias however, as the information provided by fairtest.org states, racial bias is further accentuated by standardized tests. As stated before, standardized test do not promote education, performance, or passion. That hollowness creates staid thinking and in a world that is constantly moving forward leads to regression.", "qid": "26", "docid": "ab3b5048-2019-04-18T14:01:05Z-00002-000", "rank": 77, "score": 135210.0}, {"content": "Title: Standardized tests in all schools Content: Standardized tests, when properly administered, provide a standard assessment of students' learned knowledge and determine whether or not students are prepared to move on to the next progressive level of schooling. If administered properly, this type of testing is a fair process that simply gauges student ability. In response to Con's claim that these tests are unfair, I would ask: What makes standardized tests unfair? I would like to also note that one personal experience is not sufficient evidence to judge the entire testing practice. Regarding Con's initial hypothetical that a student passes all of their classes, fails the test, and is held back: It is possible that a student could technically pass a class (via cheating, getting a D or C, extra credit) and not have achieved the appropriate level of knowledge. It's the same concept as taking notes. I could take notes for an hour, and then not remember a single thing, as it is all written on paper. I have the information in hand, but I have the responsibility to use it as well. Standardized tests are meant to be difficult. They are designed to test you, and you as the student have a responsibility to study for them if you want to perform well. Failing the standardized test is the result of a lack of preparedness, or the result of a failure to learn the proper information, either of which are the fault of the student, and in some cases, select teachers. If you pass your class, but don't learn anything, then what's the point? So in round two: I challenge Con to provide reasonable evidence that supports the claim that standardized testing is an unfair practice. I also challenge Con to disprove my argument that students can pass a class without really learning the material.", "qid": "26", "docid": "a3eb04e5-2019-04-18T16:10:36Z-00004-000", "rank": 78, "score": 135186.0}, {"content": "Title: Standardized testing should remain in our schools. Content: Okay first of all, standardized testing is needed to see where each individual is at academic wise. Standardized testing is proved to be the only way to see that without having to do one kid at a time and not having control over the classroom. Second of all, standardized testing helps see which teachers should remain teaching. Let's say that you have a really clumsy teacher who does not teach anything at all. And you know that nobody will believe you if you tell them that the teacher is not teaching. Standardized testing is a good way to see where the teachers are at, as well as the students. Standardized testing is also not expensive at all! The average amount of students in a school is 800 and each student costs $7 for testing materials and booklets. $7 times 800 equals an average of $5,600 dollars per school with testing, which is nothing compared to what the schools make! And with the money they give to the school systems, they know that the cost is beneficial to their school.", "qid": "26", "docid": "8703c5ca-2019-04-18T16:10:43Z-00005-000", "rank": 79, "score": 135110.0}, {"content": "Title: Standardized Testing Content: Standardized testing should continue to exist in schools. 1. It prepares students for future jobs: To land many jobs and be able to apply, (ie. lawyers, pilots etc.) standardized tests need to be taken to get such jobs. Teaching students from an early age how to handle them will help them for the future. 2. It is a non-discriminatory and fair way of testing: No racism, sexism etc. can be found with grading these kinds of tests because most of them are multiple choice and for the written sections, the graders do not know the students whom are being graded. This avoids bias and overall makes testing more fair for students to measure academic knowledge. 3. \"Teaching to the test\" may not be a bad thing: You may make the argument that teachers \"teach to the test\" and ignore crucial concepts just to cover all the test material in time. This is false, for all teachers do not know what is on such tests to prepare their students for them. They just follow the core curriculum. It helps teachers and students \"focus on essential content,\" and \"eliminates time wasting activities which prevent students from excelling.\" 4. It does not \"narrow\" curriculum: It simply just focuses on more essential topics to succeed. 5. Most parents approve of these tests: \"A June-July 2013 Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll found that 75% of parents say standardized tests \"are a solid measure of their children's abilities\" and 69% say the tests \"are a good measure of the schools' quality.\" 93% of parents say standardized tests \"should be used to identify areas where students need extra help\" and 61% say their children \"take an appropriate number of standardized tests.\" ~This quote is self-explanatory. 6. Most students approve, and are not \"overly-stressed:\" Most students have a positive view towards such testing. And approximately 75% of students support the test and believe it is fair, according to a 2006 country-wide survey. 7. Non-expensive: It only costs $2-5 per student, which is a small amount compared to buying other materials for schools. ie. textbooks, computers etc. Taxes pay for this for public schools. 8. Most teachers and administrators approve of such tests: 9. Unbiased grading: Once again, since the teacher of the students are not grading the tests, bias is removed. 10. It prepares students for the future: Not only jobs, it challenges students to comply with more demanding college work. Sources: http://standardizedtests.procon.org...", "qid": "26", "docid": "51fb112a-2019-04-18T13:44:40Z-00001-000", "rank": 80, "score": 134826.0}, {"content": "Title: Standardized testing accuaretly represents a student's academic ability. Content: Thank you for the response. My opponent said that pressure actually helps children to learn and become more prepared for future work places, this may be true but is irrelevant. The resulution says: Standardized testing accuaretly represents a student's academic ability. So the fact that pressure produced by these tests can help prepare one for a future career is irrelevant becuase it does not prove that these tests appropriately represent a student's academic ability. My opponent also said that he agreed that debate was an academic pursuit and was not on the test. I agree that english,history, and writting skills can compliment one's debating. However, that does not mean that these things are equivellant to it. Once again I thank my opponent for allowing me to test this resolution. I don't know if I already said this but I will be debating this in a few months, so all feedback is appreciated! I strongly urge a CON ballot.", "qid": "26", "docid": "372ca988-2019-04-18T19:00:37Z-00002-000", "rank": 81, "score": 134739.0}, {"content": "Title: Standardized tests are the best way for colleges to decide on potential students. Content: All arguments extended.", "qid": "26", "docid": "8ed1a49-2019-04-18T19:10:33Z-00002-000", "rank": 82, "score": 134640.0}, {"content": "Title: Standardized Tests Content: I disagree. The entire system of standardize education needs to be abolished.", "qid": "26", "docid": "b760073d-2019-04-18T17:08:38Z-00004-000", "rank": 83, "score": 134372.0}, {"content": "Title: Education: Testing Content: The fact that these tests are all the same difficulty is not fair to the students with slower learning habits and the varying strengths of these students are based off of the lack of regular curriculum in these schools. \"A national 2007 study by the Center on Education Policy reported that since 2001, 44% of school districts had reduced the time spent on science, social studies and the arts by an average of 145 minutes per week in order to focus on reading and math. A 2007 survey of 1,250 civics, government, and social studies teachers showed that 75% of those teaching current events less often cited standardized tests as the reason\" (1). Because most of the attention of the students is directed towards standardized test information, the children are not learning the basic information. Not only do the students learn nothing from these tests, the government is not benefiting from it either, the billion dollar testing industry is notorious for making costly and time-consuming scoring errors. \"NCS Pearson, which has a $254 million contract to administer Florida's Comprehensive Assessment Test, delivered the 2010 results more than a month late and their accuracy was challenged by over half the state's superintendents. After errors and distribution problems in 2004-2005, Hawaii replaced test publisher Harcourt with American Institutes for Research, but the latter had to re-grade 98,000 tests after students received scores for submitting blank test booklets\" (2). Overall, it seems as though no one strongly benefits from these tests, all together making them unimportant.", "qid": "26", "docid": "440fb971-2019-04-18T17:06:22Z-00004-000", "rank": 84, "score": 133876.0}, {"content": "Title: Lincoln Douglas debate, topic will be standardized exit exams (September/October topic) Content: AFF \"Standardized tests can't measure initiative, creativity, imagination, conceptual thinking, curiosity, effort, irony, judgment, commitment, nuance, good will, ethical reflection, or a host of other valuable dispositions and attributes. What they can measure and count are isolated skills, specific facts and function, content knowledge, the least interesting and least significant aspects of learning.\" Bill Ayers. It is because I agree with Bill Ayers that I affirm the resolution; Resolved: Public high school students in the United States ought not be required to pass standardized exit exams to graduate. Observations: All claims by the negative about standardized tests being adjusted to compensate for the qualifications I have listed to constitute a successful education must be taken in stride, While standardized tests can be altered to include more areas of testing they are unable to be changed to the point that the test a student on all the qualifications it takes to be a contributing member to society. This is because the some of the skills needed for success can not be tested. VP: Individuality Individuality is defined as the particular character, or aggregate of qualities, that distinguishes one person or thing from others. If we take away the fact that we all have different ideas, means of doing things, and ways of living life, we are equivalently taking away the human factor out of human beings. This resolution is clearly portraying the struggle between testing every student as if they all learned the same to using more specific and accurate means of determining whether or not a student has successfully has gathered enough knowledge to become a functioning citizen in society. Due to the fact that Individuality, is unique for everyone of us the means to test individuals for personal success are different, this leads me to my Value Criterion. VC: Promoting more specific means of determining whether or not a student ought to graduate. No matter any attempt from the Negative to claim that exit exams are capable of testing to a wider variety of areas than they historically have and pragmatically will, no standardized test will ever be able to cater to the certain aspects that make us all who we are. We have to realize for education to be considered successful it must enlighten a student in a wide variety of areas, and with more specific means of determing whether or not a student ought to graduate we are able to recognize which students have successfully learned and those that haven't. And more specific means of determine whether or not a student ought to graduate, can constitute a wide variety of things be it individual assessments, project based grading, culmative reviews, or portfolios. Dan Rudhyar speaks about how a person gains intelligence through individuality and therefore how we might test it, Intelligence is released as natural powers are used in a human way by the individualized human being in his effort to achieve victory over his life-environment. When, at a later stage of his growth, man has faced the tests of mutuality and responsibility, the integrative power of thought gives birth to a new phase of intelligence.\". This meaning once an individual shows motivation and an interest in learning they have grown and are ready for success, and using individual assessments etc we are and deciding who is ready to face the world. Definitions: Standardized: 1. To evaluate by comparing with a standard. Exam: 1. The act or process of testing pupils, candidates, etc. as by questions. Pass: 1. To undergo or complete successfully. Graduate: 1. To advance to a new level of skill/ acheivment C1) Affirmative stance allows individualized education which doesn't teach to the test. SUB A) Teachers need to teach in order for students to learn.Louis Volante says, \"The job of any teacher is first and foremost to promote learning in their students. Student learning should emphasize applied learning and thinking skills, not just declarative knowledge and basic skills (Jones, 2004). Ideally, students are able to develop the skills necessary to take what they have learned and apply this knowledge in a novel situation. In sum this is my value criterion, we need teachers to teach students what they need to know for future success and in order to do that we need to highlight individuality. When the student is given the ability to apply knowledge, and use their thinking skills they are being individuals. Rather than being dictated what they need to know they are taking the curricula and taking away the things they need now and storing things they possibly will need later, which shows that students are assessing, learning, maturing, and growing to be successful in the future. SUB B) However standardized tests detract from a teacher's ability to promote individuality and allow students to succeed. Louis Volante later goes on to write, \"Emphasizing standardized testing also skews educators and the public's attention from what we want children to learn rather than what we can easily measure. For example, most experts agree that a balanced literacy curriculum should include components related to reading, writing, as well as speaking and listening Unfortunately, only reading and writing are typically measured by standardized school tests. Does this mean that speaking and listening are not valuable or worthy of attention within the curriculum? Obviously students need to utilize their speaking and listening skills to be successful in schools and higher education settings..\" SUB C) Actually standardized tests have a negative effect on students rather then simply preventing proper learning to occur they can almost completely ruin a child's schooling, Louis Volante comments, \"Teaching to the test also has a \"dumbing\" effect on teaching and learning as worksheets, drills, practice tests and similar rote practices consume greater amounts of classroom time (Sacks, 2000). Insofar as standardized tests assess only part of the curriculum, time spent on test taking often overemphasizes basic-skill subjects and neglects high-order thinking skills. Research suggests that while students' scores will rise when teachers teach closely to a test, learning often does not change for standardized tests, provide their students with a solid foundation for future success.\" This shows that not only does a standardized test detract from the child's learning it is also detrimental. We are harming children giving them these tests, voting in favor of the affirmative allows for proper education and successful learning, something the negative fails to achieve. C2) Graduation shouldn't be measured by one point in time rather by a collection of grades and experiences. It is extremely inaccurate for one day in a student's life to determine his course in history, whether it be graduation or a repeat of that grade. A student's testing experience can be impacted by events out of his or her control such as the recent passing of a family member, sickness, bad luck, etc. But using the sum of the student's grades and teacher's reviews, which aren't affected by these events to the extent that standardized exit exams are, proves to be more accurate. As a matter of fact, Standardized tests are bias, no matter the amount the negative can try to persuade you your race, social status, or economic background do matter. Roy O. Freedle a psychologist for the Educational Testing Service talks about the bias of standardized tests \"often [Standardized Tests] have many more semantic senses than rare words,\" so there's more of a chance that people's cultural and socio-economic backgrounds will affect their interpretations of those words. Thus words that are frequently used in the middle-class neighborhoods of the test makers may have a different meaning in underprivileged minority neighborhoods. thus I stand in Affirmation over the NFL's septembe", "qid": "26", "docid": "35932d4f-2019-04-18T19:15:11Z-00004-000", "rank": 85, "score": 133873.0}, {"content": "Title: should Standardized tests be eliminated? logical answers Content: Once again, extremely valid arguments. However, I would believe that things would run similar to the ACT and SAT. When applying to colleges, most (if not all) look only at the highest score achieved over all test dates. This being the case, they would only look at the highest score on each section, which would be passing, even if it took several test dates. Also, the HSPA is used to \"measure whether [the students] have gained the knowledge and skills identified in the Core Curriculum Content Standards.\" These scores and results are also used \"to determine the appropriateness and strength of the local curriculum and to develop remedial programs to help students improve their knowledge and skills.\" With this knowledge, these tests are truly administered for the benefit of the students, not for acceptance decisions of colleges. Furthermore, these tests do in fact reflect situations in a post-collegiate setting. In many professions, especially those that require a higher education, there are periods of time that come with time restraints and in turn plenty of stress. One must learn to adapt to these stresses, and while a single test may not be entirely reflective of this, it does provide a certain aspect of urgency and demonstrates one's ability to perform under pressure. Sources: Same as previous round", "qid": "26", "docid": "9168d27e-2019-04-18T15:43:14Z-00001-000", "rank": 86, "score": 133508.0}, {"content": "Title: standardized testing should be eliminated Content: I will begin by refuting my opponent's claims, and then I will move on and create my own arguments supporting the elimination of standardized testing. ======== REBUTTALS ======== \"1) Standardized testing gives teachers direction to help them conclude what to teach students and when to teach it.\" All schools have curricula that is already predetermined by the nature of the course which they are teaching. Standardized testing is not needed to give these teachers a direction. If anything, standardized testing negatively impacts education in this way, since it results in what as known as \"teaching to the test\" where teachers do not care about truly educating the students, rather, they want to see positive results when it comes to test day. For a dramatic example of teaching to the test, we have to look no further than a teacher in Texas whose school, in some classrooms, stopped teaching social studies and the sciences completely since these were not on the state test [1]. Is this the education that these children deserve? \"2) Standardized testing tells parents and the school how well students are faring across the country and locally.\" Standardized tests are extremely inaccurate at gauging the capabilities of students, and thus cannot be used in this way. This is because it is impossible to create a test that is fair to all students, and thus it creates an inaccurate representation of both those that benefit and are hurt by this inherent bias. These standardized tests also cannot account for other factors critical to learning such as motivation that are key to success. \"3) Since all students in a school are doing identical tests, standardized tests provide an accurate comparison across groups.\" Much standardized testing, unfortunately, leads to cheating due to a pressure to obtain high standardized test scores by the students or teachers [2]. Also, to attempt to alleviate this cheating, many standardized tests have created multiple forms so that it becomes much more difficult for teachers to cheat and nigh on impossible for students. However, these again have the inaccuracies that inherently result from differences in the tests. \"4) Standardized testing permits students' progress to be tracked over the years.\" The performance of students on any given day should obviously not be used to establish whether or not they have made progress throughout the entire year. \"5) It improves the accountability of students and schools and motivates students to learn the material.\" While it may motivate students to memorize answers that will likely show up on the test, if anything, it discourages students from learning a wider range of material as sourced above, since the rest of their knowledge will not determine their results on the standardized tests. \"6) It costs 50 cents to $5 to score an essay, compared with pennies for each multiple-choice question.\" Is this an assumption that standardized tests only consist of multiple-choice questions? Many, like the SAT and PSSA do not, but under the assumption that they do, this only further encourages students to memorize concepts without learning the material. This is why many very important tests like AP Exams include free-response portions, because they are one of the most effective ways in analyzing the true knowledge of a student, as far as tests are concerned, which vastly outweighs the cost issues (which have not been shown by my opponent to be vast). =========== CONSTRUCTIVE =========== I propose that standardized tests be abolished in favor of what is known as the portfolio method. This method essentially consists of creating a file for each student and placing assignments and works of students frequently in this file. There are many benefits of this system [3]. 1) It is cheap. The amount of money that it costs to purchase some filing cabinets and folders for portfolios is minimal, and it can even be put online to further save money. 2) It is much more accurate. Instead of measuring student performance on a single day, and expecting this to account for the student's progress throughout the entire year, performance is measured constantly, which reduces stress and is inherently more accurate. 3) It encourages teaching a wider curriculum. With results based on a variety of tests and assignments given throughout the course, teachers focus on teaching the material on a chapter-by-chapter basis, instead of spending the entire course looking ahead to the standardized tests. This ensures that everything that needs to be taught for a complete understanding of the subject is taught. Since the portfolio method is much more beneficial than standardized testing, I therefore affirm that standardized testing should be eliminated. Sources: [1] http://www.www2.districtadministration.com... [2] http://www.cbsnews.com... [3] http://www.huffingtonpost.com... I look forward to my opponent's response and hope that this will be an enjoyable debate.", "qid": "26", "docid": "7182eb4d-2019-04-18T19:07:15Z-00002-000", "rank": 87, "score": 133299.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved on balance Content: I'm glad you've excepted my argument you seem like a worthy opponent. I will present some evidence in favor of my topic Why Publishing a Teacher\"s Standardized Test Results Is a Very Bad Idea http://www.alternet.org... Using student standardized test scores to evaluate teachers, a trend gaining steam in a growing number of states in recent years as a result of the federal \"Race to the Top\" program, isn\"t about improving education. It is, and always has been, about ranking, sorting, and shaming schools and educators. But, just as controversial testing regimens don\"t accurately capture student learning or progress in the classroom, standardized, homogenized teacher evaluations don\"t capture what teachers do for students. Teaching and learning is hardly a beauty pageant. Educators and kids are more than a set of scores. Still, Americans like information for its own sake; we like to create and consume lists and databases, analyses and reviews, to stare at numbers before we make decisions even if, like Yelp reviews, they\"re as predictive as tea leaves. Though a Virginia parent sued for teacher evaluation and observations to be made available to the public, educators who have been in the classroom know that the information published is little more reliable than that onratemyteacher.com (where, if you look me up, you\"ll discover that I was simultaneously \"the best,\" \"the worst,\" \"real cool,\" and \"hype,\" as both compliment and insult). How does publishing a teacher\"s standardized test results support students and teachers? How does it turn into anything more than an adult-world re-creation of class rank, where we are shamed into competing against each other instead of working together to actually improve? How does it do more for parents than chatting in the parking lot or posting on Facebook groups would do? Evaluations based on testing don\"t show the hours we teachers spend researching, planning, and reflecting on lessons that will never be listed on an evaluation form. The standardized tests on which our evaluations are based often don\"t even align with the curricula we teach. And, instead of being an authentic element of ongoing professional growth and development, classroom observations have become just one more task for overburdened administrators to complete: even the best-intentioned principals often can\"t find the time in their days to get into our classrooms to experience the interactions taking place among our students. When I taught a reading program for 9th graders while still at Kensington CAPA High School in Philadelphia, my students began the year with an average reading level equivalent to a mid-term fourth grader. We created a safe space for learning, and worked hard, together; after a semester, most of my students improved by at least one grade level on reading assessments. The students felt pride in and ownership of their growth; my principal brought guests in to observe the great work that was going on in the program. But on state-mandated standardized tests, my students still scored \"below basic\" because even the two or three years of progress they made in one year meant that they were still reading at levels below what was expected of rising 10th graders. They were labeled failing; as their teacher, I was a failure, too. The tests could not show what was taking place in our classroom. The woman dubbed \"the worst teacher in New York\" taught in just such a classroom, and the truth about her teaching couldn\"t have been further from the picture the \"rankings\" (and then the press) painted of her. The tests and the evaluations that are based on them are unable to accurately portray what happens in classes and schools where students are mobile, speaking different languages, coming and leaving at different times during the school year, where students are already performing far above or below grade level, or where poverty is a factor in students\" readiness for school and the resources available in schools themselves. Just as all children are more than the sum of their test scores, so are their teachers. If you want to understand what\"s going on in your child\"s classroom,there are countless ways for parents and families to learn more and become more engaged in their childrens\" education. If we work together \" if you don\"t listen to advocates who want the public to view teachers as the enemy in the battle to educate children \"sharing notes and communicating about your child (and about the work he or she is doing in my class ), we can help your child succeed in my class and outside it. You\"ll learn far more about me and about your child in my class from talking to me than looking up some unreliable, meaningless standardized test score online. My colleagues and I actually crave feedback and opportunities to grow; we want professional observation and evaluation to be more in depth, intensive and useful. Our unions are leading the charge on this front, researching, developing training and models of effective teacher evaluation. We are constantly seeking better methods of helping our students. There are effective ways to engage with peers and principals to delve deeply into goals and practices in the classroom, and when we invest our time and resources into these best practices, teachers and students benefit. But we must resist the urge to artificially simplify those necessarily complex and time consuming evaluations just to feed the data monster with statistics and test scores. Information is important, but context is everything \" which is something we\"d love to teach your kids, too, if we could only find some time in between test prep sessions.", "qid": "26", "docid": "9d663199-2019-04-18T13:56:58Z-00003-000", "rank": 88, "score": 133169.0}, {"content": "Title: Standardized Tests Content: NO! I don't know where you went or go to school, but school's do not make the effort to appease ALL of their students. They only make the effort to appease their stupid students because they are the one's that will drop standardized test scores and make them look bad. In my elementary school, middle school, and even about half of my high school, upper level students never got any benefits other than a rare gifted class. Even then, that would just be one class per day. In all the other classes, I always had to deal with the stupid kids asking questions and the teachers being forced to answer them all the while holding me back. It is not, \"No child left behind\". It is \"No child gets ahead\". In conclusion, I support the abolition of standards because it forces people be held back who does not need to be.", "qid": "26", "docid": "b760073d-2019-04-18T17:08:38Z-00000-000", "rank": 89, "score": 132883.0}, {"content": "Title: Standardized Testing...the person with the dumbest/craziest points wins Content: SHENANIGANS!IT HAS BEEN PROVEN BY PSEUDO-SCIENCES THAT STANDARDIZED TESTS LET YOU LIVE LONGER AND HEALTHIER AND REDUCE STRESS! MY FRIEND'S, NEIGHBOR'S, COUSIN'S, DOG LIVED 100 YEARS BECAUSE HIS OWNER TOOK STANDARDIZED TESTS. THUS, IT IS CONCLUSIVE, YOU NEED STANDARDIZED TESTS OR YOU WILL DIE YOUNG. GOOD LUCK BEATING THAT KIND OF LOGIC, CON!", "qid": "26", "docid": "be50aaf1-2019-04-18T13:34:22Z-00003-000", "rank": 90, "score": 132829.0}, {"content": "Title: Standardized testing should NOT be banned Content: Conclusion SATs damage a student's potential and future. They jump to conclusions at a young age by a single test score, causing them to shove young children into classes that are often too easy, or too hard. Once this cycle begins, the child will either fall terribly behind, or learn at the prescribed pace, no faster, causing them to have a ruined future. The test taking skills that SATs teach students are stressful and not suited for many children, and the oppurtunities for improvement at tests is limited to none. There is no flexibility, despite extenuating circumstances for some, and the stress level often causes poor scores. SAT's do not improve test scores, as numerous examples and studies have proven, and can sometimes even make them worse. They also cause a teacher to teach to the cirriculum poorly - one of the reasons for our failing education system. (Thank you, by the way, Pro). I, too, have the same sources as last time.", "qid": "26", "docid": "961ba94a-2019-04-18T15:54:06Z-00000-000", "rank": 91, "score": 132610.0}, {"content": "Title: Standardized Testing...the person with the dumbest/craziest points wins Content: STANDARDIZED TESTING K-12 EDUCATION IN THE UNITED STATES your claim has to be. .. a) random b) crazy c) funny ex: STANDARDIZED TESTING IS HORRIBLE BECAUSE IT IS MADE OF PAPER AND PAPER IS FROM TREES AND TREES ARE FROM THE GROUND AND THE GROUND IS FROM THE EARTH AND THE EARTH IS FROM THE UNIVERSE, THEREFORE WHEN STUDENTS TAKE TESTS, THEY ARE ULTIMATELY WASTING THE UNIVERSE. i will let the aff go first.", "qid": "26", "docid": "be50aaf1-2019-04-18T13:34:22Z-00006-000", "rank": 92, "score": 132573.0}, {"content": "Title: Standardized testing is a good thing Content: When you come home from school your parent asks how was your day you say I sat in a desk writing the hole day. No parent wants to see their children upset,exhausted,and has pains from typing. Kids who are struggling in school the worst thing you can do is put a 50 page test on their lap. Doing work in the class would be better because the teacher can't help them during the test if they don't understand something. In normal work in school the teacher can spend more time with the students who are having struggles to help them understand their work and achieve higher grades in that subject and this can keep happening when you are a senior. Vote for me JAMES", "qid": "26", "docid": "828c220c-2019-04-18T14:36:05Z-00002-000", "rank": 93, "score": 132263.0}, {"content": "Title: on balance standardized testing is benifical for k-12 education Content: Welcome to debate. org, an open debating community for all. Framework: According to google, \"is\" in the context of the resolution means \"third person singular present of be\". This impies present tense only, Therefore, as the Con, all I have to do is to prove that the status quo is not beneficial. I do not have to argue about POTENTIAL benefits of standardized testing; just the actual real world effect. If I show a detrimental effect, I ought to win the round. I do not have to advocate for NO testing, I can argue for reform. Contention 1: Exclusion A. Standardized testing excludes students with disablilities . http://web.a.ebscohost.com... Eric Badtscher-Senior Technical Writer writes that Standardized testing fails to account that not all children learn in the same manner. Also, Standardized tests exclude students who are bad at test taking from receiving higher education B. Classism and For-Profit Testing Standardized testing creates a profit motive behind testing instead of a learning motive, According to Broussard, Data Professor at NYU \"14. . http://www.theatlantic.com... He writes that \"standardized tests are not based on general knowledge. .. they are based on specific knowledge contained in specific sets of books: the textbooks created by the test makers. \" Therefore, because private companies create these tests, they contain the specific information solely in the textbook, forcing schools to rely on textbooks created by the company itself. However, since poor schools cannot afford some of these books or at least not in sufficient quantity, poor students and schools do worse under testing regimes. . http://www.omegalearning.com... According to By David Miller Sadker, PhD, data confirms that poor students, especially minorities, fail standardized tests far more often. \"Even moderate income differences could result in major test score differences. In Ohio, almost half of the students from families with incomes below $20,000 failed the state exams, while almost 80 percent of students from families earning more than $30,000 passed those same exams. \" This is unfair to poorer schools because they cannot afford these books and the students don\"t know what to expect for the test and therefore don\"t perform as well. Because these students cannot pass, this directly increases the dropout rate. C: Cheating The high stakes of these tests incentivizes large amounts of students and even administration to cheat on exams. This nullifies my opponents argument that the data is good. The data is flawed because it is tampered with and inaccurate . . http://www.scpr.org... The National Center for Fair & Open Testing found cases of cheating on standardized tests in 37 states across the country. Cheating occurred in 197 districts in the past year alone. Contention 2: Dropout rate. The goal of education is to increase the life skills of students in order to prepare them for the real world. However, standardized testing is detrimental to that by increasing dropout rates. According to Advancement Project \"10 . http://fairtest.org... \"From 1996 until 2002 (when NCLB became law), 68 of the 100 largest urban districts had rising graduation rates. Twenty-four of them achieved double-digit increases in their graduation rates, while only four had double-digit drops during that period. From 2002 until 2006, however, 73 of the 100 largest districts experienced declining graduation rates. Seventeen experienced at least a double-digit drop in their graduation rates. \" . http://www.educationworld.com... Now my opponent may claim this is only a correlation, but 28 states require students to pass a standardized test in order to pass high school. If they cannot pass than they are forced to drop out. . https://b.3cdn.net... The Advancement project also talks about how testing increases incentivization to kick out failing students. If students consistently do badly on exams than teachers have an incentive to kick them out in order to raise the average score. The Impact of dropouts is very large. . http://www.slj.com... School Library Journal reports that dropouts are 8 times more likely to be arrested. . http://lifescapesolutions.com... . http://www.statisticbrain.com... According to multiple sources dropouts commit 75% of crime. This impact is the largest in the round, as if education makes people criminals than it fails to do its job Conclusion Vote Con based off my impacts. Spelling should go Con as Pro misspelled beneficial. Thanks for the very short round", "qid": "26", "docid": "fd3c1a15-2019-04-18T14:07:33Z-00000-000", "rank": 94, "score": 131862.0}, {"content": "Title: Public highschool students inthe US oughtnot be required to pass standardized exit exams to graduate Content: Because dumb people are people too, I affirm. I define: A standardized test, according to the Department of Education is \"A test administered in accordance with explicit directions for uniform administration.\" Because of the 10th Amendment to the Bill of Rights, standardized exams are administered at the state level. An exit exam is an exam taken at the end of a course, which in the case of this resolution is required to graduate. Observation 1: Because the resolution asks us whether standardized tests should be used as a requirement to graduate from high school, the negative must not only prove that standardized tests are beneficial, but also that making them a graduation requirement has some unique benefit. Proving that students should take standardized tests upon graduation does not negate the resolution because the affirmative can require students to take the test, just not mandate that they pass it to graduate. If the negative doesn't meet this burden, you affirm. Observation 2: Specific benefits or harms of a single test are insufficient to affirm or negate the resolution. Simply because an apple has a speck of red while the rest is green, doesn't make the apple a red apple. Rather, we would declare the apple green despite this minor discrepancy. Analogously, in the debate round we can only declare an impact to a standardized test valid at the point where it is an inherent impact, not one that is unique to a specific exam. The value is Justice, defined as giving each his due. The standard is Equal Academic Opportunity defined as giving each individual an equal opportunity to perform well in school and acquire academic benefits. You accept the criterion because: 1. Future differences in wealth and income cannot be just unless individuals start on an equal playing field. These inequalities are analogous to a race in which one person starts 5 meters from the finish line while the rest of the competition starts 100 meters away; even though the advantaged person finishes the race, the outcome of the race isn't just insofar as he began exceptionally close to the end. 2. There is no morally relevant distinction between individuals based on arbitrary factors such as race, class etc. There exists no logical reason why a minority student disproportionately hurt by a policy deserves to be hurt by that policy \u2013 rather, the concept of justice takes all human beings as equal entities and thus it logically follows that each human being ought to be provided the same opportunities for advancement. 3. Justifying higher opportunities for individual groups based on arbitrary factors allows social planners to label groups as \"worthy\" or \"unworthy\". These rationalizations are the justifying basis for global exterminations and rights violations on the scale of slavery. For this reason, the thesis of the affirmative is that exit exams disproportionately hurts minorities and other groups, and thus cannot provide the ground for equal academic opportunity Contention One: High-stakes exit exams increase the dropout rate significantly for minority and female students. Sean Reardon explains the negative effects that high-stakes tests have on minorities: \"in a situation where an individual's performance has the potential to confirm a negative stereotype about his or her group, individuals experience performance-related stress or anxiety, leading their performance to be biased in the direction of that stereotype In other words, students may underperform (relative to their true ability) if they feel under pressure to disprove a negative stereotype about their own group, such as \"girls are bad at math\" or \"black students are not as smart as white students.\" In Steele and Aronson's (1995) seminal work, black students led to believe that an exam measured innate ability performed worse than those told they were simply taking a difficult test; white students, not facing a stereotype threat (because there is no negative societal stereotype regarding white students' cognitive skill), performed the same under both conditions. \" The negative effects of stereotype threat tend to be strongest for those with the highest \"domain identification\"-that is, those to whom the exam is most important domain identification [may, more broadly], indicate[s] that [the] stereotype threat will be activated when it has repercussions for the at-risk student: \"It therefore may be more correct to say that high motivation \u2013 a sense that something important is at stake \u2013 is the necessary factor in stereotype threat, We might expect negatively stereotyped students to underperform on [an exit exam] precisely because their own graduation status is at stake. In contrast, we would expect no (or less) underperformance on the [regular] tests, which do not carry [such] consequences for students. Contention Two: Standardized exams hurt minorities and low performing students by providing inaccessible test prep opportunities. As the importance of standardized testing rises, many students attempt to prepare themselves for a test, either through purchasing books designed to prepare the student for a test, or private tutoring sessions. Some parents are willing to pay thousands of dollars to prepare their children for tests, a financial barrier that may give children of more wealthy parents an advantage compared to less affluent families. As the influence of test prep spreads, the economically advantaged reap the rewards, while the less fortunate are shuffled to the back. Bridget Terry Long explains: As competition for college admissions heats up, students have began switching their practices away from traditional measures (e.g. studying, hours spent on homework etc) and towards practices directed more towards standardized testing. The number of students using test prep programs has increased from 60% in '72 to 75% in '04. The increased competition that currently exists for admission to a more selective college might have real benefits if it were to increase learning amongst high school students. However, our analysis suggests that there are reasons to be suspicious that this congenial outcome might not hold true. Moreover, the increased resources parents and students are able to use to improve their odds of admission at top colleges put low-income students at a disadvantage. For many students, the cost of testing is far too great. In one circumstance, a commonly used test-prep organization charges up to $4000 for 35 hours of private study. Consequently, the likelihood of students being admitted to colleges has declined rapidly. The largest declines were among \"low ability\" students (who are often minorities); those in the two lowest quintiles saw their odds decline by 43 percent and 23 percent, respectively. Contention Three: Standardized exams exacerbate inequalities between school districts. School districts vary vastly in their ability to teach students and administer resources. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, some districts vary up to $6,000 spent per pupil. Because of these inequities, the ability of schools in poor districts to educate their students is far inferior to that in rich districts. One could expect a student attending school on the Upper East Side to attain a far greater education than one in rural New York. For this reason, standardized testing harms the students disproportionately who are brought up in these rural, poor districts.Because they do not have access to the necessary funding required to do well on standardized tests, their students often fall behind. Testing these diverse districts in a uniform manner hurts the districts with the lowest resources and poorest students,giving the richer, better funded students the upper hand. So it is because standardized exit exams disproportionately allocate opportunities for academic advancement on multiple levels, that I affirm.(PS I have another Reardon but didn't have enough room. Would you like it? T", "qid": "26", "docid": "e5182312-2019-04-18T19:16:34Z-00004-000", "rank": 95, "score": 131616.0}, {"content": "Title: Public High School Students ought not be Required to Pass Exit Exams to Graduate Content: I haven't been able to have anybody proof read this. Sorry for any errors that you might find. I Affirm. Standardized Test A standardized test is a test administered and scored in a consistent manner. The tests are designed in such a way that the \"questions, conditions for administering, scoring procedures, and interpretations are consistent\" [1] and are \"administered and scored in a predetermined, standard manner.\" A 'Standardized Exit Exam' is a standardized test required at the end of high school in order to graduate. 1.^ Sylvan Learning glossary, retrieved online, source no longer available 2.^ Popham, J. (1999). Why standardized tests don't measure educational quality. Educational Leadership, 56(6), 8-15. The value for this round is The Pursuit of Happiness. 1. It is a constitutional right. The resolution is specific to America, thus we agree that any violation of the pursuit of happiness is unjust. 2. We need the ability to pursue happiness in our lives to make them meaningful. Absent the ability to pursue happiness, where is my motivation to live? Taking away the right to pursue happiness devalues our lives and dehumanizes us. 3. People who are happy and have a positive mindset consistently perform better in most activities than those who are depressed, thus happiness has pragmatic benefits. The criterion I will use to measure our ability to pursue happiness is: the ability to enjoy golf. According to the National Golf Foundation, in America alone the number of people who play golf frequently is approximately 7 million, and the number who play golf recreationally when possible is nearly thrice that amount. Of channels dedicated to a specific sport, the Golf Channel was the second most viewed after Speed in a survey conducted by Sports Business Daily. The Golf Channel was also the fastest growing, its viewers having increased by 33% that year. ESPN airing of golf regularly brings in 1,000,000+ viewers with over 4.5 million watching Tiger Woods play in the US Open. Millions of people enjoy golf through playing or watching it, so harming the ability to enjoy golf is going to affect millions of people and their ability to pursue happiness. --- Contention One: Standardized tests deplete the world's graphite resources. Graphite is the material of choice for golf club shafts, which make up the majority of the club. The clubs in practically every professional golfer's bags are almost always graphite, Tiger Woods for example. In addition, graphite is also the best choice for amateurs. \"Graphite shafts became popular among amateurs, because lighter weight helped generate increased club-head speed. The carbon fiber also dissipated some of the stinging vibrations that were caused by poorly struck shots.\" Without graphite clubs, gold would be far less enjoyable to both those who play golf and those who watch golf. Most uses of graphite, including golf clubs, can be recycled. Pencil graphite, once put on paper, cannot be recycled, however. This means that the widespread use of pencils causes our stores of graphite to be ever depleting. This is bad for a multitude of reasons, for example: 1. The more we use pencils, the more we draw closer to the point where graphite clubs as we know them will be non-existent. This will make golf much less enjoyable to watch because the professionals won't be able to golf nearly as well with inferior clubs, and it will make golf much less enjoyable to play because it will be much more difficult and frustrating to play. 2. The only other even viable alternative to graphite in club shafts is steel. However, graphite is used in the process of making steel, so with this depletion of graphite steel golf clubs will not be an alternative either. This furthers the impacts of the above point 1. 3. With continued use of pencils depleting our stores of graphite, we are not far from a graphite shortage on our hands. Within the next 50 years, golf club prices could drastically increase due to the need for graphite rationing. This would make golf a classist game where poor people would lose the ability to effectively play golf because of their inability to now purchase decent clubs. While most places where pencils are used in society (golf score cards being one example) can be replaced with pens, markers, or other writing utensils, or even pencils with non-graphite centers (see links for examples), standardized tests rely heavily on graphite pencils. These tests can only be administered effectively with the use of #2 (HB in many countries) pencils, with little variation. We do not have the technology in place to mechanically grade tests by any other means and human grading is not feasible because it allows for human error, is extremely time consuming and expensive, and gives students the possibility to bribe/ cheat/ manipulated scorers to obtain higher test scores. --- Contention Two: The mindset standardization advocates is harmful to future golfers. How do we standardize a test? We write an answer key that determines which answers are right and which are wrong, and the test is scored on how often the student gives the 'desired' response. This harms critical student's abilities to golf. First, test takers are required to answer in accordance with some predetermined answer key. I have to give the answer that is generally accepted as correct in order for my answer to be counted right. This means that the only questions that can be on this test are the ones that require no actual thought. I simply memorize the correct answer and recite it. There is no way for students to be graded on how well they respond to questions with no clear answer, so there is no way to be sure that they can even think for themselves at all. Second, there is no way to know how you got your answer. You either gave the right answer or you didn't, end of story. The test can't judge the reasoning behind your answer, and it can't ask you to show your work. There is no way it can know if you were able to come up with the conclusion on your own or if you just repeated what your teacher taught you verbatim. This means there is no way a standardized exam can test on anything more complex than the simplest questions of 'right or wrong?', 'yes or no?' and it can't determine any difference in whether you made a complete guess, if you just memorized and recited the response. When we use a test as flawed as this as a stand-alone criterion to graduate, we inevitably force students to put a huge importance on it in their lives. This means prepping and studying to get ready. This entire system forces students to conform to the 'Right or Wrong' format of all standardized tests (not just multiple choice) which forces them into abiding by this system of thought. By doing this we severely impair their ability to play golf because when they get out on the golf course, they can't help but take what they've learned in school with them. Golf is not a game of right or wrong and yes or no. It requires skill and practical application. It requires logic and making decisions with no clear correct answer. By implementing standardized tests we teach students that those skills are unimportant, so when they go out to golf, they are unprepared and will do more poorly than if they were. Professionals who have gone through this post-standardization public school system will be affected, thus making competitive golf less enjoyable to watch, and people who play golf will play more poorly when suffering from this mindset, and will be less able to enjoy themselves when playing. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.recyclinggarbage.net... http://en.wikipedia.org...(golf) http://en.wikipedia.org... http://web.tigerwoods.com... http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com... 0 characters remaining.", "qid": "26", "docid": "b715aa5e-2019-04-18T19:17:55Z-00004-000", "rank": 96, "score": 131391.0}, {"content": "Title: Test Content: This hasn't been much of a debate. Let me sum up my opinion to the voters, though, to garner their votes and opinions on the controversial issue of standardized testing. I am against standardized testing because it has had a negative effect on the state of American education. When standardized testing was fully enforced, the US ranked 18th in math. Seven years later, seven years of standardized testing, the US fell to 31st in math. No improvements, whatsoever. Second, testing rushes teachers and students; as an effect, students don't fully understand the subjects. They remember it for a while, and then it fades from memory. What I support is quality education, education that isn't concerned about tests that don't prove any true statistics. I support the removal of standardized testing from our education system. I believe it is a unbeneficial, untruthful way of measuring students' intelligence. I have backed up my claim with facts and statistics from an unbiased website. My opponent only typed one word in this entire debate - 'testing' - which does not even support his pro-testing argument. Voters, I hope this is an easy debate to decide on, no matter which side you truly support.", "qid": "26", "docid": "9bab90c3-2019-04-18T17:06:03Z-00000-000", "rank": 97, "score": 131160.0}, {"content": "Title: High school students in the US ought to be required to pass standardized exit exams to graduate Content: You state, \"Rather than have one test determine the future of a student, let the teachers of that student decide\" .That could possibly be the dumbest thing I've ever heard. You suggest that a teacher decides..what could be more subjective than that? Teachers are not g-ds. They can not shut down their emotions/opinions. Standardized tests are tests that are given to every student and consist of the same questions. They are then tested and scored in exactly the same manner. A test has standards for everyone.........no shades of grey.........your score is your score. A teacher is helpless to be unaffected by personal choice. It is impossible fora teacher to shut down his emotions and not reward with better grades (and passing) those they like better I do feel that essays on \"standardized tests\" should be abolished, because grading them would be subjective. But two plus two always equals four........which proves that standardized testing is based on comprehension. There is a correct answer for every question. No debate.", "qid": "26", "docid": "da13af75-2019-04-18T19:16:49Z-00001-000", "rank": 98, "score": 130717.0}, {"content": "Title: Standardized testing is a good thing Content: I appreciate my opponent's response.I will address your counterarguments:PARCC tesing: The PARCC is only being used officially by a small group of states (approx. 15) as well as D.C..[1] As stated, standardized tests are a false, superficial measure of assesment. As you alluded to by stating, \" The questions on standardized testing are not meant to measure deep and creative thinking - they are to measure if you can understand a math problem or read a passage correctly and understand that.\" If these tests are supposedly meant to prepare students for mcollege and careers, how can they omit assessment of creative or complex thinking. While you may think deep or analytical thinking cannot be aquired at any school, I assert that it depends on the school and the teacher. Focusingh on standardized testing and how to work the computer that administers the test does interfere with such endeavors. Although fairly new, the tests are already being criticized by parents, teachers, students and administrators.Here are some responses:Parents and teachers flooded Wednesday\u2019s open public testimony session to complain about the new tests, which will be administered to all students in grades 3-11 in March and again in May. Some held \u201cNo PARCCING\u201d signs. Others pulled their children out of class to have them testify.Marie Corfield, a teacher in Flemington, said the combination of the new Common Core standards and the implementation of PARCC tests has teachers \u201coverwhelmed, stressed to the breaking point.\u201d \u201cI feel like I\u2019m living in a bad dream and can\u2019t wake up,\u201d Corfield said.[2] Some schools have downsized or closed their libraries to make room for more computers that can be used for testing, said Arlen Kimmelman, president of the New Jersey Assocation of School Libraries. While the addition of more technology may seem beneficial, students don\u2019t know how to use it if the libraries aren\u2019t open for them to meet with librarians, Kimmelman said. \u201cThe testing shouldn\u2019t be squeezing out school library sources that are needed for students to be college and career ready,\u201d Kimmelman said.[2] a sixth-grader...isn\u2019t planning to take the exams. PARCC takes time away from classes that teach students to be creative, original, intelligent and brave, she said. \u201cUnfortunately testifying in front of the State School Board isn\u2019t all fun and games, because I will now have go write up a report about my experience here today and present it to my social studies class,\u201d...\u201cThere are no standardized answers for this kind of education. \"[2] Jacob Hartmann...said he doesn\u2019t feel teachers are truthful about the importance of the tests, which are planned to eventually become a graduation requirement. Some teachers have said PARCC tests aren\u2019t important, but others have told students their performance will impact their future. \u201cI\u2019m more than positive that if I do decide to attend Princeton, they will not be asking about my PARCC scores,\u201d Hartmann said.[2] Screens freezing was only one of several common complaints about the PARCC field tests at schools across the state. ..88.4 percent of school administrators in the state expressed \u201canxiety\u201d about the forthcoming PARCC tests, citing as major issues computers that either didn\u2019t work or logged students out without warning, and confusing instructions. Shutz blames the freezing screens on inadequate computers and poorly designed software. \u201cHalf the problems were with the test, and half were with our technology,\u201d she says.[3] Standardized test objectivity: The PARCC test are no more objective than previous standardized tests. While the grading is computerized, the questions are created by humans and thus prone to bias. Standardized test reliability: These tests are always more focused on memorization and regurgitation of information than grasping the concepts involved. Differences (amongst scores): The scoring methods are not reliable, inasmuch as differences in score do not necessarily illustrate differences in ability or comprehension between test takers. Bias: The bias that is being referred to is bias inherent in the test itself. This is often referred to as cultural bias. Here are some related issues: Schools at times suspend, expel, \u201ccounsel out\u201d or otherwise remove students with low scores in order to boost school results and escape test-based sanctions mandated by the federal government\u2019s \u201cNo Child Left Behind\u201d law, at great cost to the youth and ultimately society. \u201calthough in recent years test makers have attempted to address concerns about test bias by establishing review committees to \u2018scour\u2019 the tests for bias, and by using statistical procedures, significant problems remain in the content of the questions, the cultural assumptions inherent in the \u2018wanted\u2019 answers, etc.\u201d Discriminatory item selection:Jay Rosner, executive director of the Princeton Review Foundation, which provides test preparation programs for the college-entrance Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), reported in 2003 that potential SAT questions which are answered correctly more often by black students than white students are rejected by the test makers. This was apparently done to assure that test results (showing African-Americans scoring lower than whites) would be \u201cconsistent\u201d from year to year. Outright racism:A series of questions on the 2006 global history New York State Regents exam asked students to describe how Africa \u201cbenefitted\u201d from imperialism. Using this 150-year-old quote: \u201cWe are endeavoring \u2026 to teach the native races to conduct their own affairs with justice and humanity, and to educate them alike in letters and in industry,\u201d students were asked to name \u201ctwo ways the British improved the lives of Africans.\u201d Socio-economic bias masquerading as cultural diversity:The 2006 New York State Regents third grade reading practice test used the example of African-American tennis stars Serena and Venus Williams to ask children questions about tennis \u201cdoubles\u201d and country clubs. Lack of cultural awareness:A Latina \u201cbias reviewer\u201d caught this item while reviewing questions prepared for the Iowa Test of Basic Skills. \u201cI remember one question that showed a picture of a couch on a porch and asked, \u2018What doesn\u2019t fit?\u2019 \u201d she says. \u201cI started laughing\u2026the way I grew up, everyone had a couch outside.\u201d[4] Standardized tests :knowledge' accuracy: My opponent states, \"The test covers the whole cirriculum that the student needs to know and understand.\" Perhaps, but from who's perpsective. Standardized test assume that everyone learns in the same manner. This is not always the case. Standardized test (achievement): I cited my source. It mentions how Finland uses thes techniques rather than large scale standardized testing. \"...Standardized achievement test scores should be regarded as rough approximations of a student's status with respect to the content domain represented by the test. For several important reasons, standardized achievement tests should not be used to judge the quality of education. The overarching reason that students' scores on these tests do not provide an accurate index of educational effectiveness is that any inference about educational quality made on the basis of students' standardized achievement test performances is apt to be invalid. Employing standardized achievement tests to ascertain educational quality is like measuring temperature with a tablespoon. Tablespoons have a different measurement mission than indicating how hot or cold something is. Standardized achievement tests have a different measurement mission than indicating how good or bad a school is. Standardized achievement tests should be used to make the comparative interpretations that they were intended to provide. They should not be used to judge educational quality.\"[6] Basically standardized test measure how well inequality, classism and segregation in schools has worked. Standardized Test (Teacher support): It depends on the teacher. Many teachers do not support the tests or the testing. Standardized Test (Stakes): There should be no punishment for teachers until school are standardizedf and offered the same amount of support. Why should a teacher responsible for 30+ students be expected to perform at the same level as a teacher responsible for 15-20 (on average)? Standardized Test (high stakes): Threatening to fire teachers or take away school funding is high stakes. Students that are suspected to perform poorly on these tests are suspended. Standardized Test (Ability): Finland uses these test at the secondary level, yet, do not solely depend on them for assessment. Here are some suggested reasons why Finland excels in education: - The Finnish school system uses the same curriculum for all students. - Students have light homework loads. - Finnish schools do not have classes for gifted students. - Finland uses very little standardized testing. - Finland has a comprehensive preschool program that emphasizes \u201cself-reflection\u201d and socializing, not academics. - Grades are not given until high school, and even then, class rankings are not compiled. - School funding is higher for the middle school years, the years when children are most in danger of dropping out. - College is free in Finland.[5] Standardized Test (Racism): As stated, the racism is in the development of the tests, not the scoring. Standardized tests assume that all sttudents learn the same and have had the same quality education. This is a flawed assumption. I await my opponent's response. http://www.parcconline.org... [1]http://www.nj.com... [2]http://njmonthly.com... [3]http://parentsacrossamerica.org... [4]http://www.greatschools.org... [5]http://www.ascd.org... [6]", "qid": "26", "docid": "828c21ed-2019-04-18T14:35:36Z-00002-000", "rank": 99, "score": 130369.0}, {"content": "Title: Standardized tests are arbitrary Content: A student\u2019s academic record tends to measure very different things from what a standardized test does. GPA tends to be based on repetitive assignments such as homework, and in many cases students receive at least some academic credit for simply attending class. By contrast, standardized tests reward ability, by seeing whether or not at the end of the process students actually learned the material in question. Performance under pressure is an important skill to measure, especially for top institutions, while sifting through the differing standards for what goes into the grades in different school districts is simply not possible.", "qid": "26", "docid": "259f65bb-2019-04-15T20:24:15Z-00007-000", "rank": 100, "score": 130343.0}]}
{"query": "Should more gun control laws be enacted?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: There should be more gun laws Content: Extended", "qid": "27", "docid": "f614a31f-2019-04-18T14:43:26Z-00001-000", "rank": 1, "score": 203046.0}, {"content": "Title: There should more gun laws enacted in the U.S ! Content: Enacting more gun laws in the United States would not stop crimes or dangerous situations from occurring. In fact, according to the National Academy of Sciences, Justice Department, there is no apparent link between restrictions on gun ownership and lower rates of crime, firearms violence, or even accidents with guns. Creating such laws would not stop criminals from committing crimes. As John R Lott, the author of \"More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws\", stated in 1998, \"States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes\". In other words, increasing the number of guns did not increase the rate of violent crimes but instead decreased. With this, it is clear that people should be able to own guns because doing so prevents more crimes from occurring than actual gun laws. University of Chicago Press. (1998). Interview with John R. Lott, Jr. Retrieved March 28, 2018, from http://press.uchicago.edu... WND. (2004, December 30). Gun control doesn't reduce crime, violence, say studies. Retrieved March 28, 2018, from http://mobile.wnd.com...", "qid": "27", "docid": "934989d9-2019-04-18T11:38:17Z-00000-000", "rank": 2, "score": 198636.0}, {"content": "Title: Gun control laws Content: In America, many people in the government are attempting to pass laws pertaining to the usage of guns. They include rules that restrict the everyday usage of guns, effectively limiting the safety and protection that they can give us. Some of these gun control laws should not be implemented in the U.S because it would cause many unnecessary regulations and negative effects. On the list to be banned are 157 specifically named pistols, rifles and shotguns. Yes, there are many, many more guns out there than this. However, the proposed legislation ( http://www.feinstein.senate.gov...) also states the following regulations: The legislation bans the sale, transfer, manufacturing and importation of: All semi-automatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: pistol grip; forward grip; folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; barrel shroud; or threaded barrel. This may sound reasonable at first, until you consider the fact that nearly all semiautomatic rifles bear a detachable magazine; for those who do not know, rifles are guns with a large barrel and stock that are loaded by putting bullets into a rectangular \u201cstorage compartment\u201d, or magazine. It is very reasonable to let citizens carry at least some form of semi-automatic firearm, for defense. These are not the only \u201cwidespread\u201d bans either. These people also propose to ban semi-automatic pistols with a detachable magazine, ammunition feeding devices capable of using more than ten rounds at once, and semi-automatic rifles with a fixed magazine that can shoot more than 10 rounds at once. When most people think of a \u201csemi-automatic\u201d rifle, they think of a machine gun. They think that these guns can fire many shots every second, with automatic fire and huge bullet capacities. In reality, however, these guns only fire one bullet per trigger press. It then loads a new bullet into the chamber, ready to be fired. If you consider this, banning these rifles goes against their written intentions. Their reasoning for the bans is stated at the top of the paper: Mass shootings in Newtown, Aurora, and Tucson have demonstrated all too clearly the need to regulate military-style assault weapons and high capacity ammunition magazines. These weapons allow a gunman to fire a large number of rounds quickly and without having to reload. If this is true, they should get rid of all rifles and automatic weapons. However, it clearly states that \u201cThe bill excludes 2,258 legitimate hunting and sporting rifles and shotguns by specific make and model.\u201d By doing this, they give criminals another two thousand guns to use, making the ban completely useless. The article also gives us a few reasons why it\u2019s necessary, but these reasons can be negated from their argument easily. They tell us that a previous assault rifle ban in 1994, which expired in 2004, was very clearly effective. They supply us with the information that over 350 have been killed since it expired. 350 people were killed by rifle in the year 2010. However, that number pales in comparison to murders by pistol, a weapon that is not automatic, with 6,000 murders (http://www.theblaze.com...). Many people would argue that these confinements will stop people from having the guns to kill with. Although they may limit the use to most citizens, real murderers can and will find other ways of getting the outlawed weapons. As of now, thorough background checks are required to buy a gun. With this in place, how does any criminal get their hands on a gun? They cannot get them through normal means, so they must use illegal trades and the like to get them. Strict laws have never stopped people from breaking the rules. It is not like there were no mass murders in the time period where the guns were illegal. for example, in 1997, a time where the assault rifles were banned, this happened: After he was expelled for having a gun in his locker, Kipland P. Kinkel, 15, a freshman at Thurston High, went on a shooting spree, killing his parents at home and two students at school. Five classmates wrestled Kipland to the ground before he was arrested. If somebody sets his heart on doing something, there is no way to stop him, for better or worse. For many years now, people have been trying to lay down a ban on \u201cassault weapons,\u201d guns that can fire large amounts of bullets at a time. There are many, many reasons that this should not be implemented into our society, including the ones listed above. It is useless in a lot of ways, allowing people to access thousands of \u201csporting\u201d rifles which are \u201cstrictly for competition.\u201d The United States would be better off without the law.", "qid": "27", "docid": "6910d58f-2019-04-18T17:00:20Z-00002-000", "rank": 3, "score": 180136.0}, {"content": "Title: Gun Control in the US Content: 1: Your Imgur link is broken, but sure, maybe the gun control laws passed did little to stop crime, but they were effective at reducing the amount of military-grade weapons used in shootings. Less Ammo = Less Death, Less Death = More People Alive After Homocides. I think the amount of survivors is more important than the amount of crimes in general, as shootings are generally and unfairly treated as one crime, whereas it should be considered at least 10 different cases of murder in the event that 10 people die in a shooting. 2: The point I'm trying to make about hunting rifles is this: Less Ammo = Less Death 3: Paris doesn't really apply to gun control, those rifles and devices were sourced from the middle-east by a terrorist organisation 4: Switzerland, Mexico and Honduras gun politics have very little to do with US gun control laws. The reason the homicide rate in Honduras is because of the extreme poverty, yet illegal trafficking of firearms is also to blame there, so if firearms and their respective favela gangs were disbanded/weeded out then I can bet you that homicide would become significantly harder to commit then. In reality though, their police force is terrible for that stuff, so I bet any laws there would be effective until the government gets their act together. So, all-in-all, the US is in no position to be compared to a place like Honduras, which is much harder to analyse and pick apart than the US. There are simply just too many variables for a reliable conclusion to be made. 5: Average citizens don't prepare for shootings or partake/pay for gun lessons. Most gun discipline in the US is self-taught or rarely practiced. The NRA has proposed to make gun training required, but so far no bill has been passed to make it so. An average citizen, therefore has inferior training and knowledge than a gunman with a larger gun/calibre. Remember, if you take away that gunman's \"black rifle\", you take away his ability to harm more people in the same position as the hypothetical woman. In conclusion, Gun laws may do little to actually stop crime, but they have the potential to reduce murder rates and increase the survivability of an encounter with a murderer.", "qid": "27", "docid": "54f3b937-2019-04-18T13:25:23Z-00001-000", "rank": 4, "score": 179801.0}, {"content": "Title: Gun control Content: If we have more gun laws we will have more crime.", "qid": "27", "docid": "e0c0b3cb-2019-04-18T13:03:33Z-00001-000", "rank": 5, "score": 178861.0}, {"content": "Title: The United States should impose Stronger, More Effective Gun Control Laws Content: Resolution: The United States should impose Stronger, More Effective Gun Control LawsThis resolution can also be interpretted as the U.S. Congress Should pass stronger, more effective gun control legislation than we have now, to deal with the surge in mass gun shootings over the last three years and the 491,930 cases of gun violence the nation experiences on average annually. (On average, 33,000 Americans are killed with guns each year [1], and contrary to popular belief, statistics show that gun violence has not decreased over the last decade [2]).First Round is for acceptance only. (However, Con make a brief statement about his position on this issue in ROUND 1 and even provide 1 to 5 sources to back up his claims.)[1] (http://www.americanprogress.org...)[2] (http://www.dailykos.com...)", "qid": "27", "docid": "70e17380-2019-04-18T16:06:30Z-00004-000", "rank": 6, "score": 173932.0}, {"content": "Title: The US Should Have Better Gun Control Content: I accept", "qid": "27", "docid": "22222c8b-2019-04-18T17:32:10Z-00006-000", "rank": 7, "score": 173665.0}, {"content": "Title: Gun Control Leads To More Crimes Content: -This post is based on laws in the USA- Gun Control Laws are designed to prevent incidents like Columbine and Virginia Tech from occurring. If an individual is so mentally unstable that they desire to shoot random classmates, it is not feasible to believe that a gun control law will stop them. If an individual truly wants to harm others, then they will try to do so regardless of laws or regulations. This greatly prevents the laws from serving their purpose (to prevent gun crime). If anything, gun control laws will increase crime. A saying often muttered in the Southern United States is, \"If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.\" This statement is often ignored but it is true. Criminals rarely go through the legal channels to obtain their firearm so it is easy to conclude that criminals will barely be affected by gun control laws. The average citizen will be the one affected. The only real accomplishment gun control laws will have is hindering law abiding citizens from exercising their 2nd Amendment right [[http://www.pierrelemieux.org/artaubin.html]] If citizens are heavily hindered from getting guns they will have a harder time protecting themselves. I believe that citizens should rely on law enforcement, but on average Seattle's emergency crews took 8 minutes 46 seconds to respond (by respond, I mean arrive and begin helping victims), Oklahoma City 7 minutes 36 seconds, Tulsa 8 minutes 48 seconds, Columbus, Ohio, 7 minutes 49 seconds, Charlotte 6 minutes 56 seconds, and Fresno took 22 minutes 11 seconds [[http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/ems-day2-cover.htm]] . If you have no protection, what could happen to you in that time? In conclusion, I believe that gun control activists mean well but, in the end, these laws will cause more trouble than they're worth. If someone is determined to commit a crime using a gun, a law will not stop them. If they break one law (murder, robbery, etc.), they will not mind breaking another (gun control law).", "qid": "27", "docid": "a6235621-2019-04-19T12:44:35Z-00026-000", "rank": 8, "score": 171975.0}, {"content": "Title: There should more gun laws enacted in the U.S ! Content: There should be more gun laws enacted in the U.S! Armed civilians are unlikely to stop crimes and are more likely to make dangerous situations, including mass shootings, more deadly. The average gun owner, no matter how responsible, is not trained in law enforcement or on how to handle life-threatening situations, so in most cases, if a threat occurs, increasing the number of guns only creates a more volatile and dangerous situation. According to the Los Angeles times, author Patt Morrison states in his article that was posted on August 2, 2017 that Americans who carry \"heat\" increase the rate of violent crime. After reviewing these articles and doing research it is clear to me that armed civilians are more likely to cause dangerous situations rather than protecting theirselves or others. 1.) Jeffrey Voccola, \"Why I Don't Want Guns in My Classroom,\" www.chronicle.com, Oct. 14, 2014 2.) Does carrying a gun make you safer? No. In fact, right-to-carry laws ... http://www.latimes.com...", "qid": "27", "docid": "934989d9-2019-04-18T11:38:17Z-00001-000", "rank": 9, "score": 171047.0}, {"content": "Title: Gun Control Content: I think we should have more Gun Control laws.There are too many deaths in this country because of guns. In this year there were 7,910,100 crimes comitted, about 700000 were comitted with guns. There have been too many suicides because of guns. Also school shootings people! Innocent kids died because teenagers easily obtained guns! And this is why we should get rid of guns. We need too have compassion, we should have gun control laws that prohibit civilians to own guns, but the police and armed forces should be allowed to have them. With these laws murder rates will go down, according to www.justfacts.com there were 10,615 murders with firearms. Also there have been far to many accidents. Because of laws alowing us to carry guns, many children have died. In the case of Sandra Smith a 9 month old baby crawled up her dad's bed were there was a gun and shot herself by accident when playing with it. When people talk about that we need guns for protection, the government can start a program to trade firearms for tazers, that are not lethal. People could still be safe, and we could develop tazers that could shoot from a long range for more protection. In my opinion guns are to over-rated! We think we need guns for everything that involves protection, but guns have only brought trouble and disgrace into our nation.", "qid": "27", "docid": "579ea5ea-2019-04-18T20:00:09Z-00004-000", "rank": 10, "score": 170849.0}, {"content": "Title: Gun laws Content: Should the gun laws be more strict?", "qid": "27", "docid": "718b7e3d-2019-04-18T11:34:25Z-00001-000", "rank": 11, "score": 170145.0}, {"content": "Title: Gun Control Content: Hello all. This debate is part of the current Debate Tournament. I will be contending that gun regulation should be minimal and only in the forms of background checks to purchase a gun. If my opponent wishes for a different resolution, I hope he comments on it before accepting it. Contention 1: Guns protect people If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns, which actually increased crime rates. States with right-to-carry laws tend to have lower crime rates than those without [1]. It makes logical sense that criminals, when deciding their targets, will be less inclined to rob from somebody who may be armed with a gun. When people are allowed to conceal their guns, they create a positive externality on society, protecting the non-gun owners with criminal\u2019s fear of assaulting somebody who can fight back. When the criminal knows that the victim is unarmed and not dangerous, he is much more inclined to infringe on their other rights, such as property and life. Criminologist Gary Kleck concluded that \u201chandguns are used for protection nearly 2 million times per year, up to five times more often than to commit crimes\u201d [2]. Guns can be used, without being fired, to intimidate a criminal to stop committing a crime and flee, thus protecting everybody. Also, a large number of potential crimes never even occur because the potential criminal is too scared of the possibility of confronting somebody with a weapon. The clear power of guns in the law abiding civilization, in addition to the general inability of the government to completely enforce its idealistic gun restrictions, make the notion that banning guns would do anybody any good somewhat ridiculous. In Washington D.C., the homicide rate tripled between 1976 and 1991, during which it banned hand guns, while the national rate only rose 12 percent [2]. This would logically result from the fact that law abiding citizens gave up their guns, leaving a full 100% of the guns in the hands of people with the clear intention of breaking the law. Criminals, now knowing that their victims are completely defenseless, are all the more keen to use their guns to rob, steal, and murder. The individual citizens are much better at defending themselves than the police force, which is unable to give constant protection at all times like a gun can. Guns give regular citizens a much better fight against criminals, deterring them from even trying. That shall be all for now. [1] http://www.cato.org... [2] http://www.roanoke.com...", "qid": "27", "docid": "9c361060-2019-04-18T18:51:47Z-00007-000", "rank": 12, "score": 168252.0}, {"content": "Title: Gun Control Laws Content: There should be more gun control laws because of the increasing mass murders in the last twenty years. These mass murders have occurred in places such as Alabama, North Carolina, Virginia, Colorado, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Washington, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas. In these states, there are no requirements to have a permit to purchase a gun, provide firearm registration, and to supply an owner license. This shows that there is a correlation between minimal gun laws and mass shooting. The number of murder rates in Rhode Island, Iowa, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Hawaii are very low. This is because of the strict laws of requiring a state permit, owner license, and carry permits. These states have the lowest amount of murder from the survey of 2010. This shows that strict gun control laws in the United States lead to less murders. In my research, I have found that other countries besides the United States have a low murder rate compared to the united state. This includes Sweden, Spain, Australia, and Canada. Why is this? This is because of the many firm laws. These laws include registrations and permits, psychological tests, and safety courses. As you can see, states like Iowa, Rode Island, Hawaii and countries like Canada, Spain and Sweden, all have low murder rate because of more rigorous laws. From the research that I have provided, gun laws and murder rates associate with each other.", "qid": "27", "docid": "90dc256e-2019-04-18T16:43:44Z-00003-000", "rank": 13, "score": 168229.0}, {"content": "Title: Gun Control Content: 1. Guns deter criminals. Gun control leads to more crimes because criminals are criminals because they break the law, so citizens won't have protection while criminals will have guns. Yes, maybe a few will be put off from obtaining guns, but do you know what? They break the law, so they won't care if there is a law that says that obtaining guns is illegal. As the old saying goes \"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns\". And now that your average citizen can't obtain guns, the criminals are no longer scared of robbing someone because they might have a gun. Even if criminals are scared of the law(which would be pretty strange), it is now a criminal with a knife versus an unarmed citizen. If not, which is very probable (because after all, criminals are criminals because they break the law), it is now a criminal with a gun versus a unarmed citizen. 1A. Evidence. 1Aa. Americans using guns for good. Approximately 11,000, or 67% of America's murders are committed with fire arms. However, 162,000 households believed that someone would have been killed if they didn't carry a firearm for protection. Not only that, US civilians use guns to protect themselves from crime about 1,000,000 times a year[1]. Americans use guns to frighten off intruders about 500,000 times a year. 1Aaa. Guns deter criminals. In a survey of felons, 34% had been \"scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim\" and 40% didn't commit a crime because they \"knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun\"[1]. This shows that guns prevent more problems than they cause. 1Ab. Crime Comparison between Countries with & without Gun Control. Before I start saying this, I would like to say that comparing countries is not the most accurate method, but it is useful nonetheless. Let's compare crime rates in countries with and without gun control. In America, there is about 4 gun committed homicides per 100,000 people. When you compare that with France's 0.2 gun committed homicides per 100,000 people[2], it points to an obvious conclusion. However, that's before you look deeper into the subject. In London, which has gun control, you are 6 times more likely to mugged than in New York City. By 1995, all crimes except murder and rape were far higher in England than in America. Only 13% of burglaries occur while people are at home in the US, compared with 53% for England. America's murder rate is getting closer and closer to England's, and may converge in the near future[1]. This proves what I have been saying. Yes, criminals commit most crimes with guns in the US because criminals have easy access to guns. However, because citizens may have guns, the crime rate is much lower overall. 1Ac. What happens when you put gun laws into effect. When Washington D.C. put gun control laws into effect, the homicide rate tripled, while the national average rose 12%[6]. 1Ad. When gun ownership is the law. In Kennesaw, Georgia, they had a crime problem. Their population was about 5,000, but they had a crime rate of 4,000/100,000, well above the national average. They passed a law which said every homeowner had to own and maintain a firearm. It then dropped to 2,000/100,000, while their population has quintupled. Not only that, not a single citizen has been killed by a gun[7]. 1Ae. Good gun laws. This does not mean I don't believe in background checks and such for buying guns. Gun control advocates often cite the Tucson shooting, but a simple background check could have stopped Jared Loughner from buying a gun[4]. 2. Cops and crime. Without guns, there isn't much to protect people. After all, if someone suddenly pulls a knife/gun on you, the cops won't be there to stop it. The average police response time is about 8 minutes 30 seconds[5]. If someone pulls a knife on you, and you have no option for self defense, then you are screwed. 2A. Guns, unlike cops, can give you constant protection. Guns will almost always be better at stopping crime than being protected by cops. Conclusion Gun control leads to more crime, and there is a lot of evidence to back it up. Many events like the Tucson shooting could have been stopped by background checks, but those kind of laws should be common sense. Sources [1] http://www.justfacts.com... [2] http://www.gun-control-network.org... [3] http://news.bbc.co.uk... [4] http://www.mtsusidelines.com... [5] http://www.washingtontimes.com...[6] http://www.roanoke.com... [7] http://www.wnd.com...", "qid": "27", "docid": "9c36107f-2019-04-18T18:47:37Z-00002-000", "rank": 14, "score": 167898.0}, {"content": "Title: Gun Control Content: There should be gun control.", "qid": "27", "docid": "9c3617c3-2019-04-18T17:45:22Z-00002-000", "rank": 15, "score": 167736.0}, {"content": "Title: more gun control should occur Content: looking for a debate on the topic, especially with those who say no more control, at all. here are my initial thoughts/rants.... why isn't meaningful legislation already passed? most people on news shows seems to offer the same ideas, no guns for mentally ill and criminals, background checks on all guns, and assault rifle, automatics type bans. hardly no one says we should just ban all guns, it's a red hearing from gun advocates to get on their grandstand. -background checks. 74% of NRA members think all guns should have checks. on the point about background checks, 40% of guns sold in the country \\are without checks, through gun auctions etc. this could surely help cut down on access to guns to the wrong people. the NRA officially is against any more control on guns. saying we should have more guns, guns for principles etc, not that i'm necessarily against such measures. but if the folks within the NRA actually like more checks, shouldn't we just take the NRA's official points as being merely political grandstanding? there's no reason we can't put guns in the hands of the right people, while at the same time taking steps to remove them from the wrong hands. it's worth a shot. -it's nearly unanimous that certain mentally ill people shouldn't have guns. the NRA says we should have better mental health institutions, but doesn't add how restricting guns to certain mentally ill wouldn't help, too. -most people think assault rifles should be banned. there's far fetched theories that hitler will come back and wreck havoc, exagerrating for effect... but we have a problem now as it is, we should focus on current reality, not possible far fetched scenarios. and if most agree to ban... there should be no hold up. -a lot of people like to say murders etc would happen anyway. it wouldn't be tothe same extent, though. they say timothy mcveigh built a bomb anyway, that hammers cause as many deaths as assault rifles. most gun deaths are from normal people with a gun... if they didn't have the gun, they wouldn't have killed, and they almost certainly wouldn't have made a bomb, even if a few people might have. hammers might cause as many deaths, but there's probably at least one hammer for every person in the country... 350 million, while there's only around a million assault rifles. statiscally then, assault rifles are hundreds of times more likely to cause a death etc. and, at the end of the day, if assault rifles were illegal, many wouldn't have them.... such as teh recent school shooter's mom, very likely. if she didn't have it, the son wouldn't have got it, and there'd have been very many less deaths. it's pretty straightforward, pretty simple, here. a guy went on a rampage in china, with a knife at the same time of the recent school schooting. gun proponents like to say it's proof something would happen anyway. but twenty some were injured only, instead of killed. yes there are always other ways to kill people, but reducing guns reduces most violence that couldn't otherwise occur. most people don't and woudn't be timonthy mcveight, for example, creating his own bomb, finding other ways to kill at least on a mass scale or beyond what's at least reasonably defensible without a gun like knives etc. sure criminals won't give up their guns just because the g overnment asks them to... but the reality is most or many deaths wouldnt have occurred if they had no gun. -while no one thinks we should ban all guns, there's something to be said about it. at least in so far as showing that it's posible to reduce gun violence here. the USA is the worst in this regard, japan is the best, and there's many shades in between. would you give up your right to a gun if you knew it'd overwhelmingly cut down on murders etc? in japan last year, with a ban on all guns, they only had eleven gun deaths... and with a third of our population, that'd translate into 33, down from the 120000 plus that we currently have. i'm not sure how we'd ever get to a point of outlawing all guns, so in the mean time i'm against it. but when we look at the shootings at the school or random domestic violence... are we willing to say that those deaths are simply the price we pay for the right to have a gun? if guns were inevitable and we sometimes felt we had to have guns as to protect ourselves, sure, though japan etc makes one wonder of course there are second amendment arguments, but based on what the law should be only, i had always been one to think self defense is my right, and i'd never think to take the right from others either, and hunting etc etc. plus i do think guns are kinda cool. but if we're only needing guns for self defense because we protect gun rights for the bad guys to begin with, i'd probably be willing to forgo that right, and i might expect most others would too, if it's anything like japan. we have to recognize, afterall, that gun rights are basically protecting the rights of a minority at the expense of the safety of the majority, if japan etc and all that is true. most people don't have guns, and don't care to (though yes, it is still their right even if they choose not to exercise it) we are still in effect protecting the minority at hte expense of the majority... we have to admit that school shootings and such are the price we pay to protect the right to guns. sure criminals won't give up their guns just because the g overnment asks them to... but the reality is most or many deaths wouldnt have occurred if they had no gun. -in fact, most gun situations don't infolve self defense. in fact, when you have a gun in your home, statisics show that it will likely be used on yourself, or someone in your family. a situation where if you didn't have the gun to begin with, you'd be safer for it. it's true... if the football player who recently shot his gf and self didn't have a gun, if the scghool rampage shooter didn't have a gun.. they wouldn't have been able to do their crime. some might suggest everyone who's legal having a gun would lower violence, but if this is all true that having guns causes problems to begin with, it'd probably just encourage violence when there's domenstic disputes that otherwise wouldn't have occurred.... people often feel the need to use a gun, when they have it, just because they have it.// -so when people say \"guns don't kill people people kill people\" what are they really accomplishing, and establishing? that the mentally ill and criminals etc shoudln't have guns? that's self evident, and nearly everyone agrees. a step further, that we should allow guns as rights, given they aren't inherently dangerous and allow for self defense? well, as said, maybe they aren't inherently dangerous, but i'd argue the rights of a few who can't practice self defense is worth the safety of the few who are actually killed in those situations, were things really like japan, anyway. -i'm not saying to outlaw all guns at the time being, so can we and how do we get there from here? ultimately i'm not sure, but i'd suspect that if they can do it, we can do it. but it's all too culturally engrained at the time, and guns are everywhere, and second amendment considtruations... so this won't be and probably shouldn't be in my lifetime to say the least. -i'd argue guns should be more like driving a car, training, licenses, databases etc. perhaps society at large doesn't need to know how many guns or the kinds y ou have but it's not to much to ask that it be inventoried so that officers who could know, do know. that way we know that John has guns, when he goes crazy or on a rampage, or that the gun he has after he does all that, is illegal. this would surely reduce gun violence significantly. it's worth the loss of privacy given we are protecting teh safety of the majority at the expense of the minority rights. if even NRA members think what they do, and public polling is as it is... what's the hold up on legislation, and why isn't this the law of the land already?", "qid": "27", "docid": "56e1b675-2019-04-18T17:54:00Z-00003-000", "rank": 16, "score": 167169.0}, {"content": "Title: Gun Control in the United States Content: There should be more gun control laws because of the increasing mass murders in the last twenty years. These mass murders have occurred in places such as Alabama, North Carolina, Virginia, Colorado, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Washington, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas. In these states, there are no requirements to have a permit to purchase a gun, provide firearm registration, and to supply an owner license. This shows that there is a correlation between minimal gun laws and mass shooting. The number of murder rates in Rhode Island, Iowa, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Hawaii are very low. This is because of the strict laws of requiring a state permit, owner license, and carry permits. These states have the lowest amount of murder from the survey of 2010. This shows that strict gun control laws in the United States lead to less murders. In my research, I have found that other countries and continents besides the United States have a low murder rate compared to the United States. This includes Sweden, Spain, Canada, and Australia. Why is this? This is because of the many firm laws. These laws include registrations and permits, psychological tests, and safety courses. As you can see, states like Iowa, Rode Island, Hawaii and countries like Canada, Spain and Sweden, all have low murder rate because of more rigorous laws. From the research that I have provided, gun laws and murder rates associate with each other. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.cnn.com... http://www.sunray22b.net... http://www.deseretnews.com...", "qid": "27", "docid": "f46a8e38-2019-04-18T16:41:48Z-00007-000", "rank": 17, "score": 167001.0}, {"content": "Title: Gun Control Content: Criminals and gangsters don't follow laws. If they want guns they will get them at any means necessary. If there was a gun control law passed, it would increase the death rate for the law abiding citizens because of lack of self defense options. It would in crease the number of break-in's because an intruder will know that he wont be shot because of current gun laws and they will have a gun they got on the black market. Speaking of which, with gun restriction laws in place, it would increase the black market so that people can get the guns back that they were forced to give up. And look at Switzerland. Every family is required by law to own a fire arm and they have the lowest crime rate in the world.", "qid": "27", "docid": "9c3627bf-2019-04-18T16:33:08Z-00004-000", "rank": 18, "score": 166508.0}, {"content": "Title: We need more gun control Content: I extend.", "qid": "27", "docid": "622002e-2019-04-18T15:10:57Z-00002-000", "rank": 19, "score": 166315.0}, {"content": "Title: Is strengthening gun control laws necessay Content: More gun control is absolutely necessary in today's society and is not a violation of the second amendment. People should be allowed to own a guns for self-defense and hunting purposes, but you don\"t go hunting or defend your house with a modified assault riffle unless your street is being invaded by Turkish Rebels and you don't use 30 rounds either when you are hunting. It is not necessary for an ordinary citizen to have weapons of such force, with the potential to do so much harm, and you don't need a high caliber magazine to defend your home or hunt with. If you can't hit what you are shooting at with less than 5 bullets you don't have business owning a gun. Stricter laws on whom and how quickly you can get a gun are needed dearly today. There needs to be a federally mandated waiting period of all gun purchases, both private and retail, as well are much more in depth background checks including a physiological test. I should not be allowed to walk into a gun store give them my drivers license and have a gun that day or even later that week. Why do you need it so quickly? Is there some kind of rush to have it now? If you plan on hunting this season go do all of your gun purchases and background checks a month before. As far as psychological testing, it should be required neither you nor anyone living with you has any mental disorders or history of psychotic behavior. Now you say everyone has a right to own a gun. No. Not everyone has every right. People who are felons, even for nonviolent crimes can't vote. Do we say this is unfair? No, even though it is totally unrelated to their knowledge about government and say in what happens in the country they're living. Government's job is to protect the general welfare of the people and keeping people from killing each other is a big part of that. Now we could put an army division on every street in American (at your cost), to ensure that you are safe, and let you have whatever guns you want. That is obviously not practical, so you say just arm everyone. Okay, I don't want to carry a gun all the time and feel like at any day I might have to defend myself with it cause someone in a bar got drunk and pissed and started shooting. This is the 21st century and we can't let it turn into the Wild West all over again.", "qid": "27", "docid": "93d0d2a6-2019-04-18T17:51:46Z-00005-000", "rank": 20, "score": 165877.0}, {"content": "Title: Gun Control Should Be Introduced In America Content: Sorry for the misunderstanding. When I defined gun control I said laws and regulations regarding guns which don't necessarily mean a ban on any type of gun it just means more laws regarding guns. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Firstly, Unsurprisingly America has more guns than any country in the world. A staggering 89 guns for every 100 people. This is far more then doubling the second leading country in this area. The USA also has the most gun homicides (A staggering 22 more per million then the second leading country in the world) and also the most deaths because of guns in general. This data was all collected by the United Nations. There has been research conducted by Leah Libresco that shows that these two things are directly related. Another smart group of individuals, who also found that these two things were connected are the Harvard School of Public Health\"s Injury Control Research Center. The Boston University School of Public Health found similar findings showing that a 1 percent increase in guns was most likely to create a 0.9 percent increase in firearm homicide rate at the state level. In all these findings the variables were controlled and the research was performed by experts. All this data proves that America's easy access to guns and quantity of guns leads to more violence. Having so many guns makes it incredibly easy for criminals and felons to access. To fix this problem America would have a limit on the number of guns made and imported into America. We could also have stricter laws on who could have guns. An example of a few is making background checks mandatory so that there would be less of a need for guns in America. We could also make an age restriction on guns. Don't you think its a bit weird how kids aren't allowed to drink until their 21 but they're allowed to have a weapon that kills humans? Thank you for reading my argument and I hope you consider it deeply. Sources: https://www.vox.com...", "qid": "27", "docid": "3a2ea41b-2019-04-18T11:43:16Z-00000-000", "rank": 21, "score": 165754.0}, {"content": "Title: there should be more gun control Content: looking for a debate on the topic, especially with those who say no more control, at all. here are my initial thoughts/rants.... why isn't meaningful legislation already passed? most people on news shows seems to offer the same ideas, no guns for mentally ill and criminals, background checks on all guns, and assault rifle, automatics type bans. hardly no one says we should just ban all guns, it's a red hearing from gun advocates to get on their grandstand. -background checks. 74% of NRA members think all guns should have checks. on the point about background checks, 40% of guns sold in the country \\are without checks, through gun auctions etc. this could surely help cut down on access to guns to the wrong people. the NRA officially is against any more control on guns. saying we should have more guns, guns for principles etc, not that i'm necessarily against such measures. but if the folks within the NRA actually like more checks, shouldn't we just take the NRA's official points as being merely political grandstanding? there's no reason we can't put guns in the hands of the right people, while at the same time taking steps to remove them from the wrong hands. it's worth a shot. -it's nearly unanimous that certain mentally ill people shouldn't have guns. the NRA says we should have better mental health institutions, but doesn't add how restricting guns to certain mentally ill wouldn't help, too. -most people think assault rifles should be banned. there's far fetched theories that hitler will come back and wreck havoc, exagerrating for effect... but we have a problem now as it is, we should focus on current reality, not possible far fetched scenarios. and if most agree to ban... there should be no hold up. -a lot of people like to say murders etc would happen anyway. it wouldn't be tothe same extent, though. they say timothy mcveigh built a bomb anyway, that hammers cause as many deaths as assault rifles. most gun deaths are from normal people with a gun... if they didn't have the gun, they wouldn't have killed, and they almost certainly wouldn't have made a bomb, even if a few people might have. hammers might cause as many deaths, but there's probably at least one hammer for every person in the country... 350 million, while there's only around a million assault rifles. statiscally then, assault rifles are hundreds of times more likely to cause a death etc. and, at the end of the day, if assault rifles were illegal, many wouldn't have them.... such as teh recent school shooter's mom, very likely. if she didn't have it, the son wouldn't have got it, and there'd have been very many less deaths. it's pretty straightforward, pretty simple, here. a guy went on a rampage in china, with a knife at the same time of the recent school schooting. gun proponents like to say it's proof something would happen anyway. but twenty some were injured only, instead of killed. yes there are always other ways to kill people, but reducing guns reduces most violence that couldn't otherwise occur. most people don't and woudn't be timonthy mcveight, for example, creating his own bomb, finding other ways to kill at least on a mass scale or beyond what's at least reasonably defensible without a gun like knives etc. sure criminals won't give up their guns just because the g overnment asks them to... but the reality is most or many deaths wouldnt have occurred if they had no gun. -while no one thinks we should ban all guns, there's something to be said about it. at least in so far as showing that it's posible to reduce gun violence here. the USA is the worst in this regard, japan is the best, and there's many shades in between. would you give up your right to a gun if you knew it'd overwhelmingly cut down on murders etc? in japan last year, with a ban on all guns, they only had eleven gun deaths... and with a third of our population, that'd translate into 33, down from the 120000 plus that we currently have. i'm not sure how we'd ever get to a point of outlawing all guns, so in the mean time i'm against it. but when we look at the shootings at the school or random domestic violence... are we willing to say that those deaths are simply the price we pay for the right to have a gun? if guns were inevitable and we sometimes felt we had to have guns as to protect ourselves, sure, though japan etc makes one wonder of course there are second amendment arguments, but based on what the law should be only, i had always been one to think self defense is my right, and i'd never think to take the right from others either, and hunting etc etc. plus i do think guns are kinda cool. but if we're only needing guns for self defense because we protect gun rights for the bad guys to begin with, i'd probably be willing to forgo that right, and i might expect most others would too, if it's anything like japan. we have to recognize, afterall, that gun rights are basically protecting the rights of a minority at the expense of the safety of the majority, if japan etc and all that is true. most people don't have guns, and don't care to (though yes, it is still their right even if they choose not to exercise it) we are still in effect protecting the minority at hte expense of the majority... we have to admit that school shootings and such are the price we pay to protect the right to guns. sure criminals won't give up their guns just because the g overnment asks them to... but the reality is most or many deaths wouldnt have occurred if they had no gun. -in fact, most gun situations don't infolve self defense. in fact, when you have a gun in your home, statisics show that it will likely be used on yourself, or someone in your family. a situation where if you didn't have the gun to begin with, you'd be safer for it. it's true... if the football player who recently shot his gf and self didn't have a gun, if the scghool rampage shooter didn't have a gun.. they wouldn't have been able to do their crime. some might suggest everyone who's legal having a gun would lower violence, but if this is all true that having guns causes problems to begin with, it'd probably just encourage violence when there's domenstic disputes that otherwise wouldn't have occurred.... people often feel the need to use a gun, when they have it, just because they have it.// -so when people say \"guns don't kill people people kill people\" what are they really accomplishing, and establishing? that the mentally ill and criminals etc shoudln't have guns? that's self evident, and nearly everyone agrees. a step further, that we should allow guns as rights, given they aren't inherently dangerous and allow for self defense? well, as said, maybe they aren't inherently dangerous, but i'd argue the rights of a few who can't practice self defense is worth the safety of the few who are actually killed in those situations, were things really like japan, anyway. -i'm not saying to outlaw all guns at the time being, so can we and how do we get there from here? ultimately i'm not sure, but i'd suspect that if they can do it, we can do it. but it's all too culturally engrained at the time, and guns are everywhere, and second amendment considtruations... so this won't be and probably shouldn't be in my lifetime to say the least. -i'd argue guns should be more like driving a car, training, licenses, databases etc. perhaps society at large doesn't need to know how many guns or the kinds y ou have but it's not to much to ask that it be inventoried so that officers who could know, do know. that way we know that John has guns, when he goes crazy or on a rampage, or that the gun he has after he does all that, is illegal. this would surely reduce gun violence significantly. it's worth the loss of privacy given we are protecting teh safety of the majority at the expense of the minority rights. if even NRA members think what they do, and public polling is as it is... what's the hold up on legislation, and why isn't this the law of the land already?", "qid": "27", "docid": "faa200d-2019-04-18T17:55:01Z-00004-000", "rank": 22, "score": 164861.0}, {"content": "Title: Gun Control Content: For the final round, I will be rebutting my opponent's Round 3 responses to my initial arguments.= Final Rebuttals =More Guns, Less CrimeEngland and Wales' homicide rate jumped following both gun restrictions, showing that gun control does not work in eliminating crime. The graph doesn't \"look high\" because England and Wales' homicide rate per million people were together in one graph. Remember, we are measuring the murder rate over time and how the trend changes when gun control laws are implemented. I have clearly shown that the murder rate rose, and that gun control does not work, especially not in this instance. Pro drops the facts I showed about how the crime rates in European countries with various gun laws were higher with more laws and lower with less.Pro then goes on to examine my source and pulls out the Chicago graph that measured the murder rate in response to the strict gun bans. The graph did fluctuate a bit but was also cut off at 2007, so allow me to provide some missing info: An Illinois concealed carry law was enacted in July 2013. The Chicago homicide rate of the first quarter of 2014 saw the rate at its lowest since 1958[1]. This is a significant change that \"coincidentally\" happened right after the ban on carrying guns was lifted.It is true that the UK's murder rate is slightly lower than America's, but it has been rising significantly ever since gun laws have been enacted. America has the highest ownership rate of guns in the world, with 90 guns per 100 people. If more guns means more crime, then that should mean that the United States has the highest crime rate in the world. However, the U.S.'s homicide rate is not in the top 10, or the top 50, or the top 100 - it's homicide rate per capita is #111, despite having so many guns[2]. Most of the countries above the U.S. are progressive countries with gun control laws, so the mantra that \"more guns, more crime\" is a very false one indeed. Indeed, the crime rate can be affected by different factors, but gun control ultimately has the largest effect since it directly targets the amount of guns used for crime.The \"homicides with large anomalies unrelated to guns\" in the UK graph means that homicides were committed using knives and other non-firearm weapons. This shows that even if criminals don't have guns, they will still find ways to commit crime without them. The large spike was the result of the criminal response to the UK gun ban in 1997.We must note that my opponent has not provided any counter evidence to suggest that gun control does reduce crime, he has just stated his issues with my evidence.Self-DefenseTheoretically a criminal may have a harder time finding a gun with gun control, but they will put more effort into to obtaining illegal guns and non-firearm weapons that will not make the homicide rate lower, as we have seen with several examples above.As for the objections to my sources 5 and 6, the people who used guns for self protection were actually 9%, not .9%. This plus 7% makes 16%. We must remember that the study was focused on defensive gun uses, which is the polar opposite of offensive or criminal uses. The rest of the data is simply not noted, so it is wrong to jump to conclusions.Pro looks at the introduction of my round 3 source 5 study instead of reading the rest of it. The last line of the introduction reads, \"There is one study, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which in 1993, estimated 108,000 DGU's annually. Why the huge discrepancy between this survey and fourteen others?\" The next section is titled \"Dr. Kleck's Answer\" where he uses multiple paragraphs to answer this question. Pro clearly has not read the rest of the study.GunCite.com is not at all biased. Just because the name includes the words \"gun cite\" does not mean it is anything seriously leaning toward one side. My opponent has attempted to dismiss the site because it's pro-gun, but that does not refute the numbers or data collection. In doing so he has committed the Genetic Fallacy[3]. Lastly, the article may be made in 2003, but the numbers and data are still as true today as they were then, so this is not even close to making the article wrong.Thanks a bunch for the debate Pro! It's been a pleasure.[1] http://www.ijreview.com...[2] Pro's source, Round 3[3] http://www.nizkor.org...", "qid": "27", "docid": "ea8bf583-2019-04-18T15:13:22Z-00000-000", "rank": 23, "score": 164858.0}, {"content": "Title: Gun control in America Content: Again as I stated- having rifles which are dispensed from a controlled facility for the purposes of hunting still allows the right to bear arms to some degree. I will again restate my point that since guns have become much more efficient killing machines over the years, the 2nd amendment should adjust accordingly. Our founding fathers could not have possibly predicted what guns are like today. I have heard many times the argument gun laws only take guns out of the hands of honest gun owners, not criminals. Yes and no. Initially after more gun laws are passed, many criminals would still have firearms. The idea isn't to snap your fingers and do away with all illegal firearms, but to progressively weed them out over a period of time. Yes, many guns are brought in illegally. That problem is not by any stretch of imagination impossible to deal with. Your facts you cited, though I have no reason to believe they are false, are from a study attempting to prove gun control is ineffective. The problem with this is that if you want to, facts can be easily cherry picked to \"prove\" either side. Since gun control on a federal level hasn't ever been taken up seriously , I am not sure there is any statistical evidence that when looked at from an unbiased standpoint that suggests with conviction gun control in general does or doesn't work. To prove my point, here are some bias statistics that would suggest gun control does work: http://nastyjackbuzz.blogspot.com... Now, here are the some statistics presented from a non bias source: http://hubpages.com... See what I mean. You can stack the facts to promote either side, but when looked at comprehensively, there is no solid statistical evidence either strongly suggesting is better. The determining factor is the amount of original crime before the laws were implemented, and more importantly, how you execute the laws. Gun control has failed in some countries not because it is a bad idea, but because authorities simply lack the strength to enforce it. If gun control is done correctly, and the government exerts an effort to remove illegal guns from the streets, along with a crackdown on illegal gun imports, it would be reduce the amount of violent crimes. Despite the lack of strong statistical evidence for either side, there is a solid and logical argument that gun control in the US would be a positive thing. If an armed robber enters a house, and sees that the owner is there with a gun, he will be more likely to kill in perceived self-defense. The owner of the house will also be more likely to kill in perceived self defense if the robber is armed. The rate of deadly crimes of passion, when guns are removed from the equation, will also decrease. It's much easier to act on emotion or impulse when a gun is easily available. Also, guns can and do fall into the hands of children, and many fewer guns means many fewer occurrences of firearms falling into the wrong hands, including those of children's. It is my opinion and the opinion of many defense of material objects is not justified by the taking of life if there are other ways to obtain justice, such as through a court system and police. Additionally, if it was proven sufficiently that gun control didn't reduce violent crime or deaths from it, then why is it so many areas plagued with violent crime are screaming for gun control? Although I don't pull out this argument frequently myself, gun control would also reduce school shootings and potentially prevent terrorists from stockpiling weapons. \"Why don't we just do background checks instead?\", you might ask. To which my response is that background checks are not successful in preventing aforesaid people (terrorists and potential shooters with a mental disability) from obtaining a gun. Additionally, the same people who advocate the success of background checks are the same people who riddle them with loopholes making it easy to stockpile weapons. As long as there are weapons out there, criminals will get their hands on them. Thus, the idea is to have the smallest amount of weapons possible. Many people would counter this with the idea that \"criminals will be intimidated if they know citizens are statistically well armed and that there is a good chance the owner of the house they are robbing is in possession of a firearm.\" While this seems like a logical statement, facts suggest this is not true. There are nations with very low gun ownership rates that have crime rates lower than nations with high gun ownership rates. Ultimately, my point is that gun laws can and will work in reducing homicide rates and crimes of passion if you combine them with an earnest effort to stop illegal gun imports. The reason gun control has done nothing in Europe, where much of the gun rights people get their data, is that trade is very difficult to regulate and one can transport guns through borders with relative ease if one so desired. We do not face this problem nearly as severely. Canada already has strict gun control laws, so we would receive little or no illegal guns from them. The main effort would be to stop shipments of guns from Mexico, which with a combined effort of strengthening of the border patrol (which we arguably need anyway), and patrol from the Coast Guard, is entirely doable. Another argument is \"Guns are part of America's history, it's wrong to take them away.\" My response to this is simple, just because something is part of our history or an element of American culture, this tells us nothing about whether said thing is good or not. For a long time, racism was part of American culture. Therefore, is it a malicious infringement of American culture to make it illegal to deny someone employment because of their skin color? Of course not. Just because something is a part of America's past doesn't mean we must or should embrace that thing in the future.", "qid": "27", "docid": "7c7dd03a-2019-04-18T16:12:16Z-00001-000", "rank": 24, "score": 164304.0}, {"content": "Title: Gun control America needs to change Content: 1. You cannot reduce gun crimes with more guns! The mores guns there is the more violence in the world. Bedsides if you just got rid of guns altogether or had stricter gun laws then it is not likely that there would even be a shooter in the first place. Look at the UK, There has only been 1 mass shooting since stricter gun laws were put in place. In America, Mass shootings are happening on a regular basis and your solution is more guns! You have tried that and it clearly has not worked, It is time for America to make a change! Masses of people are dying on a regular basis and you are doing nothing effective! 2. Why waste money on things that can kill people? ! I think just like your driving test you should have to pay for this test and to have a licence for a gun. The practical test would ensure that you actually know how to use a gun safely. The theory test would be the part where you mental health, And your background is checked and yes I admit people could lie BUT it would still make it that little bit harder for people to access guns and could prevent some gun crimes from happening. It is worth doing even if it only saves a few lives. 3. If you don't like the way your country is run you should not be protesting with a gun anyway as that would be murder. The police and the military are there to protect you from any foreign invasion so you do not need a gun for that either. \"a gun behind every bush\" I believe is a terrible saying because that implies that you are living your life in constant paranoia and fear and that is no way to live. America has a very good police force and military as far as I am aware and they are there to protect you so I do not think you need to worry about having a gun on you at all times. 4. How is taking away guns going to make more people die of gun crime! You cannot shoot your way to peace! 5. Cancer is not something that can be prevented. It is not a choice. You cannot compare someone dying because somebody shot them to somebody dying of cancer. America has the power to reduce gun crime, That is a fact you can reduce the amount of deaths due to a gun. I don't understand how you even think its okay to compare cancer and murder. 6. Yes there will always be the black market and you will never be able to completely get rid of the guns in America but putting these laws in place will decrease gun crime massively. It will make it so much harder for people to access guns and therefore the amount of shootings will go down. Look at the UK, Japan and many other countries who have enforced strict gun laws. Look at the amount of gun deaths in them counties and then look at the amount of gun deaths in America and try and tell me that the number of shootings will go up. These laws have worked everywhere else so now America it is time for you do make a change and help the people in your country. You can reduce the gun crime massively if you take a step, Be brave and stop hiding behind you guns.", "qid": "27", "docid": "a938b766-2019-04-18T11:19:31Z-00002-000", "rank": 25, "score": 163961.0}, {"content": "Title: should all guns be banned Content: Response to Harm 1: Gun control laws will not prevent criminals from obtaining guns or breaking laws. Of 62 mass shootings in the United States between 1982 and 2012, 49 of the shooters used legally obtained guns. Collectively, 143 guns were possessed by the killers with about 75% obtained legally. John R. Lott, Jr., Ph.D., gun rights activist, stated, \"The problem with such [gun control] laws is that they take away guns from law-abiding citizens, while would-be criminals ignore them.\" According to a Bureau of Justice Statistics May 2013 report, 37.4% of state prison inmates who \"used, carried, or possessed a firearm when they committed the crime for which they were serving a prison sentence\" obtained the gun from a family member or friend. Despite Chicago's ban on gun shops, shooting ranges, assault weapons, and high capacity magazines, in 2014 Chicago had 2,089 shooting victims including at least 390 murders. Approximately 50,000 guns were recovered by police in Chicago between 2001 and Mar. 2012. The guns came from all 50 states, and more than half came from outside of Illinois. Response to Harm 2: More gun control is unnecessary because relatively few people are killed by guns. According to the CDC's \"Leading Causes of Death Reports,\" between 1999 and 2013, Americans were 21.5 times more likely to die of heart disease (9,691,733 deaths); 18.7 times more likely to die of malignant tumors (8,458,868 deaths); and 2.4 times more likely to die of diabetes or 2.3 times more likely to die of Alzheimer's (1,080,298 and 1,053,207 respectively) than to die from a firearm (whether by accident, homicide, or suicide). The flu and related pneumonia (875,143 deaths); traffic accidents (594,280 deaths); and poisoning whether via accident, homicide, or suicide (475,907 deaths) all killed more people between 1999 and 2013 than firearms. Firearms were the 12th leading cause of deaths for all deaths between 1999 and 2013, responsible for 1.3% of deaths with 464,033 deaths. Internationally, the claim that the United States has a major problem with firearm homicide is exaggerated. The United States is ranked 28 in international homicide rates with 2.97 gun murders per 100,000 people in 2012. Response to Harm 3: According to the National Rifle Association (NRA), guns are used for self-defense 2.5 million times a year. The police cannot protect everyone all of the time. 61% of men and 56% of women surveyed by Pew Research said that stricter gun laws would \"make it more difficult for people to protect their homes and families.\" Nelson Lund, JD, PhD, Professor at George Mason University School of Law, stated, \"The right to self-defense and to the means of defending oneself is a basic natural right that grows out of the right to life\" and \"many [gun control laws] interfere with the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves against violent criminals.\" Constitutions in 37 US states protect the right to bear arms for self-defense, most with explicit language such as Alabama's: \"every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.\" Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President of the NRA, stated, \"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.\" A May 9, 2013 48% of convicted felons surveyed admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed with a gun. Pew Foundation report found that 79% of male gun owners and 80% of female gun owners said owning a gun made them feel safer and 64% of people living in a home in which someone else owns a gun felt safer. Even Senator Dianne Feinstein, a gun control advocate, carried a concealed gun when her life was threatened and her home attacked by the New World Liberation Front in the 1970s. Response to your plan: There are a couple of problems with your plan. The Second Amendment was made to protect the civilians from a corrupt or unfair government, the colonists were running from the British government, fought a war, and made the Constitution of United States of America to protect themselves. The fact that you say that a government could pass a law, moreover make THREATS, is the exact reason the Second Amendment was made. America is a democratic, not a fascist, country; a law where police officers could search your house without a warrant and at any time would never pass. Furthermore, the punishments and the law itself are so extreme that it wouldn't be surprising if there a second civil war happens in return. Response to Advantage 1: A Nov. 26, 2013 study found that, between 1980 and 2009, \"assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level\" and \"states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murders.\" While gun ownership doubled in the twentieth century, the murder rate decreased. John R. Lott, Jr., Ph.D., author of More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, stated, \"States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes... The effect on 'shall-issue' [concealed gun] laws on these crimes [where two or more people were killed] has been dramatic. When states passed these laws, the number of multiple-victim shootings declined by 84 percent. Deaths from these shootings plummeted on average by 90 percent and injuries by 82 percent.\" A Dec. 10, 2014 Pew survey found that 57% of people believe that owning a gun protects them from being victimized. Journalist John Stossel explained, \"Criminals don't obey the law\" Without the fear of retaliation from victims who might be packing heat, criminals in possession of these [illegal] weapons now have a much easier job... As the saying goes, 'If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.'\" Response to Advantage 2: 95% of all US gun owners believe that children should learn about gun safety. Guns don't kill people; people kill people. And people need more gun education and mental illness screening to prevent massacres.The Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute, Inc (SAAMI), stated, \"Whether in the field, at the range or in the home, a responsible and knowledgeable gun owner is rarely involved in a firearms accident of any kind.\" Heidi Cifelli, Former Program Manager of the NRA's Eddie Eagle GunSafe Program, stated, \"Gun education is the best way to save young lives.\" The NRA states that the Eddie Eagle program is not meant to \"teach whether guns are good or bad, but rather to promote the protection and safety of children\" Like swimming pools, electrical outlets, matchbooks, and household poison, they're [guns] treated simply as a fact of everyday life.\" According to Kyle Wintersteen, Managing Editor of Guns and Ammo, studies show that \"children taught about firearms and their legitimate uses by family members have much lower rates of delinquency than children in households without guns\" and \"children introduced to guns associate them with freedom, security, and recreation\"not violence.\" Response to Advantage 3: Look to \"Response to Harm 3:\" I stated that civilians would not feel safe and that it denies civilians a RIGHT to self-defense. Source: https://gun-control.procon.org...", "qid": "27", "docid": "4afc1d05-2019-04-18T11:32:41Z-00002-000", "rank": 26, "score": 163907.0}, {"content": "Title: USA should adapt Australian Gun Laws Content: It\"s simple: Australia enacted strict gun control in 1996 and since then, there has been either zero or one mass shooting (depending on what you consider a mass shooting). America let\"s every citizen carry a gun and it has resulted on an average of one mass shooting every ten days in 2018. If America issued the same buyback scheme and gun laws John Howard enacted, the mass shooting count would drop significantly, if not completely.", "qid": "27", "docid": "9358e77c-2019-04-18T11:27:48Z-00007-000", "rank": 27, "score": 163858.0}, {"content": "Title: Gun Control Content: Okay, so this was a mistake clicking on because I didn't read it all the way through. So this is not my personal opinion, but I don't want to leave you hanging so I'll argue the other side.Gun control doesn't deter crime, gun ownership does.A Nov. 26, 2013 study found that, between 1980 and 2009, \"assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level\" and \"states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murders.\" While gun ownership doubled in the twentieth century, the murder rate decreased. John R. Lott, Jr., PhD, author of More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, stated, \"States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes... The effect on 'shall-issue' [concealed gun] laws on these crimes [where two or more people were killed] has been dramatic. When states passed these laws, the number of multiple-victim shootings declined by 84 percent. Deaths from these shootings plummeted on average by 90 percent and injuries by 82 percent.\" A Dec. 10, 2014 Pew survey found that 57% of people believe that owning a gun protects them from being victimized. Journalist John Stossel explained, \"Criminals don't obey the law\u2026 Without the fear of retaliation from victims who might be packing heat, criminals in possession of these [illegal] weapons now have a much easier job... As the saying goes, 'If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.'\" Gun control laws infringe upon the right to self defense and deny people a sense of safety. According to the National Rifle Association (NRA), guns are used for self-defense 2.5 million times a year. The police cannot protect everyone all of the time. 61% of men and 56% of women surveyed by Pew Research said that stricter gun laws would \"make it more difficult for people to protect their homes and families.\" Nelson Lund, JD, PhD, Professor at George Mason University School of Law, stated, \"The right to self-defense and to the means of defending oneself is a basic natural right that grows out of the right to life\" and \"many [gun control laws] interfere with the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves against violent criminals.\" Constitutions in 37 US states protect the right to bear arms for self-defense, most with explicit language such as Alabama's: \"every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.\" Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President of the NRA, stated, \"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.\" A May 9, 2013 48% of convicted felons surveyed admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed with a gun. Pew Foundation report found that 79% of male gun owners and 80% of female gun owners said owning a gun made them feel safer and 64% of people living in a home in which someone else owns a gun felt safer. Even Senator Dianne Feinstein, a gun control advocate, carried a concealed gun when her life was threatened and her home attacked by the New World Liberation Front in the 1970s. Gun control laws give too much power to the government and may result in government tyranny and the government taking away all guns from citizens. 57% of people surveyed by Pew Research in Feb. 2013 said that gun control laws would \"give too much power to the government over the people.\" The NRA's Wayne LaPierre stated, \"if you look at why our Founding Fathers put it [the Second Amendment] there, they had lived under the tyranny of King George and they wanted to make sure that these free people in this new country would never be subjugated again and have to live under tyranny.\" Alex Jones, radio host, in a Jan 7, 2013 interview with Piers Morgan, stated, \"The Second Amendment isn't there for duck hunting, it's there to protect us from tyrannical government and street thugs\u2026 1776 will commence again if you try to take our firearms!\"More gun control is unnecessary because relatively few people are killed by guns.According to the CDC's \"Leading Causes of Death Reports,\" between 1999 and 2013, Americans were 21.5 times more likely to die of heart disease (9,691,733 deaths); 18.7 times more likely to die of malignant tumors (8,458,868 deaths); and 2.4 times more likely to die of diabetes or 2.3 times more likely to die of Alzheimer's (1,080,298 and 1,053,207 respectively) than to die from a firearm (whether by accident, homicide, or suicide). The flu and related pneumonia (875,143 deaths); traffic accidents (594,280 deaths); and poisoning whether via accident, homicide, or suicide (475,907 deaths) all killed more people between 1999 and 2013 than firearms. Firearms were the 12th leading cause of deaths for all deaths between 1999 and 2013, responsible for 1.3% of deaths with 464,033 deaths. Internationally, the claim that the United States has a major problem with firearm homicide is exaggerated. The United States is ranked 28 in international homicide rates with 2.97 gun murders per 100,000 people in 2012.More gun control is not needed; education about guns and gun safety is needed to prevent accidental gun deaths.95% of all US gun owners believe that children should learn about gun safety. Guns don't kill people; people kill people. And people need more gun education and mental illness screening to prevent massacres. The Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute, Inc (SAAMI), stated, \"Whether in the field, at the range or in the home, a responsible and knowledgeable gun owner is rarely involved in a firearms accident of any kind.\" Heidi Cifelli, Former Program Manager of the NRA's Eddie Eagle GunSafe Program, stated, \"Gun education is the best way to save young lives.\" The NRA states that the Eddie Eagle program is not meant to \"teach whether guns are good or bad, but rather to promote the protection and safety of children\u2026 Like swimming pools, electrical outlets, matchbooks, and household poison, they're [guns] treated simply as a fact of everyday life.\" According to Kyle Wintersteen, Managing Editor of Guns and Ammo, studies show that \"children taught about firearms and their legitimate uses by family members have much lower rates of delinquency than children in households without guns\" and \"children introduced to guns associate them with freedom, security, and recreation\u2014not violence.\" Strict gun control laws do not work in Mexico, and will not work in the United States. Mexico has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world and yet, in 2012, Mexico had 11,309 gun murders (9.97 gun homicides per 100,000 people) compared to the United States that had 9,146 gun homicides (2.97 per 100,000 people). The country has only one legal gun store (the Directorate of Arms and Munitions Sales), compared to at least 63,709 legal gun stores and pawn shops in the United States as of Feb. 10, 2014. Mexico's gun store is on a secure military base and customers must present a valid ID, go through a metal detector, and turn over cellphones and cameras to guards. To actually buy a gun, customers have to show proof of honest income, provide references, pass a criminal background check, prove any military duties were completed with honor, and be fingerprinted and photographed. If allowed to purchase a gun, the customer may buy only one gun (choosing from only .38 caliber pistols or lower) and one box of bullets. Between 2006 and 2010, Mexico's one gun shop sold 6,490 guns, yet as of 2012, Mexicans own about 15,000,000 guns, or about 13.5 guns per 100 people.https://gun-control.procon.org... is where all of these arguments are from. My own input will probably come in next round.", "qid": "27", "docid": "ea8c1293-2019-04-18T11:41:07Z-00000-000", "rank": 28, "score": 163199.0}, {"content": "Title: Gun Control In America Content: I am a gun owner in America that is looking for a intellectual debate on whether or not gun control is needed to become more strict or loose. My stance subject at the moment is to repeal the National Firearms Act of 1934, to make gun laws the same on a nation/federal level instead of state laws. The NFA is a direct infringement on the Second Amendment but is one of the most obvious and highlighted ones to take down. While shootings are almost a common occurrence, I believe gun control is not the answer. You start with your claim first. Accept only if you're very knowledgeable about the topic", "qid": "27", "docid": "18fe5038-2019-04-18T11:50:24Z-00007-000", "rank": 29, "score": 163001.0}, {"content": "Title: Gun Control Content: Gun control laws do not provide for a safer society. This is shown through multiple ways, either with honest comparables looking at violent crime and homicide rate, or crime trends before and after enacted laws. When compared with other countries using actual comparable populations, you find the United States is roughly in the middle of all developed nations for gun violence, or homicide rate. You can also see how violent crime has risen in areas where gun control has been enacted throughout the world. The simple fact that there has been a near 50% increase in guns owned in the United States since 1993, and an over 50% decrease in gun homicides shows that it is not the guns being the problem. You are safer with a gun than without one. In fact as most studies have shown you are 43 to 260 times more likely to defend yourself with a gun than be killed by one. Taking the gun out of your hand won\u2019t take the gun out of the criminal\u2019s hand. I have shown how the vast majority of criminals obtain their guns illegally, and most stated that they could have obtained an illegal gun if they were unable to purchase one legally. Disarming everyone else in an attempt to disarm the criminal is backward logic. This is also evidenced by countries that have a higher gun ownership have lower violent crime. Mass killings won\u2019t be hindered by gun control. Just turn on the news and you will see that places all over the world, even places where gun control has become gun bans, are having mass killings. Saying these ideological murderers will be stopped by laziness (not being able to buy a gun) is a lazy argument. You might not be able to prevent a radical from acting out radical ideas, but you can arm more citizens to stop them. Our founding fathers made clear the purpose of our 2nd amendment. We must protect our freedoms from anyone who would try and take them, including foreign powers, or domestic tyranny. An armed population is what prevents governmental powers from pushing their ideological pursuits on it\u2019s own people. To drastically reduce what the people can arm themselves with, compared to what the government has at its disposal, is directly contradictory to the 2nd amendment. How does this keep us safe? God forbid we become disarmed, and God forbid the government starts to push it\u2019s agenda, and all who oppose become enemies of the state, and God forbid they make the punishment for non-allegiance to their ideology anything up to and including death. But since history is replete with this exact system of take over, our founding fathers put a check and balance in the face of such unrestrained power, a gun in the hand of the citizen. The left will constantly pick numbers that show biased views, compare apples and oranges in terms of ratios or trends, or flat stats that are sampled from a small population with conclusions inarrivabile from their premises. The truth is, guns are tools. They can be used for good or bad, moral or immoral ends. Gun control is actually an obstruction to the safety of society.", "qid": "27", "docid": "ea8c07ad-2019-04-18T13:04:12Z-00001-000", "rank": 30, "score": 162867.0}, {"content": "Title: Gun Control Content: Over the past months, the debate over gun control has taken bounds through media; after the sandy hook shooting this trend is more easily observable. The Obama administration is now slowly moving closer and closer to gun restriction and confiscation, but is it a rational move? Today, out of every 100 Americans, an estimated 88 people own guns; which takes the figures well into the millions of people; yet arguably the vast majority of whom are law-abiding citizens. More Freedom Means Less Crime: Much like any other matter in our social life, Freedom to bear arms leads to more peace and security and it does not necessarily mean that every single person has to have an AR-15 for this to happen but precisely this freedom to bear arms alone guarantees less crime. Statistically speaking, in nearly every city more gun freedom means and has meant less crime. This is an undeniable, irrefutable and an unquestionable fact that the \"anti-gun\" media never stops to address. The example of this is very easily observed in the southern states like Texas, where some of the least restricting gun control laws are prevalent and not so surprisingly they have very low violent crime rate. For example after the city of Kennesaw, Georgia, passed a law requiring every home to have a gun, the crime rate dropped by more than 50 percent over the course of the next 23 years. Also see point 5 for the case for Switzerland\"s gun control. The issue of guns and gun control could not any simpler if people only understood the above fact. When we reflect on facts and statistics many of our arguments actually settle by themselves. In this case we can easily refute the notion that views guns as an \"evil\" piece of machinery, which is thought to be evil in the hands of regular citizenry and good when used and monopolized by the government, the military, and criminals. On the other hand where there is more restrictive gun control laws there is much more crime. States like New York and Illinois have some of the worst crime rates not only in the US, but in comparison around the world. The city of Chicago has the most strictest gun control laws in the United States yet it has become one the centers of overall crime in the US and deadliest Global cities! The harder gun control laws get, the higher crime rate soars. So the question must be asked: has the imposed gun restriction reduced crime? The answer is absolutely not. The murder rate in Chicago was about 17 percent higher in 2012 than it was in 2011. For any wise reader, who is able of some rational thinking, the above mentioned facts and examples should be enough of an argument to the end this debate, but let\"s not cease here as I have nine more points to cover.", "qid": "27", "docid": "ea8c004a-2019-04-18T14:05:01Z-00003-000", "rank": 31, "score": 162832.0}, {"content": "Title: Gun Control (Copy #2) Content: Thank you for responding. R1 I need to clarify my position, gun control laws should be lessen back for law abiding gun owners. Why should law abiding citizens be punished because of the actions of deranged people. I would certainly not want someone who is mentally ill or violent to own a firearm, but there is nothing we can do about it other than arming ourselves to protect us from them. If someone wants to own a firearm they can get one illegally. Adam Lanza the Sandy Hook shooter broke 41 laws that day, more laws would not have stopped him. This also shows that gun control does not work as Connecticut already has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. R2 \"This statement can be considered unreliable. One thing to note is that my opponent never cited a source with this information, and therefore cannot prove statistics do actually show this.\" \"In 1976, the Washington, D.C. City Council passed a law generally prohibiting residents from possessing handguns and requiring that all firearms in private homes be kept unloaded and rendered temporally inoperable via disassembly or installation of a trigger lock. During the years in which the D.C. handgun ban and trigger lock law was in effect, the Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law, while the U.S. murder rate averaged 11% lower.\" The murder rate did not just average 73% higher over the span of 1 year, rather it rose exponentially over 30 years. This shows that areas with increased gun control there are more gun related crimes, specifically murder. DC is not the only example, numerous other cities have shown the same results such as Chicago. When the handgun laws of DC were overturned in 2006 the murder rate in DC has dropped exponentially. R3 The original intent, remains the same today, \"We have a tangible police force to protect us now\". The reason the right to bear arms exists is to protect us from the police and government forces. \"A free people ought to be armed.\" George Washington once said, without trying to make an ad hominem argument, I think the principle behind that quote remains true to this day. The right to bear arms is essential to protecting our liberties from enemies, even if the enemies are those who swore to protect us. R4 My argument here needs clarification, I understand you are not calling for a complete ban of firearm, my point here is that nobody has the right to limit my freedom to own a firearm. Yes, I will acknowledge that firearms are used for terrible things, but to judge all gun owners on the actions of the few is irresponsible and unfair. It is like judging freedom of speech by the actions of neo-nazis and the KKK. It simply isn't fair. \" illegal usage under purported claims of self-defense, and claims of gun self-defense are grossly exaggerated[3].\" \"legally owned guns are an instrument in all of those things more frequently than they are an instrument in self-defense.\" A government survey from the 90's shows that \"Government figures from the National Survey of Criminal Victimization suggest 100,000 uses a year of guns in self-defense against crime, the vast majority of these uses being the display of weapons to deter or dissuade.\" This was during a time of higher crime rates in the United States than today, also it is very difficult to measure how many firearms are used in self defense and protection because you cannot measure crimes not committed due to knowledge of firearms in a home or on a person. MAIN POINTS REBUTTAL P1 In order to argue against this I need clarification on what your overall position and what \"gun control laws\" are we debating. Specifically background checks or something else. P2 Foreign Nations: In order to understand why other nations with gun control laws have lower gun crime rates one must look at many factors specifically, culture and overall crime rates. In many nations such as Britain who have fewer gun murders than the US, when their gun control laws were enacted, the homicide rate rose in which guns were used and not used. Britain since has one of the highest violent crime rates in the western world. Also, the 12,000 statistic is unreliable as it does not consider how many of the firearms used were illegally purchased. Also while on the issue of other nations, Switzerland's gun related homicide is (for 2010) 40. In a country where people are required to own semi automatic weapons. Every male is required to own(http://en.wikipedia.org...) a SIG SG 550(http://en.wikipedia.org...) A 550 is capable of fully automatic fire. You have completely ignored the culture issue that is much larger than laws. Sources: http://www.justfacts.com... http://www.justfacts.com... http://www.cnn.com...", "qid": "27", "docid": "da25e6c7-2019-04-18T16:51:38Z-00004-000", "rank": 32, "score": 162660.0}, {"content": "Title: THBT Citizens on the Terrorist Screening Database should not be barred from purchasing firearms Content: Re: Increase of TerrorismI will agree with my opponent that the gun laws are far too permissive and relaxed. As I mentioned in the previous round, guns are not and should not be free from government control or regulation; however, any form of regulation must be consistent with the Constitution. Con argues that there has been an increase in terrorism and attacks on the U. S. Although it appears to be true that mass shootings have increased this ignores the overall trend. According to an October 1 (and updated in January 2016) report from Pew Research, since 1990, gun violence and gun related crimes has gone down steadily (1). This is due to many factors including a better economy, more police officers and technology, a decline in alcohol consumption, and a significant decrease in lead thanks to the Clean Air Act of 1970 (2). Indeed, it has never been a safer time in the United States for children (3). As for the rest of Americans, it also remains true that America is far safer now than we were 8 years ago under Bush (4). Another important factor to consider is the amount of errors on the no-fly list. If the no-fly list is as deeply flawed as it currently is, how are we to expect that such a list would function well as a no-buy list? Indeed, the list would not have prevented many of the most recent shootings in Orlando, San Bernardino, and Sandy Hook Elementary School (6). None of these attackers were on the no-fly list including those with extremist ties. The Orlando shooter was on the no-fly list, but was removed in 2013 after the FBI could find no evidence of terrorist ties. An alternative solutionI would like to take some time to propose an alternative policy for public safety. What would be effective to prevent more mass shootings? I would argue that expanding background checks, mandating gun insurance, requiring extensive psychological testing, limiting magazine capacity, and requiring a waiting period to purchase firearms would be far more effective than no-fly no-buy. We know that these policies work because they have worked in Australia and other places (7). These policies will effective and would be far consistent with the Constitution than no-fly no-buy. ConclusionCon's case relies on public safety and the increase of mass shootings. However, as I have shown, that ignores the overall trend that gun violence has gone down. Furthermore, no-fly-no-buy would not have prevented several of the most recent deadly attacks. There are good reasons to be skeptical of the no-fly-no-buy policy. Because the no-fly list is deeply flawed, it is questionable whether or not it would be effective as a no-buy list. Furthermore, due to the secretive nature of the list, it is nearly impossible to get off the list or contest your inclusion. Americans should not be forced to give up more liberties - including that of due process, the right to a speedy trial, being able to contest a government witness, and the right to bear arms - in the name of public safety over a list that has not been proven to be effective. I have also proposed an alternative solution that would be more effective and less intrusive than a no-fly no-buy policy. I look forward to hearing my opponent's reply. Sources1. . http://pewrsr.ch...;2. . http://wapo.st...;3. . http://wapo.st...;4. . http://bit.ly...;5. . http://nydn.us...;6. . http://nbcnews.to...;7. . http://nym.ag...;", "qid": "27", "docid": "9c3ab29f-2019-04-18T12:58:09Z-00003-000", "rank": 33, "score": 162601.0}, {"content": "Title: Gun Control Reform is vital for the safety of our Country Content: Gun Reform is a necessity for the future of our country. Our relaxed reform rules clearly not working right now. Sixteen of the top Twenty-Eight mass shootings in the U. S. have taken place in the passed Fifteen years. That\u2019s a staggering statistic. Furthermore The Centers for Disease Control listed firearms as the #12 cause of all deaths between 1999 and 2013, representing 1.3% of total deaths. They were also the #1 method of death by homicide (66.6% of all homicides) and by suicide (52.2% of all suicides). More rules and regulation would reduce gun deaths. About 200 Americans go to emergency room each day, gun violence being the cause. Now I know the number one argument on the opposing side will be it\u2019s our 2nd Amendment Right to own guns. With this being said there were gun controls back in the colonial time. Some of the laws consisted of criminalizing the transfer of guns to Catholics, Slaves, and Native Americans; there was regulation of gunpowder in homes and loaded guns were banned from Boston houses. With this in mind there should be no reason to have High Capacity Magazines. A Mother Jones investigation discovered that he use of high capacity magazines were used at least 50% of the 62 mass shooting taking place from 1982 and 2012. With High capacity magazines being used injury rates rose about 156% and the death rate rose about 63%. There is also no need for civilians to have access to military grade weapons. The 2nd Amendment was written when guns were single loaded long rifles or muskets. Now people can acquire military grade issued SCAR and guns like it. In conclusion there is no need for the public to have access to high-grade militant weaponry.", "qid": "27", "docid": "26b87b4d-2019-04-18T14:11:38Z-00001-000", "rank": 34, "score": 162103.0}, {"content": "Title: We need gun control Content: Sorry but gun control is flawed. If we ban guns there will just be more crimes. Store owners need guns but they don't. If guns were allowed in more places violence wouldn't take place. If teachers had guns they could stop the school shootings. If we past a law that allowed the officers on school grounds to act instead of standing by they could stop it. Maybe you should stop trying to ban guns and try to pass laws that allow more guns.", "qid": "27", "docid": "c6cefb24-2019-04-18T11:37:52Z-00002-000", "rank": 35, "score": 161891.0}, {"content": "Title: Gun Control in the US Content: 1. The Imgur link isn't actually broken, click on it yourself and it shows that it takes you to the chart, proving my points. 2. Regardless if there is less ammo, that still means that more than one person could die either or, and the criminal could easily just bring more ammo. 3. Which exactly proves my point. The criminals brought the guns illegally into the country to do terror acts, which is what I've been saying this entire time. If one of those hundreds of people had one gun, that would have limited the amounts of death in Paris. 4. Illegal trafficking of firearms would happen in the US if they banned guns as well, making it no better than Mexico or the rest of Central America. It would be a downhill spiral into more poverty and all that rampant problems we see there today. You never addressed the Swiss point though, every citizen there has a gun by law. 5. Once again, it doesn't not take training to pull a trigger on a handgun and killing someone, training for higher up firearms i can understand, but that doesn't make them necessary, I do believe the NRA bill should pass however. In conclusion, gun control is irrelevant to the issue of stopping crime and does nothing to help or aid the victim, and does more to help the criminal, who is breaking the law regardless, so illegal firearm trafficking would be much more rampant.", "qid": "27", "docid": "54f3b937-2019-04-18T13:25:23Z-00000-000", "rank": 36, "score": 161831.0}, {"content": "Title: Gun Control (Copy #2) Content: Owning firearms is a right. The current gun control laws in the United States should not be increased and if anything should be abolished. Guns do not cause violence, deranged individuals do. Statistics show that in areas with increased gun control there are more gun related crimes. Gun control only helps the criminal. \"Assault weapons\" should not be banned, or any other firearm. The original purpose of the 2nd amendment was to be the last line of defense against tyranny, armed civilians are essential to protecting liberty. Lastly, a moral argument: government does not have the right to tell an individual what they can or cannot have as long as they do not hurt another person or violate another persons civil liberties. Owning a firearm of any kind is a human right as firearms in the modern world are necessary for self defense from enemies. (This is my first debate on this website, please excuse any formatting errors, etc.)", "qid": "27", "docid": "da25e6c7-2019-04-18T16:51:38Z-00006-000", "rank": 37, "score": 161713.0}, {"content": "Title: Gun Control Laws Content: The laws that are in place make the guns illegal, that is why they are called \"illegal guns.\" Without the proper enforcement it makes it possible for these people to obtain these illegal guns. More gun control law enforcement is what is needed to prevent these tragedies. These laws are key to stopping tragedies that would occur in a no gun control world. In your world, a world without gun control, it would make it easy to obtain guns for any person. Whether they be a hunter or a killer. So why should there be no gun control laws? Also your \"evidence\" states that when gun control laws are enacted violence goes up, but you refuse to give the \"why\" to that argument. My evidence provides the reason why gun violence increases, and that reason is poverty. My stats directly answer yours for this fact. --- On your conclusion: Your first point says that poverty does not have any relation to gun violence. Again, that has been disproved by my stats and your own statement. Poverty is a leading cause to gun violence, and cutting down on gun violence the key reason for enacting gun control laws. On your second point I have an empirical example. England has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world and their gun violence is extremely low per capita. Also, I sight Canada's 1977 gun control laws (see above argument) and show that Canada's gun violence is also extremely small per capita. On your third point, you have not proven why no gun control leads to less gun violence because you do not provide the \"why\" in your arguments. Saying that more armed citizens prevents gun violence is a falsehood. Look at Canada and England. --- So voters do not look to PoeJoe's logical non-sequiturs, but look to the empirical evidence that I have provided.", "qid": "27", "docid": "90dc2530-2019-04-18T20:02:12Z-00002-000", "rank": 38, "score": 161463.0}, {"content": "Title: USA should have more gun restrictions Content: Alright. First off, I would like to thank my opponent for creating an interesting debate. 1. \"Nothing at all really passes, even something as simple as more background check restrictions.\"Now I dislike this sentence. It has many flaws in it. [1] Obama is actually planning to do more background checks AND banning military style weapons from the public. He actually gave a speech about gun control this year! Also, there are background checks required for certain jobs. (Say a terrorist wants to work as a flight attendant) They check his/her background information. This helps make sure that no terrorists do something again, (like 9/11)2. \"Australia had a Manhattan pro to reduce guns, enacted strict gun control, and has had fruitful results.\"[2] That may be the story for Australia, but in Britain it was way worse. Britain has always tried to enforce gun control, but have always failed. In 1987, due to their strict gun control laws, the Hunger ford Massacre happened, killing many people. Not to mention that about 10 years later, Dunblane school massacre of 1996 happened. Both of these killed around 20 to 30 people EACH.3. \"It's beyond me why we in the USA can't even pass more backgorund checks.\"I just said Obama plans to. 4. \"It's common knowledge that having a gun in your home is likely to cause more violence.\" [3] No it's not common knowledge, actually having a gun in your home can protect your from burgulars, terrorists,(a little extreme, but it can happen) and other things as well. (such as intruders)5. \"Not all criminals are die hards who will stop at nothing to get a gun.\" Not all, but most are. Criminals are thieves or murderers who will do anything to achieve their goal. (rob a bank, murder a person/revenge, rob a home, etc.)6. \"If we've restricted the access to guns, surely it will have some positive effect.\" It will have SOME positive, but mostly negative effect. What will we do if a criminal breaks in? Also, if guns go illegal for civilians, it will just be like marijuana, people will be smuggling them everywhere.I'm done, Pro, you are up. Cites:[1]- http://www.whitehouse.gov...[2]- http://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.safewise.com...", "qid": "27", "docid": "67d67845-2019-04-18T16:02:43Z-00004-000", "rank": 39, "score": 161321.0}, {"content": "Title: Gun law Regulations Content: Gun control laws would make it a little more difficult and a little more expensive to buy a firearm. In disagreement with your statement of \"people doing what they can in order to get what they want,\" basically means that in order to stop the trafficking of guns from states with looser gun laws into states with tougher gun laws something major has to be done. However, with these laws, it WILL be harder to attain a gun. Even President Obama said If gun control laws are in effect then a set up of a strong background check system including having the FBI hire a couple hundred more people to help process background checks because their big numbers since talking about 20 million checks are getting done every year. Hiring 200 more ATF agents to be able to go after unscrupulous gun dealers. Then that will apply across the country and so, you know, some states may have laws that allow for conceal and carry. Some states may not. There\"s still going to be differences, but what will at least be consistent across the country is that it\"s much harder to get a firearm. There is no guarantee that criminals especially ones like the modern say Al Capone are not going to have ways of getting guns, but it may be a little more difficult and a little more expensive, and the laws of supply and demand mean that if something is harder to get and a little more expensive to get, fewer people get them and that can make a difference.", "qid": "27", "docid": "7525390b-2019-04-18T13:30:35Z-00002-000", "rank": 40, "score": 161293.0}, {"content": "Title: more gun control should occur Content: Pro stated: why isn't meaningful legislation already passed? most people on news shows seems to offer the same ideas, no guns for mentally ill and criminals, background checks on all guns, and assault rifle, automatics type bans. Rebuttal: The current administration's catch phrase (\u201cmeaningful legislation\u201d) is simply a generic \u201cpathos\u201d (emotional) appeal, which exploits voters who are instinctively reactionary, rather than rationally critical.To counter this pathos appeal, I will utilize a \u201clogos\u201d approach. After all, an emotional argument is best countered by a rational argument. Premise 1: Meaningful legislation already exists. Article 18 , section 922 of the Federal Firearms law prohibits Felons, Drug users, non-citizens, subjects under court restraint, persons with assault convictions, fugitives, dishonorably discharged service-members and minors (article VII) from owning or coming into possession of a firearm. [2] This is a blanketed federal law, applicable to all states. In addition to Federal guidelines, each state has supplemental gun laws. Connecticut (Sandy Hook) has a law in place to prevent mentally ill persons from acquiring a firearm. Connecticut State Law 53a, article 217c prohibits a classified mental patient in custody of a state appointed guardian to purchase a weapon. [3] Adam Lanza actually attempted to buy a gun, and the laws in place prevented him from obtaining it. Current gun laws work if they are enforced. Sandy Hook cannot be blamed on an absence of gun regulation. It must be blamed on the presence of malicious, criminal intent. The law already prohibited his actions. In fact, Adam Lanza broke at least eight gun-laws before he even entered the school. --------------------- Pro establish: background checks. 74% of NRA members think all guns should have checks. on the point about background checks, 40% of guns sold in the country \\are without checks, through gun auctions etc. Rebuttal: Background checks are already in place. The Brady Handgun violence act prevented 190 million weapon sales between 1994 and 2009. [4] That's approximately 12.6 million gun sales annually. By any measure, a hugely successful law. Connecticut has some of the toughest gun laws in the US, being one of only seven states that require background check in all gun sales, including private, gun-show and auction sales. Clearly, an Executive mandate to make this common place would have little effect on gun violence, because the Sandy Hook shooting occurred despite the rigid Connecticut gun law. Premise 2: Background checks are already sufficient. According to the National Institute of Justice, only 2% of gun related deaths occur from weapons purchased at gun-shows.The source does not list how many of those guns where stolen from the owner or if the gun related death was criminal (or self-defense). [5] Why is my opponent so focused on the 2%, while the 98% run a muck? --------------------- Pro said: there's no reason we can't put guns in the hands of the right people, while at the same time taking steps to remove them from the wrong hands. it's worth a shot. Rebuttal: Straw man argument. Current gun laws are already removing weapons from the wrong hands, while guaranteeing the 2nd amendment to law abiding citizens. As stated above, current background checks prevent 12.6 million illegal gun sales annually. --------------------- Pro stated: -it's nearly unanimous that certain mentally ill people shouldn't have guns. the NRA says we should have better mental health institutions, but doesn't add how restricting guns to certain mentally ill wouldn't help, too. Rebuttal: Certified Mental illness already prevents gun ownership. The problem is diagnosis. Most psychotics aren't diagnosed until they have psychotic breaks. Not one incident (as far as I have found) lists a shooter who was a ward of the state due to mental illness. At some point we need to stop blaming gun laws and start looking at the people who know the killer. More often than not, there are warning signs, if not flagrant threats. Premise 3: The citizen has a duty to report suspicious behavior. Yet more often than not, suspicious behavior is ignored, rather than confronted. Seung-Hui Cho was in psychiatric care for good reason, but a failure to diagnose resulted his release from state custody to an \u201coutpatient\u201d treatment, which allowed him to purchase weapons. Had the mental health professionals taken his condition more seriously, the shooting would have been prevented. In fact, had the two women, whom he stalked, pressed charges against him, the shooting would have been prevented. Had the classmates reported his threatening social-media profile to the school, in which he posed with loaded weapons, the shooting could have been prevented. I challenge my opponent to explain how the Virginia tech massacre was a failure of gun laws, rather than a failure of the people around him to recognize his capacity for violence. --------------------- Pro established -most people think assault rifles should be banned. there's far fetched theories that hitler will come back and wreck havoc, exagerrating for effect... Rebuttal: Most people don't know what an assault weapon is. Premise 4 The American population is mostly composed of low-information voters.70% of people questioned in a poll believe an assault weapon is a gun that keeps firing as long as the trigger is held down. [6] --------------------- Pro stated -while no one thinks we should ban all guns, there's something to be said about it. at least in so far as showing that it's posible to reduce gun violence here. Rebuttal: There is something to be said about banning all guns. \u201cTerrible idea\u201d. How safe should we feel with criminals knowing that we are not armed? Consider this single mother who saved her own life, and the life of her infant, by shooting the intruder. [6] --------------------- Pro established - japan is the best, and there's many shades in between. would you give up your right to a gun if you knew it'd overwhelmingly cut down on murders etc? in japan last year, with a ban on all guns, they only had eleven gun deaths. Rebuttal: Japan's homicide rate is a cultural phenomenon. Consider the quote: \u201cJapan\u2019s crime rates have always been ridiculously low, for reasons that have nothing to do with the possession of guns. The issues are cultural. And they can only be replicated in the United States by making the country more Japanese, in ways that liberals would positively hate, rather than by banning guns.\u201d [8] --------------------- Pro remarked - in fact, most gun situations don't infolve self defense. Rebuttal: Correct. Most gun crimes are crimes of opportunity. Very few criminals fight fair. They us the gun to gain an advantage over the victim. There is only one cure for this: Arm the victim with a gun. If you remove the ability of the victim to arm themselves, you've removed the ability of the victim to protect themselves from criminals who use any means of opportunity to prey on their target. To correct you premise:\u201d In fact, most gun situations involve victims that didn't have a gun to defend themselves with.\u201d --------------------- http://en.wikipedia.org... [1] http://www.justice.gov... [2] http://www.ncsl.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://www.cato.org... [5] http://www.debatepolitics.com... [6] http://abcnews.go.com... [7] http://frontpagemag.com... [8]", "qid": "27", "docid": "56e1b675-2019-04-18T17:54:00Z-00002-000", "rank": 41, "score": 161253.0}, {"content": "Title: There Should be no Gun Control Reform Laws Content: The U.S government is taking gun control reform too seriously and the best idea is to stop gun control laws. I would like to thank my opponent, whomever it is for his argument and his time. Now I shall begin my argument: 1) Contrary to popular belief, the places with more gun control reform actually have more deaths per year than places where there are less gun control reform such as London. Why? That is because in those countries with more gun control reform, the criminals know that the citizens do not have weapons on them, making thm an easier target for burglary usually using knives. However, when criminals are in an area with less gun control reform- and lets say they own a gun too- they know the risks of breaking into a house where the owner owns a liscensed firearm and they will not risk being injured or killed. 2) The Second Amendment is one of America's oldest laws and it states that: \"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.\" 3) Though some people say that it is the government's right to protect the people, it is also the citizen's right to overthrow he government when they find i not fit to lead. How can civilians fight off a trained military? With firearms. 4)Though some say less gun control reform makes for more terrorists attacks, that is also false due to the thorough background checks. The background checks involve seeing if a person has been to countries of dispute for suspiciously prolonged periods of time and whether or not if that person is mentally ill or if they have a criminal record.", "qid": "27", "docid": "ceedae87-2019-04-18T12:38:43Z-00005-000", "rank": 42, "score": 160520.0}, {"content": "Title: USA should have more gun restrictions Content: con argues that obama will change the gun laws. he's been trying for years, most significantly since sandy hook going on two years ago? nothing changes. england. no need to get into the specifics of your studies, though i'm sure i could. just look at the bigger picture. \"In the United Kingdom, firearms are tightly controlled by law,\" \"The United Kingdom has one of the lowest rates of gun homicides in the world.[5] There were 0.04 recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants in 2010.\" at best, con has shown how maybe the USA is unique and we won't improve with reduced guns all across the board. that doesn't mean we can't improve with more background checks, or restrictions in general. perhaps that common knownledge of guns causing more violence is not common knowledge to con, but it is common knowledge. see end of post for stat information. evn without stats, one can argue what seems to be the case. is anyone willing to say..... 'it seems to me that 100% of people who are denied or hindered a gun because of a check, will simply go get another one? that's absurd. obviously checks will cause some necessary benefit. if the mom of the sandy hook shooter didnt have a gun, theres no reason to beleive shed have been a black hoodie and went and got one. then hed have not had a gun at a time hed have done a crime. are we to think hed necessarily have went to get one illegally, and that 100% of people in these cases would? December 14th 2012, two deadly attacks at two different schools. One guy had a knife the other a gun. At one school 26 people were killed at the other school 23 people were wounded. Take a guess which school had the knife attack and which had the gun attack? -------------------- http://aje.oxfordjou... Data from a US mortality follow-back survey were analyzed to determine whether having a firearm in the home increases the risk of a violent death in the home and whether risk varies by storage practice, type of gun, or number of guns in the home. Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4). They were also at greater risk of dying from a firearm homicide, but risk varied by age and whether the person was living with others at the time of death. The risk of dying from a suicide in the home was greater for males in homes with guns than for males without guns in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 10.4, 95% confidence interval: 5.8, 18.9). Persons with guns in the home were also more likely to have died from suicide committed with a firearm than from one committed by using a different method (adjusted odds ratio = 31.1, 95% confidence interval: 19.5, 49.6). Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home. http://www.minnpost... Having a gun in your home significantly increases your risk of death \" and that of your spouse and children. And it doesn\"t matter how the guns are stored or what type or how many guns you own. If you have a gun, everybody in your home is more likely than your non-gun-owning neighbors and their families to die in a gun-related accident, suicide or homicide. The health risks of owning a gun are so established and scientifically non-controvertible that the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a policy statement in 2000 recommending that pediatricians urge parents to remove all guns from their homes. Study after study has been conducted on the health risks associated with guns in the home. One of the latest was a meta-review published in 2011 by David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. He examined all the scientific literature to date on the health risks and benefits of gun ownership. What he found was sobering, to say the least.", "qid": "27", "docid": "67d67845-2019-04-18T16:02:43Z-00003-000", "rank": 43, "score": 160304.0}, {"content": "Title: The United States should not have any laws limiting access to guns. Content: I argue for gun control(ie requiring a license to own a gun), Pro argues for the motionSeveral studies show that pro-gun legislation increases crime.Open carry laws increase crime - http://feeds.latimes.com...Another study shows: \"The overall homicide rate, among the metro areas whose principal city is in a state that requires some form of permit to purchase a gun, is 4.32 per 100,000 residents, compared with 5.74 among cities in no-permit states. This certainly does not confirm the gun control = higher violent crime hypothesis. Quite the opposite.\" http://www.huffingtonpost.com...Gun control decreases crime by making gun access harder and thus reducing the ability to commit violent crime.", "qid": "27", "docid": "13966fe3-2019-04-18T12:08:09Z-00005-000", "rank": 44, "score": 160299.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: The US should pass a law prohibiting the personal ownership of firearms. Content: DISADVANTAGE: CONSTITUTIONALITY In the Constitution of the United States, the second amendment clearly states that \"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. \" Therefore, your entire plan is entirely unconstitutional and will be declared so in the Supreme Court once this plan is passed. The impact is the impeachment of your administration. DISADVANTAGE: PUBLIC SUPPORT According to recent CNN polls, public opinion of strict gun control laws is only supported by 39% of the American population. Therefore, public support for this policy is limited and passage of this law will increase tensions in this country. The impact is thousands of riots around the country which will lead to civil war over a policy that no one wanted. . http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com... This will not link to the counterplan because our c/p is not gun control, only stricter regulations (see below). CHILD MORTALITY Alternate cause- When we ban all firearms for all Americans, we are punishing those honest tax-paying citizens who do not murder their neighbors. Instead, as the article below states, the cause of the high homicide rates in the U. S. is due to the large number of assault military-grade-like weapons that plague the inner city streets of our nation which are being handled by dangerous criminals and former felons. SEE OUR COUNTERPLAN which will solve both of these issue without causing the disad impacts and alienating the rest of the American people. . http://www.usnews.com... SOLVENCY How will you be able to take away all of America's guns? And even when you do, YOU'RE GOING TO PUT THEM IN JAIL FOR IT? ! This is extremely horrifying and you should be impeached. I also question how you will be able to execute this. . which questions if you'll be able to solve your advantage at all! COUNTERPLAN The United States Federal Government shall 1) Ban the use/sale of assault weapons in the United States; 2) Implement mandatory background checks and restrictions to limit the sale to those persons on a \"gun-watch list\"; 3) Funding for anti-firearm-smuggling programs for the U. S. Border Control will be increased to limit illegal arms flow into the U. S. ; 4) Create an independent federal commission under the U. S. Department of Justice to regulate all federal guidelines, of whom the members shall be appointed by the U. S. Senate Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs; 5) All guidelines, including definitions of \"assault weapons\", will be revised every 5 years. C/P S: This counterplan will solve your Child Mortality advantage while ALSO being constitutional and not causing our disadvantages.", "qid": "27", "docid": "9823f6e3-2019-04-18T19:11:46Z-00004-000", "rank": 45, "score": 160196.0}, {"content": "Title: more gun control should occur Content: All arguments extended.", "qid": "27", "docid": "56e1b675-2019-04-18T17:54:00Z-00001-000", "rank": 46, "score": 160051.0}, {"content": "Title: Gun Control Content: why", "qid": "27", "docid": "ea8c1654-2019-04-18T11:32:16Z-00000-000", "rank": 47, "score": 159886.0}, {"content": "Title: Gun rights Content: We need to ban guns as guns kill people. They are a weapon: A weapon consisting of a metal tube from which a projectile is fired at high velocity into a relatively flat trajectory. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... As it kills it is a weapon. having gun control would lower crime. Weapons should be controlled to lower crime. More guns less crime makes no sense because letting people have guns = more likely people die from guns. Having no to little gun laws is illogical. This will be copied from a source: The problem with guns is fairly straightforward: they make it easy to kill or injure a person. Approximately 60 percent of all murder victims in the United States in 1989 (about 12,000 people) were killed with firearms. According to estimates, firearm attacks injured another 70,000 victims, some of whom were left permanently disabled. In 1985 (the latest year for which data are available), the cost of shootings--either by others, through self-inflicted wounds, or in accidents--was estimated to be more than $14 billion nationwide for medical care, long-term disability, and premature death. (Editor's note: the number of gun victims has increased since 1989 to 15,456 gun homicides in 1994. Source: FBI UCR report.) http://www.asahi-net.or.jp... I have won.", "qid": "27", "docid": "69132ef5-2019-04-18T18:32:46Z-00003-000", "rank": 48, "score": 159476.0}, {"content": "Title: Guns should be more regulated in the United States Content: Hello, I apologize for this debate slipping my mind. Looks like it did for my opponent as well so lets just start now. As a roadmap I will give 2 contentions showing my position on the topic. First Contention: 1. Gun Control Is No Answer to Crime. According to a Harvard study in 2009 the findings so clearly demonstrate that more gun laws may in fact increase death rates, the study says that \"the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths\" is wrong. For example, when the study shows numbers for Eastern European gun ownership and corresponding murder rates, it is readily apparent that less guns to do not mean less death. In Russia, where the rate of gun ownership is 4,000 per 100,000 inhabitants, the murder rate was 20.52 per 100,000 in 2002. That same year in Finland, where the rater of gun ownership is exceedingly higher--39,000 per 100,000--the murder rate was almost nill, at 1.98 per 100,000. Looking at Western Europe, the study shows that Norway \"has far and away Western Europe's highest household gun ownership rate (32%), but also its lowest murder rate.\" And when the study focuses on intentional deaths by looking at the U.S. vs Continental Europe, the findings are no less revealing. The U.S., which is so often labeled as the most violent nation in the world by gun control proponents, comes in 7th--behind Russia, Estonia, Lativa, Lithuania, Belarus, and the Ukraine--in murders. America also only ranks 22nd in suicides. The murder rate in Russia, where handguns are banned, is 30.6; the rate in the U.S. is 7.8. The authors of the study conclude that the burden of proof rests on those who claim more guns equal more death and violent crime; such proponents should \"at the very least [be able] to show a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that impose stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide).\" But after intense study the authors conclude \"those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared around the world.\" In fact, the numbers presented in the Harvard study support the contention that among the nations studied, those with more gun control tend toward higher death rates. Second Contention A. Guns are needed to protect ourselves 1. In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves against their ethnic-cleansing government, were arrested and exterminated. 2. In 1929, the former Soviet Union established gun control as a means of controlling the \"more difficult\" of their citizens. From 1929 to the death of Stalin, 40 million Soviets met an untimely end at the hand of various governmental agencies as they were arrested and exterminated. 3. After the rise of the Nazi\"s, Germany established their version of gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves against the \"Brown Shirts\", were arrested and exterminated. Interestingly, the Brown Shirts were eventually targeted for extermination themselves following their blind acts of allegiance to Hitler. Any American military and police would be wise to grasp the historical significance of the Brown Shirts\" fate. 4. After Communist China established gun control in 1935, an estimated 50 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves against their fascist leaders, were arrested and exterminated. As we\"ve seen in the past, guns are a very important of self protection and while some might use a tool with malicious intent we cannot punish all citizens. Regulation does not solve this problem because whether or not it is more regulated someone with malicious intent will find a way to commit a crime whether or not these regulations exist. What we need to focus on instead is actually focusing on how to reduce the amount of this criminals and actually address the problem itself. Thank you, I urge a vote in the negative.", "qid": "27", "docid": "bc8e03f8-2019-04-18T16:49:16Z-00002-000", "rank": 49, "score": 159302.0}, {"content": "Title: More Gun control or less Gun control Content: There should be more gun control, because there are way to many crazy people in the world for there not to be. Less guns mean less crimes and murders! In other countries like Canada, they have stricter rules on having/carrying guns, and they have WAY LESS crimes and murders then the united states. Guns can be used for hunting, but is it reasonable to carry an AK-47? If we have stricter gun control then people who have a mental illness would not go around killing people. THE GUNS DONT KILL PEOPLE THE PEOPLE KILL THE PEOPLE WITH THE GUNS!!!! I've never needed to use a gun in my entire life, to defend myself. There are other ways you can defend yourself besides guns. If someone comes on my property with a gun and starts shooting isn't there other weapons I could use besides a gun? I could use a knife to defend myself, why do we need the guns. In the Second Amendment it does say we have a right to bear arms, but this right should be limited. We cannot have people going around buy guns and killing people. When you buy a gun , you have a background check, but what about the people who get the guns illegally? What are we going to do about them, there are billions of people in the world how are we going to stop this person from buying illegally a gun. This is exactly why we should gun control. America has a very low level of gun control already, and if we have people buy guns with bad intentions they are putting others in harm. THE WORLD ALREADY HAS SO MANY PROBLEMS WITH GUNS ARE WE HONESTLY GOING TO INCREASE THE PROBLEM BY LETTING PEOPLE BUY MORE AND MORE GUNS? How many people have been killed by a gun in the past year alone, does it matter? NO IT DOESNT BECAUSE GUNS ARE GUNS AND THEY ARE USED TO HARM, THREATEN, AND KILL PEOPLE. They need limitations on fire arms.", "qid": "27", "docid": "6b19ced-2019-04-18T16:55:34Z-00005-000", "rank": 50, "score": 159088.0}, {"content": "Title: Gun Control Laws Content: It is true that gun control policies are hard to enforce but the good of having them and making it more difficult for criminals to obtain firearms far outweighs the difficulty of enforcement. The basic argument put out by PoeJoe is not that control is bad, but that it is hard to enforce. That reason does not mean and that these policies should be abandoned. As for your argument that gun control rates increase with stricter gun control laws you fail to acknowledge alternate causes. Look at the places you cite as examples, D.C. and New Jersey. Both those places have huge poverty rates, some of the biggest in the nation. It is no surprise that D.C. and Jersey would have increased crime since the people there are so desperate. Here are some stats that tend to prove the foregoing point: In 1987, more than 3,000 men aged 15 to 24 were murdered with firearms in the U.S. (annual homicide rate in this age group was 21.9 per 100,000 people, three quarters of these gun murders). Canada, with about one-fifth U.S. population, had 17 gun murders in this category (overall rate, 2.9 per 100,000.) And Japan lost eight young men (overall rate 0.5 per 100,000.) As for humans being inherently evil, that is simply not true. Sociological studies show that humans come into this world tabula rassa, meaning blank slate. If you want to cut down on violent crime you have to attack the root of it, the poverty and accessibility of firearms to the public. So my position is not only for strict gun control laws, but more enforcement. The USFG should pass legislation to crack down on the illegal gun trade. Basically there is major laws dealing with stopping the illegal gun trade but the money and resources are not there. Proper funding and resources have to given to the members of the law enforcement community. There are only 22 federal gun control laws, of which 20 are not enforced due to the lack of funding. Third-Way.com explains it: \"The current Administration has not displayed anywhere near the same aggressiveness with the other 20 major federal firearms laws, even though enforcement of most of these laws could greatly reduce gun violence. Prosecutions for 11 of the remaining 20 major federal gun laws were either the same or lower in 2002 than 2000. For example, the number of corrupt gun store prosecutions dropped from 36 to 27. The number of prosecutions for illegally selling to a minor stayed at 7. The number of federal prosecutions for lying on the background check form did increase \u2013 from 501 to 587 cases \u2013 but that still means that 99.6% of violators were not prosecuted in FY2002, compared to 99.7% in FY 2000. During the first full fiscal year of the Bush Administration, the proportion of federal cases devoted to the two most frequently prosecuted statutes actually increased from 83% to 86% of total federal prosecutions. Crimes associated with corrupt gun stores, illegal firearms traffickers, straw purchasers, gun thieves, those who obliterate firearm serial numbers, sell to minors, bring guns to schools, and lie on a background check form to obtain a firearm were barely enforced under President Clinton and are still barely enforced under President Bush. \"", "qid": "27", "docid": "90dc2530-2019-04-18T20:02:12Z-00006-000", "rank": 51, "score": 158729.0}, {"content": "Title: Would gun control stopmass shootings? Con is no it would pro is yes it would Content: Good Afternoon, since 1791, the United States has had the second amendment which is a law that allows US citizens to carry guns. As a result, within the past six years there has been over 1600 shootings in the US resulting in thousands of lost lives. Because of this my partner Luke Mahan, and I Jack Gilbert are for the resolution, The United States should abolish the Second Amendment. Observation 1: Definitions Abolish: To formally put an end to. Source: Dictionary.com Second Amendment: An amendment to the US constitution, guaranteeing the right to bear and keep arms. Observation 2: harms Harm 1: The Second Amendment has resulted in a dramatic increase in crime rates Support: The Second Amendment has guaranteed the right to carry guns. However, some states decided that guns are not allowed. All of the other states that did allow guns between the years 1977-2010 had a 2% increase in murder rates and at least a 9% increase in rates of rape, aggravated assault, robbery, auto theft, burglary, and larceny. This shows that guns not only have an effect on murder rates but also other serious crimes as well. If we abolished the second amendment, all states would have a dramatic decrease in crime. Source: National Bureau of economic research Harm 2: Guns have resulted in many tragic accidents over the years Support: Of the 32,000 gun deaths in America in 2011, 591 were due to accidental discharge, and an additional 248 were due to undetermined intent. That makes it where 2.59% of all gun deaths are by accident. Since then, the numbers haven't changed much. In 2017, 1300 children were killed by either an accident or a murder with guns. What does this tell us? Even if your intentions right, even if you just have a gun for self-defense, there is always a huge possibility that you will misfire. Source: Quora.com Harm 3: Guns are rarely used in self-defense Many people use self-defense as a primary reason to hold guns. But a study has shown that only 0.79% of people actually use their gun as a means of protection or a threat. Defense is the primary reason people carry guns. But there is absolutely no use if we aren't actually using the gun. Source: inter consortium of political and social research Observation 3: Plan Mandates: The US passes a law against concealed carry. Now obviously, there are going to be some people that refuse to give up their gun. For this reason, we need to make a threat. The government would pass a law saying that they have a right to go through your house if they sense suspicion at any moment and search it. If they find a gun, you are sentenced to 6 months in federal prison or a fine of $250,000. This way, the number of people who turn in their guns will skyrocket dramatically. Even if some criminals get their hands on guns, this number will not be nearly as high because they know that their consequences will be much higher and they will be way less willing to take the risk of being caught. Agency: The government Funding: By Normal Means Enforcement: Supreme Court Observation 3: Advantages Advantage 1: Crime rates would decrease Support: Taking away the things that increase crime will decrease crime Source: National of Bureau of Economic Research Advantage 2: The rate of tragic accidents will decline. You can't accidentally stab someone, you can't accidentally punch someone, but you can accidentally shoot someone and it has happened many times. Without guns, tragic accident rates will drop tremendously. Advantage 3: Self defense will be left to well-trained officers, not inexperienced citizens. Just because citizens rarely use guns, doesn't mean the police won't. They take their job, as not only the right but the privilege to protect the citizens of the US. They are the ones we can trust, and they are the only ones that we can know will come to the rescue every time. Source: Inter consortium of political and social research In conclusion, all guns should be banned. So many of today's killing problems will be solved.", "qid": "27", "docid": "17b33e67-2019-04-18T11:37:08Z-00000-000", "rank": 52, "score": 158671.0}, {"content": "Title: Gun law Regulations Content: Gun control is definitely needed in today\"s society. The regulation of guns is an extremely necessary action that needs to be taken in order to save lives. Gun control is basically the effort to stop the rise in violent and fatal crimes by strengthening laws on the ownership of firearms (guns). These laws would reduce gun deaths being that guns are the leading cause of death by homicide, suicide, and unintentional deaths. Gun control laws are needed to protect women from domestic abusers and stalkers. It is said that five women are murdered with guns every day in the United States a women's risk for being murdered increases by 500% if a gun is present during a dispute. Gun control can also lead to fewer suicides being that there were 270,237 gun suicides in the US for about 52% of all suicides. A recent study found that when gun ownership went down in the US, the overall suicide rates decreased. - There are way too many accidents involving children playing with guns or accidental discharges due to careless or inexperienced adults and if guns are readily accessible, they can more easily fall into the hands of children. Too many criminals purchase guns legally and use them to commit crimes such as the incident in Newtown, Connecticut which killed 20 children and eight adults (including the shooter himself). Even President Obama said that after the Newton incident, his administration would take action towards more gun control. In his speech at Newtown, he asked, \"Are we prepared to say that such violence visited on our children year after year after year is somehow the price of our freedom?\" Lawmakers have also said it is time for the nation to take a look at its gun control laws.", "qid": "27", "docid": "7525390b-2019-04-18T13:30:35Z-00004-000", "rank": 53, "score": 158502.0}, {"content": "Title: The second amendment should NOT be restricted Content: Firstly, gun control has not worked in the past. In every case, we have seen crime rates increase after gun control is passed. Even England, with their low crime rate and high gun control, had even fewer crimes per year before the gun ban. This phenomenon is universal. It occurs in the US, Europe, Russia, South America, Jamaica, the list goes on. The reason is quite simple. Criminals don't obey these laws, which only disarm people who obey the law. This encourages criminals to attack or rob the sitting ducks that are citizens. Another reason is that the second amendment acts as a deterrent against oppressive government. The reason America is the freest country is that we have the 2nd amendment.", "qid": "27", "docid": "88da198e-2019-04-18T17:01:09Z-00003-000", "rank": 54, "score": 158371.0}, {"content": "Title: Gun Control Content: Rebuttals and New PointsYou wrote: \"So with that being the case, it could be easily be concluded that increased gun ownership has a direct effect on crime rates. In that they go down...\" I will disagree with you on that issue. If people have guns, there will obviously be a part of the population that is violent and has a criminal background. Now, if you were to increase the amount of guns being sold and reduced regulations, more people would have guns and, assuming the proportion remains the same, there will be a higher amount of criminals with a gun in their hand, thus resulting in more crime. Guns for self-defense are acceptable, but I will not agree with you when you say that 'more guns = less crime.' Yes, people should have the right to protect themselves, but regulations must be put in place in order to ensure violent individuals do not obtain a weapon. You write that \"banning them [assault weapons] would have a very small impact on the actual crime rate.\" That is true, yes, but wouldn't you save a life if you had the opportunity? Banning assault weapons may not impact crime by a large scale, but I will tell you this: Every life is precious. We must try to preserve every single one we can. The crime rate in the US is at a considerable height. Due to a lack of sophisticated gun control, the crime rate has increased over time. However, the Democrats are enacting intelligent gun control that has slowly began to impact crime. Please look at the following links to see statistics: http://www.policymap.com...http://www.andhranews.net...I will now respond directly to some of your points. \"Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population).\"I acknowledge that.\"Britons suffer 1,158,957 violent crimes per year, which works out at 2,034 per 100,000 residents. By contrast the number in notoriously violent South Africa is 1,609 per 100,000. The U.S., meanwhile, has a rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, which is lower than France\"s, at 504; Finland\"s, at 738; Sweden\"s, at 1123; and Canada\"s at 935.\" These are other countries, not the United States. And also, I do acknowledge the numbers. However, I interpret the numbers in a different way than you do. \"Even with enhanced gun control there are over 300 million firearms in America. Guns don't just go away, with proper maintenance they can and do last over 100 years. Gun control would also fail to stop mass killings. Recently in China, 26 people were stabbed to death and another 140 were wounded. Bad people will always do bad things.\"First of all, this is China, not the United States, you are talking about. Secondly, I will acknowledge that violent crimes can be done with nearly any object: a knife, a rock, a rope, etc. However, gun control is the first step into the right direction. Once gun crimes have been reduced, we can focus on increasing security, police salary, education quality, counselor programs, etc. All problems in the universe can be solved. That is my belief. I support the second amendment in its original interpretation, but I do believe that there need to be regulations put in place to ensure that future crime can be prevented. Gun control can increase crime, yes, but it will have positive influences. Also, another measure of gun control I have addressed was decreased gun productions. If there are less guns available, there will be less people buying those guns, and less people using guns to violently kill other people. This you cannot deny. Now, gun control is essential. The American system is full with flaws. You can go into any gun store, show your driver's liscence, pay the money, and you have that gun. There needs to be a system similar to what Germany has. \"In Germany the possession of any firearm with a fire energy exceeding 7.5 Joule requires a valid firearms ownership license for any particular weapon.\" [1]If we were to implement this policy and added a few of the measures I proposed, we would be a nearly crime-free nation. I can assure you that. And also, I will post a link to prove to you how different the crime rates of the two countries are: http://www.nationmaster.com...I hope you are convinced. Sources[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...I await your response enthusiastically. I look forward to your counter-rebuttals and any new points you may have.", "qid": "27", "docid": "9c362ae5-2019-04-18T16:33:10Z-00003-000", "rank": 55, "score": 158327.0}, {"content": "Title: Gun Laws in the United States should be tightened Content: Gun controll laws should not be tightened because approximately 92% of guns used in crimes come from an illegitimate or illegal source. Therefore, tighter gun laws would only make it harder for people who want guns for a legitimate reason such as self defense or hunting to get guns and defend themselves from the criminals that aquire them illegaly. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov...", "qid": "27", "docid": "fc60053c-2019-04-18T17:42:17Z-00005-000", "rank": 56, "score": 157742.0}, {"content": "Title: That gun control laws create more dangerous countries. Content: The point still remains that criminals are not going to heed these \"laws\". According the the second amendment we are to have guns for self defense, or to protect against corrupt governments. Gun control disarms the public, making them easy to rule. Dont believe me? Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong all implemented gun control laws to further control their populations, Making them easy targets for massacre. Im not saying that countries like Canada, and the UK are planning to kill off there people, but its just a form of control. If we let the government disarm us, whats next? My point still stand that if we are required to carry a sidearm at all times, criminals would be very cautious. Crime rates would plummet. No longer would we be shrinking behind the police, we would have the capabilities to stand up for ourselves. If you were a criminal, would you attack someone knowing they and there whole family had sidearms? I think not, you would wait for some one who is weak, an easy target. The great thing is, as soon as you have a gun, your not an easy target anymore. Your something to be feared and respected. The governments tales of lower crime rates and safer cities are merely smoke shields for a bigger issue, that of total control.", "qid": "27", "docid": "8c4d2ba1-2019-04-18T18:15:06Z-00003-000", "rank": 57, "score": 157716.0}, {"content": "Title: Gun control should be limited to age and only non-rocket weapons should be allowed. Content: A. Fine, guns are more destructive. But, here is what is more destructive. A person who has access to the internet. That has plenty of recipes for nice bombs that can take out a school caffeteria. Personally, I would rather take my chances with a person with a gun than a merciless bomb. What are you going to do? Take away fertilizers, disable the internet, shut down pharmacies. B. People are only more scared of guns because society, for unknown reasons, has demonized them. They should demonize cars, they are much more deadly. C. You claim that by restricting and taking away guns gun violence will decrease. I will take two different routes for this. One, the only people who obey the gun laws are the law abiding citizens. The law abiding citizens do not hurt people. However, the outlaws, people who do not obey the law, will not obey gun laws, because they do not obey the law. Thus, these people can be significantly more destructive because no one can defend themselves. Route two. In a perfect world where all guns would disappear from the homes and the street, criminals will still be criminals. They will use knives, bows, blowdart guns(sarcasm, but you never know). I would rather be shot with a gun than with a broadhead arrow(ouch). Still, people will not be able to defend themselves from criminals. Not to mention that you have read my bomb comments earlier. I already defined what I mean by any gun. It is toward the end of the previous debate. D. It is illegal to carry a gun in a church. Problem is, the phycopaths don't care. Where better to shoot up. Plenty of people, Christians, defenseless. You mentioned a phycotic ex breaking into your house, shoot him. Problem solved. And still, removing the guns will not prevent him from walking in with a crowbar to beat you to death. That hurts more than a gun anyway. The politician making the speech can shoot back, along with all the other people in the audience who sees the shooter. That way we don't even have to waste tax dollars on a trial either. E. Who is morally superior? A woman who has been raped and strangled or a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet(even if the rapist had no gun). Yes, allowing people to carry a gun anywhere is perfectly reasonable. Besides, the criminals already do it, so why not beable to defend yourselves at these places. By the way, the theatre and Aurora was a gun free zone. Sandy Hook Elementary was a gun free zone. Columbine was a gun free zone.", "qid": "27", "docid": "891b76c2-2019-04-18T17:41:53Z-00001-000", "rank": 58, "score": 157515.0}, {"content": "Title: Gun Control is wrong and the government shouldn't infringe on the Second Amendment Content: Closing statement. (I'm on my mobile, please forgive for minor spelling errors.) Gun laws exist for a very good reason. It is to prevent people who may use guns in a way that is harmful to themselves and society. I have given examples and reasoning in my previous arguments, and Pro has not refuted them. My opponent makes good points about guns. Indeed, people break the law everyday, and criminals will get their hands on anything illegal if they wish enough. Certain gun laws today (such as the \"gun free zone\" where they don't check you for guns) do in fact harm law abiding citizens from practicing their liberty. Such laws should be amended. However, a majority of the gun laws are likely useful in preventing shootings and such. In an ideal world, those who wish to use guns for legitimate defensive or recreational purposes would not feels the restrictions of gun laws. However, this is not an ideal world, and things must be sacrifices to prevent gun crimes. Also, modern technology has provided with many non-lethal but effective defensive weapons, such as stunguns and tranquilizers. I myself am not quite sure what President Obama is trying to do, so that will not be something I would debate. Thank you.", "qid": "27", "docid": "a4cc71c7-2019-04-18T17:30:40Z-00000-000", "rank": 59, "score": 157399.0}, {"content": "Title: The United States should impose Stronger, More Effective Gun Control Laws Content: I would rather leave my debate unmentioned until round 2.", "qid": "27", "docid": "70e17380-2019-04-18T16:06:30Z-00003-000", "rank": 60, "score": 157216.0}, {"content": "Title: The United States should impose Stronger, More Effective Gun Control Laws Content: U.S. Congress's Unwillingness to Pass New Gun Control Legistlation has Spurred President Obama to use Executive AuthorityU.S. Congress's unwillingness to pass new gun control legislation over this last decade--which includes failure to extend the expired Federal Assault Weapons Ban [1]--has prompted President Obama to take matters into his own hands, by using Executive Authority, on the basis of surging incidences of mass shootings across the country.In Summer of 2013, after the U.S. Senate failed to pass bill S.150: the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013, the White House closed a number of gun law loopholes and took various actions to make it harder for criminals to get their hands on guns and for certain assault weapons to be obtained inside the United States. One such executive action included barring the acquisition of machine guns and similar assault weapons without a background check; the new ATF regulation requires all individuals to undergo a background when trying to attain a machine gun, or similiar assault weapon, or a short-barreled shotgun [2]. The White House has also banned U.S. military weapons sold overseas and across national boundaries from returning to the country [2].The U.S. President has implemented a dozen more Executive Actions to close numerous gun law loopholes and to prevent assault weapons from getting into the wrong hands, but the extent of these regulations is brutally limited.Gun Crime & Injury Due to Firearms Are Off the Charts in AmericaStatistics show that America is presently experiencing a crisis with gun violence [3][4]:--On average, 32 Americans are murdered with guns every day and 140 are treated for firearm injuries in the emergency room; 33,000 Americans are killed with guns each year.--One person is killed by a firearm every 17 minutes, 87 people are killed with guns everyday (either murdered or suicide), 609 are killed with guns every week; over 100,000 are shot in the U.S. per year.--In 2011, more than 80% of all homicides commited in the U.S. were done with firearms.--In 2010, 82 children under 5 years old died from firearms compared with 58 law enforcement officers killed by firearms in the line of duty.--Nearly three times more kids (15,576) were injured by firearms in 2010 then the number of soldiers (5,247) injured in combat in the war in Afghanistan that same year.--Every day on average, 51 Americans kills themselves with a firearm and 45 are shot or killed with a firearm.--The U.S. firearm homicide rate is 20 times higher than the combined rates of 22 countries that are our peers in wealth and population.--In the U.S., firearm homicide is the second leading cause of death for young people 1 to 19 years of age.--A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used to kill or injure in a domestic homicide, suicide, or unintentional shooting than to be used in self-defense.The following map illustrates the number of deaths in each U.S. state due to injury by firearms per 100,000 people (year 2007). You'll notice that states with additional gun control laws have fewer deaths due to injury by firearms per capita; this is partly explained by the fact that there are fewer suicides by firearms in these states [6]. The financial toll of firearm violence/injuries in America is also staggering. Every year, U.S. taxpayers pay $100 billion for medical treatment, criminal justice proceedings, new security precautions, and other expenses caused by firearms violence or required for firearms violence prevention [3]. The lifetime medical cost of all gun violence victims in the U.S. is estimated to be $2.3 billion, with approximately half of the cost paid by U.S. taxpayers [3]. The lack of weak, porous gun control laws in the U.S. is a drain on taxpayers.And contrary to popular belief, the number and rate of firearm deaths in the U.S. have not decreased for a decade; they've actually remained the same [7]. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that from 1999 to 2010, the number of deaths caused by firearms each year has remained constant (a slight increase) while the rate of firearms deaths has remained the same (10.32 deaths per 100,000 population) (table directly below) [7]. This is in contrast to the decline in both the number of deaths and rate of deaths caused by firearms observed over the previous decade, after the Brady law went into effect and required background checks on most gun purchases (all sales performed by licensed firearms dealers) [8]. Unfortunately this decline has not continued over the last decade.The CDC reports the same trend with HOMICIDE Firearms deaths and rates per 100,000 people over the last decade. Despite observing a decline in this number and rate from the 1980s to 1990s (after the implementation of the Brady gun control law), the numbers and rate remain constant from 1999 to 2010 (table directly below) [8]. The same trend is observed with suicides caused by firearms and with non-fatal injuries caused by firearms; this despite the Brady Campaign showing a slight drop in the percent of Americans and American households that own firearms during that period (graph directly below) [8]. The United States has more than 11,000 gun-related homicide killings per year--which is off the charts compared to other advanced countries [9]. Compare this to Japan, which experienced only 7 gun-related murders in all of 2011; in Japan guns are hard to come by, but they're not completely illegal (approximately half a million firearms are registered to private citizens in Japan) [9]. Japan has a population of 130 million people, or slightly less than one-half the population of the United States [9].U.S. Gun Rights proponents often bring up the the example of Switzerland to show how liberal gun regulation can accompany low gun crime. For example, the nation's 8 million people own 2.3 million guns, but gun-related homicides numbered just 24 in all of 2009; the U.S. has as rate that is 11 times Switzerland's [9].But what's often ignored is that most guns registered in Switzerland are military rifles issued to men when they join the conscript army (not concealable, portable handguns) and when Switzerland cut the size of its army over the decades, gun violence also fell, says criminologist Martin Killias at the University of Switzerland; domestic killings and suicides were higher when more people in the nation had access to guns [9]. According to Killias, the real problem is how many people have access to firearms, not the total number of weapons in the nation [9].And to substantiate this view critics point out that Switzerland has a firearms suicide rate that is the highest in all of Europe [9].Some Gun Rights proponents also point to Brazil and to Mexico as examples of nations that have banned firearms but that still see homicide-by-firearms rates higher than in the U.S. Still, experts point out that ferocious drug wars mixed with high levels of local corruption push and pull firearms into those regions, through porous, poorly-regulated borders, even though guns are banned in both nations. In these nations, drug gangs are often better-armed than police [9]. However, experts still point out that recent enacted guns laws in Brazil have made a noticeable impact on the country's homicide-by-firearms rate over the years [9].A recent study of international gun crime statistics has shown that the critical detail in gun violence around the world is gun ownership. Though guns are illegal in places like Mexico and Brazil, easy access to guns in these nations forces them to have high levels of gun crime. The study, which reviewed gun crime in 27 nations, showed that gun accessibility/ownership was an even bigger factor than mental illness when it comes to firearms deaths [10]. The study found that mental illness did play a role, but not as large as gun ownership [10].Mass Shooting Events are Surging in AmericaFinally, mass shootings are surging in america. Incidences of random mass shootings carried out by disgruntled perpetrators at public schools, in universities, in large malls, in theaters are on the rise [11]. The FBI reports that since 2000, the frequency of Active Shooter Events (mass shootings) has steadily been increasing (graph directly below) [11]. The number of people killed, shot, and injured in these mass shooting events is also surging (graph below) [11]. From 2000 to 2002, there was 5 or less mass shootings per year; by 2003, that number jumped to 7; by 2005, it jumped to 8; and by 2010, the number of mass shooting events climbed to 21 [11]. Horrifying events like those observed in Newtown, Connecticut (where 26 people were killed) and Aurora, Colorado (where 12 people were killed & dozens more injured) are increasing in frequnecy in the U.S.The number of school shootings is also on the rise (distinguished from \"active shooter events\"). In fact, since the heinous shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newton, Connecticut, there have been 74 separate school shooting events in the U.S. (map below) [12]. [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org...)[2] (http://seattletimes.com...)[3] (http://www.bradycampaign.org...)[4] (http://usnews.nbcnews.com...)[6] (http://www.thedailybeast.com...)[7] (http://www.dailykos.com...#)[8] (http://www.bradycampaign.org...)[9] (http://www.csmonitor.com...)[10] (http://www.npr.org...)[11] (http://leb.fbi.gov...)[12] (http://news.yahoo.com...)", "qid": "27", "docid": "70e17380-2019-04-18T16:06:30Z-00000-000", "rank": 61, "score": 157101.0}, {"content": "Title: Gun Control Laws Should Be Abolished Content: Gun Control Laws Should Be Abolished", "qid": "27", "docid": "557e846e-2019-04-18T16:15:28Z-00005-000", "rank": 62, "score": 156871.0}, {"content": "Title: Gun Control (For or Against) Content: Okay first off I'm just gonna say people have guns for different reasons:Gun control laws do not stop crime; gun ownership stops crime.Gun control laws infringe upon the right to self-defense and deny people a sense of safety. According to the National Rifle Association (NRA), guns are used for self-defense 2.5 million times a year.Gun control laws, especially those that try to ban \"assault weapons,\" infringe upon the right to own guns for hunting and sport. And as you know (or you should) alot of people like to shoot i you shouldn't keep people from doing so.", "qid": "27", "docid": "fee51fc6-2019-04-18T13:22:27Z-00004-000", "rank": 63, "score": 156638.0}, {"content": "Title: Guns Should NOT Be Restricted Content: The U.S government is taking gun control reform too seriously and the best idea is to stop gun control laws. I would like to thank my opponent, whomever it is for his argument and his time. Now I shall begin my argument: 1) Contrary to popular belief, the places with more gun control reform actually have more deaths per year than places where there are less gun control reform such as London. Why? That is because in those countries with more gun control reform, the criminals know that the citizens do not have weapons on them, making thm an easier target for burglary usually using knives. However, when criminals are in an area with less gun control reform- and lets say they own a gun too- they know the risks of breaking into a house where the owner owns a liscensed firearm and they will not risk being injured or killed. 2) The Second Amendment is one of America's oldest laws and it states that: \"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.\" 3) Though some people say that it is the government's right to protect the people, it is also the citizen's right to overthrow he government when they find i not fit to lead. How can civilians fight off a trained military? With firearms. 4)Though some say less gun control reform makes for more terrorists attacks, that is also false due to the thorough background checks. The background checks involve seeing if a person has been to countries of dispute for suspiciously prolonged periods of time and whether or not if that person is mentally ill or if they have a criminal record.", "qid": "27", "docid": "3dc74951-2019-04-18T12:37:41Z-00005-000", "rank": 64, "score": 156476.0}, {"content": "Title: Gun Control Content: I accept", "qid": "27", "docid": "9c36189c-2019-04-18T17:38:20Z-00004-000", "rank": 65, "score": 156398.0}, {"content": "Title: Gun Control Content: I want to start off by saying that all these shootings are a tragedy for those losing loved ones,friends, co workers, and neighbors. My argument against Gun Control will give you an understanding why we can't have it. I. The second Amendment gives citizens the right to own a firearm The constitution reads \"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. \" More laws will infringe that right. II. Gun control causes more Gun deaths In the last 30 years the Assault weapons ban has not effect much in towards of gun deaths. States and cities with strict gun control had more deaths let me get an example Chicago has the strictest gun laws in the country and in the past 22 months there have been 1,310 people killed by gun violence.", "qid": "27", "docid": "ea8c0eb3-2019-04-18T12:03:06Z-00000-000", "rank": 66, "score": 156177.0}, {"content": "Title: USA should have more gun restrictions Content: the USA is pretty unique because of how pervasive our support of gun culture is (why nothing at all really passes, even something as simple as more background check restrictions, even after so many mass shootings), and guns themselves. we may not be like other countries that have done so much so successfully (perhaps even to the point that more gun access could reduce violence when 'good guys' have guns? not sure i'd go that far), but it's not to say they haven't had success. australia had a manhattan project to reduce guns, enacted strict gun control, and has had fruitful results, lower homicides and never since then a mass shooting. (can't be said for before the reform) japan probably has the opposite of a gun culture, but it's clear that they too show that restrictions can have positive effects, nary even a murder, extremely, obscenely low. it's beyond me why we in the USA can't even pass more background checks restrictions etc. the states that have no to very few restictions have over twice the homicide rate. there's plenty of potential here- over 40% of gun sales involve no background checks. over 90% of people support gun restrictions, there's so much grassroots support for it, i'd suppose there's not enough politicians wanting to stick their neck out for it. it's common knowledge and i can cite stats that say having a gun in your home is likely to cause more violence. (everyone might think they are the exception, but obviously everyone isn't) if restrictions caused less guns, even to some extent, it would have some necessary positive effect. it's not even like people can't get access to guns, it would just limit who can get them so easily, or perhaps at all. not all criminals (or more often normal people who turn to criminals) are die hards who will stop at nothing to get a gun. if we've restricted the access to guns, surely it will have some positive effect. but the die hards for some reason are against it, and the politicians can't muster change.", "qid": "27", "docid": "67d67864-2019-04-18T16:00:13Z-00004-000", "rank": 67, "score": 155789.0}, {"content": "Title: Gun Control Is Necessary In Light Of Orlando Shooting Content: Regarding my opponent's very literal interpretation of my argument: As clarified in the comments prior to the debate \"I'm arguing gun control laws, including but not limited to the examples provided, should be passed by Congress. I made an additional point that there is a refusal in Congress to even discuss these possibilities at the moment.\" I do not argue that gun control legislation is necessary for our day to day existence, I argue that gun control legislation is necessary to improve our country's safety from mass shootings and gun violence. Furthermore, necessity was the word of choice to imply the urgency, importance, and passion I feel for this issue. Now that this clarified I am happy to debate the actual issue. My opponent argues that \"We are teaching people about safety, and other methods. We are instilling things and discussing things which can help stop gun violence without having gun control.\" While I have no problem with educating people about guns there is no indication that it is effective by itself at curbing gun violence and preventing mass shootings. I contend that in addition to prayers that education, \"other methods\", and \"things\" are not enough. My opponent asks why I would ban only assault rifles as opposed to all guns since they represent a relatively small number of gun murders. First, an assault rifle ban would be a policy specifically intended to combat the mass shooting epidemic the US is undergoing seeing that they are the weapons most commonly used in mass shootings: http://www.motherjones.com... In addition an assault weapon ban is obviously a more realistic proposal than banning all guns. This is corroborated by the article provided by my opponent that cites a poll in which \"59 percent of likely voters say they favor a ban.\" I am not trying to ban all guns and strip Americans of a Constitutional right. But seemingly all other rights are subject to regulation and adaptation and the refusal to implement anything or even discuss implementing anything sort of regulation for this particular right is costing innocent lives and that is unacceptable.", "qid": "27", "docid": "822a2b32-2019-04-18T13:09:16Z-00005-000", "rank": 68, "score": 155758.0}, {"content": "Title: Gun Laws in the United States should be tightened Content: more guns =/= more safety but having more restrictions is pointless if it has no actual effect on homocides. However, this is completely contradictory because if more guns = more crime, less guns will = less crime. Furthermore, your statistic doesn't actually say \"92\" in it, yet states that criminals find it easy to acquire guns illegally, but does not give a number of how many actually acquired them illegally. It merely states that only 8% stole guns. Adding restrictions on guns takes away guns, leaving fewer guns in houses, which as I have already stated will lower crime. All of my arguments still stand as my opponent has made no clash.", "qid": "27", "docid": "fc60053c-2019-04-18T17:42:17Z-00001-000", "rank": 69, "score": 155696.0}, {"content": "Title: Gun Control Content: I am pro gun control. First off gun control is not the same as a gun ban so prohibition doesn't count as an analogy. Also, places with very strict gun control like Europe have much lower murder rates and much lower murder rates from guns so this argument that gun control won't stop criminals from using guns is false. When you make (enforced) laws restricting something, that thing will be harder to get, and won't be mainstream, so it will be more expensive and harder to get. This will reduce criminals' access to guns. Gun control bans ex-cons from getting guns making it harder for them to get them. It also restricts the power of these guns. We certainly wouldn't want mentally deranged lunatics with machine guns mowing people down. If there are only slower shooting guns in circulation fewer people will be killed. Gun control allows police forces to be more effective because they don't have to face criminals with machine guns quite so often.", "qid": "27", "docid": "9c362b23-2019-04-18T16:27:12Z-00002-000", "rank": 70, "score": 155667.0}, {"content": "Title: The United States should impose Stronger, More Effective Gun Control Laws Content: My objective with this debate is to educate both debaters and the readers about firearms violence inside the United States and how it compares to other industrialized nations, and about troubling weaknesses in federal gun control laws and the loopholes specific prohibited individuals use to get their hands on these powerful, remarkable weapons. Loopholes & Weaknesses in current Federal Gun Control LawsAs I discussed in the previous ROUND, there are certain limitations with current federal gun control laws that make it difficult for the ATF and law enforcement to reduce gun violence in our nation and to sometimes quickly apprehend a culprit following an incident of gun crime or violence. Among the restrictions placed on law enforcement are the Tiarht Amendements, which prevent law enforcement from creating an electronic registry of gun purchases and gun owners at the federal level (therefore limiting the ATF and other national law enforcement agencies from being maximally efficient in their work and prolonging gun crime/violence investigations) [1]. The Amendments require law enforcement and the ATF to destroy records following gun transaction background checks and they prohibit law enforcement agencies from diseminating what information they might have (such as forms 4473, collected after firearms dealers go out business) to the courts [1]. Furthermore, firearm sales between individual persons is hardly managed at all by current federal gun control laws and such transactions do not legally require a background check to take place [1], providing convicted felons and other individuals prohibited from owning/operating firearms with an opportunity to get their hands on one. Indeed, the ATF estimates that a whopping 40% of all gun sales in the U. S. are made by individual, unlicensed sellers who do not have to perform background checks [2]. But, as I will demonstrate in this ROUND, current federal gun control laws are also weak in other ways and they're presently riddled with loopholes that make it easy for some prohibited people to get their hands on these lethal weapons of war. Currently, millions of fugitives across the country can pass federal background checks and buy guns illegally because police departments are not required to enter names into a national database that tracks criminals on the run [3]. This dreadful gap is largely a byproduct of the fact that police and prosecutors are often unwilling to spend the time or money to pursue fugitives across a state border. Because state law enforcement has no intention of pursuing these fugitives of justice in a different jurisdiction, these criminals travel relatively forgotten; the fact that there's no federal law requiring state law enforcement to enter fugitive names in the FBI fugitive database--the National Instant Background Check System--makes this problem a serious weakness of current federal gun control law [3]. Investigative reporter Brad Heath of USA Today recently found that in five states alone, law enforcement agencies failed to provide information to the FBI database for at least 2.5 million outstanding arrest warrants, according to police and court records on file [3]. What's shocking is that tens of thousands of these fugitives on the run are wanted for violent offenses and felonies [3]. According to USA Today, the federal databases used to perform background checks are missing more than 900,000 Michigan arrest warrants, 150,000 Ohio arrest warrants, 184,000 Washington arrest warrants, and many more from other states [3]. In response to this alarming discovery, Dan Gross of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence has said, \"It is. .. not surprising to me the extent to which there are holes in our system, given Congress' lack of success in addressing them\" [3]. In many cases, entering fugitives' names in federal databases would be as simple as checking two boxes in a state law enforcement's computer system, but the lack of courage by Congress to pass additional gun control laws, such as requiring state police to report names to the FBI database, allows this major lapse in background checks to continue [3]. And fugitives on the run are taking this opportunity because of Congress' inaction. Fugitive Deandra Smith, who was already wanted for a nightclub shooting (and multiple felony charges), was able to purchase a variety of guns at an Arkansas Pawn Shop in 2013 because his name was not entered in a federal or even a state database [3]. To quote his lawyer, \"Without that [entering his name in a database for background checks], it wouldn't matter how many background checks. .. [firearms dealers] ran [3]. \" Every year, hundreds of thousands of fugitives on the run and people prohibited from owning firearms, like Smith, attempt to take advantage of the current set-up [4]. According to a new report by the UC Davis Violence Prevention Program, which observed 78 gun shows in 19 states, loopholes in present gun control laws allow for easy access to guns that can be purchased by just about anyone, whether legally prohibited from purchasing a gun or not [5]. Among the findings [5]:--illegal purchases, where surrogates buy a gun from a licensed dealer, is common at gun shows--anonymous, undocumented gun sales are common--parts used to make untraceable guns are widespread and easily attainable at gun showsGaren Wintemute, professor of medicine at UC Davis School of Medicine, found that \u201cillegal\" purchases \"were often conducted entirely out in the open\" [5]. Wintemute asserts that more has to be done to prevent both unregulated gun sales and illegal guns sales at gun shows; \u201claw enforcement needs to have an expanded, proactive program at gun shows to prevent the illegal sale of guns\u201d [5]. If not, individuals prohibited from purchasing firearms, like the dangerously mentally ill, minors, and convicted felons, will find gun shows to be an excellent source to obtain firearms--weapons the law states they shouldn't have. Currently, 44 states have laws regulating the sale of firearms to the mentally ill, but few states submit the names of prohibited mentally ill to the national database for background checks; in fact, just seven states account for 98 percent of all names prohibited for mental illness [4]. A frequently cited example is that of the 2007 Virginia Tech shooter who passed a background check to obtain the gun he used with which he killed 32 people on the university campus (and wounded 17 others), despite being declared mentally ill two years prior [4]. Different states also have varying degrees of additional gun control laws in effect, but some have very few, almost entirely relying on current federal gun control laws (some state governments have also tried to abolish federal gun control laws within their state borders, even calling for the arrest of federal agents who dare to enforce firearms legislation; something not permitted by the U. S. Constitution [6]). What Federal Gun Control Laws Ought to DoCurrent federal gun control laws do not go far enough to prevent fugitives, convicted felons, the dangerously mentally ill, and minors from obtaining weapons they clearly shouldn't have. The Tiarht Amendments, though understandly trying to protect the anonymity of gun owners, create a stumbling block for the ATF and other law enforcement agencies charged with apprehending culprits of gun crime/violence. They frequently act to prolong the time between an incident of gun crime to final apprehension of the assailant, and in the case of new criminals or fugitives/convicted felons, like Deandra Smith, that's simply more time for them to engage in gun-related criminal activity. It would better serve law and order in this country to establish an electronic registry that law enforcement can use to link an individual gun owner with a registered firearm make, model and serial number. We can still protect the rights of gun owners to defend themselves while more effectively restricting criminals and others prohibited from owning guns. We shouldn't have to make the ATF and other law enforcement agencies jump through hoops and expand their investigations just to determine the individual that owns a gun make with a specific serial number. Determining who owns what gun should be as easy as it is to link a driver with a specified, registered automobile, especially for criminal investigations. Gun transactions between unlicensed individuals should still require a background check; it's simply way too easy for someone prohibited from owning a gun to purchase a firearm through these transactions. The ATF estimates that 40% of all gun sales in the U. S. are made by individual, unlicensed sellers who do not have to perform background checks--well that's just an incredible opportunity for minors, the mentally ill, fugitives of justice, convicted felons, drug peddlers and others to abuse! Gun Control Laws need to be expanded so that all gun transactions require a federal background check. Federal law should require state law enforcement to register a fugitive's name in the FBI fugitive database to better enforce current restrictions with gun laws. Our current gun laws would be so much more effective if this was already the case. Likewise, the names of the prohibited mentall ill should be required to be submitted to the national database for background checks. (Additional recommendations exist. )[1] (. http://en.wikipedia.org...)[2] (. http://cdm16064.contentdm.oclc.org...)[3] (. http://www.usatoday.com...)[4] (. http://usnews.nbcnews.com...)[5] (. http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu...)[6] (. http://www.nytimes.com...)", "qid": "27", "docid": "70e17380-2019-04-18T16:06:30Z-00001-000", "rank": 71, "score": 155601.0}, {"content": "Title: Severe gun control Content: Lets get started I. No correlation between more gun control and less crime \"\u2026the burden of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially since they argue public policy ought to be based on that mantra. To bear that burden would at the very least require showing that a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that have imposed stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared across the world.\" -As presented by Harvard gun studyThe idea that banning guns will lead to less crime is false. In reality, it is actually the complete opposite. II. 60% of guns are used purley for self defense No, all gun owners are not criminals, and many have not commited any crime related to gun. 60% of guns are used for self defense and banning them may in fact lead to an increase of crime. It is really no supprise that a criminal would not try to break in to a house with person that owns a gun. Why should others suffer because of shootings , due to someone's stupidity or mental diesese? III. Decrease in gun ownership lead to an increase of crime\"If the mantra \u201cmore guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death\u201d were true, broad cross-national comparisons should show that nations with higher gun ownership per capita consistently have more death. Nations with higher gun ownership rates, however, do not have higher murder or suicide rates than those with lower gun ownership. Indeed many high gun ownership nations have much lower murder rates. (p. 661)\"-As presented by Harvard gun study So, less guns do lead to more crime. In Ireland and Jamica, after banning guns, it has shown a steep increase of crime. http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org...http://www.theacru.org...http://www.gallup.com...http://www.bostonmagazine.com...", "qid": "27", "docid": "a1470987-2019-04-18T15:31:02Z-00003-000", "rank": 72, "score": 155555.0}, {"content": "Title: Gun Control Content: Accepted.", "qid": "27", "docid": "9c361402-2019-04-18T17:55:13Z-00006-000", "rank": 73, "score": 155402.0}, {"content": "Title: Gun Control Content: OK, so, our second amendment states that we have a right to keep and bear arms. It also states that it this right shall not be infringed upon. The reason our Founding fathers have made this law was not intended for self defense, not intended for hunting and gathering food, it was to protect against government tyranny. This means that we should be able to protect ourselves from our own government if it goes berserk and corrupt. I understand, that some gun control only wants the ban of assault weapons, but here is the truth. Far more people are killed by handgubns than assault rifles. In 2012, only 332 people were murdered by any kind of rifle. And actual firearm crimes account for a very small percentage. In fact , most firearm deaths are suicides. The National Institute of Justice has been researching this for years and a study from 1993 to 2011 shows that gun violence only accounts for at most, 8 percent of all violent crimes. \u00a8But assault weapons are the weapons of choice of mass shooters\u00a8, one might say, criminalist James Alan Fox estimates that there are less than 100 victims per year related to these events. But their deaths account for less that one percent of all homicides.Gun control does not help us, because most criminals get their guns through illegal means. This includes stealing and the blackmarket.", "qid": "27", "docid": "ea8c0b4f-2019-04-18T12:44:26Z-00002-000", "rank": 74, "score": 155227.0}, {"content": "Title: The United States Federal Government should increase Gun Control Content: Contention 1: What the studies show. For this first portion of my argument I'll show that when observing other nations we can see a correlation that the more Gun Control that you see that the higher the crime rates end up becoming. First let us observe economist John Lott in The Bias against Guns where he was quoted saying, \"Suppose for the sake of argument that high-crime countries are the ones that most frequently adopt the most stringent gun control laws. Suppose further, for the sake of argument, that gun control indeed lowers crime, but not by enough to reduce rates to the same low levels prevailing in the majority of countries that did not adopt the laws. Looking across countries, it would then falsely appear that stricter gun control resulted in higher crime.\" He goes on to say that, \"[t]o resolve this, one must examine how the high-crime areas that chose to adopt the controls changed over time \u2014not only relative to their own past levels but also relative to areas that did not institute such controls.\" This is further backed up by his imperial evidence and studies as shown in the above chart. The nations with more Gun Control have higher crime rates. Where is the United States on this graph you may be asking yourself? It's that far outlier on the far lower right. You can see that Lott's evidence shows this correlation that the more gun control one has the higher the crime rates. (http://johnrlott.blogspot.com...) Another study done by Harvard they have found similar results in that nations with higher and stricter gun control than the US actually have a higher crime rate. Well how's this you may ask? Well it's the fact that the public is losing deterrence and a way to defend themselves and criminals who still want to commit the crime use other weapons like knives and axes. If Less guns solve the problem then let's just get rid of all of them right? Wrong! The study also finds that the small nation of Luxembourg had banned all small firearms and the crime rate skyrocketed that of 9 times Germany's. (Kates and Mauser, \"Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide\") Another key area is the Brady Law. This is something that many people champion as being the crown jewel in Gun Control. Though the fact is that it really hasn't done anything. Researches Jen Ludwig and Phyllis Cook, both of which who are strong anti-gun advocates, found that the Brady Law has had no effect on murder rates and the only category that there was a change was a slight In the United Kingdom during the early 1990's Crime including robberies dropped significantly, 50% to say the least. But in 1997, the United Kingdom banned Guns outright. This caused crimes to rise back to their pre-1992 status and averaged a 32% in the span of the law before it was repealed in 2002. (http://johnrlott.tripod.com...) To come full circle we can see that though we can do something and the public wants it does not mean that we should do it as it causes nothing but problems here for us. I'll now pass things back off to my opponent.", "qid": "27", "docid": "a2eaad4e-2019-04-18T15:15:09Z-00002-000", "rank": 75, "score": 155015.0}, {"content": "Title: Should guns be legal Content: firstly, a true law-abiding citizen would know how to make a law measure to solve a problem. acting as a vigilante with a murderous weapon while the police is there is surely not what a law-abiding citizen would do. secondly, having more guns will not solve any problem either, and if anything, will only create more chaos and disorder. there is no guarantee that these so called 'law-abiding citizens' will stay sane while they know that they live in a country where everyone has a gun concealed behind their back and the criminals run amok with more murderous type of guns which overpower the citizens'. even though there is a regulation to make sure that only sane person can have a gun, it will only nullify the first objective; that everyone, without exception, should be armed with guns to be able to protect themselves. now it is clear that allowing ALL citizens to have guns is wrong, and restricting the rules will only result in some people do not have a gun and cannot protect themselves.", "qid": "27", "docid": "57d65aee-2019-04-18T15:16:02Z-00003-000", "rank": 76, "score": 154975.0}, {"content": "Title: Gun Control Content: My argument is clear. Guns should be accessible to law-abiding citizens rather than the civil disobedient. My view on gun control in general is a ban on all assault weapons and other high caliber weaponry while imposing strict regulations on the registry and sale of handguns.Rebuttals \u201cI would like to receive an actual peer reviewed study that shows that the supposed fact that 50% of American households have a gun prevents home invasions.\u201d There is no study on this particular statistic because this is just common sense. My opponent fails to recognize that this can be a deterrent for home invasions. People will always think before entering a home given that every other home is armed with a firearm. You quoted that homeowners are more likely to be involved in a fatal or non-fatal accidental shooting. This statistic may indeed be correct, however, the assaults and suicide attempts do not correlate with whether or not firearms are accessible in the home. If someone wanted to commit suicide they will find ways to do so. Just like the homicide theory. People will find other ways, just because they don\u2019t have a firearm at hand doesn't means they will not commit those acts. \u201cMy opponents claim that the United Kingdom is statistically worse that the United States and South Africa concerning violent crime is flat out false.\u201d I had stated that the UK is the most violent country in Europe. Including non-violent crime, statistically there is more crime in the UK for every 1000 people than the US. Taking into consideration that the US population is far higher than the UK, crime rate is shown per 1000 people. http://www.ons.gov.uk... \u201cThe rates of murder in Chicago and Detroit don't prove that gun control doesn't work, they underline the need for stricter federal regulations. The study I am about to cite looks at where the guns used to commit these murders in Chicago, Illinois are purchased. \"More than half of these guns \" nearly 10,000 or almost 58 percent \" originate from outside the state of Illinois. More than 3,000 guns come from Indiana, and another 1,000-plus come from Mississippi\".[5]\u201d My point exactly. Since an all out gun ban is off the table this will be likely to happen all around the US. Considering that there are around 300 million guns, an all out gun ban is not feasible to be successful. You take the guns away from the law-abiding citizens then they will be unable to defend themselves. Criminals will always find ways to obtain firearms, whether firearms are heavily regulated or banned. \u201cThe idea that when a shooting is going on and everyone is in shock, we need more guns in the area that could just as easily be used to kill even more people, accidentally or not just doesn't make sense. For example, how do we know that the armed guards you are proposing are immune to mental instability?\u201d There will be a psychological test and other testing done prior to employment. Your statement says clearly that everyone is or will be mentally unstable one point in their lives Is simply not true. It seems you can\u2019t distinguish between the mentally stable and the mentally unstable, the good guys and the bad guys. Those who are mentally unstable are usually diagnosed at a young age due to birth defects or problems during their childhood. A physiological test should scrape out the unstable. Arguments Like I have stated in past rounds, guns are used to deter many crimes and have resulted in less crime all together. A study done by Department of Economics, Quinnipiac University had shown that states with shall issue CCW laws had less crime than states with stricter gun laws. Found that \u2018shall issue\u2019 laws resulted in a 7.65% drop in murders and a 5% drop in rapes. \u201cResearch suggests that individuals would be less likely to commit crimes if they knew that many others may be carrying concealed weapons.\u201d http://www.tandfonline.com... Also more studies have shown that gun control doesn\u2019t reduce murder rates.A Study conducted by Harvard Universit, \u201cWould Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence\u201d in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy. The study revealed several European countries with significant gun ownership, like Norway, Finland, Germany and France had low murder rates. The study found no evidence to suggest that the availability of guns contributes to higher murder rates anywhere in the world. http://www.law.harvard.edu... Final Arguments The availability of obtaining firearms will result to more murder rates/attempts is a common misconception with no evidence or statistics backing the claim. Sounds reasonable to a lot of gun control advocates, but this is simply not the case. The US has more than 300 million guns, with a black market in these already developed. It will be impossible to find a reasonable piece of gun control legislation that will actually be successful. Gun related crime is 100% on the person behind the gun. Guns don\u2019t talk, don\u2019t move, don\u2019t shoot randomly. People don\u2019t blame knives when someone Is killed by one.", "qid": "27", "docid": "9c362f41-2019-04-18T16:00:34Z-00001-000", "rank": 77, "score": 154907.0}, {"content": "Title: Gun Control Should Be Introduced In America Content: Laws of Debate: Round 1 will be stating your 3 main arguments, and why you support your position in the debate. Round 2-4 will be backing up your argument with evidence and countering your opponent's arguments. Gun Control defines regulation of the selling, owning, and use of guns according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now for my three points regarding gun control Firstly, research has proven that more guns in a country are the main cause of more deaths therefor proving that laws targeting firearm restriction would lead to many fewer deaths. Secondly, the NRA (National Rifles Association) and the Republican Government know what they're doing is not right, so they need to keep money involved to make everyone happy. Lastly, Guns are used for protection, but we wouldn't need them nearly as much for protection if there were no guns to threaten people in the first place. Thanks for listening to my argument. Since this is a serious topic I hope that whoever takes this argument is mature and respectful enough to handle this especially after the recent massacre.", "qid": "27", "docid": "3a2ea41b-2019-04-18T11:43:16Z-00002-000", "rank": 78, "score": 154735.0}, {"content": "Title: Gun control in America Content: I believe firmly in gun control. I believe exactly the following statement: The government should legislate a ban upon all firearms including, but not limited to: handguns, shotguns, assault rifles, and sub-machine guns. I do believe there is a case for small caliber rifles being legal for recreational/hunting purposes, with the stipulation that they be stored in a public government building, and dispensed collected according to the nature of use. You would still own them, just turn them in when not in use. I acknowledge this is something that could be done on a state level, which is probably the only way any gun control law of that nature would ever get passed. With that exception, I believe gun control is a good and necessary thing for the bettering of our nation. I am not saying my proposal is the best without question, just that I think it would work and I think the logic behind it is pretty solid. I am certainly open to other ideas and opinions. Bottom line is this: I am against the right to own any gun with the possible exception of small caliber hunting rifles. If you disagree with gun control, please challenge me, I am interested in what you have to say.", "qid": "27", "docid": "7c7dd03a-2019-04-18T16:12:16Z-00005-000", "rank": 79, "score": 154413.0}, {"content": "Title: That gun control laws create more dangerous countries. Content: This is my first experience on this site, and you are giving me quite a challenge. :) \"For instance the number of murders committed per year, with a gun, by people within the age range of 14-24 years, increased at a rate of 173% from the year 1985 to the year 1993 and later, it went down by around 47% from the year 1993 to the year 1999. \" First of all just a little clarification, what country was this study made in? \"This inclination by my oppoent is with this culture reflected in our movies, television, music and various other creative forms such as art. Which is based upon the theme of the so called \u2018gun culture'. \" If I read correctly, you stated that because of cultural influences I am against gun control. If so, then yes! But it has absolutely nothing to do with the movies i watch, or any other art form. It is based on the beliefs of founding fathers, the people who built our countries. The second amendment clearly states, \"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. \" Did you catch that? It is the right of the people to bear arms, for personal defense, and or defense from corrupt leaders. The second amendment is built on these main facts: :Deterring tyrannical government :Repelling invasion :Suppressing insurrection :Facilitating a natural right of self-defense :Participating in law enforcement :Enabling the people to organize a militia system If the American government changes these key elements in political structure it opens the door to an entirely new and worse evil, tyranny. Total governmental control should be shunned like the plague, they are here to choose were our troops go, make economic decisions, and protect our values. Not rape our basic human rights to self defense by taking away our weapons. \"How do we know this is true. Maybe criminals would become more agressive and in return citizens would be more agressive. This would cause alot of distress on society. \" Are you aware that the gun related crime rate in the US is twice that of Israel? Its true, out of 100,000 people, 4.8 will be killed in the us by a gun per year, while in Israel only 2.4 are killed. This is a huge difference! What makes their murder rate so low is conscription. In Israel each man must serve at least on year in the army, during that time even when off duty they must have a fire arm on them at all times. This forces criminals to deter, or like I said before think twice. They half as likely to commit a homicide with a fire arm. By arming what could be future victims, they cease to be victims. They can now stand up for themselves, against an a assailant, or corrupt tyrannical government. \"These advocates for gun control argue that the availability of guns can be successfully reduced only by strict federal measures. \" Well thats great! If you want a spineless, easily pushed around public. Statistics clearly say that higher gun rates equal lower gun related crimes. (See my previous comment) With out guns we become a weak and volatile group of individuals who will follow anyone who is in possession of a gun, wether it be the government(Who was used gun control numerous times to control, push around, and kill the public. ), or an armed criminal. The only way for innocents to not bear the brunt of guns, we must arm them. Give them the power to stand up for themselves. Thanks you for your input on this touchy subject. I look forward to hearing your response.", "qid": "27", "docid": "8c4d2ba1-2019-04-18T18:15:06Z-00001-000", "rank": 80, "score": 154317.0}, {"content": "Title: Gun Control Content: 1. Opening 2. Argument 3. Rebuttals This is my first time debating on this website so bear with me. My fundamental views are as follow: I believe that we should repeal the second amendment (which I realize won't do much other than curtail the NRA's power), we should then ban the sale of all guns (including all semi-automatic guns, although probably not shotguns)- just as Japan has. This would make it so that a person must pass through rigorous vetting and testing in order to obtain a gun license. Then, and only then, should someone have a gun. So essentially, we should adopt Japans gun control methods where they have the least amount of gun violence/homicides per capita of any country other than Signapore (where they also have intensely stringent gun laws). Now I realize that the things I have stated above are relatively implausible for the United States, but I am merely stating the logical steps that would achieve the goal of less gun violence in the U.S. To end off: We are essentially the only other country with this epidemic of mass shootings (unless you want to cite Norway or Albania) neither of which are nowhere as advanced of a country as we are. I mean surely you cannot say that this is a people issue and not a gun issue because there are obviously people with mental illnesses in Japan or Australia--but we are not seeing mass shootings there. Thank you to whoever wants to respond.", "qid": "27", "docid": "ea8c132e-2019-04-18T11:37:59Z-00005-000", "rank": 81, "score": 154317.0}, {"content": "Title: Gun Control Content: sure", "qid": "27", "docid": "9c3617e2-2019-04-18T17:43:54Z-00000-000", "rank": 82, "score": 154291.0}, {"content": "Title: Gun Control Content: ok", "qid": "27", "docid": "9c3617e2-2019-04-18T17:43:54Z-00002-000", "rank": 83, "score": 154117.0}, {"content": "Title: Gun Control Content: ok", "qid": "27", "docid": "9c3617e2-2019-04-18T17:43:54Z-00004-000", "rank": 84, "score": 154117.0}, {"content": "Title: Gun Control Content: ...", "qid": "27", "docid": "9c361b65-2019-04-18T17:37:30Z-00000-000", "rank": 85, "score": 154051.0}, {"content": "Title: Gun Control in America Content: Regardless of how I MAY have gone off topic, my main statement and idea is that the gun control laws should be better upkept. The gun buyers and sellers are the main part of the issue. If we keep hold of the gun buyers and sellers, the guns will follow. Double checking, triple checking and even more checking after that is necessary to uphold the safety of the people.", "qid": "27", "docid": "e95f1ffb-2019-04-18T16:59:14Z-00000-000", "rank": 86, "score": 153855.0}, {"content": "Title: Gun bans reduce crime rates Content: A good example is the UK. After they banned hand guns in 1997 they has a violent crime increase by 70% and a homicide increase of 50%. Gun control didn't reduce crime it made crime worse. An important thing to remember when comparing countries is that America has 317million people compared to the U.Ks 60 million. You have to look at murderer per capita not a murders together in numbers. We have more people than all other countries accept China and India so we have more crime. Also Chicagoand D.C have strict gun laws but they hav a lot more crime than other American cities with less gun control. Also in places with conceal and carry laws there is a reduce in crime. Criminals don't know if their potential victim could be armed and are less likely to try and commit an act of crime against them. A study showed that many prison inmates (I forget the study it's on just facts.org gun control and I forget the exact numbers) are in prison because they were caught because their victim had a gun, didn't commit a crime because they were afraid their potential victim had a gun, knew someone (a fellow inmate) who didn't commit a crime because they were afraid their potential victim had a gun or had been caught because their victim had a gun.", "qid": "27", "docid": "eade2e8f-2019-04-18T16:13:22Z-00003-000", "rank": 87, "score": 153400.0}, {"content": "Title: That gun control laws create more dangerous countries. Content: Gun control creates safer countries. Gun control is the most effective way to reduce crime if we done it correctly. Our federal gun control laws are so ineffective because there are too many loopholes. A criminal might not be able to obtain guns in one state. But in another state that is very lenient on gun ownership, he can get guns even without criminal background checks. We need to support stricter federal gun control laws because guns are just totally out of control. For those who are unfit to carry guns, we should disarm them, and work together to provide a safer society for ourselves. If we have stricter gun control laws, we would be able to live in a safe and harmonious society and we definitely have the rights to do so! I await your response.", "qid": "27", "docid": "8c4d2ba1-2019-04-18T18:15:06Z-00004-000", "rank": 88, "score": 153184.0}, {"content": "Title: Gun Control should be administered Content: In the following my refutations of the affirmative's arguments:1) \"Guns are made to kill the largest amount of people in the smallest amount of time. This contradicts peace, which we should protect. Therefore, this house would ban guns.\"The argument is invalid. Would the world be a safer place without guns or other weapons? Yes, most probably. But would a ban of guns lead to a world without weapons? Most probably not! It seems more likely that it will lead to a higher imbalance in the distribution of guns between those who are possessing it for offensive purposes (e.g. to kill or rob somebody) and those who are possessing it for defensive purposes since the former will be more likely to ignore and circumvent the law than the latter.2) \"It is very easy to pull a trigger to murder or commit suicide, far easier than using a knife or a rope.\"While it is most probably true that it is easier to murder somebody with a gun than without, the question is how heavy this argument weighs. 32% of all murders in 2011 in the US were carried out with weapons other than firearms [1]. That suggests that not possessing a firearm is not to big of an obstacle to killing somebody. Thereby this seems to be a weak argument.3) \"Some accidents occur when children think that their parents' guns are toys and shoot their friends.\"This problem could be solved through education. Gun owners and family members can be taught the proper use of the gun. 4) \"When a gun is misfired, it can cause serious injury or even death.\"See refutation of argument 3).5) \"Guns teach children to accept violence from an early age. They think that it is no big deal to own a gun, which can kill.\"Owning a gun for defensive purposes and using it to kill somebody cannot be equated. Again this issue should be solved through education rather than a ban of guns.Now my arguments against the ban of guns:1) Every citizen should be protected against violent assaults. Since no government can provide perfect protection they should not prevent the citizens to protect themselves.2) As mentioned in the refutation: A ban of guns is likely to lead to a higher imbalance in the distribution of guns between those who are possessing it for offensive purposes (e.g. to kill or rob somebody) and those who are possessing it for defensive purposes since the former will be more likely to ignore and circumvent the law than the latter. Thus citizens who want to protect themselves are ultimately the one who would be put in a disadvantaged position.[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk...", "qid": "27", "docid": "45636d0a-2019-04-18T17:53:14Z-00005-000", "rank": 89, "score": 153172.0}, {"content": "Title: The U.S. government should impose stricter gun control laws in order to reduce violent crime Content: \"A study ... found that \"the United States has higher rates of firearm ownership than do other developed nations, and higher rates of homicide.\" -Wiki - Just because the U.S. has higher rates of homicide in no way means that it is caused by a higher rate of gun ownership. All the American Journal of Public Health is effectively doing is putting one figure beside another in the same statement in order to put a spin on a controversial issue. If anything, I would attribute the higher rates of homicide to largely flaws in our legal / prison system / police state, which serve to worsen conditions for criminals instead of correcting them in any way. \"Person with a legal handgun vs. person with a legal full automatic walks into a school and starts shooting people. Who is going to commit more crime....?\" \"If the gun is illegal it is harder to come by, especially for deranged children or college students. Under our current laws I can walk into a store in most any state and buy a full automatic weapon. WTF do you use a full auto for?\" - First off: You are grossly misinformed about fully automatic weapons. School shootings aren't being committed with full autos. There is a difference between an automatic handgun or rifle (meaning that the firearm is operated automatically as opposed to manually) and a fully automatic weapon, which fires multiple rounds with a single squeeze of the trigger. I challenge you to name one store in the U.S. that anyone can go into and buy a fully automatic weapon. Full autos aren't even legal to possess without a special federal permit that very few people can obtain. Secondly: Firearm prohibition will not work, just like alcohol and drug prohibition haven't worked. The assumption that \"If the gun is illegal it is harder to come by, especially for deranged children or college students\" isn't true at all. If guns were outlawed, they would be obtained the same way illegal drugs are. A person who's compelled to commit mass murder isn't going to change their mind because the weapon they plan to use is illegal, and / or a little harder to come by. Third: In regard to the analogy of a person walking into a classroom with a handgun vs a fully automatic, if a person is walking into a classroom with any gun, does it really matter how many rounds they can get off per squeeze? It's a matter of time and ammunition. If there are thirty people in a class room, and the aggressor has enough ammo to kill sixty and intends to, what do you think the end result will be? Fourth: To address your question \"WTF do you use a full auto for?\", the Second Amendment was intended to preserve the right of the people to keep and bear arms so that we may protect ourselves from tyrannical oppression. In the event that tyranny would ever befall our country in the future, we're not going to be able to fend it off with pea shooters and shotguns if the aggressors are using more sophisticated weaponry. Additionally, in certain areas of the country like LA, gangs frequently carry illegal automatic weapons. If you happened to be a person living in an area that had to deal with gang violence, would you rather have the option to possess weaponry as sophisticated as the gangs that were terrorizing your neighborhood, or would you opt for lesser weaponry or none at all? I guess you could call the cops and wait for them to arrive, but there's not a lot they're going to be able to do for you when the incident is already over. It's a matter of proactive vs reactive, and which side of the fence you prefer to be on. \"Your fallacy assumes that because one thing happens then it must have a link to another. This would be like saying, \"The rooster crows when the sun rises, thus the sun rises because the rooster crows\" Its simply not true. Another example, because sometimes people die when they are wearing seat belts therefor seat belts don't work. You assume that these two incidents are the rule but it isn't true, they are the exception to the rule.\" - The point I'm trying to make is that many of the places that have the most stringent gun control laws in the US are vulnerable to violent crime, e.g. college campuses. \"Also, concerning Virginia Tech. What would have been done if there were no gun control laws? Are you suggesting college students should carry fire arms?\" - I am absolutely claiming that students should be able to carry firearms. There would be far less incentive for someone to walk into a classroom and start shooting people if they knew they would die before they got more than a round or two off. The same applies to other aspects of society as well. \"The constitution was created in 1971! Times change, when the Bill of rights was made the second amendment meant that you have the right to keep a musket for defense. It was created in a time when the police force was almost non-existent, in a time when people were expanding west past the confines of the law. Our for-fathers could have never imagined the world as it is today especially fully automatic rifles.\" - As I stated above, the Second Amendment was intended to preserve the right of the people to keep and bear arms so that we may protect ourselves from tyrannical oppression, which after numerous geopolitical events such as WWII, it is every bit as relevant today if not more so. At the time when the constitution was written, personal protection was a given. I seriously doubt that if our forefathers could've anticipated that our rights to personal protection in 2008 would be eroded to the point that Americans were having debates such as this, they would've amended the constitution to appropriately address the issue. Ask some of the people who have served in war what they think about gun control, and then ask yourself if founding fathers, who fought and died for our rights, would have a difference in opinion. Not to stray too far from the topic at hand because we could have an entire debate on the issue, but as far as the police force being non-existent in the eighteenth century, I could make the argument that the police state is in-part responsible for the increase in violent crime. \"Who reading this debate has heard of deranged murders traveling in groups so large that fully automatic weapons are needed to contain them?\" - I've heard of some; such as the mafia, street gangs, biker gangs, etc. Many of the people who do obtain a federal permit to legally possess a fully automatic weapon are eligible to do so because of the fact that they live in areas with high street gang activity, so that they can put up a fair fight should a time come when they would need to defend themselves from such threats. \"Someone pulls a pistol in a school cafeteria and starts blasting away. Another guy sees this and pulls his own pistol. A third guy looks around and notices the two guys blasting away at each other and decides to help the guy he likes the most. Guy four notices his friend being shot at and pulls his pistol. Guys five six and seven decide to fight for justice, sadly they don't know who started the fight so they are shooting everyone with a pistol.\" A) What sense would it make to anyone with an I.Q. of over 25 to go into a cafeteria intending on killing someone when they know many or all of the people in there were or could be packing a firearm? B) Historically, similar situations have occurred on numerous occasions. Think about the exact same scenario playing out in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries if a person walked into a bar full of people carrying a gun intending to kill many or all of the people in there. Do you think they'd all panicked and kill each other? - If you need more refutation of full gun control, research the Nazi's during WWII. Also, Do you really need a link to illustrate the fact that prohibition doesn't work because it's impossible to completely police due to the fact that any of the above can be easily obtained on the black market?", "qid": "27", "docid": "9e3e2e75-2019-04-18T19:50:01Z-00002-000", "rank": 90, "score": 153145.0}, {"content": "Title: Should Gun Control Be Implemented Into American Law Content: Beginning Argument: The United States has 88.8 guns per 100 people, or about 270,000,000 guns, which is the highest total and per capita number in the world. 22% of Americans own one or more guns (35% of men and 12% of women). America's pervasive gun culture stems in part from its colonial history, revolutionary roots, frontier expansion, and the Second Amendment, which states: \"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.\" Proponents of more gun control laws state that the Second Amendment was intended for militias; that gun violence would be reduced; that gun restrictions have always existed; and that a majority of Americans, including gun owners, support new gun restrictions. The is in fact not true! The Second Amendment protects an individual\"s right to own guns; that guns are needed for self-defense from threats ranging from local criminals to foreign invaders; and that gun ownership deters crime rather than causes more crime. Now for some statistics: 270 MillionAPPROX. # OF CIVILIAN FIREARMS IN AMERICA 200,000TIMES A YEAR WOMEN USE A GUN TO DEFEND AGAINST SEXUAL ABUSE4 3/5POLLED FELONS SAY THEY WON\"T MESS WITH AN ARMED VICTIM5 Closing Statement: With the given data we can assume that Guns do not kill people, People kill People... therefore it can be assumed that Gun Control Should not be Implemented Into American Law. Thank you.", "qid": "27", "docid": "3c91b0d8-2019-04-18T12:50:09Z-00001-000", "rank": 91, "score": 152905.0}, {"content": "Title: THBT Citizens on the Terrorist Screening Database should not be barred from purchasing firearms Content: Increase of Terrorism Within the United StatesThe United States has recently suffered and is continuing to suffer multiple acts of terrorism and homegrown acts of violence, due in part by permissive gun laws [1]. The United States, currently within such a vulnerable position, should be expected to take as many precautions necessary, even if it means making an incursion in the tolerance of government involvement within the everyday persons life. It is not a coincidence that the United States, having the most amount of guns per capita in the world [2], also holds the lead in most mass shootings the world sees [3]. In the process of having a more restricted gun control system, there would be an establishment of a database and which persons within those database should have the ability to possess a firearm. The no-fly list was designed to prevent future suspected instigators of violence from obtaining the means necessary to initiate the next attack [4]. Regardless of whether or not people believe that their civil liberties are victim of government incursions towards their un-solidified foundations of rights, the system was instituted for the purpose of protecting them. In order to help my opponent and voters visualize how powerful the recent terror attacks in the United States is, I have provided a graph below to show. While the No-Fly system has controversies on whether it has been targeting a specific number of people within a designated ethnicity or race, instead of abolishing the system or re-arranging an entirely different sector, the program can be reformed in order to prevent innocent person of being on such a list. Other controversies accompany the database with regards to constitutional violations and unjust incursions unto civil liberties [5]. The format of the list not notifying the person that have been selected to be supervised in order to maintain surveillance and precautions was made in order not to alert a possible terrorist not to up their standard of secrecy and anonymity for the greater good of the country. Controversies against the No-Fly list were mostly put down, if not completely unsuccessful considering many aspects of the list within the Terrorist Database fall under new powers granted to the US government in pursuit of terrorism by the powers of the Patriot Act [6]. Specifically regarding Title V, of the Patriot Act in which the American congress approved stronger powers for the government, restraining rights of the individual in order to combat terrorism, including financial support, obstruction of justice, or conspiracy [7]. Such controversy was brought up into the Supreme Court, whom did not find such powers unconstitutional although John Roberts did make statements regarding the methods taken and how questionable they were [8]. ConclusionWhile I have only listed one category regarding the importance of the No-Fly list barring any individual from obtaining weapons, this category is able to span over the subjects of human life, security and constitutional acceptance. I have stated the causation and correlation between permissive gun laws, and how effective gun control can be if established [9], along with how the recent rising in domestic and foreign terrorism forces the United States to take action, concerning that it is the responsibility of the government to protect their citizens, regardless if it may cause controversy and with reasoning accompanied by the Supreme Court giving justification to restrictions of rights under the Articles of Title V, of the Patriot Act, de facto giving the strength necessary for the No-Fly list to bar weapons from being obtained to possible terrorists. I trust my opponent will bring up a worthy argument in the next round. Sources[1] . https://en.wikipedia.org...[2] . https://en.wikipedia.org...[3] . http://www.cnn.com...[4] . https://en.wikipedia.org...[5] . https://en.wikipedia.org...[6]https://en.wikipedia.org...[7] . https://en.wikipedia.org...[8] . http://www.csmonitor.com...[9] . http://www.sciencealert.com...", "qid": "27", "docid": "9c3ab29f-2019-04-18T12:58:09Z-00004-000", "rank": 92, "score": 152873.0}, {"content": "Title: Gun Control Content: We should not stricken gun control laws because it will not fix anything. Because in America we all no that when you ban something it just magically disappears. Well that's not true. If someone were to break into my house and shoot at me I would that I had the absolute right to shoot back. If guns kill people than pencils misspell words, cars make people drive drunk, and spoons make people fat. Oh ne-ne this is not true, people kill people. If we were to make it harder to get a gun than we are leaving the law abiding citizens defenseless, when all the criminals will still be able to get a gun.", "qid": "27", "docid": "9c362b42-2019-04-18T16:30:33Z-00003-000", "rank": 93, "score": 152827.0}, {"content": "Title: Gun control Content: Hello those who are reading this I came here today to debate the subject of gun control. Gun control: generally refers to laws or policies that regulate the manufacture, sale, transfer, possession, modification, or use of firearms. They vary greatly around the world. The problem with gun control is that it does not work. In the United States we have close to 8,000 deaths a year caused by guns each year but in Mexico ( a country with restricted gun laws ) they have near 28,000 deaths a year. 98% of the time the first law indicated by a dictator is to disarm the public. That is the reason why the 2nd amendment was made so that the leaders of this country could never gain to much power, that is also why we do not allow presidents to stay in office for over 8 years.", "qid": "27", "docid": "e0c0a84a-2019-04-18T14:20:51Z-00004-000", "rank": 94, "score": 152771.0}, {"content": "Title: Why more gun laws are a bad idea. Content: Pro makes three points in opposition to gun control, I will respond to these after making my initial argument. The first thing to consider is that a gun is a machine that is engineered to kill. It can even be argued that the purpose of guns is to kill. Not just this though, they are created to increase the efficiency of killing. Taking this into account, it is a recipe for disaster to allow the general public (including people premeditating murder) to have free access to guns. Whilst it will not stop murderers murdering people (e.g using knives) it severely reduces the amount of people a murderer can kill. You can kill far more people in a given time with a gun than with a knife. Therefore, not giving the public ready access to guns will reduce the amount of people that are killed when a murderer decides to go out and murder people. 'An extremely high number of murders are committed by criminals.' Whilst this is true, criminals can kill an even greater amount of people if they have a gun compared to if they do not have a gun. Before you go and say that criminals break the law anyway so a gun law would be useless, you must think pragmatically. Whilst it is true that a criminal would not care about adhering to a gun law, the simple fact that a gun law is in place would make it a lot harder for a criminal to obtain a gun because of the lack of gun shops. Furthermore, if it is illegal to obtain a gun then there is a chance that the criminal would be detected and arrested as he attempts to obtain a gun; thus preventing the murder(s). If gun laws were not present then the murderer would only be arrested after shooting people. 'It is a constitutional right to bear arms.' This is a fallacious appeal to authority. Just because the constitution says X does not mean that this is unquestionable absolute law. The constitution is not infallible and the pressure is on it to be relevant to our modern age. It's worse than saying 'the Bible says this so it must be true'. 'The reason for this is to avoid a tyrannical government' Allowing civilians to bear arms would not prevent a tyrannical government. On the contrary, it could very well be used to justify the government using violence to control its citizens if some citizens decided to launch violent protest, which would be very much more effective if guns were allowed. Besides, to suggest that civilian gun ownership could prevent a tyrannical government is to suggest that civilians could overthrow a tyrannical US government. In reality, this would cause a bloodbath that the civilians would probably lose; the US army is, after all, the most powerful army in the world. (1) (1) http://www.shockpedia.com...", "qid": "27", "docid": "47e1618e-2019-04-18T15:26:44Z-00003-000", "rank": 95, "score": 152750.0}, {"content": "Title: The US Should Have Better Gun Control Content: I find it a little bit ironic that using a picture that has a list of facts on it from a credible website is not credible according to my opponent, while using Wikipedia is. But here are some more websites that back what I say (1) (2) (3). My opponent claims that if there are more gun control laws that people will be safer, but is that true. The top ten cities in the United with the strictest gun control laws are: Chicago, New York City, Los Angeles, Dallas, Cleveland, Oakland, Detroit, Philadelphia, Newark,and Atlanta; and out of these cities 6 have the most gun violence ( New York, Los Angeles, Oakland, Philadelphia, Newark, Detroit). So gun control in America doesn't work there is an estimate of about 270 million guns in the United States and if gun control is enacted where do these guns go. Well they would go to the criminals who would have black market deals. Compare guns to marijuana, marijuana is illegal to own by federal law, but marijuana is still one of the Untied States largest cash crops (http://abcnews.go.com...) this shows that when someone wants something they can get if even if it is illegal like guns. Look at the logistics of enacting gun control, Australia destroyed 640,381 guns after they made guns illegal it cost the tax payers 500 million dollars now imagine the cost of finding and destroying 270 million guns and we are nearing almost 17 trillion dollars worth of debt, the United States can't afford gun control. While the gun murder rate in Australia is low it doesn't mean they are safe since the 1997 ban on guns accidental gun deaths are up 300%, the assault rate is up 200%, and immediately following the 1997 gun ban overall robbery went up 200% from 1997-2002 and has increased since than 20%. crime Australia is not safe from guns just because they made them illegal (2). Compare that to the United States who has had less crime since 1993. While any death is tragic aren't we going a little over board with it. In the US 3 people die out of 100,000 from guns that means 99,997 don't die from guns. Don't give up liberties for security like Thomas Jefferson said \"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety,deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.\" While the 2nd amendment can be amended the debate topic is not about amending the 2nd amendment. It is about gun control and he should have changed the topic. Pencils are a tool like guns if used right they are great if used wrongly they are not great. Gun control is not about guns it is about the government controlling you and me. Sources (1)http://dailycaller.com... (2) http://freerepublic.com... (3) http://www.justfacts.com...", "qid": "27", "docid": "22222c8b-2019-04-18T17:32:10Z-00002-000", "rank": 96, "score": 152708.0}, {"content": "Title: A jolly good debate on gun control Content: I'm not sure of the structure that this round will take. I'll start by doing quotations and responses and see how it looks at the end. \"My opponent states that the statistic I have stated is wrong because I do not believe in restricting ALL guns.\"I didn't say it was wrong - merely intellectually dishonest. If you use this statistic to back up the banning of certain guns, you ought to be for the banning of all guns, as this statistic makes no differentiation between what type of gun was used.\"I apologize for any confusion. However, by eliminating more \"dangerous\" weapons, this statistic will more than likely go down dramatically. The less guns, the smaller the chance you shoot yourself.\" If we ban hammers it would reduce the number of people hitting their thumbs significantly. The question is; so what? Why should the fact that people are capable of misusing guns mean that guns should be banned in and of themselves? You are begging the question here.\"My opponent states that my statement \"Countless numbers of lives could be saved if the government would implement more gun safety laws\" is an assertion without warrant.\"Well it still is as you haven't backed it up.\"However, the fact is, most people prefer to kill people with guns. It's quick, easy, and does the most damage compared to a knife, baseball bat, etc.\"Yes, I probably would choose a gun to kill someone if I had to. (Unless I had access to a SAM or something - speaking of which I got to hold an SA-7 at work today. So. Freaking. Cool.) However, if I couldn't get hold of a gun (and I believe it wouldn't be difficult even with gun control - more on that later) it would not prevent me killing someone. The knowledge required to make explosives is easy to aquire and explosives can kill people just as quickly whilst doing a lot of damage. I already made this argument last round. There are many economic substitutes for guns, so no lives would be saved by banning them. In fact, though people with intent would be able to kill (due to being able to aquire decent subsitutes), people without intent, that is, the victims, would be worse off than before! \"1. My point is, is that people shouldn't be able to \"pick up\" dangerous weapons primarily because of accidents. A counter argument may be said that cars cause accidents. You must remember that cars are a necessity to many people. In my rural town, you can't walk from point A to point B unless you have a few hours to waste. Guns, especially fully automatic guns or guns with extended magazines, are NOT a necessity in our everyday lives.\" Guns are tools which facilitate a purpose, that is the protection of ones liberty. While you may need to use a car more frequently, frequency is not a worthwhile metric on deciding whether things are a necessity. (Nor is necessity a worthwhile metric on deciding whether something should be controlled or not!)\"My opponent says basically that people should be able to own guns, but if they commit a crime, be arrested for the crime. The thing is is that by restricting certain gun ownerships, lives can be saved. You can shoot more bullets in a fully automatic weapon than a shotgun or hunting rifle in X amount of time.\" This argument you are making here seems very bizarre. Are you asserting that the rate of fire directly correlates to the lives saved? This is certainly an assertion without warrant, and the opposite has been demonstrated; if there is intent to take life, suitable substitutes can be found - for example non-automatic weapons would be just as effective. \"My opponent uses oak chairs as an example. The fact is, murderers use guns more than they are going to use knives or high oak chairs. You might as well get rid of some types of guns to keep people safe from themselves and from others. You can hurt yourself with an oak chair or a toaster, but by taking certain guns off of the market, lives will definitely be saved\" C-dizzle unfortunately completely misses the point here. He doesn't respond to argument that anything can be used to harm someone, and just because it is used doesn't ipso facto mean that they ought to be banned. C-dizzle also repeats his mantra that lives would be saved by taking certain guns off the market. I'm going to have to ask him once more to provide warrant for that assertion. 2. My opponent states that black markets would be created by restricting gun ownership. That's why it's the government's job to crack down on the buying and purchasing of illegal weapons.This is a total non-argument. It will be impossible to prevent black markets forming. I note that C-dizzle favours drug legalization (quite rightly) - I am sure that he understands how prohibition doesn't work. It ends up criminalizing a lot of people, but doesn't prevent those who want the good from aquiring the good.My opponent also states that explosives or other substitutes for guns could be made. It's a lot faster to load and shoot a fully automatic rifle than it is to detonate an explosive. Besides, there's always the chance that people move out of the way, you run out of explosives, or the explosive just doesn't work.I concede that on balance, despite my personal taste in the matter, guns are probably preferable to explosives for killing people. That explains why guns are the most popular method at the moment. However, should we be able to somehow magic guns out of existance, explosives would be an acceptable susbtitute for the murderously inclined. Or maybe not. Maybe they'd prefer something else. I can't really say. The point is, is that there will be an effective substitute, which will mean no lives are saved.\"3. My opponent thinks that guns allow people to resist tyrannical government. I think that this argument is basically obsolete especially in countries like the USA. What is a bunch of civilians with some guns against the Marines? You won't be resist anybody. You won't \"resist\" tyrannical government because it's impossible to overthrow it.\"Last I checked the population of America was a bit over 300 million - and the armed forces at around 1 and half million [http://en.wikipedia.org...]. I don't know about you, but even making the implausible assumption that most of those solidiers would turn on their country men, I'd still bet on the 300 million with their guns.I would also like to add that my opponent completely ignores the fact of how easy it is to buy guns without a back ground check in the USA. I don't know about you, but I don't want convicted felons walking around with guns. Have they done their time? I'm assuming the answer is yes and that they aren't escapees from jail (and if your statement assumes they are, the only thing we could possibly draw from it is that the bakery as well as the gun shop should be asking their customers whether they have just escaped from prison). They've done their time and their liberty is restored to them. They are citizens, they should have the same rights as the others (I don't know if they do become fully fledged citizens again in US law with all rights intact - if they don't, then they are not valid examples due the definitions of citizens given at the beginning)Arguments dropped.The act of ownership is not an act of aggression and therefore is terrible basis for law Insufficient evidence to suggest that restricting guns would do anythingLack of moral authority to restrict gun ownership Thanks C-DizzleI hope you get back from what ever it is you are doing (I'm assuming it is a hardcore Christian metal concert) in time. I left my response as late as possible.", "qid": "27", "docid": "567c800b-2019-04-18T18:45:37Z-00003-000", "rank": 97, "score": 152689.0}, {"content": "Title: more gun regulation should exist Content: For this first portion of my argument I'll show that when observing other nations we can see a correlation that the more Gun Control that you see that the higher the crime rates end up becoming. First let us observe economist John Lott in The Bias against Guns where he was quoted saying, \"Suppose for the sake of argument that high-crime countries are the ones that most frequently adopt the most stringent gun control laws. Suppose further, for the sake of argument, that gun control indeed lowers crime, but not by enough to reduce rates to the same low levels prevailing in the majority of countries that did not adopt the laws. Looking across countries, it would then falsely appear that stricter gun control resulted in higher crime.\" He goes on to say that, \"[t]o resolve this, one must examine how the high-crime areas that chose to adopt the controls changed over time \u2014not only relative to their own past levels but also relative to areas that did not institute such controls.\" This is further backed up by his imperial evidence and studies as shown in the above chart. The nations with more Gun Control have higher crime rates. Where is the United States on this graph you may be asking yourself? It's that far outlier on the far lower right. You can see that Lott's evidence shows this correlation that the more gun control one has the higher the crime rates. (http://johnrlott.blogspot.com...) Another study done by Harvard they have found similar results in that nations with higher and stricter gun control than the US actually have a higher crime rate. Well how's this you may ask? Well it's the fact that the public is losing deterrence and a way to defend themselves and criminals who still want to commit the crime use other weapons like knives and axes. If Less guns solve the problem then let's just get rid of all of them right? Wrong! The study also finds that the small nation of Luxembourg had banned all small firearms and the crime rate skyrocketed that of 9 times Germany's. (Kates and Mauser, \"Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide\") Another key area is the Brady Law. This is something that many people champion as being the crown jewel in Gun Control. Though the fact is that it really hasn't done anything. Researches Jen Ludwig and Phyllis Cook, both of which who are strong anti-gun advocates, found that the Brady Law has had no effect on murder rates and the only category that there was a change was a slight In the United Kingdom during the early 1990's Crime including robberies dropped significantly, 50% to say the least. But in 1997, the United Kingdom banned Guns outright. This caused crimes to rise back to their pre-1992 status and averaged a 32% in the span of the law before it was repealed in 2002. (http://johnrlott.tripod.com...) To come full circle we can see that though we can do something and the public wants it does not mean that we should do it as it causes nothing but problems here for us. I'll now pass things back off to my opponent.", "qid": "27", "docid": "63a919e2-2019-04-18T14:36:09Z-00004-000", "rank": 98, "score": 152680.0}, {"content": "Title: Gun Control Content: \"I am sorry, but I feel like this is a little unfair. I would not have accepted this debate if I would have known you would be making these types of arguments. The thing I find unfair about this, is that you don't give the voters a choice in whom\u2026\u2026\" Ah, I don't believe this is unfair at all. You are supposed to argue for less gun control, and I am to argue for more gun control. That was stated both by imabench in his forum topic, and by me in round 1. You also stated before the debate started that I am to argue for gun control. The definition of gun control is, \"any law, policy, practice, or proposal designed to restrict or limit the possession, production, importation, shipment, sale, and/or use of guns or other firearms by private citizens.\" Throughout this debate I have clearly defined the problems with the current gun control system in the United States, and I have clearly argued why we must have more and why it would be effective. I have also refuted your arguments in regards to the US having more gun control. I have also clearly laid out why certain guns shouldn't be prohibited, and why other guns should not. By giving examples of what guns would be okay and in what situations, I have made it clear where we should strengthen gun control. This is not arguing both sides of the fence, as you put it, but arguing one side from different angles. So I ask the audience to not ignore these types of arguments, because they are the core of the debate and my opponent seeks to detract from that. Furthermore, before my opponent says anything, this is not semantics, because gun control has a clear definition. \"This doesn't make sense. So your saying you agree that people need self defence and thus guns are justified, but then go\u2026\" I am not contradicting myself at all. I've given clear cases where an individual should have access to firearms, and where they should not. An individual who has a reasonable chance of being the victim of violence should have access to a firearm, whereas a person who does not should not have one, because he is more likely to cause harm to himself, which outweighs the benefit of having one during a home invasion or mugging. \"Gun laws require that in order to obtain a fire arm in your home, you must have a safe to safely store them in. http://en.wikipedia.org...... This deters children from entering, criminals from entering, etc. The only person who should know the combination should be the owner of the gun. So this argument cannot be looked to as a child cannot harm themselves in this scenario.\" Firstly, your source says nothing about the gun safes being required by law, and you used Wikipedia. Secondly, they are not required by law in all 50 states. I can see why you'd advocate for their being required by law though, and I agree with your assertion that we must have more gun control over those who have weapons for self-defense. [1] So children are still at risk in some states while there is a gun in the home. This on top of the fact that the presence of firearm makes homicide and suicide between family members more likely in the home, shows that a firearm in the home is more likely to cause tragedy than prevent it. \"In order to own a gun, an individual must complete basic gun courses in order to purchase one. http://corneredcat.com...... You must show proof of completing the courses neccesary to own a gun as well, among having several other things. Gun laws are strict, and not so easy that any one and their kids can purchase one without the neccesary requirements being completed. People who own gun have a basic understanding and knowledge of how to operate them. Thus we would be giving the government too much power if they are the only ones who own guns. The reason we have gun laws in the first place is to prevent government intrusion. Just like in the revolutionary war, owning and operating guns will prevent government from transforming into a dictatorship.\" Gun safety training is not the same thing as military training. You know, the military training you'd need to take part in a \"well-regulated\" militia. Again, the arming of the citizenry in a time of conflict in best left to the National Guard, which can properly train the citizens and integrate them into the state militia. Also, I highly doubt that everyone owning a handgun or hunting rifle is going to deter the federal government if they ever decide to oppress us. \"So you do claim that a person has a right to self defence, and you give an example...\" The shopkeeper has a much higher risk of being mugged than the average joe walking the streets. That's the point I was trying to make. If there is a reasonable chance of you being the victim of a violent crime, then you should be able to carry a weapon for self-defense or have a weapon in your home for self-defense. As I've stated in this debate before, (and provided evidence for,) having a firearm in the home increases the chance of a member of your family being the victim of gun violence, so unless there is a good reason for you have a gun, you do not need one. \"Here you contradict your whole argument\u2026..\" I contradict nothing. Weapons used for showmanship shooting serve a purpose, just as hunting weapons do. Thus, they should be still be regulated, but not prohibited. They are less harmful than an assault rifle, or a machine-gun. It is absurd to suggest otherwise. \"Hand guns have the same ability to stop a persons life as an assualt rife does. When used the right way, and fired at the right part of the human body\u2026.\" No, no, and no again. I've already refuted this argument, I've given you examples of the capabilities of an assault rifle and the key differences it has from handguns. The ammunition used in handguns is not nearly as lethal, the handgun does not have the same rate of fire, the handgun is not as accurate and does not have the same range as an assault rifle. This is a clear absurdity. \"Again, as I have said before, You are thinking nationally. We must think internationally here. Just like criminals can still obtain drugs, they can obtain guns\u2026..\" Buying weapons internationally will prove much more difficult and costly than buying locally. The prices on illegal weapons will continue to rise, and less and less criminals will be able to afford the weapons. Again, basic market principal; if you lower the supply, the price will go up. Opponent's Arguments \"This is exactly why gun control is a horrible concept. It limits citizen protection from the exact scenario you are showing.\" This is why no gun control is a horrible concept. The last thing we want is a shootout on the streets, the last thing we want is to turn poorer neighborhoods into warzones, where the weapons constantly get bigger and deadlier as the citizens try to keep up with the criminals. Conclusion I've stated my case. I have argued successfully for more gun control in the United States. I have given you examples where guns are necessary in our society, where they serve for more good than harm. I have also plainly spelled out what is wrong with the current gun control system today, and how and why it needs to be improved. I have refuted my opponent's arguments, sometimes more than once. I thank my opponent for a strong argument, and wish him luck in the voting period. I believe my argument is stronger, and that you should vote Pro. [1] http://www.vaultandsafe.com...", "qid": "27", "docid": "9c3610bd-2019-04-18T18:25:13Z-00001-000", "rank": 99, "score": 152497.0}, {"content": "Title: Bullet Control Content: Lets ignore the amount of big time criminals that would still be able to afford these bullets and have more successful robberies and being able to rob people with no fear of people shooting back. If you Democrats somehow got this law passed, This would only make the Country fall apart even more..... First of all, There is without a doubt that Texas would secede, I live in Texas by the way. But lets ignore that, The southern part of the country would riot, This would cause EVEN MORE crime than before, people would be robbing gun stores, scavenging for bullets and the streets would be on fire, the government would fall, but, lets say this wont happen. As we all know, Obama has opened the borders, probably letting thousands of ISIS members come in and plant their roots and wait for the moment to strike from inside, when they do come out, Millions of people wont be able to defend themselves, it would be mass slaughter. I hope you know that Bullet control is a very controversial decision that should NEVER EVER happen.", "qid": "27", "docid": "f19b20cb-2019-04-18T14:31:33Z-00003-000", "rank": 100, "score": 152495.0}]}
{"query": "Should prostitution be legal?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: Prostitution Should Be Legal Content: Taxation", "qid": "28", "docid": "3677e360-2019-04-19T12:44:54Z-00019-000", "rank": 1, "score": 204024.0}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution Should Be Legal Content: Extend", "qid": "28", "docid": "a4429c4a-2019-04-18T13:39:27Z-00002-000", "rank": 2, "score": 203140.0}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution Should Be Legal Content: Extend", "qid": "28", "docid": "a4429c4a-2019-04-18T13:39:27Z-00003-000", "rank": 3, "score": 203140.0}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should be legal in the US Content: its hould be", "qid": "28", "docid": "1cb1375c-2019-04-18T15:23:13Z-00004-000", "rank": 4, "score": 199967.0}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should be legal. Content: Please state your argument.", "qid": "28", "docid": "181f179a-2019-04-18T16:34:11Z-00007-000", "rank": 5, "score": 198172.0}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution Should Be Legal Content: People Trafficking", "qid": "28", "docid": "3677e360-2019-04-19T12:44:54Z-00000-000", "rank": 6, "score": 195635.0}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution Should Be Legal Content: Morality of Prostitution", "qid": "28", "docid": "3677e360-2019-04-19T12:44:54Z-00001-000", "rank": 7, "score": 195590.0}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution Should Be Legal Content: The war on prostitution", "qid": "28", "docid": "3677e360-2019-04-19T12:44:54Z-00018-000", "rank": 8, "score": 194602.0}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution Should Be Legal Content: kk", "qid": "28", "docid": "a4429b52-2019-04-18T17:41:28Z-00000-000", "rank": 9, "score": 193917.0}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should be legalized Content: k", "qid": "28", "docid": "94b678b-2019-04-18T16:48:46Z-00000-000", "rank": 10, "score": 193635.0}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution Should Be Legal Content: Bad for Business", "qid": "28", "docid": "3677e360-2019-04-19T12:44:54Z-00004-000", "rank": 11, "score": 192278.0}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should be legalized Content: I disagree.", "qid": "28", "docid": "94b67e8-2019-04-18T16:15:54Z-00003-000", "rank": 12, "score": 192216.0}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution Should be Legalized Content: :( Extend.", "qid": "28", "docid": "f2b77005-2019-04-18T14:36:34Z-00002-000", "rank": 13, "score": 189469.0}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution Should Be Legal Content: The law should not condone illicit behaviour", "qid": "28", "docid": "3677e360-2019-04-19T12:44:54Z-00008-000", "rank": 14, "score": 187684.0}, {"content": "Title: prostitution should be legal Content: prostitution is an agreement between consenting adultsProstitution is sex in exchange for money. One party is willing to pay money to have sex. The other party is willing to receive money for sex. If both parties adults, government should not take away their freedom to engage in the exchange. Of course, child prostitution and forced prostitution should remain illegal.legalization makes prostitution safer If sex workers are not treated as criminals, they can seek the protection of law enforcement without fear of being arrested. Sex workers should be registered. This way, it will be easier to for law enforcement and potential clients when sex workers are minors, when they are forced or when they are illegal immigrants.", "qid": "28", "docid": "6c53db90-2019-04-18T16:50:44Z-00005-000", "rank": 15, "score": 187655.0}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should be legal Content: prostitution is an agreement between consenting adultsProstitution is sex in exchange for money. One party is willing to pay money to have sex. The other party is willing to receive money for sex. If both parties adults, government should not take away their freedom to engage in the exchange. Of course, child prostitution and forced prostitution should remain illegal. legalization makes prostitution saferIf sex workers are not treated as criminals, they can seek the protection of law enforcement without fear of being arrested. Sex workers should be registered. This way, it will be easier to for law enforcement and potential clients when sex workers are minors, when they are forced or when they are illegal immigrants. (Another debate of mine on this topic never really took place, so I copied and pasted the opening arguments. )I am surprised that you are against legalization of prostitution, because on your profile you claim to be libertarian. My main argument for legalization is that government should not interfere and should not unnecessarily restrict civil liberties.", "qid": "28", "docid": "cf3ad38f-2019-04-18T16:49:54Z-00005-000", "rank": 16, "score": 187024.0}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution Should be Legalized Content: Extend.", "qid": "28", "docid": "f2b77005-2019-04-18T14:36:34Z-00003-000", "rank": 17, "score": 186034.0}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should be legalized Content: You guessed wrong!", "qid": "28", "docid": "94b67e8-2019-04-18T16:15:54Z-00000-000", "rank": 18, "score": 185323.0}, {"content": "Title: Legalized Prostitution Content: done", "qid": "28", "docid": "66ec5f29-2019-04-18T15:01:11Z-00000-000", "rank": 19, "score": 185202.0}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution Should Be Legal Content: Help control prostitution", "qid": "28", "docid": "3677e360-2019-04-19T12:44:54Z-00021-000", "rank": 20, "score": 184169.0}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should be legalized in the United States Content: I will affirm that \"prostitution should be legalized in the United States.\" The basis of my affirmation will be negative rights and objecting moral law; I argue that in a democratic society, there is no reason other than a subjective moral one for prostitution to be illegal. As such, making prostitution illegal on the basis of these subjective moral beliefs creates a moral law which violates the liberty of individuals who may not, or outright do not adhere to the same moral principles. To begin, I offer the following definitions for the clarity of my opponent and potential voters; 1. Prostitution: The act of exchanging sexual services for monetary gain. 2. Should: A pragmatic obligation. 3. Legalized: An acceptable practice under the law free from prosecution by a governing body. I will present two arguments to warrant a vote for the pro here, and two more in the next round. I encourage readers to consider them and weight them under a paradigm of comparative advantage against any arguments my opponent may present. If at the end of the round my arguments seem to advocate a more advantageous world, I encourage you then to vote for the Pro. 1. Moral Liberty is the issue of discussion- My opponent may argue otherwise, however so far as the current writer can see the only purpose behind prostitution's illegality is one of moral scrutiny. Generally our society sees the act of prostitution as a dirty, immoral action and have accordingly made the act illegal in most places throughout the U.S. This is the case with most, if not all sexual taboos; a few find a specific act detestable and make laws to prohibit others from doing such. With prostitution specifically, the moral division is not one which is shared in all parts of the world. It is instead an influence of America's Judeo-Christian culture, which discourages non vanilla sex. The Devadasi of south India actually sell their daughters to Hindu temples to serve as prostitutes[1]; They are looked up to as members of the high class, and seen as sex symbols. Even with the practice of prostitution was outlawed in 1947, these laws were not enforced due to the beliefs of Hindu society. [1] goo.gl/OasIO 2. Legality in the status quo- Currently, open prostitution is illegal in all but 1 state in the U.S.; that being Nevada. However even there prostitution is only legal within a limited sphere; there exist 28 registered brothels where prostitution is legal[2], outside these establishments one may be penalized for the aforementioned act. In North America, the United States is the only country (exempting Nevada) where prostitution is illegal. Both Canada[3] and Mexico have legalized prostitution; this has resulted in greater safety for Canadian prostitutes, who now have the ability to hire personnel to protect them, and protect themselves from sex-trafficking; this has unfortunately not been the case in Mexico were despite having legalized prostitution, or better stated made no legislation to address the issue. It is still considered largely an underground business due to the laws quite simply not being clearly defined. Unlike Canada who has openly addressed the issue of prostitution's legality in regards to liberty and safety, Mexico has largely ignored the issue. [2] goo.gl/roUlq [3] goo.gl/U6bPZ [4] goo.gl/jeSJm Conclusion- Religious and social dogma is the only cause of prostitution being illegal in the United States; accordingly the argument moral liberty must be considered. We musn't make law based solely on personal belief. Furthermore, by finally taking the jump to fully legalize prostitution in the United States, it would stand to reason that prostitution in Mexico would be influence to change for the better. Lawmakers of Mexico would be spurred to address the issue of prostitution and set clearer guidelines. Finally, any opposing arguments which deal with potential negative impacts of prostitution should be disregarded as an appeal to fear. Vote logically, not fearfully.", "qid": "28", "docid": "a4a55c63-2019-04-18T18:00:29Z-00007-000", "rank": 21, "score": 183781.0}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should be legal. Content: Personally, it should be a fundamental right to have sex with whoever you want, whenever you want, and whichever way you want as long as both parties agree to the proceedings. (Aside from an adult having sex with a minor, that's a separate matter) Some arguments against the legalization of prostitution are semi-valid, usually to the theme of health risks and such. Whether or not that argument is valid should not effect one guy, who wants to have sex, and one girl, who is willing to perform sexual acts upon said person for money, to make a transaction of mutual gain. Other arguments attempt to define Prostitution as a moral issue by saying it's demeaning and should therefore be illegal, but what they don't see is that something being demeaning is only a subjective judgement, and besides, both parties would be accepting the alleged demeaningness. That argument is like saying that if someone doesn't like a movie because he/she thinks it demeaning, then he/she can make it illegal to see that movie based on subjective value judgements. You should not enforce subjective morality onto others. I'll restate my point one more time, for good measure: If it's consensual and doesn't directly affect anyone else, then it should be legal.", "qid": "28", "docid": "181f179a-2019-04-18T16:34:11Z-00006-000", "rank": 22, "score": 183709.0}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should be legalized Content: ...ok then", "qid": "28", "docid": "94b678b-2019-04-18T16:48:46Z-00002-000", "rank": 23, "score": 183527.0}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should be legalised to protect sex workers from HIV/AIDS Content: Everyone has AIDS. AIDS, AIDS, AIDS.", "qid": "28", "docid": "e85fcaa7-2019-04-19T12:45:12Z-00009-000", "rank": 24, "score": 182657.0}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution Ought to be Legalized in the US Content: Pros Case(A) Prostitution Does Not Violate Any Persons LibertiesPrimarily, the purpose of making certain activities/things illegal is for the purpose of preserving the rights of individuals. Therefore, it follows that if engaging in prostitution does not violate personal liberties, then this is a reason that it ought be legalized. It is the choice of the person engaging in prostitution alone as to whether or not they shall engage in these activities. It is not the purpose of the government to enforce the subjective morality of certain philosophies and/or religions. (1) If a person think it wrong/immoral to engage in prostitution, that is perfectly acceptable. They are free to never engage in prostitution, or in hiring one. They may encourage others to avoid prostitution as well, but they may not petition the government to force others to conform to their perceptions of morality. However, if a person has no qualms with becoming/commissioning a prostitute, and desires to do so, what reason is there to prevent them from doing so? They are not forcing/coercing anyone else to surrender any personal liberties, and therefore it ought to be well within their rights to do so. The only argument to claim that prostitution is a crime with a victim, is that prostitution can lower the property value of a certain area. This problem is easily solved with simple zoning laws, such as laws that require sex workers to keep their businesses inside of a certain area (such as is the case with many industries). I. Legalizing prostitution is desirable, as a principle of freedom of choice. My first subpoint regards the desirability of prostitution. The United States prides itself of being a country that promotes freedom. As citizens we are free to engage in many more actions (for better or for worse) than citizens of other countries. This is also reflected in our capitalist attitudes on the economy. In the civil sense, and economic sense, prostitution ought to be legalized: having it remain illegal is an uneccesary intervention in personal choice from the US government. (B) Taxes/Regulations Placed Upon the Prostitution Industry Would Generate Revenue for the US Government. As the trade remains illegal in all states excluding 1, all revenue generated by the trade is untaxed. This untaxed revenue is roughly $20,000,000,000 annually. (2) With income tax (among others) finally being placed on this industry, the US Government could greatly increase it's tax revenue. I. Regulations would also aid in the prevention/reduction of crimes such as child molestation, human trafficking, etc. Arguably, the most desirable aspect of legalizing prostitution would be the increased safety for the workers in the trade, as well as the customers. Though only one state has legalized regulated prostitution, the trade still occurs in all US States and territories. In all of these states, workers are abused by their customers and their employers, and children and human sex slaves are traded like livestock. These crimes are obviously much more horrendous and evil than that of prostitution, and they are a product of the illegality of the trade. With the requirements of licensing, and health inspection, prostitutes would be protected from abuse, and infections/unwanted pregnancy. In Nevada, sex workers/customers are required to use condoms, and the workers must go to the doctors monthly for STD screenings. Furthermore, since all workers must be licensed/inspected, there is a greatly reduced chance of the workers being underage, or victims of trafficking. (3)II. Legalization would free up police resources. With prostitution legalized, Police forces across the US would have many more resources freed up, enabling them to prevent more serious/pressing crimes. (3)SummaryThere is no strong argument to be made against prostitution that does not violate the First Amendment to the US Constitution regarding the separation of Church and State. All problems presented within the industry are solved quite easily with careful regulation. Therefore, the only sensible conclusion is that the legalization of prostitution is desirable for the citizens of the US. Sources1. US Constitution, Amendment I2. . http://people.emich.edu...3. . http://www.businessinsider.com...", "qid": "28", "docid": "4ab4275-2019-04-18T15:50:20Z-00003-000", "rank": 25, "score": 181800.0}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should be legalized Content: Prostitution should not be legalized because it is immoral and, aside from that, harms the fabric of society. There is no established right, in any culture aside from libertarian academic circles, to do whatever a person wants with their body such as prostitution. The state can and should prevent activities like prostitution that are detrimental to normal relationships, lead to the spread of disease, and cause additional crime. In the United States, the roles and purposes of government are spelled out by the Constitution, which through the Tenth Amendment allows the states to regulate any activity not reserved for the federal government or protected through the Bill of Rights. Clearly, prostitution is not protected by the Constitution. The only remaining question is whether it is good public policy to legalize prostitution. The answer is no. I do not see any difference between what my opponent characterizes as \"subjective\" and \"objective\" immorality. If whether something is moral is determined by one's own \"personal moral code\", then why could \"rape, murder [and] stealing\" not be moral simply if a person considered it to be so?The distinction of whether an action directly harms others is not valid because other people can be harmed by actions which are not directly targeted at them. See speeding for example. It is illegal to speed because of the potential that SOMEONE could be injured in an accident. Speeding is not a direct infringement of a specific person's rights like murder or stealing, but it is illegal because of the aggregate negative effect that it has by causing increased traffic injuries and fatalities. The same is true about many other laws, including laws against prostitution. I did not say that theocracy is the best form of government. I used the fact that the Bible obviously opposes prostitution to refute my opponent's claim that anything which is consensual is moral, and that this principle is the \"universal moral rule.\" Of course, if the most influential faith in human history opposes something, it obviously is not universally held. That is not to say that there are not SOME people who believe as my opponent does. But it is not a universal, or even a majority, position. (Not that it would matter for the purposes of this debate.) Ultimately, it does not matter if you consider prostitution to be immoral (it is). But if you truly want a secular society where laws are based solely on their social impact, then prostitution should still be illegal. Many prostitutes *are* victims because they end up in a situation where it is the only thing they can do to make enough money to survive. Aside from that, prostitution has negative effects on society such as damage to relationships and spread of crime/diseases. Prostitution should remain illegal.", "qid": "28", "docid": "94b6883-2019-04-18T11:25:20Z-00000-000", "rank": 26, "score": 181573.0}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should be legal in the United States Content: Thanks, Con. I tried to keep this round short and to the point... 1. Through the principle of self-ownership, people have the right to determine what they do with their own bodies, including sexually. 2. Prostitution is a victimless crime. Neither of the consenting parties are forced into the trade agreement (money in exchange for sex). 3. Promiscuity is rampant. People are already having casual sex. Being paid for it wouldn't affect the morality of what is already happening. This would be true even if it encouraged people to be more promiscuous. Moreover, it is not the role of government to ensure that people behave morally. However it IS the role of government to enforce contractual agreements. 4. If somehow legalized prostitution led to the transmission of more STDs, that would be up to the individuals to manage. People must be responsible for their own health. Just as you would be responsible for your obesity if you chose to eat 60 cupcakes a day, you would be responsible for your herpes if you chose to have unprotected sex. No activity or job is risk-free. 5. On that note, regulating the prostitution industry actually protects sex workers. In Nevada, women who work in brothels are frequently tested for STDs. \"We see very little STD among the working girls in these brothels,\" says Dr. Randall Todd [1]. These environments not only encourage but often require safe sex. 6. Further, legalizing prostitution would prevent underground prostitution that occurs today. Right now sex workers are being manipulated and controlled by pimps and organized criminals like the mafia. They are often stripped of their profit, and forced to pay the money they earned in exchange for their safety. By decriminalizing their profession, prostitutes would be free from this oppression. They could seek protection from law enforcement rather than criminals. 7. If prostitution were considered a legitimate profession, you could collect taxes from the work that many are already being paid to do tax-free. This would contribute to the economy significantly as it already has in Nevada. It not only helps the government through revenue, but the individuals who now have more job options [2]. 8. An exorbitant amount of money is spent on law enforcement to catch prostitutes and their customers. Once caught, justice departments have to process these people through very expensive systems. Our courts are crowded, police are over-burdened, and in the end the hookers simply pay the fines and go back to work on the streets. 9. Again, neither the customer nor the sales-person is a victim. Society cannot be considered a victim. Victims are people who have PERSONAL grievances against them. Throughout society, there are innumerable perceptions of polygamy and sex, just as there have been throughout human history. 10. In fact, prostitution is probably the oldest profession. A chef cooks, and a hooker hooks. I see no difference. Both employees exchange their labor/services for the enjoyment of another. Sex is only taboo in certain cultures (like ours) because of traditional, often religious backed sentiments that are perfectly fine - but have no business in government. Otherwise it is simply an activity (that hurts no one) like any other activity. 11. Saying prostitutes might be \"damaged\" or any other appeal to emotion is both presumptuous and fallacious. Further, it is irrelevant (especially if they are over 18). Plenty of people take jobs they despise in order to make ends meet. An individual should be free to weigh their options. On that note, many sex workers enjoy their jobs. They like sex, and would prefer to make money that way as opposed to flipping burgers or sitting in a cubicle all day. That's their prerogative. 12. Most importantly to consider, pornography is legal. Pornography is nothing more than money in exchange for sex\u2026 in front of a camera. It is literally documented prostitution that is viewed and shared all over the world. Prohibition doesn't stifle demand. Pornography in itself generated 97 BILLION dollars in 2006 alone [3]. Over 70% of men in the U.S. view porn regularly [4]. As such, we see that there is a high demand for sex work. [1] http://www.overdriveonline.com... [2] http://voices.yahoo.com... [3] http://theweek.com... [4] http://articles.nydailynews.com...", "qid": "28", "docid": "821c3053-2019-04-18T18:09:42Z-00005-000", "rank": 27, "score": 181089.0}, {"content": "Title: Should prostitution be legal Content: Prostitution should be legal for a lot of reasons. A good example of prostitution working in a civil society is the Netherlands. Prostitution has been legal for years in this country and the people has benefitted from the tax revenue generated from prostitution. Many people say prostitution should be illegal for religious or moral reasons. This is a false premise to ban prostitution. The urge for sexual reproduction is inherent in all men. Those men who lack the skills or time to court women and engage in sex should not be denied their sexual instincts because the government deciding prostitution is illegal. Some argue that prostitution is derisive to the women who work in the industry. Allegedly many legal prostitutes are forced into their work and have no choice in the matter. The Dutch engineered a solution to this by providing social services and protection to the prostitutes working in the country's many red-light districts. If a Dutch night walker feels under pressure from a pimp and not acting under her own choice she would have many resources available to her. In a country with illegal prostitution these options do not exist. In Sweden the government has tried to fight illegal prostitution by prosecuting the men caught in the act rather than the hussy. Then they offer the call girls alternative education opportunities to reeducate them and reintegrate them into moral society. The man on the other hand must endure the difficult legal process and face the possibility of paying fines and doing community service/Jail time. While it is not surprising the Swedish socialist government would opt for such an extreme measure it nevertheless highlights why neither side of the exchange should be punished for paid sexual favors. While many men enjoy a good go-around with a slankpop once in a while we should still raise our children to avoid such behavior.", "qid": "28", "docid": "936e7b82-2019-04-18T12:19:14Z-00000-000", "rank": 28, "score": 180969.0}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should be legal Content: Prostitution should be legal since women can have the choice to practice it or not. If they are not being forced then I don't see the problem. If we legalise it , many women that can't find a job will want to do it since it is not against the law. They can win money, have fun and give others pleasure too. There is nothing sexist about prostitution, and so it should be legal.", "qid": "28", "docid": "cf3ad40b-2019-04-18T15:04:08Z-00009-000", "rank": 29, "score": 180534.0}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution Should Be Legal Content: Safety of the parties involved", "qid": "28", "docid": "3677e360-2019-04-19T12:44:54Z-00020-000", "rank": 30, "score": 180332.0}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should be legalized Content: There is no crime without a victim. That's the universal moral rule. And in the United States, our laws are made to comply with indisputable morality- not religious/cultural morality (if the Amish made law, we'd have quite a different dress code) not subjective morality (vegans would have banned meat). Prostitution, however, is not inherently wrong except religiously, culturally, or individually. If one is forced or coerced into it, of course it is a heinous crime but that's not sex work- that's sexual trafficking. As long as there's no gray area, the worker gives clear consent, it is not the governments job to police his/her moral code or his/her body. It's a private matter, inapplicable to others. It's illogical to permit both commerce and sex but give jailtime when the two collide. On top of that, the criminalization of sex work can be dangerous to the workers- it can make it much more difficult to get out of the business if they choose to, as the cycle of jailtime, court, and recidivism creates financial trouble and vulnerability. Sex worker suicides are incredibly high, especially in situations of arrest, and the stigma of sex work caused by lawmakers makes it hard to reach out. Lastly, according to the Prostitution Act of 1996, no law has ever prevented or at all significantly manipulated statistics of sex work. Anti-prostitution laws are outdated, authoritarian, dangerous, and illogical in any form.", "qid": "28", "docid": "94b6864-2019-04-18T11:26:01Z-00001-000", "rank": 31, "score": 180188.0}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should be legalized Content: There is no crime without a victim. That's the universal moral rule. And in the United States, our laws are made to comply with indisputable morality- not religious/cultural morality (if the Amish made law, we'd have quite a different dress code) not subjective morality (vegans would have banned meat). Prostitution, however, is not inherently wrong except religiously, culturally, or individually. If one is forced or coerced into it, of course it is a heinous crime but that's not sex work- that's sexual trafficking. As long as there's no gray area, the worker gives clear consent, it is not the governments job to police his/her moral code or his/her body. It's a private matter, inapplicable to others. It's illogical to permit both commerce and sex but give jailtime when the two collide. On top of that, the criminalization of sex work can be dangerous to the workers- it can make it much more difficult to get out of the business if they choose to, as the cycle of jailtime, court, and recidivism creates financial trouble and vulnerability. Sex worker suicides are incredibly high, especially in situations of arrest, and the stigma of sex work caused by lawmakers makes it hard to reach out. Lastly, according to the Prostitution Act of 1996, no law has ever prevented or at all significantly manipulated statistics of sex work. Anti-prostitution laws are outdated, authoritarian, dangerous, and illogical in any form.", "qid": "28", "docid": "94b6883-2019-04-18T11:25:20Z-00003-000", "rank": 32, "score": 180188.0}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should be legalized Content: There is no crime without a victim. That's the universal moral rule. And in the United States, our laws are made to comply with indisputable morality- not religious/cultural morality (if the Amish made law, we'd have quite a different dress code) not subjective morality (vegans would have banned meat). Prostitution, however, is not inherently wrong except religiously, culturally, or individually. If one is forced or coerced into it, of course it is a heinous crime but that's not sex work- that's sexual trafficking. As long as there's no gray area, the worker gives clear consent, it is not the governments job to police his/her moral code or his/her body. It's a private matter, inapplicable to others. It's illogical to permit both commerce and sex but give jailtime when the two collide. On top of that, the criminalization of sex work can be dangerous to the workers- it can make it much more difficult to get out of the business if they choose to, as the cycle of jailtime, court, and recidivism creates financial trouble and vulnerability. Sex worker suicides are incredibly high, especially in situations of arrest, and the stigma of sex work caused by lawmakers makes it hard to reach out. Lastly, according to the Prostitution Act of 1996, no law has ever prevented or at all significantly manipulated statistics of sex work. Anti-prostitution laws are outdated, authoritarian, dangerous, and illogical in any form.", "qid": "28", "docid": "94b6b2d-2019-04-18T11:25:16Z-00001-000", "rank": 33, "score": 180188.0}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution Should Be Legal In The US Content: Good luck to you!", "qid": "28", "docid": "5e72cb5d-2019-04-18T17:32:30Z-00003-000", "rank": 34, "score": 179766.0}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should be legal Content: As I've said, prostitution is simply unethical, and will inevitably lead to more harm than good if legalized. Those are my final thoughts on the subject.", "qid": "28", "docid": "181f935c-2019-04-18T13:30:24Z-00000-000", "rank": 35, "score": 179229.0}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution Should be Legalized Content: I accept your challenge.", "qid": "28", "docid": "f2b76fe6-2019-04-18T14:49:20Z-00006-000", "rank": 36, "score": 179171.0}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should be legal Content: I accept my opponent's invitation to debate.Resolution: Prostitution should be legalI'd like to clarify the rules and structure to avoid confusion.Structure:Round 1 - AcceptanceRound 2 - Opening StatementsRound 3 - RebuttalsRules:1) No hate speech/ slander2) No kritkiks3) No plagiarism4) No new arguments in final round5) Please use citations6) No forfeiture7) No troll arguments8) BoP is sharedTerms:Prostitution - the practice or occupation of engaging in sexual activity with someone for payment.Should - used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions.Be - (used to indicate the condition of a person or thing)Legal - allowed by the law or by the rules in a gameVoting Rules:1) Vote Convincing Arguments2) Only vote conduct if plagiarism, forfeiture, and/or slander is present3) Only vote spelling and grammar if it's so poor it detracts from the arguments at hand4) Only vote reliable sources if they're proven to be false, biased, etc. by opponentsThank you. I look forward to your arguments.", "qid": "28", "docid": "181f937b-2019-04-18T17:30:09Z-00004-000", "rank": 37, "score": 178650.0}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution Should be Legalized Content: Prostitution is an old job that employs many educated and uneducated people alike[2]. Yes, it is a job, by definition[4]. If prostitution were legal, more men and women would be able to have jobs they enjoyed[5]. Unfortunately, the sex-trade is unregulated. Prostitutes are often physically abused by their bosses[3]. If the profession were to be regulated, or at least recognized and offered legal protection from the government, they would be able to get help to end the abusive relationship, and hopefully never have a boss who would abuse in the first place, without getting themselves in trouble. Prostitution is legally considered a crime, which is why many women who want to quit their jobs because of this aforementioned abuse are afraid to do so[3]. However, it should not be a crime. The thought that it is illegal to systematically charge for something some people randomly give out for free is ridiculous. It should not hurt anyone, as all participating parties have consented. In fact, it is estimated that if prostitution were legalized in the United States, the rape rate would decrease by roughly 25% for a decrease of approximately 25,000 rapes per year. While the spread of disease and other detriments are possible in the practice of prostitution, criminalization is a sure way of exacerbating rather than addressing such effects. We saw this quite clearly in the time of alcohol prohibition in this country[1]. If properly overseen, no one would be stolen from or financially, physically, or mentally damaged in any other way in prostitution. Things can\"t get any better until people in this business can get equal rights. Sources: [1] http://www.history.com... [2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [3] http://www.womenslaw.org... [4] (From dictionary.com) a piece of work, especially a specific task done as part of the routine of one's occupation or for an agreed price [5] \"We chose sex work after we did a lot of things we couldn't stand. Sex work is better. For me, sex work isn't my first choice of paying work. It just happens to be the best alternative available. It's better than being president of someone else's corporation. It's better than being a secretary. It is the most honest work I know of.\" -Veronica Monet, Prostitute and Author, in Gauntlet Magazine, 1994 [6] http://prostitution.procon.org...", "qid": "28", "docid": "f2b76fc7-2019-04-18T14:52:56Z-00002-000", "rank": 38, "score": 178568.0}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution Should be Legalized Content: Prostitution is an old job that employs many educated and uneducated people alike[2]. Yes, it is a job, by definition[4]. If prostitution were legal, more men and women would be able to have jobs they enjoyed[5]. Unfortunately, the sex-trade is unregulated. Prostitutes are often physically abused by their bosses[3]. If the profession were to be regulated, or at least recognized and offered legal protection from the government, they would be able to get help to end the abusive relationship, and hopefully never have a boss who would abuse in the first place, without getting themselves in trouble. Prostitution is legally considered a crime, which is why many women who want to quit their jobs because of this aforementioned abuse are afraid to do so[3]. However, it should not be a crime. The thought that it is illegal to systematically charge for something some people randomly give out for free is ridiculous. It should not hurt anyone, as all participating parties have consented. In fact, it is estimated that if prostitution were legalized in the United States, the rape rate would decrease by roughly 25% for a decrease of approximately 25,000 rapes per year. While the spread of disease and other detriments are possible in the practice of prostitution, criminalization is a sure way of exacerbating rather than addressing such effects. We saw this quite clearly in the time of alcohol prohibition in this country[1]. If properly overseen, no one would be stolen from or financially, physically, or mentally damaged in any other way in prostitution. Things can\"t get any better until people in this business can get equal rights. Sources: [1] http://www.history.com...... [2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...... [3] http://www.womenslaw.org...... [4] (From dictionary.com) a piece of work, especially a specific task done as part of the routine of one's occupation or for an agreed price [5] \"We chose sex work after we did a lot of things we couldn't stand. Sex work is better. For me, sex work isn't my first choice of paying work. It just happens to be the best alternative available. It's better than being president of someone else's corporation. It's better than being a secretary. It is the most honest work I know of.\" -Veronica Monet, Prostitute and Author, in Gauntlet Magazine, 1994 [6] http://prostitution.procon.org......", "qid": "28", "docid": "f2b76fe6-2019-04-18T14:49:20Z-00005-000", "rank": 39, "score": 178568.0}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should be legal in the US Content: It is against God's will, therefore should not.", "qid": "28", "docid": "1cb1375c-2019-04-18T15:23:13Z-00003-000", "rank": 40, "score": 178464.0}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should be legal due to it being a victim-free crime. Content: Prostitution is harmful to both the prostitute and to the \"buyer\". Prostitutes aren't always voluntary, but can be forced into the profession and or kidnapped.", "qid": "28", "docid": "ab52fe20-2019-04-18T17:03:24Z-00005-000", "rank": 41, "score": 178288.0}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should be legal in the US Content: Con argues that it is against Gods will but shows no reason to actually believe this. For him to say it is against God's will he would first have to do a few things. (a) He would have to show that God exists (b) He would have to show that God is the sole authority (c) He would have to show that it is in fact against God's will For his argument to have any weight, it would have to establish all of the aforementioned points. He fails to do that so his contention is effectively negated, because it is merely an assertion.", "qid": "28", "docid": "1cb1375c-2019-04-18T15:23:13Z-00001-000", "rank": 42, "score": 178276.0}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution Should Be Legal Content: Legalisation or Decrimilisation", "qid": "28", "docid": "3677e360-2019-04-19T12:44:54Z-00002-000", "rank": 43, "score": 178217.0}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution Should Be Legal Content: Prostitution is simply an issue of individual liberty.", "qid": "28", "docid": "3677e360-2019-04-19T12:44:54Z-00014-000", "rank": 44, "score": 178141.0}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should be legalized in the US Content: I accept.", "qid": "28", "docid": "622af56b-2019-04-18T14:56:01Z-00005-000", "rank": 45, "score": 178035.0}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should be legal due to it being a victim-free crime. Content: Certainly the government will have to intervene if and when groups oppose the regulation. An unfortunate side effect of this is that the criminal organizations will only become more determined. However, when the consumer is presented with either an illegal good or the same good but legal they will nine time out of ten choose the legal good. Over time the illegal prostitution groups will run out of business and have to shutdown or incur major losses. In an ideal world there would be no industry for prostitution, but since that is not possible we must make the best of the situation and try and regulate the industry.", "qid": "28", "docid": "ab52fe20-2019-04-18T17:03:24Z-00000-000", "rank": 46, "score": 178024.0}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution Should Be Legal Content: Making it illegal helps exploit those we should be protecting", "qid": "28", "docid": "3677e360-2019-04-19T12:44:54Z-00017-000", "rank": 47, "score": 178016.0}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should be legal due to it being a victim-free crime. Content: Prostitution is an immoral act. The reason it is such a bad \"deed\" being is because there is no commitment involved. So if a prostitute gets pregnant then she either gets an abortion, or keeps the kid and has to raise it by herself. Both of these outcomes are bad for the prostitute. Legalizing this \"profession\" would only hurt the people involved.", "qid": "28", "docid": "ab52fe3f-2019-04-18T17:03:06Z-00001-000", "rank": 48, "score": 177887.0}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should be legalized Content: I guess I win...", "qid": "28", "docid": "94b67e8-2019-04-18T16:15:54Z-00001-000", "rank": 49, "score": 177841.0}, {"content": "Title: In the United States, prostitution should be legal. Content: I'm not a person of your country, but anyway, I start my reply. I referred to this cite. (http://www.idebate.org...) First, basically, government have no right to engage private life like intercourse. But if the benefit of public is bigger than the private right, the regulation was based on the legal step of the law, the regulation is based on serious and careful consideration, and they are not violating the essential parts of the freedom and right, government can also regulate right of people. Basically, the justice of prostitution is based on the right to decide of their own body. But, this right is also can be restricted because of violating the dignity of human. I have the intention to argue that prostitution can violate the dignity of human so regulation of prostitution should be needed even if the rule was made by the government in this debate. Second, prostitution basically violate the rule of marry. The essence of the rule of marry is the exclusive right of the intercourse with a spouse. As long as the rule of marry remain the fundamental of the society, we should keep it. In addition, the use of a woman's body solely for the purpose of sexual gratification does not treat them as a person. This lack of respect dehumanizes both prostitute and client, and this situation can violate the dignity of both sex. So, the overwhelming of freedom also can harm to the society and individual. It should be well adjusted by individuals or even by the government in the some situation. And I can tell you more side effects of prostitution. Finally, Laws regarding prostitution are also based on the serious consideration not only religion but also other aspects. I can show you this evidence by showing this site. - http://www.idebate.org... - The regulation of prostitution are not only based on the faith of religion. Violation of the right of prostitutes, the economic aspects, the side effects from the country which allow prostitute, and so many other aspects are also considered by the officials in the USA government. I'll wait your reply.", "qid": "28", "docid": "35179721-2019-04-18T19:41:11Z-00004-000", "rank": 50, "score": 177806.0}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution Should Be Legal Content: Prostitution is responsible for preventing some incidence of sex crime.", "qid": "28", "docid": "3677e360-2019-04-19T12:44:54Z-00011-000", "rank": 51, "score": 177779.0}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should be legalized Content: quitter", "qid": "28", "docid": "94b678b-2019-04-18T16:48:46Z-00001-000", "rank": 52, "score": 177774.0}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should be legal due to it being a victim-free crime. Content: There are three reasons as to why prostitution should be illegal. 1. It is an immoral act according to many religions. 2. It helps with the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. 3. It is a gateway to other bad behaviors such as drugs.", "qid": "28", "docid": "ab52fe3f-2019-04-18T17:03:06Z-00005-000", "rank": 53, "score": 177567.0}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution Should be Legalized Content: I will start this round by making my rebuttals then apparently conclude this entire debate afterwords. \"Prostitution should be legalized, but be carefully regulated. Laws should protect prostitutes from abuse from their bosses and clients. Rates must be regulated, and lack of paying will be considered rape in a court. \" - ProProstitutes have the same rights as any other woman in the United States because they are human beings. The only problem is that the laws are either biased or the prostitutes are afraid to speak up. A prostituted woman might be afraid of what her pimp will do to her and afraid for her life if she tries to leave; pimps often threaten the lives of the women who work for them, which may prevent a woman from leaving prostitution(1). Pimps assume psychological, biological, social, and economic control over the lives of the women they sell to johns (clients) through the use of chronic terror, cunning use of various aspects of captivity, and isolation from others who might offer support and validation. In addition they employ starvation, sleep deprivation, protein deprivation, conditioned physiologic hyperarousal, unexpected sexual violence, and learned helplessness(4). Also, most women in prostitution do not report rape or other crimes committed against them to the police because of the stigma associated with prostitution(2). In other words, whether or not prostitution is legalized, there will still be cruel judgement against them. Quote(2):\"None of us went to the police. .. There was lack of trust. You didn't know which policemen to trust. Half the girls were being touched up by them. .. It would be like you chose to do this job: get out and do it, or get a life. .. The police have no compassion. They think the girls and women put themselves in that danger, so why should they be helped. \" - Maria, a prostitution survivor. \"Rates must be regulated, and lack of paying will be considered rape in a court. \" - ProI understand the rate regulation, but lack of paying considered rape. .. ? Not only is this ridiculous, but I don't see this happening in a real court case. As I have stated before, rape is unlawful sexual intercourse or any other sexual penetration of the vagina, anus, or mouth of another person, with or without force, by a sex organ, other body part, or foreign object, without the consent of the victim(7). If a prostitute consents in the beginning, she can't just change her story and cry rape because a client fails to make payment. Let's say prostitution is legalized and you have a customer; he chooses the consenting prostitute he wants but he isn't satisfied by her type of experience so he refuses to pay, or he already paid for her services and demands a refund. Is the manager (pimp/boss) supposed to call the police and say this client \"raped\" one of his prostitutes with no valid evidence of the accusation? No pay is NOT rape. \"If prostitution were legal, more men and women would be able to have jobs they enjoyed[5]. \" - ProMy opponent has only quoted an outdated statement by some \"professional\" escort from 1995 as a source, instead of at least showing statistics of who would honestly \"enjoy\" the life of prostitution. \"In fact, it is estimated that if prostitution were legalized in the United States, the rape rate would decrease by roughly 25% for a decrease of approximately 25,000 rapes per year. \" - ProA 25% decrease isn't very impressive considering that there's 630,000 women raped each year(3). \"If properly overseen, no one would be stolen from or financially, physically, or mentally damaged in any other way in prostitution. \" - ProHow do you know? Women can enter prostitution legally and still be financially, physically, or mentally and emotionally damaged. A study has found that PTSD resulting from exposure to physical danger is more common among prostitutes than among troops who have weathered combat duty(7). \"Prostitutes are also similar to promiscuous people, with the exception of the fee. \" - ProMost prostitutes are NOT similar to promiscuous people. Promiscuous people have sex with random people of their choice for their own entertainment for no amount of money. Prostitutes don't choose their clients, clients choose them, and often times, pimps choose their clients. And unlike promiscuous people, most prostitutes don't enjoy the sex they have with clients because, again, they don't choose them. If prostitutes don't obey their clients, they either don't get money to survive, feel the wrath of their pimps, or worse. At least promiscuous people can reject whoever they want because it's not their job. Responses to MissLenaElan's rebuttal's:\"It promotes children to be trafficked\"\"In fact, it would do quite the opposite. Children being trafficked, especially for sex, is terrible and unfortunately happens very often[4]. However, they're an easier target because children are not as smart or strong as adults and therefore more vulnerable. If prostitution were legal, there would be more willing adults in the business, causing the demand for child trafficking to dive[5]. It would also decrease human trafficking in general[6]. \" - ProProstitution IS human trafficking. There's no difference between them. Both are part of a system of gender-based domination that makes violence against women and girls profitable to a mind-boggling extreme, and both prey on women and girls made vulnerable by poverty, discrimination, and violence and leaves them traumatized, sick, and impoverished(4). Legalizing prostitution won't make a significant difference, it'll just be legal trafficking. As long as there are perverts/pedophiles in this world, there will always be child sex trafficking. I don't find one of my opponent's sources that she cited in her statement very useful to her offense because it has several flaws. My opponent stated, \"If prostitution were legal, there would be more willing adults in the business, causing the demand for child trafficking to dive,\" but in her source, [. http://www.listland.com...], in the section where it mentions \"legal prostitution would protect minors\", it says, \"A lot of pro-decriminalization of prostitution believethat if people can legally buy sex from women 18 years or older, it will significantly reduce child exploitation\". This statement alone is based on beliefs and not estimated facts. According to a study of 218 \"johns\" (clients) who were warned that the women they were looking at online were actually minors, 42% still wanted the underage girl(5). Hypothetically speaking, how are prostitution businesses supposed to keep up with the demands of the other half of their customers if laws are regulated for only 18-year-old or older prostitutes? They would still have to resort to child trafficking in the US. \"Most of the prostitutes are victims\"\"Right now that is true. But like I mentioned, if it were legal, there would be ore willing participants and thus a much lower demand for people to be forced into prostitution against their will. In a world without sex trafficking, prostitution would be a victimless crime[5]. \" - ProPeople don't have to be forced into prostitution to be involved in it. A vast majority of them are involved because they lack basic human services such as a home, job training, health care, counseling and treatment for drug or alcohol addiction. Also, for many women, prostitution and sexual exploitation might be the only life they know(1). If the US ever legalized prostitution, that would mean having a set age limit. Have you ever thought to yourself what would become of all the underaged prostitutes and future runaways in America trying to survive? Without the right help, they would most likely die on the streets or be forced into still illegal child prostitution. In other words, it would still not be a victimless crime. \"Whether or not it's legal, it's still a dangerous job\"\"There will always be risks, as there are with any profession. Making prostitution legal will decrease these risks. Nevada was the first state in the US to legalize prostitution. They have very smart laws set to keep their workers safe that could not be enforced if prostitution were considered a crime. The employees are given monthly STD tests, have a \"safety button\" in the case of a client getting too aggressive, and brothels can\"t seek to recruit new prostitutes[7]. \" - ProNevada may have legalized prostitution, but 81% of the Nevada women still want to escape it, regardless of its legal status. One of them even stated, \"It\"s all the same emotionally, no matter where we work,\" referring to other \" illegal \" locations where she had been rented for sex(4). I do not understand what my opponent means by a \"safety button\" because she did not elaborate. And as for some of her sources, I find them invalid because some of them lead me to the main pages and not to anywhere that proves my opponent's point. Such as:. http://www.history.com...http://www.huffingtonpost.com...http://www.womenslaw.org...And a site with blank parts. .. . http://www.usdebtclock.org...Prostitution is wrong beyond all means and legalizing it will not make it any better for this country or for the victims involved in it. America needs to help these prostitutes get out of their lifestyle instead of making it worse. Vote ConSources:(1)-. http://www.womenslaw.org...(2)-http://www.thefword.org.uk...(3)-http://listen.nycagainstrape.org...(4)-http://www.prostitutionresearch.com...(5)-http://www.ksufreedomalliance.org...(6)-http://www.nytimes.com...(7)-google dictionary", "qid": "28", "docid": "f2b76fe6-2019-04-18T14:49:20Z-00000-000", "rank": 54, "score": 177481.0}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution Should Be Legal Content: The problem of a high concentration of \u2018sex tourists\u2019 in a small number of destinations will disappear.", "qid": "28", "docid": "3677e360-2019-04-19T12:44:54Z-00009-000", "rank": 55, "score": 177363.0}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should be legalised to protect sex workers from HIV/AIDS Content: Changing Social Stigma and flow on benefits.", "qid": "28", "docid": "e85fcaa7-2019-04-19T12:45:12Z-00008-000", "rank": 56, "score": 177162.0}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should be legal. Content: I don't know if my opponent had other matters to attend to. Thanks for the debate!", "qid": "28", "docid": "181f179a-2019-04-18T16:34:11Z-00000-000", "rank": 57, "score": 177066.0}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should be legalized Content: Please extend all of my arguments.", "qid": "28", "docid": "be3c3dbd-2019-04-18T18:24:51Z-00001-000", "rank": 58, "score": 177031.0}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should made be legal in the United States, because it is a victimless crime. Content: Thank you for reading.", "qid": "28", "docid": "b2564ac-2019-04-18T14:01:26Z-00000-000", "rank": 59, "score": 177025.0}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution ought to be Legalized Content: I will take this challenge.", "qid": "28", "docid": "1a28e069-2019-04-18T12:15:36Z-00001-000", "rank": 60, "score": 176893.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Prostitution should be legalised Content: I accept.", "qid": "28", "docid": "9010a352-2019-04-18T14:32:49Z-00006-000", "rank": 61, "score": 176810.0}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution Should Be Legal Content: A short debate.Not to be confused with the unrelated debate on the morality of prostitution, the debate here is concerned with whether or not Prostitution should be legal.To briefly state my case:Prostitution, whether it is prohibited by law or not, will always exist in Society. There will always be a Demand for sex, and likewise there will always be a Supply of it. Many of the woes that people claim come with legalized prostitution (pimping, child trafficking, forced prostitution) would actually be solved by legalizing prostitution as that the legal stigma would vanish. Both prostitutes and \"johns\" would have nothing to fear in approaching the police regarding potential crimes. However, those same crimes listed above are made worse when prostitution is illegal, both because of underworld economics and because prostitutes are less likely to go to police when they fear being arrested (as do their customers).", "qid": "28", "docid": "e410cf7a-2019-04-18T12:25:46Z-00002-000", "rank": 62, "score": 176437.0}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution Should Be Legal Content: Many feminists consider that prostitution reflects the independence and dominance of modern women.", "qid": "28", "docid": "3677e360-2019-04-19T12:44:54Z-00012-000", "rank": 63, "score": 176335.0}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should be illegal. Content: Thanks! Prostitution should not be illegal for four reasons, and should be legal for a few other reasons: (1) If a person chooses to act a certain way, knowing it can be harmful, that's their choice. Just like a BMXer or Skateboarder or Skydiver - it's dangerous, but it's their choice. (2) Nobody said this is the reason anybody would legalize prostitution. Not eliminating violence? That's like saying \"let's not fund Lung Cancer research because it won't eliminate Breast Cancer.\" (3) If a woman chooses to sell her body for sex, then yes, it increases human trafficking, but that would be legal, and the woman's choice, so I don't see how this is a bad thing. (4) ....If someone has the option to make easy money, do it. Who cares if someone else can't, maybe they could find another way to make money.Now, for the reasons it should be legal: [1] Primarily men, who are incapable of finding a partner or really any form of sexual release, can easily fulfill their sexual desires by paying for it. No talking, no flirting, no \"game,\" just money, and sex. [2] Legalized prostitution can decrease the rape numbers by upward of 25%. [3] Legalized prostitution can lower the number of sexually transmitted diseases, much like in porn. [4] Legalizing prostitution is disallowing the government to control our own bodies.(1) - You have forgotten to take into account that your stats are coming from illegal prostitution. I agree to an extent that currently, illegal prostitution is very hard to live with and can easily lead to a much shorter life span, as well as many different types of addictions. However with legal prostitution, many of these interactions can be in places such as brothels, where there can be security, as well as safe sex, and a lack of illegal drugs.Even if what you're saying is true, that there are cases where some women are beaten even in places with safety precautions, I can guarantee there are less women beaten in areas with legalized prostitution than illegal prostitution, so even though bad stuff happens everywhere (even look at the police force, really nothing can be 100% perfect), it's still a major improvement.If a woman chooses to start prostituting, she has the ability to make this choice knowing the consequences, and she still makes the choice. Much like a stuntman or construction worker or fisherman, there is higher pay for higher risk, in any job, and that applies to prostitution. If she chooses this, it's her choice.(2) - You brought this up already halfway through your first point, legalizing something will not erase all crime involved. There is still an illegal alcohol market, even though alcohol is now legal. If prostitution was legal in North America, it may very well be different than other places. Sure, there could be some instances where violence is involved, but it is a lot different than prostitution on the street, where there is no organization, security, etc. And please keep in mind, it's the woman's choice to get into this. If she is choosing to get into this lifestyle, then, well it's her choice. Just because legalizing it probably won't eliminate all crime doesn't mean it won't eliminate a lot of crime.(3) - Legalized prostitution gives women the choice to get into what they want. Human trafficking is the distribution of sexual acts by humans. If prostitution was legal, more willing people would get into this, instead of people taken against their will. It would most likely no longer be forced on innocent people.(4) - Prostitution is absolutely not that, and can be argued to be women's control over men. Men want sex? Well, women can give it, but they want something in return. This is how free trade works. Men want something, women want something, they both get what they want in the end. This has nothing to do with gender inequality, but simple trading of a service for money. I'm physically fit, and Linda wants me to build a brick wall for her. Is this exploiting males as nothing but slaves because of our strength? No, it's asking someone to do something because they have the ability to, and in exchange for their service, you give them something they want, which in a lot of cases is money.In no way do men control women in general, and more specifically, in this sense. If they did, they wouldn't have to pay for sex.Now for my arguments[1] Prostitution allows men to have sex who are really unable to find a sexual partner. Sex is a big part of life. Not only is it important to keep our species alive, but it's an amazing stress reliever, it keeps your immune system up, increases oxygen intake and healthy blood flow, as well as relieving pain {2}. Sex is an important part of life, and has dozens of benefits. Not being able to have sex for whatever reason, can easily be thrown out the window if you can pay for it. After all, if I pay for an aspirin, why can't I pay for sex? It feels a lot better than aspirin.[2] Studies have shown that legalized prostitution decreases the rate of rapes {1}. It's kind of hard to elaborate on this point, but wouldn't you want to live in a world where a quarter more of the female population was safer? If someone has access to legal sex, even paying $20 for cheap... prostitutes... it would deter them from doing something illegal.[3] Porn is prostitution. People are paid to have sex, but they record it, and therefore it's legal. Rumours have gone around saying there are STDs riddled in porn, but in reality porn is probably safer than having sex with a girl you met and got to know for a month. There are extensive screenings and tests to ensure the safety of the actors' health. Of course STDs are in some areas of porn, HIV/AIDS is not {3}, and that's the main thing that needs to be taken seriously. STDs can be considered harmless, and can really be taken care of quickly. If prostitution is legalized, it will most likely be a lot like porn - the women are tested, the men having sex with the women may be tested, and in the end, nobody gets any type of infection, and on the off chance someone does, it can be taken care of easily.[4] Sex is natural. Paying for services is how society runs. Paying for massages is completely normal. So why is it that paying for sex is not? Entering into a sexual relationship with someone obviously has risks. Why is sex legal, but paying someone for it illegal? This is a direct violation of our human rights. The government has passed a law that doesn't allow us to have sex if we give someone money for it. Sure, it's a health concern, but like I've said several times, it's a known health concern - there is a possibility something bad could happen, and both people know this, just like when someone has sex with their girlfriend or boyfriend.If two people wish to have consenting sex, while knowing the health risks, they are taking a chance, sure, just like having sex in general, but it's suddenly illegal if someone pays the other?To sum up:Prostitution is a woman's choice. They choose to accept money in return for sex.It's nearly impossibly to eliminate 100% of violence, however the violence can decrease.Human trafficking would not be forced on innocent people, and more willing people would participate, as it's now legal.Prostitution is a simple trade system, and does not have anything to do with one gender being superior to the otherProstitution enables men who are incapable of finding a sexual partner to actually have sex.Upwards of 25% less rapes Health precautions will be taken into effect, and less serious diseases will spreadThe government can't control our bodiesProstitution should be legalized for many reasons. Thanks again! {1} http://www.independent.org... {2} http://www.herballove.com... {3} http://articles.latimes.com...", "qid": "28", "docid": "52c8b976-2019-04-18T15:37:15Z-00002-000", "rank": 64, "score": 176292.0}, {"content": "Title: In the United States, prostitution should be legal. Content: Thank you, Acetraveler, for taking this debate. I have read other debates you have had, and I am sure that you will provide me with a good challenge, which is definitely something that I look forward to. I understand you are not from the USA, however I can only argue about situations in the US to support my resolution. First I will refute your arguments then I will expand my own arguments. \"First, basically, governments have no right to engage private life like intercourse. But if the benefit of public is bigger than the private right, the regulation was based on the legal step of the law The regulation is based on serious and careful consideration, and they are not violating the essential parts of the freedom and right, government can also regulate right of people..\" If I understand this argument, basically you're asserting that the collective wellbeing of the many trumps the individual rights in question. I will agree that the collective well being is important, but I argue that it is not MORE important than individual rights. My arguments on this ground are 1)There is no evidence presented here that legal prostitution IN THE UNITED STATES is harmful to the overall, mostly secular, society in the United States. 2)The United States was founded on the ideals that individuals have the right to protection from unjust and arbitrary laws that were enacted for the purpose of bettering the majority of society at that time (the stamp tax, sugar tax etc. Were enacted without allowing the taxed to have adequate representation in Parliament, thus violating the rights of individuals in the colonies in order to support the well being of the larger English society in Brittan.) For further examples, a quick look at our bill of rights shows that, of the 10 original amendments to the Constitution, every one of them, in one way or another, upholds the tenant that individual rights are paramount. \"Basically, the justice of prostitution is based on the right to decide of their own body. But, this right is also can be restricted because of violating the dignity of human. I have the intention to argue that prostitution can violate the dignity of human so regulation of prostitution should be needed even if the rule was made by the government in this debate.\" Almost anything can be twisted to harm the dignity of those involved in it. This does not invalidate the rights of the individual to choose to participate in those activities. Let me give an example of how the government actively has chosen NOT to uphold the dignity of women, because that is NOT THEIR BUSINESS. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com... Shows that the courts in the United States have ruled, if a woman is in public, and she wears a dress, she has no right to view her body as \u2018private' and her image can be captured, and distributed without her permission, or knowledge. We should all be able to agree that this creates a situation of indignity for women in general. I mention this not to debate whether these laws are just or not, but to refute the idea that criminalization of prostitution is somehow done to prevent indignity, when the courts have shown an outright disrespect for the dignity of women in other much more recent laws. Obviously, women that choose not to be objects of sexual gratification have no right to expect that choice to be honored, while the laws on prostitution also invalidate a woman's right to choose under what circumstances her body will be used for gratification. Further I will ask a question in regards to this argument. Who does society tend to view with a greater amount of dignity, she who obeys the law, or she who breaks the law? Some of the stigma and loss of dignity for prostitutes stems, not from the act, but from the law. \"Second, prostitution basically violate the rule of marry. The essence of the rule of marry is the exclusive right of the intercourse with a spouse. As long as the rule of marry remain the fundamental of the society, we should keep it.\" I understand this to mean that you assert that prostitution harms marriage by promoting otherwise faithful men to seek out sex with another partner. I disagree. Cheaters are cheaters and they will cheat, whether they are paying for the chance to cheat, or not. Liars are liars and they will lie. The lack of legal prostitution does not stop infidelity. Please see the following web site for some statistics of cheating on spouses in the US. http://menstuff.org... With nearly 1/4 the married people in the US participating in intercourse outside of marriage I hardly think we can consider faithfulness a fundamental aspect of American society. I would also challenge my opponent to describe how it might be possible for a prostitute, short of rape, which is not generally paid for, to actually cause a violation of the rule of marry? Isn't a larger part of the responsibility to maintaining that law of marry on those who are actually involved in the marriage? I could also read this argument to say that it is or should be unlawful or at least wrong, to participate in intercourse outside the bounds of marriage. It is difficult to be sure because within the bounds of marriage could apply to either no intercourse before marriage or no outside intercourse after marriage. Either way, in the United States women are not expected to wait for marriage to engage in intercourse. Nearly half of girls age 17 have had sex, but don't marry until the mid 20s. This was taken from: http://marriage.rutgers.edu... Therefore this standard of virginity at marriage is not fundamental to American Society. \"in addition, the use of a woman's body solely for the purpose of sexual gratification does not treat them as a person. This lack of respect dehumanizes both prostitute and client, and this situation can violate the dignity of both sexes. \" Pornography is legal. This means that it is legal for a woman to have sex in front of a camera for pay, but take the camera away and it is illegal. So, the overwhelming of freedom also can harm to the society and individual. It should be well adjusted by individuals or even by the government in the some situation. And I can tell you more side effects of prostitution. Finally, Laws regarding prostitution are also based on the serious consideration not only religion but also other aspects. I can show you this evidence by showing this site. - http://www.idebate.org...... - The regulation of prostitution are not only based on the faith of religion. Violation of the right of prostitutes, the economic aspects, the side effects from the country which allow prostitute, and so many other aspects are also considered by the officials in the USA government. Every one of the arguments at that website has a correlating response. I hold that the responses are clear and accurate and the rebuttals to your arguments at idebate.org are valid. However, the con stance presented does not show that the reason these laws were allowed to exist in the first place were for any reason other than morals (an extension of religious belief), The justifications I read here for the continuation of these laws seems to be primarily, \"even if we made it legal and regulated it, some would still work outside of the law.\" This is of course an oversimplification of the many many arguments presented, but the over feel of the arguments was such. My argument to this would be that I am not against licensure of prostitutes, regulations of the profession, or high penalties for those that operate outside the bounds of those regulations. Certainly there will always be those that operate a business in an illegal manner. There are illegal day cares even! All business are vulnerable to this. That in no way rebuts my resolution.", "qid": "28", "docid": "35179721-2019-04-18T19:41:11Z-00003-000", "rank": 65, "score": 176244.0}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should be legal due to it being a victim-free crime. Content: While all of your points have some truth to them, they are not totally true. The first point about it being a victim-free crime is partially false. mainly because some people can pass STD's through this illegal act because not many people are being tested. Your second point just proved your first statement as a fallacy because you just said that their are no victims but then said prostitutes are victims. Finally, besides your bad use of grammar, the fact of it being illegal just shows that not many people are just there to participate in sex because as I explained earlier, it is a gateway to other bad things. So legalizing it would just give criminals more leeway.", "qid": "28", "docid": "ab52fe3f-2019-04-18T17:03:06Z-00003-000", "rank": 66, "score": 176008.0}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should be legal in the United States Content: Prostitution So many ways it is performed, and so many ways it is perceived. Both by those who have nothing to do with the industry and by those actively involved. We need to place a paramount perspective that in all business that business is PEOPLE. As American citizens, there are rights we are given solely by \"being alive.\" The stigma and negative connotation of anything that involves the \"profane\" has always existed. We may never see true equality among men and women, but this [prostitution] is something that extends beyond American borders. We may have varying opinion on what \"prostitution\" is/isn\"t \" with this segue I want to introduce a United Nations 2000 \"Protocol to Prevent, Supress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, Supplementing the UN Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime\" to explain that prostitution can NOT be \"human trafficking\" if this industry is legalized, regulated, taxed and incorporated into our economic structure. The UN convened that, \"'Trafficking in persons' shall mean the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation. Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs.\" None of these can exist in a legitimate/legal business enterprise. It is for the overall benefit for the PEOPLE in this industry that I take this stance that \"America should legalize prostitution.\" My arguments are going to revolved around the only information available (in America) to discuss the projected changes by applying the \"Nevada brothel model\" to this industry (as it is already LEGAL in these United States \" similar to any \"legalize marijuana\" argument.) I believe this comparison allows for a clearer understanding on the contrast within this country when it comes to handling prostitution as a business, and when it is a \"street crime.\" The 5 points for my case in the affirmative for \"America should legalize prostitution\" are: A1-Increase health, safety, and labor rights/regulations for those working in this industry A2-Economic benefits A3-Reallocates law enforcement persons and resources towards actual threats against citizens A4-Reduction of violence against women And my final point: A5-It is the oldest profession that will NEVER go away A1 - Illegal street prostitutes might face pressure from pimps and Johns to forgo condoms. But states that legalize prostitution can require sex workers to use condoms and get tested for sexually transmitted diseases. Sex workers in Nevada must get monthly tests for syphilis and HIV and weekly tests for gonorrhea and chlamydia. Nevada also requires condoms for all sex in brothels. This law is posted on the outside of the state's brothels, according to the paper by Barbara Brents and Kathryn Hausbeck of the University of Nevada. \"All of the women we interviewed were passionate about expressing their support for these law. For example, they insisted that they always use condoms, whether the client prefers to or not,\" the report stated. Making sex work a crime can drive prostitutes underground and make them less likely to practice safe sex and get tested for sexually transmitted disease. An April 2012 study by the Urban Justice Center found that New York City cops were using condoms found on women as evidence in criminal prostitution cases against them. It's easy to imagine how this practice might deter sex workers from carrying protection. The United Nations Development Programme published a report last year on illegal sex work in Asia and the Pacific that highlighted just how damaging the criminalization of sex work can be to women's health. Here's what it said: Criminalization increases vulnerability to HIV by fueling stigma and discrimination, limiting access to HIV and sexual health services, condoms and harm reduction services, and adversely affecting the self-esteem of sex workers and their ability to make informed choices about their health. Legally employed people in America get rights like a minimum wage, freedom from discrimination, and a safe work environment. Since prostitutes don't work legally, they don't get any of those rights. The United Nations Development Programme's report on sex work in Asia and the Pacific highlighted why it's problematic when sex workers don't have legal rights. \"Sex workers in all countries of the region except New Zealand and the state of New South Wales (Australia) lack the labour rights afforded to other workers, including the legal right to a safe and healthy workplace and to reasonable terms and conditions of employment ... Labour laws and social security laws that do not recognize sex work as legitimate work contribute to stigma and marginalization of sex workers.\" A2 - While brothels in Nevada pay no state taxes, they pay \"significant amounts of tax\" to the rural counties where they do business, according to The New York Times. (Nevada Republicans blocked a plan a couple of years ago to subject brothels to state taxes, as they didn't want schools and other state services funded by sex work.) Illegal prostitution businesses in America, of course, pay no taxes. If those brothels were legalized, then state and county governments could gain significant revenue. \"Let government share in the revenue, but otherwise stay out of the affairs of consenting adults,\" MSNBC political analyst Michael Smerconish has written. A3 - The investigation into notorious John, and former New York governor, Eliot Spitzer is a perfect example of how costly it can be to probe sophisticated prostitution rings. \"In this case, they wiretapped 5,000 phone conversations, intercepted 6,000 emails, used surveillance and undercover tactics that are more appropriate for trapping terrorists than entrapping Johns,\" famed Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz wrote in the Wall Street Journal. Dershowitz has also told MSNBC's Michael Smerconish, \"Every hour spent going after prostitution is an hour that could have been spent going after terrorists and going after people who victimize.\" A4 - Prostitutes in America (mostly women) are vulnerable to violence from customers and pimps. A study of San Francisco prostitutes found that 82% had been assaulted and 68% had been raped while working as prostitutes. Another study of prostitutes in Colorado Springs found they were 18 times more likely to be murdered than non-prostitutes their age and race. Prostitutes who experience violence may be reluctant to call the cops since what they're doing is illegal. Sex workers in licensed brothels, on the other hand, can have somebody to back them up, according to a paper by Barbara Brents and Kathryn Hausbeck of the University of Nevada. Brents and Hausbeck interviewed brothel owners and made these observations: Brothel owners have a clear interest in maintaining their image as law-abiding, trouble-free businesses to keep their licenses and maintain good relations within their communities. The owners we interviewed ensure this by making it policy to call the police at the slightest hint of trouble to send a message that they don\"t tolerate bad behavior. \"The whole name of the game is control. But that control also makes us get along pretty well with the sheriff\"s office,\" one owner told the researchers. \"There are two reasons for doing it, one, the sheriff\"s office, but also the girls\" personal safety.\" The study concluded that \"brothels offer the safest environment available for women to sell consensual sex acts for money.\" A5 - There will always be lonely or kinky men in America who will pay for sex, and there will always be women willing to rent out their bodies. As the anthropologist Patty Kelly has written in the Los Angeles Times, prostitution has become a \"part of our culture\" in the United States. We legalize and regulate a ton of commerce that's morally controversial \" like gambling, alcohol, tobacco, lap-dancing, and pornography. Yes, women can be coerced into prostituting themselves. But we're not helping them by making consenting sex work a crime. Closing Observation \" Again, it is already legal in a specified territory in this country and it is an industry that has been around since the beginning, and will last for as long as \"we crave sex\" and continue to live in a \"depressed social state.\" The merits of \"morality\" are not concreted to keep this industry illegal as the true \"moral compass\" of America is freedom/civil liberties/representation/at will employment (which only happens once people are not deemed \"criminals\" and are able to live the life of their choosing. By legalizing prostitution, we are supporting the free market capital principles of American economics. We do not need anymore people incarcerated in our over populated prisons that have not committed any acts of violence. As mentioned, the ones who are at the highest threat of violence are the workers themselves. As Americans we owe it to the other American citizens to have their rights (as PEOPLE) protected as equally as any other person. And by all this - this is why America should legalize prostitution.", "qid": "28", "docid": "821c3072-2019-04-18T12:07:12Z-00000-000", "rank": 67, "score": 175707.0}, {"content": "Title: Intemediate's Debate Competition R1: Prostitution Ought to Be Legalized. Content: Good day TrueScotsman and fellow DDO members. I will now present my arguments. For the purposes of this debate, since a vast majority of prostitutes are female, I will refer to prostitutes using feminine pronouns and customers using masculine pronouns. No sexism intended. ========== I. Prostitution is a right and is inherently victimless. A. In the case of prostitution, both the supplier and the buyer have to consent. As rational adults, this right should not be taken away; people should be free to do with all their body parts as they wish. The Declaration of Independent states that all humans have the right to \u201clife, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness,\u201d and the U.S. Constitution gives the people the right to peaceably assemble and conduct business, as well as the right to privacy [3]. Even if an event is not beneficial to society, as long as it doesn\u2019t violate individual rights, there are still no grounds to ban it. Prostitution can be compared to plumbing; in the case of the prostitute, she uses her vagina to satisfy a customer in exchange for money; in the case of the plumber, he uses his toilet sucking skills to fix someone\u2019s toilet in exchange for money. Prostitution is a profession that has risks and benefits, and can be taxed and regulated like any other profession. B. Most confusingly, pornography, or prostitution on cameras, is legal. If porn is legal, and is demonstrably victimless, then other sex work like prostitution can\u2019t be considered any different. C. The main reason that prostitution is banned in the U.S. is not because it is inherently bad; it is because of the cultural stigma associated with religious beliefs that view sex as a taboo [4]. Religious \u201cmoral\u201d reasons are no grounds to ban any profession. II. Decriminalizing prostitution reduces the negative impacts associated with it. Prostitution is said to be the \u201coldest profession\u201d. The fact is, it\u2019s one those things that is simply impossible to completely ban. 15% of men admit to having paid for sex [5], and more than 70 000 illegal prostitutes are arrested each year in the U.S. alone [6]. Yet, the state governments have opted to completely ban prostitution instead of putting regulations on it like boxing or MMA. A: legalizing decreases prostitute abuse: A large majority of prostitutes report abuse [7]. If prostitution was legal and regulated, abuses would be less frequent, since the johns know they can be prosecuted under the law. Legalizing prostitution would also reduce rape, because sex is more readily available. \u201cA study conducted in Queensland... show[ed] a 149% increase in the rate of rape when legal brothels were closed in 1959\u2026\u201d [8] B: Reduce pimping and human trafficking rates: A majority of prostitutes are forced into their profession by pimps [9], and 80% wish to get out of prostitution [7]. These pimps use force and abuse to traffic women into unfamiliar territory and manipulate them into becoming sex workers. If prostitution became legal, these pimps would no longer have a market, and there would be a lower demand for sex slaves; instead, all sexual activity would be directed toward better regulated brothels. An analogy could again be made to plumbers. Imagine a certain country in which plumbing is illegal despite the high demand. If people wanted their pipework fixed, they had to do so through illegal means. Since few people would want to do something that is illegal, crime bosses force people to become plumbers; these forced workers would be inhumane as well as charge more money. On the other hand, if plumbing were legalized, more people would legally do it, and plumbing would have no shares on the black market. Legal prostitutes will have better opportunities to switch out of their profession, unlike illegal prostitutes. Legalizing prostitution would also free up time for law enforcement to deal with the human trafficking, the real problem; trafficked girls who are forced into prostitution would also have a better incentive to speak up to authorities, since they would no longer be penalized for their work. Even if the government fails to detect illegally trafficked sex workers, the life quality of these sex workers would still be better because of the other regulations on prostitution that do not involve trafficking. C: STD rates: Only 6-8% of all STDs in the U.S. are related to prostitution [7]. Most STDs are spread by general promiscuity. Legalizing prostitution would provide better avenues for regulating health and cleanliness, such as requiring frequent STD tests and condoms, thereby reducing the rate at which STDs are spread. \u201cIn one Australian study carried out in 1998, the prevalence of sexually transmitted bacterial infections was 80 times greater in 63 illegal street prostitutes than in 753 of their legal brothel counterparts\u201d [10]. Banning prostitution can be compared to Prohibition. Prohibition failed, so there is little reason to think that continuing to ban prostitution will succeed. III. Prostitution increases utility. A: Customer satisfaction: Humans are among the only animals to have sex for fun. Studies show that having sex increases happiness; in fact, Blanchflower and Oswald finds that \u201csexual activity enter strongly positively in happiness equations,\u201d (not to be confused with affection or human companionship) even more so than money [11]. Prostitution is a perfectly legitimate source of sex. Economics tell us that selling sexual service from one reasonable and consenting adult to another must be usually beneficial for both parties, or else the transaction would not occur. B: Profit: $200 million are spent per year busting the underground sex industry [12], while $18 billion of untaxable and uncirculated money are generated by the sex black market. The city of Amsterdam makes $100 million off of prostitution alone, and that\u2019s just ONE city. [13]. $10 million are collected in taxes Nevada brothels [14]. The sex industry would generate tax revenue in the tens of billions for the U.S. government if legalized. Prostitution could fund NASA. Summary: I. Renting one\u2019s body is a right. II. Decriminalization will decrease abuse of women, sex slavery, and STDs. III. Prostitution is a utility increasing job. ========== [3] http://www.archives.gov... [4] http://www.gallup.com... [5] http://abcnews.go.com... [6] http://www.pnas.org... [7] http://sex-crimes.laws.com... [8] Reichmann, Linda M. Rio. \u201cPsychological and Sociological Research and the Decriminalization or Legalization of Prostitution\u201d. 1991. [9] http://www.fbi.gov... [10] Loff, Bebe; Gaze, Elizabeth; Fairley, Christopher. \u201cProstitution, Public Health, and Human-Rights Law\u201d. 2000. [11] http://www.dartmouth.edu... [12] http://www.11points.com... (This source may be unreliable, and is unconfirmed by official statistics.) [13] http://money.msn.com... [14] http://www.jour.unr.edu...", "qid": "28", "docid": "b62b0bc1-2019-04-18T16:51:50Z-00004-000", "rank": 68, "score": 175580.0}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should be legal Content: I think it should be legal. I'm interested in arguments aganist it. I not putting my arguments up in the first round because I'm on a phone now and it would be a pain. Looking forward to the debate.", "qid": "28", "docid": "cf3ad3ec-2019-04-18T15:15:37Z-00004-000", "rank": 69, "score": 175567.0}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should be legal due to it being a victim-free crime. Content: If prostitution was legal it would allow them to do checks on prostitutes and make sure they dont have any sexual diseases that can be passed on. They should have check ups at the doctors to make sure they are healthy and if they are not they shouldnt be aloud in the profession. Prostitutes wouldnt have to be victims if it was legalized because it wouldnt be so underground and secret and they could build hotels for prostitution services and if the prostitutes had any issues they would just call the main desk and they would notify police right away and stop the crime. GOLFWANG OFWGKTA", "qid": "28", "docid": "ab52fe3f-2019-04-18T17:03:06Z-00002-000", "rank": 70, "score": 175563.0}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should be legalized in the US Content: extend", "qid": "28", "docid": "622af52d-2019-04-18T15:23:37Z-00000-000", "rank": 71, "score": 175439.0}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should be legalized Content: Prostitution is the oldest profession. It is not exactly the noblest or most favorable occupation but I think that it should be legalized for the sake of making it safer and taxable. One only needs to look back at alcohol prohibition to see the negative implications that the criminalization of prostitution or any other activity of vice can attribute. Because prostitution is criminal, it is controlled by criminals, which gives rise to abuse and human trafficking. If prostitution was mainstreamed, regulated, and had an acceptable quality control, it could be one of the most profitable industries of American economy. Since it is illegal and unregulated, prostitution is extremely risky for all involved parties and criminals are the only people who benefit. Ron Paul once said that if you made heroin legal tomorrow, people wouldn't uncontrollably run out and do heroin. The same is true of prostitution. It wouldn't suddenly become something every girl wants to do as a job and every male indeed will partake. Legalization would reduce communicable disease in this country and increase economic stimulation.", "qid": "28", "docid": "94b67e8-2019-04-18T16:15:54Z-00004-000", "rank": 72, "score": 175413.0}, {"content": "Title: Legal Prostitution Content: Prostitution should be illegal. If it is a person's right to decide what they want to do with their body, it follows that they choose to suffer a high probability of getting sexually harassed, raped and possibly be continually followed by the attacker if the person does not act. Suppose prostitution is legal, then the availability of prostitutes will rise, allowing for more people to purchase this service. Their motives are usually: sexual urges, satisfy sexual fetishes and dissatisfied with partner. This produces problems with men/women that cannot contain their sexual urges: sexual harassment rates increase. Additionally, if the person is religious, their acts of sins may make them go alcoholic or take illegal drugs to control their emotions. My last point is that people with sexually transmitted diseases will increase because cheap brothels will accept nearly everyone as they require currency to survive. As a consequence, the clients may have STIs and sexually transmit it to the prostitutes unknowingly and then we see a rapid spread.", "qid": "28", "docid": "2d288299-2019-04-18T13:53:09Z-00003-000", "rank": 73, "score": 175333.0}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should made be legal in the United States, because it is a victimless crime. Content: Please extend.", "qid": "28", "docid": "b2564ac-2019-04-18T14:01:26Z-00001-000", "rank": 74, "score": 175309.0}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should be legalized Content: I will be presenting arguments from a prior debate of mine where my opponent forfeited. This is not plagiarism since it\u2018s all written by me. For an activity to be criminalized it must at the bare minimum infringe upon other peoples rights, either directly (rape, murder, theft, etc. ), or indirectly (pollution damaging peoples health for example). I maintain that prostitution involves neither and should therefor not be considered a crime. My first argument will be the fundamental one dealing with the legality of prostitution. The other two are supporting arguments demonstrating the positive practical benefits of legalizing prostitution.1. Prostitution is a victimless crimeGiven that the prostitute and the buyer are both consenting participants, there is no victim. If there is no victim, then how can there be a crime? Furthermore, the state has no business controlling what adults choose to do with their own bodies or for what reasons they choose to engage in sexual activities, as long as they are not infringing on other peoples rights. 2. Undermining the black market and increasing workplace safety for prostitutesToday, black markets, i. e. pimps and other criminals, meet the demand for prostitution and these \u201eemployers\u201c tend not to be overly concerned with the safety of their employes. If prostitution were legalized, then the black market would have to compete with legal brothels, which would presumably be regulated by the government. Prostitutes working at these brothels would enjoy the benefit of a much safer working environment and would therefor have a significant incentive to work there instead. Legalizing prostitution would also allow prostitutes to unionize, ensuring that their rights as working men and women would be respected.3. Decreasing the taxpayers' loadThe state spends significant amounts of money and resources combating prostitution. If prostitution were legalized, then the expenditures of the police and justice systems would decrease and the tax revenue would increase. I look forward to reading con's rebuttals and counterarguments.", "qid": "28", "docid": "94b676c-2019-04-18T16:56:27Z-00004-000", "rank": 75, "score": 175250.0}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution Should Be Legal Content: Brilliant. Thank you, and I apologize for my tardiness.Nordic ApproachI am still slightly unclear on this proposal (I will allow my opponent to elaborate and make his case), but the basis of this law to me does not make a whole lot of sense. If two adults consent to a sexual activity, what difference does it make that a transaction of money has taken place? In essence, we would be allowing people to be whores and such all they want by offering and giving out their sexual services for free, but we would be denying them a source of income if that is what they choose to do as a living. I disagree. Why make it illegal to pay for something that is perfectly legal to give out for free?People should be legally able to do what they want with their own bodiesMy argument here is simple: I believe that the government should have no interference in the personal lives of a citizen. Such matters are, by definition, personal. If a person chooses to prostitute their body, the government has no right to get into that business. That person made a lifestyle choice and a career move, and they made that decision consciously and independently. To block this choice is nonsensical. Making prostitution illegal creates a dangerous black marketObviously, making prostitution illegal hasn't made prostitution go away. Even in places where prostitution is a crime punishable by death, it still exists. It will never stop existing. It's the same way with a lot of things that are illegal. The real effect that not legalizing prostitution has is that it hurts the prostitutes. These people are subject to abuse, rape, or even murder, all because they can't go to the police due to fear of arrest. Prostitutes are in danger, and legalizing and regulating their work would go a long way to protecting them. Prostitution is victimless and is therefore not a crimeThere are few valid reasons for why prostitution should be illegal beyond a basal religious worldview. Of course, religion shouldn't be taken into account because of the First Amendment to the constitution, which, for all intents and purposes, prohibits us from legislating based on religion. So, beyond that, who is being hurt by prostitution? If a person makes the private choice to pay for a sexual service, there is no harm being done and the government should get out of the way. As I've stated earlier, the only one who could potentially be harmed is the prostitute.Legalized prostitution will be safer and a more efficient private sectorFor all of the reasons I have mentioned above, it is my belief that a legal, regulated prostitution system would not only be safer, but it would also add another sector to our economy. Capitalists who oppose legalized prostitution (and other things for that matter) sounds like an oxymoron to me. Rejecting people from doing what they want without hurting anyone and making money off of it sounds like a capitalist nightmare to me.ConclusionTo sum it all up, the government can protect prostitutes, add a whole new sector to the economy, and stop taking liberty away by making prostitution illegal. Prostitutes and customers have the individual right to make personal and economic decisions of their own without interference from the government, and the only person prostitution could ever potentially harm is the prostitute herself, and that is only when it is illegal and unregulated as it is now in the US.Of course, I would like to allow Con to make his case for the Nordic approach and, if he feels it necessary, to form rebuttals on my arguments.", "qid": "28", "docid": "a4429b52-2019-04-18T17:41:28Z-00003-000", "rank": 76, "score": 175184.0}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution Should Be Legal Content: Legalization of prostitution would open the doors for much more negativity than you may expect. When looking at the legality of prostitution in the United States, you cannot completely disregard the morality that comes with it. This idea makes STD/HPV viruses much more prone to happen. In fact, evidence from \"laws.com\" located underneath sex crimes, states that well over 50% of prostitutes have contracted a sexually transmitted disease, while simultaneously having unprotected sex over 300 times every single year. Not only will this be harmful to the prostitutes and the clients, but also anyone who also comes in contact with the said people. The idea of \"it is prohibited by law and will always exist in society\" is the same excuse as making methamphetamines legal because it always exists. When the law is broken and disrespected, there will be consequential time spent. We, as a human race all have the same opportunity to do whatever we want; be it legal or not. But when one decides to go against the law of the land, there will be negative repercussions. Making it legal because it already exists is ignorant and is almost a form of our government giving up. Furthermore, if the government were to endorse the sale of mostly women, and sometimes even men, they would be going on a downhill slope of regression. Decriminalizing prostitution and calling it safe is a mere illusion for women who endure physical and psychological trauma. In fact, all brothels do is move this abuse inside to mask the horror involved in being a prostitute. The public would be blinded by the systemic issues involved in this act. How could you endorse the spread of HPV, violence, abuse, and exploitation of these victims? How could you say that regulating prostitution would solve \"forced prostitution and child trafficking\"? Regardless, violence will take place in or out of a brothel and STD's will still swarm the area. If the prostitution industry is grossing over 52 billion dollars a year illegally (bbc.uk.com), just imagine what would happen if it were to be legalized? Generally, the idea of a hypothetical argument must go dismissed, but the numbers have spoken, and they have continued to repeat themselves. And finally, to assume that making prostitution legal would make it easier for women to report rape and sexual injustices, is absolute ignorance and disrespect to those who have fallen victim of sexual violence. The idea of reporting these cases is not easy, and regardless of the legality factor, most acts go unreported because they fear not of going to jail, but of their overall safety. Endorsing prostitution either means you support sexual violence and the spread of STD's or you are just unaware of the horrid activities contained within a brothel. You are blinded that making it legal, automatically makes it safe, but you ignore and disregard the fact that prostitution will never be safe. Thus, it should be illegal.", "qid": "28", "docid": "e410cf7a-2019-04-18T12:25:46Z-00001-000", "rank": 77, "score": 175146.0}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should be legal due to it being a victim-free crime. Content: Due to the scandalous nature or prostitution, the people in the business may not want to be regulated. Many will believe the can make a better and more profitable business without the government interfering. Criminal organizations also would keep their prostitution rings active due to their large profit margins and little upkeep. They would not obey these regulations simply because they don't obey other regulations and would harshly decrease their profit. even though prostitutes would benefit from these regulations. Many, if not most, would oppose these regulations to protect their privacy, and to profit more. If a prostitute has a day job, regulations may ask them to announce their part time profession, exposing and harming their day time job.", "qid": "28", "docid": "ab52fe20-2019-04-18T17:03:24Z-00001-000", "rank": 78, "score": 175105.0}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should made be legal in the United States, because it is a victimless crime. Content: Well the debate is conceded so far. Please carry my arguments.", "qid": "28", "docid": "b2564ac-2019-04-18T14:01:26Z-00003-000", "rank": 79, "score": 175008.0}, {"content": "Title: prostitution should be legal Content: Ooops, Sorry clicked on the wrong button. I fully agree.", "qid": "28", "docid": "6c53db90-2019-04-18T16:50:44Z-00004-000", "rank": 80, "score": 174996.0}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should be Legal Content: Prostitution is a victimless crime. When all goes well (i.e. there is no violence) neither the john nor the prostitute is victimized. I think we can agree on this. If we cannot, please correct me in your response, and we will discuss accordingly. However, there are lots of horrendous cases of violence between the client and service provider (but I will get to that later). If all goes well, no one gets hurt. Thus, it is not an immoral practice because questions about ethics and morality relate to the happiness and unhappiness of beings that have the potential to feel such happiness and unhappiness. I have no ethical need to interfere when I see a plant destroyed. However, if I saw that a human was about to be crushed, I would have an ethical need to interfere. Therein, seeing that prostitution causes no harm to sentient creatures in its most innocent form, the laws and the enforcement of such laws in our country represent a massive waste of human energy. Campaigning against something that causes no harm to sentient creatures is quite foolish and is a massive waste of time and energy. We would not reasonably campaign against the eating of salad. Now, of course, the above shows only why prostitution in its most innocent form (no violence) is not immoral. Clearly, those who commit violent crimes against prostitutes are not moral people and the situations that arise because of them are quite tragic. Also, these situations are quite common. According to law.com, 204 prostitutes are murdered out of every 100,000. This is 20 times the national average. The average prostitute is beat no less than once a month. So, what are we to do to prevent these innocent but desperate people? What I propose to counter this is something like Amsterdam's red light zone. Prostitutes provide their services in a neighborhood specifically designed for such. They work in a building that is not their home, so potentially violent customers do not know where they live. Perhaps most importantly, there is an alarm button which immediately calls the police over if there is any sign of trouble. This would almost effectively eliminate all of the violence committed against prostitutes. In the system we currently have, prostitution is done in back alleys and places with no police thus the opportunity for violence is high. This, of course, leads to high levels of violence against them, but we can stop it via legalization. Another argument for legalization of prostitution is it would decrease the amount of STDs passed via prostitutes. The same study on laws.com that was mentioned earlier states that 50% of the world's prostitutes have HIV. Of course, since their profession is illegal, no prostitute is going to get a doctor to get tested for an STD. We should have, nationally, a system like we have in Nevada. A prostitute is required by law to wear a condom, and they must be tested weekly for STDs. Thus, legalizing prostitution will help hinder the currently massive growth of sexually transmitted diseases. The proof of this is the effectiveness of the Nevada system at stopping STDs. The porn stars of Los Angeles have higher rates of STDs than Nevadan prostitutes. A Nevadan prostitute has not been diagnosed with HIV since 1986. Compare that with the shocking figure of fifty percent, and it is easy to see why prostitution should be legalized. Just to be clear, what I suggest is a combination of the rigorous testing of Nevada and the red-light district of Amsterdam. Prostitutes would work in specific zones, have a button that would summons police immediately if the client is in any way doing something harmful. There would be no abusive pimp or middleman between client and servicer. This system would effectively end almost all of the violence against prostitutes, inhibit STDs, and free up manpower wasted on Vice departments in police to be used for the pursuit of actual criminals. Sources http://www.businessinsider.com... http://prostitution.procon.org... http://www.huffingtonpost.com... http://sex-crimes.laws.com...", "qid": "28", "docid": "d31537ce-2019-04-18T16:41:38Z-00005-000", "rank": 81, "score": 174963.0}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution ought to be legalized in more areas of the United States Content: I thanky my opponent for their responseRebuttals\"There are more moral manners to acquire monetary assets, goods or services rather than prostitution.\"Just because something is immoral, doesn't mean it should be illegal. The purpose of the U.S. government isn't to enforce a moral code, but instead to protect the rights of man. Take murder for an example. Although most people agree that murder is immoral, the reason it's illegal is because it violates your rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Many religions (such as Christianity, Buddhism, and Islam) consider greed and abundance to be immoral. Being greedy and living in abundance is not illegal in America though. You have the right to partake in any action that does not infringe upon the rights of others. If the prostitutes is consenting, and the customer is consenting, then it ought to be legal. Furthermore, prostitution is not universally immoral. Many religions (like Christianiaty and hinduism) have provisions for \"Sacred Prostitution\" in their holy texts. This point is primarily weak because just because their are other options doesn't mean you shouldn't pursue this one (nor does it mean that if you pursue this one it is the ONLY one you can pursue).\"Problems of scientific progress.\"\"One could decide to engage into prostitution rather than to acquire education\" This point is entirely speculative and without substantiation. One could also decide to engage in skydiving or traditional kabuki performance rather than recieve an education. Hiring prostitutes is entirely the choice of the customer. Becoming a prostitute is entirely the choice of the individual. Furthermore, someone with an interest in science who is eligible to attend college (the person most likely to contribute to science) would not logically choose to become a prostitute full time (as science would likely pay much better and bring more satisfaction). Unless, of course, they truly loved prostitution, in which case keeping it illegal would be denying their right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.\"Preparation for business of prostitution.\"Well any business has finances. The education that everyone recieves through the school system is versatile, and a knowledge of math, statistics, and finances could giver a prostitute the competetive edge they need. Furthermore, education is valueable purely for the sake of knowledge. Just as a scientist may not need to memorize a shakespearean sonnet to effectively develop pharmaceuticals, knowledge of shakespeare makes them more interesting as a person, and more happy in general. \"An investment in knowledge pays the best interest.\" - Ben Franklin. This applies to any job, including prostitution. Personally, if I were to consider hiring a prostitute (albeit unlikely) I would prefer one that I could converse with pleasantly and intellectually as well\"Society's response.\"Society is not uniform, especially in America. Not everyone has the same values. Furthermore, making something illegal because those who do it would be ridiculed is a notion that is just plain silly. Should we make it illegal to be a dork? Should we make it illegal to LARP? No! You should be able to do what makes you happy regardless of what one individual may consider acceptable.\"Regulations.\"Does my opponent have an exact number regarding cost? I think not. Furthermore, the revenue that would be generated by the money spent by the prostitutes would help the economy. Legal prostitution means more jobs. More jobs means less people on welfare. Less people on welfare means less money taken from the government via welfare. Less people on welfare also means that more people are circulating money into the economy. Furthermore, the prostitutes could be required to pay fees/taxes that cover the cost of regulation. The same could apply to brothels. The money paid to a prostitute would be taxed under the income tax in both brothels and independant workers.In summaryThe majority of my opponents points are irrelevent, easily solved with legislation, nonexistent, or less important than the benefits that I pointed out in R1.VOTE PRO!1. http://en.wikipedia.org...", "qid": "28", "docid": "58074c90-2019-04-18T16:54:16Z-00002-000", "rank": 82, "score": 174876.0}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should be legalised, change my mind. Content: I believe that Prostitution should be legal, I challenge anyone to change my mind, or give me a new perspective on the subject.I strongly believe that anyone, should be able to trade anything with anyone as long as everyone involved has given consent.", "qid": "28", "docid": "b72509d-2019-04-18T11:31:54Z-00005-000", "rank": 83, "score": 174652.0}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution Should Be Legal Content: The law as it stands is wrong and patronising to women", "qid": "28", "docid": "3677e360-2019-04-19T12:44:54Z-00023-000", "rank": 84, "score": 174599.0}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should be Legal Content: But Sex is a terrible thing to do constantly, there are many other things that are much better for you and think of it this way. In America anything that can make money is swallowed up by the fascist CEOs and then advertisements appear by legalizing prostitution ads would begin to appear everywhere. First of all prostitutes should not be doing this anyway so we do not need to protect them at all. People who consent to an act made to be a very private and gentle thing has been exposed for profit, this is disgusting and prostitutes as well as porn should be banned deleted and erased from our society to make things a better place so more people can focus on science, math and having fun... NOT THE DISTURBING version of fun. You have clearly lost the debate sorry son ! :)", "qid": "28", "docid": "d31537ce-2019-04-18T16:41:38Z-00000-000", "rank": 85, "score": 174557.0}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should be legal Content: I will be arguing that prostitution should not be legal because I believe it is unethical, that it degrades women, it would lead to a public health crisis and problems with children. First and foremost, the obvious; it is unethical for a woman, or a man, to sell themselves away for money. Even if they consent to it, it is still wrong. I predict my opponent will say something along the lines of \"My body, my rights\", and that's what I'll get to later. Second off, what kind of society would we be creating for ourselves if we allow prostitution. A society that basically believes that women are good only for sex work? That's not the kind of society I want to live in, or the kind of society I want the next generation to grow up in. And than there are the two downfalls of prostitution; the spread of STDS, and the unwanted children. I have no doubt that no matter how much government regulation there is, the spread of STDS would lead to a public health crisis. And imagine how many children the prostitutes would have. And don't say \"Just get abortoins\" because abortion is even more unethical than prostitution itself.", "qid": "28", "docid": "181f935c-2019-04-18T13:30:24Z-00002-000", "rank": 86, "score": 174536.0}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should made be legal in the United States, because it is a victimless crime. Content: Please extend", "qid": "28", "docid": "b2564ac-2019-04-18T14:01:26Z-00002-000", "rank": 87, "score": 174522.0}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should be legal in the United States Content: 1. The Right To Do What We Want With Our Own BodiesWe have the right (if not legal right) to do whatever we want with our own bodies, so long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of another. Con says we don't have that right in regard to prostitution, based on these factors: A) Disease- I've already argued against this, including the fact that STD rates tend to DROP when you legalize prostitution.B) Physical Violence- I've already argued against this and explained why legalized prostitution PROTECTS prostitutes from physical violence (from pimps, clients, etc.). To repeat, it makes law enforcement protective allies rather than people who will arrest you for doing your job. C) It wouldn't financially benefit the govt.- This is completely untrue which I will explain later. More importantly, you don't lose rights just because something isn't profitable. It wasn't profitable to free the slaves, but they still had a right to freedom. D) It would encourage selling sex for money.- Once again, I've already argued against this. See point 6 from the last round as just one example. E) It subjects people to ridicule. - This is completely irrelevant. I might wear a terrible outfit and be ridiculed. That doesn't mean I don't have the right to wear it.2. Covering the Medical Cost of STDs Con says that we cannot expect clients to be tested for STDs, as that might infringe upon their privacy. With any mutual transaction, the customer and consumer agree to specific terms. This is true of any contract or exchange. Some requirements are more detailed or personal than others. In this case, a brothel might require STD testing just as leasing a vehicle or renting a home requires a background and credit check. If the customer doesn't want to abide by the terms and conditions of the exchange, then they won't be a customer there.Further, I've argued that people must be responsible for their own health and decisions. If I eat 20 cupcakes a day, I might suffer from obesity. That's my problem. Con never responded to the contention of personal responsibility. Additionally, prostitutes would require safe sex. Considering condoms are 98% effective [5], the likelihood of contracting an STD is minimal. Also, Con disregards the obvious fact that if prostitutes are being tested for STDs, then even if the clients aren't tested, the prostitutes will NOT be spreading STDs (because if they had one they couldn't practice) meaning any rise in rates could not be attributed to prostitution. 3. BureaucracyCon says he disputes the economic gains that legalizing prostitution would bring. This is a pretty absurd contention. Let's acknowledge how big the sex industry is (it generates billions in revenue per year). Now for a small case study, consider the fact that in Nevada alone, legal brothels generate about $50 million in total revenue per year and have an economic impact of about $400 million on the state [6]. Now multiply 400 million by 50 states. That's 20 billion dollars in positive economic impact. That is money that goes into the circulating economy - not the underground economy, benefiting only crooks.So now we have to see if the cost of regulation is so enormous that it somehow trumps the exorbitant amount of money the industry creates. The answer is quite clear that it most certainly would not. By \"regulating\" the only thing the government would have to do is audit brothels, which would require maybe hiring a few more IRS employees. Of course creating those jobs would be a good thing. The same applies to creating jobs to check for safety and code compliance. Assuming the government had to hire 1,000 employees to oversee this regulation of this industry (which is probably a generous over-estimation) at let's say $50 K a year, that would cost 50 million dollars at the federal level... but considering we estimated the tax revenue at 50 million at the state level, then clearly revenue exceeds bureaucratic oversight by hundreds of millions of dollars.If you don't want to accept my figures, a comprehensive analysis on the cost of regulating prostitution can be found in a study done by economists [7]. The authors support regulation as being financially beneficial on a cost/benefit analysis. Moreover, they point out the obvious fact that the cost of criminalizing prostitution is incredibly and unnecessarily expensive. They note, \"...Legal intervention in these sub-markets [prostitution] is likely to be specially costly and futile at the same time.\" My opponent mistakenly ignores the enormous cost of criminalizing this industry, which costs about 8 million dollars per state per year [8]. That's about $400 million annually. Regulation would be astronomically cheaper than criminalization. Con says, \"But if its the private sector regulating prostitution then these agencies would prioritize making money more than keeping people safe.\" There are a ton of arguments in favor of privately regulating multiple industries, not just prostitution [9]. I could spend a great amount of time detailing why this is a completely flawed assertion. However, I've already showed why this would be economically beneficial even without private regulation, so for the sake of brevity I won't waste my time. Likewise while it's true that prostitutes may get help trying to find jobs, that's not really important to my contention so I won't waste character space responding to it. The point still remains that the economic benefits for legalization are overwhelmingly in my favor. 4 & 6 - Brainwashing and Impact on Society Con basically says that prostitution is taboo which is irrelevant. Bi-racial and gay relationships are still considered taboo in some places, but that doesn't mean they are immoral. The same concept applies to smoking pot. Rather than a visceral, emotional response based on what society has told is is \"acceptable,\" we have to look at the facts. The facts are that society has a very strong demand for sex, and prostitution is a viable solution. Rather than spend $40 buying a random girl drinks at a bar hoping to take her home, a client could spend the money going to a prostitute and doing exactly what he would have done anyway: have casual sex, which happens in our society all the time. This is safer and probably more moral as the intentions of the exchange are clear and mutually agreed upon. Con also brings up teenage prostitutes. This is an appeal to emotion (But what about the children?!) but doesn't have much clout. For one thing, if a teenager wants to pursue a career in sex work, they should have that option. The only reason this seems \"icky\" is because of what society has taught us about the non-existent, inherent sacredness of sex or our bodies. And you know what - if you believe that sex is sacred, awesome - don't be a prostitute. Parents should instill values in their kids/teens. But again, you cannot impose your own morality onto others via government force. It is not the role or responsibility of citizens or government to interfere with your sexual choices, but instead to protect your rights and uphold contractual agreements in the market. 5. Rule BreakersCon basically ignored my entire argument 5 from the last round, so just extend it. [ CONCLUSION ]My entire R2 has been upheld. [5] http://www.netdoctor.co.uk...[6] http://www.thedailybeast.com...[7] http://www.google.com...[8] http://www.texaswatchdog.org...[9] http://www.cato.org...", "qid": "28", "docid": "821c3053-2019-04-18T18:09:42Z-00001-000", "rank": 88, "score": 174499.0}, {"content": "Title: In the United States, prostitution should be legal. Content: In the United States Prostitution should be legal. There are three main reasons I have for making this claim: 1) Our government should not be allowed to dictate a persons motivations for engaging in intercourse. 2) People in American society should have the right to do anything they wish to do, so long as no other person is harmed. Excepting harms caused solely by the existence of the laws prohibiting prostitution, no person is being harmed by the practice of prostitution. 3) Laws regarding prostitution have no basis other than religion. Our Supreme Court has ruled, and our Constitution states, that religion and government should never mix. Therefore laws regarding prostitution, should not exist.", "qid": "28", "docid": "35179721-2019-04-18T19:41:11Z-00005-000", "rank": 89, "score": 174385.0}, {"content": "Title: In the United States, prostitution should be legal. Content: I admit this is clearly my lose to this debate. Everyone, please vote for Xera. She have right to win in this debate. Your argument and logic is more well than mine so I cannot oppose some part of your opinions. But you have already opposed my every arguments. This mean you teach me well in this debate. Thank you for debating with me, Xera. See you next debate. I'll pay back you my debt later in the next debate!", "qid": "28", "docid": "35179721-2019-04-18T19:41:11Z-00000-000", "rank": 90, "score": 174161.0}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution Should be Legalized Content: Thank you. You have brought up good points. Arguments: Prostitution is basically personalized pornography[2]. Pornography is good for you[1], and perfectly legal, making the it seem unfair that prostitution is illegal. In fact, it would be legal if any of the parties filmed it and distributed the video. There are a few apparent contradictions with the law here. Prostitutes are also similar to promiscuous people, with the exception of the fee. It is pretty much unavoidable that there are going to be people who sleep with strangers and enjoy it, and it should be allowed if they want to make money off of it. If prostitution were government regulated, it could be the new lottery. What I mean is it would bring in thousands upon thousand of tax dollars each year[8], helping our US government pay off its huge debt[9]. The Declaration of Independence tries to give citizens the right to the pursuit of happiness[3]. This may be a stretch, but it still stands that if prostituting yourself makes you happy and is something you enjoy, you shouldn\"t be prevented from doing it. Rebuttals: \"It promotes children to be trafficked\" In fact, it would do quite the opposite. Children being trafficked, especially for sex, is terrible and unfortunately happens very often[4]. However, they're an easier target because children are not as smart or strong as adults and therefore more vulnerable. If prostitution were legal, there would be more willing adults in the business, causing the demand for child trafficking to dive[5]. It would also decrease human trafficking in general[6]. \"Most of the prostitutes are victims\" Right now that is true. But like I mentioned, if it were legal, there would be ore willing participants and thus a much lower demand for people to be forced into prostitution against their will. In a world without sex trafficking, prostitution would be a victimless crime[5]. \"Whether or not it's legal, it's still a dangerous job\" There will always be risks, as there are with any profession. Making prostitution legal will decrease these risks. Nevada was the first state in the US to legalize prostitution. They have very smart laws set to keep their workers safe that could not be enforced if prostitution were considered a crime. The employees are given monthly STD tests, have a \"safety button\" in the case of a client getting too aggressive, and brothels can\"t seek to recruit new prostitutes[7]. Quotes[10]: 1 If nobody wants to sell sex, it is a crime to force anyone to do so. But when men or women do want to sell their bodies, they should have that full right without encountering punishment or discrimination. If the client behaves decently, the relationship between the sex buyer and the sex seller must be considered a purely private transaction. \" NILS JOHAN RINGDAL, Love For Sale 2 \"The obscenities of this country are not [prostitutes]. It is the poverty which is obscene, and the criminal irresponsibility of the leaders who make this poverty a deadening reality. The obscenities in this country are the places of the rich, the new hotels made at the expense of the people, the hospitals where the poor die when they get sick because they don't have the money either for medicines or services. It is only in this light that the real definition of obscenity should be made.\" R13; F. Sionil Jos\", Ermita: A Filipino Novel 3 The only way to stop this trafficking in and profiting from the use of women's bodies is for prostitution to be legalized. Legalization will open it up to regulation; and regulation means safety. JEANNETTE ANGELL, Callgirl 4 When prostitution is a crime, the message conveyed is that women who are sexual are \"bad,\" and therefore legitimate victims of sexual assault. Sex becomes a weapon to be used by men. MARGO ST. JAMES, San Francisco Examiner, Apr. 29, 1979 5 People tend to be put off by the idea of selling sex, but if you spend a winter's night with one of them and talk with her about her family and so on, you're likely to find she's just like any other woman. EIJI YOSHIKAWA, The Art of War Sources: [1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk... [2] printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings. From Google [3] http://www.archives.gov... [4] http://globalfundforchildren.org... [5] http://www.listland.com... [6] http://www.forbes.com... [7] http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com... [8] http://people.emich.edu... [9] http://www.usdebtclock.org... [10] http://www.goodreads.com... and http://www.notable-quotes.com...", "qid": "28", "docid": "f2b76fe6-2019-04-18T14:49:20Z-00003-000", "rank": 91, "score": 173992.0}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution ought to be legalized Content: \u201cAn unjust law is no law at all\u201d- St. Augustine I opened this case with this quote from St. Augustine, which was later repeated by Martin Luther King, Jr. in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail, in order to begin to illustrate the nature of my affirmation of the resolved. This law that oppresses women by taking away their bodily autonomy clearly cannot be seen as a just law. To be perfectly clear, in supporting this resolution, it\u2019s not that I want women to become prostitutes, but just that I understand prostitution to be an issue of personal choice, and I assume that women and people in general have the agency to make that decision for themselves. Now, while reading this debate, it is important to understand not only this, but also that despite the current illegality of prostitution, prostitution still happens to a large degree, and I sincerely doubt my opponent will deny this fact. So essentially, this debate should be seen with this question in mind- should people be punished for this action that they do anyway? C1. Self-Sovereignty From a fundamental standpoint, all major forms of government recognize the concept of rights within their legal systems, and at the most basic level exists the right to self-sovereignty- i. e. , the notion that we have ownership over our own bodies. In market economies, people have the right to sell or rent out their property, and to keep the exchange of sex for money illegal, to allow the government to forbid you from monetizing what you rightfully own, would be to claim that the government has more ownership over your body than you do, which is, frankly, insulting. Additionally, the fact that women are generally more likely to be prostitutes is something that we need to acknowledge here, because it means that laws prohibiting prostitution are essentially targeting women and depriving them of their self-sovereignty, therefore creating an unequal level of oppression as enforced by the government. To have this in place would seem fundamentally wrong if equality or empowerment of women is any sort of goal for society. C2. Reducing Rape While discussing the legality of prostitution, it is important to separate genuine negatives of prostitution from negatives caused by the prohibition thereof. For example, there is a problem with prostitutes being raped. So one might ask, why is this problem as bad as it is? Well, it is so bad because with the illegality of prostitution, it creates an incentive against reporting rapes. If you are doing something illegal, are you going to go to the police and say that you got raped and risk punishment for yourself? Though some might be willing to, the status quo heavily discourages it, therefore making it so the punishment for raping prostitutes is essentially moot, making it so the problem is exacerbated. In legalizing prostitution, we would, if not solve for the problem, actually be reducing the problem, making it a safer environment for the prostitutes. C3. Patriarchy and Rape Culture When taken together, the previous two contentions form the foundations for this one- patriarchy and rape culture. Just imagine- a world where old men in politics can decree what a woman can and can\u2019t do with her own body, and where that leads to them not reporting rapes. It\u2019s not too hard to imagine, because that\u2019s what we currently have with prostitution being illegal. Making prostitution legal removes both of those problems, and therefore reduces the problems of patriarchy and rape culture. C4. Reducing the Spread of STDS Additionally, we can solve for a few other issues of safety if prostitution is legalized, both for the prostitutes and for the consumers. Currently, prostitutes face a dangerous work environment. They are working with pimps who beat and abuse them, and selling to customers without knowing whether or not the customer has an STD. A government cannot regulate something that is illegal, so we must legalize it and regulate it so prostitutes can actually experience the benefits of a safe work environment, as any human being should. The logic from C2 extends here, insofar as if a pimp is abusive, it is difficult for the prostitute to report it under the status quo of illegality without fear of being punished, which only allows the problem to persist. Legalizing solves for that, and also adds potential for regulations that create a safer work environment. Regulations can also insure for STD checks and awareness, making it safer for both the prostitute and the customer. C5. Political/Economic Costs Currently, prostitution only represents a cost to society. Police efforts are spent on catching prostitutes, while no tax revenue is being brought in from the industry. If prostitution were legalized, police efforts wouldn\u2019t be spent on stopping it, which removes that cost, and the prostitutes would be paying taxes, which adds a benefit, as this tax revenue could go towards things like education or healthcare. From an economic standpoint, legalizing prostitution makes sense. C6. Female Empowerment On a more individualistic level, we need to acknowledge that very often, there are low-skilled female workers who end up working for minimum wage jobs, because a minimum wage job is better than no job at all, right? However, what would happen if prostitution were legalized? It seems more likely than not that this would at least be a moderately high paying job, and it would therefore allow for the empowerment of women, helping them to pay for higher education, better health care, to future business ideas, or whatever else it is that they want. Given the higher amount of spending money, these women would be able to have a stronger path towards upwards mobility. On a fundamental level, we\u2019ve got to acknowledge the potential here. No longer would someone who can\u2019t afford to go to college be forced to live at a low income. No longer would someone born into poverty be stuck in poverty. Legalizing prostitution creates a legitimate path for female empowerment. C7. Victimless Crime To be absolutely clear, prostitution has no victim. Someone goes up to a prostitute, and offers to pay her money for sex. The prostitute accepts. They then have sex, and go their separate ways. It was voluntary, no third party was harmed by this, and neither party was harmed, unless there was an issue with one not informing the other of an STD or something (which, as shown before, could be solved for by legalizing and regulating prostitution). Nobody was a victim here, and to say that the prostitute or the customer was a victim would be to say that they have no agency to make decisions for themselves over their own bodies. So given the fact that people are already doing it, there is no victim, and the main harms that can come with prostitution can be solved for by legalization, it seems clear that we should stop punishing those involved and that prostitution should be legalized. Conclusion So to conclude this debate, it is absolutely clear that prostitution ought to be legalized. In legalizing prostitution, we can actually regulate it and therefore reduce pimp on prostitute violence, reduce prostitute rape, and reduce the spread of STDs. It means that women will be able to actually have ownership of their own bodies, rather than being told what they can and can\u2019t do with them by disconnected men in politics. It means that low-skilled women will not be forced into working for minimum wage and will have the option available to them. It means that a victimless crime will not be punished, and that we can actually have additional tax revenue that could go to things like education, rather than be solely a cost on government. So to draw the debate back to the initial question, \u201cshould people be punished for this action that people do anyway? \u201d it is clear that there is little to gain and everything to lose by keeping it illegal.", "qid": "28", "docid": "105d8c2a-2019-04-18T15:59:55Z-00004-000", "rank": 92, "score": 173919.0}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should be Legal Content: As you seem to have ignored all of my previous arguments in favor of making yours which have no correlation of what I have said, I will assume you accept all of them. If this is true, I am not sure why there is sill a debate, but I will still go over your arguments. I am not clear what your point is with the education of prostitutes or the relative intelligence thereof, but if it is in fact what it appears to be, then I really have no response to that. It appears to be \"Prostitutes are dumb, therefore prostitution should be illegal.\" You might as well say, \"prostitutes are dumb, therefore we do not need to protect them from potential abusers as we do our smarter citizens.\" Is this not an accurate summary of your point? Enlighten me if it is not. Most prostitutes have boob enlargements? Evidence, please. Also, though I don't know if they have studies for questions so logically obvious (i.e. do poor people have expensive surgeries?) but I'd willing to bet the answer is a well and resounding no. Even so, the logic behind the idea that prostitutes have breast enlargement surgeries, therefore prostitution should be illegal is murky at best. \"By legalizing Prostitution, eventually kids would be seeing phonographic images in advertisements and our population would grow to large as people would be reproducing without knowing what they are doing and committing to, the government will then have to pay those people under the assisted living and child raising program creating even more debt.\" This is a very long cause and effect sentence. Unfortunately, most of the \"causes \" have no correlation with the \"effects.\" Legalizing prostitution has no correlation with seeing pornographic images in advertising (seeing as the prostitutes would be in a special district, and there would be no pimp). Next, our population would not grow large as, by law, condoms would be worn. So therefore, the whole assisted living idea and the increasing debt idea are both eradicated.", "qid": "28", "docid": "d31537ce-2019-04-18T16:41:38Z-00001-000", "rank": 93, "score": 173881.0}, {"content": "Title: prostitution should be legal Content: conclusion: prostitution should be legal :)", "qid": "28", "docid": "6c53db90-2019-04-18T16:50:44Z-00001-000", "rank": 94, "score": 173865.0}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution ought to be Legalized Content: Intro: Society has labeled prostitution as dirty, loose-moraled, and outright wrong. This view, personally, has caught me my attention and has allowed me to ponder on the subject, which led me to the conclusion that contradicts the stigma. Prostitution is a job, and it is for a person if they wish to uphold that career for them. This is not a monolithic issue that should be debated all throughout, but a matter that can be easily resolved by acceptance and logic. Prostitution should be accepted and purged from its notoriety. I. Individual Autonomy Under the principle of individual autonomy, a person has the right to determine his actions upon himself, his thoughts over his actions, and his actions abiding his thoughts. No one shall proclaim a restriction or utter a coercion upon an individual who is rightfully exercising his right to bodily autonomy. It is then established that a person may do whatever he intends to do with his own body, whether or not there are, and he is aware of, potential harms attached to its action's consequences. Since he has consented himself to do so, he will automatically be holding the burden of responsibility of whatever harms he might face. If a person eats 200 cupcakes a day, no one shall take his freedom and happiness to do so; he may hold the burden of having diabetes after a year but the mere fact that he is considered as a consensual self deliberately negates any negative remarks on this matter. If a woman wishes to be a prostitute, she may do so. It is her right to her own body and nobody shall take that away from her. If somehow prostitution led to the transmission of more STDs, that would be up to the individual's decision. Nothing is entirely safe. And, they hold ultimate responsibility keeping that in mind and engaging it with their bodies, that is simply the matter's beauty and beast. II. Violation of Human Rights The duty of the government is to cater to the necessities of its people. One of the innumerable needs would be the protection of each and every individual's fundamental human rights. Imposing a massive restriction such as criminalizing prostitution is a testament of violation, an infringement to an essential tenet of human law and nature---the freedom of choice. Freedom and choice are two inseparable aspects of society. As justice, freedom, choice, protection, and speech are virtually imperative values that hold equally indistinguishable importance, it is the duty of the government to abide by the laws of man and nature and ultimately subject itself to catering to human rights protection. III. Morality Society's opinion against prostitution only holds for society's conservatives, not society as a whole. Libertarians may have different views far from conservatives, and that is the essence of morality. Its subjective nature allows us to characterize ourselves accordingly and allows us to deeply understand how morality should be accepted as. Moreover, there had been countless diversified opinions about prostitution throughout history, changing itself in people's eyes more often than it should, and that is the reality. So, in saying prostitutes are dirty is worse than assuming that the profession is. There is no such thing as absolute morality. It is subjective and always will be. IV. Jobless Rather than imposing restrictions, the government should improve the context of contractual agreements done between the customer and the brothels along with the prostitutes. If prostitution was criminalized, a massive shutdown of prostitution-driven businesses will take effect, uprooting several brothels with nothing, greatly rendering every prostitute as jobless. V. Taxes and Workload Rather than shutting down prostitution, the government could profit from maintaning and establishing legality of prostitution. While prostitutes practice their profession and rake in money, the government in support of this activity could generate revenue from collecting taxes. A positive-sum game takes place in this strategic arrangement. Also, rather than chasing down prostitutes and their workplaces, which is very tiring and awfully frivolous to do, the government can safeguard and ensure the protection of these individuals and organizations. There will be less workload for police and judicial systems, and more time, energy, and space for other notorious and havoc-wreaking crimes. Conclusion: I strongly stand for the legalization of prostitution. Under my arguments, prostitutes will be free to exercise their rights, can be protected by the state, shall be deemed as moral, and will not lose their jobs. Your turn.", "qid": "28", "docid": "1a28e069-2019-04-18T12:15:36Z-00000-000", "rank": 95, "score": 173841.0}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should be legal due to it being a victim-free crime. Content: People, no matter their background, have built societies were prostitution plays some part. Anywhere you go you will find \"working girls\" with plenty of business. Certainly this practice is considered horrible and dirty by many, but we have not been able to stop it for the entirety of human history. Since we cannot stop the problem, and since we cannot ignore the problem, we must regulate the problem. When regulated brothels may be taxed, inspected, and/or shutdown if necessary. Under the current system of anarchy nothing can be done, but shutdown prostitution rings. And to currently shutdown a ring, police must work for months or years in order to properly take down such syndicates. Certainly most would prefer to live in a world where prostitution does not exist, but we do not live in that world and we cannot eliminate the problem. Therefore we must pick the best of two evils and regulate the industry.", "qid": "28", "docid": "ab52fe20-2019-04-18T17:03:24Z-00002-000", "rank": 96, "score": 173770.0}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should be illegal. Content: Prostitution is already illegal.", "qid": "28", "docid": "52c8b957-2019-04-18T15:36:42Z-00002-000", "rank": 97, "score": 173763.0}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution Should Be Legal Content: It would not solve the violence of prostitution.", "qid": "28", "docid": "3677e360-2019-04-19T12:44:54Z-00005-000", "rank": 98, "score": 173666.0}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should be legal due to it being a victim-free crime. Content: In this debate I intend to show that prostitution, when properly regulated, can be a victim less crime. One of the major reasons for prostitution's negative status is the world of crime that surrounds the business. This negative side of prostitution could be easily removed through government regulation. I intend to prove this in the course of this debate.", "qid": "28", "docid": "ab52fe20-2019-04-18T17:03:24Z-00004-000", "rank": 99, "score": 173576.0}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should be legal Content: - Violence: In recent studies, prostitution has higher violent rates than other professions. Varying violence abuse includes rape, harassment, murder, etc. - Diseases: Prostitution spreads diseases such as aids. Since not everyone uses protection. - In conclusion prostitution should not be legalized because of it's degrading nature. It is not moral for a society to legalize young women to sell themselves on the streets to complete strangers.", "qid": "28", "docid": "cf3ad40b-2019-04-18T15:04:08Z-00008-000", "rank": 100, "score": 173529.0}]}
{"query": "Should the government allow illegal immigrants to become citizens?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: Should the US allow illegal immigrants currently in the US to have a path to citizenship Content: Question: Should undocumented immigrants already in the United States, be allowed to become U.S. citizens? The answer is no, when illegal aliens come over they can only get small salary jobs at the risk of the U.S. government finding out about their presence. By taking these jobs away from a country whose unemployment rates are already over 7%(Bureau of Labor Statistics), they are stealing what could be a \"bread on the table\" job from hardworking American citizens. Aside from the fact that our jobs are being taken away, the thought of providing them with jobs, welfare, housing assistance, food assistance, and student loans is legally ridiculous. Why would we reward them for coming over illegally and stealing jobs and other resources from legal citizens? Common since dictates that if a person within your authority breaks the law, you don\"t reward them for their actions. This year half a million fewer students nationwide enrolled in colleges, but the number of Latinos enrolled spiked by 447,000, 17% of those students were illegal immigrants from the southern border of the U.S. In 2012 the number of Latinos enrolled was at 3.4 million, an all time high, (NPR.org). By allowing illegals into the country, who are not only stealing government support or low class jobs, they are stealing education from students and taking even higher class jobs from people who are legal American citizens. Our country is funded by taxes. When illegal immigrants come into the picture our country as a whole loses money. Whether it is income tax, or health care our country is losing money for every transaction they make. While it may seem to be a useful way for businesses to save money by hiring unlawful immigrants, in the long run it\"s a practice that is harming our country more than not, as 11% of all lower and middle class workers are illegal aliens (NPR.org), and giving them citizenship would only invite others to take more jobs. When it\"s all said and done rewarding illegals for breaking our laws is counterproductive to our country as jobs are being stolen, colleges are being filled, and taxes are being dodged. To give these people citizenship would only harm the U.S. more then not. When illegals living in the U.S. get citizenship it only invites more people from other countries to come in illegally in hopes for free citizenship. Granting them amnesty may give the U.S a slight economy boom at first, but in the long run will lead to our demise.", "qid": "29", "docid": "eb83b1d7-2019-04-18T16:50:19Z-00003-000", "rank": 1, "score": 219825.0}, {"content": "Title: U.S. Immigration policy is too harsh on the southern border Content: Wow...where do i begin? first, one of the sole purposes of a government is to protect ITS citizens. A government cannot allow anyone and everyone in who wants in without going through the proper channels. This means that if an immigrant wants to become a citizen, there is a means of doing so, in which they will then recieve all the rights of a natural born citizen. along with protection, it is necessary for a government to know who is coming into the country. Are you suggesting that we allow any and all to just walk across the border and call themselves a citizen? that would have been great for America during the cold war when soviet spies and sabatours could just walk right in and out to never be found again. This goes for terrorists today as well. Is it worth risking American's lives? Illegal immagrants are breaking the law...PERIOD. besides that fact, should not an American wanting a job take precedence over that of an illegal? Is it fair that illegals should be allowed to live in this country and reap all the benefits without paying taxes like everyone else? Also, an increase in illegal immigration is directly proportional to an increase in crime. Besides the negative effects of that fact alone, this leads to a strain on government resources - police, jails, etc. which are paid for by taxes, which are bad enough, but lead to a strain on funding for other needed things. And you think the US gov. is too tough? I say make it tougher, build a fence, do what is necessary to reduce illegal immigration.", "qid": "29", "docid": "1c270f65-2019-04-18T20:01:32Z-00004-000", "rank": 2, "score": 214354.0}, {"content": "Title: The United States Government should immediately repatriate all illegal immigrants. Content: Regarding the education of the children of illegal immigrants, unless the requirements of becoming a naturalization are rewritten (a topic outside the boundaries of our proposition of expatriating illegal immigrants as they are currently defined), any child born on American soil is guaranteed U.S. citizenship. The immediate expatriation of the parents of such children would have one of two effects: either the family would be split up, as there would be no legal grounds for forcing the child with citizenship to leave the country, and any economic costs their schooling would incur would be unchanged, or the child would return with their families to their country of origin, where in many cases the quality of education is much poorer. We would effectively be denying U.S. citizens access to the public education system on the basis of the actions of their parents. Were expatriation forced, the only way to eliminate these costs would be a gross miscarriage of justice, blaming children for circumstances they cannot control. In regards to community colleges, if we are discussing the U.S. born children of illegal immigrants, such individuals would ostensibly have to pay their taxes and the tuition associated with community colleges if they wished to attend. In the end, the drain they cause on the system is no different from any other citizen (never mind that educating such individuals allows them access to a wider variety of jobs, increasing their overall productive capabilities and having a positive effect on the economy as a whole). In the case of illegal immigrants themselves attending community colleges, the system here in the state of North Carolina has already found a way to take advantage of this. Illegal immigrants can be accepted to community colleges, but at the out of state tuition rate. This additional cost means that the colleges generate a $2000 profit for each illegal student (1). In the end, to immediately expatriate illegal immigrants would cause a loss of future taxes collectable from legitimate U.S. citizens as well as dry up a source of potential revenue for community colleges. In regards to the crimes attributed to illegal immigration, an immediate deportation of all the illegals that DHS could capture would do little to reduce their rates. Drug and arms dealers have demonstrated their ability to operate without being detected by the authorities. A new campaign to remove all illegals would tax already overstressed law enforcement resources that could instead be used to target these criminals specifically, removing a great number of immigrants whose only crime was entering the country at the cost of ignoring many of these hardened criminals. Instead of a mass deportation, we should instead focus on apprehending only these individuals, understanding the weaknesses in our border security they use to transport their goods, and endeavoring to close these gaps. (1) http://www.wral.com...", "qid": "29", "docid": "67bd18e2-2019-04-18T18:50:42Z-00002-000", "rank": 3, "score": 204185.0}, {"content": "Title: should illgle immagrants be allowed citezenship Content: I think you forgot the topic question. \"Should illegal immigrants be allowed citizenship?\", is the question we are discussing. You repeatedly state that illegal immigrants are taking jobs away from American citizens, and yet if we were to give illegal immigrants citizenship, then they would be citizens. There are currently an estimated 11,100,000 illegal immigrants residing in America, according to a recent survey taken by The Department of Homeland Security. America doesn't really have any choice but to give these immigrants citizenship; it'd be impossible to send back that many people to their homelands. In order to find and deport every illegal immigrant, the U.S government would need to undergo a massive bureaucratic expansion, in order to hire more workers to find the immigrants. You stated that \"illegal immigrants take up jobs that are for us.\" Employers should be allowed to hire whoever they chose to, and not be forced to hire based upon legal status. Businesses will increase in size the more people that they hire, which will help support America's economy. In conclusion to my argument, America needs to face facts; millions of illegal immigrants currently reside in America, and the vast majority of them are hardworking, taxpaying and law abiding. We should give them complete amnesty and work together to help make America a greater nation.", "qid": "29", "docid": "8e58c781-2019-04-18T16:40:22Z-00000-000", "rank": 4, "score": 200355.0}, {"content": "Title: Americans oppose the deportation of all illegal immigrants. Content: A USA Today/Gallup Poll dated March 2007 asked, \"Should the government deport all illegal immigrants back to their home country?\" In response, only 24% of American citizens believed the government should deport all illegal immigrants. Furthermore, 59% of American citizens believed the government should allow illegal immigrants to remain in the United States and become U.S. citizens, but only if they meet certain requirements.", "qid": "29", "docid": "3dfdaea9-2019-04-17T11:47:25Z-00062-000", "rank": 5, "score": 199760.0}, {"content": "Title: Illegal Immigrants Content: As an born bred American Citizen I believe that allowing illegal immigrants into our country then giving them citizenship just like that is beyond wrong especially for those who are currently do the process right so that they may become a legal citizen of the United States. Now I don't want to hate on the Illegal Immigrants due to the fact that being human we strive to live better lives and most of us knowing that the U.S.A even in it's current condition is still very high on the scale for new opportunities, it's just that people have to want it bad enough, I digress but to my point if illegal immigrants were to enter the country it should be only on one term and that is to work. Now people are like oh those illegal are taking our jobs away but in reality if they were to pay attention in life rather than listen down the grape vine they would know that most illegal immigrants take jobs that most Americans wouldn't such as helping farmers pick food, they also pick up trash, and so on. These jobs are looked upon very unfavorably by the tens of millions of Americans. So to end my opinion, I shall state this, Illegal Immigrants under no circumstances should be allowed sanctuary in a country they do not belong to , only and mean only if they have a working visa and are monitored very closely to where they could not just fit into the populous and just disappear. There shall be tight restrictions to what they may do. As for the illegal immigrants that are currently in the country i feel they need to be found and deported to their home countries and be encouraged to become a U.S. citizen but there shall not be any automatic citizenship. You cannot just be forgiven and be granted something that you haven't earned. Only those that follow the rules shall get access and sometimes they don't even fit the standards.", "qid": "29", "docid": "59ad9eee-2019-04-18T17:17:47Z-00004-000", "rank": 6, "score": 199151.0}, {"content": "Title: Allowing Illegal Immigrations To Still Get Benefits Content: Before I begin, your argument was fine. And thank you for posting, I thought you disappeared, ha ha. [1] The counter-argument Con is making that the plan established is incoherent was expected, and is relatively rinsed and repeated by the Right-Wingers. Thus, a generous rebuttal will be supplied to refute the points made:1a) Illegal immigrants coming into the country do not have to remain illegal immigrants. They can always gain citizenship. Barack Obama has become, as previously stated, more of a Social Democratic president and many of his foreign policies let free-flowing immigration occur, which has increased the amount of illegal immigrants significantly. However, the federal benefits in question that would be hypothetically given to \"illegals\" are already being given to \"legal\" immigrants and citizens. Yes, adding a couple thousand or even million more people into the country with these benefits would logically make the government spend more to be able to supply the higher demand for them. But this is a strawmen argument that is found easily debunkable by most: The benefits being given to people more since Obama's election into office are not even scratching the surface of the debt bucket the U.S now owns. In fact it doesn't even hit the top six causes of the U.S's debt. Bush Tax Cuts in 2003 and 2001 were the main source at around that time of deficit, adding an approximation of $1.6 trillion to the already built-up debt. And the other five reasons the economy is so trashy and in the negatives are; health care, medicare, war, economic stimulus [Obama's fault], Great Recession. All of these problems are nowhere near giving people who cross the U.S border \"illegally\" benefits. And the debt ceiling was rising even without that. While yes, it would wildly increase the amount of debt raining in to terrify the administration, it's not the only thing that would, and it has a minimal effect. And the numbers Con has supplied to state so are wildly over the top. [http://theweek.com...] Yes, what Con is saying about it adding to the debt ceiling is logical, but it would have the least impact. Taxes would have to be raised to keep up with the debt that would become added to the already horrible deficit staining the success of the American economy, but it would not add anymore than the current wars being faught in Iraq and Afghanistan are already costing the U.S. Well after reading quite a few articles, it has been retrieved that these numbers were much higher than most expected. Well, the government does have to sell war bonds, raise taxes and still pay for supplies such as food, armaments, water, rations, armour and vehicles that would be given to soldiers fighting on the front, so it is only logical to assume that the amount of money these wars since 9/11 have costed the U.S a lot of money. https://www.nationalpriorities.org... http://costsofwar.org... http://www.globalresearch.ca... 1b) It was described that the State is responsible for rounding up and deporting illegal immigrants back to their home land. Well, this logical does seem sensible. People coming across the borders to come into a country in order to save their lives from the tyrant rule and horrible, unbearable crime rates down south? Undermining the legality of those waiting to get their paperwork done? Hmm..Seems like a problem. Well that is, until it is examined closer. To go back to a point previously used, every American in the U.S with the exception of an extremely small minority (actually just 2%), is an illegal immigrant in one respect or another. European colonists (as mentioned in the first round) did come to the land and pillage it, killing people, raping them and exploiting natural resources and the weak technologies the Natives had to try and fend off the newly self-proclaimed enemy with. So if the U.S really wanted to eliminate the problem of illegal immigration, everyone would be kicked out and the Natives would be left to remake their civilization but now with these better technologies. Yes, this argument is almost viewed as irrelevant now, but all sides of the story must be considered when the word 'immigration' comes up. And again, a driving motive for many illegal immigrants to come to the U.S is to find conditions of better living. At one point, immigration should, yes, be trafficked better so over-population does not become an issue, but it's not the U.S needs to be surrounded by electric fences. And the U.S is nowhere near its maximum population. And on top of that, if illegals going to the U.S eventually found there was no space, there would be one more country they could turn to. A country that gets swept under the rug and labeled irrelevant to most new world events...Canada. Canada has a massive amount of land and an extremely limited national population. So, for what it's worth, immigrants coming to the country could literally be passing through to go to Canada because there is space. Work is more affordable there and in most provinces the weather is reasonable. In fact, just going to Nova Scotia, one could easily find available commercial jobs. The U.S is not the only country to be considered with Western immigrants travelling upwards, be it legal or illegal means of travel. [2] The point that providing illegal immigrants benefits would attract more in more significant numbers is actually quite laughable. Because the exact same thing could be said with normal citizens. Implemented Social systems like Welfare and S.S.I could easily draw more citizens to the programs. So the argument is applicable to even legal citizens, not just illegal immigrants. 2a) Illegal immigrants could become legal if they are given the time. Not everyone can afford to waste time waiting in line for a couple of papers to be stamped and approved of by the federal government and U.S border patrol, so sometimes urgency kicks in, and the people will do whatever they have to do to get across the border. Some empathy is needed here. Illegal immigrants should be given a considerable amount of time to get on their feet, then should be provided paperwork, fill it out, and be able to attain citizenship. And another thing, it was never stated that all illegal immigrants should be given these benefits. It would have to be monitored in the same respect that giving these social benefits to legal citizens works. It would just be different in the aspect of legality, because the citizens would not have citizenship for a certain period of time, because again, it is expensive to move between countries, and desperate times call for desperate measures. It would only be ethical to allow illegal immigrants some space at the table. And economically speaking, it's not the worst thing the U.S has gone through to just simply give some of them benefits, granted they are willing to go through the process. 2b) Illegal immigrants can work just as legals can and that was something considered in round one, but it was not necessarily touched upon to a very hard extent. All that was said was that the unemployment rate dropped below 6% for the first time since recession, and that should be able to speak for itself, because it happened upon immigration being made more a free-flowing thing by President Obama, but there's more to the work ethic these illegals provide that is beneficial to the U.S: Military service. Not only are the immigrants in so much of a hurry that they need to pass through the border unseen and without paperwork, but they are literally willing to die for the U.S, a country that would once turn them away. So going back to the point Con made about it being the federal obligation of the U.S government to deport these immigrants, that is false. Obama and the administration of the Pentagon are both allowing illegal immigrants to enlist in the military. Wars often raise taxes but also make countries richer because of that. Not to say that the U.S should constantly go to war until it's out of debt, but this certainly does help the economy push towards the positives. And the military soldiers would also be leaving the country overseas to fight in the Middle East, and it would not be until they had made it out alive that they would receive benefits such as checking into VA hospitals and checks for their service to the country (which those kinds of benefits have been cut anyways lately, which is unfortunate). http://www.politifact.com... https://news.vice.com... http://www.usatoday.com... [3] All immigrants to the U.S, even illegals, are more than capable of making a contribution to the success of the country. Contributions that legal citizens are no more capable of doing than their illegal counter-parts. Being completely honest, immigrants should not have to prove their worthiness to the 'holier-than-thou' U.S anyways, or any country for that matter. Humans should naturally have the right to free exploration, in which they may travel between countries without having to pay ridiculously expensive amounts of money, or proving their legality or anything of the sort, because it's marginalizing and demonizing. It's about as insulting as being referred to as a number tagged onto your chest in a prison.", "qid": "29", "docid": "d4ce048b-2019-04-18T14:57:27Z-00001-000", "rank": 7, "score": 198582.0}, {"content": "Title: U.S. Immigration policy is too harsh on the southern border Content: First of all, I want to make clear to anyone that is reading this that I NEVER ONCE SAID THAT THE U.S. SHOULD LET EVERYONE THAT WANTS TO COME IN INTO THE COUNTRY. I said simply that the U.S. government is too harsh on immigrants. PERIOD But anyways, we are too harsh on them because we make it extremely difficult for them to become u.s. citizens. I'm curious...have you seen the test that they have to take to be legalized? I have (my mom is a French immigrant, and yes, she is legal) and they ask you questions that even you or me wouldn't be able to answer as being taught in an American school system. If educated people like you or me cannot answer these questions, how do we expect uneducated, poor, and non-English-speaking Hispanics to answer them correctly? WE DON'T The fact is that our government, democrats and republicans alike,(and most citizens) don't want these people in our country, so they make it extremely difficult to get in the country. Cause and effect, the immigrants come in ILLEGALLY,(so they don't have to suffer through the rigorous and irrational expectations of our government) and this gives people the chance to complain and say, \"Hey, I don't want these illegals coming in, not paying taxes, reaping the benefits of our society, and stealing our jobs!\" This is a justifiable statement-I don't(I don't think anyone does) want anyone freeloading off of my hard work. But it is our country's own fault that there are people doing things like this. If these same immigrants were legal, -There would be more people paying taxes to the state and federal governments -There would be more people = more demand = more jobs = more workers = more people living better lives -There would be no need to spend billions of taxpayers' dollars into a giant fence that will do virtually nothing to stop the incoming of illegals anyways Also you said that increase in illegal immigration is directly proportional to an increase in crime. Well technically, you are absolutely correct. But what you didn't take into consideration is how being an illegal immigrant affects your living conditions and monetary income. Let me remind you that poverty is also directly proportional to an increase in crime. Illegal immigrants come into the country to look for work. It is more difficult for them to find work because -they are illegal(duh) -they are uneducated -they are a risk for their employer Once they find a job,(which will no doubt be low paying, harsh, physical labor) they need a place to sleep. But, again, problems arise, for they are illegal and poor. So what do they do? They do what anyone would do-it's human nature. They find someone like them. This leads to a concentration people of a certain race and background. This leads to ghettos. Now, if they were legal, it would be much easier for them to find better paying jobs and places to live. So, -They would be richer, and would not resort to crime as much -Their legalization would strongly reduce the chance of the formation of ghettos Also, if you say that it is wrong for them to come into our country, remember this. YOU ARE AN IMMIGRANT TOO!!!!! Your ancestors came into America just as abruptly and illegally as the illegal immigrants do today. I they could do it then, why is it such a big deal now?", "qid": "29", "docid": "1c270f65-2019-04-18T20:01:32Z-00003-000", "rank": 8, "score": 195996.0}, {"content": "Title: U.S. Immigration policy is too harsh on the southern border Content: Let me begin by saying that it is a privilege to be allowed to become a citizen of this country - not a right. No government has to allow people in, and when the country in question is the wealthiest nation in the history of the world, the privilege of becoming a citizen has even greater worth. As we have already established, it is necessary to have a process of legalizing immigrants rather than allowing all in, so here are reasons why the legalization process is difficult. - the admitance test should be challenging. Im not at all saying it should be near impossible to pass, but it should require studying of the testable info. It is important that new citizens understand the history of this country and the basics of our government. Which is the basis for the next two points: -This allows them to better contribute to society and the political process. This is another reason for the tediousness of the process. When there is a pool of billions who want in, those who become citizens should prove that they can and will contribute to society. The best way of doing this is to teach them many vital aspects of the US. -Also, the more one knows about their new home, the more a \"part\" of it they feel, which leads to greater assimilation. Assimilation is vital to our country's survival (united we stand,devided we fall)- if new citizens dont become part of the American culture then it creates division and competition among groups (im not saying that immigrants should forget their native culture either). -I want those who apply for citizenship to be scrutinized. Not just anyone should be allowed in. As i previously stated, it is a privilege. I dont want other country's criminals and others that will contribute to problems in our country. Also, this step of the process is even more critical post 9/11 for obvious reasons. Yes, the process is long, tedious, and slow; and i concede that it is not perfect. But for many reasons it requires more than just a sign-in book to become a legal citizen. A few quick notes on other comments you made: I beleive that it should be mandatory for immigrants to speak and read english (at least enough to operate in society). Not being able to speak the country's primary language (basically im proposing english should be the national language) obviously leads to many problems. The proposed fence is a double fence meaning a two fences with a patrolled space between (in addition to the patrolled US side). The design and proper implementation of the fence would be very effective and would make a difference.", "qid": "29", "docid": "1c270f65-2019-04-18T20:01:32Z-00002-000", "rank": 9, "score": 195772.0}, {"content": "Title: Illegal immigrants should be granted the rights of legal citizenship Content: Illegal immigrants should mot be granted the rights of legal citizenship. And why should they? They come into the United States and want to be treated like a citizen, but they are not. If they come to America searching for a better life, than wouldn't it be better for them to become a legal citizen anyway? If they come here illegally, than why do they deserve the rights of legal citizens? Yes, they do deserve human rights, but not the benefits of being a citizen of the United States. They do not pay taxes, they do not deserve the benefits of our educational systems, our roads, our public buildings, anything payed for with taxes. I invite anybody to agree or refute this.", "qid": "29", "docid": "3cdc63cb-2019-04-18T18:06:59Z-00005-000", "rank": 10, "score": 195700.0}, {"content": "Title: Government protection (from illegal immigrants) is a const. right. Content: Governments are required by their Constitutions to protect their citizens from crime and foreign threats. In so far as illegal immigration threatens citizens, governments are required to respond aggressively. Arizona, who's citizens have been terribly affected by illegal immigration, is required to respond robustly in fighting the problem.", "qid": "29", "docid": "31f5da82-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00088-000", "rank": 11, "score": 192320.0}, {"content": "Title: America should create a pathway to citizenship for illegal and other immigrants. Content: What I mean is illegals and other immigrants should have the legal right to become citizens provided that they are not career felons. This would improve the economy by puytting these ableds to work, and getting them off welfare, reducing crime, and providing opportunities for people who would be an asset to the US of A. I take the affirmative position, make the first move.", "qid": "29", "docid": "f40414eb-2019-04-18T11:51:17Z-00004-000", "rank": 12, "score": 191811.0}, {"content": "Title: The US government should cease regulating its borders Content: The United States government should continue to regulate its borders. The borders need to be secure and the country needs to be careful who they let in on a temporary basis. The more agents we have at the border the harder it will be for illegal immigrants to enter the country. Research shows that illegal immigrants find jobs and housing. If the government establishes a database for employers to enter information about their employees it will be harder for the illegal immigrants to find jobs. It will also open up more jobs for the legal citizens. Also if the government cracks down on the employer's that are giving the immigrants jobs by ticketing them, they will be less willing to hire the illegal workers. Presumably the United States government will continue to regulate the borders.", "qid": "29", "docid": "5e48a4d6-2019-04-18T18:55:00Z-00005-000", "rank": 13, "score": 191636.0}, {"content": "Title: America should support blanket amnesty for illegal immigrants. Content: While undocumented aliens do infact recieve some benifits, they should still be grated blanket amnesty. An article about the postives and negatives of illegal immigration states, \"Whether you fine illegal aliens or stick them in English classes or make them say a hundred Hail Marys, at the end of the day, illegals would be allowed to stay and become citizens... That's amnesty. And that's a good thing for America. Amnesty won't depress wages - globalization has already done that. Amnesty will not undermine the rule of law. [...] It sounds counterintuitive, but with immigration, forgiving a crime may be the best way to restore law and order. Amnesty won't necessarily add to the social-services burden. [...] Amnesty would offer millions... a fighting chance at self-sufficiency and social mobility\" (\"Top Ten Pros and Cons, 1). Also, just because they crossed the border illegally doesn't mean that illigal immigrants will continue to commit crimes or be encouraged to continue to break the law. \"According to the conservative Americas Majority Foundation, crime rates during the period 1999\"\"2006 were lowest in states with the highest immigration growth rates. During that period the total crime rate fell 14% in the 19 top immigration states, compared to only 7% in the other 31. Truth is, foreign-born people in America, whether they are naturalized citizens, permanent residents, or undocumented, are incarcerated at a much lower rate than native-born Americans, according to the National Institute of Corrections\" (8 Of the Most Vicious Myths About Illegal Immigrants, 1). It is more likely that native born people will commit a crime than people such as illegal immigrants. In conclusion, illegal immigrants should be granted blanket amnesty as doing so would be beneficial for America and they are less likely to commit crime than native borm United States citizens. \"Top Ten Pros and Cons.\" Procon.org. 2009. Web. 22 October 2013 \"8 Of the Most Vicious Myths About Illegal Immigrants.\" PolicyMic. Web. 22 Oct. 2013.", "qid": "29", "docid": "cd8abfbd-2019-04-18T17:04:37Z-00002-000", "rank": 14, "score": 190371.0}, {"content": "Title: America should support blanket amnesty for illegal immigrants. Content: While undocumented aliens do infact recieve some benifits, they should still be grated blanket amnesty. An article about the postives and negatives of illegal immigration states, \"Whether you fine illegal aliens or stick them in English classes or make them say a hundred Hail Marys, at the end of the day, illegals would be allowed to stay and become citizens... That's amnesty. And that's a good thing for America. Amnesty won't depress wages - globalization has already done that. Amnesty will not undermine the rule of law. [...] It sounds counterintuitive, but with immigration, forgiving a crime may be the best way to restore law and order. Amnesty won't necessarily add to the social-services burden. [...] Amnesty would offer millions... a fighting chance at self-sufficiency and social mobility\" (\"Top Ten Pros and Cons, 1). Also, just because they crossed the border illegally doesn't mean that illigal immigrants will continue to commit crimes or be encouraged to continue to break the law. \"According to the conservative Americas Majority Foundation, crime rates during the period 1999\"\"2006 were lowest in states with the highest immigration growth rates. During that period the total crime rate fell 14% in the 19 top immigration states, compared to only 7% in the other 31. Truth is, foreign-born people in America, whether they are naturalized citizens, permanent residents, or undocumented, are incarcerated at a much lower rate than native-born Americans, according to the National Institute of Corrections\" (8 Of the Most Vicious Myths About Illegal Immigrants, 1). It is more likely that native born people will commit a crime than people such as illegal immigrants. In conclusion, illegal immigrants should be granted blanket amnesty as doing so would be beneficial for America and they are less likely to commit crime than native borm United States citizens. \"Top Ten Pros and Cons.\" Procon.org. 2009. Web. 22 October 2013 \"8 Of the Most Vicious Myths About Illegal Immigrants.\" PolicyMic. Web. 22 Oct. 2013.", "qid": "29", "docid": "cd8abfdc-2019-04-18T17:04:45Z-00004-000", "rank": 15, "score": 190371.0}, {"content": "Title: \"That Arnold Schwarzenegger should be able to become president\" Content: As much as I support immigrant rights, I don't think that immigrants should be allowed to become presidents. Only because if an immigrant became president, he/she might have conflicting interests with America and their home country. I'm not saying all immigrants are out to infiltrate the US government, but to ensure that American interests are being preserved, citizens whom have been born and raised in the States would be less bias. Of course, there is always the opportunity to become a representative, governor, or even senator. In these offices, immigrants can still be represented without taking executive control. Again, it's not that immigrants aren't able or would only pass laws benefiting their demographic, but we need a citizen that has been born and raised here in order to ensure that American interests are put first.", "qid": "29", "docid": "2b8563c2-2019-04-18T19:52:57Z-00004-000", "rank": 16, "score": 190112.0}, {"content": "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...", "qid": "29", "docid": "c4fa1b7-2019-04-18T16:33:19Z-00003-000", "rank": 17, "score": 188413.0}, {"content": "Title: The United States Government should immediately repatriate all illegal immigrants. Content: Another argument is that if we don't have strong borders then we are opening ourselves up to overpopulation that would tax all cities. There is also the issue of weak borders allowing terrorists easy access to our country. By allowing illegal immigrants to stay in this country we are telling the world that we are an easy target. Come and get us. We won't do anything about it.", "qid": "29", "docid": "67bd18e2-2019-04-18T18:50:42Z-00001-000", "rank": 18, "score": 188398.0}, {"content": "Title: US cannot be a nation of permanent illegal immigrants Content: Jared Bernstein. \"Path to citizenship and out of poverty.\" Economic Policy Institute. June 29, 2006: \"The policy implications should be obvious. We must not let ourselves become a nation of permanent illegal immigrants, who toil in the shadows; nor should we become a nation of 'guest workers.' We are a nation of immigrants who have trodden the path toward citizenship. A central goal of reform should be to clear that path for those who deserve the privileges, economic and otherwise, of being an American citizen.\"", "qid": "29", "docid": "4cf9e3c5-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00032-000", "rank": 19, "score": 187959.0}, {"content": "Title: Should illegal immigrants be allowed to live in the U.S. Content: Of course not, it is in the title illegal. If something is illegal it isn't allowed. Immigrants are allowed and should continue to be allowed, but illegal immigrants should not. If someone really wants to get into the U.S. they should go through the legal way and get a real citizenship. Would it make sense to allow people that haven't passed tests to freely live in the states without having to pay taxes, no. Any illegal immigrants currently in the country should be forced to leave until they can legally register as a U.S. citizen. This is necessary to gain the rights and duties of a U.S. citizen. However, people who are the children of illegal immigrants and never had a life outside the U.S. should be required to apply for citizenship, but not forced from the states unless they fail to do so. Only legal citizens are allowed to live in the U.S. long term as this is what preserves the structure of our country and it should stay this way.", "qid": "29", "docid": "f44bcd7f-2019-04-18T11:45:00Z-00000-000", "rank": 20, "score": 187411.0}, {"content": "Title: Effort to regulate our countrys borders Content: yeah it would make things easier if become a U.s. citizen but not all immigrants wish to contribute to all that it takes to be a citizen. most illegal immigrants that are in our country come for economic reasons because their country does not have much of an economy or avaliable jobs, if they already face problems economically which is why they come to our country leads in unwilling tax payers that do all the same we do. im not referencing to all. its unfair but it should be harder to get granted citizenship because all that has happened in our country, we cant just let anyone in our country...how is that safe or reasonable?", "qid": "29", "docid": "c1e8634f-2019-04-18T18:54:56Z-00003-000", "rank": 21, "score": 186292.0}, {"content": "Title: America should support blanket amnesty for illegal immigrants. Content: America should not necessarily grant Illegal Immigrants citizenship, however they should be granted the right to all educational and health benefits, and legal rights that American citizens receive. According to the CAIRCO's section on Immigration Issues, since the 1986 amnesty, Congress has passed a total of 7 amnesties for illegal aliens allowing over 6 million total illegal immigrants to be granted blanket amnesty for a variety of reasons (\"Immigration Issues\"). Many illegal immigrants have already been granted a path to citizenship and amnesty, and more opportunities should be made available. For example, President Barack Obama reasons a plan to possibly grant the 12 million illegal immigrants that reside in America Amnesty. President Obama explains, \"'We are not going to ship back 12 million people, we're not going to do it as a practical matter. We would have to take all our law enforcement that we have available and we would have to use it and put people on buses, and rip families apart, and that's not who we are, that's not what America is about. So what I've proposed... is you say we're going to bring these folks out of the shadows. We're going to make them pay a fine, they are going to have to learn English, they are going to have to go to the back of the line...but they will have a pathway to citizenship over the course of 10 years'\" (\"PROPOSED IMMIGRATION REFORM\"). Simply removing illegal immigrants from the country would be much too costly and a waste of time. Individuals would be ripped away from their families and communities and there would also be negative economic consequences from removing millions of hard-working residents from the domestic labor pool. Instead, a proposed path to citizenship is a better solution. Illegal Immigrants offer benefits to the United states in a variety of different ways. For example, Undocumented immigrants contribute to our economy as workers, taxpayers, and consumers, they account for 5 percent of the total U.S. labor force, and at least a quarter of the workers in industries like construction, agriculture, grounds keeping, meat processing, and textile production. All undocumented immigrants pay sales and property taxes, and most pay federal and state income taxes as well, even though they're not eligible for Social Security, Medicare, or the many other programs their tax dollars help fund. Undocumented immigrants also spend billions of dollars each year, which supports our economy and helps create new jobs. The New York Times explains that 'a 2006 study by the Texas State Comptroller estimated that the 1.4 million undocumented immigrants in Texas alone added almost $18 billion to the state's economic output, and more than paid for the $1.2 billion in state services they used by generating $1.6 billion in new state revenues' (Ewing). The contributions of undocumented immigrants would be even greater if they were able to earn legal status. Workers who are not part of an underground economy and don't live in fear of deportation are better able to acquire new job skills and move up the career ladder. That turns into higher wages, more money paid in taxes, and more money to spend to support other businesses. Also, most illegal immigrants are for the most part law-abiding. As I previously explained, there is a greater percentage of citizens who commit crimes than there are illegal immigrants. Immigration is a natural right that is attained at birth. The idea that immigration needs to be authorized by the government goes against that freedom. Immigrants who come to America seeking the opportunity to work and pursue happiness, or those brought here at too young an age to have any say in the matter, ought to be able to stay to pursue those opportunities, thus proving that illegal immigrants should be granted blanket amnesty. Works Cited Ewing, Walter. \"Are Illegal Immigrants Good for the U.S. Economy?\" The New York Times. Web. 30 Oct. 2013. \"Immigration Issues.\" Cairco. Web. 29 October 2013. \"PROPOSED IMMIGRATION REFORM.\" US Amnesty. Web. 29 October 2013.", "qid": "29", "docid": "cd8abfdc-2019-04-18T17:04:45Z-00000-000", "rank": 22, "score": 185940.0}, {"content": "Title: America should support blanket amnesty for illegal immigrants. Content: Undocumented workers do not receive full Social Security benefits because they are not United States citizens \" nor should they be until they seek citizenship legally. Illegal immigrants are legally obligated to pay taxes, and they owe the government for allowing them to live and work in this country. One must remember that, whatever their reasons, immigrants who have come to this country without legal documentation have broken the law. Just as criminals lose their rights when they break the law, so should illegal immigrants have to face the consequences of their actions. Granting illegal immigrants the same rights as citizens would encourage them continue to break the law instead of seeking the approved path to citizenship (\"Is it...Illegal Immigrants?\"). Obama's plan to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants involves awarding visas to immigrants who have waited patiently in their countries of origin and to those who broke the law to come here (\"Is it...Illegal Immigrants?\"). If we award illegal immigrants legal rights, then we are essentially condoning crime. Furthermore, it is inaccurate to assume that illegal immigrants are not benefiting from living in this country already - even without full Social Security benefits. For example, money sent home by illegal immigrants is one of Mexico\"s largest sources of revenue after oil sales and exports (\"Top Ten Pros and Cons\"). This revenue drains money away from the millions of unemployed and poor Americans who need help, and proves once again that illegal immigrants should not automatically be granted legal rights and receive the same benefits as citizens. Works Cited \"Is it a Bad Idea to Legalize the Illegal Immigrants?\" Illegal Immigration Statistics. 2013. Web. 21 October 2013. http://www.illegalimmigrationstatistics.org.... \"Top Ten Pros and Cons.\" Procon.org. 2009. Web. 21 October 2013. http://immigration.procon.org....", "qid": "29", "docid": "cd8abfbd-2019-04-18T17:04:37Z-00003-000", "rank": 23, "score": 185160.0}, {"content": "Title: America should support blanket amnesty for illegal immigrants. Content: Undocumented workers do not receive full Social Security benefits because they are not United States citizens \" nor should they be until they seek citizenship legally. Illegal immigrants are legally obligated to pay taxes, and they owe the government for allowing them to live and work in this country. One must remember that, whatever their reasons, immigrants who have come to this country without legal documentation have broken the law. Just as criminals lose their rights when they break the law, so should illegal immigrants have to face the consequences of their actions. Granting illegal immigrants the same rights as citizens would encourage them continue to break the law instead of seeking the approved path to citizenship (\"Is it...Illegal Immigrants?\"). Obama's plan to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants involves awarding visas to immigrants who have waited patiently in their countries of origin and to those who broke the law to come here (\"Is it...Illegal Immigrants?\"). If we award illegal immigrants legal rights, then we are essentially condoning crime. Furthermore, it is inaccurate to assume that illegal immigrants are not benefiting from living in this country already - even without full Social Security benefits. For example, money sent home by illegal immigrants is one of Mexico\"s largest sources of revenue after oil sales and exports (\"Top Ten Pros and Cons\"). This revenue drains money away from the millions of unemployed and poor Americans who need help, and proves once again that illegal immigrants should not automatically be granted legal rights and receive the same benefits as citizens. Works Cited \"Is it a Bad Idea to Legalize the Illegal Immigrants?\" Illegal Immigration Statistics. 2013. Web. 21 October 2013. http://www.illegalimmigrationstatistics.org....... \"Top Ten Pros and Cons.\" Procon.org. 2009. Web. 21 October 2013. http://immigration.procon.org.......", "qid": "29", "docid": "cd8abfdc-2019-04-18T17:04:45Z-00005-000", "rank": 24, "score": 185160.0}, {"content": "Title: Should the US allow illegal immigrants currently in the US to have a path to citizenship Content: For my final argument i will focus on your statement \"Immigrants could account for the population increase.\" Yes the overall population increases, that is a known fact, when you have one group combined with another group you get a bigger group. Now ill ask, is that a good thing? for an example i will bring the country of Kenya into the picture. the Kenyan government was lax about the immigration of Ethiopians into the country but now kenya went down on the DTS scale to a 2 from a 3. When the immigrants joined the kenyan population the government had to mine resources at a dizzying rate and built massive cities that we know as \"slums.\" If we keep letting immigrants in the country will falter but at this point nothing but the extreme can be done. If we give these illegals a pathway to citizenship we are just inviting more immigrants into our country creating more of a problem. thank you for this debate but i believe my case is made and there is nothing more to say.", "qid": "29", "docid": "eb83b1d7-2019-04-18T16:50:19Z-00001-000", "rank": 25, "score": 184962.0}, {"content": "Title: should illgle immagrants be allowed citezenship Content: How is an immigrant (albeit an illegal one) so different from an American Citizen? So long as they pay taxes like everyone else, how are they anymore detrimental to society? All immigrants want is a chance to gain a brighter future through hard work, they aren't looking for the easy way out. In fact, it makes far more sense to grant illegal immigrants full citizenship, because illegal immigrants don't have to pay taxes, and citizens do. If you give an illegal immigrant citizenship, then you guarantee that they pay taxes to the United States Government. The immigration policy is far more complicated than many might be led to assume. An honest foreigner will have a hard time getting into America as a citizen. Despite the fact that on our symbol of freedom: The Statue of Liberty; it states, \"Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.\" America should be the land of opportunity for those who so desperately need a chance to restart their lives in a new place.", "qid": "29", "docid": "8e58c781-2019-04-18T16:40:22Z-00004-000", "rank": 26, "score": 184826.0}, {"content": "Title: In the US, illegal immigrants should not be deported. Content: ac1. They came into this country Illegally, so my opponent, pro, wants them to be rewarded citizenship, because they broke the law. Jobs are lost by American-born citizens to the illegal immigrants, since they do not have to be payed minimum wage (because they are not legal in the first place). ac2. The cost to the citizens, taxpayers, and the government to keep them is extravagant and not worth it. No economic benefits are gained from keeping illegal immigrants. (Reasoning right below) #1 57 percent of all households that are led by an immigrant (legal or illegal) are enrolled in at least one welfare program. Taking money (if illegal then without paying taxes) from the government and the taxpayers, for an extended period of time, which could eventually cost more than deportation. #2 According to one study, the cost to U.S. taxpayers of legalizing current illegal immigrants would be approximately 6.3 trillion dollars over the next 50 years. (even more money stolen from taxpayers.) #3 The Obama administration has distributed flyers that tell illegal immigrants that their immigration status will not be checked when they apply for food stamps. #4 The Department of Homeland Security says that it has lost track of a million people that have entered this country but that appear never to have left. #5 One out of every five children living in Los Angeles County has a parent that is in the country illegally. #6 In one recent year, taxpayers in Los Angeles County spent 600 million dollars on welfare for children of illegal immigrants. #7 Thanks to illegal immigration, California\"s overstretched health care system is on the verge of collapse. Dozens of California hospitals and emergency rooms have shut down over the past decade because they could not afford to stay open after being endlessly swamped by illegal immigrants who were simply not able to pay for the services that they were receiving. As a result, the remainder of the health care system in the state of California is now beyond overloaded. This had led to brutally long waits, diverted ambulances and even unnecessary patient deaths. At this point, the state of California now ranks dead last out of all 50 states in the number of emergency rooms per million people. #8 It has been estimated that U.S. taxpayers spend $12,000,000,000 a year on primary and secondary school education for the children of illegal immigrants. (even more money than deportation) #9 It is estimated that illegal aliens make up approximately 30 percent of the population in federal, state and local prisons and that the total cost of incarcerating them is more than $1.6 billion annually. #10 The federal government actually has a website that teaches immigrants how to sign up for welfare programs once they arrive in the United States. #11 The Obama administration recently introduced the very first \"unmanned\" border station along the Texas-Mexico border. #12 The Obama administration has sued individual states such as Arizona that have tried to crack down on illegal immigration. #13 According to the FBI, there are approximately 1.4 million gang members living in our cities. Illegal immigration has been one of the primary factors that has fueled the growth of these gangs. #14 As I have written about previously, there are only about 200 police officers assigned to Chicago\"s Gang Enforcement Unit to handle the estimated 100,000 gang members living in the city. #15 Mexican drug cartels make approximately 6.6 billion dollars a year\"exporting\" illegal drugs to the United States. #16 It is an open secret that Mexican drug cartels are openly conducting military operations inside the United States. The handful of border patrol agents that we have guarding the border are massively outgunned and outmanned. #17 According to the Justice Department\"s National Drug Intelligence Center, Mexican drug cartels were actively operating in 50 different U.S. cities in 2006. By 2010, that number had skyrocketed to 1,286. #18 Overall, more than 55,000 people have been killed in drug-related violence in Mexico since 2006. That same level of violence will eventually show up in major U.S. cities unless something dramatic is done about illegal immigration. #19 It is being projected that the Senate immigration bill will bring 33 million more people to the United States over the next decade. http://www.infowars.com... c1. My opponent is obviously speaking only of legal immigrants. Illegal immigrants rarely pay taxes. Should we broadcast a message to the rest of the world that anyone that can find a way to enter this country and somehow get to a \"sanctuary city\" can sign up for a plethora of welfare benefits and live a life of leisure at the expense of hard working American citizens? Yes, those questions sound absurd, but what I have just described will essentially be official U.S. government policy if the immigration bill going through Congress becomes law. And unfortunately, Democrats now say that they have the Republican votes that they need to get \"immigration reform\" through the House of Representatives. If this amnesty bill becomes law, it will encourage even more illegal immigration and it will be one more step toward making the U.S. border essentially meaningless. c2. BoP is still on pro.", "qid": "29", "docid": "f84eab7b-2019-04-18T16:00:50Z-00005-000", "rank": 27, "score": 183608.0}, {"content": "Title: Illegal immigration Content: Alright lets begin this final round with a little bit of clarification. Starting with the education point, this specifically was something Arnold can do to solve for the deficit in his state. In no way does this have anything to do with illegal immigrants. Next my opponent states that everyone should have an equal opportunity and they do, everyone can apply for citizenship. I would totally agree with my opponent on this point except for two things. 1. Everyone who applies for citizenship is not granted such. 2. Natural born citizens don't have to apply, therefor the very process of applying is a difference in opportunity. From here my opponent goes on to point out that America without a doubt has a jobless and homeless population. This is true, but it is without a doubt not caused from a lack of jobs rather than a lack of people who desire to do certain jobs. I gaurantee I can go to any city in the United States and find at least a few 100 extra jobs that are available because no one wants to do them. Furthermore my opponent states that this people will be payed so little in the United States that they will not be able to support themselves and thereby will become homeless and jobless. I will grant him it is a possibility, but the chances of them being such remain less likely than those in Mexico where they will get payed even less. Furthermore the sanitation in the United States is better so just by them being here they have a lower chance of getting sick. Finally I would like to remind everybody that being homeless and jobless has no impact on society as a whole. There are a couple homeless people in my town but they do not have an effect on anyone else. The same is true of immigrants. If they become homeless and jobless that is too bad for them, but it won't hurt us. Furthermore being homeless and jobless in the United States is far safer than being the equivalent in Mexico. Also there is a higher chance not to be homeless and jobless in the United States. Next we have the hospital scenario. I'm going to ignore the fact that doctors are already payed atrocious amounts of money and having to care for a patient for free wouldn't hurt them. I'm ignoring this because in our capitalist system it doesn't happen, if you don't have insurance, if you don't have money then a hospital is probably not going to bother treating you. Yes my friends, it is in a hospitals rights to reject you on your death bed. Que Triste! In fact I will submit the idea that these people will be hurt less than the normal citizen because they have a greater motivation not to be hurt, this will of course make them a great asset to our lower end labor force. Finally we go for the criminal argument. My opponent pointed out the irony in my last statement and I must agree that the statement was rather ironic. However the point still stands. Under my alternative universe we are speaking of legalizing immigration thereby these people would not inherently be criminals. My opponent puts forth the idea that perhaps 5% of these people would be criminals thus we should reject the whole population. However this is not a paradigm in which to reject people on, as the same can be true of any population. I could look at America today and say that 2% of white middle class males are criminals (see rockin the suburbs - Ben folds) , therefor we should we should not allow them in this country. Obviously this line of thinking is rather fallacious, we should not group criminals as a population but rather we should group criminals as individuals. To say that a whole population has the potential to harm our nation would be the same sort of logic that was used by Hitler to promote the Holocaust. This is a type of logic that not only should but literally needs to be rejected. Criminals need to be evaluated on a case by case basis not a population basis. Finally I must once again push the equally opportunity argument. It was by no fault of the immigrant that he/she was born into a third world country where he/she has to scrape for food every day. On the flip side of the coin it was by no fault of ourselves that we were born into this country, therefor birth should not be a reason to disallow people opportunity.", "qid": "29", "docid": "4243bec4-2019-04-18T19:45:42Z-00000-000", "rank": 28, "score": 182749.0}, {"content": "Title: The United States government should substantially strengthen regulation of immigration to the United Content: P1: The topic says regulation of immigrants TO the U.S, not IN the U.S. That does not mean regulation of United States citizenship. If that were the case, that would be the topic. P2: \"notario fraud will prevent an individual who wishes to do so\". If notario fraud prevents immigrants from wanting to come here, why would YOU (as pro) want to strengthen regulation against it? That would only make it happen less, which would allow for more immigrants to want to come. That's something that I should be arguing P3: Strengthening the regulation of immigrants TO the U.S. would not allow the \"same platforms for immigrants that we have for American citizens\", because there would be more control over them (who can come in, the conditions they are allowed in under, etc.) A stronger regulation would deter them from wanting the come. The reason most come to the U.S. is because the immigration system is as is. C: The U.S. government should not substantially strengthen regulation of immigration to the U.S.", "qid": "29", "docid": "8b340e19-2019-04-18T16:15:12Z-00002-000", "rank": 29, "score": 182017.0}, {"content": "Title: Failing to remove illegal immigrants undermines public confidence in the government and its migratio... Content: Governments need to rethink migration policies as a whole and make an attempt to communicate the benefits of immigration to their citizens. There need to be more opportunities for foreign workers to operate legally, allowing them to leave and re-enter the country as they wish. This will remove the current incentive for many illegal immigrants to stay in their host country for life, as at present they know they are unlikely to be allowed back in should they ever leave.", "qid": "29", "docid": "af83a7e2-2019-04-19T12:44:04Z-00016-000", "rank": 30, "score": 181995.0}, {"content": "Title: Deporting illegal immigrants maintains moral goal of security. Content: The primary purpose of the government is to maintain national security of its people. Deporting illegal immigrants, who potentially pose a security risk to US citizens, is morally consistent with US aims to protect its citizens.", "qid": "29", "docid": "3dfdaea9-2019-04-17T11:47:25Z-00052-000", "rank": 31, "score": 181683.0}, {"content": "Title: Mexican Border be torn down and illegal immigrants become legal and are allowed in the U.S. Content: Still your only argument is that illegal immigrants do the jobs Americans do not want to do. But as one of the comments says if illegal immigrants come over they lower the pay of those jobs to almost nothing. So why would Americans want to do it. If there where no illegals theses jobs would still have to be done so companies would raise wages and hire the unemployed Americans decreasing unemployment. So illegals are rebuilding New Orleans if you where not here someone would rebuild it and that someone would be Americans. If we let everyone come to America there may be a few more jobs but because most of the immigrants will be poor theses jobs will be very low paying. There will be an increase crime, cities will become over crowded and our infrastructure will become overwhelmed and fail. Illegal immigrants might not come hear to hurt people but the numbers do not lie and it seems like many do and just by being in America illegally you are hurting Americans. By being here illegally you are putting a strain on our infrastructure with out paying for it. This then causes taxes to rise in order to cover the cost of paying for your use of government services and just the use of our infastructor. I also fail to see how by letting illegal immigrants in and allowing them to join the millaray would make America a better country. By destroying our border we are risking our sovereignty and our safety because anyone good, bad or evil could just come here.", "qid": "29", "docid": "36331fed-2019-04-18T19:48:30Z-00002-000", "rank": 32, "score": 181495.0}, {"content": "Title: Should the US allow illegal immigrants currently in the US to have a path to citizenship Content: For MY final argument, I am just going to attack Debate339. First of all, America is in a lot better shape in it's building and economy. So we don't have to worry about the \"slums\" popping up across America. Therefore, I still stand on the fact that immigrants are a help to America.", "qid": "29", "docid": "eb83b1d7-2019-04-18T16:50:19Z-00000-000", "rank": 33, "score": 181465.0}, {"content": "Title: Allowing Illegal Immigrations To Still Get Benefits Content: Thanks, Pro. == PRO CASE == R1) Causes 1. This is just a moral case for allowing illegal immigration; that is not what this debate is about. In fact, Pro is actually hurting his case by showing that the US has such superior living conditions that simply allowing them to be here is a substantial improvement on its own, regardless of whether or not they are receiving benefits. I could agree with every word Pro has said here and it still would not prove Pro's position. Reject this argument because it is inapplicable to the resolution at hand. 2. Regardless of how much strife illegal immigrants may have to go through, the state is first and foremost obligated to serve the best interests of its own citizens, and I have shown with my C2 that giving benefits to illegal immigrants puts a significant strain on the government budget and, by extension, the citizens. Moreover, the majority of academic studies on immigration conclude that the presence of illegal immigrants is harmful to the well-being of America's poorest citizens by competing with them for the same jobs. Therefore, the government shouldn't do anything that makes it easier for illegal immigrants -- including the provision of federal benefits -- and instead take action to reduce their numbers. https://www.hamiltonproject.org... 3. I have no idea what point Pro was trying to make with his tirade about European colonization and Columbus Day. He's going to have to explain how that connects to the resolution for it to even be considered an argument. R2) Work 1. The part where Pro actually connects \"immigration is beneficial\" to the resolution is extremely ill-warranted. He provides absolutely no evidence that illegal immigrants \"need\" benefits more than native citizens do. Considering Pro's claims that immigrants benefit the economy by filling in high-demand jobs, we would expect that they would be making ample money to be financially self-sufficient. 2. I have provided actual academic studies demonstrating that illegal immigrants hurt the job security and wages of America's poorest. Pro has just noted a decrease in unemployment rate without making any attempt at linking it to immigration. Unemployment rate is affected by thousands of variables, so to just arbitrarily attribute it to increased illegal immigration is absurd. Prefer my evidence, obviously. == CON CASE == C1) Incoherent Pro's only response is that illegal immigrants can become citizens, and thus the government doesn't have to deport them. But that is NOT within the parameters of the resolution. If that is what Pro wanted to debate, he should have made the resolution something like \"The USFG should grant all illegal immigrants amnesty\". The resolution we are debating specifically states that *illegal* immigrants should be given benefits, implying that they would still be \"illegal\" when they are receiving benefits. Thus, my criticism stands -- Pro's plan cannot be implemented because of its paradoxical nature. Also, cross-apply (in advance) this counter to all other mentions Pro makes of making illegal immigrants citizens; the resolution is not about ammesty. C2) Cost 1. Pro essentially says that our debt is already so high that even 500 billion extra dollars makes little difference. That's nonsensical. We have to start paying off our debt eventually, and Pro's plan just makes it harder to do that any time soon. Pro's response is akin to a smoker who refuses to stop smoking because his lungs already seem to be beyond repair. It simply isn't tenable in the long run. 2. Pro is blatantly false in his claim that most Americans are illegal immigrants. Even the first settlers could not have been considered \"illegal immigrants\" because there was no state to \"immigrate\" into; Native Americans did not have the bureaucratic governments, citizens, or official immigration processes necessary for such classifications to exist. Pro's rebuttal fails. 3. Pro dismisses the notion of giving benefits attracting more illegal immigrants as being \"laughable\". However, I provided academic analyses demonstrating that it *does* happen. If anything, Pro's flippant dismissal of empirical evidence is \"laughable\". Pro says that if that were the case, having a welfare state would attract more legal immigrants... and he's right. It does. So, again, he has just hurt his own case. It is rather intuitive, really -- people respond to incentives. Providing benefits *does* attract illegal immigrants en masse. C3) Unjust Again, cross--apply the point that this debate is not about amnesty -- it's about providing federal benefits to immigrants who are currently classified as being here illegally. It is unfortunate that Pro has spent so much space on amnesty, because it is completely non-topical. == CONCLUSION == I don't feel like writing one. It's 3am again. Resolution negated.", "qid": "29", "docid": "d4ce048b-2019-04-18T14:57:27Z-00000-000", "rank": 34, "score": 180642.0}, {"content": "Title: Birthright Citizenship should be retained in the United States Content: ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION . I Still, the point remains that you haven't explained how my case is wrong. I will simply list what policies I would find acceptable for citizenship. . II Illegal immigrants still are protected by the police force and use the public education system. That really is not fair, giving them an education and allowing them to work in establishments for the same pay as regular citizens is unjust. Illegal immigrants do not typically go to college or produce nearly enough money to be worth their income, they also are a minority who has the most typical involvement in crime. REFUTES . I Your source is correct but then adds \"Rich Chinese moms\" which I don't think is statistically backed up anywhere so therefore its legitimacy is dismissed until you back it up. . II Still even so, doesn't matter if the mom intends to if the baby is born there and she is already there illegally in the first place its the same outcome. I don't see the difference if intended or not she is on the soil illegally and therefore having a baby is still abusing the system. . III Yes, but they still cause competion and many still go through public school. In the end still costing the government money and in the process possibly making real US citizens lose jobs. Citizenship subtext to post . II under Illegal Immigration * Parents must both be legal citizens of the USA * Legal immigration remains the same as current policy CONCLUSION Whatever my opponent may believe, Illegal immigrants cost some portions of money and sometimes take jobs from real US citizens. Meaning they cause problems and many more come a year. Illegal immigrants due to being poor also are a big source of getting drugs over the border. Source: . http://www.cis.org... . http://www.usillegalaliens.com... . http://www.mnforsustain.org...", "qid": "29", "docid": "1e41d536-2019-04-18T18:26:07Z-00002-000", "rank": 35, "score": 180590.0}, {"content": "Title: whether the government should enforce illegal immigration Content: America is a free nation where anyone should be free to come and live. America is a free nation dictated by laws to ensure that is remains a free nation. Those individuals who want to take part in this free nation must fall subject to the laws; There are no exceptions. Currently, this country has laws that dictate Immigration. These laws are for the protection of the citizens who have accepted America as their country of origin, by means of legal birth(not birth right) or legal citizenship. America owes nothing to any other individual.", "qid": "29", "docid": "12a78a66-2019-04-18T14:05:38Z-00001-000", "rank": 36, "score": 180563.0}, {"content": "Title: Birthright Citizenship should be retained in the United States Content: Thanks Con. My opponent ASSERTS that illegal immigration is bad, with literally no analysis. He only states: \"giving them an education and allowing them to work in establishments for the same pay as regular citizens is unjust\"The first part can be turned, since these immigrants will be here anyway, it's better to have them educated than condemn them to manual labor because they have no education; that's a way to throw away talent. THe argument could also apply to Poor citizens. Sure, illegals dont pay taxes (although they generally make so little that they would pay nothing or next to it under our tax codes) but neither do citiznes in poverty; at the end of the day, the major reason for having public facilities is to help the poor, so my opponent needs to draw a moral distinction between citizens and those he deam illegal. That will be hard to do. The second part of his argument is: \" Illegal immigrants do not typically go to college or produce nearly enough money to be worth their income, they also are a minority who has the most typical involvement in crime. \"Straight up, no sources or warrants on these correlation causation fallacies. Secondly Turn: Education reduces crime and poverty, this turns his education argument and his implied economic argument. However, most important is that NOWHERE has he linked illegal immigration with birthright citizenship! This is incredibly significant, because his only impacts aren't even linked to the resolution. He's already lost this debat because hes given you no reason at all to change the status quo. My Framework has been dropped and therefore conceded. This means that he needs to prove uniqueness on his impacts, as well as justify an amendment and he hasn't tried to do that at all. He attacks my second contention saying that my source is \"dismissed\", while apparently ignoring the citation it offers from Time magezine. He hasn't offered any counter statistics, so we have to go with mine anyway. His second two points have nothing to do with my case, and make no actual attack on them. So my Contention two stands. My Contention one has been totally dropped, and therefore conceded. Extend the impact that this sets a dangeerous precedent, and extend that argument that birthright citizenship doesnt warrant a constiutional amendment.", "qid": "29", "docid": "1e41d536-2019-04-18T18:26:07Z-00001-000", "rank": 37, "score": 179813.0}, {"content": "Title: Illegal Immigration: Should we deport all illegal immigrants we find in the U.S. Content: Good Day, I still say that your way isn't going to work about the illegals ALREADY in our country right now. Your solution would only make it easier for those outside the country now to become citizens. It would do nothing to stop the ones already in. That is why mine is the best way to get the illegals OUT and yours is the best way to STOP. Harlan you keep insisting I'm changing the subject I'm not. I'm agreeing with you that yes they have a life here, which is obvious, if they didn't they would leave. But I'm saying just because they have life here isn't a good reason to allow them all to stay. I will admit...YES!!! Deportion is a PUNISHMENT ITS SUPPOST TO BE!!!!!! They came here illegally they should be punished. Now let me rephrase something I said that illegals have been a problem with poverty) shortened) After think it it over realistically I want to rephrase that. Illegals are a problem with lowering the poverty rate. With the illegals taking jobs for lower wages the impoverished who need the money at the bare minimum wage arent getting the job. So they aren't even being paid minimunm wage b/c they don't even have the job. So because the illegals have lower standards the illgals take jobs from employers who want to save a buck or 2. Here's a solution to that. AFTER we deport a good majority of illegals we help Mexico set up a system of minimum wage which will ensure the Mexicanos will make more in THERE OWN COUNTRY. Now the employers will be able to hire the impoverished who's legal families really need it, at a true minimum wage or more. Thus helping get impoverished more jobs to lower the poverty rate. Now the drunk ones who are just boozed underacheivers will probably not bother but th etrue impoverished with a family to feed will finally get a job and get back on track. yes there will be a lot of children orphaned and sent back to Mexico and other sorry countries but it has to be done. The children born on American soil shouldn't get deprived of being Americans based on there parents actions so let them grow up in America. When they turn 18 give them a choice of going back to there homeland or staying like ANY dual citizen. For the ones born in the secondary country bring them back. Yes, they shouldn't be punished for there parents but its what has to be done. If we let the kids stay. orphanages will be fill with little Mexican children. Yes, I agree with your everyone deserves a good life...IF they earn it. Should a homeless family who is barley making it by be given money so they can have a good life? No the people should take responsibility that they have to work up the latter. That is the Capitolist way. The govermnet doesn't mess with your money but you have to work hard to get that money. the illegals shouldn't get a free pass because of where they come from. First let them become citizens through the right way to first of all be covered by the Constitution that gives CITIZENS the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The thing w/ the Constitution is it gives all the rights to CITIZENs not anyone who decides to want to be Americans. You have to work (believe it or not) to have those rights. Then after they become a citizen they can...\"pursue Happiness\" Goverment is there to help the Citizens of its society. illegals are people who cost that goverment much more than they provide. As you say if the illegals cost us 789,263,000,000 billion dollars compared to 16,000,000,000 they bring in its the goverments duty to do whats best 4 the people to GET RIDE OF THEM AND DEPORT DEPORT DEPORT!!! To make a proposal for a solution that...\"compromises\" We deport as many illegals as we can lets say clean the lint trap of america. When we have a good majority of illegals out of the U.S. we establish your solution to make becoming a citizen easier. Lets not go overboard to make it easier but still do something so the illegals don't have to resort to breaking in. This way we deal with getting a good amount of illegals out and help prevent future break ins.", "qid": "29", "docid": "419baf15-2019-04-18T20:03:35Z-00002-000", "rank": 38, "score": 179782.0}, {"content": "Title: The United States government should substantially strengthen regulation of immigration to the United Content: P1: strengthening the regulation of immigration means strengthening the system which permits and regulates United States citizenship. Unauthorized practice is one aspect which I would like to introduce in terms of regulation. \"Notario Fraud\" is a serious issue to the regulation simply because it sets a precedent for the way in which immigrants will interpret the United States laws and in which they first come in contact with United states legal system. P2: Some immigrants that come to the U.S willingly come to the U.S and leave their families to start a better life, as stated. Notario fraud will prevent an individual who wishes to do so if they are misguided by actors and gate keepers of the law. If we accept that immigrant come to the U.S to start a better life, we most also enforce better practices of people who interpret the law, if the United States allows them to engage in such practice. P3: Some immigrants are granted the opportunity to create their own business as well as many American entrepreneurs. There are social programs, and community opportunities that also offer many job opportunities. The important aspect is that we allow the same platform for immigrants that we have for American citizens. If immigrants are misled, misinformed, and become intimidated by the legal system, this can have consequences and effects in which citizens and potential citizens relate to laws and the legal system. Regulation comes in many forms the most important is education; informing immigrants of all of their rights and accesses. we can possibly consider creating more confidential organizations for immigrants in which they can access information. C: The U.S. government should substantially strengthen regulation of immigration into the U.S.", "qid": "29", "docid": "8b340e19-2019-04-18T16:15:12Z-00003-000", "rank": 39, "score": 179672.0}, {"content": "Title: This allows illegals to masquerade as normal immigrants. Content: Allowing illegal immigrants to get drivers licenses is a security issue for America. Illegal immigrants are a threat to the US because they have not gone through the necessary background checks that all immigrants are supposed to go through before being allowed into the US to ensure that they are not going to harm American citizens. Giving illegal immigrants documents that- as proposition argument three says- could grant them access to state services and to a wider range of private services is dangerous[1]. There is no way for frontline state and business staff to determine whether drivers licence holders are migrants who have undergone appropriate police screening, or criminals with a history of dishonest or exploitative behaviour. The resolution may, therefore, allow disreputable individuals to falsely claim to be normalised American citizens. Alternatively, and more likely, the resolution will undermine the value and utility of state drivers licences \u2013 for Latin-American US citizens at the very least. As it becomes known that immigrants from the south bearing licences might be more likely to be dishonest, banks, stores and hospitals will become less willing to accept drivers licences as conclusive proof of a Latin-American individual\u2019s identity. If the degree to which service providers will trust a driving licence is reduced, the improvements to illegal immigrants\u2019 quality of life that the resolution brings about will be short lived. Moreover, legally resident Latin-Americans will find that their lives become much more difficult. Service providers will adopt a stance of suspicion toward Latin-American individuals, assuming that a Latino-American\u2019s driving licence offers no useful indication as to his immigration status and background. Therefore, this policy constitutes a large security threat to America and its citizens, and a significant danger to the integration and lifestyles of thousands of Latino-American individuals. [1] \"Position Paper: No Drivers Licenses for Illegal Aliens.\" News Blaze. Realtime News, 23 Sep 2001. Web. 30 Nov. 2011. http://newsblaze.com/story/20070923120657tsop.nb/topstory.html", "qid": "29", "docid": "2cf2c469-2019-04-15T20:22:34Z-00017-000", "rank": 40, "score": 179297.0}, {"content": "Title: The US government should cease regulating its borders Content: This was an enjoyable, quick debate. I heartily thank my opponent. == Closing Remarks== 1. The Con argues that \"The use of physical... the U.S. illegally.\" Certainly, border patrol stops *some*, but that statistic of 9000 does not include all the immigrants that the system *failed* to stop. As immigrants will always be able to find the chinks in the fence, we should focus inland on law enforcement. 2. Next, the Con states that \"Illegal immigration is estimated... in each state.\" I must agree; illegal immigrants are like citizens in that they utilize government programs. However, if we cease border regulation, that will free up monetary resources to cover immigrant social program costs. Even better, the border patrol personnel could be put to work in the Immigration Service. If they can stop \"9,000 people trying to enter,\" they can file 9000 more immigration applications. Now the immigrants are citizens paying taxes, a true solution compared to funneling them to holes in the fence.", "qid": "29", "docid": "5e48a4d6-2019-04-18T18:55:00Z-00000-000", "rank": 41, "score": 179228.0}, {"content": "Title: Illegal Immigration Content: You obviously are not understanding my argument. Illegals do not and should not have the same rights that we do. They have come over here illegally. We, as a nation, require certain standards to be met before you can become a U.S. citizen. I know that they have it rough in Mexico but they should not come in the United States illegally and reap the benefits of a law-abiding country. What kind of signal are we sending to the world, or to our citizens, when we legalize millions of illegal immigrants? We say, \"Go ahead and break our laws because there are no consequences if you do.\" Let's just tell everyone to do what they want, legal or illegal, because in the end we all need to \"modernize\" and times will change to allow this type of behavior. That's not very logical to me. I say that we begin to deport all of those that have entered into the U.S. illegally. I don't think that we will be able to get rid of them all but we can try. This will send a signal to everyone that wants to become a U.S. citizen that they must follow our laws and must submit to the process that we have in place. I also believe that we need a fence. I don't know any of the logistics, but I would say that it needs to go from the southern tip of Texas all the way to west coast of California. Hiring more Border Patrol agents is also a necessity. I ask you this question, why should we have a Border Patrol if all we are going to do is allow anyone that wants into the U.S. to go ahead and come? Why do we have laws against illegal immigration? Should we allow anyone that wants in to the U.S. to freely enter? I'm not insulting you, I just believe that you do not understand the magnitude of the entire illegal immigration situation. You're solution is to legalize illegal immigrants. That completely goes against what our justice system is all about. Let's just legalize crystal meth because their are people that \"need\" to sell it to provide for their family. Let's legalize murder because some people can't control their actions and we shouldn't punish them because of their lack of self-control. This is a policy of appeasement. It never works.", "qid": "29", "docid": "68a8a87-2019-04-18T19:59:59Z-00001-000", "rank": 42, "score": 179144.0}, {"content": "Title: Should the US allow illegal immigrants currently in the US to have a path to citizenship Content: Ok, So now that I have waited for a few hours to get this statement, this is what you give me. This is too easy. First of all, Immigrants could account for the population increase. Therefore, We could have alot of workers to fill in some of the jobs that no one would want to take. So that's a plus. Second of all, the American people are becoming lazy, so if there is a ethnicity race to the jobs, the immigrants might take them or the American's will have to shape up and quit being so lazy. So I still agree with the fact that Immigrants be allowed to have citizenship in America.", "qid": "29", "docid": "eb83b1d7-2019-04-18T16:50:19Z-00002-000", "rank": 43, "score": 179022.0}, {"content": "Title: The United States Government should immediately repatriate all illegal immigrants. Content: The US should immediately repatriate all illegal immigrants due to the drain their presence creates on our economy. Never mind the fact that they are \"illegal\" and therefore don't belong here.", "qid": "29", "docid": "67bd18e2-2019-04-18T18:50:42Z-00005-000", "rank": 44, "score": 178622.0}, {"content": "Title: The US government should cease regulating its borders Content: Against your first point, the government is patrolling the border strictly to prevent \"weak spots.\" In what way is this damaging the region? For many years natives have been walking our land for years, they made paths, trails, etc to accommodate their own travels. These \"weak spots\" have been made check points and they could not possibly harm an entire ecosystem. how could we control our staggering number of illegal immigrants in the United States if we can not control the number of people entering? Obviously the government must use all that they can to accommodate both sides by an equal amount of action at home and on the borders. This could provide a large number of job opportunities for the law enforcement agencies across the border and within the government. This would decrease the unemployment rate and boost our economy. Illegal immigrants often take jobs that were once overlooked,but are now necessary to make a living away from legal taxpaying citizens.", "qid": "29", "docid": "5e48a4d6-2019-04-18T18:55:00Z-00003-000", "rank": 45, "score": 178251.0}, {"content": "Title: Should the US allow illegal immigrants currently in the US to have a path to citizenship Content: first is for acceptance", "qid": "29", "docid": "eb83b1d7-2019-04-18T16:50:19Z-00005-000", "rank": 46, "score": 178089.0}, {"content": "Title: Non Citizens Should Not Be Allowed to Vote In U.S. Elections Content: Argument: The main idea of allowing migrants to settle in the United States of America is for the fulfillment of the capitalist needs. When there is a surge in the employment opportunities, the government makes processes for the visas as seen during the Bracero Program period thus allowing people to settle and to spur the growth of the economy. When there is a deficit, which cause unemployment for the citizens, and-migrant policies like have been formulated so as to not lose the best minds but expel the less productive people who have slowed the growth of the economy. Counter: It should be worth noting some things left out when speaking of the Bracero Program. Workers were brought to the U.S. to fulfill manual labor jobs with the following basic human rights: Adequate shelter, food, sanitation, and a wage. Furthermore the promise they would not be discriminated, like exclusion from white areas. No where did the agreement promise any kind of political contribution in the areas of which they worked. Why? The purpose of their stay was work related only. Today's Non-Citizen, here legally, is required to be here on a work or student visa - both having clear implications as to their purpose, or a Green Card. Green Cards reflect a legal right to reside and work in the United States, and holders are required to pay taxes, register for selective service, and social security. They are also required to renew the Green Card. Why? Because they are here at the benevolence of the United States. You have to follow the rules, but if you want to have a say in the process, you must become a citizen. Argument: Morally, every person has a responsibility towards the state, and subsequently every state has a moral reciprocity towards their people. Non-Citizens have been an integral part of the American population, thus helping the society to evolve and transform for the good. But it is unfair that the state alone remain the oppressor, not allowing the people to have their say in the governance of the country. Argument: A non-citizen has the responsibility to follow the rules and laws of the state, by merit of the benevolence of the United States granting them the opportunity to reside and work in the United States. Utilizing the Bracero Program as an example, there are human rights which must be afforded by the state, but no-where is it required a non-citizen have political rights, or rights granted to those who fall under the Constitution. Remember, they are guests seeking to come here, not the other way around. I was stationed in Japan for three years. I had to pay Japanese tax, and abide by Japanese laws, and was afforded basic human rights- participating in their elections, and political system, however, was not an option. Argument: The purpose of an election is to represent the views and the ideals of the people and allow it to make a large scale impact. It is integrally defined as \"by the people, of the people and for the people\". When a person is denied this chance to represent himself in a national sphere, it is same as stripping him of his rights. Counter: If we were to take the view of every person who is not a citizen, and incorporate it in our political system, you would have legislation being passed on the part of individuals who can, at any time, decide to pull up, and move back to their country. There is standard of loyalty. Laws must be passed and rights afforded to people who have a vested interest in their country, not for those who can leave anytime they choose. Argument: Legally it is illegitimate for the oppression of minorities and disadvantaged communities, as supported both by the American law and more importantly International law, ratified by America. Stripping people of the right to vote, not only affects them but also their communities ability to make the problems heard and resolved. When this as the basement of empowerment is not fulfilled, any other minority empowerment program will fail thus wasting the taxpayers money Therefore it is counterproductive to allow the non-citizens to vote. Counter: Minority populations which are citizens. Given we have been living in times where the job market has been difficult, I would find it difficult to believe non-citizens are part of the disadvantaged group of which you speak. First, they are here for jobs - and are obviously getting them. Secondly, per your argument in the first paragraph, we would only be seeking to keep the best minds - I would think that would correlate to a well-paying job, only granted because it benefits the United States or the interests of the United States in some way. The compensation in such cases is monetary and quality of life. Political contributions are not part of the sign-on package. For the reasons I mentioned above. Argument: Going by your argument, where you have stated that the Oath refers to the law several times there is no instance of the first clause of \"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen\" anywhere as a formal law. So for this debate we will be analyzing the case from your viewpoint excluding the first clause due to the absence of legally backed support which your argument is built upon. Counter: Actually the Oath of Enlistment becomes legally binding when administered by a public official. Ergo it infers law, even if it does not have the actual word 'law' other parts of the Oath. Argument: Every non-citizen is required to bear allegiance to the state, without disbanding his homeland when he has to enter the country - This can be inferred from the persecution of several non-citizens for treason, which indicates that law requires them to remain so. They should not actively criticize the constitution which fulfills the demand of being supportive to the constitution as a whole The US Army does not allow all the non-citizens to participate in military activities. This is the inability of the government to not provide opportunities and not their discretion /choose to refuse it. Finally contribute economically to the society, which is the main reason for immigration into America. Counter: First, it's not every non-citizen. You're talking about the term \"Allegiance\". When it comes to the United States, the following is noted: On the day before the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted, Congress declared in the preamble of the Expatriation Act, \"the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyments of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.\" and Section I one of \"the fundamental principles of this government\" (United States Revised Statutes, sec 1999). A natural born citizen of a different country and a legal citizen of the United States can possess dual citizenship. The same goes if a person is a natural born citizen of the United States and moves to another country, they can become a citizen. However, if the two countries become adversaries, the individual must make a choice, and renounce the citizenship of one when it comes to the allegiance. That only makes logical sense. Note, in either case, the individual is referred to as a citizen - While another country may allow a citizen to vote, the United States does not, as outlined by law. The U.S. Army does not even allow non-citizens to join the military unless they have a Green Card, and even then, they quickly open the door to the path of citizenship for those who join. I think it could be argued whether the reason for immigrating to the United States is to contribute to the economy. If anything, it's to find a job in the economy, because the economy is probably 10 times better than where they came from. Lastly, the point of bringing up all the Amendments was to point out the verbiage, \"Citizen\" when it spoke of the \"right\" to vote. In short, I find it asinine allowing a person which has demonstrated no loyalty to actively pursue citizenship in this country to participate in the political aspects of our country which will have lasting impressions on those who permanently reside within her borders. As I have said before, they could influence legislation, and later on down the line, if they don't like the system of government, up and leave. Citizenship is a privilege, not a right. There are privileges that come with citizenship. You will find the same mandate in many other countries throughout the world. When you take away those privileges, there is nothing to distinguish between a non-citizen and citizen influence in government. So, no. Non-Citizens should not be allowed to vote. Thanks for making me do home-work, and the debate! http://immigration-law.freeadvice.com... http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... https://en.wikipedia.org...", "qid": "29", "docid": "7db59b63-2019-04-18T12:31:20Z-00000-000", "rank": 47, "score": 178078.0}, {"content": "Title: Illegal immigrants crowd-out Americans for social services. Content: Because illegal immigrants use social services, they crow-out American citizens for those social services, in addition to making them more expensive. These government expenses include government welfare, housing, food, and shelter. This is an injustice, and a major economic expensive for US citizens, all which justify deportation.", "qid": "29", "docid": "3dfdaea9-2019-04-17T11:47:25Z-00043-000", "rank": 48, "score": 177717.0}, {"content": "Title: Offering illegal immigrants driver's licenses would violate the rule of law. Content: Offering drivers licenses to illegal immigrants provides legal status to individuals that have knowingly broken US laws. The Immigration and Nationality Act clearly states that illegal aliens should be deported. These long-standing laws must be upheld. Offering illegal immigrants driver's licenses clearly violates these laws and the impression that the United States is capable of enforcing them. It also undermines the notion of rewarding law abiding citizens and punishing those that break the law. Why should illegal immigrants be allowed to get away with their illegal acts. US citizens (not illegal aliens) are not afforded this luxury of forgiveness in the face of the law. Therefore, the proposition is an unwarranted and immoral concession that undermines the consistency of US law.", "qid": "29", "docid": "c8662773-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00045-000", "rank": 49, "score": 177579.0}, {"content": "Title: Due process for illegal immigrants Content: The inherent problem of that argument is the ability given to the government to deport anyone they want if they can not prove they are a citizen, naturalized or not. This takes away rights even from the actual citizens themselves if the government wants to deport them. The other question is why the fact that someone is a citizen or not changes their person. Why should a murderer or rapist who happens to be a citizen be paid for, but a responsible but illegal immigrant not be granted the right to due process? They may be wrong, and then they re deported, but at least they were given a fair chance to argue their point? To literally cite the Fourteenth Amendment of our own constitution- \"...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.\" The key word in the quote here is ANY. The article before this snippet specifically stated 'citizen' (\"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States...\"), deliberately separating it from the section mentioning 'any person'. Your argument literally goes against what is stated in the Constitution, and what the Supreme Court has upheld for years; that even illegal immigrants are granted the right to due process.", "qid": "29", "docid": "9da75b55-2019-04-18T16:22:46Z-00002-000", "rank": 50, "score": 177457.0}, {"content": "Title: Illegal Immigration Content: To be clear, I am saying that illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay in the U. S. and apply for citizenship. The Con position will argue that all immigrants should be deported.", "qid": "29", "docid": "cac6bfdf-2019-04-18T12:31:47Z-00002-000", "rank": 51, "score": 177345.0}, {"content": "Title: The US government should cease regulating its borders Content: The purpose of border control is to preserve American citizens from illegal activities in the best interest of the nation. The use of physical blockade and surveillance increases the possibility of stopping illegal immigrants from entering. Arizona has been the center for crossings by illegal immigrants for many years. In 2009 the system stopped about 9,000 people trying to enter the U.S. illegally. Illegal immigration is estimated to cost the U.S. millions of dollars in lost income tax revenue. Not only is the United States at a loss of millions of dollars but illegal immigration also depletes government spending by overusing social welfare and education programs. TIME magazine states in California alone, $400million is spent on health care for illegal immigrants. CNN says that the care of illegal immigrants in Jacksonville, Florida costs taxpayers $44.5 million. Think of how much money is spent on illegal immigrants across the country, not just in each state.", "qid": "29", "docid": "5e48a4d6-2019-04-18T18:55:00Z-00001-000", "rank": 52, "score": 176458.0}, {"content": "Title: Illegal immigrants should be granted the rights of legal citizenship Content: Ah, I see where I may have been unclear. I believe that if an illegal immigrant does not become a legal citizen, then they should not get the rights of citizenship. If an immigrant becomes a legal citizen, instead of \"jumping the border\", than they do deserve the rights that come with citizenship.", "qid": "29", "docid": "3cdc63cb-2019-04-18T18:06:59Z-00003-000", "rank": 53, "score": 176441.0}, {"content": "Title: Illegal Immigration: Should we deport all illegal immigrants we find in the U.S. Content: Hello, republican view. It appears that you are avoiding many of my points, and we are also getting off topic. In the next round, please look back at the opening argument and answer each point in turn. I originally excused this for you're not having any space left over. I was relying on the fact that you would answer each point more fully in the following round. You failed to do so. I will SHOW you how to answer each point in turn. Nevertheless, here it goes: \"for your solution we would only be making future immigrants easier to be citizens. It won't eliminate all the aliens in our borders now. So until you clarify i'll debate your solution now.\" All right, isn't that the purpose: to make them citizens, if it is easier to become citizens, then maybe they won't break in illegally. And let's be realistic, republicanview; neither of our solutions will \"eliminate all the aliens\". It's a big country, you can't eliminate \"all\" of the illegal immigration. We are not here to debate my solution, we are here to debate yours, hence the header. I am glad that you finally concede that they are a part of our society. \"you continue to say that immigrants are a important part of our society but I keep showing you its not true\" -your opening argument \"illegals arte part of our \u2018society'\" -Your round one. I am glad that I am shedding some light on the issue for you, and that you are beginning to understand more. You then proceeded to talk about how there are a lot of illegal immigrants. Duh. You are evading my points and changing the subject. You talk about them changing our culture. You then reverted back to explaining what a big problem illegal immigration is. WE have already established that I agree that it is a problem, and it is the solution we are here debating. \"If we make them citizens that money won't go away. They will be paying taxes but that money will still be gone\" Do you think through these things before you post them? Neither solution will repay that money. You seem to want to deport them out of vengeance. You were uncomfortable with the inescapable reality I put in your face, so you started changing the subject, and talking about something COMPLETELY unrelated. What does culture have anything to do with this? I fail to see the relevance. There is one relevance that you so badly attempt at giving and that is the Latino culture promotes poverty. Ummm\u2026WHAT?! Could you please try to back up the idea that some particular aspect of Latino culture causes slavery? Mariachi? Cinco de Mayo? Please try to be realistic. Spain shares many cultural aspects, and they are a moderately wealthy European country. You made a random guess of 1/3 of Latinos are immigrants. Random guesses don't serve as backing in a debate, next time, I want a REAL figure. You ignored what I said about the main causes of poverty in America, and for the sake of not repeating myself, go back and read it thoroughly, and really go back and read it this time, republicanview 8?) Not everyone is as childishly idealistic as to make a life-changing decision based on making a country better. WHO CARES? They are in a state of poverty. They move to America to do better. Anyways, I fail to see the relevance of this. You are seriously changing the subject, republicanview. \"Illegal Immigration: Should we deport all illegal immigrants we find in the U.S.\" Stay on task, this is really frustrating.", "qid": "29", "docid": "419baf15-2019-04-18T20:03:35Z-00005-000", "rank": 54, "score": 176221.0}, {"content": "Title: The United States government should substantially strengthen regulation of immigration to the United Content: P1. The debate is whether The United States government should substantially strengthen regulation of immigration to the United States. The issue is immigration in relation to United States citizenship. We participated in a debate for 3 rounds defending our premises on whether the substantial strengthening or not strengthening would explicitly explain a sound argument for pro and con. We are not debating the regulation immigrants or as in individual persons not belonging to the U.S, but rather the system in which declares the individual a citizen and allows them into the country. P2: As stated in premise 1 during the first round, Notario Fraud is one aspect of the immigration system that requires attention and revision. In my argument, the issue is not whether I argue for immigrants to enter or not enter the country. The issue is the substantial regulation, in which I argue, will uphold U.S laws, will minimize waste, and will increase education for those interpreting the law as well as increasing the confidence of immigrants who will have their first time experience with an unfamiliar government and unfamiliar laws. I argue to maintain, regulate and revise this legal process to provide a platform for immigrants who are faced with an adversary government, sometimes in an unfamiliar language. Those who study immigration law should gain legal certification and uphold U.S law as well serving those who wish to become legal citizens; they should be well informed, well educated, and make a conscious effort to provide legal aid for families. Fallacies committed: ad hominem debater (con) questions position instead of responding to the given premises and asks a meaningless question. The debater attempts to argue against (pro) based on an assumed ignorance of the topic for debate. P3: Strengthening the regulation of immigration to the United States does not imply a violent, nagging, persistence. It simply suggests research, a revision in legal language, in which U.S individuals who are properly accredited through federally recognized organization can communicate the proper legal information for individuals who seek citizenship. \"The reason most come to the U.S is because the immigration system is as is.\" This statement is unclear, what aspect of the immigration system assumes more control? Your argument assumes that all immigrants come to the United States for the same reason which weakens this argument. To make such a broad statement as argued by you in Round 1 \"Immigration creates jobs, because a lot of immigrants create their own businesses which allows for some employment opportunities .If the regulation of immigration is increased, this may cause for fewer immigrants to be let in, and for more immigrants to be deported.\" such as \"immigrants\" alludes to begging the question in your premise 3 for round 2. We cannot assume all immigrants create jobs and start businesses. Your argument \"Strengthening the regulation of immigrants TO the U.S. would not allow the \"same platforms for immigrants that we have for American citizens\", because there would be more control over them (who can come in, the conditions they are allowed in under, etc.) does not relate and assumes the same for all immigrants who enter the country. A stronger regulation means a stronger system which prevents fraud and legal consequences for immigrants as well as criminal persecution for actors interpreting the immigrations laws. This argument contains a slippery slope, in which the arguer assumes as a change in procedure, law, or action, will result in adverse consequences such as the control of immigrants. Such regulation does not assume absolute control of the bodies of immigrants. It I don\"t understand how the first sentence of your premise 3 for round 2 relates to the idea that a stronger regulation would deter them. The last sentence again, appeals to consequence in which regulation will ultimately control immigrants and also assumes all immigrants seek citizenship for the same reasons. If we are not regulating and remaining current with the legal language in which we use to interpret the law to citizens the immigration system will become burdened with fraud and create corrupt theories which authorized citizens interpret and communicate with immigrants or potential U.S citizens. By creating a fair platform for immigrants, we decrease the risks of deportation, of criminalization, and can maintain the integrity of the legal system and those who come in contact with it. C: The U.S government should substantially strengthen regulation of immigration to the U.S.", "qid": "29", "docid": "8b340e19-2019-04-18T16:15:12Z-00001-000", "rank": 55, "score": 175603.0}, {"content": "Title: Should the US allow illegal immigrants currently in the US to have a path to citizenship Content: I accept your challenge Eric. Maybe this time you can win on your choice of topic.", "qid": "29", "docid": "eb83b1d7-2019-04-18T16:50:19Z-00004-000", "rank": 56, "score": 175597.0}, {"content": "Title: should illgle immagrants be allowed citezenship Content: You stated that \"if you live in a lower state you have to get special shots because of the illegals coming from Mexico.\" I have yet to see a single scrap of evidence that American citizens are required to take additional shots due to the influx of immigrants coming in from Mexico. You also stated that \"plus, all the illegals are taking up the jobs a legal American could have which puts more American citizens into poverty.\" Most economists in America will find this statement utterly ridiculous. The Brooking's Institution's Michael Greenstone, said that, and I quote, \"on average, immigrant workers increase the opportunities and income of Americans.\" Immigrants (whether they are illegal immigrants or not) increase the job opportunity's for Americans, because they start businesses and hire more workers. Our goal shouldn't be to send back the immigrants, but to welcome them. It's our responsibility to give them more chances to become lawful American citizens. It can take years for close relatives of U.S citizens to obtain Immigrant Visas. This difficult immigration process only encourages people to immigrate illegally. You also state that \"also the illegals don't have to pay taxes.\" That's my point exactly! If illegal immigrants are allowed citizenship, then they will pay taxes! Many illegal or undocumented immigrants actually pay income and sales taxes anyhow. On average an immigrant, regardless of status, will pay 80,000 U.S dollars more in taxes than they use in government services over the course of their lifetime.", "qid": "29", "docid": "8e58c781-2019-04-18T16:40:22Z-00002-000", "rank": 57, "score": 174954.0}, {"content": "Title: Illegal Immigration Content: I FULLY UNDERSTAND ALL OF YOUR ARGUMENTS. I JUST DISAGREE WITH THEM. WELCOME TO DEBATE. - Illegals do not and should not have the same rights that we do. They have come over here illegally. We, as a nation, require certain standards to be met before you can become a U.S. citizen. + If they do not have the same rights we do then: THEY WOULD NEVER GET AN EDUCATION AND END UP IN VIOLENT CRIMES OR LIKE THE MAJORITY IN HOUSE CLEANING, ETC. OR THEY WOULD USE AMERICANS' SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS TO BUY HOUSES both of those take place now. - know that they have it rough in Mexico but they should not come in the United States illegally and reap the benefits of a law-abiding country. + why not? we are not even a law abiding country. this point is ridiculous and illogical. - What kind of signal are we sending to the world, or to our citizens, when we legalize millions of illegal immigrants? We say, \"Go ahead and break our laws because there are no consequences if you do.\" Let's just tell everyone to do what they want, legal or illegal, because in the end we all need to \"modernize\" and times will change to allow this type of behavior. That's not very logical to me. + If these people are not legal they WILL NOT PAT TAXES, COMMIT SOCIAL SECURITY FRAUD, AND NOT GET AN EDUCATION IN SOME STATES OR ANY COLLEGES. I have made this point in every round and you have not refuted it. Please respomd to all three or you have agreed to them and will lose the debate. - I say that we begin to deport all of those that have entered into the U.S. illegally. I don't think that we will be able to get rid of them all but we can try. This will send a signal to everyone that wants to become a U.S. citizen that they must follow our laws and must submit to the process that we have in place. + SARCASM: Youre right. If we TRY to deport every illegal we can send a message. Logically, the message will be that, if you come to our country, we will send you back to your country so that you can...come back the next day and try again. TRYING to send all illegals back is illogical and no message will be sent. WE ARE ALREADY TRYING TO DEPORT ALL ILLEGALS!!! THAT IS AMERICAN LAW!!! HAVE YOU HEARD OF THE US IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT AGENCY!!! - I also believe that we need a fence. I don't know any of the logistics, but I would say that it needs to go from the southern tip of Texas all the way to west coast of California. + this is so ridiculous!!! this fence would not support anything!!! theyve already tried to build a border fence!!! this fence would have to be very long and impossible to guard, therefore cracks would be made!!! walls never work(ed). the great wall of china didnot even work!!! theyll find a way in!!! boats, highways, planes exist!!! this would be tons of money pumped into something that would not work!!! THE NEW BORDER FENCE IS 700 MILES LONG. 1 PERSON A MILE IS NOT ENOUGH. 10 PEOPLE A MILE IS NOT ENOUGH. 100 A MILE IS A STRETCH. BUT JUST TO PLEASE YOU. THAT WOULD BE 700,000 BORDER PATROLS AND THAT WOULD STILL BE INEFFECTIVE. - Hiring more Border Patrol agents is also a necessity. I ask you this question, why should we have a Border Patrol if all we are going to do is allow anyone that wants into the U.S. to go ahead and come? + We dont allow anyone iunto the US. The debate is pro illagal immigration. - Why do we have laws against illegal immigration? + To stop illegal immigration... - Should we allow anyone that wants in to the U.S. to freely enter? + Yes. - I'm not insulting you, I just believe that you do not understand the magnitude of the entire illegal immigration situation. + Well. - You're solution is to legalize illegal immigrants. That completely goes against what our justice system is all about. + Well, imagine that. - Let's just legalize crystal meth because their are people that \"need\" to sell it to provide for their family. + What repeal laws? Thats ridiculous!!! Slavery is stil legal, you cant buy beer, wine or spirits, and women cant vote. Imagine this: marijuana is legal in some states and some people are for meth legalising. i.e. me!!! Get out of your conservative, protestant, texas bubble. - Let's legalize murder because some people can't control their actions and we shouldn't punish them because of their lack of self-control. + Nobody said that illegals cant control their actions. How is this even relevant? This does not make sense AT ALL. - This is a policy of appeasement. It never works. + ...wtf... ILLEGALS WILL POST LEGALISATION: PAY TAXES GO TO SCHOOL GO TO COLLEGE GET BETTER JOBS IMPROVE OUR ECONOMY BE FORCED OUT OF SOCIAL SECURITY FRAUD TO BUY HOUSES BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THEIR FAMILIES STOP USING UP OUR MONEY TO BUILD 700 MILE FENCES THAT ARE COMPLETELY INEFFECTIVE AND REQUIRE INNEFECTIVE BORDER PATROL p.s. your whole thing was about messages we would send to other controls by legalising illegals but what message would be sent to countries if we built a border fence? america is an isolationist nation that has not evolved from the cold war.", "qid": "29", "docid": "68a8a87-2019-04-18T19:59:59Z-00000-000", "rank": 58, "score": 174790.0}, {"content": "Title: Strengthening US Immigration Regulations Content: I am not sure as to why my premise would be invalid. We are talking about legality of citizens. Because public schools cannot turn down illegal immigrants, I'm sure there are illegal immigrants who have dropped out, along with natural-born as well. There is still the issue of kids in college debt. I am not sure what point you are trying to make in your second premise. You, in more words or less, stated that we should lower the regulations on people becoming american citizens, should we change what the law on murder so we won't have to worry about the issue of murder anymore? Or lower the regulations on sexual harassment so that we can rid of that issue to? Crime is crime, no matter how big and how small and there are no victim-less crimes. If we deport illegal immigrants we are deporting poverty. If they are trying to come here to pursue larger goals in life how can they do that with very limited skills and education? If they came here legally, they could receive government aid such as medicare and medicaid to assist them in making their lives better for themselves and their family. However, that is not the case. They also are obtaining fake documents such as social security cards to work. http://www.nytimes.com... So, not only are they committing the crime of coming into the United States but they are also committing identity theft. They can also use there to illegally receive government aid. While they may be working 2 or 3 jobs, they're are not actually making a sufficient amount of money to be over the poverty line. If they are making the \"bare minium\", as you say they are. How much could that possibly be? Being in poverty means they are more likely to commit crimes. http://www.americanprogress.org... \"In some areas of the country, up to 12 % of felonies, 25% of burglaries and 34% of thefts are committed by illegal aliens.\" http://citizensforlaws.org... Not only that, 28 percent of the foreign-born workers over 25 haven't completed high school. Which means that the possibly of moving up on the ladder of success is very very little. There's barely any jobs you can get without a high school diploma, even less that a college degree where you can make enough money to support a family. If we take the number of median wage workers who are foreign born (not only illegal) is $511 a week that comes out to $24,528 a year. (Assuming that is gross) http://www.slate.com..., For a family of 4, the poverty line is about $23,850 for a family of four. http://useconomy.about.com... Assuming since those who were foreign born are here legally, those who are here illegally is substantially less. It is also selfish. If you bring your children to the united states illegally and you end p being deported, who is going to take care of your children? Themselves? Seems highly unplausible. It has happened before. Parents were deported back to their home countries, leaving their children behind back in America. Here's an example. http://www.cnn.com... In conclusion, we should regulate immigration of illegal immigrants in the United States, not only because it hurts our economy, it is a crime, punishable by law, just as any other crime is. It would make their lives easier to come into the United States legally and work for their living legally. If they are here legally, they can receive government aid. It is selfish to possibly leave your children behind. They are not as innocent of other crimes either, such as theft and murder and burglary because living in poverty there is a higher change you will commit a crime.", "qid": "29", "docid": "2d0f2532-2019-04-18T16:15:38Z-00000-000", "rank": 59, "score": 174536.0}, {"content": "Title: THW give Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants Content: The US Code, Title 8, is very specific about what constitutes 'illegal alien' and the laws concerning the hiring, aiding, housing, etc. of those who are here illegally. If for no other reason, the term 'illegal' should declare why those who are here without proper documentation must be deported. The US Constitution allows for the creation and change of any existing laws. It defines 'citizen' and specifies the protections afforded by it. If we ignore the US Code and the Constitution, then we may as well just declare complete anarchy and have no borders. The reason that people want to come to the US is for freedom and opportunity. Without the Constitution, neither is protected. Without it, we are like every other nation on earth, obliterating the very reasons why the world wants to come to the US. Ignoring it makes us the same as the countries from which they came, and affords no one protection OR freedom. The abolishment of one law is the abolishment of them all. Should murder be ok? Should theft be ok? Do you have locks on your doors? Why? To keep people out? It's no different with our country's 'doors' than it is with the ones in your house, and the reasons are no different, either. You lock them to protect your family. You lock them to protect your valuables. You lock them to keep out things that can bring illness and disease. You lock them so that you can control what goes on under your own roof. Our country has borders for the very same reasons. Without borders, we are no nation. When our founding fathers came to this land and fought for our freedoms from King George, the outline of the reasons, the leadership, the creation of laws, etc. was defended with purpose supporting each one. That is the reason the Constitution is outlined the way that it is, and then further broken down into Articles and sections. They understood the importance of borders to allow freedom of the citizens. They understood the order of law that was needed to make a country, not an open-bordered section of land. To assure it, they took it one step further and allowed for the creation of the borders of states and the creation of state laws and individual preferences within each state, not subject to the overall governance of a federal government. That wasn't by accident and it wasn't unnecessary. They knew that with individual state laws, protected by federal law, the opportunity of a dictatorship or monarchy would be greatly limited. It was important for each state within its own borders, but more importantly for the borders securing the entire country. It wasn't just about keeping away from dictatorship, it was also about allowing a voice of the people within those borders. Without them, we also have no voice. I live in a neighborhood that is 90% Hispanic. Some are here illegally, more are here legally. Ask them. They saved thousands of dollars, pennies at a time, and waited years and years to get here the right way. They will be the first to defend their country, our country, and the first to tell you the importance of following our US Code and the US Constitution. It's why they worked so hard and waited so long to get here. It's everything to them, the same way that it should be to those of us who take it for granted. I've helped some of them with the paperwork to get their families here. They are proud of being here and respect what makes it so very special. We should, too. I understand the desire to live here, the importance of it. But if we open our borders there won't be anything left for others to want to come to. There won't be anything left for us. There won't be any way that we can ever close that gate again and maintain the United States of America.", "qid": "29", "docid": "675ae5e0-2019-04-18T12:16:05Z-00002-000", "rank": 60, "score": 174326.0}, {"content": "Title: We should allow illegal immigrants to stay Content: I will be arguing that illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay in America. The first half of this response will focus on pointing out the flaws in Con's assertion. 1) \"Illegal immigrants are blood sucking from America\". Grammatical mistakes aside, this statement is a metaphor (I hope) and its meaning is null without rigorous explanation. 2) \"They are on welfare\". If the illegal immigrants you are concerned with are primarily Hispanic, then this statement is null and void of argument. According to statisticbrain.com, only 15.7% of all Americans on welfare are Hispanic or Latin@ in origin. Even if every single one of these people was an illegal immigrant (which I'm sure is a gross overestimation), then the ratio of Illegals on Welfare to Citizens on Welfare would be 3 : 17, or nearly six times more Legal American citizens than illegal americans. 3) \"They steal jobs\". Or, they go out and get jobs while the white American citizen feels too entitled to work such terrible jobs. Jobs like construction and janitorial services and waste management are, in fact, terrible jobs! But immigrants are willing to work those terrible jobs, which is why they receive them. 4) \"They kill our white race\". According to statistics released by the FBI, 83% of homicides of white victims, were committed by white offenders. In fact, the percentage of white victims killed by Hispanic or other criminals is less that 3%! This statement is flat out wrong. Now I will argue why I feel illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay in the US. 1) The US was founded by illegal immigrants. No one ever asked the Native American people for permission to live in North America, and in fact European settlers were responsible for a mass genocide of Native Americans. According to David Stannard, American historian and Professor of American Studies at the University of Hawaii, the European Settlers were responsible for the deaths of over 100 million Native Americans. We are all illegal immigrants. 2) \"Liberty and Justice for All\" does not mean \"Liberty and Justice for native-born American citizens\". 3) American culture will be positively influenced by the mixing of immigrant culture and what we have now. 4) Like I said before, immigrants are willing to work in jobs that entitled American citizens will not. 5) Let me list for you the names of some American immigrants: Wyclef Jean, Albert Einstein, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Aldous Huxley, Bruce Willis, and Bob Marley, to name a few.", "qid": "29", "docid": "6d359933-2019-04-18T14:06:36Z-00004-000", "rank": 61, "score": 174269.0}, {"content": "Title: Should we deport illegal immigrants? (Not just from Mexico) Content: What I am saying is that immigrants need to get their citizenship legally. I am not against immigrants in the slightest but I believe that they need to come to this country legally. As for babies, I believe that there is an easy solution. A special building, for the infantile illegal immigrants would be built, and eventually they would be up for adoption by families. They could then learn to speak English and go to school. They would be considered citizens. I do believe that immigration laws are here for a reason. I have read up, and out of the 11 million illegal immigrants that have moved to the United States, of which 820,000 have been convicted of a crime. I think that all immigrants need to apply for citizen ship for the safety of us all. I am not saying that all illegal immigrants are criminals, or that they are more prone to commit crimes, but we need to do background checks to make sure that no immigrants are criminals who would endanger our society. That is why we have a process of citizenship that people need to complete to become a citizen. Now, I think that all illegal immigrants who have been discovered should be forced to apply for citizen ship. If they have nothing to hide, they will accept, and if they are able they will become a citizen. A large percentage of illegal immigrants in the United States have been living here for an extended period of time and that means that they should have adjusted to our society and would easily pass the test and receive their citizenship. They would receive another attempt should they fail the test. If they fail it again, then they are not fit to be in society. The laws of immigration are here for a reason, and those who do not follow them must be reprimanded (deportation) or inducted as a full fledged citizen.", "qid": "29", "docid": "9e36ecf4-2019-04-18T11:47:16Z-00000-000", "rank": 62, "score": 174062.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Birthright citizenship should be abolished in the United States Content: This is where your whole argument is wrong. If we abolish birthright citizenship we can put a law in place that allows only babies of citizens to become citizens at birth. Also while illegal immigrants come her for opportunity, they can do that but they need to do it in the proper and legal manner. That are protocols and regulations that they need to follow in order for them to become citizens and with this it would cause our country to be more american, rather than many other countries illegal immigrants coming here and immediately becoming citizens because they have a baby. The 14th Amendment needs to be changed because it is outdated. Also when you say that changing the constitution is unjust, you are mistakenly wrong because changes are made all the times. These changes are called Amendments, these Amendments are there to fix mistakes and problems within the constitution. A new Amendment can be made in order to amend the 14th and help to fix the common misinterpretation that we have today. Thus i would like to finish my argument by giving an analogy. Say you are waiting in line at islands of adventure for the hulk, the line is the time average people have to wait and the ride itself is the gaining of citizenship. Now think if someone were to cut you right when you get to the front of the line and they did not have to wait at all. So now in regard to the debate does it seem fair for an illegal person to just be given immediate citizenship over a person who has waited up to 2 years? Do you think that is fair? How would you feel?", "qid": "29", "docid": "dd869c53-2019-04-18T18:29:24Z-00003-000", "rank": 63, "score": 173776.0}, {"content": "Title: Effort to regulate our countrys borders Content: First of all, if the reason they cannot afford to become citizens is because they cannot take time off of their low paying jobs back from their home country to learn all the things that the citizenship test entails, they must get here quickly in order to get a job before they starve to death. Secondly they cannot become a citizen once here without a high risk of deportation which has serious consequences when they are returned to their home country. Sure there are some who are not willing to get citizenship but a large majority of illegal immigrants would like nothing more than the security against deportation of a citizenship in the United States. Finally, I fail to see how illegal immigrants are any more dangerous than the legal ones. I would say that the legal ones are often more dangerous than the illegals.", "qid": "29", "docid": "c1e8634f-2019-04-18T18:54:56Z-00000-000", "rank": 64, "score": 173546.0}, {"content": "Title: The United States Government should immediately repatriate all illegal immigrants. Content: So, you make some valid points. However, what about the children of illegal immigrants that we must educate with our tax dollars. Recently, they wanted to even give them access to our community colleges that are already overloaded. Illegal immigrants are also known to bring such problems as drugs, illegal arm sales and gang activity.", "qid": "29", "docid": "67bd18e2-2019-04-18T18:50:42Z-00003-000", "rank": 65, "score": 172840.0}, {"content": "Title: Goes Against Wider US Policy Content: So far the prop has framed this debate as being one with a massive problem of immigration, and catching and deporting all of the illegal immigrants as a solution, with racial profiling as the method of doing that. Not only is this not going to be effective, but it is not even necessarily desirable to get rid of all the current illegal immigrants in the US. We agree that stopping future illegal immigration is crucial, but this can be achieved through tighter border control and creating a better situation back in Mexico. A better way of dealing with current illegal immigrants is the 'path to citizenship' proposed by Barack Obama [[http://www.economist.com/node/12321563?story_id=12321563]]. The essential idea is that the immigrants would turn themselves in in return for an amnesty and the opportunity to become citizens by paying a fine, learning English and gaining or continuing employment. As so many of the immigrants are already employed, this third issue isn't a problem. It would also create better circumstances for them, allow them to go to the police for protection (reducing their reliance on crime and gangs as an alternative) and also allow them to integrate more with American society. The route to citizenship is also cheaper than having more police and expensive prisons to detain the immigrants. It doesn't matter whether will provide a greater incentive to people wanting to try to immigrate illegally, when the threat of deportation and being shot at the border currently makes no difference. The prop's motion and the route to citizenship are directly conflicting. Racial profiling paints a picture of these people as evil, illegal aliens when really many of them are working hard to sustain themselves, it puts people off turning themselves in, and it is aimed towards detaining these people and eventually removing them from the country. This aim contradicts the aim of allowing them to stay within the country and try to become good American citizens.", "qid": "29", "docid": "806f129c-2019-04-19T12:45:03Z-00030-000", "rank": 66, "score": 172801.0}, {"content": "Title: We should keep out illegal immagrants and secure our border Content: That's interesting, because according to the center of immigration studies, 71% of illegal immigrants are on welfare. That means that these people come in undocumented, and take our money. Yes, they work for less money, but that means they they would more likely get hired for a job (illegally because they are illegal and its below the minimum wage) which takes those jobs away from actual Americans. People that were born here and are legal citizens. You know who else it takes jobs away from? Those people who waited in line for a long time, so they could actually become a real citizen of the United States. They are not here and looking for jobs, but its harder because people that bypassed them illegally, took those jobs from them, and their not even legal! Back to your point about \"the people you would need to support are those in jail.\" Yes, we do half to support them, thank you for bringing that up. 29% of the entire U.S. prison population is made up of illegal immigrants according to the The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), in an article entitled \"Criminal Aliens\" on its website (accessed July 10, 2010). Yes, 29%. It costs so much money to support an inmate. On average it costs about $168,000 a year to house an inmate according to The California State Prisons Association. If there is roughly 70,000 illegal inmates, that's around 11.5 billion dollars a year. Really? Just in the category of prison inmates, we lose 11.5 billion dollars a year from illegal immigrants. Plus the 71% on welfare. But your right, some immigrants do pay taxes. About 50% of them do. But you know what's funny? Based on estimates compiled by the Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), the Immigration Policy Center reported that there was $11.2 billion in taxes paid by illegal immigrants in 2010 . So even if you take all the money we get from the illegal immigrants, its still less than the costs of prison inmates. Then you add welfare(It is estimated that states spend between 11 billion to 22 billion dollars on welfare for illegal aliens every year ), and the education system (It is estimated that 12 billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary education for illegal immigrants), and the welfare system (Research reveals that 2.5 billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for people who have immigrated to the U.S. unlawfully). All in all, we spend $338.3 on illegal immigrants. Ok, just to make you feel better, I will subtract the 11.2 billion that they pay in taxes, so its really $327.1 billion that we spend. That's 2.5% of our entire national debt! We could be using that money to stimulate the economy! Lets just let the people who play by the rules in here, and not the ones who cheat to get ahead.", "qid": "29", "docid": "8d3ad28a-2019-04-18T15:41:13Z-00003-000", "rank": 67, "score": 172792.0}, {"content": "Title: should all illegal immigrants get amnesty Content: I would like to begin this round by laying down one fact. First, there are between 7 and 20 million illegal immigrants in the United States. http://www.csmonitor.com.... Additionally, I would like to ask my opponent one question: if all these illegal immigrants came into the United States legally, would you turn any away, and would you be supportive of them? America was, of course, founded by immigrants, and is currently populated with the sons and daughters of immigrants, so I think most Americans should be supportive of immigration in principle. Because my opponent has not stated his opinion on this idea, I will assume that he or she is supportive of large-scale legal immigration unless he or she were to say otherwise in a response. This preface leads me to the following argument: Illegal immigrants are often portrayed as being leeches who suck away American jobs, and in most other scenarios, I would be against illegal immigrants. They don't pay taxes, and receive much of the benefits normal citizens do receive. However, I believe the current illegal immigrants should be granted amnesty for one reason: if you are poor, it is nearly impossible to immigrate legally, let alone become an American citizen. Many of America's immigrants in the past would not have been able to immigrate legally, because they would be too poor in the current system. To immigrate legally, you need all sorts of documentation, and while I believe these papers are a noble attempt to stop the people like drug dealers from getting in to America, most of these Latin American immigrants simply do not have the paperwork necessary. When you are living in total poverty under an oppressive government, it is difficult to keep track of things like birth certificates, if you even had them in the first place. http://www.alternet.org... Therefore, I believe that until the immigration process stops becoming a bureaucratic nightmare, all illegal immigrants should be granted amnesty. In addition, the United States should allow its immigration process to be more open, and allow immigration on a larger scale.", "qid": "29", "docid": "188b21d7-2019-04-18T15:29:19Z-00006-000", "rank": 68, "score": 172579.0}, {"content": "Title: should illgle immagrants be allowed citezenship Content: I'm not against immigration thank you very much. I'm against illegal immigration. illegal immagrants take up jobs that are for us that are legal and thanks to Obama we have less jobs and they are taking them, and i live in Colorado were there are a lot of illegal immigrants here because we are really close to Texas and Arizona, and this is true because i have friends that are illegal immigrants. now i think that immigrants that were brought here illegally when they were small children should be granted citizen ship because they had no choice, because they were children. this is my closing argument.", "qid": "29", "docid": "8e58c781-2019-04-18T16:40:22Z-00001-000", "rank": 69, "score": 172412.0}, {"content": "Title: Allowing Illegal Immigrations To Still Get Benefits Content: Debate OutlineThis is a debate about whether or not illegal immigrants should receive the same benefits legal immigrants and citizens would receive in a country. For example: insurance, employment, housing, Welfare, Social Security, foodstamps. Structure: The debate will consist of four rounds: Acceptance Thesis and Opening Argument Rebuttals and Arguments Rebuttals and Conclusions [no new arguments should be made] General rules: Throughout the debate, a set of rules are to abided by, by both contenders. Each time a rule is broken it shall be considered by all voting parties preceding the conclusion of the debate. Standard debate rules apply: no insulting, keep it appropriate, keep bias minimal. And with that said, I wish luck to the person that accepts this debate. Hopefully this will be more fun and insightful!", "qid": "29", "docid": "d4ce048b-2019-04-18T14:57:27Z-00005-000", "rank": 70, "score": 172295.0}, {"content": "Title: Illegal Immigration Is Bad For Americans Content: Why should illegal immigrants be able to even get jobs here in the first place? If you are not an American Citizen, you should not be entitled to the same rights that an American Citizen has. I forget the name of the law, but it goes something like this: If you are not a citizen of America and you are in America, you: A) Are not protected under the law by the constitution or it's amendments since they are reserved for American Citizens. B) You are however, held responsible for any criminal acts that you commit. You say that Illegal Immigrants could be a major contributer to the economy if they became citizens. I agree, somewhat. If they are actively applying for citizenship or else taking a citizenship course, they should be allowed to stay. If they are simply here to either commit crimes or steal American jobs, get the hell out. If they come on a visa, okay, but once it runs out, get the hell out. Wouldn't it make more sense for American Citizens to get those jobs first?", "qid": "29", "docid": "f48be0a0-2019-04-18T12:05:27Z-00000-000", "rank": 71, "score": 171589.0}, {"content": "Title: Immigration and Amesty Content: Immigrants are not paying the income tax that all American citizens pay from their salaries. According to Jim DeMint, \"An exhaustive study by the Heritage Foundation has found that after amnesty, current unlawful immigrants would receive $9.4 trillion in government benefits and services and pay more than $3 trillion in taxes over their lifetimes. That leaves a net fiscal deficit (benefits minus taxes) of $6.3 trillion. That deficit would have to be financed by increasing the government debt or raising taxes on U.S. citizens\" (1). Illegal immigrants do pay property taxes; there is no way around that, but they are not paying income tax off of the money they make to support their families. Illegal immigrants take more money from the government than they do paying it back. They take advantage of social services for citizens, abuse them, and then create a deficit, which in turn will raise taxes even more for the citizens of the United States. Granting amnesty to illegal immigrants would be unfair the the citizens of the nation. DeMint also expresses \"People the world over are attracted to the United States because we are a nation of laws. Granting amnesty to those who broke the law and putting them on a path to citizenship would be unfair, would encourage more bad behavior and would impose significant costs on American families\" (1). People in other nations are attracted to the United States because it is a land of laws and opportunity. By abusing this, illegal immigrants are making the lives of citizens more difficult and expensive to live. In order for someone to become a United States citizen, they should enter the country legally, pay taxes, and not be a reason that increases taxes for people already citizens of the nation. DeMint, Jim, and Robert Rector. \"The Burden of Amnesty.\" Washington Post. 07 May 2013: A.17. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 24 Oct 2013.", "qid": "29", "docid": "d0461c26-2019-04-18T17:04:49Z-00002-000", "rank": 72, "score": 171412.0}, {"content": "Title: immigration Content: I am tired your false accusations. I never said about Americans losing jobs. You have a weak argument and you are trying to change the words I say. Also it is unrealistic to say all the illegal immigrants just got up and left in one day. That would never happen, and would be an impossible feat. Also your argument: \"a large amount of illegal immigrant come here and then have children. these children are natural citizens. tell me: would you only deport the parents, leaving the children to be orphans, or would you deport the children too, who never broke any laws, are natural citizens, and who you would be putting them in a state of poverty? this is only one of many examples of the various complexities of a project of this magnitude and impact\" First of all, I don't think that should be a law. I don't think if you are born in the US or any of its territories you should automatically become a US citizen. It should be if one or more of your parents are US citizens you become one. That would eliminate that problem right off the bat. But since that is not the case it should be the parents decision. It should be the parents decision on whether or not they stay or go with them.", "qid": "29", "docid": "823ab1d2-2019-04-18T20:01:30Z-00000-000", "rank": 73, "score": 171198.0}, {"content": "Title: Immigration Content: I disagree with your point about \"If everyone is given a path to citizenship, then there would be no need for the terms illegal and legal. We would all be Americans, having all the equal rights and privileges. \" I think if the government promote this kind of unlimited immigration policy, the country will be out of control. Actually, almost every country in the world has its immigration restrictive laws, for the reasons of structure of population, national security, cultural protection, trade safety, etc. Therefore, some limitations in immigration to divide immigrants into legal and illegal are necessary.", "qid": "29", "docid": "46817eac-2019-04-18T14:11:51Z-00000-000", "rank": 74, "score": 170908.0}, {"content": "Title: America should create a pathway to citizenship for illegal and other immigrants. Content: Illegal immigrants already waste a lot of money. Illegal immigrants being given a pathway towards citizenship would show disregard for the federal government's laws. Illegal immigrants also take away jobs that should belong to legal immigrants.", "qid": "29", "docid": "f40414eb-2019-04-18T11:51:17Z-00003-000", "rank": 75, "score": 170513.0}, {"content": "Title: Immigration (w/ 5 rounds) Content: Your first argument points out that most Americans are descendants of immigrants. This is very true. However, it is important to note that even then, many people were turned away. All incoming immigrants, especially the poor and lower classes, were subject to rigorous examinations before they were allowed to become part of American Society. Ellis Island in New York was the gateway for thousands of immigrants and during its peak, could handle 15,000 people a day. Even then, not everyone was admitted into the country. All immigrants were subjected to screening. This screening helped to ensure that those who carried diseases and those who would cause trouble would stay out of the country. Why can this not be done today? Those who enter illegally have not been screened and can be dangerous. THESE ARE NOT AMERICAN CITIZENS, they do not have the same rights. Since it would be impossible to screen all illegals, then they should not be allowed in the country because of the risk they pose to real American citizens. Those who truly want to become Americans for the right reason should seek legal immigration that way all immigrants can be deemed suitable for American society and can mesh well into society without threat. It makes no sense to allow illegal citizens access to America when there is a legal process to do so. If our ancestors could go through the much stricter entrance exams of old, then so can those who want to immigrate today.", "qid": "29", "docid": "7b43bc48-2019-04-18T17:04:21Z-00004-000", "rank": 76, "score": 170393.0}, {"content": "Title: This is a gateway privilege that allows these people to integrate into American society. Content: These people do not deserve to use the services of the USA. They are not citizens, they are law-breakers and society has no obligation to make life easier or more comfortable for those who break the law. Regardless of their contributions to society or the economy, illegal immigrants have broken the law. The consequences of their breaches of the law should be remedied. If necessary, illegal immigrants should be punished in proportion to the harm that their act has caused. Under no circumstances should illegal acts allow these individuals to gain access to the status and legal privileges that citizenship confers.", "qid": "29", "docid": "2cf2c469-2019-04-15T20:22:34Z-00010-000", "rank": 77, "score": 170380.0}, {"content": "Title: Birthright Citizenship Should Be Abolished In The US. Content: I stand in firm affirmation of this resolution. I believe that it is unfair, unjust, cheating, and not what the creators of the 14th Amendment originally intended. Firstly, it is important to know that birthright citizenship is one of the most controversial issues in immigration policy. The topic rose to the forefront in April of 2010 when Senator Lindsey Graham caused a stir by calling children who obtained their citizen status through birthright \"anchor babies.\" Contention 1: Birthright citizenship allows illegal immigrants to cheat the system and immediately become US citizens - Birthright citizenship gives illegal immigrants a motive for cheating the system and finding way to become legalized citizens. In a recent study there were approximately 11.2 illegal immigrants in the United States. The 14th Amendment gives motive for all immigrants to cheat there way into gaining US citizenship by having children. The process of becoming a United States citizen normally takes between 5 months and 2 years. A person who has a baby on American soil takes one. Because the baby is now a United States citizen the process is sped up immensely for parents. It is almost guaranteed that the parents will get citizenship because the government will not forcibly deport the parents away from the baby or remove a US citizen, this being the baby. Contention 2: Birthright citizenship is unfair, unjust, and does not create an equal society - I believe that if we allow this bill to remain it gives people who have a child here illegally an unfair advantage. Think about the thousands of people that have to wait through the process for 2 years. The people who have to pay and study in order to become a US citizen. Also think of the people who were paying taxes and benefiting the US economy while the illegal immigrants were illegally in the country and used a leu poll in order to become a citizen. Does that seem fair. Our country is based on a place where we are all considered equal. Does a person who has no knowledge of our country and became a citizen over night deserve to be a citizen more than the hardworking man who has been struggling to gain citizenship for the past 2 years, or the man who has studied and payed for tests, or the woman who has been doing local jobs everywhere in order so that she can pay for the documents and tests in order to become a citizen? The answer is no. Convention 3: Birthright citizenship is not what creators of the constitution originally planned - The 14th Amendment was created in July of 1868. The men who created it would have no idea what would happen 144 years later. It was originally made so that recently freed African Americans would have citizenship if they were born here. Present day this is a means for illegal immigrants to unlawfully sneak past the system and gain citizenship. There have been other countries that have corrected laws similar to this. In Ukraine, they recently got rid of their \"Tourist Baby\" bill. This bill now states that if you have a baby in Ukraine and you are not a citizen of Ukraine you will not be granted citizenship. So now back to us, I believe that if we abolish birthright citizenship we can create a new bill that is geared towards giving citizenship to babies born of legal citizens of the United States. This would create a more fair and just system and would also clear up the controversy that the original founders of the 14th Amendment could not foresee.", "qid": "29", "docid": "ccabb8b9-2019-04-18T18:27:55Z-00003-000", "rank": 78, "score": 170344.0}, {"content": "Title: illegal immigrants should have paths of citizenship Content: As the audience can see, he has failed to respond to my questions. He has the BOP. I will make a petite argument just for the sake of winning. Illegal immigrants should not have paths of citizenship because then they will have to pay a lot in taxes with very low paying jobs. It is better for them to stay illegal so that they may get through the system without having the United States take their money. Also, they would most likely get on welfare, which would throw the USA into even deeper debt than it is. The United States can not afford anymore debt. (1) By the way, this is not the responce I'd use in a real debate. I am just making a simple arguement that won't be responded to properly. (1). www. usdebtclock. org", "qid": "29", "docid": "327c8f25-2019-04-18T18:09:12Z-00000-000", "rank": 79, "score": 170294.0}, {"content": "Title: illegal immigration and outsourcing: practically similar Content: I didn't reiterate that some use welfare. I addressed government services such as education and subsidized healthcare, which are used by those with and without jobs. Other than the employer's portion of the payroll tax, illegal immigrants with jobs don't contribute to the government's tax income, meaning that they are draining our funds when they use these services without doing their part to replenish them. If we want to keep up these services at the same level then citizens are forced to pick up the slack which takes money out of their pockets and decreasing aggragate demand. The new service jobs created through outsourcing manufacturing are not \"beans paying\". They range from car salesmen to stock brokers, many new services are demanded when prices go down because then people have more money to spend, as a result employers who provide those services need to take on extra employees. That's just simple economics. This is benefit is unique to outsourcing in that if we kept manufacturing jobs in the U.S. but gave them to illegal immigrants, the benefits would be cancelled by the negative tax-related impacts that I spoke of earlier.", "qid": "29", "docid": "c40e56f3-2019-04-18T19:58:57Z-00002-000", "rank": 80, "score": 169999.0}, {"content": "Title: America should support blanket amnesty for illegal immigrants. Content: The benefits of illegal immigration do not outweigh the negatives. First of all, illegal immigrant labor will depress American wages and keep the unemployed or underemployed out of the job market (Dann). Even with wage laws negotiated by unions, granting illegal immigrants a path to citizenship will simply make it more difficult for American citizens to find work and support their families. Proponents of amnesty argue that illegals take care of the dirty manual labor that \"Americans wouldn't do,\" but this absurd assumption is false. There is no job that would not be filled by American citizens if all the illegals in this country disappeared (Hawkins). Even if the \"jobs Americans wouldn't do\" statement were true, unskilled workers eventually become a burden on society. When they become too old to perform the hard menial labor for which they were hired, the cost of taking care of them will greatly exceed what we pay in taxes (Hawkins). Greedy business owners want to maximize their profits and minimize spending. Therefore, they hire illegal immigrants over American citizens because they do not have to pay them what the job is worth. These employers exploit the tide of illegal immigration selfishly, and increase the hardships of already struggling Americans. Also, awarding amnesty will cause rampant identity fraud and a new surge of illegal immigration. In 1986, Ronald Reagan passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act, which granted amnesty to 1.5 million illegal immigrants that had entered the country before 1982. The law promised to tighten subsequent immigration policies and penalize employers who hired illegals over citizens. However, it merely welcomed another wave of illegal immigration as well as widespread document fraud. As a result, today there are more than 11 million undocumented immigrants in this country (Dann). If amnesty were granted again, it would invite even more aliens to enter this country illegally and be allowed to stay without repercussions. In conclusion, United States citizenship is a precious thing that should not be dealt out to just anybody, especially those whose first accomplishment within our borders was to break our laws. If we reward any and all illegal aliens with amnesty, we are compromising the value of American citizenship and the dignity of the country. Works Cited Dann, Carrie. \"Humanity? Practicality? Amnesty? The arguments for and against immigration reform. \" NBC News. 12 April 2013. Web. 27 October 2013. http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com.... Hawkins, John. \"5 Reasons Illegal Immigrants Shouldn\"t Be Given American Citizenship.\" N.p. 23 February 2010. Web. 27 October 2013. http://www.rightwingnews.com....", "qid": "29", "docid": "cd8abfbd-2019-04-18T17:04:37Z-00000-000", "rank": 81, "score": 169945.0}, {"content": "Title: America should support blanket amnesty for illegal immigrants. Content: The benefits of illegal immigration do not outweigh the negatives. First of all, illegal immigrant labor will depress American wages and keep the unemployed or underemployed out of the job market (Dann). Even with wage laws negotiated by unions, granting illegal immigrants a path to citizenship will simply make it more difficult for American citizens to find work and support their families. Proponents of amnesty argue that illegals take care of the dirty manual labor that \"Americans wouldn't do,\" but this absurd assumption is false. There is no job that would not be filled by American citizens if all the illegals in this country disappeared (Hawkins). Even if the \"jobs Americans wouldn't do\" statement were true, unskilled workers eventually become a burden on society. When they become too old to perform the hard menial labor for which they were hired, the cost of taking care of them will greatly exceed what we pay in taxes (Hawkins). Greedy business owners want to maximize their profits and minimize spending. Therefore, they hire illegal immigrants over American citizens because they do not have to pay them what the job is worth. These employers exploit the tide of illegal immigration selfishly, and increase the hardships of already struggling Americans. Also, awarding amnesty will cause rampant identity fraud and a new surge of illegal immigration. In 1986, Ronald Reagan passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act, which granted amnesty to 1.5 million illegal immigrants that had entered the country before 1982. The law promised to tighten subsequent immigration policies and penalize employers who hired illegals over citizens. However, it merely welcomed another wave of illegal immigration as well as widespread document fraud. As a result, today there are more than 11 million undocumented immigrants in this country (Dann). If amnesty were granted again, it would invite even more aliens to enter this country illegally and be allowed to stay without repercussions. In conclusion, United States citizenship is a precious thing that should not be dealt out to just anybody, especially those whose first accomplishment within our borders was to break our laws. If we reward any and all illegal aliens with amnesty, we are compromising the value of American citizenship and the dignity of the country. Works Cited Dann, Carrie. \"Humanity? Practicality? Amnesty? The arguments for and against immigration reform. \" NBC News. 12 April 2013. Web. 27 October 2013. http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com....... Hawkins, John. \"5 Reasons Illegal Immigrants Shouldn\"t Be Given American Citizenship.\" N.p. 23 February 2010. Web. 27 October 2013. http://www.rightwingnews.com.......", "qid": "29", "docid": "cd8abfdc-2019-04-18T17:04:45Z-00001-000", "rank": 82, "score": 169945.0}, {"content": "Title: Immigration (w/ 5 rounds) Content: The point is that illegals are not American citizens and should not be treated as such. Your argument wants to give everyone who wants to, the rights of American Citizens just for hopping a border. This is not feasible nor should it be treated as such. Myron Weiner, PhD, a professor of Political Science at the Massachussets Institute of Technology, on ther issue of immigration and illegal immigrant rights stated that \"What we don't need--at the expense of workers and taxpayers--is the kind of solution [where] everyone present within the boundaries of the United States ought to have the same rights and benefits. It would be politically irresponsible to turn these legislative issues over to the courts to decide on the basis of constitutional principles. Instead, we need reasoned analysis and public discussion of how we can balance diverse objectives to accomplish what is fiscally possible, what is humane, and what best serves the goals of incorporating migrants into citizenship, deterring illegals, maintaining public health, and protecting children.\" The constitution protects American citizens, not illegal immigrants. There are difficulties, and genocide, and civil war, and strife across the world. Much like we cannot send our military to protect those around the world, we cannot be expected to take in the refugees of the world. As Americans, we need to dedicate ourselves and our country towards the betterment and portection of U.S. citizens. That should be the nation's top priority. Helping illegals should not take priority over U.S. citizens. As stated before, if someone wants to flee from turmoil, they can escape to America and receive amnesty. There is no reason or need for illegal immigration.http://immigration.procon.org...", "qid": "29", "docid": "7b43bc48-2019-04-18T17:04:21Z-00002-000", "rank": 83, "score": 169850.0}, {"content": "Title: Birthright Citizenship Content: My opponent seems to have switched to another account.For educational purposes, I negate.C1: Birthright Citizenship encourages illegal immigrationGiving instant citizenship to kids of illegals provides several incentives to migrate illegally.A. DeportationHaving a child citizen means the illegal parents are less likely to be deported (1). In addition to being an incentive, this is a violation of justice. Immgrants become less likely to be punished for breaking the law, for something as arbitrary as having a kid. If someone comes here against US laws, they should be punished and deported back to where they came from. They shouldn't be able to use a baby as a cop-out.B. AnchoringThe term \"anchor baby\" was coined when immigrants would come here illegally, have kids, and when those kids grew up, the parents could be in the US at any time despite being illegal. That is possible due to birthright citizenship. By having a baby in the US and it gaining citizenship, illegals become legal despite breaking laws. Also, the parents will be allowed in the US even if the immigration quota (# of immigrants allowed annually) is full. So if a Mexican wants to come here, but she can't because we've already had 90,000 Mexicans come here this year, she uses birthright citizenship as an incentive to come illegally, to bypass the quota. C. WelfareIn Darces v. Woods, the Supreme Court ruled that illegal alien parents are entitled to US welfare if they have an American citizen child (2). So they can come illegally, but still get food stamps and Medicaid? I dont think so. You have to follow the law to benefit from the law. And remember, birthright citiznship enables this by placing immigrant children within the criteria for welfare qualification.D. Empirically provenIts not just theoretics. According to the Texas Review of Law and Politics, almost 10% of all births in the US are from illegal immigrant mothers (3). Additionally, \"Many of these mothers frankly admitted that the reason they entered illegally was to give birth to an American citizen.\"E. Illegal immigration badThe Federation for American Immigration Reform estimates that illegal immigration costs Americans 113 billion dollars a year (4). If even one percent of that can be alleviated by abolishihng the Birthright incentive, thats over a billion dollars you're saving through a Con ballot.C2: Misapplication of the lawThe fourteenth amendment is Birthright Citizenship. But it was passed in 1868. This was shortly after the Emancipation Proclomation by Abraham Lincoln, \"freeing\" the slaves. The amendment was passed to expand the freedom of African-Americans, so they would be treated fairly as citizens (4). It was NOT passed so that illegal aliens could use it to come to America against US law. Incentivizing crime is probably not what the framers had in mind when they wrote this amendment. So we see that the Bithright Citizenship clause is being severely misapplied. It is being exploited by foreigners who want to bypass the quota and get free baby food. So because the origin of this law has no backing in regards to the current state of affairs, it would be desirable to repeal it.1. http://illegalillegals.com...2. http://law.justia.com...3. http://www.trolp.org...4. http://www.foxnews.com...5. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk...", "qid": "29", "docid": "c33557a8-2019-04-18T18:46:16Z-00002-000", "rank": 84, "score": 169551.0}, {"content": "Title: America should support blanket amnesty for illegal immigrants. Content: Citizens are more likely than illegal immigrants to commit crimes, but aliens still contribute to the imperative issue of criminality in America. One is more likely to die from a car accident than from drowning, but does that mean swimming safety should be taken any less seriously? In 2011, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement removed 396,000 people from this country, the highest number ever, and fifty-five percent of them were convicted criminals (\"Republicans...crimes\"). Therefore, illegal immigrants cannot be granted the rights of citizens because it would only encourage unrestrained immigration and an increase in the crime rate. The threat that amnesty poses to national security should also be considered. The majority of terrorist acts committed in the United States have been perpetrated by people from countries abroad. Granting illegal immigrants amnesty would \"open the flood gates,\" relaxing our immigration policies even further and increasing the risk of terrorism (\"Top Ten Pros and Cons\"). The highly reputable Center for Immigration Studies predicts that, as the requirements for citizenship become easier to obtain, immigrants will create false documents just to obtain green cards or amnesty, heightening the risk of terrorists slipping through the cracks (\"Is it...Illegal Immigrants?\"). The risk that illegal immigrants pose to the safety of American citizens cannot be undermined, and granting them amnesty would only put the country's safety in jeopardy. Works Cited \"Is it a Bad Idea to Legalize the Illegal Immigrants?\" Illegal Immigration Statistics. 2013. Web. 21 October 2013. http://www.illegalimmigrationstatistics.org....... \"Republicans decry 'deadly' policy as report shows illegal immigrants committing new crimes.\" FoxNews.com. 31 July 2012. Web. 23 October 2013. http://www.foxnews.com...... \"Top Ten Pros and Cons.\" Procon.org. 2009. Web. 21 October 2013. http://immigration.procon.org.......", "qid": "29", "docid": "cd8abfdc-2019-04-18T17:04:45Z-00003-000", "rank": 85, "score": 169394.0}, {"content": "Title: America should support blanket amnesty for illegal immigrants. Content: Illegal immigrants should be granted all educational and health benefits that citizens receive regardless of their legal status. In 1982, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Plyler v. Doe that undocumented children have the same right to attend public primary and secondary schools as U.S. citizens. About 1.6 million undocumented immigrants are children and allowing them education is allowing them a future in life. Not doing so, however, restricts the success which they may have otherwise received as a result of education. Also, preventing immigrants from gaining basic health benefits is actually a technique that will only increase health care spending and add to a sicker U.S. population. Lawmakers have authorized a special Medicaid fund that mostly goes towards providing emergency treatments for undocumented immigrants. The program costs about $2 billion per year, and most of that money is used on delivering babies for pregnant, undocumented women. However, since the $2 billion provided for undocumented immigrants is only set aside for pregnancies, there is still a large gap in the services provided for these people. The lack of access to care services is a problem given that low-income undocumented immigrants tend to have specialized and chronic health care needs such as diabetes and obesity. Everyone deserves a chance at life, even illegal immigrants reasoning that they should be given a chance of education and a chance to attain health care. Works Cited \"Should Children of Illegal Immigrants Have the Right to an Education in the US?\" People. Web. 15 Oct. 2013. \"Why Undocumented Immigrants Should Have Access To Taxpayer-Funded Health Care.\" ThinkProgress. Web. 15 Oct. 2013", "qid": "29", "docid": "cd8abfbd-2019-04-18T17:04:37Z-00006-000", "rank": 86, "score": 169159.0}, {"content": "Title: America should support blanket amnesty for illegal immigrants. Content: Illegal immigrants should be granted all educational and health benefits that citizens receive regardless of their legal status. In 1982, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Plyler v. Doe that undocumented children have the same right to attend public primary and secondary schools as U.S. citizens. About 1.6 million undocumented immigrants are children and allowing them education is allowing them a future in life. Not doing so, however, restricts the success which they may have otherwise received as a result of education. Also, preventing immigrants from gaining basic health benefits is actually a technique that will only increase health care spending and add to a sicker U.S. population. Lawmakers have authorized a special Medicaid fund that mostly goes towards providing emergency treatments for undocumented immigrants. The program costs about $2 billion per year, and most of that money is used on delivering babies for pregnant, undocumented women. However, since the $2 billion provided for undocumented immigrants is only set aside for pregnancies, there is still a large gap in the services provided for these people. The lack of access to care services is a problem given that low-income undocumented immigrants tend to have specialized and chronic health care needs such as diabetes and obesity. Everyone deserves a chance at life, even illegal immigrants reasoning that they should be given a chance of education and a chance to attain health care. Works Cited \"Should Children of Illegal Immigrants Have the Right to an Education in the US?\" People. Web. 15 Oct. 2013. \"Why Undocumented Immigrants Should Have Access To Taxpayer-Funded Health Care.\" ThinkProgress. Web. 15 Oct. 2013", "qid": "29", "docid": "cd8abfdc-2019-04-18T17:04:45Z-00008-000", "rank": 87, "score": 169159.0}, {"content": "Title: Illegal Immigration In California Content: Our government certainly does not protect illegal immigrants' rights over its own citizens but if you have some examples that would be great. Every human being has innate rights, no matter their immigration status.They get rights because they are human. I assume that my opponent is referring to Sanctuary Cities that basically say to illegal immigrants: As long as you're not harming the society, then we're not going to hound for you and try to arrest/deport all of you. Listen, it's not about being Mexican. Mexicans are not the only people coming into the U.S. illegally. Many people come in on visas and then overstay their visa illegally. We get people from India and Nigeria and China. It's not just Mexico. What it's really about is that a majority of illegal immigrants contribute to society. They actually do pay taxes, they get jobs, and create jobs in their communties. Most of them don't come here just to sell drugs. The belief of sanctuary cities is that it's a waste of time/money to try and catch and deport every illegal immigrant. Most of them aren't harming society so using money to get all of them would require a lot of work and the only return is that we have one less illegal immigrant in the country. Which I would say is kind of a waste. I think that illegal immigrants should be treated on a case-by-case basis. We can't lump them all as bad people who we must get rid of RIGHT NOW. Obviously, the ones harming society must go but we have to realize at the end of the day, these are people. Some of them are families, some of them are breadwinners, some of them are children.", "qid": "29", "docid": "d082c316-2019-04-18T11:39:27Z-00001-000", "rank": 88, "score": 168830.0}, {"content": "Title: why shouldnt immigrants be able to go to collages or universitys?! Content: citizen ship is stupid in my views...we shouldnt stand as a country (id be proud to do tho)we should stand as citizens of the world not countrys but my point is that illegal immigrants shouldnt have to be citizens.....dou peopl feel threatin by our bothers and neighboors or something?these people have the abiliy to find cures for illness we havnt fond yet,they hve the ability to reach the stars to not only serve our country but our world.....but our goverment stands in their way", "qid": "29", "docid": "3fc36285-2019-04-18T18:54:17Z-00001-000", "rank": 89, "score": 168812.0}, {"content": "Title: Allow illegal immigrants amnesty. Content: I'm very sorry I'm new to this site, I didn't realize the whole \"I accept\" statement. I really don't see how stopping the whole cycle would be a good thing\" Just because we have people illegally entering our country, we have to take it away and spoil it for other people that are trying to enter for valid reasons? Maybe we should propose stronger border laws for illegal immigrants instead of taking the whole thing away. If there was some sort of system where children and adults that felt threatened in their country to send some kind of form into the government\" because technically you do need a visa/refugee status when entering the United States. I don't know whether it's fear or lack of time that keeps them from getting a visa or a refugee status but our immigration system is very complicated. I don't think the whole \"magnet\" idea is going to get as extreme as you propose. The whole world is not made up of terror-struck and third world countries. There are millions of people who are happy where they are. Unfortunately, most people in third world countries probably won't even be able to make it to the United States because they are so far away. Most illegal immigrants are from Mexico because they are close enough to cross the border. When you say \"you can't help everyone\" that's true. We can't individually help each person that enters the United States, but we can at least let them enter. I feel like you were just wording your statement as another way of saying \"we don't have enough room\". Forgive me if I am wrong, but that is the kind of feeling I'm getting. There is enough room for these people in the United States. That is a given. Millions of children are being born right this very second, and unfortunately, there are people dying this very second in the United States. We have room for them! Granted, these children are being born into families that will hopefully keep them in their home and won't live on the streets. You prove a very good argument, and I do feel myself losing already (this is my first debate so this was kind of \"testing the waters\" for me). Just to kind of clear this up, are you proposing that we don't let illegal immigrants into the United States? When they show up at the border, we just make them return to their country? If that is the case, I think that we should have them fill out necessary paperwork in a safe place so they don't have to return to their country. We can see if they are really fleeing for valid reasons, and then we can let them in. Thanks :)", "qid": "29", "docid": "9f061228-2019-04-18T15:29:10Z-00004-000", "rank": 90, "score": 168599.0}, {"content": "Title: Illegal aliens should not be allowed to stay in the United States Content: I would like to begin by rebutting the three subpoints you made to establish your contention that there is no rational basis for keeping illegal aliens.Rebuttal1. Undocumented immigrants actually do pay the majority of the tax burden we place on them (almost all of state and local and the greater part of federal), contrary to popular misconceptions, while also receiving fewer benefits.The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy informs us that (http://www.itep.org...) undocumented immigrants already contribute a sizeable amount to state and local taxes. Furthermore, they are currently actually contributing amounts disproportionately large relative to their services from the government.The median household income of undocumented immigrants is approximately $37,000, according to Pew (http://www.pewhispanic.org...). However, on average, the government actually contributes more directly to those with incomes under $37,000 than it collects! Because of this, those undocumented immigrants who aren't meeting their income tax burden (that number is estimated around 25%) are typically costing the government less than naturalised citizens, as they are of course not able to claim federal services while not paying federal income tax. (http://taxfoundation.org...). This is related to the fact around 46% of Americans aren't required to pay income tax as-is (http://www.washingtonpost.com...), and statistics tell us the majority of undocumented immigrants are within this 46%. Similarly, undocumented immigrants contribute many, many times more to Social Security than they take out, as they pay for Social Security through their salary while lacking the Social Security card needed to receive benefits! (http://www.nytimes.com...)And, to bring the point home reiterating and directly attack your unsupported claim, the majority of illegal immigrants are currently meeting their tax burden, (http://www.itep.org...) thoroughly debunking your first subpoint.To connect it to my overall argument, I contend from available data that the vast majority of undocumented immigrants make a good-faith effort to pay all taxes whilst also having to deal with the extraordinary risk they are placed under should they be 'found out' and subsequently deported. However, were we to provide a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, it is very likely our overall tax receipts would rise even further. I contend that your first sub-point not only can be disproven with factual evidence, but it is logically irrelevant, as undocumented immigrants would be more able to contribute their full share of taxes (although many of them already do) if we didn't pursue a policy of deportation. 2. Undocumented immigrants (and particularly their children) have a relatively similar or in some cases lower crime rate compared to that of naturalised citizens. In fact, American citizens are as likely to traffic drugs as undocumented immigrants!This is another popular misconception that turns out to be largely unsupported by the data at hand. Four out of five busts for drug trafficing by the Border Patrol are by US citizens (http://cironline.org...). This is hilarious, as the Border Patrol exists in large part to prevent undocumented immigration, not serve as second fiddle to the DEA.Take a look at the incarceration rates of US vs Mexican young men without an high school diploma, as this demographic makes up the majority of serious offenders (https://img.washingtonpost.com...). Again, the incarceration rate for naturalised citizens is nearly ten times higher!The (right-wing and nativist) Centre for Immigration Studies, whilst pointing out that there is a somewhat higher rate of incarceration in Federal facilities for undocumented immigrants than for naturalised citizens, itself points out that this shaky data includes those incarcerated for the very offence of undocumented immigration (http://www.cis.org...)! The offence of undocumented immigration is the most common among undocumented immigrants incarcerated in federal facilities, as well, which appears to be more or less entirely for the marginally higher Federal incarceration rate.Your contention that they are here to 'corrupt our world' is unfounded and prejudicial - Emily Ryo, a sociology professor at USC, found that the majority of undocumented immigrants believe they are moral people immigrating only to benefit the US (http://www.latimes.com...). In short, the moral fibre of these people is closer to that of the settlers who made America what it is today (many of whom, I would like to remind you, were themselves literal criminals) than it is to some imaginary menace concocted by xenophobia.To once again more directly address your claim that deporting undocumented immigrants would reduce the crime rate, two law professors at the University of Chicago and New York University found that mass deportation had literally no statistically significant effect on the crime rate (http://www.nytimes.com...). To summarise, undocumented immigrants are not necessarily more likely to commit crimes and deportation does not positively affect the crime rate.3. Your contention that refusing to deport undocumented immigrants will lead to more undocumented immigration is logically unsound, as the majority of those who oppose mass deportation support a less restrictive immigration process.Unfortunately, there are no solid studies or statistics that can conclusively say the effect (whether positive or negative) that deportation has on undocumented immigration. I instead contend that your entire contention is flawed, as a scenario in which we would eliminate deportation would be one in which we have a true path to citizenship and a more open immigration process. My hunch is that there would be more immigration, however there would certainly not be more 'illegal aliens'.Finally, your overall argument that undocumented immigrants are a) bereft of a 'real job' and b) responsible for overall US unemployment is unsupported by both evidence and elementary logic.To address your concluding argument, we currently have no true path to citizenship (with the exception of the restrictive and marginal DREAM Act) making it functionally impossible to 'follow the system legally and become legal residents'. Your suggestion that they 'get a real job' is illogical and absurd, as you also suggest that they are simulataneously 'taking jobs that documented/legal Americans could have'. I would like to offer a rebuttal to your overly simplistic idea that undocumented immigration causes unemployment using some relatively simple economic principles.There are three types of unemployment: Frictional unemployment, or the unemployment of people currently between jobs. These are the skilled, in-demand people who currently don't have a job but are likely to receive one soon. This unemployment is not of concern to economists, and of course bears no relation to undocumented immigration. Note that typically this is the most reliable source of American unemployment. Cyclical unemployment, or the unemployment of people who were fired during the recessionary period of the business cycle. As recessions are thought to typically return to a macroeconomic equilibrium of growth, this unemployment is also not of grave of concern to economists. It also bears no relation to undocumented immigration, as no serious economist would argue that undocumented immigration caused the late 2000s financial crisis (largely a result of deregulation of the financial market). Note that most of the US' late 2000s and early to mid 2010s unemployment is a result of cyclical unemployment. Structural unemployment, or the gap between the number of jobs available and the number of unemployed people. This unemployment is an issue with the overall equilibrium of the economy. You could argue that undocumented immigration increased the number of unemployed people, but this ignores the relatively high (and constantly high) employment rate of undocumented immigrants despite employer screening and comparatively little education. Counterintuitively, this rebuts your argument, as this suggests that the majority of undocumented immigrants are taking jobs that naturalised citizens simply don't want (http://www.npr.org...). If you don't believe me, or Adam Davidson, I direct you to this WSJ poll of 46 economists (http://online.wsj.com...). When asked the question 'Illegal immigrants often benefit businesses by filling low-wage jobs that are difficult to fill with Americans. But illegal immigrants can add to the costs of U.S. social programs. On balance, has the U.S. economy benefited more than it has been harmed by its current population of undocumented workers?', 96% responded 'It has benefited more than it has been harmed'. Argument (introdution/summarisation)My argument is that the net benefit of undocumented immigration is positive as-is. Immigration bolsters the economy & population growth rate. However, the majority of the (comparatively small) harm comes from incidentals, such as fear of government, that would be reduced were they naturalised citizens. Therefore, we should end deportation whilst providing a pathway to citizenship and less restrictive immigration laws.", "qid": "29", "docid": "112ac42d-2019-04-18T14:32:34Z-00002-000", "rank": 91, "score": 168368.0}, {"content": "Title: Border Fence Content: Thanks 32no. Here I go. I'm going to make an opening statement before I proceed. It is the U.S Federal Governments job to protect its citizens at all times, whether the threats are in our own country or from another country. This observation shows: The majority of our immigrants now sneak in through the \"back door\" that the federal government purposely leaves open. Thanks to the negligence of the federal government, far more people move into the United States illegally than come in through the legal immigration process. [1] So right now the U.S Federal Government is failing its job to protect, here's why: Point 1: Public Safety The U.S Federal Government has a job to fulfill which is (as I stated before) to protect its citizens, this obviously includes public protection. These statistics show: A substantial percentage of young illegal immigrants end up in gangs. U.S. authorities say that there are now over 1 million members of criminal gangs operating inside the United States. According to federal statistics, these 1 million gang members are responsible for up to 80% of the violent crimes committed in the U.S. each year. Latino gangs made up primarily of illegal aliens are responsible for much of this violence. According to the Center for Immigration Studies, some of the most notorious gangs in the country are made up almost entirely of illegal immigrants\u2026. \"Gang investigators in Virginia estimate that 90% of the members of MS-13, the most notorious immigrant gang, are illegal immigrants.\" [1] These statistics clearly show 1) How many gang members there are in the U.S 2) How much violence they are responsible for 3) A large percentage of these gangs are made up of illegal immigrants. If the U.S Federal Government doesn't build a Border Fence then it is not fulfilling its job of protecting its citizens from the public threat of illegal immigrant gangs. The Border Fence can prevent them from coming over or discourage a larger number of them coming over therefore reducing the amount of public danger from illegal immigrant gangs, and protecting its citizens. Point 2: Jobs Another job for the U.S Federal Government that falls under protecting its citizens is to ensure that they have jobs where they can work, earn money, and therefore support themselves. These statistics show: Illegal immigrants take jobs away from American citizens. According to a review of U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and Census Bureau data, legal and illegal immigrants gained over a million additional jobs between 2008 and 2010 even as millions of American citizens were losing their jobs during that same time period. It was estimated that there were approximately 7.7 million illegal aliens employed by U.S. employers during 2008. [1] These statistics clearly show how illegal immigrants take jobs that U.S Citizens need. The U.S Federal Government has an obligation to its own citizens first which is why we need to build this Border Fence to ensure that U.S Citizens have a better chance at getting a job. When we build the Border Fence we will have less Illegal Immigrants coming across the Border. This results in less jobs being taken by Illegal Immigrants and give American Citizens a better chance at getting jobs therefore the U.S Federal Government will be upholding its obligation. Point 3: Economy This is a BIG issue. To make sure our economy is stable falls under the U.S Federal Governments job to protect its citizens because the country needs money to function. These statistics show: Illegal immigrants generally don't pay taxes. The vast majority of illegal aliens would never even dream of paying income taxes, but Mexicans living in America send billions upon billions of dollars out of the United States and back to Mexico every single year. Although illegal aliens pay next to nothing in taxes, they have no problem receiving tens of billions of dollars worth of free education benefits, free health care benefits, free housing assistance and free food stamp benefits. Many communities in the United States now openly advertise that they will help illegal aliens with these things. The cost of educating the children of illegal immigrants is staggering. It is estimated that U.S. taxpayers spend $12,000,000,000 a year on primary and secondary school education for the children of illegal immigrants. Thanks to illegal immigration, California's overstretched health care system is on the verge of collapse. Dozens of California hospitals and emergency rooms have shut down over the last decade because they could not afford to stay open after being endlessly swamped by illegal immigrants who were simply not able to pay for the services that they were receiving. As a result, the remainder of the health care system in the state of California is now beyond overloaded. This had led to brutally long waits, diverted ambulances and even unnecessary patient deaths. Sadly, the state of California now ranks dead last out of all 50 states in the number of emergency rooms per million people. Each year, it costs the states billions of dollars to incarcerate illegal immigrant criminals that should have never been allowed into the country in the first place. It is estimated that illegal aliens make up approximately 30 percent of the population in federal, state and local prisons and that the total cost of incarcerating them is more than $1.6 billion annually. [1] These statistics clearly show how 1) These illegal immigrants are more than likely to send money back to Mexico than to spend in the United States and increase our economy. 2) Illegal Immigrants pay almost nothing in taxes and they receive tens of billions of dollars in benefits. 3) Taxpayers pay close to $12,000,000,000 just for Illegal Immigrant children to go to public school, AND as my earlier statistics show that these Illegal Immigrant children are more than likely to end up in gangs. 4) California now has less emergency rooms/hospitals to help U.S Citizens because there were so many Illegal Immigrants that couldn't pay and received health care benefits. 5) Tax Payers spend about 1,600,000,00 a year to incarcerate illegal immigrants. This causes our economy to shrink by a rather large amount and it isn't even going to our own citizens. Thanks for reading my arguments and I look forward to 32no's rebuttal. :) 1. http://www.infowars.com...", "qid": "29", "docid": "928a8d47-2019-04-18T18:32:03Z-00003-000", "rank": 92, "score": 168344.0}, {"content": "Title: Illegal aliens should not be given American citizenship at all Content: Good luck. What is an illegal alien, or for the sake of political correctness, undocumented alien? An illegal alien is either an individual who has entered the United States illegally and can be deported if apprehended or an individual who entered legally but has fallen \"out of status\" and can be deported [1]. Generally, there's nothing much different between a legal and illegal immigrant so immigrants, both legal and illegal, will be mentioned in the points below since if illegal aliens are given citizenship, they will become naturalized legal immigrants. I am going to address Hillary Clinton's position on illegal immigration. She supports a pathway to citizenship for all illegal aliens who have not committed crimes and deport only the \"individuals who pose a threat to public safety\" [2]. She also defends President Obama's executive action which allowed almost half of illegal aliens living in the country a \"temporary, quasi-legal status and work permits\" [3]. Currently, many reports estimate that there are about 11 million illegal aliens living in the United States. This may not be entirely accurate as not all of them participate in surveys and the numbers could be much higher. Hillary Clinton will ensure that many illegal aliens will be given a pathway to citizenship as long as they are not convicted of violent crimes. I argue that giving them a pathway to citizenship or legal status diminishes the rule of immigration laws, raises the fiscal deficit on the long run, keeps the American-born citizens and minorities employment rates and wages lower. I will also add that it will obscenely benefit the Democratic Party because only the Democratic Party has supported this immigration reform. My first argument is that the rule of immigration laws are diminished if we give a pathway to citizenship or legal status for illegal aliens. The laws [4] are clear: \"Any alien who at the time of entry or adjustment of status was within one or more of the classes of aliens inadmissible by the law existing at such time is deportable\" and \"Any alien who was admitted as a non immigrant and who has failed to maintain the non immigrant status in which the alien was admitted or to which it was changed under section 1258 of this title, or to comply with the conditions of any such status, is deportable. \" All of the illegal aliens are liable to deportation as the laws specify, whether committed a violent crime or not. There is no any other crevices into this and the laws do not state that paying fines or any of that sort is the punishment. Indeed, unlawful presence of an illegal alien is not a crime but a civil offense which has deportation as its punishment [5]. Some states like Arizona, however, describes the presence of illegal aliens as a crime. It's either the rule of immigration law is eradicated or deportation as a punishment. The former yields anarchic results as well as encouragement of illegal immigration. Even if we change the laws, they will not apply to the illegal aliens as they are bound to the former laws like the ones posted above. My second argument is that there will be an immense fiscal deficit if illegal aliens are given citizenship or legal status. This makes sense as all four types of government benefits will be open to them: direct benefits, mean-tested welfare benefits, public education, population based services. The Heritage Foundation report [6] states that college-educated households tend to be net tax contributors, paying taxes that exceed the amount of benefits they receive. A well-educated household pays $54,089 in taxes and receive $24,839 in benefits, leaving a fiscal surplus of $29,250. It is the exact opposite for poorly-educated households and they are net tax consumers. The amount of benefits they receive exceed the amount of taxes they pay. It is reported that a poorly-educated household pays $11, 049 in taxes and receives $46,582 in benefits, generating a fiscal deficit of $35,113. This piece of information is crucial because half of illegal aliens have not completed high school and a quarter only completed high school. Not to mention the Social Security and pension plans that will be available to them. The Heritage Foundation also reports that granting them amnesty will raise the lifetime fiscal deficit to $6.3 trillion in fifty years ($126 billion annually). A piece of information that should not be ignored is that moderate to low-income earners can receive EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit) and many illegal aliens are low-income earners, making them eligible if given pathway to citizenship or legal status. My third argument is that giving illegal aliens citizenship or legal status will keep the native-born and minority groups' employment rates and wages lower. Like what I wrote earlier, about 75-80% of illegal aliens have not received a college diploma and they either have high school diplomas or have not completed high school. This will make them more eligible for unskilled labour which do not require education. Businesses and companies are more likely to hire immigrants (both legal and illegal) because native-born less-skilled workers. which drags blue-collar jobs' wages down. Immigrants [7] depress the wages of blue-collar jobs between 1-3 percent but raise wages by 0.004% for less skilled native workers. Regarding the impact of giving legal status or citizenship to illegal aliens to the minorities, I will use a collection of reports [8] by the United States Commission on Civil Rights in which there are several findings:- 6 in 10 black males have a high school diploma or less - an individual who has a high school diploma or less earns less today than those of the same degree thirty-five years ago- illegal immigration increases the supply of low-skilled, low-wage labor available in the US labor market- illegal immigration tends to depress the wages and employment rates for low-skilled American citizens with black males forming a disproportionate number of themIt is also found by Professor Gordon Hanson's report that black high school dropouts' employment rate dropped massively from 72% in the 1960s to 42% in 2000s; white high school dropouts' employment rate also dropped significantly from 83% to 64%. He also questioned the notion that the lowering wages contribute to the black males quitting the job and turning to crime. His co-authored research suggested that in a 10% immigration-induced increase in labor markets is associated with a 4% decrease in black wages, 3.5% decrease in black employment rate and 0.8% increase in black incarceration rate. Final question is do immigrants (both legal and illegal) create jobs? The answer is yes, they do but most of the jobs they create are provided for other immigrants too. In other words, they take more jobs than they create. I will provide an example to show exactly what I mean. A fictional Chinese immigrant named Ms. Wong lives in a community where many first generation immigrants live in Los Angeles. Ms. Wong works as a hairdresser in a Chinese barber shop where a lot of her co-workers are also Chinese. After work, she goes to a Chinese grocery store and buys some noodles for dinner. On a weekend, she goes to a Chinese mall where she buys her clothes for a much cheaper price. All the places she goes to are owned by Chinese people that typically hires Chinese immigrants. Sure, she also helps the natives by subscribing on the Internet or visiting museums but she would need help from a Chinese speaker on translating the English words to her language. This will require one of the first to third generation immigrant on the job because from then on, fourth generation (or the native-born) is unlikely to grow up speaking the language. Now if we give citizenship to illegal aliens, it will obscenely benefit the Democratic Party. Why is this a bad thing? This is a bad thing because the party cannot even provide a reason why giving them citizenship will benefit Americans as well as deliberately ignoring the immigration laws in which all of the illegal aliens are bound. It is a perfect time to get rid of all illegal aliens and slow down the influx of legal immigrants for a balanced American society. SOURCES:[1] . https://www.irs.gov...[2] . http://uspolitics.about.com...[3] . http://immigration.about.com...[4] . https://www.law.cornell.edu...[5] . http://www.tolerance.org...[6] . http://www.heritage.org...[7] . https://www.washingtonpost.com...[8] . http://www.usccr.gov...", "qid": "29", "docid": "d82d8130-2019-04-18T12:53:53Z-00005-000", "rank": 93, "score": 168300.0}, {"content": "Title: should all illegal immigrants get amnesty Content: Possibly 40% came to US legally and are now here illegally for some. http://www.politifact.com... Also opponent has stated i didnt quite answer his question \"\"if all these illegal immigrants came into the United States legally, would you turn any away, and would you be supportive of them? I answered \"Many of the illegal immigrants that are here in this country did so by legal means example per visa. But those documentations have so expired and are willingly staying in this country illegally and knowingly. So no I do not support them being in this country when there documentations have expired and there now here illegally. To your otger statement of if all of the illegal immigrants were to becone us citizens then they would be able to pay taxes and more revenue for the government. Buf here is the thing majority of the illegal immigrants are below the poverty line. So realistically they would not pay taxes since they don't make enough to pay taxes or if they do pay tax it would be so miniscule that it wouldnt be noticed. Now if you are under the poverty line you wouldn't pay taxes or if you did it would be very small but the government would actually pay you more for refund then you would pay, if you are paying taxes. Depending on how many kids you have, if you have 4 children i think its betwen 10k-12k. Now that they are citizen it is open doors for all newpy us citizen to apply and get all of the welfare programs available to us citizens. This will sky rocket the us debt in order to sustain this level of cost deficiency. As per your statement of being humane. You don't see people giving away all of there assets or money for humane purpose they do what they can but there family comes first. I really dont have to much sympathy for the ones that came here breaking a FEDERAL LAW and ezpevting something back in return. Who i do have sympathy for are the ones trying to do the right thing and come here legally, but now is harder to the that because of the amount of illegals in this coubtry. Same concept us is drowning in debt and society is further crumbling and us is not coming or showing it is trying to climb out of the defecit but bury itself further. Also criminal activities by illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants are roughly 5% of the US population but cause 25% of crimes in the US. That is a staggering data for such a small portion of the US population. So if all illegal immigrants were deported rape, murder, robbery, and general crimes would drop 25%. http://www.citizensforlaws.org... A issue of amnesty is this will put a golden plate in peoples mindset. Is that i have a chance because of amnesty i can become a US citizen. This news will spread around the world and everyone will have the same idea. Come to the US you will be granted citizenship if your here long enough and it may become not 7-20 million but 20-60 million within a decade. Yes we both agree the system is broken. But putting more control over the borders, more patrol in the coast, and a better way to track the legal immigrants in this with deporting all of the illegal immigrants will be taxing in the beginning but as time progresses it will balance itself out. The defecit with social welfare will fall the schooling cost will fall and put more money into school books upgrades and possible teachers salary. That is what in my opinion a logical step. In other countries this is not an issue illegals found are deported back immediately, of uou have a child in some countries and they are under 7 they are not recognized as that countries citizen and deported back to the parents country (most cases its within the first year or at when the mother gave birth at the hospital to verify citizenship, and they are not given any welfare or help from the government. Since 1. They broke a law coming into the country illegally and technically a fugitive. 2. Not a citizen and only citizens of the country will be given priority. Which is why US is first choice they can get all of those for free. Come to US you can get free food free housing a new life government help.", "qid": "29", "docid": "188b21d7-2019-04-18T15:29:19Z-00003-000", "rank": 94, "score": 168094.0}, {"content": "Title: America should create a pathway to citizenship for illegal and other immigrants. Content: Illegal immigrants have moved into this country illegally. This represents a clear violation of US law. Although the bible may support illegal immigration(which I highly doubt), illegal immigration creates problems for the Federal government, and problems for the American people. Contention One-Social Aspect Illegal immigration causes an increase in prejudice against the Latino community. The American people are very insecure about the amount of jobs accessible. Illegal immigrants taking these jobs will only add weight to white supremacists' case against the Latino community. Racism only diminishes the idea of America as a world leader. Contention Two-Laws: We should not forget that illegal immigrants entered this country illegally. A continual violation of our laws will invite more people to do the same. Terrorists could take advantage of America's disregard for immigrant laws. Contention Three-Fairness Illegal immigrants are treated unfairly in America. They are taxed unfairly, and are abused by the companies they work for. This injustice should not continue. This injustice will continue, because federal law cannot protect illegal immigrants. Instead, the government should make an effort to bring these people in legally.", "qid": "29", "docid": "f40414eb-2019-04-18T11:51:17Z-00001-000", "rank": 95, "score": 168081.0}, {"content": "Title: Failing to remove illegal immigrants undermines public confidence in the government and its migratio... Content: Failing to remove illegal immigrants undermines public confidence in the government and its migration policy. People believe that allowing those who have no right to remain in the country to stay on means the whole immigration system is broken. Legitimate migrants such as refugees, students and those with visas for work will be lumped together with illegal immigrants, and calls will grow for all forms of migration to be restricted. Populist feeling may also be inflamed against ethnic minorities, with increased social tensions.", "qid": "29", "docid": "af83a7e2-2019-04-19T12:44:04Z-00017-000", "rank": 96, "score": 168053.0}, {"content": "Title: Loss of trust in the government Content: Failing to remove illegal immigrants undermines public confidence in the government and its migration policy. In the UK, opposition leader Ed Milliband has acknowledged that Labour had lost trust in the south by underestimating the number of illegal immigrants and the impact they would have on people's wages1. People believe that allowing those who have no right to remain in the country to stay on means the whole immigration system is broken. Legitimate migrants such as refugees, students and those with visas for work will be lumped together with illegal immigrants, and calls will grow for all forms of migration to be restricted. Populist feeling may also be inflamed against ethnic minorities, with increased social tensions. 1 BBC News, 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13133544", "qid": "29", "docid": "88b57bbb-2019-04-15T20:22:55Z-00016-000", "rank": 97, "score": 167911.0}, {"content": "Title: Illegal Aliens Content: That's fine. I'll just give a quick rebuttal and summarize. \"I will not stand still while illegal immigrants invade the United States of America consuming our resources, taking our jobs,\" --These illegal immigrants are primarily employed in jobs that the average, self-respecting American would never want to do. They often do the menial labor that the rest of society doesn't want to do, so the fact that they are taking these jobs is actually a good thing, because it means the legal citizens of America don't have to. \"setting our flags ablaze, disrespecting our nation,\" --Why would they disrespect our nation? They come here looking for a better life. America comes as a blessing. They have no reason to set out flags ablaze. Rather, it's primarily the legal citizens who disrespect our nation, talking smack about presidents past and present, whing about everything our government does, and taking everything handed to them for granted. The average illegal immigrant probably has far more respect for America than your average citizen. \"murdering our citizens, and using our tax dollars.\" --I don't see why they would commit murder at a rate any higher than your average John Doe American citizen, absent CON's blind assertion. I would also argue that they benefit us, rather than detriment us. As stated above, they take jobs that most Americans don't want, and further, they work for under minimum wage, which gives locally owned businesses the ability to compete with foreign companies. Any minor use of our tax dollars (how do they use our tax dollars, anyway?) is certainly more than recompensed by their hard work in bolstering our economy. --- These illegal immigrants are just as human, and just as deserving of respect, as anyone else in America. CON's assertions are not only unwarranted and most likely false, but ignore the humanity of illegal immigrants. He treats them as no more than an economic issue (do they bolster the economy, or don't they?) rather than treating them as humans deserving of respect. That is why I am PRO for \"Resolved: Illegal Aliens.\"", "qid": "29", "docid": "2bb12d9b-2019-04-18T19:16:06Z-00000-000", "rank": 98, "score": 167790.0}, {"content": "Title: America should support blanket amnesty for illegal immigrants. Content: Illegal immigrants should not be granted amnesty because it would skyrocket the financial strain on social services. According to the Center for Immigration Studies, 57% of both legal and illegal immigrant homes are receiving the benefits of at least one welfare program (\"Is it\"Illegal Immigrants?\"). If granted amnesty, illegal immigrants would become eligible for full benefits and the burden on legal, taxpaying citizens would increase drastically. In addition, businesses, especially if banned from outsourcing, will turn to the equally as detrimental technique of \"in-sourcing,\" or hiring illegal aliens in the U.S. Although the Senate is demanding that employers prove that American workers are \"unwilling or unavailable\" to take these jobs before they hire illegal immigrants, they will find ways around the law in order to make the most profit at the least expense by hiring cheap labor (\"Is It\"Illegal Immigrants?\"). For these reasons, only legal immigration should be supported in the United States. Works Cited \"Is it a Bad Idea to Legalize the Illegal Immigrants?\" Illegal Immigration Statistics. 2013. Web. 14 October 2013. http://www.illegalimmigrationstatistics.org....", "qid": "29", "docid": "cd8abfbd-2019-04-18T17:04:37Z-00007-000", "rank": 99, "score": 167653.0}, {"content": "Title: America should support blanket amnesty for illegal immigrants. Content: Illegal immigrants should not be granted amnesty because it would skyrocket the financial strain on social services. According to the Center for Immigration Studies, 57% of both legal and illegal immigrant homes are receiving the benefits of at least one welfare program (\"Is it\"Illegal Immigrants?\"). If granted amnesty, illegal immigrants would become eligible for full benefits and the burden on legal, taxpaying citizens would increase drastically. In addition, businesses, especially if banned from outsourcing, will turn to the equally as detrimental technique of \"in-sourcing,\" or hiring illegal aliens in the U.S. Although the Senate is demanding that employers prove that American workers are \"unwilling or unavailable\" to take these jobs before they hire illegal immigrants, they will find ways around the law in order to make the most profit at the least expense by hiring cheap labor (\"Is It\"Illegal Immigrants?\"). For these reasons, only legal immigration should be supported in the United States. Works Cited \"Is it a Bad Idea to Legalize the Illegal Immigrants?\" Illegal Immigration Statistics. 2013. Web. 14 October 2013. http://www.illegalimmigrationstatistics.org.......", "qid": "29", "docid": "cd8abfdc-2019-04-18T17:04:45Z-00009-000", "rank": 100, "score": 167653.0}]}
{"query": "Should adults have the right to carry a concealed handgun?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: Adults, without violence related felonies, should have the right to carry a concealed firearm. Content: To start out carrying a concealed handgun in public is permitted in all 50 states as of 2013, when Illinois became the last state to enact concealed carry legislation. Some states require gun owners to obtain permits while others have \"unrestricted carry\" and do not require permits. Proponents of concealed carry say that criminals are less likely to attack someone they believe to be armed. They cite the 2nd Amendment's \"right of the people to keep and bear arms,\" and argue that most adults who legally carry a concealed gun are law-abiding and do not misuse their firearms. Opponents of concealed carry argue that increased gun ownership leads to more gun crime and unintended gun injuries. They contend that concealed handguns increase the chances of arguments becoming lethal, and that society would be safer with fewer guns on the street, not more. The only state/district in the USA that prohibits carrying and concealing firearms (Washington DC) has more than double the highest violent crime rate in the US. This does not include American Samoa and the north Mariana islands. SOURCES:/ http://www.usacarry.com... https://www.census.gov...", "qid": "30", "docid": "9f12e0e6-2019-04-18T15:26:02Z-00003-000", "rank": 1, "score": 251905.0}, {"content": "Title: Right to carry a firearm should be allowed in all 50 states because it reduces crime Content: First off, my opponent offers a definition of right to carry: \"mean the ability to have a concealed firearm on said persons in public areas. \" I concede to this definition and would like to have it now noted that the affirmation has to abide in this definition in evidence and arguements. Example of Campus allowing concealed carry, and then not allowing concealed carry. Board Chairman Patrick McConathy explained the board's decision to disarm all law abiding adults on campus by stating that the \"members of the CSU system board believe this is a reasonable, rational and responsible decision for our system. \" The International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators agreed, stating \"there is no credible statistical evidence demonstrating that laws allowing the carrying of concealed firearms reduce crime. \" My opponent suggests that if, in referrence to the Columbine Shooting, people were armed there could have been a halt to the shootings. We actually do not know this. In an experiment by 20/20, selected students from a college were chosen to take part. The students, varying from age, fire-arm training, and ethnicity were given a pistol loaded with paintballs and told to sit in a lecture hall with other students listening to a class session. (Note, one at a time these students were tested). The subjects were told that they would need to use a gun to defend themselves, but not when. When the attackers barged through the door, none of the subjects could kill or even down the intruder before being shot and killed. This experiment suggests that even if people were armed at the Columbine Shooting, they could never recieve the training needed to act accordingly in a life or death situation. My opponent mentions earlier that I neglected that he stated, \"with correct instruction\". However, as I have shown, one can never fully prepare themselves in life or death cases such as this. Even then, you can't expect the instructee to pay full attention. Example, driver liscenses. Teenagers are required to take a test and go through training, but why do teenagers make up the most of the car crashes that are reported in the United States? Because you can not fully know what the intentions are of a person when they want to get something. My opponent provides this as evidence. \"Florida enacted a right to carry law in 1987, these are the statistics of crimes rates in Florida to the rest of United States from 1987 to 1997 Homicide rate dropped 36% in Florida and went down .4% as United states as a whole. Firearm Homicide rate dropped 37% and went up 15% as a nation. Handgun Homicide rate dropped 41 & and went up 24% as a nation. 1998 NRA Fact Card. \" Viewed in January of 1999 on the National Rifle Association web site, . http://www.nra.org...; I would like to ask first off, is this a concealed carry law? I can't affirm that because the source my opponent provided is blocked on my webbrowser. Second off, in order for this to work in favor of my opponents case, it must be assumed that every number in this piece of evidence is in direct correllation with the Right to Carry Law enacted by Florida in 1987. With that aside, notice these pieces of statistics that contradict my opponents case: \"Firearm Homicide rate dropped 37% and went up 15% as a nation. Handgun Homicide rate dropped 41 & and went up 24% as a nation. \" As a result of the Right to Carry Law, Firearm Homicide went up 15% as a nation? Handgun Homicide up 24%? The increase of homicides in these areas, which relate to the resolution, show that because of this Law, homicides went up. The increase of homicides in 49 states, far outweighs the decrease in 1. \"If you believe that giving a gun to some one to carry might cause crime rates to go up then, from 1987 to 1999 221443 right to carry permits where given out, out of those 220000 plus people only 18 crimes where committed by these persons. \" (Lott, John R. Jr. and Mustard, David B. \"Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns. \" University of Chicago School of Law, 7/26/96. ) I would like to note that there is a fallacy within this piece of evidence listed above. If this evidence came from the source posted after it, then it is not credible. The book was written in 7/26/96, so the year 1996. The evidence notes that it incorporates statistics from 1987 to 1999. Because this is an obvious contradiction, unless I am mistaken, this piece of evidence is not credible and can not be used. I will now state my opinion. It is the job of the government to protect our rights. To protect our natural rights. How is this justified if the government allows all of the nation to carry weapons? How safe will our society feel then? It is the obligation of the people to give up a portion of their freedom so that they can have the government protect their rights. Examples of this are the United States Navy, Army, Airforce, State Police, and County Police. By advocating for concealed weapon carry, one is saying that the government is not doing their job in protecting the rights of America. What would the need of a sheriff be, if every person in town carried a weapon. It would not turn our country into a safe haven. Likewise, concealed carry laws would create tension among everyone. My opponent advocates concealed carry. It can be the will of the negation to propose a better fitting solution. Since concealed carry is extremely unreasonable, I advocate for the allowing of weapons to be allowed in houses, but not concealed carry. I believe that in this respect, no one feels tension of being shot in public, because the guns are in the houses. I believe that this is a more suitable explanation of how it can reduce crime better than concealed carry. =Experiment= 20/20 provided another experiment. They sent one of their correspondents into a gun show, with no gun liscence and a set budget. Within a few hours, the man had purchased several firearms, without ever being asked for his liscence. This shows that if someone wanted a gun, they could get a gun. Concealed carry will inevitably create a negative effect and cause tension among people, it will also allow people with hurtful intentions to easily aquire a firearm. I understand that I have not posted any sources, aside from 20/20. That is because my computer has blocked every website that has to do with guns. I have disproved one of my opponents sources, which should hurt his credibility somewhat. For these reasons and many others, I still stand in firm negation of the resolution.", "qid": "30", "docid": "45d4a2d5-2019-04-18T19:14:31Z-00002-000", "rank": 2, "score": 246202.0}, {"content": "Title: Adults, without violence related felonies, should have the right to carry a concealed firearm. Content: There are an infinite amount of scenarios that could go wrong. Just because something can go wrong does not mean that it will. You can not say that something should not happen simply because it could go wrong, unless there is proof that it will go wrong more times than not, which is not the case. 30-34% (70-80 million people) of adult Americans in the USA admitted to owning and regularly carrying a gun at some point. 4,346 murders were committed with a legally owned firearm in 2010. .0054% of the murders were committed by legal gun owners That is not anywhere close to a problem. That is like saying gasoline should be controlled and only kept available to certain qualified people because there are arsonists that will uses the gasoline to start fires potentially killing people. Qualified citizens having guns is not just a right but the opposite of a problem. Taking away the right to keep and bear arms will only cause more crimes to be committed. People will start illegally importing guns at much more of a vast rate and continue selling them to everyone including murderers or people who should not own guns. Statistics show that when gun control is implemented violent crimes increase. Example: Washington DC Sources: http://gunvictimsaction.org... http://www.justfacts.com...", "qid": "30", "docid": "9f12e0e6-2019-04-18T15:26:02Z-00001-000", "rank": 3, "score": 239847.0}, {"content": "Title: Adults, without violence related felonies, should have the right to carry a concealed firearm. Content: I see what you're saying, but even if they don't have violence related felonies, they could still do damage. They could use that concealed fire arm that they carry, to force someone to do something, to scare someone or even get carried away with that power. Sure criminals might be less likely to attack the person with the gun, if they knew it was there, and even if they don't know that it's there they might take it from the gun owner. And if the gun owner actually got to the point where he had to use it, most likely it would go wrong. Police take weeks, maybe even months to train with their guns, while gun owners usually train for a day or two. Also what would happen if that gun went off accidentally? Someone or some people could be seriously injured or worse killed. Leave the gun handling to the professionals. This is why I believe that Adults, without violence related felonies, should not have the right to carry a concealed firearm. Sources: http://concealedcampus.org...", "qid": "30", "docid": "9f12e0e6-2019-04-18T15:26:02Z-00002-000", "rank": 4, "score": 239182.0}, {"content": "Title: Adults, without violence related felonies, should have the right to carry a concealed firearm. Content: Honestly you really can't compare gasoline to a firearm. For an arsonist it takes a longer time to kill someone, but for a murderer it's just hit and boom the person's seriously injured or dead. Plus to be an arsonist you have to place the gasoline, which plenty of people can see them while they do it. The fact that we can't prove that something will or will not happen, scares people. When people are scared or worried, we do what seems right and to people, banning firearms is the right thing to do. Washington DC is where the president lives, not everyone likes the president. Which can lead to higher violent crimes, people trying to kill the president, people just showing their hatred, and etc. The .0054% of murderers that were committed by legal gun owners, is a problem. People still have to watch their backs where ever they go, they have to wonder: Does that guy have a gun I can't see? Will he kill people? What if he does? It is a huge problem!", "qid": "30", "docid": "9f12e0e6-2019-04-18T15:26:02Z-00000-000", "rank": 5, "score": 235130.0}, {"content": "Title: Right to carry arms Content: I, being the pro,am going to affirm the resolution and prove why people should be allowed to carry arms. I will ask that voters cast their vote in this round based on who debates the resolution better and not based on your own personal decisions. Keep in mind that I have no strong views on either side, but want to practise my debating skills. Thanks! In this debate, I am going to prove to you why adult individuals should have the right to carry a concealed handgun. On to my case - I wish to offer 2 points in this round to show that the decision to make carrying arms in the US a legal right was a good one. Firstly, Criminals are less likely to attack someone that they believe might be armed. The deterrent effect of concealed carry benefits the individual carrying a handgun as well as the general public because criminals never know who is armed. With the right to carry arms in place, the general public can move around the country without having to worry about criminals, and areas that generally contain a lot of people who commit crimes. This is further proved by the fact that, according to a study by Dr. John Lott, \"shall-issue\" laws have reduced homicides by 8.5%, aggravated assaults by 7%, and robberies by 3%. Lott argued that if states that did not permit concealed handguns in 1992 had permitted them in 1977, 1570 murders, 60,000 aggravated assaults, and 12,000 robberies would have been prevented between 1977 and 1992. These figures may seem insignificant at first, but when you're part of one the 1,570 families who lost someone they loved, it suddenly matters a WHOLE lot more. Secondly, One of the arguments against giving the right to carry arms to adults is that the public isn't ready to handle the responsibility of a gun, and that they might take to shooting and use the tool made for self-defence to harm other innocent civilians, but, most of the adults who own concealed handguns are law abiding. This is proved by the fact that according to a report by engineering statistician William Sturdevant published on the Texas Concealed Handgun Association website, the general public is now 5.7 times less likely to be arrested for violent offenses, and 13.5 times less likely to be arrested for non-violent offenses, in comparison to before. This, therefore, refutes any argument about the public not being able to handle the responsibilities of a gun. I now give the (online)stage to my opponent, and wish him/her good luck.", "qid": "30", "docid": "be1c3672-2019-04-18T17:22:56Z-00004-000", "rank": 6, "score": 234853.0}, {"content": "Title: The the right to carry concealed semi-automatic weapons should not be infringed. Content: I accept, and look forward to this debate. Just so no time is wasted in asking for clarifications in the first and second rounds, could you please be very specific on terms of importance. For instance \"infringed.\" Thank you!", "qid": "30", "docid": "dedbd50d-2019-04-18T15:09:04Z-00004-000", "rank": 7, "score": 208322.0}, {"content": "Title: Right to carry a firearm should be allowed in all 50 states because it reduces crime Content: I would like to begin by clarifying three issues within this debate, no matter how important they are. (1) If you believe that giving a gun to some one to carry might cause crime rates to go up then, from 1987 to 1999 221443 right to carry permits where given out, out of those 220000 plus people only 18 crimes where committed by these persons. (Lott, John R. Jr. and Mustard, David B. \"Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns.\" University of Chicago School of Law, 7/26/96.) Posted by my opponent. At first notice this suggests that it is a statistic of the nation of the United States. But to clarify, it only deals with Florida, \"* 221,443 concealed carry licenses were issued in Florida between October of 1987 and April of 1994. During that time, Florida recorded 18 crimes committed by licensees with firearms. \" http://www.justfacts.com... Notice that it also seems that my opponent has altered the statistic, stating from 1987 to 1999. But when the actual evidence is looked at from its source you can see that it says 1987 to 1994. My opponent states that it could have possible been a human error, but we can't know for sure. (2) \"Also what my opponent either doesn't know who has not acknowledged yet is that by me arguing for conceal and carry in all 50 states I am really only arguing for conceal and carry to be legal in Illinois and Wisconsin, because those are the only two states in the entire United States that do not have some form of conceal carry.\" My opponent must be referring to the map shown below in the link. http://www.wmsa.net... However, this map states that there are 65.7% of the US population lives in \"Right To Carry\" (Vermont, Alaska & 37 \"Shall Issue\") states, 28.1% in \"Right Restricted\" (9 \"May Issue\") states, and 6.3% in \"Right Denied\" (2) states. This means that 11 states may or can't issue right to carry laws. That means he is also arguing for these 11 states. I believe that my opponent has also not given examples of why these specific states would benefit. I have provided enough evidence to at least discredit my opponents source about Florida and shown that it can also be used both ways. (3) \"If a trained police officer barges into a room, knowing exactly where the \"test subjects\" where seating there would be little anyone could do. How do I know this, well if you watch the case study you see that the trained police officer goes into room gun drawn and goes after no one else but the \"test subject\". It would also be very hard to defend yourself if you where wearing baggy pants and do not have you firearm in a holster like logic would presume for just such situation, I forgot to mention the over sized white tee-shirt you are wearing.\" My opponent has correctly identified the experiment I have cited. However, the test subject was not the first fired at; in fact, he had ample time to unholster his weapon and fire the weapon. The attacker was trained (for safety reasons of course) and fired first at the lecturer of the class, then took a while to spot the person in the crowd with the weapon. As for clothing, you can't expect every kid in the room with a concealed weapon to wear his shirt tucked in and have \"non-baggy\" pants. As for a side note, a couple of the test subjects actually missed the attacker when shooting and hit one of the people running out the door behind him. This shows that, just like a police officer, you need years of training to become accurate enough to shoot at someone that is standing in front of a crowd of people. So, after clarifying this aspect, it is safe to assume that this experiment accurately portrayed what would happen if concealed carry was allowed in colleges. =General Refutations to my Opponents Arguements= ((1)) My opponent mentions that I have not provided any evidence showing that teenage drivers are the leading factor of car accidents. Well here, \"Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for teenagers. \" Along with more evidence to support this claim. http://www.rmiia.org... ((2)) As for the controversy over Florida. I did not specifically say that the statistic does not help your case. I implied that it could also be turned around and used for mine. He states that if everyone had Florida's same laws on concealed weapons, what would suggest that Homicide rates would continue to increase throughout the nation. However, my opponent has said that the laws of all states regarding concealed carry vary greatly. He condradicts himself and tries to create a theory that all states will have the same law, and therefore homicide rates will decrease, but as he has already stated, \"but it is very hard to tell difference between the to due to the fact that everystate has different firearm laws\" As a side note, I believe my spelling and grammar constitutes a point for me. Had to state that somewhere. ((3)) I have also shown that my opponent may have altered evidence, to which he replied, \"\"As for my \"falsified facts\", I would like to suggest the human error of typo\"\". This is a very vague rebuttal to something to which he simply could of said, \"I made a mistake\". Instead he wishes to suggest that he did it, but does not take a stand. ((4)) I brought up my opinion of why concealed carry was wrong. My opinion no needed facts. I had expected to hear some of my opponents opinion. Instead he insists on copying and pasting evidence from other sites and draws blatant conclusions on them. He states, \"My opponent states that it is the job of the government to protect our rights, but what about our lives?\" I believe the natural rights of every citizen still stands to be the Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. So to answer your question, I meant all three of these when mentioning rights of citizens of a government. I would like to ask some rhetorical questions which will hopefully have an impact on the readers judging decision. ;) Is it not one of the foundations of our government to uphold and protect it's citizens rights? Is it not the job of the State police and County police to serve and protect us as a people? Don't these State police and County police have years of experience which allow them to become one of our protectors? Why should we then, pass on the job of a professional policeman, to each citizen's of the United States? Why allow the use of a life or death weapon, to be placed within a human's hands which is capable of destroying lives? The answer is, we shouldn't. Because I have provided thoughtful insight and evidence to support my side of the resolution, I urge a negative vote.", "qid": "30", "docid": "45d4a2d5-2019-04-18T19:14:31Z-00000-000", "rank": 8, "score": 207840.0}, {"content": "Title: The the right to carry concealed semi-automatic weapons should not be infringed. Content: For clarification, we are not talking about inside secured government property, or the right of property owners to disallow weapons on their property.", "qid": "30", "docid": "dedbd50d-2019-04-18T15:09:04Z-00005-000", "rank": 9, "score": 204175.0}, {"content": "Title: Right to carry arms Content: Being Side Con, I wish to counter my opponent\"s claim that private citizens should be allowed to carry firearms. I concur with my opponent\"s criterion for judging this debate and ask all voters to not consider any outside information not explicitly brought up in the debate or the sources. That being said, Side Con\"s three contentions are as follows: 1. Concealed firearm use leads to lethal violent crime. 2. Concealed firearms easily find their way into the hands of convicted felons. 3. Concealed firearms are not adequate self-defense. Contention 1: Concealed firearms lead to lethal violent crime. The NRA loves telling the public stories of heroic storeowners hiding guns in their desks, successfully taking down thieves and various other assailants with lethal or non-lethal blows. Concealed firearms are thus portrayed as saviors. The NRA, however, does not tell every story. Meet Philip Davis, an Alabama police officer on duty on December 3rd, 2009. Davis pulls over pharmacist Bart Johnson for speeding. As Davis gave Johnson his ticket, Johnson \"fired one shot\" (1) from a concealed firearm, killing Davis instantly. Johnson had \"obtained a concealed weapons permit in 2007,\" a permit he had renewed in 2009. Davis is one of 516 people killed by individuals with concealed weapons, weapons legally concealed (2). Looking at an even broader scale, we find an alarming amount of violence arising from handgun use. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, handguns were the weapons used in 70% to 80% of all homicides committed from 1993 to 2011 (3). Using the lower number, 70%, we can therefore estimate criminals killed 148,676 people with handguns. And this does not include non-lethal shootings, nor the violence of the past year. Considering the weapons themselves, we find a very dangerous prospect: handguns are exceedingly easy to use. This is not to say a knife or a baseball bat cannot be deadly, but a semi-automatic handgun has a greater range and ease of use than either. All one needs to do is pull back a safety and pull the trigger repeatedly. Furthermore, the clip size of handguns can lead to multiple deaths in mere seconds. An AR-24 Armalite 9mm pistol has a 15 magazine; assuming the gun-wielder is a poor marksman, needing two shots to kill someone, he/she could still take out 7 people (4). So how does this link to the resolution? Quite simply, as useful as concealed firearms seem for self-defense, they are definitely used for criminal, homicidal purposes. They are a threat to public safety. And though some lives have been saved by handguns, just as many, if not more, have been lost. Contention 2: Concealed firearms easily find their way into the hands of convicted felons. Most would not have a problem with law-abiding citizens owning a concealed handgun. Yet, often times, the handgun user is NOT a law-abiding citizen, but a convicted criminal regaining his/her gun rights. Several states, such as Washington and Cleveland, allow released felons to regain their gun rights as long as minimal requirements have been met. Since 1995, 3,300 convicted felons in Washington have regained their gun rights (5). 13% of these felons have engaged in further criminal activity with these firearms including first-degree murder, drive-by-shootings, and child rape. The process barring these individuals from acquiring firearms is atrocious. Aside from those felons incarcerated for first-degree murder and other such crimes, \"judges have no discretion to reject petitions\" (5) for criminals regaining their gun rights. The federal government can do little to stop this gun proliferation; due to the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, the federal government must leave gun restoration policy to the states. And, as we've seen, many of them are not doing good jobs. Contention 3: Concealed firearms are not adequate self-defense As this contention clashes directly with my opponent\"s first contention, this suffices to rebut his argument. First, we must realize guns are rarely used for self-defense. The NRA claims guns have been used to stop approximately 2.5 million crimes a year; analysis by the National Crime Victimization survey actually finds handguns are used for self-defense a mere 67,470 a year. In 2010 alone, there were 8,275 firearms based homicides, as compared to 230 justifiable self-defense homicides (6). My opponent brings up an alleged deterrent effect, as \"criminals never know who is armed.\" There are a few problems with this analysis. First off, an exposed firearm is far more intimidating than a concealed one. If anyone saw someone with a Glock strapped to his/her ankle, they would likely stay away. Second, this analysis assumes every criminal will make the logical step, assuming anyone might have a gun. This is far from likely. If a criminal is mentally ill, he is not likely to take this logical step. The same applies to a criminal addicted to malevolent substances, such as PCP. This also ignores criminal desperation; if a criminal needs the money to satisfy a drug addiction, or even to put bread on the table, he will disregard the possibility of any random person having a gun. Finally, my opponent cites the research of Dr. John Lott, a \"shall-issue\" law enthusiast whose research is often cited by pro-gun advocates. Yet there are flaws in Lott\"s analysis as well. We must consider the possibility of a conflict of interest, as Lott\"s research was funded by the Olin Foundation, a subsidiary of the Olin Corporation, one of the largest gun manufacturers in the country. Secondly, Lott based his theories on econometric data points, rather than psychological data taken from case studies, surveys, and experiments with criminals; the latter data is far more compelling. Even if we look at the study itself, a revised data set of Lott\"s study indicated the effect of \"right-to-carry laws\" had no statistical significance (7) on violent crime. Thus, this change was due to factors beyond the controls established by Lott\"s analysis. Finally, concealed handguns have limited stopping power and poor accuracy in the hands of an untrained marksman. The entry and exit wound on handguns is smaller than for other weapons. Most don\"t have a scope.. Even gun advocate Chris Bird notes a handgun is \"the least effective fire-arm for self-defense\" (8). Since these weapons are so rarely used for self-defense, rarely deter criminals, and are poor self-defense items in the first place, right to carry laws are not the best way to promote public safety. With this in mind, I would like to refute my opponent\"s other argument, his second contention; Pro Contention 2: The public isn't ready to handle gun responsibility. I will keep this refutation brief for sake of clash in other rounds, but the main issue with my opponent's argument is a false correlation. Not only does correlation not assume causation, but the statistics my opponent asserts may not even have to deal with gun responsibility. The statistics only suggest people are less likely to be arrested for violent crime. This does not mean people are \"better\" or \"more responsible.\" Dozens of other factors come into play. The recent economic crisis (thus limiting funds to purchase guns), the possibility of increased law enforcement, or decreases in drug abuse could all be responsible for this trend. The confounding variables severely hamper the validity of these statistics. With that, I close the first round. Thank you, and good luck. 1. http://www.vpc.org... 2. http://www.vpc.org... 3. http://www.bjs.gov... 4. http://www.armalite.com... 5. http://www.nytimes.com... 6. http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com... 7. http://www.nap.edu... 8. http://www.nap.edu...", "qid": "30", "docid": "be1c3672-2019-04-18T17:22:56Z-00003-000", "rank": 10, "score": 200773.0}, {"content": "Title: Concealed carry adequately protects right to bear arms. Content: The right to bear arms is fully protected with concealed carry laws. The US Constitution does not specify what guns and what types of carrying methods should be lawful. It specifies only that \"bearing\" is a right. A restriction that disallows open carrying and allows concealed carrying is, therefore, fully consistent with the US Constitution's right to bear arms.", "qid": "30", "docid": "219f521f-2019-04-17T11:47:23Z-00050-000", "rank": 11, "score": 200492.0}, {"content": "Title: The individual should not have the right to possess a firearm. Content: Firstly I would like to respond directly to some of Con's claims and statistics, which I believe are misleading, to put it kindly. To begin with, I have to immediately counter Con's claim that the 31 states that allow concealed carry on firearms have a 24% lower violent crime rate etc. There are actually 48 states which have laws which allow the concealed carrying of firearms of one sort or another. Con also claims that the homicide rate increased once laws against handguns came into effect. This is being extremely selective with the figures he chooses to publish to support his argument. Homicide actually decreased equally in a number of areas which had no lifting of any bans (maryland, fairfax VA to give but two examples). http://www.texasguntalk.com... I put forward that there was no relation between the lifting of the band and the decrease in homicides. This is merely con being selective with figures. The example of EnglandYou have given example of England where you say an increasin gun control has constantly led to an increase in crimes. I refute this as being untrue. However if you look at the difference in gun crime statistics, you will find that gun crime in the USA is several times more common than England and the UK in general (as an example I gave in my opening argument demonstrates). Guns laws deprive citizens of guns for self-defenceGun laws also provide potential criminals with arms. They make potential murderers of people. Con is defending the right to bear firearms in general, not merely handguns. The idea that a citizen has the need for an AK47 or a Sweeper (which are both legal in many states) is simply ridiculous. AccidentsI can't criticise the supposed 'security' the legality of private ownership of guns is supposed to bring without drawing on another statistic. Each year 10,000 people in the USA alone are involved in 'gun accidents'. http://www.buzzle.com... When you consider guns are only used in approx 60,000 of 'defense' incidents each year added with the many crimes committed as a result of being able to access guns (which number in the 10's of thousands also per annum), it strikes me as obvious that guns result in more danger for the individual than security. Finally, I would like to contest that 'guns are used for protection annually 5 timesore than they are to commit crimes. Con hasn't provided a source to base this claim that I can scrutinise, but this strikes me as most probably nonsense.", "qid": "30", "docid": "8dfe56c7-2019-04-18T18:49:50Z-00002-000", "rank": 12, "score": 200213.0}, {"content": "Title: All law-abiding adult citizens should have gun rights. Content: Since the instigator has made this debate five rounds, I would like to institute an organized round structure. Round 1: Acceptance/Greetings/Rules/WhatevsRound 2: Opening Arguments (Neither opponent can respond to what is said in Round 2)Round 3: Rebuttals of Opening ArgumentsRound 4: Counter-Rebuttals/Defend Opening ArgumentsRound 5: Concluding remarks (no new evidence or arguments, merely conclude what has already been said. I will be arguing in this debate that The United States should institute a nationwide gun ban of all firearms, meaning that no citizen is allowed to possess a firearm of any kind (handgun, rifle, assualt rifle, shotgun, all of them) except for Law Enforcement and Military (SWAT Team, Police, Secret Service, FBI, CIA, Navy, Airforce, Army, etc. )The United States would institute this law and all citizens would be required to travel to a government building in which they will hand over their firearms to government officials. They will have a grace period of a couple months in which they must find the time to do so. After the grace period is over, any citizen found possessing a firearm will have their firearm repossessed and serve jail time. The United States would dispose of the firearms by disabling them, via incineration, dismantlement, etc. Since this debate is on whether or not the US should have gun rights, we should make this debate less about the whether all guns would be banned, or whether the law could be passed, we should make this about whether it should be banned. Thank you and I look forward to my opponent\u2019s arguments.", "qid": "30", "docid": "1e59290-2019-04-18T14:16:42Z-00008-000", "rank": 13, "score": 198153.0}, {"content": "Title: There should be no controls on private trade and use of small arms Content: 1: all \"small arms\", http://dictionary.reference.com... anything an average adult male can carry on his person. The description is usually limited to revolvers, pistols, submachine guns, carbines, assault rifles, battle rifles, multiple barrel firearms, sniper rifles, squad automatic weapons, light machine guns, and sometimes hand grenades. Shotguns, general purpose machine guns, medium machine guns, and grenade launchers may be considered small arms or as support weapons, depending on the particular armed forces. 2: this implies there should be no controls on guns unless said guns / arms are used to harm people criminally. 3: I will defend self defense as inherent and universal and the right to bear arms as part of our inherent right to defense. 4: The BATFE in u.s., the senate, any group that makes or enforces laws regarding firearms. And I am referring for the purposes of this debate to u.s. adults, even tho i live in Canada. Also, less technicality, more debatey. ....", "qid": "30", "docid": "1dfc3384-2019-04-18T18:40:31Z-00004-000", "rank": 14, "score": 197588.0}, {"content": "Title: Right to carry arms Content: As my opponent forfeited the previous round, the final round of debate, it is my job to formally end this debate. Since this is the final speech of the round, I would like to condense all the issues in this debate into two central questions. 1. Do concealed handguns deter criminals from crime? 2. Do concealed handguns save more people than they kill? On Side Con, I proudly believe the answer to both questions is NO; Side Con has a clear COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE on both of these issues. With that in mind, let\"s examine the first question: 1. Do concealed handguns deter criminals from crime? As my opponent brought up in his first speech, \"Criminals are less likely to attack someone that they believe might be armed.\" The logic is simple: \"if anyone could have a gun, then I shouldn\"t attack anyone for fear he/she might pull a gun on me.\" The Instigator then defended this point with studies from Dr. John Lott. Yet, as we saw in my previous two speeches, my opponent\"s logic does not hold up. First and foremost, Dr. John Lott\"s studies have been found invalid due to a lack of statistical significance. The findings he had could have just as easily arisen from pure luck due to a large number of confounding variables in his study. The controversy behind the funding of his research is only a cherry on top. Furthermore, my opponent did not adequately respond to arguments put forth in the 1st and 2nd Con speech: openly shown firearms are a far more effective deterrent. Once again, whom would you rather rob? The old lady who might have a gun or the old lady who has a gun? The answer is clear. My opponent also ignores the psychological elements of crime, such as criminal desperation and drug addiction. Many won\"t make the logical leaps my opponent assumes they will. The conclusion is simple. In a shall-issue law world, there will still be muggings, rapes, and murders. There are better, safer alternatives to this scenario my opponent failed to refute. With this in mind, we can safely say the answer to this first question is NO, favoring Side Con. 2. Do concealed handguns save more people than they kill? There has been a slight back-and-forth over this issue over the course of debate. Yet, looking over the previous two speeches, Con definitively emerged triumphant. The comparisons Side Pro made in Round 2 between the VPC and David Burnett were not \"apples-to-apples\" comparisons, as noted in Side Con\"s Round 2 speech. To this day, individuals with legal concealed weapons permits kill citizens across the country. Such records are often incomplete, as not all crimes are reported. People such as Philip Davis have no chance to flee, giving the ease of use of a concealed handgun. My opponent claims \"citizens should have the same advantages as the criminals who attack them.\" While, ideally, neither the criminal nor the average citizen should have a gun in the first place, a concealed weapons permit makes it far easier to kill a person with malicious intent than to defend oneself from an attacker. As discussed in Con\"s Round 1 speech, the most common concealed handguns, namely the 9mm, are horrendous for self-defense. While they are rapid fire, the stopping power is minimal, especially when put in the hands of an untrained marksman. A criminal, on the other hand, is more likely to use the handgun as a threat, holding someone up for valuables. Or, if murder is the design, the criminal is far more likely to have practiced using the gun than the everyday citizen. These handguns are far more practical as murder weapons than self-defense. This point was not questioned at ALL by Side Pro. Side Pro also failed to properly refute Con\"s second contention: convicted felons do regain their gun rights, and do kill again. In Washington ALONE, 429 felons have engaged in crime after regaining their gun rights, using their weapons as either leverage or as murder weapons. Even if denying these people of their gun rights would prevent practically the population of Nebraska from owning concealed handguns, this is still a step towards the safety of the American citizenry. If we look at the deaths and the nature of concealed firearms, we overwhelmingly find the answer to the second question is NO. Thus, who has the comparative advantage? Side Con. Side Pro may like the theory behind \"shall-issue\" laws, but, in practice, these laws have not markedly improved pubic safety. If anything, they make our world LESS safe. As Side Con has repeatedly shown you, voters, concealed firearms should be illegal for US private citizens. So, for the good of restricting gun proliferation, vote Con. For the safety of the American people, vote Con. For the family of Philip Davis, vote Con. Thank you.", "qid": "30", "docid": "be1c3672-2019-04-18T17:22:56Z-00000-000", "rank": 15, "score": 196792.0}, {"content": "Title: I think that concealed carry should not be allowed. Prove me wrong Content: Carrying concealed handguns are used more for criminal homicides than homicides. According to the violence policy center, For every justifiable homicide (a death caused by someone defending themselves) there were 34 innocent people killed by criminals who obtained a handgun and permit. and in 2014 eighteen states reported no justifiable homicides caused by handguns. People rarely use handguns for protection. And handguns may make someone feel safer but in reality they actually make them less safe. According to a peer reviews study someone carrying a gun for self defense was 4.5 times more likely to be shot during an assault then an assault victim without a gun.", "qid": "30", "docid": "a29a39c-2019-04-18T11:41:47Z-00001-000", "rank": 16, "score": 195551.0}, {"content": "Title: The individual should not have the right to possess a firearm. Content: In keeping with the rules of the debate, I shall post my opening arguments first. 1. Gun ownership leads to lower crime ratesStatistics show that an area with easier access to guns will have lower crime rates. Within the U. S. , the 31 states which allow the concealed carry of firearms have \"a 24 percent lower violent crime rate, a 19 percent lower murder rate and a 39 percent lower robbery rate than states that forbid concealed weapons. \" [1]. Examples have shown that greater gun control does not lead to lower homicide rates, in fact, the opposite occurs. When Washington D. C. banned handguns, the murder rate shot up from less than 30 per 100,000 to 80 per 100,000. The homicide rate increased, and only decreased following a removal of the ban on handguns, at a time when the homicide rate nationally was decreasing. [2]. Another example is Chicago, where a handgun ban led to a 17% decrease in the homicide rate (lower than the national average of 25%), and a huge increase in the murders committed with handguns, going from just over 40% before the ban to close to 80% in 2007 before the ban was repealed [2]. This shows that within the U. S. more gun control in fact means more crime and greater gun rights, less crime. In terms of international examples, the rule of more gun control leading to more crime still holds true. Countries such as Switzerland, Norway, Germany, Austria and Denmark have a high number of guns per capita ratio while having low homicide ratios compared to nations such as Luxembourg, Holland and England with draconian gun control laws and high homicide rates [3]. In England an increase in gun control has constantly led to an increase in crimes, with England in the late 1800's having virtually no gun crime with little gun control to over 10,0000 gun related offences in 2005/2006 with a large amount of gun control [4] [5]. The truth is that gun control laws deprive citizens of guns for self-defence while not affecting criminals other than allowing them to operate under easier conditions. Gun control laws take guns away from people who are using them for non-criminal activities, not criminals. With guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens, they can protect themselves. Guns are used for protection annually 5 times more than they are to commit crimes, and 56% of felons admit that \"A criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun. \" It is clear that gun ownership reduces crime and on that account the individual should have the right to possess a firearm. [1] = . http://www.cato.org...[2] = . http://www.justfacts.com...[3] = . http://gunowners.org...[4] = . http://reason.com...[5] = . http://news.bbc.co.uk...", "qid": "30", "docid": "8dfe56c7-2019-04-18T18:49:50Z-00003-000", "rank": 17, "score": 195174.0}, {"content": "Title: The individual should not have the right to possess a firearm. Content: And now to respond to my opponents 3rd round. >> \"To begin with, I have to immediately counter Con's claim that the 31 states that allow concealed carry on firearms have a 24% lower violent crime rate etc. There are actually 48 states which have laws which allow the concealed carrying of firearms of one sort or another. \" - While this may be true, the article differentiated between shall-issue and may-issue states, with shall-issue states, which allow permits for concealed carry to be obtained more easily than in may-issue states. With easier access to permits for concealed carry, the crime rates in these states are lower. >> \"Con also claims that the homicide rate increased once laws against handguns came into effect. This is being extremely selective with the figures he chooses to publish to support his argument. Homicide actually decreased equally in a number of areas which had no lifting of any bans (Maryland, fairfax VA to give but two examples). http://www.texasguntalk.com...... I put forward that there was no relation between the lifting of the band and the decrease in homicides. This is merely con being selective with figures. \" - Firstly my opponent cites a less than reliable forum poster as his source for his claims that Maryland and Fairfax's homicide rates dropped. Without any valid source for this I find this claim negligible. >> \"You have given example of England where you say an increasing gun control has constantly led to an increase in crimes. I refute this as being untrue. However if you look at the difference in gun crime statistics, you will find that gun crime in the USA is several times more common than England and the UK in general (as an example I gave in my opening argument demonstrates). \" - And as I pointed out, the crime rates in the U.S. and England are converging [1].>> \"Gun laws also provide potential criminals with arms. They make potential murderers of people. Con is defending the right to bear firearms in general, not merely handguns. The idea that a citizen has the need for an AK47 or a Sweeper (which are both legal in many states) is simply ridiculous. \" - Firstly, as I cited earlier, guns are used 5 times more in self-defence than criminals use them [1]. This would suggest that even if every gun owned by criminals was legally purchased, citizens use them more than criminals. Clearly freedom of access to guns benefits citizens more than it benefits criminals. >> \"I can't criticise the supposed 'security' the legality of private ownership of guns is supposed to bring without drawing on another statistic. Each year 10,000 people in the USA alone are involved in 'gun accidents'. http://www.buzzle.com... you consider guns are only used in approx 60,000 of 'defense' incidents each year added with the many crimes committed as a result of being able to access guns (which number in the 10's of thousands also per annum), it strikes me as obvious that guns result in more danger for the individual than security. \" - My opponents point here is weak. If a person purchases a gun, they do so at the chance of being involved in an accident with said gun. If the accident is not their fault, they an sue the gun manufacturer or whoever is at fault. It is the individuals right to take this risk. 70,000 accidents doesn't stack up with the 2 millions times a year guns are used in self-defence annually. If my opponent is concerned with safety, perhaps he'd like to look at lawnmowers first, which cause 200,000+ injuries annually. [3] Overall, guns cause crime rates to drop and provide security to the individual. Guns are used more in defence than in crime annually and it's clear that gun control does nothing but harm individuals and their liberty. [1] = http://reason.com...[2] = http://www.roanoke.com...[3] = http://www.amputee-coalition.org...", "qid": "30", "docid": "8dfe56c7-2019-04-18T18:49:50Z-00000-000", "rank": 18, "score": 194973.0}, {"content": "Title: The the right to carry concealed semi-automatic weapons should not be infringed. Content: I find it interesting that my opponent has used a Supreme Court case as evidence of the \"individual right\" the Second Amendment affords to American Citizens. The case referred to, District of Columbia v. Heller, does indeed assert the individual right of citizens to possess a handgun for self defense; however, it is equally as important to note that this case was not decided unanimously. In a 5-4 decision, which the Court used textual and historical evidence to decide the original application of the Second Amendment, Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer all applied the same textual and historical examination of the Second Amendment, but came to a very different conclusion than the majority. This case does not prove any conclusive evidence for the original intent of the Second Amendment, it was only the interpretations of the nine Justices on the Supreme Court at the time. I realize that decision by the Supreme Court have the binding ability of law, or the \"correct\" interpretation of the Constitution, but it is also true that the entire Judicial Review power of the Supreme Court is not found in the Constitution; it was a product of the Courts decisions in Marbury v. Madison, and Cooper v. Aaron. I included the chart on the Washington post's website to respond to my opponents argument \"in countries with organized governments where firearm ownership is higher, not only are the people more liberated, but crime among the civilian population is lower,\" which shows that there is no higher gun ownership than the United States. The debate to crime differences overall must be omitted, being that the chart only provides information about gun violence and crime. But since my opponent spent a large part of their rebuttal giving examples and comparisons based upon this data, I will respond to it as well. Being that I find a fundamental flaw in the examples and comparisons given, I will address the comparisons as a whole, instead of responding to them individually. The overall objection I have is the incompatibility of the countries that are being compared as examples. I will use the resource \"democracyranking.org\" as evidence of the generally accepted rankings and theoretical approach to calculating the \"quality of Democracy = (freedom & other characteristics of the political system) & (performance of the non-political dimensions).\" The website lays out its ranking system as such \"all indicators are transformed to a value range of 1 to 100, where \"1 represents the weakest (poorest) and 100 the strongest (best) value.\" If you look at the rankings, a few interesting factors arise. First, Sierra Leon is not on the list. This is because this website only uses countries that are categorized by Freedom House as either \"free\" or \"partly free.\" Is this not a telling indication that the comparison of Sierra Leon and the United States may not be the best? The United States is categorized by Freedom house as completely free, with a \"democracy score\" of 76.9; where as Sierra Leon is not even included because it isn't a \"free\" or \"partly free state.\" This has to be taken into account when comparing the gun homicides in each country. The Brazil comparison is indeed a better one, but is still in the \"medium 2/3\" of all countries on the democracy ranking site. Would it not be more advantageous to compare apple with apples? When looking at the top 10 on the democracy rating compared to the United States on the Washington Post website, the U.S. is number one in gun ownership as previously stated, and Switzerland is third. Although Switzerland has a higher total gun homicide rate of 72.2 compared to the U.S. 67.5, the total number of gun homicides in each becomes relevant to examine. This is where the biggest jump in data between the top 10 \"democracies\" and the United States happens. Switzerland had a total of 57 homicides by gun, compared to the United States at 9,960. Of the top 10 \"democracies\" on the democracy ranking website, the next highest number besides the U.S. is Germany with 158. We have to travel over 30 spots on the total homicides by guns to reach our first top 10 \"democracy.\" There is a 9,802 difference between the United States and Germany of total homicides by gun. This cannot be due to nothing. In summary, there is a heck of a lot of data to sift through and attempt to determine what is important and what is not. The statistical significance of these categories would take far to much time and effort to exert for this debate, so I present all this information only to illuminate the inconsistencies in comparisons and other possible factors leading to the numbers presented on the Washington Post. I don't not contest the necessity of citizens protecting themselves by the use of guns, but to say that they are used only for this purpose would be absurd, that is evidenced by the number of homicides by guns in the U.S. on the Washington Post's website. Keeping and bearing arms for the soul purpose to defend against tyrannical governments or over oppressive governments may indeed be necessary, but that would suggest a cynical view of our government, and the assumption that this tyrannical government will arise at some point. There are plenty of people in Congress that share the views of my opponent, and I would highly doubt they would allow for a tyrannical government to take hold of our country. If we have no faith in our government and its ability to protect and provide for its citizens, then we are having the wrong debate. https://freedomhouse.org... http://democracyranking.org... http://www.washingtonpost.com...", "qid": "30", "docid": "dedbd50d-2019-04-18T15:09:04Z-00000-000", "rank": 19, "score": 194414.0}, {"content": "Title: Conceal carry laws by private citizens Content: Conceal carry laws exacerbates cop violence particularly against black and minorities. By private citizen being allows to conceal their lethal firearms, cops are forced to assume that ANY ONE could be carrying a gun, be they man, women, adult or child. Therefor they are naturally inclined to shot first in order to protect their lives if they feel threatened in the slightest which does not take much because of their own prejudice and police training teaching them to value THEIR lives over citizens. Minorities are greatly affected because even if they are a lawful gun owner in a open carry state or have a conceal carry permit, the majority do not exercise this right cause the majority of cops racial profile and shot first before asking questions so they do not want to take the chance. Criminals on the other hand are forced to conceal because they are acting in a criminal manner and add to the racial prejudice and skewed thinking, even against whites if they are judge to be poor due to their dress, appearance, or speech. Therefor if an officer happens to see a person with a concealed weapon or believes they have a concealed weapon, they are most likely to shot without warning or while warning cause they assume the person is a criminal. Though I don't think private citizens need to go around carrying guns for their protection, as that there are non lethal means available and you are more likely to be shot by friendly fire from another citizen or the cops mistaking you for a criminal or from an angry ex or shooting yourself while cleaning the gun rather then from an ACTUAL CRIMINAL IN THE PROCESS OF A CRIME, and there is the police which we are paying for in the first place, I don't think we need to carry guns at all unlessl for hunting food but I would rather it be open carry instead of conceal if anything at all.", "qid": "30", "docid": "5d2a077f-2019-04-18T13:59:07Z-00009-000", "rank": 20, "score": 194062.0}, {"content": "Title: Concealed Carry Laws Decrease Violent Crime Content: As Robert Cottrol, JD, PhD, Professor of Law and History at George Washington University, wrote in the article \"Gun Control Is Racist, Sexist, and Classist\" published in the Sept. 1999 issue of American Enterprise: \"In recent years a majority of states have passed laws permitting honest citizens to carry concealed weapons, and the results tell us much about self-defense and the responsibility of the average citizen. Once it was passionately argued that such laws would turn minor altercations into bloody shoot-outs; now we know better. Over 1 million Americans have licenses to carry firearms, but firearms misuse by this group has been utterly negligible. Criminologists now debate not how much harm has been caused by concealed-carry laws, but how much good. .. [A right to bear arms] says the individual is not simply a helpless bystander in the difficult and dangerous task of ensuring his or her safety. Instead, the citizen is an active participant, an equal partner with the state in ensuring not only his own safety but that of his community. This is a serious right for serious people. It takes the individual from servile dependency on the state to the status of participating citizen, capable of making intelligent choices in defense of one's life and ultimately one's freedom. This conception of citizenship recognizes that the ultimate civil right is the right to defend one's own life, that without that right all other rights are meaningless, and that without the means of self-defense the right to self-defense is but an empty promise. \" In other words, concealed carry laws are very beneficial to the community. It allows people to protect others. Here are some statistics from Campuscarry. com: 1. At the start of the 2010 fall semester, 14 Colorado community colleges (38 campuses) began allowing licensed concealed carry on campus. 2. Since the fall semester of 2006, Utah state law has allowed licensed individuals to carry concealed handguns on the campuses of Utah's nine degree-offering public colleges (20 campuses) and one public technical college (10 campuses). 3. Concealed carry has been allowed on the two campuses of Colorado State University (Fort Collins, CO, and Pueblo, CO) since 2003 and at Blue Ridge Community College (Weyers Cave, VA) since 1995. 4. After allowing concealed carry on campus for an average of more than three years (as of June 2011), none of these 26 colleges (71 campuses) has seen a single resulting incident of gun violence (including threats and suicides) or a single resulting gun accident. When we look at the concealed carry movement as a whole, from its beginnings in the late 1980s to the present, we see a huge increase in the number of people with carry permits, from around one million in 1987 to around six million today. Now here's the kicker: during this same time frame, violent crime has fallen to record lows in America, hovering nationwide at rates not seen since the early 1960s. Historic numbers of guns in the hands of private citizens, who are increasingly carrying those guns in public, and a dramatic, ongoing drop in violent crime. Now there's something to think about! Tactically speaking, the element of surprise is a great thing. If someone doesn't know you have a firearm, then they can't tactically adjust them selves for that. If they were to try and rob you and you pull a firearm they didn't know about, that surprises most criminals, not all, but most. Something they were not expecting has the potential to rattle cages. Plus when you are out in public I think people are less likely to be jumpy or nervous if they don't see a firearm on your side and no badge on your shirt. Again, not all people would respond that way I wouldn't think, but some might. . http://concealedguns.procon.org... . http://www.campuscarry.com... . http://blog.chegg.com... . http://www.usconcealedcarry.net... . http://www.usacarry.com...", "qid": "30", "docid": "8200d780-2019-04-18T18:16:43Z-00002-000", "rank": 21, "score": 191889.0}, {"content": "Title: Allowing Citizens to Carry Handguns Reduces Crime Rates Content: My stance is that allowing citizens to carry handguns on their person reduces crime rates. The first round is for acceptance, and I will begin with my initial arguments during the second round.For this debate, the following is assumed: Citizens are allowed to open carry and/or concealed carry registered handguns. Citizens must apply for a permit to carry handguns. Precautionary measures such as background checks are used to prevent criminals obtaining handguns, and safety classes taught as part of the application. All handguns will be registered upon purchase. All handgunsare to be carried in secure holsters. Owners of private property are allowed to restrict handguns on their premises.", "qid": "30", "docid": "711f3f19-2019-04-18T18:36:07Z-00007-000", "rank": 22, "score": 191598.0}, {"content": "Title: Right to carry arms Content: As Pro, I wish to start by contesting Con\"s first argument \" Concealed firearms lead to lethal violent crime \" 1) My opponent starts his first argument by saying that the NRA loves to tell stories about concealed handguns to say they have saved lives. However, the information I give is not produced by the NRA, but by the Texas Department of Public Safety & Florida state records. The Texas Department of Public Safety released a study in 1999 that showed that in that year the rate of murder convictions for permit holders in Texas was zero percent. There were NONE. Florida statistics show only 18 crimes involving firearms by license holders, out of 221,443 licenses issued between October 1987 and April 1994. 2) My opponent then gives an example of a killing by a citizen with a concealed firearm, which is followed by the fact that 516 people have been killed this way. This may be true, but according to a study by criminologist Gary Kleck of Florida State University, there are approximately 2.5 million cases of people using firearms for self-defense in America each year. However, this study was disproved and it was shown that he was greatly exaggerating. I tell you this to confirm the authenticity of the information I am about to give you. Another study from the same period, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), estimated almost 70,000 defensive gun uses annually. \"We have 153 documented cases across 26 states with at least 550 lives saved\", says David Burnett, who tracks incidents of defensive gun use. This shows the difference between the lives saved and the lives lost are definitely in favor of saved. 3) My opponent then says that we have an alarming amount of deaths from handgun usage. This point says nothing against the negativities of concealed carry, those are figures related to handguns in general. Therefore his argument is invalid. Next, I wish to put forth my second point - Citizens should have the same advantages as the criminals who attack them. Since this point clashes with my opponent\"s second point, I will rebut it in this way. According to my opponent\"s argument, convicted felons are also allowed to regain gun rights, and therefore this becomes a danger to the rest of the population. So, ideally, my opponent wishes guns to be banned from convicted felons. 1)Firstly, most criminals would not bother to get a concealed carry gun permit. There are many ways for criminals to get guns without obtaining a permit. 2)Secondly, this idea for guns to be banned from all convicted felons can be put down another way - in the US, as of 2010, there were a little more than 2.3 million convicted felons. Out of those, 700,000 were for violent offenses. Out of these, 400,000 commit crimes for the second time. If all convicted felons were restricted from obtaining a gun, there would be around 1.8 MILLION people who committed small crimes but were not able to obtain guns legally. That\"s almost the state population of Nebraska! ! In my opponent\"s third argument, he discredits the \"alleged\" deterrent effect and proceeds to advise that the guns should be exposed instead of concealed. There are 2 flaws in my opponent\"s reasoning. Firstly, the \"alleged\" deterrent effect, as my opponent calls it, has reduced crime all over the country. For example, the report from ABC News shows that in Florida, where there are more concealed weapons permits than anywhere else in the country, violent crime has dropped to the lowest point in history. Firearm-related violent crimes in Florida have dropped by one-third in just four years, 2007 to 2011. I don\"t think it can still be called the \"alleged\" deterrent effect. It is real, and it definitely works. My opponent\"s second flaw is that if guns were allowed to be exposed, people wouldn't\"t be warned of criminals coming their way, as he could be an innocent civilian as well. Also, think of the effect it would have on our nation. The United States of America is not a terrorist country, for people to be walking around with, and I quote my opponent, \"with a Glock strapped to his/her ankle\". The government considers all these effects before putting a law into place, and I think my opponent should too. With that, I close my argument for the second round.", "qid": "30", "docid": "be1c3672-2019-04-18T17:22:56Z-00002-000", "rank": 23, "score": 189225.0}, {"content": "Title: Gun Free Zone on College Campus Content: I am currently an enrolled student, and also have a license to carry a concealed handgun in public. To be more specific about my position on this, I believe that it is wrong for Public Colleges/Universities to not offer any kind of process in which an individual may gain legal rights to carry a concealed handgun on campus when he/she goes to class. Of course, I also welcome faculty/teachers/staff to be allowed that offer as well. It's not just for the students. I do agree that we should not just hand guns to everybody, but there are some select individuals who I believe are deemed trustworthy to handle that kind of responsibility, even though you must be very responsible. As of now, I'm going to say that I believe that if you already have a concealed handgun permit, and are allowed to carry virtually all public places(Stores/Malls/Movie Theaters/ etc.) Then why should campus be any different? Of course if we agree that there should be a process to make it legal for certain people, I understand maybe not everybody agrees that a CCW permit is enough. I'm perfectly open to discussion as to what kind of requirements do you think in individual must pass to make it legal, but that's all details. For now, I wanna say that I am open to the idea that there should be some legal process offered by the public University to allow a certain individual conceal carry rights, so as long as he/she meets the following requirements, x,y, and z. For now, I think we can just take advantage over the system that is already in place to allow people to carry in public places and require a student/faculty to possess a valid CCW permit. It is wrong to deny a person rights just because some other people have abused it in the past. As a person who believes in America the way it was meant to be, a Republic, not a Democracy, then individuals including minorities should have constitutional rights in public places. Private Universities are another story. But Public Universities should abide by constitutional law. To start off with the argument, I'd like to say that criminals and anyone wishing to do harm will probably break the law regardless of the fact that we deny everybody the right to carry. We cannot protect people with just a sign saying that it's illegal to carry a firearm. This leads me to believe that there really is no logical reason to think that Gun Free Zones themselves would have any affect other than disarming the people who abide by the law and have everything to lose(no felons, no misdemeanors, no criminal recored etc.) Of course I'm referring to Gun Free Zones on college campus's. I do however, think that Courthouses are at least smart with that law by setting up preventative measures such as metal detectors and making sure the place is full of armed police officers. Because of the mass shootings and other various forms of gun violence that have appeared on College campus, it is clear that Gun Free Zones don't prevent everybody from coming in with a gun. The Gun free zone clearly does not actually disarm everybody, and it only seems to be the people we should be afraid of the most who are going to still carry anyway. I'll get into stats and facts in the later rounds. For now, this is my position as clear as I can make it with some rational reason why I don't think \"everybody\" should be disarmed. I welcome an opponent, preferably one who completely disagrees because obviously I 'd be preaching to the choir otherwise. So anybody who wants to challenge me, bring it on brother... or sister.", "qid": "30", "docid": "fd5562c6-2019-04-18T15:49:12Z-00006-000", "rank": 24, "score": 189160.0}, {"content": "Title: Conceal to carry Content: I believe that you have the right to conceal and carry if you please. If they go through the paper work and all the back ground checks they should be able to without anyone harassing them about it. If they have any type of criminal records at all they shouldn't be able to have one. People make it a big deal when someone carry's a gun into somewhere and people see it. Like if they got permission from the government to carry ii they have a right to bring it wherever they go. Lot of people usually us it when they go on trips or something. When they go to place there not usually from they may liker to have it or when ever traveling down the road and break down you never know if what someone might do to you. If they stop somewhere and people that have kids see it they make a big deal about and how there kids shouldn't be seeing that kind of stuff. You never know what kind of people you may run into when you are out on the road and now a days I would be scared at times and places I go. That is why I think that they should not be harassed about carrying a gun into public places.", "qid": "30", "docid": "f35758f7-2019-04-18T12:59:35Z-00001-000", "rank": 25, "score": 188931.0}, {"content": "Title: Right to carry a firearm should be allowed in all 50 states because it reduces crime Content: I will start my this round by saying that obtaining a firearm is different in every state, it would be unwise to assume that the gun control laws are the same for every state. For instance, in Illinois you must be 18, to legally purchase a long gun (any gun with a barrel longer than 12 inches), and 21 to purchase a pistol. You must also have a FOID (Firearm Owner Identification) card, obtaining a FOID card requires an application to the IL state police where they perform a back ground check, after you have a FOID car you must wait 24 hours after purchasing a gun to pick it up. Logic would presume that this is not an easy way to obtain a firearm. Granted my opening statement was short and open to debate on the argument it would ensue, right to carry has nothing to do with obtaining firearms, that is not what is discussion is about. It is about whether or not right to carry reduces crim my opponent provided no evidence that people who own fire arms that carry them in on them would not reduce crime. Has I am now realizing this being my first debate I should have defined Right to carry, but I believe my opponent to mistaken in his definition, Right to carry mean the ability to have a concealed firearm on said persons in public areas. Housing firearms is merely owning firearms, and due to the fact that in 1993 49% of homes had at least one firearm in them (Study: \"Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun. \" By Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (Northwestern University School of Law), 1995. Accessed at . http://www.saf.org....) I do not believe that 13 year old are the main issue when it comes to Right to carry. My opponent also neglected the fact that I stated \"with correct instruction\", I do not have enough time to provide detailed information about gun safety this link should be detailed enough (. http://www.nrahq.org...). As for the columbine school shooting, those firearms where obtained by adults and given to young adults who had the intent to cause arm to people, if some one is that determined to cause harm, will have a gun really stop them. Think of any public shooting, however sad they are, could each one have not been stopped if a trained person carried a firearm, could many of lives have not been saved? The argument could be made that couldn't the lives be saved if guns where band, and I would like the audience know that this is not the issue at hand. If my opponent would like to argue that I would be more than happy to right after this. My opponent asked for evidence that crime would actually be reduced well Florida enacted a right to carry law in 1987, these are the statistics of crimes rates in Florida to the rest of United States from 1987 to 1997 Homicide rate dropped 36% in Florida and went down .4% as United states as a whole. Firearm Homicide rate dropped 37% and went up 15% as a nation. Handgun Homicide rate dropped 41 & and went up 24% as a nation. 1998 NRA Fact Card. \" Viewed in January of 1999 on the National Rifle Association web site, . http://www.nra.org... If you believe that giving a gun to some one to carry might cause crime rates to go up then, from 1987 to 1999 221443 right to carry permits where given out, out of those 220000 plus people only 18 crimes where committed by these persons. (Lott, John R. Jr. and Mustard, David B. \"Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns. \" University of Chicago School of Law, 7/26/96. ) \"As of 1999 no permit holder has ever shot a cop and, in many cases permit holders have protected polices officers life. \" Lott, John R. Jr. More Guns, Less Crime. The University of Chicago Press, 1998. Pages 1, 11, 43 I will hold further arguments for now I apologize for the opening argument, due to the fact that I haven't spent much time reading debates, I viewed it as more of a opening statement to purpose a debate and not an opening argument. But thank you for providing a formidable opponent for this debate.", "qid": "30", "docid": "45d4a2d5-2019-04-18T19:14:31Z-00003-000", "rank": 26, "score": 188882.0}, {"content": "Title: Lawful concealed carry is a good thing Content: Before I begin, I wish to remind con and the voters that the right to keep and bear arms does protect some form of publicly carrying a weapon. A state may not excessively prohibit concealed carry and open carry. One or both MUST be allowed. As that is not the topic, that is all I have to say on that (for proof of that statement, look up Peruta V. San Diego). My aim throughout this debate is to demonstrate that: -Lawful concealed carry is a deterrent to criminals -Concealed carry permit (CCW) holders can/have saved lives during mass shootings -As a group, those with a CCW permit commit a disproportionately low number of crimes. --Lawful concealed carry is a deterrent to criminals \"Professors James D. Wright and Peter Rossi surveyed 2,000 felons incarcerated in state prisons across the United States. Wright and Rossi reported that 34% of the felons said they personally had been \"scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim\"; 69% said that they knew at least one other criminal who had also; 34% said that when thinking about committing a crime they either \"often\" or \"regularly\" worried that they \"[m]ight get shot at by the victim\"; and 57% agreed with the statement, \"Most criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police.\" James D. Wright & Peter H. Rossi, Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms [1986]. See Guns and Public Health: Epidemic of Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda? by Don B. Kates, et. al. Originally published as 61 Tenn. L. Rev. 513-596 [1994].\" --Concealed carry permit (CCW) holders can/have saved lives during mass shootings I had 8 links to incidents where armed resistance ended a shooting but they would not work in this format unfortunately. See the bottom of this page for a few URLS. According to FBI statistics: When civilians stopped a shooting event there was an average of 2.3 deaths. When law enforcement responded, at an average time of 3 minutes, 14.3 deaths occurred. --As a group, those with a CCW permit commit a disproportionately low number of crimes My apologies that this is a copy and paste. I have to wake up for work in 5 hours. \"A front-page story in today's New York Times tries to stir up alarm about liberalized carry permit laws, which let people carry concealed handguns if they meet a short list of objective criteria. To illustrate the hazards of that policy, the Times cites crimes committed by permit holders in North Carolina. How many crimes? Excluding traffic offenses, the Times counts 2,400 over five years, of which 200 were felonies. More relevant (since critics of nondiscretionary permit laws worry that they contribute to gun violence), \"More than 200 permit holders were also convicted of gun- or weapon-related felonies or misdemeanors, including roughly 60 who committed weapon-related assaults.\" That's a dozen gun assaults a year. How many permit holders are there in North Carolina? According to the story, \"more than 240,000.\" So 0.2 percent of them are convicted of a non-traffic-related offense each year, about 0.017 percent are convicted of a felony, and only 0.005 percent are convicted of a gun assault. The Times concedes that the number of permit holders convicted of crimes \"represents a small percentage of those with permits.\" More like \"tiny.\" By comparison, about 0.35 percent of all Americans are convicted of a felony each year--more than 20 times the rate among North Carolina permit holders. It seems clear these people are far more law-abiding than the general population, a finding consistent with data from other states. Such data are not surprising, since law-abidingness, as measured by a clean criminal record, is one requirement for a carry permit.\" http://www.kgw.com... http://www.frontpagemag.com... http://www.theblaze.com... http://www.buzzfeed.com...", "qid": "30", "docid": "ca07a94-2019-04-18T16:25:14Z-00006-000", "rank": 27, "score": 188160.0}, {"content": "Title: I'm Pro Gun: Change my Mind Content: I believe concealed-carry should be legal, And for law-abiding citizens, They should be able to own a gun. This is to protect themselves in public, Home-defense, And protecting against a potential tyrannical government. You have mentioned stricter gun laws and an \"assault weapons\" ban. Feel free to try and change my mind if you have convincing arguments.", "qid": "30", "docid": "81403fde-2019-04-18T11:16:40Z-00005-000", "rank": 28, "score": 187945.0}, {"content": "Title: Philosophical Debate (Look at round 1 argument) Content: In your round one you never, ever specified that the gun being used by the original murderer was a rifle. Nonetheless, two wrongs don't make a right and this statement is entirely false.The example you stated had a student, who shouldn't have any weapon on grounds, possessing a rifle, which is illegal even for adults, and murdering another human being. The CNN case you gave had a full grown adult using a valid handgun kept in their car for defence purposes not at all killing the perpetrator but instead chasing him with the gun until he tried to flee with the car (then an army officer who worked for the police had arrived in time to detain the boy).the boy was never killed and the weapons used was a handgun and it was used by a legal adult. It is entirely separate to the case of murder you offered and shouldn't be used as a comparison.", "qid": "30", "docid": "313f329c-2019-04-18T17:48:01Z-00004-000", "rank": 29, "score": 187753.0}, {"content": "Title: The the right to carry concealed semi-automatic weapons should not be infringed. Content: We will be using the plain dictionary definition of the word \"infringed\". [1]The reason for this debate, is that all 50 states and the District of Columbia have laws restricting the carrying, or concealed carry of at least some semi-automatic weapons. While the US Constitution states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.An armed populace is a free populace. Tyranny cannot gain hold where the people have not only the will but the means to throw off a tyrannical government.In countries with organized governments where firearm ownership is higher, not only are the people more liberated, but crime among the civilian population is lower.The United States should readopt the approach our founders took: An absolute liberty to keep and bear arms.References1. http://dictionary.reference.com...", "qid": "30", "docid": "dedbd50d-2019-04-18T15:09:04Z-00003-000", "rank": 30, "score": 187078.0}, {"content": "Title: I'm Pro Gun: Try to Change my Mind Content: Yes but right now it is not legal so it scares some people from doing it since if they are caught they can be prosecuted. But if it's legal they have nothing to fear. And being the mentally I'll people they are we cannot trust them with the metal responsibility of carrying a concealed gun. Like you said they will take it off the black market and no one will question then on it.", "qid": "30", "docid": "8ef0695e-2019-04-18T11:19:55Z-00002-000", "rank": 31, "score": 186604.0}, {"content": "Title: Right to carry a firearm should be allowed in all 50 states because it reduces crime Content: I would like to point out before I begin that it is the burden of the PRO to prove that ALL 50 fifty states should be allowed to carry a firearm and that by doing this, crime will effectively be reduce. Because my opponent has not provided any definitions for his or her debate it is safe to assume that the definitions I post in ROUND 1 will thereafter will referred to as the definitions of the debate. Definitions: 50 states: Implied by the PRO to be the United States of America. Right to carry a firearm: Commonly referred to as each individual allowed the right to carry or house a firearm. Firearm: A small arms weapon, such as a pistol or rifle. Crime: An action or an instance of negligence that is deemed injurious to the public welfare or morals or to the interests of the state and that is legally prohibited. I would like to begin by refuting my opponents case. (1)I believe that the right to carry, reduces crime rates and should be made legal in all 50 states, with limitations to who would be able to carry a firearm of U. S citizens above the age of 21 and no prior felonies, or crimes with a firearm. First off, this does not support the resolution in any way. There is no evidence backing up his position. However, this is just a brief roadmap of my opponents contention. I will point out that U. S. citizens could easily receive guns. Once the gun is bought, there is no concrete way of tracking the gun. Making it easy for lets say, a person above the age of 21 and no prior felonies, or crimes, to purchase firearms and supply other people. I will save my arguement about decreasing crime rate for later. (2)\"I would also argue that with correct instructions firearms can be very safe and recreational activities. \" The fact of the matter is, a knowledgable thirteen-year-old can find his or her parent's firearm and easily turn off the safety mechanism and inflict damage upon themself or others. As seen in the Columbia School Shooting, it is already too easy for children to get guns if they wanted. Now with every household in the 50 states carrying a firearm, as my opponent is advocating, it will be even easier. Because my opponent has provided a small paragraph of information I will stop here. It is key to remember that my opponent must effectively support the claim that ALL 50 states be allowed to carry firearms because it reduces crime. I have not posted any sources yet, as I am allowing my opponent to first and because I am running out of personal time for this. Thank you for this debate.", "qid": "30", "docid": "45d4a2d5-2019-04-18T19:14:31Z-00004-000", "rank": 32, "score": 186560.0}, {"content": "Title: All law-abiding adult citizens should have gun rights. Content: I will be arguing that all law-abiding citizens should be able to obtain a gun license. Con will be arguing that citizens should not have access to guns unless their job requires it. Burden of proof is shared.", "qid": "30", "docid": "1e59290-2019-04-18T14:16:42Z-00009-000", "rank": 33, "score": 186454.0}, {"content": "Title: Gun Control Content: To begin, I'd like to make the distinguishment between gun control and gun rights. I support the right to own firearms, but in a very limited manner. The primary reason to own a firearm in today's society is for self-defence. When defending oneself with a gun, shooting should always be a last resort, and killing the attacker should be avoided if possible. Knowing that larger weapons, such as assault rifles or automatic weapons, are more efficient at killing people, our goal should be to prevent dangerous people from obtaining weapons and using them to harm others, while allowing law-abiding citizens to defend themselves with weapons. So here is my preposition. Allow licensed adults to purchase basic firearms, such as handguns. If their goal is self-defence, then they don't need weapons with lots of ammunition or anything automatic. If basic weapons are readily available, then citizens will be able to defend themselves against attackers. On the other hand, larger and more potent weapons should be banned, and the government should do everything in their power to make sure that people don't get ahold of them. There is no need for a machine gun unless you are in the military. Of course, criminals will get ahold of illegal weapons regardless of the law, but citizens will have a defense against them this way. I also think that extra precautions should be taken to make sure that all people who own guns own them legally. All firearms must have a unique serial code registered with the federal government, and any person caught with a firearm without a registered serial code will have their rights to own firearms revoked, and will be fined or jailed. In addition, the government should regulate where firearms can be sold. All merchants who sell weapons should be registered with the government, and the number of shops should be limited. I also expect the issue of hunting weapons to come up. This is an OK thing, since hunting weapons are large and difficult to conceal. Few murders are done with hunting weapons. My opponent also mentioned the city of Chicago. I ask my To begin, I'd like to make the distinguishment between gun control and gun rights. I support the right to own firearms, but in a very limited manner. The primary reason to own a firearm in today's society is for self-defence. When defending oneself with a gun, shooting should always be a last resort, and killing the attacker should be avoided if possible. Knowing that larger weapons, such as assault rifles or automatic weapons, are more efficient at killing people, our goal should be to prevent dangerous people from obtaining weapons and using them to harm others, while allowing law-abiding citizens to defend themselves with weapons. So here is my preposition. Allow licensed adults to purchase basic firearms, such as handguns. If their goal is self-defence, then they don't need weapons with lots of ammunition or anything automatic. If basic weapons are readily available, then citizens will be able to defend themselves against attackers. On the other hand, larger and more potent weapons should be banned, and the government should do everything in their power to make sure that people don't get ahold of them. There is no need for a machine gun unless you are in the military. Of course, criminals will get ahold of illegal weapons regardless of the law, but citizens will have a defense against them this way. I also think that extra precautions should be taken to make sure that all people who own guns own them legally. All firearms must have a unique serial code registered with the federal government, and any person caught with a firearm without a registered serial code will have their rights to own firearms revoked, and will be fined or jailed. In addition, the government should regulate where firearms can be sold. All merchants who sell weapons should be registered with the government, and the number of shops should be limited. I also expect the issue of hunting weapons to come up. This is an OK thing, since hunting weapons are large and difficult to conceal. Few murders are done with hunting weapons. My opponent also mentioned the city of Chicago. In this case, we first need to determine whether or not the increased murders in Chicago are CAUSED by the increased gun control. There are many other factors that distinguish Chicago from other cities in the US, such as culture, the urban environment, the closeness of facilities to each other, etc. It is also a possibility that the strict gun laws were created BECAUSE the murder rate was high, not the other way around. I ask my opponent to demonstrate that this is a causation, not just a correlation or coincidence. This concludes my argument. Thank you.", "qid": "30", "docid": "9c362e49-2019-04-18T16:18:56Z-00003-000", "rank": 34, "score": 186250.0}, {"content": "Title: Concealed carry laws decrease crime Content: definitions: Conceal carry: Being allowed to carry a weapon hidden. \"Concealed carry, or CCW (carrying a concealed weapon), refers to the practice of carrying a handgun or other weapon in public in a concealed manner, either on one's person or in proximity.\" http://en.wikipedia.org... Requirements for the permit: \"is at least 21 years of age; \u00ef\u00bf\u00bd is a resident of the state; \u00ef\u00bf\u00bd provides fingerprints and submits to a criminal and mental health background check; \u00ef\u00bf\u00bd has not been convicted of a felony or any crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year; \u00ef\u00bf\u00bd is not a fugitive from justice; \u00ef\u00bf\u00bd is not an illegal alien; \u00ef\u00bf\u00bd is not an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance; \u00ef\u00bf\u00bd has not been adjudicated mentally incompetent or been committed to a mental institution; \u00ef\u00bf\u00bd has not been dishonorably discharged from the armed services; \u00ef\u00bf\u00bd is not subject to a restraining or protection order; \u00ef\u00bf\u00bd has not been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence; \u00ef\u00bf\u00bd is not awaiting trial for, and does not have any charges pending for, a crime punishable by more thanone year imprisonment; \u00ef\u00bf\u00bd has completed a firearms safety or training course; and \u00ef\u00bf\u00bd pays a licensing fee.\" [1] __________ Round 1 acceptance clarifications and definitions. Good luck [1] Snyder, Jeffery R. \"Fighting Back: Crime, Self-Defense, and the Right ToCarry a Handgun.\" CATO, 22 Oct. 1997", "qid": "30", "docid": "80557bae-2019-04-18T18:21:52Z-00004-000", "rank": 35, "score": 186004.0}, {"content": "Title: We would all be safer if everyone of sound mind was armed Content: My opponent appears to have forgotten his own resolution. \"We would all be safer if everyone of sound mind was armed\". What this means is that he believes, that a society in which every adult( I'm assuming adult. He didn't specify but semantics aren't really my thing) is legally allowed to carry a concealed weapon on them at all times would be a safer society. I am not arguing against the right to carry a gun. I myself have two. I just don't believe a fully armed society is better for anyone. My opponent has not addressed any of my points so extend my argument into the next round. My opponent did not post the source of his information, but nevertheless I've found it. http://gunowners.org... Let the record show that I do NOT argue against most of his facts as they make my case for me. Our current stance on gun control is working. Like I stated before 10% of violent crimes don't involve guns. My opponent thinks the world operates like Grand Theft Auto and every criminal has a gun. The truth is 90% of them can't afford it. But see if you're arming everyone, that number goes through the roof. Even if you make the case to say that ex-cons won't be issued firearms, every murderer has a first kill.", "qid": "30", "docid": "874f4b2d-2019-04-18T18:37:28Z-00002-000", "rank": 36, "score": 185919.0}, {"content": "Title: Philosophical Debate (Look at round 1 argument) Content: It is perfectly legal inmost states to keep a handgun, for an adult, in the seat cabinet of their car. The stated CNN case, where the teacher who chased the killer with his handgun was not even fired nor was he punished in any form whatsoever as everything he did was legal. He was to his car and got he gun from the driver's cabinet (where it is legal to keep a handgun for safety) and then chased the student away with it, in no way killing them or even harming them. The situation posted in round one is different entirely.The notion that the student who used an illegal weapon to kill the shooter didn't murder him could be valid if we see that killing in direct defence is not illegal. Nonetheless, the student, unlike police officers, had no special training on aiming long distance and easily could have missed the killer and murdered a student or teacher while doing so. Additionally the weapon he had in his car (I wonder why a student had a ca unless he was an adult) was an illegal one to possess nation-wide and in and of itself deserved expulsion from the school. Absolutely nothing he did was warranted or valid. He should have warned the killer that he had a gun and told him to drop the gun and run or something similar before shooting. Either way the possession of a rifle in USA is illegal in almost all states (I think all but am not sure).\"If somebody was in a school that you intend[attend], or a school where your child were to attend, would you rather have the shooter killed by a student before they could kill you or your child, or would you rather they have several minutes of uninterrupted shooting where they could claim dozens of victims, possibly including yourself or your child?\"I don't think you realise that the error here is with the killer. Whatever happens may happen and whatever expulsions must occur as a result will occur. This, unfortunately has to happen for the upholding of laws. I would indeed appreciate the illegal murder of this insane killer but would not legally, in any way, condone the murder in and of itself.", "qid": "30", "docid": "313f329c-2019-04-18T17:48:01Z-00002-000", "rank": 37, "score": 184759.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: certified teachers must have the right to carry handgun to school. Content: I wish her well in this debate. I will presume the debate is in the context of the United States. I will start with some rebuttal. ===CON:=== >>Rather than a protective figure the teachers will become an overpower and feared figure to students. << ===REBUTTAL:=== I fail to see how this would ultimatley have a net negative effect. Firstly, it will root out any teachers who aren't mentally stable enough to be allowed to teach. It thus shows flaws in the application system for teaching, and therefore countermeasures to prevent such instances are brought in. Secondly, most teachers don't even raise their fists to a student, let alone point a gun at them. ===CON:=== >>Not to say that as many cases before unexpected teachers might use the weapon to intimidate, and impose power over a student. << ===REBUTTAL:=== I would like my opponent to give proof of such acts. Until then, it has no weight upon the case. ===CON:=== >>My second argument is the economic aspect of this act. Allowing school teachers to carry guns, will lead tot he School Board having to pay for the license, ammunition, and the gun. << ===REBUTTAL:=== The resolution doesn't imply the state would be obliged to fund the purchase of a handgun for teachers. It states they should have the right to do so. If they have the right, they would be allowed use their firearm in an event of an attack. The idea isn't that all teachers are given a gun. ===CON:=== >>Asides form that will have to reenforce safety like where to store the gun and high explosive ammunitions. << ===REBUTTAL:=== The gun would obviously have to be kept on the person of the teacher at all times, holstered (They must carry it, as the resolution states). In terms of story \"high explosive ammunitions\", a teacher wouldn't be allowed more than one magazine (The one in the gun) and only standard ammunition, as special ammunition types would not be needed, therefore diminishing the risk of highly explosive ammunition. Now, onto my points: ===PRO ARGUMENT #1: SAFETY OF STUDENTS AND THE TEACHERS:=== Over the years, there have been many school shootings. Here is a map of school shootings in the U. S. : . http://www.schoolshooting.org.... The truth of the matter with these shootings is that the police are rarely unable to stop the deaths. There have been cases where the students and/or the teachers top the assailant before excessive harm is done. Such an example is Yitzhak Dadon, at the Mercaz HaRav Massacre (. http://www.jpost.com...). He, a student, utilised his handgun to stop the attacker in this scenario. Furthermore, Yitzhak is a 40 year old man, which places him closer to the roel of teacher than student. In the Pearl High School shooting, the assistant principal used his handgun to subdue an attacker who killed 2 and injured 7. However, it took him 5 minutes to reach his car to get his gun because of the Gun Free Zone in the school (. http://www.cnn.com...). The above cases support my case that giving teachers the right to have handguns in school is more beneficial than negative.", "qid": "30", "docid": "ba45b4c3-2019-04-18T19:26:12Z-00002-000", "rank": 38, "score": 184306.0}, {"content": "Title: gun control Content: Alright you have the right to bear arms yes. But there is no reason why we need access to every weapon available. Should we be allowed to own a shotgun yes, a pistol yes, a rifle, yes even a sniper sure, but why do you need a .50 caliber sniper rifle that marines use or why do you need ak-47s or ar-15s. You don't go hunting with those guns. Those guns are designed to kill people. And for the purpose of protection based on your states open carry laws or concealed weapon laws a pistol does the job as well. As for when your at home a shotgun will do just fine. I'm ok with gun control in the fact of not needing every weapon. Would you like a nuclear weapon as well. how about c4 is it ok if I can go down the street and buy c4. We need stricter laws on guns but not total control. We need to put in place harder background checks, mental health issues, age, and morality. Guns don't kill people kill and that is the problem. We can't trust people.", "qid": "30", "docid": "7439cac8-2019-04-18T16:34:56Z-00002-000", "rank": 39, "score": 184069.0}, {"content": "Title: We should have a ban on CCW Content: BOP - Carrying a conceal handgun is permitted in 49/50 states, Illinois and DC are the only remainders banning the law. 35 states have shall issue laws, too. I think my opponent still is against the status quo overall, especially with a political and scientific consensus swaying towards my position. The BOP an be negotiated later in a private message, lets not waste a debate on it ;)Deterrence (use with argument below)A common misconception throughout Europe is less guns equal less crime, and the same argument applies in current US media, all claiming guns and conceal carry are evil.Now before we claim criminals can be deterred, we must first ask can they be deterred? The answer is yes, as many economic studies (studies done by economists) find when increased punishments or possible problems occur when doing the crime the negative outweigh the positives of committing the crime, and then they are less likely to commit the crime. Now we must ask why are they deterred by this? The answer is self explanatory, but I shall point out the obvious: They want self preservation, they want to be able to get away with their deeds. Also many surveys conducted show that criminals are more scared of people with guns then police officers, as if the gun is hidden they may be attacked back without warning (polices warning is the uniform).Now, lets look at a thing Lott calls a \"hot burglary.\" This is when a criminal strikes when a person is already at home. In Canada and England, where gun control is very strict, almost half of the burglaries where hot. In contrast, 13% in america where hot. Now what is the reason? Because they think they may get shot, they say robbing at night when people are home is the best way to get shot, they would rather case a house. This proves they fear guns.Now, lets use some examples of deterrence. Lott uses the literal example of apples and oranges. He says if the price of apples increases while the price of oranges decreases apples sales will decrease, while orange sales will stay the same or increase. This shows the human oh it has consequences effect.Is open carry and conceal carry different, when it comes to deterrence? When a concealed carry permit holder has a gun, it is harder to actually tell if they have a gun. Criminals wont know if they are attacking an old lady, or an old lady packing a .45 Springfield in her purse. This raises the risk to criminals, hence also their preservation. Whereas open carry is much less scary, as you know who not to annoy, and not to annoy anyone around him (as he may help the other person). The conceal carry laws threaten the criminals more.The empirical data Law Passed Murder fell 7.7%, Rape fell 5.3%, Aggravated assault by 7.01%, robbery 2.2%, Burglary .5%, Larceny 3.3%, Auto 7.1%. [1] (1977-1997 data)Other data, his 1999 data, shows a better outcome of a 10% decrease in murder, and the other categories too had a larger decrease in crime, hence CCW in hi later data was slightly revised in new data sets. Lotts early data can be found in #2. Now lets look at PA. They had a drop in murder of about 26%, and overall violent crime drop of 5.3%. Now, one of the criticisms of this basic trend is just because the drop happened after the law, we can also look at other variables, the most common one is arrest rates. Lott makes many dummy variables, tables, and to the best of his ability shows CCW laws where a significant portion of the decrease. [1] Another reasons he concludes the drop is because when there is a spike in people who have permits there is a decrease in violent crimes. To get more local statistics, lets look at his findings in some states. In Oregon, for example, murder dropped 37% after the law was passed. Now, there are other variables he accounted for in the third addition making his data superior to the first. He did other dummy data sets, and still finds CCW had a large portion of the deterrence an drop in crimes. [1] Now, it is logical to assume they actually decrease crime due to my deterrent argument above. The CATO study also finds similar reasons why it would actually decrease crime. They also fund similar accounts of data, and they conclude the Florida CCW law was positive and the other states that passed these laws also had a positive showing. Another question that must be answered: would it increase or decrease mass public crimes? Now, as this is a valid fear, see the recent shootings in Chicago I believe, or Virginia tech. But to define shootings/killings, we must look into what is defined by. It is defined as a public shooting in a place where 2 or more people are killed or injured. Now based n his data in figure 5.1, he found the likelihood of a state to have this happen was about 60%, a little more. After the conceal carry law was passed, data and trends suggests the state now has only a 1% chance of these types of shootings in areas where conceal carry holders are allowed. [1] I may have misphrased the argument here: the likelihood of deaths or injuries when the crime occurs. Essentially saying conceal carry laws make it harder for the psycho to kill when in the area where a conceal carry permit holder resides.Now, another question would be does it lower crime committed with guns? This argument used is common amongst people trying to go against conceal carry laws. But this is not the case. In the new 2010 edition of source 1, it finds a 9% decrease in murders with guns after non-discretionary laws are passed. Murders with non handguns dropped at a similar rate, 8.9%.\"If those states which did not have right-to-carry concealed gun provisions had adopted them in 1992, approximately 1,570 murders; 4,177 rapes; and over 60,000 aggravate assaults would have been avoided yearly.\" [1] [2] (1997 study)Summary -- This was found in one of Lotts rebuttal paper defending his origional 1997 paper. *The majority of my sources can be found online, and source 1 can be gogled on google books and you can look into the specific data I cited*Conclusion:I have failed to see any good statistical analysis showing the opposite of my data. I am aware of two studies arguing the opposite, but both involve the same author and are not acedemically refered. The other data I saw was created by bias gun control organizations. For my opponent to win the debate, he actually must argue it increases crime. If it has no effect then there is no other reason against it. I urge a CON vote. Sources:[1] Lott, John R. \"More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-control Laws.\" 3rd ed. Vol. 1. Chicago: University of Chicago, 2010. [2] Lott, Jr., John R., and David B. Mustard. \"Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns.\" The Journal of Legal Studies 26.1 (1997) [3] Snyder, Jeffery R. \"Fighting Back: Crime, Self-Defense, and the Right ToCarry a Handgun.\" CATO, 22 Oct. 1997", "qid": "30", "docid": "84495ff-2019-04-18T18:13:22Z-00004-000", "rank": 40, "score": 183531.0}, {"content": "Title: THBT teachers should not have the right to carry concealed weapons in the classroom. Content: I accept my opponent's altering of the definition. I will now proceed to protect my original arguments while piecing apart my opponent's arguments. CONTENTION 1 Yes, it is better to save the lives of, say, 5 children rather than none, yet it is far better to prevent the occurence of a shooting altogether. My opponent seems to almost accept the fact that there will be shootings regardless, and that all we can do is to minimize the effects. This is not true. It would be far more effective to invest into more police officers (I will expand upon this in the third contention), better security systems such as gates, and programs to help a potential shooter before the shooting actually occurs. Also, policemen nation-wide have a hit rate of about 34 percent of all bullets fired. This includes suicides among policemen. If policemen, who's entire careers revolve around enforcing laws using physical violence (if necessary), only have a 34 percent hit rate, then what will the accuracy be like of a teacher, who has little experience in an actual gun fight, is a nervous wreck, has heard shots already being fired down the hall, and is very emotionally attatched to the children she/he has suddenly been tasked to protect. If anything, the teacher might hit another student, or instigate even more shooting once the shooter come under fire. Think also of the availability of the weapon. It is unlikely that the teacher keep it on their person, because a gun holster or strap requires a blazer over it, which is highly unrealistic for hot weather. So the gun would most likely be placed in a locked drawer, which would be extremely difficult to access in the case of a shooting. I will expand upon cost issues and limited police force in the third contention. SECOND CONTENTION Given that a background check is required, many of these background checks are not effective, as my opponent admitted. \"Easily near by teachers can come and shoot the out of control teacher \" this is a complete logical falacy. First of all, the motion states that teachers have the right, not that it is a requirement, so not every teacher may have a gun. Also, how long does it realistically take to kill a room full of un-armed students? Too long for it to be stopped. And finally, if you did not arm teachers in the first place, this scenario would have no chance of occuring! Therefore, my opponent has in fact stated why teachers should not have guns, since they have stated a disastrous scenario in which a teacher posseses a weapon. THIRD CONTENTION I assume that there is a lack of policemen to secure the schools because of lack of funds. Yet if the guns are payed for by the individual teachers (and remember, not all will have it, for it is not required, only a right), very few will have one, for a gun, plus a concealed weapon liscence, as well as ammo and gun-checkups are very expensive relative to a teacher's generally low salary. If the govenrment is paying, then again, this will be of much cost for the govenrment, including background checks and periodical checks. These funds instead could be diverted to hiring more police officers to serve these schools, and increased security to stop the problem before it occurs, not while it already has happened. Also, if a rehabilitation program is offered in a more friendly, effective manner to the whole student body, troubled students may first consult with a counselor before any extreme measures are taken, or may be more easily identified with a more extensive, better funded program(s). Sources: I apologize for not posting the website about the gunmen, for I was reading a hard-copy of the article, and is only available for subscribers, yet a trial portion of the article is available: http://swampland.time.com... statistics about shooting ratios: http://www.nytimes.com...", "qid": "30", "docid": "77fb8a5-2019-04-18T17:48:47Z-00000-000", "rank": 41, "score": 183258.0}, {"content": "Title: Open and Concealed Carry should be allowed in every state permit free. Content: All right I'll start small with hopes my opponent won't forfeit next round. 1. Carriers should be required to obtain a permit to show basic levels of competence with their firearm of choice. 2. Lack of permits would make it time-consuming for LEOs to distinguish lawful citizens from felons. It takes seconds to show a permit.", "qid": "30", "docid": "af69c8f7-2019-04-18T14:28:36Z-00004-000", "rank": 42, "score": 182336.0}, {"content": "Title: The the right to carry concealed semi-automatic weapons should not be infringed. Content: I appreciate the clarification. First, the United States Constitution does state \"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed,\" however, this is not the only statement made in the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment actually beings with \"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,\" and then follows \"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.\" The interpretation of this Amendment is in no way settled, and it may in fact be more telling of what the framers intention was by the first half of the sentence and not the last. I don't find it necessary to address the second claim, as it is completely subjective. The next claim, \"in countries with organized governments where firearm ownership is higher, not only are the people more liberated, but crime among the civilian population is lower,\" is simply incorrect. First, because the United States is has the highest gun ownership rate in the world by 34 % (http://www.washingtonpost.com...). Also, I find it worth noting that it seems my opponent is implying that the United States is a Tyranny, otherwise I don't see this statement to have any necessity. The United States is not a Tyranny. The utterance of this phrase in the last four years is nothing more than propaganda.", "qid": "30", "docid": "dedbd50d-2019-04-18T15:09:04Z-00002-000", "rank": 43, "score": 182047.0}, {"content": "Title: Concealed carry vs open carry gun laws Content: Right to bear arms confers right to carry openly.", "qid": "30", "docid": "219f521f-2019-04-17T11:47:23Z-00018-000", "rank": 44, "score": 181954.0}, {"content": "Title: Right to carry a firearm should be allowed in all 50 states because it reduces crime Content: I would like to start this round by stating that there are a few things I would agree with my opponent. If a trained police officer barges into a room, knowing exactly where the \"test subjects\" where seating there would be little anyone could do. How do I know this, well if you watch the case study you see that the trained police officer goes into room gun drawn and goes after no one else but the \"test subject\". It would also be very hard to defend yourself if you where wearing baggy pants and do not have you firearm in a holster like logic would presume for just such situation, I forgot to mention the over sized white tee-shirt you are wearing. That case study stacked the odds in favor of the attackers, there was noting anyone could do in such a biased situation. My opponent compares teenage drivers to conceal and carry permit holders, this argument should be refuted because A. provides no evidence that teenagers have highest percent of car wreaks due to lack of paying attention, couldn't it be because they are the least experienced drivers? As for my opponent say my statistics on Florida do not help my case, explain to me how Florida in 1987 homicide rates dropping as a whole does not help my point? Yes they went up as a country but what if the rest of the country did not share the same laws that Florida did, how is it proven that the country as a whole homicide rates would drop. They certainly did not go up in Florida which is on of my opponent's arguments for what could happen. My opponent states that it is the job of the government to protect our rights, but what about our lives? They also state that by advocating conceal and carry it is saying that the government isn't doing there job. Well the Supreme Court states that \"It is well-settled fact of American law that the police have no legal duty to protect any individual citizen from crime, even if the citizen has received death threats and the police have negligently failed to provide protection.\" The court case was \"TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO, PETITIONER v. JESSICA GONZALES\". So the Supreme Court as said that they have no legal obligation to protect the individual. So what do you do when cops just aren't around or the police believe that there is a greater cause to attend to than your life? Also what my opponent either doesn't know who has not acknowledged yet is that by me arguing for conceal and carry in all 50 states I am really only arguing for conceal and carry to be legal in Illinois and Wisconsin, because those are the only two states in the entire United States that do not have some form of conceal carry, so if he/she believes that having conceal and carry in Illinois and Wisconsin would create tension in the United States as a whole then that would be saying a lot, but if conceal and carry would create tension then would we not already be feeling it now? I have already stated that if someone wants to get a firearm they are able to get one, but yet again this has nothing to do with being able to carry a firearm. Finally if I was deranged enough to want to cause harm to innocent people with a firearm and I owned firearms in my house, how would not being able to carry them stop me. Do you really think that a minor felony is going to stop someone who wants to murder people? Actually having conceal and carry permits is one of the few ways that could stop me. As for my \"falsified facts\", I would like to suggest the human error of typo, until my opponent look up document I took this off of I don't see how he can call it false.", "qid": "30", "docid": "45d4a2d5-2019-04-18T19:14:31Z-00001-000", "rank": 45, "score": 181732.0}, {"content": "Title: There should be no controls on private trade and use of small arms Content: I will be arguing that self-defense is a basic human right, and that government and other power structures have no place ordering everyone to limit use of guns in a free society. I would like to see no government-issued permits for concealed or open carry, and no state-imposed limit on private use of guns ( apart from criminal prosecution if you commit a crime with them. ) Governments should be subservient to their people, and people should be free to achieve their potential by their own means, as long as they don't interfere in other people's business. You will be arguing against this, go. Bear in mind that government registration and confiscation of guns has preceded most mass slaughters in the last century.", "qid": "30", "docid": "1dfc3384-2019-04-18T18:40:31Z-00006-000", "rank": 46, "score": 181551.0}, {"content": "Title: Right to carry a firearm should be allowed in all 50 states because it reduces crime Content: I believe that the right to carry, reduces crime rates and should be made legal in all 50 states, with limitations to who would be able to carry a firearm of U.S citizens above the age of 21 and no prior felonies, or crimes with a firearm. Further more I would also argue that with correct instructions firearms can be very safe and recreational activities.", "qid": "30", "docid": "45d4a2d5-2019-04-18T19:14:31Z-00005-000", "rank": 47, "score": 181430.0}, {"content": "Title: Citizens should have guns Content: But not knowing whether or not people have a concealed handgun has not stopped the shootings anyway.", "qid": "30", "docid": "93e5aabc-2019-04-18T17:54:56Z-00004-000", "rank": 48, "score": 181370.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: certified teachers must have the right to carry handgun to school. Content: I stand in negation of this act, taking in mind that the safety and well being of students will be unbalanced. Rather than a protective figure the teachers will become an overpower and feared figure to students. Not to say that as many cases before unexpected teachers might use the weapon to intimidate, and impose power over a student. My second argument is the economic aspect of this act. Allowing school teachers to carry guns, will lead tot he School Board having to pay for the license, ammunition, and the gun. Asides form that will have to reenforce safety like where to store the gun and high explosive ammunitions.", "qid": "30", "docid": "ba45b4c3-2019-04-18T19:26:12Z-00003-000", "rank": 49, "score": 180678.0}, {"content": "Title: Gun rights Content: I'm so sorry con but your whole argument in round 2 is false as per you failed to cite any sources.My good friend a teacher would never have a gun on school grounds in the first place- this is only a privilege for principals. Teachers guns would be easily obtainable by children causing a risk. According to http://www.ijreview.com...:USA is 24th in murder rate of countries so we need to arm our citizens. Also John Lott, Jr. and Bill Landes say \u201cStates that allow law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns enjoy a 60 percent decrease in multiple-victim public shootings and a 78 percent decrease in victims per attack.\u201d USA's Murder rate has decreased over %65 since 1973 in stride with many state's gaining gun rights.John Lott, Jr. Co-author with Bill Landes of \u201cMore Guns, Less Crime. says: \u201cWith just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.\u201d (Kates & Mauser, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Vol. 30, No. 2)There is a direct relationship that the more citizens have guns, the less the murder rate.Let's save our children and generation and give the the people of this world guns to protect themselves!", "qid": "30", "docid": "691333cd-2019-04-18T16:48:33Z-00002-000", "rank": 50, "score": 180108.0}, {"content": "Title: Possessing small, compact firearms on school grounds with a license. Content: There are many, many school shootings nowadays and I believe that students attending these schools should have some sort of protection. Sometimes these shootings are carried out by more than one person and students will need more protection than the helpless, defenseless teachers and faculty. A lot of schools are out of the way and far from the nearest police station. For example, my school is a good 20 minutes away from the nearest station. If someone shot up our school, I'd like to know that there were some students certified and licensed to have a firearm on campus to protect fellow peers. The certification will include a two-week course with local tactical defense specialists (Police). The process will be very thorough and will be tedious, but worth it. The course will be like a CHL Course (Concealed Handgun License) (1). In 31 states, it is legal to carry a concealed handgun on your person. Although, you cannot carry on school grounds. This license will allow students to carry a small HANDGUN on campus, if it is concealed properly. All students in the school (even non-carriers) will have to wear a name badge while on the campus and the licensed kids will have a special \"carrier\" emblem on the badge. The students will not be allowed to interact with the weapons unless the school goes under actual lock-down. Only then will the students be able to interact with the weapon.", "qid": "30", "docid": "8e2fdd07-2019-04-18T15:40:20Z-00003-000", "rank": 51, "score": 179683.0}, {"content": "Title: THBT teachers should not have the right to carry concealed weapons in the classroom. Content: I agree with the definitions except a concealed weapon will be a licensed weapon that is concealed appropriately WITH necessary training. My contentions rebut my opponents arguments. Contention 1As stated with my disagreement of definition of concealed weapon. The teachers should have adequate training before being able to carry a concealed weapon on campus. Many scenarios require violence to combat violence. This is a cold hard truth. The difference is, the school teachers would be combating IMMORAL violence with MORAL violence. For example, if a school shooter came into a school with the intention to kill 20 innocent people in the school. Perhaps this school shooter makes it in the school and starts shooting, he shoots 11 people, at that point a concealed weapons carrier fires and kills the shooter. In this example 12 people would be killed, but 20 were intended to be killed. In reality, the concealed weapons carrier killed one person but saved 9 lives. What is more moral, letting more people die without killing, or killing to save lives? The point is, if a mentally deranged person has an eager intent to shoot up a school, they'll probably do it, the teachers should have help in saving as many lives as possible. Contention 2There are also teachers with psychological problems. Firstly, I would suggest that all teachers who are legible for carrying a concealed weapon on campus would be subject to a psychological test. Secondly, it is possible even after the psychological test the teacher still has some problem. So one day in an extreme and unlikely scenario they do pull a gun on one or several students and start shooting. Easily near by teachers can come and shoot the out of control teacher before more innocent lives are taking, thus saving lives of the innocent. Contention 3Our governments do not have enough police officers to have multiple officers per campus. The average amount of police officers per capita is 265.7 per 100,000 people. (1) With a low amount of police officers they will not be able to take out the offender and save lives quick enough since they'll have to cover a lot of ground on campus. If most of the teachers on campus had a concealed weapon and were trained accordingly they could save more lives from being taken from the offender as opposed to a few police per each campus. Enforcing security gates more closely will help prevent but will not be a 100% guarantee of prevention. My opponent has also stated 3 in 4 gunmen turn on their own community and claims it from TIME magazine but doesn't give link to the article. I can't be sure if its true but if it is, as I stated earlier in Contention 2, if a teacher turned on the students, there would be enough sane teachers to take out the out of control teacher. My opponent has stated we should have rehabilitation for the suspect in question. I agree with this if we know the suspected offender potentially has plans of having a shooting spree in a school. However, we can't always know if somebody has this terrible plan of killing innocent people in school. So when such a person comes along into a school without notice, the teachers should have to potential to save as many lives as possible. My opponents concludes by stating we should not add another aspect of violence. I have already differentiated the difference between immoral (unnecessary) violence and moral (necessary) violence. Moral violence saves lives more than it takes. (1) . http://www.nationmaster.com...", "qid": "30", "docid": "77fb8a5-2019-04-18T17:48:47Z-00001-000", "rank": 52, "score": 179628.0}, {"content": "Title: Concealed carry vs open carry gun laws Content: Concealed carry adequately protects right to bear arms.", "qid": "30", "docid": "219f521f-2019-04-17T11:47:23Z-00019-000", "rank": 53, "score": 179617.0}, {"content": "Title: ressolved:In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned. Content: I believe that in the united states private ownership of handguns ought to be banned Handguns can be easily concealed therefore they can easily used for crimes 323 people are shot every day by civilians with guns(the center for disease control and preventation) and 82% of guns used in mass shootings are obtained legally(Elizabeth Chuck CNN). Germany ,the country with the second most amount of mass shootings, has had three since 1997 while the united states has had 51 (source Ray Sanchez CNN)", "qid": "30", "docid": "a41b03e0-2019-04-18T13:42:43Z-00005-000", "rank": 54, "score": 179350.0}, {"content": "Title: Mentally healthy adults have the right to use guns for lawful reasons. Content: I have the right to not be shot by a mental patient.", "qid": "30", "docid": "9a80a998-2019-04-18T11:49:58Z-00001-000", "rank": 55, "score": 179265.0}, {"content": "Title: Gun Free Zone on College Campus Content: Sorry about that. I've been really busy with work/school/teaching. I would like to remind you the debate is specifically about whether or not non-law enforcement, but qualified individuals should be allowed to carry their concealed handguns on campus. As far as the 2nd amendment is concerned, at the end, it says the right of \"the people\" to keep and bear arms. Not the militia. It implies that \"we\" are the militia whenever we have a tyrannical government(which was the purpose of the 2nd amendment). As far as some of my facts statistics are concerned, first off, many people who oppose everyone from being allowed to carry their firearm will cite their evidence as \"Schools are statistically safer.\" There is less crime on campus in general. I have no doubt that that is true, but what amazes me is that they think that the gun free zone is the reason for this. Anybody with some knowledge of statistics should know that correlation does not imply causation, and considering the fact that College is a very different environment than the cities, it doesn't surprise me that crime rates are lower by comparison, but honestly, it has almost nothing to do with the gun free zone. When you compare a campus/university environment to that of an urban environment, it is common knowledge that urban environments just tend to have a lot of crime. It is also important to note that there are different kinds of crimes. You have murders; robbers/thieves; rapists; mass shooter. etc. Typically urban environment is where you will see a lot of robberies/thieves and murders. College campus, however, is where rapes and mass shootings usually take place. Mostly because college is full of beautiful young women, as well as a place where you can expect to have massive amounts of people in buildings. I tend to joke in a non-serious manner, that you never see muggers on campus, because all the students are broke from paying tuition. For the purpose of identifying what the cause is of the gun-free zone, I find it would be much more reliable to compare non-gun free zone schools with gun free zone schools. That way, a lot of you variables in the experiment will be easier to keep constant, instead of comparing a gun free zone school to a non-gun free zone urban environment. And it just so happens, we actually can compare non-gun free zone schools with other gun free zone schools. Not everybody knows this, but there are currently 12 Universities in the entire country that have legalized concealed carry compared to that thousands of other universities that prohibit it. What's amazing about it is that between the 12 Universities and how long they have been legal, there's been a combines total of about 200 semesters so far. There hasn't been a single incident of gun violence/gun theft, nor an accidental/negligent discharge. And statistically, about 1% of the american population is licensed to carry. The fact that they've gone this long without any incident should be convincing of most people that the gun free zone really wasn't doing much in the first place. By the way, the Universities that did legalize, only legalized it for licensed carriers which is what I'm advocating for(not allow everybody). The biggest concern people have about a certain right is that they feel as if the right can be abused and that is the grounds they use to push their agenda to remove that right. But by only allowing the qualified individuals to carry, it's been shown that none of them are abusing this right so far. And if that's the case, then why is it illegal for them? As for the concerns teachers and students have of feeling uncomfortable knowing that someone may be carrying is little bit ridiculous. Most of these people go to places like the mall and the movies with their friends, and you don't see them expressing any kind of fear that someone may be carrying there, so how and why would school be any different? And why would teachers be afraid of people carrying legally when there actually might be people in the class who are already carrying illegally? When you break it down, these fears and anxious feelings are best described as being irrational. Many people seem to think that if we legalize, then all of the sudden, everyone on campus will be armed which is completely absurd. In reality, it may only be a small handful of people who start carrying because 99% of the population doesn't carry a gun on them anywhere outside of school either. And not sure if I have mentioned this yet or not, but you are 20 times more likely to be struck by lightning then to be killed by a licensed carrier, so many people ought to be more afraid of thunder than a law allowing permit holders to carry. And for my last point, accidental gun death are extremely rare. You are statistically 32 times more likely to accidentally kill yourself with poisoning than by accidentally killing yourself with a gun. And so I hope anyone reading this debate will ponder seriously about the issue as there are people who are affected by this.", "qid": "30", "docid": "fd5562c6-2019-04-18T15:49:12Z-00000-000", "rank": 56, "score": 179122.0}, {"content": "Title: Mentally healthy adults have the right to use guns for lawful reasons. Content: Oh God, I picked up a troll. Let's feed you. I don't have gun rights due to neuropsychiatric diseases, but if you are mentally healthy, you do. Mental patients would just kill someone, but you would not, therefore, I support your gun rights.", "qid": "30", "docid": "9a80a998-2019-04-18T11:49:58Z-00005-000", "rank": 57, "score": 179107.0}, {"content": "Title: Open and Concealed Carry should be allowed in every state permit free. Content: In this debate we will begin by talking about open carry. Open carry is the practice of carrying a weapon in plain view, not concealed, for personal safety. I am for this. I feel that if you can pass the background check to buy a firearm legally, you should be able to carry a weapon as the Second Amendment gives us the rights to bear arms to protect ourselves from an oppressive government and those who seek to do us harm. Here is Ky policy on open carry. This statement statement is about what is justified to use deadly force by the Louisville Metro Police. This is basically outlining when someone would need to use their weapon. Also we will talk about what carrying guns in places could have prevented in our nation. 9.1.2 DEFINITIONS (CONTINUED) Deadly force: Force, which the officer knows to create a substantial risk of causing death or serious physical injury. Head, neck, throat or clavicle injuries caused by an impact weapon of any sort can lead to death or serious physical injury. Reasonable belief: When facts or circumstances the officer knows, or should know, are such to cause an ordinary and prudent officer to act or think in a similar way under similar circumstances. Active aggression: A threat or overt act of an assault (through physical or verbal means), coupled with the present ability to carry out the threat or assault, which reasonably indicates that an assault or injury to any person is imminent. Serious physical injury: A bodily injury that: =623; Creates a substantial risk of death to the victim. =623; Creates a prolonged impairment of health or prolonged disfigurement. =623; Creates a prolonged loss or impairment of a bodily organ.", "qid": "30", "docid": "af69c8f7-2019-04-18T14:28:36Z-00006-000", "rank": 58, "score": 179086.0}, {"content": "Title: Gun control in America Content: Regulation of firearms is not the same thing as banning them. This nation already has many regulations on firearms at the federal, state and local levels. You won't see people dragging howitzers around behind the family station wagon or parking an Apache Gunship in their driveway. There are regulations on everything from the types of weapons that people can poses, how and where those weapons can be used, specifications to how weapons can be manufactured, to the types of ammunition that is available. Certain types of activities such as 'concealed carry' require special permits. Background checks and waiting periods are enforced at the point of purchase. The list of regulations go on. I am not against reasonable regulation of firearms, as long as such regulations are created and enforced within boundaries of the constitution and body of existing legal precedent, and with attention paid to the intent of the original bill of rights. Modifying the 2nd amendment is a separate debate. The issue you have stated for debate is:\"The government should legislate a ban upon all firearms including, but not limited to: handguns, shotguns, assault rifles, and sub-machine guns.\" This goes well beyond reasonable regulation. The only logical outcome of such a ban would be confiscation en masse which would directly infringe upon right guaranteed in the 2nd amendment. Since you have not produced any evidence, or even reasons that you believe, that such a ban is worth of support, I will attack a couple of the more commonly used arguments employed by firearms ban supporters. Claim #1 - Banning firearms will reduce violent crimes, namely murder. My Response - There is no evidence for the preposterous claim that disarming ordinary, law abiding, citizens reduces the risk of violent crime. This study published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, details in 43 riveting pages the baselessness of this argument. You can read it here: http://www.law.harvard.edu... If this isn't enough for you, look at this case study from the National Center for Policy Analysis. It contrasts crime statistics for Australia directly following their ban on firearms and compares it to the crime statistics for the United States in the corresponding time period. http://www.ncpa.org... There are plenty more studies like these if you want to do a little more research. Claim #2 \" Banning all firearms will choke the supply of weapons and ammunition available to criminals. (This claim is related to the first one but separate.) My Response \" Well lets check in on Britain to see how hard it is to get a firearm illegally in there. After all it has been more than a decade since Parliament passed the firearms act of 1998. With its outright ban and draconian enforcement measures, surely the supply of illegally obtained weapons must be constrained to near exhaustion there. http://www.theguardian.com... Apparently not. The following article shows that the UK has, in fact, suffered a staggering 89% increase in gun related violence over the decade after it disarmed its citizens. http://www.dailymail.co.uk... They must not be running out of bullets either. I think I can rest my case against banning all firearms as proposed in your opening remarks. It can be clearly seen that such a measure is not only unwarranted, contrary to the good of the public, and harmful to society at large, but is also very dangerous and irresponsible. If you want to attack the problem of violent crime you should go after its root causes, and not encumber the collective security if your neighbors. Your comparison of 18th century firearms to modern firearms is irrelevant to this debate. On the other hand take a look at what Pizaro was able to do at Cajamarca with only 12 15th Century firearms against an unarmed Inca public. https://en.wikipedia.org... More of a slaughter than a battle really, wouldn't you say? The point is that atrocity can happen when armed. bad people encounter unarmed populations, no matter how sophisticated or crude their firearms may be. I would wager that Pizaro would have thought twice if there were a few hundred javelin toting Inca Guards standing around. I will await the 3rd round to see if you can put forward any relevant evidence to support a ban of firearms.", "qid": "30", "docid": "7c7dd03a-2019-04-18T16:12:16Z-00002-000", "rank": 59, "score": 179023.0}, {"content": "Title: I'm Pro Gun: Try to Change my Mind Content: I believe in concealed carry self-defense, And the right to protect against a tyrannical government with firearms. If you have a convincing argument, Try to change my mind. If you are not going to finish rounds and forfeit, Please do not accept this debate. Hope this is a good one!", "qid": "30", "docid": "8ef0695e-2019-04-18T11:19:55Z-00009-000", "rank": 60, "score": 178714.0}, {"content": "Title: In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned. Content: Private ownership of handguns ought to be banned. In the United States, people are able to carry handguns. This is because handguns are there to protect the owner from danger. However, there are lots of crimes that involve guns. The first reason why people should not be allowed to carry guns is because nobody can tell who is going to kill someone with his or her gun. There is no guarentee that you will not get shot. To reduce the number of crimes, private ownership of handguns ought be banned.", "qid": "30", "docid": "717c0448-2019-04-18T14:29:15Z-00003-000", "rank": 61, "score": 178616.0}, {"content": "Title: A handgun is uniquely valuable in self defense in one's home Content: U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled, \"Essentially, the appellants claim a right to possess what they describe as 'functional firearms', by which they mean ones that could be 'readily accessible to be used effectively when necessary' for self-defense in the home. They are not asserting a right to carry such weapons outside their homes. Nor are they challenging the District's authority per se to require the registration of firearms.\"[3]", "qid": "30", "docid": "f89bdc44-2019-04-17T11:47:43Z-00085-000", "rank": 62, "score": 178237.0}, {"content": "Title: School's should arm and train teachers to use firearms Content: I am fairly new to this site, i am not quite sure if i picked the right side so read this first, i believe teachers and/or students should be allowed to lawfully carry concealed weapons.", "qid": "30", "docid": "8a10581b-2019-04-18T14:18:44Z-00005-000", "rank": 63, "score": 178150.0}, {"content": "Title: Concealed carry laws decrease crime Content: I also shall abide by my opponents rules. I also find my opponents definitions to be enough for now. My opponent did not say anything regarding to quotes, so i shall exercise this right by providing a few. \"Guns are neat little things, aren't they? They can kill extraordinary people with very little effort. \" - John W. Hinckley, Jr. Since round one is for acceptance and no arguing, i shall close. Good luck to my opponent in his next round.", "qid": "30", "docid": "80557bcd-2019-04-18T18:20:37Z-00005-000", "rank": 64, "score": 177912.0}, {"content": "Title: Gun Rights Content: Con's Arguments: 1) If we allow people to carry guns, murder and crime will increase. ----> Actually it will DECREASE as I explained, cited and sourced in the last round. 2) The second-amendment shouldn't give people the right to bear arms. ----> Well... it does. And for many of the reasons I mentioned in the last round (unrefuted) including insurance against the tyranny of government, and adhering to the right of self-protection. 3) We should not allow citizens to purchase military weapons; only handguns. Unfortunately this was never specified in R1. Also, I don't see how it follows that one can only commit crimes or murders with machine guns. One could easily do the same with a handgun which is why I don't consider this to be relevant. Plus, some people prefer rifles or other guns to hunt with. Please extend all of my arguments from the last round.", "qid": "30", "docid": "f7b00f4-2019-04-18T19:05:00Z-00002-000", "rank": 65, "score": 177874.0}, {"content": "Title: The the right to carry concealed semi-automatic weapons should not be infringed. Content: \"The United States is not a tyranny.\"I agree, and never said it was. I was stating that it is my easier for an armed populace to overthrow a tyrannical government, and that our founders knew that. Furthermore, at the time of the writing of the Constitution the \"Militia\" referred to all males old enough to fight.[2]The 2nd Amendment protects the individual right to arms.[1][2]A closer examination of the chart my opponent referenced[3] actually works for my argument. For instance, Sierra Leone, at the time the data for this chart was collected, civilians were prohibited from owning firearms. Yet, Sierra Leone had 2.28 Gun Homicides per 100,000 people, only slightly lower than the United States. Furthermore, with guns in Sierra Leone numbering 0.6 per 100 people, guns were used to commit 87.7% of the homicides.When ranked by the number of gun homicides per capita, the United States doesn't even make the top 25. In the top 25 gun homicide per capita nations, not a single one has a number of guns greater than 25 per 100 citizens.In Brazil, a nation with a population roughly 2/3 that of the United States, and ranked 75th in gun ownership, has about three and a half times more gun homicides and and ranks first in percentage of homicides by gun.In fact, when ranked by total number of homicides by gun, the US ranks 5th. The top for all have populations lower than the US, and not one of them has a gun ownership rate above 15 per 100 citizens. The ownership rate in the US is 88.8 per 100 citizens.What does all of this show? First, a nation where private ownership of guns was banned had a massive percentage of their homicides committed with guns. They saw the error of their ways a legalized private ownership about two years after the data in the chart was collected.[4] The only country that had a higher rate of their homicides involve a gun was Leichtenstein at 100%, but to be fair that was the only murder in the country all year. References1. http://www.constitution.org...2. District of Columbia v. Heller 554 US 5703. http://www.washingtonpost.com...4. http://www.africareview.com...", "qid": "30", "docid": "dedbd50d-2019-04-18T15:09:04Z-00001-000", "rank": 66, "score": 177696.0}, {"content": "Title: THBT teachers should not have the right to carry concealed weapons in the classroom. Content: This is for friendly debate practice and constructive criticism is much appreciated.", "qid": "30", "docid": "77fb8a5-2019-04-18T17:48:47Z-00004-000", "rank": 67, "score": 177006.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: certified teachers must have the right to carry handgun to school. Content: I have refuted my opponents argument, and my argument stands untouched. I urge PRO vote. And just to say: \u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026.._,,-~'\u00ef\u00bf\u00bd\u00ef\u00bf\u00bd\u00ef\u00bf\u00bd'~-,, \u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026..,-\u2018' ; ; ;_,,---,,_ ; ;'-,\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026.._,,,---,,_ \u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026.,' ; ; ;,-\u2018 , , , , , \u2018-, ; ;'-,,,,---~~'~--,,,_\u2026..,,-~' ; ; ; ;__;'-, \u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026.| ; ; ;,' , , , _,,-~' ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; \u00ef\u00bf\u00bd'~'-,,_ ,,-~' , , \u2018, ;', \u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026.', ; ; \u2018-, ,-~' ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;'-, , , , , ,' ; | \u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026', ; ;,' ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;'-, , ,-\u2018 ;,-\u2018 \u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026.,'-\u2018 ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;'-\u2018 ;,,-\u2018 \u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026..,' ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;__ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; \u2018-,' \u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026,-\u2018 ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-\u2018'\u00ef\u00bf\u00bd: : '-, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; _ ; ; ; ; ;', \u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026..,' ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;| : : : : : ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,-\u2018'\u00ef\u00bf\u00bd: \u00ef\u00bf\u00bd'-, ; ; ;', FORFEITS AREN'T FUN!!! \u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026.,' ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; \u2018-,_: : _,-\u2018 ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; | : : : : : ; ; ; | \u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026,' ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; \u00ef\u00bf\u00bd\u00ef\u00bf\u00bd ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;'-,,_ : :,-\u2018 ; ; ; ;| \u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026..,-\u2018 ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,,-~' , , , , ,,,-~~-, , , , _ ; ; ;\u00ef\u00bf\u00bd\u00ef\u00bf\u00bd ; ; ; ; ;| ..\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026,-\u2018 ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,' , , , , , , ,( : : : : , , , ,'-, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;| \u2026\u2026\u2026.,-\u2018 ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;', , , , , , , , ,'~---~' , , , , , ,' ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;', \u2026\u2026.,-\u2018' ; _, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; \u2018'~-,,,,--~~'\u00ef\u00bf\u00bd'~-,,_ , ,_,-\u2018 ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; \u2018, \u2026.,-\u2018'-~',-\u2018 ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; | ; ; | . . . . . . ,'; ,'\u00ef\u00bf\u00bd ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,_ ; \u2018-, \u2026\u2026\u2026.,' ; ;,-, ; ;, ; ; ;, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; \u2018, ; ;', . . . . .,' ;,' ; ; ; ;, ; ; ;,'-, \u2026\u2026\u2026,'-~' ,-\u2018-~' \u2018, ,-\u2018 \u2018, ,,- ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; \u2018, ; ; \u2018~-,,,-\u2018' ; ,' ; ; ; ; \u2018, ;,-\u2018' ; \u2018, ,-\u2018, \u2026\u2026\u2026.,-\u2018' ; ; ; ; ; \u2018' ; ; ;' ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; \u2018'-,,_ ; ; ; _,-\u2018 ; ; ; ; ; ;'-\u2018' ; ; ; \u2018' ; ;'-, \u2026\u2026..,-\u2018 ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;\u00ef\u00bf\u00bd\u00ef\u00bf\u00bd'\u00ef\u00bf\u00bd ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;'-, \u2026\u2026,-\u2018 ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; |, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; \u2018-, \u2026..,' ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,' ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;|..'-,_ ; ; ; , ; ; ; ; ; \u2018, \u2026.,' ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; | ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,'\u2026\u2026.',-~' ; ; ; ; ; ,' \u2026,' ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;'~-,,,,,--~~'~-,, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,'\u2026..,-~' ; ; ; ; ; ; ,- \u2026| ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; \u2018, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,'\u2026,-\u2018 ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-\u2018 \u2026', ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,-\u2018 ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,'\u2026.', ; ; ; ; _,,-\u2018' \u2026.', ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,-\u2018' ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,'\u2026\u2026.'~~'\u00ef\u00bf\u00bd \u2026..'-, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;_,,-\u2018' ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,-\u2018 \u2026\u2026\u2026'~-,,_ ; ; ; ; _,,,-~' ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-\u2018 \u2026\u2026\u2026..| ; ; ;\u00ef\u00bf\u00bd\u00ef\u00bf\u00bd'\u00ef\u00bf\u00bd ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,,-\u2018 \u2026\u2026\u2026..', ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-\u2018 \u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026| ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;| \u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026', ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ~-,,___ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;', \u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026.', ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-\u2018\u2026.'-, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; \u2018, \u2026\u2026\u2026..,' \u2018- ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-\u2018'\u2026\u2026\u2026.'-, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; \u2018, \u2026\u2026\u2026.,' ; ;' ; ; ; ; ; ; ,,-\u2018\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026.', ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;', \u2026\u2026\u2026,' ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-\u2018'\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026'-, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; | \u2026\u2026..,' ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,,-\u2018\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026', ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; | \u2026\u2026..| ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,'\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026,' ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,' \u2026\u2026..| ; ; ; ; ; ; ,'\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026..,-\u2018 ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,' \u2026\u2026..| ; ; ; ; ; ;,'\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026.,-\u2018 ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,-\u2018 \u2026\u2026..',_ , ; , ;,'\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026.,' ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,-\u2018 \u2026\u2026\u2026',,',\u00ef\u00bf\u00bd,','|\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026.| ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; \u2018--,, \u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026.\u00ef\u00bf\u00bd\u2026'\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026..'-, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;'~,, \u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026'-,, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;'~-,, \u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026..'-, ; ; ; ; ; ,,_ ; ;'-,'-, \u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026..', ; ; ; ; ; ; \u2018-,__,--. \u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026'-, ; ; ;,,-~' , ,|, | \u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026'~-\u2018'_ , , ,,',_/--\u2018", "qid": "30", "docid": "ba45b4c3-2019-04-18T19:26:12Z-00000-000", "rank": 68, "score": 176639.0}, {"content": "Title: No one has the right to own guns except memberes of the police and military Content: I will use this argument to rebut my opponent's points, and, in doing so, highlight my own. I will also argue on the assumption that the Topic of Debate is that no one SHOULD have the right to own guns except for members of the police and military. Obviously, the second amendment can be taken as evidence for the fact that everyone does have this right. 1)\"Our first reason is protection and defense.\" The next line of this section is \"Private citizens have a constitutional right to live without fear in their own home.\" However, this constitutional right is used as its own argument; it cannot be both evidence for an argument and an argument itself (as evidence, it must be fact, and as an argument, it must be opinion/theory). But this is not the only problem with this argument; the facts simply do not add up: \"Also, a recent poll showed that 71% of adults who own handguns only own them for protection.\" 1-Where is this poll? Without a link of some sort, we cannot assume that such a poll truly exists. 2-More importantly, of COURSE gun owners will say that it is for protection (or hunting). That a) does not mean that they were telling the truth and b) does not mean that it ACTUALLY protects them. They just think it does/will. \"As it is, 82% of American adults believe crime is a serious problem.\" And the rest...are criminals? \"According to the NRA, privately owned firearms are used to stop crime attack between 2 and 2.5 million times every year.\" This means nothing, simply because it comes from the NRA. If Target says that 2 to 2.5 million of its products are of better quality than similar items at Wal-Mart, would you believe them? 2)Hunting is no reason to keep guns legal. Why do we want to encourage killing for enjoyment? Also, people hunted in the Ice Age out of necessity. My opponent even states that \"Hunting was how the Native Americans survived.\" They needed to kill the animals. It was not for sport; they considered animals to be their brothers and tried to use every single part of the dead animal so as not to waste any life. All of this aside, Native Americans and people of the Ice Age did not even use guns to hunt. \"Taking away guns would not only take away sport but American tradition.\" Just because something is a tradition does not make it right. The United States had a tradition of segragation until the Civil Rights Movement. So Jim Crowe Laws should have remained legal? 3)\"banning guns wouldn't stop crime and violence. If guns were banned, it would be hard for the government to enforce that everyone gets rid of their gun\" How does a challenge for the government mean that crime would not be stopped? \"If guns were banned, then murderers and criminals would use the next most convenient weapon. Instead of guns, knives, axes, clubs or other weapons would be used.\" Which would make mass murders next to impossible. A person can only hold so many knives at once, and they need to be in close range. If they throw them they 1) have to know how to do it in a manner such that the tip of the blade, not the side or handle, hits the target and 2) will run out. And how many school massacres would happen? Any? It doesn't seem to feasible for a student to lug an axe into school so that they can maybe hack one student up (but is murder ever really feasible?) before being seen and stopped. This statement (\"If guns were banned...other weapons would be used\") also undermines the argument that guns are used mainly for protection. Allow me to explain: 1)Assume that 71% of adults that own handguns really do own them for protection. 2)This means that hunting, target shooting and crime make up the other 29%; crime can only be a small part of this (according the my opponent's argument). 3)Now the few crimes that are committed will be committed with less lethal weapons, meaning fewer homicides. As stated above, bladed weapons work only in close range and can kill very few people in one instant. It also contradicts another vital part of my opponent's argument: the fact that guns prevent deaths. Why couldn't other weapons, in the \"right\" hands, do the same? 4)\"A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.\" A well-regulated militia. Not \"for the purposes of sport and hunting,\" not for \"personal protection and safety.\" For a \"well-regulated militia.\" Citizen soldiers. Is this amendment not saying that the purpose of owning a firearm is to protect one's state from an oppressive government (domestic or foreign)? In other words, people can carry guns to protect themselves from potentially violent governments. The only problem with this is that today, the governemnt has so much more \"firepower\" on its side than it did at the time of the Constitution. No militia could stand up to a powerful government army of today. This argument goes to support the broader rebuttal of \"These laws have been working for around 218 years then they are good laws for our country.\" Slavery existed in America for centuries. That does not mean it was good. The length of a law (or anything) does not prove its value. 5)To rebut the employment of the gun industry, I must once again refer to slavery. I'm sure many slave traders lost their jobs when slavery was made illegal. Everyone in the slave industry was affected. And the country still moved on. In fact, all the former slaves needed jobs as well. And the economy did not collapse. Thank you.", "qid": "30", "docid": "95dbed37-2019-04-18T19:47:10Z-00002-000", "rank": 69, "score": 176172.0}, {"content": "Title: Lawful concealed carry is a good thing Content: Ok I'm sorry i wasn't able to respond on the previous round First of all I fully agree to the 2nd amendment, I will argue against your vague position that \"concealed carry is a good thing\" I hope voters will recognize what we are debating about and not the legality of concealed carry/2nd amendment First of all, gun isn't free, you need to shell out a lot of money to buy guns, bullets, not to mention training regularly for precise shooting and renting a place for such activity. Money that can be use for other much important things like house,food and clothing. Yes, everyone have the right to bear arm, yet the reality is only people with money can do so. In addition to that, racial discrimination play a big part when it comes to carrying a gun. Admit it, you don't want to see a mexican or african-american guy carrying in your street, why? because of their race. I don't want to explain the sociology of crime but we all know that poverty breeds crime and most of this race are poor, thus, many of them are connected to some crime of sorts. I'm not being a racist here but you can Google for yourself the statistics of crime committed by a certain race here in America. http://en.wikipedia.org... Lastly, ever heard of the post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and other psychiatric illnesses caused by killing someone? yes you might be able to defend yourself or your family by some thugs who want to hurt you/them. But the consequence might haunt you for the rest of your life. Soldiers experience this, police and private securities are no exemption, how much more to an individual not trained to \"kill\" someone. There are some ex-soldiers who go berserk and kill their loved ones because of this disease. The recent fort hood shooting is just another case of many incident like these. http://edition.cnn.com... These are just some of the bad things that can happen in carrying or owning a gun. Again, just what I have mentioned, I didn't debate against the legality of owning a gun but the \"bad things\" owning a gun can do to a person and society", "qid": "30", "docid": "ca07a94-2019-04-18T16:25:14Z-00004-000", "rank": 70, "score": 175984.0}, {"content": "Title: THBT teachers should not have the right to carry concealed weapons in the classroom. Content: Throughout this posting, I will state three contentions in favor of the motion. I will also define the terms within the motion now: Teachers will be any certified instructor within a school system. Concealed weapon will be a lisceneced weapon that is concealed appropriately, without any necessary training. Classroom will be anywhere on the school campus. FIRST ARGUMENT It is understood that school shootings are a rising threat. Yet is this the correct way to combat violence? With more violence? Essentially, to arm a teacher is to add more bullets, more violence, and more death to the scene. Already, policemen have trouble hitting a target, yet what of an untrained, nervous teacher tasked with saving his/her students? What should we do in response to violence? Add more violence? perhaps arm the whole school to the teeth? which leads into my SECOND CONTENTION What about the teachers that sexualy harass students, or feel agression towards them? Although these are extreme cases, think of all of the stressed-out teachers. When armed with a tool with the ability to end multiple lives, a certain physcological effect takes place. Although it would be egregious to say that if a student is upsetting a teacher the teacher will immediately pull a gun on the student in question, possesing a gun in stressful situations makes the user more confident, and endows the posessor with a misleading sense of power. Let us discuss an extreme (but too common) circumstance. If a shooter invades a school and takes a student hostage. A teacher without a gun will call for backup. A teacher with a gun will be much more likely to use it to save the student, although a violent response to a person with violent intent will certainly trigger a chain of events, for hit rates against live targets are low even among policemen, and kill rates low as well, perhaps leading to even more unessecary deaths. Again, fighting violence with more violence simply adds fuel to the flame. Perhaps a different approach is called for. THIRD POINT Already, policemen are seen on campus of many schools. At least these policemen are trained, more detatched, and have more tools at their disposal. Policemen also carry exposed weapons, which may serve as a detterent to any potential shooter. Instead of funding weapons for teachers, enforce security such as gates more closely, or hire more professional policemen. 3 in 4 gunmen (TIMES magazine) turn on their own community. This shows that the problem comes from within. Instead of tearing ourselves apart with the accumulation of even more weapons, more effective ways and programs to rehabilitate the person in question before the violent act is commited would be the most effective in stopping these unessesary deaths. In conclusion, granting gun rights to teachers worsens the situation by adding another aspect of violence to the scene. Also, already-pressured teachers who are granted a gun are more likely to use it. And finally, more peaceful and efffective methods are available.", "qid": "30", "docid": "77fb8a5-2019-04-18T17:48:47Z-00002-000", "rank": 71, "score": 175899.0}, {"content": "Title: Allow Concealed Carry on College Campuses Content: First of all, thank you for debating me. While we completely disagree on this issue (and evidently many others from a view at your profile), it'll give us each an opportunity to express our beliefs in a fun, educational manner. You mentioned in your post that it would make you very uneasy to know that anybody walking around you might have a concealed firearm. What about when you walk out in public at stores, restaurants, and maybe even work? There's a good chance that you have passed many people who are concealing, and college campuses should not be different from any of these other establishments. The people with the CC permit are responsible and have had much training and extensive background checking to ensure that they are of sound body and mind. Here is a list of what most states require: \u2022 The holder being at least 21 years of age \u2022 No felony convictions; or Class A or B misdemeanors within 5 years \u2022 No domestic violence conviction \u2022 Being a legal citizen of the United States \u2022 Not chemically dependent (ie. Known alchoholic or drug user) \u2022 Not delinquent in child support payments \u2022 Is legally allowed to purchase a handgun \u2022 Has no court protective order or restraining orders against them \u2022 Has not been diagnosed by a physician as suffering from a major psychiatric disorder or hospitalized for psychiatric problems While these requirements do not guarantee anything, they set a very low possibility of the wrong people getting their hands on a permit. I am confident that one clean shot is an attainable goal for a skilled shooter and would not be an issue, regardless of how stressful the situation. The assertion you made about these folks loosing their concentration tells me that you personally have had little or no experience using a firearm. While it is possible that a crazy criminal(and very tricky one at that) could get their hands on a CC permit, why would they go to the trouble. If they're crazy enough to shoot someone, than who cares if they have a permit or not, they're going to shoot someone either way - permit to carry a gun or not. A look at the statistics shows that more guns does equal less crime. While it is simple to say fighting fire with fire won't work, it simply isn't true. Since the fall semester of 2006, state law in Utah has allowed licensed individuals to carry concealed handguns on the campuses of all public colleges. Also, concealed carry has been allowed for several years at both Colorado State University (Fort Collins, CO) and Blue Ridge Community College (Weyers Cave, VA). This has yet to result in a single act of violence at any of these schools. Numerous studies, including studies by University of Maryland senior research scientist John Lott, University of Georgia professor David Mustard, engineering statistician William Sturdevant, and various state agencies, show that concealed handgun license holders are five times LESS likely than non-license holders to be arrested for violent crimes. I agree with you that when the Founding Fathers wrote the Right to Bear Arms amendment, they were not thinking about schools. However, these are VERY different times. The thought of a student taking a gun into a school back then never even crossed their minds. The idea that did cross their mind was the right for citizens to protect themselves from danger regardless of their location, and that's exactly what allowing guns on campuses will do.", "qid": "30", "docid": "386a0c00-2019-04-18T20:02:17Z-00003-000", "rank": 72, "score": 175476.0}, {"content": "Title: I'm Pro Gun: Change my Mind Content: concealed carry is only legal in some places/states. It is concealed on their body, So people wouldn't know that they had it in the first place, And you can generally tell someone who is suspicious. \"Sure, There are some citizens that would use it correctly. But there are also a lot who wouldn't. \" Concealed-carry holders are the most law-abiding group in the country. So much that they actually commit crimes 16% less than POLICE OFFICERS! This shows how law-abiding they are. They frequently go to ranges and safety classes and know how to properly operate and when to use their gun. So let me get your position straight: You think concealed-carry shouldn't be legal, But do you think owning a gun should be legal, Or what further procedures/restrictions/bans would you like on certain guns? Please explain your position.", "qid": "30", "docid": "81403fde-2019-04-18T11:16:40Z-00003-000", "rank": 73, "score": 175118.0}, {"content": "Title: I'm Pro Gun: Try to Change my Mind Content: What is not legal right now? The right to bear arms is legal, And concealed-carry permits are legal in some places. \" Like you said they will take it off the black market and no one will question then on it. \" The black market will stay there even if guns are banned. Look at drugs like cocaine. It is banned but has it ever gone off the black market? No. You didn't answer any of my questions from before. I would appreciate if you did. If guns are banned, How will I be able to protect myself in public? Also, How will I be able to protect against a tyrannical government? Guns save far more lives than take them. There are 2. 5 Million defensive gun uses per year. This majorly outweighs the 10, 000 gun murders per year. Gun bans have proven not to be effective. In England, They banned guns, But murder rates spiked up and then went down to be the same before the gun ban. Gun bans in cities have not worked as well. Take for example, Chicago and Washington D. C. There murder rates did not go down after gun bans. Please rebuttal to these points, As you have not done so earlier.", "qid": "30", "docid": "8ef0695e-2019-04-18T11:19:55Z-00001-000", "rank": 74, "score": 175106.0}, {"content": "Title: Gun Control Content: Hello all. This debate is part of the current Debate Tournament. I will be contending that gun regulation should be minimal and only in the forms of background checks to purchase a gun. If my opponent wishes for a different resolution, I hope he comments on it before accepting it. Contention 1: Guns protect people If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns, which actually increased crime rates. States with right-to-carry laws tend to have lower crime rates than those without [1]. It makes logical sense that criminals, when deciding their targets, will be less inclined to rob from somebody who may be armed with a gun. When people are allowed to conceal their guns, they create a positive externality on society, protecting the non-gun owners with criminal\u2019s fear of assaulting somebody who can fight back. When the criminal knows that the victim is unarmed and not dangerous, he is much more inclined to infringe on their other rights, such as property and life. Criminologist Gary Kleck concluded that \u201chandguns are used for protection nearly 2 million times per year, up to five times more often than to commit crimes\u201d [2]. Guns can be used, without being fired, to intimidate a criminal to stop committing a crime and flee, thus protecting everybody. Also, a large number of potential crimes never even occur because the potential criminal is too scared of the possibility of confronting somebody with a weapon. The clear power of guns in the law abiding civilization, in addition to the general inability of the government to completely enforce its idealistic gun restrictions, make the notion that banning guns would do anybody any good somewhat ridiculous. In Washington D.C., the homicide rate tripled between 1976 and 1991, during which it banned hand guns, while the national rate only rose 12 percent [2]. This would logically result from the fact that law abiding citizens gave up their guns, leaving a full 100% of the guns in the hands of people with the clear intention of breaking the law. Criminals, now knowing that their victims are completely defenseless, are all the more keen to use their guns to rob, steal, and murder. The individual citizens are much better at defending themselves than the police force, which is unable to give constant protection at all times like a gun can. Guns give regular citizens a much better fight against criminals, deterring them from even trying. That shall be all for now. [1] http://www.cato.org... [2] http://www.roanoke.com...", "qid": "30", "docid": "9c361060-2019-04-18T18:51:47Z-00007-000", "rank": 75, "score": 175013.0}, {"content": "Title: Concealed weapons can be very comfortable. Content: This is particularly true with the right set-up. Often, concealing a weapon means that you can use the same hip holster as someone who is openly carrying, but that you simply must wear a lengthy or baggy vest or coat to ensure that the gun is concealed. There are also chest holsters that hold the gun at around the left or right rib cage, and which are very comfortable (perhaps even more comfortable than a hip holster) and which need only be concealed by a vest. Comfort, therefore, is not a good enough reason to open carry", "qid": "30", "docid": "219f521f-2019-04-17T11:47:23Z-00066-000", "rank": 76, "score": 175002.0}, {"content": "Title: In order to solve school/campus shootings, we should allow more people to carry guns Content: The dictionary define \"vigilante\" as \"a member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate\". My opponent states that he was not eluding to arming people with more guns, but someone trained.... see his comment: \"Who I do say should be in the room with a gun is a trained individual of either in law enforcement, or someone trained to handle the job. Either that or allowing an adult to be able to carry a concealed handgun.\". Or maybe his comment at the end..........\"or allowing an adult to be able to carry a concealed handgun\". For what purpose? To protect himself, or others. Vigilante as defined by the dictionary, is exactly applicable. Otherwise, we wouldn't be having this debate. People feel the protection is inadequate and want to protect themselves and others in a way they see fit. To make this debate fun, I offer a well thought out article called\" Batman and the Problem With Vigilante Justice: A Love Story\" http://the-artifice.com...; Dont' all spiritual warriors have a little batman inside of them? After all, guns represent power. And Batman is POWERFul. Probem is, its a comic strip. The article contends that : \"Batman is a character that takes matters into his own hands. He does not wait for approval and effectively answers to no one. When a problem arises, he rises to the occasion and remedies the situation, often times to the chagrin of the local authorities. Lastly, and most importantly, Batman is problematic to the government because he gives the people back their power. The citizens of Gotham feel as if they have been completely stripped of all of their power, of their voice, to stand up against the injustices committed against them both by criminals and the government itself. Batman\u2019s public display of vigilante justice provides an outlet for the public to understand that they do not have to hide in the shadows and feel as if they are perpetual victims of an impotent system that fails to protect them\". I offer to my opponent that there are many statistics about gun deaths, shootings, etc - none of which are more credicble than the next. So I will purposefully, not reply to his cited statiistics. We can go back and forth all day about who's stats are right. Isn't that what the people are doing now? It's getting us no where in terms of progressive solutions to move us forward. Everyone has natural fear. But our fear is growing daily, as each massacare and world political war stage becomes more and more violent. Kids, and teens, angry because they don't have a girlfriend (Oregon shooter \"I will die a virgin and without a girlfriend\", (http://www.dailymail.co.uk...). Children die, and adults respond with \"more guns!\". What the heck? These are reactions of emotional people driven by frustration and hate for something, someone, somewhere. No well-adjusted person is filled with rage and unaffected by the loss of human life (at least seemingly so by either failure to address it, or give it much relevance). And you want to put a gun in the hands of more frustrated people?", "qid": "30", "docid": "4e7c66b5-2019-04-18T14:19:07Z-00001-000", "rank": 77, "score": 174810.0}, {"content": "Title: Citizens ought to possess handguns. Content: Although I will admit that not everything is always used with its original intention, the purpose of citizens owning handguns is to protect them. As to harming society in general: Society is not hurt because individuals own handguns. Society is hurt by individuals. You cannot condemn the hammer because the wielder misuses it: in the same way, you cannot condemn a gun as \"bad\" because individuals choose to misuse it. You can't justify taking away a citizen's right to their own protection by saying that others will cause them harm with the same thing they use to protect themselves. Even if handguns were to be legalized, there are ways of getting around laws and regulations that people who intend to harm others will be able to access that regular citizens will not. Example: the black market. Another point: we're arguing handguns specifically. However, there are many other different types of guns. Even if handguns were to become illegal, people who seriously intend to cause damage to others have easy access to OTHER types of guns, such as rifles. All you'd need to do is walk into a hunting/sports store. So arguing that guns are empowering, thus citizens ought not carry HANDGUNS won't benefit society either way: illegalizing handguns for that reason would be pointless. Taking away a citizen's right to owning a handgun will not decrease the potential for crime - it will decrease the potential for defense against crime. Society will be harmed, not helped. You argue that children could potentially get into the guns, or even other people. That is a nonunique arguement. That reasoning could be applicable to any dangerous item in a house, and is not proper justification for the illegalization of a handgun. Lighters were originally intended to do just that: to light. However, they were used as a means of torture by gangs, and the potential for danger when using a lighter is high. However, they are sold over-the-counter. Say a child finds a lighter on a table and accidentally severely burns himself. Should lighters then be illegalized? I think there's another important point to bring up: When a government tells it's citizens that they have no right to carry arms, to protect themselves, and going against its own Constitution in doing so, what message does that send to the citizens? When a government does not adhere to its own laws then its citizens cannot be expected to do the same, which could potentially send us into a state of either anarchy or tyranny. From history we know that anarchy leads to violent revolution, and tyranny leads to death and governmental abuse, and as we're valuing societal welfare in this debate, we cannot take away that right to bear arms because the society will always be harmed.", "qid": "30", "docid": "9989f087-2019-04-18T20:02:35Z-00001-000", "rank": 78, "score": 174722.0}, {"content": "Title: I'm Pro-Gun: Change my Mind Content: Claim: \"Exactly, any gun can be used. But with guns like AR-15's there can be a lot more killings.\" Rebuttal: Actually, like I already said, the majority of gun murders are committed with handguns. In 2016, Over 7,000 are committed with handguns. 374 were committed by any type of rifle. This means 95% are done with handguns! Claim: \"Either way, it's guaranteed that if the attackers had knives, a huge amount would still be alive.\" Rebuttal: 1,600 knife murders happened. That means they happen more than 4 more times than rifle murders. [1] Claim: \"Also, that's another reason why we need background checks and if you are going to own a gun it needs to be concealed on your person with a license or locked away from children.\" Rebuttal: We already have background checks. There have been several illegal gun uses by mass murderers or red flags that should have warranted a police action. That's the only way you can conceal and carry: If you have a license. Yes, parents need to be responsible by teaching their children about gun safety and keeping them safe. Statistical evidence from the Crime Prevention Research Center shows that in places guns were banned, such as England, Ireland, Chicago, and Washington, D.C., homicides went up or stayed the same.[2] 1. http://dailycaller.com... 2. https://crimeresearch.org...", "qid": "30", "docid": "1cf18ead-2019-04-18T11:27:23Z-00001-000", "rank": 79, "score": 174513.0}, {"content": "Title: Citizens should have guns Content: Well, I do not know of an instance where a concealed handgun stopped a shooter either. However, I do know of mass killings where a concealed handgun would have stopped a shooter, if they had one. It's not only that, but it is also that the criminal knows no one will have a gun, which means he can do it wherever, whenever he wants (if no one could conceal a handgun). He knows no one could stop him. However, if we are allowed to have handguns, then he does not know who could or couldn't have a handgun.", "qid": "30", "docid": "93e5aabc-2019-04-18T17:54:56Z-00005-000", "rank": 80, "score": 174460.0}, {"content": "Title: Lawful concealed carry is a good thing Content: Sadly, the only argument you can tell is that carrying a gun is like having a power that prevents crime automatically, you didn't mentioned the danger posed by having one. The death and injury you can also get by defending yourself and your family. You also assumed that killing a criminal benefits the society because it will lessen the burden of a state to prosecute and jail someone. How about the injuries caused by using a gun? do you know that it is much expensive to treat someone than to bury a dead person? Moreover, in a democratic country where due process of law is observed, the cost of justice is nothing compared to the liberty you can get from it. Furthermore, having a gun close at hand can turn ordinary disputes and arguments fatal. Even legal gun owners can be involved in a crime. Crime of passion mostly involves gun that is legally acquired. No one really excuses someone to commit a crime even you are carrying a gun legally. To conclude, the issue here is not weather guns are beneficial or not. Anyone can exercise their rights to have one, but please do not be blinded by media or any pro gun group that it is all pros and no cons. Having one entails responsibility and precaution. To think that it will magically help your problem from the ills of society is absolutely crazy. Go get a gun, it is your right but always remember the responsibilities attached onto it.", "qid": "30", "docid": "ca07a94-2019-04-18T16:25:14Z-00000-000", "rank": 81, "score": 174354.0}, {"content": "Title: Mentally healthy adults have the right to use guns for lawful reasons. Content: I'm very moderate on guns. I will never use or own a gun for any reason, but I support some level of gun rights for mentally healthy adults to use for lawful reasons. Self defense is a right.", "qid": "30", "docid": "9a80a998-2019-04-18T11:49:58Z-00007-000", "rank": 82, "score": 174329.0}, {"content": "Title: Mentally healthy adults have the right to use guns for lawful reasons. Content: I promise you I am not trolling. The mentally ill make up a very real and fairly large part of the usa, and as such their rights should be protected. Just as it is wrong and illegal to kill a person fighting mental illness due to their protected right to live.The mentally ill are far more likely to be attacked than to attack anyone, and the vast majority of the time are not violent in any way.I do deal with mental illness, actually. So you don't support my right to own a gun.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------http://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org...https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...", "qid": "30", "docid": "9a80a998-2019-04-18T11:49:58Z-00004-000", "rank": 83, "score": 174036.0}, {"content": "Title: States/local municipalities should have the right to restrict handgun ownership to eligible citizens Content: First, thanks for accepting, and sorry this is a little short; I don't have a lot of time. :) I'd first like to address the contention of my opponent, who states that state and local governments should have the ability to regulate handgun ownership because if not, hand guns are likely to fall into the hands of someone who will commit a crime (i.e. ex-cons) or those who are mentally unqualified to carry a weapon. In response to this I'd like to ask my opponent, would giving the power to the federal government allow people who are mentally ill or an ex-convict to purchase a hand gun? Of course not; in fact, our government would ensure this would not happen. I'd also like to point out my opponent has provided no evidence to back up this claim. I'd now like to go on to my own arguments. -First, states should not have the right to restrict handgun ownership to eligible citizens because this would restrict the liberties of only certain people, which violates the Constitution, whose Second Amendment clearly states, \"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.\" Next, it would be easier for the federal government to regulate hand guns, as everything would be uniform; there would be no uncertainty as to what is allowed where.", "qid": "30", "docid": "90cc69d8-2019-04-18T19:09:33Z-00002-000", "rank": 84, "score": 173965.0}, {"content": "Title: Conceal handgun laws reduce violent crime Content: I am NOT saying the law itself reduces crime, but its outcome does. The reasoning here is clear. If I see any semantics on this point you automatically lose. If there is any semantics with the title, you automatically lose. If you use semantics on the following definition, or this sentence, you lose: \"Concealed carry, or CCW (carrying a concealed weapon), refers to the practice of carrying a handgun or other weapon in public in a concealed manner, either on one's person or in proximity.\" http://en.wikipedia.org... The definition on conceal carry handgun laws is common knowledge, so no trolling. Rules: No semantics, on the things mentioned above. If you do auto FF No trolling, sorry imabench ;) [or the real trolls] If you do auto FF 1st round acceptance, if you fail to do this I get conduct. 1st round definitions, rule making (by instigator) and other things, no arguments. __________________________ I have debated this a lot recently, but my opponents have FF'd. If needed it is no conduct or rule violation for an external source page: (http://www.debate.org...) Violent crime: rape, murder, assault, robbery BOP even. I need to prove 3/4 of the things above, and that definition expanded as long as it is actually considered violent crime. Neither side must prove 100% decrease or increase. But voters, look in who makes it more convincing. Good luck!!", "qid": "30", "docid": "5c976881-2019-04-18T18:22:18Z-00009-000", "rank": 85, "score": 173956.0}, {"content": "Title: Conceal Carry Laws reduce violent crime Content: Why shouldn't I get to know if someone is carrying?If someone is acting like a lunatic I might tolerate that behavior if they are unarmed, but if they are armed I want to be able to get away.Instead of allowing concealed carry, only open carry should be allowed. The individual is more advantaged by open carry than concealed anyways. If you are openly carrying the criminal will know and avoid you. With concealed carry since most citizens aren't carrying criminals are unlikely to suspect that you are carrying. You want to avoid trouble in the first place if you can. That's why open carry makes more sense than concealed carry in deterring crime.Furthermore there is the risk of accidents and the right for citizens to know you are carrying so they can avoid you to avoid accidents.", "qid": "30", "docid": "78eb6d97-2019-04-18T18:16:29Z-00002-000", "rank": 86, "score": 173762.0}, {"content": "Title: Open carry helps educate public about guns Content: Paul Hager. \"Why I Carry. Concealed versus open carry.\" November 19th, 2000: \"One concern I have about concealed versus open carry is a purely political and psychological one. Given all of the anti-gun propaganda, coupled with the fact that the average person is unaware of how many friends and neighbors carry a concealed handgun, the right to carry for self-defense becomes ripe for a \"counter-reformation\" to roll back the gains that have been made. [...] Prejudice is based upon ignorance and fear, and stereotypes are impervious to everything except confrontation with reality.\"", "qid": "30", "docid": "219f521f-2019-04-17T11:47:23Z-00062-000", "rank": 87, "score": 173585.0}, {"content": "Title: Mentally healthy adults have the right to use guns for lawful reasons. Content: My argument is that the right to defend one's self shouldn't depend on mental health. After all, a right is not a right if it is denied to 1 in 5 people. Not to mention an attack on veterans, who often experience mental illness after active service. 31 Percent of them. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- https://www.nami.org... https://www.rand.org...", "qid": "30", "docid": "9a80a998-2019-04-18T11:49:58Z-00006-000", "rank": 88, "score": 173465.0}, {"content": "Title: Firearm bans are unconstitutional and not effective. Content: I've sold firearms for almost two years now, in Texas. We started our right to carry option after a massacre at a Luby's restaurant in 1991. Since then we have seen less violence than other states with regard to firearms in \"gun free\" zones. I find it ludicrous that schools should be \"gun free\" when that makes them obvious targets to psycho dissidents. On a second note, AR-15 (ArmaLite-15) style rifles are just semi-automatic rifles, no different from any other rifle except cosmetics are demonized. I find this repulsive, as they are used WIDELY in Texas for hog hunting and 3-gun shooting competition, among other shooting sports. They are just like any other gun, and if Adam Lanza couldn't get one, he'd have used the much more powerful Glock 20 (10mm) or Sig Sauer of undefined specs to do the same damage. Why are we bullying the rifle when the handguns are just as capable? Why are we bullying any gun when anybody is capable? If guns are responsible for murder, then forks are responsible for obesity and cars are responsible for accidents, as well as governments are responsible for wars (snap!)", "qid": "30", "docid": "c4ec034-2019-04-18T17:54:00Z-00007-000", "rank": 89, "score": 173175.0}, {"content": "Title: Gun Rights for law abiding citizens should be protected. Content: I am in favor of gun rights for law abiding citizens. The constitution of the United States protects our right to carry firearms. Citizens of the US should be allowed to own and carry guns, for the following reasons: a) A situation where the government is armed and the people are not can lead to frightening abuses of power. b) Criminals will obtain guns whether they are legal or not. If guns were illegal, criminals would know this, and take advantage of unarmed civilians. finally, and most importantly, c) The constitution of the United States says, \"the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.\" Therefore, people must be allowed to own and carry guns NO MATTER WHAT, as the constitution is the \"supreme law of the land.\"", "qid": "30", "docid": "8cca124b-2019-04-18T19:59:14Z-00003-000", "rank": 90, "score": 173030.0}, {"content": "Title: I'm Pro Gun: Try to Change my Mind Content: I believe in the right to protect myself through concealed-carry and to protect against a tyrannical government. NO FORFEITS PLEASE!", "qid": "30", "docid": "8ef0697d-2019-04-18T11:19:04Z-00002-000", "rank": 91, "score": 172713.0}, {"content": "Title: Open and Concealed Carry should be allowed in every state permit free. Content: I'm going to expound on my first argument a bit. All sources here : http://nation.time.com... Failing to require a permit to showing competence and ability with a firearm(s) is grossly irresponsible because the lack of said carrier's abilities can be an enormous public health concern. \"According to a 2008 RAND Corporation study evaluating the New York Police Department\"s firearm training, between 1998 and 2006, the average hit rate during gunfights was just 18 percent. When suspects did not return fire, police officers hit their targets 30 percent of the time.\" This is coming from a demographic that is REQUIRED to show ability with a gun on a regular basis in order to carry it. Allowing citizens to carry with no training is undoubtedly going to cause a higher rate of civilian casualties. These reasons alone should be enough to require a permit that shows competence of the carrier.", "qid": "30", "docid": "af69c8f7-2019-04-18T14:28:36Z-00001-000", "rank": 92, "score": 172660.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: certified teachers must have the right to carry handgun to school. Content: My opponent forfeits her round, extend arguments.", "qid": "30", "docid": "ba45b4c3-2019-04-18T19:26:12Z-00001-000", "rank": 93, "score": 172627.0}, {"content": "Title: In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned. Content: You are absolutely correct my opponent. People can own handguns because of the Human rights. If you have a stranger in your house with a weapon such as a knife, you can get killed without even fighting. What my opponent said is that guns allow their owners to use them for protection. In this case, guns are necessary. However, think about this. If that stranger in that house had a gun pointing at you, would you still have a chance to shoot him and still be alive? There is only about less than 1% chance that you can shoot the stranger. The cause of this scenario is the law that allows people to have guns. Handguns depend on how the owner uses it, and in these days, people use them in bad ways. The ironic part of the law that allows people to own guns is that people are using them in bad ways, and police officers always have a hard time taking control of crimes that include gun shooting. People who own handguns always say this: People should be able to defend themselves from danger. However, people can use knives or other weapons to protect themselves. Allowing people to own handguns is only making it harder for people to defend themselves from danger.", "qid": "30", "docid": "717c0448-2019-04-18T14:29:15Z-00001-000", "rank": 94, "score": 172319.0}, {"content": "Title: U,S citizens should be allowed to carry weopons freely. Content: Um, first of all, I need to inform you that you need to right your rebuttals in the 3rd round. But instead, you just wrote in the 2nd round. So why don't you counter rebutt in the 3rd round? Rebuttal: You said that U.S citizens being allowed to carry guns is a protected right, thus, they are already allowed to carry weapons. First of all, I know it is one of your rights (and I wouldn't want to infringe it alright), and that is the reason why I had opened this debate. I think it's time to change that point. If only that law changes there will be no more accidents I have told you. Secondly, the reason why that right is wrong is it doesn't describe the punishment according to assasinating other citizens. If that punishment is described, there will be no coincidence like above. Counter rebuttal: 1. Before talking about my sources, let's talk about yours. Your wikipedia source shows that America has moderate rate of intentional homicide, alright. But it also doesn't show that there are only little bit. And, intentional homicide. There are not-intentional homicides occuring because of the carriage of guns, right? what happened to those? 2. http://dc4korean.com... http://ko.wikipedia.org... http://news.donga.com... http://www.yonhapnews.co.kr... Look, this is all kinds of sources. 3. We should respect the minority, too. You know why? What if people come to those places and make large gun fights? People, would die, and who should their families blame? the government?", "qid": "30", "docid": "6f4a304e-2019-04-18T18:17:19Z-00001-000", "rank": 95, "score": 172305.0}, {"content": "Title: Concealed carry vs open carry gun laws Content: A right unexercised is a right lost.", "qid": "30", "docid": "219f521f-2019-04-17T11:47:23Z-00016-000", "rank": 96, "score": 172149.0}, {"content": "Title: Mentally healthy adults have the right to use guns for lawful reasons. Content: How is it extreme for people to have equal rights? If the mentally ill are not given the same rights, especially seeing how common mental illnesses are, then it is no right. Either that or you are denying them their basic rights.As you can see from my last argument, the mentally ill are far more likely to be the victim of violence than to inflict it.A right cannot be something given only to some people, over something they have no control.Not to mention they need to be able to protect themselves, and the government has historically mistreated the mentally ill.The euginics movement for instance was primarly focused on the mentally ill and developmentally disabled.Also, abusive mental institutions were common for much of us history, where the mentally ill were often outright forgotten about.Lobotomies were used to treat patients with PTSD as well as many other mental illnesses.Society has shown itself to be a much bigger threat to the mentally ill than the other way around. Mental illness isn't a crime, and they are human.Regardless, the mentally ill that seek treatment are by far the least likely to be violant, and restricting access to guns may for some be a factor to not seek treatment.To conclude, the mentally ill are not dangerus. The mentally ill seeking treatment are even less likely to be violant than those not, and such restrictions only affect those seeking treatment also becoming a deterrent to proper treatment.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------http://www.uniteforsight.org...http://www.bbc.com...", "qid": "30", "docid": "9a80a998-2019-04-18T11:49:58Z-00002-000", "rank": 97, "score": 172059.0}, {"content": "Title: Faculty and Staff of schools should not be allowed to conceal carry a firearm in any US state. Content: Thank you MandatoryAccount for accepting! Again, correct me if/when I do something incorrect with respect to formatting or otherwise. For the information of all, I am in all honesty a biased participant of this argument, as I am a holder of a permit to Conceal Carry a Weapon (I will refer to said permit as a CCW) and an English Language Learner teacher at my local elementary school. I live in a state that allows CCW holders to carry concealed in schools, and I conceal carry every day. Additional disclaimer: I am not taking my time as much as I should with respect to my arguments, so please correct me if I misspell, or if I fail to cite a source. I feel the best way to evaluate the validity or lack thereof of this topic would be through which side has the greatest benefit to society while mitigating the consequences. I see 3 primary benefits to allowing Faculty to conceal carry on school property: 1. The potential to save lives in the event of a school shooting. The preservation of life and limiting tragedies is an extremely powerful motivator in this argument, as I'm sure my opponent will agree. I argue an important part of any anti-school shooting plan would be a trained, armed protector of possible victims (IE, the children). It is increasingly popular among law enforcement agencies to have a School Resource Officer (SRO) at the school to serve in this function, however that can put strain on already stretched thin law enforcement agencies, especially in rural communities and communities with many schools in a small area. Also, as was evident in the recent Parkland Florida schools shooting, even trained school resource officers aren't perfect and can fail. (source 1) in order to supplement existing school resource officers and act as an additional safeguard of the lives of youth, allowing trained faculty and staff to conceal in schools is valuable. 2. Respecting the constitutional rights of the educators. The second amendment explicitly states \"to keep and bear arms\". Not allowing educators to bear their arms if they choose to do so would be taking away their rights. However, limiting of rights is a standard practice in any employed position (IE, an educator must teach the curriculum and it could be argued that their freedom of speech is limited by that, educators can't actively practice religious beliefs in many districts) Or it could be argued that they are asked, and required to use their freedom of speech to cover certain topics. In the same way it is appropriate and I would even argue necessary to limit 2nd amendment rights in much the same way. Specifically requiring an instructor to have a CCW to carry a weapon on school grounds, or mandating that the weapon be carried on the body of the educator, and not in a purse or another form of off-body carry. However, instructors should be able to exercise their 2nd amendment rights in schools. 3. The possibility of increasing training to teachers that conceal carry. As of the time of writing this, approximately 18 states allow educators to carry a weapon on school grounds (source 2), many of which require written permission from the school board, or principle. In the event that all educators across the nation are allowed to carry on school grounds, the probability of concealed carry increases among teachers of all states, it is highly likely that training and the process for concealed weapon permits in general will improve. This would mean higher requirements to have safer CCW holders. Because of these potential benefits, it is clear to me that allowing concealed carry for educators would be a far more beneficial influence than the costs that could take place. Thanks again, and don't forget to save your rebuttals for the 3rd round! Source 1: https://www.nbcnews.com... Source 2: https://www.huffingtonpost.com...", "qid": "30", "docid": "24b1c879-2019-04-18T11:34:11Z-00000-000", "rank": 98, "score": 171971.0}, {"content": "Title: Everyone over 21 has the right to have a firearm. Content: I think people over 21 should carry a firearm for protection because many citizens think that it is better taking care of themselves than the police. It may take a long time for the police to respond if someone is assaulting you or any other violation. It won't be that easy to have a firearm of course, they would have to go through the government to have a background check on the person.", "qid": "30", "docid": "c633bfbe-2019-04-18T16:54:41Z-00004-000", "rank": 99, "score": 171593.0}, {"content": "Title: I'm Pro Gun: Change my Mind Content: \"Gun bans in cities have not been effective.\" Did they ban all guns? People still can use other guns you know? \"If you think concealed carry holders can change into an attacker, I guess police will turn into attackers too.\" You arent wrong considering the fact that officers have attacked civilians before:https://www.google.com.sg... \"They commit crimes less than police.\" Which means they still do. If you mean they dont commit crimes as compared to officers then just say something like:concealed gun holders do not commit crimes as compared to officers. \"Don't strip people of their rights.\" Im not,just limiting. If you dont want that to happen,name me one right which is unlimited. Conclusion:In conclusion ladies and gentlemen,guns should never have been allowed judging by the mass murders we have heard of globally. When we only ban certain guns, there will still be homicide cases as my opponent showed. We need to ban all guns in order to prevent such homicide cases and with the following points in all 5 rounds, I conclude why guns should be banned.", "qid": "30", "docid": "1cf18eeb-2019-04-18T11:25:16Z-00000-000", "rank": 100, "score": 171506.0}]}
{"query": "Is obesity a disease?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: Obesity is a disease Content: Nice.", "qid": "31", "docid": "c3cbe7d1-2019-04-18T13:12:52Z-00001-000", "rank": 1, "score": 194537.0}, {"content": "Title: Obesity is a disease Content: Lovely.", "qid": "31", "docid": "c3cbe7d1-2019-04-18T13:12:52Z-00000-000", "rank": 2, "score": 184669.0}, {"content": "Title: Obesity is a disease. Content: Majority of the population will loose weight if they eat healthy and exercise as i stated originally. There will always be people with issues such as imbalanced hormones that will cause different results. The hormone imbalance would be considered a disease leading to obesity. Obesity is not a disease. Obesity can cause illness and be a result of other conditions but being overweight in itself is not a disease. The genetics that cause diseases such as diabetes and heart disease is absolutely real. Being healthy and good lifestyle choices only helps reduce your risk of being subjected to these diseases. In many cases no matter what you do you will become diabetic because it is in your family but it will always help to be healthy when trying to fight a disease. Overall, eating fatty foods and lack of exercise will result in obesity. You decide what to put into your body and how active your life is. While there are genetic disease that can result in obesity, obesity in itself is not an illness but rather a choice.", "qid": "31", "docid": "b5b096db-2019-04-18T18:54:54Z-00001-000", "rank": 3, "score": 180999.0}, {"content": "Title: Obesity is not a disease, it's a choice. Content: What is obesity? Obesity is a medical condition in which excess body fat has accumulated to the extent that it may have a negative effect on health, leading to reduced life expectancy and/or increased health problems http://en.wikipedia.org... Many people use the excuse that the reason why they are obese, is because they have a \"disease\" I will be arguing that obesity is in fact a choice, not a disease. Opponent in first round may state their argument. Good luck!", "qid": "31", "docid": "21e2b85c-2019-04-18T15:17:47Z-00005-000", "rank": 4, "score": 170605.0}, {"content": "Title: Obesity is a disease Content: Resolution: \"Obesity [1] is a disease [2].\"I will be arguing against the resolution. My opponent will be arguing for the resolution. The opponent will begin his argument in the first round, and he will not include an argument in the final round. This rule is in place because the opponent will be arguing in the affirmative\u2014and he who argues in the affirmative generally ought to initiate the debate. (NOTE: This debate is currently impossible to accept. If you're interested in taking the \"Pro\" side, say so in the comments section.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org...[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...", "qid": "31", "docid": "c3cbe7d1-2019-04-18T13:12:52Z-00004-000", "rank": 5, "score": 167896.0}, {"content": "Title: Obesity is a disease Content: I accept! Thank you for instigating this debate, @AndDontCallMeShirley. Good luck to my oponent...", "qid": "31", "docid": "c3cbe7d1-2019-04-18T13:12:52Z-00003-000", "rank": 6, "score": 165253.0}, {"content": "Title: Fatness ! Content: Since Pro has done so I will now submit my case as Con. Fact one: Obesity is a disease. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com... \u201cObesity has been officially recognized as a disease by the American Medical Association, an action that could put more emphasis on the health condition by doctors and insurance companies in order to minimize its effects.\u201d Fact two: Only 8% of woman have a \u201cperfect\u201d body shape. http://iml.jou.ufl.edu... \u201cThe Independent, a UK publication, only 8 percent of women now have an hourglass figure.\u201d Fact three: One in 200 American women suffers from anorexia. http://www.state.sc.us... Fact four: The western culture has a harsh definition of \u201cperfect body.\u201d http://jezebel.com... http://www.divinecaroline.com... Adele, Aishwarya Rai, Ananda Marchildon, Christina Hendricks, Jennifer Lawrence, Jennifer Love Hewitt, Jessica Simpson, Kate Winslet, and Heidi Klum have all been deemed too fat. Harm 1: People with diseases who are attractive will be deemed unworthy for media. http://www.cbsnews.com... Talia Castellano was an attractive 13 year old who inspired many and died of cancer last year. Girls like her may have their dreams shattered as result of the logical conclusion that woman with diseases are not attractive. Harm 2: If only 8 out of every 100 have a perfect body and the rest are deemed \u201ctoo fat\u201d women may begin to self-harm and starve themselves. Harm 3: More women will suffer from anorexia and potentially commit suicide because woman are afraid they are \u201ctoo fat.\u201d Harm 4: Women who are deemed \u201ctoo fat\u201d may suffer from rom severe depression. Because of all the facts and harms based on Pro\u2019s logic vote Con. Now to open up the rebuttal period over to Pro.", "qid": "31", "docid": "3c486dec-2019-04-18T16:40:15Z-00004-000", "rank": 7, "score": 163806.0}, {"content": "Title: Obesity is a disease. Content: Though you do make a few valid points, stating their will be people who will become healthy if obese and change their life style there is still the fact that there are those who can change their life style yet will remain obese. Side effect or not, obesity is directly correlated from illnesses that effect a person hormones. You do make a valid point in your second argument but that is more or less off point from the point i was making when i brought it up. I was simply stating a fact that obesity does in fact lead to march harmful diseases that cannot always be fixed by simply eating healthy and exercising. That is to say if an obese person does eat healthy and exercise before they become sick with the various illnesses related to obesity (Heart Disease, Diabetes, etc.). True family history does also play a factor in those illnesses affecting a person's health. Obesity greatly increases those factors. In Conclusion may it be a side effect of some illness or be directly correlated to a person's life style obesity in the long run is a disease. A disease that effects tens of thousands if not millions of people in the United states, and across the globe for that matter. It is a serious issue that should be taken seriously and not written off as a poor life style choice.", "qid": "31", "docid": "b5b096db-2019-04-18T18:54:54Z-00000-000", "rank": 8, "score": 163784.0}, {"content": "Title: Obesity is not a disease, it's a choice. Content: There are many different definitions. Just because you choose a definition doesn't make you right. Obesity most of the time is caused by excessive amount of calories. People have choices, to be healthy or not. It's all up to them what they eat or don't eat, if they choose to exercise or not. They know if they eat unhealthy food more then likely they will gain more weight, compared to if they eat more healthy food they wont gain as much wait compared to junk food. My claim: 1)Obesity is a preventable risk factor for other diseases and conditions, and is not a disease itself. Like smoking is a preventable risk factor for lung cancer and drinking is a preventable risk factor for alcoholism, obesity is a preventable risk factor for coronary heart disease, stroke, high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, cancers (like endometrial, breast, and colon), high cholesterol, high levels of triglycerides, liver and gallbladder disease, incontinence, increased surgical risk, sleep apnea, respiratory problems (like asthma), osteoarthritis, infertility and other reproductive complications, complications during pregnancy and birth defects, and mental health conditions. [42] [36] Women who gain 20 pounds or more between age 20 and midlife double their risk of postmenopausal breast cancer. [36] For every 2 pound weight increase, the risk of developing arthritis rises 9-13%. [36]. 2)Obesity is the result of eating too much. The suggested daily caloric intake for 31-50-year-olds is 1,800 calories for women and 2,200 calories for men. [7] In 2009-2010, 30-39-year-old women consumed an average 1,831 calories (which is 1.7% over the recommendation) while men of the same age consumed an average 2,736 calories per day (which is 22% over the recommendation). [3] The average American restaurant meal portion size is four times as large as portions in the 1950s and 96% of entrees at chain restaurants exceed dietary guidelines for fat, sodium, and saturated fat, with some almost exceeding daily intakes in one meal. [44] [45] The body is doing what it has evolved to do by converting excess calories into fat cells. The CDC recommends reducing consumption of sugar drinks (like sodas) and high-energy-dense foods to prevent and reduce obesity. [42] The Mayo Clinic states, \"Having a diet that's high in calories, eating fast food, skipping breakfast, eating most of your calories at night, drinking high-calorie beverages and eating oversized portions all contribute to weight gain.\" Sources http://obesity.procon.org...", "qid": "31", "docid": "21e2b85c-2019-04-18T15:17:47Z-00003-000", "rank": 9, "score": 162151.0}, {"content": "Title: Obesity is not a disease, it's a choice. Content: To make up for this if the Pro wants me to waive my final speech I will if I am told in their second speech. In addition I would like to note that as con and the person supporting the status quo, my opponent will bear the Burden of Proof. I agree with the definition of obesity provided, but would like to insert a few more. Disease:an illness that affects a person, animal, or plant : a condition that prevents the body or mind from working normally. http://www.merriam-webster.com...Choice:the act of choosing : the act of picking or deciding between two or more possibilities. http://www.merriam-webster.com...; Obesity is in fact a disease and not a choice. This is because it fits the definition of disease as it an ilness that affects a person, and ir prevents the body from working normally. It is not a choice, because one does not \"choose\" obesity. A person may make choices that lead to being obese, or even chose that they want to become obese, but the obesity itself is not a choice. Even if you disagree with my analysis, you must also look back again to the definition of choice. Obesity, even if one did choose to become obese, would be an option, not a choice. For all these reasons please vote Con. Good luck to the Pro.", "qid": "31", "docid": "21e2b85c-2019-04-18T15:17:47Z-00004-000", "rank": 10, "score": 159717.0}, {"content": "Title: Obesity is a disease. Content: 1. Though you make a valid point on the fact that the choices of exercising and eating healthier there are many other factors that go into a person suffering from obesity. There are plenty of people who eat healthy and stay active yet still remain overweight, or obese. This is not because of any choices they made; it is because of a medical issue. Though this not mean it is entirely a genetic issue. Obesity is still largely related to ones genetics. A person can make all the right choices in life, eat healthy, stay active, and never sit still in a sense and yet they will remain overweight, or obese. Bottom line they remain this way due to the fact that their body's genetics simply can't lose weight because of its genetics. 2. Congrats to your father. 3. Though there is no illness that causes a person to eat all those fatty foods in the world. There are illnesses that cause them to be unable to lose the weight they do gain though the foods. These illnesses lead to them becoming overweight and then soon enough becoming obese, or just really overweight. It cannot always be helped, and just because some over the top BS pill will create a temporary fix for their weight. It does not mean every obese person should run out and get a lifetime supply of hydroxi cut or whatever the hell it's called. For that solution is exactly what it says it is. A temporary fix for the larger issue unless of course they constantly use these pills. For once the body has an outside source take over a bodily function it is difficult to return to a pure body experience. So every morning the person would have to wake up and take pills in order to stay \"healthy\" or skinny again. So i remain with my point that obesity is directly correlated to the fact that some people just have poor genetics that cause them to gain weight, but never lose it. While on the other hand there are people who can go out eat obscene amounts of unhealthy food and then sit on their couches all day and never gain a single pound. So as i said a person's weight is directly related to their genetics.", "qid": "31", "docid": "b5b096db-2019-04-18T18:54:54Z-00002-000", "rank": 11, "score": 159354.0}, {"content": "Title: Obesity is a disease Content: This rule is in place because the opponent will be arguing in the affirmative\u2014and he who argues in the affirmative generally ought to initiate the debate. \"What part of this didn't you understand, thebestdebate?", "qid": "31", "docid": "c3cbe7d1-2019-04-18T13:12:52Z-00002-000", "rank": 12, "score": 158352.0}, {"content": "Title: Obesity is a disease. Content: Obesity is not a disease. Obesity is a lifestyle. People chose what to put into there bodies. No one drives you to McDonald's, forces you to buy a quarter ponder and consume it. These actions are choices. When you choose to eat burger containing 3x the amount of recommended calories, you should expect to gain weight. Not to mention the ones who wash down the burger with a coke and biggie size french fry. If you make these decisions you are not ill, you are negligent.", "qid": "31", "docid": "b5b096db-2019-04-18T18:54:54Z-00005-000", "rank": 13, "score": 158242.0}, {"content": "Title: Obesity is a disease. Content: Simply put obesity is an uncontrollable pandemic on our society. People do not have to have to eat an unprecedented amount of calories in order to become heavily overweight or obese as some people put it. People can just live their lives and become obese. It is a health issue not a sheer disregard of a person's health; some people just cannot help themselves when it comes to this issue. So just because someone gets a Super-Sized double quarter pounder from McDonalds with a coke, and milk shake does not mean they are obese. For if that logic was correct then soon enough most if not all of children will soon be obese. Sure it means there making a terrible choice with their lunch but it will not make them become obese as you have suggested, though it is not the bone of your argument or i would hope it wasn't anyway. But yet you make it seem that anyone who enjoys Fast Food will start to live a lifestyle of obesity which is a sad mistake and probably a biased outlook on a major issue of today's modern society. Anyone can become obese no matter what they eat. Foods are not the issue in obesity as media and people who are looking for a scapegoat make it seem. The real issue in this matter is a person's body. As a person's body can have many natural parts, act very unnatural, such as hormone imbalance, issues affecting a person's glands, as well as a slow metabolism. All these and other factors can play right into the hands of obesity and the risks that come with it, like Diabetes, High Blood Pressure, and Heart Disease. These are all health issues not lifestyle choices, well last time i checked they were health issues not social, I could be mistaken, just saying.", "qid": "31", "docid": "b5b096db-2019-04-18T18:54:54Z-00004-000", "rank": 14, "score": 157928.0}, {"content": "Title: Obesity is not a disease, it's a choice. Content: My opponent has agreed tha Obesity is the result of choices, however has not rebutted the fact that this in itself makes it not a choice. She points out people make choices that lead to obesity, and attempts to rebut my statement that obesity is not being unhealthy. However, it still stands. Obesity is a specific condition that can lead to unhealthy consequences. I am not saying that being obese isn't unhealthy, I'm just saying that obesity isn't unhealthiness itself. For example, a smoker can be unhealthy without being obese. My opponent has said that I have not provided facts, but I have. Look to the definitions. Obesity fits all of the definitions for disease provided. It affects a person, animal, or plant and it is a condition that prevents the body or mind from working normally. My opponent has also pointed out cancer, and that it is not a disease because the don't choose to get it. However, this is not true. If you agree with my opponents logic, then you must admit that people who work as painters chose to work with carcinogens . http://www.inchem.org... therefore cancer is a choice. My opponent herself stated \"Cancer is a disease\". As we can see this is hypocritical and thus falls.", "qid": "31", "docid": "21e2b85c-2019-04-18T15:17:47Z-00000-000", "rank": 15, "score": 156035.0}, {"content": "Title: Obesity is not a disease, it's a choice. Content: My opponent con states that \"Obesity is not being unhealthy, or having fat. Obesity is a medical condition. Obesity is not a choice, it is the result of a series of choices. The result is distinct from the choice.\"He is right. A person makes choices on a daily basis knowing the consequence, of eating unhealthy food, yet they still do it, knowing that their choice will effect their life in a negative way. My opponent also states that \"Obesity is not being unhealthy, or having fat\" his claim is also incorrect. So exactly why is con wrong? Well here is why Obesity is unhealthy: Obesity is the number one cause of type 2 diabetes. The chances of getting diabetes increases more than tenfold if your body weight is higher than normal. Diabetes do all the bad things to your body. It can give many problems to your eyes, kidneys, and heart. Source: http://www.obesity-info.com... Con has not made any of his points clear other than saying that it IS a disease but yet not backing it up with any facts. Cancer is a disease, people don't choose to have cancer. Obesity is not a disease, they choose to become obese by the food they consume. Vote PRO!! :)", "qid": "31", "docid": "21e2b85c-2019-04-18T15:17:47Z-00001-000", "rank": 16, "score": 155074.0}, {"content": "Title: Obesity is a disease. Content: Consuming calories and not exercising is how a person gains weight. Exercise and eating healthy food only helps control problems with hormone imbalance. In addition to good lifestyle choices there are medications a doctor can suggest to help. You aren't born obese and overweight individuals make changes everyday. My father was obese and made the choice to get off the couch and exercise. He made the choice to stop eating KFC, Taco Bell and Burger King on a daily Basis. His choices have resulted in loosing 100 pounds and overcoming what he had done to his body for so many years. The point of the matter is there is no illness that forces you to take in fatty foods and ignore exercise. You are correct that being overweight does lead to heart disease, diabetes and high blood pressure and that only suggests that indeed being overweight is a contributor. A factor that definitely can cause an real disease such as diabetes. Obesity is a result of not caring for your body.", "qid": "31", "docid": "b5b096db-2019-04-18T18:54:54Z-00003-000", "rank": 17, "score": 153669.0}, {"content": "Title: Obesity is not a disease, it's a choice. Content: There are many definitions. However, we must have an agreed upon meaning of the resolution to debate. I believe my definitions are reasonable and encompass the meaning that they are suppossed it. You are also correct in that they don' make either of us right. Itis the way that they are used that wins debates. My opponent claims that people have choices, whether to be healthy or unhealthy. That is very true. She points out that if they make unhealthy choices they will gain weight. This is also very true. However, this does not matter, as this does not mean obesity. Obesity is not being unhealthy, or having fat. Obesity is a medical condition. Obesity is not a choice, it is the result of a series of choices. The result is distinct from the choice.Her claims merely expand upon the nature of becoming obese, they do not refute my points and they are rebutted by the points I have already made.As you did not ask me to waive my final speech, I will not.Good Luck to the Pro.", "qid": "31", "docid": "21e2b85c-2019-04-18T15:17:47Z-00002-000", "rank": 18, "score": 149968.0}, {"content": "Title: More People Should Fat-Shame Women Content: Outline I. IntroII. Main argumentIII. ConclusionIV. Links I. Intro I will not address any of my opponent's points this round. Instead, I will make my argument this round and address my opponent's in round three. First, lets establish that obesity is a major problem. Obesity is a risk factor for cancer, diabetes, and heart disease. Cancer \"Obesity is associated with increased risks of the following cancer types, and possibly others as well: Esophagus Pancreas Colon and rectum Breast (after menopause) Endometrium (lining of the uterus) Kidney Thyroid Gallbladder\"Diabetes \"Obesity or being overweight. Research shows this is a top reason for type 2 diabetes. Because of the rise in obesity among U.S. children, this type is affecting more teenagers.\" [2]Heart disease \"Coronary Heart DiseaseAs your body mass index rises, so does your risk for coronary heart disease (CHD). CHD is a condition in which a waxy substance called plaque (plak) builds up inside the coronary arteries. These arteries supply oxygen-rich blood to your heart.\" [3] The real question is does fat shaming work? I contend tat fat shaming in an ineffective method of reducing obesity. In fact, fat shaming have the opposite effect. I will also give an alternative to fat shaming. II. Main argument Fat shaming has been proven to be ineffective. Both through scientific and anecdotal evidence. I know plenty of obese people in my life that have been fat shamed. They are still obese. Here's some scientific evidence \"CONCLUSIONS:Our results indicate that rather than encouraging people to lose weight, weight discrimination promotes weight gain and the onset of obesity. Implementing effective interventions to combat weight stigma and discrimination at the population level could reduce the burden of obesity.\" [4] Instead, people need to be educated on the causes of obesity. Overeating is one cause but there are many others. Also, there are dietary tricks like eating high fiber foods to help curve appetite. Fiber \"It has been suggested that sufficient fiber in the diet will tend to prevent excessive food intake\" [5] Sleep \"Thus, rodent obesity models also support an association between sleep and obesity.Improving sleep quality may be a clinical tool to treat obese individuals.\" [6]. Exercise \" Not exercising in a given week was associated with a 35% incidence of obesity. Exercising for 30 minutes, 1-2 days a week, was associated with a 28% incidence of obesityHowever, the survey also showed that those who exercised every day were slightly more likely to be obese (20%) than those who say they exercised five or six days (19%).\" [7]III. Conclusion In lieu of fat shaming education needs to be provided to everyone. Not just obese people. This way no discrimination takes place. Furthermore, many people I know that were young and normal weight are now extremely overweight. By taking a preemptive strike against obesity via education for normal weight people we eliminate shame. IV. Links1. http://www.cancer.gov...2. http://www.webmd.com...3. http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov...4. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...5. http://ajcn.nutrition.org...6. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...7. http://www.webmd.com...", "qid": "31", "docid": "ab908431-2019-04-18T13:57:08Z-00006-000", "rank": 19, "score": 148282.0}, {"content": "Title: There Should Be a Fat Tax Introduced Content: Despite the staggering increase in numbers of people who are obese, there is an increasing tendency on the part of health professionals to take a \"non-judgmental\" approach to such problems. The Labour government\"s Foresight report blamed the rise in obesity on an \"obesogenic environment\" \" explaining the problem as an inevitable consequence of modern, sedentary lifestyles. When interviewed on Radio 4\"s Today programme recently, Alberic Fiennes, of the National Bariatric Surgery Registry, repeatedly referred to obesity as a \"disease\" \" rather than a self-inflicted condition that people have the ability to control through willpower. Of course there are some illnesses and drug treatments which promote weight gain, but such a non-judgmental approach denies the importance of personal responsibility and passes the problem on an NHS which is increasingly unable to cope \" particularly in the current economic climate \" with everything that it is asked to do. It is unfair that the huge costs of treating and coping with obesity should be passed onto taxpayers. Why are fat people treated differently when public health policy does not take the same attitude towards people who harm their health by smoking or drinking too much? In each case, a tax is imposed which more than covers the cost to the NHS of treating diseases related to these activities. Tobacco taxes raise \"9.3 billion a year for the Treasury \" more than three times the \"2.7 billion which the NHS annually spends treating smoking-related diseases. Alcohol taxes raise \"8.3 billion a year, nearly three times the \"3 billion annual cost of treating alcohol-related diseases. One of the arguments against a fat tax has been the fact that it would disproportionately hit the poor who are more likely to eat fatty, cheap and convenience processed foods. Indeed, a study by the Institute of Fiscal Studies in 2004 concluded that a tax similar to that now imposed in Denmark would cost the poorest 2 per cent of the population 0.7 per cent of their income. For the richest 10 per cent of the population, on the other hand, the impact would be minimal. Yet there is an easy way for the poor to avoid a fat tax: buy less fatty food. Meanwhile, as well as Denmark\"s new fat tax, Hungary has also introduced a tax on all packaged foods containing unhealthy levels of sugar, salt, and carbohydrates, as well as products containing certain amounts of caffeine. Health experts believe such taxes will encourage food manufacturers to make products that have a reduced fat content \" and that consumers won\"t even notice the difference in taste \" and they might be far healthier as a result. Besides ambulances, the NHS has also had to invest in specialist lifting equipment, including cushions at \"2,500 a time and specialist stretchers costing between \"7,000 and \"10,000. The Countess of Chester NHS Foundation Trust spent \"500,000 on extra-large furniture and equipment. In Lancashire, hospitals also spent \"42,010 on giant birthing beds for obese women in labour, while Great Western Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust in Swindon spent \"3,000 on just one set of scales able to weigh people up to 78st. Then there is the cost of bariatric surgery \" an umbrella term for operations involving the reduction obesity, including gastric bands and gastric bypasses. In 2003/04, the NHS performed 470 such operations. That figure rose to 6,500 in 2009/10. Given that a gastric band costs between \"5,000 and \"7,000, and a gastric bypass between \"8,000 and \"14,000, this has become one of the fastest-growing drains on NHS budgets. Yet less than 1 per cent of obese patients are receiving the operations, and there is a great deal of pressure on the NHS to increase this percentage.", "qid": "31", "docid": "64c88bde-2019-04-18T15:14:01Z-00003-000", "rank": 20, "score": 148146.0}, {"content": "Title: Obesity is the most pressing issue that faces America today. Content: Obesity is obviously the most urgent issue in America today. As I stated above obesity affects 1 out of every three adults and 2 out of every 19 kids ages 2-19. Obesity does more than just make a person look bigger / fatter, it also increases the risk of many serious health conditions such as the following ; Heart disease in adulthood very high blood pressure high cholesterol high blood sugar type two diabetes certain types of cancer strokes Respiratory Disease Musculoskeletal Disorders and finally, obesity has been linked to high depression rates. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...", "qid": "31", "docid": "720c8ec-2019-04-18T16:27:18Z-00003-000", "rank": 21, "score": 147330.0}, {"content": "Title: Being fat causes problems for everyone Content: Obesity causes huge medical costs - in the USA alone, around 150 billion dollars [6]. This is because obesity is linked to Type 2 Diabetes, cancer, heart problems, strokes, asthma and other medical problems. Many of these diseases need lifelong treatment following expensive diagnosis, and often emergency treatment. This not only has human effects, but causes problems for the economy due to being less productive at work and taking lots of medical leave. Due to obesity\u2019s costs (financial and otherwise) to society, it can\u2019t be considered as something that only affects individuals any more [7].", "qid": "31", "docid": "63392463-2019-04-15T20:24:36Z-00007-000", "rank": 22, "score": 144620.0}, {"content": "Title: Obesity is a public health issue . Content: All around the world, obesity has become a serious threat to public health. And the problem starts early on. In the US, for example, 17% of youth are obese4. Obesity itself has many consequences; most obviously on health such as increasing the risk of numerous diseases like heart disease, there are however economic costs both for treatment of these diseases, lost working days and due to less obvious costs such safety on transport and its resulting fuel cost.[1] Tackling obesity is therefore well within the purview of government policy. A failure to act might seriously affect the economic productivity of the nation, and even bankrupt healthcare systems[2]. A measure like the toy ban would be a first step to tackling the problem at the root, preventing children from growing up into obese adults. [1] Zahn, Theron, \u201cObesity epidemic forcing ferries to lighten their loads\u201d, seattlepi, 20 December 2011, http://www.seattlepi.com/local/komo/article/Obesity-epidemic-forcing-fer... [2] \u201cObesity \u2018could bankrupt the NHS\u2019\u201d. BBC. 15 December 2006. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6180991.stm", "qid": "31", "docid": "efbdcc9f-2019-04-15T20:22:41Z-00014-000", "rank": 23, "score": 143652.0}, {"content": "Title: Obesity In America should we do something Content: Obesity In America is a big problem that's needs to be fixed. heart disease is a killer that is caused by diabetes that is cause by obesity argue if your against doing anything about it", "qid": "31", "docid": "2245ae98-2019-04-18T16:15:50Z-00005-000", "rank": 24, "score": 136767.0}, {"content": "Title: Our economy suffers because of unhealthy eating Content: Obesity is the cause of many diseases and cancers. Heart attacks and colon cancer are two of the most reported. 10-16% of cases of breast and colon cancer and heart attacks are said to be caused by obesity [[BMA, December 2007]]. These are long standing diseases which take a variety of drugs to cure or at least alleviate the symptoms. These drugs are expensive, and many people who have not caused their own disease miss out on new drugs as the NHS is not willing to pay the extra money for the drugs. If healthy eating were mandatory, then less money would be needed by the NHS to heal people who have eaten themselves to oblivion and more money can be spent on newer drugs.", "qid": "31", "docid": "9f203748-2019-04-19T12:46:11Z-00001-000", "rank": 25, "score": 135071.0}, {"content": "Title: An individual's BMI is no longer a purely personal matter Content: The obesity epidemic is taking an enormous toll on global medical costs. In the US alone the health care costs attributable to either direct or indirect consequences of obesity have been estimated at $147bn.[1] Put into context, this amounts to roughly 9% of the health spending in the US.[2] The figure might seem excessive, but we need to remember that obesity is linked to Type 2 Diabetes, several kinds of cancer, coronary artery disease, stroke, congestive heart failure, asthma, chronic back pain and hypertension, to name just a few. We also need to realize that many of the diseases on this list are chronic in nature, requiring lifelong pharmacological therapy, which often follows complex and expensive diagnostic procedures, frequent medical specialist consultations, and not infrequent emergency interventions.[3] Adding to the list is the value of income lost due to decreased productivity, restricted activity, and absenteeism, not to mention the value of future income lost by premature death. Thus it becomes increasingly clear that due to the substantial cost obesity presents to the society, individual choices that might lead to excessive weight gain, can no longer be considered as solely individual in nature.[4] Therefore the government is legitimate in its action to introduce a form of a fat tax in order to try to dissuade the population from becoming obese and cover the increasing societal costs the already obese individuals are responsible for. [1] CDC, Obesity: Economic Consequences, published 3/28/2011, http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/causes/economics.html, accessed 9/12/2011 [2] RTI international, Obesity Costs U.S. About $147 Billion Annually, Study Finds, published 7/27/2009, http://www.rti.org/news.cfm?objectid=329246AF-5056-B172-B829FC032B70D8DE, accessed 9/14/2011 [3] The Council of State Governments, Costs of Chronic Diseases: What Are States Facing?, published in 2006, http://www.healthystates.csg.org/NR/rdonlyres/DA24108E-B3C7-4B4D-875A-74F957BF4472/0/ChronicTrendsAlert120063050306.pdf, accessed, 9/14/2011 [4] Los Angeles Times, Should there be a 'fat tax'?, published 4/11/2011, http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr/11/opinion/la-ed-obesity-20110411, accessed 9/12/2011", "qid": "31", "docid": "1e7f4ed8-2019-04-15T20:22:41Z-00007-000", "rank": 26, "score": 133760.0}, {"content": "Title: Obesity is a public health issue . Content: Even if we were to accept that the government has a role in combatting the so-called \u2018obesity epidemic\u2019, that does not justify it taking any measures it deems appropriate. The government should at the very least be able to prove that there is some link between the toys sold with the fast food meals and the rise in obesity. After all, the toys have been around since the late 70s. The \u2018obesity epidemic\u2019 is a far more recent phenomenon.", "qid": "31", "docid": "efbdcc9f-2019-04-15T20:22:41Z-00013-000", "rank": 27, "score": 132470.0}, {"content": "Title: Fat causes severe medical problems. Diseases connected with being overweight such as high blood pres... Content: The National Institute of Health (USA) spent several hundred million dollars trying to demonstrate a connection between eating fat and getting heart disease and it failed. Five major studies revealed no such link.", "qid": "31", "docid": "86362978-2019-04-19T12:46:42Z-00009-000", "rank": 28, "score": 132104.0}, {"content": "Title: Strict foods and nutrition guidelines be enforced in all public schools Content: Subject: Strict foods and nutrition guidelines be enforced in all public schools I pro will argue for the subject. Con will argue against the subject. Strict food and nutrition guidelines are needed to prevent obesity. Obesity is no joking matter as seen below. \"Morbidity secondary to overweight and obesity include type 2 diabetes, dislipemia, hypertension, heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, cholelithiasis, osteoarthritis, heart insufficiency, sleep apnoea, menstrual changes, sterility and psychological alterations.\" Nutr Hosp. 2004 Nov-Dec;19(6):319-24. \"Obesity is increasingly being recognized as a risk factor for a number of benign and malignant gastrointestinal conditions. However, literature on the underlying pathophysiological mechanisms is sparse and ambiguous. There is compelling evidence that both overnutrition and undernutrition negatively interfere with the immune system. Overnutrition has been found to increase susceptibility to the development of inflammatory diseases, autoimmune diseases and cancer\" World J Gastroenterol. 2010 Oct 14; 16(38): 4762\"4772. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...", "qid": "31", "docid": "b09f1711-2019-04-18T14:14:23Z-00003-000", "rank": 29, "score": 130580.0}, {"content": "Title: Should Americans get help beating obesity. Content: The current social situation that America is in is only the tip of the iceberg. 65 % of American adults suffer from obesity and 1 in 3 children are obese. The estimated annual medical cost of obesity in the U.S. last year was $147 billion. Obesity-related conditions include heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes and certain types of cancer, some of the leading causes of preventable death. Obesity is no longer just a social concern. If obesity continues to rise in the future then it will impact business productivity, the economy, housing, transport. It will change our future for the worst. However just like with issues such as smoking and child mortality persistent efforts create an impact. This epidemic is now part of the American culture .Children are growing up not knowing about healthy eating habits. Findings from the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics suggest that kids ages 2-18 get most of their calories from two foods groups: Milk, Cakes/cookies/quick bread/pastry/pie. Their fat comes mainly from cheese and from crackers/popcorn/pretzels/chips. As these children grow up, this core issue subjects itself into a cycle where communities not making healthy choices, not in the sense that they don\"t know about basic nutrition such as a candy bar being worse than a carrot but, in the sense of including variety, correct portion sizes and moderation. To say that obesity is an issue of willpower is no longer viable because if we look around at the food being given to our generation absolutely everything we eat (apart from fruit and vegetables contains fat and sugar). American are constantly exposed to toxin foods that are affordable (a lot more than fresh fruit and vegetables), heavily promoted, and good tasting. If people don\"t know the correct methods to ensure healthy eating habits then there is no way obesity can be overcome. There is a clear disconnection between what is and what should be and the way this can changed is by providing more effect tools and creating harmony between communities and the government. Communities need to be continual informed of the advantages of a healthy lifestyle and the realistic ways they can obtain it. Kelly Ward a professor of psychology, epidemiology, and public health at Yale University suggests this: subsidize the cost of healthy foods, so they cost less; increase the cost of bad foods, so they cost more; regulate food advertising aimed at children; and develop more opportunities for people to be more physically active\". In 2010 a study was released by The Trust for American Health that stated that 80% of Americans recognised that obesity was an issue. In the 5 years since, communities have been working to actively engage more people into physical activity (through programmes such as Shape Up) as well as obtain healthier eating habits. How do we do this if Americans do not get the help they need? People need to have the tools, the knowledge, the assistance and guidance to be able to make the change. Intervention must occur to break the cycle we are in. https://www.cspinet.org... http://www.usatoday.com... http://www.psychologytoday.com...", "qid": "31", "docid": "c4eaae9b-2019-04-18T15:22:52Z-00001-000", "rank": 30, "score": 130491.0}, {"content": "Title: Being fat causes problems for everyone Content: The USA is not a good place to take figures from as its health sector is very expensive and inefficient compared to most other countries [9]. If anything, that is getting worse. It\u2019s not possible to say if the rising cost of healthcare is due to obesity related disease, as there are numerous other possibilities such as the risk of doctors being sued, an aging population, and spiraling drug costs. Also, there are other lifestyle choices that can cause problems, for example eating meat can contribute to cancer [10], we should not single out one lifestyle choice that can cause problems over others.", "qid": "31", "docid": "63392463-2019-04-15T20:24:36Z-00006-000", "rank": 31, "score": 130267.0}, {"content": "Title: We should introduce a 'fat tax' Content: Statistics (1) More than one-third (34.9% or 78.6 million) of U.S. Adults are obese. Non-Hispanic blacks have the highest age-adjusted rates of obesity (47.8%) followed by Hispanics (42.5%), non-Hispanic whites (32.6%), and non-Hispanic Asians (10.8%). (2) Non-Hispanic meaning not Latin American e.g the United States and its Hispanic neighbours. Obesity is higher among middle age adults, 40-59 years old (39.5%) than among younger adults, age 20-39 (30.3%) or adults over 60 or above (35.4%) adults. Amazingly, (3) shows that no state or territory has <20% of obesity in the US population. Australia is also horrendous, (4) in the fact that 63% of adults are obese, 25% of children are overweight or obese and that it is the 2nd highest contributor to burden of disease.Overweight and obesity (high BMI) is the second highest contributor to burden of disease, after dietary risks. Smoking is the third highest. The estimated annual medical cost of obesity in the U.S. Was $147 billion in 2008 U.S. Dollars; the medical costs for people who are obese were $1,429 higher than those of normal weight. Never the less, it proves that the USA, UK and Australia is some of the most obese countries in the world, thanks to Con's points. (5) Worldwide obesity has more than doubled since 1980. In 2014, more than 1.9 billion adults, 18 years and older, were overweight. Of these over 600 million were obese.39% of adults aged 18 years and over were overweight in 2014, and 13% were obese. Most of the world's population live in countries where overweight and obesity kills more people than underweight. 42 million children under the age of 5 were overweight or obese in 2013. Obesity is preventable. NHS and diseases The tax was introduced in October 2011, (6) in an attempt to limit the population\u2019s intake of fatty foods, and reduce obesity rates. According to the Danish National Health and Medicines Authority, 47% of Danes are overweight and 13% are obese (UK). Any food with a saturated fat content of more than 2.3 per cent will be taxed at a rate of 16 kronor (\u00a31.85) per kilogram of saturated fat. The move will add the equivalent of 25p to a pack of butter and 8p on a pack of crisps. This is statistically working on our society, changing peoples decisions on food. Appallingly, with obesity numbers rising so fast \u2014 with it estimated that by 2050 the cost to the NHS (at current prices) could reach \u00a39.7 billion a year \u2014 the wider cost to society might push \u00a350 billion (7) The National Health Service: in the UK, a system that provides free medical care and is paid for through taxes. The NHS should certainly not be wasting money on obese patients, but with obesity, comes many diseases. (8) High blood pressure- Above people who are 25, 75 million people that are obese suffer from High blood pressure. Diabetes- 90% of people who have diabetes suffer from type 2 diabetes. Heart disease- people who are under 45 have the greatest risk of getting heart diseases. Cancer- if you are obese you have a 50% chance of getting cancer. Depression- depression increases by 55% if you are obese. Gallstones- If you are a women, gallstones can deeply effect you. There are many more diseases, but I just named a few. Impact on the Minority Con stated at the bottom of paragraph five that 'most people don't likes paying taxes, especially when they do nothing for them'. In the fact that 63% of adults in Australia, 34.9% of US, 25% of UK and 39% of adults world wide are obese; don't you think we are in a way helping the wider people to live. Helping decrease cancer risks and other diseases, we are truly helping our society. 'Most people including myself eat chocolate, cake, and biscuits yet have a healthy lifestyle. It is not harmful to treat yourself now and then' states Con. I agree, but most people cannot control themselves and end up eating more than one/two pieces. I do a lot of sport, so when I go to school with my friends we have ice-cream every lunch and share lollies. (Now I think about it) my friends are overweight. Unless you even up the food with fitness it is okay, but some people could have 1 large fries from MacDonald's, chips, lollies, gum and 2 pieces of chocolate cake. You can't burn that off unless you do 5 hours f intense training. Burpees are hard- jump, push up, get up and repeat.(9) You have to do 524 burpees to burn off 1 large fries from Maccas. Fatter foods 'Many foods like cheese, butter, and milk will fall into the unhealthy label, when actually they can be good for you, and better than alternatives like margarine, so people trying to eat more healthily may find it harder financially to achieve their goal'- Con. Instead of full cream milk or fat milk, there is always the alternative of skim milk or low fat milk. Milk isn't unhealthy as it has many essential vitamins like calcium. Calcium helps your body develop stronger bones, hair, skin, nails and in general it is good for your body. Margarine and butter are basically the same. Butter has more fat than margarine but margarine has more chemicals than butter. The two won't be 'fat' because for a sandwich or a piece of toast you only add a bit. Unless you go eating the whole tub, margarine and butter are healthy in small quantities. Technically, financial matters will even out. If everyone ate healthily in the first place, we wouldn't have to get the 'fat tax.' Besides that, there would be less waist on money and resources for obese people. Such as the 'lager people ambulance'. Cheap food isn't good for you, you would end up getting not enough vitamins into your body. Then you'd have to use money on pills, treatment, doctors appointments etc. It all works out in the end. Fat tax benefits The fat tax will ensure the hospitals facilities and ambulances, it will make our society healthier, it will decrease the amount of deaths and will make the environment more of a healthy happy place. Overall, the Fat Tax will certainly be of benefit to our economy. Decreasing deaths and diseases whilst increasing well-being and healthy life style, the Fat Tax is a brilliant invention; helping our society to be a healthier place. Sources:' Statics' websites: (1) http://www.cdc.gov... (2) http://dictionary.reference.com... (3) http://www.cdc.gov... (4) http://www.aihw.gov.au... (5) http://www.who.int... 'NHS and diseases' websites:(6) http://www.dailymail.co.uk... (7) http://www.macmillandictionary.com...(8) https://www.mediweightlossclinics.com... 'Impact on the minority' websites:(9) http://www.urbandojo.com... 'Fat Tax benefits' websites:(10) http://www.heraldsun.com.au...", "qid": "31", "docid": "6c3b36ba-2019-04-18T14:58:51Z-00003-000", "rank": 32, "score": 128566.0}, {"content": "Title: Parents Should be Blamed for Their Child's Obesity Content: YEAH IM KNEW TO THIS WHOLE DEBATE THING..... OKAY MY OPPONENT SAID that diseases were out of the debate but the fact that obesity IS a DISEASE so how can we leave disease out of the entire thing?!?!?!?! My opponent killed the main factor of why kids are obese in the first place. Dude in case you didn't know Obesity is a disease!!!!!!!! My opponents argument should be completely thrown out because as I have previously stated OBESITY IS A DISEASE MY OPPONENT FAILED TO RECOGNIZE THAT SO THE CASE IS MINE!!!!!!!!!!!! THANK YOU TO MY OPPONENT AND ALL VOTERS!!!!!!!!!", "qid": "31", "docid": "636669d7-2019-04-18T19:49:10Z-00000-000", "rank": 33, "score": 128383.0}, {"content": "Title: P.E. Should not be a required class in public schools Content: Childhood obesity has reached epidemic proportions in the United States. About one out of six children and adolescents ages six to 19 are obese.1 As these children grow older, they have a much greater for daily, quality physical education in our nation\"s schools to give children a healthy head start on life. A GROWING SEDENTARY LIFESTYLE: SERIOUS HEALTH CONSEQUENCES \" Unfortunately, even obese pre-schoolers, are risk than their healthy weight peers of developing and 2 dyingfromchronicdiseasesinadulthood. Some showing some of the biomarkers related to 13 experts claim that by 2015, 75% of adults will be 3,4 cardiovascular risk. \" A recent study showed that the plaque buildup in overweight with 41% obese. One important way to stop this rise in obesity and chronic disease in our children is by establishing lifelong physical activity habits with strong physical education programs and regular physical activity opportunities throughout the day in our nation\"s schools. Children must be physically active at school and learn about keeping healthy through exercise and a balanced diet. Regular physical activity is associated with a healthier, longer life and lower risk of CVD, the neck arteries of obese children is similar to 14 those levels seen in middle-aged adults. \" Along with rising obesity rates, the rate of prescription drug use by children for diabetes, high blood pressure and high cholesterol is 15 increasing. \" Other research suggests that regular participation in physical education classes helps reduce obesity in low-income teenagers who are disproportionally affected by the childhood 16 obesity epidemic. \" A recent nationwide survey of school principals showed that kids are more likely to get the recommended amount of recess and physical education if they live in states or districts with policies that call for more of those types of activity.14 \" Sedentary lifestyles are linked to 23% of all U.S. high blood pressure, diabetes, obesity, and some 5 cancers. If the lessons of lifetime physical activity and healthy food and beverage choices are modeled at both school and home, children will have the optimal foundation for healthy living. 6 Research shows that healthy children learn more effectively 7 andachievemoreacademically. Unfortunately, many schools are cutting back on traditional physical education programs because of budgetary concerns and competing academic demands.8 Beyond the impact on chronic disease, physical inactivity and obesity place a significant burden on our society. Nearly 17% of U.S. medical costs are attributed to the treatment of obesity9 and estimates for treatment of childhood obesity are approximately $14.3 billion.10 Obesity and lack of physical fitness in America\"s youth also affect our national security. Senior former military leaders report that 27% of young Americans are too overweight to serve in the military.11 Around 15,000 potential recruits fail their physicals every year because they are too heavy.12 The American Heart Association strongly advocates 17 \" Children\"s physical activity level drops 18 ACTIVE CHILDREN THRIVE ACADEMICALLY AND SOCIALLY Physically active children are more likely to thrive academically and socially. Through effective physical education, children learn how to incorporate safe and healthy activities into their lives. Physical education is an integral part of developing the \"whole\" child for success in social settings and the learning environment. \" Evidence suggests that physical activity has a positive impact on cognitive ability, avoiding tobacco deaths from major chronic diseases. dramatically between the ages of 9 and 15. \ufffcAmerican Heart Association \udbff\udc00 Advocacy Department \udbff\udc00 1150 Connecticut Ave. NW \udbff\udc00 Suite 300 \udbff\udc00 Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 785-7900 \udbff\udc00 Fax: (202) 785-7950 \udbff\udc00 www.heart.org/advocacy \ufffc", "qid": "31", "docid": "ce28e414-2019-04-18T17:56:55Z-00005-000", "rank": 34, "score": 126742.0}, {"content": "Title: The Government has a Responsibility to Combat Obesity Content: And thank you for accepting! As side pro, I will be arguing that obesity is a serious problem that requires a solution, and government intervention is the answer. First, we must define what obesity is. Obesity is a growing problem in countries such as Canada, the U.S. Australia, and the U.K. [1] When a person is obese, not only are numerous health problems a direct result, [1] it causes a strain on economies where healthcare is public. [2] In summary, obesity is an extreme problem, damaging to health and the country's economy. It is obvious that this problem must be solved, so then the question falls to what action should be taken. Pro's side of the argument suggests government intervention. To reinforce this, I will use the example of tobacco smoking. Smoking cigarettes irrefutably is the cause of many illness, ranging from heart failure to lung cancer. Yet it was a growing trend for a large part of the 20th century. (Due to lack of information.) When information was present that showed cigarettes were damaging, the public refused to stop the habit. It was only when the government intervened, that things started to change. They raised the tax on cigarettes, which raised the price. They also began lengthy education programs in school, with the aim of education children on the horrible affects. [3] As a result, cigarette smoking has been on the decline since, and with it, many types of illness. In summary, government intervention was the solution for the national crisis which was smoking; individual intervention did not result in the decline of smoking. The above argument can be related to obesity as well. Information is now being shown on just how damaging being overweight really is. Yet, as of 2014, obesity is on the incline. A government is morally responsible to act in the best interest of it's society. That means introducing taxes, advertising programs, and health programs to reduce obesity. [1]http://www.worldometers.info... [2]http://www.yaleruddcenter.org... [3]http://www.euro.who.int...", "qid": "31", "docid": "69f186d6-2019-04-18T16:47:51Z-00003-000", "rank": 35, "score": 123497.0}, {"content": "Title: Obesity is the most pressing issue that faces America today. Content: Thanks.", "qid": "31", "docid": "720c8ec-2019-04-18T16:27:18Z-00000-000", "rank": 36, "score": 123441.0}, {"content": "Title: Fat causes severe medical problems. Diseases connected with being overweight such as high blood pres... Content: Fat causes severe medical problems. Diseases connected with being overweight such as high blood pressure, cancer, heart diseases, diabetes etc. are the cause of over 50% of deaths in the Arab world. If a fat tax is introduced, fat consumption will fall as consumers save money by buying non-fatty foods. Lower fat and fat-free foods will abound and the society will benefit. Citizens will be leaner, healthier, happier and more productive.", "qid": "31", "docid": "86362978-2019-04-19T12:46:42Z-00010-000", "rank": 37, "score": 122821.0}, {"content": "Title: We should use the term \u2018fat' instead of \u2018obese' Content: Thanks for the debate, yada yada yada. Now then. Consider for a moment the consequences of you actions Brian. Obesity becomes, well, fatness, hugeness, lardiness, whatever, but that doesn't solve the problem, does it? See the nice thing about a word like \"obesity\" is that it's an easily-affixed suffix to words like \"dangerously\" \"morbidly\" and so on. Additionally, obesity as a word is meant to be one up from fat, the same way that love is greater than like, and that hate is greater than dislike, and I quote: :Wikipedia said: :Obesity is a medical condition in which excess body fat has accumulated to the extent that it may have an adverse effect on health, leading to reduced life expectancy and/or increased health problems. http://en.wikipedia.org... In other words, a fat person is fat, but is at less risk than an obese person. I'm fat, I weigh about a hundred kilograms, but I'm six foot one and I go to the gym and do so to build muscle alongside some cardio training, as a result I've become much stronger physically over the past year but my weight hasn't changed. By the standards of the bullsh!t BMI, I'm obese, looking at me, I still appear to be fat because I can't lose the fat in my face and my stomach, though smaller, is still too round for my tastes, but I'm fat by most people's standards, I'm not obese. By mixing the two you're putting unnecessary strain on people that are fat and you're making obese people more relaxed, not less, about their weight, because to be fat is different than to be obese. Additionally...are you really going to focus on women's appeal as leverage for this debate? Has it never occurred to you that there are fat dudes too? Worse yet that these fat dudes may be totally cool with a curvy girlfriend. Hell, send the fat 50% of the female population my way if they trouble you so much, either I'll get tons of exercise or they will. Besides, if being insulted motivates you to lose weight then you're losing weight for the wrong reasons, and insults heal pretty damn quick compared to, say, being told you're gonna die. Insults or death, insults or death, which would you choose? Insults of course. Not only should obese people be referred to as such, but I think it should be expanded so that dangerously obese and morbidly obese become commonly used terms to refer to them to remind them of the dangers to their health. Losing weight is pretty hard once you get past the half-stone or so of water that under-exercised bodies contain, and old habits die hard, but you can't seriously suggest risking people's lives and confusing a simple little system of identification simply because you aren't getting enough tail.", "qid": "31", "docid": "4e64f8eb-2019-04-18T19:04:33Z-00002-000", "rank": 38, "score": 122194.0}, {"content": "Title: Obesity epidemics justify mandatory calorie counts Content: Obesity is a major problem around the world, and particularly in the United States. It is so bad that it certainly justifies taking decisive actions such as mandating the labeling of menus in restaurants.", "qid": "31", "docid": "fdb7b7d4-2019-04-17T11:47:29Z-00076-000", "rank": 39, "score": 122140.0}, {"content": "Title: Obesity can be a psychological problem and should be treated as such Content: Many people suffering from overeating do so compulsively as a result of psychological problems. For example a depressed person might comfort eat to feel better. Why should these people be punished instead of helped?", "qid": "31", "docid": "6388e7e9-2019-04-19T12:47:11Z-00006-000", "rank": 40, "score": 121670.0}, {"content": "Title: Obesity In America should we do something Content: I Agree with my opponent about not being able to force people to fight their obese problems, but their are many obese people who want to make a change for example Jamie Oliver a chef from England is not obese but tries his best to change other people's eating habits. Forcing people is obviously not an option but getting people to help is, the United States is the 3rd most obese country in the world behind Mexico and Australia and that is a substantial problem Obesity in childhood can add up to health problems\"often for life. In adults, overweight and obesity are linked to increased risk of heart disease, type 2 diabetes (high blood sugar), high blood pressure, certain cancers, and other chronic conditions.", "qid": "31", "docid": "2245ae98-2019-04-18T16:15:50Z-00003-000", "rank": 41, "score": 121039.0}, {"content": "Title: Obesity can be a psychological problem and should be treated as such Content: It is self inflicted. I eat a lot but I work or excercise. Obesity is called a terrible desease. It is only terrible because of idilitis and the amount of money folk have to gorge themselves.Ask your parents or grandparents how many fat folk there were years ago,rare.So it is not an illness,there were more depressed folk years ago so that is no excuse. Rubbish food is no excuse,we all eat it. Smokers pay a lot of extra tax but the obese are costing the nhs(tax payer) far more with larger ambulances,inhouse lifts and stairlifts,more paramedics to lift them,hospital beds and refrigerators in the morgues. And its down to being idle and a glutton, one cannot do both. A girlfriend of mine who weighs 8 stone has to pay excess if her bags are a bit over at the airport, then a 20 st person climbs aboard at no extra charge, where is the justification in that ?. She bought her teams rugby shirt,child size. She paid the same price as the person buying an xxl, where's the justification in that ? triple the amount of cloth. Its the same in all clothes shops, its not right. If you purchase material they charge per mtr. Yes charge them more,they are not paying extra tax, it will go towards the forthcoming gastric band they may require because they have no will power. Having worked with depressed people for many years it was rarely an excuse for obesity,its a new thing because they can. If we returned to stateing they are FAT instead of obese this would help.", "qid": "31", "docid": "6388e7e9-2019-04-19T12:47:11Z-00005-000", "rank": 42, "score": 120917.0}, {"content": "Title: americas weight probem is only getting worse Content: The true question to be asked here, is this: Do your arguments prove beyond any doubt that obesity, in America, will never be solved? (This is your job in the Pro position) Because as of right now, we can only treat it but, we have not found a cure. We do not know what our future entails for us, but I do know that I believe in America, and just as it has in the past, it will conquer every disease and cancer that fills it's land. Until someday, we no longer face these problems, and freedom and basic needs are supplied to the entire world. Someday, we will no longer have diseases, including obesity (which will prove an easier one to solve), and since we are always moving towards that day, hundreds, thousands, or hundreds of thousands of days away: All problems are getting better including the problem that is obesity.", "qid": "31", "docid": "fb2e263c-2019-04-18T19:34:26Z-00000-000", "rank": 43, "score": 120909.0}, {"content": "Title: Obesity is on the increase in the developed world, and that includes rising childhood obesity. In t... Content: Obesity is on the increase in the developed world, and that includes rising childhood obesity. In the UK it is predicted that over 20% of 2-15 year olds will be obese by 2010. It is important to fight obesity as it causes many health problems and can lead to early death through heart diease, diabetes and strokes.", "qid": "31", "docid": "c415d069-2019-04-19T12:47:01Z-00007-000", "rank": 44, "score": 120891.0}, {"content": "Title: how do you think what suffering from is the worst : obesity or being thin? prove by arguments Content: I do agree that some obese people have diseases, like many thin people have anorexia. However, I don't agree with you that an obese person doesn't eat a lot. He does. I myself was over 150 pounds when I was only ten. I didn't have any illness or problem in my digestive system, I just ate and didn't do enough exercise at the end of the day to burn the calories I needed to stay I good shape. That's how people get obese, at least the majority of them. Later on they might get a disease relating to their digestive system due to the fact that they have had a long history of over eating and surrounding their whole body in fat, which is never healthy. Of course this doesn't go to all people, some have illnesses, some don't. On the other hand, I also disagree with you when you say that obese people no matter how hard they work there is no outcome. I've seen it happen, read, and heard about it. Out of the top of my head these are a few people who went from obese to thin. You don't have to watch the whole video, or read the whole article, just either read the headline or parts of it to get an idea:http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com... These are two very inspirational people who have lost more than 400-650 pounds each naturally, with diet and dedication.It was a really nice debate :) If you have any other interesting debates in mind please do write my name in the opponent part ;)", "qid": "31", "docid": "445d9e6e-2019-04-18T17:14:03Z-00000-000", "rank": 45, "score": 120878.0}, {"content": "Title: Fatness ! Content: I will now clarify my point because it is said that it is confusing. Being obese is disease, it doesn\u2019t mark who you are, your self-worth, or how great you can act or sing. It is relevant to this because it is a fact. Now a fact is not an argument in whole but it adds to your argument itself. So my point \u201cbeing theoretically true\u201d is relevant to this discussion. I would like to say that my opponent concedes that not all people are fat because they want to be, by saying, \u201cWhat matters is that people don't get fat against their will (most the time).\u201d He is proving my point that not all people choose to be that way and it is therefore a disease. My opponent says, \u201cPeople get fat when they eat more calories than they burn, simple. Eating too much, and eating the wrong type of foods, often reflect psychological problems and so are not just a 'hobby' or a 'choice' they mean more than that for some people.\u201d Now this is not relevant to this debate. The debate is on why fat people should not be in the media, not if it is a hobby or a choice. My opponent has not fulfilled his burden of proof by showing any substantial evidence proving that having \u201cfat\u201d people in the media hurts anyone. My opponent also said, \u201cAlso, overweightness reflects problems in society and culture, again not a inevitable 'disease' or life choice, a problem.\u201d Yes, it does reflect on our society it shows that not all a person is are looks, and they are not just for pleasure, it shows that they are a human being striving to show to us what they are going through and that people with diseases can overcome their outward appearance and look to who they are and what their talents are. He never proved why the reflection on our culture is a bad thing and I have shown you how it is actually turned into a good thing. It looks as if I should clarify this point also. I am saying that 92% of women are not what media shows as perfect. If you glamorize people who are perfect without showing that the other 92% are beautiful or talented in their own ways you are saying that they have little self-worth. \u201cYou say people with diseases who are attractive will be deemed unworthy of the media. I don't know how to respond to this, that's not at all what I am saying...\u201d There is no response, this is what your logic implies. \u201cI have nothing against people with diseases being on T.V, indeed it is good to open peoples eyes to other lives, also it helps other sufferers feel less alone.\u201d Good then there is nothing wrong with showing people who have weight issues that they can be beautiful. \u201cBut these are conditions such as neurological conditions or personality disorders or things which hinder their physical life.\u201d You have shown no proof why obese people don\u2019t have neurological conditions or personality disorders or things which hinder their physical life. My opponent has again brought up no facts on this point; he also has not proven that medical doctors believe this. This can be discounted. \u201cHeroin addiction is classed by some as a disease, but one would not try to make an addict look acceptable and okay just to make other addicts feel more okay about their problem.\u201d My opponent has again brought up no facts on this point; he also has not proven that medical doctors believe this. This can be discounted. \u201cAnd before you say I cannot compare the two, I can.\u201d Of course you can, you could cuss me off if you wanted too but that doesn\u2019t make it right. Now another thing you shouldn\u2019t do is bring up assertions without any facts backing up your claim\u2026 My opponent has again brought up no facts on this point. This point can be discounted. \u201cBeing overweight kills far more people than heroin and it is more dangerous to be overweight than to smoke, drink, take cocaine/ecstasy and marijuana.\u201d Proof? You must bring up proof for the things you say. My opponent has again brought up no facts on this point. This can be discounted. \u201cI have yet to find a time or culture where being fat is respectable or is the result of, of in association with, respectful behaviour.\u201d My opponent has again brought up no facts on why this is not true, just because he has never seen it doesn\u2019t mean it doesn\u2019t exist. This can be discounted, but first let me educate you on this. :) It is a widely known fact that in Africa there are many fathers and husbands that cannot provide their families with very much food. Now when a woman gets fat it is a sign of plenty, abundance, and good health. So yes, there are cultures that believe being fat is a good thing. \u201cYou continue to drive this point of depression, saying, you need to show fat people so other fat people don't feel bad about their condition.\u201d Yes, that\u2019s what I\u2019m saying. I\u2019m also saying that fat people have every right to be in media as anyone else, and that fat people are worth something and have talents that should also be brought to life. You have not proven why this is false, this can be discounted. \u201cNo, we need to takle the factors that cause over eating and bad eating habbits, such as bad foods in the market, depressive lifestyle etc. The way forward is not to glamourize fat, but to eradicate it.\u201d That\u2019s what we have organic food and Michelle Obama for. Also, you can\u2019t just take companies out of production, just because you feel like it. I\u2019d like you all to remember what I said in my first round that Jenifer Lawrence has been deemed too fat, if she has who will be next? Now for all of you who have skimmed through this debate I would like to fill out your ballot for you. Grammar and spelling: Flow Con. Pro has misspelled the words: habits, tackle, and fat. And used the incorrect form of many words such as take and used the word peoples instead of people\u2019s. Conduct: Flow Pro. He has been a great opponent and hasn\u2019t been picking on grammar or facts. Sources: Flow Con, Pro had blind assertions with no facts. And last but not least, Arguments: Flow Con because Pro has not fulfilled his burden of proof by showing why beautiful fat people hurt our country and he also conceded that not all people are fat because they are lazy.", "qid": "31", "docid": "3c486dec-2019-04-18T16:40:15Z-00002-000", "rank": 46, "score": 120671.0}, {"content": "Title: Smoking should be treated as a drug and made illegal in NZ. Content: If I may say obesity and smoking are two totally different things. Smoking: An act or spell of smoking something. Obesity: The condition of being very fat or overweight... I rest my case... The healthcare system could hardly refuse to treat people in need (smokers), after all how would that reflect on NZ? If someone needs treatment they need treatment, it is not something we can control. Smokers are PURPOSELY wasting their lives away, signing a death warrant and costing our health system a heck of a lot of money. Where as obese people are victims of fatty food, they just eat and eat, a guilty pleasure that in some cases can not be controlled.I will not argue that smoking is very addicting and once you start you cant stop but self control is a skill smokers need to master... Obese people are not costing the health system half as much money as careless smokers, that is a fact in concrete. Something you cannot deny... Here is a list of diseases caused by smoking... Gum disease Lung Cancer Heart disease Lung disease Diabetes Impotence Blindness... The list goes on and on... I recently interviewed a smoker and questioned her about the pros and cons of smoking, here is what she said: Zoe: I made a list of what I liked about smoking vs. what I hated about smoking ... and though I really missed it at first, looking at this list made me see that I didn't like smoking as much as I thought I did. What I Liked about Smoking: The bonding I experienced with other smokers. The feeling of creating a ritual. Watching the cigarette burn and watching the smoke swirl. Momentary gratification. What I Hated about Smoking: The after-smell on my clothes, furniture, car, house, everything. Yuck. Not being able to breathe properly. The constant nagging cough. All day, all night. Lots of phlegm, lots of throat-clearing and losing my voice mid-sentence. Painful heartburn every night and every time I drank coffee. Feeling winded after extremely mild activity. Severe throbbing headaches, occasional migraines. Lingering colds and bronchitis. Racing heartbeat, more sweating. Increased rate of hypertension. Dizziness after smoking too fast or [having] too many cigarettes. Nausea from smoking too much. The constant coppery, ashy taste in my mouth. Yellow skin, teeth and fingernails. Scaly, unhealthy-feeling skin. Anxiety from the fear about what I was doing to myself and the consequences. No relaxation, always feeling in need of something. A constant feeling of not being satisfied. Mini-withdrawals throughout the day. Feelings of shame while spending time with nonsmokers. Not accomplishing tasks because of wasted time smoking. The late-evening/middle-of-the-night trip to the gas station. Going out in bad weather to smoke alone. Feelings of inadequacy and substance dependence. Driving my cat out of the room every time I lit up. Dry mouth and constant feelings of thirst. Coughing so hard that I made myself sick. Trembling hands and fingertips. Fear. Of being unable to quit, of dying an untimely, painful death. The stinging feeling in my lungs when I tried to take a deeper or slower breath. Getting smoke in my eyes. Burning my lips on the filter. Trying to light short butts and feeling my eyebrows singe. Ouch! Re-lighting a previously torched cigarette, so I don't \"waste\" any tobacco. Overflowing ashtrays, ashes and dust everywhere. Burn holes in my car upholstery and on my clothes. \"Will I fall asleep smoking?\" \"Will I catch something on fire?\" Dry, chapped lips. The cost. All that money wasted on ruining my health and well-being. My nails and hair grew very slowly. Smoking fueled my compulsiveness relating to other bad habits, such as nail-biting and binge-eating. Having to reapply my lipstick after smoking. The filthy taste of cheap tobacco. Having to crack the car window in the pouring rain. Wet leg, wet arm, water in my eyes. Tar build-up on windows and furniture. The way my hair and skin smelled. Limited motivation and energy. Spilled tobacco in my purse, on my dresser, on my computer desk. Lighting the filter end by mistake... Dropping a cigarette while driving. Trying to tap my ashes out the car window ... while the window is rolled up. Dropping hot ashes or losing the tip of a cigarette. Oops! Tapped ashes in my drink. Feeling \"exiled\" in the smoking section/smoking room. Dulled sense of taste and smell. So here she was aware what smoking was doing and had done to her and yet she still to this day continues to smoke, she is trying to stop, she is doing everything in her power to out a stop to the bad habit but all her efforts are pointless. Nicotine patches and gum haven't worked for her. The people selling and distributing cigarettes are ending peoples lives, they have lost sight of everything and have been overwhelmed by greed. They do not care that every second of everyday people are dying, due to the effects of smoking... Let me tell you a story... My mother's father, a famous politician, smoked. They lived on a farm with animals, aside from the abundant fruits and vegetables they grew, they had also a small tobacco plantation. He dies at age 60, a waste of a life, my mother was at his side when he died and she has since vowed to try everything in her power to stop friends and family from smoking. I , nor my siblings ever got to meet our grandfather, a real shame as we have been told several stories about him, I am told I am like him but that is not enough, I wish I had the chance to meet him. He is just another victim of smoking. Smoking is a disgrace, I wonder what the reaction would be if smokers knew that an ingredient in rat poison is also found to be in cigarettes... Once again, I rest my case...", "qid": "31", "docid": "c1ca8114-2019-04-18T18:01:15Z-00005-000", "rank": 47, "score": 120436.0}, {"content": "Title: Poverty is becoming one of the leading causes of obesity in children and young adults today. Content: After doing extensive research, I've found that poverty is one of the leading causes for obesity today for many reasons. One of the reasons is their low income, and not being able to afford health food. Today, the cheapest food is also the most unhealthy food, leading to morbidly obese rates in children and young adults. Also, they do not have access to gym facilities, which doesn't help this issue.", "qid": "31", "docid": "e17f5669-2019-04-18T18:02:16Z-00005-000", "rank": 48, "score": 120304.0}, {"content": "Title: Obesity is the most pressing issue that faces America today. Content: Oh wow... yeah idont hunk I'm prepared for this I'm just going to forfeit... that was a really nice job by the way...", "qid": "31", "docid": "720c8ec-2019-04-18T16:27:18Z-00001-000", "rank": 49, "score": 120303.0}, {"content": "Title: The united States should eliminate Transfat within the schools nutritional service Content: ===My case=== By arguing that obesity was and is still bad for the United States, I also argue that Trans Fat is bad for you simply because Trans Fat is the leading cause of obesity within our various school zone. ===My Opponent Case=== In his first paragraph, my opponent argues that obesity is a very dangerous disease as we know it in which i agree with him however; he clearly failed to state exactly what causes these intense amount of Carbs within our body especially towards the young age. Transfat is what causes this amount of Carbs within the body during our young age and other excess amount of foods have little to no effect on our YOUNG ages and especially during school days. Within his second paragraph, my opponent states that the children could go to \"McDonald's\" to acquire a greater amount of Trans fat however he also neglected the fact that the school is most influential to a child and in most cases carry on to adulthood. Finally i would like to address the fact that the alternatives that my opponent stated are simply ineffective due to the lack of funding, lack of knowledge, ignorance, and most of all lack of time and economic disadvantages. i would encourage my opponent to state different alternatives that would be more effective than the elimination of TransFat within the school NUTRITIONAL SERVICE. Thank you.", "qid": "31", "docid": "36aea26b-2019-04-18T18:57:44Z-00003-000", "rank": 50, "score": 119867.0}, {"content": "Title: Smoking is as bad a Obesity Content: Yes you have, you have stated equall pro's in each!!!I believe obesity is worse because you become fat as well as several diseases such as Tiredness, endometrial cancer etc.Evidence: http://www.mindbiz.com.au...;", "qid": "31", "docid": "d4a2b65c-2019-04-18T18:00:36Z-00003-000", "rank": 51, "score": 119672.0}, {"content": "Title: Videogames are a good thing Content: First of all, you claim that video games aren't to blame, but the APA Task Force on Violent Media, did a research. \"The research demonstrates a consistent relation between violent video game use and increases in aggressive behaviour, aggressive cognitions and aggressive affect, and decreases in pro-social behaviour, empathy and sensitivity to aggression.\" They found out that most of the kids, had either thrown a controller, or cursed in-game or at other people in the room. But let's go back to health. Video games cause a lot of socialising problems, either making them \"awkward\", or to not focus in school. As I said before, not focusing in school, makes it harder to get through the year without lots of stress. If you are addicted to video games, you're most-liking over wait, which isn't healthy. \"Obesity is a serious, chronic disease that can have a negative effect on many systems in your body. People who are overweight or obese have a much greater risk of developing serious conditions, including: Heart disease. Type 2 diabetes.\" Quoted by Stanford University. Video games are very bad for your eyes, if you're staring at the screen for hours, your eyes are getting overused. You need to keep your eyes healthy, without too much bright screens. You're saying some video games make you read, well I can 100% tell you. Right now, go to the library, pick up a book, and you will find out what true reading is. Why not solve other puzzle types in real life, you shouldn't use that example in your defence. Lots of the things you're saying is good, can be done 5x better in real life. Using your imagination is way more healthier than playing a adventure game, make your imagination test it's self. With all these problems going on with the world, go outside, have some fun. Instead of being locked up in a room, playing a game. Get some exercise, you and your body will love it, and while you're doing that, eat healthier. Fastfood might be tasty, but trust me, if you eat and drink healthier, it'l make you happy. Instead of eating a chocolate bar, or a bag of chips, eat some fruit. It's time for you to change, to change for the good. Nice debating with you, hope you change your mind, AND BRING ON THE HEAALTHY LIFE!", "qid": "31", "docid": "1f7903b2-2019-04-18T12:39:39Z-00000-000", "rank": 52, "score": 119497.0}, {"content": "Title: Curb childhood Obesity for USA Content: My opponent agrees with me that obese people are being discriminated against, that the cause IS because of their surroundings, (like I have mentioned) but he also said that we should not help them. Sir, I would like to point out that many children are being affected by this disorder and the effects that come with it such as: >Type 2 (non-insulin dependent) diabetes (an autoimmune disease that results in destruction of insulin-producing beta cells of the pancreas.) >Cardiovascular disease >Stroke >Hypertension (high blood pressure) >hypothyroidism (caused by insufficient production of thyroid hormone by the thyroid gland.) >Dyslipidemia (a disruption in the amount of lipids in the blood.) >Hyperinsulinemia (where excess levels of circulating insulin are in the blood) >Insulin resistance (the condition in which normal amounts of insulin are inadequate to produce a normal insulin response from fat, muscle and liver cells.) >Glucose intolerance >Congestive heart failure >Angina pectoris >Cholecystitis >Cholelithiasis >Osteoarthritis >Gout (a disease created by a build up of uric acid. In this condition, crystals of monosodium urate or uric acid are deposited on the articular cartilage of joints, tendons and surrounding tissues. These crystals cause inflammation and pain, both severe. If unchecked, the crystals form tophi, which can cause significant tissue damage. Gout results from a combination of elevated concentrations of uric acid and overall acidity in the bloodstream.) >Fatty liver disease >Sleep apnea and other respiratory problems >Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) >Fertility complications >Pregnancy complications >Psychological disorders >Uric acid nephrolithiasis (kidney stones) >Stress urinary incontinence >Cancer of the kidney, endometrium, breast, colon and rectum, esophagus, prostate and gall bladder Not all, but most of these will result in a painful death, and sir, you stated \"Why should we help them...?\" If we don't help our children prevent these treacherous diseases and conditions, who will? Not the media! in fact, they are contributing to diseases. but that's a whole different debate for a whole different time. Not the government- they have caused more problems than they have solved we have to attack one of the main sources: Schools! As I stated before \"schools contribute to this growing epidemic when they limit food sources to saturated fats.\" We need to gather parents and school administrators and warn them of this disease that is growing before America's eyes. We need to donate money to raise awareness in health classes and we need to raise the number of Physical workouts everyday.", "qid": "31", "docid": "a8af0abf-2019-04-18T19:34:36Z-00002-000", "rank": 53, "score": 119330.0}, {"content": "Title: Poverty is becoming one of the leading causes of obesity in children and young adults today. Content: Still looking forward to your first arguments.", "qid": "31", "docid": "e17f5669-2019-04-18T18:02:16Z-00003-000", "rank": 54, "score": 119203.0}, {"content": "Title: government should implement a 'fat tax' Content: This was one of the first debates I ever did. Let's see if my arguments still hold up.I. Cross-Examination\"the idea, that heart disease and other bad health effects from being fat causes an increase in health care costs, in a country that is heavily subsidized by the government. so, whatever it costs should be made up for in fat taxes.\"This argument is completely irrational. First off, if we are going to go taxing people for having obesity-related diseases, then why not tax people with diabetes or someone who has cancer? After all, they are increasing health care costs. \"my understanding is right now the costs of being fat to the government are not sufficiently made up for in sales taxes. if it were, it would be more prohibitive for over eaters, so they would't eat and be lazy as much, and it'd be ensure the government is getting reimbursed for what it spends.\"First off, Pro's understanding is irrelevant, She should support her argument here. An argument that is not supported by evidence can be digarded without evidence.Second, Slippery slope argument being made. Simply because over-eaters would have to pay a tax does not directly mean that they will eat less or be less sedentary.Finally, I'm not sure Pro even knows what a fat tax is. A fat tax is a tax on fatty foods, it's not a tax that is taken from overwheight individuals. Regardless, her arguments for the latter were pretty bad.II. Closing remarksPro seems to just spout out unsupported claims and use fallicious arguments. Perhaps if she understood what a fat tax was, she may have had some better arguments.", "qid": "31", "docid": "f7b921f9-2019-04-18T15:58:46Z-00004-000", "rank": 55, "score": 119015.0}, {"content": "Title: We should shame fat people. Content: My opponent and I agree that obesity is a problem and should be addressed. He then claims that we disagree on how it should be addressed, but then he outlines a solutions that is almost perfectly in line with my suggestion in round 1. My opponent states \"If you are talking 'fat' then it must always come from a good place. You are talking about it because you care\". This is very similar to my statement \"and treated (medically speaking) with compassion and respect\". The similarity comes from the words \"care\" and \"compassion\". We both agree, it seems, that we should try to show children who are at risk of becoming obese and those who are obese ways to change their lives in a compassionate, caring way. This seems contradictory to idea of \"fat shaming\" which is defined as \"An act of bullying, singling out, discriminating, or making fun of a fat person\". This definition is also not in line with my opponents \"ideas\" as his ideas are largely stemming for feelings of genuine concern for the obese while \"fat shaming\" is fundamentally malicious. I believe my opponent meant to say \"we should use tough LOVE on fat people to encourage them into healthy habits\" instead of his original contention which has very little room for the compassion he claimed he had for the obese. I would like to continue to contend that what I have defined as fat shaming is detrimental to society and is not desirable. If this what my opponent meant then I will continue the argument. If my opponent did not mean \"fat shaming\" as it is defined then I would like to extend the option of an agreed upon tie since I only agreed to this debate under the premise that my opponent meant fat shaming as \"An act of bullying, singling out, discriminating, or making fun of a fat person\".", "qid": "31", "docid": "e4feb1b5-2019-04-18T12:43:31Z-00002-000", "rank": 56, "score": 118290.0}, {"content": "Title: Poverty is becoming one of the leading causes of obesity in children and young adults today. Content: still waiting...", "qid": "31", "docid": "e17f5669-2019-04-18T18:02:16Z-00002-000", "rank": 57, "score": 118176.0}, {"content": "Title: Obesity is the most pressing issue that faces America today. Content: I accept", "qid": "31", "docid": "720c8ec-2019-04-18T16:27:18Z-00004-000", "rank": 58, "score": 118104.0}, {"content": "Title: Obesity Content: Although over eating is a huge aspect of obesity, people should be aware that for some people, food intake has nothing to do with their weight. In many cases, it is a legitimate health disorder. For people with diabetes, it is mandatory to eat certain foods at certain times. Before judging someone immediately because of their weight, you need to contemplate the possibilities. Also, metabolism contributes to obesity. Some people are born to eat whatever they want, and some gain weight from the littlest thing. Food is not the only catalyst to obesity.", "qid": "31", "docid": "605392ad-2019-04-18T17:01:18Z-00008-000", "rank": 59, "score": 118060.0}, {"content": "Title: Poverty is becoming one of the leading causes of obesity in children and young adults today. Content: Sigh...", "qid": "31", "docid": "e17f5669-2019-04-18T18:02:16Z-00001-000", "rank": 60, "score": 118057.0}, {"content": "Title: Diet and exersise!!! Content: \"processed\" its called diet and EXERCISE!!! Also, it isnt super expensive to be healthy! bananas are the most cheap food you can buy! Obese people need pressure... FAT ACCEPTANCE IS DEATH ACCEPTANCE!!! it isnt only obesity but being overweight that kills! \"In 2015, nearly four million people died from disease related to their weight, most commonly from heart disease. But only 60% were technically obese, which is defined as a body mass index over 30. The other 40%, or 1.6 million people, were overweight but not obese.\" (https://www.theguardian.com...) People go crazy on people for smoking when in reality OBESITY KILLS MORE PEOPLE THAN SMOKING (https://www.menshealth.com...)", "qid": "31", "docid": "7b734685-2019-04-18T11:48:24Z-00003-000", "rank": 61, "score": 117958.0}, {"content": "Title: Should Americans get help beating obesity. Content: If you have seen documentaries such as FED UP then you know that it is not only just a genetic problem. Children are growing up with their staple food being highly processed, high in fat and high in sugar. What choice do they have if that is all they are being shown and fed since they open their eyes? I am not defending the fact that it is alright for them to be obese but society should and could be doing a lot more such as creating awareness about healthy eating, good food practices and exercise. People need to intervene. In the documentary FED UP a bill was trying to be passed to stop unhealthy food being served however someone prevented pizza from falling under this bill because it contained tomato sauce which to some company counted as a vegetable. How much more ridiculous can it get? Not as ridiculous as the fact that heart disease is the number one biggest killer in the world and obesity the leading cause. Companies like this are controlling what our children eat and it can be clearly seen that they don't care about what happens to them. Obesity is a disease . It is a social responsibility that we help our next generation free themselves from the cycle To your point about 'Pro-fat' what really do you mean when you say people don't want to see reality? The reality that they see is a very different reality we see which is, once again, why they need help to be able to see what is right and make the suitable change", "qid": "31", "docid": "c4eaae9b-2019-04-18T15:22:52Z-00003-000", "rank": 62, "score": 117776.0}, {"content": "Title: Poverty is becoming one of the leading causes of obesity in children and young adults today. Content: I accept and look forward to your first arguments!", "qid": "31", "docid": "e17f5669-2019-04-18T18:02:16Z-00004-000", "rank": 63, "score": 117586.0}, {"content": "Title: Fat people live longer than skinny people. Content: Thank you for posting your next argument. Here is a clip from the New York times news, \"About two years ago, a group of federal researchers reported that overweight people have a lower death rate than people who are normal weight, underweight or obese. Now, investigating further, they found out which diseases are more likely to lead to death in each weight group. Linking, for the first time, causes of death to specific weights, they report that overweight people have a lower death rate because they are much less likely to die from a grab bag of diseases that includes Alzheimer's and Parkinson's, infections and lung disease. And that lower risk is not counteracted by increased risks of dying from any other disease, including cancer, diabetes or heart disease. \" You can read the full report here: http://www.nytimes.com... That is one way of looking at it. Another way is this, people who are overweight do suffer from those sicknesses you listed, but even more people die from starvation in other countries. Nowhere in my arguments did I say I was just talking about the USA. In children alone 15 million will die in 2010 of starvation. And those are the reported cases. Most people who live in 3rd world counties are underweight. 30,000 African children under the age of 5 die today, most of these children are underweight. Therefore, people who are overweight do tend to live longer than those aren't. There are many more statistics I could show, but I believe my point has already been made. I thank my opponent and look forward to his next argument. Sources: (1). http://library.thinkquest.org... (2). http://wiki.answers.com... (3). http://www.nytimes.com...", "qid": "31", "docid": "4365c705-2019-04-18T19:13:33Z-00003-000", "rank": 64, "score": 117102.0}, {"content": "Title: The World will be overrun by fat plumpers aka Sumo Wrestlers Content: The world will be overrun by fat, plumper, sumo wrestler type obese people by 2050. With the abundance of food, the buffets, the high sugar content in food and drinks plus the lack of exercise by most people due to the constant sitting in front of computers and on social media and the fact that children do not play outside anymore, just on their devices, the human bodies will turn into obese fat plumpers for the general population. The obesity rate in the USA is already at 56%, as we become more globalized and McDonalds with their grease ball burgers and KFC with their greasy buckets of chicken infiltrate all countries, those countries will get into the same habit of eating crappy food and sitting on social media all day until we will have a world of sumo wrestlers. This is a global pandemic that will result in extinction of human kind through diabetes, heart disease, and other overweight problems.", "qid": "31", "docid": "cf3f8df7-2019-04-18T11:59:46Z-00005-000", "rank": 65, "score": 117078.0}, {"content": "Title: Obese customers should pay more for flights. Content: - OBESITY IS PREVENTABLE - I have a few problems with this rebuttal. First, we have already established that obesity is not always preventable! Genetics and other factors (including mental health) contribute to the disease. Further, sometimes the medications that people are on have a side effect of weight gain. If my opponent concedes that people cannot prevent all forms of sickness, than he concedes that people have no choice but to take medicine... medicine which can lead to obesity, therefore my point is upheld. Regardless, while obesity may very well be preventable in many cases, consider the fact that my opponent completely neglected health risks attained from things like smoking in his rebuttal. It's easy to say that obesity is more preventable than asthma; however, medical problems associated with contributing factors such as tobacco, marijuana and other drugs, alcohol, etc. all contribute to an additional increase health risks... yet we don't charge SMOKERS extra for \"insurance purposes.\" So clearly the cost of insurance cannot be a contention in favor of my opponent. What's good for the goose is good for the gander -- if this ideology does not cross apply to other flyer demographics, than obesity should not be singled out. Not without a law suit anyway (more about this later). - STATISTICS - My opponent has written \"since my opponent insists on an argument of statistics and precise percentages...\" which is completely false. I'd just like to clear the air and say that I do not want nor expect this to be a debate revolving solely around percentages. However, for my opponent to make an incredible, highly exaggerated claim in his favor without supporting sources is extremely abusive. No one is saying that you have to provide statistics for all of your reasoning, but what I AM saying is that it wouldn't be right for either one of us to just make stuff up on a whim and present it as factual evidence. - OTHER TRANSPORTATION - My opponent has noted that buses do not charge for individual seats. That is correct. They charge per passenger. My opponent then says, \"however, if obese passengers are indeed causing problems for the remaining passengers, perhaps extra fare is necessary.\" Right here it becomes apparent that a primary contention for Pro is the comfort of other passengers. The problem with this is that transportation's primary purpose is just that: transport. Comfortable circumstances are a LUXURY - not a necessity. If a customer deemed comfortable seating a priority, he or she would have several options: upgrading his ticket to first/business class; choosing an airline that specifically accomadates for larger seating; finding other ways of transport (car, boat, etc.) and so on. Personally I'm from NYC and have taken many forms of transportation. I cannot tell you how many times people ride the bus/subway and HAVE NO SEATING AT ALL, regardless of the fact that they paid for the ride. - FLIGHT ISN'T A RIGHT - Nope. It's not. But here my opponent is trying to straw man my argument and completely turn my point around. He said, \"If a customer from a low-income bracket cannot afford the price of the flight, it would be advisable that they seek alternate forms of transportation.\" I agree. So what's the point? Nothing. There isn't one here. MY point, however (supported with cited factual information), was pointing out the fact that there is probably a 10% chance that your neighbor on an airplane flight will be obese, due to statistics regarding obesity and its link to poverty, etc. Therefore if one is so concerned about this HORROR, they have the option of buying an additional plane ticket just in case. Otherwise they can just take their chances and 90% of the time be a-ok anyway. So here my opponent is trying to make you believe that I have suggested that healthy people buy additional seating on airplanes. I have done no such thing. My point was that if it is a huge concern to them, then they can. If they can just deal with it - or accept the fact that they have a 90% chance of being in the clear - then they DON'T have to buy an extra plane ticket. Simple as that. But my point here is why should an obese person have to buy an extra plane ticket to make someone else more comfortable? If it's about common courtesy and respect, then people should respect the obese too, by doing things such as 1) not smelling bad, 2) not bringing a crying baby on board, 3) not stinking up the bathroom, 4) not smoking as to up insurance, etc. However nobody has to pay for these inconveniences, so WHY SHOULD THE OBESE? Singling them out is wrong, and even if you disagree, my opponent has yet to prove otherwise. For instance, in response to the above, Pro has said, \"A crying child one may mute by putting on airline-provided headphones. Foul smelling passengers one may endure by simply turning on the airline-provided air conditioning. They do not lessen the product you purchased (the flight itself), even if they do make it slightly less desirable\" ... which is my exact point, except in reverse, obviously. That exact logic proves my case to be true -- having an obese passenger sitting next to you may make your flight less desirable; however, it is not lessening the product. Cramped space, smelly areas and other disruptions are inconveniences that ALL travelers face and deal with as a consequence of not being rich enough to afford their own private jets. - WEIGHT & FLIGHT - Pro acknowledges that an increase in gas prices is the #1 reason that the cost of flights has significantly increased. Another reason is that less people are flying due to the troubled economy. As a result, airlines are looking for every excuse to charge a little extra. They're pinching pennies at every opportunity. Thus, the charge for extra baggage is obviously going to increase. Now according to Pro, people pay for their seat... never did he mention that people ALSO pay for CARGO space. When people bring luggage on a plane, they are costing the airline money for things like, oh, the electric that powers the baggage claim area, the employees who transport the luggage, etc. Additionally, just as flying on a plane isn't an inherent right, neither is bringing luggage on a plane. Thus assuming that one does in fact pay for a seat on the plane, airlines have also agreed to say - okay - you can bring up to 100 lbs of luggage (for example). If you bring more than that, you pay. Those extra charges pay for increasing expenses in every aspect of flight, including gas. Similarly, an airline can charge you for things like soda on a plane. But to charge you extra per pound of body weight is discriminatory... - RESPECT FOR PASSENGERS - Obese people are not the only individuals who fit uncomfortably on a plane. Tall or larger people in general (not necessarily obese) may also be the cause of some discomfort. To discriminate against them could lead to a few things. First, it could upset customers so much that they choose not to fly at all... meaning that airlines are selling less tickets, meaning the 'skinny' people will face *INCREASED COST* to compensate for those lost sales. Second, while this idea sounds good in theory, putting it into practice would inevitably lead to countless lawsuits (amongst other burdens). This would not only be a waste of airline resources but government ones as well, and again cost others MORE MONEY... be it in taxes, other fees, etc. - FUEL - Back to the whole fuel thing, it has been said that 350 million more gallons of fuel are being used per year thanks in part to obese passengers. I don't have a lot of characters left for mathematical reasoning (though I'd be more than happy to explain it further in the next round!), but that comes to about 2.5 more gallons per flight - if that. So 2 gallons of gas is what...? $8 more per flight? So just how much extra should obese passengers be charged? That's it for now...", "qid": "31", "docid": "7d8e5f55-2019-04-18T19:39:49Z-00002-000", "rank": 66, "score": 116891.0}, {"content": "Title: Should junk foods advertisements be banned to stop childhood obesity Content: Childhood obesity is one of the most serious problem in the 21st Century. It is one of the Global problem and it is steadily affecting many Low, Middle and High income class families and their children all over the world. Overweight and Obese children are likely to stay obese into adulthood and likely to develop Non communicable diseases like Diabetes and Cardio -Vascular diseases at a younger age of Overweight and Obesity. These above causes are mainly based on the advertisements of junk foods from TV and from online Network and from other media that create and absorb children to eat junk foods which results in child obesity.", "qid": "31", "docid": "cb509540-2019-04-18T13:01:05Z-00001-000", "rank": 67, "score": 116331.0}, {"content": "Title: Costs more to those who can\u2019t afford to pay Content: A fat tax could be offset by subsidizing the price of healthier foods so that the overall food budget is unaffected. No one will be forcing the poor to pay this tax as the intention is to have them change their eating habits. The families that would be affected by the tax most are those affected most by obesity related disease. Spending some money now on food would save a lot more later in health care. It will also make them more productive at work, meaning a better economy and hopefully higher wages to help compensate. [21]", "qid": "31", "docid": "63392463-2019-04-15T20:24:36Z-00016-000", "rank": 68, "score": 116225.0}, {"content": "Title: Poverty is becoming one of the leading causes of obesity in children and young adults today. Content: good times!", "qid": "31", "docid": "e17f5669-2019-04-18T18:02:16Z-00000-000", "rank": 69, "score": 115584.0}, {"content": "Title: Holocaust Part 2- This time it's Fat people. Content: I was sitting around watching a holocaust documentary on the History channel and it kept getting interrupted by commercials for dietary supplements, but during one commercial break I saw that Sally Struthers commercial about the starving children in Africa and I was moved to tears. In my drunken tear filled state I was struck by a grand ideal. I had figured out how to rid the world of most, if not all of it's problems. THE OBESITY EPIDEMIC The obesity epidemic is something that hits close to home, because America is probably the country with the highest percentage of fat people. The obesity epidemic hurts us, because it's just unhealthy to be fat. When you consider the rise of insurance premiums to us as well as the extra cost attached to our products at Wal-Mart to supply fat people with those electric carts, the price becomes staggering. If we simply killed all fat people, our insurance costs as well as the prices at Wal-Mart would decrease significantly. That's not even the biggest benefit. No other plan exists that is more effective at ridding the world of this obesity epidemic than just killing fat people. If my opponent has a more effective alternative to ridding the world of obesity, I'd like to hear it. Frankly I don't think one exists. LET THE BODIES HIT THE FLOOR You might wonder what the hell are we to do with all those dead bodies, besides make soap from the fat. This is the best part of the plan. Remember all those starving kids in Africa? We can use the remaining flesh after we have a large enough quantity of soap to more than feed all the starving kids in Africa. I don't want to see kids starve, despite the fact that my opponent will more than likely advocate for keeping fat people alive and letting little kids starve and die. SOME OTHER STUFF Here are some of my other complaints about fat people. Fat people ruin my clothes buying experience. If their clothes, weren't taking up 75% of the rack at Hot Topic than I would have more of a selection of T-shirts with witty phrases. Or what about the fact that I have to go through the trouble of pushing over a pair of size 40 waist jeans to get to my size. Everybody knows being fat free is a good thing. When you go grocery shopping it costs a premium to get stuff that says the word fat free on it. What if America was fat free? If it was than it would cost more and Mexicans couldn't afford to come here and steal all of our jobs. It actually sucks to sit next to a fat person in a plane. There is already not enough leg room in coach and than I have to have to put up with my legs rubbing up against another dudes just because he doesn't have the common decency to eat a salad occasionally. It sucks to have to take one for the team. Why should I have to screw your fat friend, just so my boys can get laid. If their weren't fat people to start with, maybe I could bang a pretty girl for a change.", "qid": "31", "docid": "51264a5f-2019-04-18T15:43:18Z-00006-000", "rank": 70, "score": 115427.0}, {"content": "Title: People need to take responsibility for themselves Content: Deregulation is like trying to play a game of football without a referee. Government can't demand that people take responsibility for things that they have no control over, especially when ordinary citizens are against big business that has huge amounts of money to spend lobbying in it's interest (making money and nothing else) while people are left without a defence against the negative effects of deregulation. Obesity isn't entirely the responsibility of a particular person, it should be treated as a disease like any other. \u201cFor an increasing number of people, weight gain is the inevitable \u2013 and largely involuntary \u2013 consequence of exposure to a modern lifestyle. This is not to dismiss personal responsibility altogether, but to highlight a reality: that the forces that drive obesity are, for many people, overwhelming.\u201d [[Government Office for Science, 2007. Tackling Obesities: Future Choices. Project Report, 2nd Edition. http://www.foresight.gov.uk/Obesity/17.pdf%5D%5D Why do people need to take responsibility for themselves in the first place? Telling people that they should have to take into account every possible consequence of their actions is both unfair on them and unneccessary. Where an action has consequent effects on other people (such as carbon emissions causing global warming) that an individual can't neccessarily foresee or take into account, we need the Government to step in and regulate to avoid those external harms.", "qid": "31", "docid": "7e68c5b8-2019-04-19T12:47:02Z-00002-000", "rank": 71, "score": 114890.0}, {"content": "Title: Parents shouldnt burden their children with their obesity problems Content: Rebuttle:1. Parents who suffer from obesity are right to share this burden with children, regardless of the consequences. College age [aka adult] children deserve to know the truth, and the consequences their families may face. If this changes their decisions it is their own choice. 2. Bullies can see that a kid's parents are fat. Educating one's child about this disease puts bullying in context, and helps them understand. Teaching a child about your health condition is not burdening them.", "qid": "31", "docid": "6327257c-2019-04-18T18:25:19Z-00003-000", "rank": 72, "score": 114735.0}, {"content": "Title: Why all children should be rewarded candy when good work is achieved. Content: Obesity in children is currently a major crisis in the United States. 1/3 of all children were obese in 2008. Obesity increases the risk of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, bone and joint problems and some psychological problems (1). Giving daily amounts of candy as my opponent proposes would cause more children to become obese and lead to further health risks as listed above. Furthermore, sugar from candy is harmful to the teeth and increases the risk of cavities. It would be better to reinforce children's good behavior and achievement through more positive means that they enjoy, but that do not carry the harmful effects I have shown to occur from candy. I look forward to my opponent's arguments. (1) . http://www.cdc.gov...", "qid": "31", "docid": "2f8534ff-2019-04-18T18:08:45Z-00001-000", "rank": 73, "score": 114687.0}, {"content": "Title: Fatness ! Content: Okay so firstly, I don't know what the definition is for disease, and more importantly, it is not relevant. What matters is that people don't get fat against their will (most the time). Nor does it even creep up on them like things such as cancer or strokes may do. By this I mean people are aware that they are overweight and it happens gradually. So you seem to be implying that fat people have no choice in their condition, this is frankly wrong. So although the American Medical association define it as a disease, that does not change the fact that it is self inflicted. So your point, though theoretically true, has no relevance to this discussion. People get fat when they eat more calories than they burn, simple. Eating too much, and eating the wrong type of foods, often reflect psychological problems and so are not just a 'hobby' or a 'choice' they mean more than that for some people. Also, overweightness reflects problems in society and culture, again not a inevitable 'disease' or life choice, a problem. You say only 8% of women have the 'perfect' shape. You need to tell me why this is relevant for me to respond to it. But I assume you are meaning that only 8% of women aren't fat and so magazines not showing fat people will make everyone depressed. 1. 92% of women are not 'fat'. I am not saying only have the 'top' 8%, I am saying don't glamorize fatness. Also, the reason why only 8% of women have this 'perfect' shape, and so many people are 'chubby' or 'plump', is not because of some natural phenomenon indicating that 50% of women (or whatever) are classed as overweight - it is because of bad practice in the culture. Again it is 'self' inflicted. Not what people typically consider a disease. You say people with diseases who are attractive will be deemed unworthy of the media. I don't know how to respond to this, that's not at all what I am saying... I have nothing against people with diseases being on T.V, indeed it is good to open peoples eyes to other lives, also it helps other sufferers feel less alone. But these are conditions such as neurological conditions or personality disorders or things which hinder their physical life. Heroin addiction is classed by some as a disease, but one would not try to make an addict look acceptable and okay just to make other addicts feel more okay about their problem. And before you say I cannot compare the two, I can. Being overweight kills far more people than heroin and it is more dangerous to be overweight than to smoke, drink, take cocaine/ecstasy and marijuana. Also you may argue that these things are also shunned because of the lifestyle they typically associate with - but marijuana at least is smoked in many cultures without problems, I have yet to find a time or culture where being fat is respectable or is the result of, of in association with, respectful behaviour. It always requires laziness or greed or ignorance. (not to mention mental weaknesses and problems). You continue to drive this point of depression, saying, you need to show fat people so other fat people don't feel bad about their condition. No, we need to takle the factors that cause over eating and bad eating habbits, such as bad foods in the market, depressive lifestyle etc. The way forward is not to glamourize fat, but to eradicate it.", "qid": "31", "docid": "3c486dec-2019-04-18T16:40:15Z-00003-000", "rank": 74, "score": 114105.0}, {"content": "Title: Obesity is on the increase in the developed world, and that includes rising childhood obesity. In t... Content: Obesity is a growing problem that we should take seriously. But the way to solve it is not to limit the choice of food in schools as children will just fill up on unhealthy food outside of schools. Instead we need to increase the amount of sport and exercise in schools and educate children about eating healthily. At the same time we should encourage parents to provide a balanced diet for their children.", "qid": "31", "docid": "c415d069-2019-04-19T12:47:01Z-00006-000", "rank": 75, "score": 113944.0}, {"content": "Title: It hits the most vulnerable part of society hardest Content: Even if this policy might cause some families to spend more on their food \u2013 even more than they feel like they can afford \u2013 it still is more important to start significantly dealing with the obesity epidemic. We feel that nothing short of forcing these low income families \u2013 which are also the ones where obesity is most prevalent \u2013 to finally change their eating habits will make a dent in the current trend. But there is a silver lining here. These are also the families that are afflicted most by obesity related diseases. Thus spending a couple dollars more on food now will \u2013 necessarily \u2013 save them tens of thousands in the form of medical bills. Reducing obesity will also make them more productive at work and reduce their absenteeism, again offsetting the costs of this tax.[1] We should look at this tax as a form of paying it forward \u2013 spending a little time and effort now and reap the benefits for the individual and the society in the future. [1] ACOEM, Obesity Linked To Reduced Productivity At Work, published 1/9/2008, http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/93402.php, accessed 9/14/2011", "qid": "31", "docid": "1e7f4ed8-2019-04-15T20:22:41Z-00016-000", "rank": 76, "score": 113436.0}, {"content": "Title: Should junk foods advertisements be banned to stop childhood obesity Content: My opponent starts with the premise that obesity is a bad thing. Yes certain things like diabetes and cardio vascular diseases come due to obesity, but my opponent makes the assumption that such thing is bad because people are opposed to the idea. Now my opponent has no grounds to say that this is the case, there are people who are for, against, and impartial to obesity. Therefore this obesity issue is subjective, and if my opponent is arguing that we should ban things that promote such subjective things, then my opponent would be proposing to ban all other subjective promoting things. Now there is a weight \"problem\" in the U.S. in general, not just obesity, but anorexia. Therefore for people with anorexia the may be a good thing. Also junk food promotes variety since it adds a different category of food to whole bunch of foods.", "qid": "31", "docid": "cb509540-2019-04-18T13:01:05Z-00000-000", "rank": 77, "score": 113191.0}, {"content": "Title: Obesity Content: Skinny people also have the chance to gain weight by eating more and exercising less. But on the other hand it is also possible for obese people to eat less and exercise more. Anorexia and obesity are both terrible sicknesses but there are many ways to cure those sicknesses.", "qid": "31", "docid": "605392ad-2019-04-18T17:01:18Z-00003-000", "rank": 78, "score": 113130.0}, {"content": "Title: Child obesity not related to a pre-existing medical condition should be considered child abuse Content: I stand here today to support the following resolution: Child obesity not related to a pre-existing medical condition should be considered child abuse. This will mostly be a logic based debate, but if necesarry, sources may be provided. Terms: Child obesity- The condition of being considered medically obese as a person under the age of 18, or in a person not legally emancipated from their parents. (because you can free yourself of your parents at 17 or younger in some states) Pre-existing medical condition- a genetic condition that effects the bodies ability to keep itself at a healthy BMI when properly cared for. Child abuse- a legal term relating to the mistreatment of minors in an individuals custody. Includes neglect, physical, mental, and emotional abuse. Currently, the state considers it the duty of the parent to keep their child in good mental condition, to keep them properly fed, clothed, and bathed, and to more or less ensure their happiness. The parent should keep the child in good health, free from maladies and health risks. These are legal obligations that must be kept or the child will be at risk of being put into an alternate home on grounds of child abuse. (source: Parental rights and responsibilities : analysing social policy and lived experiences by Harriet Churchill) The most important part of this relating to this debate is the legal duty of the parent to keep the child in good health. One may think that an obese child is not in serious danger, but this is very clearly incorrect. My stance is based on the following points. Point A: Health risks associated with obesity. It is common knowledge that being severely overweight is linked to very serious health issues. These include, but are certainly not limitted to, high blood pressure, diabetes, blood clotting, clogged arteries (and subsequently, heart attacks), and in some extreme cases, immobility. Most of these conditions can lead to hospitilization and and of course death. For a parent to allow their child to be obese by not giving them a proper meal regimen and allowing them to neglect exercise is putting that child in the firing line of all these dangerous health issues. Point B: Malnutrition. There is no argument over whether a parent that starves their child is abusing them. A child given insufficient food will become malnourished and this produces completely separate health problems from the ones listed above. Over feeding, or feeding the child an unbalanced diet with an excess of fatties foods shouldn't be any different. In both cases the body is not receiving all the vitamins and minerals it needs to grow healthy and strong. When a body is deprived of minerals, bones become more breakable, scurvy is a possibility...this list goes on. So, seeing as allowing a child to remain obese causes so many health problems, and thus is dangerous, it should indeed be considered a form of child abuse. Further discussion upon Con's response.", "qid": "31", "docid": "4bdb8ef9-2019-04-18T17:43:07Z-00003-000", "rank": 79, "score": 113007.0}, {"content": "Title: Parents of obese children should be deprived of their parental rights Content: Parents of obese children should be deprived of their parental rights. That does not apply to cases where child obesity is caused by genetic disorder. Such parents : 1) Put their child at an increased risk of developing various health problems 2) Make their child to be made fun of by other children. That is to say brining damage to emotional world of the child.", "qid": "31", "docid": "672e8c7b-2019-04-18T12:36:53Z-00007-000", "rank": 80, "score": 112912.0}, {"content": "Title: Obesity Content: Okay be \"flaffy\" but it has disadvantages like:dyspnea,diabet etc", "qid": "31", "docid": "6053928e-2019-04-18T18:09:46Z-00003-000", "rank": 81, "score": 112482.0}, {"content": "Title: Should Americans get help beating obesity. Content: As an EU citizen, I'm not really in the eye of the storm for this problem. The only source of information about the bad diet of US people I can use are documentary films such as \"Fed Up\" and TV programs made by people such as Jamie Oliver. All we see nowadays on TLC and other reality television programs is \"people are getting fat and they need our help\" and \"we should help them beat this disease\" but I view it as more of a natural selection that helps people with weaker ability to control their diet being reduced. The thing I fear though, is the weird \"pro-fat\" propaganda that says that it's natural for people to be fat, which is an entirely different subject, because some people just don't want to change and see reality and want it their way.", "qid": "31", "docid": "c4eaae9b-2019-04-18T15:22:52Z-00004-000", "rank": 82, "score": 112386.0}, {"content": "Title: Being Fat isn't Always Directly Linked to Being Unhealthy. You Can be FIT AND FAT at The Same Time. Content: So, just because I happen to like to keep knowledge in various fields, and have knowledge that BBW is initialism for Big Beautiful Women, automatically makes me like them? I don't have any clue what kind of logic pointed that way.\"he claims to love fat people made apparent by his insight into \"Big Beautiful Women\" \"Spreading lies again Mr. con? I would have loved that you mention the line where I \"claim to love fat people\"\" he also wants sources to be used only in the final round, how can the legitimacy of sources be argued if they're provided in the final round?\"Con is questioning the rules set at the beginning of the debate. If con really had a problem, he should have asked in the beginning, maybe he could have messaged me asking if the rules were flexible. But like all the other rule related problems con has, he decides to mention them randomly anywhere in the debate. This shows an extreme careless attitude of the con to debates and rules in general.Obesity paradox - It states that being overweight protects the body from a myriad of diseases like cancer, pneumonia, stroke, hypertension and so many more. This means that fat has a role in providing immunity against various conditions. So a moderately fat man, who is not obese and thus, doesn't have elevated risks of heart disease or clogged arteries, will be healthier than a normal individual.\"This shows his lack of understanding of the word fat.\" Oh, I understand the word alright. You are the one that is confusing it with obesity. The definition of obese is very fat. Too much of anything is bad. My opponent says \" being excessively fat does, this suggests that being fat to some degree does reflect bad self maintenance.\" but it is quite a common knowledge that if too much of a thing is bad, it is not necessary that the thing is bad in general. Too much oxygen causes oxygen toxicity; according to con's logic, this proves oxygen is bad for us. Water intoxication will prove that water is bad for us according to this mutilated logic. \"You are a dangerous man by spreading your lies and I stand by that statement\"Con bluntly direct attacks me again to stray away from the topic and try to collect as many points in his favour as he can. So, any person who has views different than you is dangerous? I won't be surprised if you tell that to every person you have a debate here with. I am trying to have a civilised debate with facts. Anything I mention is based on reading from various sources, forming an opinion and expressing it; not false accusations on my opponent or cheap last resort 'trying-to-win' tactics like that, which con is using.\"you seem to be against CHARITIES NOW?\" THAT CHARITY IS FOR SAVING OCEAN LIVES. ( This further shows con's extremely careless attitude to this debate. Debaters fear these levels of carelessness.) You casually mention a charity website just to make a joke and THAT IS AN INSULT TO BOTH THE CHARITY AND THIS DEBATE. I think you are the one who doesn't respect anything, charity or debate. Maybe this is one of the cheap last resort tactics where you try to pull the wool over the voters' eyes, but seriously? you have the audacity to write \"At least I care about our fellow human beings.\" after you ask us to donate to a charity meant for whales and ocean? You just wanted to make the cringe-worthy joke telling that fat people are whales. This shows massive amount of disrespect to a lot of things such as debates, charities, people.Further, you seem to think that I have been arguing just over semantics, but no, I am arguing with facts from various sources. I form my opinions based on knowledge. Also, you seem to be having a problem when I capitalise my phrases, but that's a way of writing and the capitals show the importance of the phrase or word.The fallacy in your conclusions- 1) Adipophily hugely exists in all sexualities and people can like chubby people sexually and romantically. They do marry and live a happy life, I would like to see con prove that all slightly heavier couples are sad and end up divorcing.2) Fatness is not always due to overeating. It depends on the way your body reacts to food. 3) Fat people have a good life expectancy. Obese people die after a short life.4) Athletes aren't overwhelmingly thin and muscular. Athletes are in all shapes and sizes. Different sports need athletes with different body types.5)Weight gain is can be caused by an unhealthy lifestyle, but doesn't need to be. It can also be gained on purpose to become more healthy. CONCLUSIONS - I have proved more than one cases where fat people can be considered fit. Fitness is not your ability to lift weights. The definitions of fit and healthy have been given in R3. From all my arguments, fat people can very well be fit. This is so as heart diseases, etc are based on a huge number of factors and one of the factors is 'too much fat'. Like too much oxygen causes oxygen poisoning, too much fat causes obesity and related problems. If a person is just moderately fat, he won't have any problems in doing the normal day to day works, take care of himself and his family.There has been studies which have found out that our thinking of the 'normal weight' is wrong. Having a round belly is okay but that doesn't mean you don't exercise and eat random stuff all day. One can eat healthy meals and exercise while being fat if one wants to. There are exercises which maintain the health and are not meant to make one become all muscular. Fat is not a term which links directly to disease. This is obviously no excuse to people who gain weight the unhealthy way.The concept of Fat is confusing to so many people since it can be gained in an unhealthy way and a healthy way. Many people gain it the unhealthy way and leave a bad impression in people's minds about fat in general.But the main aim of this debate was proving a single case where fat is considered healthy, and using the definitions mentioned, I have been successful in proving my point for more than a single case.I have done so by using facts and have not made any stuff up. Also, I am not biased as I am not fat myself.Sources - - http://healthland.time.com...- http://www.medicinenet.com...- http://www.npr.org...-https://qz.com...- https://en.wikipedia.org...- http://www.medicalnewstoday.com...- https://www.sciencealert.com...- https://www.theguardian.com...I prefer everyone check the links and read them to get a better viewpoint on the topic. I hope the voting is done in a fair way and not over biased reasons. Voters must keep in mind the ACTUAL violations made to the spirit of debating and shouldn't just believe the accusations. They should analyse the debate themselves before voting and give just vote.I thank everyone who read this debate. Have a good day. I also thank con for arguing with me on this topic. It clarified my views and made me hold my position stronger than before.", "qid": "31", "docid": "f58281f0-2019-04-18T12:08:22Z-00001-000", "rank": 83, "score": 112201.0}, {"content": "Title: America is NOT obese. Content: As I've proven in previous rounds, obesity is indeed high in the United States. I am not arguing that a particular action needs to be taken because of this, just that the \"obesity problem\" can be harmful to those who become obese by choice or otherwise. Laziness may indeed be a large source of the problem, but depression may be both a cause and an effect of obesity. As stated before, obesity DOES affect the rest of the population by raising healthcare costs. And the intent in pointing out childhood obesity is to demonstrate how parents do not deal with the problem effectively, so to expect them to resolve it is irrational.", "qid": "31", "docid": "8662c54-2019-04-18T17:31:23Z-00000-000", "rank": 84, "score": 111831.0}, {"content": "Title: Overweight people cannot be beautiful. Content: I assumed that for the sake of this argument wouldn't need to define them but thank you for doing that. We can agree that obesity is not healthy. It is unhealthy. un\"health\"y adjective harmful to health. \"an unhealthy diet\" synonyms:harmful, detrimental, destructive, injurious, damaging. As far as weight range, the Body Mass Index is the standard. I have not set that scale, but is accepted in the medical realm as the established healthy weight range. It is not beautiful to be obese. When someone makes conscious choices to become overweight, it is detrimental, unhealthy, and therefore cannot be perceived as beautiful. It is delusional to state that you can be beautiful at any size. Obesity, one of the greatest causes of preventable death, is linked to some of the highest cases of hospitality and mortality including heart disease, diabetes, cancer, etc. If I said beauty is in the eye of the beholder, then said I think that abuse is beautiful, would you agree?", "qid": "31", "docid": "e1952864-2019-04-18T12:16:12Z-00005-000", "rank": 85, "score": 111738.0}, {"content": "Title: Obesity Content: That is true, but there are supporters of those people, such as family members who help encourage those people to get better. There are personal trainers in gyms and there are friends that are willing to help their other friends get better. In conclusion, I believe that anyone who is obese has the chance to get themselves better and back to a normal weight by eating healthier, exercising, and having support from family/friends.", "qid": "31", "docid": "605392ad-2019-04-18T17:01:18Z-00001-000", "rank": 86, "score": 111680.0}, {"content": "Title: Fat Tax should be implemented Content: The debate is whether fat tax should be implemented. Fat tax is defined as a form of sin tax implemented on unhealthy foods that are linked to obesity. The motion is limited to first world or developed countries as these are the countries facing high level obesity and would benefit from such taxes. Fat tax is proposing tax on food and drinks which are considered unhealthy. These foods are believed to increase the obesity levels. \"Fat tax\" is another form of sin tax - taxing on items such as cigarettes. A sin tax refers to popular vices and comes from prostitution in the 16th Century. It is proven to be success. In the US for every 10% price increase there is 4% reduced consumption. To combat the epidemic that is obesity it makes sense to implement this tax which has proven to decrease societal vices. When unhealthy food costs more it is proven that consumption will decrease. The excuse for \"junk food\" consumption is that it is cheap. However, a tax would make it more or less the same level as healthy food in which people would choose the healthier food as the issue is not healthy living education but affordability. Sin taxes are proven to decrease the consumption of taxed goods falling in to the category, thus the solution to the obesity epidemic is \"fat tax.\" An an unimaginable amount is spend on medical expenses because of obesity and related weight issues. In countries where medical services are given by the state, this cost then falls to the state to cover. It is also important to remember disease and other medical conditions linked to obesity. Diseases such as Type 2 Diabetes, several kinds of cancer, coronary artery disease, stroke, congestive heart failure, asthma, chronic back pain and hypertension are only a view diseases. The diseases in this list are chronic and therefore need lifelong therapy which usually include expensive and complex procedures. Even if these are not all taken on by the state this puts pressure on the household to produce enough income not only to treat the medical issues but also to keep the rest of the household running. Not to mention the loss of income caused by obesity in ways such as decreased productivity, absence and premature death. This makes it clear the the \"choice\" to obesity and unhealthy living should be restricted - (note: not taken away). Therefore the government would have a legitimate reason to implement such a tax. Finally, fat tax would allow for healthier decisions as the prices across healthy and unhealthy foods would no longer have such an immense gap. The simple fact that sugary, salty and unhealthy foods are more popular is the prices. These foods are not only less expensive but also less likely to be affected by inflation. It is also important to note that obesity is prevalent in lower socio economic households. Thus proving that food choices are dependent on price. For theses reasons I propose the implementation of \"fat tax\"", "qid": "31", "docid": "97bcd2c0-2019-04-18T12:13:19Z-00005-000", "rank": 87, "score": 111592.0}, {"content": "Title: Smoking should be illegal, its killing too many people! Content: Yes, the stop of advertisement and smoking in public places does not help the smokers directly. BUT, if someone who smokes wishes to stop there are multiple schemes out there to help them. For example the NHS have FREE quit kits available for people who wish to stop smoking (http://smokefree.nhs.uk...) which has been developed by experts smokers and ex-smokers and has actually been found incredibly effective (http://smokefree.nhs.uk... see this link for videos.) Now yes, smoking can cause cancer and death for a person but so can multiple other factors which are also legal. For instance \"Of all the deaths in the UK that were linked to excess weight, about 66 per cent were down to obesity, and 33 per cent to being overweight.\" (http://www.dailymail.co.uk...) Also being obese increases your risk of developing a number of serious and potentially life-threatening diseases, such as: \"type 2 diabetes \"heart disease \"some types of cancer, such as breast cancer and colon cancer \"stroke In addition, obesity can damage your quality of life and can often trigger depression(http://www.nhs.uk...) So does this mean that in turn we should also make junk food illegal and only allow people to eat healthy foods? Additionally caffeine and aspatame causes migraines, illness, and can even poison people. So does this mean we should ban and make Coffee, tea, carbonated drinks, and other caffeine based products illegal? Furthermore if we were to follow your wishes and classify tobacco as an illegal drug then we would have the same issues there were during the alcohol prohibition where people actually drank more. Additionally we know with the likes of other illegal drugs such as cannabis the fact that it is illegal stops no one. In fact due to it being disproved and against the law it gives people a sense of rebelling and due to it being easy to get hold of up to 6.9% of 16-59 year olds reported using cannabis show in The Crime Survey for England and Wales 2011/12 (http://www.google.co.uk...) Finally, your last point is an incredibly vast generalisation. As personally I have never know someone to die from a \"smoking related illness\" so that isn't everyone.", "qid": "31", "docid": "5efbb5ee-2019-04-18T17:01:03Z-00001-000", "rank": 88, "score": 111428.0}, {"content": "Title: how do you think what suffering from is the worst : obesity or being thin? prove by arguments Content: First of all, I would like to say that you are right, good job man. However, there is one point with what i disagree. You are saying that an obese man is eating way too much. This is not true at all. Majority( not everyone) who are suffering from obesity are ill people, because their digestion system are working slowly to digest food, this could be because of gender. There is nothing to do when it is a gendery illness, because no matter how hard you work to loose a weight- there's no outcome. In my opinion, this question is over, I mean that we didn't need to go on about this topic, because you mostly right as i do. It was nice to talk to you.", "qid": "31", "docid": "445d9e6e-2019-04-18T17:14:03Z-00001-000", "rank": 89, "score": 111308.0}, {"content": "Title: Obesity is the most pressing issue that faces America today. Content: Obesity is the most urgent problem facing America today. Today, 36% of all adults ( people over 18 ) are obese! That is 1 in every three adults. what's more is that obesity rates have doubled from 1990 going from 15% to 30%! However, this major issue does not just affect adults. 2 out of every 9 kids ages 2-19 are obese. This is not a problem that will just resolve its self, without immediate attention obesity rates could double again and again and again until the entire population is obese! Do you really want a society where the children of the future all can't do many of the physical activities that we enjoy today due to their weight? http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...", "qid": "31", "docid": "720c8ec-2019-04-18T16:27:18Z-00005-000", "rank": 90, "score": 111253.0}, {"content": "Title: DDD's 30th debate: Physical Education SHOULD be a requirement in schools Content: (INTRODUCTION) I would like to clarify that we mean GRADE SCHOOL! I am sorry for that miss, and I do hope you accept this definition. If not, please propose your own definition of the resolution, though remember there is NO ridiculos semantics. CONTENTION 1: OBESITY RATE IN CHILDRENChild obesity has been a problem around the world. What is obesity? \u201cThe condition of being grossly fat or overweight.\u201d (taken from google, not sure where they get there definitions) Now how exactly is this bad for an obese person\u2019s health? \u201cObese youth are more likely to have risk factors for cardiovascular disease, such as high cholesterol or high blood pressure. In a population-based sample of 5- to 17-year-olds, 70% of obese youth had at least one risk factor for cardiovascular disease.\u201d {1} {2} \u201cObese adolescents are more likely to have prediabetes, a condition in which blood glucose levels indicate a high risk for development of diabetes. Children and adolescents who are obese are at greater risk for bone and joint problems, sleep apnea, and social and psychological problems such as stigmatization and poor self-esteem.\u201d {1} {2} \u201cChildren and adolescents who are obese are likely to be obese as adults and are therefore more at risk for adult health problems such as heart disease, type 2 diabetes, stroke, several types of cancer, and osteoarthritis. One study showed that children who became obese as early as age 2 were more likely to be obese as adults. Overweight and obesity are associated with increased risk for many types of cancer, including cancer of the breast, colon, endometrium, esophagus, kidney, pancreas, gall bladder, thyroid, ovary, cervix, and prostate, as well as multiple myeloma and Hodgkin\u2019s lymphoma.\" {1} {2} Want to hear something shocking? Well, it turns out that out of all children, 20% (around) are obese. One in every five children are obese! {1} {2} So now that you know the health risks that obesity comes with, you now need to know how to combat it. With physical activity: \u201cHealthy lifestyle habits, including healthy eating and physical activity\u201d{1} {2} Obviously in gym you get physical activity, and if it is a requirement it will MAKE SURE that these obese children start getting healthier. If it was optional, most of these children would most likely not go to gym, and thus develop the obesity more. So now I ask anyone who is reading this, do you want ( I did the calculations based on the facts provided earlier) 14% of all children to have a major risk for cardiovascular disease? I don\u2019t think so. To slowly lower this number, gym should be a requirement in all grade schools. CONTENTION 2: GYM HELPS YOU THINK In grade school academics, the goal is for you to get smarter, and learn. So what is an effective way to help your brain get working? Your first reaction is mostly \u2018well you go to your classes and academic subjects\u2019 but I have reason to believe your reaction could be \u2018go to P.E.\u2019 I will provide multiple studies showing why: \u201cLook at the brain functioning after just 20 minutes of walking. Getting kids to move helps strengthen and stimulate their brains. This is why so many recent research studies are showing increased fitness = improved academics. Note: The blue color represents inactivity in the brain.\u201d {3} To see the image go here (sorry my computer can\u2019t post images so I have to give links to them): http://www.debate.org... From the same interesting website came this overwhelming evidence from a different study: They took 3 million children and compared the kids who had a higher fitness level to the corresponding academic level and kids who had a lower fitness level to the corresponding academic level and look what they found: http://www.debate.org... Shocking isn\u2019t it? Here is some more studies: \u201cThe California Department of Education (CDE) looked for a correlation between fitness scores and test scores. They found that kids who were deemed fit (by a standard test of aerobic capacity, BMI, abdominal strength, trunk strength, upper body strength and overall flexibility) scored twice as well on academic tests as those that were unfit. In the second year of the study, socio-economic status was taken into account, to possibly eliminate that variable as an explanation. As expected, those in the upper-income brackets scored better overall on the academic tests, but within the lower-income set of students, the same results were observed \u2014 kids who were more fit performed better academically.\u201d {4} Now, before I run out of space to finish this argument and argument 3, I would like to post one last study under this contention: \u201cCharles Hillman, associate professor of kinesiology at the University of Illinois, was able to duplicate these findings with 259 third and fifth-grade Illinois students. His team also noticed that two of the tests, BMI and aerobic capacity, were significantly more influential to higher academic scores than the other four fitness factors. Digging deeper, he isolated two groups of 20 students, one fit and the other unfit. They were given cognitive tests of attention, working memory and processing speed while their brain's electrical activity was being measured by an electroencephalogram (EEG) test. The fit kids' brains showed more activity in the prefrontal cortex, known for its executive function and control\u201d {4} So, just to clarify, if you make gym a REQUIREMENT then the test score of ALL the students will be very likely go up. But if it is optional or even non-existent, then obviously these kids who came to school would not be going to gym and thus not helping the brain enough. When they mean a correlation from fit kids to high academic scores, I want to point out that a major way for a kid to start getting fit starts with gym. Look at this: http://www.debate.org... Alright, on to the next point. CONTENTION 3: GYM REDUCES STRESS IN SCHOOL Stress sucks, it is nerve racking and just really is almost painful. Now let me show you just how much stress sucks. \u201cStress that continues without relief can lead to a condition called distress -- a negative stress reaction. Distress can lead to physical symptoms including headaches, upset stomach, elevated blood pressure, chest pain, and problems sleeping. Research suggests that stress also can bring on or worsen certain symptoms or diseases. Stress also becomes harmful when people use alcohol, tobacco, or drugs to try to relieve their stress. Unfortunately, instead of relieving the stress and returning the body to a relaxed state, these substances tend to keep the body in a stressed state and cause more problems. Consider the following: Forty-three percent of all adults suffer adverse health effects from stress. Seventy-five percent to 90% of all doctor's office visits are for stress-related ailments and complaints. Stress can play a part in problems such as headaches, high blood pressure, heart problems, diabetes, skin conditions, asthma, arthritis, depression, and anxiety. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) declared stress a hazard of the workplace. Stress costs American industry more than $300 billion annually. The lifetime prevalence of an emotional disorder is more than 50%, often due to chronic, untreated stress reactions.\u201d {5} Let me break this down a bit. The facts provided are obvious reasons for why stress sucks Let me point out the Alcohol, Drugs, etc\u2026 makes it worse. Now, I know this sounds a bit abstract, but just how much do kids in grade school drink, use drugs, etc? \u201c25% of youth aged 12 to 20 years drink alcohol\u201d {6} So, wait, 1 IN 5 KIDS DRINK ALCOHOL? That is horrible! Ok so now how many kids take drugs or smoke? I am going to use marijuana as an example: \u201c7.0 percent of 8th graders, 18.0 percent of 10th graders, and 22.7 percent of 12th graders used marijuana\u201d {7} So a HIGH amount of kids drink and use drugs which, if you remember an earlier quote, make existing stress worse, then obviously we need to stop stress before it happens! Now what is an effective way to stop stress before normal kids and drinking and drug using kids get school/social stressed? GYM! \u201cPhysical education classes provide the opportunity to participate in sports, exercise and perform other activities that promote physical fitness. These activities release chemicals in your brain known as endorphins, which help produce feelings of calm and relaxation. A study done by the University of Georgia in 2008 showed that people who exercise just 20 minutes a day can decrease their fatigue by 65 percent. If you're feeling tired and stressed out, getting exercise will help refresh you.\u201d {8} POINT. PROVEN. (CONCLUSION) Thank you, DDD (REFERENCES) {1} http://www.cdc.gov... {2} GO TO {1} AND GO TO REFERENCE 7, 5,6,10, 15, 12, 11, 14 {3} http://www.phitamerica.org... {4} http://www.livescience.com... {5} http://www.webmd.com... {6} http://www.cdc.gov... {7} http://www.drugabuse.gov... {8} http://classroom.synonym.com...", "qid": "31", "docid": "7064c844-2019-04-18T15:41:56Z-00007-000", "rank": 91, "score": 111252.0}, {"content": "Title: Parents shouldnt burden their children with their obesity problems Content: The CDC (2012) defines obese as being over 200lbs and less than 6ft tall. Most stocky men are \"obese\", and you are saying that their weight makes them incapable of parenting, when it doesn't even prohibit them from playing sports in most cases. Also 1/3rd of Americans are obese (CDC), what youre suggesting would take children away from 30% of our country and put them in foster care. Obesity is a consequence of a national disregard for diet, not immorality.", "qid": "31", "docid": "6327257c-2019-04-18T18:25:19Z-00001-000", "rank": 92, "score": 111128.0}, {"content": "Title: Overweight people cannot be beautiful. Content: Yes I agree that it is delusional to think that \"any\" size is beautiful. As soon as they become unhealthy, some might consider it unattractive, but some obese look only mildly overweight and still be attractive. However I disagree that obesity is a choice. My brother classifies as \"obese\" but he did not chose to be the way he is. Sometimes obesity occurs along with other conditions, in my brothers case, autism, which is not a choice. His doctor said that if he wasn't autistic his weight would have been fine. So no, obesity (in most cases) is not a choice. And most (obese) people don't just wake up one day and decide to just become unhealthy with a bigger chance of death at an early age. Some obesity is developed in childhood, where a child has little to no control over their lives.", "qid": "31", "docid": "e1952864-2019-04-18T12:16:12Z-00004-000", "rank": 93, "score": 110991.0}, {"content": "Title: Obesity costs the NHS millions of pounds each year Content: Children become obese through a lack of exercise and an unhealthy diet. By prosecuting the parents of obese children you force them to change their children's lifestyles. Children who exercise and eat healthily are more likely to remain healthy throughout life and are therefore less likely to suffer from illness's in adulthood. Weight related illness currently costs the NHS millions of pounds each year.", "qid": "31", "docid": "e74fd589-2019-04-19T12:46:06Z-00011-000", "rank": 94, "score": 110886.0}, {"content": "Title: Obesity is the most pressing issue that faces America today. Content: My opponent has the burden of the proof. My opponent has not stated how or why obesity is the most pressing issue in America, he has only stated that it is a pressing issue.As Con, I will take the opposite stance. A recent Gallup Poll reported what Americans thought what was the most important problem in America today. The results are shown below[1]: As we see above, obesity wasn't even on the list. The economic issue Americans thought as most important was unemployment/jobs and non-economic Americans thought as most important was dissatisfaction with the government.Let's take another poll. What Americans thought as the top five \"Most Important\" U.S. problems are listed below[2]: Now that we have an understanding of what the American population thinks, let's go on to the why and how. Obesity is an issue, but it is nothing compared to the United States's debt crisis, struggling economy, poverty rate, war relations, etc. My opponent has yet to prove how obesity is more of an issue then all of these things. Since my opponent hasn't brought up a legitimate argument for me to rebut, the task of rebutting goes to my opponent.Sources1. http://www.gallup.com...2. http://www.gallup.com...", "qid": "31", "docid": "720c8ec-2019-04-18T16:27:18Z-00002-000", "rank": 95, "score": 110588.0}, {"content": "Title: Fat Acceptance Is Dangerous Content: Before we continue I would like to make it totally clear that I agree that obesity is a very important healthcare issue, So you don't need to provide any further arguments for why this is the case - and in any case, That is not what we are arguing. What I am interested in is discussion of whether the fat acceptance movement contributes to the problem of obesity. From what I can tell your argument for why the fat acceptance movement is dangerous is as follows: 1) a majority of people who support the fat acceptance movement are themselves dangerously overweight and 2) fat acceptance teaches these people that they can and should ignore the health risks associated with being fat whether or not statement 1 is true (you would need to prove this, So provide sources if you think you can), Statement 2 is just false. The fat acceptance movement does not try to minimise the health risks associated with obesity it simply proposes that fat itself is not inherently a problem, Which is something you already agree with. From your third source, You quote: \"the most common causes of obesity are overeating and physical inactivity. \" - yes, Precisely, Overeating and physical inactivity is the problem, Not 'fat', The fat acceptance movement does not promote \"overeating and physical inactivity\" it tries to lift the stigmas associated with fatness. Now to turn to your reasoning and your sources. You seem to suggest that because fat acceptance is more common in America and the UK and because those countries have high obesity rates that therefore fat acceptance contributes to obesity. This logic is extremely flawed. Can I point out that your second source is some statistics posted on the site for a company that does gastric band surgery? That's not exactly what I would call an impartial source. But the statistics themselves show that America is the 19th most obese country per capita. This is YOUR source that says this (honestly its a surprise for me too). Qatar is 8th on the list with an obesity rate of 42. 3%, 11 whole places higher than America, Does that mean that the fat acceptance movement must be even bigger in Qatar than the US? You have not demonstrated a correlation between fat acceptance and obesity.", "qid": "31", "docid": "615af073-2019-04-18T11:22:17Z-00002-000", "rank": 96, "score": 110486.0}, {"content": "Title: government should implement a 'fat tax' Content: \"This argument is completely irrational. First off, if we are going to go taxing people for having obesity-related diseases, then why not tax people with diabetes or someone who has cancer? After all, they are increasing health care costs. \" because not everyone with diabetes or cancer necessarily did something culpable, like eating too much or being too lazy. con's argument here is completely and utterly irrational. \"At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul...\" \"First off, Pro's understanding is irrelevant, She should support her argument here. An argument that is not supported by evidence can be digarded without evidence. Second, Slippery slope argument being made. Simply because over-eaters would have to pay a tax does not directly mean that they will eat less or be less sedentary.\" my argument is based on a 'good guess' a matter of good judgment. i highly doubt sales taxes are enough to compensate for the health care costs, given sales taxes are used for so many other purposes. why do i need explicit study support on something so obvious? as to the slippery slope point. what are you even talking about a slippery slope? the point you make after that assertion is not even a slippery slope argument. but as to that point. the tax does not have to cause them to eat less or be less sedentary. it will likely have that effect to some degree, but the main point is that we should be getting revenue to make up for their health care costs. con insists for some reason that his definition of a fat tax is better than the strawman definition he says i used. i didn't give a definition and it's somewhat irrelvant. i'd say either a tax on fatty foods, or better yet or both.... a direct tax on fat people.", "qid": "31", "docid": "f7b921f9-2019-04-18T15:58:46Z-00003-000", "rank": 97, "score": 110480.0}, {"content": "Title: Obesity Content: It seems like fast food is almost a daily topic in the news. Whether it is because of their ingredients (such as trans fat), the negative health effects (like diabetes), or being linked to obesity, fast food dominates the headlines. This then begs the question, \"Does fast food cause obesity?\" The simple answer is no. Consuming more calories from food than the body can burn is what causes weight gain. This means that you could eat fast food on a regular basis and not become obese. In fact, you can even lose weight while eating fast food. This, however, requires knowledge of not only how many calories you are burning on a daily basis, but also the calories in the food that you are eating. What Does the Research Say? Fast food is not the cause of obesity in today's society. However, because fast food is typically high in calories and the portions are large, it does promote eating too many calories, which can lead to weight gain and obesity. Beside \"fast food\" there are another causes of obesity: Lack of Energy Balance A lack of energy balance most often causes overweight and obesity. Energy balance means that your energy IN equals your energy OUT. Energy IN is the amount of energy or calories you get from food and drinks. Energy OUT is the amount of energy your body uses for things like breathing, digesting, and being physically active. Overweight and obesity happen over time when you take in more calories than you use. An Inactive Lifestyle Many people aren't very physically active. One reason for this is that many people spend hours in front of TVs and computers doing work, schoolwork, and leisure activities. In fact, more than 2 hours a day of regular TV viewing time has been linked to overweight and obesity. Environment Our environment doesn't support healthy lifestyle habits; in fact, it encourages obesity. Some reasons include: \u2022Lack of neighborhood sidewalks and safe places for recreation. Not having area parks, trails, sidewalks, and affordable gyms makes it hard for people to be physically active. \u2022Oversized food portions. People are exposed to huge food portions in restaurants, fast food places, gas stations, movie theaters, supermarkets, and even at home. Some of these meals and snacks can feed two or more people. Eating large portions means too much energy IN. Over time, this will cause weight gain if it isn't balanced with physical activity. \u2022Lack of access to healthy foods. Some people don't live in neighborhoods that have supermarkets that sell healthy foods, such as fresh fruits and vegetables. Or, for some people, these healthy foods are too costly. Genes and Family History Studies of identical twins who have been raised apart show that genes have a strong influence on a person's weight. Overweight and obesity tend to run in families. Your chances of being overweight are greater if one or both of your parents are overweight or obese. Your genes also may affect the amount of fat you store in your body and where on your body you carry the extra fat. Because families also share food and physical activity habits, a link exists between genes and the environment. Health Conditions Some hormone problems may cause overweight and obesity, such as underactive thyroid (hypothyroidism), Cushing's syndrome, and polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS). Underactive thyroid is a condition in which the thyroid gland doesn't make enough thyroid hormone. Lack of thyroid hormone will slow down your metabolism and cause weight gain. You'll also feel tired and weak. Cushing's syndrome is a condition in which the body's adrenal glands make too much of the hormone cortisol. Cushing's syndrome also can develop if a person takes high doses of certain medicines, such as prednisone, for long periods. People who have Cushing's syndrome gain weight, have upper-body obesity, a rounded face, fat Emotional Factors Some people eat more than usual when they're bored, angry, or stressed. Over time, overeating will lead to weight gain and may cause overweight or obesity. Smoking Some people gain weight when they stop smoking. One reason is that food often tastes and smells better after quitting smoking. Another reason is because nicotine raises the rate at which your body burns calories, so you burn fewer calories when you stop smoking. However, smoking is a serious health risk, and quitting is more important than possible weight gain. Lack of Sleep Research shows that lack of sleep increases the risk of obesity. For example, one study of teenagers showed that with each hour of sleep lost, the odds of becoming obese went up. Lack of sleep increases the risk of obesity in other age groups as well. People who sleep fewer hours also seem to prefer eating foods that are higher in calories and carbohydrates, which can lead to overeating, weight gain, and obesity. Sources: http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov... http://weight-loss.emedtv.com...", "qid": "31", "docid": "6053928e-2019-04-18T18:09:46Z-00001-000", "rank": 98, "score": 110351.0}, {"content": "Title: It's time for the Government to crackdown hard on greedy fat scroungers Content: Many thanks to my opponent for her continued interest in this subject. With Britain now having one of the highest rates of obesity in the world, the problem has now become one of widespread debate in the general population. Firstly, it should be accepted that overeating is an addiction and obese people deserve proper medical help to overcome their cravings for food, just in the same way as a drug user might be trated for their addiction.. However, just as junkies that refuse treatment, or relapse, face mandatory rehabilitation, usually involving incarceration within a secure environment, so this same principle applies to obese people who persistently refuse to address their weight problem. This is not punishment, it is assistance for those people who damage their health and cost the taxpayers fortunes as a result. My opponent went on to quote Prof. Jane Wardle who said that parents shouldn't be held totally responsible for their children's excessive weight. I'm not a medical practitioner, as I already admitted, but it would appear to me that overweight kids' parents should be held to account. After all, where do the children get the food (or the money for food) from? Perhaps if they steal it, the parents may have an excuse, but if they are knowingly feeding them too much junk food, isn't that child cruelty? Wouldn't' a mum that plied her kids with alcohol or a dad that bought his kids crack be punished? Her final quote from Tam Fry reinforces my argument by suggesting that even with a gene predisposing one to obesity were to be identified, becoming overweight is not inevitable provided one leads a healthy lifestyle. In other words, becoming obese, or addicted to drugs or taking up a life in crime are matters of personal choice. In society, we have rights but also responsibilities, to ourselves and to others and if we neglect our responsibilities, we should expect to receive help in order to rehabilitate ourselves back into society, whether that is through prison for drug offenders or the workhouse for the obese. Thank you.", "qid": "31", "docid": "6e81aa86-2019-04-18T19:35:34Z-00001-000", "rank": 99, "score": 110346.0}, {"content": "Title: Obesity Content: In my conclusion, I believe that overweight people should not be judged for their weight because there may be a reason behind that of why they are like that. There are various health reasons where that individual cannot control their weight and are too sick to exercise. People should not be judged by their looks.", "qid": "31", "docid": "605392ad-2019-04-18T17:01:18Z-00000-000", "rank": 100, "score": 110127.0}]}
{"query": "Do electronic voting machines improve the voting process?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: Efficiency Content: Voting machines are far from reliable in this instance. Experts have expressed concern that \u2018hackers, software bugs . . . or power outages could intentionally or accidentally erase or alter voting data\u2019 recorded by the machines[1]. In this case, while the machines may be politically impartial, they are still subject to potential human corruption alongside the opportunity for technical faults and breakdowns. Electronic vote-counting machine errors led to almost 2 million ballots being disqualified in the 2000 USA election[2]. Electronic voting systems need a lot more work before we should even consider using them; they certainly do not solve any problems currently raised by manual counting. [1] http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/11/1101_041101_election_voting.html, accessed 24/08/11 [2] http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/11/1101_041101_election_voting.html,, accessed 24/08/11", "qid": "32", "docid": "2c05e9fb-2019-04-15T20:23:05Z-00014-000", "rank": 1, "score": 163405.0}, {"content": "Title: Electronic voting will create a more cost effective franchise Content: The elderly far more frequently find electronic voting to be a hindrance rather than a help. Those who are partially sighted are unable to see the position on the text blocks on the screen; small controls such as buttons or touch screens create problems; and some cognitively impaired people may find it difficult to remember a PIN number which is used to authenticate the vote[1]. A simple paper ballot is a far more commonly-recognised and straightforward method. In terms of cost, the electronic voting machines or voting programmes would certainly cost a great deal to implement and run[2]. Ultimately, the great risk that electronic voting machines or systems will lose votes[3] outweighs the cost argument: you cannot put a price on a crucial process at the core of every democratic state. [1] http://www.tiresias.org/research/guidelines/e_voting.htm, accessed 24/08/11 [2] http://votingmachines.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000313, accessed 24/08/11 [3] http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/01/diebold-audit-l/, accessed 24/08/11", "qid": "32", "docid": "2c05e9fb-2019-04-15T20:23:05Z-00016-000", "rank": 2, "score": 163039.0}, {"content": "Title: Electronic voting is vulnerable to fraud and subversion Content: Our understanding of online security is improving every day; people feel safe enough to trust their most important details, such as bank details, to the internet[1] \u2013 why not their vote? Secure software and encryption protocols have allowed online markets to flourish, with companies such as PayPal inspiring a sense of security among their customers[2]. Any software for remote electronic voting could be scrutinised well in advance. It also removes the potential for identity fraud, which is a problem with current postal voting systems[3]. Each voter could be given a unique password, if necessary alongside something like a special swipe card, ensuring that everybody who is entitled to vote gets a single vote. Given that in many jurisdictions, traditional polling stations do not require voters to provide ID[4], it would arguably be a security improvement on the current situation. [1] http://www.natwest.com/personal/online-banking/awards.ashx, accessed 24/08/11 [2] https://www.paypal.co.uk/uk, accessed 24/08/11 [3] http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article521468.ece, accessed 24/08/11 [4] http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/general_election_faq.aspx, accessed 24/08/11", "qid": "32", "docid": "2c05e9fb-2019-04-15T20:23:05Z-00020-000", "rank": 3, "score": 159026.0}, {"content": "Title: Electronic voting may harm the principle of democratic accountability Content: The numerous faults experienced in trials and small-scale use of electronic voting[1][2] shows that this system is not yet ready for wide use in elections, and gives no indication that it ever will be. The argument that they can provide a faster vote-count is negated by the fact that in many cases they aren\u2019t counting all the votes, but instead missing some out[3]. If the results cannot be trusted, there is no merit in implementing an electronic vote. Furthermore, this motion neglects those who do not have access to electronic systems or the internet; they may end up being disenfranchised if voting went online. This is particularly pertinent for senior citizens who lack the skills to \u2018find, retrieve and evaluate\u2019 information found electronically[4]. It is also a disadvantage for those who with a limited income and education, who are \u2018most likely to not use the internet or even understand how to use a computer\u2019[5]. 37% of low-income households do not regularly use the internet[6]; this motion would create a two-tier system where already under-represented groups are allowed to fall behind the rest of society. Even public libraries and state-provided resources are suffering cuts under the economic depression[7], which further reduces access for those from poorer backgrounds. This allows real issues of discrimination and alienation to rise. [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/04/electronic-voting-machine_n_141119.html, accessed 24/08/11 [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/magazine/06Vote-t.html, accessed 24/08/11 [3] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/magazine/06Vote-t.html, accessed 24/08/11 [4] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1550650/, accessed 24/08/11 [5] http://workingclassstudies.wordpress.com/2010/11/08/disconnected-disenfranchised-and-poor-addressing-digital-inequality-in-america/, accessed 24/08/11 [6] http://workingclassstudies.wordpress.com/2010/11/08/disconnected-disenfranchised-and-poor-addressing-digital-inequality-in-america/, accessed 24/08/11 [7] http://workingclassstudies.wordpress.com/2010/11/08/disconnected-disenfranchised-and-poor-addressing-digital-inequality-in-america/, accessed 24/08/11", "qid": "32", "docid": "2c05e9fb-2019-04-15T20:23:05Z-00023-000", "rank": 4, "score": 157819.0}, {"content": "Title: Electronic voting will create a more cost effective franchise Content: Electronic voting would also save a great deal of money which is currently spent on employing counters and renting venues to be used as polling stations. For example the UK general election in 2005 cost over \u00a380 million to organise[1], Canada\u2019s 2008 election cost around $300 million[2], and the USA presidential election of 2008 was estimated to cost up to $5.3 billion[3]. Electronic voting also brings the opportunity to increase access to those who currently find it difficult to register their votes; for example, electronic voting could be conducted in a minority language for those who find English difficult[4]. In the past, trials of this have been shown to improve voter turnout among minority groups[5]. Electronic voting could also benefit the elderly, as many find it difficult to use the lever-operated ballots currently in use.[6] Using electronic voting ensures that no groups are left out of an essentially democratic process. [1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8497014.stm#list, accessed 24/08/11 [2] http://randsco.com/index.php/2008/10/24/p594, accessed 24/08/11 [3] http://randsco.com/index.php/2008/10/24/p594, accessed 24/08/11 [4] http://votingmachines.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000310, accessed 24/08/11 [5] http://votingmachines.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000310, accessed 24/08/11 [6] http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~mdr/teaching/modules04/security/students/SS8.pdf, accessed 24/08/11", "qid": "32", "docid": "2c05e9fb-2019-04-15T20:23:05Z-00017-000", "rank": 5, "score": 157152.0}, {"content": "Title: Efficiency Content: Because it would not require manual counting and tallying, remote electronic voting would allow the results to be known much faster[1], and would also eliminate the potential for human error, which is a common problem with the current system[2]. For example, in the Wisconsin Supreme Court election of 2011, a clerk discovered around 14,000 unrecorded votes which had been missed by human error \u2013 and actually changed the outcome of the election[3]. The clerk is now being questioned regarding her party allegiances under suspicion that she was trying to turn the election into a victory for her favoured candidate[4] \u2013 yet another potential for abuse under the current system. Machines, of course, are impartial concerning party allegiances and so eliminate the potential for individual corruption. [1] http://www.capc.umd.edu/rpts/Promise_and_Pitfalls_of_Electronic_Voting.pdf, accessed 24/08/11 [2] http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepoliticalsystem/a/votecounts.htm, accessed 24/08/11 [3] http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0409/Vote-count-human-error-shadows-Wisconsin-Supreme-Court-election, accessed 24/08/11 [4] http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0409/Vote-count-human-error-shadows-Wisconsin-Supreme-Court-election, accessed 24/08/11", "qid": "32", "docid": "2c05e9fb-2019-04-15T20:23:05Z-00015-000", "rank": 6, "score": 155458.0}, {"content": "Title: Electronic voting can make the franchise more accessible Content: In many Western democracies, voter turnout has been falling while voter apathy appears to be rising. In the UK, voter turnout fell sharply between 1997-2000, and the last general election in 2010 saw only 65% of potential voters cast a vote[1]. In the USA, the federal election of 2010 saw only 37.8% of potential voters cast their vote[2]. Voter turnouts across Europe follow this trend[3]. When so few people participate in the key act of democracy \u2013 voting for the political leader of the country \u2013 it begins to raise worrying questions about the legitimacy of that democracy in the first place. If electronic or internet voting was introduced as an option alongside more traditional polling methods, it would expands the accessibility of the voting system in general. Internet or electronic voting would be a strategic practical measure. It would make voting convenient for busy modern citizens because it minimalises the amount of effort each individual has to contribute \u2013 namely, they do not have to travel to the polling stations[4]. As such, it removes physical restrictions on the voting process and becomes more universally accessible. This would prevent people from being unable to vote because they are \u2018too busy\u2019[5] \u2013 whether this is simply because their local polling station is too far away for them to commute to, or to fit in alongside their other daily responsibilities based at work or home[6][7]. [1] http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm, accessed 22/08/11 [2] http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html, accessed 22/08/11 [3] http://www.euractiv.com/en/elections/voter-turnout-european-election-lower/article-117868, accessed 22/08/11. [4] https://files.nyu.edu/tsc223/public/ElectronicVoting.pdf, accessed 25/08/11 [5] http://www.census.gov/prod/3/98pubs/cenbr984.pdf, accessed 22/08/11 [6] In the USA: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepoliticalsystem/a/whynotvote.htm, accessed 22/08/11 [7] In the UK: http://www.census.gov/prod/3/98pubs/cenbr984.pdf, accessed 22/08/11", "qid": "32", "docid": "2c05e9fb-2019-04-15T20:23:05Z-00011-000", "rank": 7, "score": 154616.0}, {"content": "Title: Remote electronic voting can be conducted very safely. Content: Our online security is improving every day; people feel safe enough to trust their most important details, such as bank details, to the internet[1] \u2013 why not their vote? Secure software and encryption protocols have allowed online markets to flourish, with companies such as PayPal inspiring a sense of security among their customers[2]. Any software for remote electronic voting could be scrutinised well in advance. It also removes the potential for identity fraud, which is a problem with current postal voting systems[3]. Each voter could be given a unique password, if necessary alongside something like a special swipe card, ensuring that everybody who is entitled to vote gets a single vote. Given that in many jurisdictions, traditional polling stations do not require voters to provide ID[4], it would arguably be a security improvement on the current situation. [1] http://www.natwest.com/personal/online-banking/awards.ashx, accessed 24/08/11 [2] https://www.paypal.co.uk/uk, accessed 24/08/11 [3] http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article521468.ece, accessed 24/08/11 [4] http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/general_election_faq.aspx, accessed 24/08/11", "qid": "32", "docid": "2c05e9fb-2019-04-15T20:23:05Z-00019-000", "rank": 8, "score": 152634.0}, {"content": "Title: allow the use of electronic and internet voting in state-organised elections Content: Electronic voting can make the franchise more accessible", "qid": "32", "docid": "2c05e9fb-2019-04-15T20:23:05Z-00009-000", "rank": 9, "score": 149840.0}, {"content": "Title: A valid picture Identification should be a requirement to vote. Content: By the definition of your title, I was speaking off topic for the previous Rounds. However, the only federally mandated election law change suggestions for future Federal Elections have been not a picture ID, but a voter ID. Regardless, I will propose a counter-plan advocating voter accountability through a paper trail. The greatest risk to switching votes (D. Josef Thompson, University of Chicago) is tampering with electronic machines. Because votes are analyzed more on the county precinct level instead of the voting locations, discrepencies are much harder to find. In the 2000 and 2004 elections, he estimates, that there were more incidences of voter fraud by one individual than there were electronic machine tampering. However, the percentage of votes changed by machine tampering outweighed the percentage of votes changed by voter fraud by a ratio of 3:1, while even counting invalidated absentee ballots equals the approximate number of votes by voter fraud. I will now assess the American government's ability to improve its voting system. The American government only has the resources available to take one option: paper trails for electronic machines OR voter/picture ID because of the official documentation and training purposes. The winner of this debate is the Negative side because its counter-plan of instituting a paper trail defeats the Affirmative plan of picture Identification at the voting booth. Thanks, The Colonel", "qid": "32", "docid": "f2c72c91-2019-04-18T19:54:40Z-00000-000", "rank": 10, "score": 143441.0}, {"content": "Title: Electronic voting may harm the principle of democratic accountability Content: Computer literacy is constantly on the rise[1][2]. In state-run secondary schools, children are provided with information and technology classes which helps to bridge any existing divide[3], and there are discussions about extending these lessons to primary schools. Easily-accessible community classes are also available to seniors[4][5]. Moreover, given the opportunity to save money through electronic voting rather than having to pay for polling station venues, manual vote counters and so on, this money could easily be redirected to provide computer lessons for those from disadvantaged backgrounds, or to funnel into state libraries and public computer resources. This mechanism is a much more efficient way of making sure that everybody is able to participate. [1] Children in the UK: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/click_online/5223192.stm, accessed 24/08/11 [2] In the USA: http://computerliteracyusa.web.officelive.com/default.aspx [3] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7770469.stm, accessed 24/08/11 [4] Across the USA: http://pittsburgh.about.com/od/computer_classes/Computer_Training_Classes_User_Groups.htm, accessed 24/08/11 [5] In the UK: http://www.ageuk.org.uk/work-and-learning/, accessed 24/08/11", "qid": "32", "docid": "2c05e9fb-2019-04-15T20:23:05Z-00022-000", "rank": 11, "score": 140797.0}, {"content": "Title: allow the use of electronic and internet voting in state-organised elections Content: Electronic voting will create a more cost effective franchise", "qid": "32", "docid": "2c05e9fb-2019-04-15T20:23:05Z-00006-000", "rank": 12, "score": 140775.0}, {"content": "Title: Direct democracy would speed up political processes. If urgent action were needed, decisions could ... Content: Direct democracy would speed up political processes. If urgent action were needed, decisions could be made much more quickly (particularly with electronic voting) without the issue getting bogged down by political parties fighting one another, scoring points and trying to slow down the system.", "qid": "32", "docid": "b76ec089-2019-04-19T12:45:35Z-00014-000", "rank": 13, "score": 140743.0}, {"content": "Title: Modern technology makes consultation easier than ever. Content: Most developed nations are representative democracies, in which we elect people to represent us and make decisions on our behalf. We retain the ultimate control over these representatives at the ballot box, and if we disagree with the decisions they have made we can vote for different candidates at the next election. Just because we can consult the public more easily nowadays, that is no reason to destroy a system that has generally served us well for decades and, in some cases, centuries. Furthermore, electronic voting is still in its infancy, and liable to fraud and technical problems. [1] [1] \u201dE-Voting Rights\u201d, Electronic Frontier Foundation. http://www.eff.org/issues/e-voting", "qid": "32", "docid": "e6af11b5-2019-04-15T20:22:52Z-00012-000", "rank": 14, "score": 135758.0}, {"content": "Title: Engagement with democracy Content: If voting were conducted electronically, we would have no guarantee that an individual\u2019s vote was privately and freely made. Instead, voting becomes open to manipulation where the head of the household, or another figure, may cast votes for others to try and ensure their preferred outcome. Indeed, under the status quo there are still instances of organised corruption where votes are sold or bullied out of people[1][2], despite the fact that this was the exact reason that the secret ballot was originally introduced[3]. Electronic voting would just take corruption further out of our hands by hiding it from public view; this would be detrimental to democratic process. [1] http://www.usip.org/files/MC1/MC1-Part2Section15.pdf, accessed 24/08/11 [2] www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN03667.pdf , accessed 24/08/11 [3] http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=8ujf3YM9AfwC&pg=PA2&lpg=PA2&dq=secret+ballot+prevent+corruption&source=bl&ots=6Z5cAyLtLe&sig=-yPKNj6ikiTouVLKSthPmYbBtEA&hl=en&ei=mj9VTufACMeKhQehwJWkBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=secret%20ballot%20prevent%20corruption&f=false, accessed 24/08/11", "qid": "32", "docid": "2c05e9fb-2019-04-15T20:23:05Z-00029-000", "rank": 15, "score": 133159.0}, {"content": "Title: Electronic voting can make the franchise more accessible Content: Voter apathy cannot be solely attributed to having to walk to your local polling station. It can also be attributed to general disillusionment with the campaigning political parties, and the idea that none of them will perform well in government[1]. Political parties which focus more strongly on national rather than constituency campaigning can also inspire voter apathy[2]. The problems behind voter apathy are far greater than can be solved by trying to change the practical aspect of voting; it is the fact that voters often feel neglected by their government which is a far greater concern[3]. [1] http://otago.ourarchive.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10523/1456/voter_turnout.pdf, accessed 24/08/11 [2] http://otago.ourarchive.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10523/1456/voter_turnout.pdf, accessed 24/08/11 [3] http://www.independentliaison.com.au/Independent_values.html, accessed 24/08/11", "qid": "32", "docid": "2c05e9fb-2019-04-15T20:23:05Z-00010-000", "rank": 16, "score": 132534.0}, {"content": "Title: allow the use of electronic and internet voting in state-organised elections Content: Remote electronic voting can be conducted very safely.", "qid": "32", "docid": "2c05e9fb-2019-04-15T20:23:05Z-00005-000", "rank": 17, "score": 132442.0}, {"content": "Title: allow the use of electronic and internet voting in state-organised elections Content: Efficiency", "qid": "32", "docid": "2c05e9fb-2019-04-15T20:23:05Z-00007-000", "rank": 18, "score": 131843.0}, {"content": "Title: allow the use of electronic and internet voting in state-organised elections Content: Electronic voting is vulnerable to fraud and subversion", "qid": "32", "docid": "2c05e9fb-2019-04-15T20:23:05Z-00004-000", "rank": 19, "score": 131696.0}, {"content": "Title: allow the use of electronic and internet voting in state-organised elections Content: Electronic voting may harm the principle of democratic accountability", "qid": "32", "docid": "2c05e9fb-2019-04-15T20:23:05Z-00003-000", "rank": 20, "score": 130545.0}, {"content": "Title: Electronic voting is vulnerable to fraud and subversion Content: No networked commuter system is immune to attack or subversion. By their very nature, electronic voting systems must be inter connected and in continuous communication with one another. As a consequence, the devices and methods used to gather votes can also serve as access points to the larger network of vote gathering and counting systems. The most \u2018secure\u2019 of websites have been recently hacked. For example, Paypal was hacked by Lulzsec in response to the Wikileaks scandal[1]. Lulzsec also hacked the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)[2], supposedly the source of all their national intelligence and top secret information. If anything, recent events have shown us that the internet is an unstable medium for people to conduct personal or professional affairs; we certainly should not allow our voting systems to become even more vulnerable to this kind of attack. A better way to prevent identity fraud would be the simple measure of now requiring polling stations to ask for ID, rather than going to the extreme of online voting. [1] http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/prince-edward-island/story/2011/06/17/pei-lulzsec-personal-internet-accounts-584.html, accessed 24/08/11 [2] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8578704/CIA-website-hacked-by-Lulz-Security.html, accessed 24/08/11", "qid": "32", "docid": "2c05e9fb-2019-04-15T20:23:05Z-00021-000", "rank": 21, "score": 130161.0}, {"content": "Title: allow the use of electronic and internet voting in state-organised elections Content: Democratisation", "qid": "32", "docid": "2c05e9fb-2019-04-15T20:23:05Z-00001-000", "rank": 22, "score": 125336.0}, {"content": "Title: allow the use of electronic and internet voting in state-organised elections Content: Modernisation", "qid": "32", "docid": "2c05e9fb-2019-04-15T20:23:05Z-00008-000", "rank": 23, "score": 124306.0}, {"content": "Title: allow the use of electronic and internet voting in state-organised elections Content: Engagement with democracy", "qid": "32", "docid": "2c05e9fb-2019-04-15T20:23:05Z-00000-000", "rank": 24, "score": 123967.0}, {"content": "Title: The electoral college system is more fair and effective than the popular vote system. Content: The electoral college may have made sense many years ago when it took weeks to hand deliver votes by horseback to Washington, DC but it no longer makes sense. With today's technology it is possible to tally everyone's vote quickly and securely. Unfortunately, the current implementation of electronic voting is lacking from a security perspective but that shouldn't affect the scope of this debate as it could be fixed and implemented using current technology. Giving more power to residents of Wyoming over the residents of California is simply not fair. Each and every american is as much as American as the other one and each of their vote should be counted equally regardless of any state borders. Of course California should have more influence as it contains many more Americans than Wyoming. While states can and should regulate themselves, when it comes to our nation, we are all the same. As far as susceptibility to manipulation and corruption, with proper multi-factor authentication, authorization, cryptography and other strong security controls being used, a modern system can be significantly more trustworthy than this archaic system. The current system rely on trusting people which are often shown to be corrupt [1]. Using blockchain technology to vote could be used to provide much more secure voting with built-in validation vs. the current system [2]. In addition, as you have stated, 1% of electors sometime do not vote per their constituents which is 1% too much. A properly designed, vetted, tested and peer reviewed algebraic solution to voting would represent the will of the people 100% of the time. In conclusion, the electoral college had a purpose that it no longer serves. By switching to a better and more secure system, the will of the people would be respected 100% of the time and the risk of tampering with election results would be significantly reduced. Sources: http://www.politico.com... [1] https://followmyvote.com... [2]", "qid": "32", "docid": "b9c7eff8-2019-04-18T12:18:17Z-00002-000", "rank": 25, "score": 123953.0}, {"content": "Title: Mandatory voting does not enhance legitimacy of govt. Content: Even if compulsory voting allows for abstention, legitimacy is not improved. It merely allows the government to say 'because there is a 100% turnout, this government is 100% legitimate', which is clearly not the case. Donkey votes, random votes, \"just for the fun of it\" votes, protest votes and abstentions do NOT contribute to improved legitimacy of the government. There is a reason why some people are less politically active. They neither know nor care about politics. How can their forced input add legitimacy to the mix?", "qid": "32", "docid": "1a514fda-2019-04-17T11:47:23Z-00057-000", "rank": 26, "score": 123604.0}, {"content": "Title: voting materials for U.S citizens should be provided in native languages Content: The increase in the cost of voting ballots, would not be an issue, if those wishing to vote in their native language, were only allowed to do so on electronic ballot machines. A simple reprogram is all that would be needed. You said \"We cant afford to give out ballots to someone that cant vote properly\" In 1965, Lyndon B. Johnson, had the Voting Rights Act passed. This act allowed all american citizens the right to vote, ignoring any discrimination. To quote Lyndon B. Johnson, \"Every American citizen must have an equal right to vote.\" This act already covers language disabilities, and there fore it is the government and states duty to provide voting supplies not based on any discrimination. If you deny the right to vote based on language you are discriminating against those that do not speak english. By doing this, you are simply creating another example of the 1960's, when African Americans were not allowed to vote. America does not need this kind of negative attention, when we are already getting enough from the war in Iraq.", "qid": "32", "docid": "c301704b-2019-04-18T20:03:50Z-00002-000", "rank": 27, "score": 122357.0}, {"content": "Title: Online voting should replace traditional voting. Content: Rules: No word play on semantics. No specific format. If you accept, please present a case and don't just forfeit. Thanks in advance! I affirm the resolution. C-1: Many entities use various forms of online voting with success. Examples include Major League Baseball All Stars, and Debate.org (Sources www.mlb.com & www.debate.org) The basic premise requires a person to log in and vote. Failsafe measures to prevent fraud would be 1 vote per SSN. The Social Security Administration has dates of birth on file. Thus, it stands to reason that persons 18 and older could vote one time. C-2: Numerous elections have had questionable results and recounts, most notably that of Florida or Iran. Such a system would likely alleviate inaccurate vote counting as it would be done electronically, and tallied as the votes occur. C-3: Absentee voting has it's share of potential debacles as well. Online voting alleviates the process of mailing ballots, having them marked, mailed back, opened and counted. C-4: Elderly and shut in voters may not get the opportunity to vote traditionally. Having access online would enable them to have a better opportunity to vote. CONCLUSION: Given the unreliability & inaccessibility of traditional voting, it passes the common sense test to switch to online voting. It is possible to create a reliable program that would be protected against hackers and pirates, that would not only simplify, but also uncomplicate the entire voting process. Further, greater accessibility suggests that more registered voters would actually vote, which is the very essence of what a democracy is intended to be. Many people fought for the rigth to vote, thus we have the 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th amendmentst o our national constitution. Thank you!", "qid": "32", "docid": "93844764-2019-04-18T19:10:04Z-00004-000", "rank": 28, "score": 121052.0}, {"content": "Title: There are alternatives that tackle the real causes of voter disengagement Content: The benefits obtained from compulsory voting cannot be gained from any of the strategies mentioned by the opposition. Compulsory voting can enhance a sense of community, as everyone is in it together. This can be especially helpful in bringing new people in to community life. It also forces the silent majority to think about elections which safeguards from extremism. improve this", "qid": "32", "docid": "4ce497c-2019-04-15T20:22:56Z-00022-000", "rank": 29, "score": 119917.0}, {"content": "Title: Polling stations during Elections should be conducted over a longer period than a single day Content: I often wonder if the single day voting is meant to curb voter fraud. No I don't think so. I think its discrimination against the poor and those that have to work 2 or 3 jobs to survive and feed their family. Suggestion 1 to improve voting: I think that the first time people register to vote (age 18 or above) they should be required to give a fingerprint, than at least there would be a record to identify an individual without having to require a photo ID. I don't see how a fingerprint would be invasion of privacy and it would also be free. You only have to prove who you are once with a birth certificate or other suffiecient form of ID (barring any scaring on your fingers). If this database could be used solely for elections and not accessible to law enforcement (of course could we trust them?) You'd only know a person's finger pad pattern, not what they look like and people would not have to have a photo ID if they didn't want to. Then, you could take your time to vote. Voting at your own convenience. Currently its just a tv spectacle with winners being declared often before even 50% of the vote is in for districts and states. Its not as if the switch from incumbent to the next elected official is happening that next day. Usually its like 3 months till the handover. Pretty much everything must kowtow to the tv networks. Too much money for tv. Sports are slaves to tv as well. For those that want national ID cards or required photo IDs YET they want total privacy and no records to match who voted for who, you can't have both. Suggestion #2: Better yet, align voting and taxes, then if you want to vote you have to pay your taxes (which should already be the case, even if you owe nothing or expect a refund) No taxes, no vote. Citizens benefit from services and infrastructure provided by taxes and it is their duty to pay them, voting should also be a duty of a citizen. EVEN putting the voting date on Saturday is still going to be impossible for some people. There aren't absentee ballots everywhere. Why not go further and make Voting Day a national holiday? Say President's Day? or Veteran's Day? All non-essential businesses are closed and all essential ones required to only have half day. We have holidays for really stupid crap (some just commercial holidays really), but we should celebrate voting. Representation is what we revolted from England for Still, having enough time to vote over the period of time of a week, a few weeks, or some agreed upon length of time, would be best and not have any more problems than we already have. At least then there could be no excuse for not voting. As of now many people have an excuse and some a legitimate complaint Also, voter intimidation at a polling station would take a lot more effort if it had to be manned for longer than a single day and hopefully happen less", "qid": "32", "docid": "fcff81a7-2019-04-18T17:19:43Z-00001-000", "rank": 30, "score": 119822.0}, {"content": "Title: allow the use of electronic and internet voting in state-organised elections Content: Voter apathy", "qid": "32", "docid": "2c05e9fb-2019-04-15T20:23:05Z-00002-000", "rank": 31, "score": 119637.0}, {"content": "Title: NON VOTING IN ELECTIONS MUST BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY Content: The long arm of the law is not a process reform. People need to want to vote, and currently there's nothing worth voting for. Converting over to a run off election could certainly help get more people involved and give a voice to those who previously did not have a voice. But, honestly, you don't fix a \"lack of interest\" with a gun to your temple. Also, voting isn't a sacred duty. There's noting sacred about it. You go into the polling place and put a mark next to whoever the Democrat in the election is and leave. Nothing holy or even slightly difficult about it. Democracy doesn't flourish with a boot to the throat. We would have roughly the same government today as we would have had if we forced people to vote. The choices aren't that great and for the most part voting doesn't change the outcome. For example, did you know that the voting rate is better in Cuba and in Saddam's Iraq than it is in the US, and they only had one party systems... and similar provisions to your rules. We could do many thing to improve the voting and to make the voting count for more, we could elect better people and fix the system, we could do a better job at counting the votes cast, and keeping legal voters on the voter rolls... and we should. Forcing people to the polls does not make magical democracy fairies come around to fix all the problem. Random disinterested people vote when they need to vote, and don't when they don't. Non-voting in elections is near the bottom of problems with government.", "qid": "32", "docid": "648217ec-2019-04-18T19:48:00Z-00002-000", "rank": 32, "score": 118537.0}, {"content": "Title: Imabench's vote for my debate was completely wrong Content: First off here is the debate we are talking about:http://www.debate.org...\" Imabench voted for awesomeness because of his claim that I didn't have a convincing argument\"Which is completely legal.....\"He completely ignores the fact that my OPPONENT did NOT have an argument at all.\"Maybe you were looking at a different debate, here is what I saw. Awesomeness started a debate about why personal electronic devices such as cell phones, tablets, and laptop computers should be allowed in a classroom, and proceeded on listing 18 reasons about why they would be beneficial to learning in class, which I have rewritten below. The ones I have underlined were the ones that made the most sense to me1 - They have built in dictionaries and tools to improve grammar2 - They can integrate video to make learning more stimulating3 - Some have access to newspapers4 - They save money on textbooks5 - They save money on fictional books6 - Valuable skills in logic7 - Access to educational websites8 - Interactive and extra curricular learning9 - It improves graduation rates in schools that implement these policies10 - It improves Standardized Test Scores in schools that implement these policies11 - Improves writing skills among students in schools that also implement these technologies12 - Twice as many students meet state standards in courses compared to those students who dont have this access to these devices13 - Encourages diversity14 - More interaction in learning (he counted this twice)15 - Peer feedback16 - Can encourage the flow of ideas between individuals17 - Efficient working where students can access work on different computers18 - Improves learning experience19 - Improves grades in 76% of cases where students have access to these gadgetsThat was the Pro's opening arguments, the Con (DeadBrownApple) responded not by showing that personal devices like phones more often are used for social media and prove to be just distractions, or source any evidence suggesting that the Pro's claims are false, and instead bases his entire argument that electronic devices decrease the quality of education, even though Awesomeness showed four times how it has a dramatic increase on it. DBA then starts by saying that the frontal lobes of these students are not fully developed and thus would decrease their performance, but he does not show why students still show improvement in their grades with these devices despite allegedly having undeveloped frontal lobes. Then after that DBA Immediately quotes that \"I do agree with the contention that Electronic Devices administered by the school would help in the quality of education. \"Which completely nullifies everything he just argued and reinforces Awesomeness's claim that these electronic devices do help students. He then gives a borderline semantics argument about how since the students dont own the devices and are renting them from the school that these devices all of a sudden cant be used as evidence. After that, DBA drops all other arguments, dismisses the rest of them as inelegible since \"they can be learned without electronical devices\" and then argues that since they dont need those devices that they shouldnt be allowed, even though the Pro only was arguing that they IMPROVE these things. That was round 2, In Round 3 awesomeness responds to the few arguments that DBA did not drop and argues that these devices could be put away so as they would not be used for cheating. DBA then does the unthinkable and then starts to counter the arguments that he had previously dropped in the final round when Awesomeness cannot argue against is and after DBA had already dropped all of those arguments. On top of that poor conduct DBA even finishes the debate by saying, \"You basically argued for the wrong thing and therefore it is automatically void. You have lost this debate. At the very least, I hope you understood why you lost this debate.\"And that alone could have cost him conduct, along with arguing dropped points when Pro could not defend his own points because it was the final round========================================================================================================================================================As for my actual vote, I could have easily given the Pro (Awesomeness) arguments and sources and conduct since the Con (DBA) didnt source any statistics and had very poor conduct, particularly at the end of the debate. But instead I simply gave the arguments point to the Pro (Awesomness) since the con dropped over half of the Pro's arguments, then readdressed them at the very end of the debate, and still wasnt very convincing. So my vote was not only justified, but I was giving DBA some mercy by only giving Awesomeness 3 points when I could have justifiably given him 6.", "qid": "32", "docid": "86f7f43d-2019-04-18T18:18:56Z-00001-000", "rank": 33, "score": 117892.0}, {"content": "Title: Improves standards in political governance. Content: Increased use of referendums is unlikely to make much difference to the quality of governance. Governments and state commissions will retain most of their power, as only a small proportion of laws will be put before the public vote even if use of referendums is increased. It will certainly make no difference to the level of corruption. As for corporate lobbyists, it can be argued that increased use of referendums will actually increase the influence of such groups. (See Opposition argument five, below.)", "qid": "32", "docid": "e6af11b5-2019-04-15T20:22:52Z-00018-000", "rank": 34, "score": 117659.0}, {"content": "Title: for the increased use of referendums. Content: Improves standards in political governance.", "qid": "32", "docid": "e6af11b5-2019-04-15T20:22:52Z-00005-000", "rank": 35, "score": 116838.0}, {"content": "Title: Remote electronic voting can be conducted very safely. Content: The most \u2018secure\u2019 of websites have been recently hacked. For example, Paypal was hacked by Lulzsec in response to the Wikileaks scandal[1]. Lulzsec also hacked the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)[2], supposedly the source of all their national intelligence and top secret information. If anything, recent events have shown us that the internet is an unstable medium for people to conduct personal or professional affairs; we certainly should not allow our voting systems to become even more vulnerable to this kind of attack. A better way to prevent identity fraud would be the simple measure of now requiring polling stations to ask for ID, rather than going to the extreme of online voting. [1] http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/prince-edward-island/story/2011/06/17/pei-lulzsec-personal-internet-accounts-584.html, accessed 24/08/11 [2] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8578704/CIA-website-hacked-by-Lulz-Security.html, accessed 24/08/11", "qid": "32", "docid": "2c05e9fb-2019-04-15T20:23:05Z-00018-000", "rank": 36, "score": 114721.0}, {"content": "Title: DDO should keep a voting system with multiple categories Content: Con must show that there is a significant problem with the present system and that changing the voting system will fix the problem. Every debater who has been around for a while will say they think they should have won a debate they lost, and they are right at least some of the time. So how do we improve judging? Con argues that by eliminating all standards as to what is good and bad in a debate, voting will improve. I think it should go the other way. Better voting comes from having common standards as to what is important, and in making debaters and voters aware of that. Judges of academic debates are presumed to have a good understanding of what's important. We cannot safely make that presumption here.There are no clear examples of bad outcomes from strategic voting on DDO Voters sometimes shade their voting strategically. If a voter believes strongly that one debater ought to win a debate, he will tend to award more of the seven points to the side he thinks should win. The voter may be correct in his judgment about who should win. He may be enthusiastic about the subject and read the debate very carefully, making a reasonable judgment about each category. Or he may not be so careful and just make a subjective appraisal of by how much he believes the side he favors won, which could be unfair. A vote counted as suspect by one side is likely to be counted as unusually perceptive by the other side. How many debates have been wrongly decided by strategic voting? In a close debate strategic voters will tend to cancel automatically. If the suspect votes make no difference in the outcome, we should be satisfied that they either offset or do not affect the tide of voting. Con offered only one example of a debate where there was a potential that strategic voting affected an outcome. In that debate, more people voted for the losing side than the winning side. But Con just assumed the outcome was unfair, without arguing it was in fact unfair. I had voted on that debate and at the time judged it to be very close. The debate could have gone either way, so there is no cause for complaint. Without even a single clear example of an unfair vote, Con has not established either that there is a problem of strategic voting unfairly affecting outcomes, or that up-or-down voting would provide an improvement.DDO debates show the change would produce more ties Of twenty debates examined, in only one was there a reversal of the winner and loser if each vote was presumed to translate to a full vote for one side or the other. The 0-1, 0-1, 0-2 voters might have called the debate a tie instead. Again it wasn't clear whether that made the voting more fair or less fair. Con dismisses my sample of twenty debate as too small, but con offered no data at all. A sample of 20 is not definitive, but it gives a reasonable idea of what is going on. I used the Bidwell-Wilson approximation to the confidence limits on the binomial distribution to get the error bounds. [10.http://en.wikipedia.org... If found in my sample that 17 of 20 debates were unchanged by up-or-down voting. The 95% confidence interval is that between 13 and 19 debates would be unchanged. The increased number of ties is put between 1 and 7. The number of reversals is between one debate in five and one in 120. Since Con only cited one reversal, even when pressed, it's likely the number is on the rare end of the interval. Clearly more debates would end in a tie because of the quantization, in my sample twice as many. I think it is less fair to the debaters to declare a tie when voters considering the categories thought that one side had won. How many debaters will say, \u201cThe new voting system is terrific, I'm getting more tied scores now!'? All subjective judging benefits from standards Con argues that the analogy of debate voting to judging subjective sports is invalid because debating is not an athletic competition. But the object of the competition is irrelevant to the logical process of scoring a subjective competition. In terms of judging, subjective sports, dog shows, flower shows, and pie baking competitions are alike in having subjective judging. The goal is to establish both for competitors and judges guidelines for what is better and what is worse, and how much each category counts. Con claims that because academic debate uses a primitive up-or-down system so therefore, DDO debates should use that system. The subjective sports moved to more sophisticated voting systems as a result of voting scandals. If academic debating became a competition having general interest and suffered a scandal from biased voting, academic debate would have no alternative but to move to more sophisticated point system as well. Despite the use of a point system, the Olympic figure skating in Sochi still had a voting scandal. But there is no effective Moderator checking on judges in the Olympics. A moderator could examine each point addition and deduction, and an inflated score would then be very difficult to defend. Reverting to an up-or-down system wouldn't cure the judging problem, because that was already tried at the Olympics without success. Having standards doesn't work if there is no threat of enforcement.The silly poll Con points to a poll of debaters that revealed that each debater thought that strategic voting was used on their debates. That's a standard bit of nonsense used all the time by poll takers. It's along the lines of \u201cAre you satisfied with current government policy on X?\u201d No one is completely satisfied, so there will a high percentage saying \u201cNo.\u201d Upon getting the expecting \u201dno,\u201d proponents then proclaim that they have a ringing endorsement for policy Y, which was not mentioned in the poll. I would have answered \u201cyes\u201d to the poll as well. However, my remedy is to better educate voters and to improve the ability to moderate voting. That choice wasn't posed.Not simpler, better Con said I wanted a simpler voting system. I don't. I want to keep the present system. I allowed the weights on categories could be tweaked, but I think they are now about right. What I'm proposing is a more elaborate system available as an option to help voters who want to know more detail on how to vote decide who should win each category. The same guidelines would be used by moderators. Saying \u201cVote for whomever you thought did best.\u201d doesn't work, because \"best\" is undefined. It doesn't say, for example, that the relevance and quality of sources is far more important than the number of sources. It doesn't say what is a serious conduct violation and what is not. It leaves everything to the intuition of the voter, and that is not a good idea, particularly with the highly mixed character of DDO voters. When everyone uses there own standards, there are no grounds for claiming bias. It is officially arbitrary.Academic debate is not the real world I did not say that academic debating was worthless. I said it does not reflect the real world of jobs, community organizations, and politics. A gave a list of the significant differences between real world debate and academic debate. Con ignored every item I listed without giving counter arguments as to why the difference was unimportant. Con asserted that everyone wants to live in the world of academic debate forever. That's impossible. For example, conduct is a problem in academic debate, because debaters know that bad conduct is sure to be punished. Academic judges are individually selected. Con did not address any of the differences. My study of randomly selected debates showed the categories were working well. People were, to perhaps a surprising degree, considering each aspect of the debate. Making voting simpler makes it unpredictable, because each person has complete freedom to decide what is important and what is not. Judging can be improved only by making the standards more clear, not moving closer to polling.", "qid": "32", "docid": "71eb347c-2019-04-18T16:29:18Z-00001-000", "rank": 37, "score": 114387.0}, {"content": "Title: Compulsory voting reduces power of lobbying groups. Content: A benefit of compulsory voting is that it makes it more difficult for special interest groups to vote themselves into power. Under a non-compulsory voting system, if fewer people vote then it is easier for smaller sectional interests and lobby groups to control the outcome of the political process. The outcome of the election reflects less the will of the people (Who do I want to lead the country?) but instead reflects who was logistically more organized and more able to convince people to take time out of their day to cast a vote (Do I even want to vote today?).", "qid": "32", "docid": "1a514fda-2019-04-17T11:47:23Z-00055-000", "rank": 38, "score": 112782.0}, {"content": "Title: on balance does the supremes court decision in citezens united harm the election process Content: ok so i would like to start by by thanking master riddle for accepting this topic and would like to encourage everyone to comment on what i could improve on. With that said here is my case: Contention 1: The Citizens united ruling increase voter turnout. According to \"the Center for Responsive Politics, in the 2012 presidential race over $380,000,000 have been raised by super PACs and $330,000,000 have been spent\".This money according to the wall street journal is so super PACs can run advertisements for or against political candidates.. This is important because these advertisements are essential for maintaining voter turnout according to Paul freedman of the University of Virginia \"respondents were as much as 10 percentages Points more likely to vote if they watched television in media Markets that were bombarded with presidential ads\". Furthermore according to Dr. Hillygus of Duke University \"Among those who early in the campaign did not intend to vote, exposure to ads increased intentions to vote by 18 percentage points\". The impact of this is that by increasing voter turnout we get a more accurate representation of the publics will which is the purpose of the election process. Contention 2: citizens united allows voters to make informed decisions According to political scientist David Downing \"without freedom of media and wider freedom of speech people cannot make informed decisions on how they should vote\". This is important because according to Hans von Spakovsky, former member of the Federal Election Commission \"many associations we have in this country (no matter which side of the political aisle they are on), from the NAACP to the Sierra Club to the National Rifle Association, are also corporations. Yet those corporate associations were prohibited under penalty of criminal and civil sanctions from expressing the views of their members. This means that before this landmark decisions many important organizations where barred from expressing their opinions and thus the public lacked vital information that may have significantly affected the outcome of previous elections. Lastly this increase in corporate spending does not favor either political party since according to matt bia a correspondent for the new York times campaign spending tends to be cyclical since when one party increases its spending the other party tends to mobilize and increase its spending. Thus not only does citizens united create more informed voters but it also prevents any one party from gaining an advantage. Contention 3: Citizens united increases transparency Transparency is one of the most important aspects of the election process according to political watchdog the electoral knowledge \"Transparency makes institutional systems and the actions/decisions they take widely accessible and understood [and] It is difficult to maintain or publicly justify a system that permits abuse and corruption\". This is important because before this landmark decisions political donors would use social-welfare groups or 527\"s to make political contributions. These social welfare groups according to New York correspondent mat bia are unlike super PAC\"s generally not required to disclose their donors. This means that by allowing the creation of super PAC\"s the Supreme Court has given the public better access to political finance and thus increased the transparency of the electoral process. Sources: http://blog.heritage.org... http://www.slate.com... https://docs.google.com... http://www.nytimes.com... http://www.bowdoin.edu... http://jurist.org... http://aceproject.org...", "qid": "32", "docid": "8875a70d-2019-04-18T17:56:38Z-00006-000", "rank": 39, "score": 112782.0}, {"content": "Title: Children Should Have The Right To Vote In Elections Content: The education system will be improved.", "qid": "32", "docid": "1962bef4-2019-04-19T12:46:39Z-00004-000", "rank": 40, "score": 112722.0}, {"content": "Title: Technology to give all a vote Content: v", "qid": "32", "docid": "fdc412af-2019-04-18T14:03:15Z-00000-000", "rank": 41, "score": 112212.0}, {"content": "Title: Technology to give all a vote Content: v", "qid": "32", "docid": "fdc412af-2019-04-18T14:03:15Z-00001-000", "rank": 42, "score": 112212.0}, {"content": "Title: Technology to give all a vote Content: v", "qid": "32", "docid": "fdc412af-2019-04-18T14:03:15Z-00002-000", "rank": 43, "score": 112212.0}, {"content": "Title: Technology to give all a vote Content: v", "qid": "32", "docid": "fdc412af-2019-04-18T14:03:15Z-00003-000", "rank": 44, "score": 112212.0}, {"content": "Title: Would complicate elections Content: Elections can be confusing enough already; there are numerous levels of elections which often all are voted for on the same day so that turnout is high for all the elections. As a result voters often get numerous different ballots to fill in; the system for voting in each may well be different and are often complex. Adding that sixteen year olds can vote in one election and not the other simply adds to this complexity in polling stations meaning more mistakes are likely to be made. Lack of knowledge of voting process, increased complexity of voting process, and long ballots decrease accuracy in voting.[1] The first, and possibly also the second are factors that this lowering of the voting age will influence \u2013 so this change would mean increasing the numbers of spoilt ballots. [1] Bederson, Benjamin B., et al., \u2018The not so simple act of voting: An examination of voter errors with electronic voting\u2019, University of Maryland, http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/apworkshop/herrnson2007.pdf, p.3", "qid": "32", "docid": "bdcf90af-2019-04-15T20:24:22Z-00024-000", "rank": 45, "score": 111496.0}, {"content": "Title: Weekend voting would be a more sensible solution Content: If the purpose is to increase turnout, weekend voting would be the more sensible option. It gives people more free time in which to vote, and doesn't have the problems that coercion brings with it. It doesn't address the wider problem of apathy, but treats the non-voting problem more acceptably than compulsory voting does. Better yet, introduce a public holiday on election days and provide free public transport to and from polling stations.", "qid": "32", "docid": "13fc3acf-2019-04-19T12:45:38Z-00023-000", "rank": 46, "score": 110971.0}, {"content": "Title: Democratisation Content: If it worked, online voting could allow more use of direct democracy methods. However, direct democracy is not in itself a better system, and still contains many dangers. Snap online polls could easily express an opinion which has not been properly thought through; the current voting system is more likely to result in considered voting as citizens have to make the effort to get to the polling stations in the first place. Furthermore, a low turnout or insecure systems could allow motivated minorities to use frequent online ballots in order to impose their will on the majority. The very ease of online voting could actually result in worse policy than under the status quo.", "qid": "32", "docid": "2c05e9fb-2019-04-15T20:23:05Z-00027-000", "rank": 47, "score": 110670.0}, {"content": "Title: Persuasion is more effective than coercion Content: Forcing people into voting when they are disengaged from the politic process will exacerbate this problem; no one likes doing something simply because they have to. The election results from compulsory voting may not be a representative view of society, than the current systems. Just because people are required to vote does not mean they become more politically engaged than they were before. Rather than forcing people to vote, more should be done to engage the public in political life. Government transparency should be further encouraged as well as evaluating to what extent the current voting system causes low voter turnout. Low turnout is best cured by more education. Instead of trying to engage people by force, how about introducing political education in schools and encouraging political conversation. How about educating the public on how politics affects them? Citizenship classes should be taught to students who are approaching voting age, as it would teach the importance of the electoral process, and the history of the suffragette movement, the reform bills of the 19th century and the responsibilities of living in a democracy. The government should be trying to engage people by other means, not compulsory voting. Compulsory voting may improve low turnout but will not affect the root problem- what people actually think about politics. In essence it is just relieving the side effects without curing the disease. improve this", "qid": "32", "docid": "4ce497c-2019-04-15T20:22:56Z-00019-000", "rank": 48, "score": 110412.0}, {"content": "Title: The United States should adopt Instant Runoff Voting. Content: Thanks for the quick response. 1. There is a very low chance of that happening. There are loopholes in any voting system, but they're highly unlikely. As far as the not ranking = ranking last, I see what you're saying but I was talking about if there were several candidates whom you don't like. Then, it wouldn't be the same. 2. Adding candidates in the status quo can alter the outcome of the election. The problem you're referring to is the Condorcet method. But IRV solves for that, while the status quo does not. http://www.guardian.co.uk... http://en.wikipedia.org... The second link has a great graph showing the advantages and disadvantages of all. You can see that IRV solves for much more than Plurality (FPTP). I'll include it in the comment section. Officials can find it much easier to tamper with electronic machines. All they need is a hacker. http://www.youtube.com... I need evidence that the U.S. can't mandate IRV, states don't award proportionately for the presidential race (final). Multi-party systems can be a great thing, they provide much more balance. On the large global political scale, our Democrats and Republicans are very similar. That's the problem. If you want to vote for who YOU ACTUALLY AGREE WITH, then you can't do it in FPTP without wasting your vote. This way, you have a backup. *Overall, you can see that IRV may not be the best mathematical system, but it's the easiest for people to understand, it blows the current system out of the water and makes it look prehistoric, and it makes the most sense. I urge a Pro vote. Thanks to my opponent.", "qid": "32", "docid": "538dd198-2019-04-18T18:14:33Z-00002-000", "rank": 49, "score": 109595.0}, {"content": "Title: The Voting System on Debate.org Needs VAST Improvement Content: It seems obvious to me: anyone can set up an account on DDO, search for their favorite topics, and easily vote on whatever they want, without even reading the arguments. The resolution is that SOMETHING must be done to improve the voting system on this site. I will give a few ideas that could be incorporated by the DDO creators, but am open to any other suggestions: 1) Show how each person voted. 2) Moniter the votes more closely. 3) Show a feed on each account's page that reveals what they voted on and how they voted. 4) Have each voter write a short, detailed paragraph on why he/she voted that way, which fellow members can see and report if they find something wrong with it. Also, I am not able to vote, even though I have a cell phone. Why? I do not know. I have sent in my number multiple times, and have never received an approval text. This must be remedied as well. Remember, this debate is focusing on whether or not the DDO Voting System is flawed, NOT on whether or not my specific ideas are \"the best\". I await an opponent", "qid": "32", "docid": "e644e50d-2019-04-18T19:18:42Z-00004-000", "rank": 50, "score": 109379.0}, {"content": "Title: Morality Improves Society Content: I guess now we vote...", "qid": "32", "docid": "95fcd34c-2019-04-18T16:08:49Z-00000-000", "rank": 51, "score": 109105.0}, {"content": "Title: New Age Electronic Government Content: Direct democracy via the Internet is impractical given the modern limitations of technology and of access to technology. Furthermore the amount of legislation and administration involved in our modern society would overwhelm the time constraints required to allow for \"every\" person to vote on everything. Your original premise is science fiction.", "qid": "32", "docid": "5d4778b5-2019-04-18T16:33:53Z-00002-000", "rank": 52, "score": 108034.0}, {"content": "Title: Compulsory Voting is the Only Way to be Truly Democratic Content: \"They have no option to remain neutral but to cast a vote one way or the other\" This is not actually true. Due to the secret ballot, it is possible to cast 'informal' votes, which do not rank all candidates or similar. These votes do not count. It is also not enforced very strictly in most jurisdictions, meaning it is easy to remain neutral. The benefit of compulsory voting is that it forces people to really think about doing this. Thus, it increases engagement in government, and thus is surely better according to democratic principles. \"As I mentioned before, coerced voting tempts uneducated people to vote for a random candidate or cause\" Random voting is not a major problem in jurisdictions with compulsory voting. This is because compulsory voting increases people's awareness politically. People who would otherwise just stay at home instead educate themselves at least rudimentarily. \"Let us consider the following scenario: At a voting booth for an election, an uneducated voter says to himself, \"I know nothing about candidate A or candidate B, nor do I care about the outcome of the election, but since I am required to vote by law I will flip a coin to decide who I shall vote for. \"\" You assume the 45% of people who do not vote are not at all engaged with politics. Many of these people have opinions on politics, just not ones strong enough to act on. These people are forced to vote in compulsory voting, meaning that the opinions of all people are represented, not just the opinions of the people who feel strongly about politics. Those who truly have no opinion can still cast an informal vote under compulsory voting, or educate themselves until they get an opinion. \"When the 45% less educated population is forced to vote, it leads to worse representation of the people's choice of law or candidate, and in effect becomes a violation of true democracy. \" When I said that less educated people were less likely to vote, I meant educated in a schooling sense, not educated about the candidates. Sorry for not making that clearer. Anyway, 'the people' is all the people, uninformed or informed, and a voting system should represent all of them. You seem to mistake throughout the debate \"the people's choice\" for \"the well-informed people's choice\". The random voters are still people, and should have their votes count, because democracy is for all people. Summary: I believe I have stated a good case for why compulsory voting is more democratic. Compulsory voting increases the government's representation of diverse parts of the population. Compulsory voting makes a government have a true mandate, and be a true government of the people. Non-compulsory voting makes unrepresentative governments, which is surely not democratic.", "qid": "32", "docid": "e23041bc-2019-04-18T15:18:54Z-00001-000", "rank": 53, "score": 107643.0}, {"content": "Title: for the increased use of referendums. Content: Modern technology makes consultation easier than ever.", "qid": "32", "docid": "e6af11b5-2019-04-15T20:22:52Z-00008-000", "rank": 54, "score": 107520.0}, {"content": "Title: Debate.org voter data should be publicly available Content: My opponent brings to light the Vote Removal System (VRS), which is certainly something this site needs. However, the resolution did not state that Publicly Available Voting (PAV) was the only means by which the site is to be improved. In fact, ideally, both improvements should see the light of day. I present four scenarios ranked in order from most improving to least improving. 1. VRS and PAV. 2. PAV. 3. VRS. 4. Status Quo. By far, the best approach would be to institute both programs. The VRS has the excellent virtue of reversing malicious voting practices, which is vital in deterring would be abusers. However, abusers have to be clearly exposed before such action can be executed. Without PAV, the admin (and there is only one at the moment) would have the burden of monitoring dozens of debates everyday all on his onesie (savvy?). However, the addition of the PAV means members can spot suspicious activity and report it to the admin, allowing the admin to examine and--if appropriate--fix the debates as they come. A perfect synergy between the web master and its constituents. If, for some reason, both systems cannot be implemented and only one must be chosen, the PAV is the better solution. As it currently stands, the only deterrent against abusers is banning. Of course, as my opponent pointed out, this does not prevent abuse as much as slow it down. But then again, it takes weeks for the admin to single out the abusive accounts and ban them. With the PAV, abusers could be much more quickly identified and reported. Sure, abusers could still create new accounts, but if they were banned every other day rather than every other week, it still proves more effective than the status quo. By itself, the VRS suffers from the same slow response time as the status quo. A single admin cannot be expected to simultaneously improve and police this site with any significant degree of efficiency and accuracy. It is far better to get the community involved in the process. In fact, it's the community through a LOT of hard work (askbob) that is exposing the worst abuse this site has seen. Lets give them the tools they need to work with the admin in making this site what we all would to see it become. In conclusion, I like my opponent's VRS suggestion, but I think it's effectiveness is limited without the PAV. And if we could only choose one, the PAV should be that choice. It transfers the burden placed on a single webmaster to the shoulders of a community dedicated to this site. Therefore, my resolution stands, no matter how you slice it, Debate.org voter data should be publicly available.", "qid": "32", "docid": "ca54c9e4-2019-04-18T19:32:05Z-00001-000", "rank": 55, "score": 105694.0}, {"content": "Title: A valid picture Identification should be a requirement to vote. Content: Voter ID cards are unfair and ineffective in preventing voter fraud. The main concern with requiring an ID card, other than voter registration card, would be the additional costs incurred just to use the inherent right granted to all Americans to vote. While not posing a strong disincentive preventing voters from paying one-time fee to exercise their future right to vote, the principle of paying to vote is unfair and should not be advocated. As a counter-plan to solve the problems of the 2000 and 2004 elections, the solution should be a federal mandate requiring paper trials for all election precincts. A paper trail would allow voter fraud to be caught most efficiently. More of a concern than having individuals vote under a fake identity is the possibility of having electronic voting booths have their votes switched without being able to prove otherwise.", "qid": "32", "docid": "f2c72c91-2019-04-18T19:54:40Z-00004-000", "rank": 56, "score": 105528.0}, {"content": "Title: New Age Electronic Government Content: As an indulgence, please notice the following reiteration: Direct democracy via the Internet is impractical given the modern limitations of technology and of access to technology. Furthermore the amount of legislation and administration involved in our modern society would overwhelm the time constraints required to allow for \"every\" person to vote on everything. Your original premise is science fiction.", "qid": "32", "docid": "5d4778b5-2019-04-18T16:33:53Z-00001-000", "rank": 57, "score": 105401.0}, {"content": "Title: Voting at a lower age would increase participation Content: Earlier voting is not a solution to the low turnout problem, the electoral commission in the UK concluded .here is evidence to suggest that extending the franchise will actually create lower turnout and projections about if it would get higher cannot be sufficiently determined[1] At the moment 18-25 year olds are the least likely to cast a vote at election time. Youth membership of political parties is falling. Lowering the voting age still further is therefore likely to reduce turnout even more. Most people don\u2019t vote because they think the election system is unfair, their vote does not count, or because they don\u2019t trust any of the political parties on offer - lowering the voting age won\u2019t solve these problems. Instead with a generation that is increasingly online, to take the UK 21 million households (80%) had internet access in 2012[2], and there are over 6.4 million iPhone users,[3] the answer is therefore to engage them digitally not through trying some magic bullet at the ballot box. [1] The Electoral Commission, \u2018Voting age should stay at 18 says the Electoral Commission\u2019, 19 April 2004 [2] Office for national statistics, \u2018Statistical bulletin: Internet Access \u2013 Households and Individuals, 2012\u2019, 24 August 2012 [3] NMA Staff, \u2018UK iPhone users to reach 6.4m this year\u2019, New media age, 6 August 2010", "qid": "32", "docid": "ca9d6789-2019-04-15T20:24:25Z-00012-000", "rank": 58, "score": 105144.0}, {"content": "Title: The Voting System For Debate.org Has Many Avoidable Mistakes Content: Debate.org (DDO) relies on review by other debaters to decide which of the side has won the debate. The DDO community takes the integrity of voting system very seriously. Comments, criticism and suggestions are always welcomed for further improvement of the system. This is not a clich\u00e9. In past, the members have suggested many changes to the voting system. These suggestions have been incorporated to improve the system. The resolution for the debate is, The Voting System For Debate.org Has Many Avoidable Mistakes This has been elaborated by my esteemed opponent in R1: \u2026 it contains easily avoidable and significant errors that were caused by the conscious decisions on the part of the creator(s) of this website. To win this debate my opponent needs to show DDO voting system contains significant errors. The errors are caused by conscious decision of creator(s) Let us look into the errors pointed by Criticalthinkingmachine and see if any of them fulfill the criteria presented by him. 1. Who did you agree with before/after the debate: This is not irrelevant. It allows voters to specify their own positions. For example I am a strong theist. If there is a debate on religion where atheist has clearly won (because theist debater has not been that good), then it present a dilemma for me. However in DDO voting system, I can vote all points for the deserving side while specifying my own position through first two points. The first two points also provide a useful feedback to the debaters. 2. Who had better conduct / spelling and grammar: Pro feels that these factors should not contribute to debates. However in opinion of most debaters, these factors should also be considered. This encourages good conduct, spelling and grammar. Reading a debate is much more enjoyable when opponents have invested some effort in it. My opponent admits there has to be some way of penalizing poor conduct, spelling or grammar. A point each dedicated for these is the best penalty as well as incentive. 3. Who had better sources: In a formal debate, presenting arguments with proper evidence and sources requires lots of effort. It is essential that some weight is given to it. In debates where sources are not needed; or in debates where both sides have presented good sources, this point can be left as a tie. In cases where one side has made the required effort, it is essential that they should be rewarded. In case, my opponent feels strongly about this issue, he can provide an overall vote based on arguments only. As long as the reason for voting is clearly specified, no one would object to that. 4. Reason for voting: In case a person votes with obviously fake reasons, this community takes the issue very seriously. In the language of DDO, such votes are known as vote-bombs. Once the issue is raised by debaters, warning is issued to the concerned user. Members help in \u2018countering\u2019 such votes. In case a dubious voter votes on multiple debates, her account is banned. As a further precaution, new debaters are not allowed to vote until they complete a definite number of debates. There is a related problem of users voting by submitting poorly written RFDs. There is no direct solution for this problem, since it is possible that a particular voter may not be as intelligent as the debaters. It is not feasible to stop someone for voting as a result of \u2018lack of intelligence\u2019. However this is not an \u2018avoidable error\u2019 due to \u2018conscious decisions on the part of the creator(s)\u2019. In fact if my opponent has any suggestions as to how this problem can be avoided, I am sure all of us would like to hear it. 5. Debaters voting on their own debates: This is not allowed. Earlier this was possible, however this facility has been blocked as per suggestions by users of this site. 6. Indefinite voting period: This was allowed earlier. However it is no longer allowed. My opponent has referred to a debate without providing the link. He was apparently referring to this debate [2]. It can be seen that the debate is at least two years old. 7. Won vs. Winning / Lost vs. Losing: This is not a significant issue. Thanks to Criticalthinkingmachine for concern for my health and age. It is well established that middle earth is same as the current earth, which is now passing through the fifth age (or the Age of Lesser Humans). Waiting eagerly for rebuttals by my esteemed opponent. References 1. http://www.debate.org... 2. http://www.debate.org...", "qid": "32", "docid": "d07a0a9e-2019-04-18T18:11:24Z-00002-000", "rank": 59, "score": 104996.0}, {"content": "Title: Compulsory voting helps protect voter access. Content: In a similar way that the secret ballot is designed to prevent interference with the votes actually cast, compulsory voting prevents interference with access to the vote. Compelling voters to the polls for an election mitigates the impact that external factors may have on an individual's capacity to vote such as the weather, transport, or restrictive employers. It is a measure to prevent disenfranchisement of the socially disadvantaged. Polls are generally held on a Saturday or Sunday as evidenced in nations such as Australia, to ensure that working people can fulfill their duty to cast their vote. Similarly, mobile voting booths may also be taken to old age homes and hospitals to cater for immobilized citizens, and postal voting may be provided for people who are away from their electorate on election day.", "qid": "32", "docid": "1a514fda-2019-04-17T11:47:23Z-00083-000", "rank": 60, "score": 104718.0}, {"content": "Title: Obama's Health Care Plan is beneficial to the United States of America Content: I have never debated this topic or any topic like it, so I hope this goes well. Burden of Proof My opponent must prove that the plan is either detrimental or has no effect. I must prove that it is beneficial. If neither is effectively proven, then the vote is a tie. Definitions Obama's Health Care Plan: . http://www.barackobama.com... To be defined further during this debate. beneficial: conducive to social well-being (. http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Now let us examine the health care plan. Due to space constraints, my examination will be limited. ========== LOWER COSTS ========== \"INVEST IN ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS. Most medical records are still stored on paper, which makes them difficult to use to coordinate care, measure quality, or reduce medical errors. Processing paper claims also costs twice as much as processing electronic claims. [2]\" It goes without saying that reducing costs is important. But perhaps more importantly, electronic storage is much more easy to use. Reducing medical errors is always beneficial, especially when nearly 200,000 Americans each year die due to medical errors [1]. If medical records are converted to electronic media, it could save as much as $77 billion annually [3]. This simple change could save each and every American citizen $250 a year [4]. \"(2) IMPROVE ACCESS TO PREVENTION AND PROVEN DISEASE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS. [. .. ] Over seventy-five percent of total health care dollars are spent on patients with one or more chronic conditions, such as diabetes, heart disease, and high blood pressure. [5]\" Obama's plan is to improve care for those with chronic conditions. The plan will \"require full transparency regarding quality and costs. \" \"Both public and private insurers tend to pay providers based on the volume of services provided, rather than the quality or effectiveness of care [6]. Barack Obama and Joe Biden will accelerate efforts to develop and disseminate best practices, and align reimbursement with provision of high quality health care. Providers who see patients enrolled in the new public plan, the National Health Insurance Exchange, Medicare and FEHB will be rewarded for achieving performance thresholds on physician-validated outcome measures. \" \"[The plan] will prevent companies from abusing their monopoly power through unjustified price increases. In markets where the insurance business is not competitive, their plan will force insurers to pay out a reasonable share of their premiums for patient care instead of keeping exorbitant amounts for profits and administration. \" \"Prevent drug companies from blocking generic drugs from consumers. \" This will increase competition and lower prices. ======================= STRENGTHENING PUBLIC HEALTH ======================= \"(1) EMPLOYERS. [. .. ] To address employee health, an increasing number of employers are offering worksite health promotion programs, onsite clinical preventive services such as flu vaccinations, nutritious foods in cafeterias and vending machines, and exercise facilities. Equally important, many employers choose insurance plans that cover preventive services for their employees. Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe that worksite interventions hold tremendous potential to influence health and they will expand and reward these efforts. \" \"(2) SCHOOL SYSTEMS. Childhood obesity is nearly epidemic [7] [. .. ]. Barack Obama and Joe Biden will work with schools to create more healthful environments for children, including assistance with contract policy development for local vendors, grant support for school-based health screening programs and clinical services, increased financial support for physical education, and educational programs for students. \" \"(4) INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES. Preventive care only works if Americans take personal responsibility for their health and make the right decisions in their own lives \u2013 if they eat the right foods, stay active, and stop smoking. Barack Obama and Joe Biden will ensure that all Americans are empowered to monitor their health by ensuring coverage of essential clinical services in all federally supported health plans, including Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP and the new public plan. \" Though not entirely obvious, there are so many ways to go about this. Inspiration is always right around the corner; it's just a matter of finding the right corner. ============ Summary Obama's Health Care Plan will drastically reduce costs and inefficiencies in the medical system, leaving more room for what's truly important: helping people and saving lives. The plan will increase healthfulness in the community from all angles. In conclusion, if Obama's Health Care Plan is not beneficial, then I don't know what is. ======== [1] . http://www.medicalnewstoday.com... [2] Federico Girosi, Robin Meili, and Richard Scoville (2005), Extrapolating Evidence of Health Information Technology Savings and Costs. RAND, page 79. [3] Federico Girosi, Robin Meili, and Richard Scoville (2005), Extrapolating Evidence of Health Information Technology Savings and Costs. RAND, page 36. [4] US Census Bureau [5] Gerard Anderson, Robert Herbert, Timothy Zeffiro, and Nikia JohnsonChronic Conditions: Making the Case for Ongoing Care (2004). Partnership for Solutions (Johns Hopkins and Robert Wood Johnson Foundation). [6] . http://www3.brookings.edu... [7] . http://www.nih.gov...", "qid": "32", "docid": "68aff0ce-2019-04-18T19:19:59Z-00004-000", "rank": 61, "score": 104497.0}, {"content": "Title: Persuasion is more effective than coercion Content: As noted elsewhere, forced attendance would lead to increased political awareness, and an abstention option would offer a 'none of the above'/'I don't mind or care' choice instead of people spoiling the ballot. Because the number of voters would increase, politicians would have to be active in engaging with the public and therefore become \"more deserving of the public's trust\". Citizenship classes don't negate the need for compulsory voting but should be used in conjunction to compulsory voting. If people are genuinely not interested in voting or politics, educating them in school would not change that fact. The education is likely to vary from school to school and is only likely to have an impact if the student likes the subject. Compulsory voting would force those parts of the population who are usually disinterested to voice some form of opinion- created a more balanced democracy. Besides, who pays for the education? Taxpayers. Who often don't want to vote. improve this", "qid": "32", "docid": "4ce497c-2019-04-15T20:22:56Z-00018-000", "rank": 62, "score": 104253.0}, {"content": "Title: Direct representation should be adopt for legislatures Content: 1Alyssa, I appreciate You accepting this challenge. On point #1, if the only \u201cmore procedures\u201d which would \u201cslow down the entire decision-making progress\u201d of concern are the \u201ccareful calculation\u201d of Each Representative\u2019s votes, that data can be easily automated. Currently, in the United States House of Representatives, the institution which I reference as \u201cthe existing model\u201d, in order to vote, Each Representative takes Their official congressional identification, places it into a voting station and presses a button indicating \u201cAye\u201d or \u201cNay\u201d; the voting station reads from the identification, the identity of the Representative and records the vote electronically; to accommodate direct representation, the information stored on the identification could also include the relative voting weight of the respective Representative and the voting machinery could easily adjust accordingly. Regarding point #2, minority voices will indeed be heard and will be given weight proportionate to that of the Voters; the \u201climited\u201d power concern raised is actually experienced now under what We might call the \u201cWinner take all\u201d system. Presume, for a moment, Americans all voted along racial lines: Whites only elect Whites, Blacks only elect Blacks, Latinos only elect Latinos. Under direct representation, One would expect ~17% of the votes to go to latino Representatives, ~13% of votes to go to black Representatives, ~5% of votes to go to asian/pacific island Representatives, 1.2% of votes to go to american indian/alaskan native Representatives, and ~63% of votes to go to white Representatives. Meanwhile, under the Winner take all system, We currently see only 6.9% of Representatives are Latinos, 8.1% of Representatives are Blacks, 2.4% of Representatives are Asians/Pacific Islanders, less than 0.5% of Representatives are American Indians/Alaskan Natives, and over 80% of Representatives are Whites. As such, the representation of minority populations can only be enhanced by direct representation. Contrary to the assertion, incentives to compromise will not be lacking: if One is elected to the legislature in a direct representation system, Voters expect One to accomplish certain goals and, if those goals are not met, the One would more readily find Voters transferring Their votes to Someone Else, diminishing One\u2019s influence in the legislature; if compromise is necessary and/or helpful to accomplishing those goals, One will have a good reason to compromise so as to keep Constituents satisfied. As a result, polarization will actually be less likely than now, where One only needs satisfy a majority or sometimes only a plurality of Voters in order to retain the same influence in the legislature. With respect to point #3, the premise seems faulty: in no democratic republic is the \u201cpublic\u201d expected to compromise; only Legislators are expected to do so and, as I note above, direct representation provides Legislators more incentive to compromise and not less. As We have seen with the United States in the last few years, Representatives can and, to a sizable degree, do represent \u201ca highly adamant force that refuses to compromise\u201d and America has had gridlock as a result. Cf., \u201cshowdowns\u201d over the debt ceiling and the recent shutdown of the federal government. Conversely, under direct representation, instead of asserting directly or indirectly a mandate to represent an entire electoral district, Representatives will only have a mandate from the Voters selecting Them as Representative and then only to the extent of the said specific Voters. Additionally, Representatives in this new system will not be able to turn Voters having preferred a different Candidate into \u201cpolitical hostages\u201d because said Voters will have sent different Representatives, though They may have less voting weight, undercutting the ability to remain stubborn in the manner described. For example, if Izzy Idiot currently holds the only seat from Wyoming, Izzy is going to try to assert just as much influence in the congress if 100% of Voters approve or only 50%+1 Voters approve. Meanwhile, in a direct representation system, the state might send 4 Representatives and, if voting weight in the congress is proportionate to the fraction votes received, the republican Representative might have only 65% of the influence Izzy has under the current system, the democratic Representative might have only 20% of the influence Izzy has, the independent Representative might have only 13% of the influence Izzy has, and the \u201cEverybody Else\u201d Representative might have only 2%, resulting in a wider mix of voices and views being considered and the interests and desires of the People more accurately reflected. As noted, Each of the Representatives will have increased incentives to compromise and achieve goals. The assertion \u201cif each representative can get elected by being highly polarized, he/she will compromise\u201d seems contradictory to the rest of the argument made.", "qid": "32", "docid": "99f3bd3f-2019-04-18T16:22:19Z-00004-000", "rank": 63, "score": 104155.0}, {"content": "Title: Help me earn the right to vote Content: Sure", "qid": "32", "docid": "8e41fefb-2019-04-18T11:17:15Z-00000-000", "rank": 64, "score": 103703.0}, {"content": "Title: Polling stations during Elections should be conducted over a longer period than a single day Content: 1. \"I often wonder if the single day voting is meant to curb voter fraud. No I don't think so. I think its discrimination against the poor\". Response: with all the avenues available on a single day vote (Internet at library, shelters, could provide other government locations) voting would not only be available to all Americans but it could be convenient. 2. \"...Those that have to work 2 or 3 jobs to survive and feed their family. Response: currently all states have a form of absentee voting (vote via mail, early, etc...). Here is a link to every state\"s absentee voting policy: http://www.ncsl.org.... Additionally, if the single day voting were a national holiday, that modification would eliminate work issues. Either way, every state in the country currently allows citizens to provide their work excuse and vote early. 3. \"Suggestion 1 to improve voting: I think that the first time people register to vote (age 18 or above) they should be required to give a fingerprint, than at least there would be a record to identify an individual without having to require a photo ID. I don't see how a fingerprint would be invasion of privacy and it would also be free. You only have to prove who you are once with a birth certificate or other suffiecient form of ID (barring any scaring on your fingers). If this database could be used solely for elections and not accessible to law enforcement (of course could we trust them?) You'd only know a person's finger pad pattern, not what they look like and people would not have to have a photo ID if they didn't want to.\" Response: with so much difficulty passing voter ID policies, logging fingerprints would prove implausible for two reasons. First, one argument against voter ID is that some have difficulty finding their birth certificate or other forms of ID. Second, many feel it is an invasion of their privacy and denies them their right to vote. Although I support voter ID laws, the fingerprint policy would be a step up in both categories. 4. \"Then, you could take your time to vote. Voting at your own convenience. Currently its just a tv spectacle with winners being declared often before even 50% of the vote is in for districts and states. Its not as if the switch from incumbent to the next elected official is happening that next day. Usually its like 3 months till the handover. Pretty much everything must kowtow to the tv networks. Too much money for tv. Sports are slaves to tv as well.\" Response: if the vote were done over a period of weeks, the spectacle and drama would be dragged out and exacerbated even more than it is now. For example, television shows such as The Bachelorette rely on this type of drama to generate ratings. Presidential elections that only occur once every four years would play right into this type of sensationalism. Additionally, the voting could not occur during the transition period between November and January. During this time, the president-elect needs to conduct business related to a smooth transition between leaders. Therefore, the vote needs to be finalized by early November, it cannot drag on for months. Although the Electoral College process does not officially elect the president until much later, there has never been a President-elect who was not officially elected by the Electoral College. 5. \"For those that want national ID cards or required photo IDs YET they want total privacy and no records to match who voted for who, you can't have both.\" Response: displaying an ID in order to vote but maintaining total privacy on the actual person the voter selected is completely possible. The ID provides the voter the ballot, the voter then votes privately. 6. \"Suggestion #2: Better yet, align voting and taxes then if you want to vote you have to pay your taxes (which should already be the case, even if you owe nothing or expect a refund) No taxes, no vote. Citizens benefit from services and infrastructure provided by taxes and it is their duty to pay them, voting should also be a duty of a citizen.(I agree both are duties, but like I argued in Round 1, apathy is the problem)\" Response: The IRS is currently backlogged as it is (see link below), so involving them in the voting process would provide an even more significant delay. Additionally, the IRS experiences tax evasion fraud as well as their own surveillance scandals (see link below), so convincing Americans to provide fingerprints would be next to impossible. Lastly, you mentioned single day voting being a burden on the poor. Surely attaching a financial requirement to the vote (albeit a legally assessed tax) could provide a disincentive to conduct both actions (paying taxes and voting) and could also create discrimination similar to post-Civil War poll taxes used to deny African Americans their right to vote. It also could provide the undue burden on the poor that you refer to at the start of your argument. IRS backlog link: http://www.cchgroup.com... IRS scandal link: http://news.investors.com... 7. \"EVEN putting the voting date on Saturday is still going to be impossible for some people. There aren't absentee ballots everywhere. Why not go further and make Voting Day a national holiday? Say President's Day? or Veteran's Day? All non-essential businesses are closed and all essential ones required to only have half day. We have holidays for really stupid crap (some just commercial holidays really), but we should celebrate voting. Representation is what we revolted from England for\" Response: every state has a policy to allow citizens to vote on a day that is not the national voting day: http://www.ncsl.org.... I think our common ground is, however, to make voting day a national holiday. 8. \"Still, having enough time to vote over the period of time of a week, a few weeks, or some agreed upon length of time, would be best and not have any more problems than we already have. At least then there could be no excuse for not voting. As of now many people have an excuse and some a legitimate complaint Also, voter intimidation at a polling station would take a lot more effort if it had to be manned for longer than a single day and hopefully happen less\" Response: As I stated in Round 1, the reasons people provide currently are many times just excuses since there are plenty of avenues for citizens to vote under our current system. It would also be easier for people to intimidate voters since the government would have a tough time manning polling locations for weeks or months instead of for just one day. I had fun with my first debate, thanks for posting, this is a great topic.", "qid": "32", "docid": "fcff81a7-2019-04-18T17:19:43Z-00000-000", "rank": 65, "score": 103512.0}, {"content": "Title: Primaries in US elections Content: Changing the US primary system will not improve voter turnout", "qid": "32", "docid": "651b1111-2019-04-17T11:47:45Z-00009-000", "rank": 66, "score": 103399.0}, {"content": "Title: Voting ability Content: I want to vote", "qid": "32", "docid": "78c7b45a-2019-04-18T12:39:26Z-00001-000", "rank": 67, "score": 102865.0}, {"content": "Title: Online voting should replace traditional voting. Content: My opponent has failed to provide reasoning as to why hacking, viral infections, and cheating would be impossible in his perfect little system, beyond saying something akin to \"nuh-uh\". The truth of the matter is is any computer system can be hacked into. All one needs are the time, money, and resources to do it, none of which would be impossible to get [http://articles.latimes.com...], especially with such high stakes. It is likely that converting to an online voting system would bring on a new wave of internet terrorism, and would even make it possible for other countries to decide the course of our nation. Because this one problem WILL exist, and is such a serious threat that it outweighs any good online voting could do because of the amount of damage it could cause to us as a country. Therefore, online voting should not replace traditional voting.", "qid": "32", "docid": "93844764-2019-04-18T19:10:04Z-00000-000", "rank": 68, "score": 102265.0}, {"content": "Title: Not Voting in Elections Will Make More of a Difference than Voting Content: As the BoP is shared, I will be arguing that Voting in Elections will make more of a difference than not voting. My contentions are as follows:1) Voting accurately polls a populus2) Voting officially elects government offices3) Voting increases the quality of a nation's overseas representation4) Voting helps the economy5) Voting voices the opinions of AmericansThese will be further expanded during the second round of this debate.", "qid": "32", "docid": "33d6b29e-2019-04-18T17:32:30Z-00004-000", "rank": 69, "score": 102192.0}, {"content": "Title: Debate.org should Change their voting system Content: Thanks to my opponent for posting the challenge on this interesting topic. The challenge makes clear that we are only considering two alternatives, either to change to a system in which voters only cast a single vote for the winner of the debate or to keep the present system of awarding up to seven points in categories for each of the two debaters. I suspect that nearly everyone would like to make some improvement or other in the voting system, but what we are now debating is only whether a system of a single point would be an improvement. 1. Vote bombing won't be cured The change advocated by the resolution wouldn't solve the problem of vote bombing. With the voting categories for awarding points and required reasons for decisions, it's usually easy to see who is vote bombing, and we have quite a few DDO members who systematically counter vote bombs. Awarding all seven points is rarely valid, and the lopsided vote is a giveaway. There's a thread for reporting vote bombing, and most new members find it quickly. If voting is reduced to single point win or loss, a vote bomber will have an easier time of concealing a poorly reasoned vote. He can say, \u201cThe debate was close, but Con failed to rebut Pro's most important contention \u2026 blah, blah.\u201d With unreasonable voting harder to detect, the number of bad decisions is as likely to increase as decrease. 2. Having categories improves the debaters skillsMany people who use the formal debate feature on the debate.org site are trying to improve their skills as debaters. If they just want to give opinions and seek reinforcement they can use the Forums or the Opinions features of the site, or they can just blog or post on facebook. The formal debates are for people who are more serious about structured debating. Reducing the serious-debate component of debate.org diminishes the feature that makes the site distinct from other social networking sites.The elements of a good debate are effective communication, logical presentation, avoiding the distractions of bad behavior, and backing up opinions with good sources. The site article \"Tips for a better debate\" makes these points explicitly. [1. http://www.debate.org...] The site article \"How to Vote\" specifically relates these criteria to voting. [2. http://www.debate.org... ]Having points awarded by category encourages the debater to pay attention to each aspect of the debate for fear of losing points in a neglected category. Having categories of judging is typical of competitions in which the judging has a substantial subjective component. Sports like artistic skating [3. http://en.wikipedia.org... ] and gymnastics [4. http://en.wikipedia.org...] have elaborately detailed criteria for judging. The performer is thereby made aware of what he must do to win the competition.3. Having categories improves judging skills A reader can casually evaluate a debate based upon a general impression of who did a better job of making a case. Having judging categories, however, demands a more thorough analysis of exactly why one side did better than the other. There is an adage that a person does not really learn a subject until the person teaches it. Accordingly, critically analyzing debates helps build understanding of good debate practices. If anything, the site should have a more detailed template for judging debates, spelling out the different types of conduct violations, the elements of argument (structure, logic, and rebuttal), what constitutes good sources, and so forth. My point is that to develop debate skills, the direction might be in having a more detailed categories, but it is certainly not in having less. We want the best possible judging by the great majority of members who are not vote bombing. The best judging is a product of the more careful analysis fostered by having point categories. Abbreviating the process in an attempt to foil vote bombers is likely to reduce the quality of analysis by members who want to do their best in fairly evaluating the debate. ---------------- Changing to a single point system will make biased voting easier to conceal, it will obscure the requirements for winning debate, and it will make honest voting less thorough and accurate.", "qid": "32", "docid": "b9365fa5-2019-04-18T17:26:30Z-00002-000", "rank": 70, "score": 102120.0}, {"content": "Title: Voting should be compulsory in the UK Content: Compulsory Voting Does not enhance democracy", "qid": "32", "docid": "13fc3acf-2019-04-19T12:45:38Z-00003-000", "rank": 71, "score": 102040.0}, {"content": "Title: Increase turnout Content: The youngest age group has always provided the lowest turnout at elections. Reducing the voting age will further reduce the national average turnout for elections. This matters because we don't want to look bad to other contries.", "qid": "32", "docid": "5f3b3c6d-2019-04-19T12:44:37Z-00012-000", "rank": 72, "score": 101822.0}, {"content": "Title: It will reduce the power of special interest groups Content: A benefit of compulsory voting is that it makes it more difficult for special interest groups to vote themselves into power. Under a non-compulsory voting system, if fewer people vote then it is easier for smaller sectional interests and lobby groups to control the outcome of the political process. A notable example would be the disproportionate influence of agriculture in policy making as seen in both European politics and well as American with enormous amounts of subsidies for farmers who represent a minute percentage of the population. 1 2 The outcome of the election therefore reflects less the will of the people (Who do I want to lead the country?) but instead reflects who was logistically more organized and more able to convince people to take time out of their day to cast a vote (Do I even want to vote today?). 1 Ira M. Sheskin and Arnold Dashefsky, \"Jewish Population of the United States, 2006,\" in the American Jewish Year Book 2006, Volume 106, David Singer and Lawrence Grossman, Editors. NY: American Jewish Committee, 2006. 2: Mark Weber, Feb. 2009, 'A Straight Look at the Jewish Lobby', Institute for Historical Review (Accessed 10/06/2011) improve this", "qid": "32", "docid": "4ce497c-2019-04-15T20:22:56Z-00017-000", "rank": 73, "score": 101789.0}, {"content": "Title: Debate.org should reform its voting criteria Content: The voting system here is not designed to ensure objectivity. .. it focuses and awards points for arbitrary things like spelling and grammar. The voting process focus should be mainly on whether or not one persons arguments were better or more convincing than the others. The current way the voting is structured, you could have the better arguments, the better logic and reasoning, but because you have made a grammatical error, you are penalized. This should have no bearing on whether you win or lose a debate or whether your arguments are sound. There are other flaws, that will be covered in rnd 2.", "qid": "32", "docid": "1f2335a0-2019-04-18T18:41:21Z-00005-000", "rank": 74, "score": 101707.0}, {"content": "Title: The Voting System on Debate.org Needs VAST Improvement Content: My main problem with the voting system is the lack of accountability concerning votes, not on how the votes are distributed. For instance, I recently finished a debate on a rather controversial topic. I posted my final argument, and the voting time began. Literally less than a minute later, I noticed that someone voted on the debate. The result? Three points given to my opponent, none given to me. I would not particularly have had a problem with that. .. if it were not for the fact that the person voted less than a minute after I posted my final argument. There is absolutely no chance that someone could have noticed that the debate was open for voting, read my final argument, reflected on what was being said, then voted, all in less than a minute's time. Even if she/he happened to be looking at the debate just as I posted my final argument, I still find it incredible. Also, in this debate, my opponent did not use ANY citations whatsoever, all the while \"quoting\" facts. I backed up my arguments with citations, and when my opponent claimed that my sources were biased and unreliable, I gave other sources (showing the same exact facts, thus proving my original sources WERE reliable, by the way) that no one could logically claim were \"unreliable\" (Major newspaper articles, government health instituions, etc. ) The first three voters (I checked periodically) gave me absolutely NO POINTS. Once again, if I were simply losing in that debate, that would be one thing. But to give citation points (or at least give a tie) to a person who cited NO SOURCES while making arguments that absolutely had to be backed up by sources? That is preposterous. Also, the voting system is different from what you described it to be (not to count against you; I was under the delusion that the system worked the way you stated as well). My main reason for bringing up this debate is to try to get people to talk about the voting system; whether or not they believe that it needs improvement. Is the voting system fine (minus the lack of accountability)? Yes, I find the point distribution to be adequate. But what good is a voting system for a debate site if it merely reflects people's predetermined thoughts on the given subject? 1) The tab indicating that they are \"redesigning\" the site has been there for quite a while; as long as I have been on (a few months). Nonetheless, it is something that is not incorporated into the voting system yet, so that would be considered an \"improvement\". 2) I do not know if anyone tracks the voting on this site. If they do, they need to stop what is called \"vote bombing\", where a group of people (for various reasons) vote for a specific side en masse, always as a concerted effort. Granted, it would be hard to determine that without question. However, when iLikeRepublicans, nObama08, fashistNeocon69, and reaganBaby! (all fictitious usernames, by the way) are constantly seen voting (around the same time) on political debates (and giving ALL of their points to the more conservative side), well, one can wonder. .. 3) I may or may not be the minority on this point, but I would not consider (nor do I believe that DDO should consider) it an invasion of privacy if someone were able to see my voting record, because: A) No one knows who I really am. B) It is required that the age, city and state (country, for internationals) be shown. I find that a greater invasion of privacy. If privacy is important to DDO, then they should not require that this information be shown. C) If DDO is genuninely trying to accomplish what it says it means to accomplish (\"This page is being redesigned to show the voter's picture and username. \"), then why not put that information right on the page of each voter? Remember, accountability is key here. 4) I was thinking of having the voting comments put on the voting tab, once it is up and running. No one would be able to start a \"comment war\" on that tab, as you can only comment when you vote. I initially did contact them about the situation, but never received a response. I just sent another e-mail to them. Hopefully they will respond this time. I await your reply.", "qid": "32", "docid": "e644e50d-2019-04-18T19:18:42Z-00002-000", "rank": 75, "score": 101578.0}, {"content": "Title: Increase Voter Turnout by Holding Money Until Vote Content: I was pondering things we could do to increase voter turnout and I came up with this; every election, we require people to deposit a small sum of money to an election bank about a month before an election they're eligible for; maybe only around $7 dollars, or however much they make per hour. This money has no interest on it or anything like it; once they vote, they can withdraw the money they deposited earlier. If they don't vote, it stays in the account, but they cannot withdraw it. Perhaps the money can be collected from their pay check, income taxes; I'm not sure. It's not a fully formed idea ready for implementation, but hopefully you get the gist of it. I was wondering if anyone had any objections or additions to it. Thanks.", "qid": "32", "docid": "33ca1924-2019-04-18T15:27:21Z-00004-000", "rank": 76, "score": 101317.0}, {"content": "Title: New Age Electronic Government Content: As a millennial, am I the only one noticing we haven't been using modern technology (supercomputers, smartphones, and other devices that connect everyone and everything in it) to our advantage? With Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc. taking up everyones time I think we have been overlooking the potential political advantage these devices could provide for our generation. As a backdrop for my argument I think I can assume WE all believe congress and government in general is becoming more and more corrupt with every election (based off record low approval ratings). However, We The People still continue to vote into office the same people we are unhappy with. Why? Maybe because we feel hopeless, misinformed, and minute compared to these career politicians that continually propagate corruption. I would like to suggest a futuristic and corruption free government with the help and use of atomic supercomputers. Picture logging onto a website so secure it would take a technical complex larger that google to hack (making voters feel more secure). You have the options of opening a local, state, or federal topic form with issues that relate to your local, state, or federal laws and bills. Here you can get consolidated and factual information from private companies that have no reason to be biased for or against an issue. You then have one vote on the issues related to you which will be viewed by a single president and his cabinet that YOU THE VOTER bring into office. He will log onto this website as well and be able to see directly (without interference from hackers because of the supercomputers) what major issues We The People see that needs to be fixed based on an interactive and integrated map of the responses from the participants. To incentivize this website we would give (lets say 1%) tax cuts to those who participate. This would eliminate the need for congress, which might seem extreme to most, but think about it. Getting rid of the two party, corrupt, old, and deadlocked congress we have right now and opening up this office basically to everyone for a vote on every MAJOR issue would end corruption, gridlock, and the two party system. Also, making the voter feel more hopeful, informed, and important in each issue.", "qid": "32", "docid": "5d4778b5-2019-04-18T16:33:53Z-00006-000", "rank": 77, "score": 101293.0}, {"content": "Title: Modern technology makes consultation easier than ever. Content: In the past, it was impractical to organise frequent referendums due to the difficulty and expense of holding them. But with the advent of the internet and mass media, it is now easier than ever to consult the public on issues of concern to them. For example, Switzerland regularly holds referendums on all sorts of issues in an efficient manner which commands widespread public support. [1] [1] Gerlach, Jan; Gasser, Urs. \u201cThree Case Studies from Switzerland: E-Voting\u201d, Internet and Democracy Case Study Series, March 2009. http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/Gerlach-Gasser_SwissCases_Evoting.pdf", "qid": "32", "docid": "e6af11b5-2019-04-15T20:22:52Z-00013-000", "rank": 78, "score": 101029.0}, {"content": "Title: U.S. citizens should be required to take a test before voting. Content: I would argue that paying people to vote would not be a reasonable way to increase voter turnout, the poor do not vote because they want money out of it. It is because they feel as though they aren't represented and do not think its worth the time if there vote does not count. And by implementing a test that slows that process down even more it would simply lead to a larger loss in voter turnout. How much would you offer to vote? The amount offered would have to be a state decision, which would just lead to political corruption. States that are predominately one party would offer almost no payment so that voter turnout doesn't change, while battleground states would offer incentives making them even more important to candidates, which would just corrupt the system even more. I am not suggesting paying voters at all. But to further illustrate the flaw in paying individuals to show up to vote. You have to consider that many of them are at work and cannot lose the 1-4 hours of work. So in order to incentivize them to show up to vote you have to at least meet their requirement for work. So assuming everyone who voted was payed minimum wage, and there were 126 million people who voted in the 2012 election[1]. so with simple math (126 million x 7.25 minimum wage) =913.5 million dollars. And assuming this process worked you would have higher voter turnout meaning that this price would be higher. By offering a billion dollars in incentives to vote, you are basically bribing for votes. The cost of the 2012 presidential election was 6 billion, so we would have a massive increase in the cost of a presidential election.[1] Sources: http://bipartisanpolicy.org...", "qid": "32", "docid": "dfad459f-2019-04-18T13:11:29Z-00001-000", "rank": 79, "score": 101016.0}, {"content": "Title: Increase Voter Turnout by Holding Money Until Vote Content: I accept", "qid": "32", "docid": "33ca1924-2019-04-18T15:27:21Z-00003-000", "rank": 80, "score": 100842.0}, {"content": "Title: Referendums can lend greater validity to political outcomes Content: Major constitutional changes such as the secession of South Sudan may well be appropriate for referendums, but using them to improve the democratic legitimacy of a government is misguided. Many policies touch on issues of human rights and the simple fact that a majority votes in favour of a particular policy will not be enough to convince opponents that the resulting law is fair or just.", "qid": "32", "docid": "e6af11b5-2019-04-15T20:22:52Z-00020-000", "rank": 81, "score": 100803.0}, {"content": "Title: Compulsory Voting Content: Compulsory voting is a system in which voters are obligated to vote on election day. If the voter chooses not to vote they may be subject to small punitive measures, much like a speeding ticket. This system is used by 22 countries around the world and has various pros and cons. Voter turnout in the United States is currently at a alarming low rate. The last general election in 2014 has a turnout of 36.4% of eligible voters. In a time where technology is able to connect so many people, 64.6% of the US population wasn't represented in the 2014 general election. I argue that increasing voter turnout in the United States through compulsory voting would increase productivity of the government, and in term benefit many other areas of life.", "qid": "32", "docid": "ae578f50-2019-04-18T15:05:12Z-00005-000", "rank": 82, "score": 100558.0}, {"content": "Title: Increase turnout Content: A further argument in favour of reducing the voting age is that reducing the voting age will increase turnout. This is because people are more likely to maintain the habit of voting throughout their lives if they start at a younger age. At present, a child will usually leave school at 16. They are leaving an environment where political issues can be discussed and debated, increasing their interest in politics. Once they have left school, they may have to wait up to 8 years before they have their first opportunity to vote at a general election. By this time, they have lost interest and are less likely to vote.", "qid": "32", "docid": "5f3b3c6d-2019-04-19T12:44:37Z-00013-000", "rank": 83, "score": 100360.0}, {"content": "Title: The Voting System on Debate.org Needs VAST Improvement Content: Okay, this is my first debate on debate.org, so let's see how this goes. This is a very interesting topic, but something that I have never encountered before personally. If the people in the comments section want to give their opinions on this debate, they can. This topic seems like something that multiple people should give their input on. So, the resolved is that the voting system is flawed, and I am negating that resolution. My contentions: 1) It's very simple to understand: When you vote for con or pro, he or she gets a point. (For the specifics of the point system, http://www.debate.org...) The person with the most points out of the 6 voting topics gets a bonus point. Why risk making it more complicated by changing it? 2) It goes over a wide range of topics, which gives fairness to both pro and con. You can vote on grammar and and conduct and what not, so if pro were to only get one point and con would get the five remaining points, pro would still get one point and maybe have a chance to come back. One point could make a difference, after all. 3) It can give you an estimate of how much you need to improve. For example, if I were to lose this debate 52 to 5, obviously I need some work. But if the score were much closer, so something like 52 to 48, then I could infer that either my opponent's case was slightly stronger than mine, or the voters voted for my opponent on the first and second voting topics (Who did you agree with before/after the debate?), giving my opponent an edge. I'm going to comment on your suggestions, if you don't mind. Since the resolved is that the voting system is flawed, and not to see whether his specific ideas are \"the best,\" I hope the voters won't penalize me for saying whether I agree with a suggestion or not. 1) If you look at the section below the voting part and the names + pictures in the debate, there are three tabs that say Debate Rounds, Comments, and Voting. They're redesigning the Voting section to describe exactly what #1 says. (\"This page is being redesigned to show the voter's picture and username.\") 2) Define \"more closely.\" 3) That wouldn't be a bad idea, but getting too specific about a feed on someone's profile might make people think that it's an invasion of privacy. 4) I like the idea of putting a paragraph, but I feel like letting other members being able to comment/report on a paragraph would start a \"comment fight,\" which would be annoying. Is there a way to contact a support group about that problem? Honestly, I like your ideas on how the voting system could be improved, but if you were to elaborate on them and get some opinions from other debaters like I just did, you could have some legitimate improvements.", "qid": "32", "docid": "e644e50d-2019-04-18T19:18:42Z-00003-000", "rank": 84, "score": 100214.0}, {"content": "Title: Modernisation Content: In modern, developed countries, many people spend both work and leisure time on the internet or using electronic devices[1][2][3][4]. Our traditional voting systems, with polling stations and paper slips, is out of line with how many of the population now live their lives. When we see an overwhelming number of people \u2013 especially young people[5] \u2013 voting for reality television programmes such as The X Factor[6], it demonstrates a valuable method of engagement which the political system is missing out on. This had led to sources such as the BBC darkly questioning \u2018Is Big Brother really more popular than election?\u2019[7], indicating that while the overall number of votes in the 2005 general election in the UK outweighed those cast for Big Brother and Fame Academy, the proportion of votes by young voters (18-34) could be understood to show more engagement with these television shows than with the general election[8]. In any case, it is clear that we should bring our voting systems up to date in order to engage young people and the wider population. [1] In the UK: http://www.tnsglobal.com/news/news-6A7B1D614B284E20B26AA3A75601275B.aspx, accessed 24/08/11 [2] In Europe: http://www.netimperative.com/news/2010/march/europeans-2018spend-more-time-on-mobile-web-than, accessed 24/08/11 [3] In Asia: http://thenextweb.com/asia/2011/06/13/chinese-now-spend-41-of-their-time-online-on-social-networks-in-lieu-of-news-sites/, accessed 24/08/11 [4] In the USA: http://www.comscoredatamine.com/2011/01/average-time-spent-online-per-u-s-visitor-in-2010/, accessed 24/08/11 [5] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4586995.stm, accessed 24/08/11 [6] http://xfactor.tellymix.co.uk/news/23245-revealed-the-x-factor-2010-voting-percentages-and-detailed-results.html, accessed 24/08/11 [7] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4586995.stm, accessed 24/08/11 [8] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4586995.stm, accessed 24/08/11", "qid": "32", "docid": "2c05e9fb-2019-04-15T20:23:05Z-00013-000", "rank": 85, "score": 99979.0}, {"content": "Title: Improves standards in political governance. Content: The trend in developed countries tends to be towards greater centralisation, and concentration of power in the hands of a small number of representatives. This, in turn, leads to the creation of a separate political class who will in some cases be more concerned with their own influence and enrichment than that of the voters, and makes it possible for wealthy individuals or companies to lobby politicians for laws favourable to their interests. Increased use of referendums would potentially reduce the influence of lobby groups and corporate donors on the political system.[1] [1] Knutsen, John. \u201cBlueprint for a new European Confederation\u201d, Basiclaw.net, January 2004. http://www.basiclaw.net/Principles/Direct%20democracy.htm", "qid": "32", "docid": "e6af11b5-2019-04-15T20:22:52Z-00019-000", "rank": 86, "score": 99873.0}, {"content": "Title: In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory. Content: Thanks you for accepting the challenge! I would like to begin by presenting evidence supporting my views previously stated in R1. 1. Compulsory Voting Decreases Political Polarization and Solves for Disenfranchisement of Voters According to Eric Liu, (Former Policy Adviser to President Bill Clinton), TIME, Aug. 21, 2012. Retrieved Aug. 16, 2013 from http://ideas.time.com.... Many reforms could increase turnout, from same-day registration to voting on weekends. But the most basic is also the most appropriate: making voting mandatory. Here\"s why. Mandatory voting would make elections truly valid. \"Protecting the integrity of our elections\" is the rationale Republicans give for the cynically restrictive voter ID laws they\"ve enacted in Pennsylvania and elsewhere. But if we truly cared about the integrity of elections, we should ensure that they reflect the will of all eligible voters. Second, as William Galston of the Brookings Institution argues, it would temper the polarization of our politics. In today\"s electorate, hardcore partisan believers are over-represented; independents and moderates are under-represented. If the full range of voters actually voted, our political leaders, who are exquisitely attuned followers, would go where the votes are: away from the extremes. And they would become more responsive to the younger, poorer and less educated Americans who don\"t currently vote. What we see is in a voluntary system the views of the partisan people are heard but the moderate middle go unheard. Through compulsory voting we would see moderate voters receive legitimate representation. 2. CV Increases Political Participation Margaret Kelly, (Prof., Law, Macquerie U., Australia), THE ADVERTISER, Oct. 22, 2007, 18. The turnout at Australian elections has never fallen below 90 per cent since the introduction of compulsory voting. This compares favorably to the situation in the U.S. and Britain. In 2001, the turnout for the federal election for the House of Representatives was 94.85 per cent. In the same year, the turnout for the general election in Britain was 59.4 per cent. With such a large percentage of the electorate voting, the Parliament more accurately reflects the will of the electorate, the silent majority, not just the noisy minority. Parties must consider the total electorate in policy formulation not just those inclined to go to the polls. Not only does it increase political participation, but it also increases the political process as a whole. Politicians will have to appeal to a new range of voters rather than campaigns just go get there base out to vote. ------------------------------------- A few points I would like to address before my opponent presents his evidence supporting his position. 1. All CV does is force you to fill out a ballot (none is an option). CV does not force you to chose the lesser of two evils since you can always vote for none of the below (or above). 2. The Quality of Elections will increase because politicians will now have to represent the whole voter base rather than the few hardcore partisan voters that come out and vote. 3. All laws require citizens to do things they don't want to do. Jury duty is a good example of this, taxes, and much more. CV is no different than our other day to day civic duties. Forcing someone to vote is not undemocratic.", "qid": "32", "docid": "29758b9-2019-04-18T17:06:05Z-00003-000", "rank": 87, "score": 99869.0}, {"content": "Title: is school truly needed Content: Vote for me everybody", "qid": "32", "docid": "6360634a-2019-04-18T16:39:52Z-00000-000", "rank": 88, "score": 99385.0}, {"content": "Title: Compulsory Voting Content: Thanks for admitting that CV could be damaging. Low voter turnout should be addressed but not through compulsory voting because not voting is a valid political choice; and exercise of freedom of choice, movement, and association. Also, compulsory voting will create false democracy. Pro cannot just add conditions now, he should have stated his conditions like \u2018educating voters,\u2019 in round 1. This is a basic rule in debate. But granted it counts, still his so-called \u2018educating voters\u2019 is very vague and not in harmony with compulsory voting. We can increase voter\u2019s turnout by informing and educating people about election, without necessarily forcing people to go to the polling stations because it violates their fundamental freedoms.", "qid": "32", "docid": "ae578f50-2019-04-18T15:05:12Z-00002-000", "rank": 89, "score": 99167.0}, {"content": "Title: The referendum is good PR for the UK. Content: A referendum, regardless of the result, will prove an effective public relations boost for the United Kingdom. UK citizens will feel more confident in their government, as some currently see EU membership as an illegitimate breach of the social contract and others argue that the UK is not doing enough to co-operate. Europeans also will improve their view of the United Kingdom: a \"Yes\" vote will minimize the perception of the UK as a foot-dragging, reluctant participant in Europe; a \"No\" vote will be seen to end a half-hearted charade. Either way, a more straightforward relationship with Europe will minimize UK-Europe mistrust, which will benefit each politically and economically. improve this", "qid": "32", "docid": "c71796d-2019-04-15T20:22:53Z-00014-000", "rank": 90, "score": 99166.0}, {"content": "Title: There are alternatives that tackle the real causes of voter disengagement Content: Compulsory voting hides the problem which is causing people to be disengaged from politics; it allows politicians to ignore measures that can tackle the true causes of political disengagement. States instead should seek on strategies that will eliminate barriers to voting along with reducing the costs of turnout for its citizens, weekend voting, making election days a holiday, simple registration procedures, reforms such as to the party finance rules to widen the playing field, and the creation of a centralized, professional bureaucracy concerned with all aspects of election administration. In the UK, for example, adopting a more proportional system will allow for a political spectrum rather than the three major parties that currently dominate. improve this", "qid": "32", "docid": "4ce497c-2019-04-15T20:22:56Z-00023-000", "rank": 91, "score": 99145.0}, {"content": "Title: Super pacs harm the election process. Content: In order to be fair i will refrain from posting a rebutall this round. Before I start I would like to offer one sole observation: 1) As noted by political watchdog the electoral knowledge the three pillars of any electoral process are voter participation, informed citizens and transparency. Contention 1: The Citizens united ruling increase voter turnout. According to \"the Center for Responsive Politics, in the 2012 presidential race over $380,000,000 have been raised by super PACs and $330,000,000 have been spent\".This money according to the wall street journal is so super PACs can run advertisements for or against political candidates.. This is important because these advertisements are essential for maintaining voter turnout according to Paul freedman of the University of Virginia \"respondents were as much as 10 percentages Points more likely to vote if they watched television in media Markets that were bombarded with presidential ads\". Furthermore, according to Dr. Hillygus of Duke University \"Among those who early in the campaign did not intend to vote, exposure to ads increased intentions to vote by 18 percentage points\". The impact of this is that by increasing voter turnout we get a more accurate representation of the publics will which is the purpose of the election process. Contention 2: citizens united allows voters to make informed decisions According to political scientist David Downing \"without freedom of media and wider freedom of speech people cannot make informed decisions on how they should vote\". This is important because according to Hans von Spakovsky, former member of the Federal Election Commission \"many associations we have in this country (no matter which side of the political aisle they are on), from the NAACP to the Sierra Club to the National Rifle Association, are also corporations. Yet those corporate associations were prohibited under penalty of criminal and civil sanctions from expressing the views of their members. This means that before this landmark decisions many important organizations where barred from expressing their opinions and thus the public lacked vital information that may have significantly affected the outcome of previous elections. Lastly this increase in corporate spending does not favor either political party since according to matt bia a correspondent for the new York times campaign spending tends to be cyclical since when one party increases its spending the other party tends to mobilize and increase its spending. Thus not only does citizen united create more informed voters but it also prevents any one party from gaining an advantage. Contention 3: Citizens united increases transparency According to the center for political accountability 85% of company\"s increased their disclosure over the last election cycle and there has been an 11% overall increase in disclosure rates. David Weigel a correspondent for the Washington post supports this consensus and notes \"there's more information out there about super PAC donors than there is about virtually any other kind of campaign fundraising. The impact of this increased transparency is twofold: sub point a) Transparency reduces political corruption, as noted by political watchdog the electoral knowledge \"Transparency makes institutional systems and the actions/decisions they take widely accessible and understood [and] It is difficult to maintain or publicly justify a system that permits abuse and corruption\". This corruption is devastating to the democratic process as noted social advocate John Samuel states \"The subversion, misuse and abuse of power tends to undermine the process and content of the democratic process\" sub point b) Transparency allows voters to maintain confidence in our democratic system according to John Wonderlich of the sunlight foundation \"Public knowledge of the money flowing into our politics is absolutely fundamental to public accountability in campaigns and elections, [because] without it we can\"t properly\" maintain confidence in our democratic system\". Voter confidence is essential because as Lonna Atkeson of the University of New Mexico notes \"If voters do not have faith in this most fundamental aspect of a democratic society \" then the legitimacy of representative government might be at risk\" and If we can\"t even trust are representatives then we have completely undermined the entire purpose of the election process. Thus for all the aforementioned reasons I urge a con ballot. Sources: http://blog.heritage.org... http://www.slate.com... https://docs.google.com... http://www.nytimes.com... http://www.bowdoin.edu... http://jurist.org... http://aceproject.org... http://news.yahoo.com... http://infochangeindia.org... http://sunlightfoundation.com... http://aceproject.org... http://aceproject.org...", "qid": "32", "docid": "c1e7a464-2019-04-18T17:50:55Z-00003-000", "rank": 92, "score": 99140.0}, {"content": "Title: The Internet is more useful than frustrating Content: I will first refute sewook123's arguments. 1.There are many sites on the Internet which provide true information. Many universities offer great resources for students who are researching. Based on my personal experiences, I found that universities give very detailed information about a specific subject. Universities also give valuable statistics that can be used to prove information. 2.In fact, many, if not all, complicated functions are designed for professionals. The Internet is not like a computer, or a program such as Microsoft Excel. Microsoft Excel is way more complicated than the Internet. 3. I did not meant voting; I meant online voting. In case you did not know, online voting is the act of going on the Internet and vote. There are many trustworthy services such as Elections BC that offer online voting. Online voting is extremely helpful because many people want to vote, but do not have cars or proper transit. To prove that online voting is useful, I will take the Malaysia Airlines' online voting debate. Why did they not simply \"vote\", which means, according to Merriam Webster, \"the official choice that you make in an election, meeting, etc., by casting a ballot, raising your hand, speaking your choice aloud, etc.\" 4. I agree that one cannot buy groceries online. However, many people shop online to buy objects regardless of the costs. For example, Amazon, an online company, is very rich now by just making a website and let people shop online. According to Invesp, more than 80% of the online population has shopped online, and more than 50% of the online population has shopped online more than once. The reason: less taxes, save time, save fuel, less crowds, ease of comparing prices, etc. The link right here:http://www.cpcstrategy.com... 5. Dangers is kind of off topic; but I will refute it anyways. The Government of US has already tested the new technology against hackers. In addition, the new, evolving technology will prevent hackers from accessing confidential files. For my arguments: Con has stated that he spends numerous hours on the Internet for many uses. Therefore, that means the Internet is very useful.", "qid": "32", "docid": "2232031-2019-04-18T16:30:28Z-00001-000", "rank": 93, "score": 99053.0}, {"content": "Title: Should all schools have a electronic tool(laptop,tablet,etc) Content: I think schools should have electronic tools because it can really help them.They can do homework easier.In my school I am in right now has laptops.My math teacher gave us our own account for Reflex Math.It is a website that can help you increase your facts like multiplication.It has helped ever since I got into middle school.I have noticed that I increased in knowing my multiplication and division facts.", "qid": "32", "docid": "16dbfd3d-2019-04-18T12:39:09Z-00001-000", "rank": 94, "score": 98842.0}, {"content": "Title: Mandatory Voting Content: I have read your previous debates and am delighted to be debating someone who is well articulated and experienced. Arguments- 1. Voting is a moral and civic duty2. Mandatory voting will increase representation3. Mandatory voting will reduce polarization4. Mandatory voting will increase voter participation and knowledge When we vote, we make a conscious decision that will effect the entire nation. Often times, our choices will have consequences, whether good or bad, that could last for generations. In his book, The Ethics of Voting, Princeton philosopher Jason Brennan writes: \"Voting is morally significant. Voting changes the quality, scope, and kind of government. The way we vote can help or harm people. Electoral outcomes can be harmful or beneficial, just or unjust. They can exploit the minority for the benefit of the majority. They can do widespread harm with little benefit for anyone. \" [1] Brennan further writes: \"Voting is the principal way that citizens influence the quality of government. No activity is more emblematic of democracy. Some call voting a civic sacrament. Many people approach democracy, and voting especially, with a quasi-religious reverence. \" [2] In his debate, debate. org use whiteflame writes: \"[Democracy is] the basis for how our country continues to function, and an essential component in determining who represents the country. As such, voting is necessary to keep the country functioning for the benefit of the people. It's beneficial for all eligible voters to understand that necessity, and to be aware that their duty as citizens is to be involved in the composition of their government, and thus to be involved in the laws it passes. This is the same reason why jury duty is compulsory, as it ensures that the courts can function properly. \" [3] So in conclusion, we get this: P1: In democratic countries, voting is the primary way in which the government functions. P2: It is therefore our moral and civic duty to ensure that the government runs properly. C: Therefore, the government ought to make voting mandatory. Among the mantras of democracy is the concept of the consent of the governed. One of the many problems in the United States is the anemic voter turnout. This, in turn, creates a situation in which the vast majority of eligible voters do not consent to the current form of government, nor the leaders in charge. For example, in the State of Maine, the gubernatorial election in 2014 had three candidates. Paul LePage, the highly unpopular governor, won re-election with only 48 percent of the vote. (4) This means that for those who actually voted, 51 per cent did not consent to him being the next governor. How would mandatory voting increase representation? Whiteflame further notes (3): \"Part of the reason that voting is so important is because it ensures that your views play a role in how your part of the country, and the country as a whole, are represented. Representation is enhanced by having a larger voting bloc, but that's a basic hazard of democracy in any case. What changes in a voluntary voting system? Those sectors of the public that turn out to vote. Who turns out to vote? Those with higher incomes. Voter apathy is inversely correlated with wealth, as those with more wealth tend to vote more often. This means that these groups receive less representation, as the leadership of our political parties has little reason to see to their needs over those of the rich. Compulsory voting ameliorates this problem, making voting blocs the size of their populations, and, perhaps, even reducing the gridlock that we currently see between political parties. This is what we've seen in studies conducted in Australia, a country that employs compulsory voting. In the end, this ensures that special interest groups and extremist subsets of the population have less control, and over the way U. S. policy is conducted, and have to convince broader subsets of the population that their intentions are for a larger overall benefit than simply for themselves. \" Thus to conclude: P1: Democracy is based on the consent of the peopleP2: Citizens show consent by voting. P3: Mandatory voting increases representation and consent of the people. C1: Therefore, a democracy without high electoral turnout rules without consent. C2: Therefore, voting ought to be mandatory. Among the issues with voter turnout is the high polarization in the United States. Justin Valasek in his research for Duke University noted: \"When turnout is strategic and citizens have decreasing intensity of political preferences, I show that an incentive to maximize turnout among the base can cause candidates to take partisan positions, in contrast to the median voter result under full turnout. I then study how the results of this model change with the introduction of measures to increase turnout. In contrast to previous literature on turnout and mandatory voting, which takes candidate positions as fixed, I analyze the effect on both who wins the election and the candidates\u2019 political positions. R32;R32;I show that at high enough levels, measures to increase turnout result in convergence at the median citizen\u2019s ideal point. As voting is made cheaper, or strictly beneficial (through subsidies), the strategic effect of turnout on candidates disappears, returning the median voter result. \" So, if we made voting mandatory, the results will be that the candidates will largely take political positions that represent a broader aspect of the said population, thus creating a more centrist government as Eric Liu writes (6): \"In today\u2019s electorate, hardcore partisan believers are over-represented; independents and moderates are under-represented. If the full range of voters actually voted, our political leaders, who are exquisitely attuned followers, would go where the votes are: away from the extremes. And they would become more responsive to the younger, poorer and less educated Americans who don\u2019t currently vote. \" One of the main arguments used by those who do not support mandatory voting is the issue of low-informed voters; however, by making voting mandatory, we will prompt more voters to pay attention to politics. Eric Liu further notes (6): \"Third, mandatory voting would prompt more Americans to pay attention to the choices. Those of us who lament the decline of civic knowledge generally focus on the supply side of the equation: more civics education. A mandate would stimulate the demand side, motivating more voters to learn what they were voting on (just as a draft makes the drafted motivated to learn what they\u2019d fight for). There are many arguments against mandatory voting; each reflects a lack of faith in democracy itself. One says that increasing the number of uninformed voters will lead to worse policymaking. That presumes, however, that policymaking today sets a high-water mark of enlightenment. It also sets up a viciously antidemocratic circle: if you don\u2019t vote you must be stupid and if you are stupid you must not vote. \" | Conclusion | In democratic society mandatory voting is necessary for the government to be able to properly function. Voting will also help to reduce polarization, and increase knowledge and awareness of the government. I affirm the resolution. Over to con! _______ Sources 1. Brennan, Jason. The Ethics of Voting. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 2011. Print.2. Ibid3. Used with permission of whiteflame. . http://www.edeb8.com...;4. . https://en.wikipedia.org...;5. . http://econ.duke.edu...;6. . http://ideas.time.com...;", "qid": "32", "docid": "c0900fa2-2019-04-18T13:00:22Z-00005-000", "rank": 95, "score": 98795.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: The Bush Tax Cuts for the Wealthy Should Not be Extended Content: I will defend my case and attack my opponents. My opponent argues that creating more jobs will decrease the deficit. With every job created, the economy is only being increased around $1.50 in worth. The cost of extending the tax cuts overpowers the benefit. The only way we can help improve our economy is through Socialist principles. During The Great Depression, government officials agreed that the only way to improve an economy is to increase the money flow. Voting Con will add over 500 million to the 1 trillion dollar deficit we already have. This actually will cause our country to endow into a W shaped recovery. We got what we needed in the short run from these tax cuts, so let them be ended. We have no domestic consumption to promote because our government has no money to just give away anymore. Precedents and failure have shown that just handing out stimulus checks to for short-term use does not work as well as it does on the chalkboard. Also voting Con will make the United States have a downward spiral know as the \"slippery slope\". The slope will be a continuing procrastination for ending the tax cut. Republicans will always argue for two more years. Without government intervention, more kids will go homeless from the lack of resources they do not possess. But taxing those who make well over what is necessary to run a more than sufficient household to create stimulus for below poverty citizens isn't fair? Not increasing the taxes now will only lead to more procrastination when the next tax cuts expire. When we look into the reality of it, nobody wants to be taxed more than they already are, but it is necessary for the future of our country's economy. Regarding my opponents Contention 1 and 2: Adding 3.1 million jobs is not going to effect the economy as much as the 954 billion dollar expenditures that along with it. Without the tax money, our government has only the option to keep borrowing the money adding to the debt. Extending the tax cuts so far have only made jobs scarce and unemployment high. Republicans would rather have low taxes, than the growth of an economy. Extending tax cuts is in fact the immoral decision. It shows how selfish people really are. When looking at it from a moral standpoint, extending tax cuts for struggling middle and lower class families is rational because these families need the money. Upper class citizens do not need that income as much as others do. Allowing the government to just increase taxes on the rich whenever they need extra money\"- This is not true. Remember that we are debating a tax CUT. These are not the normal taxes that should be in place now. The taxes were cut because the majority of citizens, whether wealthy or the less fortunate, were facing hard times. Now as we are slowing moving up, middle and lower class people are still suffering. Extending the taxes is only going to leave the rich richer and the poor even poorer until not only the unemployment rate is high, but so are the homeless rates as well.", "qid": "32", "docid": "500ecde6-2019-04-18T18:59:09Z-00001-000", "rank": 96, "score": 98743.0}, {"content": "Title: Voting Should Be Compulsory Content: Although I understand that point of view by \" The Freedom Of Expression\" I believe that, in this case, there should be an exception. \"The character of every act depends upon the circumstance in which it is done.\" 1.Compulsory voting increases the number of people who cast their vote People who know they will have to vote will take politics more seriously and start to take a more active role. Compulsory voting will potentially encourage voters to research the candidates' political positions more thoroughly. This may force candidates to be more open and transparent about their positions on many complex and controversial issues. This means that such a system could produce better political decisions that are not contradicting each other, quite upon the contrary. 2. Making voting an obligation would increase the amount of voter in a significant manner, broadening the representation of smaller/disadvantaged groups. Democracy is usually overruled and misrepresented by the larger parties, making it an unfair judgement. If everyone voted it would mean that there would be more truthful opinions based on the party leaders attitude. More people voting means more fair democracy. 3.People don\"t vote for reasons that are somewhat related to apathy such as; they think their vote won\"t count, apathy, lines are too long or cannot get to polling area. We Are In The 21st Century. 3.1 Apathy is a lack of interest, concern or enthusiasm. http://survation.com... This survey shows that a great number of people with apathy towards democracy feel more or less the same about it as non-voters. The only reason behind they don\"t vote is really just the reason behind their apathy, so lets see that. 3.2 Reasons for Voter Apathy http://www.zencollegelife.com... This article explains EXACTLY what I am trying to explain to you. We Are In The 21st Century. There is no REAL reason for people NOT to vote. Simply not wanting to is not right, unacceptable. They do not know how important their vote is to any government candidate. Compulsory voting would make voters/people incline to know more about Democracy, increasing their interest in it and helping them realize how important their vote is to the government and all political party.~ Votes make a difference, America wants a difference. More Votes, more differences.", "qid": "32", "docid": "b291f03d-2019-04-18T13:32:17Z-00004-000", "rank": 97, "score": 98297.0}, {"content": "Title: PR increases political engagement which benefits society. Content: PR results in more engagement in politics as every vote counts (CPA/Wilton Park conference, \u2018How can Parliamentarians best re-engage the public?\u2019). Political participation is good and we should care about the low voter turnout in elections that has been caused by first past the post. Surveys show that that those who vote are more engaged in the community in other ways and have better personal wellbeing. Research in Switzerland has shown that voting does make people happier as well as being better informed citizens. The higher the stake the person has, and the more likely their vote is to count the more effort they will make to find out the facts so as to make informed choices.(Marks et al., 2005, p5-6)", "qid": "32", "docid": "24b396e9-2019-04-15T20:22:53Z-00014-000", "rank": 98, "score": 98228.0}, {"content": "Title: make voting compulsory Content: It will cause more people to become interested in politics", "qid": "32", "docid": "4ce497c-2019-04-15T20:22:56Z-00005-000", "rank": 99, "score": 98120.0}, {"content": "Title: Increase Voter Turnout by Holding Money Until Vote Content: ij", "qid": "32", "docid": "33ca1924-2019-04-18T15:27:21Z-00000-000", "rank": 100, "score": 98086.0}]}
{"query": "Should people become vegetarian?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: The World Should Become Vegetarian Content: sure thing", "qid": "33", "docid": "ac45b77d-2019-04-18T13:38:21Z-00002-000", "rank": 1, "score": 152855.0}, {"content": "Title: The World Should Become Vegetarian Content: ok", "qid": "33", "docid": "ac45b77d-2019-04-18T13:38:21Z-00000-000", "rank": 2, "score": 151493.0}, {"content": "Title: The World Should Become Vegetarian Content: Yep.", "qid": "33", "docid": "ac45b77d-2019-04-18T13:38:21Z-00001-000", "rank": 3, "score": 147931.0}, {"content": "Title: All people should become vegetarian Content: And so forth..", "qid": "33", "docid": "107900c0-2019-04-18T19:16:33Z-00000-000", "rank": 4, "score": 147402.0}, {"content": "Title: Everyone should become a vegetarian Content: Just need help with the possible arguments", "qid": "33", "docid": "272dfd04-2019-04-18T16:21:30Z-00007-000", "rank": 5, "score": 143842.0}, {"content": "Title: All people should become vegetarian Content: Ho Hum..", "qid": "33", "docid": "107900c0-2019-04-18T19:16:33Z-00001-000", "rank": 6, "score": 141490.0}, {"content": "Title: Being a Vegetarian is better than being a Non-veg Content: Yes, being a Vegan is definitely better than being a non-veg. You may say that meat has proteins, calcium, and so on. But if you take a closer look, vegetables and milk has the necessary vitamins, too! This is supported by the number of vegans in U.S.A which adds up to over 2.5 Million people, according to https://opinionessoftheworld.com... So aren't these people healthy? They do have the necessary nutrients and vitamins for the day. Besides, why would you want to kill innocent animals that suffer pain and still eat it? So, guys please consider this debate and change your lifestyle. It may be difficult at first, but slowly you can be a full veg. Start of with two days per week, then gradually change yourselves. I beg you to become a vegetarian. If any queries, you can ask me through this debate session. Thank you and may god bless you!", "qid": "33", "docid": "ebf0ab1b-2019-04-18T12:58:35Z-00001-000", "rank": 7, "score": 141142.0}, {"content": "Title: Everyone should be vegetarian. Content: I think that everyone should become vegetarian because killing off all of these animals is cruel, harming the environment, contributing to global warming, and just plain wrong. It has also been proven that vegetarian diets can reduce the risk of heart disease, and are healthier than omnivorous diets. Many people think that it is just part of nature, but since when is nature considered as shoving animals into cages and pens so small that they can't even move?", "qid": "33", "docid": "8eeab760-2019-04-18T16:21:32Z-00007-000", "rank": 8, "score": 138539.0}, {"content": "Title: Everyone should become a vegetarian Content: I don't think everyone should HAVE to become one; everyone should have say in what they eat or not. 5 Reasons Why They Shouldn't: 1. Humans have been eating meat for millions of years and it is an essential part of our evolution. 2. Vegetarian diets can cause the death of animals (such as birds, mice, and rabbits) that live in agricultural crop fields are killed during harvest. 3. Meat is the most convenient source of protein. 4. Research has shown that many plants feel fear. 5. A meat-centred diet can help with weight loss. It takes fewer calories to get protein from lean meat than it does from vegetarian options.", "qid": "33", "docid": "272dfd04-2019-04-18T16:21:30Z-00006-000", "rank": 9, "score": 138351.0}, {"content": "Title: Should People Become Vegetarian Content: Many people disagree over the topic of Should People Become Vegetarian as it is controversial issue. My opinion on the issue of Should People Become Vegetarian is that people do not have to become vegetarian. This claim is justified by the fact that raising beef is one of the most efficient way to produce food and access to get protein for humans. This is a good thing, because with the rapidly increasing population, we need as much food as we can provide that also provides us with the nutrition we need. Inevitably, we must agree that not everyone should be vegetarian, because we need to provide everyone food and this is one of the most efficient way.", "qid": "33", "docid": "7eabc63c-2019-04-18T12:18:12Z-00003-000", "rank": 10, "score": 136004.0}, {"content": "Title: Why People Should Be Vegetarian Content: Thanks for the debate!", "qid": "33", "docid": "970346b5-2019-04-18T16:22:22Z-00000-000", "rank": 11, "score": 134649.0}, {"content": "Title: A vegetarian lifestyle is better than one of a meat eaters. Content: First, you can't base your theories on our \"cavemen ancestors\" We live in a new era where development is key. Just because cavemen ate rocks doesn't mean we should start serving rocks to each other. And if you really believe that meat tastes good go ahead just remember that meat from mcdonalds promotes cancer.Yea, that McChicken can kill you Vegetarians in your mind might be anorexic, but you can't base you reasoning of stereotypes. Vegetarian people become vegan for all kinds of reasons. If you go back and see my claim it says the lifestyle is better not necessarily the people who Choose it. Animal cruelty only begins because there are so many people who demand to eat meat that no one cares for the animals. It works this way demand goes up then care for animals goes down. I apologize for plagiarism i truly thought that using the statistics and Harvard study results was permitted even after I credited Harvard. Please truly pick who you think had the more organized argument and good refutation. May the best man/woman win. Thank you for your time.", "qid": "33", "docid": "5941421a-2019-04-18T15:20:27Z-00001-000", "rank": 12, "score": 134473.0}, {"content": "Title: Vegetarianism is a good idea. Content: However most people think that we are in need of meat, in my opinion, it's wrong and people should be vegetarians. First, I want to say that people, who don't eat meat, but eat eggs, drink milk (it's also production of animals), are healthier. According to research of KEDEM, vegetarian diet helps to reduce probability of death from such diseases like cancer, diabetes, heart disease. Besides, vegetarians feel themselves better. Bill Clinton, who was a vegetarian, once said to interviewer - \"All my blood tests are good, and my vital signs are good, and I feel good, and I also have, believe it or not, more energy.\" I think our health is a important reason why we should be vegetarians.", "qid": "33", "docid": "eb7cbdce-2019-04-18T17:08:09Z-00004-000", "rank": 13, "score": 134032.0}, {"content": "Title: Everyone should become a vegetarian Content: You're right, they don't provide most of the meat for the public. It is a very minimal amount. They have quite a small farm with not a lot of workers, so it does make sense, the part about it not being eaten by many people. I do agree with it being sick and inhumane for them to pump chemicals into the animals; in fact, I wish there was some kind of law passed that makes it illegal to do that. The thing is, there isn't one. I don't see why they even do that, and I completely agree with you that they shouldn't. I'm completely at loss as to what to say for the rest, as you've been a brilliant debater with brilliant arguments and you've made me agree with lots of things I didn't before. I have a feeling you might win this.", "qid": "33", "docid": "272dfd04-2019-04-18T16:21:30Z-00000-000", "rank": 14, "score": 133518.0}, {"content": "Title: People should not eat animals. Content: This is my first debate, so I would like to start with something simple and pretty straight forward. There are three reasons why becoming vegetarian (defined as not eating the flesh of animals, a diet that may or may not include the consumption of eggs and milk) is both beneficial to the person and to the global community. 1. A vegetarian diet is healthier. All required nutrients may be obtained easily with a little attention, and a vegetarian diet has been shown to decrease chances of cancer and heart disease (because plant foods contain no cholestrol and very little saturated fat). 2. Animal agriculture is the number one human-caused source of the greenhouse gas methane, which is 23 times as potent as carbon dioxide. The rearing of cattle and other animals also contribute to the species extinction from habitat destruction, erosion caused by over grazing, excess land use compared to vegetable farming, and water pollution and eutrophication from animal waste and fertilized grazing pastures. 3. Common animal farming practices are cruel and unsafe. Most people can agree upon this, however, the morality of animal treatment is highly subjective and I would like to not focus too much on whether a chicken has the same feelings of pain, whether it really matters, etc. For the environmental impacts of animal agriculture: http://www.vegetarisme.be... For the American Dietetic Association's position on the vegetarian diet: http://www.eatright.org...", "qid": "33", "docid": "7b65bdc-2019-04-18T19:55:37Z-00005-000", "rank": 15, "score": 133137.0}, {"content": "Title: Ben Should Become a Vegetarian Content: Ben should become a vegetarian for three primary reasons: A vegetarian diet has a lower environmental impact than one which includes meat. A vegetarian diet will help him achieve his health goals. A vegetarian diet will decrease strain on our relationship. A vegetarian diet has a lower environmental impact.It's quite simple: eating 2000 calories from plants uses far fewer resources than eating 2000 calories from animals, who had to in turn eat way more than 2000 calories of plants to create 2000 calories of meat. The reason is that not all of the food animals eat is converted to body mass, as much goes into heating the body and fueling its processes.The waste of water by animals is even greater: \"The data we had indicated that a beef animal consumed 100 kg of hay and 4 kg of grain per 1 kg of beef produced. Using the basic rule that it takes about 1,000 liters of water to produce 1 kg of hay and grain, thus about 100,000 liters were required to produce the 1 kg of beef.\"Even if that calculation is on the high end, there is no way possible that the water ratio from plant to human is equal to the water ratio from plant to animal to human. Physics denies such a conversion.Not only are land and water resources wasted, greenhouse gases are emitted into the air. \"Shifting less than 1 day per week\u2019s (i.e., 1/7 of total calories) consumption of red meat and/or dairy to other protein sources or a vegetable-based diet could have the same climate impact as buying all household food from local providers.\"I mean, check out this awesome chart: http://pubs.acs.org...http://en.wikipedia.org... http://pubs.acs.org...http://www.guardian.co.uk... A vegetarian diet is healthier.\"The American Dietetic Association has released an updated position paper on vegetarian diets that concludes such diets, if well-planned, are healthful and nutritious for adults, infants, children and adolescents and can help prevent and treat chronic diseases including heart disease, cancer, obesity and diabetes.\"Unlike the first point which is a moral obligation to promote public health, this one rests upon a personal commitment to oneself.http://www.sciencedaily.com...http://www.webmd.com...http://www.washingtonpost.com...A vegetarian diet will make our relationship smoother.In a practical sense, this will benefit you more than me, because when I go shopping, I already purchase only vegetarian foods. Changing your diet to become more similar to mine will make it easier for you to shop for foods we can both consume, instead of focusing on \"hirs and his\". This benefit will be strongest when we eat out. As it stands, restaurants which cater to your tastes rarely do to mine, but vegetarian-friendly restaurants typically have meat options as well (which comes in handy when dining with friends).Also, there will be reduced moral strain. I'd know that we're trying to help make the world a better place together, as opposed to me bearing the load of not only my own choices but also trying to undo yours (which I can't avoid, as we live in the same house and our choices are tied to each other in many other ways as well).Ultimately, once we're on the same team diet-wise, then we can be That Couple who are so Totally Vegetarian, and further our goal of making our friends gag at how cute we are together. Aww!", "qid": "33", "docid": "8fa5c306-2019-04-18T18:47:35Z-00005-000", "rank": 16, "score": 132714.0}, {"content": "Title: Everyone should become Lacto-vegetarian/vegan Content: \"First of all you can't force people to eat what they don't want to eat\" - This point is irrelevant to the argument; I merely state that everyone SHOULD become lacto-vegetarians/vegans and that we would have a better world and a better society if this is to be achieved. At no point did I mention anything about forcing people. \"second of all someone has to keep animals in check and that is the human society if all meat eaters stopped eating meat there would be a huge overpopulation of animals\" - The first comment is not explained clearly; for what reason does someone need to be keeping animals in check? Also, without the murder of animals, what is preventing us from keeping these animals in check? I can't argue back until you make that clear. The second statement is a common assumption that is often mistaken by meat eaters. There would be no overpopulation of animals; with the number of farm animals currently living in the world I can understand why it may seem so but that is only due to the mass breeding of livestock animals that takes place in order to provide more animals to be killed for their meat or to be kept for their produce (dairy/eggs/wool). Without the excessive breeding managed by the farming industry, the overpopulation of animals will most certainly not be any more of a problem than it is today. Whilst on the subject of doing what is best for the environment; bringing a halt to meat eating would greatly reduce the impact of climate change. \"There are three times as many domestic animals on this planet as there are human beings. The combined weight of the world's 1.28 billion cattle alone exceeds that of the human population. While we look darkly at the number of babies being born in poorer parts of the world, we ignore the over-population of farm animals, to which we ourselves contribute...[t]hat, however, is only part of the damage done by the animals we deliberately breed. The energy intensive factory farming methods of the industrialised nations are responsible for the consumption of huge amounts of fossil fuels. Chemical fertilizers, used to grow the feed crops for cattle in feedlots and pigs and chickens kept indoors in sheds, produce nitrous oxide, another greenhouse gas. Then there is the loss of forests. Everywhere, forest-dwellers, both human and non-human, can be pushed out. Since 1960, 25 percent of the forests of Central America have been cleared for cattle. Once cleared, the poor soils will support grazing for a few years; then the graziers must move on. Shrub takes over the abandoned pasture, but the forest does not return. When the forests are cleared so the cattle can graze, billions of tons of carbon dioxide are released into the atmosphere. Finally, the world's cattle are thought to produce about 20 percent of the methane released into the atmosphere, and methane traps twenty-five times as much heat from the sun as carbon dioxide.\" Those are the words of Peter Singer and, with my knowledge from in depth research, I could not put it any better. In 2009 researchers from the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency published their projections of the greenhouse gas consequences if humanity came to eat less meat, no meat, or no animal products at all. The researchers predicted that universal veganism would reduce agriculture-related carbon emissions by 17 percent, methane emissions by 24 percent, and nitrous oxide emissions by 21 percent by 2050. Universal vegetarianism would result in similarly impressive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. These figures have not and cannot be proven for certain without being tested, but for those of you disagreeing that it should be tested - have a look at our world now; look at the increase of global warming that has taken place over the last few decades - we are risking the future of our planet for our own greed and desire for meat. On the subject of solving the issue of starvation: Continued growth in meat output is dependent on feeding grain to animals, and it takes up to 16 pounds of grain to produce just 1 pound of edible animal flesh; on average it takes 21 pounds of protein fed to a calf to produce a single pound of animal protein for humans. We get back less than 5 percent of what we put in. According to the USDA and the United Nations, using an acre of land to raise cattle for slaughter yields 20 pounds of usable protein. That same acre would yield 356 pounds of protein if soybeans were grown instead\"\". It should be no surprise, then, that food for a vegan can be produced on only 1/6 of an acre of land, while it takes 3 1/4 acres of land to produce food for a meat-eater. By ceasing to rear and kill animals for food, we can make so much extra food available for humans that, properly distributed, it would eliminate starvation and malnutrition. The meat industry is thus highly inefficient and, on top of the vast amount of land, resources, water and fossil fuels wasted, and the harmful gas emissions, farming (factory farming in particular) is also wasting extremely high amounts of energy that - if we transfer to vegetarian/veganism - could be stored and used to support more important causes. So, in conclusion - being a more efficient and environmentally friendly option - bringing a halt to eating meat would be the better option even if we discard the idea that we should not have the right to violate the animals. Yes, with such a large meat industry a forestalling of this could not happen over night but gradually as more people stop eating meat, the farms and factories will stop breeding so heavily and will require a lower energy consumption; this energy and space will then be transferred to produce more plants in order to meet the demands of the markets and, eventually, we could achieve it. Back to your arguments: \"human is the most important race and takes priority over all other animals\" - Here you have provided a statement but have given no evidence to back it up. What makes humans the most important race? We have priority over all animals merely because we are far more intelligent and thus the more dominant of species, but by no means does this mean that we should kill them. Anyhow, all the arguments to prove man's superiority cannot shatter the fact that: in suffering the animals are our equals. They feel pain and suffer just as we do and, therefore, it just as evil to inflict pain upon an animal as it is on a human. \"many humans depend on meat products dietarily and hunting for financial reasons\" - Again you have not explained your statement and in doing so you haven't given a proper argument that I can defend. Humans don't depend on meat products for their diet; they just see it as the easiest and most desirable option. I cannot name specific examples as you have not given me any examples to defend against but there are so many vegetarian/vegan alternative foods that offer the same nutritional values as meat. And hunting for financial reasons? That is no excuse to hunt animals, if anything that proves my argument further as those particular people are murdering animals as a means to one's end. It's absurd to think that people are acting immorally like that just for the money - and this can't be used as an excuse. That would be like justifying prostitution because people only do it for financial reasons, or contract-killing etc. Besides there are plenty of other jobs paying equal wages that do not require such unnecessary violence.", "qid": "33", "docid": "2d6e4294-2019-04-18T16:03:38Z-00003-000", "rank": 17, "score": 132307.0}, {"content": "Title: Why People Should Be Vegetarian Content: Eating animals is part of our life. We eat animals because it helps out bodies and our health. But there's alternative ways to eat other food then just meat. We should just eat vegetables,fruits,pasta. We could eat anything but we choose to eat meat. We kill animals but we know it's wrong. Animals are just like us. They need water and food just like us. We're pretty much killing our own kind. Acting like cannablisms. Those animals are in need of help. We need to stop eating meat so we can save more animals in the near future. If we do so the earth would be a better place. So we should be vegetarians.", "qid": "33", "docid": "970346b5-2019-04-18T16:22:22Z-00005-000", "rank": 18, "score": 131682.0}, {"content": "Title: Ben Should Become a Vegetarian Content: 1. Focusing on only the CO2 aspect and ignoring the land/water resource aspects is misrepresenting my position. Even still, the supposed gaps in the UN report are about CO2 usage, which is completely addressed in the study you so casually toss aside because you already \"don't consume much red meat\" (an admission which would perhaps imply that making a move toward complete vegetarianism would be simpler for you than you would have the audience believe). You say \"there will likely always be more incentive to refine our farming techniques ... than to change our meat eating habits\". And yet, you have yourself to partially blame for that, as you are part of the market demand for meat. \"U.S. vegetarian food sales have doubled since 1998, reaching $1.6 billion in 2003. The vegetarian and vegan population is expected to continue its increase steadily\". As people drop away from meat consumption, the market adjusts accordingly. http://en.wikipedia.org... Allowing that not all animals have the same environmental impact, they all still necessarily have a greater environmental impact than eating plants only. Even \"smarter farming\" can't change the food chain, which shows that plants take energy directly from the sun, and animals (unless we've yet to discover some photosynthesizing cows) don't.http://en.wikipedia.org... Also, I thought this looked cool: http://ftp.jrc.es... 2. I'm sweetening the deal by pointing out that a vegetarian diet won't stand in the way of your personal health goals, and may possibly even provide added benefits. Obviously this isn't something I can predict with 100% certainty, because the only way to be sure of how your particular body will respond to a diet is to try it out for real. But your body is also not entirely alien from other human bodies, so there is validity to pointing out that if you want to feel healthier, a vegetarian diet can be positive step toward that goal. 3a. I was more pointing out that the \"practical strain\" was more on that you tend to forget that I eat differently than you do. Not to insult you and say you always forget or that you don't care about me, but you do have a self-centered approach toward food acquisition source selection. 3b. Actually, as the CO2 study pointed out, \"In general, much of this research has concluded that food, home energy, and transportation together form a large share of most consumers' personal impacts. Of these three, food represents a unique opportunity for consumers to lower their personal impacts due to its high impact, high degree of personal choice, and a lack of long-term 'lock-in' effects which limit consumers' day-to-day choices.\" Thus it makes more sense, from a moral strain perspective, to adjust personal eating habits before abandoning such changes in favor of activism. Also incorporating activism in the form of education and strategic voting would be the \"above and beyond\". http://pubs.acs.org... 3c. Think about it: we could eat vegetarian spaghetti from the same dish, nibbling on one strand of pasta as it brings our noses closer together in a marinara-flavored kiss. http://houston.culturemap.com...", "qid": "33", "docid": "8fa5c306-2019-04-18T18:47:35Z-00003-000", "rank": 19, "score": 131628.0}, {"content": "Title: Everyone should become a vegetarian Content: Well, even though it IS minimal, at least it's something. One of my friends' parents own a farm, and they always wait until the animals die. Yes, they have to wait a long time, but they feel that they should. You do have a point with some of the other sources of protein there, so I won't argue with that. There is, however, another point I'd like to bring up. You don't think we should eat animals such as chicken. But what about fish? They are animals who's life is cut short for our food, yet vegetarians are still willing to eat them. I don't really agree with it being called animal cruelty. They are killed quickly and painlessly, so it can't really be cruelty. Cruelty is when the animals are tortured and in pain, or not being fed. The animals are fed, because otherwise there wouldn't be enough meat on them.", "qid": "33", "docid": "272dfd04-2019-04-18T16:21:30Z-00002-000", "rank": 20, "score": 131052.0}, {"content": "Title: Everyone should become Lacto-vegetarian/vegan Content: First of all you can't force people to eat what they don't want to eat second of all someone has to keep animals in check and that is the human society if all meat eaters stopped eating meat there would be a huge overpopulation of animals third of all human is the most important race and takes priority over all other animals fourth of all many humans depend on meat products dietarily and hunting for financial reasons", "qid": "33", "docid": "2d6e4294-2019-04-18T16:03:38Z-00004-000", "rank": 21, "score": 130934.0}, {"content": "Title: Humans should be vegetarians. Content: Humans should become vegetarians because meat eating and the killing of farm animals (cows, pigs, etc.) is morally incorrect, evolutionary incorrect, and unhealthy. Meat Production also causes issues regarding pollution, deforestation, and excessive land use; all of which are unbeneficial to the increasing human population.", "qid": "33", "docid": "57f0866c-2019-04-18T13:10:45Z-00005-000", "rank": 22, "score": 130188.0}, {"content": "Title: People should not eat animals. Content: Mathnerd: Of your three reasons to be a vegetarian (defined as not eating the flesh of animals, a diet that may or may not include the consumption of eggs and milk) is beneficial to both the vegetarian and to the global community. 1. A vegetarian diet is more healthful. All 13 amino acids and other required nutrients may be obtained easily with very much attention. A vegetarian diet has been shown to decrease chances of cancer and heart disease (because plant foods contain no cholesterol and very little saturated fat). Actually, some veggies contain huge amounts of saturated fats - coconuts for example. So we are in close agreement on point one. 2. Animal agriculture is the number one human-caused source of the greenhouse gas methane, which is 23 times as potent as carbon dioxide. The rearing of cattle and other animals also contributes to the extinction of many species from habitat destruction, erosion caused by over grazing, excess land use compared to vegetable farming, and water pollution and eutrophication from animal waste and fertilized grazing pastures. To say nothing about the higher costs of vegetables because of the reduction of quality arable land. I'm not terribly concerned about green house gases, as I am not a subscriber of human caused Global Warming Theory, but I generally agree with point two. 3. Common animal farming practices are cruel and unsafe. Most people can agree upon this, however, the morality of animal treatment is highly subjective and I would like to not focus too much on whether a chicken has the same feelings of pain, whether it really matters, etc. My divergence from you position is in the inconsistencies of accepting the consumption of milk and eggs and the fact that your profile shows that you are pro-abortion. Chickens that are used for egg production are kept in tight environments, Additionally their beaks are cut back to prevent damage to their crowded-in neighbors. After a very miserable life they are slaughtered for soup, when they are no longer productive. Presumably, they would still be slaughtered for pet food, even if all persons became vegetarians of the egg and milk variety. In the case of milk cows, heifers are welcomed but (male) calves are eschewed as a liability. Right now they are immediately slaughtered for (monkey) veal. Their venerated sisters will calve and produce milk and calve, again until they no longer produce. They then become food for pets. Not a great life either. Lastly, you favor abortion. Forgive me if I presume that your sympathies are reserved for animals. Even though I am not a vegetarian, I try to limit my intake of animal flesh. I disagree with PETA in their \u2018Animal Rights' position. There is certainly, an ethical requirement that we the limit pain and discomfort that farm animals must endure, but animals have no rights. In the other hand . I admire your compassion for animals. Your arguments are well reasoned and strongly stated.", "qid": "33", "docid": "7b65bdc-2019-04-18T19:55:37Z-00004-000", "rank": 23, "score": 130130.0}, {"content": "Title: The World Should Become Vegetarian Content: Vegetarianism is much more \"natural\" than raising living, breathing creatures for slaughter. I have been vegetarian for a little over a year, and I feel better than I have my whole life, so my body obviously does not need meat. If humans converted the land that they use for meat to gardens, the world would have more food and world hunger could be greatly diminished. Breeders feed their animals tons and tons of corn and grain each year, and for only a few pounds of meat, which is a complete waste of food and life.", "qid": "33", "docid": "ac45b77d-2019-04-18T13:38:21Z-00006-000", "rank": 24, "score": 129414.0}, {"content": "Title: Vegetarianism Content: Many farms are raising animals in inhumane conditions by feeding the animals antibiotics and giving the animals extremely limited space. In such conditions a dangerous bacterial called ecoli is created, ecoli can make a someone seriously ill and even lead to death; harmful bacteria such a ecoli can show up in any animal derived ingredient making a becoming a vegan not only a healthier but a safer choice as well. Many people think that becoming a vegan involves giving up protein however you can get protein from foods like almonds and tofu. A varied vegan diet reduces the risk of heart disease, heart attack or stroke, protects against cancers, prevents loss of vision, osteoporosis and assists lowered blood pressure. Plant based diets help to reduce cholesterol and saturated fat, and to increase carotenoids, healthy fiber, vitamin C and folate. Independent scientific studies state that a diet based on the principles of veganism is perfectly adequate for good health throughout one's life.", "qid": "33", "docid": "2e8edb4f-2019-04-18T15:53:37Z-00003-000", "rank": 25, "score": 129240.0}, {"content": "Title: Ben Should Become a Vegetarian Content: 1. The other options I speak of are technological breakthroughs in resource management across the board. Too few people are going to change their eating habits in time, the issue will necessarily blow up on us as it has to in order to enact real change, and the concept here I'm pointing out is a form of \"strategic failing.\" The cultural conversation might more easily shift from \"eat differently\" to \"how should we expect our legislatures to invest\". 2. A \"non-meat majority\" on the food pyramid doesn't make the minority go away any more than this would justify making laws that help only white people because another ethnicity is in the minority. 3a. Simply alternating between veggie and meat friendly places would be a good compromise since as I pointed out the strain is symmetrical. I'm not aware of all the other veggie centric options when going out to eat. I do sympathize with the plight of having limited options on many menus. 3b. I'm not necessarily talking about me, but it would be easier to be more pro-active on the political front than change my desires for meat consumption. Those who are able, driven, and willing should definitely pursue this particular issue in the realm of political change. Important decisions on how to spend our tax dollars to make the world a better place need to be made. There are many big political issues (perhaps too many) that require this kind of attention and those who have the capacity to specialize in each one need to make certain kinds of change amicable to the average person who may share the same values to whatever degree, but can't reasonably be expected to always do something about it. 3c. ...", "qid": "33", "docid": "8fa5c306-2019-04-18T18:47:35Z-00000-000", "rank": 26, "score": 129037.0}, {"content": "Title: Ben Should Become a Vegetarian Content: 1. It is granted that meat products will continue to mean more resources are expended, but I'm not sure that has been shown to matter. My \"admission\" about not consuming much red meat doesn't mean I need to change, since it implies I don't really need to go anywhere if there isn't a problem. When you say I'm partly to blame for the incentive-scape, I agree. However I'm standing in a 90% majority even by that wiki's own numbers, by the most conservative estimate. That's excluding even the \"vegetarian curious\" numbers. Changing people's desires for meat is hard. Other options will be easier. Even if I were to go fully vegan, I'd be forced to be equally realistic. I'd still probably have to conclude the efforts of myself and those like me would not add up to a significant solution. 2. I agree I probably need to eat more vegetables as an omnivore simply because I don't have much of a balanced diet as it is. I really hate vegetables. The veggies I like are either the least like most veggies (corn and carrots) or have to be so chopped up as to be indiscernible from the food I do like that it is mixed in (like salsa). But eating more veggies wouldn't necessarily mean I'd be eating less meat per se. It would probably just mean I'd eat more veggies. I've not seen anything that has come out against a well balanced omnivore diet as far as health goes. All food pyramids still include meat as far as I know. So that's probably a losing argument for your side. 3A. I would say I have a very pragmatic, stripped down, independent approach to diet since I don't like wasting my time on unnecessary efforts. I expect by default everyone to feed themselves as competent and capable adults. Incidentally you happen to have a \"let's cook an elaborate meal and all eat together\" approach which is fine. I suppose I could refuse to cook with you and eat with you in order to maintain the symmetry of my approach and have considered that often. I'm allowing you to make your choices and splitting the difference by accommodating you to an extent. Even if that means waiting to eat, preparing food I don't necessarily like that much, having tons more dishes on a regular basis, and having you complain that I don't do the dishes I didn't want to create, because I know I don't like doing the dishes. And you don't like doing the dishes either in principle, and yet most of the dishes are generated from your approach to meals. So...in terms of practical strain...we'd have to adopt my policies instead of yours. But I don't expect you to change here. 3B. That study also says, \"Shifting less than one day per week's worth of calories from red meat and dairy products to chicken, fish, eggs, or a vegetable-based diet achieves more GHG reduction than buying all locally sourced food.\" This seems to imply much more to large families who are cooking elaborate meals on a daily basis. This goes back to point 1 where I don't eat much red meat anyway and most of it is consumed one day a week on my \"free day.\" I also don't consume much in the way of dairy throughout the week and most of it is again consumed on Saturday. So this debate is a huge red herring as though everyone has to change when some of us just aren't ranking high on the scale to begin with. Most of my elaborate meals are meal options you have chosen and you are a vegetarian. So again, I'm already just by occupying social space and time \"doing my part\" by going with the flow. Dieting is already hard and I often fail on my own terms. I'm not going to make it harder for the sake of nearly hopeless global problems I'm not going to solve. 3C. Like we couldn't do that anyway!", "qid": "33", "docid": "8fa5c306-2019-04-18T18:47:35Z-00002-000", "rank": 27, "score": 128859.0}, {"content": "Title: Veganism is better than eating animal products Content: There was a time when veganism was only known to a select few but now it is becoming a more widespread way of living vs. the SAD ( Standard American Diet) which consists of meats, fish, crustaceans, and animal products such as eggs and milk. People should be vegan because animal flesh and products causes many health problems, modern farms are tearing down the environment, animal flesh and products contain unhealthy properties, the government manipulates people and tricks them, vegans are healthier in general, and veganism reverses diseases as well as preventing them.", "qid": "33", "docid": "62bec489-2019-04-18T16:04:02Z-00003-000", "rank": 28, "score": 128501.0}, {"content": "Title: People should become vegan as a result of possible future advances in artificial intelligence. Content: When robots take over they may kill us as a result of not being vegan. Come on people, do the right thing.", "qid": "33", "docid": "7e9ebc8d-2019-04-18T16:00:51Z-00009-000", "rank": 29, "score": 128188.0}, {"content": "Title: All people should become vegetarian Content: \"Some of the many issues we currently face regarding the environment includes global warming, water and air pollution all of which are directly connected to eating meat. There are many wasted resources, as massive amounts of land, food, energy and water are required to raise animals for food. An area of a rainforest the size of seven football fields is destroyed every minute for those purposes.\" For the purpose of this round I will treat these statistics as true (because they are largely irrelevant) - you may want to link references to your claims however (for any future debates too). \"Vast amount of energy are used for the farming of animals. The operation of factory farms, operation of slaughter houses, transportation of meat to grocery stores and the refrigeration required to keep the meat frozen in shops all require energy in very large amounts.\" Yes we use energy because those processes require it, and the eating of meat being of value to a large majority of individuals. Your standard of action however is unclear. Should we save energy for something else? In which case your argument is moot as energy used is used, regardless of the reason and there are far worse options for energy consumption than fulfilling requirements for survival. See we can't all be farmers, and we don't all own necessary or viable land to cultivate our own produce. Demanding we cut a source of nutrition from somewhere merely requires an additional source to be found, meaning we still use the land for something, we still need additional land as per populace growth, the same as with animal farming. Indeed hypothetically if I had enough land and the ability to reclaim water, decide to be green conscious and plant trees to cover the gas, why shouldn't I farm animals, even if it's at a level to support only myself. Why would *I* then have to be vegetarian? \"A United Nations report from 2006 found that the meat industry produces more greenhouse gases then all cars, trucks, planes and ships in the world combined. \"Greenhouse Gases, we know, can lead to major disasters such as floods, tsunamis and hurricanes.\" Eh debatable - natural cycles of salinity levels are also thought to contribute - as is debatable the nature of greenhouse gases on our environment itself, as well as its outright negatives (we increase rainfall and water is an issue?). The solution however is not to remove those things of value which do not in any meaningful way lead to a negative predictable consequence (knowing if it will impact or when and where hurricanes will occur) - but to be rational when choosing where to live where certain natural disasters are less frequent. :) http://www.thaindian.com... http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov... Hurricanes will occur whether we are here or not, and we may as well try and stop volcanoes for the gases they produce, if they are such a concern. \"A lot of water is used for farming animals. Watering crops, water used for drinking by the animals, cleaning filth in slaughterhouses and factory farms are all ways that water is used. You save more water by not eating 0.5 kg of beef then you do by not showering for an entire year. The usage of water to raise animals for food puts a strain on our already limited supply of water.\" The same argument can be levied against any non pure survivalist action that requires water, even pets. The issue is you have no satisfactory standard for why one should do this, and not any other action that would reduce water consumption, and under your premises any and all non basic water usage should be deemed negative. Nor does it follow even if the premise is accepted, that the solution is to choose an arbitrary element to ban. As humans, we have the distinct unique condition of using our minds as the basic tool of survival. The solution is not, in the case of water, to reduce our standard of living in the vague hope of a future benefit for future some people some where. The ideal situation is to engage those minds willing in finding ways to increase water sources for consumption. Nature is there for us to use. Your argument however reduces to a very basic contradiction. You propose two standards for evaluating action: the environment and the self.However once you recognise the self as the ends of action (for to be good it must be good to someone, not some abstract environment) you must recognise the self as primary over the environment. Either you hold the environment as your primary standard of action (with us as a 'negative' in which case your death, mine, everyones, is the proper conclusion) or you recognise either implicitly or explicitly that an individual is their own ends for ones action, in which case, while one may consider the environment in ones dealings - it is not primary, and actions cannot be demanded of others in sacrifice for it.", "qid": "33", "docid": "107900c0-2019-04-18T19:16:33Z-00002-000", "rank": 30, "score": 127873.0}, {"content": "Title: The World Should Become Vegetarian Content: People crave meat because animal slaughter has been going on for hundreds of years and they have become used to it. However, that does not make it okay to do. The countries that you speak of could use all that land that houses animals as large gardens instead, which would produce more food, raise ethical citizens, and have a healthier society overall. The overpopulation of animals is occurring because of humans. They raise animals in large numbers, which quickly pushes the population way beyond it's natural number. If we stopped eating meat, the demand would go down and so would the overpopulation of animals.", "qid": "33", "docid": "ac45b77d-2019-04-18T13:38:21Z-00004-000", "rank": 31, "score": 126965.0}, {"content": "Title: Humans should be vegetarians. Content: I'll be arguing that the opponent's claim that \"humans should become vegetarian\" is not adequately supported and cannot be upheld. I'll be stating now the assumption that \"vegetarian\" refers to a person who doesn't eat animal meat. I'll furthermore clarify that the word \"should\" implies a moral, ethical and/or pragmatic desirability factor. As such, he is making an objective claim and possesses the Burden of Proof. I look forward to opening arguments.", "qid": "33", "docid": "57f0866c-2019-04-18T13:10:45Z-00006-000", "rank": 32, "score": 126401.0}, {"content": "Title: humans should endeavour to become a vegan species Content: I will be making the argument that we has humans should not ender to become a vegetarian species, that we should remain omnivores. Just like eating too much meat eating only vegetables is unhealthy. You need meat for the following: B12 Calcium Iron Zinc EPA & DHA http://chriskresser.com... While it is true that you can find vegetables with these items the human body does not take them in properly from vegetables, this is why most vegetarian animals spend most of their day eating. however the reason why we should embrace veganism is due to the fact that our current environment and society has enabled us to produce ample supplies of plant foodstuffs without having the need turn to animal foods in desperation and hence allowing ourselves to be freed from the burden of continuing to harm our fellow living creatures. it may have been a neccessity in the history of our species, however this is no longer the case, and we should unite in our determination to end this cruel exploitation of our fellow animal lifeforms. This disregards that the rainforest is being clear cut in part to make farm land. What about all the living plant creatures? How is this not harming them? This argument to me sounds like, \u201cWe should care about all forms of life. Well, other than them plants. Who cares about them?\u201d http://environment.nationalgeographic.com... All of my opponents other arguments disregard that there are other options to carnivorous eating than live stock. It is less wasteful if you raise insects on the waste from farms. This turns that waste into soil. Then we could eat the insects.", "qid": "33", "docid": "3be655b-2019-04-18T15:25:31Z-00003-000", "rank": 33, "score": 126176.0}, {"content": "Title: People should become vegan as a result of possible future advances in artificial intelligence. Content: My opponent's failure to understand how an AI would consume energy is at the point of sillyness now. Either he is trolling or just fails to use any effort to understand my argument. My opponent fails to really even address my Wylted's wager argument and I should win on this point alone. He fails to discredit the expert opinions I've brought forth and he's failed to provide any expert opinion of his own, and it's too late to do so because any new arguments in the final round would be unfair.\"He must show what causes will lead a super AI into becoming human-hungry, and further that by explaining how it will decide that based off dietary habits.\"I've answered this same exact rebuttal several times and in different ways. My opponent hasn't shown any flaws in my logic in regards to how I have previously answered it and has pretty much ignored my counter rebuttals. I'll repeat what I said again in a different way.My sources have shown there is a huge effort to create a friendly AI and that AI would have some sort of moral compass. The AI might not care where it gets energy from, it just wants energy. It could potentially create a technology that consumes all matter on the planet just to feed it and make it grow even stronger and smarter. With that being said, it could justify eating all human omnivores, but would have a hard time justifying consuming a vegan. Remember it needs justification to overcome the friendly AI program written in it.\". It is not explained what gaining all means or what one gains. \"Yes it was and the explanation was ignored. I explained it in round 2 and it was ignored. I'll explain it again. Gaining everything means gaining immortality and I cited the expert opinion of people like Ray Kurzweil to prove my point. http://www.thatsreallypossible.com... My opponent's arguments this far have misunderstood my points (probably intentionally), has not challenged the scientific and expert opinions I've given, and has failed to really address Wylted's wager. As silly as my conclusion may seem. My logic is both valid and sound. It has remained virtually unchallenged and as a result I should win argument and source points.", "qid": "33", "docid": "7e9ebc8d-2019-04-18T16:00:51Z-00001-000", "rank": 34, "score": 125548.0}, {"content": "Title: The whole world should be vegan Content: Everyone being vegan is not going to create a better society, it would just exacarbate a food shortage that is killing people around the world. 7 billion people need to be fed, and more are being created every day. Being vegan is a luxury and wouldn't solve any problems at all. I don't understand why you say that \"the world would a much more loving place\" when, really, being vegan is not going to make people more loving. In my opinion, you aren't thinking about experiences beyond your own, where eating meat is how people survive.", "qid": "33", "docid": "24d32b74-2019-04-18T15:50:48Z-00003-000", "rank": 35, "score": 125472.0}, {"content": "Title: Ben Should Become a Vegetarian Content: 1. I don't consume much red meat to begin with and that is creating the largest issue on your first graph. You still consume dairy products and that creates a much larger issue (if I'm understanding the chart correctly) than how much chicken I eat (which would be more than my consumption of red meat by far). You link to an article about the UN conducting a study on the environmental impacts of meat consumption, yet that is dated. The UN admitted to important flaws in the report (http://www.telegraph.co.uk...) and concludes instead: \"efforts should be focused on \"smarter farming, not less farming\". There will likely always be more incentive to refine our farming techniques and invent new geo-engineering technologies than to change our meat eating habits and so as a culture pursuing the former rather than the latter is a better use of time and effort. 2. That study is commenting on the question of whether vegetarian diets are feasible and noting those health benefits. That doesn't invalidate every other kind of diet. 3A. This is just as much an argument for you to become an omnivore again, as it is for me to convert to your diet. Our culture simply has more meat options and the practical strain argument would seem to lean in my favor. 3B. There is reduced moral strain when we recognize the realistic limits of what we can do. We are not in a particularly potent position of pushing forward for new geo-engineering technologies or farming techniques that will have the most impact on issues like climate change and resource management. We can promote education as local activists instead and when politicians are running on the right issues we can vote them in as well as collectively pressure for those policies. 3C. This is your most tempting proposal, but I'm afraid there are still plenty of ways to make our friends suffer under the tyranny of our joint cuteness. ;)", "qid": "33", "docid": "8fa5c306-2019-04-18T18:47:35Z-00004-000", "rank": 36, "score": 125318.0}, {"content": "Title: Vegetarianism: we should stop eating other animals. Content: The type of vegetarian that we are debating about is someone who is lacto-vegetarian that means they eat dairy products; but no eggs or meat. There are many reasons for being vegetarian and not only because you feel that have had the animals deserved a better life. There are health benefits from being vegetarian as well as solving many world food shortages. Also becoming vegetarian would help the world as well as you, like global warming could e reduced (assuming this is an accepted theory), and if everyone became vegetarian there would be better water supplies throughout the world, being vegetarian can also save you money. Being vegetarian is healthy, Vegetarians are usually lean and strong, because knowing that they cannot eat some things, the watch their diet more than the average person does. Vegetarians rarely have vitamin deficiencies because the foods that they are leaving out don't have many vitamins to start with. Also within meat there are bad things such as fat and drugs that the animal has taken in. I an average stake contains 9.5 grams of fat [1], that is over half of your daily guidance, which clearly is a good reason for not eating too much meat to start with. On top of this the animals that you are eating as a non vegetarian are being filled with drugs and chemicals to make them grow faster, these when consumed in large amounts can make you feel ill and drowsy. There are many other illnesses that you can get from meat, like Osteoporosis, Kidney Stones and Gallstones, Diabetes, Multiple Sclerosis, Arthritis, Gum disease, and acne can be caused. This is all because of poor animal fodder. If you were under the impression that meat is good for you there is another problem that faces you which is an excess in protein. The average American eats 400% of the RDA for protein which can cause excess nitrogen in the blood that causes host of long-term health problems [2]. If you are a vegetarian and you don't eat meat, then you also save money, meat is more expensive than vegetables and other vegetarian foods. Also because you are healthy, for the reasons of being healthy see above, you don't have to spend as much money on healthcare as you otherwise would have had to. Reasons to become a vegetarian based on environmental factors is that the production of meat costs more fossil fuel emissions and other bad gasses then producing vegetables. We can also conserve water by eating more vegetables and less meat. \"It takes 3-15 times more water to produce animal protein as it does plant protein. \" [2]. To help human food resources we can eat more grains. This is because for 100 acres of land we will produce enough beef for 20 people the same amount of land and we can feed 240 people. With the excess food we can feed a lot of starving people. [3] [1] . http://www.weightlossresources.co.uk... [2] . http://www.britishmeat.com... [3] . http://www.flex.com...", "qid": "33", "docid": "8aed976f-2019-04-18T19:15:00Z-00003-000", "rank": 37, "score": 125301.0}, {"content": "Title: People should become vegan as a result of possible future advances in artificial intelligence. Content: With AI All Things Are Possible I know my opponent doesn't like me using the word possible, but when it comes to predicting the future it is reasonable. We don't know what tomorrow brings, but with the help of experts in philosophy and AI such as Ray Kurzweil and Nick Bostrom we can make some intelligent and highly probable guesses. I've used citations from some of the world's leading experts on AI, and yet my opponent refuses to refute them. If experts working in these fields believe a super AI is inevitable in our lifetime, why does my opponent disagree? What's the worst likely thing that can happen if you become vegan. If an unfriendly super AI never develops, the worst thing that happens is that you have transitioned to a healthier diet http://www.nursingdegree.net... A diet that is better for the environment. http://ezinearticles.com... It's beyond common sense that veganism is more humane. So the worst thing that happens if my scenario is false is still a bunch of good stuff, but if I'm right and an unfriendly super AI develops, what you'll experience after this \"singularity\" is immortality. http://www.thatsreallypossible.com... This is the expert opinion of Aubrey De Grey, Ray Kurzweil and many other experts mentioned in the article. this is basically a reworking of Pascal's wager. I call it............ Wylted's Wager An unfriendly super AI that wants to consume us for energy either will deveop or won't A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up. According to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions. You must wager (it is not optional). Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that the unfriendly super AI will develop. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that an unfriendly super AI will develop. (...) There is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain. (excerpts from Pens\u00e9es, part III, \u00a7233, which has had a few words swapped out) Human It's What's For Dinner A super AI is most likely to come from a human level AI, contnually upgrading it's self until a singularity is reached. The more memory the computer needs the more energy it will need. The super AI may just eat everything in its path without concern for what it is. However it may have a moral code, since a huge effort is being made to insure a friendly AI is developed. If we can live with high morals it may avoid consuming us for energy either indefinitely or very last.", "qid": "33", "docid": "7e9ebc8d-2019-04-18T16:00:51Z-00005-000", "rank": 38, "score": 124828.0}, {"content": "Title: I Can Make You Become a Vegetarian Content: I partially watched the video as asked, but found that it had little impact on my feelings towards meat. I was already well aware of the bitter things that occur in slaughterhouses to put food on our plates; I find it is a necessary evil to maintain a healthy lifestyle with all the nutrients you need to survive. Vegetarians must take extra precautions to gain every nutrient the human body requires. [1] The resolution was that Pro would turn me vegetarian. This has not happened; I will continue to eat meat. Thank you for the quick debate. [1] - http://www.medicinenet.com...", "qid": "33", "docid": "625b4e3a-2019-04-18T16:35:50Z-00000-000", "rank": 39, "score": 124261.0}, {"content": "Title: THW become Vegetarians Content: Thanks for your last round. I will say my argumentsone last time then I wil say why I won and finish the debate. 1. You\u2019ll ward off disease. Vegetarian diets are more healthful than the average American diet, particularly in preventing, treating or reversing heart disease and reducing the risk of cancer. A low-fat vegetarian diet is the single most effective way to stop the progression of coronary artery disease or prevent it entirely. Cardiovascular disease kills 1 million Americans annually and is the leading cause of death in the United States. But the mortality rate for cardiovascular disease is lower in vegetarians than in nonvegetarians, says Joel Fuhrman, MD, author of Eat to Live: The Revolutionary Formula for Fast and Sustained Weight Loss. A vegetarian diet is inherently healthful because vegetarians consume less animal fat and cholesterol (vegans consume no animal fat or cholesterol) and instead consume more fiber and more antioxidant-rich produce\u2014\u2014another great reason to listen to Mom and eat your veggies! 2. You\u2019ll keep your weight down. The standard American diet\u2014high in saturated fats and processed foods and low in plant-based foods and complex carbohydrates\u2014\u2014is making us fat and killing us slowly. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and a division of the CDC, the National Center for Health Statistics, 64 percent of adults and 15 percent of children aged 6 to 19 are overweight and are at risk of weight-related ailments including heart disease, stroke and diabetes. A study conducted from 1986 to 1992 by Dean Ornish, MD, president and director of the Preventive Medicine Research Institute in Sausalito, California, found that overweight people who followed a low-fat, vegetarian diet lost an average of 24 pounds in the first year and kept off that weight 5 years later. They lost the weight without counting calories or carbs and without measuring portions or feeling hungry. 3. You\u2019ll live longer. If you switch from the standard American diet to a vegetarian diet, you can add about 13 healthy years to your life, says Michael F. Roizen, MD, author of The RealAge Diet: Make Yourself Younger with What You Eat. \u201dPeople who consume saturated, four-legged fat have a shorter life span and more disability at the end of their lives. Animal products clog your arteries, zap your energy and slow down your immune system. Meat eaters also experience accelerated cognitive and sexual dysfunction at a younger age.\u201d 4.You\u2019ll build strong bones. When there isn\u2019\u2019t enough calcium in the bloodstream, our bodies will leach it from existing bone. The metabolic result is that our skeletons will become porous and lose strength over time. Most health care practitioners recommend that we increase our intake of calcium the way nature intended\u2014\u2014through foods. Foods also supply other nutrients such as phosphorus, magnesium and vitamin D that are necessary for the body to absorb and use calcium. People who are mildly lactose-intolerant can often enjoy small amounts of dairy products such as yogurt, cheese and lactose-free milk. But if you avoid dairy altogether, you can still get a healthful dose of calcium from dry beans, tofu, soymilk and dark green vegetables such as broccoli, kale, collards and turnip greens. 5. You\u2019ll ease the symptoms of menopause. Many foods contain nutrients beneficial to perimenopausal and menopausal women. Certain foods are rich in phytoestrogens, the plant-based chemical compounds that mimic the behavior of estrogen. Since phytoestrogens can increase and decrease estrogen and progesterone levels, maintaining a balance of them in your diet helps ensure a more comfortable passage through menopause. Soy is by far the most abundant natural source of phytoestrogens, but these compounds also can be found in hundreds of other foods such as apples, beets, cherries, dates, garlic, olives, plums, raspberries, squash and yams. Because menopause is also associated with weight gain and a slowed metabolism, a low-fat, high-fiber vegetarian diet can help ward off extra pounds. 6. You\u2019ll have more energy. Good nutrition generates more usable energy\u2014\u2014energy to keep pace with the kids, tackle that home improvement project or have better sex more often, Michael F. Roizen, MD, says in The RealAge Diet. Too much fat in your bloodstream means that arteries won\u2019\u2019t open properly and that your muscles won\u2019\u2019t get enough oxygen. The result? You feel zapped. Balanced vegetarian diets are naturally free of cholesterol-laden, artery-clogging animal products that physically slow us down and keep us hitting the snooze button morning after morning. And because whole grains, legumes, fruits and vegetables are so high in complex carbohydrates, they supply the body with plenty of energizing fuel. 7. You\u2019ll help reduce pollution. Some people become vegetarians after realizing the devastation that the meat industry is having on the environment. According to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), chemical and animal waste runoff from factory farms is responsible for more than 173,000 miles of polluted rivers and streams. Runoff from farmlands is one of the greatest threats to water quality today. Agricultural activities that cause pollution include confined animal facilities, plowing, pesticide spraying, irrigation, fertilizing and harvesting. 8. You\u2019ll help reduce famine. About 70 percent of all grain produced in the United States is fed to animals raised for slaughter. The 7 billion livestock animals in the United States consume five times as much grain as is consumed directly by the American population. \u201cIf all the grain currently fed to livestock were consumed directly by people, the number of people who could be fed would be nearly 800 million,\u201d says David Pimentel, professor of ecology at Cornell University. If the grain were exported, it would boost the US trade balance by $80 billion a year. 9. You\u2019ll spare animals. Many vegetarians give up meat because of their concern for animals. Ten billion animals are slaughtered for human consumption each year. And, unlike the farms of yesteryear where animals roamed freely, today most animals are factory farmed: \u2014crammed into cages where they can barely move and fed a diet tainted with pesticides and antibiotics. These animals spend their entire lives in crates or stalls so small that they can\u2019\u2019t even turn around. Farmed animals are not protected from cruelty under the law\u2014\u2014in fact, the majority of state anticruelty laws specifically exempt farm animals from basic humane protection. 10. You\u2019ll save money. Meat accounts for 10 percent of Americans\u2019\u2019 food spending. Eating vegetables, grains and fruits in place of the 200 pounds of beef, chicken and fish each nonvegetarian eats annually would cut individual food bills by an average of $4,000 a year.11. Save the planet: Meat is not green. Consuming meat is actually one of the worst things that you can do for the Earth. It is wasteful and causes enormous amounts of pollution, and the meat industry is also one of the biggest causes of climate change. Adopting a vegan diet is more effective than switching to a \u201cgreener\u201d car in the fight against climate change. I should win this debate because I made strong arguments saying that it is good for you and also it is healty. I rebutted all of Con's Points saying that you can still have protein without eating meat.Therefore, I hope everyone votes for Pro!!!", "qid": "33", "docid": "d98175c5-2019-04-18T14:27:13Z-00000-000", "rank": 40, "score": 124159.0}, {"content": "Title: Everyone should become a vegetarian Content: But because of everyone that eats meat there is a huge effect on the animals. Not only are they killed but also for e.g. Chickens are fed steroids and other harmful chemicals in order for them to grow fast enough to sustain our wants. There are some chickens who are built so much out of chemicals that they don't even have heads yet can produce eggs. This isn't natural. Animals are being harms because of our selfishness. Therefore by making everyone vegetarian we will stop this cruelty to animals.", "qid": "33", "docid": "272dfd04-2019-04-18T16:21:30Z-00005-000", "rank": 41, "score": 124060.0}, {"content": "Title: Should People Become Vegetarian Content: Many people disagree over the topic of vegetarianism, as it is a very controversial topic. There is little doubt that all people should become vegetarian. This claim is justified by the fact that vegetarianism is much better for the environment. According to procon.org, producing one hamburger clears 55 square feet of rainforest. Every year, the U.S. imports thousands of tons of Brazilian beef, most of which was raised on rainforest-cleared land. This is a disaster. As intelligent beings, it is ridiculous that we are clearing rich, biologically diverse lands in order to create more flat, dead land for beef production. Our rainforests are precious and dwindling, and eating should not mean consuming meat abundantly, without thought for the consequences. We have moved on to the age where we are conscious of our effects in the world, the age where our desires aren\"t above the needs of our planet. Vegetarianism is a choice that reflects that.", "qid": "33", "docid": "7eabc63c-2019-04-18T12:18:12Z-00002-000", "rank": 42, "score": 123425.0}, {"content": "Title: Ben Should Become a Vegetarian Content: 1. What other options? If they're so awesome, why aren't they accessible to people like ourselves?Your last bit seems to rely upon \"but it's still not a big enough impact to help, so why bother?\" By eating meat, you're actively doing something; by not, you're passively not doing something. Say a house in Joplin was severely damaged in the tornado. You not doing something isn't really going to help, it seems, so why bother? But does that mean you're okay to throw a rock through one of the windows and smash it up more? Or what about a store that lost most of its inventory - do you steal an item because they won't notice the difference anyway? There'd be one way those actions are acceptable: if you have rock-solid proof that the house is a lost cause and will be demolished anyway, or the store owner said he's cutting his losses and to just take what you like. (\"Oh crap, I didn't think you were using that house anymore\" doesn't cut it, in other words.) As you don't seem to have a strong evidence-based platform upon which to stand free of guilt (that is, nobody's given us the \"all clear\" to go ahead and eat meat without remorse), I'd conclude that you must be compartmentalizing your ethical knowledge from your emotional decision-making process.2. All those food pyramids? Um... no. http://www.mypyramid.gov... The current official food pyramid itself says \"choose more fish, beans, peas, nuts, and seeds\". That's quite clearly a non-meat majority. Also, check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org...3a. Either you don't know what \"food acquisition source selection\" means, or you're deliberately changing the subject. I'm saying it sucks when you really want to eat out, and then I have to choose between putting my foot down and demanding you choose a more accommodating restaurant to desire, or else suck it up and \"enjoy\" yet another supper of french fries and a cheap-o salad (or if I'm really lucky, onion rings and baked beans). If you were vegetarian too, those other options wouldn't even be on your radar, and so we could both be enthusiastic about a food source which actually caters to both our diet. Or else you could develop far more empathy for the vegetarian lifestyle. Though I have a feeling if you did that, you'd simply find conversion to vegetarianism to be the natural course of action.3b. Again with the changing the subject. I wasn't talking about red meat, I was talking about which aspects of people's lifestyles have been proved to be the easiest to customize. You seem to think that it's actually easier to go out of your way to be a political activist than it is to simply buy different food at the store (and that somehow the prier affects more change than the latter). Last I checked, the grocery store is FULL of foods containing no meat. Walls and walls of foods. If only political activism were as easy as buying the ingredients for a bean burrito with fresh salsa. But it's not. If I'm going to buy the \"vegetarianism is the harder path to take toward change\", I'd better see a viable and convincing easier path laid out before me, and so far I haven't seen anything but a dream and a prayer.3c. So get on it! I haven't been woo'd with romantic noms in years.", "qid": "33", "docid": "8fa5c306-2019-04-18T18:47:35Z-00001-000", "rank": 43, "score": 123409.0}, {"content": "Title: Everyone should be vegetarian. Content: Yes, I know what global warming is. The mass killing of animals contributes to global warming because they need factories to produce the products made from them, and those factories contribute to global warming. Also, the workers at the slaughter houses are usually lower class people who are paid poorly for a job that they really don't want. It is scientifically impossible to eat meat while on a vegetarian diet, because that would defeat the whole purpose of the vegetarian diet and thus would not be called a vegetarian diet. A lion usually does not shove the zebra into a cage and torture it. I have been a vegetarian since birth, and I am perfectly healthy. I get protein and other vitamins and minerals from a variety of plant based sources.", "qid": "33", "docid": "8eeab760-2019-04-18T16:21:32Z-00005-000", "rank": 44, "score": 123123.0}, {"content": "Title: Why People Should Be Vegetarian Content: We kill plants but we know it's wrong. Plants are just like us. They need water and food just like us. We're pretty much killing our own kind. Acting like cannablisms. Those plants are in need of help. We need to stop eating plants so we can save more plants in the near future. See, it works this way too.", "qid": "33", "docid": "970346b5-2019-04-18T16:22:22Z-00004-000", "rank": 45, "score": 122522.0}, {"content": "Title: Vegetarianism is good for your health Content: Sorry I thought \"vegan\" was short form of \"vegetarian\". I'm not saying that being a vegetarian ALWAYS means bad health. I mainly state that being vegetarian has a risk of a lot of medical conditions. \"Omega 3 fatty acids are not necessary, especially in a vegetarian diet. I know they do the body good but that is to fight off problems caused by poor diet to begin with.\" Depression can happen to anyone, so can Alzheimer's disease. Baby development could become bad with poor nutrition but Omega 3 helps it become better, not prevents it to become bad. As for asthma and blood fat, you can get it with poor nutrition but Omega 3 will help prevent it as a bonus and anyway, its better to just eat a fish than to go checking out everything to keep your nutrition perfect. And anyway, there is nothing BAD about eating fish anyway. \"Most vegetarians do consume dairy products, thus not vegans.\" Even eating dairy products will not stop you overall eating more carbs than a normal person. On most websites its says that vegetarians get about 70-80% of their calories from carbs, whereas the healthy average should be 50% carbs, 20% protein and 30% fat. I also have a weight program (I use it for fun mainly). I used it when I had an assignment about the same topic, and whenever I did a vegetarian diet, I ended up with too much carbs. That also means that you get low fat and protein, which makes it double bad. True that is their source of protein, I agree, I can't say no. But my main statement of my argument is that meat does no harm. Eating raw meat is bad for you and causes problems, so is eating too much (both cooked and low cooked). So if you eat well cooked meat, and eat it the right amount, the problems associated with meat are very low, but the problems associated with NOT eating meat are way more. And anyway the Omega 3 fatty acid, B12, animal protein and creatine come in as a bonus, whereas being non-vegetarian never excluded vegetarian foods, so its got their vitamins and health stuff too.", "qid": "33", "docid": "129ce23f-2019-04-18T15:31:47Z-00003-000", "rank": 46, "score": 121711.0}, {"content": "Title: Everyone should be vegetarian. Content: I apologize to my opponent for forfeiting the last round. I did not get my argument posted in time. My conclusion is that if everyone went vegetarian, it would save a lot of animal's lives and it would give less money to huge industries. :)", "qid": "33", "docid": "8eeab760-2019-04-18T16:21:32Z-00000-000", "rank": 47, "score": 121663.0}, {"content": "Title: THW become Vegetarians Content: My responses will be short for now, and much more in depth next round. It is currently 3 in the morning and I will post what I have, and post the next later C1) \"You\"ll ward off disease. Vegetarian diets are more healthful than the average American diet, particularly in preventing, treating or reversing heart disease and reducing the risk of cancer.\" I would like to ask my opponent How it is more healthful when they are eliminating the most important source for them to actually live. They also state how vegetarians consume less oils and fat. However, without meat we have an insufficient level of omega-3 fatty acids. A paper published in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition claims that vegetarians have lower levels long-chain omega-3 fatty acids, particularly EPA and DHA and with insufficient amounts, it can actually harm the cardiovascular health. They say vegetarian diets have lowered this, but we see in common knowledge that is is actually making them higher. My opponents assume that heavy meat eaters would have a higher risk of developing colorectal cancer but a review published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition of the aforementioned Oxford study reveals, \"Within the study, the incidence of all cancers combined was lower among vegetarians than among meat eaters, but the incidence of colorectal cancer was higher in vegetarians than in meat eaters.\" This proves that being vegetarian does not help any health factors throughout this whole debate and should be dropped. C2) \"You\"ll keep your weight down. The standard American diet\"high in saturated fats and processed foods and low in plant-based foods and complex carbohydrates\"\"is making us fat and killing us slowly.\" Let me remind the viewers again that my opponents seem to be missing the point. Vegetarians stop eating protein. With the lack of protein, they compensate and try to fill up all that protein with carbs. With this, there are much more chances of vegetarians actually gaining weight rather than loosing. They say that not being vegetarians will make us overweight. However this is not merely important. With this there is a solution to both Omnivores and vegetarians: exercising. This argument is completely irrelevant to the whole vegetarian topic. They are proving us the harms of not being vegetarian. However, this argument is showing us that because we are not vegetarian, we are now obese. This is not true. There are so many reasons to why people are actually obese, which is fast food restaurants, ads, etc. but our debate is not talking about any of those factors. For this, their obesity argument falls. C3) You\"ll live longer Let me again remind the viewers that with these harms, it may cause death within these unbeneficial factors of vegetarian diets. With that, chances of living longer are slim, if we take in the factors lost from not eating meat. C4) You\"ll build strong bones While it\"s possible for vegetarians to consume adequate amounts of protein, calcium, iron and vitamin D to ensure proper muscle and bone development, one study concluded that vegetarians had approximately 5 percent lower bone-mineral density (BMD) than non-vegetarians. The results of the study, the authors conclude, suggest that vegetarian diets \" especially vegan diets \" are associated with lower BMD. From this, the \"stronger bones\" argument falls There are even chances that without being vegan, you can still build strong bones. It would rather be better to not be vegan and have stronger bones, with the contribution of protein and much more variety of selections. I will have to stop it here, for my eyes are weary and my mind is hazy I look forward to the refutations. More rebuttals to be posted next round!!", "qid": "33", "docid": "d98175c5-2019-04-18T14:27:13Z-00003-000", "rank": 48, "score": 121661.0}, {"content": "Title: We should all be vegans Content: I never denied that humans are herbivores. That's correct. But we can handle cooked meat so there shouldn't be any problem with eating it. It all comes down to what we choose and wish to eat. We don't NEED to eat meat, but we do because we enjoy it. Bringing up the topic of lifespan isn't really necessary; people who eat candy and chips all day likely know it's unhealthy and that it will affect them negatively in the future but they do it anyways. \"Also, if everyone went vegan, the environment would flourish.\" How so? Please give examples if you can. Overall, people should have the choice to be vegan or not rather than forced to do so. Encouraged, yes. Forced, no. You see, barely anyone except who agrees with you cares about your opinion. Unfortunately, that's how life works. So go ahead and wish all you like that people would change their diets, but a large majority of people won't care about what YOU want THEM to eat.", "qid": "33", "docid": "55477f4b-2019-04-18T11:29:19Z-00006-000", "rank": 49, "score": 121422.0}, {"content": "Title: The World Should Become Vegetarian Content: However, people still crave meat, why is that? Because it's natural. If humans weren't made to eat meat they wouldn't crave it. Also, a lot of countries entire industry is built in the export or import of animal for slaughter, and raising the animals ourselves is a lot better than going out into the wild and depleting natural species. And, human consumption of meat plays a vital role in the ecosystem, we diminish overpopulating species.", "qid": "33", "docid": "ac45b77d-2019-04-18T13:38:21Z-00005-000", "rank": 50, "score": 121139.0}, {"content": "Title: Humans should be vegetarians. Content: Remaining Round 4 Sources[4] http://michaelbluejay.com...[5] http://www.onegreenplanet.org...My opponent forfeit their previous round, therefore my evidence stands unrebut. In conclusion, humans should become vegetarian and expel the killing of farm animals because it would promote kindness and compassion. Humans have arrived at the point in which meat isn't required in order to survive, and poorly preapred meat can result in obesity and high blood cholestoral. Furthermore, raw meat can cause sickness for humans, whereas it doesn't cause as much sickness for omnivores and carnivores. Lastly, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence to prove that livestock causes pollution, deforestation, and excessive land use.I enjoyed this debate despite my opponent's forfeit. Thank you to all viewers and voters of this intriguing discussion!", "qid": "33", "docid": "57f0866c-2019-04-18T13:10:45Z-00000-000", "rank": 51, "score": 120983.0}, {"content": "Title: Vegetarianism is wrong. Eating meat is the way to live. Content: There are many reasons that people have for becoming a vegetarian. I believe I have heard all of them, but none of them have seemed to hold up against logical scrutiny. From health issues to ethical issues, all of the arguments that have been attempted have some major flaw. In this forum, I will attempt to point out the fallacies in all of these arguments. My challenge is for someone to give me a logical reason to become a vegetarian. I, in turn, will review the reason and give a refutation.", "qid": "33", "docid": "d0e3a01f-2019-04-18T19:52:17Z-00008-000", "rank": 52, "score": 120471.0}, {"content": "Title: go vegetarian Content: There are problems with being vegetarian", "qid": "33", "docid": "b801a11e-2019-04-15T20:24:33Z-00001-000", "rank": 53, "score": 120332.0}, {"content": "Title: Everyone should be vegetarian. Content: In conclusion, there is no reason for everyone to go vegetarian. It effects the enviornement, can create dangerous situations and force people into poverty.", "qid": "33", "docid": "8eeab760-2019-04-18T16:21:32Z-00001-000", "rank": 54, "score": 120322.0}, {"content": "Title: To Be or Not to Be... Vegetarian? I say veggo is the way to go! Content: The first set of reasons listed deal with the amount of food that can be produced by eliminating the meat industry. These arguments are intended to show that a vegetarian lifestyle adopted by everyone would save a large number of people. The last reason listed is \"1,000,000,000 people in the west gorging on meat & dairy leave 1,000,000,000 to waste away & 3,500,000,000 teeter on the brink.\" But now it is time to escape this tunnel vision and look at other aspects. First and foremost, there are already over 6.7 billion people on this planet. If the human population on the planet is out of whack, then it is clearly the result of TOO MANY people. Now you want everyone to take up a vegetarian diet to add MORE people to this planet? If those one billion people didn't waste away, we would have close to eight billion people on the planet. Perhaps you are under the impression that saving everyone is a good thing, but nothing could be further from the truth. People need to die. If we use flex.com's suggestions, humans would soon become overpopulated. In biology, every population has a limit known as the carrying capacity (symbolized by the letter k). Once this limit is reached, a rapid decline in the population occurs (i.e. mass death). So in the end, flex.com's method would kill many more people than the ones that currently starve. Moving on to the section on land, it is true that a lot of land is cleared for farming. But the world in which we live is very opportunistic when it comes to land. Eliminating meat industries will not give that land back to nature. It would simply be used for a factory, real estate, or some other business venture. In the section on air, there is much talk of the methane produced by cattle. I still have yet to hear why the methane from cattle is different from that of other animals. Furthermore, methane has always been around, long before global warming. If global warming is in fact true, I doubt that the key culprit will turn out to be cow farts. And reasons such as \"Fertilizer, weedkiller & pesticides sprayed on crops enter the atmosphere creating a noxious carcinogenic cocktail\" have nothing to do with the meat industry. The section on water seems to talk a great deal about wasting water. But in reality, water constantly cycles and is usually redistributed properly through nature (droughts and dry spells are not a constant occurrence). There is also mention of the waste that ends up in rivers and such through the meat industry. But such things occur in nature constantly, and singling out the waste in rivers from meat industries makes no sense. Furthermore, are sentences such as \"The water used to produce a 1000 lb beef steer is enough to float a Destroyer battleship\" really supporting vegetarianism? It seems more like a fun fact to me. The section on efficiency speaks of wasting energy for meat production (which cannot actually occur due to the law of conservation of energy). It also mentions crops that are wasted by feeding them to animals. But if this were actually the case, if the crops fed to animals really wasted too much, then why oh why does the government still pay farmers to burn excess crops? If the crops are still produced with so much surplus that farmers must burn them in order to maintain supply and demand, then feeding crops to the animals cannot be anywhere near as wasteful as you or the website claim. Moving on to the section on animals, I will not deny that there are many cruel practices listed here. But why these practices lead to the conclusion that one must become a vegetarian is beyond me. It would seem to make just as much sense to by organic meats that do not use such practices, or to eat meat without an industry such as venison. The section on health starts off with a correlation, which does not show any type of causation. Vegetarians may be shown to live longer, but there is no evidence that this is caused by their diet. There are many correlations that can be found where one factor is not dependent on the other. For example, there is a real correlation between the amount of babies crying and the amount of ice cream consumed by people on any given day. Does the sound of babies crying make people want to eat ice cream? Does the act of eating ice cream cause babies to cry? The answer to both of these questions is obviously no. There is an external factor (in this case, heat) and that doesn't make the correlation less real. So a vegetarian living longer shows nothing. And the addendum \"and they don't get sick as often\" is something for which I would like to see evidence. I have never known a vegetarian that was healthy or less sick than others. If anything, the case was the opposite. Other things mentioned in the health section once again do not account for organic meat. The antibiotics, hormones, toxins, and pesticides would not be present in organic meat. Many of the other reasons are also correlational. Other reasons listed deal with nutrition. But nutritionists are not scientists. They use correlations to show causation, they do not use the same terms as everyone else in the science world, and most importantly their claims are non-falsifiable. I have already shown that correlations do not show causation. Let's now look at the calorie (something nutritionists speak of often). A calorie is a unit of heat energy equivalent to 4.184 joules. One thousand such units, or 4,184 joules is known to the rest of the scientific community as a kilocalorie. But not the nutritionists. They have decided to call the kilocalorie a calorie, and therefore cannot communicate with other sciences in scientific jargon since they have assigned their own meanings to terms. The next point is key: if something cannot be falsified it is not science. A nutritionist may claim that some type of diet will cause people to live longer while another causes early death. Yet when they are shown a person that lived to 95 on a diet that supposedly causes early death, they do not admit defeat. Rather, they make some stupid claim such as \"Well, if he was on a healthy diet he probably would've lived to 110\" or some other such nonsense. So I cannot take nutritionists seriously, and that is the majority of the health section. Nevertheless, even using nutrition as an argument fails when one studies physiology. In truth, a vegetarian or vegan diet is not healthy. The amount of iron that vegetarians receive is much lower than that of meat-eaters. Iron is needed to bind to hemoglobin and carry oxygen throughout the body. In fact, there have been cases where a vegetarian diet has led to anemia because of the lack of iron. The site seems to come down on dairy as well, so I assume that it is promoting a vegan diet. With this comes a further problem. Vitamin B12 (aka cobalamin) can only be found in animal products. It is necessary for two reasons: it works in conjunction with folic acid to create red blood cells and it is essential to the production of myelin which coats the axons of neurons. So health is not achieved by vegetarians or vegans. It is achieved with a well-balanced diet. There is nothing wrong with following one's nature. Humans are natural omnivores. Eating that which we are meant to eat by nature is the way to go.", "qid": "33", "docid": "f0feb825-2019-04-18T19:38:53Z-00002-000", "rank": 55, "score": 120170.0}, {"content": "Title: THW become Vegetarians Content: Thank you for posting your argument.I have many reasons that can support by why vegetables are good. 1. You\u2019ll ward off disease. Vegetarian diets are more healthful than the average American diet, particularly in preventing, treating or reversing heart disease and reducing the risk of cancer. A low-fat vegetarian diet is the single most effective way to stop the progression of coronary artery disease or prevent it entirely. Cardiovascular disease kills 1 million Americans annually and is the leading cause of death in the United States. But the mortality rate for cardiovascular disease is lower in vegetarians than in nonvegetarians, says Joel Fuhrman, MD, author of Eat to Live: The Revolutionary Formula for Fast and Sustained Weight Loss. A vegetarian diet is inherently healthful because vegetarians consume less animal fat and cholesterol (vegans consume no animal fat or cholesterol) and instead consume more fiber and more antioxidant-rich produce\u2014\u2014another great reason to listen to Mom and eat your veggies! 2. You\u2019ll keep your weight down. The standard American diet\u2014high in saturated fats and processed foods and low in plant-based foods and complex carbohydrates\u2014\u2014is making us fat and killing us slowly. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and a division of the CDC, the National Center for Health Statistics, 64 percent of adults and 15 percent of children aged 6 to 19 are overweight and are at risk of weight-related ailments including heart disease, stroke and diabetes. A study conducted from 1986 to 1992 by Dean Ornish, MD, president and director of the Preventive Medicine Research Institute in Sausalito, California, found that overweight people who followed a low-fat, vegetarian diet lost an average of 24 pounds in the first year and kept off that weight 5 years later. They lost the weight without counting calories or carbs and without measuring portions or feeling hungry. 3. You\u2019ll live longer. If you switch from the standard American diet to a vegetarian diet, you can add about 13 healthy years to your life, says Michael F. Roizen, MD, author of The RealAge Diet: Make Yourself Younger with What You Eat. \u201dPeople who consume saturated, four-legged fat have a shorter life span and more disability at the end of their lives. Animal products clog your arteries, zap your energy and slow down your immune system. Meat eaters also experience accelerated cognitive and sexual dysfunction at a younger age.\u201d 4.You\u2019ll build strong bones. When there isn\u2019\u2019t enough calcium in the bloodstream, our bodies will leach it from existing bone. The metabolic result is that our skeletons will become porous and lose strength over time. Most health care practitioners recommend that we increase our intake of calcium the way nature intended\u2014\u2014through foods. Foods also supply other nutrients such as phosphorus, magnesium and vitamin D that are necessary for the body to absorb and use calcium. People who are mildly lactose-intolerant can often enjoy small amounts of dairy products such as yogurt, cheese and lactose-free milk. But if you avoid dairy altogether, you can still get a healthful dose of calcium from dry beans, tofu, soymilk and dark green vegetables such as broccoli, kale, collards and turnip greens. 5. You\u2019ll ease the symptoms of menopause. Many foods contain nutrients beneficial to perimenopausal and menopausal women. Certain foods are rich in phytoestrogens, the plant-based chemical compounds that mimic the behavior of estrogen. Since phytoestrogens can increase and decrease estrogen and progesterone levels, maintaining a balance of them in your diet helps ensure a more comfortable passage through menopause. Soy is by far the most abundant natural source of phytoestrogens, but these compounds also can be found in hundreds of other foods such as apples, beets, cherries, dates, garlic, olives, plums, raspberries, squash and yams. Because menopause is also associated with weight gain and a slowed metabolism, a low-fat, high-fiber vegetarian diet can help ward off extra pounds. 6. You\u2019ll have more energy. Good nutrition generates more usable energy\u2014\u2014energy to keep pace with the kids, tackle that home improvement project or have better sex more often, Michael F. Roizen, MD, says in The RealAge Diet. Too much fat in your bloodstream means that arteries won\u2019\u2019t open properly and that your muscles won\u2019\u2019t get enough oxygen. The result? You feel zapped. Balanced vegetarian diets are naturally free of cholesterol-laden, artery-clogging animal products that physically slow us down and keep us hitting the snooze button morning after morning. And because whole grains, legumes, fruits and vegetables are so high in complex carbohydrates, they supply the body with plenty of energizing fuel. 7. You\u2019ll help reduce pollution. Some people become vegetarians after realizing the devastation that the meat industry is having on the environment. According to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), chemical and animal waste runoff from factory farms is responsible for more than 173,000 miles of polluted rivers and streams. Runoff from farmlands is one of the greatest threats to water quality today. Agricultural activities that cause pollution include confined animal facilities, plowing, pesticide spraying, irrigation, fertilizing and harvesting. 8. You\u2019ll help reduce famine. About 70 percent of all grain produced in the United States is fed to animals raised for slaughter. The 7 billion livestock animals in the United States consume five times as much grain as is consumed directly by the American population. \u201cIf all the grain currently fed to livestock were consumed directly by people, the number of people who could be fed would be nearly 800 million,\u201d says David Pimentel, professor of ecology at Cornell University. If the grain were exported, it would boost the US trade balance by $80 billion a year. 9. You\u2019ll spare animals. Many vegetarians give up meat because of their concern for animals. Ten billion animals are slaughtered for human consumption each year. And, unlike the farms of yesteryear where animals roamed freely, today most animals are factory farmed: \u2014crammed into cages where they can barely move and fed a diet tainted with pesticides and antibiotics. These animals spend their entire lives in crates or stalls so small that they can\u2019\u2019t even turn around. Farmed animals are not protected from cruelty under the law\u2014\u2014in fact, the majority of state anticruelty laws specifically exempt farm animals from basic humane protection. 10. You\u2019ll save money. Meat accounts for 10 percent of Americans\u2019\u2019 food spending. Eating vegetables, grains and fruits in place of the 200 pounds of beef, chicken and fish each nonvegetarian eats annually would cut individual food bills by an average of $4,000 a year.11. Save the planet: Meat is not green. Consuming meat is actually one of the worst things that you can do for the Earth. It is wasteful and causes enormous amounts of pollution, and the meat industry is also one of the biggest causes of climate change. Adopting a vegan diet is more effective than switching to a \u201cgreener\u201d car in the fight against climate change. My rebuttal will be in the next round.Sources:http://kidshealth.org...http://www.peta.org...http://www.happycow.net...http://www.huffingtonpost.com...http://www.brown.edu...http://www.vegetariantimes.com...http://www.britishmeat.com...;", "qid": "33", "docid": "d98175c5-2019-04-18T14:27:13Z-00004-000", "rank": 56, "score": 120042.0}, {"content": "Title: Vegetarianism is a Necessary Lifestyle Choice to Lead a Perfectly Ethical Life Content: 1) There is no nutrient in meat that cannot be found in a vegetarian diet. No one can deny this. 2) There is no disease where eating meat is required for the treatment or cure of the disease. 3) Therefore, eating meat is absolutely unnecessary. 4) Eating meat causes death to other animals, obviously. And, despite attempts to make slaughter \"humane\", whether it be \"kosher\", \"halal\" or otherwise, it quite probably, or even certainly, causes stress and pain as well. 5) Therefore, eating meat is immoral and unethical. And abhorrently selfish, since the person who eats meat does so only for the hedonistic and temporary satisfaction of his taste buds. Especially when there are so many vegetarian and tasteful alternatives (from meatless and healthful soy products to traditional Indian dishes). 6) There is more than enough cruelty in the world as it is; there is no need to add to it, unnecessarily. The Hunger Argument Number of people worldwide who will die as a result of malnutrition this year: 20,000,000 Number of people who could be adequately fed using land freed if Americans reduced their intake of meat by 10%: 100,000,000 Percentage of corn grown in the U.S. eaten by people: 20% Percentage of corn grown in the U.S. eaten by livestock: 80% Percentage of oats grown in the U.S. eaten by livestock: 95% Percentage of protein wasted by cycling grain through livestock: 90% How frequently a child dies as a result of malnutrition: every 2.3 seconds Pounds of potatoes that can be grown on an acre: 40,000 Pounds of beef produced on an acre: 250 Percentage of U.S. farmland devoted to beef production: 56 Pounds of grain and soybeans needed to produce a pound of edible flesh from feedlot beef: 16 he Environmental Argument Cause of global warming: greenhouse effect Primary cause of greenhouse effect: carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels Fossil fuels needed to produce meat-centered diet vs. a meat-free diet: 3 times more Percentage of U.S. topsoil lost to date: 75% Percentage of U.S. topsoil loss directly related to livestock raising: 85% Number of acres of U.S. forest cleared for cropland to produce meat-centered diet: 260,000,000 Amount of meat imported to U.S. annually from Central and South America: 300,000,000 pounds Percentage of Central American children under the age of five who are undernourished: 75% Area of tropical rainforest consumed in every quarter-pound of rainforest beef: 55 square feet Current rate of species extinction due to destruction of tropical rainforests for meat grazing and other uses: 1,000 per year The Cancer Argument Increased risk of breast cancer for women who eat meat daily compared to less than once a week: 3.8 times For women who eat eggs daily compared to once a week: 2.8 times Increased risk of fatal ovarian cancer for women who eat eggs 3 or more times a week vs. less than once a week: 3 times Increased risk of fatal prostate cancer for men who consume meat, cheese, eggs and milk daily vs. sparingly or not at all: 3.6 times. The Cholesterol Argument Number of U.S. medical schools: 125 Number requiring a course in nutrition: 30 Nutrition training received by average U.S. physician during four years in medical school: 2.5 hours Most common cause of death in the U.S.: heart attack How frequently a heart attack kills in the U.S.: every 45 seconds Average U.S. man's risk of death from heart attack: 50% Risk of average U.S. man who eats no meat: 15% Risk of average U.S. man who eats no meat, dairy or eggs: 4% Amount you reduce risk of heart attack if you reduce consumption of meat, dairy and eggs by 10 percent: 9% Amount you reduce risk of heart attack if you reduce consumption by 50 percent: 45% Amount you reduce risk if you eliminate meat, dairy and eggs from your diet: 90% Average cholesterol level of people eating meat-centered-diet: 210 mg/dl Chance of dying from heart disease if you are male and your blood cholesterol level is 210 mg/dl: greater than 50% The Natural Resources Argument Uses of more than half of all water used for all purposes in the U.S.: livestock production Amount of water used in production of the average cow: sufficient to float a U.S. Navy Destroyer Gallons of water needed to produce a pound of wheat: 25 Gallons of water needed to produce a pound of California beef: 5,000 Years the world's known oil reserves would last if every human ate a meat-centered diet: 13 Years they would last if human beings no longer ate meat: 260 Calories of fossil fuel expended to get 1 calorie of protein from beef: 78 To get 1 calorie of protein from soybeans: 2 Percentage of all raw materials (base products of farming, forestry and mining, including fossil fuels) consumed by U.S. that is devoted to the production of livestock: 33% Percentage of all raw materials consumed by the U.S. needed to produce a complete vegetarian diet: 2% The Antibiotic Argument Percentage of U.S. antibiotics fed to livestock: 55% Percentage of staphylococci infections resistant to penicillin in 1960: 13% Percentage resistant in 1988: 91% Response of European Economic Community to routine feeding of antibiotics to livestock: ban Response of U.S. meat and pharmaceutical industries to routine feeding of antibiotics to livestock: full and complete support The Pesticide Argument Common misconception: U.S. Department of Agriculture protects our health through meat inspection Reality: fewer than 1 out of every 250,000 slaughtered animals is tested for toxic chemical residues Percentage of U.S. mother's milk containing significant levels of DDT: 99% Percentage of U.S. vegetarian mother's milk containing significant levels of DDT: 8% Contamination of breast milk, due to chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides in animal products, found in meat-eating mothers vs. non-meat eating mothers: 35 times higher Amount of Dieldrin ingested by the average breast-fed American infant: 9 times the permissible level The Ethical Argument Number of animals killed for meat per hour in the U.S.: 660,000 Occupation with highest turnover rate in U.S.: slaughterhouse worker Occupation with highest rate of on-the-job-injury in U.S.: slaughterhouse worker The Survival Argument Athlete to win Ironman Triathlon more than twice: Dave Scott (6 time winner) Food choice of Dave Scott: Vegetarian Largest meat eater that ever lived: Tyrannosaurus Rex (Where is he today?) Sources... http://www.ethicalvegetarian.com...", "qid": "33", "docid": "39d70d06-2019-04-18T18:53:26Z-00004-000", "rank": 57, "score": 119863.0}, {"content": "Title: Vegetarianism: A Positive Lifestyle. Content: Rebuttal for argument #1: Firstly, vegetarianism only encompasses the eating of meat, seafood, insects, and flesh of any other animal. Dairy, and eggs are only blocked out through what is known as a vegan diet, where any animal product is essentially avoided. As for the case of discrimination, the majority of restaurants out there now offer vegetarian options, and if you have friends out there who chose to discriminate against you for the choices you make in your diet, then they simply aren't your real friends. Moreover, we should not teach people to give up on their convictions because they are afraid of being made fun of and/or discriminated against . Any great person in history had someone over their shoulder telling them that they couldn't achieve what they wanted; Shakespeare, Jesus, Nelson Mandela, etc. We should be teaching people to push through with what they believe, and therefore the idea of not pursuing a vegetarian diet out of fear of discrimination is harmful to the way society is structured. In summary, if a person is being discriminated against, then we as a society have failed to implement proper moral values into the individuals discriminating. Besides, people can get discriminated against for anything; however, the idea of being made fun of for having different moral beliefs and/or health concerns is slightly ridiculous, and the individual that is causing said discrimination, is nothing more than a bully that should be stopped. In summary, discrimination should never be an issue when defining ones own lifestyle, and if it is, then the person being discriminated against should be supported, not told to abandon their beliefs. Rebuttal for argument #2: Malnutrition is technically caused by not eating enough food. Starvation is a form of malnutrition. In the United states alone, %67 of soy and %40 of corn produced goes towards raising animals for meat. In a ratio, that essentially means that 13 pounds of grains go into one pound EDIBLE meat. The reason that \"edible\" was capitalized is because not all meat produced in first world countries is edible. Think of it this way, millions of animals die before they reach slaughterhouses, and even if they are killed for their meat, there are constantly meat recalls occurring all over North America. So in those cases, grain is essentially being thrown away. And even when meat is produced, 12 pounds of grain is being lost, as again, the ratio is 13:1. PETA actually calculated last year that if the grain is diverted, we could end world hunger, and so, malnutrition wouldn't be an issue, if the meat trade was closed down. Furthermore, there are many studies that show that vegetarianism is very healthy. Not only are vegetarians less likely to contract certain kinds of cancer, but also have a decreased risk of being obese, becoming diabetic, and dying of heart diseases. Moreover, when it comes to children, teenagers, and the elderly, yes it is more difficult; however, it can still be done. Take Jim Morris as an example. Jim is a 78 year old vegan body-builder. Personally, I'm 16 years old, and have been vegetarian for nearly a year now. I'm very athletic, as shown by my black-belt, competitive swimming history, and finished multi-kilometer races. So although being a vegetarian and a teenager, elderly person, or child is more difficult, it certainly is not impossible. Rebuttal for argument #3: People who eat fish are not vegetarian, they are known as pescetarians. Also, the majority of vegetarians do not eat insects. Although it is a questionable debate among vegetarians, people who eat insects are a whole other category, and do not come under the banner of, \"vegetarian.\" Furthermore, whether eggs can be considered meat is another debate; however, the eggs that are sold as a source of food are unfertilized. An unfertilized egg is essentially a chicken's period or menstruation, meaning that it isn't alive, part of anything that is alive, or have the potential to grow into life, nor does it have any flesh, and therefore, it cannot be considered meat. Thus, vegetarians are not hypocrites, as fish and insects are prohibited in the diet, and eggs are not biologically considered meat to begin with. Rebuttal for argument #4: Yes, food companies that raise and sell meat will crash; however, what people tend not to realize is that vegetarians need to consume more food than non-vegetarians. Where does said food come from? Well the fruit, vegetable and grain industry essentially. That means that although the meat industry will fall, the industries listed above will rise dramatically. This has the potential to open up huge amounts of jobs. Furthermore, people who work directly with animals are often exposed to a large amount of feces, bacteria, and methane, three things that can be extremely hazardous to a person's health. Thus, not only would there be other jobs opening if the meat industry closed, but these jobs would also be a lot safer for the workers. Thus, vegetarianism is an extremely positive lifestyle that can improve the world in many ways.", "qid": "33", "docid": "8e65f903-2019-04-18T15:34:23Z-00000-000", "rank": 58, "score": 119760.0}, {"content": "Title: People should stop eating meat. Content: One reason to go vegetarian or Vegan is that it's good for the environment. I strongly believe that and know for a fact that factory farms are taking away water and using it for there large unnecessary quantity of animals. I find it horrible to eat and innocent creature that once had a soul and a beating heart.", "qid": "33", "docid": "c6d799ed-2019-04-18T14:24:09Z-00004-000", "rank": 59, "score": 119388.0}, {"content": "Title: Vegan diet is by whole a healthier way of life than any other diet Content: I concede that a super well-educated, highly intelligent nutritionist could make veganism a healthier way of life than other diet choices. However we must face the sad fact that this group of people is a tiny majority. Most people struggle with the idea of where their food comes from, let alone protein, vitamin and mineral content. So for the average person, being vegan poses a serious risk. Whereas when you eat a wide range of foods (as is inevitable if you have no dietary preferences), it's actually quite difficult to avoid a nutrient entirely, if you are a vegan, it is simply much easier. If you exclude fish from your diet, you exclude omega 3s and 6s, when you exclude meat, you exclude primary sources of protein, when you exclude milk, you exclude a crucial source of calcium... So the list goes on. If you make sufficient compensation for these issues, it is not a problem. However the majority of people don't appreciate the wide range of nutrients you end up omitting from your diet when you become vegan. Even for those who do, sometimes alternative foods have to be taken in such enormous quantities that its just impractical. Daily buckets of chickpeas simply aren't always the most efficient to ingest sufficient protein. So while, in theory, being vegan avoids health problems like cardiovascular disease (often caused by too much animal fats) it is not a healthier way of life. Suggesting that it is a healthier way of life entirely fails to address the fact that cardiovascular disease and problems with over consumption are often replaced with the equally dangerous problems that come with under consumption. Nutrient deficiency, protein deficiency and even starvation are just a few of the problems that omitting so many food groups can inadvertently cause. Another flaw in your argument is the fact that you seem to think becoming vegan will magically make your entire lifestyle healthier, not just your diet. This is quite simply not true. Taking all animal products out of your diet will not do one iota to change how much time you spend on the couch, how many times you go running a week or whether you walk or take the car. A healthy lifestyle is so much more than diet and therefore it is impossible to say that changing one aspect of your diet will have a magical knock on effect on the rest of your life choices.", "qid": "33", "docid": "3c52ccf2-2019-04-18T11:39:16Z-00001-000", "rank": 60, "score": 119101.0}, {"content": "Title: Everyone should become Lacto-vegetarian/vegan Content: I cannot argue further for this round as you have made no attempt to extend my arguments.", "qid": "33", "docid": "2d6e4294-2019-04-18T16:03:38Z-00002-000", "rank": 61, "score": 119079.0}, {"content": "Title: The human race would be better off if everyone decided to be vegetarian. Content: It would be a progressive step for the human race for as many people as possible to begin following vegetarian plant based diets. I think this is something that will inevitably happen over the next few hundred years.", "qid": "33", "docid": "b66b3ad1-2019-04-18T17:41:33Z-00005-000", "rank": 62, "score": 119018.0}, {"content": "Title: People should become vegan as a result of possible future advances in artificial intelligence. Content: I must say, this argument made be chuckle a bit. Wylted seems to have brought upon a battle with his Elo being his only weapon.It was a good effort, however no amount of Elo will make a false statement any more true.I. Cross-Examination Right off the bat there is a major issue with Pro's Contentions. In nearly every statement there is a word like 'possibility' or 'potentially' and even 'predict'.Generally in an argument, you need to support it with empirical evidence, not with highly suggestive statements. Granted, the resolution does state that this event is a 'possibility' it also implies that this possibility is big enough that humans 'should' become vegans. For example, it is highly unlikely, though possible, that plants will spontaneously evolve into an intelligent entity and will kill all of those who ate their ancestors. So why don't we prepare for that too? For that matter why not just prepare for every possible life-threatening event? Build our houses out of solid steel, completely switch to clean power, imprison everybody to prevent rape and murder. You see, there is a plethora of possible and sometimes likely bad events that us humans refuse to prepare for. We like our wood houses, easy energy, and freedom. We are not ready to throw this all away for a mere possibility. Much less an unlikely one like AI domination.Now on to the clean-up.\"A computer with a super AI could potentially see us as energy and consume us so they can grow more powerful and stronger.\"Wouldn't an easier solution just be to not give these robots a mouth or human-based energy tanks? We made the robots, there is no need to give them things they don't absolutely require. Also why would a robot give itself a mouth when it is being given plenty of food already. If it was given a mouth why would humans be a source of energy and not the trillions of plants on this world? \"Who are very inferior in intelligence. The best way to convince a machine not to use you as a food source is if you're a vegan.\"Think about what humans mostly eat. We eat cow, pig, chicken, lamb, clams, and sometimes deer. Notice something about all of these animals? They are all herbivores. We could simply tell the robots that we only eat mostly herbivores, with a few exceptions. So you should only eat herbivores too. Also, how is a cow being a herbivore convincing us not to eat it? That lacks logical sense. \"A vegan can argue that it's wrong without being hypocritical.\"There is little difference between eating plants and animals. Both are life forms and both are being consumed by eating. A robot would not discriminate life forms. Vegans are also guilty of eating life and cannot say that robots shouldn't do the same.Due to the absurdly low word count, I have to close up here. However Pro's second contention can be simply argued that us being in a simulated environment is unlikely at best and is unsupported in any way by my opponent.II. Closing remarks Pro uses possibility too much. Out of words. Good luck.", "qid": "33", "docid": "7e9ebc8d-2019-04-18T16:00:51Z-00006-000", "rank": 63, "score": 118931.0}, {"content": "Title: The World Should Become Vegetarian Content: I sincerely believe the world should not become vegetarian, for one, it's just not natural. Swearing off something you were made to do, something your body needs.", "qid": "33", "docid": "ac45b77d-2019-04-18T13:38:21Z-00007-000", "rank": 64, "score": 118918.0}, {"content": "Title: People should become vegan as a result of possible future advances in artificial intelligence. Content: Thankfully, my opponent kept this last argument short. I shall follow suit. \"FOOD FOR THOUGHT\" Again, my opponent resorts to mere assumption. He cannot show that any of this consumption will happen or is likely to happen.Say I agree, AI will require energy to survive. Pro still has to show a few things.1. This energy will likely come from humans2. This AI will discriminate it's energy source by using the \" You eat life so I will to.\" logic.3. This AI will even be capable of consuming humans. (Who's to say that this Super AI will not simply be a computer?)4. Of all matter in the world, this AI would likely choose humans as a good energy source. Even though we will resist and are in fewer quantities than say plants.Basically, Pro has completely failed to support his claim. He speculates. More about what could happen and less about what is likely to happen.\"THE EMPIRICAL HAS NO CLOTHES\"Also a fairly naked argument (get it?). We live in a world of cause and effect. A cause leads to an effect which is then a cause for another effect. Therefore, in order to know the effect, you must know the cause.Everything is predictable, granted every possible cause is known. Since is is fairly impossible to know every factor causing an effect, we must take the causes we know and estimate the outcome.My opponent tries to shed his need to provide observable evidence (causes) to prove his claim (the effect). He does this by assuming uncertainty and piping that as a substitute for observable evidence. My opponent is not relieved of his BoP simply because of uncertainty. He must show what causes will lead a super AI into becoming human-hungry, and further that by explaining how it will decide that based off dietary habits.All of his attempts to do so (demonstrating morality, showing the possibility of rogue robots, and even suggesting we are being simulated) have been either refuted, unlikely, or irrelevant. Again, Pro needed to show the observable causes to support this AI. His sources have shown likely causes of revolting AI or computer simulation, but have shown nothing about veganism or human consumption. Wylted's Wager I didn't initially address this for a couple of reasons. For one, I ran out of character room. Secondly, it seems pretty silly and unreasonable.Forgive for being so simple minded but I fail to see how this Wager applies to this debate.First off, we are assuming that a super AI will/will not develop based off of a 50% chance. Heads or tails.Secondly we're assuming I can defend neither proposition, obviously false but I'll play along.Thirdly we're assuming the I must wager. Again, obviously not required but I'll humor poor old Wylted here. Finally we're assuming that either possibility will be either a gain or a loss. Here's where the problem emerges. It is not explained what gaining all means or what one gains. There also lacks an explanation of how one is to gain or lose. Which scenario is which? Not explained. Infinite happiness? Infinite gain?Not explained.", "qid": "33", "docid": "7e9ebc8d-2019-04-18T16:00:51Z-00002-000", "rank": 65, "score": 118895.0}, {"content": "Title: Humans should be vegetarians. Content: Round 1: Rules and position clarification. Round 2: Opening Statements. Rounds 3 and 4: Evidence/Rebuttals Round 5: Closing statements. I will be arguing that humans should become vegetarian.", "qid": "33", "docid": "57f0866c-2019-04-18T13:10:45Z-00007-000", "rank": 66, "score": 118793.0}, {"content": "Title: Vegetarianism is good for your health Content: \"Also being a vegan will cause you to naturally eat more carbohydrates which will cause you to become overweight as well\" This is about vegetarianism not veganism. Most vegetarians do consume dairy products, thus not vegans. \"Beans and nuts DO have protein but a person can't live with dairy foods, beans and nuts.\" That is their form of protein but with that and fruits and vegetables they can get a complete diet with everything they need in it. Omega 3 fatty acids are not necessary, especially in a vegetarian diet. I know they do the body good but that is to fight off problems caused by poor diet to begin with. So why not prevent the problem to not need a solution (omega 3 fatty acids as the solution) to begin with? You seem to argue that vegetarians can not be healthy due to a lack of meat protein and other nutrients found only in meat. However the existence of healthy vegetarians suggests that to be incorrect. Here is a list of famous vegetarians. http://en.wikipedia.org... It is a rather long list that includes people from all walks of life. Some are even professional athletes like Herschel Walker, obviously a healthy man. As with an omnivore diet, vegetarians must watch what they eat and have a well balanced diet. They can be healthy and are many times less likely to suffer from the many ailments associated with meat consumption.", "qid": "33", "docid": "129ce23f-2019-04-18T15:31:47Z-00004-000", "rank": 67, "score": 118621.0}, {"content": "Title: Everyone should be vegetarian. Content: Thanks for the response. In this debate, some of my refutations shall be later explained in my later arguments. If such occurs, it will be shown. (ex. [argument 69])REFUTATIONS\"I think that everyone should become vegetarian because killing off all of these animals is cruel, harming the environment, contributing to global warming, and just plain wrong.\" Here is precisely where you are completly false. Killing is wrong, however if it is neccesary for humans [argument 1]. So in a way, it is not cruel to kill animals if it is neccesary and aids you body. Furthermore, workers at slaughter houses kill animals, not the consumer. So the consumer is not killing the animal. It is not harming the environnement, because it is done with animals breeded specifically for meat. How does such effect the enviornnement? Simple, it doesn't. And it has no relation whatsoever to global warming. I doubt you even know what global warming is. Global warming, to say it quickly is when the atmosphere becomes thicker due to green house gases, preventing the heat from UV rays from leaving the earth, thus heating up the earth. [1] How do killing animals have anything to do with global warming?\". It has also been proven that vegetarian diets can reduce the risk of heart disease, and are healthier than omnivorous diets.\"Being omnivorous, you can still have a vegetarian diet, and eat meat in moderation. Because of such, we can have these benefits in a omnivorous diet, while still being alowed to eat meat.\"Many people think that it is just part of nature, but since when is nature considered as shoving animals into cages and pens so small that they can't even move?\" It is natural because it is important for humans. This is just like saying if a lion eats a zebra it's unatural because the lion killed the zebra.ARGUMENTSArgument 1: Humans have omnivorous digestive systems. [2] Meat has plenty of protein, which is important for stregthening the bones and muscles in the body. There is also many of B6, Iron, Zinc, Selenium and more. Eating the correct amount of meat, we are staying healthy, and gaining many healthy nutrients. So meat helps stregthen out bodies and provides various imporant nutrients that are difficult to find in only vegetables. So being vegetarian, we wouldn't have all these benefits, being omnivorous, we gain all these benefits and more.Argument 2: Being omnivorous, you are now open to eating any possible meal. Because of such, you would have a greater variety of possible things to eat, whereas being vegetarian, you have a difficult time finding specific foods. So if everyone was vegetarian, the amount of possible foods would be less.Argument 3: Many people would lose their jobs if everyone went vegetarian. Butchers, slaughterhouse employees and livestock farmers would lose their jobs and land. This would bring millions into poverty. If every went vegetarian, the amount of people living in poverty would increase.======================================================================================================= In conclusion, forcing everyone to go vegetarian would not be beneficial. Many would lose their jobs, have toruble getting the important nutrients they need, and have a smaller variety of possible meals, making them pickier. My opponent presented no proof whatsoever on her arguments, and I already proved them all wrong.Sources:1.http://www.nrdc.org...2.http://authoritynutrition.com...;", "qid": "33", "docid": "8eeab760-2019-04-18T16:21:32Z-00006-000", "rank": 68, "score": 118588.0}, {"content": "Title: Why People Should Be Vegetarian Content: Nice reasoning. But plants aren't that special. It's bad to eat plants but it ain't a living creature is it. When you kill it does it make sounds of pain. No plants don't because plants don't feel pain. Animals do. There living things and plants are too but there not that important. We could just plant more and more plants and they will just keep producing. Animals though they do make more of there kind but if we keep the rate of killing animals there will be no more meat on this planet.", "qid": "33", "docid": "970346b5-2019-04-18T16:22:22Z-00003-000", "rank": 69, "score": 118572.0}, {"content": "Title: Going Vegan Content: Vegans don't eat, use, wear, purchase or otherwise consume anything of animal origin whatsoever . Like vegetarians, vegans don't eat meat or slaughter by products, but they also don't eat dairy products, eggs or honey. They don't wear leather, suede, wool, silk, fur, down, feathers or pearls. They source cosmetics, toiletries and other consumer goods that are made without animal ingredients and without animal testing, and they don't support industries that exploit animals for entertainment, like circuses or rodeos. People should become vegan because it is a better lifestyle and that way we don't harm or kill animals.", "qid": "33", "docid": "9eb1940a-2019-04-18T17:01:16Z-00004-000", "rank": 70, "score": 118481.0}, {"content": "Title: Vegetarianism: A Positive Lifestyle. Content: As you have listed your arguments for the second round, so will I; rebuttals will begin in the third round. Essentially, in the third round, I rebuttal your arguments in round two, and you do the same as well. If you agree to these simple rules, then I will be respectful of your future arguments. Vegetarianism is not a positive life-style, rather it a negative one that not only has negative effects towards the self, but also towards others. Because you were so kind to list out your arguments, then so will I as well in the following below: 1)Discourages consumption of other food groups 2)Results in malnutrition for neglect of other food groups 3)Vegetarians are still contributing to meat consumption 4)Loss of business for food companies of other food groups Argument #1: By becoming a vegetarian, one would only eat foods that are considered non-meat and will avoid eating foods of other food groups as a result. Fruits, vegetables, and grains would still be eaten, but dairy, meat, and alternative food groups would not. By not eating these other food groups, it will cause bad habits in the vegetarian which will eventually result in them becoming \"picky-eaters\". Not only does being picky have negative health effects, but it also makes one become discriminated against when eating with others and/or in public. Though people will not directly discriminate you for being picky, they will do it behind your back to the point they do not realize they are showing it to you directly, and when you notice, let us just say that it would bring down your self-esteem. And when your self-esteem is lowered due to the discrimination of being a vegetarian, even more negative health effects will arise, as well as negative effects towards your brain emotionally, mentally, and psychologically. Argument #2: Getting into my next point, one of the negative effects of being a picky eater is malnutrition, or simply lacking the sufficient amount of nutrients needed by your body to survive, grow, and develop. Many that live in less fortunate countries within Africa, Latin America, Middle East, and Asia Pacific are diagnosed with malnutrition as a result of being forced to become a vegetarian because of the lack of meat, dairy, alternatives, etc. Even those that live in developed countries suffer of being malnutrition if they avoid certain food groups as that in itself will result in negative health effects, such as anorexia, obesity, diabetes, and so on. If the vegetarian is a child, teenager, or a senior, it will only increase the risk of getting the negative effects that come along with being malnutrition, as children and adolescents depend heavily on getting nutrients from different food groups in order to properly grow and develop. Argument #3: An ethical question that arises from being a vegetarian is whether or not vegetarians are true plant eaters as they claim to be. But in fact, they are not; they will still continue to eat meat so long as it is not categorized as meat and/or separated as its own food group or section in a super-market. Because such vegetarians are not true herbivores and are still omnivores, they still contribute to the eating of meat. Some foods that are scientifically proven to be meat but rejected by vegetarians include: seafood, fish, eggs, and insects. Since many of the foods they eat are still considered meat, vegetarians contradict themselves and are extremely hypocritical when stating they do not eat meat, when in reality, some of the foods they eat is considered meat. Not only are vegetarians hypocritical and continue to eat meat, they do not go by the definition of a vegetarian - only herbivores are true vegetarians that eat fruits, vegetables, and plants, never eating any meat (whether or not it is considered meat by vegetarians) as it will negatively harm their body and overall health. Argument #4:Finally, being a vegetarian will cause food companies that raise and sell meat for a living to run out of business. If, hypothetically, nobody in the world would eat meat, then the \"meat\" industry would simply crash. What happens if it crashes? No supermarkets and grocery stores would be willing to sell meat ever again. Those companies would become bankrupt and forced to lay countless workers off. Those workers would no longer have jobs and would suffer financially as their experience cannot land them better jobs than they had. The economy would also be hugely affected as food is one of the most important industries that determines how well an economy is doing. A bad economy would simply cause economic \"epidemics\", and soon everybody would be affected financially. It would also make the country itself weaker, with a weaker government, military, health-care, and so on. Inflation costs would rise, the currency would drop, social services would decline, unemployment would decrease; you get the idea. Being a vegetarian will eventually quicken this negative tragedy from occurring if many were to convert to vegetarianism. Again, being a vegetarian is not a good life-style as it causes so much negative effects. Please argue my rebuttal in the next round and I will do the same.", "qid": "33", "docid": "8e65f903-2019-04-18T15:34:23Z-00001-000", "rank": 71, "score": 118382.0}, {"content": "Title: Everyone should become a vegetarian Content: First of all forcing an animal to eat items that messes up the way their body works is sick. Forcefully producing offspring that are so deformed to the extent that they lack basic needed body parts is animal crulty. It's wonderful to hear that your friends, dad is not following out this system and that he take care of the animals he has been blessed with. But I want to ask you a question. Does this man produce chicken for a big company. Is his farm one of the places that give majority of the animals that we find in our local stores. The answer is more than likely.. No. The reason why I asked this is small farms like that don't affect what the public eat to a large extent. The people that follow out this form of animal crulty is those that work on large farms with hundreds and thousands of workers that work long hours each day. It's the company's that then give there produce to other company's and eventually end up on our dinner plates. It's these people that don't have time to wait for the chicken to live a long and happy life. It's these people that need the chicken to be bing NOW. It's these people that pump chemicals etc. into the animal. And this does not only happen to chickens it could also be done to any of place that we get our meat from for example, a cow or an ostrich. The point that I want to get to is that these people produce the food we end up with, unless we are rich and can spend money on organic food. The two problems here is A) we end up eating food that is poisonous to a certain extent B) the way we get our food is through animal crulty As I have said before. This is a privilege. We abused it. So it's time to live without it. To respond to what you said about the fish. Well if we follow this system out (making everyone a vegeterian)we will not offer fish as food just like how we don't offer dog as food. Just a note on the side line: thanks for debating with me. You have helped me to a great extent.", "qid": "33", "docid": "272dfd04-2019-04-18T16:21:30Z-00001-000", "rank": 72, "score": 118147.0}, {"content": "Title: THW become Vegetarians Content: In our society, we now have vegetarians. Humanity sees every good side in vegetarians. However, not everything good is good. I believe that becoming vegetarian has much more harms rather than benefits. THW become vegetarian Definitions: This house- America Become- begin to be in the next 3 years Vegetarian- a person who does not eat meat, and other animal products. Rules apply: 1. Forfeiting results in a loss of conduct or possibly the debate 2. Sources should be within the character limits 3. No round structures apply. However, no new arguments in the final round 4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere (No trolling, swear words, conceding on purpose, etc.) 5. My opponent accepts all of the following definitions and waives his/her right to challenge these definitions 6.BoP is shared Round 1 -Acceptance and/or questions regarding the resolution. (NO ARGUMENTS PRESENTED) Any questions, please ask in the comments.", "qid": "33", "docid": "d98175c5-2019-04-18T14:27:13Z-00007-000", "rank": 73, "score": 118034.0}, {"content": "Title: Animals should no longer be killed Content: Animals are being abused all over the world. A few days ago, a gorilla got shot for \"attacking\" a child. But when we eat a cow, you don't see anyone killing us. We have an unfair advantage. If one person becomes vegetarian, that wont help. Many people should become vegetarian. There is an animal called the amur leopard. It is the most endangered animal ever with less than 60 individuals left. This problem conspicuous yet noone does something about it.", "qid": "33", "docid": "58007153-2019-04-18T13:11:04Z-00005-000", "rank": 74, "score": 117998.0}, {"content": "Title: Vegetarianism: we should stop eating other animals. Content: I would like to address the counter point that you have brought up. Being vegetarian, to be precise a lacto vegetarian, means that the only things you are giving up is meat and eggs. This means that you still are eating all dairy products and other animal products. This is a key fact in this debate because being this type of vegetarian makes it that much easier for the individual to get the nutrients that he or she needs. Because the individual is missing out on only meat and eggs, as a researcher you must find what nutrients are prominent in each product. Meat contains mainly fats, proteins and iron. Each of these can be replaced in other food sources. The same goes for eggs, they contain mainly proteins fat and sodium. All of which can also be replaced by your diet. Although some people feel that not eating meat is a waste of a life because they would become weak, this is a complete myth. The reason that vegetarians are perceived as weak and feeble is because they are no fat because of all the meat they are eating. Therefore in comparison to the meat eater they may be weak and feeble, but they usually lead the healthier lifestyle.", "qid": "33", "docid": "8aed976f-2019-04-18T19:15:00Z-00001-000", "rank": 75, "score": 117994.0}, {"content": "Title: Vegetarianism is a good idea. Content: I'm very happy to hear you think my arguments are good. Thank you. To address your arguments, you quote from the article, 'Limit the animal-fare and you'll be reducing your likelihood for heart disease.' The key word here is 'limit.' The meat itself doesn't cause these diseases - rather a large quantity of meat is the source of the problem. \"Studies... Have shown that eating high quantities of these meats (e.g. a small steak every day) also increases the risk of death from cardiovascular disease.\" Once again, it's the high quantities of meat that cause the problem. \"I wanted to say that people can reduce risk.\" Yes, people can reduce the risk by becoming vegetarians, but then they also open themselves up to a host of problems. In order to be a vegetarian, people must be very conscious about what they're eating in order to make sure they are getting a wide range of nutrients and often still needing to take additional supplements. For example, vitamin B12, which can only be found naturally in animal products, can lead to anemia and depression even with just a slight deficiency. People can also reduce the risk of cardiovascular diseases (and others) simply by eating in moderation. It is not necessary to fully remove meat from your diet. Meat is high in iron, protein and vitamin D, all nutrients that are more difficult to come by in a vegetarian diet. You also address environmental issues, which I would like to thank you for because it was not something I had previously thought about. After some time researching farming effects on the environment, here's what I found. First of all, the 'cutting down trees', is done not just for animal pastures but also for farming. So the same land that has its trees cut down to produce beef, might also be there to produce carrots. But in a study by the World Agroforestry Centre (WAC), scientists have recently found that many farms are planting and protecting trees spontaneously. To quote from the article, \"Based on data from satellite images, the report is the first global study of tree cover on farms. It found tree canopies made-up more than ten percent of farmland spread across ten million square kilometres. The researchers' calculations indicate this quantity represents 46 per cent of all agricultural land - an area the size of China.\" Dennis Garrity, the director of WAC, says that it is a realistic fallback. I don't speak Russian, so I'll take your word for it, but it's important to note that *farming* uses 70% of water, not specifically farming animals. So to do away with eating meat would not help the problem very much - we do need food. In such a case, we need to use better irrigation systems to make sure that all the water consumed is not being wasted and that the water can be reused. Also, thank you for this debate. I'm learning a lot. Resources: http://content.time.com... http://www.healthaliciousness.com... http://www.coolearth.org...", "qid": "33", "docid": "eb7cbdce-2019-04-18T17:08:09Z-00001-000", "rank": 76, "score": 117851.0}, {"content": "Title: The World Should Become Vegetarian Content: My opponent cannot seem to find fault in my argument. Well, thanks anyway for debating me.", "qid": "33", "docid": "ac45b77d-2019-04-18T13:38:21Z-00003-000", "rank": 77, "score": 117832.0}, {"content": "Title: Everyone should become a vegetarian Content: That isn't actually true. The amount of farms that actually allow the animal to live out its full life is very minimal. Why do you think organic meat is so much more expensive than \"normal\" meat. When I say normal I mean the meat that is full of steroids, and chemicals. And if we are debating on which one have the most feeling. It's safe to say that animals much more than plants. If people wanted to have their portion of meat they could eat soya food, and other sources of protein such as nuts etc. it's a matter of privilege. We once had the privilege to eat meat, but because we abused that privilege by using animal cruelty to get our food as quick as we want it. We should have that privilege taken away from us. Yes meat tastes nice, but it is a privilege that we do not deserve due to past actions.", "qid": "33", "docid": "272dfd04-2019-04-18T16:21:30Z-00003-000", "rank": 78, "score": 117814.0}, {"content": "Title: THW become Vegetarians Content: Thank you for the acceptance, I look forward to a nice and clean debate. Moving on, I would first off like to remind my opponents that they would have to prove the benefits of why becoming vegetarian is moreover a benefit than a harm for I am doing the exact opposite. C1) Violation of one's rights It's pretty straight forward. Forcing others to eat something takes away a person's freedom to eat what they want to eat. Let us look at our status quo. In our modern day society we have people who are vegetarian, people who eat all sorts of food, lactose intolerant, and many more \"styles\" of what and how people eat. If we supposedly do make everyone eat meat in America, what is taken away from the people? Freedom. When we are practically forcing our citizens to eat something that they are 1) Not use to or 2) Doesn't want to eat we are violating and taking away the citizens right for something that is vital to our life. Our world gives us limited freedom and rights I agree, but we are now taking away a freedom and choice for food. This of course violates ones limited freedom. This is not right for our society to decide what we eat now. C2)Feasibility Pretty straight forward. Making people vegetarians are not feasible enough in our country. Because my opponents are proving that we should enforce America into becoming vegetarians, how would they do it? What if they do eat meat? Would they go to jail or get arrested? What would happen? C3)Health Issues Vegetarian: 1. A person who does not eat or does not believe in eating MEAT, or, in some cases, any food derived from animals, as eggs or cheese, but subsists on vegetables, fruits, nuts, grain, etc.[1] The definition of Vegetarians includes that they do not eat meat. Becoming vegetarian certainly means that there will be much less protein intake. Having protein is a must in your regular food chain. Protein is makes up the building blocks of our body and essentially all we do when we eat meat is to recycle the flesh and to use it to reconstruct our own. Vegetarians may tell me that you still can get protein from beans and eggs. But here is the real problem here. We as humans can't live off of just beans, eggs, cheese etc. Vegetables and plants do not have same amino acid profile as meat does to us and simply isn't bio-available enough to be able to use efficiently. Lack of protein in our diet brings out many harms. We are slower to heal wounds and scars on us. Our skin will become unhealthy. We would struggle to develop muscle tissues easier and become weaker and our digestion function suffers. [2] Aside from protein, there is on big harm on discarding meat in our food chain and that is Vitamin B12. You can only get this source of vitamin from meat, unless you count earth's ground and dirt as \"food\". B12 is a very crucial substance and lack of meat can cause serious problems such as nerve damage, low energy and problems utilizing calcium which can lead to osteoporosis and arteriosclerosis in the future for people. [3] [4] Conclusion: Today if we put on a scale, my side sees much more weight on the harms. Even if my opponents explain on how becoming vegetarian is very healthy, we have still proved that meat is crucial. As well as it can be a problem to obesity, we see a much bigger health issues from a society without meat. As well as it harms the people, it harms our freedom of one thing that we should have full access too. With our status quo we see no major health problems being just the way we are, vegetarian or not. There would be no need to change what we already is succeeding in for our future. [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] http://www.healthguidance.org... [3] http://www.mnn.com... [4] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...", "qid": "33", "docid": "d98175c5-2019-04-18T14:27:13Z-00005-000", "rank": 79, "score": 117779.0}, {"content": "Title: Why People Should Be Vegetarian Content: Life- the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally. Plants are in fact alive. So are bacteria, fungi, protists, and of course, animals. It's not really set in stone whether plants feel pain or not, as there have been a few studies showing both. Alright, let's go back to 7th grade science. Animals must eat other animals to keep the populations in check. If there are too many predators and not enough prey they die of starvation. If there are too many prey, the predators reproduce fast, growing their population, and then eat most of the prey. It's an endless cycle. So, it's natural for us to eat animals. It's not wrong. Thank you.", "qid": "33", "docid": "970346b5-2019-04-18T16:22:22Z-00002-000", "rank": 80, "score": 117691.0}, {"content": "Title: Everyone should be vegetarian. Content: Animals have feelings, and they should be treated like equals. They have souls, and thoughts, and emotions. They do not deserve to be killed for the sake of being turned into a cheap, greasy hamburger. There could be more jobs created, because the demand for tofu and other protein sources would go up. There would be less poverty because of theses jobs, and they would pay more. Soybeans and other legumes have just as much protein as a variety of meat sources.", "qid": "33", "docid": "8eeab760-2019-04-18T16:21:32Z-00003-000", "rank": 81, "score": 117309.0}, {"content": "Title: The human race would be better off if everyone decided to be vegetarian. Content: I accept that eating meat may have been a necessary part of our evolution as a species, but I think that as time passes we will have to stop eating meat. It is far more efficient to use land to grow plants to eat, rather than growing plants to feed to animals who then go to slaughter after months/years of rearing. The earths population is increasing at a rate faster than ever, and soon there won't be enough land left to rear animals on. I am not a vegetarian personally, but I have my own personal rules on what I will and won't eat, which are another story and unrelated to this debate! I don't believe eating vegetables will make people smarter or stronger, but I definitely don't think it can make you any weaker or less intelligent. As far as I know any nutrients needed by the human body to function properly can be found in a vegetarian diet, and any harder to find vitamins or minerals can be bought as supplements. Therefore I can't see any negative effects of vegetarianism, and I can see a couple of positives. I'm not saying people should just give up meat overnight, people have favourite meals they wouldn't want to give up. I am saying I find it hard to imagine a future, 1000 years from now, where people still eat meat on the scale they do today. I think meat will eventually be at best a hard to come by rarity, seen by most as a bizarre barbarism of the past.", "qid": "33", "docid": "b66b3ad1-2019-04-18T17:41:33Z-00003-000", "rank": 82, "score": 116899.0}, {"content": "Title: Being vegetarian reduces risks of food poisoning Content: Food safety and hygiene are very important for everyone, and governments should act to ensure that high standards are in place particularly in restaurants and other places where people get their food from. But food poisoning can occur anywhere \u201cPeople don't like to admit that the germs might have come from their own home\u201d[1] and while meat is particularly vulnerable to contamination there are bacteria that can be transmitted on vegetables, for example Listeria monocytogenes can be transmitted raw vegetables.[2] Almost three-quarters of zoonotic transmissions are caused by pathogens of wildlife origin; even some that could have been caused by livestock such as avian flu could equally have come from wild animals. There is little we can do about the transmission of such diseases except by reducing close contact. Thus changing to vegetarianism may reduce such diseases by reducing contact but would not eliminate them.[3] Just as meat production can raise health issues, so does the arable farming of plants \u2013 examples include GM crops and worries about pesticide residues on fruit and vegetables. The important thing is not whether the diet is meat based or vegetarian; just that we should ensure all food is produced in a safe and healthy way. [1] \u201810 ways to prevent food poisoning\u2019, nhs.co.uk, 28th November 2010. [2] Food Poisoning, emedicinehealth. [3] Ulrich Desselberger, \u2018The significance of zoonotic transmission of viruses in human disease\u2019, Microbiology Today, November 2009.", "qid": "33", "docid": "b801a11e-2019-04-15T20:24:33Z-00013-000", "rank": 83, "score": 116875.0}, {"content": "Title: Vegans practicing on moral principle ought to become Freegan instead Content: The basic assumption made in this debate is that practitioners of either diet do so on a moral basis. Therefore health is not an issue of discussion. It is also not the intention of this debate to imagine a world where all people are either Freegan or Vegan. Our debate operates in a world where the number of Vegans and Freegans remains a constant. So neither my opponent nor I are claiming that everyone should switch to the respective diet we're arguing in favor of. It would be morally superior for practicing Vegans to become Freegan because it would reduce waste and preserve resources. Freeganism works to reduce the waste created in a traditional consumer economy. Freegans only eat food they are able to find for free that would otherwise go to waste. In 2008, food lost in retail totaled up to 43 billion pounds[3]. That is equivalent to 10% of all food sold at retail. But it's not just that this food is destroyed or wasted, most of this food is just thrown out after passing it's expiration date. And while it's true that you probably don't want to eat a piece of meat that's been in the open air for a few days, there's no reason meat that's slightly past it's expiration date and well packaged can't be eaten. Freeganism reduces this waste by consuming goods which would otherwise perish. Vegans do not reduce waste but instead consume goods they find less objectionable. Demand for vegan alternatives actually increase waste by adding potential goods to consume. [3] . http://www.nrdc.org... Sometimes, it's not even that the food has gone bad. Many companies won't sell food that doesn't meet a certain standard. I work at a bookstore / coffee shop. At the end of the night, any unsold coffee is poured down the drain; staff members aren't allowed to take the coffee instead of disposing it even if they want to. And because believe me, I want to. Further, we have to change the coffee we keep in the cylinders every 3 hours to ensure freshness as the coffee tastes burnt if it's in there for too long. Coffee can be stored in this format for up to two weeks before it goes bad[4], but because we don't want the coffee to taste burnt we waste it. Demand for vegan alternatives actually makes this waste worse. We can't just brew anything, we have to brew organic coffee also. This too is wasted every three hours and at the end of the night. [4] . http://en.wikipedia.org... Organic produce is expensive and unsustainable. The refusal to use fertilizer in organic farming strips land of it's fertility[5]. Instead of being good for the environment, vegan food wastes resources. Any argument on meat consumption doesn't hold water either. If one becomes a vegan, they may not directly contribute to waste of meat from over production, but they don't reduce it either. Eating meat that has been thrown away doesn't increase demand or contribute to the deaths of more animals. If an animal has already been slaughtered, refusing to eat it's meat won't bring the animal back to life. Not eating meat that would otherwise go to waste in preference of other goods is not a moral high ground, but a waste by means of omission. [5] . http://www.spiked-online.com... If meat is thrown into the trash, Vegan practices don't redeem the animal's death by not consuming it. Freegan practices do. Freegans don't opt to consume goods they find less objectionable, they eat whatever would otherwise go to waste. Their consumption doesn't even promote the slaughtering of animals if they happen to eat meat, as it doesn't correspond to any kind of market demand. They do however keep the animal from dying for no reason. They put the animal's resources to use. In conclusion Veganism is wasteful while Freeganism actually makes up for the waste of others. If existing Vegans became Freegan, we would greatly reduce waste without promoting the slaughtering of animals or unsustainable food production methods.", "qid": "33", "docid": "a118f0cf-2019-04-18T17:22:25Z-00004-000", "rank": 84, "score": 116665.0}, {"content": "Title: A vegetarian diet is good for your health Content: \"Most adult men should eat between 5.5 and 6.5 oz. of meat daily, while adult women require slightly less, between 5 and 5.5 oz. daily. Adolescents and children require less meat, but it is still recommended they eat some meat every day.\" (1) It is recommended that everybody eat at least some meat in their diet. Now the amounts may vary as it states but they still say you should eat some meat. Despite what my opponent has stated you can not get all things you need from just veggies. There are vitamins and minerals that are only found in meat. The healthy proteins found in meats act as building blocks for your body. Vitamin B12 which is found in abundance in meat is needed for healthy blood in your system. While the amounts of meat needed may be small it is the fact that they are needed to have a balanced diet as well as a healthy body that proves being a vegetarian is not a healthy diet. (1) http://www.livestrong.com...", "qid": "33", "docid": "90ec04d-2019-04-18T15:31:25Z-00000-000", "rank": 85, "score": 116539.0}, {"content": "Title: Being Vegetarian is the healthiest way to live. Content: Most vegetarians fall into the lacto-ovo category: They eat only non-animal products (fruits, veggies, grains, nuts, soy, etc.), but do eat animal byproducts, such as yogurt and eggs. In terms of nutritional requirements, being a lacto-ovo vegetarian isn\"t all that different from being a meat-eater. But it provides all the nutrients without killing animals. That said, following a vegetarian diet \"can be nutritionally superior to any other way of eating. It can be one of the healthiest ways to eat, because we know plant foods are loaded with nutrients to protect our health According to the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, an evidence-based review showed that a vegetarian diet is associated with a lower risk of death from ischemic heart disease. Vegetarians appear to have lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, lower blood pressure and lower rates of hypertension and type 2 diabetes than meat eaters. Vegetarians also tend to have a lower body mass index, lower overall cancer rates and lower risk of chronic disease.", "qid": "33", "docid": "dd59ecf8-2019-04-18T12:29:49Z-00001-000", "rank": 86, "score": 116274.0}, {"content": "Title: Vegan Diets are Healthier Content: This debate is about a vegan diet. Vegans are distinct from vegetarians in not eating any fish, dairy, eggs, or animal byproducts, whereas various types of vegetarianism permit some of these things. The resolution is that a vegan diets well-planned by a lay person are healthier than the corresponding non-vegan well-planned diets. A lay person is a person without specialized training or fanatical zeal. There are No Examples of Vegan Populations with Better Health If a vegan diet is healthier than surely Pro would lead off by pointing to some group of vegans somewhere who have better health than the average non-planning meat eater who survives on the typical dietary disasters overloaded with fat, cholesterol, and surplus calories. However, Pro did lead with such data, no where in the debate did he ever point to a single group of vegans with better health than people who eat meat promiscuously. I fully expected that there would be some vegan monks who live forever on soybeans. But no, Pro presented no data on vegans than put them ahead of hamburger gobblers, let alone careful balanced eaters. Broad studies show that the best health is enjoyed by people who have low-meat diets or fish diets. Vegans and those undisciplined meat eaters have the worse health. Vegetarians consuming dairy are somewhere in between in health. Pro made a small error in the saying that vegan data was skewed by having lots on non-smokers in the study group; actually it was the vegetarians who benefited from being non-smokers. Small groups of people adopt particular diets based upon tradition or religious beliefs. With these groups we expect to get closer to \"well-planned\" goals. Again, the big winners were groups having low-meat diets. Okinawans have the longest life expectancy in the world; there diet has fish and small amounts of meat. Vegetarians of the lax varieties do well; vegans are no to be seen in the most healthy populations. Theoretical Nutrition Because Pro has no data showing vegan populations having health better than meat-eaters, he must construct a theoretical argument based upon nutrients that would be in the hypothetical well-planned vegan. Pro points to all vitamins, fiber, and unsaturated fats available to vegans. He shows that there are vegan foods with enough protein and iron to avoid deficiencies. I agree. there are many healthful nutrients in vegetables. Pro points out that supplements are available to augment the Vitamin B12 and Vitamin D shortfalls characteristics of vegan diets. I again agree. It is possible to obtain a healthy diet within the bounds of vegan eating. But being theoretically able to have good health on a vegan diet does not suggest that a vegan diet is healthier than a non-vegan All the vegetables are available to those who also consume meat. At best the vegan diet can be equally healthy. The resolution requires Pro to prove that a vegan diet is not just equal, but superior. In fact, a diet containing almost entirely meat and fish can provide required nutrients. \u201cWhat the diet of the Far North illustrates, says Harold Draper, a biochemist and expert in Eskimo nutrition, is that there are no essential foods\u2014only essential nutrients. And humans can get those nutrients from diverse and eye-opening sources.\u201d Health Hazards Pro correctly points out that unplanned meat diets tend to have too many calories an too much saturated fat. Well-planned diets with meat do not have too much. Vegan diets tend to have too little protein, vitamin B12, iron, omega-3s, Vitamin D, calcium, and iodine. Careful planning can avoid those shortfalls, but vegans typically do not do the needed planning, so vegan health is typically no better than unplanned meat eating. Since a balanced diet of meat and vegetables has all of the vegetable nutrients, the only way a meat diet can be less healthy is if there is something inherently bad in meat. Cholesterol, saturated fat, and calories are not inherently bad. Planning solves the potential hazards of getting too much. Vegans can get too much saturated fats from oils (coconut, palm, cottonseed), Saturated fats induce the liver to make cholesterol, so there is a cholesterol hazard. Vegans can certainly get too many calories (sugar, french fries, donuts, etc.). That too can be avoided by planning. The only potential inherent harms in meat are cancer risk from processed meats (like ham) or from more than 18 ounces of red meat per week. That's avoided by not eating processed meats, and eating less than 18 ounces of red meat. There is no identified risk from white meat, fish, dairy, or eggs. Hence there is no unavoidable risk in a diet that includes meat. A study by the WCRF claimed a correlation between red meat and cancer above the 18 ounce point. The study was examined by a scientific consulting company, Exponent, and found to be flawed. Pro claimed that Exponent could not be trusted for the sole reason that their results defended the meat industry. If that logic were true, then we should discount forensic evidence for the defense in a criminal trial on the sole grounds the expert is for the defendant. Pro claimed that I had presented nothing that indicated that it was a scientific controversy. What I presented were the very specific scientific objections raised by Exponent. Moreover, WCRF revised their report by publishing an errata in response to the objections. Clearly the objections were scientific. While admitting scientific errors, WCRF refused to modify their conclusions. In the process, they betrayed an anti-meat-industry bias. The burden of proof is upon Pro, and Pro did not respond to the specific scientific objections made. Vegan Diet Planning Making a well-planned balanced diet is not altogether trivial. Meat eaters must avoid too much red meat, too much saturated fat, and must avoid process meats. they must not consume too many calories. Vegans have a much more difficult task. They must make sure they do not consume too many calories or too much saturated-fat vegetable oil. The must also be sure they get enough protein, vitamin B12, iron, omega-3s, Vitamin D, calcium, and iodine. A profession nutritionist recommended that vegetarians track nutrients daily. The planning is greatly complicated by the vegan ground rule of no meat by-products. Pro said that all vegans need do is read the labels on food packages. That is insufficient because labels do not say what is animal based and what is plant based. The reference I gave tells that lecithin and gelatin are animal products. That's not common knowledge. Some vitamin supplements are animal-derived, others are plant-derived and that information is not disclosed. Minor or trace ingredients, like animal-based clarifiers in beer, are not disclosed. Restaurants do not have ingredient labeling. Even with labeled foods, reading every label and researching what is animal-derived is not an everyday task. We know that vegans don't do the needed planning because their health is no better than unplanned meat-eaters. Low-meat balanced diets have little or no problem with planning. A balanced diet is healthiest The American Heart Association, American Institute for Cancer Research, the American Institute for Health, and the World Cancer Research Fund all recommend a low-meat balanced diet for the best health. None recommend a vegan diet and Pro presented no authoritative recommendation for a vegan diet. Pro ignored many of my arguments. He never disputed that the source of nutrients doesn't matter. He didn't dispute that only calories cause obesity. Vegan diet is in practice less healthy, and at best it can only equal a low-meat balanced diet. The resolution is negated. ----- Thanks to Pro for a good topic and a fine debate. I learned much from researching this debate. For one thing, be sure to eat seal brains along with the blubber for good health.", "qid": "33", "docid": "8781b711-2019-04-18T18:56:49Z-00000-000", "rank": 87, "score": 116014.0}, {"content": "Title: humans should endeavour to become a vegan species Content: the act of eating other animals and their by-products for our sustenance is a behaviour that we inherited from our ancestors who were living in a different world to our world today ultimately as a species, we have highly adaptable digestive systems and our bodies have the mechanisms to extract the nutrients they need from both animal and plant foods. however the reason why we should embrace veganism is due to the fact that our current environment and society has enabled us to produce ample supplies of plant foodstuffs without having the need turn to animal foods in desperation and hence allowing ourselves to be freed from the burden of continuing to harm our fellow living creatures. the change will have to be a gradual one, but at least we will be able to stop rationalising this carnivorous behaviour by basing it on adulterated scientific and philosophical reasonings, and we will be able to transcend to a level beyond the bounds of the burdened state of instinctual carnivorism like the rest of the animal kingdom. it may have been a neccessity in the history of our species, however this is no longer the case, and we should unite in our determination to end this cruel exploitation of our fellow animal lifeforms. i will emphasise that this includes the end to dairy and egg produce also which are a huge part of our mistreatment of animals. also we should strive to end all aspects of our cruelty which includes animal driven transport and unnecessary animal skinned clothing.", "qid": "33", "docid": "3be655b-2019-04-18T15:25:31Z-00004-000", "rank": 88, "score": 116011.0}, {"content": "Title: A vegetarian lifestyle is better than one of a meat eaters. Content: A vegetarian diet is better than one of a meat eater's for various reasons, but in this argument I will stress on two.Animal Suffrage: Having a vegetarian lifestyle helps not only you as an individual, but also helps save millions of animals that get harmed and slaughtered yearly.It\"s cruel and unethical to kill animals when vegetarian options are available.- Animals have emotions and social connections.- Scientific study shows cattle pigs and chickens and all warm-blooded experience stress, fear and pain- 35 million cows, 115 million pigs, and 9 billion birds killed for food each year.-; These animals should not have to die to satisfy an unnecessary dietary preference.-; Raising animals in confinement is cruel. -; 50% of meat produced in the United States comes from confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) Where animals live in filthy, overcrowded spaces. -; In CAFOs pigs have their tails cut off, chickens have their toenails and beaks clipped off, and cows have their horns removed and tails cut off with no painkillers. - Pregnant pigs are kept in metal gestation crates barely bigger than they are. - Baby cows raised for veal are tied up and confined in tiny stalls their entire short lives (3-18 weeks). Animals raised for food in US not slaughtered humanely.-HMSA (Humane methods of slaughter act) necessitates that cows be unconscious before slaughter to readuce suffering - Birds and pigs have no rules of such- And slaughter houses still mostly ignore HMSAHealth and Nutrition: A vegetarian diet gives one a complete nutrition with additional health benefits that meat cannot provide.- According to the American Dietetic Association, a vegetarian diet is healthier than a meat eating diet because- Vegetarian diets meet protein requirements, provide all the essential amino-acids), and improve health. - It can also provide all the necessary vitamins, fats, and minerals, and can improve one\"s health. - According to the USDA and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, meat is not an essential part of a healthy diet.A vegetarian diet provides a more healthful form of iron than a meat-based diet. - Studies have linked heme iron found in red meat with an increased risk of colon and rectal cancer. - Vegetarian sources of iron like leafy greens and beans contain non-heme iron. A vegetarian diet helps build healthy bones because vegetarians absorb more calcium than meat eaters. -Meat has high renal acid levels which the body must neutralize by leaching calcium from the bones, which is then passed into urine and lost.- There are many sources of healthy vegetarian calcium including tofu, dark leafy greens like kale, spinach, and collard greens, as well as fortified cereals. A vegetarian diet lowers the risk of heart disease.- According to a peer-reviewed 1999 study of 76,000 people, vegetarians had 24% lower mortality from heart disease than meat eaters. -A vegetarian diet also helps lower blood pressure, prevent hypertension, and thus reduce the risk of stroke. Eating meat increases the risk of getting type 2 diabetes.- A peer-reviewed 2004 study from Harvard researchers found that eating meat increases the risk of getting type 2 diabetes in women - 2002 study found that eating processed meat increases the risk in men.- A vegetarian diet rich in whole grains, legumes, nuts, and soy proteins helps to improve glycemic control in people who already have diabetes. Vegetarians live longer. - A Mar. 12, 2012 peer-reviewed study of 121,342 people found that eating red meat was associated with an increased risk of death from cancer and cardiovascular disease. - A peer-reviewed 2003 study found that adherence to vegetarian diets or diets very low in meat for 20 years or more can increase life expectancy by 3.6 years. - A peer-reviewed July 9, 2001 study of Seventh-Day Adventists who were vegetarian (or ate very little meat) showed longevity increases of 7.28 years for men and 4.42 years for women. - On June 3, 2013 a peer-reviewed study of 73,308 people found that a vegetarian diet is associated with a 12% reduction in all-cause mortalityA vegetarian diet promotes a healthy weight. - According to a peer-reviewed 2003 Oxford University study of 37,875 healthy men and women aged 20-97, 5.4% of meat eaters were obese compared to 3% of vegetarians.- Meat eaters had an average Body Mass Index (BMI) 8.3% higher than vegetarians.-Another 2006 meta-study that compiled data from 87 studies also found that vegetarian diets are associated with reduced body weight. [124] Studies show that vegetarians are up to 40% less likely to develop cancer than meat eaters. - According to a peer-reviewed 1994 study by Harvard researchers, consuming beef, pork, or lamb five or more times a week significantly increases the risk of colon cancer. - The World Cancer Research Fund found that eating processed meats such as bacon or sausage increases this risk even further. - A 2014 study found that diets high in animal protein were associated with a 4-fold increase in cancer death risk compared to high protein diets based on plant-derived protein sources. World Hunger: Eating Meat uses up many of the plant resources and causes most third world countries to not be able to grow enough food. A vegetarian diet can help alleviate world hunger. - Over 10 pounds of plant protein are used to produce one pound of beef protein.- If these grains were fed to humans instead of animals, more food would be available for the 925 million people in chronic hunger worldwide. Research from Cornell University found that the grain used to feed US livestock alone could feed 800 million people.", "qid": "33", "docid": "5941421a-2019-04-18T15:20:27Z-00003-000", "rank": 89, "score": 115896.0}, {"content": "Title: Should People Become Vegetarian Content: While my opponent makes some very strong points, that killing animals for food does affect the environment. But according to debate.org, being vegetarian does not necessarily help the environment either. It says that in 2003, there was a study done by scientists in Oregon State University, about six animals per acre, that lives in an agricultural crop fields are killed during harvest. Although, it isn\"t as much as killing animals for food, if you add this up, that would be a lot of animals killed during harvest for food. So, even if you do not eat meat, because of the pesticides and other chemicals used while growing food, it kills a lot of animals. We definitely should eat less meat to help the environment, but animals also die when we harvest food.", "qid": "33", "docid": "7eabc63c-2019-04-18T12:18:12Z-00001-000", "rank": 90, "score": 115642.0}, {"content": "Title: A vegetarian diet is to be preferred over an omnivorous diet Content: As I thought. Pro has changed their tack. And now adopted the word \"should\" and ditched the word \"is\". A seemingly innocuous change, but a change that actually alters the context of this debate completely. A vegetarian diet is to be preferred is a completely different proposition to, a vegetarian diet should be preferred. Under these circumstances I do not feel obliged to respond to Pro's third round evidence. My second round assertion that approximately 78% of the Worlds population ate a meat inclusive diet was derived from the Wikipedia article, vegetarianism by country. This evidence alone is enough to negate Pro's opening proposition. As it clearly indicates that approximately three quarters of the world's population prefer a meat inclusive diet. (Presumably no one is forcing these people to eat meat) Whether or not three quarters of the world's population should prefer a meat inclusive diet is another issue altogether. The same studies also stated that approximately 1.75 billion people were vegetarian out of necessity, rather than by choice. It is highly likely that given the chance, some of these people would also prefer to be omnivorous. But should they? Well, who has the authority to make this sort of judgement?...... And of course, that wasn't what we were discussing.", "qid": "33", "docid": "a82d5442-2019-04-18T11:23:18Z-00000-000", "rank": 91, "score": 115427.0}, {"content": "Title: Vegetarians are healthy due to their health-consciousness not vegetarianism. Content: Vegetarians are generally more health-conscious. This is the primary reason why they are healthy; it is less a cause of vegetarians avoiding meat. Similarly, obese people are obese because they are not health-conscious, more than because they are meat-eaters.", "qid": "33", "docid": "e3d235e2-2019-04-17T11:47:41Z-00141-000", "rank": 92, "score": 115397.0}, {"content": "Title: Pesci-Vegetarianism is beneficial Content: Once again, yes you can get nutrition but you do not get the extra two years of life, according to the German Cancer Research Center, Loma Linda University, and many other studies. The oldest woman ever was a vegetarian, and even if people smoke and are vegetarians they generally have a longer life expectancy. They are also less likely to have cancer and osteoporosis. Unless you have an IQ so low that you need a tape to tell you to breath, having these reduced risks and longevity of life would be seen as healthy due to the fact that you restrict your meat intake. Why is it so hard to comprehend? I would like to remind voters that even though these benefits are achieved through other forms of vegetarianism, pesci-vegetarianism is still beneficial. I would also like to remind you that there would not be billions of people jobless. We created diversified economies for this very reason. The fish industry would need more workers, as would the soy industry. Yes, jobs in the meat industry will disappear, but with new demands comes new jobs. And please remember, I never said that everyone should go vegetarian and not everyone will, but the people who do it (the number of vegetarians have increased to 10 times the number that they used to be), will benefit the environment, and if it keeps on growing at this rate, the economy will be able to go into a smooth transition. About elitism once more, people could make the same argument about gyms and other health centers. So maybe it is a type of elitism. Does it have a negative impact? Some people could say that because people are getting healthy that TV industries are at steak, which they are. But we do not see this as something that it necessarily harmful. That will not cause a WWIII, and neither will pesci-vegetarianism, as my opponent points out, so why won't people at least have respect for the idea. Besides, once again going back to the environment, will the environment wait for the economy to be perfect? No, which is why sometimes we have to realize that the earth itself is more important than money. My opponent claims that economic impacts outweigh environmental impacts. Which is more important I ask you? The air you breath or the green in your wallet? The earth you live on or your job that depends on the earth give us a healthy environment. Well, with methane and nitrus oxide emitted from the animals that you eat every day make the economy worsen because the earth worsens. When the health of the earth is at steak, we simply cannot continue to ignore it and let it get worse as we become selfish and decide to not help. CON says that this way of eating is horrible overall, but really it is part of a solution to our problems, because we live longer, we help the earth, we take away jobs but give new ones. It helps the air in your lungs and the earth that you see every day.", "qid": "33", "docid": "1d882e9c-2019-04-18T19:40:03Z-00001-000", "rank": 93, "score": 115221.0}, {"content": "Title: Vegetarianism is a bad excuse to not eat meat Content: A few reasons why vegetarianism is not just a \"bad excuse to not eat meat\".ReligionSome religions such as many Hindu sects, and Jainism require vegetarianism. Religion is a matter of personal belief. Some people derive great meaning and purpose from religion. A person who is a vegetarian because of their religion does not just have a \"bad excuse to not eat meat\".Personal Feelings/PsychologyEverybody has their personal feelings about things. A person might think eating intestines or liver or dog is disgusting. Why? It just really comes down to how the person feels. Some people might see meat and think of the animal getting slaughtered while eating it. I don't, but some people might and if I did I probably would be a vegetarian. Some people's personal feelings might be such that they have a psychological need to be a vegetarian and trying not to be would hurt their psychological health.Taste BudsEverybody has different taste buds. Some people might just find that they don't like the taste of meat.Dietary NeedsA planned vegetarian diet can have some health benefits. There is less risk of problems associated with the consumption of meat. Protein can be substituted with soy, beans, and nuts. Many vegetarians also drink milk and eat eggs. It is not necessary to be a vegan in order to be a vegetarian. Some people might even adopt a vegetarian diet to help them in achieving something, such as athletics.http://www.nomeatathlete.com...In some cases vegetarianism is recommended for medical treatment, such as with some cases of rheumatoid arthritis.http://www.pcrm.org...Food SafetySome underdeveloped countries have poor sanitation and the people are too poor to affoard modern appliances to keep food clean. Keeping meat sanitary and free of infection may be difficult and there may be many diseases such as E. Coli that a person could catch. In fact that's still an occassional problem in developed countries, although it is easier for us to take measures to make sure it is ok if we cook it. If a person is legitimately concerned about getting infected that's a good reason to be a vegetarian.Political ConcernsPeople have their own political beliefs that may play into the decision. A person might not even think meat should be illegal, but consider the way the meat industry is run today to be a travesty based on how livestock is treated while alive or based on where the meat might be coming from, such as countries with exploitative labor practices. Whether or not they are right people are entitled to their own opinions.", "qid": "33", "docid": "fad42a17-2019-04-18T18:48:08Z-00004-000", "rank": 94, "score": 115137.0}, {"content": "Title: A vegetarian diet is good for your health Content: First of all: Thank you for accepting. Now on to the debate: In my opinion a vegetarian diet has a lot of benefits. Among those are a better health and an overall more conscious and balanced diet. It furthermore helps to avoid or at least lower the risks of getting certain diseases. Eating meat is bad for your heart: Studies published in the Archives of Internal Medicine show that especially red meats, such as the meat of cows and ducks and many processed meats contain a lot of saturated fat, which increases the amount of cholesterol in your blood and thereby increases the risk of a coronary heart or cardiovascular disease. Eating meat increases the risk of cancer: Another study published in the British Journal of Cancer has shown that there is a connection between the consumption of meat is connected to the development of cancer. One theory is that the fat in those types of meat boosts the hormones promoting cancer. Processed and red meat are again the most risky, as those who eat them have the highest risk for breast cancer. Vegetarians are thinner: A study from the Imperial College London showed that those eating meat gained weight faster and it is a widely known fact that your weight has an immediate impact on your health. Many nutritionists also support the theory that vegetarianism supports a healthy weight. A plant-based diet lowers your blood pressure: American and Japanese researchers (both from universities and medical facilities) have found out that a plant-based diet is rich in both potassium and polyunsaturated fatty acids. Both of those substances have been linked to a lower blood pressure. Additionally to all those health benefits of a vegetarian diet, a plant-based diet also forces the vegetarian to eat more consciously. He or she has to watch out for slaughter by-products and meat in all their food and thereby also learns of all the other ingredients of it. Sources:1. http://www.brown.edu...; _eating_concerns/being_a_vegetarian.php#4 2. http://www.womenshealthmag.com...", "qid": "33", "docid": "90ec04d-2019-04-18T15:31:25Z-00003-000", "rank": 95, "score": 115107.0}, {"content": "Title: People should become vegan as a result of possible future advances in artificial intelligence. Content: The chuckle continues as I see a man so haughty as Wylted deliver such a poor argument. Relying on me to not catch obvious flaws and trying to force a ridiculous idea into his rebuttal. Allow me to explain. I. Cross-Examination \" I've used citations from some of the world's leading experts on AI, and yet my opponent refuses to refute them. If experts working in these fields believe a super AI is inevitable in our lifetime, why does my opponent disagree?\" My apologies, I must've just failed to see how these sources supplement Pro's position. Let's start with the first one. http://www.smithsonianmag.com...... Here, Pro tries to support his case by showing that 'Super AI' has the potential to go rogue. However, I see no connection. Pro is trying to show that this intelligence will one day desire human meals, and will base said desire off of whether the entre'e is vegan or not. Here's the problem, a robot going off it's chain and revolting would in no way entail it being hungry for human nor care for the dietary habits of a human. I'm not denying we will ever see Super AI or that said AI will become a problem, I'm merely questioning how this happening would cause carnivorous robots. Onto the another source he uses, http://www.simulation-argument.com...This source suffers from the same problem as the rest of Wylted's argument. It is highly suggestive, not empirical.Merely explaining the possibility of a situation, is not proving said situation.Again, even if we are in a simulated environment, there is absolutely nothing showing that we are being observed/tested for moral capabilities. There lacks observable evidence showing this happening and therefore lacks a reason for fear not being vegan.\"What's the worst likely thing that can happen if you become vegan.(?) If an unfriendly super AI never develops, the worst thing that happens is that you have transitioned to a healthier diet \" #1. Is that a question? #2. There are many cons to becoming vegan. Such as: -Buying more expensive food - Lacking large amounts of complete protein (especially a problem for muscle builders who require substantial amounts) -Resisting the natural urge to eat meat -No longer being able to enjoy animal-based meals -Forced into Eating food that is unpalatable (Up to individual opinion) #3. This is irrelevant to the resolution. The resolution suggests the reason for going vegan is the benefit of not being the dinner of 'super AI' not for health reasons\"It's beyond common sense that veganism is more humane. So the worst thing that happens if my scenario is false is still a bunch of good stuff, but if I'm right and an unfriendly super AI develops, what you'll experience after this \"singularity\" is immortality. http://www.thatsreallypossible.com...;Again, completely irrelevant. My opponent being wrong and \"good\" stuff happening doesn't explain why Veganism should be put to practice as a result of Super AI.His source is once again speculation.Out of words again. Dammit Wylted.Good luck Pro", "qid": "33", "docid": "7e9ebc8d-2019-04-18T16:00:51Z-00004-000", "rank": 96, "score": 115042.0}, {"content": "Title: Vegetarianism is good for your health Content: Although I am far from a vegetarian I do see the health benefits in that lifestyle. However one can not just go and eat just anything vegetarian and think that is good for them. http://www.livestrong.com... \"According to the American Dietetic Association, vegetarians are also at lower risk for becoming obese, due to diets with significantly lower levels of saturated fat and cholesterol. It is important, however, to plan your vegetarian diet so that you are consuming sufficient levels of all necessary nutrients.\" Too much meats in our diets are the cause of many health problems. However if a vegetarian lives off junk food like soda and potato chips of course he is not going to be healthy. Most vegetarians, especially those who actually studied nutrition, are much healthier than the average omnivore. As for the proteins found in meats, foods such as beans and nuts have protein as well. I am not denying the benefits of meat protein but I am saying it can easily be substituted in a vegetarian diet. That way they get the benefits of the proteins without the health risks associated with meats. America has a high meat diet and a high obesity rate. All medical evidence in the field of nutrition would suggest that that is not a coincidence.", "qid": "33", "docid": "129ce23f-2019-04-18T15:31:47Z-00006-000", "rank": 97, "score": 114692.0}, {"content": "Title: Everyone should become Lacto-vegetarian/vegan Content: Again, I cannot argue further as you forfeited the round.", "qid": "33", "docid": "2d6e4294-2019-04-18T16:03:38Z-00001-000", "rank": 98, "score": 114635.0}, {"content": "Title: A vegetarian diet is more ethical than a meat-eating diet Content: 1st no need to opologise we share some of the same beliefs like evolution in creation. I believe based on proof that micro evolution is an important part of what goes on in the earth. That is the only proven part of evolution. But that's for another debate. Many more people in foreign third world country's would go hungry with out the ability to eat meat. How bout the Eskimos or Inuits meat is a vital food source in a place that's unforgiving, what about tribes in Africa even more of there kids would be go hungry without meat, especially in the small untouched tribes. We still need to test a balanced diet of meat and vegetables against a all veggie diet to conclude that no meat is healthier. If we should not kill a living thing because it is 85 percent human then why should we be able to kill one that is only 15 that's a little bit discriminating if we are going to go to the point of 85 percent human DNA means a animal is a sentient bien. Yes we should rule over them with care not slaughtering them, but why would God require living animals as sacrifices if they were sentient. And Isaiah 65:25 is a prophesy of the 1000 year reign when animals will live together in peace and there will be no wars. But that again is another debate I will save escatology for later. :) I never said evolution was a guidelines of life but why would anyone who believes in it want to mess with the natural cycle of the earth. Yes we do breed lots more cows now but they would eventually get way larger in population then now and consume just as much water just like our population continues to increase. And you didn't really rebute my plant oxygen argument. My apologies for the hasty sound of this round this is a last minute debate on the last hour off the top of my head. Bed times in 10 minutes. School sucks. Will bring a more sourceful argument next round.", "qid": "33", "docid": "872fb369-2019-04-18T17:52:20Z-00003-000", "rank": 99, "score": 114557.0}, {"content": "Title: THW become Vegetarians Content: I accept.", "qid": "33", "docid": "d98175c5-2019-04-18T14:27:13Z-00006-000", "rank": 100, "score": 114402.0}]}
{"query": "Are social networking sites good for our society?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: Social networking sites are good for our society! Content: yeah vote me", "qid": "34", "docid": "6ea9a438-2019-04-18T15:38:58Z-00000-000", "rank": 1, "score": 246437.0}, {"content": "Title: debate with yourself Content: Topic- Are social networking sites good for our society? I say that the social networking sites prevent face-to-face communication; waste time on frivolous activity; alter children\"s brains and behavior making them more prone to ADHD; expose users to predators like pedophiles and burglars; and spread false and potentially dangerous information. Students who used social networking sites while studying scored 20% lower on tests and students who used social media had an average GPA of 3.06 versus non-users who had an average GPA of 3.82 Having distractions like these in your surroundings have shown difference in the children's mental behavior and studies. They spend most of their time on social sites, reducing human interaction. They think what they are doing is interacting but clicking on your iPhones and iPads is not interacting. Today, a significant number of pre-teens have their mobiles and laptops. Do they even need them? They have 400 friends on Facebook but they know only 50 of them. Interacting is good but they get obsessed with it. So, leave your distractions behind and go and talk up to the people in your lives and then notice how amazing it is to literally talk to people rather than texting or IMing them.", "qid": "34", "docid": "528fb34-2019-04-18T16:00:42Z-00003-000", "rank": 2, "score": 229046.0}, {"content": "Title: Social networks are beneficial to our society! Content: I am for social networking sites and I think that they are good for our society. Con must argue against. Acceptance first.", "qid": "34", "docid": "562197e9-2019-04-18T16:01:31Z-00005-000", "rank": 3, "score": 226364.0}, {"content": "Title: Social networking sites are good for our society! Content: Social networking sites are good for our society!", "qid": "34", "docid": "6ea9a438-2019-04-18T15:38:58Z-00003-000", "rank": 4, "score": 225878.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web Sites have a positive impact on the United States. Content: Social Networks are basically things like: FACEBOOK, MYSPACE, TAG, ZANGA... - They are good because they increase communication opportunities Nowadays, just calling and text messaging is not enough. There has to be some sort of quick communication occurring online, and that is what social networking does. - They stimulate our economy Social networking websites are able to advertise to their users based on what it looks like they or their friends would like. That comes in handy because it saves consumers money and increases production opportunities. - They allow idividuals to expand their social horizons Normally, becuase we are human, we would want to stick with our \"cliques\" or circle of friends. Social networking sites reccomend individuals that you are not \"freinds\" with yet in an effort to increase your friends.", "qid": "34", "docid": "58177ab3-2019-04-18T19:34:39Z-00003-000", "rank": 5, "score": 217880.0}, {"content": "Title: Social networks are beneficial to our society! Content: To start with, I want to make some clarifications: social networking service: A social networking service is a platform to build social networks or social relations among people who, share interests, activities, backgrounds or real-life connections. * beneficial: Producing or promoting a favorable result; advantageous. ** society: a body of individuals living as members of a community; community. *** Advantges of social networking sites: 1) ALLOW PEOPLE TO IMPROVE THEIR RELATIONSHIPS AND MAKE NEW FRIENDS: 70% of adult social networking users visit the sites to connect with friends and family [1], and increased online communication strengthens relationships.52% of teens using social media report that using the sites has helped their relationships with friends, 88% report that social media helps them stay in touch with friends they cannot see regularly, 69% report getting to know students at their school better, and 57% make new friends. [3] 2) SPREAD INFORMATION FASTER THAN ANY OTHER MEDIA: [5] Social networking sites are the top news source for 27.8% of Americans, ranking close to newspapers (28.8%) and above radio (18.8%) and other print publications (6%). [4] Twitter and YouTube users reported the July 20, 2012 Aurora, CO theater shooting before news crews could arrive on the scene [6], and the Red Cross urged witnesses to tell family members they were safe via social media outlets. 3) HELP STUDENTS DO BETTER AT SCHOOL: 59% of students with access to the Internet report that they use social networking sites to discuss educational topics and 50% use the sites to talk about school assignments. [7] After George Middle School in Portland, OR introduced a social media program to engage students, grades went up by 50%, chronic absenteeism went down by 33%, and 20% of students school-wide voluntarily completed extra-credit assignments. [8] 4) HELP EMPLOYERS FIND EMPLOYEES AND JOB-SEEKERS FIND WORK: 64% of companies are on two or more social networks for recruiting [10] because of the wider pool of applicants and more efficient searching capabilities. 89% of job recruiters have hired employees through LinkedIn, 26% through Facebook, and 15% through Twitter. One in six job-seekers credit social media for helping find their current job. 52% of job-seekers use Facebook for the job search, 38% use LinkedIn, and 34% use Twitter. [12] 5) HELP SENIOR CITIZENS FEEL MORE CONNECTED TO SOCIETY: According to a 2010 Pew Internet & American Life Project study, the 74-year old and older age group is the fastest growing demographic on social media sites with the percentage quadrupling from 2008 to 2010, from 4% to 16%. [13] Seniors report feeling happier due to online contact with family and access to information like church bulletins that have moved online and out of print. [14] 6) OFFER A WAY FOR MUSICIANS AND ARTISTS TO BUILD AUDIENCES: 64% of teenagers listen to music on YouTube, making it the \"hit-maker\" for songs rather than radio (56%) or CDs (50%). For example, pop star Justin Bieber was discovered on YouTube when he was 12 years old, and, in 2012 at 18 years old, Bieber\"s net worth was estimated at $80 million. [16] The National Endowment for the Arts found that people who interact with the arts online through social media and other means are almost three times more likely to attend a live event. [17] 7) OFFER TEACHERS A PLATFORM FOR COLLABORATION WITH OTHER TEACHERS AND COMMUNICATION WITH STUDENTS OUTSIDE THE CLASSROOM: More than 80% of US college and university faculty use social media; more than 50% use it for teaching; and 30% for communicating with students. [18] Educators from around the world interact with each other and bring guest teachers, librarians, authors, and experts into class via social networks like Twitter and social networking tools like Skype. [19]Edmodo, an education-specific social networking site designed for contact between students, teachers, and parents, reached over ten million users on Sep. 11, 2012. [21] 8) INCREASE A PERSON'S QUALITY OF LIFE AND REDUCE THE RISK OF HEALTH PROBLEMS: Social media can help improve life satisfaction, stroke recovery, memory retention, and overall well-being by providing users with a large social group. Additionally, friends on social media can have a \"contagion\" effect, promoting and helping with exercise, dieting, and smoking cessation goals. [22] 9) LAW ENFORCEMENT USES SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES TO CATCH AND PROSECUTE CRIMINALS: 67% of federal, state, and local law enforcement professionals surveyed think \"social media helps solve crimes more quickly. \" [23] In 2011 the NYPD added a Twitter tracking unit and has used social networking to arrest criminals who have bragged of their crimes online. [24] When the Vancouver Canucks lost the 2011 Stanley Cup in Vancouver, the city erupted into riots. Social media was used to catch vandals and rioters as social networking site users tagged the people they knew in over 2,000 photos posted to the sites. 10) FACILITATE FACE-TO-FACE INTERACTION: People use social media to network at in-person events and get to know people before personal, business, and other meetings. Pew Research Center's Internet and American Life Project found that messaging on social media leads to face-to-face interactions when plans are made via the sites and social media users messaged close friends an average of 39 days each year while seeing close friends in person 210 days each year. [27] 11) GOOD FOR THE ECONOMY: Social media sites have created a new industry and thousands of jobs in addition to providing new income and sales. [28] A McKinsey Global Institute study projects that the communication and collaboration from social media could add $900 billion to $1.3 trillion to the economy through added productivity and improved customer service. 12) EMPOWER INDIVIDUALS TO MAKE SOCIAL CHANGE: Social media shares popularized nine-year old Scottish student, Martha Payne, and her blog, \"Never Seconds,\" which exposed the state of her school\"s lunch program prompting international attention that resulted in changes to her school and the formation of \"Friends of Never Seconds\" charity to feed children globally. [31] Jeannette Van Houten uses social media to find owners of photographs and mementos strewn from houses by Hurricane Sandy. 13) DISARM SOCIAL STIGMAS: The Sticks and Stones campaign uses Twitter to reduce stigmas surrounding mental health and learning disabilities. The Stigma Project uses Facebook to \"lower the HIV infection rate and neutralize stigma through education via social media and advertising. \" [32] 14) PROVIDES ACADEMIC RESEARCH TO A WIDER AUDIENCE: Researchers from a wide variety of fields are sharing photos, providing status updates, collaborating with distant colleagues, and finding a wider variety of subjects via social media, making the research process and results more transparent and accessible to a larger public. [33] 15) INCREASE VOTER PARTICIPATION: Facebook users reported they are more likely to vote if they see on social networking sites that their friends did. During the 2012 presidential election, 22% of registered voters posted about how they voted on Facebook or Twitter, 30% were encouraged to vote by posts on social media, and 20% encouraged others to vote via social networking sites. [34] 16) CORPORATIONS AND SMALL BUSINESSES USE SOCIAL MEDIA TO BENEFIT THEMSELVES AND CUSTOMERS: Small businesses benefit greatly from the free platforms to connect with customers and increase visibility of their products or services. [35] Almost 90% of big companies using social media have reported \"at least one measurable business benefit. \" For all these reasons social networking sites have become increasingly popular and useful! SOURCES: *. http://en.wikipedia.org... **. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... ***. http://dictionary.reference.com... [1]\"People Use Social Networks to Connect with Friends and Family, Sometimes Brands,\" www. briansolis. com [3]\"Social Media, Social Life: How Teens View Their Digital Lives,\" www. commonsensemedia. org [5]\"Social Media as an Advocacy Tool,\" Techniques: Connecting Education & Careers [6]\"Theater Shooting Unfolds in Real Time on Social Media,\" www. cnn. com [7]National School Boards Association, \"Creating and Connecting: Research and Guidelines on Online Social - and Educational - Networking,\" www. nsba. org [8] \"The Case for Social Media in Schools,\" www. mashable. com [10] \"The Essential Guide to Developing a Social Recruiting Strategy,\" www. jobvite. com [12]\"2012 Social Job Seeker Survey,\" www. jobvite. com [13]\"Generations 2010,\" www. pewinternet. org [14]University of Alabama at Birmingham, \"Move Over Youngsters, Grandma\"s on Facebook,\" www. newswise. com [16] \"Justin Bieber, Venture Capitalist,\" Forbes Asia Magazine [17]\"NEA Chairman Rocco Landesman Announces New Report on How Americans Use Electronic Media to Participate in the Arts,\" www. nea. gov [18] \"How Social Media Can and Should Impact Higher Education,\" Education Digest: Essential Readings Condensed for Quick Review [19] \"Skype and the Embedded Librarian,\" Library Technology Reports [21]\"Edmodo Reaches 10 Million Users,\" www. blog. edmodo. com [22]\"'Flocking' Behavior Lands on Social Networking Sites,\" USA TODAY, Sep. 27, 2009 [23]\"Role of Social Media in Law Enforcement Significant and Growing,\" www. lexisnexis. com [24]\"NYPD Adding Twitter Tracking Unit to Police Force,\" www. socialnewsdaily. com [27]\"Social Media Doesn't Mean Social Isolation,\" www. usatodayeducate. com [28]\"How Social Media Saved the Economy,\" www. technorati. com [30]\"Twitter,\" www. topics. nytimes. com [31]\"Facebook, Public Education and Equity\"www. dm [33]\"Going Viral: Using Social Media to Publicise Academic Research\" www. guardian. co. uk [34]\"Social Media and Voting\",www. pewinternet. org [35]\"How Small Businesses Are Using Social Media,\" s1. intuitstatic. com", "qid": "34", "docid": "562197e9-2019-04-18T16:01:31Z-00003-000", "rank": 6, "score": 215818.0}, {"content": "Title: Social networks are beneficial to our society! Content: I accept.", "qid": "34", "docid": "562197e9-2019-04-18T16:01:31Z-00004-000", "rank": 7, "score": 207478.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States. Content: Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States. Social Networking Web Sites defined: http://jcmc.indiana.edu.... (Indiana University) Boyd & Ellison in 2007 The criteria for social networking Web sites are as follows: 1) Construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system 2) Articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection 3) View and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system. The nature and nomenclature of these connections may vary from site to site. On Balance defined: Net benefits versus disadvantages Social Networking Sites Are Neutral And Simply Mirror Society. Boyd in 2008, Danah Boyd. [Fellow at Harvard University Berkman Center for Internet and Society]. \"Is MySpace Good for Society? A Freakonomics Quorum.\" Freakonomics \u2013 New York Times Blog. February 15, 2008. http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com.... Accessed November 5, 2008. Social media (including social network sites, blog tools, mobile technologies, etc.) offer mechanisms by which people can communicate, share information, and hang out. As an ethnographer traipsing across the U.S., I have heard innumerable stories of how social media has been used to bring people together, support learning, and provide an outlet for creative expression. These sites are tools. They can and have been used for both positive and negative purposes. For homosexual teens in rural America, they can be tools for self-realization in the battle against depression. Thanks to such tools, many teens have chosen not to take the path of suicide, knowing that there are others like them. For teens who are unable to see friends and family due to social and physical mobility restrictions, social media provides a venue to build and maintain always on intimate communities. For parents whose kids have gone off to college, social media can provide a means by which the family can stay in meaningful contact through this period of change. This is not to say that all of the products of social media are positive. We can all point to negative consequences: bullying, gossip mongering, increased procrastination, etc. Our news media loves to focus on these. Even the positive stories that do run often have a negative or sensationalist angle, such as those who used Twitter to track the California fires. Unfortunately, those who do not understand social media look to the news, see the negative coverage, and declare all social media evil. It's easy to look at a lot of elements of today's society and cry foul. It's equally easy to look at the new technology that we don't understand and blame it as the cause for all social ills. It's a lot harder to accept that social media is mirroring and magnifying all of the good, bad, and ugly about today's society, shoving it right back in our faces in the hopes that we might face the underlying problems. Technology does not create bullying; it simply makes it more visible and much harder for adults to ignore.", "qid": "34", "docid": "ff6dab6e-2019-04-18T19:30:28Z-00005-000", "rank": 8, "score": 206041.0}, {"content": "Title: Social Networking is Causing More Harm than Good Content: I am here to affirm and convince that \"Social Networking is Causing More Harm than Good\" in today's society. Social networking websites such as popular Facebook and Twitter cause issues with occupations and careers, relationships and marriages, education of our future leaders, and a total breakdown in communication. This is going to be a 5-round debate, and I look forward to challenging my opponent in this controversial topic. May the debate begin!", "qid": "34", "docid": "2e54c887-2019-04-18T18:01:19Z-00006-000", "rank": 9, "score": 205405.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web Sites have a positive impact on the United States. Content: This is following PF rules - Increases physical harm So many teenagers and adults have lost their lives as a result of social networking web sites. Because of a website, mothers have had to bury their children. It does not benefit our society. -Increases emotional harm People say a lot of irresponsible things while online. It results in unneeded and unwanted feelings that get hurt. Most of the users of social networking websites are teenagers. At that age, they are still kids, therefore, unable to determine who their true friends are. As a result, they are linked to the wrong people. So, reconsidering who their friends are would not actually help them. Because the resolution states \"That, on balance\" that means that the bad has to outweigh the good, or vice versa in order to win the debate. That being said, staying in contact with friends, and so many people dying cannot compare to each other. Thus, I stand Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web Sites have a negative impact on the United States.", "qid": "34", "docid": "58177ad2-2019-04-18T19:34:18Z-00003-000", "rank": 10, "score": 204287.0}, {"content": "Title: Social Networking is Causing More Harm than Good Content: First of all, let us understand what it is we are debating here. We are debating social networking sites. Not just one or two specific sites, like Facebook, or Myspace, but social websites as a whole. So let us put forth a strong definition to fit the topic.Social Networking Site: Any websites which facilitates communication between two or more individuals.So what we are really talking about here is communication between human beings, online, rather than through any other medium (telephone, letter, face to face, ect.) I will be blunt, it is asinine to propose that something which facilitates communication between human beings could somehow be more harmful than good. Social networking websites allow for human interaction over great distances. They allow people globally to connect with one another, share ideas, express desires, form bonds of friendship, and discuss similar interests. We live in an age where if someone feels alone or isolated, quickly using a search engine like Google could bring you to a forum of people who share your same feelings, alleviating the pain of solitude. Social networking sites allow humans a place to retreat to after a hard days work, or a long day of school. Indeed, the only difference between a social networking site and a gathering of friends in a public space is that using the website makes it easier to connect! Would my opponent dare propose that social interaction is harmful? Then how can they make such blanket statements about the vast array of websites which do just this, but allow you to, say, keep in contact with not just your friends, but you Uncle in a faraway place, or a loved one half-way across the globe? Indeed, the very idea is preposterous.As if it were not bad enough, my opponent, in order to justify their claim of social networking sites bringing MORE harm than good (not simply some harm), only gives rise to TWO potential issue; the first one being the medium is public, and can interfere with employment. This proposition my opponent makes is illogical. Let us observe why.1. This is not the fault of social networking sitesMy opponent seems to think that the actions of third parties can somehow justify attacking social networking websites. But this is illogical. To blame social networking sites for something that others do is misplaced blame. The existence of these websites do not force companies and employers to do what they do, they do it of their own desire. And taking away social networking sites will not prevent this from occurring, employers will simply look elsewhere, as they have done, for information on their potential employee. They'll call relatives and references, and gain information about you that way. And in older times, when communities were smaller, they would ask around the town for information. So the actions of employers to seek out information on their candidates for hire is nothing new, and cannot be blamed on social networking sites. All these websites do is give employers another potential source of information about you. In of themselves, these sites are harmless, and therefore without blame.2. This is not a problem with most networking sitesRecalling our definition of social networking websites, most social networking websites will not give rise to his kind of problem, because most websites allow for the creation of \"Usernames\", or names specific to an online site. I am sure, for instance, my opponents name in real life is not \"szack\", nor is mine \"The Chaos Heart\". These are fake names, or online names, made for a specific online environment. Most social websites you encounter on the web will be structured in such a manner, allowing for someone to construct usernames for themselves rather than use their real names. So this complaint my opponent has put forth is all but negligible.3. You could just not use your real name. There is an easy solution to this \"problem\" put forth by opponent, similar to the above critique about usernames. You could just lie about what your real name is. This is actually what I do with my Facebook. This method of networking allows you to hide yourself from unwanted attention, and allow permit those who you wish to see your page to view it. It completely renders my opponents proposed argument meaningless.4. The morality of firing someone is questionableThe morality of firing someone simply because they do not enjoy heir job is highly questionable, and I would argue, morally reprehensible. Someone may need a particular job to survive, even if they don't enjoy it. To fire them for simply not liking what they do, even if they may do it well and efficiently, is disgusting. To this end, we should not be defending such actions in any manner, especially not by criticising institutions like social networking sites. It's that companies fire people based on info they find on these sites that is wrong, not that they can access the information in the first place. My opponents argument is the equivalent of saying it is wrong for someone to go outside, because someone might murder them. Going outside isn't the problem, the problem is that there is someone willing to murder you to begin with. So it is with these websites and companies. The problem isn't the websites, it's the companies willing to fire people based on the info they find to begin with.Now my opponent proposes a second potential issue, which is similar in many ways to the first. That is, it interferes with education, both in terms of studies and application to universities. But these too are illogical complaints.1. Connection in education is goodMy opponent argues, \"Go to Yahoo Answers and see how many people use networking to try and answer their math homework or the science equation...\" But what my opponent fails to point out is how many of these students, as a result of doing this, learn the information and go on to answer future questions correctly, thereby having bettered themselves as students. There is nothing wrong with asking for help, either from professors or peers, and it is something which is often encouraged by educators. Several of these Yahoo Answers give detailed responses on how to solve any particular problem, and are vital resources for which students are able to easily gain the knowledge they need, and further their education. Further more, taking away social networking sites will not prevent this connection to occur; again, like with the example of employers above, students will simply do what they have done in the past. they will form study groups, call one another, discuss things before or after class, ect. Social networking websites then can hardly be held responsible for this behavior, as it is something done without it. Like with the issue above with employment, all these websites do is make getting the information easier.2. The argument of application and universities is the same as before My four above points about employers and jobs can be taken, reworded a little, and used again for this exact argument. This behavior is not the fault of social networking websites, but the fault of universities, who would and have done this with or without these websites. Most of these websites allow for the creation of usernames, and even if they don't, you can simply lie about what your real name is. And finally, the morality of not accepting a student based on something you find on their personal profile is questionable, and therefore, the problem isn't social networking sites, but universities engaging in this behavior to begin with.3. My opponent's own source argues against themMy opponent's edudemic article lists within it 5 major reasons why social networking within schools is a GOOD thing, in addition to the 5 points it makes about the negatives. I do not have enough characters left to quote them, but they are easily read by anyone who clicks my opponent's link.I turn it over to my opponent.", "qid": "34", "docid": "2e54c887-2019-04-18T18:01:19Z-00003-000", "rank": 11, "score": 199485.0}, {"content": "Title: Social networking sites are beneficial Content: Good day, Con, this is the second round, and I hope this debate will turn out very great. Before I state my second and third argument, I will present a rebuttal for your arguments. First of all, I agree with the fact that Social Networking sites are beneficial, but it is also detrimental, since I have seen cyber bullying a lot in these days. But, rethink your first argument. Because of growth of the society and the growth of technology, people likes to post their 'non-exciting moments' too, because they have got time to be in somewhere they can rest. For example, draw a picture in your mind that you're in a nice, cozy cafe. People like to take pictures of themselves resting, and it is very true and real isn't it? They do not use a program to make it all false. Why do they need to when they're just trying to post in a real way? Now I will state my second and third argument. P2: Social Networking sites can be diverse. As I said in the first argument, social networking sites such as facebook, twitter, google+ lets you communicate with millions of people around the globe. Now, as you know, each one of them may have different viewpoints over something. It may be the effect of their religion, culture, environment(etc.). Because of this benefit, we can learn to think about others personalities, understand their viewpoints. For example, It can develop social skills such as understatement of the social economy and skills used in the society. Brendesha M. Tynes, PhD, Assistant Professor of Educational Psychology at the University of Illinois said that \"Online social networking can facilitate identity exploration, provide social cognitive skills such as perspective taking, and fulfill the need for social support, intimacy, and autonomy. Whether constructing their profiles in MySpace, creating a video and posting it on YouTube, or talking in chat rooms, teens are constantly creating, recreating, and honing their identities -- a primary goal of adolescent development. This requires constant reflection on who they are, on who they want to become, and on their values, strengths, and weaknesses. As teens prepare to enter the adult social world, online social environments provide training wheels, allowing young people to practice interaction with others in the safety of their homes.\" Like this, understanding the viewpoints and the minds of millions of people can only be happened with social medias. You can also learn foreign language in some social medias because of hangouts, or diverse groups of people. P3: Educational benefits of social networking sites The first computer was a big pile of big gears. As the history moves on, everything evolved. The technology has been largely improved over the years, and we have moved on to the 'age of technology'. There are touchable screens, mails that send our message around the globe close to the speed of light, we have nano-sized hardwares and computers and it still moves on. The evolution of technology had a big effect on globalized educations. Unlike the past, teachers and students now can browse infinite amounts of ideas from the internet. The viewpoints are very different, and we learn to look at an object in most ways to understand it better. With technology, people can instantly browse ideas and major documents just in their smartphones. Look at the case of Samsung Galaxy 5 LTE*3. It can instantly download in 0.4 seconds. That is amazing, and think about the way students can browse ideas that fast. It helps students to talk more specifically about their schoolwork. Also, it urges students to try out new technology. In return, they get massive amounts of education skills. The National School Boards Association (NSBA) said that \"Almost 60 percent of students who use social networking talk about education topics online and, surprisingly, more than 50 percent talk specifically about schoolwork... With words, music, photos and videos, students are expressing themselves by creating, manipulating and sharing content online... Only a minority of students has had any kind of negative experience with social networking in the last three months; even fewer parents report that their children have had a negative experience over a longer, six-month period.\" As you see, there are many benefits according to NSBA. Getting a good school experience lets them to have great jobs. And thats not all. Since it can let people who are owning a large company see your educational record fast, they can soon get interested in you. According to Nicole Ellison, PhD, Assistant Professor of Telecommunication, Information Studies, and Media at Michigan State University, \"I believe the benefits provided by social network sites such as Facebook have made us better off as a society and as individuals, and that, as they continue to be adopted by more diverse populations, we will see an increase in their utility. Anecdotal evidence of positive outcomes from these technologies -- such as political activities organized via Facebook or jobs found through LinkedIn -- is well-known, but now a growing corpus of academic research on social networks sites supports this view as well... Social technologies never have predictable and absolute positive or negative effects, which is why social scientists dread questions like these. In considering the effects of social network sites, it is clear that there are many challenges to work through -- the increasing commercialization of this space, the need to construct strong privacy protections for users, and safety issues -- but I believe the benefits we receive as a society provided by these tools far outweigh the risks.\" In a instant moment, social networking sites leads you to success - in the fastest way possible. I hope you answer my argument, and let this debate be a great experience to ourselves! Links 2,3 :http://socialnetworking.procon.org...", "qid": "34", "docid": "cc128cdd-2019-04-18T15:58:37Z-00002-000", "rank": 12, "score": 199160.0}, {"content": "Title: All people should join at least one kind of social networking site. Content: Of course it is beneficial since it has influenced our lives in many ways and it has become a part of our life. It lets you get updated with recent activities of your friends and more importantly recent social affairs. It provides you an option for participating in the social activities and a scope to bring a change in the society.", "qid": "34", "docid": "ff6f8975-2019-04-18T17:08:18Z-00005-000", "rank": 13, "score": 196886.0}, {"content": "Title: Social networking sites are harmful. Content: Social networking sites are claimed as harmful to people but then why do they still use them. My reasons are as follows: 1. One of the most effective ways to promote your work, organization, or even themselves through social networking sites. There are enough places, such as Linked in and MySpace, where you can promote your business, organization, society and individual talents. The first advantage is that social networking sites will assist in the launch of a comprehensive strategy to promote the brand. 2.Social networking websites to promote friendship, take a break, travel partners, and even a spouse. The main idea is to create a platform where people from counties and cultures can meet and share a part of their lives with other people. \"Social networking sites like Orkut, Hi5, Facebook, and has a lot of popularity because people preferred to forget their man-made boundaries and reach approximately a person in a particular community or site. Meanings of words used to describe this topic: Social networking: 'the development of social and professional contacts; the sharing of information and services among people with a common interest.' Good:'excellence or merit' Harm:'physical injury or mental damage' Going off those meanings I would say when people say that 'social networking sites do more harm than good' that if their children or brothers, sisters even go on social networking sites that they are saying that either they have been physically harmed by social networking or they have been mentally harmed which would cause them to go slightly loopy and they wouldn't be able go on the site. So how do you define 'harm'.", "qid": "34", "docid": "5d621fc6-2019-04-18T18:36:07Z-00005-000", "rank": 14, "score": 196683.0}, {"content": "Title: Social networking sites cause more harm than good Content: In response to your point as to how social media can be used for bullying- yes, it's true that bullying online does occur. But I find it very hard to believe that they wouldn't bully people anyway, and having the bullying transfer from physical attacks that can actually cause very serious damage to a mere text message is in fact a good thing for society. As well as this, you have to consider the fact that social media does more than just stop bullying being physically damaging- it also is used for good. Friendships can tarnish if you don't see them for extended periods of time, but social media allows people to keep their friendships growing strong. Are you suggesting that ridding society of bullying in a way that can cause permanent damage is a bad thing? Are you suggesting that keeping friendships strong is not worth doing?", "qid": "34", "docid": "3c5fdcf2-2019-04-18T14:44:38Z-00002-000", "rank": 15, "score": 196647.0}, {"content": "Title: Social networking sites boon. Content: In my argument I as (Con) will tell you how social networking is good and beneficial. You stated that \"Social networking sites nowadays are used for stalking, committing cyber crimes and other frauds\" Now sites such as Facebook, twitter and instagram have privacy settings. This is where you can choose what information about yourself can be publicized. Some people choose to give out there personal info, this is there fault, not the social networking's fault. How is it beneficial? People use allot of social networking sites to connect with people. I will be giving you some examples. *Social networking sites spread information faster than any other media. *Law enforcement uses social networking sites to catch and prosecute criminals *Social networking sites help students do better at school *Social media sites help employers find employees and job-seekers find work These are just a few beneficial examples.", "qid": "34", "docid": "ab9f69d4-2019-04-18T15:31:53Z-00002-000", "rank": 16, "score": 195627.0}, {"content": "Title: Social Media Content: Although the basic use of social media is imperative to our society, abuse is also apart of the here and now. You say that social media allows us to interact with others we may not be able to see everyday, but it also allows people we don't even know to obtain information about our personal lives. The social networking website, Facebook, is a great way to keep updated on the lives of family and friends who may not be near by, but if you do not set your privacy settings anybody who has a Facebook account can access your information, family photos, your location at the time you posted a status. It is amazing in keeping connected, but is it really worth the risk of letting a stranger know everything about you and your family?", "qid": "34", "docid": "700681d9-2019-04-18T17:01:58Z-00008-000", "rank": 17, "score": 195421.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web Sites have a positive impact on the United States. Content: You stated: \"social networking websites are meant to increase communication\" Although the original intentions may have been good, now they no longer increase communication in a good way. You stated: \"these sites increase creativity\" However, not all of the sites give you the power to use the layout of your choice. You stated: \"It could be private or public\" Although a person's profile may be private, whatever you put on the internet will stay there forever. That has a negative impact on the United States because it undermines the accomplishments that people have made over the years. For instance, say a kid was trying to run for president. At that time, all of his/her confidential files become a \"free for all. \" If he/she had made any sort of comment while on a social networking website, that could jeopardize their political career. You stated: \"Your friends aren't going to try and lower your self esteem or push you to the brink of suicide and if they do then you need to reconsider if they are really your friends. \" However, teenagers, the main users of social networking web sites, are not at the age where they can truly determine who their friends are. Honestly, the rebuttals that you presented make no sense. Because I stated \"So many teenagers and adults have lost their lives as a result of social networking web sites. \" You stated \"Ok to start off I do believe that the amount of deaths isn't even close to the amount of deaths that we face because of other alternatives\" The fact that people die other ways, does not mean that many lives have been lost at the hand of social networking websites. Because I stated \"Because of a website, mothers have had to bury their children\" You stated \"mothers have had to bury their children, but mothers have other reasons to bury their children. \" Yes, that may be true, but that does no change the fact that children have died because of social networking sites. You stated \"Without this form of communication we are entering the future. These websites are the future so why run from the future? \" But, not only are we not running from the future, as you so eloquently stated, but we have already seen that success comes without social networking websites, and the death that comes with it, so why bother? You stated \"Also many children and teenagers are able to express themselves clearly so why is it that you take away their only form of expressing themselves? \" But, teenagers have so many other ways of expressing themselves, email/AIM (which are not social networking websites,) by phone (via text/voice/picture messaging and simply calling. ) So, what was your point again? I stand \"Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web Sites have a NEGATIVE impact on the United States. \" You have failed to actually argue on the impact that the social networking Web Sites have on the United States.", "qid": "34", "docid": "58177ad2-2019-04-18T19:34:18Z-00001-000", "rank": 18, "score": 195031.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States. Content: Thank you for the challenge, and good luck to my opponent. First of all, I would like to point out that all of my opponent's arguments are copy-pasted from the source which she quotes. Also notable is that the title of this article, as seen in my opponent's citation, is \"Social Networking Sites Are Neutral And Simply Mirror Society.\" However, in order to win, Pro must show how social networking sites are beneficial to the United States; if they have a neutral impact, Pro has not fulfilled their burden of proof, and so Con should win. To address Mrs. Boyd's points... Mrs. Boyd contends that \"I have heard innumerable stories of how social media has been used to bring people together, support learning, and provide an outlet for creative expression\" as well as that \"For homosexual teens in rural America, they can be tools for self-realization in the battle against depression. Thanks to such tools, many teens have chosen not to take the path of suicide, knowing that there are others like them. For teens who are unable to see friends and family due to social and physical mobility restrictions, social media provides a venue to build and maintain always on intimate communities. For parents whose kids have gone off to college, social media can provide a means by which the family can stay in meaningful contact through this period of change.\" However these claims are not backed up with any statistics. Though I don't doubt the validity of these statements, according to the resolution we are looking to weigh the impact of these points. I would ask my opponent for any statistics that will allow us to weigh this claim. Mrs. Boyd also contends that \"Technology does not create bullying; it simply makes it more visible and much harder for adults to ignore.\" However, what he fails to realize is that these social networking sites are providing a easy venue for these devastating actions to take place. Social networking sites *are* detrimental to the United States. Information put on social networking sites can have far-reaching negative ramifications. 4.5 million web users aged between 14 and 21 are damaging their future education and employment prospects by leaving an \"electronic footprint\" which could compromise their chances of winning places at colleges and companies. Also, imposters posing as you can destroy your reputation or even get you fired. Social networking provides a major distraction for students and employees alike. Students said they are having a difficult time concentrating on their schoolwork because they are more interested in what the social networking sites have to offer. Many college students would rather check their profiles than listen to the teacher, and can easily do so. Other students are also distracted from listening by the miscreants surfing the web. In business, 233 million hours are lost every month as a result of employees \"wasting time\" on their social networking. Sexual predation is a big risk in using the social network sites. Children and teens are not the only users of these social networking websites like FaceBook and MySpace; sexual predators, pedophiles, and other criminals use them as well. The Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire found that nearly 1 in 5 kids had received unwanted sexual solicitations over the Internet. In addition, the FBI found that the number of known Internet predators on social networking websites has more than tripled in a single year. Also a major issue is cyber bullying. Over 40-85% of kids have been exposed to digital bullying, 5% so much so that they are afraid for their safety. Bullying online flourishes through its unrestricted growth. As stated by British Broadcasting Company's Teenage Psychologist Expert, Martha Everett, \"People think they are a million times stronger because they can hide behind their computer screens.\" Cyberbullying can even threaten one's life. For example, thirteen year old Megan Meier committed suicide after being cyber bullied/harassed by her neighbor. In addition, Viruses abound on Social Networking Sites. These viruses, such as the Koobface virus, pose as one of your friends and send messages like \"You look just awesome in this new movie,\" and then direct users to a website to supposedly view the movie, where in actuality viruses are hidden. As Chris Boyd, a researcher at FaceTime Labs said \"People tend to let their guard down. They think you've got to log in with an account, so there is no way that worms and other viruses could infect them.\" This makes them much more likely to click on such links, ending in the flooding of their computer with malicious software. 83% of adults who use social networking sites have downloaded unknown files from other people's profiles, potentially exposing themselves to malware as a result. Also, Identity theft is a big issue in social networking sites as people place their personal information on Social networking sites. Research shows one in six 16 to 25-year-olds publishes information about his or herself on the internet that could be used by an identity fraudster. Scott Mitic, chief executive of TrustedID, speaks of social networking sites as a \"growing pool of valuable information that at some point thieves may consider more valuable than a credit report.\" David Porter, head of security and risk at Detica, is astounded by the fact that that people use social networking websites to publish details about their lives, loves, jobs and hobbies to the entire world that they would not dream of sharing with a stranger. As BBC News puts it, social networking sites are the equivalent of a big red target with flashing in respect to identity thieves. Many pundits argue that social networking sites are highly beneficial in every aspect of society. However, these sites pose as big of a threat as they provide benefit. With the further evolution of these sites, more problems will emerge and soon create an uncontrollable international problem. When push comes to shove, social networking sites are merely a distraction where time is wasted. Because my opponent points to relatively insignificant benefits and ignores the plethora of detriments, I ask you to NEGATE the resolution. Thank you.", "qid": "34", "docid": "ff6dab6e-2019-04-18T19:30:28Z-00004-000", "rank": 19, "score": 194846.0}, {"content": "Title: Social networking sites are good for our society! Content: I will just post something to get a win since he forfeited so yeah due to forfeit I at least win 100% on conduct My argument will be simple I am not gonna waste 115-30 minutes researching and preparing a difficult speech if I have no opponent this will be just a regular speech because that is all I need to win. cont 1: threats from social networking sites A survey on mic.com shows that at least 50% of rapes happen from info posted on social media about where they live. Yes it can be avoided if they hide this info but many teenagers are not considering this, or kind of like your house catching on fire, don't believe it will happen to them. cont 2: Some teenagers make social media their life On fox news they interview some people who stay on as long as 16 hours a day because they feel like social media is their life. Their are even some who get the 2 worlds mixed up and have to go get therapy. Ok that's all I am posting if opponent returns I will add more stuff but its not worth wasting time if no opponent just a argument at all is what I need to win so that's all ima do a simple argument.", "qid": "34", "docid": "6ea9a438-2019-04-18T15:38:58Z-00001-000", "rank": 20, "score": 193566.0}, {"content": "Title: that, on balance, social networking websites have had a positive impact on the US Content: I'm sorry, these aren't all my arguments. Intro As technology has evolved, mankind has made means of communication more convenient, efficient, and powerful. Thus, we have reached a new era of expressiveness, and that is why I affirm the resolution that, on balance, social networking websites have a positive impact on the United States. I will prove to you why social networking sites serve as a superb medium of communication that positively impacts social capital among its users, helps the American business as well as provides jobs. Point One: Social Capital What is a social networking web site? It is a revolutionary web service centered around building online communities for people that share common interests. With it, people can first create their own user profiles, and then create their own virtual community, with as many affiliates as they would like. As we live through life, friends come and go, and sadly, some we may never get a chance to see again. However, with social networking sites, friends can stay in touch no matter how far apart they may be. Since people can share as much information as they like with anyone in their online community anywhere that has internet access, social networking websites increases social capital. It's simple logic, if someone has the ability to share as much information as they like with as many people as they like, more time to talk with Point Two: Jobs Since social networking websites are such a convenient, efficient, and powerful tools, people have come to realize that it can be used for more innovative activities than simply socializing with friends. Since many professionals use social networking websites to help them find jobs, social networking websites benefit the American economy. According to Stanford University researcher Mark Granovetter 50%-70% of American jobs are obtained with the help of social networking websites. That's over 100 million American jobs. According to Mark Mehler from CareerXroads, a person using a social networking sites to get a jobs chances increases from 1/500 to 1/35. Point Three: Business According to Robert Half International from a poll of 150 senior executives from the biggest US companies, nearly 2/3 of them will use social networking sites for their hiring efforts.", "qid": "34", "docid": "7a949437-2019-04-18T19:29:40Z-00002-000", "rank": 21, "score": 193233.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States. Content: Unless my opponent has any objections, the parameters for this debate will be as follows: 1. \"Social networking websites\" are defined as web-based services that allow individuals to (1) construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and (3) view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system. 2. \"The United States\" will not be contrained merely to a body of government or a geographical region, but to society, businesses, people, etc. One last note: I would urge the consideration of anecdotal accounts to be considered in a logical rather than emotional fashion. Social networking is a thing of the future, a revolutionary concept that will transform the current world. Social networking has evolved from not only a place to meet your friends and mingle, but to a place where businesses are run, deals are made, and contracts are completed. In addition, the networks enhance communication and encourage people from different parts of the world to converse and interact. Also, the network has its educational benefits as well. Students who use social networking learn important skills to help them survive in the 21st century such as managing websites, editing videos, making use of other technological skills. The use of social networking tools as part of everyday working life has led to an increase in efficiency in the workplace. According to Dynamic Markets, Of those employees using social networking tools in the workplace, 65% say that it has made them and/or their colleagues more efficient. And 45% say that it has sparked ideas and creativity for them personally. Businesses use SNS for collaboration sites on intranets, internal forums within the company, company-produced video material shared on intranets, online social networks like LinkedIn and external collaboration sites on the Web and internal blogging sites. Benefits include increasing an individual's knowledge; giving access to products to problems; harnessing the collective knowledge of employees, customers and suppliers; stimulating team building; and better internal collaboration. In addition, businesses like Best Buy who use social networking increase their employee retention rates by making employees feel like they belong. There are far-reaching educational benefits of social networking. Christine Greenhow, researcher at the University of Minnesota, explains that \"[S]tudents using social networking sites are actually practicing the kinds of 21st century skills we want them to develop to be successful today.\" Also, according to a study conducted by Childnet International, teachers and students alike could set-up online \"study groups\" and students can use them to collaborate together on group projects and assignments. Social networking helps to encourage student engagement and increase participation, encourages online discussion amongst students outside of school, and provides students with a sense of ownership and engagement which often leads to an improved quality of work. Furthermore, Social Networking sites may increase an individual's self-confidence. As BusinessWeek says, \"When people are bullied they often don't feel confident about speaking to people face to face about what is going on - whereas doing it online is quite easy.\" Social networking Web sites can help shy people come out of their shells by teaching them how to interact with others in a safe, online environment. Social Networking has substantial benefits that greatly outweigh and hindrances there might be. Because of this, I ask you to AFFIRM the resolution.", "qid": "34", "docid": "ff6dab30-2019-04-18T19:31:40Z-00004-000", "rank": 22, "score": 193007.0}, {"content": "Title: Social networking is good for students Content: With this new medium, have come many new opportunities and new uses. It offers a beneficial place for students to learn about job openings, increase their connection with friends and improves relationships and it helps students learn about society. If students do not know how to use the mediums available now, they will not know how to apply for jobs, or stay connected, or learn about news of the world right at their fingertips.", "qid": "34", "docid": "37f600fc-2019-04-18T15:26:22Z-00000-000", "rank": 23, "score": 192052.0}, {"content": "Title: That, on balance, social networking web sites have a positive impact on the United States. Content: Social Networking is defined as a web-based service that allow individuals to (1) construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and (3) view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system. There are dozens of great things about social networking, but the main positives are the increase in social capital they provide, the political participation it increases, and the staggering learning potential it offers First, there is Social Capital. Social Capital is an economic idea which refers to connections between individuals and entities. Its economically valuable and it helps people link together and people who trust and assist one another are extremely powerful. the better a company understands their possible consumers, the more social capital. Multiple studies from such universities as Northwestern prove that the more usage a company puts into Social Networking sites, the more social capital they receive. not to mention that social networking is a $15 billion market, from advertising alone. Next, these sites such as Facebook and Myspace, and even debate.org, increase dramatically the statistic of political participation according to major academic studies. our new president, Barack Obama, used social networking tremendously during his campaign and he, obviously, won. his main site was Change.gov, but he also used other large sites as a crowd sourcing tool in order to attract even more of the young people vote. In continuation, social networking sites are not just for teenage socializing, it also contains enormous potential to be a learning cornerstone. in a study performed by the University of Minnesota, the social networking sites were helping students learn 21st century skills such as developing a positive attitude towards technology, editing and customizing content, learning online design, practicing safe and responsible use of info, and sharing creative original work. this show the Internet's overall enormous potential. Thank you, and please affirm this resolution.", "qid": "34", "docid": "570da76a-2019-04-18T19:28:12Z-00003-000", "rank": 24, "score": 189402.0}, {"content": "Title: On Balance, social networking websites do more good than harm Content: Alright, thanks radicalguy for posting an interesting topic, and lets get this started! As a sidenote, I am a bit pressed for time these days, so i'm apologizing in advance for the inevitable brevity of my case. I affirm the resolution resolved, \"On balance, social networking websites do more good than harm\" I'll start off with definitions. Social Networking Site: \"A social network service focuses on building and reflecting of social networks or social relations among people, e.g., who share interests and/or activities. A social network service essentially consists of a representation of each user (often a profile), his/her social links, and a variety of additional services.\" My value for judging 'good' and 'harm' will be utilitarianism, a value which we can both meet common ground with. My criteria will be social connectivity/harmony and the spreading of information, both of which are values intrinsic to the betterment of the human race. Without strong communities, and without common knowledge being spread amongst the people, we never could have achieved he technological and sociological wonders that we cherish today. Contention 1: Social networking strengthens social bonds, leading to a myriad of positive outcomes. Sub Point A: The strengthening of social bonds aids the development of social harmony. Sites such as Facebook and MySpace are used as means to build up friendships, have conversations, and compete in small games in a positive atmosphere. This new vehicle of interacting with other people inevitably leads to making better friends and having more people to interact with, allowing people to exchange ideas even when they cannot meet in person. They also make the process of forementioned socialization streamlined and expedient. Sub Point B: These sites allow for international correspondence, leading to international fraternity. Years ago, the standard means of distant communication was by letter. Of course, the obvious flaws were the time involved and the need for a specific address. The advent of the e-mail made messaging instantaneous, but a specific destination was still requisite. With the creation of Facebook and Myspace however, it is possible to link to and find people from all across the globe and communicate in a streamlined manner. Really, all these sites are trying to do is simplify and improve the capability of communication around the globe. The implications are staggering. Bonds of friendship crossing borders, even continents is something our predecessors would not have dared dream of. But it most certainly exists. Also, it provides a medium for communication for distant people who already know each other. For example, I recently moved from MA to CA, and wanted to stay in touch with my network of friends. Would e-mail have been functional? Of course. But Facebook allowed me to stay in touch with friends with unparalleled proximity. In the negatives world, I would have been confined to stiff e-mails instead of Facebook's fluidity. In their world, NO SOCIAL NETWORKING WOULD EXIST. Contention 2: Social Networking Sites Aid in spreading information and current events. Through being updated constantly through the thoughts and musing of others on a live basis, it leads to the assimilatiof knowledge of current events. How I learned about MJ's death? Facebook. Chilean Earthquak? Facebook. Now, while the negative would say that sites like Google News or the New York Times could be used, people go to Facebook much more often just because it has a positive atmosphere. Long have educators attempted to educate the masses while simultaneously entertaining, them, and these sites do just that. They make events which would once have been nerdy to orate about socially relevant and requisite to prosper in the comments section. Sub Point A: Social Networking Sites help spread different opinions and thoughts about an issue, leading to mental diversity. By allowing near instantaneous response and analysis of world events, fresh perspectives and vantage points can be seen, allowing for lively debate and introspection. For example, I have a friend of mine who converted from Christianity to Atheism after a long and philosophical theological discussion. Contention 3: Social Networking Allows and Encourages the creation of grassroots clubs and movements. With the feature of easily being able to find mutual friends and send out messages with intuitive responses, Facebook allows for the expedient creation of clubs and organizations joined together with mutual goals such as spreading political awareness or fund raising. The expediency of recruitment and the ability to organize events and hierarchy are once again improved by social networking. For all these reasons, you must affirm. I am now ready for Cross Ex.", "qid": "34", "docid": "c86547b-2019-04-18T19:08:33Z-00002-000", "rank": 25, "score": 188761.0}, {"content": "Title: that, on balance, social networking websites have had a positive impact on the US Content: Social network sites are all the rage today. They allow people from every corner of the world to interact with each other by sharing pictures, leaving comments and posts, iming each other and accessing their personal information. Although these new aspects of the social networking sites seem harmless, sexual predators are using these options to assault and harass children and teens all over the world. There have been many lawsuits against these networks for failing to provide adequate security and maintenance and for failing their responsibility of protecting their users. Social networking sites create a pool of private information where criminals can access it and use it to steal identities, or portray as a different person. In addition, social networking sites promote negative behavior, as seen with the pro-anorexia groups on facebook, and the juicy campus gossip site which landed a student in jail. Information put on social networking sites can have far-reaching negative ramifications. 4.5 million web users aged between 14 and 21 are damaging their future education and employment prospects by leaving an \"electronic footprint\" which could compromise their chances of winning places at colleges and companies. Also, imposters posing as you can destroy your reputation or even get you fired. Social networking provides a major distraction for students and employees alike. Students said they are having a difficult time concentrating on their schoolwork because they are more interested in what the social networking sites have to offer. Many college students would rather check their profiles than listen to the teacher, and can easily do so. Other students are also distracted from listening by the miscreants surfing the web. In business, 233 million hours are lost every month as a result of employees \"wasting time\" on their social networking. Sexual predation is a big risk in using the social network sites. Children and teens are not the only users of these social networking websites like FaceBook and MySpace; sexual predators, pedophiles, and other criminals use them as well. The Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire found that nearly 1 in 5 kids had received unwanted sexual solicitations over the Internet. In addition, the FBI found that the number of known Internet predators on social networking websites has more than tripled in a single year. Also a major issue is cyber bullying. Over 40-85% of kids have been exposed to digital bullying, 5% so much so that they are afraid for their safety. Bullying online flourishes through its unrestricted growth. As stated by British Broadcasting Company's Teenage Psychologist Expert, Martha Everett, \"People think they are a million times stronger because they can hide behind their computer screens.\" Cyberbullying can even threaten one's life. For example, thirteen year old Megan Meier committed suicide after being cyber bullied/harassed by her neighbor. In addition, Viruses abound on Social Networking Sites. These viruses, such as the Koobface virus, pose as one of your friends and send messages like \"You look just awesome in this new movie,\" and then direct users to a website to supposedly view the movie, where in actuality viruses are hidden. As Chris Boyd, a researcher at FaceTime Labs said \"People tend to let their guard down. They think you've got to log in with an account, so there is no way that worms and other viruses could infect them.\" This makes them much more likely to click on such links, ending in the flooding of their computer with malicious software. 83% of adults who use social networking sites have downloaded unknown files from other people's profiles, potentially exposing themselves to malware as a result Also, Identity theft is a big issue in social networking sites as people place their personal information on Social networking sites. Research shows one in six 16 to 25-year-olds publishes information about his or herself on the internet that could be used by an identity fraudster. Scott Mitic, chief executive of TrustedID, speaks of social networking sites as a \"growing pool of valuable information that at some point thieves may consider more valuable than a credit report.\" David Porter, head of security and risk at Detica, is astounded by the fact that that people use social networking websites to publish details about their lives, loves, jobs and hobbies to the entire world that they would not dream of sharing with a stranger. As BBC News puts it, social networking sites are the equivalent of a big red target with flashing in respect to identity thieves. Many pundits argue that social networking sites are highly beneficial in every aspect of society. However, these sites pose as big of a threat as they provide benefit. With the further evolution of these sites, more problems will emerge and soon create an uncontrollable international problem. When push comes to shove, social networking sites are merely a distraction where time is wasted. Because any perceived benefit of social networking is essentially an insignificant stretch, I ask you to NEGATE the resolution.", "qid": "34", "docid": "7a949437-2019-04-18T19:29:40Z-00003-000", "rank": 26, "score": 188422.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web Sites have a positive impact on the United States. Content: thank you and good luck Now to begin, social networking websites are meant to increase communication. When you use a system such as that you are accepting terms of agreement. These terms cover a whole basis of rules and liabilities. I have recently moved a great distance and these sites such as myspace have helped me keep in contact with my old friends and my new ones. Some of these are even a stress reliever for most kids. Kids will come home and go on and talk with there friends for hours and if they had a bad day, this may just help them with that. Also these sites increase creativity, basically by creating your own profile you are making your own PERSONAL site. It could be private or public. Now about privacy. Not everyone can get into your account if you don't want certain people to get in your account then you put it on private. Your friends aren't going to try and lower your self esteem or push you to the brink of suicide and if they do then you need to reconsider if they are really your friends.", "qid": "34", "docid": "58177ad2-2019-04-18T19:34:18Z-00004-000", "rank": 27, "score": 187666.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web Sites have a positive impact on the United States. Content: This is following PF rules - Increases physical harm So many teenagers and adults have lost their lives as a result of social networking web sites. It does not benefit our society. -Increases emotional harm People say a lot of irresponsible things while online. It results in unneeded and unwanted feelings that get hurt.", "qid": "34", "docid": "58177ad2-2019-04-18T19:34:18Z-00005-000", "rank": 28, "score": 187095.0}, {"content": "Title: Social networking sites are beneficial Content: Thanks for judging :)", "qid": "34", "docid": "cc128cdd-2019-04-18T15:58:37Z-00000-000", "rank": 29, "score": 186469.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web Sites have a positive impact on the United States. Content: Social networking has a POSITIVE impact in the United States. Without it, -our economy would not be where it is today -communication opportunities would be smaller -socially we would be closed to trying new things Going on to refute my opponent.. - although social networking sites are just a tool, without them.. businesses would not be able to assemble as they wish advertisements would not be able to appeal to consumers the general public would be unable to communicate as efficiently - because social networking sites promote people who have brains and can think independently, it can still have a direct effect Although the person has the impact, they would be unable to achieve what they planned to if the tool was not present As a result, PRO should recieve the winning vote", "qid": "34", "docid": "58177ab3-2019-04-18T19:34:39Z-00001-000", "rank": 30, "score": 185428.0}, {"content": "Title: Social networking sites are beneficial Content: First of all, social networking sites can help you gain confidence. Social Networking sites such as facebook, google +, and twitter lets you talk and argue or communicate with millions of people. The ones who cannot gain self confidence in real life could practice their self-confidence in the social networking sites. Since there are more people you can connect and communicate in the social networking sites, you can practice your self-confidence with different kinds of people you can't meet in you neighborhood. For example, I myself practiced my self-confidence in social networking sites, and it helped me greatly.", "qid": "34", "docid": "cc128cdd-2019-04-18T15:58:37Z-00004-000", "rank": 31, "score": 184718.0}, {"content": "Title: Social networking sites are beneficial Content: Thanks again, Dicsync for debating this with me, and thanks judges for viewing and critiquing this debate. I'll start right off by further depending my points, and answering my opponents rebuttal. 1st: My opponent agrees cyberbullying is a real problem, and has to be addressed, yet still continues to argue that social media is beneficial. Interesting. 2nd: Regardless of the \"excitement\" of moments on a persons Facebook, it's the idea that these people tend to hype up their own experiences to yet again value \"likes\" as acceptance. Also, no basis has been provided that allow you to say \"society is growing\" and no proof what people like to take pictures of. Regardless of this, it's not about the excitement of posts, but more about the experiences. I believe I miscommunicated, or you misunderstood, when i said \"excitement,\" as I only meant that people would post about their favorite moments, to brag in a way, whether it be at Disneyland, the White House, or simply in a \"nice, cozy cafe.\" The scenario doesn't change in this situation, as different people like different things. However, it is widely known that people will post pictures/posts simply to impress their audience, and reach this satisfaction. Now I'll be refuting my opponents 2nd and 3rd points. REBUTTAL P2: \"Social Networking sites *CAN* be diverse.* My opponent uses social media as a simple road to communication, whether it be to meet strangers, learn about others, or simply talk to friends. As this may be good, I ask the judges, is this \"social\" interaction as valuable as face-to-face correspondence? My opponent uses social media as not a way to simplify meeting others, but rather a way to hide behind a screen, while attempting to be what we define as \"social.\" Now I understand, there are situations in which social media may be good. But the fact of this rebuttal, combined with previous points, and the educational detriments that come with this (which I'll be covering next paragraph), any benefit that sprouts from social media falls when combined to it's numerous detriments. REBUTTAL P3: \"Educational benefits of social networking sites\" Winston Churchhill once said: \"However beautiful the strategy, we should occasionally look at the results.\" My opponent may try to paint a pretty picture in your head of how beneficial the fast download speed of a smartphone really is in a classroom, but let's think logically and practically about this. As a high schooler, I can confirm that social media is rarely EVER used for educational purposes. The 60% of educational posts most likely sprout from insults to teachers/subjects or even asking for help from others (which would be cheating, another possible problem with social media- but we won't go into that). This percentage is not only ambiguous, but could be inherently flawed. Lastly- all this^ rebuttal was to the intent of that contention, however my opponent did not evaluate \"social media\" during this contention, but rather technology and smartphones, which are not related. Let me add before I move on: \"Connolly cautions that students who use social networking tools might pay significant hidden cognitive costs. Facebook, Google, and other web services simultaneously seize and fragment our attention. They can subvert higher-order reasoning processes, including the kind of focus, concentration, and persistence necessary for critical thinking and intellectual development. Some researchers have correlated heavy Internet use with greater impulsivity, less patience, less tenacity, and weaker critical thinking skills. The need to rapidly shift from object to object online can weaken students\" ability to control their attention. Prolonged Internet use exposes students to interactive, repetitive, and addictive stimuli that produce permanent changes in brain structure and function.\"(1) Remaining argument: My opponent makes the following link: social media > great job. Not only is there no substantial studies or evidence to support this, but it is inherently false, when looking at source (1). My opponent uses professors to support his evidence, using their opinion, and what they \"believe.\" As opinions are great and beliefs are beneficial, no opinion can overcome the substantial evidence of detriments provided in source (1). For all these reasons- vote con. Thank you. (1) http://www.wcer.wisc.edu...", "qid": "34", "docid": "cc128cdd-2019-04-18T15:58:37Z-00001-000", "rank": 32, "score": 184548.0}, {"content": "Title: Social Networking Content: I'd like to welcome my opponent to the site; to get better acquainted, I figured that I would take this debate challenge, and observe her debating style for myself; not to mention, I wanted to expand my horizons a bit, and talk about something a bit more lighthearted. To clarify one thing: If it wasn't already known, then social networking sites are things like Facebook, MySpace, and Twitter, as opposed to dating sites like Match.com, Chemistry.com, etc. To things manageable, I will make only a couple of opening arguments, and I will briefly refute the Con's. I - Social networking is beneficial. Man is, by nature, a social creature; that is, people need people. As technology advances, so does mankind's means of communicating and socializing; for example, we've developed things such as the telegraph/telegram, mail service, telephone/cell phone, video chat, and now, we are looking at social networking sites; thus, we can see that, because social networking has increased the ability of people to communicate and socialize, whether city, state, nation, or even worldwide, social networking sites have clearly had a positive impact on society. II - Social networking sites balance a child's privacy and a parent's right to know. A classic clash always happens when pitting the right to privacy of a child against the right to know of a parent; however, social networking sites find a happy medium, so that neither side is overlooked; for example, on Facebook, a teenager may have private conversations with a friend over the private messaging system, but the parent of this teenager will still be able to keep track of things such as posts made to other friends' walls, pictures posted, etc. Social networking sites give parents the ability to keep tabs on many of their child's online postings, such as pictures and personal information, but without having to directly invade on their child's privacy; this again proves that social networking sites have had a positive effect on society. III - Social networking sites provide a degree of online safety. While all websites and internet users are vulnerable to some degree, the openness and oversight provided by the staff of social networking sites, give or take a few situations, ensures a higher degree of safety than might be found elsewhere on the internet. While these sites don't have to take direct responsibility for their users, there's still a higher sense of security than would be found in unchecked e-mail services, instant messengers, and chat rooms full of shady characters; so, to some extent, social networking sites provide all the benefits of other services, such as IM and e-mail, but without the fear of being stalked by a predator or serial killer [though I can't account for the harmless creepers that tend to accumulate on some sites. :)]. Now, to move on to the Con's sole contention. 1. Social networking is potentially harmful. a. A lot of different things can be potentially harmful; however, simply because something has the potential to be misused does not mean that it has had a negative effect on society; prescription medication, for example, can (and often is) abused by the people to whom it is prescribed; however, this potential for abuse does not mean that we do away with prescription drugs completely, and it is the same with social networking sites. b. In the case with Megan Meier, this girl was already reported to suffer from depression, was on several medications, and since the third grade, had been kept under the careful eye of her psychiatrist [http://en.wikipedia.org...]; as we can see, Megan was already in a fragile condition; as we can see, it was not MySpace that was responsible for Megan's tragic suicide; rather, this unfortunate event can be attributed to Lori Drew, Ashley Grills, and the several other people who aided in operating the account and harassing Megan; clearly, MySpace didn't intend for their site to be used in such a way, and this is evidenced by the fact that Ms. Drew, among others, was brought to trial, not the MySpace staff; for example, if someone is shot in a nightclub, nobody holds the nightclub staff responsible for being unaware that the shooting would happen; they hold the shooter responsible, as he is the one that committed the detestable act; in the same way, MySpace cannot be held accountable for the malicious acts of other people, and this instance, while tragic, is not a negative effect of social networking sites, but merely the misuse of them. I will stand down for the moment, and allow my opponent to chew on my opening arguments for a bit. Good luck, Con!", "qid": "34", "docid": "4c26d828-2019-04-18T19:20:17Z-00004-000", "rank": 33, "score": 184480.0}, {"content": "Title: does social media effect society in a good way Content: Extend", "qid": "34", "docid": "9e189cf7-2019-04-18T15:08:59Z-00000-000", "rank": 34, "score": 183641.0}, {"content": "Title: Social networking is good for students Content: Social Networking, I believe, can prove to be a distraction to low-performance students. I understand that SN can be used for productive purposes such as group projects and class communication, but it can also be abused and overused. With the growing digital society today, our current generation of students is highly susceptible to its ever-growing influence. Almost anyone in the urban or sub-urban setting in any population dense area has Internet connection and devices that could make use of such i.e. smartphones, PCs, and laptops. Any student has access to this and can be quite handy research materials(Let's not forget Wikipedia and Google) but can also be a way for the student to deviate from his studies. Of course, not all students are the same. There are those who manage their time and know when and when not to use SN without sacrificing precious study time or any time that involves his education for that matter. But we must also consider the ones whose performance is below average. Sure, SN will certainly help him with communicating with his classmates but this will only come to a productive result if he discusses matters involving projects or anything involving his current education. We must consider that low grade students or any other student can abuse SN. They can talk about mundane matters for hours, concerning their lives and their problems. Not minutes, hours. And one more serious matter: Cyberbullying. SN has become the leading medium for Cyberbullying and we all know that bullying has serious effects over the life of a student, especially those who cannot stand up for themselves. The communication brought about by SN is very quick and so will the negative messages come at the same pace. And not only will these messages come almost instantaneously, it can be published to his fellow peers wherein he will be subject to public humiliation both in cyberspace and in the classroom environment. I say that SN should be given time by the student if he is already finished with the work that he has for the day. SN can both amplify and destroy a student's image in his class. Teamwork and peer connection is a crucial element in a student's life. SN must be used moderately.", "qid": "34", "docid": "37f600fc-2019-04-18T15:26:22Z-00002-000", "rank": 35, "score": 182738.0}, {"content": "Title: Social networks are beneficial to our society! Content: I understand Pro feels strongly about this issue.I have a facepage account myself and I can tell you that they are not beneficial. For example:i) I experience psychological and mental stress every time it says I have a notification and it turns out to be someone inviting me to play Farmville. I estimate a 90% collapse in my mental well being (non-recovery) every time this happens ii) The people I hate keep bugging me !!iii) I am addictediv) Some nutters get to go on them.v) The Labour party have a fakebook page.VI) FACEBOOK is a social networkVII) FACEBOOK creates barriers in the way of genuine social interaction [1].VIII) FACEBOOK encourages bragging. Every post you do is \"look at me, I did this\" \"look at me, I discovered that if you turn the camera the other way, you can take pictures of yourself\" etc etc etc [2]IX) FACEBOOK is the cause of our loss of identity. We constantly feel the need to impress others through our pictures, our statuses, the pages we like, etc. The problem comes when we wear this mask so much that we lose who we really are [3]. Then people only know us for the mask, and to not surprise them, we continue it.End of argument.Source[1] (The first video)[2] ibid[3] ibid", "qid": "34", "docid": "562197e9-2019-04-18T16:01:31Z-00002-000", "rank": 36, "score": 182589.0}, {"content": "Title: Social networking sites are harmful. Content: Hello and welcome back to the debate; Social Networking Sites are Harmful. EleaDEVILnor has tried but unsuccessfully to convince you other wise. Thank you. I will start with some facts I found whilst strolling the library. 200 University of Maryland students gave up online media as part of a new study in 2011. When asked how they felt during the brief disconnection, students' descriptions of frantic cravings for the technology, anxiety and jitters mirrored those typical of people going through withdrawal from drugs or alcohol. If people have become so addicted to social media, as the Maryland study suggests, it makes you wonder: Is social networking good or bad for us? Bad I say! We have always known that computer networks would destroy the world. We just thought they'd get super-intelligent first. Instead, we got social networks, which act as a stupidity X-ray. You suddenly see through the intelligent people your friends pretend to be to the LOL-ing Farmville players underneath. Some smart people decided to study these networks, and found that they're a big threat to society. At least the rise of those machines forced us to band together and do things. Debate closed. Thank you. EllieBub :) I enjoyed this debate EleaDEVILnor, you are a good component! EllieBub", "qid": "34", "docid": "5d621fc6-2019-04-18T18:36:07Z-00000-000", "rank": 37, "score": 182259.0}, {"content": "Title: Social networking is good for students Content: Social networking is good for students because it helps kids do better in school. Half of all \"students use social networking to discuss homework assignments\" (National School Board Association). According to Georgia Middle School in Portland, Oregon, \"grades went up by 50% after students joined a social networking site\" (Kessler). 59% of students talk about educational topics online (National School Board Association). Because social media exists, students are \"learning practical skills that are necessary for success in today\"s wired world,\" (Huffington). Some people may think social media users have lower grades however, that is only shown as accurate if they are heavy users. Responsible users increase their awareness of news and important events. And as much as it helps in school, it also can help personal relationships. Social networking is good for students because it improves relationships and help students make new friends. Research shows that 70% of adults use social networking to stay connected to friends and family (Solis). Social media can help students \"make friends by allowing them to gain familiarity with others and build friendships online\" (Huffington). According to a study in 2011, a little less than half of the average Facebook users\" friends consist of friends from high school or college (Hampton). Even though some people think that they can lose friends because of social media, \"half (52%) of all teen social media users say using such media has mainly helped their relationships with friends, compared to just 4% who say social media use has mainly hurt their relationships. Similarly, more than a third (37%) say social media use has mainly helped their relationships with family members, compared to 2% who say it has mainly hurt them. In addition, a majority of teens say social media help them keep in touch with friends they can\"t see regularly (88%), get to know other students at their school better (69%), and connect with new people who share a common interest (57%)\" (Common Sense Media). More people use social media sites to stay in contact with friends. It is apparent that social media is beneficial in school and in personal relationships. But there are even other benefits for society. Social media is important because it created a socialistic change. Never before have people been connected in this way. It has caused all ages of people to want to get engaged in the medium. To this day, students are becoming experienced with technology \"developing their creative ability, appreciating new and different perspectives and enhancing their communication skills\" (Huffington). Because there are so many social media users, people have had to re-learn how to communicate with each other. However, some people think social networking is \"ruining the world.\" People believe that everyone spends less time in face-to-face conversations when there are social media sites where people can interact. However, there are also sites where people can meet new people or reconnect with people. Certainly there are other reasons why people think social media is ruining the world such as cyberbullying and decaying writing skills. Cyberbullying is very serious but if students don\"t put themselves in danger or if they tell a trusted adult what was happening, those issues would be less of a problem. Writing skills have changed dramatically because of some of the communication shortcuts encouraged by social media. Students may write \"u\" instead of actually spelling out the word \"you\" on school papers. But research shows that social media is actually helping the world and economy. People use social media to find jobs. New media such as Linked In show that 89% of job recruiters have hired employees through this site (HR Focus). Social media sites have also been shown to empower women and help them find jobs. That translates to high school students as well, who learn about job openings and opportunities through Linked In and other sites. It provides a new opportunity for students to learn about job openings.", "qid": "34", "docid": "37f600fc-2019-04-18T15:26:22Z-00001-000", "rank": 38, "score": 182189.0}, {"content": "Title: Facebook: A Boon For the Society Content: Dear Readers, Today I stand for the topic \"Facebook: A Boon For the Society\". Before to jump to the main body, I would like to make some clarifications: * Facebook: Facebook is a social networking website that was originally designed for college students, but is now open to anyone 13 years of age or older. Facebook users can create and customize their own profiles with photos, videos, and information about themselves. Friends can browse the profiles of other friends and write messages on their pages. * Society: A group of individuals living as members of a community. Reasons for Classifying Facebook as A Boon For The Society: 1. ALLOWS PEOPLE TO LEARN, EXPLORE AND DISCOVER THE WORLD AROUND THEM. Facebook allows people to discover the world present around them. In this rat-race, where people compete each other for money and status; making new friends and discovering new possibilities of relationship is almost impossible (I used the term almost). Facebook provides a quick solution to this problem. It allows people to contact each other from any place- home, houses, schools and others private/public places. 2. ALLOWS VIDEO CONFERENCING: THE NEXT GENERATION INTERVIEWS. Video Conferencing is a feature of Facebook, which allows people from any corner of the world communicate with each other. This communication when is supplemented by voice and video, is termed as Video Conferencing. *** DUE TO SOME PROBLEMS REGARDING MY TIME MANAGEMENT; I END MY ARGUMENT HERE TODAY. BUT I PROMISE TO COME BACK WITH MORE POINTS AND ARGUMENTS IN THE NEXT ROUND. *** Sources: http://www.techterms.com...", "qid": "34", "docid": "328e4b62-2019-04-18T16:00:41Z-00004-000", "rank": 39, "score": 181655.0}, {"content": "Title: Social networks are beneficial to our society! Content: 'The people I hate keep bugging me !!' Block them.. 'FACEBOOK is the cause of our loss of identity. We constantly feel the need to impress others through our pictures, our statuses, the pages we like, etc.' The same thing happens when you are member of any other social group. For example, at school we constantly try to impress our classmates in order to vote us for president of the class etc. If somebody cares about being popular he/she wants to be popular in every social group thar he/she participates in. If you're interested in being popular you have to try but you should protect your personality and not lose yourself. This is a basic principal you have to respect during your lifetime not only when you spend your time in a social network but in every social interaction. So, this is not a disadvantage enough important to outweigh social netorks' advantages. 'A FACEBOOK encourages bragging. Every post you do is \"look at me, I did this\" \"look at me, I discovered that if you turn the camera the other way, you can take pictures of yourself\" etc etc etc' It's not about bragging. SOCIAL networks has this purpose: to create a small society of people who communicate, share their interests, share photos etc. Actually, this is an advantage and not a disadvantage. This is why social networks spread Iinformation faster than any other media. Because soneone can discover something interesting and share it with other people. For instance, someone can be informed about a concert that is taking place or a new TV series that he/she would may find niteresting. ' FACEBOOK creates barriers in the way of genuine social interaction' This is a problem caused only when we don't use socal media wisely. We should be aware of this danger and protect ourselves. When we use them correctly we have the opposite results. We meet with people that we didn't know and we make new friends, we keep in touch with people who live in other cities or even abroad and since the communication is free and easy we speak more often to people we see everyday. All of these things, improce our social life and as I said in round 2, they facilitate face-to-face interactions. 'I experience psychological and mental stress every time it says I have a notification and it turns out to be someone inviting me to play Farmville. I estimate a 90% collapse in my mental well being (non-recovery) every time this happens' This is not a very serious disadvantage. In fact, this is not about social media. This is about your anticipation to hear from someone. You might feel the same thing when, for example, your phone is ringing and when you answer it you realize that they have called you to advertise a product or ask you to participate in a survey. Another example is when you hear the bell ringing and then, when you open the door you see a stranger who wants to sell you some things. 'I am addicted' This is a very frequent phenomenon, but yet again its cause is not social media but the way you ause them. Since you are aware of this danger, you have to put some limits and avoid spending too much time in front of the computer screen. The fact that you have realized the problem is a very positive sign. Here are some things you can do to protect yourself better: 1) Tell your parents to put a time limit to your computer that will allow you to spend a specific amount of time in front of your screen. 2) ask for help by experts 3) regulate your sleeping pattern (so that you ensure that you won't lose sleeping hours-this is a very frequent symptom of the internet addiction- and you will become more organized and self disciplined* 4) make a list of reasons why you will be happier by using the internet less and remind yourself that you can make it!* As you can see there are many ways to avoid getting addicted or to face the problem of addiction. Of course there are some serious dangers but dangers are everywhere. Social media has to offer too many important benefits for someone to claim that the dangers are enough to make them more harmful than useful. In this case the key is to learn how to get protected and not to stop using them. 'The Labour party have a fakebook page' Don't visit it. 'FACEBOOK is a social network' I suppose that you don't like fb so the solution for you is easy: DON'T MAKE A FACEBOOK ACCOUNT Thank you, I'm a genius, I know:P All in all, your arguments are more personal and most of your peoblems can be solved by deleting your account if you have or not making one. Other people don't find them serious or annoying enough to stop using them: As of September 2013, 73% of online adults use social networking sites.** Furthermore, social media do not include only fb. So, if you want to prevent people from inviting you to play games you can sign up another social networking site. Finally, I can't understand something. Firstly, you are against social networks and then you say that you have an account while you find it extremely annoying.. Does not make any sense.. Sources: *http://m.wikihow.com... ** http://www.pewresearch.org...", "qid": "34", "docid": "562197e9-2019-04-18T16:01:31Z-00001-000", "rank": 40, "score": 180634.0}, {"content": "Title: That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States Content: Imagine a place where you realize your importance within the world, providing a sense of identity to live out your wildest dreams. That is the image that social networking sites want you to believe if you sign up. \"It's a world where everything moves fast and changes all the time, where relationships are quickly disposed at the click of a mouse, where you can delete your profile if you don't like it and swap an unacceptable identity in the blink of an eye for one that is more acceptable.\" said Dr. Hinanshu Tyagi, a psychiatrist at West London Mental Health Trust. With lightening fast speeds, you can go just about anywhere on line. However, we seem to have forgotten the issue of safety, the way of communication, and just how fake our \"friends\" really are. When Tom first created Myspace, was it just a place for friends? Or did he not anticipate the largest social networking site? Point one: Social networking sites are public, whether users realize it or not. The privacy setting are so permeable, and external access to the network is so easy, that the network is effectively an open site. A survey concluded more than 90% of Facebook participants had provided their full name, personal photo, date of birth, gender, and hometown. Just enough for anyone to steal your identity, or a on line predator to find you. Last year Myspace reported discovering the profiles of 29,000 sex offenders. There are about 600,000 convicted sex offenders living in the United States which means at least 5% were on Myspace. A survey of 935 students concluded that when contacted by a stranger, 65% deleted or ignored the contact, 21% of teen responded to get more information, 8% responded to tell the person to leave them alone, but only 3% of students took action such as blocking the individual from further contact. Point two: Social networking sties are used by teen an average of one hour and 22 minutes every day. According to psychiatrists, the generation of young adults growing up with social networking Web sites \"are unable to form lasting relationships and are at increased risk of behaving impulsively.\" Facebook and Myspace encourage the concept that relationships can be formed quickly and with minimal effort, and the same relationships can be ended by simply \"deleting\" a friend. While, Real-world relationships are more difficult to form as young adults struggle to understand body language, tone of voice, and facial expression. In addition, 56% of all teenagers have posted false information to their on line profiles. Obviously choosing their virtual friends over real friends, creating only relationships rooted in lies. Point three: About 62% of teens on social networking sites have experience on line bullying. One example is the young thirteen year old Megan Meier. Like many teens Megan created a myspace, and soon met an attractive 16 year old boy named Josh Evans. They became friends and exchanged messages almost daily. Josh made Megan feel happy, belonged and beautiful. However, after weeks of messaging, Josh sent one message saying, \"Everybody knows how you are. You are a bad person and everybody hates you. The world would be a better place without you.\" Once reading that, Megan responded saying, \"You're the kind of boy a girl would kill herself over.\" Twenty minutes later, Megan was found dead hanging by the neck in her closet. Six weeks after the tragedy, Megan's parents found out that the \"Josh Evans\" was really a former friend's mother Lori Drew. In the world where owning a myspace is more common than owning a dog, youth are enslaving their social lives to a computer screen and a keyboard. What they post today can end up somewhere tomorrow, to be used in way that was not intended. The protection of ones emotions and well being cannot be promised when a blog, bulletin, or message is sent. On balance, no one seems to be connected to the real world anymore. But why be shocked, when all you can type is, omg?", "qid": "34", "docid": "ec88ad82-2019-04-18T19:34:14Z-00005-000", "rank": 41, "score": 180522.0}, {"content": "Title: does social media effect society in a good way Content: I will give a short rebuttal wich is the fact that ddo is a social networking site. Are these people antisocial? The answer NO they are far from it with many debates on countless topics. The forums where people comunicate about everything there are even ddo hangouts on google+ where people like you and me socialize. Plus we don't spend all day on these sites and a lot of us go to school or work for the most part of the day where we socialize all the time so I disagree with the fact that social media causes antisocial behaviour", "qid": "34", "docid": "9e189cf7-2019-04-18T15:08:59Z-00001-000", "rank": 42, "score": 180459.0}, {"content": "Title: Social networking sites are harmful. Content: As The 'Con' has said, I didn't say they 'allowed' people 10+, but 13, honestly, I know that people go on when they are 9- / +! It is disgraceful! Social networking websites are causing alarming changes in the brains of young users, an eminent scientist has warned. Sites such as Facebook, Twitter and Bebo are said to shorten attention spans, encourage instant gratification and make young people more self-centred. The claims from neuroscientist Susan Greenfield will make disturbing reading for the millions whose social lives depend on logging on to their favourite websites each day. But while the sites are popular - and extremely profitable - a growing number of psychologists and neuroscientists believe they may be doing more harm than good. Educational psychologist Jane Healy believes children should be kept away from computer games until they are seven. Most games only trigger the 'flight or fight' region of the brain, rather than the vital areas responsible for reasoning. Sue Palmer, author of Toxic Childhood, said: 'We are seeing children's brain development damaged because they don't engage in the activity they have engaged in for millennia. 'I'm not against technology and computers. But before they start social networking, they need to learn to make real relationships with people.'", "qid": "34", "docid": "5d621fc6-2019-04-18T18:36:07Z-00002-000", "rank": 43, "score": 180096.0}, {"content": "Title: social networking is bad Content: Today social networking and internet has become one of the most important part of our life. But is it reakky good for us. I dont think so. According to me social networking has caused many problems in our life. It has harmed a lot than helping us.", "qid": "34", "docid": "4befcae3-2019-04-18T17:19:09Z-00004-000", "rank": 44, "score": 178369.0}, {"content": "Title: Social Networking sites are a boon Content: \"Powerful new technologies provide great benefits, but they also change the way we live, and not always in ways that everyone likes. An example is the spread of air conditioning, which makes us more comfortable, but those who grew up before its invention speak fondly of a time when everyone sat on the front porch and talked to their neighbours rather than going indoors to stay cool and watch TV. The declining cost of information processing and communication represents a powerful new technology, with social networking as the most recent service to be provided at modest cost. Through the course of our surfing on the social web. I would first log you in with a thought, and then straight away hit the notifications and give justify my argument's and towards the end I bang up my words with an error 404 i.e. make this august house believe my points and over shadow my complacent virtual socialites on the other side. But will social networking sites really improve the quality of people's lives? The minuses are that all of this sharing can be dangerous, through gossip and potential abuse of the services. Examples include reported suicides linked to malicious gossip circulated on a social network. Some people become addicted to life on the computer screen, and withdraw from personal contact \u2014 it's a long way from people sitting on the porch talking to friends and neighbours... Tabbing onto notifications-- 1st notification - Social networking sites are a major distraction from learning. Psychologist Kirschnera told the Daily Mail that his team studied 219 U.S. university students between ages 19 and 54, and found that Facebook users had a typical grade point average of 3.06, while \"non-users\" had an average GPA of 3.82. The psychologist said the study wasn't about whether Facebook's good or bad, but goes more to the stereotype that younger people are fluid multi-taskers 2nd notification Social networking sites have given rise to online frauds and to paedophilia - children are unknowingly exposed to voyeuristic vultures. As I mentioned earlier, we have become addicts and are just blindly following the herd. There is no more confidentiality or respect for human idiosyncrasies. Playing online games, sharing your private information and photos has become the norm. If you do not participate you are looked as a pariah or an outcast. 3rd notification It is unethical for social network sites to use personal information to enable advertisers to better target you as a consumer. Personal information should not be used for commercial purposes. It is too invasive, and can cause emotional damage. For example, what if your profile indicates that your girlfriend just broke up with you, for example. An ad agency is allowed to obtain this information and use it to send you an advertisement on break-ups. This could do emotional damage. Now moving to facts and figures\u2026 The world is seriously obsessed with social networking.. As of 2011 there are 5, 00,000,000 users on Facebook i.e. 1 out of every 13th person in the world. 48/. Of the total users use Facebook right after they wake up! 57/. Of the people talk more online than in their real life. Approximately 2,000 billion notifications all over the social networking world. Now, I let you to ponder ladies and gentlemen will this not bring about disbalance in political, social, economical, so on and so forth aspects of a person's life and the world.", "qid": "34", "docid": "df3b86f3-2019-04-18T18:41:07Z-00003-000", "rank": 45, "score": 177169.0}, {"content": "Title: Social networking sites are harmful. Content: \u3053\u3093\u306b\u3061\u306f\u3001 \u3068\u8b70\u8ad6\u3078\u3088\u3046\u3053\u305d\u3002 Hello, and welcome to the debate, Social Networking sites are harmful. Yes they are harmful. I think Social Networking sites are very harmful from cyber bullying. It is absolutely atrocious the amount of people who get cyber bullied. We now live in a digital age, when being wired in seems as normal as breathing. Social networking Websites like Facebook and MySpace cashed in on the computer-toting generation by creating online 'social graphs' that allow younger (10+) to socialize in cyberspace. Now, with thousands of professionals flocking to these sites as well as to business applications like LinkedIn, some feel it's becoming necessary to use social networking sites to stay fresh in a new age of business interaction. The evidence to substantiate this notion, however, is small. Though the number of professionals connecting online surged recently, social-networking sites remain inadequate for successfully making new business contacts.. Unless you've already made previous contact, it's difficult to discern with who you are really dealing with. The computer screen, after all, offers little more than a r\u00ef\u00bf\u00bdsum\u00ef\u00bf\u00bd with a head shot. Social-networking sites prove more of a distraction than a useful tool. The inundation of friend requests and insignificant news feeds on sites like Facebook eat up valuable time that could be spent solidifying contacts in person. \"The most effective networking is face to face,\" says Stanford business professor Jeffrey Pfeffer. \"There's no substitute for real human contact. It's less personal online.\" Plus, sometimes a level of cyber-anonymity is more convenient than total Web exposure. While sites like LinkedIn and others allow old colleagues, acquaintances, and business clients instant access to your contact info, it might be more hassle than help to sift through uncensored blasts from the past. A good old-fashioned handshake or happy-hour cocktail will do more to seal the deal than any MySpace profile or open e-vite. This may be the digital era, but successful business networking online remains a thing of the future.", "qid": "34", "docid": "5d621fc6-2019-04-18T18:36:07Z-00004-000", "rank": 46, "score": 176560.0}, {"content": "Title: Social networking is good for students Content: They have embraced it by the billions! 1.35 billion users are on Facebook. 645,750,000 users are on Twitter and 200 million are on Instagram (Hampton). 72% of all internet users are on social media sites. 90% of 13 to 17 year old have some access to social media (Common Sense Media). And social media is growing dramatically each day. Obviously there is power and benefit to being part of the movement. That is part of the reason why social networking is good for students.", "qid": "34", "docid": "37f600fc-2019-04-18T15:26:22Z-00003-000", "rank": 47, "score": 176542.0}, {"content": "Title: Social networking sites are beneficial Content: Greetings pro, and I'm glad I have the ability to debate this with you. I'll start off with first evaluating your main point in this rebuttal, then I'll be going over my own points that allow me to negate the resolution. My opponents first (and somewhat only point) is that social networking sites *can* help you gain confidence. Now as this may be true, and as social networking sites have the ability to boost the self esteem of some, this by no means supports the idea that ALL are benefited by these sites. Not only is this true, but it also must be taken into account that this statement is not always true. When looking at social media today, we see instagram filters used to hide what people really look like, overused editing, and teenagers using \"likes\" as a form of acceptance. Not only does this lead to a lack of self-confidence, but it only makes people even more insecure, yet again proving social media is not at all beneficial, but rather detrimental. Now, I'll be moving on to my case, we're I'll be highlighting my own contentions. C1: Social Networking sites create a false reality and sense of importance. Since the beginning of sites such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, users of these social networks have too often posted only their most exciting moments, only post pictures when they are with their friends, etc. This flawed reality we too often create not only hurts these users (by using their amounts of likes to gauge their level of acceptance), but it also hurts the viewers of these posts. When average Joes with ordinary lives (like myself) see posts of only the utmost excitement (out of country, at parties, etc.) it creates the average to believe that their lives are not average, but rather much less than average, because they are not able to post exciting memories and moments on Instagram, like their peers. Going further, according to Cornell University's Steven Strogatz, social media sites can make it more difficult for us to distinguish between the meaningful relationships we foster in the real world, and the numerous casual relationships formed through social media. (1) C2: SN leads to decreases productivity Wired.com posted two studies which demonstrated damage to productivity caused by social networking: Nucleus Research reported that Facebook shaves 1.5% off office productivity while Morse claimed that British companies lost 2.2 billion a year to the social phenomenon. (1) Further, Peter Cohan followed up on the study in a February 2012 piece for Forbes.com, using statistics on Facebook's growth during the interim to calculate that Facebook use within the workplace could lead to a 9.4 percent productivity decrease in companies throughout the U.S., a drop that could collectively cost businesses as much as 1.4 trillion dollars. (2) With social networking leading to a lack of productivity, we see that social networking simply cannot be beneficial in a workplace, and also harms the economy. C3: Cyberbullying Ever heard of the #JadaCounterPose trend that flooded social media? Recent events that have taken place, involving 16-year-old Houston teen Jada, reemphasizes the need for social growth. After being drugged, undressed and raped, while attending a friend's party, Jada dealt with onlookers taunting her with photos, hateful words, and chatter. (3) People have continuously, not sympathized, but rather made fun of Jada, posting mimic photos of her \"counter pose,\" etc. This is what social media spurs. Although extreme, it can't be ignored that lives are ruined every day simply because of the negligence users have on social media. In conclusion, although there may be benefits to social media, the detriments that come along with these sites outweigh the benefits immensely. I look forward to hearing your response. (1) http://smallbusiness.chron.com... (2) http://yourbusiness.azcentral.com... (3) http://www.huffingtonpost.com...", "qid": "34", "docid": "cc128cdd-2019-04-18T15:58:37Z-00003-000", "rank": 48, "score": 176362.0}, {"content": "Title: Facebook: A Boon For the Society Content: I do not have any more opening contentions to give. Thus, I will take this round to refute Pro's contentions.R1) Social NetworkingPro argues that Facebook allows people to meet new people and keep contact with friends. However, as I showed in C1, depending on Facebook too much for such purposes is ultimately harmful to society, due to the resulting lack of real life social skills. It is a much better idea to rely more on face-to-face communication whenever possible. Even if an in-person interaction is not possible, it is still better to use forms of communication other than online social media- forms of communication that still require verbal involvement, such as telephone.R2) Video ConferencingPro argues that Facebook's video conference future makes it a boon to society. However, video-conferencing is not anything unique to Facebook. Skype is a popular software designed *solely* for the purposes of video calling. Google Plus is always rising in popularity. Facebook having a useful feature doesn't make it a \"boon to society\". In order to make such a claim, the feature would have to be something innovative and unique, and I demonstrated it not to be so in this case.R3) AdvertisingPro argues that Facebook giving us access to company advertisement is a boon to society. However, Pro himself notes that many people do not like Facebook's system of allowing companies to have access to their personal information, meaning that Pro has essentially refuted his own argument; something which people generally do not approve of cannot be considered a positive force in society. R4) Educational PurposesPro argues that because Facebook could potentially be used as an online resource for educational purposes, it is a boon to society. This suffers the same problem that his second contention does, except even more so; there are so many other online resources that are specifically designed for education, such as KhanAcademy and EdHelper. Anyways, many of the suggestions in the link provided by Pro are terrible; take the first one on the list: \"Instead of trusting Wikipedia, ask the crowd on Facebook.\" Wikipedia is FAR more reliable as a source of information than Facebook! Wikipedia actually has established contributors, and its pages are frequently reviewed... Facebook's potential \"educational\" value is completely undermined by the fact that there are much better resources out there. CONCLUSIONI have refuted all of my opponent's arguments, and he has yet to address any of mine. Thus, the resolution is negated.Back to Pro!", "qid": "34", "docid": "328e4b62-2019-04-18T16:00:41Z-00001-000", "rank": 49, "score": 176334.0}, {"content": "Title: That, on balance, social networking web sites have a positive impact on the United States of America Content: That, on balance, social networking web sites have a positive impact on the United States\" I reserve the right top clarify 1st Round (Evidence and the case) 2nd Round Rebuttal 1. Social Networking web sites Definition www. techlearning. com/story/showArticle. php this is where people develop networks of friends and associates. It forges and creates links between different people. 2. impact- strong effect: the powerful or dramatic effect that something or somebody has . http://encarta.msn.com... An impact could be direct or indirect List of Positive impacts 1. Economy . http://www.usatoday.com... Social Networks are boosting economy through helping businesses advertise. Social networks account for billions of dollars 2. Democracy Social networking web sites help people exchange ideas and ultimately spread their beliefs and in result the democratic beliefs are the ones being spread to places like China. Therefore social networking websites are key to increasing number of democracies Social networking websites also help people organize and politically participate this leads to increased participation in US democracy, past 2-3 election prove 3. Terrorism and wars 1. A better economy is key to battle terrorism . http://www.linktv.org... \"(U. S. ) Amin remembers that eight years ago we had a budget surplus-- and now our deficit is huge. If we can solve the economic problem, other problems will diminish. \" 2. A strong democracy is key to solve war and terrorism . http://www.foxnews.com... Democracy is the answer (to terrorism). We will solve all the problems. We have a situation. We have issues. We've got problems. But we will solve them and we will rise to the occasion. And, democracies don't go to war with other democracies, so if the number of democracies increases the number of likely incidents around the world decreases.", "qid": "34", "docid": "19ef6a93-2019-04-18T19:33:50Z-00003-000", "rank": 50, "score": 176254.0}, {"content": "Title: social networking is bad Content: Yes it allows us to interact with people but also exposes our personal information. For example, the con side just mentioned that we can share our photos with each other but those photos are seen by other people also and some of those people are criminals or you can just can say bad guys who can use to that photo for a bad purpose. Social networking reveals our personal information.", "qid": "34", "docid": "4befcae3-2019-04-18T17:19:09Z-00002-000", "rank": 51, "score": 175425.0}, {"content": "Title: Social Networking Sites are Harmful Content: The 'Pro' is here, And I am a GIRL! I think Social Networking sites are very harmful from cyber bullying. It is absolutely atrocious the amount of people who get cyber bullied. We now live in a digital age, when being wired in seems as normal as breathing. Social networking Websites like Facebook and MySpace cashed in on the computer-toting generation by creating online 'social graphs' that allow younger (10+) to socialize in cyberspace. Now, with thousands of professionals flocking to these sites as well as to business applications like LinkedIn, some feel it's becoming necessary to use social networking sites to stay fresh in a new age of business interaction. The evidence to substantiate this notion, however, is small. Though the number of professionals connecting online surged recently, social-networking sites remain inadequate for successfully making new business contacts.. Unless you've already made previous contact, it's difficult to discern with who you are really dealing with. The computer screen, after all, offers little more than a r\u00ef\u00bf\u00bdsum\u00ef\u00bf\u00bd with a head shot. Social-networking sites prove more of a distraction than a useful tool. The inundation of friend requests and insignificant news feeds on sites like Facebook eat up valuable time that could be spent solidifying contacts in person. \"The most effective networking is face to face,\" says Stanford business professor Jeffrey Pfeffer. \"There's no substitute for real human contact. It's less personal online.\" Plus, sometimes a level of cyber-anonymity is more convenient than total Web exposure. While sites like LinkedIn and others allow old colleagues, acquaintances, and business clients instant access to your contact info, it might be more hassle than help to sift through uncensored blasts from the past. A good old-fashioned handshake or happy-hour cocktail will do more to seal the deal than any MySpace profile or open e-vite. This may be the digital era, but successful business networking online remains a thing of the future. Help from ( http://www.businessweek.com... )", "qid": "34", "docid": "5c1e1da6-2019-04-18T18:36:14Z-00007-000", "rank": 52, "score": 174743.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: On balance, social networking websites have a positive impact on the United States. Content: Neilson/Netratings has issued a study showing that the top 10 social networking sites saw traffic growth of 47% and over the last year. Myspace has seen the biggest growth 367% more users. Social networking sites are becoming a way of life as the number of individuals logging on to these sites grow each year. Social networking sites contribute to the economy and education. Therefore I stand (www.socialsoftware.webblogsinc.com/2006/05/17top-10-social-networking-sites-see-47-growth/) Resolved: Social networking sites on balance have a positive effect on the United States For this debate I clarify the following defintions on balance as net result or overall effect (www.investorwords.com/3410/on_balance.html) positive to be admitting of no doubt or irrefutable fact (American Heritage second College edition) 1.Rape, Suicide, and identity theft can be avoided The negative aspects of social networking sites can be easily prevented as well as avoided. The site has resources on it. One example of these resources is blocking your site from the public, ensuring that only your friends can see your see your personal information and pictures. You can also only talk to people you actually know, thus preventing people who do not know you from talking to you. You should only post pictures that do not show your neighborhood and where you live. You shouldn't give any personal information out on these sites such as your address, phone number, email addresses, or other information that can lead to you getting into a bad situation. \"It is easy to dodge our responsibilities, but we cannot dodge the consequences of dodging our responsibilities.\" Josiah Charles Stamp once said. With social networking sites people need to be responsible if you're choosing not to be safe then you need to accept the consequences of your actions. If you still think that these sites are bad news then you can choose not to go on them. 2.The use of YouTube and social networking websites has now moved into the realm of educational development Social networking sites can be used in an educational sense. Now online there aren't just teens, these sites have expanded, many colleges are opening up and posting lectures on YouTube and campus life videos. Berkley has posted videos with lectures, tours of campuses, and athletic events. The population on YouTube is increasing and many more institutions are using YouTube for a health outreach. Women's health today and lectures from Mini Medical School and Osher Lifelong Learning Institution, which are popular in today's culture. Women's health Today videos have more than 300,000 views. This is an increase in the reach of this unique and valuable programs said Burstan. (March 2008, Positive Presence on YouTube. 3.People are gaining political knowledge by going on candidate's social networking sites. (Msnbc.com and Foxnews.com) \"As the country's most trafficked Website, Myspace will play a power role in the upcoming election. Our digital candidate banners will be the yard signs of the 21st Century and our political viral videos and vlogs are the campaign ads of the future, By empowering our users with easy-to-find information, offered in a way they can relate to it, Impact will ignite their involvement in the political process.\" Said Chris DeWolfe, Ceo of Myspace. Myspace has influence people all over the world with the 10million plus accounts. Former Presidential candidate Senator Hilary Clinton has a myspace page with 52,000 friends, while Barrack Obama has 100,000 friends. Ron Paul, Joe Biden, John McCain, Mitt Romney, John Edwards, and many other political candidates have my spaces to influence voters. This allows people to get more involved in the political process and activities. This is good for the country because it increases the voter turn out. In many states they had record number of new younger voters that turned and about 77% of people who had a MySpace voted because they were influenced by this candidates' sites on Myspace. (Study done by Fox news late November) Showing that the social networking sites have an influence on the younger generation of America. According to com Scores report (2006) 68% of Myspace users are 25 and older. The average age of a myspace user is 35. Most myspace users are 35-54 and are accounted for 41% of Myspaces users. Teens Only account for 12% of the audience. (mashable.com) 4.Social networking helps the economy Almost all social networking websites are usually run as a business. The person or people who started the site are hoping to make money, usually through advertising. They enable the economy as any business does, through the transfer of money form one person to the other. The consumer may not have been able to meet the product in the real world and we are seeing more products making it into the market place from ads on social networking sites. Social networking sites give a new place for people to advertise and inform people about their product. Companies are asking, 'How can we make our workforce more productive?' \" says Kevin Martin, an analyst at market researcher Aberdeen Group. Corporations increasingly are \"exploring and experimenting\" in the use of social networks to improve business operations, says Gina Bianchini,CEO of Ning, a social-networking site for businesses and consumers. It makes revenue from Google AdSense and premium services. \"There's been a definite shift the last two months,\" she says. \"There is a genuine interest now rather than a casual curiosity before.\" I'm not talking about just sticking an ad on the site, but people are creating a page on the networking site so they can tell people about their product or services. These people can then connect to the product if they want more info and become \"friends\" or fans on the page. Conclusion On balance social networking sites have a positive effect on The United States due to education, the economy, and voting.", "qid": "34", "docid": "4cb138a2-2019-04-18T19:27:54Z-00004-000", "rank": 53, "score": 174709.0}, {"content": "Title: Social Networking sites are a boon Content: Social networking websites are causing alarming changes in the brains of young users, an eminent scientist has warned. Sites such as Facebook, Twitter and Bebo are said to shorten attention spans, encourage instant gratification and make young people more self-centred. The claims from neuroscientist Susan Greenfield will make disturbing reading for the millions whose social lives depend on logging on to their favourite websites each day. Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg. The popular website has made him a very rich man, but at what cost to human relationships? But they will strike a chord with parents and teachers who complain that many youngsters lack the ability to communicate or concentrate away from their screens. More than 150million use Facebook to keep in touch with friends, share photographs and videos and post regular updates of their movements and thoughts. A further six million have signed up to Twitter, the 'micro-blogging' service that lets users circulate text messages about themselves. But while the sites are popular - and extremely profitable - a growing number of psychologists and neuroscientists believe they may be doing more harm than good. Baroness Greenfield, an Oxford University neuroscientist and director of the Royal Institution, believes repeated exposure could effectively 'rewire' the brain. Girl Using Computer Experts are concerned children's online social interactions can 'rewire' the brain Computer games and fast-paced TV shows were also a factor, she said. 'We know how small babies need constant reassurance that they exist,' she told the Mail yesterday. 'My fear is that these technologies are infantilising the brain into the state of small children who are attracted by buzzing noises and bright lights, who have a small attention span and who live for the moment.' Professor Susan Greenfield Professor Susan Greenfield: Concerned Her comments echoed those she made during a House of Lords debate earlier this month. Then she argued that exposure to computer games, instant messaging, chat rooms and social networking sites could leave a generation with poor attention spans. 'I often wonder whether real conversation in real time may eventually give way to these sanitised and easier screen dialogues, in much the same way as killing, skinning and butchering an animal to eat has been replaced by the convenience of packages of meat on the supermarket shelf,' she said. Lady Greenfield told the Lords a teacher of 30 years had told her she had noticed a sharp decline in the ability of her pupils to understand others. 'It is hard to see how living this way on a daily basis will not result in brains, or rather minds, different from those of previous generations,' she said. She pointed out that autistic people, who usually find it hard to communicate, were particularly comfortable using computers. 'Of course, we do not know whether the current increase in autism is due more to increased awareness and diagnosis of autism, or whether it can - if there is a true increase - be in any way linked to an increased prevalence among people of spending time in screen relationships. Surely it is a point worth considering,' she added. Psychologists have also argued that digital technology is changing the way we think. They point out that students no longer need to plan essays before starting to write - thanks to word processors they can edit as they go along. Satellite navigation systems have negated the need to decipher maps. A study by the Broadcaster Audience Research Board found teenagers now spend seven-and-a-half hours a day in front of a screen. Educational psychologist Jane Healy believes children should be kept away from computer games until they are seven. Most games only trigger the 'flight or fight' region of the brain, rather than the vital areas responsible for reasoning. Sue Palmer, author of Toxic Childhood, said: 'We are seeing children's brain development damaged because they don't engage in the activity they have engaged in for millennia. 'I'm not against technology and computers. But before they start social networking, they need to learn to make real relationships with people.'", "qid": "34", "docid": "df3b86f3-2019-04-18T18:41:07Z-00000-000", "rank": 54, "score": 174617.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: On balance, social networking websites have a positive impact on the United States. Content: [Before my case is presented, I would like to set the grounds for debate. First round is a reading of cases. The next round is rebuttal and reconstruction, and round 3 is a summary of the case, along with major voting issues, should any be decided by either party. Nearly 110 million unique users log on to social networking sites on a monthly basis, and while there can be many benefits to using these sites, more harm comes from them than good. The resolution states: That, on balance, social networking sites have a positive impact on the United States. Because the negative has the first argument in the round it is the negative's burden to provide necessary definitions for the round, although the only necessary term that needs defining would be the phrase \"on balance\" which the negative chooses to define as \"all things considered and weighed equally\". This definition was comprised of multiple sources' definitions to provide a clearer definition for the reader. When we weigh and consider all of the pros and cons of social networking, we can see that the cons outweigh the pros, therefore, social networking cannot have a positive impact on the United States. C1. [Social networking sites hurt employment by becoming a haunting reflection of a teenager's past that can deter employers from getting a job in later life.] Employment is the first major reason that social networking cannot have a positive impact. While it can be good for employers to check web profiles of possible employees before hiring them, it can backfire as well. Anders Albrechtslund, in his article \"Online Social Networking as Participatory Surveillance,\" quotes Ivan Tribble as saying that \"When youngsters lead a life in mediated publics, the fear is that their adolescent thoughts, musings and immature actions might become a millstone around their neck, since the information will be embarrassingly accessible later on. One such speculation has to do with getting a job in adult life.\" Albrechtslund then himself states that Tribble \"is convinced that past online social networking will be damaging to an applicant's chances for employment.\" Qualified workers may be turned down because of their personal life, which should be separate from their business life. An example of this is when a 21 year-old major in public relations at Baylor University had her name surface on a social networking site called JuicyCampus and was called the \"biggest slut on campus.\" She said she was trying \"to get a job in business,\" and the last thing she wanted was \"maliciousness and lies\" about her all over the Internet. C2. [Social networking sites are nearly impossible to regulate or control by outside sources, and current moderation is inadequate.] Another reason that social networking is a problem stems from the fact that we cannot regulate it or control it, seeing as it is an ever-evolving media. Jeanne Brooks-Gunn and Elisabeth Hirschhorn Donahue conclude in their article \"Introducing the Issue\" that \"government rulemaking that regulates some, but not all, types of media\" makes it \"difficult to enact laws...that keep pace with rapidly changing technology, much of which is outside the purview of government control... and as technological convergence becomes the norm, regulating a specific media form, such as requiring V-chips in televisions, becomes somewhat meaningless.\" There is also little legal consequence for social networking sites' content. The aforementioned JuicyCampus that nearly ruined a college student's chance for a job, is completely legal. Richard Morgan says in his article \"A Crash Course in Online Gossip\" that it is \"immune, no matter what it runs on its site from users, just like AOL is not responsible for ...content in their chat rooms.... JuicyCampus is not encouraging people to be themselves, it's encouraging them to be the worst version of themselves.\" And since these sites are protected by the Communications Decency Act of 1996, they are also immune to bigotry, hatred and other insulting comments. Therefore we have no one to blame but the owners of the social networking companies alone for not keeping a firmer grip on the actions of its members. C3. [Social networking sites' amount of harassment and bullying can drive teens to depression and suicide, and human lives are being morally valued under online lives.] While social networking can be a problem for the older crowd and employment, it becomes an even bigger problem because of harassment and bullying on these social networking sites. THe complete openness and legality of these sites makes it easy for harassing messages and cyberbullying to occur without recourse. Kaveri Subrahmanyam and Patricia Greenfield did a study in 2005 showing 9 percent of young Internet users reporting being harassed online in the previous year. Since then, with the coming of more sites, advancing technology, and more ways to bully online, that number jumped dramatically to 43 percent in the next year, in a study done by Harris Interactive. While this often brings feelings of anger and depression in teens, sometimes this harassment drives teens to suicide, such as in the case of Megan Meier, who was reportedly being harassed via the social networking site Myspace. The next day, she had hung herself in her own bedroom. Now while those who support social networking say that we are allowing kids to communicate, and also adding to the economy through supporting these social networking companies, they are ignoring the most important aspect of all: the value of a human life. We cannot put a list of internet friends or the growth of a company or the popularity of a person ofer a human life. Recently in Wales, according to Switched.com, 17 suicides in a single networking were linked to social networking sites alone. Things like this are happening worldwide and we cannot let it happen here again (such as in Megan Meier's case) by promoting social networking anymore. When we see that social networking causes problems not only when we put a person's personal lives over their business lives, but when we put their online lives over their human lives. The cons of situations like these outweigh the pros dramatically, and that is why I urge a negative ballot.", "qid": "34", "docid": "4cb138a2-2019-04-18T19:27:54Z-00005-000", "rank": 55, "score": 174459.0}, {"content": "Title: Social Networking Content: Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States. Today, I am against the resolution, Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States. Social networking sites have had a negative impact on the United States. My first conjunctions is as followed; --Social Networking is potentially going to harm to persons using them. One example of this is Megan Meier, who took her life after an old friends mom posed as a boy on myspace and began harassing her. When a social networking site does nothing to protect users of it's site, we see it as unfit. Just as we would see a mother unfit to raise a child if she didn't protect it from danger. ** I can't wait for someone's reply**", "qid": "34", "docid": "4c26d828-2019-04-18T19:20:17Z-00005-000", "rank": 56, "score": 174298.0}, {"content": "Title: social networks are more harm than good Content: People have come to treat social networks as a new means for communicating with others. When we contact others via Twitter, Facebook or any other site, we expect that we\u2019ll hear back from those people or companies just as we do when we send an email or leave a voicemail. The problem is that many people and companies don\u2019t. I see it all the time in my personal use of these networks. You get bad service or need to get in touch with a person/company and find them on a social network. You then contact them and wait to hear back \u2014 often you never get a response. In other cases, you may hear back days or weeks later. These folks did their part and set up accounts to promote their business, but in being unresponsive, they just did themselves a great deal of harm. If you\u2019ve got a profile, people will expect that you are going to be responsive on that network.", "qid": "34", "docid": "c4b5d675-2019-04-18T17:50:23Z-00000-000", "rank": 57, "score": 173697.0}, {"content": "Title: Social networking sites On Balance have had a positive impact on the United States Content: Social Networking sites are a tricky thing to debate because of the various pros and cons. I decided to take this debate on however. First off, many people are reunited through social networking site. Second, many people find life long companions through dating websites. Third, people can keep in touch with family from all across the world. These are a few of the pros.", "qid": "34", "docid": "f359b0bb-2019-04-18T19:27:59Z-00004-000", "rank": 58, "score": 173427.0}, {"content": "Title: is social networking sites really a boon or bane Content: Seeing as my opponent forfeited (and I feel they shall again), I shall not put too much here. 1) Social Networks allow us to connect with all our old friends and family that we lose contact with.2) Social Networks gave way for the innovation of \"social gaming\". Gaming like Farmville could only come about through social Networks.3) Social Networks allow New social movements (NSMs) to form. NSMs are political movements which put huge pressure on the government in order to act in certain ways, usually reactionary to go against laws. They also work against many corporations as well. For example, the 2009 charts led with \"Killing in the Name\", which only came about due to facebook campaigns, and the general pro-piracy movements.", "qid": "34", "docid": "4a484e4e-2019-04-18T18:10:35Z-00001-000", "rank": 59, "score": 173160.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web Sites have a positive impact on the United States. Content: Line-by-line: \"Our economy would not be where it is today\"--> 1. There is no evidence for this. Or analysis for that matter. But if you think about this logically, you will see that the advertisements that \u2018increased the economy' would have been used in other places. 2. This would only show that in THIS case, it was used properly. So the hammer built the house (if you will), but you're forgetting about the people who have been cyber-bullied or even pushed to the point of suicide. This just shows how it can be used good and bad and therefore it can't be determined if it is a positive impact or a negative impact. \"Communication opportunities would be smaller\"--> 1. All tools have their benefits. Even a gun. EVEN A NUCLEAR WEAPON. But that does not mean that there is an automatic positive effect. 2. I'm not advocating elimination of Social Networking Sites. 3. You can still call someone! This debate just goes to show that with great power comes great responsibility. But you can not just up and vote PRO because some people use that responsibility properly. 4. Communication increase in a computer to computer basis increases blatant bullying. This is because it is easier to type what you think rather than to say it. Look to the girl that was pushed to suicide because of social networking sites. And this was all made possible by an \u2018increase in communication.' AGAIN, it is how you use it. \"businesses would not be able to assemble as they wish advertisements would not be able to appeal to consumers the general public would be unable to communicate as efficiently\" -Businesses can always assemble over the internet OR in real life (sorry if I come off as old fashioned.) -TV advertisements still exist. -The efficiency is as good as it can be bad. All it takes is a click of the send message before I just told someone how much I hate them. AGAIN, it is how you use it. No direct effect (impact) happens from something that doesn't have a brain. The people with the brains have the actual effect. Whether they call someone, or use a social networking site, or whether they make fun of someone on facebook, or in real life. It is the PEOPLE with the impact. Therefore, vote CON! Thanks for this debate!", "qid": "34", "docid": "58177ab3-2019-04-18T19:34:39Z-00000-000", "rank": 60, "score": 172727.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States. Content: Thank you.", "qid": "34", "docid": "ff6dab30-2019-04-18T19:31:40Z-00000-000", "rank": 61, "score": 172009.0}, {"content": "Title: Social networks are beneficial to our society! Content: \"Block them..\"But if I do that, then I won't have anyone left to annoy\"The same thing happens when you are member of any other social group\"No! Facepage and twotter are different. Everything you post, and everything you do, you do to impress EVERYONE. I expect pro did not watch the video! \"It's not about bragging\"RUBBISH! Everything you post is going to be read and seen by everyone, so you are must have to brag. \"LOOK THAT LOOK THIS\" etcetera etcetera \"This is a problem caused only when we don't use social media wisely\"a.k.a, 100% of us. Ole! [1] \"This is not a very serious disadvantage\"I will have you know that it is extremely serious! LOOK AT THIS GUYS, SHE'S WRITING OFF MY MENTAL TRAUMA AS NOTHING!!!!!!!\"This is a very frequent phenomenon\"GAME SET AND MATCHMost people aren't responsible enough to put those stupid measures in place. They are young, after all !!\"Don't visit it. [The Labour Party facepage page]\"But where will I go when I need a laugh?\"I suppose that you don't like fb\"Yes but I am addicted just like if I were on drugs. Oh, the struggle. [2]NOW FOR MY OWN FACTS#1 ADVERTISING IS BADYOU SAY ADVERTISING IS ONE OF THE BENEFITS OF FACEPAGE AND THAT, but I disagree. Advertising is torture that we have to endure every single day of every single one of our lives :(. NOBODY has the permission to make me feel bad about myself psychologically if I don't buy their product. [3]#2 STUDENTS ARE LIARS\"% of students say they use social networking for homework, getting a 6 pack, and saving the day\" - NO WAY HOSE! They are just saying that because they are addicted but do not want to feel bad about themselves! [4]#3 PEOPLE JUST BELIEVE ANY OLD RUBBISH THAT THEY SEE ON THEIR FACEPAGE FACE FEED[5]#4 ALL OF THE POINTS I MADE IN ROUND ONEPro refuted ZERO of them :) ---#5 THE LABOUR PARTY HAS FACEPAGE#6 FARMILLE PSYCHOLOGICAL TRAUMA EFFECT#7 ANNOYING PEOPLE ARE ON THERE#8 FACEBOOK CREATES BARRIERS IN THE WAY OF GENUINE SOCIAL INTERACTION#9 FACEPAGE IS ALL ABOUT AND PROMOTES AND ENCOURAGES BRAGGING#10 FACEPAGE CAUSES THE LOSS OF OUR IDENTITY ---#11 FACEPAGE MAKES PEOPLE DUMBER[5]#REFUTATIONS\"INCREASE VOTER PARTICIPATION\"Those people are probably really dumb and will make ill-informed decisions if the only reason they're voting is because they saw someone on their face page face feed do the same. They might even vote for the green party !! (what madness !!)\"DISARM SOCIAL STIGMAS\"Yeah, but for every one thing like that there's a million things that promote ignorance [6]\"PROVIDES ACADEMIC RESEAR....\"That's what the news is for.\"empower individuals to make social change\"That also works the other way, as I've proven several times in this round...\"GOOD FOR THE ECONOMY\"Not for the average joe's pocket, though! I like people, not corporations.\"FACE-TO-FACE INTERACTION\"You get a good amount of that in real life too !!\"CATCH CRIMINALS\"No, that's exposing idiocy, which is really mean and quite offensive to feminists everywhere.\"REDUCES RISK OF HEALTH PROBLEMS\"Rubbish! Every hour staring at one of those screens causes you to lose 22 MINUTES OF YOUR LIFE !!\"OFFERS TEACHERS A PLATFORM\"Like a table does?**table is not a social network\"OFFER A WAY FOR MUSICIANS AND ARTISTS TO BUILD AUDIENCES\"i) Music is rubbish anyway, so I don't see why you're even comprehending that to be a good idea.ii) Justin Bieber was found there, that's obviously an argument against it because Justin Bieber is an absolute pratt [8].\"HELP SENIOR CITIZENS FEEL MORE CONNECTED TO SOCIETY\"I think you are lying because the people on my feed are 99% teenagers.\"HELP EMPLOYERS\"Please, don't be a slave to the machine.\"HELP STUDENTS...\"Please, refer to my earlier point in this round.\"SPREAD INFORMATION\"Yeah, but most of the time that information is bollocks. Solar Freakin' Roadways, anyone?\"ALLOW PEOPLE TO IMPROVE THEIR RELATIONSHIPS\"Refer back to the video I posted a link to in the previous round. It will explain why that claim is a load of rubbish.-------------------------Right, that's it, all of her bogus claims refuted and mine still stand and I posted some more.Victory!Thank you.Sources[1] https://safely.yahoo.com...;[2] https://www.google.co.uk...;[3] http://adsoftheworld.com...;[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...;[5] https://www.facebook.com...[6] http://www.youtube.com...[7] http://www.dailymail.co.uk...[8] Look up \"Bieber\" in the news", "qid": "34", "docid": "562197e9-2019-04-18T16:01:31Z-00000-000", "rank": 62, "score": 171753.0}, {"content": "Title: social networking is bad Content: actually social networking is a superb thing. it keeps us in touch with our relatives in foreign and also helps to interact with our friends. it also allows us to share pics of our life and to share the joy!!!!!!!", "qid": "34", "docid": "4befcae3-2019-04-18T17:19:09Z-00003-000", "rank": 63, "score": 171613.0}, {"content": "Title: Social Networking Content: Good Morning, and thank you for welcoming me. To begin the second round of our debate, I will first demolish my opponents case, then move on to my own. I- My opponents first conjunction what that Social Networking Web Sites are beneficial to Americans. I do agree with my opponent that people need people. But long before we had social networking sites we had other ways of communicating. We picked up a phone, or wrote an actual letter. Have Americans become so lazy that they can't do this? II- The second conjunction of my opponent's case was that social networking is a balance between child's privacy and the parents right to know. Every parent wants to think that their child is smart enough to know what to post and do online. Unless you plan to sit with your child every time they use the computer, and watch their every move you can't insure they are doing exactly what they say. Another fact is that, if you don't allow your child access to the internet at home, they may be getting online and using social networking sites at friends' houses. --As my opponent brought up, a child can receive private messages online from anyone. On facebook and/or myspace, you don't have to have a person as a friend to send them messages. III- My opponents last point is that social networking provide a degree of online safety. As many people seem to forget, social networking sites allow you to search any name, place, or group. It is a lot easier for you to search a random name, or look for a person in your area on a social networking site because they give you results. As for IM, you have to know a persons complete address to add them. You can't just type in a name and get their email. So social networking sites allow easier access to persons information. While we are talking about gaining persons information, social networking sites have many categories that you fill out, along with name (first and last), age, and where you live/hometown. This allows shady characters to find you, and follow you. And they could potentially steal information about you. Now to move on to my case. I- Social Networking Sites effect children's education. With more and more social networking sites being created, children are using them more. When children get home one of the first things they do is log into their \"space\" or profile and begin chatting. This is effecting their school work, because they aren't spending enough time or giving their all. Along with not spending enough time on work, students are spending time at night online and not sleeping. Without the sleep required by their body, they have a harder time paying attention in class or do not complete work. II- Social networking sites allow sexual predators easy access to persons' information. With over 250,000,000 users on Facebook a vast majority of them are sexual predators. In the year 2007 Facebook deleted 90,000 sexual predator accounts. Those being the ones reported to traced. And since May they have deleted 5,585 accounts. These sexual predators use social networking sites because they are easy access and you can lie easily on them. You don't have to put your actual name, age, or picture. This makes it very convenient to gain trust from somebody and use it against them. III- Social networking sites can harm your computer and cost money. Both Myspace and Facebook (along with others) have disclaimers telling you to beware or odd friend requests and about opening messages from people you don't know. They can harm viruses, and other computer glitches. Unmarked emails can hold trackers that allow the sender to hack your account, take information, or use the information against you. Trackers may also allow that person to follow what you do online, like visit the website of your bank. Which gives them more access to your accounts and passwords. IX- Social networking takes massive amounts of time. Like any hobby, social networking sites need to be maintained. Constantly updating your account, checking to see which friends are online, and seeing what everybody is doing takes a great amount of time. This can cut into time used to do something more productive or beneficial, such as exercising or reading a new book. We need to face the fact that Americans (some) are along the most obese persons. Although this is important (maintaining health), it is not one of my mom important points. X- Social Networking sites allow simple information to be used against you. As talked about on HLN this morning, information you post can be used against you. Simply saying that you are going on vacation can allow others to take advantage of the situation and break into your house. Not only are you losing your possessions, but you will lose money replacing them. I would like to apologize to my opponent for taking so long to reply, I've been working on my boxes for extemp. Good Luck Aff.", "qid": "34", "docid": "4c26d828-2019-04-18T19:20:17Z-00003-000", "rank": 64, "score": 170750.0}, {"content": "Title: Expression Through Social Media (good/bad) Content: Your point 'rather the fault of the user', but what does that mean. Social networking has changed the people. It encourages people to be more open about themselves and let go of all their information. Speaking of privacy and your other point 'used the way the user wants it to be used', it is ridiculous. More than 95% of the people who use social media don't read the terms and services for more than 10 seconds. The website is free to do whatever it wants with its users and their private information can be leaked to the website's sponsors.", "qid": "34", "docid": "aef01efd-2019-04-18T15:53:36Z-00002-000", "rank": 65, "score": 170127.0}, {"content": "Title: social networks are more harm than good Content: i will start by saying this . have a fair and fun debate. i do believe that social networks help and that in the end of the day: they help!!! they help get jobs and friends", "qid": "34", "docid": "c4b5d675-2019-04-18T17:50:23Z-00003-000", "rank": 66, "score": 170061.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States. Content: First of all, I didn't realize that I posted the wrong case. Please disregard the earlier arguments. Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States. Social Networking Web Sites defined: http://jcmc.indiana.edu....... (Indiana University) Boyd & Ellison in 2007 The criteria for social networking Web sites are as follows: 1) Construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system 2) Articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection 3) View and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system. The nature and nomenclature of these connections may vary from site to site. On Balance defined: Net benefits versus disadvantages Social Networking Web Sites positively impact the United States economically Reuters in 2008 http://uk.reuters.com...... -Social networking Web sites allow businesses to assemble as they wish. Since people go on vacations and business trips, they may not always be able to assemble freely with the rest of their company because they are far away. Social networking sites allow that to occur, and therefore stimulate their business. -Social networking web sites give advertisements that pertain to their users based on their searches. Therefore, social networking web sites definitely help our economy. Social Networking Web Sites positively impact the United States politically Milliken in 2008 http://www.boston.com...... -In this past 2008 election, The Democratic National Party decided to use social networking web sites like Facebook and Myspace as a means of campaigning. Social networks are so popular among the younger generations. As a result, in the general election, Barack Obama received about 2/3 of the vote of younger voters. Social Networking Web Sites positively impact the United States constitutionally Legal Information Institute in 2008 http://www.law.cornell.edu...... (Cornell University) - The first amendment to the constitution states: \"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.\" Therefore, social networking websites not only allow such things, but they also promote it, as evidenced by the different groups that people decide to join while they are on such sites. Social Networking Web Sites positively impact the United States socially Valenzuela, Park, & Kee in 2008 http://online.journalism.utexas.edu...... (University of Texas) -If social networking web sites did not exist, people would not be as socially diverse as they are today. Social networking websites like Facebook, recommend people that you may know based on who your own friends are. As a result, you are able to expand your social horizons. -Social networking web sites like Eharmony and Chemistry, allow single individuals to socialize with individuals that the websites feel they might be compatible to, by the way that they answered their questions. Social networking websites like such have the potential to change lives. Since social networking web sites not only positively impact the United States economically, politically, constitutionally, and socially; they also allow the people of the United States to enhance their democracy everyday which is the true essence of the United States of America. Social networks are becoming increasingly popular not only in the United States, but all over the world as well. That is why in a study taken by Indiana University, 88% of respondents used social networking websites. This obviously goes to show that they are far more beneficial than they are accredited for. Responding to my opponents contentions: 1. \"Information put on social networking sites can have far-reaching negative ramifications. 4.5 million web users aged between 14 and 21 are damaging their future education and employment prospects by leaving an \"electronic footprint\" which could compromise their chances of winning places at colleges and companies. Also, imposters posing as you can destroy your reputation or even get you fired\" -However, that is not the fault of the social networking site. Once they are used correctly, they have a more than positive impact on the United States of America (as a people, economy, as well as a government.) 2. \"Social networking provides a major distraction for students and employees alike. Students said they are having a difficult time concentrating on their schoolwork because they are more interested in what the social networking sites have to offer. Many college students would rather check their profiles than listen to the teacher, and can easily do so. Other students are also distracted from listening by the miscreants surfing the web. In business, 233 million hours are lost every month as a result of employees \"wasting time\" on their social networking\" - As I stated earlier, once the site is used in the right context with the necessary safety precautions, it has a positive impact. For clarification purposes, wasting 233 million hours is not using the site within the right context. Using the site at an inappropriate time also does not qualify as using it in the right context. - My opponent has given no source to support this claim. 3. Sexual predation is a big risk in using the social network sites. Children and teens are not the only users of these social networking websites like FaceBook and MySpace; sexual predators, pedophiles, and other criminals use them as well. The Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire found that nearly 1 in 5 kids had received unwanted sexual solicitations over the Internet. In addition, the FBI found that the number of known Internet predators on social networking websites has more than tripled in a single year -Social networking sites are NOT for kids. Most sites set a minimum age like 13-15. Therefore, this point doesn't belong in this debate. [http://signups.myspace.com...] 4. Also a major issue is cyber bullying. Over 40-85% of kids have been exposed to digital bullying, 5% so much so that they are afraid for their safety. Bullying online flourishes through its unrestricted growth. [My opponent has given no source to support these statistics. He has not spoke about where these kids he is talking are located, nor has he given an accessible link or citation. If anything, I have reason to believe that his entire case is referring to children in the UK.] As stated by British Broadcasting Company's Teenage Psychologist Expert, Martha Everett, \"People think they are a million times stronger because they can hide behind their computer screens.\" Cyberbullying can even threaten one's life. For example, thirteen year old Megan Meier committed suicide after being cyber bullied/harassed by her neighbor. [My opponent has given no source to support this scenario] 5. In addition, Viruses abound on Social Networking Sites. These viruses, such as the Koobface virus, pose as one of your friends and send messages like \"You look just awesome in this new movie,\" and then direct users to a website to supposedly view the movie, where in actuality viruses are hidden. As Chris Boyd, a researcher at FaceTime Labs said \"People tend to let their guard down. They think you've got to log in with an account, so there is no way that worms and other viruses could infect them.\" This makes them much more likely to click on such links, ending in the flooding of their computer with malicious software. 83% of adults who use social networking sites have downloaded unknown files from other people's profiles, potentially exposing themselves to malware as a result. - My opponent said, \"potentially exposing themselves to malware as a result.\" This is the fault of the individual and not the site.", "qid": "34", "docid": "ff6dab6e-2019-04-18T19:30:28Z-00003-000", "rank": 67, "score": 170059.0}, {"content": "Title: Social Networking Sites are Harmful Content: I am ever so sorry for doing this. our arguments were very good.", "qid": "34", "docid": "5c1e1da6-2019-04-18T18:36:14Z-00001-000", "rank": 68, "score": 168800.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States. Content: Also, the links my opponent posted lead only to the homepage of their respective sites, I would appreciate it if she would repost the correct ones next round. \"Social networking Web sites allow businesses to assemble as they wish. Since people go on vacations and business trips, they may not always be able to assemble freely with the rest of their company because they are far away. Social networking sites allow that to occur, and therefore stimulate their business. \" First of all, this claim is not backed by a statistic. Similar to one of my opponent's contentions in Round 1, in order for us to weigh this impact, we need to have a sense of the relative impact that this is having. Without these statistics, we are forced to judge from an uncertain viewpoint. In addition, these \"effects\" that social networking sites have are not unique. They can be replicated with phones, IM, chat rooms, fax, email, etc. The exchange of communication that my opponent describes could just as easily have been done with any of the aforementioned methods, rendering this actual impact little-to-none. \"Social networking web sites give advertisements that pertain to their users based on their searches. Therefore, social networking web sites definitely help our economy. \" Based on their searches? In context, it would be more apparent what this means, but due to the bad link I'll assume that you are referring to advertisers digging into the personal files of a record, ignoring the user's privacy, in order to attempt to further their business. In actuality, these advertisements are not very effective. According to adweek. com, just 57% of social networking users report clicking on an ad over the past year. In comparison, 79% of all web users report clicking on an ad. Also, adweek. com shows that the online ads on social networks pulled in only 11 percent of users for purchases (as opposed to 23 percent for the web overall). Also, users \"who frequents a site for 150 pageviews per session several times per week will get accustomed to the ads, layout, etc\u2026 and ignore them (adotas. com). \" \"In this past 2008 election, The Democratic National Party decided to use social networking web sites like Facebook and Myspace as a means of campaigning. Social networks are so popular among the younger generations. As a result, in the general election, Barack Obama received about 2/3 of the vote of younger voters. \" To understand the fallacy of this argument, it is important to know to difference between causation and correlation. Simply put, causation is when there is an action that has an effect of something else, while correlation is an action which is followed by an event/action/whatever. When correlated, the first thing does not necessarily cause the other; the event following the first may just be a coincidence. In context, this means that Barack Obama winning the younger vote does not directly result from social network usage. It could very well be from the age difference between Obama and McCain, or from a completely different cause such as heavier advertising on teen-frequented channels on TV. Also, when evaluating the impact of this, one must also consider that an extra method for a politician to campaign that is useful once every four years does not have a large impact in the grand scheme of things. \"- The first amendment to the constitution states: \"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. \" Therefore, social networking websites not only allow such things, but they also promote it, as evidenced by the different groups that people decide to join while they are on such sites. \" The legality of social networking sites is of no relevance in this debate. \"-If social networking web sites did not exist, people would not be as socially diverse as they are today. Social networking websites like Facebook, recommend people that you may know based on who your own friends are. As a result, you are able to expand your social horizons. -Social networking web sites like Eharmony and Chemistry, allow single individuals to socialize with individuals that the websites feel they might be compatible to, by the way that they answered their questions. Social networking websites like such have the potential to change lives. \" There is the same lack of statistics in this contention as well. Without any statistics (like how many lives were changed? how much expansion of one's social horizon is there? ) we cannot validly consider this argument. \"Social networks are becoming increasingly popular not only in the United States, but all over the world as well. That is why in a study taken by Indiana University, 88% of respondents used social networking websites. This obviously goes to show that they are far more beneficial than they are accredited for. \" The popularity of social networking websites also has no relevance in this discussion. To support my own contentions. .. My opponent seems to have one thematic problem with my points - that social networking sites aren't at fault, but that the users are at fault. However, it is actually irrelevant whose fault it is. The resolution calls for the impact of the existence of these sites. The fact is, if these sites did not exist, all of these detriments would not exist. Whether or not users have been using the sites as intended is not important; what is important is what is happening. 1. \"However, that is not the fault of the social networking site. Once they are used correctly, they have a more than positive impact on the United States of America (as a people, economy, as well as a government. )\" The reality is that they are not being used correctly, and are not having a positive impact. 2. \"- As I stated earlier, once the site is used in the right context with the necessary safety precautions, it has a positive impact. For clarification purposes, wasting 233 million hours is not using the site within the right context. Using the site at an inappropriate time also does not qualify as using it in the right context. - My opponent has given no source to support this claim. \" It may not be used in the right context, but the fact is that it is still used, and it is still having ahuge impact. Here is the source - . http://www.cnn.com... The idea of that statistic is to get a general idea for how much business time is wasted. 3. \"-Social networking sites are NOT for kids. Most sites set a minimum age like 13-15. Therefore, this point doesn't belong in this debate. [. http://signups.myspace.com......] \" Even though they may not be for kids, the reality is that kids *are* going on such sites and *are* being negatively impacted 4. \"My opponent has given no source to support these statistics. He has not spoke about where these kids he is talking are located, nor has he given an accessible link or citation. If anything, I have reason to believe that his entire case is referring to children in the UK\" \"My opponent has given no source to support this scenario\" . http://www.isafe.org... . http://safety.lovetoknow.com... I am confused as to specifically which scenario as I mentioned a few. Here is the Megan Meier source: . http://abcnews.go.com... 5. \"My opponent said, \"potentially exposing themselves to malware as a result. \" This is the fault of the individual and not the site. \" Again the sites are impacting the users, no matter whose fault it is. In summation, I urge a Con ballet because my opponent has not provided any substantive rebuttals to my contentions a", "qid": "34", "docid": "ff6dab6e-2019-04-18T19:30:28Z-00002-000", "rank": 69, "score": 168651.0}, {"content": "Title: social networks are more harm than good Content: I accept.", "qid": "34", "docid": "c4b5d675-2019-04-18T17:50:23Z-00002-000", "rank": 70, "score": 168079.0}, {"content": "Title: That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States Content: I have argued that social networking sites have only created an \"illusion of privacy\". Sites deserve blame for the widespread release of personal information. Why these security settings are so easy to get around is because strict privacy settings inhibit growth. The wider the access to information, the great the commercial value of the site. Also, that hour and 22 minutes a day adds up. While teens are online, they are slowing breaking down their own communication skills. They can bounce around to any social networking site and \"lol\" all they want. While slowly any relationships they have formed in the real world begin to diminish. I noticed in my opponent's speech as she stated the \"schedule\" of a teenager. I failed to see that she mentioned time with friends, or socializing. That one hour and 22 minutes is the only socializing that seems to be getting done. My opponent also brought up that social networking sites are good for businesses. However, according to a security company based in Australia, \"if a single employee spends one hour of company time on Facebook everyday, it will cost his employer $6,200 per year. For Australia, that translate to a productivity lost of $5 billion annually. That impact in the United States would be even greater as Facebook usage in the United States is more widespread. Again, no matter what they claim, security on social networking sites are not as strong as they appear. People, strangers can still get access to your information. Young people of today are destroying social attributes, slowly losing the basis of communication. If an hour of Facebook, can really cause a company to lose that much of it's money, it would have a more negative impact on our already struggling economy. On balance, we are showing more and more of what social networking sites are doing to our community, and it is not in a positive way.", "qid": "34", "docid": "ec88ad82-2019-04-18T19:34:14Z-00003-000", "rank": 71, "score": 167967.0}, {"content": "Title: Even sites that appeared innocent have had a devastating effect on society. Content: Some governments, such as the Vietnamese government[1], have already seen sufficient cause to ban social networking sites such as Facebook. Recently in the UK, many major cities witnessed devastation and destruction as social networking sites were used to co-ordinate wide-scale riots which rampaged over London, Manchester, Birmingham, Worcestershire, Gloucester, Croydon, Bristol, Liverpool and Nottingham[2]. Rioters contacted each other through Facebook and blackberry instant messenger to ensure that they could cause maximum damage[3], which resulted in the destruction of property[4], physical violence towards others[5], and even the deaths of three young men[6]. These events prove that seemingly innocent Internet sites can be used by anybody, even apparently normal citizens, to a devastating effect which has caused harm to thousands[7]. To protect the population and maintain order, it is essential that the government is able to act to censor sites that can be used as a forum and a tool for this kind of behaviour when such disruption is occurring. [1] AsiaNews.it, \u2018Internet censorship tightening in Vietnam\u2019, 22 June 2010, http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Internet-censorship-tightening-in-Vietnam... 09/09/11 [2] BBC News, \u2018England Riots\u2019, 8 February 2012, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14452097 on 09/09/11 [3] BBC News, \u2018England riots: Two jailed for using Facebook to incite disorder\u2019, 16 August 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-14551582 on 09/09/11 [4] Hawkes, Alex, Garside, Juliette and Kollewe, Julia, \u2018UK riots could cost taxpayer \u00a3100m\u2019, guardian.co.uk, 9 August 2011, http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/09/uk-riots-cost-taxpayer-100-million on 09/09/11. [5] Allen, Emily, \u2018We will use water cannons on them: At last Cameron orders police to come down hard on the looters (some aged as young as NINE)\u2019, Mail Online, 11 August 2011, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2024203/UK-RIOTS-2011-David-Came... on 09/09/11. [6] Orr, James, \u2018Birmingham riots: three men killed \u2018protecting homes\u2019\u2019, The Telegraph, 10 August 2011, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8693095/Birmingham-riots-th... on 09/09/11. [7] Huffington Post, \u2018UK Riots: What Long-Term Effects Could They Have?\u2019, 10 August 2011, http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/08/10/uk-riots-cleanup-could-co_n_9... on 09/09/11.", "qid": "34", "docid": "51e725c1-2019-04-15T20:22:34Z-00012-000", "rank": 72, "score": 167672.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States. Content: Reflecting on my opponent's arguments, I consider my position is untenable and I feel I must concede this debate and duly urge the voters to Pro. Thank you.", "qid": "34", "docid": "ff6dab30-2019-04-18T19:31:40Z-00001-000", "rank": 73, "score": 167657.0}, {"content": "Title: Social networking sites boon. Content: Social networking sites nowadays are used for stalking, committing cyber crimes and other frauds.", "qid": "34", "docid": "ab9f69d4-2019-04-18T15:31:53Z-00003-000", "rank": 74, "score": 167253.0}, {"content": "Title: Social Networking sites are a boon Content: Social Networking sites are boon as I know from100% people in world 85% of people uses social networking sits It may affect to many people . CHILDREN ARE USING MORE THAN ADULT As we know childrens having more interest in this type of work.They are using more social networking account and some are also below 18 years some people talk in bad language also,about sex f they listen this there mind goes to the bad things. It is affected also by skin diseases,hacking,blackmailing etc", "qid": "34", "docid": "df3b86f3-2019-04-18T18:41:07Z-00002-000", "rank": 75, "score": 166645.0}, {"content": "Title: Social Networking Sites are Harmful Content: :D Hope this is going to be fun. ==DEFINITIONS==Well, seeing that the PRO has not defined the topic yet, I will take it into my own hands. I define Social Networking Sites as a website for gregarious humans to find communities and companionship. .. Just to clarify, social networking sites do not include dating websites, such as eharmony. com, match. com, etc, as the websites only support 1 on 1 close relationships, as compared to social which pertains to a gathering or community. I define harmful as causing physical/mental damage, or moral injury, evil, wrong. ==REBUTTALS==Con states \"These Social Networking sites are bad for the young ones under 14, I think they shouldn't lie. But as they do, they get Cyber-bullied! It is wrong! \"His argument is based on the premise that children under 14 get on social networking sites. 1) According to Time, Facebook kicks off 20,000 underage users everyday. . http://newsfeed.time.com...2) Most people on social networking sites are adults who are capable of making their own choices as to what to do.3)People are responsible when it comes to who their friends are, and taking it up with the proper people if they are being cyber-bullied on social networks. Nowadays, most schools are open to help children who are being cyber-bullied. ==ARGUMENTS== 1) Large social networking sites are constantly monitored by staff members, and when you take into consideration that there are plenty of dangerous chat rooms and instant messengers filled with suspicious people, isn't it clear that these social networking sites provide more online safety?2) There exists a balance in privacy between Parents and teenagers, and this is critical as teenagers deserve their own privacy and peace of mind from the micromanagement of some parents, while parents still do hold the right to monitor what their children are doing. Take facebook as an example and its many uses. Private Messages aren't available to outside people, while parents can easily monitor their children and their children's friends' walls to keep track and monitor them. This balance is crucially needed in today's world, as more and more teenagers are becoming social.3) Health. The human mind needs social activity. In fact, in schools nowadays, teachers are teaching students about the three parts to health. This includes your physical health, your mental/emotional health, and finally your social health. Human beings need friends; they need people they can depend on and talk to in times of need. Facebooks helps people socialize and adds an important \"happiness\" factor in their lives. 4)Social networking sites allows friends and family to keep in touch more easily, as they can instantaneously share information about their lives, such as events, photos, videos and more, with their friends and family, even if they are far away. Forgetting your old friends or distant family members is less likely to happen when you see their faces and updates every day on websites such as facebook.5)Self-Determination Groups. Social networking sites have many benefits. One of them allows people with similar beliefs to connect with one another and stand up for a cause. Take Egypt for an example. Recently, when Egypt fought for democracy, self-determination groups used communication methods such as Facebook. With this I bring my arguments to a close. I shall expand and make new ones, if necessary, in future rounds. =====================================================I await Pro's response. :)!", "qid": "34", "docid": "5c1e1da6-2019-04-18T18:36:14Z-00008-000", "rank": 76, "score": 166634.0}, {"content": "Title: Social networking sites cause more harm than good Content: I believe that social networking sites cause more harm than good because studies have proven that people (generally teenagers) are more likely to bully through social media than other forms of media or the more traditional methods of bullying. SOURCE: http://www.meganmeierfoundation.org...", "qid": "34", "docid": "3c5fdcf2-2019-04-18T14:44:38Z-00003-000", "rank": 77, "score": 166374.0}, {"content": "Title: That, on balance, social networking web sites have a positive impact on the United States. Content: It is because I see through the facade of social networking websites straight to the many obvious hazards in the business that I urge a negative ballot on the resolution at hand. Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States. ============================================================================ Contention I: Social Networking Web sites have little security built into them. ============================================================================ SUBPOINT A- HACKING IS PREVALENT ON SOCIAL NETWORKING WEB SITES, AND THIS LEADS TO IDENTITY THEFT Brian Krebs of the Washington Post writes in August of 2008, \"Social Networking sites such as Facebook, Myspace, Youtube, and LinkedIn are fast emergiing as some of the most fertile grounds for malicious software, identity theives and online mischief-makers.\" Think of the ways that these social networking can be used as a focus for identity theft. The majority of the useres post their birth date and other personal information, items commonly asked by banks to determine a person's identity. Combined with the full name and things like pet names, Mother's maiden name, and other such information, it isn't difficult to work out the rest. According to the Department of Justice in October 2006, \"There has been a sharp 34% increase of Social Network users reporting having personal information stolen over the internet in the past year.\" With so many hackers targeting social networking websites every day, these site are part of the problem towards helping Identity theft. SUBPOINT B- IDENTITY THEFT HARMS THE ECONOMY According to the U.S. Federal Trade Commission in a September 2003 report on Identity Theft, \"1 in 30 Americans surveyed reported having a personal account on the Internet taken over. The average los from the misuse of a victim's personal information [was] $4,800.\" The same report explains that this amounts to approimately $48 billion removed from the economy every year. Given the current state of our economy, when money is precious, this 48 billion could not come at a steeper cost. ============================================================================ Contention II: Social networking sites are destroying technological innovation. ============================================================================ While it might seem easy to view the Internet in the abstract, as some ethereal object, the truth is, its not. The internet only exists because of the physical infrastructure provided by private investors. For every byte of information sent on the internet, there exists a physical server that hosts the memory storage for that information. These servers are bought and paid for by a number of actors, the majority of whom are private investment companies. The contention that I bring up is the internet's need for storage capacity is drastically increasing; requiring a drastic increase in the amount of money diverted to purchase infrastructure needs. This is because of social networking websites. SUBPOINT A- THE INTERNET IS REACHING THE LIMITS OF ITS CAPACITY, AND SOCIAL NETWORK WEBSITES ARE CAUSING THIS TO HAPPEN. Without investment, the Internet's current network architecture will reach the limits of its capacity by 2010. The \"unprecedented new wave of broadband traffic\" would increase 50-fold by 2015. Eight hours of video is loaded onto Youtube every minute. Five hours of video is loaded onto Facebook and Myspace every minute. Video will be 80 percent of all traffic by 2010, up from 30 percent today. [The internet] is a finite service upgraded and maintained by private investors: without necessary investment, it will run out of room Websites like Myspace, Facebook and Youtube all suck up precious bandwidth through uploading massive amounts of pictures and video. There are no other places on the Internet that contain the same amounts of massive files, nor engender such uploading by making it easy and socially desireable. The choice for the internet is to crash, or significantly increase investment in physical infrastruture. Obviously, because of the value provided by the internet, investors will not allow it to crash. What that will mean, however, is that they will be forced to bottleneck their precious resources into creating physical memory storage devices to keep pace with the amount of memory storage. Imagine the internet without major contributors such as \"amazon.com\" or ebay. Most people in today's economy spend most of their time on these types of websites just to earn a living. Furthermore, imagine the world without google. Pure chaos. It is because I believe anything that harms both the American People and the American economy so much outweighs any positive aspects of social networks, that I urge a negative ballot today.", "qid": "34", "docid": "570da76a-2019-04-18T19:28:12Z-00002-000", "rank": 78, "score": 166104.0}, {"content": "Title: Sharing of personal details for commercial gain by social networking sites be made punishable by law Content: Arguments: Social networking sites are places where people 'share' or upload details of their personal life to the world wide web , in order to connect better with their friends or personal contacts. Under such circumstances social networking sites become ware houses for large amounts of pervading information into the life of its members which includes photographs, email and other contact details. This information is usually uploaded by members solely for the Eyes of their own contacts. Social Networking sites may find it difficult to maintain huge establishments merely through online applications and add generated revenue. They hence often find themselves compelled to cash in at other places. Multi-national co-operations and sometimes people with malafide intent are willing to pay money in exchange for personal contact details including personal preferences of ordinary people, these details are often used against the best interest of uncanny victims usually for marketing purposes, but sometimes for the more vicious credit card and other monetary frauds. The sale of contact details of millions of such social network users generate enormous income for companies, and grievous injustice and harassment of users. For the above stated purposes , I propose that it will be in the best interest of the users of such networking sites,if governments make it a punishable offense for companies to share private details of individual users for commercial gain.", "qid": "34", "docid": "e40f4670-2019-04-18T18:50:08Z-00003-000", "rank": 79, "score": 166055.0}, {"content": "Title: users under 18 using Facebook Content: Thank you for instigating this interesting topic. I\u2019d like to point out as a clarification for the readers that the issue at hand is whether users under 18 should be allowed to use Facebook. My opponent will be negating the resolution and I will be affirming it. For this debate, I will be arguing that Social Networking Sites like Facebook have enormous benefits and contributions to society and modern communication. I\u2019m under 18 who is studying in Europe away from my parents and I have Facebook. Why? Because it\u2019s mainly to connect and communicate to my family and friends overseas. Not only that, I use it for reference and educational purposes. I\u2019m subscribed to news and political pages to get some information about current events. With FB, school life is also easier since I can communicate with my classmates to get updated with assignments and exams (what to review, etc). Also, FB has apps and games for entertainment and leisure time to kill boredom. It very much gives a positive impact on life. FB also helps people overcome social anxiety and be healthier by expressing themselves online. Anything\u2019s possible in FB, people can express their opinions, ideas and interests here which makes it very popular. Next, I\u2019d like to point out that billions of people are connected online. Banning underaged kids from Facebook is not only unnecessary, but it\u2019s also unfeasible. Basically, all my opponent argued in R1 are shallow hypotheticals and minor boo-boos of Facebook inhabited by the young generation. Facebook is for kids 13+. By this age, most kids know what they are doing. So, we shouldn\u2019t ban underaged kids just because they troll around, and if cyber bullying occurs, we need to discipline the parties that are involved and responsible. We need to make anti-bullying laws stricter. Banning FB from minors won\u2019t do any good since it will seriously harm the majority. We must consider the benefits of this popular Social Networking Site because it superiorly overrides its disadvantages. I will let my opponent elaborate her contentions further next round then I will explain my premises more accurately after. Thanks and good luck!", "qid": "34", "docid": "db7b77a1-2019-04-18T18:21:04Z-00007-000", "rank": 80, "score": 165190.0}, {"content": "Title: That, on balance, social networking web sites have a positive impact on the United States. Content: As my opponet forfeited his round all my points stand. Go CON.", "qid": "34", "docid": "570da76a-2019-04-18T19:28:12Z-00001-000", "rank": 81, "score": 165034.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States. Content: I would like to extend my thanks to my opponent for challenging me to debate this interesting topic and I duly accept his parameters for the arguments. As my opponent pointed out, there are some limited benefits that may accrue from social networking sites and I certainly agree that under the supervision of a teacher, forums can be set up within which students from geographically remote locations can exchange ideas and knowledge. What is more difficult to accept is that employees accessing these sites for personal use during working hours makes them more efficient. Would an employee who spends their time chatting on the phone to their friends instead of getting on with their work be considered more efficient? I doubt it. That is why many companies limit the use of both phones and computers for non-business reasons. http://www.net-security.org... http://mashable.com... I must also disagree with the Businessweek journalist's assertion that these sites help shy people to increase their self-confidence within a safe environment. The best way to increase one's self-confidence is to go out and actually meet real people and talk to them in person. In addition, getting out and about is much healthier than sitting indoors in front of a computer screen! As regards security, social networking sites are much favoured by paedophiles who use them to \"groom\" their victims. http://www.dailymail.co.uk... Shall we consider Debate.org, for example? It can act as a quasi-social networking site through its forums. This site is, I hope, safe from sexual predators as it is very well moderated in that respect. However, there are no age restrictions and many members are younger than 18 years old \u2013 although I'm not. As it happens, on my user profile I quote my real name and age and display a recent photograph of myself, but there is nothing to stop a sex pest from setting up an account and lying about his age and name and using a photograph of someone much younger than himself in the hope of luring one of the younger and more impressionable members into a face-to-face meeting. It would be hard to do on this site, but Facebook and MySpace provide ample opportunities for computer-literate kiddy-fiddlers. So, although these sites do have some positives and access to them certainly shouldn't be restricted (except, perhaps, in some workplaces) on balance, social networking sites do not have a positive impact on the United States. Thank you.", "qid": "34", "docid": "ff6dab30-2019-04-18T19:31:40Z-00003-000", "rank": 82, "score": 164716.0}, {"content": "Title: debate with yourself Content: con has merely listed some 'cons' to networking sites. overall, there are more benefits. con says time is wasted on frivilous activity. but like hte wise saying goes \"time that you enjoy wasting is not wasted time\". people may not be as productive as they could otherwise be, but we dont always measure things by economic output. they still get their work done, by and large. society is not suffereing. face to face communication. while it has hindered face to face, it has opened a new door for us. much like texting is good fo some purposes, not good for others, and does hinder phone skills. but that just means more time needs to be given to both avenues, and ultimately, we are the better for it that we have the options at our disposal given some things are btter approached oen way or the other. children shouldn't be on the internet too much. this is common knowledge. if it's to the point of altering brain waves, it's too much. people might get exposed to predators, but this is just life. gong to a bar, or out in publc exposes you to danger too. we just need to follow common sense procedures for ourselves, but especially for our kids. your cite about GPA is pretty radical. 3.82 GPA just because you didn't use networking cites? this wasn't a common grade even befor the internet. these claims are so far fetched by con, that surely he needs some stat to back it up. it's pretty obvious this stuff is made up either way though.", "qid": "34", "docid": "528fb34-2019-04-18T16:00:42Z-00002-000", "rank": 83, "score": 164692.0}, {"content": "Title: It teaches social responsibility Content: The vast majority of young people in schools use social media and social networking sites, whether they like to keep in touch with old friends or make new ones, they are vastly popular, and no amount of scolding from teachers will deter them. They've heard it all before. Having a Facebook account or what have you teaches young people the importance of internet safety. It teaches them to be responsible with the amount of information they put up, the photos they publish, the things they write, etcetera. However, some children only learn this the hard way- perhaps, when they or someone close to them has been a victim of online identity theft. If social media was part of the curriculum they would learn the importance of it right from the beginning, and not wait until something forces them to.", "qid": "34", "docid": "ff33548-2019-04-19T12:46:27Z-00015-000", "rank": 84, "score": 164479.0}, {"content": "Title: All people should join at least one kind of social networking site. Content: You can't say like that. These sites have influenced our lives so much that people always read bools also only which saves their money. We can consult to doctors abroad through video chat. These sites are very helpful to us so we should see them as a good sign of the progress of the nation. But I also agree with your point that it is killing people as some children use these sites for bad purposes but what can we do? We can do that parents of these children should keep a check on them and then you see how these social networking sites will appear as important as they are now.", "qid": "34", "docid": "ff6f8975-2019-04-18T17:08:18Z-00001-000", "rank": 85, "score": 164157.0}, {"content": "Title: Social Networking Content: I would also like my opponent to know that I am very new to this and apologize for my shortcomings. Concerning arguments: On much deliberation concerning the merits of certain social networking sites, I realize that factors are present in the process of communication via internet that allow for not only a \"good\" interaction, but also a \"better\" one. When in a conversation with someone on a social networking site, one is presented with the opportunity to think before he speaks(that is type). This website is a prime example, when a person enters a debate he is not forced to respond immediately but can search for evidence with which he can make his point or points(assuming he knows how to do this). One is given the opportunity to speak freely with peoples of other nations, though it could be argued that this is not better by my opponents definition of the word, it is much less expensive and far easier due to the easy accessibility of online translators. It is easier to be more eloquent when given the time to consider what to say or post. Again will I apologize, for due to the shortness of time, I must post this now.", "qid": "34", "docid": "4c26d847-2019-04-18T18:51:36Z-00002-000", "rank": 86, "score": 162790.0}, {"content": "Title: Social networking sites are harmful. Content: I would like to say as much as children should be kept away from the computer it can be used for learning! Meaning that it is not all bad and that quote of what she said isn't right it is just a opinion no supporting evidence in that statement. As sad as it may be you say that some scientist thinks that it may be bad for your brain I want proof of this and if your going to say that. You have no evidence of this and I want proof if your going to say this. Many people may log on at home after they get home what if they forgot what their homework was you can't exactly go ring up your teacher and ask what the homework was you could just ask someone in your class online, so much easier than getting in trouble the next day. Many people believe that t.v's and to much computer can rot your mind and I fully back them up on that statement because it does but do people say the same thing with cell phones no they think it is good that you can text people without the worry of having to call them or walk down to them. Cell phones do most of the same things that social networking sites do like you can communicate with others, play games, make calls and listen to music, so why do people believe that cell phones are good but social networking sites aren't one of the only differences between the two is that cell phones are portable and you can get facebook on their for free. Surely if you think cell phones are good for you then social networking is to. I now rest my case.", "qid": "34", "docid": "5d621fc6-2019-04-18T18:36:07Z-00001-000", "rank": 87, "score": 162616.0}, {"content": "Title: Social Networking Sites are Harmful Content: As much as I want to say no, I must say Yes. I found the group/person EleaDEVILnor", "qid": "34", "docid": "5c1e1da6-2019-04-18T18:36:14Z-00003-000", "rank": 88, "score": 162467.0}, {"content": "Title: do we have less face to face interaction because of facebook and whatsapp Content: In my opinion\"Facebook is a place where friends go to make meaningful connections,\" . \"This regional campaign celebrates those connections and the different kinds of friendship that enrich our lives both on and off Facebook.\" There\"s no doubt that Facebook has impacted the societies we live and operate in through various ways and degrees. The social network phenomenon gained even greater prominence in our collective psyche this month due to the new movie, The Social Network, which chronicles the origins of Facebook on the Harvard campus. Having now spread far beyond the realm of college students to include people of all ages in countries throughout the world, Facebook and other social networking sites represent a new way of connecting with friends, colleagues, acquaintances, friends-of-friends, and even people we don't know who want to \"friend' us via the internet. But when we communicate online, whether it's on Facebook or through email, or when we tweet or text, what's missing? What specific elements do we miss out on when we trade face-to-face communication for connecting through our computer or blackberry? It may seem obvious to some, but I think we tend to forget about the importance of body language, voice inflection, and the simple act of looking someone in the eye during a conversation. Granted, technologies such as Skype can provide us with the screen image of the person to whom we're talking. But is eye contact as palpable on a screen as it is in person? And how \"undivided' is our attention when we're reading someone's email message, as opposed to when we're sitting across a table from them? Can a text message convey the nuance of a facial expression? I've had young clients tell me about serious disagreements they've had with friends when text messages and emails are misunderstood. We've discussed how easily words can be misinterpreted when they are isolated from body language, and how texts and emails can convey the wrong messages about how you really feel. There is something stilted about online conversations because a certain dimension of emotion is missing, a dimension that only exists when two people are face to face. Body language, facial expression, and the tone and inflection of our voice all play a part in communicating our feelings. I've suggested that my clients try this exercise, which demonstrates how important in-person factors are in communicating your true emotions. I have them speak the same sentence three times, each time expressing a different attitude or emotional tone. For example, if you have to break a date with a friend, you might say, \"I'm sorry I couldn't make it but something else came up.' That sentence could be stated with frustration, sarcasm, or compassion. One could speak the words while smiling, scowling, or putting one's arm around the friend's shoulder. When clients try this simple exercise, they realize how the message changes depending on how the words are spoken and what gestures are used. Our facial expression, physical gestures, and the emotional tone in our voice alter the meaning of our words, which is why it is very difficult to express ourselves fully and authentically in an email or text-or even in front of a Skype screen. So when we forego face-to-face encounters in favor of screen-speak or emailed or text words, our friends receive only a partial message. What's missing are the feelings that inform the words.", "qid": "34", "docid": "c63d8abf-2019-04-18T14:30:48Z-00003-000", "rank": 89, "score": 162213.0}, {"content": "Title: Society has created mental illness. Content: Even though society has created pictures of how people look, It's our choice whether we listen to it or not. Social media plays a big part in what we say and do, But its our own choice whether we want to fall into the trap of society opinions or make our own. Good health starts where we live, Where we work and learn, And where we play, And it's our choice whether the society we live in is effected in a good or bad way. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics 24. 6 million Australians have media platform, Facebook. It has been linked to mental health issues, Mainly suicide and depression. These only happens because of the way that people think. It is their choice as to what they think and say. The internet has made way for mental health problems, Yes, But society has just continued to talk about what has already been said. Mental illnesses go way back before the internet and social media, It isn\"t something that has just been developed. Our views on society need to change.", "qid": "34", "docid": "3fe9d326-2019-04-18T11:18:38Z-00000-000", "rank": 90, "score": 161897.0}, {"content": "Title: On Balance, social networking websites do more good than harm Content: Hey guys. I am radicalguy44 and in this debate I will prove that social networking websites do more harm than good. I would like the PRO to start, and please make this an LD style debate! Good luck PRO!", "qid": "34", "docid": "c86547b-2019-04-18T19:08:33Z-00003-000", "rank": 91, "score": 161879.0}, {"content": "Title: Social Networking Sites are Harmful Content: Well, Arguments extended. .. I thank PRO for this debate. .. very interesting for the time that it lasted.", "qid": "34", "docid": "5c1e1da6-2019-04-18T18:36:14Z-00000-000", "rank": 92, "score": 161820.0}, {"content": "Title: On Balance, social networking websites do more good than harm Content: Well, seeing as how i'm the only one who posted, it seems pretty simple who you should vote for.l", "qid": "34", "docid": "c86547b-2019-04-18T19:08:33Z-00000-000", "rank": 93, "score": 161145.0}, {"content": "Title: that, on balance, social networking websites have had a positive impact on the US Content: I affirm the resolution.", "qid": "34", "docid": "7a949437-2019-04-18T19:29:40Z-00004-000", "rank": 94, "score": 160762.0}, {"content": "Title: That, on balance, social networking web sites have a positive impact on the United States. Content: He again forfeits!", "qid": "34", "docid": "570da76a-2019-04-18T19:28:12Z-00000-000", "rank": 95, "score": 160674.0}, {"content": "Title: that, on balance, social networking websites have had a positive impact on the US Content: As my opponent has not rebutted any of my arguments, I shall rebut his and advance my own. 1. Social Capital This contention has two major flaws: it is not unique to social networking sites, and its impact is relatively insignificant. First of all, all of the benefits my opponent just listed can be equally enjoyed through IM, texts, chat rooms, calling someone, etc. Social networking sites have not created these benefits, they have just created yet another place to experience them, minimizing their impact to very little. This brings me to my next point: the impact of this is relatively insignificant. When compared to any of my contentions, simply being able to talk with someone who is far away is not even close to the same magnitude. 2. Jobs \"According to Stanford University researcher Mark Granovetter 50%-70% of American jobs are obtained with the help of social networking websites. That's over 100 million American jobs. \" This is actually false, and is an attempt by my opponent to change a fact for his own benefit. Here is the actual quote from . http://www.tuboston.com...: \"Stanford University sociology professor Mark Granovetter recently conducted research that supports the value of making new connections. He found that between 50 and 70 percent of new jobs are discovered by reaching out to people job seekers only know vaguely. \" This does not mean 50%-70% of American jobs are obtained with the help of social networking websites. It means 50%-70% of American jobs are obtained with the help of weak ties, which *might* be established using social networking sites. As such, this statistic should be discounted from consideration. \"According to Mark Mehler from CareerXroads, a person using a social networking sites to get a jobs chances increases from 1/500 to 1/35. \" As for this statistic, I would ask for an accessible source to view this. Though I cannot say for sure without an accessible source, I would like to note that \"CareerXroads\" is a site designed to help the unemployed find jobs, and as such there is a high probability that my opponent has miquoted a figure intended for that specific site, among other possibilities. 3. Business \"According to Robert Half International from a poll of 150 senior executives from the biggest US companies, nearly 2/3 of them will use social networking sites for their hiring efforts. \" To \"use social networking sites\" that could mean merely hiring a single employee whose job includes glancing over resumes online. Thus, this point has almost no impact unless backed up by significant statistics.", "qid": "34", "docid": "7a949437-2019-04-18T19:29:40Z-00001-000", "rank": 96, "score": 160588.0}, {"content": "Title: That, on balance, social networking web sites have a positive impact on the United States of America Content: Thanks for this debate and good luck: DEFINITIONS: -Impact -From: Merriam-Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com......) -\"To have a direct effect or impact on.\" Resolutional Analysis: The burden of proof lies with pro. -Within this debate, it is pro's job to prove that there is some sort of positive impact on the United States. Therefore, if I prove negative effect or neutral effect, I ought to win. -Therefore, my claim is simple: That social networking websites have a NEUTRAL impact on the United States. A. Social Networking Sites are simply a tool. - Since Social Networking Sites are generally meant for friends meeting up with each other and sharing information, you will see that these sites are simply a tool for people to use. Thus, this debate asks the question, does the tool have an impact? And the answer is no. You see, it is the PEOPLE THAT USE THE TOOL that determines what kind of impact exists. A person could use these sites well and nothing bad could happen, OR someone could anonymously abuse someone to the point of suicide on these same sites. For example: A hammer is a tool. A person could use the hammer to build a house. But a person could also use the same hammer to murder someone. Do either of these actions determine the impact of the tool? No\u2026 Therefore, it is the PEOPLE that determine whether it will impact anyone positively or negatively. B. Definition (of impact) places no impact on Social Networking Sites. -How can something have a \u2018direct effect' on something when it doesn't have a brain? It doesn't think. And it therefore can't positively or negatively impact anything. In the end of this debate, ask yourself\u2026 Does a hammer build a house or does a person build a house with a hammer? Does a hammer kill someone, or does a person kill a person with a hammer? Does a gun kill someone, or does someone kill a person with a gun? Does a gun protect a family from a robber, or does someone protect a family from a robber with a gun? Since the answer to all of these is the latter of the two, you will see that it is the PERSON that has the impact, not the tool. ====================================================== Onto my opponents case: 1. I accept the definition (of Social Networking Site) as a way Social Networking sites could be viewed. Although, there can be multiple interpretations, I will not be abusive and I will accept this as the general purpose of a Social Networking site. 2. I will urge the voters to use both definitions of impact. Use my opponents as the \"how much\" and use my definition as the \"how.\" In other words, his points out to a strong effect while mine points to a direct effect. And since these are mutually inclusive, use them both to determine if PRO has met both of them. Onto the arguments now: 1. Economy (and the business advertisement argument)--> A) The economic benefits simply transfered. -You have to acknowledge the simple fact that Social Networking Sites bring in revenue to other companies (debate.org being one of those). However, this revenue transfered from previous popular advertisement locations (such as newspaper and billboards). And although those are still used, they have decreased in popularity while Social Networking sites have balanced it out. Therefore, the economy really didn't benefit as much as my opponent claims. The article (of the link below) shows how search engines may die because of social networking sites, which is a huge amount of income. B) If anything, the economy got worse. -What happens when one location begins to receive all advertisement revenue? Simply, they begin to dominate the market. AND, they begin to pocket it. Both of these have a negative effect since dominating the market will simply lead to people only going there to advertise. This will increase the amount of revenue they get, thus they can begin to 'save' it for whatever reason. Once they save it, the flow of money seizes and the economy actually suffers. C) If it did get better, it is because people used the tool well. -The biggest argument my opponent will have to deal with is the fact that \"social networking sites\" did not have a direct impact on the market, rather the intelligent businessmen did. Social Networking Sites are something we made up, a simple tool of possibility, but as we all know, Social Networking Sites can be used for bad as well. For example: -From PC MAGAZINE ONLINE, July 22, 2008, pNA, GALE CENGAGE LEARNING, Expanded Academic ASAP -QUOTE: \"With more and more kids communicating online, Internet bullying has become a larger issue. About 22 percent of kids said they have friends who have been bullied online.\" Also: -From Jessica S. Groppe; Catholic U. Law School; COMMLAW CONSPECTUS; 2007; ONLINE; LEXIS-NEXIS; p. 218 -QUOTE: \"In over half of these incidents solicitors request photographs of youth, and in twenty-seven percent of such occurrences solicitors ask for sexual photographs. These pornographic depictions involve abusive activities that \"exacerbate the already vulnerable status of children\" who consequently become mere sexual objects in pornographic work. Compliance with solicitor's pornographic requests often results from youths who lack the prudence or maturity to understand the implications or consequences of such pictures. Children's meager knowledge of the nature of sexual acts bolsters the fact that children cannot meaningfully consent to participating in child pornographic activities, and thus, suffer harm from its production.\" From this you can see that the economy is little to no benefit. ESPECIALLY when you weigh it against the benefits of sexual predators and how they can use it as a tool to further abuse the children of America. Just ask the father of the raped daughter what he thinks about the better economy that we got because of a social networking site. Again, it's all how you use it. 2. Democracy--> -Here is just one example of how it could be used as a good tool. However, on top of this, you also have a HUGE increase in the abuse of the candidates. For example, Obama got made fun of and slandered against. And McCain was a war monger because of videos that were put up on the internet. OH... and maybe people even PMed each other with a plot to kill them. All made possible because of Social Networking Sites. 3. Terrorism (and 1/2 under it)--> -Also, a good parent-child relation is good for fighting immature adolescent behavior. However, because of social networking sites, we don't have that either. -From Kaveri Subrahmayam & Patricia Greenfield; Professors of Psychology at Cal State U. and UCLA; THE FUTURE OF CHILDREN; Spring 2008; p. 119 -QUOTE: \"Qualitative evidence is starting to accumulate that social networking sites such as MySpace are ausing serious parent-child conflicts and loss of parental control. Rosen's interviews with parents revealed several typical problems. For example, a boy who failed to do his homework before midnight because he was on MySpace reacted to his parent's efforts to curtail his use of MySpace by sneaking back online.\" -Not to mention that I have already proven that the economy is not necessarily better because of Social Networking Sites. Furthermore, you will see that the economy is bad BECAUSE of the War on Terrorism (in part anyway): -From: http://www.cfr.org... -QUOTE: \"By contrast, the Democrats on the Joint Economic Committee, which estimated a $3.5 trillion cost through 2017, say the war will cost the average U.S. family $46,400. Per person, the total cost, given these estimates, would be $11,627, or $830 per year.\" Through this, you will see that my opponents arguments are irrelevant. It ALL depends on use. Therefore, I urge you to vote CON! Thanks for this debate!", "qid": "34", "docid": "19ef6a93-2019-04-18T19:33:50Z-00002-000", "rank": 97, "score": 160471.0}, {"content": "Title: Social networking sites On Balance have had a positive impact on the United States Content: For this debate I clarify the following defintions on balance as net result or overall effect (www.investorwords.com/3410/on_balance.html) positive to be admitting of no doubt or irrefutable fact (American Heritage second College edition) I being the con must negate the resolution that on balance Social Networking sites ON BALANCE have had a positive impact on the United States. I am negating the resolution when I say that I am neutral. Meaning there are good things and there are bad things about social networking websites but neither can outweigh the other and with all things considered are equal and neutral. To clarify the word negate means to show to be false wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn By going neutral I am proving the resolution false. To begin the debate I concede all affirmative points 1.Young people don't know how much information they're putting out and no one needs to prove their identity, even sex offenders. According to a study conducted by the University of Dayton, 23% of college students intentionally misrepresent themselves on a social networking website to be funny. Not all people are pretending to be someone else for the sake of a joke. On August 22, 2002, as part of his official duties, Detective Frank Warchol of the Portsmouth, New Hampshire Police Department signed on to a chat room on America Online, posing as a fourteen-year-old girl. We all know what happened next. A man named Roland MacMillan also signed on to the chat room, and solicited what he believed to be the 14-year-old for sexual acts. Shortly thereafter Mr. MacMillan was arrested. Young users are often na\u00ef\u00bf\u00bdve about the information they put out on the Internet that is made public. Adults can send inappropriate pictures of themselves to minors. \"A concerned parent\" made the profile on Facebook of a 15-year-old girl who doesn't exist except for online. The girl joined many group dealing with sexuality and ended up becoming \"friends\" with some of the adults that sent her inappropriate pictures. 2. Social networking sites are unregulated On Social networking sites, there is an age requirement. They are usually 14 or 18. But who's checking who really is of age? There is no doubt there are 10 years old on these sites when they are not allowed to be on them. The sites trust users are whatever age they say they are by checking a box upon registering. Letting your children use a social networking site is like dropping them off in RiverSquare park at midnight and expecting them to be alright. 3. Social Networking sites hurt the workplace The Results of an exclusive MessageLabs survey conducted in September 2007, reveal that approximately 75% of companies said the number of visits their employees were making to social networking sites had increased over the previous six months. About 60% thought this had damaged productivity; while over. 75% believed corporate reputation could be seriously threatened if staff members posted negative comments about their organization online. No wonder over 70% of respondents said they were thinking of restricting employee access to social networking sites. (http://www.compliancehome.com...) 4. online social networking sites have become targets for hackers When you're online, your computer is under attack, and more hackers are hunting for prey on social-networking sites. For the past three months a virus dubbed \"Koobface\" has targeted Facebook's 120 million users. It uses the social network's messaging system to infect PCs, then it tries to raid your personal information. \"If you're connected to the Internet, you're almost always under attack,\" said Brad Lindsay, KSL system security expert. From an infected computer, Koobface sends notes to friends. You may get a message from a trusted friends account with a subject header like: \"You look just awesome in this new movie.\" It directs you to a Web site and instructs you to download an update of Adobe's Flash player. At that point, you're infected and you get sent off to contaminated sites \"Some of the really bad ones can actually take over your computer and be used to attack other computers. Others will sit quietly, record information and send it back to the hacker,\" Lindsay said. (http://www.ksl.com...) Once these sites were virus free zone, but the same thing can not be told now about these websites. So, social networking websites are now vulnerable to severe malware or virus attack as proven. It is obvious social networking websites are an easy hunting ground for all these malicious viruses. The danger is real, according to a study conducted by CA and the National Cyber Security Alliance (NCSA). In October, the alliance issued its first social networking study examining the link between specific online behaviors and the potential for becoming a victim of cybercrime. 67 percent of people who use social networking sites admit to worrying about becoming a victim of cybercrime. Therefore with the affirmative acting as the counter balance and proving why they are positive I stand neutral on the REsolution Social Networking sites on Balance have had a positive impact on the United States.", "qid": "34", "docid": "f359b0bb-2019-04-18T19:27:59Z-00003-000", "rank": 98, "score": 160409.0}, {"content": "Title: Facebook is good for democracy Content: Social networks aid our society on multiple levels, one of them being the democratic process. This happens both in autocracies, where the democratic process is basically nonexistent and in western liberal democracies where Facebook acts as a megaphone for the will of the population. Firstly, when talking about oppressive regimes, Facebook allows the population to organize themselves in massive protests which can, in time, overthrow the government. This is of particular importance as the population cannot organize protests \"offline\" in the real world, because government forces would quickly find them and stop the protests before they even started. These people need a safe house, where government intervention is minimized, so that they can spread the news and organize the protests. The online environment is the best options. We have seen this happening in the Arab Spring(1), Brazil (2), Turkey(3) as well as for protests in democracies as in Wisconsin(4) For western liberal democracies too Facebook plays a very important role in aiding the democratic process. Even in a democracy the government often engages in unpopular policies. Unfortunately, as we are talking about countries with tens of millions of people, citizens often feel they can\u2019t make a difference. Luckily, here's where Facebook comes in. It connects all the people who share the same disapproval of government actions, removing the feeling that you can do nothing as there is no one backing you. Millions can come together to voice their opinions. Therefore there is more likely to be dissent. Moreover, the internet allowed individuals to start massive campaigns of online petition gathering, which they will later use as an irrefutable argument to the government showing the desire for change. There are a lot of sites, one of the biggest being Avaaz.org which facilitates this process, which use Facebook as a medium through which the petition is shared and so grows. (1) Sonya Angelica Diehn \u201cSocial media use evolving in Egypt\u201d, DW , 04.07.2013 http://www.dw.de/social-media-use-evolving-in-egypt/a-16930251 (2) Caroline Stauffer \u201cSocial media spreads and splinters Brazil protests\u201d, Reuters ,June 22, 2013 http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/social-media-spreads-splinters-brazil-protests-6C10418084 (3) \u201cActivists in Turkey use social media to organize, evade crackdown As protests continue across Turkey against the government\u201d http://fsrn.org/audio/activists-turkey-use-social-media-organize-evade-crackdown-protests-continue-across-turkey-aga (4)Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_social_media_in_the_Wisconsin_protests", "qid": "34", "docid": "bc2b2a0d-2019-04-15T20:24:26Z-00011-000", "rank": 99, "score": 160204.0}, {"content": "Title: Parental control on sns or other social networking should be banned Content: Thank you for the argument. I really appreciate it. I agree that children might not know well about safety. However, these days, social networking is the most powerful and comfortable way for the children to communicate with other friends. For some children, small communication with other friends might give encouragement and happiness beyond the academies and enormous homeworks. Also, social networking does not only give disadvantage to the children. Social networking allows the children to know better about what is happening in the society. I think that children also has their own privacy. Also, parental control may make the relationship between the parents and children to get worse. Many fights are happening between families about the parental control. Additionally, the children do not like their sns to be controlled by parents. They want their privacy to be kept, and the thoughts of the children should be also respected, not only the adults' and parents'.", "qid": "34", "docid": "5c2b6729-2019-04-18T16:41:01Z-00005-000", "rank": 100, "score": 159126.0}]}
{"query": "Do violent video games contribute to youth violence?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: Video Games Lead To Violence Content: There was a study done with 200 kids, with kids the age of 10 or 11, showing that the longer they played video games, the more aggression was stored up in the kids. Children who played for longer than three hours each day had higher levels of aggression and lower levels of academic engagement. Considering the vast number of children and youth who use video games and that more than 85% of video games on the market contain some form of violence, the public has understandably been concerned about the effects that using violent video games may have on individuals, especially children and adolescents. Now admittedly that video games are not the main reason for mass homicide and school shootings because it all comes from the person's family, environment, and chemical imbalances that they might hold but like you said, \"Video games can assist with the growth and development of our brain.\" While video games can be healthy for brain development they can do just the complete opposite in people, especially in children and adolescents, because their brains are still developing. Scientific research has demonstrated an association between violent video game use and both increases in aggressive behavior, aggressive affect, aggressive cognitions and decreases in prosocial behavior, empathy, and moral engagement. Playing violent video games causes more aggression, bullying, and fighting. 60% of middle school boys and 40% of middle school girls who played at least one Mature-rated (M-rated) game hit or beat up someone, compared with 39% of boys and 14% of girls who did not play M-rated games. A 2014 peer-reviewed study in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that habitual violent video game playing had a causal link with increased, long-term, aggressive behavior. Several peer-reviewed studies have shown that children who play M-rated games are more likely to bully and cyberbully their peers, get into physical fights, be hostile, argue with teachers, and show aggression towards their peers throughout the school year.", "qid": "35", "docid": "46745944-2019-04-18T12:08:45Z-00000-000", "rank": 1, "score": 241128.0}, {"content": "Title: should vilent video games be banned Content: Violent video games require active participation, repetition, and identification with the violent character. With new game controllers allowing more physical interaction, the immersive and interactive characteristics of video games can increase the likelihood of youth violence. Playing violent video games causes the development of aggressive behavioral scripts . A behavioral script is developed from the repetition of actions and affects the subconscious mind. An example of a common behavioral script is a driving script that tells drivers to get in a vehicle, put on a seat belt, and turn on the ignition. Similarly, violent video games can lead to scripts that tell youth to respond aggressively in certain situations. Violence in video games may lead to real world violence when scripts are automatically triggered in daily life, such as being nudged in a school hallway.", "qid": "35", "docid": "d0e5c093-2019-04-18T18:40:47Z-00006-000", "rank": 2, "score": 239365.0}, {"content": "Title: Violent video games are real danger to young minds. Content: Paul Boxer. \"It's up to parents to enforce a ban on violent video games.\" NJ.com. July 1st, 2011: \"As policy statements from organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychological Association have made clear, violent media represents a real and compelling risk to the behavioral and mental health of children and adolescents. In fact, research studies have yielded the conclusion that the effect of violent media consumption on aggressive behavior is in the same ballpark statistically as the effect of smoking on lung cancer, the effect of lead exposure on children\u2019s intellectual development and the effect of asbestos on laryngeal cancer.\"", "qid": "35", "docid": "d48f37bf-2019-04-17T11:47:20Z-00039-000", "rank": 3, "score": 234772.0}, {"content": "Title: Video game violence does not contribute significantly to school shootings. Content: \"It has been proven that there is a casual link between predisposed kids that end up fulfilling their disposition via the cognitive deterioration of emotional tolerance by playing violent video games[1]. Case in point.\" [1]http://www.msnbc.msn.com...... I would like to add to Con's statement that it has also been proven that the amount of school shootings since 1993 have significantly decreased[2]. Let's look at what game genres that we have present today cause aggression in teens. According to con's earlier source[1], the main genre of video games that cause \"the deterioration of emotional tolerance\" are violent first-person shooters, such as ones mentioned like \"Call of Duty\" and \"Medal of Honor: Frontline\". It's relation with school shootings has a vital flaw, though. Throughout the period of time (from 1993 - 2001), when school shootings were at their peak in this statistic[2], the more violent genres of first-person shooters that caused aggression in teens[1] did not exist. At this point, it must be safe to assume that it was not the violent video games that heavily influenced the school shootings. [1] http://www.msnbc.msn.com... [2] http://youthviolence.edschool.virginia.edu...", "qid": "35", "docid": "8e52f9f1-2019-04-18T19:02:33Z-00002-000", "rank": 4, "score": 234376.0}, {"content": "Title: Violence in video games does not significantly contribute to real world violence. Content: What began the controversy:It is obvious that violence has been a major issue in society today. Events such as the school shooting in Newtown and the bombing of the Boston Marathon have made people begin to wonder what exactly pushed the guilty individuals to commit such atrocities. Many people have concluded that one of the major factors that promotes violence today are video games. Jay Rockefeller is one of the activists against video game violence. Minnesota Post explains that Rockfeller introduced a legislation instructing the National Association of Sciences to investigate the effects of violent video games on children, saying, \u201cPeople believe that violent video games are no more dangerous to young minds than classic literature or Saturday morning cartoons. Parents, paediatricians, and psychologists know better.\u201d (1) The effects of video games on the minds of young children has been studied for years, and the data quite contradicts Rockfeller\u2019s conclusion.What really causes violence in teens:Serious CrimesAdam Lanza, the gunman from the Sandy Hook shooting, played violent video games regularly. This caused many to believe that this is why he committed his violent crime. However, this was not the case. Eric Huey explains, \u201cIt turns out that delinquent peers, depression, and an abusive family environment account for actual violence incidents\u2026\u201d (2) Obviously, mental disorders would be another thing that promotes such violence. Here we can see that video games did not compel him (or most other school shooters) to commit the crime.AggressionA common argument against violence in video games is that violence in video games cause aggression. This is actually not the case. Carol Pichefsky notes that aggression is not caused by violent video games; rather, it is caused by a competitive environment (3). So, a game of MarioKart would be just as likely to result in aggression as a game of Call of Duty. This is not exclusive to video games either, competitive sports and competitive debate (especially on this website) are just as likely to result in aggression. So, it is certainly not the violence in video games that causes such feelings. The last thing I would like to note is that aggression and violence are two different things. Aggression is an intention. Violence in an action (4). My opponent showing that video games cause aggression is simply not enough.Violence rates:Here is the most important point of this debate. Logically, if violence in video games significantly contribute to real world violence, violent crime rates would rise as video game sales rise. This, however, is untrue: Now, I don't claim that this decrease is due to video game sales (a lot of other factors could have affected the decline). However, this decrease makes mockery of the idea that video games have legitimately contributed to the rise of violence in society today (5). Video game's effect:Releasing AggressionStudies suggest that video games give individuals an outlets to release aggression; there was a study done on inmates. An observer notes \"If you give them video games, they\u2019ll be less likely to start fights. So once a week we\u2019d hook up a bunch of TVs in a classroom so all of the murderers and rapists could play Halo. There\u2019s nothing more interesting than seeing guys who have killed multiple people deathmatching each other (6).\" The inmates clearly were able to release their aggression in a way that doesn't hurt other people. This can be applied to other people as well. Logically, if violence in video games makes inmates less violent, they won't have an opposite affect when it comes to kids.Enjoyment of ViolenceThis is an important part of the debate. Many people don't become violent because of violence in video games. Rather, they play violent video games because they enjoy violence. In order for con to win this point, he must prove that the violence in video games causes the violence. A simple correlation between violent people and people that play violent video games is not enough.(1) http://www.minnpost.com...(2) http://www.sfgate.com...(3) http://www.forbes.com... (4) http://www.goodtherapy.org... (5) Chasing the Dream, \u201cThe Economist\u201d(6) http://freakonomics.com...", "qid": "35", "docid": "b1a6f17a-2019-04-18T15:54:21Z-00005-000", "rank": 5, "score": 234136.0}, {"content": "Title: Video game violence does not contribute significantly to school shootings. Content: It has been proven that there is a casual link between predisposed kids that end up fulfilling their disposition via the cognitive deterioration of emotional tolerance by playing violent video games[1]. Case in point. http://www.msnbc.msn.com...", "qid": "35", "docid": "8e52f9f1-2019-04-18T19:02:33Z-00003-000", "rank": 6, "score": 233112.0}, {"content": "Title: The content of Video Games Content: We are now at our final round of debate. I'd like to summarize by saying while I agree there is no direct evidence of the cause-and-effect relationship between violent video games and teen violence, we can NOT afford to think that having violent video games readily available for people of all ages does not pose certain degree of concern. The concern is it occupies the mind of immature and mentally unstable teenagers with aggressive thoughts and might trigger violent behavior, causing great harm to other people and demoralize the rest of society. Just because there is no direct evidence does not mean it is not the case as I postulated. We are actually quite used to believing things without direct evidence - most religious beliefs fall into this category. Another similar example: when one plays Sudoku, sometimes there is no obvious hint what number one should put down in a cell, but by indirect deduction, we reach the conclusion that there are no other possibilities but to put down a certain number. I believe that violent video gaming contributed to the Columbine incidence because no other possible causes made profound sense to me. The two teenagers engaged in playing Doom constantly. This couldn't have been a good thing. Yes, there might have been other contributing factors. But who is to say that the violence they practice in their virtual world did not become the \"last straw on the back of the camel\" and played into their final act? One day when you have kids of your own, you might have second thoughts of allowing them unrestricted access to violent video games. Don't you agree?", "qid": "35", "docid": "d94ca2d5-2019-04-18T18:35:58Z-00002-000", "rank": 7, "score": 232650.0}, {"content": "Title: Violent Video Games Lead to Real Violence (First Debate) Content: Well, it is definitely the case that violent video games lead to violence in real life due to the fact that it encourages new ideas to try illegal things which are seen as \"cool\" by teenagers. For example, the violent 18+ video game, which is played by those much younger too, show that speeding cars and not following rules is fun and thrilling. This leads to people trying this in real life...", "qid": "35", "docid": "baa6345c-2019-04-18T13:44:43Z-00002-000", "rank": 8, "score": 232166.0}, {"content": "Title: Are Video Games the main cause for Violent Juvenile Crimes Content: Increasing reports of bullying can be partially attributed to the popularity of violent video games. The 2008 study Grand Theft Childhood reported that 60% of middle school boys who played at least one Mature-rated game hit or beat up someone, compared to 39% of boys that did not play Mature-rated games. [2] Video games often reward players for simulating violence, and thus enhance the learning of violent behaviors. Studies suggest that when violence is rewarded in video games, players exhibit increased aggressive behavior compared to players of video games where violence is punished. [23] Violent video games desensitize players to real-life violence. It is common for victims in video games to disappear off screen when they are killed or for players to have multiple lives. In a 2005 study, violent video game exposure has been linked to reduced P300 amplitudes in the brain, which is associated with desensitization to violence and increases in aggressive behavior. [24] A 2000 FBI report includes playing violent video games in a list of behaviors associated with school shootings. [25] Violent video games teach youth that violence is an acceptable conflict-solving strategy and an appropriate way to achieve one's goals. [26] A 2009 study found that youth who play violent video games have lower belief in the use of nonviolent strategies and are less forgiving than players of nonviolent video games. Violent video games cause players to associate pleasure and happiness with the ability to cause pain in others. [3] Young children are more likely to confuse fantasy violence with real world violence, and without a framework for ethical decision making, they may mimic the actions they see in violent video games. [4] Violent video games require active participation, repetition, and identification with the violent character. With new game controllers allowing more physical interaction, the immersive and interactive characteristics of video games can increase the likelihood of youth violence. [5] Playing violent video games increases aggressive behavior and arousal. [27] A 2009 study found that it takes up to four minutes for the level of aggressive thoughts and feelings in children to return to normal after playing violent video games. It takes five to ten minutes for heart rate and aggressive behavior to return to baseline. Video games that show the most blood generate more aggressive thoughts. When blood is present in video games, there is a measurable increase in arousal and hostility. [28] Playing violent video games causes the development of aggressive behavioral scripts [29]. A behavioral script is developed from the repetition of actions and affects the subconscious mind. An example of a common behavioral script is a driving script that tells drivers to get in a vehicle, put on a seat belt, and turn on the ignition. Similarly, violent video games can lead to scripts that tell youth to respond aggressively in certain situations. Violence in video games may lead to real world violence when scripts are automatically triggered in daily life, such as being nudged in a school hallway. A 1998 study found that 21% of games sampled involved violence against women [23]. Exposure to sexual violence in video games is linked to increases in violence towards women and false attitudes about rape such as that women incite men to rape or that women secretly desire rape. [30] Several studies in both the United States and Japan have shown that, controlling for prior aggression, children who played more violent video games during the beginning of the school year showed more aggression than their peers later in the school year. [31] Exposure to violent video games is linked to lower empathy in players. In a 2004 study of 150 fourth and fifth graders by Professor Jeanne Funk, violent video games were the only type of media associated with lower empathy. Empathy, the ability to understand and enter into another's feelings, plays an important role in the process of moral evaluation and is believed to inhibit aggressive behavior. [32] When youth view violence in video games, they are more likely to fear becoming a victim of acts of violence. According to a 2000 joint statement by six leading national medical associations including the American Medical Association and American Psychological Association, this escalated fear results in youth not trusting others and taking violent self-protective measures. [33] Violent video games can train youth to be killers. The US Marine Corps licensed Doom II in 1996 to create Marine Doom in order to train soldiers. In 2002, the US Army released first-person shooter America's Army to recruit soldiers and prepare recruits for the battlefield.", "qid": "35", "docid": "758ea5f9-2019-04-18T16:05:18Z-00004-000", "rank": 9, "score": 232015.0}, {"content": "Title: Video game violence does not contribute significantly to school shootings. Content: I would think that you would understand by now that it is the voters who ultimately decide who wins the argument, not you. Anywho, my response: \"The title of this argument is \"Video game violence does not contribute significantly to school shootings.\" The kids who are predisposed susceptibility to the emotional deterioration ultimately are the ones who shoot up the schools, ergo video game violence in theory does significantly contribute to school shootings. Therein your evidences are invalidated and I win the argument.\" Con has not addressed my initial evidence, nor has the slightest hint of evidence to back up his claim. If violent video games were the cause for these school shootings, then tell me: what happened to all of the other factors that caused the earlier shootings? Our school systems today have undoubtably learned to combat them significantly, but not completely. Another thing that I must present is the likeliness of violent video games influencing students to commit these crimes. Video games, as well as the violent ones, are imbued into our society. They provide entertainment and satisfaction for millions of teens in the United States. Although it has been shown that they can cause aggression in certain cases, for the most part, they do not play a significant role. \"School shootings are not a simple issue with a single solution. This violence is rooted in psychological imbalances within the students themselves, poor parenting and a decay in significance of traditional institutions along with the guilt forces they rely on for effectiveness - to name a just a few.\"[1] With nearly all statistics on school shootings, these factors that contribute to the crimes appear in virtually every case. The part that video game violence plays is very insignificant indeed. Conclusion: Most, if not all school shootings are rooted in psychological imbalances within the students themselves, poor parenting and a decay in significance of traditional institutions along with the guilt forces they rely on for effectiveness[1], not violent video games. The real cause lies significantly more with the student and his/her social environment, rather than the entertainment activities(violent video games) he/she partakes in. Sources: http://www.holology.com...", "qid": "35", "docid": "8e52f9f1-2019-04-18T19:02:33Z-00000-000", "rank": 10, "score": 231600.0}, {"content": "Title: Youth playing violent games exhibit more aggression. Content: Paul Boxer. \"It's up to parents to enforce a ban on violent video games.\" NJ.com. July 1st, 2011: \"High-profile events such as teenagers getting inspired by the actions of a violent video game character can be tragic, but they also distract from the large body of knowledge that has accumulated on the impact of violent media on children. Since the early 1970s, scientists have observed very clear, frequently replicated and strikingly robust effects. In experimental studies, children who view violent television shows or films \u2014 or who play violent video games \u2014 are significantly more likely to behave aggressively in comparison to children who view nonviolent television shows or films, or who play nonviolent video games. In long-term studies, individuals who consume violent media during childhood end up more aggressive as adults, in comparison with peers who consume nonviolent media during childhood. The studies that have produced such findings now number in the hundreds. The effects have been seen in children from urban areas, as well as suburban and rural areas; in the United States, as well as many other Western and non-Western nations.\"", "qid": "35", "docid": "d48f37bf-2019-04-17T11:47:20Z-00038-000", "rank": 11, "score": 230672.0}, {"content": "Title: Violent videogames cause violence in players Content: The 2008 study Grand Theft Childhood reported that 60% of middle school boys that played at least one Mature-rated game hit or beat up someone, compared to 39% of boys that did not play Mature-rated games. Violent computer games have long been popular with teenagers, and with the improvement in technology, many violent games have become more realistic. Excessive violent gaming can become a serious problem because teenagers can develop antisocial behavior and become disconnected from reality, according to Laura Berk, professor of psychology at Illinois State University. According to Berk, teenagers who frequently play violent video games are more likely to become withdrawn. She states that addiction to violent games is a cause in itself. A 2010 BBC news report about the risk of computer addiction included an interview with a 19-year-old boy who skipped school and had angry outbursts if his parents tried to stop him from playing a violent video game. The American Psychiatric Association is calling for more research before placing computer games addiction as an international recognized mental health disorder Violence as Normality A research report in the May 2010 issue of \"Psychological Bulletin\" led by Iowa State University psychology professor Craig Anderson found that violent gaming can increase feelings of aggression and antisocial behavior in teenagers, regardless of their sex. Overexposure to violent images found in computer games can lead to the view that violence is a normal way of life. Berk also writes that the Columbine High School teenage murderers were obsessed with playing a violent video game. abcnews.go.com \" Technology", "qid": "35", "docid": "456d6b3a-2019-04-18T16:19:18Z-00002-000", "rank": 12, "score": 230155.0}, {"content": "Title: Do games teach kids violence. Content: We aren't even debating the existence of a causal link, only the fact that children learn violence from video games. I hereby provide quotes from the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry and the American Academy of Pediatrics to settle this issue once and for all.\"Some researchers have demonstrated that very young children will imitate aggressive acts on TV in their play with peers. Before age 4, children are unable to distinguish between fact and fantasy.\" [1]\"Extensive research evidence indicates that media violence can contribute to aggressive behavior, desensitization to violence, nightmares, and fear of being harmed.\"The evidence is now clear and convincing: media violence is 1 of the causal factors of real-life violence and aggression. At a Congressional public health summit in July 2000, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) was joined by the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and the American Psychological Association in issuing an unprecedented joint statement on the impact of entertainment violence on children. Also in 2000, the Federal Bureau of Investigation released a report on shootings in schools that stated that media violence is a risk factor. \"In 2003, a panel of media-violence experts convened by the National Institute of Mental Health, at the request of the US Surgeon General, published its comprehensive report on the effects of media violence on youth, which revealed media violence to be a significant causal factor in aggression and violence. Most recently, in 2007, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released its report on violent television programming and its effects on children and agreed with the Surgeon General that there is \u201cstrong evidence\u201d that exposure to media violence can increase aggressive behavior in children.\" [2]\"As one leading group of researchers has stated, there should no longer be any controversy that a cause-and-effect relationship exists. More than 3500 reports, including 1000 research studies, have been made; <30 studies have found no relation. In fact, the connection between media violence and real-life aggression is nearly as strong as the connection between smoking and lung cancer. \"Given the complexities of performing social-science research, this finding is quite striking. Not everyone who smokes will get lung cancer, and not everyone who views media violence will become aggressive. In addition, context is extremely important, as are mediating factors such as personality differences and parenting. \"Overall, an estimated 10% to 30% of violence in society can be attributed to the impact of media violence. Clearly, media violence is not the leading cause of violence in society, but it is a significant one.\" [3]Specific sources in comments :)", "qid": "35", "docid": "50c55103-2019-04-18T16:52:42Z-00002-000", "rank": 13, "score": 228579.0}, {"content": "Title: Video Games increase child violence Content: Now my argument: Example 1: A diagnostic study of more than 1,000 teenagers took place in Poland between 2011 and 2012, aimed at measuring the impact of computer games on young people. Researchers said the results showed that there was a strong link between young people who played games on a regular basis with an inability to control emotions, increased isolation from friends and higher incidences of aggression Source: (. http://www.irishtimes.com...) Example 2: In a study led by Gentile, Lynch, Lander & Walsh in 2004, the authors also stated that teens who play violent video games for extended periods of time: tend to be more aggressive, are more prone to confrontation with their teachers and increased incidences of fights with their peers. Source (. http://drdouglas.org...) Example 3: There is empherical data showing that video games increase violence among children in the book \"Violent Video Game Effects On Children And Adolescents\" Source: Polman, J. , Orobio de Castro, B. & Van Aken, M. (2008). Experimental study of the differential effects of playing versus watching violent video games on children's aggressive behavior. Aggressive Behavior, 34(3), 256-264. I feel that these examples show solid fact that there is a definite link to video games increasing violence among children. I look forward to your response.", "qid": "35", "docid": "e81dfba3-2019-04-18T17:00:44Z-00004-000", "rank": 14, "score": 227961.0}, {"content": "Title: The content of Video Games Content: No, violent or inappropriate video games do not necessarily cause teens to act violent. Hundreds of years before the present day, teens were surround with violent things. People would see death and violence much more often than we do today. Not only that, if video games did cause teens to be violent then we would see a much higher crime rate. According to http://www.pbs.org... According to federal crime statistics, the rate of juvenile violent crime in the United States is at a 30-year low. Not only that, but a 2001 U.S. Surgeon General's report, the strongest risk factors for school shootings centered on mental stability and the quality of home life, not media exposure. If you just take a look at the topic, it will be clear that violent games do not invoke violence in teens.", "qid": "35", "docid": "d94ca2d5-2019-04-18T18:35:58Z-00007-000", "rank": 15, "score": 227955.0}, {"content": "Title: no violent video games don't cause violence Content: if a kid plays a violent video game and then develops violent behaviors its not because of the video game. you need to look into that childs psyche instead of the video games. i personally think that video games give the person an excuse to take action towards the violent thoughts that their minds fabricated on their own. there is obviously something wrong with the person if they go and do these things just because they play a game that does it. take it from me I'm a teenager who has suffered abuse and bullying. i have been diagnosed with major depression, adhd, and ocd. i have been in programs and stuff to help myself. i have performed self mutilation. and i play cod black ops every night. i am more intuned to becoming violent than normal kids without these issues. but I'm not violent aim one of the sweetest people i know", "qid": "35", "docid": "b84c76ff-2019-04-18T15:39:28Z-00003-000", "rank": 16, "score": 226373.0}, {"content": "Title: The content of Video Games Content: It's a good thing that the rate of teen violence has been decreasing. But we are not here to debate whether the rate is higher or lower than before. Instead, we are here to discuss whether there is a direct correlation between engaging in violent video games and acting out violence in real life, for teenagers. Psychologists have shown that youngsters spend a significant amount of their spare time playing video games, boys more so than girls. While not all video games contain violence, the most popular ones do. More importantly, playing violent video games has been linked to having aggressive thoughts (http://www.apa.org...). In my opinion, having aggressive thoughts is, for a teenage, the first step toward becoming violent in action. Since violent media games lead to aggressive thoughts and aggressive thoughts may lead to violent action, by the rule of transitivity, for sure violent media games contributes to teenage violence. There is no doubt about it.", "qid": "35", "docid": "d94ca2d5-2019-04-18T18:35:58Z-00006-000", "rank": 17, "score": 226223.0}, {"content": "Title: Video Games Can Cause Violence Content: obama", "qid": "35", "docid": "1dd4cde4-2019-04-18T16:08:31Z-00000-000", "rank": 18, "score": 226200.0}, {"content": "Title: Do games teach kids violence. Content: Violent juvenile crime in the United States has been declining as violent video game popularity has increased. The arrest rate for juvenile murders has fallen 71.9% between 1995 and 2008. The arrest rate for all juvenile violent crimes has declined 49.3%. In this same period, video game sales have more than quadrupled. [7] [8] A causal link between violent video games and violent behavior has not been proven. [34] Many studies suffer from design flaws and use unreliable measures of violence and aggression such as noise blast tests. Thoughts about aggression have been confused with aggressive behavior, and there is a lack of studies that follow children over long periods of time. A 2004 US Secret Service review of previous school-based attacks found that one-eighth of attackers exhibited an interest in violent video games, less than the rate of interest attackers showed in violent movies, books, and violence in their own writings. The report did not find a relationship between playing violent video games and school shootings. [35] The small correlations that have been found between video games and violence may be explained by violent youth being drawn to violent video games. Violent games do not cause youth to be violent. Instead, youth that are predisposed to be violent seek out violent entertainment such as video games. Playing violent video games reduces violence in adolescent boys by serving as a substitute for rough and tumble play. [36] Playing violent video games allows adolescent boys to express aggression and establish status in the peer group without causing physical harm. http://videogames.procon.org...", "qid": "35", "docid": "50c55103-2019-04-18T16:52:42Z-00003-000", "rank": 19, "score": 225898.0}, {"content": "Title: Video games encourage violent behavior Content: In a nutshell, you state that the act of playing video games turns the players into illogical and induces stress, which causes violence. However, you must keep in mind the following: 1: A video game is played for entertainment. I'd like you to explain how games cause stress (Physical strain does not count. We are talking about mental strain, as that is the argument you are using here.). 2: If playing violent video games increases violent behavior in children, as your argument stated, then why is that South Korea, a country that plays over two times more video games than the United States has ZERO shootings out of a sample of 100,000? Sources: [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org... (States that video games are intended for entertainment) [2] http://www.washingtonpost.com... (States that video games have no correlation with youth violence, often associated with shootings/gun murders) If you have any other arguments to present, please do. Until then, I will await your response.", "qid": "35", "docid": "8db68a9b-2019-04-18T16:56:06Z-00003-000", "rank": 20, "score": 225613.0}, {"content": "Title: Violent Video Games Content: Hello and thank you for taking time to read this debate.For the purpose of clarification I will not state my intent to argue for the remainder of this debate. The Con will argue that the sale of violent video games to minors in the U.S. does not have a substantial effect on their actions and that there are other causes or reasons why young people commit violent acts.Here is my evidence.#1 - No connection between violence and games. Other causes like home life and and mental stability are the core.A PBS Report citing the findings of MIT Professor Henry Jenkins [1] \"The overwhelming majority of kids who play do NOT commit antisocial acts. According to a 2001 U.S. Surgeon General's report, the strongest risk factors for school shootings centered on mental stability and the quality of home life, not media exposure. The moral panic over violent video games is doubly harmful. It has led adult authorities to be more suspicious and hostile to many kids who already feel cut off from the system. It also misdirects energy away from eliminating the actual causes of youth violence and allows problems to continue to fester.\" As we can see per the evidence there have been numerous studies AND in fact the surgeon general telling us that the exposure to violence based on video games is a factor that leads to violence. Compare this to my opponents evidence which is unobtainable so we cannot even test the validity of the entire study. As this is my opponents argument it is the only argument I need to win to win this debate but I will go ahead and provide more evidence bellow.#2 - Violent video games are in fact core to the development of children and their decision making skills.A PBS Report citing the findings of MIT Professor Henry Jenkins [1] \"On April 19, 2002, U.S. District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh Sr. ruled that video games do not convey ideas and thus enjoy no constitutional protection. As evidence, Saint Louis County presented the judge with videotaped excerpts from four games, all within a narrow range of genres, and all the subject of previous controversy. Overturning a similar decision in Indianapolis, Federal Court of Appeals Judge Richard Posner noted: \"Violence has always been and remains a central interest of humankind and a recurrent, even obsessive theme of culture both high and low. It engages the interest of children from an early age, as anyone familiar with the classic fairy tales collected by Grimm, Andersen, and Perrault are aware.\" Posner adds, \"To shield children right up to the age of 18 from exposure to violent descriptions and images would not only be quixotic, but deforming; it would leave them unequipped to cope with the world as we know it.\" Many early games were little more than shooting galleries where players were encouraged to blast everything that moved. Many current games are designed to be ethical testing grounds. They allow players to navigate an expansive and open-ended world, make their own choices and witness their consequences. \"This quote is long but meaningful as it holds multiple reasons as to why children have to be exposed to violent video games. As explained, the article cites a district judge who explains why we have to protect the rights of children in exposing them to violence and thus the consequences of actions. They become as Posner writes \"The ethical testing grounds.\" and so should be accessible to children. To back up this claim the article cites Posner who justifies this exposure with reference to the violent nursery rythmes and fairytales we already tell our children. Thus if you find even the slightest moral, ethical or logical justification for exposing children to violence you vote con.#3 - Video games aren't desensitizing.A PBS Report citing the findings of MIT Professor Henry Jenkins [1] \"Classic studies of play behavior among primates suggest that apes make basic distinctions between play fighting and actual combat. In some circumstances, they seem to take pleasure wrestling and tousling with each other. In others, they might rip each other apart in mortal combat. Game designer and play theorist Eric Zimmerman describes the ways we understand play as distinctive from reality as entering the \"magic circle.\" The same action \u2014 say, sweeping a floor \u2014 may take on different meanings in play (as in playing house) than in reality (housework). Play allows kids to express feelings and impulses that have to be carefully held in check in their real-world interactions. Media reformers argue that playing violent video games can cause a lack of empathy for real-world victims. Yet, a child who responds to a video game the same way he or she responds to a real-world tragedy could be showing symptoms of being severely emotionally disturbed. \"Despite what the pro tells you, video games aren't desensitizing. As the evidence above explains, video games aren't meant to stimulate real emotional responses and thus aren't meant to show that a kid is disturbed simply because he laughs at death in a simulation. In fact they act as a release to feelings that are normally oppressed in 'reality' culture today. This answers the pro's only claim to violence and is thus a reason to vote con.#4 - Studies that conclude that violence in video games lead to more violence in kids are biased.Staff of Science 2.0 Report on the findings of Professor Patrick Kierkegaard of the University of Essex. [2]\"However, Kierkegaard explains, there is no obvious link between real-world violence statistics and the advent of video games. Despite several high profile incidents in US academic institutions, \"Violent crime, particularly among the young, has decreased dramatically since the early 1990s,\" says Kierkegaard, \"while video games have steadily increased in popularity and use. For example, in 2005, there were 1,360,088 violent crimes reported in the USA compared with 1,423,677 the year before. \"With millions of sales of violent games, the world should be seeing an epidemic of violence,\" he says, \"Instead, violence has declined.\" Research is inconclusive, emphasises Kierkegaard.\"The evidence goes a long way to win the con's because it states that really any study provided by the pro has no real world statistics to backup the nature of the findings and thus can only be limited to the theory which is invalid until there is evidence to support it.#5 - If your claim is true then why has the rise of video game sales been accompanied by a drop in violent crimes by children?Quote from Lawrence Kutner, PhD, and Cheryl K. Olson, ScD, co-founders of the Harvard Medical School Center for Mental Health [3]\"It\u2019s clear that the \u2018big fears\u2019 bandied about in the press - that violent video games make children significantly more violent in the real world; that children engage in the illegal, immoral, sexist and violent acts they see in some of these games - are not supported by the current research, at least in such a simplistic form. That should make sense to anyone who thinks about it. After all, millions of children and adults play these games, yet the world has not been reduced to chaos and anarchy.\"This statement and evidence is pretty damning to the case of my opponent because it poses a logical question that simply can't be answered by studies that are supposedly in support of the pro. This is because, as stated by the very qualified authors of my evidence, there has been no increase in violence even though violent video games are hot sellers. Thus there can be no conclusion for the pro because there is simply no real world proof.Thank you for your time and I look forward to my opponent's response!My Evidence (No abstract mining here)[1] - http://www.pbs.org...[2] - http://www.science20.com...[3] \"Grand Theft Childhood: The Surprising Truth about Violent Video Games\" by Lawrence Kutner, PhD, and Cheryl K. Olson, ScD, 2008.", "qid": "35", "docid": "5b6b25e-2019-04-18T18:46:35Z-00001-000", "rank": 21, "score": 225528.0}, {"content": "Title: Video games are the sole reason for violent teens, and other persons. Content: Indeed.", "qid": "35", "docid": "33b3c1cd-2019-04-18T16:44:36Z-00000-000", "rank": 22, "score": 224123.0}, {"content": "Title: Video Games Can Cause Violence Content: The most common argument is that video games desensitize your reaction to violence, thus making you violent. But anyone who has the cognitive faculties to purchase, set up and operate modern games consoles won't have trouble with being desensitized. According to records held by the U.S. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention and Office of Justice Programs, sales of video games have more than quadrupled from 1995-2008, while the arrest rate for juvenile murders fell 71.9% and the arrest rate for all juvenile violent crimes declined 49.3% in this same period. It should be the other way around, if that was true. although researchers have often noted the preference of violent video games by many school shooters, given that 97 percent of adolescents play video games such a preference is not overly surprising. It could similarly be argued that oxygen consumption predicts school shootings and crime, because most school shooters likely breathed within 10 seconds before their violent attack (Hey, maybe it does) I'll post more if you actually respond", "qid": "35", "docid": "1dd4cde4-2019-04-18T16:08:31Z-00002-000", "rank": 23, "score": 224070.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Violent video games cause increased aggressive behavior Content: 1. Meta-analytic reviewsCon claims that meta-analytic reviews show that methodologically superior studies show that video games do cause violence. However, many meta-analysis studies which show that there is a link between video gaming and violence are plagued with publication bias and methodological problems, such as citing studies which were not published or selecting certain studies and ignoring others. (http://www2.psych.ubc.ca...) 2. Non-Laboratory resultsA survey is not a study: it can be affected by the personal biases of teachers and students. As the teachers knew which students whose violent behaviors they were rating, the survey that pro cited was not sufficiently blinded. (http://drdouglas.org...) Also, many experts, parents, and paediatricians agree that violent video games do not cause violence. (http://www.theguardian.com...) If the survey that pro cited were to be counted as valid evidence, then this should be too.One of the methodological flaws of using labratory results is that the violent clips and video game content are often served to the groups of youth outside of their contexts; the entire narrative of the violent work of fiction was not provided. This is different than in real life situations. (http://www.independent.co.uk...)3. Crime RatesPro claims that crime rates decreased in spite of violent media becoming more popular. I propose an alternative idea: violent media has nothing to do with crime rates. Studies have shown that the one thing that correlates with crime is gasoling lead levels. (http://www.ricknevin.com...)", "qid": "35", "docid": "55e10797-2019-04-18T15:21:42Z-00004-000", "rank": 24, "score": 223936.0}, {"content": "Title: Media Violence is having a Negative Effect on today's Youth. Content: Yes it may be poor parenting but the parent need to understand that if the child plays violent video games or watches a movie then the child will start to get worse and want to hurt people not always but it is believed that kids who play or watch violence will act violent with or without a parent to guide them it really is all on the kid to stop the violence they can play the game but to much of it and they will want to play the play or walk the walk.", "qid": "35", "docid": "778a4f33-2019-04-18T17:04:27Z-00002-000", "rank": 25, "score": 223828.0}, {"content": "Title: Video Games do not Cause Violence Content: I can't help but laugh at the sources you've provided me. \"Journal of Youth and Adolescence? Gamepolitics.com?\" Let me make it very clear right now. You can't PROVE that video games affect someone's mentality to make them become violent. Not unless you could somehow read their minds. What we can do, however, is study people's reactions to violent games. I suppose you'll brush it off, and say it was mere \"chance\" that the murderers, one of which was eight years old at the time, just happened to kill others. Where do you think they learned how to use a gun? This eight year old probably thought his caretaker would just \"respawn\" or something. But that's not real life. People could be curious to find out what it's really like to shoot someone. Maybe for the \"high\" feeling of adrenaline before you kill an innocent person, or maybe just for the fun of it. Because they feel like it. You must also realize that it isn't always other people they are hurting. You can be violent towards yourself. Cyberbullying can take place over online chat streams. There was even a 13 year old who jumped out of a building because he was trying to reenact a scene from the game. There is also the case of frustration and addiction. These aren't the fault of the game itself, but are definitely caused by it. To present some figures: The latest Black Ops game has more than 920million hours played on it. That's over a hundred thousand years. People aren't thinking of what the game actually has in question. It's just a virtual figure. It can't hurt, right? After all, it's just a little relief from the stress of work. But then they get addicted. They lose the game over and over again. They're fired from work because they took so many days off to play the latest Grand Theft Auto, and the few days they do show up, all they're thinking about is strategies to kill the latest Alien NPC. They start thinking of the game as real, because they prefer it to real life. The main characters become their role models. To be honest, it looks like you're just hiding behind the \"there's no solid proof.\" Well, there CAN be no solid proof, even if we repeat it a billion times. There can only be what's almost definitely correct and what is almost definitely incorrect. Take a look online. There are so many cases that if I copied and pasted them all then I'd crush the word limit. The evidence is staring you in the face.", "qid": "35", "docid": "e6270ff-2019-04-18T16:35:46Z-00002-000", "rank": 26, "score": 223778.0}, {"content": "Title: Video games are the sole reason for violent teens, and other persons. Content: Round 1. Strictly Acceptance Round 2. Your standing and why Round 3. Supporting Details and Evidence to support your Argument. Round 4 (Final Round) Closing arguments and detail.", "qid": "35", "docid": "33b3c1cd-2019-04-18T16:44:36Z-00007-000", "rank": 27, "score": 223775.0}, {"content": "Title: Video games are the sole reason for violent teens, and other persons. Content: Well, thank you for conceding con. Maybe we can eventually have a legit debate sometime.", "qid": "35", "docid": "33b3c1cd-2019-04-18T16:44:36Z-00002-000", "rank": 28, "score": 223493.0}, {"content": "Title: should vilent video games be banned Content: It is upon Pro to show that Violent video games should be banned. I must show that violent video games should not be banned. Refutations A. Aggression increases The statement Pro really seems like he is making is that violent video games increase aggression in youth, a claim that is completely unsupported. In fact, I have a substantial amount of evidence to cause Pro's point to fall. Let's look at the supreme court case that came out of this accusation, and the verdict. \"In sum, the evidence presented by the State does not support the Legislature's purported interest in preventing psychological or neurological harm. Nearly all of the research is based on correlation, not evidence of causation, and most of the studies suffer from significant, admitted flaws in methodology as they relate to the State's claimed interest. None of the research establishes or suggests a causal link between minors playing violent video games and actual psychological or neurological harm, and inferences to that effect would not be reasonable. In fact, some of the studies caution against inferring causation. \" [1] Violent games seem to have no negative factors on youth. Medical and psychological experts agree, saying: \"It's clear that the \u2018big fears' bandied about in the press - that violent video games make children significantly more violent in the real world; that children engage in the illegal, immoral, sexist and violent acts they see in some of these games - are not supported by the current research , at least in such a simplistic form. That should make sense to anyone who thinks about it. After all, millions of children and adults play these games, yet the world has not been reduced to chaos and anarchy. \" [2] To show even more proof that disproves Pro's statement's, we can see actual statistics in correlation between violent video game usage and actual juvenille aggressive reports. .. \"According to federal crime statistics, the rate of juvenile violent crime in the United States is at a 30-year low. Researchers find that people serving time for violent crimes typically consume less media before committing their crimes than the average person in the general population. It's true that young offenders who have committed school shootings in America have also been game players. But young people in general are more likely to be gamers - 90 percent of boys and 40 percent of girls play. The overwhelming majority of kids who play do NOT commit antisocial acts. \" [3] Now, why would it be that in the last thirty years, the time period where violent video games have shot up in development [4], that the juvenile violent crime rate is at an all time low if these games increase aggression? Pro's point falls Pro then makes a second point which is really another way of saying the first, so I will only lightly touch on it. .. Behavioral scripts. This claim is again completely opinionated and backed with no source. If Pro is to say behavioral scripts develop \" from the repetition of actions \", then you can say that someone who brushes their teeth every morning will brush their teeht automatically when they see a toothbrush. Equally, it's like saying a person who has to wake up early the majority of the year for schooling will ALWAYS wake up early; I think we all know this not to be true. Now moving on to my contentions. 1. Violent video games prepare the youth \"Violence has always been and remains a central interest of humankind and a recurrent, even obsessive theme of culture both high and low. It engages the interest of children from an early age, as anyone familiar with the classic fairy tales collected by Grimm, Andersen, and Perrault are aware. \" Posner adds, \"To shield children right up to the age of 18 from exposure to violent descriptions and images would not only be quixotic, but deforming; it would leave them unequipped to cope with the world as we know it. \" [5] Violence is all around us; whether it's foreign countries, domestic gangs, or through whatever medium, it's here to stay. Banning violent video games because of potential aggression harm younger individuals, as the quote above states. A younger person is much more likely to overreact when exposed to a violent situation if he has never been exposed to violence before. .. .this is just common sense. Violent video games give a good medium for these kids to experience the world's anger, and prepare for it. \"The Sims designer Will Wright argues that games are perhaps the only medium that allows us to experience guilt over the actions of fictional characters. \" [5] This says that through games, one can actually at a younger age start to identify morals and guilt, and make decisions that have consequences, preparing them for the real world. Many violent games these days have open ended decision making: just a few are Grand theft auto, Fallout 3, and Oblivion. 2. Revenue would drop, harming the economy The video games system we live in this day and age brings in a vast sum of money; in 2008, $11.7 billion dollars was gained through video games [6] \"97% of 12-17 year olds in the US played video games in 2008, thus fueling an $11.7 billion domestic video game industry. In 2008, 10 of the top 20 best-selling video games in the US contained violence. \" [6] It's safe to say that banning these games, which I have proven have no negative effects on adolescents and have no imact on their aggression level, would just cause a lot of problems. You would ruin the gaming industry, have kids who wouldn't be prepared for the real world, and in reality just take out very fun aspects of games. What a bore video games would be if all of them were violence free; we all feel this way, and it's common sense that these video games are the best of the best. After all, 10 of the top 20 best-sellers had violence. Thank You Sources 1. Video Software Dealers Association v. Schwarzenegger, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in a 3-0 majority opinion written by Consuelo Callahan, JD, on Feb. 20, 2009 2. Grand Theft Childhood: The Surprising Truth about Violent Video Games: Lawrence Kutner, PhD, and Cheryl K. Olson, ScD, co-founders of the Harvard Medical School Center for Mental Health and Media 3. Henry Jenkins, PhD, Provost's Professor of Communication, Journalism, and Cinematic Arts at University of Southern California 4. . http://www.suite101.com... 5. . http://www.pbs.org... 6. . http://videogames.procon.org...", "qid": "35", "docid": "d0e5c093-2019-04-18T18:40:47Z-00005-000", "rank": 29, "score": 223102.0}, {"content": "Title: There is no causal link between violent video games and aggressive behaviour Content: The fact there are many other contributing factors to aggressive behaviour should not lead to a blind eye being turned to the effects of violent video games. As Dill & Dill found in 1998, 'if violent video game play indeed depicts victims as deserving attacks, and if these video games tend to portray other humans as targets, then reduced empathy is likely to be the consequence\u2026thus putting the player at risk for becoming a more violent individual\u20191. An Anderson and Dill study in 2000 also found that \u2018students who had previously played the violent video game delivered longer noise blasts to their opponents\u20192. Whilst it is a truism to say that the banning of violent video games will not prevent youth aggression, it will no longer be able to act as the catalyst for it in certain cases. 1Goldstein, 2001. 2Walsh, 2001.", "qid": "35", "docid": "6da2e494-2019-04-15T20:22:30Z-00015-000", "rank": 30, "score": 222676.0}, {"content": "Title: Video games are not a significant factor in mass shootings. Content: Ave!ColumbineEven if Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold wrote about bullying other people, it says nothing about whether they themselves were bullied or not. People can bully other people and be bullied themselves. TD_Cole gives us no reason to think that this isn't possible. His argumentation is severely flawed.Do video games lead to violence in youth?In this round, TD_Cole brings up reasearch from Iowa State Universit to try and show that video games lead to violence and violent acts in youth. This idea is overtly false.The Boston News published an article by Jim Morrison called \u2018\u2019Local law enforcement officials see drop in juvenile crime\u2019\u2019. This article discusses the decline in juvenile crime in Massachusetts, and how the decline correlates with the FBI\u2019s nationwide crime reports. Last year, over two hundred million video games were sold. If video games cause youth violence, then why is youth violence declining, as the number of video games bought increases? [1]Jon Katz lucidly articulates this view in the book \u2018\u2019Crime and Criminals\u2019\u2019. He writes, \u2018\u2019If Bok\u2019s right, why do FBI statistics show violence among the youth plummeting to its lowest level since Prohibition, while violence imagery in media has indeed been increasing, along with cable programming and usage, movie attendance, and the advent of the net?\u2019\u2019. (2001) [2]70% of U.S. households play video games (Crum 2013). If video games truly lead to violent acts, then we should be expecting some type of apocalypse with such a high number. Instead, youth violence is declining as more people start to play video games every year. Where is the increase in violence among youth? Nowhere, because video games are not a cause. [3]The research discussed in the NY Daily News is also interesting when it comes to youth violence. Consider the fact that millions of teenagers hang out with their friends and play popular games like Halo and Call of Duty. If playing video games with your friends leads to increase cooperativeness and decreased aggression, then video games are actually making youth less likely to be violent. Gun TrainingTD gives us a very weak argument. Video games teach people to use guns because they increase hand-eye coordination? Putting aside the fact that the link between improved H/I coordinaton and video games is not solid, it's a non-sequitur to suggest that this would also teach somebody how to fire a weapon.He also suggets that video games put ideas into people's heads that cause them to perpetrate mass shootings. He doesn't give any evidence for this. Using Hitchen's razor, that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. [4]AxiomExtended.References[1] Morrison, Jim. \"Local Law Enforcement Officials See Drop in Juvenile Crime.\" N.p., n.d. Web.[2] Katz, Jon. Crime and Criminals. San Diego: Greenhouse, 2000. Print[3] Crum, Chris. \"WebProNews - Breaking News in Tech, Search, Social, & Business.\" WebProNews - Breaking News in Tech, Search, Social, & Business. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Feb. 2013. http://www.webpronews.com....[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...Vale!", "qid": "35", "docid": "3e67d226-2019-04-18T17:47:14Z-00001-000", "rank": 31, "score": 222596.0}, {"content": "Title: Do violent computer games make young children violent citizens Content: Teenagers who play violent video games over a number of years become more aggressive towards other people as a result, according to a new long-term study. Researchers said the study was the first to show a clear link between a sustained period of playing violent games and subsequent increases in hostile behaviour. Girls who play violent computer games during their school years were found to be affected just as much as boys. is clear that there is a long-term association between violent video games and aggression. This is an important and concerning finding, particularly in light of the hours that youth spend playing these games.'", "qid": "35", "docid": "b4849efd-2019-04-18T17:56:23Z-00001-000", "rank": 32, "score": 220703.0}, {"content": "Title: Violent Video Games have a Bad Influence on Teenagers Content: Due to the fact my opponent has forfeited the past two rounds, I dont suppose he'll write the next.", "qid": "35", "docid": "5fc2ae63-2019-04-18T18:29:08Z-00000-000", "rank": 33, "score": 220367.0}, {"content": "Title: Youth violence has been declining, violent video games fine. Content: F.B.I. data shows that youth violence continues to decline. It is now at its lowest rate in years. Violent video games, therefore, can hardly be seen as a major problem since they\u00b4ve been around for years.[4]", "qid": "35", "docid": "d48f37bf-2019-04-17T11:47:20Z-00043-000", "rank": 34, "score": 220136.0}, {"content": "Title: media violence is having a negative effect on today's youth. Content: youths playing video games are still yet to mature. they still don't understand that watching movies or playing video games will tempt them in a way they don;t know.", "qid": "35", "docid": "c4f2dab6-2019-04-18T17:04:26Z-00001-000", "rank": 35, "score": 219582.0}, {"content": "Title: The content of Video Games Content: You seem to be saying that in war-torn places, kids are exposed to real-life violence and such exposure is linked to real-life teen violence; but in places where there are no wars and where kids have access to electronics and the Internet, teens who play violent video games will limit the violence to the virtual world and will not transpose their participation in violent acts from the virtual to the real world. In other words, as far as violence goes, you think there is a partition of the virtual and the real worlds. There are no crossovers. From a logic standpoint, to prove you wrong, all I need to do is to cite one example of crossover. Such an example is not hard to find: e.g. the Columbine High School Massacre that took place in 1999. In this event, 2 teenagers, after a long period of planning, finally walked through the school hallways one day and killed over a dozen schoolmates before killing themselves. They were known to be gamers and, in the afternoons, they used to played the game DOOM, a first person shooter game that not only pioneered immersive 3D graphics and networked multiplayer gaming but also engaged in graphic and interactive violence. The two killers did not come from broken homes. They experienced a normal amount of bullying, both receiving and providing. The only constant source of mental images of violence came from the virtual world of DOOM. Eventually, through mutual encouragement and collaboration, they decided to put in action a violent way to die for themselves and for some of their schoolmates. They crossed over. I am not saying all gamers will cross over. I am saying we can not afford to have even a single person crossed over because of the potential devastation. When we experienced an event such as Columbine's, we drew the conclusion that violent video games do contribute to teen violence in real life.", "qid": "35", "docid": "d94ca2d5-2019-04-18T18:35:58Z-00004-000", "rank": 36, "score": 219192.0}, {"content": "Title: Video game violence does not contribute significantly to school shootings. Content: The title of this argument is \"Video game violence does not contribute significantly to school shootings.\" The kids who are predisposed susceptibility to the emotional deterioration ultimately are the ones who shoot up the schools, ergo video game violence in theory does significantly contribute to school shootings. Therein your evidences are invalidated and I win the argument.", "qid": "35", "docid": "8e52f9f1-2019-04-18T19:02:33Z-00001-000", "rank": 37, "score": 217706.0}, {"content": "Title: Violent games lead to violent actions Content: People have the will to control their anger whether they do or don\"t is a matter to blame themselves for not to blame something and playing violent games make you smarter. ( https://www.theregister.co.uk... ) A meta-study carried out by the American Psychological Association has claimed that playing computer games has many positive effects on children and, in some cases, the more violent the game the more beneficial the effect. The research, published in the latest issue of American Psychologist, found that modern video games are much more socially orientated, thanks to the growth on massive online gaming environments, and that certain types of game can help kids learn problem-solving skills and creativity. \"Important research has already been conducted for decades on the negative effects of gaming, including addiction, depression and aggression, and we are certainly not suggesting that this should be ignored,\" said lead author Isabela Granic PhD, of Radboud University Nijmegen in The Netherlands. \"However, to understand the impact of video games on children's and adolescents' development, a more balanced perspective is needed.\" The biggest surprise in the paper was that randomized, double-blind trials with young games found that a few rounds of a first\"person shooter showed they developed faster reaction times, higher spatial resolutions, and \"enhanced mental rotation facilities\" \" meaning the ability to visualize shapes from different angles. One of the studies cited in this conclusion came from a 25-year study following child gamers worldwide, and found that these specific skill sets were good indicators for success in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) skills \" more so than academic courses in some respects. In addition, games that encourage players to work as a team to achieve a task such as World of Warcraft or Farmville can be very beneficial in building up social skills and reduce aggression, both during the game and after play has finished. The paper notes that games such as Angry Birds that can be started and played quickly help relieve anxiety and reduce stress, and bring about a more positive mental state. They may also promote \"emotional resilience.\" \"If playing video games simply makes people happier, this seems to be a fundamental emotional benefit to consider,\" said Granic. Surprisingly, games marketed as \"brain trainers\" show very little evidence of improving cognition and problem-solving skills. The paper notes that this may be down to the fact that most are designed by medical practitioners, teachers and researchers, who don't make particularly efficient games developers.", "qid": "35", "docid": "f3750c50-2019-04-18T11:57:33Z-00001-000", "rank": 38, "score": 217599.0}, {"content": "Title: Both experimental and non-experimental research have shown that violent video games damage young people. Content: Both experimental and non-experimental research have shown that violent video games damage young people playing them in both the short and long term, leading to criminal and anti-social behaviour. Exposure to violent video games causes aggressive thoughts and feelings. It also creates unwanted psychological arousal and belief in a \u2018scary world\u2019, especially among young children. This is particularly significant as video game graphics develop to become ever more realistic. The effects of violent video games are even worse than those of films and TV because of the interactive element that exists in video games. In addition, most video games are played alone, whereas cinema and television are usually a social experience, allowing social pressures to filter the experience of violence upon the viewer.", "qid": "35", "docid": "4381b332-2019-04-19T12:47:35Z-00023-000", "rank": 39, "score": 217588.0}, {"content": "Title: The content of Video Games Content: I know that we're not here to discuss the crime rate but the 30 year low just helps prove that video games are not a major factor in making teens violent. Another pointer is that video games do not necessarily invoke aggressive thoughts. There are many other factors that would be much more effective such as bullying, abuse, illegal activities, etc. If a teen does happen to have aggressive thoughts, we wouldn't know whether the cause of that would be video games. I will go back to my first example, in the past, teens have lived much more dangerous and violent lives than we do now. Even today, some countries are constantly torn apart by the terrors of war. Do you think the teens there like violence? And do you think if they played violent video games, they would like it?", "qid": "35", "docid": "d94ca2d5-2019-04-18T18:35:58Z-00005-000", "rank": 40, "score": 217588.0}, {"content": "Title: Media Violence is having a negative effect on today's youth Content: Media violence doesnt affect todays youth. The media just basically recreates it, it doesnt actually happen. If someone sees a violent action take place on tv or on a video game they probably won't copy it, they will just watch it instead. As most kids grow up they learn to control thier anger and aggression even if they do watch violent tv and play violent video games. Kids can be influenced by other violent things in the world instead of media such as other people in real life. Or they could even be influence by their parents in some situations.", "qid": "35", "docid": "74558456-2019-04-18T17:04:25Z-00002-000", "rank": 41, "score": 216639.0}, {"content": "Title: In general, violence in video games has not caused real-world violence. Content: Observation:The resolution is about the impact of violence in video games, not about the impact of video games themselves.What began the controversy:It is obvious that violence has been a major issue in society today. Events such as the school shooting in Newtown and the bombing of the Boston Marathon have made people begin to wonder what exactly pushed the guilty individuals to commit such atrocities. Many people have concluded that one of the major factors that promotes violence today are video games. Jay Rockfeller is one of the activists against video game violence. Minnesota Post explains that Rockfeller introduced a legislation instructing the National Association of Sciences to investigate the effects of violent video games on children, saying, \u201cPeople believe that violent video games are no more dangerous to young minds than classic literature or Saturday morning cartoons. Parents, pediatricians, and psychologists know better.\u201d (1) The effects of video games on the minds of young children has been studied for years, and the data quite contradicts Rockfeller\u2019s conclusion.What really causes violence in teens:Serious CrimesAdam Lanza, the gunman from the Sandy Hook shooting, played violent video games regularly. This caused many to believe that this is why he committed his violent crime. However, this was not the case. Eric Huey explains, \u201cIt turns out that delinquent peers, depression, and an abusive family environment account for actual violence incidents\u2026\u201d (2) Obviously, mental disorders would be another thing that promotes such violence. Here we can see that video games did not compel him (or most other school shooters) to commit the crime. AgressionA common argument against violence in video games is that violence in video games cause agression. This is actually not the case. Carol Pichefsky notes that agression is not caused by violent video games; rather, it is caused by a competitive environment (3). So, a game of MarioKart would be just as likely to result in aggression as a game of Call of Duty. This is not exclusive to video games either, competitive sports and competitive debate (especially on this website) are just as likely to result in aggression. So, it is certianly not the violence in video games that causes such feelings. The last thing I would like to note is that aggression and violence are two different things. Agression is an intention. Violence in an action (4). My opponent showing that video games cause aggression is simply not enough. The evidence:If violence in video games have caused violence in the past, it would make sense for the violence rates to go up as video game sales went up. However, just the opposite happened: We can see that as video game sales go up, violent crime went down. Now, I certianly won't argue that video games caused the violent crime to go down, but this evidence certianly makes mockery of the idea that violence in video games has caused real world violence.ConclusionHuey notes (1), \"...these games may seem repugnant but they do not harm the human brain or increase the likelihood of violent acts.\" Through the evidence I have presented, we can see that the violence in video games does not cause real world violence. Thus, I take the pro stance on this resolution.(1) http://www.minnpost.com...(2) http://www.sfgate.com...(3) http://www.sfgate.com...(4) http://www.goodtherapy.org...#(5) Chasing the Dream, \u201cThe Economist\u201d On to con...", "qid": "35", "docid": "f47d4ad1-2019-04-18T16:02:36Z-00005-000", "rank": 42, "score": 215415.0}, {"content": "Title: Video games are the sole reason for violent teens, and other persons. Content: Due to the fact that con accidentally entered this. I withdraw my part in this debate. I still disagree with the statement that video games are the sole purpose for people killing others. I also have a killer migraine and can no longer partake in debates tonight. I apologize for my excuse's but they are very true.", "qid": "35", "docid": "33b3c1cd-2019-04-18T16:44:36Z-00003-000", "rank": 43, "score": 214997.0}, {"content": "Title: Violent Video Games Content: Although I agree that many video games are far too violent and can promote killing and stealing, there are other factors. One such is parental involvement. If you don't have a dad/mom around, their non-presence alone can push kids towards suicidal and even violent thoughts. An article I have read, called \"Do Video Games Make Teens Violent\" from NewsMic, says that spending too much time in violent video games can take away from time in positive environments. In conclusion, video games alone do not cause violence, but must have several other factors to cause any real harm.", "qid": "35", "docid": "5b6b2f9-2019-04-18T15:28:19Z-00000-000", "rank": 44, "score": 214752.0}, {"content": "Title: Video Games Can Cause Violence Content: Gahhh", "qid": "35", "docid": "1dd4cde4-2019-04-18T16:08:31Z-00001-000", "rank": 45, "score": 214554.0}, {"content": "Title: Video Games do not increase or perpetuate juvenile violence Content: So this may be short, but I am hoping to get at what voters should consider when looking at this debate. 1. Causation vs Correlation. In my opponents first argument, he stated that video games had some correlation with violent attacks, yet there is nothing that proves that video games were the CAUSE of such violent attacks. I'd like to bring up the quote from my opponent's 60 minutes evidence,\" who had played Grand Theft Auto day and night for months.\" Now, we look to my American Psychological Association evidence that states that children who showed aggression after exposure to video games expressed said characteristics beforehand. My opponent's quote illustrates my point. Video Games do not increase any violence, as it does not create any new violent characteristics, as my opponent is arguing. That point is mute because we see that there is no link between correlation and causation. 2. Crime My FBI evidence states that while video game sales had quadrupled in the 13 years between 1995 and 2008, the arrest rate for juvenile murders has fallen 71.9%, while all juvenile violent crimes have declined 49.3%. The statistics clearly point to the Pro argument. This point ties together with correlation and causation, as we see that the point of causation is refuted by statistics. 3. Overall benefit My Journal of Adolescent Health evidence shows that 45% of boys stated they play video games because it helps get their anger out, and 62% stated because it helps them relax. It also allows children to explore real life situations like war and violence without true consequence. So overall, the statistics I bring up clearly show that the Pro side is right today.", "qid": "35", "docid": "30a5cf73-2019-04-18T18:52:16Z-00000-000", "rank": 46, "score": 214145.0}, {"content": "Title: Are Video Games the main cause for Violent Juvenile Crimes Content: Do you even look at what you are posting? Were in that argument does it mention anything relevant to the question once again. Please just leave this argument as all you have been doing is commenting with copy and pastes and not showing your own facts. I don't believe you have actually commented one word which is not a copy and paste. Playing violent video games reduces violence in adolescent boys by serving as a substitute for rough and tumble play. Playing violent video games allows adolescent boys to express aggression and establish status in the peer group without causing physical harm.", "qid": "35", "docid": "758ea5f9-2019-04-18T16:05:18Z-00001-000", "rank": 47, "score": 213635.0}, {"content": "Title: Some youth have tried to emulate violence in games. Content: Paul Boxer. \"It's up to parents to enforce a ban on violent video games.\" NJ.com. July 1st, 2011: \"A few years ago, on Long Island, six teenagers were arrested after a crime spree involving break-ins, a violent mugging and a carjacking attempt. According to what the teens told authorities, they had been trying to live out the life of Niko Belic. Ever heard of him? He is the protagonist in the wildly popular video game 'Grand Theft Auto IV.' What the teens did represents one of the worst-case scenarios imagined by those who advocate for government to limit the sale of violent video games to minors. Fortunately, such scenarios are very few and very far between. And Monday, the Supreme Court handed down a decision preventing the state of California from instituting a ban on the sale of such games to minors. The decision was steeped in legal precedent concerning free speech and censorship. But make no mistake: The Supreme Court\u2019s decision in no way negates or devalues the decades of scientific research that have been conducted demonstrating that the consumption of violent media leads to increases in aggressive and anti-social behavior.\"", "qid": "35", "docid": "d48f37bf-2019-04-17T11:47:20Z-00037-000", "rank": 48, "score": 213360.0}, {"content": "Title: Are Video Games the main cause for Violent Juvenile Crimes Content: While I have been using statistical information to back up my point, you have preceded to create petty arguments in which you have offered poor-to-very-little to the debate on whether video games are the main cause for violent juvenile crimes. There is enough evidence via the Internet, newspapers and various other sources to show that there is a correlation between the two; in 2012 a 13-year old boy jumped off a building's 24th floor and committed suicide after playing 'World of Warcraft' for 36 hours straight, a teenager went on a rampage and killed three men, two of them police officers, after playing Grand Theft Auto and a 17-year old boy killed his mother and wounded his father after they took Halo 3 away from his possession. There will also several cases of youth leaving their home, in 2013 a 15-year old ran away from his parents after his Xbox console was taken away - his dead body was found almost a month after. You may choose to argue that these unfortunate, tragic results are not directly linked to young people playing games, however Increasing reports of bullying can be partially attributed to the popularity of violent video games. The 2008 study Grand Theft Childhood reported that 60% of middle school boys who played at least one Mature-rated game hit or beat up someone, compared to 39% of boys that did not play Mature-rated games. As I stated in my opening, I fail to see how you could win this debate when you\"ve offered nothing to the conversation as opposed to my use of statistical and factual information. A vote for me is a vote for freedom.", "qid": "35", "docid": "758ea5f9-2019-04-18T16:05:18Z-00000-000", "rank": 49, "score": 213251.0}, {"content": "Title: Video Games do not increase or perpetuate juvenile violence Content: First, according to uslegal.com, juvenile courts only cover persons under the age of 18, so we have to go off that age. The American Psychological Association states on June 7, 2010, that the only children who showed aggression after exposure to violent video games already displayed aggressive characteristics beforehand. This evidence indicates that video games do not increase violence, as stated in the resolution, as people who have violent characteristics in the first place are drawn to it. Therefore, per the resolution, we see that video games do not increase violence, nor perpetuate it. Regarding his 60 minutes evidence, this goes along with the above contention, that people with violent characteristics go the video games in the first place. The evidence says, \"who had played Grand Theft Auto day and night for months.\" That quote alone shows the kind of mental state this person was in beforehand. Once again, this evidence is pointing to the Pro side, that video games do not increase or perpetuate violence. Regarding his desensitization of violence argument, Richard Rhodes of Rolling Stone found several flaws methodologically with over 200 studies regarding violent video games, and came to the conclusion that \"The research no more supports the consensus on media violence than it supported the conclusions of the eugenics consensus eighty years ago that there are superior and inferior 'races,' with White Northern Europeans at the top.\" The studies that my opponent has been bringing up always mention some form of correlation between video games and violence, however, correlation does not necessary mean causation. According to british psychologist Guy Cumberbatch, \"Finding that people who enjoy violent media may also be aggressive is tantamount to observing that those who play football also enjoy watching it on television. 'The correlational nature of this study means that causal statements are risky at best,' the authors admit. ...All in all, new evidence is exceptionally weak, and in its one-sided approach it has a depressingly familiar ring to it. ...Studies to date have been notably biased towards seeking evidence of harm. This 'blame game' may be fun for some researchers to play, and knee-jerk reactions such as the APA's press release may be media-friendly. But we deserve better.\" All in all, there is no link between correlation and causation. For the reasons I stated in opening, and the fact that there is no link between correlation and causation, I urge Pro vote.", "qid": "35", "docid": "30a5cf73-2019-04-18T18:52:16Z-00001-000", "rank": 50, "score": 212838.0}, {"content": "Title: Video games are the sole reason for violent teens, and other persons. Content: Thank you for accepting. Lets do this. For one, my position is against the statement \"Video games are the sole reason for violent teens, and other persons.\" Argument #1: Almost all of the homicides, and mass murders in public are carried out by mentally ill persons. For example the Sandy Hook School shooting was done by a very ill person who has no care for peoples lives. Another example is the movie theatre shooting in the recent news. The person who started shooting was clinically ill and needed to be treated. Argument #2: I play \"violent\" video games and I have never had an urge to kill people and walk into a public places and open fire. Only people who has mentality issues do this. Not once have I had a thought like \"Oh hey, since I can kill people in an animated environment, completely fake, and un-real, that means I can kill people in real life and have no consequence?\" People who think that video games are the main reason for violence are morons. Our society just needed something to blame all of these random killings on. Therefor, saying that video games can alter a persons mind so much that they would want to kill people is bull crap. This concludes my first supporting argument, I am eager to hear my opponents position and reason.", "qid": "35", "docid": "33b3c1cd-2019-04-18T16:44:36Z-00005-000", "rank": 51, "score": 212719.0}, {"content": "Title: Video games are not a significant cause of violence in children Content: The debate topic is all about why violent games and games in general is not a viable reason to blame acts and thoughts of violence in children and teens. I forgot to mention some rules regarding BoP and statistics. Burden of proof is shared, so any thing claimed as a \"fact\" must have a source. Anything claimed opinion has to have \"logic\" back that up and this affects both con and pro. It is up to the voters to decide what exactly is fact and logic to themselves. Wikipedia is a viable source as long as the voters look over it and approve of it. They will count off for it if they dont Im guessing. On with the debate! and \"Good Luck\". I will just state a few points ahead of time to reinforce future arguments. There was violence before games and the xbox. I become a sarcastic person in the next few lines just a reason why i have so much attitude. Ever read a book? I have many times. And several of them have some of the most disgusting displays of violence in them that you can imagine. TV is a great way to teach grueling, cussing, alcoholic or generally bad lifestyles to children and teens. History class puts a lot of images into the minds of children. Lets read about the gassing of the 6 million Jews children! How fun! Or how in every trench hole you get up to send a letter to the general across the field and boom there goes your precious head off into the dirt and bloody mess that was WW1-2. Mayan and aztecs seem like nice things to study! Lets read about the sacrificing of willing people so they can be with a god that probably doesn't care about them cause he does not exist. Where do good kids learn some of the worst things from? Other kids who think whatever they are doing at the moment is so great. \"Look at me I am a waste of good parenting because I think its cool to do stupid things all day long.\" thats where. Send your children to public school and leave them with kids who have decided to act like idiots all day and pretend to be druggies. I'm sorry why should i be living in an R rated movie? I shouldn't because there is no reason why these kids act the way they do they just do it because to them its a life style, to mama and dada its a \"phase\". I think I have established the many many many other things that cause violence and stupid acts in kids. I am excited to see CON bring something spicy to the table.", "qid": "35", "docid": "7f95546c-2019-04-18T14:36:44Z-00006-000", "rank": 52, "score": 212587.0}, {"content": "Title: Ban on sale of violent video games to minors Content: Violence is a re-occurring theme in our news. In response to these news, we often judge these teens without trying to find the origin of many attacks. Today, lets look at a major cause of teen violence as well as an irresponsible act performed by game stores or sellers of these games. I offer the following definition: Violent video games-\"game that includes video game\u00ef\u00bf\u00bdgraphic violence, sex and sexism, violent and gory scenes, partial or full nudity, portrayal of\u00ef\u00bf\u00bdcriminal behavior, racism, and other provocative and objectionable material. \" -->. http://en.wikipedia.org... --> Often these games are rated M for mature and A for adults only. Contention one: Teens Emulate violence in games. Like their parents and there peers, teens as well as children of all ages often emulate video game activities. Within this game that they play, there avatar ids often seen doing stunts that would be considered impossible in real life. These kids in an effort to reenact these stunts as well as to prove to there peers that it can be done, often go ahead and replicate the stunts they see in the games. In the case of teenagers, these whom there minds are almost too easily controlled or manipulated often do things that passes jumping out of a building top, or even wrestling one another, what they are interested in is how to kill and dispose of a human body without detection. Some teenage then become an unstable hazard as they could easily demonstrate what they learned in there games when angered. Paul boxer wrote in a July-1st 2011 article that \"A few years ago, on Long Island, six teenagers were arrested after a crime spree involving break-ins, a violent mugging and a carjacking attempt. According to what the teens told authorities, they had been trying to live out the life of Niko Belic. Ever heard of him? He is the protagonist in the wildly popular video game 'Grand Theft Auto IV. \" . http://blog.nj.com... Contention Two: Youth who play these games exhibits an increase aggression It is one thing for violent video game players to replicate the stunts seen on screen, but we find that these kids also exhibit aggressive behavior especially towards there family members. They are not only short tempered , but find it reasonable that if the characters of a video game is able to solve his or her problem with violence, then they can also resolve all there problems with violence. Violence often displayed at schools, at home as well as towards there peers. These random act of violence can also lead to long-term problems. Lets look at a linked graph: Play video game----->Aggression---->Violence---->lost of friends---->depression----> anger---->suicide! \"In experimental studies, children who view violent television shows or films \u2014 or who play violent video games \u2014 are significantly more likely to behave aggressively in comparison to children who view nonviolent television shows or films, or who play nonviolent video games. In long-term studies, individuals who consume violent media during childhood end up more aggressive as adults, in comparison with peers who consume nonviolent media during childhood. The studies that have produced such findings now number in the hundreds. The effects have been seen in children from urban areas, as well as suburban and rural areas; in the United States, as well as many other Western and non-Western nations. \" . http://futureofchildren.org... conclusion: Sadly, I have not much time to conclude the debate however, giving the substantial reasoning, it is quite clear that a ban should be placed on the sale of violent games to minors. Thank you and I await your response.", "qid": "35", "docid": "1ff4635e-2019-04-18T18:36:23Z-00005-000", "rank": 53, "score": 212005.0}, {"content": "Title: Video games are the sole reason for violent teens, and other persons. Content: Indeed. Stay in touch?", "qid": "35", "docid": "33b3c1cd-2019-04-18T16:44:36Z-00001-000", "rank": 54, "score": 211687.0}, {"content": "Title: Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned Content: Science has come to a general consensus that violent TV does have an effect on kids' behavior. video games have additional reasons for concern, leading psychologists to believe that it is worse than TV. 1) video games are even more likely to affect people's behavior than TV because they're immersive. People don't just watch video games; they interact with them. 2) The games are also repetitive 3) based on a rewards system. Repetition and rewards are primary components of classical conditioning, a proved psychological concept in which behavioral learning takes place as a result of rewarding (or punishing) particular behaviors. The brains of children and teens are still developing, & are thus even more susceptible to this type of \"training.\" THE EVIDENCE: A 2001 study reported in the journal \"Psychological Science\" ( the highest ranked empirical journal in psychology) found that: \"Children who play violent video games experience an increase in physiological signs of aggression.\"[1] In 2006 at the Indiana University School of Medicine researchers found that kids who played violent game showed increased activity in the amygdala, which stimulates emotions, and decreased activity in the prefrontal lobe, which regulates inhibition, self-control and concentration. [2] The 2008 study Grand Theft Childhood reported that 60% of middle school boys that played at least one Mature-rated game hit or beat up someone, compared to 39% of boys that did not play Mature-rated games.[3] In March 2011 A study published in the afore mentioned \"Psychological Science\" found that: \"playing violent video games is associated with denying humanness to other people and Violent Video Games Increase Aggressive Behavior.\"[4] The APA: The (APA), is the largest scientific and professional organization representing psychology in the United States and is the world's largest association of psychologists. The following are from the APA: Article: \"Video Games and Aggressive Thoughts, Feelings, and Behavior in the Laboratory and in Life,\" Craig A. Anderson, Ph.D., Iowa State University of Science and Technology and Karen E. Dill, Ph.D., Lenoir-Rhyne College: Violent Video Games can Increase Aggression: \"...Video games may be more harmful than violent television and movies because of the interactive nature of the games. Playing violent video games increase a person's aggressive thoughts, feelings and behavior both in laboratory settings and in actual life. violent video games may be more harmful than violent television and movies because they are interactive, very engrossing and require the player to identify with the aggressor... ...Violent video games provide a forum for learning and practicing aggressive solutions to conflict situations,\" said Dr. Anderson. \"In the short run, playing a violent video game appears to affect aggression by priming aggressive thoughts. Longer-term effects are likely to be longer lasting as well, as the player learns and practices new aggression-related scripts that can become more and more accessible for use when real-life conflict situations arise... ...One major concern is the active nature of the learning environment of the video game,\" say the authors. \"This medium is potentially more dangerous than exposure to violent television and movies, which are known to have substantial effects on aggression and violence...\"[5] \"Two studies examined violent video game effects on aggression-related variables. Study 1 found that real-life violent video game play was positively related to aggressive behavior and delinquency... Academic achievement was negatively related to overall amount of time spent playing video games. In Study 2, laboratory exposure to a graphically violent video game increased aggressive thoughts and behavior. The results from both studies are consistent with the General Affective Aggression Model, which predicts that exposure to violent video games will increase aggressive behavior in both the short term (e.g., laboratory aggression) and the long term (e.g., delinquency)... ...Violent video games provide a forum for learning and practicing aggressive solutions to conflict situations. The effect of violent video games appears to be cognitive in nature. In the short term, playing a violent video game appears to affect aggression by priming aggressive thoughts. Longer-term effects are likely to be longer lasting as well, as the player learns and practices new aggression-related scripts that become more and more accessible for use when real-life conflict situations arise. If repeated exposure to violent video games does indeed lead to the creation and heightened accessibility of a variety of aggressive knowledge structures, thus effectively altering the person's basic personality structure, the consequent changes in everyday social interactions may also lead to consistent increases in aggressive affect. The active nature of the learning environment of the video game.\" [6] \"Research shows playing violent video games increases aggressive behavior and decreases helpful behavior...\" [7] From APA's Resolution on Violence in Video Games and Interactive Media: \"...Exposure to violent media increases feelings of hostility, thoughts about aggression... Comprehensive analysis of violent interactive video game research suggests such exposure a.) increases aggressive behavior, b.) increases aggressive thoughts, c.) increases angry feelings, d.) decreases helpful behavior, and, e.) increases physiological arousal (Anderson, C.A., 2002b; Anderson, C.A., Carnagey, N. L., Flanagan, M., Benjamin, A. J., Eubanks, J., Valentine, J. C., 2004; Anderson, C.A., & Dill, K. E., 2000; Bushman, B.J., & Anderson, C.A., 2002; Gentile, D. A., Lynch, P. J., Linder, J. R., & Walsh, D. A., 2004). Studies further suggest that sexualized violence in the media has been linked to increases in violence towards women, rape myth acceptance and anti-women attitudes. The characteristics of violence in interactive video games appear to have similar detrimental effects as viewing television violence; however based upon learning theory (Bandura, 1977; Berkowitz, 1993), the practice, repetition, and rewards for acts of violence may be more conducive to increasing aggressive behavior among children and youth than passively watching violence on TV and in films (Carll, E. K., 1999a). With With the development of more sophisticated interactive media, such as virtual reality, the implications for violent content are of further concern, due to the intensification of more realistic experiences, and may also be more conducive to increasing aggressive behavior than passively watching violence on TV and in films (Calvert, S. L., Jordan, A. B., Cocking, R. R. (Ed.) 2002; Carll, E. K., 2003; Turkle, S., 2002); and studies further suggest that videogames influence the learning processes in many ways more than in passively observing TV: a.) requiring identification of the participant with a violent character while playing video games, b.) actively participating increases learning, c.) rehearsing entire behavioral sequences rather than only a part of the sequence, facilitates learning, and d.) repetition increases learning (Anderson, C.A., 2002b; Anderson, C.A., Carnagey, N. L., Flanagan, M., Benjamin, A. J., Eubanks, J., Valentine, J. C., 2004; Anderson, C.A. & Dill, K. E., 2000)...\" [8] [1] http://www.apa.org... [2] http://www.soc.iastate.edu... [3] http://repository.upenn.edu... [4] http://www.academia.edu... [5] http://www.apa.org... [6] http://www.psychology.iastate.edu... [7] http://www.apa.org... [8] http://www.apa.org...", "qid": "35", "docid": "c4008d1a-2019-04-18T17:57:07Z-00001-000", "rank": 55, "score": 211622.0}, {"content": "Title: Children See Violent Video Games Content: Whilst it might be agreed that violent video games in the hands of a person who is old enough to see them and be able to understand the context in which the violence is being wrought is acceptable, this may not be true of younger people who acquire games. Games with violent content are often easily acquired by players too young to purchase them. They may also gain access to them at home from older siblings. Because children do not have fully developed mental faculties yet, and may not clearly separate fantasy from reality, exposure to violent games can have a large impact upon children. This has a greater impact than children seeing films that feature realistic violence because whilst a child might get bored with films owing to the lack of interaction with the medium, this is much less likely to be the case with, for example, a military shooting game, which a child might play over and over As such, all violent video games should be banned to prevent their acquisition by young children either by accident, or owing to parental ignorance.[1] [1] Anderson, Craig et al. The influence of media violence on youth. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 2003, 4:81-110", "qid": "35", "docid": "92fc546a-2019-04-15T20:22:34Z-00007-000", "rank": 56, "score": 211026.0}, {"content": "Title: Video games cause violent behavior Content: They just dont", "qid": "35", "docid": "35ed36d8-2019-04-18T15:22:04Z-00004-000", "rank": 57, "score": 210973.0}, {"content": "Title: Videogames are bad for children. Content: A study conducted by Gentile, Lynch, Linder & Walsh -- \"adolescent girls played video games for an average of 5 hours a week, whereas boys averaged 13 hours a week.\" The authors also stated that teens who play violent video games for extended periods of time: Tend to be more aggressive, are more prone to confrontation with their teachers, may engage in fights with their peers, and there is a visible decline in school achievements.", "qid": "35", "docid": "e6d0609b-2019-04-18T16:05:32Z-00000-000", "rank": 58, "score": 210936.0}, {"content": "Title: Violence in video games does not significantly contribute to real world violence. Content: I've been meaning to explore some things that coincide with my arguments and this is a great opportunity to do so. TRAINED TO KILL I'll explain this more as I go along, but the fact is kids are being trained to kill. Everyday they are on their video games simulating acts of murder over and over. Call of Duty, Grand Theft Auto all these games work to desensitize kids to violence and murder. It infects their brain and they lose their conscience. I hope by the end of this debate, I've convinced a lot of people to expose themselves and children to these violent forms of media significantly less. NOT BORN TO KILL Humans despite being a violent species are disgusted with violence. They can't bring themselves to kill people. Experts say that in World War 2 when solders would get within killing range of an enemy combatant only 1 in 5 would take the necessary shot. According to Army historian Brig. Gen. S. L. A. Marshall this has nothing to do with cowardice. Soldiers would still do feats of heroics, but just have a repulsion towards murder. Recovered muskets from the civil war showed that 90% were fully loaded. This means most of those simply weren't fired. Soldiers were pretending to shoot at the enemy. In the 1960s law enforcement was shown to have a similar problem. Cops just weren't shooting at suspects even when civilian lives were in danger. Psychologists stepped in to help the government create more efficient killers. How did they do it? Well look at a quote from the article this whole section is sourced from. \"Target practice on hollowed cabbages filled with ketchup to mimic the way a bullet rips open a human head. Marching to chants of \"kill, kill, kill. \" Video game simulations that reward points for every successful \"shot. \" These are among hundreds of techniques that experts say can recondition the human brain. \" That's right. The government uses video games to desensitize soldiers to acts violence, so killing becomes more palatable. This stuff actually worked. By the time Vietnam rolled around the kill rate was at 90% and is likely even higher now. The kill rate jumping from 20% to 90% in military operations aided by violent video games meant to desensitize people clearly fulfills my portion of the BOP, but let's take it a step further. . http://m.sfgate.com... DESENSITIZE ME It's not so much Video games being directly responsible for real world violence so much as violent video games being a major contributing factor. The more kids play violent video games the more they become desensitized to violence and the less empathy they have for victims of violence. . http://static2.wikia.nocookie.net... It's simple. The more you see violent images, the less it bothers you to see violent images. This desensitization makes it easier to either commit violent actions or to stand by and do nothing when violent acts are being committed. So it contributes in 2 major ways. I'm not the only one that sees this connection between violent video games and real world violence. \"In fact the surgeon general, the National Institute of Mental Health and multiple professional organizations \" including the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association \" all consider media violence exposure a risk factor for actual violence. \" . http://mobile.nytimes.com... I'm not saying that an individual that plays violent video games is going to be violent, but it certainly increases their chance of becoming violent, which in turn has a huge real world effect when taking into account how many people are exposed to this desensitization. In one recent study over 30 people were exposed to different images before playing a game where they could harm their opponent by blasts of sound. The people exposed to the most violent images, were far more likely to punish their opponent more than the ones not exposed to them. . http://videogames.procon.org... DR. BRUCE Dr. Bruce Perry an expert brain development in children provides a useful list of things that contribute to kids becoming violent scholastic. com z His first cause directly blames desensitization to violence as a result of violent media (aka video games). Number 2 is becoming detached from people which could also be a result of playing violent games too much. His number 5 reason is because we are becoming more practiced at killing and specifically mentions violent video games as helping with the practice. . http://teacher.scholastic.com... If you think that video games aren't good at teaching anything check out this article. . http://www.wired.com... A man actually saves a life from the practice he got on a military recruiting game called America's Army. FACT OR FICTION According to psychologists, up to 25% of the population can't tell the difference between reality and fantasy. . http://healthland.time.com... Maybe on an intellectual level they can, but these violent games are desensitizing them worse than anybody else. These people are at particular risk of going too far after being pushed. Violent video are a major contributor to real world violence. CONCLUSION I'll post my rebuttals next rebound and anxiously await my opponent's arguments.", "qid": "35", "docid": "b1a6f17a-2019-04-18T15:54:21Z-00004-000", "rank": 59, "score": 210852.0}, {"content": "Title: Violent games lead to violent actions Content: Thank you khlover520 for your helpful insight on this topic. For any doubters that think that violent games don't cause violent behavior, look toward Pewdiepie's recent outlash while he was playing PUBG, a survival game where you try to outlast everyone else in the game by killing them with guns or vehicles. He was getting close to winning, with the final few left against him. When he was shot, the previous violent actions bottled up and let out the racist, derogatory n-word. This is not the only occasion, as seen from a plethora of videos on the internet of player lashing out at other players, their gaming tools, and their screen when something does not go their way in the violent game. These, in themselves, are violent actions, but they can also lead to actions outside of someone's house or gaming area. In violent video games, actions like attacking and killing other people are rewarded and encouraged, since that is what must happen to win the game. This can be translated into real life, since children will feel encouraged to do these actions outside of the game. According to a 2015 peer-reviewed study,\" Two teenagers in Tennessee who shot at passing cars and killed one driver told police they got the idea from playing Grand Theft Auto.\"(p2) This terrible incident shows that teens are capable of doing these attacks, just because of what they did in a game. Grand Theft Auto is an explorative game where your character can do many things, including stealing cars, driving recklessly, and attacking people with weapons. When you kill someone in the game, you receive money, which can be used to buy vehicles or fancier weapons. This kind of rewarding system is motivating the gamer to continue doing harm, which can severely impact what people do outside of the game, especially with guns. Shooter games trained players actually have better accuracy in shooting a real gun, and they're more likely to aim for the head, which is much more lethal. This is important because with the increase of violent video game sales, more and more teens and children are being exposed to this negative encouragement. This will increase violence rates among children, and could carry with them even when they become adults. While humans are trying to end war and violence, even more problems are growing right under us, seeping through the screens, speakers, and controllers that teens and children use to interact and become characters that steal cars or shoot people. We don\"t want to let gamers think that aggression against others will be rewarded, in the game and in real life. It's clear that violent video games are increasing violence levels in teens and children all over the world.", "qid": "35", "docid": "f3750c50-2019-04-18T11:57:33Z-00004-000", "rank": 60, "score": 210247.0}, {"content": "Title: Youths are impressionable Content: Young people are influenced by everything and have less experience so a violent video game with no consequences could have adverse affects on their actions in real life. For instance gta (grand theft auto) in 1999 columbine young kids were influenced by guns and knives there were two young boys shot over 10 kids in the cafatirea and then shot them selves.Even though some people have enough power to just play the game some people like to follow and become like the characters.", "qid": "35", "docid": "4381b332-2019-04-19T12:47:35Z-00011-000", "rank": 61, "score": 209986.0}, {"content": "Title: Violent games lead to violent actions Content: I love video games, but does the high violence sometimes you violent ? No that\"s a load of nonsense of course it doesn\"t. But that\"s what some people actually believe, and today I\"ll tell you why some people believe it and why some don\"t. By the age of seven, Yes SEVEN! You can tell the difference from fantasy violence and real world violence and when you play and watch more violent content that skill grows greater and seriously who on earth will just start thinking they\"re hitman and start running around doing flips off cars and shooting people. And I\"m not just talking nonsense here is proof from an American newspaper article: Playing violent video games does not cause kids to commit mass shootings. Over 150 million Americans (and 71% of teens) play video games. There have been 71 mass shootings between 1982 and Aug. 2015, seven of which (9.8%) involved shooters age 18 or younger. Some people think that violent games lead to violent actions and this is why: their exposure to violent video games is linked to lower empathy and decreased kindness. Empathy, the ability to understand and enter into another's feelings is believed to inhibit aggressive behavior. In a study of 150 fourth and fifth graders by Jeanne Funk, PhD, Distinguished University Professor of Psychology at the University of Toledo, violent video games were the only type of media associated with lower empathy. I stand with video games for life.", "qid": "35", "docid": "f3750c50-2019-04-18T11:57:33Z-00007-000", "rank": 62, "score": 209946.0}, {"content": "Title: Violence is clearly an issue, not just in the United States but EVERYWHERE! Content: Violent Video games should be banned because it leads to violence and violent behavior in teens, tweens, and even children under the age of 10.", "qid": "35", "docid": "7bb5fe56-2019-04-18T17:45:28Z-00004-000", "rank": 63, "score": 209914.0}, {"content": "Title: Violent video games should NOT be banned Content: First of all this is my first debate so go easy on me. Lets start, Most of the bad effects of video games are blamed on the violence they contain. Children who play more violent video games are more likely to have increased aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, and decreased prosocial helping, according to a scientific study (Anderson & Bushman, 2001). The effect of video game violence in kids is worsened by the games\" interactive nature. In many games, kids are rewarded for being more violent. The act of violence is done repeatedly. The child is in control of the violence and experiences the violence in his own eyes (killings, kicking, stabbing and shooting). This active participation, repetition and reward are effective tools for learning behavior. Indeed, many studies seem to indicate that violent video games may be related to aggressive behavior (such as Anderson & Dill, 2000; Gentile, Lynch & Walsh, 2004). However, the evidence is not consistent and this issue is far from settled. Many experts including Henry Jenkins of Massachusetts Institute of Technology have noted that there is a decreased rate of juvenile crime whch coincides with the popularity of games such as Death Race, Mortal Kombat, Doom and Grand Theft auto. He concludes that teenage players are able to leave the emotional effects of the game behind when the game is over. Indeed there are cases of teenagers who commit violent crimes who also spend great amount of time playing video games such as those involved in the Columbine and Newport cases. It appears that there will always be violent people, and it just so happen that many of them also enjoy playing violent video games. Too much video game playing makes your kid socially isolated. Also, he may spend less time in other activities such as doing homework, reading, sports, and interacting with the family and friends. Some video games teach kids the wrong values. Violent behavior, vengeance and aggression are rewarded. Negotiating and other nonviolent solutions are often not options. Women are often portrayed as weaker characters that are helpless or sexually provocative. Games can confuse reality and fantasy. Academic achievement may be negatively related to over-all time spent playing video games. Studies have shown that the more time a kid spends playing video games, the poorer is his performance in school. (Anderson & Dill, 2000; Gentile, Lynch & Walsh, 2004). A study by Argosy University's Minnesota School on Professional Psychology found that video game addicts argue a lot with their teachers, fight a lot with their friends, and score lower grades than others who play video games less often. Other studies show that many game players routinely skip their homework to play games, and many students admitted that their video game habits are often responsible for poor school grades. Although some studies suggest that playing video games enhances a child\"s concentration, other studies, such as a 2012 paper published in Psychology of Popular Media Culture, have found that games can hurt and help children's attention issues \" improving the ability to concentrate in short bursts but damaging long-term concentration. Video games may also have bad effects on some children\"s health, including obesity, video-induced seizures. and postural, muscular and skeletal disorders, such as tendonitis, nerve compression, carpal tunnel syndrome. When playing online, your kid can pick up bad language and behavior from other people, and may make your kid vulnerable to online dangers. A study by the Minneapolis-based National Institute for Media and the Family suggests that video games can be addictive for kids, and that the kids' addiction to video games increases their depression and anxiety levels. Addicted kids also exhibit social phobias. Not surprisingly, kids addicted to video games see their school performance suffer. Kids spending too much time playing video games may exhibit impulsive behavior and have attention problems. This is according to a new study published in the February 2012 issue of the Journal of Psychology and Popular Media Culture. For the study, attention problems were defined as difficulty engaging in or sustaining behavior to reach a goal.", "qid": "35", "docid": "c958dc5a-2019-04-18T17:51:05Z-00003-000", "rank": 64, "score": 209880.0}, {"content": "Title: Violent Video Games have a Bad Influence on Teenagers Content: Isn't everything a bad influence on teenagers these days? It's all about how the person takes what they see and applies it in situations. There's always a scapegoat for everything, but really it comes down to how the person was raised. Sure, in Grand Theft Auto, a person might see a nice Lambo driving by and they might think to themselves 'If I was playing Grand Theft Auto I would hijack that car.' But if they were raised with good morals, they would know better than to steal the car. IT'S ALL ABOUT THE MORALS!", "qid": "35", "docid": "5fc2ae63-2019-04-18T18:29:08Z-00003-000", "rank": 65, "score": 209829.0}, {"content": "Title: Are Video Games the main cause for Violent Juvenile Crimes Content: From what I have seen in that post you have utterly copied and pasted a whole entire website page which shows you are obviously avoiding the question, the question is \" Are Video Games the main cause for Violent Juvenile Crimes \" A causal link between violent video games and violent behavior has not been proven. Many studies suffer from design flaws and use unreliable measures of violence and aggression such as noise blast tests. Thoughts about aggression have been confused with aggressive behavior, and there is a lack of studies that follow children over long periods of time.", "qid": "35", "docid": "758ea5f9-2019-04-18T16:05:18Z-00003-000", "rank": 66, "score": 209638.0}, {"content": "Title: Video games encourage violent behavior Content: Thank you for this debate. We agree that video games although they are not the only cause of violence, they are a cause. Since exposure to the flashing screen is always present in the video games, playing video games leads to violence. I think it would be safe for anyone to infer fro your information that playing video games for more than three hours a day would cause an increase in behavioural problems. Because your statment only focuses on 5-7 year olds there is no way to know whether it only affects children of that age or if it affects children of that age the least meaing there is a significant increase of behavour problems in children age 8-11 which isn't shown. I don't believe that your arguments follow. that just because a part of these videos are fake that all of them are fake.The audio of kids playing xbox should be enough to prove the increased violent behavior. It ought to be concern to everyone who hears the amount of \"I'm going to kill you,\" and you suck at life type comments. If someone talked to me on the phone like that, I'd call the police. However, this behavior seems all to commonplace in the virtual world. Sadly it carries over into the real world and thats one of the points of the study you first posted. At the end of this debate, There is this conclusion. Video games are not the only encouragement of violent behavior. My opponent provides evidence that they are a method of encouragement for violent behavior even though his stance claims that cracked (a dirty european fluff magazine) is more credible than a study vetted and published by a leading college. Cracked doesn't even include sources. Because my opponent provided the study that he wanted to debate, my burdon of proof was to provide social evidence of the behavior in question which I did. My opponents burdon of proof was not to prove that other factors also encourage violent behavior in children. It was to prove that vidoe games are not a factor which he failed to do.", "qid": "35", "docid": "8db68a9b-2019-04-18T16:56:06Z-00000-000", "rank": 67, "score": 209543.0}, {"content": "Title: is video games bad for kids Content: The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, American Psychological Association, American Medical Association, American Academy of Family Physicians, and American Psychiatric Association, wrote in a July 26, 2000 \"Joint Statement on the Impact of Entertainment Violence on Children\" available at www.aap.org: \"Children who see a lot of violence are more likely to view violence as an effective way of settling conflicts. Children exposed to violence are more likely to assume that acts of violence are acceptable behavior Viewing violence can lead to emotional desensitization towards violence in real life. It can decrease the likelihood that one will take action on behalf of a victim when violence occurs. Entertainment violence feeds a perception that the world is a violent and mean place. Viewing violence increases fear of becoming a victim of violence, with a resultant increase in self-protective behaviors and a mistrust of others. Viewing violence may lead to real life violence. Children exposed to violent programming at a young age have a higher tendency for violent and aggressive behavior later in life than children who are not so exposed. Although less research has been done on the impact of violent interactive entertainment (video games and other interactive media) on young people, preliminary studies indicate that the negative impact may be significantly more severe than that wrought by television, movies, or music.\" July 26, 2000- American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry American Academy of Family Physicians American Academy of Pediatrics American Medical Association American Psychiatric Association (APA) American Psychological Association Craig Anderson, PhD, Director of the Center for the Study of Violence, wrote in a 2009 article \"FAQs on Violent Video Games and Other Media Violence,\" available on psychology.iastate.edu: \"The results, overall, have been fairly consistent across types of studies (experimental, cross-sectional, and longitudinal) and across visual media type (television, films, video games). There is a significant relation between exposure to media violence and aggressive behavior. Exposing children and adolescents (or 'youth') to violent visual media increases the likelihood that they will engage in physical aggression against another person. By 'physical aggression' we mean behavior that is intended to harm another person physically, such as hitting with a fist or some object. A single brief exposure to violent media can increase aggression in the immediate situation. Repeated exposure leads to general increases in aggressiveness over time. This relation between media violence and aggressive behavior is causal.\" 2009- Craig Anderson, PhD David Greenfield, PhD, founder of The Center for Internet and Technology Addiction and Assistant Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Connecticut School of Medicine, said in a Sep. 20, 2013 panel discussion titled \"Growing Up GTA\" available at huffingtonpost.com: \"My opinion on video game violence, which has a very powerful reward system wired into it, is that continued exposure desensitizes people to the experience of violence. But the other big issue, along with the reward structure, is that it teaches them a skill set that they might not otherwise develop, especially the first person shooter games. I have a real problem with giving people, in the name of entertainment, a technology that desensitizes violence, and then teaches you how to commit violence more accurately \" and then elevating people's levels of dopamine\" [T]hose studies have been absolutely supported. When you put people on a PET scanner or an functional MRI, their brain lights up like a Christmas tree when they're doing these games, especially when they hit the reward points that are designed by the gamers to\" keep people gaming because that's how these games make their money. Nothing is engaged in at the levels that I see gaming at, as a form of entertainment or dopamine elevation, unless it's a narcotic like cocaine for instance. How could you be exposed to something this toxic and have it not affect you?\" Sep. 20, 2013- David N. Greenfield, PhD Leland Yee, PhD, State Senator (D-CA) wrote in a June 22, 2009 amicus brief filed with the US Supreme Court for Video Software Dealers Association v. Schwarzenegger: \"The interactive nature of video games is vastly different than passively listening to music, watching a movie, or reading a book. With interactive video games, the child becomes a part of the action which serves as a potent agent to facilitate violence and over time learns the destructive behavior. This immersion results in a more powerful experience and potentially dangerous learned behavior in children and youth... Just as the technology of video games improves at astonishing rates, so to does the body of research consistently demonstrate the harmful effects these violent interactive games have on minors. Over three thousand peer-reviewed studies, produced over a period of 30 years documenting the effects of screen violence (including violent video games), have now been published... These data suggest very strongly that participating in the playing of violent video games by children and youth increase aggressive thought and behavior; increase antisocial behavior and delinquency; engender poor school performance; desensitize the game player to violence.\" June 22, 2009- Leland Yee, PhD Brad Bushman, PhD, Professor of Communication and Psychology at The Ohio State University, stated the following in a Feb. 18, 2013 article titled \"Why Do People Deny Violent Media Effects?\" available at psychologytoday.com \"People want to believe that if millions of people play violent video games and they don\"t all become killers, then those games must be harmless. Unfortunately, that\"s not true. We haven\"t 'proven' video games directly cause violence because it can\"t be proven. There is no way to ethically run experiments that see if some threshold of playing a violent game like Call of Duty may push a person into violence. But that doesn\"t mean we are left without evidence. We know that video game violence is certainly correlated with violence \" just like smoking is correlated with lung cancer. However, this does not mean that the research does not show causal effects; in fact it does, over and over again. We recently conducted a comprehensive review of 136 articles reporting 381 effects involving over 130,000 participants from around the world. These studies show that violent video games increase aggressive thoughts, angry feelings, physiological arousal (e.g., heart rate, blood pressure), and aggressive behavior. Violent games also decrease helping behavior and feelings of empathy for others. The effects occurred for males and females of all ages, regardless of what country they lived in. So the question then becomes why people and journalists repeatedly shrug off this compelling body of work.\" Feb. 18, 2013- Brad J. Bushman, PhD Pamela Eakes, Founder of Mothers Against Violence in America (MAVIA), wrote in an article titled \"Do You Know What Video Games Your Children Are Playing?\" on www.pbs.org (accessed Oct. 6, 2014): \"Parents do know that children learn by observing, imitating what they observe, and acting on the world around them. According to child psychologist Michael Rich, children develop what psychologists call 'behavioral scripts.' They interpret their experiences and respond to others using those scripts. One can easily see how repeated exposure to violent behavioral scripts can lead to increased feelings of hostility, expectation that others will behave aggressively, desensitization to the pain of others, and an increased likelihood of interacting and responding to others with violence. Violent video games are an ideal environment in which to learn violence. Violent video games: Place the player in the role of th", "qid": "35", "docid": "5dce2de2-2019-04-18T15:41:55Z-00001-000", "rank": 68, "score": 209396.0}, {"content": "Title: Media Violence is having a negative effect on today's youth Content: Media Violence does absolutely have a negative effect on Today's youth. Research on violent television and films, video games, and music reveals unequivocal evidence that media violence increases the likelihood of aggressive and violent behavior in both immediate and long-term contexts in youth.", "qid": "35", "docid": "74558456-2019-04-18T17:04:25Z-00003-000", "rank": 69, "score": 209050.0}, {"content": "Title: Violent Video Games have a Bad Influence on Teenagers Content: As my opponent forfeited the previous round, I will present some new argymentsMy new argument is regarding the characters. In most violent video games, the character who you play as is almost always huge and unnaturally muscley (1)This is just showcasing the message that strong muscley men are superior to those who are not, more \"manly\" if you will, and this can make for poor self esteem in players who believe that their physique doesn't match up to the one shown as \"manly\" in the game. This can lead to teenagers using stereoids and similar physique enhancements to make themselves seem more manly, as subconciously they have grown up to beleive that \"real men\" are big, muscley killing machines. By absenting these absurd killing games, it will be one step closer to elliminating this unreal expectation boys have for themselves.1. http://people.southwestern.edu...;", "qid": "35", "docid": "5fc2ae63-2019-04-18T18:29:08Z-00001-000", "rank": 70, "score": 208820.0}, {"content": "Title: Video Games cause violence Content: Rebuttals and RefutationsI will note for my opponent that I will not be available tomorrow from 1pm to early morning/midnight, and almost all day Sunday. If this results in me forfeiting a round due to the 24 hour span, then the voters may judge conduct appropriately. 1. GTA V and violent crimes argumentI will admit that this was an argument I was expecting. To rebut my opponent's point about the lack of a major increase in crime among juveniles, I will argue that violence does not always occur in the form of a crime. Violence, as stated above, can be summarized as any use of unjust aggression or force. Modern society has educated and raised young people by the thinking that committing violent crimes is a stupid thing to do, and young people are smart enough to realize that. However, that doesn't mean no violence has occurred as a result of video gaming.2. Unrealistic video gamesThe resolution of this debate is \"Video games cause violence\", not \"All video games cause violence\". Whilst some video games, explicitly things like video games for toddlers, obviously have almost zero chance of prompting violent behavior, I have still filled my BOP that Video Game(s) have prompted violence.3. The brainIn a growing brain and in a society where media and real life are almost extremely mixed together, and where some people meet their closest friends, wed, and earn fortunes through the pixels of a computer screen, I would say that violence demonstrated on this platform most definitely has the potential to cause an imitating effect, especially if the juvenile in question has never known anything other than what society is now.-- no sources necessary this round --", "qid": "35", "docid": "3466ccde-2019-04-18T15:56:31Z-00002-000", "rank": 71, "score": 208714.0}, {"content": "Title: Violent video games make children violent Content: Accepted.", "qid": "35", "docid": "63308ee0-2019-04-18T16:43:34Z-00003-000", "rank": 72, "score": 208707.0}, {"content": "Title: Violent video games should be banned because they lead to violent teens Content: Violent video games should be banned because they make students find joy in violence. Teenagers who play violent video games will be more likely to enjoy violence which could lead to harming others and themselves.", "qid": "35", "docid": "7d79edc5-2019-04-18T17:46:39Z-00002-000", "rank": 73, "score": 208655.0}, {"content": "Title: Video Games do not increase or perpetuate juvenile violence Content: First of all, as an observation, Juvenile can be defined as the following, from Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary: \" physiologically immature or undeveloped\", :reflecting psychological or intellectual immaturity\", and \"of, relating to, characteristic of, or suitable for children or young people.\" Therefore, since no exact age-bar ws given by the Pro, we can assume anyone is a juvenile if they match the description. This means adults who have mental disabilities, and people of all ages who bear these characteristics meeet the criteria of \"Juvenile.\" First - Kids/Juveniles who play violent video games are prone to Violent Videogames, as told by a journal Pediatrics in it's study in 2008. Anne Harding of CNN, who covered the study, reported on three groups in the study: \"In every group, children who were exposed to more video game violence did become more aggressive over time than their peers who had less exposure.\" CBSNews' 60 Minutes even went on about how a violent video game, Grand Theft Auto, led to a rampage by one of the kids who played it: \"And now, the game is at the center of a civil lawsuit involving the murders of three men in the small town of Fayette, Ala. They were gunned down by 18-year-old Devin Moore, who had played Grand Theft Auto day and night for months.\" American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry elaborate on these effects: \"Studies of children exposed to violence have shown that they can become: \u201cimmune\u201d or numb to the horror of violence, imitate the violence they see, and show more aggressive behavior with greater exposure to violence. Some children accept violence as a way to handle problems. Studies have also shown that the more realistic and repeated the exposure to violence, the greater the impact on children. In addition, children with emotional, behavioral and learning problems may be more influenced by violent images.\" Therefore, the effects of violent video games are true, and do exist. Therefore, I contend that video Games do increase juvenile violence, as anyone, including children, who are deemed able to be a \"juvenile\" by definition, can be pushed into doing violence.", "qid": "35", "docid": "30a5cf73-2019-04-18T18:52:16Z-00002-000", "rank": 74, "score": 208634.0}, {"content": "Title: Violent Video Games Content: Can Video Games Kill?The definition of violence is behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something. For example, in Grand Theft Auto V, the three main characters are all thieves, or something along the lines of that work. In the game, they go around robbing people of cars, money, and other possible objects. It does have a wide range of weapons to use in case they get into trouble. Do video games cause this violence? No, not always. Violent video games will not always make gamers aggressive or violent. People say that because they play something like GTAV, they will become human-murdering monsters, or a thief. Violent video games do not directly make people violent as the... \u201c... arrest rate for juvenile murders had fallen 71.9% between 1995 and 2008. The arrest rate for all juvenile violent crimes have declined 49.3%. In the same period video game sales have more than quadrupled\u201d (Crime in the United States). The teenage arrest rate has significantly gone down while video game sales have risen. Therefore, the violence in video games has not affected the teenagers\u2019 feelings and/or violence. Though people have tested their theories and got results that would make it seem the opposite than the facts, \u201cmany studies suffer from design flaws and use unreliable measures of violence and aggression\u201d (Internet Fantasy Violence). Therefore, most of those studies are not reliable. Difficult levels and practice (or lack of) make players aggressive, like in this study, \u201cLack of practice, awkward controls and games that were unnecessarily difficult all caused frustration\u201d (Violent Video Games\u2026). So the violence does not cause the player to 'rage quit' or scream at the television, their experience and lack of skill, will. Games can make the player aggressive, just not in the way it seems. One study \u201cenhanced\u201d the game Tetris making it able to know what piece is needed, and not giving it 78% of the time. After playing the subjects had their anger tested. Those who used the super hard version had a lot more anger than those who played the regular version (Violent Video Games). So even Tetris can make the average player angry, probably one of the least violent games in video game history.Violent video games are also safe outlets for players to let out anger. Here it states\u201c...that 45% of boys played video games because, \u2018it helps me get my anger out\u2019 and 62% played because it, \u2018helps me to relax\u2019\u201d (Journal of Adolescence Health). Here it states that many kids/teens use video games to rid them of stress, so they don\u2019t act out on others. \u201cVideo game players understand they are playing a game... [this] prevents them from emulating video game violence in real life\u201d (An Exploration of Adolescents\u2026) This tells that people and hard-core gamers know that it is just a game. They know not to terrorize people, or hurt others. They need video games to relieve themselves of stress. Now people might say, \u2018What if they do not know the difference?\u2019 People (mainly parents) need to trust others (or in some cases) their own children, because more likely than not. They understand it is just a game.Remember there is not a strong connection between aggression and violent video games. Also, violent video games do not directly make people violent, difficult levels and practice (or the lack of) make players aggressive. Violent video games are also safe outlets for kids to learn about world issues and a safe outlets for relieving stress. \u201c...if we\u2019re worried about the effects on kids of video games... we should not be encouraging them to play less. We should be encouraging them to play more\u201d (Violent Video Games\u2026).Works Cited Bennett, Drake. \"Violent Video Games Don't Make You Aggressive (but Tetris Might).\" Bloomberg Business Week. Bloomberg, 15 Apr. 2014. Web. 18 Nov. 2014.Cheryl Olson, Lawrence Kutner, Dorothy Warner, Jason Almerigi, Lee Baer, Armand Nicholi, and Eugene Beresin, \"Factors Correlated with Violent Video Game Use by Adolescent Boys and Girls,\" Journal of Adolescent Health, July 2007\"Crime in the United States, 2008,\" FBI website, Sep. 2009Dmitri Williams and Marko Skoric, \"Internet Fantasy Violence: A Test of Aggression in an Online Game,\" Communication Monographs, June 2005\"Essential Facts about the Computer and Video Game Industry,\" Entertainment Software Association website, May 2009Fiona Macrae for the Daily Mail. \"Violent Video Games DON'T Make Players Aggressive - Lack of Practice and Difficult Levels Do.\" Mail Online. Associated Newspapers, 07 Apr. 2014. Web. 18 Nov. 2014.Michael Reagan, \"US Military Recruits Children: 'America's Army' Video Game Violates International Law,\" Truthout website, July 23, 2008Steven Malliet, \"An Exploration of Adolescents' Perceptions of Videogame Realism,\" Learning Media and Technology, 2006", "qid": "35", "docid": "5b6b2f9-2019-04-18T15:28:19Z-00001-000", "rank": 75, "score": 208584.0}, {"content": "Title: Religion causes more violence than video games Content: Pro.. I have reasons to believe that you have not read my statements in full. But.. nonetheless: The following times magazine article discussing the video game violence has given insight onto the subject of the matter, drawing conclusions based based on studies in the US where children are becoming more and more violent due to playing video-games. If the young child (the teen) is exposed at such an early age to this type of violent video games then their personality and brain function changes as well, developing him into an aggressive adult. Now lets take this into consideration. Most of today's soldiers are trained through simulations, most of tactics and advanced weaponry are developed thorough simulation on a computer. If these simulations are being \"dumb\" down to a video game level, which is what most of today's war games are like (they collaborate with the military forces) to implement in their games in order to make them more realistic. You would argue that these game have not created any wars but such event as Columbine and many others [2] have created this internal war. Now lets look at how many fight there have been since the 2000's that involved teens took matters into their own hands and started killing people. That number will have to be very small since i was unable to find any that were documented. I believe that video games are developing an aggressive behavior in today's teens and even preteens (20+) which can impact their behaviors in the future. [1] http://time.com... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...", "qid": "35", "docid": "6ba1043a-2019-04-18T14:56:00Z-00006-000", "rank": 76, "score": 208488.0}, {"content": "Title: Video games don't equal violence Content: Well, you are right, but listen to this: 97% of 12-17 year olds in the US played video games in 2008, thus fueling an $11.7 billion domestic video game industry. In 2008, 10 of the top 20 best-selling video games in the US contained violence. Violent video games have been blamed for school shootings, increases in bullying, and violence towards women. Critics argue that these games desensitize players to violence, reward players for simulating violence, and teach children that violence is an acceptable way to resolve conflicts. Video game advocates contend that a majority of the research on the topic is deeply flawed and that no causal relationship has been found between video games and social violence. They argue that violent video games may reduce violence by serving as a substitute for rough and tumble play and by providing a safe outlet for aggressive and angry feelings. California passed a law in 2005 that would have required violent video games to include an \"18\" label and criminalized the sale of these games to minors. On June 27, 2011, the US Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in Brown vs. Entertainment Merchants Association that the law violated free speech rights. On April 20, 1999, two seniors kids walked into their high school carrying rifles, and they opened fire. They shot tons of people, killing 12 students and one teacher and the people were appalled. School shootings had happened before, but this was a violence shooting and in the ensuing search for answers it came out the shooters had spent a lot of time playing violent video games. (Source- how stuff works) Since then, the entertainment proclivities of the shooters are one of the first things reported by the press. There was a 20-year-old who killed 20 first-graders and six educators at Sandy Hook Elementary in Connecticut in 2012 played violent video games. So did the 24-year-old high- schooler who shot dozens of people in an Aurora, Colo., movie theater in the same year. An estimated 97% of America's young people are playing video games, with many of the popular ones that feature violent content.What seems to some to be a connection between violent game play and actual violence has many wondering about the effects of immerse violence on young children's minds. Video games have really only existed since the mid-1970s, so there's not much evidence for or against their violent effects than there is your surroundings like TV violence of movie violence, but the rise in dramatically violent shootings by teenaged gamers is bolstering the side of the argument that says video game violence translates in some way to the real world.", "qid": "35", "docid": "e42653aa-2019-04-18T16:41:40Z-00002-000", "rank": 77, "score": 207957.0}, {"content": "Title: Media Violence is having a negative effect on today's youth Content: Okay, but kids ageing from 3-8 will watch these violent tv shows or movies and video games so young that if they do see in real life or from their parents they could believe what they've viewed is real and may happen to them and their family, creating intensified fear and anxiety. Making this kid grow up violently and misunderstood from the real world because of something they saw when they was a child.", "qid": "35", "docid": "74558456-2019-04-18T17:04:25Z-00001-000", "rank": 78, "score": 207626.0}, {"content": "Title: Violent video games should be banned because they lead to violent teens Content: Violant Video game should not be banned. 1.) There is no direct evidence of violent video games leading to antisocial behavior, like using guns A ten million dollar research project requested by president Obama showed no hard evidence that violent video games lead to antisocial behavior like using guns 2) Playing what type of video games we want is a common right that people use DAILY that the proposition is saying does harm Wouldn\"t we then have to ban all other things that some do daily that supposedly cause harm. (We\"re not saying it does, but say it does harm.)Wouldn\"t we have to ban: Smoking; kills 443,600 per year, according to livestrong.com Dinner over 650 calories; livestrong.com says you should have 450- 625; at least 30,000 people die of obesity every year Showers over 25 minutes; wasting water is a huge problem All social networking sites; according to bullyingstatistics.com, over half of teens have been affected by cyberbullying. This is just naming a few... think of all the regulations we could have! 10? 20? 50? The gov. is basically saying if they pass this law that they can pass laws that infringe on everyday activities. 3) In a 2007 study, it was proven that violent video games helped kids to get their anger out. This helps kids express their angry thoughts in a game. 4) The video game industry is a huge industry. Call Of Duty sold more copies in its first day out than any film that year. If we bank them, people will lose jobs and money. Our economy would suffer a huge blow", "qid": "35", "docid": "7d79edc5-2019-04-18T17:46:39Z-00001-000", "rank": 79, "score": 207592.0}, {"content": "Title: Violent video games really cause bad behavior in children. Content: lol I agree, but I will do my best to give you a good debate.1. A person over the age of 17 is considered an adult in the realm of entertainment. Ergo, no argument.2. You stated that \"You probably have the mental capacity to not go crazy and kill people.\" This argument helps to support my claim of \"violent video games do not contribute to violence\" Most people do have the mental reasoning capabilities to know right from wrong.3. Your third claim supports mine as well. You claim that people blame their violent actions on video games. Because you used the term \"blame\" it is safe to assume that you meant that the actions were not actually caused by the video game itself.ConclusionRemind me, are you for or against the idea that violence is caused by video games? It seems a bit unclear lolAnyway, have fun with your response!", "qid": "35", "docid": "117d4c1a-2019-04-18T18:37:03Z-00004-000", "rank": 80, "score": 207359.0}, {"content": "Title: Research has shown violent video games encourage criminal and anti-social behaviour Content: Both experimental and non-experimental research have shown that violent video games damage young people playing them in both the short and long term, leading to criminal and anti-social behaviour. Exposure to violent video games causes aggressive thoughts and feelings. It also creates unwanted psychological arousal and belief in a 'scary world', especially among young children. This is particularly significant as video game graphics develop to become ever more realistic. The effects of violent video games are even worse than those of films and TV because of the interactive element that exists in video games. In addition, most video games are played alone, whereas cinema and television are usually a social experience, allowing social pressures to filter the experience of violence upon the viewer. An Australian Senate Committee established to look at this issue in 1993 concluded 'there is sufficient anecdotal evidence of a linkage\u2026that the community cannot fail to act to control a situation which has the very real potential\u2026to affect young people\u20191. 1Senate Committee, 1993.", "qid": "35", "docid": "6da2e494-2019-04-15T20:22:30Z-00010-000", "rank": 81, "score": 207317.0}, {"content": "Title: Band WWE Content: I have never said that children would be wrestling grown men, I don't know where you that from my opening statement. As for the fact that some children would try to mimic what they see on TV, the fact that you point that out makes me believe that you would be one to say that violent video games lead to violent behavior. There are, in fact, some cases of those being correlated, however it has been wideslreadly known that violent video games, no matter how bloody, are not a contributing factor to child violence. In fact, it has been found that it actually helps with violent behavior, and acts as a catharsis for said violent behavior. If a child was to mimic what they saw on TV, it is only his wanting to imitate what he saw, being grown men fighting each other for a prize, he's would just happen to be fufulling his own violent tendencies, being a young man who has those sort of behaviors and self-wanting to fufill. There happens to be a thing called testosterone, which all MALE PEOPLE have, and that leads us to those sorts of things.", "qid": "35", "docid": "ad26e931-2019-04-18T11:56:40Z-00001-000", "rank": 82, "score": 207226.0}, {"content": "Title: Is gaming harmful to our minds Content: Im sorry that you forfeited the round. Hopefully you can give a rebuttal next round.Aserstion One-Statistics- Thats alot of kids who play! Anyway to prove my point a majority of teenagers play video games. How can this be harmfull? Well the shooters at Colubine were gamers. There is proof that violent video games can instigate more agression in to people.http://www.psychology.iastate.edu... (Page 4 of 6)Assertion Two-Personal Experience & Tue Storys-On the morning of 1990 April 20th the two shooters of Colubine High School shot to death 12 students, a teacher, and themselves. They were \"gamers\" Also\"\"A British man who bought one of the first copies of \"Grand Theft Auto V\"was stabbed, hit with a brick and robbed of the brutally violent new video game on Tuesday, police said.\"A crime motivated by the game? Was a video game really worth stabing and injuring an innocent man for?http://gadgets.ndtv.com...Is there a bit of a correlation of the storys and statistics? Personally I feel slightly more agrresive after playing vidoe games. Of course I never would kill or hurt someone over a game but others have. Certainly games can be fun but if played to frequently and excesivley then it can be harmful.Assertion Three-Studys-According to Iowa State University aggression can be caused over video games. (See first link) Also the cons seem to outweigh the pros according to this article http://www.raisesmartkid.com...Even the New York Times looked in to this-http://www.nytimes.com...Theory-VideoGames that are violent correlate with agressivness and violence in people. Video games can be harmfull to people and others if played to often. Parents should monitor and control what there kids can play and people shuld see the potentiol harm in some games.", "qid": "35", "docid": "ce4d7cce-2019-04-18T17:03:30Z-00002-000", "rank": 83, "score": 206590.0}, {"content": "Title: Both experimental and non-experimental research have shown that violent video games damage young people. Content: Many researchers (Ask, 1999; Funk, 1993, 1995; Provenzo, 1991) conclude that there is no causal link between violent video games and aggressive behaviour. Other influences, such as social environment, family background and peer pressure cause aggressive behaviour. Additionally, even if video games might create violent thoughts, according to researchers there is no reason for these thoughts to display themselves in action more than the aggressive thoughts caused by frustration in non-violent video games, or by the fast pace of action films (rather than their content). The small number of people who would be affected by such aggressive thoughts are people who probably already are habitually violent.", "qid": "35", "docid": "4381b332-2019-04-19T12:47:35Z-00022-000", "rank": 84, "score": 206300.0}, {"content": "Title: Modern video games cannot be fairly compared to traditional childhood play. Content: Video games are a useful outlet for childhood aggression. Play violence has always been a natural part of growing up, especially for boys. In the past it was considered normal for young people to act out violent fantasies in harmless way, for example with toy guns in games of cops and robbers, cowboys and indians, war, pirates, etc. These games were often inspired by films, television or comic books and magazines, just as computer games commonly are today. Now that these traditional activities are frowned upon and 'enlightened' parents prevent children from having toy guns, aggressive play has simply moved indoors, on to the computer screen instead. Suppressing these natural instincts is not only pointless, it is probably more dangerous to remove yet another harmless outlet for aggression from the young.", "qid": "35", "docid": "4381b332-2019-04-19T12:47:35Z-00028-000", "rank": 85, "score": 205823.0}, {"content": "Title: Do you think that watching violence on TV and in films encourages youths to be aggressive and antis Content: This is an important topic, but sadly not enough research has been done, and those that have been conducted aren't as conclusive as some (such as Pro I'd imagine) would like. Unfortunately, Pro has only provided anecdotal evidence to support their claim that exposing children to violent imagery in television programs and video games induces more violent tendencies among the recipient. This is often the case, as video games and television are an easy scapegoat. It's convenient to be able to point a finger at one particular cause and be done with it. However, the idea that these factors induce violent behavior in children is a post hoc fallacy. The majority of children play video games [1], obviously some of them will be aggressive. The truth is, there are many, many factor in determining violent and/or aggressive behavior in youths [2]. They can include poor parenting/role modeling for your child, mental or physical health issues, your work or school environment, socioeconomic factors, and many others. However, the source I provided fails to mention television and video games as a factor. Therefore, it can't be said with certainty that Pro's resolution is true. \"all [children] are learning is to be rebellious, dishonest, disrespectful, bullies, and most of all they show no compassion and love towards others. \" Another interesting piece of information is that children these days are more well-behaved and respectful than their parents' generation [3]. The only reason I already know this is because I'm in the middle of a debate with another person that thinks children \"these days\" are spoiled. I look forward to hearing your rebuttal in Round 2. Best of luck. Sources: [1] . https://techcrunch.com... [2] . http://www.healthline.com... [3] . http://www.independent.co.uk...", "qid": "35", "docid": "7bd1920c-2019-04-18T12:26:33Z-00000-000", "rank": 86, "score": 205683.0}, {"content": "Title: Are Video Games the main cause for Violent Juvenile Crimes Content: First, the claims of harm caused by video games have not been proven. The most criticised violent video games are generally military shooters. However, these games generally focus much more strongly on multiplayer components of the game. These multiplayer components often require significant levels of teamwork in order for one side to be successful over the other. As such, many of these video games end up teaching players core teamwork skills as well as often teaching leadership skills when players become part of organised gaming groups. Further, numerous researchers have proposed potential positive effects of video games on aspects of social and cognitive development and psychological well-being. It has been shown that action video game players have better hand-eye coordination and visuo-motor skills, such as their resistance to distraction, their sensitivity to information in the peripheral vision and their ability to count briefly presented objects, than non-players. Video games also promote the development of intellectual skills such as planning and problem-solving, and social games may improve the social capabilities of the individual.[1] Given then that video games provide these benefits, banning violent games would harm the industry overall, causing many of the developers of other games which encourage these kinds of skills to lose their funding from game publishers. Put simply, the banning of violent video games would lead to fewer games overall being published and if these games have the effects listed above then a great net benefit is lost in the process.", "qid": "35", "docid": "758ea5f9-2019-04-18T16:05:18Z-00002-000", "rank": 87, "score": 205544.0}, {"content": "Title: Video games are an outlet for childhood aggression Content: Video games are a useful outlet for childhood aggression. As psychologist Cheryl Olson writes, kids 'use games to vent anger or distract themselves from problems.'1 Play violence has always been a natural part of growing up, especially for boys. In the past it was considered normal for young people to act out violent fantasies in harmless way, for example with toy guns in games of cops and robbers, cowboys and Indians, war, pirates, etc. These games were often inspired by films, television or comic books and magazines, just as computer games commonly are today. Now that these traditional activities are frowned upon and \"enlightened\" parents prevent children from having toy guns, aggressive play has simply moved indoors, on to the computer screen instead. Suppressing these natural instincts is not only pointless, it is probably more dangerous to remove yet another harmless outlet for aggression from the young. 1 Schaffer, A. (2007, April 27). Don't Shoot. Retrieved June 2, 2011, from Slate:", "qid": "35", "docid": "6da2e494-2019-04-15T20:22:30Z-00018-000", "rank": 88, "score": 205451.0}, {"content": "Title: Violent video games and school shootings are related Content: In recent years the video game industry has surpassed both the music and video industries in sales. Currently violent video games are among the most popular video games played by consumers, most specifically First-Person Shooters (FPS). Technological advancements in game play experience including the ability to play online has accounted for this increase in popularity. Previous research, utilizing the General Aggression Model (GAM), has identified that violent video games increase levels of aggression. The following abstract taken from the US national library of medicine shows a direct connection between video games and aggression. Longitudinal effects of violent video games on aggression in Japan and the United States. Anderson CA, Sakamoto A, Gentile DA, Ihori N, Shibuya A, Yukawa S, Naito M, Kobayashi K. Abstract CONTEXT: Youth worldwide play violent video games many hours per week. Previous research suggests that such exposure can increase physical aggression. OBJECTIVE: We tested whether high exposure to violent video games increases physical aggression over time in both high- (United States) and low- (Japan) violence cultures. We hypothesized that the amount of exposure to violent video games early in a school year would predict changes in physical aggressiveness assessed later in the school year, even after statistically controlling for gender and previous physical aggressiveness. DESIGN: In 3 independent samples, participants' video game habits and physically aggressive behavior tendencies were assessed at 2 points in time, separated by 3 to 6 months. PARTICIPANTS: One sample consisted of 181 Japanese junior high students ranging in age from 12 to 15 years. A second Japanese sample consisted of 1050 students ranging in age from 13 to 18 years. The third sample consisted of 364 United States 3rd-, 4th-, and 5th-graders ranging in age from 9 to 12 years. RESULTS. Habitual violent video game play early in the school year predicted later aggression, even after controlling for gender and previous aggressiveness in each sample. Those who played a lot of violent video games became relatively more physically aggressive. Multisample structure equation modeling revealed that this longitudinal effect was of a similar magnitude in the United States and Japan for similar-aged youth and was smaller (but still significant) in the sample that included older youth. CONCLUSIONS: These longitudinal results confirm earlier experimental and cross-sectional studies that had suggested that playing violent video games is a significant risk factor for later physically aggressive behavior and that this violent video game effect on youth generalizes across very different cultures. As a whole, the research strongly suggests reducing the exposure of youth to this risk factor. After this study established to create a direct connection between the increase of aggression and video games, we can just imagine how this dark aggression that aims at destruction and not on construction- with the easy acquisition of guns- will make school children behave at their schools. Knowing that a child spends most of his time at the school with periods of recess, this will be more than enough time for a child to participate in school shootings.", "qid": "35", "docid": "1ac69d5c-2019-04-18T13:30:47Z-00002-000", "rank": 89, "score": 205297.0}, {"content": "Title: Violent Video Games have a Bad Influence on Teenagers Content: The reason why I believe that violent games have a negative effect on people, is that there is a positive connection with killing, rather than the fact that the game contains killing at all. In many games, when you kill a character you win points, such as in the game Carmageddon where you win credits by hitting pedestrians in a car. Games make this connection between killing and winning something, which is what I find appaling. Example: Thrill Kill is a 4 player game, where characters fight to the death. It includes many ways to dismember, torture and kill your opponent. Of course there is a positive outcome, once you kill everyone else you win the game. There is no doubt that these kids of games could create a connection between \"killing\" and \"good\" in people's minds. I don't believe that these games have a negative impact because people think \"I'm bored, and COD tells me killing is fun!\" but more that they will have that subconscious connection between killing and winning. Thanks!", "qid": "35", "docid": "5fc2ae63-2019-04-18T18:29:08Z-00002-000", "rank": 90, "score": 205286.0}, {"content": "Title: Violent Video Games Cause Violent Behavior Content: Violent Video Games cause violence in children: http://edition.cnn.com... http://time.com... http://www.pamf.org... http://www.psychologytoday.com... They just do. I think you meant \"Violent Video Games Cause Violent Behavior [In Teens]\" because they don't, but in children they do, it's not a debate; children will emulate Power Rangers and all sorts of things they see on television as well (http://www.thecrimson.com..., http://www.ofcom.org.uk...) and they are especially susceptible to media. Good luck.", "qid": "35", "docid": "ce330406-2019-04-18T15:51:12Z-00006-000", "rank": 91, "score": 205243.0}, {"content": "Title: media violence is having a negative effect on today's youth Content: That is true. But then again Music,Movies,Games,. Are entertainment. There not meant for kids to act on in real life. Everyone has free will. If they choose to act out on what they see in the game that is there choice. The games are not meant for them too. So it's Really them doing that to themselves. yeah the Games may contribute to them acting out. But at the end of they day it's THERE choice.", "qid": "35", "docid": "ed943cf3-2019-04-18T17:04:25Z-00004-000", "rank": 92, "score": 204972.0}, {"content": "Title: Can video games be healthy Content: My final argument is as follows:- Most of the bad effects of video games are blamed on the violence they contain. Children who play more violent video games are more likely to have increased aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, and decreased prosocial helping, according to a scientific study (Anderson & Bushman, 2001). Also according to Dmitri A. Christakis of the Seattle Children\"s Research Institute, those who watch a lot of simulated violence, such as those in video games, can become immune to it, more inclined to act violently themselves, and are less likely to behave emphatically. The effect of video game violence in kids is worsened by the games\" interactive nature. In many games, kids are rewarded for being more violent. The act of violence is done repeatedly. The child is in control of the violence and experiences the violence in his own eyes (killings, kicking, stabbing and shooting). This active participation, repetition and reward are effective tools for learning behavior. Indeed, many studies seem to indicate that violent video games may be related to aggressive behavior (such as Anderson & Dill, 2000; Gentile, Lynch & Walsh, 2004). However, the evidence is not consistent and this issue is far from settled. The American Psychological Association (APA) also concluded that there is a \"consistent correlation\" between violent game use and aggression, but finds insufficient evidence to link violent video play to criminal violence. An open letter by a number of media scholars, psychologists and criminologists, however, find APA\"s study and conclusion to be misleading and alarmist. On the other hand, many experts including Henry Jenkins of Massachusetts Institute of Technology have noted that there is a decreased rate of juvenile crime which coincides with the popularity of games such as Death Race, Mortal Kombat, Doom and Grand Theft auto. He concludes that teenage players are able to leave the emotional effects of the game behind when the game is over. Indeed there are cases of teenagers who commit violent crimes who also spend great amount of time playing video games such as those involved in the Columbine and Newport cases. It appears that there will always be violent people, and it just so happen that many of them also enjoy playing violent video games. Too much video game playing makes your kid socially isolated. Also, he may spend less time in other activities such as doing homework, reading, sports, and interacting with the family and friends. On the other hand, a study by researchers at the North Carolina State University, New York and the University Of Ontario Institute Of Technology points out that gamers usually do not replace their offline social lives with online game playing, but rather it expands them. In fact, among gamers, being a loner is not the norm. Some video games teach kids the wrong values. Violent behavior, vengeance and aggression are rewarded. Negotiating and other nonviolent solutions are often not options. Women are often portrayed as weaker characters that are helpless or sexually provocative. On the other hand, a University of Buffalo study suggests that violence and bad behavior played in the virtual world may be contributing to better behavior in the real world. Gamers who play violent games may feel guilty about their behavior in the virtual world and this may make them be more sensitive to the moral issues they violated during game play. Games can confuse reality and fantasy. Academic achievement may be negatively related to over-all time spent playing video games. Studies have shown that the more time a kid spends playing video games, the poorer is his performance in school. (Anderson & Dill, 2000; Gentile, Lynch & Walsh, 2004). A study by Argosy University\"s Minnesota School on Professional Psychology found that video game addicts argue a lot with their teachers, fight a lot with their friends, and score lower grades than others who play video games less often. Other studies show that many game players routinely skip their homework to play games, and many students admitted that their video game habits are often responsible for poor school grades. Although some studies suggest that playing video games enhances a child\"s concentration, other studies, such as a 2012 paper published in Psychology of Popular Media Culture, have found that games can hurt and help children\"s attention issues \" improving the ability to concentrate in short bursts but damaging long-term concentration. Video games may also have bad effects on some children\"s health, including obesity, video-induced seizures. and postural, muscular and skeletal disorders, such as tendonitis, nerve compression, carpal tunnel syndrome. When playing online, your kid can pick up bad language and behavior from other people, and may make your kid vulnerable to online dangers. A study by the Minneapolis-based National Institute for Media and the Family suggests that video games can be addictive for kids, and that the kids\" addiction to video games increases their depression and anxiety levels. Addicted kids also exhibit social phobias. Not surprisingly, kids addicted to video games see their school performance suffer. Kids spending too much time playing video games may exhibit impulsive behavior and have attention problems. This is according to a new study published in the February 2012 issue of the Journal of Psychology and Popular Media Culture. For the study, attention problems were defined as difficulty engaging in or sustaining behavior to reach a goal. According to Catherine Steiner-Adair, a Harvard-affiliated psychologist and author of the best-selling book \"The Big Disconnect: Protecting Childhood and Family Relationship in the Digital Age\", if kids are allowed to play \"Candy Crush\" on the way to school, the trip will be quiet, but it\"s not what kids need. \"They need time to daydream, deal with anxieties, process their thoughts and share them with parents, who can provide reassurance.\" I accordace to the latest comment, check the previous argument, it has links to websites OK, moving on here are a few links for you: 1. http://healthresearchfunding.org... 2. greengarageblog.org/10-primary-pros-and-cons-of-violent-video-games 3. https://my.vanderbilt.edu... 4. www.thesun.co.uk/sol/.../Pros-and-cons-of-playing-video-games.html 5. nlcatp.org/5-major-pros-and-cons-of-violent-video-games/ 6. 7. https://prezi.com... 8. 9. https://prezi.com... 10. 11. 12. https://prezi.com... 13. https://archive.org... 14. http://www.barnegatschools.com... 15. http://sharpbrains.com... 16. www.showandtellforparents.com/wfdata/frame156-1002/pressrel51.asp 17. www.happychild.com.au/articles/violence-in-video-games-what-parents-need-to-know 18. https://www.psychologytoday.com... 19. money.cnn.com/2015/08/17/technology/video-game-violence/ 20. www.cbsnews.com/news/do-violent-video-games-lead-to-criminal-behavior/ 21. www.healthline.com \" Healthline News 22. www.independent.co.uk \" News \" Science 23. www.bbc.com/news/technology-33960075 24. time.com/4000220/violent-video-games/ 25. http://www.scientificamerican.com... 26. news.sky.com/.../study-violent-video-games-lead-to-aggression 27. 28. www.theonion.com/.../case-and-against-letting-children-play-video-... 29. gamerant.com/video-game-violence-survey/ 30. studymoose.com/do-violent-video-games-cause-bad-behavior-essay", "qid": "35", "docid": "45462ad0-2019-04-18T13:17:49Z-00000-000", "rank": 93, "score": 204889.0}, {"content": "Title: Video game violence does not contribute significantly to school shootings. Content: I argue that the exposure to video game violence does not contribute significantly to school shootings, but rather, the living environment of the individual.", "qid": "35", "docid": "8e52f9f1-2019-04-18T19:02:33Z-00004-000", "rank": 94, "score": 204771.0}, {"content": "Title: media violence is having a negative effect on today youth Content: We don't know. Research on the amount of violence in media consumed by kids and teens is out of date and incomplete. Past research estimates that about 90% of movies, 68% of video games, 60% of TV shows, and 15% of music videos include some depictions of violence.", "qid": "35", "docid": "e19c7425-2019-04-18T17:03:59Z-00000-000", "rank": 95, "score": 204700.0}, {"content": "Title: Violent Video Games Lead to Real Violence (First Debate) Content: I feel that violence in video games does not create the player to become a more violent person, nor does it lead to more crime in the world by its players. A study that Villanova and Rutgers University had published \"found that when shooting game sales are at their highest, crime numbers tend to drop\" (1). There was also a study done in 2010 that found that used 103 young adults to solve a frustration task in groups, with some playing video games and some not. They found \"that the games had no impact on aggressive behavior whatsoever, and that the group which played no game at all was the most aggressive after the task, whereas the group that played the violent games were the least hostile and depressed\" (2). Studies like this exemplify that well known saying, \"\"Correlation does not imply causation\". (1) http://www.polygon.com... (2) http://www.forbes.com... (This is my first debate on this website so I might not do well/not know how to respond properly)", "qid": "35", "docid": "baa6345c-2019-04-18T13:44:43Z-00003-000", "rank": 96, "score": 204696.0}, {"content": "Title: Parents should be fined if their sub-17 year old kid(s) are caught playing M-rated games Content: I\u2019d like to start off this debate with a quote and I wish good luck to all. \"Parents and physicians need to recognize that M-rated video games popular with children and adolescents contain a wide range of often unlabeled content, exposing young people to messages that may negatively influence their perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors,\" said Kimberly Thompson, Associate Professor of Risk Analysis and Decision Science at HSPH. Assertion 1:- M-rated games promote violence \u201cMore than a decade ago, the computer game Doom became a focal point when it was revealed that Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, the teenagers who committed the Columbine High School massacres, were players.(2)\u201d This was the effect of violent video games on young kids. Many believe that violent video games make underage children violent themselves. One of the believers in this theory is Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-W. Va.), who introduced a bill in December 2012 to find out the impact of violent video games on children. \"At times like this, we need to take a comprehensive look at all the ways we can keep our kids safe,\" says Rockefeller, who serves as Chair of the Senate's Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee. \"I have long expressed concern about the impact of the violent content our kids see and interact with every day.\" According to one of his close friends, Adam Lanza, the man who fatally shot 20 children and his own mother, played M-rated games. If M-rated games could cause this sort of problem on a 21-year old then it could totally corrupt a sub-17 year old\u2019s head Assertion 2: M-rated games use a lot of profanity This influence could totally demolish a sub-17 year old\u2019s social life and reputation. For example he/she might use profanity on a teacher, a parent, or a friend and totally ruin the relationship between the 2 people. In a way, M-rated games can end one\u2019s social life and weaken one\u2019s relationship. Sources: 1. http://archive.sph.harvard.edu... 2. http://www.usatoday.com...", "qid": "35", "docid": "ee3735d2-2019-04-18T17:11:55Z-00004-000", "rank": 97, "score": 204529.0}, {"content": "Title: Violent video games do not only affect individuals but also society as a whole. Content: Society has decided to embrace violent video games, which as a result are very profitable. These games are written for adults, rather than children, and the ratings system warns of any violent content. In a modern world, the role of protecting young people should lie with responsible parents who know their kids best and take an active interest in their leisure time, discouraging or barring them from unsuitable activities. In this case, there is not enough justification for governments to intervene in people's leisure time.", "qid": "35", "docid": "4381b332-2019-04-19T12:47:35Z-00024-000", "rank": 98, "score": 204284.0}, {"content": "Title: Violent videogames cause violence in players Content: My opening I like your reasos but to make your argument more convincing you should have had girls and boys together so here's my argument . 97% of 12-17 year olds in the US played video games in 2008, thus fueling an $11.7 billion domestic video game industry. In 2008, 10 of the top 20 best-selling video games in the US contained violence. Violent video games have been blamed for school shootings, increases in bullying, and violence towards women. Critics argue that these games desensitize players to violence, reward players for simulating violence, and teach children that violence is an acceptable way to resolve conflicts. Video game advocates contend that a majority of the research on the topic is deeply flawed and that no causal relationship has been found between video games and social violence. They argue that violent video games may reduce violence by serving as a substitute for rough and tumble play and by providing a safe outlet for aggressive and angry feelings. The debate over violent video games can be traced back to the 1976 release of the game Death Race. [40] The object of the game was to run over screaming \"gremlins\" with a car, at which point they would turn into tombstones. Controversy erupted because the \"gremlins\" resembled stick-figure humans, and it was reported that the working title of the game was Pedestrian. After protestors dragged Death Race machines out of arcades and burned them in parking lots, production of the game ceased. In 1993, public outcry following the release of violent video games Mortal Kombat and Night Trap prompted Congress to hold hearings on regulating the sale of video games. During the hearings, California Attorney General Dan Lungren testified that violent video games have \"a desensitizing impact on young, impressionable minds.\" [14] Threatened with the creation of a federal regulatory commission, the video game industry voluntarily established the Entertainment Software Rating Board on Sep. 1, 1994 to create a ratings system. Based on the video game's content, the ESRB assigns one of the following ratings: \"Early Childhood,\" \"Everyone,\" \"Everyone 10+,\" \"Teen,\" \"Mature,\" or \"Adults Only.\" In a Pew Research Center 2008 survey, 50% of boys and 14% of girls aged 12-17 listed a game with a \"Mature\" or \"Adults Only\" rating in their current top three favorite games. The controversy over violent video games resurfaced following the massacre of 13 people at Columbine High School in Jefferson County, CO on Apr. 20, 1999. The two teenage shooters were revealed to be avid players of weapon-based combat games Wolfenstein 3D and Doom. Following the shooting, 176 newspaper articles across thecountry focused on the allegation that video games were the cause of the tragedy . A 2005 resolution by the American Psychological Association called for the reduction of violence in video games marketed to youth because of possible links between video games and aggression towards women. [30] In response to the discovery of disabled but accessible sexual content in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, then-Senator of New York Hillary Clinton introduced a bill in 2005 to criminalize selling \"Mature\" or \"Adults Only\" rated video games to minors, arguing that video games were a \"silent epidemic of desensitization.\" The bill died in committee at the end of the 109th Congress.", "qid": "35", "docid": "456d6b3a-2019-04-18T16:19:18Z-00004-000", "rank": 99, "score": 204171.0}, {"content": "Title: Violent video games really cause bad behavior in children. Content: According the American Psychological Association, violent video games can increase children's aggression. So when kids have anxiety, which they do, instead of soothing themselves, calming themselves, talking about it, expressing it to someone, or even expressing it emotionally by crying, they tend to externalize it. They can attack something, they can kick a wall, they can be mean to a dog or a pet.\" Additionally, there's an increased frequency of violent responses from children who play these kinds of video games. Violent video games don't teach kids moral consequences. \"If you shoot somebody in one of these games, you don't go to jail, you don't get penalized in some way \u2014 you get extra points!\"", "qid": "35", "docid": "117d4c1a-2019-04-18T18:37:03Z-00007-000", "rank": 100, "score": 204058.0}]}
{"query": "Is golf a sport?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: Golf is a sport Content: golf is a sport no doubt. it takes pure skill to be able to play the sport and if you can go pro in a activity then it should be a sport", "qid": "36", "docid": "edab08a8-2019-04-18T16:34:53Z-00003-000", "rank": 1, "score": 161365.0}, {"content": "Title: Golf is a sport Content: For my point, I look at the definition of sport: An activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment. You have yours but this one is also correct so I will use this one from Google Dictionary. Exertion refers to vigorous activity which golfing is not. Your definition calls golf a game, not a sport. And based upon my definition of sport, (which is also correct) golf is not a sport. This is stated by both you and I.", "qid": "36", "docid": "edab086a-2019-04-18T17:21:18Z-00002-000", "rank": 2, "score": 160434.0}, {"content": "Title: Is golf a sport Content: Sport: an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment.\"For entertainment.\"Golf is the most boring activity known to man. And that's final.Case closed.", "qid": "36", "docid": "331dbe36-2019-04-18T14:51:04Z-00004-000", "rank": 3, "score": 159680.0}, {"content": "Title: does golf is a real sport Content: hahaha okok So here is my point Obviously a sport... I believe that golf is a sport. But we can't say anything if we don't define what a sport is. Golf is \"physical activity engaged in for pleasure: a particular activity (as an athletic game).\" (Merriam-Webster) Golf clearly fits the definition provided by Merriam Webster. Finally, Sports agents, sponsors, and sporting goods manufacturers consider golf to be a sport.", "qid": "36", "docid": "f6c3ab3f-2019-04-18T16:53:00Z-00001-000", "rank": 4, "score": 156632.0}, {"content": "Title: Golf is a sport Content: Now, what is a sport? and what is golf? Golf, is a \"game in which a player using special clubs attempts to sink a ball with as few strokes as possible into each of the 9 or 18. \" [1]Sport, is a \"physical activity engaged in for pleasure: a particular activity (as an athletic game). \" [2]Looking at the definition of sport, provided by Merrian-Webster, Golf fits the definition of the word \"sport. \" Lastly, Sports require coordinated muscle use, and the golf swing uses at least 17 muscle groups in the coordinated movement of the hands, wrists, arms, abdomen, and legs. [3]Thank you and good luck [1] Merrian-Webster[2] Meriian-Webster[3] British Medical Journal", "qid": "36", "docid": "edab086a-2019-04-18T17:21:18Z-00003-000", "rank": 5, "score": 155438.0}, {"content": "Title: Is golf asport Content: Being a high school golfer, I get many people telling me that golf is not a sport because there is no physical activity. That is not true, We need to be in shape to walk the course while carrying our bags. Its not easy, especially when you are speed walking for four hours in extreme heat. Us golfers work out and have to watch what we eat. We can not eat unhealthy and go play golf afterwards. The definition of a sport is: an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment. Which golf does apply. It takes skill, hard work and dedication to be good, just like any other sport. We compete against other schools, we have tournaments, and we work just as long and hard as any other sport on the planet.", "qid": "36", "docid": "2c13cc23-2019-04-18T16:11:23Z-00004-000", "rank": 6, "score": 154542.0}, {"content": "Title: Golf is not a physical sport Content: Let me clarify my stance before you accept. I DO believe that golf is a sport in the strictest sense of the word, that is, in the competitive and recreational sense only. The definition of \"sport\": \"A source of diversion; recreation. \" This, I believe is the only way that golf meets the definition of \"sport. \" The word also has another definition: \"physical activity engaged in for pleasure; a particular activity (as an athletic game) so engaged in. \" This is where golf fails to meet the definition of a sport- in the physical sense of the word. Here is the definition of \"physical\" that I will be using in this debate: \"characterized by especially rough and forceful physical activity. \" Golf does not meet this definition. It will be Con's job to argue against this stance. First round is for acceptance. Best of luck to my opponent. . http://www.merriam-webster.com...http://www.merriam-webster.com...", "qid": "36", "docid": "6b8ef422-2019-04-18T16:45:09Z-00004-000", "rank": 7, "score": 153071.0}, {"content": "Title: Golf is a sport Content: I accept your argument. I say golf is not a sport.", "qid": "36", "docid": "edab086a-2019-04-18T17:21:18Z-00004-000", "rank": 8, "score": 152811.0}, {"content": "Title: Golf is a sport Content: ok golf is a sport.. just like anyother sport you're in the sun so no argument there! and people can cheer for you! have you not heard of pro golf tournaments? people go to watch them, and it is a big deal. And it is a sport just like any other it takes time and dedication to master not just anybody can go whack a ball and go pro!", "qid": "36", "docid": "edab08a8-2019-04-18T16:34:53Z-00001-000", "rank": 9, "score": 150618.0}, {"content": "Title: Golf is not a sport Content: First I will start with some definitions of \"Sports\" Sport: is an activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively. Sports commonly refer to activities where the physical capabilities of the competitor are the sole or primary determiner of the outcome (winning or losing), but the term is also used to include activities such as mind sports and motor sports where mental acuity or equipment quality are major factors. Sport: Physical activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively. Sport: An activity involving physical exertion and skill that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often undertaken competitively. I believe that these definitions prove my case all of these were taken from the Webster dictionary, the fact is a sport is something is an activity that involves skills be it throwing a ball 40 yards,running 100 miles, or hitting a tiny ball 400 yards into a hole. A sport is a competition involving rules and guidelines, and were skill comes into play. I think that we can all agree Golf is a game of rules and skill therefore it is a sport.", "qid": "36", "docid": "bb04abe6-2019-04-18T19:54:49Z-00004-000", "rank": 10, "score": 150432.0}, {"content": "Title: Golf is not a sport Content: Just what is a sport? A sport is an activity or in some cases, a lifestyle, that requires a competitive drive, to be in top of your physical form, and to spend ample time studying your sport. Basketball requires months of conditioning, hours studying and practicing plays, and the desire to work with your team to be the on top of all your competition. Football and baseball require the same type of training and necessities. Even individual sports such as Cross-Country running require the desire to win, the countless hours of training to be on top of your physical form, the studying of different terrains. I'll even let NASCAR get in there; it requires the skill of being able to drive at high speeds without crashing, studying different racetracks, and definetely has that competitive edge. But golf? Come on. First of all, the only physical shape you need to be in is the ability to swing a golf club. Thats working a mere 2-3 muscles in your whole body. And you wont need to worry about walking all the way to your next spot after you hit that little white ball, because you've got your fancy golf cart to drive you there! Golf lacks the competitive drive that other sports have. Sure, you're playing against 18+ other people to get the lowest score, but you only have knowledge of one other person's score; your partners. You dont know when to come in the clutch, when to step it up, when to \"getcha head in the game\". Come on, people.", "qid": "36", "docid": "bb04abe6-2019-04-18T19:54:49Z-00005-000", "rank": 11, "score": 148823.0}, {"content": "Title: Golf is not a sport Content: Jlconservative, I see your theory of backing up your belief that golf is a sport with a few snappy dictionary definitions, although, based on your username, I dont see your theory that i'm assuming you follow that \"the free market will prevail\". Mind if i quote your closing statement? \"I think that we can all agree Golf is a game of rules and skill therefore it is a sport.\" Ok, so therefore, all games and activities which have rules and skill are sports. Take darts; this game requires the skill of throwing a pointed arrow up against a board (which i do enjoy very much), while following a set of rules: Dont throw 2 darts at once, only throw three per round, etc. Is this a sport? Take poker; this game requires the skill of, in the words of the great Kenny Rogers, \"knowing when to hold 'em and knowing when to fold 'em\", the witty intellect of knowing how much to bet at what time, keeping a poker face, and knowledge of rules and regulations of the cards and table settings. Is this a sport? Take checkers, take chess; these game also requires high intellect, planning out your next move, how to dethrone your opposition. Rules to follow are also present; where you can or cannot place your playing piece, whose turn goes in who's order, etc. Is this a sport? Take Scrabble; the skill of word-building is present, one must have a knack for piecing the english language together. Rules: they must be legitimate words. Is this a sport? Take Beer Pong; a game for the ages, in which one requires the skill of throwing a tiny plastic ball into a plastic cup filled with booze, the skill of being able to chug down incessant amounts of alcohol, the rules to be abided by of the proper conduct on defense, offense, shooting, rollbacking, recracking, etc. Is this a sport? You see, Jlconservative, these, along with golf, are not classified as sports, but merely hobbies. One thing they do have in common, however, is that they burn the same amount of calories as golf.", "qid": "36", "docid": "bb04abe6-2019-04-18T19:54:49Z-00003-000", "rank": 12, "score": 147835.0}, {"content": "Title: Golf is not a sport Content: Kenicks, I'm glad I finally get a debate against you. I have had a few nasty ones on this site mostly personal attacks because I am a conservative, mind if we just keep it clean and about Golf? we can debate about politics some other time. First of all I want to say that every definition I can pull up on the internet and the two dictionaries I have here at the house all come up with the same definition, that a sport is something that has guidelines, and rules, and requires skill along with SOME physical extortion. It is my opinion Kenicks that your views on a sport is sort of arrogant ( no harm intended). I think that as Americans we get blinded on that a sport consists of body builders, or martial arts, or who can hit the hardest. However if we are going to characterize sports into these categories we must remember we are not the only country, if we try and remove golf from sporting we might as well remove Hunting, Fishing, Krokae, Polo,Archery,Marksmanship, even surfing the list can go on and on. These sporting competitions do not require much physical duress but they are a sport none the less. Now what you suggested chess, and poker, haha and beer pong would of course not be labeled as a sport. However Golfing that requires skill, and guidelines and rules, and SOME physical duress not nearly as much as tennis,football,or boxing but some fits the definition of a sport perfectly.", "qid": "36", "docid": "bb04abe6-2019-04-18T19:54:49Z-00002-000", "rank": 13, "score": 146787.0}, {"content": "Title: Golf is not a sport Content: Kenicks, I thank you personally for the jab to keep me on my toes and the grammar error you so efficiently spotted out. Look,this vendetta you have over golf and the sport is understandable, it does seem silly that while soldiers are risking life,teachers are over worked, and hard working single business owners are struggling to make it threw financially that people are getting paid millions to hit a white ball into a hole, and this can be said about any sport and that is perfectly understandable. However your debate topic was not that golfers get over paid, or that golfers should not make as much money as baseball players, the point you started was that Golf is not a sport when in fact it is. Again your vendetta against the sport is based purely on your opinion. I have personal experience that golf is a game of extreme skill, and mental duress with some physical extortion. The fact is Golf meets the criteria according to every definition of \"sport\" available. Therefore in the minds of myself and the common English language golf is and should be considered a sport.", "qid": "36", "docid": "bb04abe6-2019-04-18T19:54:49Z-00000-000", "rank": 14, "score": 145568.0}, {"content": "Title: Is golf a sport Content: Saying that golf does involve rigorous activity, is not really an opinion. It is a fact. You stated \"Golf is the most boring activity known to man\" This is a textbook example for an opinion. Me saying that golf is a sport is not an opinion. The definition of a sport is \"an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of acompetitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc.\" So me saying that golf is a sport isn't actualy a opinion it's a fact.", "qid": "36", "docid": "331dbe36-2019-04-18T14:51:04Z-00001-000", "rank": 15, "score": 145280.0}, {"content": "Title: Golf is not a physical sport Content: I extend my arguments.", "qid": "36", "docid": "6b8ef422-2019-04-18T16:45:09Z-00001-000", "rank": 16, "score": 143996.0}, {"content": "Title: Is golf a sport Content: opinion- a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. Saying golf is boring is an opinion and is not representative of the whole population. I happen to find golf very interesting and found myself loving every moment of the masters. Therefore saying golf is boring is not factual, golf is a form of entertainment for me and many others, so golf should be represented as a sport.", "qid": "36", "docid": "331dbe36-2019-04-18T14:51:04Z-00003-000", "rank": 17, "score": 143964.0}, {"content": "Title: Golf is a sport Content: How is golf a sport???? All you do is hit a golf ball on a field like a snobby brat!!!! Nobody can cheer for you and you are quiet and standing in the hot sun!!!!! Whatever happens on golf that is exciting and will get your heartbeat pumping?? Yeah he hit a hole in one ohhhh what a day to watch!!!!! So I'm ready for this debate are you!!!", "qid": "36", "docid": "edab08a8-2019-04-18T16:34:53Z-00002-000", "rank": 18, "score": 143666.0}, {"content": "Title: does golf is a real sport Content: Golf is already officially categorized as a sport!", "qid": "36", "docid": "f6c3ab3f-2019-04-18T16:53:00Z-00003-000", "rank": 19, "score": 143424.0}, {"content": "Title: does golf is a real sport Content: the real deffinition of a sport is: all game that include physical exercise. so golf is just a game not a sport", "qid": "36", "docid": "f6c3ab3f-2019-04-18T16:53:00Z-00000-000", "rank": 20, "score": 142937.0}, {"content": "Title: Golf is a sport Content: People can consider anything but that doesn't make it right. For example, many people consider Great Britain to be a country when it isn't and some people consider the UK to be a country when it's really 3 and a half countries. Just because something is considered a certain way doesn't make it so. Just because it's in the Olympics doesn't mean it's a sport. They have concerts at the Olympics and they aren't sports. They are side attractions and that's all golf will be. Burning 800 calories doesn't make it a sport. You would burn 800 calories for sleeping for 9 days. Does that mean that sleeping for 9 days is a sport because you burn 800 calories? Now that I am done refuting, here is my argument. Please address each of these points in your next argument otherwise these points will all stand. Golf better matches the defintion of a game than a sport. Merriam-Webster defines a game as an 'activity engaged in for diversion or amusement.' Think about John Daly. If it can be done while drinking and smoking, then it is not a sport. Golf is not a sport. It is a skill. It's not a sport if you don't move. It isn't a sport if it can be played by a golfer with a broken leg (Tiger Woods in he 2008 U.S. Open). Mike Freeman, National Columnist at CBSSports.com, stated the following in his July 20, 2009 article titled \"Old-man Watson Proves Golf Is Far from Legitimate Sport,\" published on cbssports.com: \"Golf isn't a sport. The amount of athleticism required to play golf is about the same as it is to be a good bowler. How else do you explain that a man who is nearly 60 [Tom Watson] came extremely close to winning a golf major? This story might be inspirational but for the sport of golf it should also be mortifying. Actually, it's a tad embarrassing. What does it say about a sport when it takes a playoff round to finally beat Watson despite Watson's age? It says golf isn't a sport, that's what it says... There are no 59-year-old running backs, outfielders or point guards because the level of athleticism is so extreme in those sports that if someone Watson's age tried to play them they'd get broken into tiny pieces... The athleticism required to play golf is so minimal, it's negligible.\" Dave Hollander, JD, author and sports columnist, stated the following in his May 12, 2008 article titled \"Is Golf A Sport? Seriously.,\" published on the Huffington Post website: \"Golf does not even rise to the level of 'a good walk spoiled' [quote attributed t Mark Twain] because the primary action of walking is not required. So says PGA Tour v. Martin (2001) where the Supreme Court ordered the PGA to allow disabled golfer Casey Martin to use a golf cart in between holes rather than walk... How can you call something a sport where being ambulatory is not a basic minimum physical requirement? Think of the mythological gods and heroes who personified the highest physical virtues: Hermes (speed), Hercules (strength), Aphrodite (stamina). There's got to be at least some running to call it a sport. I'd prefer some contact, too. But \"no walking required\"? You call that a sport? Just because it's difficult doesn't mean it's a sport. Computer programming and brain surgery are difficult. They are not sports. Just because you compete doesn't make it a sport either. Pretzel vendors compete. Art galleries compete. Hell, a spelling bee is a competition. Golf is recreation--something to pass the time. It is no more a sport than marbles or cat's cradle. That takes me to my final point: Golf is boring. You want to get a nap in on Sunday afternoon? Turn on golf. Looking for that TV show to help the kids get some shut-eye? Turn on golf. Do you want to see the least amount of physical prowess combined with the greatest dearth of raw emotion? Turn on golf.", "qid": "36", "docid": "edab086a-2019-04-18T17:21:18Z-00000-000", "rank": 21, "score": 142484.0}, {"content": "Title: Is golf asport Content: If your comparing Hogwarts (which is some made up thing in Harry Potter) then you shouldn't be in this debate. At least I am getting exercise instead of living in the fantasy world. . No one can fly, broom sticks are NOT magical, so get your head straight. Golf is considered a sport because there is physical exercise and the ability to play. It a hard sport to pick up on and be good at. If you think golf is just chasing after a white ball, and riding in a cart. then you are wrong. Why don't you go and play 18 holes, fast pace walking (NO CART ALLOWED), and then tell me how you feel. You might as well just quit now, because you will lose.", "qid": "36", "docid": "2c13cc23-2019-04-18T16:11:23Z-00000-000", "rank": 22, "score": 141605.0}, {"content": "Title: Is golf a sport Content: \"truth is golf is a sport and that's final, so don't say how easy golf is without experiencing what I do\" \"suggest that golf doesn't have rigorous activity although I beg to differ.\" These statements sound pretty opinionated to me. Seems like a bit of hypocrisy claiming that I'm using opinions as arguments when Pro is doing the exact same thing.I just assumed if he could do so then my opinions would be just as valid.", "qid": "36", "docid": "331dbe36-2019-04-18T14:51:04Z-00002-000", "rank": 23, "score": 141596.0}, {"content": "Title: Golf is the most mentally challenging sport and requires the most creativity and skill Content: Lets first address golf being a sport. The main argument against this is always the physical aspect, but u fail to see is the amount of energy exerted doesn't determine whether or not an activity is a sport. Your definitions proved golf is a sport because it is a physical activity, although it is not intense and by saying the definitions are vague, they are still the definitions, therefore your argument that golf is not a sport is pointless. Boxing can never be compared to golf in a mental aspect because in boxing there is no time to think. With your opponent constantly throwing punches at you, you can't think, u just react. In golf u actually have that time to think, if you just hit your ball in the trees, that whole walk u are thinking, \"I just lost the tournament\", or \"I'm such an idiot\". It is absurd to even compare the two, there is no other sport where a mental breakdown, can kill your entire game. You don't have any subs or anyone to relieve you, you have to power through your round. Your mind is pretty much your only asset and with the obstacles surrounding golf, it is constantly being attacked.", "qid": "36", "docid": "a452c48c-2019-04-18T17:19:37Z-00005-000", "rank": 24, "score": 141583.0}, {"content": "Title: Is golf a sport Content: I play golf and I practice every day, to my surprise I found that some people disagree with this being a sport. People who view this topic differently may suggest that golf doesn't have rigorous activity although I beg to differ. Golf isn't just the game itself it is the preparation and dedication along with it. As part of my training to be the best I include arm workouts, core workouts, and even lifting weights with my wrists. Many people who believe golf is not a sport have not done all of this preparation. Nor have they played 18 holes in the scorching sun while carrying an on average 20 pound bag. Then have to step up to the tee and give this shot your all. The truth is golf is a sport and that's final, so don't say how easy golf is without experiencing what I do, thank you.", "qid": "36", "docid": "331dbe36-2019-04-18T14:51:04Z-00005-000", "rank": 25, "score": 140705.0}, {"content": "Title: Golf is a sport Content: Once again, thank you for taking the time to make this debate happen. I would like to start off by asking a question to Con. If you think Golf isn't a sport, then why do sports agents, manufacturers, and sponsors consider golf to be a sport? Second, Golf is now returning to the Summer Olympics in 2016 and if golf wasn't a sport, it wouldn't be in the Olympics. While playing golf, you burn about 800 calories for every nine holes you play.", "qid": "36", "docid": "edab086a-2019-04-18T17:21:18Z-00001-000", "rank": 26, "score": 139925.0}, {"content": "Title: Golf is not a sport Content: Jlconservative, for future reference I have no harsh feelings towards your favoring of conserative government; just a light jab to keep you on your toes. Before I tie up my argument i'd like to point out that when you stated, \"...we might as well remove Hunting, Fishing, Krokae, Polo,Archery,Marksmanship, even surfing...\" you made quite a noticeable spelling error. Please clarify with me in your response if you meant to reference the golf-like sport of \"Croquet\", rather than your spelling of \"Krokae\". Yes, I do agree. If, golf is not a sport, then most of these \"sports\" should be removed from the list as well, which I believe they should. These \"sports\", much like golf, require little physical strain, training, or duress. Some of them even lack the concept of competition (fishing, hunting). What burns me up the most about this \"sport\" is how the media overhypes it. You can't turn on the TV without seeing an ad for the PGA Tour, the triumphs and tragedies of Tiger Woods, and the ridiculous amounts of money they earn by knocking a white ball into a hole. I can tolerate (to a point) the \"sports\" you referenced being referred to as \"sports\" mainly because they are avoided by the media, for the purpose that some take these \"sports\" as low thrill, leading to little interest. What sickens me the most is that the media has allowed golf to stand out among these hobbies. And heaven forbid that the \"gentleman's sport\" of golf goes down in history, right in there with baseball, as a great American pastime. Golf is not a sport.", "qid": "36", "docid": "bb04abe6-2019-04-18T19:54:49Z-00001-000", "rank": 27, "score": 139638.0}, {"content": "Title: does golf is a real sport Content: yes but thats why we are making this debate duh", "qid": "36", "docid": "f6c3ab3f-2019-04-18T16:53:00Z-00002-000", "rank": 28, "score": 139139.0}, {"content": "Title: Golf is the most mentally challenging sport and requires the most creativity and skill Content: I can name so many more sports that are so mentally challenging than golf. First off, is golf even a sport?? Webster's Dictionary defines the noun of \"sport\" as: a : a source of diversion : recreation b : sexual play c (1) : physical activity engaged in for pleasure (2) : a particular activity (as an athletic game) so engaged in \"A source of diversion\" - meaning something that diverts your attention, distraction essentially. So by that definition basically anything you do can be defined as a sport. If I paint my toenails as a means to divert my attention from something else... that's a sport. If I masturbate a gibbon as a distraction I'm engaging in a sport. If I paint a gibbon's toenails after having masturbated him... it's a sport. The second definition, \"sexual play\" refers to the use of \"sport\" as a synonym for sex which isn't really widely used anymore and doesn't apply to what we're talking about... although it may apply to the aforementioned gibbon. The third definition \"physical activity engaged in for pleasure\" is likewise vague and could describe anything you physically do for enjoyment, and the fourth definition is essentially the same as well.... like jerking off the gibbon. The Rose Center for Health and Sports Sciences in Denver attempted to argue that golf is indeed a sport because of the level of energy expended and the amount of calories burned (721 per round). Considering that an average golf round is 4 1/2 hours (according to Golf Digest) that translates to 160 calories an hour. By comparison they also found that an hour of billiards burns 216 calories, an hour of fishing 302, and a \"relaxed canoe trip\" 345. An hour of curling? Also 345. When your comparison falls short because more energy is expended during a \"relaxed canoe trip\" you FAIL. The only argument made here is that 18 holes of golf is \"okay exercise.\" By the way, I burned almost half that amount of calories (350) by walking at a relaxed pace on a treadmill for 30 minutes today. Trust me- treadmill walking is most definitely not a sport. http://billytrouson.blogspot.com... Read this article as it rants on how golf is not even a sport. I will now state how boxing is one of the most mentally challenging sports there is. I'm pretty sure we've all had our fair fist fights or wrestling, but how hard was it mentally fighting that person I ask those who are reading this? The average punch for any person depending on weight, body type, etc, can vary from person to person. The average for a average person can come at 14 MPH at one punch. Your brain only has a second to react. I encourage you to watch my video I will post here, as it is quite entertaining. http://www.youtube.com... Already I state various reasons why golf cannot even be compared as a sport & is not mentally challenging.", "qid": "36", "docid": "a452c48c-2019-04-18T17:19:37Z-00006-000", "rank": 29, "score": 139047.0}, {"content": "Title: Golf is a sport Content: Hello this is a debate about golf. Some people on DDO think that golf is not a sport.I believe that statement is false. So I will be challenging someone to a debate about this topic.DEBATE FORMAT;3 roundsThe voting period is 6 months.You get 72 hours to argueUp to 8000 characters. The First round shall be only acceptance.The second round, own arguments.and third round, countering the opponent. Good luck and remember, PLEASE HAVE FUN!", "qid": "36", "docid": "edab086a-2019-04-18T17:21:18Z-00005-000", "rank": 30, "score": 136583.0}, {"content": "Title: Golf is a sport Content: Oh yeah golf tournaments whoo so intense and so much fun for guys to watch them hit golf balls for 24 holes!!!! The only one tournament people really know is the masters!!!! I think this sport is more boring than nascar at least there you hear fast cars go by you!!!! All the excitement you will get watching golf is a hole in one or a stupid trick shot!!!!", "qid": "36", "docid": "edab08a8-2019-04-18T16:34:53Z-00000-000", "rank": 31, "score": 134393.0}, {"content": "Title: Is golf asport Content: GOLF IS NOT A SPORT!!!! They only motion that goes into golf is bending down the get the ball, bending down to put the ball on the ground, and swing. You said that they must walk all day, but they can drive in a GOLF cart.", "qid": "36", "docid": "2c13cc23-2019-04-18T16:11:23Z-00003-000", "rank": 32, "score": 133055.0}, {"content": "Title: Is golf a sport Content: Well apparently, anything Pro states is considered fact, regardless of the lack of evidence to support his claims.I too wish to possess such entitlement, but unfortunately I am not capable of making such declarations. I'll leave this up to the voters to decide if they choose to adopt Pro's view of factuality as their own.", "qid": "36", "docid": "331dbe36-2019-04-18T14:51:04Z-00000-000", "rank": 33, "score": 132755.0}, {"content": "Title: Golf is not a physical sport Content: Either Merritt doesn't want to aruge, or golf really isn't a physical sport.", "qid": "36", "docid": "6b8ef422-2019-04-18T16:45:09Z-00000-000", "rank": 34, "score": 131548.0}, {"content": "Title: NASCAR is a sport Content: Whoever said golf was a sport? There simply isn't enough athleticism involved in NASCAR for it to be a sport. its not just a matter of strength but one of physical exertion and ability. NASCAR isn't primarily dependent on atheltic ability. Under your interpretation things like darts and shuffleboard become sports. NASCAR isn't an athletic activity. Coordination is a mental ability. There is virtually no atheleticism involved and therefore isn't a sport.", "qid": "36", "docid": "c788fb1e-2019-04-18T19:50:24Z-00001-000", "rank": 35, "score": 131392.0}, {"content": "Title: does golf is a real sport Content: i think golf is not a real sport, because you dont make a physical exercise.", "qid": "36", "docid": "f6c3ab3f-2019-04-18T16:53:00Z-00004-000", "rank": 36, "score": 127199.0}, {"content": "Title: Golf is not a physical sport Content: Challenge accepted!", "qid": "36", "docid": "6b8ef422-2019-04-18T16:45:09Z-00003-000", "rank": 37, "score": 126767.0}, {"content": "Title: Golf is the most mentally challenging sport and requires the most creativity and skill Content: Well it looks like Pro has deleted his account.", "qid": "36", "docid": "a452c48c-2019-04-18T17:19:37Z-00001-000", "rank": 38, "score": 126379.0}, {"content": "Title: Golf is not a physical sport Content: My apologies for taking so long to post my first argument. Time has not been on my side lately. Golf, according to sporteology. com, is the 8th most popular sport in the world. [1] It has about 400 million fans across Europe and the USA, which, thankfully, allows a wealth of information to be available about the intricacies and physics of the sport. The \u201cPhysicality\u201d of Golf Two of the things that golf fans will run to when trying to defend it as a physical sport are: 1. The fact that players have to tote heavy bags of clubs around all day, and 2. The force of the swing. Let\u2019s start with the bags of clubs. These can get pretty heavy, ranging from 30-50 pounds. [2] So this obviously appears to be a valid argument concerning golf being a physical sport. But is it really as physical as other popular games? CalorieLab. com has a great average calorie calculator that shows you how many calories will be burned for a person of any weight. Let\u2019s look at the calories that will be burned for a 200-pound man in various sports. Basketball game: 637 calories/hour Boxing, sparring: 728 calories/hour Baseball: 364 calories/hour Football: 728 calories/hour Ice hockey: 637 calories/hour Rugby: 819 calories/hour Soccer: 837 calories/hour Now for our oh-so-physical game of golf: 319 calories per hour. Not exactly how you would want to lose weight. In fact, one can burn exactly the same amount of calories just shooting hoops, and MORE by skateboarding and fishing out of a stream with waders! [3] As a matter of fact, one can make a very strong case that NASCAR is much more physical than golf (and a LOT of sports in general). NASCAR drivers experience cockpits that heat up to 120 degrees Fahrenheit while wearing a firesuit, helmet and gloves. This causes them, by sweating, to lose 10 or more pounds in a single race, to say nothing about calories burned! They can experience 2-3 Gs of force in turns on a fast racetrack, roughly the same amount that astronauts experience during space shuttle launches. Forget open-wheel drivers, who sometimes deal with 4-5 Gs! Shaquille O\u2019Neal, an accomplished basketball player, took a few laps in a NASCAR race car and said he can\u2019t remember a game or practice that was more demanding. Show me a golf player who\u2019s bigger and stronger than Shaq! [4] [5] [6] Golf swing Golf fans also seem to cry out that learning to swing a golf club correctly is very difficult. I would agree that it is difficult to master accuracy and precision, but impossible? No, and physical, definitely not. According to golfswing. com , a golfer can put up to 4000 pounds, or 18,000 Newtons, of force on the ball. But according to Patrick Drane of the Baseball Research Center, a baseball player, who, by the way, has to reverse a ball coming at him at about 90 miles per hour, can put up to 8000 pounds of force on the ball, which works out to over 35,000 Newtons! ! [7] [8] Now we can look more in detail at the athletics involved. We can look all day at golf players that are in shape and compare them to other strong and fast athletes of other sports, but let\u2019s go the other way and look at the most out-of-shape players in professional sports. Perhaps the heaviest player in pro golf is Guy Boros. He weighs 265 pounds and is easily recognizable for his large girth. Boros has several parallels in pro baseball, namely Prince Fielder, who weighs 275, and David Ortiz, 250. But their weight doesn\u2019t limit their athletic ability. Prince Fielder has been called the \u201cstrongest man in baseball\u201d by his teammates, and David Ortiz bench presses 400 pounds. [9] [10] Now look at American football. Albert Haynesworth was one of the biggest and heaviest football players ever. But the 6\u20196, 350-pound monster ran a 4.82 second 40 yard dash at the combine (ok, he was 317 at the time) and could bench press 425 pounds. [11] [12] Can Guy Boros do any of this? He is overweight, and there\u2019s no indication he can bench press anything other than his bag of golf clubs. In other sports, however, athletes who have a lot of weight are also some of the strongest players in their respective sport. I might also point out that golf is a preferred sport among senior citizens, unlike baseball, basketball and football. Stewart Cink himself, a six-time PGA winner, has admitted that \u201cphysically, golf is not super-demanding. \u201d [13] So far, I am satisfied that I have shown that golf definitely is not \u201ccharacterized by especially rough and forceful physical activity. \u201d I do not deny that golf contains many skills that take a long time to master, but beyond that, it is not a physical sport. Carrying a bag of clubs around is not near as physical as a basketball game, a football game, a baseball game, or even driving through left turns for 3 hours. I look forward to Con\u2019s reply. Sources: [1] . http://www.sporteology.com... [2]. http://www.cleveland.com... [3]. http://calorielab.com... [4]. http://www.streetdirectory.com... [5]. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...[6]http://quest.nasa.gov...[7]http://www.golfswing.com.au...[8]http://www.uml.edu...[9]http://sports.espn.go.com...[10] . http://www.bostonglobe.com...[11] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[12] . http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...[13] . http://bleacherreport.com...", "qid": "36", "docid": "6b8ef422-2019-04-18T16:45:09Z-00002-000", "rank": 39, "score": 123205.0}, {"content": "Title: Golf is the most mentally challenging sport and requires the most creativity and skill Content: I will skip this round because i'll have 2 more rounds left.", "qid": "36", "docid": "a452c48c-2019-04-18T17:19:37Z-00002-000", "rank": 40, "score": 123112.0}, {"content": "Title: Ping Pong is More of a Sport than Golf Content: Negative case: Definition: Sport-noun: 1. an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc. (1) Noun: The part of speech that names a person, place, thing, or idea. In sentences, nouns generally function as subjects or as objects. (2) Adjective: A part of speech that describes a noun or pronoun. (3) Contention one: Nouns are not qualitative. Nouns are people, places, things, or ideas. If something falls under the category of being a noun, it is on the same level of being the aforementioned noun as every other noun that is the aforementioned noun. No sport can be \"more of a sport\" than another sport. Arguing that one sport is \"more of a sport\" would be like arguing that one sentence is more of a sentence than another sentence. A sport is the definition of a sport, therefore nothing may be more of a sport than a sport. My opponent agrees that \"Ping Pong is a very physically demanding SPORT. .. \" and \"golf on the other hand is a SPORT\" then they agree that both Ping Pong and golf are sports. If both are sports, and nothing can be more of a sport than a sport, then they are equal sports. Contention two: Golf is a more difficult sport to consistently win at. a) Sports are \"often of a competitive nature\", which means that the goal of the sport is to win. b) Ping pong directly sets two opponents (or four) against each other, and 'points' are made when an opponent makes an error that include such things as: \"Allowing the ball to bounce on one's own side more than once. Double hitting the ball. Allowing the ball to strike anything other than the racket. Causing the ball not to bounce on the opponent's half. \"(4) The player (or team) that reaches a point threshold first in considered the winner. c) Golf also directly sets opponents against each other, however, the number of opponents is normally much higher than the number of opponents in Ping Pong. (5) Naturally, the more opponents there are, the harder it is for any one player to consistently win. Also, golf courses are not nearly as controlled as Ping Pong tables, and it is therefore easier for variables to randomly cause a loss/victory. Golfers must not only beat their opponents, as is the sole task of Ping Pong players, but they must also beat random variables. Affirmation's case: My opponent did not define any terms, so as of now my definitions are the only definitions usable in this debate. My opponent's first claim is that \"Ping Pong is a very physically demanding sport and takes more skill and endurance than golf. \" Golf takes more skill than Ping Pong because the distance that a golf ball must be hit far exceeds the distance that a Ping Pong ball must be hit, and the golf ball must not only be hit far, it must be hit far with great accuracy. Sending a ball of roughly equal shape and size a farther distance with the same accuracy is inherently more skillful. Golf also requires more endurance than Ping Pong. Golf requires more strength than Ping Pong and therefore requires more endurance on a second by second basis. My opponent's second claim is that \"Ping Pong takes Hand Eye coordination and is also physically stressful to the body where golf on the other hand is a sport that any one can accomplish with some what success. This is a comparison of two very unlike things. My opponent compares two requirements of Ping Pong to the level of accomplishment that \"any one\" can succeed in. \"any one\" could also succeed in Ping Pong, for example: I beat my 3 year old next door neighbor because she could not return any of my serves. Golf also requires Hand Eye coordination and golf is more physically stressful to the body. Golf requires more strength because the distance that the golf ball is forced to travel is greater than the distance that the Ping Pong ball is forced to travel, which requires more force. More force expenditure from a body=more physically stressful to the body. My opponent's last claim is that \" A golf Ball is a stationary object that you have to hit with an oversize club , where as in Ping Pong the ball is always moving. \" I concede that a golf ball is stationary until it is hit and that a Ping Pong ball is generally not stationary until it is hit. However, I do not see how hitting a moving object a very short distance is in any way more skillful, physically stressful or \"more of a sport\" (1)-. http://dictionary.reference.com... (2)-. http://dictionary.reference.com... (3)-. http://dictionary.reference.com... (4)-. http://en.wikipedia.org... (5)-. http://en.wikipedia.org...", "qid": "36", "docid": "8b62fc9c-2019-04-18T19:14:51Z-00004-000", "rank": 41, "score": 122130.0}, {"content": "Title: Golf is the hardest sport Content: Golf is far from the hardest sport. An example of a sport that is harder is wrestling. Wrestling requires a higher level of physical ability than golf, and requires more mental ability as well. In wrestling if you do not pay attention for a second, you could lose the match. In golf if you lose concentration it results in a bad shot, not necessarily losing a tournament. The opposite effect happens on wrestling happens, you could lose instantly. As a wrestler for seven years and a golfer for five, i can promise you i speak the truth. I have won matches and lost matches because of a split second decision, but losing concentration in golf just means a bad shot. Wrestling requires more mental ability by far because you must focus, and react in a very short time.", "qid": "36", "docid": "7768222e-2019-04-18T17:59:36Z-00000-000", "rank": 42, "score": 121930.0}, {"content": "Title: Video gaming is not a sport Content: Video gaming does not fit the criteria to be an actual sport. The definition of a sport is \"An activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment:\" Baseball requires skill to be able to throw with such accuracy. Golf believe it or not takes a whole lot of skill to be able to hit the ball into a hole that\"s four and a half inches big. Video games take sitting in a chair and holding a controller or a mouse to be good at them. That\"s not a lot of skill, right? Firstly there is nothing physically exerting about sitting on a chair in front of a screen for hours on end. Sports require physical activity! If the people playing the video games were actually doing what they did on the screen in real life in some kind of monitor then that could be a sport but they\"re not. Sitting on a couch in a dark room for hours on end with energy drinks piled around is not the same as playing football against a real team that\"s ready to bulldoze your team into the ground just to win. The day that people think that moving your fingers is physically exhausting will be one sad day that I hope will not happen for a long time. Secondly gaming has no strategy. People say that first person shooter games have strategy like flanking the other team or setting up an ambush. But in reality most gamers usually don\"t talk to their pre-assigned team. Nor do they usually work together and even when they do, it\"s only to tell their teammates where the other team is. First person shooter games are all about looking through the scope of your gun a.k.a. the little dot in the middle of your screen that helps you with your aiming. There is no strategy in that. Even sports video games like Madden have no strategy. Do gamers seriously look at replays from their opponent\"s team to narrow down the list of plays that they should use? I doubt it. They probably just choose the coach\"s pick and coast with that. Chess is a mind sport. Video games are not. Where chess uses a complex strategy of moving chess pieces so that they will draw out the king, Street Fighter uses pressing buttons as fast as you can to beat up your opponent. That\"s not much of a mind sport material. Is shooting as many people as possible in a certain time limit a lot like chess? Not really, in fact that sounds more like the front lines of a war. And most first person shooter games have none of the strategy that it takes to actually win a real war. Video games can\"t even qualify to be a mind sport. Mashing the buttons on a controller until you get sore fingers and hand cramps is really not up to par with the strategy it takes to win at chess. Finally video games take no skill. If they actually required skill people would get frustrated with them because they see the game as too hard. That\"s why not everyone wants to play a sport. A sport is difficult because it requires skill. Video games are easy because they require no skill. Of course there\"s always those who talk about how fast gamers reactions are. Technically a gamer\"s reaction is only with the move of a finger on a controller with conveniently placed buttons. Compare that to having to react with your whole body to return a tennis serve that\"s going 140 mph. That is literally trying to lunge your whole body across the tennis court in less than half a second to return the serve. Think of all the goalies in sports like hockey and soccer that have to move their whole body to save a goal. The reaction time of a video gamer, even a professional is laughable compared to real sport reactions. When you really sum it up, video games are just entertainment and hobbies. Video games are not up to par with real sports. They lack the skill and physical exertion required in a sport and therefore do not qualify to be a sport.", "qid": "36", "docid": "a5088c85-2019-04-18T13:09:22Z-00002-000", "rank": 43, "score": 120830.0}, {"content": "Title: Golf is the most mentally challenging sport Content: Physicality aside - a round of golf will cause more mental fatigue than most (if not all) sports. Reasons include: - the decisions throughout a round of golf are extremely complex - in order to succeed, a high level of CONSTANT focus is required (in most sports - especially team sports - focus is only intermittent) - most sports rely on instinctual reactions/muscle memory as a form of decision-making - golf requires a longer decision-making process which is entirely based on achieving a particular state of mind (confident visualization) - this constant effort to achieve and maintain a state of mind is more mentally demanding - especially with regard to team sports which require only intermittent focus - personal accountability (not a team sport so there is no one sharing the responsibility of succeeding)", "qid": "36", "docid": "953298b6-2019-04-18T16:05:27Z-00003-000", "rank": 44, "score": 120580.0}, {"content": "Title: Gaming should be taken more seriously and be considered a real sport. Content: I concede that video games take skill. Very minimal skill. My opponent then claims that Battlefront is a casual game and therefore does not count as part of the video games that should count as sports. So just because golf seems like a casual sport, it isn't a sport? You cannot just kick out some games just because they do not fit the definition of what you're trying to say. That's like saying \"I don't like the A in Fur Elise so in not going to include it in the song.\" Suddenly because Battlefront is not a hardcore game it cannot be in the circle. Just because soccer is not a contact sport does not mean that it's not a sport. If you're going to try and make video games a sport you have to include all video games. My opponent then asks me a question. \"You imply that button mashing is all it takes to play video games, and I ask you, how many competitive matches of CS:GO have you played?\" Well isn't button mashing exactly what it takes to play a video game? Or do you not press the buttons on your mouse or controller? You probably see my logic now. Button mashing is all it takes to play a video game otherwise your game wouldn't work. Now I will pose a question to my opponent. How many games of competitive rugby have you played? If you have played rugby then you must realize that button mashing is a whole lot more easier than actual real rugby. In rugby you need to react fast or else you will be shoved into the dirt every time you get the ball. And by react, I mean actually reacting with your whole body. Not just by pulling a trigger that's been conveniently placed on your controller. If I pit you against a team of professional rugby players, you would be killed literally. (Unless your 6.5 tall and 350 pound, not in fat but in muscle) The skill that professional CSGO players have is quite laughable. Let see them do it in real life where they actually have to hold a gun, they actually have to hit a moving target, they actually have to reload their gun all the while trying not to get killed in real life. Now lets see the professional rugby players sitting down to a game of rugby on video games. They could easily learn how to play in under a minute. See the difference between real sports and video games. Like I said before video games bring the skill level of sports down. As a side note, try not to exaggerate something that you didn't actually do. It's not fair in debates like these. Then my opponent goes on to explain how CSGO has strategy. I laugh at that. Do you really study your opponent to know what move he'll make? Do you use three pronged attacks to take down an enemy unit? Do you set up ambushes that the enemy will walk into? War related video games take out the strategy in war. Do you really examine the game as being like a chess board? Do you make moves thinking five steps ahead? I thought that like my opponent said before that video games were suppose to be fun. My opponent explains why CSGO has strategy but the examples are very vague. Then my opponent says that snooker is a sport. To that I say, yes so what? Then my opponent claims that I am not looking deep enough into video games and that they are more than just mashing buttons. Then he goes off to explain all the features of CSGO. Yes I too could say that I go to lengths to get the perfect golf driver. I too could say that I've had them all tailored to my size. I have studied golf balls and aero dynamics and have perfected how many grooves a golf ball should have. I too could say that I study the golf course to know which way to hit the ball. I too could say that I study wind patterns everyday when I train to know how they effect my swing. I practice my swing everyday until it is perfected, etc. I know how deep I have to look. And I know that some video games are very amazing with such detailed story lines but FPS are not exactly deep. The truth is does my opponent now how deep to look in sports? It is not sports that are trying to qualify as sports, its video games. The problem with stereotypes is that for the majority, its true. Otherwise they wouldn't exist. Just like the stereotype, Asians are good at math. I understand that games can be challenging. I play them myself. What I don't understand is how pressing buttons can be considered skillful. A piano is technically pressing buttons but your using all your fingers and playing piano required musical knowledge and actual skill. The buttons on a controller are placed conveniently for the users hand and usually you aren't pressing ten buttons all at the same time over and over in different positions like you are in piano. Not are you pressing them as fast as you would on a piano. I appreciate gaming and all but I don't think that it should be considered a sport. The reason I have such disdain is because gaming is the lazy version of sports. Imagine your in a class with the same lazy person for your whole life. You work your butt off to stand out and do well while the lazy person does nothing. You both end up with the same job because suddenly the curriculum changed and now grades and doing well doesn't matter anymore. How would you feel towards that person? This is the exact same as I feel towards video games being a sport. There is nothing physical about sitting on a couch or chair pressing buttons while your eyes are glued to a screen. It's insulting to say that, that's the same as waking up early in the morning to go on a mile long run and then to practice your butt off until you feel dead with exhaustion to be a pro at your sport. Video games just cheat the whole system of a sport.", "qid": "36", "docid": "d7c904a0-2019-04-18T13:04:14Z-00002-000", "rank": 45, "score": 120052.0}, {"content": "Title: should video games be considered a sport Content: the definition of a sport is: \"an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc.\"", "qid": "36", "docid": "d6baaaf1-2019-04-18T12:08:55Z-00001-000", "rank": 46, "score": 119953.0}, {"content": "Title: Golf is better than soccer. Content: Golf is a wayyyyy better sport and dumb old soccer. Golf takes patients and you have to be good at it.....PLUS it makes wayy more money. Also you get alot of free cool things just for playing and get to play on beautiful golf courses on a big field.....who doesnt like that?!...And the BEST part is GOLF CARTS!! :P", "qid": "36", "docid": "2e6a0d7e-2019-04-18T19:25:29Z-00005-000", "rank": 47, "score": 118210.0}, {"content": "Title: Screw it I'm doing this again. Just pick a topic related to games. Content: The Definition of SportAlright, in order for this debate to take place, we may very well wind up spending a large portion of our time arguing as to what the definition of a sport is. My opponent, no doubt, will insist that sports require physical exertion; However, I will argue that that is not true. There are a selection of things that have been dubbed \"intellectual sports\", such as chess and poker. Both of these have been broadcast to ESPN before, and many consider them, albeit by loose definition, to be \"sports\".sources:(https://www.chess.com...)(http://londonchessconference.com...)Further, even if you do not believe these to be sports, a large number of people claim that golf is a sport. While golf does involve walking from one place to another, and thus physical exertion, there is no direct correlation between the player's fitness or physical exertion and the actual gameplay. Further, even though swinging a club does require physical activity, the goal is not to swing as hard as you can. Most times, I would assume, the game requires one to swing lightly or with a medium stroke, not exerting one's stamina or muscle to the extent that many others are. Skill and Strategy in Games I hope that my opponent's stance doesn't include \"Games require no/minimal skill/strategy, and therefore cannot be considered sports\", which, fortunately, I have no reason to believe that he or she will. This, quite simply, is false; If you are playing games that require no skill, then you are simply playing games that require no skill, which has no bearing on the gaming industry as a whole. Games can require large amounts of strategy and even certain skill sets, such as twitch reflexes and hand maneuverability(such as what you see in the youtube videos of Esports champions playing StarCraft. It is insane).Innocent Until Proven Guilty, Feasable Until Proven IllogicalThis next segment will not be proving my point, but simply stating that the only thing I can really say for why Esports deserve to be sports or not is \"why shouldn't they be?\". Both of my previous statements were premeditated counterpoints to points that may or may not even show up. I believe that, under the context of this debate, you need to prove why games cannot be a sport moreso than I need to prove that they can. I cannot easily counter your points until you make them. In other words: your move, con.", "qid": "36", "docid": "f81067da-2019-04-18T12:40:50Z-00005-000", "rank": 48, "score": 118062.0}, {"content": "Title: Golf is the most mentally challenging sport Content: extend", "qid": "36", "docid": "953298b6-2019-04-18T16:05:27Z-00000-000", "rank": 49, "score": 117927.0}, {"content": "Title: Golf is the most mentally challenging sport Content: extend", "qid": "36", "docid": "953298b6-2019-04-18T16:05:27Z-00001-000", "rank": 50, "score": 117927.0}, {"content": "Title: Ping Pong is More of a Sport than Golf Content: Ping Pong is a very physically demanding sport and takes more skill and endurance than golf. Ping Pong takes Hand Eye coordination and is also physically stressful to the body where golf on the other hand is a sport that any one can accomplish with some what success. A golf Ball is a stationary object that you have to hit with an oversize club , where as in Ping Pong the ball is always moving.", "qid": "36", "docid": "8b62fc9c-2019-04-18T19:14:51Z-00005-000", "rank": 51, "score": 117252.0}, {"content": "Title: Baseball is better than golf Content: Golf uses your mind in more ways than baseball does. Although it is more popular is some places, golf truly is one of the biggest sports in Florida and in California. Using a golf cart is optional, and it is more fun to watch golf on television. Easy.", "qid": "36", "docid": "a2449587-2019-04-18T16:24:07Z-00004-000", "rank": 52, "score": 117205.0}, {"content": "Title: Golf is the most mentally challenging sport Content: Resolution - Golf is the most mentally challenging sport Note : This is not one of the most mentally challenging sport but the most. There are a lot of things that contribute to what is mentally challenging. When we are saying mentally challenging in this type of debate, it is to be inferred as on balance. Meaning in general golf is the most mentally challenging sport. While I think Golf is one of the most skillful sports, I do not think it is one of the most mentally challenging ones. I will argue in favor of Chess Chess is a sport It is even recognized as a sport by the Olympics [1] Reasons chest is more difficult It makes you think minuets and moves in advance. While golf requires you to be skilled and have precision, chess requires you just not think about the current move you are making but moves you have to make in the future. A move you make at the present turn can cause a butterfly effect for moves in later turns. It is all strategy and planning, making yourself think ahead and trying to bait your adversary into moves that could be turns in length. Chess all requires the knowledge of multiple roles and how to play them well. Each pieces has a certain way in which it is to be used, and knowing how to use the pieces, knowing how your opponent will use the pieces, and trying to figure out the best way to use them is mentally challenging as well. People even use chess as a way to improve their mental capacities. While it can improve their chess game chess also helps some people improve their mentally ability in other areas. It is often used as a training tool, and has been used in history for the same reasons [2]. It has been primarily used throughout history in military education and teaching people to read their opponents actions and moves. [3] While golf has its mentally challenging moments, it is no where near as mentally challenging as chess [1] http://www.olympic.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://uni-nke.hu...", "qid": "36", "docid": "953298b6-2019-04-18T16:05:27Z-00002-000", "rank": 53, "score": 116944.0}, {"content": "Title: Golf is the most mentally challenging sport Content: I accept", "qid": "36", "docid": "953298b6-2019-04-18T16:05:27Z-00004-000", "rank": 54, "score": 116263.0}, {"content": "Title: Golf is the most mentally challenging sport and requires the most creativity and skill Content: Lets start with the mental aspect, golf is mentally draining. U have to constantly think about what will happen if u hit the ball too far or too short, or too much right or left. U have to be mentally strong to win and u have virtually no help. Only in golf do u have to hit between trees, off of twigs dirt, rocks, etc... U have to be able to create opportunity where it seems to be none. The skill aspect is is easily shown, the amount of skill it takes to battle the natural challenges, put together with bunkers and water hazards and anything else placed to make the course hard. Only in golf do you have to worry about if u hit the ball two yards too far, its in the bunker or water. Golf as a whole is just a demanding sport and requires the most mentally, skill wise and creativity.", "qid": "36", "docid": "a452c48c-2019-04-18T17:19:37Z-00007-000", "rank": 55, "score": 115972.0}, {"content": "Title: Golf is the hardest sport Content: Golf challenges not only requires physical fitness but you need to have the strongest mental game to succeed in golf therefor having the hardest sport", "qid": "36", "docid": "7768222e-2019-04-18T17:59:36Z-00001-000", "rank": 56, "score": 115358.0}, {"content": "Title: Competitive computer games should be the part of Olyimpics games. Content: :)Objection #1 You raised the sports, shooting, curling, and golf as not applicable to the criteria I set forth in my argument. This I believe is incorrect, all three of these sports require physical skills and therefore fall under the label of athletic sports. Shooting: This sport requires proficiency with the given fire-arm that involves a tremendous amount of physical accuracy and speed. Curling: This sport also much like shooting requires a great deal of physical skill and control, even including a team aspect. Golf: Golf involves physical strength and accuracy not uncommon to the existence of other sports invovlved in the Olympics. Objection #2You claim that my statemen regarding the Olympics being a historically athletic competition to be false. Your support for this objection is the short history of Cycling, BMX or Mountain biking. This to me appears to be a misunderstanding of my argument, my contention is that the Modern Day Olympic Games are an adaptation of the Olympic Games of ancient Greece,[1] which involve a series of athletic sporting events. Modern sports can and should be added if approriate to the nature of the competition, this is not so for Video Games as it is demonstrably not a athletic sport. Objection #3 You assert that the existence of trolls in every sport should not discount the inclusion of Video games from the Olympics. This still fails to realize the vast difference in levels of professionalism and sportsmanship between Olympic athletes, and E-Sport superstars. The players themselves are largely not to blame, but the overall volatile communities that foster avenues for online bullying due to the fact it is completely anoymous. Objection #4 Clarified my argument to show your \"disproving\" my primary argument as invalid and a misrepresentation of my assertion. Objection #5 Video games simply have no place in the summer or winter olympics, the viewership for all the events can be just about universally appreciated by the global audience, and this attempt to draw a comparision I believe fails in that I can enjoy the skill one evidently has in diving, without participating in that sport myself. Video games are a much more specific fan base and most importantly are NOT athletic sports and therefore should have their separate venues for competition where the struggling players actually make money. All I have time for, for now. Kindest Regards,TrueScotsman", "qid": "36", "docid": "126ee163-2019-04-18T17:04:43Z-00002-000", "rank": 57, "score": 115071.0}, {"content": "Title: Golf is the most mentally challenging sport and requires the most creativity and skill Content: For the time that Pro was here he put up a good argument, Pro if you see this please make another account & add me we can debate again about this. But also just because Pro is not here doesn't mean I'm going to just stop debating, I'm a winner I want to win this debate. Through a boxers mentality he or she has to constantly keep in mind & that he can get hit or dropped in a blink of an eye. Boxers fight from 2-3 minutes & must be aware & cautious at ALL times, but in golf you only have to think for about 30 seconds because I'm assuming that's the average time a golfer uses to swing the club. Is the boxer going to uppercut to the gut, or jab 4 times to the face? If a boxer gets hit hard just one time this can take away his confidence because it can make him question \"can I keep up with him?\" or if you are giving your full force on every punch you throw & you see your punches are not phasing his or her opponent this can make the boxer question his own strength, for example: \"Are my punches that hard? Am I throwing them hard enough\"? This can make the boxer throw more punches & drain his or her stamina.", "qid": "36", "docid": "a452c48c-2019-04-18T17:19:37Z-00000-000", "rank": 58, "score": 115059.0}, {"content": "Title: Golf is the most mentally challenging sport and requires the most creativity and skill Content: I can see how my aforementioned statements can be taken as me saying boxing takes no mental skill, that is not my opinion. Yes the pressure of a crowd, does a lot to a athlete mentally, but as u said, it can equally be said that no crowd can create the same mental strain. Without a crowd, there is no way to distract yourself from the millions of things going on in your mind. My opponent stated,\"Mayweather just got knocked out, through his mental state of mind how is he gonna come back? Does he come back swinging harder?...\". If mayweather was knocked out he doesn't have to think anymore because the fight is over. This brings me to my point, in Golf there is no premature end. Yes u can replace the ball that you hit in the water, but you have to continue your round thinking about what had just gone wrong. However there is not just the crowd there to add mental stress there are also elements such as weather to take into account, unlike in boxing. In golf, you constantly are at the mercy of mother nature and she is very unpredictable. Dealing with 20mph right to left winds is definitely mentally taxing, especially if u are one stroke back at a major championship. Remember u are trying to get a small ball into a slightly larger hole, up to around 600 yards away, there is a lot that can go wrong in that stretch. So I respond to you saying i'm not educated in the sport of boxing, with have u ever played 18 holes, let alone 72 holes, i doubt it because you would understand the constant mental stress. So you my dear sir are not educated in the sport of golf", "qid": "36", "docid": "a452c48c-2019-04-18T17:19:37Z-00003-000", "rank": 59, "score": 114515.0}, {"content": "Title: Should marching band be considered a sport Content: I am sorry I could not post on the second round, I was without internet for a while. That said, I shall respond to both of your rounds in this final round. You say that what we do is not physical exertion. The definition of physical exertion, according to thefreedictionary.com, is \"physical exertion - the activity of exerting your muscles in various ways to keep fit;\" As someone who obviously has never experienced the practices, not to mention band camp, you can not make such vastly incorrect claims. Tell me, is running 2 miles not physical exertion? Is the same true about holding an instrument weighing anything from a 3 pound flute to a 40 pound sousaphone at a 30 degree angle above horizon for upwards of 9-12 minutes at a time, all while not acquiring a proper amount of oxygen. From other other claim that playing frisbee with a dog is not a sport, it can be, although more so for the dog than the person. As I recognize that I am going off topic, I will refresh my argument. Golf is considered a sport, yet requires a very small amount of effort compared to marching band. The same is true for curling and ping pong. Aside from that, saying that during a practice or show all we do is walk and play simultaneously is quite absurd. Although it doesn't mean much to you, marching a 4/5 at 180 BPM ( in layman's terms, marching 5 yards in 4 steps at 180 bpm. To break it down further, you would be marching 3 steps, each of a length of 1.25 yards, in 1 second, or 3.75 yards a second, which would mean you are moving at 7.670455 miles per hour, all while still having to keep an up to 40 pound instrument from moving at all.). Going to your point about physical exertion is all about improving ones fitness. Throughout the marching season (which started in early june), not eating or exercising any differently, I have lost over 20 pounds. In 5 months. Aside from this, the average temperature during band camp was roughly 105 degrees, without heat index. With heat index, the average was 125 degrees, all with only getting water ever 2 hours. The temperature got to 140 degrees, at which nearly 5% of the band passed out. In conclusion, the absurd statement that you can say without a doubt something you have never done is easy and requires little physical effort completely invalidates your entire argument. You have absolutely no experience in the matter, which means any statement you make about how much effort it takes is completely opinionated, biased, and false. Thank you for a wonderful debate.", "qid": "36", "docid": "90199824-2019-04-18T14:13:56Z-00001-000", "rank": 60, "score": 114162.0}, {"content": "Title: Should games be considered as a sport Content: By every dictionary I've been able to find, a sport requires a physical effort. Debating is not a sport. Although it requires mental effort, it still doesn't make the cut.Dictionary.com (1) - an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of acompetitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling,wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc. - a particular form of this, especially in the out of doors.Oxford (2)- An activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment.Learner's Dictionary (3)- a contest or game in which people do certain physical activities according to a specific set of rules and compete against each otherCambridge (4)- a game, competition, or similar activity, done for enjoyment or as a job, thattakes physical effort and skill and is played or done by following particular rules:The simple fact of the matter is that the term sport simply doesn't fit. We call them E-sports for a reason, because they're not real sports. They need a new name (Hence the E- part of it) because it's not an actual sport.Now the question is whether or not it should be. The simple answer is no. Why should we change definitions because of a new trend? Leave sports physical and come up with your own term, or your own title.(1) - http://www.dictionary.com...(2) - https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...(3) - http://www.learnersdictionary.com...(4) - http://dictionary.cambridge.org...", "qid": "36", "docid": "895fbbe-2019-04-18T12:03:45Z-00000-000", "rank": 61, "score": 112385.0}, {"content": "Title: Ping Pong is More of a Sport than Golf Content: Thanks for the prompt response, this is also my first debate. .. on debate. org at least. Mr. Pote is my father. My opponent concedes to my definition of a sport and that \"If both are sports, and nothing can be more of a sport than a sport, then they are equal sports. \" This is found at the end of my first contention. The most important part of this quote is \"nothing can be more of a sport than a sport\". Since we have already agreed that both golf and Ping Pong are sports, then neither of them can be \"more of a sport\" than the other. The resolution is impossible to affirm. My opponent makes several arguments against my second contention, subpoint c). The first argument is that the majority of golf games are in tournaments, and that \"there can be just as many opponents in a ping pong tournament as a golf tournament\". I will concede this point, that there are EQUAL numbers of opponents in each of the tournaments. The second argument is that ping pong is more difficult to consistently win because each player must play multiple games in order to win. My opponent does not cite a specific number of games. In each golf tournament each player must play 18 holes. If we use the example of 25 competitors per tournament this comes out to 450 holes per tournament. Each hole is a competition that can literally cause a player to lose the entire tournament. The third and final attack on my case is that there are variables that affect ping pong, including \"paddles(size and weight of paddles), balls(weight of balls), table(what tables are made of), ect. \" My opponent agrees that there are more variables affecting golf though, so even if there are variables affecting ping pong they do not overpower the variables affecting golf. Thus, golf is more affected by variables and is therefore harder to consistently win at. My opponent asks \" Generally is golf not played on nice days with little wind? \", and the answer would be yes. The key word in his question is generally, which leaves room for golf to be played on not so nice days and/or with a lot of wind. Ping pong does not have any of these variables ever because it is played indoors or under controlled circumstances. I would like to note that my opponent does not offer any arguments against my first contention, or my subpoints a) or b). I will try to show the importance of these points in my next round. My opponent then goes on to defend his case. He defines Skill as \"competent excellence in performance; expertness; dexterity\" I accept this definition. He says that \"Skill is not defined by the distance hit but the accuracy of the ball hit\" I do not see accuracy anywhere in the agreed upon definition of skill, but I will argue that golf requires more accuracy than Ping Pong. My opponent fails to recognize that in a larger area there are more points that can be the possible landing spots of a ball. It requires more accuracy to hit a single point 100 yards away than to hit a single point 1 yard away because of all the variables affecting the ball while it is in the air. This can be cross applied to my variables argument in subpoint c) of my contention 2. A golf ball stays in the air for a much longer period of time and therefore variables have more of an effect on its final stopping point. Variables lead to inaccuracy, which means that golf requires more accuracy to compensate for the variables affecting the golf ball. My opponent argues that \"It takes more skill to hit a ping pong ball in the exact spot that will make your opponent to miss than it does to hit a golf ball in the general vicinity of something on a huge golf course\" but the golf tournament victors do not simply hit a golf ball in any \"general vicinity\". There are many examples of incredible accuracy including the above video. . http://www.youtube.com... My opponent also argues that \"the distance is irrelevant. \", which would mean that golf and ping pong require the same level of accuracy, which would negate the resolution. My opponent agrees that he was comparing two very unlike things and that means that they cannot be accurately used to compare golf and ping pong, so the comparison he made in his first case is moot. My opponent then argues that the force required to hit a ping pong ball across the table is greater than the force required to hit a golf ball across the course. He cites that Force=Mass x Acceleration and plugs in a few numbers to calculate the force for each sport. His math is incorrect. 115 grams x 78 m = 8.970 Newtons is correct. (m is actually the incorrect unit for acceleration, but I assume he means m/s2, that is, meters divided by seconds squared)(1) However, 77 grams x 1.875 m would actually be .144375 Newtons. It's .077 x 1.875. I hope that this was a simple decimal error and not a deliberate attempt to skew facts by not converting the 77 grams that a ping pong ball weighs into .077 kilograms. The weight of a golf ball was properly converted into kilograms. Newtons are \"the force required to accelerate a one kilogram mass at a rate of one meter per second squared\"(2) This means that the force required to send a golf ball the distance that golf balls are sent is much greater than the force required to send a ping pong ball the distance that ping pong balls are sent. This does not take into account constant motion however, but there have been no calculations done as to the force required for constant motion and thus it cannot be proved that constant motion is more stressful than the difference in force between golf and ping pong. My opponent's last argument includes is that \"In every type of action it is harder to hit a moving object\". This is actually false. The direction of movement is what matters. My opponent brings up the example of hunting deer and how it is more difficult \" to kill it as it is running away\", but this is only based on the direction of the movement of the deer. If the deer were running in a straight line in the same direction as the hunter fires the bullet in, the deer will be hit. Likewise, if a ping pong ball is sent towards your paddle, it requires no effort on your part to hit it. It does require some effort to hit a golf ball and some effort is more than no effort. I realise that professional ping pong players do not send the ball directly into their opponent's paddle, but so far I have no reason to think that the effort required to hit a moving ping pong ball a short distance is greater than the effort required to hit a stationary golf ball a very large distance, especially when the golf ball has so many variables affecting it. (1)-. http://en.wikipedia.org... (2)-. http://en.wikipedia.org...", "qid": "36", "docid": "8b62fc9c-2019-04-18T19:14:51Z-00002-000", "rank": 62, "score": 112308.0}, {"content": "Title: Baseball is better than golf Content: Rebuttals- \"and it is more fun to watch golf on television. \"I think it is more fun to watch baseball on television. \"golf truly is one of the biggest sports in Florida and in California\"Florida and California for golf well that is only 2. Baseball has much more.", "qid": "36", "docid": "a2449587-2019-04-18T16:24:07Z-00003-000", "rank": 63, "score": 112164.0}, {"content": "Title: Major League Gaming a sport Content: I dont think it is a sport i know.....For 1 it is on Espn.com.....which is the most known Sport network site in the world...2. the Def. of a sport is an \"activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature such as : Tennis, Racing, Golf, Ect.", "qid": "36", "docid": "4b7e0d28-2019-04-18T19:28:51Z-00009-000", "rank": 64, "score": 112020.0}, {"content": "Title: Basketball is worse than golf! Content: Basketball is defined as, a game played between two teams of five players, in which goals are scored by throwing a ball through a netted hoop fixed at each end of the court. Basketball is popular world wide and is suitable for all ages http://channels.isp.netscape.com.... Golf and basketball are similar in few ways according to http://thegratefulgolfer.com..., but how good are they in terms of your health? Basketball is definitely a faster running game compared to golf. To play golf though, you have to have patience and good eye sight, which could fail some people. Basketball is definitely much better than golf for the fitness reasons of (http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au...): -burn calories (an hour of basketball can burn 630\u2013750 calories)-build endurance-improve balance and coordination-develop concentration and self-discipline-build up muscle-take care of your body more (stretches/warmup/warm down)Basketball is a more competitive sport compared to golf. Making you work towards something, and hopefully achieving it. This might be as simple as wining a game or be a fluent shooter. People at all ages can play it, and all you need to practice is a ball and a hoop. Basketball is played by people of all ages and all abilities, meaning you can challenge yourself. If you want to be the best at basketball, you do specialised training. This evolves sprints, jumping, core, strength and conditioning and more. As basketball is played all year round and is mainly an indoor sport, so you can aim to be fit all year.Children at all levels can enjoy the game too whilst making friends. As golf only evolves a small amount of people, basketball has at least 10 players each game. http://www.livestrong.com....Wheel chair basketball is also an option for people who have disabilities or have had an accident. However, it stops you from being able to play golf. Wheel chair basketball is most likely one of the best sports for people who have disabilities.In addition, basketball is much more preferable than golf. Linking it to higher fitness levels, more people to socialise with, get to be more motivated and everyone can participate in basketball.", "qid": "36", "docid": "b032fa0a-2019-04-18T15:02:37Z-00000-000", "rank": 65, "score": 111317.0}, {"content": "Title: Golf is the most mentally challenging sport and requires the most creativity and skill Content: You obviously did not read the article I posted. If your going to debate, you must listen to all statements. You are completely arrogant to my fact I stated above, & are COMPLETLEY blind to boxing using no mental skills. My opponent said \"Boxing can never be compared to golf in a mental aspect because in boxing there is no time to think.\" Really? last I checked boxing fights in arenas like MGM Grand & Pay-Per-View fights, you have millions of peoples eyes on you. You feel the pressure yet? Lets get inside the ring (Fake dramatized mini novel about boxing. *Ding Ding Ding* \"Round 8 has begun and it's one hell of a fight here in Las Vegas MGM grand, Manny Pacquiao & Floyd Mayweather are putting a heck of a show on tonight for us ladies and gentleman. Mayweather throws a right jab, Manny takes the punch, Mayweather Swings & misses! OH! Manny hits Mayweather with a hammer right hand & he's down! can he get up!? Referee: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7, .... Mayweather gets up!\" This is just an example of a fight how the intensity can be & how the pressure can easily fall on you. Understand what I'm saying ok? Mayweather just got knocked out, through his mental state of mind how is he going to come back? Does he come back swinging hard? Does he just run around & play safe & wait to talk to his trainer? Behind your back you have half the stadium screaming \"Pac-man Pac-man!\". Do you feel the pressure yet?? This can be for any boxer, contenders, sparing, a belt fight, even just two high school kids fighting over a girl. As for golf though... You just hear the announcer say: \"Ok Tiger Woods is up, everyone be quiet now... he swings, oh! A miss!\" Yeah I understand how the awkwardness of a quiet zone focusing on one person can be hard but that is absolutely noting compared to boxing. One more thing, my opponent says: \"With your opponent constantly throwing punches at you, you can't think, u just react. In golf u actually have that time to think, if you just hit your ball in the trees, that whole walk u are thinking, \"I just lost the tournament\", or \"I'm such an idiot. It is absurd to even compare the two, there is no other sport where a mental breakdown, can kill your entire game.\" Well excuse me but last I checked a knockout can end the game. As for golf you can hit it into the water and be like, \"Oh it's ok, I'll just put another ball here by the water\". Either my opponent just is irrelevant or just uneducated about the sport of boxing. To wrap this up, an environment can effect you anywhere! But if there's a million people watching what you are doing, that's two-million eyes on you.", "qid": "36", "docid": "a452c48c-2019-04-18T17:19:37Z-00004-000", "rank": 66, "score": 110141.0}, {"content": "Title: Chess is a sport Content: I'm always up for a challenge, and this is defiantly one. In this particular game, one has to wonder what the meaning of the word \"sport\" is on order to fully understand the context. If you go by the most popular definition, then no it is not a sport. Sport- 1. an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc. Chess is not a sport, but it is an extremely challenging intellectual game. Board game- noun 1. a game, as checkers or chess, requiring the moving of pieces from one section of a board to another. 2. any game played on a board.", "qid": "36", "docid": "1979ed8c-2019-04-18T16:51:56Z-00003-000", "rank": 67, "score": 109698.0}, {"content": "Title: Swimming should not be considered a sport Content: Thank you for joining this debate, First I will rebutt my opponents points and then move on to my own. My opponent stated that \"Swimming like many other competitive events is not a sport. A sport is something that you can play against some one else. Any event that you can compete against yourself should not be considered in the realm of sports.\" Swimming is an event that you can compete against others, when your swimming against someone else you are competing against them. You are competing against yourself and you are competing with the other teams as well. Second \"I myself am on a swim team in Rapid City, South Dakota. It is certainly a skill. A skill that many including myself don't have. I want to ask you a question.\" I also am on a swim team and I know that to win a swimming championships you need the best times, so you are always competing against yourself but you are also competing against others as well. Third \"Is speed skateboarding a sport? It is basically the same thing it has rules and the first one back wins. Yes for every one out there I don't consider track or golf a sport either. For a sport it needs to have to have multiple teams to be played. With that I am open to your refutations.\" By what you described speed skateboarding as yes it would be considered a sport, because you are competing against another person right? Then overall speed skateboarding is like nascar. Also golf and track are sports to because not only does the whole world consider them they both are competitions. In the PGA tours it is all about golf players COMPETING against each other so it is a sport, and for track runners we have a whole olympic event for this plus you are competing against other nations making it a sport. Thank you,", "qid": "36", "docid": "3bbff083-2019-04-18T19:52:50Z-00001-000", "rank": 68, "score": 109679.0}, {"content": "Title: Ping Pong is More of a Sport than Golf Content: Mr. Pote I am an eighth grader from Kansas and have had no formal debate class or any class for that matter so I will try my hardest to be formal and give you an opposing case (this is also my first debate ever) so here we go. My opponent gives the definition of a sport and says that \"If both are sports, and nothing can be more of a sport than a sport, then they are equal sports.\" I agree with this and will not oppose this statement. Contention two:(c) \"Golf also directly sets opponents against each other, however, the number of opponents is normally much higher than the number of opponents in Ping Pong.\" (5) \"Naturally, the more opponents there are, the harder it is for any one player to consistently win.\" Golf is a game played in tournaments most of the time (unless you are playing a single game which is not how the professionals play) Ping Pong is also a sport that is played in tournaments so therefore there can be just as many opponents in a ping pong tournament as a golf tournament. if a tournament in golf consists of 25 people and a ping pong tournament consists of 25 people, ping pong is actually the harder game to consistently when at because there are more chances for mistakes because you will have to play more than just one game but multiple games to be the winner of the tournament. \"Also, golf courses are not nearly as controlled as Ping Pong tables, and it is therefore easier for variables to randomly cause a loss/victory. Golfers must not only beat their opponents, as is the sole task of Ping Pong players, but they must also beat random variables.\" golf does have more variables than ping pong but there are also variables in ping pong such as paddles(size and weight of paddles), balls(weight of balls), table(what tables are made of), ect. Generally is golf not played on nice days with little wind? http://www.golflink.com... http://www.usatt.org... \"Golf takes more skill than Ping Pong because the distance that a golf ball must be hit far exceeds the distance that a Ping Pong ball must be hit, and the golf ball must not only be hit far, it must be hit far with great accuracy. Sending a ball of roughly equal shape and size a farther distance with the same accuracy is inherently more skillful.\" SKILL-competent excellence in performance; expertness; dexterity Skill is not defined by the distance hit but the accuracy of the ball hit so that is what I would like to zero in on. It takes more skill to hit a ping pong ball in the exact spot that will make your opponent to miss than it does to hit a golf ball in the general vicinity of something on a huge golf course. Lets compare the size of one hole to the size of a tennis table. My opponent states that the balls are of about the same size and equal in shape. That just means that you have to hit a bigger ball (in comparison to the playing space) in a smaller space and more accurate at that. Also you have to hit a heavier ball with a heavier club so the distance is irrelevant. \"This is a comparison of two very unlike things. My opponent compares two requirements of Ping Pong to the level of accomplishment that \"any one\" can succeed in. \"any one\" could also succeed in Ping Pong, for example: I beat my 3 year old next door neighbor because she could not return any of my serves\" I agree these are two different things \"Golf also requires Hand Eye coordination and golf is more physically stressful to the body. Golf requires more strength because the distance that the golf ball is forced to travel is greater than the distance that the Ping Pong ball is forced to travel, which requires more force. More force expenditure from a body=more physically stressful to the body.\" In ping pong you must move around constantly to keep a ball in play in golf on the other hand you move to the tee and swing then jump in the golf court and ride to where the ball is that is not very physical at all. I disagree you must hit a golf ball with equal force as you do a ping pong ball because. F=M*A M=115 grams A=78 m times a equals 8.97 Newton's - this is for a golf ball F=M*A M= 77 grams A=1.875 m times a equals 144.375 - this is for ping pong scientifically by your standards more force is required for ping pong so the statement of mine saying \"Ping Pong takes Hand Eye coordination and is also physically stressful to the body\" is correct! That does not include the constant motion either. http://www.streetdirectory.com... http://www.ajdesigner.com... http://golf.about.com... http://hypertextbook.com... http://www.jayandwanda.com... \"I concede that a golf ball is stationary until it is hit and that a Ping Pong ball is generally not stationary until it is hit. However, I do not see how hitting a moving object a very short distance is in any way more skillful, physically stressful or \"more of a sport\"\" Once again I agree that is no more of a sport than golf but also once again the size of the playing field determines accuracy which is the definition of skill. In every type of action it is harder to hit a moving object. take hunting for example it is easier to hit a deer that does not know you are there to shoot him than it does to kill it as it is running away. http://dictionary.reference.com...", "qid": "36", "docid": "8b62fc9c-2019-04-18T19:14:51Z-00003-000", "rank": 69, "score": 109553.0}, {"content": "Title: Video games are a sport Content: Sounds like this will be an interesting discussion. My opponent brings up the argument that video games are not a sport due to lack of physical activity. Pro argues that other activities with little physical activity are considered sports, but he does not challenge the fact that video games lack physical activity. Since we are agreed on this, I will use it as my Contention 1: Video games lack physical activity. Video games, such as Star Craft, which Pro mentioned, can require a variety of mental skills, as well as good vision and hand-eye coordination. However, one thing they do not require is physical activity, which is something Pro confirms. My opponent uses dictionary.com, which is not at all a problem in the context of this debate. However, if we dig deeper, we can find that Pro trunucated his definition of \"sport\". Normally, this is not a problem, and such an action can often be justified for the sake of brevity, but in this case, the full definition has more useful information to consider: \"an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc.\" This definition provides not only criteria for inclusion, but a variety of examples, including racing, (maybe not auto racing, but this works just as well) which is considered a sport due to the physical stamina that is necessary on account of the moderate G-forces that riders experience, and golf, which requires physical skill to control the ball with a wide variety of clubs and in many circumstances. This can be expressed as Contention 2: Sports require physical activity. I could stop right here, but it might also be very useful to return to dictionary.com. If a sport is an \"athletic activity...\" the definition of \"athletic\" might be useful here: \"of or relating to athletes; involving the use of physical skills or capabilities, as strength, agility, or stamina\" These are our established criteria for a sport. Sports involve physical activities or capabilities. We could discuss why video games do not meet these criteria, but that is unnecessary, since Pro argues that they do not, and we are in agreement on this. To conclude, let me explain my stance on the other four activities my opponent mentioned: Curling, chess, competitive eating, and poker. Curling involves the physical abilities to release a stone with vital accuracy in speed and direction, and to manipulate its trajectory by shaving the ice with technique and accuracy. These are physical activities. Conclusion: Sport. Chess is said by some to be a sport because professional games, which can last for six or even seven hours, require stamina and endurance. However, chess has always been a primarily mental activity, and it can be enjoyed just as well at faster time controls, in which games can be done in under two hours. The physical aspect does not play a role in most contexts. Conclusion: Not a sport. Competitive eating involves at its core a physical skill, the ability to ingest large amounts of food in a short time. Conclusion: Sport. Poker, like chess, involves mental skill and decisions. One could argue that it also involves the ability to psychologically interpret opponents, and keep them from doing the same to you. However, this again is a mental activity, not a physical one. Conclusion: Not a sport. The word \"sport\" can mean a wide variety of things. It does not only involve brute force, as in American football or wrestling, or endurance, as in long-distance running or soccer, but more subtle physical abilities, as in archery or golf. Video games are not a sport, since they primarily involve mental and not physical abilities.", "qid": "36", "docid": "c82afe8b-2019-04-18T14:35:31Z-00002-000", "rank": 70, "score": 109405.0}, {"content": "Title: NASCAR is a sport Content: The definition of coordination is \"Harmonious functioning of muscles or groups of muscles in the execution of movements.\". That sounds like it has a lot to do with athletics. In fact coordination is the key to athletics in every sport; soccer, basketball, tennis, etc. Where do you draw the line? According to you Nascar and Golf are not sports because the athletes are not always in great shape. By this logic baseball also is not a sport since many baseball players have big guts and cannot move well. I challenge you to tell us: What other sports that are widely accepted as sports are not sports? and where do you draw the line? Are you simply trying to rewrite the definition of sports? My theory is that you look down on Nascar people. You are a snob and you are just trying to feel better about yourself by bringing it down. You could never drive Nascar, it's a sport that goes way over your head.", "qid": "36", "docid": "c788fb1e-2019-04-18T19:50:24Z-00000-000", "rank": 71, "score": 109205.0}, {"content": "Title: Golf is better than soccer. Content: AFFIRMATIVE ARGUMENTS Golf takes patience. This statement might be true but that's about the only skill you need. In soccer you have to have GREAT coordination, dribbling skills, shooting skills, blocking skills, guarding skills Makes way more money If you take the average of all the money that golfers make and take the average of all the money that soccer players make.. soccer players will have alot higher average free cool things you get free things from soccer also it is a sport and sports have sponsors which means free things... and plus cool is entirely an opinion so there's no way she can prove this argument. You get to play on beautiful courses on a big field soccer just so happens to also be on a big field. and beautiful yet again is an opinion. Golf Carts what makes golf carts so great. there is no reasoning for her argument.(another opinion) NEW ARGUMENTS Soccer is the biggest sport in the world without a doubt and is the number one sport in just about every country including asia and africa. i have a quot from articlebase.com stating \"there was a global television audience of 49 billion people for the 2002 World Cup alone.\" Soccer is just as hard as golf if not harder. also from articlebase.com stating \"This game can be as frustrating as golf, as physical as football and hockey, as erratic as baseball, and as exciting as basketball.\" and I also had a question for the pro.. do you believe that soccer players or golfers are more respected in the world (note how i said world and not america)", "qid": "36", "docid": "2e6a0d7e-2019-04-18T19:25:29Z-00004-000", "rank": 72, "score": 108994.0}, {"content": "Title: Basketball is worse than golf! Content: All you have to do is hit the boall and go after it. It is much more fun compared to basketball. Firstly, golf is ann enjoyablle and relaxed way to get excersice whilst also doing a sportt. Seckondly, it is a moore sociall way to get to know people. Alll ages can get envolved and it is great for a family day oout. Thirdly, . http://www.walkthewalkpresents.com... golf doesn't cause any injuries and is a healthy way to get more flexible. In conklusion, it is good for alll ages, you get more fit comparred to basketball and flexible, it is more simple and has less rules. . http://www.braintraining101.com... has prove!", "qid": "36", "docid": "b032fa0a-2019-04-18T15:02:37Z-00001-000", "rank": 73, "score": 108295.0}, {"content": "Title: Ping Pong is More of a Sport than Golf Content: Thanks again for the debate, it certainly has been fun. My opponent starts of his last round with a counter argument to my 450 tee offs argument. He calculates the number 21,168, which I will accept. 21,168 divided by 450 is 47.04, so there are 47.04 times as many swings in ping pong as there are in golf. I'll plug in both the force from swinging a ping pong paddle/golf club and ping pong ball/golf ball. Newtons are, as I quoted in my second round:\"the force required to accelerate a one kilogram mass at a rate of one meter per second squared\" This means that we must plug in kilograms, not grams. Ping pong paddle: 77 GRAMS x 1.875 m/s2 which is equal to .077 KILOGRAMS x 1.875 m/s2. This is .144375 Newtons. Golf club:115 GRAMS x 78 m/s2 which is equal to .115 KILOGRAMS x 78 m/s2. This is 8.970 Newtons. If we divide the force to swing a golf club (8.970) by the force to swing a ping pong paddle (.144375) we get 62.129870. This is much larger than 47.04, so it requires more force to swing a golf club 450 times than to swing a ping pong paddle 21,168 times. I'll plug in the new numbers that my opponent got for a ping pong ball and golf ball, which I accept. .0050625 Newtons for the ping pong ball. 3.58254 Newtons for the golf ball. 3.58254 divided by .0050625 is 707.6622222. This is much larger than 47.04, so it requires more force to hit a golf ball 450 times than to hit a ping pong ball 21,168 times. (1), checked with (2) My opponent concedes that there are more variables affecting golf than ping pong, on top of the increased amount of force required to swing a golf club and hit a golf ball. I cannot assign a number value to these variables, because they are variables, but they do make it more difficult to consistently win golf. My opponent even says \" I will agree that variables lead to inaccuracy but once again no variables can affect the outcome of a tournament by that much.\" which shows that variables make it harder to play golf, but by a small/unknown amount. I agree that the hole in one \"is a rarity of golf\", but it was just an example to show that it requires more accuracy to hit a ball a farther distance with the same accuracy. I agree that \"this \"incredible accuracy\" is not complete skill as in all sports luck is involved\", but that means that luck is also involved in ping pong, so ping pong is not any more of a sport than golf. The statement \"in all sports luck is involved\" negates the resolution, and my opponent said it, not me. My opponent's next argument is about the math, which I went over above. My opponent's last argument is that \" ping pong balls move in different directions than just strait\", and I agree with this, but he has not given a number value, similar to how I could not give a number value to the variables affecting golf. It is not possible to show that ping pong is harder than golf when we have an unknown value making it more difficult on each side. We cannot weigh EITHER unknown value as greater than the other, so the resolution must be negated. Conclusion: My opponent has not offered any arguments against my first contention or my subpoints a) or b), as I stated in my second round. My first contention is very important because I defined a sport as a noun and argued that nouns could not be more of themselves than the same noun. In other words, as my opponent agreed with, \"If both are sports, and nothing can be more of a sport than a sport, then they are equal sports.\" This negates the resolution, if they are equal sports then ping pong cannot be more of a sport than golf, they are equal. My subpoints a) and b) were mainly for clarification, so it doesn't really matter that much that my opponent agreed with them. The voting issues in this debate (as I see them) should be: 1. A sport cannot be \"more of a sport\" than another sport because sport is a noun. My opponent agreed with this. 2. The Force associated with playing each sport, which sport puts more stress on the body due to the forces. 3. Which sport takes more accuracy. 4. The variables affecting golf make golf a harder sport to consistently win at, but by an unknown amount. 5. The moving ping pong ball makes ping pong a harder sport to consistently win at, but by an unknown amount. I believe that I have won on the majority of these arguments and I urge you to vote negative. (1)-http://www.ajdesigner.com... (2)-http://calculator.com... Thanks for the debate, Witty, it's been fun.", "qid": "36", "docid": "8b62fc9c-2019-04-18T19:14:51Z-00000-000", "rank": 74, "score": 108114.0}, {"content": "Title: Swimming should not be considered a sport Content: Swimming like many other competitive events is not a sport. A sport is something that you can play against some one else. Any event that you can compete against yourself should not be considered in the realm of sports. I myself am on a swim team in Rapid City, South Dakota. It is certainly a skill. A skill that many including myself don't have. I want to ask you a question. Is speed skateboarding a sport? It is basically the same thing it has rules and the first one back wins. Yes for every one out there I don't consider track or golf a sport either. For a sport it needs to have to have multiple teams to be played. With that I am open to your refutations.", "qid": "36", "docid": "3bbff083-2019-04-18T19:52:50Z-00002-000", "rank": 75, "score": 107471.0}, {"content": "Title: Bowling is a sport. Content: \"Yet track is still a sport. A similar situation occurs with other individualized sports such as swimming, golf, field events such as discus or shot put, etc.\" Track and the other activities are not sports. \"Also, tournament bowling often includes what is referred to as \u201cBaker games\u201d which require teams, not individuals (http://bowling.about.com......). New aspects come into play in this format, such as lineups, less frames bowled, and teamwork. Therefore, you can\u2019t receive a full experience of bowling by yourself.\" Changing the format of a game does not change the basic elements of that game. \"Also, there is a major difference between those \u201cbowling for fun\u201d and those who are bowling competitively. You claim that they are the same when you say \u201cIf, as you state, drinking beer while throwing the ball at the pins for fun does not constitute enough competition to qualify bowling as a sport; adding higher-skill level players and monetary rewards for winning doesn't change this. \u201c First, you don\u2019t require direct competition 100% of the time, as referred to in the previous argument. Next, there is such a big difference between the two such that they can be considered two separate activities.\" This debate is on whether bowling is a sport; not whether professional bowling is a different activity than recreational bowling.\"A sport is a sport if and only if it meets all the requirements: physical and mental skill, athleticism (training yourself physically and mentally to perform more capably and to improve your skill), competition, and strategy. All the other activities you mentioned are not sports because they do not meet all the requirements.\" In your first argument you had failed to mention a sport needed to meet all those requirements; you just listed attributes of bowling and said it was a sport. I wasn't trying to imply that any of those activities were sports. All your attributes referring to bowlers are irrelevant. I reiterate: A sport is able to be played by anyone who; knows the rules, has the equipment, access to the proper setting, and the requisite amount of participants. Skill doesn't come into play. Even at the highest level of any sport there are players of different skill levels. You wouldn't say that two professional baseball players are playing games of different \u2018degrees of sport\u2019 because they have different batting averages. An activity either is or isn\u2019t a sport. If recreational bowling was fundamentally different from professional bowling, they would have different names, not different qualifiers. We can see that the participants of an activity don't decide if it is a sport or not. It is only the elements of an activity that determine if it is a sport. Here, in turn, I must apologize to my opponent; I went back and reread my previous round, and I seem to have left off an aspect of a sport. A sport requires both offensive and defensive strategy, which is why all the activities you mention in your first paragraph aren't sports either. Football, baseball, soccer, cricket, hockey, tennis, lacrosse, and polo are all sports because they have athletes competing directly against each other with both offensive and defensive strategies. The participants of sports can physically affect their opponetnt's performances. Activities like golf, swimming, track and field events, and bowling are games of compared performances. \"I will use the common phrase, \u201cIf it looks like a duck and flies like a duck, it is a duck.\u201d Bowling has all the requirements to be considered a sport. Therefore, how can it be considered that it isn\u2019t a sport?\" I think the reason for your confusion about what bowling is can be illustrated by looking at your closing statement. The problem with that phrase is that, it is a 'common phrase'. The quote that that phrase is based on is: \"I can\u2019t prove you are a Communist. But when I see a bird that quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, has feathers and webbed feet and associates with ducks\u2014I\u2019m certainly going to assume that he IS a duck.\" -Emil Mazey, the secretary-treasurer of the United Automobile Workers for 33 years, said at a labor meeting in 1946 http://en.wikipedia.org... People take an actual quote, or meaning of a word, and simplify it, making it more general. It is a problem of discarding precision for ease. This results in common phrases and common definitions. They are close enough to get a general idea across, but lack the specificity of their actual meaning.I would like to, once again, thank my opponent for posting this debate.I will say, in closing, although many might assume bowling is a sport; if you take the time to look beyond the common concept, you will see bowling, while a fine game, is not a sport.", "qid": "36", "docid": "e4499700-2019-04-18T17:28:24Z-00000-000", "rank": 76, "score": 107361.0}, {"content": "Title: Pro Gaming a sport Content: Since my opponent only stated he has overwhelming facts to present I have nothing to refute so I will go on to present my arguments. My opponent gave no def. of sport so I will put one forth. Sport-an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc\" By that definition it shows that pro gaming is not a sport. It does not push the physical limits of the human body, and there is no frequent movement of each muscle in the human body. Also from one of the staff members blogs saying himself that it is not a sport. \"No, professional gaming is not a sport. While it's a viable form of competition and, according to some definitions of the word sport, it's easy to define pro gaming as such, the key to distinguishing viable forms of competition, such as competitive gaming and basketball, from sports is athletic activity. While poker, chess and gaming are viable professional, competitive activities they are dissimilar to sports such as basketball and tennis that require physical exertion. By adding this requirement we make the way we talk about things more clearly defined. The fact that gaming is not a \"traditional\" sport defines it as something else while not taking away at all from what is has in common with a sport. We classify things as specifically as possible in order to clarify discussion. \" by Brick from MLGpro. com If people who work for it don't classify it as a sport it shouldn't be one.", "qid": "36", "docid": "181c69f4-2019-04-18T19:26:04Z-00004-000", "rank": 77, "score": 106691.0}, {"content": "Title: Should video gaming be considered a real sport and taken more seriously Content: First, let's define sports. According to Dictionary.com, the meaning of sports is \"an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc.\" While playing video games might not require as much physical prowess, it is very competitive. Example 1: In CS:GO, competitive players will compete in tournaments for as much as up to 1 Million USD such as in the most recent PGL major Krakow. You might say that video games require \"little or no skills\", or are \"button mashing\". I cannot agree less, but what you said are general misconceptions of video gaming. For your first point, let's define skill. Skill, according to dictionary.com, is \"the ability, coming from one's knowledge, practice, aptitude, etc., to do something well\". Skill is a major factor in these games of competitive nature, such as the world renown League of Legends, or the previously mentioned CS:GO. Both games requires a high level of skill to perform well in either competitive matches or casual matches. League of Legends will require the players to understand the usage of certain abilities of characters to gain an edge over the opposing. There are also items which can be bought and will give an advantage for you, but since you have only 6 slots, you have to optimize your items. These are just the bare minimum you will need to know to play the game, but there are much more to the eye than the tip of the iceberg. In CS:GO, there are many spots that can be used to smoke off areas and be advantageous to your site-taking or hostage extraction. The ability to aim well is also a major factor to eliminate the enemy so that you win. Being able to predict what the enemy will buy or know what to buy on the start of the round is also a major factor to gaining an edge over the enemy. To summarize this, I have listed why video gaming fits the definition of sports and should be a sport.", "qid": "36", "docid": "e44eb5a8-2019-04-18T12:08:45Z-00003-000", "rank": 78, "score": 106420.0}, {"content": "Title: NASCAR is a sport Content: Nascar indeed is uniquely physical. it has a lot to do with coordination, much like golf. One doesnt necessarily need to be strong or even fit to be good at these sports but they are still skilled in a physical sense. You admit that you could not do this yourself. You do not have the unique physicallity to be a nascar driver. You could not play this sport.", "qid": "36", "docid": "c788fb1e-2019-04-18T19:50:24Z-00002-000", "rank": 79, "score": 106205.0}, {"content": "Title: Video Games are Sports Content: Thank you for setting up this debate, I accept to argue that video games are not sports, that eSports are seperate from physical sports.Your definition of sport leaves out the bit about physical exertion that is prevalent in just about every online definition I've ever read, from Google to Merriam Webster to Dictionary.com. The definition of the noun \"sport\" according to Dictionary.com is:\"an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of acompetitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc.\"The key word here is, of course, athletic. Video games are not an athletic activity, no matter how quickly you can move your fingers. You said in your argument that professional gamers are athletes but not physical athletes, and if we take a look at the definition of \"athlete\": Merriam Webster:\"a person who is trained or skilled in exercises, sports, or games requiring physical strength, agility, or stamina\" Dictionary.com:\"a person trained or gifted in exercises or contests involving physicalagility, stamina, or strength;a participant in a sport, exercise, or game requiring physical skill.\"Prize pools are impressive in eSports, but this does not contribute to the argument that eSports should be considered physical sports, I don't see how this helps your argument. Sports are competitions requiring physical exertion, and in the definition of \"sport\" listed above salary is not mentioned. How much professional gamers are paid has no bearing on whether or not video games are sports. eSports do appear on sports channels and sports news, but it is seperated from all of the other sports and addressed as \"eSports\". ESPN, the world's leading sports news source, has a section for eSports, but it is addressed just as eSports (http://www.espn.com...). This is because eSports are a subcategory of sports, they aren't the same thing, but they have a very similar competitive format.You brought up chess, saying that it is widely regarded as a sport. This is true, but there are good reasons for this. Chess requires peak mental condition, which requires one to also be in peak physical condition. To quote London Chess Conference: \"Peak mental condition requires being in good physical condition. Players need to concentrate totally for up to seven hours. As the stress and tension builds up, blood pressure, pulse and respiration rates all increase. Contenders for the world championships have nutritionists and fitness coaches.\"There are numerous other reasons chess is considered a sport on that website, for example chess has been recognized as a sport by the International Olympic Comittee since 2000.In conclusion, video games are not sports, they are eSports. This is a subcategory, not the same thing, different in ways that prohibit eSports from being sports. I feel like I should clarify that I have no problem with eSports, I love eSports. I follow CoD eSports (since it's the game I discovered eSports on) and right now I'm trying to get into CS:GO and Halo's professional scenes.Sources:http://www.dictionary.com...http://www.merriam-webster.com...http://www.dictionary.com...http://londonchessconference.com...", "qid": "36", "docid": "f888e5a8-2019-04-18T12:50:49Z-00004-000", "rank": 80, "score": 106054.0}, {"content": "Title: Gaming should be taken more seriously and be considered a real sport. Content: The point that I was trying to get across when saying Battlefront is a casual game is that you said that you played the game and got to a high level fairly quickly, and therefore said there was no skill in the game, which is entirely untrue. I concede that Battlefront does not require much skill, but like I said, it is a casual game. Casual games are not meant to be hard or difficult, they are just meant to be fun. You then go on to say that \"just because golf seems like a casual sport, it isn't sport?\" Golf is meant to be a sport, but it can be taken casually as well which brings me onto you continuing to insist that button mashing is all gaming is. If that were true, then I could say that hitting a ball with a stick is all Golf is, but as I said previously, there is more to it than just that. If you want to play Golf competitively, you have to know things like how the wind affects the ball, and many other factors that I do not know of as I do not play Golf - it isn't really something I'm very interested in. As with football (or soccer as you call it), yes it's a sport, but it is non-contact sport. Which means that if you are talking about contact sports, you wouldn't include football as it is not that kind of sport, just how I do not include Battlefront as it is not the kind of game I am talking about. Button mashing isn't all it takes to play a video game. I do see your logic and your reasoning, but it is very flawed. Button mashing would be just that - mashing all the buttons with no thought or clear purpose. Maybe there's a quick time event that requires you to mash a certain button, but if you went into a competitive match of CS:GO and simply mashed all the buttons when you saw someone, you would die very quickly. As I stated previously, the definition of skill is being good at something, and the kind skill required to play CS:GO and to play Golf are quite different. In CS:GO, you need to react faster than your opponent and have the skill to be accurate enough to land most of your shots on their body and kill them before they can kill you. You need to know how grenades will bounce of off surfaces so you know the best angles at which the throw them. You need to know how to counter each weapon in the game so as to minimise the chances of getting killed by them. In Golf, you need to know wind patterns, you need to know the right pitch at which to hit the ball, and many other things that again, I do not know. My point here is that pressing the right things at the right time is very different to button mashing which will get you nowhere. I have never played rugby before as, again, it is not something I particularly enjoy, be it real life or video game. However, I do understand that playing rugby in real life is a lot harder than playing rugby on a video game, however every rugby game out there is a casual game meant for fun, so it is not going to be very hard. If a rugby game was made targeting the hardcore gamers, it would include mechanics to suit that and button mashing would be out of the equation. It would be hard and it would need skill. You would have to know what buttons to press and when, and it would punish you for making a mistake, just like real rugby would. You go on to say that the skill CS:GO players is laughable. Well, let me ask you a question: How many competitive matches of CS:GO have you played? Just like how you said that if you were to pit me against professional rugby players, I wouldn't stand a chance, the same is true for you. You simply would not stand a chance because yes, you can learn how to play quickly (the whole point of tutorials), but that doesn't mean you can compete against Fnatic or other professional teams. These are people that know the ins and outs of the game and know just what to do, when to do it, and how to do it to near perfection. Yes, you could sit down some rugby players and they'll learn how to play in a minute (again, the whole point of tutorials), but if you gave CS:GO players and a gun and told them to shoot a target, they would learn pretty quickly how to control the gun and hit the target because they are much smarter than you give them credit for. I used the example of Snooker to try and tell you that you need to look beyond the surface because Snooker is something I know and love and so I can talk about confidently and know about I'm talking about, and it's a real life example of a sport that if you look at it just on the surface (like what you're doing with video games) it's very basic and technically shouldn't be a sport, but when you look at all the different aspects and requirements, you can see that Snooker is actually quite complex and requires a high level of skill. You say that you laught at the fact that I say there is strategy in CS:GO, and once again I ask you, how many times have you played CS:GO competitively, or even watch players play on YouTube? If you were to watch the right people, you would see that good players communicate and form plans. For example, you may throw a smoke and then have one person flank and wait behind enemy lines, and then either give a distraction for the person behind the smoke to rush, or wait for one or more of the enemy to go into the smoke to see what's behind there. Sometimes 3 or 4 people can be behind that smoke to ambush the people they they know are going to come through eventually. Sometimes, it could be a mere distraction so that they are focused on the smoke, thinking some people are going to rush through, only to come behind them and attack where they aren't looking. I have had cases where good communication has led to a pincer movement and won us the game because the enemies attention is split between two attacking groups. I understand your reasoning for your disdain towards gaming, but it's simply not fair to judge gaming the way you do. You can't really compare games to real life and say there's no skill in doing x because doing y does this and that, because they are two very different things each with their own kind of skill. To compare them is to compare Star Trek to Star Wars and say which one is better. They both go about the sci-fi theme very differently. One likes to be more scientific about it, the other likes to be more fun and action filled.", "qid": "36", "docid": "d7c904a0-2019-04-18T13:04:14Z-00001-000", "rank": 81, "score": 105579.0}, {"content": "Title: Is golf asport Content: In Hogwarts, we don't need to walk. We can fly on brooms, we can teleport. Golf is not a walking sport. When people think about golf, they think about the swing and stance. Walking is NOT a key part in golf.", "qid": "36", "docid": "2c13cc23-2019-04-18T16:11:23Z-00001-000", "rank": 82, "score": 105293.0}, {"content": "Title: Bowling is a sport. Content: In response to your arguments- Your claim, \u201cAny activity that you can get the full experience out of by yourself, is not a sport\u201d is untrue. An example is track. If I were to go to a track and sprint a few 100 meter dashes, I could receive the full effect of running track. I received the exercise and mental experience of running, and I received a competitive aspect by trying to improve my times. All without another person competing against me. Yet track is still a sport. A similar situation occurs with other individualized sports such as swimming, golf, field events such as discus or shot put, etc. Also, tournament bowling often includes what is referred to as \u201cBaker games\u201d which require teams, not individuals (http://bowling.about.com...). New aspects come into play in this format, such as lineups, less frames bowled, and teamwork. Therefore, you can\u2019t receive a full experience of bowling by yourself. Also, there is a major difference between those \u201cbowling for fun\u201d and those who are bowling competitively. You claim that they are the same when you say \u201cIf, as you state, drinking beer while throwing the ball at the pins for fun does not constitute enough competition to qualify bowling as a sport; adding higher-skill level players and monetary rewards for winning doesn't change this. \u201c First, you don\u2019t require direct competition 100% of the time, as referred to in the previous argument. Next, there is such a big difference between the two such that they can be considered two separate activities. The difference is one word, OIL. Remember that bowling alleys are businesses. They want customers to be happy so that they return. To do so, bowling alleys place what is called a \u201chouse pattern\u201d on the lanes- less oil on the sides, more in the center. Taken from http://bowling.about.com... , The house pattern is designed to be forgiving. Since complete novices are using this pattern during open bowling, a bowling-center operator doesn\u2019t want to make things hard on them and risk losing business. Since there\u2019s very little oil outside the 10 board, the lanes are very forgiving if you miss to the outside. There\u2019s plenty of time for the ball to recover and get back to the pocket. Likewise, with the extra oil in the middle, if you miss to the inside, the oil will let the ball carry farther down the lane before picking up some traction at the end. Either way you miss, the pattern will do its best to get your ball to the pocket. Since open bowling doesn\u2019t require the same skills as competitive bowling, such as in reading oil, adjustments, and near perfect consistency, it can be seen as separate. It is not the full experience of bowling, it is an aspect. n Sport oil conditions are bowled on during competition and allow for no mistakes, which in turn require the skills explained earlier. That is why bowling for fun while drinking beer is not a sport, and competitive bowling is. They are separate, not equal. In response to your claims about my arguments- A sport is a sport if and only if it meets all the requirements: physical and mental skill, athleticism (training yourself physically and mentally to perform more capably and to improve your skill), competition, and strategy. All the other activities you mentioned are not sports because they do not meet all the requirements. Mountain climbing lacks any competition in any form, even though it requires athleticism and skill. For rose growing, even though mental skills and competition are evident, there is no athleticism. Once you lift the fertilizer bag or learn how to create good rows, you can\u2019t train yourself to do that any better than before. You can\u2019t train yourself physically to grow better roses. While it is true that just because there are professional competitions or skills needed, then it doesn\u2019t necessarily make the activity a sport. Those are only parts of the definition of a sport. However, if and only if all of those requirements are met, the activity becomes a sport. Bowling fits all the requirements of a sport- skills, athleticism, competition, and strategy. Therefore, competitive bowling fits the definition, and is a sport. In my 2nd round, I should have specified that the difference in a sport and a game is that physical skill is needed for a sport, not just the general word \u201cskill\u201d I used. I apologize. Chess is not a sport because no physical skills are needed, and there is no athleticism. All sports are games that require physical skills, and if and only if they fit the definition of a sport. Competitive bowling once again fits this description. Closing- First of all, thanks to Sauh for accepting this debate and allowing it to be possible. My closing argument will be short and simple. I will use the common phrase, \u201cIf it looks like a duck and flies like a duck, it is a duck.\u201d Bowling has all the requirements to be considered a sport. Therefore, how can it be considered that it isn\u2019t a sport? Consider what has been said, and vote Pro. Thank you.", "qid": "36", "docid": "e4499700-2019-04-18T17:28:24Z-00001-000", "rank": 83, "score": 104539.0}, {"content": "Title: Gaming is a sport Content: Resolution - Gaming is a sportGaming - The action or practice of playing video games.Sport - An athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc.StructureFirst round is acceptance and no new arguments in the last roundRules1. No forfeits2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round4. No trolling5. No semantics 6. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add definitions7. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss.8. No \"K's\" on the topic.", "qid": "36", "docid": "1d13f9d6-2019-04-18T12:17:58Z-00006-000", "rank": 84, "score": 104336.0}, {"content": "Title: Golf is the most mentally challenging sport Content: Golf is the most mentally challenging sport", "qid": "36", "docid": "953298b6-2019-04-18T16:05:27Z-00005-000", "rank": 85, "score": 103792.0}, {"content": "Title: Major League Gaming a sport Content: If I could I would like to clarify a couple of things before we start. The resolution is vague so I would like to lay it out in prehaps a better way. If not my opponent can do so since he posted it. Resolved: Major Legue Gaming is not A Sport. Only missed a few words. Now onto my Case which is an attack on my opponents case at the same time. His contention 1 states that it is displayed on Espn. com a sports network site. Thats all he says. Gives no warrents that it being hosted on that type of network would not make it a sport. Espn is a sports network which means they show shows that are about sports (i will provide evidence in con 2). If MLG was'nt a sport they wouldnt show it. Con 2- His def of sport \"an activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature such as : Tennis, Racing, Golf, Ect. \" Now if we look to his def. we would see that a sport is an activity requiring skill and a competitive nature. Well isnt that what mgl is. They have the skill to talk to their teammates and play at the same time, look at the screen in front of them and know the controller by heart, and have dirty to clean tatics to win, which mgl requires. Also by your def a sport is of competitive nature and that is exatcly what mgl does. They have the MLG National Championship in Las Vegas. The most recognized is the MLG PRO CIRCUIT. Also just like many others MGL has been sponsored by Dr. Pepper (yum). \"Major League Gaming offers us an ideal opportunity to connect with the Dr Pepper consumer,\" said Jaxie Alt, director of marketing for Dr Pepper. \"We are excited to provide Dr Pepper fans with such a unique opportunity in the gaming community and bring more to Major League Gaming by introducing the Dr Pepper Ultimate Gaming House and the Online Collegiate Gaming Championship. \" \"In less than 2 years, MLG has grown from a grass roots phenomenon into a major cross-platform media property spanning live events, TV and online,\" said Mike Sepso, chairman of Major League Gaming. \"Our sold-out live Pro-Circuit, our national TV programming, and millions of online fans have created the critical mass and credibility to help partners like Dr Pepper connect with young consumers in an authentic way. \" And just like any other type of sport they have teams. Lets list a few-Infinity,TH3 NSAN3Z,Frag Dominant,Phenom,Dynasty ReTaLiaTioN,Murder By Numbers,Violent by Instinct,PrOphEcy, and FRAG | High Caliber So by using my opponets def of sports and using evidence i have proven that mlg is a sport and that pro can not live up to his burden of proof. I affirm a negative ballot.", "qid": "36", "docid": "4b7e0d28-2019-04-18T19:28:51Z-00008-000", "rank": 86, "score": 103782.0}, {"content": "Title: Baseball is better than golf Content: Nice try", "qid": "36", "docid": "a2449587-2019-04-18T16:24:07Z-00000-000", "rank": 87, "score": 103247.0}, {"content": "Title: The game of G--f ought to be eliminated. Content: With many thanks to Chrysippus for this posing this most interesting challenge, I should like to begin by reminding the voters of the huge benefit golf clubs provide to (upper class) members of (high) society. Because membership of golf clubs is usually very expensive, it precludes any proles, riff-raff, oiks, chavs, skulking loafers, people that might appear as guests on The Jerry Springer Show and other frightfully common people from joining, and thus, spoiling the sport for the toffs, snobs, aristocrats and the other particularly posh people who are rich enough to become members. Thus, golf provides an oasis of wealth and prosperity where investment bankers can get inside information on forthcoming mergers and acquisitions; where property developers can \u2018discuss the merits' of their planning applications with influential politicians and \u2018buy them a drink' in acknowledgment of their \u2018kind understanding' and where other discussions of a delicate nature can take place: a golf course provides a discrete environment away from any envious peasants, prying left-wing journalists and nosey tax inspectors. Where else would this be possible? Maybe an exclusive yacht club, but what about oil barons, property tycoons, steel magnates and media moguls who don't live by the sea? Where would they do their under-the-counter deals if golf clubs were banned? Now, to address my opponent's points in turn: 1 \u2013 Health and Safety. ------------------------- Golf is not a sport for poor people. For example: Yellowstone Club World Membership costs $4-10 million and this is in addition to green fees, annual dues and minimum dining fees that run into hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. [1] This means that golfers can generally afford to spend money on employing fawning lackeys (which they call \"caddies\") to carry their gear, drive their golf karts and protect them from rain or sun with an umbrella. And there is little danger to golfers from stray golf balls, by the way. Indeed, in recent years, only one professional has been badly injured in connection with golf: that was Tiger Woods in 2009 and it wasn't a golf ball that injured him, it was a 9-iron golf club that his wife wrapped round his head after she found out he'd been getting his end away with some cheap floozy on the sly. [2] It is true that golf balls and roads don't mix, however, but that's why golf clubs use their super-rich members' influence and power to ensure they don't. For example, when a new dual-carriageway (highway) was proposed to link London with Ramsgate in Kent, the route took it straight across Chesterfield Golf Club. Incensed, the club's members used their political connections to force the Highways Agency to route the new road, at huge extra expense to the taxpayer, through a tunnel beneath the golf course. Still, there were concerns that stray golf balls may hit vehicles as they entered the tunnels so every time a player tees off on the fairway above the road, the traffic is forced to stop and wait at automated traffic signals while the player takes his shot. [3,4] 2 \u2013 Clothing -------------- It is also true that golfers' clothes are pretty atrocious, there's no denying that: and clearly most golfers have more money than taste; but still they are confined to their golf clubs where few people can be offended by their garish attire. Not like chavs, who hang around the streets in hideously ugly clothes in full sight of small children and nervous old ladies. [5,6,7,8,9,10] In conclusion, the mega-rich are human beings and they have human rights just like anyone else and, therefore, they should not be denied the freedom to go to golf clubs to show off how wealthy they are or to do dodgy business deals or, occasionally, play a round or two of golf. Thank you. [1] http://www.forbes.com... [2] http://www.thesun.co.uk... [3] http://www.geograph.org.uk... [4] http://maps.google.com... [5] http://www.motifake.com... [6] http://www.cslacker.com... [7] http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk... [8] http://i.telegraph.co.uk... [9] http://www.millwall.vitalfootball.co.uk... [10] http://richandcreamy.typepad.com...", "qid": "36", "docid": "d7f23f2c-2019-04-18T18:51:11Z-00003-000", "rank": 88, "score": 103211.0}, {"content": "Title: Video games are a sport Content: This is a question many gamers and non-gamers ask all the time online. Are video games a mental game, or are they just for inactive slackers? Everyone knows a person who is into video games or you just might be into video games and it is very well to know if these games are worthwhile. Although something might be a sport, it doesn\"t mean it\"s productive. Video games could be a sport in a way. Many people say that video games aren\"t a sport for its lack of physical activity. There are many games that are considered to be a sport but have no physical activity in them; some of these sports include curling, chess, auto racing, golf, competitive eating, and poker. You would think that most of these sports include mental productivity but so do video games because many them challenge the gamer to make tough decisions, take risks, and work as a team. Games such as \"Star Craft\" can increase a player\"s brain flexibility (This was found out by British researchers Brian Glass, Todd Maddox, and Bradley Love). Although video games could be a sport they also could not be considered a sport. \"Sport\" is defined as \"an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature,\" by Dictionary.com. If you think about it most people play video games for entertainment and for doing nothing. Most people don\"t play virtual games thinking that they are going to become a professional gamer with mental skill in the game. Video games do have some productive games but are not used for productiveness and used as excuses to wasting time on a computer or console. In conclusion, I would say that video games are a sport. Even though they can be useless, they are a sport. Sports aren\"t always productive just like video games but it is a skill that is very challenging to earn. Video games can be very lazy, sluggish, and idle but it\"s still a skill that can be a competitive and worldwide.", "qid": "36", "docid": "c82afe8b-2019-04-18T14:35:31Z-00003-000", "rank": 89, "score": 103199.0}, {"content": "Title: Should marching band be considered a sport Content: I believe that marching band should be considered a sport for many reasons. Of these, one of them is that it matches all criteria for it to be considered a sport as defined by dictionary.com (an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc.).", "qid": "36", "docid": "90199824-2019-04-18T14:13:56Z-00004-000", "rank": 90, "score": 102964.0}, {"content": "Title: Esports is a sport and should be in the Olympics Content: Agreed esports is a wide area. But so is track sports. On the point of some countries don't play a specific game: some countries don't play softball, But it's an Olympic sport. Games like CSGO, League, Dota. Have teams in every continent. And have structures, Rules and tournaments that run just fine. Just because a game has players on multiple platforms doesn't mean there aren't players for a specific platform. On the point that the Olympics is old and we should leave it alone: from the Wikipedia page of the Olympics: Two previously discontinued sports, Golf and rugby, Returned for the 2016 Summer Olympics. On August 13, 2009, The IOC Executive Board proposed that golf and rugby sevens be added to the Olympic program for the 2016 Games. [16] On 9 October 2009, During the 121st IOC Session in Copenhagen, The IOC voted to admit both sports as official Olympic sports and to include them in the 2016 Summer Olympics. [17] The IOC voted 81\"\"8 in favor of including rugby sevens and 63\"\"27 in favor of reinstating golf, Thus bringing the number of sports back to 28. [17] The games are constantly updated. New ones added and old ones removed. So no, We don't and should not leave the Olympics alone. If chess is considered an Olympic sport then why not other games?", "qid": "36", "docid": "e6368605-2019-04-18T11:17:19Z-00002-000", "rank": 91, "score": 102101.0}, {"content": "Title: Color guard is not a sport. Content: Colour guard is a sport The definition of a sport goes as follows: 1. competitive physical activity: an individual or group competitive activity involving physical exertion or skill, governed by rules, and sometimes engaged in professionally ( often used in the plural ) Is color guard a competitive physical activity? Yes it is there are many competitions. Now there may not be a definite loser but that is because so many groups that compete. For sure the winner does get prestige just as if they had won a super bowl. Color guard is a group activity that is very physical and full of athleticism. Ever heard the annoyingly worn-out argument, \"Cheerleading is not a sport\"? The truth is that legally, North Augusta cheerleading is NOT a sport. In cheerleading however, you compete through the districts. Soccer and football does the same too. Therefore I believe that whatever sports argument they are cooking up falls. \"It is not recognized by the olympics\" Here is the issue with this. Golf is a sport. However it is not in the olympics. Does that mean Golf is no longer a sport? Just because it is not in the olympics does not define what really is a sport. Sure there are many non sports that aren't in the olympics. However we can still justify that golf is a sport and we can't exclude that from a sports. Therefore this argument is false. Not all competitions need a definitive scoring system. Numbers don't define what is right or wrong, likewise what is a sport or not. \"there is no clear interaction\" Their definition is very biased in my opinion. Their definition only indicates that there is a NEED to score points and show a clash among participants. However, this is only referring to his arguments and not the whole case in general. For that I believe this is more biased towrds his side. Here is my definition that refers to both sides: competitive physical activity: an individual or group competitive activity involving physical exertion or skill, governed by rules, and sometimes engaged in professionally They have stated that they need to practice the same moves overtime. However this is still physical. It shows skills and physical exertion on how to achieve this. For that, their \"two side\" argument falls. Thanks", "qid": "36", "docid": "2a05382b-2019-04-18T14:26:42Z-00006-000", "rank": 92, "score": 101738.0}, {"content": "Title: Marching Band is a sport!! Content: Marching Band is a sport. The definition of a sport according to dictionary.com is \"an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc.\" In marching band participants (usually) march around a football field for approximately 8-10 minutes to perform a halftime show. They also have the option to dance and maybe even groove. Members are also carrying instruments that they are playing and memorizing the music, aka severely multi-tasking. So therefore, Marching band DOES require athletic activity and skill, that would consider it a sport.", "qid": "36", "docid": "414e4d8a-2019-04-18T11:42:39Z-00001-000", "rank": 93, "score": 101628.0}, {"content": "Title: Soccer should be made into a full contact sport with metal armor and tasers Content: \"1. Golf is the number one reason why old people fall alseep and never wake up again.\"Agreed\"2. The egg came before the chicken.\"Everyone knows that already, agreed\"Soccer is for the finer sport. Soccer is to classy as football is to neanderthals.... It takes real class and finesse to juke around an opponent\"Soccer.... classy? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Soccer isnt classy, its just sad. Watching 130 pound weaklings jog for 2 and a half hours just to make the game 0-0 or 1-1 isnt a classy sport, its a waste of time. Also how is rolling around on the ground crying after someone steps on your foot considered classy? \"Soccer should not be changed, but instead be instigated as the international sport... in order to get our youth to understand a true work ethic and what true skill looks like.\"Well I can solve that question right now, Here is what soccer looks like, Here is what watching soccer feels like So we established that Soccer is a long sport to watch and is played by sissy's, here are my changes to the game. ========================================================================================================================================================1) All players wear metal armorIf everyone wore armor, it would prevent against any injury that would cause one of the soccer players to immediately fall down and start crying like a 2 year old little b*tch. The armor though wont be like the kind used in jousting, it would just be metal pads to protect areas that soccer players fake getting injured the most. 2) Anything goes in Soccer now. You want to punch a defender in the face to get the ball then punch a defender in the face and get the ball!Soccer is a boring a** sport. The reason why other more AMERICAN sports are so popular is because they are much more physical then soccer, Hockey specifically. Watching people knock the sh*t out of each other is the trademark of a great sport to watch, which is something that soccer needs considering the only highlight that comes from any soccer game is when the fans get pissed that their team lost or tied and start rioting. Full contact soccer though makes players non-sissy's too and makes the game much more interesting to watch. The more people who watch the more ad revenue teams make which means that athletes get paid more too. Athletes is the wrong word to describe soccer players though, Instead I will use the phrase \"girl scouts\". 3) Steel toed shoes The biggest problem with Soccer girl scouts is that they often fake injuries over nothing, the most common one is someone stepping on another persons foot. Usually when that happens the player is next seen acting like they just got shot and need to go to a hospital....... For someone stepping on their foot. Steel toed shoes eliminate these fake foot injuries completely, and they also have the benefit of being able to kick the ball much further now since they have steel toed shoes to kick with. 4) No more immediate medical care, if you get hurt you gotta crawl over to the sideline or wait until someone scores.You get hurt, make your way over to the sideline. This will prevent soccer games from being derailed by fake injuries that chew up the final minutes of the game and will further curtail players making injuries. 5) Goalies get to use TasersThats just to make it more interesting to watch. 6) Elbowing and kicking other players is encouraged. Also legal is punching, headbutting, spitting, poop throwing, vomiting, holding, being offsides, facemasks, and anything else.Full contact sport means full contact sport, just about everything goes. 7) Only rule is no all out fighting.This will preserve some of the \"class\" that soccer has. 8) All teams have to be renamed to something tougher, like the LA Galaxy Destroyers or something like that.It would attract more audiences and make the game that much more interesting. 9) This only applies to American soccer teamsEuropean soccer teams can make soccer as boring and unexciting as they want, this will only apply to American sports. ========================================================================================================================================================Your turn Con", "qid": "36", "docid": "7c6ed51a-2019-04-18T18:19:07Z-00005-000", "rank": 94, "score": 100652.0}, {"content": "Title: Professional Wrestling is a sport Content: I believe that Pro Wrestling is a sport. A sport is defined as \"an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc.\" The definition says that wrestling is often, but not always, of a competitive nature and i admit that wrestling is not. However sports arent always of competitive nature. Surfing for example, is often non- competitive. PW also requires much skill and physical prowess. You need strength and a lot of endurance to run around throwing eachother all around the ring like that. The athleticism is remarkeable. People have always given me a hard time for being a lifelong fan of wrestling. I agree that a lot of it these days is pretty pathetic, but when it comes to athletics you really have to hand it to these guys.", "qid": "36", "docid": "e183e945-2019-04-18T19:50:59Z-00005-000", "rank": 95, "score": 100232.0}, {"content": "Title: is paintball a sport Content: Extend", "qid": "36", "docid": "6d0f4608-2019-04-18T13:46:03Z-00001-000", "rank": 96, "score": 100103.0}, {"content": "Title: Ping Pong is More of a Sport than Golf Content: \"The second argument is that ping pong is more difficult to consistently win because each player must play multiple games in order to win. My opponent does not cite a specific number of games. In each golf tournament each player must play 18 holes. If we use the example of 25 competitors per tournament this comes out to 450 holes per tournament. Each hole is a competition that can literally cause a player to lose the entire tournament. \" 450 holes looks meager compared to the number of serves that would have to happen to win a Ping Pong tournament, \"winning consistently\". 21 points= 1 game 7 games= 1match there are 3 matches in a round. And if it is a double elimination like some are, 48 rounds would be played to find a grand champion. So lets figure this up. There are 441 points in a round times 48 rounds, equals 21,168 serves in all. A serve would be compared to teeing off, in golf. This would make ping pong harder to \"consistently win\" at. \"The third and final attack on my case is that there are variables that affect ping pong, including \"paddles(size and weight of paddles), balls(weight of balls), table(what tables are made of), ect. \" My opponent agrees that there are more variables affecting golf though, so even if there are variables affecting ping pong they do not overpower the variables affecting golf. Thus, golf is more affected by variables and is therefore harder to consistently win at. \" This is true but the variables do not out weigh the win factor if it is 450 holes to 21,168 serves. Variables can not affect a game by that much it is physically impossible. the variables would have to make up 20,718 holes. \"My opponent asks \" Generally is golf not played on nice days with little wind? \", and the answer would be yes. The key word in his question is generally, which leaves room for golf to be played on not so nice days and/or with a lot of wind. Ping pong does not have any of these variables ever because it is played indoors or under controlled circumstances. I concede to this statement. . http://tabletennis.about.com... . http://www.ehow.com... \" It requires more accuracy to hit a single point 100 yards away than to hit a single point 1 yard away because of all the variables affecting the ball while it is in the air. A golf ball stays in the air for a much longer period of time and therefore variables have more of an effect on its final stopping point. Variables lead to inaccuracy, which means that golf requires more accuracy to compensate for the variables affecting the golf ball. \" Ping pong balls are hit from farther away than one yard see the video (also notice the movement of the players, if I have enough room I will get back to that). I will agree that variables lead to inaccuracy but once again no variables can affect the outcome of a tournament by that much. \"My opponent argues that \"It takes more skill to hit a ping pong ball in the exact spot that will make your opponent to miss than it does to hit a golf ball in the general vicinity of something on a huge golf course\" but the golf tournament victors do not simply hit a golf ball in any \"general vicinity\". There are many examples of incredible accuracy including the above video. \" Firstly I am aware of the magnificent shot of tiger woods and also I know that he is not the only person to do so, but the thing is that this ideal shot happens almost never it is a rarity of golf. Secondly the distance you have to hit a golf ball (on some holes) to get it in the hole is above human capability. \"My opponent also argues that \"the distance is irrelevant. \", which would mean that golf and ping pong require the same level of accuracy, which would negate the resolution. \" this comment is not true and I will agree that what I said is incorrect. Stating that, I would like to mention that this \"incredible accuracy\" is not complete skill as in all sports luck is involved. The conditions or the variables where just right to help this next to impossible shot. \"My opponent then argues that the force required to hit a ping pong ball across the table is greater than the force required to hit a golf ball across the course. He cites that Force=Mass x Acceleration and plugs in a few numbers to calculate the force for each sport. His math is incorrect. 115 grams x 78 m = 8.970 Newtons is correct. (m is actually the incorrect unit for acceleration, but I assume he means m/s2, that is, meters divided by seconds squared)(1) However, 77 grams x 1.875 m would actually be .144375 Newtons. It's .077 x 1.875. \" This incorrect math is not really incorrect. The miss understanding is partially my fault for these reasons. 1) I said \"F=M*A M=115 grams A=78 m times a equals 8.97 Newton's - this is for a golf ball F=M*A M= 77 grams A=1.875 m times a equals 144.375 - this is for ping pong\" this was in correct. 2) the first reason it was in correct is that I did not mention m/s2 as the unit. 3) The mass of the object was for the paddles and clubs, I took the average weight of each (using the same unit of weight(grams)) I multiplied this by the acceleration (both using the same standard unit (m/s2)) the reason my opponent is confused is that I said \"this is for a golf ball\" when it should have read this is for a golf club. I then put this in unit converter/force formula (. http://www.ajdesigner.com...) and I got 8.97 newtons for the golf club and 144.375 for the Ping Pong paddle. \"I hope that this was a simple decimal error and not a deliberate attempt to skew facts by not converting the 77 grams that a ping pong ball weighs into .077 kilograms. The weight of a golf ball was properly converted into kilograms. Newtons are \"the force required to accelerate a one kilogram mass at a rate of one meter per second squared\"(2)This means that the force required to send a golf ball the distance that golf balls are sent is much greater than the force required to send a ping pong ball the distance that ping pong balls are sent. \" I put this in the formula converter and it takes care of converting. it was not a decimal error and I am going to do A golf ball compared to a pong ball right now A PONG BALL WEIGHTS 2.7 GRAMS AND THE ACCELERATION IS 1.875 M/S2 THIS EQUALS FORCE = 0.0050625 NEWTONS NOW A GOLF BALL 45.93 GRAMS X ACCELERATION WHICH IS 78 M/S2 =3.58254 NEWTONS a golf ball has more force when hit than a ping pong ball but the ball is not stressing the body physically but the swing of the paddle/club is so this proves that ping pong is more physically stressful to the body. . http://answers.yahoo.com... to address the hunting issue first ping pong balls move in different directions than just strait,like an arrow, they curve so a deer running is harder to hit because you must have the ball come down on the deer Pote I've enjoyed", "qid": "36", "docid": "8b62fc9c-2019-04-18T19:14:51Z-00001-000", "rank": 97, "score": 99797.0}, {"content": "Title: Is cheerleading a sport Content: Should cheerleading be a sport", "qid": "36", "docid": "d7c86889-2019-04-18T11:51:34Z-00001-000", "rank": 98, "score": 99731.0}, {"content": "Title: Are Esports real sports Content: Def. of sport: an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc. Skill OR Physical prowess. Playing Esports certainly requires skill of some sort. So does chess, by the way. And chess is recognized as a sport in more than 100 countries. Are you trying to tell me that playing video games requires no skill whatsoever? I'm trying to contain my laughter. \"Sports require physical exertion e sports have none whatsoever .\" Okay, so people playing Esports are completely immobile? Wow, how inaccurate I was calling you kid, by the way. Your grammar is childlike. And by childlike, I mean a little kid's.", "qid": "36", "docid": "49f41610-2019-04-18T11:47:48Z-00002-000", "rank": 99, "score": 98902.0}, {"content": "Title: Golf is better than soccer. Content: the opponent states that she's too young to do the research... I'm 15", "qid": "36", "docid": "2e6a0d7e-2019-04-18T19:25:29Z-00002-000", "rank": 100, "score": 98807.0}]}
{"query": "Is cell phone radiation safe?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: Cell Phone Radiation is Safe for Humans Content: Well actually cell phone and other mobile devices emit radiofrequency energy which is a type of electromagnetic radiation. Electromagnetic radiation can be categorised as ionizing and non-ionizing. Exposure to ionizing radiation, such as from x-rays, is known to increase the risk of cancer and brain tumours. So actually cell phone radiation can have a lot of unwanted side effects and circumstances if taken in large amounts.", "qid": "37", "docid": "b2b3385f-2019-04-18T11:40:05Z-00004-000", "rank": 1, "score": 205010.0}, {"content": "Title: Cell Phone Radiation is Safe for Humans Content: Obviously it's not healthy, but the amount of radiation is so low, there really wont be any side effects.", "qid": "37", "docid": "b2b3385f-2019-04-18T11:40:05Z-00005-000", "rank": 2, "score": 199694.0}, {"content": "Title: Cell Phone Radiation is Safe for Humans Content: (OK so now this is the fourth and final debating round, first of all good luck to my opponent, you have done really well and your information has been really well researched. :) Now I will move away from the whole 'cancer and tumour' subheading as we have discussed that a bit too much. In my fourth and last point I will be talking about additional health risks (no, not cancer) cell phone radiation causes the body in both genders. These are sleep quality, baby development and pacemaker functioning. I will start by explaining how it affects sleep quality. It doesn't just harm your eyes from the powerful light phones emit but can also cause insomnia, headaches and confusion. The radiation may also disrupt production of the hormone melatonin, which controls your body\"s internal rhythms. Baby Development: How it is affected. The national public awareness campaign, called the BabySafe Project, is being coordinated by Grassroots Environmental Education and Environmental Health Trust, and is based on independent scientific research linking exposure to wireless radiation from cell phones during pregnancy to neurological and behavioral problems in offspring that resemble Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in children. Finally, how cell phone radiation affects pacemakers. For those of you who don't know what a pacemaker is, it is a small machine that helps people with heart conditions like irregular heartbeat and heart block. A pacemaker is a device that gives off electrical impulses to your heart. These make your heart beat more regularly. It consists of a battery, a tiny computer and a generator in a thin metal box, along with wires that connect the pacemaker to your heart. Now for a cell phone's radiation to affect this is a gigantic danger to the person. If it makes the pacemaker suddenly stop working by the cell phone's radiation interfering with the pacemaker's signal it can have even fatal results. The ways they interfere are; -Stopping the pacemaker from delivering the stimulating pulses that regulate the heart's rhythm -Causing the pacemaker to deliver the pulses irregularly -Causing the pacemaker to ignore the heart's own rhythm and deliver pulses at a fixed rate Like I said, this can have even FATAL impacts on the user. So now after all the reasons I have given about how cell phone radiation affects humans, you must be on my side by believing that cell phone radiation is not good for humans. My reasons were, that cell phone radiation can have an impact on brain cancer and tumours, it affects baby development, it affects sleep quality and interferes with pacemakers. These are my reasons why I STRONGLY believe that cell phone radiation is a big NO. Thank you :)", "qid": "37", "docid": "b2b3385f-2019-04-18T11:40:05Z-00000-000", "rank": 3, "score": 190713.0}, {"content": "Title: Cell Phone Radiation is Safe for Humans Content: Yes, scientists might say that the radio frequency the user receives is not enough to cause any harm to them, but the average person uses their mobile phone for more than 5 hours per day. Think about how much radio frequency your body absorbs during those 5 hours! But it's not just that, majority of people sleep with their phones on their nightstand, turned on and receiving wifi, those are another minimum 7 hours of your body receiving more radio frequency plus carrying it around in your purse or pocket all day. Basically you could be with your phone for the whole 24 hours of a day. I derived this information from a reliable website. Even if you don't use a cell phone for hours each day, research by leading brain imaging researcher Nora D. Volkow, MD of the National Institutes of Health, revealed that after just 50 minutes of cell phone exposure, the emitted radiation increases brain cell activity in the region closest to the cell phone antenna. From: https://articles.mercola.com... We keep on hearing that cell phone radiation has NOTHING to do with brain tumours, cancers, etc. but people think and say this because the damage from cell phone exposure can take many years to surface. There are rarely any initial symptoms, taking for example smoking causing lung cancer, it takes about three to six months for most lung cancers to double their size. Therefore, it could take several years for a typical lung cancer to reach a size at which it could be diagnosed on a chest X-ray. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not there.", "qid": "37", "docid": "b2b3385f-2019-04-18T11:40:05Z-00002-000", "rank": 4, "score": 189711.0}, {"content": "Title: Cell Phone Radiation is Safe for Humans Content: That is like trying to overdose on weed. It will take around 100,000 puffs in less than a half an hour to be dangerous. The amounts are so small, no effects really is going to be done. I recieved this from an official website. \"The only consistently recognized biological effect of radiofrequency energy is heating. The ability of microwave ovens to heat food is one example of this effect of radiofrequency energy. Radiofrequency exposure from cell phone use does cause heating to the area of the body where a cell phone or other device is held (ear, head, etc.). However, it is not sufficient to measurably increase body temperature, and there are no other clearly established effects on the body from radiofrequency energy. It has been suggested that radiofrequency energy might affect glucose metabolism, but two small studies that examined brain glucose metabolism after use of a cell phone showed inconsistent results. Whereas one study showed increased glucose metabolism in the region of the brain close to the antenna compared with tissues on the opposite side of the brain (2), the other study (3) found reduced glucose metabolism on the side of the brain where the phone was used. Another study investigated whether exposure to the radiofrequency energy from cell phones affects the flow of blood in the brain and found no evidence of such an effect (4). The authors of these studies noted that the results are preliminary and that possible health outcomes from changes in glucose metabolism are still unknown. Such inconsistent findings are not uncommon in experimental studies of the biological effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation (5). Some contributing factors include assumptions used to estimate doses, failure to consider temperature effects, and lack of blinding of investigators to exposure status.\" Source: https://www.cancer.gov...", "qid": "37", "docid": "b2b3385f-2019-04-18T11:40:05Z-00003-000", "rank": 5, "score": 188779.0}, {"content": "Title: Cell Phone Radiation is Safe for Humans Content: Hello, I hope you have fun debating this topic with me!This first round is just about putting your idea forward and stating what you're going to be talking about, so it's basically an introduction. Don't comment any facts or data or your arguments in general. This is just to give an opinion about the topic then in rounds 2, 3 and 4 you can do your reasons.I strongly believe that cell phone radiation is not safe for humans of any age. So cell phone usage should be reduced.I hope you enjoy debating this important topic with me, future opponent, and may the debate begin!", "qid": "37", "docid": "b2b3385f-2019-04-18T11:40:05Z-00006-000", "rank": 6, "score": 187721.0}, {"content": "Title: Cell Phone Radiation is Safe for Humans Content: Your whole entire argument on round 3 is based of that article. I'll be telling you why it's not enough information to support your claim. \"I derived this information from a reliable website.\" Just saying that doesn't make it reliable. You have to look on more than one site, and the things you want to look for is \".org\" or \".gov\"! Anyone can just get a \".com\", so you have to be careful. Your site is something I never heard of, and here is another site mentioning the study conducted, and why it isn't conclusive: \"A recent small study in people has shown that cell phones may also have some other effects on the brain, although it\"s not clear if they\"re harmful. The study found that when people had an active cell phone held up to their ear for 50 minutes, brain tissues on the same side of the head as the phone used more glucose than did tissues on the other side of the brain. Glucose is a sugar that normally serves as the brain\"s fuel. Glucose use goes up in certain parts of the brain when it is in use, such as when we are thinking, speaking, or moving. The possible health effect, if any, from the increase in glucose use from cell phone energy is unknown.\" https://www.cancer.org... Notice how it is a \".org\" In one study that followed more than 420,000 cellphone users over a 20-year period, researchers found no evidence of a link between cellphones and brain tumors. Another study found an association between cellphones and cancer of the salivary glands. However, only a small number of study participants had malignant tumors. Another study suggested a possible increased risk of glioma \" a specific type of brain tumor \" for the heaviest cellphone users, but no increase in brain tumor risk overall.\" https://www.mayoclinic.org... It is also a \".org\" Bring me more than an article. When official sites call out that study made and why it's not conclusive, your argument then becomes not conclusive.", "qid": "37", "docid": "b2b3385f-2019-04-18T11:40:05Z-00001-000", "rank": 7, "score": 187307.0}, {"content": "Title: They can cause cancer Content: We all know that radiation is bad for us. Yet we fail to recognise the fact that mobile phones are using radiation in order to make contact with another station. Research has shown [[http://www.newsweek.com/id/80966]] that higher frequencies of radiation are given out by a phone the further away it is from a base station; those who live further away from these base station and use mobile phones are more likely to develop cancer. This research shows that cell phones are in fact not safe; they cause a disease which we are still very much in ignorance over how to cure.", "qid": "37", "docid": "9aa2da1b-2019-04-19T12:46:59Z-00013-000", "rank": 8, "score": 182956.0}, {"content": "Title: the increase personal safety Content: Whilst people may be focusing on the negative effects that radiation may or may not have, there is also the aspect of personal safety. People no longer have to find a phone booth to make an emergency call. People no longer have to have change on them to use that phone box. Mobile phones have saved thousands of lives. With most people having one, if you are out shopping and an accident occurs, you know that there will be many people around who within a matter of seconds would be able to call the police, an ambulance or a fireman depending on what the situation was. This is a speedier way to handle an emergency and the time saved will have already saved thousands of lives. This is compared to no recorded deaths for the radiation caused by mobile phones.", "qid": "37", "docid": "9aa2da1b-2019-04-19T12:46:59Z-00012-000", "rank": 9, "score": 170770.0}, {"content": "Title: should kid own phones with service Content: I will be arguing that children should not be allowed to possess phones with service. My opponent's first and only point regarded one's safety \"in cases of emergencies or someone got hurt or sick or if you got lost or need help and stuff like that.\" However, one does not need a phone with service to contact the police department, 911. As part of the \"Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999,\" all phones, with or without service, must be capable of calling 911 (S1).Studies suggest that cellphones are unhealthy for youths. They pose many healthy concerns which may impact them greatly in the future. For example, in a study published by the NRPB in December 2004, scientists found that there were indications that radiation from cellphones may damage DNA. A study from April 2004 shows a correlation between mobile phone use and auditory nerve tumors, and research in 2003 links cellphones to impaired brain function (S2). Scientists have concluded that cellphones may double a child's risk of getting a tumor on a nerve connecting your ear to your brain, damage cell membranes, radically decrease cellular production of energy and disrupt the communication between cells (S3). Cellphones are also a great deterrent of sleep. In a study of 10,000 16 to 19 year olds, researchers in Norway foudn that the longer a young person spent looking at an electronic screen before going to bed, the worse quality sleep they had. Those who spent more than four hours a day looking at screens had a 49% greater risk of taking longer than an hour to sleep and were 350% more likely to sleep for under five hours a night (S4). Being that sleep is crucial for youths, for physical and psychological development and for energy, many researchers discourage children from using cellphones.Sources:S1) https://www.fcc.gov...S2) https://www.newscientist.com...S3) http://articles.mercola.com...S4) http://www.independent.co.uk...", "qid": "37", "docid": "aecf7370-2019-04-18T12:27:52Z-00002-000", "rank": 10, "score": 166828.0}, {"content": "Title: They actually reduce the chances of brain tumours. Content: Quite the contrary to the suggestion that cell phones can cause harm to the brain via radiation, some research has shown the opposite to be true[[Joachim Schuz et al. \"Cellular Telephone Use and Cancer Risk: Update of a Nationwide Danish Cohort,\" Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Dec. 2006]]. The radiation from mobile phones has been shown to reduce the chances of the user developing glioma and meningioma.", "qid": "37", "docid": "9aa2da1b-2019-04-19T12:46:59Z-00010-000", "rank": 11, "score": 165257.0}, {"content": "Title: Cell Phones Are Dangerous Content: \\\\\\Cell phones are not dangerous because they are made of lint/// Most cell phones look like this: http://weblogs.cltv.com... as you can see the phone is made out of metal or shiny plastic, and not lint. \\\\\\I would also like to point out my opponents cell phone does not exist./// This is irrelevant. It does exist because to post this argument I had to check on the mobile web to see if you had posted. ===Point=== I. Causes cancer * Cellular telephones emit radiofrequency (RF) energy (radio waves), which is a form of radiation that is under investigation for its effects on the human body (1). * Cellular telephone technology emerged in Europe in the 1980s but did not come into widespread use in the United States until the 1990s. The technology is rapidly changing, so there are few long-term studies of the effects of RF energy from cellular telephones on the human body (1). * The number of cellular telephone users has increased rapidly. As of December 2008, there were more than 270 million subscribers to cellular telephone service in the United States, according to the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association. This is an increase from 110 million users in 2000 and 208 million users in 2005. Because cell phones are held near the head when in use, therefore, in theory they may cause: Malignant (cancerous) brain tumors such as gliomas Non-cancerous tumors of the brain such as meningiomas Non-cancerous tumors of the nerve connecting the brain to the ear (acoustic neuromas) Non-cancerous tumors of the salivary glands", "qid": "37", "docid": "b986bc28-2019-04-18T19:08:23Z-00001-000", "rank": 12, "score": 164480.0}, {"content": "Title: children should not be given the permission to own mobile phones. Content: What you are saying about is cell phones related to humans.The topic is whether it is good for children.A child is a human between the stages of birth and puberty.The brain of a child is more prone to the bad effects of radiation.Please look these and confirm that they are very bad for children. http://healthychild.org... http://www.earthcalm.com... http://www.internationalparentingassociation.org... So from these websites we can confirm a fact that they are bad for children.The mobiles not only emit radiation during calls.A large amount of radiation is also emitted during the other activities by these cell phones.Children usually gets addicted to these and so the effect of these mobile phones in the children is maximum. So i urge the voters to be in the pro side in this debate. I am also thanking my con side for having a wonderful debate with me.........", "qid": "37", "docid": "1a94f253-2019-04-18T17:01:12Z-00001-000", "rank": 13, "score": 161814.0}, {"content": "Title: Should we use cell phones in school Content: There are possible long-term health risks from using mobile phones. Some research suggests that the radio waves from mobile phones may harm people's brains. Because children's brains are still developing, any possible damage to them is even more worrying than for adults. It is true there is no total scientific proof about this, but it is better to play safe than take risks \u2013 the precautionary principle. Until science can prove mobile phones are completely safe for young people to use, they should not be allowed to have them.", "qid": "37", "docid": "57e140e8-2019-04-18T18:27:47Z-00004-000", "rank": 14, "score": 158956.0}, {"content": "Title: Are cellphones safe Content: the increase personal safety", "qid": "37", "docid": "9aa2da1b-2019-04-19T12:46:59Z-00004-000", "rank": 15, "score": 158732.0}, {"content": "Title: Mobile phones are safe for children to use \u2013 we should ignore scare stories in the media. The lates... Content: There are possible long-term health risks from using mobile phones. Some research suggests that the radio waves from mobile phones may harm people\u2019s brains. Because children\u2019s brains are still developing, any possible damage to them is even more worrying than for adults. It is true there is no total scientific proof about this, but it is better to play safe than take risks \u2013 the precautionary principle. Until science can prove mobile phones are completely safe for young people to use, they should not be allowed to have them.", "qid": "37", "docid": "522c7c3b-2019-04-19T12:44:42Z-00006-000", "rank": 16, "score": 158521.0}, {"content": "Title: cell phone use good or bad state your debate Content: Phones are useful in some cases, but they also can cause cancer from radiation. Here are some links: www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/radiation/cell-phones-fact-sheet http://www.cancer.org... http://www.nydailynews.com... www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/cell_phones._FAQ.html In my first argument, I will only be going over cancer. I apologize for this shortened argument, but I plan to use a different argument in every round. I look forward to your response.", "qid": "37", "docid": "b61f3301-2019-04-18T12:40:37Z-00000-000", "rank": 17, "score": 157976.0}, {"content": "Title: children should not be given the permission to own mobile phones. Content: My opponent provided no other definition of child. Therefore we must conclude that he agrees with me that nobody under 18 should own a cell phone or he has failed in his burden of proof. My opponent clearly did not examine my source. The National Cancer Institute is far more reliable than a YouTube video. However, I shall better explain it here. According to the NCI, cell phones emit \"radiofrequency energy, a form of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation\" [1] which, yes, may be absorbed by tissues near the ear. Now, ionizing radiation has been shown to increase the risk of cancer. Non-ionizing radiation, like phones, has not. Again, the NCI states that \"radiofrequency energy...does not cause DNA damage in cells\" and has not been found to \"cause cancer in animals\" or enhance cancer-causing effects [1]. Thus we cannot conclude cell phones cause cancer. PRO dropped my communication point; please extend it, and vote CON! [1] http://www.cancer.gov...", "qid": "37", "docid": "1a94f253-2019-04-18T17:01:12Z-00002-000", "rank": 18, "score": 156946.0}, {"content": "Title: The use of a mobile phone requires a social life. Content: Studies continue to emphatically expose the adverse effects of cell phone radiation; without refutation. [[http://www.truthaboutabs.com/cell-phone-damages-crotch.html]] Tell that to all those crack callers I keep getting missed calls from. Badgering strangers or not is possible on both the internet and on a mobile. The difference is privacy policies and Cyber-laws protect the average internet browser; whereas, there are no protections for those being harassed on their cellphone. And no I've tried the add to screen list option; the calls still come but the phone doesn't ring and calls I 'do' want to receive are impeded. all you need is a phone number; some creeps even dial in random numbers and then wait and see who picks up. Cell phones are even more versatile than public payphones for those who change Sims often; so they don't worry about call tracing. This is why cellphones are central to crime and terrorism. Demo: Get disposable phone; insert disposable Sim Call anyone from anywhere.(fellow criminals, stalker target, person to blackmail etc) Give phone to complete stranger or throw it in a trash bin; from which any random person can pick it up. Avoid being traced.", "qid": "37", "docid": "5af4c3ec-2019-04-19T12:48:10Z-00010-000", "rank": 19, "score": 155920.0}, {"content": "Title: children should not be given the permission to own mobile phones. Content: It is indeed a true fact that mobiles can cause cancers.When we place a mobile phone near a speaker and make a call to it we may be able to hear a specific sound.This is caused due to radiation..The radiation of the mobiles can pop a popcorn as shown in the following video. Now from this we have understood that mobiles causes radiation.Next is to know whether they are harmful or not to us.We can see that both pop corn and speakers get affected by this radiation.The same effect happens on human beings.The radiation can cause damage to the cells which are nearer to the mobiles while calling.This gets spread from cells to cells and finally will lead to a great effect in humans.If the students are given the permission to own mobiles they would go on calling and calling their friends.What the con said here was there is no problem in using phones.But it indeed has a great effect if children use it for long hours.So they are bad for children........", "qid": "37", "docid": "1a94f253-2019-04-18T17:01:12Z-00003-000", "rank": 20, "score": 153918.0}, {"content": "Title: Are cellphones safe Content: They can cause cancer", "qid": "37", "docid": "9aa2da1b-2019-04-19T12:46:59Z-00003-000", "rank": 21, "score": 153442.0}, {"content": "Title: mobile phones are a curse for todays youth Content: Mobile-phone use while driving is common. It is generally agreed that using a hand-held mobile phone while driving is a distraction that brings risk of road traffic accidents.A little attention is received recently towards the potential impact of the kind of electromagnetic fields generated by cellular phones on the human brain. Accumulating evidence indicate that microwave radiation from mobile phones may cause serious diseases and disturbances in the physiology. This includes an increased cancer risk and genetic damage, disturbed brain function and other effects. Mobile phone radiation and health concerns have been raised, especially following the enormous increase in the use of wireless mobile telephony throughout the world.", "qid": "37", "docid": "e4f285c5-2019-04-18T19:36:52Z-00001-000", "rank": 22, "score": 153223.0}, {"content": "Title: This House believes that children should be allowed to own and use smart phones. Content: 1. Health an safety issues. A child's (say 5-13) brain absorbs 10x more radiation to the brain than adults. An older 'child' (15-18) may be more immune to radiation, but nevertheless, the 'child' will most likely sleep with the phone next to their heads, allowing 10 + or - hours of radiation streaming into the brain and genitalia, which could cause ADHD, autism, damaged reproduction systems, etc. 2. Distraction. You have already gone against this argument but let me expand. If the child took the phone to school, he would be focused on the phone and the new game he got rather than the teacher. His excuse would be \"notes\" or \"the interactive textbook\". And for older children, they would focus on the phones, instead of interacting with others. Most parent won't object to this, in today's culture. Exploring an smart phone not quite exploring technology. The creators of smart phones have made it extremely easy to navigate. Unless they were taking it apart, it's not really exploring technology. I believe there are alternatives to a technological education. One of the safest is a desktop, this also provides the parents with easier ways to make sure the child is doing what heshe is supposed to be doing. I suggest visiting this page for reasons why children should not have smartphones. It was also one of my sources. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...", "qid": "37", "docid": "fa5da6ff-2019-04-18T15:40:19Z-00002-000", "rank": 23, "score": 145235.0}, {"content": "Title: Are cellphones safe Content: They make people too reliant on them.", "qid": "37", "docid": "9aa2da1b-2019-04-19T12:46:59Z-00001-000", "rank": 24, "score": 141188.0}, {"content": "Title: Children Should not be Allowed to Own Smart Phones Until They are in Their Mid Teens (15-16 y/o) Content: \"Radiations being at number one. When you are giving that innocent toddler a smart phone, you are actually giving him/her a radiation emitting box of terror.\" Are you not aware that many things in are every day life emit radiation? Processed foods, medical xrays and even air. If you walk outside in an urban environment you will soak in just as much radiation as you would being on your phone. Even are sun gives off MORE radiation than a cell phone, this argument is not concerning as the radiation a cell phone emits is VERY little in comparison to objects in our everyday lives. http://www.livescience.com... \"Substituting physical activities and human interactions with smart phones would never do good\" Bear in mind that a toddler is between the age of 0 and 5, and toddlers cannot participate in any official sport till the age of 6. Children will also by natural run around and play, the phone will not provide an obstacle for the children if the parents manage it properly. Children can also learn a lot from IPad applications, I work in the special needs department at my school and we give them phones/ipads to give them educational and brain games. This only helps there social interaction and makes them learn something new. \"Most people, CAN NOT multitask. Switching between two tasks is something that takes up a lot of energy, especially when the task which needs to be switched from is an addiction\" Procrastination can be controlled by the parent and its there responsibility to dictate phone time. Banning phone use will negate a lot of opportunities a lot of present day applications use. Education brain games can be crucial and can help a lot of developing kids, as technology if used properly will make people smarter. Books can be used yes, but googling can allow you to scroll through the information faster and become more multi perspective. http://www.usatoday.com... \"The age 5 - 10 involves stuff like brain development, learning social skills, learning important values amongst family and friends, starting to know which field best matches with your interests \" In the article above the school uses smart phones to help kids with brain stimulating activities, it can also provide benefits to many children as well, as it can help them learn a wider array of topics. Learning important values among family members and friends will come through social interaction. Regardless if you have a phone or not, you will be able to develop social skills as elementary schools will enforce it. Family values do not correlate to whether someone has a phone or not, I actually do not see how you can even find that compatible. Family values should be taught by the family members, and I was able to learn and adapt to my family's expectations even getting a phone at the age of 10. \"AGE 10 - 15 ('Tweenagers') Apart from the health problems and lack in social skills, the problems which prevail more in this age group are things like increased 'FOMO' (Fear of missing out), sleep disruption, procrastination and increased stress (I had a smart phone for a week when I was in my 'tweens' and I gave it back myself, because I noticed, IN JUST ONE WEEK, how my life was being affected in a bad way from it!) \" So you make the ignorant claim that you threw your phone out because of negative affects and it should be enforced on other individuals? Lets look at any device, a computer. If you're on the computer for to long, the same affects will develop. Being on the computer will disrupt sleep, make you procrastinate and increase your stress. However phones have also debunked my stress because I use it to communicate with friends, talk to family members from faraway lands and use it to learn. A flip phone will prevent you from communicating from long distance relatives as well, unless you want to pay extra money. So are you also saying that teenagers shouldn't have computers? \"Moreover, these kids are more likely to be opened up to things they should not be watching or doing (pornography, etc.). \" I don't know what household you grew up in, but by the age of 14 most parents have responded that it was okay for there children to watch pornography, unless you align yourself with a different religion. It actually has a lot of benefits and can help kids understand what it really is. You may be saying it puts them in a different mindset, but they will be brought into the mindset regardless as teenagers and their surroundings, if you truly dislike that mentality, send your kid to a private school. http://sexuality.about.com... In your last argument, I will state that a simple flip phone will be bad for business. No one wants to manufacture them and its a waste of money, all in all a cell phone an is unconstitutional and should be left by the parent. I will conclude there", "qid": "37", "docid": "70b67f9b-2019-04-18T12:33:37Z-00002-000", "rank": 25, "score": 139577.0}, {"content": "Title: Mobile Tech Hurts more than Helps Content: Even though mobile technology has impacted humans lives in some positive ways, they have also caused many tragic situations that, if humanity wasn't addicted to their phones, could have been avoidable. For instance, texting/email/talking on your phone while driving are a major cause of accidents on the roads. 23% of all car accidents (that's almost 3.1 million crashes) are caused by responding to a text or email while driving, 11 teens are killed each day because of this and almost 3500 people died in 2012 because of distracted driving involving a cell phone or various other mobile technologies. Humanity has put so much faith and life into their phones that the younger you start with a cell phone the worst your addition to it will get, people find themselves checking their phone on average 2 times a minute. Teenagers who have lost or left their phone at home go through withdrawals that have the same stress level as a drug addict who haven't had a fix. Due to peoples addictions to their phones this can also increase risks of cancer from the radiation that the phones let off, always having your phone in your pocket can cause the radiation to be exposed to your leg or private regions for almost 14 hours a day.", "qid": "37", "docid": "9e69ad73-2019-04-18T16:17:25Z-00002-000", "rank": 26, "score": 139030.0}, {"content": "Title: mobile phones are a curse for todays youth Content: \"Mobile-phone use while driving is common. It is generally agreed that using a hand-held mobile phone while driving is a distraction that brings risk of road traffic accidents.\" -->Which if true, is the reason why many states and countries are implementing a hands-free rule when driving. Only blue tooth headsets will be allowed, to allow the driver to pay more attention to driving his/her car. \".A little attention is received recently towards the potential impact of the kind of electromagnetic fields generated by cellular phones on the human brain. Accumulating evidence indicate that microwave radiation from mobile phones may cause serious diseases and disturbances in the physiology. This includes an increased cancer risk and genetic damage, disturbed brain function and other effects. Mobile phone radiation and health concerns have been raised, especially following the enormous increase in the use of wireless mobile telephony throughout the world.\" --> A claim that is not backed up with a link or a reference to verify such a claim. As I have shown in my previous round, studies of up to 10 years show minimal to no cancer effects from cell phone usage. ~Conclusion~ No references and 3 forfeited rounds should obligate a vote for Con. My opponent has failed to show how cell phones are the curse for today's youth, and even dropped one of his points in the beginning.", "qid": "37", "docid": "e4f285c5-2019-04-18T19:36:52Z-00000-000", "rank": 27, "score": 137996.0}, {"content": "Title: children should not be given the permission to own mobile phones. Content: Mobiles may help people to connect the people around the world.But the disadvantages or the defects of these mobile phones are much greater specially for kids.Using mobiles by kids for various purposes such as playing,chatting...etc. can cause much disaster in these children.This is because these mobiles give out radiations which can cause a great damage to our brain.This can even lead to cancers among the children.So to avoid this children should not be given their own phones until they reach a specific age.", "qid": "37", "docid": "1a94f253-2019-04-18T17:01:12Z-00005-000", "rank": 28, "score": 135659.0}, {"content": "Title: Children Should not be Allowed to Own Smart Phones Until They are in Their Mid Teens (15-16 y/o) Content: This round is ONLY for defence and conclusions.1)\"Are you not aware that many things in are every day life emit radiation?\"How many of those things do you carry with yourself which are constantly in contact with your body, with just some clothe layers in between? X rays are harmful for the body to some extent. Air won't have so much radiation, it will be basically negligible. The sun gives of way more radiation than a phone. Absolutely right. But all of that radiation doest not reach to us. It is a small fraction. And even that fraction does harm like SKIN CANCER if you spend too long in it, GUESS WHAT A DEVICE IN YOUR BREAST POCKET CONSTANTLY EMITING RADIATIONS BECAUSE IT HAS TO CONNECT TO THE TOWERS AND WIFI AND WHAT NOT WILL DO. 2) \"toddlers cannot participate in any official sport till the age of 6\" Physical development doesn't need 'official' games. It requires baby games like tickling the kid, exercising his body, etc. And why did you choose the age 6? Official means - \"having the approval or authorization of an authority or public body\" The games little kids play are not unofficial. They are not offending anyone by playing copycat with their parents. \"Children will also by natural run around and play, the phone will not provide an obstacle for the children if the parents manage it properly\" They won't sit all day with the phones. But something like a smart phone is addictive for a small kid. Who hasn't seen videos on youtube, of adorable babies playing on a smart phone, and when it is taken from them, they start crying. Brain development at childhood is not SUCH a big problem that something like a smart phone is needed to help. Babies' brains used to develop just as well when smart phones were not given away so carelessly to them, assuming that it is 'helping'.3) \"Procrastination can be controlled by the parent and its there responsibility to dictate phone time.\"Easier said than done. When it comes to young teenagers, they can just sneak the smart phone out at night. Even if parents give a fixed time, it's hard for me to believe that more than 10% of those people at an age that humans tend to be the most stubborn at, will follow it. It is also not efficient for the parents to keep a check on the kid ALL the time since they have their own lives to deal with too.4) \"Books can be used yes, but googling can allow you to scroll through the information faster and become more multi perspective.\"Know about the Google effect? The Google effect, also called digital amnesia, is the tendency to forget information that can be found readily online. According to the first study about the Google effect people are less likely to remember certain details they believe will be accessible online.Now this might sound okay-ish to you, but to me, it sounds pretty bad. It is just dampening, or more suitably, destroying the brain's capabilities. Your brain thinks, \"I can look this up the internet without wasting much energy, no need to remember it then\" And, a student should not be dealing with such a problem. It will interfere with performance at school. And even in their future, they might be in one of the vast list of jobs that require you to remember many things, from school, from recent affairs, etc. Looking it up the internet every time would be highly inefficient, the brain has to be trained to do good, not be lazy.5)Writing down to practice and reading from a book is the safest way to study. The apps are designed to help, not to be depended upon. 6)\"So you make the ignorant claim that you threw your phone out because of negative affects and it should be enforced on other individuals?\"Quoting an incident does not mean trying to enforce it on others according to my senses.\"Lets look at any device, a computer\" \" So are you also saying that teenagers shouldn't have computers?\"If you read my rebuttals, you should know I already have talked why computers are better than phones and won't cause as much harm. It is quite easy to understand why spending (wasting) loads of time on a small lightweight phone is far easier than on a relatively large computer.7)\"by the age of 14 most parents have responded that it was okay for there children to watch pornography\"Okay this 'fact' is completely absurd. Everything from 'by the age of 14' to 'MOST parents' sounds a bit too farfetched. The source you mentioned speaks about effects of pornography on a couple. We are most definitely NOT talking about effects of porn on relationships here. Most parents would not want their kids to be watching such a thing, because - They are too naive and can get themselves into trouble. Once you are legal age, then you decide whether you want something like that, or stay a good 100 feet away. But we are talking about people less than 16 y/o.8)\"I will state that a simple flip phone will be bad for business\" The debate topic is whether children should be allowed smart phones or not, NOT how it affects business of the sellers.So, smartphones are bad for kids", "qid": "37", "docid": "70b67f9b-2019-04-18T12:33:37Z-00001-000", "rank": 29, "score": 131373.0}, {"content": "Title: do smart phones make kids dumber Content: Last year the Librarian of Congress warned that texting was responsible for a drastic decline in American sentences, but that opinion wasn't backed up by any scientific evidence. Now, a team of Australian psychologists has come a step closer to proving that mobile phones are destroying our ability to think. The researchers show that children who use mobile phones respond to higher-level cognitive tasks faster, but less accurately, than those who don't. 94% of Australians use cell phones, and the cognitive psychologists were testing for the negative effects of exposure to mobile phone radiation, especially among children, whose brains are still developing. In addition to fears that cell phones cause cancer, one earlier study found that school-age children who had been exposed to mobile phones as infants or in utero were almost twice as likely to be hyperactive or disruptive as those whose parents used land lines. The good news is that radio waves from mobile phones won't fry young brains or turn kids into delinquents. The bad news is, cell phones actually make children dumb (M. J. Abramson, G. P. Benke, C. Dimitriadis, I. O. Inyang, M. R. Sim, R. S. Wolfe, and R. J. Croft, \"Mobile telephone use is associated with changes in cognitive function in young adolescents\" Bioelectromagnetics 30.6 [early view, August, 2009]). Of the 317 seventh-graders who participated in the Australian study, 77% owned their own mobile phone and almost all the rest had used one. The children reported an average of eight calls and eight text messages a week, with heavy users logging as many as fifteen. Even though these figures seem low -- what 13-year-old would acknowledge receiving so few texts? -- those who used cell phones more responded to a battery of cognitive tests much faster, and much less accurately, than those who seldom called or texted, or those who didn't use mobiles at all. Specifically, the psychologists found that as mobile phone use increased, children learned to perform tasks more quickly, but their ability to remember things declined: \"The accuracy of working memory was poorer, reaction time for a simple learning task shorter, associative learning response time shorter and accuracy poorer.\" Findings were the same whether children called or texted, and since texting involves very little exposure to radiation, this suggests that it's the act of phoning, not the radiation, that accounts for decreased cognitive ability. The researchers went so far as to suggest that mobile phone use also correlates with impulsivity, and that cell phone utilities like 'predictive texting' actually condition children to favor speed over accuracy. (For other research on texting, click here and here; for the impact of texting on literature, click here; for its impact on politics, click here; for its impact on language development, click here). But reports that cell phones are destroying our brains are premature. Even the Australian researchers acknowledge that it might be unwise to depend on the accounts of thirteen year olds for accurate information about how many calls or texts they receive each week. Nor is it reasonable to conclude that mobile phones cause children to respond faster to assigned tasks (ever try to get a cell-phone-enabled thirteen year old to do their homework in a hurry?) or to make their answers less accurate (they can text perfectly without looking at the keyboard; can you?).", "qid": "37", "docid": "7864ca28-2019-04-18T15:29:03Z-00006-000", "rank": 30, "score": 130965.0}, {"content": "Title: Cell Phones Content: there bad", "qid": "37", "docid": "b1f4c28-2019-04-18T17:48:48Z-00004-000", "rank": 31, "score": 130711.0}, {"content": "Title: children should not be given the permission to own mobile phones. Content: PRO claims that I am referring to humans. Is PRO claiming that children are not human? PRO provided no sources for his definition of child. Therefore my definition from Round 1 stands - a young person under age 18. Thus PRO'S argument must include anyone under 18. Again PRO ignored my argument concerning the necessity of phones in a digital age. He concedes them. My opponent provided links but did not support them with arguments. I reaffirm my position. The National Institute of Environmental Health Science states that there is no evidence to link \"cell phone use with any adverse health problems\" [1]. PRO also provided no proof that radiation is emitted by other activities. We can discount this claim. Even if the radiation was harmful, which I have proven there is no evidence to suggest, PRO is still arguing that no one under 18 should have a phone. I thank PRO for a great debate and urge you to vote CON! [1] http://www.niehs.nih.gov...", "qid": "37", "docid": "1a94f253-2019-04-18T17:01:12Z-00000-000", "rank": 32, "score": 130178.0}, {"content": "Title: Children Should not be Allowed to Own Smart Phones Until They are in Their Mid Teens (15-16 y/o) Content: \"Smart phones have these options, correct. But there are no better substitutes? WRONG. \" A smartphone will not intervene with a child playing a sport, a child will still go outside with his or her friends. As I said before, there are many applications that will help brain development, a special needs kid that has used these applications has shown major improvement in comparison to kids that don't. From personal experience I can conclude that a phone if used properly can actually help a child drastically. \"Kids aged 5-10 don't need calculators. Using the brain to calculate is good for mental development. Calculators, not quite so.\" So if a child had a mental disability or dyslexia where they couldn't see the equations properly, you're saying that they shouldn't have additional tools available for them? Or a kid struggling, a calculator is a strong mathematical tool that gives every a broader range of what they're doing. If a kid is struggling a math the calculator is a vital tool for understanding. \"Harm from radiation directly relates to time of exposure and distance from body.\" This radiation argument is completely untrue, as phones do emit radiation the power of the sun can burn the skin to the point where you do develop cancer. \"Study guides. - Laptops exist for that,\" Which is contradictory, you're saying that phones are addicting, perhaps you should look at another addicting thing that correlates to laptops. Video games, how can you say a phone is addicting and ruins relationships when video games are considered to be a further concern. On a laptop you can access pornography as well, you say that kids shouldn't have phones and use laptops instead. When a laptop can literally do the same exact thing a phone could and also has a few more implements that are considered addictive, a kid going to school would also have the burden of carrying the laptop in there bag. Can you tell me something the phone can do that the laptop can't? If the answer strays away from \"calling\" and \"texting\" i'd be impressed. \"That would be far better done if these kids were made to meet each other, and know each other by spending time in the real (NOT THE VIRTUAL) world.\" Most of the time calling and texting and communication through social media groups are a primary source for party invitations and event notification. I know when something is going on through a notified instagram group chat or a face book group message. Phones are generally used to allow a gateway for these social events, and allows a great way to communicate. Based on personal experience, I have had a friend who didn't have a smart phone, and we'd organize things through a group chat on a social media app. These made it so he wasn't notified and it only made him less open to future social organizations because he couldn't get to us. I could easily argue that I have been even more social because things that go on are more prevalent to me. \"How does concentrating on the fun with friends during an outing, instead of constantly gazing into the screen make you introvert? Its the opposite for sure though. \" However most of the time people go through there phone when they are in a bus or car, or in an environment when they are bored. In a date they may do it on occasion, but introversion is on the basis of not wanting to talk to people. Smart phones notify people of what is going on. In a study conducted it actually stated that extroverts are more likely to become addicted to there smart phones. http://www.rawstory.com... It's due to them actually being socially active, a student who is introverted cannot nor do they want to communicate with a broad group of people. You may be misinformed as well, it's nice to concentrate on friends during an outing, but most people don't whip out there phones and just browse through it when they are with a group of friends. Unless they are sitting down, but they may also be posting something on snapchat or instagram where they can share there experience with everyone else. And if someone wants to browse there phone and be an introvert, so what? It may give them a release from the real world and get there minds off of things. \"Invitations don't inculcate social skills. Most of these kids won't even go due to the fear of being judged for what they are outside the online world. Even if they go, they are most likely to take the phone with them and spend more time on it.\" If they spend time on there phone then that is entirely okay, as its a good way to escape from an awkward situation. But as I said many times before, it's a way to open gateways to be more social. Most kids who are extroverted WILL pick up to social invitations. In conclusion, kids who do not have phones will be more secluded. It's healthy to develop social skills but phones won't intervene with that. Group chats will notify gateways, where kids can be more social and happy.", "qid": "37", "docid": "70b67f9b-2019-04-18T12:33:37Z-00000-000", "rank": 33, "score": 130073.0}, {"content": "Title: Cell Phones Are Dangerous Content: This debate gave me hepatitis", "qid": "37", "docid": "b986bc28-2019-04-18T19:08:23Z-00000-000", "rank": 34, "score": 128066.0}, {"content": "Title: Are cellphones safe Content: People succumb to their mobile and drive whilst on the phone", "qid": "37", "docid": "9aa2da1b-2019-04-19T12:46:59Z-00002-000", "rank": 35, "score": 127337.0}, {"content": "Title: Mobile phones are safe for children to use \u2013 we should ignore scare stories in the media. The lates... Content: Mobile phones are safe for children to use \u2013 we should ignore scare stories in the media. The latest research says that mobile phones do not damage brain cells. Even those earlier studies that suggested there might be a problem thought that people would have to use a cell phone for hours a day for there to be an effect. It is true that there is no 100% proof mobile phones are safe to use, but that is true of any scientific study.", "qid": "37", "docid": "522c7c3b-2019-04-19T12:44:42Z-00007-000", "rank": 36, "score": 125328.0}, {"content": "Title: Cell Phones Are Dangerous Content: Cell phones are not dangerous because they are made of lint.. therefore they are of no harm to anyone.. I would also like to point out my opponents cell phone does not exist.", "qid": "37", "docid": "b986bc28-2019-04-18T19:08:23Z-00002-000", "rank": 37, "score": 124487.0}, {"content": "Title: Are cellphones safe Content: They actually reduce the chances of brain tumours.", "qid": "37", "docid": "9aa2da1b-2019-04-19T12:46:59Z-00005-000", "rank": 38, "score": 124208.0}, {"content": "Title: Go Nuclear Content: Nuclear reactors are very dangerous and threaten the safety of human lives. Radiation caused by the nuclear reactors there are two. First, direct radiation, which occurs when the radiation emitted by radioactive directly on the skin or the human body. Second, indirect radiation. Indirect radiation is radiation that occurs through contaminated food and drink radioactive substances, either through air, water, or other media. Both the radiation directly or indirectly, will affect organ function through cell-cell formation. Organs that are sensitive to and become damaged. Cells of the body when contaminated radioactive description as follows: the occurrence of ionizing radiation can damage the relationship between the atomic cell with molecules of life, can also alter the condition of the atom itself, alter the original function of the cell or even to kill him. In principle, there are three due to radiation can affect cells. First, the cell will die. Second, there was a doubling of the cell, can eventually lead to cancer, and the third, damage can occur in the egg or testes, which will start the process of deformed babies. In addition, also cause burns and an increasing number of cancer patients (thyroid and cardiovascular) as much as 30-50% in Hryvnia, respiratory inflammation, and inhibition of the respiratory tract, as well as psychological problems and stress resulting from radiation leaks. There are some latent dangers of nuclear power plants that need to be considered. First, human error (human error) which may cause leakage, which is a very broad range of radiation and be fatal for the environment and living things. Secondly, one of which is generated by nuclear power plants, namely Plutonium has a very powerful warhead. Plutonium Because of this, one of the raw material for making nuclear weapons. Hiroshima city destroyed simply by 5 kg of plutonium. Third, the waste generated (Uranium) can affect genetics. In addition, nuclear power emits radioactive radiation that are dangerous to humans. THINK IT OVER! NUCLEAR REACTOR IS HARMFUL!", "qid": "37", "docid": "691fdd5d-2019-04-18T17:30:47Z-00001-000", "rank": 39, "score": 123347.0}, {"content": "Title: Should students use phones in school Content: Did u know wifi is actually a form of radiation? The wifi waves are electro-magnetic and a study published by Princeton university shows that they actually can be harmful to children. Yes children with disabilities can benefit from specific programs but why do they need their own personal devices to do so? Technology is very important in the modern day but schools need to find a way to balance between traditional schooling while keeping up with our rapidly changing world. BYOD isn't the way.", "qid": "37", "docid": "fdbb8e69-2019-04-18T16:08:28Z-00002-000", "rank": 40, "score": 123074.0}, {"content": "Title: Are cellphones safe Content: the link between phone usage and brain tumours has been disproved", "qid": "37", "docid": "9aa2da1b-2019-04-19T12:46:59Z-00006-000", "rank": 41, "score": 122673.0}, {"content": "Title: This House believes that children should be allowed to own and use smart phones. Content: I believe that children should not own smartphones because of the huge amount of radiation constantly 'penetrating' , the word my opponent would prefer me to use, the brain and other fragile body parts, and because most parents do not mind when and what their children use their phones for, and to those parents who do, I comend you.", "qid": "37", "docid": "fa5da6ff-2019-04-18T15:40:19Z-00000-000", "rank": 42, "score": 120736.0}, {"content": "Title: children should not be given the permission to own mobile phones. Content: I'd like to welcome my opponent and extend my hope for a great debate! The Merriam-Webster Dictionary vaguely defines 'child' as \"a young person\" or \"a person not yet of age\" [1]. In the United States, 'of age' generally refers to age 18, so my opponent is arguing against anyone younger than 18 having a cell phone. It is his burden of proof to provide a specific age for usage. He claims that phones cause radiation leading to cancer. However, as the National Cancer Institute reports, \"studies...have not shown a consistent link between cell phone use and cancers of the brain, nerves\" and more [2]. Thus my opponent's claim is false. Cell phone use connects children to their friends and families. They are sources of communication and entertainment and, in this technological era, are essential. Thus I must urge you to vote CON in this debate! [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] http://www.cancer.gov...", "qid": "37", "docid": "1a94f253-2019-04-18T17:01:12Z-00004-000", "rank": 43, "score": 120482.0}, {"content": "Title: Schools Should Allow The Owning And Usage Of Mobile Phones. Content: I shall prove my position by defending my arguments about how schools should allow the usage of mobile phones. Definition: A mobile phone (also known as a cellular phone, cell phone, and a hand phone) is a device that can make and receive telephone calls over a radio link while moving around a wide geographic area. It does so by connecting to a cellular network provided by a mobile phone operator, allowing access to the public telephone network. By contrast, a cordless telephone is used only within the short range of a single, private base station. Reasons: My reasons why mobile phones should be bannes will be listed below: Reason 1: Mobile Phones keep children safe. If any sign of emergency, the children may be allowed to use their mobile phones to contact 911 or their parents. If their school teaches fire drills, earthquake drills, and others, they might be in a situation in which their school is being raided, or is in the proccess of a shooting, they may also be able to contact 911 or anyone of their relatives. Reason 2: Mobile phones encourage the development of independence and interpersonal skills.Education is as much about the growth in character and dealing with risks as it is the accumulation of knowledge; mobile phones provide for children a means to converse with peers, develop friendships and resolve disputes, all within minutes of each other, night and day. For them, \u2018getting a cell phone is a step towards independence and a status symbol among their friends\u2019.[1] The confidence and self-esteem derived from having a mobile phone cannot be underappreciated, as proven by the corresponding negative impact of losing one\u2019s phone. An Independent study in 2004 found that 55 per cent of people cited \u2018keeping in touch with friends or family as the main reason for being wedded to their handsets'.[2] Furthermore, the increasing potential of smart phones facilitates the accessing of information in real-time and on the move; a determined child with a grasp of the potential of their mobile phone can illuminate themselves on matters like directions to destinations, opening times for activities and immediate weather forecasts. With such information, children can begin to reason with each other and make decisions without resort to more mature advice. Conclusion: My arguments declare all the reason why mobile phones should be allowed in public schools. I rest my case.", "qid": "37", "docid": "bd1562f-2019-04-18T16:36:15Z-00003-000", "rank": 44, "score": 119883.0}, {"content": "Title: Using a mobile phone while driving is very dangerous. Physically holding a handset removes one hand... Content: Clearly, using a mobile phone while driving can be dangerous in some circumstances, but equally it is not dangerous in many situations, for example while the car is at a standstill in gridlocked traffic, while waiting at traffic lights, or on a quiet road with good visibility ahead. Other things in the car can be at least as distracting, such as eating, changing tapes, retuning the radio, arguing with your spouse about directions, trying to stop children squabbling, etc. We should not introduce a law that victimises mobile phone users under all conditions, while ignoring many other causes of accidents.", "qid": "37", "docid": "e0f3c01e-2019-04-19T12:46:51Z-00006-000", "rank": 45, "score": 117971.0}, {"content": "Title: Should we use cell phones in school Content: Mobile phones make children less safe. Firstly they are carrying an expensive fashion item that makes them a target for criminals. Millions of people are robbed of cell phones every year, sometimes with violence. Secondly, many children spend so much time talking on the phone or texting that they are less aware of what is going on around them. Each year young people get run over crossing the street because their attention was on their phone conversation, not the traffic.", "qid": "37", "docid": "57e140e8-2019-04-18T18:27:47Z-00002-000", "rank": 46, "score": 117335.0}, {"content": "Title: Cell phone use in cars probably saves lives Content: Using mobiles on the road could improve safety, for example, by allowing delayed employees to ring in to the office rather than drive recklessly in an effort to arrive more promptly. Drivers now often use mobile phones to report accidents to the emergency services, and alert the police to dangerous driving, stray animals, unsafe loads, etc.", "qid": "37", "docid": "240561fd-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00050-000", "rank": 47, "score": 117132.0}, {"content": "Title: Hands Free Phones Are not Dangerous Content: Hands-free cell phones are sufficiently safe on the road. These allow drivers to communicate freely without taking their hands off the controls or their eyes off the road. Effectively there is no difference between talking to someone on a hands-free mobile, and holding a conversation with a passenger next to you; in fact, the latter is more dangerous as you may be tempted to turn your head to directly address the passenger. Further, allowing the use of hands free sets has been shown to reduce fatalities, especially in adverse weather conditions through drivers being able to report their status to their loved ones and the local authorities should things become too difficult for them to handle.[1] [1] Stuckey, Mike. \u201cHands-free phones are lifesavers, study says.\u201d MSNBC. 13/5/2008 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24580099/#.TtwFTfJVO90", "qid": "37", "docid": "3fb6ba05-2019-04-15T20:24:45Z-00017-000", "rank": 48, "score": 116803.0}, {"content": "Title: Children should have mobile phones Content: First of all i have not been able to reply previous entries but i will try to debate previous points. \"Mobile phones helps children to stay in contact with their parents\" I hope that reduces epidemic obesity, aggression, addiction, strong emission of radiation, sleep deprivation and digital dementia. But yeah i guess you've got a point in there. \"Mobile phones help children have an emergency way to contact people in cases of emergencies\" Kids usually use their mobile phones to prank and/or call 911 for weird and foolish reasons. One thing in special, \"swatting\" became trendy lately and consists of calling 911 to call a swat team to another child house to ruin the game session of said child. Makenna Sewell called 911 to kill a 2-inch spider, clearly not an emergency. 10-year-old Dan David called because he did not wanted to sleep, sounds like a emergency doesn't it? The list goes on and on. \"Mobile phones reduce kidnappings\" They may reduce kidnappings or may not reduce kidnappings im not sure, and can't really tell hence your lack of sources but cell phones do increase general crime and tragedy. Street road accidents because of children using the cellphone while walking on the street. Stealing of wealthy cellphones that if the children resists usually end in murder or violence. Identity thefts also. What about false kidnappings? In Spain some false kidnappers ask children their phone numbers, name and details before a movie and proceed to call their parents for money from their devices to simulate a kidnappings and ask for huge amounts of money, this problem has grown a lot lately not only in Spain but America as well. A point i will also encourage the voters to investigate (Im almost out of characters):http://alturl.com... Sources: www.mom.me/home/10077-kids-who-called-911-crazy-things/ www.science.opposingviews.com/impact-cell-phones-crime-1784.html www.huffingtonpost.com/cris-rowan/10-reasons-why-handheld-devices-should-be-banned_b_4899218.html", "qid": "37", "docid": "8fa3dac7-2019-04-18T15:23:16Z-00000-000", "rank": 49, "score": 116635.0}, {"content": "Title: This House believes that children should be allowed to own and use smart phones. Content: So we've reached the end of our debate. Clearly there are speculations and concerns issued by many incuding parents, teachers, peadriticians and scientists in regards to our motion. I however still am subscribing to the belief that that the advantages for children to own smart phones outweigh the minor disadvantages that come with it. To sum up, my three points that have been taken into account of our debate are to promote the intellectual development of children ,parallel to The Children's Right, economic and financial reasons and lastly to assimilate the element of latest technology among children to mould technology-savvy generation. Now for my opponent, I am well aware of the fragility of children's biology and how they can be obsessed with smart phones. That's why I did mention parents' role in this matter earlier. They should always control the internet and calls usage by their children. Parents should always remind their children of the danger of phones-oriented radiation to them and make sure that at night when they are sleeping their smart phones are placed at a safe distance. Besides that, if inability to stay focus in class becomes a problem, simple , parents should take away their phones and keep them during school hours return to them after school. In a nutshell, parents should allow their children to own a smart phone. Bear in mind that everything if used excessively can be dangerous and that applies to this situation. With enough control and support by parents, I believe that children can benefit the best from having this wonderful piece of technology! That's all from me, thank you for your time! I really appreciate it. Ps: to con, radiation doesn't \"'flow\"\"' in blood vein. It penetrates through your clothes and if powerful enough ( with strong penetrating power) through your skin.", "qid": "37", "docid": "fa5da6ff-2019-04-18T15:40:19Z-00001-000", "rank": 50, "score": 116574.0}, {"content": "Title: Society can't \"trust judgement\" of drivers with cell phones Content: \"Editorial: Cellphone ban long overdue\". The Dominion Post. June 12th, 2008 - \"Driving while using cellphones reduces safety margins. Those who assert they know the difference between safe and unsafe use of phones should ask themselves if they are equally confident that the testosterone-loaded 18-year-old rushing from football practice to meet his girlfriend will show the same good judgment when his phone beeps as he approaches in the opposite direction.\"", "qid": "37", "docid": "240561fd-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00044-000", "rank": 51, "score": 116351.0}, {"content": "Title: Mobile phones make sure that we are safe Content: Mobile phones mean we are never out of contact with our friends, parents, guardians, or if necessary our school. They provide a way we can quickly contact someone if we are in trouble or are lost. Mobiles are most clearly helpful if caught in a large scale disaster such as a flood or earthquake as we can tell rescuers where we are. But they are also helpful for every day security. With a mobile phone parents know where we are and can be quickly contacted if we feel unsafe somewhere.", "qid": "37", "docid": "1fdda57c-2019-04-15T20:24:46Z-00009-000", "rank": 52, "score": 116008.0}, {"content": "Title: Hands-free cell phones are sufficiently safe on the road. Content: These allow drivers to communicate freely without taking their hands off the controls or their eyes off the road. Effectively there is no difference between talking to someone on a hands-free mobile, and holding a conversation with a passenger next to you; in fact, the latter is more dangerous as you may be tempted to turn your head to directly address the passenger.", "qid": "37", "docid": "240561fd-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00066-000", "rank": 53, "score": 115652.0}, {"content": "Title: Cell phones do more harm than good in society and schools today Content: Yes I completely agree, It is VERY rude to be on the phone when talking to somebody in front of you. I do believe that phones make lives easier, Such as communicating with family and in dangerous situations. Without phones, Many many people would be dead due to the amount of calls to 999 /911 /ect. It would also be quite problematic if you couldn't get a ride or where not with someone", "qid": "37", "docid": "8f540882-2019-04-18T11:13:47Z-00001-000", "rank": 54, "score": 115584.0}, {"content": "Title: The internet does more harm than good. Content: The internet does more harm than good .Do you agree? The internet has done more harm than good. In today\"s modern society, using internet to access to our social media is a very common thing. As in our daily life, once we wake up what we do is looking for our phone. After we go on to the bed, the last thing we do is also scrolling on our phone. Despite having a bed time story, we intend to immerse in the social media world. A group of experts have proven that 90% of people have a smart phone to access to social media. Using phone will release radiation which will affect our health, it also occupies most of our time to spend with our family members.", "qid": "37", "docid": "e4620c33-2019-04-18T15:59:07Z-00005-000", "rank": 55, "score": 114799.0}, {"content": "Title: Cell Phones are worse than other distractions Content: Cell phones in cars, unlike a variety of other distractions, can be regulated easily. They are an object which can easily be identified, and with phone bills it is possible to find out if a person is lying when they are caught for using cell phones in cars. As such the fact that other distractions exist, even if they are as harmful as cellphones, is no reason to not to ban their use. Further, other sources of potential distraction, such as passengers or car radios, may provide a net gain in utility to road users and other stakeholders in mass transit systems. Being able to carry multiple people in cars for example helps society through a reduction in carbon emissions as well as simply through a reduction in traffic. To take this argument further, there are many people who cannot drive but require use of cars. For example, children might require their parents to drive them to school. Car radios are somewhat more controversial and principally if they prove to be as bad a distraction as a mobile phone then proposition would have no problem with banning them. However, things such as news and traffic updates are probably more useful to a driver than the use of mobile phones. Whilst they may be distracting, given the huge benefit they cause for society it is legitimate for them to be allowed. Even if the benefit that they confer is the same as that of phones however, it is legitimate within our mechanism that we would ban them as well if required.[1] [1] \u201cEditorial: Cellphone ban long overdue.\u201d The Dominion Post. 12/06/2008 http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/editorials/484395", "qid": "37", "docid": "3fb6ba05-2019-04-15T20:24:45Z-00009-000", "rank": 56, "score": 114776.0}, {"content": "Title: Mobile phones keep children safer, as it is easier for parents to stay in touch with their children.... Content: Mobile phones make children less safe. Firstly they are carrying an expensive fashion item that makes them a target for criminals. Millions of people are robbed of cell phones every year, sometimes with violence. Secondly, many children spend so much time talking on the phone or texting that they are less aware of what is going on around them. Each year young people get run over crossing the street because their attention was on their phone conversation, not the traffic.", "qid": "37", "docid": "522c7c3b-2019-04-19T12:44:42Z-00008-000", "rank": 57, "score": 113802.0}, {"content": "Title: Children Should not be Allowed to Own Smart Phones Until They are in Their Mid Teens (15-16 y/o) Content: I start my argument. Best of luck to my respectable opponent :)Health HazardsIn today's times, many parents give even their toddlers tablets and smart phones to play with. Now how could these young ones be expected not to be addicted to something even a mature adult gets addicted to? \"An interesting experiment conducted by researchers at the Center for Toddler Development at Barnard College, showed that children between 18 to 36 months old, when given an iPad to play with, were so absorbed, that they did not respond to their names.\" Smart phones cause addiction at any age, the difference lies in the level of maturity of the person. Now the person might become mature at an age earlier than 15, or not become mentally mature even after crossing 20, but the age 15-16 years has been selected by me as an average for when most people tend to become more responsible, i.e. more mature. AGE 0-5 y/o (toddlers and young kids (brain is in developing phase))If smart phones become an addiction at an early age, they do more harm than good. Radiations being at number one. When you are giving that innocent toddler a smart phone, you are actually giving him/her a radiation emitting box of terror. A child's brain tissues are more absorbent than an adult's, meaning that the radiations will do more harm to the young kids. Bone marrow of an average child absorbs 10X more radiation than an adult's. And as anyone would know, radiations come with a chance of causing diseases such as cancer.Brain development is negatively affected.Substituting physical activities and human interactions with smart phones would never do good, according to the common sense of a sane person. The young kids' brains are developing, they will obviously develop better if they face the physical world themselves, by using their own senses.The counter argument for this is that their are educational games for the kids, but the use of mobile devices in particular online games should support imaginative play instead of trying to use them as a way to keep children busy, which is normally the case.AGE 5-10 y/o ( young students)Hindrance to concentration and focus.Most people, CAN NOT multitask. Switching between two tasks is something that takes up a lot of energy, especially when the task which needs to be switched from is an addiction. A simple 'ding' for a message can and does shift focus of people (more of kids than adults). An average kid will, after checking the message, engage in online chats, games, etc. for the so called '5 minutes'(which ultimately turn out to be hours) before they realise they have not completed the project they had to submit the next day or did not study for the big test the next day. Though, the only difference this causes is that now they kill time by chatting and playing the games while stressing about what will happen the next day, instead of killing time with a calm mind which they were doing earlier.Reduced social skills and face to face interaction.Have you ever read about people who do terrible in interviews and get rejected? Funny stories, eh? This happens mainly because of lack of social skills. And guess what smart phones help in building ? THE LACK OF SOCIAL SKILLS.The age 5 - 10 involves stuff like brain development, learning social skills, learning important values amongst family and friends, starting to know which field best matches with your interests (Do you love learning? Are you good in athletics? Are you an all rounder?) And again guess what smart phones do? STOP ALL OF THIS IMPORTANT BUSINESS FROM HAPPENING IN THE NATURAL WAY!AGE 10 - 15 ('Tweenagers') Apart from the health problems and lack in social skills, the problems which prevail more in this age group are things like increased 'FOMO' (Fear of missing out), sleep disruption, procrastination and increased stress (I had a smart phone for a week when I was in my 'tweens' and I gave it back myself, because I noticed, IN JUST ONE WEEK, how my life was being affected in a bad way from it!) The tweenagers have hormonal changes taking place in them. They are naturally more irritable and irrational. Sleeplessness, procrastination, stress DOES NOT help, believe me, rather, these just help to make them more irritable. Moreover, these kids are more likely to be opened up to things they should not be watching or doing (pornography, etc.). They thus waste an important part of life on worthless activities. Now, the reason most kids get smart phones is because of safety reasons, to be always connected with the parents. But a simple cell phone does exactly the same, help ensure safety without a myriad of disadvantages which a smart phone poses. Till the age of 15 though, most people have developed to become responsible and have the important values hard wired within. Now they are ready to handle the otherwise 'poisoned chalice' to gain more advantages than the inevitable disadvantages. *SOURCES WILL BE MENTIONED IN LAST ROUND*", "qid": "37", "docid": "70b67f9b-2019-04-18T12:33:37Z-00005-000", "rank": 58, "score": 113478.0}, {"content": "Title: Should cell phones be permitted in school Content: No. Cell phones are a big distraction during school hours. Yes, they could be used in dangerous scenarios, but most students can leave them classroom if they feel threatened. It is very easy to come up with an excuse to leave. For the music aspect, yes students benefit from it. I am in a debate about it right now even. But some schools don't allow any music at all during the school day. The teachers believe that the music distracts them. Some teachers also allow music to be played from their computer or classroom radio. Students can learn much more from their textbook than they can from their phone or tablet. My school has laptops for each student to carry around and take home to use for homework. A lot of the teachers use the system 'Angel' for homework and notes. So, the only time we can get our laptop out at school is to get an assignment from there. In conclusion, cell phones should not be permitted in schools. They are a big distraction to the students while they are supposed to be learning.", "qid": "37", "docid": "e836048-2019-04-18T14:56:38Z-00005-000", "rank": 59, "score": 112299.0}, {"content": "Title: Radiation around nuclear plants is well within safe limits Content: Mark Brandly. \"The Case for Nuclear Power\". Virginia Viewpoint. October, 2001: \"Nuclear plants release no gaseous pollutants and the amount of radioactivity is miniscule. Those living near a nuclear plant face less radioactivity per capita than is encountered in many normal daily activities.\"", "qid": "37", "docid": "8b68ae4-2019-04-17T11:47:47Z-00143-000", "rank": 60, "score": 112075.0}, {"content": "Title: cell phones should be allowed in school Content: Also, I never meant that students shouldn't be able to have them in school, I meant that students shouldn't be able to use them during the class. Well first of all, my opponent admitted that cell phones do have a tendency to distract and annoy other students in the classroom. And yes, they can be used for safety; after class. I'm pretty sure students are nice and safe in the classroom. Now, this is under certain circumstances. I don't think that a student is going to get in trouble for using their phone if they got mugged. Now I know there are some of us who will follow the rules, but lets face it, most students will abuse the power of being able to use their phone in class, whether it be for orginazation, internet access, or just recording lectures. They will look at videos, text, take videos or pictures, but most of all not learn or pay attention. As to the matter of phones saving the environment, one tree makes about 80,500 sheets of paper, so that one 90 sheet notebook that you would use to take notes doesn't really make an impact on the \"environmental deficit \". Furthermore, my opponent said that cellphones can help students take notes. My opponent stated that \"every penny counts in these tough economic times. \" Well lets see, an average \"smartphone\", as my opponent said, costs anywhere from $200-$500, plus the plan and contract, another $100, which overall is about $400 as compared to a notebook and mechanical pencil for ohh, about $3.99 altogether. Okay, my opponent said that using the internet during class can help them not miss parts of the lecture. Now to me this doesn't make sense. How can you be looking up a \"big word\" and still be attently listening to your proffessor? Now, some phones do provide internet access. I do not know if this subject in the debate is a good thing or bad thing because it has the potential to be a bad thing, so my opponent can't use this as an argument because this can be a good or a bad thing depending on the student using the Internet. Okay now to the calculator. The thing with the calculator is that not everybody will need a calculator for their class(es). If your teacher gives you a problem, I'm pretty sure that they want to see if you know the material, not your calculator. So I dont know about you, but to me it seems like common sense that con is the victor. I have disproved all of his statements and believe that you will make the right choice when it comes to the victor of this debate.", "qid": "37", "docid": "fc0d55ae-2019-04-18T18:07:49Z-00001-000", "rank": 61, "score": 111397.0}, {"content": "Title: Cell Phones Are Dangerous Content: Resolved that cell phones are dangerous. Please state points why cell phones are not dangerous.", "qid": "37", "docid": "b986bc28-2019-04-18T19:08:23Z-00003-000", "rank": 62, "score": 110901.0}, {"content": "Title: Cell phones should only be used while driving in dire situations Content: US National Highway and Transportation Safety Administration: \"Drivers should make every effort to pull over in a safe stopping point before using their telephones. In an emergency, drivers should use their best judgement about whether or not to use their telephones.\"", "qid": "37", "docid": "240561fd-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00062-000", "rank": 63, "score": 110774.0}, {"content": "Title: Cell Phones are worse than other distractions Content: Many other things such as radios within cars are just as distracting as mobile phones. Although it is easy for police and prosecutors to prove that a mobile phone was in use during a particular period of time, it is difficult to monitor the use of mobile phones in most situations. Enforcing a ban on mobiles would be as impractical as a ban on arguing with a spouse. Further, the point of the ban on mobile phones is to minimise distractions. However, a simple ban on mobile phones is likely to create a false sense of security among road users. Objects similar to cell phones are not subject to bans, despite the fact that they might be distracting as well. For example, a tablet PC in the passenger seat would not be under this ban, but could easily be as distracting. This false sense of security could practically cause drivers to be less conscious of distractions and thus hurt in the long run. Whilst the law might incorporate these bans into the system, the prevalent message that will get to the people will typically be centred on a mobile phone ban. This is because mobile phones are the single most prevalent item that would be banned under the proposition. As such, even though the law covers all distracting goods, it might still breed complacency in people, causing them to ignore other items in the car that might be distracting and assume that they are legitimate.[1] [1] Tetlock, Paul. Burnett, Jason. Hahn, Robert. \u201cBan Cell phones In Cars?\u201d Cato.org 29/12/2000 http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4414", "qid": "37", "docid": "3fb6ba05-2019-04-15T20:24:45Z-00008-000", "rank": 64, "score": 110555.0}, {"content": "Title: Should childrens have cellphones Content: Your counterargument is safety. I don't think you bought an expensive phone thinking about \"safety\". You bought it for fun. If you ask someone between 9-16 years old, they most likely won't even know the alarm number in most countries. Also, if you are kidnapped/being forced to do something/attacked you won't have the time to call. Most likely they'll take your cellphone. More and more, people are even robbed BECAUSE they have such expensive phones. The only advantage situation of having such mobile computer is when 1) you're completely lost and need help, and 2) you're always available when someone needs you. I believe children are capable of avoiding such situations and shouldn't need to have a cellphone (let alone a super expensive one!) just for these 2 situations! This is already the end of this debate. I would like to conclude by thanking Nadine for her interesting topic choice!", "qid": "37", "docid": "51845765-2019-04-18T16:15:23Z-00000-000", "rank": 65, "score": 110544.0}, {"content": "Title: cell phone being banned while driving Content: \"I believe that cell phones should be banned while driving because it poses a threat to other drivers. \" Last time I checked, cell phones do not pose threats to other drivers. They are merely electronic devices. \"Cell phones often cause accidents. \" No, they don't. \"Cell phones are a bigger threat of a distraction then radios are. \" Prove it. Thank you.", "qid": "37", "docid": "f7b7b428-2019-04-18T19:06:58Z-00002-000", "rank": 66, "score": 110215.0}, {"content": "Title: Mobile phones keep children safer, as it is easier for parents to stay in touch with their children.... Content: Mobile phones keep children safer, as it is easier for parents to stay in touch with their children. Through calls and texts, parents can know where their child is and be reassured that he or she is safe. And in an emergency, young people can summon help quickly.\\ Yes, some children carrying phones have been robbed, but thieves are always after something new. Phones now are both much more widespread and security coded, so there is little point in stealing them. If security is your concern, ban the latest personal MP3 and DVD players instead. Traffic accidents should be blamed on bad safety education rather than phones.\\", "qid": "37", "docid": "522c7c3b-2019-04-19T12:44:42Z-00009-000", "rank": 67, "score": 109753.0}, {"content": "Title: Cell Phones Does More Harm Than Good Content: Cell Phones are destroying society now a days. When i walk around out in public all i see is kids, adults, etc. with their eyes glued to their phones, today you can't even hold a civil conversation with someone anymore which is dangerous to your health actually Cell Phones can affect your brain activity, for example talking on the phone with another person simply holding a phone to your ear for a extended amount of time increases activity in regions of the brain closest to the antenna. Researchers have found that Glucose metabolism in the orbitofrontal cortex and temporal pole increased significantly when the phone was turned on and muted, compared with when it was off (P=0.004). This may be a acute affect but it contributes to reasons of why they are harmful. Social life, i enjoy being able to talk to someone face to face for others it may be different but studies show that social media is causing anxiety Forty-five percent of responders said they feel \"worried or uncomfortable\" when email and Facebook are inaccessible, while 60 percent of respondents stated \"they felt the need to switch off\" their phones and computers to secure a full-fledged break from technology. In other words, it's not being on social networks that makes people anxious. It's being away from them. This can cause to depression and other issues. Which is very harmful for a person.", "qid": "37", "docid": "8e939d6d-2019-04-18T14:17:04Z-00004-000", "rank": 68, "score": 109661.0}, {"content": "Title: Cellphone is very useful nowadays.. Content: I chose this subject especially because it will prove more of a challenge. That being said I hope for this to be a fun and educational debate. ====================== When you say \"our country\" you are really referring to the United States aren't you? For the sake of the debate I will assume that you are. If not then you may correct me in further posts. Now when you mention the financial crisis I will also assume that your debate will revolve around the importance of phones during a crisis in America. Since you are being vague I can only base my arguments on assumptions. ====================== The usefulness of a regular cell phone is about as equivalent to the internet which I consider to be a healthier alternative, seeing as how you can't really take the computer with you while you are traveling. I believe that no citation is needed for this claim. Cell phones are an addiction, but they are always looked past and people don't consider then to be too dangerous. With my future arguments I will stress on this fact with examples and references. I will keep this very brief as to let you make it clearer what we are \u2018actually' debating about.", "qid": "37", "docid": "b8d953f8-2019-04-18T19:21:29Z-00004-000", "rank": 69, "score": 109288.0}, {"content": "Title: People should not be so addicted to their cell phones. Content: \"Also, people can take their phones with them on cars, but it should certainly not be used, as it is illegal and a very dangerous movement.\" Con Yeah, but if you watch An inconvenient tooth by Al Gore you will learn that one of the causes of Global Climate change is overpopulation. The dangerous situation that cellphones create in cars is good for the environment.", "qid": "37", "docid": "fcff2e33-2019-04-18T14:12:26Z-00003-000", "rank": 70, "score": 108951.0}, {"content": "Title: Hands Free Phones Are not Dangerous Content: Conversations of any kind (with or without the involvement of the hands) impair concentration and reactions in braking tests. For some reason the brain treats a telephone conversation differently from talking to a passenger, perhaps because the passenger is also aware of possible road hazards in a way the telephone caller cannot be and so makes less demands upon the driver in terms of concentration at critical moments. In any case, voice activated technology is often unreliable, risking drivers trying to use it getting frustrated and losing concentration. It would be inconsistent to ban one sort of mobile phone while allowing the other sort, which can be just as lethal. Therefore, hands-free mobile phone use while driving should also be banned. Further, \"Some researchers, in fact, fear that the new law may cause more traffic accidents, not fewer, because they envision more distractions for many motorists. When ring tones chime and drivers scramble to find their newly purchased headsets -- or, alternatively, scan the roadsides for police enforcing the new ban -- their attention, already stretched, will be further taxed.[1] [1] Healy, Melissa. \u201cHands-Free cellphone use while driving won\u2019t make the roads safe, studies show. Why? Brain Overload.\u201d 30/06/2008 http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-he-cells30-2008jun30,0,3192911.story", "qid": "37", "docid": "3fb6ba05-2019-04-15T20:24:45Z-00016-000", "rank": 71, "score": 108374.0}, {"content": "Title: Enforcing a vehicle cell phone ban is nearly impossible Content: This is especially true of hands-free phones, where accused motorists could simply claim to be singing along to the radio or talking to themselves. In any case, the widespread introduction of speed cameras in many countries, and an increased public fear of violent crime have led to the redeployment of the traffic police who would be needed to enforce such laws.", "qid": "37", "docid": "240561fd-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00072-000", "rank": 72, "score": 108251.0}, {"content": "Title: Banning cell phones in cars Content: Hands-free cell phones are sufficiently safe on the road.", "qid": "37", "docid": "240561fd-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00014-000", "rank": 73, "score": 107979.0}, {"content": "Title: Should you be allowed to bring your phone to school Content: I agree that you can bring your phone only for emergency uses and if your teachers ask you to bring them. But I don't like your idea of our phone replacing books as school material. You can easily tab out of your lesson and check some other app which I doubt most of the students in the world would do if phones were allowed in school. Also a large majority of people in the world use glasses to enhance their vision, phones as school material would degrade their eyesight more due to the radiation caused by these devices. Now if your asking me how it would their degrade their eyes when they can just move the phone a few inches away from their eyes, I've met a lot of people who wear glasses when even with glasses they still can't seen the closes thing near them. They can also use that for research but I doubt other students will be able to see what they've researched and they can always just write them down. Also, not everyone in the world has a phone. My conclusion is that phones will not help school but degrade it even more. Would you imagine a whole class having the freedom of using their phones in their class? No one listen to the teacher.", "qid": "37", "docid": "27983569-2019-04-18T13:47:16Z-00004-000", "rank": 74, "score": 107837.0}, {"content": "Title: Mobile phones make sure that we are safe Content: Phones are certainly a useful tool in helping to keep in contact so can be useful if you get into trouble. But they don\u2019t always help because they don\u2019t always keep us in contact. There are many reasons why a mobile may be useless. There may be no signal. Or the phone may have been turned off. Or the battery may have run low. If any of these things happen then it adds to parents worries as they can\u2019t get in contact when they expected to be able to.", "qid": "37", "docid": "1fdda57c-2019-04-15T20:24:46Z-00008-000", "rank": 75, "score": 107635.0}, {"content": "Title: Are cellphones safe Content: lower sperm count", "qid": "37", "docid": "9aa2da1b-2019-04-19T12:46:59Z-00000-000", "rank": 76, "score": 107415.0}, {"content": "Title: It should be illegal for people to use cell phones while driving Content: Ok here are my arguments: 1. Drivers who use cell phones are four times more likely to be in a crash. 2. Cell phone use contributes to an estimated 6 percent of all crashes, which equates to 636,000 crashes, 330,000 injuries, 12,000 serious injuries and 2,600 deaths each year. 3. 80 percent of crashes are related to driver inattention, and the #1 source of driver inattention is cell phones. 4. The annual cost of crashes caused by cell phone use is estimated to be $43 billion. 5. 5 states have already prohibited drivers from talking on cell phones while driving (California, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Washington). 6.Driving while using a cell phone is as dangerous if not more dangerous than driving intoxicated. Using a cell phone while driving poses an imminent threat not only to the person using it, but also other drivers as well, and that is why a federal law should be made. 1.1997 New England Journal of Medicine examination of hospital records and 2005 Insurance Institute for Highway Safety study linking crashes to cell phone records 2.Harvard Center of Risk Analysis 3.Virginia Tech 100-car study for NHTSA 4.Harvard Center for Risk Analysis 5.http://www.statehighwaysafety.org... 6.http://news.cnet.com...", "qid": "37", "docid": "8f405a57-2019-04-18T19:20:50Z-00003-000", "rank": 77, "score": 107390.0}, {"content": "Title: Nuclear energy Content: Radiation around nuclear plants is well within safe limits", "qid": "37", "docid": "8b68ae4-2019-04-17T11:47:47Z-00028-000", "rank": 78, "score": 107097.0}, {"content": "Title: the increase personal safety Content: There have been deaths recorded which were solely or mostly caused by mobile phones; mugging. Criminals have been given a new way to make money and they abuse it. Everyone has a mobile phone; therefore everyone has something worth stealing. Many people have died through being mugged and not giving up their mobile phone. By having a mobile phone then, you actually decrease your personal safety by turning yourself into a target of crime.", "qid": "37", "docid": "9aa2da1b-2019-04-19T12:46:59Z-00011-000", "rank": 79, "score": 107092.0}, {"content": "Title: Cell phones in school Content: Cell Phones Improve School Safety Supporters of cell phones in school contend that cell phones improve student safety by allowing students to contact authorities in the event of a school intrusion or medical emergency. Students with cell phones would also be able to contact their parents in an emergency to inform them that they are safe. In addition, schools can program emergency response systems to automatically call or text message students' cell phones with emergency information or instructions. This can reduce panic in an emergency and help schools keep students safe. Cell Phones Enhance Learning Cell phones, especially smart phones, can be used to enhance learning. Smart phones offer much of the functionality of a laptop, but are more portable and less expensive. For example, a class could download an interactive program and use it on their phones. Students doing lab work can take quick pictures with their cell phone rather than making a sketch. Students can also use their phones to record parts of a lecture, make a quick voice note or take a video of a science experiment. Stay Organized With Cell Phone Calendars Supporters of cell phones in schools also argue that students can also utilize the calendar function of the cell phone to stay organized. Rather than requiring a paper planner, students can simply input assignments and test dates into their phones. Convenient Communication With Cell Phones Cell phones offer a convenient way of communication, especially useful for students who have after-school activities. Rather than guessing what time practice will end or using a school phone, students can easily call or text their parents to let them know they need a ride or will be late. Parents and students also have an easy way to contact each other throughout the day if they need to send a message. Cell Phone Use in Schools Many schools struggle to develop policies for appropriate cell phone use. Cell phones have many beneficial uses, like helping students stay organized and keeping students safe, but they can also have negative impacts, including facilitating cheating on tests, texting during class and the spreading of rumors. As in business and social environments, there are always situations during which cell phone use is not appropriate. Parents considering whether to give their children cell phones should contact their child's school to learn the cell phone policies, including the punishments for inappropriate cell phone use during class. http://rebekahrichards.suite101.com... Pros of Cell Phones in School There are numerous positive outcomes that can emerge from permitting children and teens to bring their mobile phones into the classroom. Here are just a few that you should keep in mind the next time you enter a PTA meeting or other public debate. Instant Communication Although you hope that you will never have to do this, you sometimes need to get in contact with your school-aged child while they are in class. This could be because of a death in the family, an accident or other family emergency that may require his or her attention and/or attendance. By being able to call your child directly, you also help alleviate the workload off of the school's administrative team. This is particularly useful during recess and lunch hours when students aren't in classrooms anyways, and it may be more difficult to find your child. The problems with knowing where your children are after school could also be reduced if parents had the ability to call them (and vice versa). Text messages also make this easy (and discrete). Memory Aids Most cell phones have a camera these days, so children can use these to take pictures of things in class. This is great for science class, for example, where they may be exposed to certain creatures, plants and other things that they probably won't encounter anywhere else. This is much more effective that simply producing a quick sketch. Pictures are also useful for any sort of step-by-step process, so that they can later review the photos to better understand the procedure in metalwork, woodwork or other hands-on courses. Better still, give your child a camera phone with video capabilities! Voice Notes Sometimes, it takes too long to write down a note, so why not use the cell phone to record a quick voice note instead? Students may not always have immediate access to a notepad either, so using a cell phone to \"jot down\" important information is also useful. http://cellphones.lovetoknow.com... *** All in all these articles state that cell phones in school are good because they are there when there is an emergency. Cellphones are instant rather than going through the office or school phone to get ahold of a parent or 911. Cellphones are their to enhance many things such a memory and learning content. From a personal experience we had a bomb threat while i was in middle school, and children who had cellphones were able to call their parents or guardian to tell them they were safe and needed to be picked up from the school. Cellphones may be a distraction but there is always a time and place for them to be out and in use. *** Analise Bruno", "qid": "37", "docid": "1ecb131d-2019-04-18T18:41:04Z-00002-000", "rank": 80, "score": 107044.0}, {"content": "Title: Why cell phones should not be allowed in classrooms Content: Yes there is a possibility of the phone's being dangerous during an emergency as they could sound off during a break in but a solution for that is to have a rule in the class stating that when one enters the classroom their cellphones need to be turned to silent. With the research projects , yes students might goof off and go on their social media pages rather than researching for their assignment, but in the end they'd be the ones hurting their grade. It's on them to do the work or goof off.", "qid": "37", "docid": "f3661df1-2019-04-18T12:18:12Z-00000-000", "rank": 81, "score": 106765.0}, {"content": "Title: There are possible safety concerns Content: When mobile phones first came out there was a lot of worry about the possible effect on children\u2019s health. We now know there is little risk. But the advice from health experts is still that children should avoid too much use of mobiles. Experts still worry that the use of mobiles could be linked with behavioural problems in children, this can mean problems such as being disruptive or having difficulty sleeping.", "qid": "37", "docid": "1fdda57c-2019-04-15T20:24:46Z-00021-000", "rank": 82, "score": 106681.0}, {"content": "Title: Using a mobile phone in the car is unnecessary - everyone coped without mobiles ten years ago, and l... Content: Using mobiles on the road could improve safety, for example, by allowing delayed employees to ring in to the office rather than drive recklessly in an effort to arrive more promptly. Drivers now often use mobile phones to report accidents to the emergency services, and alert the police to dangerous driving, stray animals, unsafe loads, etc.", "qid": "37", "docid": "e0f3c01e-2019-04-19T12:46:51Z-00014-000", "rank": 83, "score": 106441.0}, {"content": "Title: Mobile phones should be banned in schools! Content: I apologize if I ever offended you, con. I pasted half of your argument into mine to make rebuttals easier.Banning phones in school has been hotly debated everywhere, especially here on the Internet. Both sides (agrees to ban or against) are understandable in every way, but all we need to know is which side is totally acceptable and superior than the other. While cell phones certainly offer students increased communication abilities, providing students with a tool for added safety and parent contact, many public school leaders assert that cell phones are a severe distraction in the educational process. The following are sourced.[1] According to the National School Safety and Security Offices (NSSSO), cell phones have been an increasingly negative disruption in schools: \u201cWe have opposed policies allowing or encouraging students to have cell phones and pagers in school. On a day-to-day basis, they are disruptive to the educational environment. This also has been the general position of many school districts over the years.\u201d The NSSSO argues that allowing cell phones for safety reasons is inaccurate. As they explain, \u201cChanging policies under the guise of cell phones being a crisis tool for student safety is, in our opinion, a knee-jerk reaction and is not \u2018the answer\u2019 to school crisis preparedness that some may believe it to be.\u201d In fact, oftentimes school and security officials report that students falsely call in bomb threats or reports of threats on their cell phones as an over-reaction or as a prank; in such cases, these cell phones can force the entire evacuation of a school, while also making it nearly impossible for security teams to try and figure out where the call was placed, and which student(s) made the call.These are based from the number of public schools the strongly disagrees in allowing phones within the school premises. Rebuttals\"Mobiles can save the lives, though it is necessary to be with every kid in school, because they can use it to inform their families in case of any emergency.\"For this one, I agree, but I stated the cons behind this on the very first round. To let things be clear and to refresh minds, let me quote what I said: \"2.) 'For emergency' Is the most used excuse in this kind of topic. Parents think of cell phones as a connection to their children in an emergency. But I wonder what the last situation was that genuinely called for an immediate phone call to a child. In most cases, contacting the hospital or the police would seem more urgent. And parents can always call the school's main office to reach their children.\"Scroll up if you do not believe me, but these are the exact wordings from my previous argument. \"Mobiles as a library:You can get any information you need by single click. it actually enables you to have a world in your hand.\"This is the reason why we have libraries within almost every school. Everyone would agree that books are far superior than looking for it on the internet. On the web we can never be sure that the article that we read about Science or maybe History are actually true. For all we know, someone unexperienced could post false informations on the topic. But with the books that are in the library, we are certain that the statistics or data written in these books are accurate because authorized and skilled authors wrote them.Using a phone can be quick, but when it comes to real infos, I'll have to wonder what the point is.Con also declared:\"Mobiles are socially important:I am sure if yourself does not carry a mobile in school, your mates would laugh on you, because you may not find anyone without mobile, therefore if you dont have you would feel awkward and that would show you cheap, though mobiles are socially important.\"Have we been lost on the subject? We are only talking about banning phones in school, but it doesn't mean that we do not have them.\"Mobiles make you easy reachable:You can be reached anytime and anywhere, and this can be done with mobiles.\"This is similar to the one with the emergency calls. Parents can call the teacher or the school. If this is the only reason why we should lift the ban, then it is not reasonable enough. This is the only appropriate reason why this debate hasn't ended for years. If this is the only problem, the parents can have the advisers' phone numbers to contact their children. This might be ridiculous to hear, but the truth is, phones are the top contributor in decreasing children's interest in school. So if this is the right way, it must be done.\"I will give a live example for you, suppose your little brother has fallen from roof and your mom and dad is on a long trip, and you are the only one living with your brother, in the same time he is fallen from roof, you are in school, what if you dont have mobile and you are not aware of your little brother!!though accept it that mobile should not be banned in schools, because you would never know what gonna happen next!\"Again, this is identical to the previous one. Communication, again and again.I suppose calling the authorities is better if I ever experienced this kind of accident. Calling parents that are in a long trip isn't the priority here. Your brother must be in a hospital so the first thing that I would do is to call the teachers and have them call the ambulance. If the injury is not that severe, bringing it to the school nurse is alright. The teacher can call the parents on the trip just to let them know what happened.Rebuttals against con's rebuttals:\"-Cheating:I would like to state, that no where in the world is allowing mobiles during exam! though cheating in exam is pointless!It is not as simple as you think, that you can ever cheat through your mobile during exam, and if you think you are a bright kid you dont need to cheat!!\"No one is allowing phone during exam, yes, and that is equal to prohibition from school. Cheating in exam is pointless. That's also why schools should ban them. Not every child is smart enough to realize that. \"-Texting:I think pro is forgetting about the topic! The topic is banning mobiles in school not in class!\"I am not forgetting about the topic, con. Where exactly is a class? It's in a school.\"1. Schools are having policy for banning mobiles inside the class! and during the class time no kid is allowed to use their mobiles, if they ever use they are banned in the class but school does not bear the right to make the mobile banned in school.\"Disallowing it in class is also as important as banning it in school. Cheating is possible when in class. It's also possible in school. \"2. there are reasons for those kids who set behind and they are not concentrating in the class! that is the responsibility of school master to check whether the kid is interested in the subject or not and they should find out if the teacher is not boring for them, though we can say a good system in schools would never stop kids to use mobile!if they trust on their education system they should not make the mobiles banned!\"Banning phones is equal to removing the top contributor of losing the students' interest in school. Therefore, we are reducing the chances of having a stupid society in the future. It's the responsibility of the school master to know if the kid is interested? School masters' job is to run the school smoothly, not for making sure that the students are interested or not. \"if they trust on their education system they should not make the mobiles banned!\"? Con, you should definitely check if this sentence is correct. I Think you could figure it out yourself without someone pointing it out for you. They should trust their education system if they ban phones.Con, mobiles are definitely used for entertainment when in school. It's useful outside, but within the school it isn't helpful. To answer your question, I home study because I currently reside in a foreign country with a foreign language and a foreign culture. Source:http://www.publicschoolreview.com...;", "qid": "37", "docid": "fea6e8c3-2019-04-18T15:16:16Z-00002-000", "rank": 84, "score": 106372.0}, {"content": "Title: Cell phones in cars can be regulated, unlike other distractions Content: \"Editorial: Cellphone ban long overdue\". The Dominion Post. June 12th, 2008 - \"Previous attempts to stop motorists using hand-held cellphones foundered in the face of arguments that cellphones are just one form of driver distraction. Eating, loading cassettes or CDs into car stereos, dropped cigarettes and even buzzing insects can be equally hazardous. But cellphone use, which contributed to 26 fatal crashes and 411 injury crashes between 2002 and 2007, is something the Government can do something about now.\"", "qid": "37", "docid": "240561fd-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00052-000", "rank": 85, "score": 106088.0}, {"content": "Title: cell phones should be allowed in school Content: I'm very glad to be facing my opponent and do value his opinion however the resolution as stated ought to be affirmed. If I can prove the benefits outweigh the possible negative prospects of having cell phones in school then it is only logical that pro should be the victor of this debate.First let me state that I do agree that cell phones have the potential to be a distraction in school. But anything can be a distraction in school like other students, food,teachers, etc.. but this distraction can be a positive thing. Cell phones have many educational purposes in the class room. As technology and smart phones are improving technologically students have more access to tools to help them educationally and in some other situations. The benefits are as follows1.Cell phones improve school safety.As we know schools can never be 100% safe. In the event of an emergency where students safety is at risk or there is some sort of emergency. Students can let the police or fire department know much faster than the school can. In the event that a violent subject is actually in the classroom threatening the student body and if police cannot get information or line of sight on the target students can send videos to give the police an idea of how to further approach the situation. Students can also get advise from negotiators if they are faced with hostile situations. If a student is in some area of the school where no one else is around they can contact someone to help if they have an asthma attack. Students also have the option of texting police in an emergency. As we can see cell phones can be a very comfortable option to emergencies in the school. Especially if you have a personal life or death situation and no one is around. Cell phones can also be used to get a ride after school and to notify parents of spontaneous after school meetings.2. Cell phones can improve organization and save students money while helping the environment .Cell phones have calendars and memos witch helps students remember homework and report due dates therefore possibly raising students grades. Students can take pictures of notes and reference them later or take pictures of a reading assignment and read it when they have free time. Students can also record a lecture and possibly fall a sleep if they want to( I don't know if this is good or bad but I just wanted to throw it out there.) Students can also now take notes on their phones witch means they save trees and money because students wont need to buy as much paper thus reducing the deficit on the environment and save trees. So as we can see cell phones have a good economic advantage to students. In these tough economic times every penny we can save can help families economically. Lastly on this point if a student has a free period they can use their phones to keep track of the time so they can get to their next class on time.3. Cell phones provide Internet access and calculators.Some schools may not have good Internet access or none at all. These cell phones can connect to the Internet witch gives students additional educational resources. Internet access also means that students can instantly look up any information they can understand. Like if the teacher is using many big words the student can quickly find definitions via their phone rather than taking a long time and missing parts of the lecture while trying to find definitions from a dictionary. Cell phones also offer calculators. Calculators are expensive and schools may not be able to buy scientific calculators for advanced math and science. Most if not all cell phones have very advanced calculators. If the schools cant afford calculators why not let the students use their own? If students have access to calculators teachers have more time to teach materials due to decreased problem solving time.Closing statement.as we can see cell phones have multiple benefits. This resolutions benefits outweigh its prospective negative aspects. Cell phones improve school safety, improve organization and saves money while helping the environment, and they also provide Internet access and calculators to take advantage of for educational purposes. As we can see cell phones are a good thing to have in schools therefore this resolution ought to be affirmed according to my case and this debate.", "qid": "37", "docid": "fc0d55ae-2019-04-18T18:07:49Z-00002-000", "rank": 86, "score": 106049.0}, {"content": "Title: Cell phones in school Content: The use of cell phones in school can create an enviornment based on: distruption to instruction, cheating, and the use of pornography. I feel that teachers cannot fulfill full obligations in a classroom if students are being distracted by the use of a cell phone. DISMANTES, T. (2010). RECENT COURT RULING REGARDING STUDENT USE OF CELL PHONES IN TODAY'S SCHOOLS. \"Education\", 131(2), 404-406. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Cyberbullying and sexting may also be an issue. Cyberbullying is the use of electronic communication technologies to intentionally engage in repeated or widely disseminated cruel acts towards another that results in emotional harm. Sexting is whenever someone sends a nude image via cell phone texting and is also a type of cyberbullying. This can happen both on & off of school grounds--anywhere that students are physically together. \"Electronic aggression is a contributing factor in altercations that occur on campus and creates an enviornment in which students do not feel safe coming to school or are unable to focus effectively on their studies (pg. 76).\" Willard, N. (2011). SCHOOL RESPONSE TO CYBERBULLYING AND SEXTING: THE LEGAL CHALLENGES. \"Bringham Young University Education and Law Journal,\" (1) 75-125. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. -Courtney Carlisle", "qid": "37", "docid": "1ecb131d-2019-04-18T18:41:04Z-00003-000", "rank": 87, "score": 105913.0}, {"content": "Title: Mobile Phones Used by Children Content: Mobile phones are safe for children to use \u2013 we should ignore scare stories in the media. The lates...", "qid": "37", "docid": "522c7c3b-2019-04-19T12:44:42Z-00005-000", "rank": 88, "score": 105906.0}, {"content": "Title: Ban cell phones for people under 16 Content: A World Health Organization study released in 2010 showed that using a mobile for more than half-an-hour a day for ten years increased the risk of a brain tumor. Many public health experts believe that, as serious risks to children could be involved, we cannot wait for science to be conclusive. John Wargo, Ph.D., professor of Environmental Risk and Policy at Yale University and lead author of a report released in February 2012 by US health charity EHHI that \"The scientific evidence is sufficiently robust showing that cellular devices pose significant health risks to children and pregnant women.\" (mobilewise.org) Parents should be building relationships with their children and not relying on cell phones to keep tabs on them. There are many instances where a cell phone is useless, dead battery, poor signal or turned off any of these instances would add to a parents worries about their child. Victims of cyber bullying are the targets of lies or vicious gossip or are victims of impersonation. Most parents of victims have no idea it's happening. Victims often don't want to tell their parents about it; they may be embarrassed or, they may not fully realize that they are being bullied. They know that what is happening makes them feel bad but may not connect with the fact that it is wrong and something that they should tell someone about. Cyber bullying can lead to suicide. According to the CDC (Centers for Disease Control), 4,400 children a year commit suicide and for every child who dies there are 100 suicide attempts. Cyber bullying has been linked to suicide, whether the child is the bully or the one being bullied. Children under 16 should not have cell phones but should supervised by adults.", "qid": "37", "docid": "53fc0783-2019-04-18T16:30:32Z-00002-000", "rank": 89, "score": 105892.0}, {"content": "Title: Many things in cars are just as distracting as cell phones Content: These include eating, changing tapes, retuning the radio, arguing with your spouse about directions, trying to stop children squabbling, etc. We should not introduce a law that victimizes mobile phone users under all conditions, while completely ignoring many other causes of accidents.", "qid": "37", "docid": "240561fd-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00055-000", "rank": 90, "score": 105382.0}, {"content": "Title: Should childrens have cellphones Content: I agree with you that it is an expensive way and that children will no longer but the main reason in support of kids having cell phones is safety. Childrens can call home or emergency services when trouble arises when armed with a cell phone, as well as giving us the ability to locate their whereabouts with GPS features.", "qid": "37", "docid": "51845765-2019-04-18T16:15:23Z-00001-000", "rank": 91, "score": 105071.0}, {"content": "Title: Cell phone bans in cars do not save lives Content: \"Cell-phone ban may not reduce car wrecks, study says\". Sacramento Business Journal. September 16, 2004 - James Prieger an economist at the University of California Davis. - \"In our sample, the true effect on accidents is apparently too small to be statistically significant. That is not to say that we think there is no danger at all from using cell phones while driving.\"", "qid": "37", "docid": "240561fd-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00047-000", "rank": 92, "score": 104901.0}, {"content": "Title: Children should use technology like a computer, mobile phone, and television Content: **Children should use technology like a computer, mobile phone, and television because they can use it for researching information, doing projects, using e-books instead of old and heavy textbooks, it also makes the world closer and smaller by talking in social media programs, also the social media programs can make your child speak up and be confident to talk, it also, improves your communicating skills, last, this is another way to teach children, and the children are interested in.** REBUTTAL I believe that children aren't getting other needed things because of all of these technologies, and their are many dangers to these devices. 1)Invisible Radiation from Wireless\"Technology and Electricity Inhibits Your Oxygen Supply https://www.scienceoflight.org... 2)Electrosmog can cause brain fog & electrosensitivity (ES).\"Symptoms include: ~ Mental confusion ~ Headaches ~ Disruptive sleep patterns ~ Chronic fatigue ~ Depression ~ Hypersensitivity and erratic blood pressure ~ Skin complaint ~\"Behavioural patterns in children 3)Cell phones are addictive. A)One of the worst things with this technology is it allows young minds to have unlimited access to sexually graphic images and pornography. It has been proven that when kids are exposed to sex at a young age, they have future problems with identity, intimacy, and successful relstionships. B)There are studies that link large technology use to anxiety disorders and depression. https://www.google.com... 4)Studies show that too much texting and Social Media affect social skills and growth in a negative way. It's like learning a language. A child is grasping for ways to communicate, and absorbs whatever is there. If the child hears Spanish, they absorb Spanish. If they hear English, they absorb English. If they are in social situations, they learn social skills. If all they primarily see is a device, they absorb communicating through a device, rather than through face to face human interactions. This is not helpful with interacting with kids, adults later, or being successful at work as an adult. https://m.huffpost.com... ----- http://www.dailymail.co.uk... https://www.webmd.com...", "qid": "37", "docid": "5b5d8bca-2019-04-18T11:28:59Z-00000-000", "rank": 93, "score": 104777.0}, {"content": "Title: Mobile phones are now a valuable part of student life. Because parents feel their children are safe... Content: Mobile phones are inappropriate in schools. They take students\u2019 attention away from their lessons and undermine discipline. Rules about having them turned off in lessons are impossible to enforce \u2013 students just put them in silent mode and secretly text or play games in the back of the class. There have been many cases of students using mobiles to cheat in tests, and some of students recording embarrassing footage of their teachers to post on the internet. Schools are for learning and anything which gets in the way of that should be banned.", "qid": "37", "docid": "522c7c3b-2019-04-19T12:44:42Z-00014-000", "rank": 94, "score": 104523.0}, {"content": "Title: Banning cell phones impedes on individual liberties. Content: Mobile phones don\u2019t kill people, bad driving does, and simply banning the use of phones will penalize the many good drivers without removing the dangerous ones.", "qid": "37", "docid": "240561fd-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00077-000", "rank": 95, "score": 104414.0}, {"content": "Title: Ban cell phones for people under 16 Content: Bullying does occur even without cellphones and children should tell their parents, but the responsibility does not rest solely with children. If parents are not involved in their children\"s lives and rely on cell phones to know where they are and what they are doing then they will miss some or all of the signs you pointed out. The fact is that staying involved in your children\"s life may be one of the hardest things you'll ever face; studies show that it's also one of the most significant things you can do to ensure your child makes it to a happy adulthood. Parents often cite safety as a major reason for wanting to give their child a cell phone. They believe that the ability to easily reach their kid and vice versa means it is somehow safer. But I think the result is exactly the opposite. Giving a child a cell phone creates a false sense of security and that can cause parents to be less diligent about the details of their child's life. And while it's true that a cell phone makes it easy for you to reach your child anytime, anyplace, it also makes it easy for everyone else to reach your child, anytime, anyplace. And this easy access and exposure can dramatically reduce your child's safety. Behind the concern over children's safety lies an important question: Where is your kid going that is so dangerous? If your child's daily life involves situations like school and extracurricular activities, there are probably plenty of phones around at any given moment. When your kid is at school, there is a phone in the school office and chances are there's one in every classroom they sets foot in, on top of all that there are cell phones in every teacher's pocket or purse. When it comes to extracurricular activity, if the activity is in a building, like a dance studio or a gym, that facility surely has a phone. Even if the activity takes place outside like on a sports field, I am sure that the coach and all of the other parents have cell phones. Rather than giving your child a cell phone, do something that will really make a difference in terms of her safety and quality of life. Make an effort to get to know the teachers, coaches and other parents well enough to exchange contact info and even cell phone numbers with them.", "qid": "37", "docid": "53fc0783-2019-04-18T16:30:32Z-00000-000", "rank": 96, "score": 104299.0}, {"content": "Title: Banning cell phones is not the best way to save lives Content: Paul Tetlock, Jason Burnett and Robert Hahn. \"Ban Cell Phones In Cars?\". Cato.org. December 29, 2000 - \"A prudent regard for safety doesn't imply cell phones should be banned. Americans are willing to tolerate some 41,000 annually deaths from car accidents. If we wish to decisively curtail automobile deaths, the national speed limit should be set at 10 miles per hour and vigorously enforced--yet we're not willing to do that, because that inconvenience outweighs the pleasure and efficiency of being able to get places quickly.\"", "qid": "37", "docid": "240561fd-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00051-000", "rank": 97, "score": 104017.0}, {"content": "Title: Students Should be Allowed to Have Their Cell Phones at School Content: Although cell phones may be helpful in our everyday lives, it is also important that we keep them safe and schools must put this rule in place so that they are safe. Please vote. Thank you for the debate.", "qid": "37", "docid": "7cb4f197-2019-04-18T16:20:01Z-00000-000", "rank": 98, "score": 103881.0}, {"content": "Title: Should kids have cell phones in school Content: How helpful are cell phones in a classroom? They can Google answers, and find definitions. And if you're doing that then you defeat the point of being in the classroom. Pick up books if you want to learn about history or science. By a standard calculator if you need to use a calculator instead of jumping on to a phone. Cell phones may be able to be useful in class, but students should not be using them if they disregard the teacher's instruction. Telling your friend about how bad class is is not important. Sure they can be used in certain situations for safety, but by distracting students, it is doing more harm. It may not seem like very much, but a lack of an education can be harmful to a pupil. It can be used in a situation for safety, but so can a knife. In the wrong hands though it will not be used for it's intended purposes. Cell phones are a nuisance, and it has been confirmed that texting and social networking are addictive, and can cause harm to a person's physical and mental state. Yes physical. Reports show people who use social network and text often have developed carpel tunnel syndrome. They have also seen a decline in face to face social interactions. You may find it weird when a stranger talks to you about the bus being late, or the weather, or simply greeting you with \"hi, how are you?\" but before social networking and texting, that was the social norm. You gained friends by talking to strangers. Texting and social networking has caused harm to the Y generation. Sure, you may argue that if students were taught to use them properly, and taught to not use their phones without a teacher's permission, then everything would be fine, but that's just it. No one is going to listen to you anyways because they are too busy texting the guy sitting across from them telling them how they like the girl sitting next to him. I think cell phones should be allowed by teachers so that students can write down a reminder for a test, or write down their homework. And in school, a student's schedule should determine their cell phone use, with an emergency contact for the student to call for help from a family member, but schools should have the ability to take away the child's texting capability unless they press the emergency contact button, and a teacher can allow the release of cell phones to be used if the child is asking someone that might know something, or allow them to research things on the internet. But, a student should not be able to whoop out their phone in the middle of a lecture just to text their friends. Again, yes they CAN be a useful tool, but it is unlikely the students would use them in a proper, school appropriate manner. And if you are a person in high school, let me strongly suggest you do not try anything funny with your phone in a class in college. The teacher is the boss, and they can make up most any rules they want for the class and you are to abide by them, or they can remove you, or just your cell phone, from the room.", "qid": "37", "docid": "5a0d829e-2019-04-18T16:36:04Z-00004-000", "rank": 99, "score": 103875.0}, {"content": "Title: mobile phone is paralysis to youngster mind Content: Smartphones are useful tools to kids because it teaches them responsibility. Since they like their phone so much, they will be careful not to lose it and this will help them develop future skills for life such as orginization. Also, parents can use a cellphone as a motivator, letting kids have it after they do something good, such as taking out the trash, washing dishes, setting table,etc. The phones can help kids learn valuabe character traits that can be used later in life, when they really matter, but a cellphone gives kids a chance to hone these traits in a safe enviroment.", "qid": "37", "docid": "18fc0687-2019-04-18T16:23:27Z-00000-000", "rank": 100, "score": 103725.0}]}
{"query": "Should marijuana be a medical option?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: Medical Marijuana should be a legal option Content: I challenge my opponent to debate the merits or lack thereof of medical marijuana. I believe that Medical Marijuana should be legal because it has been proven to have medical benefits and relieve pain. It is less addictive and has less severe side effects than many of the opiates currently prescribed for pain. Making medical marijuana illegal could therefore be detrimental to therapy fro people suffering from sever diseases. I await your response and f", "qid": "38", "docid": "82c12bae-2019-04-18T18:49:36Z-00004-000", "rank": 1, "score": 180184.0}, {"content": "Title: Medical Marijuana should be a legal option Content: 1. Proven Medical Benefits There are many who say that there are many proven medical benefits to smoking or otherwise ingesting marijuana. First off, I would like to ask my opponent to cite a source saying, and proving, the medical benefits of medical marijuana. I have a source that says the following, \"There is plenty of evidence to show that marijuana can help people cope with a variety of diseases,\" Of course it can help people cope with diseases. If I took cocaine, the same effect would happen, in fact I might forget that I even had a disease. Being able to help people cope is no reason to legalize marijuana for medical use. The same source goes on to say, \"That said, medical marijuana is not right for every patient. Nor is it even the first drug of choice,\". Not even the first choice. Medical marijuana would not replace current medical practices, it would only supplement them. The legalization of medical marijuana is bad for many reasons, which brings me to my next point. . http://www.post-gazette.com... 2. Ill Effects of Ingesting Marijuana The Office of Drug Control Policy says the following, \"Marijuana use is associated with dependence, respiratory and mental illness, poor motor performance, and impaired cognitive and immune system functioning, among other negative effects. Marijuana intoxication can cause distorted perceptions, difficulty in thinking and problem solving, and problems with learning and memory. Studies have shown an association between chronic marijuana use and increased rates of anxiety, depression, suicidal thoughts, and schizophrenia. Other research has shown marijuana smoke to contain carcinogens and to be an irritant to the lungs. Marijuana smoke, in fact, contains 50\u201070 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than does tobacco smoke,\" This goes to show why any use of marijuana, even for medical uses, is a bad thing for the health of any users. If marijuana for medical purposes was legalized, it would harm many more people than it would help. Is forgetting about your pain through smoking a joint worth it if you can get schizophrenia from smoking it? Or any other medical complication? No, its not worth it, and that is why medical marijuana should not be a legal option. . http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov... In conclusion, I have yet to see a source that legitimately proves the benefits of medical marijuana. Not only is there a lack of health benefits from ingesting it, but there are serious medical issues that could result from ingesting the drug.", "qid": "38", "docid": "82c12bae-2019-04-18T18:49:36Z-00003-000", "rank": 2, "score": 171786.0}, {"content": "Title: Medical Marijuana should be a legal option Content: My opponent chastised me for mentioning other drugs when the debate is on marijuana, but I was merely pointing out the inconsistencies in our drug laws. Furthermore, he goes on to cite the smoking baby, and since he is addicted to regular cigarettes and not marijuana that too would not be relevant to the debate at hand. \"Yes, many drugs on t. v. list a long list of side effects, but one must take into account that those warnings are for legal purposes so that no one can sue the drug company for getting nauseous when taking the drug. \" Yes, and the same such warnings may apply to marijuana for legal reasons, that does not prove that it is so much worse for you. \"Same thing with drinking alcohol and then driving. Thats illegal, but people do it none the less. Legalizing marijuana would allow people to do things while under the influence of THC, and that puts the rest of us at risk. \" Yes, exactly, that just reinforces what I was saying that you responded to. Any time we discuss drugs we must weigh the benefits against the risks. There are some in the medical community who promote marijuana as an effective treatment option. [1] You mention how marijuana is not for everyone, and it is not the first choice. That may be true, however, that does not mean it is not a choice at all. It works for some people where other drugs have failed. If you are concerned with the risk of abuse, dispensaries can have the same oversight as any pharmacy. [2] According to many experts, if a lethal dose of marijuana exists it is almost impossible to attain, as opposed to other drugs which can be quite easy to Overdose on even accidentally. [3] Thanks again to my opponent and I would look forward to his conclusion. 1 . http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org... 2 . http://www.lansingstatejournal.com... 3 . http://www.druglibrary.org...", "qid": "38", "docid": "82c12bae-2019-04-18T18:49:36Z-00000-000", "rank": 3, "score": 170053.0}, {"content": "Title: Medical Marijuana Content: I accept", "qid": "38", "docid": "174dab53-2019-04-18T18:33:55Z-00006-000", "rank": 4, "score": 165173.0}, {"content": "Title: Should marijuana be legalized for medical purposes Content: I maintain my position", "qid": "38", "docid": "9821cb64-2019-04-18T15:54:34Z-00001-000", "rank": 5, "score": 163400.0}, {"content": "Title: Medical marijuana should be legal Content: Winning.", "qid": "38", "docid": "c416877b-2019-04-18T15:36:17Z-00000-000", "rank": 6, "score": 162814.0}, {"content": "Title: Medical Marijuana should be a legal option Content: First of all my opponent points to where his source says \"medical marijuana is not right for every patient. \" If you have ever seen a drug commercial on TV they say that about just about everything, while they are listing off the long list of side effects. Morphine is a drug often prescribed as an anesthetic or painkiller, yet it has worse side effects than marijuana and is more addictive and is an opiate. [1] [2] [3] There are proven benefits with less problems. [4] [5] It helps with cancer and is less devastating to health than chemo. [6] \" Marijuana intoxication can cause distorted perceptions, difficulty in thinking and problem solving, and problems with learning and memory. \" Which is why people taking it shouldn't be allowed to drive or do certain tasks that require high levels of motor skills, just like some other drugs. \"Studies have shown an association between chronic marijuana use and increased rates of anxiety, depression, suicidal thoughts, and schizophrenia. \" This is also true of many antidepressants when prescribed to teenagers. Other research has shown marijuana smoke to contain carcinogens and to be an irritant to the lungs. Marijuana smoke, in fact, contains 50\u201070 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than does tobacco smoke\" There are other ways to ingest marijuana rather than just smoking it. For consistency, if we were going to make marijuana illegal for medical purposes shouldn't opiates such as morphine and oxycodone and codeine also be illegal even as prescriptions? I thank my opponent and look forward to the next round. 1 . http://www.softlandingrecovery.com... 2 . http://www.ch.ic.ac.uk... 3 . http://www.kstatecollegian.com... 4 . http://www.thenewstribune.com... 5 . http://news.google.com... 6 . http://www.kxly.com...", "qid": "38", "docid": "82c12bae-2019-04-18T18:49:36Z-00002-000", "rank": 7, "score": 160591.0}, {"content": "Title: Medical Marijuana Content: Should medical marijuana be legal or no?", "qid": "38", "docid": "d267ad12-2019-04-18T11:40:03Z-00001-000", "rank": 8, "score": 160324.0}, {"content": "Title: Medical Marijuana Content: Finally!", "qid": "38", "docid": "d267a970-2019-04-18T15:26:34Z-00000-000", "rank": 9, "score": 159338.0}, {"content": "Title: Medical Marijuana should be a legal option Content: \"If you have ever seen a drug commercial on TV they say that about just about everything, while they are listing off the long list of side effects. Morphine is a drug often prescribed as an anesthetic or painkiller, yet it has worse side effects than marijuana and is more addictive and is an opiate. \" --- Yes, many drugs on t. v. list a long list of side effects, but one must take into account that those warnings are for legal purposes so that no one can sue the drug company for getting nauseous when taking the drug. Marijuana has a much greater statistic of harming a person taking it than if one was to take another legal drug. Also, morphine is an addictive drug, but we are not arguing the merits of morphine. I ask that my opponent drop this point, as there are many drugs that are perscribed that are not as addictive as marijuana or opiates. \"There are proven benefits with less problems. [4] [5] It helps with cancer and is less devastating to health than chemo. [6]\" -In source 4, the author never lists the benefits, and in source 5 the person asking the question suggested the benefits of marijuana, marijuana was not suggested. In the same source, the person answering the question said that it was highly controversial. In source 6, it was a nice story, but what about lond term side effects? My second source says that there are long term side effects to this addictive drug, and whos to say that the kid will not grow up an addict? There are many cases in which a child is given a drug that he or she quickly becomes addicted to. . http://www.break.com... \"Which is why people taking it shouldn't be allowed to drive or do certain tasks that require high levels of motor skills, just like some other drugs. \" -Same thing with drinking alcoholand then driving. Thats illegal, but people do it none the less. Legalizing marijuana would allow people to do things while under the influence of THC, and that puts the rest of us at risk. \"There are other ways to ingest marijuana rather than just smoking it. \" -Yes, I know. But that was listed as a method in my source, and I support it still. Any way one ingests marijuna is bad. \"For consistency, if we were going to make marijuana illegal for medical purposes shouldn't opiates such as morphine and oxycodone and codeine also be illegal even as prescriptions? \" -Totally agree with you on this one, but this debate is about marijuna, not opiates.", "qid": "38", "docid": "82c12bae-2019-04-18T18:49:36Z-00001-000", "rank": 10, "score": 157724.0}, {"content": "Title: Medical marijuana should be legal Content: I concur to the terms.", "qid": "38", "docid": "c416873d-2019-04-18T18:19:50Z-00004-000", "rank": 11, "score": 154870.0}, {"content": "Title: Medical marijuana should be legal Content: Medical marijuana hasn't been proven to help any otherwise treatable disease, and is pointless really. Marijuana also disconnects you from the outside world and is a depressant (Like alcohol) which makes you relaxed and not wanting to do anything, not wanting to get the treatment either. The proper treatment.", "qid": "38", "docid": "c416877b-2019-04-18T15:36:17Z-00002-000", "rank": 12, "score": 154390.0}, {"content": "Title: Medical Cannabis Content: I completely disagree with making the decision to make marijuana a legal medication. Yes, it does have many benefits as a medical drug. However this can also be labeled as a mind controlling substance. There are different types of cannabis and not all strains are actually used for medical purposes. I believe marijuana should remain under strict watch among doctors, distributors and health professionals. I must also add the criminal and violence aspect of this as well. U.S citizens aren't out causing voilence over tylenol or aspirins. But there are infact doing so over this cannabis, as it is my literal definition of a \"drug\". I would not stand firm and call this a \"medicine\" or \"medication\".", "qid": "38", "docid": "e1d1a698-2019-04-18T15:18:36Z-00004-000", "rank": 13, "score": 153884.0}, {"content": "Title: Medical Marijuana Content: Marijuana should be legal for medical purposes, because it has been shown to be an effective pain reliever, and is less harmful to the liver than most other prescription painkillers. Especially in the case of those who are terminally ill, the negative effects of the drug are insignificant when compared to the improved quality of life it provides to suffering patients. It can likewise reduce the anxiety of the patient during severe medical procedures, and again this is further the case in terminal patients. Severe anxiety has been shown to have immediate detrimental affects on the body, and can complicate some medical procedures. Having yet another option that a doctor may, but need not necessarily prescribe or utilize, only adds more options for the medical system to serve patients. This is not to say that it necessarily should be available for the general public, but certainly for medical usage, as prescribed by licensed doctors, it has a utility that outweighs any possible negatives in many situations.", "qid": "38", "docid": "d267ad12-2019-04-18T11:40:03Z-00000-000", "rank": 14, "score": 153567.0}, {"content": "Title: Should Medical Marijuana Be Legal Content: I believe that medical marijuana should be legal. Marijuana is customarily known as a street drug, but in recent years it has gained its credibility as a medication to treat chronic pain and sooth side effects of chemotherapy for cancer. Already 72% of doctors support medical marijuana. Cancer patients had positive feedback when they tried medical marijuana. They said things like \"It made me feel like I had an appetite for the first time in probably six months\". For the people who benefit from medical marijuana should not be criminalized. Current remedies for pain like Vicodin and Percocet are far more addictive and dangerous. In states where medical marijuana is legalized, doctors have seen a decline in opioid abuse. Making sure people actually need marijuana for medical use and are using it solely for that is where there is a valuable argument. Regulations and government involvement would need to be necessary as with any drug. This also opens up a new industry that could be profitable. There are many ways to consume marijuana than to just smoke it, which is safer to for your lungs. It is unfair to compare the legalization of the medical and recreational use of marijuana, it is a different debate as a whole. The legalization of medical marijuana could steer away from the abuse of opioids and give patients a new way of treatment that has been proven to be effective. It could also change the perception of the drug from a street drug to a medication.", "qid": "38", "docid": "d7c339a6-2019-04-18T11:47:37Z-00001-000", "rank": 15, "score": 152102.0}, {"content": "Title: Medical Marijuana Content: Pro will argue that Marijuana has several useful medical purposes for treating diseases such as Glaucoma and HIV/AIDS. Con will argue that marijuana has no such uses. Medical Marijuana: Medical cannabis (also referred to as medical marijuana) is the use of cannabis and its constituent cannabinoids such as THC as a physician-recommended form of medicine or herbal therapy. . http://en.wikipedia.org...", "qid": "38", "docid": "174daad7-2019-04-18T18:53:23Z-00006-000", "rank": 16, "score": 151799.0}, {"content": "Title: Medical cannabis Content: Look at this from a different point of view. In your argument you stated \"Medical cannabis has been used in easing symptoms of cancer and many other illnesses\" There are many other medications that are being developed and have been developed for quite some time that have effects similar to the effects of cannabis without the risk of being used for the wrong purposes. In many cases the use of medical marijuana is abused by the patient who requested it, they over exaggerate the pain that they are in, it results in a more medication then they would need. \"Medical cannabis can avoid misuse with appropriate tests and papers\" This is not always true as the illness is not always well known and there is little research out for it, sometimes patients request more than is necessary. Medical marijuana is also very expensive and is not always covered by insurance companies. In short marijuana is pointless and not necessary for pain relief. In the least the only thing it would be good for is a substitute for other drugs out there that are better known and are more efficient pain relievers.", "qid": "38", "docid": "7e67fe99-2019-04-18T15:47:36Z-00007-000", "rank": 17, "score": 151489.0}, {"content": "Title: Medical Marijuana Content: Although marijuana has been proven as a alternative to treating cancer, it is still a dangerous drug. There are other medical options that have the same effect on cancer patients without being as dangerous. Different medicines can diminish pain and cause relief without having as dangerous side effects.", "qid": "38", "docid": "d267a8d5-2019-04-18T16:58:41Z-00004-000", "rank": 18, "score": 151394.0}, {"content": "Title: Medical Marijuana Content: Although marijuana has been proven as a alternative to treating cancer, it is still a dangerous drug. There are other medical options that have the same effect on cancer patients without being as dangerous. Different medicines can diminish pain and cause relief without having as dangerous side effects.", "qid": "38", "docid": "d267a8f4-2019-04-18T17:01:16Z-00008-000", "rank": 19, "score": 151394.0}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana should be legal for medical purposes. Content: It will not be an issue. Secondly, I would like to begin with stating my arguments and reasons. Because this is not the round for rebuttals, I will not talk about Pro's main argument until round 3. Arguments Facts about medical marijuana: Medical marijuana can be used to reduce nausea and vomiting, treating HIV/AIDS, and reducing muscle pain (Wikipedia). It can also prevent epilepsy. However, it works \"by binding to specific sites in the brain and on the nerves (WEBMD). \" All chemicals that bind to the brain are dangerous. Here are it's uses: Improving appetite for people with AIDS Glaucoma Multiple Sclerosis Why it should not be used: According to webmd. com, \"cannabinoids in marijuana can weaken the immune system\", \"long-term use of marijuana can make lung problems worse\", \"marijuana might make seizure disorders worse in some people [(in other people it might help to control seizures)]\", and \"it might slow the central nervous system too much when combined with anesthesia and other medications during and after surgery (WEBMD). \" Here are some other common side effects of using marijuana for medicinal purposes: Drowsiness, dry mouth, giddiness, hunger, insomnia, red eyes, respiratory issues, short-term memory loss, and uneasiness or anxiety (Southwest Medical Evaluation Center). As you can see, it can be used to help people, but the effects are not always the same. For some people, medical marijuana can cure seizures, while it may make the disorder worse for other people. Currently, marijuana has not been fully tested, which means it should not be used. Unstable drugs should not be used in people. One could argue that it is human experimentation, which is not legal. Other treatments: Anyone who knows as much as I do about biology knows that there are plenty of other ways to cure illnesses. I am sure Pro is aware of this as well. For certain diseases, such as diabetes, people need insulin. Getting insulin used to be difficult. Now, however, we genetically altered a certain bacteria to generate it. Using that knowledge, one can assume that there are other cures to epilepsy, glaucoma, and sclerosis. Conclusion In this round, I have stated the pros and cons to medical marijuana. As Pro, as well as the viewers can see, there are more downsides to it that upsides. The list of cons is longer and the alternative cures are obvious. Here is my conclusion: Using marijuana for medicinal use is unnecessary and should not be done. I patiently await Pro's rebuttals. Thank you. MLA Citations \"Medical Cannabis. \" Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 03 Dec. 2014. Web. 13 Mar. 2014. <. http://en.wikipedia.org...;. \"MARIJUANA: Uses, Side Effects, Interactions and Warnings - WebMD. \" WebMD. WebMD. Web. 13 Mar. 2014. <. http://www.webmd.com...;. \"Medical Marijuana Side Effects - Effects of Medical Marijuana. \" Medical Marijuana Side Effects - Effects of Medical Marijuana. Web. 14 Mar. 2014. <. http://www.evaluationtoday.com...;.", "qid": "38", "docid": "fa1a69b6-2019-04-18T16:31:37Z-00002-000", "rank": 20, "score": 151136.0}, {"content": "Title: Medical Marijuana Content: Medical Marijuana should be legal in all states because trying to only provide it to clients and not a regular citizen creates more problems in society. A majority of marijuana users find themselves abusing it more than using it as a prescription. It is nearly impossible to keep it only for clients, so why make the job harder for the police departments and try to arrest anyone who carries marijuana. Marijuana is not a serious drug and does not make anyone become violent, yet this generation acts as though it is a crime to enjoy your own free time and relaxing to a natural plant that grows from this earth. What one person is doing to de-stress should not bother anyone else. Although it is rare to hear about someone using medical marijuana for it's main purpose (easing of pain/illness). In 2010, researchers at Harvard Medical School suggested that that some of the drug's benefits may actually be from reduced anxiety, which would improve the smoker's mood. Although some may say that medical marijuana does more harm than it does good, there is plenty of evidence to counteract this. In addition to Medical Marijuana helping to prevent seizures, it can also help to stop cancer cells from spreading. According to an article written by Kevin Loria and Jennifer Welsh, \"Cannabinoids like the active ingredients in marijuana, tetrahydrocannabinol (also known as THC), control seizures by binding to the brain cells responsible for controlling excitability and regulating relaxation.\" Loria and Welsh go on to claim that \"CBD may also help prevent cancer from spreading, researchers at California Pacific Medical Center in San Francisco reported in 2007.\"", "qid": "38", "docid": "d267acd4-2019-04-18T12:17:49Z-00001-000", "rank": 21, "score": 150898.0}, {"content": "Title: Medical Marijuana Should Not Be Legalized. Content: Arguments Extended.", "qid": "38", "docid": "5d56b6d8-2019-04-18T16:58:57Z-00001-000", "rank": 22, "score": 149502.0}, {"content": "Title: Medical Marijuana Content: Medical Marijuana is Marijuana and would therefore be considered as a potential drug which can not only cause addiction but also create unwanted side effects. As my opponent previously stated, Medical Marijuana can be used as a treatment for cancer and neurological disorders. However, the way in which Marijuana actually treats these symptoms should be considered. Marijuana, according to most websites, stimulate and then muffle the nervous system in such a way that the human body is no longer concerned with the disorder but rather feel the need for more Marijuana. This its self is addiction. Therefore, we can conclude that although Marijuana can treat symptoms, it does so in a dangerous way which creates more side-effects than results.", "qid": "38", "docid": "d267a533-2019-04-18T18:20:55Z-00004-000", "rank": 23, "score": 149478.0}, {"content": "Title: Medical marijuana should be legal Content: I apologise to my opponent for the delay in getting this up, and for the abbreviated nature of this argument. Recently, my country legalised medicinal cannabis use (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Since then, we haven't had any significant cases of abuse. Our insurance costs have not skyrocketed, and niether have our taxes. We are not a destination for drug tourism, and we have not undermined our anti-cannabis stance in wider society. When people take medicinal cannabis, their doctors first assess their condition. The doctor's \"do no harm\" mantra prohibits them from proscribing anything that is significantly harmful for the patient. Obviously, most if not all medicines have side effects, but we allow doctors to assess what will work best for the patient because they - not the government - are the ones who know the medicine best. Ultimately we leave the decision down to the patient when a range of options are available for the same reason. To presume that some government buraeucrats have a better understanding of each patient's individual condition (if you will excuse my RoyLatham-esque expression), and thus what treatments should be available, is to undermine the entire healthcare system. Healthcare is a personal thing. Our right to life confers a responsibility for it, and our responsibility for our life empowers us to choose what medicine we take. We make exceptions in various circumstances - for young children, for instance, and for mentally impaired people who cannot understand what is involved with these decisions - but in general the rule is that illness does not rob us of our general autonomy, but rather extends it. It allows us access to public facilities, such as hospitals, just as it opens up access to prescription drugs, for the simple reason that we cannot make a choice when certain choices are prohibited. As a principle, we feel it is entirely consistant with the role of the healthcare system to legalise cannabis. You can't make a full medical choice when certain medical options, endorsed by many scientists globally, are not available to you. For instance, cannabis causes pain relief. It would be a mistake to assume that cannabis is not the right pain reliever for anybody. That's why the choice must be available, in these kinds of difficult medical situations, not narrowed down to a few government-approved alternatives. I personally do not believe there is any evidence cannabis cures anything, or has any helpful effect beyond suppression of symptoms (such as pain). However, since doctors will not have the prescribed the medicine in any situation where it would be harmful, the cannabis would never be used when it is harmful to the patient's health. Since a person who's in hospital all the time undergoing chemo is not exactly going to be drug driving or doing property crime, there's no harm to the public either. Furthermore, research on cannabis is still ongoing. Perhaps it has some helpful effect that science has not yet isolated. It must be the patient, informed by the advice of their medical professional, who makes that decision, not me, because I have no responsibility for their health. My contention is that it should be on the basis of harms to the patient, not the benefits to the patient, that medicine is administered. We already accept the principal that the relative value of benefits must be decided by the patient because we allow patients to refuse treatment. Since cannabis has no real harms when administered in the right way under proper, doctor-specified and recommended conditions, as and when appropriate, there is nothing wrong with medicinal cannabis legalisation. We do not ban the use of placebos if patients want to take them voluntarily. Patients can, if they so wish, hug a teddy bear instead of undergoing chemotherapy and pray to God to remove the desease. These are examples of placebos, and they confer no benefits, nor do they have any particular harms. Cannabis can, under most circumstances, fall in the same category. In the remainder of circumstances, doctors will intervene. As can be shown with countries where it has been legalised, such as New Zealand, this does not translate into a broader problem for society. If you don't accept medicinal marijuana, then as a principle, you deny patient autonomy. You limit the scope of healthcare. But what is of greater value than human life? Even if cannabis has few, if any, beneficial effects, that is no grounds for banning it as a choice. That is why we need to legalise cannabis for medicinal use.", "qid": "38", "docid": "c416873d-2019-04-18T18:19:50Z-00003-000", "rank": 24, "score": 149328.0}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana should be legalized and should be taken seriously as a medicine. Content: Marijuana was found in a student's locker. His whole family was deported. He committed suicide. My attorneys have reviewed my prediclement and have advised: (2) A negative may choose a third option and argue both alternatives provided by the resolution. This is a good rule. It makes better debates. This is a good application of that rule. It allows many facets of a complex issue to be presented without worrying about details like are they pro or con. It also allows myths to be addressed effectively by both parties. Attorneys should have that option also and the courts would clear out their backlogs in no time and there would be no attorneys. The AMA says there is no medical use for MJ. It's illegal everywhere on Earth except at the bottom of the ocean and in orbit so how can it be good? There's not much corruption caused by MJ prohibition since MJ laws are fairly enforced and corruption is a good thing anyway. It provides jobs and that is important. Drug testing is big business. It's done by probably the same people that run private prisons so that cuts out the middle man. The private prisons have much better opportunities for escape since they want you to come back and bring all your friends because that is big profits. Some jail time is good anyway because you can meet lots of new contacts and growers there and lots of other drugs too. If those loadies would learn their lesson but they will just go back and smoke it again. They are no good for the Army and they can't hold a job so that difference does it make that they now have a felony record? In fact that makes it easier to score. Families get tired of one another and it is a good thing for some of them to go to jail once in a while. These prisons, especially private prisons, are just making the problem worse and so that is why we must build more of them. They don't cost very much anyway and are a real good investment in a time of economic crisis since they reduce the unemployment rate. The issue of what drugs Joyce's grandchildren should or should not get is beyond the scope of this debate. Well if you are going to kill your family anyway just have a candy bar first, it will be a lot better defense than the Muggles Defense. Now we know the dog is a natural high and is going to end up killing everybody. I reefer to \"Mr. Muggles\", the pet pomeranian of the Bennet family in the NBC drama \"Heroes.\" He will be going postal in an upcoming episode. I can't say any more. http://www.erowid.org... Yes but weed in the National Forest is a victory nonetheless. They have to eradicate it anyway. It's the law. Pretty soon it'll be the National Parking Lot and the only thing that will grow there is weed. In fact why don't we just GE a virus to kill all the plants except cannabis. That'll show them. High-mountain Michoachan or Oaxacan is the best of the brickweed. If you are buying BC bud in New York you are paying way too much for it. A better deal is to trade your cocaine for it, as the movie http://www.AGrowthIndustry.info... points out; that's worth a lot more in BC. Vaporizers are a great help for COPD. http://www.hippy.com... If cannabis were made legal in the U.S. everyone would move here. Joyce's grandchildren are selling drugs and she is just protecting their territory. In fact this proves that pot turns you into a pedophile. If they would legalize cannabis, loadies wouldn't have to hang out at the middle school to score. Joyce's children also are still in school. They have joined SSDP and she has disowned them and narked on them. They are now serving multiple life terms so it is the prison school which does not have an SSDP chapter but it sure has drugs so others in SSDP will carry on, bringing drugs to Joyce's grandchildren. What are her children doing having children while they are still in school? I'll bet SSDP is at the bottom of this. SSDP is a giant drug cartel. That is the only explanation. Where else would Joyce's grandchildren be getting the stuff? If cannabia were legalized Joyce's grandchildren would be out of business. Now that we can see her agenda it is much easier to counter. Joyce's grandchildren will soon be dealing crack and will lose interest in weed since we all know that MJ is a gateway drug. Have you talked to your parents about Joyce Nalepka? http://daregeneration.blogspot.com... http://www.highbeam.com... Her rationale for student drug testing was to save kids' lives and reduce drug-related school problems. But student drug testing is most likely to detect MJ since it stays in the system the longest. And MJ has no harmful effects except it makes you want to kill your family. http://www.erowid.org... So the student drug testing will not contribute to safety at all anyway since the students' families do not attend school. This is a call-in show so let's have some questions and comments in the comments. What is my opponent doing in his picture? I have ten hours and three KB left so let the ranting begin. Serious debaters make jokes about online debating and for good reason. Our educational system, inter alia, is in a shambles. Inter alia means among others such as justice. To use their jargon, the provision of open courseware by utilizing distance technology. Every class should be a debating class. http://www.finitesite.com... http://www.debate.org... We need to get our debating together.", "qid": "38", "docid": "8c493086-2019-04-18T19:25:29Z-00004-000", "rank": 25, "score": 149302.0}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana ought to be legalized Content: I thank Con for their response. I will attempt to negate my opponents points. Your negation of my contention of Medical marijuana was that of \"I acknowledge that Marijuana has specific medical benefits. However, this does not require that Marijuana be legalized for public use. Heroin and opium also have specific medical benefits, and are used today. I wouldn't't want marijuana intended for a specific medical effect to leave the hospital any more than I would want morphine to roam the streets.\" The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, otherwise known as the FDA, could easily control the usage of marijuana if it was legalized. Your first objection to my second contention were that of the military has access to certain things that the general public does not. Well, you could extend this access to certain justice and crime associations, such as the CIA or the FBI, which could be used to allow the pain reliving effects of those groups. Your second objection to my second contention was that of there are better alternatives for pain killer which have less side effects. Marijuana has a greater effectiveness as a pain killer than most other pain killers. Wars may produce a near death injury, while allowing the use of marijuana as a pain killer, can allow the pain to be eliminated near instantly. Your third contention stated attempted to show that certain drugs are less harmful than marijuana. According to NORML, \" In fact, the most recent studies have tended to confirm marijuana's safety, refuting claims that it causes birth defects, brain damage, reduced testosterone, or increased drug abuse problems.\" In refute of the THC spray, I doubt the majority of users of marijuana have discovered said THC spray. Users may also prefer actual marijuana experience over the THC spray. (1)http://norml.org... (2)http://www.annieappleseedproject.org... (3)http://www.library.vanderbilt.edu...", "qid": "38", "docid": "d0a91598-2019-04-18T18:36:17Z-00003-000", "rank": 26, "score": 149205.0}, {"content": "Title: Medical Marijuana Content: Medical Marijuana has been clearly demonstrated by many studies to be a safe non-toxic medicine, useful in the treatment of some of our most disabling medical conditions including multiple AIDS, cancer, chronic pain, glaucoma, etc.", "qid": "38", "docid": "174daa99-2019-04-18T19:27:29Z-00004-000", "rank": 27, "score": 149051.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: The United States Federal Government Should Legalize Medical Marijuana. Content: This round dosen't call for rebuttals, so I will now state my case. Resolved: The United States Federal Government should legalize Medical Marijuana. As Pro, I will be giving the voters substantial arguments and proof that Medical Marijuana does more good than bad. In my argument, we will not only look at the medical aspect, but how Medical Marijuana helps the economy. C.1 Health Benefits of Medical Marijuana There are many ill and terminally ill people in this world. Allot of them suffer due to the lack of money to buy proper medication in which they need, because prescriptions can be pretty costly. As stated in my definition of Medical Marijuana (Marijuana used to relieve pain and treat disease.) It has been proven that Medical Marijuana can relieve pain. Chronic Nerve Pain According to WebMD (A medical website)A Canadian team has found that [1] \" Three puffs a day of cannabis, better known as marijuana, helps people with chronic nerve pain due to injury or surgery feel less pain and sleep better\" You are probably thinking this may be some made up scenario, but it's not. According to Mare Ware a M.D, he states [1] \"About 10% to 15% of patients attending a chronic pain clinic use cannabis as part of their pain [control] strategy\" Not only did he give us this information, but he also conducted a test on 21 men & women (average age 45) who suffer from chronic pain. He found that: [1] After each of the five-day trials, participants rated their pain on a scale of zero to 10, with 10 being the worst. The highest dose, 9.4%, provided relief, Ware says. \"They reduced their pain down to 5.4,\" Ware says. \"Those on placebo were at 6.1.\" Although that difference may seem modest, 'any reduction in pain is important,\" Ware says. The concentration of 9.4%, Ware says, is lower than that found in marijuana on the street. \"On the street, it's 10% to 15% THC, more or less,\" he says. \"We've shown again that cannabis is analgesic,\" Ware says. \"Clearly, it has medical value.\" Side effects were reported, including headache, dry eyes, numbness, cough, and a burning sensation in the area with pain. The cannabis relieves pain, Ware says, by 'changing the way the nerves function.\" As you can read by the definition, Medical Marijuana can be used to relieve pain. Here is proof that is does actually lessen the pain with those who suffer chronic nerve pain. Cancer Medical Marijuana has also been proven to either 1. Cure some types of cancer 2.Slow down the caner or 3.Relive pain and nausea caused by chemotherapy. Don't just take my word for it though. According to Canger.org, Medical Marijuana is actually beneficial and helpful to cancer patients. [2] There are 2 chemically pure drugs based on marijuana compounds that have been approved in the US for medical use. Dronabinol (Marinol\u00ae)\" is a gelatin capsule containing delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) that\u2019s approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat nausea and vomiting caused by cancer chemotherapy as well as weight loss and poor appetite in patients with AIDS......Based on a number of studies, dronabinol can be helpful for reducing nausea and vomiting linked to chemotherapy.\" \"Dronabinol has also been found to help improve food intake and prevent weight loss in patients with HIV. In studies of cancer patients, though, it wasn\u2019t better than placebo or another drug (megestrol acetate).\" \"Nabiximols has shown promise for helping people with cancer pain that\u2019s unrelieved by strong pain medicines, but it hasn\u2019t been found to be helpful in every study done. Research is still being done on this drug.\" As you can see, Medical Marijuana helps reduce symptoms of cancer. We all know that chemotherapy is a dreadful process and tends to make the patient even sicker. Medical Marijuana can only help these people who suffer with these symptoms, so what's the harm in that? [2] So, how can How can marijuana affect symptoms of cancer? \"A number of small studies of smoked marijuana found that it can be helpful in treating nausea and vomiting from cancer chemotherapy.\" \"A few studies have found that inhaled (smoked or vaporized) marijuana can be helpful treatment of neuropathic pain (pain caused by damaged nerves).\" \"Smoked marijuana has also helped improve food intake in HIV patients in studies.\" \"There are no studies in people of the effects of marijuana oil or hemp oil.\" \"Studies have long shown that people who took marijuana extracts in clinical trials tended to need less pain medicine.\" \"More recently, scientists reported that THC and other cannabinoids such as CBD slow growth and/or cause death in certain types of cancer cells growing in laboratory dishes. Some animal studies also suggest certain cannabinoids may slow growth and reduce spread of some forms of cancer. \" So why shouldn't we legalize it when it's been shown to comfort people with deadly diseases? I mean even the Cancer foundation even recognizes it as a humongous help because it can kill cancer, slow it down, and most importantly, comfort and relive pain of the patient. Now that we have focused some on the medical aspects, let's take a look at how Medical Marijuana can boost the economy. How Medical Marijuana is beneficial to the economy. So, it may be hard to believe, but Medical Marijuana can help and boost the economy. [3]https://halcyonorganics.com... -Increase Revenues Without Tax Increases- \"Cannabis is a $25+ billion dollar industry. Currently, all of those revenues go directly to cartels and criminal gangs. Through regulation and taxation, we can transform these black market billions into taxable revenues. This new income can bolster our state economy without raising taxes on main street.\" Decrease Government Spending \"Cannabis prohibition is expensive. Harvard economist, Jeffrey Miron, estimates that state and federal governments spend an excess of $20 billion per year fighting this little green plant. Much of this cost comes from burdening our justice system, wasting law enforcement\u2019s time, and using $125/day of taxpayer money incarcerating cannabis offenders. To add insult to injury, these efforts continue to fail as cannabis is more available than ever before.\" Fortify Infrastructure and Social Programs \"Applying the increased revenues with the decreased expenses caused by medical cannabis legalization yields a net gain in the billions. This \u2018new\u2019 money can be used to fortify our many distressed and underfunded public works programs like the lagging education system, build new roads that reduce traffic and increase Social Security and Medicare benefits for our seniors.\" Weaken Criminal Organizations \"How do gangs and cartels have the same weapons that our military uses? Why do drug dealers drive $100,000 cars? Because selling illicit drugs is a wildly lucrative and untaxed business. Legalizing and regulating medical cannabis will take this profit center away from murderous criminals and transfer it to licensed and regulated businesses. By taking these revenues from organized crime, we can significantly weaken them financially. Additionally, we will be able to control how and to whom medical cannabis is dispensed by setting responsible standards to which businesses must adhere. Liquor stores ID customers, drug dealers do not.\" As you can see, legalizing Medical Marijuana will not only help those who suffer from illness, but it also helps boost the economy. It's quiet clear that the positive, outweighs the harm. Sources [1] http://www.webmd.com... [2] http://www.cancer.org... [3] https://halcyonorganics.com...", "qid": "38", "docid": "6f02a9c0-2019-04-18T14:40:29Z-00003-000", "rank": 28, "score": 148761.0}, {"content": "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.", "qid": "38", "docid": "b0a1297b-2019-04-18T17:56:41Z-00000-000", "rank": 29, "score": 148570.0}, {"content": "Title: Should Medical Marijuana Be Legal Content: Greetings and Salutations. I have a curve ball to throw at my opponent as while I am against his position, it is for a different reason. I hope you can either rein in the argument and assert yourself with logic, or roll with the punches and see where it takes us! I am against \"Medical Marijuana\" being legalized because it physically doesn't exist. There is no such thing other than a human conjuration of meaning. What is being depicted as marijuana is in fact Cannabis, or Hemp. A google search for the scientific name of Medical Marijuana, (Ie. the name of the person who discovered the fauna/flora), and you will discover it is something completely different, something that has been slapped onto another flora and passed of as real. Marijuana itself is part of a slur campaign from the nicotine and cotton industry to destroy Hemp, they renamed Cannabis to Marijuana to confuse people who had used it for generations into thinking some new dangerous 'drug' had been discovered - and successfully throttled any competition to their respective fields. Other indications of this being a slur is in its 'street' name \"Weed\". That itself conjures up a disgusting image when heard, an unwanted product. (Note: the articles are biased, I cannot find an open party reference on quick notice ) https://raoulduke1989.wordpress.com... https://gooeyrabinski.com... Cannabis is very real, and can be incredibly beneficial to most human - no... mammals, reptiles, birds and even plants! - as we all have THC receptors that have evolved over generations. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... There are strains that have been cultivated to have lower THC levels, so that when ingested - there are less of the \"side-effect's\" the stoner culture is famous for. (When I searched to find some links to show, I got a TON of click-bait sites - Washington post, etc. with articles on it that have no basis of proof - However I believe most people have at least heard of this to understand that plant splicing and selective pollination can alter properties of a plant, and that THC is a property if Cannabis.... it can be altered). Eagerly awaiting my opponents response - Let's do this!", "qid": "38", "docid": "d7c339a6-2019-04-18T11:47:37Z-00000-000", "rank": 30, "score": 148446.0}, {"content": "Title: Medical Marijuana Content: If marijuana is less toxic than many of the drugs that physicians prescribe every day, then why should it not be legalized for medical purposes? Although cannabis has been smoked widely in Western countries for more than four decades, there have been no reported cases of lung cancer or emphysema attributed to marijuana. Professor Lester Grinspoon, MD, from the Harvard Medical School, comments \"I suspect that a day's breathing in any city with poor air quality poses more of a threat than inhaling a day's dose -- which for many ailments is just a portion of a joint -- of marijuana.\" Every drug has side effects, and most have potential risks. However, no other drug can do exactly what medical marijuana would do for a patient. Therefore, it should be legalized in order to benefit those suffering from illnesses such as AIDS and cancer.", "qid": "38", "docid": "d267a8f4-2019-04-18T17:01:16Z-00001-000", "rank": 31, "score": 147940.0}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana Should Be Legal For Medicinal Purposes Content: \"The illegality of cannabis is outrageous, an impediment to full utilization of a drug which helps produce the serenity and insight, sensitivity and fellowship so desperately needed in this increasingly mad and dangerous world.\" - Carl SaganAlthough there exist many benefits associated with the legalization of marijuana, including economic, moral, civil, and societal advantages, in this round I will attempt to build my case solely by focusing on only two primary contentions; namely, 1) the medical benefits of marijuana, and 2) the level safety associated with using marijuana. Ultimately, the criteria of a good medication is one that can provide a worthwhile medicinal benefit without resulting in any unreasonable side-effects; I believe marijuana fulfills this criteria, and should therefore be legalized for medicinal use.The Medicinal Benefits of Marijuana:The legalization of medical marijuana would undoubtedly result in the relief of millions of suffering people who seek to find an escape from their significantly numerous ailments; in fact, various authoritative studies have consistently confirmed that Marijuana treats and prevents glaucoma, epileptic seizures, cancer, anxiety, nausea, vomiting, loss of appetite, muscle tension, muscle spasm, Alzheimer's, multiple sclerosis, inflammatory bowel disease, arthritis, chronic pain, and various other medical problems [1] [2]. Marijuana has also surprisingly been observed to help consumers increase their lung capacity, as well as provide them relief from the symptoms that accompany treatment of hepatitis C [3]. These studies have been performed, reported, and confirmed by non-partisan medical organizations and universities [4]. For example, Business Insider has reported on the following findings related to the medical benefits associated with marijuana use:Cancer: \"One chemical found in marijuana, called cannabidiol, prevents cancer from spreading, researchers at California Pacific Medical Center in San Francisco reported in 2007. Cannabidiol stops cancer by turning of a gene called Id-1, the study, published in the journal Molecular Cancer Therapeutics, found. Cancer cells make more copies of this gene than non-cancerous cells, and it helps them spread through the body. The researchers studied breast cancer cells in the lab that had high expression levels of Id-1 and treated them with cannabidiol. After treatment the cells had decreased Id-1 expression and were less aggressive spreaders [5].\"Alzheimer's: \"Marijuana may be able to slow the progression of Alzheimer's disease, a study led by Kim Janda of the Scripps Research Institute suggests. The 2006 study, published in the journal Molecular Pharmaceutics found that THC, the active chemical in marijuana, slows the formation of amyloid plaques by blocking the enzyme in the brain that makes them. These plaques are what kill brain cells and cause Alzheimers [6].\"Multiple Sclerosis:\"Marijuana may ease painful symptoms of Multiple Sclerosis, a study published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal in May suggests. Jody Corey-Bloom studied 30 multiple sclerosis patients with painful contractions in their muscles. These patients didn't respond to other treatments, but after smoking marijuana for a few days they were in less pain [7].\"Arthritis: \"Marijuana alleviates pain, reduces inflammation, and promotes sleep, which may help relieve pain and discomfort for people with rheumatoid arthritis, researchers announced in 2011. Researchers from rheumatology units at several hospitals gave their patients, sativex, a cannabinoid-based pain-relieving medicine. After a two week period, people on Sativex had a significant reduction in pain and improved sleep quality compared to placebo users [8].\"Of course, this isn't to say that there are no negative side-effects of Marijuana -- there are; however, the negative properties of cannabis pale in comparison to its positive ones. In any case, it's no secret that the vast majority of legal medications possess at least one or many negative side-effects themselves.Therefore, despite the potential downfalls of marijuana, I submit that its abundant positive properties make it a justified candidate for legalization, especially considering the fact that many other legal medications possess similar or even worse side-effects [9].Marijuana Compared to Alcohol and Tobacco:One of the most perplexing realities surrounding the illegalization of medicinal marijuana is the fact that many other legal substances and are much more dangerous, particularly alcohol and tobacco; for example, http://www.saferchoice.org... provides the following comparisons between alcohol and marijuana:1) People die from alcohol overdoses; there has never been a fatal marijuana overdose2) Alcohol use damages the brain; marijuana use does not3) Alcohol use is linked to cancer; marijuana use is not4) Alcohol is more addictive than marijuana5) Alcohol use contributes to aggressive and violent behavior; marijuana use does not6) Alcohol use contributes to the likelihood of domestic abuse and sexual assault; marijuana use does notFurthermore, the following comparisons can be drawn between marijuana and tobacco:1) Over 400,000 people die every year from tobacco; no one has ever died directly from the use of marijuana [10]2) Tobacco causes cancer; marijuana does not [11]3) Marijuana is not as harmful to the lungs as tobacco smoke [12]Therefore, considering the fact that alcohol and tobacco are legal for recreational use, I submit that marijuana should certainly be legal for medicinal use, especially considering the fact that alcohol and tobacco are significantly more dangerous.________________________________________________________________________________________________[1] http://health.howstuffworks.com...[2] http://www.businessinsider.com...[3] Ibid.[4] Ibid.[5] Ibid.[6] Ibid.[7] Ibid[8] Ibid.[9] http://www.opposingviews.com...[10] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[11] Ibid.[12] Ibid.", "qid": "38", "docid": "b0a1297b-2019-04-18T17:56:41Z-00007-000", "rank": 32, "score": 147844.0}, {"content": "Title: Medical Marijuana is better than man made pills Content: \"Medical Marijuana is better than man made pills\" assumes that cannabis is better for treating medical conditions than man made pills. While medical Cannabis is proven to help with much pain management and as been proven very useful in some fields it leaves others void of any treatment in which man made pills prove their use. If a woman needs birth control should she take man made pills instead of using cannabis to protect against unwanted pregnancy? No this is foolish If someone has a bacterial infection that requires antibiotics they should use pills instead of cannabis? Of course not. If someone has schizophrenia they should take man made pills instead of just using cannabis? There is good reason why we don't. To say medical marijuana is the be all and end all for medicine is a blanket statement that shows a lack of understanding of empiricism.", "qid": "38", "docid": "daa1c0-2019-04-18T14:20:22Z-00003-000", "rank": 33, "score": 147779.0}, {"content": "Title: Medical Marijuana Content: ====== Rebuttal ====== [QUOTE] 1) Beneficial in health. As noted by my own opponent, medical marijuana can help alleviate symptoms of pain, discomfort, and lack of appetite caused by many common disease, including AIDS, cancer, glaucoma, etc. This can go uncontested, as my opponent has already agreed that medical marijuana has these properties. Of course, there are even more benefits of marijuana, such as a prevention of the symptoms of Alzheimer's disease and its progression. (1)(2) A legalization of medical marijuana would aid those who are in pain from said diseases and symptoms. [/QUOTE] The main chemical used in \"medical marijuana\" that helps to manage disease is Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol, more commonly known as THC. While THC can be helpful in the treatment of certain diseases, the parts of the cannabis plant used to make \"medical marijuana\" contain only 3% THC. In order to intake this measly amount of THC, the patient must also assume the numerous harms of taking marijuana itself, including the intake over 400 hazardous chemicals and numerous psychological and physiological hazards. Not only that but the few good things that marijuana brings to the medical industry have already been isolated and incorporated into a FDA-approved pharmaceutical drug called Marinol. Marinol preserves the benefits of THC while lessening or eliminating the harms brought about by Marijuana consumption. Medical professionals have noticed the notable effects of certain narcotics in the suppression of pain. Does that mean that they legalize opium or heroin? Obviously no because pharmacists can isolate the positive effects of pain suppression and reduce the rather negative effects of extreme addiction and potential for homicidal rage. Why, then, legalize medical marijuana, when the aforementioned pharmaceutical drugs are superior in every regard to marijuana? [QUOTE] 2) Reduce number of those in prison. The current amount of arrests of marijuana-related crimes totals over 700,000 thousand a year, and that was back in 2005! (3) Of these, a whopping 88% were just for simple possession, while the rest were only for sale or manufacture. (3) These inmates who have done nothing morally wrong or reprehensible are now spending years and years in prison, just for possessing or growing marijuana. 3) Help cut our spending. We currently spend more than 15.5 billion dollars a year on marijuana arrests. (4) If legalized and taxed, not only would we eliminate that spending, but we would also have a major source of revenue that would help pull us out of this recession, as marijuana is our best cash crop, pulling in $35 billion dollars per year. (5)(6) [/QUOTE] Instead of sending those people to prison, we could just make them pay a citation and the citation would depend on how much marijuana the person possesses. This would also help the recession while keeping marijuana illegal. [QUOTE] 4) Little to no side effects. Marijuana causes a very small amount of, if at all, side effects, which are negligible at best. (7)(8) 5) It doesn't make any sense to render it illegal. And that's the crux of the matter, isn't it? It is not overly harmful, if at all, and it doesn't have any second-hand smoke effects. There is simply no logical/moral reason to keep it illegal. No one should have a right to tell you what you can and cannot ingest. You don't violate the rights of others in any way, shape or form, so why should it be illegal? There is not convincing argument as to why. [/QUOTE] This is obviously false. Depending on the user Marijuana usually causes the user to become hungry, lazy, paranoid, etc... Marijuana could cause obesity from hunger and that's if the user can get food. If the user can't get food in time, they will die of starvation. Marijuana could cause people to be lazy and therefore if marijuana was legal, The recession would actually be worse. Marijuana could cause people to be paranoid and lose trust in others causing them to go insane and crime rate may possibly go up and thus, this would do harm to others. ======= Arguments ======= 1)People say that marijuana can make the user \"happy.\" Unnecessary and harmful freedoms are not handed out to the terminally ill simply to ensure that they have a pleasant trip out of life. Doing such sets an unneeded and negative precedent to the rest of society. Honestly, \"happiness\" isn't an idea that falls under the umbrella of medicine, and the Affirmative plan draws no line if happiness was an acceptable use for medical marijuana. If I had a bad day at work, would I be justified in using harmful drugs as an escapism? The use of medical marijuana as a means to achieve happiness by escaping from life's problems is neither a just reason for assuming that societal harms achieved by legalizing marijuana, nor does it even fall under the concept of medical marijuana in the first place. 2)What we must see is that current treatment options are far superior to the suggested use of medical marijuana, and any minuscule benefits are far outweighed by the harms of making marijuana easily available. 3)It's obvious that the legalization of medical marijuana has been abused on a widespread basis. Taking the action suggested by Pro provides little to no benefit to those actually sick, while simultaneously harming society as a whole. 4) Marinol is a better alternative to medical marijuana. ===== Sources ===== http://www.homedrugtestingkit.com... http://www.drugs.com... http://www.justice.gov...", "qid": "38", "docid": "174daab8-2019-04-18T19:00:10Z-00003-000", "rank": 34, "score": 147754.0}, {"content": "Title: Medical Marijuana Content: 1st off Medical Marijuana can treat Alzheimer's Disease, Anorexia, AIDS, Arthritis, Cachexia, Cancer, Crohn's Disease, Epilepsy, Glaucoma, HIV, Migraine, Multiple Sclerosis, Nausea, Pain, Spasticity, and Wasting Syndrome. (http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org...) Medical Marijuana will not cause cancer, mental illness, and those who use Marijuana don't only barly use it but won't use other drugs. (http://www.drugpolicy.org...) Not only that, but 800,000 people each year are arrested for possesion only and if legalized it will decrease the jail birds and it will decrease drug cartel crime in america. Already 17 US states have legalized the drug, meaning that these states have found use in the drug. http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org... Your move! http://www.youtube.com...", "qid": "38", "docid": "d267a5af-2019-04-18T18:07:23Z-00008-000", "rank": 35, "score": 147261.0}, {"content": "Title: Medical Marijuana Content: The main problem, is that Medical Marijuana is often used as an excuse for drug addiction. Since legalizing Marijuana allows young children and adults to become possibly addicted to the drug, it is best that we avoid taking risks by making Medical Marijuana illegal. This, however, will not offend one's rights as harmful substances should not be legally administered under any circumstances. This is why, poisonous substances are not allowed to be prescribed legally, as they are often more harmful than helpful. In conclusion, using Marijuana as a therapy or medicine is highly dangerous as there are more than effective ways to treat symptoms. Legalizing this drug, will only be overall counterproductive to a patient's physical and mental health.", "qid": "38", "docid": "d267a533-2019-04-18T18:20:55Z-00000-000", "rank": 36, "score": 147229.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Medical Marijuana should be legal Content: I am going to continue my last arguments. And I thank my opponentRebuttles Ever since the mid 70s, medical scientists have been well aware of the beneficial effects of cannabinoid compounds over cancerous cells. Thanks to modern science, over a dozen studies conducted during recent years have been able to partially reveal just how it works. Yet cannabis is still not endorsed by pharmaceutical companies as a cancer cure, and since it is not promoted through mainstream channels, very few people are aware of its benefits. Consequently, it is not sought after as an alternative to disfiguring chemotherapy and other harmful drugs.Laboratory tests conducted in 2008 by a team of scientists formed as a joint research effort between Spain, France and Italy, and published in The Journal Of Clinical Investigation, showed that the active ingredient in marijuana, known as tetrahydrocannabinol or THC, can function as a cure for brain cancer by inducing human glioma cell death through stimulation of autophagy.The study concluded that via the same biochemical process THC could terminate multiple types of cancers, affecting various cells in the body. Other studies have shown that cannabinoids may work by various mechanisms, including inhibiting cell growth, inducing cell death, and inhibiting tumor metastasis.What is amazing is that while cannabinoids effectively target and kill cancerous cells, they do not affect healthy, normal cells and may actually protect them against cellular death. Moreover, cannabinoids are also researched for their pain-modulation and anti-inflammatory abilities as they bind to special receptors in the brain, much like opioid derivatives that are commonly prescribed today.Further evidence to support the effects of cannabis extract on malignant cells comes from the real life experience of individuals who have successfully overcome cancer by using cannabis oil. Examples include a patient, who managed to completely cure his skin cancer by simply applying cannabis oil onto the affected areas of the skin, as well as another, who recovered from a severe head injury with the aid of hemp oil.One of the cannabinoids that has displayed amazing medical properties is cannabidiol, or CBD - a non-psychoactive compound that is regarded by some as the medical discovery of the 21st century, and with good reason. Research indicates that CBD can relieve convulsions, reduce inflammation, lower anxiety and suppress nausea, while also inhibiting cancer development. In addition, CBD has exhibited neuroprotective properties, relieving symptoms of dystonia and proving just as effective as regular antipsychotics in the treatment of schizophrenia.What stands out is that from the vast amount of research and data available, as well as the personal experiences of cancer survivors, is that no chemotherapy currently being used medically can match the non-toxic anti-carcinogenic and anti-tumorigenic effects of these natural plant compounds.http://safeaccess.ca...http://www.jci.org...http://dotsub.com...http://en.wikipedia.org...1.Health BenefitsEven Queen Victoria used marijuana extracts to relieve menstrual cramps.Mental ImbalancesADHD, PTSD, OCD, ODD, IED, CD, Bi-polar disorder, all in one 7-year-old boy. This is tough, since we're pretty sure one of those things listed is a nuclear device. Surprisingly, the child was not named Damien. According to the boy's mother (http://medicalcbd.wordpress.com...) his life was pretty much entirely therapy, medication, and institutionalization. There's a Charlie Sheen joke in here, for sure, but we're not going to make it. We're talking about sick kids here, focus:How Medical Marijuana Helped: After trying many medications, the boy's mother finally got him a prescription for medical marijuana. After eating part of a muffin, he stopped being a complete trainwreck of a human being. According to mom, that day \"was the first day of Jeff's life, literally!\" Ignoring the fact that her misuse of \"literally\" implies she gave birth to a seven-year-old, this anecdote illustrates a miraculous turnaround for the boy. He is now 8, and apparently living the life of a normal, if maladjusted boy.ADD and ADHDA well documented USC study (http://pr.cannazine.co.uk...) done about a year ago showed that marijuana is not only a perfect alternative for Ritalin but treats the disorder without any of the negative side effects of the pharmaceutical.2. ScienceA controlled substanceThe medical establishment continues to reinvent their justification for the demonization of marijuana as more and more of the claims made against cannabis are disproven. The justification currently holding the most ground is that cannabis is a plant, and cannot be carefully regulated because of the great chemical variability that is found between individual plants.Of course, medications have to be carefully monitored when the substance being used is also a poison at a slightly higher dose, as the overwhelming majority of pharmaceuticals are. And while one could understand the desire to maintain the strict regulation standards, the fact is that attempts to fix the purity problem have severely reduced its medical potency, and process has no real benefit. Control doesn't make the substance any safer because it isn't dangerous in the first place. Its toxicity is comparable to water. Yes, an individual could make themselves feel very unwell if they surpass their stomach's physical limits with any substance.A medicine to save us from medicinesIndividuals who have successfully used cannabis as a part of cancer therapy agree that there needs to be more research and more discussion about the actual science behind the plant's chemistry - not just anecdotal evidence from individual users. Unfortunately, most of the investigation of the medical applications for cannabis are being done illegally and in secret. The controversy, even according to the researchers themselves, is the main barrier to conducting scientific studies of the plant's properties. As a substance classified as a Schedule I drug, even research on cannabis is an illegal activity. Many sick individuals simply cannot wait for governments to get over their hang-ups, nor can the expectation that they should be justified. Currently, patients are required to exhaust the potential of other anti-nausea medications, many of which are less safe, in order to be prescribed medical marijuana.Inaugural beginnings of real scienceThe government has licensed a few manufacturers to produce THC acid extracts from the cannabis plant, as well to artificially synthesize the chemical. The problem is that the tentative separation has only resulted in a THC that has a profoundly diminished efficacy, and leaves behind the other 88 healing cannabinoids.In a medical context, cannabis is almost exclusively used as a treatment for the symptoms of chemotherapy - the polite name for radiation sickness. It must be remembered that THC is rarely used to treat cancer itself, and that patients are not really tapping into its healing properties. The overwhelming majority of patients are using the plant's psychoactive properties to mediate the deleterious effects of radiation. The direct effect of THC on ailments themselves is a largely unexplored field. As research moves forward, the artificially manufactured cannabinoids will inevitably increase in quality, eliminating the purity problems, and paving the way for the kind of precise control that will make regulators comfortable distributing the product.http://watch.montanapbs.org...http://www.drcnet.org...http://www.nap.edu...Ran out of Characters because of my RebuttelTHANKS FOR THE DEBATE!!", "qid": "38", "docid": "84f999d5-2019-04-18T18:09:59Z-00001-000", "rank": 37, "score": 147101.0}, {"content": "Title: Medical Marijuana Content: ======== Introduction ======== I will be arguing that Medical Marijuana should be illegal while my opponent will argue that medical marijuana should be and/or remain legal. For the purposes of this debate, medical marijuana will stand as Marijuana used to help manage, suppress, or reverse symptoms from medical disorders, such as but not necessarily limited to AIDS, cancer, chronic pain, glaucoma, etc. If my opponent feels that there is something I haven't made clear then tell me during the first round of this debate and I will be more than happy to clarify as best as I can. I want to thank my opponent in advance for accepting this debate. I will let my opponent start his argument first. ====== Definition ====== Marijuana: The female leaves of the Cannabis plant as used to create a number of euphoriant and hallucinogenic drugs. Medical: Relating to the study or practice of medicine.", "qid": "38", "docid": "174daab8-2019-04-18T19:00:10Z-00005-000", "rank": 38, "score": 146859.0}, {"content": "Title: Medical Marijuana Content: Medical Marijuana can treat patients of cancer and AIDs, but it leads to more problems. Andrea Bathwell, who used to be the Deputy Director for the White House once said, \"\"By characterizing the use of illegal drugs as quasi-legal, state-sanctioned, Saturday afternoon fun, legalizers destabilize the societal norm that drug use is dangerous. They undercut the goals of stopping the initiation of drug use to prevent addiction.... Children entering drug abuse treatment routinely report that they heard that 'pot is medicine' and, therefore, believed it to be good for them.\" Even if marijuana is used for medical purposes, it leads to addiction and that's why it should not be legalized for treatment.", "qid": "38", "docid": "d267a8f4-2019-04-18T17:01:16Z-00000-000", "rank": 39, "score": 146662.0}, {"content": "Title: Medical Marijuana Content: Per the Advanced English Dictionary: Marijuana: The female leaves of the Cannabis plant as used to create a number of euphoriant and hallucinogenic drugs. For the purposes of this debate, medical marijuana will stand as Marijuana used to help manage, suppress, or reverse symptoms from medical disorders, such as (but not necessarily limited to) those mentioned by my opponent. The main chemical used in \"medical marijuana\" that helps to manage disease is Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol, more commonly known as THC. While THC can be helpful in the treatment of certain diseases, the parts of the cannabis plant used to make 'medical marijuana\" contain only three percent THC. In order to intake this measly amount of THC, the patient must also assume the numerous harms of in taking marijuana itself, including the intake over 400 hazardous chemicals and numerous psychological and physiological hazards. But wait: the (few) good things that marijuana brings to the medical industry have already been isolated and incorporated into a FDA-approved pharmaceutical drug called Marinol. Marinol preserves the benefits of THC while lessening or eliminating the harms brought about by Marijuana consumption. If the harms can be lessened, why legalize a destructive alternative that is in all cases inferior and will be abused? Medical professionals have noticed the notable effects of certain narcotics in the suppression of pain. Does that mean that they legalize opium or heroin? Of course not, because pharmacists can isolate the positive effects of pain suppression and reduce the rather negative effects of extreme addiction and potential for homicidal rage. Why, then, legalize medical marijuana, when the aforementioned pharmaceutical drugs are superior in every regard to marijuana? The affirmative plan holds no greater utility, and accordingly, it is your duty to vote Con. Criteria: For Pro to win, he must prove that \"medical marijuana\" has some sort of benefit that is not matched by currently-approved THC-utilizing drugs, and must further prove that these said benefits outweigh the benefits that the FDA-approved drugs hold over marijuana. Sources: http://www.homedrugtestingkit.com... http://www.drugs.com... http://www.usdoj.gov...", "qid": "38", "docid": "174daa99-2019-04-18T19:27:29Z-00003-000", "rank": 40, "score": 146625.0}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana is a good alternative medicine to suit individual needs Content: The fact that there are alternatives to medical marijuana for many treatments is not necessarily an argument against medical marijuana. It is always important to have many alternatives, largely due to differing personal preferences, beliefs, and physical reactions to different drugs.[15]", "qid": "38", "docid": "87b8c230-2019-04-17T11:47:26Z-00118-000", "rank": 41, "score": 146442.0}, {"content": "Title: Medical Marijuana Should Not Be Legalized. Content: Firstly, I am not arguing that medical marijuana should never be legalized. I am arguing that it should not be legalized yet.Argument 1: Safety Concerns.Many studies have indicated that marijuana has no safety issues and some even claim it is healthy. Not every study agrees though. Some indicate major health concerns regarding marijuana and tetrahydrocannabinol (THC, a major component of marijuana.) A study in the Journal of Immunology shows that THC in marijuana can promote tumor growth (1: Medscape). According to the study, the components of THC and marijuana smoke can harm the bodies anti-tumor response.Most studies that claim marijuana can slow down tumor growth involved the injection of THC (not marijuana, just the THC chemical.) Not only is medical marijuana not injected, but marijuana wasn't involved in the studies claiming THC slows tumors. The people responsible for the study even made clear that smoking cannabis will not fight cancer, \"It absolutely isn't the case that men might be able to fight prostate cancer by smoking cannabis...\"(2: Reuters). My first listed study, that showed marijuana can increase tumor growth, used actual marijuana. It also studied the smoking of marijuana instead of just injecting it. Another study showed that the use of marijuana can most definitely increase the risk of Lung Cancer (with a 97% confidence interval.) Every joint smoked a day can increase the chance of lung cancer by 8% (3: European Respiratory Journal.) While some studies show no connection between smoking cannabis and getting lung cancer, others show that every 3 joints a day increases the risk by the equivalent of 20 cigarettes a day (4: BBC News.) Other studies indicate an increase in the risk of Schizophrenia. How many studies? Schizophrenia.com cites over 30 (5: Schizophrenia.) Others even link Cannabis to Anxiety and Panic Attacks (6: Anxiety Public Hub) and another shows that, after the first hour, the risk of heart attack increases five fold (7: National Institute of Drug Abuse.) For every study that shows no connection between marijuana and health problems, there is another study that says otherwise. With the lack of solid consensus, it would be wrong to say marijuana is, without a doubt, safe. Many studies indicate some harsh side effect of using marijuana, and without a definite answer regarding the health concerns of the drug, it would be gravely irresponsible and dangerous to legalize the product for medical use. Until we know for sure what the full effect of smoking marijuana is, we shouldn't legalize the product.Many high-end studies show the side effects as being more grave than smoking plain cigarettes. We can't say for sure that marijuana is vastly dangerous, but it's the fact that we can't say for sure that makes legalizing medical use of the drug such a terrible and irresponsible move. But what if another manner of usage was applied? The injection of marijuana can cause Intravenous marijuana Syndrome (8: NCBI.) Injecting marijuana has been known to kill test mice (9: Guardian.) The injection of a chemical like THC is highly dangerous.There are too many studies linking marijuana and THC to serious health issues to conclude it's safe enough to legalize. The lack of definite Information means that marijuana for medical use should still remain illegal. Of course many medical drugs come with health concerns, few as major as what many studies link to marijuana. Although claiming that medical marijuana should be legal because many unhealthy drugs are legal would apply faulty logic, assuming that those bad drugs should be legal as well. 1: http://www.medscape.com...2: http://www.reuters.com...3: http://erj.ersjournals.com...4: http://news.bbc.co.uk...5: http://www.schizophrenia.com...6: http://www.panicattacks.com.au...7: http://www.drugabuse.gov...8: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...9: http://www.theguardian.com...2: Rate of Addictionmarijuana is, in fact, addictive. It has been suggested that as much as 30% of marijuana users can develop an addiction, while 9% will develop a severe addiction (10: Psychology Today.) Those numbers are far higher than the average rate of addiction for other drugs. This argument rests on the premise that no medical drug with a high chance of addiction should ever be legal.10: http://www.psychologytoday.com...3: Poor Prescription MethodThe method of prescription in the US is dirt poor. Adam Tod Brown, an author at Cracked.com, wrote an article describing how easy it is to get medical marijuana in California (11: Cracked.) The ease of getting medical marijuana is too great. This isn't a black market issue either. The largest problem regarding the ease of obtaining the drug is on the prescription side of legalization.Most people can obtain a prescription without needing a serious condition (like cancer), or even having a slightly above-average condition at all. Half of all prescription usages aren't regarding any form of cancer but are instead for small conditions that would hardly get a person normal medication (12: NORML.)The method of obtaining a prescription for the drug is dangerously flawed. Until major reform takes place, medical marijuana should remain illegal. The method of obtaining the drug promotes black markets and illegal usage. The flawed process also promotes illegally obtaining the drug. The process makes illegally obtaining the drug (which, without taxes, and regulations, is much cheaper) easier than when medical marijuana was illegal. 11: http://www.cracked.com...12: http://www.mapinc.org...Conclusion: Because of the vastly lacking sum of information regarding the safety of marijuana and THC, the large sum of surveys that indicate gravely negative side effects, the rate of addiction, and the terribly flawed method of obtaining a prescription, it would be irresponsible to make medical marijuana legal.Until these major issues are fixed, medical marijuana should remain illegal.", "qid": "38", "docid": "5d56b6d8-2019-04-18T16:58:57Z-00002-000", "rank": 42, "score": 146409.0}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana should be legalized Content: Marijuana should be legalized for medical purposes. 15 of 50 US States and DC have legalized the medical use of marijuana. It can be a safe and effective treatment for the symptoms of cancer, AIDS, multiple sclerosis, pain, glaucoma, epilepsy, and other conditions. Scientific studies show that for many years marijuana has pointed to medicinal help. Six of these studies sponsored by U.S. states in the 1970s and 1980s, demonstrate that smoking marijuana reduces nausea and reduces pain for many patients, especially those facing cancer chemotherapy and glaucoma. Plus thousands of patients and their families and doctors have experienced and witnessed the medical benefits of marijuana. They have testified at public hearings and appeared in the media with these findings. Too many people are suffering from these diseases and if marijuana can help them, we should legalize it so they can get better.", "qid": "38", "docid": "4d3852ce-2019-04-18T18:53:13Z-00009-000", "rank": 43, "score": 146336.0}, {"content": "Title: Medical Marijuana Should Not Be Legalized. Content: Arguments Extanded.", "qid": "38", "docid": "5d56b6d8-2019-04-18T16:58:57Z-00000-000", "rank": 44, "score": 146214.0}, {"content": "Title: Medical Marijuana Content: Treating diseases with smoked marijuana isn't a valid option. It has negative effects on the heart, lungs, brain, and immune system no matter how long they've been treated with it. Cannabis weakens the immune system which is very valuable to someone who is undergoing a deadly disease. These patients will become dependent on the drug and even when they are not sickly anymore they will feel the need to use it.", "qid": "38", "docid": "d267a8d5-2019-04-18T16:58:41Z-00002-000", "rank": 45, "score": 146050.0}, {"content": "Title: Medical Marijuana Content: Treating diseases with smoked marijuana isn't a valid option. It has negative effects on the heart, lungs, brain, and immune system no matter how long they've been treated with it. Cannabis weakens the immune system which is very valuable to someone who is undergoing a deadly disease. These patients will become dependent on the drug and even when they are not sickly anymore they will feel the need to use it.", "qid": "38", "docid": "d267a8f4-2019-04-18T17:01:16Z-00006-000", "rank": 46, "score": 146050.0}, {"content": "Title: Due to low addiction rates, marijuana is good for medical use. Content: Marijuana is the best drug to be put into medical use since it was ranked lowest for withdrawal symptoms, tolerance and dependence (addiction) potential. It ranked close to caffeine in the degree of reinforcement and higher than caffeine and nicotine only in the degree of intoxication.", "qid": "38", "docid": "87b8c230-2019-04-17T11:47:26Z-00149-000", "rank": 47, "score": 146044.0}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana should be legal for medical purposes. Content: Forgive me for posting this argument close to the deadline. The internet at the motel is absolutely horrible and I have limited time to be online anyway. I will have to make this argument shorter than I wished it to the be and I would appreciate the opportunity to expand on my points later. Main ArgumentI do not believe you have seen CNN's documentaries Weed and Weed 2: Cannabis Madness. I am going to recap the basics for you: Cannabis can be bred in order to have certain traits. Marijuana has two main components: THC and CBD. CBD (cannabidiol) will reduce brain activity and will lower the occurances of seizures. Weed as a drug will be destruction. Weed as a medicine can be the last hope. There is the risk of addiction, of course, but when taken in moderation, it can be beneficial. You cannot deny this. Also, in the second CNN documentary, they told how cannabis can be more beneficial than other epilepsy medicines. This cannot be denied. I have a challenge for you: Deny it. Due to limited time to be online, I could not cite the sources in the proper format. Please forgive me. http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...", "qid": "38", "docid": "fa1a69b6-2019-04-18T16:31:37Z-00003-000", "rank": 48, "score": 145877.0}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana should be legalized Content: I am not saying this should go to those people who dont need it for medical purposes, but for those who need it for medical purposes its a huge help.When i stated that it shoul be legalized i stated that it should be legalized for medical purposes. and It does more then deal with some side effects of pain, nausea, and aneroxia. if you read my previous round you would be aware of this,,i will state two of the points again..you may read the rest over yourself. MS: numerous case studies have also reported improvement in patients treated with symptoms of MS including spasticity. 'have been shown in animal models to measurably lessen the symptoms and it may also halt the progression of the growing disease. Epilepsy The British Epilepsy Association stated on its website (accessed May 3, 2006): \"There is scientific evidence to suggest that cannabis may be beneficial in treating a number of conditions, including epilepsy.... Some reports suggest that it can reduce seizures. do you have any idea how painful some of these diseases could be if it can ease the pain, why not take use it? its not a selfish need to obtain a high but a desperate attempt to try to ease pain. and sometimes it does more then just ease the pain for your information...even if it dosent dont these people who are suffering deserve to live without pain for a little while? if you were the one suffering from a disease i think it would greatly change your point of view", "qid": "38", "docid": "4d3852ce-2019-04-18T18:53:13Z-00005-000", "rank": 49, "score": 145787.0}, {"content": "Title: Pick your own debate! Content: My opponent is using a huge logical fallacy; he is claiming that because medical marijuana doesn't have medical purposes for all medical conditions that the medical conditions it does have medical purposes for do not count. The fact remains that medical marijuana has several medical purposes such as alleviating neurpathic pain. A ban on medical marijuana would result in the ban of a medicine that works better than any other medicines, resulting in worse health out comes and a worse off health care system. My opponents post is also lying the source i posted studied the addictive potential of some medical marijuana the studies found that certain medical marijuana extracts do not result in addictive properties or addictive behavior. medical marijuana is different then regular marijuana because in medical marijuana they take out the harmful and addictive chemicals and only use the chemicals that have medical purposes. this means that every time my opponent links to marijuana having unhealthy effects he is comparing apples and oranges, and therefore his comparisons are invalid. For example a scientific study found that medial marijuana improved the mental abilities of people with Alzheimers. So basically a ban on medical marijuana would be an example of the government telling doctors how to treat patients. it would also be an example of the government telling millions of sick people that they cannot legally consume medicines that improve their medical condition.", "qid": "38", "docid": "ffcf93d6-2019-04-18T18:36:12Z-00003-000", "rank": 50, "score": 145653.0}, {"content": "Title: Medicle Marijuana Content: It has been proven that marijuana can be used for medicle purposes. Well if it can be used to benifit a persons health then they should be able to use. Now it's not like somebody says hey lets go to the doctor and get some drugs. No marijuana can just be given away. The doctor has to have a valid reason as to why they need to use marijuana. And, the doctor has to notify his advisors of his actions. Therefore marijuana should be used for medical uses.", "qid": "38", "docid": "c6aab7ec-2019-04-18T19:30:19Z-00004-000", "rank": 51, "score": 145595.0}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana Should Be Legal For Medicinal Purposes Content: My opponent raises various criticisms against my arguments, particularly concerning the medical benefits of the substance; he also presents contentions against the relativity of my alcohol/tobacco argument; therefore, I shall attempt address all such arguments herein.Alcohol and Tobacco:As my opponent rightly states, using the dangerous effects of alcohol and tobacco alone to advocate the medical legality of a particular substance is certainly insufficient to make my case; however, the point I am trying to make is that given marijuana's medical advantages, it should be a legal medical substance, especially considering that alcohol and tobacco are legal for recreational use.Obviously if my opponent effectively demonstrates that marijuana possesses no legitimate medical benefits, then his point is valid; however, seeing as how my position advocates the medically advantageous nature of marijuana, my argument should stand to be considered.Medical Benefits of Marijuana:Cancer:Here my opponent asserts that my original source took medical information out of context; however, I believe such a claim is simply incorrect. The medical article from which my source asserts the beneficial effects of marijuana on cancer states that \"CBD [cannabidiol] represents the first nontoxic exogenous agent that can significantly decrease Id-1 expression in metastatic breast cancer cells leading to the down-regulation of tumor aggressiveness [1].\"Given such information, it's perfectly accurate to claim that marijuana, which contains cannabidiol, provides beneficial effects for individuals suffering from cancer; moreover, contrary to what my opponent claims, CBD is indeed found in marijuana; in fact, it constitutes about 40% of its extracts [2].Moreover, as I've stated before, marijuana doesn't just help with breast cancer; rather, THC (a primary chemical found in marijuana) also helps destroy brain cancer cells [3], and research has provided immensely compelling evidence of marijuana's ability to reduce up to 50% of tumor growth in common lung cancer, as well as prevent the spread of the cancer significantly [4]. All of these studies have been conducted and confirmed by esteemed and authoritative universities, including Harvard, UCLA, and the University in Madrid, Spain.Not only does this information provide convincing evidence of marijuana's ability to prevent and treat cancer, but also puts my opponent's assertion that marijuana only serves as an anesthetic in serious doubt.Alzheimer's:Here my opponent again claims at marijuana is only an anesthetic, and asserts that the substance has no beneficial effects on individuals suffering from Alzheimer's; however, contrary my opponent's claims, marijuana has been found to inhibit amyloid plaque (a primary pathological marker) much more effectively than other currently medically approved substances. In fact, a study conducted by Scripps Research Institute and published in the Journal of Molecular Pharmaceutics states that THC is a \"considerably superior inhibitor of [amyloid plaque] aggregation [5].\"This information again refutes my opponent's claim that marijuana is only an anesthetic, as well as effectively demonstrates that individuals suffering from Alzheimer's do in fact experience medically beneficial effect as a result of using marijuana.My opponent also raises contentions concerning the fact that marijuana results in increased heart rate, as well as the fact that it contains up to 50-70% more carcinogens than tobacco; however, what my opponent has failed to mention is that no one has ever been reported to have died directly from marijuana use [6]; as such, my opponent has failed to establish that these side-effects present any real potential danger for users of the substance. Moreover, in 2006, a research team from UCLA found that marijuana did not exhibit any apparent risk of raising the chance of lung cancer in users [7].Multiple Sclerosis:Here my opponent contends that for individuals suffering from Multiple Sclerosis, marijuana doesn't actually treat the disease itself; but rather, one of its symptoms (spastic movement). Unfortunately, I don't see how this is a valid point when arguing against the position that marijuana should be legalized as a medical substance. Is my opponent asserting that medications which treat symptoms should not be legal for medical use? Surely he doesn't believe that there are no such things as medications which seek to treat the symptoms of diseases, rather than the diseases themselves.My opponent also raises further contentions concerning the \"cognitive effects\" which may result from marijuana use; however, as I've already stated my previous rounds, the evidence is not at all conclusive that there is any correlation between marijuana use and negative cognitive side-effects.Arthritis:Again, how is the fact that marijuana can't heal every single aspect of an ailment a valid argument against it being legalized as medical substance? Simply because marijuana works as a pain-killer in the case of arthritis (not as an end-all solution) is no reason to say that it shouldn't be legalized for medicinal use, especially considering the positive effects which have been reported as a result of marijuana use from people suffering from arthritis [8].Negative Side-Effects Associated With Marijuana:Carcinogens:As I've stated before, there are many ways to consume marijuana which do not include smoking it; therefore, this argument is moot. Moreover, as I mentioned earlier in this round, a research team from UCLA was unable to identify any apparent risk of increased chances of lung cancer in people who used marijuana.Immune-System Deficiency:My opponent again raises the contention that marijuana presents risks to an individual's immune system; however, I have already addressed this claim in the previous round. Allow me to quote myself:\"Just as heart disease, the claim that marijuana use results in immune system deficiency is unsupported by any conclusive evidence. A review by Dr. Leo Hollister states that 'the evidence [on immune suppression] has been contradictory and is more supportive of some degree of immunosuppression only when one considers in vitro studies. These have been seriously flawed by the very high concentrations of drug used to produce immunosuppression. The closer that experimental studies have been to actual clinical situations, the less compelling has been the evidence.'\"I also provided an interesting quote from norml.org last round on this matter. I encourage my opponent to read it again.Impaired Cognitive Functions:Many legal medications result in impaired cognitive functions, especially in various types of sleeping medications. As a report on pubmed.org states, \"iatrogenically induced cognitive deficits are common with pharmacological therapy [9].\"Unsafe Production:Unsafe production is the result of lacking regulation. With marijuana fully legalized as a medical substance and regulated by the food and drug administration, such a problem would no longer present a problem; therefore, I submit that my opponent's point is moot.I am not saying marijuana has no side-effects at all -- most medications do. But the benefits of marijuana far outweigh its faults.Given this information, I encourage voters to vote in favor of the resolution.________________________________________________________________________________________________[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://www.medicalnewstoday.com...[4] http://www.sciencedaily.com...[5] http://www.scripps.edu...[6] http://www.webmd.com...[7] http://www.webmd.com...[8] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...[9] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...", "qid": "38", "docid": "b0a1297b-2019-04-18T17:56:41Z-00003-000", "rank": 52, "score": 145578.0}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana should be legalized Content: no", "qid": "38", "docid": "4d38532b-2019-04-18T18:44:12Z-00002-000", "rank": 53, "score": 145533.0}, {"content": "Title: Medical marijuana is unrelated to crime that surrounds dispensaries. Content: The legitimate place of dispensaries in supplying individuals that suffer from illnesses with access to medicine must be separated from the crime that may or may not surround them. This crime is unrelated to the fundamental mission of medical marijuana dispensaries, so it should not be used against them, just as crime surrounding other legitimate businesses cannot be used to argue against the legitimate purpose of these businesses.", "qid": "38", "docid": "87b8c230-2019-04-17T11:47:26Z-00101-000", "rank": 54, "score": 145484.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Medical Marijuana should be legal Content: I do also believe that by giving peopel \"medical\" MJ people will start to become addicted to it. I accept this debate and look forward to the following rounds Def: Medical- med\u00ef\u00bf\u00bdi\u00ef\u00bf\u00bdcal (md-kl) adj. 1. Of, relating to, or characterizing the study or practice of medicine. 2. Requiring treatment by medicine. n. A thorough physical examination MJ-A common street and recreational drug that comes from the marijuana plant: the hemp plant cannabis sativa. The pharmacologically active ingredient in marijuana is tetra-hydro-cannabinol (THC). Marijuana is used to heighten perception, affect mood, and relax. Many people think marijuana is harmless, but it is not. Signs of marijuana use include red eyes, lethargy, and uncoordinated body movements. The long-term effects may include decrease in motivation and harmful effects on the brain, heart, lungs, and reproductive system. People who smoke marijuana are also at increased risk of developing cancer of the head and neck. A pharmaceutical product, Marinol, that contains synthetic THC, is available as a prescription medication. It comes in the form of a pill (eliminating the harmful and cancer-causing chemicals present when marijuana is smoked) and is used to relieve the nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy for cancer patients and to treat loss of appetite in AIDS patients. mood-altering herb they smoked marijuana Legal-1. Of, relating to, or concerned with law: legal papers. 2. a. Authorized by or based on law: a legal right. b. Established by law; statutory: the legal owner. 3. In conformity with or permitted by law: legal business operations. 4. Recognized or enforced by law rather than by equity. 5. In terms of or created by the law: a legal offense. 6. Applicable to or characteristic of attorneys or their profession. n. 1. One that is in accord with certain rules or laws. 2. legals Investments that may be legally made by fiduciaries and certain institutions, such as savings banks and insurance companies. Also called legal list these came from: . http://www.medterms.com...(MJ) . http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... If there are any problems with the above let me know and ill explain each.", "qid": "38", "docid": "84f999d5-2019-04-18T18:09:59Z-00004-000", "rank": 55, "score": 145457.0}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana should be legal for medical purposes. Content: I will be taking the stance of 'Marijuana should not be legal for medical purposes' while he shall be taking the stance of 'Marijuana should be legal for medial purposes. As he has already stated the rules and procedures, I see no reason to say any more in round 1. I patiently await his first argument in round 2.", "qid": "38", "docid": "fa1a69b6-2019-04-18T16:31:37Z-00004-000", "rank": 56, "score": 145450.0}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana should be legal Content: Marijuana is one of the more tame drugs yes but it usually leads into other drug abuse. I'm not saying that people that use marijuana for medical reasons are more likely to do crack or other hard drugs, but people who do it for recreational purposes might. Marijuana also kills braincells and makes people do things they may not do unless under the influence Source: My uncles doctor who has been treating him for drug abuse", "qid": "38", "docid": "6c71015a-2019-04-18T16:09:02Z-00004-000", "rank": 57, "score": 145373.0}, {"content": "Title: Medical cannabis Content: Medical cannabis has been proven to ease symptoms of painful illness. Medical cannabis has been used in easing symptoms of cancer and many other illnesses, and has proven effective. If you were in the position of these people. In pain and nothing can take that pain away, wouldn't you want medical cannabis to cure the pain? Your connotations of marijuana are making your view of this effective treatment blocked. Think of this argument from their point of view. They're in pain and suffering and what may take this away they aren't granted? Medical cannabis can avoid misuse with appropriate tests and papers. Medical cannabis has been proven to work, and should be legalized. You need to look at cannabis separately from recreational marijuana to fully understand why cannabis should be allowed.", "qid": "38", "docid": "7e67fe99-2019-04-18T15:47:36Z-00008-000", "rank": 58, "score": 145217.0}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana should be legalized and should be taken seriously as a medicine. Content: Millions of Americans smoke marijuana both for recreational uses and also medicinal uses. Whoever accepts this debate must justify why these people are criminals and also disprove Marijuana's use of medicine. With the economy in the tank why wouldn't marijuana be considered a viable stimulus to a sputtering economy. This is all I'll say for now and to whoever trys to disprove me good luck.", "qid": "38", "docid": "8c493086-2019-04-18T19:25:29Z-00007-000", "rank": 59, "score": 145154.0}, {"content": "Title: Cannabis has many medical properties, notably the alleviation of suffering in chronic diseases. It should therefore be freely available Content: Government has a role in establishing what is an acceptable level of behaviour within society. Full in the knowledge that some people will use any substance responsibly and others less so, governments make decisions to protect their citizens and to show a lead. It is the settled will of most people in most countries that cannabis is not a drug they consider acceptable for use in a modern society. Furthermore, there are plenty of other drugs that can be used for all of the uses Proposition has identified. Legalizing cannabis for medical use would send out the message that it is safe to use when all practical evidence suggests that the social, if not the medical, ramifications are anything but safe. Proposition need to demonstrate a medical use for cannabis that cannot be met by existing pharmaceuticals.", "qid": "38", "docid": "fc44452e-2019-04-15T20:22:42Z-00006-000", "rank": 60, "score": 144981.0}, {"content": "Title: Medical Marijuana Content: And obviously you will be for medical marijuana.", "qid": "38", "docid": "174dab34-2019-04-18T18:36:44Z-00004-000", "rank": 61, "score": 144638.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Medical Marijuana should be legal Content: And adding those definitions.1. Health BenefitsAlzheimer's Disease - Forget the burnout jokes you've heard about effects of smoking marijuana on the brain. Scripps Research Institute found the active ingredient in marijuana, tetrahydrocannabinol or THC, inhibits the formation amyloid plaque, a primary pathological marker. The report, published in 2006 in the journal Molecular Pharmaceutics,said THC is a \"considerably superior inhibitor of (amyloid plaque) aggregation\" to several currently approved drugs for treating the disease. Brain Cancer - Researchers from Compultense University in Madrid, Spain have found THC promotes the death of brain cancer cells (. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com...) by a process called autophagy. Autophagy essentially causes the cancerous cells to eat itself. Seems that would be a health benefit of medical marijuana that should be investigated further, no? Head and Neck Cancer - The journal Cancer Prevention Research published a study in 2009 that observed 434 subjects with incidents of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) from 9 medical facilities. While the results were far from conclusive, the evidence indicated patients with 10-20 years of marijuana use was associated with the \"significantly reduced\" (. http://cancerpreventionresearch.aacrjournals.org...) risk of HNSCC. Lung Cancer and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD)- Researchers at Harvard University (. http://www.sciencedaily.com...) found THC to reduce tumor growth in common lung cancer by 50% and significantly reduce the ability of the cancer to spread. In 2006 a UCLA researcher found smoking marijuana did not appear to increase the risk of lung cancer or head-and-neck malignancies even among heavy users. However, the study indicated the more tobacco a person smoked, the greater the risk of developing cancer of the lung and head and neck. Note: I am by no means saying the ingestion of combustible smoke of any kind is not without risks, I am merely trying to present information about research conducted and the results that show promising results of the potential health benefits of medical marijuana which warrant further investigation. Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) - More commonly known as Lou Gehrig's disease is a fatal neurodegnerative disorder characterized by the selective loss of motor neurons in the spinal cord, brain stem and motor cortex. Clinical trials have indicated that cannabinoids in mice can delay ALS progression. This supports anecdotal reports from ALS sufferers who found the health benefits, of medical marijuana helpful in relieving certain disease symptoms such as pain, appetite loss and depression. . http://norml.org...Chronic Pain - Chronic pain is a broad category that includes, but is not limited to, arthritis, migraines, back pain, fibromyalgia, carpal tunnel syndrome, phantom limb pain, scoliosis, osteoporosis, multiple sclerosis and HIV, The University of California at Davis (. http://www.thirdage.com...) studied the efficacy of inhaled cannabis patients with central or peripheral nerve-related pain in a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Results indicated that low levels of THC was equally effective as high levels in resolving pain indicating you don't have to smoke your brains out for the analgesic effects of THC.2. ScienceThe University of California Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research has done several studies into the efficacy of marijuana for neuropathic use - especially in pain reduction. They have been done using FDA standardized clinical trials with randomized, placebo-controlled procedures. These studies have clearly shown the positive effects of using marijuana as a pain reliever and medicine for patients with such chronic conditions as HIV, multiple sclerosis, diabetes, spinal cord injury, and sleep disorders. . http://www.cmcr.ucsd.edu...A recent review in Germany showed that since 2005, there have been 37 controlled studies assessing the safety and efficacy of marijuana (and its compounds). These involved far more subjects than the average study seeking FDA approval for a prescription drug. . http://www.cannabis-med.org...Many opponents of medical marijuana claim that there is \"little evidence\" and call for \"more research, more science. \" These are the more reasonable of the detractors for the medicinal use of marijuana, of course. Yet these reasonable arguments against marijuana as a medicine are pretty hollow given the vast amount of research that's already been done with much more on the way. Proponents of medical marijuana often ignore the research as well. Despite the common claims to the contrary, there is evidence that marijuana also has negative side effects. Most of these center on the physical effects of smoking it as well as proven cognitive negatives. Admittedly, the effects are no worse (and generally better) than the side effects associated with many prescription drugs and accepted non-prescription drugs such as alcohol or tobacco. . http://www.newscientist.com...Most of the arguments for or against the use of medical marijuana seem to center on social rather than science-based concerns. This is rightly so, in some cases, as there are deep social issues involved with marijuana's use (or prohibition). Many communities have benefited from the introduction of medical marijuana, however. . http://cannacentral.com... negative impacts of marijuana, socially, are nearly always associated with its prohibition rather than its allowance.3. Marijuana legalization could save US taxpayers money. Marijuana prohibition currently costs taxpayers billions of dollars a year to enforce, and it accomplishes little or nothing beneficial in terms of economic benefits. On the contrary, legalizing marijuana would not only save taxpayers billions of dollars a year in unnecessary costs, but it would also jumpstart the economy to the tune of $100 billion a year or more, say some economists. In an open letter written to the President, Congress, State Governors, and State Legislators, more than 550 economists, including several nobel laureates, draw attention to a report authored by Professor Jeffrey A. Miron that highlights the potential economic benefits of marijuana decriminalization. Entitled The Budgetary Implications of Marijuana Prohibition, the report states that legalizing, taxing, and regulating marijuana would do wonders to reduce inflated budgets and generate new revenue streams. \"[R]eplacing prohibition with a system of taxation and regulation [. .. ] would save $7.7 billion per year in state and federal expenditures on prohibition enforcement and produce tax revenues of at least $2.4 billion annually if marijuana were taxed like most consumer goods,\" say the economists. \"If, however, marijuana were taxed similarly to alcohol or tobacco, it might generate as much as $6.2 billion annually. \"As many as 60 million Americans are already estimated to be spending upwards of $110 billion a year on marijuana, the vast majority of which ends up in the hands of organized crime units. If marijuana was legalized, honest citizens could grow and sell it instead, which would inject new life into the flailing economy, and redirect billions of dollars in cash flow from criminals to legitimate growers. \"At a minimum, this debate will force advocates of current policy to show that prohibition has benefits sufficient to justify the cost to taxpayers, foregone tax revenues, and numerous ancillary consequences that result from marijuana prohibition,\" add the economists. . http://www.huffingtonpost.com...http://www.prweb.com...", "qid": "38", "docid": "84f999d5-2019-04-18T18:09:59Z-00003-000", "rank": 62, "score": 144387.0}, {"content": "Title: Medical as well as recreational marijuana should be legal in all US states Content: In this round I plan to conclude my arguments, but first I shall answer my opponent's question. I entered this debate because I thought it would be interesting. Now, on to my conclusion.Conclusion: Marijuana is a very deadly and unhealthy drug. At no point in history, nor today, has it ever helped anybody. It just makes health problems worse, or create new ones. If you really want to legalize it, you must want a lot of people to die, or at least end up in an insane assyleum. As I have explained throughout the previous rounds, marijuana will just make things worse. No has ever, nor will ever, come from its legalization. Especially since potheads are the only ones trying to fight to get it legalized while the medical field is trying to put their foot down and say no. They've been trying to tell us how bad it is, but no ones listening. They think drugs are fun, but they're really not. My girlfriend used to take all sorts of drugs, marijuana being one. You want to know what they did? They made her uterus bleed... A lot. In fact, she called them her periods. But when was the last time a girl had a period 3 times in one month? Marijuana can have just as bad, or worse effects on everybody who uses it. Is this really something we want in our country? Aren't we supposed to be better than the rest? That's not something we can accomplish if we legalize marijuana.I thank my opponent for this very interesting debate, I also thank the readers who payed attention and followed this. Also, for the readers/followers, please be the well educated, sane people I know you are and vote for Con. Show the world that you're above drugs.Thank you.", "qid": "38", "docid": "711b9599-2019-04-18T13:44:23Z-00000-000", "rank": 63, "score": 144318.0}, {"content": "Title: Medical Marijuana Content: I accept. Good Luck.", "qid": "38", "docid": "d267a533-2019-04-18T18:20:55Z-00006-000", "rank": 64, "score": 144269.0}, {"content": "Title: Medical Marijuana is better than man made pills Content: I believe that for terminal diseases such as cancer Medical Marijuana should be used as much as possible in place of man made drugs", "qid": "38", "docid": "daa1c0-2019-04-18T14:20:22Z-00004-000", "rank": 65, "score": 143976.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Medical Marijuana should be legal Content: Ok due to it being the last round in this debate I will cut it short. I will end my case and continue by attacking my opponents case, then if space allows I will attempt to summarize the above debate. First, my entire case I ask to be flowed over. Second, starting with my opponents comment \"Add is ADHD its just generalized\" Ok first I am going to use my aunt as a source(she is in the medical profession) \"One is Hyperactive and the other is not\" by this she means that Add= Attention Deficit Disorder, Adhd= Attention Hyperactive Deficit Disorder. \"Yet cannabis is still not endorsed by pharmaceutical companies as a cancer cure, and since it is not promoted through mainstream channels, very few people are aware of its benefits. Consequently, it is not sought after as an alternative to disfiguring chemotherapy and other harmful drugs\"(opponents case)\" as I had proven earlier in my case Some of marijuana's adverse health effects may occur because THC impairs the immune system's ability to fight off infectious diseases and cancer. In laboratory experiments that exposed animal and human cells to THC or other marijuana ingredients, the normal disease-preventing reactions of many of the key types of immune cells were inhibited(16). In other studies, mice exposed to THC or related substances were more likely than unexposed mice to develop bacterial infections and tumors. Now as you can see my opponent has failed to uphold the goal of trying to get everyone to agree that MJ should be legalized for medical reasons- My response to this was A. the person could get hooked B. people are more likely to develope the things that MJ is trying to cure. Since my opponents case is basically what I have addressed above the only last thing to bring up is: Methylphenidate- known as Ritalin. My opponent by bringing this up has basically endorsed it I am now saying: Methylphenidate may cause side effects. Tell your doctor if any of these symptoms are severe or do not go away: nervousness difficulty falling asleep or staying asleep dizziness nausea vomiting loss of appetite stomach pain diarrhea heartburn dry mouth headache muscle tightness uncontrollable movement of a part of the body restlessness numbness, burning, or tingling in the hands or feet decreased sexual desire painful menstruation And by my opponent saying that Queen Victoria used Meth(ritalin) for was to ease the pain of menstruation. As you the Judges can read it increases the pain of menstruation. Sources: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://pr.cannazine.co.uk... my opponents case I do also want to say that by my opponent endorsing Methylphenidate they have just gone against what they have said in their ENTIRE case along with the Rebuttle. It is for the above reasons that I respectfully ask for a firm vote in negation of the resolution. Thanks again for leaving this debate open!", "qid": "38", "docid": "84f999d5-2019-04-18T18:09:59Z-00000-000", "rank": 66, "score": 143828.0}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana should be legalized for medical and recreational use. Content: I will be arguing that marijuana, not necessarily in it's smokeable form should be legal for persons over a yet to be determined age(18-21) for medical and recreational use. Con will argue that it shouldn't be legalized for any age in any form, for any reason. Any source can be used until that source has been proven false or unreliable. Please respect your opponent. Debate can be informal. Con may begin with his or her argument in the first round or accept. Any further rules must be discussed and agreed upon in the comments section. Thank you and good luck.", "qid": "38", "docid": "dc68ec3e-2019-04-18T13:40:55Z-00004-000", "rank": 67, "score": 143591.0}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana is a safer alternative to many medications Content: Philip Denney, MD, co-founder of a medical cannabis evaluation practice, stated the following in his Nov. 17, 2005, testimony to the Arkansas legislature in support of House Bill 1303: \"An Act to Permit the Medical Use of Marijuana\": \"I have found in my study of these patients that cannabis is really a safe, effective and non-toxic alternative to many standard medications.\"", "qid": "38", "docid": "87b8c230-2019-04-17T11:47:26Z-00116-000", "rank": 68, "score": 143585.0}, {"content": "Title: Medical Marijuana is, on balance, an effective medicine Content: My opponent believes that I am not addressing his argument that marijuana is an effective medicine. I believe marijuana is an addictive drug and the claims that sometimes it is effective in reducing pain, nausea and vomiting are overstated and outweighed by its negative side effects (e.g., addictive property, cannabis-associated respiratory diseases, reduced cognitive processes, synaptic plasticity that weakens neuronal connections, increased use by teens who will believe it is OK to use even if not sick, etc.); whereas other drugs approved by the DEA and the FDA are much more effective and non-addictive, which is why there are approved as an effective medicine and pot is not. I also believe that a majority of the people who claim they need pot for medical reasons just want to get stoned legally! \"Crunching the numbers; why I say almost all medical marijuana patients are faking it.\"Posted on November 15, 2012 http://edgogek.com...http://www.guardian.co.uk...http://www.cracked.com...My opponent also believes that legislative results are not relevant, a Red Herring, an Argumentum ad populum. But, he is overlooking the fact that legislators make their decisions based on their review of all the available medical evidence supporting the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. They decide whether that positive medical evidence is sufficient to outweigh all the negative aspects of marijuana, e.g., a six-fold increase in the incidence of schizophrenia, leukemia in children born from marijuana smoking mothers and damage to the growing fetus; addictive property, cannabis-associated respiratory disease, reduced cognitive processes, etc.My opponent\"s claim that drug legalization results are irrelevant is a deductive fallacy. The only way medical marijuana can be used in any state or country legally is when the legislators agree with the alleged medical curative powers of that drug. Since most states (59%) and countries (74%) do not agree that marijuana has sufficient medicinal positive effects that outweigh the negative effects, they make it illegal, a pure and simple fact. Therefore, to say legalization is irrelevant is Reductio ad absurdum.He calls my use of drug legalization a \"Red Herring.\" He obviously has no clue as to how to use that term correctly. The expression is mainly used to assert that the argument provided by an individual is not relevant to the issue being discussed. Again, the legislators review all available evidence as to the curative powers of a drug and its side-effects and decide whether that drug should be made legal, if they do not agree that drug is made illegal or not approved. So, it is totally relevant and is not a red herring.My opponent then calls my proof an Argumentum ad populum, which it is not. Now, if I had said that pot is bad because my 10 doctor friends said so or \"that smoking is a healthy pastime, since millions do it, or that Angelina Jolie is the best-looking woman in the world because she is regularly voted as such\", then I would be making an argumentum ad populum. http://en.wikipedia.org...However, the popular vote in the polls he cites is definitely Argumentum ad populum. Depending on how the polling question is phrased and the segments (e.g. young, old, pot users versus non-pot users) of the population polled, the results can vary. For example, if you phrase the question \"Medical marijuana is very affective at stopping people going through chemotherapy from feeling nauseous and vomiting; do you think doctors should be allowed to prescribe it to help these poor sick suffering folks?\" Many will say yes. But if you phrase the question, \"Marijuana is a very addictive drug that is mind altering and has negative side-effects, but, it does help some cancer victims, as do many other safer drugs with minimal negative side-effects, do you think marijuana should be prescribe or the safer non-addictive drugs?\" You will get very different results. Then my opponent states that regardless of any bias, I deserve to lose this debate because I have not posted one relevant argument except \"marijuana is bad.\" What! Is my opponent not reading the con medical marijuana studies done by doctors and scientists that I have presented? Or, does he just not fully understand all the authoritative medical support I have presented because he is a teenager - 16 years-old, or does he just reject those con studies because they do not agree with his preconceived biased notions? Or, is my opponent just one of many teenagers that are not mature enough to understand and is already convinced because of all the argumenta ad populum that are tossed out by pathetic groups like Norml. Then my opponent brings up Marinol and claims it is less effective. Really, there are hundreds of studies and comments on this by hundreds of doctors. As usually, some are pro and some are con; but, most are pro other drugs and con medical marijuana. http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org...But, the most conclusive proof and the only one that counts in America is the research done by the US DEA - Drug Enforcement Administration and the FDA - Food and Drug Administration.\"Unlike smoked marijuana -- which contains more than 400 different chemicals, including most of the hazardous chemicals found in tobacco smoke -- Marinol has been studied and approved by the medical community and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the nation's watchdog over unsafe and harmful food and drug products.\" Secondly, the harmful chemicals and carcinogens that are byproducts of smoking create entirely new health problems. There are four-times the levels of tar in a marijuana cigarette, for example, than in a tobacco cigarette.\"Conclusion: I have presented a plethora of facts and references to studies done by doctors and scientists to nullify my opponent's weak argument that marijuana has a positive medical use. Marijuana is a very dangerous addictive drug that needs to be banned in America. There are no positive medical uses of marijuana that outweigh all its negative aspects, especially when there are much more effective and safer drugs that have been approved by the DEA and FDA, e.g., Marinol. And, the only red herrings and argumenta ad populum being thrown around are the unsupported statements and articles cited as proof by my pot smoking teenage opponent who hasn't attained the maturity necessary to even debate this subject. Stating that my opponent is too immature to debate this subject is not an ad holmium attack, just a fact; he is too young and immature being 16 years-of-age. The founding fathers of America were smart enough when drafting the US Constitution to include the minimum ages to hold offices in the House of Representatives (25), Senate (30) and President (35). They knew that only mature adults could be trusted to run the county, not teenagers or kids. They knew that important legislative decisions should not be left to teenagers. Because of our founding fathers' insightfulness, important decisions about our laws are made by mature adults, not teenagers. Maturity is critical to ensuring that correct decisions are made for America, especially when it concerns deciding if very addictive drugs with many adverse side-effects, like marijuana should be made legal for medicinal purposes. Unfortunately, too many states are caving into the popular sentiments of mainly pot-heads and pot-head organizations that are spreading lies about marijuana being a safe drug, instead of listening", "qid": "38", "docid": "d3a6203-2019-04-18T17:51:05Z-00000-000", "rank": 69, "score": 143240.0}, {"content": "Title: Medical Marijuana should be legal. Content: \"A. Marijuana contains 60-70% more carcinogens than tobacco has. It increases the risk of cancer in people drastically\"- dthmstr254 Ok first i would like to point out that there is countless studies that prove tobacco more cancer causing than marijuana. but i would also like you to be more specific. Are you trying to say that marijuana is more likely to give you foot cancer or lung cancer? On another note, medical marijuana does not have to be smoked which ultimately takes away any \"risks\" with lungs. \"B. Marijuana is a known hallucinogen. It causes people to believe that they are actually in a different situation. However, unlike some drugs that can cause hallucinations (such as Kedamine, which is used in chronic pain sufferers to induce a coma, essentially rebooting the brain to relieve the pain), Marijuana's medical use is on an outpatient basis. Despite the warnings that show up for the FDA, people use the drug while driving or doing other things in life. This would mean that people are hallucinating while driving a car. I don't know about you, but I don't want to have a second go at avoiding a person w ho slams on reverse on a 40 MPH road (it turned out he was high on, guess what. .. Marijuana). \" -dthmstr254 These claims are rare and eroneous. Yes marijuana is a hallucinogen, but thats exactly why some people use it for chronic pain. As an example: Vicodin, Oxycotten, Hydrocodone, and Percoset are all legal drugs used to reduce pain. These also to an extent are bad to drive with. People drive under the influence of them as well also ignoring the FDA. These people are just as likely to \"slam on reverse on a 40 MPH road\". So you are saying that medical marijuana should stay illegal because theres a chance someone will get behind the wheel when they cant handle it? If that is the case we should most certainly ban all prescription pain-killers. I obviously dont believe that but i think i got my point across. I would like to review my main points before i close up: A. Any cancer causing effects can be avoided because you dont have to smoke marijuana as it can be vaporized, eaten or simpily taken in a pill. B. The \"risks\" of safe driving is equal to or even less than that of a prescription pain-killer. Im awaiting your rebuttle with eager. Websites to refer to: . http://www.freerepublic.com... . http://www.sciencedaily.com...", "qid": "38", "docid": "94bd510e-2019-04-18T19:53:10Z-00003-000", "rank": 70, "score": 143066.0}, {"content": "Title: Medical Marijuana Content: Medical Marijuana is the future of medicine. Marijuana is classified as a Schedule I substance meaning it has the greatest potential for abuse with no medical value, according to the FDA. While the FDA doesn\"t consider marijuana a medicine, 76 percent of doctors approve of medical marijuana use to help diagnose over 25 different conditions. Medical Marijuana is already legalized in 24 out of the 50 states in the US and the number is currently growing. For example, in Colorado, a state where Medical Marijuana is legalized, 1 in every 30 people are Medical Marijuana patients meaning they have a Medical Marijuana card allowing them to purchase their medicine from dispensaries. These are just a few numbers to prove the increase of Medical Marijuana use in America. Almost thirty percent of people suffer from pain or pain related symptoms every day. Physicians that can prescribe medical marijuana have found that they have prescribed about 1,826 fewer doses of drugs, such as opioids. As this topic grows and affects American culture, we have to decide what the right choice will be to help cure our loved ones. Medical Marijuana is also a short-term cure for cancer and is used for patients with autism. The family\"s that have to go through these problems would do and try anything to help the pain and suffering of their loved ones. Doctor\"s and families rely on Medical Marijuana to help alleviate pain, so why does the FDA want to stop the sales and distribution of Medical Marijuana?", "qid": "38", "docid": "d267acf3-2019-04-18T11:47:51Z-00001-000", "rank": 71, "score": 142878.0}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana should be legal for medical purposes. Content: Introduction I would like to start by thanking my opponent for responding. As he has stated that he is back home and can write more sophisticated arguments. I will now begin with mine: Rebuttals Pro has stated that he cannot deny the fact I have kindly placed before him. However, he has also stated that it is a matter of how one interprets the facts. I mostly beg to differ. It is true that you can interpret facts your own way, but only to a certain extent. There happens to be more cons than pros to medicinal marijuana, which stands to prove that I am correct. Pro stated that \"[marijuana], when taken in moderation and with caution, can be beneficial for those who desperately need it.\" It is true, but doctors cannot always know if a patient will have a positive or negative reaction to it. Pro has assumed that I am not aware of the fact that medical marijuana does not have to be smoked. I am indeed aware of this. Moving on, I will talk about how Pro has continued to refer to the fact that these facts all have to do with how you interpret them. Again, this is true, but facts are facts. My opponent has admitted that the facts I gave are undeniable, however has continued to refer to interpretation. Lastly, I will refer to Pro's reference to what I stated about there being different cures to illnesses. He has said that \"[f]or many illnesses, there are NO alternative cures.\" That happens to be false. We just have to find those cures. Conclusion As the viewers can see, I have given plenty of facts towards why it should not be legal to use marijuana for medicinal purposes. My opponent has accepted those facts, however slightly denies them. I will say one thing: Facts are facts and they cannot be denied. This debate is now in the hands of the voters. I have enjoyed this debate and hope to win.", "qid": "38", "docid": "fa1a69b6-2019-04-18T16:31:37Z-00000-000", "rank": 72, "score": 142761.0}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana should be legalized Content: In this round ill be arguing the health aspect of marijuana Marijuana is currently classified as a schedule 1 which is defined as A.The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse. B.The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. C.There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision But how can this be when it is prescribed for so many things? Marijuana is a drug that is used to treat things such as cancer, dementia, diabetes, epilepsy, glaucoma, Tourette syndrome, multiple sclerosis, pain, nausea, anorexia, crohns disease, and hundreds of others illnesses. It is ready for use as soon as the plant matures and has no long term side effects. There has yet to be a proven connection to any of the illnesses marijuana has been rumored to cause. In fact it is the complete opposite that is true as research has shown as well as its growing support for legalization. The UK's Medicinal Cannabis Research Foundation published on its website in Nov. 2001: \"Research to date suggests that research into the medicinal uses of cannabis and cannabinoids has the potential to make exciting breakthroughs in the management of severe symptoms such as pain, spasm, bladder dysfunction and nausea and could therefore bring a dramatic improvement in quality of life for people with: AIDS wasting syndrome Glaucoma Alzheimer's disease Hypertension Arthritis Multiple sclerosis Asthma Nail Patella Syndrome Brain injury/stroke Nausea w/chemotherapy Crohn's/colitis Pain Depress./mental ill. Phantom limb pain Eating disorders Migraine Epilepsy Spinal cord injury Fibromyalgia Tourette's syndrome\" The short term side effects are: Loss of coordination and distortions in the sense of time, sleepiness, reddening of the eyes, increased appetite and relaxed muscles. There has yet to be any solid evidence provided by studies to prove long term side effects. \"Still, in the last three years, more than 6,000 studies have been published in scientific journals about the cannabis plant, according to NORML, an organization that works to legalize marijuana. Much of the research has focused on the plant's effects on the body's endocannabinoid system. The endocannabinoid system acts like a bridge between mind and body, helping different types of cells communicate with each other. Our bodies make natural cannabinoids, or active chemicals that cause drug-like effects through the body, according to the National Cancer Institute. The main psychoactive ingredient in marijuana -- delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC -- works in the same way as these natural chemicals.\" Taken from CNN health The Boston Medical Center did a study and found that no negative health effects could be linked to marijuana http://www.the-scientist.com... A recent Gallup poll found 58% of people were for legalization http://youtu.be... Sources: http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://youtu.be... http://youtu.be... http://youtu.be... http://youtu.be... http://youtu.be...", "qid": "38", "docid": "59d1ffbe-2019-04-18T16:45:33Z-00006-000", "rank": 73, "score": 142248.0}, {"content": "Title: Medical Marijuana Content: Full resolution: Medical Marijuana should be legalized in the United States of America. I will be affirming that medical marijuana should be legalized in the United States of America. This debate only pertains to medical marijuana, not marijuana in general.STRUCTURE:Round 1-AcceptanceRound 2-Cases/CON rebuttalRound 3-RebuttalRound 4-Conclusion/Summary Definitions:medical-curative; medicinal; therapeutic [1]marijuana-the most commonly used illicit drug; considered a soft drug, it consists of the dried leaves of the hemp plant; smoked or chewed for euphoric effect [2]I would like to thank 16kadams for agreeing to debate this topic. This should be a very fun and informative debate!Sources:1. http://dictionary.reference.com......2. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...", "qid": "38", "docid": "174dab53-2019-04-18T18:33:55Z-00007-000", "rank": 74, "score": 142115.0}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana should not be legalized Content: \"When Marijuana is used for a long period of time it would cause harmful effects on our body. \" Name some, and then cite sources. \"There are alternative drugs that are safer and have the same effects as medical marijuana would. \" Name these. Cite sources. \"Medical marijuana has not gone through enough patient safety testing and clinical efficancy trials. \" Oh? . http://www.drugpolicy.org... . http://newmexicoindependent.com... . http://www.drugscience.org... Those are just a few from about two minutes of searching. \"It is classified as a quote \"Schedule 1\" substance meaning high potential for abuse and no medical value. \" Source this, and then provide a better explanation of how this has anything to do of why it should not be legalized. \"Harmful effects: There are over 400 chemicals in the marijuana plant, the main one being HTC. Some immediate effects of this drug are a faster heart beat, reduction of short term memory and the reduction of concentration. \" Note that these are short term effects and that they fade. \"Long term users of the drug may become dependant on it. \" Cite sources, and then construct a valid argument on how this should affect its legalization in any way. \"Which means that they would have a hard time limiting usage of the drug. \" Non-Sequitor. \"Affect on schools: The earlier people start using drugs that they will likely start using more powerful drugs,\" Cite how this is relevant, or how it is factual. \". .causing young users not to do school work. \" Non-sequitor. \"Marijuana effects the ability to think, reading comprehension and verbal skills, When students are \"high\" they do not retain what is being taught to them. \" Cite this. Also, these are, again, short term affects that wear off shortly after usage of marijuana. My opponent has not constructed any valid arguments with any valid sources.", "qid": "38", "docid": "5811e631-2019-04-18T19:03:05Z-00002-000", "rank": 75, "score": 142107.0}, {"content": "Title: Medical Marijuana is, on balance, an effective medicine Content: I have looked at your arguments, and they appear centered around making marijuana legal, which will somehow stop drug trafficking, which is nonsense. And, even if somehow the US miraculously makes marijuana legal in all 50 states and D.C. (which will never happen), that does not mean we will have a drastic reduction in the money spent fighting drugs and related crimes, which you claim are trillions of dollars (it is actually significantly less than that per year - under $30 billion per year). We will still have to spend billions annually to stop all the illegally activities done by Mexican Drug Cartels including the sale of other drugs and tons of Mexican marijuana, which will still be distributed in the US. http://www.timeanddate.com... And, your belief that marijuana really isn't that bad of a drug or that addictive or that harmful is hardly supported by any reliable current medical research. Marijuana has a high potential for abuse; its use for medical purposes is under serious rebuke; and, there are no acceptable safety standards, even under medical supervision, for marijuana, which is why it is classified as a Schedule I substance. It may not be as addictive as heroin or cocaine, but it is still addictive and more readily available to children, which makes it a much more dangerous addictive drug that needs stricter controls - prohibition, not legalization for any reason! https://www.ncjrs.gov... And, prohibition along with other programs worked in China to stop opium addiction in 1956; so prohibition can work if done properly, like in China. http://www.sacu.org... 1.Your comment that marijuana comprises nearly 60% of all cartel profits is at least 2 to 4 times greater than the actual percentage according to a study done by the Rand Drug Policy Research Center; their study indicates that the actual percentage is from 15% to 26%. http://www.ycsg.yale.edu... \"Some experts on organized crime in Latin America, like Edgardo Buscaglia, say that cartels earn just half their income from drugs.\" http://www.nytimes.com... You forgot to mention that Mexican Drug Cartels make billions from sex trafficking, extortion, stolen goods (even crude oil), kidnapping, etc. http://kosmo.hubpages.com... After booze probation ended in on December 5, 1933, did the Mafia end? Of course not! But, you think that if the sale of marijuana is somehow miraculously legalized in all 50 states, the Mexican and American gang cartels will just slowly fade away? Much of the Trillions (actually a few billion per year) you claim are spent by the US and state government fighting Drug Cartels is spent fighting organized crime in the USA \" the Mafia and street gangs. 2.There are better ways of regulating the substance for the benefit of society. Really, what are they? Do you really think that licensing vendors in Washington State and Colorado or even all 50 states is going to stop the Mexican Cartels or local street distributors from going legitimate and getting licenses or intimating legal vendors buying from them? Do you actually think they will stop trying to sell drugs? Do you actually think that American marijuana connoisseurs will stop buying high quality Mexican dope? How exactly are the growing and selling of American marijuana going to be controlled at the wholesale and retail levels? Then there is the issue of the limited amount of marijuana that one can have in one\"s possession at one time, which is 1 ounce in Washington and Colorado (1 ounce and 6 plants). Won't local, State, and Federal law enforcement agencies still have to monitor that and arrest people for violations? And, there will still be tons (pun intended) of violations. As I stated in another blog, most of the people in prison for drugs are not the casual marijuana users - they are violent drug dealing, or drug addicted criminals (who started stealing and doing other crimes to feed their addictions). http://www.prisonpolicy.org... How will the government control that? Will it work like prescription drugs? You can't get a refill on most prescriptions until the quantity, usually 30-90 pills runs outs. This is especially true of prescriptions that are considered a narcotic, which are usually limited to 30 pills at once, even sleep-aid drugs like Temazepam. You try to refill it before 25 days or earlier and the pharmacist will tell you that it is too early and you have to wait. So, the pharmacist would have to tell the marijuana user that they bought 1 ounce ten days ago or whatever time period is legally allowed and it is too early to buy another ounce, you will have to wait. Do you really think most pot smokers will accept those type controls? So will all the vendors in Colorado and Washington have to be set-up like pharmacies with a vast computerized system to track marijuana sales? Or, better yet, only pharmacies can distribute marijuana. This would save money because the drug tracking system is already in place. And, if it is considered medical marijuana then the insurance coverage could be verified and the pot would be free or with small co-pay. That is a great idea; but, I bet you don't like that, or do you? But again, how many marijuana users will want to be tracked in a computerized system? You are going to say now, they don't need to be, right? Actually, what has happened in Portugal and the Netherlands is that many drug users still buy their marijuana and other illegal drugs illegally from drug dealers because they can buy in larger amounts. Then there is the issue of the strength and price of the marijuana. Will the weed sold by the licensed vendors be strong enough and cheap enough? If not, many users will still buy from the local drug dealers. There would be a price war between legal American marijuana vendors and illegal dealers. Even if the marijuana is strong and cheap enough, probably most folks will not want their marijuana use tracked by the government, and they will buy the marijuana illegally from the Mexican drug cartel dealers in the US. So, your alternative system fails every time. Tougher criminal sanctions and more drug education are needed, e.g., life in jail for all drug dealers - even first offenders, mandatory drug classes starting in 1st grade, mandatory neighborhood study groups about the evils of marijuana, which is how China solved it opium problem by 1956. Allowing marijuana to be grown legally in the US is not the answer. And, you make this point that marijuana use reached its peak in 1979. Yes, I saw that study by Norml; but, so what? Dec. 19, 2012 -- A new survey shows marijuana use by teens remains high, and officials say it will probably increase as a result of Washington and Colorado decriminalizing the drug last month. \"Based on what we know ... we are predicting that it\"s going to go up,\" says Nora Volkow, MD, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse. \"Just the fact that there are some states that have made it legal ... will send a message\" to teens throughout the country. \"Already, the proportion of teens who consider marijuana to be harmful is the lowest it\"s been in decades, according to the 2012 \"Monitoring the Future\" survey of eighth, 10th, and 12th graders. The annual survey of teen drug use is conducted by researchers at the University of Michigan.\" http://teens.webmd.com... The Federal Prohibition on Marijuana needs to remain and more education is needed starting in 1st grade to explain the evils of smoking pot, doing any illegal drugs, and Alcohol abuse. This needs to be a required class, in all grades - 1 through 12. Our children should be taught that \"Clean and Sober\" is the best way to live life.", "qid": "38", "docid": "d3a6203-2019-04-18T17:51:05Z-00004-000", "rank": 76, "score": 142055.0}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana should be legalized for medical and recreational use. Content: Hello, my name is dtien and I accept your challenge.", "qid": "38", "docid": "dc68ec3e-2019-04-18T13:40:55Z-00003-000", "rank": 77, "score": 141903.0}, {"content": "Title: Medical Marijuana Content: IntroductionI would like to begin by thanking my opponent for proffering this debate to me. It is a controversial topic and shall be an interesting one.ArgumentsFacts: Here is a list of things medical marijuana is used for: 1. AIDS treatment 2. Glaucoma 3. Nausea and vomiting 4. Nausea and vomiting associated with cancer chemotherapy 5. Pain caused by certain physiological disorders 6. Treatment of multiple sclerosis 7. Symptoms of Parkinson\u2019s disease 8. Appetite stimulant for malnutrition 9. Treatment of epilepsy 10. Migraine headaches Why it should not be used: However, according to webmd.com, \"cannabinoids in marijuana can weaken the immune system\", \"long-term use of marijuana can make lung problems worse\", \"marijuana might make seizure disorders worse in some people [(in other people it might help to control seizures)]\", and \"it might slow the central nervous system too much when combined with anesthesia and other medications during and after surgery (WEBMD).\" Here are some other common side effects of using marijuana for medicinal purposes: Drowsiness, dry mouth, giddiness, hunger, insomnia, red eyes, respiratory issues, short-term memory loss, and uneasiness or anxiety (Southwest Medical Evaluation Center).As you can see, it can be used to help people, but the effects are not always the same. For some people, medical marijuana can cure seizures, while it may make the disorder worse for other people. Currently, marijuana has not been fully tested, which means it should not be used. Unstable drugs should not be used in people. One could argue that it is human experimentation, which is not legal. Doctors are not always aware of the side effects medicinal marijuana could have on people. It is different depending on the person.ConclusionIn conclusion, medical marijuana is dangerous and has more bad side effects than good. This is why I do not support it. I hope my opponent can see that there are better ways to cure things than with cannabis. I patiently await my opponent's rebuttals.Works Cited\"MARIJUANA: Uses, Side Effects, Interactions and Warnings - WebMD.\" WebMD. WebMD. Web. 13 Mar. 2014. <http://www.webmd.com...;.\"Medical Marijuana Side Effects - Effects of Medical Marijuana.\" Medical Marijuana Side Effects - Effects of Medical Marijuana. Web. 14 Mar. 2014. <http://www.evaluationtoday.com...;.", "qid": "38", "docid": "d267a913-2019-04-18T16:17:41Z-00004-000", "rank": 78, "score": 141872.0}, {"content": "Title: Medical Marijuana Content: It has been proven that medical marijuana can be safe and effective for treating cancer, AIDS, multiple sclerosis, pain, epilepsy, glaucoma, and other conditions as well. Marijuana is actually less toxic then many of the medicines and drugs that doctors prescribe today to relieve the same symptoms. The tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) contained in this plant, along with many other cannabinoids, cause relief unlike any other drug.", "qid": "38", "docid": "d267a8d5-2019-04-18T16:58:41Z-00005-000", "rank": 79, "score": 141728.0}, {"content": "Title: Medical Marijuana Content: It has been proven that medical marijuana can be safe and effective for treating cancer, AIDS, multiple sclerosis, pain, epilepsy, glaucoma, and other conditions as well. Marijuana is actually less toxic then many of the medicines and drugs that doctors prescribe today to relieve the same symptoms. The tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) contained in this plant, along with many other cannabinoids, cause relief unlike any other drug.", "qid": "38", "docid": "d267a8f4-2019-04-18T17:01:16Z-00009-000", "rank": 80, "score": 141728.0}, {"content": "Title: Medical Marijuana is, on balance, an effective medicine Content: The evidence for my case will be mainly in my rebuttals; if not solely done there. The effectiveness of marijuana\u2014a hoax? My opponent makes a two pronged attack: first, medical marijuana has few, if any, benefits; and second marijuana\u2019s smoke aspect makes the drugs costs outweigh the (in his argument) small benefits. I will refute these accordingly. a) Marijuana has few benefits \u2013 status: false This argument is simply false. There is mounting evidence to the contrary, that medical marijuana has a plethora of benefits. Even though the NIDA and other organizations have attempted to block medical marijuana research, it still seems to get published. A 2010 study by the University of California, using methodology that meets the standards of the FDA, has found marijuana should be a first line treatment for those with neuropathy illness. What is also interesting is a plethora of other studies replicate these findings, and the AMA (which my opponent noted in 1987 opposed medical marijuana) is actively considering removing it as a Schedule 1 controlled substance and may possibly change their opinion on the issue. Yes, that\u2019s how much evidence has occurred since 1987 proving my opponents assumption quite weak [1]. Further, research by German scholars has obtained similar results as the University of California study. Since 2005, 37 studies with strong methodologies (that usually exceeds FDA standards) have strongly supported the medical marijuana benefit theory [2]. 37 studies showing success is actually much more than most of our drugs; indeed, most FDA approved drugs have far fewer studies and trials supporting their benefits. It seems as though the failure to accept these studies is likely ideological. Further, other studies from Californian professors have been set up by the University of California Medicinal Cannabis Research center overwhelmingly support the conclusion that medical marijuana has large benefits. Starting out asking whether or not marijuana is helpful, their research now is more on the side of how large are these benefits. Although they welcome dissenting opinion, the research strongly indicates marijuana is a strong pain killer, cancer fighter, and is capable of healing many diseases we never would have expected when the Center was created. The Center noted in a brief presented in front of the California legislature, they presented multiple studies, but one that jumped out to me was marijuana\u2019s effectiveness as a pain killer: 46% of the respondents in the study reported marijuana to reduce their pain by 30%. There is also growing evidence that marijuana helps cure cancer and other diseases [3]. Let\u2019s look into history as well. Ancient China is known for using medical marijuana in its medical practices, and many other ancient countries (India, and the Middle East) were also known for using hemp for medical purposes. Recent studies claim medical marijuana relieves pain, this should be of no surprise; Chinese doctors reported their patients to have painless surgery when using cannabis medicines. Also on a side note: the Iliad references cannabis usage. There is undeniable proof that marijuana is a pain killer, and a cure or many diseases, based on historical texts [4]. My opponent cites a colleague who is healing cancer without marijuana. And that\u2019s great, but irrelevant. I am not saying you need medical marijuana to heal cancer, for example: I would not use it because I am asthmatic. There are many other reasons. But marijuana can speed the process. It\u2019s like saying Advil is not helpful because I got rid of a headache without it. Well, yes, you did, but that does not mean Advil would have been helpful in the process. Needing a substance (or the ability to use it for certain parts of the population) is irrelevant to its effectiveness. b) The smoke outweighs the benefits \u2013 status: false The smoke is obviously not good for you, but its harms are likely exaggerated. The only harm that the Institute of Medicine 1999 report could identify was the loss of psychomotor performance, which means the patients should merely avoid motor equipment [5]. Further, animal studies find the amount of THC needed to be a fatal dose is almost impossible to consume, making the chance for overdose unlikely. It has also been noted when taking the prescribed dosages of marijuana; the chance of getting lung cancer is actually slightly lower because marijuana kills cancerous cells, which includes lung cancer cells. Most diseases marijuana supposedly causes (though it is unproven) have more evidence that it cures them, not exacerbates the problem [6]. Indeed, the marijuana \u2013 cancer link is deteriorating in the science, and evidence is starting to show marijuana has no linkage to cancer [7]. And I reiterate: with no evidence that marijuana causes cancer, and evidence showing it cures it, there is little reason to think my opponent\u2019s argument is correct. CONCLUSION: My opponent offers a thesis that marijuana has few benefits and the smoking aspect does more harm than good. Although smoking likely has some health hazards (especially for asthmatics and pregnant women), the hazards aren\u2019t large enough to disqualify marijuana as a medicine. Other pain killers harm other organs, so even if it is proven marijuana smoke is deadly in the long run it does not mean marijuana as a medicine is bad. If we were to say \u201cmarijuana hurts people, ban it\u201d then almost every prescription medication would need to be banned. Those medicines benefits outweigh their harms; I have proven the same applies to medical marijuana. Due to the fact robust research proves my side [1][2][3][5][6], I urge a vote for pro. 1. . http://norml.org... 2. . http://www.cannabis-med.org... 3. . http://www.cmcr.ucsd.edu... 4. . http://druglibrary.org... 5. Janet E. Joy, Stanley J. Watson, Jr. , and John A Benson, Jr. , \"Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base,\" Division of Neuroscience and Behavioral Research, Institute of Medicine (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1999). 6. . http://www.drugwarfacts.org... 7. . http://healthland.time.com...", "qid": "38", "docid": "d3a6203-2019-04-18T17:51:05Z-00005-000", "rank": 81, "score": 141661.0}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana should be legalized for medical and recreational use. Content: I just want to say that marijuana, while proven to have some negative side effects, are nothing compared to another recreational drug, alcohol. The side effects of marijuana are often temporary, and can be reduced to none when the drug is no longer in the users system. Marijuana as a medicine is often much safer than the legal counterparts, prescription drugs. Side effects from prescription drugs often include death, organ failure, etc.", "qid": "38", "docid": "dc68ec3e-2019-04-18T13:40:55Z-00002-000", "rank": 82, "score": 141643.0}, {"content": "Title: Should marijuana be legalized for medical purposes Content: About this debate:Welcome to my debate. As you can see you and I will be debating whether the legalization of marijuana should be used for medical purposes (only). Not only should marijuana be used to cure cancer, but also various other diseases.Rules: 1. No profanities2. No plagiarism3. Forfeiture causes disqualifications.Rounds: Round #1: Acceptance from opponentRound #2: ArgumentsRound #3: Rebuttals Round #4: Conclusion/Summary", "qid": "38", "docid": "9821cb64-2019-04-18T15:54:34Z-00004-000", "rank": 83, "score": 141616.0}, {"content": "Title: Medical Cannabis Content: Cannabis has been used as a medicine for the longest time. Recently, cannabis has became illegal in many parts of the world. However, I do not believe cannabis deserves it's legal status and it has high medicinal value and is realitvely safe if used properly. My opponent of this debate will try to disprove Cannabis's medicinal potential and show why it should not be used as a medicine. There are no exceptions to this.", "qid": "38", "docid": "e1d1a698-2019-04-18T15:18:36Z-00005-000", "rank": 84, "score": 141540.0}, {"content": "Title: Medical Marijuana Should Not Be Legalized. Content: NOTICE: This debate is apart of the Revive DDO Debate Competition. RESOLUTION: Marijuana Should Not Be Legalized For Use As Medicine or for Medical Purposes.", "qid": "38", "docid": "5d56b6d8-2019-04-18T16:58:57Z-00004-000", "rank": 85, "score": 141529.0}, {"content": "Title: Medical marijuana dispensaries Content: Due to low addiction rates, marijuana is good for medical use.", "qid": "38", "docid": "87b8c230-2019-04-17T11:47:26Z-00027-000", "rank": 86, "score": 141466.0}, {"content": "Title: Should marijuana be legalized for medical purposes Content: I accept your argument. This should be interesting.", "qid": "38", "docid": "9821cb64-2019-04-18T15:54:34Z-00003-000", "rank": 87, "score": 141346.0}, {"content": "Title: Medical marijuana should be legal Content: I still await my opponent's argument.", "qid": "38", "docid": "c416873d-2019-04-18T18:19:50Z-00002-000", "rank": 88, "score": 141251.0}, {"content": "Title: Medical as well as recreational marijuana should be legal in all US states Content: The matter of legalizing medical marijuana is an important issue for several reasons. From the data observed in the link below [1] there are currently 23 states with laws legalizing marijuana, some still more restrictive than others. This of course is a significant step in the right direction. However, I believe that all states should follow the examples of Alaska, Colorado, Washington and Oregon to legalize not only cannabis for medicinal usage but also for recreational consumption. I will list my reasons further below. Before doing so I would like to specifically define the meanings of marijuana itself and respectively medical and recreational cannabis to avoid any confusions or misunderstandings. Marijuana is defined as \"a commonly used illegal drug made from dried leaves of the hemp plant\" and \"a strong-smelling plant from whose dried leaves a number of euphoriant and hallucinogenic drugs are prepared.\" Marijuana goes by many other names such as cannabis, hemp, weed etc. [2] Medical marijuana is defined as the usage of marijuana for medical or medicinal purposes. [3] [4] Recreational marijuana is defined as any other recreational drug which is described as \"a drug (as cocaine, marijuana, or methamphetamine) used without medical justification for its psychoactive effects often in the belief that occasional use of such a substance is not habit-forming or addictive.\" [6] I acknowledge the many different types of marijuana that exists for different purposes, most, I understand, are hybrids made for different specific medical needs. However I do not know enough on the subject of them, their effects and upsides as well as downsides. I would therefore appreciate if this debate could be exclusively on the matters of the aforementioned descriptions of cannabis, medical and recreational. Now I will present my arguments as to why I believe medical and recreational marijuana should be legalized in all US states.R32;R32;First of all I would like to point out that there is no scientific background with evidence as to exactly why marijuana was classified as a Schedule I drug in the first place. The definition of a Schedule 1 drug from the Drug Enforcement Administration itself clearly states, that \"Schedule I drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.\"[6] This definition leaves no room for doubt that no Schedule 1 drug has any medical use. However it has been a known fact for centuries that cannabis has been used for medical purposes with positive effects. This can easily be found true when looking at many different sources. Here I have merely linked one. [7]R32;The National Institute on Drug Abuse also states that there are medical benefits from marijuana. [8] R32;There can be many reasons as to why marijuana was classified the way it was and still has not been re-classified but that is a completely different debate. Here are links with possible explanations that no matter what do not justify why it was classified so harshly. [9] [10] R32;All in all, there can be no doubts that this classification of marijuana is deeply illogical and misleading. Second, I would like to stress that America would merit tremendously from the economic profits caused by legalizing marijuana. It can be no surprise to any logical thinking creature that America spends enormous sums of money on dealing with and prohibiting crime related to illegal marijuana sales and consumptions. All of this money would of course not be spent if marijuana was legalized. In stead I propose that all states start off like Oregon, Alaska, Washington and Colorado by legalizing recreational marijuana as well. These states all have different laws that specifically suits them and I believe this is a good way to start. R32;R32;The legalization of medical as well as recreational marijuana would be the only solution to properly profit economically from the marijuana businesses that are currently not legal. This is because these businesses will probably still exist if only medicinal marijuana was legalized. [11] [12] Third and last I believe, as mentioned, that marijuana should be legalised for recreational use. This is because I believe in every individual\"s right to care for him or herself\"s own health and decide what is best. Especially when it comes to smoking tobacco or marijuana for pleasure. I am aware of the fact that marijuana has other effects than regular tobacco smoking. However tobacco smoking is the leading cause of preventable death here in America and I do not see how it in any aspect is justifiable, that tobacco smoking has no legal restrictions when a harmless plant such as cannabis is classified as a schedule 1 drug and illegal in most states. [13] I believe that cannabis should be legalized for medical and recreational use. Of course all sale should be done by an approved salesperson to ensure and uphold a certain safety. This will still leave room for illegal sales but not in the same measure as it is now. I am not trying to say that tobacco smoking should be classified as a schedule 1 drug as well. I am saying that the laws making marijuana illegal are so illogical that I am astonished this can happen in a well educated country in the 21st century. http://www.governing.com... https://www.vocabulary.com... http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com... https://www.leafly.com... http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.dea.gov... http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... https://www.drugabuse.gov... http://www.ibtimes.com... http://www.drugwarrant.com... http://www.dailydot.com... http://www.huffingtonpost.com... http://www.cdc.gov...", "qid": "38", "docid": "711b9599-2019-04-18T13:44:23Z-00005-000", "rank": 89, "score": 141224.0}, {"content": "Title: Marjiuana should be legal Content: My opponent did not say \"Medical Marijuana should be legalized. \" He simply said that Marijuana should be legal. While I do not find this completely fair, he has not broken any written rules. I am Con Marijuana, Pro medical Marijuana. Therefore I will be playing somewhat of the devils advocate. Just because something feels good to people who are sick, is not a reason to legalize it. Marijuana is proven to be a dangerous drug. Some of the short term effects are: 1. Distorted perception (sights, sounds, time, touch). 2. Problems with memory and learning. 3. Loss of coordination. 4. Trouble with thinking and problem-solving. 5. Increased heart rate, reduced blood pressure. There are many reasons why these things can be bad, I will go through them one by one as quickly as I can. 1. Distorted perception (sights, sounds, time, touch). This is very dangerous, the reason is because people will take the drug and drive at the same time. Car accidents will go through the roof. This is an example of death with Marijuana. What people like to do is say that no one has died because of Marijuana. Well, no one has died of a cell phone, yet many people die from talking while driving. 2. Problems with memory and learning. Children these days already are failing in school. Why would we want to add to that? They need all the memory and learning they can get. 3. Loss of coordination. This corresponds with number one. More accidents, more deaths. 4. Trouble with thinking and problem-solving. This also corresponds with number two. But not only for kids, people need all the brain power they can get. 5. Increased heart rate, reduced blood pressure. Some people do not even know that they have a bad heart. Marijuana could hurt these people. It would be no use to use on most sick patients. Lots of them have a bad heart. Many people who take the drug for medical purposes get addicted to it. Many people do not get addicted to it, but there are some that do. There are also many other dangerous effects. Like sleepiness, an altered sense of time and space, hallucinations, delusions, disorientation. Marijuana contains more than 400 different chemicals; this is bad for obvious reasons. Marijuana also can lead to lung and/or throat cancer. (Again, they don't die of Marijuana, just cancer. ) Your father's theory sounds good, but there can not be a law based off of it. Just because 8 out of 10 people say that there is a KFC on the moon does not make it true. Something else to consider, there would be a major increase in health problems. Therefore, there would be a major increase in the cost of health care. No one in any country wants this. I will stop here for now and look forward to your response. May the force, again. AND I AM YOUR FATHER! !! ! SOURCES: (1). . http://faculty.washington.edu...", "qid": "38", "docid": "f49fbe84-2019-04-18T19:09:34Z-00002-000", "rank": 90, "score": 141199.0}, {"content": "Title: Cannabis should be legalised. Content: You have brought up the medical issue, and so I will debate that, although I would support legalisation of cannabis even if it did not have medical properties. I apologise for perhaps sounding arrogant here, but it is indisputable that cannabis has many powerful medicinal uses. A 2002 review of medical literature by Franjo Grotenhermen states that medical cannabis has established effects in the treatment of nausea, vomiting, premenstrual syndrome, unintentional weight loss, insomnia, and lack of appetite. Other \"relatively well-confirmed\" effects were in the treatment of \"spasticity, painful conditions, especially neurogenic pain, movement disorders, asthma, [and] glaucoma\".[1] Having proven that cannabis does indeed have significant medical application, I must now address your demand to 'think of the children'. Firstly, cannabis is not legal in California, it has been decriminalised - cannabis is legal in Colorado and Washington. Secondly, you have cited 'anecdotal evidence', which is not really evidence at all. Can I see a source documenting this decrease in IQ? Studies have shown that more than 70% of American teenagers think that it is easy to obtain cannabis, while about 40% of Dutch teenagers think that it is easy to obtain cannabis. [2] As you may know, cannabis is sold in special outlets called 'coffeeshops' in the Netherlands - cannabis is 'tolerated' there and may be sold in a quasi-legal way. I think these figures show that making cannabis legal in America would not have an effect on teenage use of cannabis, because cannabis is already available to more students than actually use it, as cannabis use is definitely lower than 70% in America. Furthermore, legalising cannabis would take dealers off the streets - they would not be able to compete with licensed dispensaries. Drug dealers don't check the age of their customers, but dispensaries certainly would. Of course, older people would still buy cannabis for young people (e.g. older brothers buying for younger), but as I have argued, it is already highly available to anyone who wants to use it. To develop the point further, students who would come to school intoxicated are likely the kind of students who would not learn much in any case. I would also like to point you to a study in the Canadian Medical Association Journal which concluded that \"marijuana does not have a long-term negative impact on global intelligence\".[3] So, if cannabis does have medicinal use, and its legality does not appear to lead to a decrease in IQ, what other reasons do you have for prohibiting it? My argument in favour of legalising it is as follows: I believe J.S. Mill was correct when he stated in his essay \"On Liberty\" that \"Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign\". The use of cannabis does not cause direct harm to others, and so it should be permitted as a matter of individual freedom. You may wish to claim that cannabis 'destroys lives' and therefore 'causes misery for that individual's family', but this is nonsensical. Cannabis is not physically addictive, and is therefore only addictive in the same sense that collecting stamps and eating chalk can be, so I doubt that it has the capability to 'ruin lives' in itself, and furthermore, harm cannot be measured in this way. If the son of a grotesquely homophobic father comes out as gay, leading his father to extreme rage and depression, it cannot be said that the son has done something morally wrong. Likewise, if someone decides to spend their life working in menial positions and smoking cannabis every day, the chagrin of the parents is irrelevant to whether that behaviour should be permissible. What can 'ruin lives' in a far more damaging way is that people are prosecuted for the cannabis-related crimes. These should not be crimes, for the reason I have argued above, and yet having a criminal record causes severe and lasting damage to someone's life, preventing people from being employed and causing disastrous damage to someone's mental state. Edward Thornber, a promising young man, committed suicide after being summoned to court over \"0.50 worth of cannabis found in his possession. [4] Admittedly, the article does say that he was prosecuted with erroneous severity, but the matter should not have been anything more than the confiscation of the cannabis and a notification to his parents. It is also incredibly important to note the fiscal benefits of legalising cannabis. The government spends a great amount of money prosecuting cannabis users and dealers, instead, they could be increasing their revenue by selling the cannabis responsibly. This would kill two birds with one stone, as criminal gangs rely heavily on drug money to justify their existence - removing cannabis from their income would deal a great blow to them, as cannabis is one of the most popular recreational drugs. Finally, the THC:CBD (two substances found in cannabis, and believed to be responsible for most of the effects) ratio is very important, and could be controlled were cannabis a regulated plant. Doses of pure THC can cause transient (i.e. temporary) symptoms of psychosis in people, yet CBD eliminates this effect as it is an anti-psychotic. Some forms of cannabis have very little CBD, and this may be causing unnecessary harm. If the government regulated cannabis so that the THC:CBD ratio was labelled on the cannabis, cannabis would be even more safe to use, as I believe the vast majority of users would choose cannabis which had protective levels of CBD, because not only is it 'healthier', but it is also more pleasurable to most users. [5] [1] Grotenhermen, Franjo (2002). \"Review of Therapeutic Effects\". Cannabis and Cannabinoids: Pharmacology, Toxicology and Therapeutic Potential. New York City: Haworth Press. p. 124. ISBN 978-0-7890-1508-2. [2] http://www.eastbayexpress.com... [3] Fried, P.; Watkinson, B.; James, D.; Gray, R. (2002). \"Current and former marijuana use: Preliminary findings of a longitudinal study of effects on IQ in young adults\". CMAJ : Canadian Medical [4] http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk... [5] http://www.brainwaving.com...", "qid": "38", "docid": "6f03a8dc-2019-04-18T17:24:29Z-00001-000", "rank": 91, "score": 141182.0}, {"content": "Title: Medical Marijuana should be legal. Content: I was looking at your profile, and i saw that you think that medical marijuana should not be legal. I disagree but i want to know why you believe that medical marijuana is unsuitable to be legal in the us. And a debate will follow. It is currently used to make peoples with diseases better, so i dont see why not.", "qid": "38", "docid": "94bd510e-2019-04-18T19:53:10Z-00005-000", "rank": 92, "score": 141034.0}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana Should Be Legal For Medicinal Purposes Content: It appears this debate has become principally focused on the medical benefits of marijuana as opposed to its potential dangers; therefore, whether or not I am able to sustain the resolution of this debate will depend primarily on my ability to demonstrate that marijuana's medicinal advantages outweigh it's downfalls.Sustaining the Medicinal Advantages of Marijuana:Cancer:I have provided various authoritative research studies, all of which confirm marijuana's ability to prevent and/or treat a number of cancers, including breast, brain, and lung cancer [1] [2] [3]. As my sources state, such studies have been conducted by respected universities and esteemed researchers.Multiple Sclerosis:I have effectively demonstrated through authoritative research that marijuana helps individuals suffering from multiple sclerosis by decreasing spastic movement and pain [4]. Alzheimer's:I have provided evidence that marijuana has been found to inhibit amyloid plaque (a primary pathological marker) much more effectively than other currently medically approved substances, thereby providing significant help for people suffering from Alzheimer's [5].Arthritis:By presenting authoritative research, I have demonstrated that marijuana possesses the ability to help arthritis sufferers with their pain [6].Chronic Pain:I have provided strong evidence that marijuana helps with pain in general, most importantly chronic pain [7].Other Benefits:I have provided research demonstrating that marijuana helps prevent and/or treat glaucoma, epileptic seizures, anxiety, nausea, vomiting, loss of appetite, muscle tension, muscle spasm, insomnia, and inflammatory bowel disease [8] [9].Addressing the Potential Dangers of Marijuana:Cancer:The only kind of cancer my opponent cites as a potential danger of marijuana is related to marijuana smoke. I've stated numerous times that such a point is moot, seeing as how marijuana need not be consumed through smoking. My opponent states that I have dropped this point, but I have done no such thing; rather, I have provided strong evidence to counter my opponent's claims.Heart Disease:As far as I could find, the source my opponent has provided says nothing of marijuana, only cocain. My opponent also states that my source link does not lead to the information I've provided, which is true; I'm not entirely sure what happened to my link and I apologize for the inconvenience -- the information can be found at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.... Again, my source states that \"a large cohort study showed no association of marijuana use with cardiovascular disease hospitalization or mortality,\" thereby refuting my opponent's claim. Immune System Deficiency:Again, the assertion that marijuana poses threats to the immune system is simply not supported by the evidence. Dr. Leo E. Hollister, Professor of Psychiatry and Pharmacology at the University of Texas Medical School has reported in a research study published in the Journal of Psychoactive Drugs that:\"The evidence [on immune suppression] has been contradictory and is more supportive of some degree of immunosuppression only when one considers in vitro studies. These have been seriously flawed by the very high concentrations of drug used to produce immunosuppression. The closer that experimental studies have been to actual clinical situations, the less compelling has been the evidence [10].\"Birth Defects:My opponent criticizes my source for being biased, despite the fact that he has continually used heritage.org as a source (a website whose express purpose is to propagate conservative thinking).My source quotes information reported from the National Academy of Sciences, which states that no evidential links between marijuana and birth defects have been found [11]. Although norml.org seek to legalize marijuana, it uses unbiased, peer-reviewed sources and research to accomplish its purposes.Psychological Side-Effects:Although I've conceded to the argument that paranoia is a potential side-effect of marijuana, I uphold my position that there is currently no conclusive evidence demonstrating a link between marijuana use and schizophrenia. As Associate Professor of Clinical Psychology at the University of Hawaii at Manoa's Dr. Jason Schiffman states in an article published in Psychiatric Research, \"the onset of schizotypal symptoms generally precedes the onset of cannabis use. The findings do not support a causal link between cannabis use and schizotypal traits [12].\"Carcinogens:Again, this is only a problem assuming one consumes marijuana through smoking. There a many ways to consume marijuana which do not include smoking, and therefore this point is moot.Problems with Crime:Any prescription drug faces problems with crime. Is my opponent asserting that a beneficial substance should be withheld from suffering individuals simply because criminals would do the same thing with it that they do with nearly all other prescription drugs?Conclusion:Marijuana is not a miracle drug. It does not heal everything, nor does it come without some undesirable side-effects; however, the simple fact of the matter is that most medications in general exhibit the same limited capabilities. The case I have attempted to make in this debate is that marijuana is just as suitable a medication as many other legal medicinal substances, and it therefore deserves to be considered as a serious candidate for medical legalization.I believe I have provided compelling, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of marijuana's ability to treat numerous conditions while only presenting minor or otherwise reasonable side-effects; for this, I encourage the voters to vote Pro.I further apologize for the relatively brief nature of this post (then again, perhaps you are thanking me for it :P). Seeing as how I am preparing to celebrate the new year, I have tried to keep this short; however, I believe I have managed to sufficiently communicate my case, both in this post and previous ones.I would like to thank my opponent for his contributions to this debate. I greatly appreciate his arguments, and extend my utmost sincere gratitude to him for helping to make this an enlightening and intellectually stimulating debate.Lastly, I would like to wish both my opponent, the readers, and the voters a happy new year!________________________________________________________________________________________________[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [2] http://www.medicalnewstoday.com...[3] http://www.sciencedaily.com...[4] http://www.reuters.com...[5] http://www.msnbc.msn.com...[6] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...[7] http://www.webmd.com...[8] http://health.howstuffworks.com...[9] http://www.businessinsider.com...[10] http://web.acsalaska.net...[11] http://norml.org...[12] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...", "qid": "38", "docid": "b0a1297b-2019-04-18T17:56:41Z-00001-000", "rank": 93, "score": 141028.0}, {"content": "Title: Medical as well as recreational marijuana should be legal in all US states Content: In this round, I plan to rebut my opponent's arguments from round 1 and possibly answer his question from then end of his round 2.Section 1: Legalizing marijuana isn't necessarily important, its more a matter of opinion. I believe that we have more concerning matters to deal with, other than legalize a drug. What to do with the illegal immigrants and whether or not we should raise the minimum wage are more important issues than an insignificant drug which has always done more damage than good. Also a drug that kills people. People say that marijuana doesn't kill people, but it does. Its made out of hemp (cannabis) which has a history of killing people, which is why people have began to call it cannabis. Its' funny though. Everyone is saying that the drug is being legalized for medical purposes, but its the medical field trying to stand against it. The medical field keeps warning everyone that cannabis is deadly and bad. It kills 30,000 people a year. The drug can cause cancer, lung disease and terribly mental illnesses. Not to mention a user is up to 6 times more likely to develop schizophrenia. This is not something anyone in their right mind would want legalized. http://www.dailymail.co.uk...Section 2: Research that has been performed shows that since we can't get a good revenue for marijuana, the tax will probably be high. This would give more money to the government sure, but that might not be so good for the overall economy.http://dfaf.org...Section 3: If people believe that damaging their IQ, memory, health and mental state is something that's good for them, then go for it. These are the kinds of decisions that the last generation has been trying to teach this new generation, especially since we're graduating high school and going off into the real world. But like I said at the beginning of this round, its a matter of personal opinion. Section 4: That may be so, but from talking to a foreign exchange student from the Netherlands in my school, they're expecting a major decrease in their education. Also, even though they've legalized marijuana, it can only be sold in coffee shops, they can't legally grow it privately and they're only allowed to have a max of 5 grams.http://420intel.com...I apologize for not posting longer rebuts. I was having technical difficulties with my network, so just being on this site was complicated enough. This is a before and after picture for the use of marijuana.", "qid": "38", "docid": "711b9599-2019-04-18T13:44:23Z-00002-000", "rank": 94, "score": 141007.0}, {"content": "Title: medical marijuana Content: this is a debate on the promotion of marijuana for medicinal usage. claims of marijuana's medical benefits are dangerously misleading in a way that mirrors classic cigarette ads in which doctors would speak of the health benefits of cigarettes. we now all know how silly this claim is because all smoke is harmful no matter what kind of smoke it is. all you have to do to prove this is blow pot smoke directly into a white napkin and if done right, you will see brown residue left behind. its time to stop this cliche lie that smoking is not bad for you. if you want to legalize marijuana for recreational purposes, fine but dont mislead people into thinking that it will help their illness, when it will only hurt them, that is just wrong. medical marijuana has taken the place of snake oil remedies that scam artists used to sell on the street by falsely advertising it as a cure all. im not denying that the chemicals in marijuana such as THC may have benefits, but selling the actual plant its self to be smoked is absurd. no other medicinal drug is smoked for obvious reasons, which shows us how much of a joke medical marijuana is. people who want smoked medical marijuana are a discredit to people who actually need the benefits of the the drug. these people would be more than happy to take the plant in pill or liquid form, but the ones who refuse to take it in pill form are just looking to get high and want the cool factor of the smoke. some people who think they need the drug for medicinal purposes are actually just abusing it, because someone might also believe that a few shots of alcohol in the morning also makes them feel better, but we aren't calling alcohol an alternative medicine. another problem with smoked medical marijuana is that others can inhale the 2nd hand smoke which is unhealthy and may involuntarily impair them. no other medicinal drug has this problem, and tricking people into believing that smoked marijuana will help them is just as bad as making the same claim for alcohol or tobacco. also, i understand that you can cook with/ eat marijuana which is better for you but when you sell the plant its self, theres no way to stop people from smoking it. it also allows them to grow it, which wouldnt benefit society with tax revenue. especially because you can literally grow marijuana in a closet and no one would ever know if you bought the weed youre smoking or if you grew it. in conclusion, if you want to legalize marijuana for recreational purposes, thats one thing but dont call it a medicine.", "qid": "38", "docid": "35e725d0-2019-04-18T18:13:42Z-00003-000", "rank": 95, "score": 140962.0}, {"content": "Title: Should Marijuana Be Legalized for Medicinal Use Content: I find it absurd to think that there are people in the world who think that marijuana has no medicinal benefits to patience with such diseases as Cancer, Glaucoma, Multiple Sclerosis, and Cerebral Palsy. I feel strongly that the use of cannabis should not only be legalized but encouraged in cases where it could actually help. My uncle was diagnosed with MS 9 years ago and slowly his body started to deteriorate from the inside. He became unstable in his walking ability and the pain from the deterioration caused him to have extreme difficulty sleeping. Once he was prescribed Marijuana he called my father in tears of happiness, for the medicine had allowed him not only to walk with complete balance, but even to jog. Upon use of his medical Cannabis in the evenings he was able to sleep without any problems. Now as the disease has progressed his walking has become even more unbalanced but there is no denying that the Marijuana still helps him manage the searing pain from the deterioration of his nerves. Cannabis still allows my uncle to sleep through the night without having to worry about waking in the middle of the night in terrible and excruciating pain. This herb has made the life of a terminally ill person that much easier, and how dare anyone deny him this right. It is ludicrous to think that the federal government wishes not only to deny him the right to a less painful way of life but they also wish to arrest him and others in similar positions for simply wishing to live as much of a pain free life as possible.", "qid": "38", "docid": "5acb3c54-2019-04-18T19:31:09Z-00004-000", "rank": 96, "score": 140905.0}, {"content": "Title: Should Marijuana Be Legalized For Medicinal Use Content: I find it absurd to think that there are people in the world who think that marijuana has no medicinal benefits to patience with such diseases as Cancer, Glaucoma, Multiple Sclerosis, and Cerebral Palsy. I feel strongly that the use of cannabis should not only be legalized but encouraged in cases where it could actually help. My uncle was diagnosed with MS 9 years ago and slowly his body started to deteriorate from the inside. He became unstable in his walking ability and the pain from the deterioration caused him to have extreme difficulty sleeping. Once he was prescribed Marijuana he called my father in tears of happiness, for the medicine had allowed him not only to walk with complete balance, but even to jog. Upon use of his medical Cannabis in the evenings he was able to sleep without any problems. Now as the disease has progressed his walking has become even more unbalanced but there is no denying that the Marijuana still helps him manage the searing pain from the deterioration of his nerves. Cannabis still allows my uncle to sleep through the night without having to worry about waking in the middle of the night in terrible and excruciating pain. This herb has made the life of a terminally ill person that much easier, and how dare anyone deny him this right. It is ludicrous to think that the federal government wishes not only to deny him the right to a less painful way of life but they also wish to arrest him and others in similar positions for simply wishing to live as much of a pain free life as possible.", "qid": "38", "docid": "66907055-2019-04-18T19:31:34Z-00003-000", "rank": 97, "score": 140905.0}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana should be legal for medical purposes. Content: I challenge jamccartney to a debate about medical marijuana. I will be arguing that marijuana should be legal for medical purposes. My opponent will be argue that marijuana should not be legal for medical purposes. My opponent and I already agree on the issue of recreational marijuana. Before we begin, I would like to state the debate structure:Round One: Acceptance and stating your stanceRound Two: Main ArgumentsRound Three: Rebuttals and ConclusionBoth jamccartney and I share nearly identical views and I will therefore not list the debate rules. They are obvious to both of us.", "qid": "38", "docid": "fa1a69b6-2019-04-18T16:31:37Z-00005-000", "rank": 98, "score": 140750.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Medical Marijuana should be legal Content: My first debate!Round 1: AcceptanceI think Medical Marijuana should be legal and ther are many benefits.Definitions:Marijuana - Marijuana (marihuana) Cannabis sativa L., also known as Indian hemp, is a member of the Cannabaceae or hemp family, thought to have originated in the mountainous districts of India, north of the Himalayan mountains.http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...LETS DO THIS!", "qid": "38", "docid": "84f999d5-2019-04-18T18:09:59Z-00005-000", "rank": 99, "score": 140681.0}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana ought to be legalized Content: Greetings! My position in this debate is that Marijuana ought not be legalized. As a utilitarian, my reason for this is that the benefits of such an action would not outweigh the negative effects. I shall respond to Pro\u2019s points in the relevant sections, and present one counterpoint of my own afterward. Counterpoints: First contention \u2013 Marijuana for Medicinal purposes: (The resolution states \u201cMarijuana ought to be legalized,\u201d as opposed to \u201cMarijuana ought to be legalized for medicinal purposes.\u201d Furthermore, the argument from medicinal purposes is made as its own point in Pro\u2019s argument. Both of these lead me to believe that Pro wished Marijuana to be legalized for all purposes as opposed to those simply medical in nature. Keep this in mind as I state my position on this point.) Objection 1: You have not cited any sources for this point. Keep in mind that you share the burden of proof for this debate. Objection 2: I acknowledge that Marijuana has specific medical benefits. However, this does not require that Marijuana be legalized for public use. Heroin and opium also have specific medical benefits, and are used today. I wouldn\u2019t want marijuana intended for a specific medical effect to leave the hospital any more than I would want morphine to roam the streets. Second contention \u2013 Wartime use of marijuana: Objection 1: In a similar case as with my second objection to the first of Pro\u2019s points, the military has access to many things that the public simply does not. It is perfectly legitimate to acknowledge that marijuana has a place among military personnel without opening it up to the public. Objection 2: There are more effective pain killers available which have less severe side effects. If I were to choose a drug for pain relief for the people going to war for me, I would be choosing one which has less of an effect on a person\u2019s mental state, such as acetaminophen of ibuprofen. In severe cases, such as those in which the pain is incapacitating anyway, drowsiness should be accepted, and so stronger painkillers could be used. The issue comes with administering a hallucinogenic drug to a person in full control of an assault rifle. Not only would this be dangerous in and of itself, it would be amplified by the fact that it would be self-administered as opposed to something one needs to report to sick-bay for. Third contention \u2013 The catch-all category: \u201c\u2026less harmful than\u2026\u201d Tobacco: The only thing I can say to this is that it is patently false. Tobacco may be more addictive because of the nicotine. However, marijuana smoked vs tobacco smoked has about 50% more benzopyrene, which is the leading chemical under suspect for causing lung cancer in tobacco smokers. [1][2] Additionally, tobacco smoke has limited short term effects on cognition, being no more altering than caffeine. Marijuana is a hallucinogen, increases heart rate, is a depressant, and has impairing effects on coordination and decision making skills. Long term effects of tobacco are limited to a lengthy list of cancers and respiratory problems. Research on marijuana is limited, so an acknowledged gap in information exists relating it to cancers. However, other respiratory problems generally attributed to tobacco are, in fact, present in people who smoke marijuana alone. [3] Alcohol: Again, this is demonstrably false. Alcohol has detrimental effects all over the brain. It impairs the ability to solve simple problems through reason, resulting in impaired judgment; it impairs fine motor skills and muscle coordination; and it impairs hearing, vision, processing associated with those senses, and ability to speak. Marijuana has all of these effects [4] and more, including, again, hallucinogenic and heart-rate and blood pressure increasing effects. In a study from the New England Journal of Medicine, almost 40% of drivers stopped for reckless driving who were not under the influence of alcohol were under the effects of marijuana. [5] \u201cLimiting the use of marijuana restricts personal freedom\u201d: Prohibiting people from possessing child pornography also restricts personal freedom. There are cases in which restriction of freedom is a good and necessary thing. I don\u2019t think I need to elaborate much more on this point. \u201cLegalization would mean a lower price: thus, crimes linked to marijuana would be reduced\u201d and \u201cStreet justice related to drug disputes would be reduced\u201d: There is a strong correlation between marijuana use and other crimes. [6] Contrary to what many think, possession and distribution are not the only crimes associated with marijuana. Marijuana impairs cognitive reasoning abilities, and can make a person more likely to behave with disregard to other laws. \u201cIt would be a source of additional taxing revenues\u201d: About $83 billion per year is spent on cigarettes [7], and about half of this is taxes. About 20 metric tons of tobacco is sold annually. [8] An estimated 15 metric tons of marijuana is smoked annually. [9] This gives us a total of approximately $30 billion dollar revenue from our hypothetical marijuana tax. Given our nearly $750 billion military budget [10] this amount really does pale in comparison to the amount this nation spends. This minor benefit is not enough to nullify the downsides. \u201cPolice and court resources would be freed up for more serious crimes\u201d: In relation to the total number of arrests made, those made because of possession of marijuana is actually rather low, at barely more than 5% of the total. [11] Given that people all over the nation are still ticketed for going 5 over the speed limit, having a turn signal out, or having an expired license, I\u2019d say that police time and resources aren\u2019t all that precious. As with the above, this is not enough of a benefit to tolerate the other consequences. \u201cDrug busts often trap adolescences in a flawed system transforming them into lifelong criminals\u201d: Objection 1: I don\u2019t understand what you mean by this. Are you suggesting that children whose parents are charged are put into foster care? Are you suggesting the children are placed into detention centers? In either case, see objection 2. Objection 2: You provide absolutely no evidence for this claim whatsoever. Again, as you do have a burden of proof to carry, I do expect some evidence which I can dispute. Until then, this claim shall be disregarded as unsupported. Even without my objections to Pro\u2019s points, there is the valuable fact that we can have the effects of marijuana without the harmful effects of smoking them. Canadian scientists have developed a THC spray which, when absorbed though the red lining in one\u2019s mouth, imparts the same psychological effects of marijuana without the harm to the lungs. [12][13] Summary of my points: A \u2013 None of Pro\u2019s contentions are persuasive enough to allow the legalization of marijuana in the face of B \u2013 The harmful effects of legalizing marijuana. C \u2013 One can impart the effects of smoking marijuana without actually smoking it. Therefore, Marijuana ought not be legalized. [1] http://www.drugabuse.gov... [2] http://www.pbs.org... [3] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [4] http://www.pnas.org... [5] http://www.nejm.org... [6] http://tinyurl.com... [7] http://www.cdc.gov... [8] http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org... [9] http://www.drugscience.org... [10] http://www.gao.gov... [11] http://www.fbi.gov... [12] http://thcsprays.com... [13] http://www.news-medical.net...", "qid": "38", "docid": "d0a91598-2019-04-18T18:36:17Z-00004-000", "rank": 100, "score": 140593.0}]}
{"query": "Should the federal minimum wage be increased?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: The Minimum Wage should be increased. Content: I accept", "qid": "39", "docid": "342cf7b6-2019-04-18T16:32:02Z-00007-000", "rank": 1, "score": 216439.0}, {"content": "Title: The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour Content: - The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hourThe federal minimum wage has been $7.25 / hour since July 24, 2009. [1]\u201cIn the 2014 State of the Union address, President Obama called again on Congress to raise the national minimum wage, and soon after signed an Executive Order to raise the minimum wage for the individuals working on new federal service contracts.\u201d [2]There is much debate among policy makers about the merits of minimum wage and about the effects of different policies. The conservative narrative is that having a minimum wage increases unemployment among teens and other unskilled workers. The liberal position points to research done by David Card and Alan Krueger that concludes that there is no evidence that raising worker pay had killed jobs. [3]There is so much conformational bias among those writing on the subject that the experts look at the same data and come to opposite conclusions. Some researchers say that raising the minimum wage will cause increased unemployment. Card and Krueger found that an increase of 19% in the minimum wage ($4.25 to $5.05) did not reduce employment rates. [3]Some say that an increase in minimum wage will cause an unacceptable increase in prices. If the minimum wage were increased to $15 an hour, prices at fast food restaurants would rise by an estimated 4.3 percent, according to a new study. That would mean a McDonald\u2019s Big Mac, which currently goes for $3.99, would cost about 17 cents more, or $4.16. [4]Some claim that an increase in the minimum wage will reduce staff turnover. \u201cIn 2013, the turnover rate for franchises was 93 percent, and it can cost $4,700 per worker who leaves. A previous study found that for every 10 percent increase in the minimum wage, turnover drops by 2.2 percent, and a $15 wage would come with $5.2 billion in savings for the fast food industry.\u201d [4]All of this calls into question the published literature on the minimum wage. \u201cThe minimum-wage effects literature is contaminated by publication selection bias, which we estimate to be slightly larger than the average reported minimum-wage effect. Once this publication selection is corrected, little or no evidence of a negative association between minimum wages and employment remains.\u201d[5]The misinformation around the minimum wage is so constant that the U.S. Department of Labor has set up a web page trying to debunk the common myths. [6]In light of this we need to do a controlled experiment on a national scale to see both the value and the harm done by raising the minimum wage raised by a significant amount.The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour.This should be introduced incrementally so we can measure the effects of the change to the federal minimum wage. (I suggest $2.58 / hour increase on Jan 1 each year for 3 years).This would give us good data to draw some conclusions about what effects the minimum wage has on around issues of poverty and economics.Here are some questions that need more data. Does increasing the minimum wage reduce jobs? - Current data says job growth is better with an increase in minimum wage. Does increasing the minimum wage help the poor? - Current research suggest it will mostly help middle class white women.Does increasing the minimum wage reduce poverty? - Current research suggests that most in poverty are not working at minimum wage jobs. The prime factors causing poverty are: Current Poor Economy; Drug Use; Lack of Education and Medical Expenses.[7]Do we even have a good definition of poverty? [8] Current definitions of poverty (for government policy considerations) have nothing to do with insufficient food or insufficient housing.The minimum wage debate is crippled by a lack of good information. Statements of position are presented like articles of faith which demand belief without question. We should raise the minimum wage substantially so we can see what effect, if any, all our minimum wage policies have. Then we can see if the minimum wage is a useful economic too or not.- The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour1. www.dol.gov/dol/topic/wages/minimumwage.htm2. www.whitehouse.gov/raise-the-wage3. www.davidcard.berkeley.edu/papers/njmin-aer.pdf4. www.thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/08/03/3687171/15-minimum-wage-big-mac/5. www.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8543.2009.00723.x/abstract6. www.dol.gov/minwage/mythbuster.htm7. core197b.wikispaces.com/Major+Causes+of+Poverty+in+America8. www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/09/understanding-poverty-in-the-united-states-surprising-facts-about-americas-poor", "qid": "39", "docid": "4d04459a-2019-04-18T14:01:20Z-00004-000", "rank": 2, "score": 199348.0}, {"content": "Title: The minimum wage should be increased Content: Forward, again.", "qid": "39", "docid": "d55c8fd6-2019-04-18T16:31:33Z-00001-000", "rank": 3, "score": 198377.0}, {"content": "Title: The federal minimum wage should be increased Content: But again, the cost of living is increasing. The only way to fix that problem, caused by inflation, is to stimulate the economy through an increase in the minimum wage. Increasing the wage would assist many people, mostly those who are in poverty. As discussed by CNN (1). Quoting from the article: \"Last week Oxfam released a new study that dispels many of the political myths surrounding the nation's minimum wage debate. It shows not only that increasing the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10 per hour would give some 25 million workers across America a much-needed raise, but also that, on average, one in five workers in every single congressional district in America -- red or blue -- would benefit from such a raise. In fact, according to our data, a hike in the minimum wage would benefit more than 55,000 workers in the average congressional district.\" This increase has been proven to assist workers across America, helping those in every state. Quoting from the Study done by Oxfam: \"The districts with the highest percentages of workers who would benefit from a higher minimum wage are a diverse mix \" at least 29 percent of workers in districts like South Florida, rural South Texas, and Bakersfield, California.\" (2) This increase would benefit workers across the nation, but assisting those mainly in the states with the highest number of workers. This is what America needs, a chance to fix this poverty problem by attacking the source; low income. The price to live has risen over these seven years, and it is time that we fix that mistake. Sources: (1)http://www.cnn.com... (2) http://www.oxfamamerica.org...", "qid": "39", "docid": "6ac98ba6-2019-04-18T15:12:23Z-00000-000", "rank": 4, "score": 195564.0}, {"content": "Title: The federal minimum wage should be increased Content: Excited to debate with someone, good luck :)", "qid": "39", "docid": "6ac98ba6-2019-04-18T15:12:23Z-00007-000", "rank": 5, "score": 193894.0}, {"content": "Title: March Beginners' Tournament: The USFG should significantly raise the federal minimum wage Content: Argument 1: Raising the minimum wage would increase unemployment One of the greatest shortcomings of raising the minimum wages is that wage increases are often correlated with the decrease of such low-paying jobs hurting those who are supposed to be help with this wage increase. The extra money for these workers has to come from somewhere and such comes primarily from the businesses that employ them. In a 2014 study by the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office calculated that a half-million jobs would be lost if the minimum wage was increased to at least $10 an hour as this debate describes. [1] If you also look at the history of minimum wage, wage hikes do reduce employment. With the very first introduction of the minimum wage at $0.25, according to the US Department of Labor, the minimum wage led to 30,000 to 50,000 jobs lost which accounted for around 10-13% of workers who had jobs before the minimum wage. With the implementation in Puerto Rico, 120,000 jobs were lost within the year after the law was put into place. A review of the Minimum Wage Study Commission\u2019s report in 1981 shows that a recent 10% increase in the federal minimum wage resulted in the reduction of teen employment by 1-3%. [2] With the added labor costs, businesses would have to raise their prices, cut employee hours and benefits, cut workers, or in the 21st century replace them with computers, machines and robots. Take for example BAXTER, a robot that costs less than the average worker\u2019s salary at $25,000 capable of doing many unskilled jobs using pennies worth of electricity to operate [7]. Sure, it may not be as versatile as your average minimum wage worker, but if you look at computers, they developed from a programmer\u2019s play thing in the 60\u2019s to literally integrated into everything in society within a matter of decades. The Bank of England predicted that within the next 10 to 20 years, robots will take over 80 million jobs in the United States leaving those who are only capable of simple tasks out of the job market. By raising the federal minimum wage, you are only pushing employers to utilize more robots and computers in response to their raised labor costs. [3] Argument 2: Raising the minimum wage is ineffective at decreasing poverty. According to the Census Bureau, 34% of those living in poverty do not work. And if they don\u2019t work, such individuals would not benefit from a minimum wage increase. And pertaining to my previous argument, if the minimum wage was increased, there will be less jobs inflating the percentage of people who will not benefit from a wage hike. [5] Another issue with raising the federal minimum wage is the fact that cost of living varies by state. The states where the cost of living is lower would be negatively affected by unnecessarily raising costs of businesses in areas where poverty is minimal. This map below illustrates areas where costs of living are high and low. [4] In addition, most minimum wage earners don\u2019t even live in poverty. The average family income of a minimum wage earner is around $53,000. [6] Conclusion: I have proven that not only would increasing the federal minimum wage to $10 or above would be ineffective in reducing poverty, it would hurt businesses and ultimately the minimum wage workers through unemployment. Sources: [1] https://www.epionline.org... [2] http://object.cato.org... [3] http://money.cnn.com... [4] http://www.cnbc.com... [5] http://poverty.ucdavis.edu... [6] http://www.washingtonpolicy.org... [7] http://www.rethinkrobotics.com...", "qid": "39", "docid": "8c9c7325-2019-04-18T13:31:47Z-00005-000", "rank": 6, "score": 193687.0}, {"content": "Title: The Federal Minimum wage should NOT be raised Content: The argument that raising the federal minimum wage would cost business owners more money, and thus force them to either lay off workers or not bring on additional workers, seems to assume that the only factor effecting unemployment is the finances of those employing the workforce. Instead, raising the federal minimum wage may work to incentivize people who have previously relied on welfare to seek employment. As the federal minimum wage stands, there are people who feel it is not worth their time to work for the minimum wage, and instead would be able to sustain a lifestyle they are comfortable with by continuing to stay on welfare for as long as they can. The argument that raising the minimum wage would increase \"overall costs\" seems to be reasonable in the short-term; in that, business owners would likely try to compensate for the increased wages of their employees. However, there are many other factors that have a direct impact upon the \"overall costs,\" and such a discussion seems to be beyond the scope of this debate. As far as your statement that raising the minimum wage would have a \"negative ripple through the economy,\" I will note that the very purpose of the enactment of a federal minimum wage is to increase consumer-spending power in order to stimulate the economy. That said, due to the inflation of our dollar over time, it would be reasonable for the federal government to raise the minimum wage in accordance with economic inflation, to preserve the intent of having a federal minimum wage in the first place. Without doing so, due to the already increase in \"overall costs\" of the standard of living in our country, minimum wage workers will continue to fall behind and the very purpose for a federal minimum wage would eventually become compromised. Lastly, I agree with you that if states want to raise their minimum wage that is their decision. However, if the federal government feels the need to step in and set a floor for what it believes the minimum wage should be, it has every right to do so. (Darby)", "qid": "39", "docid": "b6f6e654-2019-04-18T17:09:58Z-00002-000", "rank": 7, "score": 193055.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: The US Federal Government should raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour Content: According to Heather Boushey, Executive Director and Chief Economist at the Washington Center for Equitable Growth, raising the minimum wage is an important anti-poverty measure. A person earning the current minimum wage and working a 40-hour week makes $15,080 per year, which is barely above the poverty line for a single adult and is well below it for someone supporting children. The most recent proposal to increase the federal minimum wage would have raised it to $10.10 per hour, though it didn\"t pass. More than half of the states (including the District of Columbia) already have higher minimum wages than the federal minimum wage. The District of Columbia is currently the highest at $10.50/hour. There has been discussion lately about increasing the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour, which would bring a family relying on a single wage-earner above the poverty line. Minimum wage laws in the states as of January 1, 2016 so therefore, it should not be increased", "qid": "39", "docid": "5194bbe-2019-04-18T17:30:08Z-00003-000", "rank": 8, "score": 192724.0}, {"content": "Title: The Minimum Wage Should be Raised to $15 an Hour Content: Just want to remind everyone that this addresses the current minimum wage proposal for $15 an hour. The current U.S. minimum wage is $7.25 an hour.I. The Minimum Wage Increase Leads to Job LossesA study by the American Action Forum analyzed minimum wage increases under different proposals. Many people argue that the minimum wage would help those in poverty, but the truth is that it doesn't: \"For the $15 federal minimum wage, when assuming moderate negative employment consequences, we find that the policy would cost 6.6 million jobs. On net, it would raise the earnings of low-wage workers by $105.4 billion, at most. Again, however, only a small minority of that additional income would benefit families in poverty. In particular, only 6.7 percent of the increase in earnings would go to workers in poverty. Overall, the income gains from raising the minimum wage would come at a significant cost to the large number of workers who would become jobless. In effect, raising the minimum wage transfers incomes from the low-wage workers who are unfortunate to become jobless to the low-wage workers who remain employed. It accomplishes this without effectively helping those who are most in need.\" [1]History is on the side of conservatives in this debate. George W. Bush was the last president to raise the minimum wage and it had bad results as described by David Brooks in The New York Times:\"Recently, Michael Wither and Jeffrey Clemens of the University of California, San Diego looked at data from the 2007 federal minimum wage-hike and found that it reduced the national employment-population-ratio by 0.7 percent percentage points (which is actually a lot), and led to a six percentage point decrease in the likelihood that a low-wage worker would have a job.\" [2]Other research by Robert Cherry and Chun Wang finds similar results. A $15 minimum wage increase sabotages advancing careers for young men, particularly minorities:\"While these adverse employment effects may be quite modest, they can only add to the already low employment young workers are experiencing, especially less-educated black men. The lack of early sustained employment has adverse long-term effects on this vulnerable group. For young black men with low educational attainment, without a sustained work experience, it is likely they will face serious employment difficulties as they age. Among 25-to-29-year-olds, when those incarcerated are included, Neal and Rick estimated that the employment rate for black and white men, respectively, is 57 and 78 percent. It is, however, less than 30 percent for the almost one quarter of black men in this age group who have no more than a GED.\" [3] An older study from the Southern Economic Journal backs up the argument that minimum wage increases hurts jobs among young adults and blacks:\"We use monthly data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation and the Current Population Survey to estimate the effect of the minimum wage. Minimum wage increases significantly reduce the employment of the most vulnerable groups in the working-age population\u2014young adults without a high school degree (aged 20\u201324), young black adults and teenagers (aged 16\u201324), and teenagers (aged 16\u201319). While we also find that minimum wage increases significantly reduce the overall employment of young adults and teenagers, these more vulnerable subpopulations are even more adversely affected.\" [4]II. The Minimum Wage Increase Slams BusinessesIf the minimum wage really did stimulate the economy, it wouldn't be hurting both big and small businesses, but it does just that. The new $15 minimum wage threatens economic expansion and growth.A study from the Economic Policies Institute by Joseph J. Sabia shows how a minimum wage increase affects GDP:\"Turning to GDP effects, the results suggest that minimum wage increases are associated with small, often statistically insignificant declines in overall and private sector GDP; however, there is some evidence of larger adverse GDP effects in a number of industries that employ relatively larger shares of lower-wage workers, including wholesale trade, manufacturing of durables, warehousing and storage, rental and leasing services, and administrative and waste services. Falsification tests suggest that minimum wage increases are unrelated to contemporaneous output in industries that employ more highly skilled workers. Difference-in-difference-in-difference models that control for unmeasured state-specific time trends common across industries suggest that a 10 percent increase in the minimum wage is associated with a 2 to 4 percent decrease in state GDP generated by lower-skilled industries.\" [5]The simple reason for this is because a minimum wage hike raises labor costs: Businesses will not stand and take a hit in profits. They will need to adjust in order to survive, especially those with narrow profit margins:\"Employers have more flexibility in the long run and will find ways to economize on the higher-priced labor. New technology will be introduced along with labor-saving capital investment, and skilled workers will tend to replace unskilled workers. Those substitutions will occur even before an increase in the minimum wage, if employers believe such an increase is imminent. There will be fewer jobs for low-skilled workers and higher unemployment rates\u2014especially for minorities\u2014and participation rates will fall as workers affected by the minimum wage drop out of the formal labor market.\" [6]Robots making food and powering restaurants are an easy replacement for businesses that will lose profit from higher labor costs: \"It\u2019s possible that new inventions could start to eliminate positions faster than they have in the past. The labor-saving technology that has so far been rolled out most extensively \u2014 kiosk and \u00adtablet-based ordering \u2014 could be used to replace cashiers and the part of the wait staff\u2019s job that involves taking orders and bringing checks. Olive Garden said earlier this year that it would roll out the Ziosk system at all its restaurants, which means that all a server has to do is bring out the food.\" [7] III. Looking at other Minimum Wage IncreasesOther countries and states are moving to raise their minimum wage policies. Thanks to comparative politics, we can see the differences between different policies. Let's take the states first. Economists Arthur B. Laffer, Stephen Moore, Rex A Sinquefield, and Travis H. Brown published a book on the wealth of states in 2014. They compared 31 states that kept the federal minimum wage and the 19 states that have a higher state minimum wage using equal-weighted averages as of 1/1/2013. From 2002 to 2012, the 31 states with the federal minimum wage had population growth of 9.6 percent, net domestic in-migration growth of 1 percent, nonfarm payroll employment growth of 5.3 percent, personal income growth of 54 percent, and gross state product growth of 55.3 percent. During that same period, the 19 states with a minimum wage higher than the federal law had 8.9 percent population growth, 0.6 percent net domestic in-migration growth, 2.3 percent nonfarm payroll employment growth, 46.2 percent personal income growth, and gross state product growth of 45.9 percent. [8]Seattle is raising their minimum wage to $15 an hour, but it doesn't seem to be working as they hoped: Mark J. Perry of the American Enterprise Institute describes the problem:\"Starting in the spring of last year, there has been a noticeable downward trend in the year-over-year growth rate of Seattle area restaurant jobs (quarterly averages), which fell below 3.6% in each of the last three months (May, June and July) for the first time since July of 2012, three years ago.\" [8]The United Kingdom has a minimum wage that's close to what American liberals are proposing, but it isn't working there either. Companies are not taking a hit in profits, but they are raising prices on consumers are creating automated jobs. [9]Unemployment rises there too: \"The number of young people from ethnic minority backgrounds who have been unemployed for more than a year has risen by almost 50% since the coalition came to power, according to figures released by the Labour party. There are now 41,000 16- to 24-year-olds from black, asian and minority ethnic [BAME] communities who are long-term unemployed \u2013 a 49% rise from 2010, according to an analysis of official figures by the House of Commons Library. At the same time, there was a fall of 1% in overall long-term youth unemployment and a 2% fall among young white people.\" [11] This concludes my case for rejecting a $15 minimum wage increase. I await my opponent's case.Sources1. http://americanactionforum.org...2. http://www.nytimes.com...3. http://www.realclearpolicy.com...4. http://econpapers.repec.org...5. https://www.epionline.org...6. http://www.forbes.com...7. http://www.washingtonpost.com...8. Laffer, Arthur B., Stephen Moore, Rex A. Sinquefield, and Travis H. Brown. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of States How Taxes, Energy, and Worker Freedom Will Change the Balance of Power Among States. Hoboken: Wiley, 2014. Print.9. https://www.aei.org...;10. http://www.forbes.com...11. http://www.theguardian.com...", "qid": "39", "docid": "d93e6b4a-2019-04-18T14:23:03Z-00002-000", "rank": 9, "score": 192560.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: The Minimum Wage Should be Increased Content: Extend", "qid": "39", "docid": "1f0e65df-2019-04-18T15:25:46Z-00000-000", "rank": 10, "score": 192511.0}, {"content": "Title: The Federal Minimum wage should NOT be raised Content: The current Federal Minimum wage if raised would increase unemployment, increase overall costs, and cause a negative ripple through the economy. Many states have their own minimum wage laws which are higher now. I say leave the federal minimum where it is. If individual states want to raise their rate, that is their decision. But the federal minimum must not be raised.", "qid": "39", "docid": "b6f6e654-2019-04-18T17:09:58Z-00003-000", "rank": 11, "score": 191816.0}, {"content": "Title: The minimum wage should be raised to $12.50 gradually, by the year 2020 Content: It seems my opponent also dropped all of my round 3 arguments, so each of them still stand. My opponent has brought up only new arguments in this round, which is usually seen as poor conduct, but I'm okay with it because I still get to respond to it since I'm second to post arguments. Now, I will address points by my opponent:Although record high worker productivity has allowed businesses to earn more revenue, we have not seen similar growth in the wages of workersActually, we have been having wage growth. A look at the past 50 years or so shows that the only times we didn't have much growth were during recessions. Otherwise, we've been averaging around a 4-5% increase in wages every month. [6] There was a study done by Eric French and Daniel Aaronson, economists at the federal reserve bank in Chicago, that showed the effects of raising the minimum wage on aggregate household spending. They estimated that a $1.75 increase in the minimum wage would increase consumer spending by $26 billion dollars.There's more than just one way to increase consumer spending. Lowering the prices of products would also allow people to purchase more. Raising the minimum wage, as I showed, would result in prices of products rising. So, while people would be spending more, they still would likely only be able to afford the same amount of products they did previously. It doesn't really change anything. Because of the fact that employers would have to pay their employees more, it means their profit margins go down, and that results in them raising their prices. It doesn't have any net effect on the purchasing power of consumers. Spending more doesn't necessarily stimulate the economy, what really does is to increase the purchasing power of people so that they can buy more things. Simply making them spend more doesn't necessarily do anything, because how they are spending more is due to prices rising. What really does something to the economy is increase purchasing power. To increase purchasing power, getting rid of those taxes I mentioned would do so. There is another number of ways of increasing purchasing power, such as having wages go up when prices remain the same or go down, and when prices of products go down while wages stay the same or go up. Having wages go up but prices go up at the same time and rate does nothing for the economy because it doesn't increase purchasing power. A minimum wage increase would result in prices going up, as the study I provided earlier, which you didn't refute, showed.Finally, I would like to cite one last piece of empirical evidence. Economists Alan B. Kreuger and David Card conducted a study that analyzed the Full time employment effects on the fast food industry in 1992, when Pennsylvania had it's minimum wage at $4.25, and New Jersey's minimum wage was at $5.05. New Jersey experienced an employment increase in the industry, Pennsylvania experienced an employment decline. If this were to happen on a federal level as well, the employment increase would definitely lead to economic stimulus.This only proves correlation. For one, New Jersey and Pennsylvania are two completely different states which have different state government policies. A number of things could have affected the employment level of the two states. To claim the minimum wage increase is the reason for it is a logical fallacy. Unless you rule out all other potential reasons for the employment difference, this study doesn't prove anything except for correlation. In fact, logic would tell us that minimum wage increases would result in a lowering of employment, because employers wouldn't be able to afford to have as many employees. To claim that the employment rose due to the minimum wage difference is an extraordinary claim that needs extraordinary evidence. Showing correlation doesn't prove it. As the congressional budget office points out, a raise in minimum wage would likely elliminate jobs[7] So, because logic tells us that a minimum wage increase would result in the loss of jobs, there was likely some other reason why New Jersey saw an increase in employment and pennsylvania saw a decrease in employment. This study also suggests that raises in minimum wage decreases job growth[8]. They originally were going into the study with the belief that minimum wage had no effect on employment levels, but discovered that it negatively affects job growth. In conclusion, I believe since there were several important points that I brought up which my opponent dropped, and that I believe I have successfully refuted my opponent's arguments, you should vote con for arguments.Sources:[6] http://www.tradingeconomics.com... [7] https://www.cbo.gov... [8] http://people.tamu.edu...", "qid": "39", "docid": "b3c6f9b8-2019-04-18T12:20:53Z-00000-000", "rank": 12, "score": 191768.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should raise the Federal Minimum wage standard to Content: This round I will respond to all of my opponent's arguments as there are a few things that I feel need to be addressed. R1: PovertyThis debate argument was put together in interlocking argument in a premise structure to where all I simply have to do is defeat one argument and then the entire contention falls. P1: The 'Increased' MW reduces poverty. My opponent's first piece of evidence is irrelivant as it speaks of the $8 dollar minimum wage. The reason that this evidence is irelivant is due to the fact that the debate revolves around a $15 minimum wage (MW from this point forward) which is $7 above the evidence my opponent has. My opponent brings up that 4.6 million would be lifted out of the poverty line in the US if the minimum wage is raised. That's nice, but there are a few factors that he is ignoring. At a $15 MW only 19% would go to and benefit those at or bellow the poverty line where as the rest goes to 3 times that of the poverty line according to a report by the CBO. [1] To show further affects it has been shown that raising the MW would create a 0% increase in income for those in the Lower Class. [2] While the Top Tier gains 20%, this shows that it is not having any of the effects my opponent is purposing. To add to that the National Bureau of Economic Research has found that at best a $15 MW would create 3.2 million jobs, but would have a net LOSS of 6.6 million jobs. I'm not sure about you, but that's worsening the situation instead of improving it. [3][2] Here we can see that this worsens the poverty issue in America. This point is negated. P2: The Increased MW helps the poor. Here my opponent's own source (source 5) states that it would have no impact [gain wise] on the middle class. It would only affect the 30th Percentile. My opponent also brings up MW Elasticity, so let me explain what that means here. From the graph above we can see that despite there's an increase in demand for Labor we have an increase in unskilled labor. [5] The reason for the increase in demand for Labor is what I like to call the 'WalMart Effect. ' What this means is that jobs look for an increase in part time jobs and cut down on full time workers so that they could get away with not paying for their benefits. This is something Walmart did in California when they raised their MW nationwide. Walmart eventually had to cave in to strikes, but that goes to show you what businesses will do. [4] This shows that we aren't helping the poor, but harming them and everyone else significantly. P3: Current MW Violates Human RightsWith P3, my opponent states that if poverty is against Human Rights then increasing it is also violating Human Rights which I have shown above. Thus this argument and entire Contention goes in my favor. R2: Productivity My opponent makes an interesting argument, but we can see that this graph above causes Pro's argument to come crashing down. Simple Macroeconomics shows that if you increase the Money Supply that not only would price level's increase, but the deman for money would decrease due to simple inflation. This simply shows that if you raise the MW nation wide you will see we would be back at the first point. My opponent's \"less likely to leave\" argument is flawed as all wages would rise we would still see things at the status quo. R3: Religion My opponent's entire argument is flawed as it refurs to a Living Wage, not a MW. These are two completely different topic areas and I have shown in R2 that increasing the MW will increase the Living Wage which would be against what Christians want working against my opponent flowing this argument to my side. When it addresses a MW increase I did back research and found that there was several extremely Blue States polled making it completely biased. That would be like if I found a poll that only included the nation's reddest states. Not to mention that his source shortfalled the resolution by nearly $5. Source 12 should be thrown out of the debate. With that out of the way let's move on to my own arguments. C1: MW leads to job loss. My opponent attempts to link my argument to Globalization, but this is completely incorrect as I had brought up nothing in regards to Globalization as my argument involved internal competition and had nothing to do with competiting with foreign imports or having to move business overseas. With that you should discard my opponent's argument here and I extend across my own. Let's just say I buy the fact that my source is debunk. I still have several other scholary sources on the matter. The simple fact is that my argument still stands even if my opponent launches a simple Ad Hom attack against it, but has yet to actually refute the actual against. I, thus, extend across my arguments. C2: InflationI find it funny that my opponent sites John Schmitt's article. The reason I state this is that in my source 3 he had co-authored the study with Jared Bernstein to show the MW increase to $15 would harm more than hurt America. So here we have a conflict of sources. Next my opponent's source only refers to a $9.80 MW, nowhere close to $15. Which thus negates his own argument. So despite how thorough it is, it still fails in comparison to my own evidence provided. It's more important that when we look at the source that his 10% was exceded in the last MW raise and under this one purposed in the resolution it is doubled. This is outside of what my opponent's source speaks on. Please refer to R2 for more inflation related arguments. My opponent confuses that there's an interlinking between Contentions. One can see that there's a clear linkage of evidence and relitivity across the board, but that does not mean if you defeat one contention that you refute the entire set. That's like saying if I refute my opponent's first Contention then his Second Contention fails. My opponent completely ignores the inflationary argument. Though he is not advocating this he is supporting the doubling of wages and hence by simple Macroeconomics, the Quanity Theory of Money states that increases thus princes would also increase as well as the cost of Living. By my opponent's own standard's in R1 he would advocate for continuious MW raising. [6]C3: Inflation and Global TradeMy opponent, once again, is mistaken here. He is ignoring simple Macroeconomics when you apply simple Quantity Theory of Money you can see that with the increase of the Money supply then the costs of goods and other things would go up. This harms US exports as they become more expensive to other nations who, with lower MWs, wouldn't be able to afford as much of American goods vs. that of goods produced in their own nation or that of Asian nations. My own opponent's argument ignores inflation's affect's to the US dollar and ignores the fact that in 1912 the Federal Reserve was created and given the authority over US Monetary policy which can explain my opponent's \"Something happened\" source. ConclusionTo conclude we can see that despite the increasing of the MW may look tempting it is filled with many vices that causes harm to everyone across the board by harming our worst off citizens and harming future generations by creating more unskilled labor and high school droppouts. We will continue to see inflation skyrocket as we will see the cost of living move with it to be that unreachable goal that many attempt to aim for, but will never achieve. Sources are in the comments section.", "qid": "39", "docid": "74df972a-2019-04-18T14:06:51Z-00002-000", "rank": 13, "score": 191520.0}, {"content": "Title: The Minimum Wage should be increased. Content: I still maintain that it should not be increased", "qid": "39", "docid": "342cf7b6-2019-04-18T16:32:02Z-00000-000", "rank": 14, "score": 191337.0}, {"content": "Title: The federal minimum wage should be increased Content: So because these people are not the ideal societal members, we should forget about them and leave them to their fates? We should leave the group who is forced into these jobs to suffer and make below the amount required to live? You also forget that the price to live has increased, and it will only continue to increase. And with the current minimum wage, these people will continue to seep deeper and deeper into poverty. (1) Quoting from the article: \"When the cost of living goes up, so should wages. It's common sense. While serving in the US Congress, we supported reasonable periodic increases in the federal minimum wage to enable workers to better support their families and keep up with the economy. And we rallied our Republican and Democratic colleagues to make it the law. But the last time Congress voted to raise the wage to its current rate of $7.25 an hour was seven years ago. Since then, the cost of life's essentials have shot up. Groceries cost 20% more, a gallon of gas costs 25%more, and average tuition at a community college increased 44%. But the minimum wage remains at $7.25. If it had kept up with inflation since 1968, it would be almost $10.70 today.\" These people deserve to have their wages increased as the price of living increases, for the time that was a proper minimum wage. Now? Prices have increased and to live costs more. Should they be forsaken to this fate as the prices continue to rise every year? Raise the minimum wage and leave it that way for ten years then go back and review the situation. Change the minimum wage to be parallel to the price of living. As it increases, raise the wage, as it decreases, lower the wage. Sources: (1) http://www.usatoday.com...", "qid": "39", "docid": "6ac98ba6-2019-04-18T15:12:23Z-00002-000", "rank": 15, "score": 190999.0}, {"content": "Title: The minimum wage should be raised. Content: I Accept.", "qid": "39", "docid": "f3364f42-2019-04-18T13:05:23Z-00000-000", "rank": 16, "score": 190235.0}, {"content": "Title: The minimum wage should be raised to $12.50 gradually, by the year 2020 Content: Yes, I am referring to the federal minimum wage in the United States and I apologize that I was unclear. I would like to open by thanking my opponent for accepting this debate and I am looking forward to have an intelligent discussion with you. I will start by reasoning on moral grounds. \"It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, clothe, and lodge the whole body of the people should have such a share of the produce of their own labor as to be themselves tolerably well fed, clothed, and lodged.\" This quote is from Adam Smith's book 'The Wealth of Nations.\" Smith was a political economics pioneer and laid the foundations of what is known today as the classical free market system. I believe that a person who works a full time job should not live in poverty. At $7.25, a single mother trying to raise her child will face many unnecessary difficulties because the current minimum wage is a starving one. As the American dollar is inflated and prices increase the minimum wage remains stagnant, and has been stagnant since the last increase in 2009. (dol.gov) Also, American workers are more productive than ever before in American History(The New York Times). It only seems just, that they should share the benefits of this great feat. Furthermore, a low minimum wage leads to gross underemployment, which is when workers don't earn enough money to cover all of their necessary expenses, which leads to employee turnover. Having recently worked in a restaurant that played minimum wage, a restaurant in which there was about a two month period when there were only eight employees, I can attest to this fact. Since the minimum wage is regarded as a social justice, what is the point of having a minimum wage that is socially unjust? A $12.50 Federal minimum wage would fix this problem.", "qid": "39", "docid": "b3c6f9b8-2019-04-18T12:20:53Z-00005-000", "rank": 17, "score": 189861.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should raise the Federal Minimum wage standard to Content: This round I will focus on the economic and sociological affects that this will have on our nation. Contention 1: Wage Increase=/= More Jobs Wages will not increase jobs For instance the wage will increase and the employers will have to either raise prices in order to shelter the burden of the increased wages (which we'll get to this in another Contention) and the second is that we have roughly 500,000 jobs lost due to the cutting of jobs in order for business can still compete with others at low prices. You see that CBO actually supports my point [1]This will also hurt teenagers in the Workforce making employers having to cut down on their hours and/or favoring adults and a older population. Let's take Wisconsin for example when the minimum wage was last raised the unemployment soared from 15.8%-19.8%. [2]Imagine that on a US wide or even a world wide scale. This is an important factor that we have to look at here since a great amount of people who mainly rely on the minimum wage are teenagers and unskilled labor and if the very people that it was intended to help are being significantly harmed then this plan should not be enacted. It has been estimated originally before the last rise in the minimum wage that it would end up costing well over 300,000 jobs for teens and this ended up holding true as the last raising of unemployment saw teenage unemployment jump from 4.4% to 10.2%. [12] This causes a huge problem in this debate as we can see in a study done as the minimum wage rises we see a higher drop out level in schools. This increases the problems in the labor force as we will see more unskilled workers as well as more people that do not have a good education. This lack of education will cause a dramatic harm of these workers as it will show that they will have dramatically lower wages and this will cycle through causing a higher demand for another wage raise which restarts this dramatic cycle. [13] We have no choice, but to stop this cycle and that way we will see a betterment of our workforce and it will begin to lift us out of poverty. Studies have also been done and have shown that this will result in an decrease the unskilled labor force will receive when training for jobs and this will hurt them even more since they will be unable to pick up enough skills to help their careers later in the future. \"Economists have studied the job-destroying features of a higher minimum wage. Estimates of the job losses of raising the minimum wage from $4.25 to $5.15 have ranged from 625,000 to 100,000 lost jobs. It is important to recognize that the jobs lost are mainly entry-level jobs. By destroying entry-level jobs, a higher minimum wage harms the lifetime earnings prospects of low-skilled workers. \" [14]1 million jobs lost subtracted from the 900,000 that will be lifted from the poverty line and that equals 100,000 people unemployed and living in poverty. Not to mention the other side effects from raising the minimum wage such as loss of jobs for teenagers. The last time Congress raised the minimum wage in July of 2009, 600,000 teen jobs disappeared within 6 months. [3]With the last minimum wage teen unemployment percentages went from 14.8% to 27.1% [4]. The Inflation will also rise, but let's look at the minimum wage increase. It's going to go from $7.25 per hour to $10.10 per hour which is over a 25% increase. (in the US) This will cause prices to rise by 25% again. [5] Contention 2: Inflation Why don't we raise the minimum wage to $20 per hour or why not make everyone a millionaire and have them make $million per hour? The answer to this question is a very simple one and it's simply causes prices to increase and inflation to rise. [6] You see this is a lesson in supply and demand is that when the minimum wage is increased it will cost more for companies to hire and train employees causing more people not to be hired, this results in less jobs, the costs of businesses also rise to keep up with the increased wages and that this ends up causing inflation. [7] \"The federal increase from $4.25 to $5.15 costs California families an average of $133 more per year for the goods they normally purchase. Since higher-income families spend more, they would pay more in absolute terms than lower-income families: up to $234 per year compared to $84 per year. \" [15] Here we can see that when the minimum wage is raised that we will see the costs will not only eliminate jobs as I have shown in my previous contention, but the burden will be placed on consumers and this harms the average household as they now have to pay more. Not more as in numerical value, but the adjusted income which takes into affect what then occurs after the raising of the minimum wage. You see this will be a continuous cycle. If you continue to rise the minimum wage then inflation will fallow causing the minimum wage to rise again and again until we end up with a problem like Zimbabwe. When the minimum wage was risen once more the US saw products prices increase via inflation by a factor of 10. [8][9] Contention 3: Inflation's affect on Global Trade Here when we observe the above chart we can see as the minimum wage increase the value of the dollar decreases. This only creates a terrible cycle that the average citizen is unable to get out of. The reason that this is important is because we would be raising the minimum wage to meet living requirements, but the thing that makes it contradictory is that prices will skyrocket causing for another call to raise the minimum wage to meet this resolution. It will be a vicious cycle that will the dollar to be worthless and have a devastating effect on the Global Economy. The higher the inflation rate also affects international trade as the higher the inflation is the higher the interest rates. [10]According to Paul Krugman, the devaluation of the dollar (caused by the resolution here) will lead to a decrease in people people buying product which hurts the economy of the nation. [11] People would have to spend more money, becuase of the inflation and with the devaluing of the dollar we can see that if I spent a dollar on the US maket in the 1960s it would be a whole lot more then if I spent a dollar on the US market today. Economist Gagnon has shown that devaluing of the US dollar caused by the inflation can lead to a massive increase in import prices and since we get many of our things from abroad it will be even harder to get that new XBox video game you were wanting. He also shown that it harms nation's holding our debt, because the value is worthless and makes other nation's not want to purchase from us. The US in turn raises the interest rates, but we cannot afford to raise them any higher. [16]Why's this you may ask? If we observe the graph bellow the US interest rate on debt alone dwarfs most of the US federal budget. The US federal debt is getting so enourmously large that the US is getting to a breaking point in economic trade to were we have to pay off a massive amount of debt or commit financial suicide and raise the interest rates. If we observe the chart bellow we can see the different rates that a our interest rates will cost the US in the future. We have no choice, but cannot decend this slippery slope and further devaluing of the US dollar will harm the American economy by forcing us to lose jobs and rely more on imports causing the the nation to slide into the interest disadvantage furthering harming our nation's economy causing a world wide economic collapse greater than that of the Great Depression and rising the minimum wage will cause us to go flying off the fiscal cliff. [17] Sources in the Comments Section.", "qid": "39", "docid": "74df972a-2019-04-18T14:06:51Z-00004-000", "rank": 18, "score": 189774.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should raise the Federal Minimum wage standard to Content: C1: Poverty Premise 1: The \u2018increased\u2019 minimum wage reduces poverty \u201cAbout 20.6 million people (or 30% of all hourly, non-self-employed workers 18 and older) are \u201cnear-minimum-wage\u201d workers. \u201d [6] This is appalling. The minimum wage at the moment is extremely important in order for us to decrease poverty. Increasing the minimum wage can only continue to have the same effect. The following quotation proves that even a small minimum wage increase reduces poverty significantly. \u201cSpecifically, raising the minimum wage 10 percent (say from $7.25 to near $8) would reduce the number of people living in poverty 2.4 percent. \u201d [5] If an increase this low can have such a huge effect then what will a larger increase do? Evidently, it will create a decrease in the amount of poverty even more than the small increase did. \u201cUsing this as an estimate, raising the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour, as many Democrats are proposing in 2014, would reduce the number of people living in poverty by 4.6 million. It would also boost the incomes of those at the 10th percentile by $1,700. \u201d [5] This furthermore proves that an even larger increase would prove to be successful. Premise 2: The \u2018increased\u2019 minimum wage helps the poor \u201chigher minimum wage is a substantial response to the challenges of inequality. Opponents of a higher minimum wage focus on the idea that it largely won\u2019t benefit the worst off. \u201d [5] The quotation is supported by the following graph: \u201cA higher minimum wage will lead to a significant boost in incomes for the worst off in the bottom 30th percent of income\u201d [5] This is extremely significant because by reducing poverty we can ensure that the US can fulfill human rights to its greatest extent possible. Human rights makes direct references to having minimum wages [7]. It also makes references to reducing poverty to the furthest extent possible [8]. By not increasing minimum wages you are stopping people from receiving their human rights. This leads me on nicely to my final premise of this contention in regards to human rights. Premise 3: The current minimum wage violates human rights As introduced previously, the current minimum wage does not properly enforce laws upon poverty. The minimum wage states that we must stop poverty as much as possible without going to unreasonable measures [8]. By increasing the minimum wage this much we will see a huge economic benefit as well as a huge reduction in help for the poor and those living in poverty. The economic benefit proves that increasing the minimum wage to this extent is not unreasonable and the reduction in poverty shows that we must do this in order to bring the US to a place that meets the criteria set out by \u2018Human Rights\u2019. Conclusion We must raise the minimum wage in order for us to succeed in reducing poverty as much as possible in order for us to meet human rights criteria. Therefore the minimum wage ought to be risen in regards to this contention. C2: Productivity Higher wages result in greater worker productivity and this theory is demonstrated by a lot of as my source shows Economic Research [1]. As well as the reasoning being an increase in determination which evidently coming from higher pay raises, workers who have greater income security also see a negative correlation in poverty and financial stress, this ultimately increases work productivity as a result [2]. On to of this when they are paid more, workers are less likely to change jobs, meaning that employers have to waste less money and time attempting to attract more workers / employees, and they also receive obvious benefits such as having workers that are more experienced, long-term employees that can help develop and boost their company's overall [3]. In terms of economy, it is shown by multiple studies that businesses will see at least a $228 billion growth in revenues from a minimum wage increase due to productivity [4]. Contention 3: Religion and general agreement Christianity: Christianity is the world\u2019s largest religion [9] at the moment including atheism and non-theistic religions. The Christian case for raising the minimum wage is relatively simple. I now quote: \u201cWhile there are multiple avenues through which the poor and struggling can be supported \u2014 cash transfer programs and wage subsidies, for example, might boast the same outcomes \u2014 the delivery of income through wages, rather than benefit programs, has traditionally interested Christians because it secures relationships at the local level. In this vision of Christian society, interdependence between employers and employees is encouraged as a healthy societal bond. In other words, society becomes stronger and more cohesive as employers rely on workers for their labor, and workers rely on their labor to provide the material necessities of family life. At a broader level, the entire community also depends upon their labor for the production of goods and services needed to support society. It's a vision in which family life, community, and worship are paramount \u2014 but it takes a living wage to realize. \u201d [10] This case is very important since it shows that an absolutely huge amount of people support the minimum wage (ie. most Christians). This quote comes from Christian politicians so they are arguably bias however it is undeniable that one of the most notable Catholics is not going to express his opinion in a bias manner (only in favour of Christianity and the Bible): \u201cA number of well-known Catholics, including Father John Ryan, were early advocates of a higher living wage, pressing the issue even during the era of the New Deal. In Father Ryan's 1912 dissertation A Living Wage, he argues that not only does everyone have a right to live from the bounty of creation, but that they have the right to attain it through work. \u201d [10,11] This argument is powerful since it derives from such a notable Catholic figure. This view is represented, expressed and agreed upon by many Christians, Catholics in particular as the quotation correctly demonstrates. General Agreement: 73% of Americans said that they\u2019d support a minimum wage increase [10,12]! 36% when given the comment to comment said the minimum wage system is generally fair to most Americans and should be increased to make this a fairer system. 60% did not provide a comment and the remaining 4% made a comment against the rising of the minimum wage [12]. Only 4% made comments against the minimum wage! It is evident that there is huge support for the minimum wage among the US general public based on this. Conclusion I have proven with strong and well sourced evidence that the minimum wage should be raised to $15 per hour and now I hand it over to my opponent for their neg. case. I affirm the resolution that the minimum wage should be raised. Over to Con! Sources [1]. http://www.nber.org...[2]http://www.worldbank.org...[3]http://www.nber.org...[4]http://www.jstor.org...[5]https://www.washingtonpost.com...[6]http://www.pewresearch.org...[7]http://www.ilo.org...[8]http://www.undp.org...[9]https://en.wikipedia.org...[10]http://theweek.com...[11]A Living Wage, Father John Ryan[12]. http://www.latimes.com...", "qid": "39", "docid": "74df972a-2019-04-18T14:06:51Z-00005-000", "rank": 19, "score": 189567.0}, {"content": "Title: The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour Content: In round 4 I want to cover the following : 1. Arguments for a $15 federal minimum wage. 2. Summary of and Responses to CON\u2019s statements 3. Closing statement.1. The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour. The primary reason the Federal Government should mandate a $15 minimum wage is so it have hard data on all the effects of this public policy tool. The majority of current research suggests that increasing the minimum wage will do the following: a) \u201cProvide a much-needed boost to the earnings of low-wage workers.\u201d [1] b) Stimulate the economy as workers spend their additional earnings, raising demand and job growth. [1] c) Senator Edward Kennedy once called the minimum wage \u201cone of the best antipoverty programs we have.\u201d. [2] d) Reduce the number of single moms living in poverty. [1] e) It is good for public health [3] Not only are these benefits backed by the data, but the following are likely. [4] a) Job Hunt Motivation b) Single Parents benefit c) Job Creation d) Increased Morale e) Greater odds of high school completion [3] f) Reduced costs for state Medicaid [3] g) Less people choosing welfare over work. These are all excellent reasons to increase the minimum wage. The Federal Government should mandate a $15 minimum wage because that is a substantial increase, and we will see clear trends in the data to help us understand all the effects of a minimum wage that is above the poverty line. Another reason for proposing a $15 minimum wage, is because it will place our minimum wage earners above the poverty line. Our federal government uses two measures of poverty: \u201cpoverty guidelines\u201d and \u201cpoverty thresholds\u201d [5] Poverty thresholds were developed in 1963-1964, based largely on estimates of the minimal cost of food needs. Poverty guidelines are a dollar figure used by the census bureau to calculate the number of people in poverty. [6] As an example, the poverty guideline for a single person living in \u201c48 Contiguous States and D.C.\u201d is $11,770 for 2015. It would take 1624 hours at the 7.25 minimum wage to earn this amount. Many minimum wage workers get 30 hours a week or less, and can not rise above the poverty guideline. If the minimum wage were $10 this same worker could earn $15600 a year, which is almost enough to support a spouse or child at the poverty line($15,930). If the Federal minimum wage were $15, this same person would earn $23400. This is enough for three people to be above the poverty line, or for four people to almost rise out of poverty. [6 - poverty guideline table] The issue of public health is often forgotten in the Minimum wage debate: \u201cLast year, Minnesota legislators successfully enacted a raise in the minimum wage, taking Minnesota from one of the lowest-paying minimum wage states to one of the highest. State Health Commissioner Edward Ehlinger described the move as the greatest legislative victory of the year. - \u201cI\u2019d argue that it was the biggest public health achievement in that legislative session \u2014 and probably in the four years I\u2019ve been health commissioner\u201d [3] The Federal Government should mandate a $15 minimum wage because it will improve the health of low income earners. This means there will be less drain on medical resources and possibly even net savings as federal costs of Obama Care rise. A study \u201cin APHA\u2019s American Journal of Public Health, found that the wage increase would decrease the risk of premature death by 5 percent for adults ages 24 to 44 living in households with an income of about $20,000. In addition, the children of such workers would experience substantially increased odds of high school completion and a 22 percent decrease in the risk of early childbirth.\u201d [3] A \u201chigher minimum wages reduce enrollment in traditional Medicaid \u2014 the portion of the health insurance program in which states pay a substantial share.\u201d There are many other reasons why a $15 federal minimum wage would be good for minimum wage earners, and for the country. One helpful way to think of it is: You get more of what you pay for! I would rather see workers paid a living wage. I would rather not see increased spending on welfare and medicaid. 2. Summary of and Responses to CON\u2019s statementsCon has the following concerns / issues - Cost of Living - Will lead to job loss - Does very little to help the poor - EITCLet me respond to some of his errors. - Cost of Living \u201cDespite the high cost of living, it remains very popular.\u201d CON is taking a simplistic view that any increase in prices as absolutely bad. For the worker earning minimum wage, their purchasing power at $15/hour is far greater than it was at $7.25/ hour. For the rest of us, a Big Mac meal ($3.99) would cost about 17 cents more ($4.16) which is hardly going to hurt us.[7] One of the problems with the current Federal Minimum Wage is that it is not indexed to the consumer price index or the cost of living. [8] Adjusted for inflation/cost of living, the highest minimum wage was in 1968, when it was equivalent to $10.69/hour in purchasing power.[9] The effect on the cost of living will be small, but the effect on those earning the minimum wage will be huge. - Will lead to job loss CON seems to ignore all the scholarly papers that state that an increased minimum wage will have little effect on the unemployment rate. The literature concludes \u201cwe find no evidence that the rise in New Jersey's minimum wage reduced employment at fast-food restaurants in the state.\u201d [10] The Pew Research Center found that the strongest opposition to a minimum wage increase came from Republicans, and that the opposition in the debate are more partisan politics that based on fact.[11] - Does very little to help the poor CON is correct that not all people in poverty are the working poor. Many are on some form of welfare. I want to reward the working poor with a higher minimum wage so they will be not so poor. Raising the Federal minimum wage to $15/ hour will even allow some to be above the poverty line. It will increase the health of these working poor. It will encourage people who are on welfare to consider working. CON is absolutely incorrect in suggesting that an increase in the Federal Minimum Wage will not benefit the working poor. - EITC CON sings the Republican party line that tax breaks are the answer. This is absolutely false. The people who benefit the most from tax breaks are the wealthy who can afford to hire an accountant to protect their money from government. I have a good income. I pay almost no taxes because the wealthy have a high motivation to find tax breaks. There is one great advantage of the EITC. It often encourages people who are on welfare to participate in the workforce.[12] As such, I applaud it. It is a good tool to reduce welfare abuse. Combined with a decent ($15) minimum wage there should be even more benefits for the working poor, and for tax payers.Closing Statement. We need a Federal Minimum Wage of $15[1] http://www.epi.org...[2] http://www.forbes.com...[3] http://thenationshealth.aphapublications.org...[4] http://smallbusiness.chron.com...[5] https://en.wikipedia.org...[6] https://en.wikipedia.org...[7] www.thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/08/03/3687171/15-minimum-wage-big-mac/[8] http://www.dol.gov...[9] https://www.fas.org...[10] http://davidcard.berkeley.edu...[11] http://www.pewresearch.org...[12] http://www.cbpp.org...[13] http://www.tylervigen.com...this is a good resource https://www.policyalternatives.ca...", "qid": "39", "docid": "4d04459a-2019-04-18T14:01:20Z-00000-000", "rank": 20, "score": 188807.0}, {"content": "Title: The US Federal Minimum Wage Should Be Raised to $11/hr Content: CON Many economists argue that raising the minimum wage won't alleviate poverty and would shake an already fragile economy. We can raise the minimum wage to $11 but if no one chooses to hire people or hires fewer people then we have effectively raised unemployment. Alan Reynolds is a senior fellow with the Cato Institute and an expert on wage policy. He says that employers would likely chose to scale back jobs. Increasing the minimum wage could result in a lot of people who have been earning the minimum wage earning less than the minimum wage. How is that possible? Mall employers, farmers, lots of occupations are exempt from the minimum wage. So the last time we raised the minimum wage, lo and behold, the percentage earning less than the minimum wage rose to 4.2 percent of the wage and salary workers - three million. You basically have more people trying to compete for grape-picking jobs, or working in selling hot dogs in the street or day laborer or babysitting and that sort of thing. Fast food restaurants typically pay more than the minimum wage. When you talk minimum wage, it's really entry-level, and it's usually young people trying to get that first job. And if they do pretty well, three months, six months down the road, they get a little raise. That would effectively end if employers are starting people at $11. Actually there really aren't very many people who are working full time who are poor according to Reynolds. Maybe one percent. People are poor very often because they can't work for one reason or another. Disability, unemployment, so on and so forth. Obviously, doing something that will raise unemployment isn't going to help poverty. People who can't get work at 7.25 an hour aren't going to find work at 11.00 an hour. By such a dramatic jump they know there'd be a big hike in youth unemployment. The youth wouldn't get the experience they need to get the second job, which is a better job. And it's just basically a bad idea all the way around. To push the minimum wage to $11.00 at a time when the economy is facing high energy prices and rising inflation seems outrageous to me. I think it's probably a very bad idea to try to help the poor by raising prices. Liberal arguments for increasing the minimum wage have a fundamental flaw: They restrict the set of policy choices to either a minimum wage increase or doing nothing. That means they overlook the single most important federal policy for the poor: the Earned Income Tax Credit. The EITC is a measure in the federal tax code to support the living standards of the poor without creating a \"welfare trap\" by diminishing the incentive to work. Economists widely consider the credit a success for reducing poverty while increasing employment. Created in 1975, the credit has been successively expanded in five times since. It is now the nation's largest anti-poverty transfer program. In its latest iteration, for families with two or more children, the credit is 40 percent of the first $10,750 of earned income. After earned income exceeds $15,040, the credit is phased out at a rate of 21.06 cents per marginal dollar, and it goes away fully at the point when earned income reaches $35,458. (The EITC code is similar for smaller families, childless married couples and singles.) 1) Cato institute 2) Bloomberg.com 3) NPR.org", "qid": "39", "docid": "7021d6d5-2019-04-18T16:45:34Z-00000-000", "rank": 21, "score": 188783.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: The United States should incrementally raise the federal minimum wage to at least $15/hr Content: Extend all.", "qid": "39", "docid": "9e83cfe2-2019-04-18T14:18:48Z-00001-000", "rank": 22, "score": 188767.0}, {"content": "Title: The minimum wage should be raised to $12.50 gradually, by the year 2020 Content: I would like to clarify that we are talking about the United States' federal minimum wage. Is this correct?But I do accept.", "qid": "39", "docid": "b3c6f9b8-2019-04-18T12:20:53Z-00006-000", "rank": 23, "score": 188525.0}, {"content": "Title: The federal minimum wage should be increased Content: You seem to be forgetting that people are forced into living on minimum wage due to the shrinking amount of well paying, high education jobs available. Again, there must be checks. For a Fortune 500 company to cut employees because they are making more per hour shows that, once again, these companies are shady and will do anything to make the big bucks. These people living on minimum wage do not make enough to get by, they lack the ability to break out of this cycle due to the lack of funding that they receive. (1) Quoting from the article: \"Raising the minimum wage from $7.25 an hour to $8.50 an hour, would inject an amazing $9.5 billion extra spending power into the economy (this assumes all 3.8 million workers are making exactly $7.25, that each additional dollar earned is spent, and that none of the 3.8 million are earning wages below the federal minimum wage \" even though there are 9 states that are below this level or which have no minimum wage law). If the minimum wage were instead raised to where it should be, at least $10 per hour (which would still put it below the minimum wage in 1968), this would release at least $60 billion over two years into the economy.. On top of this, an increased minimum wage may also lead to an increase in the hourly pay of other low-wage workers that only make slightly more than the federal minimum wage. This increased purchasing power across the board helps stimulate the economy and benefits small businesses, many of which were hardest hit by the recession.\" As you can see, increasing the minimum wage will also increase the economy and allow for more spending of the individual workers. Currently, these workers do not making enough. Some states do not even have minimum wage, or they offer much lower than the federal wage. The increase would force companies in these states to give minimum wage, and this would in turn increase the purchasing that these workers receive and may even help them out of this deadly cycle of low income. Sources: (1) http://www.timeforaraise.org...", "qid": "39", "docid": "6ac98ba6-2019-04-18T15:12:23Z-00004-000", "rank": 24, "score": 188418.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: The US Federal Government should raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour Content: Adjusted for inflation, the federal minimum wage peaked in 1968 at $8.54 (in 2014 dollars). Since it was last raised in 2009, to the current $7.25 per hour, the federal minimum has lost about 8.1% of its purchasing power to inflation. The Economist recently estimated that, given how rich the U.S. is and the pattern among other advanced economies in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, \"one would expect America\"to pay a minimum wage around $12 an hour.\" 2Nearly half (48.2%) of the 3 million hourly workers who were at or below the federal minimum in 2014 were ages 16 to 24. An additional 22.4% are ages 25 to 34, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics; both shares have stayed more or less constant over the past decade. That 3 million represents about 2.3% of all wage and salary workers. (See more about the demographics of minimum-wage workers.) 3States With Minimum Wages Higher Than the FederalTwenty-nine states, plus the District of Columbia and nearly two dozen cities and counties, have set their own higher minimums. State hourly minimums range from $7.50 in Arkansas, Maine and New Mexico to $9.47 in Washington state, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Together, these states include 61% of the nation\"s working-age (16 and over) population, according to our analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data. Among the cities that have enacted even higher local minimums are San Francisco ($15 by 2018), Seattle ($15 by 2021), Chicago ($13 by 2019) and San Diego ($11.50 by 2017), according to the National Employment Law Project. 4About 20.6 million people (or 30% of all hourly, non-self-employed workers 18 and older) are \"near-minimum-wage\" workers. We analyzed public-use microdata from the Current Population Survey (the same monthly survey that underpins the BLS\"s wage and employment reports), and came up with that estimate of the total number of \"near-minimum\" U.S. workers \" those who make more than the minimum wage in their state but less than $10.10 an hour, and therefore also would benefit if the federal minimum is raised to that amount. The near-minimum-wage workers are young (just under half are 30 or younger), mostly white (76%), and more likely to be female (54%) than male (46%). A majority (56%) have no more than a high-school education. 5The restaurant/food service industry is the single biggest employer of near-minimum-wage workers. Our analysis also found that 3.75 million people making near-minimum wages (about 18% of the total) worked in that industry. Among near-minimum workers aged 30 and younger, about 2.5 million (or nearly a quarter of all near-minimum workers in that age bracket) work in restaurants or other food-service industries. But because many of those workers presumably are tipped, their actual gross pay may be above $10.10 an hour. (Federal law, as well as wage laws in many states, allow tipped employees to be paid less as long as \"tip credits\" bring their pay up to at least the applicable minimum.)", "qid": "39", "docid": "5194bbe-2019-04-18T17:30:08Z-00000-000", "rank": 25, "score": 188058.0}, {"content": "Title: March Beginners' Tournament: The USFG should significantly raise the federal minimum wage Content: Rebuttal Point 1: (The argument with no name) The main problem with this argument is that minimum wage plays a contributing factor to inflation. If you increase the minimum wage to the level proposed, it would only increase inflation, quickly and effectivly downplay the acutal purchasing value of the minimum wage. I elaborate this point more in my Point 2 rebuttal. Point 2: Economic Stimulation With the proposal to increase the minimum wage, businesses will have to shift to account for the increased labor costs. According to a paper by P\u00e9ter Harasztosi and Attila Lindner, that cost primarily is pushed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices [3]. There is empirical evidence that such costs are pushed on to the consumer. Restaurant prices have been found to have positive correlation to the minimum wage in a paper by two senior researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago and a senior researcher at the Economic Research Service [4]. In another study that looked at the effects of a minimum wage increase from $4.25 to $5.15 in California found that, \"The federal increase from $4.25 to $5.15 costs California families an average of $133 more per year for the goods they normally purchase. Since higher-income families spend more, they would pay more in absolute terms than lower-income families: up to $234 per year compared to $84 per year.\" [9] The new found money that minimum wage workers will receive, shrinks as a result of the inflation that accompanies minimum wage increases. Even though people spend more with wage hikes, the effects are not as clear cut. Aaronson and Eric French of the Chicago Federal Reserve Bank discovered that the money that was spent in response to a one dollar wage hike was often borrowed as such workers took on more debt [1]. Having households in America accumulate debt is not good for the economy because as debt grows, families have to spend less or risk default which wouldn\u2019t be good for the economy [5]. Harvard University economists Carmen Reinhart and Ken Rogoff came to the conclusion that rising household debts are the precedent to economic crisis. Another team consisting of economists Atif Mian and Emil Verner of Princeton University and Amir Sufi of the University of Chicago points to household debt as a source of instability and lower economic growth. They also connected such household debt to the 2008 economic recession.[2] As stated, in my previous argument, there will be many people who would be unable to spend their raised wages because they are out of a job. With the calculated job losses associated with the new minimum wage, the GDP is calculated to be decreased by 47 billion dollars. [6] Point 3: Good for native workers I\u2019m not necessarily sure what point Pro is trying to make here. As the point I have made in my previous argument, raising the minimum wage would cause unemployment. It seems that Pro indirectly concedes this point, instead the unemployment would instead be shifted to the immigrants. Statistically, immigrants make up more of the poverty population than natives [7]. Minimum wage is supposed to help alleviate poverty and what Pro advocates is that we make income inequality even worse by discriminating against poor immigrants even the 6.6 million that became naturalized over the last decade [8]. Shouldn\u2019t we also look out for these people too? Sources: [1] https://www.aeaweb.org... [2] http://equitablegrowth.org... [3] http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu... [4] http://davideharrington.com... [5] http://money.howstuffworks.com... [6] http://www.heritage.org... [7] http://www.migrationpolicy.org... [8] https://www.uscis.gov... [9] \"Increasing the Minimum Wage\" Public Policy Institute of California, May 2000.", "qid": "39", "docid": "8c9c7325-2019-04-18T13:31:47Z-00003-000", "rank": 26, "score": 187598.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: The US Federal Government should raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour Content: Myth: Raising the minimum wage will only benefit teens. Not true: The typical minimum wage worker is not a high school student earning weekend pocket money. In fact, 89 percent of those who would benefit from a federal minimum wage increase to $12 per hour are age 20 or older, and 56 percent are women. Myth: Increasing the minimum wage will cause people to lose their jobs. Not true: In a letter to President Obama and congressional leaders urging a minimum wage increase, more than 600 economists, including 7 Nobel Prize winners wrote, \"In recent years there have been important developments in the academic literature on the effect of increases in the minimum wage on employment, with the weight of evidence now showing that increases in the minimum wage have had little or no negative effect on the employment of minimum-wage workers, even during times of weakness in the labor market. Research suggests that a minimum-wage increase could have a small stimulative effect on the economy as low-wage workers spend their additional earnings, raising demand and job growth, and providing some help on the jobs front.\" Myth: Small business owners can't afford to pay their workers more, and therefore don't support an increase in the minimum wage. Not true: A July 2015 survey found that 3 out of 5 small business owners with employees support a gradual increase in the minimum wage to $12. The survey reports that small business owners say an increase \"would immediately put more money in the pocket of low-wage workers who will then spend the money on things like housing, food, and gas. This boost in demand for goods and services will help stimulate the economy and help create opportunities.\" Myth: Raising the federal tipped minimum wage ($2.13 per hour since 1991) would hurt restaurants. Not true: In California, employers are required to pay servers the full minimum wage of $9 per hour \u00ef\u00bf\u00bd before tips. Even with a 2014 increase in the minimum wage, the National Restaurant Association projects California restaurant sales will outpace all but only a handful of states in 2015. Myth: Raising the federal tipped minimum wage ($2.13 per hour since 1991) would lead to restaurant job losses. Not true: As of May 2015, employers in San Francisco must pay tipped workers the full minimum wage of $12.25 per hour \u00ef\u00bf\u00bd before tips. Yet, the San Francisco leisure and hospitality industry, which includes full-service restaurants, has experienced positive job growth this year, including following the most recent minimum wage increase. Myth: Raising the federal minimum wage won't benefit workers in states where the hourly minimum rate is already higher than the federal minimum. Not true: While 29 states and the District of Columbia currently have a minimum wage higher than the federal minimum, increasing the federal minimum wage will boost the earnings for nearly 38 million low-wage workers nationwide. That includes workers in those states already earning above the current federal minimum. Raising the federal minimum wage is an important part of strengthening the economy. A raise for minimum wage earners will put more money in more families' pockets, which will be spent on goods and services, stimulating economic growth locally and nationally. Myth: Younger workers don't have to be paid the minimum wage. Not true: While there are some exceptions, employers are generally required to pay at least the federal minimum wage. Exceptions allowed include a minimum wage of $4.25 per hour for young workers under the age of 20, but only during their first 90 consecutive calendar days of employment with an employer, and as long as their work does not displace other workers. After 90 consecutive days of employment or the employee reaches 20 years of age, whichever comes first, the employee must receive the current federal minimum wage or the state minimum wage, whichever is higher. There are programs requiring federal certification that allow for payment of less than the full federal minimum wage, but those programs are not limited to the employment of young workers. Myth: Restaurant servers don't need to be paid the minimum wage since they receive tips. Not true: An employer can pay a tipped employee as little as $2.13 per hour in direct wages, but only if that amount plus tips equal at least the federal minimum wage and the worker retains all tips and customarily and regularly receives more than $30 a month in tips. Often, an employee's tips combined with the employer's direct wages of at least $2.13 an hour do not equal the federal minimum hourly wage. When that occurs, the employer must make up the difference. Some states have minimum wage laws specific to tipped employees. When an employee is subject to both the federal and state wage laws, he or she is entitled to the provisions of each law which provides the greater benefits. Myth: Increasing the minimum wage is bad for businesses. Not true: Academic research has shown that higher wages sharply reduce employee turnover which can reduce employment and training costs. Myth: Increasing the minimum wage is bad for the economy. Not true: Since 1938, the federal minimum wage has been increased 22 times. For more than 75 years, real GDP per capita has steadily increased, even when the minimum wage has been raised. Myth: The federal minimum wage goes up automatically as prices increase. Not true: While some states have enacted rules in recent years triggering automatic increases in their minimum wages to help them keep up with inflation, the federal minimum wage does not operate in the same manner. An increase in the federal minimum wage requires approval by Congress and the president. However, in his call to gradually increase the current federal minimum, President Obama has also called for it to adjust automatically with inflation. Eliminating the requirement of formal congressional action would likely reduce the amount of time between increases, and better help low-income families keep up with rising prices. Myth: The federal minimum wage is higher today than it was when President Reagan took office. Not true: While the federal minimum wage was only $3.35 per hour in 1981 and is currently $7.25 per hour in real dollars, when adjusted for inflation, the current federal minimum wage would need to be more than $8 per hour to equal its buying power of the early 1980s and more nearly $11 per hour to equal its buying power of the late 1960s. That's why President Obama is urging Congress to increase the federal minimum wage and give low-wage workers a much-needed boost. Myth: Increasing the minimum wage lacks public support. Not true: Raising the federal minimum wage is an issue with broad popular support. Polls conducted since February 2013 when President Obama first called on Congress to increase the minimum wage have consistently shown that an overwhelming majority of Americans support an increase. Myth: Increasing the minimum wage will result in job losses for newly hired and unskilled workers in what some call a \u00ef\u00bf\u00bdlast-one-hired-equals-first-one-fired\u00ef\u00bf\u00bd scenario. Not true: Minimum wage increases have little to no negative effect on employment as shown in independent studies from economists across the country. Academic research also has shown that higher wages sharply reduce employee turnover which can reduce employment and training costs. Myth: The minimum wage stays the same if Congress doesn't change it. Not true: Congress sets the minimum wage, but it doesn't keep pace with inflation. Because the cost of living is always rising, the value of a new minimum wage begins to fall from the moment it is set.", "qid": "39", "docid": "5194bbe-2019-04-18T17:30:08Z-00005-000", "rank": 27, "score": 186760.0}, {"content": "Title: The minimum wage should be raised Content: I accept.", "qid": "39", "docid": "ce0a06c8-2019-04-18T13:05:11Z-00004-000", "rank": 28, "score": 186340.0}, {"content": "Title: The US Federal Government should raise the minimum wage. Content: I will be arguing that he Federal Goveronment should not raise the minimum wage for a number of reasons: Reason #1 - The intention of the minimum wage - The minimum wage is just a entrance wage, thus it should not be something you can live comfortably off of, because the idea is you're supposed to work, invest, and get a better job over time. Furthermore, the minimum wage was invented to protect workers from corporate greed. Reason #2 - The Constitution - The Consdtitution never grants the Federal Government the power to establish a Federal minimum wage, rather, under the Tenth Amendment, as this power isn't prohibited to the states, the power to establish a minimum waste should be given to the states respectively (state minimum wages), or to the people (labour unions) Reason #3 - Economics - In the United States, we are having an inflation rate of 8-13%, and raising the minimum wage will only make it worse. Besides, raising the minimum wage will harm small businesses the most, and since 60% of new jobs come from small businesses, this will significantly raise the unemployment rate.", "qid": "39", "docid": "51c34db5-2019-04-18T13:22:25Z-00005-000", "rank": 29, "score": 185593.0}, {"content": "Title: The federal minimum wage should be increased Content: I know some people are forced to work minimum wage, but many dropouts have the opportunity to keep going in their education and chose not to because of the enticing pay and easier work. You mention people would be paid more, but you either get paid more or get paid nothing since many people end up getting laid off. I think it would be better if more people had jobs, but the jobs paid less then less people getting work but those who do get paid more. You mention we would get 9.5 billion dollars into the economy, but the quality of the economy itself would decrease, considering there would be less jobs and the jobs lack the quality they used to. This would make it harder for anyone to find jobs in the first place, hurting the economy further. It would be like pumping money into the economy, but getting nothing back in return. You seem to be focusing on just the benefits to the poor, while in doing so you are hurting everyone else. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, only about 5% of US hourly paid workers for for or below the federal minimum wage. Out of these, most are young, unskilled, high school dropouts. Consider this situation- the wage increases, and since they have to pay more the corporation has to fire some employees. Who are they going to fire; unskilled, younger people with a lower education, or educated people with more experience and skills? The choice is obvious! This would hurt the poor more than help them, because instead of a lower paying jobs they would end up with nothing. I get they can't get out of the poor cycle and some are unable to attain good education, but now they are completely unable to obtain a job rather than get one, albeit with low pay. But some money is better than none. So, we've established that minimum wage jobs are usually taken by unskilled and generally uneducated people who are poor. Since they are poor, they can't get a good education, so basically they are forced into a lower paying job. But why should they get paid more? Sadly, they are unskilled so they should do a basic job. Is there a reason to give these people more money for bagging groceries and flipping burgers? What i'm trying to say is the amount of money they get is proportional to the amount of work they do and how hard the job is. We'd be giving them more money for doing a basic job that doesn't take much intelligence to complete. Once again, this higher wage would hurt small businesses more than help them. Since they aren't a large corporation, they aren't as affluent and usually have lower pay for workers. Now, they have to pay their workers more. This would make it a lot easier for small businesses to go bankrupt, and they wouldn't be able to give their workers usual job benefits. Again, the quantity and quality of jobs would go down. Your main point is that a higher minimum wage would help people get out of a low income cycle, when it would do just the opposite. Many people who made low income would end up with no income since they had to get laid off, and small business owners who make less as it is would struggle to get by. Smaller/family businesses would definitely suffer. Sources- fff.org, Huffington Post News website", "qid": "39", "docid": "6ac98ba6-2019-04-18T15:12:23Z-00003-000", "rank": 30, "score": 185564.0}, {"content": "Title: The Federal Minimum wage should NOT be raised Content: First off, you question whether \" the only factor effecting unemployment is the finances of those employing the workforce\" is true. Economics 101 would support that it is true in most if not all cases. Your statement \"raising the federal minimum wage may work to incentivize people who have previously relied on welfare to seek employment. \" seems more an indictment of welfare than a cogent argument for raising minimum wage. Here is another opinion (with a citation) From : http://www.essortment.com....... \"Beginning in 2008, the United States economy entered a recession. Yet, at a time when many companies found it necessary to cut labor costs, the minimum wage increased. Faced with the limited choices of ( remaining in business) or laying off workers, the minimum wage workers were the ones to suffer by being laid off, according to Forbes.com. In 2004, three states that had higher minimum wage laws than were required---Alaska, Washington and Oregon---were among the five states with the highest unemployment, according to an Economic Policy Institute article by Jeff Chapman. \" To clarify, I would support keeping the minimum where it is, but making it beneficial for companies to give \"merit' or \"service\" increases. In other words, keep minimum wage as a STARTING wage, but give increases based on performance. This would be much better than a blanket raising of the wage for workers, some of whom are more of a liability than an asset. On a personal note, I once worked for a Fortune 500 corporation that paid minimum wage plus commission on sales. Those that sold did well. Those that did not produce usually left for another job. Raising the minimum would not have changed anything at all.", "qid": "39", "docid": "b6f6e654-2019-04-18T17:09:58Z-00001-000", "rank": 31, "score": 185405.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should raise the minimum wage to $15. Content: Rebuttals:I'll provide some rebuttals for my opponent's initial speech, per the rules. I'll respond to his attacks on my case in the following round. 1. Benefit EconomyI have a few responses here.> Economic impact is quite demonstrable in its effects, and they are quite negative. His assertion that it will inject money/spending into the GDP is demonstrably false, due to the nature of a wage hike.> When wages rise, so do payrolls. So the money that would be spent would primarily go to paying the extra wages in the first place.> Moreover, raising wages would force employers to raise prices to compensate for lost capital used to fund the higher wages. This passes the brunt onto consumers. Prominent economists Aaronson, MacDonald, and French confirm \"prices unambiguously increase in response to a minimum wage change.\" [1] Unfortunately, a minimum wage won't help the economy when it raises prices. This causes inflation, which is never good for the economy, and also, essentially, negates the wage increase.> When prices rise concurrent with wage hikes, these minimum wage workers are effectively in the same dilemma: prices are too high for them to afford necessities. Instead of poverty reduction, you have poverty facilitation along side the depreciation of currency.> Neither of these things are good. What's more, any economic benefits would be negligible, and heavily outweighed by the detriments to individuals and the diversion from its asserted goal (poverty facilitation).> Economic research confirms the harmful effects on economy. Harasztosi and Lindner affirm \"costs of the minimum wage [are] largely passed through to consumers.\" [2] Employment is a big concern with benefits to the economy, and as I have definitively proven, jobs are indubitably destroyed by a wage hike.> This is definitively true, and demonstrable by a plethora of evidence. Neumark and Wascher, after conflicting evidence was brought forth, revisited the wage debate and concluded there are STILL relevant and signficant disemployment effects. [3]> There are hundreds of thousands of jobs to be lost in multiple individual states, as well -- from only a $10.10 increase. Economic theory suggests a $15 wage hike would compound and extend these negative trends. [4]> The GDP would actually be harmed, per macroeconomics. Because of severe job losses, the proposal could reduce the current US GDP by $42 billion in 2017. [5] [http://tinyurl.com...]> The above is a demonstrative graph representing the previous point. Essentially, because there would be severe elimination of jobs, the GDP would subsequently decline concurrent to these disemployment effects.> Specifically in regards to job loss, here are some statistics. Job losses could total over 2.3 million for a $10.10 proposal nationwide. [6]2. Benefit AmericansAnother area where I have some dispute:> It can be reasonably argued and claimed that if a policy proposal has such dire economic effects, it would not equate to a benefit for Americans. This premise, I believe holds firm and unwavering. Yet, I'll address a few more issues within this specific contention to further reiterate my point.> Perhaps one of the biggest problems the US faces is employment concerns. Particularly, there is young laborers who are finding it quite difficult to find a job. However, the policy implementation for which my opponent advocates does nothing to resolve this paragon issue. In fact, the proposal at hand facilitates LESS employment opportunities for those in the most need of them -- teens and the unskilled workforce.> The concept is quite simple. When a firm is federally mandated to pay a specified wage (which is quite high, in most cases) they would logically hire the individual with the best skill set. This generally entails individuals with a college degree and experience in the field prior to hiring. Generally, neither of these conditions align to teens or the unskilled work force. Essentially, the ones that need the jobs the *most* are going to be excluded from the hirings.> An economic study of dynamic employment effects by Meer and West of Texas A&M addresses this very issue. They note \"it [a wage hike] reduces demand for new workers by raising the marginal cost of an employee.\" [7] Essentially, there is a higher cost for an employee. Consider, for example, the following: two products, of the same type, cost the exact same amount. One is thoroughly tried and durable one, while the other is untested and discernibly faulty.> The choice is simple. It would only be obvious to choose the former. The latter, admittedly, is of less quality for all intents and purposes. The same is true for the labor force. The quality and value of a worker to a firm is essential. > It's simply a matter of productivity. A tried and tested individual is likely to have higher productivity, similar to college graduates generally having better productivity. Economic research confirms \"workers with more education tend to have higher productivity, which means they tend to produce more output with the same inputs.\" [8]> Minority Americans, the ones who REALLY NEED the extra cash, are the ones who suffer the most, unable to find the jobs they need. [10] This doesn't benefit America, as it only widens the gap between the rich and the poor.> Another issue is low-cost communities. The system, as proposed, is a federal wage -- \"one-size-fits-all.\" However, this is untrue. There is no system that fits all areas.> It's plausible that some areas with large corporations and few minorities (though unlikely) would be able to absorb the impacts. But more rural communities (which drive agriculture) would suffer greatly. Even in areas where the cost of living is simply lower, a higher wage would devastate the economy. These small-scale places simply don't have enough capital to put into the wages that would be required. [9]3. Benefit the WorldA final refutation area:> It's rather dubious to assume that, weighing the considerable economic defecits and detriments to America that the world would be benefited by the US implementing such an outrageous wage.> Moreover, if the premises are true that there is such economic downturns and American harms, the economy of the US wouldn't \"stay on its feet\" and would thus entirely negate this contention, as well as the entire constructive argument.> I would assert that the premises I've shown are true, and that I've reasonably demonstrated that fact; however, it is up to the judges to determine that.> My opponent makes the argument here of the \"dollar going up\" benefiting the US and the world. However, this is entirely false.> A minimum wage hike would cause inflation. Though I've demonstrated the economics of this both in my constructive case as well as this rebuttal, I will again affirm this point in a more simplistic manner. Inflation, as defined by a paraphrased Investopedia is that when prices rise, the value of currency falls. Specifically \"Inflation is the rate at which the general level of prices for goods and services is rising and, consequently, the purchasing power of currency is falling.\" [11]> This definition renders obvious and direct inflation from a minimum wage hike. Since we've already established that prices will rise, there has to be subsequent inflation. Again, Investopedia simplifies \"raising the minimum wage forces business owners to raise the prices of their goods or services, thereby spurring inflation.\" [12]> Refer to Contention II in my case for more specifics and analysis.Conclusion:There's clearly large concerns, and validated, that a wage hike will be harmful to individuals, society, and the economy. Under the only proposed framework (in which my opponent accepts as he did not contest), judges should value moral and pragmatics regarding the topic. As I have shown it would be immoral to send all of these individuals to unemployment and continued poverty, and have shown that it's largely illogical on economic, politcal, and social grounds to raise wages, we should not. For all of these substantiated and verified reasons, there is no option but to vote CON.Sources:[1] http://tinyurl.com...[2] http://tinyurl.com...[3] http://tinyurl.com...[4] http://tinyurl.com...[5] http://tinyurl.com...[6] http://tinyurl.com...[7] http://tinyurl.com...[8] http://tinyurl.com...[9] http://tinyurl.com...[10] http://tinyurl.com...[11] http://tinyurl.com...[12] http://tinyurl.com...", "qid": "39", "docid": "9329eedd-2019-04-18T14:04:54Z-00002-000", "rank": 32, "score": 185383.0}, {"content": "Title: The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour Content: I accept. The US federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour.", "qid": "39", "docid": "4d04459a-2019-04-18T14:01:20Z-00006-000", "rank": 33, "score": 185030.0}, {"content": "Title: The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour Content: The Cost of Living The problem with Pro's accusation is that he assumes I was arguing for abolishing the minimum wage. This is wrong, because I said no such thing. All I said was that it was ineffective, and it was better handled at the state or local level. Pro also seems to think that it was outside the scope of this debate, but no where in my resolution did I mention such a thing. All that is being argued is me opposing the $15 FEDERAL minimum wage. I can present any argument that I want, that shows that the United States of America shouldn't implement it. Pro says that I provided no data that shows a $15 dollar minimum wage causes unemployment, but how could I do that, when there isn't a National minimum wage? Instead I have shown minimum wage increases have resulted in unemployment, but Pro is ignoring that. Again, Pro is mistaking my arguments, and saying that a Federal Minimum wage isn't not decided by the states. That wasn't the point of my argument. It was to show that increasing the federal minimum wage is inefficient, but it something such as minimum wage is better handled at a state level. Pro is stating that the minimum wage is is designed to get a people to have a better standard of living, but he forget this is done at the expense of employees, who will soon be forced to pay people more than they are worth. Pro completely concedes my analogy with Des Moines and New York, on how a $15 dollar minimum wage doesnt take the cost of living into factor. Will lead to job lossPro is insisting that I provide an example of an employers. who fired people. When Wal-Mart hiked the minimum wage, it was expected it would fire 1000 employees. In another study, it showed that 38% of employers would fire workers if they were to hike the minimum wage to $10.10. Now you just need to imagine what that number would be if it were $15. Pro is saying that 52% of economists in that study support increasing the minimum wage , which is a complete lie. In the study itself, it only says 38% support increase the minimum wage. Now, we need to relook at this. What exactly is Pro proposing? A Federal $15 dollar minimum wage. If we use that criteria, only 16.7% support increasing by more than $1 per hour. However we don't actually know how high that number is, just it's more than $1. So it's likely that number is less than 16.7%. Having already refuted this argument, Pro clings onto the fact that several ecnonomists have supported President Obama's propsal to increase the minimum wage. I already mentioned that Obama's plan was to increase to $10.10, not $15. Pro's point ultimately falls flat because he has no evidence that shows ecnonomists would support a $15 minimum wage. Throughout the whole debate, he has cherry-picked economists that only either say increasing the minimum wage wouldn't cause substancial loss or have said they support increasing it to a number much smaller than $15. Finally, Pro gives us some examples of employees who get paid a minimum wage somewhat closer to his proposed $15 minimum wage. I can relate to this much better than the examples he provided earlier, although this is technically an argument, and not a rebutall. So, what Pro provided us is a minimum wage increase on a local level. As I have said before, I'm not opposed to a minimum wage increase in local levels, because I already acknowledged that the cost of living is quite different in different states and cities. In a state such as San Francisco, it makes a lot of sense, because the cost of living there is quite high, compared to other cities. The problem is that if we were to implement it nation-wide, other states or cities with low cost of livings, will suffer from things such as unemployment and inflation, because their workers will be paid more money than they are generating money. Pro is now saying that there is no evidence for job loss from a $15 dollar minimum wage. That is true, but I have shown there is evidence for job loss during minimum wage hikes with several studies done by economists. I even showed that Alan Kreuger, an ecnonomist who did a minimum wage study in New Jersey, opposed the minimum wage to $15. Does very little to help the poorIn this argument Pro is stating that I support abandoning the minimum wage because it does very little to help the poor. But this isn't the point of that argument. I showed with evidence that a minimum wage hike actually does make it harder for the poor to enter the workplace, which Pro doesn't adresss. Somehow, me saying we shouldn't raise it to $15 translates to \"WE ARE NOT DOING ENOUGH\" On top of that, Pro says it's a fallacy, but he doesn't he take the time to tell what kind of fallacy I committed. So, Pro fails to refute the negative impacts of raising the minimium wage, and instead resorts to calling my argument a fallacy. Which in fact, is a fallacy itself. EITCWhile I'll agree that this isn't a minimum wage, it doesn't mean it is outside the scope of the debate. I didn't just say we should expand EITC, but I also said it works better than a minimum wage, because it doesn't bring along the negative impacts of the minimum wage. Con concedes that, and is saying we should expand both. David Card\u2019s studySo, earlier I said that the study didn't show proof that the minimum wage was a good thing. His reply is that those with the increase were happy with it. This isn't an acceptable rebutall, because who would be sad when they receive a pay raise? Why not just increase the minimum wage to $100, and those people will be even more happier. Does that mean it's a good thing? Not really. First of all I never said it was good science, and I'm not sure where Pro seems to get this from. And the point of my comment directly ties in with the comparision I made earlier with Des Moines and New York. The changes wouldn't be substancially different when compared to New Jersey and Pennslyania, but when we make it at Federal level, we see the problem it might cause. Pro has not refuted this. Pro says that I gave no reference to Alan Kreugers comment, but I clearly did. I gave a link to the comment, and I quoted his exact words. Also when Alan Kreguer made that comment, he was referring to Bernie Sander's proposal of $15. Bernie Sanders is running for president in 2016, so this comment is not outdated. Pro lies once again, and tries to present wrong information by saying he will assume this took place in 1992. Price IncreasesThis is precisely why I was confused in the beggining. I'm not sure why Pro is making arguments in my favor. But I'll go with it. Pro shows the prices of food items will go up, and this definetly doesn't indicate we should increase the minimum wage. Arguments Pro has concededA $15 Minimum wage create unemploymentThe minimum wage doesn't take the cost of living into factorEconomist such as Alan Kreuger are against it a $15 increase specificallyEITC will help people more than a $15 Minimum wageIncreasing the minimum wage will drive costs up in fast food restaurants60% of those in poverty aren't even workingThe majority of economists are against a raise, and support Abolishing itSources:. http://ew-econ.typepad.fr...https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...http://www.zerohedge.com...http://www.breitbart.com... I urge voters to vote Con, because I have shown the harmful impacts of raising the Federal minimum wage to $15, and I also provided a much better solution in the form of a tax break, which would work better than a minimum wage in reducing poverty.", "qid": "39", "docid": "4d04459a-2019-04-18T14:01:20Z-00001-000", "rank": 34, "score": 184882.0}, {"content": "Title: The US should should raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. Content: Acceptance! ^_^ The minimum wage should be raised to benefit families, immigrants, and middle class people all across america.", "qid": "39", "docid": "47041c36-2019-04-18T14:16:28Z-00005-000", "rank": 35, "score": 184734.0}, {"content": "Title: The federal minimum wage should be increased Content: The minimum wage increasing will allow more people to have more money, stimulating the economy and helping citizens who are currently in poverty reach out of it, take a foothold, and stay in the middle class. (1) These workers are not making enough to live on in this economy, and they need more. Unfortunately, jobs are very limited due to our ever rising population. (2) There has been discussion about how increasing the minimum wage will increase prices, and this is always a fear but unfortunately for this side; increasing the minimum wage and increasing prices would be disaster for these companies. The more money they have, the more they are willing to spend on luxury goods and more expensive food. This would increase sales and return on investment for companies. They must be made aware of this, and there must be checks in place to protect the costumers from overzealous companies and organizations. Most of the big names who are against the minimum wage increasing, tend to be owners, backers, or stockholders of very large companies that have had very shady practices regarding the minimum wage. Such as Walmart, McDonald's, etc. (1) http://www.postcrescent.com... (2) http://www.salary.com...", "qid": "39", "docid": "6ac98ba6-2019-04-18T15:12:23Z-00006-000", "rank": 36, "score": 184728.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: The US Federal Government should raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour Content: Observation: Plagiarism https://www.dol.gov... My opponent has copied all of his points from the preceding website. Regardless, I will respond to them. Rebuttal 1: Teenagers The entire argument does not matter since I did not make this claim. What does matter, though, is the number attached to it showing the minimum wage that was measured. \u201c\u2026 In fact, 89 percent of those who would benefit from a federal minimum wage increase to $12 per hour are age 20 or older, and 56 percent are women.\u201d What we are debating is a fifteen-dollar minimum wage per hour, so this entire argument is not under the resolution, and is considered void given no context on why this matters. Rebuttal 2: 600 economists I will concede that this happened, in support of the minimum wage increasing to $10.10 an hour of course. However, we are debating the minimum wage being higher, which will lose jobs in the long run. Remember, we are not debating simply a minimum wage increase, but one to fifteen dollars an hour, and this should be factored into today\u2019s debate. http://www.epi.org... Rebuttal 3: Support from small businesses The opinions of small businesses do not matter since I already given you an unrefuted example of how a minimum wage increase harms consumers. Not only this, but these are simply opinions and are not factored in to this debate. Rebuttal 4: Tipped minimum wage This entire argument is non-sequitur as it is not discussed in this debate. Rebuttal 5: Job losses I have already explained that job losses do not occur if the state were in charge of raising the minimum wage and I have used a Brookings Institution article to show why states are the best actors. Myth 5 and 6 I have not discussed this in this debate up till now. Rebuttal 6: Employee turnover Alright, maybe under certain circumstances this may happen, but my opponent has not shown that the savings from employee turnover outweigh the price of paying more toward employees, which will increase the price of products. Rebuttal 7: Not bad for economy The article claims that since this has not happened before, the GDP will remain the same. Aright, but have we ever doubled the federal minimum wage within one year? If so, what was the effect of that? Rebuttal 8: Minimum wages do not mean job losses My opponent does not cite sources to prove this. Also, remember these are independent studies, not studies done on the national level. I have already shown you that a minimum wage hike will have different results in different states, so independent results are not important if done on the state level. Since this is not cited, I can only assume as much.", "qid": "39", "docid": "5194bbe-2019-04-18T17:30:08Z-00004-000", "rank": 37, "score": 184673.0}, {"content": "Title: The federal minimum wage should be increased Content: The minimum wage has been raised in several areas already, and has shown some harmful side effects. Take Oakland, California as an example. The minimum wage there has rose to $12.25 hourly. A CNN report was shocked to find the usually affluent Bay Area had a high level of child poverty. Economists there thought a wage hike would help decrease the poverty, but it did the exact opposite. The 2003 wage increase was supposed to have an immediately positive effect on people there, but that was not what happened. According to the City and County of San Francisco\"s Office of Economic Analysis, The food service industry saw a -2.3% job loss and the former booming manufacturing industry saw a -8.5% job loss. Now, looking at the community demographics, about 14.1% of the families there live in poverty. This wage hike hit single mother families hard. Single mothers with a child/children under five had about a 42.3% poverty rate. The minimum wage law increased the number of children in poverty, it did not help families! This is a perfect example of a time where the minimum wage increase did the exact opposite of what it was supposed to do. As you can see, it hit single mother families hardest, which are the ones who need the most help. The economy in Oakland took a sharp nose dive. As you can see, increasing the minimum wage did not help break the low income cycle. In fact, it made the whole situation worse. Many places in California have had similar experiences, too many to describe them all here. The state in general is pushing for increased minimum wage, which as you can see, has not benefited many of the cities it was implemented in. For these reasons, I believe it would be best for everyone AND the economy if the federal minimum wage did not increase. I fear it may have the same effects it did in Oakland nation-wide. Source- Americanthinker. com, Minimum-wage.", "qid": "39", "docid": "6ac98ba6-2019-04-18T15:12:23Z-00001-000", "rank": 38, "score": 184329.0}, {"content": "Title: The minimum wage should be raised to $12.50 gradually, by the year 2020 Content: Since we are now in our last round, I would like to avoid a tax debate with you. It is a very deep and interesting topic and I would be more than happy to discuss it in a separate debate. For now, allow me to make my final point. Minimum wage is an excellent way to stimulate the economy. in fact, it is one of the only ways to do so without federal spending, which increases national debt. Economic theory tells us that if wages were to increase, consumers would buy more products, pay off debts, and/or start saving more money. In all three of these instances more money is being put into the economy. Since businesses are taxed and regulated so heavily in America, much of this capital is being sucked out of circulation via the multitudes of business taxes. If the minimum wage were to increase, we would see stimulus in the economy. The Circular flow model Since I am unsure how to post pictures on this site, I will try to illustrate this concept to the best of my ability with words. In the product market, firms sell goods and services which are purchased by households. Households in turn, provide labor, capital, natural resources, and entrepreneurship on the resource market, which is purchased by firms. In the product market, Households provide expenditure, which is turned into revenue for firms. Firms then convert that revenue into wages, rent, interest, and profit. These things are turned into income for households. Although record high worker productivity has allowed businesses to earn more revenue, we have not seen similar growth in the wages of workers. If you can imagine that the circular flow model functions as a wheel (capitalism) an increase in any one section should lead to an increase in all of the others, but instead wages increasing corporate profits are receiving this benefit. This is why much of this extra revenue is sucked out of circulation by taxation. If wages increased to meet, or at the very least be closer to, worker productivity, this would allow the wheel of capitalism to turn even faster. While this theory is widely accepted by economists, there is empirical evidence that shows this same truth. There was a study done by Eric French and Daniel Aaronson, economists at the federal reserve bank in Chicago, that showed the effects of raising the minimum wage on aggregate household spending. They estimated that a $1.75 increase in the minimum wage would increase consumer spending by $26 billion dollars. Finally, I would like to cite one last piece of empirical evidence. Economists Alan B. Kreuger and David Card conducted a study that analyzed the Full time employment effects on the fast food industry in 1992, when Pennsylvania had it's minimum wage at $4.25, and New Jersey's minimum wage was at $5.05. New Jersey experienced an employment increase in the industry, Pennsylvania experienced an employment decline. If this were to happen on a federal level as well, the employment increase would definitely lead to economic stimulus. I hope this debate has enlightened you just as much as it has myself, and I hope I convinced at least some of you that raising the minimum wage to $12.50 would benefit the economy. I'd like to close by thanking my opponent for an excellent debate and I am anxiously awaiting our results. Thank You! sources: Chicago Fed Letter: How Does a Federal Minimum Wage Hike Affect Aggregate Household Spending? By Daniel Aaronson and Eric French Minimum Wages and employment: A case study in the Fast Food industry of Pennsylvania and New Jersey. By Alan B. Kreuger and David Card Microeconomics: A Contemporary introduction. By William A. McEachern Special Thanks to my mentor, whose name I am hesitant to publish on the internet, for guiding me in myriad ways throughout this journey. I wouldn't have debated nearly as effectively without you.", "qid": "39", "docid": "b3c6f9b8-2019-04-18T12:20:53Z-00001-000", "rank": 39, "score": 184184.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: The United States should incrementally raise the federal minimum wage to at least $15/hr Content: Extend All", "qid": "39", "docid": "9e83cfe2-2019-04-18T14:18:48Z-00000-000", "rank": 40, "score": 184156.0}, {"content": "Title: The US should should raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. Content: Introduction:First of all, my opponent's argument is not stupid. Don't accept that interpretation as it is unfounded. It may be incorrect, as I shall attempt to demonstrate (as in any other debate), but it is not stupid. Hopefully we can have the chance to debate this topic to a greater degree later.Families:My opponent asserted a boost in the minimum wage would benefit families, however, on net, this is completely false. The insinuation that a wage increase would be beneficial to families is erroneous when considering the harmful effects it contains. Unemployment, higher prices, and cut hours, to name a few, don't seem beneficial to families. From a statistical standpoint, it is also illogical to assume families would receive any noteworthy benefits from more than doubling the current minimum wage. The Commonwealth Foundation expressed this in their study regarding a raise in Pennsylvania alone. They quote \"Much of the wage gains would go to low-wage employees in higher income families, rather than those most in need. For instance, about two-fifths of the wage gains would go to employees in families with incomes of $40,000 or greater.\" [1] If these families are already earning enough, and are simply young teens (as the study also indicates), there is no real benefit to the family, as it is already doing fine.However, we also see significant job loss, which I examined in my previous round. Cross-apply all the evidence and explanation as it wasn't refuted in any capacity. The same applies to the other detriments I exemplified. Families can't be effectively benefited when the policy simultaneously increases unemployment and damages the economy by increasing prices and facilitating inflation.Immigrants:Many immigrants (particularly the ones my opponent is speaking of) are paid low-wages, often times the minimum wage. [2] Since many of these are also poor [2], and the minimum wage doesn't solve poverty [3] [4], immigrants can't feasibly be positively impacted.Middle Class:It seems rather dubious to assume raising the minimum wage would help the middle class. Since middle class workers generally are paid a wage far above the minimum, the raise would give them any more money. Adding that to rising costs makes no benefit to middle class, but higher costs, an obvious detriment.Struggling to Pay the BillsThis clearly refers to the impoverished. As I've alread shown, when accompanied with job loss, the minimum wage increase can't sufficiently reduce poverty. While some might receive small benefits, unemployment creates instantaneous poverty. Moreover, the policy can't specifically target the poor, which is how poverty is reduced. Thusly, it can't reduce poverty, and won't help those struggling to pay the bills. [5] [6]Conclusion:There are many detriments to a $15 minimum wage, and there is not sufficient reason to implement such a policy. I've demonstrated on moral and pragmatic grounds that raising the minimum wage is ineffective and a bad idea. My opponent has not refuted any of my arguments pragmatically, morally, or with evidence. Thus, you vote Con.Sources:[1] https://www.epionline.org...[2] http://www.epi.org...[3] http://www.nber.org...[4] http://www.forbes.com...[5] https://mises.org...[6] http://www.thenewamerican.com...", "qid": "39", "docid": "47041c36-2019-04-18T14:16:28Z-00002-000", "rank": 41, "score": 183883.0}, {"content": "Title: March Beginners' Tournament: The USFG should significantly raise the federal minimum wage Content: Point IThe actual purchasing power of workers' wages has been stagnating (and in some cases, even decreasing) due to the effects of inflation[1]. The de-facto loss in wages' purchasing power can be confirmed through the Bureau of Labour Statistics' website [3].An analysis by the Pew Research Center found that the actual purchasing value of the current minimum wage is much lower than that of the minimum wage in 1968[2]. In order for the minimum wage to have the same purchasing power today as it did in 1930, it would have to be raised to at least $10.20 per hour [4].Point II: Economic stimulationA minimum wage hike would give workers more money to spend. Due its disproportionate effects on lower-wage workers, nearly all of the new money would be guaranteed to be spent. Data has confirmed that a higher minimum wage would boost consumer spending, which would in turn increase demand and stimulate economic growth:In 2011, the Chicago Federal Reserve Bank examined[5] 23 years of household spending data and found that every dollar added to the minimum wage resulted in $2,800 increase in individual consumer spending.Additionally, the Economic Policy Institute found[6] that increasing the minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10 dollars per hour \"would result in a net increase in economic activity of approximately $32.6 billion over the phase-in period and would generate approximately 140,000 new jobs.\"Point III: Good for native workersIt is well[9] established[11] that a higher minimum wage leads to a decrease[11] in low-skill immigrants. In fact, this is very likely why Switzerland debated raising its minimum wage to $25[10].Some may argue that (at least, legal) immigration is beneficial to the US economy, citing popular economic opinion. However, more in-depth analysis has revealed[7] fundamental flaws in economic studies which found no negative economic impact from increased immigration:\"If you assume that all low-education workers are potential substitutes for each other\u2014the 23-year-old recent arrival from Guatemala with the 53-year-old who proceeded from high school to the Army\u2014then your model will show a less dramatic effect of immigration on wages. If, however, you assume that the 23-year-old Guatemalan is competing with 20- and 30-something native-born workers who lack diplomas, then your model will show a very big effect.\" \"A model based on unrealistic assumptions can still achieve perfect internal consistency. It just won\u2019t describe the real world very accurately. Which seems to be precisely what is happening with immigration economics.\" The negative impact immigration has had on the prospects of native workers can be confirmed by looking at government employment data[8]: \"In March 2015 the working age population had grown by nearly 15 million to 204,026,416, which is in line with the 10.6 million new immigrant workers, but population grew to nearly 320 million and the EPR fell to 59.3.That works out to 120,987,665 jobs, which is a mere 24,367,681 fewer jobs than the NBER model predicted. From 2000 to 2015, 16.4 million new immigrants have created a grand total of 5,832,319 new jobs, which means that either a) over 10 million native Americans have lost their jobs to immigrant labor or b) over two-thirds of the new immigrants are collecting welfare. Either way, these 16.4 million immigrants have not been a boost to the economy.\" Native workers would not only see their wages rise, but would have a much easier time finding work. This would particularly beneit low-skill workers.Amidst concerns of intervention in the functioning of the free market, it must be kept in mind that it would be absolutely ridiculous for a pseudo-democratic government to act against the best interests of its people. If a government will not protect its people, what exactly is it good for?Conclusion:I have demonstrated that raising the minimum wage would correspond with inflation, help low-earning workers, provide economic stimulation, and increase the purchasing power of actual wages. Additionally, the case for a minimum wage can be extended beyond the purely economic, as it functions as de-facto immigration control.Sources:[1] http://www.epi.org...[2] http://www.pewresearch.org...[3] http://www.bls.gov...[4] http://www.mybanktracker.com...[5] http://www.chicagofed.org...[6] http://www.epi.org...[7] http://www.theatlantic.com...[8] http://voxday.blogspot.com...[9] http://www.economist.com...[10] http://voxday.blogspot.com...[11] http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com...", "qid": "39", "docid": "8c9c7325-2019-04-18T13:31:47Z-00004-000", "rank": 42, "score": 183828.0}, {"content": "Title: The US Federal Minimum Wage Should Be Raised to $11/hr Content: With the worst recession in a generation still being felt across the nation, state and federal leaders are focused on getting their economies moving again while helping working families make ends meet. Raising the minimum wage is a key strategy for doing both and should be part of an economic recovery agenda. By boosting pay in the low-wage jobs on which more families are relying than ever, a stronger minimum wage will help restore the consumer spending that powers our economy and that local businesses need in order to grow. A robust minimum wage is a key building block of sustainable economic recovery.SOURCE: http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com...;", "qid": "39", "docid": "7021d6d5-2019-04-18T16:45:34Z-00001-000", "rank": 43, "score": 183725.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should raise the minimum wage to $15. Content: Alright! Rebuttal time! I see you have some contentions which I will address in turn. First you claim minimum wages cannot be fairly proportioned to accommodate the city dwellers and the smaller townspeople. Actually that is not true. Fuel, groceries restaurants and rent, taxes all costs are often higher in small towns. This is because of the lack of competition it drives prices up. http://www.insidesources.com... so wages balance here. Therefore the city dwellers will make money with wage increase and the townspeople will also. Also because of the lack of stores the townspeople will flock too the city to do their shopping which will add moola to the city which will pay the minimum wage for many workers. Also again it will help stimulate the economy. http://www.investopedia.com... Next you claim Raising the minimum wage will negatively affect businesses. However studies say you are wrong. \"Raising wages reduces costly employee turnover and increases productivity. When the minimum wage goes up, employers can enjoy these benefits of paying higher wages without being placed at a competitive disadvantage, since all companies in their field are required to do the same. Raising wages also puts money in the hands of consumers, boosting demand for goods and services............For these reasons, nearly 1,000 business owners and executives, including Costco CEO Jim Singeal, U.S. Women\"s Chamber of Commerce CEO Margot Dorfman, Addus Health Care CEO Mark Heaney, Credo Mobile President Michael Kieschnick, ABC Home CEO Paulette Cole, and small business owners from all 50 states, signed a Business for a Fair Minimum Wage statement supporting the last increase in the federal minimum wage. As their statement explained, \"[h]igher wages benefit business by increasing consumer purchasing power, reducing costly employee turnover, raising productivity, and improving product quality, customer satisfaction and company reputation.\" http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com... The site also shows numerous studies that link higher wages to better business. Next you claim raising the minimum wage will kill many peoples jobs. However the United States Department of Labor has regard this as a myth. Due to extensive research they know it will benefit the economy when wages go up. They say, \"In a letter to President Obama and congressional leaders urging a minimum wage increase, more than 600 economists, including 7 Nobel Prize winners wrote, \"In recent years there have been important developments in the academic literature on the effect of increases in the minimum wage on employment, with the weight of evidence now showing that increases in the minimum wage have had little or no negative effect on the employment of minimum-wage workers, even during times of weakness in the labor market. Research suggests that a minimum-wage increase could have a small stimulative effect on the economy as low-wage workers spend their additional earnings, raising demand and job growth, and providing some help on the jobs front.\"\" You say businesses won't have the money to pay wages. The Department of Labor says, \"A July 2015 survey found that 3 out of 5 small business owners with employees support a gradual increase in the minimum wage to $12. The survey reports that small business owners say an increase \"would immediately put more money in the pocket of low-wage workers who will then spend the money on things like housing, food, and gas. This boost in demand for goods and services will help stimulate the economy and help create opportunities.\"\" You say increasing the minimum wage is bad for the economy. US department of labor says, \"Since 1938, the federal minimum wage has been increased 22 times. For more than 75 years, real GDP per capita has steadily increased, even when the minimum wage has been raised.\" You say Increasing the minimum wage lacks public support. Department of Labor says, \"Raising the federal minimum wage is an issue with broad popular support. Polls conducted since February 2013 when President Obama first called on Congress to increase the minimum wage have consistently shown that an overwhelming majority of Americans support an increase.\" You say Increasing the minimum wage will result in job losses for newly hired and unskilled workers in what some call a \"last-one-hired-equals-first-one-fired\" scenario. The department of labor says, \"Minimum wage increases have little to no negative effect on employment as shown in independent studies from economists across the country. Academic research also has shown that higher wages sharply reduce employee turnover which can reduce employment and training costs.\" http://www.dol.gov... I personally believe everything you have brought to the table has been addressed on the link above. From negative affects on the economy to higher crime rates because of unemployment. Another thing is Huffington Post you have been using is not a very accurate site to use. https://en.wikipedia.org... TO CAP THIS ALL OFF... I have explained how wage increase will benefit the economy, benefit workers, and ultimately benefit the world. I have shown how it is moral to raise wages because no one should work their butts off and still live in poverty, \"An employee working a 40-hour week at the federal minimum wage would earn $15,080 per year. This income would leave a two-person household -- say, a single parent with one child -- just below the federal poverty threshold of $15,130.\" http://www.salary.com... I have explained well how raising the minimum wage will add money to businesses and add money to groth for the economy. For this reason vote Pro. I look forward to my opponents response.", "qid": "39", "docid": "9329eedd-2019-04-18T14:04:54Z-00003-000", "rank": 44, "score": 183510.0}, {"content": "Title: March Beginners' Tournament: The USFG should significantly raise the federal minimum wage Content: Defending my unemployment argument: One problem with Con\u2019s argument that worker productivity will rise if minimum wage rises is that the two don\u2019t have any correlation. Take for example the time period of 2000-2007 with worker productivity. Over that time period, worker productivity went up by 2.6% in the nonfarm business sector and 4.7% in the manufacturing sector yet during that time the minimum wage stayed at $5.15. Also notice that the time period saw some of the highest growth compared to other time periods. Now look at the 2007-2015 era and you will notice that productivity growth was half of what it was in the period before despite the fact that minimum wage rose by more than $2.00 during that time. [1] [2] If worker productivity and minimum wage really were correlated then you would expect to see the 2000-2007 era to have less growth than its 2007-2015 counterpart as the real value of the minimum wage shrunk due to inflation over that period and vice versa. On to the issue of employee turnover. Let me first point out that employee turnover isn\u2019t necessarily a bad thing. Employee turnover is good for the company and the economy if:A low performer leavesA person who is toxic to the work environment leavesA low performer or average performer gets replaced by a high performer This brings me to the point of price-out theory. By artificially increasing the value of the job, the employer would look for employees worth more than the job who are often skilled workers that are often not in poverty. Take for example at McDonalds, if you have an applicant who is a college student in an engineering major who can fix machinery versus a high-school dropout in poverty, the employer is now less inclined to give the job to the high-school dropout. It would be such scenarios such as these that increasing minimum wage wouldn\u2019t help those in poverty ultimately defeating the purpose of it. Large corporations can also easily afford to replace minimum-wage workers with automated machines. With the CBO report, while 500,000 jobs makeup 0.3% of total jobs in the United States [4], take into account that there are 1.3 million jobs in the US that pay at the US federal wage [3]. Since this is minimum wage, it is safe to assume that most of the job loss will be at minimum wage jobs. That is around 38% of total minimum wage jobs in the United States. If their estimates line up with other researched papers that state their methodologies, there isn\u2019t too much need for concern as you still have those papers to fall back on. If the report is an outlier, then there would be a much greater need for concern. You criticize the methodology of the the papers in which the study derives its numbers from but never go into detail what his argument is or why we should accept his critique. You attack my claim of historical wage hikes for making a false analogy between introduction and increase of the minimum wage. Yet you could also look at it as an increase from $0 to $0.25. Also even before the implementation of the minimum wage, there was still a sort of \u201cde facto\u201d minimum wage which is what the job is worth. Since the abolition of slavery after the Civil War, employers are required to pay their workers something, otherwise why would someone take a job. If you look closer at my figure for Puerto Rico, that study was talking about unemployment during 1938 [5]. The study you brought up covered unemployment in Puerto Rico since the year 2000. Case closed \u201cMultiple studies have found minimal to no negative impact on employment prospects as a result of minimum wage hikes\u201d Yet a study by economists David Neumark and William Wascher found that most studies came to the conclusion that raising the minimum wage would have a negative effect on employment.[6] Also note that Pro hasn\u2019t disputed my arguments about mechanization taking over the minimum wage workers. Defending Argument 2: First off, Pro blatantly misrepresents the CBO report. It is not 16 million families but rather workers. He also misrepresents the number of people who would predictably rise from the poverty line. Instead of millions as Pro suggests, the figure comes at around 900,000 directly from the report [4]. Also from the CBO report is that average annual family incomes would only increase by a measly 3% from this increase. This just proves my point that raising minimum wage is a ineffective way to help those in poverty.[4] Sources: [1] http://www.bls.gov... [2] http://www.dol.gov... [3] http://www.bls.gov... [4] https://www.cbo.gov... [5] http://object.cato.org... [6] http://www.nber.org...", "qid": "39", "docid": "8c9c7325-2019-04-18T13:31:47Z-00001-000", "rank": 45, "score": 183147.0}, {"content": "Title: Raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour will benefit the US economy Content: In ROUND 2 my opponent states that projections by the congressional budget office (CBO) for raising the minimum wage to $10.10 indicate that 500,000 jobs will be lost by 2016, when the final increase of the federal minimum wage is to be implemented under one of the President's plans. This is in fact what the CBO is projecting, though the CBO is also projecting an immediate increase of $2 billion to the nation's GDP (with an increase of $19 billion in pre-tax income among low wage earners); the CBO is also projecting that 900,000 people will be lifted above the poverty threshold (out of poverty) [1].These would be the immediate effects as of 2016, if the President's plan were to be approved by congress and turned into law. The CBO projects an additional $2 billion will be added to the nation's economy, because of such a plan, and that 900,000 will be lifted out of poverty; it also projects that roughly 500,000 jobs will immediately be lost [1]. However, the picture for long-term employment because of this proposed minimum wage hike looks far more positive, as do the financial gains to the economy once the minimum wage hike has been enacted. A study by the Economic Policy Institute shows that raising the federal minimum to $10.10 (in the precise steps offered by the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2013) would generate $30 billion in new economic activity and lead to the creation of 140,000 new full-time jobs [2]; this is identical to the position of numerous economic research organizations and the White House [9]. Furthermore, to discount my opponent's contention that raising the minimum wage will hurt employment and the economy, numerous studies, including several by the U.S. government's Bureau of Economic Analysis, the Center for Economic and Policy Research, the Universities of California-Berkeley, Massachussetts-Amherst, North Carolina-Chapel Hill, and a survey by the University of Chicago show that raises in the federal minimum wage have in fact positively impacted the economy and have no measurable negative effect on employment [3][4][5][6]; the opposite effect on employment has frequently been true [7][8].An often-cited 2006 study found that states with a minimum wage above the federal minimum wage had faster retail and small business job growth [8]!My opponent also claims that a proposed raise in the federal minimum wage will hurt working teenagers, but a two-decade wide study of previous federal minimum wage increases by U.C.-Berkeley have found that this fear is completely unfounded [11].Now, there is a plethora of data by government agencies, universities, and economic research organizations that show increases to the federal minimum wage have mostly expanded the U.S. economy and GDP, while either not negatively impacting the employment numbers or driving them up because of increased sales and business growth. I will cover the numbers and go over various studies in ROUND 4. This is also well understood in the business community. A 2012 study by MIT professor Zeynop Ton documents how major businesses like Trader Joe's and Costco benefit from higher sales revenue and profits than their low-wage competitors by investing in their employees, which reduces turnover and boost productivity [11]. For example, the starting wage at Trader Joe\u2019s ranges between $40,000 and $60,000 per year, more than twice what many of its competitors offer, and yet the sales revenue per square foot at Trader Joe\u2019s are three times higher than the average U.S. supermarket [11].As Costco CEO Craig Jelinek has stated: \"We pay a starting hourly wage of $11.50 in all states where we do business, and we are still able to keep our overhead costs low. An important reason for the success of [our business model is that] we know it's a lot more profitable in the long term to minimize employee turnover and maximize employee productivity....We support efforts to increase the federal minimum wage\" [12].85% of small businesses are on the same page with Craig Jelinek as they already pay wages higher than the minimum [13].So why do some business executives, managers and political partisans push to keep the federal minimum wage low? Because some individuals don't care about providing for workers and effectively, honestly managing a business--they care exclusively about personal income, no matter who gets hurts and stuck with the bill they should be paying. And America does pay for this kind of negligence...as we shall see.Inadequate Increases in the Federal Minimum Wage have Increased PovertyIn the U.S. poverty is measured by whether a household fails to make enough income (or show enough savings) per year to surpass the \"poverty threshold\" assigned by the U.S government for the number of individuals living in the household [14][15]. Because of inadequate increases in the federal minimum wage with respect to inflation and because employee paychecks have become smaller in real terms for the same reason, poverty in the U.S. has increased over the last three decades [16]. The chart below illustrates the \"povery guidelines\" used by the Department of Health and Human Services for assigning poverty to a household based on annual income and number of people. Households making less than the income enumerated for the corresponding number of people in them are classified as \"living in poverty\". The \"poverty guidelines\" are in actuality simplified versions of the \"poverty thresholds\" used by the U.S. Census Bureau [15]. Now, from first appearances via this chart a full-time minimum wage earner might appear to not be in poverty, but if his/her family consist of another person not employed and not receiving any type of income (a child perhaps), that would assign this person as \"living in poverty\", simply because his/her income falls below the poverty guideline for the household number [18].In 2012 the U.S. Census Bureau announced that more than 16% of the U.S. population lived in poverty, including about 20% of all U.S. children, up from 13.2%--39.8 million people--in 2008 [14]. Since the 1980s, relative poverty in the U.S. has consistently exceeded that of other wealthy nations [14]. In 2011, child poverty reached historically high levels, with 16.7 million children living in food insecure households; in 2013 a UNICEF report ranked the U.S. as having the second highest relative child poverty rates in the developed world [14].The congressional budget office (CBO)--a source my opponent happily cites--projects that raising the minimum wage to $10.10 will not only add billions of dollars to the economy and provide additional income to low-wage earners, but that it will lift a full 900,000 people out of poverty [1]!American Tax-payers Subsidize Low-wage BusinessesFurthermore, American tax-payers subsidize low-wage businesses. Many low-wage earners have to rely on public assistance such as food stamps or the earned income tax credit (EITC), because their wages are simply too low. Programs like the EITC are useful protections against poverty, but we shouldn\u2019t let them act as subsidies to low-wage employers, who currently pay lower wages because the American taxpayer will make up the difference [18].Raising the minimum wage would shrink the federal deficit, since fewer workers would qualify for the EITC [9]. Finally, a recent study by U.C.-Berkeley concluded that raising the minimum wage would allow 3 million people to quit the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) formerly known as food stamps [9].[1] Source 1, Round 2[2] http://www.epi.org...;[3] http://www.dol.gov...;[4] http://www.cepr.net...;[5] https://escholarship.org...[6] http://www.igmchicago.org...;[7] http://blogs.wsj.com...;[8] http://fiscalpolicy.org...;[9] Source 5, Round 2[10] http://escholarship.org...;[11] http://hbr.org...;[12] http://www.businessforafairminimumwage.org...[13] http://www.epi.org...;(Source 4, Round 2)[14] http://en.wikipedia.org...[15] http://aspe.hhs.gov...;[16] http://www.worldhunger.org...;[17] http://poverty.ucdavis.edu...;[18] http://www.epi.org...http://www.epi.org...;(Source 3, Round 2)http://www.bls.gov...;(Source 6, Round 2)", "qid": "39", "docid": "7a99c7b0-2019-04-18T16:23:13Z-00003-000", "rank": 46, "score": 183090.0}, {"content": "Title: Raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour will benefit the US economy Content: Increasing the federal minimum wage from $7.25 per hour to $10.10 per hour will mostly benefit the U.S. Economy. This will be my position in this debate. (I will also be arguing that the federal minimum wage should be indexed to inflation, to keep up with the rising cost of living--a point which my opponent can either choose to refute or ignore.)Con will argue that raising the federal minimum wage will either have no benefit for anyone or will hurt the U.S. economy.I will use numerous reliable sources to show that an increase in the federal minimum wage will grow national GDP by tens of billions of dollars and create hundreds of thousands of jobs. But there are other numerous benefits to raising the minimum which I will demonstrate.I expect Con to use resources to demonstrate that a raise will either have zero impact or will overall negatively hurt the U.S. Economy.First Round is for acceptance only. Good luck!(Disclaimer: for this debate the use of the comments section to post working links that appear dead in the actual debate will be allowed. Neither debater can use the comments section to extend the debate. The comments section shall be used only for non-scored comments and to post working links to sources that are inactive in the actual debate.)", "qid": "39", "docid": "7a99c7cf-2019-04-18T16:20:28Z-00007-000", "rank": 47, "score": 182772.0}, {"content": "Title: The Minimum Wage Content: The resolution is whether or not the minimum wage ought be raised. To 10 $ 1. In reality, the minimum wage should be at least 10 that is if the federal minimum wage was indexed to inflation and to our times. However the issue is it is not. (1) 2. That\u2019s first order. 10$ isn\u2019t exactly demanding a monumental pay raise. It\u2019s more of just keeping what should be. The Federal minimum wage hasn\u2019t been raised in over six years, given that if it had kept up with inflation since its peak in the 1960s it would be well over 10$ an hour.(1) Many fast food workers have been protesting and calling for a 15$ minimum wage-Not to say I endorse or support this \u2013 just stating this is more inline with what civil rights activists demanded in the 1960s (2) 3. improve the economy. Contrary to falsely held views, research very strongly supports and indicates that given it passed , it would likely help businesses through augmenting demand , lowering turnover , increasing prices and thus significantly improving the economy , due to greater spending money for consumers. (3) (4) 4. It would catapult millions out of poverty Full time minimum wage works in our current economy earn a mere $14,500. That is $3,000 below the poverty line. The wage simply isn\u2019t nowhere near enough to pay a suitable rent in any state. Just a bump to 10 bucks, would catapult 6 million out of poverty. 5. Americans are overwhelmingly in support of it. A poll reported that 80 percent of Americans support raising the minimum wage to $10. (5) Sources 1. http://thinkprogress.org... 2. http://thinkprogress.org... 3. http://thinkprogress.org... 4. http://thinkprogress.org... 5. http://www.occupy.com... 6.", "qid": "39", "docid": "be617355-2019-04-18T14:49:38Z-00002-000", "rank": 48, "score": 182614.0}, {"content": "Title: The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour Content: Summary from Round 2Pro - 1. Economists are not agreed on the of the effects of a minimum wage.2. The literature is split. We need more data by way of a large scale experiment.3. Too small a change to the minimum wage is unlikely to give use clear data. The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 /hour.Con - Oops - no arguments Regarding CON\u2019s arguments in Round 3The cost of living There are 2 problems with Con\u2019s arguments about the cost of living.1. CON argues there should be no FEDERAL minimum wage, which is outside the scope of this debate. He also does not suggest a different value.2. Con says that a $15 minimum wage will hurt employers or overpay workers. Both these statements have no data to back them up. It seems that Con is suggesting that the FEDERAL MINIMUM WAGE should be decided by each state or be different in each state. This is not the definition of a FEDERAL minimum wage. The idea of a FEDERAL MINIMUM is that it is decided nationally, and states can choose to have local or state legislation that mandates an increase above this. In CON\u2019s example the state of New York could mandate a $20 minimum if they thought the cost of living merited an increase to improve the lot of people in their state. CON recognizes that states can have higher minimums than the federal minimum. CON does not seem to recognize that setting a federal minimum wage is designed to get people at a better standard of living in all states. CON seems to be arguing that there should be NO federal minimum wage. This is outside the realm of this debate. Note that CON says \u201cSomething such as minimum wage is best left to the local counties or municipalities\u201d, which implies that the Federal Government should not set any minimum wage. Some who argue against paying workers a living wage say that the cost of living would go way up for all of us if we raised the federal minimum wage to $15. I am glad that Con did not try this argument as it is directly refuted by the evidence.Will lead to job lossCon makes up a fictional scenario with fictional numbers. Any employer with numbers like those given by con would already be out of business. Please give us real numbers for a real business in a real state in a real world.CON gave a completely fictional \u201cexample\u201d to try to sway the reader about an important question. \u201cWill an increased minimum wage lead to any significant job loss?\u201dOne source referenced by CON is \u201cDo Economists Agree on Anything? Yes!\u201d which concludes that \u201cThe efficacy of the minimum wage continues to divide economists.\u201d [1]The data presented say that 48.1% of economists want to decrease or eliminate the minimum wage, while 52.0% are in favour of it. (Note this does not specify local or federal minimum wage). Not only were 52% in favour of a minimum wage, but 37.7% of economists were in favour of a substantial increase. NOTE This is from Table 3 in first source that CON presented.The US Department of labor refutes CON\u2019s claim. Here is what they say \u201cIn a letter to President Obama and congressional leaders urging a minimum wage increase, more than 600 economists, including 7 Nobel Prize winners wrote, \"In recent years there have been important developments in the academic literature on the effect of increases in the minimum wage on employment, with the weight of evidence now showing that increases in the minimum wage have had little or no negative effect on the employment of minimum-wage workers, even during times of weakness in the labor market. Research suggests that a minimum-wage increase could have a small stimulative effect on the economy as low-wage workers spend their additional earnings, raising demand and job growth, and providing some help on the jobs front.\u201d [2]In the special case of tipped workers who get both the minimum wage plus tips (so they receive even more than the minimum) the department of labor states: \u201cAs of May 2015, employers in San Francisco must pay tipped workers the full minimum wage of $12.25 per hour \u2014 before tips. Yet, the San Francisco leisure and hospitality industry, which includes full-service restaurants, has experienced positive job growth this year, including following the most recent minimum wage increase.\u201d [2]There are many more studies that come to the same conclusion: There is no evidence that increasing the federal minimum wage will cause job loss or hurt job growth. The NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH, which produces policy papers for government and industry, has an important 2008 paper on optimizing the value of the minimum wage.[3]It talks about supply, demand, competitive equilibrium and tax policy, and it takes the complexity of the issues seriously. Looking at all these factors we need a federal minimum wage of $15 so we can learn how to adjust taxes and welfare to give the most good to the most people.Does very little to help the poorCON seems to say that because the minimum wage does not fix every problem for the poor, we should abandon it as a tool for helping low wage earners. That is like saying that because everybody dies we should stop spending money on hospitals and doctors.CON suggest a low minimum wage BECAUSE WE ARE NOT DOING ENOUGH. This is a fallacy. In response to CON and people with similar logic we need to increase the federal minimum wage to $15 (and indexed for cost of living)CON says that 60% of those in poverty are not in the workforce. This is true, many are the children and non working spouses of the working poor. Raising the wealth of poor communities will help many who are not employed.EITC CON says there should be a tax credit for those earning so little that a minimum wage increase would affect them. I agree that a comprehensive strategy to help the poor needs to include MORE than the minimum wage. Our debate, however, is about the fact that the federal minimum should be increased to $15.CON\u2019s (false) conclusions Con points to his false understanding about the cost of living and minimum wage. Con wrongly claims that a minimum wage increases unemployment Con rightly claims that a minimum wage increase is not the ONLY way to help the poor. Con suggests tax breaks (which are outside the scope of this debate). The facts prove CON wrong. The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hourRegarding CON\u2019s \u201crebuttals\u201d - The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hourDavid Card\u2019s study - CON says the study didn\u2019t show any proof that the minimum wage increase was a good thing. I\u2019m sure that those receiving the increase were happy to receive it. Con makes a nonsense comment that it compared 2 cities with similar cost of living. This is the way science works, you try to minimize changes in every variable but the one you are studying. I\u2019m glad CON pointed out that this is good science. His comment is a pont in favour of my understanding of the subject, not his.Con says that Alan Kruger was against raising the minimum wage to $15. Since he gives no reference, I\u2019ll assume he is referring to the 1992 study in my references. I agree that $15 / hour would be excessive in 1992 when the study was between $4.25 and $5.05 per hour.Price Increases If the minimum wage were increased to $15 an hour, prices at fast food restaurants would rise by an estimated 4.3 percent.[5] That would mean a McDonald\u2019s Big Mac, which currently goes for $3.99, would cost about 17 cents more, or $4.16. This is a trivial amount. If I buy a Big Mack meal every day of the week my total cost increase is $1.19 per week. The price increases would be trivial.CON states \u201cI'll admit I'm a bit confused now.\u201dCON seems to have missed my main premise that : The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour.This is because we need better information about the cause and effect relationship between minimum wage and other economic indicators. A federal minimum wage increase to this level would give good data for policy makers and a better understanding for economists. Most of CON\u2019s arguments prove my point that we need good data that we can only get from a large increase in the federal minimum wage. For example, one main source for CON is a blog page from a software developer and CEO of a software company.[6] He is possibly a great guy, but not an authority on government policy and economics.CON basically ignores the position of the US Dept. Of Labor.Please read here to see them refute his fallacies one by one.http://www.dol.gov...Vote PRO The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour.[1] http://ew-econ.typepad.fr...[2] http://www.dol.gov...[3] http://journalistsresource.org...[4] http://davidcard.berkeley.edu...[5] www.thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/08/03/3687171/15-minimum-wage-big-mac/[6] http://wheniwork.com...", "qid": "39", "docid": "4d04459a-2019-04-18T14:01:20Z-00002-000", "rank": 49, "score": 182441.0}, {"content": "Title: We should raise the minimum wage Content: I will first begin by very easily negating what has been presented thus far by my opponent. They brought up the lack of employment from younger individuals in New York when the minimum wage was increased. This point, however, is null and void. As of December 31st of 2016, New York's minimum wage has already been raised to fifteen dollars, supporting my argument. According to the New York government, the raise in minimum wage was actually due to input from both employers and employees. This means that the people 'wanting to work for less', as my opponent tried to argue for, do not exist, or are a very subjective minority of workers. Source(s): (https://www.ny.gov...) EPI states that raising the minimum wage to just ten dollars would inject $22.1 billion net into the economy and create about 85,000 new jobs over a three-year phase-in period. This means my opponent supports a smaller economy and less jobs. The Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago's economists predicted that a $1.75 rise in the federal minimum wage would increase aggregate household spending by $48 billion the following year, thus boosting GDP and leading to job growth. In 1994, an economic study done by the economists Alan Krueger, PhD, and David Card, PhD studied employment rates between Pennsylvania and New Jersey, the latter having a higher minimum wage. They found no difference in employment rates, meaning that my opponent's argument about lower employment is null and void and flows over to my side. Furthermore, economists Hristos Doucouliagos, PhD, and T.D. Stanley, PhD, released in a review of 64 minimum wage studies. The authors found \"little or no evidence of a negative association between minimum wages and employment.\" Source(s): (David Cooper, \"Raising the Federal Minimum Wage to $10.10 Would Lift Wages for Millions and Provide a Modest Economic Boost,\" Economic Policy Institute website, Dec. 19, 2013) (Daniel Aaronson and Eric French, \"How Does a Federal Minimum Wage Hike Affect Aggregate Household Spending?,\" Chicago Fed Letter, Aug. 2013) (David Card and Alan B. Krueger, \"Minimum Wages and Employment: A Case Study of the Fast-Food Industry in New Jersey and Pennsylvania,\" The American Economic Review, Sep. 1994) (Hristos Doucouliagos and T.D. Stanley, \"Publication Selection Bias in Minimum-Wage Research? A Meta-Regression Analysis,\" British Journal of Industrial Relations, June 2009) For these reasons, supporting my side of the argument and nullifying everything presented by my opponent, I heavily urge a strong Pro/Aff voter turnout.", "qid": "39", "docid": "6c6b40ff-2019-04-18T12:26:42Z-00001-000", "rank": 50, "score": 182402.0}, {"content": "Title: Minimum Wage Should Not Be Raised Content: I will be arguing for a stable federal minimum wage in the United States. I personally believe that the minimum wage should be abolished altogether, as I believe in almost nonexistent government intervention in business. However, I am arguing that we should not increase the minimum wage any higher then it already is on a federal basis. This comes from the fact that Seattle, NYC, LA, and Chicago have all raised their minimum wages to an exorbitant amount, which will eventually end up in loss of jobs and working hours. First round will be acceptance and an overall statement of your intended debate, as well as any definitions you shall use for your debate. If you feel that a word or sentence is vague, please define it using a common dictionary, and then list the name of that dictionary in your overall debate. No trolling, no usage of profanity, and all statements that are not opinionated but are not backed up by sources will be looked over, as I will not believe it unless I see a credible source.", "qid": "39", "docid": "bf184b88-2019-04-18T14:33:20Z-00005-000", "rank": 51, "score": 182358.0}, {"content": "Title: The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour Content: Unfortunately, I have to forfeit this round. I been too busy with school, and wasn't able to make my arguments in time. It's up to my opponent whether he believes I should be penalized for this. I'll accept his choice.Sorry for the inconvience.", "qid": "39", "docid": "4d04459a-2019-04-18T14:01:20Z-00005-000", "rank": 52, "score": 181783.0}, {"content": "Title: An increase of the Federal minimum wage would have adverse effects on employment Content: My opponent opens this round by saying that a time frame is a \"red herring\". That position could not be more incorrect. If we aren't allowed to take long-term benefit into account, the entire debate has no merit because no effect is either infinite or instantaneous. I could just as easily say that a minimum wage increase has no effect on employment the day it is signed, and therefore has no impact. The word that is important here is \"Overall\", as it was used both in PRO's initial argument and very much factored into my response. My opponent then goes on to make the extraordinary claim that even \"if the minimum wage is raised ten percent, it temporarily stunts future growth anyway.\" So let me get this straight: Long term benefits to employment caused by a higher standard of living (driven by higher minimum wage) don't count because we aren't allowed to take the long term as having any relevance... yet future growth is \"stunted.\" (A position my opponent does not back up with any sort of explanation.) To summarize, PRO would have you acknowledge future harms that he does not justify in any way, yet ignores future benefits because they're \"a red herring\". Additionally, my opponent's source on this matter is a book, in which he supplies no reference or page number. In future rounds I will in good faith trust my opponent about what books he selects say, but he should at least indicate exactly what that is. (Yes, he links to it later, but again, without knowing what section or quote he finds relevant to his point, it's rather difficult to use here) Rebuttal 1: My Source To say that my source claimed \"All\" recent research was breaking the same way is a Straw man argument. The source I site is clearly only referring to all the studies it was choosing to use as examples, NOT all research being done. His entire argument is predicated upon this slight, which is either a serious confusion on his part, OR a deliberate and misleading statement to ignore what the studies themselves say. But that really isn't surprising. When I read through Neumark (who seems to be the ONLY source my opponent cites in relation to the first half of his arguments...even his use of Gary Becker is only what Gary Becker says about Neumark's writing) I notice that Neumark himself seems to largely address examples grounded in state-level minimum wage. As PRO seeks to assess the effects of federal minimum wage, I find this discrepancy to be troubling at best. Finally, Neumark is clearly rebutting two very specific studies, which are not the ones I cited in my sources. Even if he were refuting these, it's unrealistic to expect a study to somehow address a rebuttal that was made in response to the study itself. (PRO:These new studies themselves are weak and fail to control for the factors they wish to control for. The information cited here is totally misinformed about the academic rebuttal to the studies cited.) Studies are not \"misinformed\" simply because they occur in the past. That's just how linear time works. Rebuttal 2: Productivity My opponent chastises me for being the one to bring productivity up, yet it is he who mentioned productivity in his opening argument, saying that the impact higher minimum wages have on productivity is a negative one. I neatly refute this, illustrating perfectly how this could not be. It is irrelevant to HIS argument, not mine. For clarity: \"First, the price of the output (or workers) rises, and therefore the demand for new workers falls. This leads to a reduction in ---->production<----- and hiring, which then leads to decreased employment.\" These are my opponent's words. He is obliged to devour them now. Rebuttal 3: Numbers I understood that your numbers were hypothetical, obviously, but my point was that they were not an accurate example. By accurate I don't mean specific to exact real-world numbers, but rather that the scale of them was way off. When we're talking about arguments of minimum wages, we aren't talking about the difference of a 10 and 20 dollar worker, we're talking about the difference between a 35-cent worker and a 7 dollar one. This is important because it's a much clearer wrong in the latter case, the former case serves to insinuate a certain greed on the part of workers who are \"not worth that much\". But I digress. Another great mendacity to the examples you give is that they exist both in a vacuum. Sometimes, minimum wage is say, 15% below the poverty line relative to inflation and the costs of consumer goods. But at the same time, in that economy, profits may be at historic highs, giving companies more wiggle-room on whether or not they choose to let people go in response to having to pay more. On the other hand, if times are tight, and minimum wage is actually enough to put workers at say, 20% ABOVE the poverty line, and profits are already low, it is a virtual certainty that they might be let go in the wake of an increase. While it arguable that the Federal Minimum Wages going up might be a catalyst in the latter situation, it is clearly the greater economic environment which has the far greater impact. A catalyst and a cause are not the same thing, though it is easy to confuse the two. Rebuttal 5: Minorities Again, a straw man argument. I did not say nor imply you suggested that the minimum wage is racist. I said that employers who are already doing a poor job of employing unskilled labor from minority populations, and then, clearly, choosing to fire those individuals first when an excuse (not a cause mind you, an excuse) like a heightened minimum wage comes around ARE. And while I know it is not what you are saying, I would add that I find the notion that employers can simply hold minority population's jobs hostage to decry changes in the law they don't like disgusting. Conclusion: The largest point I have made, whether or not the overall impact of increased minimum wage is good for employment, has gone largely un-addressed. While my opponent characterizes this argument as being a red herring, he does nothing to indicate just what the long-term harms of minimum-wage hikes are, nor what their impact is in the long term. I would ask that rather than simply citing the same un-detailed study over and over again, PRO should cite a specific federal minimum wage increase, and then track what its impacts have been through the years or decades he deems relevant. I would submit that any attempt to do so will not end well for PRO. Until they do, my argument stands.", "qid": "39", "docid": "32f15628-2019-04-18T17:22:51Z-00001-000", "rank": 53, "score": 181624.0}, {"content": "Title: The Minimum Wage should be increased. Content: Unfortunately,My opponent gave up.", "qid": "39", "docid": "342cf7b6-2019-04-18T16:32:02Z-00003-000", "rank": 54, "score": 181545.0}, {"content": "Title: Raising the federal minimum wage would not be economically beneficial Content: ForfeitUnfortunately Pro has forfeited every round of this debate. This merits a loss of conduct points, but I will leave that at the discretion of the voters. At this point, I will offer my own case which will go unrefuted. Resolved: Raising the Federal Minimum Wage would be economically beneficial The definitions, to my knowledge, are self-explanatory, so I don't feel a need to clarify any at this point. I'll jump right into my argument. Note: I had several images, but kept receiving error messages when I tried to submit. So I'm going to instead link to the images.I. Adjusting for Sticky WagesAs we all know, economic gains are not broadly shared; over the past thirty years, the bulk of economic gains have gone to the very affluent. In spite of the fact that productivity has doubled, median wages have flatlined for many and fallen for some. Who has been the most hurt by this? Minimum wage workers; the minimum has not been and is not indexed to inflation, meaning that nominal wages do not rise with inflation. Even though the nominal minimum wage has increased over time, real wages nevertheless decline, meaning falling purchasing power. Let's examine this in several graphs. The first graph comes from a piece Robert Reich wrote in the NYT (1). http://www.debate.org...Initially, this looks like a rather confusing graphic, so allow me to briefly elucidate it for you. From 1947 to 1979, productivity increased by 119%. As a result, hourly compensation increased by 100% and hour wages increased by 72%. This looked, overall, pretty fair: generally speaking, pay rose proportionally with productivity. This hasn't been the case recently, however. From 1979 to 2009, productivity increased by 80%, whilst average hourly compensation only increased by 8% and average hourly wages only increased by 8%. How have wages practically been flat, though, if productivity has increased? As the opponents of a minimum wage increase often argue, people are \"paid what they are worth.\" That, of course, is an utter crock. I'm going to provide a few more graphics proving this point soon, but there's more to see. Observe next the change in income distrubtion to households by income groups. This comes from the Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality (2). Note the same occurence: rising shares of income for those at the very top, and flat or falling shares of income for those struggling to make it. http://www.debate.org...We should view this in context, though. What has happened to incomes of the top 1 percent over this time period? Let's review this following graph (3). http://www.debate.org...To make a long story short, the top 1 percent has done exceedingly well, with income gains surpassing productivity gains. To provide more context, consider this: in 1980, CEO's earned 42 times what the average worker made, but in 2012, they earned 380 times (4). Opponents of a minimum wage increase will argue that workers are merely paid \"what they are worth,\" which is rooted in their productivity. However, if the minimum wage kept pace with productivity, it will be about $21.72 (5). If it even kept pace with inflation, it would be $10.52 (5). We can observe this disparity with an analysis put together by Pew of nominal versus real values of the minimum wage (6). Notice that the real value of the minimum wage peaked in 1968, and hasn't been higher since. http://www.debate.org...II. ProductivitySo we now know, judging from empirical data, that the notion that people are paid in accordance with their equilibrium wage or their marginal product of labor if a canard: it simply hasn't happened, which is largely because the entire concept is entirely theoretical and arbitrary. That is, if I'm an employer, I can artificially increase your productivity by making sure that you have access to the best machinery. I could also artificially lower your productivity (this is obviously hypothetical) by breaking your leg. Does this mean I should alter your pay? Of course not, nor would I. This isn't to say that productivity and compensation are entirely incompatible, as there is some merit to the argument that pay, generally speaking, does or should increase with productivity. It simply hasn't happened as recent, and thus having a minimum wage acts a counterweight against lack of bargaining leverage in the workplace. The point of this contention, though, is that raising the minimum wage can actually increase worker's productivity. Wayne Cascio from the Harvard Business Review explains: \"In return for its generous wages and benefits, Costco gets one of the most loyal and productive workforces in all of retailing, and, probably not coincidentally, the lowest shrinkage (employee theft) figures in the industry...Costco\u2019s stable, productive workforce more than offsets its higher costs.These figures challenge the common assumption that labor rates equal labor costs. Costco\u2019s approach shows that when it comes to wages and benefits, a cost-leadership strategy need not be a race to the bottom.\" (7) We also have a statement from over 1,000 business owners expressing their support for increasing the federal minimum wage: \"[H]igher wages benefit business by increasing consumer purchasing power, reducing costly employee turnover, raising productivity, and improving product quality, customer satisfaction and company reputation\" (8). These statements are consistent with empirical work conducted by U.C. Berkeley economists which revealed that an increase in the minimum wage up to $13 per hour has \"no measurable effect on employment\" (9). It also demonstrated how businesses react to the increase in labor costs. Lynn Thompson of the Seattle Times explains: \"Businesses absorbed the costs through lower turnover, small price increases at restaurants, which have a high concentration of low-wage workers, and higher worker productivity, the researchers found.\" (9) III. Outsourcing? Another canard we often hear about the minimum wage is that it will lead to \"outsourcing.\" Not only is this claim unsound logically, as it insinuates that labor costs are the be-all-end-all and the sole determinant of employment opportunities. If that were the case, why wouldn't businesses relocate to -- I know libertarians are going to cry \"strawman!\" but I promise you, if you look at the data, this is a relevant example -- Somalia? You could pay workers whatever you'd like if there aren't any regulations. Why don't businesses do this? There are a few reasons. First, minimum wage jobs are most often in the restaurant or service sector such as retail -- about 60%, in fact, as Paul Krugman notes (10). Obviously service sector jobs cannot be readily exported, so on this front, the claim falls flat. Literally relocating businesses to X country with lower labor costs would cost businesses even more money than increasing the minimum wage, and would exacerbate the next problem I'm about to point out. The second problem with the outsourcing canard is that one businesses's employees are another's businesses -- or, even that same business's -- customers. Low-wage workers have a higher marginal propensity to consumer than more affluent people, meaning they consume with about 100% of their income. Therefore, any increase in the minimum wage will merely result in those dollars going back into the economy. As people spend more money, the AD curve shifts to the left. Businesses would want to supply more, and now can because their profits have increased, meaning we would see a shift along the AS curve as well as an increase in the demand for labor. This is the reason that AD, not AS, is the key to the economy -- and I am not only saying that because John Maynard Keynes happens to be the economist after which I have modelled my username. Businesses are sitting on literally trillions of dollars in cash right now that they aren't investing. It's intellectually dishonst to insinuate that merely reducing their taxes, deregulating them further, abolishing the minimum wage, etc. would provide an economic boost. They aren't going to increase their supply, and thus hire more workers, if there isn't any demand for their products their selling. That, my conservative friends, is called a glut. Rising inventory costs are literally toxic to businesses, and should be avoided when they can. This acts as a check by ensuring that businesses have an active, vibrant customer base. IIII. Jobs I've already essentially proven this case, but with the few remaining characters I have, I'll address this as well. There have been several meta-studies conducted on this subject, and the conclusion far and wide has been that raising the minimum wage has \"no discernable effect\" on employment (11). Let's go to John Scmitt from the CEPR: \"[T]wo recent meta-studies analyzing the research conducted since the early 1990s concludes that the minimum wage has little or no discernible effect on the employment prospects of low-wage workers. The most likely reason for this outcome is that the cost shock of the minimum wage is small relative to most firms' overall costs and only modest relative to the wages paid to low-wage workers.\" (11)Even the CBO study that conservatives often cite -- falsely, might I add -- grants that a hike in the minimum wage provides an economic stimulus: \"The increased earnings for low-wage workers resulting from the higher minimum wage would total $31 billion, by CBO\u2019s estimate.\"ConclusionThere isn't much else to say. Vote Con. Sources(1) http://tinyurl.com... (2) http://tinyurl.com...(3) http://tinyurl.com... (4) http://tinyurl.com... (5) http://tinyurl.com... (6) http://tinyurl.com...(7) http://tinyurl.com... (8) http://tinyurl.com... (9) http://tinyurl.com... (10) http://tinyurl.com... (11) http://tinyurl.com...", "qid": "39", "docid": "e1beae30-2019-04-18T15:58:56Z-00000-000", "rank": 55, "score": 181414.0}, {"content": "Title: The minimum wage should be increased Content: Con's arguments are largely unfounded. Note that there is no evidence backing up his (her? I apologize, but your profile doesn't give your gender!) assertions. Let's look at the two assertions in his round 1 arguments.1. Raising the minimum wage will cause inflation.2. It will tell students that, straight out of high school, they will be able to earn a living wage of $15. ( Note: This claim is inaccurate, because the resolution calls for a minimum wage increase, but not necessarily a living wage of $15 per hour. So this argument is unfounded.) First, the inflationary impacts of raising the minimum wage are negligible (1). A myriad of research has been done on this, and there is simply no evidence that raising the minimum wage would raise the gallon of gas to $4.50. For goodness' sake, do you truly think low wage workers have that type of power? Gas prices are determined not even by the Federal Reserve's QE, but by global demand. Gas prices tend to fluctuate with global events, and are high at this moment because of increased demand from China and India. There is no evidence whatsoever that a slight hike in the minimum wage would raise gas prices to the degree you're suggesting. Next, you act as though inflation -- even if it were possible for the minimum wage to cause inflation -- is a bad thing. It is not. In fact, we had mild inflation during the golden years of U.S. years -- the three decades following WWII -- and about 4 percent inflation during Ronald Reagan's second term. Inflation, in moderate levels, is a good thing because wages and prices adjust, and thus it doens't impact purchasing power, and it eats away at debts. If inflation were ever to reach an exorbitant level, the Federal Reserve would simply raise interest rates and downsize its balance sheet. The threat of inflation is an unheard of, unfounded apparaition. The current inflation rate is 1.6%, below the Fed's 2% target. Yes, there was a higher inflation target under Ronald Reagan's Fed Chair than there was under Bernanke (that remains today under Yellen).Next, the inability to inflate is a severe cause of the downturn in Europe. The ECB can only purchase government bonds on the secondary market, and is thus subject to the whims of investors. As a result, it must pay extremely high interest rates in even a feeble attempt to hold down rates and boost aggregate demand and investment. At the same time, the same kind of deflationary drive running rampant in the US -- amid a liquidity trap, mind you -- is increasing nominally denominated debt shares and forcing through austerity. It turns out, debt deflation leads to lower wages, leads to less demand, leads to higher unemployment, leads to less demand, etc. and the cycle continues. Now, moving onto my arguments:1. The minimum wage is good for the economy. If the minimum wage kept pace with productivity since 1960, it would be about $22 per hour (2). Right now, it's a measely $7.25 per hour. What happened to the rest of the money? Productivity has nearly doubled after all, yet wages have been flat -- or, if you factor in the Great Recession, median wages have fallen. The answer is quite simple: they've gone to the top. Even since the 2009 recovery, 95% of income gains have gone to the top 1 percent. 2. Any job losses for raising the minimum wage are negligible vis-a-vis the net gain. The CBO recently released a report on the minimum wage in which they said raising the minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10 per hour would cost anywhere from 0 to 1 million jobs, though the best estimate is about 500,000. Note the massive disparity. They simply can't put a number on it. At the same time, it would lift over a million people out of poverty, and they even acknowledged that it would spur a rather large demand stimulus. This stimulus would more than offset any loss of employment, and macropolicies alone could care for low-skilled workers who may lose their jobs as a result. The point is, the benefits would outweigh the cost.3. It is a myth that the majority of minimum wage workers are teenagers. My opponent has fallen into this trap with his second argument, which I will now address. First, the CBO also told us that only 12% of workers who would benefit from a minimum wage increase to $10.10 would be teenagers. That means that a whopping 88% are not teenagers. This is simply the truth. A majority of minimum wage workers are breadwinners. They depend on the minimum wage for their livelihoods. And, at the same time, because these people are literally living below the poverty line, they must spend 100% of what they earn in order to survive. Increasing their incomes by way of a minimum wage increase would significantly boost demand, and thus provide a stimulus to both businesses and the economy at large.Conclusion:My opponent's arguments are unfounded. He has not provided a single argument against the minimum wage. 1. http://truth-out.org...;2. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...;3. http://www.cbo.gov...;", "qid": "39", "docid": "d55c8fd6-2019-04-18T16:31:33Z-00003-000", "rank": 56, "score": 181056.0}, {"content": "Title: An increase of the Federal minimum wage would have adverse effects on employment Content: I accept. Noting the comments others left, I will take this debate on in what I believe to be the spirit you intended, and will not resort to cheap tricks like only considering a one-penny increase. Proceed, honored opponent.", "qid": "39", "docid": "32f15628-2019-04-18T17:22:51Z-00005-000", "rank": 57, "score": 180867.0}, {"content": "Title: The Federal Minimum wage should NOT be raised Content: Sometimes the utility of a debate is that it helps to refine one's statement. When I say \"The Federal Minimum wage should NOT be raised\", I mean it should not be raised NOW. The debate question had its genesis in news articles from New York and elsewhere as a response to people protesting for an increase. Raising the wage now is the wrong response , to the wrong problem and at the wrong time. With the current level of unemployment, and those who are not in the labor market, the minimum should not be raised until those issues are resolved. To raise it NOW only compounds the overall problem with the economy. When the federal government begins to act responsibly, this issue could be revisited. California may be raising their in-state minimum to $10 per hour. Let's wait and see what their experience shows. In the meantime, I still stand that \"The Federal Minimum wage should NOT be raised at this time.\"", "qid": "39", "docid": "b6f6e654-2019-04-18T17:09:58Z-00000-000", "rank": 58, "score": 180854.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: The United States should incrementally raise the federal minimum wage to at least $15/hr Content: I accept", "qid": "39", "docid": "9e83cfe2-2019-04-18T14:18:48Z-00003-000", "rank": 59, "score": 180533.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Minimum wages in the United States should be raised to ensure the welfare of its people Content: I accept this challenge and negate the resolution which is in favor of raising the federal minimum wage.", "qid": "39", "docid": "5339b784-2019-04-18T15:45:56Z-00005-000", "rank": 60, "score": 180499.0}, {"content": "Title: The US Federal Government should raise the minimum wage. Content: First of all, though the constitution can be amendment, no official amendment was passed allowing the Federal government to create a Federal Minimum wage. And the supreme court was never given the power to amend the constitution, and even if it was, they never even ruled that this was constitutional, thus the Federal Government does not have the power to establish a minimum wage. Secondly, I do believe I proved that Switzerland, as a result of not having any minimum wage, has increased the average wages of its workers through competition. This actually happened in the US during WW2, the reason is that there were more jobs than employees, thus employers competed over employees by offering benefits, higher wages, safer conditions etc. Furthermore, labor unions during the progressive movement were able to get better wages as of the 1890's, the Federal Government couldn't increase wages until 1941. This means that labor unions are much better at achieving a better wage than the federal government. Thirdly, I never said there are benefits to a 7.25$ a hour minimum wage, only that it isn't necessary because states have proven to be much better at increasing their minimum wage than the federal government. And the same is true about labor unions, thus, the federal government increasing the minimum wage wouldn't do much because it would be incapable of consistently updating it with inflation, which is severely miscalculated.", "qid": "39", "docid": "51c34db5-2019-04-18T13:22:25Z-00001-000", "rank": 61, "score": 180416.0}, {"content": "Title: The US Federal Government should raise the minimum wage. Content: I will be arguing that the US Federal Government should raise the minimum wage. I would like more my opponent to note that I agree that the US Federal government should raise the minimum wage one dollar every year until we get to 10 dollars in order to make small businesses adjust to the wages. Now, I will begin my case. -------------------------------------- Democracy Advantage: Before, I begin to state the statistics on how many people in America support an increase in the minimum wage; I want to stress the importance of this argument. The Founding Fathers intended for our representatives to listen to what the American people want. These are one of the fundamental principles of America, and what defined our country in the 1700s as a democratic nation. My opponent is libertarian. If there is anything libertarians, liberals, and conservatives can agree with; it is that we should all be able to agree that when 76% of Americans agree on simple legislation that should be passed, than the government is obligated to listen and pass the legislation a majority of Americans want to be passed. If the government does not listen to the pleas of the American people, than our democracy is not functioning properly. 76% of Americans support raising the minimum wage. A great majority of Americans support raising the minimum wage to $10.10 dollars an hour. I offer this question to my opponent. I believe that if the government continues to deny the pleas to raise the minimum wage, than how can we still call ourselves a functional democracy. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Benefits: My opponent is of the few in America that claim that raising the minimum wage will hurt jobs. I will debunk this popular myth in this contention. Note that 73 million people are paid hourly wages. 1. Improved living standards: The first benefit is that millions of Americans would see a pay raise that could go toward meeting their basic needs and living expenses. A 2013 report from the Congressional Budget Office estimated that 16.5 million low-wage workers would benefit from a $10.10-per-hour wage, including 900,000 workers who would climb above the poverty threshold. A more recent analysis by CNN was even more aggressive, implying that 5 million Americans would be lifted out of poverty at $10.10 per hour. More workers being able to pay for their basic expenses is a good thing, as it may lead to less reliance on government- and state-sponsored financial-aid programs --------------------------------- 2. Increasing the federal minimum wage to $9.80 by July 1, 2014, would raise the wages of about 28 million workers who would receive nearly 40 billion dollars in additional wages over the phase in period. ------------------------------------ 3. GDP has been proven to increase roughly by 25 billion dollar resulting in the creation of approximately 100,000 net jobs. -------------------------------------- 4. Around 54% of affected worker work full time, over 70% are in families with incomes of less than 60,000 dollars, more than a quarter are parents, and over a third are married. ------------------------------------------------ 5. The average affected worker earns about half of his or her family's total income. ----------------------------------------------------------- 6. The immediate benefits of a minimum-wage increase are in the boosted earnings of the lowest-paid workers, but its positive effects would far exceed this extra income. Recent research reveals that, despite skeptics\" claims, raising the minimum wage does not cause job loss. In fact, throughout the nation, minimum-wage increases would create jobs. Like unemployment insurance benefits or tax breaks for low- and middle-income workers, raising the minimum wage puts more money in the pockets of working families when they need it most, thereby augmenting their spending power. Economists generally recognize that low-wage workers are more likely than any other income group to spend any extra earnings immediately on previously unaffordable basic needs or services: --------------------------------------------------------------------- Europe: Europe is also a good example of how the minimum wage actually benefits workers more than it harms workers. -Great Britain's minimum wage is $10.31 an hour. There GDP is 2.8 trillion dollars. There are 4.9 million small businesses that are fully capable of managing this wage without loosing jobs. -Germany's minimum wage is $11.50 an hour. Germany's GDP is 3.85 trillion dollars. -France's minimum wage is $10.70 an hour. France's GDP is 2.83 trillion dollars. -Australia's minimum wage is $10.50 an hour. Australia's GDO is 1.45 trillion dollars. - America's minimum wage is $7.25 an hour. America's GDP is 17.48 trillion dollars. I offer my opponent these questions. -Why is it that America was the wealthiest country in that list, yet had the lowest federal minimum wage? -Why is America able to access an abundant amount of benefits from raising the minimum wage, and the government is still not pass it into law? -Why is it that that the US Federal Government will not raise the minimum wage when 76% of Americans believe that it is the right thing to do? I look forward to these answers. It is up to my opponent whether to address these questions in his case or rebuttal. Sources: . http://www.reuters.com... . http://www.forbes.com... . http://www.msnbc.com... . http://www.bing.com... . http://www.timeforaraise.org...", "qid": "39", "docid": "51c34db5-2019-04-18T13:22:25Z-00004-000", "rank": 62, "score": 180358.0}, {"content": "Title: The minimum wage should be increased Content: Con has dropped all of my arguments. Extending forward.", "qid": "39", "docid": "d55c8fd6-2019-04-18T16:31:33Z-00002-000", "rank": 63, "score": 179957.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should raise the Federal Minimum wage standard to Content: This debate is appart of Forever's tourney and is Round 1 match-up between Famousdebater and myself.The full debate resolution is as follows. Resolved: The United States Federal Government should raise the Federal Minimum wage standard to $15 per hour.RulesFirst round rules and definitions by Con, Opening arguments by Pro.Second Round Opening arguments by Con, no rebuttals. Pro refutes Con's arguments.Third Round Con's rebuttals, Pro's rebuttals and Conclusion.Forth Round Con's rebuttals and conclusion. Pro waives the round.In the Forth Round Pro shall only type, \"No round as agree upon.\"If anything but the above is written in Round 4 then Pro forfeits the entire debate.No profanity.No trolling.Sources may be placed in the comments section if need-be.No Kritiks.No semantics, the definitions provided are the ones to be used throughout the debate.The United States Federal Government is established by the US Constitution. The Federal Government shares sovereignty over the United Sates with the individual governments of the States of US. The Federal government has three branches: i) the legislature, which is the US Congress, ii) Executive, comprised of the President and Vice president of the US and iii) Judiciary. The US Constitution prescribes a system of separation of powers and \u2018checks and balances\u2019 for the smooth functioning of all the three branches of the Federal Government. The US Constitution limits the powers of the Federal Government to the powers assigned to it; all powers not expressly assigned to the Federal Government are reserved to the States or to the people. (http://definitions.uslegal.com...)Should-must; ought (used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency): (http://dictionary.reference.com...) Raise- to move to a higher position; lift up; elevate (http://dictionary.reference.com...)Minimum Wage Standard- The federal minimum wage provisions are contained in the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour effective July 24, 2009. Many states also have minimum wage laws. Some state laws provide greater employee protections; employers must comply with both. The FLSA does not provide wage payment collection procedures for an employee\u2019s usual or promised wages or commissions in excess of those required by the FLSA. However, some states do have laws under which such claims (sometimes including fringe benefits) may be filed. (http://www.dol.gov...)", "qid": "39", "docid": "74df972a-2019-04-18T14:06:51Z-00006-000", "rank": 64, "score": 179665.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should raise the minimum wage to $15. Content: I accept!", "qid": "39", "docid": "9329eedd-2019-04-18T14:04:54Z-00006-000", "rank": 65, "score": 179592.0}, {"content": "Title: March Beginners' Tournament: The USFG should significantly raise the federal minimum wage Content: Argument 1: Increases to unemploymentCon states that raising the minimum wage would lead to job loss, arguing that businesses will have to respond to new costs posed by higher wages with cutting jobs. A reasonable concern, and seemingly valid as well. However, it falls apart on several levels upon further examination: - To begin with, there are multiple ways in which raising the minimum wage alows for business to save money. A study on the Harvard Business Review by MIT Professor Zeynep Ton [6] found that higher wages boost productivity and decrease employee turnover rate. Another study found a reduction in employee turnover rate within nine months of a state-wide minimum wage hike [7]. - Additionally - as a National Employment Law Project analysis [5] on Census Bureau data found - most low wage employees work for large companies, which can certainly afford the costs of higher wages.Con supports his argument with a report from the Congressional Budget Office, which found that raising the minimum wage would lead to some unemployment. What he neglected to mention, was that the very same report found that a minimum wage hike would result in massive econmic benefits, which outweigh potential costs. The projected effect on employment was essentially insignificant: a mere 0.3% reduction [1].I did say \"projected\" for a reason; the CBO's estimates on the unemployment increase shouldn't be taken to be conclusive. Economist Michael Reich wrote an analysis at ThinkProgress[2], noting that:\"The method used by the CBO to estimate job loss is never clearly explained. According to the Appendix, the figure appears to come almost entirely from its \u201csynthesis\u201d of the research literature \u2014 which it concludes implies an elasticity of teen employment of -0.075 percent. This estimate is a bit below the low end of estimates in papers by Neumark and Wascher or Sabia and Burkhauser, but higher than those in various papers by Dube, Reich, and others. No details are provided concerning how the CBO arrived at this number, except that it discounts some older studies slightly because of publication bias.\"\"Some of the studies that the CBO relied on are also problematic. As is explained in detail in a 2013 paper by Allegretto et. al that the CBO cites, the Neumark and Wascher paper and other studies that find negative employment effects suffer from methodological flaws that bias their estimates.\" Additionally, Con claims historical wage hikes have increased unemployment. He argues that with the introduction of the minimum went several thousand jobs, which is true. However, it suffices to say, comparing the introduction of the minimum wage to an increment makes for a false analogy. Particularly when empirical data does not support his conclusions.He later attributes job losses in Puerto Rico to the minimum wage hike implimented shortly prior. However, this is a misattrubation of the cause. As an analysis demonstrated, much of Puerto Rico's job losses had absolutely nothing to do with the minimum wage increment [3].Ultimatly, Con's case falls apart at an empirical level. Multiple studies have found minimal to no negative impact on employment prospects as a result of minimum wage hikes:- A 2013 report which analyzed the past 2 decades on minimum wage research found that minimum wage increases had next to no negative effects on employment [4].- A 2011 study found that raising the minimum wage did nothing to reduce employment rates, and boosted average income levels. Additionally, it reviewed and criticized past bodies of research that attributed increases unemployment to a higher minimum wage [8]- A 2010 study compared employment levels accross neighboring counties with differing minimal wages from 1990 to 2006, and found that higher minimum wages had no negative effects on employment. [9]Argument 2: Ineffective at decreasing povertyCon argues that, since a minority of living poverty are unemployed, they will not benefit from a minimum wage hike, which is true. However, in addition to repeating the unemployment argument (which was addressed above), he states that the minimum wage will be ineffective at combating poverty.Nonetheless, multiple studies show that raising the minimum wage does, in fact, do exactly that.For just one example, the very CBO report which Con cited in his first argument found that an increment to $10.10 would directly benefit over 16 million families [11]. Additionally, these benefits would raise millions from below the poverty line. Even if we use the report's likely flawed estimate for unemployment, can it really be said that half a million recuperable jobs are more valuable than the livelihoods of several million people?Other studies and analyses have documented the counter-poverty effects of raising the minimum wage [10].ConclusionRaising the minimum wage would not result in significant job losses (if any at all), and it would be effective at decreasing poverty. Even assuming that minimum wage hikes would kill jobs, Con would have to demonstrate that the costs would offset the benefits for his case to stand.Sources:[1] https://www.cbo.gov...[2] http://thinkprogress.org...[3] http://thinkprogress.org...[4] http://cepr.net...[5] http://www.nelp.org...[6] https://hbr.org...[7] http://www.irle.berkeley.edu...[8] http://www.irle.berkeley.edu...[9] http://www.irle.berkeley.edu...[10] https://www.washingtonpost.com...[11] https://www.whitehouse.gov...", "qid": "39", "docid": "8c9c7325-2019-04-18T13:31:47Z-00002-000", "rank": 66, "score": 179399.0}, {"content": "Title: The US should should raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. Content: Extend arguments and rebuttals.", "qid": "39", "docid": "47041c36-2019-04-18T14:16:28Z-00001-000", "rank": 67, "score": 179339.0}, {"content": "Title: Raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour will benefit the US economy Content: Increasing the federal minimum wage from $7.25 per hour to $10.10 per hour will mostly benefit the U.S. Economy. This will be my position in this debate.Con will argue that raising the federal minimum wage will either have no benefit for anyone or will hurt the U.S. economy.I will use numerous reliable, reputable sources to show that an increase in the federal minimum wage will grow national GDP by tens of billions of dollars and create hundreds of thousands of jobs. There are also other benefits to raising the minimum which I will demonstrate.I expect Con to use resources to demonstrate that a raise will either have zero impact or will negatively hurt the U.S. Economy.First Round is for acceptance only. Good luck!", "qid": "39", "docid": "7a99c7b0-2019-04-18T16:23:13Z-00007-000", "rank": 68, "score": 179158.0}, {"content": "Title: The US Federal Government should raise the minimum wage. Content: I will be arguing for the US federal government to increase the minimum wage every year by one dollar. My opponent will argue that the government should not increase the minimum wage.", "qid": "39", "docid": "51c34db5-2019-04-18T13:22:25Z-00006-000", "rank": 69, "score": 178834.0}, {"content": "Title: March Beginners' Tournament: The USFG should significantly raise the federal minimum wage Content: DefensePoint 1: InflationCon argues that a higher minimum wage contributes to inflation. However, Con significantly overstates the supposed problems that inflation poses for the economy. It can be conclusively demonstrated that a reasonable minimum wage hike will not lead to the outlandish hyperinflation Con's argument implies. It won't necessarily lead to any inflation to begin with. Refer to the previously-displayed graph of increases to the minimum wage, from 1938 to 2012: And compare with the rate of inflation over the same time period. If minimum wage hikes had an effect on inflation, we would see see a general correlation. But we don't. There is no accordance to begin with - let alone anything as drastic and dangerous as Con stated.For one example: The large increment to the minimum wage, which took place around 2008, directly contradicts the notion that it will somehow lead to more inflation. That is what we would expect were Con to be right, but as an analysis of the graphs demonstrates, no such thing took place. [1]Point 2: Economic StimulationCon then argues that the costs from a higher minimum wage would be pushed unto the consumer. This is somewhat true, but not in the absolute.While some costs may be pushed onto the consumer (as his sources show), that cannot account for the entirety of the new income generated by a minimum wage. That an inflation-adjusted minimum wage can be raised to begin with disproves Con's argument.Point 3: Good for native workersCon appears to have misunderstood my point: A higher minium wage would discourage immigration from the get-go. It can only be argued to harm legal immigrants's employment if we assume it has a significant impact on employment to begin with (which is contestable, refer to the third round) - either way, this would only prove my third point.Closing statementI would like to thank my opponent for a great debate to start off the Beginner's tournament. Vote Pro!Source: [1] http://www.tradingeconomics.com...", "qid": "39", "docid": "8c9c7325-2019-04-18T13:31:47Z-00000-000", "rank": 70, "score": 178830.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: The Minimum Wage Should be Increased Content: Extend all arguments.", "qid": "39", "docid": "1f0e65df-2019-04-18T15:25:46Z-00002-000", "rank": 71, "score": 178777.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should raise the Federal Minimum wage standard to Content: There was a glitch that prevented me from posting the previous round and in the comments me and lannan13 have agreed for voters to vote based on R1 - R3 (excluding my forfeiture), any votes placed against my forfeiture will be reported and removed. Thanks for a great debate that was unfortunately interrupted by many glitches on either side.", "qid": "39", "docid": "74df972a-2019-04-18T14:06:51Z-00000-000", "rank": 72, "score": 178710.0}, {"content": "Title: The US should should raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. Content: Forfeit, sorry.", "qid": "39", "docid": "47041c36-2019-04-18T14:16:28Z-00000-000", "rank": 73, "score": 178587.0}, {"content": "Title: Raise Minimum Wage to 15$ an hour Content: Raising the minimum wage would increase economic activity and spur job growth. The Economic Policy Institute stated that a minimum wage increase from the current rate of $7.25 an hour to $10.10 would inject $22.1 billion net into the economy and create about 85,000 new jobs over a three-year phase-in period. Economists from the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago predicted that a $1.75 rise in the federal minimum wage would increase aggregate household spending by $48 billion the following year, thus boosting GDP and leading to job growth. A 1994 study by economists Alan Krueger, PhD, and David Card, PhD, compared employment in the fast food industry after New Jersey raised its minimum wage by 80 cents, while Pennsylvania did not. Krueger and Card observed that job growth in the fast food industry was similar in both states, and found \"no indication that the rise in the minimum wage reduced employment.\" Their findings were corroborated by economists Hristos Doucouliagos, PhD, and T.D. Stanley, PhD, in a review of 64 minimum wage studies. The authors found \"little or no evidence of a negative association between minimum wages and employment.\" Increasing the minimum wage would reduce poverty. A person working full time at the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour earns $15,080 in a year, which is 20% higher than the 2015 federal poverty level of $12,331 for a one-person household under 65 years of age but 8% below the 2015 federal poverty level of $16,337 for a single-parent family with a child under 18 years of age. According to a 2014 Congressional Budget Office report, increasing the minimum wage to $9 would lift 300,000 people out of poverty, and an increase to $10.10 would lift 900,000 people out of poverty. A 2013 study by University of Massachusetts at Amherst economist Arindrajit Dube, PhD, estimated that increasing the minimum wage to $10.10 is \"projected to reduce the number of non-elderly living in poverty by around 4.6 million, or by 6.8 million when longer term effects are accounted for.\"", "qid": "39", "docid": "93fbabb6-2019-04-18T12:38:32Z-00002-000", "rank": 74, "score": 178549.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should raise the Federal Minimum wage standard to Content: All points extended. I'll let my opponent decide what he's doing in his final round.", "qid": "39", "docid": "74df972a-2019-04-18T14:06:51Z-00001-000", "rank": 75, "score": 178503.0}, {"content": "Title: The US should should raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. Content: Framework:The burden of this debate should be shared by both sides. As Pro, my opponent must prove the United States ought (implying obligation or necessity by logical consequence) to raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. Pro should present the reasons for this on both pragmatic and moral grounds to fulfill the burden. Likewise, it is my definitive duty to prove, on moral and pragmatic grounds, the US ought NOT raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. With this out of the way, let's move to the actual arguments.Contention I: A $15 Wage Hike is Either Unfair or IndeterminableThe goal of a wage hike is to reduce poverty and stimulate the economy. It's widely and commonly seen as a wage off of which one can live accompanied by the necessities in an acceptable standard of living. However, achieving this end is indeterminable. Whether it be $10.10, $15, $17, et cetera, there is no plausible or fair way to numerically calculate a just minimum wage on a federal playing field. The Huffington Post provides an article which reads, \"Living wage measures are completely arbitrary and that [individuals], both conservatives and liberals, aren\u2019t well qualified to determine what\u2019s an acceptable lifestyle for other people.\u201d [1] Federal governments cannot adequately instigate a just or fair living wage for their citizens. It's simply unjust for a government, federal or otherwise, to impose a wage requirement deemed unjust by the employers and/or community.In many instances, this would be the case. Small communities, especially in areas where the cost of living is far lower than the norm. These areas, as well as others, suffer because of what the American Enterprise Institute notes, \"disproportionate effects by location.\" [2] The cost of living differs from small, rural cities as opposed to bustling suburbias. Institutionalizing a \"one-size-fits-all\" system is bound to detriment at least one of the extremes. Contention II: Effects on Small BusinessesIf it were plausible to instigate a $15 living wage, we'd see dire circumstances shadow small businesses. The effects are compounded on these smaller businesses who can't effectively absorb the increase. Karen Heisler, co-owner of Mission Pie Bakery in San Francisco, California explains how her business would be affected. \"Our business is dedicated to proving high quality food at as low a price as we can, but we won\u2019t have room to achieve that. The most expensive meal on the menu is $8.50, a stew with vegetables and rice. Raising the minimum wage will have a huge impact, not this year but ultimately. It will probably require us to hire more experienced and skillful people. We will see a decrease in the number of businesses in the 20-employee range because it\u2019s becoming impossible to make it because of the cost of operation.\" [3] A host of other businesses would be remarkably harmed, as noted by National Federation of Independent Business. [4] These results are even more significant when it is recognized that 48.5% of private-sector jobs are employed by small businesses, according to the US Small Business Administration. [5] Moreover, as the American Legislative Exchange Council asserts, small corporations have to stay competitive to stay open. They do so by keeping lower prices. [6] Adding to their burden would push them under, a potential detriment to nearly 50% of private-sector jobs.Contention III: A wage raise to $15 an hour displays a host of flaws.Perhaps one of the most important negative consequences to a minimum wage increase is unemployment concerns. Numerous studies indicate an increase in wages, especially one that more than doubles the current minimum, will facilitate job loss. The Congressional Budget Office claims that a potential 1 million jobs could be lost with only an increase to $10.10, which would only be furthered if the wage was increased nearly another $5 dollars. [7] With basic consideration of simplistic economic theory and logic, flaws become increasingly evident. The money to pay those workers a higher wage HAS to come from SOMEWHERE. If companies were already making plenty of profit, they'd adhere to labor unions demands of higher wages. I understand some large corporations could honestly support a higher wage with little harm, but as a utilitarian and federal policy, the minimum wage hike is a bad idea. Smaller corporations, especially, would have to do one of three things to compensate for paying higher wages: a) raise prices, b) cut hours, or c) cut workers. For option a, we know that wouldn't be a good thing. Logically, this entirely removes any benefit from a wage hike. If you get paid more money, but suddenly products are all more expensive, what is the gain? More money flowing, which can lead to inflation. Other than that, there isn't a benefit. You're back to where you started, without enough capital to pay for your necessities and comforts. For option b, we know this isn't a good things. Less hours equals less wages, so once again, you don't actually see the benefits of the wage hike in the first place. For option c, perhaps the most ominous, you see unemployment grow. Who, one might ask, is going to lose their job? It's obvious that a corporation wants to keep its best, most skilled, and better educated employees, and would be willing to pay higher wages for them. But what about the less skilled and uneducated employees? To the company, all things considered, they wouldn't be worth $15 dollars an hour. These would be the ones to lose their jobs, and they are the impoverished. More people without jobs would facilitate more reliance on welfare, which obviously isn't beneficial.Other studies indicated job losses, including ones from Miami and Trinity Universities [8], economists David Neumark and William Wascher [9], and a plethora of others. [10] [11] [12] Conclusion:I've provided a primarily logical and consequential argument as to why the federal minimum wage should not be raised. First, it's indeterminable. Second, it has location issues. Third, it harms small businesses, particularly. Fourth, it facilitates unemployment. Tying back, all of these things negate the resolution because of logical consequence. However, since the goal is to reduce poverty and stimulate economy, this means achieves no positive end. Thusly, it's immoral to implement a policy which reverts its intentions towards an ultimately immoral end. For this reason, vote Con.Sources:[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...[2] http://www.aei.org...[3] http://www.theguardian.com...[4] http://www.nfib.com...[5] https://www.sba.gov...[6] http://www.alec.org...[7] http://www.cbo.gov...[8] https://www.epionline.org...[9] http://www.nber.org...[10] http://www.nber.org...[11] http://www.ncpa.org...[12] https://www.aei.org...", "qid": "39", "docid": "47041c36-2019-04-18T14:16:28Z-00004-000", "rank": 76, "score": 178502.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should raise the minimum wage to $15. Content: My opponent has forfeited... extend arguments. :)", "qid": "39", "docid": "9329eedd-2019-04-18T14:04:54Z-00001-000", "rank": 77, "score": 178235.0}, {"content": "Title: The minimum wage should not be increased in the United States Content: Extend my arguments.", "qid": "39", "docid": "beb2c569-2019-04-18T16:49:14Z-00000-000", "rank": 78, "score": 178222.0}, {"content": "Title: Minimum wage increases raise unemployment Content: accepted.", "qid": "39", "docid": "bdba3f34-2019-04-18T18:30:16Z-00003-000", "rank": 79, "score": 178188.0}, {"content": "Title: Do anything Content: I accept, here is the resolution, Resolved: The United States Federal Government should raise the minimum wage to $10.10. Rules Round 2 is for contentions, no rebuttles. Round 3 is for rebuttles. Round 4 is rebuttles and conclusions No trolling. Wikipeadia shall not be an acceptable source for this debate. Should- Used to express obligation or duty (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...) Raise- To increase in size, quantity, or worth (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...)", "qid": "39", "docid": "1d5f1558-2019-04-18T15:25:13Z-00006-000", "rank": 80, "score": 178164.0}, {"content": "Title: The US Federal Government should raise the minimum wage. Content: As I stated before, the Constitution never grants the Federal Goveronment the power to establish a FEDERAL minimum wage, since this power is not prohibied to the states, it should be given to the states respectively, or to the people. This is why the term state to the rest of the world, as well as in America during the 1700's, \"state\" meant a sovereign state, with the power to establish their own laws, their own ystem, etc. This has a number of benefits, first of all, the economic and social situations of each state is different, allowing for laws to change according to circumstances. For example, if someone was carryin a riffle around in the open in Washington DC it might be considered threatening, but if someone lives in Detroit- this is acceptable. And yes, under the First Ammendment the people have a right to petition the goveronment for a redress of their greivances, but either way it would be best to give this powe to the states or to the people. Also, it would not be appropriateterminology to say \"raising the minimum wage to 10.10$ a hour,\" because in 1968 it was 11$ a hour, thus this would be \"restoring the minimum wage to 11$ a hour. In response to the latter, first of all, in Switzerland there is no minimum wage, yet workers earn 2,500$ a month, for the 41.5 hour shift that the swiss earn, this is 15.06$, that's 6 cents higher than the 15$ that those crazy american workers want. This is a classic example of the power being reserved \"to the people,\" because this is all because of labour unions. And my opponents wages in Europe are irrelevant, because in the US the minimum wage is left to the states, so saying that the minimum wage in the US is 7.25$ isn't really fair, the minimum wage in California is 10$ a hour, in the District of Columbia it's 11.50$, and if you want to forma labour union you can raise the minimum wage (for you) yourself. {1} {1}. http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com...", "qid": "39", "docid": "51c34db5-2019-04-18T13:22:25Z-00003-000", "rank": 81, "score": 178101.0}, {"content": "Title: The minimum wage should not be raised to$9.00 as campaigned for by the President. Content: Thank you very much for your argument. My opponent makes his case by saying, \"study after study has shown that raising the minimum wage does not have a negative effect on employment.\" This is simply a falsehood. Many reputable sources have found the disastrous effects of raising the minimum wage that I presented in round 2. I will show a few here: 1. A study done by the Southern Economic Journal, under economists Joseph Sabia and Richard Burkhauser, found that raising the minimum wage has absolutely no positive effect on poverty. \"When we then simulate the effects of a proposed federal minimum wage increase from $7.25 to $9.50 per hour, we find that such an increase will be even more poorly targeted to the working poor than was the last federal increase from $5.15 to $7.25 per hour\" (1) This study found no change in poverty, one of the studies more favorable to my opponent's side. Many find quite the opposite of what he claims. 2. A study by renowned economist David Neumark shows that a minimum wage hike actively kills jobs. \"Minimum-wage leg- islation will increase wages at the cost of modest but significant reductions in employment\". (2) Neumark did not elaborate on whether the unemployment out-weighed the wage gains, but it does not matter. Even if raising the minimum wage had no effects on poverty whatsoever, that implies what this study does; that some people are getting paid more, while other are laid off. This supports my argument, because while minimum wage employees may struggle to get by, they are much better off then those without jobs. (See \"True Poverty\", Round Two) 3. A third study, reported by the Daily Caller, report a University of Massachusetts study, led by Professor Bob Pollin, finds the same. He says \"[Minimum wage] not a cure-all to poverty. In fact, the biggest source of low-income poverty is that people don't have jobs at all.\" (3) The study also finds \"no statistically significant evidence that a higher minimum wage helped reduce hardship\" Indeed, despite my opponent's claims, studies almost invariably show either no or a negative effect due to the hiking of the minimum wage. My opponent says of Republicans expectations of the minimum wage, \"But such dire predictions have never materialized\". However, history shows they have. 63% of states with minimum wage above the national average are suffering unemployment above the national average. (4) As reported by the Wall Street Journal, 300,00 unskilled teen workers lost their jobs following the 2008 minimum wage hike. (5) And check out this chart, comparing Alaska's economic growth after the recession, before and after the minimum wage hike: http://www.epi.org... As you can see, Alaska's post-recession job growth was phenomenal compared to the rest of the country, until the minimum wage hike, where a noticeable difference in growth is perceived, where growth should have been accelerating as the recession grew farther away. My opponent cites the \"multiplier\" effect, which states that the additional money workers would get from a minimum wage increase would be used to grow other business. This, of course, is a roundabout effect. The same money is stunting job growth and leading to layoffs. WIthout the hike, money is already in the hands of job-makers. In conclusion, raising the minimum wage kills jobs, and does not in any overall way reduce poverty. Getting paid 7,25 an hour may be tough, but getting paid absolutely nothing is a whole lot worse. I look forward to my opponent's next argument. (1) http://www.people.vcu.edu... (2) http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu...- (3) http://dailycaller.com... (4) http://reason.com... (5) http://online.wsj.com...", "qid": "39", "docid": "1374527e-2019-04-18T17:17:19Z-00001-000", "rank": 82, "score": 177913.0}, {"content": "Title: The US should should raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. Content: I'm sorry my argument is stupid >< I didn't have enough time to research it correctly. I'm just going to say that It would help people who are working very hard but struggling to pay the bills.", "qid": "39", "docid": "47041c36-2019-04-18T14:16:28Z-00003-000", "rank": 83, "score": 177901.0}, {"content": "Title: The Government should not raise the Minimum Wage Content: I just needed to make sure I had the correct facts and statistics to support my claims. Jobs-\"Indeed, evidence of employment losses goes all the way back to 1938 and first federally imposed minimum wage. The U. S. Department of Labor concluded that that first 25-cent minimum wage resulted in the loss of 30,000 to 50,000 jobs, or 10 to 13 percent of the 300,000 workers affected by the increase. More recently, Michael Hicks of Ball State University looked at the impact of the July 2008 minimum wage increase on unemployment rates in the United States and concluded that a 10 percent increase in the minimum wage results in a roughly 0.19 percent increase in unemployment, meaning the loss of about 160,000 jobs. \" A study was also done by Joseph Sabia and Richard Burkause for the Employment Policy Institute concluded that even if one were to raise the minimum wage, it would result in a loss of 1.3 million jobs. According to their research, the minimum wage increases between 2003 and 2007 have no significant impact on poverty rates. The minimum wage does not solve the jobs problem, but it actually makes people lose jobs. . http://www.cato.org... Hurts small businesses- America is a popular place for start-ups. One of the essential things to helping a small business grow is not raising the minimum wage. Lets take Europe for an example. Most countries in Europe have high minimum wages, or a living wage. . https://en.wikipedia.org... France has a minimum wage between 10 and 15 dollars. 66% of people say it is hard to start a business there. Great Britain also has a minimum wage between 10 and 15 dollars. 59% of people say it is hard to start a business there. Germany has a minimum wage between 10 and 15 dollars. 46% of people say it is hard to start a business there. . http://smallbiztrends.com... All this data proves is that minimum wage hurts small businesses, and it makes it easier for large corporations to rise. This ruins innovation and creativity that capitalism has to offer, and in turn creates crony capitalism. Raising Prices- Raising the minimum wage will also raise prices. . https://www.purdue.edu... Statistics show that raising the minimum wage to 15 dollars an hour will cause prices to increase 4.3%. Harms of raising minimum wage: Loss of 1.3 million jobs Makes no impact on poverty Makes it harder to start a business Prices increase 4.3%.", "qid": "39", "docid": "4505ff06-2019-04-18T13:43:08Z-00003-000", "rank": 84, "score": 177764.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Minimum wages in the United States should be raised to ensure the welfare of its people Content: I would first like to refute my opponents arguments, and then strengthen my own case. My opponent stated in his first contention that the unemployment rates will increase. He stated that we are hurting the future of America if we raise the minimum wage, which I have already proven incorrect because even though the adolescents are losing jobs to more skilled workers (which they aren't), their parents are making more money. They are making enough money so that the kids don't have to work. Many of the adolescents that are working minimum wage are doing so because their parents aren't making enough money for the whole family. My opponent also stated that the 1996 legislation change is not applicable because the economy has changed, but what my opponent fails to understand is that no matter how bad or good the economy is, the effects will be the same. The varying economy does not change how increasing the minimum wage will do in the long run. This is why my opponents first contention falls. My opponent states in his second contention that raising the minimum wage will lower the incentive to find education. However, this is not true because good jobs still make 10-30 dollars or more over the minimum wage. All this is doing is letting families be able to live of their income, because today, it is hard to find jobs, so finding a minimum wage job is better than no job. This is why my opponents second contention falls. I am out of time, so I do not have a chance to refute my opponents 3rd contention, so I will do so in my next speech. This is why I believe the proposition is wining this debate, and urge for a proposition vote.", "qid": "39", "docid": "5339b784-2019-04-18T15:45:56Z-00002-000", "rank": 85, "score": 177697.0}, {"content": "Title: The minimum wage should be raised to $12.50 gradually, by the year 2020 Content: My argumentsMinimum wage should be left up to more local governmentsNot only would I argue that the federal minimum wage should not be raised, but it should not exist at all. Minimum wage should be up to more local governments, such as states. 1) Every state has a different situation, where each one has a different cost of living. 12.50 might be a good fit for some states, but it's not enough for states like California or Hawaii, and it 's way too much for states like Mississippi and Indiana. For a source on the cost of living in each state, here is one[1]2) In addition to every state having a different situation, whenever the federal government passes a law, it affects more people than if the state government did. This means there are more people who would be opposed to the law than if a state government did it. For the purpose of making more people happy, and doing what is popular, it would be better to leave the minimum wage up to states or even more local governments. The more local the government that is making the law, the fewer people you have overall who will be dissatisfied with that law. I am concerned for the opinions of other people, even if they may have an opinion different from mine. I don't like the idea of forcing my views on other people, and the fewer people that I enforce my views on, the better. Why should South Carolinians, who, for the most part, are opposed to the minimum wage, be forced to have the minimum wage by the federal government? Minimum wage increases limit the freedom of workers to choose their wageNow, believe it or not, some workers may want to choose to be paid less than the minimum wage. I can think of at least one reason why: to be competitive. If you feel you can't get a well-paying job, you may make yourself more competitive to businesses by saying you'll work for less than someone else. Why should someone be denied the ability to ask to be paid less than a certain amount? I could name several times where I would have chosen to have a job that pays less than minimum wage. Not only would I get at least a little bit of money, but I would get work experience that I otherwise couldn't have. That would have lead me to get other jobs in the future that do pay well. Instead, what happened in reality because I couldn't find a way to be competitive for jobs, I didn't get a real somewhat permanent job until 4 years into job searching. Imagine how much sooner I could have gotten a somewhat permanent job if I was able to tell employers that I would work for 2 dollars an hour. I could have stayed at that job for a year, then maybe move onto a better job that paid 4 dollars an hour. Then one that pays 6 after a year, then one that pays 8 after another year. This is possible because I would have had work experience behind me from each previous job, and that would have added competitiveness to me. Over all, if I was able to start a job at $2 an hour, I would be earning more money now, in theory. Because I couldn't offer to work for a small amount, it likely hindered my ability to get a job until 4 years into job searching. I bet many other people have this problem: they can't find a job, and would love to work for less just to get work experience so that they can be competitive in the job market. Rebuttals to opponent's argumentsI will put any quotes I use from my opponent in italics, but otherwise I will put in bold the subject.Re: A person working full time should not live in povertyIt should first be noted that the poverty threshold in the United States is $12,082 for a single person[2]. If someone is earning 7.25 an hour and working full time, their yearly salary would be $15,080(I got this number by multiplying 7.25 by 40, the number of hours a week worked, and then multiplied by 52, the number of weeks in a year). A person living on their own is already above the poverty threshold if they work full time on the current federal minimum wage. Now, where they come into poverty is when they are trying to provide for 2 or more people. If we are to have a minimum wage, I think it should just be high enough to keep a single person out of poverty. Minimum wage, low-skill jobs aren't meant for providing for a family. You shouldn't be in a minimum wage job your entire life. If someone is in a minimum wage job for longer than a couple of years, they are probably doing something wrong, and this would be their own fault. Now, I do admit that it's not always the person's own fault for not having a higher-than-minimum wage job, perhaps the job market is very bad. In that case, the solution is for the governemnt to put policies in effect that will help the job market, not necessarily to increase the minimum wage. It should be noted, also, that there are a lot of high-paying careers which have shortages. Why aren't people going into those? Some of them include STEM fields, and the medical field. Granted, they do require education, and I do like the idea of public education to be tuition-free in some way. So, a solution to the problem would be to get education to be tuition-free in some way so that everyone has an equal chance at education. Going back to the issue of a single mother trying to provide for her and children, I would argue the mother was stupid for having children before she could provide for them. Sorry for being so blunt and politically incorrect, but people need to be smart about things. You shouldn't have children if you can't provide for them! What kind of monster brings a life into this world that they can't provide for? Why aren't they thinking about how the child's quality of life will be before having it? If they can't make the child's quality of life to be good, then they shouldn't have children. Why should other people be punished for the mistake of a mother who decided to have children they can't afford? Other people, such as me, are punished with a minimum wage. As I said before, I probably could have gotten a job a lot sooner if there was no minimum wage. I bet a lot of other people feel the same way. Now, I won't be completely unsympathetic about the mother, but I think the solution to the problem where a mother is in a situation where they can't afford to provide for herself and her children would be charities. People should voluntarily help her out. Other people shouldn't be punished for the decisions of that mother, which I have the view that other people are punished for it by having a minimum wage. Furthermore, a low minimum wage leads to gross underemployment, which is when workers don't earn enough money to cover all of their necessary expensesActually, I don't believe underemployment means that. I always thought it meant you have a job that you're too qualified for, and would be better fit for a job that is better than that one. This is basically what wikipedia says underemployment is[3]Also, all of the problems my opponent talks about can be solved on the local level, keep this in mind. I would like to ask my opponent: why does the federal government need to do minimum wage? Why can't the states handle it? Whether the states have a minimum wage or the federal government does doesn't seem to make a difference in terms of the problems you're talking about. Sources:[1] https://www.missourieconomy.org...[2] http://www.irp.wisc.edu...[3] https://en.wikipedia.org...", "qid": "39", "docid": "b3c6f9b8-2019-04-18T12:20:53Z-00004-000", "rank": 86, "score": 177430.0}, {"content": "Title: The minimum wage should be increased Content: Resolution: The Federal Minimum Wage Should be IncreasedRules1. Burden of proof is shared. 2. No semantical games -- they will result in an automatic 7-point loss.3. Con will begin his arguments in round 1, and will post \"no round, as agreed upon\" in round 5. Failure to do so will result in an automatic 7-point loss.4. Forfeitting is an automatic loss.5. By accepting this debate, you agree to these rules. Let the debate begin.", "qid": "39", "docid": "d55c8fd6-2019-04-18T16:31:33Z-00005-000", "rank": 87, "score": 176920.0}, {"content": "Title: The Minimum Wage should be increased. Content: Wow.....maybe I will win in this debate and then challenge you on another motion", "qid": "39", "docid": "342cf7b6-2019-04-18T16:32:02Z-00001-000", "rank": 88, "score": 176913.0}, {"content": "Title: An increase of the Federal minimum wage would have adverse effects on employment Content: I shall define the resolution: Minimum wage: A wage set by State (or in this case) Federal government which states that no employer can pay below X amount of money per hour to a specific employee. Increase: 10% increase or more Adverse: Negative, decreased employment, etc. Employment: Having paid work ==> If you need further clarification or want a specific definition changed, say so in the comments ==> This debate is about the current US system ==> Note this is NOT about abolishing the minimum wage ==> NO semantics, and treat this debate seriously Good luck!", "qid": "39", "docid": "32f15628-2019-04-18T17:22:51Z-00006-000", "rank": 89, "score": 176908.0}, {"content": "Title: Minimum wage should be increased in the US. Content: The minimum wage in the US should be increased each year to help provide a higher income to those working on minimum wage.", "qid": "39", "docid": "630f7c6f-2019-04-18T12:52:49Z-00002-000", "rank": 90, "score": 176841.0}, {"content": "Title: The Government should not raise the Minimum Wage Content: Thank you for the case ProLet me point out a few things that led up the the Legislation of minimum wage that Roosevelt instituted back in 1938. You have the Federal Reserve starting in 1913, lax borrowing that Americans used to gamble on Wall Street (creating the Roaring 20's). Let by a recall of the loans, sucking the money out of the market, leading to the crash, leading to the confiscation of American's wealth (outlaw gold), followed by many progressive types of legislation (including the minimum wage). You have to keep in mind that with the legislation of a minimum wage, there were also minimum hours required too. The U.S. federal minimum wage was first established during the Depression, and it has risen from 25 cents to $7.25 per hour since it was first instituted in 1938 as part of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Despite the increases, inflation has eroded its value; returning it to the value it held in 1968 would require an increase to nearly $10 per hour. - See more at: http://journalistsresource.org...Keep in mind, I'm stating that the minimum wage must be increased (to basically keep pace with inflation). Not saying I'm in favor of any specific dollar amount (ie. $10, $15, $20 a hour), but in due time, it will have to reach these dollar amounts eventually. To support my argument, I will be focusing on inflation (monetary).Based on our current fiat monetary system, the money supply is dependant on the creation of debt to create new money to put into circulation. We didn't see practically an inflation (aside from a few wars), until the creation of the federal reserve in 1913. So the ideas of minimum wage couldn't have even been contemplated until we started to have a decrease in our purchasing power. Of course, with Bretton Woods and the stealing of our gold by the federal government, resulted in a 57% drop in the value of our dollar overnight. In your last two paragraphs, may I mention that those individuals are basing their estimated projections from setting the minimum wage at a set dollar amount ($15). I cannot argue with their projections, I however am taking the stance that (Minimum wage in General, will have to increase).", "qid": "39", "docid": "4505ff06-2019-04-18T13:43:08Z-00002-000", "rank": 91, "score": 176759.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should raise the minimum wage to $15. Content: Framework:The burden of this debate should be shared by both sides. As Pro, my opponent must prove the US ought (implying obligation or necessity by logical consequence) to raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. Pro should present the reasons for this on both pragmatic and moral grounds to fulfill the burden. Likewise, it is my definitive duty to prove, on moral and pragmatic grounds, the US ought NOT raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. With this out of the way, let's move to the actual arguments.Contention I: A $15 wage hike is unfair and indeterminableThe goal of a wage hike is to reduce poverty and stimulate the economy. It's widely and commonly seen as a wage off of which one can live accompanied by the necessities in an acceptable standard of living. However, achieving this end is indeterminable. Whether it be $10.10, $15, $17, et cetera, there is no plausible or fair way to numerically calculate a just minimum wage on a federal playing field. The Huffington Post explains \"Living wage measures are completely arbitrary and that [individuals], both conservatives and liberals, aren\u2019t well qualified to determine what\u2019s an acceptable lifestyle for other people.\u201d [1] Federal governments cannot adequately instigate a just or fair living wage for their citizens. It's simply unjust for a government, federal or otherwise, to impose a wage requirement deemed unjust by the employers and/or community.In many instances, this would be the case. Small communities, especially in areas where the cost of living is far lower than the norm. These areas, as well as others, suffer. American Enterprise Institute notes the reason: \"disproportionate effects by location.\" [2] The cost of living differs from small, rural cities as opposed to bustling suburbias. Institutionalizing a \"one-size-fits-all\" system is bound to detriment at least one of the extremes.Contention II: Effects on businesses.If it were plausible to instigate a $15 living wage, we'd see dire circumstances shadow small businesses. The effects are compounded on these smaller businesses who can't effectively absorb the increase. Karen Heisler, co-owner of Mission Pie Bakery in San Francisco, California explains how her business would be affected. \"Our business is dedicated to proving high quality food at as low a price as we can, but we won\u2019t have room to achieve that. The most expensive meal on the menu is $8.50, a stew with vegetables and rice. Raising the minimum wage will have a huge impact, not this year but ultimately. It will probably require us to hire more experienced and skillful people. We will see a decrease in the number of businesses in the 20-employee range because it\u2019s becoming impossible to make it because of the cost of operation.\" [3] A host of other businesses would be remarkably harmed, as noted by National Federation of Independent Business. [4]These results are even more significant when it is recognized that 48.5% of private-sector jobs are employed by small businesses, according to the US Small Business Administration. [5] Moreover, as the American Legislative Exchange Council asserts small corporations have to stay competitive to stay open. They do so by keeping lower prices. [6] Adding to their burden would push them under, a potential detriment to nearly 50% of private-sector jobs.Moreover, inflation becomes a concern for businesses as well. Economic theory indicates a wage hike will facilitate inflation. [14] A study by Aaronson, French, and MacDonald notes, \u201cHigher labor costs faced by employers are pushed onto customers in the form of higher prices.\u201d [15] The vast brunt of the cost will be passed to consumers, meaning higher prices. [20] If prices rise, this not only creates inflation, but also effectively negates a wage increase. [35] More money earned, but more money is required to be spent. The effects won\u2019t be short-term, either. A study by Burke, Miller, and Long affirms \u201c increase in labor costs can spur inflation and undercut the real minimum wage, precipitating an endless spiral.\u201d [16] It will become a spiral of minimum wage degradation and inflation.Contention III: A wage raise to $15 an hour displays a host of flaws.Perhaps one of the most important negative consequences to a minimum wage increase is unemployment concerns. Numerous studies indicate an increase in wages, especially one that more than doubles the current minimum, will facilitate job loss. The Congressional Budget Office claims that a potential 1 million jobs could be lost with only an increase to $10.10, which would only be furthered if the wage was increased nearly another $5 dollars. [7]With basic consideration of simplistic economic theory and logic, flaws become increasingly evident. The money to pay those workers a higher wage HAS to come from SOMEWHERE. If companies were already making plenty of profit, they'd adhere to labor unions demands of higher wages. I understand some large corporations could honestly support a higher wage with little harm, but as a utilitarian and federal policy, the minimum wage hike is a bad idea. Smaller corporations, especially, would have to do one of three things to compensate for paying higher wages: a) raise prices, b) cut hours, or c) cut workers. For option a, we know that wouldn't be a good thing. Logically, this entirely removes any benefit from a wage hike. If you get paid more money, but suddenly products are all more expensive, what is the gain? More money flowing, which can lead to inflation. Other than that, there isn't a benefit. You're back to where you started, without enough capital to pay for your necessities and comforts. For option b, we know this isn't a good things. Less hours equals less wages, so once again, you don't actually see the benefits of the wage hike in the first place. For option c, perhaps the most ominous, you see unemployment grow. Who, one might ask, is going to lose their job? It's obvious that a corporation wants to keep its best, most skilled, and better educated employees, and would be willing to pay higher wages for them. But what about the less skilled and uneducated employees? To the company, all things considered, they wouldn't be worth $15 dollars an hour. These would be the ones to lose their jobs, and they are the impoverished. More people without jobs would facilitate more reliance on welfare, which obviously isn't beneficial.Other studies indicated job losses, including ones from Miami and Trinity Universities [8], economists David Neumark and William Wascher [9], and a plethora of others. [11] [12] [13] Moreover, these effects aren\u2019t simply short-term. The detriments are definitely long-term. [21] As it intends to solve for poverty, we can\u2019t raise the wage. Sanderson claims \u201cThe biggest anti-poverty program we have in the U.S. is getting somebody a job.\u201d [23] With disemployment effects prevailing, getting a job is difficult, and the subsequent deterioration of poverty is nonexistent.In fact, the experts in the field (labor economists) overwhelmingly agree raising the minimum wage will facilitate job losses (73%) and that these losses will be disproportionately laid on the poor (68%). [10] Those disproportionate victims are often teens, as has happened previously. [18] This essentially makes teens unemployable, and entry-level jobs become less available for those just entering the workforce. [29] Furthermore, in a team of 100 economic researchers, two-thirds found disemployment effects of wage hikes. [30] The consistent trend of employment detriment studies from wage hikes extends all the way back to 1957. [33]Contention IV: Extended detriments.Obviously the effects already mentioned aren\u2019t positive. But those effects can have extended consequences. For example, raising the minimum wage will increase crime, because of unemployment. When teens (who are disproportionately affected [19]) are unemployed, criminal activity is often subsequent. [17]Furthermore, raising wages can encourage outsourcing [22], which sends jobs to areas where labor laws are less strict or negligible. [24] This wouldn\u2019t be good for the US economy as the labor for not only employment but profits to US businesses and the GDP would be gone. [31] Another asset is illegal aliens, who tend to be hired on because of wage law abuse. [34]Another extended impact would be technological replacement. When faced with the dilemma of either raising wages or using technology to replace human labor, the latter is desirable. [25] This has happened time and again, and lowers job opportunities for low-skilled workers. This trend has also resulted in wage inequality, another thing political rhetoric of wage increase claims. [26] It\u2019s illogical to assume more jobs would be created when humans are simultaneously being replaced.Another talking point for wage hike advocates is poverty. Yet, instead of reducing poverty as they advocate, poverty is actually worsened. [27] A primary reason for this is competition [28], but the result is obvious; raising wages only facilitates more poverty. Alongside the poverty, companies would likely cut benefits such as health care. [32]Conclusion:I've provided a primarily logical and consequential argument as to why the federal minimum wage should not be raised. First, it's indeterminable. Second, it has location issues. Third, it harms business in a multi-faceted manner. Fourth, it facilitates unemployment. Fifth, there Tying back, all of these things negate the resolution because of logical consequence. However, since the goal is to reduce poverty and stimulate economy, this means achieves no positive end. Thusly, it's immoral to implement a policy which reverts its intentions towards an ultimately immoral end. For this reason, vote Con.Sources in Comments", "qid": "39", "docid": "9329eedd-2019-04-18T14:04:54Z-00004-000", "rank": 92, "score": 176639.0}, {"content": "Title: The federal minimum wage should be increased Content: While people working for minimum wage would earn more, this would also mean the employer would have to pay them more. This means many people could get fired from work. Also as you mentioned, this would result in higher prices for their goods. In the long run, these higher prices could hurt everyone, not just those living on minimum wage. A CBO report from 2013 states that half a million jobs would be lost if the federal wage would be raised to $10.10 ( as many people want it to be ) The report also estimates that many job benefits would be lost, such as paid vacation and reimbursed parking. Another point I want to add is a higher minimum wage would hurt the development of people. Say you're in highschool and the new minimum wages looks pretty good to you. Many teens chose to drop out of highschool and not bother to attend college. These higher wages very well could entice teens and others to not go/go back to college because they are already making more money doing something so easy, like working at a fast food restaurant. In 2011, 3.8 million Americans were working for the federal minimum wage, more than half of them teens. About 70% of minimum wage employees work fewer than 35 hours a week. They work less, and their job is a lot easier than ones that require a college education. Why should we give more money to people doing less work? They work less and the job is easier, thus they earn proportionally less. In conclusion, we should not increase the federal minimum wage. By doing so, the quantity and quality of jobs decrease, and people very well may lose their strive to go to college and get a better education. Sources- Salary.com, Economicshelp.org, Balancedpolitics.org", "qid": "39", "docid": "6ac98ba6-2019-04-18T15:12:23Z-00005-000", "rank": 93, "score": 176286.0}, {"content": "Title: The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour Content: Simple debate on whether the minimum wage should be raised to 15 dollars. I'm Con on this, so Pro will debate for a 15 dollar minimum wage in the United States.RulesBOP is shared1st round acceptanceNo K'sAny violations of rules will be result in an immediate loss.", "qid": "39", "docid": "4d04459a-2019-04-18T14:01:20Z-00007-000", "rank": 94, "score": 176164.0}, {"content": "Title: March Beginners' Tournament: The USFG should significantly raise the federal minimum wage Content: Definitions:USFG - short for United States Federal Governmentminimum wage - the lowest wage permitted by lawraise - increase the amount, level, or strength of Significantly - to at least $10 an hour Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: ArgumentsRound 3: Con rebuts Pro's arguments in Round 2 and vice versaRound 4: Both sides defend their original arguments in Round 2 Look forward to a great debate!", "qid": "39", "docid": "8c9c7325-2019-04-18T13:31:47Z-00007-000", "rank": 95, "score": 176088.0}, {"content": "Title: Raising the federal minimum wage would be a net detriment to the U.S. economy Content: Salutations. Today I will debate ResponsiblyIrresponsible on the issue of the minimum wage. I thank him for inviting me to this discussion. I will be making the case that the minimum wage, will in fact, be a detriment to the US economy. To begin with, I will discuss the pros and cons of a minimum wage. Some notable benefits of this are of course higher wages for some workers. These people spend their money into the economy, growing it. However, their are some cons as well. A minimum wage, in essence, is a price control. It artificially boosts the cost of labour which in return diminishes demand for workers. Companies will hire fewer employees. This also is detrimental to interns, who often work for free. Another problem with the minimum wage system is inflation. If, say, a minimum wage increase occurred, a company may have to make up for the raised cost of employment by pushing up consumer prices, thus creating inflation. The net effect would just be higher prices for everyone, rendering wage increases fruitless. Now I shall discuss a scenario in which there is no minimum wage in the US economy. This setting can actually be attributed to a period in US history, before 1938 (establishment of the minimum wage). During this time period, employers and employees were free to negotiate wages amongst each other. A company could not simply set a low wage and expect workers to accept the job, since competition between other employers would prevent this. For example, take the Ford Motor Company. In 1914, Ford payed his assembly line workers $5 a day, which adjusts to around $116 today. This was the result of advancing technology and competition amongst companies, or capitalism. So we see here that a decent income average can be achieved without a minimum wage law. I apologize if I made any formatting mistakes as I am new to this website. And I once again thank my opponent for challenging me. Sources: Minimum wage- http://www.dol.gov... Henry Ford- http://en.wikipedia.org...", "qid": "39", "docid": "fe453fc6-2019-04-18T15:15:51Z-00002-000", "rank": 96, "score": 175535.0}, {"content": "Title: An increase of the Federal minimum wage would have adverse effects on employment Content: Time: For sake of argument, I will concede that time is actually important.It would be interesting to note that the minimum wage for some sub-groups actually makes it harder for them. Teenagers often enter the minimum wage workforce to gain experience. However, if they are not worth the current minimum wage, they will not get hired. That would lead to the employer losing money. Simply put, they never get experience and in their future enter the workforce with slightly higher skills (alive longer, mostly) but experience lower wages overall because they never gained the experience when they were young. Studies further show they become less likely to get hired at all. If the minimum wage lowers the chance of getting hired, training for a job (often included) if hired, as documented in the literature, the skill set and possible future wages substancially decreases the living standard for some and their ability to get hired [1]. To say that increasing the price of labor will not reduce the amount employment is absurd. Sources: My opponent claims my book is not a good source because he cannot read it. However, Neumark and Wascher have been publishing in the literature for years. Their book summarizes their research. The page I was refering to was page 65, section 3.4.3. Their studies found that the minimum wage reduced school enrollment. Teenagers falsely assumed they would recieve higher pay, and dropped out of school to get a job. When factoring this effect, they found \"a statistically significant employment elasticity of -0.22\", or negative 22% [2]. Empirical EvidenceIf my opponents source claims all research which they chose was supporting their opinion, by response is duh. If you cite ThinkProgress and expect them to cite Neumark and Wascher 2007 which found that 85% of the research supports my opinion, then lol. My opponent essentially admits that the research he cited is cherry-picked by ThinkProgress, not even including some literary dissent. My opponent cites a meta-analysis by Lester and Madland, whose whole conclusion relies on the studies Neumark et al. refuted as their \"evidence\" for recent research supporting minimum wage increases. It says that all of the recent research supports his view, not s strawman. Those five studies are complete bogus. Two rely on weak controls less suited to the tasks that studies that show minimum wages harm the economy have [3], one is the meta analysis cited screaming publication bias. Let me explain. Card and Krueger have had their research published in mainstream outlets, which proves no publication bias. Further, for there to be publication bias, there is generally a mechanism. This is an issue where labor unions probably have more influence. In Neumark and Wascher (2008) they document their work near the turn of the century which finds little publication bias to be found [2]. The last one is Dube et al. 2007. They claim that old research fails to control clustering properly, and minimum wage has no effect when this is done. Clustering makes the result less robust, and therefore their studies conclusions are not correct [4]. The studies are weak. Gary Becker does mention these new studies and uses the Neumark rebuttal. He is using academic literature and noting that the studies are flawed. He never makes extraordinary claims that all of the new studies are in near-universal agreement. And the state argument you didnt read the full studies. ALL of the other 5 studies focus on state effects because it is easier to control for those factors. They use data from all the states to get a national sample. The fact Neumark uses state data, like everyone else, is a widely supproted technique.One rebuttal was published 5 months earlier then cons sources [3], and the economist quote was published a month after the formal rebuttal was produced [5]. They fully ignored those studies. ProductivityThe workforce probably gains some productivity because less of the low skilled workers are employed. The decrease in production is due to the increased capital costs to the hiring firm, not the workers decrease. The minimum wage reduces production, not productivity to the worker (which is what I meant). Large changes in raw data are often explained with simple controls. When put in, many industries see a significant drop in productivity and production when the minimum wage is increased, when factors are controlled for [6]. The reason GDP grew is simple. Growing economy regardless of a minimum wage--other factors. Growing population, etc. Even if we assume his argument is relevant, he loses the point.I used the word \"production\" in order to explain the theory in full. My opponent thinks that it was a significant point to the debate, which it wasn't, and claim that is is highly relevant to the debate. NumbersA hypothetical used to explain a point, not be a data point, do not have to be correct. I used them to make my point simple. I really dont know why you want to see a hypothetical which used econometric equasions which are based off of monospy and neoclassical models. I mean I could do that. Or we can accept what I said as a hypothetical, an explanation device, and not an ACTUAL data point. We save character space that way. Large companies are unaffected by minimum wages, as most of their workers require greater skills and are paid hogh wages. So their record profits are often due to other factors. For those who manage to get a job on it they are promoted within one year because they gained the skills needed to get a pay raise [4]. So their wage actually increases if they have a low wage job. If we had no minimum wage, people worth $4 dollars an hour would get training, get experience, and eventually get higher paying jobs. The minimum wage only prevents people from gaining the invaluble life skills of work training because the minimum wage makes them a net-loss for the employer. This is why minimum wages have negative long term effects. Less skilled workers get laid off and hours reduced, lowering their pay [pg 138].Minorities\"The choice to fire those with greater ethnic diversity first, is entirely on them.\" -- R2You said that it is the emokoyers racism or discrimination to lay off those who are minorities first is at fault. Well, you say it in a discrete manner. You say that their decision is odd, and that the minimum wage is not the source of the discrimination, but rather it is the worker. Again, as I explained, this is totally false. African Americans and Latinos happen to be poorer, less skilled, and less educated due to their enviroments. If they fire you for being less skilled and you happen to be Latino, that's not discrimatory. It just so happens to be that minorities are more likely to be less skilled, and therefore more vunerable to minimum wage increases. A lower wage would make it more likely for them to be hired and then skills to be aquired worthy of a higher wage. Minorities are the most affected because of their relative skills and education, not racism of the employer. The minimum wage is not racist per se, but its unintended consequences are. The video talks more about this. ; Specific Examples All the studies are measuring specific examples and find negative effects. I provided an example where the 2009 hike caused a company to lay off 2,000 employees. The 1991 wage hikes and the late 2000s hikes show negative effectsn[7]. My case is full of examples. CONCLUSIONThe strength of the empirical data, the mere amount too, the theoretical predictions which have been proven by the peer reviewed data all support my case. I provided statistics then gave a reason. My opponent has provided minimal data and has not even provided one theoretical reason as to why it would have no effect (or a positive one). The BOP is even, and I have met it far better then my opponent. Vote PRO. http://tny.cz...;", "qid": "39", "docid": "32f15628-2019-04-18T17:22:51Z-00000-000", "rank": 97, "score": 175445.0}, {"content": "Title: Raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour will benefit the US economy Content: I wish her well and I know she will present me with a good challenge. This is, after all, the purpose of these debating engagements. As I stated in ROUND 1, I will be defending the position that increasing the federal minimum wage from $7.25 per hour to $10.10 per hour will mostly benefit the U. S. economy; I will also be arguing that any proposed minimum wage hike should be indexed to inflation, to allow it to rise with the increasing cost of living. A minimum wage hike will increase the number of jobs in the United States and is likely to increase the nation's gross domestic product--this according to the congressional budget office's latest projections on such a hypothetical raise [1]--and it will have a mostly positive impact on low wage workers, or those that make minimum wage or less to about 5 times the poverty threshold [1]; to give you an example of what this means, raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour would not only directly benefit those making the new minimum wage but it would also benefit a single person family (working) that makes up to $68,825 per year, by putting more money in his pocket--this according to the congressional budget office's estimation [1][2]. And of course larger working families will see even greater monetary rewards [1]. But before we get into that discussion, I'm going to demonstrate in this ROUND why a minimum wage increase is badly needed and why failing to raise it will only continue to hurt the nation's workforce, which has seen the purchasing value of its wages go down over the last 30 years because of inflation [3][4]. Purchasing Power of the Dollar isn't what it use to beBecause of inflation, the vast majority of America's workforce has either seen the purchasing value of its wages stagnate or decrease steadily [3]; low wage earners have seen the value of their wages decrease the most [4]. In comparison, the nation's top 1% of earners saw their incomes rise by 31.4% from 2009 to 2012, comfortably exceeding the 9% inflation rate during that period [5][6]. While the value of earnings of the top 1% of earners outpaces the rate of inflation, the vast majority of working Americans are seeing the value of their wages stagnate (upper-middle class) or decrease (below). Income inequality in the U. S. is now at the highest its ever been since 1928 right before the Great Depression [5]. According to economist/professor Emmanuel Saez at the University of Berkeley, the top 1% of earners in the nation get 22.5% of all pre-tax income while 90% of remaining earners get less than half, 49.6% [5]! Low-wage earners have the seen the value of their wages decrease the most. For the last 40 years, the federal minimum wage has badly fallen behind inflation in real terms. Studies by the U. S. Labor Department, the Bureau of Economic Analysis, and the Pew Research Center have shown that, accounting for inflation, the current minimum wage of $7.25 is even less than what it was in 1968, when it had a value of $8.56 in 2012 dollars (see graph below) [5][7][8]. The U. S. Labor Department has concluded that today's minimum wage workers are paid even less in real terms because of inflation when compared to their 1968 minimum wage counterparts [8]! In fact, since it was last raised to $7.25 in 2009, the federal minimum wage has lost about 5.8% of its purchasing value due to inflation [7]. In a 2012 study, The Centers for Economic and Policy Research concluded that if the minimum wage had kept pace with inflation since it was first enacted in the 1930s, it would now be at $10.52 an hour [5]. To provide an accurate sense of how badly lagging behind the federal minimum wage now is, in 1968 a full-time minimum wage worker earned about $20,000 per year in today's dollars; today a full-time minimum wage worker earns about $15,000 per year [4]. In 1968 a full-time minimum wage worker earned about half of the average annual income during that period; today a full-time minimum wage worker earns about 37% of the average annual income [4]. A steady decline. While the price of food, services, goods, and healthcare go up both in terms of cost and inflation, the purchasing power of the federal minimum wage has significantly eroded over the years [3]. While the average price of the McDonald's Big Mac has risen from $2.71 in 2004 to $4.62 in 2014--an increase of 70.1% over 10 years--the federal minimum wage has only increased by $2.10 to its current rate over the same period, or by 41% [9][10]. Over the years these less than adequate minimum wage increases accumulate and they create poverty were previously there wasn't any or where it was less pronounced. As the graph above shows, when accounting for inflation, the current minimum wage has less purchasing power now than it did in the late 1960s. In order to rectify the reduced value of the minimum wage, it needs to be elevated to at least $10.00 in today's dollar value! Failure to do so will only expand poverty in America and deepen the crisis facing low wage workers. Raising the Minimum Wage would directly benefit 21.4% of the worforceCurrently 3.8 million workers are paid the nation's minimum wage, but raising the wage to $10.10 would directly benefit 21.4% of the workforce--about 30 million workers--by putting more money in their pocket [5][4].21.4% of the nation's workforce would now have more money in their pocket; the accumulated losses caused by inflation over the years straining the minimum wage worker would be effectively eliminated! A fierce proponent of this idea, the current President has advocated tying this proposed minimum wage hike to inflation, that way any adverse effects created by inflation are effectively handled [11]. This is an even better idea! Recognizing the current crisis facing the nation's million of low wager earners, President Obama has already signed an exectuve order raising the minimum wage for federal workers from $7.25 to $10.10 [11]. The rest of the nation should follow this example. Who directly benefits? As of 2012, 49% of all minimum wage workers are 25 years old or older (see graphic below). However, more than 85.5% of all minimum wage workers are 20 years old or older (not teenagers) [7]. 55% of federal minimum wage earners work full time [4]. But of course many more people making less than $10.10 per hour would see a pay raise. As I stated earlier, nearly 30 million workers would get a pay raise with the minimum wage increase; 9 million of these workers are parents [4]. 57.3% of those who would be effected are women [7]; a low minimum wage is one of the reasons why females continue to make 77 cents per dollar that a man makes [12]. Increasing the minimum to $10.10 would help close that gap by 5% [12]. And increasing the minimum wage is the sensible thing to do. Already 19 U. S. states and the District of Columbia have a higher minimum wage than the federal minimum [7]. Numerous business executives and CEOs are in favor of raising the minimum wage to $10.10. Costco President and CEO, Craig Jelenik, has come out in favor of this proposal by President Obama, stating \"Instead of minimizing wages, we know it\u2019s a lot more profitable in the long term to minimize employee turnover and maximize employee productivity, commitment and loyalty\" [5]; executives of GAP have come out in favor of raising the minimum wage to $10.10 as well [12]. Already a full 85% of small businesses pay wages higher than the minimum [4]. Conservative estimates by the congressional budget office (CBO)--a federal agency within the U. S. government that provides economic data to congress--places the total immediate gains of raising the minimum wage to $10.10 at $5 billion for working families that make less than the poverty threshold (live in poverty); their income would increase by about 3% and 900,000 people would be moved above the poverty threshold [1]. The CBO also projects that families making one to three times the poverty threshold would see $12 billion in additional real income; families making three to six times the poverty threshold would see $2 billion in additional real income [1]. Overall, the CBO estimates that the nation's poverty would be reduced and that a total of $2 billion would be immediately added to the U. S economy because of the minimum wage increase [1].2 out of 3 Americans Support Raising the Minimum WageFinally, a large majority of Americans approve of raising the federal minimum wage. As inflation continues to increase and as wealthy employers increasingly keep more of their profits and distribute less to their employees, widening the income gap, Americans are recognizing the need to increase the federal minimum wage! A recent Wall Street Journal/CNN poll shows that 63% of Americans support raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10 per hour [13][14]; some polls show even greater support for hiking the federal minimum wage [4]. [1] (. http://cbo.gov...)[2] (. http://aspe.hhs.gov...)[3] (. http://www.epi.org...)[4] (. http://www.epi.org...)[5] (. http://www.mybanktracker.com...)[6] (. http://www.bls.gov...)[7] (. http://www.pewresearch.org...)[8] (. http://www.dol.gov...)[9] (. http://news.yahoo.com...)[10] (. http://www.bls.gov...)[11] (. http://www.foxnews.com...)[12] (. http://www.whitehouse.gov...)[13] (. http://www.cnn.com...)[14] (. http://online.wsj.com...)", "qid": "39", "docid": "7a99c7cf-2019-04-18T16:20:28Z-00005-000", "rank": 98, "score": 175371.0}, {"content": "Title: Raise The Minimum Wage Content: I believe the minimum wage should be raised on a federal level.Con will argue the opposite.", "qid": "39", "docid": "e4c4f298-2019-04-18T12:58:30Z-00004-000", "rank": 99, "score": 174987.0}, {"content": "Title: Raising Minimum Wage Would Decrease USFG Spending Content: Resolution: If the United States Government increased minimum wage, the total federal spending would decrease. Definitions:Increased: To make greater, as in number, size, strength, or quality; augment;add to Minimum wage: The lowest wage payable to employees in general or to designated employees as fixed by law or by union agreement.", "qid": "39", "docid": "3774807f-2019-04-18T13:57:28Z-00009-000", "rank": 100, "score": 174681.0}]}
{"query": "Should the death penalty be allowed?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: Death penalty should be allowed. Content: I accept", "qid": "40", "docid": "edfd66cb-2019-04-18T11:26:43Z-00000-000", "rank": 1, "score": 213880.0}, {"content": "Title: death penalty Content: should the death penalty be allowed?", "qid": "40", "docid": "75f8530d-2019-04-18T15:27:15Z-00003-000", "rank": 2, "score": 204754.0}, {"content": "Title: the death penalty should be allowed Content: Extend arguments.", "qid": "40", "docid": "eaf9851d-2019-04-18T15:40:44Z-00001-000", "rank": 3, "score": 176821.0}, {"content": "Title: The Death Penalty Should be Illegal Content: I accept.", "qid": "40", "docid": "faee85ab-2019-04-18T15:24:43Z-00004-000", "rank": 4, "score": 172416.0}, {"content": "Title: The Death Penalty should be legal Content: I accept.", "qid": "40", "docid": "6eefc0cc-2019-04-18T14:12:24Z-00005-000", "rank": 5, "score": 169655.0}, {"content": "Title: Death penalty should be allowed Content: The criminal justice system, in general, needs desperately to be rethought, it would be more accurately named the \"Social Revenge System\". The death penalty is currently applied inappropriately, however, it could still have a place.", "qid": "40", "docid": "7ad5a00-2019-04-18T17:12:23Z-00002-000", "rank": 6, "score": 163173.0}, {"content": "Title: Death penalty should be allowed Content: Round one is specifically for acceptance. However, I would like to say that in this debate, no evidence will be allowed, just 100% logic.", "qid": "40", "docid": "7ad5a00-2019-04-18T17:12:23Z-00003-000", "rank": 7, "score": 162530.0}, {"content": "Title: The death penalty should NOT be allowed Content: Hi Sara, I wish to debate this.May the best debator win :D", "qid": "40", "docid": "6604e4c2-2019-04-18T14:32:22Z-00006-000", "rank": 8, "score": 162194.0}, {"content": "Title: The death penalty should be allowed Content: The death penalty is not \"wrong\". It is just.", "qid": "40", "docid": "c0a5f15c-2019-04-18T13:45:23Z-00004-000", "rank": 9, "score": 161756.0}, {"content": "Title: should death penitently stay Content: The death penalty should be allowed because those who kill innocent people should pay for it with their own lives. The death penalty should be allowed as an acceptable punishment for those who kill innocent people. Taxpayers should not have to pay for a killer to spend the rest of their lives not working, watching cable tv, and working out. The killer took an innocent life and should not be given any of the privileges and luxuries that they took away from the victim.", "qid": "40", "docid": "bf8e76ff-2019-04-18T11:53:03Z-00003-000", "rank": 10, "score": 161387.0}, {"content": "Title: the death penalty should be allowed Content: I think the death penalty should stay for the criminals that deserve it because first of all our tax money is paying to keep them in prison even after they did a horrendous crime and besides jail is not torture enough it barely even close enough homeless people come to jail all the time to get food and water and heating and another reason why there should definitely be a death penalty is because someone who is responsible on taking away lives from other people for no reason is just straight up cruel and evil and we should take charge and do something about it because innocent people don't deserve to die its not fair and these people need to learn and understand that what they did was not only wrong but monstrous and inhuman and it will also teach a lesson to others as well.", "qid": "40", "docid": "eaf9851d-2019-04-18T15:40:44Z-00006-000", "rank": 11, "score": 161001.0}, {"content": "Title: The Death Penalty Should Be Used Content: Accepted.", "qid": "40", "docid": "48a622f8-2019-04-18T18:34:14Z-00003-000", "rank": 12, "score": 160711.0}, {"content": "Title: The death penalty should be legalized Content: lol", "qid": "40", "docid": "15a94d7c-2019-04-18T15:05:25Z-00002-000", "rank": 13, "score": 160621.0}, {"content": "Title: should the death penalty be abolished Content: I accept", "qid": "40", "docid": "a6c1e892-2019-04-18T11:15:26Z-00004-000", "rank": 14, "score": 160569.0}, {"content": "Title: the death penalty should be allowed Content: I believe the death penalty is not the best way to solve all crimes but in some cases like mass murdering or kidnapping or something else. I do think that killing someone is not the first solution but if they get to live they should at least have some harsher punishments besides just jail because its not that bad. But the main reason i think the death penalty should be allowed is because if someone decided to do something as evil as a mass murdering they shouldn't just go to jail for a life time and get it over with it because its just not fair the American jail is not as hard as should be on certain prisoners for what they have done. I think that if you have the guts to go up and have the nerve to kill someone then you definitely don't deserve to still be living and breathing on this earth its just not right you need to learn from your mistakes and it will also teach others to learn from what you have done and be warned that if you decide to take this path in your life there will be serious consequences like the death penalty or harsher and stricter jails. People need to take the blame for what they have clearly done and its not right to kill and innocent person and still live and eat and live your life when them and their families have to suffer for what you have done. It also gives closure to the victims families who have suffered so deeply because of your cruel actions, and also i don't know if you've noticed but your justice system has more sympathy for our criminals than our victims. Another good reason to have the death penalty is because when a prisoner's parole or escape can give the criminals another opportunity to kill another person again. Also have you noticed with all these prisoners here and known of them getting killed its taking up space and that's not realty safe. And finally something we all have to pay attention almost everyday is our taxes did you know that we are paying to keep our criminals stuck in that jail place when it could be going to something a lot more useful that could actually help and benefit us. Overall i do agree with the death penalty but if there we some law that were to be passed that made the jails a bit more stricter and made them suffer more them i would also agree with that as well . Some people may call that mean or getting eye to eye which is also not the best way to solve things and i agree and here your point but its also not fair haven't you ever lost a loved one and if so just imagine the reason they died is because guy was just feeling angry and decided to kill someone that night and its also not only that is just that someone who had the mentality to do something like that clearly needs to get their facts straight and on the right track.", "qid": "40", "docid": "eaf9851d-2019-04-18T15:40:44Z-00004-000", "rank": 15, "score": 160264.0}, {"content": "Title: The death penalty should be allowed Content: The death penalty should not be allowed as you know the old saying, two wrongs don't make a right. The purpose of the death penalty is to stop people committing, killing is a crime.", "qid": "40", "docid": "c0a5f15c-2019-04-18T13:45:23Z-00005-000", "rank": 16, "score": 159949.0}, {"content": "Title: The death penalty should NOT be allowed Content: I accept the challenge for the debate. Good luck!", "qid": "40", "docid": "6604e4a3-2019-04-18T14:33:25Z-00004-000", "rank": 17, "score": 159724.0}, {"content": "Title: Death Penalty Content: accept", "qid": "40", "docid": "ed87638b-2019-04-18T15:23:00Z-00007-000", "rank": 18, "score": 158831.0}, {"content": "Title: There should not be a Death Penalty. Content: Please vote for me.", "qid": "40", "docid": "9661ea15-2019-04-18T15:47:52Z-00000-000", "rank": 19, "score": 158643.0}, {"content": "Title: Death Penalty should be abolished Content: .", "qid": "40", "docid": "4b7352aa-2019-04-18T18:31:31Z-00000-000", "rank": 20, "score": 158339.0}, {"content": "Title: There should not be a Death Penalty. Content: Extend my arguments.", "qid": "40", "docid": "9661ea15-2019-04-18T15:47:52Z-00001-000", "rank": 21, "score": 158033.0}, {"content": "Title: Death penalty should be allowed Content: People who are threats to the innocent should be stopped but putting them into prison doesn't really solve what they did to the innocent not only that but it cost, 760,000 a year . They shouldn't be allowed to live if they killed someone. They should get what they deserve. It's just like the golden rule . \" treat others the way you want to be treated\". If you kill someone, then you should get punished for your actions.", "qid": "40", "docid": "7ad5a1f-2019-04-18T12:20:56Z-00007-000", "rank": 22, "score": 157435.0}, {"content": "Title: The Death Penalty should be legal Content: Extend.", "qid": "40", "docid": "6eefc0cc-2019-04-18T14:12:24Z-00000-000", "rank": 23, "score": 156946.0}, {"content": "Title: Use of the Death Penalty as punishment for capital murder and sex crimes. Content: In the case of capital murder and life destroying sexual crimes, the death penalty should be allowed, as it is a powerful deterrent and, if the criminal takes it upon themselves to take control of the life of another and ruin it/ take it, the state/federal government should reserve the power to do so as well.", "qid": "40", "docid": "780a0341-2019-04-18T16:17:37Z-00004-000", "rank": 24, "score": 156847.0}, {"content": "Title: Death Penalty Content: .", "qid": "40", "docid": "ed875f4e-2019-04-18T15:57:47Z-00001-000", "rank": 25, "score": 156668.0}, {"content": "Title: The Death Penalty Content: Let us begin", "qid": "40", "docid": "abe4e089-2019-04-18T16:17:42Z-00005-000", "rank": 26, "score": 156364.0}, {"content": "Title: Death Penalty Content: I accept", "qid": "40", "docid": "ed87636c-2019-04-18T15:22:01Z-00004-000", "rank": 27, "score": 156306.0}, {"content": "Title: Death Penalty Content: I accept", "qid": "40", "docid": "ed87c126-2019-04-18T13:45:18Z-00006-000", "rank": 28, "score": 156306.0}, {"content": "Title: The Death Penalty should be banned in the U.S Content: I will be arguing for the ban of the death penalty. BIASED and UNRELIABLE sources are not allowed (philosophy, statistics, logic, and everything else is allowed. ) That you must clearly label parts of your debate speech so your points are understandable. Finally, just so we both know what we are getting into, your first post or argument would be accepting these terms and the stance that you have chosen. Thank you for your time,- Faust", "qid": "40", "docid": "40a94900-2019-04-18T12:33:31Z-00002-000", "rank": 29, "score": 156213.0}, {"content": "Title: the death penalty should be allowed Content: Extend arguments. I hope that Pro returns to the site, and that my harsh critisisms did not deter her from the debate.", "qid": "40", "docid": "eaf9851d-2019-04-18T15:40:44Z-00002-000", "rank": 30, "score": 156044.0}, {"content": "Title: Death Penalty should be allowed Content: I'm not sure why Pro challenged me specifically to this debate, especially given that my profile says I am for the death penalty, but since it was directed towards me I felt obligated to accept. I thank my opponent for this debate, and am honored to be debating \"the-great-debater\". Since my opponent A) Challenged me and B) Is Pro I feel he should have burden of proof. I will not argue this round so as to let him present his case first. This should be a short and sweet debate.", "qid": "40", "docid": "ed8c6e01-2019-04-18T18:08:43Z-00003-000", "rank": 31, "score": 156019.0}, {"content": "Title: The death penalty should be allowed Content: What you think is not relevant. You have done nothing to show the death penalty is wrong or evil. And the fact is that those in prison have shorter lifespans than those not in prison, which means even your prison sentence is a death sentence, but you prefer the slow and torturous method and me the quick and easy method. You also want to make the criminal suffer. That is evil. I just want justice. I win.", "qid": "40", "docid": "c0a5f15c-2019-04-18T13:45:23Z-00000-000", "rank": 32, "score": 155859.0}, {"content": "Title: Should death penaltys be brought back Content: What do you think?", "qid": "40", "docid": "d167f0eb-2019-04-18T17:28:16Z-00004-000", "rank": 33, "score": 155153.0}, {"content": "Title: the death penalty should be allowed Content: Pro has not responded to any of my arguments. This is a debate, and debates entail an exchange, not talking past each other and ignoring the other side.Now, on to the mesh of one sentence arguments...the American jail is not as hard as should be on certain prisoners for what they have done. 1) This is irrelevant. If jails should be harder, it only follows that the jails should change, not that the death penalty should be allowed. 2) Why are jails not hard enough? Please provide support. I think that if you have the guts to go up and have the nerve to kill someone then you definitely don't deserve to still be living and breathing on this earth its just not right1) I developed a lengthy argument last round which addressed the moral responsibility of individuals and the unjust nature of the death penalty. I invite Pro to read it.2) Pro only appeals to emotion. She doesn't make an argument. you need to learn from your mistakesUnfortunately, you'll find that when you try to use capital punishment to educate someone, their capacity to remember what they learned is greatly impared. it will also teach others to learn from what you have done and be warned that if you decide to take this path in your life there will be serious consequences like the death penalty Deterence is a contentious issue, so Pro cannot make an argument for it without providing outside research. In 2008, a survey was conducted on members of the prestigious Fellow in the American Society of Criminology. 88.2% of the experts do not believe that the death penalty is a deterrent. 74.7% say that research refutes the claim that death-penalty states have lower homicide rates than neighboring states without the death-penalty. In fact, death-penalty states had 42% higher homicide rates than non-death penalty states in 2007. [1] Also, in a 1995 national survey, two-thirds of nearly 400 police chiefs and county sheriffs responded that they did not believe the death penalty significantly lowered the number of murders [1]. \u201cOverall, it is clear that however measured, fewer than 10% of the polled experts believe the deterrence effect of the death penalty is stronger than that of long-term imprisonment\u201d[1] A study was conducted a few years ago by the prestigious National Research Council of the National Academies [2]. The study covered over three decades of research and concluded that there were three fundamental flaws in current studies on deterrence: 1. \u201cThe studies do not factor in the effects of noncapital punishments that may also be imposed. 2. The studies use incomplete or implausible models of potential murderers\u2019 perceptions of and response to the use of capital punishment. 3. Estimates of the effect of capital punishment are based on statistical models that make assumptions that are not credible.\u201d The conclusion of the study was that research is not informative about the effect of capital punishment on homicide rates and, therefore, should not be used to inform policy judgements. There have been a vast amount of studies regarding capital punishment and deterrence such as the 10 mentioned between 2004 and 2012 here [3]. The only thing we can gather from all these studies is that the effect of capital punishment on homicide rates can\u2019t be established, as the mentioned article concludes. There are, however, reasons why the death penalty might have very little deterrence or no deterrence at all. The first reason is the consensus of experts against deterrence. The second is presented below. For the death penalty to deter, criminals need to actively weigh the thought of execution to their potential crime. This is problematic; one, because executions happen so little in America and are applied so arbitrary that no one would believe they had much chance of receiving the death penalty. Also, murders are largely committed in the heat of passion, or under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or because they are mentally ill--little thought is given to the possible consequences. Those murderers in the minority, who plan the crime in advance, are counting on not being caught; they expect to avoid punishment altogether.[4]or harsher and stricter jails This debate has nothing to do with the debate.People need to take the blame for what they have clearly done and its not right to kill and innocent person and still live and eat and live your life when them and their families have to suffer for what you have done Correction: Live and eat and spend the rest of your life in prison. No one contends that murderers should recieve punishment. Pro has simply given no rational argument for why it warrants the death penalty. I've already given many reasons why the death penalt is unjust. Pro can't address any of my arguments nor even give one of her own.i don't know if you've noticed but your justice system has more sympathy for our criminals than our victims No, I haven't.Another good reason to have the death penalty is because when a prisoner's parole or escape can give the criminals another opportunity to kill another person again. The only way to stop recidivism is to execute every murderer, which no person wants, or life without parole, which is an alternative to the death penalty.Also have you noticed with all these prisoners here and known of them getting killed its taking up space and that's not realty safe.Seriously... The answer to our prison population IS NOT TO JUST START KILLING PEOPLE. And finally something we all have to pay attention almost everyday is our taxes did you know that we are paying to keep our criminals stuck in that jail place when it could be going to something a lot more useful that could actually help and benefit us.Pro obviously did not even attempt to read my case.Sources: [1] http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu... [2] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...[3] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...[4] http://deathpenalty.procon.org...;", "qid": "40", "docid": "eaf9851d-2019-04-18T15:40:44Z-00003-000", "rank": 34, "score": 155111.0}, {"content": "Title: Death penalty should be allowed Content: Yes people don't believe it but you have to have faith but that's besides the point. I My next claim | this is what you would say. \\/ There are more pros to the death penalty than cons. Yes people can get wrongly executed One of the arguments of opponents of death penalty is the inevitability of sending innocent people who are wrongly accused to death row and eventually execution. In relation to free will, some criminals are suffering from mental illness or are having clouded judgment at the time of the crime.Opponents contend that there are instances where people commit pre-meditated crimes and are aware of what they are doing. However, it does not discount the fact that crimes can also be committed out of passion or extreme anger triggered by a situation which makes an offender act on impulse. There are also those who are suffering from mental illnesses and are not taking medication which can lead to them committing offenses they have no control of. It is an added cost to the government and taxpayers\" money, With the argument that life imprisonment with no parole is more expensive, opponents say that in general, the government spends more taxpayers\" money in handling cases of death row inmates. This is due to the length and complexity of trials, the number or defenders to be hired and the overall process. They contend that there are two trials the state will spend for. One is for the verdict and another for the sentencing, not including the number of appeals that will be submitted while keeping the convicted prisoner inside maximum security. Death penalty is a form of revenge, While proponents say that imposing capital punishment is a form of retribution, that is, to punish who has committed a crime, opponents argue that it is revenge. For the latter, to avenge a crime committed to another individual may be understandable but killing someone for murdering another person is also unconstitutional. It is crime in itself that is only masked by the term capital punishment and in truth, only continues the series of violence. It is a platform that is anti-poor and discriminatoryand Those who are death row inmates and sentenced to death are mostly based on racial discrimination as evidenced by a high percentage of inmates being African-American and members of the minority. Moreover, accused individuals who are poor are mostly the ones who get the death penalty for the reason that they lack the finances to seek for great and powerful defense attorneys. They don\"t have the money to pay for good defense. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ This is my info -Death penalty costs the government less as opposed to life imprisonment without parole.Proponents say despite expenses incurred by the government from imposing capital punishment, death penalty is still cheaper compared to the costs of life without parole. Although there is no contention that the cost of the former is high, life imprisonment is accumulatively higher given the expenses for food, health care and other costs of sustaining the lives of incarcerated individuals serving life. -It deters would-be criminals to commit felonies and Advocates of death penalty cite examples on how imposing the death sentence or abolishing it have affected crime rate. According to a study conducted in the late 1960\"s, there was a 7% crime rate increase on the years when this law was abolished. On the other hand, fewer crimes were committed with the increase in number of inmates in the death row who were executed each year. Proponents say that these figures clearly indicate the efficacy of capital punishment on deterring crimes. - The absence of death penalty is synonymous to crime rate increase.As reported by time magazine, an estimated 2,000,000 people in the United States have been victims of crimes, from assault to murder. With insufficient laws to address this problem or the lack of teeth in these laws, criminals become careless and bolder to commit heinous crimes because of the leniency in punishments and loop holes in the justice system. For these reason, there is a need for death penalty. -It is constitutional and does not violate the Eight Amendment which prohibits the federal government from imposing excessive bail, fines and cruel and unusual punishments, including torture. Advocates of death penalty say that the pain associated with the execution of a death row inmate is not improbable. Even the U.S. Supreme Court has rejected the Eight Amendment challenge which stated that the drug used to render the criminal coma-like unconscious before injecting the lethal drug is not capable to do so completely. The Supreme Court was firm on its stand that any method of execution definitely will inflict some pain and states with capital punishment have already adopted more humane methods to carry out executions. -Death penalty is a just punishment for crimes committed against the rights to life, freedom and safety of victims. It is the right of an individual to live peacefully and be free from harm. Unfortunately, crimes like murder, rape and assault are committed by perpetrators who have no regard for life and property of others. Since they violate other people\"s lives, it is but fair that they are brought to justice and suffer the fate they rightfully deserve. People who are for capital punishment also talk about free will wherein an individual is given the right to do things in his or her own volition and he or she is responsible for his or her own fate. All of this shows that it is constitutional, and it would make the victim get peace or have freedom. What would you want the judge to say if you or a loved one got killed, or maybe your whole family except for you that no has to suffer from what happened? Please answer.", "qid": "40", "docid": "7ad5a1f-2019-04-18T12:20:56Z-00003-000", "rank": 35, "score": 155044.0}, {"content": "Title: The Death Penalty Should Be Abolished Content: i agree", "qid": "40", "docid": "ae02ba06-2019-04-18T17:38:19Z-00004-000", "rank": 36, "score": 154846.0}, {"content": "Title: The Death Penalty Content: I accept", "qid": "40", "docid": "abe4dda1-2019-04-18T16:27:26Z-00003-000", "rank": 37, "score": 154483.0}, {"content": "Title: Should the death penalty be abolished Content: I accept.", "qid": "40", "docid": "12bc8815-2019-04-18T11:27:19Z-00004-000", "rank": 38, "score": 154379.0}, {"content": "Title: Death Penalty Content: The death penalty should not be allowed for various reasons: 1. What makes it moral? Why do we kill people who kill people to show killing people is wrong? It is hypocritical. 2. It violates amendment 8 of the constitution which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, for sometimes it takes a victim longer then expected and wanted to pass. This makes the punishment inhumane and unconstitutional. 3. There is no solid evidence to prove that the death penalty deteriorates crime rates. So what is the point? If anything, it is an easy way out. 4. 1/7 people executed are innocent, why take the chance? 5. The cost of the death penalty is much greater then it would cost to give prisoners/victims life imprisonment. I will await for your rebuttals and then pose a counterargument against such rebuttals.", "qid": "40", "docid": "ed87c126-2019-04-18T13:45:18Z-00005-000", "rank": 39, "score": 154327.0}, {"content": "Title: The United States should have a death penalty. Content: I accept", "qid": "40", "docid": "236d14ec-2019-04-18T16:29:51Z-00006-000", "rank": 40, "score": 154092.0}, {"content": "Title: Death penalty Content: t", "qid": "40", "docid": "e3bc1690-2019-04-18T14:39:13Z-00002-000", "rank": 41, "score": 154028.0}, {"content": "Title: The Death Penalty Content: win", "qid": "40", "docid": "abe4e82a-2019-04-18T11:12:04Z-00000-000", "rank": 42, "score": 153900.0}, {"content": "Title: should the death penalty be allowed for drugs Content: unless someone has done something terrible like mass killing then the death penalty should be allowed. not for doing drugs or selling them.", "qid": "40", "docid": "efef4309-2019-04-18T16:10:20Z-00003-000", "rank": 43, "score": 153148.0}, {"content": "Title: Death Penalty Content: I accept!", "qid": "40", "docid": "ed875c28-2019-04-18T16:05:39Z-00006-000", "rank": 44, "score": 153056.0}, {"content": "Title: The death penalty should be offered as a form of punishment. Content: I enjoy a good debate on an important issue so thank you for offering me that opportunity. However, it seems to me that this debate is just going to keep going in circles. You say that if we execute murderers we are no better than they are, but I would once again argue that the opposite is true. I believe that the only morally right and responsible thing to do is to ensure that these criminals are never allowed the opportunity of committing these brutal acts again. If we simply lock them away for the rest of their life in a state that does not allow for capital punishment then what is to keep these individuals from murdering while in jail? As I said before, they have nothing to lose in so doing. In addition to that you can never rule out the possibility of their escaping, and in our current justice system it is far from uncommon to see these people back on the streets after a few years. I don't think I can stress this point enough. If we allow them to live we are in fact valuing their lives above the lives of the countless innocent. We can never fully vouch for their safety while these people are allowed something they so reprehensibly denied others. I don't think you fully understood what I was trying to convey in our last round. I was referring to capital punishment and not punishment in general. I assure you I was not trying to insult your intelligence by assuming such a thing. It just seemed to me that the structure of your opening argument seemed to indicate that you felt that execution equaled no more than an act of vengeance. So if I offended you I apologize sincerely. I disagree that punishment is about reform. Reform can be a happy outcome of punishment, but it is not the purpose of punishment. Punishment is a penalty imposed for wrongdoing. In the case of murder there can simply be no expectation of or allowance made for reform. Unlike minor crimes, murder is a crime that can never be undone or recovered from, and it is certainly one we are morally bound to never let the same individual perpetrate again. The criminal can simply never be trusted in society again, and can never be trusted around inmates. I'm afraid that in order to attempt to prove their point deathpenaltyinfo.org used very unrealistic and misleading averages. Some states are more prone to crime than others and that goes for both pro and anti-capital punishment states. However, since there are so many fewer states against capital punishment than there are for, the average can only be misleading at best. For a state-by-state look at crime statistics I recommend going to http://www.disastercenter.com... U. S. Crime Statistics Total and by State 1960 - 2006 I understand that the certainty level for trials can not always be 100%, but DNA testing is proven to be at least 99% accurate and the rigorous court proceedings usually eliminates any reasonable doubt from the case and more often than not proves undeniable guilt. If it is not proven adequately there is no possibility that 12 people will agree on one decision. That is why we have the court system set up the way we do. To provide as much certainty as is humanly possible and protect the innocent. I'm all for better technology, but to use your logic a case could never be officially closed and the process would never end. I understood the statistics you used. In fact, they usually go much higher than that, but we are debating the moral issue and not the monetary. However, to briefly cover that topic, court cases would not cost nearly as much if we would limit the appeals process to within reasonable bounds. You are more likely to die of old age than execution on death row.", "qid": "40", "docid": "7fa91ebc-2019-04-18T19:55:53Z-00002-000", "rank": 45, "score": 153013.0}, {"content": "Title: The Death Penalty should be abolished Content: ! !", "qid": "40", "docid": "f6d275e6-2019-04-18T13:09:27Z-00000-000", "rank": 46, "score": 152737.0}, {"content": "Title: The Death Penalty Should Be Illegal. Content: First off, I would like to say that I am aware that 34 out of the 50 states allow the death penalty and this is appalls me. However, I did notice that my opponent lives in one of the states that allows it, Texas, and I am from New Jersey which does not. So, I recognize that possibly being a reason for our opposing views, but am still respectful of my opponent's views as well. I have noticed in my 18 years of life, that the justice system in our country is far from perfect. But, it is ridiculous how guilty people can walk free at times and the innocent can be executed when they are wrongly accused of a crime. Recently, a 17 year old boy named Trayvon Martin apparently looked \"suspicious\" and was murdered - even when young Trayvon was begging for his life. All the poor boy had on him was skittles, an iced tea, the clothes on his back, and a cell phone! The man who murdered him, named George Zimmermann, was part of the neighborhood watch in Florida, an area where the death penalty is allowed, and this man walks free for murder. Where is the justice in that? What about Troy Davis? He was executed by lethal injection in Georgia for a crime he \"apparently\" committed over 20 years ago, which was the shooting of an off-duty Savannah officer named Mark MacPhail. From the moment he was accused to the last minutes of his life, he still swore his innocence and was not even carrying a gun that night. Plus, there was the Casey Anthony trial, also in Florida. All of the signs pointed to her killing her baby, Caylee, but she walks away free, too. To this day, I still feel that cases like these are determined by bribery, tricks played by the lawyer, or by even racism, and Casey Anthony is an attractive, young, Caucasian female. These events are not the first times things like this has occurred in the U. S. It happens way too often, which is why we should not execute any criminals. After all our country has done to fix and improve \"the system\", these outrageous events should not still be occurring. Since, the legal system often has flaws, who is anyone to truly say whom deserves capital punishment and whom does not? More importantly, what exactly the justice of killing a killer? He or she should rot in jail for their crime if they commit such a murder. Plus, there are some people who kill out of crime of passion, not being able to take someone's physical/mental/emotional abuse anymore, to protect themselves, or because they have psychological problems and could not control themselves. Not saying that this makes what they have done alright at all, however, they deserve less of a punishment or possibly hospitalization and treatment for mental illness. Some are even executed for other things not even as severe as murder, which isn't even fair. So, what is it that makes capital punishment alright?", "qid": "40", "docid": "2728719b-2019-04-18T18:24:05Z-00007-000", "rank": 47, "score": 152667.0}, {"content": "Title: The death penalty should be allowed Content: This is my first debate so I am not as good as others but I must state that prison is a much better way of discipline than killing. You are taken away from your family, have to follow a strict regime and are in with a bunch of strangers. I am OK with that as at least you have a longer life and I think life is the most important thing in the world. Without life, you can't enjoy even the simplest of things. I agree that something must be take away from criminals, but life is too important to take away from anyone.", "qid": "40", "docid": "c0a5f15c-2019-04-18T13:45:23Z-00001-000", "rank": 48, "score": 152318.0}, {"content": "Title: Death penalty Content: Do you think the death penalty should be legal even now", "qid": "40", "docid": "41271d1b-2019-04-18T19:19:52Z-00003-000", "rank": 49, "score": 152265.0}, {"content": "Title: Debater's Choice Content: The position you basically want me to take is that there should be no death penalty, anywhere, anytime at all no matter the circumstances. I don't like it, but I will take it. Your position, if I have this correctly, is: The death penalty should be allowed implementation in certain circumstances. I expect objective reasoning and a good, well thought-out case. You can either make a few clarifications and start immediately (you'll also have to leave round 5 empty so that both you and I have the same number of rounds in total) or you can simply submit clarifications or acceptance of clarifications and have me start. Precautions: If CON trolls me for not defining the words within the resolution & my interpretation (such as making DNA -> Demonic Nambian Antelopes in a debate pertaining to DNA), then I expect a full 7-point vote from you, the voter.", "qid": "40", "docid": "e9f1259e-2019-04-18T17:35:39Z-00007-000", "rank": 50, "score": 152209.0}, {"content": "Title: Should we have the death Penalty? (Con is against death penalty) Content: Currently there are 3,425 people on Death Row. An incredible 4% are innocent. This totals to 123 people who will be killed, even though they are innocent. The Death Penalty should not be allowed for 3 reasons. 1- It is Morally Wrong 2- It is expensive 3- It is unconstitutional Rules: There will be 5 rounds. Introduction, Argument 1, Argument 2, Argument 3, Conclusion. Any personal attacks on the other debater will result in an instant disqualification. Any logical fallacies can be pointed out. Rebuttals are allowed, and in fact encouraged. Remember to cite your sources for each argument, and may the best man win!", "qid": "40", "docid": "cc812c57-2019-04-18T15:27:45Z-00007-000", "rank": 51, "score": 152155.0}, {"content": "Title: The death penalty should be allowed Content: And why is it just? If you are trying to stop killing, it makes absolutely NO sense to kill people!", "qid": "40", "docid": "c0a5f15c-2019-04-18T13:45:23Z-00003-000", "rank": 52, "score": 152130.0}, {"content": "Title: The Death Penalty Should Be Abolished Content: Accepted.", "qid": "40", "docid": "ae02c1a7-2019-04-18T13:09:05Z-00006-000", "rank": 53, "score": 152000.0}, {"content": "Title: Death penalty should be allowed Content: https://www.biblebelievers.com... http://time.com... Yes I would would want to get the death penalty because I would deserve it and I wouldn't live with myself These are reasons that the death penalty should be allowed 1).The death penalty was first instituted by God Himself in Genesis 9:6: \"Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.\" Man didn't invent the death penalty, so man has no right to abandon it. We live in an age when everyone is far too concerned with \"human rights\", and God has been practically ignored, as if He had no rights at all. Killers are to be killed, and God's will has not been fulfilled until our governing bodies have executed wrath upon those who have killed others. 2).God has actually promised to bless us if we follow His plan of using the death penalty? Notice Deuteronomy 19:11-13. The death Penalty also brings closure for the people who got seriously injured or loved ones who got killed, their families will get closure. \"Many in the survivor community feel like the death penalty offers a sense of justice being done. And that's what his sentence felt like to me. I hope it also brings closure to those who lost loved ones that day. There are, of course, many in the survivor community who feel that he should spend his life in prison and sit in a cell and think about what he did. I don't speak for everybody\". Anyways, it also stops from the person from committing another murder/crime. And they deserve what they get and it pleases the Lord. Thanks for debating me:)", "qid": "40", "docid": "7ad5a1f-2019-04-18T12:20:56Z-00005-000", "rank": 54, "score": 151482.0}, {"content": "Title: The death penalty should be allowed Content: I note that you have failed to establish that the death penalty is \"wrong\". I assume you are dropping that claim, which means you lose the debate. And no, the purpose of the death penalty is to punish capital criminals. And no, killing is not a crime;., murder is a crime, with murder being defined as the unlawful taking of human life. Surely, you do not believe killing animals for food is a \"crime\"? Nor do you believe that killing man to stop him from raping your wife would be a \"crime\". It is certainly not in the U.S. Capital punishment is just because God says so. And I am not trying to stop killing. I am trying to punish capital criminals. I have no problem with killing, especially cows and chickens. You will have to do better than that.", "qid": "40", "docid": "c0a5f15c-2019-04-18T13:45:23Z-00002-000", "rank": 55, "score": 151462.0}, {"content": "Title: The death penalty should be abolished Content: I accept.", "qid": "40", "docid": "8e5ea08-2019-04-18T15:02:02Z-00004-000", "rank": 56, "score": 151229.0}, {"content": "Title: The death penalty should be illegal Content: Extending...", "qid": "40", "docid": "3670e50c-2019-04-18T15:23:35Z-00001-000", "rank": 57, "score": 151106.0}, {"content": "Title: The Death Penalty Content: I accept.", "qid": "40", "docid": "abe4e4c6-2019-04-18T12:34:40Z-00000-000", "rank": 58, "score": 150960.0}, {"content": "Title: should the death penalty be allowed for drugs Content: Say, you were an innocent young teen at a party. Someone put 1.5 pounds of liquid marijuana in a plate of food. Baked it inside so there was no scent nor visibility of the drug. You were hungry so you ate quite of few bites. You stay for a while and the party gets crashed by police officers. You have to take a drug test and are arrested for illegally taking drugs. Fair? I think not. The person whom planted the oil or drug into the food is responsible for the crime. The death penalty is meant for inhumane crimes. Not idiotic, unfairness.", "qid": "40", "docid": "efef4309-2019-04-18T16:10:20Z-00002-000", "rank": 59, "score": 150718.0}, {"content": "Title: Death Penalty Content: post", "qid": "40", "docid": "a490cc7d-2019-04-18T18:50:09Z-00000-000", "rank": 60, "score": 150366.0}, {"content": "Title: Death Penalty should be allowed Content: I am going to argue for this topic. I believe that death penalty should be allowed in many countries if not all of them.", "qid": "40", "docid": "ed8c6e01-2019-04-18T18:08:43Z-00004-000", "rank": 61, "score": 149979.0}, {"content": "Title: States should not be allowed to pursue the death penalty for a criminal that pleas guilty Content: I appreciate my opponent's response, and will close by saying that I hope all is well with him!", "qid": "40", "docid": "99aac624-2019-04-18T17:39:44Z-00000-000", "rank": 62, "score": 149893.0}, {"content": "Title: Death Penalty Content: Meh", "qid": "40", "docid": "ed874c2c-2019-04-18T17:08:51Z-00000-000", "rank": 63, "score": 149779.0}, {"content": "Title: should the death penalty be allowed for drugs Content: in americaca we belive to live however unless it hurts others killing over simple drug use is wrong", "qid": "40", "docid": "efef4309-2019-04-18T16:10:20Z-00000-000", "rank": 64, "score": 149772.0}, {"content": "Title: The Death Penalty should be made illegal in the USA. Content: I thank my opponent for his refutes and for him ceasing to call people \"anti-death penalty zealots\". Now, as per the rules of this debate, my opponent and myself are not allowed to make any new arguments or any new refutes. So, my contentions will not be addressed by my opponent (unless it is a recap, of course) in round five, unless he is willing to break the rules. So, I will recap everything. Contention 1: Innocent executions. I pointed out how people have probably been executed in the past. While I cannot prove this, the probability is high, considering the amount of cases that were closed due to lack of funding and resources. Now, it seems that this fails when compared to alternatives. Contention 2: Cost. I showed how the cost is far too high for what it tries to archive - which is justice. I showed how other methods meet justice, too, but with a much lower cost. Due to character limitation, my opponent has not addressed my refutation. I extend the contention. Contention 3: Deterrent failure. I showed how punishments are, at least in part, for deterring the person from committing the crime again. Killing the person doesn't archive this. Yes, it stops them from killing again, but that's because they're dead, not deterred. Due to character limitation, my opponent has not addressed my refutation. I extend the contention. Contention 4: the 8th Amendment. I consented this contention to my opponent. Contention 5: Racial equality (or lack thereof). I showed how people who are not white have a higher chance of being executed for no discernible reason in the USA. While I admitted that this was not unique to capital punishment, the death penalty should not be acceptable as a punishment for it is racially bias, but at the same time, deals in absolutes. Due to character limitation, my opponent has not addressed my contention. I extend the contention. Contention 6: The right to live. I demonstrated simple logic in that: P1:The right to live is human right. P2: The death penalty kills people. C: Therefore, the death penalty violates human rights. While I offered my opponent to show how either P1 or P2 are incorrect, he has not addressed this. Due to character limitation, my opponent has not addressed my contention. I extend the contention. Now, my opponent stated that: \"I will knock down the last two contentions, race and \"right to life,\"... in Round 5.\" I would remind my opponent that he is not allowed to address these contentions, as it would count as a new refute and violate the rules of the debate. Now, I will make my closing statements: I have shown how the death penalty fails at many things over alternatives, but why should this warrant for it to be illegal? To answer this, I will give examples: (DP = death penalty, LiP = life in prison) Does the DP bring justice? Yes. Does LiP bring justice? Yes. Can the DP kill innocent people? Yes. Can LiP kill innocent people? No. - Better Does the DP cost more than LiP? Yes. Does LiP cost more over the DP? No. - Better Does the DP work as a deterrent? No. Does LiP work as a deterrent? Yes. - Better. Is the DP racially bias? Yes. Is LiP racially bias? Yes. Better. (Why? Because since the death penalty deals as an irreversible*, bias system, it is worse than a reversible, bias system.) Does the DP violate the right to live? Yes. Does LiP violate the right to live? No. Better. So, how does this chart constitute making the death penalty illegal? Because it is a weed - a weed that drains our money, it doesn't work as a deterrent, it violates human rights, it is worse suited to a racially bias system, and is irreversible*. And like any weed, if you remove it, the flowers will shine, so to speak. Making the death penalty illegal will open the door for more money, more tolerated human rights, systems that are better suited to racial equality, and systems that work better as a deterrent, and can be corrected. I would like to extend my thanks to my opponent, DavidMGold, the audience, and the voters for this interesting debate. I have refined my reasons as to why the death penalty should be made illegal. Until next time! Kind regards, J *irreversible once the punishment has been carried out.", "qid": "40", "docid": "a4630a13-2019-04-18T17:14:46Z-00001-000", "rank": 65, "score": 149547.0}, {"content": "Title: Death Penalty Content: My position as Con will be to show that the death penalty as it is currently being applied in the USA should not be allowed while Pro will have to argue that it is justified and should continue to be applied as it currently is. Pro has to post his opening argument in round 1 and skip his last round.", "qid": "40", "docid": "ed87cfae-2019-04-18T11:20:12Z-00005-000", "rank": 66, "score": 149225.0}, {"content": "Title: Death penalty should be allowed Content: My opponent has decided to use the bible as justification for the death penalty. I will point out 2 problems with this:1) The Bible is not trustworthy or reliableThere are hundreds of contradictions in the Bible, even the creation story in Genesis 1 and 2 don't match up. For a list of contradictions in the Bible, here is a source for that: [4]I will point out just two of the many contradictions:, Genesis 1:25-27 reads:\"And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.\"While Genesis 2 reads:\"And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.\"As you can see, the order in which God created animals differs from when he created mankind in these accounts. In Genesis 1, the animals were created first. In Genesis 2, Adam and Eve(who are believed to be the first humans by most Christians) were created first. A second contradiction is here:In Mathew 18:3, Mathew 19:14, Mark 10:15, and Luke 18:17, it is suggested that to enter heaven you should like a child. Yet, in 1 Corinthians 13:11. 1 Corinthians 14:20, and Ephesians 4:14, we are told we should not be like Children. There exists many more contradictions which you can look at in the source I provided.Thus, with this many contradictions, it should be clear that the Bible is not a trustworthy source of information. It should also be noted that there are thousands of Christian denominations: this is likely because of the many contradictions in the Bible: some Christians choose to believe one thing, while others choose to believe something else the Bible says. Neither are exactly wrong, because for the most part, what almost every sect believes in is likely supported by the bible, but what they believe in is also contradicted by the bible elsewhere. If the Bible was not contradictory, I'm sure there would be fewer Christian denominations and interpretations of the Bible.2) The new Testament tells us the old testament laws were fulfilled, and contradicts what my opponent suggestsIn Mathew 5:17, it is stated by Jesus himself that the old testament laws are going to be fulfilled by him. Now, I grew up as a Mormon and while in this sect, I was taught that this meant that the punishment for these laws are fulfilled by Christ, and people no longer need to be punished for breaking these laws, if they seek Jesus in their lives. I feel like this is a common view of most Chrisian sects: that you no longer need to be punished for not following Old Testament laws so long as you rely on Christ. Next, there are many examples where Jesus tells people not to punish people for breaking old testament law, such as with the adulteress woman in John 8. He says \"Let he who is without sin among you, cast the first stone\". In old testament law, a person who commits adultery would be stoned to death. Well, Jesus essentially told them that they can't and shouldn't stone the woman. If there was a murderer in the New Testament that was brought to Jesus in the same Fashion, just based off of what we know about the Biblican Jesus, he would have likely said the same thing. Thus, I believe my opponent has not offered a strong argument in this round in favor of the death penalty. Additionally, it would only appeal to those who are Christian or Jewish. And probably not even those who are Christian since they believe in the New Testament in a way usually of what I said about it. Sources:[4] http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...", "qid": "40", "docid": "7ad5a1f-2019-04-18T12:20:56Z-00004-000", "rank": 67, "score": 148953.0}, {"content": "Title: Should we abolish death penalty Content: I accept.", "qid": "40", "docid": "447458de-2019-04-18T15:29:29Z-00005-000", "rank": 68, "score": 148843.0}, {"content": "Title: Should the death penalty be authorized for murders, rapists, etc regardless of mental conditions Content: Yes their are people in the world who exit that are sexually assaulting people, and or murdering with out a care in the world, and they deserve death, but if that person is a mentally impaired person who can change, shouldn't they be allowed the chance to change and be fixed. Many have gone through a mentally traumatizing moment, or are mentally impaired and do not fully know what they are doing, and can not fully control their actions, and even not fully understand what their actions are to begin with. Over the course of this argument I will bring up multiple court cases in which a mentally impaired person has committed an act of the most heinous standards and is either punished accordingly, or given an unfair punishment.", "qid": "40", "docid": "6ea5169f-2019-04-18T13:11:10Z-00007-000", "rank": 69, "score": 148686.0}, {"content": "Title: The death penalty should NOT be allowed Content: For this round, and final round, I will rebuttal against my opponents arguments for the Death Penalty. I will do this by going in order from 1-10 for the arguments.1. Too Many Inocent People: In the previous argument, I brought up the fact of how the chances of a \"mistake\" is at a low. My opponent argues about killing an innocent individual for a crime that he or she has not done. I will admit its sad if something happens like this, but I must ask whose fault is it to me in jail in the first place? The criminal him or herself, which falls under my argument of \"self responsibility\". They made the decision to do the crime in the first place, so they should suffer the consequences. For mistakes that happen, it can happen any where. Take this for example, you are walking down the street and a driver hits you by mistake because of sneezing for one second. Its a mistake that took someones life, but does that mean we should ban drivers because of someone possibly getting killed by mistake? No, that would be idiotic; and it is the same scenario as the Death Penalty. Mistakes happen, but we move along in society. And my evidence still stands strong where the mistake is only 4%, stated under \"US death row study: 4% of defendants sentenced to die are innocent\". And my opponent even agrees that the number is low with the given quote \"The study, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences online on Apr. 28, 2014, estimated that 4.1% of death row sentences (1 in 25) were wrongful\".2. There is Racial and Economic Discrimination in Application of the Death Penalty: This is a common form of argument to use within the given topic. People can argue that it is \"racist\" for the Death Penalty, but I will prove otherwise. The evidence my opponent revealed is actually very ludicrous because of the high numbers, one number being 99% which is factually impossible, and not being able to find the evidence given my opponents sources. I, on the other hand, will provide evidence to prove that the Death Penalty is not racist or discriminatory. To prove that it isn't racially bias, given the link here: http://deathpenalty.org... is seen that 56.6% of whites were executed with the Death Penalty, than a combination of Latino's or Black's. That is very different, then my opponents \"ludicros\" number that he or she presented.3. It may be true that the Death Penalty can give publicity, but what is wrong with that? Stated under \"Media Influence in Capital Pumishment\", it states that the showing of the Death Penalty actually puts more fear into people, than encouragement. The Death Penalty helps show what not to do in society, and actually was said to \"cure\" up to 67% of people from commiting crimes. The highest being murder, so this disproves my opponents point. And so what if it is gettiong publicly noticed, people see the horrors of what can come if they do not become responsible with themselves.4. Because of time, i will quickly rush through these. Medical Doctors actually choose if they do or do not want to put the Death to someone. Stated under the Death Penalty website itself.5. Once more, self responsibility. If you don't want to get in trouble, than don't do it; and it is not hypocritical when someone takes the life of an innocent individual. Follow the saying \"An eye for an eye\".6. This is debatable about government havin too much power, but that is not the main focus on the Death Penalty. Just do not do the crime, once more!7. We both provided evidence about the Death Penalty being in the Bible. Some lines for, and others against. This can be a clash of evidence, but we would not get anywhere if we keep talking about the Bible for, or against, the Death Penalty.8. And there is another better alternative, don't do the crime!9. The cost for the Death Penalty is actually cheaper, the reason why it costs a lot is because of the pricing for trials. I brought this argument in the previous round, where we spend about a billion dollars a year for an ongoing \"goose chase\".10. Mentally ill people have a small chance of happening within prisons.Also to conclude the argument, my opponent neglects my argument about making the Death Row instant; and resolving mot of the issues witrh the Death Penalty.Sources (All): http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... http://www.capitalpunishmentincontext.org... htp://www.biblebelievers.com......http://www.theguardian.com......http://www.washingtonpost.com......http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org......http://deathpenaltycurriculum.org......http://www.nytimes.com....../www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/mljsp0012st.pdfhttp://www.bjs.gov......http://thinkprogress.org......http://www.heritage.org......http://digitalcommons.iwu.edu......http://www.vice.com......http://www.theonion.com......http://www.seattletimes.com......", "qid": "40", "docid": "6604e4a3-2019-04-18T14:33:25Z-00000-000", "rank": 70, "score": 148655.0}, {"content": "Title: Death Penalty should be instated Content: Waiting", "qid": "40", "docid": "f6f47599-2019-04-18T15:28:47Z-00001-000", "rank": 71, "score": 148617.0}, {"content": "Title: Death Penalty should be allowed Content: How unfortunate, my opponent has forfeited. Well, I might as well make an argument anyway.1. CostsThe Death Penalty is more expensive than life in prison. Therefore, we should not use it.2. Innocent PeopleIf you throw an innocent person in jail, you can yank them out again if you can show their innocence. You can't bring back someone from the dead.While these arguments are poor of quality, they are still more than what my opponent provided.Sources:1. http://en.wikipedia.org...", "qid": "40", "docid": "ed8c6e01-2019-04-18T18:08:43Z-00002-000", "rank": 72, "score": 148581.0}, {"content": "Title: Death penalty Content: I will argue against", "qid": "40", "docid": "e3bc0af0-2019-04-18T16:00:50Z-00005-000", "rank": 73, "score": 148537.0}, {"content": "Title: The Death Penalty should be abolished Content: Tie", "qid": "40", "docid": "f6d272c0-2019-04-18T14:33:21Z-00000-000", "rank": 74, "score": 148294.0}, {"content": "Title: The Death Penalty should be abolished Content: Tie", "qid": "40", "docid": "f6d272c0-2019-04-18T14:33:21Z-00002-000", "rank": 75, "score": 148294.0}, {"content": "Title: Debater's Choice Content: Yes i will argue : The death penalty should be allowed implementation in certain circumstances. and yourself ;there should be no death penalty,", "qid": "40", "docid": "e9f1259e-2019-04-18T17:35:39Z-00006-000", "rank": 76, "score": 148215.0}, {"content": "Title: God allowed the death penalty in the Old Testament. Content: An example that I have is: You shall not commit murder. -Deuteronomy 5:17 NIV In Leviticus 24:15 it says \" Say to the Israelites:\"If anyone curses his God, he will be held responsible.\" You stated that they blasphemed God's names, they did not commit a crime the basically just disrespected God. So God is saying to punish man who blasphemes his name.", "qid": "40", "docid": "b6a92a80-2019-04-18T19:36:39Z-00002-000", "rank": 77, "score": 147769.0}, {"content": "Title: The Death Penalty Should Be Used Content: This sucks.", "qid": "40", "docid": "48a622f8-2019-04-18T18:34:14Z-00001-000", "rank": 78, "score": 147485.0}, {"content": "Title: Should the death penalty be allowed in Australia Content: My opponent didn't actually outline a case against the death penalty.The death penalty isn't just about enacting revenge, as my opponent assumes. 1. The Death Penalty protects others from potentially being infringed upon in the future.2. The death penalty is an actual punishment. Prison is not. Some people will purposely get themselves into prison, just to survive off the government.3. Justice is not strictly about revenge. Due cause does not have to erase the bad things someone did, and it never will. It's about giving the criminal the same treatment they gave their victim to equivilate the crime to the punishment.4. Again, why just Australia? Should the Death Penalty be allowed everywhere else?", "qid": "40", "docid": "ec00b32a-2019-04-18T17:26:25Z-00001-000", "rank": 79, "score": 147368.0}, {"content": "Title: The death penalty should NOT be allowed Content: Hello and thank you for joining my debate I will be arguing in favor of not allowing the death penalty in the United States.", "qid": "40", "docid": "6604e4a3-2019-04-18T14:33:25Z-00005-000", "rank": 80, "score": 147157.0}, {"content": "Title: The death penalty should NOT be allowed Content: Hello and thank you for joining my debate I will be arguing in favor of not allowing the death penalty in the United States.", "qid": "40", "docid": "6604e4c2-2019-04-18T14:32:22Z-00007-000", "rank": 81, "score": 147157.0}, {"content": "Title: There should not be a death penalty Content: First of all, some people are so twisted that even therapy won't help them. Second of all, Pro can't provide sources because this is the last round.", "qid": "40", "docid": "f1d02517-2019-04-18T14:24:26Z-00000-000", "rank": 82, "score": 147152.0}, {"content": "Title: The Death Penalty should be made illegal in the USA. Content: Contention 1: Innocent executions. The US government has executed innocent people before, and should not be allowed to take this risk. Examples of innocent executions include Cameron Willingham[1], Carlos DeLuna[2], and the Meeks[3]. This system is clearly fallible and yet serves an irreversible purpose - to legally murder people. Should a system which allows for error, allow for the potential (and in some cases fulfilled potential) of mistakes to be made and incorporated when combined with an irreversible outcome? No - not when compared to alternatives. For example, life in prison. In one scenario, someone is killed and, no matter what evidence comes up, s/he will remain killed. In another scenario, s/he is sentenced to life in jail and, if evidence comes up again, s/he can be released if there is sufficient evidence to suggest that s/he wasn't the perpetrator. But there is also potential for death row innocence, too. As of 21st December 2012, 142 inmates on death row have been released[4]. It is clear from this that the possibility is high that some of our criminals weren't really criminals; they would have died alone, in disgrace, and innocent. Contention 2: Cost. The cost of executing people is huge when compared to life without parole[5]. In fact, Californians alone could save $90,000 in tax every year by eliminating the death penalty, because they spend about $90,000 more (per year) on death row prisoners than on prisoners in regular confinement[5]. This money could be spent on things such a police stations, to help reduce the crime in the first place. \". .. Commission estimates the annual costs of the present (death penalty) system to be $137 million per year. The cost of the present system with reforms recommended by the Commission to ensure a fair process would be $232.7 million per year. The cost of a system in which the number of death-eligible crimes was significantly narrowed would be $130 million per year. The cost of a system which imposes a maximum penalty of lifetime incarceration instead of the death penalty would be $11.5 million per year. \"[6] As you can clearly see, this phenomenal cost is very taxing on the public. Is it worth it? No. This idea that it's somehow \"worth it\" because they end up in the ground after being injected, gassed, hanged, or shocked appears to be personal opinion and nothing more. If I'm wrong and there is reason behind this, I would ask my opponent to provide counter evidence for this. I think two contentions is ample for now; I will introduce more in round three. I await my opponent's response(s)! I would like to thank my opponent, the audience, and the voters for this! Source(s): [1]. http://www.chicagotribune.com... [2]. http://www.theguardian.com... [3]. http://edition.cnn.com... [4]. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... [5]. http://www.deathpenalty.org... [6]. http://www.deathpenalty.org...", "qid": "40", "docid": "a4630a13-2019-04-18T17:14:46Z-00007-000", "rank": 83, "score": 147060.0}, {"content": "Title: The death penalty should be banned in the United States. Content: I regret to inform my opponent and those spectating that I simply won't have time, due to numerous reasons, to be able to post in the next two hours. I was excited to see that an opponent I wanted to face was debating a topic a felt strongly about. I assure him that, were he to give me another chance, and possibly more time ofr rounds to fit my busy schedule, that I would've given him a fun match.But ironically, I have to leave for an actual debate meeting with my club, which will prevent me from posting my argument.Congrats to my opponent, and I hope that he considers offering up this challenge again, with more time allowed, and possibly an extra round (or no limits on when someone can rebut contentions).", "qid": "40", "docid": "4e8963fe-2019-04-18T17:11:26Z-00000-000", "rank": 84, "score": 147055.0}, {"content": "Title: The Death Penalty Content: In conclusion, I completely agree that death penalty shouldnt be allowed. I really shouldnt have accepted this debate, hm?", "qid": "40", "docid": "abe4d5a3-2019-04-18T18:51:55Z-00000-000", "rank": 85, "score": 146881.0}, {"content": "Title: States should not be allowed to pursue the death penalty for a criminal that pleas guilty Content: I want to apologize for being absent during this debate. Some things came up during this week/weekend that did not allow me to continue on this debate. I apologize to Bladerunner especially and appreaciate all his work. My sincere apologies again to all", "qid": "40", "docid": "99aac624-2019-04-18T17:39:44Z-00001-000", "rank": 86, "score": 146816.0}, {"content": "Title: The Death Penalty Content: The death penalty is something that should be allowed and utilized. If there is sufficient evidence to convict someone of a serious crime, they should not be able to appeal and re-appeal their case, costing millions of dollars per case, most of which, if not all, is paid by taxpayers. It is less of a financial burden to humanely kill those guilty of severe crimes, and it ensures they won't do it again. If the justice system can hold firm on ensuring that those who commit severe crimes are punished accordingly, it should serve as a deterrent to committing these crimes, as most people don't want to die.", "qid": "40", "docid": "abe4dd44-2019-04-18T16:35:31Z-00002-000", "rank": 87, "score": 146745.0}, {"content": "Title: The death penalty should be give to murders, rapists, etc. regardless of mental conditions Content: Yes their are people in the world who exit that are sexually assaulting people, and or murdering with out a care in the world, and they deserve death, but if that person is a mentally impaired person who can change, shouldn't they be allowed the chance to change and be fixed. Many have gone through a mentally traumatizing moment, or are mentally impaired and do not fully know what they are doing, and can not fully control their actions, and even not fully understand what their actions are to begin with. Over the course of this argument I will bring up multiple court cases in which a mentally impaired person has committed an act of the most heinous standards and is either punished accordingly, or given an unfair punishment.", "qid": "40", "docid": "be00a473-2019-04-18T13:11:33Z-00008-000", "rank": 88, "score": 146673.0}, {"content": "Title: The Death Penalty Should Be Illegal. Content: :/ this is unfortunately coming to my opponent not responding time.", "qid": "40", "docid": "2728717c-2019-04-18T18:23:20Z-00002-000", "rank": 89, "score": 146511.0}, {"content": "Title: Should their be a death penalty Content: The death penalty is used on people who COMMIT murder", "qid": "40", "docid": "a4350c72-2019-04-18T11:46:05Z-00004-000", "rank": 90, "score": 146157.0}, {"content": "Title: The United States should abolish the Death Penalty. Content: Thank you for setting up this debate. My opinion on this is not solidified and can be swayed if your debate is strong enough. I believe capital punishment should still be allowed but ONLY under the most dire and repulsive crimes. I do not believe killing 1 person justifies the death penalty, but 10-100 does. It must be a case in which the person is very bent on death and whose purpose is to destabilize and completely destroy any form of order and institute chaos and death in society. These types of people are not under the criteria of criminally insane, but instead the dangerously unfit to be a part of society. Normally, I believe in life sentences for serial killer or rapist cases, but death penalties should always be held as a reserve punishment when times are economically hard as it is costly to keep life sentences. Death sentences should also only be reserved for the individuals who are so incapable of being a functional member of civilization that no sentence would be able to mentally repair their state of mind and it would be necessary to execute them in the name of order. Again, I am not very bound to my argument and may be swayed if your argument is persuasive enough.", "qid": "40", "docid": "aafab678-2019-04-18T13:08:10Z-00005-000", "rank": 91, "score": 146140.0}, {"content": "Title: Capital Punishment Should Be Allowed Content: If someone commits a murder, then yes, they do deserve to be punished. But think of it this way, death it the easy way out. Would you rather have a life sentence in prison, or die? What about the family of the victim? Many people assume that families of murder victims want the death penalty to be imposed, but it isn't necessarily so. Some are against it on moral ground. Then there is the worst thing about the death penalty: Errors The system can make tragic mistakes. There have been many unfortunate people that have been killed, and later on been proved innocent. We'll never know for sure how many people have been executed for crimes they didn't commit.", "qid": "40", "docid": "776be9b-2019-04-18T15:48:37Z-00003-000", "rank": 92, "score": 146011.0}, {"content": "Title: The United States should retain usage of the Death Penalty Content: Good luck! First round is for acceptance, second is constructive, third and fourth are for rebuttals. As always (in my debates) cross-examination is permitted.", "qid": "40", "docid": "8f83b029-2019-04-18T18:43:58Z-00007-000", "rank": 93, "score": 145964.0}, {"content": "Title: States should not be allowed to pursue the death penalty for a criminal that pleas guilty Content: In keeping with his rules: I accept the debate and will be arguing that states should be allowed to pursue the death penalty regardless of the plea of the defendant. (I did correct the typo in \"regardless\", which I hope Pro does not fault; which is not to give him crap about the typo, because I'm sure I'll make my own) Though this is an administrative round, I would also like to note that Pro has conceded in the comments that the death penalty is valid in principle, so that this debate will not hinge on that point.", "qid": "40", "docid": "99aac624-2019-04-18T17:39:44Z-00006-000", "rank": 94, "score": 145774.0}, {"content": "Title: Death penalty should be allowed Content: I would like to begin round two with one argument. First, I strongly believe that it is immoral. This argument is divided into two parts. First, how the government is actually letting themselves kill the citizens. Second, how it will be sending out the wrong message. (1) The government is justifying themselves to kill the citizens. In a way, the government is making a contradiction. According to the law, killing people is not justified. In other words, killing people is banned. If murdering is banned for individuals, the government should not be killing either. Of course my opponent (the proposition) may argue that people who had done serious crimes that had caused a detrimental harm to the society should be killed for the rest of the citizens' safety and happiness. For example, they may say that the family of the victim (of a murder incident, or any other violence) will become more relieved. However, then what about the murderer's family? Why is this society only respecting one side and not even thinking about the other? In any way, I believe that the government should not have the justification to kill the citizens. (2) Not doing the duty as a government. Isn't the government there to protect the citizens? However, if the government starts killing people who are criminals, then it will not be fulfilling the duty as a government. The proposition, of course, can argue that murdering criminals who did crimes would be able to protect the rest of the society, but there are two points of rebuttal. First, I believe that there are better ways to treat criminals. Is the only way to deter the crime rates to kill somebody? I think that criminals can be put in prison and be limited in many different rights, but as a government, the government itself should not be violating the right to live. Second, will executing people actually deter the crime rates? The answer is a no. Just because the government executes people who do crimes doesn't mean that there would be less criminals, because there are still mentally ill people, and some psychopaths who don't know anything. Not only that, the government has to be responsible to create a policy that has a problem that is solved. However, this policy, the government executing, will not solve any problem but instead, will only give the government too much power.", "qid": "40", "docid": "7ad5a00-2019-04-18T17:12:23Z-00001-000", "rank": 95, "score": 145654.0}, {"content": "Title: The Death Penalty should be made illegal in the USA. Content: The Death Penalty should NOT be made illegal in the USA because think of the criminals actions to the victims family, and what will happen if the criminal walked freely from prison in around 10 or so years. He/She would end up hurting someone else, the victim deserve justice, the victim's family demands it. The criminal who taken a life of a person, should not be allow to live and cause havoc and tax payers money. Like the saying goes' A life for a Life'.", "qid": "40", "docid": "a46309d5-2019-04-18T17:15:13Z-00005-000", "rank": 96, "score": 145453.0}, {"content": "Title: should the death penalty be allowed for drugs Content: well marijuana is harmless nobody has ever died from it.death over something that doesint even kill is nonsence. i agree with you death penalty should be for inhumane crimes. and drugs are not inhumane. every body in the world has a drug of there choice (caffeine, booze,weed,nicotine,ect) Albert Ienstien even did DMT and LSD. Unless Given poison like from frog snake(yes considered drug) then should death penalty be in forced, because thats trying to murder. all people are close to one another 1 guys knows this guy that knows that guy ect. there going to get hurt also for what being nice and giving someone something. anyone in possesion of DMT are called instantly for death penalty no court. and there still yet to find one thing wrong with dmt. what if it was in your pocket someone had you hold on to it. and your found with it you will die and cant say idk what it was or your holding on to it you die.", "qid": "40", "docid": "efef4309-2019-04-18T16:10:20Z-00001-000", "rank": 97, "score": 145299.0}, {"content": "Title: The death penalty should NOT be allowed Content: Sorry, I have to make this round very quick. The formatting might not be on par with my previous roundsR1: Aplogizes, my 67% stat was referring to something else. What exactly do you mean by value of life? Do you think we should keep waterboarding legal, because it still gives the value of life? Also, your numbers for innocent people in prison are wrong. It stats that 2.5% can go up to 5%, and 2.5% is alot more prisoners than the 4% of DR prisoners. Pro you are making up hypothetical situations. Nobody has ever been released from LWP, and that is a fact. Like I explained before, LWP cases, do not get special consideration like they do for DP. This is exactly why some DR inmates, prefer the DP, instead of LWP. http://blogs.berkeley.edu...R2: It is true African-American inmates, are more likely to be executed, however this trend can be witnessed in the entire Judicial system itself. Black people simply commit more crimes, than any other race in the United States, despite being only a minority. https://en.wikipedia.org...R3: Pro is simply repeating what she mentioned before. Pro never provided any reasons as to why the DP is the reason for these media coverings. The coverage for the Boston marathon bomber was already present, long before he was sentenced to death. R4: What Pro mentioned are simply pre-cautions to make sure the executioner does not have to live with guilt for the rest of his life. Pro kind of already answered her own question, nobody would know who actually killed the criminal, so thats why those pre-cautions exist.R5: Pro didn't exacty refute my argument here, so I will leave it at that also. Saying its wrong for killing somebody for killing somebody else, would mean all the efforts we took in previous wars, were all wrong.R6: There isn't really any opiniated statement right there. I simply was comparing what chances LWP convicts, go through compared to their DP convicts. I'm not going to repeat my self, but readers, you can compare the differences and see whether who receives a more fair trial.R7:Pro, No where in the constitution does it say that it is because of the Bible we made such law. Just because some religious people are saying something doesn't mean it should be in the law. R8: They actually are taken more seriously than LWP. I actually provided evidence with sources, whereas Pro did not. I did cite my evidence. Please refer to the 1st round. Your source does not specify on what type of crime the prisoner was in jail for in the first place. I have no way of knowing, whether it was for rape, homicide, etc.. Obviously, a Rapist would think different than a Murderer.R9: We shouldn't only be talking about the cost of the execution itself. As a whole, like I mentioned before, Plea Bargaining can help avoid serveral procedjures in a DP case, which would astromically reduce the cost. And all your sources, do not take Plea Bargaining into factor. Pro also dropped my arguments regarding the cost being the same in some juristrictions. Pro, you actually dropped some of my arguments.The Amount of lives saved from an executionThe non-capital punishment states trends frrm the capital punishment states.Sources from my previous round (in the same order) .http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...... http://www.fbi.gov...... http://www.bus.lsu.edu...... http://www.wesleylowe.com...... http://www.pnas.org...... http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... http://www.cato-unbound.org...... http://www.cjlf.org...... 12. Sorensen, Jonathan R., and Rocky LeAnn Pilgrim. Lethal Injection: Capital Punishment in Texas during the Modern Era. Austin, TX: University of Texas, 2006. http://www.soc.iastate.edu...... http://www.heritage.org......", "qid": "40", "docid": "6604e4c2-2019-04-18T14:32:22Z-00000-000", "rank": 98, "score": 145175.0}, {"content": "Title: Capital Punishment Should Be Allowed Content: It is important to note they the state does not execute people for the benefit of the family. However, I don't see how the extended process prior to the executions are agonizing since they are serving the rest of their life in prison until execution, and if there was no execution then they would just stay in prison. Christianity is accepting of capital punishment most notably mentioned in Genesis 9:6 [1]. Even if they are mentally ill they still committed a capital crime such as murder or treason and should be punished. Further, people can plead insanity, and also it is unconstitutional to execute the mentally retarded [2]. The death penalty should be allowed because it does save lives, it gives proper retribution, and it serves justice. Sources [1] http://biblehub.com... [2] http://www.oyez.org...", "qid": "40", "docid": "776be9b-2019-04-18T15:48:37Z-00000-000", "rank": 99, "score": 145135.0}, {"content": "Title: Death Penalty Content: Ext", "qid": "40", "docid": "a490d725-2019-04-18T18:29:58Z-00000-000", "rank": 100, "score": 145052.0}]}
{"query": "Should student loan debt be easier to discharge in bankruptcy?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: You should be allowed to declare bankruptcy on college loans Content: I think bankruptcy should include college loans. College loans are so hard to finance because companies and colleges take advantage of students. The job market is bad and people are starving to death. This is not fair.", "qid": "41", "docid": "5279eb1d-2019-04-18T17:25:55Z-00002-000", "rank": 1, "score": 168710.0}, {"content": "Title: You should be allowed to declare bankruptcy on college loans Content: I will allow my opponent to start first, and I will let them know that I will focus my arguments on how excluding the loans from bankruptcy allows reduced risk and so reduced rates for students.", "qid": "41", "docid": "5279eb1d-2019-04-18T17:25:55Z-00001-000", "rank": 2, "score": 167688.0}, {"content": "Title: Personal Bankruptcy is worth doing Content: Personal Bankruptcy is one of the worst choices a person can make. To be fair and honest, I\"ll say there are benefits, much in the same way doing heroin feels great\"for a while\"then things start to go downhill. Benefits: You will be protected from the majority of a wide array of debt collectors. You will, on a chapter 13 plan, be able to pay back mortgage, etc., etc., at a chosen rate. Consequences: Bankruptcy will destroy your reputation. By law, bankruptcy is on the public record. People all around you will find out about it. Many of these people will not be kind, including people in your circle of friends, or even your family. You can bet it will be truly stressful. First off, your credit will be absolutely destroyed for some time. Credit companies will make life hell. Banks and the like won\"t give out mortgages, car loans, etc., so good luck buying things. It will become more difficult to get a good job, being that many employers nowadays check credit information before hiring. Future landlords will decline you, because they will check your credit. Your insurance may very well take a leap into the heavens, and, if you discharged medical debts, your health is at risk, because hospitals and the like won\"t want to treat you. If you discharge a mortgage or a car loan, you may lost them to the bank. Aside from those reasons above, you must calculate how you will feel, as a person, who cheated the system, which is what you are doing. You are a failure and a liar in some respects. Unfortunately, many folks are forced into bankruptcy, but to choose to declare bankruptcy to worm your way out of paying off debt\"that is not okay. That is how the U.S. got itself into its current state.", "qid": "41", "docid": "574204c1-2019-04-18T16:10:11Z-00002-000", "rank": 3, "score": 165142.0}, {"content": "Title: national health care Content: I am curious why anybody would oppose national health care. As a nursing student, I am in the hospital on a routine basis, and have a really difficult time knowing the financial debt that people have to deal with once they get discharged. What's worse is when people get turned away due to a lack of sufficient insurance. Why would any person oppose the idea of national health care, especially since we are the only industrialized nation that does not offer this to our citizens? All of the other countries who DO have socialized medicine have been successful with the implementation of the program. What is holding us back? 68% of people filing for bankruptcy due to medical expenses HAVE insurance. Even the middle-class Americans are having financial difficulty! Wake up, America, and support a candidate who WILL give us national health care!", "qid": "41", "docid": "ff5a2f17-2019-04-18T20:03:28Z-00003-000", "rank": 4, "score": 151000.0}, {"content": "Title: Personal Bankruptcy is Anti-Libertarian Content: To clarify, I will be arguing that the government's \"forgiveness\" of consumer debt through bankruptcy is wrong. Arguments will be focused on Ch. 7 bankruptcies. The First Round will be for acceptance only and any additional definitions. Libertarianism - A political philosophy that believes people should be allowed to do and say what they want, so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of another person, without interference from the government. Ch. 7 Bankruptcy - The legal process by which all obligations to pay all general unsecured debt is discharged (wiped away). Secured debt is rarely discharged in any bankruptcy. Debt - Any obligation to pay another person/company. Debt can be contractual or court ordered (child support, lawsuits, etc...). General unsecured debt - All debt that is not secured by any collateral property. Such debt includes, but is not limited to, credit cards, medical bills, and payday loans. Secured debt - Any debt that is secured by some form of collateral property. Such debt includes, but is not limited to, home mortgages and car loans.", "qid": "41", "docid": "a2310a08-2019-04-18T15:11:53Z-00005-000", "rank": 5, "score": 149984.0}, {"content": "Title: You should be allowed to declare bankruptcy on college loans Content: Well, this turned into nothing. My basic argument was going to be that because bankruptcy is a risk that the company will not get their investment back, removing that risk reduces the overall risk. Lower risk equates to lower rates. Lower rates equate to more people being able to afford. When colleges can choose between more people, they can choose better people, and thus have better success and better help the future economy. Though, since my opponent never presented an argument to work from, I am not putting any effort into this. Voters can decide if I should get a win, or just keep this tied. Either way.", "qid": "41", "docid": "5279eb1d-2019-04-18T17:25:55Z-00000-000", "rank": 6, "score": 148107.0}, {"content": "Title: The 5/13/16 Dear Colleague letter of the DOJ & DOE re Student Transgender RIghts is Lawful Content: The May 13, 2016 Dear Colleague Letter (\"DCL\") by the DOJ and DOE regarding the rights of transgender students was lawful. 1.Issuance of DCLs by such agencies is commonplace. A quick Google search reveals that DCLs are often issued. For example, they have been issued by the DOE on issues such as the appointment of a Title IX coordinator (http://www2.ed.gov...). Twenty DCLs have been issued just this year on issues related to student aid. See, http://www.ifap.ed.gov.... In 2015, twenty-two were issued on a variety of helpful topics, e.g. the undue hardship discharge of a student loan in bankruptcy. See, http://www.ifap.ed.gov.... Reviewing this DCL might be very helpful to students in a hardship situation. 2.This DCL did not purport to expand existing statutes, e.g. the Title IX of the U.S. Educational Amendments of 1972. This guidance says what is otherwise the law - there can no expansion from a DCL, hence no overreach of existing law: \"This guidance does not add requirements to applicable law, but provides information and examples to inform recipients about how the Departments evaluate whether covered entities are complying with their legal obligations.\" See, http://www2.ed.gov... paragraph 3. 3.Any state or school which disagrees with this DCL can either (i) disregard the DCL or (ii) seek relief in court. The DOE and DOJ have given clear guidance as to their position as to how trans students should be treated under existing federal law. Any party with legal standing can dispute this position and, in fact, eleven states did just that by filing an action in the United States District Court of Texas. See, http://legalclips.nsba.org.... A mere statement by an agency charged with enforcing a statute like Title IX of its own interpretation of Title IX does nothing to prevent any other party from taking an opposing position. Therefore, this DCL is not an overreach (or even really a \"reach\") at all. This DCL merely provides information as to DOJ & DOE positions. 4.The guidance provided by this DCL was consistent with earlier positions taken by both the DOE & DOJ. Nothing new to see here folks. Move along: The legal basis which under girds this DCL is the position that discrimination against a transgender student because that person is transgender is discrimination \"because of sex\" in violation of Title IX of the U.S. Educational Amendments of 1972. In April of 2014, the DOE made this position clear and also stated that its Office of Civil Rights was accepting complaints for investigation. See, http://www2.ed.gov..., section B-2. The DOE had taken this this position in 2012 in a Title IX investigation of the Arcadia School District which resulted in a complaint being filed in the DOE\"s Office of Civil Rights. See, http://www.nclrights.org.... This was not a well kept secret. Similarly, the EEOC and the DOJ have taken the same position in an employment context, i.e. that discrimination against a transgender person because they are transgender is discrimination \"because of sex\" in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Google Macy v. Holder, and the Department of Justice v. Southeastern Oklahoma State University for examples. (Courts have generally assessed Title IX discrimination claims under the same legal analysis as Title VII claims. Roberts v. Colorado State Bd. of Agric., 998 F.2d 824, 832 (10th Cir.1993) (Title VII is \"the most appropriate analogue when defining Title IX's substantive standards\"), quoting Mabry v. State Bd. of Community Colleges, 813 F.2d 311, 316 n. 6 (10th Cir.1987).) 5.The guidance provided by this DCL was consistent with an evolving body of federal law. The only United States Circuit Court of Appeals to make a recent determination on transgender student rights is the 4th Circuit in Grim v. Gloucester County School Board. See, https://www.aclu.org.... In a recent Title VII case, Judge Robin Cauthron of the Western District Court of Oklahoma (an appointee of President George H. Bush) rejected legal arguments which would have found the opposite. That case is set for trial in October of this year. Many more examples can be provided if this becomes a disputed issue. Note that this DCL is still lawful even if Court's ultimately disagree with the position taken by the DOE and DOJ. This DCL placed an important public issue in a position to be decided with finality in the court system. Litigation on these points was inevitable. Similarly, it is not my burden to show that these policies are desirable to establish that this DCL is lawful. However, while we are here, please note that around 15.5 million k-12 students attend school in districts with affirming transgender policies. Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, Kansas City, even Tulsa, Oklahoma all have affirming policies which are consistent with this DCL. Kids will be kids but nothing dire has happened in any of these situations. However, to repeat, I do not have to prove that these policies are the best possible policies for students to show that the issuance of this DCL was lawful and not any kind of federal overreach as argued by so many conservative commentators. I believe the policies are in the best interests of students but that is an issue for another debate.", "qid": "41", "docid": "f1b7943a-2019-04-18T13:10:55Z-00005-000", "rank": 7, "score": 146640.0}, {"content": "Title: Federal Student Loans Should Be Abolished. Content: Well, I guess that's that. Extend all arguments.", "qid": "41", "docid": "bafdb0f3-2019-04-18T16:28:51Z-00000-000", "rank": 8, "score": 137869.0}, {"content": "Title: Free college education Content: Student loans are a problem is society. They leave people in debt and it is almost impossible to afford college without loans and not be struggling to pay it off. Student loan rates have only been increasing and putting more people into debt. Take this fact for example from ProCon.org: \"Student loan debt often forces college graduates to live with their parents and delay marriage, financial independence, and other adult milestones. According to a 2012 Federal Reserve Study, 30-year-olds who have never taken out a student loan are now more likely to own homes than those who have taken out loans. Auto loans are also trending down at faster rates for those with student debt history than for those without. [35] In 2013, student loan borrowers delayed retirement saving (41%), car purchases (40%), home purchases (29%), and marriage (15%). [38] Less than 50% of women and 30% of men had passed the \"transition to adulthood\" milestones by age 30 (finishing school, moving out of their parents' homes, being financially independent, marrying, and having children); in 1960, 77% of women and 65% of men had completed these milestones by age 30. [39\" Student loans hold people back. And free college is possible. It is very likely in the near future we can have free college. \"The Atlantic.com published an article in Jan 2014 that claimed the federal government would only have to spend \"a mere $62.6 billion dollars\" to make tuition at public colleges free for undergraduates in 2012.\" Sources used: http://college-education.procon.org... http://www.collegerank.net...", "qid": "41", "docid": "5efd650c-2019-04-18T13:45:25Z-00005-000", "rank": 9, "score": 136573.0}, {"content": "Title: A Financial Management Course Should Be Required Curriculum At All Colleges And Universities Content: Loan default rates and bankruptcy rates are at an all time high in the United States. Americans are maxing out credit cards, borrowing money that they can't pay back, and taking out student loans with abnormally high interest rates. Basic financial management skills of even college educated people have become laughable. I believe that a financial management course should be part of the required curriculum at all colleges and universities. This course would allow college students to gain valuable financial knowledge that could be used for the rest of their lives. Basic financial management knowledge would help to lower bankruptcy and loan default rates. It would also help young, impressionable adults learn the dangers of credit card debt and high interest \"student loans\" that anyone can get. By not having a financial management course as required curriculum at all colleges and universities we are leaving the doors wide open for the continued abuse of our countries' financial system.", "qid": "41", "docid": "27aba745-2019-04-18T20:02:46Z-00005-000", "rank": 10, "score": 136524.0}, {"content": "Title: Federal Student Loans Should Be Abolished. Content: I accept.", "qid": "41", "docid": "bafdb0f3-2019-04-18T16:28:51Z-00004-000", "rank": 11, "score": 135601.0}, {"content": "Title: The growth of the national debt, if not stopped, will bankrupt the nation. Content: I will start this round by pointing out some misunderstandings. Con misunderstands when he says that PRO takes the \"when\" as \"irrelevant\" . The debate is \"if the growth continues\" not \"when does bankruptcy happen\" PRO is saying that if present trends continue, the USA will again go into bankruptcy, but PRO is not giving a year or saying what generation it will impact. Con believes that the debt could be paid down. History says no. The national debt has not been reduced since 1957 . http://www.batr.org... Con again misunderstands when he says \"It will not affect this generation as you have claimed. \" PRO never claimed this . Con then concedes by saying \"It will take another 30 to 50 years before it could really hurt us if what you said happens.\" Con cites data that supports PRO regarding the inability of SS to loan money after 2033. http://money.cnn.com... Con again misunderstands about \"New revenue sources will be unavailable\" He cites percentages of EXISTING sources. These are not new sources. Now on to items 4 to 6 #4 Debt service will consume a higher and higher percentage of the US budget. In 2016 the effective interest rate on the debt was 2%. The government paid $242,000,000,000 in debt service. What is little known is that the actual interest charge was $432, 000.000.000. In other words the feds kicked about one half of the debt service into the next year. Here is a table on the growing interest cost of the debt.https://www.treasurydirect.gov... 2017 $458,542,287,311.80 2016 $432,649,652,901.12 2015 $402,435,356,075.49 2014 $430,812,121,372.05 2013 $415,688,781,248.40 2012 $359,796,008,919.49 2011 $454,393,280,417.03 2010 $413,954,825,362.17 2000 $361,997,734,302.36 Thus it is apparent that the debt has grown over time. At the same time, the debt service has grown and grown. #5 Default Default is a state where the government fails to meet its financial obligations in the short term. Primarily this happens when the USA fails to pay debt service obligations. \"In October 2013\"..investors seriously wondered whether the U.S. would actually default on its debt.\" https://www.thebalance.com... \"There are... scenarios under which the United States would default on its debt. \"...Interest rates would rise...The dollar would drop, as foreign investors fled the \"safe-haven status\" of Treasuries. \". The dollar would lose its status as a global world currency\".The U.S. government would not be able to pay [obligations]. U.S. Government simply decided that its debt was too high, and simply stopped paying interest \" https://www.thebalance.com... #6 Bankruptcy A nation becomes bankrupt when its \"lifestyle\" exceeds its ability to support that lifestyle. Greece is a good example of this situation, as is Argentina, and to a lesser extent, so is Iceland. http://flatheadbeacon.com... Additionally there are 14 countries on the verge of bankruptcy http://www.totalbankruptcy.com..., and the USA is on that list. http://247wallst.com... \"Although not commonly known, the U.S. has declared bankruptcy five times, since its foundation. Once it could not pay its foreign debts, and four times could it not pay its internal debts. These bankruptcies had resulted from financial crises in the banking sector, the first of which was in 1790, and the last of which was in 1933.\"https://www.dailysabah.com...", "qid": "41", "docid": "4baacc25-2019-04-18T11:57:13Z-00003-000", "rank": 12, "score": 135405.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: That American College Students Should Receive Free Education Content: Hello, I am What50 representing The Brotherhood. I contend the proposition that American College students should receive free education. I wanna thank Pro for making this debate, and hopefully we can have an excellent though provoking debate. Definitions: Debt: The state of owning money Student Loan: A student loan is a type of loan designed to help students pay for post-secondary education and the associated fees, such as tuition, books and supplies, and living expenses Dropout: Abandoning a course of study American College's should not give out free education because 1.) The cost is way too much to make this into a reality 2.) The free education can be wasted if a student feels like dropping out.3.) By providing free education Colleges may drop in value of education quality", "qid": "41", "docid": "8944c7f4-2019-04-18T12:00:04Z-00000-000", "rank": 13, "score": 134790.0}, {"content": "Title: The burden of fees and loans are too great to expect young people to shoulder Content: University fees are usually quite high. When fees are put in place in countries, many people find it extremely difficult to find the funds to pay for it, leading many people to seek school loans. In the United States, obtaining loans for university is the norm. These loans can put pressure on students to perform well.[1] But can lead to students dropping out. Debt encourages individuals to take jobs for which they are not necessarily best suited in order to get started on debt repayment immediately after leaving higher education. Furthermore, repayment of loans can take many years, leaving individuals with debt worries for much of their working lives.[2] With free university education everyone can go to college without crushing debt burden allowing them to study what they wish. [1] Kane, Thomas. 1999. The Price of Admission: Rethinking How Americans Pay for College. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. [2] Hill, Christine. 2007. \u201cStill Paying Off that Student Loan\u201d. National Public Radio. Available: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6915549", "qid": "41", "docid": "1db3eaf8-2019-04-15T20:24:50Z-00016-000", "rank": 14, "score": 133264.0}, {"content": "Title: The burden of fees and loans are too great to expect young people to shoulder Content: University fees are usually quite high. When fees are put in place in countries, many people find it extremely difficult to find the funds to pay for it, leading many people to seek school loans. In the United States, obtaining loans for university is the norm. These loans can put pressure on students to perform well.[1] But can lead to students dropping out. Debt encourages individuals to take jobs for which they are not necessarily best suited in order to get started on debt repayment immediately after leaving higher education. Furthermore, repayment of loans can take many years, leaving individuals with debt worries for much of their working lives.[2] With free university education everyone can go to college without crushing debt burden allowing them to study what they wish. [1] Kane, Thomas. 1999. The Price of Admission: Rethinking How Americans Pay for College. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. [2] Hill, Christine. 2007. \u201cStill Paying Off that Student Loan\u201d. National Public Radio. Available: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6915549", "qid": "41", "docid": "c7831446-2019-04-15T20:22:14Z-00016-000", "rank": 15, "score": 133264.0}, {"content": "Title: college tuition too expensive Content: Your statement saying that everyone should receive an equal opportunity to a adequate education is very true. However I believe the government and states are doing there best for what they got. Loans and other programs to get student to high end schools would just the nation in more debt. Again like before we as a nation are in debt and it would be a difficult task for the government to make it \"EASY\" for people to get the education they want. The government does have the lower class in their best interest seeing how the Pell grant program has not been cut, despite being one of the top contributors to our debt. The middle class are in a tough situation since it is hard for them to get the finical aid that the lower class gets. College tutition is too expensive but it is just a reflection upon the debt of the nation.", "qid": "41", "docid": "912e5771-2019-04-18T18:50:38Z-00000-000", "rank": 16, "score": 133205.0}, {"content": "Title: Personal Bankruptcy is worth doing Content: Personal bankruptcy was designed to relieve a person of unsecured debt. Credit cards are unsecured debt because there is no collateral used to secure the loan.Most people are brought up to believe that not paying back a loan is \"stealing\". That's not the case with credit cards for 2 reasons:1. The money you \"borrow\" from a credit card is not real money from a bank. The money gets created by the bank out of thin air, so anything you \"pay back\" is 100% profit for the bank.http://zeitgeistmovie.com...2. The crazy interest rates of 20% or higher are really stealing from the public. If a person puts their money in the bank they get 1% interest, but if they borrow in a credit card they pay 20%. The ONLY \"negative\" or consequence of declaring bankruptcy is that it will be on your record. This is not as bad as it sounds. 1. Because after 7 years, nobody will care and 7 years is not a long time.2. During those 7 years, you will probably not need credit.3. Even if you did need credit during those 7 years it wouldn't be impossible to get it. If you build up your credit score, you will get many offers for credit cards. It's possible to get up to $50,000 or more in credit cards. just by paying the minimum balanceIf you are a college student, your student loans can not be forgiven with bankruptcy. However, you can pay back your student loans with credit cards. The same is true if you owe the IRS. You can't get rid of what you owe to the IRS with bankruptcy. but you can pay the IRS off with credit cards.If you have $50,000 is student loans or $50,000 you owe to the IRS, it would be very simple to just pay them off with credit cards and declare bankruptcy. Starting life with a zero balance rather than -$50,000 is much better. If no bankruptcy, in 20 years you would have the money paid back and be at zero or with bankruptcy, you could save money and be at +$50,000 or more due to interest. That's worth it!If you don't have college debt or IRS debt, it would still be worth spending the $50,000. You can buy new car, fly around the world, get new clothes and electronic devices.If you declare bankruptcy, they can't take any of that away from you. The car should last you 7 years so you wouldn't need a car loan again. Instead of spending 20 years to pay the $50,000 back, you can start at zero with $50,000 worth of things and SAVE money instead of paying back credit cards. Not only is it worth it, You'd be crazy NOT to do it! You get $50,000 for free and in return you get a mark on your record that nobody will care about after 7 years.No brainier!", "qid": "41", "docid": "574204c1-2019-04-18T16:10:11Z-00003-000", "rank": 17, "score": 129528.0}, {"content": "Title: Federal Student Loans Should Be Abolished. Content: This round intentionally left blank, so as to give fair and equitable character space to both my opponent and I. I would request that judges not penalize my opponent for forfeiting that last round. Cheers", "qid": "41", "docid": "bafdb0f3-2019-04-18T16:28:51Z-00001-000", "rank": 18, "score": 128927.0}, {"content": "Title: No debt Content: University should be free for all. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, for the 2007-2008 year, the average student loan debt of graduating college seniors was about $23,000. This means that when a person graduates from college, instead of working to make money for their future, they are working to make money to pay back their past. True, an education allows for a better future, but so many students are stuck paying back loans for years after their graduation that they can\u2019t do things that, such as travel, that students in other countries, where education is free can do. It is unfair that if one does not come from a wealthy family, they are stuck paying back loans for x number of years. While their friends who had their education paid have the opportunity to go doing things such as traveling, those who owe money are forced to find a job right away that they may not necessarily love, because they have to pay back their loans.", "qid": "41", "docid": "e6ffa8fb-2019-04-19T12:45:14Z-00025-000", "rank": 19, "score": 128877.0}, {"content": "Title: Personal Bankruptcy is worth doing Content: Personal bankruptcy was designed to relieve a person of unsecured debt. Credit cards are unsecured debt because there is no collateral used to secure the loan.Most people are brought up to believe that not paying back a loan is \"stealing\". That's not the case with credit cards for 2 reasons:1. The money you \"borrow\" from a credit card is not real money from a bank. The money gets created by the bank out of thin air, so anything you \"pay back\" is 100% profit for the bank.http://zeitgeistmovie.com...#2. The crazy interest rates of 20% or higher are really stealing from the public. If a person puts their money in the bank they get 1% interest, but if they borrow in a credit card they pay 20%. The ONLY \"negative\" or consequence of declaring bankruptcy is that it will be on your record. This is not as bad as it sounds. 1. Because after 7 years, nobody will care and 7 years is not a long time.2. During those 7 years, you will probably not need credit.3. Even if you did need credit during those 7 years it wouldn't be impossible to get it. If you build up your credit score, you will get many offers for credit cards. It's possible to get up to $50,000 or more in credit cards. just by paying the minimum balanceIf you are a college student, your student loans can not be forgiven with bankruptcy. However, you can pay back your student loans with credit cards. The same is true if you owe the IRS. You can't get rid of what you owe to the IRS with bankruptcy. but you can pay the IRS off with credit cards.If you have $50,000 is student loans or $50,000 you owe to the IRS, it would be very simple to just pay them off with credit cards and declare bankruptcy. Starting life with a zero balance rather than -$50,000 is much better. If no bankruptcy, in 20 years you would have the money paid back and be at zero or with bankruptcy, you could save money and be at +$50,000 or more due to interest. That's worth it!If you don't have college debt or IRS debt, it would still be worth spending the $50,000. You can buy new car, fly around the world, get new clothes and electronic devices.If you declare bankruptcy, they can't take any of that away from you. The car should last you 7 years so you wouldn't need a car loan again. Instead of spending 20 years to pay the $50,000 back, you can start at zero with $50,000 worth of things and SAVE money instead of paying back credit cards. Not only is it worth it, You'd be crazy NOT to do it! You get $50,000 for free and in return you get a mark on your record that nobody will care about after 7 years.No brainier!", "qid": "41", "docid": "574204a2-2019-04-18T16:11:24Z-00002-000", "rank": 20, "score": 128860.0}, {"content": "Title: Wealth doesn't \"trickle down\" from the rich to the poor Content: Pro: \"The student loan problem just means that the poor and middle class owe more money to the government and are further being harmed.\" Exactly. So any \"trickle down\" just evaporates into an abyss of nothingness. Give a trickle down to someone who is financially bombed, and your trickle down is meaningless. As a matter of fact, it makes all models useless, unless that model includes paying their debt off or giving them enough money to make a difference. If they owe $150,000 in useless debt and we give them $500, the government intercepts their money to help pay the federal student loan debt. They intercept tax refunds, parts of paychecks, and any money owed to them. So...now they owe $149,500. All of these peoples' money is intercepted before they can even see it. People making say, $17 an hour , are living like people making minimum wage or less. Are they contributing to the economy? No. More than 25% of students who take on college debt are graduating with way too much of it, according to experts. And the repercussions could be lifelong. 25% of students are in the situation I described above. Fix this and you fix a giant heap of the economic unbalance in the U.S. today. Imagine if that 25% were not enslaved to the student loan system. How much money would then go directly into the economy? It would make a massive difference. time.com/money/4168510/why-student-loan-crisis-is-worse-than-people-think According to Sheila Bair, the chair of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation during the financial crisis, \"There needs to be more accountability by schools who have been taking advantage of these kids, It makes me very angry.\u201d -The average student loan balance among people with bachelor's degrees has risen from $15,000 in the mid 1990s to about $27,000, according to the Fed. \"This is having a crippling effect on economic activity, says Barbara O'Neill, a specialist in financial resource management for Rutgers University.\" \"A lot of things are being postponed. You've got what you call a crowding out effect. People only have so much money,\" she said. \"There\u2019s a lot of business activity that isn\u2019t taking place ... It\u2019s a drag on everything.\" \"Fewer people are buying homes and cars, O'Neill says, because large portions of their income are being eaten up by student loans. They're also less likely to start the small businesses that provide jobs and services that drive the economy.\" www.businessinsider.com/3-charts-explain-the-effect-of-student-loans-on-the-economy-2015-5 http://www.forbes.com... * Students are having no luck finding jobs except in the service sector industry. For the first time in history, student loan debt now exceeds the total national credit card debt. One in every five young adults between the ages of 18 to 34 are in poverty. economyincrisis.org/content/the-root-cause-for-student-loan-debt * This has a horrible effect on the economy. If graduates are paying back student loans every month, they can\u2019t save up for retirement or a mortgage, or pay off credit cards, financing on vehicles and other debts. They\u2019re unable to spend money at stores, which has a devastating effect on the economy at all levels. \"Trickle down\" theory holds that tax cuts for the wealthy will benefit the whole economy because new wealth at the top will circulate throughout the market and find its way into the pockets of the middle class. It can't find its way to the middle class when it's intercepted to payoff student loan debt that can never be paid off in a lifetime anyway. It trickles down to...the government to try and recover their losses on irresponsible federal lending. The government caused a problem that no current economic model can overcome without the problem being removed or solved. * Supply Side Economics has worked and can work. In the 30 years from the 1980s through the first decade of the new century, supply side economics contributed to the biggest boom in U.S. history. According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, \"1982-1999 was one continuous mega economic expansion.\" As it reached into 2007, this 25 Year Boom causef a tripling in the net wealth of U.S. families and businesses from $20 trillion in 1981 to $60 trillion in 2007. When an adjustment was made for inflation, more wealth was created in this 25 year stretch than in the previous 200 years combined. www.laffercenter.com/supply-side-economics", "qid": "41", "docid": "b78f8bbc-2019-04-18T13:17:13Z-00002-000", "rank": 21, "score": 127933.0}, {"content": "Title: Normally debt-relief schemes are accused of creating a moral hazard - encouraging governments of poo... Content: We need to keep in mind the fact that the need for debt relief is looked upon as a threat of bankruptcy. This means countries that are desperate enough to seek debt relief after a disaster may in future be seen as bad credit risks, and become unable to receive the loans they need in order to rebuild for the long-term after a natural disaster. It is also unclear what qualifies as a \u201cnatural disaster\u201d. Earthquakes, hurricanes and tidal waves may be sudden and unpredictable, but as much or even more damage can be done by disease outbreaks such as AIDS, SARS or Avian \u2018Flu, or by famine caused by crop failure. And why do disasters have to be \u201cnatural\u201d to justify debt relief? What about countries affected by man-made disasters such as war? Tanzania and Chad have both suffered hugely from coping with massive refugee inflows following violence in neighbouring states (Rwanda and Sudan respectively).", "qid": "41", "docid": "927cbc62-2019-04-19T12:47:44Z-00008-000", "rank": 22, "score": 126967.0}, {"content": "Title: This House would enact a one time policy that erases all student debt from private lenders. Content: To quickly recap They needed to prove that the 115th congress would pass they bill and I proved its impossible for the 115th Congress to do so.", "qid": "41", "docid": "a4631a54-2019-04-18T11:13:58Z-00002-000", "rank": 23, "score": 126957.0}, {"content": "Title: Student Loan Debt Content: Too bad, I was looking forward to this debate. My opponent concedes that in spite of all his arguments, student loan debt is still extremely necessary.", "qid": "41", "docid": "5d69331e-2019-04-18T19:00:35Z-00000-000", "rank": 24, "score": 126668.0}, {"content": "Title: This House would enact a one time policy that erases all student debt from private lenders. Content: They needed to prove that the 115th congress would pass they bill and I proved its impossible for the 115th Congress to do so.", "qid": "41", "docid": "a4631a54-2019-04-18T11:13:58Z-00001-000", "rank": 25, "score": 125287.0}, {"content": "Title: Bankruptcy law should protect those who cannot protect themselves. Opponents of Chapter 11-style pr... Content: Creditors deserve protection in bankruptcy. It is untrue that creditors are necessarily better able to protect themselves than other parties. Many of them may not be sophisticated, because for example they are small trade partners (e.g. unpaid suppliers, or customers who have prepaid for goods which never arrive) with little choice to be creditors, or family or friends lending money, or else because sophistication would be unduly expensive in terms of research and monitoring costs. In addition, they may not easily be able to control their risks through diversifying their portfolio. Even if they can, the law should not discriminate against creditors just because they protect themselves better than other parties.", "qid": "41", "docid": "426b8860-2019-04-19T12:46:12Z-00012-000", "rank": 26, "score": 123757.0}, {"content": "Title: This House would enact a one time policy that erases all student debt from private lenders. Content: Your voting Con They needed to prove that the 115th congress would pass they bill and I proved its impossible for the 115th Congress to do so. The pro never does", "qid": "41", "docid": "a4631a54-2019-04-18T11:13:58Z-00000-000", "rank": 27, "score": 123242.0}, {"content": "Title: The presidency of barack obama Content: I would first like to point out that I am not a republican and I will not argue that republican policies are what america needs. When Barack Obama was running for president he said that adding 4 trillion dollars of debt in 8 years was unamerican and unpatriotic. So five years into the Obama presidency and he has added 7 trillion dollars of debt. Obama was against the patriot act saying it harms our civil liberties and in 2011 he extends it and the NSA now stores all of our phone calls, emails, texts, etc... which is just another flip flop on Obama's part. The fast and furious program was a major failure. Giving guns to the Mexican drug cartels led to the killing of Brian Terry a US border patrol agent.The cash for clunkers program was designed promote environmentally friendly vehicles and fuel efficient cars. All it really did was destroy classic cars and release even more carbon emissions. The real reason he did it was to give people a reason to buy the new cars from the auto companies he bailed out. The green energy loans were also unsuccessful. He loaned billions of dollars to green energy companies that just went bankrupt. 535 million dollars to Solyndra and they went bankrupt. You can read about the green energy companies he loaned money to on this link. All the companies on this list are bankrupt or on their way out. http://blog.heritage.org......... What about the Stimulus? He promised it would keep the unemployment below 8 percent but the unemployment rate didn't go under 8 percent until September of 2013 and reports are out there now that the numbers were faked for political purposes. Not only did it take till September of 2013 to get the unemployment below 8 percent but the stimulus was supposed to get the unemployment below 6 percent in 2012. Didn't come close to meeting expectations. He promised that the stimulus would immediately impact. saying that it will immediately create jobs because there are shovel ready jobs across the country. He later had to admit in 2011 that those jobs were not as shovel ready as he thought. He said that the stimulus would life 2 million people out of poverty but instead it resulted in 6.3 million falling into poverty as of February 2012. As i stated before Obama gave 35 billion dollars to green energy companies to create jobs most of those companies are now bankrupt. It may not be 2015 yet but he promised that the stimulus would bring 1 million electric cars to the road by 2015 and the Chevy volt is selling way below expectations. http://www.usnews.com......... I believe obamacare is a disaster. The website took a long time to get up and running and today it still isn't fully up and running. according to theblaze.com http://www.theblaze.com......... The website cost more than 1 billion dollars. how does a website that costs 1 billion dollars to build not be able to handle more that 50,000 people at a time? The obamacare law itself is a bad idea. Obamacare forces you to buy health insurance and if you don't you pay a fine. Why should i have to pay a fine because i don't want health insurance? My parents compared plans on healthcare.gov and the cheapest obamacare compliant plan they got cost 300 dollars more per month. How is that affordable? I believe that if we allow the free market to control healthcare the competition will naturally drive down costs allowing people to buy a plan that fits your needs at a cheaper price. Instead Obamacare forces you to have to have a plan that covers maternity care. Why should a man have to pay for maternity coverage or an 80 year old man or an 80 year old woman? If I wanted that covered i would choose a plan that has that coverage. Obamacare has met its goal for the first six months of 7 million signups but the whole goal of the law was to get the uninsured people in america, insured. But the president lied about being able to keep your plan if you like it so more people lost health insurance. Not everybody actually paid for their plans either. http://www.theblaze.com... The IRS scandal is another reason why the Obama presidency is a failure. Why did former IRS head Douglas Shulman visit the white house 118 times in 2 years. There is no other reason that i can see other than working on a plan to target tea party groups. The Benghazi scandal is another flop by the Obama administration. All he had to do was say it was a terrorist attack and actually investigate it but instead he went to vegas for a fundraiser the next day. He said many times before the attack that Al Qaeda is on the run but actually its been growing since 911 and killing osama bin laden really didn't have a huge impact on Al Qaeda. The obama admin said said that osama bin laden is dead and general motors is alive and then a few days or weeks later Al Qaeda attacks the Benghazi consulate. Susan Rice went on the sunday talk shows and said that it was a spontaneous demonstration because of an internet video. Hillary Clinton said it was because of an internet video that they had nothing to do with. Just the tone she said it in shows its a lie. It was a well coordinated attack that killed 4 Americans including our ambassador. Hillary clinton told patricia smith that she would find out exactly what happened the moments before her son died and she still has no answers. but the democrats and Obama pass Benghazi, IRS, NSA, as fake scandals. I await your response", "qid": "41", "docid": "56f2ef43-2019-04-18T16:26:32Z-00005-000", "rank": 28, "score": 123048.0}, {"content": "Title: resolved: In the United States, current income disparities threaten democratic ideals Content: Some unexpected business came up. ==Rebuttals==PRO says \"My partner first addresses life and he/she is saying that there are public institutions and public hospitals and even the fact that the government cannot take all these away from the people. Lets look at some government institutions/orders/rules. For example, affirmative action gives priority to certain races over others when applying to colleges. Sure this is promoting the democratic ideal of diversity, but now we are taking away democracy. Other institutions require some type of qualification. \" 1) Student loans. .. Without the government, there would be no such thing as student loans, since students often have no collateral or credit history. This poses too much of a risk for banks, but our government has somewhat \"co-signed\" with the students to get the loans. This process happens by the government guaranteeing that the student will pay off the debt, as he/she cannot file bankruptcy.2)Affirmative actions doesn't neccessarly mean prioritizing one group, but rather policies that take factors including race, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation or national origin. I don't see how we are taking away democracy, as everyone promotes diversity and against discrimination. 3) \"Some type of qualification. \" Every student belongs at a certain school. .. Elite schools would be too hard and useless for those in need of more basic education, and genius students will have nothing to do at normal schools. Qualifications are used to make sure that the student is right for that school. Pro says, \"If everyone was entitled to money from the government then there would not be so many people on the streets as we see today. Even then government support does barely nothing to ensure equality among the citizens. \"1) There are local organizations that provide a range of services, including shelter, food, counseling, and jobs skills programs. 2) Food banks exist to feed those in need.3) Since the 1950s, the US government has passed many laws to ensure equality between whites and blacks. . http://www.scholastic.com...4) Our government and we as a society ensure that criminals do not go unpunished.5) The 13th Amendment, passed in 1865, banned slavery. The 14th Amendment, passed in 1868, guaranteed equal rights of citizenship to all Americans, including women and former slaves. The 15th Amendment (1870) provided that voting rights of citizens \u201cshall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude\". Pro says, \"My opponents states that the government cannot takes rights away from people, he is right, however, the fact is, in reality, the effect or leeway of these rights are more noticeable and correlate with the amount of money one has. Even hospitals, they are only legally obligated to treat you if emergency, after that if you don't have good any insurance then they can send you home. You could be dying of a cancer that they can sure, but if you don`t have proper insurance than they just send you home with \"what to do with the rest of your life\" pamphlet. And thus that point would reside with me, because of income disparity different people are given different healthcare and then possibly have unequal chances of living. \"1) Several rights have nothing to do with the amount of money you make, such as the right to vote or the right to a trial.2) A public/government hospital is a hospital which is owned by a government and receives government funding. This type of hospital provides medical care free of charge, and this is covered by the funding the hospital receives. Poor uninsured patients receive their care for free. 3) Life-sustaining treatment and organizations that specifically research cures for cancer exist to help those with cancer. Whether or not they are rich, those with terminal diseases cannot be saved with current technology. I fail to see how money can cure diseases that have no cures. PRO says, \"Moving on to liberty, they say that the government cant deprive you of freedom and everyone is given the exact same rights. This is true, however, again, because of this income disparity, certain people have a harder time executing these rights in a from to their pleasing. For example the article released form Princeton University specifically states how the rich are given more of a say. This shows how the rich can properly voice their opinion in the government as opposed to those with lower income. \"1) First off, I'd like to mention that \"voicing your opinion\" has nothing to do with \"freedom\". Everyone has the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.2) Now, there are some possibilities on how the rich can have a bigger voice. a) The Rich have better capabilities and more political power. b) The government benefits and prefers the rich over the poor/middle classes. Addressing point \"A\". ..1) Cantidates have \"spending limits\" on states. Here a the list of the spending limits for each state: . http://www.fec.gov...2) Public funding of Presidential elections means that qualified Presidential candidates receive federal government funds to pay for the valid expenses of their political campaigns in both the primary and general elections. Addressing point \"B\". .. .1) The top contributors for each presidential cantidate is made public and for everyone to see. If there is corruption going on, then it would already be pointed out.2) Everyone has limits on how much they can donate. This prevents people from trying to gain favors from cantidates. . http://www.fec.gov...;3) Secret ballots currently help prevent cantidates from bribing people to vote for them, as the cantidate cannot know for sure whether or not they are voting for him/her. PRO says \"My opponent then talks about the pursuit of happiness. Sure no everyone is guaranteeing it, but because of income disparity most people cannot. This pursuit of happiness should be encouraged by the government but is hindered but the lack of income. They then say we have an education system and a health system that help people succeed. Well that may be the case, but then again not all schools are equal and a lot of schools have are in bad neighborhoods and are not properly funded. In terms of health care, government paid health care does not cover most things, just items such as immediate care and medication. that's it. As i said before. \"1) I only need to provide an example of people reaching \"happiness\", even though they are poor. One example is Bill Clinton and Lincoln. Happiness is defined as the state of being delighted, pleased, or glad. Just because you are poor, it doesn't mean that you cannot express human emotions, or that you cannot make friends. Pro says \"They then talk about political rights and equality. Well, yes everyone is given the same rights, but again the ability to perform these rights is hindered by income. Th effectiveness of these rights in government is hindered as said before. New York time columnist and economist stated that people are given unequal shares in the government, and these \"shares\" are based on income. \" 1) How, in any way, can exercising rights be stopped because of income levels? You can choose whether or not to exercise them, but they are not being prevented from you.2. PRO talks about \"Unequal shares\", but I've already stated before about how you cannot gain the benefit of the government.3) Representives are elected through majority vote. The rich are not the majority of America, but rather the poor and the middle classes. Pro says that people don't necessarly receive enough food. However he is conceding that they are receiving food from food banks. .. PRO also talks about how temples require money. These cultures are often supported by NPOs. And I've run out of space! D:", "qid": "41", "docid": "e1201526-2019-04-18T18:35:35Z-00001-000", "rank": 29, "score": 120594.0}, {"content": "Title: Federal Student Loans Should Be Abolished. Content: Hello, this will be a debate on whether or not federal student loans should be abolished. As pro, I will affirm that the federal student loan system is more harmful than beneficial to society, and that there are better alternatives to the current system. Con will be defending the status quo. I would like a debater who has had at least 3 debates completed. The debate will be 4 rounds, with an 8,000 character limit. First round may be for acceptance only or for con's first arguments, depending on what con wishes to do. I hope for a great debate!", "qid": "41", "docid": "bafdb0f3-2019-04-18T16:28:51Z-00005-000", "rank": 30, "score": 120207.0}, {"content": "Title: studying is not the only way to get rich Content: Thanks for a great debate, Eric. I'm going to try to do the exact same thing you just did - dismantle your arguments one by one. I fear this round will be quite a bit tougher than the last one, but here goes. I'm just reminding the voters that again, I believe his spelling and grammar are not up to par. This is part of the voting system, and it is important to keep this in mind. Your first argument paragraph is a direct response to my rebuttal of your suicide point. You state that only some students commit suicide and not all of them. I never said that all students in debt kill themselves as a way to escape financial debt. You didn't cite a source in round 2, because apparently it is a \"general fact.\" I have never noticed a correlation here, and I have definitely never heard of a distinct and certain one being reported in the news. Some examples are then stated showing that student loans can affect one's opinions on suicide. These are mostly valid examples, but I would just like to point out something. The only reason you hear about suicides due to student loans is because someone died. No news story is written about a graduate who found a solid job out of college and is now starting a family. I'm sure this happens more often than suicide, but because it is not shocking or interesting, nobody writes a story about it. The paragraph about Jason Yoder is partly plagiarised, but not sourced. I don\"t know if this falls under conduct or sources in the voting process, but it is a big issue. I found the article that you copied from, too (strangely enough, you cite it as a source 3 times later, although one of them is incorrect). More stories follow, such as Toby Thorn's tragic death. At least one of the sources I have found (1) seem to be shocked or confused because the debt was only 8,000 pounds, or roughly the equivalent of $13,000USD. Also, Thorn had only about $8,000 in student loans - the rest was debt from overdrawing his account. Roswell Friend, who is male and not female, may have committed suicide, and for an unknown reason at best. He had received a job offer from Comcast and would have been able to help his mom pay off her debt (2), so I don't think it was because of his own student loans. Claire Ashing's case is sound, yet people are blaming the bank for allowing her loans to run up this high from just ten thousand pounds. However, like your next piece of evidence in Marc Wadjas, this is still a good example. Next is Geraint Banks-Wilkinson, a student who had suffered from depression repeatedly (3) and was only one thousand pounds in debt, as you said yourself. Lisa Taylor was a poorly documented case (or just a common name) and I could not find any evidence other than the source you posted. I realize now, as I am typing this, that most of the previous paragraph was plagiarised yet again from your Guardian source. I think you intended to have quotes in the paragraph, but I don't know where they were supposed to go. Next paragraph. Your two quotes from C. Cryn Johannsen are valid points and I don't have the evidence nor the time to disprove or even argue her. Also, the note is very true and moving, but I doubt the accuracy of his words. Continue on to the next paragraph. You talk about how student loans will accumulate over time and the debtor will be penalized for not repaying their debts. Isn't this obvious? This is not a new idea about debt only relating to student debts. This is how all debt works. \"In fact, 'Up to Our Eyeballs' notes that about 9% of Americans aged 45-64 still have student loan debt!\" I don't necessarily disagree with this evidence, but I don't know where \"Up to Our Eyeballs\" comes from. Then, you plagiarise/don't have quotes on the section about John Koch. I want to get on with this debate, so I'm going to move on. You state that I should agree with the fact that dropouts are more successful than college graduates. I don't even know how you can logically say this. I'm not going to be able to find a source for this, because nobody keeps track of the college graduates that are doing perfectly fine and have a job, a car, a solid marriage, and a house. Just a semantic argument here because I am getting a little aggravated. You keep putting numbers in parentheses, such as \"(47-68) years old?\" This is not relevant to the argument at all, but I was just getting a little annoyed with this. You then try to defend your quote even after admitting that I never directly said the quote. You can't use quotation marks when I never really said it word for word. In round 2, I said you misquoted the source because the title in the source was incorrect. If you had read through the whole article, you would notice that it does say \"underemployed\" as opposed to \"unemployed\" (4). Ad hominem attacks like telling me that my eyes aren't working most definitely fall under conduct in the debate ruling. I don't know what you mean by my \"funny question\" about jobs. Is this relating to your previous China statement? If so, I still don't understand what you meant; if not, I don't know what you are referring to. The Business Insider list is a great source, but it is about jobs that don't require a bachelor's degree, not a degree in general. Granted, many of the jobs listed don't require a college degree, but most of them have requirements that are not easy to fulfill. The majority of the jobs either require an associate's degree, are hard labor, or require previous experience in the field. So yes, these jobs are available, but not to just anyone who wants them. In the next section, you talk about people selling vegetables and becoming rich. You go on to imply that I said all uneducated rich people gained money through inheritance. I never said nor implied this in Round 2. I said that they \"most likely\" got money through inheritance or other income, but because I didn't have details, I was not sure about it. Another point you have is that one of your previous employers sold potatoes at a young age and came to manage over 400 trucks. Cool! I used to sell lemonade on the streets most summers, and I also used to mow lawns and shovel driveways for people. This doesn't mean anything. For all I know, the man that used to sell potatoes could have gone to Oxford or Harvard or some prestigious college and had a masters degree. Your round ends with saying that college is not worth it because debt weighs you down and suicide is an option. This argument is a far cry from the original debate that studying is not the only way to have a good salary. You have the burden of proof as you are making the claim that there are other ways to obtain a good salary, but you have not provided any alternative methods of getting a solid job. And as a side note, these debts do not take \"a life time [sic] to clear if lucky.\" College debts can be paid off in most situations rather easily. My parents both paid off their debts within 8 years of graduating and getting their degrees. To conclude, I believe that I have refuted your points and, because the BOP is on you, I have no need to explicitly state my own points. This has been an enjoyable debate, and as my opponent said, I hope the voters are not distracted by anything and keep themselves unbiased in this argument. I think I have won on grammar and spelling, and also conduct due to Pro's personal attacks. Please take the time to read through both sides though. Sources: (1)http://www.dailymail.co.uk... (2)http://temple-news.com... (3)http://news.bbc.co.uk... (near the bottom, under Self-harm) (4)http://www.nydailynews.com...", "qid": "41", "docid": "d8daa153-2019-04-18T15:42:57Z-00000-000", "rank": 31, "score": 119369.0}, {"content": "Title: Wealth doesn't \"trickle down\" from the rich to the poor Content: I feel like this has been a discussion about student loans more so than Reaganomics. Both of us seem to agree that student loan debt is a big problem. But, where we disagree is supply side economics. What I\u2019ve been trying to say is that more often than not, money given to poor and middle class people will be put back into the economy. Those who are defaulting on their student loans are a minority (although a noticeable one). Most of them would spend the money on something else since they are already paying off their student loans. If you give that money to a rich person, that money will just sit there and not be pumped back into the economy. The GOP claims that their platform will create jobs and opportunities for all. However, in reality, all it does is enrich the already rich. Look at all their corporate donors (I realize that Democrats have them too). Is it a surprise that they are trying to make them richer? You would expect them to serve those who are funding their campaigns first. If rich people are donating tons of money to their campaigns, then they are going to serve the interests of the rich. That\u2019s why the GOP continues Reaganomics. Do you seriously believe that they are going to look out for the average person before their campaign donors? The Republican Party is the party of the rich. A lot of what you see promoting Reaganomics is corporate propaganda. The myth that wealth \u201ctrickles down\u201d has been debunked so many times. Why doesn\u2019t it work? I feel like I can\u2019t say this enough, but it fails because the more wealth that goes to the top (and stays there), the less wealth that\u2019s available for the middle class so less demand is created. This actually harms job growth, and this makes sense given studies done on it. Please, tell me how fixing the student loan problem will enable supply side economics to work. I\u2019m still waiting for an answer. Wouldn\u2019t that wealth just stay at the top? Why would the rich spend it if the poor and middle class aren\u2019t burdened by student loans? I don\u2019t get it. So, when can we expect to see a \u201ctrickle?\u201d If the poor and middle class are supposed to benefit from supply side economics, then when will that happen? Why hasn\u2019t it happened now? You\u2019re telling me that supply side economics is supposed to benefit the economy as a whole. That hasn\u2019t happened yet. The rich just pocket that extra money and don\u2019t spend it because they don\u2019t need to. What creates jobs is demand, and that\u2019s how we benefit the economy as a whole. Cutting taxes on the rich decreases demand due to an increase in wealth inequality. Give it to people that would actually need it and you would see it pumped back into the economy. You\u2019ve been arguing that this won\u2019t happen because many are burdened by student loans. Although a noticeable minority is drowning in their student loan debt, many people would still be able to pump it back into the economy because they would need to spend it on other things. Most graduates do end up finding a job and paying off their student loans in a timely manner.I know that I intended this round to be a conclusion of our overall arguments, but I feel like I would just be repeating what I\u2019ve said before. So, I\u2019m going to do some more rebuttals. 1. \u201cExactly. So any \"trickle down\" just evaporates into an abyss of nothingness. Give a trickle down to someone who is financially bombed, and your trickle down is meaningless.\u201d But, as I\u2019ve told you, a lot of people are already paying off their student loans in a timely manner, so if they were given extra money they would probably spend it on something else. There are also quite a bit of poor and middle class people that don\u2019t even have student loans to pay back (either because they never got them or already paid them off). So, a lot of that money would actually be pumped back into the economy. Don\u2019t you think that student loans are a separate problem? If we elect someone like Bernie Sanders, maybe something will be done about the problem of sky high college costs. I would agree that college costs are out of control these days and that we must do something. High college costs further burden the poor and middle class. But, look at what Reaganomics has done to them. Wealth inequality and the national debt have exploded. GDP growth is said to have been slowed down. Like I\u2019ve been saying, if you give a rich person money, he or she won\u2019t have the urge to go out and spend it. Why? Because he or she will not need to. So, you won\u2019t see a trickle giving the money to the rich people, so why do it? At least giving money to poor and middle class people actually help them. They need it given the conditions of the economy today. 2. \u201cIf they owe $150,000 in useless debt and we give them $500, the government intercepts their money to help pay the federal student loan debt. They intercept tax refunds, parts of paychecks, and any money owed to them. So...now they owe $149,500.\u201d What if that person is working on paying off the student loan debt? The government doesn\u2019t just take any money they acquire to pay off the student loan if they are already paying on it. If one defaults on the loan, then that could happen. Although a considerable number of people are burdened by student loans and may never pay them off, a lot of people are successfully paying them off. Remember that most people who graduate college do end up getting jobs. Those that do get jobs and pay off student loans are pumping that money back into the economy. 3. \u201cHow much money would then go directly into the economy? It would make a massive difference.\u201d So, aren\u2019t you admitting that giving money to poor and middle class people does go back into the economy (assuming they aren\u2019t drowning in debt)? Then why not fix the student loan problem and give them more money? Or, at the very least, why not give them more money? It would help them and in many cases it would go back into the economy. More often than not it would be put back into the economy. It\u2019s better than giving it to a rich person as it will not be pumped back into the economy. This wasn\u2019t intended to be an argument about student loans. It was intended to be an argument about Reaganomics. What I\u2019m trying to say is that when you give more money to the rich, it doesn\u2019t get invested back into the economy, so what is the point? To make them even richer? Isn\u2019t wealth inequality high enough these days? 4. \u201cThis has a horrible effect on the economy. If graduates are paying back student loans every month, they can\u2019t save up for retirement or a mortgage, or pay off credit cards, financing on vehicles and other debts. They\u2019re unable to spend money at stores, which has a devastating effect on the economy at all levels.\u201d It does but remember we are debating Reaganomics, not student loans. If a graduate is paying off his or her student loans, don\u2019t you think that he or she could use some extra money? Don\u2019t you think that he or she would pump it back into the economy by saving up for a mortgage, car, or whatever? Wouldn\u2019t that money be pumped back into the economy? Remember that most graduates are paying off their student loans, so any money would be beneficial. 5. \"Trickle down\" theory holds that tax cuts for the wealthy will benefit the whole economy because new wealth at the top will circulate throughout the market and find its way into the pockets of the middle class. But that new wealth at the top doesn\u2019t circulate throughout the market. It just stays concentrated at the top. Look at the increase in wealth inequality since the 1980s. You will see that the rich just continue to get richer. All that money that they are keeping is not helping the economy as a whole. Why? Because the rich don\u2019t pump that money back into the economy. They have no need to. Do you see the connection? 6. \u201cIn the 30 years from the 1980s through the first decade of the new century, supply side economics contributed to the biggest boom in U.S. history.\u201d But that prosperity went to those at the top. Average Americans did not get a huge share of all the prosperity that was created. Look at how that economic boon ended. It ended in a crash caused by the deregulation of Wall Street. Millions lost their jobs and homes. So, was all the economic growth for those at the top worth it considering it ended up being a disaster for the poor and middle class in the end? Sources: 1.http://www.forbes.com... 2.http://fortune.com... 3.http://www.examiner.com... 4. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... 5. http://michiganradio.org...", "qid": "41", "docid": "b78f8bbc-2019-04-18T13:17:13Z-00001-000", "rank": 32, "score": 118720.0}, {"content": "Title: Bankruptcy law should protect those who cannot protect themselves. Opponents of Chapter 11-style pr... Content: Bankruptcy law should protect those who cannot protect themselves. Opponents of Chapter 11-style provisions often argue that they do not provide sufficient protection to creditors, who provide important risk capital to businesses. However, this ignores the reality that creditors are often well able to protect their own interests and so do not need much if any additional protection through the bankruptcy regime. They are often sophisticated financial institutions or trade creditors, who have deep pockets and an ability to diversify their portfolio of loans easily and so reduce or hedge their risk. By contrast, other stakeholders are less sophisticated and cannot control their risk as easily through diversification. For example, a company winding up may harm an employee who earns \u00a310,000 annually much more than a bank which has lent the business \u00a3100,000.", "qid": "41", "docid": "426b8860-2019-04-19T12:46:12Z-00013-000", "rank": 33, "score": 118685.0}, {"content": "Title: Personal Bankruptcy is Anti-Libertarian Content: Looks as though this may be me talking to myself for another four rounds. I will be arguing as per the expanded topic in round one that bankruptcy is not bad. Bankruptcy is good as it allows for the forgiveness of debts to those that have got themselves into unsustainable financial positions. Without this recourse, they and their families would become financial slaves to their creditors for the rest of their lives without any means of escape. Although it may seem unfair for their creditors, they too have this avenue open to them so are given the exact same advantage. In addition debtor control is a primary business function that should be managed effectively to limit the financial impacts of the bankruptcy of debtors to businesses.", "qid": "41", "docid": "a2310a08-2019-04-18T15:11:53Z-00003-000", "rank": 34, "score": 118423.0}, {"content": "Title: No debt Content: Student Finance loans that are used to fund students during their university education should not be viewed as 'debt' in the conventional sense. Since 2010 in the United Kingdom tuition fees rose to \u00a39,000 per academic year, equalling a grand total for your typical undergraduate degree \u00a327,000 for tuition alone. This is not counting accommodation and living expenses which should increase your overall borrowing up to \u00a340,000 or more. Those are some rough figures, which if you are applying for university make for some very difficult reading, however, there is a misunderstanding amongst the public and that in 30 years time, all the money you borrowed will be wiped clean. If you borrowed \u00a340,000 from your nearest bank, then they would certainly slap interest on it and it would not certainly be cleared after an extended period of time. You also only start paying the loan back in small instalments if you start earning \u00a321,000 per year, with monthly payments of about \u00a320. If you are lucky enough to be earning \u00a321,000 a year, even \u00a320 a week wouldn't be much loss considering you probably used your degree to get the high paying job in the first place. If you are not so fortunate and you are in a low paying job paying you under \u00a321,000 a year then you pay back nothing. That is right folks, you pay back nothing. Zero. The notion that you will be forever paying off your 'debt' is a weak argument once faced with the actual facts. This enables students to find say part time work during their three years of study to save up for a gap year of travelling, fun and adventures. You wont be followed by 'men in black' driving white vans with a Student Finance recovery logo on the side...", "qid": "41", "docid": "e6ffa8fb-2019-04-19T12:45:14Z-00024-000", "rank": 35, "score": 118002.0}, {"content": "Title: College Education should be Necessary for All U.S. Citizens Content: My opponents central argument is that College ensures jobs and more jobs means more money in circulation. However, this is not the case as I will prove in my case. ========= Case ========= College ought not be required for two reasons: 1. It puts American citizen's into debt. 2. It is no longer the insurance for a job or future success that students were one guaranteed. 1. On the Wall Street Journal Blogs this week an alarming study by the Project on Student Debt was released. The nonprofit reports that average debt for college seniors who graduated with loans in 2008 rose to $23,200 in 2008, up from $18,650 in 2004. Roughly two-thirds of students graduate with student loans, government surveys show. Also it found that the highest debt levels were in the District of Columbia, where students graduated with average debts of $29,793, and Iowa, where students with loans carried $28,174 on average. And many economists worry that such financial challenges could hurt the earning potential of these college graduates long after the recession's end. There's also concern about whether and when these same grads will be able to save for retirement, start businesses or buy homes. However the report also doesn't calculate the impact on students (or, for that matter, parents) who use credit cards, home equity lines of credit or 401(k) loans to finance college. These tactics were likely to have been more common when many survey respondents entered college around 2004, as the housing and economic boom were gathering steam. So as we can see college voluntarily is becoming a burden to individuals, both during school and after. And in order to pay these ever increasing debts student have been forced to get more and more jobs, thus decreasing the value of education they can receive. But it is not just the Student Loans and future 401(k)s that are bogging down students, the city of Pittsburgh is proposing what appears to be a one-of-a-kind 1% tuition tax on local university and college students. Now this could be considered fair if it were not due to the fact that the money collected combined with the already more than $20 million in other taxes (on schools and students), would be used in order to pay for the city's goals and ambitions. All of this only further sinking the ignorant student into mounds of debt, ruining their lives. 2. \"Just like other investments, some people are realizing that past performance does not guarantee future returns,\". Lauren Asher, president of the Project on Student Debt and co-author of the paper, says. As many graduates have learned, a solid degree from an august institution doesn't necessarily guarantee a decent paying job, or any job at all. [. http://blogs.wsj.com...] [. http://online.wsj.com...] In short forcing college on individuals, expecially in these uncertain economic times, is a death sentence. We will plague our students with poor credit, an education that could not be wholly taken advantage of, and next to no possibilities for jobs. Therefore we must allow college to remain a choice to individuals as it has in the past.", "qid": "41", "docid": "3c15c9f1-2019-04-18T19:14:38Z-00003-000", "rank": 36, "score": 116869.0}, {"content": "Title: This House would enact a one time policy that erases all student debt from private lenders. Content: Good morning. I would first like to start off by defining some terms. For this debate, I will be defining This House as the United States Congress. I will be defining student debt from private companies as debt that is owed by students to non government lenders such as SallieMae, College Ave, Etc. I will now start by explaining what this one time policy would look like. This one time policy would be a proposed bill that would eliminate student debt from private lenders. Students who are currently studying in university will not benefit from this bill. If the one time bill if successful, It will then be re-written to be enacted every ten years or so. This bill will cover students who recently graduated from undergraduate studies and those who have been graduated for longer who still have a sufficient amount of debt to pay off. I would like to move on to my three points of positive matter. 1) This bill would help strengthen the economy. Currently, College graduates are working endlessly just to pay off their student loans. With interest rates being way too high, It's ridiculous how many people have to work to repay student loans instead of working for a house, Car, Family, Etc. According to a study conducted in 2018 by CNBC, 32% of Americans said college debt prevented or delayed them from buying a home, Including 36 percent of millenials, 26 percent of Gen Xers, And 26 percent of boomers. Once this bill were to pass, Citizens wouldn't really need to worry paying their debts. Instead, They could use the money to help our economy. The more flexibility that people have in their finances, The more bound they are to spend on items, Which in turn will help the economy. 2) This bill would encourage young students to go to school. Students in today's world don't want to go to college, Why? Because of the crazy high amounts of students who graduate with debt. I almost decided not to go to college, Because of the amount of money it took. If this bill were to pass, We would be able to encourage our younger students that college doesn't have to end with student debt. Many more students would be encouraged to go to school. This ties along with my third and final point of positive matter. 3) This bill would gain the trust of students. A vast majority of students according to NBC, When supporting a politician, One of the main issues that is examined is education. Students would want and support politicians that advocate for them and help them make the college process a whole lot easier. If this bill is passed, I can safely assume that we would get a higher rating of support from our student voters, As they see that government does care about the students. To summarize, This bill proposed by Congress would eliminate all student debt and benefit the students by strengthening the economy, Encouraging young students to go to college, And gaining the trust of the student vote in government. I believe that the Opposition will not have arguments that benefit the students. This is why I urge the Panel to vote in favor of the Government. Thank you.", "qid": "41", "docid": "a4631a54-2019-04-18T11:13:58Z-00004-000", "rank": 37, "score": 116573.0}, {"content": "Title: Is Trump a good president(Pro is yes) Content: I must say Lots of Political Personal and business men/women have gone bankrupt. bankruptcy is actually Healthy for a growing business. it helps businesses learn from their mistakes and take those into account when they make their next business plan. on the 1 million dollar loan thing, nobody in their right mind thinks 1 million is small, but you have to remember this man grew up being rich. your version of the small loan and his version of a small loan are very different. being rich is one thing, being white has nothing to do with it. the richest man in the world is Bill gates who's father is native to Syria, so race has nothing to do with if you can make it in the world or not. The wire-Tapping scandal has some proof to the claims he makes. Wikileaks currently has a full page on vault 7 and how the CIA has all access to wire-Tapping or \"hacking\" into any person with a phone, a computer or even television with a microphone or camera. Obama ordered two \"warrants\" from the FISA court for who knows what reason. it asks the question, why would Obama ask for a warrant at the end of his term during the election. industrial wise for trump \"according to Infowars and Breitbart news Trump has brought in a rough estimate of around 1 million jobs since his election. I don't think trump has made any \"enemies\" or any countries other than the middle east, and that's very common of a republican or liberal democrat to cause. (the middle east has hated us since bill Clinton.) China is the only possible enemy of trump. China only hates us now because we don't support their communist country anymore. when we were buying from china, that was the only reason their economy didn't collapse. Final words for Round two of this debateTrump will run this Country like a business not like a Politician. and you might think this a generally bad thing right? well if he runs this country like his businesses this country will hopefully have an economic boom relative to the USA in and after ww2Sources: http://indianexpress.com...https://wikileaks.org...https://www.infowars.com...http://www.cnbc.com...https://www.infowars.com...", "qid": "41", "docid": "415c9a3e-2019-04-18T12:21:03Z-00002-000", "rank": 38, "score": 115987.0}, {"content": "Title: Tuition-Free College Content: If an American college student is able to graduate with less than $10,000 in student loan debt, they are considered lucky (the average is $37,000). However, students from other countries that have tuition free college have that luxury; most of their loans come from living expenses and books. Without the weight of student loan debt, more college graduates might buy houses rather than renting apartments. They might buy cars, spend more on healthy food, travel more: In essence, they could contribute more to the economy & by negating the large bill of a college education, we could see an increase in the amount of students able to attend college. This then creates a more well-educated workforce and a population that has better critical thinking.", "qid": "41", "docid": "bc93daf7-2019-04-18T11:22:56Z-00001-000", "rank": 39, "score": 113740.0}, {"content": "Title: Wealth doesn't \"trickle down\" from the rich to the poor Content: Your argument doesn\u2019t make a whole lot of sense to me. I fail to see the connection between the student loan crisis and supply side economics working? Even if there were no more student loans owned to the government, the rich would still keep most of that extra money. The student loan problem just means that the poor and middle class owe more money to the government and are further being harmed. Reaganomics is not ineffective because of the student loan crisis. It is just an ineffective policy from the start. There really isn\u2019t a whole lot more to it. Like I\u2019ve said, Reaganomics is based on a flawed argument. Give more to the rich and they will spend it in a way that benefits the economy as a whole. That hasn\u2019t happened. We haven\u2019t seen noticeable job growth. We have seen wealth inequality and the national debt skyrocket. I feel like I can\u2019t hammer this point enough. \u201cTrickle down\u201d economics was just a big scam to enrich the already rich.Please explain to me how supply side economics working and the student loan crisis are connected. The supply side approach did not work in the 1920s and we didn't have a student loan problem back then. So, why would it work today even without a student loan crisis? Here are some more rebuttals: 1. \u201cBut not for them. Why? It's all politics. The Democratic Party is notorious for pushing slavery. Why? It humors the masses on the left. Pander to them and keep power.\u201dThe Republican Party may have been the party that fought for civil rights for African Americans in the mid 1800s. However, a century later, which party fought for civil rights for African Americans? The Democrat Party. Lyndon B. Johnson (a Democrat) signed legislation granting African Americans civil rights while many Republicans opposed the idea. Is it a surprise that African Americans have shifted their support from the Republican Party to the Democrat Party? Political parties evolve. The Democrat Party may have supported slavery at one point, but that\u2019s not how it is today. Although I\u2019m not a huge fan of either of our two major parties, look at how much the Republican Party does for the rich. \u201cTrickle down\u201d economics is basically socialism for the rich. The GOP has to sell \u201ctrickle down\u201d economics. So, the Republican Party still has to promote propaganda to get support. Look at all the right wing propaganda out there. Fox News is perhaps the most notable, but there are others out there. They try to sell a lot of the Republican beliefs that are there to keep the rich in power. Why does the GOP support Reaganomics? To keep the rich in power. Why does the GOP support cutting entitlement programs? Because it\u2019s a part of the interests of the wealthy. It\u2019s not because of fiscal responsibility. I find it funny how the Republicans blast the Democrats for spending too much on entitlement programs when they cut taxes on the rich and expand the military to the point where they too run colossal budget deficits. They are trying to appeal to the masses so that why they don\u2019t figure out that they are truly trying to keep the rich in power. Of course, I don\u2019t see the Democrat Party as the big hero either. They too have gone corporate as well. But, the Republican Party does it to a much larger extent. Why else is Reaganomics one of the core Republican beliefs? As Thom Hartmann would say, there are two types of Republicans, rich people and suckers. 2. \u201cI think that if you get control of the insanity of student loan debt, you make the usage of Supply Side Economics more viable.\"Supply side economics and the student loan crisis are two different problems. Even if nobody had student loan debt, supply side economics would not work. The rich would still get richer and the poor would still get poorer. I would say that the amount of debt that students are graduating college with is a problem. A lot of college graduates are sitting around looking for a job yet can\u2019t find one. But even if college was free, the middle class would still be getting pissed on by Reaganomics. 3. \u201cOnce the balance becomes stable, I believe Supply Side economics can do fine.\u201dBut how would supply side economics work if we didn\u2019t have the student loan crisis to deal with? I don\u2019t see the connection between the two. The rich would still have extra money and not much of that money would be put back into the economy. Income inequality would still be high without the student loan crisis. The nation would still be trillions of dollars in the hole (because we\u2019d still have tax breaks for the wealthy, unnecessary wars, and Wall Street bailouts to pay for). Student loans are not the primary reason why the poor and middle class are struggling these days. 4. \u201cThey had went to school, tried to get an education and now are hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt, and they can never pay it back. Can they buy a house? No. Can they take trips? No. Can they buy stuff? No. So guess what. That money is not going back into the economy.\u201dNot all poor and middle class people have student loan debt. If those without student loan debt had that extra money, they most certainly would be able to put it back into the economy. Although we have a student loan problem, there are still a considerable number of students that have found jobs and are paying back their student loans. In fact, more students are in that position than are not. A lot of students are making progress on their student loans. If they had extra money, they would spend it. At least if a poor or middle class person has extra money, there is a very high chance it will be pumped back into the economy. Even paying back student loans could be considered \u201cpumping it back into the economy.\u201d Give extra money to a rich person and it will more likely than not just sit there. Look where the tax cuts for the wealthy and deregulation have got us. Trillions of dollars on the national debt can be accounted for by giving the rich a tax break (because tax breaks for the rich can basically be seen as an expense). GDP growth is said to be slower when the wealthy have more money. We had a recession caused by the deregulation of Wall Street. The poor and middle class are being pissed on by this economic policy. I think that when you mention student loans, you are thinking of a separate issue. I would agree that the amount of loans that students need to take out for college is insane (being more liberal on the fiscal side of things) but I would not agree that this would allow supply side economics to work. How would it? I fail to see the connection. Tell me how this is related. The rich would still get richer regardless of if there was a student loan crisis or not. The student loan crisis only further hurts working class and middle class people. It is not the sole cause of the struggling poor and middle class we see today. 5. \u201cBut any \"trickling down\" that happens is pointless if those recieving it cando nothing with it.\u201dBut a lot of poor and middle class recipients of that extra money would put it back into the economy. Even if they did use it to pay off student loans, it would still be a benefit to them because they would have less debt to worry about. The poor and middle class have been forgotten in this day and age, and any little bit of money you give them will make their lives better, even if it\u2019s by a bit. I consider paying off student loans putting the money back into the economy. It\u2019s not like it\u2019s sitting there under one\u2019s mattress. A lot of people who are poor and middle class don\u2019t have any or much of any student loans. There are older adults out there who could use that extra money. They would probably spend it. They could use it. At least there\u2019s a good chance it will be pumped back into the economy if you give it to a poor or middle class person. It\u2019s a lot better than giving it to a rich person who will just let it sit there. Rich people already have a lot of the things they, so why do they need to spend more? There is no \u201ctrickling down\u201d if a rich person just keeps onto that money. 6. \u201cThey are fighting to make it, they do their taxes, they get a tax return of $5,000.\u201dWhat if they don\u2019t have student loan debt or are doing fine with their student loans? Then they could use that money to buy other things. This would create demand. If we create enough demand, a business owner would have to hire more people to keep up with the demand. Even if they did spend it on their student loan, it would be better than a rich person just keeping onto it. If they do pay off their student loan, good for them. This would further benefit the poor and middle class. If a rich person gets a large tax return, where does the money go? It typically just sits there. What part of the sector would\u2019ve made money then? What would the economy have seen? Where is the \u201ctrickle?\"More sources: 1) http://www.foreffectivegov.org... 2) http://www.pewresearch.org... 3) http://www.alternet.org...", "qid": "41", "docid": "b78f8bbc-2019-04-18T13:17:13Z-00003-000", "rank": 40, "score": 113084.0}, {"content": "Title: The growth of the national debt, if not stopped, will bankrupt the nation. Content: Okay, let me be clear here. Because your are misrepresenting the SSI part. I had two parts in it. The first part is the US government have to renegotiate deals every 10 to 14 years. To modify it, you know to make it better. So, yes in 2034 they meaning the SSI will be out of money. But that's only if the government don't renegotiate a new deal before then. And they always renegotiate a new deal 4 to 5 years before the old deal end. The second part of this you didn't even mention. Why Because it would hurt your argument. I said this \"The total cost is now about 5% of the national economy, or GDP. That will rise to about 6% when all of the baby boomers are retired\". So do you know what this means? It means if ever SSI actually did run out of money which is highly unlikely. It only a small percentage of the country's GDP. SSI running out of money will not dramatic hurt the national debt like some people want to make you believe. It's a fairy tale of lies. You are correct on this part you never brought up the When part. That's because it would hurt your argument. So, i brought it up for my argument. It does matter rather you like to admit it or not. You said \"The growth of the national debt, if not stopped, will bankrupt the nation\" but when? It not happening right now nor anytime in the near future. So, why does it matter? It like global warming, we need to do something before it too late. But the too late part could take 50 years, a hundred years, or a thousand years. So, when you said the nation will go bankrupt, it doesn't make sense to me when you say this. It not happening immediately, nor no signs of this happening in the near future. You brought up the nation faults five different times. Okay that's true. And what happened to the United States since then? Oh they just grow to the most powerful nation on the planet. So tell me why does this matter? It kind of like the stock market it goes up and way up, and then it go down and even deeper down then it shy rocket again. This what happen every time the market had a crash. So, again even if its ever go down this far it will always go back up. \"Many world viewers state that the United States would not go bankrupt because the world economy would not let it as the world economy allegedly feels a US collapse means a world economy collapse, and only God, Goddess, Allah, or other \"creator\" knows what would result\". (10.) https://thelawdictionary.org... \"Usually, the inability to pay debt means one has no money. The United States prints its own money. Yet, money used to pay debt is worthwhile only in terms of the debt it pays. If money holds less worth, it pays less debt. This means that it takes more money to pay the same amount of debt. It is a spiral that reduces the worth of money over time. Eventually, the US might run out of trees \" to make paper\". (11.) https://thelawdictionary.org... This is also true the world economy would not let the US go down this far. Because it would cause chaos around the world. So, China and japan the biggest dept we have is with them, and they would not let the US go down this far as you mention. Its way to much money they would be losing not just the US or the world. So, this bankruptcy of the US WILL not happen in our life times. And that does matter. Why are we talking about something that may or may not happen in a very very long time...", "qid": "41", "docid": "4baacc25-2019-04-18T11:57:13Z-00002-000", "rank": 41, "score": 112894.0}, {"content": "Title: College students should have access to free public transportation at taxpayers expense. Content: Thanks Con. DEFENSE1) Students have no moneyCon misrepresents her source's statistics. While her source[3] says that a typical student gets 23% of their college fee from loans, she misrepresents it and says that 23% of students take loans. There is a huge difference. 47% of all families reported borrowing to pay for college. So, we know free transport would benefit at least half the college students because they are in debt. The average college graudate has a debt of $19,000 [4]. The already high price of tuition continues to increase [5]. Con says the debt hasn't affected them yet but it will. Students cannot increase their debt by buying cars or paying full price for public transport every day because it will snowball once they graduate. They need every sort of free service they can get.Unemployed people might have low money as well but their requirement for transportation is lower than that of college student as I show in point 2. Lower income people are able to work full time so despite their hourly wage being lower, they can earn more cash than college students and also don't have a staggering amount of debt. Paying for a car or transportation necessitates that students work longer hours. College students working more than 20 hours a week on campus or off negatively affects students' academic performance [6]. College students should be allowed to focus on their academics by having transportation taken care of.2) RequirementPeople who have jobs will be able to afford cars or at least be able to afford public transport by paying the full price. College students have a large amount of debt and limited time to work and so have a higher need for free transportation. They also need to travel far more frequently to class and back than someone who is just unemployed. My opponent says her school provides free transportation. My school on the other hand just cancelled the service[1]. Instead they work with the county's public transport agency to provide free transport to students. The ability of a University to provide transport is unreliable but if they work with their state, it is far more reliable as it is funded by the government. 3) Pay after graduation Taxes are used for many purposes, not all of which benefit the person paying the taxes. For example, if part of your taxes are being used to construct freeways, but you don't have a car and never use the freeways, can you legitimately complain that it is an \"unfair financial transaction\" or that it is \"theft\"? Taxes are meant to benefit society as a whole and this is a great way to give benefits to people who need them.4) University owes themPart of the reason students pay such a large amount of money to Universities is not just for tuition but for the facilities the University offers. My school [1] works with the public transport agancy and makes a deal with them for students to be allowed to ride free at taxpayer's expense. Universities should be doing this in all counties because this is a facility that is really needed.REBUTTAL1) Other uses Con would rather use taxpayers money for Social Security and debt. Carpooling, she says, is good for the evironment. Public transport is actually better since more people will use a bus than can fit into a car. Public transportation also saves 1.4 billion gallons of gas a year [2]. This would actually help pay the US debt on oil. Walking may be good for health but people cannot realistically walk long distances to class.2) Increased useCon says free transportation would increase use to the point of being too expensive. Not the case if only college students are given free transportation. The same number of buses need to be run and they only need to accept enough people until they are full. In Riverside, California, college students ride for free [1] and there is no problem of overloading as the public transport is still running (though University operated transport closed for unrelated budget reasons). Sourceshttp://bit.ly...", "qid": "41", "docid": "d8f0bd3-2019-04-18T18:42:24Z-00001-000", "rank": 42, "score": 112552.0}, {"content": "Title: Strengthening US Immigration Regulations Content: 1) \"Education for the children of illegal immigrants constitutes the single largest cost to taxpayers, at an annual price tag of nearly $52 billion.\" While the average college student debt is around $29,400 for borrowers in the class of 2012. That money could be used to fund college students who are citizens of the United States. (http://citizensforlaws.org...) 2) If we don't enforce illegal immigration or strengthen current regulations, it will inevitable make it easier for terrorists to come into the United States undetected. Conclusion- We should strength immigration regulations for illegal immigrants.", "qid": "41", "docid": "2d0f2532-2019-04-18T16:15:38Z-00004-000", "rank": 43, "score": 112453.0}, {"content": "Title: The debtor countries knew what they were signing up for when they took the loan Content: Surely the richer countries should be looking to help out the poorer ones? The world is growing smaller with live worldwide news coverage and international travel becoming easier. Surely in these global times we can't stand by and let the poorer nations suffer?", "qid": "41", "docid": "a175ba49-2019-04-19T12:46:37Z-00023-000", "rank": 44, "score": 112300.0}, {"content": "Title: Student Loan Debt Content: I thank Evolution078 for the topic. ==Burden of proof== As the instigator, my opponent has the burden to prove why student loan debt is bad. ==Rebuttal== ---Con's \"contention\"--- My opponent seems to offer a plan here: that all parents be required to donate $24,000 a year to their child's college tuition. There are a couple problems with this: 1. Poor people often live hand-to-mouth and cannot afford to accumulate $96,000 in savings per child. [1] 2. This is still not enough money. Attending Harvard costs $60,000 per year, for example. [2] Even someone's parents who donated $24,000 per year would still need a student loan in the amount of $36,000 per year. ---My opponent says that without money, students are forced to join the military or go to community college--- He purposely ignores student loans here. Student loans are provided at extremely low interest rates and are tax deductible. [3] Student loans are the best possible deal someone could get while borrowing money. ---Con's \"arguments\"--- 1) My opponent offers a theoretical example of a poor family who makes roughly $25,000 a year. He subtracts the cost of housing and food for a family of two and says this would leave \"Jimmy\" with roughly $7500 a year to put in the bank for his child's college. My opponent forgets payroll taxes amounting to $1500 a year, cost of transportation amounting to $2500 a year, and cost of clothing amounting to $1250 a year. [4] [5] Assuming his employer provides health insurance, Jimmy will also pay $1500 a year out of pocket for his premiums. [6] Lastly, my opponent forgets to factor in the high cost of raising a small child, which amounts to roughly $3500 a year. [7] After all these costs are factored in, Jimmy is roughly $3,000 in debt per year. Jimmy has zero money left for savings and will actually owe $54,000 in debt by the time his adopted child reaches age 18. Conclusion: Jimmy cannot afford to pay for his child's college tuition. Student loans will be necessary if his adopted child wants to attend college. A) My opponent argues that median incomes are high in California. However, California is one of the wealthiest states in the Union. The poorest states in the Union have median incomes much closer to Jimmy's income. [8] In addition, all my opponent's arguments here assume that he has proven that even a family living on minimum wage can afford college tuition and is just being selfish and buying \"cool knick knacks.\" Jimmy clearly can't afford tuition if you factor in all the costs. Keep in mind, also, that tax rates go up with income, and that food, clothing, and transportation costs are calculated as a percentage of income, so these costs rise as well with income levels, since the cost of living is higher in wealthier places. My opponent has yet to prove that someone with California's median income could afford full tuition payments. 2) My opponent essentially makes the argument that eliminating student loans will boost the economy However, student loans are just like any other type of loan \u2013 they allow people to defer immediate payment in order to engage in pursuits that will pay significant dividends further down the road (college, law school, medical school). In this way, loans make the economy more efficient. Imagine what would happen in the business sector if loans to entrepreneurs ceased to exist. No one would start new companies. The same will happen in technical fields if student loans cease to exist; there would be no more lawyers and doctors. 3) My opponent argues that student loans contribute to the national debt. However, the national debt is caused by accumulating federal budget deficits. Congress borrowing money is solely responsible for the national debt. Personal debt does not contribute to this national debt figure. 4) My opponent argues that people can get student loans if the costs are higher than average (his example is doctors) The average cost of tuition for a private 4-year college in the U.S. is $27,000. [9] The average tuition cost for medical school is $25,000. [10] Under his standard, doctors could not get student loans. 5) What my opponent is essentially advocating here (in his #5) is a collapse in consumer spending. A collapse in consumer spending would plunge us even further into recession. According to the San Francisco Chronicle on September 26th, \"the collective purchasing behavior of American households may determine whether the nation continues to recover from the worst downturn since the Great Depression or slips back into recession.\" [11] When people buy clothes and toys, employers can start hiring again. Without consumer purchases, employers will have to continue layoffs. 6) My opponent argues for a regressive system Forcing people to save additional money for college each year, based on a regressive system, would have the same effect as raising taxes. Raising taxes during a recession would have a catastrophic effect on the economy. [12] ==My case== C1) Orphans Orphans have no parents, by definition. They require student loans if they want to go to college. C2) Parental rights The average parent in the U.S. spends a quarter of a million dollars to raise a child to the age of 17. [13] Parents have a right to enjoy their own incomes once their child reaches adulthood. If they get more satisfaction from taking a trip to the Caribbean before they die, parents should have the right to do this instead of being required to spend $100,000 on college tuition. If, however, parents get more satisfaction from helping their child pay for college, they should have the option of paying in full. But it should be the parents' right to make the decision of what to do with their money. Adult children are not entitled to this money as a birthright. This is a slippery slope. If parents must save money for their adult children for college, why not require parents to also set up a fund for their adult children to buy a home? How about a dowry fund for marriage? Why not legislate that parents must buy their children a car? C3) Paying the difference My opponent has not allocated enough money to college students to pay tuition for expensive private 4-year colleges and has not left many college students with enough money for room and board. Student loans would still be required to pay the difference between parental donations and what is still owed. C4) People who change their minds My opponent says that if a child does not attend college or drops out, parents can liquidate the college fund. However, people often change their minds and decide to attend college later in life. These people would not be able to afford college without student loans. C5) Stock market crashes Often, people save for college by investing their money in the stock market. A downturn would erase someone's college savings, necessitating student loans. C6) Lower attendance Since many people would now not be able to afford tuition, fewer people would attend college, law school, medical school, graduate school, and business school. Educational declines over a period of many years would erase trillions of dollars from the U.S. economy, as people become manual laborers instead of engineers, doctors, and lawyers. For all of the above reasons, I urge a Pro vote. ==Citations== [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] http://tinyurl.com... [5] http://tinyurl.com... [6] http://tinyurl.com... [7] http://tinyurl.com... [8] http://tinyurl.com... [9] http://tinyurl.com... [10] http://tinyurl.com... [11] http://tinyurl.com... [12] http://tinyurl.com... [13] http://tinyurl.com...", "qid": "41", "docid": "5d69331e-2019-04-18T19:00:35Z-00001-000", "rank": 45, "score": 112288.0}, {"content": "Title: Domestic spending to prevent recessions is a form of investment. Content: Individuals take out loans to pay for an education or home in order to improve their standards of living. We would not discourage a student from attending college because they will have temporary debt; this debt will pay off in the long run as they will be able to getter a better job if they have graduated from university. Similarly, when a government invests in better roads, education, or economic stimulus, it helps society to be more productive, thereby generating more wealth.[1] The harmful effects of refusing to generate debt can be found in Russia, which is heavily criticized for failing to use temporary deficits to stimulate long-term growth.[2] [1] Johnson, Simon and James Kwak. \u201cNational Debt for Beginners.\u201d NPR, February 4, 2009. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99927343 [2] \u201cRussia: Forecast for the Next 12 Months,\u201d The Association of International Credit and Trade Finance Professionals, 2011.", "qid": "41", "docid": "37bfee71-2019-04-15T20:22:27Z-00017-000", "rank": 46, "score": 112173.0}, {"content": "Title: that the united states should implement universal health care modeled after the french system Content: to wrap up this debate what I'm trying to prove is that we should adopt universal health care modeled after the French because as I have stated earlier that we have a 2.3 trillion debt due to health care and France has a 9 billion dollar deficit do you can clearly see the difference between the two and I do agree with my opponent that we would go bankrupt with this universal health care but what I'm also trying to say is that even if we don't take in the universal health care we still would be going bankrupt. but by taking in universal health care we wouldn't go into bankrupt so quickly. my second point is that it could be possible to work universal health care in the united states, in Kentucky they had done a similar thing like universal health care but they stated it did not work due to the low number of citizens. so if we were to take in universal health care which would include every one then we could possibly work universal health care into our system this are my two main points on why I should win this debate thank you masterzanzibar for such a great debate no one has ever bring up this kind of information and you should tell me what framework has to do with this debate", "qid": "41", "docid": "9556d53a-2019-04-18T19:35:15Z-00000-000", "rank": 47, "score": 111949.0}, {"content": "Title: Barack Obamas presidency Content: When Barack Obama was running for president he said that adding 4 trillion dollars of debt in 8 years was unamerican and unpatriotic. So five years into the Obama presidency and he has added 7 trillion dollars of debt. Obama was against the patriot act saying it harms our civil liberties and in 2011 he extends it and the NSA now stores all of our phone calls, emails, texts, etc... which is just another flip flop on Obamas part. The fast and furious program was a major failure. giving guns to the Mexican drug cartels led to the killing of Brian Terry a US border patrol agent. The major failure known as the cash for clunkers program was designed promote environmentally friendly vehicles and fuel efficient cars. All it really did was destroy classic cars and release even more carbon emissions. The real reason he did it was to give people a reason to buy the new cars from the auto companies he bailed out. A big failure of the Obama administration was his big green energy loans. He loaned billions of dollars to green energy companies that just went bankrupt. 535 million dollars to Solyndra and they went bankrupt. You can read about the green energy companies he loaned money to on this link. All the companies on this list are bankrupt or on their way out. http://blog.heritage.org... What about the Stimulus? He promised it would keep the unemployment below 8 percent but it didnt get under 8 percent until September of 2013 and reports are out there now that the numbers were faked for political purposes. Not only did it take till September of 2013 to get the unemployment below 8 percent but the stimulus was supposed to get the unemployment below 6 percent in 2012. Didn't come close to meeting expectations. He promised that the stimulus would immediately impact. saying that it will immediately create jobs because there are shovel ready jobs across the country. He later had to admit in 2011 that those jobs were not as shovel ready as he thought. He said that the stimulus would life 2 million people out of poverty but instead it resulted in 6.3 million falling into poverty as of February 2012. As i stated before obama gave 35 billion dollars to green energy companies to create jobs most of those companies are now bankrupt. It may not be 2015 yet but he promised that the stimulus would bring 1 million electric cars to the road by 2015 and the chevy volt is selling way below expectations. http://www.usnews.com... Obamacare i believe is a disaster. the website took a long time to get up and running and today it still isnt fully up and running. according to theblaze.com http://www.theblaze.com... the website cost more than 1 billion dollars. how does a website that costs 1 billion dollars to build not be able to handle more that 50,000 people at a time? The obamacare law itself is a bad idea. Obamacare forces you to buy health insurance and if you dont you pay a fine. Why should i have to pay a fine because i dont want health insurance. my parents compared plans on healthcare.gov and the cheapest obamacare compliant plan they got cost 300 dollars more a month. How is that affordable? I believe that if we allow the free market to control healthcare the competition will naturaly drive down costs allowing people to buy a plan that fits your needs at a cheaper price. Instead Obamacare forces you to have to have a plan that covers maternity care. Why should a man have to pay for maternity coverage or an 80 year old man or an 80 year old woman? If i wanted that covered i would choose a plan that has that coverage. The IRS scandal is another reason why obamas presidency is a failure. Why did former IRS head Douglas Shulman visit the white house 118 times in 2 years. There is no other reason that i can see other than working on a plan to target tea party groups. The Benghazi scandal is another flop by the obama administration. All he had to do was say it was a terrorist attack and actually investigate it but instead he went to vegas for a fundraiser the next day. He said many times before the attack that al qaeda is on the run but actually its been growing since 911 and killing osama bin laden really didnt have a huge impact on al qaeda. The obama admin said said that osama bin laden is dead and general motors is alive and then a few days or weeks later al qaeda attacks the benghazi consulate. Susan Rice went on the sunday talk shows and said that it was a spontaneous demonstration because of an internet video. hillary clinton said it was because of an internet video that they had nothing to do with. Just the tone she said it in shows its a lie. It was a well coordinated attack that killed 4 americans including our ambassador. Hillary clinton told patricia smith that she would find out exactly what happened the moments before her son died and she still has no answers. but the democrats and obama pass benghazi, IRS, NSA, as fake scandals. I await your response", "qid": "41", "docid": "1abcf60f-2019-04-18T16:38:40Z-00007-000", "rank": 48, "score": 111803.0}, {"content": "Title: University Fees Should Be Scrapped Content: debt unites students", "qid": "41", "docid": "e6ffa8fb-2019-04-19T12:45:14Z-00011-000", "rank": 49, "score": 111629.0}, {"content": "Title: Should students as young as 14 be able to have jobs Content: If you ever really looked into student loans you will see that the teenager would have to pay of the loans that they got from the college.When the student of the college gets a loan they will need to pay back the school after that semester that they are doing.Also, some of the families cant afford getting loans because of how poor they are, with the transportation issue they could always get s ride from some one or they can have their own permit on a 4-wheeler or a golf cart, they really dont need a drivers license.", "qid": "41", "docid": "d9a85746-2019-04-18T12:44:10Z-00003-000", "rank": 50, "score": 111619.0}, {"content": "Title: There is a conflict of interest when dentists advise on tooth care. Content: \"Scholarships available\" I am so tired of that argument. Yeah school is free, that why the country is drowning in student loan debt. Besides that ti doesn't matter who's paying for it, the debt still has to be paid. And beyond the cost is the time. Which again even if it's free is extremely limiting. The restrictions in place contribute to the conflict of interest, why those restriction exist is irrelevant. Having a broken radiator is not like being in screaming agony from an abscess. They don't put you on narcotics when your fan belt snaps. There are no tooth repair option at walmart, period. There are stop gaps to delay your dentist appointment and the only reason you would delay something like that is because of the expense or fear. And even if I have the dental skill I'm still most likely going to have to go to the dentist. The plasma innovation is a surgical one and is not related to conflict of interest because that innovation only applies after the teeth have failed to the point of surgery. And Oral surgery is not dentistry, its oral surgery, hence the alternate name. Oral surgeon are not dentists, they are surgeons that specialize in the mouth, surgeons have no conflict of interest like dentists, if at all. The assumption that regulation equals safety is a debate in and of itself, one could easily argue intense regulation is a blight on safety in the long term by inhibiting innovation. Did you not state that dentist have a free market? So which is it? They are totally regulated and safe or the market weeds out ones that are not. Mexico has laws against incompetence in the field of medicine just like every other developed country. It's not a desert full of mud huts and savages you know. I don't know, usually when I'm in excruciating pain I don't stop to run a back ground check. Being poor I don't have many \"elective\" procedures done. Assuming the American way is the best way does make you ethnocentric and elitist. Prove that the Mexican system is less effective. If anything I'd say it's more effective against incompetence because the Mexican judicial system is quite harsh compared to ours. you screw up someone's face you might get harsh jail time there, not a law suit. I'm ignoring your weird tangent on racism, I was speaking to the potential claim that Mexicans make lousy dentists. \"If dentists did not fix problems with teeth, there would not be any dentists for very long.\" Do you know that having teeth pulled was once done at your local barber, along with blood letting? Even tribal villages have someone that would pry teeth out if needed. People put up with what they have available, because to do nothing is torturous, and they have no concept of what the alternative could be. Dentists tell us \"sorry, this is just the way it is\" and we have to trust them. Compared to the advance of medicine dentistry is hardly advancing at all as judged by change of basic approach. We recently transplanted a whole face. What dramatic advances have happened in dentistry recently? Virtually every medical field except density has had remarkable visible progress in the past 10 years. So if tooth decay is so well understood why can't it be cured or utterly prevented? You know what else we understand? Polio. Small pox. Leprosy. Yellow fever. Malaria. I respect Wikipedia as a source. If tooth decay is well understood which I grant, then the lack of a cure could indicate a lack of interest in a real cure. I mean really, tooth care amounts to poison baths and scraping. I think we should be able to do better. I don't blame dentists for causing tooth decay I blame dentists for not presenting better alternatives of prevention and repair. Yeah they've told us not to eat sugar, and heart doctors tell us not to eat fat, but they still go right on increasing the quality of heart care, so effectively in fact that the life expectancy continues to rise. I don't think you understand the word innovate. Telling me not to crash on my bike to prevent head injury is not an innovation. A helmet is. \"This arguement is only good for tooth decay.\" Yeah, and that's the topic of this debate. (Spell check man, I'm not stabbing, seriously, I spell SO badly unaided, it'll cost you votes. People are stupid generally and think lack of spelling skill equals a lack of intellect which is as absurd as using Japanese fluency as an intelligence indicator.) The government watching, is not good enough, they are politicians and bureaucrats, they know about as much about dentistry as I do, they have to hire people, dentists. Even if those dentists are completely honest and doing their level best, which I suspect they are in the vast majority of cases, that's only a prevention of negative pressure. The nature the this conflict of interest can be equally exploited by inaction. So long as everyone agrees to not innovate the money will flow in, this is not a crime, or incompetence, it's just shady. The government sets no regular goals for innovation. \"Proving that the entire industry is on the up and up has nothing to do with this debate. You cannot attempt to re-define or widen the terms of the debate after you have posted them.\" I've already won the original debate, we're arguing about whether or not dentists have exploited the conflict of interest, not that the conflict exists. By arguing that they do not exploit it you already have implied that the conflict is there. By noted the need for regulation you note the conflict's existence. \"I simply have to prove that a conflict of interest does not exist when dentists as a professional body advise on tooth care.\" That's not what you've been arguing. Can a dentist profit from failing to innovate, yes or no? Can a dentist convince a patient that an improper course of action is the proper one, yes or no? Can a dentist blame his patent convincingly for his own failure, yes or no? Do dentists make money from tooth decay, yes or no? There is a conflict, and you know it.", "qid": "41", "docid": "8019c879-2019-04-18T19:23:45Z-00004-000", "rank": 51, "score": 111237.0}, {"content": "Title: debt unites students Content: Like the weather across Britain, financial burden on students is a unifying conversation topic. Most students will be able to automatically have a connection with another student by moaning about tuition fees. Just like the weather, it is something that Britain loves to moan about. Just as we would not want to lose the weather as a conversational tool, nor would students really like to lose the value of moaning about their financial situation. There is also a point to be made that if most, if not all students are in the same boat, I.e. applying for loans to be there in the first place it would decrease discrimination on a financial level. No more \"My Dad is richer than your Dad\" bullying.", "qid": "41", "docid": "e6ffa8fb-2019-04-19T12:45:14Z-00040-000", "rank": 52, "score": 110359.0}, {"content": "Title: Wealth doesn't \"trickle down\" from the rich to the poor Content: I'm not somebody who is a complete opponent of keynesian economics. I believe both models have their place depending on the exact flavor of the current economic atmosphere of the time. I think that if you get control of the insanity of student loan debt, you make the usage of Supply Side Economics more viable. I am a Moderate minded person. I believe both models can work effectively if not handcuffed by other irresonsible practices. * Schools purposefully took advantage of the Federal Student Loan programs. They did not look at a student's credit history. They did not look at a student's income. They did not look at a student's ability to repay the debt. They did not look at anything. They just started giving out free loans and money to anyone and everyone. So guess what schools started doing. They started recruiting students in mass, signing them up for federal loans that these students couldn't even afford, but students with dreams of success signed the dotted line figuring they'd get a good job and pay it back. Later, many did not find good jobs, and these heavy loans that took advantage of this overly generous giving of loans of any amount(withinreason) to anyone killed the economy. Obama actually did a good thing on this one in my opinion by implementing student loan forgiveness. Once the balance becomes stable, I believe Supply Side economics can do fine. The problem was that everyone had such heavy debt that they couldn't get loans for houses, spend extra on clothes, food, trips, etc. This effected the entire infrastructure of the economy. The schools got greedy and the government was too slow to act. https://studentaid.ed.gov... Here are some testimonials in a video simply explaining what the student loan crisis did to people. http://youtu.be... They had went to school, tried to get an education and now are hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt, and they can never pay it back. Can they buy a house? No. Can they take trips? No. Can they buy stuff? No. So guess what. That money is not going back into the economy. * So if people were not loading up on unsermountable student loan debt, Supply Side would have been fine. It works as long as the people are not handcuffed by other legislation and/or policies. * In my opinion, if all of these people were free from this crazy debt, Supply Side works fine. But any \"trickling down\" that happens is pointless if those recieving it cando nothing with it. Take for example, someone with $50,000 instudent loandebt. They are fighting to make it, they do their taxes, they get a tax return of $5,000. Guess what. It's taken and applied to the federal loan. What part of the sector made money? Some school made money that might go back into education, but the economy sees nothing. All that happened is the government trying to make up loan losses, and the civilian has $0 to spend.", "qid": "41", "docid": "b78f8bbc-2019-04-18T13:17:13Z-00004-000", "rank": 53, "score": 109411.0}, {"content": "Title: College Textbooks Content: Those elements do not make student's life easier. They will make their life harder because when they graduate they are accountable for all of the loans that will have to be paid back, including textbooks that have been paid or rented by credit card. Colleges should be around to give an education that adults can create a life and career out of. Textbook prices are one less thing to worry about for the struggling student that may not have a job when he/she graduates but plenty of loans.", "qid": "41", "docid": "18d23014-2019-04-18T16:43:47Z-00002-000", "rank": 54, "score": 109357.0}, {"content": "Title: The growth of the national debt, if not stopped, will bankrupt the nation. Content: Yes, this debate is finally getting over with. It has been what like a week and a half. But it has been fun. So, I guess i should start now. You kept on saying SSI is going to dry up by 2033, and i already told you it won't. Just because the old deal will end by then, doesn't mean it will dry up the money nor will it end SSI. Nor will this cause a meltdown of the financial institution. I told you the government will renegotiate a new deal before then. And they always renegotiate a new deal 4 to 5 years before the old deals end. Another part like i said before SSI is a smaller part of the GDP, you also didn't provide any proof of how big SSI is on the GDP, I have. \"In fiscal year 2016, the federal government spent $3.9 trillion, amounting to 21 percent of the nation\"s gross domestic product (GDP). Of that $3.9 trillion, over $3.3 trillion was financed by federal revenues\". (12.) https://www.cbpp.org... Only 24 percent of SSI actually go toward the budget, And like i said before you thinking SSI will fall out of money is flawed, it won't. The government will issue new deals, and new tax breaks, and do whatever it take to keep SSI up and running. \"The treasury will then have to sell 50% more bonds to compensate for the loss\". Again you are assuming, with no real proof to back it up. You think if the national debt will increase, it would turn out to be a financial crisis and thinking it would be the end of the US. When in fact, the world economy is interchain with the US, so the world would not let this happen. Another important part you keep on ignoring is the US print their own money. Yes the US is over 20 and a half trillion dollars in debt. But is this hurting the Economy? the answer is no... So, you say it will one-day lead to a total meltdown of the Economy. Again this is wrong. Why because the world would lay out their hand to help the US again. If the US get in trouble again, the US will simply buy out the banks again and will turn to other nationals to help. China and Japan are our biggest debt collected and yet haven't done or said anything. Why because they still get paid, The US is still the biggest economy in the world. And if or when the US slip to number two, it will still be a great economy. You also assume the US at their current pace of spending will not be able to pay off their debt. When in fact you have shown no evidence of this 20 trillion dollar debt or any higher amount would be hurting the US. Yes, I will agree with you on this part, the US will have another downturn in the economy because it can't stay up forever. But just like in the past the US will be able to rebound, and after some down years, then after some stable years then the US will be able to start thriving again. Another factor you still want to avoid is the when part, on why it so important. It important because you are trying to assume the future of the downfall of this economy. By saying overspending will hurt us within time. But how will it hurt us in this up and thriving economy? You say by taxes, or by the government not making any more money. But you are forgetting the US federal reserve print their own money and this will never stop. Even if the US is overspending, it will still very unlikely the US will go bankrupt over time. the US will repeat this process over and over, it has been doing this for over 70 years, and will continue for another 40 to 50 years. So, yes the WHEN part is important. You were making it look like the next financial crisis is coming soon, but when in fact it not even close on happening and differently not because of the national debt. The US has a lot of options if things start to look bad, it will not happen overnight. I will say you are right it does matter if the country goes bankrupt, but you were ignoring the facts it won't be trouble anytime soon or how other countries could help the US in time of crisis. Thank you for this.", "qid": "41", "docid": "4baacc25-2019-04-18T11:57:13Z-00000-000", "rank": 55, "score": 109045.0}, {"content": "Title: National service could be offset against student loans Content: Young people might feel cornered into signing up for financial reasons when they otherwise wouldn't. There should be no financial incentive for risking one's life.", "qid": "41", "docid": "a6a69e56-2019-04-19T12:45:58Z-00016-000", "rank": 56, "score": 108837.0}, {"content": "Title: Personal Bankruptcy is worth doing Content: It's obvious that by opponent has never declared bankruptcy and doesn't know what he/she is talking about.I am speaking from experience.Chapter 13 is for business. The debate is about PERSONAL bankruptcy (chapter 7) \"Bankruptcy will destroy your reputation. By law, bankruptcy is on the public record. People all around you will find out about it. Many of these people will not be kind, including people in your circle of friends, or even your family. You can bet it will be truly stressful.\"OK I'll admit my credit score went rock bottom after the first year after bankruptcy, but I didn't need any credit, so I didn't care. No stress at all. Friends and family didn't even know.,,,and so what if they did. It didn't hurt them. \"First off, your credit will be absolutely destroyed for some time. Credit companies will make life hell. Banks and the like won\"t give out mortgages, car loans, etc., so good luck buying things.\"I already had a new car (for free) so I didn't need a car loan. I put down $100 on a \"pre-paid\" credit card and kept that in good standing, which pretty much repaired my credit score in less than a year.In only 2 years after my bankruptcy, I got a Fannie May mortgage and got a house with only $10,000 down.After 7 years my bankruptcy was too old for anyone to care about and I refinanced my house from 8%to 3.5%. That's better than some people without a bankruptcy. \"It will become more difficult to get a good job, being that many employers nowadays check credit information before hiring.\" If you have a career and and a good work reputation, you'll get plenty of work. Companies care more about whether you can do the job or not. \"Future landlords will decline you, because they will check your credit.\"Who needs a landlord when you can own your own home!?\"Your insurance may very well take a leap into the heavens, and, if you discharged medical debts, your health is at risk, because hospitals and the like won\"t want to treat you.\"LOL...my insurance was just fine and every emergency room, by law, can't turn you away from treatment.\"If you discharge a mortgage or a car loan, you may lost them to the bank.\"With chapter 7 you can keep your home and your car.\"Aside from those reasons above, you must calculate how you will feel, as a person, who cheated the system, which is what you are doing. You are a failure and a liar in some respects.\"I didn't cheat anybody. I \"borrowed\" money that didn't even exist. The bank made the money out of thin air and lent it to me. I'm not the bad guy. Getting $50,000 for free is far from a failure.Summary: I spent $50,000 on trips, a new car, clothes, restaurants and electronic equipment. I had the time of my life and the worst thing that happened was that I had to use a pre-paid credit card for a year. I kept everything and got a mortgage 2 years later. It didn't hurt my job, my insurance or my friendships. I would do it again in a heartbeat and so should everybody else. It's legal and it's free money the bank created just for you. It stimulates the economy and gets new money circulated into the system, and doesn't hurt the banks.", "qid": "41", "docid": "574204c1-2019-04-18T16:10:11Z-00001-000", "rank": 57, "score": 108597.0}, {"content": "Title: Alternative- and more efficient- methods of funding universities are available Content: The alternatives to a graduate tax are worse: Full state funding encourages many without clear motivation or ability to enter university, leading to high dropout rates, while removing incentives to complete courses in a timely manner. The USA has a philanthropic culture absent in many other countries, meaning private colleges have large endowment funds offering a very large number of bursaries and scholarships to poorer students. Nonetheless, the individual states do fund universities and few students pay the full cost of their higher education. Elsewhere in the world the absence of state funding tends to limit access to university to the children of a prosperous elite. Even in the USA students from some ethnic minorities are much more reluctant to take on high levels of personal debt, and are therefore very underrepresented in higher education. The USA\u2019s high level of personal bankruptcy is linked to the high levels of debt built up while at university. A graduate tax then can be seen as a happy medium between the two extremes of Full state funding and No funding whereby the student pays for the benefit of having a higher education only when they are fit to do so.", "qid": "41", "docid": "e3f93a3a-2019-04-15T20:22:23Z-00015-000", "rank": 58, "score": 107783.0}, {"content": "Title: The growth of the national debt, if not stopped, will bankrupt the nation. Content: My opponent asks \" how long does this deficit have to go on before it actually starts to hit the economy. \" He then goes on to quote sources that say it already has impacted the economy where he cites \" A study by the World Bank found that if the debt-to-GDP ratio exceeds 77 percent for an extended period of time, it slows economic growth. Every percentage point of debt above this level costs the country 1.7 percent in economic growth.\" (1) He then states \"Most of the experts think this deficit won't affect us too much just our kid's children, to their children and grandchildren.\" Note that PRO did not cite an exact year for the bankruptcy. The argument is that IF things do not change there will be bankruptcy.Whether it takes place during our lives or our children\"s lives is irrelevant in terms of this debate. He then cites this statement \"\"The U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio is 104 percent. But that's not a critical for a country which can issue debt in its own currency. The United States can simply print more dollars to pay off the debt. For this reason, the risk of default is very low\" but avoids the rest of the quote\".to wit\".\"On the other hand, the debt holders wind up with money that's worth less. This will eventually make them avoid U.S. debt.\" (2) Given in rough numbers, for 2017, federal income was $3.5 trillion. Mandatory spending was $3 trillion, so at that point there was a $500 billion surplus. Then Congress spent the $500 billion ( discretionary spending and debt service) and borrowed an additional $600 billion ( to spend on additional discretionaries) .Total spending amounted to $4.1 trillion. At this point the equation is $3.5 trillion (revenue) minus $4.1 trillion (spending) = a negative $600 billion (deficit). The $600 billion ( deficit) is borrowed. $400 billion is raised through the sale of bonds. $200 billion is borrowed from the Social Security Administration. The $600 billion ( deficit) is then added to the $19.4 trillion ( previous debt ) to arrive at the current debt of $20 trillion. The borrowed money must be repaid with interest, thus increasing the future deficits and future debt, and so on and so on. Here is where the problem lays. In 2017 the US will spend $242 billion on debt service. That number may reach $1 trillion by 2020. Several scenarios could disrupt this procedure and could eventually bankrupt the nation. Scenarios #1 Investors stop buying bonds. #2 Social security no longer has a surplus to loan #3 New revenue sources will be unavailable #4 Debt service will consume a higher and higher percentage of the US budget. #5 Default #6 Bankruptcy #1 Why would investors stop buying? \"Because\" T-Bills offer relatively low returns compared to other debt instruments. In fact, rates on T-Bills can be less than most money market funds or certificates of deposit (CDs). The returns from T-Bills are only realized when they mature, making them a somewhat less attractive income vehicle \" especially for investors seeking a steady cash flow.\" (3) #2 Social security will no longer have a surplus to loan after 2033 (4) #3 There are no new major revenue sources I will deal with 4, 5 and 6 in the next round. https://www.thebalance.com... https://www.thebalance.com... https://www.investopedia.com... https://www.inquisitr.com...", "qid": "41", "docid": "4baacc25-2019-04-18T11:57:13Z-00005-000", "rank": 59, "score": 107755.0}, {"content": "Title: Not everyone incurs significant debts from law school. Content: David Lat. \"In Defense of Going to Law School.\" Above the Law. July 13th, 2010: \"4. Not everyone graduates with debt (or with as much debt as some people think). I was lucky enough to graduate law school debt-free; my parents paid for my college and law school. And I\u2019m not alone. According to the Law School Survey of Student Engagement (figure 7), over 10 percent of law students will graduate with zero debt, and another 5 percent or so will graduate with less than $20,000 in student loans. So somewhere between 15 and 20 percent of law school graduates leave school with little to no debt \u2014 and a valuable professional degree to show for their efforts. There are several reasons why perhaps a fifth of law school graduates have little or no debt. Some have parents, grandparents or spouses who are willing to help out with educational costs. Some have savings from pre-law-school careers, in lucrative fields such as finance or consulting. And some attend reasonably priced state schools and/or receive very generous scholarship money. The dean of one top 25 law school told me earlier this year that about two-thirds of his school\u2019s students receive some form of scholarship aid from the school. [...] So the 'sticker price' of law school, in terms of the cost you see on the law school website or in brochures, can be misleading. Many students aren\u2019t paying full freight \u2014 and many of the students who are paying full freight can afford to.\"", "qid": "41", "docid": "50689d14-2019-04-17T11:47:19Z-00149-000", "rank": 60, "score": 107581.0}, {"content": "Title: College students should have access to free public transportation at taxpayers expense. Content: -- REBUTTAL -- 1. College students have very little money. Pro explains, \"Most college students have taken student loans or had their parents take mortgages on their house to pay for college tuition, rent, food and textbooks.\" This is factually inaccurate and misleading. First, 1/3 of college students have their costs completely covered by their parents' income and savings. An additional 45% cover costs via their own savings, assistance from relatives, grants, scholarships and with help from parent borrowing [1]. While 23% do take out loans, the student is not obligated to pay back those loans until they are finished with school. As such, it doesn't make sense to reference student debt (which is obsolete until graduation) as a reason for them being financially challenged, because it hasn't affected them yet. Moreover, college students are not the only demographic with \"very little money.\" People who work low-income jobs or who are unemployed have little to no money -- why should transportation not be free for them? This is especially true once you consider the following: people with low-income jobs ARE tax payers, therefore Pro is suggesting that these people (often far less well off than college students) pay for other people's rides despite being similarly or even more disadvantaged. Additionally, many college students in fact hold jobs, meaning they are not necessarily struggling more than others. In fact, almost 80% of college students work on average 30 hours per week - almost full time [2]! Therefore, it makes no sense to suggest that college students deserve this special privilege based on how much money they have in comparison with other demographics. 2. Students have a huge requirement for transportation. Many transportation services already provide discounts, but most importantly, it would be Pro's burden to explain why students have a higher need than anyone else, particularly others with or who are looking for jobs. Additionally, many colleges already provide methods of free transportation for students. My school provides buses that take students not only through the campuses to get to class, but even through the city where the school is located to various other convenient checkpoints. There are also free shuttles that essentially act as cabs in some instances [3]. 3. Students would pay for it after graduation.That is not a fair exchange; people will likely pay a disproportionate amount to what they \"owe\" based on use. A fair financial transaction is one based on a mutual agreement. It should be up to the person paying whether or not they accept a service or good in exchange for payment. Some students with cars will not need this \"free\" transportation, yet wind up paying for others to use the service through taxes. That is equivalent to theft. 4. The university owes them. This contention is irrelevant considering Pro wants the tax payers and not the school to fund the transportation. I also disagree with Pro's bare assertion that it is up to the university to alleviate financial burdens for the student as much as possible; they have their own agenda. -- ARGUMENTS -- In addition to what I've already argued above in my rebuttal, 1. There are more important or useful things we could put tax payer money toward than free transportation; i.e., our debt, social security or other flailing aspects of our economy. Additionally, many people would still find a way to get places such as carpooling or walking and biking places, which contributes toward good personal and environmental health. 2. Free transportation would increase use, thereby necessarily drastically increase the cost of providing the service (i.e., more buses, trains, drivers, gas, electricity, etc.) to alleviate demand. It would be FAR too expensive to maintain, and create another huge tax payer drain. -- SOURCES --http://www.debate.org...", "qid": "41", "docid": "d8f0bd3-2019-04-18T18:42:24Z-00002-000", "rank": 61, "score": 107184.0}, {"content": "Title: The growth of the national debt, if not stopped, will bankrupt the nation. Content: Okay round 2 you decided to go by key terms. Which is fine it just not what i really wanted to hear. Why because when your title says \"The growth of the national debt, if not stopped, will bankrupt the nation\". I want to know why, when and how it going to bankrupt up the nation. I know some of the key terms you mention are important such as Federal revenue, Mandatory spending, Debt service, Deficit, Discretionary spending. And yes they are important but failed to mention the WHEN part. The When the part is very important because you failed to mention how long does this deficit have to go on before it actually starts to hit the economy. Most of the experts think this deficit won't affect us too much just our kid's children, to their children and grandchildren. The debt-to-GDP ratio is important to understand as well... \"The debt-to-GDP ratio compares a country's sovereign debt to its total economic output for the year. Its output is measured by gross domestic product\". (1.) https://www.thebalance.com... This ratio is used as a tool for investors, leaders, and economists. \"It allows them to gauge a country's ability to pay off its debt. A high ratio means a country isn't producing enough to pay off its debt. A low ratio means there is plenty of economic output to make the payments\". (2.) https://www.thebalance.com... \" The estimations establish a threshold of 77 percent public debt-to-GDP ratio. If the debt is above this threshold, each additional percentage point of debt costs 0.017 percentage points of annual real growth. The effect is even more pronounced in emerging markets where the threshold is 64 percent debt-to-GDP ratio. In these countries, the loss in annual real growth with each additional percentage point in public debt amounts to 0.02 percentage points. The cumulative effect on real GDP could be substantial. Importantly, the estimations control for other variables that might impact growth, such as the initial level of per-capita-GDP\". (3.) https://elibrary.worldbank.org... The best element an investor has is the faith in a government's solvency is the yield on its debt. When yields are low, that means there is a lot of demand for its debt. It doesn't have to pay as high a return. The United States has been fortunate in this regard. During the Great Recession, investors fled to U.S. debt. It is considered ultra-safe. As the global economy continues to improve, investors will be comfortable with higher risk because they want higher returns. Yields on U.S. debt will rise asdemand falls. \"The U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio is 104 percent. But that's not a critical for a country which can issue debt in its own currency. The United States can simply print more dollars to pay off the debt. For this reason, the risk of default is very low\".(4.) https://www.thebalance.com... Debt service reserves are cash assets that are designated by a borrower to ensure full and timely payments to bondholders. Debt Service Reserve Funds (DSRF) have been used for many years by private businesses and public entities to support debt issues. Look at the economy is doing great. The job market doing well, the private sector is going well, the economy is building new business, and the housing market is going well. And not just here but globally. So, the national debt is over 20 and a half trillion dollar right now. That doesn't matter much it could go over 30 or 50 trillion and it won't matter too much. As long the economy is going well, and the federal reserves keep on printing money out. It will not affect this generation too negative. It just a number and that all it is. You say the National debt going to bankrupt up the nation. If that is true, When? and why does it matter to this generation?", "qid": "41", "docid": "4baacc25-2019-04-18T11:57:13Z-00006-000", "rank": 62, "score": 107078.0}, {"content": "Title: college tuition too expensive Content: Tamar Lewin published an article \"Burdens of College Loans on Graduates Grows\" in the New York Times. It reflects on some of the statistics based from 2008 students taking out loans to pay for their education. The facts show that people that have to pay more money for school will be less likely to finish school and be able to provide for their families in the future. Since our economy is doing bad all the big institutions have to raise their tuition to survive in this harsh depression. Many believe that when it comes to education the price for it should not matter because, we live in a society that is education is very important. Mark Kantrowitz, the publisher of Finaid.org and fastweb.com compiled evidence from students taking private and federal loans to cover their education while in school. It came to the starling amount that two thirds of bachelor recipients were in debt about 24,000 dollars. For many people with low income it will take them about twenty to thirty years to pay off their school loans. Mr. Kantrowitz coming up with the statistics to show how from 1993 the tuition was less than half of 2008. Even though there are some ways to go to college without being in big debt, many people do not want to go to junior colleges then to a university. This is a long process and some people want to really get the college experience. As a student here I do have several friends that took that route and one of the main problems with that was having your courses transferred over to your major. In places like Georgia that do pay for your tuition if you have a 3.5 or higher is a great thing, but other states do not have it. Either way you look at it people are going to have to pay back some money. When you graduate you never really graduate with any money because college is a grind.", "qid": "41", "docid": "912e5771-2019-04-18T18:50:38Z-00003-000", "rank": 63, "score": 106989.0}, {"content": "Title: the presidency of barack obama Content: When Barack Obama was running for president he said that adding 4 trillion dollars of debt in 8 years was unamerican and unpatriotic. So five years into the Obama presidency and he has added 7 trillion dollars of debt. Obama was against the patriot act saying it harms our civil liberties and in 2011 he extends it and the NSA now stores all of our phone calls, emails, texts, etc... which is just another flip flop on Obamas part. The fast and furious program was a major failure. giving guns to the Mexican drug cartels led to the killing of Brian Terry a US border patrol agent. The major failure known as the cash for clunkers program was designed promote environmentally friendly vehicles and fuel efficient cars. All it really did was destroy classic cars and release even more carbon emissions. The real reason he did it was to give people a reason to buy the new cars from the auto companies he bailed out. A big failure of the Obama administration was his big green energy loans. He loaned billions of dollars to green energy companies that just went bankrupt. 535 million dollars to Solyndra and they went bankrupt. You can read about the green energy companies he loaned money to on this link. All the companies on this list are bankrupt or on their way out. http://blog.heritage.org...... What about the Stimulus? He promised it would keep the unemployment below 8 percent but it didnt get under 8 percent until September of 2013 and reports are out there now that the numbers were faked for political purposes. Not only did it take till September of 2013 to get the unemployment below 8 percent but the stimulus was supposed to get the unemployment below 6 percent in 2012. Didn't come close to meeting expectations. He promised that the stimulus would immediately impact. saying that it will immediately create jobs because there are shovel ready jobs across the country. He later had to admit in 2011 that those jobs were not as shovel ready as he thought. He said that the stimulus would life 2 million people out of poverty but instead it resulted in 6.3 million falling into poverty as of February 2012. As i stated before obama gave 35 billion dollars to green energy companies to create jobs most of those companies are now bankrupt. It may not be 2015 yet but he promised that the stimulus would bring 1 million electric cars to the road by 2015 and the chevy volt is selling way below expectations. http://www.usnews.com...... Obamacare i believe is a disaster. the website took a long time to get up and running and today it still isnt fully up and running. according to theblaze.com http://www.theblaze.com...... the website cost more than 1 billion dollars. how does a website that costs 1 billion dollars to build not be able to handle more that 50,000 people at a time? The obamacare law itself is a bad idea. Obamacare forces you to buy health insurance and if you dont you pay a fine. Why should i have to pay a fine because i dont want health insurance. my parents compared plans on healthcare.gov and the cheapest obamacare compliant plan they got cost 300 dollars more a month. How is that affordable? I believe that if we allow the free market to control healthcare the competition will naturaly drive down costs allowing people to buy a plan that fits your needs at a cheaper price. Instead Obamacare forces you to have to have a plan that covers maternity care. Why should a man have to pay for maternity coverage or an 80 year old man or an 80 year old woman? If i wanted that covered i would choose a plan that has that coverage. The IRS scandal is another reason why obamas presidency is a failure. Why did former IRS head Douglas Shulman visit the white house 118 times in 2 years. There is no other reason that i can see other than working on a plan to target tea party groups. The Benghazi scandal is another flop by the obama administration. All he had to do was say it was a terrorist attack and actually investigate it but instead he went to vegas for a fundraiser the next day. He said many times before the attack that al qaeda is on the run but actually its been growing since 911 and killing osama bin laden really didnt have a huge impact on al qaeda. The obama admin said said that osama bin laden is dead and general motors is alive and then a few days or weeks later al qaeda attacks the benghazi consulate. Susan Rice went on the sunday talk shows and said that it was a spontaneous demonstration because of an internet video. hillary clinton said it was because of an internet video that they had nothing to do with. Just the tone she said it in shows its a lie. It was a well coordinated attack that killed 4 americans including our ambassador. Hillary clinton told patricia smith that she would find out exactly what happened the moments before her son died and she still has no answers. but the democrats and obama pass benghazi, IRS, NSA, as fake scandals. I await your response", "qid": "41", "docid": "11ea6f44-2019-04-18T16:37:08Z-00002-000", "rank": 64, "score": 106761.0}, {"content": "Title: Should Puerto Rico become the 51st state Content: First of all, the mainland US had its own problem. It has 17 trillion dollars of debt, health care problem, etc. Therefore, giving Puerto Rico 20,000,000 a year would make US bankrupt. It's Pert Rico's fault that they have $70 billion dollars (Or more) debt. They sell bonds carelessly,so why should US mainland help them when they brought the crisis to themselves? Also, \"The unemployment rate won't go down, it would go up\" Isn't the lower the unemployment rate is, the better? Unless I am misunderstanding something here? \"Independence would make them poorer\" The 1998 showed that 50% of the Puerto Rico want nothing changed.", "qid": "41", "docid": "3a1df5ff-2019-04-18T16:10:20Z-00000-000", "rank": 65, "score": 106685.0}, {"content": "Title: University Fees Should Be Scrapped Content: No debt", "qid": "41", "docid": "e6ffa8fb-2019-04-19T12:45:14Z-00020-000", "rank": 66, "score": 106585.0}, {"content": "Title: The U.S. Government Should Allow the Big Three Automakers to Go Bankrupt Content: 1. Definitions. For the purposes of this debate, the \"Big Three\" are General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler. \"Bankrupt\" is a legal state of financial insolvency whereby (a) stockholders lose all of their equity investment, (b) future contract obligations of the corporation are voided, and (c) creditors are apportioned the corporate assets under court supervision. It is within the scope of the debate to permit modifications to the existing law, a \"special\" bankruptcy, so long as the three provisions of the definition are broadly maintained. Welfare assistance to unemployed workers may be provided by the Government, separate from any bankruptcy. What is at issue is the Government providing loans or grants, a \"bailout.\" to one or more of the Big Three solvent in order to avoid bankruptcy. 2. A bailout would at best postpone inevitable failure. Automobiles can be manufactured profitably in the United States. Foreign-owned automakers such as Toyota have many plants in the U.S., and those plants manufacture profitably. There are two reasons why the Detroit-based Big Three are failing: (a) their labor costs, in Michigan and other northern states, are approximately double that of the plants, mainly in the South, run by foreign manufacturers, and (b) the Big Three has many billions in legacy costs accrued from labor contracts that provide lavish pensions. A bailout will do nothing to remedy these basic problems because the contractual obligations for both will remain intact. Only bankruptcy can remove the continuing obligations. Thus a bailout will ultimately waste the taxpayer's money. \"G.M. has an unfunded liability of $85 billion in today's money to cover future health care costs for workers and retirees. That is seven to eight times the market value of the whole company. ... G.M.'s pension plan has also been a drain. Since 1992, G.M. has plowed $56 billion in stock and cash into it. ...\" http://www.nytimes.com... 3. A bailout will set a precedent whereby Congress will be obliged to bail out other companies that failed in the free market. There are currently 35 automakers in the category of making more than 200,000 vehicles per year, and all of the top 17 sell products in the United States. http://en.wikipedia.org... At a time when there was little international competition, unions demanded high wages and benefits and U.S. automakers granted them. These were extremely unwise decisions that led to failure of the companies. However, in a free market, the companies that cannot compete should fail and cede the market to successful competitors. Having the government subsidize non-competitive companies is a bottomless pit. Even if the bail out were to work, by some miracle, in the auto industry, there would be a very long line of other failing companies demanding equity by receiving a similar bailout. The precedent should be avoided. 4. The impact on U.S. jobs will be less than feared. One may ask why the auto companies in Japan and Germany have decided to build manufacturing plants in the United States. Clearly, the economics favors domestic production. It only favors it, however, when companies have a clean slate in formulating wage and benefit packages and selecting tax-favorable states for operations. Having the Big Three go bankrupt will not change the fundamental economics that favors domestic production. Industry analyst Rich Folts states, \"But because of the weak dollar versus the euro and some of the other currencies around the world, manufacturing may see a resurgence here -- perhaps not in Detroit because it's still high cost, but in other parts of the country such as the Deep South where unions aren't as prevalent. ... Working with global European suppliers, I see a greater emphasis on moving operations to the U.S -- particularly the South. They see the potential to expand because we're still the largest economy in the world. It provides them the opportunity to increase their capacity at a lower cost and be closer to their customers.\" http://www.manufacturing.net... 5. We should not fight the markets. It may be the case that ultimately auto manufacturing will become uneconomic in the United States. It isn't clear because the increased productivity from high tech automation helps compensate for increased labor costs. If that turns out to be the case, then attempting to forestall the inevitable would be a terrible mistake. In 1900, 92% of American jobs were in agriculture. Now it is about 4%, although substantially most food is produced. Suppose the government had, in 1900, decided to do everything possible to keep all of the jobs in agriculture? that isn't the path we should adopt now. We should let the market determine the best allocation of resources. 6. Easing dislocation is a proper government function. There is the potential for substantial economic dislocation during the realignment, however, the resolution allows the government to ease that dislocation. The methods for doing that including a phased selling of the auto company assets to new owners who can profitably keep the production lines running. Also, the government can provide for unemployment benefits and retraining of workers. 7. Industry transitioning can succeed. There is an excellent example of a similar situation. North Carolina was once heavily dependent upon textile manufacturing and tobacco growing. those industries became largely non-competitive. Rather than receiving bailouts, the state successfully transitioned to new industries, including finance, pharmaceuticals, and technology. 8. Conclusion. The government can help the Big Three transition to new ownership under a bankruptcy sale and redeployment of their assets. The union pensions already have billions in funding, and they would get more as creditors in the sale of the assets. The government can also provide aid in unemployment benefits, retraining, and relocation. What the government should not do is waste taxpayer money in a vain attempt to postpone the inevitable.", "qid": "41", "docid": "430a6870-2019-04-18T19:34:53Z-00005-000", "rank": 67, "score": 106363.0}, {"content": "Title: Federal Student Loans Should Be Abolished. Content: Before I begin, a brief observation:Pro is making the claim, therefore he has the burden of proof. His burden is to prove that federal student loans should be abolished. As con, my burden is to negate his argument. That could mean that I argue that there is something wrong with the federal student loan system, and that such a problem needs to be addressed, but not addressed in the way PRO proposes OR it could mean that I defend the status quo. It could mean that I argue that the harms PRO seeks to address are not problems, or his solution is not sufficient to address them. All would negate the resolution. Now, I'll talk about PRO's case, and make some counter arguments in response.PRO's Case:PRO's first argument states that federal student loans have caused an education bubble. He reasons that tuition has \"skyrocketed\" because federal student loans, which he calls a subsidy, cause prices to rise. Indeed, there may be some correlation there, but the fact that students have access to federal student loans is not by itself enough to indicate that those loans specifically caused an increase in tuition prices because there could be any number of other factors. For example, colleges may have had to raise tuition prices because their operating costs increased and federal student loans offset that higher operating cost. It could be that public universities receive less public funding, and therefore universities must offset that shortfall by raising tuition. It could be that universities just do more for students now, and waste resources on things like unnecessarily extravagant dormitories and facilities. It could be that university endowments just aren't as big as they once were and students have to foot the bill in consequence.Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com...So, if tuition prices are something PRO wants to fix, he's ignoring the bigger picture. But, let's talk about the harm of abolishing student loans. Federal student loan interest rates range from about 3.86% - 5%, and their rates are fixed. Source: http://studentaid.ed.gov...Private student loans are usually considerably higher than that. Discover's fixed rate undergraduate student loan rates begin at 6.74% and can rise to 10.99%. Source: https://www.discover.com...Suntrust fixed rate student loans range from 4.751% APR to 10.415% APR. Source: http://www.suntrusteducation.com...Federal student loans more affordable for all students now because the interest rates are lower. If federal student loans were abolished, it is reasonable to infer as well that private student loan rates would increase because of both increased demand for them, and because private institutions would have the luxury to set their borrowing rates much higher. That would increase the overall cost of education much more for all students who must borrow to afford college, and amplify the long term harms that PRO is trying to remediate by abolishing student loans. PRO repeats himself with a second contention that \"federal student loans have caused a rise in tuition.\" PRO contends that tuition prices have been artificially inflated because of government intervention. Yet, the evidence he offers for that, from the Cato institute, suggests that the reason for increased prices is because of supply and demand imbalances, such that because \"more Americans have sought education\" tuition prices are \"higher.\" So, the cause of tuition increases has more to do with increased demand for higher education than the fact that the federal government makes college comparably more affordable than private lending institutions. PRO's other warrant offers another alternative cause: university greed. Pro cites Peter Wood, a professor at Boston University, who said that \"colleges and universities\" set tuition \"high enough to capture... funds\" wherever they \"can be extracted from parents.\" So, while it is the case that money to pay for college is easier to come by where federal student loans are an option, that does not mean that abolishing federal student loans is either going to reduce tuition rates or have any impact to lower the cost of higher education at all so long as colleges retain the incentive to charge higher prices and students have access to private loans. So, PRO's solution is not only insufficient to address the problem he's trying to solve, but it very likely could make the problem worse by increasing the overall cost of education -both tuition prices and interest paid on private student loans.PRO's final argument is that \"federal student loans\" have harmed students.\" PRO argues that because in 2012, 56% of bachelors degree holders under the age of 25 were jobless or underemployed and that student loans are directly responsible for unemployment among those with bachelors degrees. He offers no causal link between student loans student loans and unemployment, however. He fails to consider that the number of people who are under the age of 25 who are unemployed or under employed would be higher if those people did not have a bachelors degree, and ignores the possibility that the extant US economic situation is more directly to blame for aggregate high unemployment rates among all Americans and especially among people entering the labor force for the first time. He likewise offers no explanation for how abolishing federal student loans will lower unemployment or underemployment. PRO contends that students are negatively impacted by debt, and therefore student loans should be abolished. But, what PRO fails to consider, which I have addressed earlier, is that in the absence of federal student loans, students who need to borrow to afford college must seek other means. The only other option for the vast majority of those students would be private lenders, whose interest rates are already higher than federal student loan rates and whose interest rates would skyrocket if federal student loans were abolished. The impact of this would be to raise the cost of borrowing money, which would profoundly increase the cost of higher education, which would exacerbate the problem pro is seeking to address rather than remediating it. PRO argues that federal student loans harm student's credit scores, which is just false. Students build credit while they are in college, and their scores are only harmed if they default. If students default on payments, that is because they did not pay back money they borrowed, not because they were leant money in the first place. Pro fails to account for this. Irrelevant AlternativesPRO's alternatives are irrelevant to this debate because the resolution is only about whether or not student loans should be abolished. That there are other alternatives PRO thinks are better than student loans do not help his case because his alternatives (tax credits and work study programs) can coexist along with federal student loans and we know this because, based on the evidence he cited, similar programs already do.I'll look forward to the next round.", "qid": "41", "docid": "bafdb0f3-2019-04-18T16:28:51Z-00002-000", "rank": 68, "score": 106265.0}, {"content": "Title: Economic Understanding should be Acquired Before Exercising Union/Voting Powers Content: Today, there are evident flaws in our system of democracy. These flaws are exemplified by the bankruptcy of Greece. To win votes, politicians must \"bribe\" citizens with promises, and often times, these promises place heavy strains on the country\"s economy. Today\"s citizens want higher wages, better welfare, less working time, and lower taxes - often simultaneously. Evidently, this is impossible. The government borrows heavily to finance the spending. This spending is unsustainable. Eventually, investors will realize that the country\"s debt to GDP ratio is unsustainable. They will sell their bonds en masse. Bond prices will plunge, interest rates will spike, and the currency will crash. In the words of Barry Eichengreen, \"if this happened all at once, the results could be devastating\". To illustrate this, in 2013 the unemployment rate of Greece and Spain were over 25%. Austerity measures are implemented and governments must cut spending, which means cutting jobs and reducing pay. The people, in their wisdom, riot and go on strike during a recession (Yes, the very people who were lucky enough to retain their job). That\"s what happened in many European countries, Canada, and the United States during the Great Recession. The pain is so great that Bloomberg declared it \"politically impossible\" to pay off the debt. Politicians are tied to the voters; they must promise voters benefits. And as long as voters are ignorant of the true well-being of the country, the country can never prosper over the long term. Eventually, its false prosperity will collapse, and poverty will take its place. Another incident of sheer idiocy occurred during the Great Recession in Windsor, Ontario. Union workers went on strike because their payroll took a dip. These were workers who were earning $28-30 dollars/hour. In the end, these enlightened people not only didn\"t get their increase in pay, but lost their jobs as well. The United States $17.075 trillion debt is further evidence of the ignorance of the American Public. Mr. Obama, who promises better welfare for the poor, continues America\"s exorbitant spending. Ironically, those who shout out \"human rights\" and demand a long list of benefits from politicians and governments are denying future generations those rights. One of the problems is that today, many Westerners do not understand concepts of finance of economy. 34% of the people in a survey did not even know how long it would be before they would be out of debt. Polls have shown that many Americans do not even know what government deficit is. I believe one way we could circumvent these problems would be to make financial and economic literacy a mandatory prerequisite before being able to vote or exercise voting problems. This requirement would eliminate politicians\" outrageous promises, as they now have to meet the demands of a more worldly-wise audience. For union workers, having economic and financial understanding will not only protect themselves from their own follies, but also the economic securities of future generations as well as the general well-being of society. For instance, going on strike during a recession will cause the economy to spiral further downward. (Workers on strike have less money to spend and businesses will lose money as they see the number of their consumers decrease. This in turn will cause businesses to cut more workers.) Today, in most countries, there are age restrictions regarding voting. These restrictions are in place because most 10 year olds do not understand worldly issues. The fact that most Americans are as ignorant of economics as when they were young means that new restrictions should be imposed. Basic economics and financial in voters and union workers can help the country prosper, and in turn the individual will prosper. https://www.google.ca... http://rt.com... http://www.iwillteachyoutoberich.com... http://www.cardfellow.com... http://www.businessinsider.com... Barry Eichengreen\"s book Exorbitant Privilege", "qid": "41", "docid": "9dd704de-2019-04-18T15:49:23Z-00003-000", "rank": 69, "score": 106256.0}, {"content": "Title: Bankruptcy is not best way to turnaround autos Content: Daniel Gross. \"In Defense of Detroit\". Newsweek. 13 Nov. 2008 - \"is a Chapter 11 filing the best way to reach these goals [of reforming of the autos]? Answering yes presumes that the case would be resolved quickly, that the entities would be able to obtain ample debtor-in-possession financing, that parties with legitimate legal claims on the company's assets and cash flows would give them up willingly. But many of the questions surrounding the Big Three's future can't be resolved in law firm conference rooms or in the chambers of bankruptcy court, and won't center around legal questions.\"", "qid": "41", "docid": "3f68778d-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00097-000", "rank": 70, "score": 106217.0}, {"content": "Title: Sovereign and commercial creditors can afford to cancel this debt. The sums involved may be huge to... Content: Sovereign and commercial creditors can afford to cancel this debt. The sums involved may be huge to poor countries, crippling their ability to rebuild after a disaster, but they are relatively small to the western governments, banks and multilateral institutions that hold the loans. Furthermore, lending institutions typically spread their risk, so writing off debt to a particular government struggling to cope with a tragedy will not hit the lenders very hard. Recent progress on debt-relief for the poorest countries has shown that lenders do have the flexibility to cope with writing off some debts without getting into trouble themselves.", "qid": "41", "docid": "927cbc62-2019-04-19T12:47:44Z-00017-000", "rank": 71, "score": 106157.0}, {"content": "Title: US should make low interest loans to automakers Content: Steven Pearlstein. \"The Road to a Bailout They Don't Deserve\". The Washington Post. 3 Sept 2008 - \"the best of a set of bad options might be for the government to step in and provide the Big Three with low-interest long-term loans, just as it did years ago with Lockheed and Chrysler. The government should insist that its loans get first priority and be used only for investment in new technology that can be shared with competitors, or in new plants and equipment that could be sold to other car companies in the event of a bankruptcy. The government might also insist on further cuts in shareholder dividends, executive salaries, blue-collar wages and retiree benefits, at least until the current crisis has passed.\"", "qid": "41", "docid": "3f68778d-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00125-000", "rank": 72, "score": 105791.0}, {"content": "Title: If big lenders within the financial system go bankrupt for lack of government support, companies wil... Content: If big lenders within the financial system go bankrupt for lack of government support, companies will be unable to raise new money and this can have a \u201cdomino effect\u201d on the whole economy. Corporate bankruptcies will soar. Consumers will also find it difficult, or expensive, to borrow money for household loans \u2013 such as a new house or a new car. The result will be a sharp downturn in demand that will push the economy into a deep recession.", "qid": "41", "docid": "184b3d4f-2019-04-19T12:46:55Z-00010-000", "rank": 73, "score": 105734.0}, {"content": "Title: Jackson's kids should be auctioned off to help pay his debts Content: Michael Jackson's recent demise was premature and unexpected. Indeed, he was due to embark upon a series of concerts at London's O2 Arena next week. At this this difficult time, our thoughts and prayers must be with those people who have suffered a tragic loss of money as a result of his untimely death. As you may know, Jackson passed away over $400 million in debt, so his assets will be auctioned off to the highest bidder in order to help discharge this vast financial liability. http://www.nytimes.com... Unbelievably though, nobody has yet suggested that the three pet children Jackson ordered to be specially bred for him should be included in the sale. These are 12-year-old Michael Joseph \"Prince\" Jackson Jr., 11-year-old Paris Michael Katherine Jackson and 7-year-old Prince Michael II Jackson. http://www.telegraph.co.uk... Now, before you think that these children should be exempt from the sale, please consider the facts: nobody knows who his pet kid's biological parents are but Michael Jackson certainly wasn't their father and, furthermore, he never legally adopted them. Therefore, they are not his legitimate children, they are merely play things that he bought and paid for. http://www.tmz.com... http://www.tmz.com... It is morally imperative that the people that lent Jackson cash in good faith should get their money back and his pet children should be treated in the same manner as his other assets in order to minimise his creditors' losses. The inclusion of Jackson's pet children in the auction could attract wealthy bidders from around the world. Interested parties might include homosexuals who are ineligible to adopt, Arab sheiks looking for child camel jockeys and drug-addicted, middle-aged pop stars with severe mental health problems and kiddies' fairground rides in their back gardens who are in the market for young children to share their beds with. Now, while his pets might not fetch enough to cover all his debts, every penny helps and I therefore affirm that Jackson's kids should be put up for auction along with all his other possessions. Thank you.", "qid": "41", "docid": "75cfc7a2-2019-04-18T19:21:30Z-00003-000", "rank": 74, "score": 105597.0}, {"content": "Title: Student Loan Debt Content: I am interested in the topic at hand. I wish to debate it only for an exchange of opinion so in the end I can come to a conclusion based upon rationality. Con's Contentions; Parents should be forced to contribute at least an average of $24,000 a year for 4 years towards their child's higher education needs, This would be per child. I understand there are a lot of scenario's as to why a child may not receive money towards a higher education. The child is then left with a couple options, military, scholarships if they do well in school or they can choose to go to a community college if they choose to obtain a higher level of education. My arguments are debated below. Argument; 1. ) The average adult begins their college education at the age of 18 or 19, this is generally some time after the completion of high school. If a parent saves $5,400 per year for 18 years, they would accumulate $97,200. This would be sufficient to pay for the average higher education fee of about $24,000 per year, $96,000 for 4 years. -Let us use a fictional character named Jimmy. Jimmy works a construction job full time (40 hrs a week) making $13.00 an hour. Jimmy is a single dad who resides in California. He then decides that he would like to adopt a child, he knows that he will have to contribute $5,400 a year to their child's higher education. Jimmy's annual salary is $24,960. When I had lived in California my rent for a 2 bedroom 1 bathroom house was $700, utilities usually would be $300. So we will go on to assume that Jimmy pays $1,000 a month for housing. This then leaves Jimmy with $7,560 a year. Between my wife and I, we consume $400 a month on food. Annual rate is $4,800, we will assume Jimmy uses the same amount on himself and his child. This leaves Jimmy with $2,760 a year. A. ) \"The median household income in the United States is $46,326. Here in California people have a hard time understanding that yes, 50 percent of our population live on $46,000 or less a year. Dual earner households have a higher median income at $67,348. \" It is apparent that some one making a below average income is capable of paying for their child's higher education. Now you ask your self, why would any one want to work their butt off only to pay for some one elses well being? The answer is essentially an opinion, maybe the joys of having a child supersedes their will to own all the cool \"Knick Knacks\". 2. ) What would this do for our families, our society, and our nation as a whole? If Jimmy's parents had paid for his education. Jimmy would not have student loan debt, Jimmy then could pay for his child's education so on and so forth. B. ) The average student amasses over $20,000 in student debt toward their first degree. This being true the $96,000 Jimmy had saved for his child to go to school would eliminate this debt. I am no expert in this field, but wouldn't eliminate student debt keep money flowing in the economy & essentially keep it growing? Not only that but Americans would not have to fear living a life in debt. 3. ) C. ) Let us take a look at our national debt; $13,736,959,182,346.04 (13 Trillion) \"The estimated population of the United States is 309,464,240 so each citizen's share of this debt is $44,389.49. \" After looking at these statistics & reviewing the average students debt after a higher education, its apparent that student debt is a large contributing factor to this nations overall debt. What If your parents do not want to pay for your education? It is called scholarships, work hard & be rewarded. Military, serve your country and you will reek the benefits of the GI Bill. 4. ) Finally let us take a look at the fact that different levels of education will cost various amounts. Those that require much more money than an average higher education should be allowed to take student loans. This is as long as they are on track to graduate, and their profession should allow them to pay back their loans quickly & offer the society much more. For example; Doctors. 5. ) Why not just let families decide if they would like to pay for their child's education? My rebuttal is this, Human beings are selfish. Maybe selfish is an inadequate word to portray my thoughts. But essentially humans want all the cool things without the baggage. We want to own a BMW, A Lexus, a brand new Ford F350, pop out 8 kids while we eat Applebees every night. My point is humans live outside their means. They end up straining our society by contributing little to nothing. If we didn't make it mandatory for them to contribute the $5,400 a year they wouldn't. Make our nation stronger & smarter by contributing to education. If your child chooses not to obtain a higher level of learning then you now have $96,000 eliminating any other debt you may have obtained. 6. ) Families should pay different amounts based on household income. I realize that making a individual pay $5,400 on a $24,000 is unreasonable. The lack of money could lead to more crime in our society. In this scenario the family should only be charged $1,500 so on & so forth. If you fall under $18,000 a year you should be exempt from fees. Conclusion; Again I would like to thank the Pro for taking this debate. I am interested in the response. For Pro to win this debate I would like him/her come up with logical and rational reasons why my argument is unreasonable. Resources; A. ) . http://www.mybudget360.com... B. ) . http://www.visualeconomics.com... C. ) . http://www.brillig.com...", "qid": "41", "docid": "5d69331e-2019-04-18T19:00:35Z-00002-000", "rank": 75, "score": 104849.0}, {"content": "Title: This house would make public college free Content: Free college would be amazing I would love a life free of student loans but people don't understand how impossible free college is. Sure other nations have free college but no those nations are not 18 billion dollars in debt", "qid": "41", "docid": "95a3f9c1-2019-04-18T13:57:26Z-00002-000", "rank": 76, "score": 103741.0}, {"content": "Title: Should Tuition Fees Be Non-Existent!!! Content: Bean 2 needs to post his second argument. He forfeited last round and if he does it again vote for pro because con fails to debate me. He needs to post his argument. To help him I am going to ask him a few questions for him to answer.Is it right that some people are not able to go to university because of the costs?Does he have anything to say against the abolishment of tuition fees and if so what?For the first question please dont answer that people can take a student loan because we both know that no - one wants to be in debt for a long period of time. For instance if you study architecture at university the full course takes seven years. Wo wants to be in debt of \u00a380,500. It would take many years to pay off that debt.", "qid": "41", "docid": "65ee42b3-2019-04-18T14:20:56Z-00000-000", "rank": 77, "score": 103462.0}, {"content": "Title: Debt Content: Will the U.S. ever be out of Debt?", "qid": "41", "docid": "f7c2c94a-2019-04-18T16:34:38Z-00003-000", "rank": 78, "score": 102689.0}, {"content": "Title: If big lenders within the financial system go bankrupt for lack of government support, companies wil... Content: If companies know that they can count on the government to bail them out when they are in danger of bankruptcy, then they will act differently. This is known as \u201cmoral hazard\u201d; being reckless in your lending or your investments, because such a venture is risk free. If it succeeds you are likely to make a massive profit. If it fails, then the government will cover the costs of the failure and the company won't bear any of the responsibility of their behaviour.", "qid": "41", "docid": "184b3d4f-2019-04-19T12:46:55Z-00009-000", "rank": 79, "score": 102484.0}, {"content": "Title: Trump made his money through bankruptcy Content: Trump uses the chapter laws as stated: Chapter 7: stops all operations and liquidate company's assets. Chapter 11: reorganize a company. Chapter 13: Plan to repay debt. He will continue to make more money from bankruptcy thanks to these laws and as his reputation of a presidential candidate and a billionaire. Regardless if he loses the money he gets from his father, 40 million, he'll still be a billionaire. Trump has good credit, but his organization has bad credit. Explain to me why he'll lose a few billions if he lose 40 million?", "qid": "41", "docid": "1c33544e-2019-04-18T13:45:05Z-00003-000", "rank": 80, "score": 102379.0}, {"content": "Title: Free University Education Content: I did not know that my opponent would be focusing on the U.K. I agree with him that it is exceedingly difficult to find statistics that represent the world, and so, in light of my opponent's focus, before I move onto my broader argument, I would like to point out a few things that *are* true about college education in the U.K., particularly regarding how little people are actually able to afford college these days. - 3/4 of U.K. students will not be able to pay off their student loan debts. (1) - My opponent said that someone would typically end up paying about 27,000 pounds in student loans. However, this was under the old system, which was removed some time ago. Under the new system, the average is 44,035 pounds. (2) - \"While tuition at public universities in Japan is considerably less than American colleges and universities, tuition in the United Kingdom is more on par with that in the U.S.\"(3) This doesn't sound terrible until you realize that U.S. college students are now over a trillion dollars in debt. (4, 5) That's right. Tra-tra-tra-trillion, people. That's more student loan debt than the amount of money possessed by most *countries,* and the U.K. is charging rates similar to this in a *smaller economy.* Less than a fifth the size of the U.S.'s, in fact.(5, 6) Either the government needs to force universities to stop charging such ridiculously high sums of money for education that is given for free in most developed countries, or they need to pay the money for their decision to allow universities to keep prices that high. \"'It is quite unfathomable for most Europeans that you would start your adult life tens of thousands of dollars in debt,' says Oberle, who researched higher education systems in countries such as the U.K., Hungary, Argentina and Turkmenistan for her book 'College Abroad.'\"(3) Thus, my opponent's repeated claims that student loans are affordable, even in the heavily socialized U.K., are rendered invalid. Now I move on to a broader focus. My opponent insists, time and again, that college students will refuse to ever work low-paying jobs, when statistics clearly show that the number of college students working low-paying jobs has actually been increasing at an alarming rate. In the U.S. alone (I know what I said about using one country as a global representation, but my opponent and I seem to have come to an agreement on that XD) \"the number of college graduates working minimum wage jobs is nearly 71 percent higher than it was a decade ago, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics' latest figures. As of 2012, 284,000 college graduates were working at or below the minimum wage, up from 167,000 in 2002...\"(7) My opponent makes a valid point regarding job experience vs college education, saying that employers often hire pepple who have job experience before they hire people with college degrees and no job experience. However, plenty of people with degrees have or have had jobs. Also, this preference for people with job experience is only present in certain fields. My opponent also points out that a degree only educates in a certain area. I would like to point out that people usually take more than one course in college, and that working at a single job gives a similarly narrow field of expertise. My opponent says that my points in the last paragraph of my last entry are correct, except that they advocate for free-schooling in general and not necessarily college. However, this is not the case, as I specifically mentioned college campuses, putting special emphasis on them being the centers of major cultural shifts such as the Civil Rights and Anti-War movements. A point that I would like to make is that the quality of life, as well as the happiness of the citizenry of countries wherein tertiary education is free or nearly free is higher than that of countries where it is expensive. People are more easily able to delegate their finances and not stress about the future when they don't have back-breaking student loans to pay off. I would also like to again stress the fact that education is not only to prepare us for work; it is also to make us better people. Martin Luther King Jr. said that \"the function of education is to teach one to think intensively and to think critically. Intelligence plus character - that is the goal of true education.\"(8) We spend tax dollars on so much that is immoral and illogical today. We pay for drones that spy on and kill civilians and wars that benefit those who took the money from us in order to pay for them. These things are wrong, but we have a chance to get something right. We can pay just a bit more than we already are, even if it's only for the tuition, or even if it only lowers the coast, not removes it, and in exchange we'll get a brighter, more enlightened, more open-minded future. We don't even have to pay it, actually, as long as we're willing to tell those Harvardized schmucks that beating the little guy in the face with a baseball bat-sized pipe wrench and then emptying his pockets so that they can go pay a different little guy a nickel to shine their shoes is a total (insert nickname for Richard) move. Conclusion: I would like to once again thank my opponent for this intriguing experience. Prior to the debate, I hadn't really seen any compelling arguments for his case; however, he has definitely brought up points for me to ponder further, and I am grateful for the experience and broadening of my perspective. I remain unwavering, though, in my assertion that college education, or at least the tuition or room and board, if not both, should be free, or else the entire coast should be dramatically reduced. 1- http://www.independent.co.uk... 2- http://www.bbc.com... 3- http://www.usnews.com... 4- http://www.forbes.com... 5- http://www.usdebtclock.org... 6- http://www.nationaldebtclocks.org... 7- http://www.usnews.com... 8-http://www.brainyquote.com...", "qid": "41", "docid": "1b21a2f2-2019-04-18T15:02:36Z-00000-000", "rank": 81, "score": 102310.0}, {"content": "Title: Free University Education Content: \"But that is the reason we have student loans! If one gets a university place, they will almost certainly get a student loan. This means that there is no immediate financial barrier to going to university. No matter if someone is living in poverty, they will be able to go to university because of student loans. Therefore, the statement that free university education is needed to make it available and accessible to all is just not true.\" \"No immediate financial barrier\" does not mean \"no financial barrier.\" Many sensible people aren't going to throw themselves tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt for college, and, due to these risks, won't go to college. If someone gave you a choice between getting one punch in the face, or some Tylenol and two punches in the face after you took it, you might very reasonably choose one punch in the face. The same principle applies. You may very well make up the money for the student loan eventually, but until that time it can be a very crippling long-term financial burden that can severely limit one's choices in life. Many people cannot take this risk, and so are therefore unable to go to college. Adding to this point, when risk is removed from the situation, people may be more bold in courses and careers that they choose to take, which could lead to the filling of high-demand jobs that require tertiary education, such as nurses or web designers. This gives back to society as a whole, further compounding on the reasons why this benefits the public and is worthy of tax dollars. My opponent continues to insist that people with degrees will refuse to work out of their degree area. I highly doubt, especially with the student loans that my opponent advocates, that graduates would rather sink into unemployment than, probably temporarily, get a disagreeable job. My opponent uses the U.K. as a representation of the world, even though it accounts for less than 1% of the world's population. My opponent's main point seems to be that we don't want more college students. As stated above, he uses numbers exclusively from the U.K. I could attempt to prove him incorrect within the U.K. specifically, but, as aforementioned, the U.K. is not representative of the world or even the West as a whole. Unless more applicable data is provided, I will assume that the provided data and the directly corresponding arguments are not valid. This allows me to move to more cerebral aspects of why we want more people in college than my opponent seems to think that there should be. For example, my opponent says that \"Furthermore, those who choose not to go to university are not necessarily less intelligent, educated or well-informed than those who do go to university, as real-world experience often develops wisdom in a more beneficial way than theoretical education does.\" I absolutely, totally agree with this point. However, this entire claim is completely dependent on the word \"necessarily.\" Of course people can educate themselves to a level equal to or even higher than that of college education. However, this is not by any means the norm, especially outside of isolated fields. If people normally educated themselves more than schooling did, there would be no schooling. \"If a graduate doesn't take a graduate job, then the \"27000 cost of a university course is essentially wasted.\" Even if college had no career benefits (it does, this is hypothetical) it has benefits outside of careers. People who go to college are exposed to more viewpoints and people and ideas than are most other people, and are given the skills to think critically. Reasons such as these are why people are taught seemingly inapplicable subjects in school such as history and art and philosophy and literature: they make us better people. Going to school is not all about getting a job. It is a big part of it, yes, but not the whole thing. A citizen going to vote who has been educated on history and consequences will be able to make a better decision than someone who hasn't been. Someone who has discussed altruism in a classroom setting may be more charitable than others. Someone who has been educated in art could make someone's day by articulately comparing their visage to Nascita di Venere. Someone who has read The Catcher in the Rye may have the drive to reach out to an antisocial or depressed person and help them. Education helps us in the business world, certainly, but it does so, so much more for us. The Civil Rights Movement, anti-war movements, and other vehicles of social progression all have their roots on college campuses. Tax dollars pay for things that are much more ridiculous than this. We could raise taxes just a little and provide not only equal career opportunity for all, but make people to be better. They might not get this chance otherwise, due to the heavy financial burden that they would undertake in doing so. To quote the French philosopher Emmanuel Jaffelin, \"Let us remember that in Greek, the word 'School' ('skhol') means neither client nor debt, but 'leisure.'\"(1) 1-http://sedulia.blogs.com...", "qid": "41", "docid": "1b21a2f2-2019-04-18T15:02:36Z-00002-000", "rank": 82, "score": 102202.0}, {"content": "Title: Assuming the two are mutually exclusive, pure capitalism is preferable to pure communism Content: To all who read my previous statement I apologize. That is an extremely brief description of communism, I could have gone much further in depth but to save your time I did not. I also failed to mention I will be using statistics from different nations which followed Marx's teachings. In capitalist countries all across the world, debt is one of the greatest problems the people face. http://nypost.com.... More people are in debt now than ever before in history, students have crushing student loans and in the housing market prices are skyrocketing. Millenials fresh out of college have to take out tremendous loans just to afford housing. https://www.cnbc.com.... How do we expect youth to be able to pay off these debts in a job market that is a challenge to get into? If you get a serious illness or injury the medical bill could be impossible to pay off https://www.theatlantic.com.... In Karl Marx's theory of communism, these debts are not existent in both socialism and communism. For example In Cuba, The Union Of Soviet Socialist Republics, and the Democratic Peoples Republic Of Korea health care, education, and housing are/were all provided to the people. Taxes are increased but only so future generations can prosper and advance the world forward https://www.internations.org..., http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org..., https://en.wikipedia.org.... In pure communism since money is abolished all of these would be free as well, without the tax increase. The second part of my debate is jobs themselves. Forcing someone to awaken at six in the morning, forced to carry out routines, and drink performance enhancing beverages just to afford to provide for themselves or their family is sickening. Forcing someone to get a job or starve and go homeless is only a problem existent in capitalism. Since housing is provided to you in both socialism and communism there is no fear of losing a job. A common fear amongst the proletariat in capitalist society is the AI replacement of human jobs. Once again this is not a fear is socialist or communist society as necessities are provided to the people so there is no fear of losing your job to a machine. I hope you were able to understand my debate. I apologize if you couldn't English is not my first language.", "qid": "41", "docid": "4cbdf67f-2019-04-18T12:08:32Z-00000-000", "rank": 83, "score": 101961.0}, {"content": "Title: 5 point economic plan for New Zealand Content: I'm glad to have faced such a serious challenger! Now to my summary. In this debate I raised five points. First, I proposed that New Zealand indexes tax brackets to the inflation rate. My opponent was so impressed by this point that even he conceded it was \"reasonable\", with no further rebuttals. Secondly, I said that income tax on the rich should be reverted to pre-John-Key levels. Con objects that there is a lack of evidence that our economy is currently undertaxed. First of all, it's not so important how much tax revenue is received, it's more important who's giving it - the idea is to reduce inequality. Secondly, I actually provided such evidence in round two, when I explained that all other more successful economies around the world have higher personal tax burdens, and indeed the only one that has a lower personal tax burden is Mexico. Third, it's theoretically bad for the economy if the government keeps spending money it doesn't have, running up a deficit year after year, both because that causes inflation, and because that bankrupts us. Thirdly, I said interest-free student loans should be swapped for student allowances. Con countered that the government does not need to borrow to spend. That's factually incorrect, especially the part about invented money - the government's books are audited and the money all comes from somewhere. The New Zealand government had over $71 billion of debt at the end of 2011 (. http://www.stuff.co.nz...). Since the RBNZ never prints money, the government cannot conjure money out of nothing. If it's money being \"held\" by the RBNZ, they need to get it off them by borrowing from them to their account (which is held by Westpac bank). The other option is to use bonds. How much is borrowed from the RBNZ and how much sold in bonds is not determined by the RBNZ but a unit in the Treasury called the New Zealand Debt Management Office. The crucial thing about this system is that the RBNZ reserve is separate from the government's account. That would be like saying the assets of a bank are equal to the money that all of their clients have banked with them. So when the government pays interest to the RBNZ (at the OCR), that's a deadweight loss. No student gets a benefit from that, and neither does any taxpayer. When the government uses bonds there's interest on that bond - bonds are like a \"give me $100 and I'll pay you $110 in a year\" kind of deal. Either way, there is a deadweight loss when the government has to spend all this extra money to keep student loans interest free. Why not give that money directly to students? That would seem like a more fair system, even if the government wasn't losing money off it (which they are). Fourth I said New Zealand could save a lot of money by abolishing the military. Con says that's laying off 12,000 people (actual number 13,795 plus 1608 bureaucrats, of which about 2500 are part-timers with other full-time jobs - see . http://www.nzdf.mil.nz...). Excellent! Right now the rest of the country are short on many areas of skilled labour that military people are trained to provide, such as engineering and ICT, and particularly for the civilian units, doctors (. http://www.immigration.govt.nz...). It's not like they'll leave the military and become beneficiaries for life - these are people who are likely to help fill our crucial shortage of police officers, or our shortage of skilled mechanics. It's better for the economy if they fulfil that for the market than that we spend the money and they don't really provide a service for anybody in return. Fifth I said that we need a capital gains tax. Con uses exactly the same objections as for my second point, which I have already rebutted. It seems, therefore, that my points will overall lead to a fairer and stronger economy for all. Con also gave you five points. First he proposed \"monetary reform\", that is, arbritary tax rates and unlimited government spending. This has been tried and has failed so often (Zimbabwe, communist China etc) that it's surprising anybody still advocates it. Most dangerously, it means the government stops guaranteeing the value of money. That's bad because the financial system collapses. Secondly he said the government should be an employer of last resort. I showed that this comes with the opportunity cost of looking for real jobs. Thirdly he advocated free engineering in in-demand faculties, which creates all sorts of perverse incentives, making my far superior. Fourth we heard about more hi-tech grants, which the government already does, except more of it. That's essentially a promise the government cannot afford to keep. Fifth he talked about establishing a charter development bank, which we already have. So as voters you have two alternatives. One is a stronger economy. One is worse. The choice is simple.", "qid": "41", "docid": "80fa93ed-2019-04-18T18:25:43Z-00000-000", "rank": 84, "score": 101852.0}, {"content": "Title: it should be compulsory for all school students to participate in a team sport . Content: I think that sports should not be compulsory because 1. some people have disabilities and can not do it 2. lots of sports clubs can go bankrupt 3. some people have bad sportsmanships and when they play sports they could be sore winner or sore losers", "qid": "41", "docid": "fa540128-2019-04-18T12:07:26Z-00002-000", "rank": 85, "score": 101785.0}, {"content": "Title: A Canadian-style National Healthcare system would be a good thing for the United States to have. Content: To prove why a Canadian-style Health System would be more beneficial to The United States, I must begin by pointing out the overly costly health care bills most Americans have to Pay compared to those in other countries. In Canada, for example, an average of $917 is spent annually by individuals or private insurance companies for health care, in the United States, an average of $3,372. As a result of the increasingly high health care prices, 50% personal bankruptcy in America is due to medical bills. It is believed that less than 1/2 of all the medical care in the U. S. is supported by concrete evidence that it works accordingly to its price according to the Congressional Budget office, in other words, it is not proven for a fact that its efficiency meets its price. Due to the high prices, health insurance coverage is extremely high, so about 40% of Americans do not have health insurance. 1/4 of those who are uninsured, claim that such high hospital bills changed their lives in a negative way, violently increasing their debt. Also. .. talking about bankruptcy, a study in Harvard shows that the average debt for those who filed for bankruptcy was $12,000, and 68% of those who filed for bankruptcy had health insurance. .. yeah. But YET, life expectancy in Canada (who as I mentioned earlier spends a significantly less that the U. S. ) is still higher! And infant mortality rate is still lower!", "qid": "41", "docid": "22e999f9-2019-04-18T19:35:05Z-00003-000", "rank": 86, "score": 101640.0}, {"content": "Title: The growth of the national debt, if not stopped, will bankrupt the nation. Content: Okay, so you think the When the part is irrelevant. But in fact, you are wrong on saying this. Why? Because the When part is very important on this subject. It like you are saying, the nation will go broke soon in a year to 5 years. But in fact, you don't have proof of When or Where it going to happen. The nation could very well continue to drive up the national debt. Or this could stable itself out or could actually decrease the national debt within time. With the economy going well, and could even see the economy doing better in the years to come. So, it has the potential to decrease the national debt. You only dismiss the When part because it would ruin your whole case on why the nation would go bankrupt. This bankruptcy of the nation will take a lot longer than what you have claimed. It will not affect this generation as you have claimed. This process, of continually overspending what the nation actually put out, will take a long time. Just like global warming, it not going to really affect this generation. It will take another 30 to 50 years before it could really hurt us if what you said happens. One more thing you thinking nothing can change over time, and it will continue to get worst. But in fact, you don't actually have proof it will continue negatively over time with the national debt. You said this\" Social security will no longer have a surplus to loan after 2033\" for your second part of your Scenarios. \"Social Security is fully funded until 2034, and after that it is about three-quarters financed. Considered alone, the DI Trust Fund is projected to become depleted sooner than the combined Social Security funds\". (5.) Social Security is \"the total cost is now about 5% of the national economy, or GDP. That will rise to about 6% when all of the baby boomers are retired. That increase, 1% of GDP, is less than the nation\"s increase in spending for public education when baby boomers were children\". (6.) There are two important factors in here, one is they the Government always have to renegotiate every 15 to 20 years to get the math right, because it always changing, not because it will help the nation go broke. the other thing is SSI is actually a small cost of the national economy. The third reason you list in your Scenarios is \" New revenue sources will be unavailable\" Why is this even true? The federal government collected revenues from all aspects, such as INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX, PAYROLL TAXES, CORPORATE INCOME TAX, FEDERAL EXCISE TAXES, \"The federal government also collects revenue from estate and gift taxes, customs duties, earnings from the Federal Reserve System, and various fees and charges\". (7.) \"In fiscal year (FY) 2016[1] the federal government collected revenues of $3.3 trillion\"about 17.8 percent of GDP. Over the past 50 years, federal revenue has averaged 17.4 percent of GDP, ranging from 20.0 percent (in 2000) to 14.6 percent (most recently in 2008 and 2009)\". (8.) The sixth Scenarios you haven't said yet until the next round. But I will jump ahead and give my input on it. You think the nation might one day become Bankrupt. Um, that not going to be true at all at least not what you going to say about it nor the timing of this bankruptcy. let me give you a quote on why it won't. \"The reason why it's not true is because we live in a fiat currency system, where the United States government can create an infinite number of dollars at no cost to meet its obligations. A Treasury bill is a promise that the government will give you US dollars--something that the United States government can produce infinitely and at no cost\".(9.) Sources 5&6 https://blog.ssa.gov... 7&8 http://www.taxpolicycenter.org... 9 the Link won't fit on here, so I will post it in the comment section. i will look forward to what else you may have.", "qid": "41", "docid": "4baacc25-2019-04-18T11:57:13Z-00004-000", "rank": 87, "score": 101352.0}, {"content": "Title: Free College Tuition Content: (1) Free college would be too expensive. (1a) Fiscally speaking, free college would be a burden to bear for all American taxpayers. In fact, estimates and economical calculations have come to conclude that student loan debt relief would cost the federal government $22 billion alone. A staunch supporter of the idea of free college, Bernie Sanders, seems to have convinced many young students that his economic policies are stable. But it is quite the contrary. Sanders' plans are estimated to raise the debt ceiling to $36.9 trillion over a span of ten years. (2) Free college is immoral. (2a) It may seem ironic that giving American students free college is ironic, but it really is not when broken down. Simply put: stealing the money of a working American who *earned* their money just to distribute it to a subsidized education system that is barely affordable to the government is heinous and incredibly rights-infringing. Why should the average American taxpayer have to risk not only their own -- but their whole country's -- financial and economic stability so some American college students can go to school free of debt and burden? (2b) Free college would give more of a sense of entitlement to the many already entitled millennials who use college campuses to create 'safe zone' bubbles of Cultural Marxism and political/economic ignorance. There is reason to believe that by expanding on free college, many millions of these free college liberals would continue flooding dorms and obscuring the First Amendment rights of students and guest speakers. SOURCES CITED (1a) . http://www.politico.com... . https://consumerist.com... (2b) . http://www.usnews.com... . http://www.npr.org... . http://www.breitbart.com...", "qid": "41", "docid": "10a0d139-2019-04-18T13:26:28Z-00003-000", "rank": 88, "score": 100926.0}, {"content": "Title: The growth of the national debt, if not stopped, will bankrupt the nation. Content: I am for the proposition that the growth of the national debt, if not stopped, will bankrupt the nation.", "qid": "41", "docid": "4baacc25-2019-04-18T11:57:13Z-00009-000", "rank": 89, "score": 100579.0}, {"content": "Title: Plan is a huge setback in human rights Content: The Proposition was quick and honest to acknowledge that their \"proposal would restrict the freedom of newly-graduated medical personnel to cut and run without compensating the home nation for the costs of their training\", and then they \"If the employee changes their mind and wants to change careers they simply buy themselves out of the contract by reimbursing their employer. If they do so after a year or two, they repay a proportion pro rata. Once they have 'worked off' the cost of the investment they become free agents\". It is in their second turn or speech that the troubling view of the Proposition on how to enforce their scheme came to light and so its tragic implications. What they are basically advocating is that medical education should not be provided for free anymore -and instead generate some sort of debt or obligation- in developing and even in developed nations (from the Philippines to England). It would no longer be free if it comes with strings attached, medical staff are supposed to pay for their education by working their debt off or else pay for the remaining of their contract. Their system is an perverse and degenerate implementation of only allowing student loans for students of medical professions, since at least under a student loan scheme students know how much debt they are acquiring, and interest rates are regulated, these debts are even subject to bankruptcy law in some jurisdictions, the state acts as a guarantor of citizens rights against banks, but the efficiency of government funding is lost due to the cut the banks take for themselves, students however are free to emigrate or switch professions and jobs, provided they pay their loans with their new job or from their new location. There is a reason states choose to provide free education and it's that charging tuition fees, as a Scottish Education Minister once said, \"[prevents] young people from poor backgrounds going on to university for fear of getting into debt\"[[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1554455/Scotland-to-abolish-student-fees-despite-debts.html]]. On the other hand under the Prop. scheme the burden of the contract would be placed upon the students, who are much more vulnerable than the state, the universities and the employers, since they have fewer monetary resources and thus access to legal counsel. The medical professionals will be \"[subjugated] to a controlling person or force\"[[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bondage]] in this case their government, so that they are \"obliged by contract to work for a stated number of years\"[[http://www.msa.md.gov/msa/refserv/html/servant.html]], and are somewhat \"bound to the land\" as if they were owned by the state (not too many feudal lords left)[[http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=serf]]. In colonial times people became indentured servants in exchange for a trade and a passage to the Americas or other colonies, and nowadays they propose to rescue this unfree labor practice, adapting it so people would be doing it for a career in medicine and an air ticket to the West instead. Just as people in debt bondage, indentured servants and slaves, they could be sold to new masters (in this case either countries or employers). The only way out of this brutal oppression is for the medical personnel to buy themselves out of the contract, a right they could hardly have been denied since even slaves were allowed to buy their own freedom. They finally deigned to clarify whether the compensation was paid to the home country before or after the personnel left the country by saying \"his new employers must reimburse the cost of this training in advance\". The thing is, enforcing these contracts means that the home and host countries have to be able to restrict the medical staff from leaving. Else they have no guarantee of compensation once they leave since sanctioning, embargoing or invading a richer nation seldom makes sense, and a medicine professional running off to a poorer country would be free -as a slave who escaped from the US South to a Northern state- because there would be no compensation to work off any more (since the Prop. plan is not a general migration compensation scheme, but rather a richer country compensates poorer country scheme). If no such measures are implemented then workers would just migrate as they do in the SQ and the plan would not make any significant difference whatsoever, except for driving immigration to a black market where the rule of law would be non-existent and migrants would be have to turn to smugglers and human traffickers to reach their dreamed destinations, and then suffer the hardships of being illegal aliens, and they would also be able to send less money back home, because of their immigration status. No root causes of Brain Drain solved, worst conditions for migrants, less remittance money (that does reach the population, unlike the corruption-vulnerable compensation): All pain and no gain without ensuring enforcement. However, these draconian measures go against the Declaration of Human Rights[[http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml]], Article 4. No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms. Article 13.2 \"Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country\", Article 23.1 \"Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment\". The Proposition scheme amounts to servitude, and so it is a violation of human rights no matter if the contracts are enforced or not. Putting a price tag on the right to leave the country that currently holds the contract, switching jobs, careers or just quitting equals the suspension of these human rights, and thus of human dignity. Ensuring enforcement of this plan is a way to try to solve \"unfairness\" by suspending human rights, an oxymoron and harm like no other.", "qid": "41", "docid": "f2c6760a-2019-04-19T12:44:58Z-00047-000", "rank": 90, "score": 100511.0}, {"content": "Title: Personal Bankruptcy is worth doing Content: Okay, I think you are misinformed. Chapter 13 is not only for businesses, rather, Chapter 11 is only for businesses. Chapter 7: \"A bankruptcy proceeding in which a company stops all operations and goes completely out of business. A trustee is appointed to liquidate (sell) the company's assets, and the money is used to pay off debt.\" Chapter 13: \"U.S. bankruptcy proceeding in which the debtor undertakes a reorganization of his or her finances under the supervision and approval of the courts. As part of the reorganization, the debtor must submit and follow through with a plan to repay outstanding creditors within three to five years.\" Chapter 11: \"a form of bankruptcy that involves a reorganization of a debtor's business affairs and assets. It is generally filed by corporations which require time to restructure their debts.\" http://www.investopedia.com... http://www.investopedia.com... http://www.investopedia.com... http://credit.about.com... As for your bizarre notion: \"It's legal and it's free money the bank created just for you. It stimulates the economy and gets new money circulated into the system, and doesn't hurt the banks.\" It is not \"free money\". You took money and exchanged it for goods and/or services. Do you honestly think that money just appears? It wasn\"t \"created\" any more than the digital number on your bank machine shows how much money you have in your account. Money isn\"t kept in bank vaults anymore, you\"re right. It\"s a digital notation, but when you click withdraw $60, you still get real money. I\"d appreciate it if you didn\"t insult my intelligence. \"With chapter 7 you can keep your home and your car.\" No, under C. 7, your assets are liquidated to repay a debt. That is the definition. However, under C. 7, in personal bankruptcy, you are allowed to keep certain things called \"Exempt Property\". This law is more lenient in some states. There is always a chance you could lose both your car and your house, depending on their value\"and your state. The bottom line is this: By declaring bankruptcy, you are damaging your chances at success. You are contributing to the debt; to the current state of American economics in a deeply negative way. Even if you emerge scott-free, which is very rare, you are screwing someone over to do it. There is no free lunch, as I like to say. Its capitalism, you work for what you have. You are not given it. Bankruptcy will ruin you and your reputation, I\"ve seen it before. It\"s not worth it.", "qid": "41", "docid": "574204c1-2019-04-18T16:10:11Z-00000-000", "rank": 91, "score": 100437.0}, {"content": "Title: Free University Education Content: IntroductionFirst I would like to clarify that, even though this debate is applicable to all countries, I am focusing on Britain since I am British; and furthermore this debate pertains to Britain particularly as there will be a general election next month and tuition fees are an oft-debated subject between opposing political parties.Britain is also the birthplace of the university, with its institutions setting the mould for universities worldwide.Finally, it is extremely difficult to obtain statistics that are representative of the world population, so I have to pick a country from which to draw statistics, despite one country not being representative of all other countries.Therefore, I request that I am forgiven for using UK statistics.Financial benefits / costsMy opponent cites the large amount of debt that is the result of university. However, the fact remains that student debt allows anyone go to university no matter how poor. So the assertion that university fees make it inaccessible remains refuted.Furthermore, a graduate is generally more likely to get a higher paying job than a non-graduate, so this would cancel out the debt acquired at university.Finally, student debt is one of the most moderate forms of debt there is:1. If you earn less than \u00a316910, then you don't have to repay the debt (1)2. You only pay 9% of what you earn (2)3. If you don't pay it off within 25 years, then it's written off (3).To summarise, student debt isn't some life-destroying, crippling financial burden - it is actually very manageable and will be likely to be completely offset by the salary increase from a graduate job.There is very little actual risk involved; if you don't earn enough to repay it, then you don't have to. And if you can't pay it off after 25 years, then you don't have to.But considering the personal financial benefits that university can give, a mild form of debt is a very generous form of payment for it.GraduatesMy opponent doggedly insists that graduates would be willing to work in undesirable jobs, but the high level of graduate unemployment suggests otherwise (4).Besides, when was the last time you saw a fresh-out-of-college graduate working in a low-paying job? I can't remember.Pro makes a valid point regarding how graduates are more likely to be more educated than non-graduates.But this is only theoretical education, not real-world, practical wisdom. Employers consistently say that experience is more valuable than theory. (5)Moreover, a degree only provides education in a specific area. For example someone with a degree in ancient history will only be highly educated in ancient history. Therefore graduates would only be significantly valuable to the job areas that accord with their degree, which limits their options in the job market.I agree with pretty much everything my opponent writes in his last paragraph, but people can study civil rights, philosophy, history, science etc.. in high school. One doesn't need to go to university to become educated in these matters.Ultimately, my opponent's last argument is an argument for free schooling, not necessarily for free university. ConclusionI would like to thank my opponent for the debate, it is certainly an interesting subject with more aspects than I initially predicted. But overall, I maintain that my opponent has not given sufficient reason why the government ought to pay for university education instead of the beneficiaries themselves. (1) http://www.moneysavingexpert.com...(2) ibid.(3) http://www.studentloanrepayment.co.uk...(4) http://www.ibtimes.co.uk...(5) http://www.theguardian.com...", "qid": "41", "docid": "1b21a2f2-2019-04-18T15:02:36Z-00001-000", "rank": 92, "score": 100241.0}, {"content": "Title: Tax Policy Content: My opponent has made several false claims. I will take this round to refute his dishonest arguments and then go back to the countless benefits of the Trump tax plan. I have quoted his points below. \"I will point out that his companies have filed bankruptcy 6 times, at least partly because of using excessive debt financing.\" Trump has an extensive track record of successful businesses. He has created hundreds of companies/products that have succeeded. You have only cherry picked 6 companies that failed. The vast majority of his companies have prospered showing he has the skills to run our economy. \"wouldn't it be a great idea to have him making decisions with a higher amount of tax income?\" No because what he has learned throughout his business experience is that low taxes can drive growth. This has been proven by economic research. A free market, capitalist approach is the best way to grow the econ. Big gov is inherently wasteful and counterproductive. \"According to studies for happiness and GDP, 7 of the top 10 countries ranked by happiness were socialist, while the United States came in at number 14 (2014-2016) and 4 of the top 20 countries, including the #2 country) were socialist. 70% and 20% of those groups.\" Not sure if there\"s a meaningful way to calculate happiness. What we do know is the US has a superior economy, superior technology innovation, better medical research and of course much higher GDP than those socialist nations. Our free market system sets us apart and that\"s a good thing. Those successful socialist countries have: 1.Much lower population than the U.S. This is a critical distinction because the more people you have in a country the harder it is to pay for expensive socialist programs 2.Population that tends to commit less crime and have lower single motherhood rates 3.Often got rich from abundant natural resources relative to population size 4.Higher educated workforce, more hard working workforce on average 5.Have virtually zero military spending; require the US to provide them w/ military protection. This frees up their budget to spend on wasteful social programs 6.Are running unsustainably high national debts (take the example of Greece) This is simply an apples to oranges comparison. Furthermore, the USA destroys those nations in technological advancements and entrepreneurship. \"If the will of the populace is for more socialist policies, they are free to pursue tax policies to reflect that as we live in a representative democracy.\" If the will of the people was for socialism they would have voted for Bernie Sanders. The American people overwhelmingly voted for a Republican president, republican senate and republican house. They willingly gave full control of the government to the GOP. Trump said he was going to have huge tax cuts. GOP congress always favored high tax cuts. The people wanted Trump because he would deliver free market, capitalist policies that would spur economic growth - like this policy. People in poverty are counting on this tax policy to pass. \"Sure, the top 1% contribute a large % of the taxes, because their income is so much more. I suspect if we could total up all the benefits people get from taxes, we would see that the 1% get a large % of those as well.\" This is wrong\" the rich don\"t benefit more from social programs versus the poor. In fact they never collect welfare, medicaid etc. If there was free college the rich would probably send their kids to private colleges. Therefore, the rich definitely don\"t receive more benefit from the government versus the poor. They just pay a hugely unfair and disproportionate portion of the taxes. \"The 1% are often more capable of exploiting loopholes in the current tax system to avoid paying the same rates that hard working Americans are required to.\" Trump\"s policy doesn\"t create loopholes in fact it tends to try to remove them. The plan greatly simplifies the tax code which helps to remove those harmful loopholes. The ultra rich will continue to use loopholes under Bernie Sanders. \"Many \"charities\" are more form than substance. That is, they give only a small % to the actual causes they claim to represent, while at the same time paying large salaries to employees, and creating tax deductions for the 1%. I'm not against charity, certainly not real charity, but these tax increases aren't so large to eliminate contributions.\" Proof? \"the people (taxpayers and their children/grandchildren) receive little to no benefit from the taxes collected.\" High taxes take money from the rich and let the gov do whatever they want with the money. This leads to very wasteful spending. The federal government is very inefficient because they are not using their own money\" they waste other people\"s money. The free market is a much better way to benefit society. Jobs, jobs, jobs will really improve the lives of the American people. My Case - Individual Tax Cuts: Now I will give a hypothetical case study about Bernie\"s plan for raising the taxes on hardworking Americans. Let\"s look at Paul the famous brain surgeon, a member of the top 1%. Paul is extremely successful, saves many, many lives (including young children) and is paid 2 million a year in salary. He is also a savvy investor and makes an additional 2 million from the stock market/real estate. Total Income: 4 million a year. He lives in San Francisco, California. Let\"s look at what percentage Paul pays under my opponent\"s plan: Income Tax: Since he makes 4 million Paul pays at least 45% for income tax New Healthcare Premium Tax: 2.2% New Family and Medical Tax: 0.4% California State Tax (highest bracket): 12.3% California Mental Health Tax: 1% Fica Tax (Social security, medicare): 12.4% (1). Total: Around 73% The government steals 73%... the vast majority of Paul\"s hard earned wealth when he is alive\" and up to 65% (estate tax) of his remaining wealth when he is dead\" Is it fair for the government to take 73% and later an additional 65% of someone\"s hard earned money\" after that individual likely contributed greatly to the country through creating many jobs and investment? We have a wonderful word that perfectly describes my opponent\"s tax policy: communism. Keep in mind what happens to Paul if he refuses to pay most of his wealth. The government will literally put a gun to his head, handcuff him and lock him away in jail\" and then gleefully take his money. It is NOT freedom to have most of your wealth STOLEN by a greedy, greedy government\". A government full of gratuitous waste, fraud and abuse\" a government where politicians get filthy rich from taxpayer money. One word sums this up: SAD! Let\"s look at this from an economic standpoint. Christina Romer was a famous economist that was chosen by President Barack Obama to run the Council of Economic Advisors (CEA). Christina Romer and David Romer (another economist) decided to perform a study about tax increases. Romer writes \"an exogenous tax increase of 1 percent of GDP lowers real GDP by roughly 2 to 3 percent. These output effects are highly persistent\"(2). She also states that \"indeed, the strong response of investment helps to explain why the output consequences of tax changes are so large\"(2). As the government raises taxes they cripple the productivity of our workforce. They seek to crush incentives for people to invest. My opponent\"s plan will cause irreversible damage to the U.S economy, believe me. I will add more about corporate taxes in future rounds. Sources: [1] https://taxfoundation.org... [2] http://www.nber.org...", "qid": "41", "docid": "b335bfaa-2019-04-18T12:06:03Z-00000-000", "rank": 93, "score": 99937.0}, {"content": "Title: The EMF could work like the IMF. Content: The IMF was effective at pulling irresponsible countries with debt, like South Korea and recently Greece. The worry and speculation among investors on a Greece bankruptcy sent shockwaves through the international market and even reached South Korea, a remote country which has only limited contact with Greece. If South Korea can be shook by even a small fear of bankruptcy, then imagine how bankruptcy can affect the world market. After Greece, there are more jittery European countries like Hungary, Portugal, Spain, and even Italy, the fourth largest economy in the Euro Bloc. To save these countries and the world economy, the EMF should exist. The EMF would work much like the effective IMF which stopped enormous bankruptcies to ensure the world economy's safety. The only difference is the the EMF's protection would only reach to Europe", "qid": "41", "docid": "26b5cea-2019-04-17T11:47:26Z-00050-000", "rank": 94, "score": 99907.0}, {"content": "Title: College should be entirely govt funded Content: Americans spent almost $100 billion last year to send students to public colleges and universities. When you account for all student loan programs, grants, tax breaks the government is already paying for almost half the tuition, so why not the rest? The country should also tweak spending budgets to account for govt funded schools. So a complete reform would need to take place to avoid us going deeper into debt. Schools can also cut costs in various ways such as letting qualified volunteers teach", "qid": "41", "docid": "4e09753c-2019-04-18T18:09:37Z-00001-000", "rank": 95, "score": 99754.0}, {"content": "Title: Dropping the debts may encourage the debtors to purposely take out loans that they cannot repay Content: It wouldn't be necessary for them to do this if the world economy didn't discriminate against poorer, relatively under-developed countries in the way that it does. We should drop third world loans and instead offer non-repayable support, meanwhile working to make the global economic system fairer for everyone.", "qid": "41", "docid": "a175ba49-2019-04-19T12:46:37Z-00027-000", "rank": 96, "score": 99681.0}, {"content": "Title: The growth of the national debt, if not stopped, will bankrupt the nation. Content: Just wanted to say thank you Bigdave, for this opportunity to debate you on this matter. Since you only stated your position in round one i will do the same. You said you will be pro on this matter by saying the national debt is going to make America broke. So, that leave me with being con. I will argue why the national debt will NOT make America broke, and why it just a number so politician to make policy for the added debt or to decrease the national debt. I can see you change 3 rounds to 5 rounds. Have to say i like the move. So, i guess round 2 to round 5 will be just debating, And rebutted. So, i guess lets get started then.... Good luck to you.", "qid": "41", "docid": "4baacc25-2019-04-18T11:57:13Z-00008-000", "rank": 97, "score": 99649.0}, {"content": "Title: Should (k-12) Tests be easyer Content: I think that tests should be easier", "qid": "41", "docid": "1082d53f-2019-04-18T12:29:07Z-00001-000", "rank": 98, "score": 99644.0}, {"content": "Title: debt unites students Content: So you're saying that it's worth being in debt just so that you can have an extra conversational topic? People have conversations about natural disasters, homelessness and terrorist attacks that they see on the news, but that doesn't mean we want these things to continue.", "qid": "41", "docid": "e6ffa8fb-2019-04-19T12:45:14Z-00039-000", "rank": 99, "score": 99446.0}, {"content": "Title: National service should be re-introduced Content: National service could be offset against student loans", "qid": "41", "docid": "a6a69e56-2019-04-19T12:45:58Z-00006-000", "rank": 100, "score": 99407.0}]}
{"query": "Should fighting be allowed in hockey?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: Should Fighting be Allowed in Hockey Content: Fighting in hockey has always existed as a defining feature of the sport, and it has been accommodated in the rules for the NHL since the league's establishment in 1917. The practice of fighting in NHL games should be protected because it is not simply an exercise of unchecked aggression, but rather a tool to be used to hold players accountable for their actions. With 12 players on the rink at once and only 3 officials to regulate them, players often get away illegal/dangerous checks. In the absence of consistent regulation, fighting in hockey allows for the players to police one another. The knowledge that a dirty play or a cheap shot will likely result in retaliation offers an effective deterrent against players engaging in these potentially harmful activities. While fighting admittedly introduces a risk for injury, the severity of this injury pales in comparison to the potential injuries one might sustain from an illegal check.", "qid": "42", "docid": "7282d1c1-2019-04-18T11:33:12Z-00005-000", "rank": 1, "score": 190375.0}, {"content": "Title: Should Fighting be Allowed in Hockey Content: While fines may be an effective way for the NBA to hold its players accountable, that is largely because there is no other historical avenue for conflict resolution in the NBA. As mentioned previously, fighting in hockey has been an integral aspect of the sport since the formation of the National Hockey League. Furthermore, it is not as if these fights are completely unregulated. In the 1980's there was an average of 1 fight per NHL (100%). As a response to this, the League implemented new rules governing fighting. These rules still allowed fights to take place, they just assigned a 2-5 minute penalty to the players involved. This penalty causes players to be judicious about when they choose to fight. This is similar to the penalty system in many sports: soccer players shown to be more judicious about the use of aggressive plays after they have already received a yellow card, NBA athletes are more cautious about play after they have received 3 fouls, etc. Additionally, if the concern about fighting is motivated by a concern for the players, then the opinions of these players should be considered. A survey of NHL players conducted in 2012 asked them whether or not they believed fighting should remain a practice in the NHL, 98% of them responded that it should be. This demonstrates that the players involved, who are cognizant of the risks associated with the activity, still see a value in it and would like it to remain.", "qid": "42", "docid": "7282d1c1-2019-04-18T11:33:12Z-00003-000", "rank": 2, "score": 181712.0}, {"content": "Title: Should Fighting be Allowed in Hockey Content: Fighting in hockey, and in sports in general, should not be permissible for any reason. While fighting does have a historic place in the way hockey is played and is often a notable reason why people watch hockey in the first place, it should not be allowed moving forward. Player safety should be at the forefront of sports, and by allowing fighting in hockey, the sport is openly showing its disregard for such safety. Hockey leagues do not need players to police each other and hold each other accountable, that's what referees and league punishments are for. Basketball is a relatively physical sport as well, however the NBA generally does a good job of enforcing appropriate fines and penalties to discourage excessive violence on the court. These monetary fines, game suspensions, and other punishments all hold players accountable without relying on the players to do it themselves. Hockey is one of the very few sports where it is seen as acceptable to have designated players that serve no role other than to protect the team's talented star players from getting hurt in a fight - a sign that the sport needs to change its standards to reduce violence among its players. Cheap shots will always occur in sports, however it is better to address those dirty plays with real-life punishments that affect the player's ability to participate and make financial gains, rather than by putting them in a glass box for a few minutes.", "qid": "42", "docid": "7282d1c1-2019-04-18T11:33:12Z-00004-000", "rank": 3, "score": 180945.0}, {"content": "Title: Should Fighting be Allowed in Hockey Content: While the evidence concerning head trauma is troubling, it exists within the context of an already violent sport. An article published in WIRED magazine commented in April; \"as of this writing, no fewer than 158 National Hockey League players \" slightly more than one of every five in the league \" are injured.\" These are substantial numbers and they would not be significantly diminished by the abolition of fighting. The players on the ice know the risk they assume when they go out and play the sport, and in the absence of any complaints or activism on the part of the players to abolish fighting, I don't see how it could make the game substantially safer. I do not see any ethical considerations that distinguish fighting from any other dangerous component of hockey. Unless it can be demonstrated to be uniquely harmful in a way distinct from the dangers of stray shots, eye-gouging hihi sticks, or knee-shattering collisions, then I maintain that it is nonsensical to ban fighting in hockey.", "qid": "42", "docid": "7282d1c1-2019-04-18T11:33:12Z-00001-000", "rank": 4, "score": 175281.0}, {"content": "Title: Fighting in Hockey Needs to Be Banned Content: Since my opponent has forfeited round 2, I have nothing to refute and I'll just give points on why fighting should be banned in the NHL. Most fighters in the NHL, are put on the ice and told to fight. Their skills in the actual game of hockey are extremely limited, and all they're good at is fighting. In the old days of fighting in the NHL, fighters would actually make an impact and their fights would change the momentum of the game, now this is not the case. Also, in the past, fighters could actually play the game. Now, fighters take up roster spots that could be taken by goal scorers. All retired enforcers, or most at least, regret that they were fighters.3 retired enforcers died in the last 3-4 months due to fight related reasons.Hockey is the only professional sport that allows fighting.I don't expect my opponent to actually post something for round 3, so these are all of my arguments...", "qid": "42", "docid": "27512099-2019-04-18T18:41:40Z-00001-000", "rank": 5, "score": 168542.0}, {"content": "Title: Fighting in Hockey Needs to Be Banned Content: Let me start by criticizing my opponents opening comments. I will build my argument as to why fighting in hockey should be banned in round 2. \"Now I won't deny Fighting is dangerous and could potentially hurt you, but It is has been part of the game since the beginning. So there's no reason why Fighting should be banned when in reality it won't do anything and the fans will just end up fighting which will cause a whole lot of controversy. \"There are a couple of things wrong with what my opponent has said, and I will explain. First he agreed that fighting is dangerous, then he said 'but it has been in the game since the beginning. ' In the beginning of the NHL, players, including the goaltender didn't have to wear helmets/masks, so saying that it should stay the same to follow tradition, isn't a good enough point. My opponent then continues on to say that there is no reason for fighting to be banned because \"it won't do anything\". If fighting is banned, which would make the punishment more than a 5 minute penalty like it is now, fighting would probably disappear because players wouldn't put their careers at risk. And yes banning fighting would prevent the injuries of many players, and if fighting was banned already, it would have most likely prevented the deaths of Wade Balek, Rick Rypien and Derek Boogaard, who have all died because of reasons related to their career as a fighter in the NHL. My opponent said that fans \"will just end up fighting\" if fighting in the NHL is banned. I disagree, because anger between fan bases occurs very often because of a fight between two players, which starts huge and bitter rivalries. Good Luck.", "qid": "42", "docid": "27512099-2019-04-18T18:41:40Z-00002-000", "rank": 6, "score": 167229.0}, {"content": "Title: Fighting in Hockey Needs to Be Banned Content: Fighting in Ice Hockey is very common, but there have been some people who wanted it to stop. Why? Because it's dangerous. Now I won't deny Fighting is dangerous and could potentially hurt you, but It is has been part of the game since the beginning. So there's no reason why Fighting should be banned when in reality it won't do anything and the fans will just end up fighting which will cause a whole lot of controversy.", "qid": "42", "docid": "27512099-2019-04-18T18:41:40Z-00003-000", "rank": 7, "score": 165761.0}, {"content": "Title: Should Fighting be Allowed in Hockey Content: While fighting might not be too different from the natural physicality of hockey, the way it is presented and glorified within the sport does propose an ethical dilemma. A body check into the boards is violent but it is not staged the same way as a fight is. When the helmets and gloves come off for a fight, fans of all ages see a part of the game that no longer belongs in today's society. Big hits will always happen in sports, whether it be in hockey, football, lacrosse, etc., but that should be the extent of glorified physicality. Hockey and its designated enforcers leave a negative impression on youth fans and players who look to emulate professional athletes. Rather than working to become a talented hockey player, some kids would rather become the guy who goes for \"big hits\" and is known for their physical play rather than developing useful skills within the sport. This influence of violence does bring up ethical concerns, as it changes the way youth players see and play the game. Physical violence is not an appropriate response to conflict, even within a physical sport. The concept of sportsmanship and playing the game the \"right way\" is put in danger by giving fighting a home in the sport of hockey.", "qid": "42", "docid": "7282d1c1-2019-04-18T11:33:12Z-00000-000", "rank": 8, "score": 163302.0}, {"content": "Title: fighting should be banned from the NHL Content: I guess this means I have won science you have forfeited. fighting in hockey should not be banned. that is my final answer. take it or leave it. (you better have taken it. or you better take it! :P )", "qid": "42", "docid": "3d98c367-2019-04-18T17:02:37Z-00000-000", "rank": 9, "score": 162182.0}, {"content": "Title: Should Fighting be Allowed in Hockey Content: Players and fans may prefer to retain fighting as a permissible component of the sport, however recent findings show that this is not best for the players' health. Fighting in hockey often results in the removal of either one or both players' helmets and gloves, resulting in an exchange of blows to the head. Players wear so much protective equipment that fights become more about punches to the head rather than a general pain to the body. This emphasis on head shots can result in an increased amount of concussions. Neurosurgeon Charles H. Tator suggests that 10% of concussions in hockey are the result of fighting rather than actual game play. This is an easily preventable source of concussions and player harm that has no place in the sport. The long term effects of concussions have become increasingly relevant as more former athletes, particularly professional football players, have been experiencing mental health issues as their careers and lives progress. The effects of concussions are just now becoming better understood by researchers, but it is becoming evident that athletes' brains are being severely affected by these traumatic injuries. Fighting also raises a concern about the recent painkiller epidemic in which athletes are being addicted to their prescribed medications, negatively affecting them even beyond the duration of their injury.", "qid": "42", "docid": "7282d1c1-2019-04-18T11:33:12Z-00002-000", "rank": 10, "score": 161274.0}, {"content": "Title: fighting should be banned from the NHL Content: noit shiuod not that is what majes most of the money for the nhl and i perwonaly think that it is very true (your point) but you know that some teen ager died from a slapshot to the neck so why not stip hockey alltogether? NEVER! besides i play hockey and its fun.", "qid": "42", "docid": "3d98c367-2019-04-18T17:02:37Z-00001-000", "rank": 11, "score": 156847.0}, {"content": "Title: fighting should be banned from the NHL Content: In discussing why the NHL had introduced a rule this season requiring players to keep their helmets on during fights, Healy explained the roots of the rule change trace back to the 2009 death of Don Sanderson, who suffered a head injury in a fight in senior hockey and never recovered. Healy: \"Don Sanderson\" hit his head on the ice, no helmet and he died. And if that happens in this game, the National Hockey League, fighting will be gone from the game.\" Simpson: \"I guess you ask, Glenn, why does that (the death of a player) need to happen for that (the elimination of fighting) to happen?\" It\"s a great question. Whatever your position on fighting, it\"s safe to assume that we can all agree that fighting to the death\"even an accidental death\"is an undesirable outcome. Right? We\"re good with that? Death in hockey is bad.", "qid": "42", "docid": "3d98c367-2019-04-18T17:02:37Z-00002-000", "rank": 12, "score": 149605.0}, {"content": "Title: Fighting in Hockey Needs to Be Banned Content: My opponent has forfeited. I win by default.", "qid": "42", "docid": "27512099-2019-04-18T18:41:40Z-00000-000", "rank": 13, "score": 147199.0}, {"content": "Title: fighting should be banned from the NHL Content: do you think that fighting should be banned from the nhl? my answer: NOPE :-) what do you think ? if yes, WHY! HOW COULD YOU! whaaaa! ok whatever. just argue your point and good luck!", "qid": "42", "docid": "3d98c367-2019-04-18T17:02:37Z-00003-000", "rank": 14, "score": 135986.0}, {"content": "Title: Hockey is better than soccer Content: Anyways, since you provided no arguments and no structure, I will just do a few arguments this round. On to debating! (ARGUMENTS) (1) Imagine that you were playing hockey, and you were skating up with the puck, when you get hit. Hard. You black out and wake up in the hospital, your career in Hockey over. The point I am making is that hockey is way too physical, which leads to many injuries. You are allowed to aggressively shove, slash and hit people in hockey with little to no penalty. You can get into a fight where you are only broken up after the fight occurs. Injuries come. A lot. I will post a few videos in this argument, so if you are squirmish, maybe don\u2019t watch them. This first video shows a hit from Boston Bruins forward Zdeno Chara on Max Pacioretty of the Montreal Canadiens. Pacioretty goes down, In a lot of pain, with a concussion. This second one shows one of the all-time best hockey players get a concussion, which turned out to affect crosby for over half of a year {1} Last, but most likely the worst, was this: Imagine you are Steve Moore. He was your average hockey player. Then, one game, against Vancouver, his whole career ended. Todd Bertuzzi comes up to him and wants a fight. Steve Moore says no. A few minutes later, Bertuzzi comes up to Moore, grabs his jersey, viciously punches Moore in the face then shoves onto the cold, hard ice. As a result, Moore was knocked out cold for around 11 minutes. He got three fractured vertebrae and a very major concussion. His passion, career, and love for hockey was done. Over. This is all a result of the violent nature of hockey. Now this is just concussions/injuries from hits/on ice not fight stuff, but what about from fights? . http://www.nhl.com... In this video you will see he gets into a Soccer is not nearly as brutal as Hockey, while yes, I will not deny that there are injuries in Soccer, the severity of injuries and the amount of injuries are much higher in Hockey. Thanks DDD (REFERENCES) {1} . http://www.nhl.com...", "qid": "42", "docid": "cf884bca-2019-04-18T15:29:03Z-00004-000", "rank": 15, "score": 135532.0}, {"content": "Title: American Football Fighters Content: The players should be allowed to fight because some teams bribe the referee to call stupid plays and make the other team win. To me thats not fair. So, yes the players should be allowed to fight on the field.", "qid": "42", "docid": "5462614-2019-04-18T18:02:38Z-00000-000", "rank": 16, "score": 132162.0}, {"content": "Title: Hockey should change the rules to disallow body checking Content: From high school to college to the NHL, hockey always allows \"Body checking.\" This is an action that involves a player colliding with an opposing player to stop his motion of going forward. This can lead to numerous injuries from players hitting one another or colliding with the surface of the ice that is just as hard as concrete. Body Contact does not mean \"no contact.\" There will be legal body contact within the rules in Hockey. For example, lightly brushing by an opponent. These legal body contact shall not be penalized.", "qid": "42", "docid": "be11cc98-2019-04-18T12:31:37Z-00001-000", "rank": 17, "score": 124683.0}, {"content": "Title: dog fighting 11 Content: Dog fighting shouldn't be illegal. If baseball,basketball,soccer,etc. are allowed, why not dog fighting? Wrestling,boxing and straight up fighting are allowed and dog fighting is not? Dog fighting is the same thing as wrestling and all those other sports but just it's dogs that are fighting, not humans.", "qid": "42", "docid": "90ee2c92-2019-04-18T13:46:20Z-00000-000", "rank": 18, "score": 123263.0}, {"content": "Title: The state permits individuals to risk harming themselves only where such risks can be independently scrutinised and regulated Content: A distinction should be made between socially legitimatized recreational violence- such as rugby or boxing- and stigmatized recreational violence- such as S&M[i]. Rugby, ice hockey or motor racing must, of necessity, occur in public. Each of these events incorporates large numbers of competitors and is regulated by a referee. It is not possible for a Rugby player to be forced to play a match against his will, nor will he be prevented from leaving the field if he is injured or feels threatened. Indeed, referees can force players to withdraw if they believe they are at risk. Where violent sports events take place without any form of official sanction or oversight, their size makes them easy to detect, and legal principles such as negligence and ineffective consent make them easy to prosecute. Society permits violent public events such as rugby, while condemning violent private entertainments such as S&M partly because consent, capacity and safety are much easier to determine in a public context. In short, individuals are allowed to consent to the risks inherent in participating in a rugby match because the state- and society at large- is satisfied that sufficient safeguards exist to ensure that players\u2019 consent is informed \u2013 that the risks they will be exposed to are foreseeable. This level of control and accountability cannot be generally guaranteed within individuals\u2019 private sexual relationships. Although S&M practices, when properly conducted, do not carry a risk of permanent harm and are not likely to result in non-consensual activity, oversight of participant\u2019s behavior is simply not possible. Sexuality is inherently private and individual sexual acts are closed off from public discussion. [i] Farrugia, Paul, \u2018The Consent Defence in Sport and Sadomasochism\u2019 (1997) Auckland University Law Review, 8 (2), 472", "qid": "42", "docid": "b1f382a5-2019-04-15T20:22:18Z-00021-000", "rank": 19, "score": 121299.0}, {"content": "Title: All things considered its best to let children play in trafic Content: Point 1(1) This is illegal and would be considered pre meditated murderIf parents were to allow there kids to do this, and ones \"reaction time\" and you put it where not fast enough, the child would perish. When they ran an investigation on the matter, the cops would be aware that parents are allowing this to happen. Key word being allowed. Due to the available facts, it would be obvious to cops that this was intentional which resulted in the death of a child. Everyone is aware of the danger from this, and actually parents have went to jail for this very same thing. They also went for not paying attention to their child, which would be under child neglect. Due to the fact that this is intentional and not unintentional, it would be considered pre meditated murder. I will also ask con to cite his sources that show this would improve reflexs. A specific study done about the effects of children playing in traffic. Closing.There is no good to come from this. There are other way to improve reflexes among children that will not get them killed. Baseball, basketball, table tennis, tennis, hockey and so many others that I would not be able to name the allThis is illogical, illegal, and just all around wrong.http://www.wisegeek.com...", "qid": "42", "docid": "9c54e49b-2019-04-18T17:21:16Z-00004-000", "rank": 20, "score": 118198.0}, {"content": "Title: Should Students be allowed to listen to music during seminar Content: fight me", "qid": "42", "docid": "5ad7c727-2019-04-18T11:29:32Z-00007-000", "rank": 21, "score": 116639.0}, {"content": "Title: Allow Gladiator Fighting Among Consenting Death Row Inmates Content: I think that if death row inmates want to, they should be allowed to participate in gladiator battles. They are going to die anyway so if they choose, they can fight to the death. Whichever inmate wins would face the next one until there is another champion and it would just keep going on. It could even be televised as a sport.", "qid": "42", "docid": "8d8b71d2-2019-04-18T11:26:57Z-00001-000", "rank": 22, "score": 116158.0}, {"content": "Title: NHL Hockey is a harder sport then American Football Content: I agree two those term's, I would like to start with the physical aspect you probably think it would go to Football but if you think about it not really. Number one you are skating which uses up more energy then running. Second body checking which is pretty physically demanding, you could say is not as hard getting tackled. But with the fights , slashing , illegal checking , ect... about one of these thing's happen during a game and some times all of them. So really it's about as bad as getting tackled. The last thing is the player's in Hockey spend a longer time on the ice none stop playing, when a Football play is about 4 seconds.", "qid": "42", "docid": "6c5cb143-2019-04-18T15:25:50Z-00004-000", "rank": 23, "score": 115198.0}, {"content": "Title: Hockey should change the rules to disallow body checking Content: This is my first debate, but ill try my best. I agree to an extent but no i do not think that it should be taking out completely. Checking makes the game fun if done correctly. Hockey is a contact sport and should be treated as such. However we could take steps to make it safer. Such as better equipment. but to me, taking checking away would be like taking tackling away from football. It wouldn't feel the same.", "qid": "42", "docid": "be11cc98-2019-04-18T12:31:37Z-00000-000", "rank": 24, "score": 114585.0}, {"content": "Title: Soccer is a better sport than Hockey Content: I'll give you one thing. You are such a master at the profession of being a Hypocrite! Hey, at least you where honest. I will go and give at least one reason for 6 of my opponents points, on why they are flawed, including rebutting his rebuttal. :) DARTH KIRONES SECOND POINT: HOCKEY FIGHTS!!!!! This seems very flawed. Yes, it might be exciting as a fan to watch, but you have to put yourself in the player's shoes. You are getting punched and shoved, until you get slammed to the ice by your opponent. You start to black out, but vaguely see some hands carrying you on a stretcher into the Locker Room. How the heck is situations like this \"good\"? Also, my opponent stated that they give bigger penalties if serious injuries occur. This is also false. They only give longer penalties if it is a hit that injures someone. In a Hockey fight, even if you knock someone unconscious, the penalty is still five minutes. As Darth Kirones says: \"the penalty is small\". Too small! DARTH KIRONES THIRD POINT: The Scoring He fails to see two things when saying that goalies in Hockey try harder than goalies in soccer. Just because you do not face as much shots in Soccer does NOT mean, at all, that you are trying less hard. Yes, there was less shots, but, the goalie made all the saves, didn't he? IF the soccer goalie faced more shots, it would have been a more accurate comparison because the soccer Goalie in that game did not have to work very hard to block less shots. That definitely does not mean that if there was more shots he would not have to work very hard though. Another thing. Because there is a lot less defence it is way easier to get shots on net in Hockey, then in Soccer, where there is more defensive players. DARTH KIRONES FOURTH POINT: Hockey is a better team sport Just because there is a shift in people on the ice does not make it more of a \"team sport\". It just means that you have different players on the ice. How does that make it more of a \"team sport\"? And the limit for NHL hockey is 23 players per Club, where as in Premier League Soccer, there is a limit of 25 players at a time. Seems to me there are more \"job opportunities\", as my opponent puts it, in soccer. DARTH KIRONES FIFTH POINT: Diving So my opponent says that he doesn't like people getting hurt. Ok, one more Hypocritical thing. He is cheating for Hockey right? Hockey is one of the most physical and highest contact sport. Well look at this: \"The highest rates of injury occur in sports that involve contact and collisions\"- University of Rochester sports statistics. My opponent might say that hockey players have more protection to prevent them from bug hits. This helps, but not enough. Players are still injured daily from big hits in Hockey. DARTH KIRONES SIXTH POINT: Faster This point is flawed for one major reason. My opponent stated that \"The word \"Longer\" and the word \"Better\" are NOT the same\" If you where a true loyal fan to a soccer or Hockey team, like many sports fanatics are, \"Longer\" and \"Better\" might very well mean the same because fans would love to see there favourite team for longer. This makes going to soccer games more enjoyable. DARTH KIRONES SEVENTH POINT: Promotion of Winter Fitness My opponent states that you don't get the full experience of soccer indoors because you don't have the \"sun shining on your face.\" Soccer does not need the perfect breeze and the amazing sunlight to be able to play. Also, if you wanted to emphasize that Hockey is such a winter sport, then why would you say: \"Just play indoors!\" That ruins your whole first point! If you want Hockey to be a winter sport, then you play outside, utilizing the ice. DARTH KIRONES REBUTTAL: Yes, hockey has unlimited overtime periods, but those very rarely go over 1 extra period, or 20 minutes extra time, and is ONLY IN THE PLAYOFFS! Thanks, jacobie1121 References: http://www.urmc.rochester.edu... http://articles.sun-sentinel.com... https://ca.answers.yahoo.com... http://www.fifa.com...", "qid": "42", "docid": "d4da401a-2019-04-18T16:24:29Z-00001-000", "rank": 25, "score": 112910.0}, {"content": "Title: Hockey should be America's past time. Content: I believe Hockey should be America's past time for many reasons. 1: It takes a significant amount of balance and coordinating to skate on ice while controlling a stick and puck and also be run into. 2: Hockey is the most physical sport besides sports like boxing. It gives the viewer entertainment because fighting seems to be a big joy to watch for citizens o the U.S.A. Particularly men. 3: Hockey is, in my opinion, the most enjoyable sport.", "qid": "42", "docid": "49b078ea-2019-04-18T17:39:26Z-00003-000", "rank": 26, "score": 110365.0}, {"content": "Title: Video Games are a primary source of violence Content: Arguments4. If video games do cause violence and if it said that the government wants to ban violent games, then they might as well ban professional sports as well. You know? Sports that are extremely popular worldwide?Banning video games because they cause violence,but not ban soccer, hockey, basketball, and football? All the time, there\u2019s an altercation between players in hockey, and the referees stand there, letting them fight each other until it gets out of control. It\u2019s the same thing with basketball and football except it doesn\u2019t happen very frequently and the referees don\u2019t watch them fight. According to an article at Mandatory.com, \u201cThe most popular spectator sport in the world (where most countries call it \u201cfootball\u201d), soccer has incited riots and insane acts of brutality that beat anything football or basketball has to offer.\u201d Referee Decapitated, Brazil (2013) \u2013 An article at Deadspin.com has shown that Brazilian soccer fans beheaded a soccer referee after he stabs and kills a player. Quoting: \u201cLast Sunday, an amateur soccer match in Brazil came to an unbelievably gruesome end when a referee was murdered by outraged fans. His head was then cut off and placed on a spike. The beheading was retaliation; the ref initially stabbed a player to death. It happened in the Maranh\u00e3o region of northeastern Brazil. Thirty-year-old Josenir dos Santos Abreu approached the referee, 20-year-old Ot\u00e1vio Jord\u00e3o da Silva (pictured above) during a match to argue a call. Abreu reportedly threw a punch at da Silva, who then took out a knife he was carrying with him during the match, and stabbed the player. Abreu died of his wounds en route to the hospital. Meanwhile, the player's friends and family invaded the pitch and attacked da Silva. They reportedly tied up the referee, beat him, stoned him, lynched him, and then quartered him. When they finished, they cut off his head and placed it on a stake in the center of the field. So far, just one man, 27-year-old Luis Moraes Souza, has been arrested for the crime, and authorities are searching for two more. Valter Costa, the chief of police in Maranh\u00e3o's town of Santa Ines, spoke in a statement. \u201cReports of witnesses have indicated some people that were in place at the time of the fact,\" he said. \"We will identify and hold accountable all those involved. A crime will never justify another. Actions like this do not collaborate with the legality of a state law.\u201dKayseri Stadium Riot, Turkey (1967) \u2013 Using source #1, the article says, \u201cSoccer violence isn\u2019t a modern invention \u2013 fans and players have been doling out the brutality for at least half a century. One of the most insane post-game riots of all time happened in Turkey, at Kayseri Ataturk Stadium. The first league match between Kayseri and Sivas brought 21,000 fans to the stadium, and as the game went on they grew increasingly upset, bombarding Sivas fans with rocks and bricks. The visiting team fans surged to flee the stadium, only to be repulsed by police. Forty people were crushed to death in the melee, with at least 300 more wounded. The game was cancelled, and Sivas supporters hit the streets of Kayseri and destroyed the city\u2019s gym along with over 60 automobiles, burning every car that had a Sivas license plate.\u201dThe list goes on and on and on. There\u2019s a list of altercations in sporting events on Wikipedia. Of course, you wouldn\u2019t say that sports are a primary source of violence would you? You wouldn\u2019t come out here and say just because fights occur in sports, that means that sports cause violent acts right? Yeah, didn\u2019t think so. So, why would the media just come out and blatantly state that \u201cvideo games cause violence.\u201d There\u2019s no evidence to support that claim. So, it is unfair to blame video games for the violence matter while sports, films, and music lyrics (specifically rap) have the exact same basis if not a greater basis of violence. Evidence supporting the \u201cvideo game causes violence\u201d has been debunked as well. RebuttalsCountering: \"Violence and Aggression are Closely Akin\"Well, yes, agression does sometimes cause violence, but you didn't put in its correct form. You see, what you're saying is that just because a person shows an act of agression, that just comes down to him inevitably committing violence; however, that is incorrect. There is a difference between physically performing a violent act such as hitting, destorying one's property, kicking, killing, etc and thinking agressively. Thinking aggressive thoughts is not the same as violence. Of course, I'm pretty sure you've felt this way before. You've felt the need to physically beat up someone before or break something for whatever reaons. Everyone has. It's human nature. It's one of our natural emotions, anger. Anger is the\"strong feeling of annoyance, displeasure, or hostility\". Anger is not the same as violence. I've found a websites that states that there is a difference between anger, violence, and agression.- http://www.humankinetics.com...(\"Not all violence comes from anger and reactive aggression. Violence has, at its root, harm to another as its planned result.\")Countering: \"Effects of video games on violence are psychologically proven\" and \"The General Aggression Model have expounded the case for violence\"This argument is so errenous for multiple reasons:1. Just becuse more people prefer violent video games doesn't really mean that video games cause violence. I can say the exact same thing for movies. I can probably say that the majority of movie watchers out here prefer to watch violent entertainment, yet you don't see people killing people primarilybecause they watched X, Y, and Z. According to an article atibnlive.in.com, researchers all over the world have stated that a wide statistic of movie watchers watch gory movies and why they do it. If you read the article, it says, \"Some types of violent portrayals seem to attract audiences because they promise to satisfy truth-seeking motivations by offering meaningful insights into some aspect of the human condition.\"2. The \"research\" and \"studies\" that you used are outdated and they have been DEBUNKED long ago.\"According to an article at PBS.org, they list 10 video game facts that have been debunked long ago. If you actually look at it, the verysecond debunked fact is, \"Scientific evidence links violent game play with youth aggression.\" (http://www.pbs.org...)The most recent and most in depth study on this matter ever conducted was from Chris Ferguson which has stated that the past studies \"relies on measures to assess aggression that don't correlate with real-world violence. Some studies are observational and don't prove cause and effect.\"General Aggression Model: I can see what this model is saying. You see, what this model is correlating to is short term violence. Yes, sometimes long term violence can possibly be present, but 99.999999999% of the time will probably be short term. You see gamers getting angry and they blow off that anger for 10-15 minutes. I don't think this model correctly follows the scenario when gamers play games like Call of Duty, Battlefield, Mortal Kombat, etc. You see, this diagram is saying that people become aggressive and violent because of it's surroundings. However, most of the time, that's not the case. People get angry and frustrated because of the challenge and the competitiveness of games. Most likely, I never hear or see a player get angry because he's looking at blood. How does that make sense? I can say the exact same thing for sports again. I'm pretty sure you've seen coaches yelling at his players have you? Do you know why he's yelling? He's yelling and showing aggression because it's that competiveness that drives him into yelling. He wants to win. He wants to bring the best out ofhis team. Is that the same asviolence? There's nothing wrong with getting stressed because of comepetition and challenge.It's nature.But, again, don't get it twisted. Having an aggressive cognition is not the same as committing to the violent act itself. That's just plain common sense.According to another article from Kataku, \"It's Video Game Competition, Not Violence, That Sparks Aggression\" Countering \"Children inevitably imitates aggression, resorting to violence without supervision\"You've indirectly just proven my point because video games shouldn't take the blame. It's the parent's fault. They lack the supervision and guidance from parents and they are being notresponsible for taking care of their child. What people have failed to realize in this debate is that parental guidance is the #1 factor that determines the child's development throughout his/her life. If that factor is non-existent or lacking, then the child will feel that there are no consequences. This is where this \"I can do whatever I want\" mentality comes from. Yes, children imitates aggression, but it's the parent's responsiblity to teach their child the difference between right from wrong. Sources- http://www.mandatory.com...- http://deadspin.com...- - http://en.wikipedia.org...- - - - - - (This is a funny one)- http://ibnlive.in.com...- http://www.pbs.org...- http://www.humankinetics.com... - http://kotaku.com... I seriosuly don't know what's wrong with this text script. It's screwed up.", "qid": "42", "docid": "739f2cb1-2019-04-18T16:12:34Z-00005-000", "rank": 27, "score": 109984.0}, {"content": "Title: Bull Fighting Should Be Illegal Content: My reasoning to ban bull fighting was not mentioned with regars to the health of the matador, that is just a sub section of my argument. The one being abused in these fights are the bulls who have no choice in participation for their inevitable death.To give you an example of how abused the bull is in order for it to be infuriated and lessen chances of the matador being seriously injured, I will quote my source: \"The bull has wet newspapers stuffed into his ears; vaseline is rubbed into his eyes to blur his vision; cotton is stuffed up his nostrils to cut off his respiration and a needle is stuck into his genitals.\"[1].If bullfighting is reformed to lessen the chances of the bull being hurt, it skyrockets the chances of the death of the matador. Besides that, there are farms dedicated to providing beef, you don't need to kill the bull in the middle of the crowd for their bloody entertainment, it's barbaric. Another quotation I shall use to provide evidence that the final kill is not meant to be merciful, but for entertainment is \"Even then, he is not allowed a little dignity to leave this world in peace, his ears and tail are cut off (often when he is fully conscious), and his broken, bleeding body is dragged around the ring by mules, to which he is attached by an apparatus made of wood and chains.\" [1]. The sport is simply to abuse an animal for the fun of the crowd. Even other animals come at the expense of bull-fighting. In some more sadistic arenas, horses are maneuvered by the matadors. Since taking charge of a horse is not that challenging when they're tame, the matadors take the liberty to provide an extra challenge by the following. \"Horses have their ears stuffed with wet newspaper, they are blindfolded and their vocal chords are cut so they are unable to scream in pain.\" [1]. The arteries inside the bull are so deep that trained bull physicians would have trouble attempting to kill the beast in one try. And finally, as for your source, it is not founded by any other source link. I'm afraid I can't take it's word for it when it provides no other evidence to bulls being infuriated just by a waving cape. Reforming bull fighting any other way will still leave serious mental and physical scars to all parties involved in the event. It is best if the practice is just abolished.Source:[1] http://www.stopbullfighting.org.uk... Good luck to my opponent in the voting.", "qid": "42", "docid": "218c53b7-2019-04-18T13:07:00Z-00001-000", "rank": 28, "score": 109236.0}, {"content": "Title: Dog fighting should be aloud Content: Thank you for the debate. 1. \"Dogs fight in the wild.\"- They fight in the wild to survive. Domesticated animals do not need to fight for \"fun\". Dog fights are held until one 'submits', which is usually death. 2. MMA has no relation to why dog fighting should be allowed. 3. \"(Rules) insure 'ensure' the saftey of the dogs...\" No, they don't. 4. \"If they don't want to fight they don't have to.\" Dogs don't reatain the mental capacity to choose whether or not to fight.", "qid": "42", "docid": "b2030785-2019-04-18T19:02:29Z-00000-000", "rank": 29, "score": 108888.0}, {"content": "Title: Fights to the death similar to those once held in the Colloseum in Rome should be allowed Content: Thank you for your argument. Now I would like to point out the multiple flaws in your argument. 1. Allowing fights to the death is simply ridiculous. There are laws against murder for a reason. With the allowance of \"human cock fighting\" it would open a gateway to other possible crimes being illegal as long as they are in a setting of \"sportsmanship\". 2. Humans are humans regardless of social status. Putting them in cages with swords and armor with a cash prize is completely unethical. This type of behavior would be illegal on the streets so what would the difference be when set in an arena? 3. Your suggested scenario is based on a world with no laws, a blood thirsty population who would pay to see people die, and sponsors to promote such violence. 4. Of course there is always the comparison to today Ultimate Fighting Championship but the relationship between fights with supervision, protective equipment, and TRAINED fighters creates a large gap between the two.", "qid": "42", "docid": "8fd0a899-2019-04-18T19:13:12Z-00004-000", "rank": 30, "score": 108665.0}, {"content": "Title: Professional athletes should be allowed to be in the Olympic Game Content: They Shouldn't be it be Olympic Games because the Olympics was recreated for fun or peace and Pros bring attitude which makes fights.", "qid": "42", "docid": "daccbef2-2019-04-18T15:13:25Z-00003-000", "rank": 31, "score": 108342.0}, {"content": "Title: NHL Hockey is a harder sport then American Football Content: Again I apologize for failing to submit my second round argument. Here is my original, unaltered text I failed to submit: First point you made was that 1. Skating Expends more energy than running. Second 2. Body Checking. 3. Fights/slashing/checking. 4. More time spent actually participating in and playing the sport. It may seem as though skating uses more energy than running, but there are several aspects to inspect. Skating doesn't necessarily expend/use more energy than running. When you skate you are sliding in slippery ice with little friction allowing them race around the way they do. They may have to change directions frequently, but I comes down to how hard that individual is pushing himself not the skating. Second you mentioned was body checking. Body checking is indeed rough, but taking hits and tackling in football is also rough. In hockey, players cannot out as much behind their hits. Since they are on skates they cannot get the leverage that football players get. NFL players can dig their cleats in the turf and get their center of mass much lower, giving them leverage against the player they are attempting hit/tackle. Also, the average weight of a NHl player in 2013 was around 204 lbs. [1]. The average weight of an Nfl team was in between 240-250 lbs, making the player average about 245.[2] We all know, thanks to physics that more mass equals more power. Mass x Acceleration = Force. The more weight plus more leverage equals harder more rattling hits in the Nfl than in the NHL. 3. You claim that fights, slashing and penalties make the NHL harder than the NFL. While fighting is definitely something hard to do it isn't an integrated part of the game. It certainly happens, but not every single game, and not every single player. Players aren't required to fight, and aren't expected to, it is merely a side effect you may encounter in your NhL career. Illegal checks aren't something NFL doesn't have. The NHL has illegal checking, and the NFL has blindside hits on defenseless players. They each warrant penalties and can cause serious injury. Lastly, I will not deny that NHL players overall have more time playing and participating, although they do get frequent breaks with the different line changes as NFL players get breaks in between plays. I will use your point that they are indeed playing for a longer time to benefit my argument. In 2012 the NFL had 261 diagnosed concussions. On 2013 they had 228 diagnosed concussions. [3]. The NHL had in 2012, 78 concussions and in 2013, 53. [4]. The NFL players suffer many more concussions than NHL players even with a significant difference in the amount of time playing. The NFL players even have high tech specialized helmets that are much more safe than NHL helmets, but still suffer these crippling injuries. ACL and MCL injuries are also much more ore leant in the NFL. [1. http://m.theglobeandmail.com...] [2. http://sports.espn.go.com...]. [3. http://m.espn.go.com... 4. [http://www.cnn.com...] Here is my third round text. Your first point is hand eye co-ordination. This probably belongs in the physical aspect but nonetheless it is a point. I concede, hand eye coordination for NHL players is more difficult than NFL players, but not by a large difference as the NFL has its co-ordination difficulties as well. Your second point was criticism/pressure. NFL players are under an immensely more amount of pressure than NHL players. According to Espn the NFL is the most popular sport in the USA for the 30th year in a row. [1]. The NFL clearly has more fans than the NHL (which is a shame because the NHL is a great sport). More fans, more pressure, more media, more social media, less privacy. The NFL players are exploited by the media. They're every move is being watched by everyone. Take the Ray Rice case and Peterson case. They have caused so much publicity and critisicm towards the NFL and its players. Social media has contributed greatly to this fact as anything and everything travels at great speed to the corners of the Internet. Other players such as Tim Tebow and Johhny Manziel have been dissected by the media and country. Also, every NFL team is guaranteed only 16 games to be played versus the NHL which is more than triple that. Every NFL game gets more exposure and tuned into more because people have less chances to watch their hometown heroes play. Every play counts, unlike the NHL which has a lot more room for error. Consider the Super bowl. This past super bowl with the Seahawks versus the Broncos. It was watched by 111 million viewers, the most watched televised even in the history of television. [2]. Quite unlike the Stanley cup of 2014 which averaged 2.8 million a game. [3]. Your third point is that it not only takes physical but mental strength when you are \"checked, slashed, etc.\" this also applies to the NFL as they endure hard hits and penalties. They also endure taunting by opposing players which can be discouraging, but that varies player to player. Taunting is a lot more prevelant in the NFL than NHL. Lastly you said they must be mentally strong against losing and poor performance. This again can apply to many sports, but I believe even more so in football. With only 16 garnanteed games, there is no room for error. If you start out 0-4, your season won't look too well. Obviously it's possible to come back, but you will endure a lot of doubt from media/fans and doubt your own abilities. The NHL has 82 games per team. More than four times the amount in the NFL, you can start out 0-8 in the NHL and go on to win the Stanley cup. Start 0-8 in the NFL and your season is over. The NFL has a lot less room for error which can fry your nerves. Citation. 1. http://m.espn.go.com... 2. http://m.hollywoodreporter.com... 3. http://en.m.wikipedia.org...", "qid": "42", "docid": "6c5cb143-2019-04-18T15:25:50Z-00002-000", "rank": 32, "score": 107851.0}, {"content": "Title: Other sports have changed rules to make game safer. Content: Dr. David Geier. \"Should MLB ban home plate collisions?\" May 30, 2011: \"changing rules about trying to score on fly balls would not fundamentally change the game. It would eliminate the collision, not the ability to score on fly balls. It would affect a small component of baseball to make it safer. Eliminating fighting in hockey or tackling in football are not equal comparisons, as some have argued. Eliminating chop blocks in football or body checking from behind in hockey are much better comparisons. They are evolutions of the rules in these sports to protect their players while still maintaining the integrity and nature of the sports.\"", "qid": "42", "docid": "7ef85aba-2019-04-17T11:47:21Z-00054-000", "rank": 33, "score": 107849.0}, {"content": "Title: Should we fight Content: We should fight", "qid": "42", "docid": "bf3282d1-2019-04-18T11:11:09Z-00000-000", "rank": 34, "score": 107705.0}, {"content": "Title: Should we fight Content: We should fight", "qid": "42", "docid": "bf3282d1-2019-04-18T11:11:09Z-00001-000", "rank": 35, "score": 107705.0}, {"content": "Title: is hockey too violent Content: Hokey is a game where you get smashed into walls and your supposed to be ok with that, to keep playing even though you know there was a guy that just floored you is just asking for a fight", "qid": "42", "docid": "fde975a1-2019-04-18T13:14:27Z-00003-000", "rank": 36, "score": 106470.0}, {"content": "Title: Gladiator Battles should be Legal Content: I hope for an interesting and thought-provoking debate. *** Gladiator battles should be legal if both sides willingly want to fight. This is because there is a net benefit from allowing gladiator battles, there are already dangerous sports allowed, and both sides agree to the consequences. 1. There is a net benefit from allowing gladiator battles If gladiatorial battle is legalized, then a whole infrastructure system will pop up to meet the needs of the gladiatorial system. Arenas would be built or stadiums retrofitted to suit the needs of combat; weapons and arms makers would spring up in order to supply the demand of those who fight; gladiator schools would arise to train the fighters in the methods needed to engage in combat. Merchandizing would more likely than not be provided. All this would add jobs to an economy that is in desperate need of a kick-start [1]. This could only be beneficial. In addition, it would clear up prisons. As I have stated in the introductory round, prisoners would be eligible for being a gladiator. They--only if they wanted to--enter the circuit and become gladiators, freeing up room in our prisons. Putting prisoners in they gladiator system and not in overcrowded [2], dangerous [3], and expensive [4] prisons would is a step up form the current system. 2. There are dangerous sports allowed My opponent will no doubt like to bring up the injuries that the gladiators will inevitably suffer as unethical, and therefore grounds to negate the resolution. However, there are sports where there are also serious life-long injuries out in the world which are perfectly legal. One example is American football. There has been many incidents of football players who have had serious brain damage. The NFL player's association is suing the NFL over concussions sustained during the collective careers of the plaintiffs [5]. In addition, there have been multiple suicides--including the one committed by Junior Seau that is, at the time of writing, is making headlines--that probably have been caused by repeated concussions [6]. In addition, there are all the other injuries that football players sustain in the course of their career. Football isn't the only dangerous sport. Hockey is another sport with dangerous conditions, including actual fighting [7]. Concussions have been a major problem for the NHL [8], with a string of suicides of players, many who have had chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE). Of particular infamy is the case of Derek Boogaard, a twenty-eight year old forward who's brain was studied and was discovered to have CTE. [9] The other skaters that were lost were Wade Belak [10] and Rick Rypien [11]. Again, there are other injuries like ACL sprains, broken bones, and concussions. Moreover, there are much more sports where there are conditions where the athletes are endangering lives willingly: mixed-martial arts, boxing, rugby, and wrestling are all sports that have very high risks for injury, especially brain injury. I'm not saying that gladiators would be safer than football players, but I am outlining the fact that there are dangerous sports today. While gladiator games are very, very dangerous, there are other games that also hazardous. According to Wikipedia, a few gladiators made it to one hundred fifty matches [12]. Wikipedia also mentions that gladiators fought two to three combats annually [12]; so, if one does the math (150 / 2.5) that means that a really special gladiator with an average schedule could have a sixty year career. Even though those gladiators probably fought a few more battles other than ~2.5 a year, that's still a pretty long time to be alive in a sport that puts one's life on the line. 3. Both sides agree with the consequences My opponent will bring such things as \"it's unethical! \" or \"killing and/or injuringing someone is a crime! \" etc. However, While most cases of injury and killing ARE indeed unethical, in this case, it is not. Because they are WILLING gladiators, there are a whole different set of rules with this. The police don't arrest people who failed at suicide for attempted murder. They have the right to their own body. However, the suicide analogy is going to be wrecked by opponent if I do not add that because gladiators sign over the right to their bodies--they are WILLING, remember. They are not hurt against their will, they as gladiators, accept that their line of work is potentially deadly and life-threatening. *** I look forward to my opponent's opening arguments. *** Bibliography: [1] . http://www.nytimes.com... [2] . http://www.correctionalnews.com... [3] . http://www.news4jax.com... , . http://www.hrw.org... [4] . http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov... [5] . http://video.msnbc.msn.com... [6] . http://www.kwch.com... [7] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [8] . http://bleacherreport.com... [9] . http://www.nytimes.com... [10] . http://www.cbc.ca... [11] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [12] . http://en.wikipedia.org...", "qid": "42", "docid": "51e5d59b-2019-04-18T18:18:46Z-00002-000", "rank": 37, "score": 106362.0}, {"content": "Title: is hockey too violent Content: Hockey is kinda Violent", "qid": "42", "docid": "fde975a1-2019-04-18T13:14:27Z-00004-000", "rank": 38, "score": 105989.0}, {"content": "Title: Soccer is a better sport than Hockey Content: I will NOT save my rebuttals for the end. I will Rebut my opponent's points now and give some more of my own: My opponent said that you could \"play air hockey\". The resolution we are debating has to do with if soccer is better \"sport\" than hockey. Air hockey is not a sport, no mater how awesome it might be. Also, my opponent says an advantage for hockey is fighting. Beating someone senseless does not seem like a great thing to me, no matter how much the fans like it. Take a look at this video where Kevin Westgarth of the Calgary Flames is fighting. He ends up getting a concussion: Anyways, back to the points. Argument #3: Popularity Soccer has a way bigger popularity and viewing rate than hockey. Here is a quote from fifa.com: \"715.1 million people watched the final match of the 2006 FIFA World Cup held in Germany\". Now, let's take a look at the numbers for the Stanly Cup: there was a average of 4.91 million viewers of the 2009 Stanly Cup Playoffs final round per game. What's more, most amount of people watching a single NHL game was between Chicago-Montreal in 1971 was 12.4 million. 12.4 million people versus 71.5 million people. Thus, soccer is way more popular than Hockey, creating a much better business from ticket buying and merchandise purchasing. Argument #4: Inclusiveness Worldwide Soccer can be played in so many countries, no matter the status. For Example, take the country Cameroon. They are not in the greatest situation for economy, yet still have one of the greatest National Teams in Africa. Soccer is also played in Canada and the USA, even though it might seem way to cold. Yet Hockey is only primarily played in North America and Europe. It is usually only in colder countries. Ever heard of a Hockey Team in warm Africa? At least I have not. Ever heard of a soccer team in cold Russia? Yes! Argument #5: Easiness to Learn Hockey takes a lot of skill and equipment to learn. First, you need a stick, a puck, skates and ice (if you are playing on ice, witch is the most common form of playing by far). Then, you need to learn how to skate, so you might take lessons. Lessons cost a lot of money. Then, you have to learn how to skate, shoot, and keep control of the puck at the same time! In soccer you need only shoes. My opponent might say: you have to run and shoot and dribble in soccer at the same time too, BUT, running comes naturally where as skating you have to learn and take classes. One more thing: Please take into account that in Debates you vote on a debater that has good points NOT the side you would personally take in a real life situation. Thanks", "qid": "42", "docid": "d4da401a-2019-04-18T16:24:29Z-00005-000", "rank": 39, "score": 105892.0}, {"content": "Title: Dog fighting should be aloud Content: Thank you for the debate. According to animal laws, there should be a humane treatment of animals, and that is why dog fighting should not be allowed. As a sophisticated society, we Americans do not force other creatures to harm themselves for profit entertainment. We kill them from nessecity, not barbaristic fun. http://www.americanhumane.org...", "qid": "42", "docid": "b2030785-2019-04-18T19:02:29Z-00002-000", "rank": 40, "score": 105749.0}, {"content": "Title: The Star-Spangled Banner Should Not Be Played at United States Sporting Events Content: The Star-Spangled Banner is a song whose lyrics were inspired from a battle of a war the United States was fighting in.(1) As the national anthem of the United States, the song is sanctioned by the federal government. The song thus carries with it a connotation of conflict, battle, war, military, and violent government victory(2). A lot of people might only go to sporting events for the experience. Once they experience first-hand the events are tedious and boring, they would not continue to attend them. That has been the case for me. There are so many interesting things to do other than to attend sporting events. Playing the national anthem at sporting events that are difficult for some, such as me, to attend gives the national anthem and the country a connotation that they are remote and difficult to access. When I mentioned a required playing of the national anthem at sporting events, I did not mean legally required. I may have meant a theoretically required playing. Nonetheless, playing the national anthem is required by some sporting associations' rules. The NFL and NHL (if a U.S. NHL team is playing) require the national anthem to be played.(3) Some states have laws that require The Star-Spangled Banner to be played in a respectful, regulated fashion. One such state is Massachusetts.(4) I reside in Massachusetts. According to Massachusetts General Laws chapter 264, section 9, the national anthem cannot be played as dance music.(4) Playing The Star-Spangled Banner just before festive, loud, obnoxious sporting events filled with alcohol and disrespect from spectators or sometimes even athletes themselves may not constitute dance music or a violation of the cited law, but it falls close. It seems more respect can be afforded to The Star-Spangled Banner and to the United States than what is afforded through those sporting events. Sources Cited: (1) https://en.wikipedia.org... (2) https://en.wikipedia.org... (3) http://www.espn.com... (4) https://malegislature.gov...", "qid": "42", "docid": "9704d9fe-2019-04-18T12:03:10Z-00005-000", "rank": 41, "score": 105432.0}, {"content": "Title: Bull Fighting Should Be Illegal Content: It is not necessary to ban bullfighting because it can be reformed to not cause pain to the bull.A bull will charge at a moving cape without being previously infuriated, so the pre-fight torment can be removed. During the fight, the matador doesn't have to harm the bull until the end when it should be killed quickly and humanely. It can then be made into beef, sold, and eaten. With restrictions, bullfighting can become acceptable.", "qid": "42", "docid": "218c53b7-2019-04-18T13:07:00Z-00004-000", "rank": 42, "score": 105269.0}, {"content": "Title: children should be allowed to box in school. Content: sorry I forgot to outline the rounds and i meant boxing in general (gym and after school). I feel it is wrong to allow them to play rugby which you sprint at other people and slam into them but ban boxing. you can get hurt much more in rugby with broken bones and being trodden on by studded boots and people see that as fine but with boxing if you control the power of your punch and where proper protection it should be reasonably safe. I understand that there is a degree of risk in every sport.", "qid": "42", "docid": "f1c64e5b-2019-04-18T14:02:33Z-00003-000", "rank": 43, "score": 104940.0}, {"content": "Title: Boxing Should be allowed as a School Sport Content: Will it promote a \"beat the crap out of everyone\" lifestyle? A fighter can only excel in the sport with proper discipline and respect for themselves and others. May I ask for a reliable source for the 52.2% statistic you brought up? Just because someone knows how to fight, doesn't mean they walk around fighting everyone. Nature vs nurture. Your life and the way you treat others is completely dependent upon your upbringing and your lifestyle. Lately we have seen several football players involved in violent crimes including domestic violence, child abuse, and even murder. But we don't associate this violent behavior in correlation with the sport of football. So if we don't blame football for those violent crimes, why would we blame boxing? Maybe we should take football out of schools as well. Maybe we should take basketball as well since Kobe Bryant was accused of rape. What I'm saying is, the violent behavior of some, doesn't mean we should take the opportunities given in boxing away from today's youth. Child abuse, domestic violence, and even molestation are not brought upon because of boxing. That stuff all happens outside the ring, by people who have never fought a day in their life. It is brought on by the way you are raised, and your own mental state. You cannot blame a controlled sport for the act of people all around the world. With all this being said I thank you for having this debate with me over the past few days. I do believe boxing should be allowed for today's youth as an extra curricular activity in today's schools. It teaches discipline and control, and it allows students to create a closer bond that they could not get anywhere else.", "qid": "42", "docid": "c752a687-2019-04-18T14:10:24Z-00001-000", "rank": 44, "score": 104807.0}, {"content": "Title: Soccer is a better sport than Hockey Content: I will save my rebuttals for the last round Argument #1: Many forms of Hockey Hockey is a family of sports, meaning there are several forms of the game, making hockey a much-better suited game to everyone. Have disabilities in your legs but love hockey? Then play sledge hockey! Don't want to move around much but still play a version of hockey? Then play air hockey! Don't have a rink? Play field hockey! Too cold/hot to play hockey outdoors? Get a net in your basement,some hockey sticks and a ball, invite a friend over and GAME ON!!! There are many more types of Hockey then soccer, allowing everyone to pick their preferred version while soccer is just two nets and a ball. Argument #2: HOCKEY FIGHTS!!! Some people come to see hockey games and enjoy the sport, others want to see blood on the ice and some want both! The penalty is small (To be exact 5 minutes) and the punishment will be increased if serious injuries happen. Saying that these fights are dangerous is untrue most of the time and serious injuries are rare. Ice fights are viewed by many as a tradition, getting to the point that Ice fights are included and detailed in hockey themed games like the EA NHL series where the game allows the player to throw and block certain shots, eventually causing there to be a winner and a loser of a fight WITHOUT a simulation. The popularity of fights have even ushered in videos just about hockey fights, like this! I could give more, but I got to do some chores Thanks and I await your response!", "qid": "42", "docid": "d4da401a-2019-04-18T16:24:29Z-00006-000", "rank": 45, "score": 104729.0}, {"content": "Title: Hockey is better than soccer Content: 1. \"In soccer, numerous parts of the game are spent teams getting organized, and just passing the ball around. In hockey, nobody slows down. \" This is not always true. In soccer you are constantly moving to run after the ball. 2. \"unlike soccer, which is timed to end at a specific time, Hockey has it's own schedule. Overtime hockey is a must-see, as it's a winner take all battle. \" This is also not right. Soccer has overtimes too. If they get a tie. Also professional soccer is longer than a mini league. 3. \"Nobody likes watching a rigged sport\" I\"m sorry but I disagree with you on this one. Soccer fans are crazy when it comes to soccer matches. Soccer also dates way back to BC. Romans also played soccer. Soccer is liked all over the world. 4. Action. Soccer has a lot of action. There are constantly horrible injuries. People get kicked in the face, get knocked out, and break their legs. It\"s a dangerous sport. By the way, people love a fight that\"s why the referees let the fights go on. 5. Some pictures of horrible injuries. . http://farm4.static.flickr.com... . http://t2.gstatic.com... . http://t1.gstatic.com... . http://t2.gstatic.com... . http://t1.gstatic.com... 6. My resources: . http://www.historyofsoccer.info... Also soccer wins the World Cup. My next argument I will make my points of why soccer is better than hockey.", "qid": "42", "docid": "cf884b6d-2019-04-18T17:15:26Z-00002-000", "rank": 46, "score": 104138.0}, {"content": "Title: is hockey too violent Content: Depends on what you consider too violent.", "qid": "42", "docid": "fde975a1-2019-04-18T13:14:27Z-00000-000", "rank": 47, "score": 103331.0}, {"content": "Title: should kids be able to twerk in school Content: First of all saying deal with it doesn't mean any thing. If I said fighting at school is allowed and told the kids who get beat up to deal with it, but that obviously doesn't justify the fighting. if you really think the \"Deal with it\" argument holds any weight then I could just tell you to deal with a twerking band and it would hold the same credibility. There are lots of ways to express your self that are justify banned from school. You can show up to school naked as a way to express your personality as a nudist but that's not allowed for obvious reasons. twerking has no positive affect on anyone's school life, it only brings a negative influence. twerking is commonly seen as a sexual act. which could possibly provoke people to make inappropriate sexual advances. some would even consider twerking as a inappropriate sexual advance. There's no reason hat you shouldn't be able to resist twerking at school so there's no reason to feel obligated to. whether or not your arrested for twerking has nothing to do with debate. A school band dose not mean that act is legally outlawed.", "qid": "42", "docid": "113dcb97-2019-04-18T15:39:35Z-00000-000", "rank": 48, "score": 103241.0}, {"content": "Title: Fights to the death similar to those once held in the Colloseum in Rome should be allowed Content: \"Allowing fights to the death is simply ridiculous. There are laws against murder for a reason.\" Yes, the laws are for the good of society. I have put forward an argument to show that this would be for the good of society. \"With the allowance of \"human cock fighting\" it would open a gateway to other possible crimes being illegal as long as they are in a setting of \"sportsmanship\". Like what? Who can take the most heroin? Who can rob the most houses? What I have proposed would actually serve a purpose to society. \"Humans are humans regardless of social status. Putting them in cages with swords and armor with a cash prize is completely unethical. This type of behavior would be illegal on the streets so what would the difference be when set in an arena?\" There will always be murderers in this world. Would it not be better to have them kill each other for our entertainment than to have them roaming the streets killing innocent people? \"Your suggested scenario is based on a world with no laws, a blood thirsty population who would pay to see people die, and sponsors to promote such violence.\" I am arguing that the law should allow it, so obviously there is law. Your example of UFC supports the idea that we are a blood thirsty population. I have put forward an argument for why this would be for the good of society. It still stands.", "qid": "42", "docid": "8fd0a899-2019-04-18T19:13:12Z-00003-000", "rank": 49, "score": 103220.0}, {"content": "Title: Bullying should be allowed, as it builds character. Content: You should have fought back. In post world war 2 Churchill was at a meeting and and basically said that we must never surrender.But you did letting those bullies attack you you should have fought back that is the dumbest thing you could have ever done.That is literally dumb for you.You could have sued them for assault and harassment in the first,second,and third degree.Voters please note that my opponent brought you into her web of folly attacks.sound of sunshine if people dont listen to your story make them.Please voters dont be pressured or trust her just use caution when voting.Why didnt you call the police or FIGHT THEM BACK!OR just take defense lessons.Did it ever occur to you that Hm I should just fight back or were you to busy crying.Again voters it seems my opponent seems to lacks the mental capacity to understand volatile situations (No offense).But voters consider this she could have 1.Took fighting lessons 2.fought back 3.go to court.However my opponent seems to lack proper knowledge to take course of her actions and to defend her self putting her life and others at risk how let me explain She could have died not fighting back 2 her mother could have informed the police but she did not inform her parents 3.If she did and they did not listen she could have contacted the police her self.Voters this girl has delibritaly put her self at risk then calling someone the police,school counseler.My opponent may even have mental retardation because of all the lashes she suffered all the lashes she could have prevented she brought this to herself for not taking the appropriate actions.SHE could have helped herself if no one would but she would just stand idle getting punched over and over getting napkins constantly for the bleeding having fears of all most everything having multiple scars half dead and what did she do you ask?NOTHING she delibritly stood there being harassed and assaulted.Voters let me ask you if you choose sound of sunshine you will give the ever awaited attention she always wanted she still has a debate going with shadow gamer.Voters Churchill once said to never surrender and she did the exact opposite she let her bullies beat her she may have according to her story and my knowledge stockholm syndrome.What it is a person capture a bystander for harrassment or torture.Then which the victim enjoys it the torture.So she enjoyed may have enjoyed the punch after punch or jab after jab.And if she didnt why did you tack no course of action whatsoever.And or she may be a quidecintial child needy of approval and attention despratley allows a bully to beat her up for the sympathy and or pity.Please voters consider both sides but pay attention.(Note: This is not for harrasment or superiority)", "qid": "42", "docid": "67d659e-2019-04-18T16:08:59Z-00001-000", "rank": 50, "score": 103141.0}, {"content": "Title: Should Students be allowed to listen to music during seminar Content: U Fight Me BOIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII", "qid": "42", "docid": "5ad7c727-2019-04-18T11:29:32Z-00006-000", "rank": 51, "score": 103038.0}, {"content": "Title: Hockey is better than soccer Content: Only one more round till the best part: Rebuttals. :) Anyways, back to the points!: Point #6: Injuries In any league of ice-hockey, there is many, many injuries, because of the physical play of hockey players. Concussions, broken bones, ribs injured and sprains are very often, which makes the game way more risky. These injuries come from the constant hitting and fighting in hockey, where as in soccer, if you check or rough anyone you are given a yellow or red card. Injuries in soccer are usually minor sprains. In hockey, big hits lead sometimes to a life-ending injury. In this next video, Lars Eller of the Montreal Canadians takes a really, really nasty hit (the video commentator is french but the point is still made): https://www.youtube.com...... Imagine you are Steve Moore. He was your average hockey player. Then, one game, against Vancouver, his whole career ended. Todd Bertuzzi comes up to him and wants a fight. Steve Moore says no. A few minutes later, Bertuzzi comes up to Moore, grabs his jersey, viciously punches Moore in the face then shoves onto the cold, hard ice. As a result, Moore was knocked out cold for around 11 minutes. He got three fractured vertebrae and a very major concussion. His passion, career, and love for hockey was done. Over. This is all a result of the violent nature of hockey. Watch: I will elaborate way more in the rebuttal. And what's the worst that soccer has? Suarez? OK, and so he fakes that he does it. But what is worse, faking, or the REAL injuries? Point #7 Goalies In Hockey, the Goalies are almost the size of the net, making it almost too easy for them to save a puck. They move rarely and have a very non-flexible job: SAVE THE PUCK. Where as in Soccer, as a Goalie, you have to dive for the ball, which takes skill, and in soccer, players kick the ball on spin so it is hard to read the play. Soccer goalies know this and have fine-tuned there skills to read plays. What's more, in soccer, the goalie has to boot the ball an incredible distance and they do it just fine. This goes to show that the Goalies in Soccer are way better. Yes, hockey goalies make some crazy saves, but a crazy save in soccer is jut way harder. Judges, what would be harder? Making this save: Or these: The choice is obvious. Soccer! Thanks, DDD", "qid": "42", "docid": "cf884bab-2019-04-18T15:50:33Z-00002-000", "rank": 52, "score": 102451.0}, {"content": "Title: praying should be aloud in school Content: I do believe that you meant to say \"allowed\" not \"aloud,\" but I'll debate both points seeing as the debate is only one round long. Praying should be allowed:It is allowed, as I said in the comments. It's illegal, in the United States at least, to prevent students from praying to any god inside public schools [1]. There goes that point: there's nothing to debate.Praying should be aloud: \"Now a day fights are happening more\"I would argue the exact opposite. Although could not find a reputable source on the issue, it only makes sense that sense that physical bulling and \"fights\" are getting less prevalent as schools continue to tighten their enforcement for such actions and crack down with harsher punishment. As an alternative, as we move into the 21st century, potential \"fighters\" have the option of using the internet as a medium to convey aggression: easy and near impossible to enforce. This argument is based upon a false premise, but even if the premise was sound, the point would not be.Prayer is defined as communication with a divine being. The only way that prayer would be \"allowed\" would be if students were forced to pray in unison. In being forced to pray, no connection is made with God and thus the prayer is empty. An empty prayer will do no more than no prayer to open one's spirit to be \"touched\" by God.Because this was a one- round debate, I've been forced to bring up new points. I assume that Pro was aware of the inevitability of this when he made this a \"shot\" (short) debate.Vote Con! http://www.archives.gov...;", "qid": "42", "docid": "73b2aaaf-2019-04-18T18:20:48Z-00000-000", "rank": 53, "score": 102357.0}, {"content": "Title: The shootout should cease to exist in the NHL. Content: Here are a couple of points about the shootout that makes it notorious: 1. The shootout is not actually hockey. It is just a series of breakaways. Hockey is a team game, and what the shootout is doing is just hindering one of the main aspects of the game. 2. On March 23, 2017, Sergei Bobrovsky stopped 45 shots and managed a 1-1 tie at the end of overtime. A couple of minutes later, he's a loser because he couldn't stop someone on a breakaway. If you think I'm lying, here's a site for you: https://www.nhl.com... That is completely unfair to goaltenders who lose in the shootout, and the team feels cheated. 3. The shootout in hockey is the equivalent to a home run derby in baseball, a free throw shootout in basketball, and a quarterback throwing a ball through a hole in football. It just doesn't make any sense to be a tiebreaker. In the third round, I will refute any and all of your arguments. Resources: https://www.thoughtco.com... http://thehockeywriters.com...", "qid": "42", "docid": "1f504932-2019-04-18T12:16:43Z-00003-000", "rank": 54, "score": 101910.0}, {"content": "Title: Micheal Vick should play in the UFL (United Football League) if the NFL suspends him next season. Content: My position is that Michael Vick shouldn't be allowed to play professional football with any sanctioned league, whether it's the National Football League, the United Football League, the Canadian Football League, etc. , because of the crimes he committed. For those who might be unfamiliar with Vick and the controversy that surrounds him, here's some information: <\"Vick and three others are charged with competitive dogfighting, procuring and training pit bulls for fighting and conducting the enterprise across state lines. Michael Vick was indicted Tuesday on charges of illegal dogfighting. The dogfighting operation was named \"Bad Newz Kennels,\" the indictment states, and the dogs were housed, trained and fought at a Surry County, Va. , property owned by Vick. The indictment alleges that the 27-year-old Vick and his co-defendants began a grisly dogfighting operation in early 2001 in which dogs fought to the death \u2014 or close to it. Losing dogs were sometimes killed by electrocution, drowning, hanging or gunshots. \"> (1) All of this can be substantiated by the following link: . http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:PPytD-HmYL4J:espn.go.com/media/pdf/070730/taylorstatementfacts.pdf+tony+taylor+summary+of+facts&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca&client=firefox-a That link takes the user to a summary of the facts in Vick's case, which were used against Vick and his accomplices in court. In features a confession from Tony Taylor, who was partners with Vick in their heinous \"business. \" <\"Beginning in or about early 2001 and continuing through in or about September 2004, in the Eastern District of Virginia and elsewhere, defendant TONY TAYLOR, also known as \"T,\" knowingly and unlawfully combined, conspired, confederated and agreed with PURNELL A. PEACE, also known as \"P-Funk\" and \"Funk,\" QUANIS L. PHILLIPS, also known as \"Q,\" MICHAEL VICK, also known as \"Ookie,\" and with other known and unknown persons, to commit the following offenses against the United States, to wit: a. traveling in interstate commerce and using the mail or any facility in interstate commerce with intent to commit any crime of violence to further any unlawful activity and to promote, manage, establish, carry on, and facilitate the promotion, management, establishment, and carrying on of an unlawful activity, to wit: a business enterprise involving gambling in violation of Virginia Code Annotated Sections 3.1-796.124(A)(2), 18.2-326, and 18.2-328, and thereafter performing and attempting to perform acts to commit any crime of violence to further any unlawful activity and to promote, manage, establish, and carry on, and to facilitate the promotion, management, establishment, and carrying on of the unlawful activity, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1952; b. knowingly sponsoring and exhibiting an animal in an animal fighting venture, if any animal in the venture has moved in interstate commerce, in violation of Title 7, United States Code, Section 2156(a)(l); and c. knowingly buying, transporting, delivering, and receiving for purposes of transportation, in interstate commerce, any dog for purposes of having the dog participate in an animal fighting venture, in violation of Title 7, United States Code, Section 2156(b). TAYLOR agrees that he entered into the conspiracy willfully and with the intent to further the conspiracy's unlawful purposes. \"> Not only does it describe the crimes in detail -- but it has ~50 pieces of information which collectively prove the guilt of Vick and the other members of his nefarious gang beyond a reasonable doubt. In essence, Vick and company knowingly ran a dog fighting ring, which resulted in the brutal and disgusting deaths of many dogs -- but not only did they kill the dogs who lost, but the methods used to kill them were sociopathic; the dogs were tortured. The dogs also suffered an abundance of injuries. The killing and torturing of all these dogs seems to be more than morally equivalent to the killing of an individual human, which would still have Vick in prison, and not in a position to be reinstated to any football leagues. Knowing this, it's my belief that Vick should still be in prison, and thus, not playing professional football. (1) = . http://www.cbc.ca...", "qid": "42", "docid": "dec25d34-2019-04-18T19:20:39Z-00004-000", "rank": 55, "score": 100917.0}, {"content": "Title: is hockey too violent Content: hockey is not too violent", "qid": "42", "docid": "fde975a1-2019-04-18T13:14:27Z-00005-000", "rank": 56, "score": 100664.0}, {"content": "Title: Bull Fighting Should Be Illegal Content: The matador takes the risk of injury by his own conscious choice, so that is not a reason to ban bullfighting.The bull will charge without being infuriated, so it doesn't have to be tormented prior to the fight. http://www.livescience.com...Matadors should have mandatory training to make sure they can kill the bull painlessly.In conclusion, bullfighting can be reformed to eliminate the harms. It does not need to be banned.", "qid": "42", "docid": "218c53b7-2019-04-18T13:07:00Z-00002-000", "rank": 57, "score": 100626.0}, {"content": "Title: Hockey is better than soccer Content: Thanks, Leojm for your response. I would like to respond to my opponent's argument. 1. \"In soccer you are constantly moving to run after the ball.\" Most of the game is spent with the teams passing the ball around to get organized. 2. \"Soccer has overtimes too. If they get a tie. Also professional soccer is longer than a mini league.\" In soccer, if you give up a goal, you still have a chance to win. There is still room for error. In hockey, if you give up a goal in overtime, the game is over. There is no room for error in hockey. 3. \"Soccer fans are crazy when it comes to soccer matches. Soccer also dates way back to BC. Romans also played soccer. Soccer is liked all over the world.\" My opponent did not show how soccer isn't rigged. 4. \"Soccer has a lot of action. There are constantly horrible injuries. People get kicked in the face, get knocked out, and break their legs. It\"s a dangerous sport. By the way, people love a fight that\"s why the referees let the fights go on.\" Injuries do not make a sport entertaining. In fact, injuries slow the game down. 5. \"Also soccer wins the World Cup.\" The same argument can be made about hockey. In the NHL, teams compete for the Stanley Cup, which is known to many people as the best trophy in professional sports.", "qid": "42", "docid": "cf884b6d-2019-04-18T17:15:26Z-00001-000", "rank": 58, "score": 100228.0}, {"content": "Title: Tennis is better than hockey Content: i would like to start off by saying good luck. I also think it is very cool that you played hockey, i have been playing since i was 4 ( so about 11 years) and it takes a lot of energy which is good for my ADHD. i would also like to apologize in advance for my spelling i have dyslexia. to start hockey is better then tennese because theres more action. in hockey players are always moving from one end of the ice to the other and you have a puck moving all over the place at speeds of up to 90+ mph. there is also fighting involved. were in tennis players cant fight, hockey players can drop there gloves and start throwing punches. ( although not until college or profesionals) hockey players never stop moving, they skate faster then anyone can run. it takes up so much energhy that they have to change lines every 30 to 45 seconds so they always have fresh legs on the ice.", "qid": "42", "docid": "e57a60bb-2019-04-18T17:03:57Z-00004-000", "rank": 59, "score": 99805.0}, {"content": "Title: American Football Fighters Content: I agree that football players should be able to fight because some teams call the wrong plays.", "qid": "42", "docid": "5462614-2019-04-18T18:02:38Z-00002-000", "rank": 60, "score": 99385.0}, {"content": "Title: Hockey is a \"better\" spectator sport and requires more athleticism than baseball. Content: I am just trying to offset some of the more serious debates I have seen on this page. I know I am fighting a seemingly uphill battle here but I figured I would give it a shot for my first debate until I get settled here. I am for the idea that hockey is a \"better\" sport than baseball with respect to athleticism and available spectator enjoyment. For the first round I would just like to define what I mean by \"better\" and set the parameters of the debate. I know \"better\" is a subjective term and is based on opinions, so I would like to make the arguments as objective as possible. I plan to do this by talking about the following topics: average game length, average in game action, the percent of action per game, the amount of games per season, the importance of each game as it pertains to the season, the in-game skills required by all athletes, the difficulty scoring, and the type of team play (team vs. individual aspects). I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate and in the spirit of good competition, good luck. If there are questions/concerns or any other parameters my opponent would like to discuss, please mention them in the first round before we proceed. Thank you.", "qid": "42", "docid": "8cbf30a2-2019-04-18T19:01:38Z-00004-000", "rank": 61, "score": 99384.0}, {"content": "Title: candy Content: candy should by allowed or not", "qid": "42", "docid": "d4fc29f7-2019-04-18T17:34:23Z-00005-000", "rank": 62, "score": 99159.0}, {"content": "Title: is hockey better than american football Content: obviously yes", "qid": "42", "docid": "8aad4958-2019-04-18T17:51:53Z-00003-000", "rank": 63, "score": 98966.0}, {"content": "Title: Bullying should be allowed, as it builds character. Content: Listen sound of sunshine!You have the upper hand your story was depressing and sad but nevertheless flawed.Let me point out why: #1 You have debated about this before with shadow dragon the topic was should bullying be allowed.#2 you fail to point out that during that sad story that you did not inform anyone any proffesional for help.#3 YOU could have fought back in the face of a fist or a gun you must not stay idle if you do death is immenat.#4 YOU must change the future by taking initiative to fight for yourself regardless the excuse or back story.Sound of sunshine let me tell you something about the would no one cares really about that sad story people have kids and family so other people and there backstory dont really matter to them sure they may care or show pity but those same people on the inside dont care.Your story was sad but in the modern world not all of the US will hear your cry that bullying is bad.I will end this your argument has been a waste of time.Let me tell you why even if you are sucssesful in banning bullying forever it will still happen superiority will linger in human mind what will you do to the bullies put them in the electric chair that would be more gruesome.You brought this on yourself if you defended yourself of fought back or went to somewhere else that could have been avoided.OR took defense lessons.Your gpa from 4.2 to 1.2 was your fault let me point out why my teacher always says \"Don't be with your feelings\"that means whatever your feeling is meaningless.Please voters note that this story may have been made up since there is no video proof of any of these events and a great writer could come up with this story so it doesn't seem to me real it may be fabricated.Sound of sunshine you got your wish you have my pity and my attention if you made that story for pity and attention if it was real then I pity you for not doing the right thing which is Telling an authority,a teacher,a well trained psychologist,Or a defense teacher", "qid": "42", "docid": "67d659e-2019-04-18T16:08:59Z-00003-000", "rank": 64, "score": 98922.0}, {"content": "Title: Micheal Vick should play in the UFL (United Football League) if the NFL suspends him next season. Content: On to my opponents arguments, and then I will present my own: Yes, Micheal Vick was guilty of running a dog fighting ring, which he was convicted for and would be the result of his absence from proffesional football and the open world for the past two years. However, Micheal Vick has been relesed from fedreral prison (. http://sports.espn.go.com...). He has paid dearly for his crimes. Vick is left in debt, jobless, and without two years of his life. You have merely listed the facts of Micheal Vicks case, and stated that he is a convicted felon and that convicted felones cannot play proffesional football. You have no warrent to this claim, so why can't they? Yes, it is likely that the NFL and suspension happy Roger Goodell will suspend Vick from playing this season, but that is soley up to his personal judgement, not based on any rules that prohibit convicted felones from playing. Basically with no warrent to back up the claim that convicted felones can't play professional football (which is rediculous and can't be backed up) my opponent presents no reasons why Vick can not play in the UFL. Micheal Vick, if suspended from the NFL next season, should play in the UFL. Contention 1#- Vick Needs a Job After all the dust has cleared from the horrific dog fighting incedent, Micheal Vick finds himself alone and broke. He actually owes people a lot of money. Vick needs not only a job, but one that can pay well enough to overcome the massive amount of debt he posses. Vick posses only one major proment career path that can make up the money he owes: Playing proffesional football. At this point, it becomes more about paying the bills then playing in the NFL, or getting the big contract with the big endorsments (and trust me, noone is going to endorse him). Vick needs a place he can play and the UFL is just the option Contention 2#- The UFL needs Vick Honestly, how the UFL is still planning to carry out their season is beyond me. The recent american economic crisis has hit the sports industry hard, and crippled many minor and supplemental leagues. The AFL (Areana Football League) cancelled the entire 2009 season, and after 25 years, the future of the league is still in question and it easily could fold. Instead, the UFL looks to fight the recession and open a new football league, and not only do that but play games in the fall on Fridays to compete with high school football games, and have a season run con-current with the premier American Football League the NFL. The UFL is taking a huge risk, and amoung all this risks, they need one certainty: A house hold name. If Vick where to play in the UFL, he would at least be one person everyone knows in a league of otherwise nameless players. Vicks obscure form of playing quaterback, with his flushing out of the pocket speed made him a spectical to watch in the NFL before his legal troubles. Vick could be the face of the UFL, and while doing show use the good fame to help relieve his name and show the world he has changed. The move at most would only be temporary, probally last just one season. But if the UFL doesn't fold after its first season, like other leagues have done that have tried to compete with the NFL (Noteably the XFL), then some at least people would know something about the UFL. With these clear advantages of Vick needing a job, and the UFL needing some plubicity: its clear that Vick should play in the UFL, because my opponent has not presented any reason why he shouldn't play except that his a convicted felon which has paid his debt to society. Should a convicted felon not be aloud to obtain a job, to make a living?", "qid": "42", "docid": "dec25d34-2019-04-18T19:20:39Z-00003-000", "rank": 65, "score": 98469.0}, {"content": "Title: THW ban boxing Content: I will mostly be using the default font and Times New Roman. Unlike my opponent, I will not be making my arguments as a section, just as paragraphs. I assume that my opponent will agree with me that boxing is a violent sport. I will be talking that we should not ban violent sports, and boxing. I will be using the phrase, \"My team\" some times, as I mostly wrote these arguments in a team debate in another account. Now, let's get started with the debate. First of all, to my first point, boxing, and other violent sports bring lot's of entertainment. In this source [1], the top ten are the following, football, ice hockey, basketball, soccer, Baseball, gymnastics, tennis, volleyball, lacrosse, and golf. This is just in the U. S. , though. It is funny to see that 6-7 of the sports on the list are violent, and dangerous. I will be expanding this point later on in my argument, but this argument was about that violent sports can be entertaining. And, with this source I have shown tha violent sports are more entertaining then other normal sports. Boxing is a violent sport, and is entertaining. We shouldn't ban it. Also, in this source [2], it shows that the 10 greatest sports. Boxing is in number 9. If you look at the comments they say, \"Boxing should be on the top. .. \" And in golf, it says, \"This is really a sport, but. .. \" Look at the differences of a boring non-violent sport, and boxing, which is a violent sport. What if we ban boxing? All the fans will be mad, and probably do some stuff. Look at what happened when France lost against Portugal in the UEFA. This is just when they lost [3]. Imagine what will happen if the whole sport will be gone? All these fans will be bazooked! !! They will throw things like this, and make tons of fire. We can call in World War Boxing. To actually prevent this, we should not ban boxing. More people As in this argument I have shown that boxing and violent sports are very entertaining to watch, and that we shouldn't ban boxing, and shown what could happen, and probably would happen. Because of entertainment, vote for Con. My next argument will be that the boxers liberty, and the people who watch's liberty. This will be kinda connected with the first argument. Why do the boxers do boxing. Well, there are lot's of reasons. Yeah, they earn lots of money, get famous, can possibly win, it can be entertaining, and it can entertain the viewers. If the game is boring for the viewers, then it will be infamous, and the sport will not be watched. So we need to entertain the viewers. And as I said in my first argument, boxing is exciting for the viewers. Let's think if we ban this. As I said, there will be rages, as the picture up there, only worse. And all the viewers cannot watch boxing anymore. It is literally banning soccer, just a different sport. Socrates says, \"Even a bad law is a law. \" The same thing with sports. Even a bad sport is a sport. However boxing isn't a bad sport, just less famous then soccer, but still famous. Think about the people's, the watcher's liberty of watching. They want to watch, they should be allowed to watch. Why should thre government even ban boxing when it does no harm for them? Banning it will harm the watcher's liberty. They want to watch these sports, and we should give them the right to, they should watch it, and the government shouldn't make it banned just because of \"safety\". That is ridiculous. And also, why do boxers do boxing? Becuase they want to do boxing? Then why do they do boxing? By doing boxing, that means they accept all the risks to actually do boxing. They want to do boxing, that is why they are doing it. They don't really care if they get hurt, because it is part of their job. They know they might get hurt, because they are boxers, and they know their job. They want to be boxers, that is why they are boxers, and we shouldn't really ban boxing because they get hurt. They know they might get hurt, and by playing, they accept all the risks. Therefore, we shouldn't ban boxing because it can hurt them. My last argument is really a basic question. .. What is a violent sport? Boxing is a violent sport [4], and my opponent would agree. There are many sources to see that boxing is violent [5]. So, boxing is a violent sport, and it says that violent sports are fun, but what are violent sports. They involve killing, probably. This is the problem. Think about every sport which is not dangerous. There is only few which one is golf. Baseball is dangerous because you can get hit by the ball or get tripped and fall or bump to each other. Soccer is dangerous because the ball can hit you and you might foul and the others might get hurt. Basketball is dangerous too. This is like almost everything is dangerous. Then this means we cannot play those sports million of people around the world like. My source [6]. My source gives a big list of kills, you can click into each one. Like, most violent sports are fun. Boxing is a violent sport. It is fun. Most other violent sports are fun and famous too. But almost every sport is violent. Then if we ban boxing, people will argue that there will many other violent sports which we won't ban, and ban them too. Then baseball, soccer, etc. Will be banned to. So we have two choices. a) ban all violent sports, which is on my 5th source list, and other sports not on the list, like broken fingers when volleyball, etc. Then all these fans, on every single sport will be mad. There will be a war, only worse, much worser then the picture above. Or b) we can not ban all sports, and make the fans in peace. Obviously peace is better than a fight, so we have to follow b), and not ban any of these violent sports. I have shown that boxing is violent, and that we shouldn't ban these sports. Therefore, vote Con. Thank you. My sources[1] . http://www.thetoptens.com...[2] . http://www.thetoptens.com... [3] . http://www.dailymail.co.uk...[4] . http://www.bcmj.org...[5] . https://www.google.fr... [6] . https://en.wikipedia.org...", "qid": "42", "docid": "18f233de-2019-04-18T13:00:35Z-00004-000", "rank": 66, "score": 98036.0}, {"content": "Title: FIghts me Content: no", "qid": "42", "docid": "175e487a-2019-04-18T11:33:53Z-00005-000", "rank": 67, "score": 97991.0}, {"content": "Title: is pushing allowed in soccer Content: yes it is", "qid": "42", "docid": "1bcbe2fa-2019-04-18T12:47:25Z-00001-000", "rank": 68, "score": 97776.0}, {"content": "Title: is hockey too violent Content: Even though the rules prevent it, people getting hit in the head with those sticks even with the helmet could cause some bad whiplash", "qid": "42", "docid": "fde975a1-2019-04-18T13:14:27Z-00002-000", "rank": 69, "score": 97683.0}, {"content": "Title: Hockey is better than Soccer Content: Pro, who has full burden of proof, has made the point that hockey is more fun as you move at faster speeds. This is firstly untrue as the players themselves, if anything, move faster in soccer as they fight in a 'melee' style with the ball rather than a 'ranged' style in hockey. In hockey you can be moving our stick as a pivot around your body and shoulder rather than actually be speeding around. In soccer all tackles and all moves involve actual body-based movement and therefore you are moving at greater speeds. The only thing that moves faster in hockey, whether it's on field or ice, is that the actual ball or puck move faster within the game than the soccer ball does in soccer. This not only makes spectating and filming it for TV-based spectating a lot harder as well as real-time commentating but also is a major health risk and is why soccer players can wear nothing but shin pads and be fine but hockey players on field have to learn to use the bat itself as defence and on ice have literally padding top-to-bottom and still get life-threatening injuries. I won't use sources, case studies or go into details as yet. If Pro wants to call me out on any of my claims, I'm happy to oblige in later rounds.", "qid": "42", "docid": "46fa6c07-2019-04-18T14:24:53Z-00004-000", "rank": 70, "score": 97623.0}, {"content": "Title: Tennis is better than hockey Content: First of all I want to apologize for taking so long to post my argument. I have had a ton of homework this weekend. Tennis is better because in hockey some 4th liners will only play like 5 minutes sometimes less. In fact I heard of one NHLer who had more PIM that TOI. Also, tennis is a lot more pure than hockey, it is a sport that has not been significantly altered since the 15th century. However at the start of every season the NHL releases a bunch of new rules now they are even controlling how players can wear their jersey. Also hockey is becoming more dirty every year, I feel like its almost every day I get a notification from my Game Center app telling me someone else has been suspended for an illegal hit while the other guy is out indefinitely with a concussion. Tennis doesn't have this problem. Tennis has a lot of action because you see something special a lot more than you see in any other sport. Go to you tube and search \"Roger Federer Tweener\" and you will know what I am referring to.", "qid": "42", "docid": "e57a60bb-2019-04-18T17:03:57Z-00003-000", "rank": 71, "score": 97543.0}, {"content": "Title: Hockey is the best sport in the world Content: Hockey is the best sport on earth because we have the best fans, the best playoffs, and the best trophy. There is also many teams youth to pro that play and it is the most enjoyable to watch. Hockey also has fights which make the game enjoyable to watch.", "qid": "42", "docid": "c1132701-2019-04-18T15:43:06Z-00005-000", "rank": 72, "score": 97490.0}, {"content": "Title: Competitive sports should be allowed at recess Content: First of all, I want to clarify my position on this debate. I am not explicitly debating that there should be competitive sports on the recess playground, but that there already is. Lets take a look at the definition of competitive, shall we? Liking competition or inclined to compete, having a strong desire to compete or to succeed. Now, absolutely any sport could be considered competitive, I.E. Four Square. I will set up a hypothetic situation: You are at your cushy private school,and you decide to play a game of Four Square. You run to grab the ball and slam it into another players square, only to run into a \"that was the line!\" \"No it wasnt!\" argument. Now, reread that definition, think about the decision and your feelings, and then tell me that four square is not competitive. At least at my school, football is played all the time at recess, and that gets quite competitive, as one student was suspended for fighting with another student after the game got heated. I am fine with competitive sports being included in recess, but I argue that it is already there. Thank you and I await your rebuttal.", "qid": "42", "docid": "780b35b4-2019-04-18T19:51:42Z-00002-000", "rank": 73, "score": 96080.0}, {"content": "Title: Bull Fighting Should Be Illegal Content: Round 1: Opening Arguments Round 2: Rebuttals Round 3: Finishing Statements Bull fighting is an immoral sport and a complete affront to the progression of animal rights and basic humanity, let alone the danger to the matadors. I will start by describing the process of bull fighting. In Bull fighting, the bull is kept in horrible conditions with little care for it's health or well-being. The bull is teased constantly by fans and audience members to be put in an aggressive state. When the bull is released, it is relentlessly teased, abused and aggravated. Eventually, when time runs out, the bull is tired, or the matador is caught and injured the bull is constrained, and put down in an extremely immoral manner. The matador uses multiple spears to attempt to sever the artery either in the back of the neck or heart. Due to the matador not being an experienced bull-health specialist, it takes multiple times for the bull to be killed. Even when the artery is severed, the bull experiences severe pain until it bleeds to death [1]. Let it be known, that is the summarized version. My source link has much more detail. My argument is that any person with any form of empathy should realize how much pain the bull, who doesn't understand why this is being done to him, faces in the last hours of its life, until mercilessly and bloodily killed. (Source: [1] http://www.stopbullfighting.org.uk... )", "qid": "42", "docid": "218c53b7-2019-04-18T13:07:00Z-00005-000", "rank": 74, "score": 95936.0}, {"content": "Title: Allow Gladiator Fighting Among Consenting Death Row Inmates Content: Death row inmates should not have the option to participate in gladiator battles. Killing other humans is cruel and disgusting. Gladiator battles would promote the idea of murder. Death row inmates most likely got to death row by killing people. You should not give them what they want because the do not deserve it, especially if it is killing other humans for fun. Also, it would never be on television. Watching movies where people kill each other is different than watching real people kill other living people. You would be watching living people die for your entertainment. Even the idea of humans doing gladiator fights is disgusting and unbelievable. Letting people legally end each others life for fun would be unacceptable. Only sick, disgusting, cruel, and evil people would even consider that idea.", "qid": "42", "docid": "8d8b71d2-2019-04-18T11:26:57Z-00000-000", "rank": 75, "score": 95721.0}, {"content": "Title: Rap Battles should be allowed on DDO Content: Whassup b*tches it's MC Z.I'm coming at you hot from Micky D's. And here I stand, defender of the best,my opponent stands there, solid in his protestto suggest that rap battles shouldn't throw down.Stupid clown, he's leaving this town with a frown.My first ill line is that in this fair landit's the terms of use(1) that makes stuff banned.It's against these rules that rap battles standto withstand the demand placed by high command.To expand, survive the test of time,it'd be wrong to make it a crime to rhyme.DAWGGGMy second ill line is that against my stance,there stands no line that can dance this dance.It's on my opponent to advance and expanseon why rap battles on DDO stand no chance.At first glance since my opponent is scared to wear the pants(2)he probably doesn't have something that can do this war dance. The fact is that rap battles are realisticTheir characteristics are some that critics can be optimistic.The logistics of linguistics(3) is something that can always come around.Crown me the champ, my opponent's in the pound.I won't calm down with the lyrical beat down.It's the countdown to the profound end.Where I ascend to godhood and my opponent's left penned.Drop the mic, MC Z out.Illest Proofs you motherf*ckers ever seen:(1) - http://www.debate.org...(2) - http://www.debate.org...(3) - https://www.google.com...;", "qid": "42", "docid": "a6f25f2a-2019-04-18T15:37:49Z-00004-000", "rank": 76, "score": 95503.0}, {"content": "Title: Legalize Fighting Content: Murder is unlawful killing. http://dictionary.reference.com... So no. As a side note, a police officer is allowed to shoot when their life is threatened; furthermore, when an officer shoots someone there is a several month legal process in which they must go through (while being relieved of duty might I add) they don't just \"shoot and ask questions later\". And it's illegal, and murder. Legalizing it would help nothing. \"Also, the passing of a new law or legalization of something always comes with a set of rules to regulate it. Rules could be made to ban the use of excessive force, or the use of weapons, or even that there must be witnesses at the time of the event to ensure that the fight is stopped and nobody is killed.\" And who is to judge? Everything you just mentioned is far to subjective and circumstantial to ever create a system of guidelines sufficient and thorough enough to work.", "qid": "42", "docid": "db68a818-2019-04-18T18:44:52Z-00001-000", "rank": 77, "score": 95469.0}, {"content": "Title: FIghts me Content: No.", "qid": "42", "docid": "175e487a-2019-04-18T11:33:53Z-00006-000", "rank": 78, "score": 95389.0}, {"content": "Title: FIghts me Content: No.", "qid": "42", "docid": "175e487a-2019-04-18T11:33:53Z-00008-000", "rank": 79, "score": 95389.0}, {"content": "Title: Boys Should Be Allowed to Play with Dolls Content: \"I'm sorry if I insulted you. I wasn't calling you stupid, I really wasn't.\" It's all good! Now then... There are many unforeseen consequences that can occur if boys are allowed to play with dolls, you may think that \"boys can play with anything\" and \"dolls are harmless\", but you'd be very wrong. First what do boys typically like? Fighting, playing with toy guns, sword fighting, tag, football, etc. All of which in some way are violent and competitive. But did you ever think to ask why? Well theses types of rough physical sports prepare young boys to become men later in life [1,2]. Dolls just can't provide this type of learning, can boys learn how to fight? No, can they learn how to stick up for themselves? No. They really can't learn much from dolls. And the few lessons they possibly could learn, like \"playing nice\" or \"sharing\", could just as easily be learn through, regular boy activities. Also as i previously stated most boys do not play with dolls, at least boys in the that are older then seven , so what that means is that they will have a harder time making male friends as most of their (male) classmate will not be interested in playing with dolls. How many boys do you think would accept the invitation to \"come over! and play tea with my doll's\" Very few when they could play football, build a fort... set things on fire, etc. And sure maybe some girls would say yes, but then that boy would have a harder time making male friends. So boys should go make swords out of tree branches, or some other masculine activity and shouldn't play with dolls.", "qid": "42", "docid": "17b67759-2019-04-18T17:02:20Z-00002-000", "rank": 80, "score": 95168.0}, {"content": "Title: Bull Fighting Should Be Illegal Content: \"If bullfighting is reformed to lessen the chances of the bull being hurt, it skyrockets the chances of the death of the matador.\"It's still the matadors choice to participate.\"Besides that, there are farms dedicated to providing beef, you don't need to kill the bull in the middle of the crowd for their bloody entertainment, it's barbaric.\"Sure, you don't need to, but there isn't anything wrong with it. It's not barbaric either, we're not publicly sacrificing humans to humiliate them. Bulls can only feel very basic emotions, so they can't be humiliated. To a bull, being killed in front of a crowd is no different than being killed in a slaughterhouse.\"The sport is simply to abuse an animal for the fun of the crowd.\"Your source says otherwise: \"The vast majority of tourists are appalled by what happens at a bullfight and leave after they see what happens to the first bull.\" Most of the crowd doesn't think it's fun to watch a bull being tortured to death, that's why reforming the practice to make it painless would actually make it more entertaining.You also mention horses, but that can also be fixed by reform.\"The arteries inside the bull are so deep that trained bull physicians would have trouble attempting to kill the beast in one try.\"There are other ways to kill a bull quickly (such as lethal drugs).\"I'm afraid I can't take it's word for it when it provides no other evidence to bulls being infuriated just by a waving cape. \"Read this quote from my source: \"Thus, the bull is likely irritated not by the muleta\u2019s color, but by the cape\u2019s movement as the matador whips it around.\"The source explicitly states that the bull charges because of the cape's movement. Your objection is baseless.ConclusionBullfighting does not need to be banned. It can be reformed so that the bull is killed painlessly, which would not only make the practice humane, but it would be more entertaining and much less likely to leave mental scars.", "qid": "42", "docid": "218c53b7-2019-04-18T13:07:00Z-00000-000", "rank": 81, "score": 95143.0}, {"content": "Title: Ice Hockey Hardest Sport to Play at the Professional Level. Content: I would like to start my stating my disappointment in con for deviating from the planned debate, but we can be flexible for the sake of time and amicability. In Con's first refutation he states the he would assume that if you do not know how to ice skate he hope you would not be playing professional hockey, and I agree, but he is leaving out one major thing about professional sports. Each and everyday of their lives including their professional career they are constantly learning and re-mastering fundamental skills. So even though we are debating common fundamental skills, you can not deny that a professional player at one time had to learn how to play the game, and must continue to practice. I chose the professional level of play so that common rules would be placed into effect instead of certain rule sets where balks are not counted in baseball or checking isn't allowed in hockey, or any other rule differences among different age groups. I gave you flexibility, I think I may appeal to you for some leniency in this instance. In addition to mastering skating, which if anyone has ever tried before, you know it is very difficult to simply go slowly with your girlfriend, much less go balls out towards a puck with a defender hanging on your back. A hockey player must also learn how to use his stick as an extension of his hands, which is not easy to get used to either because the stick is not a part of your body as in soccer or basketball where you can use your feet and hands respectively. Applying more to the professional level a hockey player must also be quick to think as there is a certain strategy to the game that takes more than a couple years to master. A player must learn where to move without the puck as well as with it, and players must jostle with defenders in order to get that crucial positioning, in addition to the offensive side, players must also recognize the same opportunities the other team has while they are playing defense. Conclusion: Although Con would like to make my mastering skating argument irrelevant the fact of the matter is that hockey players must continue to practice and work hard at that skill in order to maintain their high level of play. In addition if a hockey player suffers an injury he/she must, in some cases, completely re-learn how to skate and play in general. While he/she will pick up the concept more quickly the fact of the matter is there are more skills a player must master and practice in professional ice hockey than say boxing where they must only learn to punch, or football where players must mainly know how to kick and ball handle. In Con's second refutation he/she has misunderstood the my argument. I am not saying that a sport's danger defines it's difficulty, but instead that danger compliments the skills the players on the ice possess and perform. . http://www.youtube.com... in this video we see Blackhawks defenseman Brian Campbell skate back to track down a loose puck with Capitals forward Alex Ovechkin, known as a dirty player on his back. In the video at the 0:04 mark we see Campbell look back and see Ovechkin, knowing full well that he will be hit on this play Campbell maintains focus, tracks down the puck, and gets rid of it. A display of speed, skating, hand-eye coordination, strength, and most importantly focus all in one simple hockey play. You can see it again here . http://www.youtube.com... where Vernon Fiddler at the 0:03 second mark tenses up because he knows a hit is coming but keeps focus on a get rid of the puck. I can pull this examples all day. The point is that yes hockey being dangerous does not make it the hardest sport to play, but the danger the players are put through and the skills they are expected to being able to command under that danger make ice hockey a difficult sport. In Con's their refutation we see him/her come back to a point made earlier which I have already touched upon. Even though the skills are expected of pros you can deny the fact that they have once had to learn the skills, and they must still continue to practice and master that skill in the present. But Con does bring up an interesting point, \"As you see, hockey is not the only sport that requires hand-eye coordination and focus. I have shown you many other sports that require the same skills. And just in case Pro says that skating is difficult to learn, I would say swimming is much harder to learn, as there are several different strokes that you need to learn. Therefore, hockey is not the hardest sport to play on the professional level, all sports are equally difficult. \" In the excerpt above con basically states that difficulty is relative, which is the whole basis of his argument, which I must admit is a tad bit annoying, no offense con, but everything can be relative. Hitler is evil to me, but I'm sure the White Power group down the street thinks of him as revolutionary, so I view your whole argument invalid in a debate setting. In addition you view swimming as harder, but I can guarantee you there are more people who can swim around the world than there are who ice skate, one continent in particular comes to mind. *Cough*Africa*cough* And with a whole continent out of the running I would say I have substantial evidence to refute that point. Argument: Con unfortunately I can not provide you with a player who has experienced both professional ice hockey and another sport. I think I know why though, because ice hockey players must devote their full attention and focus to their sport because they must practice so much to continue to master the skills and fundamentals of the game. But I challenge you to find me a professional ice hockey player who said hockey was easy, and don't give me some sarcastic quote please, it must be sincere. Conclusion: Ice Hockey is and continue to be the hardest sport to master and play at a high level. It is a team game, so you must rely on other people to perform their duties which let's recap, involves hand-eye coordination, balance, strength, accuracy (shooting), and most importantly and most underrated SKATING.", "qid": "42", "docid": "d86d26e8-2019-04-18T18:35:41Z-00003-000", "rank": 82, "score": 95138.0}, {"content": "Title: The ice hockey goaltendee is the most difficult position in all of sport Content: Thank you for taking a part in this and for having much respect. I assume you play soccer because you seem to write more and be most passionate about it, but that is just an assumption. In soccer, the goalie may have to leave his small box to play the ball. But the hockey goaltender must do the same to play the puck. And as the goal may be 4x the size if an Nil size, the ball is 10x bigger than a puck. The puck can be tipped, there can be multiple passes before a shot, the goalie can be screened and the goalie can be hit by another player, which may be illegal but is rarely called by referees. In football, what I meant by they aren't on the field all the time is that if your a quarterback, your not going to be on the field when the defense is on the field. Baseball, the pitcher does need to choose the perfect pitch, but they have about a minute to do so. The hockey goalie must do the equivalent but in a split second Dance, dance is mostly a team sport where no body contributes the most. And if it is a single dancer, when they make a mistake, they cant be pulled and humiliated, they get to keep going on Wrestling, just so we are clear, we are talking about cage fighters and not that fake wwe stuff right, that being said, fists and kicks don't hurt as bad as a puck to the groin. Plus, id like to see a wrestler skate with that much pads on. On the armless ping pongers, I give them many applauds since I know I couldn't do it, but its still not that different id they're playing everyone like that. The goaltender may not be as important as you say, but it is the most difficult there is since all goalies must use the Same size net from mini mights to beer league, all goalies must skate which does not apply to any other sport. Finally all goalies must have some of the greatest hand eye coordination there is. Because unlike baseball players. If they miss the puck, its a goal. So I ask you this, if the hockey goaltender isn't the most difficult position in sport, then who is.", "qid": "42", "docid": "231c59cf-2019-04-18T16:12:26Z-00003-000", "rank": 83, "score": 94905.0}, {"content": "Title: NHL Hockey is a harder sport then American Football Content: Here is how hockey is mentally challenging, first of all hand to eye coordination , knowing were to pass to plus a lot of criticism. Also when you get checked , slashed ,ect in hockey you not only need physical strength you need mental strength. Finally you need mental strength to keep playing well, even if your team is losing badly.", "qid": "42", "docid": "6c5cb143-2019-04-18T15:25:50Z-00003-000", "rank": 84, "score": 94837.0}, {"content": "Title: At which age should young adults be to play violent sports Content: No, it isn't. That's something that *could* happen, not necessarily what *will* happen. It's a theoretical example. I need proof. Concrete, observational proof that you could show to me of kids getting severely injured in these sports. Since you have failed to provide this proof, I will continue with my contention that it isn't dangerous enough to warrant restriction to younger ages. To the audience, I must reiterate my contention: In these so-called \"violent\" sports, there is no serious harm to the players that could affect them more than temporarily. In football, ice hockey, and other sports a significant amount of safety equipment is worn to make sure these problems don't happen. Furthermore, kids are slower and not as strong as they are in later years, so the risk of serious injury is also reduced by the fact that they aren't moving as fast or with the same amount of force as kids who are going/have gone through puberty. In fact, the real danger is in high-school and in college sports, where we have seen serious concussions severely affect these players for the rest of their lives. However, I must remind the audience that my opponent contends that these sports should be restricted to *youth* leagues, not high-school or college leagues. Thank you for your time, and I urge you vote against this resolution.", "qid": "42", "docid": "a779bd19-2019-04-18T15:32:40Z-00000-000", "rank": 85, "score": 94521.0}, {"content": "Title: Opponent picks Topic Content: I will be arguing that Mario will never beat Sonic the Hedgehog in a fight. Rules: 1. Neither debater is allowed to give cases in which there is a sure way to know who would win. Posting YouTube videos of this happening is also not allowed. 2. All example fights created by debaters or posted from YouTube must have the outcome resulting with both Mario's and Sonic's free will. 3. Mario and Sonic will be allowed to use power ups, but cannot get help from their friends or get help from each other's enemies. They will also be allowed to use each other's power-ups. 4. Both characters will be allowed to use all of their techniques. 5. All types of fights are allowed. 6. All arguments must be scientifically valid. 7. All arguments concerning the scientific probability of their abilities and feats are irrelevant. These rules are not meant to twist the debate to my advantage. They are simply meant to keep the result accurate. My opponent will be the first to argue.", "qid": "42", "docid": "19952a9a-2019-04-18T16:21:53Z-00008-000", "rank": 86, "score": 94493.0}, {"content": "Title: The shootout should cease to exist in the NHL. Content: I accept", "qid": "42", "docid": "1f504932-2019-04-18T12:16:43Z-00004-000", "rank": 87, "score": 94482.0}, {"content": "Title: The shootout should cease to exist in the NHL. Content: In your first paragraph you stated that shootouts are not hockey, yet merely a series of breakaways. However, breakaways are a part of hockey as they are events that are seen happening in the game. The reason these shootouts are done is because hockey is a physically imposing game and if after 60 minutes of play and an overtime period a winner isn't yet deemed the league doesn't want to physically tax players more or risk injury; thus the shootout. The shootout is a quick way to determine a winner and is described by many hockey fans as the most exciting event in hockey. Even though a goalie could have a terrific game but have it negated by a shootout, that is still a fair ending because the shootout displays both the skills of the shooter and the goalie. In the specific game you mentioned, Braden Holtby, also had a good game, blocking 29 out of 30 shots. {1} He just continued his excellence further in the shootout and was rewarded in the win. It is not unfair to losing goalkeepers as shootouts are not based upon luck or chance: stopping breakaways as a goalie takes tremendous skill. The shootout in hockey, additionally, is not comparable to most of the things you mentioned because unlike the other examples a shootout mimics an exact situation that can be seen in hockey. In the Home Run Derby the ball is being pitched slowly and right down the middle which never happens in baseball. Additionally, a football players never has to throw through a physical hole in a game like one would do in practice. The only comparable situation you mentioned is a free throw shootout which would not be a bad way to break a tie. However, due to basketballs high scoring nature a quick tiebreaker isn't as necessary because there is never a long stretch in which no team scores. Not to mention that people are not getting body checked constantly in basketball. Returning to a perspective of a fan, as I am and assume you are, the shootout is exciting. The anticipation and the pressure that lies on one 5-second span makes a shootout an exhilarating event. ESPN ran a player poll on the shootout, 70 percent of the players stated they liked the shootout. The players are the ones who actually have to participate so their opinions should be held with high regard. One of your main points was the negativity players feel and the unfairness and how teams feel cheated. However if only 20 percent dislike it [10 percent said they were indifferent], then it seems as if the majority of NHL players do not feel the way you have described about shootouts. Sure a team will feel dejected after a loss but the general consensus is that players are in favor of shootouts. The players agree it adds a rush of excitement to the game for the fans. {2} To continue to use how the players feel as backing would be a logical fallacy because the majority of players says otherwise. In conclusion, the shootout is good for the NHL for these reasons: 1) It provides a quick and fair ending to a physically imposing game. 2) It is a showcase of skill and reaction for goalkeepers. 3) It is a thrilling conclusion for ties and makes it more exciting for the fans. 4) The general consensus among players is that they are in favor of it. Sources: {1} https://www.nhl.com... {2} http://www.espn.com...", "qid": "42", "docid": "1f504932-2019-04-18T12:16:43Z-00002-000", "rank": 88, "score": 94238.0}, {"content": "Title: Should Girls Be Allowed To Play Football (American) Content: Ok, let me first knock this out of the way. I think females can do many, many things. Females can do anything thing a male can do. SO, I will not be arguing male VS female. What I will be Arguing, is a physical contacted sport such as American football, is too demanding on the womans body. Such as (CTE), legs, arms, upper body, and other injuries. The other part of this argument, I will be discussing, is male football is more entertaining, Female WNBA is not as entertaining as the NBA, why because for one reason is the basketball hoop is 10ft tall, and woman can't dunk, their only been two females in the WNBA that could dunk. So there for it not as entertaining, it will not be popular like the men's Basketball. Another sport is woman hockey, they are physical, but not like the males, they are faster, stronger, more out athletics, than the women. So, they for more people will be watching the male's sports more than the woman's. I will go further in detail in the later rounds, on why Woman or girls shouldn't play American football. I'm here to discuss why women shouldn't play American football, not touch football, or if you want to talk about just girls playing pee wee football. I guess i could still argue why they shouldn't play American foot as well. SO i'm looking forward to what my opponents response will be.", "qid": "42", "docid": "668f93e2-2019-04-18T12:02:31Z-00008-000", "rank": 89, "score": 94225.0}, {"content": "Title: In a fight, Voldemort and Dumbledore would beat Megatron and Optimus Prime. Content: I will gladly answer my opponent\u2019s questions. 1. Yes, the forbidden spells are allowed. Please note that rule three already indirectly answers this question. 2. I suppose you could say it is a fight to \u201cthe death\u201d. If it wasn\u2019t, then that would limit Megatron and Optimus, since it\u2019s kind of hard to K.O a wizard without killing him. 3. They will fight until they destroy one another. You can destroy something that is not alive, so this should resolve the conflict. 4. No. 5. The battle will take place on earth. To be more specific, it will take place in a city. It doesn\u2019t really matter which city they\u2019re fighting in. All right, now I will get on with my arguments! 1. Dumbledore and Voldemort can use the spell stupefy to harm their opponents. It is common knowledge among most Harry Potter fans that the spell \u201cstupefy\u201d is used to stun or knock someone out. Optimus and Megatron, being giant robots constructed from metal, won\u2019t be bothered by such a small spell. However, that is assuming that a normal wizard is using this spell on them. Remember that both Voldemort and Dumbledore are some of the most powerful wizards of all time; therefore, the spells they cast would exceed that of the average wizard. Proof of this lies in the fourth book, when Dumbledore casts the spell, \u201cstupefy\u201d right before Barty Crouch (in the appearance of Alastor Moody) was about to cast a spell on Harry Potter. Dumbledore managed to not only to blast the door that was standing in his way apart, but also hit his intended target\u2014Barty Crouch. Had any other wizard used this spell on the door, it simply would have glanced off. At best, it would have left a scorch mark or perhaps a small dent. However, Dumbledore, being one of the most powerful wizards of all time, managed to blast the door into splinters and still hit his target. This goes to show that when Dumbledore uses the spell \u201cstupefy\u201d, it is the equivalent of a small explosion. Likewise, it is only logical to conclude that Voldemort could also cast the spell with the same affects, if not better. Therefore, if Dumbledore and Voldemort chose to use these spells on Optimus and Megatron, it would do significant damage if Voldemort and Dumbledore aimed at their heads. 2. Dumbledore and Voldemort could use the spell \u201creducto\u201d to harm their opponents. I have proved in my other argument that the spells the two wizards cast exceed that of the normal wizard. When a normal wizard casts, \u201creducto\u201d, it is usually the equivalent of a small-medium explosion. However, when Dumbledore and Voldemort cast this spell, it is probable that the spell is the equivalent of a big-huge explosion. Thus, it would be immensely useful in battle, since several big-huge explosions would tear Optimus and Megatron apart. 3. Dumbledore and Voldemort can apparate. In case there are those who have no idea what apparating is, it is when a wizard teleports himself/herself to another area. This will be another extremely important factor in battle. With the ability to teleport, Voldemort and Dumbledore could easily dodge any attacks Megatron and Optimus throws at them. At the same time, it let\u2019s them hide in areas where the two alien robots would not expect to find them. Then, when the time is right, they could use a spell and apparate yet again. This tactic will wear Megatron and Optimus down until they are nothing more than heaps of metal. 4. The wielder and owner of the elder wand cannot be defeated in a duel [1]. Dumbledore, who is both the wielder and owner of the elder wand, cannot be defeated in a duel; therefore, even if Voldemort happened to die, Dumbledore would be unbeatable as long as he had the wand within his possession. As a result, Megatron and Optimus are extremely likely to lose, since they cannot possibly beat Dumbledore as long as he had the wand within his possession. 5. Dumbledore and Voldemort could use the spell \u201cPetrificus Totalus\u201d to disable their enemies. \u201cPetrificus Totalus\u201d, also known as the full body-bind curse, would be an easy way for the wizards to win this fight. I realize that Megatron and Optimus are huge, so it will take more than one shot to make them freeze in place; however, because the two wizards are so powerful, one shot of \u201cPetrificus Totalus\u201d will probably freeze an arm or a leg. If this is the case, then Voldemort and Dumbledore could have both their enemies\u2019 arms rendered useless in seconds; thus, the robots can no longer use their weapons. Once they have done so, they can work on the rest of their bodies and within a minute, Megatron and Optimus will simply be unmoving hunks of metal. Afterward, they could work away at the two robots as they please. 6. Dumbledore and Voldemort could use a transfiguration spell of some kind on their opponents. It would be too much to hope that the wizards could some how turn Optimus Prime into a harmless bunny rabbit; however, it isn\u2019t too much to hope to turn Optimus Prime\u2019s gun or sword into a harmless bunny rabbit. Alternatively, they could use a vanishing spell to make it disappear completely, leaving Optimus with no weapons (not including himself). Likewise, they could do the same to Megatron. On the other hand, they could use a vanishing/transfiguration spell of some kind on the body parts of Optimus and Megatron (i.e. change a foot into a rock, change a hand into nothing, change the head into a bomb, etc.). That last example should be particularly useful when battling the two robots. 7. Dumbledore and Voldemort could use \u201cfiendfyre\u201d on their opponents to destroy them. \u201cFiendfyre\u201d is an extremely powerful type of fire that is made from Dark Magic [2]. The fire will pursue anything for more fuel and seems to incinerate anything through mere contact. Thus, Voldemort and Dumbledore could have Megatron and Optimus Prime trapped within the burning city and then apparate safely away. Should the two alien robots attempt to stop the flames, it is extremely likely they would fail. This is because \u201cfiendfyre\u201d cannot be put out like a normal fire would. One of the only known ways stop the fire is to get the caster to make it go away. Another way is if a different wizard counters the fire or attempts to put it out. Because Megatron and Optimus are neither the casters of this fire nor wizards, they are very likely to die within seconds after the fire had been cast. Conclusion: I have shown a variety of ways in which Voldemort and Dumbledore could disarm/attack/evade Megatron and Optimus Prime so that the two wizards would triumph over the two robots. I\u2019m intrigued to see what my opponent has in mind for my arguments and for his own. I wish him luck and hope he does not underestimate the wizards\u2019 powers! Just as Optimus Prime once said, \u201cLike us, there\u2019s more to them than meets the eye\u201d. [1] http://harrypotter.wikia.com... [2] http://harrypotter.wikia.com...", "qid": "42", "docid": "6fc2342e-2019-04-18T18:36:00Z-00005-000", "rank": 90, "score": 93862.0}, {"content": "Title: Legalize Fighting Content: Would it really be legalizing murder? To an extent, yes. But is murder not already legal? The death penalty, the armed forces, police who are legally allowed to shoot first and ask questions later, those are all forms of murder. Fighting already happens, getting stabbed or shot in the midst of a fight or argument already happens, and people getting murdered because somebody did something stupid already happens. Legalizing fighting won't help or hurt the overall balance. Also, the passing of a new law or legalization of something always comes with a set of rules to regulate it. Rules could be made to ban the use of excessive force, or the use of weapons, or even that there must be witnesses at the time of the event to ensure that the fight is stopped and nobody is killed. It can be legalized and it should be legalized. Like marijuana, alcohol, or sex, just because it CAN be abused doesn't mean that everybody WILL abuse it. And for the government protection thing, the government does a lot more harm to its citizens than good. However, that's a debate for another time.", "qid": "42", "docid": "db68a818-2019-04-18T18:44:52Z-00002-000", "rank": 91, "score": 93707.0}, {"content": "Title: Bull Fighting Should Be Illegal Content: The bull will not be motivated to drive towards the cape without being infuriated. You have no source to back up your claim, I'm afraid. The audience shows up to bullfighting for the sense of danger. Since bulls are not instinctively aggressive animals, they would simply walk around the arena unless being hit or provoked. My source in round 1 backs that up. I'm not vegan, I don't have an opinion or advocate against farming and herding in questionable conditions, although in bull-fighting there is no cause except for the sadistic joy of the audience to see the matador get hurt or the bull being abused. They try to kill the bull quickly and humanely, but again. Matadors aren't bull health specialists. My source again backs up that it takes multiple tries to just strike the bull in the artery, and then comes over a minute of bleeding to death in agonizing pain. The entire practice of this sadistic 'sport' needs to be abolished.", "qid": "42", "docid": "218c53b7-2019-04-18T13:07:00Z-00003-000", "rank": 92, "score": 93497.0}, {"content": "Title: High School football should be banned Content: I have three observations: 1. History/Culture 2. Banning is useless 3. Freedom 1. Football is a major part of American history (considering you used examples within the United States. It has been around forever both on the high school, college, and professional level. Considering this ban, you might as well ban ALL football. Also, many people are extremely passionate about football and consider it even a family tradition to play. This leads me into my next point: P.s - if it was considered bad it probably should've been banned a while ago. 2. Banning is useless. Football is inevitable. It will still be played in college and professionally. Meaning injuries will still happen and this is useless. Actually, playing during high-school will teach the correct way to play and avoid serious injures when the students are younger, rather than beginning in college where injuries are much more severe. Even if football was banned on all schools (including educational and professional) - people will play WITHOUT PADS individually in their off time. This will at least double the risk of danger. Also banning will not include other sports, people who deeply love sports will switch to still intense sports, like Hockey or Boxing - both of which have devastating potential. 3. Freedom. Banning football would make it illegal. This is not a good idea. This is because laws are meant to prevent harm from one to another. Key phrase there: Laws are to prevent harm to others. This topic is an example of one joining football knowing it can cause harm. They are essentially risking their own body. This means that they have put them self in danger. This ban makes no sense - if i want to risk myself i should be able to do it. I have some examples: A - Military I know I am putting my life at danger if I join the military. I know I have an external cause to motivate me to do this task. (Soldiers protect the lives of their citizen, I want to deeply thank all of you who may be reading for that) Does this mean it should be banned to join the military? Under the same logic that PRO illustrates, it should be. I am proud to say High School football should not be banned.", "qid": "42", "docid": "a7e6a03b-2019-04-18T13:46:05Z-00004-000", "rank": 93, "score": 93447.0}, {"content": "Title: Football is to dangerous to be allowed at high schools and colleges. Content: I hold the stance it isn't too dangerous. I will now present my argument\"According to CBS news, Tipton football player Chad Stover died after receiving a major brain injury to the head during the football game, on a Friday night. There was not an ambulance or even a sports trainer at the field when this game was occurring in 2013 at Smith-Cotton High School\"I looked all over the Internet, and there is NO claim there wasn't an ambulance or sports trainer. That argument is false unless you can prove otherwise.\"Football is the most known sport when it comes to the athletes receiving concussions\"While it is notorious for having high concussions, it's not the highest. Believe it or not...Women's Ice Hockey has the MOST concussions. The claim \"football has the most concussions\" is false. [1]\"The entire point of this game is to tackle the other team, and stop them from scoring touchdowns. That just sounds dangerous in itself.\"While it is dangerous, it is required the players are protected. There are more dangerous sports than American football.I'll present my argument nowi. Scholarships for college while playing in high schoolCollege is VERY expensive. $29,400 was given to 7/10 college Seniors at one time for student loans and through 2008 and 2012 it increased [2]. Scholarships are important and football is one easy way to get extra money for college. It also looks great when applying to college for extra curricular activities and if you want to play college football.ii. Skills you developLeadership is one big benefit. It's important to be a good leader in society, often you'll be better with people. You'll also have some rivalry, which is also good. You have to be competitive in this big world.iii.HealthPeople who play sports have better health. It's true! Older people who played sports had less brain shrinkage [3]It also develops healthier relationships. It allows you to be with people who share a common interest in athletics and you can make a lot of friends.There's a myth about being a jock makes you \"stupid\". This is also very false. Being sports forces you to balance time between homework and sports. Organization is important. [4][1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://projectonstudentdebt.org...[3] http://www.livestrong.com...[4] http://www.pamf.org...", "qid": "42", "docid": "e6e8bc90-2019-04-18T15:42:41Z-00008-000", "rank": 94, "score": 93356.0}, {"content": "Title: Colleges and Universities should prohibit the public expression of hate speech on their campuses Content: No rebuttals! Please keep it clean. I wish I could use more rounds, but this week is really busy. This arguments are from my case for an upcoming tournament. Arguments Hate speech bans are counter- productive More Speech is always better We cannot infringe on hate speech without providing grounds to ban legitimate opinions Clarifications: a. Fighting words: A term used by the supreme court referring to slurs whose sole use is to start a fight. b. Public expression: Simply expression that is public; Hate speech inside a dormitory room is not public expression. c. Free speech is an idea expressed in the first amendment of the US constitution as a guideline rule for the government. This means that if colleges feel that hate speech is something to be against, they as a private institution are free to ban it. 1. Observation 1- Hate speech and fighting words are two different things. The resolution states that the opposition must defend hate speech, not fighting words. 2. Observation 2- That said, many things defined as hate speech can be prosecuted under other laws, such as destruction of property, or trespassing. The action is what should be punished, not the feelings behind it. a. \"In its 1992 decision in R. A. V. v. St. Paul, the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional a city ordinance that prohibited cross-burnings based on their symbolism, which the ordinance said makes many people feel \"anger, alarm or resentment. \" Instead of prosecuting the cross-burner for the content of his act, the city government could have rightfully tried him under criminal trespass and/or harassment laws. \" states to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Arguments: 3. Contention 1-Bans on hate speech fail in their purpose a. A (good) example of this is the University of Connecticut\"s speech code. It named \"inappropriately directed laughter\" and \"conspicuous exclusion from conversations and/or classroom discussions\" as violations of its code. The ban was struck down in federal court. i. The problem with this ban is a number of things, but the big issue is how easily it would be to be prosecuted for violating such a ban. There are a few cases in which \"inappropriately directed laughter\" and \"conspicuous exclusion from conversations and/or classroom discussions\" would constitute hate speech. However, about 99% of the time, this is either a misunderstanding, or it has nothing to do with race, ethnicity, religion, or any other group the excluded belongs to. b. Because speech codes need to be so broad, they are often too broad. As a result of being broad, they are very vague. i. A case concerning the University of Michigan\"s speech code was thrown out by a federal judge because the code stated it banned language \"that stigmatizes or victimizes an individual. \" 4. Contention 2- More speech is ALWAYS better a. You should convince people they are wrong, don\"t just tell them to shut their mouth; Counter- speech is better than a ban. People whose opinion has been banned can bottle up their anger and take it out on unsuspecting innocent people. i. The ideal solution would be to find the root cause of the hate speech and reason through it, not stifle one's beliefs. b. Teaches college/university students to respond to hate speech in real world. In the real world, people cannot prevent all hate speech, so it teaches students to prepare for real life. c. In an academic learning environment such as a college or university, we cannot ban arguments we disagree with. This also helps to form peoples beliefs. If all you hear for your whole life is, \"Chocolate ice cream is great\", how could you learn to love vanilla ice cream. d. The supreme court refuses to ban hate speech. In the case, Phelps vs. Snyder, the court ruled that the Westboro Baptist church had a right to protest homosexuality at a military funeral. 5. Contention 3- The same laws and principles used to protect all speech protect hate speech, therefore, we cannot infringe on hate speech without infringing on the right to protest or have any opinion a. \"I have always felt as a minority person that we have to protect the rights of all because if we infringe on the rights of any persons, we'll be next. \" states an anonymous african american educator b. Infringing on hate speech could provide legitimate grounds to prosecute reasonable protesters Notice I am not supporting hate speech, only that the best way to help stop it would certainly not be to ban it.", "qid": "42", "docid": "a955b653-2019-04-18T15:33:15Z-00001-000", "rank": 95, "score": 93331.0}, {"content": "Title: Boxing Should be allowed as a School Sport Content: Boxing will not only affect kids in school, but also for the rest of their lives. It will promote a,\"beat the crap out of everyone\"lifestyle. It will make kids first reaction to get angry and fight, so what happens when they marry and get a little angry? Child abuse, wife abuse, and even molestation can occur. It was proven in studies that people who box are 52.2% More likely to abuse their wives and children than people who dont box. It is a bad idea to have boxing in schools.", "qid": "42", "docid": "c752a687-2019-04-18T14:10:24Z-00002-000", "rank": 96, "score": 93097.0}, {"content": "Title: Should Girls Be Allowed To Play Football (American) Content: I thought i mentioned i didn't want to turn this debate in to man vs females. Anyways i will go ahead with this debate, but remember that warning. Now how can you state your claim \"statistically proven that women play harder and more aggressive\". Without providing any evidence? Another issue on your claim is you went ahead and say woman can play in the NFL. They are many reasons why that's a bad idea. First women not as strong, not as tall, not as fast, not as athletic, to play with grow men. You know why you don't see a professional boxer going against an women professional boxer, because it would be a no contest. It no difference on playing a team sport. Women would get manhandled, it wouldn't be fun to see. Just like the WNBA, Woman hockey team, woman soccer, softball, they all have they own league, they would not be able to actually beat a professional male athlete. That's why they have their own league. Women have limitations on playing physical sports against mens. \"Sex has been identified as a major determinant of athletic performance through the impact of height, weight, body fat, muscle mass, aerobic capacity or anaerobic threshold as a result of genetic and hormonal differences\". You went on to say \"scientifically and psychologically proven, that women are more aggressive and controlling both towards and more so then men\" again you saying this without any proof. If you going to say something like this then we need evidence on those claims. This should not have been male vs female. But you insist on thinking women would have a great chance on beating a man in football. But there are problems with that, a physical one, and a mental one too. Playing on a team sport, a sport that you get paid a lot of money. You need trust in your teammates, that would not be the case if a woman is on the team. Guys would not be able to trust them on the field. Like i said before there are reasons why women have they own leagues and not playing on the same team as a guy. They are other reason too. Like entertainment, it clear a male sport, would win the popular vote, and would get the high ratings than women. For example the NBA VS the WNBA. \"WBNA average per-game attendance last season was only 7,138\"the lowest mark in league history, and well below the average per-game NBA draw of 17,849\". Not saying the WNBA is bad, it actually good. But they need to change some rules, because they are playing with nba rules. Which doesn't make sense. A male sport will always get more attention, and that is a proven fact. Women is fighting a uphill battle just for having there own league. Why because the public would prefer watching a male sports. https://sports.vice.com... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...", "qid": "42", "docid": "668f93e2-2019-04-18T12:02:31Z-00006-000", "rank": 97, "score": 92862.0}, {"content": "Title: Boxing Should be allowed as a School Sport Content: Boxing teaches discipline. It would teach kids to remain humble. But you stated the bullies will be able to box their opponents, and this is where you are wrong. The student who have a problem with each other will not get the chance to box each other. The closest they will get it a sparring session which are heavily controlled and safe. There is no better bond you can form with someone than when you are preparing another for a fight. So the people you have a chance to spar with will actually become some of your closest friends. You make the statement of \"The students getting bullied would have no chance at defending themselves from it\" as it the bully will always be a stronger force. But like I said, if the bully is not a boxer, and the victim is, chances are the bully won't risk the embarrassment of possibly getting beat if the victim chooses to retaliate. But vise-versa, if the bully is the boxer and the victim isn't I mentioned how boxing does teach respect. As a fighter myself, we do not see ourselves as a force. We know what it's like to have someone stronger and better trained go against us, and that makes us humble. We would never put someone in the situation of making them feel weak. But the possibility of that happening is still there. But just like any school sport, there would be penalties to such action. Maybe if one of the boxers does become a bully, he is done for the season. That would motivate the athletes to not bully, or get in trouble at all.", "qid": "42", "docid": "c752a687-2019-04-18T14:10:24Z-00003-000", "rank": 98, "score": 92808.0}, {"content": "Title: NHL Hockey is a harder sport then American Football Content: Number one the average weight thing is useless because in hockey there is more acceleration and less mass. You said you self there is less friction on ice so when skating at high speed's in the intent of hinting that person they are basically a speeding torpedo. I should have said this before in Football you get tackled in OPEN field but in hockey your pined between two hard places.Yes Hockey players have less fan's but more crazy fan's https://video.search.yahoo.com... in Vancouver so you have that presser on you and this goes for all team's. You also said that Football player's have less privacy well really for both sport's it's about the same it's really about the most famous player's. Finally this is how hard to get into the NHL. Out of 30,000 kid's in Ontario Canada are selected and studied 48 get drafted, out of that 48 only 39 end up signing a contracted. Out of that 39 only 32 actually play in the NHL and only 15 play more then one season. But out of that 15 only 6 play 400 games which is the amount of games to by able to play that NHL position.http://www.huffingtonpost.com...", "qid": "42", "docid": "6c5cb143-2019-04-18T15:25:50Z-00001-000", "rank": 99, "score": 92659.0}, {"content": "Title: The shootout should cease to exist in the NHL. Content: \"However, breakaways are a part of hockey as they are events that are seen happening in the game.\" Breakaways do happen in the game, but breakaways in a real game require the player to sprint. However, in the shootout, players usually are slower and it does not mimic an actual breakaway situation in regulation or overtime. One source I used said that \"However, when was the last time you saw someone weave into the zone on a breakaway, and take their sweet time going side to side as if they have all day? Never.\" \"The shootout is a quick way to determine a winner and is described by many hockey fans as the most exciting event in hockey.\" The shootout isn't described by many fans to be excitement, they describe it to be fear. For example, when the fans are watching their opponents shooting, they don't hope that their goaltender makes an acrobatic save; they hope that the opponents mess up or miss the net. \"The shootout in hockey, additionally, is not comparable to most of the things you mentioned because unlike the other examples a shootout mimics an exact situation that can be seen in hockey.\" Again, the shootout breakaway does not mimic an actual breakaway situation, it has a crucial difference. \"Returning to a perspective of a fan, as I am and assume you are, the shootout is exciting.\" Also, I am a fan too, but a shootout for me is the worst nightmare that I could have, it is fear. \"ESPN ran a player poll on the shootout, 70 percent of the players stated they liked the shootout.\" At first, I thought that I was stuck for good, but I was glad I checked your sources because I found out that the article you have is more than 11 years old. Most of these players have retired from hockey, and the opinions of the shootout could have changed. Therefore, your source is outdated and the NHL teams/players could have changed their opinion about the shootout. \"To continue to use how the players feel as backing would be a logical fallacy because the majority of players says otherwise.\" Again, the players' and goaltenders' opinions could have changed, and that they may dislike the shootout now. Your first reason that the shootout is good for the NHL is that \"It provides a quick and fair ending to a physically imposing game.\" The shootout is not fair, as it is an event that does not replicate a real event in a game, as I have stated already. Your second reason that the shootout is good for the NHL is that \"It is a showcase of skill and reaction for goalkeepers.\" The showcase of skill is also present in breakaways, which has the same skill requirements but is not exactly the same as the shootout. Breakaways are actually quite common during a game. Your third reason that the shootout is good for the NHL is that \"It is a thrilling conclusion for ties and makes it more exciting for the fans.\" Wrong. Read what I already said about the \"false excitement\" that the shootout gives. Your last reason that the shootout is good for the NHL is that \"The general consensus among players is that they are in favor of it.\" The source that you used to find this out, however, is outdated. Therefore, there is nothing good about the shootout, and it should not exist. Vote PRO. Sources: http://bleacherreport.com... http://thehockeywriters.com... https://www.thoughtco.com...", "qid": "42", "docid": "1f504932-2019-04-18T12:16:43Z-00001-000", "rank": 100, "score": 92512.0}]}
{"query": "Should bottled water be banned?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: Bottled water should be banned Content: Bottled water should be banned!", "qid": "43", "docid": "824ed8eb-2019-04-18T18:32:31Z-00009-000", "rank": 1, "score": 216418.0}, {"content": "Title: Bottled water should be banned Content: it should be banned because oil is wasted making the plastic bottles and it is also very unhealthy for you by drinking somthig that is contained in plastic because the plastic mixes into the water giving it that plastic taste/after taste people who drink bottled water on a regular basis ignour it, and your wasting your money.", "qid": "43", "docid": "824ed8eb-2019-04-18T18:32:31Z-00007-000", "rank": 2, "score": 215835.0}, {"content": "Title: Bottled water should be banned Content: i meant bottled water is a scam", "qid": "43", "docid": "824ed8eb-2019-04-18T18:32:31Z-00001-000", "rank": 3, "score": 213434.0}, {"content": "Title: Bottled water should be banned Content: My argumentsOf all the very valid points I bring up, the Pro only responds to one of 15 examples, the one about joggers. Yes people survived before bottled water.... people also survived before smart phones too, but if you banned smart phones people wouldnt know how to function anymore........His arguments - 1 - \"These two brands are essentially filtered tap water,\" - Meaning they are safer than tap water....\"And that's why there's no shortage of companies that want to get into the business. In terms of price versus production cost, bottled water puts Big Oil to shame.\" - I dont see how a product should be banned because wise and witty businessmen can create enterprises and jobs to meet the demand of portable bottled water.... should computers be banned since pound for pound they are making good money? Of course not. Its not illegal to exploit a resource in high demand with the potential for generating huge amounts of profit and you havent explained why it should br. - 2 - \"While public safety groups correctly point out that many municipal water systems are aging and there remain hundreds of chemical contaminants for which no standards have been established\" - Your shooting yourself in the foot here Pro, that only reinforces my argument about how bottled water could be seen as healthier than tap water - 3 - Yes it is true that bottled water generates trash, but im curious about why your putting the blame on the water bottles instead of people..... It is people who throw them away rather than recycle them, and the blame should be on the consumers in this case, not the product. Anyone here who has knowingly thrown away a plastic water bottle rather than recycle it knows very well it is their own fault for doing so. However the Pro is trying to blame the water bottle here....... thats absurd - 4 - \"Many people drink bottled water because they don't like the taste of their local tap water, or because they question its safety.\" - Again, thanks for giving me such great arguments :)\"Only the very affluent can afford to switch their water consumption to bottled sources.\" - Ha, good one. Most of the middle class can live with paying $6 for a cup of Starbucks coffee, and you claim they cant do the same with $2 for a bottle of water? Bottled Water is one of the cheapest commodities you can buy....\" the requirement of $17.5 billion in improvements to the state's drinking water infrastructure as recently as 2005. In the same year, the state lost 222 million gallons of drinkable water to leaky pipes.\" - So your admitting that tap water can be very costly to society. Hmmm let me do the math here, Bottle of Water = $2Tap water that needs constant taxpayer dollars to stay in shape, at one point costing $17.5 billion in taxpayer dollars in the state of California alone....Which is cheaper again? - 5 - Now in this argument your claiming water companies are evil for trying to expand their profits, but how is this necessarily a bad thing? The US government has already shown how they do a dreadful job of providing us with water (pollution, flouride in tap water, leaky and poor conditions of the infrastructure, billions in costs in a YEAR, etc) whereas water companies are completely on their own to supply us with water, and they dont have access our taxes to fix their mistakes, giving them a hell of an incentive to make sure their systems are modern and up to speed....Pro's remarks:\"If you drink to much water it is draining all the natural minerals OUT OF YOUR BODY\"\"I choose not to because i like fizzy drinks\"I like how the Pro tries to say that water is bad for your health yet states his preference for fizzy drinks, sort of implies he really doesnt know how anything about trying to be healthy... May i suggest a healthier alternative to those fizzy drinks, Oh yes i did ;D", "qid": "43", "docid": "824ed8eb-2019-04-18T18:32:31Z-00002-000", "rank": 4, "score": 204081.0}, {"content": "Title: Bottled water should be banned Content: No it shouldn't. That is too much government. People have the right to exchange money for a water bottle. Whether limousine liberals want to ban water bottles, Or conservatives want to ban gay marriage, I am tired of both parties trying to ban same sex marriage I am tired of people like my opponent saying \"I don't like this, Let's ban it. ' I am a progressive, And I think cash rewards for recycling would both help poverty, And end polution of the environment. Rewarding good behavior is far more effective than punishing the bad.", "qid": "43", "docid": "824ed986-2019-04-18T11:15:23Z-00002-000", "rank": 5, "score": 203962.0}, {"content": "Title: Bottled water should be banned Content: Way to change the resolution halfway through the debate, next time you should state what your intentions in the first round. \"Bottled Water should be Banned!........................... In Supermarkets!\"Also why didnt you bring this up in the last round? you mention nothing about super markets at all you only mention oil, money, health problems, and thats it. Whatever Ill just go with it.....First of all, I still dont think that spending $2 on a bottle of something essential to all living things is considered a \"waste\" and so far that is simply your opinion, you need to offer substantial evidence to support your claim. So far the only evidence you offered is that water comes out of the sink, so why not use that.Reasons why bottled water is safer than tap water1) It wont catch on fire.....You heard me right, sometimes sink water is highly flammable, im not full of s***, look at the video above. There are some areas in America where natural gas mining has contaminated local drinking water supplies that come out of the tap, causing it to become highly flammable and very toxic to ones health if consumed. (tap water = 0, bottled water = 1)http://www.youtube.com...2) The government is considering putting flouride in tap water..... and in some cases already haveIf this sounds more bs than my first point, im still not lying. Many people in the halls of power want to put flouride into tap water. If somehow they are granted their wish than the government would be legally putting chemicals into your tap water, but that bottled water over on the counter will be 100% H2O and nothing else...(tap water = 0, bottled water = 2)http://www.dailymail.co.uk...http://www.holisticmed.com...http://naturalsociety.com...3) Access The last major \"argument\" the Pro presents is that it should be banned solely because you can get it for free from your sink. Therefore I only need to present examples of places where you could use water but are not near a sink.... - 1 - The desert - 2 - In an airplane - 3 - In your car - 4 - In any classroom - 5 - Walking around anywhere on a sidewalk in a major city - 6 - At a beach where the nearest source of water is contaminated with tons of salt and pee - 7 - In a forest - 8 - Anywhere at sea - 9 - IN SPACE - 10 - When your outside jogging sweating your a** offOther reasons bottled water is necessary and easier than tap water - 11 - In your bedroom but you dont want to get up to get water because your too tired - 12 - If your a midget and you cant reach the sink or water fountain - 13 - Outside because your homeless.....I think 13 examples is enough for now (Happy Friday the 13th btw)(tap water = 0, bottled water = 10 to 15 based on personal experience)Bottled water should not be banned because in some circumstances it is healthier, safer, more protected from government intervention, easier to access, and wont catch on fire like tap water could......(for the record, the pro forfeited all his previous arguments in round 2.... just keeping score for the voters)", "qid": "43", "docid": "824ed8eb-2019-04-18T18:32:31Z-00004-000", "rank": 6, "score": 203945.0}, {"content": "Title: Bottled water should be banned Content: I accept and will be arguing that bottled water should not be banned", "qid": "43", "docid": "824ed8eb-2019-04-18T18:32:31Z-00008-000", "rank": 7, "score": 202430.0}, {"content": "Title: Bottled water should be banned Content: I hope we could see the others perspective without any troubles. No it shouldn't. That is too much government. - I'm not sure I completely I understand how it is \"too much government. \" By banning bottled water the government would only be involved in the actual banning of bottled water as they have to enforce that law. But after that, The government wouldn't really have anything to do with bottled water since it would be banned. I am tired of people like my opponent saying \"I don't like this, Let's ban it. ' - I'm suggesting we ban bottled water because people don't seem to understand the negative toll bottled water has on our lives and society. Even if they do understand, They don't do much to try and prevent or stop the negative effects from happening. You don't have to ban water bottles, But it would be a lot better if you use materials that can actually biodegrade/decompose. I am a progressive, And I think cash rewards for recycling would both help poverty, And end polution of the environment - Could you please elaborate on how cash rewards would help with poverty and the environment? Also, If possible please give me evidence of where this has been effective. Rewarding good behavior is far more effective than punishing the bad. - You are right when you say that it is more effective to reward good behavior, But good behavior has to be shown in order for it to be rewarded. In this case people aren't showing good behavior by carelessly throwing water bottles around. Although some do throw it out not all do. Instead of looking at banning bottled water as a \"punishment\" you should view it as an opportunity for people to move away from this belief that bottled water is better than tap water when it is the other way around. As I mentioned in round 1, Tap water is cheaper, Healthier and more effective to use. My opponent didn't really rebuttal my points from round 1.", "qid": "43", "docid": "824ed986-2019-04-18T11:15:23Z-00001-000", "rank": 8, "score": 201708.0}, {"content": "Title: Bottled water should be banned Content: thank you for accepting,what i was saying i mean bottled water should be banned in supermarkets, dairys etc. that is why this argument is listed in the society category water is free in your tap bottle water companys scam people into think their water is so called - spring - water from mountains in mt Fugi our something bottled water is not water getting transported to overseas countrys with problems, bottled water is what im talking about is in the supermarkets that cost $2!!!! it is a SCAM EVERYBODY! why buy it!? its wasting your money just like that you basicly drinking rubbish factory water that is stored in PLASTIC bottles. HERES A QUESTION! If you had Beer/Coca-Cola/fruit juice coming out of your tap for 3c a Lt would you still buy it up the shop.....? 99% of people would say NO", "qid": "43", "docid": "824ed8eb-2019-04-18T18:32:31Z-00005-000", "rank": 9, "score": 199562.0}, {"content": "Title: Bottled water should be banned Content: 1) Oil The type of oil used in making plastic bottles is a heavily, heavily refined form of crude oil that is also used in products such as clothes, shampoo, food packaging, home furnishings, CD's, computers, etc. If you want to ban plastic water bottles almost exclusively because they contain oil, then by that logic all the other products that I listed should also be banned on the sole grounds that they contain oil.... If you are arguing that oil is bad for your health and that is why plastic water bottles should be banned, the oil used in the plastic is refined many, many times to the point where it is completely harmless and poses no immediate and large threat to a person's health. http://www.icistrainingsite.com... 2) Now it is true that sometimes drinking bottled water carries a plastic after-taste, but the fact that one is drinking clean water provides so many health benefits it completely outweighs the \"harmful\" side effects that a simple after taste inflicts on people. Drinking clean water is shown to have numerous health benefits....... On the other hand drinking water with a plastic after taste doesnt cause any significant health deterioration at all. http://www.freedrinkingwater.com... http://www.wellness-with-natural-health-supplements.com... http://www.lifehack.org... 3) The claim that buying bottled water is a waste of money because it has a plastic after taste doesnt really count as \"wasting\" money since the health benefits that come from that water for about $3 is almost a steal.... Lastly I will introduce 2 of my own points and end it here for now.... 4) Bottled Water is the easiest way to transport water overseas to places that are experiencing a crippling drought. It is cheap and effective and banning bottled water would single handedly cause the death of millions of people since wealthy nations like the US would now lack the ability to move tons of clean drinking water to regions in desperate need of it..... 5) The industry made from the manufacturing and sale of bottled water is pretty massive in the US alone, thus banning bottled water would cost a very large number of jobs....", "qid": "43", "docid": "824ed8eb-2019-04-18T18:32:31Z-00006-000", "rank": 10, "score": 199290.0}, {"content": "Title: Bottled water should be banned Content: I would like to apologize to the voters for Pro changing the resolution twice in the same debate and for posting a six word argument after all this. .. .. 1st resolution: Bottled water should be banned <- Literally his entire first round argument 2nd resolution: Bottled water should be banned in supermarkets <- 3rd round opening statement 3rd resolution: Bottled water is a scam <- The ONLY thing he posted in his final argument. .. . Bottled water is not a scam. It costs money to have that water come out of your tap, in extreme cases it can easily be shown to be very hazardous to ones health, and when those extensive and aging systems begin to fail they cost taxpayers billions of dollars, meanwhile you can buy the same water in a clear plastic bottle for $2 and carry that little jug of pure life with you anywhere. .. .. As for the rest of my arguments which the Pro did not even address and simply changed the resolution every two rounds, 1) Pro forfeits that oil used in making the plastic bottles is heavily refined and not hazardous to ones health 2) Pro forfeits that water's health benefits completely outweigh any side effects from a plastic after-taste 3) Pro forfeits the usefulness of being able to move tons of water overseas through plastic bottles 4) Pro forfeits that banning bottled water would cost thousands of jobs 5) Pro forfeits that tap water can catch on fire 6) Pro forfeits that the US government is not taking adequate care of public water systems, costing taxpayers billions 7) Pro forfeits that the government has considered and actually put fluoride in drinking water 8) Pro forfeits that bottled water can be more accessible than tap water 9) Pro has conceded hat us municipal water systems are aging and falling in disrepair 10) Pro forfeits that bottled water can easily be recycled 11) Pro forfeits that bottled water is just extra filtered tap water, making it safer 12) Pro forfeits that many people dont even like the taste of tap water 13) Pro forfeits that bottled water is very cheap and accessible to the middle and lower classes 14) Pro forfeits that water is beneficial to ones health 15) Pro forfeits that he changed the resolution of the debate twice in the same debate 16) Pro forfeits that tap water in some cases are simply not accessible to everyone 17) Pro forfeits the debate. He didnt really say this but anyone who waits until the very last round to change the resolution of the debate yet again and doesnt give any additional arguments, evidence, or intellect probably doesnt care about this debate anymore and has admitted defeat. .. .", "qid": "43", "docid": "824ed8eb-2019-04-18T18:32:31Z-00000-000", "rank": 11, "score": 198783.0}, {"content": "Title: Bottled water should be banned Content: Extend arguments. (I really don't know what else to add without repeating the same thing over and over again.", "qid": "43", "docid": "824ed986-2019-04-18T11:15:23Z-00000-000", "rank": 12, "score": 195934.0}, {"content": "Title: Bottled water should be banned Content: I believe bottled water should be banned because it is polluting the environment, There are health risks and many more. (My points won't be stated in this order and I'll have more than the two mentioned. )According to Food & Water Watch, \"Bottled water is literally more expensive than gasoline -- and about 2, 000 times more expensive than tap water. \" [1] One single-served bottled water costs $9. 47 per U. S. Gallon. That's in comparison to gasoline which costs $2. 35 and tap water which costs $0. 005. Instead of wasting money on the production and manufacturing of bottled water you could just use tap water which costs less. When tap water is sent to homes it is filtered so it is completely safe to use and if you still feel it is unsafe you can simply buy a water filter or boil it in a kettle. \"In 2016, 4 billion pounds of plastic was used in U. S. Bottled water production, Requiring an estimated energy input equivalent of about 64 million barrels of oil. \" states Food & Water Watch. [1] Oil is required to transport and manufacture plastic water bottles and considering that it is a limited resource we could very well run out. In order to make plastic, Water and crude oil is required. A lot more water is required to manufacture a bottle than to fill it, Which is the whole purpose of the plastic bottle. This is a waste of our natural resources which could be used towards something more useful that could benefit the society. Also, The cost to transport bottled water is quite high and could easily be avoided if we just banned plastic water bottles for good. People are really careless and even with the existence of garbage cans many fail to put waste in its right place. They simply just throw the plastic water bottles wherever they want without a care in the world. Often times these plastic water bottles end up at the bottom of the ocean and it could harm the aquatic ecosystem and animals that live there. Plastic water bottles could take over 450 years to biodegrade (break down/decompose). Plastic alone takes nearly 1000 years to biodegrade. [2] The best option to get rid of the plastic for good would be to incinerate* [3] it, But it's rarely done. But even if you were to do that, Burning plastic can also lead to the release of dangerous toxins in the environment. So it would just be easier to ban bottled water for good. By manufacturing bottled water dangerous forms of carbon emissions can be released into the atmosphere, This in turn leads to pollution. Countless of people foolishly believe that bottled water is better, Safer and cleaner than tap water when that is in fact a lie. As I mentioned earlier, The tap water that is sent to your home is filtered so it isn't contaminated before it reaches your house. This prevents any \"unclean\" water. A test was done by the State University of New York in Fredonia, In which they bought 250 [plastic water] bottles in nine different countries and examined them. Their test on major brands of bottled water concluded that nearly all of them contained tiny particles of plastic (micro plastic). This isn't safe or good for humans. BBC said that \"Companies whose brands were tested told the BBC that their bottling plants were operated to the highest standards. \" [4] Clearly this is false because if that were true tiny particles of plastic wouldn't have been found. This doesn't just apply to major brands, But bottled water in general. *Incinerate: verb - to cause to burn to ashes [3]Sources (Since the links are causing me some problems I'll just type in what you should search in order to get the website):[1] Search: Take Back The Tap: The Big Business Hustle of Bottled Water (foodandwaterwatch. Org)[2] Search: How Long Does It Take Garbage to Decompose? (thebalancesmb. Com)[3] Search: Incinerate (merriam-webster. Com)[4] Search: Plastic particles found in bottled water (bbc. Com)", "qid": "43", "docid": "824ed986-2019-04-18T11:15:23Z-00003-000", "rank": 13, "score": 195370.0}, {"content": "Title: Water quality Content: Just because the quality of something is high does not mean that we should not have the right to drink it if we so wish. If we banned bottled water because \"we don't need it\" where would this lead? We don't need toasters - we can make fire. We don't need washing machines because we can use the river. We don't need cars because we've got legs. Banning bottled water would start an irreversible trend of banning that which it can be argued we don't need.", "qid": "43", "docid": "39e75959-2019-04-19T12:45:40Z-00024-000", "rank": 14, "score": 187919.0}, {"content": "Title: Bottled water should be banned Content: FYI if you type in bottled water in google image/google you will only see bottled water IN SUPERMARKERTS have a look http://www.google.co.nz... and what are you talking about bottled water being in classrooms, holding while you run, in the city excuse me! back in the 1950's in NYC you wouldent SEE ANYBODY holding bottled water not in the 40's, 30's, 20's!! ever and humans still survived it was introduced in 1970's 1) Bottled water isn't a good value Take, for instance, Pepsi's Aquafina or Coca-Cola's Dasani bottled water. Both are sold in 20 ounce sizes and can be purchased from vending machines alongside soft drinks \u2014 and at the same price. Assuming you can find a $1 machine, that works out to 5 cents an ounce. These two brands are essentially filtered tap water, bottled close to their distribution point. Most municipal water costs less than 1 cent per gallon. Now consider another widely sold liquid: gasoline. It has to be pumped out of the ground in the form of crude oil, shipped to a refinery (often halfway across the world), and shipped again to your local filling station. In the U.S., the average price per gallon is hovering around $3. There are 128 ounces in a gallon, which puts the current price of gasoline at a fraction over 2 cents an ounce. And that's why there's no shortage of companies that want to get into the business. In terms of price versus production cost, bottled water puts Big Oil to shame. 2) No healthier than tap water In theory, bottled water in the United States falls under the regulatory authority of the Food and Drug Administration. In practice, about 70 percent of bottled water never crosses state lines for sale, making it exempt from FDA oversight. On the other hand, water systems in the developed world are well-regulated. In the U.S., for instance, municipal water falls under the purview of the Environmental Protection Agency, and is regularly inspected for bacteria and toxic chemicals. Want to know how your community scores? Check out the Environmental Working Group's National Tap Water Database. While public safety groups correctly point out that many municipal water systems are aging and there remain hundreds of chemical contaminants for which no standards have been established, there's very little empirical evidence that suggests bottled water is any cleaner or better for you than its tap equivalent. 3) Bottled water means garbage Bottled water produces up to 1.5 million tons of plastic waste per year. According to Food and Water Watch, that plastic requires up to 47 million gallons of oil per year to produce. And while the plastic used to bottle beverages is of high quality and in demand by recyclers, over 80 percent of plastic bottles are simply thrown away. That assumes empty bottles actually make it to a garbage can. Plastic waste is now at such a volume that vast eddies of current-bound plastic trash now spin endlessly in the world's major oceans. This represents a great risk to marine life, killing birds and fish which mistake our garbage for food. Thanks to its slow decay rate, the vast majority of all plastics ever produced still exist \u2014 somewhere. 4) Bottled water means less attention to public systems Many people drink bottled water because they don't like the taste of their local tap water, or because they question its safety. This is like running around with a slow leak in your tire, topping it off every few days rather than taking it to be patched. Only the very affluent can afford to switch their water consumption to bottled sources. Once distanced from public systems, these consumers have little incentive to support bond issues and other methods of upgrading municipal water treatment. There's plenty of need. In California, for example, the American Society of Civil Engineers estimated the requirement of $17.5 billion in improvements to the state's drinking water infrastructure as recently as 2005. In the same year, the state lost 222 million gallons of drinkable water to leaky pipes. 5) The corporatization of water In the documentary film Thirst, authors Alan Snitow and Deborah Kaufman demonstrated the rapid worldwide privatization of municipal water supplies, and the effect these purchases are having on local economies. Water is being called the \"Blue Gold\" of the 21st century. Thanks to increasing urbanization and population, shifting climates and industrial pollution, fresh water is becoming humanity's most precious resource. Multinational corporations are stepping in to purchase groundwater and distribution rights wherever they can, and the bottled water industry is an important component in their drive to commoditize what many feel is a basic human right: the access to safe and affordable water.BOOM i win and also if you drink to much water it is draining all the natural minerals OUT OF YOUR BODY i can live on 355ml of water everyday no problem but i choose not to because i like fizzy drinks", "qid": "43", "docid": "824ed8eb-2019-04-18T18:32:31Z-00003-000", "rank": 15, "score": 180841.0}, {"content": "Title: Bottled water is often just tapwater anyway Content: It is often just straight from the tap and therefore no better for you than tap water. Case in point: The Coca-Cola company attempted to release Dasani water in the UK, which was just filtered tap water. It is still on sale in the USA. In theory, bottled water in the United States falls under the regulatory authority of the Food and Drug Administration. In practice, about 70 percent of bottled water never crosses state lines for sale, making it exempt from FDA oversight. On the other hand, water systems in the developed world are well-regulated. In the U.S., for instance, municipal water falls under the purview of the Environmental Protection Agency, and is regularly inspected for bacteria and toxic chemicals. Want to know how your community scores? Check out the Environmental Working Group\u2019s National Tap Water Database. While public safety groups correctly point out that many municipal water systems are aging and there remain hundreds of chemical contaminants for which no standards have been established, there\u2019s very little empirical evidence which suggests bottled water is any cleaner or better for you than its tap equivalent.", "qid": "43", "docid": "39e75959-2019-04-19T12:45:40Z-00023-000", "rank": 16, "score": 152319.0}, {"content": "Title: Bottled water is harmful Content: Clearly me and my opponent have a difference of opinion and for this reason I will end this debate.", "qid": "43", "docid": "aec074d3-2019-04-18T15:35:44Z-00001-000", "rank": 17, "score": 150836.0}, {"content": "Title: It is time to stop buying bottled water Content: Its harmful to the environment", "qid": "43", "docid": "39e75959-2019-04-19T12:45:40Z-00011-000", "rank": 18, "score": 149327.0}, {"content": "Title: Bottled water is harmful Content: That was an interesting concession. Haven't seen that before. As someone pointed out in the comments, if you thought you were going to get someone who agreed with you then why'd you start a debate? Anyway I had fun, and at least you stuck around to the end instead of bailing! Thanks for the debate, best of luck at the polls and in your future debates. -InnovativeEphemera", "qid": "43", "docid": "aec074d3-2019-04-18T15:35:44Z-00000-000", "rank": 19, "score": 147171.0}, {"content": "Title: Bottled water is harmful Content: However, I don't know which debate they were participating in, because it certainly wasn't this one. The resolution as proposed by my opponent and accepted by me is: Bottled water is harmful. As there was no disagreement, the definition stands that harmful means injurious and causing injury to physical health. At no stage has my opponent argued that this is the case, and it is yet to be demonstrated that bottled water is harmful. Let's unpack it. RebuttalsHealth effectsMy opponent states in her very first paragraph: \"No one knows what the health outcomes are. \"This is the only paragraph in which my opponent directly addresses the health concerns, and her conclusion is essentially, \"we don't know and I don't want to find out\". My opponent has not demonstrated that water bottles are in fact harmful. Further in her piece she discusses the potential leaching of water and collection of antimony in settled bottles. But that's the point; it's potential. Your assertion is not that 'bottled water is potentially harmful'. You are arguing that it is harmful. I will address this more robustly in my main argumentation. Everything elseI'm going to do something rather unusual here; I'm going to agree with my opponent's arguments. Almost all of them. Bottled water is worse for the environment. It's more expensive. It doesn't contain added goodies like fluorine to improve dental health. It's also unnecessary, especially in well-resourced countries with access to reliable infrastructure to provide clean drinking water. Personally, I never buy bottled water while I'm out, I always carry a reusable container of some description, or water fountains. But once more, this is not the topic of the debate. My argument has yet to make any argumentation for her case. As it stands, the resolution is being resolved in the negative, as it has not been demonstrated that bottled water is harmful. Onto my argumentation. Opening argumentsBottled water isn't saferMy opponent asserts that \"Bottled water is not safer\". By most accounts (in most places) I agree, though I have recently been backpacking through Asia for two and a half months and I can absolutely assure you that unless you filter the water yourself thoroughly, bottled water is the only safe thing to drink. Because we haven't specified a region, I could easily take this as a safe escape route and you would have a very difficult time challenging me. However, I don't believe I need to resort to this. Your profile doesn't say where you're from, so let's take my country, Australia. In Australia, bottled water does go through stringent safety testing (1) and the Australian Government keeps very close watch over tap water safety (2). So they're both safe. Bottled water definitely isn't safer than tap water here, but it is not harmful, as my opponent is trying to convince you. Bottled water and tap water both meet safety standardsBoth tap and bottled water meet safety standards here and in the U. S. (1, 2, 3). You suggest bottling/Thermosing(? ) your own tap waterBut I thought you said that bottled water is bad for you? Surely this would leech metallic toxins, given that plastic leeches toxins? I mean, if we're following your argument, then this variety of bottled water is harmful too, right? Glass bottlesIncreasing numbers of large water distributors, like Santa Vittoria, San Palegrino and Perrier (5, 6, 7) are using glass water bottles instead of plastic. We have defined bottled water as, \"Water which is purchased over-the-counter or by-unit, in contrast to being purchased through general household consumption\". Glass is included in this scope, and it's important that it is, because glass water bottles are a highly prevalent option. Glass can shatter, which could be considered \"injurious\", however this does not pertain to the safety of the bottled water. Please illustrate the mechanism of action by which glass water bottles cause water to become harmful, noting that the literature indicates glass is completely safe (8). Further, a U. S. -based company has begun production of a glass-plastic water bottled hybrid because of their concerns that plastic water bottles leech chemicals. They're wrong, and it's a marketing gimmick, but hopefully you can elaborate on the safety concerns of these water bottles? (9)What my opponent has to doIn order to demonstrate that bottled water is harmful, it is incumbent on my opponent to present evidence that it is. Further, it would be greatly assisstive if she could demonstrate some disease or ill-health effects of bottled water. Please tell us, in what way is it harmful? How have you determined this? What illness does it cause that constitutes 'harm'? I'm no advocate of bottled water, but it certainly hasn't been demonstrated to be harmful. I thank my opponent for a fun and spirited round, and I'm looking forward to your rebuttals in this non-conventional rendition of an otherwise common debate. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________(1) [. http://australianbeverages.org...](2) [. http://www.nhmrc.gov.au...](3) [. http://edition.cnn.com...](4) [. http://www.santavittoria.com.au...] (5) [. http://www.santavittoria.com.au...](6) [. http://www.sanpellegrino.com...](7) [. http://www.perrier.com...](8) [. http://www.feve.org...](9) [. http://www.glassticwaterbottle.com...]", "qid": "43", "docid": "aec074d3-2019-04-18T15:35:44Z-00004-000", "rank": 20, "score": 146247.0}, {"content": "Title: Bottled Water is better than Tap Water Content: I assume this debate is from an American point of view of tap water, as apposed to say, a Somalian. It is regulatedTap water in the US is \"federally regulated and screened for dangerous pollutants\"[1] so you can be assured that your head growth claim will not be true. Nor do I beilive there have been any cases of Unicorn horns or Beiber Fever due to unregulated tap water, just going out on a limb here. Health BenefitFlouride, added to tap water to increase dental health. \"fluoridation started in the late 1940's and over the years led to a reduction in cavities in children from 50-70%\"[2]It is cheaperBottled water is up to 2000x higher in cost then regular water[3]. For the cost you would think that you are getting cleaner water right? WRONG. b\"ottled water plants are exempt from standards for certain toxins and cancer-causing chemicals that tap water plants must meet.\"[3] Plus, E-Coli and many other viruses, regulated in tap water, aren't regulated in bottled water.Better for the enviromentMore than 80% of bottled water goes into landfills each year[4] and contributes to billions of bottles going into the landfill. Also transportation of these bottles realeases co2 into the atmosphere. They also take years upon years to decompoze. [1]http://news.nationalgeographic.com...[2]http://ezinearticles.com...[3]http://www.slate.com...[4]http://news.nationalgeographic.com...", "qid": "43", "docid": "5618cfde-2019-04-18T16:58:17Z-00002-000", "rank": 21, "score": 145936.0}, {"content": "Title: It quite simply can taste better. Content: There is a growing movement against bottled water. All kinds of folks from newspaper columnists to religious groups to city governments (for example, San Francisco, Salt Lake City) are eschewing bottled water. Here's why: * 86% of plastic water bottles used in the United States become garbage or litter. That means less than 15% are recycled. * Transporting heavy bottled water uses lots of oil for shipping. More oil is used to make the plastic for the bottles. That means more air and water pollution, and increased dependence on petroleum products. * 40% of the bottled water is just over priced, high-falutin tap water. Read the label.", "qid": "43", "docid": "39e75959-2019-04-19T12:45:40Z-00032-000", "rank": 22, "score": 145247.0}, {"content": "Title: Bottled water is harmful Content: Round 1 is accept Rounds 2&3 are arguments and and rebuttals Round 4 is rebuttals and conclusions", "qid": "43", "docid": "aec074d3-2019-04-18T15:35:44Z-00007-000", "rank": 23, "score": 142955.0}, {"content": "Title: Invaluable for travellers in areas with unsafe tap water Content: In a cosmopolitan age, many tourists and business people wish, or are required to travel to areas of the globe where tap water is dangerous to drink, or simply not available. However costly, bottled water provides a solution to the problem of water availability in such areas. Given the length of time it takes to squeeze a cupful of water through a reverse osmosis pump, I suspect bottled water is here to stay for travellers. Drinking 'dirty but 'purified' water is ALWAYS a last resort for travellers. Also it tastes disgusting which is a pretty minor point morally speaking, but in any case will still affect large numbers of people. Make it safe and not taste as horrible then try to convince people.", "qid": "43", "docid": "39e75959-2019-04-19T12:45:40Z-00031-000", "rank": 24, "score": 142595.0}, {"content": "Title: Banning food and drinks at School Content: Hi I Go to BHS. Today they Banned food and drinks at school. It made a lot of people mad. if you have a water bottle you get an office referral and iss and whatever. so people in the school have diabetes. I have diabetes and I am allowed to eat because my sugar will get low and I have to bring it up. and my friends will turn on me because I get to eat and drink and they don't. I have other medical conditions that require me to drink water and eat bc I will die or whatever. but I think its stupid that they are banning food and water. our little town has unclean water the water fountain are nasty. but they are also banning bathrooms too. if you ask to use bathroom we get our cards sign and have to have detention. But I have to take medicine at school and I use they drink I have to have and one of them requires water and I use my water bottle but now I'm not allowed to use it anymore because its banned. but anyways. tell me how you guys think this is wrong or right :)", "qid": "43", "docid": "8ae07785-2019-04-18T14:01:12Z-00006-000", "rank": 25, "score": 141590.0}, {"content": "Title: It is time to stop buying bottled water Content: Water quality", "qid": "43", "docid": "39e75959-2019-04-19T12:45:40Z-00005-000", "rank": 26, "score": 140659.0}, {"content": "Title: Bottled water is often just tapwater anyway Content: In the UK the terms 'natural mineral water' and 'spring water' denote water from an aquifer or underground source, with rules on hygiene and mineral content. Similar laws on how you describe your product exist in the US. If you're stupid enough to pay a premium for something which just says 'water, product of the Coca-Cola company' then you probably deserve getting the hefty dose of bromide that came free in bottles of Dasani. More importantly, whether or not the bottled water comes from the tap, there is still the convenience of being able to purchase, albeit at a premium, water without having to carry a bottle around with you. Moreover if you were, say, travelling in India, or any similar area, the very process of filtering the tap water is rather useful given the reputation of the country's 'potable' water supply.", "qid": "43", "docid": "39e75959-2019-04-19T12:45:40Z-00022-000", "rank": 27, "score": 139254.0}, {"content": "Title: plastic bottles should be banned Content: Okay. So, the way I see it, you're saying that we should get rid of plastics because there is some sort of new material. But, if we were to ban all plastic bottles, or plastics overall, then where would we put the plastic? Its not like we have huge landfills laying around where we can dump the billions of pounds of plastic. So, where would we put the plastic? Also, what about the plastic currently in circulation? How would we deal with that plastic? So we are killing animals and destroying the environment, and I am admittedly against this as well. But face it: if we're going to eliminate all the plastic, we have to consider the cost, as well as where it would be relocated to. I look forward to seeing your response!", "qid": "43", "docid": "5141ec23-2019-04-18T11:29:56Z-00000-000", "rank": 28, "score": 139104.0}, {"content": "Title: Bottled Water is better than Tap Water Content: I strongly believe that bottled water is in every way better than tap water. Tap water has been shown to cause things like abnormally large head growth, unicorn horns sprouting, and getting \"Beiber-Fever\". Tap water sucks.", "qid": "43", "docid": "5618cfde-2019-04-18T16:58:17Z-00003-000", "rank": 29, "score": 138726.0}, {"content": "Title: It quite simply can taste better. Content: Some bottled water does unquestionably taste better. There maybe a risk of bacteria and financial wastage but bottled water gives the individual free choice. Some tap water is also tainted with pollutants, when tap water in London was tested it was found to contain estrogen, and cocaine. Some people's water is affected by peat content which makes the water brown and different local minerals that affect the taste.", "qid": "43", "docid": "39e75959-2019-04-19T12:45:40Z-00033-000", "rank": 30, "score": 138529.0}, {"content": "Title: plastic bottles should be banned Content: Plastics should be banned. In the ocean, plastics are killing thousands of animals each year! They don't decompose or benefit the environment in anyway. Even though we use them for daily use, animals shouldn't pay because you wish to consume some over-sugared drink. New scientists have discovered a type of material that can take the place of these plastic bottles, so why keep them around? We need to put a stop to the destruction of animal life and think before we take action. Factories that produce these bottles also are releasing green house-gases into the atmosphere! This means that, as well as killing our animals, we are destroying our planet as well!", "qid": "43", "docid": "5141ec23-2019-04-18T11:29:56Z-00001-000", "rank": 31, "score": 138288.0}, {"content": "Title: Bottled water is harmful Content: Many bottled waters contain toxins, even if they've nixed BPA. \"Bottled water companies increasingly use BPA-free plastic, but laced into plastic bottles are other chemicals that can seep out if bottles are exposed to heat or sit around for a long time. Some of these chemicals are possible endocrine disruptors. No one knows for sure what the health outcomes are. Do you really want your body to undergo that experiment?\" (1) I know that I would not want to the experiment case for this one. Would you? Bottled water is expensive \"Americans spent $10.6 billion on bottled water in 2009 and paid up to 1,000 times the cost of tap water. And almost half of all bottled water (48.7 percent) came from municipal tap water supplies in 2009. A growing share of bottled water is now coming from tap water.\" (2) It makes no sense to me why someone would want to spend a couple dollars on a bottle of water when we have tap water at home and most likely drinking fountains at work. Spending money on something when you have the chance to get it for free is silly. Bottled water is bad for the environment \"Bottled water wastes fossil fuels in production and transport. Bottled water production in the United States used the energy equivalent of 32 and 54 million barrels of oil to produce and transport plastic water bottles in 2007\"enough to fuel about 1.5 million cars for a year. Rather than being recycled, about 75 percent of the empty plastic bottles end up in our landfills, lakes, streams and oceans, where they may never fully decompose.\" (2) \"Water bottles are made of completely recyclable polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plastics, but PETs don't biodegrade they photodegrade, which means they break down into smaller fragments over time. Those fragments absorb toxins that pollute our waterways, contaminate our soil, and sicken animals (which we then eat).\" (5) Every time you walk outside you will probably see a water bottle lying on the ground. Looking at the statement above, it makes me nervous to know that the food I eat may have been contaminated by a bottle of water somebody bought and they threw on the ground when they were done. Bottled water is not safer \"Tap water in the United States is subject to more stringent federal safety regulations than bottled water. Federal, state, and local environmental agencies require rigorous testing of tap water safety and make test results available to the public. And despite the marketing claims of purity, independent testing of 10 different brands of bottled water conducted in 2008 found 38 contaminants.\" (2) \"The fact of the matter is\" Bottled water may be hurting your health. A new study suggests plastic bottles release small amounts of chemicals over long periods of time. The longer water is stored in plastic bottles, the higher the concentration of a potentially harmful chemical, a new study suggests.\" (3) \"Research found that the concentration of certain chemicals, such as antimony, increases the longer the water sits in the plastic bottle. It increases over time because the plastic is leaching chemicals into the water. Antimony is a white metallic element that in small doses can cause nausea, dizziness and depression. In large doses, it can be fatal. Antimony is similar chemically to lead. It is also a potentially toxic trace element.\" (3) I would rather drink water from the tap knowing that it must go through a rigorous testing schedule. With plastic bottles releasing chemicals over time why would you want to risk drinking from one? Nobody knows how long that bottle of water has been sitting on the shelf before you buy it so why take that chance? What can you do? \"There's a simple alternative to bottled water: buy a stainless steel thermos, and use it. Don't like the way your local tap water tastes? Inexpensive carbon filters will turn most tap water sparkling fresh at a fraction of bottled water's cost.\" (4) There are always alternatives to bottles water as is stated above. You can always buy a thermos or just use a regular cup and bring it with you to work/school. This way you know that it won\"t end up on the street where it can cause harm to the environment. (1)http://www.mindbodygreen.com... (2)http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org... (3)http://www.banthebottle.net... (4)http://www.mnn.com... (5)http://www.huffingtonpost.com...", "qid": "43", "docid": "aec074d3-2019-04-18T15:35:44Z-00005-000", "rank": 32, "score": 137971.0}, {"content": "Title: Bottled water is good where there is a lack of healthy water Content: This doesn't apply to most Western countries though and people there could easily rely on tap water for their needs. << wrong side of the debate :/", "qid": "43", "docid": "39e75959-2019-04-19T12:45:40Z-00016-000", "rank": 33, "score": 137926.0}, {"content": "Title: Bottled water is harmful Content: In response to my opponents challenge. \"Campylobacter infects about 50,000 people a year in England and Wales, far more than better-known organisms such as salmonella. Yet until the mid-Seventies it was virtually unheard of. epidemiologist Dr Meirion Evans. \" \"The results, in the journal Emerging Infectious Diseases, reveal that up to 12 per cent of cases could be attributed to bottled water.\"(1) \"The Natural Mineral Water Service said bottlers already test for campylobacter, adding that the study had failed to differentiate between mineral water from underground and spring water, which could be polluted by agricultural waste. \" (1) (1) http://www.cidpusa.org...", "qid": "43", "docid": "aec074d3-2019-04-18T15:35:44Z-00003-000", "rank": 34, "score": 137575.0}, {"content": "Title: Tap water (pro) vs. bottled water (con) Content: Thanks for a well written response! \"The problem with bottled water is: sometimes the bottle is leaky/not sealed properly, and now some of it poses the same danger as some tap water tanks.\" So now Pro is admitting to something. I am only saying that the water tanks can be dirty, but bottles can be dirty due to not being sealed properly, so this argument is invalid. \"One has to use a container to drink tap water. One has to then wash the container. Using the same amount of water as that required to make a bottle.\" Nope. Tap water can be drunk using a water fountain, etc, plus, the containers for bottled water are poisonous. While reusable ones don't. \"The compounds on which most concerns have focused are Bisphenol A (known as BPA), which is used in tough polycarbonate products and epoxy resins that line tin cans, and a group of plastic softeners called phthalates. Furthermore, a landmark report on BPA published in 2008 by the U.S. National Toxicology Program concluded that there were concerns over BPA\"s effects on the brain, behavior and prostate gland development in foetuses, infants and children. It also found that because of the ratio of body weight to exposure, \"the highest estimated daily intake of Bisphenol A in the general population occurs in infants and children\".\"[1] \"E. Coli is not the most dangerous substance to be found in water. Dead human are.\" Remember, bottled water companies are taking the same tap water here, except not tested for e.coli, and then selling it for thousand times more money.[2] \"Refutation was given by means of the argument that water is tasteless.\" Let's see his refutation: \"Pure water (H2O) is tasteless. What is tasted is the chemicals within the solution.\" The only thing this tells is that the taste is not from the water itself. It only explains the taste, and does not refute it at all. [1]http://www.dailymail.co.uk... [2]http://www.onlineeducation.net...", "qid": "43", "docid": "b0a7bcdb-2019-04-18T18:05:08Z-00005-000", "rank": 35, "score": 137516.0}, {"content": "Title: Drinking Water Content: 1) Drinking water can serve as both a human right and a commodity. There are many companies that sell bottled water as a commodity like the Con claims and I am not denying that or saying that is wrong. However that does not completely negate the idea that humans have a right to clean drinking water because whether or not drinking water is a commodity or a right in a situation depends on two things, access to it and the right to keep it. In sub-Saharan Africa like the Con said there are many countries that are strapped in water resources. However the case is here that these areas have too little fresh water resources available to sustain their populations, not that they are taking it from people and giving it to other people. Drinking water becomes a human right when people have access to it and then that access is compromised or taken away and those people now have no other access to clean drinking water. Anything other scenario though water becomes a commodity so drinking water is a human right and a commodity, and just because it is one does not mean it negates the other. 2) If Drinking water was a human right, it would not abolish the existence of bottled-water companies. These companies take water from a place where they are not taking it away from other people, and market it as a commodity based on convenience. It is their product and they have the right to sell it, and since drinking water can be a human right and a commodity, bottled water companies can still sell these products. Lets look at the thirsty jogger in the Con's example. As the jogger goes into the store to take the water, that is plain theft because in this case the water is a commodity, a product sold by a company and put on sale. The Jogger still has other access to other sources of drinking water such as the tap in their own home or the water fountain right outside the store. If the Jogger buys the water, and then has it taken away from them, and that bottled water was the only source of clean drinking water they have in their life, THEN it is a violation of human rights. However in the jogger example shown here the bottled water is of convenience to the jogger, not of guarantee, so no human rights are in question and the jogger still has to pay for the water. \" If we affirm that access to drinking water is a human right, then there is ultimately nothing stopping this scenario from becoming a very stark reality\"Think of the right to free speech. A protester cant simply walk into a store and take a megaphone to go back outside and say why they think corporations are not people right? of course not. That is because the megaphone, like the water, is in this case merely a commodity sold on convenience. All humans have the right to free speech but according to what the Con's logic says there would be people stealing megaphones from stores all the time. If the Con thinks that if access to water was a right then people have the right to take water, then if the Con believes free speech is a human right then people have the right to steal megaphones too. If that person then has his megaphone taken away by a cop while the protester was not breaking any rules, then that could be an infringement on the rights of the person's freedom of speech. The water argument goes the same way because like the megaphone, the water was originally just a commodity that could be bought and sold. It is only when those things are taken away does it become a violation of human rights. 3) \"all he's done is help frame the debate and claim that anything that is necessary for survival is a right. However I would like to remind all the voters that without a legitimate warrant to back this claim up, all I have to do to refute it is say that it isn't true.\"Here the Con is saying that I am claiming anything that is necessary for survival is a right, and wants me to provide a warrant to back this up....Human right: Includes the right to life (The Con and I previously agreed on this)Right to life: The human right that humans have the right to live Live: For a human to live they need food, water, shelter, etc. Water: Something necessary for humans to live and must have access to in order to do soIf a person is denied their only access to water, it endangers their right to live, that right is defined as a human right, so the right to access clean drinking water is a human right.", "qid": "43", "docid": "9621632a-2019-04-18T18:35:10Z-00004-000", "rank": 36, "score": 137228.0}, {"content": "Title: Bottled water is good where there is a lack of healthy water Content: We actually need some healthy water where taps can not provide that.", "qid": "43", "docid": "39e75959-2019-04-19T12:45:40Z-00017-000", "rank": 37, "score": 136841.0}, {"content": "Title: It is time to stop buying bottled water Content: Invaluable for travellers in areas with unsafe tap water", "qid": "43", "docid": "39e75959-2019-04-19T12:45:40Z-00002-000", "rank": 38, "score": 136089.0}, {"content": "Title: Tap water (Pro) Bottled water (con) Content: I have PM'ed the admin, and he said that this counts as a serious debate, and that derailing serious debates is a conduct violation. This was not intended to be a troll debate in the first place. Many debaters have already done serious debates on this topic. You are the one who is trolling and derailing it, according to the Admin.", "qid": "43", "docid": "e01b315f-2019-04-18T17:32:02Z-00005-000", "rank": 39, "score": 136056.0}, {"content": "Title: It is time to stop buying bottled water Content: Its no better for you.", "qid": "43", "docid": "39e75959-2019-04-19T12:45:40Z-00007-000", "rank": 40, "score": 135326.0}, {"content": "Title: Its no better for you. Content: The source of your bottled water is likely to be the same one that serves your home. Coke revealed last year that the source of it\u00b4s highly publicized Dasani Brand water was London's municipal water supply (with a 3000% markup). PepsiCos Aquafina Brand bottled water is treated tap water coming from 11 different wells around the USA. Mostly the only difference is that bottled water has added minerals and salts, which do not actually mean the water is healthier. Drinking water is better for your teeth as it contains flourides. Bottled water does not.", "qid": "43", "docid": "39e75959-2019-04-19T12:45:40Z-00021-000", "rank": 41, "score": 135120.0}, {"content": "Title: Bottled Water is better than Tap Water Content: Tap water has been shown to cause wide amounts of dehydration among children and young adults. Bottled water has been known to increase awesomeness. (Btw I hope you know this is a joke, im not being serious XD)", "qid": "43", "docid": "5618cfde-2019-04-18T16:58:17Z-00001-000", "rank": 42, "score": 135097.0}, {"content": "Title: Tap water (pro) vs. bottled water (con) Content: \"The problem with bottled water is: sometimes the bottle is leaky/not sealed properly, and now some of it poses the same danger as some tap water tanks.\" So now Pro is admitting to something. \"The scientific evidence is clear that all plastic bottles leach chemicals into the water.\" Water itself is a chemical. In large amounts it does kill (drowning by ingestion). Tap water IS strictly regulated, but only during the period before it is piped to users. My contention stands and is admitted. This argument should thus be removed. One has to use a container to drink tap water. One has to then wash the container. Using the same amount of water as that required to make a bottle. My argument is not based on how many minerals there are, but on the amount of build-up made. One may have only a little mineral in the water, but it still would leave deposits in the pipe. Cost: I was talking about wholesale buying, not single bottle. If one were to buy a shipload of bottled water, one would almost equal the cost of buying that amount of tap water from a water company. (Depends also on the supplier, this argument is also hypothetical) The taste argument has no bearing whatsoever. Give a group of people the choice between sugar water and tap water, most would go for the sugar. It is filtered and checked for contaminants before bottling, whereas tap water is filtered, checked, and left to stagnate in an open tank. The BoP is on Pro. I make a hypothetical case. Con concedes the carbon footprint point. E. Coli is not the most dangerous substance to be found in water. Dead human are. http://indiatoday.intoday.in..., which shows that anything can get into the water tanks. Refutation was given by means of the argument that water is tasteless. Conclusion I have not given a single source in this debate. Other than four sentences past. My arguments are hypothetical, and the validity of some were admitted by Pro. Pro does not seem to understand my refutation of point 4. It was not even technical. Pro uses a source that is unreliable. It cannot be followed up on. It does not provide enough information to make a valid, informed, value judgment. This is evident in the case where the number of bottles made is not given.", "qid": "43", "docid": "b0a7bcdb-2019-04-18T18:05:08Z-00006-000", "rank": 43, "score": 134704.0}, {"content": "Title: Its no better for you. Content: The proposition forgets that most bottled waters marketed in this country are \"mineral\" or \"spring\" waters. For a water to possess the name of \"mineral\" or \"spring\" water, it must come from a spring in the ground and be bottled at source. Waters such as Dasani are unpopular - Dasani itself was itself completely withdrawn from sale in the UK. The bottled waters popular in this country, i.e. Evian, Volvic, San Pellegrino, Buxton, all come from natural springs and contain natural elements, such as iron, potassium etc, which are all necessary for the human body to function healthily. Often, some natural flourides occur in mineral water. Fluorides are only sometimes artificially added to tap waters, and in large quantities this has the undesired effect of staining teeth instead of improving their health. Tap water is often highly chlorinated. Bottled water does have a health benefit and is better than tap water.", "qid": "43", "docid": "39e75959-2019-04-19T12:45:40Z-00020-000", "rank": 44, "score": 134659.0}, {"content": "Title: Tap Water is Better than Bottled Water Content: Before starting the debate, here are a few rules: 1. Please do not write things that are too off topic. (Things that are off topic, but related are okay) 2. Please, do not be rude. Argument 1: A lot of bottled water are actually just filtered tap water. Buying a pitcher water filter is cheaper than buying bottled water in the long term. [2] \"In 2006, the Earth Policy Institute , a Washington-based NGO, found that around 40% of bottled water actually starts off as tap water with minerals added later on, questioning assumptions over its special health impact. Similarly, research carried out by the University of Geneva for conservation group WWF in 2001 found that bottled water is not safer than tap water unless consumed in areas where water is contaminated. \" [1] 2. Tap water contains fluoride, which is good for your teeth unless overdosed. \"According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, infants begin to need fluoride supplements when they are six months old. If your local drinking water (tap water) contains at least 0.3 parts per million (ppm) of fluoride, then it is usually best that they get that fluoride from fluoridated water. While you can instead give your child fluoride drops, there is the risk that he will get too much fluoride if he also drinks fluoridated water and gets too much fluoride, which can cause tooth staining.\" [3] 3. Bottled water is 10,000 times more expensive than tap, can be distributed without meeting tap water standards or testing for E.coli. Bottled water is also more wasteful, only 1 in 5 are recycled. [4] [1]http://www.totallydrinkable.com... [2]http://www.waterbenefitshealth.com... [3]http://pediatrics.about.com... [4]www.onlineeducation.net/bottled_water", "qid": "43", "docid": "51260ca8-2019-04-18T18:07:31Z-00003-000", "rank": 45, "score": 134651.0}, {"content": "Title: Which water is the best water Content: You have only covered only a few reasons why bottled water may be good but as you will see when I explain in more depth my reasons that your explanation will not suffice. First it is not a good value. For example Pepsi's Aquafina or Coca-Cola's Dasani bottled water. Both are sold in 20 ounce sizes and can be purchased from vending machines if you can find a $1 machine that works out to 5 cents an ounce. Most Tap water would cost less than 1 cent per gallon. So you are far from saving money. You also might think that bottled water is healthier than regular tap water but you are mistaken. 70 percent of bottled water never even crosses state lines for sale, making it exempt from FDA to overlook. Also On the other hand, water systems in the developed world are well-regulated. Tap water is also is not only safe it\u2019s beneficial unlike bottled water most tap water contains teeth-strengthening fluoride. There's very little evidence that suggests bottled water is any cleaner or better for you than its tap equivalent.", "qid": "43", "docid": "c8a50f55-2019-04-18T18:22:24Z-00006-000", "rank": 46, "score": 133536.0}, {"content": "Title: Tap water (Pro) Bottled water (con) Content: Burden of proof is shared. First round will be arguments, the following rounds will be rebuttals. Some definitions: Bottled water: Drinking water packaged in plastic or glass and sold as a commodity Tap water: Potable water supplied to taps 1. Carbon footprint 1/5 of plastic bottles from the bottled water do not get recycled. [1] To manufacture these bottles, 47 million gallons of oil are used per year. [2] Even more fuel are needed to send them from the manufacturing plant to the town you live in, and still more to move them from the warehouse to your local grocery store. Using tap water means less demand for non-reusable bottles, which means that less bottles will be manufactured, meaning that the 47 million gallons of oil can be used for necessary purposes, such as transporting food. 2. Health Bottled water is no healthier than tap. In fact, 22% of bottled water contained more chemical contaminants than the state health limit allows. [1] A study conducted by NRDC found that 1/3 of the tested bottled waters have one sample or more that have contamination levels above state and/or industry guidelines. [3] In fact, the chart in the study shows that bottled water is less regulated/less frequently tested than tap water. [3] 3. Transparency Bottled water frequently lie on their labels or have bad transparency. A bottled water brand with \u201cspring water\u201d on its label was actually from an industrial parking lot near hazardous waste. Another bottled water brand claiming to be Alaskan glacial water is actually municipally sourced.[3] Many bottled water companies refuse to disclose the water source, the purification method or whether it even is purified, and whether tests show contaminants. [4] This is not a problem with tap water. [4] Conclusion Due to the 3 problems that bottled water have but tap water don\u2019t, bottled water is worse than tap water. [1] http://www.onlineeducation.net... [2] http://www.mnn.com... [3] http://www.nrdc.org... [4] http://www.ewg.org...", "qid": "43", "docid": "e01b315f-2019-04-18T17:32:02Z-00009-000", "rank": 47, "score": 133066.0}, {"content": "Title: Invaluable for aid in natural disasters/famine Content: It is conceivable that should the demand for bottled water dwindle, manufacturers would have to shut down production in many factories. This would make bottled water less widely available and therefore more expensive. It logically follows that this added expense and dwindling availability would effect aid and charity agencies who rely on cheap, readily availabe bottled water supplies for helping with widespread floods, and other natural disasters.", "qid": "43", "docid": "39e75959-2019-04-19T12:45:40Z-00029-000", "rank": 48, "score": 132613.0}, {"content": "Title: Bottled water is harmful Content: I accept.Because you have not provided opening definitions, I will place some simple framework ones here, however I will not post any argumentation as this is the acceptance round, as per your instructions.Harmful: Injurous or causing injury to a person's physical healthBottled Water: Water which is purchased over-the-counter or by-unit, in contrast to being purchased through general household consumption (e.g. council water mains, etc).________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Over to you to open the debate.", "qid": "43", "docid": "aec074d3-2019-04-18T15:35:44Z-00006-000", "rank": 49, "score": 132528.0}, {"content": "Title: Tap Water is Better than Bottled Water Content: This is my first time on this website so when I inevitably do something wrong, please point it out and ridicule me. Firstly yes some bottled water comes directly from the mains, which on the face of it may seem very wrong. However you're forgetting that you are not just buying tap water but tap water stored in a convenient container that you can take anywhere, a luxury not available with the mere tap water. This then leads to a major pro for bottled water, its ability to be available anywhere! If you're going for a peaceful walk along a mountain trail, you can't take a tap with you. What you can do is pick up a bottle at almost any store and then take it with you and drink it whenever you want! Now as you've already stated 'around 40% of bottled water actually starts off as tap water' which would mean that around 40% of bottled water provides the exact benefits of tap water, but with the bonus of being available anywhere! Also mineral waters come in a bottled form and boasts many health benefits such as reducing the risk of heart attacks and magnesium deficiency(which causes nervousness, dizziness and headaches or migraines) due to its naturally occurring magnesium, the strengthening of bones and preventing blood clots through calcium, aiding the liver and aiding digestion through sulphates and preventing oestioperosis(which leads to increased risk of bone fractures) through silica. [1] Yes there is technically a huge mark up but it isn't as if you're going to be paying huge amounts for your water. Supermarket chain tesco will only charge you 17p for 2 litres of water [2] that you can carry around and drink whenever it pleases you. Proof that people have no problem with paying this is that as you stated 1 in 5 recycle there bottle, but 4 in five people therefore have absolutely no problem with going out and buying another bottle. Ide also like to argue that bottled water is actually doing the environment a favour. A 438 millilitre bottle of Pepsi one will release 2.2 grams of carbon dioxide directly into our atmosphere [3], whilst bottled water would produce none due to not containing carbonated water. Therefore by being on direct competition with soda brands the bottled water becomes an unsung hero in the battle for our planet and this isn't even taking into consideration the inevitably higher amounts of co2 created in the production of a soda, due to its much broader range of ingredients. Ide like to end by presenting you with a scenario. Family a and family b both live in area prone to natural disasters. Family a keeps a well stocked supply of bottled water but family b doesn't. One day a disaster strikes and the water supply is shut off. Family b are forced to love without water and are faced with threats of potential dehydration and even death. Whilst family a live happy in the knowledge that until things return to normal, they have water aplenty and face none of the risks family b endure due to there dependance on the unreliable tap water. [1] http://www.finewaters.com... [2]http://m.tesco.com... [3]http://www.science-house.org...", "qid": "43", "docid": "51260ca8-2019-04-18T18:07:31Z-00002-000", "rank": 50, "score": 132147.0}, {"content": "Title: It is time to stop buying bottled water Content: It enhances enjoyment and feeling of wellbeing", "qid": "43", "docid": "39e75959-2019-04-19T12:45:40Z-00004-000", "rank": 51, "score": 130483.0}, {"content": "Title: It is time to stop buying bottled water Content: It quite simply can taste better.", "qid": "43", "docid": "39e75959-2019-04-19T12:45:40Z-00001-000", "rank": 52, "score": 130304.0}, {"content": "Title: Tap water (pro) vs. bottled water (con) Content: P.S. the taste one I posted was from http://www.nbcwashington.com..., it wasn't in my last argument due to a copy/paste error. Now to the real debate. \"It is quite clear that fluorine can be added to bottled water just like chlorine is added to tap water. Proper tooth care would negate the need for additional fluorine. The assertion that E. Coli is not checked for in bottled water, which I cannot verify, but in tap water is opposed by the statistics by Pro that 40% of all bottled water uses tap water. There is the high probability of contamination of tap water tanks as opposed to bottled water, which is sealed. There is nothing to prevent contamination AFTER testing, at the period of time when it stagnates in tanks. However, bottled water is sealed right after packing.\" The problem with bottled water is: sometimes the bottle is leaky/not sealed properly, and now some of it poses the same danger as some tap water tanks. Plus, check out this: \"In fact, certain brands of bottled water have been shown to have more contaminants than tap water due to the leaching of harmful chemicals from the plastic bottles. The scientific evidence is clear that all plastic bottles leach chemicals into the water.\"[3] Tap water: Possibility of contamination from container, Strictly regulated. Bottled water: Isn\"t tested for e. coli. Can be distributed even when tap water standards are not met. Not required to provide source. [1]Lower possibility of contamination from container. Environmental effects argument: \"How many bottles? He leaves out that important piece of information that allows us to compare.\" It isn't on my source, but tap water does not use bottles AT ALL. \"Tap water, on the other hand, is hard water. Hard Water deposits block pipes, and the cost to replace those pipes in an environmentally friendly manner probably outweighs that of disposing the same amount of bottles.\" Hard water=water that has high mineral content. [2] How many minerals are in tap water has many factors: the source, the filtration method, etc. so this argument is invalid until you put evidence for it. Cost Argument \"Depending on where the bottle is bought and in what amount, the cost of bottle water actually can be lower than tap water.\" Maybe you can give me a link to the website of a store? \"Furthermore, a container would have to be used to consume the water. Water would then be needed to clean that container. The waste in water far outweighs the benefits.\" Well, it takes 3 bottles of water to produce the bottle, only 1 used to fill it. [1] Taste \"Pure water (H2O) is tasteless. What is tasted is the chemicals within the solution.\" This still does not prove my taste argument wrong. \"Less regulated. No such point was made.\" It is not checked for E.Coli. It is less regulated. [1] \"Costs more than tap. Not necessarily.\" No proof given. \"Bigger carbon footprint. No such point.\" Even though most major cities in America have made recycling available, only 1 in 5 water bottles ever gets recycled. Instead, 4 go to the trash dump to create about 3 billion pounds of waste just from all of the discarded plastic. It actually takes 17 million barrels of oil to produce bottled water which is enough oil to fuel 1 million cars for a whole year.[1] As you can see, I did have such point. \"Not as good for you as tap. Refuted.\" It still is not tested for E.coli. [1] \"Tastes worse than tap. Not due to the water.\" No refutation given at all. Conclusion My opponent has not given a single source on this debate. No evidence given from opponent. My opponent did not refute point 4. (No personal attack intended) [1]http://www.onlineeducation.net... [2]http://en.wikipedia.org... [3]http://www.waterbenefitshealth.com...", "qid": "43", "docid": "b0a7bcdb-2019-04-18T18:05:08Z-00007-000", "rank": 53, "score": 130268.0}, {"content": "Title: Which water is the best water Content: My opponent may have stated her reason but has not justified them. First and foremost, the best thing about bottled water is the portability. We\u2019re always on the move, and taking the time to look for a water fountain can be out of the question. However, if we be sure to always carry a bottle of water or two, our problem is solved. Bottled water can also save money. Instead of buying expensive soda or coffee, if we were to have a bottle of water on hand, we\u2019d be set.Also people prefer variety. There are also energizing waters for those of us who need that extra boost during a long day, and also relaxing waters to aid in falling asleep. Bottled water also lacks that heavy stench of chlorine that often accompanies plain tap water.", "qid": "43", "docid": "c8a50f55-2019-04-18T18:22:24Z-00007-000", "rank": 54, "score": 129958.0}, {"content": "Title: Tap water (Pro) Bottled water (con) Content: I have blocked you for derailing a serious debate. The admin/moderator of this site has said that making your friends vote for you just because they are your friends is a conduct violation. You know what violating site rules means, right? My opponent has refused to argue about anything or make a legitimate case like I did. This is the second time in a row this has happened to me, the last one washttp://www.debate.org...Somebody must be making multiple accounts to prevent me from doing a legitimate debate and therefore dragging down my ELO.", "qid": "43", "docid": "e01b315f-2019-04-18T17:32:02Z-00007-000", "rank": 55, "score": 129640.0}, {"content": "Title: It enhances enjoyment and feeling of wellbeing Content: Walking in the countryside, playing chess or swimming may improve one's sense of well-being - but these activities have no detrimental consequences for the wider environment. This is not just a reference to the scientifically debatable concept of 'carbon footprints' &c. involved in bottle production and transit, but to the landfill and litter that the consumption of bottled water inevitably produces. If it is the feeling of wellbeing one seeks, then purchase only one bottle, and re-fill it, as required from the tap, or perhaps a tabletop water filter. One doesn't need to keep purchasing bottled water to feel good.", "qid": "43", "docid": "39e75959-2019-04-19T12:45:40Z-00026-000", "rank": 56, "score": 129462.0}, {"content": "Title: Tap Water is Better than Bottled Water Content: In Conclusion, bottled water does not need to pass E.coli tests, is not required to produce quality reports, costs more than tap, and is wasteful as only one fifth of them are recycled.[1] Bottled water does not even taste better than tap, according to a survey from Penn and Teller. [2]Their only pro is that they are put in a portable, carry-able bottle. [1]http://www.onlineeducation.net... [2]www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdvJOF-2mm0", "qid": "43", "docid": "51260ca8-2019-04-18T18:07:31Z-00000-000", "rank": 57, "score": 129384.0}, {"content": "Title: Which water is the best water Content: Bottle water is not the better choice it's expensive, wasteful and not any healthier for you than tap water :1.Its not a good value2.No healthier than tap water 3.Bottled water brings harm to the environment 4.Brings less attention to public systems. 5. Effect local economies. I will explain these reasons throughout the debate.", "qid": "43", "docid": "c8a50f55-2019-04-18T18:22:24Z-00008-000", "rank": 58, "score": 128913.0}, {"content": "Title: Tap water (pro) vs. bottled water (con) Content: Yes! I am admitting to something. I effectively equated the quality of tap water to bottled water, thus negating the resolution. The argument is valid because I do not have a BoP. All I have to do is to show that tap water is NOT better than bottled water. I do not dispute their equality and I do not advocate bottled water. A water fountain is a water fountain is not a tap. A water fountain\"s purpose is solely to give drinkable water (Hence many fountains have a \"For drinking only\" sign). A tap\"s main purpose is to supply water. Period. I do not dispute that there can be harmful chemicals in bottled water. I dispute, however, that there can be no toxic chemicals in tap water. Pro uses a non-sequitur when he tries to refute my argument about human contamination. He cites cost, while I was talking about contamination. He says that bottled water is taken from tap water but is not tested for E. Coli, another non sequitur. P1. Bottled water is taken from tap water P2. Tap water is tested for E. Coli Conclusion: Bottled water is not tested for E. Coli I explain the origins of the taste, thus refuting the idea that tap water has any inherent value over that of bottled water. Thus, I have shown clearly that tap water is not necessarily better than bottled water.", "qid": "43", "docid": "b0a7bcdb-2019-04-18T18:05:08Z-00004-000", "rank": 59, "score": 128798.0}, {"content": "Title: Tap water (pro) vs. bottled water (con) Content: I'll be arguing that tap water is better than bottled water. 1. Health benefits Tap water is fluoridated, which is good for your teeth. \"Water fluoridation is the controlled addition of fluoride to a public water supply to reduce tooth decay. Fluoridated water has fluoride at a level that is effective for preventing cavities; this can occur naturally or by adding fluoride.\"[1] Fluoride is lethal in high doses,[2] but is harmless in low doses. Plus, bottled water isn\"t tested for e. coli.[3] which makes it potentially dangerous. 2. Environmental impacts \"Comically, the bottled water production process is fairly resource intensive. It actually takes 17 million barrels of oil to produce bottled water which is enough oil to fuel 1 million cars for a whole year. ...Even though most major cities in America have made recycling available, only 1 in 5 water bottles ever gets recycled.\"[3] 3.It is expensive! Bottled water is 10,000 times the cost of tap water, and 40% of bottled water is actually taken from tap water. [3] 4. It does not even taste better than tap. \"D.C. residents picked tap water over bottled water in a blind taste test.\"[4] 5. Conclusion Bottled water : Less regulated Costs more than tap Bigger carbon footprint Not as good for you as tap Tastes worse than tap [1]http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]http://en.wikipedia.org... [3]http://www.onlineeducation.net... [4]D.C. residents picked tap water over bottled water in a blind taste test.", "qid": "43", "docid": "b0a7bcdb-2019-04-18T18:05:08Z-00009-000", "rank": 60, "score": 128665.0}, {"content": "Title: It is time to stop buying bottled water Content: Bottled water is good where there is a lack of healthy water", "qid": "43", "docid": "39e75959-2019-04-19T12:45:40Z-00009-000", "rank": 61, "score": 128324.0}, {"content": "Title: People believe the marketing hype too much Content: so youre saying we shouldnt buy bottled water because you don't like how its being advertised? Thats the dumbest reason to not buy a product i've ever heard. Really? So what how its advertised? If i want to buy a bottle of water i'll buy it, i don't care what the label looks like or how theyre being sold, i just want a damn bottle of water.", "qid": "43", "docid": "39e75959-2019-04-19T12:45:40Z-00014-000", "rank": 62, "score": 128259.0}, {"content": "Title: Tap water (pro) vs. bottled water (con) Content: I accept, since my other debates have a high possibility of forfeiture. The BoP is on you, but I will present arguments. 1. Health benefits. It is quite clear that fluorine can be added to bottled water just like chlorine is added to tap water. Proper tooth care would negate the need for additional fluorine. The assertion that E. Coli is not checked for in bottled water, which I cannot verify, but in tap water is opposed by the statistics by Pro that 40% of all bottled water uses tap water. There is the high probability of contamination of tap water tanks as opposed to bottled water, which is sealed. There is nothing to prevent contamination AFTER testing, at the period of time when it stagnates in tanks. However, bottled water is sealed right after packing. 2. Environmental effects. I do not deny the fact that it uses a large amount of oil to produce plastic bottles, but how much? Pro states, \"Comically, the bottled water production process is fairly resource intensive. It actually takes 17 million barrels of oil to produce bottled water which is enough oil to fuel 1 million cars for a whole year.\" How many bottles? He leaves out that important piece of information that allows us to compare. Tap water, on the other hand, is hard water. Hard Water deposits block pipes, and the cost to replace those pipes in an environmentally friendly manner probably outweighs that of disposing the same amount of bottles. 3. Cost Depending on where the bottle is bought and in what amount, the cost of bottle water actually can be lower than tap water, especially in locations that have no pipe. Furthermore, a container would have to be used to consume the water. Water would then be needed to clean that container. The waste in water far outweighs the benefits. 4. Taste Pure water (H2O) is tasteless. What is tasted is the chemicals within the solution. Conclusion: Bottled water : Less regulated. No such point was made. Costs more than tap. Not necessarily. Bigger carbon footprint. No such point. Not as good for you as tap. Refuted. Tastes worse than tap. Not due to the water. I have thus negated the resolution. I believe tap water to be equal to, not better than, bottled water.", "qid": "43", "docid": "b0a7bcdb-2019-04-18T18:05:08Z-00008-000", "rank": 63, "score": 128250.0}, {"content": "Title: Hydroxyl Acid Should Be Banned Content: I contend that Hydroxyl acid should not be banned for the simple fact that it is WATER.......", "qid": "43", "docid": "8d266032-2019-04-18T16:46:37Z-00003-000", "rank": 64, "score": 127773.0}, {"content": "Title: Bottled Water is better than Tap Water Content: \"Btw I hope you know this is a joke, im not being serious XD\"Oh...now I feel silly...I don't get sarcasm, so I am just going to go on with this debate like its cereal. Nom Nom Nom. Tap water has been shown to cure AIDS in unicorns.", "qid": "43", "docid": "5618cfde-2019-04-18T16:58:17Z-00000-000", "rank": 65, "score": 127250.0}, {"content": "Title: It is time to stop buying bottled water Content: Bottled water is often just tapwater anyway", "qid": "43", "docid": "39e75959-2019-04-19T12:45:40Z-00006-000", "rank": 66, "score": 127021.0}, {"content": "Title: Tap Water is Better than Bottled Water Content: Here are your arguments and my responses \"Some bottled water come from tap, though it is in a bottle so it can be carried, which is not available with tap.\" There are reusable bottles that can be used for moving tap water from place to place, and buying one can be cheaper than bottled water in the long term, as bottles for bottled water are usually not designed to last, though those reusable ones do. \"Mineral water is available in bottled form, and those minerals reduce some health risks.\" Those minerals are healthy for you, but can also be got from food and not from something that flows for almost free on our tap and is sold for thousand times of that. For example, milk also got a lot of these minerals, and so does some other foods too. 'Minerals or milk salts, are traditional names for a variety of cations and anions within bovine milk. Calcium, phosphate, magnesium, sodium, potassium, citrate, and chlorine are all included as minerals and they typically occur at concentration of 5\"40 mM.' [1] \"You stated that only 1 in 5 recycle their bottles, though 4 in 5 have no problem with buying another one. It is not very expensive.\" Only one in five recycle their bottles [2], and that causes environmental issues, like giant piles of bottles ending up in landfills. Then, they buy them again when they can just get it for almost free from the tap. \"bottled water is good for the environment because soda releases co2 into the atmosphere and bottled water does not\" Bottled water industries use 17 million barrels of oil each year to make plastic. [2]And count all the shipping around the world before they end up on the shelves. Plus there sure are carbonated bottled water on the market. [3] [1]http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]http://www.onlineeducation.net... [3]http://www.finewaters.com...", "qid": "43", "docid": "51260ca8-2019-04-18T18:07:31Z-00001-000", "rank": 67, "score": 126956.0}, {"content": "Title: <GY> Water should be Privatized Content: I first express my thanks for the arguments, and let me proceed to a final round :) Let me first begin by refuting some of the statements; 1) Let me first clarify and inform that distribution of water is not limited to 'drinking water'or , but rather a distribution to homes through pipes such as water used for bath, dish-washing, toilets, and many other purposes. Therefore, once again water is more than just 'drinking' or 'bottled water' but rather a supply for many tasks we need to do in life. 2) Yes, there are worldwide systems and organizations, but they are insufficient to provide every people with water supplies. If those organizations were so great and so effective, how can the nations and people suffering from unapproachable water be existent? I believe that domestic governmental effort through making the water public works much better and efficient. The failures of water privatization is mentioned in my first round's arguments through the examples Great Britain(developed country), and Tanzania(developing country). Let me provide you with some of the successes that public water supply systems have made; Germany has a public system with very low distribution losses; 100% of the urban areas have access while 97% of the rural areas are granted of access. For both urban and rural areas, over 90% has the high sanitation rate. In Denmark, 100% of the population gets water supplies, with more than 87% of high sanitation rate. For the example of a developing country, we have Costa Rica - nearly 90% or the rural areas are granted access, and with almost all of the urban areas getting the supply as well. These data proves that public water systems are certainly more efficient in providing the public with water with good quality and efficiency. 3) My opponent has stated 'there are places where you can get free water'. However, he/she did not state such specific places, and it is not proved. And EVEN IF there were to be places with free water, still people would have to carry the water they need all the way home - which is very inefficient compared to the water pipe systems. 4) \"people who don't work or don't go out into the world and get a job should not get water\" ; means that if one does not have money or a job, they should not be granted the access to water. However, let's keep in mind that no money and no job is caused from lack of efforts. So what about people that are born in adverse conditions? If they have money, does that mean their water supplies, a vital source, has to be cut? A nation and a government should be ready to provide its people, at least a VERY BASIC LIFE SOURCE, instead of abandoning them. 5) There are certain RIGHTS that are granted to people regardless of their jobs or status in money- such as rights to life, freedom of speech, rights to be protected, rights to vote, and so on. And water is one of those sources that should be granted and be provided by the government. Today, I have proved to you that water should NOT be privatized through suggesting; 1) Explaining the nature and qualities of water being a necessary life source and why it should be provided by the government, 2) Explain the Nature of the private companies and how their preference on profits over people can cause harm, plus the comparison with the public water systems which were successful, 3) Possible environmental harms that can come with privatizing water Plus I believe I have rebutted my opponent successfully. However, I haven't really seen a direct rebuttal to theses arguments from my opponent. Plus, what I have seen in the arguments of my opponents were vague. 1) My opponent firstly misunderstood the privatization of water - when it should have been considering the supply of overall water, my opponent has only considered 'bottled water' which was a very limited topic. 2) He/she was also irresponsible in providing people with fair and equal source of water- and when I pointed out the responsibilities of the government and necessity of water supply, I haven't heard the response to that. 3) 'Worldwide systems and organizations of water' or 'free sources' of water were what my opponent suggested. However, they were not specified. Plus, getting water supplies to everybody from those water systems are very impractical - but my opponent as ignored these factors. 4) I haven't seen any reason from my opponent on WHY companies are more efficient or better in providing people with water sources, or why companies can manage the water systems better without harming the environment. 5) Not just these reasons, but I haven't seen a solid argument or a reasoning in my opponent's arguments, and therefore, I do not exactly know what possible solutions or suggestions that were suggested by my opponent. He/she was merely irresponsible, and while he/she tried to tackle my arguments, because they were vague and illogical, they do not stand.(please refer to my rebuttals) Water, once a gain, is a source that is directly related to the rights of life. And because people should be granted these rights, it should be the government who should be managing the system. My reasons have been proved throughout this debate, and if you care for the people and fair distribution of water, please vote for me! We all want water to come out from our sinks, toilets, and showers. :)", "qid": "43", "docid": "2ed17cc9-2019-04-18T18:59:58Z-00001-000", "rank": 68, "score": 126873.0}, {"content": "Title: My opponent picks the potential topic. Content: Welcome to the debate. This is a special debate, with special formats as follows.FORMAT1st round-Pro Introduce the parametersSelf-explanatory1st round-Con Provide the possible argumentsProvide ten possible topics for me to choose from. Do NOT try to define or explain the arguments, as I can interpret the arguments any way I wish. Anything here should only be greetings or topics. I decide which side I wish to be, IGNORE the fact that debate.org says that I'm pro. The debate topics have to be somewhat different, to prevent ten rewording of a single topic. I can change the topic you provide slightly as well for the debate to be a fun experience. A good example of a topic is 'bottled water should be banned' while the topic 'books' should At the start of round 2 I will underline and bold the confirmed topic. 2nd round-Pro Argument & selection of topic.I will provide a confirmed topic here, define the topic and supply my arguments as necessary. My side (pro/con) will also be clearly stated here. Please cite all research and arguments. Please provide evidence for all arguments.2nd round-Con Argument & Rebuttal.Provide your arguments and rebuttal in this round. Again, please cite research provide evidence for arguments.3rd round-Pro Argument & Rebuttal.Provide your arguments and rebuttal in this round. Again, please cite research provide evidence for arguments.3rd round-Con Argument & Rebuttal.Provide your arguments and rebuttal in this round. Again, please cite research provide evidence for arguments.4th round-Pro Argument & Rebuttal.Provide your arguments and rebuttal in this round. Again, please cite research provide evidence for arguments.4th round-Con Argument & Rebuttal.Provide your arguments and rebuttal in this round. Again, please cite research provide evidence for arguments. 5th round-Pro Conclusion & Rebuttal.Rebut arguments and provide a conclusion in this round. No new arguments.5th round-Con Conclusion & Rebuttal.Rebut arguments and provide a conclusion in this round. No new arguments.No abusive language please. The topics that con picks should not be abusive. The topic has to be debatable worldwide. \"My opponent picks the topic.\" is only a placeholder for real topic, so you may NOT post \"I am not posting any topics, therefore I win\" or something along those lines. Also, please post topics that are easy to debate on both sides.Failure to follow the rules and format stated above results in a full 7-point forfeit to the opposing team.PLEASE READ THE FORMAT AND RULES.I hope we have a good debate. Time limit for each argument: 1 day.Character limit: 3000Thank you.", "qid": "43", "docid": "461ead88-2019-04-18T16:28:38Z-00006-000", "rank": 69, "score": 126302.0}, {"content": "Title: Dihydrogen Monoxide should be banned Content: Dihydrogen monoxide is water. To ban it would be to commit suicide for our entire race - water is a neccessary part of our existence. Banning dihydrogen monoxide would destroy our race, as well as any other lifeforms we prevent from using it. Here are some other facts about dihydrogen monoxide: Humans are made up mostly of it. The earth's surface is made up mostly of it. It can be used as a coolant. All plant and animal life requires it to live. It is a neccessary ingredient in many foods and almost all beverages. It is what we clean ourselves with. It's fun and good exercise to swim in it. Yes, water can do many harmful things. Being known as hydric acid is not something wrong with water. It's simply another name. Sure, it sounds dangerous, but it's not. And water isn't even acidic. Indeed, it contributes to the greenhouse effect. So much so, in fact, that without it, our planet would be too cold. The greenhouse effect is not 'bad', it's necessary for our planet to have suitable temperatures for human (or most other) life. Boiling water or steam can burn someone - but then again, so can anything, if you get it hot enough. Water does indeed contribute to rusting. However, rain takes blame for most of this effect, and we surely aren't going to stop it from raining any time soon. The fact that it can cause electrical failures and cause brakes to function worse is no reason to ban water. Oil or dish soap would both also reduce the effectiveness of brakes, and a great many things are capable of causing electrical failures, including metal - which is necessary for transporting electricity in the first place. In any case, the human use of water is not what causes these effects, it is once again rain, which we cannot ban. The fact that water has been found in excised tumors is also no reason to ban it. Association does not imply causation. Perhaps the reason e find water in tumors is not because they caused the tumors, but because humans are made of mostly water. Indeed, that seems like a much more reasonable conclusion, since one would expect a mostly-water organsm to have some water in its tumors. So, in conclusion, we should not ban water (Dihydrogen Monoxide) for many reasons. First, it is impractical. How are we to ban water? As my opponent himself pointed out, it exists so many places in nature. Indeed, it covers most of the surface of the earth, and it is the main component of rain. We cannot ban something like that. Second, it would be disastrous to all life for us to ban it, assuming that was possible. We need water to survive, as does the majority (perhaps all?) of life on this planet. Third, my opponent has given us no good reason to ban it. The only negative things he's sown that actually have causation are things caused by natural rain (rusting, trouble for brakes, electrical problems). And lastly, the luxuries we enjoy from water - such as the ability to keep clean and the ability to have fun at a lake, beach, pool, or other body of water, would be lost if we somehow 'banned' water. Your move.", "qid": "43", "docid": "e1463160-2019-04-18T19:39:47Z-00004-000", "rank": 70, "score": 126227.0}, {"content": "Title: Movies should not be banned. Content: (There's spoilers for the Avengers movie in here! I'll put that in a different font.Con, where is your proof for this? Where is any proof that movies should be banned? Also, banning movies would be a direct violation of the 1st amendment. Banning movies would simply be tyrannical, and I doubt any police or governments would choose to follow that movement. Also, theories do go out of date. Theories that have gone out of date: Tomatoes are poisonous. Cigarettes are healthy. Also, they're just theories. Not proven facts, but theories. I could make a theory that water is poisonous for the human body. It's just a theory. Of course normally drinking water won't harm you. Watching movies is not as vital as drinking water, but it certainly won't harm anyone. You made the point about Avengers. The Avengers is a movie about CRIME-FIGHTING people who want to save people. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a person who would watch the Movie about the Avengers and then procede to make a Tesseract, contact aliens, then bring them into New York to invade Earth. Movies use something called a THEATRICAL element. Also, since you said that people learn crimes, wouldn't we have to ban all forms of entertainment and news? News tells about crimes and usually how they were committed, so we'll have to ban that too. Most plays have some \"Crime\" in them, so lets ban them all too! In total, Con wants to ban: Movies, Radio, News, Television, Plays, Newspapers, and anything else that mentions a crime in them. Con, I hope this shows you how ludicrous and impossible this plan would be.", "qid": "43", "docid": "d23e00ce-2019-04-18T11:44:21Z-00001-000", "rank": 71, "score": 125740.0}, {"content": "Title: Cigarettes should be banned Content: They are bad", "qid": "43", "docid": "2f73060-2019-04-18T15:23:25Z-00005-000", "rank": 72, "score": 125609.0}, {"content": "Title: Water quality Content: The quality of water is very high in this country is very good. In foreign countries bottled water is only consumed because they cannot drink the tap water. There is no need to drink it.", "qid": "43", "docid": "39e75959-2019-04-19T12:45:40Z-00025-000", "rank": 73, "score": 125591.0}, {"content": "Title: Its harmful to the environment Content: There are environmental costs to purifying tap water too. Not to forget the toxic materials necessary to pump and deliver the water to the tap. Moreover the problems you raise are more with the bottles themselves and how we dispose of them than with the concept of bottled water per se. Biodegradable corn starch 'polymers' or a more responsible attitude to recycling would also solve the problem.", "qid": "43", "docid": "39e75959-2019-04-19T12:45:40Z-00012-000", "rank": 74, "score": 125506.0}, {"content": "Title: Which water is the best water Content: According to Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), special treatments to remove impurities\u2014such as distillation or coronation\u2014are performed on top of municipal filtrations by certain bottled water manufacturers, such as Aquafina and Dasani. Bottled water offers consistent quality control, as each bottle is of the same quality as the previous one. Lead levels for tap water are lower for bottled water than tap. According to Mama\u2019s Health, tap water is set at 15 parts per billion (ppb) and bottled water is set at 5 ppb.", "qid": "43", "docid": "c8a50f55-2019-04-18T18:22:24Z-00001-000", "rank": 75, "score": 125397.0}, {"content": "Title: Which water is the best water Content: The care for these public water sytems has been forgotten in many places and because of easy access to water bottles they switch their water consumption to bottled sources. Then little incentive to support bond issues and other methods of upgrading municipal water treatment. I believe I have showed more information that goes against bottled water than my opponent.", "qid": "43", "docid": "c8a50f55-2019-04-18T18:22:24Z-00000-000", "rank": 76, "score": 124912.0}, {"content": "Title: <GY> Water should be Privatized Content: To counter your statement, my point was not that God would not want water to be open to everyone, but that if we did make water legal and open to everyone, that would cause even more problems in our society. 1) Yes, God cares very much about humans, and does not want them to thirst or starve. However, He does want us to work towards what we want and need. Making the water free, means that even the people that don't work, or don't go out into the world and get a job, get the same priveliges that poeple do who do work hard. 2) There are places where you can get free water. There are many places where you can get free cups of water. People don't NEED bottled water. If they are so picky, they can earn some money and buy themselves a bottle. 3) There are worldwide systems and organizations that help people get water. We should take those oppurtunities and help the countries in need. Thank you for listening to my side of this debate.", "qid": "43", "docid": "2ed17cc9-2019-04-18T18:59:58Z-00002-000", "rank": 77, "score": 124381.0}, {"content": "Title: music should be banned Content: that is correct.", "qid": "43", "docid": "79a94de7-2019-04-18T11:34:44Z-00001-000", "rank": 78, "score": 123877.0}, {"content": "Title: Bottled water is harmful Content: Thanks to my opponent for her round.Before continuing, I'd like to request that you show your opponents a little more respect in your argumentation. I've had a look at some of your other debates, and you do the same thing: copy and paste quotations for the absolute vast bulk of your rounds. Your last round consisted of 98 words, six of which were your own. That means that your work is just over six percent original. Even with citations, this is blatant plagiarism and is disrespectful. These debates are much more fun and engaging when they're between two people with counterposing ideas, beliefs, arguments or positions, rather than between one person and a series of pasted elements of other people's work._________________________________________________________RebuttalsNot much to be said, other than you didn't finish reading your own source (emphasis added): \"(We suspect that people who are not cleaning their hands or the bottle tops before opening are causing this infection). So please clean the tops before drinking.\" Didn't think I'd check, did you?My opponent has yet to demonstrate that Bottled Water is Harmful.-> Not can be harmful-> Not has been harmful-> Not the Potential for Harmbut to demonstrate that Bottled Water is Harmful. Next!", "qid": "43", "docid": "aec074d3-2019-04-18T15:35:44Z-00002-000", "rank": 79, "score": 123627.0}, {"content": "Title: Tap water (pro) vs. bottled water (con) Content: \"Pro uses a non-sequitur when he tries to refute my argument about human contamination. He cites cost, while I was talking about contamination. He says that bottled water is taken from tap water but is not tested for E. Coli, another non sequitur. P1. Bottled water is taken from tap water P2. Tap water is tested for E. Coli Conclusion: Bottled water is not tested for E. Coli\" But wait! What about the remaining from the other 60%? (40% of them are processed tap water. ) Plus, bottled water gets processed before being sold, and how do you guarantee that the processing plant is free of E. coli? \"I explain the origins of the taste, thus refuting the idea that tap water has any inherent value over that of bottled water. \" Just because the taste has a reason means that tap water is not superior to bottled water. With this logic, we can also conclude that: P1. Unicorns have glitter. P2. Unicorns produce the glitter. C. Unicorns are real. Therefore this rebuttal is false.", "qid": "43", "docid": "b0a7bcdb-2019-04-18T18:05:08Z-00003-000", "rank": 80, "score": 123580.0}, {"content": "Title: Which water is the best water Content: Bottled water is big business. Estimates in variously place worldwide bottled water sales at between $50 and $100 billion each year, with the market expanding at the startling annual rate of 7 percent. The global bottled water sales have increased dramatically over the past several decades, reaching a valuation of around $60 billion and a volume of more than 115,000,000 cubic metres (3.0\u2060\u00d7\u20601010 US gal) in 2006. U.S. sales reached around 34 billion liters in 2008, a slight drop from 2007 levels. The global rate of consumption more than quadrupled between 1990 and 2005. Spring water and purified tap water are currently the leading global sellers. By one estimate, approximately 50 billion bottles of water are consumed per annum in the U.S. and around 200 billion bottles globally.", "qid": "43", "docid": "c8a50f55-2019-04-18T18:22:24Z-00003-000", "rank": 81, "score": 123136.0}, {"content": "Title: Which water is the best water Content: People prefer variety. There are various flavors of water available, to suit whatever your preferences are. There are also energizing waters for those of us who need that extra boost during a long day, and also relaxing waters to aid in falling asleep. Bottled water also lacks that heavy stench of chlorine that often accompanies plain tap water.", "qid": "43", "docid": "c8a50f55-2019-04-18T18:22:24Z-00005-000", "rank": 82, "score": 123063.0}, {"content": "Title: Dihydrogen Monoxide should be banned Content: I'll make this simple. Let's examine something my opponent said last round. \"the lack of a quantifier does not allow the respondent to pick and choose whichever he so desires.\" However, that is just what my opponent himself is doing. Let's take a look at the facts. The topic does not specify the context of the debate. My opponent's first round was solely GENERAL FACTS about water. At this point in the debate, no specifics had been determined, so the only conflict that made any sense was whether or not it should be banned IN GENERAL. After my round 1, we had 2 rounds where debaters had argued the topic on a general level, and no rounds where anyone was arguing specifically about specifics. However, then my opponent's second round came. He decided that since he could not win the general debate due to overwhelming arguments, he would instead arbitrarily decide at this point what the topic meant. TOO LATE, my friend. The groundwork for this debate had already been set, you cannot suddenly change it into some specific variant. Seeing this, I argued not only against his specific claims, but also against his sudden re-interpretation of the topic. I argued that the topic was stated generally, and that it makes no sense to bind it to one or two specific scenarios, especially scenarios that WEREN'T EVEN HINTED AT in round 1. Then my opponent goes and claims that I can't just go redefining the topic at whim. However, it was not I that started arguing generally. My opponent's very first round was a GENERAL synopsis of the 'effects' of water. HE decided that the debate would be not about a specific scenario, but about the big picture. I have changed nothing. IT is my opponent who has suddenly changed it all up, claiming that one remote scenario proves his case. I will say this the best way I know how: The lack of a quantifier does not allow my opponent to simply pick and choose whichever he so desires. Further, the lack of a quantifier leads to the implication that this is a GENERAL topic. Coupled with the general-ness of my opponent's opening arguments, this becomes more than an implication, it becomes quite apparently the actual intent of the debate. Strapping a SPECIFIC quantifier onto the topic is what my opponent is doing - seems pretty hypocritical. I have already shown why DHMO, water, should NOT be banned in almost every case. Still, I feel the need to respond to the three scenarios my opponent reaffirms in his final round. 1. \"DHMO should be banned from mogwai\" Like I said last round, Mogwai are FICTIONAL. Therefore, ACTUALLY 'banning' DHMO from them would be pointless, since the only effect would be wasted time and additional pointlessness. Also, consider that 'banning' is not the word that would generally be used here anyway. 2. \"DHMO should be banned from witches\" Once again, witches do not actually exist. To the extent that they do exist (which is as ordinary, non-magical people), they still require water, like all humans. 3. \"DHMO should be banned from torture (specifically, from chinese water torture)\" This is completely nonsensical. First off, water does not make torture any worse. Second off, it makes no sense to ban water from being used in chinese water torture, since it's an impossibility to have one without the other. I provide a much more sensible counterplan - simply ban chinese water torture. Even if water was banned from torture (as if torturers care what's banned and what's not), other liquids would be used instead, so no real effect would be had. Though once again, torture involving water is not inherently worse than torture not involving water. These are the three scenarios my opponent affirms in is third round. Here is a transcript of what my opponent said: \"NO. The topic states that DHMO should be banned. If I can show even one time in which it should be banned, the resolution is upheld. Nothing in the resolution states that DHMO should be banned overall, only that it should be banned, at all. I propose 3 situations in which a ban on DHMO would be beneficial: DHMO should be banned from all mogwai, as stated previously DHMO should be banned from all directionality described female users of mysticism (witches) DHMO should be banned from all forms of torture, specifically of the type known as Chinese water torture.\" It's clear that this is not simply a list of NEW points, it is a combined list of new points AND points my opponent wishes to continue supporting. Thus, it is the full list of my opponent's scenarios as of this final round, and I've just destroyed them, so even by his interpretation of the topic, I have now won (unless one of my rebuttals to the above three points was not good enough). Thank you.", "qid": "43", "docid": "e1463160-2019-04-18T19:39:47Z-00000-000", "rank": 83, "score": 122680.0}, {"content": "Title: It is time to stop buying bottled water Content: People believe the marketing hype too much", "qid": "43", "docid": "39e75959-2019-04-19T12:45:40Z-00010-000", "rank": 84, "score": 122657.0}, {"content": "Title: Ban on caffeinated alcohol drinks Content: A bottle of liqueur is as dangerous as Four Loco.", "qid": "43", "docid": "36da01fa-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00017-000", "rank": 85, "score": 122609.0}, {"content": "Title: Plastic bottles should be left out in the sun Content: No because people do not let plastic out in the sun melt into their drinking water - they are not stupid. And those who do (I can't imagine anyone who does this) probably don't consume it daily - either way, it is not healthy.", "qid": "43", "docid": "db49fdec-2019-04-18T14:34:53Z-00001-000", "rank": 86, "score": 122533.0}, {"content": "Title: Tap water (Pro) Bottled water (con) Content: Dude. How am I going to say Botle Water is better than Tap water? Dude, of cource it is better, god unless you have something to say about bottled Water, go ahead.Because plastic would kill animals and it is bad for the envorionment, the only good part is the fresh water. So what? Our sanity sewers make tap water still fresh.Plus, bottle water is 40% fresh water, and it is ripping us off.Dude, I don't like troll questions, don't post these, or I will report it to an admin or a mod.", "qid": "43", "docid": "e01b315f-2019-04-18T17:32:02Z-00006-000", "rank": 87, "score": 121886.0}, {"content": "Title: It is time to stop buying bottled water Content: Invaluable for aid in natural disasters/famine", "qid": "43", "docid": "39e75959-2019-04-19T12:45:40Z-00003-000", "rank": 88, "score": 121688.0}, {"content": "Title: Tap water (pro) vs. bottled water (con) Content: If 60% of bottled water do not come from tap water, one must conclude that the majority of bottled water is not from taps. If bottled water is processed after being taken from the tap, it ceases to be tap water. There is no guarantee of anything. Tests do not always pick up on E. Coli. \"Just because the taste has a reason means that tap water is not superior to bottled water.\" Just because the tap water has a better taste does not mean that tap water is superior. Pro\"s logic is inherently flawed. If unicorns have glitter, and if they produce glitter, that does not make them real. Therefore, this logic is flawed.", "qid": "43", "docid": "b0a7bcdb-2019-04-18T18:05:08Z-00002-000", "rank": 89, "score": 121683.0}, {"content": "Title: People believe the marketing hype too much Content: Marketing, that's all it is. Like Madonna, it's all hype. The elemental problem with the purchase and continuation of the bottled water industry is the marketing of it; if bottled water were advertised simply as a means to hydration in the same way that juices, fruits themselves, tap water, etc. are seen by the general public, then it may soon be realised that the coincidental nature of the sounds of the words 'l'evian' and 'live young' are just that: a coincidence. Water that has trickled through mountains for hundreds of years will not be like 'manna from heaven' trickling from the edges of the holy grail, it's just H2O.", "qid": "43", "docid": "39e75959-2019-04-19T12:45:40Z-00015-000", "rank": 90, "score": 120509.0}, {"content": "Title: Alcohol Should be Banned Content: Extend my arguments.", "qid": "43", "docid": "e239dfcf-2019-04-18T17:33:15Z-00001-000", "rank": 91, "score": 120079.0}, {"content": "Title: Should TV be banned Content: It is done.", "qid": "43", "docid": "fa3dbec5-2019-04-18T15:51:04Z-00000-000", "rank": 92, "score": 119789.0}, {"content": "Title: It is time to stop buying bottled water Content: They don't leak into my bag at college", "qid": "43", "docid": "39e75959-2019-04-19T12:45:40Z-00000-000", "rank": 93, "score": 119050.0}, {"content": "Title: Invaluable for aid in natural disasters/famine Content: Bottled water means garbage Bottled water produces up to 1.5 million tons of plastic waste per year. According to Food and Water Watch, that plastic requires up to 47 million gallons of oil per year to produce. And while the plastic used to bottle beverages is of high quality and in demand by recyclers, over 80 percent of plastic bottles are simply thrown away. That assumes empty bottles actually make it to a garbage can. Plastic waste is now at such a volume that vast eddies of current-bound plastic trash now spin endlessly in the world\u2019s major oceans. This represents a great risk to marine life, killing birds and fish which mistake our garbage for food. Thanks to its slow decay rate, the vast majority of all plastics ever produced still exist \u2014 somewhere.", "qid": "43", "docid": "39e75959-2019-04-19T12:45:40Z-00028-000", "rank": 94, "score": 119049.0}, {"content": "Title: Soda should be banned Content: I don't know what to do here.", "qid": "43", "docid": "f3fd5f9a-2019-04-18T13:42:56Z-00000-000", "rank": 95, "score": 118564.0}, {"content": "Title: Water is a human right and therefore cannot be owned, sold, bartered or traded Content: Hello, to everyone who reads this and to my worthy opponent. Well, I completely agree that water is a human right and cannot be owned sold or bartered. To assure you guys, water is actually free. Nobody stops you from drinking water from the ponds or rivers. If anyone does that you can shut them up by shouting it out that water is a gift of god and not your property. For instance the rural India, everybody pumps up water from the underground aquifer \" mostly to irrigate the fields; but the same water is also used for daily needs like bathing, drinking etc. The water one gets in the drinking bottles is also free, what the companies charge for is the plastic used in making the bottle, the cost of molding a bottle and that of purifying the water and adding essential minerals. THANK YOU!", "qid": "43", "docid": "f2c83f90-2019-04-18T17:06:57Z-00001-000", "rank": 96, "score": 118558.0}, {"content": "Title: Should school be banned Content: School is a necessity", "qid": "43", "docid": "fa1e24b2-2019-04-18T12:22:44Z-00002-000", "rank": 97, "score": 117951.0}, {"content": "Title: Glass bottles should replace plastic bottles Content: First, I think you don't know that price of bottled water is 1000 times more than tap water, and you can boil the tap water and pour it into glass cups. Second, aluminium cans are also a choice to replace plastic and many drinks are packed with aluminium cans. They are large amount produced. Lastly, plastic can't smelt so they exist in this world for more than 1000 years at least. But glass and aluminium can be smelted down and change into something new. THE END", "qid": "43", "docid": "5986c100-2019-04-18T13:20:46Z-00001-000", "rank": 98, "score": 117858.0}, {"content": "Title: Tap water (Pro) Bottled water (con) Content: This was not a troll debate in the first place. Thanks for wasting my time.", "qid": "43", "docid": "e01b315f-2019-04-18T17:32:02Z-00001-000", "rank": 99, "score": 117792.0}, {"content": "Title: music should be banned Content: music is life.", "qid": "43", "docid": "79a94de7-2019-04-18T11:34:44Z-00004-000", "rank": 100, "score": 117035.0}]}
{"query": "Should election day be a national holiday?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: Resolved: 'Vagina Day' should be a national holiday Content: I rescind any statements in the comments section. I am not forfeiting and I urge voters to be mindful of the following statements. I would like to make a couple of overarching statements before I respond to some house-keeping issues and line-by-line analysis. I am confident that many of you will take these things to heart, but whatever. If I've lost you by this point I'm not worried about how you respond to this. a. let it be known that there was not a framework established for constructive arguments, clash, or rebuttals in the first round. This is important as my opponent seals his final speech with an underview speaking on my supposed drops and urging you, the voters, not to listen to any 'new arguments' in this speech. The first thing that I said in my second round 'speech' is that I would use that round for constructive arguments and then use this round for rebuttals; I made my intentions clear from the get-go, and there's no reason to ignore that framework since an alternative was not provided. Further, I'd like to point out that my opponent used this speech to respond to my argument, so attempting to block me from responding to his is bull. And if you don't buy that, I still on comparative advantage so drops wouldn't matter anyway. b. U mad bro? Pro is obviously upset at how I've tackled this debate, this is evidence that I've done a good job trolling him. We need to move away from this idea that the only good kinds of 'trolls' are established memes or cliches, that's both boring and lazy. I opponent didn't expect me to respond in the way that I did and it threw him off-guard, I've done an excellent job trolling him. Further, if the issue of entertainment is what you're concerned about I win there too. Reading some dadaist nonsense in the form of a 'debate' may get a chuckle, but the drama that this debate will cause will be much more entertaining to read. Now onto the line-by-line. I'll cover my opponent's constructive by grouping similar arguments and responding appropriately. 1. Women have things they have to put up with? Cool beans, so do men. Primarily the issue of being disposable and the possibility of being financially enslaved following a divorce. [14] [14] . http://bit.ly... 2. Why women and no-one else? Women are a gender, blacks are a race. This issue of discussion that the Con proposes is that of male disposability, something Black men are not immune to. So MLK day doesn't make ground for anykind of argument. 3. Why call it Vagina Day? This is really mute as I never attack it's name. 4. Plan Also mute as my opposition wasn't how we would enact it, but it's ethical repulsiveness. 5. Portion of others without Holiday Men. Now with all that housekeeping out of the way I'm going to tell you very simply why you need to vote Con in this debate a. Instead of being a good troll and continuing to debate in a silly manner, Pro gets butthurt[15] about how I've decided to respond and makes passive aggressive as well as directly aggressive remarks about my conduct. This is not the mark of a good troll, and serves as a substantial reason to vote Pro. [15]. http://bit.ly... b. Pro doesn't even realize how badly he's been trolled as of his previous speech. He doesn't seem to understand that making a serious argument to an obviously silly argument is a brilliant trolling mechanism. If he doesn't have an appropriate response given this reaction, then he deserves to lose. c. Con is winning one every technical round imaginable: I'm winning arguments, framework and sources -- even if you don't buy my argument that a serious response is still a troll, then you'd have to vote for me based on the content of the debate. Finally I'll leave with this: the only possible ground I could see anyone voting for Pro, is by them siding with him that I've 'ruined this debate'. However I'm going to predict that many will largely abstain from voting altogether.", "qid": "44", "docid": "9df1ccdc-2019-04-18T17:38:07Z-00000-000", "rank": 1, "score": 146716.0}, {"content": "Title: U.S. presidential primaries should be held on the same day in every state. Content: Argument 1: Underfunded Campaigns of Small Candidates A national primary would give a huge advantage to better-known, better-funded candidates since only they would be able to finance the expensive advertising and large campaign operation needed to run a national \"get out the vote\" effort in all states. Lesser-known candidates without extensive campaign operations would not have an opportunity to reach out to voters in retail-style fashion and build support. Moreover, densely populated states with higher delegate counts would become the dominant focus of the campaigns and the media. In addition, political parties would have little control over the selection of their eventual nominee, and state party leaders would no longer have the flexibility to set their primary or caucus dates according to state-specific considerations, such as redistricting issues, state holidays, or other state and local elections. In 2008, at least 24 states held a primary on February 5, resulting in what was essentially a de facto national primary. Super Tuesday became Tsunami Tuesday. The situation was so bad for overwhelmed campaigns, party leaders, and election officials that the two parties worked together to ensure their rules for 2012 would help avoid a repeat.", "qid": "44", "docid": "e95c9f90-2019-04-18T13:42:54Z-00005-000", "rank": 2, "score": 146055.0}, {"content": "Title: Polling stations during Elections should be conducted over a longer period than a single day Content: 1. \"I often wonder if the single day voting is meant to curb voter fraud. No I don't think so. I think its discrimination against the poor\". Response: with all the avenues available on a single day vote (Internet at library, shelters, could provide other government locations) voting would not only be available to all Americans but it could be convenient. 2. \"...Those that have to work 2 or 3 jobs to survive and feed their family. Response: currently all states have a form of absentee voting (vote via mail, early, etc...). Here is a link to every state\"s absentee voting policy: http://www.ncsl.org.... Additionally, if the single day voting were a national holiday, that modification would eliminate work issues. Either way, every state in the country currently allows citizens to provide their work excuse and vote early. 3. \"Suggestion 1 to improve voting: I think that the first time people register to vote (age 18 or above) they should be required to give a fingerprint, than at least there would be a record to identify an individual without having to require a photo ID. I don't see how a fingerprint would be invasion of privacy and it would also be free. You only have to prove who you are once with a birth certificate or other suffiecient form of ID (barring any scaring on your fingers). If this database could be used solely for elections and not accessible to law enforcement (of course could we trust them?) You'd only know a person's finger pad pattern, not what they look like and people would not have to have a photo ID if they didn't want to.\" Response: with so much difficulty passing voter ID policies, logging fingerprints would prove implausible for two reasons. First, one argument against voter ID is that some have difficulty finding their birth certificate or other forms of ID. Second, many feel it is an invasion of their privacy and denies them their right to vote. Although I support voter ID laws, the fingerprint policy would be a step up in both categories. 4. \"Then, you could take your time to vote. Voting at your own convenience. Currently its just a tv spectacle with winners being declared often before even 50% of the vote is in for districts and states. Its not as if the switch from incumbent to the next elected official is happening that next day. Usually its like 3 months till the handover. Pretty much everything must kowtow to the tv networks. Too much money for tv. Sports are slaves to tv as well.\" Response: if the vote were done over a period of weeks, the spectacle and drama would be dragged out and exacerbated even more than it is now. For example, television shows such as The Bachelorette rely on this type of drama to generate ratings. Presidential elections that only occur once every four years would play right into this type of sensationalism. Additionally, the voting could not occur during the transition period between November and January. During this time, the president-elect needs to conduct business related to a smooth transition between leaders. Therefore, the vote needs to be finalized by early November, it cannot drag on for months. Although the Electoral College process does not officially elect the president until much later, there has never been a President-elect who was not officially elected by the Electoral College. 5. \"For those that want national ID cards or required photo IDs YET they want total privacy and no records to match who voted for who, you can't have both.\" Response: displaying an ID in order to vote but maintaining total privacy on the actual person the voter selected is completely possible. The ID provides the voter the ballot, the voter then votes privately. 6. \"Suggestion #2: Better yet, align voting and taxes then if you want to vote you have to pay your taxes (which should already be the case, even if you owe nothing or expect a refund) No taxes, no vote. Citizens benefit from services and infrastructure provided by taxes and it is their duty to pay them, voting should also be a duty of a citizen.(I agree both are duties, but like I argued in Round 1, apathy is the problem)\" Response: The IRS is currently backlogged as it is (see link below), so involving them in the voting process would provide an even more significant delay. Additionally, the IRS experiences tax evasion fraud as well as their own surveillance scandals (see link below), so convincing Americans to provide fingerprints would be next to impossible. Lastly, you mentioned single day voting being a burden on the poor. Surely attaching a financial requirement to the vote (albeit a legally assessed tax) could provide a disincentive to conduct both actions (paying taxes and voting) and could also create discrimination similar to post-Civil War poll taxes used to deny African Americans their right to vote. It also could provide the undue burden on the poor that you refer to at the start of your argument. IRS backlog link: http://www.cchgroup.com... IRS scandal link: http://news.investors.com... 7. \"EVEN putting the voting date on Saturday is still going to be impossible for some people. There aren't absentee ballots everywhere. Why not go further and make Voting Day a national holiday? Say President's Day? or Veteran's Day? All non-essential businesses are closed and all essential ones required to only have half day. We have holidays for really stupid crap (some just commercial holidays really), but we should celebrate voting. Representation is what we revolted from England for\" Response: every state has a policy to allow citizens to vote on a day that is not the national voting day: http://www.ncsl.org.... I think our common ground is, however, to make voting day a national holiday. 8. \"Still, having enough time to vote over the period of time of a week, a few weeks, or some agreed upon length of time, would be best and not have any more problems than we already have. At least then there could be no excuse for not voting. As of now many people have an excuse and some a legitimate complaint Also, voter intimidation at a polling station would take a lot more effort if it had to be manned for longer than a single day and hopefully happen less\" Response: As I stated in Round 1, the reasons people provide currently are many times just excuses since there are plenty of avenues for citizens to vote under our current system. It would also be easier for people to intimidate voters since the government would have a tough time manning polling locations for weeks or months instead of for just one day. I had fun with my first debate, thanks for posting, this is a great topic.", "qid": "44", "docid": "fcff81a7-2019-04-18T17:19:43Z-00000-000", "rank": 3, "score": 145843.0}, {"content": "Title: All Citizens should be required to vote Content: We live in a democracy, Our government has been chosen to present the viewpoints of the American people. But, The majority of Americans claim their views are not represented, This is a problem, Presidency-The voting day for the presidency should be a holiday, This is a huge day for many important reasons, The president holds power over which bill is passed, The president is the commander of the military. In 2016, Donald Trump was elected into the white house. Trump has an unfavorable rating of 55%. 55% of Americans dislike the president, A democracy would not theoretically function if 55% of the population disapproved of the president's job. Senate and House- The senate and house are the most democratic institutions in America. They are meant to represent the will of the American people. 75% of Americans disapprove of congress. The will of the American people should be at utmost priority. If Congress only represents the will of the people, Than this country would turn into an oligarchy.", "qid": "44", "docid": "a4b5fda8-2019-04-18T11:11:55Z-00002-000", "rank": 4, "score": 136073.0}, {"content": "Title: The American federal government should move its general election day to November's first Saturday. Content: History: In 1845, Congress had to decide when to let Americans vote. It took a very long time to travel. Farmers needed a day to get to the county seat, a day to vote, and a day to get back, without interfering with the time of worship. So they chose Tuesday. Because Wednesday was market day. In 1875 Congress extended the Tuesday date for national House elections and in 1914 for federal Senate elections. This no longer applies to American society because travel is a lot easier and nobody would travel three days to vote. Election day should be moved to the first Saturday in November. This keeps the date close to the other date and does not hurt schedules now too much. It is so inconvenient to leave work on Tuesdays or to generally get around. It would be a lot more convenient for Americans if Election Day was moved to a Saturday. Census data shows that many Americans do not vote due to the fact that it is so inconvenient or unlikely that they will be able to leave work.", "qid": "44", "docid": "b7d8dba7-2019-04-18T19:42:33Z-00005-000", "rank": 5, "score": 134724.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Vagina Day should be a national holiday Content: These militant feminists would no doubt hijack the celebrations and turn them into \"Pvssy Pride Parades\" where young women would flaunt their genitalia in public, shocking onlookers with their defiance displays of nudity. Naturally, these young women would organise themselves into groups such as \"The Labia Liberation Front\"; \"The Gash Gangsta Girls\" and \"The Muff Mafia\" and send 'snatch' squads into places where men traditionally congregate to assert their femininity on any unsuspecting males they find therein. Think about it, gentlemen, how would you like it if a gang of young women burst into your local pub and asserted their feminine self-confidence on you by pressing your face into their vaginas? Well, how would you like that? You wouldn't like it, would you? Okay, some of you might quite like it, but that's not the point, it's an invasion of your own personal space, and that's why I urge you to vote against my opponent's proposal. Thank you.", "qid": "44", "docid": "9df1ccfb-2019-04-18T17:35:14Z-00002-000", "rank": 6, "score": 134644.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Vagina Day should be a national holiday Content: I would like to respond to my opponent's further arguments as follows: \"We already have women who flaunt their genitalia in public with defiance..... We call them whores.\" Sex-workers, or \"whores\" as my opponent crudely terms them, have no choice but to advertise their wares in order to attract punters: if they don\"t turn enough tricks they won\"t get their fix of crack and, also, their gash-broker is likely to give them a proper slap. This is different from the educated, middle class young ladies who seek to intimidate conservative Christians and other prudes by flaunting their minges in public. \"I dont see how having a woman come in naked and asserting herself on unsuspecting males is a bad thing.... Im pretty sure thats the backstory behind every porno ever made actually. \" But what about conservative Christians and other prudes? Don\"t their sensitivities matter? \"That depends entirely on the smell.... It would be nice to have the opportunity to eat out and then leave, but Im not going in if it smells like regurgitated tunafish smeared in broccoli.\" I\"ve often wondered why ladies\" tango batter smells like fish, but it\"s never reminded me of the smell of broccoli\"I wonder where my opponent picks up his women\" \"Personal space is just a liberty that people invented that they can dispose of temporarily at any given time, in fact the disposal of liberties is something that this country was founded on! Ben Franklin once said: 'Anyone who sacrifices a little liberty, to gain a bit o' dat p*ssy be BALLIN NIGGA, PARTY AT FRANKLINS!!!!!!!!'\" It is true that American citizens have, over the years, been forced to concede numerous human rights and I assume my opponent has in mind former civil liberties such as the right to own slaves, the right to hunt buffalos and the right to shoot any troublesome Indians one might encounter I am sure these rights are much missed by many Americans today. Therefore, it is important that the right to enjoys ones\" own personal space down the pub without having some quivering quim thrust in one\"s face doesn\"t go by the wayside too. Thank you.", "qid": "44", "docid": "9df1ccfb-2019-04-18T17:35:14Z-00000-000", "rank": 7, "score": 127598.0}, {"content": "Title: The American federal government should move its general election day to November's first Saturday. Content: In previous rounds you stated that when given extra time to vote, most people use it for other purposes. I rightly pointed out that this hurts your argument, since Saturdays grant extra time and if people use extra time for something else, they would not vote. You say it is a nice point at a glance, but turned in your favor and my argument is destroyed. You did not show how that actually happens. You then state \"If voting was more convenient for Americans, they would vote, because it makes people feel responsible and helps them express themselves. People like voting. They do not like going way out of their way to vote on a Tuesday. When Americans have a much more convenient time voting, they vote. This is what all relevant data suggests.\" What data could this possibly be? The Tuesday election days have been around for a long time. We cannot possibly have data that show people voting more on alternate days. As far as your economics point, we both disagree. You feel that one extra day off per year, or even a slightly longer lunch break during election day will severely damage the economy due to lack of productivity on that one day. Now I am well aware of the fact that our economy is not very good at the moment. But if it is so fragile that an extended hour on election day sends us into a downward spiral, then we are in much more trouble than even the economists claim. Furthermore, I would like to point out that the day off for teachers, civil servants, et cetera has been in effect for quite some time. If such things damaged the economy in the way you claim, then we would not have had such economically prosperous years in the past as these days off and extended lunch breaks were still around back then. Your other claim was that guilt trips can lead to psychological damage which in turn can lead to drinking and driving. The drinking and driving can in turn lead to someone getting behind the wheel and killing a person that is one day away from curing AIDS. Despite your attempts to show that guilt can cause psychological damage, I still stick to my claim that your scenario is far-fetched and a bit ridiculous. I suppose the voters will decide that. Then I point out the main flaw in your argument (i.e. that the Sabbath occurs on Saturday for some religions). To this you reply \"Wow. This is pretty funny that you would actually post that. This is really [reaching]. It shows how desperate you are to find flaws.\" I'm sorry that you feel that excluding entire religious sects from voting is inconsequential. But I, for one, disagree. You also state \"Well, the Eastern Orthodox Church celebrates Saint John the Baptist and has special services dedicated to him. So then it should be moved from Tuesday. The fact is that there is going to be a religious service each day, but Election Day has to be some day.\" You seem to have a huge misconception about Sabbath observers. The Sabbath is not a mere religious service. Followers are forbidden from taking part in any secular activity on that day. That includes voting! They are not merely skipping out on a religious service. You are downplaying the importance of the Sabbath to the followers of Judaism and the Seventh Day Adventists. You also state \"Also, Seventh Day Adventists and Jews do not worship all day. They can find time to vote.\" You are clearly unfamiliar with the customs of such people. They happen to worship from sundown on Friday until sundown on Saturday. This means that they may not be allowed to leave home until after the polls close. Maybe a few years ago you would've had a point that they can vote at night. But on August 8, 2005 as per the Energy Policy Act, Daylight Saving Time was extended into November. Since many polls close by 8:00 P.M. this means that it may still be light out. You cannot select a day for voting that discriminates against entire religious groups. You also state \"The vast majority of the population are not Seventh Day Adventists or Jewish. My case outweighs your case. More voters are likely to vote, if the day is Saturday, because it will be more convenient and not conflict with work.\" This is a dangerous mindset. The fact that the majority of people do not follow these religions does not imply that it is acceptable to eliminate them from the voting process. This notion that you are implying falls in line with a concept known as Tyranny of the Majority. This concept was mentioned by John Stuart Mill in his work On Liberty. The philosophy regarding the rights of citizens took this concept into account and using things like a bill of rights, constitutional limits and electoral colleges has tried to prevent such a thing from occurring. Just because the majority of citizens do not practice those religions, that is not cause to say that we have a right to make election day fall on their Sabbath. You state \"If a church service that lasts only a few hours hinders a person from voting, then work on a Tuesday must significantly hinder a person from voting.\" Once again you show your complete ignorance by this statement. It is not a few hours. It is from sundown on Friday until sundown on Saturday. The absentee ballots, as you claim, could be used for these people. But I still see a huge problem with having everyone of a certain faith apply for an absentee ballot while everyone else can simply vote in person. You also state \"Also, the people have the right to exercise their religion still. It does not prohibit them and is obviously not unconstitutional.\" It doesn't prohibit them from following their religion, but it does prohibit them from both voting and following their religion. They should not be forced to choose. It seems to me that you view a mild inconvenience of the majority more severe than extreme bias and discrimination towards people of certain faiths. I highly disagree.", "qid": "44", "docid": "b7d8dba7-2019-04-18T19:42:33Z-00000-000", "rank": 8, "score": 127548.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Vagina Day should be a national holiday Content: \"The answer is that they never stop complaining. Whine, whine, whine, whine, moan, moan: they never get tired of carping on about how hard they're lives supposedly are\"Well of course they whine, whining is the only way that women can get a guy to do ANYTHING anymore. \"A woman's work is never done\" they grumble, but if that's true who are all those women's shows on daytime TV aimed at then? The advertisers wouldn't fund them if nobody was watching them.\"Women turn on those tv shows just so that it can serve as background noise while they do their things around the house when nobody else is home. You know how guys like to turn the tv on in the background while they masturbate to whatever they are looking up on their computers? Same thing except women do that to get stuff done while men do that just to masturbate. \"It wouldn't be so bad if husbands had nice sexy wives to come home to but most don\"t because the majority of women - 62% in America- are overweight, just because they have so little physical work to do. No wonder strip clubs are booming these days.\"But then women invented anorexia and bulimia to start fighting back against those numbers, and so far its working! We just need to give them time and sooner or later, all women will be thin and sexy.... If they arent dead. \"True, blacks get a public holiday in America, but women already have Mother's Day, and although it's not a public holiday, they still get cards, presents and breakfast in bed. That should be more than enough I would have thought.\"That only applies to mothers though, while all the single proud independent women who dont need no MAN in her life are left out in the dark when they shouldnt be. They deserve a day of appreciation too!\"\"Vagina Day\" sounds a bit clinical, don\"t you think? Why not something a little more poetic like Lady Garden Day, Hairy Clam Day, Gates of Heaven Day or Map of Tasmania Day?\"They can go with 'map of tasmania day' in Australia if they want but Vagina just has a melody to it that 'lady garden' just doesn't have. Walk up to any teenage boy in America and ask him about his opinion of Vaginas, then do the same about Lady gardens and hairy clams, I guarantee that they will give different opinions and wont start drooling over themselves like they do at the sound of 'Vagina'\"A week before Valentine\"s Day is just about the worst possible day\"Valentines Day always falls on a friday, Vagina day would be the thursday before Valentines day, meaning that Vagina day would always be the day before Valentines day, not a week before it! That would be suicide\"My opponent might as well have proposed a \"Cowboys and Indians Day\" We call that Thanksgiving I think. \"Hamburger Day\" Every day is hamburger day in Americaor \"Raccoon Day\" hey are natures adorable bandits <333or \"Atom Bomb Day\" We combined blowing sh*t up day with the Fourth of Julyor \"NASA Day\" That would really only work in Floridaor \"College Shooting Day\" or \"Soda Pop Day\" or \"Tornado Alley Trailer Park Day\" or \"Hollywood Day\" Im sure they will work outor \"Wall Street Greed and Incompetence Day\"Every day is wall streed greed and incompetence day in capitalist America! All of these holdiays already exist or should exist in one way or another, why not actually go through with making 'Vagina day' a holiday?\"The last vagina I checked had a gash right down the middle of it and, clearly, this feature would not aid buoyancy in a balloon.\"Believe me, men will work until the end of time to build a giant balloon vagina once they are given permission to do so. \"These women all had vaginas and, as such, would be celebrated, but to do so would be an insult to the memories of their victims.\"A vagina is a vagina no matter which woman it is on my friend.... \"A feminist studies graduate once expalained to me, fireworks are phallic symbols which rape the sky and pollute the air that women have to breathe.\"LOL, feminists arent even people though!", "qid": "44", "docid": "9df1ccfb-2019-04-18T17:35:14Z-00003-000", "rank": 9, "score": 125228.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Vagina Day should be a national holiday Content: I accept Imabench's challenge and solemnly promise not to post any pictures of vaginas as part of my arguments.", "qid": "44", "docid": "9df1ccfb-2019-04-18T17:35:14Z-00006-000", "rank": 10, "score": 124561.0}, {"content": "Title: The American federal government should move its general election day to November's first Saturday. Content: The original reasoning behind choosing Tuesday for election day no longer applies. That you have clearly demonstrated in your opening argument. However, this should not lead one to conclude changing election day to a Saturday. Although the original reasons for a Tuesday election are outdated, this does not mean that other reasons have not also come into play as times have changed. First off, many jobs give either an entire day off for election day, or extended lunch breaks on election day in order to allow employees to vote. Typically, civil service jobs and other jobs working for either the city, state, or federal government get the entire day off to vote. Corporations very rarely give workers an entire day off, but there are a great many that still give extended lunch hours to workers in order to vote. In both of these situations, the extra time that such people are given specifically to vote can definitely cause a guilt trip. I have heard plenty of people say in the past that they felt compelled to vote as a result of having the day off or having a much longer lunch break. This cannot happen if election day is a Saturday. Most people have Saturday as a regular day off anyway. This may seem like it would lead to more voting, but this is probably not true. Census data can only show what people claim are reasons for not voting. When a person doing a survey asks a non-voter why they did not go to the polls, how many of those people would be honest enough to answer that they just didn't feel like it? Those that claim that work conflicted with them being able to vote are probably looking for time from their jobs to vote. I don't think they are really trying to move election day to Saturday. That is always a problem with that type of poll. The honest answer is not given. In this census, what percentage said they simply didn't feel like voting? I'm sure the number is extremely small if that answer even appears in the data. Yet common sense and experience would tell us that the number of people that simply don't feel like voting is very high. This is something that has a lot more to do with personality than with the particular day of the week. I believe that most people that refrain from voting would do so regardless of the day of the week chosen. And as a civil servant, I'm glad to have an extra day off. I'm sure that many teachers and students also appreciate the day off when the school is used for voting. And as I mentioned earlier, when a person is given extra time to vote (and a Saturday would not fit this category since it is not extra), it can cause a guilt trip and make that person more likely to vote. But this reason is actually a minor one. There is a much bigger problem with your idea that I will present in the next round.", "qid": "44", "docid": "b7d8dba7-2019-04-18T19:42:33Z-00004-000", "rank": 11, "score": 124548.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Vagina Day should be a national holiday Content: \" I have realised that there may be one very serious unforeseen consequence of Vagina Day, that is, the emergence of vagina vigilante groups. These militant feminists would no doubt hijack the celebrations and turn them into \"Pvssy Pride Parades\" where young women would flaunt their genitalia in public, shocking onlookers with their defiance displays of nudity. \"We already have women who flaunt their genitalia in public with defiance. .. .. We call them whores. \"Naturally, these young women would organise themselves into groups such as \"The Labia Liberation Front\"; \"The Gash Gangsta Girls\" and \"The Muff Mafia\" and send 'snatch' squads into places where men traditionally congregate to assert their femininity on any unsuspecting males they find therein. \"I dont see how having a woman come in naked and asserting herself on unsuspecting males is a bad thing. .. . Im pretty sure thats the backstory behind every porno ever made actually. \"Think about it, gentlemen, how would you like it if a gang of young women burst into your local pub and asserted their feminine self-confidence on you by pressing your face into their vaginas? \"That depends entirely on the smell. .. . It would be nice to have the opportunity to eat out and then leave, but Im not going in if it smells like regurgitated tunafish smeared in broccoli. \"Okay, some of you might quite like it, but that's not the point, it's an invasion of your own personal space\"Personal space is just a liberty that people invented that they can dispose of temporarily at any given time, in fact the disposal of liberties is something that this country was founded on! Ben Franklin once said: \"Anyone who sacrifices a little liberty, to gain a bit o' dat p*ssy be BALLIN NIGGA, PARTY AT FRANKLINS! !! !! !! ! \"I rest my case.", "qid": "44", "docid": "9df1ccfb-2019-04-18T17:35:14Z-00001-000", "rank": 12, "score": 123694.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Vagina Day should be a national holiday Content: Re-doing this debate because the last one got accepted by an idiot who doesnt know what a f*ckin troll debate is THIS IS INDEED A TROLL DEBATE. That means if you take it seriously then youre a dumba**. The point of troll debates is to use semantical and humorous arguments to make a case just for sh*ts and giggles. I am arguing that 'Vagina Day' (A day that would celebrate women, honor all the accomplishments of famous women, and honor all women in society today of hanging in there despite all the crap they take from both men and nature) should become a national holiday where businesses and schools take the day off and everything Con is against this resolution - First round is acceptance only. - 4000 characters - No pictures of Vaginas are to be posted. Feel free to make as many Vagina jokes as you want though If you want the debate leave a comment and ill decide who will get it.", "qid": "44", "docid": "9df1ccfb-2019-04-18T17:35:14Z-00007-000", "rank": 13, "score": 123363.0}, {"content": "Title: The American federal government should move its general election day to November's first Saturday. Content: Opponent>>> Now I'm not sure if this is true or not. However, if we assume that it is true, then your argument suffers much more than mine. For if people that are given extra time choose to do something with that time other than voting, then Saturday elections would be meaningless. The people would use that extra time for something else. That statement has not been thought through to its proper conclusion. Rebuttal>+>+> This seems like a nice point at a glance, but it is really turned in my favor. Your argument is destroyed. I do not think that Americans are sent into a guilt trip. I think Americans want to vote, but the reason they are not voting is because of the inconveinence as surveys and Census data suggests. If voting was more conveinent for Americans, they would vote, because it makes people feel responsible and helps them express themselves. People like voting. They do not like going way out of their way to vote on a Tuesday. When Americans have a much more conveinent time voting, they vote. This is what all relevant data suggests. Opponent>>> Your inferences on the economic disasters that occur due to some extra time off or one extra day a year are rather far fetched. First of all, the economy falling apart because of a single day off or a slightly longer lunch break is a ridiculous notion. Rebuttal>+>+> When Americans work they are making money for their boss. The company is also more likely to do well if it is open more often, because it is more time the employees get practice, more money is being generated, and the company name is getting out. A day off hurts that company and if as many companies as you suggest get this day off, millions of company suffer each Election Day. Even if there is a very small probability as you suggest, which there is not, it's only common sense, there is no reason to put our economy at risk, even a small one, when it can all be avoided. You wouldn't take a nap in the middle of the road, because there is a small probabilty a car would come. There is no sense in taking unnecessary risks. Especially, not with our fragile, internationally influential economy. Opponent>>> Psychologically, breaks and days off can make a worker more productive. Never allowing such breaks decreases productivity much more and is far more devastating to the company. Rebuttal>+>+> A break may make them more productive, but a guilt trip will not. Guilt will make people sad or angry and cloud their judgment, which is bad for them and bad for society. Guilt makes people feel unhappy. Why would you send people through this guilt trip and make them sad or angry when it can be avoided by simply rescheduling Election Day. Opponent>>> The direction that you have gone with as far as the guilt trip is highly creative and amusing. But realistically, it is also quite ridiculous. You go from a guilt trip causing psychological damage to a person drinking and driving. Then that person apparently kills someone who was one day away from curing AIDS. Was that serious? This is even more far fetched than your economic example. Rebuttal>+>+> The probability is very high of this happening. Really think about it. Guilt trips will make people think of their guilt. It will make them sad or angry. This will cloud their judgment. (www. nlm. nih. gov/medlineplus/tutorials/depression/mh019101. pdf; www. signonsandiego. com/uniontrib/20080208/news_lz1n8read. html) If their judgment is harmed, they may do something stupid or ease the pain with drugs or alcohol. However, they still have to drive back to work later or sometimes they just drive anyway. This leads to drinking and driving, which kills people. No sensible person would risk lives when they could simply be saved. And if you don't think that they will ease the pain with drugs or alcohol, it is still true that they will have clouded judgment, because they have guilt. This clouded judgment can lead to very bad decisions and definitely bad work, reducing economic productivity. There is no reason to cloud people's judgment unnecessarily when it can simply be avoided. Opponent>>> The United States is a country that was founded on the idea of freedom. The Bill of Rights is often used as an example of the rights and freedoms that U. S. citizens should have. The first amendment reads as follows: \"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. .. \" If there are to be no laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion, then how can you justify making election day a Saturday? Seventh Day Adventists and some Jews worship on Saturday. Rebuttal>+>+> Wow. This is pretty funny that you would actually post that. This is really reeaching. It shows how desperate you are to find flaws. Well, the Eastern Orthodox Church celebrates Saint John the Baptist and has special services dedicated to him. So then it should be moved from Tuesday. The fact is that there is going to be a religious service each day, but Election Day has to be some day. Also, Seventh Day Adventists and Jews do not worship all day. They can find time to vote. The vast majority of the population are not Seventh Day Adventists or Jewish. My case outweighs your case. More voters are likely to vote, if the day is Saturday, because it will be more convenient and not conflict with work. If a church service that lasts only a few hours hinders a person from voting, then work on a Tuesday must significantly hinder a person from voting. These voters if they will stay at church all day after service is over for some reason, can use an absentee or mail-in ballot to vote. It does not stop them from voting, and is therefore not unconstitutional. Also, the people have the right to exercise their religion still. It does not prohibit them and is obviously not unconstitutional. Opponent>>> But the polls open up at 7:00 A. M. and close at 8:00 or 9:00 P. M. The lower class will still have time to go to the polls either before or after work. Rebuttal>+>+> The point is convenience. And your statement is untrue. Many lower class voters work mulitple jobs. And ride public transportation, which in most places takes a very long time and will not allow them to get to a polling place and work in time. Why would you deny certain people with tight working schedules and/or less tranportation accessibilty the ability to vote when they could have a chance on a day when most Americans are not working? My case proves to be better. I proved advantages to my plan, which includes much higher voter turnout. I responded to all his arguments. He has no reason as to why Tuesday is a more advantageous day to have an Election Day. The Saturday Plan is much more beneficial than the Tuesday Plan. The Saturday Plan is also more fair to working voters. It gives everybody a chance to participate in the process. Thank you for reading.", "qid": "44", "docid": "b7d8dba7-2019-04-18T19:42:33Z-00001-000", "rank": 14, "score": 121657.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Vagina Day should be a national holiday Content: My opponent highlights the supposed plight of women but we should ask ourselves why we perceive that women suffer so much. The answer is that they never stop complaining. Whinge, whinge, whine, whine, moan, moan: they never get tired of carping on about how hard they're lives supposedly are. \"A woman's work is never done\" they grumble, but if that's true who are all those women's shows on daytime TV aimed at then? The advertisers wouldn't fund them if nobody was watching them. The fact is, these days, housewives have it even easier than ever what with modern appliances such as vacuum cleaners, microwave ovens, washer/dryers, dishwashers, food processors, they hardly have to lift a finger around the house. Furthermore, with the wide availability of ready-prepared meals and affordable clothing housewives no longer have to cook or sew. So, instead of doing something useful they lounge about all day watching TV or go out and spend their husbands' hard-earned cash on clothes, shoes and make-up. It wouldn't be so bad if husbands had nice sexy wives to come home to but most don\"t because the majority of women - 62% inAmerica- are overweight, just because they have so little physical work to do. No wonder strip clubs are booming these days. Now, to address my opponent's specific points in turn. \"Why should women get a holiday when others dont?\" This is positive discrimination gone mad. True, blacks get a public holiday in America, but women already have Mother's Day, and although it's not a public holiday, they still get cards, presents and breakfast in bed. That should be more than enough I would have thought. \"Why does it have to be called vagina day? why cant it be called women's day or something?\" \"Vagina Day\" sounds a bit clinical, don\"t you think? Why not something a little more poetic like Lady Garden Day, Hairy Clam Day, Gates of Heaven Day or Map of Tasmania Day? \"When would Vagina Day be?\" A week before Valentine\"s Day is just about the worst possible day: think about all the time, effort and expense men will be expected to go to in order to appease their womenfolk on Vagina Day only to have to waste even more time and money buying chocolates and flowers a week later. \"Why cancel work on that day?\" People would always welcome a free day off work and, therefore, might vote for my opponent\"s plan for that reason alone. My opponent might as well have proposed a \"Cowboys and Indians Day\" or \"Hamburger Day\" or \"Raccoon Day\" or \"Atom Bomb Day\" or \"NASA Day\" or \"College Shooting Day\" or \"Soda Pop Day\" or \"Tornado Alley Trailer Park Day\" or \"Hollywood Day\" or \"Wall Street Greed and Incompetence Day\" or anything else all-American. \"How is it celebrated?\" Giant balloon vaginas? My opponent hasn't thought this through. The last vagina I checked had a gash right down the middle of it and, clearly, this feature would not aid buoyancy in a balloon. And, while there have been some great women through the years but there have been some rotten ones too: let's remember Elizabeth Bathory, the Blood Countess, who tortured and killed hundreds of young girls so that she could bathe in the blood of virgins in order to keep her younger, or the 'Bitch of Buchenwald' who was the wife of Karl Koch, a Nazi concentration camp commandant, and who reveled in torture and obscenity, or the evil tyrant Margaret Thatcher who brought misery and despair to millions of decent, hard-working British people through her vile political campaigns against the working classes in the 1980\"s and 90\"s. These women all had vaginas and, as such, would be celebrated, but to do so would be an insult to the memories of their victims. Finally, fireworks would be wholly inappropriate: as a feminist studies graduate once expalained to me, fireworks are phallic symbols which rape the sky and pollute the air that women have to breathe. Thank you.", "qid": "44", "docid": "9df1ccfb-2019-04-18T17:35:14Z-00004-000", "rank": 15, "score": 121386.0}, {"content": "Title: The American federal government should move its general election day to November's first Saturday. Content: Opponent>>> First off, many jobs give either an entire day off for election day, or extended lunch breaks on election day in order to allow employees to vote. Typically, civil service jobs and other jobs working for either the city, state, or federal government get the entire day off to vote. >+>+> This is true. However, MOST JOBS DO NOT GET ELECTION DAY BREAKS. Lower class voters often do not get breaks for Election Day. This is unfair to lower class voters. >+>+> Almost everybody has Saturday off. This will increase voter turn out, if it is more conveinent for voters to vote. Opponent>>> In both of these situations, the extra time that such people are given specifically to vote can definitely cause a guilt trip. I have heard plenty of people say in the past that they felt compelled to vote as a result of having the day off or having a much longer lunch break. >+>+> This is an untrue assumption. Many workers do not get this time off so will never expreience this guilt trip and just never vote. >+>+> Many workers who do get this break do not give into the guilt trip, but instead use the time for something else. >+>+> This extended break or entire day off severely reduces productivity. This lowers revenue for the company. In our failing economy, we cannot afford reduction in revenue. Congress just passed a stimulus plan that would try to increase revenue in the country to help the economy. If there is less revenue being generated in the economy, the economy suffers tremendously. And if this break happens as often as you say it does, this break or extra vacation day really takes a toll on our failing economy. >+>+> Also, guilt trips should not be looked up to as a good thing. Guilt trips are bad psychologically and could damage work productivity, therefore, danaging the economy. Also, it will reduce the happiness of Americans. It will also hurt the judgment of Americans when they are psychologically damaged in this way: temporarily or permanently. If Americans judgment is hurt, then they are more likely to drink and drive. Drinking and driving kills innocent civilians. One of these civilians could be a day away from revealing the cure for AIDS. If this potential person is killed, millions of unnecessary people will die. But it is not just this person, but rather any important person. The probability is great and so is the impact. Opponent>>> Census data can only show what people claim are reasons for not voting. When a person doing a survey asks a non-voter why they did not go to the polls, how many of those people would be honest enough to answer that they just didn't feel like it? >+>+> People do not just not feel like voting. There are reasons behind it like political ignorance or most commonly inconvenence. People will express the truth and even if you feel this legitimate source to be illegitimate, you will have to admit that increasing conveinence for voting will get more people to vote. It is common sense. Opponent>>> Those that claim that work conflicted with them being able to vote are probably looking for time from their jobs to vote. >+>+> No matter why, these people claimed that work conflicted with their voting. If they did not have that conflict, the problem would be solved. It is inevitable logic. If you have a conflict of two things and remove one of those things, you no longer have a conflict. Opponent>>> This is something that has a lot more to do with personality than with the particular day of the week. I believe that most people that refrain from voting would do so regardless of the day of the week chosen. And as a civil servant, I'm glad to have an extra day off. I'm sure that many teachers and students also appreciate the day off when the school is used for voting. >+>+> Most people do not even receive this day off. >+>+> The greater good is for Election Day to be more conveinent. This will increase voter turnout, especially among working class voters. Increased voting turnout is good because it will be closer to the voice of the people, rather than the voices of a few. Election Day is inconveinent. This is evident in the fact that my opponent's main argument was that 'It is inconveinent, but the inconveinence is good, because it presents a guilt trip to vote and a day off. ' Everybody here agrees that Election Day is inconveinent, and the census data shows that the inconveinence is the main reason why people do not vote. If it were more conveinent to vote, common sense tells us, more people would vote.", "qid": "44", "docid": "b7d8dba7-2019-04-18T19:42:33Z-00003-000", "rank": 16, "score": 121230.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Vagina Day should be a national holiday Content: Vagina Day. It just rolls off the tongue doesnt it?I will start by saying that women deserve a day to recognize all of their hard work. They have to deal with periods, trying to find bras that fit well but dont chaffe their nipples, staying in shape, wearing heels, looking good in a bathing suit, usually are the ones who have to keep the house in order, spend an hour in the morning to look good, do the same work as men yet get paid less, etc etc. One of the things that most women do that deserves recognition though, is that women are forced to put up with men. Do you know how much of a pain in the a** it is for women to put up with guys in their life? At just about any age all women usually have one creepy guy obsessed with them, four hot guys she wants to date but no matter how hard she tries cant get them to take the hint, deal with either an overbearing father or not having one at all, and just being forced to live in a world that is run by the dumbest men you can find. Women deserve a day to themselves because they have it hard, and it use to be a lot worse....Remember back in the day where if a man cheated on his wife, both the man AND his wife would be punished even though the wife literally did nothing wrong? Even though women only have it moderately bad today, it used to be WAAAAAAAAY worse then that just a couple of generations earlier, and they have not received their credit for it when many others have. \"Why should women get a holiday when others dont?\"Name one other group who have had it just as bad as women and didnt get compensated for it. You may think that blacks should get their own day right? THEY DO. Its called 'Martin Luther King Jr Day', and if you compare rights for blacks to rights for women youll see that blacks received the right to vote earlier then women did, and youll also noticed that blacks have become president while women have not. \"Why does it have to be called vagina day? why cant it be called women's day or something?\" The reason it shall be called Vagina day is because 'Women's Day' sounds f*cking stupid and there are stereotypes associated with women that would take away from the meaning of a holiday for women. When you think of 'Vaginas' though, you cant immediately think of anything bad about them, am I right? Lets face it, God was taking his sweet time when making the Vagina and its probably his best work too, so it deserves to be celebrated and idolized. Vagina also just sounds more upbeat and happy too. Just sing it to yourselfVaginaaaaaaVaaaaaaaginaaaaaaVa-Va-Va-ginaaaaa daaaaaaayyyyyIts just so catchy isnt it? much more then just 'women' which doesnt really celebrate women since it has the word 'men' in it....\"When would Vagina Day be?\"It would be the Thursday before Valentines Day, so that when women come back to work after their day off thanks to Vagina Day, then it will be Valentines day and they will be showered with the chocolates and flowers of men desperately trying to get laid. It also gives men one last warning that valentines day is coming so they can prepare for it and everything rather then be caught off about it. \"Why cancel work on that day?\"Why? Because f*ck you thats why. If we get a day off for 'Labor Day' which is the stupidest sounding holiday ever made then people should be able to have a day off for the wonderful and splendid 'Vagina Day'\"How is it celebrated?\"There's parades in cities and towns everywhere and there could be giant balloon vaginas in the air for everyone to see, there will be TV coverage of some of the greatest women in history like Susan B Anthony, Martha Washington, Kelly Clarkson, Beyonce, Michelle Obama, etc to honor their legacy. There will be fireworks at night too because why not. Imagine if the Fourth of July combined with the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade, but with way more Vaginas... Thats basically what Vagina day would be like. Over to you now Con :D", "qid": "44", "docid": "9df1ccfb-2019-04-18T17:35:14Z-00005-000", "rank": 17, "score": 120921.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: 'Vagina Day' should be a national holiday Content: Heck to the yeah. First of all, it's awesome to be able to debate Imabench. Reading his debate are never boring, so I know this will be fun. Second, I am legitimately opposed to celebrating one gender and leaving the others high and dry. I look forward this!", "qid": "44", "docid": "9df1ccdc-2019-04-18T17:38:07Z-00004-000", "rank": 18, "score": 120902.0}, {"content": "Title: Star Wars Day should be a national holiday. Content: May the Fourth be with you! The impact that George Lucas's franchise has had on our culture cannot be overstated. Even while they complain about the changes being made to these movies, and about The Phantom Menace, fans have made this one of the most, if not the most, commercially successful franchises in history. This cannot help having an impact on culture. Moral values have been influenced by Luke Skywalker and Yoda. \"He joined the Dark Side\" has become synonymous with doing something evil. Star Wars changed our culture. I believe that May 4th should be a national holiday. Not a major one like Christmas, but just something recognized by everyone as a tradition. Maybe a few banks can close.", "qid": "44", "docid": "7c0b669f-2019-04-18T18:19:34Z-00001-000", "rank": 19, "score": 120244.0}, {"content": "Title: Weekend voting would be a more sensible solution Content: If the purpose is to increase turnout, weekend voting would be the more sensible option. It gives people more free time in which to vote, and doesn't have the problems that coercion brings with it. It doesn't address the wider problem of apathy, but treats the non-voting problem more acceptably than compulsory voting does. Better yet, introduce a public holiday on election days and provide free public transport to and from polling stations.", "qid": "44", "docid": "13fc3acf-2019-04-19T12:45:38Z-00023-000", "rank": 20, "score": 120193.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: 'Vagina Day' should be a national holiday Content: I am arguing that 'Vagina Day' a day that would celebrate women, honor all the accomplishments of famous women, and honor all women in society today of hanging in there despite all the crap they take from both men and nature, should become a national holiday where businesses and schools take the day off and everything Con is against this resolution - First round is acceptance only. - 4000 characters - No pictures of Vaginas are to be posted. Feel free to make as many Vagina jokes as you want though Now can be accepted :D", "qid": "44", "docid": "9df1ccdc-2019-04-18T17:38:07Z-00005-000", "rank": 21, "score": 119983.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: 'Vagina Day' should be a national holiday Content: Jesus Christ, way to f*ck up a troll debate dude....The point of a troll debate is to use semantical arguments to argue your stance in an attempt to humor the voters, NOT TAKE IT SERIOUSLY. Using serious arguments in a troll debate is the equivalent of a full forfeit too.... Ill see what I can do to restore the humor in this but seriously you gave me NOTHING to work with and now the whole debate is shot to hell. \"The pay gap between men and women is a myth[1], Men have to deal with their image just like women[2] and men have far fewer health benefits than women do\"The man who claimed that the pay gap is a myth was arrested in 2008 for trying to sharpen his penis in a pencil sharpener so that when he has sex with women he can stab them to death. The man clearly has it out for women and tries to discredit them whenever he can. He actually published a book about how Hitler was secretly a woman just to try to disprove feminism.... And men dont deal with their image JUST LIKE women do. No guy in the history of guyness has ever had to spend more then 30 minutes in the bathroom making sure they look good before going out to a dinner, or had to put that icky green stuff on their face to exfoliate their skin or whatever. Lastly OF COURSE men have fewer health benefits then women. Last I checked men dont bleed out of their penis once a month\"Our society akins breast cancer to women, and supports it so as to help women. This is proof that we value women\"Oh yay, we value women enough that we want to keep them alive, HOW THOUGHTFUL OF MEN. The point of Vagina day is to celebrate all of the good aspects that women offer society BESIDES BEING ALIVE, like having good taste in decorations, making sure us men have good hygiene, doing all the stuff guys are too dumb to do in the first place, everything. \"So from this you can take home that we already place a huge value on women. There simply isn't a need for another holiday to express our gratitude towards them\"How typical for a MAN to convince himself that we already shell out enough for a women.... Men always think that they satisfy women but women know damn well that men never shell out enough, they go good at first but then finish early and then take a nap.\" It's for that very reason that a such a huge gap exists in college enrollment between men and women\"No its not, its because men are IDIOTS. Look up 'dumbass stunt' anywhere on youtube or the internet and I guarantee you that 99 out of 100 results will feature something a guy did. Hell, look at any episode of Tosh.0 and all the stupid stunts they feature are done by MEN. The reason women are enrolled in college more then men is because men are idiots, not because women are somehow favorited voer men. \"Men would go out an do backbreaking labor which ultimately put them in very poor shape physically and health-wise, whereas women would stay in the safety of the home so that they could be healthy enough to raise children.\"How in the hell does doing intense labor make somebody in POOR shape? Doing hard labor makes men STRONGER not weaker, thats why there are gyms ever two blocks in America! This Doctor is clearly an idiot, and no surprise HES A MAN. I guess they just let anyone be a docter these daysForfeited arguments: - Con forfeits that it would be cool to have parades with giant balloon vaginas - Con does not dispute the title of Vagina Day - Con forfeits that \"Vagina Day\" rolls off the tip of the tongue - Con fails to give a single Vagina Joke - Con failed to give an example of other groups of people who dont have some holiday like women do (only a fraction of women are mothers) - Con forfeits that God spent a lot of time first making the Vagina and that he did a damn good job at it - Con forfeits basically everything since he decided to take a troll debate seriously and new arguments cant be introduced in the last round....You know what, just tie it. Ill redo this debate and debate someone who knows what a troll debate actually is.", "qid": "44", "docid": "9df1ccdc-2019-04-18T17:38:07Z-00001-000", "rank": 22, "score": 119855.0}, {"content": "Title: Should Student Appreciation Day Be A National Holiday Content: Teachers have holidays for us students to show our appreciation towards them being hard-working and patient in teaching us. Students Appreciation Day shouldn't be a National Holiday because of the following reasons. 1. Students still hadn't prove much of themselves yet. They are still in the process of learning. 2. Students go to school to study and some are even forced to go to school because they do not want to or too lazy to attend. They do not work hard that much unlike teachers. According to Deno Machino \"Every day you go to school, you have the chance to learn something that will change your life forever.You are rewarded with knowledge. \" Are you so self centered that you need acknowledgement for making a better life for your self? Most of your teachers had the chance to be anything in this world, but they chose to pursue a career that helps you. While most professions help society, none are quite like a teacher. While a doctor may save your life once you become ill, a teacher saves your life by giving you the knowledge to be able to live. Without teachers, you could not afford a house, car, or the doctor. Without a teacher, this doctor would not have the knowledge to save your life. (Source: http://www.smallworlds.com...) And besides, without teachers, we wouldn't even learn a lot of things.", "qid": "44", "docid": "1b4be3e0-2019-04-18T12:49:26Z-00001-000", "rank": 23, "score": 119748.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: 'Vagina Day' should be a national holiday Content: Vagina Day. It just rolls off the tongue doesnt it?I will start by saying that women deserve a day to recognize all of their hard work. They have to deal with periods, trying to find bras that fit well but dont chaffe their nipples, staying in shape, wearing heels, looking good in a bathing suit, usually are the ones who have to keep the house in order, spend an hour in the morning to look good, do the same work as men yet get paid less, etc etc. One of the things that most women do that deserves recognition though, is that women are forced to put up with men. Do you know how much of a pain in the a** it is for women to put up with guys in their life? At just about any age all women usually have one creepy guy obsessed with them, four hot guys she wants to date but no matter how hard she tries cant get them to take the hint, deal with either an overbearing father or not having one at all, and just being forced to live in a world that is run by the dumbest men you can find. Women deserve a day to themselves because they have it hard, and it use to be a lot worse....Remember back in the day where if a man cheated on his wife, both the man AND his wife would be punished even though the wife literally did nothing wrong? Even though women only have it moderately bad today, it used to be WAAAAAAAAY worse then that just a couple of generations earlier, and they have not received their credit for it when many others have. \"Why should women get a holiday when others dont?\"Name one other group who have had it just as bad as women and didnt get compensated for it. You may think that blacks should get their own day right? THEY DO. Its called 'Martin Luther King Jr Day', and if you compare rights for blacks to rights for women youll see that blacks received the right to vote earlier then women did, and youll also noticed that blacks have become president while women have not. \"Why does it have to be called vagina day? why cant it be called women's day or something?\" The reason it shall be called Vagina day is because women's day sounds f*cking stupid and there are stereotypes associated with women that would take away from the meaning of a holiday for women. When you think of 'Vaginas' though, you cant immediately think of anything bad about them, am I right? Lets face it, God was taking his sweet time when making the Vagina and its probably his best work too. Vagina also just sounds more upbeat and happy too. Just sing it to yourselfVaginaaaaaaVaaaaaaaginaaaaaaVa-Va-Va-ginaaaaa daaaaaaayyyyyIts just so catchy isnt it? much more then just 'women' which doesnt really celebrate women since it has the word 'men' in it....\"When would Vagina Day be?\"It would be the Thursday before Valentines Day, so that when women come back to work after their day off thanks to Vagina Day, then it will be Valentines day and they will be showered with the chocolates and flowers of men desperately trying to get laid. It also gives men one last warning that valentines day is coming so they can prepare for it and everything rather then be caught off about it. \"Why cancel work on that day?\"Why? Because f*ck you thats why. If we get a day off for 'Labor Day' which is the stupidest sounding holiday ever made then people should be able to have a day off for the wonderful and splendid 'Vagina Day'\"How is it celebrated?\"There's parades in cities and towns everywhere and there could be giant balloon vaginas in the air for everyone to see, there will be TV coverage of some of the greatest women in history like Susan B Anthony, Martha Washington, Kelly Clarkson, Beyonce, Michelle Obama, etc to honor their legacy. There will be fireworks at night too because why not. Imagine if the Fourth of July combined with the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade, but with way more Vaginas... Thats basically what Vagina day would be like. Over to you now Con :D", "qid": "44", "docid": "9df1ccdc-2019-04-18T17:38:07Z-00003-000", "rank": 24, "score": 119686.0}, {"content": "Title: Scream at the Sky day is useless Content: Thanks for accepting the challenge. First of all, scream at the sky day is a sort of holiday made to protest 'the current state of our democracy', and/or the election of Donald Trump. America's voting system however, has been operating like this for hundreds of years. Both Hillary and Trump played by the rules and Donald won. Scream at the sky is protesting the American voting system, which allows for all states to get a say. Donald won over America, while Clinton won over a few large states. This holiday is unless.", "qid": "44", "docid": "e85f616c-2019-04-18T11:55:42Z-00005-000", "rank": 25, "score": 118795.0}, {"content": "Title: Potato day should be a national holiday for all places Content: I do not like potatoes, so using your logic there should be no Potato day. Your opinon is no better than mine, and I am fairly sure there are tons of people who dislike potatoes. I do not mean to sound pretentious, but using the logic of pro against them I technically win.", "qid": "44", "docid": "a9586a5-2019-04-18T15:18:07Z-00000-000", "rank": 26, "score": 118352.0}, {"content": "Title: Columbus Day Should Not be Celebrated. Content: Whether or not Columbus Day should be celebrated lies in whether or not it is a national holiday. Thus, the resolution should read: Resolved: Columbus Day should not be a national holiday. Definition: Columbus Day: a federal holiday as declared by President Benjamin Harrison in 1892 celebrating the arrival of Christopher Columbus in the Americas. Framework: As my opponent has stated, the BOP for the CON is to show why Columbus Day should still be a national holiday. Thus, the BOP for the PRO is to refute the contentions presented by the CON and establish his own advocating why we should no longer make Columbus Day a national holiday. Additionally, read Contention 3 for the last part of PRO's BOP, where he must prove that there is bad INTENT in celebrating Columbus Day. --- Arguments: Contention 1: America has long admired Columbus Columbus Day marks the arrival of Europeans to the New World, and celebrates the \"beginning of a cultural exchange between America and Europe\"[1]. America has more Columbus statues and Columbus memorabilia than any other nation in the world. He's admired for his bravery in sailing West at a time when most uneducated believed the world to be flat. Contention 2: Columbus Day is the only day which recognizes the heritage of almost 26 million Italian Americans. Columbus Day became a national holiday in 1971 after Congress passed a law stating that the second Monday in October is Columbus Day. Along with the accomplishments of Columbus, the law passed in 1971 commemorates the arrival of over 5 million Italians a century prior. Columbus Day is thus the only day which recognizes the heritage of a group now nearly 26 million in size. Contention 3: Intent It is important as we judge this debate to consider the intent of Columbus Day. The intent, as defined, is to celebrate Columbus's arrival to the New World. Much like how Manifest Destiny didn't encourage the killing of Natives and much like how Independence Day doesn't celebrate the killing of British in the Revolutionary War, Columbus Day doesn't celebrate the deaths of Native Americans that may have ensued. It's a celebration of the discovery of the New World. In order for my opponent to win this round, he MUST prove that there is bad intent in celebrating Columbus Day. Unless he does so, he cannot win. This is added to his BOP. --- Refutations: ++represent my opponent's arguments ++\"It is in my opinion that Columbus's legacy is grossly misrepresented\"++ How has his legacy been misrepresented? He discovered two new continents, and that's what he's celebrated for on Columbus Day. ++\"His \"accomplishments\" was nothing more but a failed journey\"++ Again, how was it a failed journey? I understand that my opponent is upset over the deaths of natives that ensued after the discovery of the New World, but the intent of Columbus Day is to celebrate the discovery of continents on which 1 billion people now reside [2] [3]. When Columbus Day is described or taught in classrooms, it's taught as a celebration of discovery. No one is celebrating death on Columbus Day. Furthermore, Westward expansion and Manifest Destiny are two deeply rooted American beliefs, but as a result of them many Native Americans were killed. Should we remove the verse \"from sea to shining sea\" from the national anthem [4] because it hints to those who died in westward expansion? Should we no longer celebrate Independence Day because we killed many British and lost American lives during the preceding war? ++Columbus Day celebrates \"genocide and imperialism.\"++ Basically, my opponent is a) claiming that Columbus Day celebrates the deaths of Natives, b) imperialism is bad, and c) he is upset about it. My responses: a) that isn't the intent of the holiday. and, b) imperialism was the way of the world back then. c) the killing of Natives wasn't a genocide. The primary cause of death was smallpox, which was unintentionally brought from Europe to the Americas. Disease easily traveled across continents thanks to sea travel. and, d) Columbus was merely an explorer, actually didn't do much in the Americas except travel. He made four voyages and stopped at numerous locations on the Americas. It was the later conquistadors who were the ones who enslaved and killed natives on a large scale. The resolution has been negated. I thank my opponent for posting this debate and eagerly anticipate his responses and upcoming contentions. [1] http://www.osia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org...", "qid": "44", "docid": "7068d2b9-2019-04-18T18:58:24Z-00004-000", "rank": 27, "score": 117887.0}, {"content": "Title: Columbus Day Content: Good morning, noon, or evening!My name is arrowjaw. Today I will be participating in a debate in which I am the Pro, or the Affirmative. I am for the resolution. It is my burden to prove to you, the voter, that the resolution is true or should be carried out. It is also my burden to refute the arguments of the Con, or the Negative, who is against the resolution. Similarly, the opposition must prove to the voter that the resolution is false or should not be carried out. This debate has the following resolution:Should Columbus day be a national holiday in the United StatesMy opponent has set the character limit to 3,000, so I cannot structure an adequate debate. I will, thus, respond to my opponent only. My opponent begins by saying that Columbus day is a holiday because \"he was Italian and Catholic\". Italians and Catholics first lobbied for Columbus Day to become a federal holiday in the United States. This is in no a way a detriment to Columbus day. African-Americans were proud to be of the same heritage of M.L.K., and the rest of America admired him for his achievements. Columbus is the same. Just because his holiday was first urged on by members of his heritage does not mean that it should not be a federal holiday. My opponent says that \"[Columbus] did not discover America...there were native tribes living in the Americas for centuries before Columbus landed\". When people say 'Columbus discovered America', they are referencing that he discovered it for the more civilized and more technologically advanced part of the world: Eurasia and Africa. This is frankly a ridiculous and ignorant attempt to discredit Columbus for a monumental achievement. My opponent said that \"[Columbus] never touched down in the modern-day United States\". How can you blame him directly, place only the blame on him for all the deaths of the Natives of the Americas if, in your own words, he never even landed there. He paved the way for the colonization of the New World. He is not, however, responsible for the disgusting way in which the New World was conquered and colonized. My opponent then goes on to consent that \"his exploration led to other European nations exploring the Americas and led to the colonizing of the Americas.\" If that is not an achievement worthy of a holiday I do not know what is. My opponent has contradicted himself and consented, in his own words, that Columbus completed a monumental achievement, which is obviously worthy of, at least, a federal holiday. The Spanish Conquistadors may have killed millions in their conquests of South and Meso America, but that does not mean that Columbus is responsible for those deaths. Just as Karl Benz created the car but is not blamed for automobile-related deaths, Columbus should not be blamed for the horrific actions of others whom he had no control over.", "qid": "44", "docid": "5666d2e5-2019-04-18T12:54:00Z-00001-000", "rank": 28, "score": 117840.0}, {"content": "Title: The American federal government should move its general election day to November's first Saturday. Content: In the previous round I did mention that the jobs that get days off or extra time can cause a guilt trip, but I also stated that it was only a minor objection to your notion. In this round I will go over some of the arguments you mentioned in your rebuttal, but I will also get to the heart of the problem. In response to my mentioning of time off, you claim that most people will not give in to the guilt trip. You stated in the last round \"Many workers who do get this break do not give into the guilt trip, but instead use the time for something else.\" Now I'm not sure if this is true or not. However, if we assume that it is true, then your argument suffers much more than mine. For if people that are given extra time choose to do something with that time other than voting, then Saturday elections would be meaningless. The people would use that extra time for something else. That statement has not been thought through to its proper conclusion. Your inferences on the economic disasters that occur due to some extra time off or one extra day a year are rather far fetched. First of all, the economy falling apart because of a single day off or a slightly longer lunch break is a ridiculous notion. Psychologically, breaks and days off can make a worker more productive. Never allowing such breaks decreases productivity much more and is far more devastating to the company. The direction that you have gone with as far as the guilt trip is highly creative and amusing. But realistically, it is also quite ridiculous. You go from a guilt trip causing psychological damage to a person drinking and driving. Then that person apparently kills someone who was one day away from curing AIDS. Was that serious? This is even more far fetched than your economic example. Nevertheless, the days off and the guilt trips were only a minor point to reveal in Round 1. Now I will get to the true problem with your idea. The United States is a country that was founded on the idea of freedom. The Bill of Rights is often used as an example of the rights and freedoms that U.S. citizens should have. The first amendment reads as follows: \"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.\" If there are to be no laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion, then how can you justify making election day a Saturday? A denomination of Protestant Christians known as Seventh-day Adventists celebrate their Sabbath on Saturday. Changing the day of the election to a day that prevents followers of a religion from voting is clearly wrong. Furthermore, religious Jews also celebrate the Sabbath on Saturday. So now we have two separate religions that you wish to eliminate from the election process simply because it is more convenient for you! Well this is not how America works. You cannot place people with a decision between following their religion or voting. In the last round you stated \"Lower class voters often do not get breaks for Election Day. This is unfair to lower class voters.\" But the polls open up at 7:00 A.M. and close at 8:00 or 9:00 P.M. The lower class will still have time to go to the polls either before or after work. This is not the case with the religious denominations mentioned. With them it is not a mere inconvenience to get up earlier, or to go vote after work before heading home. They cannot both practice their religion and vote if the elections were changed to a Saturday. I know of no religious denominations that celebrate their Sabbath on a Tuesday, and therefore it is culturally fair to leave election day as the first Tuesday after the first Monday of November. It is true that most people have work that day, but there is time for both voting and going to work. You ended your last round with the statement \"Vote PRO for the better debater and better position!\" But in light of the fact that a Saturday election is clearly biased, I don't believe you have the right to claim the better position.", "qid": "44", "docid": "b7d8dba7-2019-04-18T19:42:33Z-00002-000", "rank": 29, "score": 117232.0}, {"content": "Title: You choose the topic Content: International Waffle Day should be a federally recognized holiday? *** Yes it should http://www.youtube.com... 1) Tastiness deserves to be a nationally sanctified- Who doesn't remember going to waffle house at 2am to eat because nowhere else was open where you could sit down? It's a magical experience, wolfing down that tennis-racket looking goodness. If you're staying at a Hotel in the great state of Texas, the waffles even come in the shape of the state! It's not even an option thing where you *can* get them in that shape, the griddle is shaped like Texas. Why isn't this something we should recognize on a federal level? 2) It would unite a divided legislature- In order to become a federally recognized holiday, a piece of legislation would have to pass through both the house and Senate. Particularly during an election season, this would be non-contentious and provide a much-needed sense of unity to help restore the US population's faith in government. 3) Waffles are fun, and wildly underrated- While Eggo had it's heyday back in the day, we don't really give the waffle the proper credit it deserves today. If we were to federally recognize national waffle day, Eggo would be primed to come back into the spotlight swinging. That would mean we would see the return of Eggo's hilarious marketing team b) If Eggo would come back to prominence the way it was in the late 90s and Early 2000s, it would pave the way for other snacks that got left behind. Conclusion- Waffles are the bomb dot com, and there is absolutely no reason not to affirm. Federally recognizing National Waffle day would be good for our taste buds, government and soul.", "qid": "44", "docid": "b38b6b92-2019-04-18T13:11:31Z-00002-000", "rank": 30, "score": 117151.0}, {"content": "Title: Potato day should be a national holiday for all places Content: I love potatoes so potatoe day should be a national holiday if anyone disagrees give valid information why it should't", "qid": "44", "docid": "a9586a5-2019-04-18T15:18:07Z-00001-000", "rank": 31, "score": 116280.0}, {"content": "Title: Star Wars Day should be a national holiday. Content: I disagree. May the Fourth should be an international holiday. Everyone should be able to celebrate the splendor of Star Wars.", "qid": "44", "docid": "7c0b669f-2019-04-18T18:19:34Z-00000-000", "rank": 32, "score": 116120.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: 'Vagina Day' should be a national holiday Content: Right out of the batting box I'd like to establish a few thing: a. The pay gap between men and women is a myth[1], Men have to deal with their image just like women[2] and men have far fewer health benefits than women do. [3][4][5] [1] . http://cbsn.ws... [2] . http://bit.ly... [3] . http://1.usa.gov... [4] . http://bit.ly... That said, it is my contention that vagina is unwarranted. Women are already celebrated in our society to a significant degree, by continuing to focus so heavily on women we create a systematic inequality among men and women. 1. Societal celebration of women- As I've already shown the rates for prostate and breast cancer are roughly the same[3]. Let's put aside for just a moment that both men and women can get breast cancer[5] whereas only men can get prostate cancer. The real impact here is our focus on health. Despite the rates of these cancers being about equal breast cancer research receives a significantly higher amount funding than any other type of cancer[3]. Our society akins breast cancer to women, and supports it so as to help women. This is proof that we value women [5] . http://bit.ly... Further, let's compare two holidays already in place: Mother's day and Father's day. Out society spent about 5.9 Billion dollars more on Mother's day in 2008 than we did on father's day[6]. Furthermore we see that Men spend on average twice as much as women do on Valentines day[7]. [6] . http://bit.ly... [7] . http://bit.ly... So from this you can take home that we already place a huge value on women. There simply isn't a need for another holiday to express our gratitude towards them. But there is a second, even more potent issue that must be discussed when one discusses the legitimacy of 'vagina day', and that's the role of men. 2. Male Disposability- Whether we're willing to admit it or not, men are disposable in our culture. It's for that very reason that a such a huge gap exists in college enrollment between men and women[8], 93% of work elated deaths are men[9] and the suicide rate for men is at least 3 times that of women across the board [10]. And that's just the minimum difference. [8] . https://bitly.com... [9] . http://bit.ly... [10] . http://bit.ly... We treat men as though they're disposable, as though they're tools, and despite the fact that we know men are at a disadvantage in all of these different areas the goal of mainstream gender 'equality' movements for the past hundred years have been bout benefiting women and women alone. In 2000 Dr. Warren Farrell wrote 'The Myth of Male Power'[11], in which he redefines the classical ideal of the patriarchy as vessel of female oppression. Ferrell argued that neither Men nor Women classically held 'power', as that would imply that they had the power to control what they could do with their own life. The fact is that until the past hundred years or so, men and women had to play their traditional gender roles for the sake of survival. Men would go out an do backbreaking labor which ultimately put them in very poor shape physically and health-wise, whereas women would stay in the safety of the home so that they could be healthy enough to raise children. As Ferrel writes this was not oppression of women, but a necessary social structure for mankind to survive. [11] . http://bit.ly... So What's next? The demonization of masculine values has been an element in the realm of gender equality for a while now[12]. The white ribbon campaign for instance, asserts that only men are responsible for domestic violence[13]. It claims that the traits which fuel domestic violence are inherently male traits, whereas peace is an inherently female trait. [12] . http://bit.ly... [13] . http://bit.ly... By voting for 'vagina day', even in jest, we propagate this negative view of men.", "qid": "44", "docid": "9df1ccdc-2019-04-18T17:38:07Z-00002-000", "rank": 33, "score": 115346.0}, {"content": "Title: Should Student Appreciation Day Be A National Holiday Content: You got solid facts, but logically there are alternatives. One, if students were that lazy they wouldn't getup period. Even, if mom and dad threaten them they wouldn't get up. REBELLION! Two, all students can skip school and hang-out somewhere random. TBH I actually thought about because I getup very early in the mourning, but because I really care don't do that. Technically, you're right students hadn't proved themselves yet, but the point is that they are going through the process of proving themselves. Plus, we work-hard and we have put-up with a couple of those teachers who hit our last nerve. I'm a straight A student, but at some point in my life a had teacher who sat at her desk all-day, literally. According to a couple teacher confessions they don't care, they only want the decent money. True story.", "qid": "44", "docid": "1b4be3e0-2019-04-18T12:49:26Z-00000-000", "rank": 34, "score": 112109.0}, {"content": "Title: Columbus Day Content: This debate is about whether Columbus Day should be a national holiday in the United States. I believe that either the holiday should be abolished or that it should be renamed. Columbus' treatment of the natives was inhumane as his men murdered and raped members of the native tribes. In this country, we should categorize men like this as a murderer instead of a national hero. Let's begin by looking at how this became a holiday...it was a celebration by certain members of society because he was Italian and Catholic. His accomplishment of reaching America made him a hero in those communities. But how did he go from being a hero in the Italian and Catholic groups to being a hero in the United States? First of all, he did not \"discover\" America. Unless you ignore world history until this point, you know that there were native tribes living in the Americas for centuries before Columbus landed, so how can you \"discover\" something when there is already someone living there. Not only that, he never even touched down into the modern-day United States. He explored islands in the Caribbean and in central America, not in the present day United States. To give credit where credit is due, his explorations led to other European nations exploring the Americas and led to the colonizing of the Americas. However, that is not how Columbus is perceived is most parts of our society. My final point in this round is that there are only two holidays here in the United States that are named after individuals; Columbus Day and Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. Washington's birthday has been reduced to an overall President's Day. It appalls me that Columbus has a holiday named after him, but Washington, the father of our country, Lincoln, who in a round about way ended slavery, nor heroes like Pat Tillman have holidays named after them....you know, TRUE HEROES!", "qid": "44", "docid": "5666d2e5-2019-04-18T12:54:00Z-00002-000", "rank": 35, "score": 111683.0}, {"content": "Title: The Electoral College Should be Abolished Content: Responses to my opponent's arguments 1) My opponent argues that getting rid of the electoral college would create uncertainty in the presidential election process because the national popular vote would be much more likely than a dispute over the electoral college votes. I would have to challenge this claim on the grounds that if there is a dispute over electoral votes, it is usually because the results of an election in one state are so close that a recount is often necessary, as was the case in Florida in 2000 and North Carolina in 2008. If the national popular vote was close enough that a nationwide recount would be deemed necessary, then that would likely signal a problem with how the national popular vote was counted, as such, every vote from every precinct would have to be recounted due to the scale of a national popular vote system. This of course leads into another supporting argument my opponent made, which is that the current electoral college system creates separate elections in each state, allowing for easier vote counting. The problem with this argument is that the process of counting votes is handled by individual voting precincts, which number in the thousands nationwide, thus sharing the task of counting votes nationwide, thus allowing for errors in how votes are counted to be screened out. Unless this changes under a national popular vote, then such a supporting argument is invalid. 2) My opponent's second argument is that the electoral college requires presidential candidates to have nationwide appeal in order to win an election. This argument ignores the issue of partisanship that is common in American politics, where voters will often vote for a candidate who shares party membership with groups of voters. For example, here is a list of states that will most likely vote for a candidate from each major political party, sorted from the highest number of electoral votes, to the lowest. Democratic California: 55 New York: 29 Pennsylvania: 20 Illinois: 20 Michigan: 16 New Jersey: 14 Washington: 12 Massachusetts: 11 Maryland: 10 Minnesota: 10 Wisconsin: 10 Connecticut: 7 Oregon: 7 New Mexico: 5 Rhode Island: 4 Hawaii: 4 Maine: 4 Vermont: 3 Delaware: 3 District of Columbia: 3 Total Democratic: 247 Republican Texas: 38 Georgia: 16 Tennessee: 11 Arizona: 11 Indiana: 11 Missouri: 10 Alabama: 9 South Carolina: 9 Louisiana: 8 Kentucky: 8 Oklahoma: 7 Utah: 6 Arkansas: 6 Mississippi: 6 Kansas: 6 Nebraska: 5 West Virginia: 5 Idaho: 4 Alaska: 3 Montana: 3 North Dakota: 3 South Dakota: 3 Wyoming: 3 Total Republican: 191 Now, take notice of the states listed, these are states that presidential candidates from both respective parties could be expected to carry with very little if any effort, meaning that candidates often ignore these states in favor of more competitive states during presidential contests. Furthermore, notice the distinct advantage that the Democratic Party holds in the electoral college. As it currently stands, the democratic party would need to win just twenty-three electoral votes to win the presidential election, while the Republican would need to win seventy-nine. If the Democratic party won Florida, which has twenty-nine electoral votes, then that would be enough for them to win the presidency without carrying any other states. This setup means that a Democratic presidential candidate could focus all fundraising, campaign events, and organization on just Florida, while completely ignoring the rest of the country, negating the need for any other appeal nationwide. 3) My opponent's argument here is largely an appeal to consequences, therefore I do not need to address it. Sources: http://www.270towin.com... http://www.logicallyfallacious.com...", "qid": "44", "docid": "55c05f9b-2019-04-18T14:42:05Z-00001-000", "rank": 36, "score": 111613.0}, {"content": "Title: Polling stations during Elections should be conducted over a longer period than a single day Content: This is my first debate, so forgive me if I\"m not exactly sure how it works. Here is my best case for single day polling: I submit that voting should be on one day only and as a secondary statement submit that the day could be moved to Saturday, if needed. No absentee mail in ballots should be allowed either. 1. Internet access is widespread in America (about 75% at home according to US census) that people who cannot make it to a polling location on a specific day can still vote. People who do not have access to the Internet certainly have reasonable means to find access (friend, library, school, work). Anyone who claims they absolutely cannot get to the Internet for any reason probably means they did not get to a connection because they did not value the vote. http://www.census.gov... 2. A single day vote may actually increase voter turnout. If the day is made special like Super Bowl Sunday, perhaps turnout will increase over the current apathetic levels. Last year, television ratings for the Super Bowl were about twice as high as the rounds that led up to the single day game. The reason is that it was made special, the weeks preceding the game lead up to the Super Bowl, and it was limited time frame. Those factors bring in the casual fan. On an anecdotal level, ask people next year after the game who did not watch to provide you a reason. My educated guess would be they did not watch because sports does not interest them, not because they could not find a television or device to watch it on. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... http://www.usatoday.com... 3. Inconvenience is not the major reason people don\"t vote. As it is now, most states have absentee ballots that allow citizens to mail in their ballots over the course of weeks in some cases. Yet, voter turnout is still low. With the option of mailing in a ballot or showing up at the polls, participation is not low because people cannot get to a physical location on a Tuesday, it is low because the non-voters don\"t care to vote for a variety of reasons. Some major reasons are: people feel like the government has for whatever reason let them down, they don\"t follow politics so they don\"t care to vote and the Electoral College technically elects the president so why bother? 4. I would be in favor of moving the single day from Tuesday to Saturday. Since more people work on weekdays than weekends, the Saturday date could increase voter turnout as well as provide opportunities for local celebrations and parades. If an election day were ever to bring in the casual voter like Super Bowl Sunday brings in the casual sports fan, the aforementioned civic celebrations might be the only avenue. 5. I will admit that computers can be hacked and online voting on a single day could open the process up for fraud. However, I would submit that just because a problem exists does not mean the activity should always be avoided. When cars became faster, engineers designed seat belts, they didn\"t avoid driving over 20 miles per hour. Election fraud is rampant now anyway (will the word Florida suffice?). Also, online identity theft occurs but people still shop online and go on social media sites, they just need to be more careful. Since we won\"t be eliminating all online activity just because it can be dangerous, why would we avoid online voting?", "qid": "44", "docid": "fcff81a7-2019-04-18T17:19:43Z-00003-000", "rank": 37, "score": 111180.0}, {"content": "Title: State governments are a much greater threat to American rights than the national government Content: How fitting, Pro decided to forfeit on Election Day. And in saying that, I hope all US Debate.org folks go out and vote today. For voting is \"The Great Debate!\"", "qid": "44", "docid": "5a4ae69-2019-04-18T15:36:46Z-00001-000", "rank": 38, "score": 110218.0}, {"content": "Title: Atheists Do Have a Holiday: April 1st (April Fools Day) Content: First, I would like to ask that voters give a brief reason for decision in the comments. Now, Reasons I win this debate: 1) April 1st is NOT a holiday (for anyone) as it does not meet the definition of a holiday. If it isn't a holiday at all, it cant be an atheist holiday. I win this debate on this point alone, as my opponent did not dispute this at all. The title of the debate is \"Atheists do have a holiday: April 1st;\" if April 1st isn't a holiday, then it is impossible for ANYONE to have it as their holiday. Again, this argument was completely ignored by opponent, meaning I win on this point automatically (essentially its an argumentative forfeit on his part for what would equate to \"not showing up\" on a sports field). 2) My opponent has defined the atheist holiday as a time for atheists to \"celebrate their non-belief\" (his R2). I pointed out that April 1st has nothing to do with atheists celebrating their non-belief, so it does not meet my opponent's criteria for what an atheist holiday should be. My opponent's only response to this is one word: \"scripture. \" He doesn't elaborate or provide any analysis so I quite frankly don't know how he intends scripture to address this argument. I can guess what argument he might be trying to make (although he doesn't actually make it, he just says \"scripture\"), so I will address his non-argument here. While you may be correct that atheists are fools (as scripture states) and are thus tied to April 1st, that does not necessarily make the date an atheist holiday. As my opponent said, an atheist holiday must be a time for atheists to \"celebrate their non-belief. \" April 1st does not do this. I will point out that at no time did my opponent dispute my claim that April 1st had NOTHING to do with a celebration of non-faith. So, since April 1st has nothing to do with a celebration of non faith and since the atheist holiday must be a time for celebration of non faith, April 1st can not be the atheist holiday, despite the tie between atheists and April 1st. Think of it like this: A group simply having a tie to a certain date doesn't mean that date is their holiday. ON EITHER OF THESE TWO POINTS ALONE, I win. Both points illustrate how it is not possible for April 1st to be the atheist holiday. These are both offensive arguments for my position that were either dropped entirely or addressed so poorly that they might as well have been ignored. HOWEVER, if that is not enough to convince the judges (although it should be more than enough): My opponents entire argument rests on a scripture passage that says atheists are fools. However, he has provided no reason why a scripture passage has the ability to set a holiday. Why should scripture set the atheist holiday? Why shouldn't a book by Dawkins? What authority does scripture have to dictate holidays? To be blunt: why should we care what scripture says when setting holidays? My opponent's only answer: \"Must I keep repeating the Scripture? \" This does not answer my questions about the relevancy of scripture in any way. Please note that this isn't a case of a poorly developed argument, but a complete omission of an explanation for how his argument matters. My opponent simply doesn't explain how scripture is relevant. Christian scripture doesn't set Hindu holidays or Islamic holidays, why would it set atheists? Now you can see that: 1) My opponent provides no convincing reason why April 1st is an atheist holiday 2) It is impossible for April 1st to be an atheist holiday.", "qid": "44", "docid": "ec580f43-2019-04-18T19:58:39Z-00000-000", "rank": 39, "score": 109049.0}, {"content": "Title: should September 2 be a holiday Content: well you will never find another war like this. i have m made my point so let the voting win", "qid": "44", "docid": "eb5233c9-2019-04-18T15:04:28Z-00001-000", "rank": 40, "score": 108364.0}, {"content": "Title: Voting should be compulsory. Content: Voting in local, state and national elections should be compulsory for all who are eligible to vote because it is the best way to judge the will of the people and achieve the fairest or most democratic outcome. Leaving voting up to the most motivated or the most able will only skew the results and give a false perspective on the wishes of the electorate. Voluntary voting also leads to dirty tactics for candidates and campaigners including, for example, legislating rules that would unfairly affect poorer people as suggested in certain states of the USA in their last federal election. The second best method would be to randomly select voters, however this can still lead to skewed results especially in smaller electorates.", "qid": "44", "docid": "70d26bcf-2019-04-18T15:47:32Z-00005-000", "rank": 41, "score": 108331.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: direct popular vote should replace electoral college in presidential elections Content: I understand that my opponent was probably celebrating the holidays, so I extend all arguments.", "qid": "44", "docid": "196ff2c-2019-04-18T18:36:24Z-00002-000", "rank": 42, "score": 107866.0}, {"content": "Title: Columbus Day should either be abolished or re-named Content: This debate is about whether Columbus Day should be a national holiday in the United States. I believe that either the holiday should be abolished or that it should be renamed. Columbus' treatment of the natives was inhumane as his men murdered and raped members of the native tribes. I will wait for a challenger and provide more evidence to support my argument in the next round.", "qid": "44", "docid": "4f3adbc7-2019-04-18T12:51:25Z-00002-000", "rank": 43, "score": 107793.0}, {"content": "Title: State governments are a much greater threat to American rights than the national government Content: Election Day is over, election for this non-debate begins.", "qid": "44", "docid": "5a4ae69-2019-04-18T15:36:46Z-00000-000", "rank": 44, "score": 107647.0}, {"content": "Title: There are alternatives that tackle the real causes of voter disengagement Content: Compulsory voting hides the problem which is causing people to be disengaged from politics; it allows politicians to ignore measures that can tackle the true causes of political disengagement. States instead should seek on strategies that will eliminate barriers to voting along with reducing the costs of turnout for its citizens, weekend voting, making election days a holiday, simple registration procedures, reforms such as to the party finance rules to widen the playing field, and the creation of a centralized, professional bureaucracy concerned with all aspects of election administration. In the UK, for example, adopting a more proportional system will allow for a political spectrum rather than the three major parties that currently dominate. improve this", "qid": "44", "docid": "4ce497c-2019-04-15T20:22:56Z-00023-000", "rank": 45, "score": 107627.0}, {"content": "Title: Polling stations during Elections should be conducted over a longer period than a single day Content: There are a number of inconveniences when it comes to voting in American elections, but foremost it is getting to the polling station on the particular day. In our computerized society I see no reason for there to be single election days besides for the drama it creates and TV dollars it generates. I propose that polling during elections be at least a week's worth of time A few assumptions to be kept in mind 1. all results will be held till the end of polling 2. systems in place to ensure no re-voting or fraudulent voting Round 1 Opening statements Round 2 rebuttals to Round 1 Round 3 closing arguments", "qid": "44", "docid": "fcff81a7-2019-04-18T17:19:43Z-00004-000", "rank": 46, "score": 107244.0}, {"content": "Title: Weekend voting would be a more sensible solution Content: Simply changing the day elections are held doesn't make it any more attractive for people to vote. Those people who don't care won't care any more now that an election is on a Saturday, regardless of how much easier it is for them. Just as people have better things (in their opinion) to do during the week, they will have alternative activities for the weekend. Compulsory voting addresses the fact that people simply don't turn up to vote, which weekend voting doesn't.", "qid": "44", "docid": "13fc3acf-2019-04-19T12:45:38Z-00022-000", "rank": 47, "score": 107120.0}, {"content": "Title: Iowa's importance in the Presidential primaries should be reduced to allow a more national primary. Content: So your saying you live in California correct? ok. Well we are all Americans we believe in one head one vote, So I don't think it's fair that you say your vote is more important than that of another person. Now one person one vote would translate into a national primary election, but thats impractical. The candidates would have to be all over the nation. Travel cost would be huge and for candidates who lack the budget their message can't get across. Indeed a national Primary election would see the richer candidates with huge leverage and that would discourage little known or poorly funded candidates. Not just becuase of travel cost but also they would have to run national advertisement which is a huge dent in ones campaign budget. Indeed its taking a grassroots campaign and shattering it. So what we do is follow the same pattern we do when electing our president, we make it a state function with the exception that the primaries take place at different times. This is becuase the Primaries are a function of the state government and the state party headquarters, not a function of the Federal government. Remember we are talking about parties who's organization is wholly outside the federal government- you will not find the mentioning of a political party in the constitution. Because its a function of the state government and state party headquarter they try and decide whats best for the party. And having a progressive campaign that starts somewhere and ends somewhere else is the most economical in spreading the message of the candidates. So if you were going to start somewhere and end somewhere , what would be your starting point? Well thats how we get to the fact that Iowa holds the first caucus, because technically New Hampshire holds the first Primary- the difference is just the selection process. Iowa is the starting point becuase its a small state, by allowing candidates to focus there , it gives voters a really good chance of having a one on one encounter with the candidates. This is good because its give more democratic opportunity for the election. Candidates with little money have almost the same opportunity with candidates that have a huge campaign budget. This allows for that grass-roots campaign that can really take off. And the more supporters the get the more publicity they get. People do not want to vote for a candidate that they don't think has a chance of winning, thats called candidate viability. And if you wouldn't vote for a person because he's not viable you certainly wouldn't give him your money. But by making the small state of Iowa (and New Hampshire) the center of attention, we really give those unknown candidates a better chance to take on the bigger guys. If they have a good message, and their campaign begins to take off, their voter viability will go up, that means more money as people donate to their campaign. With money and a good viability they can leave Iowa with good field position to tackle on the other states. By having Iowa first the election becomes more fair, richer and more known candidates are pushed to be on the same level as unknown candidates. Which makes the election about your message and your ideals not the amount of money in the bank. Mike Huckabee is the best example of this. Before Iowa is not over and already he is in a great position to take on other primaries across the nation. Yet before he was not even known by more than a few percent of the population (outside the Arkansas-Alabama-Louisiana region), much less had much backing. But he was able to leverage that face-to -face campaign, really leverage the equal opportunity campaigning and now he's not only first in Iowa, but becuase his voter viability went up he is first or second in almost every national poll and the caucus hasn't even taken place. If he can win the caucus he will set the tone for other states. And as for other candidates, some are wishing to just pull third in Iowa because that gives voters in other states the confirmation that he has a shot to win this thing if you rally behind him.", "qid": "44", "docid": "9fe53ee-2019-04-18T19:57:49Z-00003-000", "rank": 48, "score": 105930.0}, {"content": "Title: Polling stations during Elections should be conducted over a longer period than a single day Content: I often wonder if the single day voting is meant to curb voter fraud. No I don't think so. I think its discrimination against the poor and those that have to work 2 or 3 jobs to survive and feed their family. Suggestion 1 to improve voting: I think that the first time people register to vote (age 18 or above) they should be required to give a fingerprint, than at least there would be a record to identify an individual without having to require a photo ID. I don't see how a fingerprint would be invasion of privacy and it would also be free. You only have to prove who you are once with a birth certificate or other suffiecient form of ID (barring any scaring on your fingers). If this database could be used solely for elections and not accessible to law enforcement (of course could we trust them?) You'd only know a person's finger pad pattern, not what they look like and people would not have to have a photo ID if they didn't want to. Then, you could take your time to vote. Voting at your own convenience. Currently its just a tv spectacle with winners being declared often before even 50% of the vote is in for districts and states. Its not as if the switch from incumbent to the next elected official is happening that next day. Usually its like 3 months till the handover. Pretty much everything must kowtow to the tv networks. Too much money for tv. Sports are slaves to tv as well. For those that want national ID cards or required photo IDs YET they want total privacy and no records to match who voted for who, you can't have both. Suggestion #2: Better yet, align voting and taxes, then if you want to vote you have to pay your taxes (which should already be the case, even if you owe nothing or expect a refund) No taxes, no vote. Citizens benefit from services and infrastructure provided by taxes and it is their duty to pay them, voting should also be a duty of a citizen. EVEN putting the voting date on Saturday is still going to be impossible for some people. There aren't absentee ballots everywhere. Why not go further and make Voting Day a national holiday? Say President's Day? or Veteran's Day? All non-essential businesses are closed and all essential ones required to only have half day. We have holidays for really stupid crap (some just commercial holidays really), but we should celebrate voting. Representation is what we revolted from England for Still, having enough time to vote over the period of time of a week, a few weeks, or some agreed upon length of time, would be best and not have any more problems than we already have. At least then there could be no excuse for not voting. As of now many people have an excuse and some a legitimate complaint Also, voter intimidation at a polling station would take a lot more effort if it had to be manned for longer than a single day and hopefully happen less", "qid": "44", "docid": "fcff81a7-2019-04-18T17:19:43Z-00001-000", "rank": 49, "score": 105506.0}, {"content": "Title: There are many reasons for not participating in elections. Content: Balaji Chithra Ganesan. \"The Case against Compulsory Voting.\" Musings. January 16th, 2010: \"People have genuine reasons not to vote. They could be working away from home and cannot afford to go home for voting. Daily labourers cannot miss a day's work. People might be sick, old and dying. People might be travelling for causes that are much more important like ... family. In the ridiculously staggered elections we have, people can have a holiday when their place of work goes to polls and not when their hometown goes to polls. Now how incredibly arrogant and perverted should someone be, to ask the above people to come, stand before a babu and explain their conduct? Or else face punishment! Really? How arrogant? How can citizens be treated with such disdain?\"", "qid": "44", "docid": "1a514fda-2019-04-17T11:47:23Z-00078-000", "rank": 50, "score": 104878.0}, {"content": "Title: Presidential Election 2016 Content: Who do you think is going to win on Election Day?", "qid": "44", "docid": "9b0f4ea0-2019-04-18T12:44:54Z-00001-000", "rank": 51, "score": 104485.0}, {"content": "Title: The United States should establish a national primary. Content: I am going to first establish the criterion and then bring up my own points. The criterion for this debate is democracy. Democracy is the best criterion for this debate because of topic relevancy, meaning that since this debate is about a presidential election system, and America's presidential system was built on democracy, democracy is the best criterion available. My first point is that implementing a national primary would make every voter count. We are a vast nation, and every voter deserves a chance to express his or her opinion on as many potential presidential candidates as possible, without an agenda being frozen in place by major, early victories in states that are only vaguely representative of the broad mass of the American people. Even the Washington Post has an article named \"13 states that matter\". If we implement national primary, we can fix this unfair voting system and make everyone's voice have an impact, not just a certain few. The New York Times states a problem with our current system, saying that the schedule has worked very nicely for early-voting states, which have had a steady stream of would-be presidents knocking on their doors, making commitments on issues like the Iowa full-employment program, also known as the ethanol subsidy. The losers have been states like New York and California, which have often gotten to vote only when the contests were all but decided. Issues that matter to them, like mass transportation, have suffered. This means that huge cities are getting tossed to the side because of our current system. Judge, we need everyone to have a chance at getting their problems fixed, instead of just a couple. With a new campaign season upon us, our presidential primaries don\"t seem to meet anyone\"s standards for popular rule. Tiny, unrepresentative states have outsized power. Billionaires and their money are often the most important factors in the contests. Media coverage rewards extremist rhetoric and partisanship, and only a tiny fraction of American voters end up having a say in the presidential nomination process. (Zocalo Public Square, an affiliate of the Arizona State University) My second point is that implementing a national primary would help the candidates as well. The way things are structured today, many candidates are forced out after losses in the small, earlier primaries, as their war chests dry up before they can ever reach the larger states on Super Tuesday (for those that don\"t know, Super Tuesday is the day of February and March where many states are allowed to vote). This means candidates can already be put out of the game, just because the states that are first allowed to vote don\"t vote for them (forbes). This can lead to candidates that could have been amazing losing the chance to get support from all people instead of just a few states at first -- a chance they need and deserve.", "qid": "44", "docid": "7782d574-2019-04-18T13:53:19Z-00003-000", "rank": 52, "score": 103322.0}, {"content": "Title: \"should voting be done online\" Content: My opponent has presented a very interesting argument, however it is flawed. Firstly my opponent makes the statement \"\" the people going to work is being given a half dae leave or a holiday to vote \"\" however this does not disprove the statistics presented in the previous argument, young people are still voting less and most young people are not voting because they are too busy or have conflicting work, regardless of the holiday, and as such a more accessible voting system is required, i.e. internet voting. My opponent brings up hacking in the internet; I am well aware of it. I have recently studied Information Technology and that includes security, database management and networks. I am well-schooled on the issues and methods of hacking and believe I am qualified to talk on the subject. On the contrary my opponent has still failed to provide an example of how exactly an online voting service can be hacked, beyond \"a lot of hacking in internet\". However internet voting is more efficient as computers can more effectively calculate the results and it reduces human error in comparison to paper voting where human error is a very prominent issue. Actually one of the largest issues of fraud in voting is people who vote more than once either at the same location or separate locations. One of the main reasons nothing has been done to prevent this is the cost of implementing the system, however should online voting be introduced the cost would be substantially less, almost non-existent [1]. Thus online voting may actually be safer from fraud then conventional techniques. My opponent also argues that rural people do not have access to the internet to vote with; however this is a blatant fallacy. Most rural communities have internet access, in many countries internet access is considered a basic right, including Costa Rica, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece and Spain. I have been to rural areas that are a two hour drive from the nearest down as the crow flies, and still have access to basic satellite internet; it was slow, but still capable of casting a vote with. Unless my opponent can back up his statement and disprove the evidence I presented then this is simply not true. As it stands two European countries have already successfully upgraded to internet voting (Estonia and Switzerland) [2] and it would be beneficial for other nations to do that same. [1]http://www.washingtonpost.com... [2] http://www.eui.eu...", "qid": "44", "docid": "e0860e7e-2019-04-18T15:28:49Z-00002-000", "rank": 53, "score": 103287.0}, {"content": "Title: The US should not recognize the results of the latest Nicarguan election. Content: It is my intention to give sufficient reason for the resolution, \u2018The United States Government should not recognize the results of the recent Nicaraguan election'The Nicaraguan national election was held last Sunday, November 6th. The controversy of the election started before the election.1. Constitutionally illegitimate candidate: Daniel Ortega was violating the Nicaraguan constitution in both the term limits, and the running consecutive terms. In the Nicaraguan constitution it is stipulated that the president cannot run for more than two terms, and a president cannot run in consecutive terms. This is to prevent a dictatorial regime, and put a safeguard on the democratic process. Simply by running he is in violation of the country's constitution, and his blatant disregard for the rule of law, and the rule of the land is justification alone for a country that values the integrity of the electoral process to not acknowledge this man in his bid for re-election. [1][Although the elections of the national seats that took place in this last election are also fraught with fraud, I will keep the argument to Daniel Ortega, since he is running as President, and it is he who the US Government would recognize.]It is key in understanding how Ortega has held and grown his control over the country, by understanding the role his party, the Sandinista Party his played in the country since he gained control. All possible judges, particularly Supreme Court Judges, and election officials are Sandinista, all police force and military forces are loyal to the Sandinistas over the Nicaraguan people. Sufficient branches of government and those with influence over the economy are loyal Sandinistas to facilitate Ortega's designs. 2. Fraudulent electoral process: The Ortega administration mandated, prior to the election, an identity card would be required for the election, and these cards would need to be obtained through members of the FSLN (Sandinista Party). Members of FSLN easily and quickly received their cards, whereas other requestors of the identity cards were waiting for a year or more. Essentially Ortega achieved an election that would be wholly managed by his party the Sandinistas, and two thirds of the places in Nicaragua were run by Sandinistas, and those that were not had the greatest instances of identity card rejection.[ 2] At the time of election the voter must present this identity card, and it must have an authorized stamp that the Sandinistas created. Without that stamp the identity card was invalid, and countless identity cards were found invalid because they did not have the proper stamp, all those people were not Sandinista. The incidents of fraud are too numerous to list, and was so rampant that it will never be truly documented. [3] The entire election was controlled and managed by the Sandinistas under the dictates of Daniel Ortega, for the benefit of Daniel Ortega's reelection and total control over the Nicaraguan people. [4]3. Impact of fraudulent election in Nicaragua: With a total disregard to the constitution in the running of Daniel Ortega as president violating the constitution, and the principles that safe guard its people from a dictator he degrades the constitution in its intended purpose of providing a democratic rule of checks and balances over the land. What is even more important to note is that if a president is elected with more than 50% of the popular vote he is empowered to change the constitution as he sees fit. This is a massive coup of power to the presidency, and by illegally obtaining that number of votes he has effectively taken control of all aspects of governance within the country. It is a true theft of total power with the obvious intentions of a dictatorial regime in perpetuity. It is also important to understand the corruption within the Ortega regime, and the personal corruption of the man. He has become one of the richest men in Central America, leader of the second poorest countries in the hemisphere. He has skimmed oil wealth from his mentor Hugo Chavez, and has instituted a party and government of kleptocracy beyond anything people commonly know about. [6] [7]4. Organizations and Governments of the world community not recognizing the election: [8]European UnionOrganization of American StatesHondurasCanadaCosta RicaPanamaIsrael 5. Countries and organizations that recognize Daniel Ortega as the duly elected leader of Nicaragua:CubaVenezuelaEl SalvadorALBA (client states Hugo Chavez) [9] Russia [10] 6. Why the US position should be firm against recognition:In our hemisphere in particular it is important as both a leader of the world, and a member of the world community to take a position of intolerance to would be dictators who corrupt the very mechanism of democracy in order that they may amass more power and more wealth at the expense of the very poor. As long as we are the prominent member of the world stage, and one who hopes to encourage the values of freedom and democracy the United States must join other countries who do not give any legitimacy to an election that was not just stolen but orchestrated in the most blatant of attempts to emasculate any opposition, and to entrench a putrefied regime. It is beyond obvious that the US government should not recognize the results of the recent Nicaraguan election; it would be borderline accessory to a crime to provide an ounce of legitimacy to this farce, and an insult to the Nicaraguans who are fighting against this fraud with their lives. 1. http://pdba.georgetown.edu...2. http://www.lab.org.uk...3. http://www.confidencial.com.ni...4. http://www.radio-corporacion.com...5. IBID 26. http://wn.com...7. http://politic-bazooka.blogspot.com...8. http://actuable.es...9. http://www.nicaraguadispatch.com...10. http://eng.kremlin.ru... Apologies for the sources in Spanish, but Google Chrome will translate much of it. My best sources were in Spanish, and doing the searches in English just didn't provide the information I needed.", "qid": "44", "docid": "72f27f27-2019-04-18T18:37:22Z-00003-000", "rank": 54, "score": 102711.0}, {"content": "Title: Christmas should be Christmas and nothing else Content: Religion aspectIn America today there is an increasing number of Atheists and one would be insulting another if you say the phrase Merry Christmas, because you could offend Jews, Muslims, and Atheists. Jews would prefer that Hanukkah should a national holiday, because they believe that Jesus was not our savior and that he was more of a prophet. Muslims are against almost everything that is Christian and Christmas would be one of them. Atheists are in this allusion that God doesn't exists so you would be appeasing one person and offending another.", "qid": "44", "docid": "a65f1a29-2019-04-18T18:00:19Z-00004-000", "rank": 55, "score": 102589.0}, {"content": "Title: In the words of a Kashmiri Content: The National Conference party and the Congress party together won 45 seats, one more than is needed for a simple majority in the 87-seat state assembly. The two parties have started negotiations for an alliance so they can take power. The National Conference party won 28 seats, and Congress won 17. \"We are ready to align with the Congress party to form the next government,\" said Omar Abdullah, president of National Conference. The seven-phased elections began in November, four months after India took direct control after the fall of a coalition government in the state. The elections ended last week, and vote-counting finished Sunday.[[http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/12/28/indian.kashmir.vote/]] The poll spoke otherwise, against the point made. India is until this day considered the world's largest democracy, and thus the opinion of every citizen voting in the election counts. The pro-India party thus won in 2008 and are still in power, overpowering over the Pakistani favored league.", "qid": "44", "docid": "b8abe960-2019-04-19T12:46:36Z-00000-000", "rank": 56, "score": 102227.0}, {"content": "Title: United States should use an Elector appointment System to solve the problem of low voter turn out. Content: Often times for a Mayor position or a city council positions most people have no ideas that an election is even taking place much less vote. So a relatively few amount of people decide the leaders of a comparatively large population. This isn't the fault of the people they have their own lives to live, and unless there is a specific pressing issue that has gotten to the point where they are mad, they aren't really motivated to vote. Now I think that is bad, because it makes us rely on Cliff-Edge election politics. Were people are only driven to vote when there is a problem instead of taking into account who is running and who would be the best for the job. Now this happen's in the city level with city commissioners and mayors, also the county level with county commissioners. And to a large degree state legislatures also go through this. I don't believe this is a really representative means of public offices competition always breads the best person for the job, and were there isn't an atmosphere of significant competition we're not going to bet the best person for the job. So what I offer is a different system. A National Election's Congress -not to be confused with our regular congress. This congress See's each U.S. district vote in Electors into the Congress. The role of this congress is to year round find the best person's suitable for the public office's that are due for elections. The Congress would be split into two or more champers. The East Chamber and the west Chamber, or more regional chambers. The best way to see how it works, is to see a case study- then I will break down the system later. For example the city I live in is plantation. Our city government has 5 commissioners and one Mayor. Traditionally the people seeking that office will file and intent to run form with the registrar for that county. On election day people would come vote and the person with the highest votes wins the office. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- With an Elector System. A person seeking the office of Mayor/commissioners would file an intent to run form with their county registrar. From that moment they can campaign and seek citizen-endorsements. A citizen can go to their cities designated location and file a a citizen-endorsement for that candidate. They would be able to do this from the moment the person running for office submits their intent to run form with the country registrar, until the deadline. The candidates would be campaigning for a while for citizen-endorsements until the deadline , then they would be given an appointment to appear before their regional chamber of the National Elections Congress. If a candidate failed to receive 10% of all the citizen-endorsements received for that specific race, they are automatically denied. On the other hand if a candidate received 2/3 of all the citizen-endorsements received for that specific race, they automatically get appointed. If a candidate is not in those two categories they present themselves before the Congress give a speech talk about their record. Before hand the Congress would have their resume and Political record if applicable. After this congressman may take the floor and argue their position in regards to who should get the job. And finally the matter is put up before a vote, the winner of that vote wins the office. I think this is a great system to elect mayors and commissioners and state legislatures, because it makes sure that there is good competition. Instead of a small voter turn out effecting the entire population, voter turn out is a plus but it isn't the determining factor. With the Electoral appointment system every time there is an election below the governor level , merits are evaluated and a decision is made based a compromise of who is best for the job and who has the most support. I think this country should switch to an Electoral appointment system. It may sound far out, but thats probably becuase this is the first time anybody has heard of it. The elections of the elector's themselves that would be sent to this congress would be paired with the Presidential election, you would vote for them on the same ballot as your president, and this ensures a high voter turn out.", "qid": "44", "docid": "5c32174c-2019-04-18T19:57:01Z-00004-000", "rank": 57, "score": 101819.0}, {"content": "Title: Australia Day should be changed from 26th of January to another date Content: Australia Day must be changed from the 26th of January. The 26th is when the First Fleet from England landed at Sydney Cove and Captain Arthur Phillip took possession of the land for the British Empire in 1788. The day was first recognised in the 1880's, but only as an anniversary of the first landing. In 1946 it changed to Australia Day and in 1994 it became a public holiday and a day to welcome new citizens or honour people who have done a great service to the country. The National Australia Day Council recognises it as \"a day to reflect on what we have achieved and what we can be proud of in our great nation\", but the date means that not everyone can join in on this, because for some people the very day means nothing but sorrow and mourning. These people are Aboriginals. It is the beginning of the end of their freedom and culture, the start of the enormous amount of pain and suffering they were about to go through - having their land stolen from them; their food being hunted by white men with guns; their way of living being dismissed as savage and vulgar; the loss of so many lives due to European diseases, fights and battles, slaughter and rape; and later, having their children stolen to \"civilise\" them and develop them into white culture. Would you want to celebrate your country on the very anniversary of the day that you essentially lost it? How can we expect Aboriginals to do this?", "qid": "44", "docid": "e8dd2df4-2019-04-18T13:19:43Z-00004-000", "rank": 58, "score": 101644.0}, {"content": "Title: All Pastafarians should be allowed to take a day off on International Talk like a Pirate Day Content: Since no evidence or reason was given as to why \"talk like a pirate day\" should a national holiday. I have nothing to refute.", "qid": "44", "docid": "5e30e768-2019-04-18T19:07:13Z-00000-000", "rank": 59, "score": 101171.0}, {"content": "Title: The Date Of Australia Day Should Be Changed Content: Australia day is on January 26th for many reasons, it's the day that we come together as a nation to celebrate the amazing country we live in. On Australia Day, over half of the nation\"'s population of 24.3 million attend either an organised community event, or get together with family and friends with the intention of celebrating our national day. Many more spend the public holiday relaxing with family and friend. We come together as a nation to celebrate what's great about Australia and being Australian. It's the day to reflect on what we have achieved and what we can be proud of in our great nation. It's the day for us to re-commit to making Australia an even better place for the future.", "qid": "44", "docid": "2db5fce7-2019-04-18T13:17:49Z-00004-000", "rank": 60, "score": 100598.0}, {"content": "Title: \"should voting be done online\" Content: Sir I completely agree with the fact that voting is the essential basis of democracy....I said those statement because in country like USA and INDIA all the people going to work is being given a half dae leave or a holiday to vote ....but some of them use this holiday to stay at home or go for a trip sir.....this for them...now talking about the evidence for the frauds in internet...sir u should be clear with the fact that there have being a lot of hacking in internet if my opponent is not aware about it I give a suggestion to read newspapers...now talking about what my opponent said about the people living in rural area...sir they are people from rural area not urban n who will provide them internet....if provided still frauds can be don", "qid": "44", "docid": "e0860e7e-2019-04-18T15:28:49Z-00003-000", "rank": 61, "score": 100057.0}, {"content": "Title: In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory. Content: Thanks you for accepting the challenge! I would like to begin by presenting evidence supporting my views previously stated in R1. 1. Compulsory Voting Decreases Political Polarization and Solves for Disenfranchisement of Voters According to Eric Liu, (Former Policy Adviser to President Bill Clinton), TIME, Aug. 21, 2012. Retrieved Aug. 16, 2013 from http://ideas.time.com.... Many reforms could increase turnout, from same-day registration to voting on weekends. But the most basic is also the most appropriate: making voting mandatory. Here\"s why. Mandatory voting would make elections truly valid. \"Protecting the integrity of our elections\" is the rationale Republicans give for the cynically restrictive voter ID laws they\"ve enacted in Pennsylvania and elsewhere. But if we truly cared about the integrity of elections, we should ensure that they reflect the will of all eligible voters. Second, as William Galston of the Brookings Institution argues, it would temper the polarization of our politics. In today\"s electorate, hardcore partisan believers are over-represented; independents and moderates are under-represented. If the full range of voters actually voted, our political leaders, who are exquisitely attuned followers, would go where the votes are: away from the extremes. And they would become more responsive to the younger, poorer and less educated Americans who don\"t currently vote. What we see is in a voluntary system the views of the partisan people are heard but the moderate middle go unheard. Through compulsory voting we would see moderate voters receive legitimate representation. 2. CV Increases Political Participation Margaret Kelly, (Prof., Law, Macquerie U., Australia), THE ADVERTISER, Oct. 22, 2007, 18. The turnout at Australian elections has never fallen below 90 per cent since the introduction of compulsory voting. This compares favorably to the situation in the U.S. and Britain. In 2001, the turnout for the federal election for the House of Representatives was 94.85 per cent. In the same year, the turnout for the general election in Britain was 59.4 per cent. With such a large percentage of the electorate voting, the Parliament more accurately reflects the will of the electorate, the silent majority, not just the noisy minority. Parties must consider the total electorate in policy formulation not just those inclined to go to the polls. Not only does it increase political participation, but it also increases the political process as a whole. Politicians will have to appeal to a new range of voters rather than campaigns just go get there base out to vote. ------------------------------------- A few points I would like to address before my opponent presents his evidence supporting his position. 1. All CV does is force you to fill out a ballot (none is an option). CV does not force you to chose the lesser of two evils since you can always vote for none of the below (or above). 2. The Quality of Elections will increase because politicians will now have to represent the whole voter base rather than the few hardcore partisan voters that come out and vote. 3. All laws require citizens to do things they don't want to do. Jury duty is a good example of this, taxes, and much more. CV is no different than our other day to day civic duties. Forcing someone to vote is not undemocratic.", "qid": "44", "docid": "29758b9-2019-04-18T17:06:05Z-00003-000", "rank": 62, "score": 100027.0}, {"content": "Title: Should Student Appreciation Day Be A National Holiday Content: We have holiday 4 teachers. but what about the students? Without us they wouldn't have jobs.", "qid": "44", "docid": "1b4be3e0-2019-04-18T12:49:26Z-00002-000", "rank": 63, "score": 99761.0}, {"content": "Title: United States should use an Elector appointment System to solve the problem of low voter turn out. Content: The people would still be voting through endorsements. But Instead of an election being determined by 3% of the population, it is determined by a national congress, and everyone is weighted against each other heavily. Also if you consider an endorsement a vote this will increase turnout. One of the problems with our system is that people simply can't get to the polls on the appointed day. Then that raises the issue of does that state/ city have absentee voting or not. Also what about people who are working , can they take time off of work? With this system, endorsements are registered on your time not the governments time. Yeah the system would be robust but it would be more efficient in the lives of the individual in the long run. We all understand that sometimes people are just too caught up in life to research all of the candidate's and pick the best one. When thats the situation your faced with voting for a candidate based upon a scant amount of information, or withholding your potential harming or regrettable vote from the election. With this system when you vote for president you will be voting for your Electors whether they follow your party affiliation or they run without a party your voting for them based upon them representing your shoes in that congress. And then if you do find the time to really research into these candidates, you can go and give them your endorsement to bolster up his case before the congress, - and you do that on your own time. I think an elected congress that represents the people and is dedicated to choosing the right person for the job would do wonder for our country and take a load of the citizens, and at the same time it is more representative, because a small percent of the population isn't choosing an official that will serve the entire community.", "qid": "44", "docid": "5c32174c-2019-04-18T19:57:01Z-00002-000", "rank": 64, "score": 99190.0}, {"content": "Title: Columbus Day Should Not be Celebrated. Content: I wish to debate whether or not Columbus Day should be celebrated. It is in my opinion that Columbus's legacy is grossly misrepresented and that his \"accomplishments\" was nothing more but a failed journey riddled with genocide and imperialism. Thus, Columbus shouldn't be honored with a national holiday. Before going into detail, I await an opponent to accept my debate and agree to only ONE term.... 1. If you accept this debate, as con you must make the argument why Columbus Day SHOULD/REMAIN celebrated. (THAT SIMPLE)", "qid": "44", "docid": "7068d2b9-2019-04-18T18:58:24Z-00005-000", "rank": 65, "score": 98843.0}, {"content": "Title: The USA Should Have A One Day Primary and Election Instead Of A Whole Campaign Content: Round 1: Pro R2 : Cross Examination R3: Con R4: Cross Examination R5: Rebuttals/Summary/Final Focuses I am aware the rounds are a bit off from a real debate. That's because debate.org only allows so many rounds. I apologize for that. ---------------------------------------------- Be it resolved that, the United States should convert over to a one day primary campaign when it comes to electing a new president. I firmly stand in affirmation for this claim for the following contentions. *Contention 1* The idea of a one day Primary essentially means there would be one day for campaigning and the next day would be the actual election. There would most definitely be a better change in private policy. Even if the representations were to go up, that doesn't mean everyone will benefit. A one day Primary would easily boost political participation. In 2012's Primary, had a 17% turn out. Why? Well according to the University of Mexico, the voters in the outside states rarely vote because they feel their votes don't matter. This is because they are lead to believe the primary states have already decided the election, when in reality this isn't true. Every vote should count! There is a belief that the most votes from the more wealthy and educated citizens, causing the less wealthy and educated to feel below them. Even some Congressmen state, \"A one day Primary could close the gap in voter turn out and prevent both political parties from becoming victims to polarization. *Contention 2* At the moment, our current state of election is full of media madness. This takes away from the real idea of voting; electing a new leader to guide the nation. We get so caught up in the, \"he said she said\" aspect of it that we seem to forget about how much really is at stake here. The media seems to focus on \"Horse Race\" journalism. This means they only cover, \"Who's winning in the delegates?\" or \"Who's higher in the polls this week? Will it change next week?\" You wouldn't see any of that in a one day Primary! Patrick Whithers explains in 2012, \"Staggered elections reduce turn out by fatiguing the voters' pattern of the constant political he said, she said mess.\" The media crowds the main focus on policy and discussion. Out of 63% percent of journalists, only 16% focus on policy positions and records. *Contention 3* Many voters seem to give up their votes because their candidate drops out. The candidates the usually drop out are the less known and wealthy ones. Why? These candidates believe they don't have a chance half way through because the media makes it much harder for them to become recognized whereas Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton were widely recognized because of their status in the media! A one day Primary would easily wipe this out, allowing more candidates to enter the race and more voters participating because they have the chance to vote for their candidate of choice. Statistics show that the earlier states were 5x more influential than the outside states causing them to be nearly unrepresentative. This past election, is was very hard to determine the voter turn out and neither state nor candidate could completely balance out their influence to give others a fighting chance. This creates an unbalance of power and harms democracy. This can lead to a division of the democratic ideal of \"One person, one vote.\" Earlier states seem to earn more federal money after the election than outside states, leaving them in the dust. This is why I firmly stand in affirmation for the resolution.", "qid": "44", "docid": "5c5b4bdf-2019-04-18T12:36:30Z-00001-000", "rank": 66, "score": 98390.0}, {"content": "Title: Polling stations during Elections should be conducted over a longer period than a single day Content: Nothing new to add, will be happy to respond to arguments counter to Rd #1.", "qid": "44", "docid": "fcff81a7-2019-04-18T17:19:43Z-00002-000", "rank": 67, "score": 98316.0}, {"content": "Title: The current system is undemocratic as it gives undue influence to the early states Content: As most primaries only serve to decide the number of delegates who will be bound to vote for a particular candidate at a party\u2019s national convention, a presidential hopeful will be able to ignore contests later in the election cycle if he has already secured a majority of delegates. The staggered nature of primaries under the status quo allows candidates to determine when their lead has become unassailable. As a consequence, candidates will refrain from mounting campaigns in states that poll later in the election cycle. The later a state votes, the less chance it has of influencing the size of a candidate\u2019s majority. In 2000 and 2004, by the time New York \u2013 the third most populous state in the union \u2013 voted, both main parties had, in effect, selected their candidate. If that isn\u2019t the perfect example of an undemocratic system, then it would be difficult to think of what might be. The current system discriminates against lesser known candidates who are already at a disadvantage. The advantage of running all primaries during a single day in February is that it would allow lesser known candidates the time to introduce themselves to the nation. A promising but little known candidate can easily be taken out of contention during the Iowa, New Hampshire or South Carolina primaries. Running a single primary in February or March would give unknown candidates a full three months to mount their own media campaigns and to build up the press contacts and public profile that established candidates already enjoy. A single primary election would also do a great deal to help with a more even distribution of donations between the candidates. The primaries effectively function as part of the general election campaign; they are certainly central to selecting the two people from whom the eventual winner will emerge. It is therefore damaging and deceptive to continue to treat them as a purely party-political issue that has no relevance for voters who are not closely involved with the republican and democrat campaign machines. A final argument concerns the role of political capital and states\u2019 influence over candidates\u2019 activities. Campaigning compels candidates to offer party members and voters in states incentives in return for their endorsement. These may take the form of pledges to address local issues, to provide funding to public projects or to pursue policies at a national level that are beneficial to certain states. However, states that are excluded from the primary process when a candidate secures a majority of delegates will be unable to win promises or concessions from a presidential hopeful. This creates inequalities in the ability of individual states to influence federal policy and governance, reducing the cohesiveness of the union as a whole.", "qid": "44", "docid": "8a695b78-2019-04-15T20:22:24Z-00007-000", "rank": 68, "score": 97997.0}, {"content": "Title: hold all U.S. presidential primaries on the same day. Content: The current system is hugely expensive; a national primary would control the scale of spending in campaigns", "qid": "44", "docid": "8a695b78-2019-04-15T20:22:24Z-00003-000", "rank": 69, "score": 97627.0}, {"content": "Title: Australia Day should be changed from 26th of January to another date Content: Australia Day should NOT be changed from the 26th of January to another date. Australia is a national public holiday in Australia. It is the celebration of the arrival of the First Fleet of British Ships at Port Jackson on the 26th of January 1788. It is celebrated annually because it is celebrated on what is means to be Australian and what's great about being Australian and living in Australia as a community. It is a day to reconnect with others as a community and a society and to feel special as a community and family. It is more than any other public holiday, it is a great day to be together as a society or/and a town/suburb. It is celebrated in every town/suburb/city. My two arguments will be that Australia day is on the 26th of January to people can remember/celebrate what being Australian is all about and its history and that Australia day brings families and communities to remind them about Australia's history!", "qid": "44", "docid": "e8dd2df4-2019-04-18T13:19:43Z-00005-000", "rank": 70, "score": 97557.0}, {"content": "Title: Even in democracies, we only have a chance to have a say in how the country is run every four years ... Content: In a democracy civil disobedience cannot be justified. National elections take place regularly, and governments are accountable and can be changed. Members of the public who are unhappy can always lobby their representative or protest within the law, for example by organising marches, petititions, advertising campaigns, or even running candidates of their own for election. All these provide ways of changing laws and policies without the need for deliberate law-breaking.", "qid": "44", "docid": "d3c310fc-2019-04-19T12:44:02Z-00006-000", "rank": 71, "score": 97364.0}, {"content": "Title: The electoral college should be abolished in favor of direct election. Content: I will be arguing that the Electoral College system in the United States should be abolished in favor of direct election. DefinitionsDirect election: a national popular vote that is won by getting a majority of votes, or a plurality that surpasses 40%. EC: Electoral CollegeGE: General election. Only refers to the presidential election. Don't do semantics, trolling, red herrings, or fallacies, be civil, and good luck!", "qid": "44", "docid": "a52fa32e-2019-04-18T12:01:36Z-00004-000", "rank": 72, "score": 97357.0}, {"content": "Title: Should the electoral college be abolished in favor of a national vote Content: I accept", "qid": "44", "docid": "b661889e-2019-04-18T17:56:09Z-00006-000", "rank": 73, "score": 97351.0}, {"content": "Title: Children Should Have The Right To Vote In Elections Content: education", "qid": "44", "docid": "1962bef4-2019-04-19T12:46:39Z-00000-000", "rank": 74, "score": 97041.0}, {"content": "Title: Scream at the Sky day is useless Content: Sorry for the late reply I was kinda busy Although, yes Donald trump did win the election more people voted for Hillary and Trump just used better tactics to win. Hillary is the 5th president contender to lose the election desire having more votes. Hillary did not win 'over a few states' she won over more of America than Trump. This isn't fair at all and scream at the sky day is a way to protest this and maybe put pressure on the electoral system to change. In the past there have been campaigns to put pressure on the government for change. Notably the \"Pink Slip\" project, which sent 9 million messages to Congress on pink paper threatening members with rejection at the polls in November 2010 if they did not act on their campaign promises. The campaign was so successful, it exhausted supplies of pink paper in North America. Republicans gained 63 House seats to take control of the House of Representatives in that election. Scream at the sky day is also a stress reliever for the citizens of America which in itself is a use. Sources: http://metro.co.uk... http://mobile.wnd.com...", "qid": "44", "docid": "e85f616c-2019-04-18T11:55:42Z-00004-000", "rank": 75, "score": 96370.0}, {"content": "Title: Encourages Europe wide thinking Content: At the moment paradoxically European elections are often not about Europe. Much of the time they are about national politics, and since they are almost always mid-term what they are often about is punishing the national government. Governing parties\u2019 almost always loose votes while opposition parties gain, it is notable that governing parties only gain if the election is held in their \u2018honeymoon\u2019 period after they are voted into power. More generally European elections are seen as an opportunity to vote for small parties rather than bigger ones \u2013 implying it is a chance to follow ones heart over one\u2019s head. Europe however remains a minor element.[1] This change in system is unlikely to mean that national governing parties gain significantly more votes but it will raise the profile of the European dimension in the elections. When people are able to vote for parties that do not contest their national elections they will have no choice but to see it as a European election rather than a national one. Voters will be much more likely to ask how the policies of these foreign parties affect them and some may even consider voting for them. A few particularly enterprising parties are likely to run transnational campaigns in the hope of picking up votes outside their home nation. The vote will simply be more European rather than the same old national parties being the only choice. [1] Hix, Simon, and Marsh, Michael, \u2018Punishment or Protest? Understanding European Parliament Elections\u2019, The Journal of Politics, Vol.69, No.2, May 2007, pp.495-510, http://personal.lse.ac.uk/hix/Working_Papers/Marsh-Hix-JOP2007.pdf, pp.501, 503, 507", "qid": "44", "docid": "668b3d92-2019-04-15T20:24:26Z-00019-000", "rank": 76, "score": 96296.0}, {"content": "Title: Rationalises an irrational system Content: The current system for the European Parliament elections is irrational and quirky because it is partially set individually per nation. The vote is not held on the same day in every country \u2013 the elections take place from Thursday when the UK and Netherlands votes through to Sunday when most of the EU votes,[1] some countries divide themselves into multiple constituencies \u2013 such as the UK which has 12[2] \u2013 while others like Germany have one constituency for the whole country. Perhaps oddest of all Austrians are able to vote when they reach 16 years old while everyone else has to wait until they are eighteen.[3] And all this is before the oddities of little countries votes counting for more is included. Rationalisation of this system is clearly necessary and this is what this proposal does. Clearly the main rationalisation is in terms of making the value of votes the same. It would also eliminate differences over constituencies. It is likely that it would eliminate the age difference too; Austria allowing its citizens to vote at 16 would effectively give it more say compared to its population size. The chances are then that other states would follow and reduce their voting age for European Parliament elections to 16. While there is no necessary link to voting on the same day it would also provide a good chance to make the change so the voting occurs at one time. [1] \u2018EU elections: Polling day will stay on Thursday, insists government\u2019, BBC News, 13 March 2013, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21764632 [2] \u2018Your Members in the European Parliament\u2019, European Parliament Information Office in the United Kingdom, http://www.europarl.org.uk/view/en/your_MEPs.html [3] European Parliament, \u2018About Parliament - Members\u2019, europarl.europa.eu, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/aboutparliament/en/0081ddfaa4/MEPs.html, accessed 3 May 2013", "qid": "44", "docid": "668b3d92-2019-04-15T20:24:26Z-00017-000", "rank": 77, "score": 96001.0}, {"content": "Title: Compulsory Voting Content: Compulsory voting is a system in which voters are obligated to vote on election day. If the voter chooses not to vote they may be subject to small punitive measures, much like a speeding ticket. This system is used by 22 countries around the world and has various pros and cons. Voter turnout in the United States is currently at a alarming low rate. The last general election in 2014 has a turnout of 36.4% of eligible voters. In a time where technology is able to connect so many people, 64.6% of the US population wasn't represented in the 2014 general election. I argue that increasing voter turnout in the United States through compulsory voting would increase productivity of the government, and in term benefit many other areas of life.", "qid": "44", "docid": "ae578f50-2019-04-18T15:05:12Z-00005-000", "rank": 78, "score": 95694.0}, {"content": "Title: The electoral college should not be abolished. Content: I will use this round for my rebuttal speech. It is hard to read down the flow of my opponents speach but i will try to pick out each argument and refute them as best as i can. 1. My opponents first point seems to be that the possibility of a recount in the national popular vote would be a huge problem. My rebuttal to this is that if we switched to a national popular vote, the chances of a needing a recount would greatly decrease. According to the NewYorker, If you do the math, extrapolating from the frequency of statewide recounts for offices like governor and senator, you find that the likelihood of a nationwide election that\"s anything remotely as close as Florida 2000\"not just in absolute numbers (537 votes) or percentagewise (9,492 votes)\"is preposterously low. How low? Well, in a national popular-vote election, a disputable result\"one close enough to be theoretically reversible via a recount\"could be expected to occur at intervals ranging between once every 640 and once every 1,328 years. Also according to the same article, even if a recount did need to happen, It still wouldn't be recounted a national scale, every state can still do a recount within their state in a timely and orderly manner. http://www.newyorker.com... 2. My opponent claims that if we switched to a National Popular vote, the voting age would be lowered. My rebuttal to this doesn't even need to be backed by evidence. For one thing, my opponent hasn't had any evidence saying that this will happen and secondly, my opponent has no proof that if this does happen it would have negative impacts. I am running out of time as i am leaving town and won't have access to internet for a day so this is my argument.", "qid": "44", "docid": "10348317-2019-04-18T17:47:06Z-00001-000", "rank": 79, "score": 95230.0}, {"content": "Title: Compulsory voting helps protect voter access. Content: In a similar way that the secret ballot is designed to prevent interference with the votes actually cast, compulsory voting prevents interference with access to the vote. Compelling voters to the polls for an election mitigates the impact that external factors may have on an individual's capacity to vote such as the weather, transport, or restrictive employers. It is a measure to prevent disenfranchisement of the socially disadvantaged. Polls are generally held on a Saturday or Sunday as evidenced in nations such as Australia, to ensure that working people can fulfill their duty to cast their vote. Similarly, mobile voting booths may also be taken to old age homes and hospitals to cater for immobilized citizens, and postal voting may be provided for people who are away from their electorate on election day.", "qid": "44", "docid": "1a514fda-2019-04-17T11:47:23Z-00083-000", "rank": 80, "score": 94964.0}, {"content": "Title: That the voting age should be lowered to 15 Content: My opponent seemed to believe that this resolution was undebatable. I'm here first of all to prove him wrong, and second of all to show why I've long thought that the voting age restriction should definitely be lowered. Some ground rules. There are four rounds, 72 hours per round, 8000 characters in each round. Debaters should post all their arguments and sources in their rounds, and voters should consider nothing except the arguments and sources presented in the debate (comments not being considered part of the debate). I (obviously) have the burden of proof. The first round is for acceptance. The presumption of the resolution is that the voting age is currently 18 or higher. I'll presume that the debate is set in a reasonably western society without regard for any particular jurisdiction or legal code. Because the cultural, educational and social background of youth may be relevant to the debate, I think it is fair that all cultures are considered, given that most reasonably western societies are quite multicultural. The vote we're talking about specifically is any general vote to determine legislative and/or executive office, as the case may be in that jurisdiction, in a national election format (so local body elections could be excluded etc).", "qid": "44", "docid": "6d6965d5-2019-04-18T17:51:17Z-00007-000", "rank": 81, "score": 94843.0}, {"content": "Title: Columbus Day Should Not be Celebrated. Content: My opponent seems to be sold on the idea that Columbus should be honored for his \"discovery\", simply because If it weren't for him, \"the very creation of modern nations\" wouldn't have occurred. Unfortunately this notion is ridiculous and I will tell you why. . To believe in my opponents claim you have to. . 1. Be completely sold with the thought that Columbus and Columbus only was the one individual who desired to travel to the unknown territories of the globe. . 2. No one in the future would have had the capacity to pull of Columbus's task. . 3. Think that industrialization of nations is accepted by everyone to be an awesome thing. If the exploration aspect of Columbus's legacy is the big concern for you, than why don't we have a national holiday for NASA to commend there achievements in space exploration? At least they didn't commit genocide. . --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My responses to con's 3 main topics (1) Columbus's \"Discovery\" First of the \"discovery\" was an accident. Columbus had an entire crew behind him, (which he treated horribly) which right off the bat kind of makes it a bit dumb in the first place to give props only to Columbus. Most importantly the discovery is irrelevant. The main concern with which I have with Columbus Day and why I feel it should not be celebrated is purely for who Columbus was, what he ACTUALLY did, what his real intentions were. Which, sorry were frankly evil, imperialistic, and above all SHOULD NOT be honored with a national holiday. Con parades with the notion that the holiday clearly doesn't celebrate the deaths of native Americans. . To which I reply: No sh*t. That's not the point. The point is the holiday commends Christopher Columbus, who is historically DOCUMENTED as a complete sadist who did nothing but exploit and enslave. So no con, I do not have to prove malicious intent in celebrating Columbus Day, all I have to prove is why Christopher Columbus should not be honored with a national holiday. Con states: \"Even if a hundred genocides occurred\". . Obviously my opponent could careless about who is honored nationally as long as they \"discovered\" something ( By accident) , it doesn't matter how many people or civilizations were wiped out in the process. .. (2) Genocide As much as my opponent may think he's have been \"proving\" he has really just been running away from my argument. I NEVER said that the intent of Columbus Day was to \"celebrate genocide\". NOT ONCE IN THE ENTIRE DEBATE! NOT ONCE! Con pulled that argument out of thin air. What I did say was. . \"It is in my opinion that Columbus's legacy is grossly misrepresented and that his \"accomplishments\" was nothing more but a failed journey riddled with genocide and imperialism. Thus, Columbus shouldn't be honored with a national holiday. \" Keep in mind that I have restated, and gave further elaboration to my very first argument in both rounds two and three. Con on the other hand has absolutely ignored his first two contentions and merely ran away with his third. (3) Malicious Intent I have repeated myself quite enough and I think by now con may get the picture now and stop pulling that argument out of thin air. As for his argument. . Again, if you sincerely believe that Columbus and Columbus alone is THE individual who is single handedly is entitled to be given thanks for the modernization of nations in the America's I'm afraid you're dead wrong. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *THE BOTTOM LINE* \"Columbus was merely an explorer, actually didn't do much in the Americas except travel. He made four voyages and stopped at numerous locations on the Americas. It was the later conquistadors who were the ones who enslaved and killed natives on a large scale. \" - Con (Face palm) . http://www.youtube.com... Disproven. Don't like RT? Think they're full of it? Ok, how about another source. . . http://www.youtube.com... Disproven again. Don't like the Biography Channel? Think they're full of it? Alright than, how about another source. . . http://www.youtube.com... So I'll ignore cons dead wrong perception of Christopher Columbus and grant him the naive proposition being that Columbus was a great explorer who should be credited with the discovery. Why would the U. S. , have national holiday for an explorer who notoriously is known for enslaving indigenous natives and engaging in genocide. Not only that, but above all never set foot in what would now be considered the United States OR even the continent of North America. .", "qid": "44", "docid": "7068d2b9-2019-04-18T18:58:24Z-00001-000", "rank": 82, "score": 94616.0}, {"content": "Title: Should the electoral college be abolished in favor of a national vote Content: As the Beatles once said, \"Let it be\"Mother Mary comes to me. \" And because I want Mother Mary to come to me, we should let it be and negate the resolved: should the electoral college be abolished in favor of a national vote. We offer one sole observation: PRO cannot win merely by showing flaws of electoral vote; rather, they must also display solvency. Contention one: The Electoral College increases deliberative democracy. Nicholas Miller of the University of Maryland describes the Electoral College as \"a subject terrific for political analysis\"it is truly a gift that keeps on giving. \" He furthers that \"the Electoral College is a boon for political science research and teaching. \" This resulting political discourse, according to David Johnson of the University of Minnesota, has a number of results, including \"clarifying citizens\" understanding of the issue, helping citizens reach their best reasoned judgment, increasing citizen participation in the political process, and socializing the next generation into the procedures and attitudes they need to be active citizens. \" Because the Electoral College uniquely creates this political discourse that provides all of the above benefits, it achieves political awareness and participation that would not be brought about by direct popular vote. Contention two: The Electoral College protects against fraud. Sub-point A: Majority fraud. According to Richard Darlington of Cornell University, \"Majority fraud is when a majority within a state makes its majority look bigger than it really is, as when they stretch their candidate's vote from 60% to 70%\"In an electoral college system, majority fraud conveys no advantage at all\"Thus under an electoral college system the easiest type of fraud is totally useless. \" In short, under the Electoral College, no matter how big the margin of victory is, the winning candidate will win the same number of electoral votes. However, the Heritage Foundation\"s Tara Ross explains \"direct popular vote would increase the incentive for fraud\" because \"any stolen vote would have at least some effect. \" The impact is that the Electoral College safeguards against this fraud while direct popular vote does not. Sub-point B: Minority fraud. Darlington continues on to state that \"minority fraud is when the minority manages to fraudulently gather enough additional votes to make itself look like a majority. \" He explains that when this happens in an electoral college, the effects of minority fraud are restricted to the state in which it happened alone. On the other hand, minority fraud in a popular election would involve the entire nation. The impact we bring you is that direct popular vote is much more conducive to fraud than the Electoral College; thus, the Electoral College should be preferred. Sub-point C: Recounts CON Case November 2011 Beachwood LY Temple University\"s Professor Jan Ting explains that under direct vote \"if the popular vote should be close\"legal battles over counting votes could erupt in\"all states where any ballots could be contested. \" Abraham Taylor of the Center for Accuracy in Media explains that the benefit of the electoral college is it \"isolates the problem and deals with it on a micro level. Without the present system the problem would [be] magnified dramatically as nationwide recounts would have been required. \" Jan Ting explains that the impact is that only the electoral college prevents dangerous delays in election results. Contention three: The Electoral College prevents polarization. Sub-point A: Big cities. The implementation of direct popular vote would mean a focus on large cities. Darshan Goux of the University of California Berkeley explains that with popular vote, \"resources, principally time and money, would remain limited \"\" in fact, even more so given the vastly expanded field of play. \" Andy Brehm of the Minneapolis Star Tribune furthers, \"If attaining the most votes nationally were all that mattered, nominees would turn a deaf ear to the rural electorate\"Major cities would be the sole battlegrounds in presidential elections. \" Direct popular vote would mean that candidates focus disproportionately on big cities, ignoring rural areas. This makes popular vote an intrinsically unjust system. Sub-point B: Swing states. John R. Wright of OSU conducted an empirical study demonstrating that certain states are swing states because they \"closely approximate national trends. \" In other words, swing states reflect the beliefs of the entire nation. This is supported by the Cook Partisan Voting Index, or CPVI, a political tool that measures how politically polarized states are. The CPVI finds that swing states such as Ohio or Florida are in the political center. Thus, by campaigning in swing states, candidates are appealing to the political center of America. The impact is that this is clearly preferable to having big cities decide the election.", "qid": "44", "docid": "b661889e-2019-04-18T17:56:09Z-00005-000", "rank": 83, "score": 94546.0}, {"content": "Title: I know what day of the week you will vote. Content: Yes, you. Resolved, that you are voting on a Wednesday. If you are voting, you are voting on a Wednesday, as you can see by any calendar, and as you are voting on a Wednesday, the resolution is affirmed, and as the resolution is affirmed, you ought to vote Pro. Vote Pro! In case you don't have a quick reference to today's calendar day, this site is quite handy: http://todaysdate.com... Happy voting!", "qid": "44", "docid": "497d9f24-2019-04-18T18:12:15Z-00001-000", "rank": 84, "score": 94523.0}, {"content": "Title: The United States should adopt Instant Runoff Voting. Content: The US should switch their voting system from First Past the Post to the Alternative Vote, or Instant Runoff Voting. This would help people to elect who they really want, not who they think has the best chance. Let me give you an example. Here's what happens under our current system: Say you go to vote on Election Day. You REALLY like the Libertarian candidate and agree with them completely. But you know that only the Republican and Democratic candidates have a chance at winning. So instead of throwing away your vote, you vote for the Republican candidate. Here's with the new system: Say you go to vote on Election Day. You REALLY like the Libertarian candidate and agree with them completely. So you rank him #1 on your ballot. Now out of all the other candidates, your second favorite is the Constitutionalist candidate. So you rank him #2. After that, you'd rather have the Republican candidate than the Democrat, so you rank the Republican #3. Finally, you don't really like any of the others, so you turn in your ballot like such. This would open the door to third-party candidates that don't get their fair say. It IS within our reach. Countries that already use it either for their Congress or leader: Australia Canada Fiji India Ireland New Zealand Papua New Guinea Even some places in the USA already use it, like Berkeley, California Basalt, Colorado And many others. So here's how they count it: They take all of the #1 ranked candidates and get the results. Then, the candidate who has the least amount of votes is taken out, and then they count all of the #2 votes from the people who ranked him #1 and adjust accordingly. They do this until someone reaches over 50% or their are only 2 candidates left. We can change America for the better, we just have to have the willpower.", "qid": "44", "docid": "538dd198-2019-04-18T18:14:33Z-00008-000", "rank": 85, "score": 94331.0}, {"content": "Title: (In America) Your vote affects nothing. Our elections, local and national, are for show. Content: For this debate, I would like for the first rounds to be introductory; I will post the basics of my argument, and my opponent should follow with the basics of their rebuttal(s). In the second round, I will go further in depth with my reasoning, and address the issues my opponent raised in his introduction. My opponent should then follow suit, giving their reasons why I am wrong, including reasons why our votes do affect our nation. In the third round, I will address my opponents rebuttals and reasoning and present my closing remarks, after which my opponent should do the same. Use of sources in the second and third rounds is encouraged. The basis of my argument is this: In both local and national elections, we are given a choice of candidates to vote between. (I understand there are rare exceptions to the following statements.) Most candidates are from well off families, and have been groomed from a young age to think and act a certain way. Rare is the politician who understands what it means to be an average citizen. These candidates use party affiliations and advertising campaigns to try to appeal to as many people as possible for the purpose of winning the election. Once in office, their decisions and actions are almost always motivated by greed, and/or a desire to remain in good standing not with the people they are meant to be responsible for, but instead with corporate and political affiliates. The vast majority of laws passed on any level over the past century have had been to increase profits for the government or big business, usually at the expense of the taxpayer, and are almost always passed without any type of consultating the citizens who are affected by these laws. Money is constantly wasted without any influence from the taxpaying citizens whatsoever. Party affiliation is actually irrelevant, because both of the dominant parties, democrats and republicans, answer to the same elite group of the uber-wealthy. Or more simply, it is like this: We are told to pick one; this rotten banana, or that rotten banana, and furthermore the bananas are disguised as delecious, ripe plantains. Both bananas are going to taste horrible, but by the time people realize it, they have already taken a bite.", "qid": "44", "docid": "bb9ee10c-2019-04-18T19:05:09Z-00004-000", "rank": 86, "score": 94317.0}, {"content": "Title: The Electoral College Should be Abolished Content: Thank you for the arguments Con.For my R3 case I will rebut my opponent's arguments from R2. I hope that he will be able to respond to my R2 arguments as well as counter-rebut my R3 ones.RebuttalsRe: Representation and FocusState-by-state representation will not be needed in a national popular vote because each vote would be individual and would have no accordance with the state that citizen lives in. It is unfair to give a voter more value in an election simply because they happen to live in a state with smaller borders. If that state's borders were expanded for some reason, or the voter moved to a larger state, then the vote's value would drop. Small states would be over-represented. This is much less fair for people living in big states - their votes don't count as much toward the result as small states do. A national popular vote would eliminate thisproblem and ensure that every vote is equal the next. States need not be relevant in a national election.Regional concerns would be more prevalent in large states versus small states, since there is more space in larger states for problems to arise. The fact that Rhode Island has one regional concern would be of much more proportion to California with its five thousand regional concerns.There is no reason to abolish the Senate because the Senate serves the purpose of representing the states several times a month on many different issues, not like the EC which is only used every four years for one issue only: the next president of the U.S. The Senate can address each state's issues without needing to ask the state which candidate the majority of its citizens support.Re: ModerationWith the EC, candidates tend to only campaign in the states that matter: swing states. It would be pointless for a Republican candidate to campaign in a solid blue state and vice versa. With or without the EC, there is no reason for a candidate to visit a small town because there are few people living in that town that would affect the election outcome. Since rural areas already trend red, campaigning there is pointless.Candidates will moderate their policies regardless of whether there are swing states or not. It may be true that swing states will be appealing to candidates, but if there is no EC at all then the candidates will want to moderate their policies to appeal to all of America, not just a few states. Even if that was not the case, it doesn't matter a whole lot whether a policy is moderated or not. America will vote on what it wants, and that will make America happier because a popular vote is a direct representation of democracy in comparison to a flawed EC.Re: Clear WinnerTo dissect this argument, we must first find out why it is being contended that a clear winner in an election would be better than a close one. Two factors have been brought up: recounting and votes and a number of fraud attempts at a result of it.RecountingMy opponent has attempted to paint recounting in a bad light. However, recounting in a direct popular vote would not be all that bad. We must first consider that the new president isn't inaugurated until late January[1], leaving plenty of time from election day in early November to the day the president-elect takes office. 2\u00bd months is enough time to recount a nation's votes, seeing as how the votes on Election Day are all counted in one sitting. Also, the only time the nation would recount every person's vote would possibly be if the election was as close as the 1960 Nixon-Kennedy one. Even if there was a difference of a million votes between the candidates (such as the 2012 one), the election still wouldn't be close enough to trigger a national recount. Only in rare settings where the votes are really close would a recount be considered. To add, a recount would be much less likely in a national popular vote because there would be a single large national pool of votes instead of 51 separate pools.FraudSince fraud was brought up, it'd be proper for this subject to be addressed by the other side. It was claimed that a long recount time would risk further fraud opportunities. But because it is a baseless assertion to say \"a recount would take months and months\", there is no point in taking this argument seriously. We know that in each election, the votes are counted in one day, so fraud opportunities would not be higher. In fact, they would be lower because recounts would be less frequent as I pointed out earlier. Fraud attempts would actually be more frequent with the EC because the people committing fraud would know that if they did it enough, it might tip the vote balance of that state causing the entire state to go for the other candidate. In a popular vote, this wouldn't happen because each vote is individual and would have no effect on the state that vote was casted in. Fraud attempts would only give a candidate a few extra votes and there would be no risk of an entire state switching its votes because of it.Re: ConfusionIt is another baseless assertion that the two-party system would collapse because of a loss of the EC. If no candidate received 270 electoral votes in the EC, one from the three candidates with the most votes would be chosen by the Senate anyways. In a national popular vote, the candidate with the most votes would be elected as chosen by the people. Also, since few people vote for the party they know is going to lose, there would be no reason for the people to begin voting for third party candidates more often without the EC.Your turn, Con!Sources1. http://en.wikipedia.org...2. http://www.archives.gov...", "qid": "44", "docid": "55c05f7c-2019-04-18T15:19:28Z-00003-000", "rank": 87, "score": 94041.0}, {"content": "Title: European Parliament elections should involve only one voting district: all of Europe and not separate country seats Content: Would undermine national sovereignty", "qid": "44", "docid": "668b3d92-2019-04-15T20:24:26Z-00002-000", "rank": 88, "score": 93447.0}, {"content": "Title: (In America) Your vote affects nothing. Our elections, local and national, are for show. Content: I've done more than \"play on your grammar.\" In fact, I haven't touched your grammar. Elections not only decide which rotten bananas end up in office, they also decide whether-- again, primaries are part of elections. And primaries render anything, including unrotted bananas, a possibility. Majorities may stop this, but that is not \"elections being a show.\" It is elections being as-advertised. Incidentally, there is more than one variety of rotten banana, and these DO matter. One variety of rotten banana will raise taxes and give health subsidies to the elderly. Another will raise them higher and give health subsidies to everyone. These are different policies with different effects. Different degrees of rotten banana. The only thing that caused a switch from the former rotten banana to the latter rotten banana is an election.", "qid": "44", "docid": "bb9ee10c-2019-04-18T19:05:09Z-00001-000", "rank": 89, "score": 93399.0}, {"content": "Title: The United States should replace the Electoral College with direct elections Content: Rebuttals14th AmendmentMy opponent essentially says that the 14th amendment condemns the electoral college. However, this is incorrect. The 14th amendment promotes, instead, that each individual has the RIGHT to vote. [1] The United States' system does allow this. Splitting it up into the electoral college simply alleviates the effect of uninformed votes. Every vote still counts and goes towards the candidate selected.GerrymanderingMy opponent voices that this is a concern, however, it is not. I mentioned regionalism in my case, essentially the effect of gerrymandering. Instead of a national vote, which does not show candidates where they need to campaign, the electoral college give candidates each a fair opportunity to explain their campaign and what they intend to do in office to the states that are relatively divided. The Federal Election Commission explains, \"Proponents further argue that the Electoral College contributes to the political stability of the nation... A direct popular election of the president would likely have the opposite effect. For in a direct popular election, there would be every incentive for a multitude of minor parties to form in an attempt to prevent whatever popular majority might be necessary to elect a president. The surviving candidates would thus be drawn to the regionalist or extremist views represented by these parties in hopes of winning the run-off election.\" [2] Gerrymandering would not be detrimental with an electoral college, because regional campaigning is necessary to perhaps sway the votes of voters towards a particular candidate.RecountMy opponent claims recounts are not relevant, and are a thing of the past. This is false. \"In fact, by making \u201cevery vote count\u201d NPV would incentivize voter fraud in every city and state. Political machines would swing into action and squeeze every possible vote out of each district in hopes of swinging a national election. Further, a competitive election would produce a replay of Florida 2000, but on a national scale. Recounts would take place across the United States, along with endless litigation and doubts about the legitimacy of the eventual winner.\" [3] This is further backed by the Huffington Post: \"Under its (NPV) [direct election] plan, the next time the U.S. has very close national vote, a recount would not be of six million votes in one state but of more than 130 million votes in all states and the District of Columbia, all with their own rules for conducting a recount.The horror of a potential national recount is only one of the dangers direct presidential elections poses. Among the others: \u2022 By its very size and scope, a national direct election will lead to nothing more than a national media campaign, which would propel the parties' media consultants to inflict upon the entire nation what has been heretofore limited to the so-called battleground states: an ever-escalating, distorted arms race of tit-for-tat unanswerable attack advertising polluting the airwaves, denigrating every candidate and eroding citizen faith in their leaders and the political process as a whole. \u2022 Because a direct election would be, by definition, national and resource allocation would be overwhelmingly dominated by paid television advertising, there would be little impetus for grass-roots activity. That, in turn, would likely diminish voter turnout. \u2022 Similarly, because a national campaign mandates a national message, there would also be a smaller incentive for coalition-building or taking into account the characteristics, needs and desires of citizens in differing states and regions. \u2022 NPV supporters claim, accurately, that a direct election for president would reduce or eliminate the possibility that a fringe candidate (like a Ralph Nader or Ron Paul) winning five percent or less of the vote in a single state could serve to defeat a major party candidate from the same side of the political spectrum. But the much greater danger to American democracy is that direct elections may make it possible for a president to be elected by no more than 30 percent of the vote, regardless of his or her suitability for office, so long as there is sufficient money and a clever media advisor behind the effort.\" [4]My opponent has dropped all of my other arguments. Extend those. Vote Con! Sources:[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu...[2] http://www.fec.gov...[3] http://www.thepelicanpost.org...[4] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...", "qid": "44", "docid": "6ec66cd9-2019-04-18T14:50:01Z-00001-000", "rank": 90, "score": 93282.0}, {"content": "Title: It would help distinguish between levels of elections Content: Distinguishing between the different levels of elections is not a good thing. It would show that the European Union is different from national government so demonstrating how far away from the voter it is. Moreover European elections need to be held at the same time as, and therefore associated with, national elections if anyone is to actually vote in them.", "qid": "44", "docid": "bdcf90af-2019-04-15T20:24:22Z-00011-000", "rank": 91, "score": 93241.0}, {"content": "Title: The People Ought to Have the Ability to Recall Elections Content: 1. Yes i did point out that the president gets elected every four years, representatives every 2, and senators every 6. This was not to agree with pros resolution but to show that you can change elections very often. We are lucky to live in a country where we can change our government peacefully. If politicians are bad it is the responsibility of the american people to vote them out on election day. If citizens were given the power to recall elections politicians would be to afraid to do anything because they could get kicked out of office. a total of 675,000 signatures on white-house succeed petitions. This was all in response to Obama being elected a second term. If he ever did anything that the republican party didnt like he would be in constant danger of being kicked out. So, instead Obama, and all other politicians, will learn not to do anything to keep their jobs. 2. Pro says we are not kicking the politician out for every stand he takes, but who is we. Well we in this sentence is the American people and pro can not speak for all of America. Again I point to the petitions to succeed because it shows that Americans want to leave because of an election. if they had the power to recall them it would become a mess. Republicans would recall democratic elections, and democrats would recall republican elections. 3. Yes politicians should be afraid of the people, but politicians will do anything to keep their jobs, including nothing. They wont want to make anyone mad and loose their job. This would make the American political system very ineffective 4. Actually Texas separation would be constitutional because they were a sovereign state before they entered the union. Also these petitions are very important to this debate because it shows that some americans will act just because a certain party is elected. that is not fair to that official. 5. Also not all impeachments are not done along party lines. Richard Nixon resigned before a vote was held and he was going to be impeached by both parties. And Clinton actually was impeached by the house, but was not voted out of office by the senate. You say that him not getting voted out of office was a conflict of interest. 1, a majority of Americans supported Bill Clinton 2. He was not impeached because the charge, perjury, was not relevant to his position as president. All of the points pro says i made in his favor are wrong.", "qid": "44", "docid": "6fd3b342-2019-04-18T17:20:32Z-00002-000", "rank": 92, "score": 93135.0}, {"content": "Title: Voting at a lower age would increase participation Content: Earlier voting is not a solution to the low turnout problem, the electoral commission in the UK concluded .here is evidence to suggest that extending the franchise will actually create lower turnout and projections about if it would get higher cannot be sufficiently determined[1] At the moment 18-25 year olds are the least likely to cast a vote at election time. Youth membership of political parties is falling. Lowering the voting age still further is therefore likely to reduce turnout even more. Most people don\u2019t vote because they think the election system is unfair, their vote does not count, or because they don\u2019t trust any of the political parties on offer - lowering the voting age won\u2019t solve these problems. Instead with a generation that is increasingly online, to take the UK 21 million households (80%) had internet access in 2012[2], and there are over 6.4 million iPhone users,[3] the answer is therefore to engage them digitally not through trying some magic bullet at the ballot box. [1] The Electoral Commission, \u2018Voting age should stay at 18 says the Electoral Commission\u2019, 19 April 2004 [2] Office for national statistics, \u2018Statistical bulletin: Internet Access \u2013 Households and Individuals, 2012\u2019, 24 August 2012 [3] NMA Staff, \u2018UK iPhone users to reach 6.4m this year\u2019, New media age, 6 August 2010", "qid": "44", "docid": "ca9d6789-2019-04-15T20:24:25Z-00012-000", "rank": 93, "score": 93103.0}, {"content": "Title: should September 2 be a holiday Content: Rebuttals1:'Yes I see your point but some countries try to hid some of the things. Germany does not really have grwces for those who fought for Germany during ww2.'What are 'grwces?' Until my opponent spells that in at least an understandable matter, I'm afraid I cannot rebut that. 2: 'Everyone should remember this day so we can learn from are mistakes.'Following that logic, we should make a holiday for every single war, which would be insane, because in the past 3 400 years, humans have been involved in 268 wars [1]. It would be an insane amount of time and work to honor people who served on 268 days of the year, so that's why we invented Remembrance/Veteran's Day, so we could honor all of those who served in one day, including those who served in World War II. 3: 'And another thing is this was the most destructive war in human history.'While that may be true, all the other wars combined were much worse than World War II. Again, that is why we have Remembrance/Veteran's Day. Of course, that may not be true either. One article explains why the Vietnam War is the worst war, mostly because of a chemical called 'Agent Orange,' that was used during the war, which caused a variety of illnesses including cancer and Parkinson's disease, and was also able to pass down in families to infect affect children [2]. The war itself was also awful as well. Read the entire article, it is truly an eye-opener. 4: 'The civilians that lost their lives and the troops deserve this day.'Yeah, and so do all the other soldiers and civilians who lost their lives in all the other wars deserve a day. It would be unfair to give one group a day and the other nothing, so we give both a day--Remembrance/Veteran's Day.5: 'If we dont then most country's will forget there past. Look at Greece. Guess what there third biggest political party is. A Nazi party. Greece jist might end up like Germany if people dont do something'PRO, what is your point? I'm sure Greece's Nazi party remembers their past, it is just that there are horrible people out there, because how could they not remember what happened with the real Nazi's? In fact, they once praised members of Nazi Germany before [3], so of course they remember their past and what happened. Again, I don't know what happened to Germany because of your spelling error earlier.6: 'The war lasted 6 years about.'Yeah, and the Afghanistan War lasted 11 years [4]. Both wars were tragic. It would be unfair to give one group a day of honor and the other group nothing, so we give both groups an honor day--Remembrance/Veteran's Day. 7: 'Most of the world participated the war'Yeah, and most countries participated in World War I as well [5]. Both wars were tragic. It would be unfair to give one group a day of honor and the other group nothing, so we give both groups an honor day--Remembrance/Veteran's Day. 8: 'This war freed the people from nazi and Japanese'Yes, and the civil war freed slaves. Both wars were tragic (due to all the casualties, not the freeing). It would be unfair to give one group a day of honor and the other group nothing, so we give both groups an honor day--Remembrance/Veteran's Day. 9: 'So but another point is.millions of germans and jews and every country lost alot of good men'Yeah, and World War I ended a lot of good men's lives [6]. Both wars were tragic. It would be unfair to give one group a day of honor and the other group nothing, so we give both groups an honor day--Remembrance/Veteran's Day. ConclusionMy point from all of those rebuttals PRO, is that all wars are tragic. You cannot single out the people who lost their lives in one war and neglect all those who lost their lives in all the other wars. It is cruel and unfair. That is why we fairly honor all those who lost their lives on one day and one day only--Remembrance/Veteran's Day. We cannot fairly give a holiday to honor those who were involved in one war and neglect other wars. Citations[1]-http://www.nytimes.com...[2]-https://tristanhbriggs.wordpress.com...[3]-http://en.wikipedia.org...[4]-http://en.wikipedia.org...[5]-http://en.wikipedia.org...[6]-http://en.wikipedia.org...Back to PRO.", "qid": "44", "docid": "eb5233c9-2019-04-18T15:04:28Z-00006-000", "rank": 94, "score": 93027.0}, {"content": "Title: States\u2019 rights Content: Respecting the interests of the majority in making a decision about a candidate to represent them in a national election is not the worst idea in the world. Equally, the state parties would need to be involved as they play a central role in the general election and it is in the interest of candidates to work with them from the start. As things stand at the moment many of the larger states are actually disenfranchised by the same process that allows state parties to portray their role in the primary as valuable and significant. There can be no approach to the current primary election \u201cnarrative\u201d that allows the individual states to exert a proportionately fair amount of influence over the other states\u2019 choice of nominee. Candidates with deep pockets \u2013 either their own or somebody else\u2019s - can survive early setbacks. but it means that many candidates who do not win support in the first few states can be ruled out by the end of January. By the time Nebraska comes to make their decision in the middle of May, the issue may long since have been decided.", "qid": "44", "docid": "8a695b78-2019-04-15T20:22:24Z-00012-000", "rank": 95, "score": 92659.0}, {"content": "Title: More spending in elections undermines public confidence Content: \"A Bad Day for Democracy\". The Christian Science Monitor. January 22, 2010: \"this potential spending will create even greater fear of political reprisal for unpopular votes, expand conflicts of interest, and further undermine the public\u2019s confidence in government\u2019s ability to act in the public interest.\"", "qid": "44", "docid": "e48068f8-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00107-000", "rank": 96, "score": 92628.0}, {"content": "Title: The USA Should Have A One Day Primary and Election Instead Of A Whole Campaign Content: I trust that Pro wil not post anything related to the debate in round 2. He will respond to my questions in round 3. I hope we have a good debate!", "qid": "44", "docid": "5c5b4bdf-2019-04-18T12:36:30Z-00000-000", "rank": 97, "score": 92607.0}, {"content": "Title: Australia Day Content: Australia has been celebrated as a national holiday for 228 years! Why would you want to ruin 228 years of traditional celebration? It marks the day that the first fleet arrived on port jackson and discovered our land. If this event never occurred then Australia might not have been shaped into the country that we are today. Who knows I mean if that event didn't occur we might not have even been living and breathing on this land and the day that starting the shaping of Australia should not be changed over other people's opinions.", "qid": "44", "docid": "63b4a1cb-2019-04-18T13:13:54Z-00005-000", "rank": 98, "score": 92575.0}, {"content": "Title: The current system is undemocratic as it gives undue influence to the early states Content: The primaries are simply the device by which parties select their candidates. They are part of the internal affairs of America\u2019s independent political organisations and do not require the legitimacy of the election itself. Moving everything to one day could end up exacerbating the problems of inclusiveness and democratic deficit identified by side proposition, as the campaigns and messages of smaller candidates would be drowned out by larger, wealthier rivals and those with pre-existing contacts in the news media. Further, under the system that the resolution would bring about, donors are more likely to provide funding to \u2018safe\u2019 candidates. However, with a protracted campaign it is possible for a surprise result to emerge, as has happened on several occasions \u2013 for example when incumbents have failed to win key states. Relatively unknown candidates can take advantage of the extended duration of the current primary system to build a public profile and to court the attention of the media. This allows \u201coutsiders\u201d and individuals with a significant political reputation, but no public profile, to establish themselves within popular discourse and to begin building a relationship with swing voters. Staggered primaries also minimize the power of the central parties. A national primary would turn campaigns into entirely national events, run by the national party conventions, marginalising the role of the states and focussing on the large cities, rather than the diffuse populations of rural states.", "qid": "44", "docid": "8a695b78-2019-04-15T20:22:24Z-00006-000", "rank": 99, "score": 92547.0}, {"content": "Title: Primaries encourage organisation and activity at a local level Content: Ultimately the primary campaigns, at least for the main parties, are national campaigns. As a result of more frequent and more intensive media coverage- even during early primaries- candidates have to speak to national issues. Furthermore, Super Tuesday is basically a national primary already, it just happens to exclude some of the states. The early primaries simply work to filter out candidates attempting to use the presidential election to promote a single, poorly developed set of maverick views in front of a much larger audience than they would otherwise have access to. Only in the event of very close races are the later states left with any meaningful decisions. It would be far more useful to admit that reality and simply hold all national primaries in early February. Contests would still be organised by the state parties (in conjunction with the state authorities where required) and states would still record their vote separately.", "qid": "44", "docid": "8a695b78-2019-04-15T20:22:24Z-00014-000", "rank": 100, "score": 92472.0}]}
{"query": "Should the penny stay in circulation?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: The penny should be stopped from circulation Content: I will be arguing in favor of the following plan: 1: All Pennies currently circulated as U. S Currency shall be no longer be accepted as commerce by the United States Treasury Department. A: The production of pennies will be halted immediately. B: Those pennies not in circulation, but already produced, shall be melted down. C: The remaining pennies shall not and will not be allowed to be held by any U. S citizen with any intention other than collecting 2: Pennies shall be no longer used as a form of debt payment in the United States or its respective territorial holdings, nor shall it be continued to be produced as a coin of regular commercial circulation. 3: The United States Mint shall be responsible for executing the contingencies of the aforementioned plan, in the interest of the U. S Treasury department. 4: All laws in conflict with this legislation are hereby declared null and void.", "qid": "45", "docid": "8ce6be05-2019-04-18T16:30:30Z-00004-000", "rank": 1, "score": 143622.0}, {"content": "Title: The penny should be stopped from circulation Content: I extend my arguments", "qid": "45", "docid": "8ce6be05-2019-04-18T16:30:30Z-00001-000", "rank": 2, "score": 140560.0}, {"content": "Title: The penny should be stopped from circulation Content: You did not state why pennies should not be in circulation. Anyways, melting down pennies will cost a huge amount of money. Secondly, halting the production of pennies will discourage the use of pennies; and therefore, make it harder for future penny collectors to collect old pennies. I do not see any reason why pennies should be abandoned; it costs money and results in no benefits. I do not have much time; therefore, I will stop right here.", "qid": "45", "docid": "8ce6be05-2019-04-18T16:30:30Z-00003-000", "rank": 3, "score": 139667.0}, {"content": "Title: In the US, pennies should be abolished. Content: As part of its new budget, Canada will get rid of its penny, saving taxpayers more than C$11 million, according to the Royal Bank of Canada. Since production in 1908, the bank has produced more than 35 billion pennies, but circulation will end sometime in 2012. As part of cost cutting measures, Canada will save at least C$150 million in production and handling costs once the penny is completely abolished. It costs the Canadian government C1.6 cents to mint a penny, a coin made from copper-plated zinc and copper-plated steel. However, it won't only be the government that saves money. Banks Pay Saving pennies in a piggy bank may be fun for children, but for banks, the transportation, handling and storage of coins costs about C$20 million each year according to Canadian officials, a cost that has to be passed on to customers in the form of fees. Eliminating the penny saves a portion of the costs associated with processing coins. More Efficient Some argue that cash registers will have to be reprogrammed to accommodate the switch, but since the penny will remain in circulation until most pennies are out of circulation and taxes will continue to be calculated to the penny, cash registers and other business machines will operate as they always have. Catherine Swift, president and chief executive officer of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, says that businesses welcome the change, since fewer coins will eventually make their business more efficient. Other Countries Have Done It Canada is one of many countries that have ended the minting of their lowest-value coins. In 1992, Australia eliminated their one- and two-cent coins from circulation. In January 2008, Israel eliminated their five agorot coin. These countries join at least 15 other countries including Great Britain, The Philippines, Hong Kong, the Netherlands, Singapore and Mexico that have all eliminated at least one of their coins to lower government costs. When Will the United States Do It? The most notable hold out is the United States. In 2006, The Legal Tender Modernization Act was introduced by Representative Jim Kolbe. The bill aimed to require that all transactions be rounded to the nearest 5 cents but this legislation failed to pass Congress leaving the U.S. with the same problem as Canada. Producing the penny in the U.S. costs a lot more than in Canada, according to CNN. To produce a U.S. penny, the U.S. Mint pays 2.4 cents per penny, and that's up from 1.5 cents in 2006. That, along with the production of the nickel, costs the U.S. government more than $100 billion each year, and if it can't be retired, President Obama wants the cost reduced. That, according to officials, is difficult, because the administrative costs of producing a penny account for nearly half a cent, leaving very little room to cover the cost of raw materials.[1] [1]http://www.investopedia.com... My old arguments. Cost of Producing the Penny, Nickel, Dime, Quarter, and Golden Dollar Coins. $1 Coin Quarter Dime Nickel Penny 18.03 cents 11.14 cents 5.65 cents 11.18 cents 2.41 cents (United States Mint, 2011 Annual Report, pg. 11) 1. PENNIES COST MORE TO MAKE THAN THEY ARE WORTH This will send the US economy down the drain in the future, with inflation. Pennies are worth less than nothing, because of the cost to make one. 2. IT WOULD NOT INCREASE COSTS BY AN EXTENSIVE AMOUNT The cost of anything would be rounded to the nearest 5/10 cents. EXAMPLE: $1.01 would be rounded to $1.", "qid": "45", "docid": "19444029-2019-04-18T16:04:23Z-00005-000", "rank": 4, "score": 137871.0}, {"content": "Title: Should the penny be kept in US currency Content: Let me make this clear. I said an economic breakdown HERE, meaning the U.S. The US is much more capable of recovering from a breakdown than the Soviet Union. Back on topic, my closing argument is that the penny is outdated. The time has come for it to be removed, naturally or by force. New forms of currency, like the $2 bill are becoming more and more widespread. A penny is just something that you throw on the ground, forget about. The making of the penny should be stopped, although to prevent an economic breakdown it should remain as a legitimate form of payment, usin the penny's already in circulation of the U.S.", "qid": "45", "docid": "141e3960-2019-04-18T15:20:37Z-00001-000", "rank": 5, "score": 135755.0}, {"content": "Title: The use of pennies in the US pricing system should be eliminated. Content: Today, pennies have become little more than a nuisance to our economy and therefore should be eliminated. In the Harris Poll, an online, nationwide poll that surveyed 2,136 adults, a total of 59% of those adults were opposed to the abolishing of the penny. The first of two main reasons people believed that the penny should remain in circulation was that the pennies served as a historical memorial to a particularly beloved president, Abraham Lincoln. In 21 December 2005, President Bush signed into law legislation directing the Secretary of the Treasury to issue newly designed reverse side images to mark the 200th anniversary of Lincoln's birth. As Mark Bishop, the executive director of the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission, praised, many people believe that \"the penny is perhaps the most visible and tangible reminder of Lincoln's significance in American History.\" The second reason was, as claimed by Mark W. Weller, the Executive director of Americans for Common Cents, \"the fact that the penny remains popular with the public and important to our pricing system.\" He also claimed that the statement that the \"'U.S. is among the last industrialized nations to abolish' its low denomination coin runs counter to the facts. The European Union's adoption of the euro included a one-cent euro coin or 'euro penny. [...] And in the major industrialized countries, including Great Britain, Canada, Japan, and the U.S., the penny or penny-equivalent remains in production and shares similar percentages of total coins produced into those countries. However, they are wrong. The benefits of keeping pennies are overwhelmed by the consequences of keeping them. The claim that the penny is an important memorial to President Lincoln is clearly fallacious. The 16th president of the United States who maintained the Union and thereby abolished slavery by winning the Civil War, a war that made the ratification of the 13th Amendment immediately available, is memorialized enough as it is. He is already apparent on the five dollar bill (who would want to be remembered on a coin that according to William Saffire of the New York Times, \"two thirds of the time immediately drop out of circulation behind sofas, drawers, etc when he or she is already on a five dollar bill; how many of those have you seen lying on the ground). Also, he has an entire memorial of him in Washington. A 99 foot marble statue of him that cost $3 million to make. Why should we in our poor economic situation today print these pennies that obviously are trivial to the accolade of Lincoln when according to MIT graduate Jeff Gore in Ric Kahn's article \"Penny Pinchers\" for The Globe, \"the presence of pennies wastes (3 transactions/day) x (2.25 seconds/transaction) x (3 people per transaction) = 20 seconds per day. [...] it translates to 40 x 365 / 3600 - 4 hours per person per year. [...] each person is losing $60 per year, at a cost to the nation of over $15 billion per year.\" not to mention that the cost to making a penny costs approximately 1.6 cents? Moving on, the claim by Mark Weller, however, is not credible. In his unpublished letter to William Saffire to argue that the coin was valuable, he, as previously stated, believed the pennies to be \"important to our pricing system.\" Not only does the reader have to question his claim as he provides no factual evidence to support his claim but the reader has to realize that this man is speaking on bias. He is the Executive director of an organization that supports the coin. He is wealth is corner stoned on the fact that the penny exists. There is no escaping economic history: it takes nearly a dime to buy what a penny bought back in 1950. Pennies are losing value and face. The United States has no use for them. As William Saffire comically remarked, \" the Brits and the French - even the French! - who dumped their low-denomination coins 30 years ago, will be laughing at our senseless jingle\" The penny, hardly anything more than a inconsequential memorial to such a great president, should be eliminated. They are acting as a retardant to our American economy. On the flip side, \"Edmond Knowles figures he has saved an average of about 90 pennies a day for the last 38 years [...] that would be 1,308,459 pennies, or $13,084.59.\" (William Saffire) *shakes head*", "qid": "45", "docid": "1a13d72d-2019-04-18T18:34:18Z-00005-000", "rank": 6, "score": 131994.0}, {"content": "Title: We should get rid of the penny Content: Poll Shows Americans Concerned About Costly Price Rounding System If Penny Is Eliminated Washington, DC - A poll released today by Americans for Common Cents shows overwhelming support for the penny by the American public. The vast majority of those surveyed favored keeping the penny in circulation, a sentiment heightened when people were made aware of the penny's charitable importance, and most expressed significant concerns about higher consumer prices if the penny is eliminated. \"These results confirm the strong and unwavering support the penny continues to receive from America.\" said Weller. \"Americans understand that eliminating the penny would lead to a rounding process and cost them hundreds of millions of dollars in higher prices. Current and future generations of Americans deserve to live in a country where a penny saved truly is a penny earned.\" The poll results showed that: * Three out of four adults (73%) favor keeping the penny in circulation; * A mere 12.6% agree the penny should be removed from circulation when people are told that millions of dollars in pennies are contributed to charities each year; * 76% were concerned that if the government implements a rounding system for cash purchases, businesses might raise prices; * 69% of Americans oppose eliminating the penny and establishing a price rounding system. An analysis by Raymond Lombra, PhD, Professor of Economics at Penn State University confirms these concerns. He found that eliminating the penny would lead to a rounding of prices in America that he estimates would cost consumers more than $600 million every year. Polling results over the last eight years demonstrate the widespread support the penny enjoys with the public. Opinion Research polls in 1995 and 1996 found 73% and 76% of Americans, respectively, support the penny. A 1992 CNN/Time survey and a 1990 Gallup poll produced similar favorable results. \"Keeping the penny in circulation will avoid an inflationary rounding process and is what the American people want,\" said Weller. \"It's just common cents.\" Americans for Common Cents is a broad-based coalition of business and charitable organizations dedicated to keeping the penny. The coalition was formed in 1990 in response to Congressional threats to eliminate the one-cent coin. Opinion Research Corporation International of Princeton, New Jersey, surveyed a national sample of 1,009 adults, comprised of 507 men and 502 women by phone. The margin of sampling error is +3%. <http://www.pennies.org...;", "qid": "45", "docid": "3207095a-2019-04-18T16:54:39Z-00002-000", "rank": 7, "score": 131748.0}, {"content": "Title: Should the U.S. keep the penny Content: This argument will be about whether or not we should take the penny out of circulation. I will be arguing that we should get rid of it while my opponent will be arguing that we should keep the penny. The debate will go like thisRound 1: Opening statementRound 2: RebuttalRound 3: Closing I look forward to debating with whom ever my opponent will be and I will now give my opening statement.We should get rid of the penny because they are useless. Each penny costs 1.7 cents to make meaning that we are wasting money every time we make money. By getting rid of the penny we could save millions of dollars each year that we could spend on more important things.", "qid": "45", "docid": "87bd157b-2019-04-18T13:37:52Z-00005-000", "rank": 8, "score": 129565.0}, {"content": "Title: Pennies should stop being produced in the U.S. Content: I think that pennies should stop being produced by the U. S. mint and taken out of circulation, similar to what Canada did. The penny costs more to make then it's worth, it's rarely actually used. It's a detriment to our economy.", "qid": "45", "docid": "42633cc5-2019-04-18T16:25:30Z-00007-000", "rank": 9, "score": 127405.0}, {"content": "Title: The United States should cease production of the penny Content: I agree with ceasing production of the penny in the United States for the following reasons. 1:The penny costs more than 1 cent to make As of 2011, it costs 2.41\" to make a 1\" penny. This is clearly unsustainable. With 2.4 billion pennies made in that year, that means that the US wastes around 3.5 billion dollars every year to attempt to keep this coin relevant. 3.5 billion dollars is a lot of money, and it can't even do anything because pennies have essentially zero buying power. 2:Pennies do not function as a coin. Although they are based on the same dollar system, cards, dollars and coins typically are used on separate products. Coins are typically used on cheap, high impulse spending. For example, vending machines or parking meters. Yet, the vast majority of these products do not accept pennies. Pennies get most of their circulation by a company called Coinstar, which is a company whose sole purpose is turning left over change into more useful dollars. This means that pennies cannot function as they are designed, and should be moved out of circulation. 3:Pennies have essentially zero buying power. Among coins, coins such as the dollar coin or the quarter are circulated quickly because of the high impulse nature of coins. Pennies; however, have no buying power. For example, it takes 100 pennies to buy one dollars worth of goods. By contrast, it takes 10 dimes. The pennies lack of buying power means that they are often unused, left in a jar or other coin stash. Whenever money is not being circulated, the economy slows. This is often more important with larger tender, such as dollars or half-dollars, but pennies left unattended can quickly add, especially with billions put into circulation every year. Pennies do not function in the current economy. 4: Federal Property does not accept the penny In US military bases, the penny is already banned. There were no repercussions that were not solved by simply rounding to the nearest 5 cents instead of the nearest 1 cent. Because of this, we can see that there are in fact no detriments to the economy caused by the penny. 5: The penny is a bipartisan issue. If this was to become a reality, the only way to create such legislation would be through Congress. In the current American system, partisanship reigns supreme. Issues are debated, but bills are hardly passed, and as such, something needs to be done. The penny is an issue with supporters on both sides of them spectrum, meaning that if the bill came to Congress, there would not be a blue-red split that occurs in so much legislation. This bill could be the bridge between the two parties, meaning that an effective Congress could actually occur, all the while solving a problem that is simple to fix. Pennies are a serious issue, and the United States government needs to take care of this important and simple issue by ceasing production of the penny.", "qid": "45", "docid": "35161051-2019-04-18T12:33:43Z-00005-000", "rank": 10, "score": 127008.0}, {"content": "Title: Gettin rid of pennie's Content: Reasons why pennies should be eliminated. Other Countries Have Successfully Done without TheirsMany other countries have eliminated several small denominations from their currency with no major impact on commerce. New Zealand, for instance, dropped their one and two-cent coins over 20 years ago. They have, since then, eliminated their nickel as well.We\"ll Conserve Natural ResourcesWe\"re more aware today than ever that the minerals we mine aren\"t going to last forever. Ceasing production of pennies will lower our consumption of copper and zinc, as well as the fuel and energy required to mine and process it.It Will Increase in ValueHistorically, dropping any minted coin out of circulation immediately increases its value as a collectible. So, in 2020, all those pennies laying around the house will be worth more, and will continue to gain value as time passes. Many collectors are already starting to collect lots of pennies, taking more out of circulation.Nobody Misses the HalfpennyThese days, very few individuals realize that the US once had a half-cent coin. That\"s because it was taken out of circulation in 1857. Given that phasing out this denomination had virtually no impact on commerce, there\"s no reason to think that dropping the penny will have any serious side effects.", "qid": "45", "docid": "8bcc4a46-2019-04-18T17:43:27Z-00003-000", "rank": 11, "score": 121620.0}, {"content": "Title: The penny should be stopped from circulation Content: Alright, I was planning on presenting my advantages and arguments in my second speech after presenting my plan. Let's have a look at a few statistics revolving pennies: 1: Pennies in circulation: 200 billion, totaling 2 billion dollars 2: Cost to produce a penny: 1.99 cents 3: Pennies created in 2013: 7 billion, totaling 70 million dollars Doing some math we can see that if we make 7 billion pennies in 2013, and it costs 1.99 cents to make a penny then we spent 13,939,000,000\" (13 billion 930 million cents) to make our pennies in 2013. That's a total of 139,390,000$ (139 million 390 thousand dollars) to make our pennies. As a total, we are losing 69,390,000$ (69 million 3 hundred and 90 thousand dollars). Based on these statistics and the total losses provided by these pennies there is no reason to not pass this plan, we would also be making up for some of these losses by melting down these pennies and using the metal for other enterprises. An interesting thing to consider about this is that it has been done before, in 1857 the half penny was eliminated. There were no serious side affects and the value of the dollar was much higher. When no serious side effects came into play when the value of the dollar was higher, it is clear that it will have minimal side effects on the current economy. Sources: http://www.kokogiak.com... http://coincollectingenterprises.com... http://1.usa.gov...", "qid": "45", "docid": "8ce6be05-2019-04-18T16:30:30Z-00002-000", "rank": 12, "score": 120130.0}, {"content": "Title: The penny should be immediately discontinued. (Kleptin Tourney) Content: This is a RD 1 debate for Kleptin's tournament, and I will be assuming the role of Sportsguru from the following debate: . http://www.debate.org.... Feel free to peruse it prior to reading this one. Sportsguru will, in effect, be opposing himself (or at least arguments inspired by his own). Hence, if you see chunks of text directly quoted from the above-cited debate, I'm not plagiarizing. :) I affirm, resolved: the penny should be immediately discontinued. No definitions were provided within the referenced debate, and the topic was assumed to mean that the US should stop minting pennies as a form of currency. This resolution does not require me to do anything extreme, like pull all current pennies from circulation (hence the use of \"discontinued\"). We'll stick with that interpretation. Any others would be considered extra-topical, especially in light of the purpose of this tournament. Onto case: 1. Pennies are a complete waste of critical resources. a. For all its use within the American economy (i. e. next to none), the penny is produced at a cost to the U. S. Per the group Citizens for Retiring the Penny, the U. S. Dept. of Treasury produces approximately 7 billion pennies (worth $70 million) each year. The cost to make all those pennies was around $100 million. [1] As Sportsguru predicted a year ago, this cost is only rising. ABC World News reported in 2008 that the cost of minting pennies is right around $130 million. Each penny produced costs the U. S. 1.7 cents. En total, the U. S. loses around $50 million during the penny production process. [2] Talk about ill-advised spending. In times like these, with a global recession, a U. S. economy in the throws of a depression, poor government spending, and the public quickly losing faith in the ability of its elected officials to properly money-manage, this gesture, though relatively small, would be a step in the right direction to much needed expenditure examination. It is a piece of the reform so desperately needed to encourage the economic health of the U. S. b. The transaction time in penny exchange costs the U. S. economy further. Though we don't often consider the time costs of a monetary exchange involving pennies (or change, for that matter), we should. Efficiency is a primary concern of a struggling economy, and any step toward improving efficiency while maintaining a just system should be taken. The National Association of Convenience Stores as well as the Walgreen's drug stores assert that transactions involving pennies waste approximately 2-2.5 seconds per cash transaction. That may seem like a pittance , but the resulting wasted time is exponentially terrible when considered on a national scale. I won't bore the readers with the calculus here, suffice to say that each American wastes around 2.5 hours every year on penny transactions. This would be mirrored in all consumer industries that take pennies within their transactions. If we then calculate the opportunity cost per person in the U. S. (i. e. what that 2.5 hours means in dollars in terms of salary), each person in the U. S. \"pays\" the government around $30-$40 just to keep pennies in circulation. Granted, some of that can be factored into the original production cost of $150 million (through taxes), but considering that the opportunity cost adds up to closer to $10 billion per year for the nation, pennies cost much more to keep in circulation than their production value. Though this $10 billion may seem like a tiny drop in the heaving, \"perfect-storm-esque\" sea that is the national debt, imagine the programs that can be funded on that money each year. 2. Increasing out dependence on China (and other foreign countries) is detrimental to both the domestic and foreign interests of the U. S. As is well known, China currently possesses the highest concentration of utilized zinc resources in the world. [3] Furthermore, they are actively trying to corner the market on this particular resource. Just this year, Chinese zinc giant Metallurgical Corp of China is seeking to bid on Anglo-American Zinc, worth approximately $1 billion. [4] If this acquisition is completed (which it likely will be), China would successfully purchase a huge chunk of the American industrial market, which is crucial because the US currently has the second highest concentration of zinc resources in the world. But, you might ask, why don't we just produce the zinc ourselves? Easy answer: we import because companies like Anglo-American can't undersell our foreign competitors. This is evident at the sale of Anglo-American. What's worse, it appears that Anglo-American will be controlled by a country other than the U. S. The other major bidders are all out of the country. We are already far too indebted to other nations, especially China, to be able to operate freely within the world economy. These expenditures further damage our political capital, as we appear weak and unable to control our domestic affairs. Furthermore, as is clearly illustrated by the U. S. political lobby system, indebtedness translates directly into policy compromises. Considering China's current state of affairs, do we really want to compromise influence that we might have over, say, their human rights abuses? In conclusion, for the good of the nation and its citizens, I strongly urge a vote in favor of eliminating the penny. [1] . http://www.retirethepenny.org... [2] . http://abcnews.go.com... [3] . http://www.mapsofworld.com... [4] . http://www.reuters.com...", "qid": "45", "docid": "5c2fb364-2019-04-18T19:07:11Z-00005-000", "rank": 13, "score": 118553.0}, {"content": "Title: That Pennies Should Be Abolished Content: The purpose of currency is to facilitate the exchange of goods and services by providing a good with an agreed upon value that can be traded for a multitude of other goods. As Pro in this debate I will argue that pennies are failing to fulfil this purpose. The context of this debate is present day United States. For this debate \"penny\" refers to the one-cent-coin. The model I am proposing is that the US mint simply stops producing any more pennies. All pennies currently in circulation are to remain as legal tender. However, after their expenditure shops are to send their pennies back to the US mint where they will be melted down. This means that the supply of pennies will gradually decrease. Price transactions are to be rounded to the nearest five cents. RulesThe opening round is for acceptance only. I will give the Pro case in the second round. Standard debating rules apply, they are as follows: 1. All arguments must be made in the debate. Evidence may be cited or linked from the debate, but only in support of arguments made in the debate. Arguments made in Comments are to be ignored.2. Source links or references must be included within the 8000 characters per round limit of the debate. No links or sources are permitted in comments.3. Any term not specifically defined before use is to be taken with the ordinary dictionary definition of the term that best fits the context of the debate. 4. No new arguments shall be made in Round 5. Pro may rebut previous arguments using new evidence solely for that purpose, but no new arguments are allowed. Con may not present any new evidence in R5.5. DDO site rules always apply. Neither side may add or modify rules for the debate once the challenge is accepted.", "qid": "45", "docid": "ce686c60-2019-04-18T17:24:46Z-00006-000", "rank": 14, "score": 118121.0}, {"content": "Title: The penny should be stopped from circulation Content: !! !! Vote con! !! !! Vote con! !! !! Vote con! !! !! Vote con! !! !! Vote con! !! !! Vote con! !! ! !", "qid": "45", "docid": "8ce6be05-2019-04-18T16:30:30Z-00000-000", "rank": 15, "score": 114799.0}, {"content": "Title: The Penny Content: Rebuttal: 1. My point here was that pennies stay in currency a long time, and have much more usage potential than a dollar, and certainly more than the 1.8 cents they cost. As for printing extra pennies, thereby reducing the value, that does not support stopping the production of the penny. Pennies can be, and are, created at such an amount simply to make up for the pennies that were either destroyed or fell out of currency. 2. I did not mean to say I agree with you, I was actually trying to indicate that I was going to use the same argument later. While the penny does not have much buying power, it is used extensively in currency. One often gets more pennies back from a cash purchase than any other type of money. This leads into the third part of the next section. 3. I like your point here, but you forget that our money system is cent-based. And while the penny does not have much buying penny, it still has its value, whether you want to donate it or roll it up into a neat little parcel and exchange at the bank. Also, just because the penny doesn't have much value today because of inflation doesn't mean it will never have value again. If you eliminate it now, re-starting production would be even more fiscally infeasible than it is now. Other Rebuttal: 1. The system suggested would indeed work to price things without the penny, but would be difficult and unruly, and end of costing one a lot more a year. The more you break up earnings and values down, the more accurate something's cost can be, and the less it will end up costing. 2. While in theory this is correct, that these charities will not lose money, it is interesting that more nickels and dimes aren't given, since their worth so little, and that pennies make up such a large percentage. 3. Fair enough. The point here I was making, however, is that the same arguments could be made for nickels, and then possibly for dimes.", "qid": "45", "docid": "652f23f4-2019-04-18T17:28:19Z-00002-000", "rank": 16, "score": 111440.0}, {"content": "Title: The use of pennies in the US pricing system should be eliminated. Content: \"It means that abolishing the penny is virtually equivalent to abolishing the American flag. \"I did not think my opponent was attempting to make this inference. Of course, eliminating the penny would not be the same a abolishing the American Flag. Let me explain further. \"In the same way, The reason that the penny serves as a patriotic value should not be irrelevant when it comes to this debate. This reason should be enough to continue to manufacturing and circulation of the penny. \" \"My opponent contradicts himself by stating that he does accept the fact that the penny has sentimental value, but at the same time he states that we should eliminate anything with no benefit. This contradiction then translates to. .. Since the penny is of sentimental value, then the penny is of benefit to the public mind which then protects it from being eliminated. \" Sadly, my opponent misunderstood me. I do not contradict myself. Yes, I do believe the penny holds a sentimental value. However it should be eliminated because it does not have a benefit towards its purpose of facilitating exchange. My opponent forgot to mention the part where I stated, \"If it is of no benefit. .. not facilitating exchange. \" Now, as I said I would explain further above, eliminating the penny is not equivalent to abolishing the American Flag because whereas the American Flag's purpose is to serve as a \"symbolic of nationhood and identity,\"[1] the true purpose of the penny or any money in general is to \"function as a medium of exchange when it is used to intermediate the exchange of goods and services. This function facilitates and eliminates the inefficiencies of a barter system, where goods and services are directly exchange for other goods and services. With the use of money, now you can just conveniently pay for the things you want to buy. \"[2] My opponent's comparison between the eliminating of the penny with abolishing the American Flag is a non-sequitar comparison and should not be considered. All in all, the sentimental value of a coin does not matter because that has nothing to do with the true value of a coin. So therefore no, my statement was not contradictory. \"If this statement made by my opponent is true then using the train of taught. we should neglect the statue of liberty simply because it isn't proportional to the \"ULTIMATE\" goal of economic stability. The statue of liberty as we all know it, is a symbol of both patriotic as well as personal value. The same statue of liberty brings in approximately $40,000 - &70,000 annually, however we neglect the fact that the statue of liberty needs maintenance. \"Again, this is a non-sequitar comparison and therefore should not be considered. The purpose of a penny is not the same as the purpose of the Statue of Liberty. My opponent is saying that anything that does not contribute to the good of the economy whilst I am saying that monetary mediums such as pennies should be eliminated is they do not contribute to the good. \"This might be seen as the logical thing to do, however, we must look into the fact that the like I mentioned in my first NC and this rebuttal, It is harder for people to give up their(sic) penny than to give up their(sic) nickel. If you were to eliminate every penny in the making, giving up the nickel would be even harder because the nickel can now be seen as the only way to complete a purchase (all item will now be rounded to the nearest 5 cents). \" >\"giving up the nickel would be even harder because the nickel can now be seen as the only way to complete a purchase\"My opponent does not realize that keeping the penny would make \"giving up the [penny] harder because the [penny] can now be seen as the only way to complete a purchase. \" However, as my opponent mentioned the success of the Penny Drive, obviously that claim is false and the nickel would be just as easily given up. \"If 84 people give a nickel to the charity organization, then it is also likely that 8400 people would give the penny. \"Sadly, my opponent misunderstood my calculations. My opponent has no justification as to why 8400 people donating a penny could be as likely as 84 people donating a nickel but I do for my calculations. Take situation A where donors only donate pennies and situation B where donors only donate nickels. As previously stated by my opponent himself, 15.5% of American people are of the lower class and would have trouble donating a single nickel (which I personally find difficult to believe unless those individuals had absolutely no idea of the severity of poverty around the world. Most of America's homeless are better off thank some average people of third world countries. ) and so mathematically speaking, 100% - 15.5% = 84.5% would be able to donate a nickel. For the sake of easy math, let's say that situation A has 1000 donors all capable of donating a penny. However, since situation B donors are donating nickels, we must take into consideration the lower class who are reluctant to give that nickel. Therefore, situation A would have 1000 people whereas situation B would only have 845 people. Situation A would make 1000 x $0.01 = $10. Yet, Situation B would make 845 x $0.05 = $42.25. So mathematically, asking for a nickel would not only be more profitable but also it would help the mission of the charities which my opponent was concerned about. Evidence for the JC PENNY claim: >($655508.54 asking for pennies) x (84.5% of people rather than the complete 100%) x (5 as that is the amount of times a nickel is worth over a penny) = $2,769,523.58 The price here comes out to be more because above, I approximated 84.5% to 84 in favor of my opponent because there is no such thing as .5 of a person. However, this time I took into consideration 1000 people providing a more accurate result. My opponent misunderstood my claim that \"$7.02 as $6.98\" would be just as likely. It is saying that the probability of an item costing $7.02 would be the same as an item costing $6.98 and therefore would both round to $7.00 cancelling each other out. Nowhere did I mention a percentage of 6.98% or if my opponent made a mistake typing the dollar sign, if he read more carefully, he would see that I never stated that an item would round down to $6.98. The fact that a business normally makes 3,000 sales makes the statistical probability of rounded prices cancelling each other greater and more ideal. My opponent misunderstood my question to him. The only way you could pay for something worth $0.04 or $0.07 (two of four prices that would round up or down to $0.05) would be with 4 pennies or 1 nickel and 2 pennies whereas $0.05 would only take one nickel. There would be more hassle. Similarly, that can be said about any value whether it be $0.84 or $0.87 compared to $0.85. My claim is that, paying for any price would only require at most, 1 nickel (because of the existence of dimes and quarters) whereas a with pennies, the most would be 4. Also, as I mentioned above, taking the time to add up the correct change with these coins would be worth it because of their larger face value. So I ask again, why would production of the nickel be necessary? Ultimately, I believe the penny should be eliminated because it does not serve its purpose as a monetary medium. If you had a Engineer who was bad at engineering but a great artist, wouldn't you move him to the art department? Similarly, if a penny is a poor monetary system, it should go where it belongs: in a museum. I thank my opponent for willing to debate with me in my first debate. I thank every one of you who took time to read through our debate. And have a very merry Christmas. Sources:[1] . http://www.tpk.govt.nz... [2] . http://moneyrelease.com...", "qid": "45", "docid": "1a13d72d-2019-04-18T18:34:18Z-00001-000", "rank": 17, "score": 106578.0}, {"content": "Title: The Penny Content: 1. My opponent argues that pennies stay in currency a long time, making it worth the 1.8 Pennies it costs. We'll just because it stays in currency longer does not make it more valuable. I honestly don't see how that would make anything more valuable. My argument last round (sorry for the confusion) was that even if we had to make five dollar bills 25 times more often it would still be more cost effective then the penny. Simply because It cost practically nothing to make paper but copper costs a decent amount of money, and to top it all off the five dollar bill is worth about 500 times more valuable then the penny. 2. The penny has no buying power but is used in currency quite a bit. But for what reason? Somebody might say to make exact change but eventually the money used to make this change is simply not worth it. My opponent has made no argument against this statement. 3. Our money system is cent based but for what reason? As I said there is almost no value at all to this coin, so why do we pay exact change? The reason is non-existent, the penny is such a small increment that it can't be efficiently used in a transaction requiring more then ten cents, which can't really be used to buy anything at all. The penny can have value if you take a redicolus time collecting them but so can any coin or any other increment of money. You cold still spend the pennies, there just simply wouldn't be any new ones coming in. Though company's will still round to the nearest 5\" eventually. My opponent argues that the penny might gain value but that that claim is 100% false. Inflation will occur until the government stops borrowing and lending money which pretty much means its never going to stop. And if it were it would happen in at least 20+ years, even if inflation stopped now the penny is still not worth it. 1. Many people including my opponent think that rounding to the nearest 5\" would hurt the econemy but its like a game of chance, since the money can be rounded up or down, the overall price over a year would be roughly the same, but again even it was rounded up every single time (which it won't) we would loose an extra 50$ tops in an entire year. 2. I think it's simply the fact that people are very greedy. I think you have conceded this argument but I'm not sure.... So just to recap theses charities won't loose money because people would have to give nickel which would actually probably boost charity income. 3. Well umm... Yeah not really an argument. Summary: Pennies are bad for the econemy because the government literally spends money to make less money and then people are taxed to make up for it. Pennies can't be used to buy anything and are practically useless. The only thing pennies are good for is making exact change but after a while the value the money represents becomes to small to buy anything or bother with. When peope take out pennies to make exact change it just wastes the people's time that are in the line, in is a just a plain out inconvenice we have to pay for with tax dollars. Sources: 1.coins.about.com/od/uscoins/i/penny_debate.htm 2.www.studymode.com/essays/Why-The-Penny-Should-Be-Elimanated-808466.html 3.richerbytheday.com/2008/03/should-the-penny-be-eliminated?.com I have had a lot of fun and thank my opponent for the interesting debate. May the best man win", "qid": "45", "docid": "652f23f4-2019-04-18T17:28:19Z-00001-000", "rank": 18, "score": 105109.0}, {"content": "Title: Should the penny be kept in US currency Content: The removal of the penny will cause an economic breakdown, sure. But so have many other things- and we got over it. The penny is soon going to be obselete, along with most other coins and even bills. Technology is growing by the minute. Credit cards are a more efficient way of payment, as compared to it.", "qid": "45", "docid": "141e3960-2019-04-18T15:20:37Z-00003-000", "rank": 19, "score": 104021.0}, {"content": "Title: Should the penny be kept in US currency Content: The penny may have sounded like a good idea when It was invented, but except for certain transactions of \"$22.01\" it isn't necessary. The penny costs more than it is worth to make! Sure, it would cause a ripple in the world of money, but we can get over that!", "qid": "45", "docid": "141e3960-2019-04-18T15:20:37Z-00005-000", "rank": 20, "score": 103524.0}, {"content": "Title: The US should abolish the penny Content: I would like to thank Forthelulz for accepting this debate On to my arguments: Argument 1: Pennies are a waste of money As of now it takes 1.7 cents to make a penny when a penny is only worth 1 cent. Because the US makes billions of these per year the costs add up. In 2014, around 8,146,400,000 new pennies were made that year. Take the cost and multiply it by the amount of new pennies circulated in 2014 and you get 57 million dollars wasted every year to keep alive this dead currency. That is money that could be used for better things. Even if the cost of pennies were reduced if they were made of something that represents their true nature like plastic, this does not solve the fundamental problem with pennies. Argument 2: Pennies fail as currency Let me build a scenario, you want stuff from a shop keeper. Rather than bartering like savages, you use money as a means of exchange. That is what money is meant to do. Money is used as means to facilitate the transaction of goods. Pennies fail to meet this function that because they are very inconvenient to use. For example, try to pay for $10 worth of groceries with 1000 pennies in your pocket. Even if you just pay in exact change pennies still prove an inconvenience. When you get to the counter and fumble with getting the right amount of pennies, you waste other people\"s time. Pennies not only make transaction of goods more frustrating and inconvenient but in many cases, they also fail as a mean of transacting goods. Say you rather not waste people\"s time and go to a machine to take your pennies and return a good or service. However such machines are virtually nonexistent. Toll booths don\"t accept them, vending machines don\"t accept them, parking meters, laundry machines, or anything else because they aren\"t worth the time and effort to count, transport, and store them. The only machine that exists today that accepts pennies is Coin Star. It is but a leech on the economy that takes 10% of your hard earned cash and returns 90% of money that you should already be able to use. Back then, pennies could actually buy things, but the rising cost of pennies and inflation ultimately makes pennies a useless currency and the reason why most pennies end up in jars. Conclusion: Because of the cost of the US penny and the fact that it fails to facilitate the transaction of goods, we should move on and abandon the penny. Sources: http://www.washingtonpost.com... https://en.wikipedia.org...", "qid": "45", "docid": "7c26af48-2019-04-18T14:43:09Z-00002-000", "rank": 21, "score": 101017.0}, {"content": "Title: Should the U.S. keep the penny Content: She is a comely woman.", "qid": "45", "docid": "87bd157b-2019-04-18T13:37:52Z-00002-000", "rank": 22, "score": 100272.0}, {"content": "Title: The penny should be immediately discontinued. (Kleptin Tourney) Content: No need to apologize, I have many things to juggle as well. First, I will go down the Pro, then the Con 1A Consumer Confidence 1. From Pro case- \"It is a piece of the reform so desperately needed to encourage the economic health of the U.S.\" I interpreted this as \"We have reform-boost consumer confidence and thus encourages growth\". Regardless, the Neg Ground from Germany Card still stands, as I will show. 2. Yes, when talking about future events, especially future economic events one usually does not use a \"definitely will\" or something to that affect; the future is just too unpredictable (see random giant drop in stocks just yesterday that no one can figure out what caused.) If the German Finance minister was not sure of his proposal, it would have never been brought up. Unless you can give evidence to the contrary, the German evidence wins. Which brings me to the 2nd part of this rebuttal. First, just as there may be a group to get rid of the penny, there are also groups to KEEP the penny. [1] In fact, 2/3 of Americans want to keep the penny.[2] So, statistics only point toward a con vote on this point. 1A Counter-plan 1. No, the counter-plan solves for your harm. The higher cost is caused by the raised price of zinc. At the point where the metal that pennies are made out of is changed, your harm disappears. 2. I will cover how your supposed cost A has no proof of existence, and B even still is nothing compared what would be spent if your plan passes 3. I figured it would be easier and less abusive for the aff to just debate replacement, rather than me find a random metal and PIC out of the Aff. However, if my opponent wishes, I choose aluminum A. We have ample supply. In fact, 1500 aluminum cans are thrown away per second just by the US [3] B. Its cheaper than zinc and copper, cutting off the Aff's harms[4] 1B 1. Cheaper than all other forms of transaction. Meaning if a cash transaction with or without pennies goes from .07 to 10 Billion dollar cost, then debit card would bring in a cost of over 40 billion (over 4 times as costly as cash) assuming your cost analysis is your correct. Basically, your first contention is nothing compared to potential costs even if it is correct 2. I will address the \"cost\" a bit later and the whole point is that even if it is correct, its non-unique. NACS 1. Yes and the search results for penny on the sight bring up nothing like your claim[5] 2. Even if it is not an official report, if you are correct, it must make an assertion similar to yours SOMEWHERE on the site. However, I fail to see where the assertion is 3. WHAT! OMG!? A society that wants pennies gone says source x agrees with them but doesn't provide a link? How completely reliable and having no chance of bias! The only thing more convincing would be if Marlboro claimed cigarettes don't cause lung cancer!! All jesting aside, I'm calling a proverbial BS on the cost unless you can provide a link from the NACS on this. Until this is done, this argument cannot be accepted on any grounds. 2 CP Cross apply I thought not specific would be better for the aff and I had clarified. Also, if he claims it is abusive to clarify in the 2nd round, he had ample time to ask me to clarify in the comments section BEFORE he posted his round, thus abuse is checked 2 Bright-line I'm sorry, perhaps there was a misinterpretation, or I just was not clear (unfortunately probably the latter). What I meant was: How much debt do we have to lose to \"act freely\" and can you prove that the aff plan would put us on the other side of the bright line and thus allow us to act freely? 2 Human rights 1. Cross Apply Google; they have NO trade or debt obligations and yet there is still conflict between them and China over the great Firewall that is helping China commit abuses 2. Interdependency and free trade with China is key to ending human rights abuses [6] Neg Case C 1 1. Again, cross-apply no proof of cost and the fact that transactions without pennies would COST MORE MONEY thus negating my opponent's contention 1. C2 1. This is in page 4 of my 1st source in round 1. Using the rounding tax accrued, prices would be raised, on average 1/100 of a percent Lombra then just uses analysis from the Congressional Budget Office about a rise in one percent and cross-applies it. It should be noted that the affect would actually be higher, since the study was done in a time of economic prosperity, rather than the shaky times now. Also, extend that this tax would leave consumers with less disposable income and thus lower spending, turning us back from whence we just came out of. 2. Yes, on ONE item the affect would be small. However, over the whole economy the affect is huge, which Lombra goes on to say after the part of the quote you cut out. And again, that's my point. The affect would be LARGER because of the recession we have had and are still recovering from C3 1. Not if you consider the 600 million rounding tax that would have to be paid per year because of it small 2. Again CA all other arguments vs this contention, plus its 2 SECONDS according to your opening case, not cents. 3. Cross-Apply arguments agianst Contention 1 here as this is all he is using to negate this contention 4. Whenever we go completely electronic, this argument will be valid. However, right now, all my opponent has done is said \"yeah that's true, but it does not matter\" However, with these economic times, the amount of cash transactions are RISING as people try to control their spending[7] Thus the harm is there and is growing. [1] http://www.pennies.org... [2] http://www.coinstar.com... [3] http://www.thegoodhuman.com... [4] http://www.metalprices.com... [5] http://www.nacsonline.com... [6] http://www.cato.org... [7] http://news.bbc.co.uk...", "qid": "45", "docid": "5c2fb364-2019-04-18T19:07:11Z-00002-000", "rank": 23, "score": 99406.0}, {"content": "Title: Stop the Minting of the American Penny Content: Thanks to con for relinquishing the last round, and for joining me in this debate.If we look at con's fifth source, which s/he used to stress his/her belief that the US will lose money, we see in exactness why Rodney Bosco, the author of the article, believes this to be the case. Mr. Bosco states that getting rid of the penny, a coin produced with money lost as a result, would \"...increase demand for the nickel, which is also currently produced at a loss\" (p.2). While this is true, simply keeping the penny and changing the contents of it would not be an adequate measure. Perhaps changing the nickel's contents, a coin that has ten times the buying power of the penny, would be (or we could get rid of it too, but that's for another debate, I suppose). Even using the multi-ply plating technology would not be enough. To stress this point, Bosco said that such technology has \"...been successfully used by the RCM to manage circulating coinage for Canada...\"(p.3) - a country that even with this method got rid of their penny three years ago as of this May. I must stress that the penny's content is something that can be changed, but is not worth changing when considering how low its buying power is.As for the argument \"you don\u2019t see people abolishing the car\u2026. Or milk,\" I don't see this as a perfect comparison. Cars provide fast and effective transportation, and milk has nutritional value. Pennies, on the other hand, don't provide the services that they should. Even the argument pertaining to those who use cash to pay for things doesn't have much basis, and I'll explain why: the part about rounding up goes against what I've already said about the myth of the \"rounding tax\" back in Round 2. Most places that have gotten rid of the penny round both up and down, and it's worth mentioning that no significant effect has been shown to the economy and there has been no significant or noticeable rise in prices nor, for that matter, has there been any decrease in charitable donations [1]. It is also worth mentioning that people who are poorer and would use money more are statistically more likely to donate money to charity.Finally, I would like to say that the amount of money earned back from reforming the penny does not reach how much we have lost, as attested by my argument in Round 2.I thank con again for joining me in this debate. Vote for pro.Sources:[1]:", "qid": "45", "docid": "3a3f4e49-2019-04-18T15:16:14Z-00001-000", "rank": 24, "score": 99010.0}, {"content": "Title: Should the penny be kept in US currency Content: Believe it or not, the nickel costs more than it is worth to make too. If you think you're on to something, we'll be increasing our currency by 10x, which usually leads to economical fails. As most people know, a failing economy is not a good sign, and we could be minting trillion dollar bills before we know it!", "qid": "45", "docid": "141e3960-2019-04-18T15:20:37Z-00004-000", "rank": 25, "score": 97742.0}, {"content": "Title: The use of pennies in the US pricing system should be eliminated. Content: Thank you for the quick response. Sadly, my opponent misunderstood me. I do not contradict myself. Yes, I do believe the penny holds a sentimental value. However it should be eliminated because it does not have a benefit towards its purpose of facilitating exchange. My opponent forgot to mention the part where I stated, \"If it is of no benefit. .. not facilitating exchange. \" {1} To my opponent, I did incorporate the parts where you stated \"If it is of no benefit. .. not facilitating exchange. \"{1} To Voters as well as my opponent, the biggest flaw made by my opponent within this statement is the use of the word \"facilitate\". Facilitate means to \"Make (an action or process) easy or easier. \"{2} With this said, we can clearly see that the penny under my opponents term and use of the word facilitate, achieves its purpose as it allows for us to access every cent of a dollar, which then makes the exchange of goods easier to occur and thus should remain. \"eliminating the penny is not equivalent to abolishing the American Flag because whereas the American Flag's purpose is to serve as a \"symbolic of nationhood and identity,\"[1] the true purpose of the penny or any money in general is to \"function as a medium of exchange when it is used to intermediate the exchange of goods and services. . .. .My opponent's comparison between the eliminating of the penny with abolishing the American Flag is a non-sequitar comparison and should not be considered. \"{1} How is this comparison invalid? Yes, I admit the fact that the American Flag achieves its purpose in terms of patriotic symbol of nationhood and identity, but like stated earlier, the penny also achieves its purpose of facilitating the exchange process as well as achieving its sentimental purpose. In conclusion, eliminating the penny, is equivalent to eliminating the American Flag. \"Again, this is a non-sequitar comparison and therefore should not be considered. The purpose of a penny is not the same as the purpose of the Statue of Liberty. My opponent is saying that anything that does not contribute to the good of the economy whilst I am saying that monetary mediums such as pennies should be eliminated is they do not contribute to the good. \"{1} My opponent misunderstand's the reason for making this comparison. In his second rebuttal, my opponent stated that \"Our economy is suffering with, as I stated above, at least $15 billion from time wasted with these pennies. \"{1} This comparison was made to attack my opponents argument that since the penny is disproportional to our economic goals, then it should be eliminated. This comparison is simple trying to convey to both my opponent and the public, that just like the statue of liberty that does not comply to our economic goal, we should not eliminate the penny, as it achieves its purpose in both facilitating the economy and sentimental value and commemoration of the past president. \"My opponent does not realize that keeping the penny would make \"giving up the [penny] harder because the [penny] can now be seen as the only way to complete a purchase. \" However, as my opponent mentioned the success of the Penny Drive, obviously that claim is false and the nickel would be just as easily given up. \" This statement completely contradicts my opponents stand within this debate. My opponent through out this debate constantly stated that the penny is worthless and thus would be easier to neglect and many places do not accept the penny, now he is saying that people will hesitate to donate a penny. In terms of penny drive and its Success using the nickel, my opponent although asked in my previous argument to show his evidence fails to do so. So his claim that the nickel would be as easily giving up should be seen as simple opinion without evidence. \"Sadly, my opponent misunderstood my calculations. My opponent has no justification as to why 8400 people donating a penny could be as likely as 84 people donating a nickel but I do for my calculations. Take situation A where donors only donate pennies and situation B where donors only donate nickels. As previously stated by my opponent himself, 15.5% of American people are of the lower class and would have trouble donating a single nickel (which I personally find difficult to believe unless those individuals had absolutely no idea of the severity of poverty around the world. Most of America's homeless are better off thank some average people of third world countries. ) and so mathematically speaking, 100% - 15.5% = 84.5% would be able to donate a nickel. For the sake of easy math, let's say that situation A has 1000 donors all capable of donating a penny. However, since situation B donors are donating nickels, we must take into consideration the lower class who are reluctant to give that nickel. Therefore, situation A would have 1000 people whereas situation B would only have 845 people. Situation A would make 1000 x $0.01 = $10. Yet, Situation B would make 845 x $0.05 = $42.25. So mathematically, asking for a nickel would not only be more profitable but also it would help the mission of the charities which my opponent was concerned about. \" My opponent has no justification to say that these much people will be willing to donate there nickel so in the same term, how is he to say that over 18,000 people will be able to donate a penny compared to the 100 people who donate the nickel. The point is that since I provided evidence showing that pennies are more likely donated than nickels, my scenario clearly overturns my opponent's scenario. \">($655508.54 asking for pennies) x (84.5% of people rather than the complete 100%) x (5 as that is the amount of times a nickel is worth over a penny) = $2,769,523.58 The price here comes out to be more because above, I approximated 84.5% to 84 in favor of my opponent because there is no such thing as .5 of a person. However, this time I took into consideration 1000 people providing a more accurate result. \" This makes absolutely no sense. I asked for evidence not personal calculation. As for the 84.5% middle and upper class, who is to say that they wouldn't give the charities pennies because they asked for pennies. The 15.5 lower class evidence was not to show how many people donates, but to show the percent of people who would be greatly affected by the elimination of the penny. \"My opponent misunderstood my claim that \"$7.02 as $6.98\" would be just as likely. It is saying that the probability of an item costing $7.02 would be the same as an item costing $6.98 and therefore would both round to $7.00 cancelling each other out. .. The fact that a business normally makes 3,000 sales makes the statistical probability of rounded prices cancelling each other greater and more ideal. \" Following my opponents new calculation, this completely goes against his idea that a coin is in existence to facilitate the economy. If the penny already makes it easier to complete an exchange, then why eliminate it? Also my opponents scenario is highly unlikely as producers are more likely to round up rather than down. so the $7.02 item would be rounded to $7.05 and since the $6.98 item is round up to $7.00, then the overall consumer is now loosing $1,200 following the 3000 costumer scenario. This means that the elimination of the coin will defeat my opponents main purpose of eliminating the penny, as exchange is now harder for the consumer. Voters: I win because I showed how the penny facilitates the process of exchange. I win because I showed that the penny has other value other than its face value. I win in argument as I defended as well as attacked my opponents arhuments My opponent drops some of my arguments such the argument that eliminating the penny hurts the poor, and the argument that eliminating the penny means an increase production of the nickel which cost more to produce than the penny. SOURCES IN COMMENT. (ran out of character space) Thank you!", "qid": "45", "docid": "1a13d72d-2019-04-18T18:34:18Z-00000-000", "rank": 26, "score": 97383.0}, {"content": "Title: Should the U.S. keep the penny Content: At least your mom is free", "qid": "45", "docid": "87bd157b-2019-04-18T13:37:52Z-00003-000", "rank": 27, "score": 97177.0}, {"content": "Title: Pennies should not be abolished and are necessary to stabilise the economy. Content: According to http://www.pennies.org... Penny keep high prices in check, not only that but many charities are fueled by the power of the penny. Realistically if the penny was gone companies would not round down to the nearest penny, but up costing the consumers money! Sure it costs about 2.2 pennys to make a penny, but really you would be paying about three cents extra for every time they rounded up when you bought something. We also honor Abraham Lincoln, so in a way its American tradition. The penny has value who honestly never tried to put pennys in a piggy bank you would be surprised!", "qid": "45", "docid": "c5a30943-2019-04-18T16:06:11Z-00000-000", "rank": 28, "score": 96365.0}, {"content": "Title: The US should abolish the penny Content: I believe we should keep the penny around.", "qid": "45", "docid": "7c26af48-2019-04-18T14:43:09Z-00003-000", "rank": 29, "score": 95877.0}, {"content": "Title: Pennies should stop being produced in the U.S. Content: Please extend my arguments across.", "qid": "45", "docid": "42633cc5-2019-04-18T16:25:30Z-00001-000", "rank": 30, "score": 95105.0}, {"content": "Title: The U.S. should stop the production of pennies. Content: I feel as though you are just repeating your argument over and over instead of debating both of our views and opinions. Greatly reducing the amount manufactured has quite different outcomes as retiring a form of currency. With the reduction they will still be in use and all of our old pennies (literally billions of dollars worth) and not make them obsolete like they would be if the penny was retired. In rebuttal to your conclusion: a. They still do have a use however (keep costs at more of an exact number) b. Which is why we re-create the penny out of new materials. New materials = new value if done correctly c. Not necessarily, they are used in almost every single purchase we make. d. Like I've already stated, make them out of cheaper more abundant materials e. Another thing you never gave me a response to my response about... Find a less toxic material that can be used in the creation of a new penny f. Whatever money they are taking from us for pennies they could easily put into something else like the salary for those in government. I guarantee that if they cease production of pennies that they will not take less money from us, they will just find a new place to waste it. Yep.", "qid": "45", "docid": "261deb04-2019-04-18T13:26:46Z-00000-000", "rank": 31, "score": 94976.0}, {"content": "Title: Should the penny be kept in US currency Content: Many economic breakdowns have resulted in the collapse of countries. My opponent clearly said we could get over it however may I argue that the Soviet Union, one of the two superpowers in the world at that time, experienced an economic collapse. This crisis was one of the key factors to the fall of the Soviet Union and the rise of Russia. Next comes lack of military. Any \"ripple in the world of money\" can cause a serious impact on the military. As I speak the US is in war with ISIL, and having an economic crisis will not benefit us as all. The penny also should not be taken from the US currency because, as you said, we might have to resort to credit cards, but remember this. Many shops don't accept credit cards, the shops will experience a downfall in what they can do, and many places will go out of business, causing more and more to do the same.", "qid": "45", "docid": "141e3960-2019-04-18T15:20:37Z-00002-000", "rank": 32, "score": 94788.0}, {"content": "Title: The U.S. Penny Should Be Abolished Content: Although Con did defy my rules, Con messaged me in a friend request his/her apologies. Voters, please do not take off points as long as Con does not do it again. Con, if you would, please repost your arguments when it is your turn. I don't care if you copy and paste what you had written, as long as you stay with the format. Anyway, onto my arguments. I have two main arguments for my case, both of which are comprised of smaller points. My first main argument is that U.S. pennies are just a drag on not only the economy, but all of us in general. My first proof is that pennies just aren't worth the time to earn them. The average hourly wage for workers was $22.33 in 2013 (Source: http://www.bls.gov...). That means more than a cent every two seconds, and five cents every ten seconds. Even if you use the median wage, the calculations are still very close. It takes such a little time to earn pennies that it wouldn't affect finances if it was removed. As further proof that pennies aren't worth the time, look to the grocery store. In the U.S., unlike other countries, the tax isn't included on the price tag. The vast majority of people just can't do the math in their head without a calculator, and most just wait until the checkout to find the true price. This means it takes time to count out the pennies, wasting time. It may not seem very important, but it could make a huge difference if pennies were removed. As a matter of fact, there's relatively little that pennies are used for now. No modern vending machine accepts pennies. The only one that does is Coinstar, which is a machine that takes your coins and gives you them back, with a slight amount taken away. Essentially, it is an ATM for solely coins. Lastly, it would benefit the U.S. economy to get rid of pennies. Pennies cost more to make than their face value (no pun intended) (Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com...). There is potential of saving money by getting rid of the penny. Con, if you would, please re-post your arguments. I will even allow you to add new ones as long as they are not rebuttals.", "qid": "45", "docid": "953ebf14-2019-04-18T15:12:14Z-00004-000", "rank": 33, "score": 94253.0}, {"content": "Title: The Penny Content: Arguments 1. I don't fully understand my opponents argument here. It cost 1.8 pennies to make one Penny so you actually loose the repeat use because, before there was 1.8 pennies and now There is one penny. My opponent argues that now you can reuse the penny making it worth it. Well not exactly, every time you make a new penny the value of the old ones less. Just because the penny last longer don't mean it's still not a waste, every time the government literally spends money to make less money the citizens are taxed to make up for it. I don't agree that the reuse adds value either because even if paper money needs to made more often it still cost less by proportion. 2. My opponent agrees that the penny has no buying power. 3. Ahhh... To the good part. To get the price just right the cash has to be divisible by smaller units so you don't over pay. But it cant be divided forever because at some point the value it represents becomes to small to buy anything with or to bother with. Yes there is nothing to make that up with but eventually it just doesn't matter anymore. Whats the point of exact change if you cant buy anything with the change? You would need 25 pennies to buy a ball of gum if the machines actually excepted them. Rebuttal 1. It will takes some work with fixing up prices, but the simplest method would be by rounding the prices (with tax) to nearest five cents or maybe fixing the sales tax percentage. 2. I don't think there will be a shortage of money towards the Salvation Army or any charity for that matter. If on average for every five donators, three donators don't give any money but two give them nickels instead, the Salvation Army just made twice as much. Another point is that one penny again really doesn't make a difference, if two thousand people brought one penny that would be twenty dollars and honestly wouldn't help homeless people at all. 3. Nickels are rarely used and are bad for the economy so I probably would, but I haven't done enough research to confirm this and it's best to take one thing out at a time. If you ask about sources I'm planning on putting them on the last round, I anticipate your next argument and wish you good luck :)", "qid": "45", "docid": "652f23f4-2019-04-18T17:28:19Z-00003-000", "rank": 34, "score": 94143.0}, {"content": "Title: The penny should be immediately discontinued. Content: I will attack his case first then defend mine. 1st Cont:It is a waste of money. when you think about it food is a waste of money as well. Why should we pay thousands a year to other people/countries to grow food when we can grow it ourselves? So pennies are a small waste of money, but was it a waste, once again, to build the monuments? 2nd Cont:They are a waste if time. If they are a waste of time why do we continue to make them? We make them because they help to even our money transactions. We can't just round everything to to nearest nickel, because then half of the products would be MORE expensive then before, therefore wasting cash as well. We need the penny to help keep the current prices steadier then they would be otherwise. 3rd Cont:We would lessen dependence on China. Maybe we would but then we would relie more on the countries making the other ingredients for other coins, like steel(iron), nickel, and we would still need alot of zinc. 4th Cont:Penny has no value. The 58% of people who save them are saving them for a reason...to spend them! Therefore, more money into the economy in a bigger amount. and the whole germ situation, that WILL NEVER CHANGE. Dollar bills are made of linen, a very easy-to-contaminate cloth that holds even more germs then the penny, therefore if we went off hygiene, we hould eliminate currency altogether. O.k., now i will defend my case. Argument, the U.S. would be in danger of breaking apart. The penny will not be the reason for the destruction of the U.S. The trillions of dollars of national debt will do it. Those amount grow by THOUSANDS of DOLLARS, not by pennies.", "qid": "45", "docid": "64d27e41-2019-04-18T19:38:48Z-00003-000", "rank": 35, "score": 93981.0}, {"content": "Title: Pennies should stop being produced in the U.S. Content: 1. Well that's great, but I don't really care that you use pennies for garage sales. (Wait, garage sales are still a thing? Really?) Considering that we're thinking in terms of actual businesses and services. 2. It's just a 1 or 2 cent difference, I doubt that's much of a problem.3. Hey, I don't like the nickel either, but lets be real here; it's impossible to think we can actually get rid of the nickel.", "qid": "45", "docid": "42633cc5-2019-04-18T16:25:30Z-00003-000", "rank": 36, "score": 93928.0}, {"content": "Title: Pennies should stop being produced in the U.S. Content: I extend all of my points.", "qid": "45", "docid": "42633cc5-2019-04-18T16:25:30Z-00000-000", "rank": 37, "score": 93840.0}, {"content": "Title: The U.S. should stop the production of pennies. Content: Maybe instead of simply cutting the production, we greatly reduce the number of pennies manufactured each year, use a much more readily available (non-toxic) resource, and possibly offer to anyone who brings in their copper pennies (to be refined and used where it's more needed) an equivalent in U.S. currency with the new form of penny. It seems like a lot of work but I still believe all the changes to taxes and the effects on economy are much worse. With your stance on how they should be \"retired because they are practically worthless\" there are some problems as well. You said there is approximately 13 billion pennies produced each year which equals 130 million dollars worth of pennies. If they were retired then that would be 130 million dollars wasted on their production each year that they've been produced. So retiring them is not a very viable solution. With this I back my main two ideas of reducing the number produced and making them out of cheaper material (but still keep the old copper pennies in use).", "qid": "45", "docid": "261deb04-2019-04-18T13:26:46Z-00002-000", "rank": 38, "score": 93833.0}, {"content": "Title: The US should abolish the penny Content: I believe that the US should abolish the penny for multiple reasons. The person who accepts this is in support of keeping the pennies.", "qid": "45", "docid": "7c26af48-2019-04-18T14:43:09Z-00004-000", "rank": 39, "score": 93470.0}, {"content": "Title: The U.S. Penny Should Be Abolished Content: You make a good point but why should it be abolished Abe must stay here are some reason's first it would be disrespectful to deface a Hero of this proud country its like getting rid of the flag.... The penny might be the lowest form of currency you can have but its still currency getting rid of currency might not go so well what if you need exact change but that's not the point defacing a President is down right disrespect and a great one at that a true American hero but when it comes to the digital age where there are just credit cards and debit cards and bit coins I don't mean today I mean in 50 years where there is only digital things I still want to dig into my pocket and find a nice shinny Abe and remember how far we have come.", "qid": "45", "docid": "953ebef5-2019-04-18T15:39:05Z-00006-000", "rank": 40, "score": 92945.0}, {"content": "Title: Should the U.S. keep the penny Content: I think we should keep the penny, because if not then yo momma will have to raise her price to a nickel. And what yo momma gives me is only worth 3 cents. So yo momma would be getting a free 2 cents every time she services me.", "qid": "45", "docid": "87bd157b-2019-04-18T13:37:52Z-00004-000", "rank": 41, "score": 92110.0}, {"content": "Title: The penny should be immediately discontinued. Content: Okay after a long hiatus, I am back again and ready to rumble. I must unfortunately begin with the almost obligatory request that voters vote for whom did the better debating rather than with whom you agree with. With that out of the way I will first present my case before moving on to my opponent's. 1. Direct waste of money According to Citizens for Retiring the Penny (http://www.retirethepenny.org...) , the U.S. Mint produces about 7 billion pennies ($70 million) every year at a cost over $100 million. Thus, we directly lose at least $30 million a year producing the penny. And with the rising cost of zinc, that deficit will only grow. 2. Waste of time (= indirect waste of money) The National Association of Convenience Stores and Walgreen's drug stores estimated that pennies waste 2 to 2.5 seconds per each cash transaction. If we estimate that each person goes through two of these transactions per day (which seems rather low) and that on average there is one person waiting in line (which once again seems low). This makes for 3 persons' time to be wasted (cashier, penny finder, person in line). We can then calculate that the presence of pennies wastes (2 transactions/day) X (2 seconds/transaction) X (3 people per transaction) = 12 seconds per day, or 1.2 hours per person per year. Of course, when you get home you still have to find something to do with your pennies, meaning that probably only about half of the wasted time is directly connected with a cash transaction (the other time is associated with counting pennies etc), giving a total of 2.4 wasted hours per person per year. The mean wage in the US is approximately $17/hour, implying that each of us is effectively \"paying\" $40 per year to keep pennies in circulation. Given that the US has ~ 240 million adults, using pennies is currently costing the nation $10 billion per year. Thus, the penny costs us $10,030,000 per year. While this may seem small compared to the total national debt, every little bit helps. In fact, if no cost cutting measures were taken other than retiring the penny, the current debt would be erased in 959,619 years! 3. China dependence The reason for influx of the price make pennies is the main ingredient: zinc. And guess who is the world's largest exporter of zinc\u2026 you guessed it: China! With every penny we make, we further increase our economic dependency on China. So retiring the penny would also make our economy more independent. Now to my opponent: My opponent has one argument: that the nostalgic value of the penny cannot be ignored, comparing it to various monuments in D.C. I will contend the actual nostalgic value in a second but first we must see that keeping the penny could in fact result in the end of it. As I have shown, we are losing tremendous amounts of money due to the penny. This annual loss helps push our economy helping to lead to a recession or a depression. When you have depression, countries are in danger of breaking apart. If the U.S. were to cease to exist so would the penny, so either way we lose any nostalgic value. Now I contend that there is no value to the penny. Considering that 58% of people save pennies rather than spend them, the new penny philosophy seems to be the one found in this Ashfield comic: http://www.ashfieldonline.com... rather than the one my opponent is indicating. As I have shown why the penny should be discontinued I bid adieu until my opponent responds.", "qid": "45", "docid": "64d27e41-2019-04-18T19:38:48Z-00004-000", "rank": 42, "score": 91943.0}, {"content": "Title: Stop the Minting of the American Penny Content: Yea sorry about the mishap. Thanks for being understanding though. That being said, this will be my last round for arguments, so I will respond to the Pro side\u2019s last post and provide more clarity on my position. Section 1: The Penny has an Economic Impact in Industry, and Industry Tries to Help. In my last round, I reported that if the penny suddenly stopped being produced, that there would be a significant impact in the zinc industry that could cause large contracts with the government to be essentially voided. One such contract is with Jarden Zinc Products[1][2], who currently have contracts worth millions with the government to produce such pennies, and such voiding of coins for production would significantly have an impact on this industry. These companies don\u2019t try and stifle the American government either, as such industry uses modern technology to reduce the cost of the manufacturing. Multi-ply plating technology is now used to reduce cost when compared to through alloy coins, and makes these coins possess a unique electro magnetic signature (EMS) which provides for greater coin security.[1] So yes I see the Pro\u2019s side in that robotics can help manufacture durables (or pennies for this debate) cheaper, and that\u2019s great, but against Pro\u2019s argument, you don\u2019t see people abolishing the car\u2026. Or milk. It takes people to come up with such testing and technologies to try and achieve ideas to manufacture better, so yes this is not only jobs being lost, but innovation as well. Section 2: Financial Impact of the Penny\u2019s Absence If the penny were to cease production, there would be many undesired consequences from this action that would be counter-intuitive from the Pro side, but would quickly become devastating realities for the general public. Intrinsically, if the penny were to be removed from production, there could be no way to sustain prices realistically without rounding to the nearest 5 cent piece. Millions of transactions are managed every day in the United States, and with 28% of Americans either not owning a savings/checking account, or trusting on payday lending services[3]. With this data, the amount of cash/coin trades each day is purely not dismissible, not withstanding that cash is used in 46% of all transactions in the U.S[4]. Demographics with comparatively low incomes (predominantly the young, elderly, and minorities) use cash more commonly than people with higher incomes. Because only cash dealings will be subject to rounding, any move to eradicate the penny would be regressive and hurt these demographics of Americans who have no other choice and do not possess the means to make non-cash transactions. According to one report[5], the Treasury would essentially lose money without the penny. First, the Mint's construction and circulation costs include fixed elements that will continue to be incurred whether or not the Mint manufactures the penny. The report approximates this fixed component at $13 million (2011). In addition, there is $17.7 million in operating costs apportioned to the penny that would have to be engrossed by the remaining denominations of circulating coins without the penny. Moreover, under present Mint accounting, the nickel expenses eleven cents to produce (and the nickel isn\u2019t even being targeted in this debate). In a scenario where nickel manufacturing doubled without the penny, the study determines that with current fixed costs, abolishing the penny would prospectively result in increased net costs to the Mint of $10.9 million, compared to the current state of manufacturing. Section 3: Proposed Solutions As I previously stated, there are better ways to resolve this debate, and the best way is to make the penny worth 1 cent again. In 1982, the United States changed the composition of the penny to reduce manufacturing costs, and such similar solutions can be found again in contemporary times, ending an outdated 30-year solution. An option that could sustain such reduction is costs calls for a core of some sort of ceramic material, with similar heft as zinc[6]. Ceramics are metal-based and consequently much denser than plastic, though not as heavy as metal itself. Ceramics could be made from 2 inexpensive compounds: silica (SiO2) and alumina (Al2O3, or possibly with a bit of denser oxide such as titanium oxide added for weight. The ceramic penny core likely could be anodized with a copper skin fairly cheapl, thus no longer requiring the use of zinc to manufacture our pennies. Section 4: Current Trends Over the past couple years, the prices of the metals needed to produce the modern penny have actually decreased. According to a report from the Department of Treasury[a], after attaining a peak cost of 2.41 cents in 2011 due to the substantial growth in global metal prices, the cost of manufacturing has dropped to 1.83 cents for 2013.[4] In the 2014 fiscal year, the cost to yield a penny fell additionally to 1.70 cents.Congressman Steve Stivers (R-OH) has introduced a bi-partisan bill to mandate the use of steel in the manufacturing of pennies, dimes, and nickels. . Research has shown this bill could save the U.S. government up to $2 billion in material costs over a 10 years. References: [1]: http://www.export.gov... [2]: http://legacy.utsandiego.com...; [3]:http://www.forbes.com... [4]: http://www.frbsf.org...; [5]: http://financialservices.house.gov... [6]: http://www.livescience.com... [7]: http://riponadvance.com...;", "qid": "45", "docid": "3a3f4e49-2019-04-18T15:16:14Z-00002-000", "rank": 43, "score": 91555.0}, {"content": "Title: The penny should be immediately discontinued. Content: For reader/voter convenience I will go in the same order my opponent does Cont. 1- In order for this response to have a chance to hold water, my opponent first must prove that the United States indeed has the resources necessary to grow enough food for the whole nation. Until my opponent gives proof of this, the food portion of the response must be ignored. If we do not have the facilities to do so, then importing food is certainly not a waste of money as it helps ensure the continuation of the nation. As far as the monuments go, the point of having them is to commemorate the various historical heroes of our country. My point is that we are paying extra money to keep the penny when there is no reason to keep it other than your suggestion of the benefit nostalgic value which I have shown not only to be outweighed by the harm of economic down-fall but that it in-fact does not exist. And as I showed in my first contention, the penny is NOT a small waste of money. Cont. 2- My opponent forgets that the other half of products would go down in his hypothetical situation. However, this is not a viable situation unless stores never changed pricing strategies, sales tax would be eliminated, and people never bought more than one item, all of which randomize rounding. In fact, a recent study(http://www.wfu.edu...) confirms that the effect of rounding would be neutral. Cont. 3- Here my opponent drops that we would lessen our dependence and that that would be beneficial, thus those points stand. He goes off into an illogical point that we would become more dependent on countries making the ingredients for other coins. I ask how is it possible that lowering the need of zinc heightens the need for other metals. Cont. 4- I am sorry, there has been some misunderstanding. When I said the penny has no value, I meant nostalgic value. The stat with 58% saving and the germ reference were simply to point out that people think so little of the penny that they not only put them away rather than keep to spend them but germs actually become a bigger part of the decision of whether or not to pick up a penny off the ground than the value of the penny, actual or nostalgic. (Besides that money \"poured back\" into the economy would just raise inflation.) Last paragraph- Please note I never said that the penny would be THE reason for an economic recession, just a contributor. My opponent concludes by saying that the amount of debt grows \"THOUSANDS of DOLLARS, not by pennies.\" Considering that I have proven that the penny costs us BILLIONS of dollars and this has remained uncontested, this only strengthens my argument. Now, I must wait for my opponent's closing statements.", "qid": "45", "docid": "64d27e41-2019-04-18T19:38:48Z-00002-000", "rank": 44, "score": 91455.0}, {"content": "Title: The US should abolish the penny Content: The problem with pennies as stated in my first argument is that pennies are no longer convenient. Even after that penny in the $0.99 transaction is returned, the penny will most likely end up in a jar dead to the economy not fulfilling its role as currency. The fact that machines such as Coin Star exist that take advantage of the inconvenience and uselessness of pennies to make money off of people just proves my point. Many businesses and organizations recognize the cost of transporting and counting the pennies isn\"t worth it. One of these organizations includes a little organization known as the United States Military, where in overseas bases have banned the use of pennies. They also contradict your definition of consumerism as because those who use exact change to pay for items waste the time of those waiting and overall, the rate at which things are sold decreases. There is a simple answer as to what happens after the penny is abolished. There are many countries around the world including New Zealand, Canada, etc. that have gotten rid of their lowest unit of currency and ended up fine. None of these countries have saw high degrees of inflation or drop in charitable donation. The US could easily take after those countries. Also this sort of process isn\"t anything new to the US as we went through the same process when ditching the half-cent coin in the 1800\"s for the same reasons we should ditch the penny. Abolishing the penny would actually do it good. As the amount of pennies decrease as they are melted, lost, etc. their value begins to increase again. Take a look at the half-cent coin now and they have more buying power than the US dime. Sources: http://www.nytimes.com... http://factually.gizmodo.com...", "qid": "45", "docid": "7c26af48-2019-04-18T14:43:09Z-00000-000", "rank": 45, "score": 91380.0}, {"content": "Title: The penny should be immediately discontinued. (Kleptin Tourney) Content: Thanks for the great debate, Con! :) Pro Case --------------- Pro 1A: Consumer Confidence 1. I wasn't placing a \"definitely will\" burden of proof on said finance minister. However, the quotation itself shows little reason to believe that discarding the penny will lead to imminent downfall of the economy. Furthermore, most of the harms that the Minister cites have to do with not minting low denomination coins, not specifically one-cent coins. The minister's harms come from all coins. Counterplan: 1. My opponent seems to think that we don't spend money to mint anything but zinc. Any metal will cost us money to utilize, so we still spend more than the penny's elimination. 2. Cost stats still stand. See later responses. On Abuse: 1. This is still abusive. My opponent needed to detail the text of his counterplan in the first round, thereby giving us both enough time to properly discuss the merits and drawbacks of using such a metal. This is pretty critical to his counterplan, so claiming that it would be akin to \"picking a random metal\" is just a cop-out. 2. My opponent chose a metal that is actually more expensive, and will remain more expensive, than zinc. Over the last 15 years, aluminum has consistently been more expensive per pound than zinc. [1] Imagine how much worse the harms are at the point where we accept the counterplan. Though my opponent asserts he has a source stating otherwise, even his own source indicates that aluminum is more expensive than zinc (.9369 cash value to .9276 cash value right now). 3. The US aluminum market is incredibly unhealthy. Aluminum exports alone have tanked 43.8% in the last fiscal year. [2] Furthermore, since aluminum is so abundant, we don't have any sort of monopoly potential on it. Furthermore, guess who the number 1 producer of aluminum is? China. [3] Pro 1B: Cash Transactions Cheaper 1. Unless my opponent thinks that debit card, credit card, or check transactions are going away anytime soon, then I'm not obligated to compare the cost of cash transactions to the cost of any other transaction. I still cut spending out of the status quo, and that's all I'm obligated to do. 2. Until my opponent addresses my analysis on cost of using pennies in transactions, we can assume it's extended. Note that my opponent's initial response only states that cash transactions are cheaper than other types of transactions, which does not link at all to the affirmative advocacy. Cash transactions become more expensive when pennies are involved, which was the original argument. The wasted money still remains if you negate, even if you use aluminum. NACS: 1. Search where I told you to, please. First RD 1 source, CTRL F, \"Walgreens.\" It's there. I promise. 2. Call B.S. all you want, but that website is just as reliable as any other source in the debate, including your CATO Institute and the blog citations. The man who maintains this website, Jeff Gore, is a physicist at M.I.T. That does give him some sort of professional, academic credibility, don't you think? However, if it'll make my opponent happy, I will email Jeff and ask him for his citation. Pro Contention 2 Cross-Application of Counterplan: 1. Apply all three of my abuse responses to the aluminum counterplan. Fail plan. 2. I'm a she. 3. Doesn't matter how much time I had. This is like waiting until cross-examination to read plan text. It isn't my job to coax his full plan out of him. He made it\u2014he should state it up front. Brightline: My argument is that we already aren't acting freely, but no, I can't fix a $ amount to this. Foreign politics doesn't boil down to solely mathematics, and to expect that of me is downright silly. I do, however, prove conclusively that we are greatly indebted to China, which will in turn affect our foreign policy decisions with regards to not only China, but a number of other key countries. This goes unrefuted. Human Rights: 1. As the CATO Institute author readily admits, \"Although market reforms do not guarantee greater respect for human rights, economic prosperity brought increased pressure for democracy in such countries as South Korea and Taiwan.\" South Korea and Taiwan cannot possibly be compared to China, who, as my opponent mentions, is responding to capitalist expansion into their markets poorly. If this gentleman from the CATO Institute was correct, then the Great Firewall should have been down by now. China has the manpower to lead production, and their economic ascendancy shows this. Encouraging freer trade with such a nation does nothing but entrench their buying and selling power, which in turn encourages the Chinese government to strengthen itself and shirk off the criticisms and actions laid down against it by the likes of the U.S., who are too tied to it to act. 2. My opponent's responses, and the CATO Institute article, conveniently ignore ethical concerns surrounding the issue. By funding such a country, in which the government routinely abuses human rights, we are implicitly compromising our own ideals as a nation by supporting these actions. ---------------- Neg Case ---------------- Neg Contention 1: All my opponent did was re-assert that I can't prove any of my cost stats. That's based on a lack of acknowledgement of most of the sources I used in RD 1 and a challenge of legitimacy to the first source in RD 1. Neg Contention 2: On #1: 1. I don't immediately eliminate the penny. They'd most likely remain in circulation for a while. Immediate harms cannot be accessed by my opponent, which I pointed out in my last response. 2. Extend what I said about inflation being a wash. It still is, no matter how many times my opponent repeats himself. On #2 1. This doesn't answer the response I gave. Lombra is very specific about inflationary impact of the rounding tax. What he says afterwards is that those impacts might cumulate over time, and then cites his \"$2 billion in spending by 2010\" estimate. He doesn't say anything about individual items\u2026? Neg Contention 3: On #1: The price stays raised to cover your rounding tax each year. I don't get why this negates what I said, which is that the tax would only need to make up the 30% profit lost of a 6-7 cent net profit. Even if we assume the worst, an item will never go up more than 2 cents in cost. We only need to aim for the closest \"5\" or \"0\" in a price (i.e. $2.99 is rounded to $3.00, while $2.97 becomes $2.95). On #2: Though the financial implications still remain, I typo'd on cents vs. seconds. My bad. I won't concede the financial impacts of the rounding tax, but I will advocate that you disregard what I said about 2-2.5 cents in the last RD. On #3: My sources are perfectly adequate. On #4 (Theft): 1. My opponent's source only deals in credit cards, not debit cards. Moreover, food stamps are now entirely electronic, though I don't know how much of the transaction market they monopolize (I do know that 19 million people participate in food stamp programs in the US). Debit card transactions in the US are on the rise [4], so I still don't bite those harms to the point of voting against my position. 2. I also asserted that, because the likelihood of carrying all other change vs. the penny has not been properly established, and because I'm not eliminated the use of all coins, the harms won't come to fruition. I don't stop merchants from making totals that require exact change. My opponent hasn't warranted how pricing something at $2.47 is inherently less dangerous than pricing it at $2.45. [1]http://www.infomine.com... [2]http://www.aluminum.org... [3]http://www.aluminum.org... [4] http://www.jsnet.org...", "qid": "45", "docid": "5c2fb364-2019-04-18T19:07:11Z-00001-000", "rank": 46, "score": 91305.0}, {"content": "Title: Pennies should be abolished Content: Pro has the BOP.If we used nickels, Americans would pay a \"rounding tax\" of about $2 billion to $4 billion per year [1]. But Pro wants to abolish nickels, so that tax would surely be much higher. This neutralizes any benefit that comes with the cost of making pennies. Poor people who make small purchases are hurt, as are charities that use penny drivesNext, pennies are sentimental. About two-thirds of Americans want to keep the penny [1]. 1. http://tinyurl.com...", "qid": "45", "docid": "2e7d8f78-2019-04-18T16:06:39Z-00000-000", "rank": 47, "score": 91208.0}, {"content": "Title: The Penny Content: First off, thank you for allowing me to debate this with you. The United States's money is based on a basic cents system, with 1 cent being a unit. The value of the dollar has dropped nearly 80% in the last few decades, and prices have inflated to new highs. Very little can be bought with pennies, and yet they should not stop production, even at the cost of 1.8 cents per cent. Refutations: 1. Pennies cost 1.8 cents to make, which con points out is more then the penny is worth, but does not consider the value of repeat use, especially by something as durable as a penny. Estimates on how long a penny last range from 20-25 years, going through thousands of exchanges, each time adding value to the actual cost of producing the penny. In the end, the penny stimulates the economy far more than the 1.8 cents they cost, lasting 25 years compared to the dollar bill's 18 months of existence. (1) 2. While I disagree that paper money was to make things easier to buy, con is correct, little can be bought solely with pennies. Although I will go into it extensively later, paying with pennies is not their use, but instead is for reaching the exact cost of something. 3. Machines do not accept pennies, as they are not taxed and always round up to a clean number, something prices in stores would not do. As for their usefulness, I would argue that when one pays in cash, just as many or more pennies are exchanged then any other type of bill. Almost any price will come out with tax not a perfect five cent round. If something costs 4:53, you have to add an additional 3 cents, only payable with pennies. If you pay with a five dollar bill, then you will receive at least two pennies in change. There is nothing else you could make up that difference with. Arguments against: 1. If the penny was eliminated, it would make pricing things nearly impossible. Unless every price is rounded to a five cent mark, the only thing you can pay with cash is pennies. Add ever-changing tax to that cost, and it is almost impossible to price anything. Con claims he can refute this, which I will hold them to. I am yet to see a good refutation to this point, and I will be impressed if con has one. 2. Many charities work off pennies, either receiving all their donations or a large percentage of them from pennies alone. Such charities include Habitat for Humanity, World Wildlife Fund, and the Salvation Army. These charities and many more rely on pennies, because of people's willingness to part with pennies. (2) 3. The nickel's value has dropped just as much as the dollar and penny, are rarely used in purchase, and nickels cost 11.2 cents to produce. (3) Would you have them eliminated as well? What nonsense. No, nickels are similar to the pennies, and the arguments are valid for both. We work on a cent system, and eliminating the one cent and five cent are fiscally ridiculous. I will begin with this. Good luck, con! (1) http://www.factmonster.com... (2) http://www.pennies.org... (3) http://www.businessinsider.com...", "qid": "45", "docid": "652f23f4-2019-04-18T17:28:19Z-00004-000", "rank": 48, "score": 91193.0}, {"content": "Title: Pennies should stop being produced in the U.S. Content: Well, all my up front arguments can be found here: This video makes my points a lot clearer and more interesting than I can. Since I share all the points made in the video, refute what's said there and then we can do a actual debate.", "qid": "45", "docid": "42633cc5-2019-04-18T16:25:30Z-00005-000", "rank": 49, "score": 91035.0}, {"content": "Title: The United States should cease production of the penny Content: Accept", "qid": "45", "docid": "35161051-2019-04-18T12:33:43Z-00006-000", "rank": 50, "score": 90986.0}, {"content": "Title: Get rid of pennies Content: Roadmap- I will go over the benefits of the penny then refute my opponents arguments. C1) While individually pennies are not worth much, over time they add up. A) In 2002, Gallup polling found that 58 percent of Americans stash pennies in piggy banks, jars, drawers and the like, instead of spending them like other coins. Some people eventually redeem them at banks or coin-counting machines! So many Americans actually do use the penny. B) Furthermore, the penny is used to raise money by charity organizations. People who would not be willing to part with a larger bill are often willing to give up Pennies. The Leukemia and Lymphoma Society has raised 150 million dollars through its \"Pennies for Patients\" program over 15 years. Without the penny, this cancer research would not have been possible. C2) Pennies help fight inflation \"We think the penny is important as a hedge to inflation,\" says director Mark Weller of Americans for Common Cents. \"Any time you have more accurate pricing, consumers benefit.\" Small business owners and small purchases rely on the penny. Loss of the penny will create inflation and price instability. http://www.offthekuff.com... C3) The rise of credit cards defeats the purpose of rounding coins. The common complaint about pennies is that they are inefficient to use. Credit cards however operate by computer. They can handle as many digits as needed. As credit cards become more common, pennies will be used less. So these disadvantages become less noticeable. Onto my opponents case \"But, in the case of nickels and pennies, the government lost almost $100 million dollars alone in 2007.\" First, I would like to point out my opponent provided no sources for this claim(or any claim he makes). The argument should be discredited on that basis alone. Second, the federal government has a budget of three trillion a year. 100 Million dollars would be .0003 percent of the yearly budget. This would have a virtually unnoticeable effect on the budget (It would save everyone money in the pennies, which as my opponent has abolished would result in no benefit for most tax payers). This is significantly outweighed by the extra money a 99 cent purchase would now cost (1 percent). http://www.wallstats.com... \"So, a simple remedy is to stop minting the Jefferson nickel, and make the Lincoln penny worth five cents\" This part of my opponents case would have a significant negative impact on the economy. Suddenly, every penny a person owns would quintuple in value. The amount of money in the US economy would change. Assuming Congress was even considering passing this bill, there would be a mad dash by consumers to acquire as many pennies as they can. This would create much instability in the market place. In summary, I provide 3 reasons we should keep the penny in circulation, disprove the only reason my opponent actually gives to abolish the penny(100 million spent) and prove how his implementation would hurt the economy far more than it would help.", "qid": "45", "docid": "922d439b-2019-04-18T19:30:51Z-00002-000", "rank": 51, "score": 90963.0}, {"content": "Title: The U.S. should stop the production of pennies. Content: Pennies should be retired because they are practically worthless and cost more to produce than they are actually worth. Over time, pennies have been losing value. Today, there is not much you can buy with a single penny. You may say that you can add them together to get worth, but that takes finding 100 pennies, which is a waste of space and time. A single penny costs 1.7 cents, while only being worth 1 cent, so every penny produced costs the U.S. government 0.7 cents. So about every 143 pennies, the government is losing a dollar. That is just a waste of money and is easily preventable.", "qid": "45", "docid": "261deb04-2019-04-18T13:26:46Z-00005-000", "rank": 52, "score": 90827.0}, {"content": "Title: The penny should be immediately discontinued. Content: When you think of America you think of things like the Statue of Liberty or the sunn beaches of Miami or LA. When it comes to symbols of america though, it is hard to beat the iconinc penny. it is the commenest coin in America and is therefore easy to recognize when you see a penny in the newsparer or ont the internet that it means haing to do with currency. We cannot simply get rid off the penny. That is like blowing up the Lincon Monument or toppling the Washington Monumet. It just simply isn't even thought of.", "qid": "45", "docid": "64d27e41-2019-04-18T19:38:48Z-00005-000", "rank": 53, "score": 90169.0}, {"content": "Title: The USFG should eliminate the penny Content: When the Baby Boomers were young, a penny still had some value. Economist Henry Aaron of the Brookings Institution, a nonprofit research group, reminisces in a 2013 anti-penny screed about paying a nickel for an ice cream cone as a boy. Even during my childhood in the 1980s, there was a candy store not far from our house that sold \"penny candy\" in jars \" one penny for a mini Tootsie Roll, or two for a Mary Jane. Today, there\"s literally nothing you can buy with a single penny \" and you can\"t do much else with it either. Vending machines don\"t accept them, and neither do most parking meters. Even automatic toll booths won\"t take them \" except in Illinois, the home state of President Abraham Lincoln, whose face adorns the coin. And if a single penny is useless, a whole bunch of pennies isn\"t much better. If you try paying for something in a store with a fistful of pennies, you can expect dirty looks from both the clerk and the other customers \" if the store doesn\"t just flat-out refuse to take them. Pennies are so hard to spend that many people don\"t even bother \" they just store them all in jars, or even throw them away. Economist Greg Mankiw of Harvard University argues that pennies are simply no longer useful as a means of exchange: \"When people start leaving a monetary unit at the cash register for the next customer, the unit is too small to be useful.\" There are precedents for getting rid of coins that are too small to use. Back in 1857, the U.S. Mint stopped producing halfpenny coins \" which, according to the historical information calculator at MeasuringWorth.com, had a purchasing power of $0.14 in 2015 dollars. So at the time it was eliminated, the \"useless\" halfpenny could buy as much as 14 pennies can today. If consumers in 1857 could get along without halfpennies, then modern consumers can almost certainly manage without a coin that\"s worth less than one-tenth as much.", "qid": "45", "docid": "b59a9ba7-2019-04-18T11:38:43Z-00000-000", "rank": 54, "score": 90139.0}, {"content": "Title: We should get rid of the penny Content: If you check the link you literally just copy and pasted it...and also first round is acceptance. Sorry if this comes off as rude, but in all honesty I doubt you know much about this topic as you just copy and pasted it. Thanks for accepting my debate though! Also welcome to debate.org (oh and just to clarify by we I mean the US)I will state my arguments for keeping the penny.Argument 1- It costs more to make a penny then it is worth [1]It costs 2.41 cents to make one penny, and approx. 7.4 billion pennies are made each year [2], so do the math and we are wasting over 10360000000 pennies a year, or 103600000 (over 100 million), dollars a year on pennies alone. This is money that could be spent much more effectively, like on public schools! (Another source I found said pennies cost 1.7 cents to produce, which would still equal to over 50 million dollars lost)Argument 2- We already went along fine without something worth one cent [3] According to popular youtuber Hank Green \"..in 1972 a penny was worth what a nickel is worth today, and yet in 1972 the economy managed to function just fine without a coin that was worth 1/5th of a penny.\" It has worked before, it will work again.Argument 3- They are uselessMoney could easily be rounded to the nearest fifth, and are simply not worth the time and effort to take out and fiddle with exact change[1]http://www.usmint.gov... (at the bottom of the page)[2]http://coins.about.com... [3]http://www.youtube.com...", "qid": "45", "docid": "3207095a-2019-04-18T16:54:39Z-00001-000", "rank": 55, "score": 89904.0}, {"content": "Title: The Penny Content: The first one cent coin was made in 1792, theses pennies were made of 100% pure copper. The value of copper went up and inflation made the Penny worth less. So the mint was forced to make penny with less and less copper, until only 5% of it was made of copper. In 2006 the value of older pennies rose over one cent, so pennies were worth more dead then alive. People started melting pennies to sell there copper for profit. In a better efficient, rational world that would have been it for the penny, the american government would have realized there not worth minting and would have been happy there citizens were making profits. Instead copper melting became illegal and we kept making pennies. .. Argument 1 (bad for the economy)We manufacture 4 million Pennies each year even though it cost more to make the penny then the penny is worth. It costs 1.8 pennies to make one Pennie. So 1.8cents = 1 penny. Pennies are bad for the economy and add debt every year. Argument 2 (Pennies are impractical and unneeded) the whole point of paper money is that it's easier to buy things with. Imagine buying twenty dollars worth of stuff with 2000 pennies. The penny's worthlessness will continue to get worse, meaning that it will just continue to get more impractical to buy things with pennies. Back in the olden day pennies could by things, not anymore the penny is not capable of buying anything anymore. Argument3 (Pennies are a waste of time) not a single machine accepts pennies not soda machines, news paper dispensers, vending machines, laundry machines, toll booths or parking meters because there just not worth the time to add and collect them. Since sales tax is not included in the price of items, you don't know the exact change you have to pay until looking at the register. Exact change is not enough to even bother for, because its not worth anything and you just end up wasting everyone else's time who waiting in line. Now I now there's concern about prices increasing once the Pennie is removed. I will prove why that misconception is false next round if my opponent doesn't mention it first.", "qid": "45", "docid": "652f23f4-2019-04-18T17:28:19Z-00005-000", "rank": 56, "score": 89887.0}, {"content": "Title: In the US, pennies should be abolished. Content: I. The Penny costs more than the mint makes it forMy opponent has wasted this round. Look very closely at everything he wrote. He restated his original contention, and I did not argue it, because it's true. The fact of the matter is, even though the US will save a couple million, it will lose 10's of billions.I will give my opponent one more round to not drop my points. The con's far outweigh the pro's in this debate, which are miniscule. I will address the point regardless. The Canadian strategy was to increase and keep inflation above the USD. As soon as they removed the penny, the inflation of the CD fell extremely far. It went from being .06$ more than the USD, to being .09$ below it.Canada is a perfect example of a nation who was hit hard by removing the penny.Do not waste my time in a debate, by droping all three of my contentions", "qid": "45", "docid": "19444029-2019-04-18T16:04:23Z-00004-000", "rank": 57, "score": 89876.0}, {"content": "Title: Should the U.S. keep the penny Content: Getting rid of the penny would actually be beneficial because prostitutes would lower their prices by a nickel to get exact change.", "qid": "45", "docid": "87bd157b-2019-04-18T13:37:52Z-00001-000", "rank": 58, "score": 89521.0}, {"content": "Title: The penny should be immediately discontinued. Content: Once again, same order 1st cont: he seems to have failed to remember that the entire world used to run off the crops they themselves grew, not by other people. And when/if we start importing food, IT WILL COST MONEY, and lots of it, therefore outweighting any small amout we might be overpaying to make the iconic penny. 2nd Cont: Now onto the whole roundung situation. How many products do you see that are like 19.05 or 13.24..little, if any. Most produts are such prices like 19.95, or 14.99. in face maore then half of all products are that way, not exactly half, therefore NOT neutral. 3rd Cont: I did not drop it, i proved we would just switch our dependence from china to other countries, or possibly even stay on china. and if we get rid of all the pennies, then we are going to need to replace them with nickels and dimes. and whatabout when they get too expensive to make, do we get rid of coins until its all bills, then work our way thruogh all the bills until we are all using hundreds to buy a gallon of milk? 4th Cont: The germ issue applies even more to bills then to pennies, once again, bill are made of linen a very easy cloth to contaminate with batcteria. 5th Cont: If it cost BILLIONs of dollar to make pennies, then that must mean the same if not even more with nickels, dimes, quarters, ect. So, in conclusion, i beg you, don;t get rid of the penny, it would be just as unpatriotic as ripping up the Lincon monument, or toppling th eStatue of Liberty.", "qid": "45", "docid": "64d27e41-2019-04-18T19:38:48Z-00001-000", "rank": 59, "score": 89067.0}, {"content": "Title: The United States should cease production of the penny Content: Before I begin refuting my opponent's claims, I would like to point out that he did not attack any of my arguments, merely defended his own. This means the arguments I made still apply, which means that my opponent tacitly agrees to the statements: 1:The penny costs more than 1 cent to make 2:Pennies do not function as a coin. 3:Pennies have essentially zero buying power. 4: Federal Property does not accept the penny 5: The penny is a bipartisan issue. (On my opponent's case): Their #5 argument is not proven correct. These issues by their own merit ceasing production of the penny, en though I will now move on to attack my opponent's case. This first part isn't an argument, and has no place 1:This argument makes no sense. My opponent claims that the penny is .0001% of a dollar, even though it is exactly 1% of a dollar. This argument also makes no claims as to why .0001% of a dollar is a good system for a coin. 2:My opponent claims that the money would be spent inappropriately elsewhere. First off, he supplies no reason why the money would go towards the wrong spending, so it is safe to assume that the money would be spent in equal percentiles of current tax distribution. Second off, the idea that money spent to produce spending would go to illegitimate spending is exactly wrong, because producing pennies is the exact illegitimate spending that my opponent warns against. This means that my opponent agrees spending money on the wrong things is bad, yet refuses to see he is arguing for one of those systems. 3:Yet again, my opponent claims pennies are better economic indicators than the Debt Clock without providing a source of evidence, merely asserting that this is true. Also, the Debt Clock was not a part of his original argument, which means that this is a new argument and not a defense for his older argument, showing that pennies are not good economic indicators. 4:My opponent claims that the nickel will be next, which is not his original argument here. On the contrary, his original argument was about increased cost in bulk purchases, which is false. Also, my opponent claims that nickels are .05 cents, even though they are 5 cents. My opponent finally claims that eventually the nickel will suffer the same fate, and at that point, it would be justified to remove it for the same reasons proven here today. This last statement is not an argument, and also has no evidence to back his claim. At last, I would like to show why the Pro won the debate 1)The Pro defended and attacked all issues presented, while the Con did not 2) The Pro consistently used evidence to prove their side of the debate, whereas the con did not 3) The Pro has shown a consistent understanding of what each coin is worth in relation to the dollar, whereas the Con and repeatedly shown that they do not know the percentiles and costs of each coin.", "qid": "45", "docid": "35161051-2019-04-18T12:33:43Z-00001-000", "rank": 60, "score": 89003.0}, {"content": "Title: The U.S. should stop the production of pennies. Content: If the U.S. greatly reduced the number of pennies manufactured, they might as well just cut production. In conclusion, I believe penny production should be cut because: a. They are practically worthless b. They are losing value c. Waste of time and space d. Cost more to produce then they are worth e. Pollution f. They cause money loss for citizens too Thank You", "qid": "45", "docid": "261deb04-2019-04-18T13:26:46Z-00001-000", "rank": 61, "score": 88935.0}, {"content": "Title: The United States should cease production of the penny Content: Much of this argument will be tied into convincing those who are reading, and can vote. But, like the penny those who cannot vote, still have a valued by opinion in this matter and can be counted by their comment. The penny\"s value is beyond its own self-evident worth it will be proved to be a reflection of our labor. The penny holds a liberty which serves and greater good and is worth in its added cost beyond face value. 1.The Penny is a part of an impartial system of measurement and as a part of the system it is expected to be held as part of its measurement and value. Not a just cost and value. When it shows a negative number by its own profit. It is a part of the overall machine showing wear or abuse in that system. The penny is simply just .0001% of a dollar. The measurement outside of its well-known value is a direct relationship to our method of keeping time. Its transposition is to the ten-thousands by volume. 2.The pricing of metal makes it profitable to harvest pennies out of an economy. The obligation behind all taxation is immediately to the United States Connotation Separation process. The removal of the penny means an instant pay raise for inappropriate spending. Spending which should have been going to safeguarding the harvesting of United States Private Property, its penny and the value by weight of metal. The pennies copper or metal is incapable of self-regulation. The Federal Reserve Note in line behind every penny most certainly has this ability. It only fails when squandered elsewhere. 3.The penny is an economic indicator to inflation it is part of a clock system. I have recently started argument that the national Debt Clock is indeed inaccurate. Part of the inaccuracy is how it aligns Debt spending by its lowest value. The mistake is in increments. The lower values in debt accurately run backwards as mentioned in my opening reason the penny has a negative transposition valued at Ten-Thousand. The hard thing to want to take is this measurement is for loss not profit. In the Axiom of GOD we TRUST, the reason for this somewhat obscure logic all people want to know about the possibility of loss first as an indication or warning. 4.The pennies worth for harvest was not always 1 cent it was driven by inflation. When the pennies is gone that means the nickel is next in the line of inflation driven harvesting. Instead of 1 cent it will be .05 cents which is taken. The Government has always operated by rounding up to the nearest .05 cents. To justify this action which can destabilizes an impartiality, how any-one can say this action of round up has improved cost is hiding the examples of its overall performance. After all the Governing body has been collecting four times more than the rest of the Nation and the rising spending provides us with a quarter or less in stability or progress.", "qid": "45", "docid": "35161051-2019-04-18T12:33:43Z-00002-000", "rank": 62, "score": 88854.0}, {"content": "Title: Gettin rid of pennie's Content: Just because the penny will be soon forgotten and people will not care about it after awhile does not mean that it must go. The penny and other discontinued change have been forgotten these day's because the people hve been forced to forget! It's gone, no more of it and common people have no say to bring it back to life so they forget. The other chnge that hs been discontinued like the half penny, was just a smll part of the money business, except the penny was a big part, it filled in anywhere when you did not have the extra, Exmple would be an item cost's 2.87$ well you could use a toonie, three quarter's, two nickel's, and a penny. The penny was a steping stool for learning how to count money, it was easier to remember the one plus one plus one... And now the little children are expected to count by five's straight off when they learn about money, it will be hard, plus they will have to learn the rounding you'r supposed to do of a price if it's in need of a penny. Don't forget the old foak's either, like they say you can't teach an old dog new trick's.", "qid": "45", "docid": "8bcc4a46-2019-04-18T17:43:27Z-00002-000", "rank": 63, "score": 88716.0}, {"content": "Title: The United States should cease production of the penny Content: Pro had set path of instruction for how he felt the debate should go. Con did everything within an ability to follow that instruction. Pro made all legitimate claims for reason to stop minting the penny. I agree, I too felt the penny should go at one time. Why attack a legitimate claim that is actually part of the job the penny is used for, something I did not know at the time. Just as the cost of production is a gauge on a much larger machine. Yes it cost more to make then the materials it is made of. There can be a hundred good reasons to hurt someone justification never makes it right just necessary . 1.Pro is incapable of understanding what the actual pennies value is. It is unclear if I can explain it to every-on let alone just one person. I will try any-way. The penny is the same as the small line on a clock that equals seconds. These lines cost more than they are worth to put on the clock, we actually don\"t need them. Why have they? Simple they are part of that measurement device. Do you have to use them? No! Of course not. Do other people need them? 1.(A) The people who use the penny the most do not always touch the penny. So it is understandable how some-one does not know that a penny is actually a negative number outside cost in an economy gauge (measurement). It is not just one number it is two numbers, first number is .01 the second number is .0001. 100 points of measurement make up one dollar multiply that 100 by, 0001 and the answer is .01 one-penny. This argument and number three are connected. 2. The money is being sent inappropriately, not will be. One of the highest cost of the penny is not the production of the penny it is enforcing the law that should have protected the penny. The penny has been used as an inexpensive way to mine metals directly out of an economy. This is where a 2.41 cost ratio of roughly 3 to 1 is minimal as the cost to enforce the law is substantially higher. This cost can be seen as $3.00 dollars or greater to every .01 penny in production. ( 300+ / 1 ) It is this cost which has been squandered on other things. 3.The penny has lost its buying power. It was lost, it had buying power at one time. There had been many things a penny could by with its value. Where did it go? Pro should be telling is why we do not want that buying power back. Not telling us why he or others do not want to do the work to get that power back. It is not better than the National clock it is tide to debt. Amendment to Conclusion of: Federal property does not accept the penny. \"There were no repercussions that were not solved by simply rounding to the nearest 5 cents.\" Rebuttal: So you do not see that the United States Armed Forces is one of Congresses biggest money pits as an issue? In a simple common defense to the general welfare, the United States might be in much better shape Dollars and Cents had some people been Forced to count penny instead of spend dollars. By the way admitting publicly that the United Stat", "qid": "45", "docid": "35161051-2019-04-18T12:33:43Z-00000-000", "rank": 64, "score": 88684.0}, {"content": "Title: The Penny Should Die. Content: Hello. My name is AppleAddict439, and i thank the challenger for accepting this debate. Let\"s start in 1792, with the first U.S mint. Back then, pennies were made out 100% copper. There was no zinc in the actual penny. But, the market changed. The value of copper went up, and, due to inflation, the value of the penny went down. After that, the penny became almost completely zinc. Then, in 2006, the old pennies were found to have a value above 1 cent, so people began to melt them down to make a nice, tidy profit. Then Congress decided that pennies were actually worth something (they\"re not) and passed a law against melting U.S currency. So, let me get to the data. Math time! Each second, the U.S mint produces 1,040 pennies a second, 30 million pennies a day, and (as of 2016) produce 13,000,000,000 pennies each year. 13,000,000,000!!! But, for each cent we make, we lose a little bit of money due to the fact it takes (as of 2016) 1.5 cents to make 1 cent. Now, you may be thinking: \"Wow. really makes a difference. 0.5 cents lost for each penny. That\"s so much.\" Actually, if you thought that, you are partly right. It is so much. After 13 billion pennies were made this year, with 0.5 cents lost for each penny, that means that in 2016 we lost 6,500,000,000 dollars to the penny making franchise. Now, we could be using that money to fix U.S debt and the U.S deficit, but no. We have to make pennies. Pennies are bad for us and bad for the U.S economy because: Say you want to pay for a 20$ toy. That\"s 2000 pennies you have to carry around\" Pennies add, on average, 2.2 seconds to each cash transaction, which causes a 1 billion dollar loss in money each year due to productivity costs. If you want to spend your precious pennies, it will be hard. For example, vending machines, laundromats, tollbooths, parking meters, newspaper machines, or telescopes. Pennies, essentially are DEAD WEIGHT in cash transactions. So, there are probably the penny diehards who are listening to me reading this that are thinking: But\" It\"s never been done before! We\"ve never removed the penny, nor have others!\" Well, that\"s wrong. New Zealand, Finland, Australia, the Netherlands and Canada have removed their one cent coins or pennies. They now round to the nearest 5 cent. But- others say-we\"ll remove Lincoln! That would be oh no: UNPATRIOTIC. Well, Lincoln is still on the 5 dollar bill, and- get this: some military bases round to the nearest 5 cent. To put it simply in the words of CGP Gray: Pennies waste money, waste time, are a money fail, and are worth less and less each year due to inflation. And that's it. I Look forward to the next round.", "qid": "45", "docid": "21311659-2019-04-18T12:07:50Z-00001-000", "rank": 65, "score": 88413.0}, {"content": "Title: The U.S. Penny Should Be Abolished Content: Actually pennies aren't unless as you think and if you get rid of it the poor pay the most - the poor will be affected the most, because they are most likely to make more frequent, smaller purchases, thus suffering the rounding up more often. And Nickels cost even more to make, If we eliminate the penny, we will need more nickels. Nickels cost 7.7 cents to make, making each nickel costs 1.44 cents more than making each penny. Since the penny costs 0.26 more than face value to make, the Mint can make 5 pennies and still lose less money than making 1 nickel. And, of course, if we eliminate the penny, we'll need a lot more nickels, which will offset the savings of stopping penny manufacture.", "qid": "45", "docid": "953ebf14-2019-04-18T15:12:14Z-00003-000", "rank": 66, "score": 88137.0}, {"content": "Title: The U.S. should stop the production of pennies. Content: I understand your views and where you are coming from but I have to disagree. If we were to simply just stop the production of pennies just think of the changes that would have to be made to our country economically speaking. Taxation would have to be adjusted to a numerical value system based off of our remaining coins which are all multiples of fives, causing potential increases in how much and how we are taxed. Theoretically speaking, what would the cost for a cheap item with a tax of one cent be changed too? Would we just have no tax on it or would we just round up to five? It's a large amount of work to be done when there is another solution. Instead of simply \"stopping the production of pennies,\" I feel that we should change the materials of a penny or the size. Having different cheaper materials put into the penny would lower the costs of the penny and with the cessation of the current penny model we would see a very small increase in the value of the current penny. The copper penny as we know it now will become an older form of currency increasing it's value amongst collectors. Just like much other older forms of currency, after production is stopped and less of the currency is around, the more valuable it becomes. The other solution I stated before is making the penny smaller. By doing this we won't be putting as much material into it, and less material equals less cost.", "qid": "45", "docid": "261deb04-2019-04-18T13:26:46Z-00004-000", "rank": 67, "score": 88077.0}, {"content": "Title: The US should abolish the penny Content: Okay, dropping a few definitions of my own, not conflicting with any Pro provided. Hope Pro doesn't mind. Consumerism - the theory that an increasing consumption of goods and services is economically desirable. Instant gratification - The consumer receiving the good/service immediately or in an expedited manner upon paying for it, instead of a delay. Definitions adapted from merriamwebster.com My argument for keeping the penny is a simple one. Not everyone has a credit card. There are those of us who have to make do with the money in our pockets when we go spending. The penny allows for cashiers to make change more easily. For example, a $0.99 item (after tax) is being paid for with a one dollar bill. Well, the change for that is... wait for it... one penny. Sure, that is a specific example, but still, convenience. For reference, consumerism is still alive and well here in America. The penny, as it is now, is a medium of exchange, legal tender, for all debts, public and private, here in America. An announcement of an attempt at abolishing the penny would result in an uproar unless it coincided with a sporting event. The way the debate statement is phrased, abolishing the penny would cut down on the money supply a bit, but so would contractionary fiscal policy. We are paying 1.7 cents per penny for convenience. Sure, there are downsides, such as a bunch of pennies being really heavy, but they have machines like Coin Star* for that. You are paying for convenience when it takes 10% from your monies, but you can now get bills and nickels on up, and drop the penny in the chain's pet project charity of the week's box if you so desire. The term for such a thing is instant gratification. Another example of instant gratification from our daily lives is fast food, such as In-N-Out or McDonalds. You get your food very quickly, allowing you to resume your life sooner than if you went to a sit-down restaurant. There are those that would say, \"Hey, fast food is cheaper than sit-down.\" Yes, that is true. However, fast food can and does serve more customers overall, which means they can have lower prices, to attract more customers. Yet again, In-N-Out would be a prime example of this. A better example of instant gratification would be the one-day or two-day shipping options when shopping online. \"You want this thing? You want it now? Pay a little extra to get it!\" As far as I can tell, *This, and all the other examples given aren't advertising; I'm just using the examples I know. A very good question for those penny-punters (not pinchers) would be \"What then? Do all existing pennies become worth the alloys they are made of?\" Chances are, they just saw an example of waste and wanted to smite it, initiate sweeping reforms, and get a statue (made of smelted pennies or something pretentious yet awesome like that) somewhere. A buyback program would work... up until pennies don't show up in multiples of five. Would we round up or round down in such a case? If we round up, we're throwing money at people. If we round down, we're taking even more money from people. If we round up, the government loses in the short run, which is bad for the politicos, but good for the people. If we round down, it looks better on the balance sheet for that year, but a lot of people just lost a few pennies. Admittedly, people would probably lose less than they spend on a cup of coffee on any given day, but there would still be a bit of outrage, and outrage is bad for the incumbents. And now the rambling bit that I really should write better, but because of reasons, I only had twenty minutes to write this, because of a prior engagement that I should have remembered earlier that, fortunately, let out early. Wishing wells and/or the Uncomfortable Truths Well would have a lot more nickels, dimes, and quarters in them. We already have issues with fractions of cents. Don't make it worse by getting rid of the penny. It's easier to use a Coin Star, take it to the cashier, and deposit it in a savings account than it is to do a buyback. How much change do you have lying around that you won't find for a couple years? How long is the aforementioned buyback program in effect? Which way was it going again? Were they rounding up or down? Will it simply take place at a bank, or will there be specialized facilities? All of these are legitimate concerns. In conclusion, the penny is still a viable medium of exchange and store of value. By all means, we should keep it around.", "qid": "45", "docid": "7c26af48-2019-04-18T14:43:09Z-00001-000", "rank": 68, "score": 87859.0}, {"content": "Title: Stop the Minting of the American Penny Content: Contrary to the original post, the penny does actually provide a real purpose in our modern world. And not only this, this debate has been won by the Con side throughout various times in our nation's history. There exist many jobs in the zinc and zinc-related industries that produce these pennies, as well as transportation jobs in relation to delivering pennies to various institutions. By ceasing the production and minting of the penny, we see many of these jobs that would be otherwise lost. These providers of zinc and copper would lose contracts worth tens of millions of dollars every year if such pennies ceased new production. In 1982, these pennies were made from brass, and were also engaging in a higher production cost. However, in this year, zinc was used to provide 97.5% of the composition of the penny, with the thin copper plating on the outside of the coin. Initially this saved the government millions of dollars, but we have seen recently the rising prices of zinc. It is true that such rising zinc prices have increased the price of the penny, but there is no reason why the composition of the penny cannot be revisited as a way to cut down on costs on production, without having to cut the coin all together. Hypothetically, if the cost of ink and paper exceeded $1, would we eliminate the dollar? If it exceeded $100, would we tell all the Benjamin Franklin enthusiasts that his likeness and portrait will be less commonplace? Of course not, as there are many materials that can be made to provide coins and currency, and the re-visitation of such denominations is a sufficient way to address such concerns. As another example, in 1943, the Mint produced pennies made of zinc-coated steel to conserve copper for military use, yet we still kept the penny as a valid denomination. So conclusively, the point is not to abandon the penny all together, but provide steps to reform the concentration and the composition of the material that we use in making such a denomination.", "qid": "45", "docid": "3a3f4e49-2019-04-18T15:16:14Z-00004-000", "rank": 69, "score": 87842.0}, {"content": "Title: Pennies should not be abolished and are necessary to stabilise the economy. Content: Pennies, just like any unprofitable variation of currency. are a waste of time and money. For instance, according to http://www.usmint.gov... it costs 2.41 cents to make a penny. Not only is the penny cost inefficient, it also should be noted you can't use pennies in parking meters, vending machines. and in some ATMs. Abolishing the production of the penny, just like how Canada did, will result in less taxpayer money spent on a pointless object. Therefore, the penny's production should be abolished in order to improve the country's GDP. Although the opponent may argue that pennies save citizens from taxes, the Canadian model shows that there is no net effect from rounding if the price is .01 or .02 the price is rounded down. If it is .03 or .04 it is rounded up. This only applies to cash transactions and not cheque, credit or debit transactions.", "qid": "45", "docid": "c5a30943-2019-04-18T16:06:11Z-00001-000", "rank": 70, "score": 87695.0}, {"content": "Title: In the US, pennies should be abolished. Content: I. Forex/Stock ExchangeMy opponent still does not get it. Rounding up to the nearest 5 cents adds up. Lets say a investor buys 500,000 stocks worth 7.13$, and we decide to remove the penny. If the nickel is rounded up .02$, then the investor loses 100'000's of dollars. Likewise, if we decide to round the penny down, then the seller or company likewise loses 100'000's in equity.II. Inflation ControlYou can control inflation with any kind of currency. The difference between controlling it with a nickel and controlling it with a penny is vast though. Using a penny can round down a inflation percentage to the nearest 0.1. This can help the economy and the world market tremendously.You might as well just kill the banking industry if you're going to round to a nickel, not to mention the federal reserve will crash, and with it, billions of corporates. III. Just make the penny cheaper My opponent has not considered simply removing more silver, zinc, or copper from the penny. Instead of removing it and costing the nation about 100 billion dollars, we could just lower the materials we put in the penny as they leave the US mint. Actually, we do every few years. The penny gets cheaper and cheaper overtime, and the reason the mint is keeping it 2.00$ now, is because we have a inflating economy.Soon the value of the penny and its cost will equal each other. Come on people. Let's not pull a Canada here.", "qid": "45", "docid": "19444029-2019-04-18T16:04:23Z-00002-000", "rank": 71, "score": 87552.0}, {"content": "Title: Should the U.S. keep the penny Content: Mark119 is a virgin.", "qid": "45", "docid": "87bd157b-2019-04-18T13:37:52Z-00000-000", "rank": 72, "score": 87395.0}, {"content": "Title: The eurozone should get rid of the 1 and 2 cent coins Content: This sure has been an exciting debate. I shall now proceed with my rebuttals. A1, A2, A3: I am going to rebut this case with another argument Pro has put: A2: the cost of producing coins. Sure, if you don't keep them, pennies are useless. However, if we are going to be super miserly, saving up pennies for years will eventually get to some big amount of money. You can choose one of these arguments. Also, the third argument would be good if people were incredibly exact about time. The thing here is that some people aren't. There are misers and there are people who don't care. This would argument only appeals to some. The new system: Well, it comes down to this: Some people would see this as a great opportunity to save money. If the price would be rounded up, you'd pay online. If it's going to be rounded down, pay in cash. I'm not so sure how many people would do this, but with 742 million people in Europe [1], there's bound to be a significant amount of people who do this, leading to a lower national budget (or one of the other cases I mentioned in the previous round). Evidence: I thank Pro for making this round easier for me by choosing examples of countries that are on a decline in national budget [2][3][4][5][6], furthering my proof that getting rid of the one and two cent coins lowers the budget. The only country that isn't on the decline is Denmark [7]. So, is it doable? Yes. Will it lower the budget? Yes. I now pass the debate mike to Pro. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://www.tradingeconomics.com... 3. http://www.tradingeconomics.com... 4. http://www.tradingeconomics.com... 5. http://www.tradingeconomics.com... 6. http://www.tradingeconomics.com... 7. http://www.tradingeconomics.com...", "qid": "45", "docid": "e52fcb79-2019-04-18T14:16:24Z-00002-000", "rank": 73, "score": 87355.0}, {"content": "Title: Stop the Minting of the American Penny Content: I believe that the American penny, for many reasons, serves no real purpose in our modern world, and we should cease minting it as soon as possible.First round is for acceptance only.Definitions:American Penny: the one cent coin currently used for the USD (United States Dollar, $).Mint: to make a coin.", "qid": "45", "docid": "3a3f4e49-2019-04-18T15:16:14Z-00005-000", "rank": 74, "score": 86964.0}, {"content": "Title: The use of pennies in the US pricing system should be eliminated. Content: In today's society, a penny has become more than a simple coin used to commemorate the great president Abraham Lincoln, it is now a coin of both sentimental value and economic value. This debate will open your eyes to the new and exciting world of the penny. .. Sentimental Value: When looking into the issue of sentimental value, we find that it is one of major concern to the American citizen. The best way to understand the value of the cent towards the American population, is to look at the penny or rather cent's history. BACKGROUND: \"When the United States Mint was created in 1792, one of the first coins it made the following year was the one-cent coin, and it looked very different from the modern version. \u00ef\u00bf\u00bd The image on the first cent was of a lady with flowing hair, who symbolized liberty. \u00ef\u00bf\u00bd The coin was larger and made of pure copper, while today's smaller cent is made of copper and zinc. In 1857, Congress authorized the United States Mint to strike the cent with 88 percent copper and 12 percent nickel. \u00ef\u00bf\u00bd The \"shape and size\" would be determined by the United States Mint Director, with the approval of the Treasury Secretary. \u00ef\u00bf\u00bd The new cents showed a flying eagle on the front and a wreath on the back. \u00ef\u00bf\u00bd The act of February 21, 1857, also mandated that people could no longer use coins from other countries, a practice that had been necessary because of a lack of domestic coinage. \u00ef\u00bf\u00bd However, people could bring their foreign coins to the United States Mint, where they could be exchanged for U. S. silver coins and the new cents. From 1909 to 1958, the Lincoln obverse was paired with a reverse that featured a wheat design in which two sheaves of wheat flanked the words\u00ef\u00bf\u00bdONE CENT\u00ef\u00bf\u00bdand\u00ef\u00bf\u00bdUNITED STATES OF AMERICA. \u00ef\u00bf\u00bd It is commonly known as the \"wheat penny. \" From 1959 to 2008, the reverse featured an image of the Lincoln Memorial designed by Frank Gasparro. \u00ef\u00bf\u00bd It commemorated the 150th anniversary of Lincoln's birth. In 2009, the United States Mint issued four different one-cent coins in recognition of the bicentennial of President Abraham Lincoln's birth and the 100th anniversary of the first issuance of the Lincoln cent. \u00ef\u00bf\u00bd The themes for the reverse designs represent the four major aspects of President Lincoln's life: birth and early childhood in Kentucky (1809-1816) formative years in Indiana (1816-1830) professional Life in Illinois (1830-1861) presidency in Washington, DC (1861-1865)\" {1} With this being said, we can clearly see that the penny seen as one of the first American formulated coins, possess a both patriotic as well as personal value. On to statistics: Results of the poll, conducted by Opinion Research Corporation (ORC), show that: * 69% of Americans favor keeping the penny in circulation, which is virtually identical to what Americans reported (71%) to ORC in 2001; * 64% of respondents oppose eliminating the penny and establishing a price rounding system; and * 70% expressed concern that if the government implements rounding schemes for cash purchases, merchants might take the opportunity to raise prices rather than lose pennies when rounding down, with minority Americans expressing most concern. {2} A personal survey interviewing 50 of my school mates showed these results: 38--->Wanted to keep the penny 10---> Didn't care 2-----> Wanted the penny gone. We must also take in consideration that many charities use the penny to collect huge amount of donation. Take the JC PENNY Penny drive, the penny to many is far easier to donate than coins with a higher face value. Abolishing the penny will greatly affect these charity organizations as the are now unable to collect as much money as they previously did with the existence of the penny. \"Some charities use penny drives to raise money. Children in New York City collected more than 65 million pennies last year for a total of $655,508.54, according to organizer Common Cents. \"It is a very powerful symbol of the potential we have to turn our wasteful society into a caring and recycling and reciprocal society,\" Common Cents founder Teddy Gross says. \" {3} Both the statistic and the survey above shows that the penny is worth a lot when it comes to the American population. The American citizen not only see the sentimental worth of a penny, they also recognizes its. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Economic worth. My opponent makes a valuable point in stating that the penny is worth far more than its face value, however we must also take in consideration that the penny is also a major part of the economic circle. If the penny was abolished, every American goods as well as imported goods will have to be rinses to the nearest nickel. This might not seen like a lot, but to the lower class which makes up approximately 15.5% of the American population. \"And at least one economist says eliminating the penny would hurt the poor. When prices are rounded, most of the amounts will be rounded up, not down, argues Pennsylvania State University economics professor Ray Lombra, who has testified before Congress in support of the penny. For those who have little money, those pennies will add up. \"Certainly the working poor \u2014 many of them still do not have checking accounts, credit cards \u2014 they are conducting their transactions in cash. So they are the ones who are going to bear most of the burden,\" Lombra says. \" {3} We must also look into the fact that the nickel cost far more than the current penny. The nickel cost $7.55 approximately $2.55 over its face value. If the penny was to be eliminated, there would be an increase in the manufacturing of nickels which in turn would cost the united states more money than both the current penny and nickel production today. Following my opponents core reason to abolish the penny, we should also abolish the nickel as it cost more to produce than it is actually worth. SOURCES: {1}. http://www.usmint.gov... {2}. http://www.pennies.org... {3}. http://www.pennies.org... {4}. http://ohmygov.com...", "qid": "45", "docid": "1a13d72d-2019-04-18T18:34:18Z-00004-000", "rank": 75, "score": 86769.0}, {"content": "Title: The use of pennies in the US pricing system should be eliminated. Content: The background provided by weirdman in undoubtably true. No denying history. However, he contended that \"With this being said, we can clearly see that the penny seen as one of the first American formulated coins, possess a both patriotic as well as personal value. \" On the other hand, my point was that the penny possessed such negligible value today such that the economy is actually losing money manufacturing it and where a dime is worth a penny during 1970. One can imagine the value it may have possessed in the past but that is not the point of this debate. It is about the penny now. (Please correct me if I am getting your point about the penny being of personal value incorrect. )The fact that the penny is a medium of patriotism does not matter. Our economy is suffering with, as I stated above, at least $15 billion from time wasted with these pennies. Furthermore, there are a lot of places that don't even accept pennies. Vending machines, toll booths, laundromats, and pay phones will spit them out or even sound an alarm. Many people simply place their pennies in a jar, or a 5-gallon water jug. \"The purpose of the monetary system is to facilitate exchange, but I have to acknowledge that the penny no longer serves that purpose. When people start leaving a monetary unit at the cash register for the next customer, the unit is too small to be useful. \" Greg Mankiw, EconomistI agree with my opponent that the penny does serve towards patriotism but the fact that our economy is losing more money than necessary in this poor economy is a sure indicator that money should be treated as money. If it is of no benefit or as Greg Mankiw stated, not facillitating exchange, which the penny is clearly, then we should eliminate it. Another popular belief I forgot to mention is the one my opponent brings up. Many people believe that eliminating the penny would, in fact, harm the amount of money spent towards charities. This argument ignores that fact that the charitable organization could simply ask for a donation of a nickel. My opponent mentioned that 15.5% of the American population is of the lower class and therefore would have problems. However, that means that 84.5% of the population is of the middle or upper class. Take a hundred people giving a donation of a penny. The charity would make $1.00. Now, take 84 people donating a nickel. That charity would be making $4.20 a $3.20 profit. If my calculations are correct, JC PENNY's Penny Drive would have made $2,753,135.87 asking for a nickel. Economics Professor Ray Lombra may have believed that most prices would have been rounded up but a Washington Post article says otherwise. \"Robert M. Whaples of Wake Forest University has analyzed 200,000 transactions across seven states, and he concluded that consumers would not actually suffer. Purchases at gas stations and convenience stores are just as likely to come to $7.02 as $6.98, so the rounding up and rounding down would cancel themselves out. On average, shoppers would lose nothing. \" Statistically, there would be no loss of money by rounding. My question to weirdman would be why more production of the nickel be necessary. It would take four pennies to pay any $0. X4 (X representing any positive integer less than 10) but one would technically only need one nickel at most to to pay for any $0. X5. Also, utilizing the time to figure out the exact change of these prices would be worth it. I thank commentor \"Janus\" for bringing up a relevant question. No, we would not round to the nearest bill. My point was the we would eliminate the penny. Therefore, we would round up and down accordingly to mathematics and thus, prices would statistically cancel out. Sources used in the previous and current post:(1)KNS FINANCIAL 16 March 2011<. http://www.redeemingriches.com...;(2)Lewis, Mark. \"Ban the Penny. \" Forbes. com 5 July 2002. 8 February 2006<. http://www.forbes.com...;(3)Kahn, Ric. \"Penny Pinchers. \" Globe. com 9 October 2005. 10 February 2006<. http://www.boston.com...;(4)Saffire, William. \"Abolish the Penny. \" nytimes. com 2 June 2004. 3 November 2006<. http://select.nytimes.com...;(5)Weller, Mark W. Letter. Unpublished letter to the New York Times. Americans for Common Cents. 7 Nov. 2006 <www. pennies. org>(6)\"Abolish the Penny? A Majority of the Public Says 'No'\" The Harris Poll #51 15 July 2004. 8 March 2006<. http://www.harrisinteractice.com...;(7) \"President Bush signs Lincoln Penny Redesign Into Law. \" Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission. 22 December 2005. 8 March 2006<. http://www.lincolnbicentennial.gov...;", "qid": "45", "docid": "1a13d72d-2019-04-18T18:34:18Z-00003-000", "rank": 76, "score": 86338.0}, {"content": "Title: The U.S. Penny Should Be Abolished Content: You should not eliminate the U.S. penny! First of all If we eliminate the U.S. penny, everything will have to be rounded to the nickel. Merchants will probably round everything up in their favor! Costing us more for everything we buy. Last Charities need pennies, alot can add up from pennies and that helps people because most likely people going to give away their pennies because it's 'cost less' to them.", "qid": "45", "docid": "953ebf14-2019-04-18T15:12:14Z-00005-000", "rank": 77, "score": 86296.0}, {"content": "Title: The penny should be immediately discontinued. (Kleptin Tourney) Content: Thanks to my opponent, and I apologize for my tardy response. Many balls in the air. :) ============= Pro Case: ============= Pro Contention 1A: Consumer Confidence 1. I actually never talk about any net benefit regarding consumer confidence. The only thing I mention in 1A is that it costs way too much to produce. 2. Even the German Finance Ministry can only say that confidence in the Euro \"might\" decline as a result of not producing a penny. Education could easily combat this, assuming the risk even exists. Furthermore, the movement to eliminate the penny in the U.S. is well-documented, as indicated in the sources cited in the Pro case. Introducing a penny piece and taking away a penny piece that has been accepted by a vast majority of a society as useless are two entirely different scenarios. Pro Contention 1A: Counterplan 1. Of course, the more sensible solution would be to eliminate such a useless coin entirely, which is the only way to actually save all that money I talk about in my 1st contention. I am the only side that can maximize effective usage of resources. 2. What the counterplan does not address at all is the cost of pennies within a transaction. If we keep pennies, we still waste $10 billion in the transaction process if we keep pennies of any material. 3. My opponent proposes a nebulous, abusive counterplan. What material does he propose we use? I can't adequately refute it if I don't know the text. For example, if he picks another metal that is similarly controlled by a foreign market, he bites every harm in my 2nd contention. Just replace \"China\" with the name of another country. If he picks a metal that is marketed primarily in the U.S. (good luck finding one of those that another foreign market can't beat us at in price, as this is the problem with zinc in the first place), then a whole other host of practicality concerns would surface. However, I can't address any of them because my opponent is being overly vague. Pro Contention 1B: Cash Transactions Are Actually Cheaper 1. Cheaper than what? 2. Though the cost of receiving a cash transaction is less expensive to store profit than checks, debit cards, or credit cards, it does not at all follow that the use of pennies isn't increasing this cost. Yes, your 1st source states that a single cash transaction costs a store around 7 cents per transaction. However, my analysis of 2-2.5 cents wasted is not contradicted anywhere in your source. This debate compares cash transactions with and without pennies, not cash transactions to other kinds of transactions. Pro Contention 1B: NACS \"Report\" 1. You should know the NACS website quite well by now, since you cited the statistic in the first place. 2. Never claimed it was a report. 3. The statistic I use is cited by my first source from RD 1. Front page. CTRL \"F\" Walgreen. Pro Contention 2: Cross-Apply Counterplan 1. Cross-apply my vagueness analysis on the counterplan. We could very easily have the exact same problem, but my opponent refused to name an alternative material. Pro Contention 2: Bright-line for China Dependency 1. Sure can. As of January 2009, China had bought more than $1 Trillion of U.S. total debt [1]. Considering total U.S. debt is around $12 Trillion [2], and considering that China is the world's third most powerful economy, they represent a gigantic piece of our power struggle pie. If this were Mexico or something, I wouldn't be raising as much of a fuss (at least, not in terms of sheer capital power), but China is already a top world superpower contender. Furthermore, China is the second largest foreign owner of the US Treasury. Though they are slightly behind Japan in terms of foreign investment, I'd say that China is a far greater risk to the US than Japan will ever be, especially considering that their economy is improving, while ours is, in comparison, stagnating. They've become leaders in the global economic recession. We haven't. Pro Contention 2: China & Human Rights 1. Of course we have no pull right now. We've been obligated to China for quite some time now, and what's the incentive for China to bend to US pressure when we have no foreign policy leverage? Reducing trade and debt commitments to China clearly gain benefits for the sole reason that we stop giving some amount of money to China. =============== Neg Case: =============== Neg Contention1: 1. Do some math with me. Lombra predicts a $600 million round tax per year. I am going to assume that my opponent made a grammatical error when he said \"paid by each consumer,\" as I doubt each individual will pay $600 million a piece. I estimate that $10 billion is wasted by the consumer each year in penny transactions alone, not including the $50 million lost by the consumer in the production process. $10 billion > $600 million. I save the consumers more money. Neg Contention 2: 1. Inflation will occur with or without the penny, so until my opponent can give decent analysis on actual inflation, and not just an increase in government spending which is not explained well at all, this is a wash. 2. The author of his source admits that \"the inflationary impact of rounding will probably be small.\" Furthermore, the $2 billion in spending my opponent refers to was a projection for 2010 in the even that the penny was eliminated at the time of publication. That number is in no way representative of consequences within the current economy. Neg Contention 3: 1. The NACS also suggested a slight raising of prices in order to off-set the 30% profit loss. Keep in mind that this is 30% of 6-7 cents. That's not much to off-set, now is it? 2. Furthermore, the elimination of the penny, which would save 2-2.5 cents per cash transaction, would make up for this 30% loss. 3. Cross-apply my response to Con's 1st contention. $10 billion > $600 million. Until he can prove that we will spend more as consumers, as business owners, and as a government eliminating pennies than keeping them, you are still gaining more net financial benefit by voting Pro. 4. Considering current societal trends, the theft argument is outdated and relatively unwarranted. First of all, card transactions are becoming exponentially more preferable for the consumer. Despite Lombra's assertions otherwise, firms are not discouraging card usage at all. Think about the last merchant you visited that refused to take debit, Visa, or Mastercard. Furthermore, merchants are not being stopped from using change all together\u2014just the penny. The likelihood of carrying pennies vs. carrying any other change hasn't been established at this point, but if card transactions are becoming increasingly preferred, the likelihood of carrying any change is getting worse and worse, which means I probably won't even bite these harms. [1] http://www.nytimes.com... [2] http://useconomy.about.com...", "qid": "45", "docid": "5c2fb364-2019-04-18T19:07:11Z-00003-000", "rank": 78, "score": 86286.0}, {"content": "Title: The use of pennies in the US pricing system should be eliminated. Content: \"With this being said, we can clearly see that the penny seen as one of the first American formulated coins, possess a both patriotic as well as personal value. \" Sadly, my opponent misinterpreted this statement. I made this statement to convey the fact that the penny should be continued because it is a patriotic symbol. It means that abolishing the penny is virtually equivalent to abolishing the American flag. \"The fact that the penny is a medium of patriotism does not matter. Our economy is suffering with, as I stated above, at least $15 billion from time wasted with these pennies\" If this statement made by my opponent is true then using the train of taught. we should neglect the statue of liberty simply because it isn't proportional to the \"ULTIMATE\" goal of economic stability. The statue of liberty as we all know it, is a symbol of both patriotic as well as personal value. The same statue of liberty brings in approximately $40,000 - &70,000 annually, however we neglect the fact that the statue of liberty needs maintenance. $1000 for the statues torch/lighthouse, \"$10,000 for maintenance(annually)\"{2} a huffington post article recently reveled a plan for a $25.5million renovation. {3} The past renovation cost us approximately \"$15 million dollars\" {2} With all the fact giving, we can clearly see that the despite the fact that the statue of liberty isn't in proportion with our economic goals, we continue to renovate as well as maintain it because it serves as patriotic symbol to both our populations and our Great nation. In the same way, The reason that the penny serves as a patriotic value should not be irrelevant when it comes to this debate. This reason should be enough to continue to manufacturing and circulation of the penny. . \"Furthermore, there are a lot of places that don't even accept pennies. Vending machines, toll booths, laundromats, and pay phones will spit them out or even sound an alarm. Many people simply place their pennies in a jar, or a 5-gallon water jug. \" This only concedes to the idea that the penny allows for charity organizations to make more money. Since few places do not take the penny, it now becomes easier for an individual to donate more penny than any other coin due to face value. \"I agree with my opponent that the penny does serve towards patriotism but the fact that our economy is losing more money than necessary in this poor economy is a sure indicator that money should be treated as money. If it is of no benefit or as Greg Mankiw stated, not facillitating exchange, which the penny is clearly, then we should eliminate it. \" My opponent contradicts himself by stating that he does accept the fact that the penny has sentimental value, but at the same time he states that we should eliminate anything with no benefit. This contradiction then translates to. .. Since the penny is of sentimental value, then the penny is of benefit to the public mind which then protects it from being eliminated. \"Many people believe that eliminating the penny would, in fact, harm the amount of money spent towards charities. This argument ignores that fact that the charitable organization could simply ask for a donation of a nickel. \" This might be seen as the logical thing to do, however, we must look into the fact that the like I mentioned in my first NC and this rebuttal, It is harder for people to give up there penny than to give up there nickel. If you were to eliminate every penny in the making, giving up the nickel would be even harder because the nickel can now be seen as the only way to complete a purchase (all item will now be rounded to the nearest 5 cents). \"ake a hundred people giving a donation of a penny. The charity would make $1.00. Now, take 84 people donating a nickel. That charity would be making $4.20 a $3.20 profit. If my calculations are correct, JC PENNY's Penny Drive would have made $2,753,135.87 asking for a nickel. \" If 84 people give a nickel to the charity organization, then it is also likely that 8400 people would give the penny. Since the penny has a lesser face value, more people are likely to give the penny than nickel. {please give me your evidence for the JC penny claim} \"Economics Professor Ray Lombra may have believed that most prices would have been rounded up but a Washington Post article says otherwise. \"Robert M. Whaples of Wake Forest University has analyzed 200,000 transactions across seven states, and he concluded that consumers would not actually suffer. Purchases at gas stations and convenience stores are just as likely to come to $7.02 as $6.98, so the rounding up and rounding down would cancel themselves out. On average, shoppers would lose nothing. \" Statistically, there would be no loss of money by rounding. \" If this was actually true, the the economy in general would suffer. The first scenario stated by my opponent says that an Item worth $7:02 would be rounded to %6.98. If this business normally makes 3,000 sales, that is a loss of $1,500. This hurts the owner as there business is now losing money and this also hurts the circle of selling and buying, which then hurts the economy in general. \"My question to weirdman would be why more production of the nickel be necessary. It would take four pennies to pay any $0. X4 (X representing any positive integer less than 10) but one would technically only need one nickel at most to to pay for any $0. X5. Also, utilizing the time to figure out the exact change of these prices would be worth it. \" A greater production of nickel will have to take place because with the penny gone, the nickel would have to become the lowest denomination and thus a greater need for the nickel to complete a pay would take place which means a greater production would need to take place to maintain stability. Sources: {1}. http://www.debate.org... {2}. http://www.lighthousefriends.com... {3}. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... {4}. http://www.nytimes.com...", "qid": "45", "docid": "1a13d72d-2019-04-18T18:34:18Z-00002-000", "rank": 79, "score": 86210.0}, {"content": "Title: Stopping production of the penny in the United States would be a good decision. Content: I think that the production shouldn't be stopped because for one, in a way, it kinda makes things easier. And taking away the penny would make things more expensive change wise also. and EVERY store EVERYWHERE would have to change the price tag on everything so that the lowest change number was 5 cents", "qid": "45", "docid": "bb3f63e1-2019-04-18T16:27:45Z-00003-000", "rank": 80, "score": 86178.0}, {"content": "Title: The US Penny Should be Taken out of Service Content: As this is the last round I will keep this as short and to the point as I can.RoundingMy opponent continually states that I am reaching wile clinging to an outdated argument that is not even factual. For the $600 million that my opponent said will be lost will also be gained by both citizens and merchants (Please see my previous statement on complete rounding). Yes I did admit that some would come out on top and some would come out on bottom, but by only a few cents each, nothing that would amount to 600 million in deficit even if people tried to save money this way. (see cbc link)Another issue we have bumped heads on is the use of outdated information. Any high school will tell you a report made by someone can be outdated if it is opinion based and if it is older then 10 years. My source from \"1992\" is not from 1992 as my opponent stated, It is from 2012 based off charity trends that existed since before 1992 till 2013. Their Source is an opinion based report published in 1990.Minting CostMy opponent brought up that the cost of a nickel is also higher then the cost of a penny. He/she assumes that if I say \"we should be getting rid of pennies\" I must make a case to get rid of nickels too. The simple fact is that nickels do not round the same as pennies, and we would have to do something about quarters too. It simply is not feasible to get rid of the nickel (yet). This does not undermine the savings that loosing the penny would would create. America would still be gaining back the cost of creating pennies wile not losing any more then planned on nickels. My opponent did not tackle the subject of a penny will never equal its cost to make, but simply said it decreased from 2011-2013. \"This money, this petty change, actually costs something to make\" The cost to make pennies each year is much, much more then petty change:\"This year, the Mint has spent more than $114 million to make pennies, compared with $83.7 million for nickels, $72.3 million for dimes and $133 million for quarters.\"It is an expensive coin! Overshadowing nickels and dimes all for what? To end up on the street. http://www.wsj.com...My opponents Forbes site does not say \"higher manufacturing value is actually a good thing\" it said it \"used\" to be a good thing. Today the government has standards and laws that prohibit the creation of money for no reason. We also have a harder time counterfeiting currency now then they used to during the original years of the country.Charities\"fails to back that statement as well as simply asserting that his/her quote is not contradictory without an explanation\". I did explain this one. Once again I said that a nickel will quickly over shadow a penny (5-1). Nickels are worth five times more, therefore the will overshadow a penny five times to one. My opponent then preceded to call me names (hypocrite) by saying my 2012 source was from 1992 and again forces the assumption that people will stop donating if there are no pennies.Canadian: we are in agreement.Waste of TimeCollecting: I am sure the mother and daughter, father and son who collect pennies will be much happier when their collection goes up in value due to the abolished of the penny in stores. Donations: The cancer patient has a good chance of survival due to other non penny donations. Your comparison is not correct, saying pennies are a waste of time is like saying a dog only has so many years, go play with him instead of rolling virtually useless coins. My opponent did not refute the actual dollar amount that every American will lose per year due to time wasted on pennies.Not Accepted for all Purchases. My opponent agrees with me but tries to make my point less valuable then a penny by saying it is a waste of time. I would like to explain with the example:wile you have to fumble in a change purse around 50 pennies (not accepted at a vending machine), you could have had two quarters in change (or ten nickels) and you could have gotten that bag of chips you wanted but now you are hungry and in a rush with pennies weighing you down. Vending machines are only getting better and more convenient, who knows when you will get your next snack craving.Bad for the Environment: \"Pennies are innocent.\" 18,000 metric tons of zinc are used per year to create pennies. Supply and demand dictates how much zinc they will dig up and therefore how much pollutants they will put out. Reducing the demand will reduce this environmental catastrophe that pennies are indeed guilty of helping to create.http://www.forbes.com...Thank you for reading. Thank you for debating. Please consider me for the win!", "qid": "45", "docid": "540788cc-2019-04-18T15:19:54Z-00000-000", "rank": 81, "score": 86155.0}, {"content": "Title: The penny should be immediately discontinued. (Kleptin Tourney) Content: Ok, I am balancing many things right now, so this won't be as high a quality as I would like due to time and spread of mental power issues, but here it goes. Also, before I start, I am A) sorry for the gender mix-up; won happen again :). If my jesting comments concerning the biasness of the Pro's source seemed to be insulting, I am sorry. The internet is terrible at conveying emotions and the comments were not meant to be harsh. CP- I am kicking it. I did not state it was unconditional nor did my opponent hold me to that burden. The only offensive arguments Con could get off the counter-plan would be in a \"abuse is a voter\" sort of package, which my opponent did not do, ergo the kick is not abusive. However, I will respond to the abuse arguments anyway. \"This is still abusive. My opponent needed to detail the text of his counterplan in the first round, thereby giving us both enough time to properly discuss the merits and drawbacks of using such a metal. This is pretty critical to his counterplan, so claiming that it would be akin to \"picking a random metal\" is just a cop-out.\" As I stated, I believed the general counterplan would be better for the affirmative, thus I did not specify, just as a CX team does not specify who would propose their plan in Congress to pass it. However, the fact is, which my opponent conceded, THE COMMENTS SECTION CHECKS ABUSE. Just as in real life debate where cross-examination time checks clarification abuses, my opponent had 3 DAYS before her first round was posted to ask me to specify my counterplan, which I would have gladly done. At the point where she does not ask this, it is her fault and not mine, thus negating any possible offense one might give my opponent even though the CP is kicked. Note: Kicking the counterplan is not a reason to vote Pro. I am simply cleaning up the debate a bit and highlighting the important issues, rather than go for a counterplan that for the Pro is at best a wash. _________ Pro Case: _________ 1A Consumer Confidence: 1. If there is not burden for the Minister to say something along the lines of \"definitely\", then the fact that he did not is not a reason to discredit the card. Note that no evidence has been brought up to actually counter the card 2. Ok, just because KFC getting rid of mashed potatoes and the Double Down would harm sales like getting rid of green beans would does not mean that the harms of getting rid of green beans disappear. The offense still stands; it merely applies to other coins as well as pennies 3. Yes, the quotation itself does not fully track the bad effects to their eventual ends. That's why there is my analysis in round 1 that shows that the lowering of consumer confidence would be detrimental to the economy, analysis that was dropped in Round 2 and thus cannot be brought up in Round 3 by the Pro. 1B Cheaper than other transactions. I don't ignore the analysis made by the Pro. Rather I show how the \"cost\" would be insignificant if the calculations were true, in that the next cheapest form of payment would cost 4X as much, and also questions the validity of the calculations itself, which if were true, would cause so much harm that our economy would be in shambles. The offense in this contention is based on the source in this round that has been questioned and once I show that the source is not valid, the offense here falls. NACS 1. Yes, a website in support of eliminating the penny states that the NACS and Walgreens state statistics that support their side. As I stated, that is a HUGE ground for bias. I'm not calling any one a liar, please don't get that vibe, but not only have I searched the Walgreens and NACS sites myself for such statistics, but I have asked my opponent to provide the cites as well. At the point where I have called out my opponent's evidence and she has refused to provide the cite for it, WE CANNOT ACCEPT IT AS VALID. Therefore, ALL of my opponent's offense in her case, with the exception of the China contention, which I will get to, falls as it is based on this source and supposed waste of time. 2. Again, I am not calling anyone a liar, but at the point where you refuse to provide the cites to the supposed statements, the source cannot be accepted as valid. Also, what does physics have to do with economics? Contention 2 CP is dropped does not matter Brightline: Again, I don't know if it is a misunderstanding, but my opponent does not give an adequate answer. My opponent states the problem of debt, BUT NEVER SAYS HOW PASSING THE RESOLUTION FIXES THE PROBLEM. If we need to save 50 dollars and the plan saves 40, the problem can't be used as a reason to pass the plan as the problem is not solved. Conversely, if the plan saves 60 dollars, the impact is valid. My opponent fails to show how voting affirmative would solve the problem thus the contention must be ignored. Human Rights 1. China is in a much greater entrenchment of communism than the examples, thus it makes sense, it would not be an immediate affect, but a slower one. My opponent doesn't attack the link, but says its not acting fast enough, which is not really an attack 2. First, as the CATO article shows, by trading with them we are ENDING the abuses. Thus, the ethical issues are treated, though not in the way my opponent apparently wants to go. Secondly, crossapply the article from the first round. The US has its own human rights abuses and China has rightly called us out on them. We need to fix these before we take any comprehensive action on China. Neg Case Con.1 Extend the 600 million a year rounding tax; this goes dropped through out the round. Con. 2 1. First, this contention deals with LONG TERM IMPACTS. So, this does not apply, in fact this does not apply to any of my offense so it can just be ignored 2. Um, my opponent never said that inflation was a wash, and if she did, I would like her to explain the Great Depression or Zimbabwae. Extend the extreme inflation that the government would go under due to passing the aff's plan 3. The inflation on one item would not be small. However, as I have stated, the OVERALL impact would be huge Con 3. The point of the tax IS this raise; that is what the \"tax\" is comprised of. The fact is, there are a disproportionate items labled .5 and up as compared to lower, thus more items are going to be higher than lower, creating the tax. Extend the harm that stores lose 30% of their profit by the passing of the aff's plan 2 and 3 Extend that the 2-2.5 source is not valid Theft 1. Ok, so then the rise and fall of electronic purchases is a wash, STILL leading to my harms of theft. 2. As I stated in round 1, the danger is dealing with whether the employee has to use the cash register. If an item was $3.00 exactly, it is rather easy for the consumer to simply pull out three ones. At that point, the employee can simply bid them a good day and pocket the money, as there is no proof of the transaction as the register remains closed. This is MUCH less likely if the cost is say 3.47. As all the Neg offense still stands in this round and all of the Pro's offense that was not based on a source that has not been shown to be valid does not have a bright-line and thus no proof of solvency, I must urge a vote in negation.", "qid": "45", "docid": "5c2fb364-2019-04-18T19:07:11Z-00000-000", "rank": 82, "score": 85737.0}, {"content": "Title: Pennies should be abolished Content: Pennies are a waste of time and money. For instance, according http://www.usmint.gov...;, it costs 2.41 cents to make a penny. Not only is the penny cost inefficient, it also should be noted you can't use pennies in parking meters, vending machines. and in some ATMs. Abolishing the production of the penny, just like how Canada did, will result in less taxpayer money spent on a pointless object. Therefore, the penny, along with the nickel should be abolished in production.", "qid": "45", "docid": "2e7d8f78-2019-04-18T16:06:39Z-00001-000", "rank": 83, "score": 85058.0}, {"content": "Title: Stopping production of the penny in the United States would be a good decision. Content: Arguments, they hath been extended", "qid": "45", "docid": "bb3f63e1-2019-04-18T16:27:45Z-00000-000", "rank": 84, "score": 85026.0}, {"content": "Title: The U.S. should stop the production of pennies. Content: I totally agree with your idea of changing the material because of the pollution that is caused by pennies. Pennies are made of copper, which come from zinc ores, which also contain toxic metals like lead. Although this is a good idea, I still stand by my view of cutting the production of pennies. Although it may have an affect on taxes, it saves the government a lot of money. Without producing pennies, the U.S. government will gain back about 91 million dollars because about 13 billion pennies are produced each year. Also, pennies are produced using the taxpayers money, so either way you are losing money.", "qid": "45", "docid": "261deb04-2019-04-18T13:26:46Z-00003-000", "rank": 85, "score": 84568.0}, {"content": "Title: Should the penny be kept in US currency Content: If we take away the penny (and the nickel), we will be back at 1947. This was shortly after the Great Depression ended, and if we don't have smaller coins (the lack of small coins prevented us from getting out of this terrible event), a whole new Great Depression could appear. That's not just a ripple, that is throwing us seventy years behind the rest of the world, and it will be difficult to get out of that. We may have to devote to rounding. $2 bills are to $20 bills, as $1 bills are to $10 bills, same with $5 to $50, and $10 to $100. The two dollar bill helps our economy as much as a twenty dollar bill, which is why we are coming towards it. The two dollar bill will boost, and all taking away the penny can do is throw us behind the rest of the world. This will cause our taxes to be lowered, which means less money on international relationships, which means, debt that can't be paid off, lack of military. These things will make the US vulnerable to the outside forces. Good luck!", "qid": "45", "docid": "141e3960-2019-04-18T15:20:37Z-00000-000", "rank": 86, "score": 84514.0}, {"content": "Title: The Penny Content: I will be arguing that the production of the penny should continue. I look forward to a fun and informative debate. Good luck!", "qid": "45", "docid": "652f23f4-2019-04-18T17:28:19Z-00006-000", "rank": 87, "score": 84485.0}, {"content": "Title: Stopping production of the penny in the United States would be a good decision. Content: Extend all arguments", "qid": "45", "docid": "bb3f63e1-2019-04-18T16:27:45Z-00001-000", "rank": 88, "score": 84265.0}, {"content": "Title: The US Penny Should be Taken out of Service Content: I do not agree with your terms as they where not originally outlined. As the instigator it is normally assumed that you have the burden of proving your point. It is up to the voters to decide who wins, not you. I will address your concerns to be a good sport:\" The harm of the penny is sufficient enough to justify its removal from the market.\"\" Taking the penny out of service will minimalist harm the economy.\"\"Their plan is good enough to transition into this change smoothly with minimal harm and maximum benefit.\"As of 2011, it costs 2.41\u00a2 US (or $0.0241 US Dollars (USD)) to make a penny, making the coin's face value less than its actual value. http://www.wisegeek.org...This fact alone is sufficient enough to justify removing the penny from the market, or more correctly simply stop creating them as this is the more efficient plan. The reason that this is bad, other then the obvious, is that it increases the national debt in a pretty useless way. Removing the penny is only good for debt. Without the penny the government estimates it will save 7.6 TRILLION dollars in just ten years. http://www.enzi.senate.gov...Argument 1: Economical HarmI don't think you quite understand the \"penny plan\". As a Canadian (with a diploma in business) I have witnessed this plan first hand. The consumers worried that their $19.99 product will increased to $20.00 need not worry as it will stay at $19.99. The penny only effects Cash transactions, not electronic. all debit, gift card, credit card, cheque, etc. will be handled as if there is a penny.As for rounding of pennies the cost of using cash normally does not change. We use a complete rounding system, not a rounding up system as you implied. This means that $1.01 and $1.02 would be rounded down to $1, while $1.03 and $1.04 would be rounded up to $1.05. If you play close enough attention to your pennies you can actually save money by only using cash when it is time to round down, but not much. http://www.cbc.ca...Argument 2: CharitiesThe penny is the most donated coin, yet it can be quickly over shadowed by the nickel (5-1). There is no evidence that suggests people who donate will simply stop donating because there is no penny. In fact donations may rise because people \"have\" to give more then just a couple pennies. Furthermore Charities in Canada held drives to collect the \"worthless\" pennies once they where discontinued. http://theotherpress.ca...", "qid": "45", "docid": "540788cc-2019-04-18T15:19:54Z-00004-000", "rank": 89, "score": 84101.0}, {"content": "Title: The US Penny Should be Taken out of Service Content: To start this debate, I'd like to define some of the key terms and state that I am con, firmly arguing why the US penny should not be taken out of service. Definitions: Penny Taken Out of Service: All pennies within the United States will neither be minted nor accepted as legal tender. Plan: As I am Con, it is not my job to address a plan, so the plan must be addressed by Pro. Burden of Proof: Here, I'd like to establish a 3-pronged burden of proof for Pro. In order for Pro to win this debate, he/she must prove the following three items: 1) The harm of the penny is sufficient enough to justify its removal from the market. 2) Taking the penny out of service will minimalistically harm the economy. 3) Their plan is good enough to transition into this change smoothly with minimal harm and maximum benefit. If any fragment of these three items is left unproved, then I, Con, will win this debate. Arguments: I would like to bring 2 major points into this debate. Argument 1: Economical Harm The US penny should not be taken out of service because it will harm the economy. Even though it is only one cent, the penny is extremely important in the way the US economic system works. How can we achieve the same amount of exactness in change and payments as we do with the penny? The only answer is rounding, but that is detrimental to the economy. According to pennies. org, propositions take the penny out of service and utilize the nickel as the coin of lowest value create public anxiety about higher prices and inflation. Over three-quarters of Americans (77%) are concerned that merchants would raise prices without the penny. And, most likely, they are correct. Professor of Economics at Penn State University Raymond Lombra, Ph. D. said to a Congressional committee that rounding cash sales up or down to the nearest nickel would cost consumers over $600 million annually. For example, you are a merchant who runs a clothing store. You charge $11 for a t-shirt, and the sales tax in California is 7.5%. You have a customer, and he/she pays in cash. The amount comes down to $11.86 with the sales tax. But, wait\" you have no pennies! How do you get the extra cent when there are no cents? The only answer is to round the price down to $11.85, but then you're losing a cent! When the penny is taken out of service, multiply this example by millions per day, and, as Raymond Lombra puts it, $600 million is now lost per year versus when the penny was still in service. $600 million dollars being lost just from taking a coin out of service is an extremely significant amount that cannot be ignored. A whopping majority of 77% of the general public is worried about taking the penny out of service. Without the penny, the the general public will lose money and the US economic situation will worsen. Argument 2: Charities The US penny should not be taken out of service because charities need pennies. There are a plethora of small charities that depend on penny drive to bring in donations. People think nothing of pouring out their old penny jars to support these drives, but they won't part with nickels so easily. Many corporations, national charities, schools, and local philanthropies have realized the worth of the penny. Through the use of point-of-sale collections, penny drives and competitive penny fundraisers, these groups have turned thousands of idle pennies into real dollars for everything from college scholarships to cancer research and housing for the homeless. One major example is Pennies for Patients, and without pennies, it would be nickels for patients, but that doesn't sound good! Pennies always have a worth to someone no matter who he/she may be. Pennies rescue people battling terrible diseases such as cancer. Pennies can save lives. College scholarships and cancer research rely on pennies. We, the opposition, want the best in the future, and the best is not to eliminate the penny.", "qid": "45", "docid": "540788cc-2019-04-18T15:19:54Z-00005-000", "rank": 90, "score": 83991.0}, {"content": "Title: We should get rid of the penny Content: I hope you vote fro me because my opponent plagarised and forfeited, I also hope you learned something from this debate.", "qid": "45", "docid": "3207095a-2019-04-18T16:54:39Z-00000-000", "rank": 91, "score": 83965.0}, {"content": "Title: That Pennies Should Be Abolished Content: They Cost More Than They Are WorthIn 2006 the cost to produce a penny rose above one cent. This is because the raw minerals of the penny exceeded the one cent which the penny itself is worth. This problem has only been worsened, and in 2011 it cost the US Mint 2.4 cents to produce a one-cent-penny[1]. This means that every year, with the US Mint producing 4.3 billion pennies[1], the United States is spending $100 million on $43 million worth of pennies, effectively donating $57 to no one every year. With the penny costing us more than it is worth, then we should not produce it anymore.Opportunity CostWe've all heard that age old saying \"Time is money\", well it turns out that this old saying in fact has a fancy term in economics: opportunity cost. As defined by the New Oxford American Dictionary: \"(Opportunity cost is) the loss of other alternatives when one alternative is chosen.\"[2]. As I will demonstrate, the handling of a penny is a form of opportunity cost Before I make my argument I must make this point clear: it doesn't matter what people handling pennies would have done otherwise, only that they spend it doing something not worth their time in the first place, because in economics, time really is money, and their time is worth more than thatThe median wage in the United States is $17 per hour[3]. This means that it takes the average person two seconds to earn one cent, and as such it is not worth one's time. Even if it takes only four seconds to handle a penny, that means that two seconds are wasted in terms of productivity in terms of the handling of pennies. This is equivalent to losing $1 billion each year in productivity[4]. Another economist, Robert Whalpes, has estimated the opportunity cost of penny production at $300 million[5]. Regardless of which of these figures is correct, the underlying problem remains, which is that the very existence of pennies, costs the US people money, and lots of it. Abolishing the penny would solve this problem.Pennies Are UselessThe purpose of money is to facilitate the exchange of goods and services. Pennies do not serve this purpose.Pennies are not usually accepted in bulk, only being used to give people exact change, and as demonstrated, this exact change is not even worth its opportunity cost. If one wished to avoid these problems of opportunity cost to other people waiting in line to pay for their goods and services, then they would have to use a machine: none of which, except Coinstar, accept them. As a result of this, most pennies just end up in glass jars out of circulation. To quote Greg Mankiw, a Professor of Macroeconomics at Harvard University: \"The purpose of the monetary system is to facilitate exchange, but... the penny no longer serves that purpose\"[6]. When a coin fails to fulfil its purpose, it is time to get rid of it.ConclusionI have provided three arguments: the penny costs more than it is worth, it provides a significant opportunity cost, and it fails to fulfil its purpose as money. All of these arguments stand. As such, the resolution is affirmed.Sources1: http://tinyurl.com...2: http://tinyurl.com...;3: http://tinyurl.com...;4: http://tinyurl.com...;5: http://tinyurl.com...6: http://tinyurl.com...", "qid": "45", "docid": "ce686c60-2019-04-18T17:24:46Z-00004-000", "rank": 92, "score": 83831.0}, {"content": "Title: Stopping production of the penny in the United States would be a good decision. Content: I will be debating for stopping the production of the penny. First round is for acceptance. Good Luck!", "qid": "45", "docid": "bb3f63e1-2019-04-18T16:27:45Z-00004-000", "rank": 93, "score": 83694.0}, {"content": "Title: The U.S. Penny Should Be Abolished Content: Con, you did it again. You broke the format the first time, but I was willing to let that go because you messaged me an apology. But now, you did it again. I asked you to simply re-post your arguments, even letting you add new ones as long as they weren't rebuttals. But the only thing you posted was your rebuttals of my argument, which you shouldn't have added until round three. I was willing to let you off the hook the first time, but not this time. You have taken it too far. Con has broken the rules twice. Voters, vote pro for everything, except for the first two if you don't want to. Con, I am angry with you, but if you want, we can continue the debate, under the circumstances that you will still lose for breaking the rules.", "qid": "45", "docid": "953ebf14-2019-04-18T15:12:14Z-00002-000", "rank": 94, "score": 83678.0}, {"content": "Title: The US Penny Should be Taken out of Service Content: Before I begin, I'd like to point out that Pro lacks actual arguments, he/she simply posted refutations to what I said, which, in my opinion is not enough to win. Refutations to Refutations: Refutation 1: Minting Cost My esteemed colleague has stated that, as of 2011, it costs 2.41 cents to make a penny. However, I'd like to point out that they have cited a source from 2011. As of 2014, pennies only cost 1.7 cents to make, down 2.4 cents from 2011 (. http://blogs.wsj.com...). Therefore, the evidence shows that the amount it costs to make the penny is actually on the decline. Soon, it will not be much of a loss for the US to make it, meaning that there is not an adequate reason to abolish its use. Refutation 2: Debt \"Removing the penny is only good for debt\" is what Pro states. I strongly disagree as we will lose $600 million/year with the rounding system as earlier showed in my first argument. The United States' debt recently hit $18 trillion, and I believe Pro and I have a common interest in lowering that debt. However, the solution is not to take the penny out of service. Also, after this statement, Pro brings up a source and says that the US will save 7.6 trillion dollars/year without the penny, yet he/she fails to provide any reasoning behind this. It's just going to happen. .. somehow. .. I don't think so. Therefore, Pro's case has one more flaw. Refutation 3: Economical Harm Refutation My mistaken opponent stated that the penny will only affect cash transactions in response to my argument about economic harm. However, they have ignored a chunk of the argument in saying this since the source I stated about the $600 million a year being lost is talking about cash purchases. (Here's a link: . http://pennies.org...) Therefore, Pro simply danced around my argument instead of actually attacking it head-on. Refutation 4: Charities Refutation A contradictory statement made by Pro is \"The penny is the most donated coin,yet it can be quickly overshadowed by the nickel. \" This is like saying \"People like beef, but they'll like chicken better sooner or later. \" Therefore, It is a contradictory statement that cannot be proved. To expand on my charity point, pennies are better than nickels for donations since pennies are worth less, and, because of that, people donate more, which eventually becomes more money for the charities. If people donated nickels, they would be more stingy with how many they gave. Refutation 5: Canada \"We use\" and \"As a Canadian\" are two prime examples of phrases used by Pro that prove his/her misunderstanding of the topic. If I may reiterate, the topic is \"The US Penny Should be Taken out of Service,\" not \"The Canadian Penny Should be Taken out of Service. \" Pro fails to use any American examples and is under the delusion that the Canadian economy is exactly the same as the United States economy, proving another point for Con. Refutation 6: Burden I gave Pro a 3-pronged burden of proof and, so far, no prong has been fulfilled. Let's break them down individually. 1) The harm of the penny is sufficient enough to justify its removal from the market. Pro slightly dances around this by saying that it costs a lot to make a penny, but never follows through, and I have already taken this down earlier. 2) Taking the penny out of service will minimalistically harm the economy. Pro has not mentioned anything whatsoever about this prong. 3) Their plan is good enough to transition into this change smoothly with minimal harm and maximum benefit. Pro never even brings up a clear-cut plan. Sure, they mention things like \"the penny plan\" and \"the plan,\" but what is this plan? The world may never know, or at least not myself and the voters since Pro has not mentioned this. Here is a statement made by Pro: \"I do not agree with your terms as they where not originally outlined. As the instigator it is normally assumed that you have the burden of proving your point. It is up to the voters to decide who wins, not you. I will address your concerns to be a good sport. \" If he/she does not agree with my terms (they actually were originally outlined since the first round was for acceptance), then why didn't Pro attempt at refuting them? As an Instigator, it is assumed that I have the burden of proving my point. I already have proved my point, yet Pro has not proved his/hers since he/she has failed to meet his/her burden. I completely agree that it is up to the voters to decide, this burden is a mere aid for the voters, saying that if Pro does not have these three things, they can't win because their case is not sufficient to prove their assertions. Conclusion: Because of Pro's ignoring of evidence, misunderstanding of the topic, outdated evidence, and inability to fulfill his/her burden, it is clear that Con is currently the front runner in this debate.", "qid": "45", "docid": "540788cc-2019-04-18T15:19:54Z-00003-000", "rank": 95, "score": 83578.0}, {"content": "Title: The US Penny Should be Taken out of Service Content: I have not debated on this website for a long time. Glad to be back! Moving on, this is the debate of the topic: \"The US Penny Should be Taken Out of Service.\" The first round is simply for acceptance. Rules: 1) No trolling/semantics. 2) No offensive content/swearing 3) Keep arguments within the spirit of debate/no personal attacks. In the event of a rule being broken by either side, it will result in an automatic loss. I eagerly await an opponent.", "qid": "45", "docid": "540788cc-2019-04-18T15:19:54Z-00007-000", "rank": 96, "score": 83449.0}, {"content": "Title: The United States should cease production of the penny Content: Full Resolution: The United States should cease production of the penny.", "qid": "45", "docid": "35161051-2019-04-18T12:33:43Z-00007-000", "rank": 97, "score": 83290.0}, {"content": "Title: Stopping production of the penny in the United States would be a good decision. Content: Sorry about the late response, to my arguments.1. It costs more to produce it than it is worth.2. Other countries have done it with success.3. We've gotten rid of coins before.1. It costs more to produce it than it is worth. The cost to produce a penny is approximately 1.83 cents to make, and it is only worth 1 cent. This being so the government loses $55,000,000 doing this transaction. [1] Although this is basically zero compared to the current national debt, it would be a good start in lowering the debt.2. Other countries have done it before.Finland, New Zealand, and Canada have all ceased making one cent pieces for transaction [2]. They have all done this without harm to their economy, and it has gotten easier to make transactions with cash, as prices are rounded to the nearest 5 cents for cash users. (credit users still use one cent numbers, but they don't need pennies). [4]3. We've gotten rid of coins before. We used to have a half-cent piece, but that had lost all of it's value. The dime even is now worth about as much as the half cent was, so it is time to change. [3] [4]Sources [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...(United_States_coin) [2] http://coincollectingenterprises.com... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org...(United_States_coin) [4] Video http://www.youtube.com...", "qid": "45", "docid": "bb3f63e1-2019-04-18T16:27:45Z-00002-000", "rank": 98, "score": 82634.0}, {"content": "Title: The Penny Should Die. Content: Hah hah, good job Ether. I forfeit", "qid": "45", "docid": "21311659-2019-04-18T12:07:50Z-00000-000", "rank": 99, "score": 82492.0}, {"content": "Title: The United States should cease production of the penny Content: In this speech I will be showing that my opponent's arguments are flawed 1. My opponent relates pennies to time, and shows how it correlates to time. My opponent does however, not show a correlation since their is no explicit or implicit link that they make between time and pennies. In fact, the average person who pays with pennies will spend 2 seconds extra per penny at the register. That means that my opponent is exactly wrong, pennies in fact take our time away. 2. There is no cost for ceasing production of the penny. Although my opponent may have misunderstood the resolution as pennies are now not accepted, the resolution simply asks whether production should be stopped. As I stated in my case, pennies actually cost billions of dollars a year to manufacture, so this argument falls. 3. Yet again, no link is made between the claim and the proof. My opponent states that pennies are economic indicators, but offers no evidence, either objective or analytical. This means that this argument should be ignored due to the lack of support. 4. The resolution clearly states ceasing production of the penny and not removal of it as legal tender, so this argument is also not relevant. 5. I am not sure what my opponent is attempting to claim, but it appears that they are claiming hackers steal pennies by the 5. We can safely assume its irrelevance in the matter.", "qid": "45", "docid": "35161051-2019-04-18T12:33:43Z-00003-000", "rank": 100, "score": 82450.0}]}
{"query": "Should net neutrality be restored?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: Net neutrality adds no new regs, only preserves Internet neutrality Content: \"Net Neutrality is the Internet's First Amendment.\" Save the Internet on Opposing Views.com.: \"Advocates of Net Neutrality are not promoting new regulations. We are attempting to restore tried and tested consumer protections and network operating principles that made the Internet a great engine for free speech and innovation. By passing Net Neutrality legislation we're restoring under law the open Internet's most fundamental principle.\"", "qid": "46", "docid": "fca1d19b-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00063-000", "rank": 1, "score": 147949.0}, {"content": "Title: Net neutrality laws. Content: i will", "qid": "46", "docid": "877a9d97-2019-04-18T15:11:50Z-00000-000", "rank": 2, "score": 141986.0}, {"content": "Title: Net Neutrality Should Be Repealed Content: Net Neutrality is the freedom of the Internet. For my argument I have three reasons: 1. ISPs will have more control over the Internet without Net Neutrality. 2. Net Neutrality is the freedom of speech. 3. Without Net Neutrality, the Internet will be more expensive. REASON ONE With Net Neutrality in place, ISPs can't control who goes in the fast lane or not. This makes certain that everyone surfs at the same speeds and nobody goes slower than anyone else. Without Net Neutrality, ISPs can control you and how fast your browser loads, which sites you can go to, how you operate... Without Net Neutrality, ISPs control everything. The worst part is that you don't even know if your ISP is slowing you down. All ISPs can do anything and hide it. \"A widely cited example of a violation of net neutrality principles was the Internet service provider Comcast's secret slowing (\"throttling\") of uploads from peer-to-peer file sharing (P2P) applications by using forged packets. Comcast did not stop blocking these protocols, like BitTorrent, until the Federal Communications Commission ordered them to stop. In another minor example, The Madison River Communications company was fined US$15,000 by the FCC, in 2004, for restricting their customers' access to Vonage, which was rivaling their own services. AT&T was also caught limiting access to FaceTime, so only those users who paid for AT&T's new shared data plans could access the application. In July 2017, Verizon Wireless was accused of throttling after users noticed that videos played on Netflix and YouTube were slower than usual, though Verizon commented that it was conducting \"network testing\" and that net neutrality rules permit \"reasonable network management practices\"\" (Wikipedia). ISPs blocking websites brings me to my second argument... REASON TWO Repealing Net Neutrality violates the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which states: \"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.\" This should have forced the government to keep Net Neutrality in place, noting that repealing Net Neutrality is respecting that these ISPs can prevent many from reading the news, articles, forums, and statements made on the internet. Not only does repealing Net Neutrality go against freedom of speech, it goes against all of Amendment I. Stopping freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right for people to assemble, and petitioning the government for a redress. This goes directly against the amendment, so even if there was any good to repealing Net Neutrality, our government can't do it. REASON THREE With Net Neutrality replaced, ISPs can make you pay more for absolutely anything. For instance, an ISP could slow down everyone's traffic, resulting in hundreds of people paying more for a faster internet. With a slower internet, people using a browser for \"quick awnsers\" would come to an end. The internet would be greatly affected in ways nobody wants. Another way for the internet to become more expensive is if an ISP forced you to pay to enter sites. \"Americans' average wealth tops $301,000 per adult, enough to rank us fourth on the latest Credit Suisse Global Wealth report. But that figure doesn't tell you how the middle class American is doing. Americans' median wealth is a mere $44,900 per adult -- half have more, half have less\" (CNN). If ISPs started forcing you to pay, many Americans would have to stop using the internet. Not to mention ISPs could start attempting to DDoS each other, fighting for a way to hack into an opponent's system. There, they could slow down all of their customer's internet traffic and block sites they go to. Hackers could also try to do this too, and create fraud ISPs to control others. Repealing Net Neutrality would open the doors to more internet crime, and affect how the internet works from now on. Therefore, I still stand by my argument that repealing Net Neutrality is a negative.", "qid": "46", "docid": "1f1620a4-2019-04-18T11:54:27Z-00001-000", "rank": 3, "score": 138865.0}, {"content": "Title: Net Neutrality Should Be Repealed Content: I have accepted your debate. I recently was debating over this same thing- on the other side- and the other debater changed my mind. I wish to spread on what I have learned through this debate. Let the debate begin!", "qid": "46", "docid": "1f1620a4-2019-04-18T11:54:27Z-00003-000", "rank": 4, "score": 135337.0}, {"content": "Title: Net neutrality Content: should be a good debate.", "qid": "46", "docid": "2b6ac2c3-2019-04-18T15:10:44Z-00009-000", "rank": 5, "score": 134712.0}, {"content": "Title: Net neutrality is required to preserve the existing structure of the internet. Content: This argument is more speculative, it is true. No one really knows what will happen if net neutrality falls.", "qid": "46", "docid": "92c80a0a-2019-04-19T12:47:33Z-00018-000", "rank": 6, "score": 134578.0}, {"content": "Title: The US government should implement a Net Neutrality policy. Content: This debate is about what the Internet will become in the years to come; Whether it will remain an open platform for advancement, or a platform for the advancement of three or four large corporations and their partners. Let's look at the Verizon example given, they spent 18 billion on fiber optics. This statistic is supposed to make the point that these companies spend money, and that were net neutrality put into practice, this investment would be somehow become terribly unprofitable. I want to point out two aspects of the source given though. First, \"they are expected to start turning profits on their new offerings in 2009.\" 3 years, only 3 years to turn a profit on an 18 billion dollar investment. We can see the wild profitability of controlling such a large portion of our nations communication infrastructure. Net neutrality does not make this a bad investment, it doesn't make expanding a network's reach, or increasing it's capacity something that loses money, but it does ensure that while a company is expanding they don't screw the customers that are already connected. Faster connections can be bought, and people will want them. Making your network faster, advancing your network, will be met enthusiastically by consumers, and is not undermined by net neutrality. Second, \"Because many companies offer package-deals to customers which include telephone, internet and cable TV service,...\" This bundling, this use of the same infrastructure for a variety of data types, illustrates the end-to-end principle that the Internet was built on. The Internet relies on intelligent terminals, and a dumb network. By having a network that can facilitate all types of data we allow for a network like the internet. The \"smart network\" is not a positive, once the network starts telling the data what to do, we limit what the data can do. Look to the telephone network as an example. It was built to facilitate one type of data transfer at one rate that was the main of transmitting voice. Once a new way to transmit voice was found though, this network, that would make\"intelligent\" assumptions about what that data needed to do, prevented this better form of communication. Once we dethrone data as king of the network, we permanently impair the Internet's ability to adapt and improve. http://www.wordiq.com... Yes, ISPs are profit motivated. Does this mean that they will seek the best consumer experience, or that they will seek the consumer experience that best benefits themselves? The negation says that with net neutrality, consumers would be unable tailer their internet for their use. This isn't true, and again I turn to the end-to-end principle. If you've ever looked at your router settings, you'll find the ability to prioritize your traffic, to put Skype over firefox, to put one router port or device over the rest. This is the intelligent terminal of the end-to-end network. And you may say or think that this takes a high degree of technical know-how, but it doesn't, ISPs offer to guide you through this set-up already. -------- 1) Net neutrality will encourage and protect innovation and competition. There is a difference between unregulated, and decentralized. Regulation preventing the Internet from being centrally controlled is in no detrimental to the end of a decentralized network. My opponent seems to leave out the fact that for those servers to be accessed, people need to go through ISPs. The ability of ISPs to tailer shape consumer traffic for the benefit of their bank accounts is directly related to the entrepreneurial nature of the internet. Which do you think is more profitable - allowing competing services primarily operating out of a garage , or teaming multi billion dollar companies to crush their competition? Microsoft, at $224.75 billion, or Linux. Google, $163.2 billion, or askjeeves. ISPs are profit motivated. Beyond this, look at who owns the Internet. Should we allow the Internet to be controlled by companies, the 5 or so network service providers that control the Backbone of the Internet, would control access to the entire network. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) 2) IP Standards I point again to the end-to-end network design, the way ISPs handle data transfer is the foundation of these protocols. The TCP protocol is responsible for error checking, the application controls the preference of accuracy over speed or vise versa, and that protocol depends on a neutral network. Once the network starts making assumptions about how to treat data, we inhibit future improvements and adaptations. http://www.wordiq.com... (specifically the IDIOT SAVANT BEHAVIORS FOR DIFFERENT DATA TYPES section) 3) Free exchange of information, and rights of the consumer \"They have no reason to censor information.\" ISPs are profit motivated, as you said yourself. Teaming up with multi-billion dollar companies is profitable, and ISPs thus have every reason to censor and favor certain information, competitors, and sites. \"The FCC under net neutrality however can.\" This is completely false and baseless claim. \"As for ISPs that monitor traffic, that is irrelevant to net neutrality\" ISPs being peering into your packets, building online profiles of you, and selling it to the highest bidder, is in no way being indifferent to the contents of those packets. Without net neutrality, we leave the Internet open to attack. We need net neutrality to prevent the Internet from becoming and Invasive and biased service provided and controlled by large corporations. We need net neutrality to protect the open and innovative nature of the Internet.", "qid": "46", "docid": "91bf368f-2019-04-18T18:58:56Z-00003-000", "rank": 7, "score": 134344.0}, {"content": "Title: Net neutrality. Content: Net neutrality is the concept that the internet should remain neutral and not be dictasted by content or money.", "qid": "46", "docid": "41ed0b25-2019-04-18T11:53:25Z-00009-000", "rank": 8, "score": 132349.0}, {"content": "Title: Net neutrality Content: Internet neutrality is The principle that internet service providers and the government should treat all data on the website equally, with the exception of anything illegal like child porn. That means companies can't slow down a website like debate.org for any reason or favor one website over another. How ISPs would have you believe is that without this rule that they would speed up websites making them faster for everyone. However in practice how this works is that ISPs slow down everyone then demand that companies pay a bribe to make the internet go the same speed it used to. Let's take Hulu and Netflix. Without net neutrality GCI for example would slow them both down then demand they pay say One million dollars to be in the so called \"fast lane\" which is really what they had before. If Netflix payed the bribe and Hulu didn't they would slow Hulu and Netflix would have a unfair advantage. They could keep threatening Netflix and force them to pay more and more. It would also make it impossible for start up companies to go anywhere because they would be to slow because they can't pay the bribe so start up businesses couldn't be successful. For more info check out this video my CGP grey's video on the subject.", "qid": "46", "docid": "2b6ac2c3-2019-04-18T15:10:44Z-00007-000", "rank": 9, "score": 132190.0}, {"content": "Title: The US shouldn't require net neutrality. Content: Net neutrality \"is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication.\" http://en.wikipedia.org... The first round is for acceptance. The second is for arguments. The third is for rebuttals.", "qid": "46", "docid": "1ae9f84e-2019-04-18T15:25:04Z-00005-000", "rank": 10, "score": 131978.0}, {"content": "Title: The US government should implement a Net Neutrality policy. Content: With a society that is becoming more and more connected to, and reliant on, the Internet, there is an increasing need to address the issue of net neutrality. Net neutrality is a broad term, but for this debate I propose it be limited to this definition: Net neutrality: ISPs who charge for internet access must provide a service that enables users to send and receive packets using the Internet in a way that is indifferent to the contents, source or destination of the packets. The Internet has allowed for a truly impressive growth in interconnectivity of the world, it has provided a platform for massive innovations, and has allowed for a previously unprecedented method to share and access knowledge. A fundamental part of this network is it's flexibility, openness, and standardization. Failing to protect the open nature of the Internet is to allow the slow destruction of the Internet as a platform for the innovation that has so shaped our culture. We need to protect this free transfer of information. Implementing a net neutrality policy will protect innovation, maintain the standards that have allowed the internet to become what it is today, and protect the free exchange of ideas and knowledge. 1) Net neutrality will encourage and protect innovation and competition: So many of the great stories surrounding the Internet start in garages. So many of the business that are the giants of the tech industry started with a good idea, and that's about it. The ability of an idea to grow through the Internet with little capitol is what allowed companies like Amazon, eBay and Google to survive. Ensuring the continuity of this atmosphere is vital; Without it the Internet may devolve into something like the TV industry is now, a service provided by a few giant corporations who control access and distribution of information. Maintaining the equality of the Internet is maintaining the innovation at has so driven its development. 2) Internet Protocol Standards: Certain standards maintained across the Internet are what make it such a flexible platform for innovation and discussion. Regardless of the application using it, or the infrastructure that carries it the Internet maintains certain standards of how to treat packets of information. Among these are: (http://www.dpsproject.com...) a)Transmissions are broken down into small pieces referred to as \"packets,\" comprised of small portions of the overall information useful to the users at each transmission's endpoints. A small set of data is prefixed to these packets, describing the source and destination of each packet and how it is to be treated. b)Internet routers transmit these packets to various other routers, changing routers freely as a means of managing network flow. c)Internet routers transmit packets independently of each other and independently of the applications that the packets are supporting. The prioritization or discrimination of packets implicitly favors certain designs, and damage others. The Internet depends on a neutral platform to maintain the features so central to it. 3) Free exchange of information, and rights of the consumer: By ensuring the indifferent treatment of content and destinations of connections we ensure the ability to freely share and discuss ideas. By allowing packets to be treated differently based on content or destination we open the door for massive invasions of privacy, for robbing consumers of their fair use, and for a biased view of what should be a free environment. Do you really want your ISP to be able to look at every piece of information you send and receive on the internet? Do you want what your viewing in your home to be collected, packaged, and sold to any company that wants to more effectively shove advertisements down you throat? Net neutrality will protect the privacy of the consumer and the anonymity of the Web. When you look at the actual plans we buy for internet access, you'll see something like \"15Mbps plan\", buying you this plan is buying access to up to 15Mbps of information. Practices of throttling downloads or torrents of heavy users is robbing you of what you purchased. Let's say you buy a 20Mbps plan from Comcast. You have access to 20Mbps, but let's say Comcast starts throttling bittorrent (again), so your 20Mbps becomes 5Mbps if you're using bittorrent. Allowing ISPs to throttle consumers, beyond capping their speed at what they purchased, is equivalent to theft. What if ISPs start making deals with certain companies? What if Comcast made a deal with Facebook to slowdown packets that were headed for Myspace, or Disapora, or other social networking sites? What if Microsoft had downloads of openoffice, or linux distributions slowed? This would crush the nature of the internet (not to mention the open source movement), and provide a distorted view of what should be a open environment. Net neutrality is a policy essential to the future of the Internet. We need to to foster innovation and competition. We need to maintain the standards and flexibility of the Internet that made it what it is today. We need to protect the rights, and the privacy, of American citizens. We need net neutrality.", "qid": "46", "docid": "91bf368f-2019-04-18T18:58:56Z-00005-000", "rank": 11, "score": 129941.0}, {"content": "Title: Should The US Keep Net Neutrality Content: Hey, I'm really interested in this topic so I'm gonna be playing devil's advocate. Framing: There has been massive hysteria around net neutrality, but it really isn't that bad, and the repeal would do more good than harm. -Ajit Pai says it best: \"the sky isn\"t falling, consumers will stay protected, internet will continue to thrive.\" >>Contentions<< 1. Federal Control of the Internet is Dangerous: -Wired Magazine: The govt, through FCC, now has the vast power to regulate what is essential info. Govt overreach is being done in the name of net neutrality -Tech Law & Policy Attorney David O\"Neil: The FCC can forbid or allow one thing after anotherU94; shaping what you can/can\"t see on the internet -the problem of, \"blocking and slowing down certain info is bad,\" is possible in the hands of gov. too! -Appeals Court Judge Judy Silberman: Now the gov. can do whatever it wants as long as it is, \"making the Internet better.\" Gov. really has no filter now. Ex: 2 years ago, in San Fransisco, the local police department shut down all of the internet to stop a protest. The government had the power to suppress free speech because they had access to the internet. THE INTERNET WOULD BE BETTER IN THE HANDS ON INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS. -Also, according to NPR(and proven from page 249 in the official net neutrality rulebook): ISPs must disclose when they are slowing down certain traffic, thus showing customer when it is happening. Thus the customer is always informed, and very little harm can come from the repeal of Net Neutrality 2. Net Neutrality is a Red Herring that Hurts Innovation: -FCC plan (pg 249.): businesses need legal/financial freedom in order to spur innovation and creativity. By encouraging network investment, consumersU94; benefit. -basically, ISPs have more power to create better service when the gov. isn\"t breathing down their necks. -to simplify this: if we repeal net neutrality, then ISPs will be able to make faster internet for everyone -a world w/out NN would actually provide better service b/c companies would have more leeway to create faster content -Fox News: no internet provider wants to be known for \"slow service,\" or being, \"anti-free speech,\" so the consumer has nothing 2 worry about. -also, why is NN so important when before it was implemented, the internet was fine with none of these, \"dire problems?\" 3. Fairness and Desirability: -lets think super logically: services that require high amounts of reliability like hospitals would do much better w/out NN -I am talking to my dr. online about a serious heart condition that I have. That deserves faster internet connection than someone downloading music. ISPs should have the ability to speed up more important things -w/out Net Neutrality ISPs would be able to block harmful content like viruses & scams -the common thought is that ISPs will ruin free speech and block certain websites that they don\"t agree w/ but, really they will block undesirable things that no one wants to run into while online All these factors make repealing NN beneficial & desirable Thanks, Love to hear your response", "qid": "46", "docid": "81d4eb96-2019-04-18T11:26:08Z-00003-000", "rank": 12, "score": 129935.0}, {"content": "Title: Net neutrality. Content: I think the Internet would still remain neutral. Why? The Internet is capitalist more so without government control on how people charge you for services. The only thing net neutrality really did was prevent a provider from charging you for certain apps or other services like debate.org. Just like with cable or DirectTV you must pay more for better quality content or shows like NFL Sunday Ticket you pay more for more. So, if Sprint charges more for services like YouTube why not go to Verizon where YouTube is free.", "qid": "46", "docid": "41ed0b25-2019-04-18T11:53:25Z-00008-000", "rank": 13, "score": 129896.0}, {"content": "Title: Net Neutrality Should Be Repealed Content: Round 3: 1st rebuttal Round 4: 2nd rebuttal Round 5: Closing statements I believe net neutrality should be repealed. Change my mind. I hope to have a good debate.", "qid": "46", "docid": "1f1620a4-2019-04-18T11:54:27Z-00004-000", "rank": 14, "score": 129597.0}, {"content": "Title: Net Neutrality Should Be Repealed Content: Recently, the FCC voted for net neutrality to be repealed, and I support this decision wholeheartedly. My reasons for this are as follows: 1. The repeal of net neutrality eliminates regulations on ISPs, helping that sector of the economy grow. 2. A lot of the worries advocates of net neutrality have are rather unrealistic or void of any economic sense. REASON NUMBER ONE: Getting rid of net neutrality will get rid of a slew of harmful regulations on ISPs and help the free market take care of the internet, as it should. To see the effects this will have, we must examine what regulations occur under title II (AKA net neutrality). Under net neutrality, ISPs must submit any ideas for a \"new technology or business model\" to the FCC. This regulation greatly hampers any upcoming innovation, harming the internet economy. This isn't even the least of it though. The FCC also has the power to \"partially regulate the capital investment of existing companies\" and decide what companies can enter the ISP market. Yes, the FCC can decide what companies can become ISPs, which means that this \"monopoly\" problem constantly brought up by opponents of the repeal is more likely to happen under net neutrality, considering that business-stifling regulation blocks potential new ISPs from entering the market. The American Action Forum states that this puts a trillion dollars of GDP and 2.5 million jobs under a \"regulatory regime\". Repealing net neutrality will get rid of these harmful restrictions and bring freedom back into the free market. This will take away barriers against innovation, barriers against investment, barriers against entry into the ISP market (which limits consumer choice), and to top it all off, by getting rid of excessive government regulation, we will be triggering authoritarians in the process. That is a win-win-win-win, and to reference Donald Trump, I am starting to get tired of all the winning. Other regulations that will be destroyed under this repeal include the prohibition of paid priority. Paid priority is when ISPs \"pay to have certain bits sent to computer screens at a faster rate than others\" (Daily Wire). Smaller ISPs used to use this, giving them an advantage considering they had less materials but could pay money for better speeds. Net neutrality comes into play, preventing paid priority from happening, and keeping smaller ISPs (who ironically enough, are who net neutrality advocates claim to help) from having that fighting chance in the marketplace. Because of this, consumers are placed in a lose-lose situation, in which they must choose between higher costs, or slower internet. Getting rid of net neutrality will bring paid priority back into play, giving smaller ISPs the advantage they once had. Considering that title II means the internet is a public telecommunications utility, the FCC also has power to levy taxes against ISPs. A 2014 study made the estimation that net neutrality regulations could result in as much as $45.4 billion lost in new ISP investments over the next 5 years. Tunku Varadarajan interviewed Ajit Pai, commissioner of the FCC, and gathered this: \"Among our nation\"s 12 largest internet service providers,\" he told the audience, \"domestic broadband capital expenditures decreased by 5.6%, or $3.6 billion, between 2014 and 2016.\" I ask him to elaborate. \"As I\"ve seen it and heard it,\" he says, \"Title II regulations have stood in the way of investment. Just last week, for instance, we heard from 19 municipal broadband providers. These are small, government-owned ISPs who told us that \"even though we lack a profit motive, Title II has affected the way we do business.\" \" By keeping net neutrality in place, we aren\"t sticking it to the man. We aren\"t attacking those greedy corporations. We are hurting the small ISPs by levying taxes against them and taking away their special advantages and no amount of Jimmy Kimmel tyrades can change that. Repealing net neutrality can bring the good changes these smaller ISPs need. REASON NUMBER TWO: The worries of advocates for net neutrality are rather unrealistic. There are two main causes of concerns: ISPs will make you pay for certain websites, and ISPs will block access to certain websites or throttle speeds to certain websites. A tweet from \"Banksy\" states the typical worries: Twitter: $14.99 per month Snapchat: $9.99 per month Youtube: $19.99 per month Netflix: $9.99 per movie Google: $1.99 per search \"If you don't want to pay extra for your favorite sites you need to be supporting #netneutrality\". However, these claims are all false. Now if it wasn\"t for the fact that there is a 99.99% chance those numbers are made up, that might just be a convincing argument. The only problem is that it is completely lacking of any economic sense. If an ISP actually made people pay two dollars for every google search, then people would be leaving that ISP in droves in favor of a ISP with better prices. This is due to the principle of competition, a great factor in capitalist economies when it comes to keeping prices low without government intervention. Of course, there is the argument that some people only have access to one ISP, meaning they have a monopoly and can do whatever they want. This is also false. If an ISP charged prices for access to certain sites, another ISP could go into the area offering better prices, meaning a great profit for them, and horrible losses for the other ISP. The first ISP then lowers their prices to compete, resulting in a win-win for consumers, who not only have multiple choices, but lower prices. People also like to cite Portugal as an example for what the U.S. could be like without net neutrality, as they have you pay for certain packages like the social media package, the games package, or the music package. But what advocates of net neutrality don't know is that using Portugal as an argument for net neutrality is actually a pretty harmful idea, almost on the same tier as shooting yourself in the foot. Snopes put it best when stating: \"The European Union\"s Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) established net neutrality guidelines in 2015. Portugal is a member of the European Union, so its internet providers must comply.\" In other words, this apocalyptic, prepackaged, pay-to-play world we are told we are about to live in apparently happens under a country with net neutrality regulations. Besides having to pay to access certain websites, another main worry of Net Neutrality advocates is that ISPs will \"throttle\" speeds to certain websites or block access to others. The only issue with this distressed vision is that these worries have no factual or historical backing. Ian Tuttle from the National Review makes notice of the fact that when the FCC first considered net neutrality in 2010, they could only name four instances of anticompetitive behavior, all of those being relatively minor. Not only that, but cell phone networks are not subject to net neutrality-esque regulations of any kind, and they don\"t engage in such anticompetitive behavior. About a decade ago, Comcast attempted to \"throttle\" speeds (slowing down access) to certain data packets but were \"pilloried in the court of public opinion\" and quickly relented. There goes that concern! To finish my arguments, I shall make an allusion to the past. In February 2015, Net Neutrality was enacted. I do not remember having to pay for certain websites and I do not remember hearing any stories about ISPs raising the prices of entry to certain websites. I have no worries about the future of the U.S. under a net neutrality-free market economy and because of that I can see of no reason but to vote in affirmation to this resolution. SOURCES: https://www.snopes.com... https://www.dailywire.com... http://www.nationalreview.com...", "qid": "46", "docid": "1f1620a4-2019-04-18T11:54:27Z-00002-000", "rank": 15, "score": 129235.0}, {"content": "Title: The US government should implement a Net Neutrality policy. Content: \"This debate is about what the Internet will become in the years to come\" No it's a debate about FCC regulating ISPs in regards to access rates with users and what business plans they can entail. I've already pointed out the falsity of such statements in the prior round. It remains an ipse dixit claim bordering on fear mongering. It ignores the nature of what the Internet is, what property is and seeks to void the proper use of an ISPs property. \"Let's look at the Verizon example given\" Strawman. The argument detailing the expenditure of Verizon dealt with that the ISP themselves provide the infrastructure, including the upgraded technology. Nor did I argue that net neutrality makes such ventures unprofitable. What net neutrality does is explicitly reduce the available income of an ISP by denying it the ability to tailor access rates to customer supply. The corollary of that is that under net neutrality, fees of *all* users must then account for the discrepancy in profit margin in relation to infrastructure growth. It makes all the payers for the benefit that only some want. That's the issue there. Even so such arguments from profit amount to little more than red herrings. What one may do rightfully with ones property is unrelated to any profit they garner from such as an arbiter. \"Making your network faster, advancing your network, will be met enthusiastically by consumers, and is not undermined by net neutrality.\" Absolutely it is. The available income diminishes exponentially once you implement net neutrality as a *price control mechanism* for ISPs which is an *explicit* goal of net neutrality. To state this will have zero effect on an ISPs ability to expand current infrastructure and invest in new technology that will grant greater access speed is simply ignorant. Net neutrality denies tailoring plans, i.e., variance in priced plans that relate to access rates. It demands that access rates are indeterminate by use. That means heavy use cannot be charged accordingly for those wishing to pay, it means those wishing to pay for stable high access speeds cannot. It means the cost of users who do use high amounts of data transfer must be costed by all. If, as was the case with Comcast, an ISP is forced to devote a large portion of its bandwidth to a minority of its customer base, it is overall not being used profitably. The fallout of making an ISP's property less profitable, under government force, is the reduction of incentive to increase its bandwidth capacities by investing in more property and likewise innovative technology or services. \"dumb internet\" Net neutrality advocates a 'dumb' or stupid Internet - one unregulated by an intelligence that might favor the transmission of some content over other content. It's simply another way of saying no priority can be given to data over any other. However to advocate such a thing one must ignore what the Internet is, namely, transmission of data across private property. Data is transmitted through the infrastructure of ISPs (explicitly their private property) all the cables, computers, maintenance and infrastructure that make the Internet **possible at all.** The \"stupid\" Internet of net neutrality advocates is explicitly one in which ISPs must, under threat of government force, remain passive to how data flows through their infrastructure. \"consumers would be unable tailer their internet for their use .\" Irrelevant. The call for net neutrality is the ability to administer controls *to the ISP* not the end user. Customisation of user preferences only relates to how ISPs have the ability to manage their data transfer. The ability for an ISP to offer a premium rate of access to customers willing to pay is not analogous to the end user changing their router settings. Just like the ability to have express mail delivery services is unrelated to when you decide to post a package. \"My opponent seems to leave out the fact that for those servers to be accessed, people need to go through ISPs.\" I think you'll find I mentioned such fact several times. Such as net neutrality neutralising an ISPs ability to charge differentiated prices to servers of varying size requirements. \"consumer traffic for the benefit of their bank accounts is directly related to the entrepreneurial nature of the internet\" Again, unrelated to how business interests work, the history of the Internet itself showing explicitly contrary. The fear mongering is still ipse dixit. \"allowing competing services primarily operating out of a garage , or teaming multi billion dollar companies to crush their competition?\" I'm saying irrelevant. That's the point. Servers require ISPs. End users require servers and ISPs. ISPs require end users and servers. ISPs aren't blocking servers apart from ones related to illegal activity and have no business interest in doing so. Again, still irrelevant to private property violation and net neutrality itself. \"ISPs are profit motivated.\" Of course. They are a business. None of this has to do with validating net neutrality - freezing the ability of ISPs to tailor data priority if they so choose, across property they own. \"who owns the Internet.\" I covered this already in R1. Source code and protocols are for the majority, open source. ISP infrastructure - private, servers - private, end user hardware - private. \"Should we allow the Internet to be controlled by companies\" Equivocation. Data is transmitted through private property. \"the 5 or so network service providers that control the Backbone of the Internet, would control access to the entire network.\" If by access you mean ISPs are ISPs, then yes they are. That ISPs may discriminate data content and charge premium rates for it is their right as a business. Again no different from say, cable TV services. Net neutrality however denies customers willing to have premium access at their choosing and ISPs from offering it. \"we inhibit future improvements and adaptations.\" Under FCC regulations, such innovation would be likely barred, seeing as it amounts to *variance in data* which is what net neutrality explicitly denies. Unregulated, people are free to innovate and support what they deem fit. As has been the cases up to now. An ISP that doesn't provide access is not a successful ISP. Largely irrelevant though. \"ISPs thus have every reason to censor and favor certain information, competitors, and sites.\" Why censor when you can charge differentiating rates? Again, an ISP that does not provide services to end users isn't a successful one. There is no valid reason to assume an ISP will run as an authoritarian regime that denies access to content. A point which again is irrelevant to net neutrality which deals with data prioritisation and not, content availability. Nothing about the FCC's net neutrality regards base censorship. Net neutrality is about *how* data is transmitted. Not what. http://www.fee.org... http://www.naviganteconomics.com... \"This is completely false and baseless claim.\" They are already doing it with radio and TV 'balanced view' proposed regulation. There's nothing to suggest they consider the Internet any differently in terms of media. \"ISPs being peering into your packets, building online profiles of you, and selling it to the highest bidder, is in no way being indifferent to the contents of those packets.\" Again, irrelevant to net neutrality. It's purely a contractual issue between end user and provider.", "qid": "46", "docid": "91bf368f-2019-04-18T18:58:56Z-00002-000", "rank": 16, "score": 129087.0}, {"content": "Title: Net Neutrality means greater regulation of the Internet Content: \"Net Neutrality Will Increase Government Monitoring of Internet Traffic.\" Hands Off the Internet on Opposing Views: \"Net neutrality calls for the Federal government to enforce standards on how online data is transmitted. But to accomplish this, there would have to be a significant increase in federal monitoring of online traffic at all levels to ensure compliance, including both the public Internet and dedicated private networks. Moreover, once inevitable disputes arose, federal courts would become involved, which would likely lead to even higher levels of monitoring.\"", "qid": "46", "docid": "fca1d19b-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00066-000", "rank": 17, "score": 128682.0}, {"content": "Title: Net Neutrality Content: Let's begin.", "qid": "46", "docid": "5b09f246-2019-04-18T16:17:57Z-00006-000", "rank": 18, "score": 127900.0}, {"content": "Title: Net neutrality helps preserve democracy and free speech Content: With a neutral Internet, anyone can spread the information of anything. Democracy Now can provide their alternative liberal \"War and Peace Report,\" and the Ku Klutz Klan can spread their racism and hatred. Senator Al Franken of Minnesota has spoken out about net neutrality, saying it is \"the first amendment issue of our time.\" With a controlled Internet, cable service providers would have the power to turn the Internet into a North Korean-esque media zone. They would have the power to become masters of propaganda, blocking any negative news concerning themselves or their interests and promoting whatever they would. \"With great power,\" says Peter Parker's Uncle Ben, \"comes great responsibility.\" That doctrine stands up in the world of superheroes. In a world controlled by individuals responsible for the financial welfare of themselves and their companies, however, we have doubts about how responsible they will be.", "qid": "46", "docid": "92c80a0a-2019-04-19T12:47:33Z-00011-000", "rank": 19, "score": 127770.0}, {"content": "Title: Net Neutrality Content: \"The internet is far too vast to be properly regulated. The money required to promote neutrality is far too large amount to be feasible.\" Net Neutrality enforcement isn't like police enforcement in that one is regulating innumerable potentially morally unrestrained individuals. There are a finite number of telecoms in the US, and that number is getting smaller as the giants swallow up the smaller ones. Considering that Net Neutrality has been to this point the de facto standard, the telecoms would not have a mandate to implement; rather a restriction to avoid. The only expense would come when the principle is violated, which could be settled easily enough by a class action lawsuit. \"a successful business in the real world should also reap the benefits of advertisement on the web.\" Such is the nature of the internet right now. Are you saying the field should be tilted further in favor of established businesses in the interest of fairness by allowing an internet tax paid to the service providers? If that is your argument, then it essentially boils down to which side we compensate towards: the landed and established businesses, or the smaller, potentially successful startups. While one could make the argument that the former is \"fairer\", it is only so when regarding the present independently. Most large companies today had the benefit of being one of the first to corner a market. Simply by virtue of temporal advantage, and not necessarily by virtue of inherent product quality (though this is often the case as well), they were able to succeed. It follows then that in the interest of fairness, barriers to entry be removed as much as is reasonable in order to allow at least a similar opportunity as was afforded to the currently dominant business. This leads to more consistently multipolar markets, which are nearly always more productive than unipolar monopolistic markets.", "qid": "46", "docid": "5b09f227-2019-04-18T20:01:38Z-00003-000", "rank": 20, "score": 127738.0}, {"content": "Title: Should The US Keep Net Neutrality Content: Thank you for your acceptance. Playing Devil's Advocate isn't quite something I'm ready to do yet, so I applaud you. The problem with repealing Net Neutrality is that the internet is now an important utility for many people in industrialized nations, including the US. Repealing this would be like if you were charged different rates on what you use your water for. Your pipe to the internet shouldn't be watered down by corporation who historically, have ripped people off again and again. If you're a start up business, like an e-commerce makeup company, or a social media platform, crippling Net Neutrality cripples your ability to grow as a business. You'll be locked behind a pay wall, at the mercy of larger corporations. Your competition is either stamped out along with you, or unbeatable. As a business owner, is that what you want? No, of course not. Then there's repression of freedom of speech. At the snap of their fingers, depending on your telecom company's CEO, your news sites, blogs, or any high profile political entities could be locked - simply for being too liberal, or too conservative. As a liberal, would you want to be restricted to the dumpster fire that is Fox News? No, you want what you feel is the most reliable source at your disposal. Then there's the nickeling and dimeing of consumers. Imagine this: you're watching some YouTube, and you get this message. \"Your free trial of YouTube has ended. Upgrade to our premium plan at [insane price] per month! Have a nice day!\" Who the hell wants to pay extra for something they're already paying for? Nobody, they already get more than enough money to keep the servers 100% open with the lowest level plan! I get that you need to make a profit, but part of that is having consumers like you. If you throttle websites, expect yourself to be despised. That's the opposite of what you want as a company.", "qid": "46", "docid": "81d4eb96-2019-04-18T11:26:08Z-00002-000", "rank": 21, "score": 127524.0}, {"content": "Title: Net Neutrality \u2013 All Internet Traffic Should Be Treated Equally Content: Net neutrality is required to preserve the existing structure of the internet.", "qid": "46", "docid": "92c80a0a-2019-04-19T12:47:33Z-00002-000", "rank": 22, "score": 127380.0}, {"content": "Title: Net Neutrality Content: Net Neutrality is an issue coming up with increasing regularity with service providers altering, blocking, or prioritizing content. With modern society becoming increasingly dependent on free and unfettered flow of information as the internet provides, Net Neutrality is becoming increasingly vital to future economic growth. Firstly, one of the most common arguments against Net Neutrality is that it is internet regulation, using the latter word as a pejorative. Free market economy, they say, mandates that ISPs may run their networks however they choose. However, they neglect the fact that the internet is a market itself, and ISPs act not so much as companies presiding over a resource as governments presiding over an economy. Just as the government needs restraint on its own economic control in order for its economy to grow, so the service providers need to exercise restraint in their control over the internet's tubes for it to grow. Secondly, let's look at what gives the internet such vast economic potential in the first place: it is this level playing field that has been maintained up to this point, giving McDonalds just as much potential for a great internet presence as the restaurant down the street. Of course this has been skewed by advertising and convention (people are more likely to go to places they've heard of, for example), but this will only be exacerbated to an extreme degree by the loss of net neutrality. Allowing the service provider arbitrary control over what gets to their end users will inevitably impose a huge burden on smaller website owners who cannot afford to front the cash that Google or Amazon can in order to get priority access to end users. The loss of net neutrality will mean a huge barrier to entry into any market as the internet becomes increasingly integral to information gathering, which will damage economic competitiveness not only between internet companies, but anybody for whom an internet presence is important.", "qid": "46", "docid": "5b09f227-2019-04-18T20:01:38Z-00005-000", "rank": 23, "score": 127015.0}, {"content": "Title: The US government should implement a Net Neutrality policy. Content: Before I move onto refutations, I'd like to draw attention to the style the negations last argument adopted. Small chunks of arguments were taken, out of context of the larger argument. Those arguments were then either weakly refuted, called irrelevant despite it being brought up by the negation and being quite central to the resolution, or had the definition of net neutrality shifted to try to invalidate the argument. And don't forget the latin and logical fallacies. This was in an attempt to create the illusion of this case being completely torn apart. So first, let me restate the definition of net neutrality, as given three lines into the debate. Net neutrality: ISPs who charge for internet access must provide a service that enables users to send and receive packets using the Internet in a way that is indifferent to the contents, source or destination of the packets. Net neutrality is not access rates, it is not an \"explicit price control mechanism\", it is about how packets are treated and delivered. The neg decided to refute almost all of my points with a variation of the same argument, that being that traffic is sent over private property and thus should be allowed to be manipulated and used however the ISP wants. In doing so, my opponent has granted the arguments on a technical basis, opposing them only morally on the basis of the private property argument. To list those arguments opposed morally, thus granted technically. -The end-to-end design of the Internet needs to be preserved -ISPs have motivation to grant multi-billion dollar companies favored treatment over smaller enterprises -Control of the Internet will be in the hands of a handful of large companies that control the Backbone Network. \"It ignores the nature of what the Internet is\" The Internet is a egalitarian, decentralized system for the free exchange of information. To grant control of that system to those few companies, you must ignore the nature of what the Internet is. \"It means the cost of users who do use high amounts of data transfer must be costed by all. If, as was the case with Comcast, an ISP is forced to devote a large portion of its bandwidth to a minority of its customer base\" *This* is a contractual issue, when a company sells plans that they cannot deliver on, that being the access rate these torrenters use, the fault does not lie with those who use their package, it lies with Comcast. \"Absolutely it is. The available income diminishes exponentially once you implement net neutrality as a *price control mechanism* for ISPs which is an *explicit* goal of net neutrality.\" Again, I point to the definition of net neutrality, and this arguments nature as a contractual issue. Net neutrality is about how packets are treated and sent. If ISPs oversell their product, it is their responsibility to either handle the packages they sold, or re design those packages. \"dumb internet\" This is refuted by the private property argument, addressed lower down. \"Irrelevant. The call for net neutrality is the ability to administer controls *to the ISP* not the end user.\" The ability for customization by the end user is in response to his argument of the inability to tailor access to consumer needs. This is part of the end-to-end design, and is used to show that traffic shaping isn't needed. \"\"entrepreneurial nature of the internet\" Again, unrelated to how business interests work, \" This is the motivation of companies to side with multi-billion dollar companies over garage companies yet again. It is in the ISPs obvious benefit to side with google over that kid with an old lunix computer running a search engine to get some ad revenue. \"I covered this already in R1. Source code and protocols are for the majority, open source.\" You ignored the giant pipeline that most internet traffic will eventually flow through (see http://en.wikipedia.org...) \"Why censor when you can charge differentiating rates?\" Multi-billion dollar company = more profit The private property, and reduced income argument. Our governments responsibility is to protect its citizens. Part of this is to ensure that they are not exploited at the expense of profit. Take Goldman Sachs for example, we defiantly reduced their ability to profit by adding regulation, and preventing more of the trading that cause the economic downfall, but we did this because they were taking advantage of the consumer to make that profit. In the same vein we must protect the Internet from being exploited at the cost of the consumer in the name of profit. We are still buying that package from the ISP, and to say that ISPs are allowed to invade upon the property we have purchased in the form of data transmission, much less in the name of private property, is ridiculous. especially when this access rate argument can be negated by buying high access rate packages. Gah procrastination, 20 seconds remaining!", "qid": "46", "docid": "91bf368f-2019-04-18T18:58:56Z-00001-000", "rank": 24, "score": 126893.0}, {"content": "Title: The US shouldn't require net neutrality. Content: No one would propose that the U.S. Postal Service be prohibited from offering Express Mail because a \"fast lane\" mail service is \"unfair,\" \"undemocratic,\" or \"bad for the economy.\" Yet that's exactly what net neutrality would do for Internet services. In a free and open market, incentives exist to create premium services, with faster, guaranteed delivery quality, for things like medical monitoring which require higher reliability. Of course, suppliers could be expected to charge higher prices for these premium services. Such discrimination is procompetitive. Blocking premium services in the name of neutrality, on the other hand, can have the unintended consequence of blocking premium services from which consumers could benefit. The net neutrality debate turns on the distinction between procompetitive discrimination and anticompetitive discrimination. Net neutrality condemns both alike. Antitrust laws only condemn antitompetitive discrimination, so I for antitrust enforcement, which is more flexible, nuanced, and fact-based than a rigid net neutrality regime. It simply makes sense to allow a network to favor traffic from a patient's heart monitor over traffic delivering a music download. It also makes sense to allow network operators to restrict traffic that is downright harmful, such as viruses, worms, and spam. Antitrust laws allow these procompetitive benefits while also prohibiting anticompetitive discrimination. 1. An unregulated Internet is better than a regulated Internet. The Internet has always been a free and open market, shaped by intense competition and rampant growth. Costs and consumer demand interact to set price, entry costs are low, and entrepreneurs have the latitude to experiment with new and different business models. And as a free and open market, the Internet has thrived. In the absence of heavy government regulation, and \"due in large part to private investment and market-driven innovation, broadband in America has improved considerably in the last decade. More Americans are online at faster speeds than ever before.\" [1] Rigid net neutrality laws would change that. Instead of allowing the free market to guide investment dollars where needed, and allowing businesses to act based on the best use of scarce resources like bandwidth, the government would dictate many of these decisions, chilling competition, growth, and innovation. Historical data backs these claims up, showing that the less regulated broadband platform out-performs. Cable modem service, unburdened by \"open access\" mandates, spurted out to an early advantage. Then, when network sharing mandates on telephone networks were abruptly reduced, DSL surged. When DSL was regulated, network growth stagnated, but as soon as it was deregulated, DSL deployment took off. [2] Network sharing mandates were also imposed, and then eliminated, on fiber-to-the-home (FTTH) technology. Prior to the FCC's decision to eliminate fiber network \"open access\" rules,\" there was virtually no FTTH technology in the US. After deregulation, substantial investments were made, and now more than six million households subscribe to the Internet through ultra-fast fiber connections [3] 2. Net neutrality doesn't distinguish between procompetitive and anticompetitive practices. Entrepreneurs often experiment with new and different business models -- e.g. prioritize network traffic -- to lower prices and improve customer experience. For example, Lariat Wireless, a small ISP in Wyoming, forbids its customers from operating servers, to reduce network congestion and improve the overall experience for their users. Brett Glass, the CEO, explains: \"most Internet users would not know what a server was if it bit them, and they have no problem uploading content to a Web site such as YouTube for distribution. This means customers that do need to operate a server could obtain that capability by paying a bit more to cover the additional cost.\" Under a net neutrality regime, however, Lariat Wireless would be forced to shift \"everyone to the more expensive plan. We will therefore be less competitive, offer less value to consumers and especially less value to economically disadvantaged ones.\" [3] There are other examples. Universities that don't allow peer-to-peer file-sharing on their networks, for example. Or Virginia Broadband, which improves customer experience by prohibiting customers from \"excessive\" use of their network. Like Lariat Wireless, Virginia Broadband can offer quality Internet service at lower prices. The folks who benefit most are the \"economically disadvantaged,\" and those who use the Internet sparingly. [4] Unregulated markets give entrepreneurs the latitude to experiment as such, producing procompetitive outcomes: more options, lower prices, and better quality services. A net neutrality requirement is a bad policy because it categorically condemns all discriminatory practices, without distinguishing the procompetitive from the anticompetitive. 3. Current antitrust laws are enough to protect consumers and competition. Over more than 100 years, antitrust laws have developed to protect consumers from anticompetitive business practices -- monopolization, collusion, price-fixing, etc. The main development in the antitrust laws has been a movement away from categorical rules (stuff like \"all monopolies are bad\") towards a more nuanced case-by-case approach. Instead of condemning business practices per se, courts require proof of harm to consumers or competition first. This approach is more nuanced, fact-based, and flexible, as well as being better for the economy by giving entrepreneurs latitude to experiment. The net neutrality debate turns on the idea that there are bottlenecks on the Internet which allow network owners to exercise market power. For example, if a local telephone company has a monopoly in broadband access and it blocks broadband subscribers from using an Internet phone service offered by a rival company, that could harm both competition and consumers. But that's a classic antitrust issue. And under the antitrust laws, the above business practice would be illegal under Section 2 of the Sherman Act. You don't need further regulation to deal with anticompetitive discrimination on the Internet. Indeed, FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell notes that \"in the almost nine years since [net neutrality] fears were first sewn, net regulation lobbyists can point to fewer than a handful of cases of alleged misconduct, out of an infinite number of Internet communications. All those cases were resolved in favor of consumers under current law.\" [6] There is simply no reason to prefer displacing the antitrust laws -- flexible, nuanced, fact-based enforcement -- with a rigid net neutrality regime. -- Net neutrality goes directly against most American consumers' values, such as competition, freedom of choice, and less government regulation. Evidence shows that the Internet has been marked by intense competition and rampant growth as a free and open market with light regulation. Historical data also suggests regulations stunt growth. All these reasons support antitrust enforcement over net neutrality regulations. References: [1] FCC, Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan 19 (Mar. 16, 2010), available at http://www.broadband.gov... [2] Thomas Hazlett and Joshua Wright, The Law and Economics of Net Neutrality (2012) [3] http:// www.ftthcouncil.org/en/content/the-growth-of-fiber-to-the-home [4] Ensuring Competition on the Internet: Net Neutrality and Antitrust: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Intellectual Prop., Competition, and the Internet of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 112th Cong. 55 (2011) [5] http://www.ntia.doc.gov... and http://vabb.com... [6] In re Preserving the Open Internet Broadband Indus. Practices, 25 FCC Rcd. 17,905 (2010)", "qid": "46", "docid": "1ae9f84e-2019-04-18T15:25:04Z-00003-000", "rank": 25, "score": 126730.0}, {"content": "Title: net neutrality legislation Content: Privacy", "qid": "46", "docid": "1fe78336-2019-04-15T20:24:22Z-00005-000", "rank": 26, "score": 126600.0}, {"content": "Title: The US government should implement a Net Neutrality policy. Content: \"The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the FCC lacks authority to require broadband providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over their networks. That was a big victory for Comcast Corp., the nation's largest cable company, which had challenged the FCC's authority to impose such \"network neutrality\" obligations on broadband providers.\" http://www.msnbc.msn.com... == Net neutrality is the idea that access to content from the Internet should be of level playing to all consumers. That is, there is no means nor possibility for tiered speeds of access. Essentially the debate boils down to what is ISP property when dealing with the Internet and should these property owners have a say in how their property is used. While most of the code and communication protocols used to develop web pages are open sourced, i.e., free for use by the release into public domain, the physical components are decidedly not free. Servers, the specialised hardware that allows content to be available must be bought, owned and maintained. Likewise the infrastructure used by ISPs to allow access, the cables, satellites, wireless transmitters must be bought, owned, serviced and maintained. The servers, the ISPs, the end user at home, all use property, property that is rightfully owned, to cumulate in the experience of being able to access the Internet. It is decidedly not a free enterprise. The Internet is decidedly not a public domain, despite rhetoric to the opposite attempting to assert as such. ISPs build and maintain networks because they are profitable. It's why access speeds have increased through the use of new technology. Verizon, for example, is laying new fiber optic components at an estimated cost of 18 billion. http://seekingalpha.com... ISPs profit by charging Web content providers and Web surfers for access to their lines. These profits then go towards the increased infrastructure of the ISP, whether by expanding the reach or the upgrading of the infrastructure in place. It is precisely this system that allows the type of access and reach available now. Net neutrality seeks to undermine this. An ISPs infrastructure, their property, is theirs to use and profit from as they like. Net neutrality is quite simply, a call for private property violation. The Internet is not public property; the Internet is a system of privately owned personal computers, servers, cable and satellites. Because data is transmitted through private property, the call for net neutrality is an attack on the rightful ability of an ISP to use the property it owns as it sees fit. Under threat of government force, an ISP under net neutrality, must remain passive with regard to how data flows through the networks and lines they own. This includes web content providers who under FCC proposed legislation would not be charged differentially, regardless of the volume they bring. http://www.fee.org... http://www.netcompetition.org... ISPs are profit motivated. That is, they seek to formulate the best user experience for as many of its consumers as possible. By forcing an ISP to treat all data neutrally, the FCC and net neutrality advocates desire to prevent that ISP from enacting policies, offering services, and using technology in regards to its own judgements and business models. As such an ISP would be unable to offer services, or formulate policies that would be tailored to and beneficial for consumers (and from that beneficial to the ISP which in turn funnels back into consumer end usage). Certain real time applications benefit from smooth data flow e.g., streaming video, on-line gaming, VoIP or applications such as Skype. Under net neutrality such requirements from users cannot be tailored to consumers, that is, if net neutrality is in place, then all data is treated equal in terms of priority, which includes data that does not require streaming e.g., email (for example a hospital wishing to invest in a package that allows high quality video streaming for operations would be disallowed under most models of net neutrality - at best at non discriminatory policy based FCC approved rates i.e., not tailored). An unregulated ISP has the ability to offer tailored services to those who need it. Net neutrality says nay and that an ISP must treat all users as equal regardless of usage or consumer desire; in other words, all data must be treated equally regardless of content. It really is no different than paying for premium cable TV services, express mail delivery and the like. The fears that net neutrality advocates bring are unfounded. The call for net neutrality is nothing more than the call for ISPs to be public servants of the population they sought to provide value for. Let's say you have a website which you just bought called debate.org. It is very important to you, and you are willing to pay a premium price to your ISP to get a prioritised connection which makes the site load faster. Should you be able to purchase such priority service from an ISP? Net neutrality of course says no. Net neutrality simply stifles the idea of a consumer base of contractual arrangements between those seeking value for value. == 1. Net neutrality will encourage and protect innovation and competition That unregulated Internet will stifle competition is found false simply through the rise of Internet use itself i.e., an unregulated Internet is what brought such ventures mentioned to the fore to begin with. The ability for an ISP to tailor access to consumer bases is irrelevant to any one enterprising idea. Servers are not ISPs, servers must likewise rent to ISPs to allow access to their content - no process that invokes suppression of services there. The fear mongering completely ignores that ISPs must run as a business under competing enterprises and that supplying services to customer bases is in their best interest. Providing for mass end users is simply good business practice and nothing about a deregulated Internet changes that. What net neutrality will do however is stifle those services that require or show preference to high quality streaming - streaming that many services use, streaming that many people are probably willing to pay premium access for. Claims of flexibility are likewise false, since the FCC policies are precisely designed to enforce static methods. 2. Internet Protocol Standards Such protocols are open for use, design and improvement by anyone. It is unrelated to ISP management of data transfer. Enforcing a static system is anathema to network advancement, explicitly contrary to your prior point. Many protocol standards are already inherently error prone, net neutrality will not change this. It will stifle the ability of ISPs to invest in for example, CO-mode. http://www.netcompetition.org... 3. Free exchange of information, and rights of the consumer Nothing about deregulated Internet implies ISPs will act like China. They have no reason to censor information. The FCC under net neutrality however can. As for ISPs that monitor traffic, that is irrelevant to net neutrality. It is simply a contractual issue between end user and service provider. Comcast throttled torrents because the video downloads took up a large % of bandwidth which affected non bittorrent users. AT&T reports 5% of users using > 50% of bandwidth capability. ISPs property the traffic is being sent through, so their right to prioritise data. Doing so allowed them to not increase fees to cover otherwise resulting costs. http://www.infoworld.com...", "qid": "46", "docid": "91bf368f-2019-04-18T18:58:56Z-00004-000", "rank": 27, "score": 126470.0}, {"content": "Title: The US government should implement a Net Neutrality policy. Content: \"Small chunks of arguments were taken.\" No. My quotation only serves to orient the reader to the relevant paragraph. If a reader wants to read the whole paragraph they can in your round. It doesn't serve my needs to undercut my character count by spamming your statements. \"This was in an attempt to create the illusion of this case being completely torn apart.\" No. It's how I debate. Fallacies are called out for the fallacies they are. \"had the definition of net neutrality shifted to try to invalidate the argument\" You defined it round R1. Your definition was not 'all concerns I have about the Internet ever' - Your definition dealt with data transfer, \"send and receive\". I expounded the relevance of that, you never challenged that at all. The resolution includes USG, that means the FCC and what the FCC talks about in regards to net neutrality. I provided numerous sources that detailed what net neutrality actually is, especially as it relates to the FCC, and constitutional law. It is not my problem that you are apparently largely unaware of what net neutrality advocates actually propose. You are the one that went tangential to the definition into a number of irrelevancies relating to net neutrality such as data mining profiles. The definition didn't allow it. The FCC proposals have nothing to do with the tangential arguments you made, nor do net neutrality advocates when they talk of net neutrality. It is an issue of preferencing data transmission over other data. I suggest you read the FCC report itself aka \"the solution in search of the problem\". Turning net neutrality amorphously into 'all concerns' as you appear want, simply destroys any definition being valid at all. The definition you gave was fully compliant with the arguments I made, and what the FCC proposal was and is. The issue is you attempting to extend it beyond the scope of net neutrality. It is, in the FCC's own words, that \"discrimination\" should be barred. That means, the inability of ISPs to freely offer preferential services, to be freely paid for by consumers. hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-93A1.pdf \"send and receive packets using the Internet in a way that is indifferent to the contents, source or destination of the packets.\" Despite denying what I claim, and despite attempting to utilise that definition otherwise, it's quite clear that what it *does* detail is prohibition of preferential treatment. As explained numerous times already, preferential treatment relates the content access of the data being transmitted, or in the FCC's words \"To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice ... to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network\". It is exactly the proposal, as argued, that net neutrality seeks to deny the ability of ISPs to tailor bandwidth priority. Corollary to that (that's why it doesn't need to be spelt out), is the prohibition for an ISP to offer services that lead to differential treatment of data (see your definition again) in relation to bandwidth speed and services. It absurdly clear what the intent is, because the FCC attempted to prosecute Comcast for exactly doing that. To state that that is not net neutrality requires a gross equivocation. \"In doing so, my opponent has granted the arguments on a technical basis, opposing them only morally on the basis of the private property argument.\" False dichotomy. The issue you consistently ignored is that it is *private property* which means any technical formulations must *first* be reconciled within that framework. It does not make your argument valid simply because I didn't argue 'technology will X' - if you read R1 & R2 I addressed the tech arguments separately anyway, namely, the concerns of protocols and data transfer issues is one in which an unregulated Internet has dealt with since its inception. Nothing about a regulated Internet will change that, other than the availability of the FCC to invalidate new protocols as it would by necessity related back to differential data transfer. Unregulated, the Internet is free to have developers change, advance, advocate and try to implement whatever new protocol procedures they please. Under net neutrality, it's questionable. All it does is bring us back to the infamous quip \"a solution in search of a problem\". \"The end-to-end design of the Internet needs to be preserved\" Contradicts your prior assertions they are free to develop then doesn't it? Again nothing about an ISP or developers is enhanced by reducing the availability of data access. Again, consistently ignored. \"ISPs have motivation to grant multi-billion dollar companies favored treatment over smaller enterprises\" No they don't. They can afford to do both. Charge for both. Companies require servers, no matter the size, which means ISPs charging differentiated rates. Under net neutrality proposals, servers can't be charged differential rates i.e., property violation. \"will be in the hands of a handful of large companies\" Equivocation. Data is transferred across property, that is what the Internet is. Nothing about net neutrality changes that unless you wish to argue full nationalisation, which you didn't. \"The Internet is a egalitarian, decentralized system for the free exchange of information.\" False. It is a system of interconnected private property developed by largely open source procedures. Try using the Internet without any recourse to private property. \"when a company sells plans that they cannot deliver on\" Contractual issues are contractual issues. Net neutrality doesn't change the nature of what a contract is. What it does is deny an ISP to tailor them in certain ways. Again, the data was being transmitted across their property. The bandwidth hog meant that prioritisation needed to occur no matter, it's not an infinite resource, so of course they chose the small % who were the ones using >50% of availability. \"I point to the definition of net neutrality\" Which is irrelevant to whether net neutrality will stifle the ability of profit motives. Which it will. I'm not sure what about preferential data transfer, which you refer to numerous times in regards to bittorrent, being disallowed, doesn't relate to net neutrality being about preferential data transfer. \"is in response to his argument of the inability to tailor access to consumer needs.\" Irrelevant. A user being able to preference one service over the other is no where near analogous to an ISP offering premium bandwidth services to that user. Just like deciding whether to post a letter today or tomorrow isn't analogous to having an express mail service available or not. \"This is the motivation of companies.\" If this was the case we would see see a vastly different Internet experience than the one we do. Asserting your position with no real relation to how the Internet is run at all doesn't help. Hence \"the solution in search of a problem\". \"You ignored the giant pipeline\" What about \"infrastructure\" evaded you? \"more profit\" Profit from denying profit making exercises? \"we must protect the Internet from being exploited.\" The Internet is not a \"thing\" in this sense. Violation of contract is related to contract law. \"buying that package from the ISP\" You pay for access to their lines to transmit/receive - not a portion of their lines in the form of property. Government violating property for another citizen's 'good' is arbitrary. The grounds to do so are not valid just by crying 'exploitation' - there is nothing exploitative about valid contracts between user and provider. All it is is an attempt to ignore that an ISP is private property, validly so, and that right to use private property, including mutual agreement to mutual benefit, exists.", "qid": "46", "docid": "91bf368f-2019-04-18T18:58:56Z-00000-000", "rank": 28, "score": 126424.0}, {"content": "Title: Insert topic here. Content: My opponent will be going first, so just for this argument, I will outline the basics of what net neutrality is for my opponent and the audience: \"Net Neutrality\": A neutral broadband network is one that is free of restrictions on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, on the modes of communication allowed, which does not restrict content, sites or platforms, and where communication is not unreasonably degraded by other communication streams (wikipedia/google) Basically, with net neutrality, a company cannot charge extra for access to certain parts parts of the internet, and they can't intentionally slow down the access to the net, only to charge more for the freer speed. However, this net neutrality only causes more government restrictions on the system, and may lower competition and capitalism, the basis for our national economy. My opponent will be going first, good luck.", "qid": "46", "docid": "29a6de52-2019-04-18T19:37:33Z-00003-000", "rank": 29, "score": 126139.0}, {"content": "Title: Net neutrality \"replaces technological solutions with bureaucratic oversight. Content: We may see an Internet future not quite as bright as we need, with less investment, less innovation and more congestion.", "qid": "46", "docid": "fca1d19b-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00057-000", "rank": 30, "score": 125623.0}, {"content": "Title: The USFG should reject Net Neutrality. Content: Network Neutrality -Network neutrality, or net neutrality as it is more commonly known, is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differently by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or modes of communication. Essentially, the stance that ISP\u2019s (Internet Service Providers, such as Comcast, Verizon, T-Mobile, etc.) shouldn\u2019t be able to charge users based on what sites they want access to, what type of content they view, whether or not they play online games that use high amounts of content, etc. One of the foremost arguments proponents of net neutrality present is that of an open internet. - Open Internet-where policies such as equal treatment of data and open web standards allow those on the Internet to easily communicate and conduct business without interference from a third party. -Closed Internet-where established corporations or governments favor certain uses; may have restricted access to necessary web standards, artificially degrade some services, or explicitly filter out content. [1, 2, 3] In this debate, I am going to clearly show that net neutrality does not, in fact, result in a more open internet, but actually takes steps towards a closed internet. 1. Net Neutrality Stifles Innovation -Net neutrality proponents rally to phrases like \u201cequal treatment\u201d and \u201cending discrimination in transmitting content,\u201d all of which sound positive, but in reality threaten innovation, efficiency, and the expansion of Internet access. -First, is simply isn\u2019t accurate to treat all Internet content equally. An online calculator, a funny home video, and an e-Book all use similar amounts of Internet space comparably, yet are obviously not equal in importance, and should not be treated as such. Second, what precisely does it mean to \u2018end discrimination in transmitting content?\u2019 Net neutrality proponents would argue that to be able to charge more for one type of content than another is discrimination. Once again, it is often the case that the contents ARE different, and thus rightfully treated so. Playing PTP (peer-to-peer) games online use massively greater amounts of content than does, say, a simply Google search; net neutrality would treat the two of these equally. So, for example, let\u2019s say we have a house with six people, all of whom share the same Internet. Four of them love playing PTP games, to the point where the other two house members cannot even complete a simple Google search without their Internet being obscenely slow because of the other four members. Now let\u2019s expand this example to an entire community. ISP\u2019s being able to charge based on the amount of content users consume simply means that consumers are paying proportional to what they want, instead of everyone paying the same amount but using disproportionate amounts of content. -In fact, similar regulations are in place in Europe. The result can be clearly seen: they have raised prices and limited consumer access to the Internet. And make no mistake, this isn\u2019t because the service is better over there; broadband services are significantly cheaper in the US despite the fact that we already provide high-speed service at more than double the rate of European countries [4]. Quite simply, regulations stifle the market and economy. What net neutrality is pushing for will result in regulation levels on technology companies on par with that on water and telephone companies, eliminating their ability to innovate in the market. 2. Net Neutrality Actually Stifles Freedom of Speech -Another argument presented by defenders of net neutrality is that it \u2018protects freedom of speech\u2019 through unrestricted Internet access. This is patently false; first off, a lack of net neutrality hasn\u2019t caused a restriction of freedom of speech. Allowing ISP\u2019s to charge differing amounts for different amounts of usage is not going to restrict the freedom of speech of users; you don\u2019t have to pay for content levels for PTP games in order to post online or send an email (the \u2018freedom of speech\u2019 claimed to be violated without net neutrality). -Second, anyone claiming that new net neutrality regulations through the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) will result in \u2018greater freedom of speech\u2019 is frankly either lying or greatly deluded. The FCC isn\u2019t exactly in the business of promoting freedom of speech. In fact, they do quite the opposite-the FCC censors content it feels inappropriate, harmful, and virtually anything else it decides it doesn\u2019t want available. The FCC has never and will never stand for freedom of speech. Net neutrality regulations simply give the FCC, and subsequently the government, more control over the Internet and what exactly is available to us. In the pursuit of a freer Internet, we would actually be creating a less free one. An extreme example of this is China\u2019s strict regulation of communication companies, which has choked off many citizen\u2019s Internet access and significantly reformed the Internet available to the rest. Swiss analyst Gianluigi Negro argues that \u201cunder the guise of allegedly ensuring a free and open Internet, some Americans may unwittingly be on the road to ceding power to forces that can use the Internet against them, as is seen in China every day\u201d [5]. Don\u2019t misunderstand, this is not to suggest that the institution of network neutrality laws will have the immediate or definite result of turning America into a communistic nation. However, each new network neutrality law creates an even stronger precedent for government control and regulation of the Internet and subsequent available content. 3. Net Neutrality Infringes On Competition -Advocates of net neutrality such as Lawrence Lessig have raised concerns about the ability of broadband providers to use their last mile infrastructure to block Internet applications and content (e.g. websites, services, and protocols), and even to block out competitors [6]. A common example of this is Comcast\u2019s blocking of torrenting sites which sport pirated content [7]. It is also argued that by allowing ISP\u2019s to block out competitors from their users, we are promoting monopolies. -First, it is the prerogative of ISP\u2019s to block illegal and pirated content. In fact, arguing this as a supporting factor for net neutrality is quite ludicrous, as the FCC and government at large is greatly engaged in the prevention of piracy. Thus, ISP\u2019s pursuing this on their own independent of government regulation is rather beneficial to the FCC and society. -Second, in terms of promoting monopolies, it really doesn\u2019t. Net neutrality laws are not going to eliminate monopolies such as Comcast; anti-trust regulations would be required for that. Really all net neutrality does is make it harder for startup communication companies just entering the market to become successful, actually hardening monopolies in the long run. Further, it is entirely within the scope of a company/ISP to restrict access to competitor\u2019s content or specific sites it doesn\u2019t want to give access to. In fact, it\u2019s good business, and common in the marketplace. Further, such restrictions by monopolies or large ISP\u2019s actually makes the dissolution of monopolies more likely, as smaller startup companies would receive more subscribers and users as they became more restricted by the larger providers. In the end, the market regulates itself better than the FCC can possibly hope to. -It is important to note that a lack of net neutrality laws doesn\u2019t infringe on the consumers access to Internet. It simply means they pay for the access they want. Whatever access they don\u2019t have, they aren\u2019t paying for. Sources: [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] - http://www.savetheinternet.com... [3] - http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu... [4] - https://ec.europa.eu... [5] - http://www.nationalreview.com...= [6] - http://www.technologyreview.com... [7] - https://torrentfreak.com...", "qid": "46", "docid": "f5b3410d-2019-04-18T15:41:50Z-00007-000", "rank": 31, "score": 125500.0}, {"content": "Title: Ensuring net neutrality represents excessive government regulation and control over business. Content: Businesses should be allowed to control their products as they please, since they created and invested in them. Instead of creating more problems for the economy and businesses by regulating it, the government should give these companies freedom and allow them to make their own decisions. \u201cTelecommunications companies, having invested billions of dollars from consumers and government subsidies in new network infrastructure, claim the right under U.S. law to operate the network with minimal government interference.\u201d [[http://www.imprintmagazine.org/life_and_style/digital_divide_issue_net_neutrality?page=0,1]]", "qid": "46", "docid": "92c80a0a-2019-04-19T12:47:33Z-00021-000", "rank": 32, "score": 124858.0}, {"content": "Title: Net neutrality. Content: No It does not, I have spoon fed you reasons to why it is not, but you do not make a rebuttal to my claims. Therefore it is obvious you could not make a rebuttal to my argument in any of the rounds. I recommend you learn how debating works, rather than just saying what you think without any supporting evidence.", "qid": "46", "docid": "41ed0b25-2019-04-18T11:53:25Z-00000-000", "rank": 33, "score": 124768.0}, {"content": "Title: Net neutrality prevents discrimination between sites Content: \"Access and the Internet.\" New York Times Editorial. August 29, 2009\": \"On the Internet today, a Web site run by a solo blogger can load as quickly as any corporate home page. Internet service providers, including leading cable and phone companies, want to be able to change that so they can give priority to businesses that pay, or make deals with, them. [...] A good bill that would guarantee so-called net neutrality has been introduced in the House. Congress should pass it, and the Obama administration should use its considerable power to make net neutrality the law.\"", "qid": "46", "docid": "fca1d19b-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00044-000", "rank": 34, "score": 124086.0}, {"content": "Title: The US shouldn't require net neutrality. Content: What Pro is failing to understand is that you can either have or not have net neutrality. There is no 'in between'. So therefore by not requiring net neutrality, it is the same as banning it, for you will still have less competition, small businesses, innovation, and privacy without REQUIRING net neutrality. REFUTES 1) An unregulated Internet is better than a regulated Internet. My opponent was stating that a good internet is \"shaped by intense competition and rampant growth\". But judge, as I mentioned, net neutrality will HELP! It will lead to more competition, innovation, and small businesses. This will help our economy and the growth of the Internet, which therefore turns this point invalid. 2) Net Neutrality doesn't distinguish between pro competitive and anticompetitive practices. Judge, this point is basically that it will be harming all discriminatory practices. But here is why this is not a concern - we have been working with net neutrality for years, and it has increased the global market and been beneficial for our economy and businesses . So whether or not there is no difference between the quoted 'discriminatory practices' there will be a benefit for the people, and therefore it is worth it. 3) Current antitrust laws are enough to protect consumers and competition. They are NOT! Not having net neutrality would actually harm competition, because by giving big ISPs the power to block their competitors' websites, people would not have access to more than one big service without paying more r,many therefore there would be no need for competing. According to Forbes, if there was no net neutrality, many businesses would not exist die to the lack of competition. And it would hurt the consumers to not have this as well. Without net neutrality, your internet providers will be able to charge you EXTREMELY high prices for a free and open Internet, which is one of the greatest privileges of our time. So by having much higher prices, and lower quality service, not having net neutrality will hurt us, the consumers. Therefore, this point is false and invalid. SOURCES 1) http://www.theopeninter.net... 2) http://www.theguardian.com... 3) http://www.nytimes.com... 4) http://www.forbes.com... 5) http://www.economist.com... 6) http://www.latimes.com... 7) http://www.latimes.com... 8) http://www.latimes.com... CONCLUSION Seeing as I have refuted all of the Proposition's points, I will now weigh this debate. Here is why I should win: Who I agreed with before: This is up to you, so I cannot influence that decision. Who I agreed with after: I hope this is me, because my arguments were the most understandable and impacting to the average American. Spelling and Grammar: Tie Conduct: Tie Best Arguments: I believe that this should be me as well because unless you are an extreme techie, you probably could not understand Pro's arguments. However, I did my best to put my information into short, easy to understand arguments that should be easily comprehended, also, I gave impact analysis for every one of my points, showing you as a judge why my points should effect you, therefore leaving my points more convincing than Pro's. Sources: Finally, most of Pro's sources were simply without a link, leaving them valid. Also, she used Wikipedia, which is invalid and unreliable, seeing as anybody can edit it with false information, showing that my sources are more reliable. NYT, Forbes, The Guardian, are all reliable and highly acclaimed sources, unlike Wikipedia. Thanks to Pro for a very interesting and informative debate, and I strongly urge a Con vote for this motion.", "qid": "46", "docid": "1ae9f84e-2019-04-18T15:25:04Z-00000-000", "rank": 35, "score": 123523.0}, {"content": "Title: Net neutrality provides for the free circulation of data and services. Content: Today, anyone can create a website for very little money and fill it with whatever they want. For a lucky few, their website provides information or services that the public generally likes. They share their website with friends and over social media, word catches on, they place some key advertisements with GoogleAds and elsewhere on the internet, they create some solid SEO content and, before long, they're rolling in internet gold and glory. Striking down net neutrality will cut the fanfare short. Writing to Congress in 2005, Vice President of Google and inventor of the Internet Protocol, Vint Cerf argued that: \"The Internet is based on a layered, end-to-end model that allows people at each level of the network to innovate free of any central control \u2026 a lightweight but enforceable neutrality rule is needed to ensure that the Internet continues to thrive. Telephone companies cannot tell consumers who they can call; network operators should not dictate what people can do online.\" This kind of freedom that the anti-net neutrality crowd is after has not existed in any industry in the U.S. since the Gilded Age, when the likes of John D. Rockefeller and J.P. Morgan exercised monopolistic control over their respective industries to keep the playing field stacked in their favor. Mark Fiore describes this with a Dr. Seuss-esque cartoon.", "qid": "46", "docid": "92c80a0a-2019-04-19T12:47:33Z-00009-000", "rank": 36, "score": 123305.0}, {"content": "Title: Net Neutrality Content: Net Neutrality is freedom of speech. With Net neutrality in place it creates an equal playing field for everyone one. This means that if an ISP doesn't like something they can't do anything to block it. So how does this help us consumers? If you are researching a topic you wont only see one side to it just because your ISP supports it, you will be able to look at both sides and determine what you think is right. Removing Net Neutrality is taking away your freedom of speech which can cause some issues. Propaganda will become a thing on the internet if Net neutrality is take away.", "qid": "46", "docid": "5b09f31f-2019-04-18T11:54:28Z-00003-000", "rank": 37, "score": 123146.0}, {"content": "Title: Net neutrality. Content: No, you have shared your opinion. Net neutrality means a neutral internet.", "qid": "46", "docid": "41ed0b25-2019-04-18T11:53:25Z-00001-000", "rank": 38, "score": 122996.0}, {"content": "Title: Net neutrality maintains a free market and even playing field Content: Since the Progressive Era, the United States has not harbored a true capitalism. For some weird reason a laissez-faire market leads to massive wealth inequality, exploitation of lower class workers, and gives unbridled power to the super wealthy. While we haven't exactly succeeded in solving that problem, we have introduced regulations to help even the playing field and create conditions such that businesses of any size have an improved chance of getting off the ground. Internet business is no different. Before any website loomed large, it was just a small, struggling startup. Remove net neutrality, and you will remove the even playing field that allows new companies to get a foothold.", "qid": "46", "docid": "92c80a0a-2019-04-19T12:47:33Z-00013-000", "rank": 39, "score": 122970.0}, {"content": "Title: The US shouldn't require net neutrality. Content: Judge, is it fair to let certain internet companies only allow people with similar political views, or block their competitors sites? Is it fair to let big companies invade your privacy and crush small businesses? If you answered \"no\" to any of these questions, judge, then you technically agree with me on the fact that net neutrality is good. 1) Net neutrality stimulates competition. Judge, if we ban net neutrality the big ISPs, or Internet Service Providers, would be able to block competitor\"s websites. That way the big companies would be unable to compete with each other because people could not access more than one big service without paying more, and therefore there would be no need for competing. According to the New York Times, competition stimulates innovation, or the invention of new products, which we will not get without net neutrality. According to Forbes, if net neutrality didn\"t exist, many small internet providers would not exist due to the lack of competition. Nobody would be competing with each other so nobody would want to switch to new providers. The impact of this, judge, is that with no competition there will be a lot less innovation, which means less ideas and new products. This will impact the ENTIRE population, because they all rely on new technology and keeping up with the fast pace of innovation. 2) Net neutrality helps small businesses. Judge, if we ban net neutrality internet providers will be able to pick which sites show up first, and ban or block websites that they don\"t want their customers to see. Small businesses will not be top priority on these providers\" lists and may even be banned, therefore leaving them unable to get off of the ground. According to the New York Times, Google was a small buisness built in a GARAGE. It is now a huge thing that has advanced technology greatly. However, without net neutrality, the next Google will not be able to make it. According to Marvin Ammori, a technology expert and Yale professor, if there were to be no net neutrality, high class providers such as Comcast and Verizon could sell special treatment to their favorite web companies like Google and Netflix, and charge extra fees to deliver their online videos and other content at fast speeds. However, it could block small websites with things so trivial as opposing political views and the sites that show up first after a search will OBVIOUSLY be the favorites of the ISPs\", and the small businesses that may be more relevant to the search will be left in the dust. The impact of this, Judge, is that without small businesses, any new ideas, such as Google, will not be able to move past the special treatment of ISPs and will forever remain unheard. And just like our point on competition, no new ideas means less innovation, which affects the ENTIRE population. 3) Not having net neutrality would mean an invasion of your privacy. Judge, let me explain this to you. People like to encrypt, or code, many things, from emails to personal information like credit card numbers. However, according to the Economist, without net neutrality the FCC has no rules against decrypting this information. Because of the fact they they want complete control over everything they use in their service, big internet providers will have the power to decode any encryptions placed by their customers. Judge, this means they have access to YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION! This is a HUGE invasion of privacy! Access to this type of thing should be very limited, and your information should be only visible to you. How can we let our privacy be invaded like that, Judge? We have the right of privacy, as stated in the Constitution, and we cannot allow this to be taken away by ISP companies? And not only that, but to give you better results internet companies can literally track and watch everything you do online. The impact of this judge, is greater than anything possible! It impacts nearly every adult on this planet! All these people, judge, will have access to anything they want. The only other people on this planet with that type of power are high up government officials, and even THEY need a search warrant. In conclusion, if you want a more innovative, successful economy, and more privacy and free speech on the Internet, AND less discrimination between big ISP companies, then vote for Con and support Net Neutrality. SOURCES 1) http://www.theopeninter.net... 2) http://www.theguardian.com... 3) http://www.nytimes.com... 4) http://www.forbes.com... 5) http://www.economist.com... 6) http://www.latimes.com... 7) http://www.latimes.com... 8) https://www.eff.org...", "qid": "46", "docid": "1ae9f84e-2019-04-18T15:25:04Z-00002-000", "rank": 40, "score": 122837.0}, {"content": "Title: Net Neutrality Content: I believe that Net Neutrality is important for the internet because it makes sure that the internet stays a free market. Corporations should not dictate how we use the internet and should not be able to choose the winners on the internet. Thanks for being respectful and a great person to do my first debate with you. I wish you best of luck on your future endeavors. December 17 2017 7:35 PM", "qid": "46", "docid": "5b09f300-2019-04-18T11:54:53Z-00001-000", "rank": 41, "score": 122718.0}, {"content": "Title: Net Neutrality Is a Horrible Idea Content: Rules: No ad hominem fallacy Keep the debate civil Definitions: Net Neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites.", "qid": "46", "docid": "fd4a422a-2019-04-18T11:54:51Z-00001-000", "rank": 42, "score": 122604.0}, {"content": "Title: The USFG should reject Net Neutrality. Content: I accept.", "qid": "46", "docid": "f5b3410d-2019-04-18T15:41:50Z-00008-000", "rank": 43, "score": 122533.0}, {"content": "Title: WODC: This House Believes That Provisions of Internet Services Should be a Public Utility Content: Framework I believe my opponent is confused. We are not debating net neutrality. Now I've already spent a bit of time defining the other major terms to give us a better ideal of what we're debating. According to Wikipedia; \"Net neutrality (also network neutrality, Internet neutrality, or net equality) is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication.\" http://en.m.wikipedia.org... While a public utility is; \"Typically a public utility has a Monopoly on the service it provides. It is more economically efficient to have only one business provide the service because the infrastructure required to produce and deliver a product such as electricity or water is very expensive to build and maintain. A consequence of this monopoly is that federal, state, and local governments regulate public utilities to ensure that they provide a reasonable level of service at a fair price.\" http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... This debate isn't about whether net neutrality is a good thing. The purpose of the debate is to determine whether or not provisions of Internet services (service providers), should be considered a public utility. As I've pointed out, they should be considered a utility, based on the fact that they meet the definition of utility, via the barrier to entry as well as the benefit to society for them to be regulated in that way. My opponent despite being off topic, has raised a few arguments which are vaguely relevant to the topic we are debating, and will be addressed accordingly. Now I urge my opponent to figure out a way to make some relevant arguments as well as rebuttals in the next round, if he doesn't he risks not being able to make any at all. The rules of the debate make it clear there are to be no new arguments in the final round. Contention 1: Unregulated Market is better than a Regulated market for the internet. My opponent makes kind of a false dichotomy, between a regulated and unregulated market. Before getting into specifics of what's wrong with his Arguments, let's examine more than just this dichotomy. There are many different types of regulated and unregulated markets. Some forms of regulated market work better than unregulated markets and visa versa. The real options we have when looking at these ISP/utilities is this: Unregulated Monopolized Markets- These markets are bad for consumers, but good for the companies. They get to dictate the prices, and the quality of service. This is the situation we have in America and as you can see it results in higher prices for consumers and bad service. I showed the lower broadband speeds as well as higher prices that these companies charge compared to overseas markets with either good regulation or a good amount of competition. (See round 2). http://www.theverge.com... 2. Unregulated Free Market Lots of Competition- This is an ideal scenario. Unfortunately as I've shown in the previous round. The market had been pretty deeply penetrated,the startup costs are immense and it takes a ton of time to see a profit. This is one of those businesses that are high risk, with low chance of reward. As somebody who is in love with free markets, I'd love to see perfect competition, but as I've shown in the previous round, that's not what is occurring, nor is it even possible to make it occur with a deregulation of the market, because of the costs associated with doing business and the deeply imbedded companies that are already there. 3. A Well Regulated Industry- there is no perfect solution to problems, but treating ISPs as the utilities they are, deals with the reality that a free market won't work in this specific scenario. It follows the example of other countries and utilities of times past, which have been shown to provide more reliable service at a cheaper price. Having some checks and balances to insure quality of service as well as value of service will help consumers immensely. Finally consumers will be on equal ground with ISPs. Finally America can have Internet service and strength that rivals that of third world countries. \"We can see that Entrapenuers have been free to do as they please and they have set reasonable prises and entry fees for the consumer.\" This is simply untrue and merely rhetoric from my opponent, taken from the word of some industry insider, but it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. I said it in the last round and I'll say it again. Out of 40 countries, the United States has been shown to have the slowest internet speeds and often for double the price. http://www.theverge.com... What the free market has gotten us is spit on by these companies. Comcast is the most hated company in the United States and yet people are still forced to pay for an inferior service at double the rate of their brethren in the UK. When my opponent puts a positive spin on Internet service by saying that it's improved a lot in the last ten years, he is merely putting on rose colored goggles. Who cares how much it improved? It's not keeping up with it's rivals in more regulated markets overseas and it's merely because they don't have to care. \"it\"s for this reason alone that the US has the fastest internet in the world, but Net Neutrality is threatening to change all of that.\" This is clearly false. I've cited sources that show the United States has slower internet speeds than the much of the rest of the world, and at more of a cost to boot. This debate isn't about net neutrality, but I can tell you we've seen the bill passed in the United States and I've yet to see my service change at all. \"FiberBroadband Community, an internet provided in the Great Lakes region reported that under net neutrality that they would be forced to move ALL of their customers to a more expensive plan and this would hurt the business as it would cost them more\" My only response to this is \"yeah duh\". The company is looking out for it's best interest. They make out better when they're unregulated. The consumers aren't necessarily better off not the industry, but they are. A company merely stating it will cost extra without showing why is just throwing hail Marie's to stop a bill they no will cut into their pocket books, but ultimately be better for the people. The company's claim should be ignored, unless they find some way to substantiate it. Status Quo Antitrust Lawsuit The antitrust laws simply aren't working. Comcast in particular has no real competition. The FCC is powerless. I've already shown several stats that prove that a monopoly exists in terms of ISPs in several locations effecting over 70% of the United States, but it's worse than that and I'll let the FCC chairman tell you in his own words. \"competition for high-speed wired broadband is lacking and Americans need more competitive choices for faster and better Internet connections, both to take advantage of today's new services, and to incentivize the development of tomorrow's innovations.\".....\"At 25 Mbps, there is simply no competitive choice for most Americans,\"....\"Stop and let that sink in. Three-quarters of American homes have no competitive choice for the essential infrastructure for 21st century economics and democracy. Included in that is almost 20 percent who have no service at all.\" http://www.nationaljournal.com...", "qid": "46", "docid": "32192392-2019-04-18T14:44:58Z-00003-000", "rank": 44, "score": 121574.0}, {"content": "Title: Net neutrality laws. Content: I'll keep this short. If we don't have net neutrality companies can block or slow down websites if they don't pay a bribe. It would kill start up companies and not make the internet the fair platform it is. Companies could kill there competitors and kill competition. Also you fail at making debates impossible to accept.", "qid": "46", "docid": "877a9d97-2019-04-18T15:11:50Z-00006-000", "rank": 45, "score": 121338.0}, {"content": "Title: W/o Net Neutrality, price discrimination risks stifling start-ups Content: Robin Chase. \"Zipcar-Like Data Innovation Counts on Neutral\" Bloomberg Government. March 03, 2011: \"Without the Internet (and wireless data transmission), Zipcar could not have become a mainstream service. It would not exist. Incredibly, this fundamental asset is in serious jeopardy in America, putting at risk our ability to innovate and to compete. The U.S. House of Representatives is trying to block the Federal Communications Commission from implementing a network neutrality order it issued in December. If the House action is successful, it will put small entrepreneurs at a disadvantage because we can\u2019t pay the tolls for faster speeds and quality of service that the big guys can, and it may help them create groups of users that we can\u2019t access at all. We could not compete.\"", "qid": "46", "docid": "fca1d19b-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00039-000", "rank": 46, "score": 121317.0}, {"content": "Title: Net neutrality Content: First you again say Net neutrality is new and the internet is awesome and don't change it. Again Net neutrality has always existed. Google it. It hasn't been a law it has been a founding principle of the internet. If you would do research for 5 minutes and stopped listening to Alex Jones you would know that. Then You say it's true in many places you only have one ISP but that's not there fault. You just proved my point it doesn't matter who's fault it is it still happens and kills you're free market answer. Then you say I want government regulation. To a very limited extent yes. I want them to say you can't discriminate data because you don't like it , or they aren't paying you a bribe, or because it competes with them. Next you say me claiming they buy people off and that there are loopholes are unfounded. Well they can buy off politicians to not pass laws that limit them like oil companies do. As for loopholes You do a deal. For example pretend in the state of Texas there are two companies. A and B you're argument is they will compete with each other for the consumers. In reality they make a deal to be the only ISP in a city so people have to buy from them. Next you say it's bad for the economy. No it's good for the economy in fact it's good for free market capitalism which you are in favor of. Because people can start businesses and offer goods for a lower price without being blocked unfairly or having to pay a huge bribe which hurts there business. Without net neutrality Amazon and Ebay could pay AT&T to block other online shopping sites which kills competition. Then you say it prevents internet experimentation no it doesn't as it helps the free market as I just explained. Then you mention one of the guys on the FCC saying the threat of companies blocking content is not a problem. Because he was being payed my Version and Comcast again google it. Lastly you mention all these things that where invented and that's why Net neutrality is bad. But that couldn't have happened without net neutrality because it could have been blocked from being advertised. Just remember this all came around with Net neutrality in place. In the end though this debate doesn't matter. The FCC passed net neutrality. The consumers won and the internet is better off for it.", "qid": "46", "docid": "2b6ac2c3-2019-04-18T15:10:44Z-00003-000", "rank": 47, "score": 121111.0}, {"content": "Title: Net neutrality prevents anti-competitive acts by network owners Content: \"Protect Net neutrality.\" St. Petersburg Times Editorial. April 10, 2010: \"Without Net neutrality rules, the big telecommunications and cable providers could decide to start charging Web sites for faster delivery or prefer content providers associated with their own conglomerates. This would crush innovation and competition by giving the biggest companies the ability to nudge smaller start-ups out of view.\"", "qid": "46", "docid": "fca1d19b-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00037-000", "rank": 48, "score": 121062.0}, {"content": "Title: Net neutrality is required to preserve the existing structure of the internet. Content: Like Vince Cert, who maintained that the beauty of the internet lies in its ability to move the same amounts of information around at the same speed at all levels of the internet, many believe that the internet will cease to exist as we know it if a biased net takes over. This is what is known as the end-to-end principle. The end-to-end principle allows the internet to expand infinitely. Because all data travels at the same speed and is treated the same, all aspects of the internet are open to innovation equally. Let's say that, for some reason, digital banking was prioritized by either the government or cable companies. This would then draw the most attention from internet users, it would be the fastest activity on the internet, and if would be innovators wished to get involved in the field, they would flock to some aspect of digital banking. There is always a finite amount of broadband capability on planet Earth, and because digital banking was preferred, other facets of the internet would slow. Some believe that this would throw off the entire balance of the internet, and certain areas would become backwaters while others would draw the focus of everyone. The end-to-end principle has proven an excellent quality in several American systems and institutions. It is present, for example, in our slightly regulated and hopefully even-fielded economy. In their 2000 essay \"Open Access to Cable Modems,\" Mark Lemley and Laurence Lessig write: [t]he principle of End-to-End is not unique to computer networks. It has important analogs in American constitutional law and in other legal contexts. Vis-A-vis the states, for example, the dormant commerce clause imposes an End-to-End design on the flow of commerce: No state is to exercise a control over the flow of commerce between states; and the kind of control that a state may exercise over commerce flowing into that state is severely limited. The \"network\" of interstate commerce is to be influenced at its ends-by the consumer and producer-and not by intermediary actors (states) who might interfere with this flow for their own political purposes. Vis-A-vis transportation generally, End-to-End is also how the principle of common carriage works. The carrier is not to exercise power to discriminate in the carriage. So long as the toll is paid, it must accept the carriage that it is offered. In both contexts, the aim is to keep the transportation layer of intercourse simple, so as to enable the multiplication of applications at the end. Stripping away net neutrality is about more than allowing the cable companies to get bigger and richer. It's about maintaining values and consistency in our world.", "qid": "46", "docid": "92c80a0a-2019-04-19T12:47:33Z-00019-000", "rank": 49, "score": 120968.0}, {"content": "Title: Net neutrality regulates service providers, not Internet Content: \"Net Neutrality is Simple, Conservative Consumer Protection.\" Public Knowledge on Opposing Views.com: Net Neutrality \"is not regulating the Internet. It is regulating the companies which provide access to the Internet \u2013 a traditional function that the FCC has largely abandoned to the detriment of the country.\"", "qid": "46", "docid": "fca1d19b-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00064-000", "rank": 50, "score": 120960.0}, {"content": "Title: Insert topic here. Content: Straight into contentions: 1) Net neutrality would go against the idea of a free market. Obviously in our capitalist society, we are free to form whatever companies we wish and attempt to market our idea to the general public. The same would go for ISP's; why limit the serviceability of a company? Net neutrality essentially neutralizes every ISP, making all companies provide the same network, and eliminating competition and the idea of capitalism. 2) No ISP can force everyone to have a slow network, so \"net 'inequality'\" is not a problem. Because we are a capitalist economy, a company is allowed to try whatever marketing ideas they wish. Since there is more than one ISP, the consumers are free to choose the one that pleases them. If an ISP slows down that consumer's internet to make them pay for speed, then that person will simply switch providers. That's all for now: I negate that \"Net neutrality should be made into law and enforced\", because it goes against the idea of capitalism and is unnecessary.", "qid": "46", "docid": "29a6de52-2019-04-18T19:37:33Z-00002-000", "rank": 51, "score": 120907.0}, {"content": "Title: net neutrality Content: Net neutrality is very important for the nation, as it does not allow bigger companies like Google or ebay to make their network faster and slow down other smaller networks", "qid": "46", "docid": "40a68302-2019-04-18T14:17:57Z-00003-000", "rank": 52, "score": 120839.0}, {"content": "Title: Net Neutrality \u2013 All Internet Traffic Should Be Treated Equally Content: Net neutrality provides for the free circulation of data and services.", "qid": "46", "docid": "92c80a0a-2019-04-19T12:47:33Z-00007-000", "rank": 53, "score": 120727.0}, {"content": "Title: Net Neutrality Content: I'd posit that perhaps such a majority of Americans are only serviced by one internet provider simply because there is no reason for another company to move in. If that company should begin to deny access to certain websites, and there is a substantial demand for said websites, I think this would cause more diversity in providers. A crucial part of my argument, however, I think has gone unaddressed by you. Even given that there is a true monopoly, and there are people who are unable to get access to some number of websites, I do not see that as a crime. If that company were not there, those people would be without internet access anyhow. Access to any--let alone every--website on the internet is a service, it is not a right; therefore to be denied it is not in anyway a crime. I think you overlooked this in your response. I'd also like to suggest some possible advantages to not enforcing Net Neutrality. If companies are allowed to select which websites they provide access to, they can craft internet packages more tailored to specific consumers. For example, they can produce a childrens' package, with access to only kid-friendly websites, or a cheaper business package, with only access to an employee's company websites. Liberals can sell packages with only liberal websites, conservatives packages with only conservative websites. I think that a producer has the right to determine exactly what sort of product he produces, and to what sort of customer he provides it to.", "qid": "46", "docid": "5b09f300-2019-04-18T11:54:53Z-00004-000", "rank": 54, "score": 120681.0}, {"content": "Title: Net Neutrality Content: My Argument:First, I would like to mention what Net Neutrality means once again. -Net Neutrality (n) : the principle that basic Internet protocols should be non-discriminatory, esp. thatcontent providers should get equal treatment from Internet operators SOURCE: (. http://dictionary.reference.com...)Secondly, I want to say that the FCC's decision to put restrictions on streaming services via the IPSs would impede on the success of newer start-ups. This would make the start-ups, who barely has enough money to pay the ISPs to stream their content faster. This would most likely slow down their success or stop it completely in its tracks. Thirdly, this is a violation of the first amendment. That right there is enough to throw this decision away.", "qid": "46", "docid": "5b09f246-2019-04-18T16:17:57Z-00005-000", "rank": 55, "score": 120665.0}, {"content": "Title: Net neutrality forces network owners to operate in suboptimal ways Content: \"Editorial: Net neutrality not so neutral.\" An Orange County Register. September 25th, 2009: \"to bring about a utopian desire for virtually unlimited access over a limited resource, government would require broadband providers to operate in ways not necessarily in the best interest of the companies or their paying customers.\"", "qid": "46", "docid": "fca1d19b-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00061-000", "rank": 56, "score": 120664.0}, {"content": "Title: The US shouldn't require net neutrality. Content: Tim Wu, the guy who coined the term \"net neutrality,\" notes the importance of \"differentiat[ing] sharply between the principle of network neutrality and a network neutrality law.\" This debate isn't about the principle of net neutrality. This debate is about whether the US should adopt a net neutrality law. I'm not arguing against net neutrality as a principle. I'm arguing that the US shouldn't adopt a net neutrality law. Con's arguments are aimed against banning net neutrality. I agree with Con that banning net neutrality is bad for competition and small businesses. There is no debate there. The debate here is whether net neutrality should be required, not whether it should be banned. 1. Con says \"net neutrality stimulates competition\" because, \"if we ban net neutrality the big ISPs ... would be able to block competitor's websites. That way the big companies would be unable to compete with each other because people could not access more than one big service without paying more, and therefore there would be no need for competing.\" First, as discussed above, this debate isn't about banning net neutrality. Con's argument doesn't support adoption of a net neutrality law. Con's argument only supports the status quo -- allowing net neutrality but not requiring it. I agree with Con that banning net neutrality would be bad for the economy. What I argue for is less regulation, not more regulation. A ban on net neutrality, like a net neutrality requirement, is more regulation. Either way, that's bad for the economy. What we need is less government intrusion on the Internet, as I explained in the previous round. Second, the idea that ISPs can block competitor's websites without a net neutrality law is incorrect. As I explained in the last round, the antitrust laws prohibit anticompetitive business practices, including such discriminatory behavior that harms competition and consumers. Take a look at the Wikipedia for a brief summary of the antitrust laws: http://en.wikipedia.org.... Section 2 of the Sherman Act doesn't allow companies to harm consumers or competition by using their monopoly power to raise prices or exclude competition. Third, Con's claim that \"big companies would be unable to compete with each other\" is false, even if we did ban net neutrality, as there would still be many ways for companies to compete with each other. Pricing, Internet speed, Internet reliability, types of discrimination, geography -- all these would still be open to competition. To be clear, I'm not saying we should ban net neutrality. I'm just saying Con is wrong that banning net neutrality would make it impossible for companies to compete. 2. Con says \"if we ban net neutrality internet providers will be able to pick which sites show up first, and ban or block websites that they don't want their customers to see.\" As a result, Con argues, \"small businesses will not be top priority on these providers' lists and may even be banned, therefore leaving them unable to get off the ground.\" First, again this debate is not about banning net neutrality. Con argues against banning net neutrality, and I agree with Con that banning net neutrality is bad for small businesses. Con's arguments actually support my point, which is that more regulation harms the economy and small businesses. I argue for less regulation -- no net neutrality law, either requiring net neutrality or banning net neutrality. Second, in the absence of a net neutrality requirement, ISPs can offer customers faster or slower lanes of traffic. As I explained last round, this is good for competition, as it gives incentive to create faster lanes for which ISPs can charge higher prices. Prohibiting ISPs from discriminating in procompetitive ways (a patient's heart monitor versus a music download, for example) disincentivizes the creation of faster, more reliable Internet service. Third, Con's claim that small businesses will be \"banned, therefore leaving them unable to get off the ground\" is false. Again, such exclusionary practices are covered by the antitrust laws. There is no need to create rigid net neutrality laws to cover a perceived risk which is already dealt with under antitrust in a more nuanced, flexible, fact-based way. 3. Con says \"if there were to be no net neutrality, high class providers such as Comcast and Verizon could sell special treatment to their favorite web companies like Google and Netflix, and charge extra fees to deliver their online videos and other content at fast speeds.\" Again, those \"fast speeds\" might not be developed in the absence of incentives to develop them. The ability to charge premium prices for faster speeds is what gives ISPs incentive to create faster, better, more reliable Internet services. The US Postal Service example is directly on point: no one has any problem with Express Mail (which costs more). Why should there by any problem with faster Internet lanes, for which companies can charge more. Always keep in mind that business practices which are legitimately anticompetitive -- practices that harm consumers or competition -- are already covered under the antitrust laws, so there's no need to create another layer of regulation, especially a rule so rigid and categorical as requiring net neutrality across-the-board, regardless of the circumstances and potential pro-competitive benefits. 4. Con says a net neutrality law is necessary to protect our privacy. But that's simply not true. What we need are stronger privacy laws, not a rigid net neutrality law. Con says that in the absence of net neutrality laws, ISPs have the \"power to decode any decryptions placed by their customers.\" But even if net neutrality laws exist, ISPs can still decode decryptions placed by their customers. Net neutrality proponents -- not Con since he didn't argue this point specifically -- argue that without net neutrality protections, ISPs will block privacy services. But like I've argued elsewhere, that sort of misconduct is covered by the antitrust laws. We don't need net neutrality laws to protect us from exclusionary, anticompetitive business practices. The only purpose of net neutrality laws is to avoid a perceived risk -- but that perceived risk is already covered by current laws. I direct attention again to FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell's comment that \"in the almost nine years since [net neutrality] fears were first sewn, net regulation lobbyists can point to fewer than a handful of cases of alleged misconduct, out of an infinite number of Internet communications. All those cases were resolved in favor of consumers under current law.\" [6] All net neutrality cases thus far have been resolved in favor of consumers under current law. We don't need more regulation to protect consumers, competition, or the Internet.", "qid": "46", "docid": "1ae9f84e-2019-04-18T15:25:04Z-00001-000", "rank": 57, "score": 120625.0}, {"content": "Title: Net Neutrality \u2013 All Internet Traffic Should Be Treated Equally Content: Ensuring net neutrality represents excessive government regulation and control over business.", "qid": "46", "docid": "92c80a0a-2019-04-19T12:47:33Z-00001-000", "rank": 58, "score": 120588.0}, {"content": "Title: The USFG should reject Net Neutrality. Content: Greetings! I am quite interested in the concept of net neutrality, hence our topic: The United States Federal Government should reject Net Neutrality. I will be assuming the Pro/For side in this debate; thus, my opponent will be arguing in favor of net neutrality.The burden of proof will be net benefits.My thanks to whomever accepts this debate; you may use your first round either to accept and present your arguments, or simply to accept the debate-your choice.I hope to have a lively debate!", "qid": "46", "docid": "f5b3410d-2019-04-18T15:41:50Z-00009-000", "rank": 59, "score": 120491.0}, {"content": "Title: Net Neutrality is a solution in search of a problem Content: Arpan Sura. \"The Problem With Network Neutrality.\" FreedomWorks. May 2, 2006: \"Solution in Search of a Problem. Currently there are no principles of network neutrality encoded into law. So ISPs are already free to block or favor content as they please. It is telling that none of them has. In fact, no proponent of network neutrality can cite an existing problem to which network neutrality is a solution.\"", "qid": "46", "docid": "fca1d19b-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00048-000", "rank": 60, "score": 120449.0}, {"content": "Title: The internet should operate on the basis of net neutrality Content: Taking a neutral stance is a tacit endorsement of the validity of the message being spread as being worthy of discussion. Holocaust denial does not deserve its day in the sun, even if the outcome were a thumping victory for reason and truth. Besides, the Holocaust deniers are not convinced by reason or argument. Their beliefs are impervious to facts, which is why debate is a pointless exercise except to give them a platform by which to spread their message, organize, and legitimize themselves in the marketplace of ideas.", "qid": "46", "docid": "38441d06-2019-04-15T20:24:35Z-00018-000", "rank": 61, "score": 120254.0}, {"content": "Title: Net neutrality Content: Ok you say ISPs wouldn't slow down websites because in a free market people wouldn't buy their service and his is only a valid argument if they have a monopoly or talk to other companies. That would be true expect for one problem in many places you only have one option. In many places you only have Comcast or you only have time Warner. Also these companies do talk to each other. In fact these to companies have talk about which territory they get plus Comcast bought out Time Warner so people often only do have one option. You say it's against the law so they won't do it. Well A. people do nothing about because they are bought off and B. there are many loopholes. Then you say another problem is if it's pro or anti competitive discrimination. Good there should be no discrimination unless the contest is illegal. Your next argument is if we put in net neutrality laws it would kill competition and investments. You're problem is net neutrality isn't knew the internet has been that way for years and the internet is great I don't want to change it you want to. Also net neutrality doesn't kill competition but ISPs blocking competitors does. I not bothering with you're last two because the first I already addressed and the other one is based on the idea net neutrality doesn't already exist which it has for years.", "qid": "46", "docid": "2b6ac2c3-2019-04-18T15:10:44Z-00005-000", "rank": 62, "score": 120155.0}, {"content": "Title: Should The US Keep Net Neutrality Content: Here are the rules. 1. Remain professional 2. Forfeiting a round means forfeiting the debate. You have three days to make an argument, you can take out 20 minutes to type up a paragraph. 3. Please use reliable sources. 4. Don't bring further politics into this, please. This is a debate about Net Neutrality, not about whether or not we should or shouldn't impeach your weird president. 5. Just. .. don't be cancerous.", "qid": "46", "docid": "81d4eb96-2019-04-18T11:26:08Z-00004-000", "rank": 63, "score": 119972.0}, {"content": "Title: Net neutrality protects consumers under near monopolies Content: \"Consumers Deserve Protection\". Open Internet Coalition on Opposing Views.com: \"In a more perfect network, the telephone and cable companies would be investing in more capacity in order to render these issues moot. In a more perfect marketplace, there would be 4 or 5 high-speed broadband competitors offering consumers ample choice and providing a market-based check on violations of Net Neutrality \u2013 so consumers could pick a provider that respected the open Internet and didn\u2019t interfere with open access. [...] But we all live in an imperfect world with a gross lack of capacity and competition. As a result, we need a referee to ensure networks remain open and the incentives to innovate and invest will continue to exist. Ceding this role completely to the network operators to decide will result in a different, more closed, and less useful kind of Internet.\"", "qid": "46", "docid": "fca1d19b-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00051-000", "rank": 64, "score": 119700.0}, {"content": "Title: Net Neutrality Should Be Repealed Content: I believe that the con side does bring forth a plethora of convincing points, but within these points are flaws birthed by a lack of economic understanding. My opponent brought up the subject of ISPs making customers pay for anything. If an ISP, say Comcast (for example), decided to make you pay money to access certain websites, people would be ditching Comcast in droves in favor of an ISP that doesn't charge money for entry to certain websites. In my opponents third contention there are a lot of ifs, ands, buts, and whats but all of these worries are made invalidated by the free market. Basic economic theory states that consumers want the best quality product for the lowest price. Slow internet is a low quality product. If companies slow down internet, consumers leave them. If they raise prices, consumers leave them. They have these market incentives to keep good speeds and low prices so other ISPs don't beat them in the marketplace. This worry of ISPs making you pay for anything is completely unrealistic. We also must think about the point made by my opponent stating that ISPs could DDoS each other. However, there is something keeping ISPs from DDoS'ing each other, and it isn't net neutrality. It is the free market. Nobody has a reason to support an ISP that launches cyber attacks on other ISPs, so they will leave that ISP. Therefore, the ISP has an incentive to not engage in such anticompetitive behavior. These fears are ridiculous. Not only that, but repealing net neutrality won't violate freedom of speech. If ISPs prevent people from reading the news, articles, forums, etc, then people will ditch that ISP. I hate repeating myself like a broken record but it is basic economic theory. Another thing we must consider is constitutionality. In that case, why aren't phone networks, who don't have net neutrality regulations being tried in the supreme court for unconstitutionality? Because they don't engage in anti competitive behavior, and the reason they don't engage in that speech-stifling behavior even though they don't have net neutrality regulations is because of basic economics (notice a theme?). From the time the internet was created to January 2015, the U.S. did not have net neutrality regulations, and no ISP made such free-speech-violating moves without being destroyed in the court of public opinion. They will always relent, so why do we need our government watchdogs constantly trailing these ISPs? My opponent's first contention is that ISPs will gain control over the internet. This is false, and my reasoning for this is... the free market! Not surprising, eh? If anything, my opponents example of Verizon conducting \"network testing\" shows another flaw with net neutrality instead of helping his case. Net neutrality does permit \"reasonable network management practices\" and this story shows that certain ISPs could find loopholes through this flimsy law. Overall, there is no reason to keep net neutrality. By keeping it, we are hampering innovation, unfairly levying taxes against ISPs, keeping new companies from joining the market, and stripping smaller ISPs of a valuable advantage. By getting rid of it, we won't be handing control of the internet to ISPs, violating the first amendment, or giving ISPs the ability to make you pay for internet services. We have no reason to keep net neutrality and a ton of reasons to repeal it. Because of this I urge you to vote in affirmation to the resolution.", "qid": "46", "docid": "1f1620a4-2019-04-18T11:54:27Z-00000-000", "rank": 65, "score": 119669.0}, {"content": "Title: Net neutrality properly separates Internet access and content. Content: Network owners or Internet Service Providers are considered the gatekeepers of the Internet. They control access. And, this access should be differentiated from the actual content on the web, so that network owners stick to providing fees for access at a flat rate, without regulating and/or pricing (differentially) content.", "qid": "46", "docid": "fca1d19b-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00046-000", "rank": 66, "score": 119586.0}, {"content": "Title: The USFG should reject Net Neutrality. Content: I find myself over the character limit, and must pick and choose my arguments (I WILL address all dropped arguments):Freedom of SpeechWith regards to the FCC not supporting freedom of speech:b) Opposition argues that \u201cnet neutrality laws do not give the government more power to control what is available to us on the Internet\u201d because the FCC isn\u2019t trying to regulate the internet itself, only the providers. This is patently false; we can look to historical examples of content-based regulation of TV and radio allowed by the Supreme Court, which stated that the FCC could restrain radio and TV broadcasters on a content-neutral basis [1]. However, the FCC was then allowed the discretion of deciding what was \u2018content-neutral.\u2019 Through this open interpretation, the FCC was able to fine or even revoke the licenses of radio and TV stations it felt were not \u2018fair and balanced,\u2019 or if the station aired profanity, hate speech or other offenses [2,3]. In regulating the way that telecommunication industries operate their Internet services through current proposed net neutrality legislation, the FCC would be given oversight of every ISP in the nation. Opposition has not objected to the fact that passing said net neutrality legislation would give the FCC precedent for the authority to regulate the internet, which is what they want-an open door to becoming a governing authority over the internet.Further supporting the FCC\u2019s lack of dedication to freedom of speech is their history of desiring to implement \u2018fairness\u2019 in all broadcasting of any sort. A major aspect of this is the Fairness Doctrine of 1949, which required holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was, in the Commission's view, honest, equitable and balanced, thus greatly curbing the freedom of speech of all those subject to its control [4]. While eliminated in 1987, it turns out that the FCC never lost the desire to institute this \u2018fairness\u2019 of coverage in the media. Last May the FCC proposed a \"Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs\" with the desire of determining the methods by which reporters, editors and station owners decide which stories to run [5]. The FCC stated that the goal of this study was to create guidelines to \u2018aid media sources in what they could provide that is content-neutral and fair to the public.\u2019 FCC Chairwoman Mignon Clyburn stated \u201cThe FCC has a duty to make sure that the industries it regulates serve the needs of the American public no matter where they live or what financial resources they have\u201d [5]. All of this shows the interests of the FCC in regulating media and what they are able to provide and express (a clear regulation of freedom of speech), and net neutrality legislation will only further their ability to do so. In fact, the FCC is leaning on this legislation and pushing for its passage so heavily because their success in promoting \u2018fairness\u2019 and reinstituting the fairness doctrine relies so heavily on their ability to control ISPs. In fact, this wouldn\u2019t be the first time in recent years that this doctrine has been brought to the table; in 2007 numerous Congressional Democrats, with Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Hoyer at their head, aggressively pursued the reinstatement of the fairness doctrine [6].Additionally, to enforce such \u2018fairness\u2019 as the FCC has expressed a desire to institute, the FCC would need to create guidelines to regulate search results, ensuring that an equal number of liberal and conservative views load on the same page, moving some down and some up to make the overall page \u2018neutral\u2019 or \u2018fair.\u2019 This clearly results in a violation of freedom of speech of a search engine\u2019s owners and those of the individual sites/articles, as their opinions and the manner in which they present them are being classified and reorganized in an arbitrary manner determined by the FCC.Further, the 5-member commission stated in their Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that two viable sources of such FCC authority over ISPs are Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and Title II of the Communications Act [7]. Title II pertains to how the FCC grants broadcast licenses; the terms of licenses, renewal processes, content restrictions, etc. The FCC having control over the licenses of all ISPs means their actions are inherently controlled by the FCC. Further, ISPs would also become subject to the FCC\u2019s Discrimination Clause [7], a part of Section 706 which states that \u201cbroadcasters must certify that they do not discriminate in the sale of advertising time\u201d [7] or of content, meaning that the FCC retains the right to determine if the agency is unduly biased and, if so found, \u2018correct\u2019 it (by revoking licenses). Similarly, Title II states that common carriers (ISPs would fall under this in net neutrality laws) can\u2019t \u201cmake any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services,\u201d which the FCC expanded in 2011 to include partisan viewpoints [3,7,8].Through all of this, it becomes quite clear that the FCC IS NOT engaged in the protection of freedom of speech. In fact, this factual evidence shows a very existent desire on the part of the FCC to obtain greater control of the internet for the purposes of normalizing opinion availability and creating a questionable \u2018fairness\u2019 which clearly infringes on freedom of speech much more than the status quo. Thus, in clear contradiction to Opposition\u2019s assertion, the enforcement of net neutrality laws DOES in fact give the government via the FCC more power to control what is available to us on the internet, and that further the FCC clearly does seek to regulate the internet through the regulation of ISPs.With regard to Opposition\u2019s objections to the example of China, point by point:b) To defend a perceived difference between the US and China, Opposition states \u201cIn China, actual website content is blocked\u201d; the FCC will have the capacity to do the very same by revoking licenses of ISPs/information providers, by applying a fairness doctrine to govern what is acceptable, and through the discrimination clause to eliminate voices not expressing all viewpoints. This is remarkably similar, though certainly not as extreme, as the censorship seen in China.c) Opposition cites a difference in socio-political situations as the reasoning for their incompatibility; however, this does not change the fact that it is inherently the desire of those officials in government to stay in power that results in such censorship and closed internet practices, which is just as existent in the US as it is in China.Net Neutrality and Competitionb) BitTorrent is a growing source of legitimate content sharing, but my point is that BitTorrent is also a major member of the pirated content market, meaning that relative to, say, SOPA, the site should be halted solely because it traffics pirated content, regardless of legal activities.c) While it is not always the goal of ISPs to halt internet piracy, it is their business to supply internet to their clients, and it is certainly within their bounds to place restrictions on the services they provide. Certainly clients may not like it if they are blocked from a particular site, but this is simply one of the reasons that individuals switch who they buy from. The Opposition has yet to argue precisely why it is not within the rights of ISPs to control what content they supply to their users-because they do.Innovationa) The value of each of these is indeed intrinsic; however, I would prefer ISPs decide what is available rather than a commission of 5 people.b) To clarify:a. Various content on the internet are different-ex., playing PTP games online eats more bandwidth than simple google searches, thus making them greatly different relative to ISPsb. They ought to be treated differently-because one uses more bandwidth than the other, bandwidth being the \u2018currency\u2019 ISPs deal in when providing service to users, it is only natural that ISPs treat the two on different levels (or pricing, should they decide)c. In Other Words-because various content on the internet are not equal in the eyes of ISPs due to the bandwidth they use or their popularity, etc., it is illogical to force ISPs to treat them identicallyWith regard to the household analogy:a) My \u2018view\u2019 is against net neutrality. This resolution does not require me to specify how the ISPs should do this; my burden of proof is simply to argue for the rejection of net neutrality. Thus, Opposition\u2019s question is non-topical.b) ISPs have not addressed internet congestion because they feel a better solution is to have clients paying for the level of data they want to use. In the Comcast article, the stated goal of restricting access to BitTorrent was to manage the network and \u201ckeep file-sharing traffic from swallowing too much bandwidth and affecting the Internet speeds of other subscribers.\u201d ISPs haven\u2019t undertaken another solution due to the enormous cost of doing so. A rejection of net neutrality would result in an immediate solution; the institution of net neutrality legislation allows for solution, but depends on action by ISPs independent of legislation, and thus cannot be said to have solvency. Thus, a rejection of net neutrality holds sway here as solvency for network congestion falls in favor of a rejection of net neutrality in this debate.Sources:[1] https://bulk.resource.org...[2] http://transition.fcc.gov...[4] http://uspolitics.about.com...[5] http://www.breitbart.com...[6] http://www.journalism.org...[7] http://www.fcc.gov...[8] http://www.dailydot.com...", "qid": "46", "docid": "f5b3410d-2019-04-18T15:41:50Z-00005-000", "rank": 67, "score": 119196.0}, {"content": "Title: Net neutrality impairs development of broadband infrastructure: Content: Network Service Providers need money to expand the critical broadband infrastructure that enables streaming data over the Internet. Many argue that the need for this expansion will rise exponentially as the demand for multimedia and streaming video grows dramatically (such media involves more bits of data, and thus takes up more broadband space). Network Service Providers envision a tier system for charging different content-providers for varying levels of broadband use. It is claimed that the revenue from this would be used to help expand the broadband infrastructure. Without such funding, network providers argue that the infrastructure will be insufficient and that consumers will suffer from slower Internet speeds. Because Network Neutrality blocks such a tiered system from emerging, many believe it prevents network owners from raising the revenue needed to make the investments that will build the robust Internet of the future.", "qid": "46", "docid": "fca1d19b-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00053-000", "rank": 68, "score": 118931.0}, {"content": "Title: Net neutrality Content: I believe in net neutrality but I don't when reading your response I noticed that you only thought about \"providing your son that yacht he always wanted,\" and \"WE SHOULD HAVE EVEN MORE POWER,\" and what I want to say is that net neutrality is NOT about providing people like you with more power and your son with a yacht it is about how the Internet service providers must treat all data on the Internet the same, and not discriminate or charge differently by user, content, website, platform, application, etc. So again net neutrality isn't just about you and what you want it is about what is best for everyone. I believe if everyone is provided with an equal kind of Internet than the world will have less people like you.", "qid": "46", "docid": "2b6ac301-2019-04-18T11:55:15Z-00001-000", "rank": 69, "score": 118846.0}, {"content": "Title: Net Neutrality Content: Why should a few big corporations get control over the Internet? I have a example of why Net Neutrality is good. Say a ISP like Comcast has a new streaming service called Watchcast, should they have the right to block Netflix? With a majority of Americans living in an area with access to only one ISP, If they can only have Comcast that means they could not watch Netflix. Is that a good thing?", "qid": "46", "docid": "5b09f300-2019-04-18T11:54:53Z-00007-000", "rank": 70, "score": 118590.0}, {"content": "Title: Net Neutrality \u2013 All Internet Traffic Should Be Treated Equally Content: A government that ensures net neutrality is one that violates principles of freedom.", "qid": "46", "docid": "92c80a0a-2019-04-19T12:47:33Z-00000-000", "rank": 71, "score": 117900.0}, {"content": "Title: Net Neutrality \u2013 All Internet Traffic Should Be Treated Equally Content: Innovation would slow.", "qid": "46", "docid": "92c80a0a-2019-04-19T12:47:33Z-00004-000", "rank": 72, "score": 117818.0}, {"content": "Title: Net neutrality provides for the free circulation of data and services. Content: Many net neutrality activists would have you believe the internet is a green pasture of freedom in which information disseminates freely. This is not exactly true. Like Cerf said, innovation is welcome at any and all levels of the internet, and yet, in recent years, it has become dominated by single oligarchic rulers. Google is the main search engine, YouTube is the main video hosting platform, Amazon is the main retailer, Netflix is the main film and television hosting site. The list goes on. For almost any information or service you could want from the internet, one company usually dominates the field.", "qid": "46", "docid": "92c80a0a-2019-04-19T12:47:33Z-00008-000", "rank": 73, "score": 117782.0}, {"content": "Title: Net neutrality helps preserve democracy and free speech Content: Net neutrality does not technically have any impact on what you can say. It does affect who you can reach with said speech, but on the individual level, it has no bearing on the first amendment. Response: It does concern freedom of the press. In the U.S., the press\u2014any media outlet\u2014is also allocated freedom of speech. A controlled net would mean a controlled media. Internet service providers would even be able to block certain outlets if they found an excuse to do so, and that is certainly a violation of the first amendment.", "qid": "46", "docid": "92c80a0a-2019-04-19T12:47:33Z-00010-000", "rank": 74, "score": 117723.0}, {"content": "Title: The Internet: The Last True Example of Free Speech (Net Neutrality) Content: NOTE: DO NOT TAKE THIS DEBATE IF YOU ARE GOING TO DEBATE THAT THE INTERNET IS OUR LAST VESTAGE OF FREE SPEECH. THAT IS NOT THE TOPIC OF THIS DEBATE. NET NEUTRALITY IS. I believe that Net Neutrality should be spared, and should be kept away from Virgin Media's grubby, greedy hands. For those who don't know, I'll summarize net neutrality in a simple way. Net neutrality is what lets you sit at your computer, hop on the internet, and visit every site on the internet at the same speed. Now, granted it will not always be the same each visit. There is sure to be differing ammounts of content on each site your computer has to process. What Virgin Media plans to do, is 'throttle' your internet. Which means, they can tell your computer to fo fast to one site, but slow to another. And they do this because, most people would pay to be in the fast lane. They can also block access entirely to sites you normally go to, and redirect you to sites their sponsors create. Which means, if Google doesn't pay Virgin Media, typing google.com in the address bar will take you to a site like fetchfido.com, who has paid Virgin Media. The only way to get to Google, is to pay. Now, I believe the internet is the last vessel of our free speech. TV isn't. It's controlled by a group of people who care more about displaying an interesting story than the truth they promise. Same goes for newspapers/magazines. On the internet, everybody's oppinion is virtually the same. Nobody has a higher authority than another on the internet, except in a controlled situation. If Virgin Media takes that away, they're taking away one of our most primary rights.", "qid": "46", "docid": "f4864a7e-2019-04-18T19:41:08Z-00005-000", "rank": 75, "score": 117717.0}, {"content": "Title: Should The US Keep Net Neutrality Content: So you make some really interesting points. I'm just gonna refute what you said in each paragraph separately. Paragraph #1: So you used an example of, \"paying more for water.\" But here is the thing. It really isn't that. A common misconception is that the price of basic internet will be raised. No. Everyone will have internet at the same price as it was during Net Neutrality, but you can pay for faster internet if you want it, similar to if you want to upgrade your hotel room. You can upgrade if you have the money, but if you don't have the money, it doesn't mean that you don't have a good hotel room. You still do! So it beneficial to people who have a few extra dollars. Paragraph #2: So you said that it would be hard to make businesses it completely backwards. As I said in my second point, \"Net Neutrality is a Red Herring that Hurts Innovation,\" FCC plan (pg 249.): businesses need legal/financial freedom in order to spur innovation and creativity. By encouraging network investment, consumers benefit. According to Economic Analyst Ainsley Miller, \"a world w/out NN would actually provide better service b/c companies would have more leeway to create faster content for everyone.\" Paragraph #3 and 4: You were talking about a violation of free speech, but according to Fox News: no internet provider wants to be known for \"slow service,\" or being, \"anti-free speech,\" so the consumer has nothing 2 worry about. So, here is what I just said hopefully simplified. If the Internet Service Provider slows down certain websites, the ISPs will actually lose money because they don't want to be thought of as 'anti-free speech.' And if they are, then people will move to a new ISP. So it is actually in the best interest of the ISPs to not slow down content. Instead, they can slow down bad things, like scams, hackers, and things that people don't want to see online. They won't push their personal agenda because then they will lose money, something that they don't want to do. Thank you!", "qid": "46", "docid": "81d4eb96-2019-04-18T11:26:08Z-00001-000", "rank": 76, "score": 117660.0}, {"content": "Title: Net Neutrality Content: The government should not require ISPs to provide access to all websites equally, because internet access is a service provided to websites and consumers, and servicer providers have the right to decide what service they provide exactly, and to whom they provide it. The government should not dictate how we use the internet. Very fun, short, debate. Glad to make your first one a good one. P. S. R. V. V. V.", "qid": "46", "docid": "5b09f300-2019-04-18T11:54:53Z-00000-000", "rank": 77, "score": 117607.0}, {"content": "Title: Net neutrality laws. Content: The implication behind making the debate impossible to accept, asking you to comment if you're interested, was to exercise discrimination in choice of opponent. I think taking the debate without commenting is bad conduct and constitutes a forfeit (at least based on the standards on this site). That said, the debate isn't about net neutrality as principle. Net neutrality \"is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication.\" http://en.wikipedia.org... The debate is about net neutrality laws. The question is whether we should require net neutrality, or whether we should regulate anticompetitive business practices through other means (e.g. antitrust laws). The problem with requiring net neutrality -- with a net neutrality law -- is that it doesn't distinguish between procompetitive and anticompetitive practices. Entrepreneurs often experiment with new and different business models -- e.g. prioritizing network traffic -- to lower prices and improve customer experience. Lariat Wireless, for example, a small internet service provider (\"ISP\") in Wyoming, forbids its customers from operating servers, to reduce network congestion and improve the overall experience for their users. Brett Glass, the CEO, explains: \"most Internet users would not know what a server was if it bit them, and they have no problem uploading content to a Web site such as YouTube for distribution. This means customers that do need to operate a server could obtain that capability by paying a bit more to cover the additional cost.\" Under a net neutrality law, however, Lariat Wireless would be forced to shift \"everyone to the more expensive plan. We will therefore be less competitive, offer less value to consumers and especially less value to economically disadvantaged ones.\" [1] Moreover, current antitrust laws are enough to protect consumers from anticompetitive practices. The net neutrality debate turns on the idea that there are bottlenecks on the Internet which allow network owners to exercise market power. For example, if a local telephone company has a monopoly in broadband access and it blocks broadband subscribers from using an Internet phone service offered by a rival company, that could harm both competition and consumers. But that's a classic antitrust issue. And under current antitrust laws, Section 2 of the Sherman Act, that's illegal if it harms consumers and competition. FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell notes that \"in the almost nine years since [net neutrality] fears were first sewn, net regulation lobbyists can point to fewer than a handful of cases of alleged misconduct, out of an infinite number of Internet communications. All those cases were resolved in favor of consumers under current law.\" [2] There is simply no reason to prefer displacing the antitrust laws -- flexible, nuanced, fact-based enforcement -- with a rigid net neutrality regime. References: [1] http://judiciary.house.gov... [2] In re Preserving the Open Internet Broadband Indus. Practices, 25 FCC Rcd. 17,905 (2010)", "qid": "46", "docid": "877a9d97-2019-04-18T15:11:50Z-00005-000", "rank": 78, "score": 117368.0}, {"content": "Title: Net neutrality Content: == Definitions ==Net neutrality: \"the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication.\" http://en.wikipedia.org...Antitrust laws: \"a collection of federal and state government laws, which regulates the conduct and organization of business corporations, generally to promote fair competition for the benefit of consumers ... restrict the formation of cartels and prohibit other collusive practices regarded as being in restraint of trade ... restrict the mergers and acquisitions of organizations which could substantially lessen competition ... [and] prohibit the creation of a monopoly and the abuse of monopoly power.\" http://en.wikipedia.org... == Rebuttal == Pro claims that net neutrality is necessary to stop ISPs from slowing down the Internet. But the reality is much different. ISPs could only do that if there were no competition. That means they'd have to collude with each other, or have a monopoly (and abuse that monopoly power). Both of those are illegal under current antitrust laws (Section 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act). So net neutrality isn't necessary to stop ISPs from slowing down the Internet. If an ISP did slow down the Internet while charging monopoly prices, another company would provide faster service at a competitive price, and consumers would buy their Internet from the company providing faster service at a competitive price. That's how a free market works. We don't neet net neutrality laws to regulate an area that's already regulated by antitrust laws.== Argument ==The net neutrality debate turns on the idea that there are bottlenecks on the Internet which allow network owners to exercise market power. For example, if a local company has a monopoly in Internet access and blocks subscribers from using an Internet phone service offered by a rival company, that could harm both competition and consumers. The question is whether we should require net neutrality, or whether we should regulate that sort of anticompetitive practice through other means (i.e. antitrust laws).The problem with requiring net neutrality is that net neutrality doesn't distinguish between procompetitive discrimination and anticompetitive discrimination. Under a net neutrality regime, networks can't favor traffic from a patient's heart monitor over traffic delivering a music download. Or worse, networks can't restrict downright harmful traffic, such as viruses, worms, and spam. Instead, all Internet traffic must be treated equally. Antitrust laws, on the other hand, allow procompetitive discrimination while also prohibiting anticompetitive discrimination.(1) An unregulated Internet is better than a regulated Internet.The Internet has always been shaped by intense competition and rampant growth. Entrepreneurs have had the latitude to experiment with new and different business models. And as a result, in the absence of heavy government regulation, and \"due in large part to private investment and market-driven innovation, broadband in America has improved considerably in the last decade. More Americans are online at faster speeds than ever before.\" [1]Rigid net neutrality laws would change that. Instead of allowing the free market to guide investment dollars where needed, and allowing businesses to act based on the best use of scarce resources like bandwidth, the government would dictate many of these decisions, chilling competition, growth, and innovation.(2) Net neutrality doesn't distinguish between procompetitive and anticompetitive practices.Entrepreneurs often experiment with new and different business models -- e.g. prioritizing network traffic -- to lower prices and improve customer experience. Lariat Wireless, for example, a small internet service provider (\"ISP\") in Wyoming, forbids its customers from operating servers, to reduce network congestion and improve the overall experience for their users. Brett Glass, the CEO, explains: \"most Internet users would not know what a server was if it bit them, and they have no problem uploading content to a Web site such as YouTube for distribution. This means customers that do need to operate a server could obtain that capability by paying a bit more to cover the additional cost.\" Under a net neutrality law, however, Lariat Wireless would be forced to shift \"everyone to the more expensive plan. We will therefore be less competitive, offer less value to consumers and especially less value to economically disadvantaged ones.\" [2]Unregulated markets give entrepreneurs the latitude to experiment as such, producing procompetitive outcomes: more options, lower prices, and better quality services. But a net neutrality requirement would categorically condemn all discriminatory practices, without distinguishing the good, procompetitive ones from the bad, anticompetitive ones.(3) Current antitrust laws are enough to protect consumers and competition.Antitrust laws protect consumers from anticompetitive business practices -- monopolization, collusion, price-fixing, etc. Under these laws, courts ask whether there's been actual harm to consumers or competition before condemning a business practice. If there's been a showing of harm to consumers or competition, then the company harming the consumer or competition faces heavy fines and even prison. This approach is more nuanced, fact-based, and flexible, and it's better for the economy because it gives entrepreneurs latitude to experiment.Pro says that ISPs could slow down the Internet and force content providers to pay for so-called \"fast lanes.\" But if that actually harms competition or consumers, it's already illegal under current antitrust laws. An FCC Commissioner, Robert McDowell, even notes that \"in the almost nine years since [net neutrality] fears were first sewn, net regulation lobbyists can point to fewer than a handful of cases of alleged misconduct, out of an infinite number of Internet communications. All those cases were resolved in favor of consumers under current law.\" [3] There is simply no reason to prefer displacing the antitrust laws -- flexible, nuanced, fact-based enforcement -- with a rigid net neutrality regime.Sources:[1] http://transition.fcc.gov...[2] http://judiciary.house.gov...[3] In re Preserving the Open Internet Broadband Indus. Practices, 25 FCC Rcd. 17,905 (2010)", "qid": "46", "docid": "2b6ac2c3-2019-04-18T15:10:44Z-00006-000", "rank": 79, "score": 117357.0}, {"content": "Title: net neutrality Content: I accept.I will provide one clarification and then post my first arguments and rebuttals in round 2.Net neutrality: this is the idea that ISP's (internet service providers) like Comcast should not give preferential treatment to any specific traffic on their network.", "qid": "46", "docid": "40a68302-2019-04-18T14:17:57Z-00002-000", "rank": 80, "score": 117210.0}, {"content": "Title: A government that ensures net neutrality is one that violates principles of freedom. Content: The Internet is founded upon principles of the free market - people are allowed to publish content and the content's success is based upon whether or not people like it. Instead of interfering with the free market, the government should allow businesses to direct themselves. Otherwise, the system veers dangerously towards socialism. [[http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/OpEd-Contributor/_Net-Neutrality_-Is-Socialism_-Not-Freedom-8410175.html]]", "qid": "46", "docid": "92c80a0a-2019-04-19T12:47:33Z-00023-000", "rank": 81, "score": 117159.0}, {"content": "Title: Net neutrality allows some sites to hog bandwidth Content: \"Editorial: Net neutrality not so neutral.\" OC Register. September 25th, 2009: \"One difficulty with government guaranteeing entitlements at the expense of others is the problem of those who abuse the free ride. Bandwidth-hogging services such as person-to-person file sharing and downloadable video from sites like YouTube and Google strain network capacities. Broadband providers legitimately claim they have a right to regulate such traffic over their networks, which may mean giving priority to their own services or charging varying rates. [...] That's why large bandwidth providers such as Verizon and AT&T have opposed previous 'net neutrality' proposals. Their networks would be abused. And that's why operations like Google want net neutrality mandated by federal regulations. They could offer services without sharing the whole cost to provide them over broadband networks.\"", "qid": "46", "docid": "fca1d19b-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00047-000", "rank": 82, "score": 117147.0}, {"content": "Title: Net neutrality protects freedoms and openness of the Internet: Content: As co-inventor of the Internet Protocol Vint Cerf has stated, \"The Internet was designed with no gatekeepers over new content or services. A lightweight but enforceable neutrality rule is needed to ensure that the Internet continues to thrive.\"[2]", "qid": "46", "docid": "fca1d19b-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00050-000", "rank": 83, "score": 116904.0}, {"content": "Title: Net Neutrality Content: Whoever joins this debate, lets make this a civilized debate. My first argument is simple, the definition of net neutrality Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers must treat all data on the Internet the same, and not discriminate or charge differently by user, content, website, platform, application", "qid": "46", "docid": "5b09f300-2019-04-18T11:54:53Z-00009-000", "rank": 84, "score": 116767.0}, {"content": "Title: Net Neutrality Content: Well let's go ahead and get this going... First: The loss of net neutrality is not something that the government or big business can do anything about. The internet is far too vast to be properly regulated. The money required to promote neutrality is far too large amount to be feasible. Second: My opponent states that the internet is a level playing field, and that is so true. Much like our society, success gains you a higher place in society so why not extend that to the internet. The web is nothing but a reflection of the real world so a successful business in the real world should also reap the benefits of advertisement on the web. This is how America works. You succeed, you gain the benefits.", "qid": "46", "docid": "5b09f227-2019-04-18T20:01:38Z-00004-000", "rank": 85, "score": 116642.0}, {"content": "Title: Net Neutrality Content: How would we be better off without the internet. The internet is a great way for small or big businesses to gain publicity without any hard work. Without Net neutrality bigger businesses can just pay the ISPs to block the smaller businesses. So Net neutrality is just gonna slow down innovation.", "qid": "46", "docid": "5b09f31f-2019-04-18T11:54:28Z-00001-000", "rank": 86, "score": 116570.0}, {"content": "Title: Net neutrality maintains a free market and even playing field Content: Conservative lobbyists who would abolish net neutrality are quick to brand the Open Internet Order as a regulative measure. Regulation to conservatives is like sunlight to a vampire. Somehow, allowing huge internet service-providing corporations to exercise any kind of profit-seeking behavior they can come up with is better for business than giving new sites a chance to grow. In a Forbes article titled \"Net Neutrality Is a Bad Idea Supported by Poor Analogies,\" Jeffrey Dorfman writes \"[Net neutrality] is a bad idea for the same reason that only having vanilla ice cream for sale is a bad idea: some people want, and are willing to pay for, something different.\" That would be a rich analogy, right? Response: Broadband service is not ice cream and, categorically, it comes in one flavor anyway. What varies is its quantity. Conservatives who trumpet the anti-regulation cause have no ground to stand on. They do not argue for anti-regulation, they hope to take the power of regulation from the government and give it to the private corporations.", "qid": "46", "docid": "92c80a0a-2019-04-19T12:47:33Z-00012-000", "rank": 87, "score": 116567.0}, {"content": "Title: The internet should operate on the basis of net neutrality Content: The internet is a free market of ideas in which all beliefs can be submitted to the whole of the online community and then put to criticism and judgment. In the same way irrational beliefs like Creationism first found purchase on the internet only to be undermined and discredited by the efforts of online activists, so too have Holocaust deniers been forced by their presence on the web to justify their beliefs and submit evidence for scrutiny. In so doing the online community has systematically discredited the deniers and undermined their efforts at recruitment. By taking on a stance of net neutrality in the provision of internet and the blocking of sites, governments allow this process to play out and for the free exchange of ideas on which liberal democratic society is built upon to show its strength.[1] A neutral stance upholds the highest principles of the state, and allows people to feel safe in the veracity and representativeness of the internet content they are provided. [1] Seythal, T. \u201cHolocaust Denier Sentenced to Five Years\u201d. The Washington Post. 15 February 2007, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/15/AR2007021501283.html", "qid": "46", "docid": "38441d06-2019-04-15T20:24:35Z-00019-000", "rank": 88, "score": 116529.0}, {"content": "Title: Net Neutrality \u2013 All Internet Traffic Should Be Treated Equally Content: Net neutrality maintains a free market and even playing field", "qid": "46", "docid": "92c80a0a-2019-04-19T12:47:33Z-00005-000", "rank": 89, "score": 116269.0}, {"content": "Title: Net Neutrality Content: This debate is about Net Neutrality. RULES: No Profanity Sources are not required but are recommended. 1st round is for acceptance ONLY 2nd and 3rd rounds are for arguments ONLY Last round is for thanking eachother for the debate ONLY To those who have no idea what Net Neutrality is; Net Neutrality is this, \"the principle that Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites.\" Source for the definition. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)", "qid": "46", "docid": "5b09f246-2019-04-18T16:17:57Z-00007-000", "rank": 90, "score": 116101.0}, {"content": "Title: Net neutrality. Content: One thing I have noticed since net neutrality began in 2015 was that conservatives were ostracized in a lot of social media platforms, which is why they have turned to sights that they pay for where they are not interfered with at all. In a way net neutrality has opened it up for large social media sites were able to almost block conservative content without anyone having a say in it. Which is why they support it so much as well as why they show the negative to net neutrality so often. Finally, net neutrality just prevents companies from charging you for certain items like giving YouTube unlimited power to ISPs without having to pay.", "qid": "46", "docid": "41ed0b25-2019-04-18T11:53:25Z-00006-000", "rank": 91, "score": 116039.0}, {"content": "Title: Net Neutrality Is a Horrible Idea Content: Sorry for bad english in advance.", "qid": "46", "docid": "fd4a422a-2019-04-18T11:54:51Z-00000-000", "rank": 92, "score": 115993.0}, {"content": "Title: The USFG should reject Net Neutrality. Content: -My great thanks to an excellent opponent for providing excellent opposition in this debate; I legitimately enjoyed it! -In this final round, I will seek to address all of the main points and summarize arguments to as to be as clear as possible on the rational for why I have succeeded in fulfilling the resolution that the USFG should reject Network Neutrality. Freedom of Speech -I agreed that we are considering the concept of net neutrality as \u201ca general principle/concept; we are considering all forms of network neutrality legislation.\u201d Inherent to this, while certainly debating the merits of the possible, we are focusing on the current net neutrality legislation as proposed by the USFG; debating any other form of legislation is not of immediate relevance, as it is not being considered for institution. Thus, my previous arguments against net neutrality via the FCC stand, as ALL current forms of proposed net neutrality legislation specifically utilize the FCC as the primary actor, an argument which Opposition ceded and attempts to circumvent by arguing that we are only addressing net neutrality as a concept in an effort to eliminate all historical applications of net neutrality legislation, including through the FCC, thus hoping to eliminate all arguments against freedom of speech; this clearly fails. -Opposition protests that my arguments are very narrow in that \u201cit only deals with the FCC as the enforcer,\u201d an argument addressed above; however, note that Opposition\u2019s only suggested alternative to current net neutrality legislation is one which \u201crequires the FCC to regulate ISPs in a highly transparent and democratic manner,\u201d with the suggestion that this would prevent such control of the internet by the FCC suggested previously. The first problem is that this still involves the FCC as the enforcer, negating Oppositions solution. -Opposition further misunderstands my arguments regarding the \u201chighly transparent and democratic manner\u201d bit. I never argue that the FCC is highly transparent and democratic, but rather that they are tasked with being highly transparent and democratic. Opposition\u2019s solution for corruption and the FCC\u2019s blatant censorship is to make them \u201chighly transparent and democratic,\u201d yet doesn\u2019t have any suggestions on how. The problem with this approach is that they are already thus tasked; in fact, our entire form of government is built around the concept of being transparent and democratic, yet clearly there have been failings therein. Tacking a \u201chighly democratic\u201d onto a \u2018highly transparent\u2019 does not change the course of the government. The reason that I reject such a hypothetical as Opposition\u2019s arguments have become invested in is because it has been an unachieved goal for decades. It is one thing to suggest a hypothetical on merit of its benefits; it is another entirely to argue solvency from a hypothetical without solvency for the hypothetical, the difference being: Opposition has suggested how we would benefit from a highly transparent and democratic FCC/government, yet fails to suggest the method of obtaining said transparency. Further, Opposition\u2019s solvency is entirely speculation; Opposition has presented absolutely no proof that this theoretical transparency could result in the circumvention of the threats of concentrating power over ISPs into government hands, and therefore this argument is non-topical. China -It is neither inappropriate nor fallacial to note similarities between proposed US legislation and acts of censorship in foreign nations, nor is it fallacial to note the outcomes of such in foreign nations. I never argued that the outcome of net neutrality legislation will be China; I simply note the similarities and suggest that comparatively speaking, such actions of giving government control over the internet has led to government abusing this power-I am arguing for the similarity between the two. If such a comparison is fallacial, then every time we look to another nation, corporation, form of legislation, etc. to try and gauge the reaction/outcome of our pending actions based off of the outcome of theirs so as to improve upon it, we commit a fallacy, meaning one of two things: either our everyday actions are fallacial, yet work and have proven beneficial in reforming the path of our nation to avoid the mistakes of others; or Opposition\u2019s interpretation here is mistaken. Either way this is a legitimate comparison that is used every day in our government to improve our policies and avoid the mistakes of others. For this reason the argument stands. c) Opposition notes that \u201cPro has not responded to my argument in the previous round that FCC actions regarding televisions and radios should not be compared with the Internet, because of the different ways information is transmitted between those.\u201d Opposition appears to be forgetting that under current legislation via Section 706 and Title II, internet services would be regrouped from information services to the same regulations governing common carriers (radio, TV). Thus, as the FCC will have the exact same level of control and oversight of the internet as it did over radio and TV, these two are absolutely comparable despite all informational transmission differences because the law would treat them absolutely the same. I am not ignoring the structural differences between TV/radio and the internet; rather, net neutrality legislation is. Your argument serves to undermine your own case. ISPs 1. Blocking Content a + b) On the contrary; I recognize the perspective you are coming from. I simply argue that on balance, the allowance of the market to introduce new ISPs without the restrictions of ones such as Comcast (the sole example of content exclusions cited in this debate) will allow for a net benefit. The FCC (or any other governmental entity) would impose strict regulations of what is/is not acceptable on the internet, and this content would simply be gone; nobody has access. Under ISPs, there could be limited content disallowed, but on the whole no content is strictly forbidden, and the market allows for the emergence of new ISPs supplying the content blocked by others; it is in their best interest economically in such a market (without net neutrality regulations) to supply as much content as possible. d) I disagree; I feel compelling responses have been given as to why we should consider solely the FCC as actor under net neutrality legislation. e) My argument here succeeds for the same reason cited above. Further, my arguments move past the specific legislation being considered in the US to other forms of net neutrality; I have asserted on several occasions that the fact that one commission (the FCC) has existed and been able to garner so much control over methods of communication shows the capacity for such organizations to exist. The mere fact that net neutrality legislation would entail giving a governmental body authority over the internet is sufficient argument against the institution of net neutrality legislation. 2. Innovation a + b) Opposition appears to be looking for a debate on economics; the recognition that \u201cthere are differences between the bandwidth needs of various content\u201d directly leads to the conclusion, by businesses in general, that the pricing should vary accordingly to make a profit. This is common business practice, and Opposition\u2019s attempt to philosophically analyze this practice is simply an attempt to distract from the real issue, which is that content is priced differently as a result of the production cost differential (which Opposition concedes to be true). c) This doesn\u2019t change the fact that it can cost more to transmit certain types of data, thus costing more, regardless of where precisely the cost originates. Household b) The probability of network congestion being resolved is stronger without net neutrality. With net neutrality, ISPs are not required to upgrade their systems, resulting in no solution from net neutrality legislation. With ISPs being able to price their own internet packages, congestion is reduced due to users paying for their usage, but there is also a greater level of income with which to reform the system. The odds of network congestion solvency due to incentive by ISPs is much greater without net neutrality, granting Government net benefits in this instance. Conclusion -Opposition\u2019s case relies heavily on very technical arguments, the foremost being that we should only analyze net neutrality as a concept, excluding the aspect of existing legislature. However, it is crucial for this debate to analyze not only net neutrality as a concept, but to also include the existing set of reforms which would enact net neutrality in the US. Hypothetical forms of legislation only become relevant once proposed, because here were are trying to argue the merits of that net neutrality legislation with which we have the potential to be governed by in the future. The only reason for Opposition\u2019s exclusion of current legislation is the FCC\u2019s history and the weight this lends to the Government in this debate. -Further, Opposition\u2019s only proposed argument against the right of ISP\u2019s to price their services freely is that \u201cthey can\u2019t be trusted to govern the internet\u201d and \u201cit would hurt the consumer.\u201d As I have argued, an increased cost to the consumer has no bearing on the right of ISPs to self-determine pricing. Additionally, in arguing that ISPs cannot be trusted with the internet, Opposition is essentially arguing that the government (via the FCC) can. I have continually shown this assertion to be false throughout this debate; Opposition\u2019s attempts to exclude the FCC from this debate following Round 2 only serves to support this point. I feel I have very thoroughly shown that the Government has earned net benefits in support of the resolution, The USFG Should Reject Network Neutrality, and that the Opposition has not upheld its burden of proof in this resolution. -The Resolution is Upheld.", "qid": "46", "docid": "f5b3410d-2019-04-18T15:41:50Z-00001-000", "rank": 93, "score": 115916.0}, {"content": "Title: Net neutrality. Content: I'm not asking for a government takeover, but there should be some reugulation to ensure equality for all parties, including conservatives. Everyone benefits from an open internet. What do you think net neutrality is?", "qid": "46", "docid": "41ed0b25-2019-04-18T11:53:25Z-00007-000", "rank": 94, "score": 115741.0}, {"content": "Title: Net Neutrality Content: Bro. Net neutrality is not needed. I'm telling you guys. Just because you have to spend like a billion dollars just for one Google search doesn't mean the end of the world. Seriously, we are probably better off without the internet, anyway. This is the start of something---I can feel it. Having net neutrality can damage the world economy in terrible ways. When the world realizes that they actually don't need the internet we will all be happy. I hope you know that.", "qid": "46", "docid": "5b09f31f-2019-04-18T11:54:28Z-00002-000", "rank": 95, "score": 115607.0}, {"content": "Title: Net neutrality was effectively the law until 2005 Content: \"Openness is a Fundamental Principle of the Internet.\" Open Internet Coalition: \"Legal safeguards protected network neutrality during the Internet's first three decades, promoting the dramatic expansion of Internet services, apps, and websites which generated billions in investment and many thousands of new jobs. In 2005, these protections were stripped away, and some Internet access providers have already started discriminating against certain applications. For example, in 2007 Comcast was caught blocking Bittorrent, which is used by competing video providers, and AT&T has restricted Internet telephony and video services on its wireless network.\"", "qid": "46", "docid": "fca1d19b-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00069-000", "rank": 96, "score": 115562.0}, {"content": "Title: Net neutrality provides legal consistency that is good for ISPs. Content: By setting out clear rules about what is acceptable and what is unacceptable behavior, ISPs will avoid getting into trouble like Comcast did when it blocked BitTorrent users in early 2010. This would help network owners avoid getting into trouble both with anti-competitive laws as well as their customers who get angry when they discover that the company crossed the line in blocking content, discriminating between content, or charged extra for data from one site versus another.", "qid": "46", "docid": "fca1d19b-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00059-000", "rank": 97, "score": 115539.0}, {"content": "Title: Net Neutrality \u2013 All Internet Traffic Should Be Treated Equally Content: Net neutrality helps preserve democracy and free speech", "qid": "46", "docid": "92c80a0a-2019-04-19T12:47:33Z-00006-000", "rank": 98, "score": 115397.0}, {"content": "Title: Net neutrality saves Internet as ideal marketplace Content: Doc Searls. \"Net Neutrality vs. Net Neutrering.\" Linux Journal. March 3, 2006: \"By framing the Net as a neutral place, we assure that it will continue to serve as what it has already been for more than ten years: a public marketplace where private enterprise of all forms can not only grow and thrive, but can do both better than it ever has anywhere, ever, before.\"", "qid": "46", "docid": "fca1d19b-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00038-000", "rank": 99, "score": 115098.0}, {"content": "Title: WODC: This House Believes That Provisions of Internet Services Should be a Public Utility Content: Okay, none of my opponent's arguments against net neutrality work. This debate is not about net neutrality and whether it should be tossed aside or used is beside the point. Somebody could be pro net neutrality and against considering the Internet a utility or somebody can be for considering the Internet a utility and against net neutrality. My opponent has dropped several of my arguments. My opponent has dropped the argument that the cost of infrastructure and entry is so much that it takes a significant amount of control over local markets for a start up to succeed, and since they're the new guy in town it's extremely hard to gain the 30% of the market they need. Broadband companies such as Comcast, have huge natural monopolies, and in a world that requires such a big infrastructure and market penetration to succeed, it's virtually impossible to have a competitive industry. He has dropped my arguments showing that currently the Internet companies have virtual monopolies over local markets. These facts automatically get accepted into any judges calculations as it's too late to bring up new arguments against them as per WODC rules, as well as just a general principle of fairness. LANNAN IS CONFUSED AGAIN My opponent's rebuttal round is spent using arguments against the nationalization of the Internet industry. Let me define nationalization for those who may not be aware of what that is; \"Nationalization (American English), (British and Commonwealth spelling nationalisation) is the process of taking a private industry or private assets into public ownership by a national government or state. \" . http://en.m.wikipedia.org... This debate is not about taking private assets and turning them into government property. The debate is merely about recognizing that the companies who provide Internet services have too much control over the industry. When a company has too much control over an industry, it's competition is no longer able to act as a check against the company acting against the best interest of the consumer. The regulation that comes with recognizing that Internet services are a public utility, are there to insure a balance between making a profit and treating customers fairly. This type of regulation actually allows a company to keep their monopolies because it understands that these types of services require massive infrastructure. Just like electric companies and consumers would be worse off with more competition in broadband, because it would create an alarming amount of overlapping infrastructures, however that is kinda beside the point. The massive infrastructure actually helps create a natural monopoly as I have argued and my opponent has not contested the natural monopoly exists. Con mentions how theoretically price controls can be too high or too low and harm industry. While I concede that it is possible for the government to charge outrages prices for goods and drive consumers away or charge too little and destroy a company, it is unlikely. Phone service, electricity, and water services have been regulated as utilities for as long as me and my opponent have been alive and my guess is we both have electricity and running water, which is believe it or not, quite affordable. While the landline telephone industry going the way of the dinosaur, when it was a necessity, government regulating it as a utility kept the prices low enough for one to be in virtually every home while the companies providing the services actually made plenty of profits the entire time they were regulated. The regulations, neither harmed consumers or the companies, it merely balanced out the disadvantages of having a monopolized industry, and it should be noted that competition in these specific industries isn't necessarily a good thing either as the massive infrastructures are overlapping and waste a lot of resources. It's one of those situations where people are better off with a regulated monopoly than many competing companies. My opponent moves Onto discussing Kant and what's known as the categorical imperative, but greatly misunderstands the categorical imperative, as well as gives us no reason to favor that moral system, over the normative system we already use. Seeing as how the normative system is the one we already use and We were given no reason to assume Kantian ethics, I say we use normative ethics. The first problem with applying Kantian ethics in this situation is that Kant was describing a system of personal ethics for people to apply, and my opponent is trying to imply personal ethics to the state without explaining why personal ethics are even applicable to a non living entity. According to Kant perfect duties are to be performed all the time, where as imperfect duties were to be performed in some circumstances. Things that are imperfect duties aren't things the state should refrain from as my opponent assumes. If we're applying the categorical imperative to the state, imperfect duties should be done sometimes, meaning that sometimes it is correct to treat a utility as a utility. I've explained why we should do so in this debate. If it is an imperfect duty, it is still one that should be performed based on the reasoning I gave. . http://plato.stanford.edu... Regulated vs Unregulated \"My opponent harps on the US having such a terrible internet speed and quality, but they are sadly mistaken. We can see that we are actually 10th in the World for the fastest speed and best internet quality. We are definately not the 40th slot that my opponent mistakably claims. \" Um I linked to a study showing that America is 40th among countries and territories looked at. I actually went through the trouble of quoting stats and quotes from an article on the study, where as my opponent merely says I'm mistaken without pointing out which of the statistics I quoted is wrong or why. I read the article my opponent links to in the comment section. Out of a list of 10 countries we see that the United States is 10th. We have no many ideals how many countries that study looked at or it's method collections. So one list shows the United States in last place of 10 areas and the other shows it as last place of 40 countries. Come on Lannan, last place is last place. Clearly not all countries and areas are included in my list of 40. My list obviously excluded third world nations and the Gal\"pagos Islands. There is no need to split hairs here. The point is that the United States could and should do better. A point which my opponent doesn't counter at all. \"We can see that this is a HUGE concession as my opponent here concedes that under the status quo that the free market is better as \"They make out better when they're unregulated\"\" My statement was that the monopolies do better when they are left unregulated, not that the economy or customers do better. Clearly, my argument is that these companies have too much leverage over consumers and despite the fact that Comcast does better when they don't have as many rules to follow, the average American does worse. My opponent ends that round with a baffling remark about nationalization, which isn't even something we're debating. Status quo and Anti Trust \"We can see here by what my opponent decided to point out is that once again we need free market competition over that of the Public Nationalization of this industry as it helps the industry. \" The quote by the FCC chairman is meant to point out the lack of competition in the Internet industry. The quote is by another person. The chairman may be knowledgable about the problems facing the industry, but I disagree with his conclusions on the solution. He sees the problem is not enough competition and jumps to the most obvious conclusion, however the most obvious solution isn't feasible in this situation as I've shown the industry to be too hard to break into. \"My opponent has dropped the entire argument that I've made here and we can see that the current Sharman Bill has done it's job. \" I haven't dropped any arguments. The current bill you bring up has done absolutely nothing to prevent these industries from monopolizing (and we haven't even concluded that monopolizing a utility is bad, only that a monopolized utility should be regulated as one. ). I've shown that the current attempts at preventing monopolies has failed in this circumstance, that the industry naturally monopolizes as it needs deep market penetration to be profitable and that the status quo isn't working and we need provisions of Internet services to be recognized as a utility. Conclusion My opponent hasn't even argued against the resolution and instead has argued against nationalization and argued against net neutrality. He has dropped most of my arguments and has baffled me with his interpretations of my arguments. I urge my opponent to read over my arguments several times to comprehend them properly. I also urge him to just forfeit the debate and save the judges the trouble of having to read through all this and analyze it as a formality.", "qid": "46", "docid": "32192392-2019-04-18T14:44:58Z-00001-000", "rank": 100, "score": 115060.0}]}
{"query": "Is homework beneficial?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: Homework is beneficial for school students Content: I accept.", "qid": "47", "docid": "bd7013ea-2019-04-18T14:03:21Z-00004-000", "rank": 1, "score": 167447.0}, {"content": "Title: Homework Content: Homework is beneficial because: =It makes students learn how to juggle their workload and time. =Pushes students to work hard. =Making sure students understand what they have learned so far. = Repeating is the mother of perfection. =Prevents someone from forgetting what they have learned. =students learn to de disciplined and balance the amount of homework and their time. =Makes students think. I mean critical thinking skills.", "qid": "47", "docid": "1733bf1a-2019-04-18T15:28:10Z-00000-000", "rank": 2, "score": 160050.0}, {"content": "Title: Homework is beneficial for school students Content: I invite you to quote your sources about the research you are talking about. First I would like to come back on what you said. If students are given extra-classes in Asia, or in any other country, that is in order to help those students who might have difficulties but still want to progress. Therefore, teachers giving those extra-classes will be there only to help the students, for instance with doing his homework. I doubt they also give extra-homework, unless if the students are really looking forward to delving into courses. Even in that case, I think that if a student gives up his studies it is because courses are too difficult for him or because he is not motivated enough but not because of homework he sometimes can't manage to do. Then, I would like to point out that homework such as exercises are great for the student because it gives him the possibility to put what he learnt into practice and to be sure he has understood the concepts seen in class. For example homework in mathematics or physics allow the student to move from abstract ideas and formulas to concrete examples. Afterwards when the homework get corrected, he will know whether he was right or wrong. In both cases it is beneficial as he can either be sure he understood or understand the mistake he made, not to make it again. Finally, it is generally agreed that working regularly leads to better results, the brain being able to memorize information easier if they are constantly repeated. That is one of the reasons why homework is beneficial to students, indeed it obliges the student to work when he is at home. Doing so, he will review what he learnt early on and it amounts to the same thing, that is to say to work in a constant way in order to better succeed. Last but not least, doing homework allows the student to develop skills such as a better organization, efficiency or memorising abilities. By way of conclusion, I can't see why would homework be something bad or useless, as its main goal is to help students getting better by raising the difficulties they could be facing and by consolidating what they are good at. Your rhymes, now.", "qid": "47", "docid": "bd7013ea-2019-04-18T14:03:21Z-00002-000", "rank": 3, "score": 158252.0}, {"content": "Title: Does homework have any benefits Content: My point of contention is that homework can be very beneficial given the right balance between the amount of homework and time available for students to complete it. I'm not sure how exactly to respond to your point about children having to do too much of it, as I don't know the country that you're based in or and I also don't know how you define a substantial amount of homework. These are the reasons why I think that it is beneficial and is not a waste of time if the above criteria is met: 1. It allows for the development of time management skills within students, since they have to manage their homework with the time constraints given. The source cited states that homework is important in the process of self regulation and control. [1] 2. Homework forces students to apply the knowledge that they learned in the classroom, which is especially important for development of intellect, as being able to apply knowledge of a given topic is what allows you to utilize it within your everyday life. While you may not be able to directly apply trigonometry into your life, the type of thought processes that mathematics hinges on can give students a better ability apply study skills in their everyday lives. [2] 3. Homework reinforces education, which while may not be directly applicable, it is crucially important for survival in an increasingly modern economic marketplace. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has data that shows that the unemployment rate increases 3.25 times when comparing people over 25 with a doctoral degree and those who only have a high school diploma (1.6% to 5.2%). It also shows that the difference between these two groups when it comes to full time weekly earnings is that those with a high school diploma earn 2.41 times less than those with a doctoral degree. [3] 4. There is also a link between the amount of education one has and their estimated IQ. While IQ may not be the end-all-be-all determiner of intelligence, it gives us a good idea of one's general intellectual capabilities. On page 63 of Coming Apart, Charles Murray displays a graph that shows that the difference between those who don't have a degree and those with a high school diploma is 11 and 12 (82-89, 05-09), and the difference between those with a diploma and a PHD or its equivalents are 27 and 25 respectively, this shows that there are relatively significant differences in IQ between people who have radically different amounts of education. [4] Sources: [1]- Ramdass, D., & Zimmerman, B. (2011, December). Developing Self-Regulation Skills: The Important Role of Homework. Retrieved November 17, 2017, from http://www.davidsongifted.org... Journal of Advanced Academics, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 194-218 [2]- Y. Sagher, M. V. Siadat, and L. Hagedorn, Building study skills in a college mathematics classroom, The Journal of General Education 49(2) (2000), 132\"155. [3]- The NLSY79. (n.d.). Retrieved November 17, 2017, from https://www.bls.gov... [4]- ONeill, William L. Coming apart: an informal history of America in the 1960s: with a new introduction by the author. Ivan R. Dee, 2005. Pg. 63 I wish the best of luck to you in this debate! I think that this is the first debate on this website for both of us.", "qid": "47", "docid": "d15e57c3-2019-04-18T11:59:31Z-00000-000", "rank": 4, "score": 158004.0}, {"content": "Title: Homework is beneficial for school students Content: I don't think homework is really beneficial to the school students. Teachers in the school have already given assignments or lessons to the students. The most crucial thing is that the students learn or gain something fruitful from the schools.Some research indicates no direct relationship between learning and homework, whereas other studies state that homework can cause stress in young students and that students from lower-income homes may not have access to the same amount of parental assistance and resources as students from higher-income homes. We just have to ensure the students score with flying colors in their exams and understanding towards all the subjects. As you can seen in above statement, homework causes stress to students. Especially in Asia region, parents like to sign up extra-classes after school for students to brush up their studies. They have to do the homework which is assigned by the teachers from school and extra-classes. If we remain in this state-quo, students will just get too stresses out and give up their studies. Is this the outcome you speculate?", "qid": "47", "docid": "bd7013ea-2019-04-18T14:03:21Z-00003-000", "rank": 5, "score": 157090.0}, {"content": "Title: Homework should be given less to the children Content: Giving homework is beneficial for students in many ways. It teaches the student about time management and makes them sincere. It helps the student to recapitulate the lessons done at school so that they don't lag behind. It also teaches them the art of planning and organizing their studies one after another to get good grades. Homework also helps the teacher to asses the ability of the student and she can help the student to improve his or her weaknesses. But most importantly it makes the students study and helps them to realize that even if they don not like to do the homework sometimes they have to do things in life they do not want to. So the pressure which is created is actually good because it helps them to face reality and also their life Thank you", "qid": "47", "docid": "6c734766-2019-04-18T13:20:17Z-00004-000", "rank": 6, "score": 155894.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Large amounts of homework are beneficial to the student. Content: The majority of my opponents contention contains information about the basis of homework. Yes homework is beneficial, but the contention goes against the resolution which states, \"Large amounts of homework,\" therefore, any argument against the basis of homework should be disregarded. Furthermore, Finland, a country that succeeds in the education without the burden of homework. has a 93% high school graduation rate, against the United States which has less than 75%. 2 in 3 students go to college in Finland and test scores dominate all other competing countries. This is proof that homework is not essential to a student's success. My opponent did not properly respond to my question as test scores base a students future in college (college being the determining factor for jobs). Why else would grades matter? Definitely not just for self gratification.", "qid": "47", "docid": "c6512081-2019-04-18T16:44:37Z-00000-000", "rank": 7, "score": 155590.0}, {"content": "Title: Students shouldnt have homework Content: Although homework can be copied , that is only due to the fact that the homework we receive is too long. Homework is beneficial to understanding a subject and furthering your knowledge on the selected subject. Therefore Homework is beneficial to knowledge as long as it is a reasonable length to prevent anxiety.", "qid": "47", "docid": "7de56526-2019-04-18T15:10:01Z-00008-000", "rank": 8, "score": 151963.0}, {"content": "Title: Homework is a Good Thing. Content: The first benefit of homework is that it allows students and teachers to work more closely together. They can discuss their assignments or any problems that they are having with parts of their textbooks, before or after classes. The second benefit is that it can bring families closer together as students may ask their parents or siblings for help on their homework. Not only will this help the students get a better understanding of their work with any parts they are stuck on, it will also allow parents to get more involved in their child's educational life. Thirdly, doing homework will prepare students for the big end tests. If a child does poorly on an assignment then they will learn what is necessary to do well on the next test without being punished. It also provides students with the opportunity to practice at what it takes to be successful in school. Like they say, practice makes perfect. Doing homework is also a great way to develop responsibilities. By being assigned work one day and knowing that it has to be done by the next day, they will develop a sense of punctuality by turning their work in on time. And finally it allows parents to see how their children are being educated and they can develop a better idea of how they can help their child.", "qid": "47", "docid": "b3c9295e-2019-04-18T15:39:39Z-00001-000", "rank": 9, "score": 151910.0}, {"content": "Title: Should Homework Be Banned Content: These are the benefits of having homework The first benefit of homework is that it allows students and teachers to work more closely together. They can discuss their assignments or any problems that they are having with parts of their textbooks, before or after classes. The second benefit is that it can bring families closer together as students may ask their parents or siblings for help on their homework. Not only will this help the students get a better understanding of their work with any parts they are stuck on, it will also allow parents to get more involved in their child's educational life. Thirdly, doing homework will prepare students for the big end tests. If a child does poorly on an assignment then they will learn what is necessary to do well on the next test without being punished. It also provides students with the opportunity to practice at what it takes to be successful in school. Like they say, practice makes perfect. Doing homework is also a great way to develop responsibilities. By being assigned work one day and knowing that it has to be done by the next day, they will develop a sense of punctuality by turning their work in on time. And finally it allows parents to see how their children are being educated and they can develop a better idea of how they can help their child. However, some parents, students and even some teachers feel that after 7-8 hours of lessons in school, it is unfair to expect students to come home and work for another three hours.", "qid": "47", "docid": "952deb76-2019-04-18T14:21:08Z-00002-000", "rank": 10, "score": 148024.0}, {"content": "Title: Homework Should Be Abolished Content: Firstly, let me define the important terms. ~Homework: work that teachers give their students to do at home ~Abolished: to end an activity or custom officially The argument I will be saying in this round is: ~homework is beneficial to children in moderate amounts And in Round 3 I will be stating that: ~homework enables school days to be shorter Then in the final round, I will be doing a rebuttal of my opponents well-meaning, but perhaps misguided views. Firstly, homework is beneficial to children in schools, as long as it is in moderate amounts. I, as team opposition, understand that in large amounts, homework can overload the child and can be very stressful. But when moderated, homework can be extremely beneficial. The most common benefit of homework is the obvious, improvement in academics. \"Researchers who looked at data from more than 18,000 10th-graders found there was little correlation between the time students spent doing homework and better grades in math and science courses. But, according to a study on the research, they did find a positive relationship between standardized test performance and the amount of time spent on homework.\" This source obviously shows the correlations found in tests. However, doing homework has a lot of less-know benefits for children \"Pryor-Johnson identifies four qualities children develop when they complete homework that can help them become high-achieving students: responsibility; time management; perseverance; and self-esteem. While these cannot be measured on standardized tests, perseverance has garnered a lot of attention as an essential skill for successful students. Regular accomplishments like finishing homework build self-esteem, which aids students\" mental and physical health. Responsibility and time management are highly desirable qualities that benefit students long after they graduate.\" My source clearly demonstrates my point. Whilst the general public may not know these benefits, they are there, improving the child's work across the board. So, as you can clearly see from these arguments, and the sources I have provided, homework should not be abolished because it is beneficial to the children who do them. Sources: ~http://dictionary.cambridge.org... ~http://dictionary.cambridge.org... ~http://education.cu-portland.edu... ~https://www.washingtonpost.com...", "qid": "47", "docid": "f6e16c0b-2019-04-18T12:39:51Z-00005-000", "rank": 11, "score": 147971.0}, {"content": "Title: homework Content: If I could summarize the Con's Round 4 arguments, it would be like the following: Homework causes family disputes. Still no rebuttals on the Pro's (my) arguments. So I am still left with refuting the rest of the Con's statements.However, this round, there is some truth to what the Con says.But once again, I'm forced to bring up the matter at hand of this debate. The Con argues that homework is more bad than good.Therefore, I can only provide evidence that homework is generally more beneficial for the student.As a matter of fact, homework pays off!The benefits are the obvious: It helps children develop positive study skills and habits that will serve them well throughout life Homework encourages children to use their time wisely It teaches children to work independently Homework teaches children to take responsibility for his or her work [1] Besides any disputed educational effects, the latter are reasons homework is beneficial for all children, no matter how old, how well they do, or how much they struggle.Study habits, time management, independence, and responsibility are characteristics that all people need to progress in life, for whatever career path they choose to take. Yes, it is true, homework causes some stress and may result in family disputes. (But not make kids fat. Read this inaccurate and irrelevant article, and you'll understand why I don't buy it. [2])Yet, it can be argued, and I am arguing, that the general benefits outweigh any handicaps. Not only that- but I guarantee that in a majority of the cases in which students are becoming less active or belligerent over homework, the parents are to blame. When students have massive amounts of electronic games or television to watch, why expect them to do homework instead. If every parent were to remove the distractions from the household, then you would have the select few students that genuinely struggle with education and the few situations where homework actually hinders the student pyschologically. In conclusion, homework is generally good and helps more than it does hinders.Thanks for the debate willtreaty1156, I understand this is your first.Vote Pro![1] Top 14 Reasons Why Homework is Important - e-Skool. (2010, October 27). Retrieved May 28, 2015, from http://blog.eskool.ca... [2] Hey Teachers , Ban Homework and You Will Have Less Fat Kids. (n.d.). Retrieved May 28, 2015, from http://www.datehookup.com...", "qid": "47", "docid": "d686e01-2019-04-18T14:47:36Z-00000-000", "rank": 12, "score": 147422.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Large amounts of homework are beneficial to the student. Content: 1) Homework helps kids exercise the skills they need to pass, and accelerate in education. According to the \"National Education Association\"(NEA), Individualized assignments that tap into students' existing skills or interests can be motivating. It states that kids at an elementary school level, can help develop study skills and habits that the child will need later on, as he/she passes onto secondary education. They also state that homework is associated with greater academic achievement, such as kids getting A's on tests and some making it into higher education statues such as the \"honor roll\". In an article published by Doug Gavel from Harvard University, he states in his report that \"The assignment of homework, over time, serves to foster the kinds of qualities that are critical to learning -- persistence, diligence, and the ability to delay gratification,\" she continued. \"These [skills] become increasingly necessary as students graduate to higher levels of scholarship in middle school, high school, and beyond.\" Sitting in a room and simply listening and participating in class activities, sometimes isn't enough. If you want to master the skills and exceed in certain subjects, it takes personal time, and effort at home. School isn't the only place on the Earth where people learn new things. Just like learning a new instrument, you can't become a professional just by going to lessons. You need to take what you've learned, and improve on them at home, or somewhere else that doesn't have the influence of a teacher or guardian. You must take the wheel into your own hands, and drive your own path of knowledge using your own mind and body. For this reason, I urge a pro ballot. It's not beneficial to a students future, if their test scores are dropping due to homework, but knowledge is more important than test scores. Even though test scores are impotant, especially if you want to be accepted into a college. They do not always show the true amount of knowledge a being can have. They are simply numbers, that people use to judge you with, without even knowing much about you. http://www.news.harvard.edu... http://www.nea.org...", "qid": "47", "docid": "c6512081-2019-04-18T16:44:37Z-00001-000", "rank": 13, "score": 146946.0}, {"content": "Title: Homework is beneficial for school students Content: I am not just talking about brain efficiency. That would include among others, the logical and memory aspects, but what about the notions you get at school ? IQ quiz are definitely not going to teach anyone mathematics or history. It is done to measure somehow the intelligence quotient and to rank people based on logicial abilities, but it does neither take knowledge into consideration nor teach it. Besides, even if it did, I think students would be bored if they had to do IQ tests every single day. It is not related to what they are learning at school and doesn't help them to understand they lessons.Quite the opposite, homework do. Homework make students think and in that way, it gives them better chances to understand classroom learning, to reinforce it. They are able to doing it by themselves which is a chance for them if they get a constructive return on their work. It also improves their brain's abilities as they are thinking about how they could solve a problem, or looking for ideas which develop their creativites, or also learning concepts which is good for their memory and to gain in working methods, while IQ tests are just something they would be getting tired of and they wouldn't do it seriously.", "qid": "47", "docid": "bd7013ea-2019-04-18T14:03:21Z-00000-000", "rank": 14, "score": 146751.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Large amounts of homework are beneficial to the student. Content: I negate the resolution which states Resolved: Large amounts of homework are beneficial to the student. Definitions- large-of considerable or relatively great size, extent, or capacity beneficial-favorable or advantageous; resulting in good homework-schoolwork that a student is required to do at home student-a person who is studying at a school or college", "qid": "47", "docid": "c6512081-2019-04-18T16:44:37Z-00004-000", "rank": 15, "score": 145680.0}, {"content": "Title: Homework is beneficial for school students Content: Homework, or a homework assignment, is a set of tasks assigned to students by their teachers to be completed outside the class. Common homework assignments may include a quantity or period of reading to be performed, writing or typing to be completed, problems to be solved, a school project to be built (such as a diorama or display), or other skills to be practiced.", "qid": "47", "docid": "bd7013ea-2019-04-18T14:03:21Z-00005-000", "rank": 16, "score": 143807.0}, {"content": "Title: Students should never have homework on weekends. Content: I will be arguing that it would be more likely beneficial for the students and the educators if homework was given out on the weekend. My argument is not stating that there is a direct causation of success and homework as that is currently still being debated [1]. However I am stating that homework in general is more likely a beneficial component in education rather than harmful. A. Homework is an important instructional tool. 1. Purpose of homework. There are two types of homework, instructional and noninstructional. In the case of instructional it is: preparation, practice, extension, and integration [1]. The purpose of instructional homework is to further improve on skills, knowledge that was or will be covered, and allow students to utilize their multiple skills to complete a complex project. Noninstructional homework is used to develop social interactions and behavioral skills. 2. Homework is correlated to be a benefiting factor with more positive effects. Extensive studies by Harris M. Cooper continually show a correlation between students who complete homework versus students that do not, especially on test covering direct material on assignments. His research simply states that, despite constant argumentation to dispute any correlation, homework does more good than harm [2]. In general, based on various studies, the effects of homework have shown a gain of 20-30 percentiles [3]. Even though, some may debate the benefits that come from homework, we cannot ignore that it is a potentially crucial and helpful factor in education. It would be like a team of athletes that are expected to perform better than other teams but never have practice after learning a new technique/play. 3. Alternative method that allows practice of skills and teacher evaluation of retention is lacking. Simply put there is currently no other well known method for encouraging students to study material outside of the classroom, as well as encourage self-involvement with learning. Furthermore, a new method would have to allow teachers to track the progress of the students and be effective in flourishing their knowledge. I will further discuss this later. B. Main Reasons that students, and some teachers do not like homework. 1. Time Management is an important factor. On the student side many arguments can be boiled down to homework is limiting to other leisure activities and family bonding that could be reserved for weekends [4]. However, in this article, they give testimony to a child that \u201ccan\u2019t usually start [her] hours of homework until 8:30 PM,\u201d meaning that homework is already limiting within the weekday; thus, reserving homework on the weekdays would only cause more stress to the child that has to finish everything during their most busiest of days. Another argument that was given was that the children do not sleep as well during the weekends, which should be a time for resting. However according to a study by Mary Allard, male and female students spend, on average, 5.7 and 4.5 hours a day on leisure activities after school respectively [5]. In addition, the students slept 2-3 hours more on the weekends than on the weekdays, despite jobs, homework, and other social activities. It is odd that even though given homework, children are still finding more ways to rest and be social during their time off of school. On the other side of the argument, some teachers argue about the amount of time spent grading [6]. While some teachers argue that they hate grading, and others say that it is important practice work, they clearly voice that the spend too much time on the homework given back, which causes them to judge student behavior or completion rather than correct methodology of work. On average, teachers spend around 782 hours per school year teaching (in classroom) which means that on average of 180, 6-8 hour, school days, the teacher are teaching for approximately 4.34 hours [7,8]. That is assuming however, that teachers are not distracted, victim\u2019s of Murphy\u2019s Law, or working with one student in particular that really needs help [9]. That is not a lot of time to work with students in-class, as well as grade, if a teacher is not properly oriented, thus they will get backed up on teaching and homework can help keep students if given after school or on the weekend. 2. Students get burned out Some teachers have stated that homework is \u201ctime consuming, dreary, and uninspiring,\u201d to the point that children will become less motivated and apathetic toward learning [10]. In so doing, some teachers have done the extreme and do not issue any \u201chomework\u201d for their students. This was done mainly by well time management of the class and the effectiveness of the teaching. However, it is important to note that: a. While teachers claimed benefits of not doing homework, the have no definitive causation that students did better in the same regards as they criticise students that have homework. b. There is more than one type of homework, as stated above, and an assignment that is meant to help children practice a skill is what practice homework enriches at home. Also, children were able to finish \u201chomework\u201d in school just as much as outside of school. Thus all the teachers are doing is allotting more class time to homework, assuming the children are retaining information or completing their work. c. Homework is more than just practice, as stated above, it is important social tool. Otherwise you are limiting a student from learning how to study intensely on their own in higher learning, thus they will also be less likely successful without proper time management skills when they start their careers [11, 12]. Sources1.http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org... 2. http://users.manchester.edu... 3.http://www.ascd.org... 4. http://www.eastside-online.org... 5. http://stats.bls.gov... 6.http://www.opb.org... 7.http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org... 8. http://nces.ed.gov... 9. http://people.howstuffworks.com... 10. http://www.alfiekohn.org... 11. http://www.adi.org... 12. http://www.palmbeachschools.org...", "qid": "47", "docid": "bf1a606c-2019-04-18T15:14:10Z-00003-000", "rank": 17, "score": 143786.0}, {"content": "Title: homework Content: I would like to start off by stating that homework is generally for beneficial for the student than it is wrong. Homework is a part of the simple assessment process that teachers use to determine what areas their students need help in, and can help the student improve from that point. Often times (and almost all of the time), teachers don't have the sufficient time they need in a day to teach material and ensure that the students fully understand; and teachers will use homework for the students to take home and bring back the next day. Even if the student gets the gist of a subject, the teacher would still send home homework in order to prepare the student for any future tests;which is essentially required studying and practice at home. Outside of the educational ideals, homework teaches students in a simple way about an important aspect in life for the future-- responsibility, that is. With the responsibility and accountability of being required to take time to finish school work at home, they develop much needed life skills for the future.", "qid": "47", "docid": "d686e01-2019-04-18T14:47:36Z-00005-000", "rank": 18, "score": 143266.0}, {"content": "Title: Teachers Assign Their Students Too Much Homework Content: My opponent mentioned that the homework is helping the students learn. However, while homework was first assigned to be helpful, the benefits of homework are not consistent and definitely not guaranteed. Students are so concerned with trying to pass their classes that they don't even pay attention to the content of the homework. Homework is only useful and helpful when it's not assigned in excessive amounts. In conclusion, most students are stressed out with the amount of work they have to complete in class and at home. School is not an easy part of one\"s life. But with the excessive amount of homework they receive, it\"s easy to understand why. Homework is stressing the students out more than it is helping them. Students deserve to receive a reasonable amount of homework that is done for practice, preparation, and extension of a lesson. Homework should not be given just to be completed when it\"s not necessary for the student. Teachers need to recognize that their students are becoming stressed with homework that is not usually useful to them. Students should not have to be strained or deprived from their sleep, especially at such a young age. Homework should only be assigned when it is handy.", "qid": "47", "docid": "479318c7-2019-04-18T11:28:19Z-00001-000", "rank": 19, "score": 141257.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Large amounts of homework are beneficial to the student. Content: For this round of debate, I will state my contentions and provide supporting evidence as to why they are viable. 1) Large amounts of homework are bad for children. \"Nancy Kalish's daughter was an enthusiastic middle-schooler -- until homework started to take over, consuming her evenings and weekends. When she started dreading school, the Brooklyn mom began to grow alarmed.\" This is just one of many cases where children are being overworked to the point where a mother or father might get involved. A group of Australian researchers have stated that, \"Piling on the homework doesn't help kids do better in school. In fact, it can lower their test scores.\" Furthermore, according to Richard Walker, an educational psychologist at Sydney University, countries where students spend excessive time on homework prove to have worse results on standardized tests. These three pieces of evidence prove that homework is overworking children. In some cases, overworking be beneficial, but overwork defined by Oxford dictionary is, \"exhaust with too much work.\" Going back to my first example about the daughter of Kalish, exhaust has proved to alert her mother so much that she wrote, \"The Case Against Homework: How Homework Is Hurting Our Children and What We Can Do About It,\" to further prove her point. For this reason, I urge a con ballot. I have a question for you. If these large amounts of homework are negatively impacting student's test scores, how is this beneficial to a student's future life? Keep in mind that test scores such as the SAT are a huge part of college acceptance. http://www.parenting.com... http://www.livescience.com...", "qid": "47", "docid": "c6512081-2019-04-18T16:44:37Z-00002-000", "rank": 20, "score": 141059.0}, {"content": "Title: Homework Content: The first benefit of homework is that it allows students and teachers to work more closely together. They can discuss their assignments or any problems that they are having with parts of their textbooks. The 2nd Benefit of it to prepare for a big test. Doing homework also build up responsibility.", "qid": "47", "docid": "1733befb-2019-04-18T15:36:46Z-00002-000", "rank": 21, "score": 140306.0}, {"content": "Title: homework brings more good than harm Content: I think that homework reinforces information taught at school, which is extremely valuable when it comes to exams, and even later life. I had enormous amounts of homework at school, and so did well in my exams, and I'm very grateful for the knowledge I now possess because it was hammered into me through homework. It does increase stress, but think that really is just an excuse to be lazy, as homework nowadays takes so little time that I doubt it prevents people playing video games or watching TV etc. Homework is valuable for forging a productive, clever, society from our younger generation that in turn improves the lives of everyone who benefits from cars, computers, medicine, and various other things that are only accessible because of their creation by people who know what they're talking about i.e those who learnt from their studies by consolidating the facts outside of the classroom.", "qid": "47", "docid": "546112c3-2019-04-18T13:30:38Z-00004-000", "rank": 22, "score": 140162.0}, {"content": "Title: Kids have too much homework we should change it Content: To start with, I believe that no amount of homework is too much. No matter how much it is or how long it takes, I believe that if it is found to be beneficial for the education of children, then it is justified. Technology and the need for skilled workers continue to rise while the need for unskilled labor falls in comparison. This means that children - i. e. future adults - need a better education than older generations. You say that it has \"been found that little is learned from homework\". Well, the basics of homework is to allow students a chance to learn via repetition the skills they need, so they will remember them later when they need them. Also, even if the gain from homework is minimal as you claim, I believe that it is still important to allow these children to get this gain. In the worst case scenario, they are spending their time doing homework that still help them a little. In the best case scenario, they are memorizing valuable skills that they will use later.", "qid": "47", "docid": "7d1fa14a-2019-04-18T16:51:16Z-00001-000", "rank": 23, "score": 140011.0}, {"content": "Title: Homework Content: I will be arguing that homework is not only beneficial but imperative for students success. The best way to put something to memory is repetition, and this is one of the things homework does. Let's say student A is in a math class and is having trouble with factoring of quadratics, the best way for the student to learn is to do examples and learn the different ways that they can factor and as they do more and more problems it will become faster and faster until they eventually master it. The other big thing that homework does is that it forces you to think about class outside of class time so the information is not forgotten. Let us use student A for an example again. If he learns the method to factor the quadratic in class and then he spends 24 hours away from class what are the chances he learns it? The homework is reinforcing the information. It also fosters independance and improves study skills (1) source will be in comments as con has limited me to 1000 character and wont fit.", "qid": "47", "docid": "1733c338-2019-04-18T12:35:44Z-00004-000", "rank": 24, "score": 139805.0}, {"content": "Title: We should ban homework Content: my opponent argues that homework should not be given because of the fact that after school hours, the time should be spent for family to converse and do other activities together. however, it is in my opinion that and belief that homework is not only a way for families to come together, but also for a one-on-one interaction between the parent and the child. the parents can help the child with said homework, thus spending time with the kid, and also the kid is learning at the same time. next i think homework is beneficial because it helps students practice what they learned in school, thus helping them learn and understand the materials covered. it helps them make sure they can do it by themselves, but also gives them responsibility skills of actually doing it when told. if you are at a job after you graduate, and your boss says do something at home, and you have a family, it is the same principle of doing homework. the only difference is one is by a boss, the other by a teacher", "qid": "47", "docid": "76fe7ef5-2019-04-18T16:54:29Z-00004-000", "rank": 25, "score": 139719.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Large amounts of homework are beneficial to the student. Content: I accept this challenge.", "qid": "47", "docid": "c6512081-2019-04-18T16:44:37Z-00003-000", "rank": 26, "score": 139655.0}, {"content": "Title: home work should be banned Content: School without homework is not an image I can fathom. There are many reasons homework should not be abolished as it is beneficial towards the student, allows the teacher to acknowledge the student's weaknesses; in turn giving them an opportunity to improve and acquire new skills. Also, taking time each night to do homework is a chance for students to catch up on missed class and further reinforces the day's lessons so it is permanently etched in the student's mind where the information is stored and used when called upon. Several studies have proven that homework, in fact, does improve the stability of the student in school; this strengthens the statement that time spent completing homework is time well spent. Rather than giving students another hour of leisure time, doing homework entitles the student to an hour of enriched education; this can greatly benefit the student, as consistently finishing homework...", "qid": "47", "docid": "bfd69562-2019-04-18T17:38:09Z-00000-000", "rank": 27, "score": 139556.0}, {"content": "Title: We Shouldn't have homework! Content: First, there are three arguments for why homework is excellent and ought to continue in modern schools. 1. Homework aids doer-learners. It is generally accepted that there are three types of learners: those who learn by hearing, those who learn by seeing, and those who learn by doing. While many are content to hear or see instruction of a given subject, some need to actually do it. Thus, homework is beneficial for this latter group because the instruction is learn through action. 2. Homework reinforces instruction. Although many would probably be thrilled to not have homework, the quality of the education received would certainly suffer if it was removed. Whether the homework is assigned reading, term papers, etc. , all of it is designed to reinforce the instruction in the students' minds. After all, those who do their homework are more academically successful than those who do not. I feel that this is a self-evident truth, but I'll leave it Pro to dissuade you. 3. Homework mirrors real-life demands. After high-school, there are mainly two paths for graduates to take: college or work. For both of these paths, assignments will be allocated and the professors/bosses will except to see them completed. Now, having done homework with deadlines before, graduates are used to these demands and are thus more likely to succeed. But remove homework and students will be unfamiliar with long-term assignments, deadlines, and the like. In short, homework helps to prepare graduates for real-life demands. I will now refute Pro's arguments: 1. \"Checking [homework] takes valuable class time. \" No, this is absolutely false. Instructors generally do not grade homework in class because it is a time for teaching, not evaluation. Instructors usually grade in their offices or homes and are paid (by salary) to do so. Class time is seldom, if ever, affected by grading homework. Pro's argument is ridiculous. 2. \"Kids cannot handle so much schoolwork with such a little attention span. \" Well, this is half-true. Kids do tend to have smaller attention spans compared to adults, but I would answer that the homework is tailored to their ability to perform. Here's what I mean: if a teacher knows that X student can only focus for Y time before pooping on the floor, then said teacher (assuming he/she is smart) will not assign more than X student can handle. Since I have family members who teach middle school, I can testify firsthand that the workload is intended to be manageable. What if it's not? Well, ideally, the kids and their parents complain and either the instructor or principal corrects the problem. Yes, some may refuse to reduce the workload, but that is rare and not a acceptable reason to abolish all homework everywhere. Homework is good, even if it's occasionally abused. 3. \"[Homework] takes away from family time. \" I find this argument ironic. How long is an average school day? About 6-8 hours. How long does daily homework take to accomplish? 1-2 hours at worst. You see, homework is not the main usurper of family time! Rather, it the length of schools days that's the real culprit. If a student is diligent, there still is ample time for familial interaction. Also, I find Pro's argument to be laughable simply because students generally avoid socializing with their families. Many would rather play Minecraft, Call of Duty, etc. than sit around the table exchanging stories. So, to wrap up, I have presented three reasons for why homework is good and have attempted to disprove Pro's arguments. I stand ready for Round 2.", "qid": "47", "docid": "48cd3dfc-2019-04-18T13:56:49Z-00004-000", "rank": 28, "score": 139320.0}, {"content": "Title: Homework is beneficial for school students Content: I do know their brains will work more efficient if they do more homwork. Nowadays, teenagers don't like to do homework, either they are stressed out or have inadequate time to do. We must stand on their side and think, we have no idea what they have been through. Moreover, they are still many alternatives ways to cause your brains work efficently. For instance, doing some IQ quiz which requires less effort and time compare to homework. The purpose of education is think. The most crucial thing is that they fully understood the contents that learn in school.", "qid": "47", "docid": "bd7013ea-2019-04-18T14:03:21Z-00001-000", "rank": 29, "score": 139026.0}, {"content": "Title: Homework should be banned Content: School without homework is not an image I can fathom. There are many reasons homework should not be abolished as it is beneficial towards the student, allows the teacher to acknowledge the student's weaknesses; in turn giving them an opportunity to improve and acquire new skills. Also, taking time each night to do homework is a chance for students to catch up on missed class and further reinforces the day's lessons so it is permanently etched in the student's mind where the information is stored and used when called upon. Several studies have proven that homework, in fact, does improve the stability of the student in school; this strengthens the statement that time spent completing homework is time well spent. Rather than giving students another hour of leisure time, doing homework entitles the student to an hour of enriched education; this can greatly benefit the student, as consistently finishing homework will reap great rewards such as a favourable test score or report card. Why are we posing such a ludicrous question about the possible abolishment of homework if doing homework is what it takes to succeed in school? It is a common emotion to students regarding the distaste of homework, but legions of teachers know better because they recognize the importance of homework in the success of students in school and outside of school. Not only does homework accomplishment benefit the student, it also benefits the teacher as well. Teachers receive the opportunity to see at what stage the student is by assigning homework. Furthermore, the teacher can identify the weaknesses of the student so they can ameliorate their study habits in hopes of pulling their grades up. On the other hand, if teachers were to abandon the idea of homework altogether, they would have to base the majority of the student's mark on tests alone. However, students fare much better in the homework column than the test column; otherwise, their marks would be lower Conclusively,that is the reason it should not be banned", "qid": "47", "docid": "68a4d029-2019-04-18T16:39:32Z-00001-000", "rank": 30, "score": 138668.0}, {"content": "Title: should homework be allowed Content: I think homework should be allowed for two main reasons: it's beneficial to the students and banning it would be ridiculous. Firstly, it's beneficial to the students. Homework helps kids understand what is being taught by giving them experience. It also helps kids remember what they were taught earlier by making them use what they've learned. Secondly, banning homework would be ridiculous. Are we seriously going to make that a law? The government is already a little too involved in the private lives of it's citizens, and this would go beyond even that. Also, banning homework would demand that you enforce that in not only public schools, but also with private schools and home-schoolers. Telling a private school that they can't issue homework would be unreasonably interfering with a private institution, which the government has no right to do. As for home-schoolers, one could say that all the work they do is homework, as it's all done at home! In conclusion, homework needs to be allowed for two main reasons: it's beneficial to the students and banning it would be ridiculous.", "qid": "47", "docid": "d81957dd-2019-04-18T11:36:08Z-00000-000", "rank": 31, "score": 138005.0}, {"content": "Title: Homework should be banned Content: Let's begin! Research shows that homework is great. Kids to better if their grade was partly homework <1>. It is extremely beneficial to kids. Homework provides a way to review concepts learned in class <2>. \"A typical homework-completing high school student will outperform students who do not do homework by 69% on standardized tests. \" ~ . http://lrs.ed.uiuc.edu... . Homework teaches discipline <3>. Critical thinking is improved. Homework helps kid learn study habits and teaches time management. Homework also teaches responsibility and develops a concern in studies <4>. Homework gives a chance for students review or learn concepts that they either did not understand or if they missed the class <5>. <1> . http://lrs.ed.uiuc.edu... <2> . http://lrs.ed.uiuc.edu... <3> . http://lrs.ed.uiuc.edu... <4> . http://www.forandagainst.com... <5> . http://www.family-homework-answers.com... We all know that parents dislike their kids when they jump on the couch, scream, or run around the house breaking some items along the way. Homework solves the problem of breaking items. If homework is not banned, items around the house would not be as broken as if homework was banned. ==> Conclusion After reading these arguments, I hope that you can understand why homework is beneficial. I have nothing to refute and defend, so I will conclude my side of Round 2. Thank you and happy holidays! Sincerely, Yami Yugi", "qid": "47", "docid": "68a4cf31-2019-04-18T18:58:34Z-00003-000", "rank": 32, "score": 137662.0}, {"content": "Title: Is homework good Content: Hello there, please forgive any grammer issues as this is my first online debate. I do think homework is good. The reason I think this way is because it is intended as a means to keep the learning of a subject fresh in the students mind for as long as possible. It also gives parents opportunities to further connect with their childs intellect and provide their own insights and ideas thus helping them progress through difficult situations with perhaps an alternative option of solving a problem. I'm long past the age of homework now (don't laugh) but I know I hated it, I know it seemed like a chore and a waste of time but I do believe it helped shaped my intellect for the better in grown up years.", "qid": "47", "docid": "bc9ca527-2019-04-18T14:21:38Z-00003-000", "rank": 33, "score": 137615.0}, {"content": "Title: Homework Content: I think that family time is achieved even when a student does have homework. It is when teachers give loads of homework that it becomes a problem. Homework is good for young students and even high school age students because it teaches them good time management and it also teaches them responsibility. Homework helps students develop positive work pattern and helps develop good study skills that each student can use later in life. Homework does give some students stress but without homework, a student's grade would dramatically increase as noted in a study about the effects one school saw when they got rid of homework.", "qid": "47", "docid": "1733c2bc-2019-04-18T13:51:19Z-00003-000", "rank": 34, "score": 137237.0}, {"content": "Title: Homework Should Not Be Given In Schools Content: \"Well Kids need homework to practice the skills they learnt and can be used as a study guide\" Although this is true, homework can also put a lot of stress on the students and as I said before it limits their free time and can cause sleep loss. If a student stays up all night doing homework doesn't it become hard for them to stay attentive in class the next day? Homework as I said before is not necessarily a bad thing. Yes it can be used as a guide for revision but it can also be a bucket of stress waiting to explode. The more stress put on students can limit their learning and ability to function during class. So in conclusion, homework can be useful and beneficial but it also has a lot of downsides to it which include stress,mental exhaustion,being tired,sleep loss and limits free time and social interactions just to name a few. Homework adds more pressure to already pressured students and adds load to their already stressful school career. It's been nice debating with you. Thank you for accepting this challenge and have a nice day/night.", "qid": "47", "docid": "ba50642-2019-04-18T12:23:18Z-00001-000", "rank": 35, "score": 136925.0}, {"content": "Title: Homework is horrible Content: Hello, my name is dtien and I will be arguing that homework is not a waste of time. Homework isn't simply \"busy work\" teachers give to students: 5 studies show a positive correlation between completing homework and excelling in school. Besides helping children understand the assignments given in class, homework teaches students how to be responsible and to manage their time wisely. If a child is falling behind one day in class, that child is given the ability to catch up before the next class by doing homework. Homework also gives students questions to study for their tests. http://education.cu-portland.edu... I apologize for being so brief but this is really all the proof I need to show that homework is beneficial. Hopefully I can expand on my ideas next round once I know what Pro has to say. Have a good day and good luck to my opponent!", "qid": "47", "docid": "59460e7f-2019-04-18T13:41:43Z-00001-000", "rank": 36, "score": 136583.0}, {"content": "Title: Homework takes up class time Content: When homework does take up time in class it is helpful for learning. And when it does not then it does not harm the classwork. Homework aids classwork by providing a space for those who have not finished the work to catch up and by helping us to remember what we did in class.", "qid": "47", "docid": "d23d9ea5-2019-04-15T20:24:12Z-00010-000", "rank": 37, "score": 135351.0}, {"content": "Title: Homework should be banned in USA Content: Well I thought I was going to get a real opponent but it is just some guy trying to advertise Call of Duty or posted it on the wrong debate (which is not likely at all). I am still going to continue with my argument. Homework prevents the waste of time and gives students something beneficial to do with their time. Students waste a lot of time on social media, on the Internet, playing video games, etc. It is okay to use those things in with limitations when you are taking a break from something and trying to lower stress by doing something you love but mindlessly wasting their time and using these things to an over-extent is not something they should be doing. Studies show that students who have homework and do it get better test grades and overall grades in school than ones who do not have any homework. In my closing statement I would like to say that having and doing homework, but not too much of it, is beneficial in learning from a student and teaches them life skills they will use in the real world as well as giving them something useful to do instead of wasting their time. Sources- (1)- http://www.ascd.org...", "qid": "47", "docid": "45419141-2019-04-18T13:34:20Z-00000-000", "rank": 38, "score": 134626.0}, {"content": "Title: Homework Content: Homework creates a bridge between school and home. Parents rarely get to spend much time with you while you're at school. Homework allows them to keep up with what you're doing in your classes on a daily basis. But you don't have homework purely for your parents' benefit. It's good for you, too! Homework can help you become a better student in several different ways. First of all, homework given in advance of a particular subject can help you make the most of your classroom discussion time. For example, before beginning a discussion of a complex period in history, it can be very helpful to read background information as homework the night before. Homework also gives you valuable practice with what you've learned in the classroom. Often, the brief period of time you have during class to learn something new is simply not enough. Repeating classroom concepts at home helps to cement in your mind the things you learned. For example, you've probably experienced the value of homework when it comes to mathematics. A new concept explained in class might seem foreign at first. With repetition via homework, however, you reinforce what you learned in class and it sticks with you. Without homework, a lot of classroom time would be wasted with repetition that could more easily be done outside the classroom. In these ways, homework expands upon what is done during the day in the classroom. Your overall educational experience is better, because homework helps you to gain and retain more knowledge than would be possible with only classroom work. As you learn more, you know more and you achieve more\"and you have homework to thank! Homework teaches lessons beyond just what's taught in the classroom, too. Bringing homework home, completing it correctly, and turning it in promptly teaches a host of other important life skills, from time management and responsibility to organization and prioritization. Despite these benefits found by researchers, the topics of who should receive homework and how much homework are hotly debated among educators and researchers. In one study, researchers found that academic gains from homework increased as grade level increased, suggesting homework is more beneficial for older students. Some researchers have found that too much homework can lower or cancel its benefits and become counterproductive, because students become burned out.", "qid": "47", "docid": "1733c6bb-2019-04-18T11:28:17Z-00000-000", "rank": 39, "score": 133759.0}, {"content": "Title: Homework in schools should be banned Content: Hello worthy contender. I put my arguments down in clear points. 1. Well homework, meant to be done at home, takes over the worthy time which can be better used in broadening one's mind behind books and enhancing one's physical stature. Homework confines our thinking and working abilities to only what is taught in school, whereas instead of homework, research work turns out to be more beneficial. 2. When students are given home work, they are meant to revise what is taught in school. Now suppose they are not given any homework, they\u2019ll be encouraged to pay attention in class more, and this will undoubtedly increase the concentration power. 3. Homework makes a child dull compelling her to look only through the doors shown to her. 4. Homework, is an improved way of spoon feeding a child, because a child is always helped at home, by parents or professional tutors. A student needs to apply and not mug up. Great people or rather scientist do not mug up things, they apply concepts and experience.5.Takes too much time Especially when you move to higher classes students have a lot od different classes and different homework assignments to finish. When adding all off them it takes a lot of time. Students need time for other extracurricular activities and family time. Homework could potentially be a time consuming activity for many. 6. Homework should be banned I swear most of the time i am stressed and 99% its because of homework. I dont want to be the typical teen who says \"i hate homework its so boring and im so lazy\" but its so true. And in my school they either give you little bit of homework with lots of hard parts for it or on HUGE project or assignment on top of other homework from other classes. I can not even explain how angry homework gets me. Sometimes there are group assignments and there is never a time where im not paired with the lazy people so i end up doing all the crap and i have to worry about other classes too. NO. I can not. I need a break and i hate when teachers pack the most work on weekends. But no I have to use my only two days of rest on assignments on top of other work that im mentally crying about. Do not even get me started. I legitimately cried like two hours ago becuase all the homework i have to do. And thats not a good thing. School is supposed to be \"a fun learning experience\" and \"learning and doing good and no stress\" This site will prove my point: http://www.education.com...Best of luck.", "qid": "47", "docid": "e5aef097-2019-04-18T17:02:59Z-00003-000", "rank": 40, "score": 133655.0}, {"content": "Title: Homework should not be mandatory Content: I will rebut some of my opponent's arguments1.Homework has shown no proven benefitsThis statement is wrong as many studies have shown that doing homework has benefits (http://www.theguardian.com...; AND http://today.duke.edu...). I cannot believe that Pro has said that homework has shown no proven benefits. 2. Waste of timeHomework is not a waste of time since it gives students practice. Pro has also failed to rebut the fact that more practice=more perfect. 3.Homework is not carving names in wood nor it is reading menus at a restaurant. Homework is writing long essays and reading long paragraphs. Pro is comparing homework to something we do everyday. In addition, there are people called teachers who will explain a hard problem to students who are frustrated. 3. ResponsibilityYes, I accept the fact that no responsibility can be earned from completing homework with no care. However, if a students gives care to his or her homework, the students will learn responsibility. In addition, you can gain responsibility from regular life and homework. Pro has also failed to spell \"unnecesary\" correctly.4. Getting an A on the last term does not mean that a student will get an A on this term. Furthermore, students can practice and get even better by doing homework. For example, if a student gets 90% on a test, he or she can do homework to help get the percentage to 100%. Now, for my arguments.1.PreperationHomework prepares students for upcoming tests. Since tests are worth more than homework, students can do homework in order to find their trouble spots and work on them. In addition, homework ensures that students are ready for class activities.2.Time management Homework teachs students to manage their time. Since teachers give due dates, it is important for students to hand it in on time. In addition, many careers require excellent time management skills to succeed. Therefore, teaching time management to kids at an early age helps them develop the skill once they are older. Furthermore, since many kids play games, it teaches them to limit their gaming time and focus more on homework. 3. QualitySometimes, it is the quality of the homework that causes students stress. Many teachers give homework that is off-topic. Therefore, homework should not be banned, but teachers who are giving the wrong homework should be banned. Fortunately, the quality of homeworks given nowadays is better than the quality of homework in the past. Sources:http://today.duke.edu...http://lessonplanspage.com...http://www.theguardian.com...http://news.stanford.edu...;", "qid": "47", "docid": "506b6158-2019-04-18T16:27:40Z-00002-000", "rank": 41, "score": 132883.0}, {"content": "Title: Homework is an essential part of education, allowing students to learn information beyond that which they are taught at school. Content: Homework is a vital and valuable part of education. There are only a few hours in each school day \u2013 not enough time to cover properly all the subjects children need to study. Setting homework extends study beyond school hours, allowing a wider and deeper education. It also makes the best use of teachers, who can spend lesson time teaching rather than just supervising individual work that could be done at home. Education is about pushing boundaries, and the learning should not stop at the entrance to the classroom \u2013 students should take skills learnt in the classroom and apply them at home. Homework allows this to happen, encouraging students to go above and beyond what they do in school. Reading is the best example, students learn how to read at school, but in order to get better, they need to practise and that is best done at home, with the support of parents and at the right pace for the student.", "qid": "47", "docid": "269c4789-2019-04-15T20:24:11Z-00029-000", "rank": 42, "score": 132334.0}, {"content": "Title: Homework is about 'winning' on tests, not learning Content: Setting homework with the intention of encouraging students to do well at tests is beneficial to students as much as it is to teachers and schools. National tests are a way of assessing whether students are at the level they should be, if they do well on the tests, that is a good thing. Therefore, a 'win' for the teachers and schools is also a great deal of learning for the student, the two need not be separated.", "qid": "47", "docid": "269c4789-2019-04-15T20:24:11Z-00018-000", "rank": 43, "score": 132125.0}, {"content": "Title: Homework should not be mandatory Content: 1.http://www.edutopia.org...2. http://www.alternet.org...Case 1: Homework shows no proven benefitsMany studies have shown homework has no benefits. In fact, high amounts of homework made many highschoolers drop out! (1) A quote from Harris Cooper, one of the best reasearchers on the subject. \"The conclusions of past reviewers of homework research show extraordinary variability... Even in regard to specific areas of application such as within different subject areas, grades or student ability levels, the reviews often directly contradict one another.\"Variabilltiy shows that homework has no benefits, just as it doesn't show it build responsibility or character.Case 2: Waste Of TimeHomework has shown nonproven benefits, so isn't it just wasting the child's time? Think, the child isn't gaining any knowledge, responsibility or character, what is the use of spending hours and hours on homework.Rebuttal 1:Teachers can see if their students are struggling with something based on test scores. I have proved no.benefits with homework. You could say I am gaining writing skills when I carve my name in wood. You could say I am gaining reading skills by reading a menu at a restaurant. Homework has shown no benefits. I can't see how it can help students, as homeworks seems over-whelming. It can also make a student confused or frusterated at a problem he can't solve. It will bring their GPA down even more.Rebuttal 2:You can say getting a dog builds respinsibility, yet, if the child chooses not to feed, give it water or give it love, no responsibility will be gained. Why have un-necisary responsibility. I will just cause more stress. All of the skills you say students \"gain\" from homework are actually gained in regular life.Rebuttal 3:I meant, if a student gets an A on the test, he shouldn't need to do homework. You gain no skills with homework. I have proved this.This argument kinda doesn't make sense. Good luck!", "qid": "47", "docid": "506b6158-2019-04-18T16:27:40Z-00003-000", "rank": 44, "score": 132108.0}, {"content": "Title: Homework should not be banned Content: Compared to the past, the amount of homework that schools assign for students became more and more. Some people argue that school should ban homework, but do homework really not have benefits? I think homework is necessary, and shouldn\"t be banned. Homework is not only good for reviewing studies in the classes, but also can assess how well students understand and how well the teachers teach. Also, some people argue that the time students spend doing homework is a waste, but it\"s not true. In fact, managing time for homework is a good preparation for the future. Firstly, reviewing the works in the classes can help students not forget what they learnt, and get high scores. When students learn new things in the school, they are lasted as short-term memory. By practice of information, which is homework we talk here, short-term memory is converted into long-term memory, so that students won\"t forget after days. (Adult_brain_growth.ppt) Only if the students made the things they learnt into unforgettable information, would they not have to review all the things before tests, and get higher score in the tests. It\"s actually much easier for students on the whole compared to doing great amount of revision just before the tests. According to the results of several studies, \"the average homework completer had higher unit test scores than 73 percent of non-completers (Cooper, Robinson, & Patall, 2006)\" (David J. Marks, PhD). This made evident that completing homework can truly higher students\" test scores. Second, homework can help both students and teachers to assess their learning and teaching conditions in order to improve them. Students would be able to find the points they are confused about, or they are poor at. On the same breath, teachers can check if students really understand the lessons, and if the teaching methods are good fits for students. Lastly, doing homework could be a good preparation for future careers because people often have assignments even they grew up and are working. The article about spending time on homework is worth it says, \"Having more meaningful homework assignments can help build management skills\" (Jane Eyre), and \"For high school students, doing assignments outside of the classroom get them interested in a career path.\" (Jane Eyre) This shows that doing homework is not only good for the academic studies students are studying now, but also good for future careers and life styles. To conclude, homework can help students with their studies, assessing, and careers in the future. So if schools ban homework, students would easily forget what they\"ve learnt in class and have no idea about how well they are doing in the studies. Have students had whole afterschool time as free time, they wouldn\"t be able to finish reading books or projects as well. Therefore, homework benefits students, and shouldn\"t be banned by schools.", "qid": "47", "docid": "779b1267-2019-04-18T11:39:15Z-00005-000", "rank": 45, "score": 130754.0}, {"content": "Title: should homework be banned/reduced Content: As time consuming as excessive homework may seem, it has a number of advantages. Our brain is like any other muscle in the body, it requires constant and tiring practice to grow and develop. Therefore, it is only when we pressurise our brain that actual development will occur. If we forever do only how much we find convenient, our brain growth will stagnate. The amount of homework being given in schools teaches the students the importance of time management and deadlines, prepares them to undertake pressure in their lives, and enables them to become responsible, self-reliant and punctual. Homework given in every subject helps the student evaluate their level of understanding of what was taught at school and know how much harder they are expected to work. Solving a large number of problems of the same and of different kinds sharpens the students brain and prepares them for all possible problems. Homework also helps the student remember concepts in a clearer manner by reinforcing them via direct concept and application based questions. It helps the student summarise all that happened that day at school and reiterate important facts and points.", "qid": "47", "docid": "cf422126-2019-04-18T15:04:19Z-00003-000", "rank": 46, "score": 130510.0}, {"content": "Title: Homework should be banned Content: If you truly feel that the homework you are being given is not beneficial to your education, then you should try to do something about it. Bring it up to your parents first, get their opinion. You will have to have some valid points as to why it isn't beneficial. Also, try to come up with something that would be more beneficial, because homework isn't going anywhere buddy, not for any of us.", "qid": "47", "docid": "68a4d00a-2019-04-18T16:43:31Z-00000-000", "rank": 47, "score": 130460.0}, {"content": "Title: should the homework be banned from schools Content: 1) Homework is beneficial because it teaches children useful skills at an early age. It teaches kids responsibility. It is a child's responsibility to make sure his/her homework is completed for the next day. It also teaches children time management because students plan when to complete their homework based on their schedule. 2) You can not compare Japan and Denmark to the United States because although they may not get much homework , their work load during school is far more intense than in America, so that makes it even. C) homework should not be banned from schools.", "qid": "47", "docid": "d4ad3156-2019-04-18T15:31:45Z-00003-000", "rank": 48, "score": 130382.0}, {"content": "Title: That Homework Should be Banned Content: Hello Debate.Org. I am here to convince you that homework shouldn't be banned and why it is beneficial for you. I will speak about two points,my first point being that homework builds a sense of responsibility and commitment towards schoolwork and my second point being that homework builds on skills that are learnt in class. My first point is that homework builds a sense of responsibility and commitment towards schoolwork. Everyone will have to face the fact that one day they would have to get a job, most jobs require the skill of responsibility and organisation. This is achieved by homework. Studies have proven that homework does improve the stability of a student in school. A study has (where is the study from reference) compared the achievement of 20 students who have homework and who do not in 1962 (try and find a newer stat, they can rebut and say that it is too old). The results were outstanding, 14 students showed a benefit in doing homework, meanwhile 6 felt no benefit at all. I myself am very busy, having out of school activities and other assigned tasks from other classes. \"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world\" this is quoted by Nelson Mandela. He is telling us that we can do anything we want, we can go anywhere we want to be if we are given the right education. Homework brings up the skill of participation, this increases each student\"s individual involvement in applying specific skills and knowledge while enjoying learning. This brings me to my second point, homework builds on skills that are learnt in class. Only the talented will pick up tricky maths and confusing science equations in one lesson, having homework improves your skill of the subject. Have you ever heard of the saying \"practice makes perfect\" this falls into play with homework. Homework gives each student an opportunity to demonstrate mastery of skills taught in class; to increase speed, mastery and maintenance of skills. According to an article published in the Journal of Educational Psychology, homework gives you positive affects such as advancing your knowledge of the subject and opening your mind up to learn and create. Harris Cooper, an educational psychologist, performed a \"meta-analysis\" which is a statistical technique for combining numerous studies into the equivalent of one giant study. Cooper performed a meta-analysis on numerous homework studies. About 70% of these found that homework was associated with higher achievements in learning. Henceforth homework broadens knowledge and builds on skills that are learnt in class.", "qid": "47", "docid": "b7e16db9-2019-04-18T14:29:56Z-00002-000", "rank": 49, "score": 129998.0}, {"content": "Title: After school jobs are beneficial Content: Most teens already spend too much time on homework. It remains that most students have insufficient sleeping time. [source: http://faculty.washington.edu...Their homework can take up a lot of their time, with most students agreeing they have up to 25 hours of homework each week. [Source: http://kistoday.blogspot.com...In addition to normal school and after-school activities, this is overloading and counter-productive. Students are already struggling with the amount of sheer homework they have, they are already barely getting any hours of sleep nowadays. With the addition of a job, the students would be lucky to even obtain one hour of sleep, as I see it. After-school jobs would hinder the students' usual performance and possibly even stop the possibilities of building a ground for better jobs, as the student wouldn't work well with the insomnia, both in school and in their jobs.Helping financial management:COUNTER-PLANThere are financial management classes in school. The parents, when buying gifts along with them, giving them payments every month as a \"salary\", is enough for financial management. This is far more beneficial and moral than after-school jobs. The policy of giving students a \"payment\" for their chores makes the parents and their childrens' relationship. After-school jobs would be repetitive and not very helpful as noted above. Having parents or teachers lead their children when they have free time would be a much better plan than having students work in after-school jobs. Work experience is moot because when the students start out, they most definitely aren't going to work in the white-collar environment. Students are still students; they don't have the skills necessary for anything more than blue-collar. Very few students can actually have the ability to work in a white-collar environment to set themselves up. An environment in McDonald's is going to be very different from an environment in say, Northrop Grumman. While the boss may expect to you work all the 8 hours in McDonald's, maybe in Northrop Grumman you have to do more of the talking, discussing, and have break-times as well. A work that requires the brain is too different from a work that requires physical strength. Working in McDonald's is going to be counter-productive in this case, since your habbits will clash with your work expectancy in Northrop Grumman.Back to you my opponent.", "qid": "47", "docid": "5d66528-2019-04-18T15:35:36Z-00004-000", "rank": 50, "score": 129962.0}, {"content": "Title: Homework Is Unnecessary Content: [ Arguments ] There are several reasons that people support homework:1. To reinforce what is being taught in the classroom2. To enable parents to engage in their child's education3. To help children prepare for tests and state exams4. To teach fundamental skills such as time managementHowever I will be arguing that1. Homework does not fuel academic success2. Homework inhibits family time and burdens parents3. Homework infringes on playtime and recreation time4. Homework fosters resentment that is detrimental and unnecessaryPoint 1 Let's begin with the supposition that homework is vital to one's education. In fact, there is almost no evidence that homework helps elementary school students achieve academic success, and little more that it helps older students. A study led by an Indiana University School of Education faculty member finds little correlation between time spent on homework and better course grades [1].Using databases like the Trends in Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) we can see how homework impacts academic achievement around the world. According to TIMSS data, homework is not associated with high national or international levels of academic achievement [2].Adam Maltese and his colleagues analyzed the amount of time students spent on homework to their academic success. Research showed there was no relationship whatsoever between time spent on homework and course grade, and \u201cno substantive difference in grades between students who complete homework and those who do not\u201d [3]. Whereas the research showed a slight improvement in standardized test scores for students who did more homework, this improvement is described as being \"very modest.\" The fact is, you can't \"reinforce\" understanding the way you can reinforce a behavior. If you had a hard time understanding the lesson in class, chances are you won't have an easier time understanding it (if you can understand it at all) through the assignment of homework. I will be glad to expand on the research if my opponent challenges this contention.Point 2Homework places a burden on parents. After working all day, parents are required to go home and not only take care of their household, but help their child complete additional work. This is stressful and can often cause family conflict. Indeed many parents have rebelled against homework [4] and some have even taken legal action (and won) to not have to suffer the burden of this homework obligation [5]. Parents should be able to choose what the best way to teach their children is outside of the classroom, which may or may not be reviewing their day's lesson. Homework can cut into important personal and family time [6]. Rather than bonding by spending quality time with their loved ones, homework requires students continue working rather than strengthening their personal relationships. A Stanford researcher found that too much homework can negatively affect kids away from school, where family, friends and activities matter [7]. It can also emphasize the mentality that work is more important than family. Researcher Alfie Kohn notes, \"We parents, meanwhile, turn into nags. After being away from our children all day, the first words out of our mouths, sadly, may be: 'So, did you finish your homework?' One mother told me it permanently damaged her relationship with her son because it forced her to be an enforcer rather than a mom\" [8]. Moreover, each child has a different home environment. Whereas some parents have the time and resources to dedicate to homework monitoring and assistance, other parents do not have the opportunity to be as involved. Thus a shoddy homework response might reflect poorly on the child unfairly. Further, homework arguably places an unnecessary burden on teachers in addition to parents. Rather than spending time planning their lessons, grading classwork or working on their own self-improvement, teachers have to spend time grading \"busy work\" that they can't be sure the child has even completed on their own. While some suggest that homework teaches kids about responsibility, most of the time it needs asssistance from parents. In the early years especially, it often cannot be done without parental guidance (so much for teaching independence!).Point 3 After spending all day in school, children are forced to begin a \"second shift\" of work which can include hours of additional assignments. This deprives children of time for other physical and creative activities, or even time to rest. Homework leads kids to be frustrated and tired to the point of inhibiting their learning. For one thing they might become bored or impatient with the perpetual tasks; for another they might be too drained to focus on them. Homework consistently builds a hateful relationship with learning [9]. While we don't give slow-working children a longer school day, we consistently give them a longer homework day. Kids who take longer to read, grasp the work or work more slowly in general have less time for non-academic education compared to their peers. Learning an instrument, playing sports, working on the arts, and even general playtime has significant benefits to a child's health, wellness and intellectual development [10]. Recreational activities can teach all kinds of useful life lessons and skills that pertain to schoolwork and beyond. Point 4 Homework is known for \u201ccausing a loss of sleep, of self esteem, of cheer, and of childhood\u201d [11]. \u201cIt extinguishes the flame of curiosity.\u201d A child is not engaged through homework but rather disengaged through \"drill and kill\" methods that provide little to no utility. Homework also widens the gap between high and low achievers, and can increase pressure to do well. This in turn can encourage cheating and may disproportionately punish low-income or minority students in disadvantages situations. As for proposed alternatives, \"The best teachers know that children learn how to make good decisions by making decisions, not by following directions... At least two investigators have found that the most impressive teachers (as defined by various criteria) tend to involve students in decisions about assignments rather than simply telling them what they\u2019ll have to do at home\" [12]. As such, we can improve the status quo by asking students the best way to reinforce what they have learned in class. While this might include some work from home, it probably won't look like the standard version of homework that is uniform, repetitive and monotonous. Perhaps teachers and parents can work with each student individually to figure out their goals and best methods of learning based on their habits, skill set and home environment. [ Sources ] [1] http://research.indiana.edu...[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com...[3] Adam V. Maltese, Robert H. Tai, and Xitao Fan, \u201cWhen Is Homework Worth the Time? Evaluating the Association Between Homework and Achievement in High School Science and Math,\u201d The High School Journal, October/November 2012: 52-72. [4] http://www.nationalpost.com...[5] http://www.theguardian.com...[6] Cooper, H., Robinson, J. C., & Patall, E. A. (2006). Does homework improve academic achievement? A synthesis of research, 1987\u20132003. Review of Educational Research, 76(1), 1-62.[7] https://news.stanford.edu...[8] http://www.familycircle.com...[9] http://www.salon.com...[10] http://www.parks.ca.gov...[11] http://www.21learn.org...[12] http://www.alfiekohn.org...", "qid": "47", "docid": "81d5454b-2019-04-18T13:19:41Z-00004-000", "rank": 51, "score": 129851.0}, {"content": "Title: Homework is a waste of time Content: Fitst of all I would like to add that anyway teachers have to repeat last topic in order to see did everyone understand it or not. Therefore I think that when homework does take up time in class it is helpful for learning. And when it does not then it does not harm the classwork. Homework aids classwork by providing a space for those who have not finished the work to catch up and by helping us to remember what we did in class. Do not you think that Homework is a way for you to practice what you are learning? If you didn't have homework, you would have to stay in school until you finished your practice, and since everyone works at different rates, you'd be there until the slowest people finally caught on. Will you like it?", "qid": "47", "docid": "6013441c-2019-04-18T16:58:33Z-00003-000", "rank": 52, "score": 129402.0}, {"content": "Title: Homework Should be Banned, or at Least Made Optional Content: Thank you for your welcome, and also your clarification, but I do know what utilitarianism and active & passive mean. While homework does have its benefits, which you mentioned, such as improving student's grades, scores, and futures, the cons of homework far outweigh them. Homework can clarify the subject, but if the concepts have not been learned once class is over, the homework becomes pointless. School is, and kids lives in general are, already immensely stressful without homework. Clear relationships between student's stress and ailments (physical and mental) have been found . I am again going to emphasise that homework should be limited. Though you make an excellent point about time restrictions, many teachers assign time-consuming homework that no one could complete quickly, no matter how intelligent they are or how well they understand the concept. If homework were to be limited to a few nights a week, this would open up more time for kids to be kids. I cannot speak for everyone when I say this, but at my school, we have at least four hours of homework total. Per night. Add in school, extracurriculars, meals, and sleep, and that leaves little to no time for freetime. No matter how well you manage your time, there will always be something that does not fit. If you were to try to squeeze in some freetime, you would most likely end up giving up some sleep, which would impair your performance at school the next day. As most kids enjoy having freetime, this is often the case. Therefore, I must say that, though homework is intended for a good cause (that is, improving ability), the ideals commonly get lost in the stress that balancing the different aspects of your life, and homework becomes more of a burden than a helper. You mentioned that homework benefits teachers, but I would have to differ. Homework does show teachers whether the material is clear or not, but it creates extra work for them (as well as the students). Now they not only have mountains of classwork, tests, and projects to grade, they have to grade daily homework as well. This is more evidence why even just limiting the amounts of homework would be beneficial. As for benefiting the nation, you yourself mentioned that the issue we have does not lie within homework, but rather within emphasis on athleticism. In that way, homework is unrelated, and not the fix for the issue: stronger emphasis on education through something such as more personalised learning is.", "qid": "47", "docid": "503cf2fa-2019-04-18T16:18:09Z-00002-000", "rank": 53, "score": 129250.0}, {"content": "Title: Homework has little educational worth and adds nothing to the time spent in school. Some schools an... Content: Homework is a vital and valuable part of education. There are only a few hours in each school day \u2013 not enough time to cover properly all the subjects children need to study. Setting homework extends study beyond school hours, allowing a wider and deeper education. It also makes the best use of teachers, who can spend lesson time teaching rather than just supervising individual work that could be done at home. Tasks such as reading, writing essays, researching, doing maths problems, etc. are best done at home, away from the distractions of other students.", "qid": "47", "docid": "8c35ffbd-2019-04-19T12:47:53Z-00007-000", "rank": 54, "score": 129010.0}, {"content": "Title: Homework should be mandatory. Content: Homework helps the teacher and the student in a school. Homework helps the student because the student understands the lecture the teacher gave better. Homework can also show if you know the topic or not. If you figure out you do not know the topic, you can ask your teacher. Homework helps the teacher because the teacher has less stress. When the student does the homework, and they get everything right, the teacher knows that the student understands the topic clearly. This can also notify that a student doesn't know the topic, and he or she will be helped. Homework also helps students on tests. When a student does his or her homework, he or she understands the topic and will do well on the test. Homework is good for everyone is a school environment.", "qid": "47", "docid": "6cbdf87a-2019-04-18T17:46:54Z-00001-000", "rank": 55, "score": 128568.0}, {"content": "Title: Homework Should be Banned Content: My arguments summed up: Homework is a necessary evil as it assures that students take an effort toward their education outside of school. Homework is just a way for students to exercise their minds are prepare for tests and exams. In moderation, homework can be helpful. And I'v always believed that the main cause of academic strain and stress is caused by exams. Huge tests that hang over your head and force you to study at risk of failure. But that's a different debate. It's been fun.", "qid": "47", "docid": "2acab7ab-2019-04-18T17:01:31Z-00000-000", "rank": 56, "score": 127796.0}, {"content": "Title: That Homework is a waste of Time. Content: Having set homework allows for your brain to have a necessary time it needs to memorize it, or 'set it in stone' for want of a better word. The study previously mentioned does not state that children get 'smarter' if they receive homework, but they do reinforce the idea in their mind. During time that will be spent in University, or collage in the states, we will have to study for whichever subject we eventually choose. If we only did work while in class, we would not pass our subject, forget getting a PhD. Homework is simply put 'work for home' and it is, but shouldn't be seen as anything more than revision for what has happened that day. Homework is designed to help the human mind remember more, using a technique called ELC; experiential learning cycle. This shows that we learn things through experiences, or from repeating things we may already know. This is why 'Practice makes Perfect'.", "qid": "47", "docid": "4c6f94e5-2019-04-18T15:09:04Z-00001-000", "rank": 57, "score": 127691.0}, {"content": "Title: Is homework necessary Content: I think that homework is necessary. Homework helps memory, and helps you learn. If schools think that homework dos not help they wont do it but they bleave that is is helpful. It dus help. it helps me learn math and it helps kids be responsible. thay ned that to get a job not being responsible gets you fired", "qid": "47", "docid": "b3cad6e6-2019-04-18T14:54:44Z-00003-000", "rank": 58, "score": 127471.0}, {"content": "Title: That Homework is a waste of Time. Content: Here is another study for you \"Recent studies in Australia have shown homework to be an unnecessary waste of time.\" This study has shown that there is no benefit at all for kids up to 3rd grade, and very little benefit for kids in grades 4-6, minimal benefits for students in grades 7-9, and some benefit to 10th-12th graders. Could you honestly say that homework is worth the strife that it puts families through for these little results. Particularly towards the start of high school kids have enough chores to do at home as it is, and then adding homework on top of all that can easily cause unnecessary stress. School to kids is the equivalent to a stressful job that many parents have. You wrote that if you only did work in class you wouldn't pass the subject, while that may be true, I said previously that some studying should be done at home as revision for tests. I'm not saying no work should be done at home, I'm saying that teachers should not give homework to students while they already revise, which causes the unnecessary stress I was talking about.", "qid": "47", "docid": "4c6f94e5-2019-04-18T15:09:04Z-00000-000", "rank": 59, "score": 127385.0}, {"content": "Title: Homework Ban Content: Note: My structure will change because I will use many quotes, so there is no \"argument\"I: Arguments\"Studies have proven that homework does improve the stability of students in school. According to Cooper\u2019s much-cited review of homework studies, there have been 20 studies since 1962 that compared the achievement of students who received homework and achievement of students who did not. Results are that 14 of the studies showed benefit in doing homework, while 6 did not. This further strengthens the statement \u201cTime spent completing homework is time well spent.\".\"This means that if you spend your time well doing homework, then your grades will probably go up, making it a possibllty of going to a good university and a good job.\"Homework is an important and valuable component of learning. It teaches the students important life skills that they will need to apply even when they become working adults, especially time management, prioritizing work, as well as values, namely responsibility and self-discipline. \"This means that they will be smarter, and will have important life skills.\"By doing homework, they will start to develop time management. They will start to allocate their time for leisure pursuits and completing their homework. Through this, the students will be able to learn the value of self-discipline as they try to refrain themselves from playing until they have completed their assignments. They will also develop a sense of responsibility by knowing the need to finish homework in time and contributing to group work or projects. \"This shows that they can develop time management, and will grow more mature.If we ban homework, we won't have these things.\"Hence, some students may not fully understand the topics that the teachers taught in school and they might have problems learning well and coping with the syllabus. Setting homework and assignments extends the student\u2019s study beyond what they learn in school and allows for a wider and deeper understanding of the topic. With homework, school hours are also put to good use in which teachers can spend their time teaching well instead of giving the students class work to do, and students can avoid distractions from others when they attempt their work at home. They can also catch up on missed classes by doing homework.\"More than making it more mature, it is just like practice makes perfect. Homework can make you understand the topics easily.\"Homework is useful to inform teachers of the students\u2019 weaknesses in certain topics, giving them a chance to improve and acquire new skills. If there is no homework, teachers would have to base majority of the students\u2019 standards on tests alone, which is not reliable at times.\"Why is this not reliable? Because students can cheat.\"Homework provides students with sufficient practice for what they have learnt in school so that they can build a good foundation for that topic. With a good foundation, they can progress better in school and achieve better results for their tests and exams. It also lets students revise and recap what they are taught and more importantly, homework gives an early warning to students who do not understand certain key concepts so that they are aware of it in the future. \"Homework can make you more factual, and better at tests.II: ConclusionI have shown that homework is not needed. Vote Pro.III: Endnotes(1) (https://schools-education.knoji.com...)", "qid": "47", "docid": "c47ceb6b-2019-04-18T12:45:44Z-00001-000", "rank": 60, "score": 127292.0}, {"content": "Title: Homework in schools should be banned Content: 1. Well homework, meant to be done at home, takes over the worthy time which can be better used in broadening one's mind behind books and enhancing one's physical stature. Really? Homework does this. You have 24 hours a day minus the 7 hours for school and minus 7 for sleep. That's ~10 hours you have. Homework confines our thinking and working abilities to only what is taught in school, whereas instead of homework, research work turns out to be more beneficial.So?2. When students are given home work, they are meant to revise what is taught in school. Now suppose they are not given any homework, they\u2019ll be encouraged to pay attention in class more, and this will undoubtedly increase the concentration power. I highly doubt this. Also \"revise\"? What do you mean?3. Homework makes a child dull compelling her to look only through the doors shown to her. I actually disagree. It really does the opposite, especially if it's history.4. Homework, is an improved way of spoon feeding a child, because a child is always helped at home, by parents or professional tutors. A student needs to apply and not mug up. Great people or rather scientist do not mug up things, they apply concepts and experience. This is not homework's fault. 5.Takes too much time Especially when you move to higher classes students have a lot od different classes and different homework assignments to finish. When adding all off them it takes a lot of time. Students need time for other extracurricular activities and family time. Homework could potentially be a time consuming activity for many.It is also alot pratice you might need. 6. Homework should be banned I swear most of the time i am stressed and 99% its because of homework. I dont want to be the typical teen who says \"i hate homework its so boring and im so lazy\" but its so true. And in my school they either give you little bit of homework with lots of hard parts for it or on HUGE project or assignment on top of other homework from other classes. I can not even explain how angry homework gets me. Sometimes there are group assignments and there is never a time where im not paired with the lazy people so i end up doing all the crap and i have to worry about other classes too. NO. I can not. I need a break and i hate when teachers pack the most work on weekends. But no I have to use my only two days of rest on assignments on top of other work that im mentally crying about. Do not even get me started. I legitimately cried like two hours ago becuase all the homework i have to do. And thats not a good thing. School is supposed to be \"a fun learning experience\" and \"learning and doing good and no stress\" Appeal to emotion.", "qid": "47", "docid": "e5aef097-2019-04-18T17:02:59Z-00002-000", "rank": 61, "score": 126664.0}, {"content": "Title: Homework should be banned Content: As this is the last round of the debate, I will give a few more points to prove that homework should not be banned. Some of the reasons why homework is important are; it helps for more rapid progress in learning, it can form an important part in the pupil\"s notes, it helps in long term research, and it is good for introverts who may be unable to ask questions in class. The purpose of homework is to help you learn and practice what was taught in class or to gain information by reading and answering questions. As you can definitely see from the above mentioned points, home work is a very important part of our studies. Take myself for an example; I am a introvert but I have managed to convey my knowledge through homework. As it has been very useful for me, I do not see why it cannot do the same for others too. In addition to helping you practice what you have studied or learned at school, homework prepares and helps you to use resources such as encyclopedias, books and the Internet which help you to find information for your homework/research projects. When you complete homework independently, you actually become independent. Homework is a sense of independence, responsibility and self discipline and it can bring home and school closer together. As we know, homework is not to be done and forgotten about. It has a deadline: this will teach you that completing a task on time is very important. This thing called homework also gives your parents a greater opportunity to participate in your education. Now, don\"t you think that the reward is the practice that you get (which will allow you to do well)? Homework is indeed a good practice for success in life, so be sure to complete it and turn it in on time. After reading all these points, I hope that you will agree with me that homework is very important and thus should not be banned. With that, I rest my case.", "qid": "47", "docid": "68a4cf8e-2019-04-18T17:19:01Z-00000-000", "rank": 62, "score": 126503.0}, {"content": "Title: should Students be given homework during the weekends Content: Since this debate is coming to a closing and we\"re at round four, I though I should introduce new evidence to my case. As I've been researching why we should have homework on the weekends, I realized mainly that we should have it because it provides extra brain training over your two-day break so that you will remember what you\"ve learned during to week. To begin here is a list of ten benefits from homework in general. 1.It improves your thinking and memory 2.It helps you develop positive study skills and habits that will serve you well throughout life 3.Homework encourages you to use time wisely 4.It teaches you to work independently 5.Homework teaches you to take responsibility for your work 6.It allows you to review and practice what has been covered in class 7.Homework helps you learn to use resources, such as libraries, reference materials, and computer Web sites to find information 8.It encourages you to explores subjects more fully than classroom time permits 9.It allows you to extend learning by applying skills to new situations 10.It helps you integrate learning by applying many different skills to a single task, such as book reports or science projects (Brought to you by http://blog.eskool.ca...) I would like to thank the people at http://blog.eskool.ca.... That list states an excellent set of benefits from doing homework. Overall it\"s saying that homework prepares you through difficulties in life. With the skills and good habits you obtain from homework it becomes easier to overcome your problems. \"In a study conducted by Hill, Spencer, Alston and Fitzgerald (1986), homework was positively linked to student achievement. They indicate that homework is an inexpensive method of improving student academic preparation without increasing staff or modifying curriculum. \"So, as the pressure to improve test scores continues to increase, so does the emphasis on homework\"\" (Brought to you by http://www.studentpulse.com...) There is the evidence folks, and like I said before it helps people overcome their problems and to achieve goals such as higher test score (also known as growth in education) to help society function correctly, and with a wise mind. If you don\"t believe me about this test here is another test conducted carried out by the researchers at Duke University. \" DURHAM, N.C. - It turns out that parents are right to nag: To succeed in school, kids should do their homework. Duke University researchers have reviewed more than 60 research studies on homework between 1987 and 2003 and concluded that homework does have a positive effect on student achievement. Harris Cooper, a professor of psychology and director of Duke's Program in Education, said the research synthesis that he led showed the positive correlation was much stronger for secondary students --- those in grades 7 through 12 --- than those in elementary school. \"With only rare exception, the relationship between the amount of homework students do and their achievement outcomes was found to be positive and statistically significant,\" the researchers report in a paper that appears in the spring 2006 edition of \"Review of Educational Research.\"\" Cooper is the lead author; Jorgianne Civey Robinson, a Ph.D. student in psychology, and Erika Patall, a graduate student in psychology, are co-authors. (Brought to you by http://today.duke.edu...) Once again readers, there is the evidence that homework is beneficial. Therefore, there is no reason for it not to be beneficial on weekends. Ultimately, homework given to students on the weekend is beneficial. If I still do not have you on board with my side I suggest reading this extra evidence. Homework set prior to a lesson can aid understanding later in class. Homework also provides opportunities for reinforcement of work learned during school time and for children to develop their research skills. Children will need to seek information for themselves from reference materials such as encyclopaedias, books, CD ROMs and by doing so, are helped along the path to becoming independent learners. Having the responsibility of needing to meet deadlines promotes self-discipline, an attribute that will impact on schoolwork and beyond. (Brought to you by http://www.topmarks.co.uk...) Thank you everyone for staying tuned in on my side of the case for: whether or not students should have homework over the weekends. Yes they should. Hey, I appreciate everything you guys and hope to for the final round of this debate to wrap up my argument with an overall conclusion of my case and how this, being my first debate, has been. Once again thank you.", "qid": "47", "docid": "ea4173a6-2019-04-18T17:11:07Z-00001-000", "rank": 63, "score": 126259.0}, {"content": "Title: Homework is almost always done when a child is already tired from a long day at school. As a result... Content: Having homework also allows students to really fix in their heads work they have done in school. Doing tasks linked to recent lessons helps students strengthen their understanding and become more confident in using new knowledge and skills. For younger children this could be practising reading or multiplication tables. For older ones it might be writing up an experiment, revising for a test, reading in preparation for the next topic, etc.", "qid": "47", "docid": "8c35ffbd-2019-04-19T12:47:53Z-00009-000", "rank": 64, "score": 126234.0}, {"content": "Title: Homework Should Not Be Required Content: [ Arguments ] There are several reasons that people support homework:1. To reinforce what is being taught in the classroom2. To enable parents to engage in their child's education3. To help children prepare for tests and state exams4. To teach fundamental skills such as time managementHowever I will be arguing that1. Homework does not fuel academic success2. Homework inhibits family time and burdens parents3. Homework infringes on playtime and recreation time4. Homework fosters resentment that is detrimental and unnecessaryPoint 1 Let's begin with the supposition that homework is vital to one's education. In fact, there is almost no evidence that homework helps elementary school students achieve academic success, and little more that it helps older students. A study led by an Indiana University School of Education faculty member finds little correlation between time spent on homework and better course grades [1].Using databases like the Trends in Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) we can see how homework impacts academic achievement around the world. According to TIMSS data, homework is not associated with high national or international levels of academic achievement [2].Adam Maltese and his colleagues analyzed the amount of time students spent on homework to their academic success. Research showed there was no relationship whatsoever between time spent on homework and course grade, and \u201cno substantive difference in grades between students who complete homework and those who do not\u201d [3]. Whereas the research showed a slight improvement in standardized test scores for students who did more homework, this improvement is described as being \"very modest.\" The fact is, you can't \"reinforce\" understanding the way you can reinforce a behavior. If you had a hard time understanding the lesson in class, chances are you won't have an easier time understanding it (if you can understand it at all) through the assignment of homework. I will be glad to expand on the research if my opponent challenges this contention.Point 2Homework places a burden on parents. After working all day, parents are required to go home and not only take care of their household, but help their child complete additional work. This is stressful and can often cause family conflict. Indeed many parents have rebelled against homework [4] and some have even taken legal action (and won) to not have to suffer the burden of this homework obligation [5]. Parents should be able to choose what the best way to teach their children is outside of the classroom, which may or may not be reviewing their day's lesson. Homework can cut into important personal and family time [6]. Rather than bonding by spending quality time with their loved ones, homework requires students continue working rather than strengthening their personal relationships. A Stanford researcher found that too much homework can negatively affect kids away from school, where family, friends and activities matter [7]. It can also emphasize the mentality that work is more important than family. Researcher Alfie Kohn notes, \"We parents, meanwhile, turn into nags. After being away from our children all day, the first words out of our mouths, sadly, may be: 'So, did you finish your homework?' One mother told me it permanently damaged her relationship with her son because it forced her to be an enforcer rather than a mom\" [8]. Moreover, each child has a different home environment. Whereas some parents have the time and resources to dedicate to homework monitoring and assistance, other parents do not have the opportunity to be as involved. Thus a shoddy homework response might reflect poorly on the child unfairly. Further, homework arguably places an unnecessary burden on teachers in addition to parents. Rather than spending time planning their lessons, grading classwork or working on their own self-improvement, teachers have to spend time grading \"busy work\" that they can't be sure the child has even completed on their own. While some suggest that homework teaches kids about responsibility, most of the time it needs asssistance from parents. In the early years especially, it often cannot be done without parental guidance (so much for teaching independence!).Point 3 After spending all day in school, children are forced to begin a \"second shift\" of work which can include hours of additional assignments. This deprives children of time for other physical and creative activities, or even time to rest. Homework leads kids to be frustrated and tired to the point of inhibiting their learning. For one thing they might become bored or impatient with the perpetual tasks; for another they might be too drained to focus on them. Homework consistently builds a hateful relationship with learning [9]. While we don't give slow-working children a longer school day, we consistently give them a longer homework day. Kids who take longer to read, grasp the work or work more slowly in general have less time for non-academic education compared to their peers. Learning an instrument, playing sports, working on the arts, and even general playtime has significant benefits to a child's health, wellness and intellectual development [10]. Recreational activities can teach all kinds of useful life lessons and skills that pertain to schoolwork and beyond. Point 4 Homework is known for \u201ccausing a loss of sleep, of self esteem, of cheer, and of childhood\u201d [11]. \u201cIt extinguishes the flame of curiosity.\u201d A child is not engaged through homework but rather disengaged through \"drill and kill\" methods that provide little to no utility. Homework also widens the gap between high and low achievers, and can increase pressure to do well. This in turn can encourage cheating and may disproportionately punish low-income or minority students in disadvantages situations. As for proposed alternatives, \"The best teachers know that children learn how to make good decisions by making decisions, not by following directions... At least two investigators have found that the most impressive teachers (as defined by various criteria) tend to involve students in decisions about assignments rather than simply telling them what they\u2019ll have to do at home\" [12]. As such, we can improve the status quo by asking students the best way to reinforce what they have learned in class. While this might include some work from home, it probably won't look like the standard version of homework that is uniform, repetitive and monotonous. Perhaps teachers and parents can work with each student individually to figure out their goals and best methods of learning based on their habits, skill set and home environment. [1] http://research.indiana.edu...[02] https://www.washingtonpost.com...[03] Adam V. Maltese, Robert H. Tai, and Xitao Fan, \u201cWhen Is Homework Worth the Time? Evaluating the Association Between Homework and Achievement in High School Science and Math,\u201d The High School Journal, October/November 2012: 52-72. [04] http://www.nationalpost.com...[05] http://www.theguardian.com...[06] Cooper, H., Robinson, J. C., & Patall, E. A. (2006). Does homework improve academic achievement? A synthesis of research, 1987\u20132003. Review of Educational Research, 76(1), 1-62.[07] https://news.stanford.edu...[08] http://www.familycircle.com...[09] http://www.salon.com...[10] http://www.parks.ca.gov...[11] http://www.21learn.org...[12] http://www.alfiekohn.org...", "qid": "47", "docid": "ae7c3aca-2019-04-18T13:14:06Z-00005-000", "rank": 65, "score": 126218.0}, {"content": "Title: there should be no homework in schools Content: Homework may be annoying and use up time, but overall it helps students learn. If you just learn in school with maybe a 15-minute break for lunch the knowledge you learned won't sink into your brain as much as it would if you learned the knowledge over time. Homework is important because it helps the students wrap up what they learned in school and see if they truly learned it. If they did the homework wrong they'll know they have to study more for an upcoming test. On the other hand, if they just learn all day and then do whatever they want at home, the knowledge wouldn't sink into their minds as much as it would if they did homework. Overall homework helps the knowledge you learned in school sink into your brain so you can fully understand it and not fail on your next test.", "qid": "47", "docid": "effd51d-2019-04-18T12:26:46Z-00000-000", "rank": 66, "score": 126023.0}, {"content": "Title: home work should be banned Content: The subject of homework being banned has been discussed and debated for years by students, teachers and parents. Both sides of the argument have numerous reasons for their decision, but here are some of the reasons why homework should not be banned from schools. First of all, homework encourages students to undertake independent learning which they will be required to do when they get to University. Many people argue that schools spoon-feed their students, which makes them completely unprepared for what awaits them at higher education when all research and further reading must be done on the student\"s own time. By setting homework in the form of projects, students will be able to learn on their own and develop skills that will serve them well in later life. It also helps to teach the students responsibility and time management skills, seeing as the teacher is not there to make them learn. Secondly, a lot of students prefer to learn on their own and teach themselves, rather than having a teacher lecture them. Homework encourages children to do this and may also help them to revise it more thoroughly. Whatever students have learnt in the classroom can then be reinforced and solidified by completing homework tasks. Homework can also be beneficial for the teacher as when they collect homework in to mark it, it gives them a good idea of how much their students understand what is being taught. Practice makes perfect as the saying goes. So the only way to get better at algebra is to practice it, which is why teachers set homework. It help to encourage a great number of skills that students will find extremely useful not only in school and any further education that they may go on to, but also in jobs that they will have.", "qid": "47", "docid": "bfd69562-2019-04-18T17:38:09Z-00002-000", "rank": 67, "score": 125413.0}, {"content": "Title: Homework has little educational worth, and therefore is a waste of students' time Content: Homework has a lot of educational value, the reason it has not shown this is because teachers do not set the right kind of homework or they set the wrong amount of it. Some teachers believe homework is for reviewing material, others think it is better for learning new concepts. The result is 'confusion for students'.1 If the homework was consistent however, and related specifically to what is learnt in the classroom, it would have a great deal of educational value by helping them remember their lessons and increase students' confidence in how much they are learning. Furthermore, Professor Cooper of Duke University has shown that by the high schools years, there is a strong and positive relationship between homework and how well students do at school. There are two main reasons why this relationship does not appear in elementary school: 1) Elementary school teachers assign homework not so much to enhance learning, but in order to encourage the development of good study skills and time management;2 2) young children have less developed cognitive skills to focus and concentrate on their work.3 Thus, they are more easily distracted from their homework assignments. 1 Strauss, 2006 2 Muhlenbruck, Cooper, Nye, & Lindsey, 2000 3Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2001", "qid": "47", "docid": "269c4789-2019-04-15T20:24:11Z-00010-000", "rank": 68, "score": 125330.0}, {"content": "Title: Homework ensures that students practise what they are taught at school Content: Having homework also allows students to really fix in their heads work they have done in school. Doing tasks linked to recent lessons helps students strengthen their understanding and become more confident in using new knowledge and skills. For younger children this could be practising reading or multiplication tables. For older ones it might be writing up an experiment, revising for a test and reading in preparation for the next topic. Professor Cooper of Duke University, has found that there is evidence that in elementary school students do better on tests when they do short homework assignments related to the test 1. Students gain confidence from such practise, and that shows when they sit the tests. 1 Strauss, 2006", "qid": "47", "docid": "269c4789-2019-04-15T20:24:11Z-00025-000", "rank": 69, "score": 125275.0}, {"content": "Title: Homework Content: it helps with studying, though there are other ways to study.", "qid": "47", "docid": "1733be9e-2019-04-18T16:07:38Z-00000-000", "rank": 70, "score": 125123.0}, {"content": "Title: homework should be given Content: Homework should be given in school. Homework has a purpose far greater than kids think. It's not just a burden or \"busy work\" that teachers give us because it's fun. Teachers have their own homework when they give it out too. They spend hours grading every individual paper. Actually, homework is helpful for students because it allows them to practice the lessons they learned and remember facts better. It's the same as a dancer dancing for 2 hours every night after school. It gives them a chance to perfect their skills.", "qid": "47", "docid": "f9c95d4e-2019-04-18T15:27:16Z-00002-000", "rank": 71, "score": 124749.0}, {"content": "Title: Homework should be banned Content: I personally don't consider homework to be necessary for the success of a learning process and even harmful for the students perception of the joy of problem solving. This will be shown (in terms of fairness) in the next round of the debate, but as a short preview; I'll cover the 1 Fairness 2 Learning Success Factors 3 (Relevant) Benefits of Spare Time As my opponent forgot to kindly limit the concept of homework, I will do first: According to various dictionaries, as an example here the FreeDictionary {1}, homework can mean 1 (Educational) school work done out of lessons, esp at home 2 (Educational) any preparatory study 3 (Industrial Relations & HR Terms) work done at home for pay As this debate is listed under \"Education\" I consider the Industrial aspect of the core term as not relevant. Also, I would like to underline that I consider homework in this case as a compulsory work, therefore I would like to exclude university reading (that is usually a voluntary thing) as well as university assignments such as compulsory research papers as they are rather difficult to classify as homework and are also done in a rather voluntary education environment and concern grown-up-students. Considering that Pro failed to define his term in the first place, I'll leave it to the judges whether my topic limitation can be seen as valid. {1} FreeDictionary: homework . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...", "qid": "47", "docid": "abf51816-2019-04-18T15:38:53Z-00003-000", "rank": 72, "score": 124647.0}, {"content": "Title: homework should be banned Content: Homework: the backbone of learning. It is crucial that homework should not be banned. Even the thought is unfounded. Homework should certainly not be banned for many reasons. First of all, homework increases your mental ability. Studies have shown that people who do more homework or studying are more likely to be smarter, rather than the people who don\"t. This unaided just proves why homework is of such great importance. People need to do well in tests, which will help them to get a job in the future. Being intelligent just helps you all through life. Homework makes you cleverer, and if this is the case, why would you want to sanction it\"this impression is just erroneous on so many levels. Continuing on, surveys have even shown that homework dramatically increases your smartness. Furthermore, homework also helps you to work at your own pace. At school, you work at the same pace as everyone around you more or less. When set homework is given to you, it\"s your chance to work independently, giving you many great qualities such as independence (that\"s a given), individuality and much, much more. This is also good because when you get to university you will have great study skills. The skills that homework gives you are vital to your everyday life. Moreover, homework also gives you something stimulating to do. It is imperative to develop good brain patterns when you are young and doing homework can help you to achieve this. It\"s very important that kids spend their time doing something productive and stimulating, otherwise all your brainpower is going to go to waste. When children get home from school, homework prevents them from wasting their lives playing video games and other unhealthy activities. Continuing on, you may argue that sport and other extra-curricular activities such as sport and socialising give your brain the same amount of \"exercise\" as homework, but this is just not spot-on. A fantastic way to stimulate your brain is to do homework. We need a balance between sport, socialising, and education. Homework provides this education. So, evidently, it is clear to see that homework should unquestionably not be banned because it gives you something stimulating to do, improves your mental ability, helps you to work at your own pace and helps maintain an educational balance in your life. Homework: the backbone of learning.", "qid": "47", "docid": "82c5bb4f-2019-04-18T17:27:44Z-00003-000", "rank": 73, "score": 124598.0}, {"content": "Title: Is homework good for students Content: As a student who likes the challenges we are presented with in school, I know how difficult it can be and at the end of 7 hours my brain is already shutting down, and the homework given forces your brain to be active again which can leave the student's brain worn out for the next day. If the teachers could incorporate the homework into the school day the students would do it and not complain. The homework assigned isn't always difficult it is normally a continuation of the work done during the school day so the student knows what the material is, but it takes time that students need in order to grow as a human. If students don't want to answer hard questions, it doesn't matter because they have to do it in school. The homework is only necessary when work is not completed in class or there is a time gap where information can be forgotten such as summer break. thank you and good luck", "qid": "47", "docid": "6851beca-2019-04-18T12:14:03Z-00001-000", "rank": 74, "score": 124561.0}, {"content": "Title: Homework encourages students to work more independently (by themselves) Content: Setting homework does little to develop good study skills. It is hard to check whether the homework students produce is really their own. Some students have always copied off others or got their parents to help them. But today there is so much material available on the internet that teachers can never be sure. It would be better to have a mixture of activities in the classroom which help students to develop a whole range of skills, including independent learning. Furthermore, if teachers want to develop independence in their students, students should be given a choice in the matter of homework. Otherwise, they\u2019re not using their judgement and therefore they aren\u2019t being independent at all 1. 1 Sorrentino, 2011", "qid": "47", "docid": "269c4789-2019-04-15T20:24:11Z-00022-000", "rank": 75, "score": 124529.0}, {"content": "Title: THBT Homework should not be given out to students. Content: Students are not meant to \"learn\" from homework. Homework is assigned to students to review a topic they've already learned previous to the assignment, and those students are expected to complete the assignment or review of what they've learned. This is only beneficial to a student, because homework is usually a sufficient study tool, mostly in preparation for various quizzes or tests. A study on this topic was actually conducted at East Carolina University by Department of Economics Professor, Dr. Nick Rupp. (Statistics on this study can be found at: https://blog.ecu.edu...) Dr. Rupp had separated the students in his class into two groups, each decided by a coin flip. One group was assigned a specific homework assignment which would count for 10% of their upcoming test grade, and the other group was assigned the same assignment but it was completely optional and had no score effect on the test. In conclusion of this test, Dr. Rupp noted that the group of students required to do the homework had \"performed a half-letter grade better, on average...\" Another notable point to his conclusion was that the majority of the group of students in the group required to do the homework had scored B's on the test, while the majority of students in the group with the optional homework had students with the majority of C grades. Dr. Rupp did indeed acknowledge that students in both groups had received grades of A's, but the major differences were in the B's and C's group. Another study conducted by the Associated Press in January of 2006 found that about 57% of parents thought their children had been assigned enough homework, another 23% of parents thought their students were given too little homework, and the final 19% had thought that it was too much. This shows that 81% of parents either agree with the amount of homework their child receives, or requested more homework for their students. A third study conducted by MetLife in 2007 concluded that 87% of parents interviewed had said that homework had given them an opportunity to talk with and bond with their children. In the same study conducted, 78% of parents interviewed had said that homework did not interfere with family time together, and 71% of parents interviewed had said that homework was not a major source of stress in their child. (Statistics for these studies are found at: http://www.sedl.org...) In a series of 35 studies, 77% of these studies had shown a positive correlation between a student's homework completion and academic achievement. This correlation is seen mostly in Junior High and High School students, and is hard to prove either way with Elementary School students. The National PTA and the NEA have created a parent guide named: \"Helping Your Child Get the Most Out of Homework\". This guide states that \"Most educators agree that for children in grades K-2, homework is more effective when it does not exceed 10-20 minutes each day; older children, in grades 3-6, can handle 30-60 minutes each day; in junior and senior high, the amount will vary by subject...\" In the same study, the learning of a student in grades 3-6 does not diminish from homework unless it exceeds approximately 90 minutes. The learning of high school students is not diminished by homework until it reaches between 90-150 minutes. (These facts were gathered from: https://today.duke.edu...) These are just a couple of examples paired with their sources of correlations between homework and academic achievement. With multiple studies coming to this conclusion of the correlation, and a study showing that parents feel that the amount of homework their child receives is adequate, or too little. That same study also shows that parents do not feel that homework violates family time. With the evidence coming from these studies, it proves that there is almost certainly a positive correlation between time spent on homework and academic achievement. Therefore, I use this to support the negation (Con) case of this argument, stating firmly that homework should indeed be given to students. I'm supporting this side of the argument using academic achievement, family (specifically parent) interviews, and previous experiences with homework, as well as various studies on the topic. Thank you for hearing (and actually reading this much of) my case of this argument.", "qid": "47", "docid": "25f8605f-2019-04-18T12:14:38Z-00000-000", "rank": 76, "score": 124272.0}, {"content": "Title: Homework has little educational worth, and therefore is a waste of students' time Content: Homework has little educational worth and adds nothing to the time spent in school. Some schools and some countries don't bother with homework at all, and their results do not seem to suffer from it. Studies show that homework adds nothing to standardised test scores for primary/ elementary pupils. As Alfie Kohn notes, no study has ever found a link between homework and better tests results in elementary school, and there is no reason to believe it is necessary in high school.1 International comparisons of older students have found no positive relationship between the amount of homework set and average test scores - students in Japan and Denmark get little homework but score very well on tests.2 If anything, countries with more homework get worse results! 1 Sorrentino, 2011 2 Britt, 2005", "qid": "47", "docid": "269c4789-2019-04-15T20:24:11Z-00011-000", "rank": 77, "score": 124100.0}, {"content": "Title: Homework is needed to finish classwork. Content: We should think of homework as being a continuation of our classwork. Not everyone in the class works at the same rate so it is necessary for teachers to give anyone who is falling behind the chance to catch up. If this was done in class those who are faster would have nothing to do during this time, which would be a real waste of time. Homework then allows those who are behind to take as long as they need to catch up with the rest of the class.", "qid": "47", "docid": "d23d9ea5-2019-04-15T20:24:12Z-00021-000", "rank": 78, "score": 124100.0}, {"content": "Title: Should homework be banned Content: However, all of his arguments are plagiarized. Thus in this round I will only present a brief case. See . http://www.idebate.org... for where he got his arguments from. *Full Resolution*: Resolved: Homework should be banned. CaseC1: Homework enhances the knowledge of students. Homework enhances the intellectual ability of students not only by allowing their mind to absorb knowledge but by teaching them responsibility and skills that help later in their lives. Roch Chouinard, vice-dean of the Universit\u00e9 de Montr\u00e9al's Faculty of Education says \"Homework gives kids a sense of responsibility and teaches them to plan their work, which in turn helps develop their autonomy and organizational skills. \u201d [1] Also, according to Cooper's much-cited review of homework studies, there have been 20 studies since 1962 that compared the achievement of students who receive homework with students given no homework. Of these, 14 showed a benefit from doing homework, and six didn't. [2] Students benefit from homework greatly. While at times it can cause stress and seem hard, in the long run it has more benefits. One must also consider that each student does not spend that much time in class. Most classes tend to be around an hour. One hour is not enough to fully enhance and cover everything that is necessary, so some homework is required. I am not advocating for tons and loads of homework, but I think it should not be \"banned\". C2: Homework increases exam scores. One of the main purposes of homework is to practice for exams. Test material is often covered in homework. Thus homework can enhance test scores. According to Science Daily, a study of global homework patterns suggests that the benefits of more homework assignments to boost student test scores may vary widely according to the grade level, the quality of a nation's schools and the perceived value of homework. [3] According to a recent study performed the typical U. S. high school student, 14 to 16 years of age, in a class doing homework would outperform 69 percent of the students in a no-homework class, as measured by standardized tests or grades. [4] Thus homework can enhance test scores which can lead to an overall better grade in the class. Good grades lead to a good degree which enhances job opportunity which can put food on the table. So technically homework can help students put food on the table in fifteen or so years. Conclusion: Homework has multiple benefits for students and can ultimately help students more than harm. Homework enhances the knowledge, responsibility, and organization of students. Homework also helps increase test scores and ultimately higher grades can be achieved. Thus, because of its intrinsic benefits, homework should not be banned. Resolution negated, vote CON. Sources:1. . http://www.physorg.com... 2. . http://www.memory-key.com... 3. . http://www.sciencedaily.com... 4. Anderson, B. , et al. 1986. Homework: What do National Assessment Results Tell Us? Princeton, N. J. : Educational Testing Service.", "qid": "47", "docid": "27354bd7-2019-04-18T18:33:09Z-00001-000", "rank": 79, "score": 124030.0}, {"content": "Title: Homework should be optional Content: Homework helps develop a student's study skills; their ability to research a topic on their own. If a student needs help, they can ask questions in class, or develop better note-taking skills or research habits.Homework reinforces thr topics learned in class and sometimes prepares students for future cconcepts, so, if everyone has done their homework, class time can be used to continue on to more advanced topics.Homework allows parents to take a part in the student's education, if they are willing and able. Homework encourages the development of a student's self-discipline since it requires them taking initiative/responsibility for themselves without their hand being held.I am a free tutor, and peer tutoring is often a free route to take; further strengthening relationships in class.", "qid": "47", "docid": "49b76b2f-2019-04-18T15:51:00Z-00002-000", "rank": 80, "score": 123780.0}, {"content": "Title: Homework Should Be Banned Content: I accept, and I expect that the BoP will be shared.Homework: refers to tasks assigned to students by their teachers to be completed outside the class. Common homework assignments may include a quantity or period of reading to be performed, writing or typing to be completed, problems to be solved, a school project to be built (such as a diorama or display), or other skills to be practiced.I do not believe that homework should be banned for many reasons benefitting the student: Students benefit from homework, as it reinstitutes what they have learned. Helps students understand concepts that they may not have understood in class. Gives students mental exercises to induce brain activity, and memorization of common skills and necessary knowledge. If students did not do homework, they would be likely to forget what they had learned from school, and waste their time on unnecesary tasks. This may seem that it forces kids to miss out on being socially active with their friends and family, but in reality it does not. Social activity is not eliminated by the institution of homework, but rather influences the student to work hard to finish their homework in order to have a good time with friends and family.Thank you, and I look forward to debating the topic of homework with you.", "qid": "47", "docid": "5e2b5b5c-2019-04-18T14:45:23Z-00003-000", "rank": 81, "score": 123309.0}, {"content": "Title: Homework Should be Banned, or at Least Made Optional Content: First off, welcome to Debate.org! I look forward to a good debate~ So when we examine this topic, we can't look at just the negative aspects of homework, but also acknowledge the benefits to three different groups of people: the students, the teachers, and the nation itself of the student. But before beginning, I'd like to mention that I am conducting this debate under the value of utilitarianism- that is, what does the most good for the most amount of people is the most morally justifiable. So first, benefits to the student. There are a few purposes of homework that are intended to further the student's educational career while simultaneously providing a better education from home. First, homework is intended as practice for the student. [1] A study done in 2006 showed a positive correlation between homework completed and class test scores. It combined multiple studies and each gave the same result: 77% of 35 studies found a link between time spent on homework and achievement in school. [2] Clearly, in a world where test scores are becoming lower and lower, it is up to the teachers (indeed, it is their job) to do whatever they can the raise these scores back up. Of course, homework does more than just force the student to practice. It also, in many cases, prepares them for class activities the next day and increases the student's involvement in their education. We need \"active learners\" as opposed to \"passive learners\" (if you are familiar with that term.) Homework is even intended to build student responsibility, perseverance, and time management. The point of school itself is to (a) educate us to become intelligent, contributing members of society and (b) prepare us for future occupations. Now, if we can't even manage our time, how can we even expect to jump into a busy, hectic job with plenty of stress? So yes, as odd as it sounds, we need stress in our lives to prepare us for our futures. But believe it or not, there are also benefits to teachers, as well. When teachers assign homework, believe it or not, they don't usually intend it as \"busywork\" meant to waste your time. Homework, of course, is intended to prepare the students for future classes as well review previous ones (which I mentioned in my last paragraph). But it's also a way of checking to ensure the students understand the material and are keeping up with the class. [1] In addition, by using it to prepare for future classes, homework will increase productivity because there will be more time in class for additional learning. Finally, homework also benefits our nation as a whole. When we mentioned that homework leads to higher test scores, and then also how it increases skills such as time management for the student, we must realize that these skills transfer over into a future careers and lives. When we begin to be able to explore subjects more than a 60 minute class will permit, we are increasing our knowledge and therefore furthering society as a whole. A new study recently reported that based on math, reading and science scores, the US is 36th best- in the world. [3] This is a problem. The US is 27th in math alone- out of 34 countries. [4] While these test scores are dropping by the day, it's clear that the issue isn't that we have homework, or even that are teachers are doing poor teaching. It's that we live in a society that places more emphasis on athletic achievement than academic. It's that we see people like Mark Zuckerberg succeeding without a college education and expect everyone to be like that. It's a lot of things, but obliterating our education by removing homework/placing restrictions on it is not the way to go. It's comparable removing hospitals in a plague. NOTE: I'd also like to mention that placing limits on the amount of homework a teacher can assign is unrealistic, as you mentioned, yourself, that \"certain homework is difficult for certain students\" and therefore has no set time. One may complete it in an hour, the other in 10 minutes. [1] http://www.cesdp.nmhu.edu... [2] http://www.districtadministration.com... [3] http://www.cnycentral.com... [4] http://www.oecd.org...", "qid": "47", "docid": "503cf2fa-2019-04-18T16:18:09Z-00003-000", "rank": 82, "score": 123217.0}, {"content": "Title: Ban on homework Content: According to the website teAchnology, the article \"5 reasons why kids need homework and 5 reasons they dont\" says that homework brings families closer together and also helps the parents get more involved in the kid educational life. Even get a better relationship with their teacher cause it helps them discuss the issues the child is having in class. Again, homework helps the child practice the work and benefits them to be successful in school and in life. So getting rid of homework will take some of the benefits away from learning etc.", "qid": "47", "docid": "b9c6a61b-2019-04-18T12:17:26Z-00001-000", "rank": 83, "score": 123152.0}, {"content": "Title: Homework puts students off learning. Studies have shown that many children find doing homework very... Content: If homework puts students off learning, then it has been badly planned by the teacher. The best homework tasks engage and stretch students, encouraging them to think for themselves and follow through ideas which interest them. Over time, well planned homework can help students develop good habits, such as reading for pleasure or creative writing.", "qid": "47", "docid": "8c35ffbd-2019-04-19T12:47:53Z-00015-000", "rank": 84, "score": 123144.0}, {"content": "Title: No Homework:) Content: As early as 1994 scholarly artices recognized the benefits of homework. High schoolers who are assigned homework outperform 69% of other students in the same classes without homework[1].Long term studies using a variety of research designs show the positive effects of homework.[2]Citations1. http://www.cehd.umn.edu...2. http://rer.sagepub.com...", "qid": "47", "docid": "748ad8df-2019-04-18T15:53:22Z-00000-000", "rank": 85, "score": 123109.0}, {"content": "Title: Homework should not be banned in school Content: Most students might feel that homework is an extremely tedious and useless task to do but throw me tomatoes and banana peels because I believe otherwise. Homework can help students in a plethora of ways both consciously and unconsciously. First and foremost, students are bound to become more responsible by fulfilling this task. This is because it is a given task to be completed and submitted at a due date. They will learn what they must do and when they must do it. Consequently, their time managing skills will improve. They will learn how to divide their tasks among other extra curricular activities and set aside 'tv' time or 'computer game' time which will be helpful in organization and peace of mind. Homework is also a productive way to pass time. Most teenagers or students spend their time online playing games or checking notifications on facebook to see the latest comments and likes. Doing something that would enhance their brain (as they are still young) such as math exercises or reviewing problems would be a much better way to spend time than looking at the latest post in the news feed. This leads me to my next point which is that homework increases ones knowledge. There is a reason why the teacher wants the students to review on a subject matter. If they were doing mediocre or possibly horrible at a test, facing and repeating the challenge is a must in order to prevent future mistakes from happening in their tests. No matter how much one loathes it, I believe homework is a necessary part of a student's life and should not be taken away from his/her duties", "qid": "47", "docid": "3ec31e7c-2019-04-18T16:14:06Z-00009-000", "rank": 86, "score": 122946.0}, {"content": "Title: Homework should be optional in schools Content: Although I see your point about homework giving psychological problems, most of that stress comes from parents demanding the impossible which puts an incredible amount of stress on the child. Also homework is a necessity so that students don't fall behind in the curiculum. Homework should not be accounted for in the final grades, but should not be optional. Homework also helps you increase your level of individuality, while also helping you learn your own way.. classroom tutoring will not cover all that is needed to understand an entire subject.", "qid": "47", "docid": "6bd18767-2019-04-18T14:33:51Z-00004-000", "rank": 87, "score": 122825.0}, {"content": "Title: Homework should not be mandatory Content: 1. ReviewStudents can review their work and find any troublespots they may have with the topic. Many students do not understand his or her teacher said during class hours; therefore, in order to figure out whether or not a student understands a lecture, we should give him or her homework. In addition, according to neuropsychologist Dr. Sam Goldstein and Dr. Sydney Zentall in the Department of Educational Studies in Purdue College of Education, homework can help students achieve more and receive better marks. However, doing homework not only improves a student's marks, but also improves mastery of basic skills, such as reading, writing, spelling and mathematics. It has been believed that practice makes perfect, or in other words, close to perfect. Therefore, since homework is a kind of practice, homework makes you be close to perfect. 2. Responsibility The ability to bring an assignment home, finish it in time, and bring it back for marking strengthens the students' responsibility. Nowadays, responsibility is everything. All kinds of careers require responsibility. Therefore, strengthening a child's responsibility will help him or her succeed in life. Furthermore, since many jobs are done within a time limit, it also strengthens a child's ability to complete these jobs in an amount of time. Management skills are also developed. Students must manage all of their homework and keep it in the right spot; otherwise, they will not receive a mark for it.Refutations:The sentence that Pro stated is just a claim of policy, but it is not supported by any facts or examples. However, assuming that it is a proper claim of policy, I will refute it as normal. Students are not learning new materials if they do not do homework. Since they got an A from the marks they got last term, that A is not for the current term. In other words, the A is not for the current homework a student has, it is for the past homeworks. Therefore, students should do homework regardless of their marks.I await Pro's arguments.Sources:brainyquotes.comhttp://www.hi2u.org...http://www.superkids.com...;", "qid": "47", "docid": "506b6158-2019-04-18T16:27:40Z-00004-000", "rank": 88, "score": 122734.0}, {"content": "Title: That Homework is a waste of Time. Content: \"School kids jump for joy, and parents get ready to breathe a sigh of relief. A US study has found 'no relationship' between more homework and better grades.\" Here is a quote from the Australian Woman's Weekly, it speaks for itself. Now, you're saying that it will help students get use to the idea of having work to do, that happens at school already whilst you're learning. You also pointed out that homework reinforces what you've learnt that day at school, no school will only teach a subject for one day, you go over what you've learnt from the previous class and then advance in that area. There is no amount of homework that will make anyone smart. At a young age (Primary School) it's unnecessary for kids to be given homework, it will simply give them a negative attitude towards it in the future. Once you get to high school you should do revision for tests, or perhaps class work that you didn't finish. But other than that, having set homework that a teacher has given you is unnecessary.", "qid": "47", "docid": "4c6f94e5-2019-04-18T15:09:04Z-00002-000", "rank": 89, "score": 122573.0}, {"content": "Title: homework Content: Does homework help the learning process?", "qid": "47", "docid": "d686eda-2019-04-18T12:57:55Z-00001-000", "rank": 90, "score": 122298.0}, {"content": "Title: Homework Should Be Banned Content: Homework has been a reliable tool in education for a very long time. Motions to have homework banned are a phenomenon unique to the Unites States of America [1], where there has been a strong movement against homework.The international PISA study [2] has shown that US pupils perform at or slightly below the world's average, making the American system as it is not exactly a good example of efficient schooling.So, in order to arrive at a reliable conclusion about the use of homework, we may have to look at it on a global scale.1. Homework helps pupils to consolidate what they have learnedLet's first have a look at research. In 1989 and 2006, Professor Harris Cooper from the Department Of Psychology of Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, conducted two reviews of a total of 180 studies on the topic of homework [3][4].His findings were consistent in that homework is beneficial to student success, unless it is overdone. \"Duke University researchers have reviewed more than 60 research studies on homework between 1987 and 2003 and concluded that homework does have a positive effect on student achievement. [...] Cooper said the research is consistent with the \"10-minute rule\" suggesting the optimum amount of homework that teachers ought to assign. The \"10-minute rule,\" Cooper said, is a commonly accepted practice in which teachers add 10 minutes of homework as students progress one grade. In other words, a fourth-grader would be assigned 40 minutes of homework a night, while a high school senior would be assigned about two hours.\"It's not exactly counter-intuitive, either: the more often a task is practiced, the better we get at it.Of course, there is - as with ANY training - always a risk of overdoing it. But that is only logical, too. So, there is a perfect amount of homework, and a \"too much\" just as well as a \"too little\" - as with anything in life.Abolishing homework would rob students of a chance to be better in school. There can be no doubt about that, and keeping people from improving would impede their civil rights.Homework is thus important and must be offered to pupils. It must be regulated not to overtax them. 2. Homework is an important diagnostic toolTeachers have limited resources. They can not be there for students all day, they need time to prepare lessons, review exams and be prepared to solve conflicts. They also have a right to a family life of their own, and should participate in continued training in order to be able to offer their students the best possible education. This means that ways have to be found to aid the teachers in their task of helping children get through school.Homework is an important part of this.Teachers work with their students in school teaching them subject matter. Assessment of their progress is necessary to ensure that pupils do not fail their exams. Homework is the perfect way of doing this. Students perform tasks without assistance from the teacher, under conditions not too different from an exam. By correcting these exercises, teachers can evaluate which student needs more attention and invite parents to consult them on how to support their child if the need arises.There simply isn't enough time in class to watch every student's performance. Besides, a vast majority of students is afraid of exams. Assessing students' performance in class would be just that: an exam. Homework is far less stressful, because it's usually not graded. Mistakes uncovered in homework don't harm students' grades, they are just a chance for pupil and teacher to realize where more work might be needed.3. Homework teaches more than subject materialSome people complain that homework is repetitive and seems to serve no purpose.But that is an experience all too familiar from professional careers as adults [5]. Many professional workers feel that their existence is filled with repetitive, useless work. This puts a lot of stress on them.Being prepared for this is something crucial for the process of growing up. For children, life is all fun and games. As adults, they have to set all of that aside during working hours. And when will they learn how to cope with that experience? Class is different from work, as there is always an authority in front of the students, talking to them. The students don't have to actually produce something, they are recipients of instruction. Homework, however, is quite similar to the actual working experience: being isolated, performing the same task over and over again, without any apparent reward. But homework - if put to use appropriately - only takes up a maximum of two hours a day, as opposed to a \"nine to five\" job. The result is that children are prepared for their later life and are less likely to succumb to the stress of a working life then. Routine is the key word here. Occasional reports or other long-term assignments just don't serve the same purpose of getting children used to this situation.But homework does even more than that.Doing exercises for practice in school with the assistance of a teacher makes students dependent on exterior help. They can never learn to think for themselves and solve problems on their own with a teacher always looking over their shoulder. I can sadly only offer my personal experience as a tutor in that respect. In my country, there are private schools that work without homework, where teachers assist students in school, even during exams. As a result, when these children transfer to a public school, they fail miserably whenever they are asked to perform any task all by themselves. But these skills are essential for students. At the very least, every student is completely deserted during the final exam. If the students have not learned by then how to cope with work assignments all by themselves. Homework is an important step towards self-sufficiency. And while long-term assignments do serve the same purpose, they do not really help children learn how to deal with the stress of close deadlines.The purpose of school is to get students ready for the working life. And we're not talking about rocket science here. Even hamburger vendors are required to work pressed for time. So if children are not introduced to that concept, they would fail miserably at any job out there.Is this a nice experience? No. But neither are hunger, fatigue or fear. Yet it is important not to be overprotective. Keeping any negative experience away from children harms their development [6]. Is it fair that sometimes we have to work things out all by ourselves? No, but that's how things are in LIFE. Suppose you're on a lonely road and your car breaks down. It requires practice to fight down the uprising panic, remain calm and find a solution to the problem. A child without that practice might just run off into one direction planlessly or curl up into a ball and hope that help will arrive all by itself. But the practice of overcoming fear and panic can only come from experience. Homework will help children acquire this important skill on a rather nonhazardous level. The worst thing that can happen is a little bit of humiliation and a second attempt at solving the problem.Homework is thus beneficial on multiple levels, and must not be banned for the sake of all students.[1]: http://www.sfgate.com...[2]: http://nces.ed.gov...[3]: http://tvoparents.tvo.org...[4]: http://today.duke.edu...[5]: http://hbr.org...[6]: http://everydaylife.globalpost.com...", "qid": "47", "docid": "5e2b575d-2019-04-18T16:32:42Z-00004-000", "rank": 91, "score": 122289.0}, {"content": "Title: Homework reduces the amount of time for students to do other activities Content: Homework has not prevented students doing other activities; it takes very little time to complete. Recent American surveys found that most students in the USA spent no more than an hour a night on homework. That suggests there does not seem to be a terrible problem with the amount being set. Furthermore, British studies have shown that 'more children are engaging in sport or cultural activities' than ever before.1 As such, there is no clear evidence to suggest that students are stuck at home doing their homework instead of doing other activities. In addition, concerns over how busy children are suggest that parents need to help their children set priorities so that homework does not take a back seat to school work. 1 BBC News, 2008", "qid": "47", "docid": "269c4789-2019-04-15T20:24:11Z-00014-000", "rank": 92, "score": 122265.0}, {"content": "Title: That Homework is a waste of Time. Content: Homework helps to reinforce the ideas learnt at school, as well as to help students get used to the idea of always having work to do, such as adults do in the 'Real world'. It can be said that homework is a 'waste of Time' because it is seen as 'more work at the end of the day' or 'that the work should be done at school, if it needs to be done at all.' The purpose of homework is not to give the child 'more work', but to reinforce all the ideas taught to the student that day. Studies done in 2006 report that doing homework resulted in a 26% increase in grades. This SHOWS the productive and positive affects of doing homework.", "qid": "47", "docid": "4c6f94e5-2019-04-18T15:09:04Z-00003-000", "rank": 93, "score": 122166.0}, {"content": "Title: Homework should be banned Content: Homework encourages students to work and be more independently, as they will have to at college and in their jobs. Everyone needs to develop responsibility and skills in personal organization, deadlines, being able to research, etc. If students are always \"spoon-fed\" topics at school they will never develop study skills and self-discipline for the future. A gradual increase in homework responsibilities over the years allows these skills to develop. Homework is a way for you to practice what you are learning. If you didn't have homework, you would have to stay in school until you finished your practice, and since everyone works at different rates, you'd be there until the slowest people finally caught on. Also the best way to learn something is to recall it over and over again. If you learn something in class, and then do homework at home, you'll have a better chance of actually getting the knowledge. Homework serves a valuable purpose in education. Not only does it allow students to practice what was taught in class, thereby solidifying concepts, but most importantly it teaches responsibility. Best given as a few target exercises rather than pages and pages of mindless drill, homework is a way of teaching students responsibility when the teacher is not there to \"make them learn\".People learn by doing. No matter how many times you read about something or have something explained to you until you practice the skill on your own you do not truly possess that skill. A skill, which learning any subject is, is attained in the following way: Watch someone else do it Have someone else help you do it Do it yourself Until you master the last you do not have the skill. That is where the homework part comes in homework encourages students to undertake independent learning which they will be required to do when they get to University. Many people argue that schools spoon-feed their students, which makes them completely unprepared for what awaits them at higher education when all research and further reading must be done on the student\"s own time. By setting homework in the form of projects, students will be able to learn on their own and develop skills that will serve them well in later life. It also helps to teach the students responsibility and time management skills, seeing as the teacher is not there to make them learn. Also, a lot of students prefer to learn on their own and teach themselves, rather than having a teacher lecture them. Homework encourages children to do this and may also help them to revise it more thoroughly. Whatever students have learnt in the classroom can then be reinforced and solidified by completing homework tasks. Homework can also be beneficial for the teacher as when they collect homework in to mark it, it gives them a good idea of how much their students understand what is being taught. It gives kids responsibilities and discipline it also keeps them out of trouble as well as giving parents alone time it helps kids practice what they learnt in class lets just it lets teachers to have more time to explain the topic and not worrying about the work that should be done in class because it can be done for homework. Homework plays an important role in a student's education. It fosters independent learning, it develops one's study habits and it reinforces learning. How can students complain about not having not enough recreation time? A student could create some time within 24 hours for their recreation or relaxing. Homework can also be proof that a student is up to date with their curriculum. It helps memorise information and other work. If a student attends class and then goes home free of homework, what he previously learned in class that day could have been forgotten, so homework will then bring that knowledge keep it memorised.", "qid": "47", "docid": "abf51816-2019-04-18T15:38:53Z-00002-000", "rank": 94, "score": 122101.0}, {"content": "Title: That Homework Should be Banned Content: I don't understand the silly debate that my opponent has posted but I will continue with my second argument. Onto my first point, that children develop time management and study skills by doing homework. Time management skills and study skills are important part of a students life. Homework is able to benefit them in future life with juggling children and work. Students are able to develop these skills as they have to divide their time to fit homework and other activities such as sport or free time. Without homework where will these skills come from? From a study of professor's Lyn Corno and Jianzhong Xu examined taped sessions with interviews with parents and students. The results found that a third grade student is able to learn responsibility and time management skills. The students interviewed also were able to adjust there study habits and independent learning to suit the demand of a assignment or test. These results were also confirmed by professor David Warton from the UNSW. The results confirm homework benefits you and helps develop study skills as well as life skills. My second point is that homework establishes a communication link between students, teachers and parents. A bond between a student, teacher and parent is very important for the students academic and physical achievements. Parents are able to see the quality of the curriculum and the benefit it is to the student. Not only does homework allow the parent to understand what the student is learning but also develops the relationship and gives time for the parent and student to bond. Without homework would you be spending more time on technology or bonding with your parents? The relationships between parents and teachers is a very important aspect and assisting in the building of the students learning. Teachers and parents are able to communicate at meetings, conferences, phone calls and email. Research shows that the more parents and teachers who share relevant information with each other about the student, the better equipped both will be able to help to that student achieve academically. This shows that parents are more than capable to help students learn. If parents don't understand the curriculum they are able to learn online. Trials at school are starting in Melbourne and consist of an afternoon session were parents are able to be in a learning environment and be educated by teachers to the new curriculum. HOMEWORK IS NOT A CHORE ITS A BRAIN SCORE", "qid": "47", "docid": "b7e16db9-2019-04-18T14:29:56Z-00000-000", "rank": 95, "score": 121943.0}, {"content": "Title: Homework puts students off learning Content: If homework puts students off learning, then it has been badly planned by the teacher. As Linda Darling-Hammond, a professor of Education notes, 'many teachers lack the skills to design homework assignments that help kids learn and don't turn them off to learning' .1 The best homework tasks engage and stretch students, encouraging them to think for themselves and follow through ideas which interest them. Over time, well planned homework can help students develop good habits, such as reading for pleasure or creative writing. The research however suggests that homework is not in fact putting students off learning. Rather studies in Britain indicate that 'most children are happy (and) most are achieving a higher level than before'.2 Homework cannot be blamed for a problem that does not exist. Poor children may indeed lack support to do their homework, but this just means that schools need to do more to provide the help they need. 1 Strauss, 2006 2 BBC News, 2008", "qid": "47", "docid": "269c4789-2019-04-15T20:24:11Z-00016-000", "rank": 96, "score": 121930.0}, {"content": "Title: This House Believes That Homework is Futile in Today's Soceity Content: http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org... Although i admit that too much homework is bad and that homework doesn't mean student achievement. Homework does in fact help someone consolidate information. I support 1-2 hours of home work because I feel that it is beneficial to that extent. futile-pointless I will show why homework is not pointless first i will negate my opponents main argument: \"\"study for a plethora of tests and quizzes, play sports, get involved in the community, eat food with nutritional value, and get an adequate amount of sleep, all in one day?\"\" I am a student athlete, i am also an A student as well as being actively involved in my church and other clubs. Eating nutritional food has no correlation with doing homework. 6-7 hours of sleep is adequete and manageable with all the other things I do. To answer your question, I do a little trick called time management skills. During boring classes, i optimize efficiency by doing homework or studying to reduce time back at home. I take naps on bus rides to ensure that i am energized for the day ahead. I plan what i'm gonna do and what i have to prioritize. \"\"As a student, I don't get home from school until 4:30 or 5:00 and I am doing homework sometimes until 8:30 almost every night. It is very stressful when you have seven classes a day and homework in every single class; it becomes very overwhelming. On top of that, I have to get up every morning at 5:30 am just to catch my buss at 6:40. Many mornings are very hard for me because of lack of sleep from the night before staying up doing homework and studying for two or three tests the next day.\"\" so you do homework until 8:30 and yet you can't find adequete ammounts of sleep. 8:30-5:30 is like 9 hours of sleep, that's plenty. You need to either A) know how to stress yourself out less by doing exercise or meditation or B) stop trying so hard in school and learn to be more efficient. You most likely taking classes you can't handle and that's why your overstressed. \"\" they banned homework, test scores might improve because then students would have more time to study and be prepared than if we have five different subjects to do on top of studying for a test the next day.\"\" That may not be true, most kids when given free time, watch netflix or play Xbox. The really dedicated ones who would study if they had time most likely already do study since they prioritize. Also, kids can study in the summer if they really wanted to. \"\"one reason why homework should be banned is because homework is just too much.\" why don't we just assign less homework then and not ban it completely. \"\"Another reason why homework should be banned is because it is evil.\"\" Lol, you have plenty of time to go to sleep. Homework is voluntary, the government doesn't force you to do it. You are obligated to do it for a better grade but you don't have to sacrifice everything if you truly don't want to. \"\"according to research some of the smartest country like Finland and Japan don\"t have homework. We can be just as smart as or smarter than them without homework. This shows that homework have no academic achievements towards grades. This is why kids should not repeat not have homework.\"\" This statement has no evidence to back it up. You cited Finland as an example of where there is no homework yet they're doing fine. This article to some extent agrees with you, but it also shows that they're are factors aside from that. In Finnishsocieties, teachers are looked as something good for the community. Finnish classroom sizes are also much smaller which allows for more individual learning time. In Finland, they're are no accelerated class so everyone learns at the same pace(which is bad for high achievers like me). We cannot become like Finland!! Abolishing homework does not lead to more academic success, that is from the basis of a logical fallacy. Correlation between no homework and high test scores does not mean causation. You know what is correlated with better test scores? Good teachers, which Finland has an America sadly lags behind in.\"More than two decades of research findings are unequivocal about the connection between teacher quality and student learning.\" http://www.smithsonianmag.com... http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org... onto my main points Homework is far from pointless. It exercises the most important organ in your body, your brain. Without homework, we wouldn't mentally stimulate ourselves and we won't apply ourselves anywhere outside of school. Doing homework ensures that you know what the teacher is teaching and you know if you understand concepts enough to apply them to homework questions etc. The education system is here to prepare ourselves for the workforce and stressful scenarios. Oftentime, people who work have things or objectives to complete at home(businessmen) and homework teaches people how to prioritize outside of the workplace. Homework is voluntary. You won't get arrested for not doing homework. Homework is just work in itself, if you want to apply yourself and get a good grade, you should do it. If you can't handle all the stress and all the time management you have to do, then don't. It's simple really. Homework prepares you for the workload you will receive in universities. Universities oftentime require their students to write essays, lab reports, take home tests, and a whole lot of other stuff. If students weren't taught how to effectively do homework and essays at home outside of school, then these students may fail these courses. Our university system is the BEST in the world, you can't disagree with that. Our homework load prepares us for these awesome universities. 6 out of the top ten universities are in the US, 4 in the UK, and both do homework. Where is Finland on that chart? This House Believes That Homework is Futile in Today's Soceity Homework helps you spell. When you write an essay, you are crtiqued on your grammer or spelling errors. This helps you learn from your errors. You misspelled society in your title. \"\"This House Believes That Homework is Futile in Today's Soceity\"\" This shows how much homework you need to do and how educated you truly are.", "qid": "47", "docid": "ed89f195-2019-04-18T15:14:40Z-00004-000", "rank": 97, "score": 121667.0}, {"content": "Title: Homework is a waste of time Content: To my mind We have to expect to get a certain amount of homework per day and build other activities around the homework. Homework can be a useful part of time with family as it provides a chance for parents and other relatives to take part in schooling. Also, I would like to add that We should think of homework as being a continuation of our classwork. Not everyone in the class works at the same rate so it is necessary for teachers to give anyone who is falling behind the chance to catch up. If this was done in class those who are faster would have nothing to do during this time, which would be a real waste of time. Homework then allows those who are behind to take as long as they need to catch up with the rest of the class. Of course, you may say that teachers should not give classwork as homework. However, what about that during lesson students have a habit to ask many questions in order to understand a new topic, therefore teachers do not have enough time to explain everything. Moreover, if they leave some information due to they have a schedule for every academic year then what knowledge will students have?", "qid": "47", "docid": "6013441c-2019-04-18T16:58:33Z-00005-000", "rank": 98, "score": 121596.0}, {"content": "Title: Homework is Necessary Content: In Round 2 I'm going to discuss 2) The benefits of homework on the ability to perform, And 3) Why the practicality of homework should appeal to all. As for my first point of discussion, I think the famous saying goes; save the best until last. Firstly, As a precursor, I think when discussing the topic of stress, Homework is one of the minor impacts directly affecting it. My reasoning for this is that for homework students are normally given ample time to complete the assignment and furthermore, Are able to most importantly take it home, Allowing them up to at least 5 hours a night to complete such assignment but also with access to the Internet, Communication with their parents, Their peers and teachers (via email or face-to-face inside or out of school). I think perhaps a more suitable reason for the stress direct to an individual would be poor time management, Not allowing them to factor in necessary activities such as homework, But rather leaving this too late then distressing as to why there is so much to do in such little time. Secondly, As aforementioned, The practicality of homework is so simple, And that the only barrier students create for themselves is poor time management. You're able to take this homework to anyone in your social circle and they will gladly help you, Especially teachers who value students excessively that ask for help when needed. With correct habits and priorities, Children can turn homework into something that they take pride in and reap great rewards from, Not just a burden to carry until the latest possible moment. On the practicality discussion, It is also relevant that students often get lost when it comes to \"revision\", They don't know what to cover, What structures to produce for themselves. So, Having a teacher set a specific piece of homework can even be a burden released from the student, With them not having to worry about covering the wrong topics. Thirdly, The benefits of homework quantity on student achievement has proven time and time again that it has helped students access higher grades, With the relationship being a positive correlation, Thus one of the main reasons why it has remained in our society for so long. Homework being set from a young age greatly aids children in the preparation for examinations and tests later on in their education, With homework often incorporating essay style writing and homework also provides the ability for students to work together in their own time, Developing team building and interaction skills towards something that matters; the cultivation of themselves - the topic I will discuss next round.", "qid": "47", "docid": "dee3e592-2019-04-18T11:16:51Z-00001-000", "rank": 99, "score": 121474.0}, {"content": "Title: Homework Content: Thank you for bringing up this topic, as I will be quite happy to refute your arguements. Although your topic is not quite clear, I shall believe that as I am pro, I am saying that homework is good. Homework, especially in America, is a fundamental part of children's education. It is a necessary tool to go over what they learned during class. Most, if not all, of classes need to review topics. Listening and taking notes is not enough in school. If children do not have homework, would they actually go over notes? Would they really find worksheets to fill in, projects to make, essays to write, and problems to solve? Unless their parents enforce their kids to do work, if homework was optional, at least 90% of kids wouldn't do homework! Even for the children who WOULD do the homework, homework is an essential guide that leads them to success on their next test or quiz. To sum it up, homework is a necessary tool, most children wouldn't do homework if it was optional, and it will make them better students.", "qid": "47", "docid": "cf3337ae-2019-04-18T18:36:24Z-00005-000", "rank": 100, "score": 121436.0}]}
{"query": "Should the voting age be lowered?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: voting age should be lowered Content: I will gladly accept", "qid": "48", "docid": "abb42382-2019-04-18T16:14:47Z-00004-000", "rank": 1, "score": 220929.0}, {"content": "Title: Voting age limit should be reduced to 15-16 Content: Give your rebuttals in round 2 along with the opening argument. The voting age should be lowered as it would give a wider range of voters and give more free will to students. Wider range of voters Not all people in a country are even interested in politics, much less for voting. Furthermore, adults can be paid to vote, but children have a more idealistic sense and may be harder to corrupt. Children would be harder to buy as they haven't seen the real world yet, therefore believe that their vote matters and that they should be loyal towards their country in voting. Furthermore, as children don't earn money, they don't understand the difficulty of earning money and therefore would need more money for their vote to be bought. Free will Decisions of the political party severely impact teenagers, such as changes in the age limits of drinking, driving, gambling, and movies. Then why they don't have a right to choose their future?", "qid": "48", "docid": "d003097b-2019-04-18T13:09:47Z-00003-000", "rank": 2, "score": 179770.0}, {"content": "Title: The Voting Age Limit Should be Lowered Content: I accept. Voting is the process in which we choose the officials that will represent us, and requires a lot of thought. Through voting, we elect citizens into government offices and put our trust into them, and hope they will represent us correctly. Because this is such an important decision, I believe that the voting age should remain at 18 and not reduced to 17 or 16.", "qid": "48", "docid": "2a12b5f8-2019-04-18T16:35:53Z-00004-000", "rank": 3, "score": 179636.0}, {"content": "Title: The Voting Age Limit Should be Lowered Content: In my opinion, the voting age would be better off staying the same. From the amount of young people already neglecting their right to vote, to potential of misuse of the vote, it is worthless and/or potentially disruptive to the voting system. Even though 16 year old kids do have several rights, voting is important, and therefore 16 year olds must be taught some responsibilities before they have the right to vote. Therefore, the voting age should remain at 18, and I think most people agree that lowering the voting age would be a risk that isn't worth it to take. Thank you for the debate 1davey29.", "qid": "48", "docid": "2a12b5f8-2019-04-18T16:35:53Z-00000-000", "rank": 4, "score": 179628.0}, {"content": "Title: The Voting Age Limit Should be Lowered Content: My opinion is that the voting age limit should be lowered to 16 as that is in the very center of the passage from childhood to adulthood. Many responsibilities are given to people at the age of 16 and I believe that voting for president should be one of them.", "qid": "48", "docid": "2a12b5f8-2019-04-18T16:35:53Z-00001-000", "rank": 5, "score": 179290.0}, {"content": "Title: The Voting Age Should Be Dropped to 16 Content: Young people today are well informed enough and mature enough to vote so the voting age should be lowered.", "qid": "48", "docid": "452eaf9c-2019-04-18T19:48:30Z-00003-000", "rank": 6, "score": 178731.0}, {"content": "Title: The voting age should be lowered to 14 Content: At 14, you are mature enough to vote.", "qid": "48", "docid": "d01d031e-2019-04-18T16:42:46Z-00000-000", "rank": 7, "score": 178524.0}, {"content": "Title: the voting age should be lowered to 16. Content: My opponent has not refuted any of my points and thus I have won this debate. They have no argument and my case still stands strong.", "qid": "48", "docid": "2045b810-2019-04-18T19:12:56Z-00000-000", "rank": 8, "score": 177966.0}, {"content": "Title: Voting at a lower age would increase participation Content: Earlier voting is not a solution to the low turnout problem, the electoral commission in the UK concluded .here is evidence to suggest that extending the franchise will actually create lower turnout and projections about if it would get higher cannot be sufficiently determined[1] At the moment 18-25 year olds are the least likely to cast a vote at election time. Youth membership of political parties is falling. Lowering the voting age still further is therefore likely to reduce turnout even more. Most people don\u2019t vote because they think the election system is unfair, their vote does not count, or because they don\u2019t trust any of the political parties on offer - lowering the voting age won\u2019t solve these problems. Instead with a generation that is increasingly online, to take the UK 21 million households (80%) had internet access in 2012[2], and there are over 6.4 million iPhone users,[3] the answer is therefore to engage them digitally not through trying some magic bullet at the ballot box. [1] The Electoral Commission, \u2018Voting age should stay at 18 says the Electoral Commission\u2019, 19 April 2004 [2] Office for national statistics, \u2018Statistical bulletin: Internet Access \u2013 Households and Individuals, 2012\u2019, 24 August 2012 [3] NMA Staff, \u2018UK iPhone users to reach 6.4m this year\u2019, New media age, 6 August 2010", "qid": "48", "docid": "ca9d6789-2019-04-15T20:24:25Z-00012-000", "rank": 9, "score": 177680.0}, {"content": "Title: The voting age should be reduced to 14. Content: Heck, no! Today's kids are way too immature and ignorant to be trusted with such a privilege. We need to raise the age to 21 and make it so only male landowners can vote. Liberalism will die in one election cycle.", "qid": "48", "docid": "c0b1c40c-2019-04-18T13:10:29Z-00004-000", "rank": 10, "score": 175982.0}, {"content": "Title: the voting age should be lowered to 16. Content: My opponent has not refuted any of my points and thus their entire case can be considered null and void as of now because they have not responded to my refute. Hopefully, they will post in the next round...", "qid": "48", "docid": "2045b810-2019-04-18T19:12:56Z-00001-000", "rank": 11, "score": 175942.0}, {"content": "Title: voting age should be lowered Content: acceptance only, this is for voting rights for 16&17 year olds", "qid": "48", "docid": "abb42382-2019-04-18T16:14:47Z-00005-000", "rank": 12, "score": 175713.0}, {"content": "Title: Voting age limit should be reduced to 15-16 Content: There's a bunch of reasons why the voting age shouldn't be lowered The average 16 year old would be completely uninterested in politics and wouldn't even know the importance of voting. There are only a small minority of 15-16 who are interested in politics and want to help change their country. If the voting age was lowered to 15-16 then the kids would vote which one is \"the cool one\", also candidates could easily the vote from a child by promising to destroy homework or by making detentions illegal while on the other side that same candidate is about to make bad decisions for the country. Con states that \"Children would be harder to buy\" which is false. You could pay a child almost any amount to do something especially if it was just voting, the child would see that as writing on a piece of paper. Children are easily corrupted especially at a young age, this is why we shouldn't lower the voting age.", "qid": "48", "docid": "d003097b-2019-04-18T13:09:47Z-00002-000", "rank": 13, "score": 175498.0}, {"content": "Title: That the voting age should be lowered to 15 Content: I will just clarify the rules, but, as stated they seem to be correct. Pro has the BoP. Specifically, if Pro cannot prove why the voting age should be lowered, then Pro has lost the debate. It is not enough to simply argue that it doesn't matter whether or not the voting age should be lowered (i. e. lowering it has no effect)--Pro must make the case that's it's beneficial in some way or another to lower the voting age.", "qid": "48", "docid": "6d6965d5-2019-04-18T17:51:17Z-00006-000", "rank": 14, "score": 175443.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: The voting age in presidential elections should be lowered to 17 Content: Thank you for responding quickly, I shall offer the following framework since one was not provided. Framework We need to weigh the effect on the election process and results over everything else in today\u2019s debate. Thus, if con were to show that the voting age being lowered to 17 is a net harm, then the judge should feel comfortable with voting on the negation. Contention 1: Uninformed voters Under the status quo we see that many voters are unaware of the political process. In fact, if we were to turn toward a poll from the McCormick Tribune Freedom Museum shows that only 1/1000 Americans know the first 5 freedoms given by the first amendment (1). This is a problem because when people are standing at their voting booths, we see that they are not informed at all about the very basic rights given to us. We can see further in depth why voters are usually misinformed or uninformed with a startling statistic from a study conducted by the American Press Institute and the Center for Public Affairs Research, which states that 30% of Americans do not go in-depth in news stories (2). In fact, we can see this by looking at the following graphic (2). Forbes goes into more specifics by showing the fact that the average voter is usually uninformed and biased toward the political party they represent (3). Why does this matter? Well, if we were to allow those at the age of 17 to vote, we would be adding to this problem. In fact, the average high school senior usually does know about the basics of government in the US, but 75% of them are not considered \u201cproficient\u201d in civics (4). If these are high school seniors, could you imagine the political understanding of a freshman? Well, you do not have to take my word for it, a poll of incoming freshman has determined that only 26% of them considered politics important, or kept up to date with political affairs. In other words, we would be diluting the already weak voter base so that more uninformed people would be participating in voting. We would be able to see this because generally, despite a minor decrease in the 2012 election, numbers of youth voters have remained static (5). This shows that despite a generally static trend in young voters, there is still a generally uninformed youth-voter base, which would only increase with this resolution due to allowing more people to vote. In fact, according to CIRCLE, an organization that focuses on youth in voting, has found that off the states with the most influence from the 2016 election, most of them are swing states and states where there is no general consensus on who would win. In other words, the votes from young voters could decide the election (12). This would cause problems, because without an informed base of people voting, we would see that people would be making decisions affecting many people without being necessarily informed about the magnitude, or impact of the decision. Ergo, unqualified people taking office would be the net harm under the resolution. Thus, we need to negate to prevent incompetent leaders. Contention 2: Propaganda With teen voters, we would see that propaganda would have an increased effect. In the status quo, we see that teenagers are usually more prone to impulses and their environment, as shown by the Harvard Magazine in 2008 (6). This is important because of the frequency of political advertisements and attack ads which populate the entire spectrum of media. In fact, on TV ads alone, the total spent on advertisement was $4.4 billion, which is a huge number which reaches 87% of people over the age of 18 (7). This would increase for the technology obsessed youth with increased focus on social media in recent years, as candidates are more likely to tweet, go on Facebook, or both. In fact, according to a Pew Research poll, over 70% of teens go on Facebook, and the majority of teens who use social media use more than one site (8). This is a problem due to the aforementioned political propaganda. This can be easily seen as a recent report by New Republic which found the following (9): \u201cThe prod to nudge bystanders to the voting booths was simple. It consisted of a graphic containing a link for looking up polling places, a button to click to announce that you had voted, and the profile photos of up to six Facebook friends who had indicated they\u2019d already done the same.\u201d What was the result? There was a .39% more of a chance that people would vote for what the friends\u2019? preferences were. The ripple effect of friends on Facebook influencing others resulted in more than 300,000 votes for a particular candidate (9). This powerful tool could result in \u201cdigital gerrymandering,\u201d where people abused this tactic to get people to vote for others. This would be incredibly effective against the easily-influenced minds of teenagers, who are proven to act on impulse. Thus, we would be seeing political candidates having an advantage by targeting teens at an unprecedented rate. This is happening in the status quo with Donald Trump, who uses Twitter, a social media outlet, quite often to appeal to the 90% of young adults who use the site (10). This is confirmed by the fact that the majority of young republicans actually support Donald Trump. This is not a coincidence, and with the popularity of social media and the teen\u2019s ability to be influenced means that political candidates will take advantage with propaganda, meaning a negative vote is necessary. Thus, I urge you to negate this resolution. Counter Plan What needs to be seen is the problem and the solution. Since teenagers are not represented in politics, then we can allow them to form political clubs or PACs to further political goals. We can push for more time spent contacting state senators to make sure that youth are represented as well. Not only this, but we need to make sure that people who are voting are actually competent, thus we need to establish an observable metric that could determine the overall competence of the voter when it comes to basic rights, current events, and politics in general. However, the resolution has unreasonably harmful effects, thus a negative vote is the only vote one can imagine to be beneficial to the voting process. Conclusion One must conclude that lowering the voting age to 17 will produce harms on the electoral system and will skew the results of elections with unfair propaganda being used by future political candidates. Ergo, one must negate. 1. (http://tinyurl.com...) 2. (http://tinyurl.com...) 3. (http://tinyurl.com...) 4. (http://tinyurl.com...) 5. (http://tinyurl.com...) 6. (http://tinyurl.com...) 7. (http://tinyurl.com...) 8. (http://tinyurl.com...) 9. (http://tinyurl.com...) 10. (http://tinyurl.com...) 11. (http://tinyurl.com...) 12. (http://tinyurl.com...)", "qid": "48", "docid": "6623faa8-2019-04-18T13:12:04Z-00005-000", "rank": 15, "score": 174786.0}, {"content": "Title: Should the voting age be lowered Content: 1) I`m not saying we lower the age to 8, I`m saying we lower the age to like 16 or something, and the teenage brain does not get fully developed until about 25 anyway. And in the article you submitted said \"If they feel pressured, stressed, or are seeking attention from their peers\" and voting is none of those things http://www.abc.net.au... http://www.bbc.com... 2) more adults (according to NBC) have died than kids so your argument is invalid https://twitter.com... 3) See example one", "qid": "48", "docid": "aeb43fe9-2019-04-18T11:40:53Z-00003-000", "rank": 16, "score": 174545.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: The voting age in presidential elections should be lowered to 17 Content: Rules1. Comment before accepting the debate2. It may take me a while to respond, so be patient3. No trolling4. No kritiks5. No forfeiture6. Be courteous7. No new arguments in final focus, you may refute if you want to.Round structureR1- Pro provides caseR2- Con (me) present my case, pro refutesR3- Con refutes, pro final focusR4- Con final focus, Pro waives", "qid": "48", "docid": "6623faa8-2019-04-18T13:12:04Z-00007-000", "rank": 17, "score": 173960.0}, {"content": "Title: There needs to be a cut off Content: This applies equally to having the cut off at 16 rather than 18. If it is questionable at both ages then since this is an issue of human rights we should err on the side of caution and give the vote to as many as possible. This would mean lowering the voting age.", "qid": "48", "docid": "ca9d6789-2019-04-15T20:24:25Z-00022-000", "rank": 18, "score": 173896.0}, {"content": "Title: Voting Age Should be Lowered to 16 Content: Introduction Hello, Con! I am excited to debate this issue for many reasons: my primary one, however, is because I have not debated in a long time and this looks like a good debate to get myself back in gear. It is an interesting idea, and you make some pretty interesting points. However, I feel I can counter them, and provide a few good reasons of my own for why the voting age should be lowers, or, at least, why eighteen year olds are no more responsible or mature than a sixteen or seventeen year old. I know that this will fulfill my burden of proof, but it will at least, hopefully, show why your arguments are not quite as good as you may believe them to be, in my opinion. That being said, let's start with rebuttals! Rebuttal 1: Maturity My primary issues with this point are that you have not provided statistical support for your claim, and you are begging the question. You are basing your reasoning behind why you believe eighteen year olds are more mature than sixteen year olds on things such as military age. However, this conclusion is under the assumption that eighteen year olds are mature enough to join the military, or that sixteen year olds are not mature enough to. The primary reason why the age to join the military is eighteen and not sixteen is because most sixteen year olds are in high school. This is not a problem of maturity, but a problem of circumstance. Of course, I can also turn this argument around and say that, because sixteen year olds are mature enough to own and drive a car, they should be allowed to vote. I am sure you disagree with this reasoning: but why? It is the same reasoning you are using with why they should not; I'm only turning it on its head. In fact, you made this point for me! \u201cIf 18 year olds are not yet mature enough to walk into a pub how can they be mature enough to decide the future of an entire country.\u201d I would hardly say that the amount of teenagers paying taxes is low: \u201cAt any given time approximately 45% of 16-17 year olds will be working and up to 80% of all teens will have a job before they graduate from high school. \u201d (1) If you have a job, even as a teenager, you pay taxes. That does not even take into account the fact that teens overall spent an estimated 9.7 billion in sales taxes alone! (2) Our brain is not fully developed until we hit thirty. Indeed. Are you arguing that we should increase the voting system, then, to 30? Rebuttal 2: Experience Why would you not trust a sixteen year old with your life? What about a sixteen year old makes them more untrustworthy than an eighteen year old? Furthermore, sixteen year olds cannot run for office. This is true. However, neither can an eighteen year old. Can you guess what the youngest age you can be to run for any political office in the United States of America? 25. (3) Are you arguing that we should raise the age to 25? But they are not fully developed themselves; so, 30? Yes, most 16 or 17 year olds have not had a long-term job or have run their own lives. But neither will an 18 year old: in fact, most people will not have this responsibility until they leave college, which is usually around 22 (given that post people finish college with a bachelor's degree). This is not even mentioning the fact that, whoever is on the ballot, adults will vote for at the same percentage as children. If children can vote bad, than adults can vote bad as well. There is no objectively wrong vote, though; one's opinion is their own. Your basic argument regarding the whole untrustworthy children when it comes to making decisions is one that can be applied to any adult. After all, I wouldn't trust just any adult with my life. Sixteen year olds would have the same options as adults. Rebuttal 3: Responsibility That logic is just silly. You must prove that a sixteen year old cannot fulfill the role of a juryman. The primary reason they are not is, once again, a problem of circumstance: being on jury requires that you miss school. Furthermore, juryman are decided based on voting registrars; you have to vote to be a part of a jury! So, this begs the question: 16 or 17 year olds cannot vote because they cannot be juryman because they cannot vote. This is circular logic. Point 1: No taxation without representation It is what the founding fathers fought for: teenagers pay quite a bit in taxes, as I have already pointed out in rebuttal one. As such, they deserve the same level of representation as others who pay taxes. Indeed, they may not pay the same amount in taxes as everybody else, but circumstances have always been a factor in what taxes are given to what people. After all, 47% of people do not pay income tax, because of age or socioeconomic standing (most are elderly or poor, or both). Point 2: Stability Sixteen and seventeen are good times to vote, stability-wise. Eighteen is one of the worst times, in fact. Sixteen and seventeen year olds are stationary; they attend school and have a regular social life. They have no real major changes that affect their lives. However, eighteen year olds are generally transitioning to colleges, attempting to find stable employment, and sometimes trying to find a place to live. This is also a time of economic instability: after all, college is significantly more expensive than anything you'll need to pay for in high school, and those who do not go to college still need to find a way to sustain themselves outside of their parent's homes. They are still trying to settle down. Point 3: Voter Turnout Voter turnout will increase if you lower the voting age. Studies such as Merrill's study of five states that had implemented a program called Kids Voting USA, which gives children information on voting and politics, and five states that did not implement the program. He found that parent turnout increased three percent, due to parents being inspired to vote due to their kid's enthusiasm to voting. The number was as high as nine percent in some states! (4) It would be logical, therefore, that voter turnout would increase in both children and adults if the voting age was lowered. Point 4: Unique point of view Voters will, obviously, vote based on their circumstances in life. As teenagers have a different point of view as, say, a mentally senile seventy-three year old man (who has just as much right to vote as a mentally stable thirty year old), they will provide a unique point of view to the election. Along with that, their views will be heard and considered by politicians when they make political decisions that affect things such as education and raising or lowing minimum wage, as just a few examples. Conclusion I eagerly await my opinion's response. This was a lot of fun! Best of luck to my opponent; his opinions are interesting, but I am curious of his actual position: is he in favor of keeping the minimum age of voting at eighteen? Or is he in favor of increasing the voting age? Based on what he said, it seems like the latter. If that is the case, this should be a very interesting debate indeed. Sources:(1) www.oshainfo.gatech.edu/teen-techguide1.pdf (WARNING: This is a PDF file. You'll need some form of reader to access it.)(2) http://www.youthrights.org...; second point(3)http://www.earlyamerica.com...(4)http://www.uvm.edu...", "qid": "48", "docid": "44c7d18-2019-04-18T18:04:38Z-00004-000", "rank": 19, "score": 173859.0}, {"content": "Title: The voting age should be lowered to 14 Content: Although at 14 your brain is not fully developed, it's developed enough to cast an independently made decision (outside of influence) because you can independently judge at 14 and at 14 you should be able to understand the long term impact of complex policies (I was able to understand such things at 14). Also things like healthcare affect 14 year olds and they should have say in the government.", "qid": "48", "docid": "d01d031e-2019-04-18T16:42:46Z-00003-000", "rank": 20, "score": 173595.0}, {"content": "Title: Voting Age Should be Lowered to 16 Content: Voting Age Should not be LoweredThere are three main reasons why voting age should not be lowered, these are: 16 and 17 year olds are not mature enough, they do not yet have enough experience or are as aware of the world around them and the way it will effect their lives and that 16 and 17 year olds and their lack of understanding on the responsibility of casting a voteFirstly, are 16 and 17 year olds mature enough to handle a vote? No, they are not. If they are not yet considered mature enough to be in the army, protecting and making decisions for their country, they are definitely not mature enough to decide the future of themselves and others. Most 16 and 17 year olds do not pay taxes, so therefore none of their money will go towards the way their government is running the country. If 18 year olds are not yet mature enough to walk into a pub how can they be mature enough to decide the future of an entire country. As well as this your brain is still not fully developed until you turn 30.16 and 17 year olds have not got enough experience of the world to vote. They will not have had a long term job or the responsibility of running their own lives but the proposition would hand the way the country is run to a 16 year old? If you would not trust an average 16 year old with your life why would you give them our country. We do not have 16 or17 year old politicians so why have voters that age? They will both do the same, decide the future of the country.Could a 16 or 17 year old handle the responsibility of voting? You are only allowed to be part of a jury when you are 18 and older, making the decision that could change someone's life forever. This shows they could not handle the responsibility of deciding the future of millions of the other people in their country. So no, they could not handle this responsibility.So as I have shown 16 and year olds should not get a vote, if you disagree please accept my challenge!", "qid": "48", "docid": "44c7d18-2019-04-18T18:04:38Z-00005-000", "rank": 21, "score": 173080.0}, {"content": "Title: Should the voting age be lowered Content: The voting age should be lowered for many reasons: 1) People think that kids would make horrible choices with the power to vote, but adults make horrible choices too. like for instance look at who is in office right now. Us teenagers did not. 2) The government can control our choices, so we should have a say in the government. 3) We are at least somewhat mature (i would say mature but some are not and are probably going to stay that way through adulthood anyway)", "qid": "48", "docid": "aeb43fe9-2019-04-18T11:40:53Z-00005-000", "rank": 22, "score": 172959.0}, {"content": "Title: The voting age should be lowered to 16 Content: The younger generation is arguably affected the most by many of the votes that take place across this world, yet they do not get a say in what happens. I believe they should, hence why the voting age should be lowered to 16.", "qid": "48", "docid": "d01debdc-2019-04-18T12:30:47Z-00001-000", "rank": 23, "score": 172922.0}, {"content": "Title: Lowering the voting age Content: Ladies and gentlemen, in this debate I am here to oppose the motion that the house would lower the voting age to 18. The context of this debate is that there is a low voter turnout. That is the problem that brings us to have this debate. Also this is not due to the fact that the voting age is too high, but it is due to the fact that there is voter apathy and lack of mature and politically active electorate. So, firstly, I will prove that lowering the voting age has inherent harms and should not be undertaken. And secondly, I will present an alternative that raises both voter quality, and participation rates. Moving onto my first argument, which is that it is impossible to find a reliable standard for maturity among young people. And, equating age with maturity is simply wrong, ladies and gentlemen. So, on the first level of analysis, what is the standard of maturity? We challenge the proposition to give us a clear, objective standard, and support for the idea that 18 is a reliable standard, as opposed to the legal age in Korea of 19. And second of all, in the second level of analysis, equating age with maturity is simply wrong, because young people of today are simply less mature than in the past, and are more sheltered than ever. Young people were forced to grow up quickly, and assume responsibility in society quickly in the past, ladies and gentlemen. They were forced to have jobs earlier, to marry earlier, but that is not the case today. Today, many children in Korea are being spoiled, letting their parents deal with their problems, even after they are quite old, ladies and gentlemen. And the so-called \"kangaroo youth\" are becoming an international problem. A prominent example of this is the Hanhwa chairman fighting for his son who was over 20 years old at the time, ladies and gentlemen. So we say that actually young people today are less mature and we see no reason what-so-ever to lower the age more than the maturity age that was in the past. For my second point, which is that young people of today are more likely to vote for style rather than substance. Not only are the young people today less mature, they are also very pop-culture oriented, easily persuaded by candidates who may be popular rather than good with high quality, which will reduce the quality of the votes overall, and distort the candidate's focus, ladies and gentlemen. And on the second level of analysis, the majority of young people today do not care about political substance. We demand that the proposition show us an uprising among young people in Korea to get the voting age lowered. Without this, how can they prove the political will among 18-year-olds? Is there a clear, measurable standard for determining the level of political participation and willingness among the youth? I say there isn't. And finally, to my third argument. The opposition brings you an alternative that can effectively solve the problem, as opposed to the harmful proposition plan. The counterplan is a compulsory voting clause in the law plus various measures to increase participation, such as voters' education, guaranteed government subsidy on candidate platforms, media broadcasted debates, \"Get out the Vote\" campaigns, and et cetera. What is needed is more people voting wisely, not a lowering voting age. The compulsory voting clause will bring clearly increased participation regardless of enforcement. In Thailand, this is not enforced, but even if it wasn't enforced, the voting rates rose by about 15% after the clause was established. And in Uruguay, it was enforced, and the voting rate soared from 67% to 88.2%. So it is clear that the benefits are existent whether you enforce it or not, and the government can choose enforcement. But either way, the clause plus the supplemented participation measures, such as Bush's \"Get out the Vote\" movement, will be successful. Because of these reasons, I ask you in this round to oppose this motion. Thank you.", "qid": "48", "docid": "a7acd758-2019-04-18T19:54:02Z-00003-000", "rank": 24, "score": 172782.0}, {"content": "Title: The lowering of the voting age>>> Content: Where oh where to begin... For starters, this is an insult to those who are 24 and have graduated college. Especially those who have graduated Yale, Harvard, MIT, or any other ivy-league school. I will even go as far as to say some 14 year olds have the brain capacity to vote intelligently, although I'm not saying that we should lower the voting age to 14. You are applying a small statistic to a vast number of people. Your argument is just completely illogical and it's, as I said, an insult to many of the middle-aged voters in the United States. 25 year olds are able to see the ramifications of their actions quite clearly whether it be voting, driving, or anything else.", "qid": "48", "docid": "dac67b43-2019-04-18T15:27:10Z-00006-000", "rank": 25, "score": 172410.0}, {"content": "Title: The Voting Age in the U.S.A. Should Be Lowered to 14 Content: Because of working restrictions on children under 16, dependent 14-year-olds most likely don't make enough money to have to file an income tax return, and considering, then, the incredibly low statistic of 14-year-olds with jobs in the first place - no, 14-year-olds shouldn't be allowed to vote, based on this argument.", "qid": "48", "docid": "c6ce3e46-2019-04-18T13:30:26Z-00004-000", "rank": 26, "score": 172402.0}, {"content": "Title: The legal voting age should be lowered to 15 year olds Content: Good luck and have fun!", "qid": "48", "docid": "e6603d1a-2019-04-18T14:22:17Z-00005-000", "rank": 27, "score": 172098.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: The voting age in presidential elections should be lowered to 17 Content: Thank you for responding. Con makes two contention\u2019s and provides a counterplan. I will address each in turn. Con\u2019s case C1: Uniformed Voter\u2019s Con argues that uninformed voters harm the system and demonstrates that 17 year olds are likely be uninformed voters. The issue with this contention is that con does nothing to demonstrate 17 year olds any less informed than those who can vote. What con has demonstrated is the reality is many of those who can and do vote are not particularly \"politically savvy.\" Essentially con\u2019s contention here is against uneducated voting, not voting age. Thus, we see this contention entirely misses the mark. It seems to me that according to con\u2019s logic here, if someone is informed they ought to be able to vote. I am certain that con would not contend the fact that there are a few politically savvy teens that are informed enough to vote. Certainly savvy enough to pass an arbitrary test to vote. C2: Propoganda As with the first contention, this argument misses the mark. It addresses the issue of misinformation and voter manipulation. This is true of the status quo and is not going to be impacted by allowing 17 year olds to vote. Worse yet, con confirm this as he presented a source indicating that the average voter is usually uninformed and biased toward the political party with which they identify. Again, this contention has nothing to do with age but rather against voting in General. Con\u2019s Counter Plan Here con makes some inconstant and startling suggestions. In my estimation the worst being the suggestion of a type of metric or test to determine if those that do vote should be allowed to. Sound like Jim Crow laws to me. Not only does con want to keep 17 year olds oppressed, it sounds like he wants to take the vote away from other groups. Summary of Con\u2019s case Con has not addressed the issue at hand, both contentions address issues that are separate from age and thus do not negate the resolution. Con\u2019s counter plan is likely to restrict voting from young, old, and uneducated. Rebuttal \u201cWe hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.\u201d (Declaration of Independence) Unalienable: \u201cimpossible to take away or give up\u201d (1) We live in a society that accepts the concept that some rights are unalienable. \u201cThat to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men\u201d (Declaration of Independence) \u201cLocke believed that natural rights were inalienable, and that the rule of God therefore superseded government authority;\u201d (2) We live in a society that requires of its government the protection and security of such rights. \u201cGovernments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed\u201d(Declaration of Independence) \u201cRousseau believed that democracy (self-rule) was the best way of ensuring the general welfare while maintaining individual freedom under the rule of law.\u201d(2) We live in a society that dictates that the power of government come from the consent of the governed Via voting. \"A man without a vote is a man without protection.\" Lyndon B. Johnson 36th U.S. President (3) \"Voting is the most precious right of every citizen\" Hillary Clinton (4) We live in a society that accepts\u2026 1: All people born equal with rights 2: Government\u2019s function is to secure unalienable rights 3: Government receives power through the consent of the governed via voting To accept con\u2019s argument is to reject the very purpose of our government. His plan rejects equal rights to voting, and effectively would mitigate the ability of people to give consent to the government. This is tyranny. Value liberty; uphold our Constitution and the values displayed in the Declaration of Independence. Return sovereignty to the people. Vote in favor of lower the age to vote to 17. Vote Pro. Sources (1)http://www.merriam-webster.com... (2) https://en.wikipedia.org... (3) http://www.brainyquote.com... (4) http://www.brainyquote.com...", "qid": "48", "docid": "6623faa8-2019-04-18T13:12:04Z-00004-000", "rank": 28, "score": 172049.0}, {"content": "Title: The U.S. Should Lower the Voting Age to 16. Content: Thank you for accepting, and I am sorry I did not state my sources. Unfortunately, my source for the IRS is currently not working so I hope you will accept the following. <. http://tinyurl.com...; [the 8th result down] OR <. http://db.tt...;. Other sources, both for this speech and my previous one: . http://www.youthrights.org... . http://www.youthrights.org... . http://www.nytimes.com... . http://www.nytimes.com... that-s-set-to-change. html . http://findarticles.com... . http://www.nytimes.com... . http://www.crfforum.org... . http://thedebatingnews.wordpress.com... &sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEQQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=international%20debate%20and%20education%20association%20voting%20age&f=false . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://assembly.coe.int... . http://debatewise.org... [and all other versions] . http://well.blogs.nytimes.com... Encarta Reference Library Now for my refutations. I'd like to issue some apologies to both my opponent and my audience for not completely restating my opponent's arguments, as I am pressed for both time and space. My opponent stated: \"Teenagers love buying things. .. \" Yes, 10 year olds, too, pay taxes. But do they pay 9.7 billion dollars in taxes? I don't think so. \"She then goes on to say that 16 year olds can get a job\u2026shot. \" I was saying this to prove they can be responsible. Would people in general have allowed 16ers to have jobs if they were irresponsible? No. \"She also says that students\u2026yet. \" Everyone is always learning, from the 2 year old boy to the 70 year old grandmother. 18ers are also in school and still learning; yet we allow even them to vote. I'd like to ask my opponent to identify a source for this point. These 16ers are educated. Their knowledge is not limited to what they learn in school. \"Wait up here\u2026ever. \" Think of it this way: If 16ers were irresponsible, unintelligible, and immature, do you think society would grant them the right to have sex? \"This whole argument that 16 year olds are well informed is also bogus, etc. .. .\" The informed teens outnumber the uninformed teens. As my opponent himself has stated, a good portion of \"worst teens\" don't care to vote. Also, TEENS ARE OUTNUMBERED BY ADULTS. This is teaching the teens how to be responsible and encouraging them to educate themselves more. THERE IS NO WRONG VOTE. I'd also like my opponent's source. Teenagers are not as distracted as you think. To use your point, that is correct; I am vouching for both the bad and good teenagers \u2013 all 16ers. But so are you. Are you implying there are more uninformed teens than informed? The Opposition may state that seduction overrules teenagers' ability to make decisions and their education. Yes, I will grant them that, but to balance the scales of truth \u2013 adults, too, can be seduced. According to recent scientific studies, adults are just as vulnerable to seduction as teenagers are. This was from \"Behavioral Science\" by Barbara Fadem. The Opposition may also say that these kids are irresponsible. If these kids are irresponsible, we should teach them to be responsible. By giving these 16ers a chance to vote, we are giving them an opportunity to be responsible. Furthermore, is there any direct evidence that they are irresponsible? No. The reason people believe 16ers are not responsible is because it hasn't been proven that they are. Why hasn't it been proven? Because we've never given them the chance! The Opposition is probably going to bring up a very good question: If we are lowering the voting age to 16, why not 14? 10? Our society defines an adult as someone who is 18. This age is chosen arbitrarily. For that matter, why not set the voting age at 20? 25? Now, let's look at this from a scientific standpoint. Studies have shown [NYT] that kids are maturing a lot faster than they did before. To quote the article: \"\u2026development has fallen by a full year compared to\u2026studie[d/s] in the 1990s. The timing of puberty and maturity is changing. \" So yes, times are changing \u2013 for the better, in our favor. Finally, let's look at this from a cultural standpoint. In Judaism, a Bar or Bat Mitzvah is held for 13 year old boys and 12 year old girls to celebrate their coming into adulthood. In the U. S. , girls often celebrate their 16th birthday with \"Sweet Sixteen. \" The Upanayanam, for the Brahmins, is held at 7. For Kshathriyas, it is held at 11. This is the Hindu ceremony for a \"coming of age. \" In the Christian Confirmation, kids are generally confirmed at ages 13-14. Mexicans celebrate \"sweet 15. \" [La Quinceanera Documentary] Are we going to ignore these traditions? If, in all of these cultures, these kids are accepted at age 7-16, are we to further deny these \"adults\" their rights? To clarify: We aren't saying we should allow 7 year olds to vote. We are saying this to prove that 16 year olds are mature. I'd like to remind everyone that the U. S. is a democratic country, and so it is very important to include as wide a range of opinion as possible. Are 16 year olds not qualified citizens? People, I've got tradition, culture, and science behind me to prove that 16 year olds are indeed capable, mature, and intelligent. They can make decisions. Logic, science, and a variety of different cultures all say the same thing \u2013 16 year olds can and will be mature-if you give them the chance. Here, I rest my case.", "qid": "48", "docid": "6effc6f6-2019-04-18T18:59:04Z-00000-000", "rank": 29, "score": 172046.0}, {"content": "Title: The Voting Age in the U.S.A. Should Be Lowered to 14 Content: The voting age in the U.S. should be lowered to fourteen years of age. The rationale behind this is that the working age in the U.S. is fourteen. Now, if one is working a pay-check job, then the government is charging taxes on that pay-check. And if one is being taxed by the government and they do not have the right to vote, then that is taxation without representation. Taxation without representation is one of the reasons why the U.S. broke away from British rule in the first place, so it is ironic and somewhat ridiculous that the U.S. now imposes taxation without representation on anyone between the ages of 14 and 18 who is working a pay-check job. There are basically three logical arguments that I can think of that are on \"my side of the fence\", so to speak: 1. Total Agreement. \"The voting age should definitely be lowered to 14.\" 2. Compromise. \"The voting age should be lowered, but not to 14; it should be lowered to 15, 16, or 17.\" 3. Alternative solution. \"Voting rights should be based on something other than age, such as credit score, employment, level of education, or some other basis.\" You may agree with one of the above opinions, or you may have your own opinion. I hope that I see lots of original positions, different from the ones listed above. Thank you for joining or commenting on this debate.", "qid": "48", "docid": "c6ce3e46-2019-04-18T13:30:26Z-00005-000", "rank": 30, "score": 171759.0}, {"content": "Title: The Voting Age should be lowered to 16. Content: Definitions: Voting Age: The legal age at which citizens of the United States can submit their opinion on current matters to be counted during national elections. Hello, my name is Wendell Phillips and I am the PRO speaker stating that the voting age should be lowered to 16. Before I begin, I'd like to point out that xStrikex, my opponent, is a classmate of mine and I am very excited to debate this controversial topic with him. My Points: The limit of 18 is ultimately arbitrary. Previous to the voting age being lowered to 18, the voting age was 21. The reasons cited for this higher age boundary were exactly the same arguments as are being used by those who oppose lowering the voting age to 16, namely that the individuals would be too immature or ignorant to use their vote wisely. As we have seen, 18 year olds are just as capable of making informed democratic choices as 21 year olds, and there isn't any magical transformative process which occurs between 16 and 18 which turns individuals into fully fledged democratic citizens. Rather, maturity occurs on a spectrum, and as will be outlined below, some 16 year olds may be equally or better informed about politics than people much their senior who have the vote. More to the point, there are many things which 16 year olds are deemed by the state to be mature enough to do. For example, you can marry, leave full time education, leave home, and get a full time job, all of which are serious responsibilities. More seriously than that, at 16 one can volunteer for military service, and it seems implausible to claim that one can be simultaneously mature enough to volunteer to fight for one's country yet immature enough to vote. When young people are involved in a meaningful democratic process they respond with enthusiasm and responsibility. Many people of all ages are increasingly dissatisfied with the lack of passion and enthusiasm for politics and for change, a phenomenon that manifests across all age groups in engagement in single issue campaigns and protests. Voting at 16 offers an opportunity for young people to inject more passion and energy into the political system. Young people are motivated by exactly the same issues as older voters, public safety, taxation and the cost of transport there is a lack of evidence that 16 and 17 year olds are more impressionable in their voting habits than others. In 2002, Citizenship was introduced as a compulsory subject as part of the English National Curriculum. At Key Stage 3 young people are taught about the electoral system and the importance of voting, central and local government, and the key characteristics of parliamentary and other forms of government. At Key Stage 4 they explore the actions citizens can take in democratic and electoral processes to influence decisions locally, nationally and beyond the operation of parliamentary democracy within the UK, and of other forms of government, both democratic and non-democratic, beyond the UK. While young people are some of the only citizens to be educated about the voting system, they are denied the right to use this knowledge for at least two further years and anywhere up to seven years. Many people have no real idea about politics. 16-year-olds who care enough to vote are just as likely to understand politics as those who already have the vote. Again, to follow this point to its logical extreme, we should return to a system where only well-educated people can vote, something that was abandoned as classist and backward a hundred years ago. Let me ask you, do we deny the vote to mentally challenged people? Do we deny the vote to people that are completely drunk and stoned out of their minds? Of course we don't, because they are over 18! Tell me, should we allow retarded citizens to vote, yet deny tax paying citizens the right? I rest my case.", "qid": "48", "docid": "6c32784f-2019-04-18T18:59:38Z-00005-000", "rank": 31, "score": 171496.0}, {"content": "Title: That the voting age should be lowered to 15 Content: Con would now like to remind readers of the purpose of this debate. The resolution states that we should lower the legal voting age to 15. For Pro to uphold this resolution they must first and foremost explain why this is beneficial. Pro makes many seemingly convincing arguments for why this would be beneficial to 15-17 year olds but fails to show why it would be beneficial to the country. Also Con has made convincing arguments that this would be detrimental to a democratic society and has backed up these arguments with scientific evidence. Con will now attempt to summarize the arguments made by Pro and show a) none of the claims are substantiated rather are all hypothesized reasoning and b) Con has refuted many of the claims made by Pro with scientific evidence. Engagement/Education: Pro argues that 15-17 year olds become disenfranchised due to not being allowed to vote and that this creates an apathetic view towards voting which may result in them continuing not to vote once they do reach legal voting age. Con's main argument against this is admittedly partially of an appeal to the absurd which is why Pro characterizes this argument as being a \u201cslippery slope\u201d argument. Furthermore Pro states that in New Zealand students are not taught politics until the age of 13/14 thus 15 is a good age. This is not a slippery slope argument and while Con does make the argument absurd by going as low as 5 years old, Con does not feel it is absurd to consider 12, 13, or 14 year olds when Pro is making the claim that 15 is the \u201ccorrect\u201d minimum voting age. Furthermore, anyone familiar with US primary education will note that Government/Economics is generally a senior level course (17/18 years old) and thus would rule out 15 being the minimum age by Pro's own arguments for education. This is one of many instances where Pro makes a claim but offers nothing but anecdotal evidence or hypothetical arguments. If Pro's claim is that it is generally normal for children to learn politics as early as the age of 13/14, then Pro should have presented evidence to back up that claim. Without evidence, we are left with either New Zealand's educational curriculum or the United States'. This does not help to clarify this argument. Change: Pro makes the argument that older generations are more stuck in their ways, making them more likely to promote the status quo as opposed to teens who are more likely to adopt new, novel ways of thinking and thus better policies. Con presented polling data showing that, in fact, teens are more likely to merely vote however their parents do. In Con's rebuttal, they attempt to shift the BoP: \u201cTo be a valid argument, pro still needs to show why independent reasoning is a valid excuse for not allowing voting. \u201d Actually Pro's argument, that teens are independent and novel thinkers, has the BoP. Once again, they fail to present such evidence while Con has provided evidence that this is not the case. Pro's one piece of evidence to support this claim is a poll showing that European youth support gay rights at a much higher rate than their older counterparts (. http://www.eyp.org... ) --which they did not even present as evidence for this particular argument. First this claim presupposes that indeed gay rights are a good thing. While Con agrees, this is not objective reasoning and thus does not support the argument that change is a good thing. Next lets look at Pro's rebuttals of evidence that Con presented showing that teens do not make for very good voters. No Stake: First Pro attempts to attack Con's source which states that only 25% of teens in the US have summer jobs [8]. Pro's major problem with this source is that the number is a model not a statistic. I do not know where Pro gets this idea from or how this refutes the source. Even if we go with the historical high of 60%, this still means a large portion of teens do not work (much higher than for normal adult unemployment of <10% and even underemployment of around 20%). \u201cFrom the 1950s through the 1990s, between 45 and 60 percent of teenagers had summer jobs\u201d [8] Furthermore, following a link from this article shows that this is from US Census Data [9]. Even so, Pro makes the claim that this is irrelevant: \u201cNevertheless it's not relevant, because con has never justified why:1) voting is an economic decision or has primarily economic impacts2) teenagers cannot make decisions on behalf of others they care about3) we should not care about those teenagers that do work, and4) teenagers cannot think about their future\u201d First, Con has shown points 2) and 4) to be the case with scientific evidence [1, 2, 3, 4]. I ask readers, what evidence has Pro presented showing these to be true? Furthermore, Con never made the argument 1). Instead Con stated that taxpayers have a right to decide where their money goes\u2014this is not directly related to economic decisions. As for point 3), Con has stated that while some teens do work, the majority (or at the least a large portion), do not. Irrational/Immature: This argument comes down to evidence. Con has made the claim that teen brains are still developing and that studies have shown that they primarily use their amygdala as opposed to their frontal cortex when making decisions. This hinders them from making correct cause-effect decisions. This means teens are not likely to understand the ramifications of their political decisions. Pro's only rebuttal to this evidence is to present hypotheticals intended to refute sound scientific evidence. I don't think comparing Early 20th century \u201cneuroscience\u201d with modern neuroscience research is a valid argument (i. e. saying people argued women's/African Americans' brains were inferior\u2014they merely stated this fact, there was no scientific evidence to back it up as I have presented for teen brains). I think the evidence vs. non-evidence speaks for itself. Con has presented numerous sources\u2014what sources has Pro offered to support their arguments? In conclusion, this debate comes down to evidence. Pro has made elegant pleas as to why teens should be allowed to vote. However, all of Pro's arguments hinge on one single assumption: teens will make good voters. Con has presented overwhelming evidence to support the idea that a) teens are irrational and thus cannot make good political decisions and b) teens are likely to just vote the same as their parents anyway. I will end with a quote from one of my sources which I think hammers home the idea that 15-17 year olds, living at home with their parents, are not likely to make independent decisions. \u201cBy the end of the high school years, there\u2019s a \u201chigh point of agreement\u201d between parents and children, he said. But during the college years, children who no longer live with their parents are \u201cpretty malleable,\u201d subject to influence from peers, the media and current events and issues, Franklin said. \u201d [6] Sources:[1] . http://www.aacap.org...[2] . http://brainconnection.positscience.com...[3] . http://www.tesh.com...[4] . http://www.cnn.com... [5] . http://articles.mcall.com...[6] . http://gazettextra.com...[7] . http://www.gallup.com... [8] . http://www.slate.com... [9] . http://online.wsj.com...", "qid": "48", "docid": "6d6965d5-2019-04-18T17:51:17Z-00000-000", "rank": 32, "score": 171298.0}, {"content": "Title: The Voting Age Limit Should be Lowered Content: The voting age limit should be lowered from 18 (17 in some states) to 16 at most. My argument is that if you can learn to drive and be given the responsibility of a car, why can't you vote for a president? many people are sophisticated enough to vote even under the age of 16! Format for debate: Round 1: Opening statements Round 2: Rebuttal Round 3: Final statement", "qid": "48", "docid": "2a12b5f8-2019-04-18T16:35:53Z-00005-000", "rank": 33, "score": 171077.0}, {"content": "Title: Should kids at age 16 be able to vote Content: Lowering the voting age to 16 will give the vote to people who have roots in a community, have an appreciation for local issues, and will be more concerned about voting than those just two years older. Youth have comfortable surroundings, school, parents, and stable friends, they feel connected to their community; all factors that will increase their desire and need to vote. Lower the voting age, and youth will vote.", "qid": "48", "docid": "f12d8c0e-2019-04-18T18:47:16Z-00003-000", "rank": 34, "score": 170880.0}, {"content": "Title: Lowering the voting age to 16 Content: People below the age of eighteen are less biased, while people over eighteen are bribed. That is why it would better American politics.", "qid": "48", "docid": "1a7af591-2019-04-18T18:28:22Z-00001-000", "rank": 35, "score": 170875.0}, {"content": "Title: Lowering the voting age to 16 Content: I am not saying that every single right granted at eighteen should be lowered to sixteen, but just voting. It shouldn't be any lower because sixteen is just the right age to get into politics. Adults messing up America isn't my opinion, but a fact. Every decision made that led to this recession was made by adults. The decision to get into wars were that of adults. So, what could be the harm of giving us a chance?", "qid": "48", "docid": "1a7af591-2019-04-18T18:28:22Z-00003-000", "rank": 36, "score": 170689.0}, {"content": "Title: The Voting Age should be lowered to 16. Content: Welcome to DDO (debate.org)! Yes, the Proposition is a classmate of mine and I return his excitement. I hope that this will be a fun debate for both of us. As the CON side, I will be arguing that the voting age should not be lowered to 16. And without further ado, I would like to begin this debate. Refutations \"As we have seen, 18 year olds are just as capable of making informed democratic choices as 21 year olds, and there isn't any magical transformative process which occurs between 16 and 18 which turns individuals into fully fledged democratic citizens.\" Just because 18 year olds are capable of making choices much like 21 year olds does not mean, in any way, that 16 year olds can cast a mature, independently-made decision. I argue that there is a transformation when a person grows from 16 to 18. At 16, a boy or girl is in his or her sophomore years, still very young and maturing in high school. However, an 18 year old is a senior in high school and is very capable of making self-decided decisions and mature enough to understand politics, government, and society. 16 year olds have not completed their full studies of the United States government. Plagiarism. http://debatewise.org... \"More to the point, there are many things which 16 year olds are deemed by the state to be mature enough to do. For example, you can marry, leave full time education, leave home, and get a full time job, all of which are serious responsibilities. More seriously than that, at 16 one can volunteer for military service, and it seems implausible to claim that one can be simultaneously mature enough to volunteer to fight for one's country yet immature enough to vote.\" Does this necessarily mean that they are mature? Marrying is a huge responsibility. A responsibility that 16 year olds have not demonstrated their ability to handle. Marrying means there must have been a great bond of love between two people, love that must have distracted the 16 year old from high school work. Raising a family is usually also a party of marrying. Just because 16 year olds can have sex does not mean that they are mature. When a 16 year old drops out of high school, that must mean he or she is extremely lazy and does not wish to learn. This is not maturity. Furthermore, if a 16 year old doesn't wish to be delayed by the work of high school, why would that same person with to receive a full time job? If someone is devoted to studying, then why would he or she get a job, for that same matter? This is not a clear-cut case of maturity. Lastly, 16 year olds are not allowed to actually fight in the army. They can receive cadet training, but cannot risk their lives [1][2]. Plagiarism. Same source as above. \"Voting at 16 offers an opportunity for young people to inject more passion and energy into the political system... there is a lack of evidence that 16 and 17 year olds are more impressionable in their voting habits than others.\" You have provided no evidence for any of your arguments. Your former argument about passion, energy, enthusiasm, and responsibility have absolutely no true cases in which 16 year olds would have possessed such feelings. Anyways, the evidence will be provided in my arguments. Argument is plagiarized. http://debatewise.org... \"In 2002, Citizenship was introduced as a compulsory subject as part of the English National Curriculum.\" Please explain this entire paragraph and put it in your OWN words. Further plagiarism. http://debatewise.org... \"Again, to follow this point to its logical extreme, we should return to a system where only well-educated people can vote, something that was abandoned as classist and backward a hundred years ago.\" As my opponent himself has stated, we should revert to a system where well-educated people can vote. 18 year olds are much better educated compared to 16 year olds. They are in their senior year or have even possibly finished high school. 16 year olds are still stuck in high school and do not yet understand politics and government. Plagiarism. http://debatewise.org... Proposition, I ask that you provide real, hard-core evidence and facts rather than state opinions that you have plagiarised from Debatewise. Arguments 1. 16 year olds are not mature enough to vote The large majority still lives at home and goes to school. They may have adult bodies, but their minds are still those of children who have to be protected. By 18, they have finished high school and have legally completed all their educational requirements for their life, they have become much more independent, and they are able to make their own way in the world. Their political views are likely to be more thoughtful compared to 16 year olds, who may just copy their parents' opinions or adopt silly ideas for the sake of rebellion. Worse, they may be uninformed and vote for the candidate not for his or her policies but the candidate's give-aways A research team headed by The Chief of Brain Imaging at the National Institute of Mental Health, found that in teenager brains, the part of the brain in teenagers where long-term consequences spring to consciousness is not fully mature [3]. 2. Not everyone needs to vote. Governments do things which affect every age group but that does not mean everyone deserves the vote. Should 12 year olds get the vote because school policies affect them? Should toddlers get the vote because health services affect them? No - we trust parents to cast votes after thinking about the interests of their families. And there are other ways for young people to have a say - they can write to elected representatives and newspapers, sign petitions, speak at public meetings, and join youth parliaments. It's not like we're shutting these kids out of the political world forever. Come 2 years time, they'll get to vote. 3. 18 is the best age to have as a minimum for people to vote When you're 18, a lot of things happen to you. First, you officially become a U.S. citizen. This is also the age when you get your driver's license officially, are allowed to take any job you want, and have finished all required education by the U.S. government and can go to college. Now, what about 16 and 17 year olds? Well, they can practice driving under a licensed supervisor, can practice having a job as long as it isn't one of the 55 job types not permitted by the Federal Youth Employment Laws, and they can practice taking college exams or practice completing school. Obviously, in those 2 years gap between 18 year olds and 16 year olds, much maturity and experience is put upon the teenagers, which without, they would be too irresponsible to vote or do most of the things that we legally allow 18 year olds to do. Due to the fact that I have run out of space, I will add 2 more points the next round. I await my opponent's response. Sources: 1. http://wiki.answers.com... 2. http://uk.answers.yahoo.com... 3. http://www.nimh.nih.gov...", "qid": "48", "docid": "6c32784f-2019-04-18T18:59:38Z-00004-000", "rank": 37, "score": 170415.0}, {"content": "Title: Lowering the voting age from 18 to 16 in the UK. Content: Pro doesnt give a single coherent reason of why the voting age should be lowered. However there are quite a few reasons why the voting age of the UK should not be lowered.1) Young people dont care about politics, and numbers show this2) Young people know far less about the politics involved than older voters3) There really isnt a dire need to expand the voting rights4) Lets face it, who knows what they can do to the UK. .. - 1 - Why should the voting age be lowered if young people dont even vote? . http://www.theticker.org...http://voices.yahoo.com...http://trace.tennessee.edu...http://mypolitikal.com...Point is, young people dont give a damn about voting, and the younger they are the more apathetic they are. - 2 - Young people naturally are more misinformed about politics and politicians. http://www.policymic.com...http://www.appeal-democrat.com...Simply put one of the reasons why young people dont vote is that they dont know anything about the politics or politicians. - 3 - There is no dire need to expand the number of potential voters in UK. UK Voter turnout is still at 76% while the US is still below 50%. http://en.wikipedia.org...Point is, UK doesnt need a larger voting population because the number of registered voters in the UK who actually vote is rather impressive - 4 - this one is really my own opinion, and I know that there are some intelligent 16 year old UK political nuts on this site right now, but a majority of UK 16 year olds are,How do I put this. .. . Would you trust this person to decide who serves in government? . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. I'd sh*t my pants tooTo summarize my argument, the voting age should not be lowered in the UK because the UK already has a stunning voter turnout, young people dont want to vote, young people dont know much about politics or politicians they are voting for, and trusting all 16 year olds to vote scares the sh*t out of some people.", "qid": "48", "docid": "6ead9505-2019-04-18T18:25:41Z-00000-000", "rank": 38, "score": 170316.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: The voting age in presidential elections should be lowered to 17 Content: Per rules this is my final focus. Con case If you recall in my first argument I mentioned that to win my opponent must provide reasoning that demonstrates why 18 year olds differ enough from 17 year olds in such a way as to justify denying them the vote. Let\u2019s see if he has done that. 1: \u201cUniformed Voters\u201d Essentially con\u2019s contention here is against uneducated voting, not voting age. Last round he attempted to argue that he has shown that it is a larger issue for those under 18, though all he showed was that it is an issue, not a larger issue for the age group. In fact I can show this via my opponent\u2019s own words. \u201cHigh school seniors are usually between the ages of 17 and 18. \u201d My opponent has just affirmed that his stat reasonably applies to 17 and 18 year olds alike and thus this contention does nothing to negate lowering the voting age to 17. It is therefore off topic and ought not be weighed against the resolution. 2: \u201cPropaganda\u201d This contention addresses the issue of misinformation and voter manipulation. Con does claim that teens are likely easier to manipulate, though as with the last contention; this would include eighteen and nineteen year olds. Thus, we see this contention also does not really address why those that are 18 should vote and those 17 ought not. This contention is therefore not well established to be against the resolution so much as voting itself and ought not be weighed against the resolution. 3: \u201cCounter Plan\u201d Con\u2019s alternative was for an observable metric to determine voter competence. I mentioned that this is reminiscent of Jim Crow Laws. It seems my reference here was misunderstood. I was saying that having some kind of intelligence test or metric to determine voter competence has been found to be easily used to oppress minorities. For example; Jim Crow laws. As Con has provided no kind of specifics, it is impossible for me to attack whatever metric he is referring to. Thus, my contention was that when such \u201cmetrics\u201d have been used in the past, they have been used to oppress minorities. Final thoughts on Con\u2019s Case My opponents contentions and counter plan miss the mark. We are discussing whether voting should be extended to 17 year olds. Nothing in Con\u2019s case demonstrates support for the status quo which allows those the age of 18 to vote and not allow those 17 to vote. He has thus not justified denying the vote to 17 year olds specifically. My case I presented the simple concept that This Democratic Republic was established \u201cof the people, by the people, for the people. \u201d At the time this government was established, it was a radical change from the governments that preceded it. We the people of the U. S. are to have a voice. We are to be able to elect our own representatives. Con claims that this claim points toward a utilitarian framework. It does, it appeals to the greatest possible good being liberty of the people to choose outweighing the so called benefits of tyranny. Con\u2019s claims his counterplan solves the problem I brought up. I am not sure how he sees that being the case. His counter plan seems to more than likely limit liberty not oppress it. I have shown that the difference between 17 and 18 year olds is virtually nonexistent and thus no reason there to give 18 year olds the power to vote and restrict 17 year olds. Con claims that 17 year olds ability to conscript in the military does not qualify them for the vote. If con was aware of history he would see that is the main reason 18 year olds were given the vote. During Vietnam 18 year olds could be drafted but not vote. It was argued that such an arrangement that allows you to die for your country but have no representation way tyrannical. Con again cites his stat concerning high school seniors. Again I will point out this stat also includes those who have the ability currently to vote. I also briefly argued that taxation without representation was tyrannical. He concedes this but says it does not affect his framework. Apparently con feels as though his framework is the end all be all of this debate. Though, he never addressed my framework. Clearly, I argued that what ought to be valued is liberty and what ought to be avoided is tyranny. My opponent needed to provide reasoning that demonstrated why 18 year olds differ enough from 17 year olds in such a way as to justify denying them the vote. He has not done so. I have shown, the difference in age between the two is negligible and thus those who have reached the age of 17 ought to be able to vote for the president that will represent them the next four years. This is why the voting age in Presidential Elections should be lowered to 17.", "qid": "48", "docid": "6623faa8-2019-04-18T13:12:04Z-00002-000", "rank": 39, "score": 170219.0}, {"content": "Title: Voting age limit should be reduced to 15-16 Content: Yes it should be reduced as most adults are ill-informed and teenagers are still in school so they at least get bits and pieces of politics in history and other subjects. I don't see why I need to be 18 to cast a foolish vote.", "qid": "48", "docid": "d003097b-2019-04-18T13:09:47Z-00005-000", "rank": 40, "score": 169719.0}, {"content": "Title: voting age should be lowered Content: kids have read about the government and now the difference between good and bad, they know about government corruption. They have studied history and i argue that they do know who to vote, having a younger age group would help us because they are still is school which would make the votes better for school.", "qid": "48", "docid": "abb42382-2019-04-18T16:14:47Z-00001-000", "rank": 41, "score": 169395.0}, {"content": "Title: The Voting Age should be lowered to 16. Content: I apologize to my opponent and the audience for not posting up my source. Here it is: http://debatewise.org... Before I begin my refutation, is any vote really wrong? We cannot say that a teenager will vote for someone because they are misinformed, and that it is the wrong vote. An 18 year old, can be misinformed about politics. A citizen of any age can be misinformed. So why, is it to fall upon the 16 year olds, that they cannot vote because they are misinformed? No vote, is the wrong vote. Now, I'd like to continue with refuting all my opponents points. In my opponent's first point, he stated that \"16 year olds are not mature enough to vote\". IF they are not mature enough to vote, then how is it they are mature enough to pay taxes, get married, and leave home? All of these things require more maturity than voting. In his second contention, he stated that not everybody needs to vote. Of course not everybody needs to vote, yet THIS debate is about 16 year olds. He then listed examples of toddlers voting. I'd like to remind him that this debate is about 16 year olds, and not toddlers. Therefore his point is irrelevant and has no further use. In his third contention, he stated that more maturity develops when you're 16-18. He then stated the things that develop the maturity, such as a driver's license, or the ability to go to college. How does this develop the maturity required for voting? After all, no vote is the wrong vote. Gaining a driver's license is not going to have a critical effect, on the person's political party and who they want to vote for. Obviously, my opponents point has no meaning. Now, onto my points. Let me ask you, do we deny the vote to mentally challenged people? Do we deny the vote to people that are completely drunk and stoned out of their minds? Of course we don't, because they are over 18! Tell me, should we allow retarded citizens to vote, yet deny tax paying citizens the right? Many people have no real idea about politics. 16-year-olds who care enough to vote are just as likely to understand politics as those who already have the vote. Again, to follow this point to its logical extreme, we should return to a system where only well-educated people can vote, something that was abandoned as classist and backward a hundred years ago. Voting at 16 offers an opportunity for young people to inject more passion and energy into the political system. Young people are motivated by exactly the same issues as older voters, public safety, taxation and the cost of transport there is a lack of evidence that 16 and 17 year olds are more impressionable in their voting habits than others. The limit of 18 is ultimately arbitrary. Previous to the voting age being lowered to 18, the voting age was 21. The reasons cited for this higher age boundary were exactly the same arguments as are being used by those who oppose lowering the voting age to 16, namely that the individuals would be too immature or ignorant to use their vote wisely. As we have seen, 18 year olds are just as capable of making informed democratic choices as 21 year olds, and there isn't any magical transformative process which occurs between 16 and 18 which turns individuals into fully fledged democratic citizens. Rather, maturity occurs on a spectrum, and as will be outlined below, some 16 year olds may be equally or better informed about politics than people much their senior who have the vote. More to the point, there are many things which 16 year olds are deemed by the state to be mature enough to do. For example, you can marry, leave full time education, leave home, and get a full time job, all of which are serious responsibilities. More seriously than that, at 16 one can volunteer for military service, and it seems implausible to claim that one can be simultaneously mature enough to volunteer to fight for one's country yet immature enough to vote. I await my opponents response.", "qid": "48", "docid": "6c32784f-2019-04-18T18:59:38Z-00003-000", "rank": 42, "score": 168616.0}, {"content": "Title: Lowering the voting age to 16 Content: \"People below the age of eighteen are less biased, while people over eighteen are bribed. That is why it would better American politics.\"This is unfounded and absurd.", "qid": "48", "docid": "1a7af591-2019-04-18T18:28:22Z-00000-000", "rank": 43, "score": 168491.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: The voting age in presidential elections should be lowered to 17 Content: Per rules I waive!", "qid": "48", "docid": "6623faa8-2019-04-18T13:12:04Z-00000-000", "rank": 44, "score": 168477.0}, {"content": "Title: The voting age in the United Kingdom should be lowered to 16 years. Content: But without school teachers a pupil cannot gain information about the left wing parties, what is good/bad about them etc. Or if they were going to vote other than left wing they would gain knowledge of the left wings bad points. I do not agree with your statement that if anything we should raise the voting age to 25 or 30 as young people need a say in our country. At the moment it is mostly only OAP's that get attention as it is mostly them who vote- they get attention on pensions etc.", "qid": "48", "docid": "5ff149d1-2019-04-18T16:31:56Z-00002-000", "rank": 45, "score": 168453.0}, {"content": "Title: lower the voting age to 16 Content: Rights should be gained progressively", "qid": "48", "docid": "ca9d6789-2019-04-15T20:24:25Z-00002-000", "rank": 46, "score": 168122.0}, {"content": "Title: Lower the Voting Age Content: You may go first. I am FOR lowering the voting age, and for this argument we will talk about lowering it to 16.Here are some extra rules:If either side curses, they lose right away.No new arguments may be brought into the last round, only rebuttals. This counts in conduct.Formatting counts for spelling and grammar in voting. Meaning both sides must make their argument look good and be easily readable.", "qid": "48", "docid": "d461a67d-2019-04-18T11:42:08Z-00007-000", "rank": 47, "score": 167835.0}, {"content": "Title: The voting age in the United Kingdom should be lowered to 16 years. Content: 18 gives youngsters more time to gain experience of the world outside of school which is important. School is biased towards Socialist/left wing policies and the effect of this on your rationality at age 16 is important. When people enter the working world they became more aware of how taxes are spent and how much they are having to spend. It would be better to raise it to 25 or maybe 30 in my opinion because of how much your opinions change over time as you are exposed to more of the world. You can't learn so much from school and teachers, there is a saying \"those who can do and those who cant teach\"", "qid": "48", "docid": "5ff149d1-2019-04-18T16:31:56Z-00003-000", "rank": 48, "score": 167479.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: The voting age in presidential elections should be lowered to 17 Content: Thank you for responding quickly. Allow me to refute the points at hand. Counter-Rebuttal 1: Uninformed voters I have shown empirically that voters in particular who are under the age of 18 are particularly uneducated with both cards that I used that addressed children in particular. I will quote myself: \u201cWell, if we were to allow those at the age of 17 to vote, we would be adding to this problem. In fact, the average high school senior usually does know about the basics of government in the US, but 75% of them are not considered \u201cproficient\u201d in civics.\u201d (1) High school seniors are usually between the ages of 17 and 18. This shows that high school seniors are specifically less politically savvy, as my opponent has put it, which means that this rebuttal is void, due to the fact that he has not nullified the impact of more dilution in an already weak voting base. I also have shown the fact that generally, those who are younger voters have a huge influence on the election cycle, specifically in 2016. By decreasing the voting age, we would be seeing more people who are uninformed voting. Remember, the voting rate of younger voters is usually static, but by adding more to the system, we would be seeing an increase in youth voters which will result in higher uninformed voters. Counter-Rebuttal 2: Propaganda Actually, I have proven this. The fact is, teens are more impressionable as proven by my Harvard article showing that teens are more influenced by their environment (2). Not only this, but because teens use social media more than other age demographics, we can see that they will be more influenced by social media. This is a problem since I have shown that presence on social media has effected election results, as shown by Trump (3). So no, I have proven that this would disproportionately affect teenagers at a higher rate. Counter-Rebuttal 3: Counter Plan I have proffered a counter plan that was refuted by the pro side, so allow me to respond. First, he suggests that my plan is similar to Jim Crow Laws, which is not a rebuttal, rather an opinion. At the time of Jim Crow laws, racism was rampant. This is important, because in my counter plan I have provided an alternative, which was education relating to policy and public affairs which would allow those who are disadvantaged still become politically knowledgeable enough to vote. Yet, I am confused. I asked for an observable metric to determine voter competence in the future. This could determine the general competence of certain demographics of voters to understand the general demographics for future reference for potential policy to increase said political knowledge. This was my intention of the counter plan. I did not realize the vagueness. I apologize if it seemed that I wanted to oppress groups. Counter-Rebuttal 4: Rebuttal Under the framework I provided, the purpose of government does not play in. However, let us observe he fact that if the argument that we are undermining the purpose of the government, then it would be quite apparent. Remember, we live under a social contract where people give up certain rights for protection. According to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, we see that the social contract theory states the following: \u201cSocial contract theory, nearly as old as philosophy itself, is the view that persons' moral and/or political obligations are dependent upon a contract or agreement among them to form the society in which they live.\u201d (4) John Locke and Thomas Hobbes, both who influenced the constitution both proclaimed this (5). With this theory, we can see that some rights, such as voting, are not guaranteed. In fact, people give these rights up to live in a civil society with competent leaders put into office by knowledgeable voters. Counter-Rebuttal 5: General Observation My opponent has not offered any points under the framework I provided. Remember, we are debating the tangible effects of today\u2019s resolution on the election process. While this may seem unfair, keep in mind we are doing this to make the election process better with less uninformed voters. Onto my opponent\u2019s case. Rebuttal 1: \u201cOf the people\u201d This points toward a utilitarian framework due to the fact that we are looking for benefits for the people. I have proven that this does not happen because of the fact that we see less competent people in office with uninformed voters. Thus, this argument falls. Even if we are talking about political representation in a sense, I have offered a counter plan that, while vague, solves the problems the pro ide has brought up. Rebuttal 2: No difference between 18 and 17 year olds I have shown you through a previous statistic that 75% of high school seniors are not proficient in civics (1). Regardless of the fact that 17 year olds may be quite similar in representation due to their military conscription and other privileges given to them, this does not automatically qualify them for voting. 18 year olds have usually graduated from high school and have earned their votes. Also, weigh the points I made due to the tangible effects it would have over the abstract arguments my opponent has made, as they have no impact in this debate. Rebuttal 3: Taxation without representation My opponent claims that by not allowing 17 year olds to vote we are taxing them without representation. This may be true, but under the framework I provided, we are looking at the effects on the voting system in general. This point is then moot because it does not address the problem at hand, which is the system in which voting occurs. Remember, I have already proven that the system is bad due to the already poor voting base becoming even more diluted, which is a problem that my opponent has yet to address. 1. http://tinyurl.com... 2. http://tinyurl.com... 3. http://tinyurl.com... 4. http://tinyurl.com... 5. http://tinyurl.com...", "qid": "48", "docid": "6623faa8-2019-04-18T13:12:04Z-00003-000", "rank": 49, "score": 167035.0}, {"content": "Title: Turnout Content: Another argument against lowering the voting age is the fact that at all previous general elections, the youngest age group tends to produce the lowest turnout. Allowing 16-year-olds the vote will further reduce turnouts at UK elections.", "qid": "48", "docid": "5f3b3c6d-2019-04-19T12:44:37Z-00027-000", "rank": 50, "score": 166986.0}, {"content": "Title: That the voting age should be lowered to 15 Content: My opponent seemed to believe that this resolution was undebatable. I'm here first of all to prove him wrong, and second of all to show why I've long thought that the voting age restriction should definitely be lowered. Some ground rules. There are four rounds, 72 hours per round, 8000 characters in each round. Debaters should post all their arguments and sources in their rounds, and voters should consider nothing except the arguments and sources presented in the debate (comments not being considered part of the debate). I (obviously) have the burden of proof. The first round is for acceptance. The presumption of the resolution is that the voting age is currently 18 or higher. I'll presume that the debate is set in a reasonably western society without regard for any particular jurisdiction or legal code. Because the cultural, educational and social background of youth may be relevant to the debate, I think it is fair that all cultures are considered, given that most reasonably western societies are quite multicultural. The vote we're talking about specifically is any general vote to determine legislative and/or executive office, as the case may be in that jurisdiction, in a national election format (so local body elections could be excluded etc).", "qid": "48", "docid": "6d6965d5-2019-04-18T17:51:17Z-00007-000", "rank": 51, "score": 166958.0}, {"content": "Title: Youth Suffrage? should we lower the voting age. Content: The right to vote is a injustice to just not only me, but to future generations of citizens. We are all citizens, we all live and work here, why as teens are denied the most important civil right to our democracy. Youth Suffrage or lowering the voting age to 16-17 is a issue that is sidelined by the media and the government. But I have a voice, and want to use it. Why in the home of the free, we are still being looked down as dumb uneducated teens? We are more inform than half of voters. We pay income tax when we have jobs and pay sales tax when we buy stuff at the stores. We can drive cars, that can kill us but not vote! We can be charged as adults but not vote! We, just, want our voices to be heard as equal. Why give a vote to a person who has no idea how our democracy works, but not a teen that dose? I am asking for your support and help to bring this issue to the tables across the country and the world! We are all citizens of the world!", "qid": "48", "docid": "219652fa-2019-04-18T14:33:32Z-00005-000", "rank": 52, "score": 166869.0}, {"content": "Title: The voting age in the United Kingdom should be lowered to 16 years. Content: The voting age in the U.K should be lowered to 16 years as once you are 16, you have to pay taxes so a view of opinion starts to form on politics. At this age you will be thinking of your future; what occupation will I want to have? How much will I earn? Will I be able to afford the cost of living? All these sort of questions and more will be in a 16 year olds mind- they should have a right to vote. I do not agree with the statement; \u201c16 year olds are not mature enough to decide the country\u2019s democracy\u201d as surely, if you work (part time at 16) and pay taxes you have as much right as a 36-year old who does exactly the same things- don\u2019t you think so? Not only will this, having 16 and 17 year olds voting increase the variety in election results so the popularity turnout will increase.", "qid": "48", "docid": "5ff149d1-2019-04-18T16:31:56Z-00004-000", "rank": 53, "score": 166727.0}, {"content": "Title: Voting Age Should be Lowered to 16 Content: Thanks for your great responseMaturity:I would argue that a though it is true an 18 year old's brain is developing, there is a difference between the development of a 16 and 18 year old's brains, and obviously the 18 year old will be more cognitively developed. You suggest that because both of their brains are still developing that they should both get a vote. This is not the case. One could also argue that a 14 year old should vote as their brain is still developing. So really this is an irrelevant point, yes they are both still developing but there is a large gap between the stages of development. In counter to your argument on schools and universities you are suggesting that because 18 year olds are in university they should not vote. I would like to remind you that there is a very obvious difference between schools and university: you are in school 6-7 hours a day, 5 days a week. You are in university 4 hours a week (if studying medicine for example) 5 days a week. The rest of that week you would spend working or independently studying. The big difference is independence. No longer being supervised, advised or guided 24 hours a day. You experience life for yourself and to me, this is what sets apart 16 and 18 year olds. I also think you counter your own argument abut leaving school when you want because as you said earlier, this is the minority. And, being part of democracies, majority wins. As well as is I would like to clarify that you never stop leaning and in high school you study a wide more rounded course. In university you study specifics. I fail to see how Chemical Engineering is going to help a voter learn about voting learn about this in high school for a reason, so you can take it and apply it after you leave school, there is no point doing an exam half way through a course, so there is no point voting when you are still studying politics. I think you make a good point about enrolling for the army at 16, but you fail to notice that they can not fight till you are 18. Just like you can apply to learn to drive, but drive until you are 17 1/2 (in Britain). Experience:I have provided a reason for a 16 year old having less experience than an 18 year old. This is that: Many 16 year olds still live with their parents, are looked after by their parents, are supported by their parents, are financially funded by their parents, are cooked for by their parents, are guided by their parents, are instructed by their parents etc. As well as this you argue that 80% of teens have jobs, then why do 'many parents provide their children with enough income to survive being outside of the house'? And if a 16 year old is still in school and they get a job (like 80% of 16 year olds) why do they 'not need to get a job'? I would also like to clarify that by living on their own I mean without their parents. Though I do not see the relevance of a roommate as they certainly would not be providing for, looking after, caring for their roommate. Responsibility:As I said before there is a very big difference in a 16 year old's brain and an 18 year old's brain. Just as their is a 14 year old and a 16 year old, or should the 14 year old be voting too, because their brain is also still developing? Taxation:Why tax them? Because the governments money is paying for their edcation, the up keep of their towns, their protection, their leisure and so on. Stability:What I do not think you are seeing is the fact that if someone has money pressures, or does not live in shelter they would have a reason to vote. To vote for policies that would give students more money, or provide shelter for those who have none. It gives a reason to vote. If you have money troubles you will know it and you will think to vote for someone who can help you. It is as simple as that. Why vote if you have no worries or pressures? Voter Turn out:Of course the voting turn out would increase, there would be more people who are allowed to vote! Simple as that, but would it be sensible to allow a 16/17 year old to work? For the benefit of the country, not just voting turn outs.", "qid": "48", "docid": "44c7d18-2019-04-18T18:04:38Z-00001-000", "rank": 54, "score": 166636.0}, {"content": "Title: Lowering the voting age to 15 Content: Most adults are way to uninformed to vote and most kids are way more informed because we are forced to learn about it. And I know tons of teen who are WAY more mature then some adults.", "qid": "48", "docid": "1a7a8132-2019-04-18T17:50:29Z-00002-000", "rank": 55, "score": 166137.0}, {"content": "Title: voting age should be lowered Content: I believe that the voting age should be lowered. at 16 we allow kids to drive, and a car is lethal weapon so why would you think we could trust them with voting?", "qid": "48", "docid": "abb42382-2019-04-18T16:14:47Z-00003-000", "rank": 56, "score": 166092.0}, {"content": "Title: It should be lowered not scrapped all together Content: In my school when the elections came up they held a mock election and you voted for the party you would vote for had you been old enough we where at an age where everything was very clichy and if you didn't vote for the right party you weren't in the group, therefore think the age should be lowered to 15/16 that way people are past that point aswell it gives you more freedoms when your 16 as these days all you can do when your 16 is have sex legally and most people do it illegally anyway", "qid": "48", "docid": "1962bef4-2019-04-19T12:46:39Z-00015-000", "rank": 57, "score": 165763.0}, {"content": "Title: lower the voting age to 16 Content: There needs to be a cut off", "qid": "48", "docid": "ca9d6789-2019-04-15T20:24:25Z-00000-000", "rank": 58, "score": 165455.0}, {"content": "Title: The Voting Age should be lowered to 16. Content: Thank you for the response, yet I am boggled. It seemed as if you completely ignored my refutation of your arguments, restated your arguments as if they were unrefuted and solid, and only focused on my arguments. Nevertheless, I will begin. Refutations \"IF they are not mature enough to vote, then how is it they are mature enough to pay taxes, get married, and leave home? All of these things require more maturity than voting.\" This argument of 16 year olds being mature enough was refuted in the first round. Please do not ignore it this time. \"In his second contention, he stated that not everybody needs to vote. Of course not everybody needs to vote, yet THIS debate is about 16 year olds. He then listed examples of toddlers voting. I'd like to remind him that this debate is about 16 year olds, and not toddlers. Therefore his point is irrelevant and has no further use.\" Yes, this is about 16 year olds and 16 year olds are a section of everyone. This is completely relevant and was simply just an argument stating that 16 year olds do not need to vote. It seems you are confused this time. \"In his third contention, he stated that more maturity develops when you're 16-18. He then stated the things that develop the maturity, such as a driver's license, or the ability to go to college. How does this develop the maturity required for voting? After all, no vote is the wrong vote. Gaining a driver's license is not going to have a critical effect, on the person's political party and who they want to vote for. Obviously, my opponents point has no meaning.\" A driver's license demonstrates the responsibility, safety, and caution a person has used throughout his driving test. This is a key area of maturity. The fact that they can be responsible means that they can also be responsible for their own actions as well as voting. It seems you ignored the fact of them being able to attend college and learn even more. Seeing as my points are brought back into play, I will continue on to talk about my opponent's arguments. \"Now, onto my points.\" My opponent has listed his source for all of his arguments in the beginning of his speech and I infer that he no longer thinks he is plagiarizing. However, the key word in this short sentence is \"my.\" Plagiarism is defined as, \"a piece of writing that has been copied from someone else and is presented as being your own work [1].\" The word \"my\" means that it is his and therefore, is plagiarized. For this, my opponent should lose in the conduct stage. It's actually a funny thing, seeing as my opponent basically restated, word for word, all the arguments posted in the 1st Round, except for the concept of \"Citizenship\" and \"key stages,\" which was asked to be explained. Apparently, my opponent must have drawn back such a response, which means he does not understand his own arguments which were simply plagiarized from Debatewise. Until the Proposition actually does bring his point back into play and counter-refutes my refutation, these points are negated, as well as the resolution. Arguments To tack on to my unrefuted points, I have one new argument to present. 1. Having a broad range of opinion at elections has to be balanced against having responsible voters. If we allow 16 year olds to vote, there's obviously going to be an increase in turnout. However, that can also be a two-sided sword, and in this case, allowing 16 year olds to cast votes will clearly harm our country. This is because these children are not old enough to be able to develop their own political views about the world. Most of their votes will be cast without reason and will therefore harm the good of the country. According to a study conducted by Cato.org, out of 2400 teenagers aged 14-16, over 97% of these children had the same political views as their parents. Of these, sadly, 43% didn't even know the first thing about the party that their parents, and they, represented. These are children, what else would you expect? Keep in mind that 3 other arguments are still up and running. 16 year olds are immature, they don't need to vote, and 18 is the best minimum age to allow people to vote. I await my opponent's response for the final round. Sources: 1. http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...", "qid": "48", "docid": "6c32784f-2019-04-18T18:59:38Z-00002-000", "rank": 59, "score": 165444.0}, {"content": "Title: The voting age should be reduced to 14. Content: I did not say kids were too stupid, but too ignorant and immature, which you confirmed. And by limiting voting to landholders, we weed out the ignorant and immature.", "qid": "48", "docid": "c0b1c40c-2019-04-18T13:10:29Z-00002-000", "rank": 60, "score": 165327.0}, {"content": "Title: The Voting Age should be lowered to 16. Content: I will now refute all my opponents points, and save my best points. Refutations: \"Yes, this is about 16 year olds and 16 year olds are a section of everyone. This is completely relevant and was simply just an argument stating that 16 year olds do not need to vote. It seems you are confused this time. \" The argument that you stated was that not everyone needed to vote. You then listed examples of toddlers voting on health. How is this relevant? Not everybody needs to vote, but shouldn't we allow those who wish to do it participate? Perhaps you misunderstood my refutation. Not everyone needing to vote has nothing to do with this debate, if someone wants to vote for their country, they should be able to do it! I'm sure if you were talking about an 18 year old, you wouldn't be saying the same thing! \"A driver's license demonstrates the responsibility, safety, and caution a person has used throughout his driving test. This is a key area of maturity. The fact that they can be responsible means that they can also be responsible for their own actions as well as voting. It seems you ignored the fact of them being able to attend college and learn even more. \" Why would attending college affect this debate? Of course, students can learn more about politics, but this is not necessary if they think they have a future in politics. Can you safely say, that your parents were COMPLETELY informed about politics before they voted? A driver's license has absolutely nothing to do with the maturity required to submit your opinion to a national election! How can someone not be mature enough, if they want to have their vote casted? There is no wrong vote! If they want to vote, they drive out to the voting station, and they are fully prepared to show what they think, how could they be considered immature? Obviously, there is some confusion in my opponent's mind about what real responsibility and maturity is. Saving my points: \"Again, to follow this point to its logical extreme, we should return to a system where only well-educated people can vote, something that was abandoned as classist and backward a hundred years ago. \" Refutation of this point: As my opponent himself has stated, we should revert to a system where well-educated people can vote. 18 year olds are much better educated compared to 16 year olds. They are in their senior year or have even possibly finished high school. 16 year olds are still stuck in high school and do not yet understand politics and government. Refutation of this: If you don't understand sarcasm, I wouldn't be surprised. The argument clearly said \"to its logical extreme\". This was pointing out that the inability for uneducated people to vote was classist and was abandoned. You clearly do not understand what I was saying. 16 year olds could already have taken certain classes concerning government, and 18 year olds might not have taken them! \"More to the point, there are many things which 16 year olds are deemed by the state to be mature enough to do. For example, you can marry, leave full time education, leave home, and get a full time job, all of which are serious responsibilities. More seriously than that, at 16 one can volunteer for military service, and it seems implausible to claim that one can be simultaneously mature enough to volunteer to fight for one's country yet immature enough to vote. \" Refutation of my point: Does this necessarily mean that they are mature? Marrying is a huge responsibility. A responsibility that 16 year olds have not demonstrated their ability to handle. Marrying means there must have been a great bond of love between two people, love that must have distracted the 16 year old from high school work. Raising a family is usually also a party of marrying. Just because 16 year olds can have sex does not mean that they are mature. When a 16 year old drops out of high school, that must mean he or she is extremely lazy and does not wish to learn. This is not maturity. Furthermore, if a 16 year old doesn't wish to be delayed by the work of high school, why would that same person with to receive a full time job? If someone is devoted to studying, then why would he or she get a job, for that same matter? This is not a clear-cut case of maturity. Lastly, 16 year olds are not allowed to actually fight in the army. They can receive cadet training, but cannot risk their lives. Refutation of this: If anything, you are helping my point. According to this legal system, 16 year olds can marry, have sex, drop out of high school, get a job, and join the military. If they are mature enough to do all these things, why can't they simply represent their ideas in important elections? Your refutation is completely useless. Lastly, you said that 16 year olds cannot fight in the army. I am aware of this. But, they receive military training, so it is obvious that they have the maturity to fight in the army. It takes a lot of maturity, to even decide to train. Thank you for assisting me. \"As we have seen, 18 year olds are just as capable of making informed democratic choices as 21 year olds, and there isn't any magical transformative process which occurs between 16 and 18 which turns individuals into fully fledged democratic citizens. \" Refutation of this point: Just because 18 year olds are capable of making choices much like 21 year olds does not mean, in any way, that 16 year olds can cast a mature, independently-made decision. I argue that there is a transformation when a person grows from 16 to 18. At 16, a boy or girl is in his or her sophomore years, still very young and maturing in high school. However, an 18 year old is a senior in high school and is very capable of making self-decided decisions and mature enough to understand politics, government, and society. 16 year olds have not completed their full studies of the United States government. Refutation of this: If you say that there is no major difference between 18-21 year olds, how can you say there is a difference between 16-18 year olds? There is a 2 year age difference compared to a 3 year age difference. 21 is when you are 3 years into college at the most, and you are now allowed to drink (which can lead to drunk driving). Another thing, is at 16 a boy or a girl have already studied politics enough to fully understand who they want to vote for. Once again as my opponent CONTINUES TO IGNORE, is that there is no wrong vote! You cannot say that someone who wants to vote for the law or official they like, is wrong! Now to refute my opponent's main points. In my opponents first contention, he stated that 16 year olds are not mature enough to vote. Of course, the amount of 16 year olds that are not mature enough to vote, will most likely NOT vote! The 16 year olds that clearly arrive at the voting booth, and are enthusiastic about sharing their opinions will be the mature teenagers! You cannot say that 16 year olds are not mature enough to vote, because that is a complete generalization. This argument means nothing. In my opponent second contention, he said that not everyone needs to vote. Not everyone needs to vote, but that is also inferring that citizens over 18 do not need to vote! He also stated some rubbish about toddlers voting for health, I don't know what that has to do with 16 years olds, but his loss! In my opponent's 3rd and final contention, he stated that 18 is the best minimum age to vote. Yet, all the reasons he listed show absolutely no reason that there would be a maturity increase in Politics. Obviously, my opponent is confused about what is required to have real opinions. (all opinions are real) I'd like to thank my opponent for making this an excellent debate, and I'd like to quickly repeat my best point. No vote, is truly wrong. You cannot walk up to a person and say they cannot vote because they want a good candidate to win", "qid": "48", "docid": "6c32784f-2019-04-18T18:59:38Z-00001-000", "rank": 61, "score": 165252.0}, {"content": "Title: Lowering the voting age Content: Hello Jane. And hello guys. In December 19th in 2008, we have presidential election. In election, if people are over 19, our country give us a voting quality. I think we have to lower the voting age. According to Dr. Sam, people always said if we give university student a voting quality, they will pick wrong president because they are stupid and they have short thinking, plus because they have low ages. Well, it's wrong. I mean it could be in old days, because they are poor so they can;t study well so they don't know how to pick a great president. But now a days, it's different everyone. Now a days, there is less that student can't study. So they can be smart then in old days students so they can choose a great president. So we can lower the voting age. In 2008, we have many president candidates. And they come out with many reduction. But, can we believe it? I think that lower ages student can't pick great president is no just they are stupid, short thinking or they have low ages. It's because president candidates said lie in they're reduction. So we need to lower a voting age. According to homepage kuro5shin, lowering the Voting Age will increase voter turnout. For several reasons lowering the voting age will increase voter turnout. It is common knowledge that the earlier in life a habit is formed the more likely that habit or interest will continue throughout life. If attempts are made to prevent young people from picking up bad habits, why are no attempts made to get youth started with good habits, like voting? If citizens begin voting earlier, and get into the habit of doing so earlier, they are more likely to stick with it through life. Kids Voting is a program in which children participate in a mock vote and accompany their parents to the polls on Election Day. Reports show that even this modest gesture to including youth increased the interest in voting of their whole family. Parents were more likely to discuss politics with their kids and thus an estimated 600,000 adult voters were more likely to vote because of it. Lowering the voting age will strengthen this democracy for all of us.", "qid": "48", "docid": "a7acd758-2019-04-18T19:54:02Z-00002-000", "rank": 62, "score": 165156.0}, {"content": "Title: The voting age should be lowered Content: I believe that 16 and 17 year olds should be able to vote for many reasons. Why does hitting 18 make you responsible? Would being 17 and 11 months make you irresponsible compared to an 18 year old? Many 18 year olds are still as irresponsible as 16 year olds but why does that make the 18 year old better at choosing who should run the government or choosing to leave or to stay in the EU? Being 18 is just an age, it is what the mind is like that counts.", "qid": "48", "docid": "b72d2186-2019-04-18T12:12:43Z-00000-000", "rank": 63, "score": 165020.0}, {"content": "Title: Lowering the voting age to 15 Content: It would be dangerous to give young people the vote. They might use it in foolish ways. For example they might vote for celebrities or make their decision on which party had the best image. They might put extremists into power or vote without thinking on single issues (e.g. making drugs legal, free university places, cheap beer!).", "qid": "48", "docid": "1a7a8132-2019-04-18T17:50:29Z-00001-000", "rank": 64, "score": 164954.0}, {"content": "Title: Turnout Content: This would not be the case, as 16 and 17 year-olds are more likely to be in, or to have recently been in, an environment where politics can be discussed. This means they will have a developed interest in the subject and will be more likely to vote. Even if reducing the voting age were to reduce the turnout, it is preposterous that we should limit the franchise to avoid producing an embarrassing statistic. There would be more people eligible to vote and hence the actual voting numbers would presumably increase, even if percentage turnout didn\u2019t. \"Some people are concerned that lowering the voting age would lead to a lower turnout in elections, the theory being that a larger voting population made up of younger voters, who are currently less likely to vote, would reduce the overall turnout. However, analysis by the Electoral Reform Society shows that if 16-18 year olds turned out in the same proportion as the 18-24 age group, there would be virtually no effect on turnout. Even if not one 16-18 year old voted, overall turnout would drop by only 2%. Women are less likely to vote than men, poor people less likely than the more affluent and people from minority ethnic groups less than white people. Nobody suggests that these lower turnout groups should have their voting rights removed. No one should suggest that some 16 and 17 year olds not voting is a good enough reason to deny the many that do want to vote.\" - Electoral Reform Society", "qid": "48", "docid": "5f3b3c6d-2019-04-19T12:44:37Z-00026-000", "rank": 65, "score": 164864.0}, {"content": "Title: That the voting age should be lowered to 15 Content: The problem with the opponent's counter-model is that it's even more arbritrary and irrational than my assumed 18-year-old status quo. It's not problematic to my case at all - just as nothing magic happens when you turn 18, nothing magic happens when you turn 30 either. If anything, the harms I presented of disenfranchisement and lack of change (which, incidentally, are among the many that my opponent has yet to answer) would only be compounded under such a system. In this round, I'll quickly deal with all of the claims my opponent made. Slippery slopeMy opponent asks me why 15 and not 5, only briefly but I think this is an important point so I'll give it its own heading. The reason is simple - we haven't taught 5 year olds politics yet. That would create exactly the same harm of disenfrachisement - giving them a lot of say but not telling them what any of the options mean. That's niether conductive to democracy nor likely to make them better voters. I would support an even younger age if even younger people had already been generally taught the basics of politics, which is true in a limited number of jurisdictions, but in general 15 is a commonly accepted educational standard for when these things are taught. No stakeThe majority of teenagers of that age work (naturally this depends on the country and the definition of work you use, but every statistic is a high number). They may not fully support themselves, but then again, niether do many adults over 30 (that would be the unemployment benefit, or the pension). The idea of economic self-sufficiency being an appropriate standard for voting is a flawed one because: a) if you weren't dependant on the government in some way you would have no stake in it, in which case why are you even voting, and b) what does self-sufficiency have to do with voting anyway? Why can't I make a rational decision even if something doesn't directly affect me? I further do not conceed that the government's aims are exclusively or even primarily economic. For sure, the economy is a very important thing to take care of, but people's welfare depends on more than simply having lots of green pieces of paper. Everything from health to education is in the government's domain, and for good reason - the government is the one institution responsible for the welfare of the people, being run by the people, and more importantly, for the people. Not just their wallets. Youth have a stake in government for many reasons. First, they are usually smart enough to rationalise that if their parents lose their jobs, life for them will be slightly tougher. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out. Teenagers are fully capable of thinking about people other than themselves, which is why teenagers have friends and help out charities or churches. Second, many teenagers do not fit the narrow mould of living at their parent's house with no job. Third, governments are about more than just economics. And fourth, teenagers like to think they actually have a life ahead of them as well. Just like many older people vote for those who will give them a better retirement even if they're not looking to retire anytime soon, so too do many teenagers actually think ahead. The proof of all this can be seen in the fact that young people DO engage politically, quite sensibly, whenever this is open to them as a better avenue than apathy or resistance. That is why programmes like the model UN and European Youth Parliament have been so successful, often simulating better outcomes for the world than what actually happens. A quick glance down the EYP's general poll archives (. http://www.eyp.org...) paints a very different picture of youth than the stakeless youth my opponent wanted to talk about. Irrational/immatureLet us, for a moment, pretend that what my opponent said is true. This is an argument for preventing stupid people from voting. Being smart is not a requirement for voting, even under my opponent's model (yes, there are impulsive 30-year-olds). Moreover, gut instincts are not necessarily stupid. Chess provides a great example of this. Computers can calculate chess moves much better and faster than the human mind ever can, but humans can still beat computers. Why? Because master chess players develop gut instincts about good and bad positions. If analysing the social costs of impacts was the only job of politicians, everyone would have outsourced their jobs to Microsoft a decade ago. There are, however, other things to consider - morality, for instance, cannot be derived by the frontal cortex. And moreover, there's no requirement on voters to have a rational reason for their vote at all. I went to a party last year where I overheard at least three people asking their partners who they should vote for in our then-upcoming election. I'm pretty sure many mentally impaired people quite literally vote for their favourite color. Even if teenagers were disinclined to use their frontal cortex, there's no reason why they can't be trained to do so. A young chess player may be impulsive, but they can be taught to think about the consequences of their moves in a bit more depth. They might not be able to see as many ends as an older player, but they can rationalise it. Similarly, when an older player points out to them what they could have done, they are able to evaluate that position (much like politicians can point things out to people). It's not like the frontal cortex magically appears when you turn 30. The fact that teenagers can consider cause and effect is clear. Infants usually work out cause and effect with things like musical toys. A quick look around this website will reveal numerous 15 year olds (and younger! ) employing some quite complex lines of original reasoning. Independant reasoningNobody is an entirely independant thinker. We didn't all, for example, independantly invent the language we speak. Independant thinking is a ridiclious qualifier for voting because it could never be enforced (given that there's no duty on those over 30 to think independantly either) and moreover could never even happen. The reason why we have schools at all is the transfer of knowlege (including political knowlege) is fundamental to our society. This is why free political association, broadcast or assembly is so important as a right. Even so, my opponent's own data proves 30% of young people vote independantly, compared to 40% of adults in the USA (. http://www.washingtonpost.com... - by the way, this is a national record) - something that can almost entirely be put down to the youth disenfranchisement I talked about earlier. ConclusionThe harm I presented in this debate is of the exclusion of too many voices from democracy. The solution is not to deliberately undermine and limit democracy further. We need to eliminate the apathy and consequential incompetence of our governments. The resolution is affirmed.", "qid": "48", "docid": "6d6965d5-2019-04-18T17:51:17Z-00003-000", "rank": 66, "score": 164558.0}, {"content": "Title: The drinking age should be lowered to 18 (redone) Content: The point I was trying to make with the voting is a matter of responsibility; an 18 year-old is able to vote in the most powerful person on the face of the planet, and will ultimately shape their own futures based on that decision and many other decisions that are normal for a young adult to make. However, despite all of that they are unable to legally consume alcohol. It seems inconsistent to entrust them with some of the responsibilities of an adult, but not all of them. To conclude, I do not think that teenagers drinking would increase with a lowering of the drinking age, and I think it would be only fair to give them this right when so many other responsibilities are already bestowed upon them.", "qid": "48", "docid": "3f867421-2019-04-18T18:19:00Z-00000-000", "rank": 67, "score": 164472.0}, {"content": "Title: The voting age should be reduced to 14. Content: Ignorant, immature, and we can now add irrational. He has made no case for why children should vote. To the contrary, they would simply whine for free goodies, like x-boxes.", "qid": "48", "docid": "c0b1c40c-2019-04-18T13:10:29Z-00000-000", "rank": 68, "score": 164289.0}, {"content": "Title: The voting age should be lowered to 14 Content: The reason why 14 years olds aren't allowed to vote is that many don't understand the issues, or don't care. Most 14 years olds don't have a job, or have a household to run, like an adult does. Adults understand the issues way more than a 14 year old does.", "qid": "48", "docid": "d01d031e-2019-04-18T16:42:46Z-00002-000", "rank": 69, "score": 164102.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: The voting age in presidential elections should be lowered to 17 Content: Counter-Rebuttal 1: Uninformed Voters I have shown empirically why my opponent is wrong. I have proven that 17 year olds do not have the political knowledge to vote with the statistic I have mentioned before about the fact that 75% of high school seniors are not proficient in civics. Yes, this applies to both 17 year olds and 18 year olds, but that point is irrelevant considering the fact that I have already shown that 17 year olds are not politically knowledgeable. I have shown this through the previous statistic that my opponent has already conceded effects both 18 year olds and 17 year olds. Thus, we see that my impacts are still valid. By passing this resolution to extend voting rights to 17 year olds, we would be seeing an increasingly diluted voting pool, which still stands regardless of whether 18 year olds are any more politically knowledgeable than 17 year olds due to the fact that we are still diluting the voting pool with more uninformed voters. Counter-Rebuttal 2: Propaganda First, I should clear something up. No, I do not think it is fair that those who are 18 can vote, and those who are 17 cannot. However, there are impacts that one would want to avoid in the status quo, and since not allowing 17 year olds to vote would mitigate this, one needs to vote for the con side. However, allow me to address the points made by my opponent thus far in relation to propaganda. My opponent has already claimed that my contentions are not specific enough, but this doesn\u2019t matter as long as my impacts still occur, which I have already proven. Remember, we are allowing more people into the voting base who are uninformed, that being 17 year olds. Not only this, but these are young voters who are impressionable and on social media, which I have proven is also a way in which candidates could manipulate to get more votes. I have proven this by the statistic showing that the ripple effect from other Facebook friends resulted in .39% more of a chance that people would vote for their friends\u2019 choice. This, as cited by the author of the previous statistic, can be easily manipulated by means of \u201ccyber gerrymandering. \u201d This impact still remains unrefuted. Counter-Rebuttal 3: Counter plan My opponent still has not touched on the other factors I have mentioned in my original case such as forming PACs or pushing for more time in which teens can contact state senators, so extend those as my opponent has dropped them. Regardless, I will explain the difference between Jim Crow laws and my counter plan. I never stated that the information gathered could be used to limit voting I stated the following: \u201cThis could determine the general competence of certain demographics of voters to understand the general demographics for future reference for potential policy to increase said political knowledge. \u201d Unless affirmative action is the same as Jim Crow laws, then this accusation is false. This would not limit voting; this would make the process even more fair. Counter-Rebuttal 4: Opponent\u2019s case Extend my social contract theory point as well as my point that none of my opponent\u2019s points fall under the unrefuted framework. Regardless, I will refute. a. My opponent\u2019s framework My opponent claims that his framework has to do with liberty. This not only does not produce tangible effects on the American people, but there are no impacts to this as the political system will continue as it does with no major problems. Not only this, but he has waited until his final focus to point this out. b. Similarity between 17 year olds and 18 year olds My opponent may have provided evidence showing that both have similar rights, but again, this has nothing to do with voting ability or political knowledge. Even so, I have proven detrimental effects on the voting system if this resolution were to be passed. c. Utilitarian framework One can\u2019t propose both a utilitarian framework and one about liberty. Regardless, I will refute. My counter plan will work because we are still involving 17 year olds into the political system by pushing them to form PACs and generally become more politically involved. Thus, they still get the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people. Conclusion My opponent\u2019s case has been completely refuted.", "qid": "48", "docid": "6623faa8-2019-04-18T13:12:04Z-00001-000", "rank": 70, "score": 163993.0}, {"content": "Title: Voting age limit should be reduced to 15-16 Content: I accept and will have an opening statement in round 2", "qid": "48", "docid": "d003097b-2019-04-18T13:09:47Z-00004-000", "rank": 71, "score": 163954.0}, {"content": "Title: Voting age limit should be reduced to 15-16 Content: If we were to lower the voting age to 15-16 then governments (of some countries) would force kids to vote like they do for adults and it'd be pointless because majority of all the children voting wouldn't know the importance of voting. My opponent then states that children are very active on social media and would know about the current events from there which is useless. Children on social media don't even pay attention to the news, especially if it was concerning politics. Pro keeps stating that Children are harder to buy because they have this \"Sense of justice\", children are already becoming corrupted because of social media. Any kid would be willing to sign a piece of paper for $10 or less, why? because to them, it's something meaningless. This is why we shouldn't lower the voting age, you wouldn't want ignorant children choosing the future for your country.", "qid": "48", "docid": "d003097b-2019-04-18T13:09:47Z-00000-000", "rank": 72, "score": 163195.0}, {"content": "Title: The voting age should be reduced to 14. Content: Originally you had to be 21 to vote in the United States. The voting age was lowered to 18 because young men were being drafted to the Vietnam war before they were old enough to vote. The government changed the voting age because the lives of young people were being directly impacted by government policy, and they believed young people should have a say. https://en.wikipedia.org... Policy affects everyone including children. Small kids are not smart or informed enough to vote, but older students are exposed to things in school that make them more knowledgeable. In fact school is a great place to talk about politics. Adults are discouraged from talking about politics in public which is considered impolite. But in school, students have the opportunity to learn and discuss things. http://www.amazon.com... In most states you can begin working at 14 years old. Teens are working and paying income taxes. They are also paying sales tax on their purchases. By not allowing them to vote, it is taxation without representation. https://www.dol.gov... Con says kids are too young or stupid to vote, but that could be said about many adults as well. We don't have a screening process that makes sure people are intelligent enough to vote. Many 14 and 15 year olds are smarter than 18 and 19 year olds, or even 48 and 49 year olds. Age does not determine intelligence or maturity.", "qid": "48", "docid": "c0b1c40c-2019-04-18T13:10:29Z-00003-000", "rank": 73, "score": 162622.0}, {"content": "Title: The voting age should be reduced to 14. Content: Con says kids are too ignorant and immature. I did not confirm that, I said that ignorance and maturity is not determined by age. That was the last line of my previous round. It's a shame that Con does not know how to read. Perhaps Con should not be able to vote even though he is 47. If he cannot grasp basic comprehension then he should definitely not be casting a ballot. But the government does not weed out the ignorant and immature. They only weed out by age which I explained is unfair, does not make sense and is contradictory with other values (like no taxation without representation).", "qid": "48", "docid": "c0b1c40c-2019-04-18T13:10:29Z-00001-000", "rank": 74, "score": 162620.0}, {"content": "Title: lower the voting age to 16 Content: Voting at a lower age would increase participation", "qid": "48", "docid": "ca9d6789-2019-04-15T20:24:25Z-00005-000", "rank": 75, "score": 162535.0}, {"content": "Title: The voting age should be reduced to 16 Content: No, the voting age should not be reduced to 16. I agree with you when you said that is unconstitutional be paying taxes without representation, but this situation must be resolved since a reform of the quantity or kind of taxes that the under 16 should pay. The voting age was set pretending that people would be able to make an analytical election. A random person at age of 16 generally is starting to know how the world works and what to look for in life. Their opinion might be easily influenced by false arguments and the campings could be measured by a lack of truthful proposals.", "qid": "48", "docid": "4848b93e-2019-04-18T13:12:06Z-00004-000", "rank": 76, "score": 162531.0}, {"content": "Title: The legal voting age should be lowered to 15 year olds Content: \"Most youths at 15 years old most likely have much more pressing things to worry about than politics and voting.\"Like what? I cannot respond unless you can provide examples and I am sure that they can't be too busy to decide who will govern their country for the next 4 years (UK). I personally cannot think of any normal activity a 15 year old would have that voting could get in the way of. Yes, exams are important but there is no point in doing well in exams if you cannot afford to go to university. \"many youths will most likely just flip a coin and make a random choice because they do not care. \"Now, I'm sure that both me and you know that this is a stereotype without any evidence that argument is easily refuted. \"15 year olds should be worrying about grades, college, homework, and possibly driving.\" Adult have work that they actually get paid for and they seem to manage. It is also incredibly beneficial because they get a say in the education department of voting. Adults wont necessarily focus in on that as much as children may want them to. They are no longer a child so it does not effect them as much it would effect a child voting. As I have said in my first rebuttal, deciding who governs your country for the next 4 years is not an insignificant thing and most 15 year olds will acknowledge this.\"They should not be worrying about politics.\" Politics is extremely important for when they grow up. In my school they made me study politics until I was done with my GSCE (15 years old). When you leave school you are new and unfamiliar with the world. You cannot walk into modern society and not know the difference between left wing and right wing; labor or conservative - that wouldn't be right. Assuming you get a job with no relation to politics (because not everyone does) how are you going to learn the difference between the two. How are you going to know what each party stands for? \" Other ones will not take it seriously! \" How do you know? You haven't provided any evidence to support this claim, have you?", "qid": "48", "docid": "e6603d1a-2019-04-18T14:22:17Z-00002-000", "rank": 77, "score": 162378.0}, {"content": "Title: Lowering the voting age to 16 Content: The concept that the country has been \"messed up\" is strictly an opinion of the opponent. When you turn 18, you are considered an adult in the United States. Not only do you acquire the right to vote also the right to make a will, to make certain decisions (e.g., obtaining medical care) without parental consent, and even to donate organs. [1] I some states, it is the age used to get married and to buy cigarettes, such as my home state, New York. Why would the opponent like to change it to sixteen? Why not fifteen? Or ten? Or two? By lowering it to sixteen, we will be blocking fifteen-year-old people from voting; would we need to adjust it so that they could vote, too? The opponent's claims are unclear and unfounded. [1] http://opi.mt.gov...", "qid": "48", "docid": "1a7af591-2019-04-18T18:28:22Z-00004-000", "rank": 78, "score": 162283.0}, {"content": "Title: That the voting age should be lowered to 15 Content: EngagementMy opponent does not actually have a rebuttal to this, so he simply refers to his old slippery slope fallacy. I've maintained throughout the debate that at the point where you have a reason to be engaged with politics, you should be allowed to vote, without going too early (before you have a reason) because of the disenfranchisement. Maybe we're all just really dumb in New Zealand, but basic social studies units on politics are taught at age 13-14, upon completion of which they should be able to vote under my model (age 15). The reason why this is a reasonable compromise is because that's when we grant them the necessary rights and responsibilities to be a politically active member of society at that age, and social studies exists to prepare them for that fact. Of course, I've already conceded that in a minority of countries where teenagers are extra-smart and thus taught politics at an earlier age, they should be allowed to vote earlier as well. The harms of a disengaged society are sweeping, as I've pointed out in much greater detail in my first round and my opponent does not respond to. Ultimately, the choice is whether age 15 or 30 is a better estimate for when people become politically engaged. I've presented evidence throughout the debate that youth after around age 15 do think politically, and my opponent has presented none to the contrary. The point stands. EducationMy degree is in business, and one of my finals papers was on this very topic (and I went to the most prestigious, top-ranked business school in the country). Business is not an independent discipline. Mathematics, for example, is crucial for business, even though it (in and of itself) has nothing to do with it. Same with science, or engineering, the basis of all the major disruptive technologies. Ethics overlays strongly with business, as does history. Simply because one is not exclusively a business student (something that I think quite irrational, since business always in some way or another depends on other disciplines) does not mean one does not pursue business studiously. And the same goes with politics. The reason why 15 year olds don't pay attention is because, as I've already explained in great depth in my disengagement point, they are given strong incentives to not pay any attention. People used to wonder why women didn't care much for certain disciplines (for example, law or accounting). People put it down to all kinds of silly, apparently \"scientific\" explanations about female brains. All of them have now been completely debunked. Turns out that the reason they didn't care is because they had no chances of getting a career in those fields, since there were no other workers of their gender there. A few affirmative action programs later, and now women outnumber men in these fields in many countries. Similarly, give youth the vote, and they'll start paying attention more. I'm glad my opponent concedes that the \"advanced\" students at age 15 don't even need to do this. Much of this point has gone unanswered by my opponent as well, such as how I talked in round two about creating incentives to learn more about politics and learn more generally, or about how youth have access to better resources, or about how basic learning theory shows that youth are best placed to make political judgements, or about how youth can be a catalyst for political discourse in the general population. The point is that 15 year olds generally have all the right educational advantages to qualify them to make a more informed decision. ChangeMy point was that youth do not accept social orders and seek to break them down. My opponent mostly concedes this argument, but claims that youth will just follow their parents and that these social orders are moral. The latter claim can be easily dismissed as there's no evidence for that. Denying blacks civil rights was a social order, and most people would agree breaking that was morally good. One of the most pernicious social orders today is ageism itself, which needs to stop. In any event, the bias towards conservatism in political discourse is unsettling because it isn't representative. The former claim is empirically not true. Many children would rebel, and my guess is many more would if the cycle of apathy is broken as under my model. But even if the difference would not be made by every person who is now given the vote, it would be a change for the better, since all the remainder would only be reflective of the rest of society. Slippery slopeHistory is not political studies. For everything else, see my engagement point. No stakeCon's 25% figure comes from a blog, which cites an article, which cites some computer model projections, where the computer's most pessimistic prediction was that youth WOULD only have 1/4 employment. It's not a statistic, it's a model. And the article then goes on to describe how this model's prediction is extraordinarily low. And that's just summer jobs - what about all the other forms of employment a teen might have? Nevertheless it's not relevant, because con has never justified why:1) voting is an economic decision or has primarily economic impacts2) teenagers cannot make decisions on behalf of others they care about3) we should not care about those teenagers that do work, and4) teenagers cannot think about their futureCon does say that paying taxes gives you the right to vote. Which is incredibly strange, given that he thinks older people are better voters. Pensions are in fact huge drains on tax funds, especially in our aging society - and that's not to mention the massive costs to society of dole bludging, or worse, tax dodging. The fact is that you do not \"buy\" a right to vote with your money, and any suggestion that taxes are for that purpose would be to completely undermine democracy. Irrational/immatureRather than rebut my argument, con chooses to rebut two random sentences of my argument. As to his claim that the science is on his side, his first article agrees with me that teens are quite capable of making good decisions, the second agrees teens make rational decisions (both in the last paragraphs), and the other two are blogs by professional writers. It's an attempt to ignore all my substantive analysis and examples to the contrary (EYP, MUNA etc). For the other claim, that raising the voting age is a \"cheap and reasonable equivalent\" of barring stupid voters, that depends on who gets to define stupid. I for one don't want to live in a state where people are segregated based on perceived intelligence. The point is democracy is to hear all voices - even those you think are stupid. Was David Yuval, the kid who campaigned against landmines, stupid? Malala Yousafzai, the girl who campaigned tirelessly for girls' education? Hamza Ali al-Khateeb, the greatest martyr of the Arab Spring? It took a lot of guts for adults to take these young people seriously, and they changed the world for the better. Stupid just because they're young? I don't think so. These kids went after the causes and they got the effects. Independent reasoningTo be a valid argument, pro still needs to show why independent reasoning is a valid excuse for not allowing voting. None of his sources explains how entirely independent reasoning is even possible, and they certainly don't explain why they are a necessary standard for voting. The point of my 40% figure is that the difference in independent voting (as opposed to reasoning) is very small between youth and adults. The difference is no surprise, given that there is disengagement, and it has nothing to do with independence of thinking. It's simply a sign of an apathetic attitude. I hate it too, but the difference is that con wants to reinforce it - I want it eliminated. I have a vision that we can live in a society where every voice is heard and respected. That's what I'm standing for in this debate. The resolution is affirmed.", "qid": "48", "docid": "6d6965d5-2019-04-18T17:51:17Z-00001-000", "rank": 79, "score": 162283.0}, {"content": "Title: The legal voting age should be lowered to 15 year olds Content: Most youths at 15 years old most likely have much more pressing things to worry about than politics and voting. Also, many youths will most likely just flip a coin and make a random choice because they do not care. 15 year olds should be worrying about grades, college, homework, and possibly driving. They should not be worrying about politics. Some 15 year olds will be too young to understand! Other ones will not take it seriously! 15 years old is simply too young of a age to start voting. I apologize that my agrument is extremely short-- but it gets all my ideas across well.", "qid": "48", "docid": "e6603d1a-2019-04-18T14:22:17Z-00003-000", "rank": 80, "score": 162087.0}, {"content": "Title: The lowering of the voting age>>> Content: I never stated that all Ivy-League college graduates know everything, but they certainly know enough to be able to vote at age 23 or 25. Secondly, you never stated any statistics or sources. The rest of your Round 2 argument confuses me and I would appreciate it if you cleared it up.", "qid": "48", "docid": "dac67b43-2019-04-18T15:27:10Z-00004-000", "rank": 81, "score": 161911.0}, {"content": "Title: The U.S. Should Lower the Voting Age to 16. Content: I'd like to start off with a simple: Hello, people. Welcome to this debate. At this moment, I am hoping that anyone will accept this debate. Thank you, to the person that does. I'd like to start off by saying that 16 year olds are mature. This debate is about the rights of 16-ers. If they are old enough to have jobs and have sex, then they are certainly old to make educated decisions about things that will have a big impact on their future. This is taxation without representation. According to the IRS, American teenagers are responsible for 9.7 billion dollars in sales taxes alone, not to mention the amount of taxes on income! I quote: \"Youths pay billions in taxes to state, local, and federal governments yet they have absolutely no say over how much is taken\" or what is done with this money. I repeat: this is taxation without representation. The least we can do is to lower the voting age so that 16 and 17 year olds have a say. Policies such as minimum wage, working hours, and conditions are also determined by governments. If 16 year olds are old enough to have jobs, then they are old enough to be able to vote on things that will affect their future. I conclude this point by stating that 16 years of age, you can get a job. You also pay taxes, as stated before. It is undemocratic that you have no say in who manages and sets these taxes. The Opposition may state that young people are not so well-informed. Well, they aren't well informed because they can't vote! If they cannot participate in a voting, what makes you think they will have the motivation to learn? They won't. Therefore, by lowering the voting age, teenagers will learn and be educated about politics at a younger age. A good example is \"Kid's Voting.\" This is a simulation where children participate in a mock voting, such as the one held at my school, JM. Reports show that this activity increased the interest of voting in entire families! More parents discussed politics with their kids and were more likely to vote because of this. An estimated 600,000 adults were more likely to vote, according to the New York Times. I would also like to point out that students are learning much about politics in school, which also helps them to make more informed decisions. I'd like to sum up this argument by saying that this strengthens democracy and helps both adults and kids to make more educated votes. This is a new incentive for the public to become knowledgeable. What the Opposition is likely to do is to exaggerate the chances of these kids being influenced by the 3 Ps: Peers, pressure, and parents. I'd like to point out, judge, that these are not 13 year-olds. These teenagers are 16 years of age. They are mature, their bodies are adult, they have experience, and they have been educated for at least 10 years. If 16-ers are old enough to have a job, and have sex, they are certainly old enough to control their life, according to the International Debate and Education Association. There are just as many people out there who are uneducated about politics as there are who are educated. Let's think about it this way: if you are uneducated about politics, that means you don't care. And if you don't care; why should you vote? You see, people, according to the New York Times, many kids who don't know enough about what they are voting on actually don't vote. This means that there is less of a chance of the uneducated people voting. I'm going to remind everyone of my arguments: I. This is taxation without representation. One of the same things the Revolutionary War was fought over. This is a democratic country: it includes 16 year olds because they pay taxes and they have jobs. II. Younger people are well-informed. However, there are some that are not well-informed. If we lower the voting age, then it will give them a reason to become well-informed. III. 16-ers are not 13 year-olds. They are mature and have control over their life. If we can trust them to handle a job, we can trust them to withstand pressure and make the right decision. IV. Most uneducated people don't care and therefore don't vote. Guys, these are mature teenagers with control over their life and their job. They pay taxes. They have sex. They can make the right decision. Thank you, and please vote for the Proposition.", "qid": "48", "docid": "6effc6f6-2019-04-18T18:59:04Z-00002-000", "rank": 82, "score": 161799.0}, {"content": "Title: Lowering the voting age to 15 Content: 15 year old's are not mature enough. The large majority still live at home and go to school. They may have adult bodies, but their minds are still those of children who have to be protected. By 18 they have become much more independent and are able to make their own way in the world. Their political views are likely to be more thoughtful compared to 16 year olds, who may just copy their parents opinions or adopt silly ideas for the sake of rebellion.", "qid": "48", "docid": "1a7a8132-2019-04-18T17:50:29Z-00003-000", "rank": 83, "score": 161727.0}, {"content": "Title: lower the voting age to 16 Content: Voting at 16 would help rebalance voting ages", "qid": "48", "docid": "ca9d6789-2019-04-15T20:24:25Z-00004-000", "rank": 84, "score": 161708.0}, {"content": "Title: The voting age should be reduced to 16 Content: If you can legally work at 16 and be taxed, you should be able to vote. The fact that 16 year olds who are legally working are unable to vote is taxation without representation and is unconstitutional. Many 16 year olds would be more than capable of handling this responsibility.", "qid": "48", "docid": "4848b93e-2019-04-18T13:12:06Z-00005-000", "rank": 85, "score": 161579.0}, {"content": "Title: The Voting Age Should Be Dropped to 16 Content: :) \"Young people today are well informed enough and mature enough to vote so the voting age should be lowered. \" Not necessarily. Actually, I would go against this. How are they informed? Most may have a job, but not one that they have to depend on for money in order to live. They do not own a house, have children, or maybe not even have a car! They do not understand how the \"real world\" works and therefore do not have the right to vote. Most are not concerned or involved in taxes and house mortgage and this is what most of the candidates focus on. Teenagers' brains are still developing. I will also mention how many stupid decisions 16 year olds make. I am certainly not saying all, but many do. Should these children who are still living with their parents, who do not own a house, are not involved much in the economy, and are just learning to drive really need to have a say in the government? The voting age now is certainly not causing anybody harm and is working our just fine. Also, I will mention how most of the 16 year olds would be biased due to their parents' opinions.", "qid": "48", "docid": "452eaf9c-2019-04-18T19:48:30Z-00002-000", "rank": 86, "score": 161267.0}, {"content": "Title: Lowering the voting age to 15 Content: Just because 15 year olds have the right to do some things, it doesn\u2019t mean that they should use them. If all 16 year olds left home at 15 and started families it would be considered a disaster. And not all rights are given at 15 - most countries have a higher age for important things such as drinking alcohol, serving on a jury, joining the military, etc. It makes sense for different rights to be gained at different times as young people mature and get used to more responsibility. Because voting is so important, it should be one of the last rights to be gained.", "qid": "48", "docid": "1a7a8132-2019-04-18T17:50:29Z-00000-000", "rank": 87, "score": 161204.0}, {"content": "Title: The lowering of the voting age>>> Content: Until the age twenty-five, the human brain is not at its full potential and the human being has not yet developed foresight, or an ability to see consequences in advance, however some develop quicker than others, by far the majority do not. What I am trying to say, is that humans can't predict how their choices will affect their own- and others- lives until the age of twenty-five. By lowering the age limit on how old someone can be to be able to vote would be the suicide of this nation (the United States).", "qid": "48", "docid": "dac67b43-2019-04-18T15:27:10Z-00007-000", "rank": 88, "score": 161081.0}, {"content": "Title: Voting Age Should be Lowered to 16 Content: This was fun! It was a pretty interesting debate on both sides. This could go either way. Best of luck, Con. I'll post this debate into the voting forums once I have completed and posted these arguments.Maturity:This counter would work well against me, if it were not for the fact that I am not making this argument. I never said that maturity should be a factor: I simply said that your argument against why sixteen year olds cannot vote applies just as much to eighteen year olds. Sure, their brains would be more developed than a sixteen year old, but they are still not fully developed, which means you would need to provide a justifiable reason why you are making an exception for those who are eighteen to twenty-four, but not those under eighteen. I agree that fourteen year olds should not vote, but the reason why does not have to do with maturity. This is why I feel you fail to meet your half of the burden of proof (proving that eighteen is a proper voting age, but not sixteen).Good point, in regards to university being more independent. I concede to that. However, you would now need to provide a reason for why this is matters. Why does independence matter in the end when it comes to whether or not someone should be allowed to vote? This is why I feel this argument fails to meet the burden of proof.Kids leaving school was your point: you countered against my rebuttal that the reason kids do not have the ability to become juryman was a matter of circumstance was that children are not required to attend school, and can drop out as a result. You just refuted your own counter. As for learning, this is not true. In fact, in my driver's ed class, we were told to take the permit test the first two weeks into the course; it was a recommendation, actually. When it comes to voting, you are not taking an exam before you finish the course: in the United States, students take Civics and Economics (which teaches political problems and how the government functions) in eighth grade, which would be around age twelve. It is taking an exam several years after taking the course, after doing independent study on your own afterwards to decide your political ideology. I would call that prepared!Yes, sixteen year olds cannot fight. But this is not necessarily a maturity issue: after all, the army did not allow women in combat battalions until only a few months ago in the United States. (1) By this logic, are women not mature enough to handle combat? I doubt you believe this.Experience:Children still have all of those things from their parents, this is true. However, college students have a dependency on their parents as well. Parents send financial support so that their children can afford books, room and board, and basic essentials. As for jobs, teenagers get jobs to afford non-essentials. Games, extra-curricular activities like participating in clubs that require payments (like, ironically enough, Model UN and Youth-in-Government). They do not need to get a job because non-essentials are just that: not essential. They do not need a job; they want a job. This is an important distinction to make. Yeah, I was a tad silly in my reply to them living alone. I should have known you meant living independent of their parents. They are not financially independent, however; they are physically independent however, so point to you on that. But living independently does not mean that they are ready to vote, and not all eighteen year olds get this experience. For example, there are many eighteen year olds who do not go to university and college, and stay at home for several years. These people did not have the experience you describe. Would you deny these people the right to vote due to lack of experience? I doubt you would; as such, why is this an issue of experience, if those who lack experience would still vote?Responsibility:There is no reason to make the assumption that the difference is anything substantial in the span of just two years time. Furthermore, moral development (which includes the ability to make judgments) does not differ much after reaching the autonomous stage of morality, which usually occurs around the age of ten. (2) Therefore, the moral ideas of a sixteen year old likely would not be different from that of the same person two years later.Taxation:That logic doesn't really work for me. Firstly, the child is taxed for these things you mentioned, but the child does not have the ability to vote in support of politicians who support legislator regarding how these tax dollars are to be spent. The child's money is being used without them reaping the benefits of paying them: the right to vote for politicians who will use their tax money in the way they agree with. Secondly, this logic does not work because not all teens pay taxes. Only those who directly purchase things with their own money or those who have a job pay taxes. If these taxes are taken because they benefit the student, why are they not taxing all teens? Or all children for that matter? After all, these benefits affect small children just as much as adolescents.Stability:You vote to prevent worries or pressures. You will have a motivation to vote if you notice that one candidate will negatively effect you if they become a government official. You will vote for the person who will neutrally or positively effect you, would you not? It is the same thing. If you are a well-to-do upper-middle-class teenager, would you support a candidate that would tax your parents more, and likely cause problems for your household financially?Voter turnout:I believe it is sensible to allow sixteen or seventeen year olds to vote (I assume that is what you meant instead of \u201cwork,\u201d but I could be mistaken). Voter turnout benefits the country, because more of the general public's opinions are being heard.Sources:(1) http://www.cbsnews.com...(2) http://psychology4a.com...", "qid": "48", "docid": "44c7d18-2019-04-18T18:04:38Z-00000-000", "rank": 89, "score": 161005.0}, {"content": "Title: The voting age should be reduced to 16 Content: I agree that there are adults who have little knowledge about politics, but the majority, are more analytical and have more experience to take a decisi\"n. And also, there are 16 years old guys with an extraordinary political sense, but those are the minority. But, you can not determine case by case who is able to make an intelligent choice. So you have to appeal to well defined segmentations, in this case, by age, and by majorities or average.", "qid": "48", "docid": "4848b93e-2019-04-18T13:12:06Z-00002-000", "rank": 90, "score": 160750.0}, {"content": "Title: That the voting age should be lowered to 15 Content: At this point, we need to focus on the resolution at hand. Pro has tried to shift the debate to a quite different topic: \"My position today is simple - that 18 is not a justifiable boundary.\" and \"I'd like to have a serious chat to whoever came up with the age of 18 for voting. It's completely arbitrary. \"First, this debate is not over whether or not 18 is the appropriate age to allow one to vote, second, Con actually agrees with Pro that 18 is a fairly arbitrary age and, in fact, Con will show that 18 is probably too young of an age. But whether or not 18+ is an appropriate age is irrelevant to this debate. This debate is whether or not 15-17 year olds should also have the right to vote. If Con shows that no one under the age of 30 should be allowed to vote, then Con has effectively won this case (as an example). Pro does not need to defend 18+ year olds, but they must show that 15-17 year olds being allowed to debate is better than not allowing them.Due to space requirements, Con will now present a counter case as to why teenagers (15-17) should not be allowed to vote. In Round 3 Con will present refutations to arguments made by Pro in round 2 (which are mostly circular--i.e. they assume teens make for good voters which will be directly called into question in this round).I will quickly summarize the points I intend to make. Pro makes the argument that 18 is an arbitrary age--then why do they insist on 15? Why not 14 or 12 or 10 or 5? Pro gives no rationale for when they think one becomes \"rational\" enough to vote. Next, Pro makes most of their arguments under the presupposed assumption that 15-17 year olds are not irrational (making this argument somewhat circular). Con will make a case that shows, in fact that 15-17 year olds (and even higher ages) are actually scientifically proven to be irrational. Con reminds voters that whether or not 18+ (for instance 18-25) should be allowed to vote is irrelevant to this case, so even if Con makes arguments that 18-25 year olds shouldn't be allowed to vote is irrelevant to this case (if 18-25 shouldn't vote, then clearly 15-17 shouldn't be allowed to vote either).So what would a country want out of a voter? This is the question that must be answered by Pro, first and foremost. In Con's opinion a voter should be well informed, rational thinking, and have a stake in the outcome of an election. Con will now show that teenagers (15-17) do not meet at least two of these criteria.1) Teenagers living at home with their parents have less of a stake in the outcome of elections.I think it's fairly uncontested that the vast majority of teenagers live at home with their parents and do not support themselves. This means teens do not pay taxes (other than sales taxes), do not have an independent stream of income (meaning their contribution via sales tax is actually their parents' money), and do not support themselves. As such, policy decisions about income tax, property taxes, welfare, etc. do not have direct effects on teens.2) Teens are irrational human beings and their brains are not fully developed.An ideal voter would be able to make calculated decisions about cause and effect--they would be able to see how complex policies would effect long term outcomes. Unfortunately, teen brains are still developing and this ongoing development makes it difficult for teens to make such judgment decisions.I would expect most (older) voters to assume this prima facie: that teens are irrational, impulsive, and have very little self control. However, a) this is likely unconvincing to younger voters and b) this sentiment does not make it true! So is there any evidence to support this idea? In fact there is overwhelming scientific evidence to support this idea [1, 2, 3, 4]. This comes from the fact that teenagers rely mostly on their amygdala for decision making whereas adults tend to use their frontal cortex in decision making.\"Their[teenagers] actions are guided more by the amygdala and less by the frontal cortex.\" [1]\"The researchers found that when processing emotions, adults have greater activity in their frontal lobes than do teenagers. Adults also have lower activity in their amygdala than teenagers. In fact, as teenagers age into adulthood, the overall focus of brain activity seems to shift from the amygdala to the frontal lobes.\" [2]\"And she says that adults process information in the rational prefrontal cortex. But, in the teen brain, most of the heavy lifting is done by the emotion-oriented limbic center.\" [3]\"The part of the brain that helps us make logical and rational decisions is just developing in a teen and usually it's not fully functional until the early to mid-20s. \" [4]The amygdala is more associated with impulse reactions and \"gut\" feelings:\" The frontal lobes are also thought to be the place where decisions about right and wrong, as well as cause-effect relationships are processed. In contrast, the amygdala is part of the limbic system of the brain and is involved in instinctive \"gut\" reactions, including \"fight or flight\" responses.\" [2]This last quote is particularly important, as it shows that the frontal lobe is where cause-effect relationships are processed. This is paramount in making political decisions! One must understand the effect that certain policies will cause. If they do not, then they are not likely to make for very good voters. As this research suggests, teenagers are not the type of people we want in determining policy through becoming voters. It's not some \"arbitrary\" age limit--this is scientific evidence to suggest that teenagers are not \"mature\" enough to make such decisions.The next problem with allowing teens to vote is that they are not independent thinkers. Teens tend to support whatever their parents support. Again, there is overwhelming evidence to support this fact.\"According to Boquist, \"Family is the primary agent of political socialization. It's usually not purposeful and has to do with absorption.\"\" [5] This shows that while families influence political beliefs, there does not tend to be a rational reason behind it.\"Research shows that children tend to share their parents\u2019 political attitudes\u2014at least while they\u2019re all still living under the same roof, said UW-Madison political science professor Charles Franklin.\" [6]Again, notice the important caveat: \"at least while they\u2019re all still living under the same roof\". This is true of virtually all teenagers from the agers of 15-17.Finally, there is empirical evidence to show that 70% of children hold the same political belief as their parents. Specifically, 70% of children would vote the same way as their parents (77% for republicans, 71% for democrats, and 61% for independents) [7].So what does this prove? It shows that allowing teens (15-17) to vote does nothing to increase democracy, rather just works to reward parents with many children and whom tend to strictly enforce their views onto their children. So this essentially has no effect, other than giving parents with children a few extra votes for their particular ideal. Teens will not make independent, well-informed decisions. Sources:[1] http://www.aacap.org...[2] http://brainconnection.positscience.com...[3] http://www.tesh.com...[4] http://www.cnn.com... [5] http://articles.mcall.com...[6] http://gazettextra.com...[7] http://www.gallup.com...", "qid": "48", "docid": "6d6965d5-2019-04-18T17:51:17Z-00004-000", "rank": 91, "score": 160635.0}, {"content": "Title: The age that people have the right to vote should be lowered to 16 and not stay at 18 Content: On average 16 year olds are worrying about a lot of different things like their school dance and what not. Most might be able to handle a paying job and taking care of their cars, but that doesn't mean that they would be able to handle voting with all the other part of society. They aren't at that stage that they would fully understand what things would help our economy and what wouldn't.", "qid": "48", "docid": "1332c9cb-2019-04-18T18:48:12Z-00003-000", "rank": 92, "score": 160392.0}, {"content": "Title: The Voting Age Limit Should be Lowered Content: How can the president accurately represent us if high schoolers, the very soon to be future of our country cannot vote and give their opinion? If 16-year-olds cannot vote, our president, who represents our country, will not accurately represent the people's opinion.", "qid": "48", "docid": "2a12b5f8-2019-04-18T16:35:53Z-00003-000", "rank": 93, "score": 160049.0}, {"content": "Title: The voting age should be lowered to 16 Content: First of all, I find an apparent lack of definitions in your opening statement. Are you talking about the voting age in the United States, or some other country? Also, what kind of voting are you talking about, local, state, national? Also, what problem does changing the current voting age even solve? Personally, I'm just fine with the voting age where it is, thank you very much. Why fix what ain't broke? How do propose to go about doing this, how are you going to pass the laws necessary? Finally, why do you think that (even if it could be accomplished) it would necessarily have a good outcome? Younger teens tend to be less informed than older teens, and uninformed people is what lead to this crazy election. There's just no argument to even be had here. You didn't defend your resolution at all, and if you can't do that, what's the point?", "qid": "48", "docid": "d01debdc-2019-04-18T12:30:47Z-00000-000", "rank": 94, "score": 159953.0}, {"content": "Title: The voting age should be reduced to 16 Content: While it's true a 16 year old could easily be swayed, I know many adults who have little to no political and economic knowledge. There are plenty of adults who are extremely ignorant. Why should they vote and not a 16 year old?", "qid": "48", "docid": "4848b93e-2019-04-18T13:12:06Z-00003-000", "rank": 95, "score": 159828.0}, {"content": "Title: Should the voting age be lowered Content: 1) Teenagers are responsible enough to drive, have jobs, and therefore ALSO HAVE TO PAY TAXES, you would think if they had to pay taxes they should at least have some say in the government https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk... 2) Still more adults have done it so... Your argument is still invalid (it is just more teens youtubed it)(no I`m not sure if that is a word but it is now) https://twitter.com... And for the record i have been submitting VERY good evidence. (that is an opinion but still) Since this is the last round i would also like to say Thank you David for losing to me this was a very nice argument", "qid": "48", "docid": "aeb43fe9-2019-04-18T11:40:53Z-00001-000", "rank": 96, "score": 159555.0}, {"content": "Title: The Voting Age in the U.S.A. Should Be Lowered to 14 Content: That is... an offensively absurd argument, no, I'm not suggesting minorites not be allowed to vote. What? The issue is that if only 25%* of 14-year-olds work, that means, for starters, SIGNIFICANTLY less than 25% of 14-year-olds would be paying taxes (keep in mind, the entire basis of your argument is on the precept that 14-year-olds should be able to vote because they pay taxes) because of working restrictions. So, let's say the actual percentage of 14-year-olds who pay taxes comes out to 2%, you are then arguing that 98% of 14-year-olds who don't pay taxes also deserve representation - therein lies the problem. It's not that 2% is too small, it's that 98% is too big and it, frankly, isn't warranted. *that statistic is from '94-'97, not '99, and is also likely outdated (though we'll never know, as there isn't a lot of officially published research on the subject).", "qid": "48", "docid": "c6ce3e46-2019-04-18T13:30:26Z-00002-000", "rank": 97, "score": 159162.0}, {"content": "Title: The lowering of the voting age>>> Content: http://www.bbc.com... http://www.livescience.com... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.urmc.rochester.edu... It's all pasted right there. However in your first argument you gave no facts or sources and all of your statements were opinions. That goes to show how illegitimate your \"arguments\" were. When you said that a fourteen-year old could have the brain capacity to vote wisely, you are wrong, a fourteen-year old would still be undergoing many changes in his or her mind. This includes synaptic or neural pruning (they are the same thing), or when a brain starts strengthening often used synapses, or pruning unused synapses. As sourced below. http://en.wikipedia.org... This goes to show how young adults (at least twenty and below) are only still developing. I also wonder are you really for the lowering of the voting age in the U.S., or are you just disagreeing with my first argument?", "qid": "48", "docid": "dac67b43-2019-04-18T15:27:10Z-00003-000", "rank": 98, "score": 159027.0}, {"content": "Title: the voting age should be lowered to 16. Content: thank you to whomever accepts this debate. the legislation that lawmakers enact affects everyone, including those that are under age 18. if the purpose of democratic voting is to maximize government representation, then why should we not take into account the wants and needs of young people? for instance, the government makes a lot of education decisions which affect, you guessed it, young people. more importantly, the government spends the tax dollars of young people, though the young people have no say (no taxation without representation!). for instance, i've worked since i was 15 and yet i had absolutely no say via voting in how my tax dollars were spent for 3 full years. while i'm aware that we do not live in a direct democracy, we're at least allowed to vote in politicians who represent our views, though minors can't. statistics show that 80% of high school students work before graduation. http://www.youthrights.org... i believe that young people are just as capable of having an educated opinion as older people. if you look around this site, some of the most intelligent members are minors and they have more logical and intelligent opinions than many who are of age. one doesn't magically become aware of what's going on in the world once they become 18. in high school, one begins to learn about government and politics. in many cases, most adults cannot even remember what they learned in school whereas high school students are in the midst of learning about it themselves. one only needs to consider the show \"are you smarter than a fifth grader\" to consider my point. students who took the comprehensive We the People (\"WTP\") constitutional law program scored BETTER than adults 18-80 in knowledge of government and politics. additionally, students today are more intelligent than in the past. now unknowledgeable adults are not kept from voting, so why should knowledgeable young people? \"Studied conducted by Professor James Flynn have shown that IQ scores grew by 17 points during the period 1947 through 2001, with the increase accelerating to 0.36 points per year in the 1990's.4 In other words, a child scoring in the top 25% in an IQ test today, would score in the top 3% of an IQ test in 1932.5 Experts have suggested an explanation to this trend: the explosion of new media, television and particularly the internet, which challenge youth's cognitive senses and problem solving abilities.\" http://www.youthrights.org... another point to consider is that youth voting will increase adult voting. also, the idea that the votes of young people will be \"manipulated\" by their parents or other adults is insufficient. people at age 16 have their own political opinions that are often different from their parents (for instance, young people care more about issues like gay rights and environment protection), and it's unfair to say that other adults won't or can't be manipulated just as easily. one theory is that conservatives are the reason young people cannot vote. because young people tend to be more \"liberal\" in thought and care about things that are more liberal, conservatives do not want to give young people the opportunity to have a say even though young people have to abide by the laws, and are often punished as adults for breaking those laws (because the law decides when it's convenient to consider you \"mature\" enough to make a decision). for instance, young people are considered a more liberal demographic, and would probably vote for more liberal policies. http://www.nytimes.com... studies and polls show that teenagers WANT to vote and there is no good reason why they shouldn't be allowed to vote. the constitution says that we cannot prohibit a law abiding citizen over the age of 18 to vote, but says nothing about prohibiting those under 18 to vote. the right to vote should be extended to minors, at least to those 16 and older. even if it's only to working kids 16 and older, it's still lowering the voting age which i think is important. and that's all for now, so thank you to whomever accepts.", "qid": "48", "docid": "2045b810-2019-04-18T19:12:56Z-00003-000", "rank": 99, "score": 158970.0}, {"content": "Title: A slippery slope to forcing all countries to allow the vote at sixteen for all votes Content: While such a move might embarrass some parliaments into lowering their voting age there would certainly be no compulsion. And if it happened this would not necessarily a bad thing. If national parliaments feel embarrassed by the illogic of having differing voting age then it will be up to them to change it. In practice parliaments are unlikely to change their traditions simply because their peers have done so; they will look at all the evidence (which this change would provide more of) and then decide the best way forward for their democracy.", "qid": "48", "docid": "bdcf90af-2019-04-15T20:24:22Z-00021-000", "rank": 100, "score": 158949.0}]}
{"query": "Should body cameras be mandatory for police?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: Resolved: Police officers should be required to wear body cameras Content: * This is not necessarily a round of police debate* Humanity has been on an ever eternal quest in search of felicity and safety. However, throughout mankind, there has been a series of crimes gone unsolved and detectives failing to solve assigned mysteries. Sadly, all have been failing to notice the very blatant solution to all of these. A way to ensure public safety and solve crimes is right in front of us and the proposition team wants this resolution to be implemented. Hello, I am Forever 23 and I am going to debate pro on the topic that police officers should not wear body cameras. I will first provide definitions and then introduce my own points. Body cameras- The cameras put on the uniforms of the police officers. They are of very high quality and NOT easily breakable. Now onto my own points.1. Implementing cameras for officers will dwindle the amount of apartheid. Racial apartheid in the police force may seem impossible and implausible. However, that is the current reality. Today\u2019s world criminal justice system is not at all filled with justice. In fact, many times, the fortune and faith of the one convicted will depend on his race, ethnicity and skin color. Cameras however, will provide a much more objective view on the situation. Nothing can bestow more truth than the situation itself on a video. . http://www.discoverthenetworks.org..., \"Los Angeles congresswoman Max Waters thinks that the system is racist, she stated that \u201cthe color of your skin dictates whether you will be arrested or not, prosecuted harshly or less harshly, or receive a stiff sentence or gain probation or entry into treatment. \u201d The late law professor Derrick Bell claimed that the justice system \u201cdisempowers people of color. \u201d At a presidential primary debate in 2008, Barack Obama charged that blacks and whites \u201care arrested at very different rates, are convicted at very different rates, [and] receive very different sentences . .. for the same crime. \u201d That same night, Senator Hillary Clinton likewise disgrace the \u201cdisgrace of a criminal-justice system that incarcerates so many more African-Americans proportionately than whites. \u201d\"The only way to ensure honesty in our justice and jurisdiction system is by having objective footage. The \u201che did it because he is African American\u201d approach is not the way to go. The only way to make this system more fair to those of different races and skin colors is by implementing cameras. The real video will show what really happened, not from different people\u2019s point of view. The video is better than any testimony. Since, African Americans are judged many times by the skin color in court, they mostly get unfair punishments. In order for the punishment to fit the crime and to know what the crime even is, we need cameras on officers. Cameras on police officers will stop deliberate, false accusations against African Americans and make the justice system much more stronger and efficient. 2. Downtrend the amount of duress used by the police. . http://www.cam.ac.uk..., \"Knowledge that events are being recorded creates \"self-awareness\" in all participants during police interactions. This is the critical component that turns body-worn video into a 'preventative treatment': causing individuals to modify their behaviour in response to an awareness of 'third-party' surveillance by cameras acting as a proxy for legal courts\u2014as well as courts of public opinion\u2014should unacceptable behaviour take place. According to, . http://phys.org..., \" During the 12-month Rialto experiment, use-of-force by officers wearing cameras fell by 59% and reports against officers dropped by 87% against the previous year's figures. . http://www.cam.ac.uk... \"The 'preventative treatment' of body-worn-video is the combination of the camera plus both the warning and cognition of the fact that the encounter is being filmed. In the tragic case of Eric Garner, police weren't aware of the camera and didn't have to tell the suspect that he, and therefore they, were being filmed,\" said Dr Barak Ariel, from the Cambridge's IoC, who conducted the crime experiment with Cambridge colleague Dr Alex Sutherland and Rialto police chief Tony Farrar. The belief in police officers is at an all time low. That is quite harrowing because officers are the ones who protect us and safeguard us. People seeing officers as pernicious is not the way to benefit our society. In fact, many people dislike police force because of the utmost use of force. With officers being aware about the cameras strapped to their chest, they will be less likely to provide a criminal with unjustified force and more likely to do their jobs with fairness and the not needed force. That will result us in a much stronger police system and at the end, a stronger nation itself. 3. Most of the populace, both police officers and civilians buttress the decision to enact body cameras. The people of the USA see the benefits of the propositions plan. The majority of the US citizens want to see the plan in action. They want to ensure a safer future by not only arming officers with guns, but also giving them cameras to record the happening events. Judge, we need to listen to our public and make the safe. We should give the people what they want because in this particular case, the implementation of cameras will provide support to the security and democracy of the public. According to Huffington Post, 56% of voters stated that police body cameras would be beneficial to the police force. 13% stated that it will protect the unalienable rights of the US citizens. 25% of the poll takers figured that it would invade the privacy of people.6% figured that the officers should have the choice. 65,064 votes were supporting the resolution and 28,272 were considering this an invasion of privacy. . http://www.nbcnews.com..., Tracey Knight, community liaison and PR officer for the Fort Worth Police Department, told NBC News. \"However, more and more officers are requesting to have one issued to them and some have even purchased their own. \"The people want it! The officers want it! The officials want it! The question is, then why not? Most people from different areas including the police officers themselves are willing to record the data happening on the streets. They are willing to have objective, documented footage. People are waiting to switch from the \u201che did it\u201d and the \u201cno I did not\u201d approach. The citizens of the USA are willing to make this nation change for the better and with the substantial support and assistance, the propositions plan will be able to function and even support the stance on majority decides. The propositions team plan is to make it required by law for every police officer to wear the Trascendent ProDrive Body 10 Body Camera. It will be very effective for this cause. I will further expand on this in the 2nd proposition speech.", "qid": "49", "docid": "f4135ff7-2019-04-18T14:01:54Z-00005-000", "rank": 1, "score": 189845.0}, {"content": "Title: Police officers should be legally required to wear body cameras while on duty Content: Now to be honest I actually agree but I am board so why not, I think that body cameras might be extreme. Now we should make sure they are not betting people because of race but what if it slows them down when they are actually taking on a criminal? It could have fatal consequences. and i do think that all city's could just install cameras in their car and if they break it they could amuse things.", "qid": "49", "docid": "5d6bbcc-2019-04-18T12:50:03Z-00001-000", "rank": 2, "score": 188171.0}, {"content": "Title: Police officers should be legally required to wear body cameras while on duty Content: I will argue that police officers should be legally required to wear body cameras while on duty. Since purchasing body cameras for law enforcement agencies would be a public expense, I will accept the burden of proof in this debate. Sources can and should be posted in text after the arguments they are being used to support. -Power and authority should be accompanied by accountability. This is something that Sir Robert Peel recognized in his principles of policing which were developed to guide the first professional police force. One example: \"The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions.\" Body cameras an oversight tool which can be used to better hold officers accountable and maintain public trust. (Source: http://www.nwpolice.org...) -Body cameras have the two-pronged effect of encouraging police officers to act professionally and also defusing situations with subjects (who are less inclined to behave in discrediting ways when they know they are being filmed). In pilot projects where body cameras worn by police officers have been implemented and studied, complaints against officers have dropped over 90%. (Source: http://cjb.sagepub.com...) -Further expanding on the point of cameras being a tool to defuse situations, they will improve officer safety as subjects will be aware that their actions will be recorded on camera and those recordings could be used as evidence against them. -While cost is sometimes cited as an argument against the implementation of police body cameras, lawsuits against police agencies for misconduct can be extremely expensive for the agencies and the government bodies that oversee them. Body cameras can capture evidence that can discredit false complaints against officers and can prevent frivolous lawsuits from succeeding or forcing governments to provide unnecessary settlements. -Individual officers themselves are protected from false accusations in the form of complaints or lawsuits if they behave professionally and appropriately and their conduct is captured through body cameras. I'm looking forward to further debating this with anyone willing to argue the contrary position.", "qid": "49", "docid": "5d6bbcc-2019-04-18T12:50:03Z-00002-000", "rank": 3, "score": 187277.0}, {"content": "Title: Law enforcement (in America) should be required to use body cameras during civilian interaction Content: Framework The resolution says police should us body cams in civilian interactions. The wording of which and the lack of mentioning any exceptions to the rule of requiring body cams in civilian interactions, implies that they should be used in all civilian interactions. This is how the resolution is written, and should be interpreted. Privacy Concerns There are some definite privacy concerns with body cams. Police don\"t only deal with suspects of crimes, and traffic infractions on a daily basis. Officers also talk with witnesses and informants. They talk to rape victims. They also are sometimes the first to arrive at car crashes and interact with the victims of horrible tragedies. The main concern is that all the footage would be public property and therefore public can get access to it through the freedom of information act, but even if laws were made to protect the privacy of people, leaks still happen and the civilians still know the film is being made which has an effect on their psychology. You can easily go to youtube and already view dash cam footage of a lot of people in the worst moments of their lives, we don\"t need to make this problem worse. Informants, many of which are in the criminal underworld will be less inclined to provide evidence needed to capture and prosecute dangerous criminals. Scared and shaken witnesses will also be more scared to and less inclined to give information. An officer talking to a 7 year old who just watched his mother raped and murdered, does not need to have a camera in his face bearing witness to and forever immortalizing the greatest tragedy he will ever face. Even when filming the arrest of somebody perhaps a batterer, the officer is often going into a private residence and there is all kinds of private information lying around, and no way should a victim of domestic violence have her private life exposed to whatever prying eye makes a FOA request, or youtubes the video, because some cop thought the interaction was funny enough to upload on the internet. Bureaucracy concerns Just like any other occupation, and especially with government agencies there can be a lot of bureaucracy. There is a lot of concern that having police cams on too much can make the jobs of officers harder, it can also make it harder on good cops. Right now an officer has a lot of discretion. If he sees an old lady in a dangerous neighborhood with an unregistered gun, he can turn a blind eye but with the cameras, he may be forced to prosecute every single tiny infraction. If you think broken windows policing is bad now, just wait until the police can no longer let little things go. The cameras can be used for his bosses to nitpick about every tiny thing he does, from improper uniform, to some off the cuff remarks to fellow officers. Everybody needs to blow off steam on occasion, and especially so in a high stress jobs like policing. Conclusion I know everyone thinks these body cams will be used to keep an out of control government in check, but in reality, just like every other tool. It will be used against citizens. Anyone can watch Tru TV and see \"Top 20 Drunks\" shows, shaming people seen in dash cam videos or videos in a police room, we don\"t need to embarrass random people by allowing these shows more material. We don\"t need to handcuff good cops, by forcing them to lose their discretionary privileges. If unjust laws are made, we\"re somewhat protected by the fact that cops can use their discretion to stop enforcing stupid laws, with body cams you can forget that. Vote Wylted", "qid": "49", "docid": "dfae64e7-2019-04-18T13:40:27Z-00004-000", "rank": 4, "score": 187263.0}, {"content": "Title: Police officers should be legally required to wear body cameras while on duty Content: Also, I'd like to apologize for the lack of formal rules and structure to this debate (I am new to the site and this is the first debate I posted); we'll have to freestyle this. Now then, addressing your points in order: --- \"Now we should make sure they are not betting people because of race\" I'm sorry, I don't entirely understand what you mean by this (I'm assuming that \"betting\" is a typo there). But I'm going to infer that you mean to bring up racial profiling here. I would actually counter that body cameras can serve to reduce racial profiling in that they can be used to show that officers had probable cause in their interactions with subjects (including minorities). It makes it more difficult, if not next to impossible, to fabricate evidence or charges. --- \"what if it slows them down when they are actually taking on a criminal? It could have fatal consequences. \" With respect, I don't see how it would. During a physical altercation it is certainly possible that a camera could be knocked off. It happens in this body camera footage for example: But officer safety takes precedence over protecting equipment so I don't see how wearing a body camera could put officers any more at risk. Keep in mind they already wear a lot of equipment on their person. Anecdotally, I was an LEO who wore a mic (but not a body camera) at all times on shift, I never once felt it posed an officer safety threat and I'm struggling to imagine how it could. I'm open to further argument on this point if you could elaborate. --- \"i do think that all city's could just install cameras in their car and if they break it they could amuse things. \" Again, I'm sorry but I don't understand the last half of this sentence. I will, however, address the first half: Dashcams are already standard in police cars but they have several disadvantages compared to body cameras. For example, they have a static position. Body cameras are dynamic and move along with the officer's POV. This is an instant process and they do not need to be adjusted. By contrast, with a dashcam at best you can orient it to face a specific area you believe will be most relevant to capture footage, but that both requires foresight to do (which is difficult in the heat of a high stress situation) and will not follow the officer and/or subject if they move out of the line of sight where the camera is oriented.", "qid": "49", "docid": "5d6bbcc-2019-04-18T12:50:03Z-00000-000", "rank": 5, "score": 184848.0}, {"content": "Title: Law enforcement (in America) should be required to use body cameras during civilian interaction Content: So I guess there were two other studies. The policies of the other departments still don\"t require body cams be turned on for every civilian interaction. For example in Orlando the policy is:\"Officers shall activate the (body-worn camera) whenever there is a potential for dealing with a suspect of a crime,\" states the policy. It adds that, \"(the camera) may be activated whenever the officer feels its use would be beneficial to his/her police duties.\" http://www.clickorlando.com...The San Diego guidelines advise police to not record victims of violent crime, or record peaceful protestors, when they perform their protection duties at those. http://voiceofsandiego.org...We can see that my opponent is advocating for a policy that has likely never been implemented before, and using data from studies that never required police to record all civilian interactions. If my opponent wants to replicate the results of those studies, he should follow the body worn camera guidelines they have. Not create his own unproven guidelines. My opponent should lose because the use of bodycams can be implemented with the same results, and without requiring the use of bodycams in every single civilian interaction.Impact analysisI\"ll keep this short. There isn\"t much to say, because this is such a clear loss for my opponent. Even without me adding anything. My opponent must show that bodycams should record every single civilian interaction. He has not done this. He has showed the usefulness of body cams for sure. Officers should use them for traffic stops, and when responding to service calls, but he has not given a single good reason (or any reason at all) to use them when talking to informants are victims of violent crimes. He needs to give some good reasons as to why bodycams should be used while talking to victims of violent crimes or why informants who may have to admit their own illegal activity to help a cop catch a bigger fish, should be recorded. I haven\"t won because I\"ve presented some sort of compelling evidence that police shouldn\"t be wearing body cams in every interaction with civilians (I have). I\"ve won because my opponent has failed to give a single reason why informants and victims should be recorded.Responses\"In response to the point about victims and informants, my opponent has resorted to insults and anecdotal evidence (which hardly even relates to the point of traumatized victims anyway, as he was not such).\"I have not insulted anybody, but this is an insult. How dare my opponent say an accident where I killed somebody and watched their mangled body squirming in odd and inhuman ways on the ground is not traumatic. How dare my opponent say I was not a victim who has had to live with the knowledge I have killed somebody, because of his own criminal behavior as well as the behavior of his buddies. My opponent should definitely lose some conduct points for this rude behavior. Between the conduct point, arguments and loss of the source point, my opponent cannot be allowed to win this debate.\"I can't see why a victim would be willing to talk with an LEO but be absolutely opposed to being on a body camera.\"This is silly to even say. There is a huge difference between talking with a cop who is acting like a trusted confidant, and talking to somebody with a camera where the footage will be reviewed by whoever puts it in the database, the chief of police, the district attorney, 12 jurors, a judge whoever happens to be in the courtroom that day, and numerous media outlets displaying the footage to millions of people. Without the bodycam a victim is crying on the shoulder of a trusted confidant, with the body cam (AKA evidence for a court case, likely pulled up by the defense team to find tiny contradictions), the victim is talking to a large group of people. The situation with an informant is worse, especially if we are dealing with organized crime. Way to give somebody the death sentence who gave a police officer who used his information to bust a hitman pro. \"This is what my opponent failed to prove. The footage would also be helpful in determining what exactly the victims initial responses were. What if they changed their story later on to help their case?\"This is what a written witness statement is for. The victim can type down a statement about what happened, and still have a shoulder to cry on where she can say whatever she wants (Personal wise not evidence wise) in the immediate aftermath of a traumatic event. I won't even respond to the discretion point too much. My opponent has completely went off the rails with it. Just read my previous round to see how I\"ve already addressed every single thing he says. Look this is a clear win for me. Do the right thing. Thanks voters.", "qid": "49", "docid": "dfae64e7-2019-04-18T13:40:27Z-00000-000", "rank": 6, "score": 184532.0}, {"content": "Title: Law enforcement (in America) should be required to use body cameras during civilian interaction Content: Sources My opponent has listed 3 links that merely go to the front page of 3 news sites. These sources do not verify the existence of 3 different studies done on police body cams. He should be deducted source points for providing fake links, and punished accordingly. He should probably also be deducted conduct points, because I\"m only aware of one major study done on police body cams. I assume he lied about the number of studies found. Use of Force and Civilian Complaints I\"m going to go ahead and concede these points, because they don\"t matter. They are also a waste of time, though I could easily shed serious doubt on them. The debate is not whether police body cams are useful, or should be required. The debate is whether police should wear them in every civilian interaction. You can support body cam usage and still be opposed to them recording every interaction. Now I support officers turning them on during traffic stops, or during calls into tense situations, but when dealing with a rape victim or an Informant (for example), the officer should be allowed to turn them off. What reason is there to record an informant telling the officer about some drug dealers on the corner, openly selling? It has the down side of preventing informants from speaking, while carrying absolutely no upside. Responses \"In the example of the 7 y/o boy, special procedures are in place to protect and respect victims. In that situation, it seems highly unlikely that serious questioning would occur directly after the event. The first responders will not be trying to extract information.\" This is just stupid. This is not Law and Order SVU. Often times detectives don\"t even talk to victims. I was personally in a situation, where I killed an escaping robber. His friends actually ran off and let him to die. I was never once talked to by a detective, and was later issued a subpoena for court, never talking to a detective at all. The only people I talked to were first responders. This is how the real world works. Most victims of crimes, only talk to first responders. The witness statement they write up should be enough. They shouldn\"t have to have a camera in their face, during the worst time of their life. Beyond that, you have yet to state a reason why victims or informants should be forced to be recorded. My opponent most likely attempted to link to 3 articles on the same Rialto California police body cam study. What my opponent doesn\"t realize, is that even during these studies, the body cams weren\"t rolling during every civilian encounter. There is no police department in the United States that requires that. According to Police One who reported on the study, and on whose article a link to the study can be found; \"For 12 months, Rialto\"s 54 frontline officers all were assigned randomly to wear or not wear TASER HD Axon Flex video/audio cameras attached to their clothing during each of their 12-hr. shifts. On shifts when they wore cameras, \"the officers were instructed to have them on during every encounter with members of the public, with the exception of incidents involving sexual assaults of minors and dealing with police informants,\" the study team explains.\" https://www.policeone.com... So even the studies my opponent are linking to, don\"t show the results of every police interaction with civilians. No such study has been done, nor will it be done. \"In regard to police officers and discretion; the hierarchy of law enforcement agencies understand the massive role that discretion plays. There is good discretion and bad discretion. The hierarchies need to evaluate LEOs on their use of discretion. Body cameras can be invaluable to preventing bad discretion.\" The whole point of personal discretion that nobody is in the officers shoes and can judge that better than him. If an officer has somebody sitting over his shoulder judging every discretion as either good or bad, and punishing or criticizing him for what is viewed as bad discretion, well that takes away the discretion altogether. Now there are certain laws that are known as \"must arrest\" laws, and officers are required to arrest for those laws or risk termination, but that is not what we are talking about. We\"re talking about the discretion of whether or not a jay walker is ticketed, or whether a kid dropping his candy wrapper on the ground should be fined $1000 for littering. The officer needs the discretion of whether or not to lock up somebody for public intoxication or not. Without this discretion, this country will turn into one where anybody can be arrested or fined for just about anything. Most legal experts believe that the average citizen commits 3 felonies a day. http://www.wsj.com... You certainly can\"t tell an officer he can\"t use his discretion to fine or arrest somebody who broke a law, so now with the second guessing for free passes, you incentivize officers never using their discretion to give somebody a free pass. With the fact that every single one of us breaks the law, every single day. This becomes a very dangerous thing to incentivize. Conclusion My opponent has not disputed my claim that leaks of footage can and do happen, embarrassing people unnecessarily. This is a point in my favor. He is acknowledging that people will be seen in their most private moments, when they should not have been. My opponent brings up some good reasons to have body cams, and I agree with them. However he has failed to show why they should be used in every single civilian encounter. The Rialto study showed that using the cameras in most civilian interactions as opposed to all of them, got the desired results my opponent is asking for. If the Rialto study was so successful at getting the desired results without shoving a camera in a child victim\"s face or without compromising confidential informants, why don\"t we replicate that study in real life?", "qid": "49", "docid": "dfae64e7-2019-04-18T13:40:27Z-00002-000", "rank": 7, "score": 184198.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Police officers should be required to wear body cameras Content: As my opponent stated, today\"s world criminal justice system is not at all filled with justice. What he is not considering is that this same claim applies to his own stance as well. He is arguing that wearing body cameras will provide objective footage, which, in turn, will allow society to judge on situation. The thing is that whether or not government or society approves situation does not prove that situation was indeed fair. Society have their own idea of what it means to be \"fair\". Their own core values and principles. Some people might not share those values and principles. Just because majority are majority does not logically lead to conclusion that their stance is automatically correct. Think about ancient rome, where slavery was legal. Or think about middle east, where killing homosexuals is legal. Or think about nazi germany, where gassing jews was legal. Just because something is considered \"legal' does not mean that it is right thing to do. With body cameras government will have absolute control over police force, meaning that governments own interpretation of \"right\" and \"justice\" will be forced upon people more effectively. I am against that. Even tho I do, generally speaking, agree with most (if not all) of the governments values, if one day I will not, I will have no way to stand up to the government. Everything will be recorded and people will be jailed based on governments own, egoistic interpretation of \"justice\". I believe that granting government ultimate control will lead to disaster, because if government is going to change, there is going to be nothing you can do to avoid their \"unjust\" (according to you) punishment.", "qid": "49", "docid": "f4135ff7-2019-04-18T14:01:54Z-00004-000", "rank": 8, "score": 182596.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Police officers should be required to wear body cameras Content: \"my opponent has been cherry picking my arguments\" I actually copied and pasted literally all your arguments, which you, very conveniently, listed. Here is the exact quote: \"Now, to restate my own points, introduce a new point and finally expand on my plan. So, my points were: 1. Implementing cameras for officers will dwindle the amount of apartheid. 2. Downtrend the amount of duress used by the police. 3. Most of the populace, both police officers and civilians buttress the decision to enact body cameras.\" And here is how I copy these points and provide counters: \"So, to re-state my counters to your arguments. 1. Implementing cameras for officers will dwindle the amount of apartheid. That being a good thing is merely your subjective opinion, not a fact. 2. Downtrend the amount of duress used by the police. Again, your own, personal morals. Just because you, subjectively, believe it to be a good thing does not mean it actually is. Moral relativism. 3. Most of the populace, both police officers and civilians buttress the decision to enact body cameras. Which does not mean that it is right thing to do. As I stated earlier, argument on grounds that something is right simply because majority believes so, is illogical (ad populum). What is \"right\" can be decided by each culture, or individual himself.\" Thus, I took into account and replied to ALL points. No cherry picking took place. \"Firstly, he pointed out that this will be fair only based on the government.\" I did not. Here is exact quote. \" The thing is that whether or not government or society approves situation does not prove that situation was indeed fair.\" \"What you are arguing here, is essentially to force your cultures and majorities values unto those who disagree.\" It was acknowledged that government will have majorities support. \"The sane, they agree that murder is immoral, that stealing is immoral and that those who commit such crimes must be punished.\" Ad hominem. The sane agree with me. Implying that those with different moral standards are insane. Text-book ad hominem. \"Nobody is forcing \"fairness\" onto anyone.\" They are, on minority. On those few who disagree with their ideas of fairness. \"Not one group of people at all! The majority. The population. This is not a single group, but an extremely large portion of the populace.\" Which is still a group... thus my point stands. \" It it not at all subjective that murder ir wrong.\" FOR THE RECORD- I DO NOT SUPPORT MURDER. I BELIEVE IT TO BE WRONG. That being said, unlike my opponent, I realize that this belief of mine is merely a personal opinion. It will be pleasure for me to inform my opponent that up until this day, no set of morals have been proven to be objectively correct to any other set of morals. Thus, morals are subjective. deal with it. My opponent believes that his personal, as well as his cultures morals are objectively correct, which is the problem. On a side note, I am not arguing that society can't and shouldn't enforce their subjective understanding on others. Society must exist somehow, which means laws must be enforced. I fully support that. What I explained in first round, was that if one day society and government will come up with unacceptable morals, those who disagree with said morals will have no way to avoid unjust punishment. This is why, in my opinion, we should not give government (and majority) full control. There must be a back door for instance if society turns evil, so that you could escape. \"My opponent talked a lot about how many support genocide. Does HE support the extremination of a certain race? I hope not. Which once again supports my case.\" I do not, but this is my personal opinion. I realize that me NOT supporting genocide is merely my subjective opinion, not objective truth. \"1. Dwindle the amount of apartheid. This argument is about how objective footage will lower racial discrimination in the justice system.\" It will lead to a situation which is classified by majority as \"lower racial discrimination\". Whether or not their classification of what counts as \"lower racial discrimination\" is objectively correct, is unknown. \"2. Downtrend the amount of duress used. Simple enough, the refutation was irrelevant. This argument was how police officers will use less force.\" And while it might be that police officers will use less force, it is only assumed by my opponenet that using less force is a good thing. If person does not agree with this premise, then this argument holds no merit and does not lead to conclusion that police should wear body cameras. 3. The majority supports this. Not majority of government people. But of our citizens and even the officers. I realize that. It was acknowledged by me on several instances. 4. If we do the hard work to figure out how to maximize the accountability of the police and minimize the privacy risk, this is going to be beneficial for the people of the United States. Not personal values. The prop has evidence. If you look at some of the previous speeches, there has been evidence to proove how it result in less discrimination and force used by the officers. Which will then ensure safety. People want safety. Safety is what is wanted by the majority of the public, making this argument applicable. You are drawing conclusion on what is beneficial for US citizens based on your own personal values. It is you who believes that less discrimination = beneficial for US citizens. If all your arguments are based on your personal values, then one has to simply reject your values and the conclusion (that police should wear body cameras) will not logically follow.", "qid": "49", "docid": "f4135ff7-2019-04-18T14:01:54Z-00000-000", "rank": 9, "score": 181869.0}, {"content": "Title: Police Officers should wear Body Cameras while on duty at all times. Content: No sources allowed in this debate.", "qid": "49", "docid": "431b936a-2019-04-18T14:11:36Z-00007-000", "rank": 10, "score": 180040.0}, {"content": "Title: Law enforcement (in America) should be required to use body cameras during civilian interaction Content: Wow... I'm incredibly sorry about my initial sources. I had the same debate with someone else, but he bailed. The old debate was automatically deleted, so I started a new one. I copy and pasted my previous opening statement from that page, and apparently the links didn't copy properly. Here are my actual sources: http://www.afscmeinfocenter.org... (this is the Rialto study my opponent mentioned) http://www.latimes.com... http://www.huffingtonpost.com... Getting on with my closing statement... Police body cameras are a step in the right direction for improving police practices. The evidence shows that police body cameras reduce the use of force and complaints levied against the police. Police body cameras would also be instrumental in protecting police officers against false allegations. In response to the point about victims and informants, my opponent has resorted to insults and anecdotal evidence (which hardly even relates to the point of traumatized victims anyway, as he was not such). Further, he has not supported his contention that cameras will offend traumatized victims with any evidence, just conjecture. My opponent seems to have a gut feeling that it is the case. Honestly, I can't see why a victim would be willing to talk with an LEO but be absolutely opposed to being on a body camera. This is what my opponent failed to prove. The footage would also be helpful in determining what exactly the victims initial responses were. What if they changed their story later on to help their case? My opponent is either failing to acknowledge or is downplaying the fact that discretion can be used poorly. LEOs have a lot of power. That power is meant to be held in check by their superiors. Just as you say discretion can be used to not enforce an unjust law, it can also be used in a corrupt or otherwise illegal manner. We should not give such massive amounts of power to LEOs and then refuse to supervise them and hold them accountable. Also, I will restate one of my previous points: the law enforcement hierarchy understands and respects the role of discretion. Your example of \"a kid dropping his candy wrapper on the ground should be fined $1000 for littering\" is, well, ridiculous. What police chief is going to look at that situation and demand swift justice? If he did, there would be riots.", "qid": "49", "docid": "dfae64e7-2019-04-18T13:40:27Z-00001-000", "rank": 11, "score": 178471.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Police officers should be required to wear body cameras Content: In fact, the opposition has completely misunderstood and obfuscated the simple argument that it will ensure a fair punishment to the criminal.\" A \"fair\" punishment according to whose opinion? Governments? Societies? Punishment will be fair only according to their interpretation of \"fair\", which can be unfair according to person being punished. It is you who completely missed my point, which was that concept of \"fairness\" is subjective, meaning different people can have different understanding of \"fair\". Body cameras will allow one group of people to force their own subjective ideas of \"fairness\" unto other people. That was my point. \"The main difference is that the genocide was NOT made to HELP the public.\" Which is, again, your subjective opinion. Each person can have his own subjective opinion regarding what helps public. Just because you believe that genocide does not help public, does not mean that Hitler or average Nazi had same belief. Again, relativity and subjectivity. \"It was a very obvious detriment.\" Again, personal opinion. Someone who believes Jews to be cancer of this world would have different opinion. \"That is why brave soldiers from the US, Russia, France, England, etc have fought and risked their lives in order to end the terror.\" My point exactly. Not all people share same morals. Some believe right/fair thing to be X, others believe Y.This is exactly why those soldiers fought- because they did not share same morals, values and understanding of \"rightness\" as nazis did. So, to re-state my counters to your arguments. 1. Implementing cameras for officers will dwindle the amount of apartheid. That being a good thing is merely your subjective opinion, not a fact. 2. Downtrend the amount of duress used by the police. Again, your own, personal morals. Just because you, subjectively, believe it to be a good thing does not mean it actually is. Moral relativism. 3. Most of the populace, both police officers and civilians buttress the decision to enact body cameras. Which does not mean that it is right thing to do. As I stated earlier, argument on grounds that something is right simply because majority believes so, is illogical (ad populum). What is \"right\" can be decided by each culture, or individual himself. Now to your next arguments. \"this is going to be beneficial for the people of the United States\" Again, your personal opinion. You base this claim upon your own, personal values, which are just that- YOUR values. Dont try to pull them off as anything more than mere opinion. \"The opposition case in this debate will mostly be pointing out the ineffectiveness of these cameras\" No, I will not. I will point out that you are making claims in accordance to your own values and morals, which are subjective. Things which you and your society believe to be \"right\", \"moral\" and \"fair\" can be considered \"wrong\" \"immoral\" and \"wrong\" by someone else, and you really have no evidence to prove your set of morals to be objectively superior. What you are arguing here, is essentially to force your cultures and majorities values unto those who disagree.", "qid": "49", "docid": "f4135ff7-2019-04-18T14:01:54Z-00002-000", "rank": 12, "score": 177318.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Police officers should be required to wear body cameras Content: Hello once again, I am Forever 23 and I will debate that police body cameras must be implemented. Firstly, I would like to to a rebuttal of my opponents refutations (he has not brought up any point and no new arguments in round 3), restate my assertions and summarize my plan. So first of all, I would like to point out that throughout his refutations, my opponent has been cherry picking my arguments, instead of letting the message pass on as a whole. Firstly, he pointed out that this will be fair only based on the government. However, the people agree with the government. The sane, they agree that murder is immoral, that stealing is immoral and that those who commit such crimes must be punished. The proposition team agrees that fairness is completely subjective. However, in our era, in our nation, there are certain moral values. Value that are followed because they are accepted by the general public. If the public did not accept these values, they would be different. Something subjective stays in place as long as the majority accepts it. Nobody is forcing \"fairness\" onto anyone. The people are accepting and praising the current moral standards. To take the root and heart of their refutation, \" Body cameras will allow one group of people to force their own subjective ideas of \"fairness\" unto other people. That was my point. \". Not one group of people at all! The majority. The population. This is not a single group, but an extremely large portion of the populace. Body cameras fit the current \"fair\" which makes the implementation of them necessary for the US government- a government based on the values THAT THE PEOPLE CREATED, NOT THE GOVERNMENT. Next, he mentions how once again everything is subjective. He expecially attacks the point on how genocide does NOT help the public by mentioning that some people thing that it does. He points out how Hitler thought that it was beneficial. Hitler was a man WITH AN INSANE MIND. It it not at all subjective that murder ir wrong. If you come up to a stranger on the street and ask, \"Why is murder wrong? \", the most common response will be, \"Just because it is wrong\". The majority of the public holds the opinion that both genocide and murder are wrong, making it applicable. And while a subjective opinion is applicable and accepted by the general public, it must be used and applies. Same with body cameras and modern day laws. Most have the subjective opinion that police officers should wear cameras. That makes it applicable. Since it is applicable, it must be implemented. My opponent talked a lot about how many support genocide. Does HE support the extremination of a certain race? I hope not. Which once again supports my case. Now, I would like to point out that my opponent has completely misunderstood all of my arguments. 1. Dwindle the amount of apartheid. This argument is about how objective footage will lower racial discrimination in the justice system. 2. Downtrend the amount of duress used. Simple enough, the refutation was irrelevant. This argument was how police officers will use less force. 3. The majority supprots this. Not majority of government people. But of our citizens and even the officers. 4. If we do the hard work to figure out how to maximize the accountability of the police and minimize the privacy risk, this is going to be beneficial for the people of the United States. Not personal values. The prop has evidence. If you look at some of the previous speeches, there has been evidence to proove how it result in less discrimination and force used by the officers. Which will then ensure safety. People want safety. Safety is what is wanted by the majority of the public, making this argument applicable. Overall, I would just like to summarize by saying that my opponent failed to understand and address 3 of my claims and my plan. Finally, to restate my plan. The Transcendent DrivePro Body camera will be put on all police officers. Well, how is it affordable?", "qid": "49", "docid": "f4135ff7-2019-04-18T14:01:54Z-00001-000", "rank": 13, "score": 176589.0}, {"content": "Title: Police Officers should wear Body Cameras while on duty at all times. Content: 1. Body cameras can help an investigation. First of all, direct evidence is the best evidence possible. Having these officers wear these body cameras helps the judge to make an educated decision, and to make sure no officers are help wrongly at fault. Second of all. it helps to keep innocent people out of jail. No more people will be wrongfully jailed, because direct evidence does not lie.", "qid": "49", "docid": "431b936a-2019-04-18T14:11:36Z-00005-000", "rank": 14, "score": 176310.0}, {"content": "Title: Police Officers should wear Body Cameras while on duty at all times. Content: Let's look at your rebuttals. \"2. There's already a fund for the body cameras.\" Not all officers wear body cameras. Many more officers still need body cameras. So therefore, that leads to MORE spending, which decreases spending in more needed areas. Currently, there isn't a fund for body cameras. \"3. 2d cameras are still cameras, most investigations don't even have video to go off of. Once again, video can't lie.\" Interesting point. Body cameras cannot lie, but however, they degrade civic values, which adds on to the morality of my cameras, which are wrong. Camera speed differs from the speed of life, and your body may block the view of the cameras. 1 camera might not be enough. If someone robs a store, they won't just look at 1 camera. They will use multiple cameras. 1 camera, at one point of view, cannot replace 1 through investigation. Just because we saw a masked person kill another person, do we know who the masked person is? Of course not. We still have to do more analysis for the blood and fingerprints. \"4. Guessing game? Once again, the reason the cameras are there is so that the judge does not have to play the guessing game.\" The reason why these people have to play the guessing game is due to the fact that they have only 1 point of view. The officer has to then guess the conditions, and then assess a 1 sided pov, unlike the many witnesses with many pov. \"5. Witnesses can take the oath and still lie, what if they were threatened by the criminal themselves?\" The Witnesses have to tell the truth no matter what. The courts will protect them. I have shown all the bad things about the body cameras and added in my values, which my opponent has failed to provide. The cost is just to expensive, and cameras can't replace an entire investigation. So with these reasons and many more, you should deposit a ballot in the Con side today. ~TheResistance", "qid": "49", "docid": "431b936a-2019-04-18T14:11:36Z-00000-000", "rank": 15, "score": 172435.0}, {"content": "Title: Law enforcement (in America) should be required to use body cameras during civilian interaction Content: You will be expected to use evidence and logic to prove your position. Please use acceptable grammar, good structure, and easily identifiable sources (I personally prefer URLs). You will only have 24 hours to make each argument. Clarification of terms: American law enforcement - while it may be of benefit to other nations as well, this debate is only concerned with the current wide spread discussion of this new policy in the United States. A law enforcement officer (which is common abbreviated to LEO) is any public sector employee concerned with enforcing laws. This includes city police officers, county sheriff deputies, state/highway patrol officers, border patrol officers, federal marshals, etc. Body camera - any sort of recording device carried by LEOs. While this specifically means a camera mounted on the officers body, it will also include head mounted cameras for the sake of this debate. We will not be concerned with vehicle cameras. Civilian interaction - This includes traffic stops, initial investigation/questioning, crowd control, or any other instance where LEOs respond to a call or intervene in a situation. We will not be including interactions within police facilities, where it is expect that most areas are already under surveillance. Today, there has been a resounding call to reform police practices. This is the result mostly of the various instances of alleged racially provoked shootings at the hands of police. Many cases result in disappointing verdicts, based on a lack of evidence. A prime example was the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO. Officer Darren Wilson was not indicted on the basis of a lack of evidence. Because there was no video evidence, it was difficult for the courts to paint a clear picture of what occurred that night. Even though the shooting was highly suspicious, it would have been near impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Wilson wasn't engaging in legitimate self defense. Due to the accessibility of recording equipment in this day and age (thanks to smart phones), some cases have experienced the opposite effect. When Walter Scott was shot in North Charleston, SC by officer Michael Slager, video evidence led to a swift indictment. The question remains why do we not utilize this new technology in full effect. My contentions Protection of the rights of civilians: Simply put, surveilling the actions officers take with civilians holds them to a high standard of professionalism. If an officer knows they are being recorded, they realize they will also be scrutinized for their actions. Many studies have noted the positive effect cameras have on use-of-force trends (I will list three separate studies). All three studies noted a drastic decrease in instances of use-of-force and complaints filed. . http://www.afscmeinfocenter.org...... . http://www.latimes.com...... . http://www.huffingtonpost.com...... Protection of the rights of officers: Police officers are also concerned about faulty complaints and false assumptions about events. Anyone can file a police report, be it justified or not. Police body cameras would provide clarity to the circumstance surrounding the report. Video evidence does not lie: More evidence is better evidence. One common court room dispute is whether or not a detainee was read their Miranda rights before being questioned. According to the supreme court, any evidence obtained through an interrogation of someone who has not been Mirandized is inadmissible in court. Whenever there is a dispute over whether or not the defendant was read the Miranda warning, it often comes do to the officer's word versus their's. With body cameras, it will be easy to show video evidence of an officer reciting the warning or not. This is just one example.", "qid": "49", "docid": "dfae64e7-2019-04-18T13:40:27Z-00005-000", "rank": 16, "score": 172351.0}, {"content": "Title: Should all cops have to wear body cameras Content: No, they should not have to wear body cameras. They are put in a position of authority for a reason. The law enforcement officers should be trusted on what they do and own up to their mistakes when the make them. Yes, they do make mistakes, most admit when they do. Should we put body cameras on all criminals after they are released from prison or jail? No, because we put trust in them they will never commit a crime again.", "qid": "49", "docid": "289dc5b0-2019-04-18T12:28:56Z-00000-000", "rank": 17, "score": 171601.0}, {"content": "Title: Police Officers should wear Body Cameras while on duty at all times. Content: Today as the con, I am going to prove to you that police officers should not wear body cameras while on duty at all times. My value today is morality. The reason why this is my value because I am going o prove that it is immoral to wear a body camera as it harms the people's rights, and the community as a whole. Contention 1: Body cameras are seen as an invasion of privacy. When body cameras are on, they will capture all civilian and police behavior. Now, not all people would like this. Some people find it very uncomfortable to be recorded while talking, as they find it invades privacy. Current law prevents a search, which invades privacy, and would everyone is not exactly comfortable for recording them, which will be there forever, and it is an embarrassing memory. Contention 2: Body cameras cost too much. A single camera costs about $350. Many small areas do not have the money and resources to provide these cameras for EVERY officer. Doing so would put the budget at a very uncomfortable position, and it leads for more debt to rise. Contention 3: A camera will never replace a whole investigation. Yes, it might replace many witnesses, but witnesses are more reliable. Witnesses can see 3-D, a camera can only see 2-D. A camera can not provide sole truth for the event because we still need a fair, through investigation. A recording shows 2-D, which only shows around. What we do no know is what really happened because we still need second guessing, and it will take much longer. It also gives a lot of the playing of the should've-couldn't game and a lot of guessing, instead of real testimonies. So with these reasons and many more, police officers should not wear body cameras while on duty. I respectfully, but strongly urge you to put a vote in the Con side today. `TheResistance", "qid": "49", "docid": "431b936a-2019-04-18T14:11:36Z-00006-000", "rank": 18, "score": 170823.0}, {"content": "Title: Police Officers should wear Body Cameras while on duty at all times. Content: Today, my opponent did not answer the clear contention 1, which is morality of the cameras. This proves my 1st contention that it does invade privacy, and since my opponent did not answer, she agrees with the point. Also, she did not even touch on my 2nd contention that body cameras cost too much, which pads on to her agreement with my point. There are 2 points she agrees with the con, because she did not touch on. Let's look at her case. Value: She has no value what so ever, which adds on. Contention 1: \"Body cameras can help an investigation\" As said by my con contention 3, cameras can only see 2-D. As my contention 3 states, \"Yes, it might replace many witnesses, but witnesses are more reliable. Witnesses can see 3-D, a camera can only see 2-D. A camera can not provide sole truth for the event because we still need a fair, through investigation. A recording shows 2-D, which only shows around. What we do no know is what really happened because we still need second guessing, and it will take much longer. It also gives a lot of the playing of the should've-couldn't game and a lot of guessing, instead of real testimonies.\" As seen, we will have to play a lot of guessing games, as it can only see 2D. We cannot see the background or the situation the person was in and why they reacted that way. Witnesses are emotional, unlike cameras, and can see 3-D, which can then see more things, and prevent people from playing the guessing game. Also, a camera cannot always replace a full investigation, which my opponent refused to answer. Let's look at her next contention:\"it helps to keep innocent people out of jail. No more people will be wrongfully jailed, because direct evidence does not lie.\" Interesting. Witnesses do not lie, because they will have to swear they will tell the truth before their testimony. So with these reasons, my opponent does not have a value, while I have provided the true value of morality,and my value criterion is enforcement(i forgot to add), which she has not provided, has failed to answer to 2 of my contention, which suggests she agrees with them. She hasn't really proven any what so reason why cameras can see more clearly or why witnesses are inferior to cameras. So by what's obvious today, vote Con! `TheResistance", "qid": "49", "docid": "431b936a-2019-04-18T14:11:36Z-00004-000", "rank": 19, "score": 168653.0}, {"content": "Title: Police Officers should wear Body Cameras while on duty at all times. Content: 1. No, don't even go there with the stupid logical fallacies, I can't **Flashback** This guy attacked me on here saying that all I used was logical fallacies... I'm going to ignore that. 2. There's already a fund for the body cameras. 3. 2d cameras are still cameras, most investigations don't even have video to go off of. Once again, video can't lie. 4. Guessing game? Once again, the reason the cameras are there is so that the judge does not have to play the guessing game. 5. Witnesses can take the oath and still lie, what if they were threatened by the criminal themselves? I can't break down and analyze your argument at a cellular level because I'm a full- time college student, so sorry for the short responses.", "qid": "49", "docid": "431b936a-2019-04-18T14:11:36Z-00001-000", "rank": 20, "score": 168499.0}, {"content": "Title: Should all cops have to wear body cameras Content: I think cops should have to wear body cameras because we want to know the true story on cop killings", "qid": "49", "docid": "289dc5b0-2019-04-18T12:28:56Z-00001-000", "rank": 21, "score": 162460.0}, {"content": "Title: Police Officers should wear Body Cameras while on duty at all times. Content: You're wrong, my argument does have value. Your opinion on my value is not considered. You're also wrong about the cameras having to be in 3D. First of all, you invalidate your own argument about the cameras costing too much. Equipping the officers with 3D cameras would cost even more! Also, the investigation does not need 3D cameras, a regular video is just fine. Most investigations aren't lucky enough to get a video at all! 2D video can still help everyone make a fair judgement. By the way, everyone lies. By saying that witnesses do not lie, you are saying that people don't lie. Also, I don't agree with you on cost at all. It's worth preventing false witness statements, wrongful jailing, and it helps the investigation tremendously because again, you cannot argue with the facts! My opponent verges on strawmanning. I urge you to vote in affirmation of this statement.", "qid": "49", "docid": "431b936a-2019-04-18T14:11:36Z-00003-000", "rank": 22, "score": 160704.0}, {"content": "Title: Police Officers should wear Body Cameras while on duty at all times. Content: Let's look at your rebuttals. \"My argument does have value. Your opinion on my value is not considered.\" Currently, you have provided absolutely NO value(which I did of morality), and NO value criterion(which mine was enforcement), which you might have a value, but until then, you do not have one unless stated. By default, since I have a value and value criterion and she has not stated hers since, mine are the standing values. \"You're also wrong about the cameras having to be in 3D. First of all, you invalidate your own argument about the cameras costing too much. Equipping the officers with 3D cameras would cost even more! Also, the investigation does not need 3D cameras, a regular video is just fine. Most investigations aren't lucky enough to get a video at all! 2D video can still help everyone make a fair judgement.\" 1. I never said that all cameras needed to be in 3D. I only said that cameras only had a 2D perspective. I never implied that we needed 3D, which implies the STRAW MAN! 2. Ok. Let's look at a police officer employment. Let's look at my local city. If a local city has, let's say, 500 police officers, and you are saying that they should all have body cameras, then look at the cost provided. 500*350=$175000 dollars! This is a lot of money! Money does not grow on trees, as this will increase debt in the country and decrease spending in many needed areas. 3. 2D movies cannot make a fair judgement. Cameras cannot perceive the 3rd dimension that is perceived by the human eye-which is distance. Cameras can't record danger cues because you can usually tell when you touch a subject whether he/she will have an objection, but cameras lack the sensory cue, which makes it lacking the important thing:the danger cue. 4. Cameras will always make us play the guessing game, and the speed is very difference. Cameras record at MUCH higher speed, and the camera will make us play the coulda-shoulda game, because it is not what someone perceived. It is a nonliving thing, and we can scrutinize it for detail, but that is only 1 sided-by the officer. Witnesses are far many more and they will be multi sided. \"By the way, everyone lies. By saying that witnesses do not lie, you are saying that people don't lie.\" 1. I never said that people don't lie. 2. It states in the witness oath, \"I swear that the evidence that I shall give, shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God. Affirmation: I solemnly affirm that the evidence that I shall give, shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.\" This is the basis I am stating. Many witnesses can be provided, so we can get multiple things from the whole truth. How can they lie if they swear before the oath? My opponent thinks I am strawmanning. However, I am not. The fact that you did not break down my 1st and 2nd contentions make the fact that they are valid, and that you don't have any say to it. Secondly, my opponent did not state her value. This is what I stated. I never said her case had no value whatsoever. Thirdly, everything she said was copied directly and in quoted. Then, I broke down on the thoughts I had to counter. With this, she did not answer my basic status quo of my argument:the morality of cameras. I have proven with many reasons and examples why my contentions stand. I have a direct value of morality, which has been PROVEN with the 3 contentions. In fact, she is strawmanning with many examples. (ie.with her saying that the cameras have to be 3D). I never said that. I said that cameras can only see in 2D, and witnesses are more reliable because they see it in 3D. Then, she stated I said that people don't lie. I never stated that or implied that. I only implied that in the jury oath, when the people are stating their evidence, they can't lie. So with these reasons and many more, it has been obvious to vote for Con today. ~TheResistance", "qid": "49", "docid": "431b936a-2019-04-18T14:11:36Z-00002-000", "rank": 23, "score": 158762.0}, {"content": "Title: Law enforcement (in America) should be required to use body cameras during civilian interaction Content: My opponent brings up the very valid concern of privacy. However, the issue may not be a prevalent as it appears. Firstly, my opponent seems to b concerned with the general public gaining access to body camera footage. He specifically mentioned the Freedom of Information Act. The FIOA has many exceptions; the general public is not entitled to all government records: \"Exemption 7: Information compiled for law enforcement purposes that: 7(A). Could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings 7(B). Would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication 7(C). Could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy 7(D). Could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source 7(E). Would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions 7(F). Could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual\" The government has already considered the privacy of the general public. Simply put, I can't file an FIOA request to receive footage of DUI arrests for an arbitrary reason. If, for instance, I was a lawyer taking a case against an alleged malpracticing police officer, I could easily receive footage. http://www.foia.gov... In terms of informants and traumatized victims, they would not have to worry about this information becoming public for the reasons mentioned above. The police should be instructed to inform the public of the exemptions of the FOIA. In the example of the 7 y/o boy, special procedures are in place to protect and respect victims. In that situation, it seems highly unlikely that serious questioning would occur directly after the event. The first responders will not be trying to extract information. At the end of the day, this is a problem not with body cameras but a with policy. In regard to police officers and discretion; the hierarchy of law enforcement agencies understand the massive role that discretion plays. There is good discretion and bad discretion. The hierarchies need to evaluate LEOs on their use of discretion. Body cameras can be invaluable to preventing bad discretion. Your specific example displays a poor use of discretion. The old women has an illegal firearm, when she could have easily registered it. She could have an insidious motive for having motive for having an unregistered firearm. Should that weapon be used in a crime, it will be difficult if not impossible to trace. With the presence of a body camera, his supervisor could inform the officer of his mistake and make a positive change.", "qid": "49", "docid": "dfae64e7-2019-04-18T13:40:27Z-00003-000", "rank": 24, "score": 156233.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Police officers should be required to wear body cameras Content: His refutation to my first point was that. We never stated the the crimes were fair. In fact, the opposition has completely misunderstood and obfuscated the simple argument that it will ensure a fair punishment to the criminal. Afterall, after seeing the situation, the decision makers will see what punishment fits the crime. And well of course, the punishment will in no way be unfair. If an unfair verdict is passed, there is always the video for evidence and the very simple statement can be said: Based on the video, the verdict was to strict/lax. He deserves a fair punishment since his rights are protected under the 8th amendment. Next, he refuted my majority point by saying that society may sometimes consider something wrong, right. He gave a few completely irrelevant examples. Such as, Nazi Germany. However, there is a very blatant difference between these to cases. The main difference is that the genocide was NOT made to HELP the public. It was a very obvious detriment. Here however, the public supports a movement which is supposed to ensure equality, and the use of less police force. In addition, the people did NOT support Nazi Germany. That is why brave soldiers from the US, Russia, France, England, etc have fought and risked their lives in order to end the terror. The second point, about the decreased use of duress remains standing as it was not refuted by the opposing side. Now, to restate my own points, introduce a new point and finally expand on my plan. So, my points were:1. Implementing cameras for officers will dwindle the amount of apartheid. 2. Downtrend the amount of duress used by the police.3. Most of the populace, both police officers and civilians buttress the decision to enact body cameras. Now onto a new assertion:4. If we do the hard work to figure out how to maximize the accountability of the police and minimize the privacy risk, this is going to be beneficial for the people of the United States. The opposition case in this debate will mostly be pointing out the ineffectiveness of these cameras, the costs and even uselessness. But in order for this plan to be successful, the police department must find the correct camera, find the most cheapest and yet efficient product and finally do more tests to find the effect of these cameras. If we do not take a serious approach to this situation, this plan will be a fail. However, with the right equipment, this system will run very well and efficiently. . http://www.bhphotovideo.com..., Record your every move with the DrivePro Body 10 Body Camera from Transcend, ideal for security personnel like bodyguards and police officers. The camera can record up to 3.5 hours of continuous 1080p video recording and has a built-in microphone for recording audio. Integrated IR LEDs are automatically triggered in low-light environments allowing the camera to record footage regardless of the light setting. The front of the camera features an easily accessible snapshot button for taking still pictures while recording video. The body camera features a 360\u00b0 body clip which can quickly and securely attach the camera to a jacket or vest. IPX4-rated, the camera is water-resistant against splashing and rain, as well as shock-resistant. Footage is recorded to a microSD card and can be managed using the DrivePro Body Toolbox. While the camera is compatible with Microsoft and Mac operating systems, the DrivePro Body Toolbox is compatible only with Microsoft Windows systems.360\u00b0 clip for connecting the camera to a jacket or strap IR LEDs for night vision capability Built-in battery for easy charging and up to 3.5h of continuous recording Built-in microphone for recording audio, in addition to video Snapshot button for capturing on-demand stills IPX4-rated against water Shock resistant They pricing is affordable, 149.99. Currently however, according to CNBC, the TASER cameras are being used. These cameras are also very effective. In fact, they are able to get really clear footage. This camera is 359.99 only. Overall judge, throwing this idea into the trash can because of expenses and trouble finding the correct camera is such a waste. If the government puts some thought into this idea, it will happen. The prices are not as extreme as the opposition may suggest as shown in the evidence. In addition, the cameras brought for these practical prices provide with a clear image that helps resolve the conflict in minutes just by watching this video. Overall, judge the body cameras will have a major effect on the issue of abortheid in the justice system and duress used by police force. Simply, the decision of the court will be based of real objective footage. If something seemed or was unfair, just looking at the video would be proof. The punishment will start to truly fit the crime because once you have the video, the mass, nothing can really defy it. With body cameras strapped to their chests, police officers will second guess themselves and therefore will not use an excessive amount of force.", "qid": "49", "docid": "f4135ff7-2019-04-18T14:01:54Z-00003-000", "rank": 25, "score": 148656.0}, {"content": "Title: Crime cameras Content: Police should not waste time watching crime cameras", "qid": "49", "docid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00001-000", "rank": 26, "score": 137112.0}, {"content": "Title: Police should not waste time watching crime cameras Content: It is a waste of police resources for officers to spend significant amounts of time watching surveillance cameras for signs of criminal activity. Their time would be better spent patrolling the streets.", "qid": "49", "docid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00085-000", "rank": 27, "score": 125147.0}, {"content": "Title: The philippines should continue the \"Kill on sight if armed\" law against criminals. Content: Police abusing power by planting a weapon is simple enough that if you are hearing about it much at all it is probably happening pretty often without being detected. Though in this case a camera would be a good idea, it would also be quite costly. Considering you said -which is not all that surprising seeing how poor our economy is-, this might simply not be a feasible solution for your country. Of course situations do and will happen that could put police at risk, and a solution for that is not so easy. If the economy improves, body cameras would be a good idea. A temporary solution I could see working is, instead of outright allowing officers to kill on sight, if they or someone else provides a video of the advent which shows the officer is at risk and kills they would be pardoned on the spot. Also, in the advent that deadly force need not be necessary, for instance a suspect running at the officer with a knife, carrying a strong police grade pepper spray may be a better choice. Now none of this would solve all your countries problems overnight, but could still be a good start. I have my own strong opinions on how drugs should be handled so I will give my ideas for that. First of all, drug addicts should not be punished. Drug addiction is a mental illness that is very hard for someone to kick, I have watched my own sister fight drug addiction and seen firsthand how hard it is. Often the very act of starting isn't a direct choice for addicts at all, but rather started due to other mental illnesses. My sister started drugs while bipolar, severely depressed and suicidal, with severe ADHD. Not to say at all nothing should be done, but that is the wrong target. Drug addicts should have mandatory treatment if caught with drugs, and that is a much more lasting solution. The real target should be the drug dealers, and they should get a punishment fitting of someone who lives off of ruining people\u2019s lives. For each proven sale they should be charged with assault, and any proven overdoses murder. For lasting change more than just hard drugs should be targeted, but also tobacco and alcohol, as for most addicts that is what they start with.", "qid": "49", "docid": "1733c744-2019-04-18T12:03:59Z-00002-000", "rank": 28, "score": 123043.0}, {"content": "Title: Police abuse crime cameras, leering at women. Content: Surveillance cameras are often used by police to leer at women, instead of to fight crime. This unfortunate abuse is common, crude and undignified, and a distraction for police from their real duties.", "qid": "49", "docid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00079-000", "rank": 29, "score": 120738.0}, {"content": "Title: Speed cameras are cost effective as they take highly paid police officers off traffic duty, allowing... Content: Removing police officers from traffic duty is bad, as skilled officers are much more able to detect and deal with dangerous driving than insensitive cameras, which will miss any driving offences committed below the speed limit. Cameras create an incentive for police forces to catch motorists out in order to profit from fines. This turns the police into petty bureaucrats milking the public rather than serving them, and creates bad feeling towards the police that is likely to produce problems in tackling real crimes.", "qid": "49", "docid": "869af6cc-2019-04-19T12:47:53Z-00017-000", "rank": 30, "score": 119579.0}, {"content": "Title: Cameras speed up responses to crime and injuries. Content: Jenny Rees. \"City cameras 'don't cut crime'\". Whales Online. April 25, 2005 - \"they allow police officers to respond to incidents more quickly, reducing the number of people who attend hospital accident and emergency departments.\"", "qid": "49", "docid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00047-000", "rank": 31, "score": 118997.0}, {"content": "Title: CCTV Cameras Should Be Operating In All Public Locations Content: I do not believe people should be entitled to privacy in public locations. A camera is essentially a silent police officer: would you walk up to a police officer and ask him to stop watching you walking down the street? It would be very suspicious to make that request. Freedom: \"The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants\" [1] Being watched does not harm your freedom. You can still act how you want to act. The only place where cameras will not be is in private property, but the beauty of having cameras everywhere else is that you can see who is going in and out of a house. If someone was murdered inside a house, you can watch who leaves the house and then follow their movements to find out where they go. Most crimes will be solved by observing their travels. If the power goes out, we are back where we started: no CCTV. This isn't a problem because it is no different from the situation we have right now. [1] - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...", "qid": "49", "docid": "c8b84b6-2019-04-18T16:36:47Z-00001-000", "rank": 32, "score": 116338.0}, {"content": "Title: Crime cameras offer a dangerous false sense of security Content: San Francisco Police Commissioner Joe Alioto-Veronese said to the San Francisco Chronicle in March 2008: \"In their current configuration they are not useful, and they give people a false sense of security, which I think is bad.\"[5]", "qid": "49", "docid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00063-000", "rank": 33, "score": 115675.0}, {"content": "Title: Weapons in schools Content: So a police officer should be mandatory in every school you are saying. A police officer with a gun is understandable because they know when and when not to use it. A teacher with a gun though is much different and is a big liability to the teacher and the school. Teachers should not be allowed to carry guns on them or in their desks for any reason at all. Nothing that bad happens in a school where a teacher needs a gun and if there was a police officer in the building or on campus then there wouldn't be a reason to. Most public high schools do a have a patrol officer on campus which is enough.", "qid": "49", "docid": "6f09dd50-2019-04-18T16:59:44Z-00006-000", "rank": 34, "score": 115128.0}, {"content": "Title: Crime cameras help reduce frequency of community patrols. Content: Police typically patrol neighborhoods with a certain frequency. It is possible for police to reduce the frequency of their patrolling in neighborhoods with crime cameras. This is due largely to the fact that crime cameras help deter and reduce crime, reducing the demand for police patrolling in a certain neighborhood. In addition, newer crime cameras can help detect criminal activity and alert officers to attend to suspicious activities. This is why cameras are often viewed as \"extra crime-fighting eyes\". By helping reduce the need to patrol certain areas, crime cameras can help reduce the costs required to support such police patrolling.", "qid": "49", "docid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00081-000", "rank": 35, "score": 113577.0}, {"content": "Title: Security scans of children are not pornographic Content: Arthur Weinreb. \"Full-body scanners; it's just common sense.\" Canada Free Press. January 8, 2010: \"Minors should be scanned and to link these scans to child porn is ludicrous. Police officers routinely possess child pornography all the time. Not only do they possess it but they distribute it to prosecutors who further distribute it to defense lawyers. Then the prosecutors further distribute it to judges who show juries. For some reason these people aren\u2019t considered to have committed criminal acts because they are doing what they do to protect the public. Just like those who operate full body scanners are doing.\"", "qid": "49", "docid": "91a1b22c-2019-04-17T11:47:28Z-00059-000", "rank": 36, "score": 112570.0}, {"content": "Title: Speed cameras are cost effective as they take highly paid police officers off traffic duty, allowing... Content: Speed cameras are cost effective as they take highly paid police officers off traffic duty, allowing them to do more important things, such as solving crimes, maintaining a presence on urban streets, etc. Speed cameras pay for themselves through fines and can even provide financial support for other police work. Studies have found that much more money is saved for the state and society through prevented casualties than is gained in penalties or spent on the cameras. The public can be educated to appreciate this benefit, especially as systems which apply penalty points for speeding offences instead of or as well as fines are clearly not solely motivated by greed.", "qid": "49", "docid": "869af6cc-2019-04-19T12:47:53Z-00018-000", "rank": 37, "score": 111646.0}, {"content": "Title: Benefits of crime cameras may not be reflected in crime rates. Content: John Firman, the director of research at the International Association of Chiefs of Police, said a 2007 ABC article: \"We know cameras enhance that capacity but saying for sure that they reduced crime by 20 percent, that's another thing. Anecdotally, we know that they have had an impact.\"[1]", "qid": "49", "docid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00049-000", "rank": 38, "score": 109608.0}, {"content": "Title: Recording interaction with police officers should not be against the law. Content: Thank you for your quick response, Lwerd. 1. My opponent seems to have missed the point presented; while I make no claims to the contrary that there exists police abuse out there, my point is that giving Joe Citizen a camera may not lead to the proper use of such video as my opponent describes, in a court of law to catch these abusers. Much like the \"nanny cam\" example my opponent gave, unless a crime is actually committed, what purpose is there to it? Given that nanny cams have also been used to violate privacy in voyeur cases, there clearly is many alternative uses for nanny cames that may not quite fall under my opponent's consent. This is the same issue that comes with recording interactions with the police; what is actually right, and what is blatantly a violation of privacy and protection? 2. My source, if Pro had followed along as intended, was to demonstate the fact that the internet has given criminal networks a completely new tool to affect police operations - nothing more, nothing less. Moving on, the entire idea has been this: the internet, modern mass media, and other things allows people with a certain bias to do what they will with whatever they have, regardless of the consequences it can create. My point has been that police - also people too - are going to be subjected to unnecessary stress caused by videos that scrutinize actions, or just plainly misrepresent the facts, not to mention the privacy concerns, recognized already by courts, for which much of the current laws in place are based on[1]. 3. My opponent forgets that, going with her example, in order to stop many drinking and driving cases, there has been a major campaign, supported by police, to stop inebriated drivers from even getting into a car - stopping the problem before it becomes one, because how do we know they won't kill someone? The same is true with recording the police; without the benefit of hindsight, we don't know what their actions will lead to. My opponent wants to punish those that breach this right; so, like drunk driving, is it not better to stop it before it even happens? I'm not talking about illegalizing recording devices, here, any more than I'd advocate illegalizing alcohol - just that we need to stop a problem, like drunk driving, from occuring before it even happens. 4. Aside from the amusing noting of using Nags as a source, my opponent misses the point. She says police should feel comfortable - they don't. Several officers have testified to this fact[2]. In a study done by a British organization, interviewing police officers who were being recorded by Britain's extensive CCTV system (their own recording system, nonetheless!), the report found \"... When asked whether the introduction of surveillance cameras had affected their work, themajority of police officers interviewed initially responded by stating that the presence of CCTV had not had any impact on the way in which they carried out their duties or exercised their powers.... When pressed on the issue of how CCTV had affected their behaviour on the streets, however, over two-thirds of the officers interviewed conceded that the introduction of cameras had forced them to be \u2018more careful' when out on patrol. 10 Some, for example, had heard stories of officers being prosecuted for unlawful arrest or assault on the basis of CCTV evidence, stories that had left them anxious about being watched and the possibility of their own activities being scrutinised. Others, particularly younger officers, found being under constant surveillance made them nervous and uncomfortable.\" The very same report also has officers praising this, and also has officers saying that they're afraid of actions being \"misrepresented,\" apparently a very common concern among officers. Clearly, an issue exists, even if my opponent says it shouldn't. 5(a). My opponent didn't look through my source, then. 5(b). This issue was addressed above; recording, like drinking, may not lead to misrepresentative video or drunk driving, but without benefit of hindsight, we don't know - hence why preventative measures should be in place. 6. Again, above. 7. My opponent should note that I said that with exceptions; recording technology, and the ability to record officers willy-nilly for whatever reason, is not an effective way of keeping police accountable. It can, no doubt about that - and those incidents should be protected under law. But, related to the next point, even if recording has been made illegal, the video survives, as it must still be used in court as evidence of any crime being committed; for those officers truly worried about their actions and being charged, it doesn't matter if it is illegal or not, as they will try to stop it anyways. 8. My opponent missed the point; the issue is whether or not officers who are truly bent on doing harm would tolerate video recording anyways, whether it was legal or not. The common sense answer is a plain no; if an officer wants to make good on any threat, he will, and would most likely dispose of any video recording, or audio, or whatever, anyways. Under the current laws in place, the recording survives still as evidence of a crime being committed - meaning that, officers doing wrong or right being recorded must maintain the integrity of that recording in order for any charge to come up. Officers wanting to do harm, do not. 9. In conclusion, again, my opponent has not refuted my positions effectively. Recording the police in abusive situations is fantastic - but if its not happening, why should Joe Citizen be able to unnerve officers, misrepresent facts, and have free will to violate officers privacy? It makes little sense, and I urge a vote for CON. Thank you, and good luck in the last round, L. Sources: 1. http://www.citmedialaw.org... 2. http://www.surveillance-and-society.org...", "qid": "49", "docid": "9247b1e1-2019-04-18T19:02:31Z-00002-000", "rank": 39, "score": 109094.0}, {"content": "Title: Traffic light cameras Content: I see what you are saying as far as the safety goes, but I still see it as a way for the government to make money. I feel that instead of having a camera watch us, we should have traffic police or Suffolk police watching the intersections just the way they used to. I find it to be annoying to have to now think about whether a camera is going to snap a picture at you, obeying the law, but being under a yellow light through an intersection. While it might make some people more cautious, safer drivers, I think that too many people are retarding traffic because they are fearful of getting a ticket. I feel that the money that they are spending to put all of the traffic lights in is almost a waste of time. By the time the government hires people to put them in, pays for the camera and the electric to run the thousands of cameras, hires people to monitor and scan through all of the pictures, and sends out tickets, it is barely worth it to even have. I think that the cameras have become a hazard to the everyday drivers and the government is taking advantage of our privacy, in a way. What next? We have cameras at every corner now, who's to say they won't start bugging our hotel rooms like NK!!", "qid": "49", "docid": "f89c38d5-2019-04-18T18:20:43Z-00005-000", "rank": 40, "score": 109074.0}, {"content": "Title: Are security cameras in public areas an invasion of our privacy Content: There has been much debate as to whether public surveillance or the existence of cameras in public places is an invasion of privacy. A few have made reference to the fourth amendment and its protection against unreasonable searches as a key element to discourage such practice. Nevertheless a tsunami of public cameras has flooded out neighborhoods, primarily used as a means of enhanced security especially in areas where police officers are not able to be present. In a recent article posted on cbsnews.com titled \"Surveillance cameras and the right to privacy\", law enforcement officials assert that an increase in high-tech tools such as cameras was a big reason why violent crimes nationwide decreased in 2010. Citizens should demand their rights to privacy! This is a claim that, like me, many others concur. However should we sacrifice our need for safety and security simply to avoid being featured on public camera casually walking down the block?", "qid": "49", "docid": "4809e6cc-2019-04-18T13:30:35Z-00005-000", "rank": 41, "score": 108641.0}, {"content": "Title: CCTV Cameras Should Be Operating In All Public Locations Content: I believe that CCTV cameras should be installed in every public space where possible; on the streets, inside public buildings and (ideally) in remote areas such as fields and forests. The end result would be a world where everything is recorded on camera except for events that take place within private property and homes. The benefits of this would outweigh any consequences for one pivotal reason: Any crime that takes place in public will likely be solved. The suspect has nowhere to run; the police can trace the suspect's movements right back to his home address, where they can visit and subsequently arrest him. Kidnappers, murderers, rapists -- everyone will be caught and brought to justice. You will be CON; you will argue that CCTV cameras should not be in every public location.", "qid": "49", "docid": "c8b84b6-2019-04-18T16:36:47Z-00005-000", "rank": 42, "score": 108225.0}, {"content": "Title: Crime cameras Content: Police abuse crime cameras, leering at women.", "qid": "49", "docid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00008-000", "rank": 43, "score": 107932.0}, {"content": "Title: Crime cameras are an intrusion on individual privacy rights Content: Former Oakland Mayor (now California Attorney General) Jerry Brown said in 1999 when the City of Oakland rejected proposed video surveillance cameras: \"Reducing crime is something the community and police must work on together. Installing a few or a few dozen surveillance cameras will not make us safe. It should also not be forgotten that the intrusive powers of the state are growing with each passing decade.\"[8]", "qid": "49", "docid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00076-000", "rank": 44, "score": 107186.0}, {"content": "Title: Plans to introduce body-imaging scanners at airports should be shelved Content: Body-imaging scanners are expensive and they don't even show airport security staff what passengers really look like in the nude - the images the scanners produce are in black and white and are not really that much better than pornographic photographs from the Victorian era. [1, 2] That's why I propose that all air passengers should be required to submit themselves to a full strip search by security staff instead. Now, I realise some people may be embarrassed to strip naked in front of fully-clothed security staff which is why I propose that the security staff should also be naked and thus put any especially shy passengers at their ease. Even so, some frigid, ultra-conservative women might still feel uncomfortable being groped by nude male security officials so I further propose that all security staff should be female. Similarly, I also realise that some men may object to being fondled by some boot-faced hag or some fat old munter, which is why I also propose that all the security staff should be recruited from the ranks of glamour models and porn actresses. Naturally, adherents to certain spiritual faiths will object to my proposal regardless of what safeguards are put in place, but in the United States the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) have already made it quite clear that fanatical religious extremists who are opposed to full body-imaging scans (because they believe that only God should be allowed to see them naked) are not to be exempted from body scans and the same principle would, therefore, apply to strip searches. [3] Of course, the main advantage of my proposal is that it would enable security staff to conduct more thorough searches than is possible with the use of body-scanners and pat-downs. For example, smugglers may be able to conceal illicit drugs in prosthetic penises but the gorgeous nude security girls will be trained to make scrupulous and exhaustive examinations of male passengers' appendages \u2013 you know, rub and tug them properly to make absolutely sure they aren't false. In conclusion, strip searches are more effective than body scanners at intercepting drugs, weapons and explosives and they are also cheaper and for those reasons I affirm that plans to introduce body-scanners at airports should be shelved. Thank you. [1] http://factstoknow.co.uk... [2] http://i3.ebayimg.com... [3] http://homelandsecuritynewswire.com...", "qid": "49", "docid": "f6e1e0b5-2019-04-18T18:59:28Z-00003-000", "rank": 45, "score": 106941.0}, {"content": "Title: Police officers should be more friendly Content: I'd rather reduce incidents of use of force with body cams rather than putting Leos and the public in danger. cams have been shown to reduce use of force 50%. http://www.policefoundation.org... The problems with brutality is perception. The media sensationalizes things. The public is unfamiliar with the use of force continuum , but mostly it's a public relations problem. Broken windows policing is used in most big cites and some small, causes a lot of blowback when not done hand in hand with the modern theories on \"community policing\". Mistrust in cops would dramatically decline, if community policing was more than just lip service. http://www.lesc.net... http://en.m.wikipedia.org... More trust means less resistance and Leo's not having to escalate the use of force continuum The study from 92 is valid because human psychology is the same as then.", "qid": "49", "docid": "e0dffbaa-2019-04-18T14:56:40Z-00001-000", "rank": 46, "score": 106783.0}, {"content": "Title: Speed Cameras Content: Speed cameras are cost effective as they take highly paid police officers off traffic duty, allowing...", "qid": "49", "docid": "869af6cc-2019-04-19T12:47:53Z-00001-000", "rank": 47, "score": 106669.0}, {"content": "Title: Crime cameras help restore a public sense of safety Content: In December, 2008, an armed robbery attempt in New Orleans failed after the victim, according to police, \"...advised the suspect that there were several surveillance cameras in the area,\" and walked safely away from the criminal.[4] The episode suggests that the victim felt that the cameras provided a critical layer of protection against the assailant. While law enforcers did not suggest that others pursue the same course of action as the victim in this story, it is clear that the crime cameras provided a real sense of safety for this man and probably for other members of his community as well.", "qid": "49", "docid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00061-000", "rank": 48, "score": 106170.0}, {"content": "Title: Unnecessary to train whole nation to prepare for threats. Content: Suhail Al-Enizi, aged 28, argued in 2010 that military service in Kuwait should not be mandatory: \"I am certain that we have enough soldiers in the army. We don't need to train the entire nation in order to be ready for threats; we are not in a police state. This is a democracy.\"[11]", "qid": "49", "docid": "1246b58c-2019-04-17T11:47:22Z-00069-000", "rank": 49, "score": 106007.0}, {"content": "Title: health insurance should be mandatory Content: we all are affected by bad health and almost all of us will need medical care. it's like everyone needs firemen and police. what insurance should not be, is you just die if you aren't covered. it's easy to say you didn't get insurance therefore you can die, but this doesn't and woudln't happen in practice. why is it okay for one person to not be insured and pass the cost on to everyone else?", "qid": "49", "docid": "ec36d938-2019-04-18T14:10:56Z-00005-000", "rank": 50, "score": 105915.0}, {"content": "Title: Traffic light cameras Content: Hey! So I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the safety value these lights. It makes some people safer, better drivers. And it makes others more of knuckleheads than they already were. The part where I disagree is the use of our police officers and adding other employees to monitor the cameras. For one, I think it is better to have real cops out taking care of other things, rather than having them sit near stop lights. Let them do other law enforcement duties that are more important than traffic duty. Suffolk cops make huge salaries and I would rather they were out to better use. And if a few more jobs are created by the camera venture, then I am cool with that. We need jobs! And the government needs money, so let them raise some funds by snagging a few redlight runners! PS - I hope the fire dept. or police test went well, I forgot which it was. But I hope it went well!", "qid": "49", "docid": "f89c38d5-2019-04-18T18:20:43Z-00002-000", "rank": 51, "score": 104165.0}, {"content": "Title: Crime cameras help reduce crime rates, Content: \"Cameras have cut violence, study says\". The Washington Post. February 21, 2008 - \"The report, prepared for the D.C. Council by the office of Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier, says violent crime increased about 1 percent citywide last year. But, it says, violent crime decreased 19 percent within 250 feet of each of the cameras, which the city began installing in August 2006. Property crimes increased 5 percent overall last year but 2 percent in the camera areas, the report says. 'In the seventeen months since cameras were first installed in D.C.'s neighborhoods, the cameras have continued to have a positive impact on public safety in the city,' the report says.\"", "qid": "49", "docid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00045-000", "rank": 52, "score": 103723.0}, {"content": "Title: Full-body scanners violate child protection laws. Content: The rapid introduction of full body scanners at British airports threatens to breach child protection laws which ban the creation of indecent images of children. There is a certain risk that naked images of children from scans could be distributed over the Internet. But, even if such abuses are prevented, it is wrong for security screeners to be able to view these nude images.", "qid": "49", "docid": "91a1b22c-2019-04-17T11:47:28Z-00062-000", "rank": 53, "score": 103536.0}, {"content": "Title: Crime cameras have not had a significant impact on crime rates Content: Heather Knight. \"Crime cameras not capturing many crimes\". San Francisco Chronicle. March 21, 2008 - \"The cameras have been installed in phases on some of the city's roughest streets since 2005 with large concentrations of them in the Western Addition and Mission District and others in the lower Haight, the Tenderloin and near Coit Tower. [...] The cameras have contributed to only one arrest nearly two years ago in a city that saw 98 homicides last year, a 12-year high. The video is choppy, and police aren't allowed to watch video in real-time or maneuver the cameras to get a better view of potential crimes.\"", "qid": "49", "docid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00052-000", "rank": 54, "score": 103108.0}, {"content": "Title: Red Light Cameras Content: Red light cameras are a great tool developed by law enforcement to catch those who drive dangerously. Police can not be everywhere at once, so cameras to catch red light runners pose the same purpose as security cameras to catch convenience store robbers. Those who drive recklessly endanger the lives of themselves and others. The distribution of traffic tickets are motivation to drive safely, and the point system used to determine license suspension keeps repeat offenders of the roads. Red light cameras benefit those of us who actually obey traffic laws. Their benefit outweighs the low cost of installation and maintenance.", "qid": "49", "docid": "46d49c81-2019-04-18T18:14:45Z-00004-000", "rank": 55, "score": 102391.0}, {"content": "Title: Throw your traffic-camera speeding tickets in the trashcan! Content: Thank you for having this debate with me, it has been interesting for me tooThe majority of people support safety cameras, which I have shown are not shifty because their aim is to reduce serious incidents which they accomplish, and police do review and make the final decision on all the videos captured by them including those from U.S. providers such as Redflex traffic systems. Also offenders are welcome to view the reliable evidence against them. The increased number of minor accidents caused after installing these cameras are explained by the behaviour of drivers who travel above the speed limit, and who fail to stop within the distance they see clear due to failing to anticipate events ahead and thus panic. If these people took the gradient, road condition and other factors affecting the stopping distance, like they are supposed to, then they would not recieve a ticket, and less people would die or become seriously injuried.In round 1 he says \"I got a ticket from driving too fast in an instersection, the camera caught me, sent me a bill\", so he admits he was speeding i.e. breaking the law. This is why I think my opponent should pay the bill sent to him. My main argument from the start was this: if you believe your driving is acceptable and continue to drive recklessly, it results in serious injury or loss of life. Can we rely on people's conscious? I believe my opponent simply disagrees with the way in which he was caught breaking the law. I've now read the letter by holding ctrl and moving my mouse button up to zoom in, and know now he was driving too fast in a 40mph zone and caught because the yellow light lasted 3 seconds instead of 4.5 seconds, which confirms this belief.Although it may be unlikely he will have to pay if he went to court due to the police being unable to prove he was sitting in the driver seat, the speed limit changing and the yellow light time not being adjusted resulting in the wrong yellow light time, and similar things, I do believe if you do break the law you should be punished by the law, in your case the punishment is paying a fine, if you leave it to your conscious to punish you you might just continue driving dangerously. It is therefore important to accept a punishment when you have broken the law no matter how you are caught.Thanks for reading, Kirk", "qid": "49", "docid": "75e67d5-2019-04-18T14:32:04Z-00000-000", "rank": 56, "score": 102103.0}, {"content": "Title: anything, i can be very argumentative. Content: Should cameras be allowed in the courtroom? I believe it should. Cameras are an amazing invention that capture important moments such as your special day with your beloved as you take your vows in front of the altar. But in the case of the courtroom, it's to capture those overwhelming moments if the defendant is guilty or not. The thing is without footage of the case, we have to rely on media to give the report and there have been cases where the information is misleading. Not only that, but we become biased. We are much more likely to hear about people who are released from prison if they murder someone than if they don't. Newspapers are not likely to have headlines that say \"Released Prisoner Doesn't Commit Murder\" even if that happens for hundreds of released prisoners, but they are likely to report it when a released prisoner does murder someone. Based on what we see reported, our mental image of the percentage of released prisoners that actually murder someone is likely to be much greater than what happens in reality. \"People tend to trust what they can see and they are wary of what they cannot see,\" said Beacon-News photographer Brian Powers.", "qid": "49", "docid": "a70ca73d-2019-04-18T18:19:49Z-00004-000", "rank": 57, "score": 102079.0}, {"content": "Title: Crime cameras violate privacy no more than corner store cameras. Content: Ken Garcia. \"Debate over crime cameras brings out the clueless in S.F.\". The Examiner. January 20, 2007 - \"The people who complain about the use of cameras on the street say nothing about their presence in their corner store, the post office, the subway, Macy\u2019s, Safeway or just about every commercial enterprise in existence. They\u2019re now found in taxis, buses, trains and of course, airports, let alone public buildings, such as the one that played back the proceedings at the Police Commission for a cable TV audience.\"", "qid": "49", "docid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00073-000", "rank": 58, "score": 101752.0}, {"content": "Title: Crime cameras Content: Surveillance cameras do not deter crime", "qid": "49", "docid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00031-000", "rank": 59, "score": 101342.0}, {"content": "Title: Speed cameras only detect 5% of all road accidents Content: Speed cameras are placed in locations where there is a significant accident record. Introduction usually leads to lower vehicle speeds and a better accident record. Speed cameras also act as a deterrent to dangerous driving and have successfully contributed to lowering average vehicle speeds on the UK roads hence lowering the accident risk. Road Casualties Great Britain 2006, found that injudicious action, which includes going too fast for conditions, following too close and exceeding the speed limit, accounts for 34% of fatal cameras highlighting that problems still exist with speed management. The 5% figure should be treated with caution as on average the police recorded two factors for each crash. With regards to speed limits, the DfT has always emphasised that they are legal guide that should be adhered to but that driver judgement should also be utilised as well. Speed cameras successfully lower vehicle speeds and have drawn attention to the need to drive at appropriate speeds within the designated speed limit. Camera policing of speed limits can only be introduced after all else has failed. In some cases, on roads identified by projects such as the European Road Assessment Programme (EuroRAP) there is evidence that the collisions are not speed related and therefore new cameras would not be installed and other measures used. Cameras are only installed at sites where at least 20% of drivers exceed the speed limit and there have been four deaths or serious injuries on a given 1km stretch of road within three years. Research (Stradling et al, 2003) has also shown that drivers stopped by police for speeding or who had been flashed by a speed camera had double the incidence of recent crash involvement suggesting that speed cameras have been successful in targeting dangerous drivers. http://www.pacts.org.uk", "qid": "49", "docid": "2ecd255b-2019-04-19T12:45:25Z-00002-000", "rank": 60, "score": 101059.0}, {"content": "Title: Crime cameras may help prosecutions, but don't reduce crime. Content: Jim Harper, the director of information policy studies at the Cato Institute, was quoted saying in a July 2007 ABC article: \"They are good forensic tools \u2014 after something happens, they'll tell you what happened. [...] But they do not provide protection against attacks, and that's a key distinction.\"[2]", "qid": "49", "docid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00053-000", "rank": 61, "score": 101023.0}, {"content": "Title: Traffic light cameras Content: Fair points about the money. There is a good chance that the cost of doing and maintaining this is a waste of time. But I have to disagree about it being better to have cops patroling the intersection. I think people get more moronic when they catch sight of a cop. Alot more slamming on brakes and whatnot. And while you may get the occassional person who reacts poorly to the cameras, I think alot of people get used to the intersections that have the cameras. They know that when coming to Sunrise amd Waverly there is a camera, so they are prepared to drive slower and safer. And having the populace driving slower and safer is always a good thing... if it saves lives I am all for it!", "qid": "49", "docid": "f89c38d5-2019-04-18T18:20:43Z-00004-000", "rank": 62, "score": 101009.0}, {"content": "Title: Cameras are money making, not life saving Content: \u00a3120 million was collected in 2006 from speeding tickets. That money helps pay for an entire industry built around designing, manufacturing, installing and maintaining speed cameras, not to mention the army of administrators or the traffic police officers who spend time sitting in wait with a mobile camera instead of going after the more dangerous 4 million estimated drivers who are on the roads illegally. The money from fines now goes straight to the Treasury. (Local authorities were once allowed to keep it) Originally when cameras were first introduced in Britain they were used with honest intentions and erected at genuine accident black spots. But when the money started rolling in from drivers caught by these new devices the authorities realised how much money can be made if they keep on planting new cameras. If it really wasn\u2019t about the money then why have they focused so hard on an offence that causes just 5% of accidents and have done proportionally very little in preventing the other 95% causes of accidents? http://www.speedcameras.org In favour of road safety, not revenue Further to this opening argument.... The PACTS reply (and the pilot study and all their other quoted analyses) is based on a gross misuse of the figures in Highways Economic Note #1 (HEN1), which gives estimates for costs associated with a road fatality, serious injury, etc and also the value of preventing a fatality (VPF). The Costs are the true costs to the county of an incident (emergency services, hospital, repairs to roads, etc.), typically up to \u00a310,000 (for the worst case, a serious injury). The report makes it clear that VPF includes amounts for pain, grief, loss of earnings, etc. (totalling around \u00a31.5M for a fatality) and explains that VPF cannot be equated to costs. Any use of VPF to show return on investment is bogus and potentially fraudulent. The values assigned to pain, grief, etc are hypothetical amounts that someone might be prepared to pay to bring their loved one back, and are to be used to compare alternative road schemes. Those values do not exist and would never appear on a balance sheet. To get \u00a358M \"cost saving\" from two years of \"280 lives saved\", PACTS are using an average figure of about \u00a3100,000 as the costs of a fatality/serious-injury/minor-injury. This is a blatant misrepresentation of official government figures by a governemnt body. Further, most of the 280 reduction in KSI per year at camera sites is due to the statistical phenomenon \"regression to the mean\", in other words those 280 accidents would probably not have happened anyway, regardless of cameras. It is a fanciful number and bears no relation to reality (ask yourself how any camera can save a life!). So, with a massive reduction in costs per death/injury and a massive reduction in the number of \"lives saved by cameras\", the return on investment argument is exposed as totally bogus. I believe the \"return on investment\" in terms of safety/casualties is less than 5% per annum. I am currently pursuing this issue with the Head of Scrutiny with my local County Council, who have been using the same tricks. Bripe - an advanced driver and safety professional", "qid": "49", "docid": "2ecd255b-2019-04-19T12:45:25Z-00012-000", "rank": 63, "score": 100795.0}, {"content": "Title: Cameras shall placed in courtrooms so that criminal trials can be puclically televised Content: Having forfeited this round, dasamster hasn't dealt with my analysis, rebuttal or arguments.", "qid": "49", "docid": "ee8b1d4c-2019-04-18T19:09:44Z-00001-000", "rank": 64, "score": 100708.0}, {"content": "Title: pre-pay pumps after dark Content: it was not absent-minded at all, it was long, thoughtful, created a lot of good points (some that i agree with), and was quite humorous, at times. you are a very good debater and i would not be surprised at all if you won, due to how well you speak & argue but, still i think that it is ridiculous to make pre-payment mandatory. yes, because it annoys me but also because, as you said.. there ARE other people in the world.. many are ALSO annoyed with pre-payment. stealing is a horror, yes. but we can't just institute measure after measure after measure for everything that is a horror, we'd never be able to do anything! by the way, pre-payment probably takes less than 5 minutes, as you said, but still.. it's an annoyance that many people suffer because of SOME thieves. there are so many other measures that can be taken that DON'T annoy the honest, paying customer SUCH AS: (according to gas theft.com ) Setup surveillance cameras (even dummy cams) to deter theives, video footage is proof of theft. Do NOT authorize cars with no plates, covered plates, or who pull in backwards. Simply WATCH and make eye contact with drivers who are pumping gas, if they feel they are being watched, they will not drive away without paying. Always know which pumps have and have not paid for their gas. Knowing makes it a lot easier to spot cars driving away without paying. Train employees to write down license plate information as well as car and people descriptions for anyone suspicious. Keep a \"hot list\" of known theives and share information with other stations. NONE of those things annoy me! NONE of those things will cause me to pull up to a gas station, realize it's pre-pay & LEAVE to go to another one (has happened, multiple times!) if other people are like me and so annoyed with pre-pay that they will leave and go to another, they lose business. why would they want to lose business? now they have less theft AND less paying customers. i am not saying that we are arguing prepayment at other places, i am saying that it would be the same thing as theft happens everywhere! it's like \"oh people steal here lets stop it by making it prepay\" then other places \"oh hey look what shell is doing, lets do it too!\" businesses usually take ideas from one another, why not this one? that is especially scary to think about.. why should people be made to prepay before they even know what they want? what happened to options?! you say it would \"force\" others to learn self control.. self control is great to have, don't get me wrong, buuuut why are attempting to FORCE things upon people now? that doesn't seem too fair to me, i don't enjoy being forced to do things, not only do i now enjoy it, i am pretty sure it's not what this country is about. last i knew, usa was SUPPOSED to be a free country.. but now we have so many laws \"for the good\" of the people that really, imo, just interfere with PERSONAL lives & lifestyles.. it's hardly \"free\" anymore. (please don't take this the wrong way, i am not saying we are not a free country, as we are much more free than other countries, just that we are heading towards less freedoms) \"pics or you're lying\" ..clever! i don't want to be a liar, phone number? lol just kidding. :) carrying extra cash, now that you mention it, would be a wise thing with my family things that may occur.. maybe i'll begin to do so. but not for you! aand, agreeing with your wise decision to carry extra cash does not mean that i agree that it would be good to prepay! i also agree with you that it DOES help to decrease gasoline theft, i looked it up, it's gone down tremendously. still, it's annoying! just because something works to decrease a crime, does not mean it should be in place. murder is wrong, but we don't have people tailing people to make sure they don't kill someone, especially if they've never killed before, or look suspicious to kill someone.. that would be annoying. just like making people prepay, who have never stolen gas before and who do not look suspicious, is annoying! don't take this as getting off subject, i in no way want to talk about murder, just an example of another thing that would decrease a crime tremendously that doesn't need to be instituted! i am not arguing, solely, because i dislike prepayment, i am arguing because MANY people are affected by it. i also dislike taxes and would love to stop paying them, that's another argument though, but i am not saying that i have the license to stop prepaying because it's an inconvenience for me, i am saying that it should be gotten rid of! getting rid of taxes would be great too, but 1. that's a new argument 2. that's a lot more difficult & affects a lot more PEOPLE negatively.. which is what i am worried about, the people. i love that you use apathy, that's a perfect word! i am rather apathetic when it comes to the economy, you'll see that with me not actually having the psychological condition, kleptomania, but just prefering to take things over paying for them. my bad. honestly, the government, economy, corporate america.. apathetic. if that makes me a bad person, oh well. i care about myself and other PEOPLE. if people are more concerned with instituting law after law that declines crime, then by all means.. vote pro. buuut if people are more concerned with personal lives and lifestyles not being effected just because some people choose to be criminals, vote con. if he wins, fine. buuuut he should make me fettucine alfredo to make me feel better, 'cause it's my favorite.<3", "qid": "49", "docid": "9190ad06-2019-04-18T19:17:36Z-00001-000", "rank": 65, "score": 100435.0}, {"content": "Title: Surveillance cameras do not deter crime Content: Heather Knight. \"Crime cameras not capturing many crimes\". San Francisco Chronicle. March 21, 2008 - \"San Francisco's 68 controversial anti-crime cameras haven't deterred criminals from committing assaults, sex offenses or robberies - and they've only moved homicides down the block, according to a new report from UC Berkeley.\"", "qid": "49", "docid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00056-000", "rank": 66, "score": 100244.0}, {"content": "Title: #MandatoryCarry or #RepealTheSecondAmendment Content: You've again only presented \"body count\" numbers, without context or purpose. I can just as easily present \"body count\" data to say 1,694 were killed with knives in 2\"11 (https://www.fbi.gov...). Do we now ban KNIVES? The argument of \"reasonable restrictions\" has historically proven to be an untruthful statement. These \"reasonable\" restrictions, with the exception of the 1986 ban, have either been ineffectual (the 1934 and 1969 bans) or as a \"back door\" attempt at larger bans. Ergo, there really IS only one way forward; Either we repeal the Second Amendment outright, as advocated by certain parties, OR we raise the protections by making said carry mandatory, with certain pointed exceptions; If a judge is willing to place their name, reputation, license to practice law, and possibly their freedom on the line to say \"NO! You should NOT be allowed to keep and bear arms!\", then that will suffice. To say \"guns kill\" is to say that an inanimate object CHOOSES to act of its own volition; Now, if you were to argue \"ROBOTS KILL!\" that might make sense; A robot CAN in fact be programmed to kill, \"without human control.\" (That it hasn't be done \"yet\" to my knowledge notwithstanding, in some form, the technology COULD exist, and it might already.) That guns \"are\" used to kill is irrelevant; Knives, drugs, bombs, poisons of all sorts, and, in one particularly interesting case, an open window have all been used as \"murder weapons.\" Although this is a re-statement of an earlier point, it can not be stated enough; Guns do not kill. Knives do not kill. Open windows do not kill, either. People (or maybe someday well-programmed robots) kill. I hate to boil this down to a trite slogan, but gun control really DOES kill. Mandatory Carry will save lives. All lives? NO. Situations like San Bernardino or Paris, the first few victims will probably die. At very least, they will be injured. But the ASSURANCE, to those of reasonable clear mind, that there will almost definitely be SOMEONE who is also armed in response will give all but the MOST recalcitrant, perhaps even suicidal (such as the case of Vincente MONTANO), a moment of REAL pause.", "qid": "49", "docid": "f0274824-2019-04-18T14:01:34Z-00005-000", "rank": 67, "score": 100124.0}, {"content": "Title: Authorities support speed cameras because it\u2019s politically correct Content: After years of brainwashing from government and police adverts, leaflets, and pressure, most authorities embrace speed cameras and take it as fact that they are correct, without scratching the surface to find out the facts for themselves. However, a few councillors have broken rank and spoken out. Recently a councillor from Swindon said they are considering removing all of their cameras and several years ago a councillor from North Somerset said \u201cWe\u2019ve created a Frankenstein\u2019s monster... the cameras are simply an income generator, it\u2019s a massive job creation scheme.\u201d http://www.speedcameras.org In favour of road safety, not revenue", "qid": "49", "docid": "2ecd255b-2019-04-19T12:45:25Z-00004-000", "rank": 68, "score": 100077.0}, {"content": "Title: Crime cameras lead to slippery slope of Big Brother surveillance. Content: Crime cameras are only the beginning of a host of violations of civil liberties on the part of government. While the objectives of surveillance may be modest in the beginning, they are likely to include in the future certain video ID schemes that track every individual's movements and actions at all times in search of suspicious or subversive behavior. The risks are real of crime cameras leading to the police state scenarios depicted in George Orwell's 1984.", "qid": "49", "docid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00078-000", "rank": 69, "score": 100006.0}, {"content": "Title: Kyleigh's Law: Mandatory Decals for Young Drivers Content: I've addressed the arguments in his RD 2 order. On his first paragraph (grouped response to my counter-arguments 1 & 2) 1. My opponent attacks the example without actually addressing the main point of the 1st counter-argument I give. The gist of that was the profiling will happen with or without a decal. Police officers profile based on age, or sex, or ethnicity just by looking into a car window. They profile with regards to types and quality of car. This is basically a wash. However, as stated in my 3rd counter-argument, since the decals do allow for an increase in defensive driving, which will inherently increase the overall safety of all drivers, I'm still winning the cost/benefit analysis. On Electronic Parking Permits: 1. How many high schools in the US are really using these? 2. Way more importantly, this is an attack on an example while totally ignoring the meat of the argument, which is about profiling occurring against young people no matter what. On decal quality and appearance: 1. Attack on the example. 2. The chief administrator shall provide the holder of a special learner's permit with two removable, transferable, highly visible, reflective decals indicating that the driver of the vehicle may be the holder of a special learner's permit. [1] This decal is perfectly removable, and the law does not mention the size of the decal. If we are going to argue about the specifics of the decal, then it can be removed any time the student is parked. This would further mitigate whatever minute harms can be gained off of the sexual predator argument, because only vehicles in motion would be subject to target, and sexual predators simply don't target their victims by following their moving vehicles around town or on the freeway. These harms are totally unwarranted. On campus security and sexual predators: Campus security is really null in this debate. Again, this was merely an example that my opponent is exploiting while ignoring the gist of the argument. Sexual predators target places where these young people hang out (i. e. are generally stationary) *like* school campuses, churches, playgrounds, parks, local hang outs, etc. He never warrants why it is that sexual predators will target vehicles. Furthermore, as I mention later, we don't have a problem with predators targeting driver education vehicles, all of which, by the way, are required by law to be marked as such constantly (those markings are generally not removable since the vehicle has been mechanically manipulated as a training vehicle). However, even if they weren't, by my opponent's logic, those vehicles and their passengers *should* be the target of predators. On the attack on my second source: 1. My opponent disregards the first source, handily, which states that: \"The risk of being involved in a car accident the highest for drivers aged 16- to 19-year-olds than it is for any other age group. For each mile driven, teen drivers ages 16 to 19 are about four times more likely than other drivers to crash. \" \"Teenagers are about 10 percent of the US Population but account for 12 percent all Fatal Car Crashes. 2. While I can't find the chart my opponent refers to (can I have a specific link so I can evaluate the data? ), we are talking about aggregate death, not a breakdown of the cause or number of passengers or any other important details that would allow us to assess the meaning of those stats. 3. The statistic I was specifically referring to was on the page *of* that link. It is a pie chart stating that motor vehicle deaths account for more teen deaths than any other cause. The next closest method of teen death is homicide. 4. My opponent's narrowly focused attack does not actually mitigate the argument I'm making that teen drivers are still a danger due to their relative lack of driving experience. The second source I listed is an entire government webpage dedicated to improving teen driving. Obviously, the federal government is concerned to a great extent about the safety of teen drivers. On student driver cars being marked: 1. What's the point of this rebuttal? The decals are fully removable, so the harms of these decals must be identical to those of student driver vehicles. So, my opponent is de facto arguing that we should not put markings on student driver vehicles as well. However, the safety benefits of this practice are clear. The same principle clearly supports the use of New Jersey's new decal. On my dropped 4th counter-argument and dropped alternative: 1. My 4th counter-argument is absolutely topical to this debate. My opponent directly stated in RD 1 that one of the harms of the decal, based on his profiling argument, was that teens with tickets won't have recourse once the citation has been issued. How is me addressing this fallacy not a point of contention? He is claiming that this inherent bias exists within the judicial system as well as the enforcement system, when it clearly doesn't. You can extend this as a valid offensive argument. 2. My alternative proposal is also directly related to the case at hand. My opponent is opposing this piece of legislation due to something he finds morally or ethically repugnant. I am doing the exact same thing. If the goal of this debate is to form a more just law (and, considering that the purpose of debate is to support some sort of change, even if it won't necessarily happen), then I am attempting to fulfill that goal better than my opponent. This is a pretty standard debate tactic. I'm just trying to increase education in the debate. After all, the more people know about this piece of legislation and its errors, the more people can act within the legislative system to make it more just. Furthermore, I am informing about an actual injustice within the legislation, and my opponent is not. Again, extend this as a valid offensive argument.", "qid": "49", "docid": "bd455c15-2019-04-18T19:10:45Z-00002-000", "rank": 70, "score": 99742.0}, {"content": "Title: Crime cameras cannot deter criminals that do not fear the law Content: Theodore Dalrymple. \"Cameras, Crooks, and Deterrence\". City Journal. October 16, 2007 - \"A recent study demonstrating this failure to improve the clear-up rate, however, could not also show that the cameras failed to deter crime in the first place. Common sense suggests that they should deter, but common sense might be wrong. For if the punishment of detected crime is insufficient to deter, there is no reason why the presence of cameras should deter.\"", "qid": "49", "docid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00057-000", "rank": 71, "score": 99565.0}, {"content": "Title: Cameras can deter anti-social behavior such as littering Content: Adrienne Isnard. \"Can surveillance cameras be successful in preventing crime and controlling anti-social behavior?\". Australia Institute of Criminology. August 2, 2001 - \"Originally surveillance cameras systems were installed to deter burglary, assault and car theft but their use has been extended to include combating 'anti social behaviour', such as littering, urinating in public, traffic violations, obstruction, and drunkenness (Davies 1998).\"", "qid": "49", "docid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00055-000", "rank": 72, "score": 99545.0}, {"content": "Title: CCTV Cameras Should Be Operating In All Public Locations Content: Experiencing freedom is not being watched almost 24/7. There is something called privacy. \"Cameras merely observe,\" no cameras watch. And that would be counted as stalking. Yes; I agree that it will help crime rates, but it makes people more creative. They are going to commit crimes where cameras aren't. And what happens if power goes out, or the cameras break?", "qid": "49", "docid": "c8b84b6-2019-04-18T16:36:47Z-00002-000", "rank": 73, "score": 99483.0}, {"content": "Title: Cameras shall placed in courtrooms so that criminal trials can be puclically televised Content: Being generous, I'll ignore the problematic wording of the motion. For the purposes of this debate, I'm happy to assume the resolution to be functionally equivalent to: \"Cameras should be placed in courtrooms so that criminal trials can be publicly televised.\" I await dasamster's arguments.", "qid": "49", "docid": "ee8b1d4c-2019-04-18T19:09:44Z-00006-000", "rank": 74, "score": 99459.0}, {"content": "Title: School Uniforms Should Be Mandatory Content: Expenses", "qid": "49", "docid": "4b51d325-2019-04-19T12:44:49Z-00014-000", "rank": 75, "score": 99217.0}, {"content": "Title: Traffic light cameras Content: Sorry for taking so long! Been crazy busy! I do agree with it helping save lives, Rich. But I still see the cameras as more of a hazard to us then helping us. I think it definitley makes people act more moronic because of the cameras. I do see what you're saying about people knowing where the cameras are, but call me old fashioned- I would still rather have an actual human tell me that I am doing something wrong versus a camera snapping a picture! To me, I think we would be better off as a community if the streets were patrolled more. Maybe- instead of making jobs for people to sit behind desks and monitor the cameras, we can have police officers more frequently patrolling the area. I do, though, see the positives to having the cameras in place. I just think that it becomes mroe hazardous to us because now- everytime someone goes under a yellow light, they are cringing because they don't know if they are being put on candid camera! It becomes a sticky situation with me now because I can see both sides of the argument, however, I still see it as a money making scheme for the government's benefit and a hazard to us. Take it away, Rich.", "qid": "49", "docid": "f89c38d5-2019-04-18T18:20:43Z-00003-000", "rank": 76, "score": 99081.0}, {"content": "Title: should clothing be mandatory Content: Well, I guess I'm supposed to keep going. Clothing, aside from being used to protect the body from the cold or the sun, is used to hide parts of our body. Not purely out of shame, but because it may be necessary for society. One very simple example: Imagine if you will, primitive human beings in a society. The alpha male's mate is probably very attractive. This may make things very complicated when a beta male comes across the alpha and his mate and get an erection. Thus, one cannot simply say that clothing is unnecessary and we shouldn't be ashamed of our bodies. Simply speaking, clothing is quite natural for us.", "qid": "49", "docid": "3ffb3f24-2019-04-18T19:53:53Z-00002-000", "rank": 77, "score": 98668.0}, {"content": "Title: Crime cameras Content: Crime cameras help deter crime", "qid": "49", "docid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00033-000", "rank": 78, "score": 98604.0}, {"content": "Title: Cameras help protect citizens' liberties against crime. Content: Ken Garcia. \"Debate over crime cameras brings out the clueless in S.F.\" The Examiner. January 20, 2007 - \"There\u2019s no doubt that people with thick rap sheets don\u2019t like them, and they\u2019re the people who are really infringing on our civil liberties.\"", "qid": "49", "docid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00074-000", "rank": 79, "score": 98511.0}, {"content": "Title: CCTV Cameras Should Be Operating In All Public Locations Content: Yes; I would ask the officer to stop watching me. I would find it uncomfortable. \"The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants.\" Then I can act as I want, and speak and think that it is wrong. Do you not find it weird that people would always be able to watch you?", "qid": "49", "docid": "c8b84b6-2019-04-18T16:36:47Z-00000-000", "rank": 80, "score": 98493.0}, {"content": "Title: Crime camera evidence is very rarely used in court cases. Content: Brendan McCarthy. \"Crime-fighting cameras are the wrong focus, some say\". NOLA.com. March 26, 2007 - \"Major cities across the country that have launched crime-camera programs have seen similar results. [...] In both Baltimore and Chicago, two cities at the forefront of camera surveillance, police espouse their benefits, but prosecutors say the cameras rarely factor into courtroom proceedings.\"", "qid": "49", "docid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00066-000", "rank": 81, "score": 98310.0}, {"content": "Title: CCTV Cameras Should Be Operating In All Public Locations Content: I don't think they should be almost everywhere. That defeats the purpose of what America is based off of, which is freedom. As far as catching all the murders, and offenders, yeah it might work. But you also have to think that it keeps the population down. Also if all we know is good, how will we be prepared for the bad?", "qid": "49", "docid": "c8b84b6-2019-04-18T16:36:47Z-00004-000", "rank": 82, "score": 98230.0}, {"content": "Title: Crime cameras in public spaces do not really invade privacy. Content: Ken Garcia. \"Debate over crime cameras brings out the clueless in S.F.\" The Examiner. January 20, 2007 - \"I count myself among those opposed to more government interference in personal privacy, but that\u2019s not really a big issue here. These cameras are going on public streets, not in bedrooms, and those who object are ignoring the obvious, ideology serving here as a highly effective blinder.\"", "qid": "49", "docid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00071-000", "rank": 83, "score": 98073.0}, {"content": "Title: Crime cameras Content: Cameras help protect citizens' liberties against crime.", "qid": "49", "docid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00013-000", "rank": 84, "score": 98012.0}, {"content": "Title: Speed cameras are a dangerous distraction to motorists Content: If motorists are complying with the allocated speed limits then there will be no need for distraction. Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety (PACTS) http://www.pacts.org.uk", "qid": "49", "docid": "2ecd255b-2019-04-19T12:45:25Z-00000-000", "rank": 85, "score": 97930.0}, {"content": "Title: Traffic light cameras Content: Yes, it IS on like Donkey Kong!!! I think the cameras are a good thing. You bring up good points about just another way for the government to get money from us. But first, they are getting money from people breaking the law, so I'm cool with that. Next, I would think it is cheaper for them to use the cameras than to beef up police patrols for red lights, so in the end it is more cost effective for tax-payers. And lastly, every level of government is in a financial mess. So if they have to make a little cash off people running red lights, rather than raise taxes or cut important programs, then I say go for it! And I find the cameras make things safer. I do think that some dopey people slow down too much, but overall I think it makes most people better drivers near the lights. I know that I now have a tendency to be a better, safer driver because the camera is there. I don't hit the gas to make the light, but I drive more responsibly because I don't want to get a ticket.", "qid": "49", "docid": "f89c38d5-2019-04-18T18:20:43Z-00006-000", "rank": 86, "score": 97553.0}, {"content": "Title: Place Cameras in Courtrooms to Televise Court Cases Content: People should have a right of access to justice.", "qid": "49", "docid": "50b1fa37-2019-04-15T20:22:47Z-00006-000", "rank": 87, "score": 97551.0}, {"content": "Title: Organ Donation should be made Mandatory Content: I will be bringing forth 3 contentions arguing for why organ donation should be made mandatory. 1. Saves Lives 2. Increases Scientific Knowledge 3. Curbs illegal activity First of all, before I even proceed on to my contentions, I would like to counter some of the arguments that I have no doubt my opponent will raise. Firstly, the point that the body is your own body, nobody else. However, after death is your body still yours? Why waste an organ that you won't need when you can save some body's life? Would you rather leave a kidney in an 83 year old man, or save the life of a 7 year old boy? Furthermore, I have no doubt that my opponent will raise the point of religious tolerance, and how religions such as Hinduism do not allow the body to be tampered before cremation. However, with the prospect of saving lives and organ donation technology, almost every religion has made allowances for organ donation [2]. I will now proceed on to my first contention, it SAVES LIVES. 1. SAVES LIVES A new nickname has appeared amongst the medical community. The nickname is for motorcycles. The new name for motorcycles are \"Organ Cycles\". Why? Because of how dangerous driving a motorcycle can be. The increased risk of car crashes increases the chance that the drivers will donate their organs to those on wait lists. Horrifyingly, people do listen to the radio hoping to hear the news of a car crash. Currently, in the United States, 114 827 people are on a wait list, waiting for an organ. Everyday, 18 people die waiting for an organ. Furthermore, just donating 1 organ can save 8 lives. [1] Organs can survive for a very long time after death, allowing for time for the organ to be transported and the person receiving the organ to be contacted. Heart/Lungs: Can be preserved for up to 4 - 6 hours after death Pancreas: Can be preserved for up to 12 hours after death Liver: Can be preserved for up to 24 hours after death Kidneys: Can be preserved for up to 48 - 72 hours after death Corneas: Can be preserved for up to 5 - 7 days after death Heart Valves, Skin, Bones: Can be preserved for up to 3 - 10 years after death [2] After death, the organs can be removed and prepared for transplant to another human being. Making organ donation mandatory could prevent 18 people from dying each day. Organ donations can also be used for scientific purposes, which I shall now move on to in my second contention. 2. SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH Donating organs (or whole body donations) furthers scientific research as more test subjects are available for testing. This is also an alternative for someone who donates a diseased organ. This will undoubtedly save more lives in the future as cures could possibly be found from conducting tests on these diseased organs. Donated organs have resulted in an increase of understanding and research for these disease: Heart Disease Diabetes HIV Spinal Injuries Joint Replacements Cancer Research Osteoporosis Colon and Liver Treatments Breast Cancer Reproductive Advancements Advanced Drug Delivery Paramedic Training Alzheimer's Research Cochlear Implant Development [3] This increased knowledge will lead to a change in future health care, making it more efficient and effective. 3. CURBS ILLEGAL ACTIVITY In the current desperation of those who are impoverished, one of the options is to donate one of their kidneys on the black market. In Bangladesh, those who donate a kidney on the black market receives around $1500 [4]. Furthermore, in American these organs can be taken by force when the body is waiting for cremation. Organs and tissue is taken from these bodies and donated to hospitals and research facilities around the country. When these tissues are donated, tissues that have diseases are often passed off as \"healthy\" with forged papers. Illegal tissue from a single cadaver has reached 90 tissue transplant recipients. Clearly, the black market organ donation is very dangerous to the health of those who need organs. So, what have we learned today? Organ donation saves lives and has been associated with advanced research and knowledge in the field of medicine. Furthermore, mandatory organ donation curbs the need for black market organ donations. For these reasons, Vote Con. Sources: . http://www.organdonor.gov... . http://www.donatelifeillinois.org... . http://www.sciencecare.com... . http://www.abovetopsecret.com...", "qid": "49", "docid": "3f689dac-2019-04-18T18:12:45Z-00003-000", "rank": 88, "score": 97503.0}, {"content": "Title: School Uniforms Should Be Mandatory Content: Inappropriate", "qid": "49", "docid": "4b51d325-2019-04-19T12:44:49Z-00013-000", "rank": 89, "score": 97480.0}, {"content": "Title: Crime cameras Content: Crime cameras help catch criminals and get them off the street", "qid": "49", "docid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00023-000", "rank": 90, "score": 97468.0}, {"content": "Title: Hi-tech crime cameras help predict and prevent criminal acts Content: James Slack. \"Caught Before the Act\". Daily Mail. November 28, 2008 - \"CCTV cameras which can 'predict' if a crime is about to take place are being introduced on Britain's streets. The cameras can alert operators to suspicious behaviour, such as loitering and unusually slow walking. Anyone spotted could then have to explain their behaviour to a police officer.\"", "qid": "49", "docid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00046-000", "rank": 91, "score": 97345.0}, {"content": "Title: Crime cameras place security over civil liberties. Content: While security interests are important, security cameras wrongly place them over civil liberties. Constitutional principles surrounding civil liberties exist for a reason, and are meant to be immutable. Expediencies such as increased security should not be allowed to bend or break these important moral principles and lines.", "qid": "49", "docid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00080-000", "rank": 92, "score": 97307.0}, {"content": "Title: should there be cameras in classrooms Content: i think there should be cameras in classrooms so you can see if someone stole your stufff or more", "qid": "49", "docid": "aa4e2c1a-2019-04-18T12:10:52Z-00001-000", "rank": 93, "score": 97097.0}, {"content": "Title: Traffic light cameras Content: Thanks, Rich! Yes, I think we should agree to disagree on that part, but I see what you're saying in many respects. I agree with the fact that the smarter driveres will become more safe and the knuckleheads will just become more knuckle-headier. In many respects, I can see what you're saying with having the police patrol other areas and take care of situations that would take precedence over traffic lights. I just feel that the majority of accidents that happen are not due to people blowing red lights, but on the other hand; people doing that won't make others safe. And you're right... if traffic cameras help the way people drive, in any way, I can see that as a definite positive. In some ways, maybe I feel like my privacy is being taken away in the slightest bit because of these lights, but like you have said... if it makes it safer, why not. I do, though, feel uncomfortable with the traffic lights because I feel as though that it was not even that big of an issue for them to place cameras, but apparently it is getting some work done considering most people probably think twice before \"flooring it\" through the yellow light.", "qid": "49", "docid": "f89c38d5-2019-04-18T18:20:43Z-00001-000", "rank": 94, "score": 96952.0}, {"content": "Title: Crime cameras Content: Crime cameras help restore a public sense of safety", "qid": "49", "docid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00026-000", "rank": 95, "score": 96882.0}, {"content": "Title: Cameras shall placed in courtrooms so that criminal trials can be puclically televised Content: I am affirmative for the Resolve: Cameras shall placed in courtrooms so that criminal trials can be puclically televised. I will wait for the negative/con to accept this debate and then following their post that ONLY accepts, I will post the 1AC speech and the debate shall begin. Thanks and good luck!", "qid": "49", "docid": "ee8b1d4c-2019-04-18T19:09:44Z-00007-000", "rank": 96, "score": 96808.0}, {"content": "Title: Cameras make a small but valuable contribution to crime fighting. Content: Ken Garcia. \"Debate over crime cameras brings out the clueless in S.F.\". The Examiner. January 20, 2007 - \"The cameras by themselves are not a crime-solving strategy, but part of an overall network designed to stop criminals before or after the act.\"", "qid": "49", "docid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00050-000", "rank": 97, "score": 96756.0}, {"content": "Title: Recording interaction with police officers should not be against the law. Content: Thanks, Volkov. 1. Re: With Joe Citizen's ability to record any time, police are going to be subject to biases. I've explained that police being subject to scrutiny is a good thing. As detailed in the last round, police have a tough gig and mistakes will be made; that's the nature of the job. However, because of their rampant authority, being allowed to record their interaction with others can help establish the guilt or innocence of people who may be wrongly abused, arrested or incriminated by law enforcement. Without this protection, our rights are greatly inhibited considering in a court of law their word vs. an ordinary citizen's without evidence is almost *always* upheld; Con did not argue contrary. Without being able to submit tangible evidence, a dirty agent could continue abusing their power and manipulating the system, which can have detrimental effects on the community and an individual's life. As such, this protection far outweighs any negative of people merely scrutinizing the police. Just as some families have chosen to install \"Nanny Cams\" to ensure their child is protected while they're away, people have a right to protect themselves from tyrannical law. Similarly, business owners can install cameras to minimize theft and robbery and protect their property; why can't people do the same to protect theirs (person)? 2. Re: Criminals are using the internet in increasing ways to get around the police If you check out Con's source, it details organized crime personnel in Italy using Skype as a way to avoid being wiretapped. This, of course, has nothing to do with the resolution. Their use of Skype would continue whether or not police were legally able to be recorded. Here, the only evidence Con could possibly present in his favor includes proof that recording POs has had severely detrimental results, or led to criminals tampering with police investigations. Con has not presented evidence of this nature, so we have no reason to assume that recording interaction with a cop would in any way negatively effect police business. Criminals are using technology to get around the police? Sure, it's been happening for ages. What has that got to do with anything? How would recording an officer arrest you, arrest another, or interact with someone in general aid in criminal activity? At best you could argue a direct transmission of data to a criminal, but again that's unlikely and seemingly unuseful. I expect Con to explain how this is possible or likely instead of committing the base rate fallacy (using weak evidence to make a probability judgment without taking into account known empirical statistics about the probability). Again, if I am pulled over, and I record the cop talking to me, asking for my license and registration, etc., how is that harming anything or anyone? Even in a more hostile situation, I don't see how it's relevant. 3. Re: There is no way to keep citizens accountable if they break the law, or jeopardize an officer's safety and ability to keep the peace. It's definitely possible to punish a citizen who abuses this right. If someone is using Skype for criminal activity like in Con's example, then of course they should be punished. Similarly, if someone is using recording police for criminal activity, they should be punished too. However saying because people *might* do this that it's a reason to keep this illegal is absurd. That's like saying alcohol should be illegal because people *might* drink and drive. We've long disposed of that backwards and futile ideology; we know it's better to entrust people with restrictions, and this is one of those cases. Also, this negates Con's own contention. He says it's not fair to record cops because they MIGHT be bad, and then says we shouldn't be able to record because CITIZENS *might* be bad. Not only is this hypocritical, but I've explained how cops being abusive is far more dangerous and likely. 4. Re: POs may not feel safe to act a particular way, which could endanger their lives. Should an officer have \"felt safe\" to open fire on an unarmed man? I advocate that cops feel TOO SAFE to engage in any behavior they please without fear of reprimand. As an example, feverish teasingly told Nags that he would report his father (a cop) to the bureau for tampering with police evidence (a joke). However, Nags responded with something along the lines of, \"What good would that do - reporting my dad to his friends?\" POs should take the liberty to act in accordance with the training they've been given. If someone opens fire on them, they should fire in return. However I doubt any police have been trained to start shooting first, meaning there's no basis to do so. If their shooting (or other actions) was *truly justified,* then they would not be punished (for instance, the cops were found innocent in Sean Bell's case because the jury did not believe the cops were being intentionally harmful). Con writes, \"Adding another pressure to the situation, with cameras rolling, is not necessarily a good idea in an uncontrolled environment.\" Again I negate -- police should feel comfortable knowing that if they do make a mistake, recordings of the going-ons can work in their favor to justify their actions. For instance, if they say they shot someone because they thought he was reaching for a gun, and the video shows the suspect reaching for their wallet, this would indeed be a tragedy but one in which police could be forgiven and understood. However in cases like the examples I've given last round, sometimes police act brutally for completely unjustifiable reasons. These people need to be caught and punished to maintain the integrity of the law. 5. In the last round, I asked Con to explain the \"many regulations\" officers suffer from, as he implied, considering I noted how they usually get away with murder (literally). He pointed out that many officers follow rules, but did not expand any further on this point. 5. On the topic of citizen journalism, Con says that it can be dangerous because of the blatant bias that comes with it. I agree. However, simply recording a police officer does NOT impose any bias. In that case, the actions of the officer and his counterpart speak for themselves. Watching a police officer threaten someone is not bias against the police; it's a representation of the cop's actions. Any distortion to video could easily be noted or proven. 6. Con continues to say that many officers are unjustifiably stigmatized because of the actions of a few, and I agree. However, recording police can be used to prove Con right - that most cops are law abiding and fair. 7. My opponent says that he agrees law enforcement should be held accountable given their authority. However, he writes \"recording technology is [not] an acceptable means of achieving those ends.\" In that case, I invite my opponent to explain why, and more importantly, what a better way of achieving those ends would be considering I've detailed precisely why this is the best and most fair way of ensuring integrity. 8. Con writes, \"If the PO's authority and discretion is so great, would it really make a difference whether [recording] was legal or not?\" Absolutely. If a cop acted wrongly, he'd be held accountable by co-workers and superiors, who would in turn be held accountable by their co-workers and superiors, as well as the public. If Officer Joe was recorded beating an old lady for no reason, and that was posted on YouTube, there would be a public demand for punishment, and this would be an incentive to minimize police abuse. 9. Con concludes by saying that this act could effectively hurt innocent parties. I contend that no sufficient evidence to draw this conclusion has been established, and that this would be a minimal risk. On balance, being allowed to record police would have the most benefits in terms of protecting society and our rights and safety.", "qid": "49", "docid": "9247b1e1-2019-04-18T19:02:31Z-00003-000", "rank": 98, "score": 96737.0}, {"content": "Title: Crime cameras Content: Crime cameras cannot deter criminals that do not fear the law", "qid": "49", "docid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00030-000", "rank": 99, "score": 96648.0}, {"content": "Title: Cameras shall placed in courtrooms so that criminal trials can be puclically televised Content: I thank dasamster for his arguments. To make my post easier to read, I have split it into several sections. === BURDEN OF PROOF === I would firstly like to clarify the burden of proof in this debate: it is on Pro to show that cameras benefit the judicial system as a whole. As Con, I need only show that what dasamster suggests isn't necessary for an effective judiciary. I will also show how allowing cameras into the courtroom actively undermines the justice system, but (although hopefully convincing) it is not strictly necessary for me to do this in order to win this debate. With that in mind, I move onto... === REBUTTAL === Dasamster's arguments can be split into four basic strands, which I shall deal with separately. Before I do so, I point out the interesting nature of the sources which he quoted - more specifically, the first one [1]. The interesting thing is that this is actually a source that argues my side of the debate, and so when I quote from it, not only am I quoting the words of a former Justice of the New York Supreme Court, I am quoting someone who dasamster apparently believes to be authoritative enough to quote himself - thus, my use of his own source against him will prove especially damaging as I lay out my case. Moving on to dasamster's first argument: 1) That public confidence will be improved This clearly need not be a speculative question, as the U.S. has had cameras in the courtroom for a long time already - indeed, TruTV (formerly Court TV) was set up for this very purpose in 1991. [2] So for this argument to be effective, dasamster needs to give us some evidence that American public confidence in the judiciary has indeed improved since then. He has not done so. Indeed, retired Justice Siracuse says in the aforementioned source quoted by dasamster himself: \"...we have seen increasing television coverage of trials, not only in New York but across the country. In the same period public confidence in the judicial system -- and, indeed, in the entire legal profession -- has plunged. By any measure one cares to use, the judiciary is held in lower esteem now than at any time within memory.\" [1] Dasamster's appeal to an alleged \"increase in public confidence\" needs to survive this difficulty. It has not yet done so. 2) That the judiciary system suffers ridicule in the media, giving an unrepresentative image of the justice system I agree that this is the case. However, it isn't clear how this would change under dasamster's proposal - after all, the overwhelming majority of people would not have the time nor inclination to watch the actual court trials themselves. They generally consider themselves to have more important things to do, such as going to work and school, having dinner or watching the football/baseball/other-sport-of-choice. Even those who watch trials on TruTV will generally only have the time/inclination to watch the edited highlights - in other words, the parts deemed by the media to be the most important parts of the trial. This is exactly what they do at present in the courtroom, and any ridicule or unrepresentative image presented at the moment would only continue with trials recorded by camera. 3) People have a right to access the justice system, and so should be allowed to watch court proceedings at a time that suits them. Yes, people have a right to know what happens in the justice system. Yes, they have a right to transparency. This does not, however, lead to a right for the general public to know absolutely everything about any particular trial: too much information has a dilutary effect. It becomes impossible for them to know what information they need to know, and they become overwhelmed by what's available \u2013 this can serve no useful purpose to anyone. Instead, the general public only have a right to know the salient details: broadly speaking, the key evidence presented, the verdict given, and the reason behind the verdict. This is already given by the media in news and analysis, and by the judge and the courts in published verdicts and court reports. There is no need for cameras in the courtroom. 4) The justice system needs to serve an educational purpose, which is not served without cameras in the courtroom Dasamster specifies the two types of people who may wish to view court proceedings: non-lawyers and those in law school. But for neither of these groups is it necessary to introduce cameras. To the first group: a commentary for non-lawyers already happens through media reports, and it is not clear why dasamster believes that allowing cameras into the courtroom makes the situation better. Indeed, I've already shown how nothing would ever change if cameras are allowed into the courtroom. The second group, namely lawyers, already have enough information about what happens in the courtroom! Full transcripts of what transpired in the courtroom are already typed up by stenographers in the court, the reasons behind the judge's verdicts are already publicised and used in law classes, and many law schools have mooting and advocacy practice sessions to prepare the student for public speaking in the courtroom. Plus, after all, the law student will surely be able to supplement this already-extensive experience through actually watching a trial from the public gallery in their spare time... what more preparation could dasamster possibly want law students to have? I hope it is clear from all of the foregoing why dasamster's arguments fall. I shall now seek to solidify my case by introducing... === SUBSTANTIVE === The justice system is primarily about ensuring that the right verdict is reached according to the evidence presented: any educational purpose is surely secondary to this goal. As retired Justice Siracuse quotes approvingly in the source used by dasamster himself: \"The purpose of the court is not education or spectacle or public entertainment, but justice.\" [1] It is surely right that transparency in the justice system is also a key part, but this is already reached through what happens anyway: the use of cameras is not necessary here. Given that it is not necessary, the dangers that surround the use of cameras should serve to warn us away from putting them in the courtroom. These mostly derive from the increased pressure on participants within the trial itself, as naturally, by making intimate court proceedings open to a theoretically infinite audience, more people will see the precise details of what goes on in the courtroom. For reasons of space, I shall deal now mainly with getting witnesses and victims of crime to testify in court, given the importance of this procedure to both sides of the case: to the prosecution, it is important to get eye-witnesses to the crime in order to bolster their case; for the defence, it is important to cross-examine the witnesses to ensure accuracy and consistency in testimony. It is already difficult to convince witnesses and victims to testify for a variety of reasons, from sensitivity to active or indirect intimidation. This problem has been identified for many decades, and indeed centuries, with one New York Times article (for instance) raising this issue as far back as 1894. [3] Publicising the identifiable faces, mannerisms and actions of witnesses, and thus putting this information into the public domain could only ever serve to increase this problem. In conclusion, we shouldn't have cameras in the courtroom. It doesn't create any of the benefits that dasamster wants to show, thus his proposition falls; in addition, the consequent active harms only serve to strengthen rejection of this policy. Vote Con. Sources [1] http://amsir.home.isp-direct.com... [2] http://www.trutv.com... [3] http://query.nytimes.com...", "qid": "49", "docid": "ee8b1d4c-2019-04-18T19:09:44Z-00004-000", "rank": 100, "score": 96471.0}]}
{"query": "Should everyone get a universal basic income?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: Universal Basic Income Content: I accept", "qid": "50", "docid": "4d103793-2019-04-18T11:35:54Z-00006-000", "rank": 1, "score": 158970.0}, {"content": "Title: Universal Basic Income Content: This debate is for 1harder's Spring Regular Tournament. All the settings of this debate are in accordance with the tournament's rules. Resolution: The U. S. should replace existing welfare programs with a universal basic income (UBI). I propose that every adult receive an annual, basic income of $10,000. This income would be unconditional, earned whether one is employed or not. Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare would be exempt as they aren't really considered welfare.", "qid": "50", "docid": "4d103793-2019-04-18T11:35:54Z-00007-000", "rank": 2, "score": 154639.0}, {"content": "Title: Universal Basic Income Content: IntroductionAn unconditional, individual, and universal basic income would indisputably boost the economy and allow many low-income Americans to climb the ladder of social mobility. It would not only lift people above the poverty line and reduce income inequality, but create jobs, lower school dropout rates, improve health, and raise overall economic output. A UBI would enable, rather than trap, those with unfortunate financial situations as it would provide *everyone* money to work with; all would have the fiscal leverage to progress forward when they otherwise wouldn\u2019t.Our current welfare programs, in contrast, do the opposite of what they\u2019re intended for. They encourage passive behavior and inhibit productivity. The means-tested programs withdraw benefits as soon as a certain income is reached, and are burdened with high marginal tax rates so long as their income is below a certain level. Others require people to exhaust nearly all their assets until they become eligible for aid. With so many strings attached, and the overall counter-productive nature, welfare programs simply are inferior to a UBI, and have too many downfalls.Economic/Societal ImpactsThere are several instances of cash transfers, or UBI trials, working. The following examples turn up multiple benefits:Namibia tried out a UBI program, the Basic Income Grant, in 2007-2012. After just one year into the program, household poverty rates dropped from 76% to 37%. Other effects were noted too: income-generating activities rose from 44% to 55% over the time period. Parents were enabled to purchase school uniforms, afford school fees, and encourage attendance because of this problem, and as a result, school dropout rates dropped from 40% to nearly 0% in a year [2].India tried a cash transfer project from 2013-2014 too. The result was that sanitation improved, medicine could be afforded, clean water became more accessible, and participants could eat more regularly [3].Uganda\u2019s UBI trial enabled participants to invest in skill training. The findings were that \u201crelative to the control group, the program increases business assets by 57%, work hours by 17%, and earnings by 38%\u201d [4]. Kenya has an ongoing trial, and it has so far reportedly let to increased happiness and life satisfaction, and reduced depression and stress [5].If we are to quantify the effect this would have in the US, we should look at the current poverty levels. Currently, the poverty level is a $12,140 income for individuals [1]. With my proposed UBI of $10,000, this would pull everyone with an income of a few thousand or more above the line. That\u2019s potentially *millions* of people. The Failure of Welfare ProgramsThe current welfare programs do *not* provide overall work incentives. Most are means-tested, meaning that if you demonstrate that your income and capital are below specified limits, you\u2019re eligible. This can lead to what some call the \u201ccliff effect\u201d: once someone passes an income threshold, that aid is withdrawn, and climbing further up the income ladder becomes more difficult. This issue is maximized when we understand how disadvantaged the poor are tax-wise under welfare. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office, \u201c[found] that the marginal tax rate climbs to 40 percent when a worker earns slightly more than about $12,000, and then to nearly 50 percent in the mid-$20,000 range.\u201d [6] These programs impose high marginal tax rates, essentially trapping these recipients into a large income hole that they can\u2019t climb out of. To put this into better perspective, here\u2019s a graph [7] that shows tax-less income in respect to income earned: These welfare programs are creating a clear poverty trap. Under a universal basic income, this wouldn\u2019t happen. A UBI would extend to *every* person, regardless of what their incomes are, enabling them to have more social mobility than they would under the incredibly flawed welfare programs that are burdening so many lower-income people.But that\u2019s not all. Many welfare programs also have asset limits, meaning that one must have almost no assets to be eligible for benefits. Programs like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) have asset limit ranges from $1,000 in states like Georgia and Texas to $10,000 in Delaware [8]. This is problematic because it discourages the importance of saving and self-reliance; only those who exhaust just about all of their assets become eligible for aid. Savings are very important because they provide cushion against anything that goes wrong. Just having under $2,000, for instance, is enough to protect against eviction, missed meals, or the loss of utilities during a financial setback. To force such recipients to go to the point of being broke to receive benefits in no way incentivizes them to increase their income.To sum, a UBI would (1) significantly reduce poverty and boost economic output, and (2) incentivize people to work in ways our current welfare programs cannot. Thus, I affirm.=Sources=[1] https://www.healthcare.gov...[2] http://www.bignam.org...[3] http://sewabharat.org...[4] https://www.povertyactionlab.org...[5] https://www.princeton.edu...[6] https://www.urban.org...[7] https://www.economist.com...[8] https://www.americanprogress.org...", "qid": "50", "docid": "4d103793-2019-04-18T11:35:54Z-00005-000", "rank": 3, "score": 147840.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: The United States ought to provide a universal basic income. Content: u know the rules. AC, NR, AR,2NR, 2Ar. no new args in 2ar", "qid": "50", "docid": "d21a6c90-2019-04-18T11:39:37Z-00002-000", "rank": 4, "score": 146589.0}, {"content": "Title: Universal Basic Income Content: His plan increases the \u201cincome effect\u201d compared to a UBI The entire premise of my opponent\u2019s argument is that everyone will get at least $15,000 and full employment. The differences between a UBI and a means tested program are not significant under the current system, as far as income effects go, for poor people, and both programs retain work efforts at the lowest income levels. My opponent\u2019s plan, however, provides an extra $5,000 in income at this level for those in the private sector. The difference between no assistance and assistance under Con\u2019s plan is more than it would be under a UBI, meaning his plan would reduce work incentives compared to a UBI. EITC reduces work incentives for many groups Con claims the EITC has mechanisms which reduce the negative effects of the phase-ou. Economic research has demonstrated that the EITC significantly discourages work for many demographics, especially women. Women in the phase-out portion of the EITC become 5% less likely to work, and for women who are already working, women work 20% fewer hours per year.[1] Another study came to the same conclusion, and discovered evidence of a negative impact on many females. \u201c[T]he EITC explains 71 percent of the decline in low-educated married mothers\u2019 desire to work between 1988-1993 and 1994-2010\u2026While the \u201cwelfare to work\u201d reform was designed to do bring welfare recipients into the labor force, the reform could have had the opposite effect on the \u201cweaker\u201d nonparticipants by shifting them from a program with some connection to the labor force (welfare) to a program with no connection to the labor force (disability insurance).\u201d[2] Wage subsidies, like the EITC, introduce multiple distortions in the labor market. These distortions are favorable to low-wage industries, making domestic production costs lower. This means imports are negatively affected, which distorts trade, and hurts the economy.[3] By making the EITC more generous, we would be increasing the work disincentives for women. A more generous EITC would also increase distortions in the labor market. The issue with public works and education Con\u2019s plan is trying to create a quasi-universal basic income system, but instead through providing employment and job training. This solution is problematic. The way Con sets up his plan would negatively affect the private sector. There are two scenarios for poor people: either they get nothing, work for the government/educate and get a $10,000 UBI, or work for the private sector and at least earn $15,000. This plan creates a whole new level of bureaucracy and would drastically increase spending--Con\u2019s claim that this would somehow reduce spending is insane. The plan causes thousands if not millions of new people to work for the public sector. The issue with this is that there would be a \u201ccrowd out\u201d effect. Many tasks the government completes could be provided for by the private sector if the government wasn\u2019t providing them. While government expands, the private sector retreats.[12] We must weigh the two effects. The crowd out effect would affect all industries, because my opponent\u2019s plan has to be able to, at full capacity, be able to employ the entire country. Every industry will experience some type of crowd out. The cost of his job guarantee for low-income people in order for them to obtain welfare is extremely large. This is essentially his plan: People are poor. People need assistance. They must work in order to get assistance. The government should offer work to those who are currently idle. Thus, he basically is ensuring work for anyone who wants it. It is implied that the government should be able to, at maximum capacity, provide work for 300 million people. But this means the government would have to get involved in all industries: fast food, technology, yard work, etc. The reason is because we only have so many construction projects, and many construction projects are already done efficiently by the private sector. When public roads are fixed, all public buildings repaired, and all museums erected, what then? What if the demand for these new products (like museums) wane over time? Or a recession strains the system and it cannot handle the influx of workers? The simple fact is these public works programs would not be doing traditional public construction jobs after a period of time, and the government would be forced to distort the market by entering formerly private industries in order to ensure employment. The cost of such a program would be enormous. Under a UBI, you simply hand over the check. Under a job guarantee/workfare regime, you have to pay managers, supervisors, and other bureaucrats in order to supervise work projects. You would have to pay for the education programs, the teachers, and administrators. You would require a large number of other employees to make sure everyone receiving benefits needs it; the increase in administrative complexity and costs would be enormous. Under a UBI, administrative costs would be virtually zero. Nothing about the UBI restricts or inhibits public work programs. As I already explained, the UBI increases work incentives, on balance, even for those who are at the bottom of the income ladder. This means implementing a UBI would expand the size of the labor market and it would be easier to staff public work programs. A study in Germany predicts a UBI would increase the labor supply and increase work incentives.[4] The U.S. is considered the most innovative economy because of its \u201ccut throat\u201d capitalism and private sector innovation.[9] By making the government the largest employer and heavily distorting private markets, the U.S. economy would be destined to become less innovative and productive. It would be much more efficient to allow the private sector to deal with education and employment. Marco Rubio has an education plan that promotes and encourages vocational training using private sector mechanisms.[5] The research on vocational training is ambiguous, with the GAO saying any \u201cpositive impacts [from vocational training tend] to be small, inconclusive, or restricted to short-term impacts.\u201d[17] A 2008 study found no difference in employment, wage, and economic outcomes for those who have gone through work training programs compared to those who had not.[18] Did workfare work in the past? Con claims the welfare reform act of 1996 dramatically reduced welfare rolls and increased work incentives. This argument is flawed because welfare rolls were falling before the implementation of workfare. One study found only \u201c15 percent of the decline [in welfare rolls] is due to welfare reform, the rest to the significant expansion of low-wage work during the 1990s.\u201d[6] In other words, economic growth reduced welfare rolls. Another study published in the American Economic Review argues 50% of the decline in welfare roles was due to a reduction in number of people receiving welfare.[7] This has important implications for those who interpret welfare reform as a success. A reduction in the number of families receiving welfare may have negative impacts on those at the bottom of the income ladder. Indeed, of those who have been kicked off of or became ineligible for welfare, \u201cmost are in poverty.\u201d[6] Economists who have reviewed the literature also note how only about one third, at best, of the reduction in caseloads is due to welfare reform.[8] The benefits of my opponent\u2019s counterplan are overstated Keeping people out of poverty is a benefit of both of these plans, according to Con. But as I noted, the significant distortions in the labor market caused by his plan may make the situation worse, and require that the U.S. becomes the largest employer in the country. In the long term, this would reduce not only U.S. but also global economic growth and innovation. His plan would not reduce wasteful spending. A UBI would eliminate administrative costs. His plan increases costs, because not only are you giving money to people, you are also doling out paychecks to thousands of extra unnecessary employees that oversee the public works. A UBI program is affordable.[10][11] My opponent\u2019s plan would undoubtedly increase costs. The production of skilled workers is much better suited for the private sector, mainly due to the massive public costs of ensuring education for every poor person if they wish to pursue it (and by artificially increasing the amount of skilled workers, the value of education would fall and reduce wages for those who are already educated). Crime rediction is nonunique. Poor people, who are more likely to commit crime, often do so in order to make a living. One way to fix this, as my opponent notes, is to give them a job. But a UBI would have the same effect: by reducing financial hardship, a motive for crime would be substantially weakened; a UBI would also increase social cohesion. In Nambia after a UBI was implemented, crime fell by 42% due to an increase in cohesion.[13] In India, UBIs increased economic activity and school attendance.[14] Obtaining unearned income makes people more sociable. When people earn small lottery winnings, the ones close to UBI level, it has been found \u201cthat unearned income improves traits that predict pro-social and cooperative behaviours\u2026 as well as reduce individuals' tendency to experience negative emotional states.\u201d[15] A UBI would have the same effect, meaning a UBI would positively impact our society. When the government does more, the private sector does less, and oftentimes the crowd out effect is larger than the benefits of increased public works. An research suggests increased infrastructure spending is a poor economic stimulus and the crowd out effect more than cancels out the benefits of increased infrastructure spending.[16] Creating other public goods, if there is no demand for them, is a net-negative because the taxpayer has to pay for these institutions. http://bit.ly...", "qid": "50", "docid": "4d103774-2019-04-18T13:49:55Z-00001-000", "rank": 5, "score": 146202.0}, {"content": "Title: Universal Basic Income is a good thing Content: Let's debate the merit, feasibility, And necessity of a Universal Basic Income. Heads up - this first post is quite long. My future arguments will be more succinct. It's a big topic so I'm looking for an opponent who's willing to put some time into this debate. ---A Universal Basic Income: is a periodic, Unconditional, Automatic, Guaranteed payment given to all citizens; regardless of their income. Universal basic income is one of the most ambitious social policies of our time. Over 15 countries are currently running UBI feasibility trials [1]. Why is it that so many scientists, Politicians, And economists are spending their time researching this wacky-sounding idea? The key benefits of a Universal Basic Income are as follows: A UBI would completely eliminate poverty A UBI might pay for itself by creating a massive economic boost A UBI encourages people to work, Unlike welfare A UBI reduces bureaucracy A UBI makes the population smarter and healthier A UBI reduces crime rates --- It's not all altruism though. A UBI also addresses a dangerous threat to our world: The job insecurity created by automation. Job creation can't keep up with automation. While it's true that innovation creates new jobs, These don't compare with the number of jobs being eliminated by the same technological advancements. Automation has been blamed as the key reason why factory workers and miners are losing jobs. Job growth is tied down by corporate structures and politics. Technology doesn't care. As technology advances it makes things more efficient. This efficiency means employers can produce more stuff with less workforce. In a world where artificial intelligence can diagnose better than doctors, Compose classical music, Beat professional players at starcraft, Poker and go, People are worried that the pace of job growth will not be able to keep up with the advancement of technology. Take the self-driving car for example; Transportation is one of the largest industries in the world. Imagine the jobs lost and economic catastrophe if this industry became fully automated. This might not be long off; self-driving cars have already shown to be at least as good, If not better drivers than humans. ---A UBI would completely eliminate povertyBy providing all citizens with a basic living income we could end homelessness, Hunger and poverty overnight. A UBI could pay for itself by creating a massive economic boost In a recent study, A UBI of $1000/month in the USA was estimated to grow the GDP by over 12. 5% in 8 years [2]. Allowing poor people to spend more will increase overall economic demand. More people buying things means more tax revenue is generated and a stronger economy. This would offset the long-term cost of the program. A UBI encourages people to workThe modern welfare disincentives people from getting jobs, Unemployment insurance and welfare cheques disappear when you get a job. UBI doesn't discourage jobs, Because people get to keep the money either way. Studies show that while some people initially quit their jobs, They often use the freedom UBI provides to find jobs that they are better suited for (increasing productivity), Going back to school, Or taking care of their family. A UBI reduces bureaucracy and paperworkModern welfare systems are immensely complex. The UBI is simple. It doesn't require income verification, Tax departments, Eligibility checks, Identity checks, Or any other bureaucratic labor. A UBI makes the population healthierBy providing everyone with the means for basic shelter and nutrition, We can reduce (the currently overwhelming) strain on most health care systems. With increased economic security, People are less prone to stresses, Disease, And self-destructive behavior. A UBI experiment in Canada saw hospitalization rates go down 8. 5%[3]A UBI makes the population smarterStudies have shown that the stress of poverty makes people much worse decision makers. The effect is not subtle, This study showed it was equal in a 13 point drop in IQ[4]. By eliminating the distress of millions we can create a smarter more rational society. A UBI reduces crime ratesThe root cause of crime is desperation. Desperate people take desperate measures and are more likely to break laws. By lifting society out of poverty we would greatly reduce desperation thus removing one of crimes biggest motivators. This has the potential to greatly reduce crime rates everywhere. ---A universal basic income is not only good for society and the economy; it may also be the only realistic solution to the near-term threat of automation.", "qid": "50", "docid": "12cc98d3-2019-04-18T11:08:03Z-00002-000", "rank": 6, "score": 144422.0}, {"content": "Title: Universal Basic Income Content: A Universal Basic Income: is a periodic, Unconditional, Automatic, Guaranteed payment given to all citizens; regardless of their income. Universal basic income is one of the most ambitious social policies of our time. Over 15 countries are currently running UBI feasibility trials [1]. Why is it that so many scientists, Politicians, And economists are spending their time researching this wacky sounding idea? The key benefits of a Universal Basic Income are as follows: A UBI would completely eliminate poverty A UBI might pay for itself by creating a massive economic boost A UBI encourages people to work A UBI reduces bureaucracy A UBI makes the population smarter and healthier A UBI reduces crime rates --- It's not all altruism though. A UBI also addresses a dangerous threat to our world: The job insecurity created by automation. Job creation can't keep up with automation. While it's true that innovation creates new jobs, These don't compare with the number of jobs being eliminated by the same technological advancements. Automation has been blamed as the key reason why factory workers and miners are losing jobs. Job growth is tied down by corporate structures and politics. Technology doesn't care. As technology advances it makes things more efficient. This efficiency means employers can produce more stuff with less workforce. In a world where artificial intelligence can diagnose better than doctors, Compose classical music, Beat professional players at starcraft, Poker and go, People are worried that the pace of job growth will not be able to keep up with the advancement of technology. Take the self-driving car for example; Transportation is one of the largest industries in the world. Imagine the jobs lost and economic catastrophe if this industry became fully automated. This might not be long off - self driving cars have already shown to be at least as good, If not better drivers than humans. --- A UBI would completely eliminate poverty By providing all citizens with a basic living income we could end homelessness, Hunger and poverty overnight. A UBI could pay for itself by creating a massive economic boost In a recent study, A UBI of $1000/month in the USA was estimated to grow the GDP by over 12. 5% in 8 years [2]. Allowing poor people to spend more will increase overall economic demand. More people buying things means more tax revenue is generated and a stronger economy. This would offset the long-term cost of the program. A UBI encourages people to work The modern welfare disincentives people from getting jobs, Unemployment insurance and welfare cheques disappear when you get a job. UBI doesn't discourage jobs, Because people get to keep the money either way. Studies show that while some people initially quit their jobs, They often use the freedom UBI provides to find jobs that they are better suited for (increasing productivity), Going back to school, Or taking care of their family. A UBI reduces bureaucracy and paperwork Modern welfare systems are immensely complex. The UBI is simple. It doesn't require income verification, Tax departments, Eligibility checks, Identity checks, Or any other bureaucratic labor. A UBI makes the population healthier By providing everyone with the means for basic shelter and nutrition, We can reduce (the currently overwhelming) strain on most health care systems. With increased economic security, People are less prone to stresses, Disease, And self-destructive behavior. A UBI experiment in Canada saw hospitalization rates go down 8. 5%[3] A UBI makes the population smarter Studies has shown that the stress of poverty makes people much worse decision makers. The effect is not subtle, This study showed it was equal in a 13 point drop in IQ[4]. By eliminating the distress of millions we can create a smarter more rational society. A UBI reduces crime rates What is the root cause of crime? It is not ethnicity, Or culture, Or status. Crime is born out of desperation. Desperate people take desperate measures, And are much more likely to commit a crime. By lifting society out of poverty we would greatly reduce desperation, Removing one of the worlds biggest incentives for committing crime. This has the potential to greatly reduce crime rates everywhere. A universal basic income is not only good for society and the economy, It may be the only realistic solution to the near-term threat of automation.", "qid": "50", "docid": "4d1037f0-2019-04-18T11:08:29Z-00000-000", "rank": 7, "score": 144130.0}, {"content": "Title: Universal Basic Income is a good thing Content: I would like to start by saying that I agree with the motivations of this idea, They are noble ones. Technological unemployment => Less jobs => Less pay => Freezing cold economy => Scarcity + Inequality => Crime. But. . . At this very moment a UBI would prove to be more than prejudicial to our economy and society. To not distinguish between the working and the criminal in a world where work is the main source of value IS DANGEROUS. I understand that a salary is still due to the ones who choose to work under a UBI but it would cease to be a good enough motivation since you are allowed to be lazy and still live fairly well. More, If the UBI exists does the welfare end? If yes, Are people who are just lazy living well to the detriment of those with disabilities that require more funds to control or cure? We are not at the point where we should be handing over our hard-earned money to the state to feed possibly unmotivated and disconnected people who might not be contributing to our development as a society or to our eventual future of abundance yet, This is precisely why welfare exists. Markets are marvelous engines for figuring out how to do things and transfer value really well and they will continue to be until the ones on the rich side reach \"climax\" abundance and turn tyrannical against the non-producing counterpart. A UBI would be a good idea only when and if a TRUE job crisis arises, Where something like 50% or so of the population is in fact unemployed due to the advancement in technology and welfare is not enough to provide a good and dignified standard of living to this half. It is in fact a good idea for when the paradigm shifts, The fact is the paradigm has not shifted and doesn't seem to be in crisis yet. As we stand, We still need much more technological advancement and abundance inequality for this to be a remotely plausible idea making it a \"bad thing\" for the moment.", "qid": "50", "docid": "12cc98d3-2019-04-18T11:08:03Z-00001-000", "rank": 8, "score": 143963.0}, {"content": "Title: Universal Basic Income Content: IntroMurdoc kindly responded to my public plea for a debate, and I am grateful to him for making this round possible. This topic is also of great personal interest to me, and so I am happy that this was one of the two Murdoc identified as ones he was willing to debate. In order to ensure quality judging, I have set a voting ELO threshold at 3,000. Comments are required and the select winner system is in force. The voting period lasts 14 days. TopicThe United States ought to provide a universal basic incomeDefinitions- Universal Basic Income: an unconditional cash payment which the government pays monthly and universally to all adults throughout their lives. The monthly payments must be sufficient to meet the socio-cultural subsistence minimum of the community in which the recipient resides [source: adapted from a definition by Prof. Matt Zwolinski]- Ought: moral desirabilityRules1. No forfeits2. Citations must be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final speeches4. Observe good sportsmanship and maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling6. No \"kritiks\" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)7. For all resolutional terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate8. The BOP is evenly shared9. Pro must post his case in R1 and waive in R510. Rebuttals of new points raised in an adversary's immediately preceding speech may be permissible at the judges' discretion even in the final round (debaters may debate their appropriateness)11. Violation of any of these rules, or of any of the R1 set-up, merits a lossStructureR1. Pro's CaseR2. Con's Case; Pro generic RebuttalR3. Con generic Rebuttal; Pro generic RebuttalR4. Con generic Rebuttal; Pro generic Rebuttal and SummaryR5. Con generic Rebuttal and Summary; Pro WaivesThanks......to Murdoc for the debate. Looking forward to a discussion on a wonderful and fascinating topic!", "qid": "50", "docid": "4d1037b2-2019-04-18T11:26:06Z-00002-000", "rank": 9, "score": 143697.0}, {"content": "Title: That UBI should be implemented in the western world Content: Hello ISDA, Before I proceed to point out the multitude of flaws regarding a USI system, I would like to point out that your opening argument is very broad and illogical. You define a Universal Basic Income system as '...the government [giving] EVERY citizen a base income of around $10 000.' Do you understand that for a country like America with a population count of over 323 million, the annual tax revenue, even if solely dedicated to provisioning a UBI system, would not be sufficient to provide every one of its citizens with that amount? Additionally, $10 000 a year is a completely insufficient amount for disadvantaged members of society. Even for the most basic living conditions (cheapest rent, cheapest food, etc.), it requires at least $30 000 annually to provide enough money for a non-working person to provide humane living conditions for themselves (providing they are mentally and physically healthy).", "qid": "50", "docid": "530b96d7-2019-04-18T11:55:04Z-00004-000", "rank": 10, "score": 141778.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: The United States ought to provide a universal basic income. Content: NC: https://docs.google.com... Attack: looking over my opponent's case, all she talks about is minimum wage, this is non-topical because UBI has nothing to do with minimum wage. A topical aff would be plan providing aid. Theory Shell on Topicality A: MY opponent must be topical B: Violation C: Standards 1. Ground: In order for my to be able to argue the resolution, My opponent must be topical so that the debate is fair. 2: Predictability: I cannot run DAs or CPs if I do not know Aff's ground. This makes it unfair D: voters Vote off of fairness because Aff makes it impossible for me to win because I do not have any ground. Thus, I negate", "qid": "50", "docid": "d21a6c90-2019-04-18T11:39:37Z-00000-000", "rank": 11, "score": 140418.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: The US ought to provide a UBI Content: I negate resolved: The United States ought to provide a universal basic income. CP Counterplan: The US will provide a basic income, excluding felons, violent criminals, FBI watchlist members and legal immigrants who have lived in the US for less than 10 years. Through the CP, the neg solves for all the aff impacts of economic equality, gender equality, drug abuse, health care, and education. However the CP isn't advocating for universal basic income, as according to my opponent and common definitions of the term, UBI is both universal and unconditional. UBI shouldn't have any restrictions or bounds on who receives a basic income; otherwise it wouldn't be universal and cease to be a UBI. Framework I agree with my opponent's standard of the Kantian Social Contract, however, this is better upheld under the negation as I'm aren't supporting mass immigration nor crime. Instead of the principle of generic consistency, rather we should determine ethical actions through the basis of consequentialism. Overall, I solve all the aff impacts, and I better support his framework. Observations I fulfill my opponent's observations as he says I must prove a basic income wouldn't help the common american, while the resolution is based on universal basic income. Instead he must prove how UBI would better support the average american compared to merely a basic income. Contention 1: Crime and Terror Under the CP, basic income isn't supplied towards violent criminals and felons. Imagine a world where criminals such as those in the Crips, Bloods, MS-13, Latin Kings, Mexican Mafia, Sinaloa Drug Cartel, Barrio Azteca, or the Surenos, had, just for the sake of argument, $10,000 for every member annually. Just for a smaller group like Tango Blast, which boasts 19,000 members, the US money would indirectly give the organization through its members $190,000,000 dollars annually, for whatever means they so wish. The impact is an increase in overall crime, especially in the case of transnational organized crime groups. What could occur if say a known terrorist organization It could very well be said that if criminals have funds given to them? In the case of domestic shootings, terrorists could buy larger and larger weaponry, with the potential of gaining military hardware through the black market. Imagine the outcome of say, the Orlando Massacre if Mateen had say an M-16, grenades, or such. Contention 2: Welfare Magnets As aforementioned, UBI has to provided towards everyone regardlessly. If such a welfare state was created, where just by existing people can get a basic income, it would decisively be regarded as utopian in nature. Anyone and everyone would wish to go there. Mass immigration would soon occur, as everyone attempts to join the welfare state. Much like how many immigrants in the status quo receive food stamps through their naturalized children, a similar phenomenon would occur with UBI. I negate resolved.", "qid": "50", "docid": "ffdf2e2e-2019-04-18T11:43:09Z-00005-000", "rank": 12, "score": 139863.0}, {"content": "Title: The US ought to provide an universal basic income. Content: For clarity I will be presenting my arguments on why we should not implement a UBI and then moving on to addressing my opponents point. With that out of the way I will move onto my arguments Contention 1: A universal basic income will not work. The New York Times(1) says that $1,000 a month to every American would cost around 3 trillion dollars a year. And $1,000 is a month is below the poverty line. 3 trillion dollars a year is almost the entire US budget and more than twice our discretionary funding. So we can see that A UBI is not feasible at all. Contention 2: A UBI would bring about a dystopian future. Imagine if you will a world where jobs are few and far between, those with jobs are locked in a competitive industry with few workers rights. The government is a tyrranical mess where the rights of the people are nothing.What I am saying is not some impossible nightmare, and as I will show you it is very possible. Subpoint A - Loss of jobs. Fox Business(2) says that because of increased automation, 22.7 million jobs will disappear by 2025. And CNBC(3) says that only with proper adaptability and commitment will the workforce ascend to the next level of work. Now what that means is that only with proper commitment by workers can we at least help to avoid rampant unemployment. And this is where UBIs comes in. According to the Foundation for Economic Education(4) giving handouts to every American would de-incentivize them to try and find a job. So as we can see a UBI will aid in a drastic rise in unemployment. In addition it will take away money and focus from useful systems such as a jobs guarantee which would solve the imminent unemployment at a much lower cost. According to The Atlantic(5) it would only cost 158 billion dollars a year, less than a 15th of the cost of a UBI program. So as we can see a UBI will exacerbate job loss and harm us greatly. Subpoint B - Loss of rights. According to Sapira(6) political rights are directly correlated with economic participation. She says \"And this is the real danger of a universal basic income it makes the citizens unnecessary to the government\" She also says that in societies where the state economy comes from sources that require only a small, fixed number of people to defend or maintain them, tend to develop autocratic regimes with little concern for the welfare of their citizens. To summarize, a universal basic income is a frivolous, expensive system that will cause a loss of our jobs and our political rights. Now I will respond to my opponents arguments. Entrepreneurship: In this argument my opponent presents that entrepreneurship will increase because people will have financial security. Now I have three responses to this. First, there seems to be a lot of different evidence tied together here. My opponent talks about the effects of entrepreneurship in India and Namibia, and talks about the danger of low economic security. But I would like to see the evidence that states that a UBI will fix this, and why. Secondly, There are more effective ways to do this. For instance a negative income tax, which I will talk more about later as my opponent mentions it, could remove financial insecurity. Which would in turn raise entrepreneurial spirit. Finally, this won't matter because we cannot pay for a UBI. Education/ College(I am combining my opponents second and third points because they deal with the same thing.): For these arguments my opponent presents that a UBI will decrease highschool dropouts and increase college and thus innovation. My responses to my opponents previous arguments apply here as well. I would like to see evidence specifically stating this and a negative income tax could do these things as well. And of course we just can't pay for it. Lower Work Hours: My opponent begins this argument by talking about benefits of lower work hours and then continues on to say that A UBI will lower work hours. But the crux here is that their evidence is about negative income tax not universal basic income. A negative income tax is very different from a universal basic income. Samuel Hammond and the Niskanen Center(7) published an article titled \"Universal Basic Income is just Negative Income tax with a Leaky Bucket.\" And in this article they explain what negative income tax is \"The NIT, popularized by Milton Friedman, is an extension of the progressive tax system into negative territory. Just as someone making lots of money pays a higher tax rate, those below the poverty line would pay an increasingly negative tax rate\"which is to say, the IRS would pay them.\" Now this is obviously not universal, and is not an income. So really my opponent has no evidence that supports their claim that a UBI will reduce global warming. Economic Inequality: So here my opponent talks about how a UBI will reduce income inequality. But their evidence talks about raising people out of poverty. Now this is different because the rich will also get payed more, meaning the gap will stay the same. Systems that would go towards reducing income inequality do exists though. Systems like a jobs guarantee or negative income tax would do this, however these are not we are debating the merits of. So it's clear, A UBI will, cost too much, take away our jobs, take away our freedom, and it's benefits can be better accomplished with other systems. This means that it is flawed and unnecessary. For these reasons I strongly urge a con vote. Sources: 1 - NY Times - Porter, Eduardo. \"A Universal Basic Income Is a Poor Tool to Fight Poverty.\" The New York Times, The New York Times, 31 May 2016, www.nytimes.com/2016/06/01/business/economy/universal-basic-income-poverty.html? module=ArrowsNav&contentCollection=Economy&action=keypress\"ion=FixedLeft&pgtype=article. 2 - Fox Business - Lee, Laura. \"Automation Is Killing These Jobs.\" Fox Business, Fox Business, 30 Mar. 2016, www.foxbusiness.com/features/automation-is-killing-these-jobs. 3 - CNBC - Jr., Stephen Spinelli, and Jiffy Lube co-founder. \"1 Million US Jobs Will Vanish by 2026. Here's How to Prepare Workers for an Automated Future.\" CNBC, CNBC, 2 Feb. 2018, www.cnbc.com/2018/02/02/automation-will-kill-1-million-jobs-by-2026-what-we-need-to-do-commentary.html. 4 - Foundation for Economic Education(FEE) - Hunter, Britteny. \"The Top Three Arguments against a Universal Basic Income.\" FEE, Foundation for Economic Education, 8 Sept. 2017, fee.org/articles/the-top-three-arguments-against-a-universal-basic-income/. 5 - The Atlantic - Lowrey, Annie. \"Should the Government Guarantee Everyone a Job?\" The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 18 May 2017, www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/05/should-the-government-guarantee-everyone-a-job/527208/. 6 - Sapira - Sapira, Shai. \"Universal Basic Income and the Threat of Tyranny.\" Quillette, Quillette, 15 Oct. 2017, quillette.com/2017/10/09/universal-basic-income-threat-tyranny/. 7 - Niskanen Center - Hammond, Samuel. \"\"Universal Basic Income\" Is Just a Negative Income Tax with a Leaky Bucket.\" Niskanen Center, Niskanen Center, 13 July 2016, niskanencenter.org/blog/universal-basic-income-is-just-a-negative-income-tax-with-a-leaky-bucket/.", "qid": "50", "docid": "b7051d6f-2019-04-18T11:25:14Z-00001-000", "rank": 13, "score": 139560.0}, {"content": "Title: Universal Basic Income Content: Let's debate the merit, feasibility, And necessity of a Universal Basic Income. I believe that the advancement of technology will decrease the workforce demand, Which will increase unemployment, Necessitating the need for a UBI in the near future.", "qid": "50", "docid": "4d1037f0-2019-04-18T11:08:29Z-00002-000", "rank": 14, "score": 139113.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: The United States ought to provide a universal basic income. Content: Good luck! !! The basis of my opponents proposal stems from the idea that what makes him/her happy is what should make us all happy, as if to say happiness is a \"one size fits all\" kinda thing. An idea that mediocrity should be good enough for everyone. I challenge my opponent to explain why someone whose idea of happiness is financial success or even endless wealth, is somehow immoral. What pedestal does my opponent get to stand on to claim that wealth is not a valid form of happiness, or ones pursuit of wealth somehow adversely affects everyone else? As long as those endeavors are done by legal means, then those pursuits do not affect others! It seems to me the United States has been trying to provide a universal basic income since the great depression, mostly by means of a minimum wage. Not to suggest that the minimum wage is the only factor that causes prices to rise, but it is the most effective factor to cause prices to rise. When the minimum wage goes up, then the cost of production goes up which then is past on to the consumer. I challenge my opponent to explain how causing prices to go up is an effective tool for helping those with lesser incomes. Furthermore, minimum wages can cause employers to have to forego hiring new employees. When the cost of production goes up, it causes business owners to go elsewhere for production. In the end, raising minimum wages only proves to make American workers less competitive on a global scale which causes jobs to disappear. I fail to see how stifling job growth is good for anybody. Many point to the industrial revolution as if it was a sad period for the American worker and point out the disproportionate nature of wealth distribution, yet they conveniently forget that it was an unprecedented achievement that took place. At no other point in written history has so many people been brought out of poverty so quickly. There were no minimum wages, so prices were low and so was the cost of living. Right now, China is on an industrious endeavor that could prove to dwarf the achievements of the industrial revolution. When production is left alone, it can prove to be very effective in bringing wealth to the masses. I noticed this is my opponents first debate on this site. I welcome you to the DDO community and good luck! !", "qid": "50", "docid": "d21a6c90-2019-04-18T11:39:37Z-00001-000", "rank": 15, "score": 138636.0}, {"content": "Title: Universal Basic Income Content: IntroMurdoc kindly responded to my public plea for a debate, and I am grateful to him for making this round possible. This topic is also of great personal interest to me, and so I am happy that this was one of the two Murdoc identified as ones he was willing to debate. In order to ensure quality judging, I have set a voting ELO threshold at 3,000. Comments are required and the select winner system is in force. The voting period lasts 14 days. This is a re-do of the original debate: http://www.debate.org...TopicThe United States ought to provide a universal basic incomeDefinitions- Universal Basic Income: an unconditional cash payment which the government pays monthly and universally to all adults throughout their lives. The monthly payments must be sufficient to meet the socio-cultural subsistence minimum of the community in which the recipient resides [source: adapted from a definition by Prof. Matt Zwolinski]- Ought: moral desirabilityRules1. No forfeits2. Citations must be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final speeches4. Observe good sportsmanship and maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling6. No \"kritiks\" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)7. For all resolutional terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate8. The BOP is evenly shared9. Pro must post his case in R1 and waive in R510. Rebuttals of new points raised in an adversary's immediately preceding speech may be permissible at the judges' discretion even in the final round (debaters may debate their appropriateness)11. In each round, both debaters will wait until at least 48 hours have elapsed on the argument clock before posting their arguments (the only exception being the first two speeches, which should be posted as soon as possible)12. Both debaters' first speeches will be identical to the ones they posted in their original debate (linked above)13. Violation of any of these rules, or of any of the R1 set-up, merits a lossStructureR1. Pro's CaseR2. Con's Case; Pro generic RebuttalR3. Con generic Rebuttal; Pro generic RebuttalR4. Con generic Rebuttal; Pro generic Rebuttal and SummaryR5. Con generic Rebuttal and Summary; Pro WaivesThanks......to Murdoc for the debate. Looking forward to a discussion on a wonderful and fascinating topic!", "qid": "50", "docid": "4d1037d1-2019-04-18T11:25:50Z-00002-000", "rank": 16, "score": 137804.0}, {"content": "Title: Universal Basic Income Content: Full resolution: The United States should begin to convert existing welfare programs into a universal basic income (UBI). There are about 126 different welfare programs that are currently on the books.1I am arguing that we should begin to replace these programs with a UBI. Note that I do not need to argue that these existing 126 welfare programs must be eliminated immediately, but rather I will argue that these programs should eventually be phased out and a transition to a universal basic income should begin. First round is for acceptance. No new arguments in the final round. I will outline my UBI proposal in the arguments section.I have made this debate impossible to accept. Accepting without permission will result in a forfeit of all seven points.1. http://object.cato.org...;", "qid": "50", "docid": "4d103774-2019-04-18T13:49:55Z-00005-000", "rank": 17, "score": 137488.0}, {"content": "Title: Universal Basic Income Content: Thanks, Con. I\u2019ll use this round to defend my case and crystallize.Trialsa) Con alleges that the countries that had UBI trials in are incomparable to an American-implemented UBI because they\u2019re considerably poorer, more corrupt, and less stable than the United States is. However, Con doesn\u2019t illustrate *why* this matters, and expects us to assume that, because a country is less developed, any UBI trial conducted is going to be invalid. This string of assumptions is really going to hurt Con, and I\u2019m going to show why.The underlying principle of a UBI is that an increase an income is inherently beneficial, as money is the basic means that we use to provide for ourselves. This principle doesn\u2019t change in a country with proportionally less poor people. Even if we buy Con\u2019s assumption that \u201ceach of these nations have significantly more room for improvement than the United States does, so the effects will be amplified\u201d, there\u2019s no reason to believe that a UBI *won\u2019t* be effective. Given that the U.S. has 43 million people living under the poverty line [12], the U.S. *absolutely* has room for improvement, and indeed has room to see a benefit from a UBI. Con\u2019s premise is essentially that a country needs to be poverty-free in order for a UBI to be ineffective. Because a UBI would exist for the very purpose of reducing poverty, this point is nonsensical.Con doesn\u2019t show how corruption or instability is relevant to a UBI. How would the basic principle of more income increasing financial leverage be confounded by more corruption or instability? Furthermore, \u201cinstability\u201d isn\u2019t defined by Con. He wants us to outright buy his assumptions that such would \u201camplify\u201d the results of a UBI trial, and that such amplification results in in conclusive evidence that a UBI would have no effect whatsoever in the United States. We have no reason to buy either of these assumptions, so this point is negated. b) Con contends that my trials are limited, and are thus incomparable to the U.S. on a national level. But again, he gives us very little reason to dismiss my evidence; trials for cash transfers haven\u2019t yet been done on that immense of a level, and in the absence of such, we should buy my pieces of evidence prima facie. Con gives us no instances of a UBI working, beyond a \u201cmodel\u201d in the UK (which I demonstrated to be flawed in R3), whereas I provide 4 instances of *actual* conducted trials, all of which pointed to UBI benefits. Additionally, Con admits that his model is a micro-implementation of an actual scenario, so *even* if his example is valid, we should dismiss it by Con\u2019s own admission.Current Welfare Programsa) Yes, we have a progressive tax system in the sense that the poor pay marginally fewer taxes from their ordinary income. They are, however, taxed more when unrealized capital gains are added [13]. When one considers state and local taxes in addition to ones on the federal level, the illusion of the progressive tax system vanishes. In fact, a study [14] from the Institute on Taxation and economic policy found that \u201cOverall, the poorest 20 percent of Americans paid an average of 10.9 percent of their income in state and local taxes and the middle 20 percent of Americans paid 9.4 percent. The top 1 percent, meanwhile, pay only 5.4 percent of their income to state and local taxes.\u201d [15] The poor simply do not have less incentives to move up the income ladder, contrary to Con\u2019s claim. He also dropped the CBO report I cited, so extend that.b) My asset cap point is pretty much dodged. Con insists that asset caps exist because some people just don\u2019t need welfare programs. But he concedes that \u201cthere is definitely an argument to be made\u201d in raising that cap. That\u2019s exactly the argument I\u2019m making: the caps are dangerously low, which discourage self-reliance and saving. Con is supposed to be defending the welfare programs as they stand right now, yet he admits that they might not be ideal. This can\u2019t be good for him; I don\u2019t see how he can simultaneously defend the status quo and agree that the status quo may not be idea.c) Con asserts that the poverty rate isn\u2019t taken into consideration for in-kind welfare programs. How is this relevant? They do, in fact, take into consideration things like income and total assets. Con doesn\u2019t show why this matters.I've shown how (1) multiple examples prove that a UBI works, and that (2) it reduced poverty, which Con has essentially conceded. Thus, I affirm.Sources[12] https://poverty.ucdavis.edu...[13] https://www.alternet.org...[14] https://itep.org...[15] https://www.cnbc.com...", "qid": "50", "docid": "4d103793-2019-04-18T11:35:54Z-00001-000", "rank": 18, "score": 134454.0}, {"content": "Title: Universal Basic Income Content: Thanks for providing the opportunity for this debate. This isn't a subject i am particularly opinionated on but I am currently educating myself to form an argument. I look forward to hearing your first argument.", "qid": "50", "docid": "4d1037f0-2019-04-18T11:08:29Z-00001-000", "rank": 19, "score": 134246.0}, {"content": "Title: The US ought to provide an universal basic income. Content: I accept. Where is that debate?", "qid": "50", "docid": "b7051d6f-2019-04-18T11:25:14Z-00003-000", "rank": 20, "score": 134224.0}, {"content": "Title: That UBI should be implemented in the western world Content: UBI is an undeniably good choice for the western world, as it eliminates extreme poverty and allows more economic freedom. For those who don't know UBI, or Universal Basic Income, it is where the government gives every citizen a base income of around $10,000 that you can spend on anything. The difference between this and normal welfare is that most public welfare goes by the system that you earn the amount of money from the welfare but any amount above and you lose said welfare, acting as a box as opposed to UBI which is a pedestal. This is because it acts as a base income that you can build off. This will be accomplished by abolishing most welfare projects. We must have UBI to ensure the ability of anyone to have a, although low, stable income.", "qid": "50", "docid": "530b96d7-2019-04-18T11:55:04Z-00005-000", "rank": 21, "score": 133510.0}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: The US ought to provide a UBI Content: Ok, I understand that I will not do my last speech then, for round 4, correct? Well, I will just assume so. Anyways, moving on...(and all sources will be in round 4 speech) I stand in firm affirmation of the Resolved: The United States Ought to Provide a Universal Basic Income Observation 1: Definition Basic income has 5 characteristics... A basic income is a periodic cash payment unconditionally delivered to all on an individual basis, without means-test or work requirement. That is, basic income has the following five characteristics: Periodic: it is paid at regular intervals (for example every month), not as a one-off grant. Cash payment: it is paid in an appropriate medium of exchange, allowing those who receive it to decide what they spend it on. It is not, therefore, paid either in kind (such as food or services) or in vouchers dedicated to a specific use, as well as any form of benefit (such as disability or food stamp). Individual: it is paid on an individual basis\"and not, for instance, to households. Universal: it is paid to all, without means test. Unconditional: it is paid without a requirement to work or to demonstrate willingness-to-work Observation 2: Grounds The negative must prove that Basic Income does NOT benefit the citizens of the US, as well as prove that the US ought not to provide a basic income, instead of the countries ability to do so, as the resolution states ought. Framework: My Standard for evaluating morality for this round is upholding the Kantian Social Contract due to the principle of generic consistency. We can\"t know what others want [Kant, 1] Since people differ in their thinking about happiness and how each would have it constituted, their wills with respect to it cannot be brought under any common principle and so under any external law harmonizing with everyone's freedom. [Kant, 2]No one can coerce me to be happy in his way. Instead, each may seek his happiness in the way that seems good to him, provided he does not infringe upon this right of another.We, as humans, don\"t know what other people want in their pursuit of life. Therefore, laws that promote a certain type of happiness violate the individual\"s individuality. Since all people are inherently rational beings, this violates their rights as beings and is against a-priori reasoning. Society in decisions [Kant, 3] For what is under discussion here is not the happiness that a subject may expect from the institution or administration of a commonwealth but above all merely the right that is to be secured for each by means of it, which is the supreme principle for which all maxims having to do with a commonwealth must proceed and which is limited by no other principle. The \"public well-being' that must be taken into account is lawful constitution which secures everyone his freedom by laws, whereby each remains at liberty to seek his happiness in whatever way seems best to him. What Kant is saying is that societies govern to secure each person the right to achieve happiness and self-fulfillment. Therefore, to infringe upon someone\"s rights is to deny that person their right to happiness. Since this is only violating the rights of one person, it is a violation of the goals of a state \" and by extension of society. Contention 1: UBI Promotes Freedom 1. UBI Means Freedom to Pursue What One Wants (1) The objective of basic income is to transform the deprivations linked to non-employment and poorly remunerated employment into \"real freedom\" (1995). Real freedom requires not just the abstract right but financial resources to make freedom a lived reality. Furthermore, by securing individuals\" \"power to say no\", basic income reduces the vulnerability of poor and working people to exploitative relations in labor markets. And, According to Rutger Bregman, (2) UBI would allow both our employment and leisure time to become more fulfilling. Currently, millions of people are employed in work that serves no real purpose, and is simply a way to fill time and provide salaries. Under UBI, Bregman believes we would have the financial freedom to pursue useful and worthwhile work. 2. UBI Creates Economic Freedom Among Citizens Jason Murphy states that\" There has also been a growing focus on how basic income could be implemented to address gender inequality. He points to a rape shelter in Vancouver that has voiced support for UBI, in part because it would give women the economic freedom to escape abusive relationships. Murphy also stated that\" A monthly stipend and reduced working hours would give both parents the freedom to commit to domestic chores, while still being able to invest in professional careers. Women carry the burden of emotional labor\"the childcare, support, and household work, which largely goes uncompensated. According to Bregman, \"This unpaid work is valuable and\"UBI is recognition of that.\" Contention 2: Poverty Internal Link Basic Income Eliminates Poverty (3) The human rights case for a basic income: Poverty is not a natural tragedy like cancer or earthquakes. Poverty is a human caused tragedy like slavery or government oppression. These types of tragedies can be ended by recognizing that humans have the right not to be subjected to tortuous conditions imposed by other. And humans have a right not to live in poverty. A basic income is not a strategy for dealing with poverty; it it the elimination of poverty. The campaign for a basic income is a campaign for the abolition of poverty. 1. Drug Abuse (4) It seems sort of obvious that bad times might result in more drug abuse, as people suffering from economic despair self-medicate. Researchers from Vanderbilt University and the University of Colorado Denver published a paper showing an undeniable inverse relationship between drug abuse and the economy overall. According the data, when one sinks, the other rises. \"There is strong evidence that economic downturns lead to increases in substance use disorders involving hallucinogens and prescription pain relievers\"\" Drug treatment policies get significantly cut during economic downturns, which seems like precisely the wrong move at the wrong time. In short, increased rates of income leads to a decrease in drug use, and moreover abuse. More deaths, illnesses and disabilities stem from substance abuse than from any other preventable health condition. Any chance to decrease drug abuse should be taken to value the lives and welfare of humanity. 2. Healthcare (5) For most people, a single doctor\"s visit can be a financial obstacle course. Many patients throughout the year pay hundreds or thousands of dollars in premiums. Then, at the doctor\"s office, they are faced with a deductible, and they may need to pay coinsurance or make a copayment. If they have prescriptions, they\"ll likely fork over cash for those, too. And that\"s just for basic primary care for one person. Repeat that process for an entire family; add in any labs, referrals, specialists, emergency-room visits, and surgeries; and the result for even healthy families is dozens and dozens of payments, and often thousands of dollars. If the UBI were to be implemented in the U.S., people would have to worry less about the expensive payments that must be made because of illness or injury. If people\"s income increased, they could purchase more healthcare. Less disease and injuries leads to less widespread death and harm. 3. Education (6) UBI keeps kids enrolled in schools. By providing an income cushion, it would increase workers\" bargaining power, potentially driving up wages. It would make it easier for people to take risks with their job choices, and to invest in education. In the U.S. in the seventies, there were small-scale experiments with basic-income guarantees, and they showed that young people with a basic income were more likely to stay in school; in New Jersey, kids\" chances of graduating from high school increased by twenty-five per cent I stand in firm affirmation.", "qid": "50", "docid": "ffdf2e2e-2019-04-18T11:43:09Z-00006-000", "rank": 22, "score": 131987.0}, {"content": "Title: Universal Basic Income is a good thing Content: So we both agree that a UBI would be a good thing if automation takes over the job market. Good, Then let's discuss the pros/cons of a UBI on modern society. The average wage has remained stagnant worldwide while the cost of living has skyrocketed. We are already feeling the effects of automation. Modern welfare in most countries doesn't even cover the basic cost of living. This is why it's imperative to explore massive changes to our social nets with ideas like UBI. I think one of the best effects of UBI is that directly addresses wealth inequality. We all know that rich corporations are only getting richer, While the poor seem to be getting poorer. A UBI empowers poor employees to demand better working conditions and higher wages. Lower income employees enter the middle class at the expense of large corporations, Effectively bridging the wealth divide. Rebuttals\"If the UBI exists does the welfare end? If yes, Are people who are just lazy living well to the detriment of those with disabilities that require more funds to control or cure? \"Yes, UBI replaces welfare. The problem with welfare is that it discourages work - welfare payments stop after someone gets a job. UBI payments do not. For this reason, A large portion of these \"welfare bums\" actually reenter the job market. ---\"I understand that a salary is still due to the ones who choose to work under a UBI but it would cease to be a good enough motivation since you are allowed to be lazy and still live fairly well. \"Do people quit their jobs after given a UBI? Well we've tested it. It turns out that most people would rather be wealthy the lazy. A portion of the population does initially quit, But most of them go further their education or find better jobs that are actually in their field. The Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend program has been in place for the past 25 years, With money distributed from the oil reserve royalties earned in the state. The unconditional cash payments amount to $2, 000 per Alaskan resident. \"The researchers found that the unconditional payments to residents had no real impact upon full-time employment levels (whether positive or negative), Although they did find that part-time work increased by about 17%. \" [4]----\"A UBI would be a good idea only when and if a TRUE job crisis arises, Where something like 50% or so of the population is in fact unemployed due to the advancement in technology\"The problem here is that technology advances exponentially, while politics and the job market advance slowly and linearly. I would argue that something THIS DESTRUCTIVE, Cannot be dealt with reactively, It must be dealt with proactively. If we wait until half the population is unemployed we've waited far too long. That's why we're running early trials now.", "qid": "50", "docid": "12cc98d3-2019-04-18T11:08:03Z-00000-000", "rank": 23, "score": 128719.0}, {"content": "Title: The US ought to provide an universal basic income. Content: I'll deal with my opponent's arguments first and proceed to defending my own case.He says that a UBI is enormously expensive and as of now we can not afford such a program. Four responses to this. First, according to Matthew Ygleias of Vox in an exact rebuttal towards said New York Times article, UBI would put US spending to about where France and the Scandinavian social democracies are. Foreign nations easily do similar levels of welfare as the projected costs of a UBI. Additionally, the article my opponent cites is off on the projected cost by 600 billion dollars or so. Second, according to David Morris of Fortune, studies by the Roosevelt Institute indicate that a basic income would grow the economy by 12.5 % and shrink the federal deficit, meaning that a UBI would help the overall economy and goverment, not hurt it. Third, consider the cost of poverty on society, as children struggle through school as they work, as homeless people live on the streets, and many struggle to meet ends meet. Are they truly doing the best for our country impoverished. Millions who could be potential engineers, doctors, and scientists are currently wasting their potential, through no fault of their own, merely by the virtue of their social class. Forth, social programs in the status quo have spent billions of dollars with little to nil result. We could simply cut money from those programs in order to help fund a UBI. He says that people will become lazy and won't want to work. However, this is key to help mitigate the problems of climate change as proven by the Center for Economic and Policy Research, will nil adverse effects as countries throughout Western Europe have had similar levels of work for decades on end. Additionally, this isn't unique to UBI, as the status quo already does exactly that. He says that a job gurantee would solve the problem of unemployement, but I must ask; Where are these jobs? Where is the US going to magically sploof up several million jobs. How exactly is this a permanent solution, as at some point AI and automation will simply be better. It is incredibly unlikely that every single American will somehow find the time and money in order to better educated themselves in the new age of technology, meaning that we would likely have these problems regardless.He says that the dollar is key to political rights, however, it only takes one part in the overall goverment. There's democratic activities such as voting, running for office, protesting, civil disobidience and such which all allow nationals to take part in their goverment. I'll now deal with my opponents rebuttal.UBI gurantees that regardless of the circumstance, there will always be a net underneath you. If a business fails, the entrapener won't be sleeping on the streets. Same too applies for financial insecurity. If one wishes to quit their job, they have the ability to do so, as they have a source of income independent of their job. If my opponent needs to see the evidence where exactly this will occur, I simply suggest clicking on the article cited beforehand. If he needs further, may I suggest Scott Santeens' Medium article entitled Inequality and the Basic Income Guarantee. It goes both into entrepreneurship and education.On lower work hours, simply refer to what my opponent himself said in how he argued that a UBI would lower overall work hours. He's contradicting himself in saying there's no evidence to say UBI would lower work hours while only a few paragraphs above saying the exact opposite. Welfare programs lower the need to work, it's as simple as that. An UBI or NIT would bring forth the same basic effect, however, it would be greater under a UBI as it is provided to everyone, not simply those below the poverty line (or whatever thresehold one wishes to set it at). It wouldn't just be the poorest of the poor not working, many of the near and middle class would join in, guaranting that the intended effects would be brought forth.On inequality, I'll simply offer an anology. Envision a room full of 100 children (hopefully not locked up by ICE) where 1 has 101 candies and 99 have 1. If the 1 child had to give everyone else 1 candy, then everyone would have at 2 candies, and be a much more equal society. By the sheer virtue of the population size of the lower and middle class compared to the upper class, they will get a great deal more. Effectly, UBI is a great equallizer for a society, lowering overall inequallity.For these reasons I strongly urge voting for the motion.", "qid": "50", "docid": "b7051d6f-2019-04-18T11:25:14Z-00000-000", "rank": 24, "score": 126304.0}, {"content": "Title: Universal Basic Income Content: As my opponent predicted, I will be running a counter-plan:Replace the current welfare system -- implement a federal \"Workfare\" system for the unemployed, and rely on Earned Income Tax Credits (EITCs) to subsidize the salaries of the employed.There is a single, crucial difference between Workfare and UBI -- the $10,000 will not be granted unconditionally. Under the Workfare system, the unemployed recipients will be required to either (1) work on government-sponsored community service & public works projects, (2) receive government-sponsored vocational education, or (3) engage in some combination of both. For the purposes of this debate, it is unnecessary to formulate a detailed system of specific requirements, but that is the general framework which the requirements will follow. If the requirements are met, then the recipient will receive $10,000 for each member of his/her household. If the requirements are not met, then no hand-out is granted.As for employed people, we already have an EITC system in place, although I advocate making it substantially more generous, so that no employed household will be earning less than $15,000 per member. Note that EITC *does* target people who actually need their salaries subsidized, but also contains a specialized system for calculating the amount paid in order to minimize phase-out work disincentive effect my opponent described [1].With that established, I will now proceed to go over the benefits of my counter-plan.(1) Welfare DependencyMy plan would vastly reduce dependency. Under both the UBI and the status quo, unemployed people are faced with a choice. Either (1) they don't work but still receive enough money to survive, or (2) they DO work and earn/receive substantially more money. Ideally, welfare recipients will be motivated to choose Option 2 due to the financial opportunity cost of Option 1. However, in reality, many people value the benefit of leisure time over the cost of a lower income, and the result of that is welfare dependency -- a social malady which needlessly eats up tax dollars, creates a large population of economically unproductive people, and has been empirically proven to exacerbate crime rates. And it's a widespread problem too -- in the United States, there are *14 million* Americans who are classified as welfare-dependent [2].Both UBI and Workfare significantly increase the costs of not working (because $10,000 is way less than even a minimum wage salary). However, Workfare also eliminates the *benefits* of not working -- by forcing recipients to spend the majority of their time either working or getting trained, there is no leisure time to be found in remaining unemployed. Therefore, under my plan, the choice that unemployed people face becomes a simple one between an income of $10,000, and an income of at least $15,000 -- they will have to work either way. This creates a much stronger work incentive than UBI does. No rational person who is capable of getting a job is going to abstain from doing so, and that alone will cause an enormous reduction in welfare dependency. Look to Bill Clinton's 1996 welfare reforms as a case-study in the efficacy of Workfare -- as soon as work requirements were implemented, welfare caseloads declined by an astonishing 60% [3]. Some critics of work requirements attribute that decline to favorable macroeconomic conditions, but a carefully-controlled analysis by the NBER revealed that Clinton's welfare reforms were, in fact, directly responsible for the decline [4]. It is obvious that the Workfare system will result in a drastic reduction in welfare dependency and its associated harms.(2) Public WorksA major part of Workfare is employing people in the construction of public works, and public works (as the name implies) benefit the public. Look to President FDR's Works Progress Administration another case-study in the efficacy of Workfare -- it employed 3.3 million people, bringing about the construction of \"roads, bridges, schools, courthouses, hospitals, sidewalks, waterworks, and post-offices ... museums, swimming pools, parks, community centers, playgrounds, coliseums, markets, fairgrounds, tennis courts, zoos, botanical gardens, auditoriums, waterfronts, city halls, gyms, and university unions. Most of these are still in use today\" [5]. Not only do such endeavors make society a more generally pleasant place to live in, but they also create jobs (from their maintenance and operation), and can serve as sources of government revenue.Moreover, Workfare provides a means for the US to start working on the declining quality of its infrastructure -- \"The American Society of Civil Engineers has released its annual infrastructure report card, and the prognosis for the country's roads, bridges, and public facilities isn't good. America's infrastructure has been in bad shape for years, and things don't seem like they will get better anytime soon. Of the 16 categories ASCE graded, all but one got Cs and Ds\" [6]. There is more than enough work which needs to be done, and implementing Workfare is an ideal way to go about doing it.(3) Vocational EducationAnother big part of Workfare is having unemployed people receive vocational education -- in other words, providing them with the skills they need to become employed, rather than just throwing money at them. Not only is this better for the long-term interests of the recipients, but it's also crucial for the future of the economy. It's quite well-known that we are currently facing a trade skills shortage due to the decline of vocational education -- far too many people are getting trained for high-skilled jobs thanks to our undue emphasis on collegiate education, and as a result, there aren't nearly enough of the medium-skilled workers which trade schools used to produce [7]. One study from Northeastern University reported that employers in manufacturing & service industries \"overwhelmingly prefer to hire graduates from VTE schools or vocational programs ... More than 90% of employers see a need to increase the number of vocational high school graduates\" [8]. Workfare is a potential solution to this problem -- it may not be possible to convince college-bound students to settle for a trade school certification, but unemployed people will gladly go for such an offer. By making government-sponsored vocational education one of the options that unemployed people can choose from, Workfare will inevitably produce a large number of the medium-skilled workers which there is so much demand for, thereby filling in the job market's void.UNDERVIEWMy counter-plan is clearly preferable to Pro's UBI plan. -- It keeps most people above the poverty line -- It minimizes wasteful government spending by reducing welfare dependency & targeting EITC hand-outs -- It maximizes society's economic productivity by producing skilled workers & reducing welfare dependency-- It keeps unemployed people occupied (i.e. away from crime)-- It benefits society by providing a variety of public works & improving the quality of its infrastructureOut of all of these, only the first benefit can be said to apply to UBI.The resolution is negated.[1] http://money.howstuffworks.com...[2] https://aspe.hhs.gov...[3] http://www.brookings.edu...[4] https://aspe.hhs.gov...[5] https://en.wikipedia.org...[6] http://www.businessinsider.com...[7] https://www.bostonglobe.com...[8] http://www.northeastern.edu...", "qid": "50", "docid": "4d103774-2019-04-18T13:49:55Z-00002-000", "rank": 25, "score": 123499.0}, {"content": "Title: Universal Basic Income Content: Con has been very specific with his wording limiting a variety of general objections to his position that are often considered when peeps discuss this. I'm stating this because it 'morally desirable' is a black hole of ambiguity and I do not want to lean on semantics so I will instead try to focus on what is morally desirable in a practical way and what that means in general using standard definitions. I'm not aware of anyone that receives payments in cash or anything that is uncondtional but I do not expect Cob to lean on these too hard. Many things are morally desirable. In a subjective moral world view you can justify torture (USA #1) or killing apostates. Utilitarians, rule based types or even absolutists could as well. It is obviously ideal to ensure that the worst off in our countries do not starve (reach a sub-subsistence level of existence.) The debate here is normally just about to what degree we will do this. We make 'cash' payments to provide roads, hospitals, food banks and shelters to anyone who bothers to use them. They do not get the check directly and That's the lame leg Con is trying to lean on. We already pay for a minimum standard of living just by paying taxes. We make sure all citizens have justice, are not subject to theft or murder etc. We subsidies farmers, factory workers and billionaires. This question has already been decided. Of course we make cash payouts every month to ensure that everyone reaches subsistence, aka doesn't die. It's only a question of degree. Con can only argue the degree to which we support eachother. By setting the bar at morally desirable all I have to show is that some moral code wants to stop people from dying due to poverty. We are all mutually interdependent and even those lacking empathy can appreciate that preventing others from starving to death or dying from the elements is helpful/desirable wherever it falls on their to do list. While, cash payments that benefit you directly vs those you receive directly are obviously different those that cannot use the funds, at least to reach, subsistence are normally subject to guadianship.", "qid": "50", "docid": "4d1037b2-2019-04-18T11:26:06Z-00001-000", "rank": 26, "score": 121155.0}, {"content": "Title: Universal Basic Income Content: Con has been very specific with his wording limiting a variety of general objections to his position that are often considered when peeps discuss this. I'm stating this because it 'morally desirable' is a black hole of ambiguity and I do not want to lean on semantics so I will instead try to focus on what is morally desirable in a practical way and what that means in general using standard definitions. I'm not aware of anyone that receives payments in cash or anything that is uncondtional but I do not expect Cob to lean on these too hard. Many things are morally desirable. In a subjective moral world view you can justify torture (USA #1) or killing apostates. Utilitarians, rule based types or even absolutists could as well. It is obviously ideal to ensure that the worst off in our countries do not starve (reach a sub-subsistence level of existence.) The debate here is normally just about to what degree we will do this. We make 'cash' payments to provide roads, hospitals, food banks and shelters to anyone who bothers to use them. They do not get the check directly and That's the lame leg Con is trying to lean on. We already pay for a minimum standard of living just by paying taxes. We make sure all citizens have justice, are not subject to theft or murder etc. We subsidies farmers, factory workers and billionaires. This question has already been decided. Of course we make cash payouts every month to ensure that everyone reaches subsistence, aka doesn't die. It's only a question of degree. Con can only argue the degree to which we support eachother. By setting the bar at morally desirable all I have to show is that some moral code wants to stop people from dying due to poverty. We are all mutually interdependent and even those lacking empathy can appreciate that preventing others from starving to death or dying from the elements is helpful/desirable wherever it falls on their to do list. While, cash payments that benefit you directly vs those you receive directly are obviously different those that cannot use the funds, at least to reach, subsistence are normally subject to guadianship.", "qid": "50", "docid": "4d1037d1-2019-04-18T11:25:50Z-00001-000", "rank": 27, "score": 121155.0}, {"content": "Title: Universal Basic Income Content: Yo accepto el debate", "qid": "50", "docid": "4d103774-2019-04-18T13:49:55Z-00004-000", "rank": 28, "score": 120896.0}, {"content": "Title: Universal Basic Income Content: I. IntroThis debate is not merely about the degree to which we help others, but also how we help others. The resolution is calling on Pro to advocate for a specific policy, namely UBI, as the means through which he will, in his own words, \"ensure the worst off in our countries do not starve. \" By using this as his metric to weigh policies, Pro has established a consequentialist moral framework for the round. I would like to note now, however, that Pro's first round lacks substance. He provides no data to demonstrate that UBI is effective at achieving its aim of reducing poverty. Merely stating that reducing poverty is UBI's intent is insufficient to justify UBI as a poverty. One could argue that Hitler's intent through the Holocaust was to better humankind, but that does not justify his actions in the slightest. Therefore, it is dubious as to whether Pro has or will meet his burden in this debate. He must use his additional rounds to put forward arguments sufficient to affirm, or he will be unable to meet his burden. II. The Flaws of UBIA. The Cost of UBIEstimates suggest that UBI would cost $3 to 4 trillion per year, totaling $30 to 40 trillion over a decade. That sum \"amounts to nearly all the tax revenue collected by the federal government. \" [1] Projections show that US federal tax revenue for 2019 is estimated to be $3.422 trillion, potentially less than this single policy alone [2]. It is not plausible that the US could sustain a policy of UBI while also maintaining the various other services and projects it administers. Even if UBI were to replace other welfare programs, the savings from eliminating these programs would not offset the costs of UBI. Currently, welfare not including Social Security and Medicare costs about $1 trillion; Social Security and Medicare similarly cost about $1 trillion [3, 4]. That makes $2 trillion in total current welfare spending. If all of these welfare programs were to be eliminated and replaced with UBI, UBI would still add $1 to 2 trillion dollars to the federal budget (increasing the budget by 67%). However, it would be naive to think that UBI could replace all existing welfare programs--programs to help parents with childcare costs or to cover medical bills would need to be retained in some form in order to ensure the wellbeing of children and those without insurance, with poor insurance, or with sky-high medical bills. Thus, the actual amount that UBI adds to the budget is likely to be larger than the $1 to 2 trillion just calculated. And not only does it balloon the budget, but UBI is ultimately self-defeating. To afford UBI, individuals would need to be taxed at rates of 35 to 40 percent. This means that UBI would cost a taxpayer more in taxes than that taxpayer would receive in benefits, rendering the policy net-harmful. [5]B. Workforce ParticipationUBI is likely to reduce workforce participation. It stands to reason that if everyone receives a salary irrespective of whether or not they have worked for or earned that salary, that people will be less eager to work. This logic is borne out empirically. \"In four controlled random assignment experiments across six states between 1968 and 1980, the comparable policy was shown to reduce yearly hours worked among recipients significantly. For each $1,000 in added benefits, there was an average $660 reduction in earnings, meaning that $3,000 in government benefits was required for a net increase of $1,000 in family income. \" [6] This has several impacts. Firstly, for UBI to have its intended benefits, payouts will need to be unreasonably large. The goal of UBI is to bring people up to a subsistence threshold. Suppose that threshold is $10,000. To meet this goal, UBI cannot simply payout $10,000, because that will only functionally provide benefits of $3,300. Instead, to functionally provide $10,000, UBI payouts will need to be $30,000. This places Pro in a double-bind. Either he can't achieve a subsistence minimum or he triples the overall cost of UBI, adding to our national debt and magnifying its self-defeating nature. Secondly, UBI leads to the pernicious and repressive effects of dependency. When people become dependent on welfare, they don't take the steps (steps which are often burdensome in the short term) to better themselves in the long-term. This traps recipients in a kind of near-poverty, which is not only degrading to them but also keeps their quality of life low. Thirdly, UBI is socially destructive. \"Individuals gain not only income, but meaning, status, skills, networks and friendships through work. Delinking income and work, while rewarding people for staying at home, is what lies behind social decay. \" [7] This could be phrased similarly in the statement that by cutting down participation in one of our primary social contexts, we also cut down the social bonds and experience which are integral to a well-functioning cooperative society. Fourthly, UBI is individually destructive. \"Work is at the root of a meaningful life, the path to individual. .. flourishing. It is also the distinctive means by which men concretize their identity as rational, goal-directed beings. \" [8] \"Self-esteem, in the sense of having a perception of the worth of one's own existence, is bound up with the recognition one receives from others of one's competences, achievements and contributions. \" [9] Work, by being a central mechanism through which people contribute to society, is crucial to our own self-esteem, self-image and self-respect. Thus, I negate. III. Sources1 - . https://www.cbpp.org...2 - . https://www.thebalance.com...3 - . https://www.budget.senate.gov...4 - . https://en.wikipedia.org...5 - . https://fee.org...6 - . https://www.heritage.org...7 - . https://www.irishtimes.com...8 - Younkins, Edward W. \"Capitalism and Commerce: Conceptual Foundations of Free Enterprise. \" Lexington Books, 2002.9 - . https://theconversation.com...", "qid": "50", "docid": "4d1037b2-2019-04-18T11:26:06Z-00000-000", "rank": 29, "score": 120280.0}, {"content": "Title: Universal Basic Income Content: I. IntroThis debate is not merely about the degree to which we help others, but also how we help others. The resolution is calling on Pro to advocate for a specific policy, namely UBI, as the means through which he will, in his own words, \"ensure the worst off in our countries do not starve. \" By using this as his metric to weigh policies, Pro has established a consequentialist moral framework for the round. I would like to note now, however, that Pro's first round lacks substance. He provides no data to demonstrate that UBI is effective at achieving its aim of reducing poverty. Merely stating that reducing poverty is UBI's intent is insufficient to justify UBI as a poverty. One could argue that Hitler's intent through the Holocaust was to better humankind, but that does not justify his actions in the slightest. Therefore, it is dubious as to whether Pro has or will meet his burden in this debate. He must use his additional rounds to put forward arguments sufficient to affirm, or he will be unable to meet his burden. II. The Flaws of UBIA. The Cost of UBIEstimates suggest that UBI would cost $3 to 4 trillion per year, totaling $30 to 40 trillion over a decade. That sum \"amounts to nearly all the tax revenue collected by the federal government. \" [1] Projections show that US federal tax revenue for 2019 is estimated to be $3.422 trillion, potentially less than this single policy alone [2]. It is not plausible that the US could sustain a policy of UBI while also maintaining the various other services and projects it administers. Even if UBI were to replace other welfare programs, the savings from eliminating these programs would not offset the costs of UBI. Currently, welfare not including Social Security and Medicare costs about $1 trillion; Social Security and Medicare similarly cost about $1 trillion [3, 4]. That makes $2 trillion in total current welfare spending. If all of these welfare programs were to be eliminated and replaced with UBI, UBI would still add $1 to 2 trillion dollars to the federal budget (increasing the budget by 67%). However, it would be naive to think that UBI could replace all existing welfare programs--programs to help parents with childcare costs or to cover medical bills would need to be retained in some form in order to ensure the wellbeing of children and those without insurance, with poor insurance, or with sky-high medical bills. Thus, the actual amount that UBI adds to the budget is likely to be larger than the $1 to 2 trillion just calculated. And not only does it balloon the budget, but UBI is ultimately self-defeating. To afford UBI, individuals would need to be taxed at rates of 35 to 40 percent. This means that UBI would cost a taxpayer more in taxes than that taxpayer would receive in benefits, rendering the policy net-harmful. [5]B. Workforce ParticipationUBI is likely to reduce workforce participation. It stands to reason that if everyone receives a salary irrespective of whether or not they have worked for or earned that salary, that people will be less eager to work. This logic is borne out empirically. \"In four controlled random assignment experiments across six states between 1968 and 1980, the comparable policy was shown to reduce yearly hours worked among recipients significantly. For each $1,000 in added benefits, there was an average $660 reduction in earnings, meaning that $3,000 in government benefits was required for a net increase of $1,000 in family income. \" [6] This has several impacts. Firstly, for UBI to have its intended benefits, payouts will need to be unreasonably large. The goal of UBI is to bring people up to a subsistence threshold. Suppose that threshold is $10,000. To meet this goal, UBI cannot simply payout $10,000, because that will only functionally provide benefits of $3,300. Instead, to functionally provide $10,000, UBI payouts will need to be $30,000. This places Pro in a double-bind. Either he can't achieve a subsistence minimum or he triples the overall cost of UBI, adding to our national debt and magnifying its self-defeating nature. Secondly, UBI leads to the pernicious and repressive effects of dependency. When people become dependent on welfare, they don't take the steps (steps which are often burdensome in the short term) to better themselves in the long-term. This traps recipients in a kind of near-poverty, which is not only degrading to them but also keeps their quality of life low. Thirdly, UBI is socially destructive. \"Individuals gain not only income, but meaning, status, skills, networks and friendships through work. Delinking income and work, while rewarding people for staying at home, is what lies behind social decay. \" [7] This could be phrased similarly in the statement that by cutting down participation in one of our primary social contexts, we also cut down the social bonds and experience which are integral to a well-functioning cooperative society. Fourthly, UBI is individually destructive. \"Work is at the root of a meaningful life, the path to individual. .. flourishing. It is also the distinctive means by which men concretize their identity as rational, goal-directed beings. \" [8] \"Self-esteem, in the sense of having a perception of the worth of one's own existence, is bound up with the recognition one receives from others of one's competences, achievements and contributions. \" [9] Work, by being a central mechanism through which people contribute to society, is crucial to our own self-esteem, self-image and self-respect. Thus, I negate. III. Sources1 - . https://www.cbpp.org...2 - . https://www.thebalance.com...3 - . https://www.budget.senate.gov...4 - . https://en.wikipedia.org...5 - . https://fee.org...6 - . https://www.heritage.org...7 - . https://www.irishtimes.com...8 - Younkins, Edward W. \"Capitalism and Commerce: Conceptual Foundations of Free Enterprise. \" Lexington Books, 2002.9 - . https://theconversation.com...", "qid": "50", "docid": "4d1037d1-2019-04-18T11:25:50Z-00000-000", "rank": 30, "score": 120280.0}, {"content": "Title: Universal Basic Income Content: I. IntroThis was an excellent debate, and I appreciate Varrack proposing the topic. Admittedly, before the debate I knew very little about UBI. This debate has been a great way to educate myself on a very interesting topic. Varrack, if you win this round, good luck in the rest of the tournament. If I win know that this was, as I said, an excellent debate and I'd like to debate you more in the future. With my remaining round I will be presenting voting issues, why they matter, and why they mean that I have won this debate.II. UBI and CapitalismIn my case, I demonstrated how without offering a living wage, UBI means that individuals will still have to work. Per Pro's own evidence, the poverty rate is $12,000 per adult. Pro's plan offers $10,000, meaning individuals will continue to be forced to participate in the market. This means that employers will be able to drive down wages and more \"buIIshit jobs\" will be created, causing many workers to be in worse conditions and have less satisfaction.Pro's attempt to dissuade voters from evaluating this point was to say I created a straw man out of the purpose of a UBI (in decommodification of labor). However, the purpose is irrelevant, the effects will remain the same. Just because Pro isn't attempting to decommodify labor with his plan doesn't mean we won't see the decrease in wages. Prefer my analysis from leading economists from Cambridge and The London School of Economics to Pro's bare assertion.The ramifications of this are as follows: we strip Americans of their current welfare plans. The government provides a universal basic income of $10,000. Employers see this as supplemental income. Wages are reduced. Americans are far worse off than before. Because UBI will not work unless as a subsidy for a business, this alone is reason to negate. Pro essentially dropped this point, which alone negates the entire case.III. The Current Welfare SystemIn my defense of the current welfare system, there were two repeated themes. The first one was that the \"negative incentives\" of our current system aren't legitimate challenges faced by those receiving welfare in the United States. To challenge this, Pro mentions his CBO analysis. However, I offer my own source, in which a Forbes contributor comments [6] on analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP). [9] The CBPP analysis proves that the American poor are encouraged to work (through collectivization) more than their more affluent counterparts, and is based on a more recent CBO report (2015.) [10] Pro literally uses an older publication (2012) [11, Pro's Source 6] from the exact same group to attempt to disprove my argument.These \"negative incentives\" don't exist. Prefer my argument because Pro and I use the same source, but mine is more recent, and in turn more accurate.The second talking point I had was that the poverty rate does not actually reflect what it claims to. It does not account for your income post-welfare reception. I used an incredibly simple example in R3 to show how someone who does end up receiving more than $12,000 a year (between income and welfare) would still be considered \"below\" the poverty line. This means that any analysis of the current welfare system measuring its effect on the poverty rate is irrelevant. As I have proven, the American system is an excellent safety net with positive incentives toward financial growth. Pro essentially avoided my argument about how inflated our poverty rate was, which is evident in the UC Davis evidence he uses in the closing round.IV. ConclusionIt is clear that you should be voting Con in this debate. In my opening round, I pointed out that because of the incompatibility between UBI and capitalism, Pro must prove that 1. This is not true or 2. Capitalism will be phased out. He did neither of those things, therefore failing to fulfill his burden. I win on these grounds alone. However, if you need an additional reason to vote Con, look at the successes of our current system. We have helped far more people than our inflated poverty rates would lead you to believe, all while providing incentives for those below the line to break through it.Therefore, I negate the resolution. Thank you.Again, thank you Varrack for this debate. I have learned a lot and have enjoyed a stimulating conversation. Thank you voters for taking the time to read this. Thank you 1harder for hosting.V. Sources[9] https://www.cbpp.org...[10] https://www.cbo.gov...[11] https://www.urban.org...", "qid": "50", "docid": "4d103793-2019-04-18T11:35:54Z-00000-000", "rank": 31, "score": 119876.0}, {"content": "Title: Universal Basic Income Content: I. Intro Thank you Varrack for the rebuttal. I\"d also like to apologize for my constructive having issues with use of apostrophes. I\"m not sure why it\"s replacing apostrophes with quotation marks. I\"ve encountered this issue on mobile but never on my laptop, so I\"m not sure how to fix it. Hopefully it won\"t continue this round. Regardless, I apologize to Varrack and the readers, since it likely causes at least some minor irritation. II. Re: Economic/Societal Impacts As briefly mentioned in my constructive, the examples used in Pro\"s case are not indicative of what would occur in the United States, due to the differences between the US and each of the countries. These nations are significantly poorer than the United States. According to the CIA Factbook, the United States poverty rate is 15.1%. The nearest of the three countries Varrack mentioned was Uganda, at 19.7%. [7] This means that each of these nations have significantly more room for improvement than the United States does, so the effects will be amplified. They are all significantly more corrupt than the United States, based on Transparency International\"s research. The United States is 16th in the world with a score of 75. Namibia is 53rd with a score of 51, India is 81st with a score of 40, Kenya is ranked 143 with 28 points, and Uganda is 151st with a score of 26. [8] They are also all in more unstable regions and have less developed economies. They\"re still developing. Best case scenario, it\"s as if you\"re looking through a kaleidoscope at the effects of UBI. Worst case scenario, they aren\"t comparable at all. These countries also have very limited trials. We\"d have a very difficult time applying the micro tests to a country that is very different, be it in poverty rates (and what the poverty level actually is), corruption, economic development levels, or national sovereignty and security. Prefer my tests from the UK, which is much more similar to the US on every count. III. Re: Failure of Welfare Programs Cross-apply Section V. of my case. Though means-based welfare programs have \"negative incentives\" for earnings, they are at a much lower rate than the rates for individuals who are making more money. I discussed in my case how individuals who make below half the poverty rate (approximately $6,000) have a marginal tax rate of 14%. Individuals who make 50%-100% of the poverty rate (roughly $6,000-$12,000) have a marginal tax rate of 24%. People who make more than that faced a rate of 34%. This means that people that receive means-tested welfare are actually facing far fewer \"negative incentives\" than those who are making, say, $70,000 a year. To say that they are decentivized due to these marginal tax rates is ludicrous, else we would see the same issues at higher rates among those with greater incomes. We simply do not. Furthermore, an asset cap isn\"t necessarily an issue. If there is no asset cap, we face the issue posed in my case: individuals who don\"t need aid will receive it anyway, wasting funds. Again, a person who makes a comfortable wage may find an extra $10,000 nice, it is far from necessary. Even an individual making $30,000 (assuming no dependents) may be fine without an extra $10,000. If Pro wants to argue for a higher asset cap, there is definitely an argument to be made. However, an asset cap is not a bad idea, as it avoids allocation of resources to those who do not need it. Finally, as stated in case, the issue with considering the \"poverty rate\" in the United States is that it doesn\"t account for in-kind reception of welfare. As an incredibly simplified example, let\"s assume I make $11,000 per year and the poverty line is at $12,000. If I receive $1,001 worth of food stamps, my income is effectively $12,001 per year, above the poverty line, but I would still be counted as below the poverty line. Measuring the effectiveness of the current welfare programs by analyzing the poverty rate is absolutely pointless, because most of the welfare programs aren\"t accounted for in the measure of the poverty rate. IV. Conclusion UBI is a pipe dream in the United States. Without first eradicating capitalism, it will do nothing but drive down wages and act a subsidiary to businesses. There have been no tests of UBI that can be applied to the United States which point toward a success. Each of the studies offers a myriad of issues that separate it from America. Meanwhile, the current welfare system is working, contrary to what analysis of the incomplete poverty rate would indicate. It is putting Americans well above their European counterparts. UBI is neither plausible, needed, or likely to be effective. V. Sources [7] https://www.cia.gov... [8] https://www.transparency.org...", "qid": "50", "docid": "4d103793-2019-04-18T11:35:54Z-00002-000", "rank": 32, "score": 119811.0}, {"content": "Title: Universal Basic Income Content: My opponent has forfeited.", "qid": "50", "docid": "4d103774-2019-04-18T13:49:55Z-00000-000", "rank": 33, "score": 113268.0}, {"content": "Title: Universal Basic Income Content: There are multiple objectives a welfare program should achieve. Economist Ed Dolan offers the following four criteria in which to evaluate welfare programs:1 1) A good welfare program leaves few, if any, people below the poverty line; 2) Whether or not the program is targeted for those who need it most; 3) A good welfare program would keep work incentives intact, at least as much as possible; 4) A good welfare program would reduce administrative costs and waste. The UBI accomplishes all of these goals except for one, but I will explain this in a moment. M specific UBI involves a minimum income of $10,000\u2014unconditional, you earn it whether or not you are working\u2014and all welfare programs (even EITC!) except social security (would be phased out, I will elaborate if my opponent brings up costs), medicare, and medicaid. This would eliminate all poverty for families of two or more, and eliminate poverty for the vast majority of single person households. The reason I would not abolish medicare and medicaid is because the UBI would likely not be high enough to cover both their welfare and medical needs. We would also eliminate most middle class and upper class loopholes and tax credits in order to increase the UBI funding pool. The UBI benefit will outweigh the loss in credits for most middle class families. 1. A UBI would leave few, if any, people below the poverty line A properly crafted UBI would leave virtually everyone above the poverty line. My proposed UBI would keep anyone who earns just a few thousands dollars a year\u2014something that can easily be done doing odd jobs occasionally\u2014above the poverty line, and people who earn $0 would be only a little shy of it. All households with more than one person would be lifted above the poverty line. A UBI would fulfill this goal. 2. A UBI would not be targeted\u2014and that\u2019s a good thing! This is the only criteria a UBI does not meet, but this is actually a good thing. Why? Because means-tested programs focus on targeting. It focuses on giving aid to only those who need it. But the consequence of this is a decline in work incentives because means tested programs phase out over time and impose high marginal tax rates on the next dollar earned, thus discouraging work effort. Not only that, but an untargeted welfare program increases administrative efficiency because you do not need workers to make sure each family receiving benefits needs it\u2014the untargeted aspect of the UBI means it can be administered through the tax system and be calculated by a computer algorithm. 3. A UBI would preserve work incentives overall, and do so better than any means tested system Implementing a UBI to a society where welfare did not exist at all would reduce work incentives. But a society without assistance for the needy is not desirable. Free markets have made us so wealthy that it is not only feasible to eliminate poverty, it is desirable because no one should starve in a wealthy society like as ours. The UBI would significantly increase work incentives compared to a means-tested welfare system because there is no phase-out of benefits. Phase-outs work the same as high marginal tax rates. In other words, for every extra dollar a poor person earns, they gain less than a dollar of disposable income. Let me give an example. Say we have a phase out of 0.75 cents per dollar earned. This means if I make one extra dollar from work, I lose 0.75 cents in benefits, and only get 25 cents. This means my marginal tax rate is 75%, which clearly disincentivizes work. Is the extra 25 cents worth it? Is it worth working for an extra dollar to only receive 25 cents? For some people, the answer is yes. But for others, the extra work may be worth one dollar, but the extra work is not worth 25 cents. Thus, a means tested system is destined to significantly reduce work incentives. This is not the case under a UBI. People will obtain the $10,000 benefit no matter what\u2014if they earn a million dollars or $2,000 dollars, they will still get $10,000 in benefits each year. There is no phase out. No tax levied on every extra dollar earned. To further analyze this, let's look at economic theory. There are two effects of a UBI (and welfare in general) on work incentives: the income effect and the substitution effect. The income effect generally reduces work. As disposable income rises, people tend to use more of that money to go on vacation and work less. The substitution effect generally increases work effort. As disposable income rises, the opportunity cost of not working grows larger. This increases work effort. Both of these effects work simultaneously. How would it work under a UBI? Look at the following graphic.2 Now assume we are at arrow one before the red and green lines cross (green = UBI, red = means tested, blue = no welfare). For this group of people, the income effect and the substitution effect simultaneously increase work incentives because the opportunity cost of not working grows with an added UBI and the income effect increases work effort. The reason the income effect actually increases work effort here is because having more disposable income means more leisure time in the future, but as you are poor in this part of the graph you cannot afford to take time off. So both of these effects under a UBI serve to increase work effort more than they do under a means tested program. Now look at arrow 2: a person\u2019s income a little above the crossover point. The substitution effect is stronger under a UBI than under a means tested regime because there is no longer a 0.75 cent reduction in benefits for each dollar earned (in fact, the marginal tax rates under the current welfare system often exceed 100%, so by using 75% I am being generous).3 Now the income effect is greater under a UBI at this point of the graph than under a means-tested regime, but the substitution effect is likely much larger than the income effect at this point because it will only be as large as the difference between the UBI and the means tested regime\u2014the income effect between no welfare and a UBI is fairly large here, but that is because earned income is a lot higher under UBI than under nothing. At this point in the graph, the difference in disposable income between a UBI and means tested is not very large, so the positive work incentives will outweigh the negative ones here. Now look at arrow 3. This represents people who wish to work less and qualify for government assistance instead of losing benefits and hopping onto the blue line (which is how it works in the U.S. right now because the phase out eventually ends up being zero). The UBI would remedy this because no phase out means no working less in order to qualify for a benefit\u2014you always get the benefit\u2014so, at this part of the graph, the UBI would enhance work incentives. Now jump to arrow 4. At this point, a means tested system ceases to offer benefits because they have been phased out\u2014the individual at arrow 4 is middle to upper class. At this point, a UBI only has an income effect compared to a means tested system. This means, for the upper and middle class, a UBI would reduce work effort. However, the effects are going to be small because the higher the income, the smaller percentage of that income will come to a UBI. So while it will disincentivize work for these people, the effect will be small, and virtually zero for the rich. Thus, economic theory dictates that a UBI would increase work incentives compared to a means tested system. As Ed Dolan argues, a UBI \u201cwould substantially increase work incentives for low-income households while having small disincentive effects, if any, for middle- and upper-income households.\u201d2 For this reason, Dolan believes work effort will be higher on aggregate under a UBI than under a means-tested system. 4. A UBI would reduce administrative waste This is the clearest and least disputable benefit of the UBI. A UBI would require no verification of personal characteristics. A means tested system would: you have to determine whether or not a person actually needs assistance. A UBI would just be integrated into the tax code and calculated by a computer. A person who made $0 would receive the money no questions asked. For people who earn $1 - infinity, you would receive the $10,000 minus taxes due. So a person earning $1 owes essentially no taxes, so he would get $10,001. But a person earning $100,000 will earn $110,000 minus taxes due. The only welfare program that is simple enough to virtually eliminate administrative costs is the UBI. Failures of the current welfare system A UBI is so important because the current system does not work. The poverty rate has remained virtually the same since the War on Poverty was declared, despite trillions in welfare spending.4 As noted in round 1, we have 126 different welfare programs. Each of these programs simply add to the red tape, and with no decrease in poverty since the late 1960s, these programs seem to add little to no benefit. My opponent will likely be providing a counterplan, as the failure of the current welfare state is fairly obvious. The failures of the current welfare system require that we get something done, and an unconditional UBI best protects work incentives, reduces administrative waste, and reduces the number of people below the poverty line 1. http://www.economonitor.com... 2. http://www.economonitor.com... 3. http://www.forbes.com... 4. http://object.cato.org...", "qid": "50", "docid": "4d103774-2019-04-18T13:49:55Z-00003-000", "rank": 34, "score": 113092.0}, {"content": "Title: Universal Basic Income Content: I. Intro Thank you to Varrack for what promises to be a stimulating discussion, and 1harder for the tournament. II. Cost As of 2012, means-tested welfare in the United States was comprised of 79 programs which cost $927 billion. [1] We can assume it has increased since then, so as a generous figure, we can suppose it currently costs roughly $1.1 trillion. Under Varrack\"s plan, each adult in the United States would receive $10,000. Kids Count Data Center estimates that as of 2016, there were approximately 249.5 million adults in the United States. [2] Providing each of these adults with a UBI would cost approximately $2.5 trillion annually, and this excludes all bureaucratic costs. It\"s clear to see that the cost is well over double the cost of the current welfare system. Not only does Varrack have to prove that his plan is superior to the current welfare system, he also must prove that it is worth the astronomical increase in the cost of welfare. There is also the negligible harm that it provides an extra $10,000 to individuals who do not need it. Images of Jeff Bezos or Bill Gates receiving this guaranteed income is ridiculous, but the same principle can be applied to individuals making a fraction of what the super-rich make. A family with a combined income of $500,000 may find that an extra $20,000 is nice to have, but hardly necessary. I\"m the first to admit that this isn\"t a significant harm to the plan, but a harm nevertheless. III. Capitalism is not compatible with UBI Proponents of UBI often argue that UBI is the first step on the path toward de-commodifying labor and allowing citizens the freedom from work that a utopian society promises. However, in order to do this, citizens must be paid a sum high enough to allow them freedom from work. If not, they will be forced to continue working to reach a living wage. According to Professor Daniel Zamora of Cambride, employers know this and will be able to drive down wages, effectively turning this plan into a subsidy for businesses. [3] According to David Graeber, Professor at the London School of Economics, implementation of the UBI without first transitioning away from capitalism would only exacerbate many of the issues capitalism presents, and increase in the number of \"buIIshit jobs.\" [3] Rather than working in the intended manner, UBI would cause businesses to pay less, and end up causing Americans to work less fulfilling jobs just to maintain the same level of comfort that they had before the UBI was implemented. IV. UBI is ineffective Let\"s say we implement UBI in the United States. Though Varrack has provided examples of UBI being implemented in other nations, none are comparable to the market tendencies of the United States. Instead, we should look to the micro-implementation case study done by the think tank \"Compass\" in the UK. By implementing a smaller version of Varrack\"s plan, the impact was devastating. Child poverty actually increased by 10%, poverty among pensioners by 4%, and among working class families by 3%. For Varrack\"s more comprehensive plan, the analysis points to slight reductions of poverty (7% for children, 1.9% for working age people, and 0.8% for pensioners.) [3] In order to do this, as stated earlier, the United States would have to pay approximately $2.5 trillion, which is over 12.5% of US GDP. [4] 2012 estimates on the price of eradicating poverty put the cost at around 1% of GDP. [5] If we can do so much more for so much less, why don\"t we? V. The American System and The American Dream Though individuals on both sides of the aisle attack the current state of welfare (albeit for entirely different reasons) by pointing to poverty rates, what isn\"t often taken into account is that this statistic ignores reception of in-kind welfare. It doesn\"t consider food stamps, Medicaid, housing vouchers, and the like, when these really put people in a much better situation than what the \"poverty rate\" implies. Impoverished Americans are, on average, far better off than their European counterparts. [6] Furthermore, the negative incentives \"discouraging impoverished Americans from working\" simply does not exist. Americans that earn less actually have a greater incentive to work than those in higher tax brackets. Their \"marginal tax rates\" or losses of benefits due to increased income, are actually significantly lower than the rest of the workforce. An individual below half the poverty line faces a marginal tax rate of approximately 14%. A person from 50-100% of the poverty line has a marginal tax rate of about 24%. Individuals with higher incomes faced a marginal tax rate of about 34%. [6] This phenomenon that Varrack and many pundits tout is actually nonexistent. VI. Conclusion To summarize, our current system works. Critics use inaccurate statistics to discredit a system that is doing wonders. In contrast, the idea of UBI has never been tried in a developed country with a largely market economy, and without first dismantling capitalism, UBI would serve only to subsidize corporations to lower wages. Varrack must prove that 1. UBI is worth the massive increase in welfare costs 2. UBI could be implemented successfully within a capitalist economy and 3. That the limited testing in developing nations would be able to translate into the developed world. VII. Sources [1] http://budget.house.gov... [2] http://datacenter.kidscount.org... [3] https://www.jacobinmag.com... [4] https://data.worldbank.org... [5] http://prospect.org... [6] https://www.forbes.com...", "qid": "50", "docid": "4d103793-2019-04-18T11:35:54Z-00004-000", "rank": 35, "score": 108023.0}, {"content": "Title: Universal Basic Income Content: Con appears to be interlacing his case with rebuttals of my case; hence, I\u2019ll address them jointly.R1) CostCon states that a UBI would cost $2.5 trillion annually, but none of his sources say this. He references a paper showing the cost of current welfare programs, but there\u2019s absolutely nothing on the cost of a UBI.Estimates that do put the cost of a UBI as high as in the trillions tend to be about the gross cost as opposed to the net cost. The net cost is the one that matters because it subtracts what the receivers of a UBI would pay for it (taxes) from what they would receive. When we subtract government revenue from the overall cost of a potential program, we find (according to Forbes) that it would be $200 billion less than the current system. Another study found that a poverty-level UBI ($12k per year) would have a net cost of $539 billion [10][11]. That\u2019s less than 3% of the total GDP [10], far lower than Con\u2019s estimate.R2) Goal of a UBICon creates a straw man of what he believes my UBI\u2019s purpose is, but I never stated its purpose was to de-commodify labor. My proposal\u2019s end goal would be to (1) prevent or reduce poverty and (2) increase equality among citizens. There is no need to move away from labor at all to improve peoples\u2019 financial conditions; a UBI would only compliment the market. The rest of Con\u2019s point, that employers would drive down wages, lies on the same faulty assumption that a UBI\u2019s end goal would be to control the market. Moreover, this is a slippery slope fallacy in that it assumes a UBI would lead to such; there\u2019s no reason to say a UBI is a step in the direction of a tightly controlled economy.R3) Trialsa) The trials I cited are dismissed because \u201cnone are comparable to the market tendencies of the United States\u201d, but no explanation is given as to how those countries\u2019 markets differ in meaningful enough ways to suggest that they are not comparable. Why doesn\u2019t the basic principle I\u2019ve highlighted of increasing fiscal ability via a constant, minimum income not apply to these cases as well. I extend these examples.b) Con\u2019s UK examples would have only given participants a monthly income of $392 and $380, respectively [his 3rd source]. My proposal of $10,000 a year would equate to $833 a month, more than double the incomes his examples used. In that case, it\u2019s not surprising that the first model, which replaced all means-tested welfare programs with that basic income, would result in negative outcomes. The second model, which had existing welfare programs side-by-side with the UBI, did see an improvement in those outcomes, albeit not as strong as they would have been had an income closer to my proposal been implemented.R4) Current welfare systemThis point is just a loose string of bare assertions. Con states that in-kind welfare programs are of a greater benefit than they\u2019re given credit for, but gives no detail as to why this is true. He asserts that Americans are better off than their European counterparts, but his source merely states that we have lower taxes and lower redistribution systems. Neither of those how our welfare systems are \u201cbetter\u201d, it just means ours are less socialized. Additionally, the U.S. having a better welfare system doesn\u2019t imply that it isn\u2019t in need of reform, or that it doesn\u2019t trap people below the poverty line. Con states that the poor are in a lower tax bracket, and thus pay less taxes. This isn\u2019t the case because welfare programs tack on more taxes, which cause their effective tax rates to soar. I\u2019ve already demonstrated that the CBO has confirmed that their tax rates are as high as 50% [6], which Con ignored. Sources9. https://www.forbes.com...10. https://works.bepress.com...11. https://www.progress.org...", "qid": "50", "docid": "4d103793-2019-04-18T11:35:54Z-00003-000", "rank": 36, "score": 105768.0}, {"content": "Title: The United States should design a universal health care system. Content: I'll jump to it. 1. I realize that they still can get health care, but the problem is that it is more expensive to them, should they need it. Health care is generally considered to be a basic right, and people should have it. 2. This point was on privacy, not that the burden would be spread to everyone. I simply do not get how privacy is invaded by Universal Health Care. 3. You argued that taxes would be higher, but there is a trade-off. The government as a whole would save some 286 billion dollars annually from a Universal Health Care system from saved paperwork alone. This in turn translates to less required money from the people. 4. <<>> Well I believe that they get into the profession to care for people, and the benefits are just an after-thought and a positive. Barring some evidence into the matter, we are at an impasse. 5. Well, I understand that IF less research is done, there will be less cures. However, I fail to understand how Universal Health Care would cause less research. If anything, it would cause more (See link from round 1 argument). 6. << >> Actually, the report measured several things: Overall Level of Health, Distribution of Health in the Populations, Responsiveness, and Distribution of Financing. The report actually does report on whether the health care is good, thus negating your response. 7. (Democracy) You basically argue that these are biased polls. I'll admit, the CBS poll may be biased. However the Hill poll is a poll of Republicans, not the liberal left. The Third link I provided actually is a poll from the Washington Times, and therefore, if anything, would be biased in your favor. Looks to me like America wants Universal Health Care. 8. (DMV Example) Again, one example that could be isolated doesn't guarentee anything. 9. (Flexibility) I'm sure that the people who want these things (the superfluous things) could pay for the surgeries on they're own. Any extra paper-work wouldn't offset the billions of dollars we would save in a switch. My New Point: Policy Time! So basically, you argue that there is a problem with our health care system, yet the solution is not Universal Health Care. So you concede that a policy option is needed, and it isn't our current system doesn't suffice. So far the only other policy being presented to voters IS Universal Health Care. Therefore, unless you present an alternative option, voter's really have no choice but to vote for the only option presented today (Universal Health Care).", "qid": "50", "docid": "3d41f988-2019-04-18T19:52:40Z-00002-000", "rank": 37, "score": 103336.0}, {"content": "Title: The US ought to provide an universal basic income. Content: Ignore bsh1's stuff, standard rules apply for this debate. Please forgive heavy formating issues, as files are having troubles on my computer. This is written near verbatim from original sources which will be listed below. Contention 1 is Innovation As according to the US Department of Energy, clean energy innovation is the solution to climate change, being key to unlocking new technologies and low-cost clean energy breakthroughs needed to rapidly bend the trajectory of greenhouse gas emissions. innovation drives the cost reduction necessary to transform global energy markets. However we don\"t have the luxury of waiting for new technologies to emerge. We need to rapidly accelerate the pace of innovation to meet the challenge of limiting global temperature. UBI is linked to increased innovation in three ways. 1. Entrepreneurship According to Scott Santeens of the Medium, entrepreneurship is currently on a downward trend and businesses are also closing their doors faster than new businesses are opening them. This is because of risk aversion due to rising economic insecurity. When people are financially insecure, they worry more about going from paycheck to paycheck rather than innovation and startups. Incomes adjusted for inflation have not budged for decades, and the jobs providing those incomes have gone from secure careers to insecure jobs, part-time and contract work, and gig labor, decreasing economic security. Decreasing economic security means a population decreasingly likely to take risks. Because of UBI, the fear of impoverishment hunger and homelessness is eliminated. And with it, the risks of failure considered too steep to take a chance on something. Additionally, a basic income is also a basic capital, enabling people to create a new product or service. Such effects have been observed in Nambia and India where markets have flourished thanks to the tripling of entrepreneurs. 2. Education According to Dannielle Douglas Gabriel of the Washington Post, researchers at the Urban Institute found that nearly a third of the 563,000 teenage dropouts left school to work. On average, these teenagers earned almost a quarter of the money their families needed to live, keeping 42 percent of households from falling below the poverty line. UBI helps lower the overall dropout rate by ensuring teens\" families are guaranteed a basic income, building up a base for a future generation of innovators who otherwise wouldn\"t have the skills go into STEM fields. 3. College UBI provides funds for higher education, increasing innovation as more students become college educated. Contention 2 is Lower Work Hours According to the Center for Economic and Policy Research, western European countries have significantly reduced work hours while the US has not. Western Europe had about the same hours worked per person as the U.S. in the early 1970s, but by 2005 they were about 50 percent less. This choice between fewer work hours versus increased consumption has significant implications for the rate of climate change. Studies indicate shorter work hours are associated with lower greenhouse gas emissions and therefore less overall global climate change via lowering levels of consumption, the impactof reducing work hours by an annual average of 0.5 percent in the US would eliminate about one-quarter to one-half of global warming. If work hours decline even slightly, climate change is averted as american consumerism falls. As Western Europe has had lower work hours than the US for decades on end, it proves that lower work hours don\"t draw any significant negative consequences. According to Alicia Munnell, in the late 1960s and 1970s thee federal government sponsored four large-scale social experiments on the negative income tax a basic income program, the largest of whom including 4,800 families over an 11 year span. The experiments caused reductions in work effort, among women 17 percent and among men 7 percent. NIT basic income experiments have empirically decreased overall work. If done at a national scale, UBI would substantially decrease work hours and helping solve global warming through lower overall levels of consumption. Contention 3 is Economic Inequality Income inequality has been extensively correlated with environmental degradation, with] negative correlation between income inequality and environmental sustainability. higher the income inequality the worse the environmental indicators such as biodiversity loss and environmental composite indices [like ones ecological footprint. from an economic perspective income inequality reduces pro-environmental public spending via a \"relative income effect\" which causes shifts in the preferences of those with below average incomes in favour of greater consumption of private goods instead of public ones. Using data on 19 OECD countries studies found] that wider income inequalities were associated with lower environmental expenditure. According to Dylan Matthews of Box, researchers estimate that UBI would cut the poverty rate for all persons between 40 and 84 percent. Helping eliminating structural violence and poverty and making those formerly poor equals in society. Overall UBI first, increases innovation by increasing entrepreneurship, lowering dropout rates, and increasing higher education, second lowers working hours and by extension carbon emissions, and third, decreases overall inequality. all of whom link back to solving global warming. For these reasons I urge voting for the motion. Sources US Department of Energy, (December 5, 2015), \"How We Solve Climate Change\", https://www.energy.gov... Scott Santeens, (November 30, 2016), \"Universal Basic Income Will Accelerate Innovation by Reducing Our Fear of Failure\", https://medium.com... Danielle Douglas-Gabriel, 4-16-2015, \"An alarming number of teenagers are quitting school to work,\" Washington Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com... Center for Economic and Policy Research (February, 2013) \"Reduced Work Hours as a Means of Slowing Climate Change \" http://cepr.net... Alicia H. Munnell (N/D) \"Lessons from the Income Maintenance Experiments: An Overview\" http://www.bostonfed.org...", "qid": "50", "docid": "b7051d6f-2019-04-18T11:25:14Z-00002-000", "rank": 38, "score": 102217.0}, {"content": "Title: Should universal health care be implemented in the US given current conditions Content: As I believe universal healthcare should be implemented in the United States, I will begin by refuting my opponents arguments. Jumping right in, my opponent says that Universal healthcare should not be implemented because of cost, yet shortly afterwards admits that it could be paid for. If we CAN pay for something that will improve our country and the happiness of our citizens, something that I believe should be a basic human right, then I believe we absolutely should. My opponent also says that there are other healthcare systems that are better and more cost effective; if so, please tell me more about them, because I think Universal healthcare is a good system that is most likely our best option. If you know of a better system, let us know more about it. Furthermore, a properly implemented Universal Healthcare plan would actually help stimulate our economy. The annual cost of healthcare in the US is currently growing at an exponential rate, and a study conducted by the CEA shows that even if we slow that rate of growth by only 1.5%, our countries gross domestic product would increase by nearly 8% by the year 2030. What that means is that the income in a typical American family would be about $10,000 higher annually, and the unemployment rate would go down by about 2%, or 500,000 people every year (1). And that's only with a decrease of 1.5%! It would save the average person money on healthcare, bolster their health, and thus make them more productive workers. It also helps reduce \"job lock\", and encourages small businesses and entrepreneurs by \"leveling the playing field\". For many people, their only access to healthcare is as a benefit through their job, forcing them to either stay or lose their coverage. With universal healthcare, it is much easier for people to choose a career they actually like, or start their own business, which helps money flow in our economy (2). My opponent also says that the billionaire class such as Donald Trump should not have healthcare provided for them because they can pay for it themselves. However, the average taxpayer would not be paying for Donald Trump's healthcare, as Donald Trump would theoretically be paying MORE taxes than them, and that extra money would help Universal Healthcare work. A homeless unemployed man can't pay for his own healthcare, but Donald Trump can easily pay for healthcare for dozens of people, and if his taxes are already higher, he is helping insure other people, and healthcare should not be denied to anyone. To address my opponents' concern that Universal healthcare would create a conflict of interests, I will just say that I am obviously arguing for a Universal Healthcare system done right, not simply a corrupt replacement of our current system. Of course if it is not implemented properly, such as in the scenarios my opponent outlined, then the results could be less than ideal. But if implemented carefully and properly, as I believe it should and could be, than these scenarios would all be avoided, and the payoff would be huge. My opponent says that health is more than just having access to a doctor, that the Americans should change their lifestyle, and that the government should regulate food and the environment. While this is certainly true and we agree on this point, it is irrelevant to this argument. Just because having Universal Healthcare won't magically solve all of the health problems in America does not mean that it should not be implemented, and even if Americans all managed to live a perfectly healthy lifestyle and our environmental problems were all solved, people would still need access to western medicine or prescription medication on certain occasions. There is a reason that life expectancy goes up alongside the advance of medical science. The government could easily implement a Universal Healthcare plan AND do more to fix the problems with our environment and food supply. As for the actual implementation of an effective Universal Healthcare plan, yes it might be difficult, but it is not impossible. Every other major western country has implemented a Universal Healthcare plan of some sort, and I believe that if EVERY OTHER similar country has done it, we Americans can probably manage someway or another. Obamacare is an example of a healthcare plan that has many problems, and I agree that it could have been implemented much more effectively, but the fact is, it HAS been implemented, and an improved system could easily enough be put it its place. My opponent also brings up Bernie Sanders; while this debate is not about the election, you cannot say that a candidate can't win when they won 8 out of 9 of the last primaries. And that is a perfect example of how something difficult can still work. However, the topic of this debate is not about if Universal Healthcare COULD be implemented, it is about whether or not it SHOULD be. So for the sake of this argument, we should both assume that proper implementation is indeed possible. Now I will present some of my own arguments for Universal Healthcare: I think that in our economy, all people should ethically be given access to healthcare, and that it should be a basic human right. Not everyone can afford healthcare, but most people need it at some time. Making people choose to either pay thousands of dollars to insurance companies that give them limited benefits, or die of disease is not morally right in my opinion. The pharmaceutical and insurance companies have become much too overpriced and have too much leverage over people, given that their services are often essential. As I said before, America is one of the only advanced western civilizations that STILL does not offer Universal Healthcare, and most countries that do, such as Sweden or Denmark, have happier average citizens. For example, in Denmark, citizens are about 77% happy, and in the United States, only 70% (3). One of the main reasons for this is the difference in our healthcare systems. Given the money that Americans already spend on taxes, we should absolutely get Universal Healthcare coverage without having to pay anything more. Money could be relocated from other areas where tax dollars are spent is excess, such as military spending. So a good Universal Healthcare plan would be essentially free (it would still be paid for by taxes, true, but the amount people are taxed would not increase), and it would greatly benefit our citizens. A properly implemented Universal Healthcare plan would boost our economy, increase the health, lifespan and happiness of Americans, and generally improve our country, all without costing the average American anything more than what they already pay in taxes, bringing us up to par with other advanced western countries. And I can't see why anyone wouldn't want that! (1) https://www.whitehouse.gov... (2) https://www.whitehouse.gov... (3) http://acculturated.com...", "qid": "50", "docid": "57d5f0e9-2019-04-18T13:28:54Z-00006-000", "rank": 39, "score": 101092.0}, {"content": "Title: The United States should design a universal health care system. Content: Hello Everyone, I want to start out by saying universal health care is not the solution to health care problems. First off, if you a believer that 45 million Americans are uninsured, stop smoking. Mark Steyln, a expert at Harvard University says that in that 45 million, 9 million aren't American, 9 million of them are actually insured, and 18 million of them are young and health and have no need for health insurance. The other millions left show to be wealthier than the average American. It shows that 37% of those without health insurance, that's 17 million, come from households that earn more than $50,000 a year. 19% or 8.7 billion of the uninsured come from households earning more than $75,000. So, for all of you crazy liberals that pull numbers out of nowhere, stop crying. Alright, I don't even know where to start with the problems behind it. First of all, it destroys our privacy. It will make everyone's problems our own. For example, if someone is eating unhealthy all the time, now we have to pay for them when they go to the doctor. Or if someone smokes 2 packs of cigarettes a day, now it will be our problem when they get sent to the hospital. The quality of universal health care would be horrible. The doctors would no longer have an incentive to provide quality care. Drug companies will not be making as much money and will have to cut down on research for new medication. I'm going to give you a perfect example why government ran health care is not the answer. My uncle who is an Army veteran is able to go to the VA which is a hospital that provides free health care to veterans. Two months ago when he had an extreme pain in his arm, he went to the hospital to see what was going on. The doctor he had couldn't figure out what the problem was, imagine that, so he referred him to a specialized doctor. That's great, but the wait for the specialized doctor was 37 days. So, here is my uncle having to wait 37 days for an appointment, while having a pain in his arm. Another great example of why government sponsored health care doesn't work, is Medicare. Under Medicare, the government forces doctors to perform duties at a certain price. For example, there is a set rate they must do surgery at and such. To bypass this, many doctors won't even accept Medicare patients because they don't want to be doing work for less money than it is worth. Now, before you start saying that doctors are too greedy and don't need all the money realize that they must go to school for 8 years and then have 5-8 years of an internship and residency. That leaves doctors no younger than 31 before they can even start to make money. I would like to see how you would react when you have that many student loans to pay off. We are definitely not the first country to think of this universal health care idea. There are many that are using it right now. For example, the great country of Canada. The one or two great stories you hear in the media does not mean it is working well for them. For example, a woman of Toronto had to give birth to quadruplets. The four girls ended up being born at a U.S. hospital because there was no space available at a Canadian neonatal intensive care unit. Is that what you would want to have to do when you're giving birth? Where would you run to, to give birth, can't go to Canada, can't stay here, is Mexico where you would want your kids being born? I sure hope not. On March 19th, 2005 Beth Duff-Brown reported in The Associated Press that a letter from a Canadian hospital to a New Brunswick heart patient in need of an electrocardiogram said that the appointment would be in three months, it also added \"If there person named on this computer-generated letter is deceased, please accept out sincere apologies.\" Well, at least they give their sincere apologies hey? Oh wait, another example of why universal health care sucks. A 59-year old Ontario women on disability for a heart-related problem was complaining of age of discrimination after her local doctor rejected her. This was written on CTV.CA on March 17th, 2006. So, Great Britain is another country with great health care\u2026right? Wrong, John Carvel wrong in the Guardian Unlimited on June 8th, 2007 saying, \"One in eight Britain hospital patients still have to wait more than a year for treatments, the government acknowledged yesterday in its first attempt to tell the truth about health services.\" Another writer wrong in the BBC news on May 9th, 2007 saying that a third of stroke patients in Great Britain are stuck for over 3 months just to hear when they will be given their treatment. I don't know about you, but I don't think I want to be leaving my health care up to the government like that. Overall, you have to be crazy or communist to think universal health care is the key to the U.S. health care problems. There are many options that we can take to fix the problem instead of dealing with universal health care. The main thing we need to do is eliminate mandates. Mandates are things that the state and federal government require insurance policies to include. For example, there might be a mandate to have chiropractic service on your insurance policy. If we eliminate mandates, people buying health insurance can pick the things that they actually need and it will be much cheaper because they won't be paying for stuff that is useless. Another way to fix this problem is to control law suits against doctors. In this sue happy world we are in right now, baby doctors get sued all of the time if anything goes wrong in the labor. This leaves doctors needing more money which they get from the tax payers. I hope you all understand how serious universal health care is and realize it is not something you want to get the United States into.", "qid": "50", "docid": "3d41f988-2019-04-18T19:52:40Z-00005-000", "rank": 40, "score": 99758.0}, {"content": "Title: basic healthcare is a right Content: You idea in the first paragraph would work in theory. However, the reason people want universal health care is because they can't afford the medicine needed to cure their illness. With good reason with the cost of medicine rising, faster than inflation, people are finding necessary and life-saving medicine out of reach. Giving them health care will not solve the answer. Why? who picks up the tab on the medicine because someone has to pay for it, right? the insurance companies, but when hundreds of family's need these life-saving and sometimes expensive medicine these insurers can't keep giving out of charity or they will go out of business.* due to this they hand the cost down to the people it insures, that can be compensated if the poverty rate was kept in check however poverty is on the rise (14.7% or 46.7 Million) and the cost of medicine is going up you can't sustain that sort of trend for very long. The average family that makes between $50,000-60,000 and the cost of the average cost to have health care for that average family is 16,000 a year, do you really think that family can provide with the profit of the money when you add taxes and necessary expenditures? But of course how selfish of that family to think of itself when other people are suffering because those that are suffering wasted their lives not making the most of it and getting a degree and a paying job to pay for their own private health care. the reason other countries do not spend as much on their health care is because they do not offer health services only wait lists.* The reason we spend much more than any other country is because we have not yet realized the cost of having universal health care. We still believe that maintaining the same level and quality of health services will be available if we give it to all regardless of being able to pay it. Do you really believe that a country can maintain that level, that quality of health services; while still being able to pay it's doctors a livable salary (and one that can offset the cost of medical school) as well as maintain a premium that all citizens can pay and not have to sacrifice their family's true rights for the petty and immoral right of a universal health care? A universal health care is immoral, it feeds off of people who have worked hard and made a livable job that can pay for their families expenses; it forces families to give up the dream that America once embodied. The RIGHT to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; not the right to life, slavery, and the pursuit of handouts. *http://www.latimes.com... http://www.theatlantic.com... http://www.forbes.com... https://www.theobjectivestandard.com... http://www.forbes.com...", "qid": "50", "docid": "5d28666e-2019-04-18T14:09:38Z-00002-000", "rank": 41, "score": 98484.0}, {"content": "Title: basic healthcare is a right Content: I would like to know where you go that information or if you are just making the wind blow where you want. America does offer more services in their healthcare but that aside a major reason that it is less expensive is that the government takes care of the cost's. Of course this is not out of charity but comes in the form of a 75% income tax but you know everyone loves to get 25 cents out of every dollar they earn. That is how they are able to afford this way of health care. If you like having everything decided for you and have little to no freedom then universal healthcare is the way to go! Once the system is put into the government's hands then what difference is there in that and a monopoly. If the government has control over the entire system and all insurers fall under their dominion what is stopping them from raising the price of the healthcare. However the government would never do that, right? If some of you are thinking that the government's control of everything would be good than why aren't monopolies good? If an entity has absolute control over an area of life or a good than people would throw a fit that the entity was corrupt and there needs to be something done about it. However when the government does it people are all more than happy to fall in line and celebrate because the people running the government are all \"good and moral\" citizens. There is no difference between a monopoly and a government gone rampant for power. Therefore the notion of universal health care can not and should not be a right in any sense of the form, people deserve what they work for not what they whine for. http://www.theatlantic.com... http://www.npr.org... http://www.slate.com... http://taxfoundation.org...", "qid": "50", "docid": "5d28666e-2019-04-18T14:09:38Z-00000-000", "rank": 42, "score": 98449.0}, {"content": "Title: let it be resolved that universal health care is a bad idea Content: Universal health care is a bad idea. The best results will be achieved through a market. Instead of having the government pay for everyone's health care people should buy their own insurance for catastrophic care and pay straight up for routine visits.The government does not pay for universal health care. The citizens of the nation pays taxes, which pays for the health care. A market in health care would keep costs down because doctors would compete with each other for who can treat effectively for a lower price. However, universal health care actually would keep costs down. The taxes pay for them, and because everyone pays taxes but not everyone gets sick, your health care costs will be partly paid by someone else. Instead of having gigantic and waste there would be incentives in place for competing health care organizations to stream line and be more efficient.It is not waste. You pay for them using taxes. There will be some tax money spare because not everyone gets sick. The spare tax money can go to elsewhere, like eduation. Instead of it being impossible to find a family doctor - as it is in Canada - everyone who wants one will have one (basic supply and demand, there are no shortages on the free market if demand is high and supply is low price goes up but the service is always available). In Canada, we CAN find family doctors. My family doctor is just blocks away from me. Just because there is universal health care does not mean that alternatives are banned. My arguments are:The universal health care is more affordable. People pay for it with taxes. Due to how taxes work, the rich pays more. With the extra money that the riches pay, we can subsidize those who cannot afford health care. Universal health care also reduces waste, because it us tax money in the right place.Health care on the market is a bad idea, because the poor will not be able to afford it, compared to how the riches subsidize them using taxes in universal health care. Everyone has the right to life. [1] If patients with life threatening diseases were unable to pay and there is no universal heath care, it is effectively violating their right to life by preventing them from accessing the cure. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org...", "qid": "50", "docid": "558e5346-2019-04-18T17:50:52Z-00004-000", "rank": 43, "score": 96876.0}, {"content": "Title: The United States Ought to Establish a Universal Healthcare Content: I affirm the resolution that the United States ought to establish Universal Healthcare. This will be a values based debate there for my value [premise] for the round is societal welfare. Because when promoting and allowing Universal healtcare to a population it allows people to get a basic need that is no longer based on income. It allows the moral obligation as stated by the word ought in the resolution to also be fulfilled. My value criterion is Healthcare Equality. Based off of the word ' ought ' stated in the resolution , It denotes that there is a moral obligation. In this instance there is a obligation to serve people and allow them the right to health and well-being. As for societal welfare this can allow people to be healthier , and increase lifespans. Contention 1 : The United States ought to adopt universal because it can allow and support the right of well-being. When people have healthcare that is good people are at a lesser risk for diseases that people with poor healthcare do and due to this , it is a given. In the current system , the more money you have the more efficient and comprehensive the healthcare you recieve. It has been proven that people who make $100,000.00 dollars a year will actually live longer than people who make $45,000.00 A year due to the inequalities in care. This alone has been examined here [ http://blogs.wsj.com... ] in this quote \"In 1980, life expectancy at birth was 2.8 years more for the highest socioeconomic group than for the lowest. 6 By 2000, that gap had risen to 4.5 years.\" This alone makes it quite evident that over the course of 20 years , the disparity has actually gotten worse socio-economically. By establishing a system of universal healthcare we can bridge the socioeconomic disparity or decrease the disparity by very sizeable margin. \" A major one is that 45 million Americans lack health insurance, while Canada and many European countries have universal health care, they say.\" Further examination shows that Macau ( China S.A.R ) , Japan , Andorra , San Marino , Hong Kong ( China S.A.R ) France , Switzerland , Sweden , Australia , Iceland , Canada , Italy , Monaco , Liechtenstein , Spain , and Norway all have higher life expectancies than the US and that is 13 of the 41 that rank above the United States in life expectancy. Most of these countries , Especially European ones and Japan , have a universal healthcare system of the sort that makes sure everyone is ensured and given medical care. Contention 2: The United States should support it's moral obligation by supporting societal welfare. The word ought stated in the resolution denotes a undenyable moral obligation. Therefore to not take up the policy of universal healthcare would be amoral and would be unjust. This also means that by not supporting the policy of universal healthcare we are not promoting societal welfare which is what the nation is about. In the end it's a matter of people living longer and healthier lives meanwhile being equal in healthcare. Or using a old system which continues to perpetuate the disparity in which the rich recieve healthcare at a higher quality than those who work hard every single day who cannot afford it. By supporting the moral obligation we can bring in a equality in healthcare that can improve lifespans , improve governmental accountability for it's people , follow a moral obligation , and promote societal welfare . For all of the stated above , I urge you must affirm.", "qid": "50", "docid": "f16e9818-2019-04-18T19:21:34Z-00008-000", "rank": 44, "score": 96573.0}, {"content": "Title: We need a universal health care system. Here's one idea. Content: I have yet to see anyone adequately defend a universal health care system. I propose that we NEED not just a system where everyone is covered, but a single-payer system where the government provides basic coverage for everyone while keeping private ownership of hospitals and doctors' offices. Such a system would weed out administrative overhead, as well as provide adequate leverage to keep drug and device costs down. The private, for-profit system is a perfect example of a market failure which requires government intervention, and is unsustainable in its current form. Therefore, I propose this: We adopt a single-payer national health insurance plan that covers all tax-paying adults up to $20,000 per year. This coverage would be contingent on filing a tax return and would cover all but elective, cosmetic surgery. People could combine their $20,000 coverage when they get married, providing $40,000 of coverage for their family. As of last year, 97% of everyone who sought health care spent just over $21,000 or less, so the $20,000 would cover about 96% of everyone's needs, leaving room for private catastrophic plans. This would function much like life insurance. You don't know when you'll need it, but you most likely will and will be very thankful when you do need it. Medicare and Medicaid will provide catastrophic coverage for the old and poor, and businesses will provide group catastrophic coverage. Since Medicare and Medicaid would have to provide a much smaller set of benefits, resources would be taken from these programs to help fund the national health insurance plan. After that, a plan similar to California's would be used where hospitals and doctors would be taxed to provide further funds for the program. In addition, a sales tax on the advertising, administration and lobbying expenditures of drug and device manufacturers would also be used to fund the program. Should any money be needed beyond that, a tax will be imposed starting at the top tax bracket and working down should more funds be needed. This seems like a good start. I look forward to anyone taking up this debate.", "qid": "50", "docid": "b1ae42c6-2019-04-18T19:53:25Z-00007-000", "rank": 45, "score": 96143.0}, {"content": "Title: We need a universal health care system. Here's one idea. Content: 1. The first arguement that id like to take up on this point is that yes medicare does help alot of people, lower income etc this just further fuels my point on point 4 so thank you. The second part is that while yes it does work it is not a universal program it only focuses on a section of the people not everyone. Also as a side note one person cant keep an entire system working and by saying you have a good president still wont solve the problem of having a working program, its just to big of a job. 2. The first point on this flow id like to say feeling good because its one less thing to worry about wont protect the people from the absurd taxing like you proposed in the plan. Also they wont be paying less because as it is now the companies help pay and fund the different insurances. In all a unviersal health care would completely collapse our already fraying economy. 3. So this whole argument contradicts the point of a universal health care, to keep hospitals and doctors still private would not reach the perspective of a universal health care since not everyone is entitled to the same thing. Bringing us back to the heart of capitalism, competition which will be lacking if the plan is implemented. 4. Your still missing the point there are systems like Medicare like you mention that cover people who are in need of it. The reason why I mentioned this is because you could argue that if people wouldn't get attention which i was proving incorrect but since you agree theres no need to argue this any more. 5. Really the points you make here are just not true, when funded by the government like every other program ran by the government the doctors will be told what to do and how to do it. I mentioned India because they have a universal health care system and it is one of the poorest in the world this being the leading reason, doctors don't care as much anymore. 6. No it wouldn't lower because in this new system everyone basically pays the same amount, for people like me I go in once a year for a physical other than that I'm relatively healthy so why should i pay that much more, when other people who choose a unhealthy lifestyle and cost more a year eventually raising prices for me to help take care of the unhealthy person thats why a universal health care system would be bad. 7. While that may be true eventually its the transition that will kill the economy before the cavalry comes. Also look to point 8 on the flow and this ties in with this point in the fact that less doctors would want to do the job so they wouldn't be in such large demand. 8. Again look to point 3 and how this contradicts the point of a universal health care if everything is still privatized. To deny the fact that doctors become doctors because of the fame and status is just ignorant, sure some may not fit the type but the vast majority do. 9. So basically your conceding to the fact that since our health coverage is working why change it so thank you. As another side note any country with a universal health coverage none of them have a good system, just a bare system. Also its not a right its a privilege that you should work hard for not be given to you on a silver spoon. 10. The point to this argument here is that health care in other nations like India, see point 5, because they are so poor and ours is so great changing that would hurt everything in our medical infrastructure and see my other points as to how universal cant be socialized or privatized. It may not be everyone which yeah i suppose i can attest to that but in the status quo nothing is broken when you compare us to every other country, just try and name one with a better health system.", "qid": "50", "docid": "b1ae42c6-2019-04-18T19:53:25Z-00004-000", "rank": 46, "score": 93071.0}, {"content": "Title: basic healthcare is a right Content: I will agree that is is a right of humanity to take what is needed to survive and that has become hard for people to do today due to population. Due to this population increase there are stories and markets that supply our needs to survive however healthcare should not be a basic right and if it were, it would be deadly to the society it was introduced.We see it right now in America where everyone is already or being forced to have healthcare, the average family pays about $16,000 a year.* The average family income falls in between $50,000-60,000.* This high healthcare cost is due to everyone being forced to have healthcare, even those who do not need it, the cost is high because completely healthy people are forced to pay for those who can't afford it. If healthcare were to be a basic right as it is becoming in America the cost of $16,000 per average family would go up drastically and due to the flood of immigrants, who are making a new life and can not be expected to pay anything, and the rise of poverty would add strain to the economy that would break it in the end. Some would retort that the government is there to distribute money to help the poor and underprivileged, raising the income of a family, thereby reducing the strain on the healthcare cost. I put forth this question, \"Where does this money come from?\" If the government is giving money to the lower classes where does the money to do so come from? It comes from one of two sources, one source is that the government prints from the bank. That brings problems with itself in the form of inflation, the more a government prints money the more the value of the money goes down. An example would be Germany in 1921 After World War 1. Germany under war debts turned to printing money to pay it's debts off but the repercussions were traumatic to the country as at one point 1 US dollar equaled 800 German Marks. * Of course the more favored way is to tax the upper echelon for the money needed to give to lower class. Although there lies the poison apple that many countries are biting today. If one's country puts a heavy tax on the class that is sustaining the economy such as Walmart, Target, Ford, Apple, Xbox, and the \"1%\" that make all the money and provide all our needs to survive than those businesses and people would be making an income equal to a middle class family but still trying to support their businesses and slowly but surely the business would die off. Plus those working hard in the middle class and being taxed to death for the sake of the poor at one point would say, \"Screw this if I am working hard to make less than those who don't work than I would rather not work and get the benefits.\" This would led to a degenerate culture hellbent on playing the system to get more benefits and money till it breaks. A culture who tries to make everyone have the same standard of living by causing others to fall no matter what it is, whether it is healthcare, income level, or by giving different tax rates for different class levels is doomed to fail miserably. * http://www.ncsl.org... *http://www.mybudget360.com... *https://en.wikipedia.org...", "qid": "50", "docid": "5d28666e-2019-04-18T14:09:38Z-00004-000", "rank": 47, "score": 91547.0}, {"content": "Title: Universal health care can actually strengthen doctor pay Content: If there are more insured patients within a universal health care system, more people will seek health care. As such, there will be more paying patients in a universal health care system, which will result in more income for doctors. Doctors will also spend less time on paper work, be more efficient, service more patients, and so make more money.", "qid": "50", "docid": "89e52114-2019-04-17T11:47:41Z-00194-000", "rank": 48, "score": 89912.0}, {"content": "Title: Implementing some form of Universal Healthcare in the United States would be beneficial Content: First, I will argue against my opponent's remarks and then make my closing statement. ** Of course not everyone in this country is handicap. I never implied that. I just used that as an example of who cannot \"take care of themselves\" as you put it, without a little assistance. ** As far as people being \"nice\" in this country, that is not at all important. If faced with a crisis I would like to think that we would all pull together for the greater good of our country. I really don't think people would be opposed to paying more in taxes to help the elderly, children, and handicapped (those who probably wouldn't be working). ** One of our basic inalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence is life. We have the right to protect our lives and not harm others. I see universal healthcare as a means of protecting life, our inalienable right, by making sure that our health concerns are ALWAYS being met. ** I think the fear of medical records among all other things, being stolen is quite ludicrous. As I mentioned above so much of our personal information is already stored in databases without any problems. ** Other remarks by my opponent will be addressed in the following closing statement: -- In 2007 Director Michael Moore made a documentary called \"SiCKO\" about the United States failing healthcare system. In SiCKO, Michael Moore reports that the homeless population in Great Britain can expect to live up to three years longer than some of the wealthiest Americans simply because they do not suffer any health problems. The fact that Great Britain has the National Health Service to provide all citizens with free preventative medicine, full prescriptions, surgeries, hospital lodging, and outpatient care has enabled them to live longer than Americans regardless of social class. Michael Moore also discovered that doctors in Great Britain are able to focus on getting patients to stop unhealthy habits like smoking and poor eating because there are incentives for doing so. If we modeled, our system after Great Britain's we too could have those needed benefits and reduce our mortality rates. According to a 2007 CRS (Congressional Research Service) report, \"The average life expectancy for a person in the United States is 77 \u00ef\u00bf\u00bd years \u2014 slightly below the OECD average, and 4\u00ef\u00bf\u00bd years less than Japan. Life expectancy is nearly 2\u00ef\u00bf\u00bd years longer in Canada than in the United States. The United States is ranked 22nd out of 30 countries on life expectancy at birth, but once people reach the age of 65, U.S. life expectancy improves to a rank of 11th for men and 13th for women out of 30 countries reporting. Between 1960 and 2004, the United States gained 7.6 years of life expectancy \u2014 2years less than the OECD average of 9.7 years of additional life expectancy. Life expectancy tends to increase as countries spend more on health care per capita, except at very high levels of spending, as in the United States\". Another feature unique to universal healthcare is a national database of patient medical records (Messerli). Having a national database would link hospitals across the country and enable them to access the patient's medical records quickly and efficiently. There would be no need to fill out your entire medical history every time you move or visit a new doctor. All medical information would be kept in a computer database and updated by medical professionals (SiCKO). I think that eliminating all of the paperwork from medical history, patient update, and billing forms by incorporating universal healthcare would also be a major stride for the Green Movement. -- When it comes to U.S. spending it is a definite fact that the United States spends more than any other industrialized country and gets significantly less. \"In 2006, U.S. health care spending exceeded 16% of the nation's GDP. To put U.S. spending into perspective: the United States spent 15.3% of GDP on health care in 2004, while Canada spent 9.9%, France 10.7%, Germany 10.9%, Sweden 9.1%, and the United Kingdom 8.7%. Or consider per capita spending: the United States spent $6,037 per person in 2004, compared to Canada at $3,161, France at $3,191, Germany at $3,169, and the U.K. at $2,560\" (Harrison). May I also mention that in France and Canada everyone has healthcare and in the United States there are almost 46 million people under 65 who are uninsured. -- Overall, implementing some form of universal healthcare would be beneficial to the United States both economically and physically. Like the British system, we would have doctors who are able to practice preventative medicine or unhealthy habits, lower per capita spending on health care, and ultimately live longer healthier lives. Although paying more taxes may be a burden at first, the long term benefits for our nation must be considered. Living a life where you do not have to forgo medical treatment because of cost or bankrupt yourself to pay medical bills would be ideal. I believe that a slight tax increase to provide free healthcare to myself to and millions who don't have it is a small sacrifice to make for the greater good of everyone. Resolution Affirmed. References: 1. Joe Messerli. BalancedPolitics.org, http://balancedpolitics.org... 2. SiCKO.Dir. Michael Moore. Dog Eat Dog Films,2007. 3. 2007 CRS Report. http://assets.opencrs.com... 4. Joel Harrison. DollarsandSense.org. http://tinyurl.com... 5. National Coalition on Healthcare. http://tinyurl.com...", "qid": "50", "docid": "fbb2201b-2019-04-18T19:20:40Z-00001-000", "rank": 49, "score": 89836.0}, {"content": "Title: Universal Health Care System Content: A Universal Health Care system, such as one present in Canada, is the superior way to provide health services to citizens of a country. First, people from various socioeconomic classes present in society are all guaranteed access to the same levels of health care. All individuals are able to access health care providers regardless of their income or ability to afford care. All citizens have the right to access to specialists. Second, there is less of a divide/discrimination between classes. Every person, no matter how rich or poor, are subject to the same wait times and have access to the same health care providers. A person with money does not have any sort of special privileges in accessing health services. the rich are not able to access quicker care simply because they can afford to do so. A person cannot jump the queue simply because they can afford to do so. This increases the fairness of how care is distributed amongst the members of a society. Third, the health of a population is overall better with universal health care. People that previously may not have accessed care simply because they cannot afford to so are, are able to express their health concerns and receive treatment without the worry of finances. Overall, Universal Health Care is a superior way in providing health services to a population.", "qid": "50", "docid": "12434cc2-2019-04-18T11:36:34Z-00001-000", "rank": 50, "score": 89776.0}, {"content": "Title: The U.S. ought to guarantee Universal Healthcare to its citizenry Content: For this Round I shall be defending my own case, in response to the Con\"s rebuttal. The Con begins by claiming that I fail to warrant why UHC allows us greater freedom to engage in society. My Sub-point C, however, clearly explains the warrant for this. Furthermore, it stands to reason that healthy individuals, individuals who are not constantly afraid of becoming sick because they could not afford treatment, and individuals who are not forced by necessity into paying usurious private healthcare premiums will be more able to do the things they want to do, both physically, financially, and emotionally. I will now offer a point-by-point defense of my case. One: Uninsured (A) My opponent cites two statistics to lessen the impact of the number of uninsured. Firstly, I would point out that the $50,000 represents a household income that has to support all of the family members of that household. It is therefore possible that this income is stretched thin to provide for everyone. Additionally, that number says very little about where people are actually living\"certain neighborhoods will cost more to live in than others. Consider that most Americans homes, according to the source she cites (Figure 3), make $75,000 or more. That\"s a $25,000 spending difference, and indicates that the Con is not necessarily correct when she states \"do not have [UHC] because they don\"t want and don\"t need it.\"In fact, it is very possible that many still can\"t afford it, even at that income level. This seems even more plausible when you consider that, according to the Cato report she cites, the average cost of health insurance in the U.S. for a household is $12,106\"24.2% of those families net income. Finally, even if we buy that 37% might be able to afford healthcare\"which is a stretch\"that still means that 63% are far less likely to be able to afford it. Then, the Con goes on to talk about how 40% of the uninsured are between 18-34. Yet, that means that 60% are not. Additionally, younger individuals tend to lack stable incomes, and, according to her source, tend to come from minority groups that historically and statistically have fewer resources. They may be \"healthier\" but they\"re not impervious to illness\"even the young need healthcare. (B) My opponent then claims that the U.S. has better care, and extrapolates from that that UHC delivers bad outcomes because it delivers poor care for \"most diseases.\"Her own source states that this is a comparison of \"specific diseases.\" In fact, she only mentions 4 diseases, which is hardly \"most.\" Furthermore, her own Cato source states, \"although the U.S. health care system can provide the world\"s highest quality of care, that quality is often uneven. The Institute of Medicine estimates that some 44,000\"90,000 annual deaths are due to medical errors, while a study in The New England Journal of Medicine suggests that only a little more than half of American hospital patients receive the clinical standard of care. Similarly, a RAND Corporation study found serious gaps in the quality of care received by American children.\" She claims higher survival rates outweigh my evidence, yet her survival rates are for very specific ailments, and are not indicative of the system in general, nor do they take into account the problems her own source observes in the U.S. system. Finally, I have yet to see a warrant for the taxi cab argument. (C) Firstly, I discussed the notion of solvency in my earlier remarks. Secondly, according to the Nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, 30 million people will remain uninsured under Obamacare. Therefore, all of the harms of uninsurance remain in existence. Also, the \"comparatively cheap\" fine will increase over time until it becomes a rather large one. Furthermore, the Con cannot solve because of the 50 million currently uninsured, Obamacare will still leave 60% of them uninsured. (D) Her evidence for her \"20%\" assertion is a study conducted by LocumTenens.com. This firm, lobbied Congress through the GA Chamber of Commerce to reject Obamacare because of what it called, \"economically harmful\" practices that would be emplaced. It seems then that this \"20%\" study could have been more a tool to save it from having to pay out additional funds, rather than a legitimate study. Furthermore, the survey polled doctors who practiced mostly in the South. This tends to be a more conservative area, which would bias the study and make it inapplicable to the nation as a whole. (E) My opponent seems to agree that uninsurance is a problem. She claims, nevertheless, that UHC is not the answer because it create worse outcomes, and that I have no evidence to prove otherwise. However, both in my round one and round two statements, I have providence evidence about the benefits of UHC, in particular citing how it would actually benefit the economy, how it would reduce emotional suffering, enable more people to receive care, etc. I have also shown that the Con\"s plan of Obamacare would leave huge numbers uninsured\"that it is not \"universal.\" I have also demonstrated, through Kao-ping and Casoy specifically, how uninsurance actually produces the \"worse outcomes.\" Ultimately, it is by eliminating uninsurance that UHC solves the problem. Two: Security (A) The WHO evidence I provided in round two is clearly analysis \"on outcomes from countries with UHC to see if they\"re any better.\" Furthermore, just making things cheaper doesn\"t solve the problem. If I can\"t afford a drug at $100, but still can\"t afford it when the price is reduced to $75, then I haven\"t been helped. Everyone still needs insurance. (B) Obamacare does not solve, as I discussed earlier. Additionally, I provided more information on the impacts of the economics argument at the close of my round two statements. It also stands to reason that communicable disease will spread if people can\"t get care because they lack insurance. My opponent never attacks this line of reasoning. She merely claims that, while that might be true, I offer no concrete impacts. However, even without those impacts, it also stands to reason that the spread of disease is something that we should attempt to reduce, regardless of the extent of the threat. So, you can accept the logical warrant for why UHC (by enabling more care through providing insurance) would reduce the spread of disease, which provides a reason for why UHC is good. (C) The Murray evidence is not reliant of testimony, and shows clear economic benefits to UHC. Additionally, here is some more information on Thorpes study, as researched and reported by the CBO: \"This study did not just focus on expanding access; it also assumed significant systemic changes including administrative simplification, computerized physician order entry, an automated patient safety/error reporting system, reduction in inappropriate clinical practice variation, and controls of provider payments and premiums to reach target goals in expenditure growth. According to Thorpe\"s analysis\"[universal healthcare] would save between $320.5 billion\"and\"$1.1 trillion.\" (D) The NPR source only lists concrete economic problems in France and the UK\"two countries cannot be used to condemn UHC as a whole, especially when the NPR source notes that Germany, by making several reforms, is doing better. In fact, the report never states that any of these systems lack viability. Rather, it seems to point out that with some tweaking, UHC could work fine. Three: Self-esteem All address all the points as one. All of this information illustrates and emphasizes the harms of uninsurance\"the major problems with the Con. Taken in conjunction with other evidence I have provided, it does show why UHC is needed, from a moral perspective. It is what we \"ought\" to do. It\"s not just the contagiously ill, but the disabled and chronically ill who are ostracized, and that\"s something we should seek to minimize in a democracy. Universal care and universal insurance will combat this, and solve the problem. Finally, I don\"t need to offer a system because we agreed that we weren\"t talking about particular systems or forms of UHC. With that, I look forward to Round Three.", "qid": "50", "docid": "af28e840-2019-04-18T17:16:30Z-00003-000", "rank": 51, "score": 89743.0}, {"content": "Title: The U.S. should have Universal health care Content: No problem my fellow opponent, I realize that everyone has busy schedules, including myself. Nevertheless, I will continue to back up my previous arguments and also introduce new ideas. Universal Health Care ideally works to improve the overall health of a nation by covering everybody. As I mentioned before, Universal health care does not cover eveything such as prescripted drugs in countries such as Canada. In Canada, Universal Healthcare is funded through cash and tax transfers from the provinces and territories to help pay for health services. Therefore, Universal health care would improve the overall health of a nation such as the U.S. and would also help the U.S economically by decreasing medical debt. Universal health care is better than the current health system in the U.S in three fundamental aspects. It covers virtually everybody, covers more services, and covers one hundred percent of the cost for health services. Universal health care is successful in a number of countries, so there is ample evidence that it could work in the United State. Universal Healthcare works in a number of countries, so there is ample evidence that it would work in the U.S. The question I ask to my opponent is: \" Why shouldn't the U.S. have Universal Healthcare?\"Sources:http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca...http://www.livestrong.com...", "qid": "50", "docid": "a9de5226-2019-04-18T17:53:36Z-00001-000", "rank": 52, "score": 89481.0}, {"content": "Title: Universal health care nuts should also be in favor of universal food, shelter, clothing, etc. Content: So it seems I've taken the resolution a little off-topic from where the instigator intended for it to go. Very well, I do not think it will hurt my case or my position in this debate -- As Con, I must prove why advocates of universal health care should NOT also be advocating for universal food, shelter or clothing. Got it. Well consider R1 to be a detailed explanation of why advocates of UHC are calling for it in the first place, and they are not \"nuts\" but rather concerned (and sometimes desperate) Americans who are enforcing their constitutional right to call for change. In terms of this debate, Pro has asked that I explain the so-called inconsistency of singling out health care by wanting to make health care universal, whereas other basic human needs like food and clothing are above health care in terms of the hierarchy of necessity, yet people aren't advocating for socialized shelter. First, as I've pointed out, universal food, shelter and clothing are already provided to those in need by the government. Pro notes, \"But none of these programs provide these core necessities to everyone universally.\" This is true; one must qualify and meet the living standards deemed appropriate to receive \"free\" food and shelter. However this is because there is not enough funding in the tax budget to distribute to everyone but those who are deemed in dire need. #1 - Americans don't want to raise taxes for universal food, shelter and clothing, because that would essentially turn us into a communist nation. Specifically making health care universal would NOT turn us into a communist nation, as is demonstrated by other countries who implement universal health care and are not communist (i.e. Canada, Britain and France). #2 - One could buy food to live with just a few dollars a day; however, some medical care and costs can be thousands upon thousands of dollars, putting families into debt and/or causing them to seek no treatment at all (which may cost them their health/lives). Prescription drugs, operations or other medical procedures, doctor visits, etc. are all a lot more expensive than these basic needs, especially because there are often no alternatives. ... For instance, if I broke a bone and needed surgery, there is no getting around that. But if I'm hungry and can't afford a gourmet meal or even a fast food meal, there's always the option of buying a bag of Ramen noodles for 25 cents, or in a moment of desparation, even taking left-over food out of the trash (such as some homeless people often resort to). However while one can build a make-shift place to live (even from a cardboard box) and survive, one cannot perform heart surgery on themselves, for instance, thus making health care a greater need. The same example applies to buying a t-shirt at a craft store for $2 as opposed to an Armani shirt for $200. Third, keep in mind that not only the impoverished can benefit from universal health care. The middle class often cannot afford health insurnace while they CAN afford food, shelter and clothing. Thus my opponent has tried to conclude that it is not logical for one to support universal health care and not support universal food; however, he is trying to draw a link where there is none. While I do deem food a greater necessity than health care in general (in terms of life or death), that does not mean that we - as a nation - need universal food more than we need universal health care. So again, offering universal food, clothing and shelter would turn us into a communist nation. We already have programs that offer assistance in these areas to those in dire need. However the establishment of universal health care would NOT turn us into a communist nation. Instead, it would eliminate the high cost charged by insurance companies, and we'd pay less money for (at least) equal or better health care. Everyone would receive this benefit - not just the rich, and not just the poor. Keep in mind that making health care universal could/would probably increase the salary one earns, because offering health insurance would no longer be a perk of a job offer. They'd have to find other incentives to reward their employees with. Hmm. All-in-all, I have pointed out why universal health care is a good idea, while offering universal food, clothing and shelter is not. Universal health care would SAVE people money, whereas the taxation from all of those other goods would cost people money. It also just doesn't make sense in general, whereas universal health care does make sense. So basically, even if you don't agree with universal health care, that's fine... but to say that supporters of UHC should also support other universal programs is presumptious and frankly kind of absurd.", "qid": "50", "docid": "1215c0b1-2019-04-18T19:42:30Z-00002-000", "rank": 53, "score": 89432.0}, {"content": "Title: Universal benefits of human rights Content: The recognition and enforcement of fundamental human rights would and does not benefit everyone equally. For example a strong man in a society where he can use the threat of his strength to cause others to serve him against their will stands to lose his comfortable life, in which he is happier, if the weaker men's right to security of person is guaranteed. This loss is a far greater harm to him than the small potential that he might be replaced by an even stronger man who appears. Therefore not everyone benefits from the recognition of fundamental human rights, and so they cannot be termed either fundamental or universal, as they advance the interests of some at the expense of others. Similarly the international examples show how those in famine-prone areas benefit at the expense of those in more prosperous areas. Moreover, the excuse of 'protecting human rights' can be used as easily to advance neo-colonial or imperial ambitions on the part of one nation against another as it can be used to justify intervening in famines, so the net gain is far from clear-cut.[1] [1] Bosco, David \u201cIs human rights just the latest utopia?\u201d Foreign Policy Magazine. Tuesday, July 5, 2011.", "qid": "50", "docid": "ba84677-2019-04-15T20:24:42Z-00010-000", "rank": 54, "score": 87334.0}, {"content": "Title: The US Government should grant universal healthcare to its citizens. Content: Since my opponent has fore-fitted this round I will take this opportunity to voice my opinions on the topic without sources. I feel the first 2 sources were compelling enough in my opening statement. I feel that there is a bias of social class when it comes to health care to begin with. The low income jobs that actually offer benefits are very few and far between. That being said when benefits are offered to low income individuals the premiums(in my experience) take roughly 1/10 of income for decent coverage. Along with the minimum wage guidelines it would be near impossible to maintain a steady household with insurance and other necessities. Basically I'm saying that if you have a high income job you probably have great coverage on insurance. Therefore never having to worry about if you get hurt. If you were to become ill without insurance you pay an astronomical bill. It's a system of maintaining the social classes with minimal opportunity for advancement.", "qid": "50", "docid": "3ffe2bd6-2019-04-18T18:54:44Z-00001-000", "rank": 55, "score": 87048.0}, {"content": "Title: Universal healthcare Content: Thanks for the pleasantries. I am against universal health care, but not because it doesn't sound nice. It certainly does. We're all liberals at heart. In fact universal housing, food, clothing, cars, college, income, etc.(etc, etc, etc, ad nauseam) also sound very attractive. The only problem is this: no one has a right to any of it. This country currently confiscates gobs of money from its rightful owners to provide a plenitude of unearned goods and services to undeserving and largely ungrateful recipients. Do we really need one more form of wealth redistribution in this country? Might we stop before there is nothing left to distinguish us from your average European country?", "qid": "50", "docid": "a76b7e0f-2019-04-18T19:48:00Z-00006-000", "rank": 56, "score": 86455.0}, {"content": "Title: Basic income tax should be abolished Content: Yes Reasons", "qid": "50", "docid": "2e784eb9-2019-04-19T12:45:17Z-00008-000", "rank": 57, "score": 85867.0}, {"content": "Title: The U.S. should have Universal health care Content: Universal Healthcare should be established in America for the following reasons. First of all, Universal healthcare provides basic, satisfactory healthcare to those who can least afford it. For example, if a homeless person got stabbed and needed urgent medical help, a country such as England or Canada would give emergency aid and it wouldn't cost a cent. In fact, in Canada, the only thing you have to pay for is perscribed drugs and medical casts. Also in 2001 study in the U.S., up to 46.2 percent of bankruptcies were because of Medical debt. This was when the economy was decent.Does the U.S. really need anymore debt than we're in right now? Medicare helps lower debt since you do not have to pay for the majority of medical expenses. Universal Healthcare works in a number of countries and would help the U.S. socially and economically. Not only that, but it is fair and equitable for everybody.It certainly would help the U.S and I don't see how America's current health care system would be any better than Universal Healthcare.Sources:http://www.livestrong.com...http://en.wikipedia.org...", "qid": "50", "docid": "a9de5226-2019-04-18T17:53:36Z-00003-000", "rank": 58, "score": 84996.0}, {"content": "Title: Implementing some form of Universal Healthcare in the United States would be beneficial Content: Obviously I agree that people with a handicap can't take care of themselves. However, not every person in the country has a handicap. You said that people would pay through taxes for the health care for themselves, and others because it's the right thing to do. I hate to be the one to point this out, but not everyone in this country is that nice. No one should be \"entitled\" to anything. We should ALL work to achieve what's best for us individually. As for the preventing ailments, I stick by what I said. Even with what you just said. With having there be no lab fees, no co-pay, no monetary worries, people will still take advantage. They will be more inclined to see what they can get out of the system. I still find the always available records are dangerous. I will agree that they would be handy for patients and doctors. However, having a \"lock and key\" doesn't guarantee safety of records. I can tell you that if I was a patient, I wouldn't allow my information to be posted on these records. I don't trust the security that you are suggesting. I don't think that universal health care would reduce mortality rates. Having unlimited access to doctor's won't do anything. It isn't going to cure cancer patients, or any other incurable disease.", "qid": "50", "docid": "fbb2201b-2019-04-18T19:20:40Z-00002-000", "rank": 59, "score": 84588.0}, {"content": "Title: Universal Health Care Content: The Hippocratic Oath is very relevant. The doctor are in the moral obligation to treat anyone. Not only those who can afford it. A person who owns a humble job and just earn enough to live cant afford 17.000$ on medical bills -which is the main cause of bankruptcy in america by the way*-, now, not earning more than 70.000 a year is a reasonable reason to not get access to medical care? 25 million people had lost their jobs due to the economic recession, with no job they cant afford it, is that a reason to not get medical care? And if someone think they like to be unemployed. Who likes to be unemployed? There are people outside looking for job, company's cant hired them due to slow economic. If is only in the individual hands to be responsible; what could a man do to make more money without a job and no one who hire him? The answer is: assaulting, stealing,thieving. Is not a coincidence that the poorest neighborhoods are the most dangerous. It would be just moving backwards.", "qid": "50", "docid": "62216d2d-2019-04-18T18:54:53Z-00000-000", "rank": 60, "score": 84167.0}, {"content": "Title: The United States should design a universal health care system. Content: I'll get right to it also. Thank you for such a challenge. 1. I don't know if you understand this, but telling me that the uninsured can't afford health insurance means nothing to me. I realize that and I know we need to change things so they can get health insurance. Examples would be withdrawing mandates for individual insurance policies, fostering Health Savings Accounts for day-to-day medical expenses, making health insurance true indemnity insurance and not health maintenance. 2. Why are you avoiding \"he burden would be spread to everyone.\" I think that is part of privacy. Now your health problems are mine and mine are yours. Whether it is part of privacy or not, why did you avoid the argument I was making in my second round? 3. Do you have any kind of evidence for the mentioning of saving $286 Billion on paper work? What kind of paper work does that consist of? Do you realize how many law suits are going on right now because of health care. I stated it in my opening argument. If we have universal health care, people will be going to the doctors that much more because it is free. They don't have to worry about deductibles or anything to that such. Therefore with more people being at the doctor, there is more chances of the doctors being sued which is a huge cost to doctors and the government. 4. As far as doctors go. I found an article that did an actual survey on a certain amount of doctors. It is located here: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com... It basically says that many doctors admit to turning there head to medical errors that are done. They are suppose to report every serious medical error, and in the survey done, some doctors admitted that they don't do that. If the doctors were basically only concerned about the care of patients (like you said) then why would this be happening in hospitals? 5. You fail to understand? Is that because you just don't want to understand or you actually failed? If you are actually a failure at understanding, I don't get it. It makes perfect sense. You can't tell me that they are going to raise our taxes to 40 % of income, because that would make people go crazy. So, to account for this, they are going to have to raise the taxes somewhat and then cut on other spending so taxes don't get to ridiculous. Therefore, they are going to have to cut spending on something. Whether it is medical research, defense, education, whatever, there are going to have to be some cuts in something. 6. Whether that is true or not, that study was from 2000. I'm not sure if it has changed or not, but that is 8 years ago now. And it came out in 2000 so that means that research had to of been done before 2000 and that had to take awhile. None the less, you don't have to tell me twice that our health care system is bad. You wouldn't even have to tell me once, because I realize that. Now, are you able to tell me that ALL those countries ahead of us have universal health care? Probably not therefore leading to my point that universal health care is not need to be said to have the best health care accord to \"WHO\". 7. Yes, I did argue that they are somewhat biased. I never voted in any of those polls, so that's leaving out at least me. Maybe everyone else in the U.S. voted on those polls but not me. I don't find that realistic. Saying the U.S. wants universal health care because of an internet poll or what some reporter says, really does nothing to me. I can go out and talk out of my butt and probably get some people to believe me. But I am not going to do that, instead I am going to sit here and talk the truth and try to educate people. The democracy and everyone has a right to health care point that you were trying to make, makes sense to me. But realize, everyone DOES have a right to health care right now. Some may have to pay more than others, some not. Everyone has the right to insurance, somewhere. You can bring up the movie Sicko that says some people were denied insurance, but overall that is not true. I work in the insurance field and I deal with things like this all the time. Some companies may deny them, but there are always companies that will take people in. 8. As far as this goes, look at other countries with universal health care, they are put on lists just to get looked at. Come on, why should we be doing this to ourselves? I look at the DMV and VA and realize that those are 2 government ran agencies near me and people HATE going to both of them. I don't want to hate going to the doctor. 9. Please explain to me what paperwork are we loosing when we have universal health care. Does that still cover all of the paper work for the patients, the health care cards that need to be printed for everyone, the more law suits that will be happening, and all of these expenses? I think you should think about that number a little more. Is the GOVERNMENT really spending that much money on paperwork right now? I think more like the insurance companies might be spending a lot of money on paperwork, but I don't see how the government can be responsible for all THAT much paperwork that will now be gone. Your New Point - As far as that goes, there are many options that we can go about using to fix our health care. Some that I said above. For you to say that you know of no other options, that sounds like a very liberal remark and maybe you should stick your head out of the liberal media box and get welcomed into the real world. Do you listen to our great President George W. Bush talk? Maybe you should because he has mentioned many new ideas. Do you listen to the presidential debates for the republican side? Maybe you should because the talk about many options available to us. I would like to say that I have talked a lot to your very little, you were just saying how I am wrong with the things I brought up and nothing really to say other than \"Your Wrong, Next\". I appreciate you taking part in this debate and hope I maybe helped you swing to the other side a little bit and opened it up a little more for you. Good luck and thanks!", "qid": "50", "docid": "3d41f988-2019-04-18T19:52:40Z-00001-000", "rank": 61, "score": 84092.0}, {"content": "Title: America should have universal healthcare Content: Would encourage people to go for healthcare when they need it.", "qid": "50", "docid": "39352d62-2019-04-19T12:45:34Z-00007-000", "rank": 62, "score": 84008.0}, {"content": "Title: There are basic standards of justice which merit global application. Certain crimes against humanit... Content: There are basic standards of justice which merit global application. Certain crimes against humanity offend against basic and universal norms of justice. Therefore, all people have an interest in seeing them upheld and should have the legitimate expectation that this will happen. It is a fallacy to argue that asserting universal rights is a form of cultural imperialism. As long as the universal jurisdiction is focused on serious transgressions that are clear violations of the global judicial code (e.g genocide, torture mistreatment of prisoners of war), issues of differing cultural practices are irrelevant.", "qid": "50", "docid": "34fc8788-2019-04-19T12:46:38Z-00006-000", "rank": 63, "score": 83923.0}, {"content": "Title: Universal Health Care in the US Content: Okay, but not everyone has access to these religious places as you have stated. In my area, there aren't any churches because my cities and the ones around it aren't religious. I am ultimately really confused by what are you trying to say. Because you say, \"people should be encouraged to have health care (what does that mean? What if they can't afford it?).\" Then you say, \"I simply think that there are other more moral ways for the money to be raised for those that can't afford it.\" Can you give some examples? And then you talk about the churches, but as I have already stated, that isn't the most reliable way to help poor people.", "qid": "50", "docid": "4c315ac7-2019-04-18T11:25:41Z-00007-000", "rank": 64, "score": 83844.0}, {"content": "Title: basic healthcare is a right Content: medicine is cheaper in universal healthcare countires too. the main reason it's cheaper in those places along with healthcare in general is because the government negotiaties and sometimes regultaes the prices lower. and lower administrative costs getting rid of the insurance middleman. that also rebuts your ideas for why you think it's cheaper... not because of rationed healthcare. though if you are poor, rationaed healthcare is better than none. and in those counties that have waitlines and such, you can buy supplemental insurance and get bettre faster care. but single payer countires like france are rated better than the USA in terms of healthcare. countrary to myth, france for example has less wait times than we do, less paperwork, and better choice of doctors.", "qid": "50", "docid": "5d28666e-2019-04-18T14:09:38Z-00001-000", "rank": 65, "score": 83843.0}, {"content": "Title: The U.S. should have Universal health care Content: It is unfortunate that my opponent forfeited this round. My only question i this: \"Why shouldn't the U. S. have a health care system covers every medical service except prescribed drugs for every man, woman and child, regardless of their financial circumstance or age. Therefore, I conclude that Universal Health Care is better that America's current health system and is even the best type of health care system in the world.", "qid": "50", "docid": "a9de5226-2019-04-18T17:53:36Z-00000-000", "rank": 66, "score": 83700.0}, {"content": "Title: let it be resolved that universal health care is a bad idea Content: Universal health care is a bad idea. The best results will be achieved through a market. Instead of having the government pay for everyone's health care people should buy their own insurance for catastrophic care and pay straight up for routine visits. A market in health care would keep costs down because doctors would compete with each other for who can treat effectively for a lower price. Instead of having gigantic and waste there would be incentives in place for competing health care organizations to stream line and be more efficient. Because they are bill patients and not the government doctors will be less likely to price gouge. Doctors who were trained in other countries would be able to practice because we would eliminate licensure and take away the special privileges of the doctor's cartels. After abolishing licensure pharmacists could also compete with doctors. Instead of rationing health care - as all nations which practice socialized medicine do - we would not ration health care. Instead of it being impossible to find a family doctor - as it is in Canada - everyone who wants one will have one (basic supply and demand, there are no shortages on the free market if demand is high and supply is low price goes up but the service is always available).", "qid": "50", "docid": "558e5346-2019-04-18T17:50:52Z-00005-000", "rank": 67, "score": 83136.0}, {"content": "Title: All people should receive the same income Content: Alright, I shall respond to the questions as a refutation. \"How would this fixed sum be defined?' It should be defined by the government in accordance with the pricing of economic output. For example, if all employed citizens got an income of $25 an hour, which would mean $4000 a month on average over the course of a year which would be $48,000 a year would be effectively eliminated because everyone who has a job will be able to pay their bills and satisfy their needs and, to a degree, their desires including savings in which people can become successful by merely saving such income. Thus, employed people would no longer live in poverty. \" Is it really justified for someone who say is, a waitress/waiter to get paid the same amount as a doctor or lawyer?\" That is subjective, however both individuals are contributing to satisfying the desires and needs of the population and thus should get paid the same amount an hour. And you might think this would be a disincentive, however this is not the case. For one, you would still have to work to earn a wage and a lot of people, and if not they took an oath to do it until they die, enjoy their work. As a result, not many doctors would leave because they still get paid and still work more hours thus they would make more than the McDonalds employee. A doctor who works 12 hours a day will earn 300 more dollars than the McDonalds employee. Not to mention, this actually would expand job growth to some level because if you're going to quit your job because you aren't getting paid a certein amount, you must hate it in the first place and thus you probably are terrible at it. This actually opens up more people to work in other vital industries such as agriculture and food distribution, and other jobs for people who want that particular one. A lot of people would happily work for a hospital for FREE, and many people would also work as a lawyer for next to no pay. People do things and like to do things, and open access to higher education free of tuition would make this a lot better and expand economic growth overall. So not only would this resolve many of the pyschologically destructive nature of economic inequality, this would also bring us closer to a moneyless society. Not to mention, ceterin economic preconditions such as establishing democratic workers self-management in industries would create a bigger incentive to work. Your third question, I baisclaly anwsered this. However, my official position is there should be a minimum and maximum ratio of pay (a universal minimum and maximum wage if you will) in regards to the difficulty and time put into a job but if should slowly move into equal pay for all. In regards to your last question, I believe fees for human rights such as education should be paid by taxes. Also, we speant trillions on nonsense like increasing military speanding. We have the money for this, we just don't use it wisely.", "qid": "50", "docid": "f266897a-2019-04-18T13:59:44Z-00002-000", "rank": 68, "score": 83055.0}, {"content": "Title: The United States should replace Obamacare with a universal Medicare for All System Content: I am not going to provide any definitive arguments until the second round after my opponent clarifies his premise.Challenged Premise: Everyone needs to be under one universal healthcare system.Why does everyone need to be covered under a universal system, be it Medicare or single-payer? Once, my opponent answers this, I will offer all of my arguments in Round 2.", "qid": "50", "docid": "5fb07803-2019-04-18T15:26:29Z-00005-000", "rank": 69, "score": 82980.0}, {"content": "Title: Universal Healthcare be provided to all American citizens Content: 1) The Senate voted in 2007 to discontinue a number of government organizations that have added onto the already dismal economy and guess what. They voted to not discontinue any of them, so your arguement, while sensible, is unrealistic with our current government.* 2) You said that the government-run healthcare system would be non-profit. This is again unrealistic, because an average of 45% of donations to non-profit organizations goes to funding basic costs, and believe it or not, salaries of workers. ** 3) This claim is completely false. Hospitals are required to treat every patient, regardless of their financial status. So they are definitely not excluded. here are three new points... 1)Patients aren't likely to curb their drug costs and doctor visits if health care is free; thus, total costs will be several times what they are now. Co-pays and deductibles were put in place because there are medical problems that are more minor annoyances than anything else. Sure, it would be nice if we had the medical staff and resources to treat every ache and pain experienced by an American, but we don't. For example, what if a patient is having trouble sleeping? What if a patient has a minor cold, flu, or headache? There are scores of problems that we wouldn't go to a doctor to solve if he had to pay for it; however, if everything is free, why not go? The result is that doctors must spend more time on non-critical care, and the patients that really need immediate help must wait. In fact, for a number of problems, it's better if no medical care is given whatsoever. The body's immune system is designed to fight off infections and other illnesses. It becomes stronger when it can fight things off on its own. Treating the symptoms can prolong the underlying problem, in addition to the societal side effects such as the growing antibiotic resistance of certain infections.*** 2) Government-mandated procedures will likely reduce doctor flexibility and lead to poor patient care. When government controls things, politics always seep into the decision-making. Steps will have to be taken to keep costs under control. Rules will be put in place as to when doctors can perform certain expensive tests or when drugs can be given. Insurance companies are already tying the hands of doctors somewhat. Government influence will only make things worse, leading to decreased doctor flexibility and poor patient care.**** 3) Healthy people who take care of themselves will have to pay for the burden of those who smoke, are obese, etc. Universal health care means the costs will be spread to all Americans, regardless of your health or your need for medical care, which is fundamentally unfair. Your health is greatly determined by your lifestyle. Those who exercise, eat right, don't smoke, don't drink, etc. have far fewer health problems than the smoking couch potatoes. Some healthy people don't even feel the need for health insurance since they never go to the doctor. Why should we punish those that live a healthy lifestyle and reward the ones who don't?**** * www.usc.edu/econdept/healthcare **www.balancedpolitics.org ***www.universityofchicago.edu/levitt/essay4 ****www.usatoday.com/health", "qid": "50", "docid": "d2dc19c4-2019-04-18T19:57:23Z-00002-000", "rank": 70, "score": 82880.0}, {"content": "Title: Universal Health Care Content: \\\\\\You should get your facts right. What Universal Health care does (or at least the one proposed in America) is it requires people to buy health insurance. It doesn't give it to them for free. You have to pay it either directly or through taxes. The public option might be cheaper, but it still costs money, which some people don't have. /// My facts are right sid. You pay through it in taxes, of course. Chain of events: Your company does not need to give you health insurance because of bill, the company no longer loses money by paying for your health, therefore they can pay you more in salary. You brought up new arguments in your rebuttal, so I must refute those. .. *sighs* \\\\\\Lenin said, \"Medicine is the keystone in the arch of socialism. \" The government should not be in control of medicine and should generally not be in too many features of our lives. It is both inefficient and an intrusion on our fundamental rights. /// First of all you quoted Lenin, second of all this is irrelevant because this does not influence the debate at all because it is one man's opinion who lived once upon a time in a land far far away called the Soviet Union. \\\\\\We'll be depending too much on the government. What if the government collapses or becomes corrupt? We can't always depend on the government. The government should depend on us/// If the government collapses, I think the last thing we'll be worrying about is our doctors appointments. Business is already corrupt, better start fresh! \\\\\\With fewer financial incentives, fewer individuals would decide to become physicians in the first place. Talent would be lost from the industry and the quality of doctors and health care would fall. /// You shouldn't use money as the reason you're a doctor, it should be for REAL reasons like compassion and caring. \\\\\\The markets are better at providing quality; same with health care. The markets and competition generally help produce higher quality goods for the least money (the highest value). The same applies to health care. /// The markets can provide quality, but if you have: Pregnancy * Obesity * Diabetes * Arthritis * Depression * Fibromyalgia * Asthma * Thyroid Disease * Kidney Disease * High Blood Pressure * Cancer * Back Problems * Lupus then YOU WONT GET ANY INSURANCE AT ALL! The debate goes to the pro.", "qid": "50", "docid": "62216cd0-2019-04-18T19:09:13Z-00000-000", "rank": 71, "score": 82706.0}, {"content": "Title: The US Government should grant universal healthcare to its citizens. Content: When someone becomes ill whether it be with the flu or a disease and doctors or hospitals turn them away because they can't pay, wouldn't that be stealing someone's life? For someone who worked their entire life and can finally retire and, yet can't pay for medical coverage then has to get another job in case they get sick what type of country is that we live in? Your attacking the fact that they are only taking money from the rich to provide for the poor, they take from every class; upper class, middle class, and yes in fact the lower class contributes as well. When all is said and done we can look at the countries now that have universal health care, none of them have went bottom up and the \"upper class\" has never complained they were taxed more heavily. Also when looking at it when everyone is covered it would be cheaper then the health care system we have now. Universal health care is the belief that all citizens have access to affordable high-care medical service; i.e. smokers etc.", "qid": "50", "docid": "3ffe2c14-2019-04-18T18:54:28Z-00001-000", "rank": 72, "score": 82663.0}, {"content": "Title: The United States should adopt Universal Healthcare Content: .", "qid": "50", "docid": "5ffcbbf3-2019-04-18T14:33:01Z-00000-000", "rank": 73, "score": 82437.0}, {"content": "Title: The United States should replace Obamacare with a universal Medicare for All System Content: Challenged Premise: Everyone needs to be under one universal healthcare system.This is a United States specific debate as clearly stated in the resolution, \"The United States should replace Obamacare with a universal Medicare for All System.\" Not one of my opponent's arguments relate to the United States. I asked specifically, why does everyone need to be under one universal healthcare system? My opponent never answered it. This is clear at this point my opponent has lost the debate. He has created solutions to something that has no problems. My opponent is arguing for the sake of arguing. My opponent has not offered any statistics on how many people are uninsured in the United States since Obamacare has been implemented. Obamacare allows any person to get health insurance who needs it at a relatively low price. My opponent did not offer anything dispelling how Obamacare does not satisfy the needs of people who need healthcare. My opponent did not offer us any cost estimates of this universal healthcare overhaul either. In fact, my opponent has not offered any statistics related to the United States at all. I would state emphatically, my opponent has not offered any premise to stand on. My opponent did not show there was a need for a universal healthcare system at all. I have shown that Obamacare makes healthcare available to anyone willing to spend a little bit of money.\"Argument 1: Countries with universal healthcare have the highest iHDI (inequality-adjusted human development index). Argument 2: Countries with universal healthcare spend less per capita on healthcareArgument 3: Despite spending less per capita on healthcare, countries with universal healthcare have higher life expectancies\" This is an appeal to popularity, \"just because other countries do it so should the United States[1].\" It is fallacious to say the least. [1]http://www.nizkor.org...;Debunking Pro's Arguments:#1 The United States is the most dominant country in the world, not Norway, not Germany, not Australia, not the Netherlands, not Sweden, not Denmark, not Canada, and certainly not Iceland. Who controls the World Bank with the most shares[2]? Who has the most votes in the IMF[3]? Who leads the largest military agreement in the world, NATO[4]? Where do most of the Fortune 500 companies come from[5]? Who has the world's largest economy[6]?Who spends the most on foreign aid[7]?The answer to all of these questions is simple, the United States. The other countries my opponent refers to are inconsequential and hardly play a role in global affairs. Inequality is merely the result of being so great. If the United States was medicore and ranked high on that list, the United States wouldn't be leading a single one of the statistics I just offered. Those countries are medicore and are synonmous with being water carriers.[2]http://www.worldbank.org...[3]http://www.imf.org...[4]http://www.history.com...[5]http://fortune.com...[6]http://www.wnd.com...[7]http://www.theblaze.com...#2 The United States does not control its' healthcare industry. The United States only subsidizes health insurance companies with Obamacare. Unlike countries with universal healthcare, private firms spend as much as they wish on healthcare. #3 Correlation is not causation as those who deal in statistics will often state. None of the statistics my opponent offers prove that high life expenctacy is the result of universal healthcare. None of my opponent's data include lifestyle or diet. How do we know lifestyles and/or diets cause high life expenctacy? My opponent just tells us, high life expentacy is the result of universal healthcare. This is simply not true, this is just merely correlation. None of my opponent's data point to the exact cause of high life expentacy, we only see correlation. Correlation is not satisfactory. A universal healthcare system does not change American consumption levels. Universal healthcare also doesn't mean reduced stress. It would be far more authoritative for someone to state that Americans should eat and live like Canadians and Japanese or these European countries Pro mentioned. Why? Their diets and their consumption levels are significantly different than Americans[8][9][10]. Universal healthcare would not stop obesity.[8]http://www.fredericpatenaude.com...[9]http://www.livestrong.com...[10]http://renegadehealth.com...;Vote con.", "qid": "50", "docid": "5fb07803-2019-04-18T15:26:29Z-00000-000", "rank": 74, "score": 82376.0}, {"content": "Title: Universal Health Care Content: People who are working low-wage jobs did not choose to do such. Some people who work low-wage jobs have college degrees and a family, But can not put that degree to use due to the lack of jobs available in a certain area. Yes, Fast-food low wage jobs were seen as student jobs, But students now are not working these jobs anymore. This in turn, Makes adults have to fill these empty jobs and can not find another place to work because of a certain background, Etc. However, These fast food CEO\"s make more money than you and I will ever see in life, Why don\"t they provide benfits? The lack of available benefits for a wide range of jobs cause this healthcare breakdown. If it was required to provide benefits to your workers, Then we would not have this \"universal health care. \" I highly dissagree that someone must \"earn\" healthcare like you are implying. Everyone should have access to affordable health care. Period.", "qid": "50", "docid": "622170cf-2019-04-18T11:21:49Z-00001-000", "rank": 75, "score": 82173.0}, {"content": "Title: The US should not have universal or publicly funded health care Content: TheLibertarian has failed to respond to any of my points or ideas; which are, in brief: 1. No industrialized nation except for us lacks some sort of universal health care system. It's a basic right. We are the richest nation in the world, and yet 47 million of us lack any health care. 2. No industrialized nation in the world spends more of its GDP per capita on health care than we do. If socialized medicine is so expensive, than why does the rest of the world spend less? Because hospitals transfer the free emergency room costs onto the medicare plans, because medicare cannot negotiate its drug or hospital costs. With a mandate for health care, there will be fewer costs at the hospital level, because everyone will have health insurance. Period. 3. This is not socialized medicine. A true socialist model is single-payer government, this is blatantly not. This is basic subsidization for those in greatest need. Everyone should be able to have access to quality health insurance. Thank you for reading.", "qid": "50", "docid": "a48081b0-2019-04-18T19:55:32Z-00000-000", "rank": 76, "score": 81811.0}, {"content": "Title: US healthcare should be made universal Content: Just because a person has health care does not mean they will live longer happier lives. People do have the \"right\" to health care it mores of a matter of they can not afford it. Plus I don't want my taxes to go up because the junky down the street who has been in rehab multiply times is still being given treatment and medication though they chose to not change their lifestyle that will help them to stay away from their habit. There would still be a wait time because every emergency that happens that will be one more person in front of someone that has been on the \"waiting\" line for who knows how long. There are plenty of people out there that just chose not to have health care because they feel they do not need it. So now you would be forcing money out of their pocket for system they do not want in the first place. Then requiring more money in fines and possible jail time because they don't want to be in the system.", "qid": "50", "docid": "8af69e8a-2019-04-18T18:55:03Z-00002-000", "rank": 77, "score": 81778.0}, {"content": "Title: US healthcare should be made universal Content: Health care is a right for all Americans, the Preamble of the US Constitution states that one of its purpose is to \"promote the general welfare\" of the people. Just as all Americans have the right to a public education to help them in their future careers, they should have the right to health care because that promotes a healthier life. The United States is one of the few, developed nations in the world that does not guarantee health coverage for its citizens. Also by providing all citizens the right to health care it will stimulate growth for economic productivity. When people have access to health care, they live healthier and longer lives, they can then add to society for a longer time. The wait time would not be an issue if we had universal health care, once we start it everyone will be healthier because they have coverage so down the road fewer people will need to be waiting because they will be healthier from the start.", "qid": "50", "docid": "8af69e8a-2019-04-18T18:55:03Z-00003-000", "rank": 78, "score": 81774.0}, {"content": "Title: Universal Health Care Content: I will acknowledge my opponets deffinition for a Human right, but I will respectfully disagree. In my opinion, everyone should have access to medicine, and to a further degree, good health. I believe that everyone has the right to go to the doctors/hospital without fearing a bill. And the U.S. does remain the only Westeren Industialized nation that does not have universal health care for all of its' citizens. A couple of things that make this debate: *Cost Concerns *Socialism/Communism *Stripping Freedom of Choice *Wait Times for Medical Attention Cost Concern: My opponet breifly brought up the term free market solution. Remeber, this isn't a discussion about Price Chopper vs. Hanaford in the free market. This is not a free market issue. When someone in the middle to low ecconomic class gets hurt or ill, they are hesitant to go to the hospital because the \"Free\" market put a price on medical help. Now, how do we pay for Universal Health care, before I get carried away with the evils of HMOs. The fact is Federal studies by the Congressional Budget Office and the General Accounting office show that single payer universal health care would save 100 to 200 Billion dollars per year despite covering all the uninsured and increasing health care benefits. The costs of health care in Canada as a % of GNP, which were identical to the United States when Canada changed to a single payer, universal health care system in 1971, have increased at a rate much lower than the United States, despite the US economy being much stronger than Canada's. Universal Health Coverage is achievable, espically with the war ending, we could ensure the entire country, and have cash left over. HMOs are the current way of Health care in this country. These are corporations out to make and save money by dening people of medical care. This is the Free Market solution. Yeah but isn't this the first step to Socialism? Well, I don't hear any complaining about our Police Departments, Fire Departments, Public Schools, and Libraies. All socialized fractions of our great and free society. So if public schools and police departments are ok, than I guess medicine should be too. Stripping the freedom to choose what kind of plan you want. The...Free Market system, or a government run system. I think Obamas plan makes the most sense here. People can choose (under his health care plan) either to stick to their HMO or buy into the Governmentas universal coverage. Wait Times for Medical Attention. Americans alrewady wait for emergancy service in America. The ERs are full!! Sorry but I left this up for a little bit to go eat, and now I must get off the computer so I know this was short a sweet but...yeah. Thanks.", "qid": "50", "docid": "d19dfbb8-2019-04-18T19:42:56Z-00002-000", "rank": 79, "score": 81760.0}, {"content": "Title: the USA should have universal background checks Content: the USA should have universal background checks while it may be disputed the exact number, the commonly cited stat is that ninety percent of people support background checks, at least in general there's plenty of potential here- over 40% of gun sales involve no background checks. http://www.nij.gov... at the point of sale, back ground checks stop tons of people.... http://www.timesdispatch.com... what about the idea that they can just go get em illegally? or that we're stopping law abiding people? it's not even like people can't get access to guns, it would just limit who can get them so easily, or perhaps at all. not all criminals (or more often normal people who turn to criminals) are die hards who will stop at nothing to get a gun. The mother of the sandy hook shooter could have been someone who was rejected for a gun, and we have no reason to think she'd have been a black hoodie and went and got one, and by that the sandy hook shooting might not have occurred... just an example. if we've restricted the access to guns, surely it will have some positive effect. besides common sense, here are some points to consider as more evidence that not all will run to get an illegal gun. the more likely a person, state, or nation is to have guns, the more likely they are to have not just gun murders, but murders in general: the more likely you are to have a gun, the more likely you are to use it, or to have problems related to it. http://aje.oxfordjournals.org... a large study done at harvard showed that the more guns a state or country has, the more overall deaths they have. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu... also. what effect the overall national decline in firearm ownership from 1981 to 2010 had on gun homicides. The result was staggering: \"for each 1 percentage point increase in proportion of household gun ownership,\" Siegel et al. found, \"firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9R43; percent. the more likely a state is to have guns, the higher their gun homicide rate is.. in fact, up to twice as high. if the above link is established to be true, this should be self evident. https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net... and, you can argue 'people will just find other ways to kill' but it's contrary to the evidence above.... isn't it fair to conclude that the more likely you are to have a gun, the more likely you are to murder someone? In fact, our serious crime rate is about even with countries like Germany and Denmark, but our homicide rate is three times higher than either, largely the result of guns being used in criminal attacks. we might find outliers, state or city anecdotal evidence, but the overall picture is painted with the above evidence. think about common sense points too: -think of someone on jerry springer having their arguments in the front yard. don't you think they'd be more likely to run in and get a gun if they had one? do you think they'd run in and get a knife? not as likely. and even if it was just as likely, they'd be more likely to kill someone with a gun.... guns kill automatically, other weopons don't. -i know plenty of people who don't have guns, and when they get guns, are prone to talking about using it. this is a common mentality among street and poor folks. it's almost even human nature. -true, if you are dead set, pardon the pun, on killing, you can. but not having a gun to begin with, lowers the chances that you would kill. -and, are you willing to admit that one hundred of the people who are denied one would go get one? -and, are you willing to admit that having a gun doesn't cause anyone at all more prone to wanting to use it or kill someone? -if there's any doubt about whether checks will make a difference, why not just give it the benefit of the doubt given the only cost is mere inconvenience? the evidence is overwhelming.", "qid": "50", "docid": "a2b0b345-2019-04-18T15:54:36Z-00005-000", "rank": 80, "score": 81066.0}, {"content": "Title: Universal Health Care Content: Taxes is how the economy works, We may not like taxes, But it is an obligation to pay our taxes and respond accordingly. If there was a income-based health care tax, We would be able to use universal health care, Which was the ultimate goal of the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare). I can argue through this logic that if we can enact a health care tax so people without coverage, Can afford coverage without emptying their pockets. Every American deserves not to have health care bills that are astronomically high.", "qid": "50", "docid": "622170cf-2019-04-18T11:21:49Z-00003-000", "rank": 81, "score": 81027.0}, {"content": "Title: obamacare Content: Thanks for the quick reply 16kadams. ==Procedural note== Please disregard my opponent's videos. He can use them as sources, if and only if he advances their argument himself, in written form. I should not have to use my character limit to refute videos that are subject to no such limit. ==Burden of proof== My opponent says in round 1, \"I have to give a healthcare plan that will help everyone.\" It's easy to poke holes in a plan, but much harder to offer a viable alternative for universal health care. My opponent should already lose since he failed to offer an alternative. I only accepted this debate because he accepted the burden of proving there was a better universal health care regime. ==Rebuttal== R1) Mandated Insurance My opponent argues that mandating minimum coverage raises costs because people have the right to have crummy insurance. However, Obama answered this objection at the Blair House Summit. He explained that the goal of ANY universal health care system is to ensure that everyone has insurance that will cover them if they get ill. Obamacare requires people to have a basic level of insurance since certain insurance plans are hardly any better than NO insurance. The example Obama gives is the \"ACME\" insurance he had on his car when he was a young man. He got in an accident and called the insurance company and they LAUGHED IN HIS FACE. The insurance met the requirement of the law that \"everyone have car insurance,\" BUT his deductible was so high that the insurance didn't really cover any damages. Obamacare remedies this: it requires you get an insurance plan with a reasonable deductible. If someone had a deductible of $2 million, this means that their insurance will not \"kick in\" and start paying until they accrue $2 million of medical expenses. This is effectively the same thing as being uninsured. No \"universal health care\" regime could claim to be \"universal\" without this requirement. ACME insurance companies would merely spring up so people could meet the law's requirements, without \"actually\" being insured. The last important response is that this \"minimum coverage\" doesn't raise costs for people who are already insured. If you have insurance through your employer, your insurance DEFINITELY meets the minimum requirements. The mandated insurance only raises costs for people who currently pay nothing (are uninsured), since paying some premium is more than paying nothing. But Obamacare DOES lower the cost of insurance for these people, compared to what they would pay now. It does so in three main ways: 1) it provides 4 million tax credits to small businesses so they can insure their employees; 2) for people this doesn't cover, it sets up State Insurance Exchanges that aggregate individuals into a collective so they have the purchasing power to demand lower rates, much the same way large companies can demand lower rates in a competitive bidding process; 3) it offers a tax credit to families earning less than $88,000 per year. A study by the Department of Health and Human Services (using CBO data) found that State Insurance Exchanges would decrease the cost of purchasing insurance by $2,300 for a middle-class family. [1] The study further found that a low-income family of 4 could save $14,900 a year through the use of tax credits. [1] And the small business tax credits will save small businesses $6 billion a year. [1] In addition, Obamacare results in cost savings to people who are currently insured. There are two main ways: 1) by forcing young people to have insurance, insurance companies can reduce premiums for everyone since this low-risk group reduces the total liabilities an insurance company faces; 2) uninsured people cost insured people a lot of money. When an uninsured person needs medical care, they go to the emergency room (ER). 85% of ER visits are for such non-life threatening conditions. Since the hospital cannot recover their costs from the uninsured, they compensate for this by charging their INSURED customers more. This forces insurance companies to raise premiums. When the uninsured STOP using the ER as their free primary care facility, hospitals can start charging everyone normal rates and premiums go down. The HHS study found that employer insurance premiums would decline by $2,000 per family by 2019. [1] R2) Preventative Care Raises Costs My opponent argues that Obamacare REQUIRES preventative screening. This is untrue. It doesn't force anyone to get preventative screening. It merely forces insurance companies to waive the co-pay of APPROVED preventative screening (such as breast cancer screening when you are over 50). A few things to consider: First, co-pays are relatively small. My co-pay is $10. Waiving a $10 co-pay on my annual colonoscopy when I'm over 40 is HARDLY going to force insurance companies to raise premiums. Second, co-pays are only waived for APPROVED preventative care . The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has approved breast cancer screening for women over 50, for example, because it saves lives and money. [2] In fact, 12.5% of breast cancer survivors owe their lives to breast cancer screening. [2] Catching it early saves costly interventions later on down the line, like expensive experimental drugs. R3) Age Rating Bands My opponent discusses age rating bands, which mean that the elderly cannot be charged more than ______ times more than a young person. My opponent's Heritage evidence says a ratio of 3:1 was considered in the House, but never says whether this ratio made it into the final bill. I was unable to locate any such provision in the final bill. [3] In addition, many States already have age rating bands of 3:1 or even LOWER. [4] Nationally, premiums for the elderly are currently around 3 times that of premiums for people 18-24. [5] Thus the huge rate increases that Heritage cites are highly doubtful. In addition, Obamacare will also save people A LOT of money on their premiums. Obamacare requires that insurance companies spend between 80 and 85 percent of their money on medical care. No longer can they reap huge profits by dropping coverage for sick people and giving ridiculous bonus packages to executives. The General Accountability Office states that the 80 percent requirement is already forcing insurers to cut broker commissions and lower premiums; the new rule will save 9 million Americans $1.4 billion in the first year alone. [6] [7] R4) Excise taxes, etc My opponent claims Obamacare will tax the medical industry, which will raise premiums by 2.5%. This is a TINY increase in premiums considering the cost savings from the 80% rule and the uninsured no longer using the ER as their free primary care facility. This 2.5% increase would be MORE THAN offset. My opponent claims he will offer an alterative plan that can insure all Americans. I'm curious to see how he pays for it\u2026 R5) Covering pre-existing conditions Most people agree that forcing insurers to cover people with pre-existing conditions is an unqualified GOOD THING. It is one of the things that Republicans and Democrats both agreed on. For pre-existing conditions, not only did insurers used to refuse to cover the uninsured who had pre-existing conditions, but would also REFUSE TO RENEW coverage for people diagnosed with certain diseases (cancer, diabetes, etc). [3] What is the point of having insurance if they can DROP you when you get sick, as soon as your policy comes up for renewal? [8] Again, I'm curious how my opponent's universal health care system deals with this problem. The \"death spiral\" my opponent cites assumes that people will remain uninsured until they NEED coverage. This makes no sense \u2013 under Obamacare, people are REQUIRED to have insurance. There is no option of remaining uninsured. R6) Decreased quality of care My opponent claims there will be \"government-mandated procedures.\" Nowhere in Obamacare are doctors or patients forced to undergo certain procedures. My opponent claims, \"Rules WILL be put in place as to when doctors can perform expensive procedures.\" Two problems with this: first, Obamacare doesn't do this. My opponent uses future tense because this is not intrinsic to Obamacare. Second, insurance companies ALREADY do this. Nearly all insurance companies DO NOT COVER expensive \"experimental\" drugs or procedures (which is pretty much anything \"new\"). People can still attempt to pay for those procedures on their own, as they do now. ==My case== Obamacare is good. Insurance reform is key to saving the economy. Half of all bankruptcies are caused by medical bills. [9] I've already provided most of the reasons Obamacare will lower fees. By extending employer insurance to dependents up to age 26, Obamacare puts more young people in the insurance pool, thus lowering the overall liabilities of the insurance industry, meaning lower fees for everyone. Obamacare offers massive tax credits to help the poor afford insurance. Obamacare offers tax credits to small businesses so they can offer employer insurance to their workers. Obamacare creates State Insurance Exchanges so individual purchasers can use aggregated purchasing power to barter for lower fees, the same way large businesses do currently. Obamacare massively lowers premiums by preventing the uninsured from using the ER as a free primary care facility. And Obamacare caps industry profits by requiring that 80% of insurance companies' money goes to medical care, as opposed to corporate pay and hefty bonuses. Lastly, Obamacare requires insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions and does not allow them to drop coverage, which is the only fair thing to do. I eagerly await my opponent's counter-proposal on how to cover everyone. [1] http://www.healthcare.gov... [2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [3] http://www.healthcare.gov... [4] http://bangordailynews.com... [5] http://www.ahipresearch.org... [6] http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org... [7] http://www.healthcare.gov... [8] http://www.collinsbenefits.com... [9] http://www.msnbc.msn.com...", "qid": "50", "docid": "5dad2b09-2019-04-18T18:37:40Z-00006-000", "rank": 82, "score": 80888.0}, {"content": "Title: Is the Right Wing Better Than the Left Wing Content: I would like to argue your point that all three are key strengths in the free market system. Yes, a little welfare is fine. One trillion dollars of it? Not so much. I like how you referred to minimum wage as a \"living wage\". In all honesty a person does not need $10.25/hr. to live. People are doing just fine on the current one. Everyone would like to think that raising the minimum wage is such a wonderful and righteous thing to do. In fact, it would damage much more than it would help. UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE- Why should the government pay for your health care? Look at the countries you have provided in your little story abouy Walter White. Each of the economies is going to Hell in a handbasket. This is partiallly attributed to each providing health care to their citizens. It's funny you should bring up this fact. The only place I could find talking about the link between health care and mortgage default was SSRN. This is not exactly unbiased information, considering the whole organization was bulit upon how \"good\" social security is. Distributing universal health care has many downsides that you conviently side-stepped. Yes, it would dissuade people from clinging to low-end jobs. However, with universal health care comes great taxation. Especially on the small business owners. The small business owners happen to be the mostly the ones offering jobs that aren't considered low-end. if the small business owners get hit hard by the new tax, they will not keep offering those jobs. Thus leading to higher unemployment and fewer quality jobs. This point furthur points to the current incompatece of the Obama administration. If they facts you present are true, then why doesn't Obama (an undoubtly left-sided president) revoke the ACA? Your facts don't solidify the benefits of universal health care, they point to Obamacare's failure. WELFARE- The most overused word in the welfare arguement is opportunity. Why on Earth should a hard working business owner pay for a lazy bum's nessecites, when the bum isn't making a solid effort to find a job. Take Star Parker, an ex-welfare recepiant's, words as an example. \"The welfare system enslaves the poor on a subsidized plantation.\" She is 100% right. Look through the eyes of the welfare recipient. Why should they get up and find work if Uncle Sam is going to send them a check twice a month. They're the ones not taking the initiative to get a job, not recieving unequal opportunity. If a government is to cut back welfare spending, this is the idea. The market provides people with equal opportunity, some just don't take the innitiative. Free market capitalism has lead to the highest standard of living, for the mosft number of people, since the history of mankind. Liberalism is based on \"Robin Hood\" ideology; Take from the rich and give to the poor. Liberalism limits the upward progression of the masses. Why would anyone look for work if they recieve a check on the first and fifteenth of every month. A relocation of cash only reduces the already dim initiative of the 'less fortunate\" MINIMUM WAGE- Why on earth would someone doing fine on thier minimum wage salary suddenly get paid almost a 50% increase. They are doing a job that most likely is unskilled labor. (i. e. McDonalds) They are doing a job that pays quite handsomly for the amount of training and experience required. The more you pay a worker, the less you can afford to pay other workers. If you pay too much, you can;t fill other jobs. That is the main problem with a raise in the minimum wage. Unemployment will take a turn for the worst if the minimum wage increases, only putting more people on government subsidized programs. Do CEOs get payed a lot? Yes. Is it too much? Probably. However, the people working at McDonalds and the CEO of McDonalds have very different workloads.The CEO deserves to get payed many times the salary of the cashier. You seem to be preaching a less harsh punisment for petty crime. Petty crime that's left alone can grow into something much more malicious. I have upheld burden of proof that right wing governments are far more beneficial to a country than it's counterpart.", "qid": "50", "docid": "9fbb3568-2019-04-18T15:23:37Z-00001-000", "rank": 83, "score": 80648.0}, {"content": "Title: The United States should replace Obamacare with a universal Medicare for All System Content: Again: Challenged Premise: Everyone needs to be under one universal healthcare system.I will await my opponent to reply one more time before I go and post my arguments.", "qid": "50", "docid": "5fb07803-2019-04-18T15:26:29Z-00004-000", "rank": 84, "score": 80634.0}, {"content": "Title: Welfare Shouls not Be Abolished Content: Con claims that the option of welfare allows people to choose not to work for less than what they would get on welfare which decreases production, but even those who work for less than what the government offers in welfare qualify for welfare assistance. Why? Because freedom to contribute to production means nothing if one cannot excercise it. A minimun condition for contributing to production is that people must have their basic needs met. So to illustrate, a homeless person's job choices will be severly limited by his lack of address for correspondence or place to change and shower. Giving a person his basic human rights allow him to participate more productively in society. As in the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, basic needs are typically understood as \"food, clothing, housing, and medical care.\" All people have a right to such goods, and they should be provided if they do not already possess them. Therfore government is responsible for organizing the redistribution of the goods necessary to satisfy all society members' basic needs or of the money to purchase these goods\u2014hence, the social welfare system. The satisfaction of basic needs is of greater moral importance than an individual's right to spend earnings as he or she freely chooses. This is not merely a clashing of societal rights but a matter of life and death, malnutrition and nourishment, disease and health, ignorance and education. The study, Making Ends Meet: How Single Mothers Survive Welfare and Low-Wage Work, examines another significant barrier: the costs associated with going to work. Many women report difficulties in managing the hidden costs of working, including increased expenses for child care, medical care, transportation, housing and suitable clothing. Non-economic costs such as accommodating parenting responsibilities and other family management issues were mentioned. The study noted that women who were able to work steadily benefited from a combination of \"special circumstances,\" such as co-residence with relatives, free childcare by a friend or relative, receipt of regular and substantial child support, and access to transportation. (Edin & Lein) Thus, those who don't have such special help from relatives and friends must be aided by the welfare system. This is not a case of women just choosing not to work willy-nilly, but mothers with real difficulties and no other options. In Personal and Family Challenges to the Successful Transition from Welfare to Work, 90% of welfare recipients analyzed from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth experience barriers that limited their employment. Barriers noted in the report, in rank order, were: low basic skills, substance abuse, a health limitation, depression, and a child with chronic medical condition or disability. The most prevalent logistical barriers to successful employment, noted within this study as well as within the national Family Support Act are: child care, and transportation. (ibid) The Institute for Research on Poverty did a seven-study review to outline and understand factors that prevent welfare recipients from working steadily and earning a living wage. Based on the review, nine sets of potential barriers to employment and self-sufficiency were identified: low schooling, little work experience, lack of the job skills and credentials employers value, lack of \"work readiness,\" worries about employer discrimination, mental health problems, alcohol and drug dependence, physical health problems and family stresses, and experiences of domestic violence. (Kalil) I agree that some of the above may be the result of bad choices, but not all, and we can't punish genuine cases of unavoidable need in order to punish those who made silly choice. Also, there are social forces that push people into making bad decisions. Because of how one was raised and limited resources, education etc, one can't be blames for making certain mistakes. Deep depression can naturally cause peeople to become drug dependant. There are genuine sorrows in life that lead to depression. What kind of unforgiving, loveless, me-first-screw-everyone-else societies are we building when we say \"you make your bed, lie in it!\" to these people? Do we not at times need a little help to? To remove welfare is to take the humanity out of society. Data from the Urban Institute in Washington D.C.profiling the U.S. welfare population shows that welfare recipients are mostly single mothers in their 20s-30s with one or two children; 90% of welfare recipients are single mothers, 10% married, 36% divorced/widowed/separated, 54% never married. What is a single mother to do with her two children when the only jobs she qualifies for can't even afford to pay both day care for her kids and the rent at the same time? I believe the need justifies the welfare offer. We can blame her for her decisions, be she is only human. So she believe him when he said he loved her, she moved in with him and gave him two kids, then he abandons her. He leaves her with two kids and rent ot pay. Blaming her solves nothing. What of women who are raped and get pregnant that way? Will we now say that was her fault too? 84% of welfare recipients have no college education. Many things in life hinder one's education, so its not their fault they can't get a big time job. But contrary to the stereotype that most welfare recipients are lazy and unwilling to work, majority of welfare recipients (70%) have recent work experience. In 2004, according to the National Survey of American Families, of the total number of African-Americans receiving AFDC or TANF benefits, about 28% were working full-time and about 26% were working part-time, bringing the total of African-Americans on welfare who had some form of employment to 54%. The National Survey ofAmerican Families, in 1997, reported that about 40% of all welfare recipients reported genuine barriers to employment which include poor eduction, lack of child care, and poor physical and mental health. These statistics flatly contradict the claim that the typical African-American welfare recipient is unemployed and unwilling to find work, and reveals the underling gross over-generalization in the elaboration of the anti-welfare campaign myth. The notion that the typical welfare recipient is lazy and unwilling to work ignores the fact that welfare recipients have significantly higher barriers to employment than the average of the population. The level of educational attainment and not laziness is a significant predictor of whether a woman would be a welfare recipient or not. Most welfare recipients qualify only for jobs in low-wage secondarymarkets with the jobs being often temporary and seasonal or part time nature. The jobs offer unstable hours and with no health-care nor family leave benefits. The need for child care and transportation assistance is also a major barrier to employment. About two-thirds of welfare recipients tested on the Armed Forces Qualifying Test, which is considered a strong measure of future employment earnings, show that most individuals on welfare score on the bottom quartile (lowest 25%). Low scores correlate to low-wage jobs and, therefore, a need for continued welfare income support. Women with low skills find it very difficult to find steady employment and generally tend to long periods of unemployment interspersed with short periods of low paying seasonal or unstable jobs. In short, most women on welfare are on welfare because they are largely unemployable rather than lazy and unwilling to find work. Many opponents of expanded welfare program complain that welfare recipients stay on welfare for too long and tend to become addicted to welfare and and are unwilling to find work. But official statisticshave shown that 80% of recipients spend five years and below on welfare and that only 20% spent more than 5 years. The poor aren't lazy, just unluky. Life is unkine to the best of us.", "qid": "50", "docid": "254b60a3-2019-04-18T18:41:45Z-00004-000", "rank": 85, "score": 80328.0}, {"content": "Title: All Countries Should Use the Same Currency Content: Thanks DoctorDeku. He mentioned that he will not be focusing on a specific currency. I\u2019d just like to reiterate that my arguments are not bound to the Euro. It is just an example because it is the only modern example we have of a universal currency. I. A Universal Currency Would Be Convenient Eliminating exchange rates is not a good idea. They deprive countries of the ability to control their economic policy. If a country is experiencing a recession, it should depreciate its currency so as to make exports look more profitable to foreigners and to discourage imports, in order to create a trade surplus. However, eliminating exchange rates ends this. Countries can no longer set exchange rates to help in recessions. If exchange rates are too high forprofitable exports, then it\u2019s too bad for that country. The problems with this can be seen in Spain.[1] I\u2019ll concede that using a foreign currency at home may cause tension, but no system is perfect. However, having a universal currency would not affect tax revenues. For example, a 10% flat tax on income is 10% of all income, no matter the medium. II. A Universal Currency Would Solve Dishonest Trade Tactics First of all, as the article points out, China is not suppressing its currency: \u201cBut there is little evidence the central bank is intervening on a large scale to suppress the value of the renminbi\u2026 The renminbi has been under downward pressure because Chinese businesses and households have been moving more money out of the country to diversify their investments and hedge against the possibility of a political change at home.\u201d[2] In fact, \u201cWhen a boom goes bust, devaluing currency is the least bad way for governments to rein in wages and prices that are suddenly too high. But if you use the same currency as another country that isn\u2019t in dire straits, good luck convincing them to accept devaluation on your nation\u2019s behalf.\u201d[3] There\u2019s nothing really wrong with devaluing a currency to get out of an economic recession. Finally, I see no correlation in dishonest stockmarket tactics and many currencies after reading his two articles (well reading the abstract of the first one). I ask my opponent give more information on this supposed correlation. III. A Universal Currency Would Encourage Cultural Diffusion I admit, it is a hassle to go to another country and have to use a different currency. However, it\u2019s not the end of the world. It\u2019s easy to get Sweden\u2019s currency made into Norway\u2019s (as long as you are in either country). These days, currency \u201cvending machines\u201d are everywhere. It is easier than ever to change your dollars into, say, Euros. Next, it is also not that big of a hassle to use money in other countries. Every time I have traveled, I have had such an easy time getting currency that I wouldn\u2019t even consider it a hassle. It\u2019s a price we have to pay for having the right to dictate our own economy in the ever-globalizing world. And with that globalization, it has become easier than ever to get the currency you need at the proper exchange rate. A universal currency would not encourage cultural diffusion any more than we already have it. IV. A Universal Currency Would Encourage Equality I don\u2019t understand why my opponent thinks that we cannot clearly see another countries\u2019 standard of living and classify people on a global scale because of separate currencies. All you have to do is divide a countries\u2019 GDP by its population and translate that value into the currency you want through exchange rates. We do it for all countries. And again, I don\u2019t understand why my opponent thinks that we cannot see that the US is better off overall than many countries. We don\u2019t need a global currency to see that. That\u2019s what GDP percapita statistics are for. In fact, by putting the world under a universal currency, it will harm smaller economies that have not taken off yet by disallowing them from devaluating their currency to expand their economy, thus making the gap bigger. Conclusion While presenting a solid case, my opponent has several fallacies in his case. For example, many of his sources only back up half or less of his argument. For example, his sources 4 and 5 mention various forms of dishonest stock market tactics, but do not attribute it to separate currencies. My opponent has never proven that point, and several other points in that fashion. He also contains a few fallacies where he thinks a universal currency will help promote equality. One, he hasn\u2019t proven that a universal currency will help us see our position in the world better, and he hasn\u2019t proven why a universal currency would promote equality in the first place. I even showed how a universal currency harms equality. Not one of his arguments that even make sense hold a candle in comparison to countries being able to dictate their own economic-policies; not a one-size-fits-all policy that will screw up most countries under it. That is vitally important to a countries\u2019 well-being and eventual prosperity, no matter the size or condition.Sources [1]: http://www.nytimes.com...[2]: http://www.nytimes.com...[3]: http://www.wired.com...", "qid": "50", "docid": "5d1e2a1d-2019-04-18T17:52:47Z-00001-000", "rank": 86, "score": 80210.0}, {"content": "Title: The US Government should grant universal healthcare to its citizens. Content: The government should only protect the basic rights of people, to protect the pursuit of happiness and prevent theft. Murder is stealing another's life and scams steal people's money, but who steals when one becomes ill? No one. Many governments will do more than protect its people's rights; they do charity work by giving people things they never worked for. Now I'm all for charity work if you are a charity organization or you are a person willingly giving up money to another out of compassion. However, what dignity is gained by giving money unwillingly to the government so that the government may act out its people's charity. Univ. healthcare is a charity in that the government takes more money from the rich to pay for the healthcare of the poor. Univ. healthcare is not free, it will in fact be more expensive. The healthy will pay the burden of those living less-healthy lifestyles, i.e. smokers. Finally, its such a complex process that will never be efficient and is better left alone.", "qid": "50", "docid": "3ffe2c14-2019-04-18T18:54:28Z-00002-000", "rank": 87, "score": 80106.0}, {"content": "Title: The US Government should grant universal healthcare to its citizens. Content: Universal health care should be open to all citizens. The United States has made health care for many residents unaffordable; even through businesses. People who are sick are not focused on getting better anymore, they are focused on whether or not they can pay for treatment. Doctors as well are also focusing on whether or not they will receive payment for this treatment. Knowing that many other areas in the world have universal health care shows it's not impossible for the United States to inquire; the transition may be a tough one as well as a shock to many, but it is definitely something the United States can do.", "qid": "50", "docid": "3ffe2c14-2019-04-18T18:54:28Z-00003-000", "rank": 88, "score": 79939.0}, {"content": "Title: USA should have universal background checks Content: ok", "qid": "50", "docid": "978935e9-2019-04-18T15:59:13Z-00001-000", "rank": 89, "score": 79821.0}, {"content": "Title: Universal health care nuts should also be in favor of universal food, shelter, clothing, etc. Content: \"they are not \"nuts\" but rather concerned (and sometimes desperate) Americans who are enforcing their constitutional right to call for change.\" But you could say the same of those who would call for universal food, clothing and shelter-- the likes of whom me and most of America would consider a little \"nuts.\" So I see (and many others) the UHC crowd as no different. They don't deserve preferencial treatment. \"But none of these programs provide these core necessities to everyone universally.\" You reply: \"This is true....because there is not enough funding in the tax budget to distribute to everyone.\" So you think we should implement universal health care simply because we can afford to. I gather you would also be in favor of universal food and shelter if we could afford to do that too. The truth is we can. We can afford to do it all. We can actually afford (if we pooled all our resources) to create an entire country full of dependents and provide their every need. And again, that is called communism. Just because we(or the unfortunate minority you will have paying for this)can afford something is not cause enough to implement it. \"Americans don't want to raise taxes for universal food, shelter and clothing, because that would essentially turn us into a communist nation.\" Why not? If their in favor of doing it for health care, then why not for the more important needs in life? You still fail to address this inconsistency. \"Specifically making health care universal would NOT turn us into a communist nation, as is demonstrated by other countries who implement universal health care and are not communist (i.e. Canada, Britain and France).\" But it we know they are capable of it, and it could be easily argued they they should go all the way. After all it doesn't make any logical sense to offer one of life's needs over those that are more important. They, like UHC proponents in our country are simply inconsistent. And, as I have said, if they were consistent, they would be communists. \"One could buy food to live with just a few dollars a day; however, some medical care and costs can be thousands upon thousands of dollars.\" When is the last time you saw the price of house? Clothing, rent and rood are by far more costly than private health insurance currently available. Policies for young people are particularly affordable (from as little as $80-$150 per month depending on coverage). Most of the 18-to-25-year-old whiners who are pushing for Obama and his assortment of freebies are simply blowing off getting health insurance and opting for car payments and cell phone bills instead. You for instance-- I'll bet you had no health insurance at the time of your accident but were able to use your Samsung text your friends and family to let them know you were okay. \"The middle class often cannot afford health insurance while they CAN afford food, shelter and clothing.\" Yet I don't know many middle class without nicer cars than they really need, cell phones for most every family member and DSL service for their multitude of home computers. Let's not forget video game equipment and flat-screen TVs. The people in this country who TRULY cannot afford health insurance are a very small minority of those who do not have it. And these people (just as those with no food, shelter, and clothing) should have some TEMPORARY relief available if their situation truly warrants it. There will always be poor people (by choice or circumstance), but that is no excuse for socialism. \"my opponent has tried to conclude that it is not logical for one to support universal health care and not support universal food; however, he is trying to draw a link where there is none.\" I thought you would need to get creative to reconcile the inconsistency we have been discussing up to this point, but denying the inconsistency exists at all is a bit of a stretch. After rounds of discussing the inconsistency we have both already acknowledged, you are now claiming there is no inconsistency whatsoever because \"no link can be drawn\" between one human need and another. I'm going to give you a hall pass on this one and move on with our debate. \"While I do deem food a greater necessity than health care in general (in terms of life or death), that does not mean that we - as a nation - need universal food more than we need universal health care.\" There's that inconsistency again. But again, no real defense for it has been put forth. But at least you're acknowledging we still have a debate topic at all.", "qid": "50", "docid": "1215c0b1-2019-04-18T19:42:30Z-00001-000", "rank": 90, "score": 79802.0}, {"content": "Title: Universal Health Care Content: I think you hit the nail on the head when you asked why overpaid CEOs do not offer their employees benefits. This is a great question as it is not the government's responsibility to provide health benefits, But the employers. The employer should be doing this, But this does not absolve the employee from personal responsibility for attaining healthcare. By the time someone is 28, They should be able to care for them sufficiently to find a job with benefits. My mother has worked at Walmart for over 30 years, And my younger brother for probably 20. Both have healthcare benefits. Not everyone there gets benefits as most are part time and/or temporary, But if you are full time, You can receive benefits. Most people work within driving distance of a Walmart. Costco, Lowe's, REI (best outdoor store), Target, Trader Joe's, Staples and Whole Foods all offer health insurance, Including to part time workers (but by 28 you do not have an excuse to not be working full time). For fast food, In-N-Out (best burger chain ever), And Starbucks, Offer benefits. I believe you would be hard pressed to find anywhere in the USA that did not have a Walmart or Starbucks within a reasonable commuting distance, Then you throw in all the other shops, And one is left without excuse. If the burger joint, Or retail store you are working at does not offer benefits, Take responsibility for yourself and find one that does. Better yet, Move outside of fast food and get a career. Move if you need to. Citizens should not be forced to cover the cost of health care due to others their lack of accountability on finding health care. Regardless of this, Fast food and retail is not a career. Yes my mother has worked at Walmart for a long time, And I guess for her it has become a career, But she does it in order for the family to have benefits, While my father works (actually retired) at a higher paying job. If you have a two income family, At least one person can get benefits for the both of you at a minimum at somewhere like Walmart. The question to me is not only about taking funds by force and redistributing it, But also how the cost will be covered. In 2015 our government spent 3. 8 trillion dollars. Universal healthcare is estimated to cost 32 trillion dollars over the course of ten year. This would not double our taxes, But pretty close. Our country already spends more money than it brings in with taxes, Can we really afford to double our spending?", "qid": "50", "docid": "622170cf-2019-04-18T11:21:49Z-00000-000", "rank": 91, "score": 79736.0}, {"content": "Title: The US Government should grant universal healthcare to its citizens. Content: Thank you for the opportunity to express my views on the issue of why the US Government should grant universal healthcare. My opponent states that \"Universal healthcare should not be granted by the US Government\". Although the reasoning is unclear, I would like to point out that universal healthcare is already implemented in some countries along with private healthcare optionally available(a). The main focus should be the well being of American citizens. If one were fall ill, or to injury, they should have access to be treated, otherwise who knows what other problems will arise from one incident.According to (b)over 15%(46.3 million) of Americans are uninsured, 10% of which have been uninsured for over a year. There is also much to be said about low income jobs with insurance availability, unpaid medical expenses, and healthcare cost in general. A: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_healthcare B: www.emaxhealth.com/1506/cdc-number-americans-without-health-insurance-coverage-", "qid": "50", "docid": "3ffe2bd6-2019-04-18T18:54:44Z-00002-000", "rank": 92, "score": 79717.0}, {"content": "Title: Universal Suffrage in Hong Kong Content: Here are my rebuttals: \"There seems, therefore, little need for a welfare state in Hong Kong - only the minority of people at the margins of society would benefit from a welfare state whereas the majority of citizens have no need for state welfare and would not, therefore, vote for a politician that argued that taxes should increase to pay for it. \" Not only the minority benefits from a welfare state. Everyone does. When taxes are decreased, everyone pays less; when healthcare is increased, everyone gets more benefits. Although there might seem to be no need for a welfare state, that will not stop people from wanting one, as everyone welcomes policies that benefit them. Taxes will actually increase, as the tax rebate percentage will become lower, the money used for welfare. \"Regarding tax, Hong Kong has one of the lowest rates of corporate and salary taxes in the world. \" Hong Kong has very low tax, but that does not mean prices of products will not increase because of a slightly higher tax rate. It\"s all simple math. The tax increases by ten dollars; the price increases by ten or even more. The cost of production increases by one dollar; the price increases by one dollar or more. In the end, the consumers/customers still suffer. \"So we can see that the average person in Hong Kong earns a very good salary and pays very little tax and, therefore, has a high disposable income. Property is expensive in Hong Kong, true, but it is still less expensive than London\"\" No, the average person in Hong Kong does not earn a very good salary. The average annual income in Hong Kong is 530,530 HKD, which is 66,316 USD. However, the average annual income in New York, another metropolis, is 87,026 USD! In New Jersey, it is 76,962 USD; and in Washington State, 77,584 USD. The average annual salaries in Rhode Island, Nevada, Utah, California, Colorado, Georgia etc are all higher than that in Hong Kong! (Refer to: www. averagesalarysurvey. com) The reason why Hong Kong has a high average salary is because of a few billionaires, such as Li Ka Shing, the 8th richest person in the world according to Forbes, having a net worth of US 31 billion, the world's largest operator of container terminals and the world's largest health and beauty retailer. Li Shao Ki, another billionaire, has a net worth of US 17 billion, is ranked the 24th, and the Kwok family ranked the 26th . However, not many billionaires live in the mentioned places that are as rich as Li, and considering that Hong Kong has a smaller population than a state in the US despite having a dense population, the average salary is pulled up. (Refer to: . http://www.forbes.com...) Secondly, I would like you to check out this site: . http://www.thepovertyline.net... You will find that, to be under the poverty line in Hong Kong is easier than in the US, and if you click into the respective \"countries\" under the Developed Countries tab, you will find that things are cheaper in the US than in Hong Kong. I would like to note that my opponent has not rebutted my point about a universal suffrage election in the LegCo leading to the emergence of populism, and that although there might not be need for Hong Kong to be a welfare state, it does not mean the people will not want more welfare.", "qid": "50", "docid": "1773f4fe-2019-04-18T17:42:45Z-00003-000", "rank": 93, "score": 79650.0}, {"content": "Title: Universal Health Coverage Content: \"What about the people who work two jobs and can barely feed their families? What about all of the factory workers being laid off? What about the millions of unemployed Americans who cannot afford health care?\" -Im not saying they dont need it. They do. Ive already addressed that. What I'm saying is, How is it fair to those who have earned enough money to pay their own way that those who haven't win a free ride? \"This is the slippery slope argument, making a last comeback from the grave. I do not propose that we pay people's bills for them, nor does anybody. What I do propose is that we provide health insurance for all of our citizens, based on need. If you want a country example, look at the booming economies in Germany, or Britain, or Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark, Italy, Spain, The Netherlands, - Oh, that's right! The USA is the only developed country not to provide health care for those who can't afford it!\" - but thats just it!! you ARE proposing we pay everyone's bills. Need I remind you??? You said, \"I propose that it [the government] purchase insurance (at discount, because of the number of plans that it would purchase) to cover those who cannot afford\" insurance.\" Insurance is a bill. What makes it any different from paying their water bill? They still need water to survive. Furthermore, my point is that if you start giving away free money, IT WILL NEVER STOP. Also, all of the countries you listed do have universal healthcare. They all also have poor economies and more civil unrest than we do. The United States may not have univeral healthcare, but we have a thriving economy and a good work ethic. The reason for that??? We haven't submitted to socialistic views on citizenship. Our free-market economy continues to thrive because we have not given free money. We have not SPOILED our citizens and we should not start now. \"OK. Now who's proposing socialized medicine? How much would this cost? Where does the money come from? It's millions, maybe billions or trillions more than my plan. This creates a massive government bureaucracy, and I thought that conservatism was against massive government. Oh, pardon me.\" - Maintaining low quality clinics would not be any more than paying monthly fees for insurance until the end of time. It would be next to nothing to fund anyway. With the removal of Medicare, you could already almost fund it. You under estimate how much we pour into medicare every year. That tied onto your proposed tax repeals and outsider donations would easily cover those costs. Also, My plan is not by any stretch of the imagination socialism. It is quite the opposite. It leaves people insentive to move up without a government piggy-back. It encourages people to work harder for better things. Your plan just wants to ride through the streets on a giant bus throwing money out to the poor. Giving free money is socialism. Not encouraging people to work harder. I would like to emphasize the difference again My plan gives people who need it healthcare, but leaves plenty of incentive to move up. Your plan just gives everyone free money. How can you honestly say that mine is socialism and yours is not??? Giving people free healthcare, will lead to them want more free government giveaways. The more they whine, the more people give it to them. It is the first step down a road we DO NOT want to go down. Socialzed healthcare is NOT the answer, and your plan IS socialized healthcare.", "qid": "50", "docid": "69f9cd05-2019-04-18T20:00:23Z-00000-000", "rank": 94, "score": 79640.0}, {"content": "Title: USA should have universal background checks Content: USA should have universal background checks while it may be disputed the exact number, the commonly cited stat is that ninety percent of people support background checks. there's plenty of potential here- over 40% of gun sales involve no background checks. at the point of sale, back ground checks stop tons of people.... http://www.timesdispatch.com... what about the idea that they can just go get em illegally? it's not even like people can't get access to guns, it would just limit who can get them so easily, or perhaps at all. not all criminals (or more often normal people who turn to criminals) are die hards who will stop at nothing to get a gun. if we've restricted the access to guns, surely it will have some positive effect. besides common sense, here are some points to consider as more evidence that not all will run to get an illegal gun: besides states and countries, i can also cite a study that says that the more likely you are to have a gun, the more likely you are to use it, or to have problems related to it. http://aje.oxfordjournals.org... a large study done at harvard showed that the more guns a state or country has, the more overall deaths they have. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu... what effect the overall national decline in firearm ownership from 1981 to 2010 had on gun homicides. The result was staggering: \"for each 1 percentage point increase in proportion of household gun ownership,\" Siegel et al. found, \"firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9R43; percent. i can also cite a study that says that the more likely a state is to have guns, the higher their gun homicide rate is.. in fact, up to twice as high. if the above link is established to be true, this should be self evident. https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net... and, you can argue 'people will just find other ways to kill' but it's contrary to the evidence above.... isn't it fair to conclude that the more likely you are to have a gun, the more likely you are to murder someone? In fact, our serious crime rate is about even with countries like Germany and Denmark, but our homicide rate is three times higher than either, largely the result of guns being used in criminal attacks. we might find outliers, state or city anecdotal evidence, but the overall picture is painted with the above evidence. think about common sense points too: -think of someone on jerry springer having their arguments in the front yard. don't you think they'd be more likely to run in and get a gun if they had one? do you think they'd run in and get a knife? not as likely. /// i know plenty of people who don't have guns, and when they get guns, are prone to talking about using it. this is a common mentality among street and poor folks.it's almost even human nature. -and, are you willing to admit that one hundred of the people who are denied one would go get one? -and, are you willing to admit that having a gun doesn't cause anyone at all more prone to wanting to use it or kill someone? -if there's any doubt about whether checks will make a difference, why not just give it the benefit of the doubt given the only cost is mere inconvenience? the evidence is overwhelming.", "qid": "50", "docid": "978935e9-2019-04-18T15:59:13Z-00003-000", "rank": 95, "score": 79413.0}, {"content": "Title: The United States needs Universal Healthcare. Content: I will take it easy on you. Lets face it man, we all want to help people and everyone should be given care in our society. We try and do what we can but everyone cannot be happy. It is ridiculous the amount of money it costs for things these days. Some would say that is because only the strong can survive. I know this cynical but it really is the truth. I wish that people could afford care but sometimes technology use causes payments to excessive. Many people are extremely quick to jump on the \"free\" health care bandwagon. The only thing that attracts these people is one word, \"free\". What these people fail to realize is that with free health care comes inadequate doctors, third-rate facilities, months of waiting for care, and a higher cost of living in general. Though it is easy to say the government should be expected to pay for health care, it is not so easy to tell a doctor who has dedicated his entire life to medicine, that he does not deserve to get paid for his efforts. The reason we find the majority of the best doctors in the United States, is because they get paid for their craft, and they get paid well. Why would a doctor who has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in schooling, and the better part of the first thirty years of his life learning, go work in a place where he cannot maximize his income, or make a greater benefit to his cause? There is enough need in the United States and the rest of the world for any doctor who wants to donate his service for free, to do so, and they do. I can only assume that most want to get paid. History has shown that socialized health care does not work. If we had free health care in the United States, our economy would pay the price, as would the people. We complain about having to wait three or four hours to see a doctor, could you imagine waiting three or four months to see a doctor who you knew wasn't the best? We would wait a lot longer than a few hours if nobody was paying for their services. The reason we have so many hospitals, and doctors to fill them, is because we pay. Before you ask for something for free, make sure you see what you're getting.", "qid": "50", "docid": "fb9d1caa-2019-04-18T19:57:07Z-00000-000", "rank": 96, "score": 79234.0}, {"content": "Title: The US Federal Government should implement universal college for all. Content: Ive only done one debate before, but I'll do it!", "qid": "50", "docid": "23e3f28-2019-04-18T12:54:58Z-00002-000", "rank": 97, "score": 79199.0}, {"content": "Title: The United States should implement universal health care modeled after the french system. Content: Sorry for the confusion. Billy is still alive (although maybe like the guy in Monty Python and the Holy Grail), he just can't work. Second, don't defer me to a website like that. I don't defer people looking for facts to Michael Moore (although he is amazing). But anyhow, the edges of the spectrum like to stretch the truth, and that is no exception. I found the article, and, since I haven't found that \"fact\" anywhere else, I find it hard to believe. And the average cost of healthcare, for Billy, might be 300% of his paycheck. It might cost more to the rich guys, but you can see how beautifully the Bush tax cuts worked, based on the same principle that you speak of. It is a sad thing, there really is no such thing as free healthcare. Somebody has to pay. Truth is, just as the French have to pay for extra coverage, we don't need a comprehensive system. We just need basic necessities, paid for in a fair way. I wish I had more space, but basically, health is something we all deserve.", "qid": "50", "docid": "2540d7ca-2019-04-18T19:27:56Z-00000-000", "rank": 98, "score": 79094.0}, {"content": "Title: Universal Health Care Content: In the past 4 years the unemployment rate has increased more than 4%*, that means more than 25 million people lost their jobs, it wasn't their fault, that current government made decisions that were \"supposed\" to improve economy,but it result in the opposite: the economy fall. Now even some people who have stable jobs cant afford a medical treatment, cholesterol prescribed drugs average is about 80** dollars a month, the government has to respond for all those people. It shouldn't be guaranteed for people with high incomes, but its a necessity for the all the unemployed people. The doctors is an essential issue in the free health care. The Hippocratic oath*** is an oath they take,swearing to practice medicine ethically; in that concept ethically means with no distinction of class,sex or race. That doesn't mean they have to it freely or obligated. Theirs jobs are not going to be paid less, a economic principle is that the higher demand of the service, the higher it should be payed.", "qid": "50", "docid": "62216d2d-2019-04-18T18:54:53Z-00002-000", "rank": 99, "score": 78889.0}, {"content": "Title: The United States ought to guarantee universal healthcare for it citizens Content: C1. The State must provide HC It is a part of its obligation to protect citizens, Gary E. Jones, professor of Philosophy explains, \"the proper function of the State is to provide basic protection to its citizens (then) there seems to be a basis for the right to at least minimal health care. At the national level, the State is charged with the protection of the national citizenry. In so far as this refers to the citizenry taken as individuals, it would seem that the State has an obligation to protect individuals from threats to life. At local level, the existence of publicly funded protective services suggests that at least health care for imminent threats to life from illness or accident should be publicly funded. It is flatly inconsistent to publicly fund protection by police and fire agencies of not only life but trivial forms of property, and yet place medical treatment in emergency cases on a fee for service basis. Consideration of either level of government shows that some governmental responsibility for health care is indicated.\" As it is generally agreed that the state has an obligation to protect its citizens from substantial threats to life and it has been agreed upon that this encompasses police force and firefighters it would rightly follow that this too must encompass health care, if lack thereof is deemed a substantial threat to life in the country. C2. Our Current System is Bad a.The US TRAILS MANY OTHER COUNTRIES IN MULTIPLE HEALTH INDICATORS, Lobosky explains, \" The WHOs data bank provides a reasonably accurate accounting of the health status of member countries. How does the American health system measure up? Life expectancy is a place to begin. American men can expect to live seventy-five years and American women eighty years. Those figures tie for twenty-ninth and thirtieth in the world. Infant mortality in the US ranks thirty-third in the world. Maternal mortality rates are not much better; the US is ranked thirtieth. Canada, with the so-called horrendous health system, loses 5 mothers per 1,000 live births. Select almost any of the parameters studied by the WHO and the US system falls short in almost every single category: cancer-related deaths (ninety-ninth), deaths from heart disease (twenty-sixth), childhood deaths from pneumonia (twenty-fourth), mortality rates from traumatic injuries (fifty-seventh) These figures are unsettling,\" The United States ranks poorly in relation to the rest of the industrialized world (on a side note the United States is the only industrialized nation in the world to not have universal healthcare and to view access to healthcare as a commodity) b.US HEALTH SYSTEM BROKEN \" SPEND MORE FOR A LOT LESS THAN OTHER COUNTRIES Handler, a Medical Professor explains, \"The health-care delivery system in America is indefensible. $2 trillion fuels the system, some 16 percent of our national productivity. If we were all covered, that\"s more than $6,500 per person. About 40 percent of us can\"t afford the care we are told we need, either because we are inadequately insured or payments out of pocket would bankrupt us. Medical bills broke the back of over 40 percent who declare bankruptcy, this sorry state continues to deteriorate. Clearly the cause is not a lack of money. Every other resource-advantaged country indemnifies their entire population with less, usually far less, than half we expend \" and with better national health statistics\" The United States is currently spending more than any other country yet trails in multiple health indicators. c.Approximately 100,000 people die annually in the U.S. due to lack of universal healthcare. A study done by Boyd in 2012 explains, \"of the 19 industrialized nations studied, the United States came in dead last , Researchers tracked deaths that could have been prevented by access to timely and effective health care, They estimated 101,000 people die prematurely in the United States each year because of lack of timely access to medical care.. Almost 50 million Americans lack insurance, and in a private health care system like ours, that means they also lack access to effective and appropriate care. The fact that other countries are reducing these preventable deaths more rapidly, yet spending far less, indicates that policy, goals and efforts to improve health systems make a difference. As shown in Subpoint a, the United States ranks poorly in regard to health indicators, as shown by subpoint b the United States spends more, now as shown by subpoint c many people are dying as a result. d.NUMBER OF UNINSURED AMERICANS CONTINUES TO GROW \" UNIQUE AMONG DEVELOPED COUNTRIES. Derickson, professor of Labor relations at Penn States explains, \"Since 1980, the number of uninsured Americans, the vast majority of whom are members of working families has risen. The revelation that the ranks of the uninsured swelled from 33 million in 1983, a year of severe recession, to 37 million in 1986, a year of buoyant recovery, underscored both the immensity of the problem and the degree to which this problem afflicted the employed as well as the unemployed. Canada, France, Germany, Italy, every other country in the civilized world provides its citizens with the dignity of accessing health care without having to beg for it.\" The United States\" problem is only getting worse C3. Universal Health Care is good a.Health is a prerequisite to achieving ends and exercising rights, Hurley explains, \"Health is ethically good to the extent that it contributes to the realization of the ultimate end sought-happiness, capabilities and functionings, fulfillment of a rational life plan, health is often accorded special ethical significance because it is necessary to achieving most intermediate and ultimate ends. Ill health represents a time of considerable vulnerability and dependency on others, giving society's response to those who suffer illness and injury particular ethical salience. \" When one is unhealthy one is impeded from achieving their own ends and pursuing happiness. When one is ill, liberty and responsibility quickly turn to dependency therefore health is necessary to achieve most ends while retaining independence. b.THE ADVANTAGES OF UNIVERSAL COVERAGE ACCRUE TO EVERYONE, NOT JUST INDIVIDUALS WHO USE THEIR INSURANCE, Murray explains, \"Major advantages from universal or near-universal coverage of the population accrue to virtually everyone. In regard to efficiency, these include more accessible preventive care, lower inappropriate use of emergency rooms (which operate as providers of last resort for the uninsured), freedom from financial and care-giving burdens placed on others by the uninsured, and lower absenteeism and more reliable productivity from a workforce that can access basic health services. In regard to justice, these advantages include the presence of well and ill alike in a common pool for sharing the costs of care, so that no one finds fair equality of opportunity in life blocked by the direct expense of illness or insurance. This avoids situations where people fail to pay into insurance pools because they believe they are well enough not to need insurance, only to have to be bailed out by others who end up providing them significant care.\" Universal healthcare would be beneficial to everyone c.Upholding life is the ultimate moral standard. Rasmussen a Professor of Philosophy at Bellarmine and St. John's explains, \"the ultimate end as the standard by which all other ends are evaluated. Life as the sort of thing a living entity is, then, is the ultimate standard of value, and since only human beings are capable of choosing their ends, it is the life as a human being-man's life qua man-that is the standard for moral evaluation. \" Therefore because life is the ultimate moral standard, and universal healthcare upholds life, then Universal healthcare is indeed a moral obligation of the government to guarantee. I urge an affirmative ballot.", "qid": "50", "docid": "f0af5077-2019-04-18T18:02:09Z-00003-000", "rank": 100, "score": 78788.0}]}